Regular City Council Packet

CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 09, 2026 at 6:30 PM City Hall Council Chambers, 15 Loockerman Plaza, Dover, Delaware AGENDA THIS AGENDA HAS BEEN REVISED TO REMOVE ITEM #1 – THE MAYOR’S BLUE RIBBON OPIOID USE DISORDER (OUD) TASKFORCE COMMITTEE UPDATE AND BY ADDING ITEM #1 IRISH HISTORY MONTH, ITEM #2 - AMERICAN RED CROSS MONTH, ITEM #3 – CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION – KAY SASS, AND ITEM #21 – FEBRUARY 25, 2026, CONSENT AGENDA ITEM #14. ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER BRIEFING (CAITLYN SMITH, ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER, AND SERGEANT CHRISTOPHER PEER VIRTUAL MEETING NOTICE This meeting will be held in the City Hall Council Chambers with electronic access via WebEx. Public participation information is as follows: Dial: 1-650-479-3208 Link: https://shorturl.at/1Wv26 Event number: 2530 334 6454 Event password: DOVER (if needed) If you are new to WebEx, get the app now at www.webex.com/ to be ready when the meeting starts. The meeting can also be viewed on Comcast Channel 14, Verizon Channel 20, and on the City's Streaming Player located at www.cityofdover.com under "Quick Links". OPEN FORUM - 15 Minutes Prior to Official Meeting (6:15 p.m.) The “Open Forum” segment is provided to extend the opportunity to the general public to share their questions, thoughts, comments, concerns, and complaints. Discussion of any item appearing on the agenda as a public hearing is prohibited during the Open Forum as an opportunity will be provided during consideration of that item. Citizen comments are limited to three (3) minutes. Council is prohibited from taking action since they are not in official session; however, they may schedule such items as regular agenda items and act upon them in the future. INVOCATION - Elder Ellis B. Louden PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Councilman Anderson ADOPTION OF AGENDA Page 1

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - March 09, 2026 PAGE 2 ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA All Consent Agenda items are considered routine and non-controversial and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the Council. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of Council so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered a separate item. PROCLAMATIONS 1. Irish History Month 2. American Red Cross Month PRESENTATIONS 3. Certificate of Recognition - Kay Sass ANNUAL REPORTS 4. Downtown Dover Partnership PUBLIC HEARING ANNEXATION/REZONING REQUESTS - PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING - The First Reading of the Proposed Ordinances were accomplished during the Council meeting of December 08, 2025. The ordinances are available at the entrance of the Council Chambers and on the City's website at www.cityofdover.gov under "Government." 5. Annexation/Rezoning of Property Lands of Lupe N. Fuller at 7 Nixon Lane A. Public Hearing - Zoning Classification Property located at 7 Nixon Lane, consisting of consisting of 41,526 SF +/- (0.9533 acres +/-), owned by Lupe N. Fuller. This property is currently zoned RS-1 (Residential Single Family Zone) (Kent County Zoning Classification) and the proposed zoning is R-8 (One Family Residence Zone)(City of Dover Zoning Classification) (Tax Parcel: ED-00- 068.19-01-28.00-000; Planning Reference: AX-26-01; Third District Council) B. Adoption of Annexation Resolution No. 2026-03 C. Final Reading/Adoption of Rezoning Ordinance #2025-23 The First Reading of the Proposed Ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of December 08, 2025. The ordinance is available at the entrance of the Council Chambers and on the City's website at www.cityofdover.gov under "Government." (1) An Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map of the City of Dover by Changing the Zoning Designation of Property Located at 7 Nixon Lane. 6. Annexation/Rezoning of Property Lands of United Worldwide Express, LLC at 1624 N. Little Creek Road Page 2

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - March 09, 2026 PAGE 3 A. Public Hearing - Zoning Classification Property located at 1624 N. Little Creek Road, consisting of 5.12 acres +/- and two unaddressed parcels of 3.15 acres +/- and 0.48 acres +/-, owned by United Worldwide Express, LLC. This property is currently zoned IL - Limited Industrial Zone and RHM - Residential Manufactured Home Zone (Kent County Zoning Classification) and the proposed zoning is IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) and subject to the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone): APZ II - Accident Potential Zone II (City of Dover Zoning Classification) (Tax Parcel: ED-00-068.20.01-15.00-000; Planning Reference: AX-26-02; Second District Council) B. Adoption of Annexation Resolution No. 2026-04 C. Final Reading/Adoption of Rezoning Ordinance #2025-24 The First Reading of the Proposed Ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of December 08, 2025. The ordinance is available at the entrance of the Council Chambers and on the City's website at www.cityofdover.gov under "Government." (1) An Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map of the City of Dover by Changing the Zoning Designation of Property Located at 1624 N. Little Creek Road. REZONING REQUEST - PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING - The First Reading of the Proposed Ordinance was accomplished during the Council meeting of January 28, 2026. The ordinance is available at the entrance of the Council Chambers and on the City's website at www.cityofdover.gov under "Government." 7. Proposed Ordinance #2026-07 - Lands of United Worldwide Express, LLC at 1600 North Little Creek Road and an Adjacent Parcel at 0.509 AC North Little Creek Road Ordinance #2026-07 Review of a Rezoning application for a parcel of land consisting of 1.77 acres +/- and the adjacent parcel to the east, consisting of 0.52 acres +/-. The properties are zoned C-PO (Commercial and Professional Office Zone) and subject to the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone): APZ II - Accident Potential Zone II. The proposed zoning for both properties is IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) and subject to the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone): APZ II - Accident Potential Zone II. The properties are located on the south side of North Little Creek Road between Fairfax Lane and State Route 1. (The owner of record is United Worldwide Express, LLC. Property Address: 1600 North Little Creek Road and an Adjacent Parcel at 0.509 AC North Little Creek Road, Dover DE. Tax Parcel: ED-05-068.20-01-61.00-000. Planning Reference: Z-26-01. Council District 2.) CONSENT AGENDA ADOPTION OF MINUTES 8. Regular City Council Meeting of February 25, 2026 COMMITTEE REPORTS Page 3

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - March 09, 2026 PAGE 4 9. Council Committee of the Whole meeting of February 26, 2026 PRESENTATIONS 10. Future Trends in Zoning and Economic Development (Linda Parkowski, Executive Director, Kent Economic Partnership) 11. Proposed Audio and Visual Upgrades for the City Council Meetings (Joe Simmons, Information Technology Director, and AJ Rahman, Assurance Media) Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee 12. Request for Waiver – Appendix A - Subdivisions, Article VI - Subdivision - General Requirements and Design Standards, Section E – Lots, Item 5. (Site Development Master Plan for Dupont Plaza Master Plan): Waiver to allow creation of lots without Public Street frontage with the associated Subdivision Plan to subdivide the proposed shopping center into multiple lots. (Dawn Melson-Williams, Principal Planner) (Property Owner: Rojan DD 15 LLC. Property Address: 747 N. DuPont Highway. Tax Parcel: ED-05-068.05-01-15.00-000. Planning Reference: S-26-04) (Committee Recommendation: Approval of the subdivision waiver as recommended by the Planning Commission.) Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee 13. Review of The People's Community Center Economic Development Fund Application (Councilwoman Hall and David S. Hugg, III, City Manager) (Committee Recommendation: Denial of the application submitted by the People's Community Center located within the People's Church for Economic Development Funds.) 14. Training, Conference, and Travel Policy Updates (Tammy Kelledes, Assistant Controller/Treasurer) (Committee Recommendation: Approval of the staff recommendation to accept the Training, Conference, and Travel Policy as amended.) MONTHLY REPORTS - January 2026 15. City Council’s Community Enhancement Fund Report 16. City Manager’s Report 17. Fire Chief's Report 18. Police Chief's Report Page 4

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - March 09, 2026 PAGE 5 REAPPOINTMENTS 19. Reappointment Recommended by Council - Board of Assessment Appeals - Douglas M. Doyle - Four-Year Term Expiring March 2030 ITEMS NOT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA 20. Setting of Property Assessment Appeals (Staff Recommendation: June 1, 2026 - June 5, 2026 from 9:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m.; and one evening (if needed). The hearing times are subject to change.) 21. February 25, 2026, Consent Agenda Item #14. Animal Control Officer Briefing (Caitlyn Smith, Animal Control Officer, and Sergeant Christopher Peer) (Committee Action Not Required) (Clerk's Office Note: On February 25, 2026 this item was removed from the Consent Agenda and requested to be brought back for further discussion.) ORDINANCES FINAL READING - The First Reading of the Proposed Ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of February 25, 2026. The ordinance is available at the entrance of the Council Chambers and on the City's website at www.cityofdover.com under "Government." 22. Proposed Ordinance #2025-14 - Amending Chapter 22 - Buildings and Building Regulations, by inserting Article XIII - Lemon Housing CITY MANAGER’S ANNOUNCEMENTS MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS COUNCIL MEMBERS’ ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT THE AGENDA ITEMS AS LISTED MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN SEQUENCE. PURSUANT TO 29 DEL. C. §10004(e)(2), THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OR THE DELETION OF ITEMS, INCLUDING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS, WHICH ARISE AT THE TIME OF THE MEETING Page 5

Item #1. Page 6

Item #2. Page 7

Item #3. CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION presented to Kay Sass In sincere appreciation and recognition of your exceptional leadership, diligence, and unwavering commitment to the safety and well-being of the residents of the City of Dover during the two most recent snowstorms. Your proactive planning, careful coordination, and steadfast attention to critical safety concerns ensured that city operations continued efficiently and effectively during challenging weather conditions. Your consistent communication and timely updates to City Council and the public provided clarity, reassurance, and transparency throughout each event. The City of Dover extends its deepest gratitude for your professionalism, dedication to public service, and tireless efforts to keep our community informed, prepared, and safe. On behalf of The City of Dover, Councilman Brian E. Lewis extends his sincere gratitude for your tireless efforts and compassionate service to the community. March 9, 2026 _____________________ Brian E. Lewis Second District Councilman Page 8

Item #4. Page 9

Item #4. Page 10

Item #4. Page 11

Item #4. Page 12

Item #5. City of Dover PETITION TO ANNEX AND REZONE PROPERTY Public Hearing & Final Action before Dover City Council on March 9, 2026 Recommendation from Planning Commission from Meeting on February 17, 2026 With Staff and Development Advisory Committee Review File Number: AX-26-01 Ordinance Number: 2025-23 Applicant/Owner of Lupe N. Fuller Record: Property Address: 7 Nixon Lane, Dover DE Tax Parcel ID #: ED-00-068.19-01-28.00-000 Lot Size: 0.9533 acres +/- (41,526 SF) Present Zoning: RS-1 (Residential Single Family Zone) Proposed Zoning: R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) 2019 Comprehensive Category 1: High Priority Annexation Areas Plan Designation: 2019 Comprehensive Residential Medium Density Plan Land Use Category: Present Use: Single Family Detached Dwelling Proposed Use: Single Family Dwelling and potential future subdivision of vacant area into multiple lots Utility Availability: Electric: 7 Nixon Lane is currently served by City of Dover Electric. With any future redevelopment of the property, the electric service needs will be evaluated. The property owner will be responsible for any and all costs associated with the changes of electrical service needs related to any future redevelopment including extending and providing service upgrades to the proposed property. Water and Sanitary Sewer: 7 Nixon Lane is not served by City of Dover Water. 7 Nixon Lane is not served by Sanitary Sewer. The property owner has not contacted the Department about the possible connection to these services. Water and Sanitary Sewer P. O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 Page 13 Community Excellence Through Quality Service

Item #5. AX-26-01 Lands of Fuller at 7 Nixon Ln: Annexation and Rezoning Planning Commission Recommendation Report of February 17, 2026 Page 2 are available to this property. The property owner is responsible for any and all costs associated with extending and providing service upgrades to the property. This may include, but not limited to, tapping the sanitary sewer and water mains, connection to the building for both utilities, purchasing appropriately sized water meter and pit, paying impact fees, and obtaining permits. Staff Recommendation The Electric Department has no objection to the annexation. for AX-26-01: The Department of Water and Wastewater has no objection to the annexation. Planning Commission Recommendation: The Application AX-26-01 Lands of Fuller at 7 Nixon Lane was represented by Mr. Don McNeill of Patterson Schwartz and attending in the audience was Nancy Fuller, the property owner. A Public Hearing was conducted on February 17, 2026 where no members of the public spoke and no written comments were received regarding the Annexation with Rezoning application. The Planning Commission’s motion to recommend approval of the proposed Annexation and Rezoning the property from RS-1 (the Kent County zoning district of Residential Single Family Zone) to R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) resulted in an 8-0 vote in favor (one member absent). (Draft Meeting Minutes attached.) APPLICATION: AX-26-01 Lands of Fuller at 7 Nixon Lane, Dover DE: Annexation and Rezoning from RS-1 to R-8 This Rezoning Application was referred to the Planning Commission as per Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 §5. The Planning Commission is required to provide a Review Report to the City Council. The following document and attachments are provided as the Review Report and Planning Commission Recommendation. Note: This Review Report was initially prepared by Staff of the Rossi Group (under a Planning Services contract with the City of Dover). The DRAFT Report was completed with additional review and editing by the City’s Planning Office. I. APPLICATION SUMMARY Review of an Annexation Request and Rezoning Request for a parcel of land totaling 41,526 SF+/- (0.9533 acres +/-) located at 7 Nixon Lane. The property is currently zoned RS-1 (Residential Single Family Zone) in Kent County. The proposed Zoning is R-8 (One Family Residence Zone). The property is located on the east side of Nixon Lane slightly north of North Little Creek Road. The annexation category according to Dover’s 2019 Comprehensive Plan is Category 1: High Priority Annexation Area and the land use designation is Residential Medium Density. The property owner is Lupe N. Fuller. Property Address: 7 Nixon Lane. Tax Parcel: Page 14

Item #5. AX-26-01 Lands of Fuller at 7 Nixon Ln: Annexation and Rezoning Planning Commission Recommendation Report of February 17, 2026 Page 3 ED-00-068.19-01-28.00-000. Proposed Council District 3. Ordinance #2025-23. Existing Property The property is located on the east side of Nixon Lane near the intersection with North Little Creek Road. The subject parcel is contiguous to the City boundary north of the subject parcel (55 Nixon Lane) and west across Nixon Lane (30 Nixon Lane and 1335 East Division Street). The parcel is part of a larger group of parcels on Nixon Lane and Acorn Lane that makes up an enclave that is surrounded by the City. The property includes an existing single-family detached dwelling on the south end of the parcel. The property is currently zoned RS-1 (Residential Single Family Zone) in Kent County. Surrounding Land Uses The property is surrounded by residential properties, some in the City and others in unincorporated Kent County, mostly developed with single-family detached dwellings. One of the parcels to the west, across Nixon Lane in unincorporated Kent County, has manufactured homes on it. Other lots on Nixon Lane that are within the City of Dover are zoned RM-1 (Medium Density Residence Zone), R-8 (One Family Residence Zone), and R-20 (One Family Residence Zone). II. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE REVIEW In the 2019 Comprehensive Plan, the Potential Annexation Areas (Map 13 -1) identifies the property in the Category 1: High Priority Annexation Areas. The Growth and Annexation Plan Chapter (Chapter 13) notes that “Lands in this category are primarily enclaves of unincorporated territory mostly surrounded by the City of Dover. In all or most of these cases, the City provides these parcels with one or more essential service (sewer, water, police, fire, trash).” For Category 1: High Priority Annexation Areas, it notes in the Recommendations that “the City will not extend sewer and/or water infrastructure to Category 1 areas unless the property owners annex into the City” with consideration given for issues of health, safety and welfare. The 2019 Comprehensive Plan also sets the review criteria for the review of zoning for parcels being proposed for annexation. Chapter 13, page 13-9 notes that the Zoning Review may include: • Proposed zoning be in compliance with the land use category shown on Map 13-2 and used in conjunction with Table 12-1: Land Use and Zoning Matrix; • Character and compatibility of the surrounding land uses and properties; • The street type and capacity serving the property; • Environmental concerns and conditions that may influence land use and zoning; • Market concerns and conditions; • The compatibility with the overall goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Map 13-2: Potential Land Use for Annexation Areas identifies the Land Use Classification for this property to be Residential Medium Density. The goals and recommendations for the Residential Medium Density Land Use are listed in the 2019 Comprehensive Plan excerpts presented below: Goals: Residential Land Uses To develop and maintain an adequate supply of housing of varying type, size, and densities that are aesthetically pleasing and located within neighborhoods designed or redesigned to Page 15

Item #5. AX-26-01 Lands of Fuller at 7 Nixon Ln: Annexation and Rezoning Planning Commission Recommendation Report of February 17, 2026 Page 4 promote convenience, conservation, and access to the greater community, but which are properly buffered through distance and landscaping from incompatible land uses. Policies: Residential Land Uses • Allow flexibility in housing styles and types while regulating gross density within residential developments. • Require linkage streets and sidewalks between adjoining residential subdivisions and street right-of way stubs to adjoining vacant developable land. • Encourage the separation of residential areas from incompatible uses through buffering distances and the use of transitional zoning categories. • Encourage high density residential development in infill areas that are near essential services, public transit, and employment opportunities. • Permit limited compatible neighborhood commercial uses that support surrounding residences within residential areas. The following is an excerpt from the 2019 Comprehensive Plan regarding Residential Medium Density Land Uses (page 12-4): Recommendation for Residential Medium Density Residential Medium Density land uses involve a maximum gross density of eight (8) dwelling units per acre. This type of development may include single family houses on smaller lots, duplexes, townhouses, and some apartments. Some Manufactured Home Park developments would also be considered Residential Medium Density. Medium density residential uses are permitted in the following zoning districts: R-8 (One Family Residence Zone), R-7 (One Family Residence Zone), RM-1 (Medium Density Residence Zone), RM- 2 (Medium Density Residence Zone) planned to reflect the historic patterns and mix of land uses common to Dover’s early development, RG-1 (General Residence Zone), RG-2 (General Residence Zone), RG-3 (Group Housing Zone), RGO (General Residence and Office Zone), and MH (Manufactured Housing Zone). The Land Development Plan recommends that Residential Medium Density uses be permitted near existing and planned service and employment centers and in locations well supported by transportation infrastructure and mass transit services. Areas identified as Medium Density Residential can be looked at as potential receiving areas under a transfer of development rights program. Areas in the northern portion of the City are appropriate for Residential Medium Density development. As part of the Land Development Plan, Table 12-1: Land Use and Zoning Matrix specifies that the following zones are compatible with this land use classification of Residential Medium Density. Page 16

Item #5. AX-26-01 Lands of Fuller at 7 Nixon Ln: Annexation and Rezoning Planning Commission Recommendation Report of February 17, 2026 Page 5 R-10 (One Family Residence) R-8 (One Family Residence) R-7 (One Family Residence) RM-1 (Medium Density Residence) RM-2 (Medium Density Residence) Residential Medium Density RG-1 (General Residence) RG-2 (General Residence) RG-3 (Group Housing) RGO (General Residence and Office) MH (Manufactured Housing) C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) III. ZONING REVIEW Request for R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) The applicant has requested the zoning of R-8 (One Family Residence Zone). The types of permitted uses in the R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) are provided in Article 3 §1 of the Zoning Ordinance and referenced sections. See the following Code excerpt: Article 3 Section 1. – One Family Residence zone [(R-20, R-15, R-10, R-8, R-7)]. 1.1 Uses permitted. In a one-family residence R-20, R-15, R-10, R-8 and R-7 zones, no building or premises shall be used and no building or part of a building shall be erected or altered which is arranged, intended or designed to be used, in whole or in part, for any uses except the following: 1.11 The raising of field and garden crops, vineyards and orchard farming, the maintenance of nurseries, and the seasonal sale of the products thereof, provided no building is erected and signs conform with article 5, section 4. 1.12 One-family detached dwellings, not to exceed one such dwelling per lot. 1.13 Public buildings, structures and uses, including parks and playgrounds, subject to approval of site plans by the planning commission in accordance with article 10, section 2. 1.14 The following uses are permitted, conditional upon the approval of the planning commission in accordance with the procedures and subject to the general conditions set forth in section 10.1 and to any specified requirements set forth below: (a) Places of worship, including parish houses; [and] schools, including nursery schools, kindergartens and day care centers in accordance with article 5, Supplementary Regulations, section 14. Child day care facilities; philanthropic and eleemosynary institutions; hospitals and sanitariums for general medical care; and funeral homes subject to the following requirements: i. Any school permitted under this paragraph [subsection 1.14(a)] shall be a nonprofit organization within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Act and shall be registered effectively as such thereunder. ii. Any school permitted under this paragraph [subsection 1.14(a)], other than a kindergarten, nursery school, or day care center, shall occupy a lot with an area of not less than two acres, plus one acre for each 100 pupils for which the building is designed. iii. Any kindergarten or nursery school permitted under this paragraph [subsection 1.14(a)] shall be limited to a maximum of 50 children in zones R-8 thru R-20 and a maximum of 100 children in all other zones. At least 100 square feet of outdoor play space per child shall be Page 17

Item #5. AX-26-01 Lands of Fuller at 7 Nixon Ln: Annexation and Rezoning Planning Commission Recommendation Report of February 17, 2026 Page 6 provided. Outdoor play space shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed on all sides and shall not include driveways, parking areas, or land unsuited by other usage or natural features for children's active play space. Fencing or other enclosures shall be a minimum height of four feet. The minimum lot area for each ten, or remainder over the multiple of ten, children shall be the same as the minimum lot area requirement for each dwelling unit in the districts in which such uses are to be located. iv. No such building or part thereof shall be erected with less than a 50-foot front yard or nearer than 25 feet from any other street or property line. v. The sum of all areas covered by all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed 20 percent of the area of the lot. vi. Courts shall conform to the requirements of article 5, section 3 hereof. (b) Railroad and public utility rights-of-way and structures necessary to serve areas within the city, subject to such conditions as the planning commission may impose in order to protect and promote the health and safety and general welfare of the community and the character of the neighborhood in which the proposed structure is to be constructed. (c) Country clubs or other annual membership clubs, catering exclusively to members and their guests, and accessory private playgrounds, golf courses, swimming pools, tennis courts and recreation buildings not conducted as business enterprises, provided that the following operations shall be prohibited: i. Outdoor entertainment, live or mechanical; ii. The use of outdoor public address systems for any purpose; and iii. Exterior lighting producing glare at the lot line other than that essential for the safety of the users of the premises. No building erected under the provisions of this paragraph [subsection 1.14(c)] shall be so erected nearer than 50 feet to any street or property line. (d) Adult day care facilities in accordance with Article 5—Supplementary Regulations, Section 22—Adult Day Care Facilities. 1.15 Accessory uses, limited to the following: (a) Professional office or studio of an artist, dentist, musician, teacher, or physician, but not including veterinarians, provided that: i. Such office or studio is incidental to the residential use of the premises and is carried on by a resident thereon with not more than one nonresident assistant; and ii. Such office or studio shall occupy not more than 30 percent of the area of one floor of the main building. iii. Studios where dancing or music instruction is offered to groups in excess of four pupils at one time or where concerts or recitals are held are prohibited. iv. Medical centers, barbershops, beauty parlors, real estate offices, funeral homes or similar uses shall not be considered permitted accessory uses. (b) Garden house, tool house, playhouse, greenhouse or pool incidental to the residential use of the premises and not operated for gain. (c) Private garage, provided that, in the case of a one-family dwelling, such garage shall have a capacity of not more than three passenger automobiles. One such space may be leased to a person not [a] resident on the premises. (d) Keeping domestic animals as pets, provided not more than three (3) dogs over six months old, shall be permitted. (e) Keeping of chickens for individual domestic purposes subject to the following restrictions: i. Keeping of chickens shall not be permitted on lots smaller than 10,890 square feet in lot area. ii. No more than five (5) chickens shall be permitted on a residential lot. iii. Chickens shall be registered with the Delaware Department of Agriculture. Page 18

Item #5. AX-26-01 Lands of Fuller at 7 Nixon Ln: Annexation and Rezoning Planning Commission Recommendation Report of February 17, 2026 Page 7 iv. Chickens shall be penned in a coop that shall be at least four (4) square feet per chicken. v. All chicken coops shall be located in a rear yard and shall be a minimum of 20 feet from side and rear property lines. vi. Any odor associated with the chickens shall not be discernable from property lines. vii. Keeping of roosters shall be prohibited. viii. Any lot with chickens shall either comply with these requirements by June 1, 2016 or remove the chickens. (f) Dormitories accessory to schools, provided that such dormitories conform to the bulk regulations of the RG-1 zone. For purposes of computing bulk requirements, each four rooms shall be considered one dwelling unit. Parking shall be calculated as identified in Article 6—Off- Street Parking, Section 3—Required off-street parking spaces, Paragraph 3.1—Schedule of requirements. (g) Customary home occupations, provided that: i. No display of products, goods and/or signs shall be visible from the street. ii. Such home occupation shall be incidental and secondary to the residential use of the premises and shall be conducted in the principal building by the resident or residents that reside therein. iii. Nonresident assistants or co-workers shall be prohibited. iv. Such home occupation shall not occupy more than 30 percent of the area of one floor in the principal building. v. There shall be no exterior effect such as noise, traffic, odor, dust, smoke, gas, fumes, radiation, or electromagnetic interference. IV. RECOMMENDATION OF PLANNING STAFF: The request for the R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) is for a zone that focuses on one-family residences (detached dwellings) on lots of a minimum 8,000 SF size. Staff recommends the annexation of the property at 7 Nixon Lane and its rezoning to R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) be approved as requested. The subject property is in the City’s Annexation Plan of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan as Category 1: High Priority Annexation Areas with a Land Use Classification as Residential Medium Density. This is a High Priority Annexation Area since it is an enclave and will help fill in one of the holes in the City of Dover Boundary. The R-8 zoning is consistent with other development in the area surrounding this parcel which include a number of residential zones such as R-20 to R-8 and RM-1 zones. The R-8 zoning accommodates the current use of the property as a single-family dwelling and allows for future subdivision and development of the northern portion of the property. The property is also already served by the City electric. This Annexation/Rezoning Request does not grant approval of a specific use for the property but makes its land use subject to a listing of uses permitted and potential conditional uses as allowed in the R-8 zoning district. Staff notes that any potential redevelopment for the site or changes of use for the existing building would have to be in line with the zoning classification and would similarly have to follow all development design guidelines of the Zoning Ordinance. Were the Application for Annexation/Rezoning to be recommended by the Planning Commission and subsequently approved by the City Council, the applicant would still have to submit Site Development Plans, Subdivision Plans, and/or Permits for review for any new use of the site or the building. At the present time, the property is expected to remain as a single family detached Page 19

Item #5. AX-26-01 Lands of Fuller at 7 Nixon Ln: Annexation and Rezoning Planning Commission Recommendation Report of February 17, 2026 Page 8 residence with the only improvements related to making connections to City water and/or sewer services as needed. There is potential for a future subdivision of the parcel into multiple lots. The parcel meets the lot dimensions for a parcel zoned R-8 and the current dwelling appears to comply with the bulk standards for setbacks and lot coverage. Any non-conformity of the existing buildings’ uses and placement regarding the bulk standards of the R-8 would be subject to the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Article 7 – Nonconforming Buildings and Uses. This recommendation is being made without the benefit of hearing the comments of surrounding landowners and residents. A Public Hearing is required on this matter and the Planning Commission should give those comments consideration. V. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW FOR RECOMMENDATION As part of the Annexation Request, the City of Dover zoning district is to be determined; therefore, it is a request for a type of zoning map amendment which changes the zoning district of a property. The Planning Commission as part of their public hearing and review process will provide a recommendation on the zoning to City Council. As part of the process outlined in Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 Section 5, the Planning Commission must evaluate the following factors when considering the request: Article 10 § 5.36 Report of the planning commission. Regarding each application for a zoning map amendment, the planning commission shall provide a report to the city council stating a recommended action with regards to the proposed amendment, along with the commission's evaluation of the following factors: (A) Whether the uses permitted by the proposed change would be compatible with the existing uses and zones in the area concerned; (B) Whether adequate public services and infrastructure exist or can be created or expanded to serve the needs of any additional demand as a result of such change; and (C) Whether the proposed change is in accordance with the city's current comprehensive plan. A Recommendation Report from the Planning Commission will be forwarded to City Council for their consideration of the Annexation/Rezoning Application. RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: At the Hybrid (In-Person and Virtual) Planning Commission Meeting of February 17, 2026, the Annexation/Rezoning Application AX-26-01 was represented by Mr. Don McNeill of Patterson Schwartz and attending in the audience was Nancy Fuller, the property owner. During the Public Hearing, no members of the public spoke and no written comments were received. The Planning Commission’s motion was to recommend approval for Annexation and Rezoning Application AX-26-01 Lands of Fuller at 7 Nixon Lane from the Kent County zoning district of RS-1 (Residential Single Family Zone) to R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) and resulted in a vote of 8-0 in favor of rezoning (one member absent). The reasons cited for the recommendation of approval include referencing the Development Advisory Committee Page 20

Item #5. AX-26-01 Lands of Fuller at 7 Nixon Ln: Annexation and Rezoning Planning Commission Recommendation Report of February 17, 2026 Page 9 Report which included the Planning Staff’s recommendations of approval; its compatibility with the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan related to zoning and land use; compliance with permitted uses in zone; being in a High Priority Annexation Area; and adequate public services and infrastructure. See also the included excerpt of the DRAFT Meeting Minutes of the February 17, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting. The comments received from the other member agencies of the Development Advisory Committee (D.A.C.) are also provided. VI. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT 1) From the agency comments received, it appears that ability to provide City water and sewer is feasible due to the proximity to existing infrastructure along Nixon Lane. It would be the property owner’s responsibility to cover all costs associated with extending and connecting services to the existing dwelling. 2) Regarding connection to City services (water and/or sanitary sewer) the applicant must contact the City’s Department of Water & Wastewater for procedures, permitting and impact fees. 3) Upon annexation into the City of Dover, the property will be subject to the provisions of the Dover Code of Ordinances. This includes procedures such as review processes for plans for redevelopment or subdivision and permits for construction activities, licensing, etc. 4) The applicant shall be aware that approval of any Annexation & Rezoning application does not represent a Building Permit or other construction activity permit approval. A separate application submission showing all improvements is required before issuance of permits by the City of Dover. ATTACHMENTS: • Zoning Map Exhibit • Application AX-26-01 Submission: Plan Sheet • Development Advisory Committee Comments from City of Dover Departments of Public Works and Water & Wastewater, City Office of the Fire Marshal, DelDOT, Kent Conservation District, and Dover/Kent County MPO • Excerpt from DRAFT Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 17, 2026 • Proposed Annexation Resolution # 2026-03 • Proposed Rezoning Ordinance #2025-23 Page 21

Item #5. Page 22

Item #5. Page 23

Item #5. CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: JANUARY 28, 2026 APPLICATION: Lands of Fuller at 7 Nixon Lane FILE #: AX-26-01 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Department of Public Works and Water & Wastewater CONTACT PERSON: Jason A. Lyon, P.E., Director of Water & Wastewater CONTACT PHONE #: 302-736-7025 CONTACT EMAIL: jlyon@dover.de.us T HE S UBJECT P ROPOSAL HAS BEEN R EVIEWED FOR C ODE C OMPLIANCE , P LAN C ONFORMITY AND C OMPLETENESS IN A CCORDANCE WITH THIS A GENCY ’ S A UTHORITY AND A REA OF E XPERTISE . T HE F OLLOWING I TEMS HAVE BEEN I DENTIFIED AS E LEMENTS W HICH N EED TO BE A DDRESSED BY THE A PPLICANT : CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS SANITATION / STREETS / STORMWATER / WATER / WASTEWATER / GENERAL 1. Our office has no objections to the proposed annexation of tax parcel ED-00-068.19-01-28.00-000. Any redevelopment shall adhere to the City of Dover Water/Wastewater Handbook and the Specifications, Standards & Procedures for Public Works Construction. Impact fees will be applied to this property. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES SANITATION / STREETS / STORMWATER / WATER / WASTEWATER / GENERAL 1. None ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT SANITATION / STREETS / STORMWATER / GENERAL 1. None WATER / WASTEWATER 1. As per the Petition to Annex and Rezone Property, as heard by the Council Committee of the Whole, please find the following: a. 7 Nixon Lane is not served by City of Dover Water. 7 Nixon Lane is not served by Sanitary Sewer. The property owner has not contacted the Department about the possible connection to these services. Water and Sanitary Sewer are available to this property. The property owner is responsible for any and all costs associated with extending and providing service upgrades to the property. This may include, but not limited to, tapping the sanitary sewer and water mains, connection to the building for both utilities, purchasing appropriately sized water meter and pit, paying impact fees, and obtaining permits. I F Y OU H AVE A NY Q UESTIONS OR N EED TO D ISCUSS ANY OF THE A BOVE C OMMENTS , P LEASE C ALL THE A BOVE C ONTACT P ERSON AND THE P LANNING D EPARTMENT AS S OON AS P OSSIBLE . Page 24

C F #5. AX-26-01 Item I I T R CITY OF DOVER Y E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE O M F A APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY R D.A.C. MEETING DATE: 01/28/26 D S O H V A E L R APPLICATION: Lands of Fuller at 7 Nixon Ln FILE #: AX-26-01 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover, Office of the Fire Marshal CONTACT PERSON: Jason Osika, Fire Marshal PHONE #: (302) 736-4457 josika@dover.de.us THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY, AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESS BY THE APPLICANT: CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Proposal is an annexation and rezoning request. This office has no objections. 2. Every house, building or structure used or intended for use as living quarters or as a place for conducting business, and having any wall facing or abutting any public or private street or alley, shall have displayed on that wall, in legible, easily read characters which are of contrasting color to the background, the proper street number for such house, building, or structure in accordance with the following: One-family and two-family residential structures, height, the number shall measure a minimum of four inches in height, location, the number shall be placed on the house above or to the left or right of the front entrance, color, the number shall be contrasting to the background color, Arabic numerals, all numbers shall be Arabic numerals. Multiple-family dwellings, measurements, the number shall measure a minimum of six inches when identifying individual apartments with exterior doors, and 12 inches when identifying buildings with apartment complexes where there are two or more buildings not assigned street addresses. Individual buildings with street addresses shall have numbers measuring six inches, location, numbers shall be placed either in the center of the building or on the street end of the building so as to be visible from either the public or private street or from the parking lot, color, numbers shall be contrasting to the background color, Arabic numerals, all numbers used shall be Arabic numerals. Page 25

Item #5. Commercial, industrial and office buildings, height, the numbers shall measure a minimum of 12 inches in height, location generally, numbers shall be placed either in the center of the building or on the street end of the building so as to be visible from either the public or private street or from the parking lot, property line or driveway, should the building be located far enough from a public or private road so that the numbers are not clearly visible from the street, then the street address shall also be posted on the property at or near the property line or driveway to said building, color; each building, numbers shall be contrasting to the background color and shall be placed on each building in the complex, Arabic numerals, all numbers used shall be Arabic numerals, Shopping centers. Shopping centers consisting of two or more stores shall have a tenant or suite number affixed to the front of the tenant space and on the outside of the rear door which corresponds with that tenant space. Numbers shall measure six inches in height. (City of Dover Code of Ordinances, 98-344) ADDITIONAL / SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS TO OBTAIN APPROVAL: 1. N/A APPLICABLE CODES LISTED BELOW (NOT LIMITED TO): 2021 NFPA 1 Fire Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2021 NFPA 101 Life Safety Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2019 NFPA 72 National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2019 NFPA 13 Installation of Sprinkler Systems (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2009 IBC (International Building Code) Latest editions of all other NFPA Codes as defined by the Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 2021 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations City of Dover Code of Ordinances *If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person listed. Page 26

Item #5. From: Mobley, Will (DelDOT) To: Melson-Williams, Dawn; Schwartz, Joshua (DelDOT) Subject: EXTERNAL: DAC Comments 28 Jan 26 Staff Development Meeting Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2026 5:04:46 PM WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good morning, Here are the comments from DelDOT for the applications discussed in the DAC Committee Meeting. AX-26-01 Lands of Fuller at 7 Nixon Ln No objection to annexation. AX-26-02 Lands of United Worldwide Express, LLC at 1624 North Little Creek Rd and Adjacent Two Parcels No objection to annexation. Z-26-01 Lands of United Worldwide Express, LLC at 1600 North Little Creek Rd and Adjacent Parcel at 0.509 AC North Little Creek Road No objection to rezoning. C-26-01 Bay Pointe Apartments (One Building Concept) at 1100 Bay Road This project has an Entrance Plan Approval dated 5-10-23. Plan approval expires 5-10- 26. Plans will need reapproval if no work is started before expiration date. US-26-01 Dover Industrial Park Comprehensive Signage Plan Ensure planned sign structure is outside of DelDOT Right of Way. At a minimum the sign must be placed outside the clear zone of the state maintained frontage road and must not fall within the sight distance triangle located at the site entrance. Lastly Delaware Code 17 § 1108 Location and condition of advertising regulated. ---(a) Subject to subsection (c) of this section, no outdoor advertising sign, display or device, except a directional, gateway, or warning sign, official sign or notice erected by or with the approval of the Department, shall be erected subsequent to July 14, 1969, within 25 feet of the right-of-way line of any public highway if visible from any portion of the same. Page 27

Item #5. Sincerely, Will T Mobley III, PMP Division of Economic Development, DELDOT Interim Kent County Review Coordinator Phone (302)-760-2409 Will.mobley@delaware.gov Page 28

KENT CONSERVATION DISTRICT Item #5. 1679 SOUTH DUPONT HIGHWAY • DOVER, DELAWARE 19901• (302) 608-5370 • WWW.KENTCD.ORG CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY FEBRUARY 2026 APPLICATION: Lands of Fuller at 7 Nixon Ln FILE #: AX-26-01 REVIEWING AGENCY: Kent Conservation District CONTACT: Cullen Baker PHONE: 302-608-5370 EMAIL: stormwater@kentcd.org THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT: Source: 2019 Delaware Sediment and Stormwater Regulations CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: Kent Conservation District has no objection to the annexation & rezoning request for the above referenced parcel. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: In the future, if there is any proposed disturbance that will exceed 5,000 square feet, a sediment and stormwater management plan must be reviewed and approved by our office prior to any land disturbing activity (i.e. clearing, grubbing, filling, grading, etc.). Page 29

Item #5. CITY OF DOVER Dover/Kent DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE County Metropolitan ADVISORY BRIEF Planning D.A.C. MEETING DATE: 2/4/2026 Organization AX-26-01 Lands of Fuller at 7 Nixon Ln FILE # AX-26-01 REVIEWING AGENCY: Dover/Kent County MPO CONTACT PERSON: Malcolm Jacob PHONE #: (302) 387-6030 Attached, please find comments submitted by Dover Kent MPO for each of the current City of Dover Development Advisory Committee (DAC) applications. These comments are a part of the MPO’s ongoing goals of promoting transportation safety and connectivity within the region. They are submitted in accordance with the support given by the MPO Council on November 6, 2024. Issues of concern to the MPO are effective transit, reducing the amount of vehicle emissions by shortening or eliminating trips, and facilities for alternative modes of transportation, including bicycle and pedestrian access. The MPO considers the bicycle facilities required by the City of Dover to be the standard for all applications, not to be waived. City of Dover Planning Commission Annexation and Zoning Review AX-26-01 Lands of Fuller at 7 Nixon Ln The MPO has no objections to the Annexation Request and Rezoning Request. Further comments will be provided if changes to the property, such as subdivision or site development, take place at a later date. If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person and the Planning Department as soon as possible. Page 30

Item #5. CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION February 17, 2026 Excerpt from Meeting Minutes – Draft The Meeting of the City of Dover Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 17, 2026 at 6:00 PM as an In-Person Meeting and also using the phone/videoconferencing system Webex. The Meeting Session was conducted with Chair Mr. Witham presiding. Members present were Mrs. Denney, Mrs. Maucher, Mr. Baldwin, Dr. Jones, Mr. Roach (virtual), Mr. Reaves (virtual), Mr. Michael Lewis (virtual), and Mr. Witham. Mrs. Welsh was absent. Staff members present were Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, Ms. Sharon Duca, Mrs. Kristen Mullaney, and Mr. Jason Lyon. NEW APPLICATIONS AX-26-01 Lands of Fuller at 7 Nixon Ln - Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation to City Council for an Annexation Request and Rezoning Request for a parcel of land totaling 41,526 SF+/- (0.9533 acres +/-) located at 7 Nixon Lane. The property is currently zoned RS-1 (Residential Single Family Zone) in Kent County. The proposed Zoning is R-8 (One Family Residence Zone). The property is located on the east side of Nixon Lane slightly north of North Little Creek Road. The annexation category according to Dover’s 2019 Comprehensive Plan is Category 1: High Priority Annexation Area and the land use designation is Residential Medium Density. The property owner is Lupe N. Fuller. Property Address: 7 Nixon Lane. Tax Parcel: ED-00-068.19-01-28.00-000. Proposed Council District 3. Ordinance #2025-23. The First Reading of this Annexation Request was completed on December 8, 2025 by City Council. Public Hearing before the Planning Commission is scheduled for February 17, 2026 and City Council on March 9, 2026. Representative: Mr. Don McNeill of Patterson Schwartz; (in audience – Nancy Fuller, property owner) Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this application is for an Annexation. It is shown on the screen highlighted in yellow. The address is 7 Nixon Lane and it is just under an acre in size at 0.9533 acres. Currently in the County, it is zoned RS-1 (Residential Single Family Zone). There is an existing single family detached dwelling on the property. They are seeking annexation into the City of Dover and seek a zoning classification of R-8 (One Family Residence Zone). The Comprehensive Plan for the City notes this as a Category 1: High Priority Annexation Area with a Land Use Category of Residential Medium Density. This is somewhat in an area of enclave. It is contiguous to lands already in the City which make it eligible for consideration for annexation. With all Annexations, we look at the Land Use Category which is planning for the types of land uses in a particular area. This is identified as Residential Medium Density and the R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) does match up with that Land Use Classification; it is one of the options. Predominantly, the R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) zoning classification is just that for a one family detached dwelling. There are some additional uses through a Conditional Use procedure or accessory uses that are allowed there. So, the existing dwelling is a use that would be allowed to continue. With this property, we can see on the next slide that Nixon Lane is at the bottom of the screen and the house is concentrated on the south end of the parcel and the Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 17, 2026 Page 1 of 3 Page 31

Item #5. northern portion is vacant currently. There is some thought to a future subdivision of this tract of land into multiple lots, but in order to pursue that, they first would need to be part of the City of Dover with the City of Dover zoning classification. Planning Staff is recommending approval of the Annexation, recognizing the enclave and that the R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) zoning classification is consistent with other development activity. In the area, there is really a mix of zoning but the uses are predominantly single family detached housing units. With this, the Planning Commission is charged with reviewing this for a recommendation. Since it is a Request for Annexation and then Rezoning, you need to evaluate three factors when looking at that Rezoning: whether the uses are permitted in the proposed change would be compatible with the existing uses and zones in that area; whether adequate public services and infrastructure exist or can be created to serve this area; and whether the proposed change is in accordance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The DAC Report also includes the comments from the Department of Water/Wastewater and Public Works. In this case, it is not currently served by City water or sanitary sewer, but those are available and connections could be made to service the lot. The Fire Marshal’s Office has no particular comments; they provided some advisory comments on making sure address is adequately posted. The other agencies including DelDOT and the Kent Conservation District had no objections to the Annexation as did the Dover Kent County MPO. Mr. McNeill stated that he is representing Lupe N. Fuller of 7 Nixon Lane. Mr. Witham asked if Mr. McNeill had a presentation. Responding to Mr. Witham, Mr. McNeill stated no. After reading the Report, he saw that everybody had said that there was no objection. Mr. Witham asked if he agrees with DAC Comments. Responding to Mr. Witham, Mr. McNeill stated that he did read the DAC Comments and he thought that it was all approved. Mr. Witham opened a public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak, closed the public hearing. Dr. Jones moved to recommend approval to City Council for application AX-26-01 Lands of Fuller at 7 Nixon Lane for Annexation as well as Rezoning, based upon the comments from the DAC Report and it seems as though everything is in order, seconded by Mrs. Denney. Mr. Witham stated that the motion has been moved and seconded that we approve the Annexation. We are saying that it meets the requirements of our 2019 Comprehensive Plan. It meets the criteria for Annexation under that document as well as meeting the requirements in Article 10, Section 5.3 pertaining to the uses being permitted and whether the adequate public services are available and the current changes are in accordance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan that would pertain to the zoning. Responding to Mr. Witham, Dr. Jones stated yes, she agrees. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she wants to confirm that the zoning as proposed at R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) is what you are recommending approval for. Responding to Mrs. Melson-Williams, Dr. Jones stated yes. Dr. Jones moved to recommend approval to City Council for application AX-26-01 Lands of Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 17, 2026 Page 2 of 3 Page 32

Item #5. Fuller at 7 Nixon Lane for Annexation as well as Rezoning to R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) based upon the comments from the DAC Report and it seems as though everything is in order, seconded by Mrs. Denney. Dr. Jones voting yes; because it does meet the 2019 Comprehensive Plan design and it is a High Priority Annexation Area and Staff recommends approval. Mr. Reaves voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Mr. Lewis voting yes. Mr. Roach voting yes. Mrs. Denney voting yes; it is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan, it was a High Priority Area, and the zoning everything fits in place. Mrs. Maucher voting yes; based on DAC comments and recommendations and other comments made. Mr. Baldwin voting yes. Mr. Witham voting yes; based on the submission of the application, the DAC comments and the comments of the Commissioners tonight. Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 17, 2026 Page 3 of 3 Page 33

Item #5. City of Dover MAYOR AND COUNCIL PROPOSED COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2026-03 1 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE INCLUSION OF AN AREA WITHIN THE LIMITS 2 OF THE CITY OF DOVER. 3 4 WHEREAS, the Charter of the City of Dover authorizes Council to extend the boundaries of the 5 said City in accordance with Title 22, Chapter 1, Section 101 of the Delaware Code (22Del.C.§ 6 101); and 7 8 WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council deem it to be in the best interest of the City of Dover to 9 include an area contiguous to the present City limits, and hereinafter more particularly described, 10 within the limits of the City of Dover; and 11 12 WHEREAS, the Charter of the City of Dover provides that if an annexation is petitioned by all 13 owners of all property considered for annexation, no election shall be required. For an annexation 14 petition not requiring an election, such petition shall be processed in accordance with procedures 15 established for amendments to the zoning map, specified in Dover Code, Appendix B – Zoning. 16 All annexation petitions shall be processed concurrently with the rezoning of the property 17 considered for annexation and shall be subject to public hearing before City Council. Public notice 18 shall be completed in accordance with the provisions of the Dover Code relating to amendment of 19 the zoning map. 20 21 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE 22 CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 23 24 1. That the following described area, situated in East Dover Hundred, Kent County, State of 25 Delaware, along with all adjacent paths, sidewalks, roadways, and rights-of-way in their 26 entirety, shall be annexed to and included within the limits of the City of Dover: 27 28 ALL that certain lot, piece, or parcel of land, with all the improvements thereon erected, 29 situate in East Dover Hundred, Kent County and State of Delaware; lying on the easterly 30 side of Nixon Lane (County Road #201400), a short distance south of North Little Creek 31 Road (County Road #16) being bound on the West by Nixon Lane, on the North by lands 32 now or formerly of Paul C. Phillips & Theresa Hoshue, on the East in part by lands now or 33 formerly of Elizabeth M. Hampson, in part by lands now or formerly of Richard R. Edgar 34 and in part by lands now or formerly of Mary A. Helmer, and being all of Parcel 27.00 and 35 Parcel 28.00 as shown on the Lot Consolidation Plan for the “Lands of Stephen F. & Lupe Page 34

PROPOSED COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2026 -03 PAGE 2 Item #5. 36 N. Fuller” as recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds in and for Keny County, 37 Delaware in Plat Book 144 Page 94, and being more particularly bounded and described in 38 accordance with said plan as prepared by Scott Engineering, Inc., Consulting Engineers 39 and Surveyors, Drawing No. M-5549, dated May 5, 2021, as follows, to wit: 40 41 BEGINNING for the same at a point in the easterly right-of-way line of Nixon Lane (30 42 00 feet wide) at a corner for this lot and lands now or formerly of Mary A. Helmer, said 43 point being located North 17° 46’ 15” West – 69.88 feet from the point of commencement 44 being the northwesterly end of a daylight corner joining the northerly right-of-way of North 45 Litte Creek Road (width varies) with the easterly right-of-way line of Nixon Lane; thence 46 from said point of beginning running with the easterly right-of-way line of Nixon Lane 47 North 08° 30’ 00” West, passing over a found iron pipe at a distance of 99.47 feet, a total 48 distance of 299.47 feet to a found iron pipe at a comer for this lot and lands of formerly 49 Paul C. Phillips & Theresa Hoshue; thence running with the line for lands now or formerly 50 of said Paul C. Phillips & Theresa Hoshue North 80° 57’ 03” East – 126.90 feet to a found 51 iron pipe at a corner for this lot and lands now or formerly of Elizabeth M. Hampson; 52 thence running in part with the line for lands now or formerly of said Elizabeth M. 53 Hampson and in part with the line for lands now or formerly of said Elizabeth M. Hampson 54 and in part with the line for lands now or formerly of Richard R. Edgar, South 08° 30’ 00” 55 East – 200.48 feet to a point at a corner for this lot and lands now or formerly of said 56 Richard R. Edgar: thence continuing with the lands now or formerly of said Richard R. 57 Edgar, North 81° 10’ 00” East – 24.60 feet to a point at a corner for this lot and lands now 58 or formerly of Harry Robert Chambers, III & Tracey E. Chambers; thence running with the 59 line for lands now or formerly of said Harry Robert Chambers, III, & Tracey E. Chambers, 60 South 07° 42’ 00” East – 114.36 feet to a found post in the line of lands now or formerly 61 of Mary A. Helmer at a corner for this lot and lands now or formerly of said Harry Robert 62 Chambers, III, & Tracey E. Chambers; thence running with the line for lands now formerly 63 of said Mary A. Helmer, South 86° 50’ 00” West – 150.55 feet to a point, the place of 64 Beginning. Containing within the above-described metes and bounds 41,526 sq. ft. (0.9533 65 acres) of land, be the same more or less. 66 67 2. That the above-described property shall be annexed into the City of Dover with a zoning 68 classification as set by City Council and in accordance with the zoning map and environs 69 then in force, effective upon such lands being included within the limits of the City of 70 Dover. 71 72 3. That the certified copy of this resolution of annexation, together with a plot of the area 73 annexed, shall be filed for record with the Recorder of Deeds of Kent County. 74 75 4. That the effective date of this resolution shall be the 10th day of March, 2026, at 12:01 a.m. 76 77 78 ADOPTED: * Page 35

PROPOSED COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2026 -03 PAGE 3 Item #5. 79 Action History 80 03/09/2026 – Introduction – City Council Page 36

Item #5. FINAL READING City of Dover PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2025-23 1 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF 2 THE CITY OF DOVER CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY 3 LOCATED AT 7 NIXON LANE 4 5 WHEREAS, the City of Dover has enacted a zoning ordinance regulating the use of property 6 within the limits of the City of Dover; and 7 8 WHEREAS, it is deemed in the best interest of zoning and planning to change the permitted 9 use of property below from RS-1 (Residential Single-Family Zone) to R-8 (One Family 10 Residence Zone). 11 12 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE 13 CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 14 15 1. That from and after the passage and approval of this ordinance the Zoning Map and Zoning 16 Ordinance of the City of Dover have been amended by changing the zoning designation 17 from RS-1 (Residential Single Family Zone) to R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) on that 18 property located at 7 Nixon Lane (on the east side of Nixon Lane to slightly north of North 19 Little Creek Road), consisting of 41,526+/- S.F.(0.9533 acres+/- ), owned by Lupe N. Fuller. 20 21 (Tax Parcel: ED-00-068.19-01-28.00-000; Planning Reference: AX-26-01; Third Council 22 District) 23 24 ADOPTED: * 25 26 Action History 27 03/09/2026 - Scheduled for Public Hearing/Final Reading – City Council 28 02/17/2026 – Public Hearing – Planning Commission 29 12/08/2025 – First Reading – City Council Page 37

City of Dover Item #6. PETITION TO ANNEX AND REZONE PROPERTY Public Hearing & Final Action before the Dover City Council on March 9, 2026 Recommendation from Planning Commission from Meeting on February 17, 2026 With Staff and Development Advisory Committee Review File Number: AX-26-02 Ordinance Number: 2025-24 Applicant/Owner of United Worldwide Express, LLC Record: Property Address: 1624 North Little Creek Road, Dover DE Tax Parcel ID #: ED-00-068.20-01-15.00-000 Lot Size: 5.12 acres +/- Present Zoning: IL (Limited Industrial Zone) RMH (Residential Manufactured Home Zone) Property Address: Unaddressed Parcel south of North Little Creek Road Tax Parcel ID #: ED-00-077.00-01-07.00-000 Lot Size: 3.15 acres +/- Present Zoning: RMH (Residential Manufactured Home Zone) Property Address: Unaddressed Parcel west of State Route 1 Tax Parcel ID #: ED-00-077.00-01-07.01-000 Lot Size: 0.48 acres +/- Present Zoning: RMH (Residential Manufactured Home Zone) Proposed Zoning: IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone): APZII – Accident Potential Zone II 2019 Comprehensive Category 1: High Priority Annexation Areas Plan Designation: 2019 Comprehensive Office and Office Park Plan Land Use Category: Present Use: Storage/Warehouse Buildings and Vacant Lots Proposed Use: Future Redevelopment (for Mini-Storage Buildings) Utility Availability: Electric: 1624 N. Little Creek Road is currently served by City of Dover Electric. As the following parcels of the Unaddressed Parcel of 3.15 acres on N. Little Creek Road and the Unaddressed Parcel of 0.48 acres west of State Route 1 are P. O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 Community Excellence Through Quality Service Page 38

AX-26-02 Lands of United Worldwide Express LLC at 1624 North Little Creek Road and Two Parcels Planning Commission Recommendation Report of February 17, 2026 Item #6. Page 2 undeveloped and woodland areas, they likely do not have specific City of Dover Electric services at the present time. With any future redevelopment of the properties, the electric service needs will be evaluated. The property owner will be responsible for any and all costs associated with the changes in electrical service needs related to any future redevelopment including extending and providing service upgrades to the proposed properties. Water and Sanitary Sewer: 1624 N. Little Creek Road is not currently served by City of Dover Water. Unaddressed Parcel of 3.15 acres on N. Little Creek Road is not currently served by City of Dover Water. Unaddressed Parcel of 0.48 acres west of State Route 1 is not currently served by City of Dover Water. 1624 N. Little Creek Road is not currently served by City of Dover Sanitary Sewer. Unaddressed Parcel of 3.15 acres on N. Little Creek Road is not currently served by City of Dover Sanitary Sewer. Unaddressed Parcel of 0.48 acres west of State Route 1 is not currently served by City of Dover Sanitary Sewer. The property owner has not contacted the Department about the possible connection to these services. Water is available to these properties. The property owner is responsible for any and all costs associated with extending and providing service upgrades to the property area. Sanitary Sewer is not immediately available to this property area; the developer may reach out to Kent County Public Works to see if the connection is more feasible. The property owner is responsible for any and all costs associated with extending and providing service upgrades to this property area. This may include tapping the sanitary sewer and water mains, connection to the building for both utilities, purchasing appropriately sized water meter and pit, paying impact fees, and obtaining permits. Staff Recommendation The Electric Department has no objection to the annexation. for AX-26-02: The Department of Water and Wastewater has no objection to the annexation. Planning Commission Recommendation: The Application AX-26-02 Lands of United Worldwide Express, LLC at 1624 North Little Creek Road and Two Adjacent Parcels to the south was represented by Mr. Richard Sinegar of Scott Engineering on behalf of the property owner. A Public Hearing was conducted on February 17, 2026 where one (1) member of the public spoke and no written comments were received regarding the Annexation with Rezoning application. The Page 39

AX-26-02 Lands of United Worldwide Express LLC at 1624 North Little Creek Road and Two Parcels Planning Commission Recommendation Report of February 17, 2026 Item #6. Page 3 Planning Commission’s motion to recommend approval of the proposed Annexation and proposed Rezoning from IL and RMH (Kent County zoning districts) to IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) with the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone) resulted in an 8-0 vote in favor (one member absent). (Draft Meeting Minutes attached.) APPLICATION: AX-26-02 Lands of United Worldwide Express, LLC at 1624 North Little Creek Road and Two Parcel Adjacent to the south, Dover DE: Annexation and Rezoning IL and RMH to IPM/AEOZ This Rezoning Application was referred to the Planning Commission as per Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 §5. The Planning Commission is required to provide a Review Report to the City Council. The following document and attachments are provided as the Review Report and Planning Commission Recommendation. Note: This Review Report was initially prepared by Staff of the Rossi Group (under a Planning Services contract with the City of Dover). The Report was completed with additional review and editing by the City’s Planning Office. I. APPLICATION SUMMARY Review of an Annexation Request and Rezoning Request for three parcels of land of 5.12 Acres +/-, 3.15 acres +/-, and 0.48 acres +/- located at 1624 North Little Creek Road and the two parcels to the south. The main parcel is currently zoned IL – Limited Industrial Zone and RMH – Residential Manufactured Home Zone in Kent County. The other two parcels are currently zoned RMH – Residential Manufactured Home Zone in Kent County. The proposed Zoning for all parcels is IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) and subject to the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone): APZ II - Accident Potential Zone II. The properties are located on the south side of North Little Creek Road and adjacent to State Route 1. The annexation category according to Dover’s 2019 Comprehensive Plan is Category 1: High Priority Annexation Area and the land use designation is Office and Office Park. The property owner is United Worldwide Express, LLC. Property Addresses: 1624 North Little Creek Rd and two unaddressed parcels. Tax Parcels: ED-00-068.20-01-15.00-000, ED-00-077.00-01-07.00-000, and ED-00-077.00-01-07.01-000. Proposed Council District 2. Ordinance #2025-24. Existing Properties The properties are located on the south side of North Little Creek Road, immediately west of State Route 1. The subject parcels are contiguous to the City boundary along the west property line. The adjoining parcels to the northwest are within the City and planned to be developed along with the subject parcels. The northernmost property has a structure on it with the southern property area being wooded. Surrounding Land Uses Rojan Meadows is immediately west of the subject properties and is zoned RM-1. State Route 1 is immediately to the east, outside of the City boundary. The property north across North Little Creek Road is the right-of-way for State Route 1. The abutting property to the northwest on the south side of North Little Creek Road is the subject of Rezoning Application Z-26-01, to rezone from C- Page 40

AX-26-02 Lands of United Worldwide Express LLC at 1624 North Little Creek Road and Two Parcels Planning Commission Recommendation Report of February 17, 2026 Item #6. Page 4 PO (Commercial and Professional Office Zone) to IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone), and it planned to be developed in conjunction with the subject properties. Parcels surrounding the subject property on all sides are within the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone): APZ II - Accident Potential Zone II as are the subject properties. II. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE REVIEW In the 2019 Comprehensive Plan, the Potential Annexation Areas (Map 13 -1) identifies the property in the Category 1: High Priority Annexation Areas. The Growth and Annexation Plan Chapter (Chapter 13) notes that “Lands in this category are primarily enclaves of unincorporated territory mostly surrounded by the City of Dover. In all or most of these cases, the City provides these parcels with one or more essential service (sewer, water, police, fire, trash).” For Category 1: High Priority Annexation Areas, it notes in the Recommendations that “the City will not extend sewer and/or water infrastructure to Category 1 areas unless the property owners annex into the City” with consideration given for issues of health, safety and welfare. The 2019 Comprehensive Plan also sets the review criteria for the review of zoning for parcels being proposed for annexation. Chapter 13, page 13-9 notes that the Zoning Review may include: • Proposed zoning be in compliance with the land use category shown on Map 13-2 and used in conjunction with Table 12-1: Land Use and Zoning Matrix; • Character and compatibility of the surrounding land uses and properties; • The street type and capacity serving the property; • Environmental concerns and conditions that may influence land use and zoning; • Market concerns and conditions; • The compatibility with the overall goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Map 13-2: Potential Land Use for Annexation Areas identifies the Land Use Classification for this property to be Office and Office Parks. It is also located within the zoning district of AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone) surrounding the Dover Air Force Base. The 2019 Comprehensive Plan describes strategies and recommendations for Employment Centers, which includes office and industrial uses. It also includes strategies and recommendations related to the Dover Air Force Base. The associated goals and policies are listed in the 2019 Comprehensive Plan excerpts presented below (pages 12-16 through 12-20); see excerpt below: EMPLOYMENT CENTERS: OFFICE PARK AND INDUSTRIAL LAND USES To a large extent, Dover’s character has been set by the historic location of key uses throughout the City, from the governmental complexes in the center, to rail dominate uses along the railroad right-of-way, to military uses at Dover Aire Force Base (DAFB). Today, office parks and industrial land uses are areas partially or completely occupied by existing industrial and/or manufacturing uses. A large area of vacant developable land north of and adjoining Dover Air Force Base has been designated for industrial and manufacturing uses. Such uses are generally more compatible with military operations and seem to be less effected by noise associated with military overflights. Other areas for employment centers are adjacent to transportation routes (vehicle and rail). See Chapter 10 – Economic Development) for a more detailed discussion of Dover’s economic opportunities. Page 41

AX-26-02 Lands of United Worldwide Express LLC at 1624 North Little Creek Road and Two Parcels Planning Commission Recommendation Report of February 17, 2026 Item #6. Page 5 Assumptions: Employment Centers 1. The Dover community is fortunate to harbor several regional, national and international industry leaders within the City limits. Dover intends to accommodate the reasonable aspirations and expectations of its industrial and manufacturing community to support the vitality of these precious resources. 2. A healthy and well-rounded local economy will depend upon diversity in business and employment opportunities. 3. Opportunities exist to build on Dover’s regional proximity for warehousing and distribution and its access to Dover Air Force Base (DAFB) for expansion of civilian air transportation and aviation related manufacturing, service and repair functions. Goal: Employment Centers Create a more vibrant, growing economy with a broader range of job opportunities through collaborative efforts to market the region, identify potential targets, and respond to opportunities to foster an increase in office and industrial development in appropriate and designated areas. Policies: Employment Centers 1. Protect existing industrial, office park and manufacturing establishments from encroachment by incompatible land uses which could result in nuisance complaints, hazardous situations, and human conflict. 2. Provide sufficient land area for industrial purposes to enable the expansion of existing industries, the establishments of new facilities, and revitalization of underutilized older industrial sites. 3. Provide for a variety of office park and industrial development opportunities through the designation of areas for small, medium and large establishments within planned industrial parks. 4. Promote alternative modes of accessibility including pedestrian and bicycle facilities, bus shelters and transit stops, and provide incentives for car and van pooling of employees. 5. Create flexible and contemporary industrial zoning provisions that reflect emerging trends in uses, facilities, and business opportunities to meet future needs. Recommendations: Employment Centers The City is committed to fostering a strong, vibrant, and balanced local economy built on existing and new business locations. This initiative requires close coordination with state and county economic development entities. It also requires continuous attention to the needs of existing businesses, efforts to promote a skilled workforce, a comprehensive marketing and promotional strategy, and land use and Page 42

AX-26-02 Lands of United Worldwide Express LLC at 1624 North Little Creek Road and Two Parcels Planning Commission Recommendation Report of February 17, 2026 Item #6. Page 6 development regulations that are efficient and contemporary. The Comprehensive Plan designates areas throughout the City where job growth and opportunities are encouraged. Plan Chapter 10 – Economic Development lays out a set of goals and actions designed to reinforce this commitment. Office Parks The Land Development Plan designates specific tracts of land of various sizes for Office and Office Park land uses. Office Park development involves an integrated development of office buildings with shared entrances, driveways and parking. The majority of uses permitted within an Office Park are generally weekday professional office uses involving very little or no activity at night or on weekends. For this reason, the Office Park designation may be viewed as a transitional use category when situated between more intense commercial and industrial land uses and residential land uses. This designation usually involves the C-PO (Commercial/Professional Office Zone) zoning district. These areas are located throughout the City with established office concentrations in the Enterprise Business Park, along Silver Lake Boulevard, on College Park Drive, along Old Rudnick Lane, the Northgate Center, and elsewhere. Scattered office uses are also located along Saulsbury/McKee Road and within designated “Mixed Use” areas in the Eden Hill Farm Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND). Smaller scale areas for office parks are the Woodbrook complex on South Governors Avenue, office complexes along Walker Road, and areas along Route 8. Large Scale Industry The Land Development Plan designates all existing major industrial facilities and associated vacant lands for Industrial use. These properties include the manufacturing facilities of Kraft Heinz Foods, Proctor & Gamble, Edgewell Personal Products, PPG Industries, General Metalcraft and others. Industrial Parks Several planned industrial parks have been initiated since 1986 which offer industrial development potential. The Land Development Plan designates these sites for continued Industrial use. These sites include Kent County Aero Park/Air Cargo Terminal, Enterprise Business Park, College Business Park, and McKee Business Park. The City purchased and has developed the Garrison Oak Business and Technology Center (formerly the Garrison Oak Technical Park) in 1999-2000. It now houses a solar electric facility, an electric generating facility, a flooring products manufacturer, and a security firm with ten shovel ready lots remaining available. Planning is underway to extend the Joint Use Agreement with Dover Air Force Base to allow expansion of the Kent County Aero Park into a regional facility. The Central Delaware Aviation Complex will facilitate aviation uses including air cargo, aircraft maintenance and repair, and related uses as part of a newly designated “Employment Center.” Page 43

AX-26-02 Lands of United Worldwide Express LLC at 1624 North Little Creek Road and Two Parcels Planning Commission Recommendation Report of February 17, 2026 Item #6. Page 7 DOVER AIR FORCE BASE Although Dover Air Force Base (DAFB) is within the City limits, as a land holding of the Federal government it is not subject to municipal regulation. In recognition of the strategic importance of DAFB with respect to the national interest, as well as the contributions of DAFB to the local economy and overall image of Dover, it is essential that the Comprehensive Plan support and protect the vital interests of Dover Air Force Base as an integral part of Dover. A majority of the land area surrounding DAFB is within the City limits. Much of this land is impacted by noise associated with base operations and specific locations in close proximity to aircraft runways have been identified by the Department of Defense as accident potential zones. It is within these areas that Dover can play an important role in protecting the mission of DAFB by restricting development within these areas to uses that would be relatively compatible with military operations. The Airport Environs Overlay Zone (AEOZ) was adopted in 2001 and revised in 2013 following the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Study Update from August 2010. By virtue of a Joint Use Agreement and a dedicated taxiway access to the base runway and air traffic control capabilities, a connection to the Base for civilian aircraft use is available. Operated by the Delaware River and Bay Authority on behalf of DelDOT and adjacent to the Kent County Aeropark, the Civil Air Terminal represents a significant resource for future development of aviation and aeronautic business opportunities. Assumptions: Dover Air Force Base 1. Dover Air Force Base influences the Dover community in many positive ways. Its benefits include positive economic impacts through employment and commerce. Skilled military personnel and their families from all over the country come to Dover and become an important part of our community. Dover residents also take great pride in the important role Dover Air Force Base plays in the defense of our nation and its peacekeeping and emergency relief efforts. 2. The connection to the Base for expansion of adjacent public and private air-related uses is an important, long-term opportunity for the City and Kent County. Goal: Dover Air Force Base Create a favorable and compatible environment for Dover Air Force Base through a resolute commitment to provide all reasonable planning accommodations to protect the Base. Policies: Dover Air Force Base 1. Restrict land uses surrounding Dover Air Force Base to uses defined in the most current edition of the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) document produced by the United States Department of Defense. Page 44

AX-26-02 Lands of United Worldwide Express LLC at 1624 North Little Creek Road and Two Parcels Planning Commission Recommendation Report of February 17, 2026 Item #6. Page 8 2. Require special noise attenuation measures to be incorporated within plans for the construction of new buildings in the vicinity of Dover Air Force Base. 3. Maintain the designated Airport Environs Overlay Zone (AEOZ) which includes the Accident Potential Zones and Noise Zones as defined by the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) document. This ordinance sets forth regulations within the Zoning Ordinance governing land use and development within these areas (Article 3 Section 22). The boundaries of the AEOZ may be updated in the future to coincide with the most current edition of the AICUZ document. 4. Ensure cooperative planning to facilitate joint use activities in a manner that protects the Base operations while achieving associated economic benefits. Recommendations: Dover Air Force Base The Land Development Plan reflects the existing limits of Dover Air Force Base for location purposes. No enlargement of the land use area associated with DAFB is proposed at this time. Areas immediately north of DAFB within the City limits have been designated for Industrial uses, focused on air cargo and other aviation- based uses. A few small pockets of existing residential development exist north of DAFB along Horsepond Road and Lafferty Lane. The Land Development Plan shows this area as Industrial, primarily because the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone) prohibits new residential uses in this area. The City will not rezone active residential properties until or unless the residential use ceases on that property. Portions of the adjacent industrial lands and other lands will be considered for rezoning to a newly established IPM3 (Industrial Park Manufacturing – Industrial Aviation and Aeronautics Center) zone as master planning for the area continues. As part of the Land Development Plan, Table 12-1: Land Use and Zoning Matrix specifies that the following zones are compatible with this land use classification of Office and Office Parks. CPO (Commercial and Professional Office) Office and Office Parks IO (Institutional and Office) IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing) RGO (General Residence and Office) III. ZONING REVIEW Request for IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) The applicant has requested the zoning of IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone). The following code excerpt of the IPM zoning district is provided from Article 3 §20 of the Zoning Ordinance. Article 3 Section 20. Industrial park manufacturing zone (IPM). 20.1 Uses permitted. No building or premises shall be used and no building or part of a building shall be erected, which is arranged, intended or designed to be used, in whole or in part, for any purpose, except Page 45

AX-26-02 Lands of United Worldwide Express LLC at 1624 North Little Creek Road and Two Parcels Planning Commission Recommendation Report of February 17, 2026 Item #6. Page 9 the following, and in accordance with performance standards procedure as set forth in article 5, section 8, and subject to site development plan approval as set forth in article 10, section 2: 20.11 Manufacturing, assembling, converting, altering, finishing, cleaning, cooking, baking or any other type of manufacturing or industrial processing of any goods, materials, products, instruments, appliances and devices, provided that the fuel used shall be oil, gas or electricity; together with incidental clinics, cafeterias and recreational facilities for the exclusive use of employees of the concern engaged in such undertaking. 20.12 Research, design, testing and development laboratories. 20.13 Printing, publishing, binding, packaging, storage, warehousing, transshipment and distribution, and trucking terminals. 20.14 Business, professional or administrative offices; banks and financial institutions; hotels, motels and restaurants; public parks, playgrounds, and recreational facilities; and public utility uses, provided that these uses shall only be located upon a thoroughfare, arterial street or access highway with[in] the IPM zone. Retail sales and service establishments within planned industrial parks for local needs and local consumption of the employees and customers of the other permitted uses within the planned industrial park. 20.15 Signs shall meet the regulations found in article 5, section 4, supplementary sign regulations. 20.16 Agricultural or farm uses as defined and permitted in article 3, section 1.11. 20.17 The following uses may be permitted as conditional uses if approved by the planning commission in accordance with the provisions and procedures set forth in article 10, section 1 and any specified requirements set forth below: (a) Associated retail uses in conjunction with and accessory to a permitted use, provided that the associated retail use does not occupy more than 30 percent of the gross floor area of the building or group of buildings on a lot. Parking shall be provided at a rate of one parking space per 300 square feet of retail space for the exclusive use of retail customers in addition to the bulk parking requirements of this zoning district for a particular use. 20.18 Mini-storage facilities, subject to the following regulations: (a) No unit shall be placed within 30 feet of any other structure on the lot or a residential property line. (b) No outside storage [is allowed], except for recreational vehicles, boats or personal automobiles when completely screened from view and parked in specifically approved locations. Parking for these vehicles shall not count toward the required parking set forth in subsection (e) below. (c) No individual unit may be used for retail, garage sale or any other commercial activities. (d) No storage of flammable, explosive, corrosive or other hazardous products may occur in the individual unit. (e) Parking must be provided at a ratio of one space for each 25 rental units, plus a minimum of three spaces for an office outside of the enclosure. One row of parallel parking is permitted between buildings at a ratio of one space per 25 feet. (f) All other bulk requirements of this ordinance are met. 20.19 Marijuana cultivation facilities, marijuana manufacturing facilities, and marijuana testing facilities, subject to the requirements outlined in article 5, section 24. 20.2 Uses prohibited. The following uses are specifically prohibited: 20.21 Residences, except those existing at the time of adoption of this amendment. 20.22 Manufacturing uses involving primary production of the following products from raw materials: asphalt, cement, charcoal, and fuel briquettes; chemicals: aniline dyes, ammonia, carbide, caustic soda, cellulose, chlorine, and carbon black and bone black, creosote, hydrogen and oxygen, industrial alcohol, nitrates (manufactured and natural) of an explosive nature, potash, plastic materials, and synthetic resins, pyroxylin, rayon yarn, and hydrochloric, nitric, phosphoric, picric, and sulphuric acids: coal, coke, and tar products, including gas manufacturing; Page 46

AX-26-02 Lands of United Worldwide Express LLC at 1624 North Little Creek Road and Two Parcels Planning Commission Recommendation Report of February 17, 2026 Item #6. Page 10 explosives; fertilizers; glue, and size (animal); linoleum and oil cloth; matches; paint, varnishes, and turpentine; rubber (natural or synthetic); [and] soaps, including fat rendering. 20.23 The following processes: nitrating of cotton or other materials; magnesium foundry; reduction, refining, smelting, and alloying of metal or metal ores; refining secondary aluminum; refining petroleum products, such as gasoline, kerosene, naphtha, [and] lubricating oil; distillation of wood or bones; [and] reduction and processing of wood pulp and fiber, including papermill operations. 20.24 Operations involving stockyards, slaughterhouses, and slag piles. 20.25 Storage of explosives, [and] bulk or wholesale storage of gasoline above [the] ground. 20.26 Dumps. 20.27 Quarries, stone crushers, screening plants, and storage of quarry screenings, accessory to such uses. 20.28 Junkyards, automobile dismantling plants or storage of used parts of automobiles or other machines or vehicles or of dismantled or junked automobiles. AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone) The properties are located within the AEOZ – APZ-II (Accident Potential Zone II) found in Article 3 §22.3 of the Zoning Ordinance, and therefore, this zoning classification must be assigned upon annexation. The AEOZ includes prohibition of certain uses that are incompatible with the Dover Air Force Base operations, specifically regarding noise and accident potential; see Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 §22.6. IV. RECOMMENDATION OF PLANNING STAFF: The request for the IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) is for a zone that allows for offices, industrial, and mini-storage facility uses. Staff recommends the annexation of the three properties located at 1624 North Little Creek Road and the adjacent two parcels to the south and for the associated rezoning to IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) and AEOZ-APZII (Airport Environs Overlay Zone – Accident Potential Zone II) be approved as requested. The subject property is in the City’s Annexation Plan of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan as Category 1: High Priority Annexation Areas with a Land Use Classification as Office and Office Park. While the subject property is not an enclave that is fully surrounded by the City, it fills a hole between the existing City boundary and the State Route 1 right-of-way. The main parcel of the three properties is also already served by the City electric. This Annexation/Rezoning Request does not grant approval of a specific use for the property but makes its land use subject to a listing of uses permitted and potential conditional uses as allowed in the IPM zoning district. Staff notes that any potential redevelopment for the site or changes of use for the existing building would have to be in line with the zoning classification and would similarly have to follow all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Were the Application for Annexation/Rezoning to be recommended by the Planning Commission and subsequently approved by the City Council, the applicant would still have to submit Site Development Plans or Subdivision Plans and/or Permits for review for any new use of the site or the existing building. The parcels, when combined with the adjacent parcels already within the City, meet the lot dimensions for IPM zone related to conventional lots. Any non-conformity of the existing Page 47

AX-26-02 Lands of United Worldwide Express LLC at 1624 North Little Creek Road and Two Parcels Planning Commission Recommendation Report of February 17, 2026 Item #6. Page 11 buildings’ uses and placement in relation the bulk standards of the IPM would be subject to the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Article 7 – Nonconforming Buildings and Uses. This recommendation is being made without the benefit of hearing the comments of surrounding landowners and residents. A Public Hearing is required on this matter and the Planning Commission should give those comments consideration. V. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW FOR RECOMMENDATION As part of the Annexation Request, the City of Dover zoning district is to be determined; therefore, it is a request for a type of zoning map amendment which changes the zoning district of a property. The Planning Commission as part of their public hearing and review process will provide a recommendation on the zoning to City Council. As part of the process outlined in Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 Section 5, the Planning Commission must evaluate the following factors when considering the request: Article 10 § 5.36 Report of the planning commission. Regarding each application for a zoning map amendment, the planning commission shall provide a report to the city council stating a recommended action with regards to the proposed amendment, along with the commission's evaluation of the following factors: (A) Whether the uses permitted by the proposed change would be compatible with the existing uses and zones in the area concerned; (B) Whether adequate public services and infrastructure exist or can be created or expanded to serve the needs of any additional demand as a result of such change; and (C) Whether the proposed change is in accordance with the city's current comprehensive plan. A Recommendation Report from the Planning Commission will be forwarded to City Council for their consideration of the Annexation/Rezoning Application. RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: At the Hybrid (In-Person and Virtual) Planning Commission Meeting of February 17, 2026, the Rezoning Application AX-26-02 was represented by Mr. Richard Sinegar of Scott Engineering on behalf of the property owner. During the Public Hearing, one member of the public spoke, and no written comments were received. The Planning Commission’s motion was to recommend approval for Annexation and Rezoning Application AX-26-02 Lands of United Worldwide Express, LLC at 1624 North Little Creek Road and Two Parcels to the south from the Kent County zoning districts of IL (Limited Industrial Zone) and RMH (Residential Manufactured Home Zone) to IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) and subject to the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone): Accident Potential Zone II (APZ II) and resulted in a vote of 8-0 in favor of rezoning (one member absent). The reasons cited for the recommendation of approval include compatibility with existing land uses in the area; appears to be adequate public services and infrastructure available; consistency with the City’s 2019 Comprehensive Plan; the applicant’s acknowledgement of the DAC comments and the information on the potential for Page 48

AX-26-02 Lands of United Worldwide Express LLC at 1624 North Little Creek Road and Two Parcels Planning Commission Recommendation Report of February 17, 2026 Item #6. Page 12 road interchange improvement; the properties’ location in the High Priority Annexation Area; and with reference to the Development Advisory Committee Report which included the Planning Staff’s recommendations of approval. See also the included excerpt of the DRAFT Meeting Minutes of the February 17, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting. The comments received from the other member agencies of the Development Advisory Committee (D.A.C.) are also provided. VI. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT 1) The Planning Staff advises the applicant that this general location in the vicinity of the existing partial interchange of State Route 1 and Route 8 (North Little Creek Road) has been mentioned in several studies for potential expansion of the interchange/road network to allow additional access to State Route 1 and related improvements to freight movement conditions in this eastern part of the City. These potential transportation improvements were identified in the East/West Freight Routes Phase 2 Study (2025), the Dover Air Cargo Freight Access Study (2021), and the Dover Freight Plan (2025). See the comments provided by the Dover/Kent County MPO for information and references to these studies. 2) From the agency comments received, it appears that ability to provide City water is feasible due to the proximity to existing infrastructure. The ability for sanitary sewer service would need to be discussed with the Kent County Department of Public Works. It would be the property owner’s responsibility to cover all costs associated with extending and connecting services to the existing building. 3) Regarding connection to City services (water) the applicant must contact the City’s Department of Water & Wastewater for procedures, permitting and impact fees. Regarding connection to Kent County services (sanitary sewer), the applicant must contact the County Department of Public Works for procedures, permitting, and impact fees. 4) Upon annexation into the City of Dover, the property will be subject to the provisions of the Dover Code of Ordinances. This includes procedures such as review processes for plans and permits for construction activities, licensing, etc. 5) The applicant shall be aware that approval of any Annexation & Rezoning application does not represent a Building Permit or other construction activity permit approval. A separate application submission showing all improvements is required before issuance of permits by the City of Dover. 6) The use of the existing building on the property would be subject to the City of Dover procedures for business licensing, public occupancy permits, and/or Vacant Building registration. ATTACHMENTS: • Zoning Map Exhibit • Application AX-26-02 Submission: Plan Sheet Page 49

AX-26-02 Lands of United Worldwide Express LLC at 1624 North Little Creek Road and Two Parcels Planning Commission Recommendation Report of February 17, 2026 Item #6. Page 13 • Development Advisory Committee Comments from City of Dover Departments of Public Works and Water & Wastewater, City Office of the Fire Marshal, DelDOT, Kent Conservation District, and Dover/Kent County MPO • Excerpt from DRAFT Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 17, 2026 • Proposed Annexation Resolution #2026-04 • Proposed Rezoning Ordinance #2025-24 Page 50

Item #6. Page 51

1 OU T E # LEXINGTON GLEN H.O.A. NIC HO 5-05-068.20-01-56.00-000 LAS DR (OFF RA ZONED R-8 IVE N.O.F. MP) NORT H LIT STATE OF DELWARE TLE CR STATE R EEK RO AD STATE ROUTE 1 X LAN E FAIRFA NORT STA TE ROUTE AY H LITTL / EXPRESSW STATE (FREEWAY (DELA E CRE W A RE EK RO #1 AD E #1 ROUT T H BO (80' W IDE E #8) R OU T ) (NOR 22'± 702'± TO NICHOLAS (SO DRIVE E #1 C8 C1 318'± TO FAIRFAX LANE ROUTD) STATEUTHBOUND) C2 UN NE C3 ESS, LLC X LA (60' W IDE 01-62.00-000 FAIRF W IDE EXPR A 0.52± AC. L15 CURRENT ZONING: CP 2-05-068.20- L16 UNITED W OR PROPOSED O UNITED W O ZONING: IP LD RLW IDE EX M PRESS, LL LOCATION MAP SCALE: 1"=1000' 2-05-068.20- C 01-61.00-000 (FREEW L14 L18 1 L17 KEY INDEX OUTE #AY) 477.8'± 1.77 ± AC. STATE R (W IDTH AY ANNEXATION SEPTIC C UR RE N T ZONING: C VARIES S SW PROPOSED PO / E XPRE C4 WETLANDS ZONING: IP L19 ) M C7 L22 1 L2 L2 L20 113'± 50.9'± 3 LINE BEARING DISTANCE N.O.F. L1 S 86°43'12" W 20.00' STATE OF DELWARE L2 S 00°49'32" E 71.97' STATE ROUTE 1 L3 S 00°49'32" E 82.66' UNITED WORLWIDE EXPRESS, LLC L4 S 88°07'03" W 115.00' L5 S 02°34'03" E 404.14' L13 2-00-068.20-01-15.00-000 L1 L6 S 87°45'58" E 125.01' 5.12± AC. CURRENT ZONING: IL L7 N 50°03'24" W 302.67' 98'± L8 N 85°02'34" W 241.97' PROPOSED ZONING: IPM L2 L9 N 50°03'24" W 31.95' L10 N 19°38'41" W 502.78' IL ZONE L12 ZONING DISTRICT BOU NDARY LINE L11 S 31°50'26" W 33.84' RMH ZONE L12 S 85°49'01" W 392.38' L1 L3 L13 N 19°38'41" W 308.86' 1 L14 N 08°45'20" E 343.64' L4 L15 N 05°37'04" E 236.18' UNITED WORLWIDE EXPRESS, LLC L16 N 05°37'26" E 236.42' 2-00-077.00-01-07.00-000 L17 S 82°22'34" E 65.00' 3.15± AC. L18 S 82°22'56" E 30.20' CURRENT ZONING: RMH L19 N 05°37'26" E 245.00' Y PROPOSED ZONING: IPM ER WA L20 N 88°55'26" E 144.00' L21 N 36°19'34" W 79.07' RUBAK IDE L22 N 27°55'12" E 51.19' L23 N 31°59'09" E 43.40' (60' W N.O.F. L10 L5 CURVE RADIUS ARC LENGTH CHORD LENGTH CHORD BEARING A SUBDIVISION KNOWN AS C1 2894.90' 124.90' 124.89' S 80°20'42" E "ROJAN MEADOWS" C2 2894.90' 95.25' 95.25' S 82°31'25" E AS RECORDED IN PLAT C3 2894.90' 102.82' 102.82' S 84°29'01" E BOOK 153, PAGE 34 C4 5884.23' 648.59' 648.26' N 07°02'05" W ZONED RM-1/PND, C5 21539.48' 77.09' 77.09' S 02°52'48" W AEOZ-APZII C6 21539.48' 173.65' 173.65' N 02°58'30" E C7 361.01' 94.46' 94.19' N 16°21'32" E C8 25.00' 14.26' 14.07' S 25°05'47" W L6 L9 UNITED WORLDWIDE EXPRESS C5 L8 2-00-077.00-01-07.01-000 0.48± AC. CURRENT ZONING: RMH PROPOSED ZONING: IPM L7 C6 AD RO A N IDE J 'W RO (60 NOTES CURRENT OWNER OF RECORD: UNITED WORLDWIDE EXPRESS. LLC 605 INTERCHANGE BOULEVARD ANNEXATION PLAN NEWARK, DE 19711 OF ENGINEER: SCOTT ENGINEERING, INC. UNITED WORLDWIDE EXPRESS, LLC 22 OLD RUDNICK LANE DOVER, DE 19901 NORTH LITTLE CREEK ROAD 1. TAX MAP PARCEL NO. 2-00-068.20-01-15.00-000 ZONED IL (5.12± AC.) DOVER, DE 2-00-077.00-01-07.00-000 ZONED RMH (3.15± AC.) 2-00-077.00-01-07.01-000 ZONED RMH (0.48± AC.) 2. PROPOSED ZONING: IPM (INDUSTRIAL PARK MANUFACTURING) SITUATE IN: EAST DOVER HUNDRED 3. EXISTING USE: STORAGE AND WAREHOUSE KENT COUNTY, STATE OF DELAWARE 4. PROPOSED USE: MINI STORAGE 5. SETBACKS: EXISTING IL - FRONT 40'; SIDE 25'; REAR 40' SCOTt ENGINEERING, INC. RMH - FRONT 20'; SIDE 5'; REAR 10' Consulting Engineers Surveyors Land Planners PROPOSED IPM - FRONT 60', SIDE & REAR 40' (100' ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL ZONE) 22 Old Rudnick Lane, Suite 2 Dover, DE 19901 302-736-3058 DRAWING NO. 3220 SCALE: 1"=150' DRAWN BY. S.E.I. ANNEX-1

CITY OF DOVER Item #6. DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: JANUARY 28, 2026 APPLICATION: Lands of United Worldwide Express, LLC at 1624 North Little Creek Road and Adjacent Two Parcels FILE #: AX-26-02 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Department of Public Works and Water & Wastewater CONTACT PERSON: Jason A. Lyon, P.E., Director of Water & Wastewater CONTACT PHONE #: 302-736-7025 CONTACT EMAIL: jlyon@dover.de.us T HE S UBJECT P ROPOSAL HAS BEEN R EVIEWED FOR C ODE C OMPLIANCE , P LAN C ONFORMITY AND C OMPLETENESS IN A CCORDANCE WITH THIS A GENCY ’ S A UTHORITY AND A REA OF E XPERTISE . T HE F OLLOWING I TEMS HAVE BEEN I DENTIFIED AS E LEMENTS W HICH N EED TO BE A DDRESSED BY THE A PPLICANT : CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS SANITATION / STREETS / STORMWATER / WATER / WASTEWATER / GENERAL 1. Our office has no objections to the proposed annexation of tax parcels ED-00-068.20-01-15.00-000, ED-00-077.00-01-07.00-000 & ED-00-077.00-01-07.01-000. Any redevelopment shall adhere to the City of Dover Water/Wastewater Handbook and the Specifications, Standards & Procedures for Public Works Construction. Impact fees will be applied to this property. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES SANITATION / STREETS / STORMWATER / WATER / WASTEWATER / GENERAL 1. None ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT SANITATION / STREETS / STORMWATER / GENERAL 1. None WATER / WASTEWATER 1. As per the Petition to Annex and Rezone Property, as heard by the Council Committee of the Whole, please find the following: a. 1624 N. Little Creek Road is not currently served by City of Dover Water. Unaddressed Parcel of 3.15 acres on N. Little Creek Road is not currently served by City of Dover Water. Unaddressed Parcel of 0.48 acres west of State Route 1 is not currently served by City of Dover Water. 1624 N. Little Creek Road is not currently served by City of Dover Sanitary Sewer. Unaddressed Parcel of 3.15 acres on N. Little Creek Road is not currently served by City of Dover Sanitary Sewer. Unaddressed Parcel of 0.48 acres west of State Route 1 is not currently served by City of Dover Sanitary Sewer. The property owner has not contacted the Department about the possible connection to these services. Water is available to these properties. The property owner is responsible for any and all costs associated with extending and providing service upgrades to the property area. Sanitary Sewer is not immediately available to this property area; the developer may reach out to Kent County Public Works to see if the connection is more feasible. The property owner is responsible for any and all costs associated with extending and providing service upgrades to this property area. This may include tapping the sanitary sewer and water mains, connection to the building for both utilities, purchasing appropriately sized water meter and pit, paying impact fees, and obtaining permits. I F Y OU H AVE A NY Q UESTIONS OR N EED TO D ISCUSS ANY OF THE A BOVE C OMMENTS , P LEASE C ALL THE A BOVE C ONTACT P ERSON AND THE P LANNING D EPARTMENT AS S OON AS P OSSIBLE . Page 53

C F #6. AX-26-02 Item I I T R CITY OF DOVER Y E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE O M F A APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY R D.A.C. MEETING DATE: 01/28/26 D S O H V A E L R APPLICATION: Lands of United Worldwide Express at 1624 N Little Creek Rd FILE #: AX-26-02 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover, Office of the Fire Marshal CONTACT PERSON: Jason Osika, Fire Marshal PHONE #: (302) 736-4457 josika@dover.de.us THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY, AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESS BY THE APPLICANT: CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Proposal is a annexation and rezoning request for three parcels. This office has no objections. 2. Every house, building or structure used or intended for use as living quarters or as a place for conducting business, and having any wall facing or abutting any public or private street or alley, shall have displayed on that wall, in legible, easily read characters which are of contrasting color to the background, the proper street number for such house, building, or structure in accordance with the following: One-family and two-family residential structures, height, the number shall measure a minimum of four inches in height, location, the number shall be placed on the house above or to the left or right of the front entrance, color, the number shall be contrasting to the background color, Arabic numerals, all numbers shall be Arabic numerals. Multiple-family dwellings, measurements, the number shall measure a minimum of six inches when identifying individual apartments with exterior doors, and 12 inches when identifying buildings with apartment complexes where there are two or more buildings not assigned street addresses. Individual buildings with street addresses shall have numbers measuring six inches, location, numbers shall be placed either in the center of the building or on the street end of the building so as to be visible from either the public or private street or from the parking lot, color, numbers shall be contrasting to the background color, Arabic numerals, all numbers used shall be Arabic numerals. Page 54

Item #6. Commercial, industrial and office buildings, height, the numbers shall measure a minimum of 12 inches in height, location generally, numbers shall be placed either in the center of the building or on the street end of the building so as to be visible from either the public or private street or from the parking lot, property line or driveway, should the building be located far enough from a public or private road so that the numbers are not clearly visible from the street, then the street address shall also be posted on the property at or near the property line or driveway to said building, color; each building, numbers shall be contrasting to the background color and shall be placed on each building in the complex, Arabic numerals, all numbers used shall be Arabic numerals, Shopping centers. Shopping centers consisting of two or more stores shall have a tenant or suite number affixed to the front of the tenant space and on the outside of the rear door which corresponds with that tenant space. Numbers shall measure six inches in height. (City of Dover Code of Ordinances, 98-344) ADDITIONAL / SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS TO OBTAIN APPROVAL: 1. If the building on the property is being used, an annual fire and life safety inspection is needed. If the building on the property is not being used, it would need to be registered as a vacant building, 2. Please contact this office in reference to fire department responses to the property for open burning, there is no open burning in the City of Dover. APPLICABLE CODES LISTED BELOW (NOT LIMITED TO): 2021 NFPA 1 Fire Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2021 NFPA 101 Life Safety Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2019 NFPA 72 National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2019 NFPA 13 Installation of Sprinkler Systems (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2009 IBC (International Building Code) Latest editions of all other NFPA Codes as defined by the Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 2021 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations City of Dover Code of Ordinances *If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person listed. Page 55

Item #6. From: Mobley, Will (DelDOT) To: Melson-Williams, Dawn; Schwartz, Joshua (DelDOT) Subject: EXTERNAL: DAC Comments 28 Jan 26 Staff Development Meeting Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2026 5:04:46 PM WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good morning, Here are the comments from DelDOT for the applications discussed in the DAC Committee Meeting. AX-26-01 Lands of Fuller at 7 Nixon Ln No objection to annexation. AX-26-02 Lands of United Worldwide Express, LLC at 1624 North Little Creek Rd and Adjacent Two Parcels No objection to annexation. Z-26-01 Lands of United Worldwide Express, LLC at 1600 North Little Creek Rd and Adjacent Parcel at 0.509 AC North Little Creek Road No objection to rezoning. C-26-01 Bay Pointe Apartments (One Building Concept) at 1100 Bay Road This project has an Entrance Plan Approval dated 5-10-23. Plan approval expires 5-10- 26. Plans will need reapproval if no work is started before expiration date. US-26-01 Dover Industrial Park Comprehensive Signage Plan Ensure planned sign structure is outside of DelDOT Right of Way. At a minimum the sign must be placed outside the clear zone of the state maintained frontage road and must not fall within the sight distance triangle located at the site entrance. Lastly Delaware Code 17 § 1108 Location and condition of advertising regulated. ---(a) Subject to subsection (c) of this section, no outdoor advertising sign, display or device, except a directional, gateway, or warning sign, official sign or notice erected by or with the approval of the Department, shall be erected subsequent to July 14, 1969, within 25 feet of the right-of-way line of any public highway if visible from any portion of the same. Page 56

Item #6. Sincerely, Will T Mobley III, PMP Division of Economic Development, DELDOT Interim Kent County Review Coordinator Phone (302)-760-2409 Will.mobley@delaware.gov Page 57

KENT CONSERVATION DISTRICT Item #6. 1679 SOUTH DUPONT HIGHWAY • DOVER, DELAWARE 19901• (302) 608-5370 • WWW.KENTCD.ORG CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY FEBRUARY 2026 APPLICATION: Lands of United Worldwide Express, LLC at North Little Creek Road and Adjacent Two Parcels FILE #: AX-26-02 REVIEWING AGENCY: Kent Conservation District CONTACT: Cullen Baker PHONE: 302-608-5370 EMAIL: stormwater@kentcd.org THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT: Source: 2019 Delaware Sediment and Stormwater Regulations CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: Kent Conservation District has no objection to the annexation & rezoning request for the above referenced parcel. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: In the future, if there is any proposed disturbance that will exceed 5,000 square feet, a sediment and stormwater management plan must be reviewed and approved by our office prior to any land disturbing activity (i.e. clearing, grubbing, filling, grading, etc.). Page 58

Item #6. CITY OF DOVER Dover/Kent DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE County Metropolitan ADVISORY BRIEF Planning D.A.C. MEETING DATE: 2/4/2026 Organization AX-26-02 Lands of United Worldwide Express, LLC at 1624 North Little Creek Rd and Adjacent Two Parcels FILE # AX-26-02 REVIEWING AGENCY: Dover/Kent County MPO CONTACT PERSON: Malcolm Jacob PHONE #: (302) 387-6030 Attached, please find comments submitted by Dover Kent MPO for each of the current City of Dover Development Advisory Committee (DAC) applications. These comments are a part of the MPO’s ongoing goals of promoting transportation safety and connectivity within the region. They are submitted in accordance with the support given by the MPO Council on November 6, 2024. Issues of concern to the MPO are effective transit, reducing the amount of vehicle emissions by shortening or eliminating trips, and facilities for alternative modes of transportation, including bicycle and pedestrian access. The MPO considers the bicycle facilities required by the City of Dover to be the standard for all applications, not to be waived. City of Dover Planning Commission Annexation Review AX-26-02 Lands of United Worldwide Express, LLC at 1624 North Little Creek Rd and Adjacent Two Parcels Although Dover Kent MPO does not have any objections to the proposed Annexation, it is worth noting that several recent MPO studies pertain to these parcels. First, in the East/West Freight Routes Phase 2 Study, several new alignments were proposed in key locations across Kent County to improve freight conditions and facilitate the movement of goods. The most relevant proposal from the study is the SR 1 interchange, which would allow for direct access to SR 1 from North Little Creek Road.1 If completed, this project would benefit the industrial sites in the area and reduce the amount of truck traffic on surrounding roadways. The project is also a potential benefit to Dover Air Force Base, and several interchange options were evaluated in the 1 East/West Freight Routes Phase 2 Study. Dover/Kent County MPO (2025). https://doverkentmpo.delaware.gov/files/2025/07/East-West-Final-Report-with-Appendicies.pdf#page=16. Page 59

Item #6. Dover Air Cargo Freight Access Study.2 However, the interchange project would significantly impact the properties being discussed through this application, as the proposed alignment would run directly through the parcels. With this in mind, the City of Dover and the applicant should review the recommendations of the East/West Freight Routes Phase 2 Study and discuss how the parcels can be utilized while still meeting the greater needs of the freight community in Kent County. The second relevant study is the Dover Freight Plan, a document that outlines the City’s freight goals and recommends a path forward to achieving them. Some of the steps listed in the document include requiring truck parking and staging areas for all freight-related site development, creating opportunities for freight-intensive development along truck routes, and increasing coordination between local and State agencies and other relevant stakeholders.3 The applicant should be aware of the City’s freight goals and ensure the plans for these properties help work towards the goals’ completion. If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person and the Planning Department as soon as possible. 2 Dover Air Cargo Freight Access Study - Planning and Environmental Linkage (PEL) Report. Dover/Kent County MPO (2021). https://doverkentmpo.delaware.gov/files/2021/09/Dover-Air-Cargo-Freight-Study- PEL_final.pdf#page=25. 3 Dover Freight Plan. City of Dover (2025). https://doverkentmpo.delaware.gov/files/2025/04/2025-04_Dover- Freight-Plan_FINAL.pdf. Page 60

Item #6. CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION February 17, 2026 Excerpt from Meeting Minutes – Draft The Meeting of the City of Dover Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 17, 2026 at 6:00 PM as an In-Person Meeting and also using the phone/videoconferencing system Webex. The Meeting Session was conducted with Chair Mr. Witham presiding. Members present were Mrs. Denney, Mrs. Maucher, Mr. Baldwin, Dr. Jones, Mr. Roach (virtual), Mr. Reaves (virtual), Mr. Michael Lewis (virtual), and Mr. Witham. Mrs. Welsh was absent. Staff members present were Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, Ms. Sharon Duca, Mrs. Kristen Mullaney, and Mr. Jason Lyon. NEW APPLICATIONS AX-26-02 Lands of United Worldwide Express, LLC at 1624 North Little Creek Rd and Adjacent Two Parcels - Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation to City Council for an Annexation Request and Rezoning Request for three parcels of land of 5.12 Acres +/-, 3.15 acres +/-, and 0.48 acres +/- located at 1624 North Little Creek Road and the two parcels to the south. The main parcel is currently zoned IL – Limited Industrial Zone and RMH – Residential Manufactured Home Zone in Kent County. The other two parcels are currently zoned RMH – Residential Manufactured Home Zone in Kent County. The proposed Zoning for all parcels is IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) and subject to the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone): APZ II - Accident Potential Zone II. The properties are located on the south side of North Little Creek Road and adjacent to State Route 1. The annexation category according to Dover’s 2019 Comprehensive Plan is Category 1: High Priority Annexation Area and the land use designation is Office and Office Park. The property owner is United Worldwide Express, LLC. Property Addresses: 1624 North Little Creek Rd and two unaddressed parcels. Tax Parcels: ED- 00-068.20-01-15.00-000, ED-00-077.00-01-07.00-000, and ED-00-077.00-01-07.01-000. Proposed Council District 2. Ordinance #2025-24.The First Reading of this Annexation Request was completed on December 8, 2025 by City Council. Public Hearing before the Planning Commission is scheduled for February 17, 2026 and City Council on March 9, 2026. Representative: Mr. Richard Sinegar, Scott Engineering Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this is Annexation AX-26-02. Shown on the screen in yellow are the three parcels that make up this request. The one at the top is actually addressed as 1624 North Little Creek Road and then there are two unaddressed parcels to its south. The first parcel is 5.12 acres in size, the second one is 3.15 acres, and then the last is 0.48 acres. Currently in the County, they have a mix of zonings including IL (Limited Industrial Zone) in the County and then RMH (Residential Manufactured Home Zone). Their Request for Annexation into the City of Dover is for all three parcels. They are seeking a zoning classification of IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) and this property series would fall into the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone), specifically in the APZ II (Accident Potential Zone II). The Comprehensive Plan identifies this area that is between the Rojan Meadows Subdivision and State Route 1 on the east as an enclave area. It falls into the Category 1: High Priority Annexation Area. The Land Use Category as designated in our Comprehensive Plan is the Office and Office Park Land Use Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 17, 2026 Page 1 of 5 Page 61

Item #6. Category. Currently, the northernmost parcel does have a type of storage warehouse building on it and the other two lots are vacant of buildings. There is a good bit of woodland and wetland areas found on this property. The next image shows that it is kind of shaded there for the three parcels that we were talking about. The Comprehensive Plan, when it talks about the land use of Office and Office Parks really focuses on that Land Use Category as being a type of Employment Center and our Report includes kind of the goals and policies related to Employment Centers. The Comprehensive Plan also has that Land Use and Zoning Matrix and for Office and Office Parks. The IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) is one of the eligible zoning classifications for the property. We included in our Report, the text of the allowable uses that can occur in the IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone). Any proposed use once annexed into the City and if selected into the IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) would be subject to these allowable uses and also the provisions of the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone) that may also have some land use compatibility that may limit future uses. The reason for their Annexation was identified as future redevelopment. They are looking at a mini-storage building project. At this point in time, we are not considering future redevelopment of the site, just whether annexation and zoning into the City of Dover is appropriate. Staff is recommending Annexation of the three properties into the City, finding that the IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) zoning district is appropriate given that Comprehensive Plan strategy for this area. Any redevelopment would be subject to other applications. Because this involves a Rezoning, again, there are the three factors that the Planning Commission needs to consider. Whether the uses permitted by the proposed change are compatible with the existing uses in the general area, whether adequate public services and infrastructure exists or can be created, and then whether the proposed change is in accordance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. She will note that one of the Advisory Comments that the Planning Office is providing is that this area is the current location of a partial interchange with State Route 1 and Route 8, (the North Little Creek Road) in this area. There have been a number of studies that have looked at potential expansion of that interchange or road network are to allow additional access to State Route 1 and those related improvements are related to freight movement especially in the eastern part of the City. We note at least three studies that have mentioned this. Those similar comments also came from the Dover/Kent County MPO regarding this property area. We just want to make sure the property owner is aware of those studies and potential options for what may happen in this area in the future. The Development Advisory Committee Report continues with the comments from the other agencies. She will note that the one building is served by City of Dover Electric but of course with any expansion electric service needs would have to be further evaluated. From the water perspective, the three parcels are not served by City Water. There is City water availability that could serve these parcels. When it comes to sanitary sewer, these properties are not currently served by City sanitary sewer and that Department has identified that the likely purveyor for that utility service would need to be the Kent County Public Works Department because of what they have as infrastructure in this area is more readily available then what the City could even attempt to provide. The Fire Marshal’s Office provided comments and some notes about the existing building on the site should it come into the City, there will be some things that they will have to take care of. DelDOT has no objection to the Annexation and Rezoning as does the Kent Conservation District. Then as noted, the Dover/Kent County MPO has provided some information about the series of studies that are looking at potential improvements in this area. None of those are for projects that are moving forward at this point; it is just studies and options for improvements. Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 17, 2026 Page 2 of 5 Page 62

Item #6. Mr. Sinegar stated that he represents the client. They went to the DAC Meeting, reviewed all of the comments and they are good with all of the comments that were addressed at that meeting. Mr. Witham stated that he thinks the applicant requested an IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) and he thinks the priority for this area, and this is of course is a High Priority Annexation Area, would be for Office or Office Park. Isn’t the IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) a little more of an intensive zone? Responding to Mr. Witham, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that in two parts, yes, it does allow for Office and Office Parks but it does allow for a number of other use type activities that are likely more intense than that but it is an eligible type of zoning for the property. If you agree with that zoning, you can certainly put that forward. If you feel something else is more appropriate, you would have to make that recommendation and clearly state your reasons for doing so. Dr. Jones stated that the matter of the sanitary sewer is still up in the air. When is that addressed? Will it be with the Site Application? Responding to Dr. Jones, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the sanitary sewer will come into play with any redevelopment of the project site or should the existing facility fail for some reason. She believes it is currently on a septic system; so, if for some reason that septic system would fail then likely they would not receive a Permit from DNREC to improve or make those repairs to that septic system and would likely have to connect to sanitary sewer. We do have the Director of Water/Wastewater here, Mr. Jason Lyon, that can speak a little bit more clearly probably to the availability of sanitary sewer in this area, what our current status is and the reasoning for noting that the County may be the better purveyor of that service. Mr. Lyon stated that Mrs. Melson-Williams hit it on the head. It would come into play most likely with site development. The adjacent property to the west is Rojan Meadows which is a County District. They have sewer infrastructure butted out to this property; so, it seemed to be the most reasonable connection. So we would just partner with the County on that as the project would come to fruition. Mr. Reaves asked if there was any specific comment made by Dover Air Force Base. Responding to Mr. Reaves, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the Dover Air Force Base did participate in our Development Advisory Committee Meetings and recognized that this area is within the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone). That does carry with it a number of limitations when it comes to redevelopment and they likely at this point would just be noting that it should be placed in that AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone) which is what Staff has recommended as well. Mr. Reaves further asked if whatever type of industrial manufacturing that they want to put in this location, is that going to come across the Planning Commission. Responding to Mr. Reaves, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that any redevelopment of the property if it meets the threshold test for review by the Planning Commission will appear before you. In this case, if it were annexed into the City it would be adjacent to residentially zoned properties. Site Plan review with the Planning Commission would be triggered if they were doing site disturbance of more than 2,500 SF. That’s not very much on a property of this size to trigger the full Planning Commission Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 17, 2026 Page 3 of 5 Page 63

Item #6. review process. Mr. Reaves stated that his concern is that in the document it references facilities like the Heinz Factory or anything like that. His concern is that any large industrial manufacturing plant that is built could potentially put off some obscurant smoke and that would be a concern for the Air Force Base. That is his concern so understand if something like that is to be built and it interferes with the Base operations, he just wants to understand if that is going to come across the Planning Commission because that would be a serious issue. Responding to Mr. Reaves, Mr. Sinegar stated that it would be addressed if it was going through the Site Plan approval with the Planning Commission. He knows that there is criteria to meet all of that in the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone) that you have to meet for the building requirements. That would all be addressed at the time of Site Development. Mr. Witham stated that he would note that the uses permitted in the IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) under mini storage facilities, if that may be the ultimate goal, does provide that there is to be no storage of flammable, explosive, corrosive or other hazardous products to occur in the individual units. So, that would probably partially address that question but may not fully address it. Mr. Witham opened a public hearing. Mr. Zach Prebula – Kent Economic Partnership – 555 Bay Road Dover DE 19901 Mr. Prebula stated that they are the economic development organization for Kent County. We focus on business retention and attraction. These properties along the North Little Creek Road adjacent to the State Route 1 were identified in the Dover/Kent MPO East West Freight Study as an essential location for future southbound SR1 Interchange. The Study evaluated freight mobility, industrial access, and long-term infrastructure needs to support economic growth in this corridor. The potential for a southbound interchange in this area is significant, improves access to and from SR1, and would strengthen our freight movement, enhance connectivity to industrial complexes in the area, and will increase our long-term economic competitiveness in this corridor. Access is one of the most critical factors industrial site selection and business expansion users have in their decision making. We simply want to make sure that these findings of the East West Freight Study and the potential long-term importance of the interchange are part of the public record as discussions about the land use area continue. Mr. Witham closed the public hearing. Mrs. Maucher stated that she would be interested in hearing from the applicant regarding the comments about that interchange and the potential impact on the property if they do decide to go forward in some future date. Responding to Mrs. Maucher, Mr. Sinegar stated that obviously it would have to be addressed. Right now, he knows that it is a study and it’s a wish list that may or may not happen but it would be addressed at the time which could be 15 years down the road or 20 years down the road. It would be addressed at that time whether the property needed to be bought from the State or whatever needed to be done for that interchange. Mrs. Maucher moved to recommend approval to City Council for Application AX-26-02 Lands of Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 17, 2026 Page 4 of 5 Page 64

Item #6. United Worldwide Express, LLC at 1624 North Little Creek Rd and Adjacent Two Parcels, also that the zoning be changed to IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) and also remain in the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone). She also moves that the Commission find that the change in zoning is compatible with many of the properties in the area and there appears to be adequate public utilities and infrastructure available to the area and the proposed change is in accordance with the current Comprehensive Plan, seconded by Mrs. Denney and the motion was carried 8-0 by roll call vote with Mrs. Welsh absent. Mrs. Maucher voting yes; based on DAC comments and the applicant’s acknowledgement of the comments. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; based on the previous statements. Dr. Jones voting yes; based upon the motion. Mr. Reaves voting yes; based on previously stated comments and the DAC opinions and response from the applicant. Mr. Lewis voting yes. Mr. Roach voting yes. Mrs. Denney voting yes; based on the Planning recommendation as well as the fact that she thinks that the IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) out there is a better fit than other things she could think of. And she is also happy that our Chair brought up the Interchange as being a problem so that our record shows that and they acknowledge that right now it isn’t but if it happens then they are aware that there is a possibility. Mr. Witham voting yes; this Rezoning is in a High Annexation Category according to our Plan and although the use is a little more intense than Office and Office Park, it’s not that intense in the type of things they demonstrated that they could possibly construct that would certainly be okay within that zone. It also meets the uses of the proposed change and the change is compatible to the surrounding area. Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 17, 2026 Page 5 of 5 Page 65

Item #6. City of Dover MAYOR AND COUNCIL PROPOSED COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2026-04 1 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE INCLUSION OF AN AREA WITHIN THE LIMITS 2 OF THE CITY OF DOVER. 3 4 WHEREAS, the Charter of the City of Dover authorizes Council to extend the boundaries of the 5 said City in accordance with Title 22, Chapter 1, Section 101 of the Delaware Code (22Del.C.§ 6 101); and 7 8 WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council deem it to be in the best interest of the City of Dover to 9 include an area contiguous to the present City limits, and hereinafter more particularly described, 10 within the limits of the City of Dover; and 11 12 WHEREAS, the Charter of the City of Dover provides that if an annexation is petitioned by all 13 owners of all property considered for annexation, no election shall be required. For an annexation 14 petition not requiring an election, such petition shall be processed in accordance with procedures 15 established for amendments to the zoning map, specified in Dover Code, Appendix B – Zoning. 16 All annexation petitions shall be processed concurrently with the rezoning of the property 17 considered for annexation and shall be subject to public hearing before City Council. Public notice 18 shall be completed in accordance with the provisions of the Dover Code relating to amendment of 19 the zoning map. 20 21 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE 22 CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 23 24 1. That the following described area, situated in East Dover Hundred, Kent County, State of 25 Delaware, along with all adjacent paths, sidewalks, roadways, and rights-of-way in their 26 entirety, shall be annexed to and included within the limits of the City of Dover: 27 28 ED-00-068.20-01-15.00-000 – 1624 North Little Creek Road 29 30 BEGINNING at a point along the Southerly side of North Little Creek Road, also known 31 as State Route No. 8, 80 feet wide, said point being a common comer of the lot herein being 32 described and State Route No. 1, varying widths; 33 34 Thence, along the westerly side of State Route No. 1, the following three (3) courses and 35 distances: 1) by a curve to the right having a radius of 5,884.23 feet, an arc length of 648.59 Page 66

PROPOSED COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2026 -04 PAGE 2 Item #6. 36 feet, chord bearing North 07 degrees 02 minutes 05 seconds West, 648.26 feet; 2) South 86 37 degrees 43 minutes 12 seconds West, 20.00 feet; 3) South 00 degrees 49 minutes 32 seconds 38 East, 71.97 feet to a point at a corner of Tax Parcel 2-00-077.00-01-07.00-000; 39 40 Thence, thereby, the following two (2) courses and distances: 1) South 85 degrees 49 41 minutes 01 seconds West, 392.38 feet to a point; thence 2) South 31 degrees 50 minutes 26 42 seconds West, 33.84 feet to a point in the line for lands of the subdivision of Rojan 43 Meadows; 44 45 Thence, thereby, the following three (3) courses and distances: 1) North 19 degrees 36 46 minutes 41 seconds West, 308.86 feet; 2) North 31 degrees 59 minutes 09 seconds East, 47 43.40 feet; thence 3) North 27 degrees 55 minutes 12 seconds East, 51.19 feet to a point at 48 a corner for Tax Parcel 2-05-068.20-01-61.00-000; 49 50 Thence, thereby the following three (3) courses and distances: 1) South 36 degrees 19 51 minutes 34 seconds East, 79.07 feet; 2) North 88 degrees 55 minutes 26 seconds East, 52 144.00 feet; 3) North 05 degrees 37 minutes 26 seconds East, 245.00 feet to a point along 53 Tax Parcel 2-05-068.20-01-62.00-000; 54 55 Thence, thereby, the following two (2) courses and distances: 1) South 82 degrees 22 56 minutes 34 seconds East, 65.00 feet; 2) North 05 degrees 37 minutes 26 seconds East, 57 236.42 feet to a point of curvature along the southerly side of North Little Creek Road, also 58 known as State Route No. 8; 59 60 Thence, along North Little Creek Road by a curve to the left having a radius of 2,894.90 61 feet, an arc length of 102.82 feet, chord bearing South 84 degrees 29 minutes 01 seconds 62 East, 102.82 feet to the point and place of Beginning. 63 64 Containing within the said described metes and bounds 5.12 acres of land, be the same, 65 more or less. 66 67 ED-00-077.00-01-01-07.00-000 – Unaddressed Parcel south of North Little Creek 68 Road 69 70 BEGINNING at a point on the Northwesterly side of Delaware State Route No. 1, varying 71 widths, said point being a common corner of Tax Parcel 2-05-068.20-01-15.00-000, a 72 distant of 172.58 feet from the physical centerline of State Route No. 1 and further located 73 the following three (3) courses and distances from the Southerly side of North Little Creek 74 Road, also known as State Route No. 8 (80 feet wide): 1) by a curve to the right having a 75 radius of 5884.23, an arc length of 648.59 feet, chord bearing North 07 degrees 02 minutes 76 05 seconds West, 648.26 feet; 2) South 86 degrees 43 minutes 12 seconds West, 20.00 feet; 77 3) South 00 degrees 49 minutes 32 seconds East, 71.97 feet to the point and place of 78 Beginning; Page 67

PROPOSED COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2026 -04 PAGE 3 Item #6. 79 Thence, continuing along State Route No. 1 the following five (5) courses and distances: 80 1) South 00 degrees 49 minutes 32 seconds East, 82.66 feet; 2) South 88 degrees 07 minutes 81 03 seconds West, 115.00 feet; 3) South 02 degrees 34 minutes 03 seconds East, 404.14 feet; 82 4) South 87 degrees 45 minutes 58 seconds East, 125.01 feet to a point of curvature; 5) by 83 a curve to the right having a radius of 21,539.48 feet, an arc length of 77.09 feet, chord 84 bearing South 02 degrees 52 minutes 48 seconds West, 77.09 feet to a point at a corner of 85 Tax Parcel 2-00-077.00-01-07.01-000; 86 87 Thence, thereby, North 85 degrees 02 minutes 34 seconds West, 241.97 feet to a point in 88 the line for the subdivision of Rojan Meadows; 89 90 Thence, along the subdivision of Rojan Meadows the following two (2) courses and 91 distances: 1) North 50 degrees 03 minutes 24 seconds West, 31.95 feet, 2) North 19 degrees 92 38 minutes 41 seconds West, 502.78 feet to a point at a corner of Tax Parcel 2-00-068.20- 93 01-15.00-000; 94 95 Thence, thereby, the following two (2) courses and distances: 1) North 31 degrees 50 96 minutes 26 seconds East, 33.84 feet; 2) North 85 degrees 49 minutes 01 seconds East, 97 392.38 feet to the point and place of Beginning. 98 99 Containing within the said described metes and bounds 3.15 acres of land, be the same, 100 more or less. 101 102 ED-00-077.00-01-07.01-000 – Unaddressed Parcel west of State Route 1 103 104 BEGINNING at a point on the Northwesterly side of Delaware State Route No. 1, varying 105 widths, said point being a common corner of Tax Parcel 02-00-077.00-01-07.00-000, a 106 distant of 150.00 feet from the physical centerline of State Route No. 1 and further located 107 the following seven (7) courses and distances from the Southerly side of North Little Creek 108 Road, also known as State Route No. 8 (80 feet wide): 1) by a curve to the right having a 109 radius of 5884.23, an arc length of 648.59 feet, chord bearing North 07 degrees 02 minutes 110 05 seconds West, 648.26 feet; 2) South 86 degrees 43 minutes 12 seconds West, 20.00 feet; 111 3) South 00 degrees 49 minutes 32 seconds East, 154.63 feet; 4) South 88 degrees 07 112 minutes 03 seconds West, 115.00 feet; 5) South 02 degrees 34 minutes 03 seconds East, 113 404.14 feet; 6) South 87 degrees 45 minutes 58 seconds East, 125.01 feet to a point of 114 curvature; 7) by a curve to the right having a radius of 21,539.48 feet, an arc length of 115 77.09 feet, chord bearing South 02 degrees 52 minutes 48 seconds West, 77.09 feet to the 116 point and place of Beginning; 117 118 Thence, continuing along Delaware State Route No. 1, by a curve to the right having a 119 radius of 21,539.48 feet, an arc length of 173.65 feet, chord bearing South 02 degrees 58 120 minutes 30 seconds West, 173.65 feet to a point along the subdivision of Rojan Meadows 121 Open Space; Page 68

PROPOSED COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2026 -04 PAGE 4 Item #6. 122 Thence, along the division line of the subdivision of Rojan Meadows Open Space, North 123 50 degrees 03 minutes 24 seconds West, 302.67 feet to a point at a corner of Tax Parcel 2- 124 00-077.00-01-07.00-000; 125 126 Thence, thereby, South 85 degrees 02 minutes 34 seconds East, 241.97 feet to the point and 127 place of Beginning. 128 129 Containing within the said described metes and bounds 0.48 acres of land, be the same, 130 more or less. 131 132 2. That the above-described property shall be annexed into the City of Dover with a zoning 133 classification as set by City Council and in accordance with the zoning map and environs 134 then in force, effective upon such lands being included within the limits of the City of 135 Dover. 136 137 3. That the certified copy of this resolution of annexation, together with a plot of the area 138 annexed, shall be filed for record with the Recorder of Deeds of Kent County. 139 140 4. That the effective date of this resolution shall be the 10th day of March, 2026, at 12:01 a.m. 141 142 143 ADOPTED: * 144 Action History 145 03/09/2026 – Introduction – City Council Page 69

Item #6. FINAL READING City of Dover PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2025-24 1 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF 2 THE CITY OF DOVER CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY 3 LOCATED AT 1624 N. LITTLE CREEK ROAD AND TWO ADJACENT PARCELS 4 5 WHEREAS, the City of Dover has enacted a zoning ordinance regulating the use of property 6 within the limits of the City of Dover; and 7 8 WHEREAS, it is deemed in the best interest of zoning and planning to change the permitted 9 use of the main property below from IL (Limited Industrial Zone) and RMH (Residential 10 Manufactured Home Zone) and the other two parcels from RMH (Residential Manufactured 11 Home Zone) to IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) and subject to the AEOZ (Airport 12 Environs Overlay Zone): APZ II – Accident Potential Zone II. 13 14 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE 15 CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 16 17 1. That from and after the passage and approval of this ordinance the Zoning Map and Zoning 18 Ordinance of the City of Dover have been amended by changing the zoning designation of 19 the main property from IL (Limited Industrial Zone) and RMH (Residential Manufactured 20 Home Zone) and the other two parcels from RMH (Residential Manufactured Home Zone) 21 to IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) subject to the AEOZ (Airport Environs 22 Overlay Zone): APZ II – Accident Potential Zone II on that property located at 1624 N. 23 Little Creek Road and two adjacent parcels (on the south side of North Little Creek Road 24 and adjacent to State Route 1), consisting of 5.12+/- Acres, 3.15+/- Acres, and 0.48+/- Acres 25 owned by United Worldwide Express, LLC. 26 27 (Tax Parcel: ED-00-068.20-01-15.00-000, ED-00-077.00-01-07.00-000, and ED-00-077.00- 28 01-07.01-000; Planning Reference: AX-26-02; Second Council District) 29 30 ADOPTED: * 31 32 Action History 33 03/09/2026 – Scheduled for Public Hearing/Final Reading – City Council 34 02/17/2026 – Public Hearing – Planning Commission 35 12/08/2025 – First Reading – City Council Page 70

Item #7. City of Dover PETITION TO AMEND ZONING DISTRICT Public Hearing & Final Action before the Dover City Council on March 9, 2026 Recommendation from Planning Commission from Meeting on February 17, 2026 With Staff and Development Advisory Committee Review Application: Lands of United Worldwide Express, LLC at 1600 North Little Creek Road and Adjacent Parcel at 0.509 AC North Little Creek Road Rezoning C-PO/AEOZ to IPM/AEOZ Owner: United Worldwide Express, LLC Address: 1600 North Little Creek Road, Dover DE and Unaddressed parcel referenced as 0.509 AC North Little Creek Road, Dover DE Location: Located on the south side of North Little Creek Road between Fairfax Lane and State Route 1 Tax Parcel: ED-05-068.20-01-61.00-000 and ED-05-068.20-01-62.00-000 Size: 1.77 acres +/- and 0.52 acres +/- Present Use: Vacant Land (previous building demolished) 2019 Comprehensive Plan – Land Use Category: Office and Office Park Present Zoning: C-PO (Commercial and Professional Office Zone) and subject to the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone): APZ II - Accident Potential Zone II Proposed Zoning: IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) and subject to the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone): APZ II - Accident Potential Zone II Reason for Request: Rezoning the property for development of mini-storage buildings File Number: Z-26-01 Ordinance Number: #2026-07 Planning Commission Recommendation: The Application Z-26-01 Lands of United Worldwide Express, LLC at 1600 North Little Creek Road and Adjacent Parcel at 0.509 AC North Little Creek Road was represented by Mr. Richard Sinegar of Scott Engineering on behalf of the property owner. A Public Hearing was conducted on February 17, 2026 where one (1) member of the public spoke and no written comments were received regarding the Rezoning P. O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 Page 71 Community Excellence Through Quality Service

Item #7. Z-26-01 Lands of United Worldwide Express, LLC. at 1600 North Little Creek Road Planning Commission Recommendation Report of February 17, 2026 Page 2 of 12 application. The Planning Commission’s motion to recommend approval of the proposed rezoning from C-PO/AEOZ to IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) with the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone) resulted in an 8-0 vote in favor (one member absent). (Draft Meeting Minutes attached.) APPLICATION: Z-26-01 Lands of United Worldwide Express, LLC at 1600 North Little Creek Road and Adjacent Parcel at 0.509 AC North Little Creek Road, Dover DE: Rezoning C-PO/AEOZ to IPM/AEOZ This Rezoning Application was referred to the Planning Commission as per Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 §5. The Planning Commission is required to provide a Review Report to the City Council. The following document and attachments are provided as the Review Report and Planning Commission Recommendation. Note: This Review Report was initially prepared by Staff of the Rossi Group (under a Planning Services contract with the City of Dover). The Report was completed with additional review and editing by the City’s Planning Office. I. APPLICATION SUMMARY: This Rezoning Application is for two parcels of land located at 1600 North Little Creek Road consisting of 1.77 acres +/- and the adjacent parcel to the east consisting of 0.52 acres +/-. The properties are zoned C-PO (Commercial and Professional Office Zone) and subject to the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone): APZ II - Accident Potential Zone II. The proposed Zoning for both properties is IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) and subject to the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone): APZ II - Accident Potential Zone II. The properties are located on the south side of North Little Creek Road between Fairfax Lane and State Route 1. The owner of both parcels is United Worldwide Express, LLC. Property Addresses: 1600 North Little Creek Rd and one unaddressed parcel referenced as 0.509 AC North Little Creek Road. Tax Parcels: ED-05-068.20-01-61.00-000 and ED-05-068.20-01-62.00-000. Council District 2. Ordinance #2026-07. The First Reading of this Proposed Ordinance was scheduled for January 26, 2026 and was completed at the City Council Meeting of January 28, 2026 due to the meeting being postponed due to weather. Public Hearing before the Planning Commission is scheduled for February 17, 2026 and the Public Hearing before the City Council is set for March 9, 2026. Existing Property: The existing property included a building onsite that was to be demolished under Demolition Permit #24-1615. The properties are located on the south side of North Little Creek Road between Fairfax Lane and State Route 1. The applicant is seeking rezoning to allow for future development of the properties to be mini storage buildings. Any redevelopment of the site will be subject to a separate application submission for plans or permits. Page 72

Item #7. Z-26-01 Lands of United Worldwide Express, LLC. at 1600 North Little Creek Road Planning Commission Recommendation Report of February 17, 2026 Page 3 of 12 Surrounding Land Uses Parcels adjacent to the subject properties are zoned RM-1 (Medium Density Residential) along the west border. The RM-1 zoned property is associated with a subdivision known as “Rojan Meadows PND” which includes single-family residences. Land to the north is dedicated to transportation right-of-way with State Route 1 and North Little Creek Road. Adjacent to the east and south is a series of properties subject to Annexation Application AX-26-02 Lands of United Worldwide Express, LLC at 1624 North Little Creek Road and Two Parcels. II. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE REVIEW In the 2019 Comprehensive Plan, the Land Development Plan (Map 12-1) recommends that this property be used for Office use. Additionally, the subject parcels are located within the zoning district AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone). The 2019 Comprehensive Plan describes strategies and recommendations for Employment Centers, which includes office and industrial uses. It also includes strategies and recommendations related to the Dover Air Force Base. The associated goals and policies are listed in the 2019 Comprehensive Plan excerpts presented below (pages 12-16 through 12-20); see excerpt below: EMPLOYMENT CENTERS: OFFICE PARK AND INDUSTRIAL LAND USES To a large extent, Dover’s character has been set by the historic location of key uses throughout the City, from the governmental complexes in the center, to rail dominate uses along the railroad right-of-way, to military uses at Dover Aire Force Base (DAFB). Today, office parks and industrial land uses are areas partially or completely occupied by existing industrial and/or manufacturing uses. A large area of vacant developable land north of and adjoining Dover Air Force Base has been designated for industrial and manufacturing uses. Such uses are generally more compatible with military operations and seem to be less effected by noise associated with military overflights. Other areas for employment centers are adjacent to transportation routes (vehicle and rail). See Chapter 10 – Economic Development) for a more detailed discussion of Dover’s economic opportunities. Assumptions: Employment Centers 1. The Dover community is fortunate to harbor several regional, national and international industry leaders within the City limits. Dover intends to accommodate the reasonable aspirations and expectations of its industrial and manufacturing community to support the vitality of these precious resources. 2. A healthy and well-rounded local economy will depend upon diversity in business and employment opportunities. 3. Opportunities exist to build on Dover’s regional proximity for warehousing and distribution and its access to Dover Air Force Base (DAFB) for expansion of civilian air transportation and aviation related manufacturing, service and repair functions. Page 73

Item #7. Z-26-01 Lands of United Worldwide Express, LLC. at 1600 North Little Creek Road Planning Commission Recommendation Report of February 17, 2026 Page 4 of 12 Goal: Employment Centers Create a more vibrant, growing economy with a broader range of job opportunities through collaborative efforts to market the region, identify potential targets, and respond to opportunities to foster an increase in office and industrial development in appropriate and designated areas. Policies: Employment Centers 1. Protect existing industrial, office park and manufacturing establishments from encroachment by incompatible land uses which could result in nuisance complaints, hazardous situations, and human conflict. 2. Provide sufficient land area for industrial purposes to enable the expansion of existing industries, the establishments of new facilities, and revitalization of underutilized older industrial sites. 3. Provide for a variety of office park and industrial development opportunities through the designation of areas for small, medium and large establishments within planned industrial parks. 4. Promote alternative modes of accessibility including pedestrian and bicycle facilities, bus shelters and transit stops, and provide incentives for car and van pooling of employees. 5. Create flexible and contemporary industrial zoning provisions that reflect emerging trends in uses, facilities, and business opportunities to meet future needs. Recommendations: Employment Centers The City is committed to fostering a strong, vibrant, and balanced local economy built on existing and new business locations. This initiative requires close coordination with state and county economic development entities. It also requires continuous attention to the needs of existing businesses, efforts to promote a skilled workforce, a comprehensive marketing and promotional strategy, and land use and development regulations that are efficient and contemporary. The Comprehensive Plan designates areas throughout the City where job growth and opportunities are encouraged. Plan Chapter 10 – Economic Development lays out a set of goals and actions designed to reinforce this commitment. Office Parks The Land Development Plan designates specific tracts of land of various sizes for Office and Office Park land uses. Office Park development involves an integrated development of office buildings with shared entrances, driveways and parking. The majority of uses permitted within an Office Park are generally weekday professional office uses involving very little or no activity at night or on weekends. For this reason, the Office Park designation may be viewed as a transitional use category when situated between more intense commercial and industrial land uses Page 74

Item #7. Z-26-01 Lands of United Worldwide Express, LLC. at 1600 North Little Creek Road Planning Commission Recommendation Report of February 17, 2026 Page 5 of 12 and residential land uses. This designation usually involves the C-PO (Commercial/Professional Office Zone) zoning district. These areas are located throughout the City with established office concentrations in the Enterprise Business Park, along Silver Lake Boulevard, on College Park Drive, along Old Rudnick Lane, the Northgate Center, and elsewhere. Scattered office uses are also located along Saulsbury/McKee Road and within designated “Mixed Use” areas in the Eden Hill Farm Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND). Smaller scale areas for office parks are the Woodbrook complex on South Governors Avenue, office complexes along Walker Road, and areas along Route 8. Large Scale Industry The Land Development Plan designates all existing major industrial facilities and associated vacant lands for Industrial use. These properties include the manufacturing facilities of Kraft Heinz Foods, Proctor & Gamble, Edgewell Personal Products, PPG Industries, General Metalcraft and others. Industrial Parks Several planned industrial parks have been initiated since 1986 which offer industrial development potential. The Land Development Plan designates these sites for continued Industrial use. These sites include Kent County Aero Park/Air Cargo Terminal, Enterprise Business Park, College Business Park, and McKee Business Park. The City purchased and has developed the Garrison Oak Business and Technology Center (formerly the Garrison Oak Technical Park) in 1999-2000. It now houses a solar electric facility, an electric generating facility, a flooring products manufacturer, and a security firm with ten shovel ready lots remaining available. Planning is underway to extend the Joint Use Agreement with Dover Air Force Base to allow expansion of the Kent County Aero Park into a regional facility. The Central Delaware Aviation Complex will facilitate aviation uses including air cargo, aircraft maintenance and repair, and related uses as part of a newly designated “Employment Center.” DOVER AIR FORCE BASE Although Dover Air Force Base (DAFB) is within the City limits, as a land holding of the Federal government it is not subject to municipal regulation. In recognition of the strategic importance of DAFB with respect to the national interest, as well as the contributions of DAFB to the local economy and overall image of Dover, it is essential that the Comprehensive Plan support and protect the vital interests of Dover Air Force Base as an integral part of Dover. A majority of the land area surrounding DAFB is within the City limits. Much of this land is impacted by noise associated with base operations and specific locations in close proximity to aircraft runways have been identified by the Department of Defense as accident potential zones. It is within these areas that Dover can play an important role in protecting the mission of DAFB by restricting development within Page 75

Item #7. Z-26-01 Lands of United Worldwide Express, LLC. at 1600 North Little Creek Road Planning Commission Recommendation Report of February 17, 2026 Page 6 of 12 these areas to uses that would be relatively compatible with military operations. The Airport Environs Overlay Zone (AEOZ) was adopted in 2001 and revised in 2013 following the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Study Update from August 2010. By virtue of a Joint Use Agreement and a dedicated taxiway access to the base runway and air traffic control capabilities, a connection to the Base for civilian aircraft use is available. Operated by the Delaware River and Bay Authority on behalf of DelDOT and adjacent to the Kent County Aeropark, the Civil Air Terminal represents a significant resource for future development of aviation and aeronautic business opportunities. Assumptions: Dover Air Force Base 1. Dover Air Force Base influences the Dover community in many positive ways. Its benefits include positive economic impacts through employment and commerce. Skilled military personnel and their families from all over the country come to Dover and become an important part of our community. Dover residents also take great pride in the important role Dover Air Force Base plays in the defense of our nation and its peacekeeping and emergency relief efforts. 2. The connection to the Base for expansion of adjacent public and private air-related uses is an important, long-term opportunity for the City and Kent County. Goal: Dover Air Force Base Create a favorable and compatible environment for Dover Air Force Base through a resolute commitment to provide all reasonable planning accommodations to protect the Base. Policies: Dover Air Force Base 1. Restrict land uses surrounding Dover Air Force Base to uses defined in the most current edition of the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) document produced by the United States Department of Defense. 2. Require special noise attenuation measures to be incorporated within plans for the construction of new buildings in the vicinity of Dover Air Force Base. 3. Maintain the designated Airport Environs Overlay Zone (AEOZ) which includes the Accident Potential Zones and Noise Zones as defined by the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) document. This ordinance sets forth regulations within the Zoning Ordinance governing land use and development within these areas (Article 3 Section 22). The boundaries of the AEOZ may be updated in the future to coincide with the most current edition of the AICUZ document. 4. Ensure cooperative planning to facilitate joint use activities in a manner that protects the Base operations while achieving associated economic benefits. Page 76

Item #7. Z-26-01 Lands of United Worldwide Express, LLC. at 1600 North Little Creek Road Planning Commission Recommendation Report of February 17, 2026 Page 7 of 12 Recommendations: Dover Air Force Base The Land Development Plan reflects the existing limits of Dover Air Force Base for location purposes. No enlargement of the land use area associated with DAFB is proposed at this time. Areas immediately north of DAFB within the City limits have been designated for Industrial uses, focused on air cargo and other aviation- based uses. A few small pockets of existing residential development exist north of DAFB along Horsepond Road and Lafferty Lane. The Land Development Plan shows this area as Industrial, primarily because the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone) prohibits new residential uses in this area. The City will not rezone active residential properties until or unless the residential use ceases on that property. Portions of the adjacent industrial lands and other lands will be considered for rezoning to a newly established IPM3 (Industrial Park Manufacturing – Industrial Aviation and Aeronautics Center) zone as master planning for the area continues. As part of the Land Development Plan, Table 12-1: Land Use and Zoning Matrix specifies that the following zones are compatible with this land use classification of Office and Office Parks. CPO (Commercial and Professional Office) Office and Office Parks IO (Institutional and Office) IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing) RGO (General Residence and Office) III. ZONING REVIEW Request for IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) Zoning The following code excerpt of the IPM zoning district is provided from Article 3 §20 of the Zoning Ordinance. Article 3 Section 20. Industrial park manufacturing zone (IPM). 20.1 Uses permitted. No building or premises shall be used and no building or part of a building shall be erected, which is arranged, intended or designed to be used, in whole or in part, for any purpose, except the following, and in accordance with performance standards procedure as set forth in article 5, section 8, and subject to site development plan approval as set forth in article 10, section 2: 20.11 Manufacturing, assembling, converting, altering, finishing, cleaning, cooking, baking or any other type of manufacturing or industrial processing of any goods, materials, products, instruments, appliances and devices, provided that the fuel used shall be oil, gas or electricity; together with incidental clinics, cafeterias and recreational facilities for the exclusive use of employees of the concern engaged in such undertaking. 20.12 Research, design, testing and development laboratories. 20.13 Printing, publishing, binding, packaging, storage, warehousing, transshipment and distribution, and trucking terminals. 20.14 Business, professional or administrative offices; banks and financial institutions; hotels, motels and restaurants; public parks, playgrounds, and recreational facilities; and public utility uses, provided that these uses shall only be located upon a thoroughfare, arterial street or access highway with[in] the IPM zone. Retail sales and service establishments within planned industrial parks for local needs and local consumption of the employees and customers of the other permitted uses within the planned industrial park. Page 77

Item #7. Z-26-01 Lands of United Worldwide Express, LLC. at 1600 North Little Creek Road Planning Commission Recommendation Report of February 17, 2026 Page 8 of 12 20.15 Signs shall meet the regulations found in article 5, section 4, supplementary sign regulations. 20.16 Agricultural or farm uses as defined and permitted in article 3, section 1.11. 20.17 The following uses may be permitted as conditional uses if approved by the planning commission in accordance with the provisions and procedures set forth in article 10, section 1 and any specified requirements set forth below: (a) Associated retail uses in conjunction with and accessory to a permitted use, provided that the associated retail use does not occupy more than 30 percent of the gross floor area of the building or group of buildings on a lot. Parking shall be provided at a rate of one parking space per 300 square feet of retail space for the exclusive use of retail customers in addition to the bulk parking requirements of this zoning district for a particular use. 20.18 Mini-storage facilities, subject to the following regulations: (a) No unit shall be placed within 30 feet of any other structure on the lot or a residential property line. (b) No outside storage [is allowed], except for recreational vehicles, boats or personal automobiles when completely screened from view and parked in specifically approved locations. Parking for these vehicles shall not count toward the required parking set forth in subsection (e) below. (c) No individual unit may be used for retail, garage sale or any other commercial activities. (d) No storage of flammable, explosive, corrosive or other hazardous products may occur in the individual unit. (e) Parking must be provided at a ratio of one space for each 25 rental units, plus a minimum of three spaces for an office outside of the enclosure. One row of parallel parking is permitted between buildings at a ratio of one space per 25 feet. (f) All other bulk requirements of this ordinance are met. 20.19 Marijuana cultivation facilities, marijuana manufacturing facilities, and marijuana testing facilities, subject to the requirements outlined in article 5, section 24. 20.2 Uses prohibited. The following uses are specifically prohibited: 20.21 Residences, except those existing at the time of adoption of this amendment. 20.22 Manufacturing uses involving primary production of the following products from raw materials: asphalt, cement, charcoal, and fuel briquettes; chemicals: aniline dyes, ammonia, carbide, caustic soda, cellulose, chlorine, and carbon black and bone black, creosote, hydrogen and oxygen, industrial alcohol, nitrates (manufactured and natural) of an explosive nature, potash, plastic materials, and synthetic resins, pyroxylin, rayon yarn, and hydrochloric, nitric, phosphoric, picric, and sulphuric acids: coal, coke, and tar products, including gas manufacturing; explosives; fertilizers; glue, and size (animal); linoleum and oil cloth; matches; paint, varnishes, and turpentine; rubber (natural or synthetic); [and] soaps, including fat rendering. 20.23 The following processes: nitrating of cotton or other materials; magnesium foundry; reduction, refining, smelting, and alloying of metal or metal ores; refining secondary aluminum; refining petroleum products, such as gasoline, kerosene, naphtha, [and] lubricating oil; distillation of wood or bones; [and] reduction and processing of wood pulp and fiber, including papermill operations. 20.24 Operations involving stockyards, slaughterhouses, and slag piles. 20.25 Storage of explosives, [and] bulk or wholesale storage of gasoline above [the] ground. 20.26 Dumps. 20.27 Quarries, stone crushers, screening plants, and storage of quarry screenings, accessory to such uses. 20.28 Junkyards, automobile dismantling plants or storage of used parts of automobiles or other machines or vehicles or of dismantled or junked automobiles. Page 78

Item #7. Z-26-01 Lands of United Worldwide Express, LLC. at 1600 North Little Creek Road Planning Commission Recommendation Report of February 17, 2026 Page 9 of 12 AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone) The property is located within the AEOZ – APZ-II (Accident Potential Zone II) found in Article 3 §22.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. The AEOZ includes prohibition of certain uses that are incompatible with the Dover Air Force Base operations, specifically regarding noise and accident potential; see Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 §22.6. IV. RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING STAFF: This Request is to rezone lands from C-PO (Commercial and Professional Office Zone) to IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) and to remain within the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone). The current C-PO zone allows for business, governmental, medical, and financial uses, as well as a series of accessory uses subject to conditional use review. The C-PO zone does not permit mini-storage facilities. See Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 §26. The IPM Zone allows many of the uses permitted within the C-PO Zone, but it also allows for other uses, including manufacturing and mini-storage facilities. The AEOZ further restricts uses in the areas surrounding the Dover Air Force Base to protect public health, safety, and welfare by identifying areas impacted by high levels of aircraft noise and the potential for aircraft accidents associated with airport operations. As part of the process to change the zoning district of a property outlined in Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 Section 5, the City Planner must evaluate the following factors when considering the request: Article 10 § 5.22 City planner report. For each proposed zoning text amendment, the city planner shall issue a report to the planning commission and city council, including comments from other reviewing agencies, that evaluates the following factors: (A) Whether such change is consistent with the aims and principles embodied in the ordinance as to the particular zones concerned; and (B) Whether such proposed amendment is consistent with the aims of the comprehensive plan of the city. Staff recommends that the Rezoning of the two properties (parcels 61.00 and 62.00) be granted to IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone). The proposed zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the Office Land Use Category classification. Rezoning to IPM is one of the zoning districts eligible for consideration in this Land Use Category classification. The IPM zone permits the mini-storage facility use desired by the applicant. Staff also recommends that the properties remain subject to the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone). The purpose of the AEOZ is to ensure uses within this area are compatible with operations of the Air Force Base. The Rezoning Request, including the retention of the AEOZ, is consistent with policies set forth in the 2019 Comprehensive Plan related to Employment Centers and the Dover Air Force Base. This Rezoning Request does not grant approval of a specific use for the property but makes its land use subject to a listing of uses permitted and potential conditional uses as allowed in IPM Page 79

Item #7. Z-26-01 Lands of United Worldwide Express, LLC. at 1600 North Little Creek Road Planning Commission Recommendation Report of February 17, 2026 Page 10 of 12 (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) zoning district and the Land Use Compatibility Table of the AEOZ found in Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 Section 22.6. If the application for Rezoning is recommended by the Planning Commission and subsequently approved by the City Council, the applicant will still have to submit plans and/or permits for review for certain uses or redevelopment of the site. This recommendation is being made without the benefit of hearing the comments of surrounding landowners and residents. A public hearing is required on this matter and the Planning Commission should give those comments consideration. V. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW FOR RECOMMENDATION This Rezoning Application is a request for a zoning map amendment which changes the zoning district of a property(s). The Planning Commission as part of their public hearing and review process will provide a recommendation on the Rezoning Request to City Council. As part of the process outlined in Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 Section 5, the Planning Commission must evaluate the following factors when considering the request: Article 10 § 5.36 Report of the planning commission. Regarding each application for a zoning map amendment, the planning commission shall provide a report to the city council stating a recommended action with regards to the proposed amendment, along with the commission's evaluation of the following factors: (A) Whether the uses permitted by the proposed change would be compatible with the existing uses and zones in the area concerned; (B) Whether adequate public services and infrastructure exist or can be created or expanded to serve the needs of any additional demand as a result of such change; and (C) Whether the proposed change is in accordance with the city's current comprehensive plan. A Recommendation Report from the Planning Commission will be forwarded to City Council for their consideration of the Rezoning Application. RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: At the Hybrid (In-Person and Virtual) Planning Commission Meeting of February 17, 2026, the Rezoning Application Z-26-01 was represented by Mr. Richard Sinegar of Scott Engineering on behalf of the property owner. During the Public Hearing, one member of the public spoke, and no written comments were received. The Planning Commission’s motion was to recommend approval for Rezoning Application Z-26-01 Lands of United Worldwide Express, LLC at 1600 North Little Creek Road from C-PO (Commercial and Professional Office Zone) and AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone to IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) and remaining subject to the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone): Accident Potential Zone II (APZ II) and resulted in a vote of 8-0 in favor of rezoning (one member absent). The reasons cited for the recommendation of approval include the Rezoning’s compatibility with the zoning in the area; sufficient infrastructure exists; consistency with the City’s 2019 Comprehensive Plan; the applicant’s Page 80

Item #7. Z-26-01 Lands of United Worldwide Express, LLC. at 1600 North Little Creek Road Planning Commission Recommendation Report of February 17, 2026 Page 11 of 12 acknowledgement of the comments regarding the interchange potential in the area; and with reference to the Development Advisory Committee Report/Comments which included the Planning Staff’s recommendations of approval (noting uses of the zoning district, compatibility with Comprehensive Plan, and presence of existing infrastructure). See also the included excerpt of the DRAFT Meeting Minutes of the February 17, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting. The comments received from the other member agencies of the Development Advisory Committee (D.A.C.) are also provided. VI. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: 1) The Planning Staff advises the applicant that this general location in the vicinity of the existing partial interchange of State Route 1 and Route 8 (North Little Creek Road) has been mentioned in several studies for potential expansion of the interchange/road network to allow additional access to State Route 1 and related improvements to freight movement conditions in this eastern part of the City. These potential transportation improvements were identified in the East/West Freight Routes Phase 2 Study (2025), the Dover Air Cargo Freight Access Study (2021), and the Dover Freight Plan (2025). See the comments provided by the Dover/Kent County MPO for information and references to these studies. 2) The applicant shall be aware that approval of any Rezoning application does not represent Site Development Plan or Subdivision Plan. Following any decision made by City Council regarding this Rezoning, an application for a Site Plan, Subdivision Plan, and/or appropriate Building Permits must be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the establishment of a new use, redevelopment activity, or any construction activity on the site. The applicant should contact the Planning Staff to determine the appropriate review process for any proposed projects. 3) The properties are subject to the requirements of the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone) related to development. Future plan submission must reflect this zoning classification on the plan sheets. 4) The applicant shall be aware that approval of any Rezoning application does not represent a Building Permit, Demolition Permit, Sign Permit, or other construction activity permit approval. A separate application submission is required before issuance of permits by the City of Dover. 5) The applicant shall be aware that any future use and/or buildings may be subject to separate permitting or licensing processes through the City of Dover Licensing and Permitting Division. All businesses operating in the City of Dover are required to obtain a City of Dover Business License. Certain types of uses also require a Public Occupancy Permit or Rental Dwelling Permits. ATTACHMENTS: • Zoning Map Exhibit • Application Z-26-01 Submission: Plan Sheet Page 81

Item #7. Z-26-01 Lands of United Worldwide Express, LLC. at 1600 North Little Creek Road Planning Commission Recommendation Report of February 17, 2026 Page 12 of 12 • Development Advisory Committee Comments from City of Dover Departments of Public Works and Water & Wastewater, Electric Department, City Office of the Fire Marshal, DelDOT, Kent Conservation District, and Dover/Kent County MPO • Excerpt from DRAFT Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 17, 2026 • Proposed Ordinance #2026-07 Page 82

Item #7. Page 83

5-05-068.20-01-56.00-000 NIC HO (OFF RAM ZONED R-8 LAS DR N.O.F. IVE P) STATE OF DELWARE NORT H LIT TLE CR EEK RO STATE ROUTE 1 AD X LAN E FAIRFA STA NORT TE ROUTE H LITTL AY / EXPRESSW STATORTHBOUND) E CRE (FREEWAY (DELA W ARE EK RO #1 AD STATE ROUT (80' W E #8) IDE E R OU ) 22'± 702'± TO NICHOLAS (SOU DRIVE C8 C1 318'± TO FAIRFAX LANE (N UND) R OU T C2 NE C3 X LA (60' W EXPRESS, T H BO T E #1 2-05-068.20- LL FAIRF IDE 01-62.00-000 C E #1 A 0.52± AC. UNITED WO L15 CURRENT ZONING: CP L16 RLD W IDE PROPOSED O UNITED W O ZONING: IP RLW IDE EX M PRESS, LLC LOCATION MAP SCALE: 1"=1000' 2-05-068.20- 01-61.00-000 (FREEW L14 L18 1 L17 OUTE #AY) KEY INDEX 1.77 ± AC. STATE R (W IDTH AY SEPTIC REZONING - CURRENT ZONING: C VARIES) SSW PROPOSED PO / EXPR E C4 WETLANDS - ZONING: IP L19 M C7 L2 2 L2 1 3 L20 LINE BEARING DISTANCE L2 L1 S 86°43'12" W 20.00' L2 S 00°49'32" E 71.97' L3 S 00°49'32" E 82.66' L4 S 88°07'03" W 115.00' N.O.F. L5 S 02°34'03" E 404.14' STATE OF DELWARE L6 S 87°45'58" E 125.01' STATE ROUTE 1 L7 N 50°03'24" W 302.67' UNITED WORLWIDE EXPRESS, LLC L8 N 85°02'34" W 241.97' L9 N 50°03'24" W 31.95' L13 2-00-068.20-01-15.00-000 L1 L10 N 19°38'41" W 502.78' 5.12± AC. CURRENT ZONING: IL L11 S 31°50'26" W 33.84' PROPOSED ZONING: IPM L2 L12 S 85°49'01" W 392.38' L13 N 19°38'41" W 308.86' L14 N 08°45'20" E 343.64' IL ZONE L12 ZONING DISTRICT BOU NDARY LINE L15 N 05°37'04" E 236.18' RMH ZONE L16 N 05°37'26" E 236.42' L1 L3 L17 S 82°22'34" E 65.00' 1 L18 S 82°22'56" E 30.20' L4 L19 N 05°37'26" E 245.00' UNITED WORLWIDE EXPRESS, LLC L20 N 88°55'26" E 144.00' 2-00-077.00-01-07.00-000 L21 N 36°19'34" W 79.07' 3.15± AC. L22 N 27°55'12" E 51.19' CURRENT ZONING: RMH L23 N 31°59'09" E 43.40' Y PROPOSED ZONING: IPM ER WA RUBAK IDE CURVE RADIUS ARC LENGTH CHORD LENGTH CHORD BEARING (60' W C1 2894.90' 124.90' 124.89' S 80°20'42" E C2 2894.90' 95.25' 95.25' S 82°31'25" E N.O.F. L10 L5 C3 2894.90' 102.82' 102.82' S 84°29'01" E A SUBDIVISION KNOWN AS C4 5884.23' 648.59' 648.26' N 07°02'05" W "ROJAN MEADOWS" C5 21539.48' 77.09' 77.09' S 02°52'48" W AS RECORDED IN PLAT C6 21539.48' 173.65' 173.65' N 02°58'30" E BOOK 153, PAGE 34 C7 361.01' 94.46' 94.19' N 16°21'32" E ZONED RM-1/PND, C8 25.00' 14.26' 14.07' S 25°05'47" W AEOZ-APZII L6 L9 UNITED WORLDWIDE EXPRESS C5 L8 2-00-077.00-01-07.01-000 0.48± AC. CURRENT ZONING: RMH PROPOSED ZONING: IPM L7 C6 AD RO E A N I D R OJ 0' W (6 REZONING PLAN NOTES OF CURRENT OWNER OF RECORD: UNITED WORLDWIDE EXPRESS. LLC 605 INTERCHANGE BOULEVARD UNITED WORLDWIDE EXPRESS, LLC NEWARK, DE 19711 NORTH LITTLE CREEK ROAD ENGINEER: SCOTT ENGINEERING, INC. DOVER, DE 22 OLD RUDNICK LANE DOVER, DE 19901 SITUATE PARTIALLY IN: 1. TAX MAP PARCEL NO. 2-05-068.20-01-61.00-000 ZONED CPO 2-05-068.20-01-62.00-000 ZONED CPO CITY OF DOVER, EAST DOVER HUNDRED AND PARTIALLY IN EAST DOVER HUNDRED, KENT COUNTY, STATE OF DELAWARE 2. PROPOSED ZONING: IPM (INDUSTRIAL PARK MANUFACTURING) 3. SETBACKS: EXISTING SCOTt ENGINEERING, INC. CPO - FRONT 10'; SIDE 5 (ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL 25'); REAR 15' Consulting Engineers Surveyors Land Planners PROPOSED 22 Old Rudnick Lane, Suite 2 IPM - FRONT 60', SIDE & REAR 40' (100' ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL ZONE) Dover, DE 19901 302-736-3058 DRAWING NO. 3220 SCALE: 1"=150' DRAWN BY. S.E.I. RZ-1

Item #7. CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: JANUARY 28, 2026 APPLICATION: Lands of United Worldwide Express, LLC at 1600 North Little Creek Road and Adjacent Parcel at 0.509 AC North Little Creek Road FILE #: Z-26-01 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Department of Public Works and Water & Wastewater CONTACT PERSON: Jason A. Lyon, P.E., Director of Water & Wastewater / Engineering Services CONTACT PHONE #: 302-736-7025 CONTACT EMAIL #: jlyon@dover.de.us T HE S UBJECT P ROPOSAL HAS BEEN R EVIEWED FOR C ODE C OMPLIANCE , P LAN C ONFORMITY AND C OMPLETENESS IN A CCORDANCE WITH THIS A GENCY ’ S A UTHORITY AND A REA OF E XPERTISE . T HE F OLLOWING I TEMS HAVE BEEN I DENTIFIED AS E LEMENTS W HICH N EED TO BE A DDRESSED BY THE A PPLICANT : CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS SANITATION / STREETS / STORMWATER / WATER / WASTEWATER / GENERAL 1. Our office has no objections to the proposed rezoning of tax parcels ED-05-068.20-01-61.00-000 and ED-05-068.20-01-62.00- 000. Any redevelopment shall adhere to the City of Dover Water/Wastewater Handbook and the Specifications, Standards & Procedures for Public Works Construction. Impact fees may be applied to this property. Future development shall comply with all aspects of the City of Dover’s Cross Connection Control Program. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES SANITATION / STREETS / STORMWATER / WATER / WASTEWATER / GENERAL 1. None ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT SANITATION / STREETS / STORMWATER / WATER / WASTEWATER / GENERAL 1. None I F Y OU H AVE A NY Q UESTIONS OR N EED TO D ISCUSS ANY OF THE A BOVE C OMMENTS , P LEASE C ALL THE A BOVE C ONTACT P ERSON AND THE P LANNING D EPARTMENT AS S OON AS P OSSIBLE . Page 85

Item #7. CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: JAN 28, 2026 APPLICATION: Lands of United Worldwide Express, LLC at 1600 North Little Creek Rd and adjacent Parcel at .509 AC North Little Creek Road FILE #: Z-26-01 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Electric Department CONTACT PERSON: Shawn Burgett, Engineering Services & System Ops Superintendent CONTACT PHONE #: 302-674-7568 CONTACT EMAIL #: sburgett@dover.de.us T HE S UBJECT P ROPOSAL HAS BEEN R EVIEWED FOR C ODE C OMPLIANCE , P LAN C ONFORMITY AND C OMPLETENESS IN A CCORDANCE WITH THIS A GENCY ’ S A UTHORITY AND A REA OF E XPERTISE . T HE F OLLOWING I TEMS HAVE BEEN I DENTIFIED AS E LEMENTS W HICH N EED TO BE A DDRESSED BY THE A PPLICANT : CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS ELECTRIC Our office has no objection to the rezoning of: ED-05-068.20-01-61.00-000 and ED-05-068.20-01-62.00-000. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES ELECTRIC 1. Should this site be redeveloped, which includes modifications to the use, the applicant / developer will be responsible for all costs associated with providing the appropriate meter / service to this site based upon the use including any necessary system upgrades or extensions. The appropriateness and adequacy of electric and meters will be assessed at that time. 2. Any redevelopment shall adhere to the City of Dover’s Electric Service Handbook. https://evogov.s3.amazonaws.com/media/27/media/13108.pdf. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT ELECTRIC 1. None. I F Y OU H AVE A NY Q UESTIONS OR N EED TO D ISCUSS ANY OF THE A BOVE C OMMENTS , P LEASE C ALL THE A BOVE C ONTACT P ERSON AND THE P LANNING D EPARTMENT AS S OON AS P OSSIBLE . Page 86

C F #7. Z-26-01 Item I I T R CITY OF DOVER Y E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE O M F A APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY R D.A.C. MEETING DATE: 01/28/26 D S O H V A E L R APPLICATION: Lands of United Worldwide Express at 1600 N Little Creek Rd FILE #: Z-26-01 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover, Office of the Fire Marshal CONTACT PERSON: Jason Osika, Fire Marshal PHONE #: (302) 736-4457 josika@dover.de.us THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY, AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESS BY THE APPLICANT: CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Proposal is a rezoning request for two parcels. This office has no objections. 2. Every house, building or structure used or intended for use as living quarters or as a place for conducting business, and having any wall facing or abutting any public or private street or alley, shall have displayed on that wall, in legible, easily read characters which are of contrasting color to the background, the proper street number for such house, building, or structure in accordance with the following: One-family and two-family residential structures, height, the number shall measure a minimum of four inches in height, location, the number shall be placed on the house above or to the left or right of the front entrance, color, the number shall be contrasting to the background color, Arabic numerals, all numbers shall be Arabic numerals. Multiple-family dwellings, measurements, the number shall measure a minimum of six inches when identifying individual apartments with exterior doors, and 12 inches when identifying buildings with apartment complexes where there are two or more buildings not assigned street addresses. Individual buildings with street addresses shall have numbers measuring six inches, location, numbers shall be placed either in the center of the building or on the street end of the building so as to be visible from either the public or private street or from the parking lot, color, numbers shall be contrasting to the background color, Arabic numerals, all numbers used shall be Arabic numerals. Page 87

Item #7. Commercial, industrial and office buildings, height, the numbers shall measure a minimum of 12 inches in height, location generally, numbers shall be placed either in the center of the building or on the street end of the building so as to be visible from either the public or private street or from the parking lot, property line or driveway, should the building be located far enough from a public or private road so that the numbers are not clearly visible from the street, then the street address shall also be posted on the property at or near the property line or driveway to said building, color; each building, numbers shall be contrasting to the background color and shall be placed on each building in the complex, Arabic numerals, all numbers used shall be Arabic numerals, Shopping centers. Shopping centers consisting of two or more stores shall have a tenant or suite number affixed to the front of the tenant space and on the outside of the rear door which corresponds with that tenant space. Numbers shall measure six inches in height. (City of Dover Code of Ordinances, 98-344) ADDITIONAL / SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS TO OBTAIN APPROVAL: 1. N/A APPLICABLE CODES LISTED BELOW (NOT LIMITED TO): 2021 NFPA 1 Fire Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2021 NFPA 101 Life Safety Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2019 NFPA 72 National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2019 NFPA 13 Installation of Sprinkler Systems (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2009 IBC (International Building Code) Latest editions of all other NFPA Codes as defined by the Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 2021 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations City of Dover Code of Ordinances *If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person listed. Page 88

Item #7. From: Mobley, Will (DelDOT) To: Melson-Williams, Dawn; Schwartz, Joshua (DelDOT) Subject: EXTERNAL: DAC Comments 28 Jan 26 Staff Development Meeting Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2026 5:04:46 PM WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good morning, Here are the comments from DelDOT for the applications discussed in the DAC Committee Meeting. AX-26-01 Lands of Fuller at 7 Nixon Ln No objection to annexation. AX-26-02 Lands of United Worldwide Express, LLC at 1624 North Little Creek Rd and Adjacent Two Parcels No objection to annexation. Z-26-01 Lands of United Worldwide Express, LLC at 1600 North Little Creek Rd and Adjacent Parcel at 0.509 AC North Little Creek Road No objection to rezoning. C-26-01 Bay Pointe Apartments (One Building Concept) at 1100 Bay Road This project has an Entrance Plan Approval dated 5-10-23. Plan approval expires 5-10- 26. Plans will need reapproval if no work is started before expiration date. US-26-01 Dover Industrial Park Comprehensive Signage Plan Ensure planned sign structure is outside of DelDOT Right of Way. At a minimum the sign must be placed outside the clear zone of the state maintained frontage road and must not fall within the sight distance triangle located at the site entrance. Lastly Delaware Code 17 § 1108 Location and condition of advertising regulated. ---(a) Subject to subsection (c) of this section, no outdoor advertising sign, display or device, except a directional, gateway, or warning sign, official sign or notice erected by or with the approval of the Department, shall be erected subsequent to July 14, 1969, within 25 feet of the right-of-way line of any public highway if visible from any portion of the same. Page 89

Item #7. Sincerely, Will T Mobley III, PMP Division of Economic Development, DELDOT Interim Kent County Review Coordinator Phone (302)-760-2409 Will.mobley@delaware.gov Page 90

KENT CONSERVATION DISTRICT Item #7. 1679 SOUTH DUPONT HIGHWAY • DOVER, DELAWARE 19901• (302) 608-5370 • WWW.KENTCD.ORG CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY FEBRUARY 2026 APPLICATION: Lands of United Worldwide Express, LLC at 1600 North Little Creek Road and Adjacent Parcel at 0.509 AC North Little Creek Road FILE #: Z-26-01 REVIEWING AGENCY: Kent Conservation District CONTACT PERSON: Cullen Baker PHONE: (302) 608 – 5370 EMAIL: stormwater@kentcd.org THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT: Source: 2019 Delaware Sediment and Stormwater Regulations CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: Kent Conservation District has no objection to the proposed rezoning of the above referenced site. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: Soil disturbance (e.g. clearing, grading, excavations, tree clearing, or stoning) equal to or greater than 5,000 square feet requires a Sediment and Stormwater Management Plan to be submitted and approved by the Kent Conversation District prior to the commencement of disturbance. Page 91

Item #7. CITY OF DOVER Dover/Kent DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE County Metropolitan ADVISORY BRIEF Planning D.A.C. MEETING DATE: 2/4/2026 Organization Z-26-01 Lands of United Worldwide Express, LLC at 1600 North Little Creek Rd and Adjacent Parcel at 0.509 AC North Little Creek Road FILE # Z-26-01 REVIEWING AGENCY: Dover/Kent County MPO CONTACT PERSON: Malcolm Jacob PHONE #: (302) 387-6030 Attached, please find comments submitted by Dover Kent MPO for each of the current City of Dover Development Advisory Committee (DAC) applications. These comments are a part of the MPO’s ongoing goals of promoting transportation safety and connectivity within the region. They are submitted in accordance with the support given by the MPO Council on November 6, 2024. Issues of concern to the MPO are effective transit, reducing the amount of vehicle emissions by shortening or eliminating trips, and facilities for alternative modes of transportation, including bicycle and pedestrian access. The MPO considers the bicycle facilities required by the City of Dover to be the standard for all applications, not to be waived. City of Dover Planning Commission Zoning Review Z-26-01 Lands of United Worldwide Express, LLC at 1600 North Little Creek Rd and Adjacent Parcel at 0.509 AC North Little Creek Road Although Dover Kent MPO does not have any objections to the proposed Rezoning, it is worth noting that several recent MPO studies pertain to these parcels. First, in the East/West Freight Routes Phase 2 Study, several new alignments were proposed in key locations across Kent County to improve freight conditions and facilitate the movement of goods. The most relevant proposal from the study is the SR 1 interchange, which would allow for direct access to SR 1 from North Little Creek Road.1 If completed, this project would benefit the industrial sites in the area and reduce the amount of truck traffic on surrounding roadways. The project is also a potential benefit to Dover Air Force Base, and several interchange options were evaluated in the 1 East/West Freight Routes Phase 2 Study. Dover/Kent County MPO (2025). https://doverkentmpo.delaware.gov/files/2025/07/East-West-Final-Report-with-Appendicies.pdf#page=16. Page 92

Item #7. Dover Air Cargo Freight Access Study.2 However, the interchange project would significantly impact the properties being discussed through this application, as the proposed alignment would run directly through the parcels. With this in mind, the City of Dover and the applicant should review the recommendations of the East/West Freight Routes Phase 2 Study and discuss how the parcels can be utilized while still meeting the greater needs of the freight community in Kent County. The second relevant study is the Dover Freight Plan, a document that outlines the City’s freight goals and recommends a path forward to achieving them. Some of the steps listed in the document include requiring truck parking and staging areas for all freight-related site development, creating opportunities for freight-intensive development along truck routes, and increasing coordination between local and State agencies and other relevant stakeholders.3 The applicant should be aware of the City’s freight goals and ensure the plans for these properties help work towards the goals’ completion. If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person and the Planning Department as soon as possible. 2 Dover Air Cargo Freight Access Study - Planning and Environmental Linkage (PEL) Report. Dover/Kent County MPO (2021). https://doverkentmpo.delaware.gov/files/2021/09/Dover-Air-Cargo-Freight-Study- PEL_final.pdf#page=25. 3 Dover Freight Plan. City of Dover (2025). https://doverkentmpo.delaware.gov/files/2025/04/2025-04_Dover- Freight-Plan_FINAL.pdf. Page 93

Item #7. CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION February 17, 2026 Excerpt from Meeting Minutes – Draft The Meeting of the City of Dover Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 17, 2026 at 6:00 PM as an In-Person Meeting and also using the phone/videoconferencing system Webex. The Meeting Session was conducted with Chair Mr. Witham presiding. Members present were Mrs. Denney, Mrs. Maucher, Mr. Baldwin, Dr. Jones, Mr. Roach (virtual), Mr. Reaves (virtual), Mr. Michael Lewis (virtual), and Mr. Witham. Mrs. Welsh was absent. Staff members present were Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, Ms. Sharon Duca, Mrs. Kristen Mullaney, and Mr. Jason Lyon. NEW APPLICATIONS Z-26-01 Lands of United Worldwide Express, LLC at 1600 North Little Creek Rd and Adjacent Parcel at 0.509 AC North Little Creek Road – Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation to City Council of Rezoning Request for the two parcels of land located at 1600 North Little Creek Road consisting of 1.77 acres +/- and the adjacent parcel to the east consisting of 0.52 acres +/-. The properties are zoned C-PO (Commercial and Professional Office Zone) and subject to the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone): APZ II - Accident Potential Zone II. The proposed Zoning for both properties is IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) and subject to the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone): APZ II - Accident Potential Zone II. The properties are located on the south side of North Little Creek Road between Fairfax Lane and State Route 1. The owner of both parcels is United Worldwide Express, LLC. Property Addresses: 1600 North Little Creek Rd and one unaddressed parcel referenced as 0.509 AC North Little Creek Road. Tax Parcels: ED-05-068.20-01-61.00-000 and ED-05-068.20-01-62.00-000. Council District 2. Ordinance #2026-07. The First Reading of this Proposed Ordinance was completed on January 28, 2026. Public Hearing before the Planning Commission is scheduled for February 17, 2026 and the Public Hearing before the City Council on March 9, 2026. Representative: Mr. Richard Sinegar, Scott Engineering Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this is a Request for Rezoning. These two parcels are already within the City of Dover. The one that is addressed is 1600 North Little Creek Road and then its neighboring parcel is the 0.509 acres North Little Creek Road. The one that has the address of 1600 North Little Creek Road previously included a building. The other is the smaller one shown on the screen in yellow adjacent to that and it does not have any existing buildings, hence no real address other than its size. Currently, these are in the City of Dover and they are zoned CPO (Commercial Professional Office Zone) and they are subject to the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone): APZ II – Accident Potential Zone II. That is the blue shading that you see on the Zoning Map. It is kind of rectilinear off the end of runways at the Dover Air Force Base but it is part of our Zoning Ordinance. They are requesting that these two parcels of land go to the zoning classification of IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) and remain subject to the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone): APZ II – Accident Potential Zone II. With the two parcels, we already noted that one of them previously did include a building that has since been demolished. These are the two parcels shaded in the darker gray in the upper left corner of this image. The Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 17, 2026 Page 1 of 3 Page 94

Item #7. property is adjacent to the Rojan Meadows Subdivision which is under construction now and its east side is the series of three parcels that you just considered for Annexation into the City. With the Comprehensive Plan for any Rezoning, we again are looking at the Land Use Categories. This is the Office and Office Park Land Use Category, which the IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) is an eligible zoning classification. The CPO (Commercial Professional Office Zone) which is the current zoning of the property also was compliant with that Land Use Category. The Comprehensive Plan excerpts were included in your Report and we also included the text of the IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) giving the types of uses that would be allowed and prohibited, as well as a reference to the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone) which she previously noted includes information that also pertains to zoning of properties in those areas. The Planning Staff is recommending approval of the Rezoning to the IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) finding it compliant with the Comprehensive Plan and it would fit that IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) description as well. Again, this is just focusing on zoning of the property. Any redevelopment would subject to separate future Site Development Plans before the Commission. The Planning Commission, in looking at a Rezoning as noted, has three factors that you need to evaluate: whether the use is permitted by the proposed change would be compatible to that existing area, whether there is adequate public services and infrastructure to serve or can be created to serve that area, and whether the proposed change is compatible with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Office, again with this application is also providing the advisory comment that this is in the vicinity of what is an existing partial interchange of State Route 1 and Route 8 (which is North Little Creek Road) in this area that has been mentioned in several studies about the expansion of that interchange or road network to address freight movement conditions in the area. There are specifically at least three studies that talk about future potential for transportation improvements. These same comments were referenced in the Dover/Kent County MPO comments received as part of the Development Advisory Committee’s Comments. The other Departments really have no objection to the Rezoning of these two parcels here. They may have provided some Advisory Comments related to future development on those sites but that is not one of your considerations tonight. You are looking at Rezoning of this property from CPO (Commercial Professional Office Zone) to IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) with the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone): APZ II – Accident Potential Zone II remaining in place. Mr. Sinegar stated that they agree with all of the DAC comments as all of the other parcels that were presented tonight fit into all of this. Mr. Witham opened the public hearing. Mr. Zach Prebula – Kent Economic Partnership – 555 Bay Road Dover DE 19901 Mr. Prebula stated that he would just like to reiterate the comments made to the previous application for this one as well regarding the East West Freight Study. [Mr. Prebula stated that they are the economic development organization for Kent County. We focus on business retention and attraction. These properties along the North Little Creek Road adjacent to the State Route 1 were identified in the Dover/Kent MPO East West Freight Study as an essential location for future southbound SR1 Interchange. The Study evaluated freight mobility, industrial access, and long-term infrastructure needs to support economic growth in this Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 17, 2026 Page 2 of 3 Page 95

Item #7. corridor. The potential for a southbound interchange in this area is significant, improves access to and from SR1, and would strengthen our freight movement, enhance connectivity to industrial complexes in the area, and will increase our long-term economic competitiveness in this corridor. Access is one of the most critical factors industrial site selection and business expansion users have in their decision making. We simply want to make sure that these findings of the East West Freight Study and the potential long-term importance of the interchange are part of the public record as discussions about the land use area continue.] Mr. Witham closed the public hearing. Mrs. Maucher moved to recommend approval to City Council for Application Z-26-01 Lands of United Worldwide Express, LLC at 1600 North Little Creek Rd and Adjacent Parcel at 0.509 AC North Little Creek Road from C-PO (Commercial and Professional Office Zone) to IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) and retain the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone): APZ II – Accident Potential Zone II. She further recommends that we inform City Council that the Rezoning is consistent with the surrounding zonings and sufficient infrastructure exists to service the facilities, and that it’s consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, seconded by Dr. Jones and the motion was carried 8-0 by roll call vote with Mrs. Welsh absent. Mrs. Maucher voting yes; based on the DAC Comments and the applicant’s acknowledgement and recognition of the comments made regarding the interchange potential. Mr. Baldwin voting yes; based on DAC comments and Staff recommendation. Dr. Jones voting yes; based upon previous statements. Mr. Reaves voting yes. Mr. Lewis voting yes. Mr. Roach voting yes. Mrs. Denney voting yes; based on the recommendations of the Planning Office as well as the DAC. Mr. Witham voting yes; based upon the comments of the Commissioners and the Planning Office as well as the DAC comments. Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 17, 2026 Page 3 of 3 Page 96

Item #7. FINAL READING City of Dover PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2026-07 1 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF 2 THE CITY OF DOVER, CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY 3 LOCATED AT 1600 NORTH LITTLE CREEK ROAD AND AN ADJACENT PARCEL 4 AT 0.509 AC NORTH LITTLE CREEK ROAD 5 6 WHEREAS, the City of Dover has enacted a zoning ordinance regulating the use of property 7 within the limits of the City of Dover; and 8 9 WHEREAS, it is deemed in the best interest of zoning and planning to change the permitted 10 use of properties below from C-PO (Commercial and Professional Office Zone) and subject to 11 the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone): APZ II - Accident Potential Zone II to the proposed 12 zoning for both properties of IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) and subject to the 13 AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone): APZ II - Accident Potential Zone II. 14 15 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE 16 CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 17 18 1. That from and after the passage and approval of this ordinance the Zoning Map and Zoning 19 Ordinance of the City of Dover have been amended by changing the zoning designation 20 from C-PO (Commercial and Professional Office Zone) and subject to the AEOZ (Airport 21 Environs Overlay Zone): APZ II - Accident Potential Zone II to IPM (Industrial Park 22 Manufacturing Zone) and subject to the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone): APZ II - 23 Accident Potential Zone II on the properties located at 1600 North Little Creek Road and 24 an adjacent property at 0.509 AC North Little Creek Road (on the south side of North Little 25 Creek Road between Fairfax Lane and State Route 1), consisting of 1.77 acres +/- and the 26 adjacent parcel to the east consisting of 0.52 acres +/-. owned by United Worldwide 27 Express, LLC. 28 29 (Tax Parcel: ED-05.068.20-01-61.00-000 and ED-05.068.20-01-62.00-000; Planning 30 Reference: Z-26-01; Second Council District) 31 32 ADOPTED: * 33 34 Action History 35 03/09/2026 – Scheduled for Public Hearing/Final Reading – City Council 36 02/17/2026 – Public Hearing – Planning Commission 37 01/28/2026 – First Reading – City Council Page 97

Item #8. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING The Regular City Council Meeting was held on February 25, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. with Council President Neil presiding. Council members present were Ms. Hall (via Webex), Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Anderson, Dr. Pillsbury, Mrs. Arndt, Mr. Rocha, Dr. Sudler, and Mr. Lewis. Staff members present were Police Chief Johnson, Ms. Marney, Mr. Hugg, Mrs. Melson-Williams, Mr. Griffith, and Ms. Rivera. Mayor Christiansen and Fire Chief Carey were absent. OPEN FORUM The Open Forum was held at 6:15 p.m., prior to commencement of the Official Council Meeting. Council President Neil declared the Open Forum in session and reminded those present that Council was not in official session and could not take formal action. William Faust, 136 Orchard Avenue, expressed concern that the City Council was not representing all residents equally. He stated that he sent six (6) emails to Mayor Christiansen and council on various issues, including the city’s budget deficit percentage, holding a citizen workshop or town hall, addressing snow-related complaints, allowing prayers from individuals of different faiths, criteria for video slide submissions, and sidewalk cracking on Orchard Avenue. He noted that most of his emails went unanswered, except for responses from Mr. Lewis and one clarification from Mayor Christiansen regarding prayer selection being council’s responsibility. He emphasized that council members should treat all constituents fairly and equally. He questioned the pedestrian safety percentages and felt Mr. Anderson’s response indicated a personal bias, noting that the information had been shared with the press and other members, but that he was told to wait for the meeting minutes. He asked why he was being treated differently and emphasized that all constituents should be treated equally. He also expressed frustration that emails often go unanswered, despite being told that questions cannot be addressed on the council floor if they are not on the agenda. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Councilman Boggerty. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Lewis. At the request of Mr. Lewis, council observed a moment of silence for Mr. John J. Viola, who served as a state representative and was Ms. Bennett’s father. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Dr. Sudler moved to move Item #26, Proposed Ordinance #2025-21 – Amending Chapter 106 – Traffic and Vehicles, Article III – Stopping, Standing, and Parking, by adding Sec. 106-139 – Pedestrian Safety, earlier in the agenda due to several constituents wishing to speak on the matter. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lewis. Mr. Neil stated that there were a few items on the agenda and that he would prefer that they go through them. Page 98

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25, 2026 PAGE 2 Item #8. Ms. Arndt stated that after reviewing the agenda, she observed that the most popular discussion item was placed at the end. She noted that the items preceding it, first reading referrals and a referral to the Planning Commission, would likely move quickly, allowing those individuals to present and leave, with the remaining attendees staying for the final reading of the proposed ordinance. Dr. Sudler agreed with Ms. Arndt that the agenda was relatively short but noted that several individuals had not had the opportunity to speak during the public forum and might have other commitments. Out of consideration for them, he felt it would be appropriate to move the item forward on the agenda. Mr. Neil stated that staff members remain present to testify on their assigned items and, in consideration of their time, he preferred to proceed with the agenda as published. He noted that the agenda was short and that individuals would still have an opportunity to speak when the item came up. Ms. Hall stated that she supported keeping the agenda as originally proposed, for the reasons Mr. Neil explained, so that city officials could complete their items efficiently. For this reason, she voted no on moving the item ahead. Mr. Boggerty agreed with Ms. Hall’s reasoning and, for the same reasons, cast his vote as no. Dr. Sudler moved to move Item #26, Proposed Ordinance #2025-21 – Amending Chapter 106 – Traffic and Vehicles, Article III – Stopping, Standing, and Parking, by adding Sec. 106-139 – Pedestrian Safety, earlier in the agenda due to several constituents wishing to speak on the matter. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lewis and failed by a roll call vote with three (3) yes (Rocha, Sudler, Lewis) and six (6) no (Hall, Boggerty, Anderson, Pillsbury, Arndt, Neil). Mr. Anderson moved for the adoption of the agenda, seconded by Dr. Sudler, and unanimously carried. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA All Consent Agenda items are considered routine and non-controversial and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the Council. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of Council so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered a separate item. Mr. Neil requested the removal of Item #14, Animal Control Officer Briefing (Caitlyn Smith, Animal Control Officer, and Sergeant Christopher Peer), be removed from the consent agenda. Mr. Anderson moved for adoption of the consent agenda as amended, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury, and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Page 99

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25, 2026 PAGE 3 Item #8. RESOLUTION NO. 2026-02 – JUSTSERVE Mr. Anderson briefed members on Resolution No. 2026-02 – JustServe. The City Clerk read the following Proclamation into the record: WHEREAS, we firmly believe that the values of compassion, empathy, and community support are the foundation of a united, harmonious society and foster connections that transcend differences; and WHEREAS, the strength and prosperity of our cities, towns, and villages are based on the selflessness of its residents to serve and uplift one another; and WHEREAS, we acknowledge the profound impact that can be achieved when we extend a helping hand to our neighbors, especially those of diverse backgrounds, and lift them up, and collectively work to improve lives; and WHEREAS, we nurture a culture of giving within our cities, emphasizing that volunteerism is not just a duty but a source of personal fulfillment and community strength; and as we work side by side with and learn from each other, mutual understanding increases, misconceptions can be corrected, and new friendships are built; and WHEREAS, we urge all citizens to care for one another, volunteer, and engage in acts of service and kindness that contribute to our city’s betterment and its inhabitants’ well-being, regardless of background or belief; and WHEREAS, the City of Dover has joined a growing list of supporters, including the President of the National League of Cities and hundreds of leaders to date, in making a commitment to volunteerism. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and Council do hereby proclaim on the ninth day of February, two thousand and twenty-six, as a day on which the City of Dover reaffirms its commitment to fostering a spirit of volunteerism by promoting the use of JustServe.org, encouraging residents to engage in meaningful opportunities to give back, and recognizing the invaluable contributions of volunteers throughout our community. ADOPTED: FEBRUARY 25, 2026 Resolution No. 2026-02 was adopted by unanimous consent. ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 28, 2026 The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of January 28, 2026, were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Anderson, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury, and bore the written approval of Mayor Christiansen. COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT – FEBRUARY 10, 2026 Page 100

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25, 2026 PAGE 4 Item #8. The Council Committee of the Whole met on February 10, 2026, at 6:00 p.m. with Council President Neil presiding. Members of Council present were Ms. Arndt (out at 8:01 p.m.), Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Hall (via Webex), Mr. Lewis (in at 6:08 p.m., out at 6:52 p.m., in 6:56 p.m., out 7:30 p.m., in 7:35 p.m., out 7:47 p.m., in 7:52 p.m.), Mr. Anderson, Dr. Pillsbury, Mr. Rocha, and Dr. Sudler (in at 6:29 p.m.). Mayor Christiansen (in at 6:25 p.m.) was also present. Civilian members present at their committee meetings were Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Lewis (via Webex) (Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee), Mr. Iriowen (via Webex) (Utility), Mr. Garfinkel, and Mr. Shevock (Legislative, Finance, and Administration). Mr. Wilson (Utility) was absent. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Ms. Arndt moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Rocha, and unanimously carried. Procurement/Bid Process Presentation (Mike Hamlett, Central Services Director) Mr. Mike Hamlett, Central Services Director, reviewed the presentation entitled “Procurement/Bid Process”. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Hamlett explained that a previous meeting was not required because the project involved a very specific design prepared by the engineers for that purpose. Based on his understanding, no additional information was needed beyond what was submitted, which was typically when a prior meeting would be necessary. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Hamlett stated that the Central Services Department reached out to several municipalities, including the City of Milford, Wilmington, Newark, and Middletown. None of the municipalities that they reached out to indicated that pre-bid meetings were required. The closest example found was based on the complexity of the project. He further stated that, as the purchasing office, Central Services did not currently have a requirement mandating pre-bid meetings. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Hamlett stated that, from his perspective, procurement operations have been running smoothly since emerging from COVID. He noted that the primary challenge has come from the City Council concerning issues related to the number of bids being received. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Hamlett explained that sole-source procurement was becoming an increasing issue for the city. Some systems, such as those from Control, are standalone and proprietary, meaning only the original vendor can maintain or update them. Updates were required annually for continued access, and if they were not paid for, no one else could work on the system. To avoid vendor Page 101

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25, 2026 PAGE 5 Item #8. lock-in, the city’s specifications now discourage proprietary systems, though some proprietary systems, such as certain security systems, were still in use. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Hamlett clarified that the three percent was applied to the vendors nationwide in the State of Delaware. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Hamlett stated that if a vendor was verified as both a minority-owned and a local business, how the preference was applied depended on the RFP process. Each RFP included a set of specifications for the specific project that outlined how those preferences were handled. Responding to Ms. Arndt, Mr. Hamlett clarified that pre-bid meetings were held in person. He noted that while the city was not entirely opposed to virtual meetings, some meetings require on-site attendance to provide visibility of the project. Responding to Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Hamlett stated that he was unsure whether a sole-source procurement could always be issued as a bid. He noted that even for a sole-source situation, there might be ways to put it out for bid rather than bypassing the procurement process, which was why the city wanted further guidance. Council Reports – January 2026 First District Dr. Pillsbury reported that she had attended the Dover Fire Company’s Annual Dinner and attended the Council meetings. Mr. Rocha reported that he attended the Martin Luther King event at Delaware State University and noted that he took several calls regarding snow and ice. Second District Ms. Hall reported that she attended the Dover Fire Company’s Annual Dinner and took several calls regarding the snow and ice. Mr. Lewis had nothing to report. Third District Ms. Arndt reported that she attended the Neighborhood Partners Open House with Mr. Rocha and received several calls regarding the snow, ice, and utility billing. Fourth District Mr. Anderson reported that there was a concern at Woodcrest Apartments regarding a walkway that had not been cleared, likely city property, which needed to be investigated. Positive developments include the downtown foundation opening, activities at the Youth and Children’s Center at People’s Community Center, and town hall sessions with future cohorts who share concerns about substance abuse and other community issues. The city has the opportunity to participate in a national Page 102

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25, 2026 PAGE 6 Item #8. survey through the National League of Cities’ Military Communities Council, which can help shape policies, best practices, and access potential resources. Residents have expressed gratitude for city services, including the response to snowfall, and appreciation for employees working long shifts to maintain essential services. Dr. Sudler had nothing to report. At-Large Mr. Boggerty reported that he had received several calls regarding snow issues and expressed gratitude for city services. He also reported that he attended the Martin Luther King celebration at Delaware State University (DSU) and other fraternity events. He participated in a mentoring program at Delaware State University (DSU) with 120 young men from Delaware, New Jersey, and New York. Council President Neil Mr. Neil reported that he met with Sheena Miller from the Housing Group to discuss affordable housing. He also attended the January library board meeting, a government center meeting on zoning and property damage concerns near People’s Church, the police budget meeting, appeals hearings, and a city budget workshop at the library with staff and council members. He participated in a thank-you pizza party for city staff who worked in the snow and cold. He responded to emails and calls regarding the traffic safety ordinance and snow removal, including inquiries from a media outlet. He expressed appreciation for city employees across public works, electric, and water departments, as well as citizens helping each other during the snow events. He noted handling concerns from residents regarding high electric and water bills, with assistance from staff such as Jason Lyon and Paul Wadell. PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE The Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee met with Chairwoman Arndt presiding. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Rocha moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury, and unanimously carried. Review of Active Recreation Plan – Bay Pointe Apartments at 1100 Bay Road (Dawn Melson-Williams, Principal Planner) (Property of 3.302 acres +/- located on the southwest side of Bay Road at the intersection with Lafferty Lane, as owned by Patel Hospitality Properties, LLC. Reference: Conditional Use Site Plan: C-26- 01) Ms. Dawn Melson-Williams, Principal Planner, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the review of the Active Recreation Plan – Bay Pointe Apartments at 1100 Bay Road. Page 103

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25, 2026 PAGE 7 Item #8. Staff recommended approval of the Active Recreation Plan, and subjected to the conditions outlined in the Active Recreation Review Report, with the comments provided and conditions. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Melson-Williams explained that no waiver was requested or approved for the Bay Pointe Apartments application regarding active recreation space. Unlike some applications where a waiver was needed due to site constraints, the project met the zoning requirements through an allowable exception. She stated that the property qualified under the small development exception, as the site was 3.3 acres (less than 10 acres) and had a high-density layout exceeding 16 units per acre. Under the provision, compact, dense developments may reduce the active recreation space requirement from the standard 275 square feet per dwelling unit to 150 square feet per dwelling unit, while still meeting the minimum total requirement of 10,000 square feet. The applicant provided 13,390 square feet of active recreation area, which exceeded the minimum requirement. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Melson-Williams explained that the application went through the conditional use site plan review process with the Planning Commission back in May 2021, and that then gave them two years to achieve final plan approval, pull a permit, and commence construction. The project also received a one-year extension, so they had a period of three years to move to construction, during which they finalized their plan, had a permit to commence site work, but the site work did not continue. She added that they did install a part of a temporary entrance, but did not move beyond that. She noted that there was a permit for the construction of the building that was reviewed and ready to be issued, but was never issued. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Balascio stated that the delay in moving forward with the project was due to post-COVID lending interest rates, which previously made financing prohibitive. He noted that current interest rates no longer prevent the project from moving forward. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Balascio clarified that the project did not move forward previously due to financial constraints; however, those issues have since been resolved, and the project is now able to proceed. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that between the parking lot and the amenities, there is a row of parking, with a green space and sidewalk providing separation. She further noted that along the Lafferty Lane frontage of the property, proposed landscaping, including tree plantings, will be installed to serve as a buffer between the active recreation areas and the roadway. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that the MPO does participate in the review process of site plans. She noted that the location had a 30- foot landscape buffer between the property line and leading into the site, so there Page 104

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25, 2026 PAGE 8 Item #8. was some spacing of the amenities off the roadway. She also added that between the travel lanes and the property, there was green space and a multi-use path along the front edge instead of a sidewalk in that area. She mentioned that there was some distance between what was being developed on the project site in the roadway. She noted that the intersection for the apartment, the entrance, was aligned at the intersection that was the signalized intersection for Lafferty Lane, so the entrance to the development for the apartment building would be the fourth leg of that intersection. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that the project regarding any kind of traffic studies was on a key roadway. She noted that DelDOT was the one that would require any such studies based on traffic generation. She added that some of that information was needed, and was provided with the engineer, and getting their entrance plan designed and approved, hence getting the dedicated right turn lane that would be added at the front entrance. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that part of the study that she believed he was referring to was the high traffic injury network, some of which was related to the lack of pedestrian amenities in the form of pathways or sidewalks. She noted that the project was implementing the multi-use path along their frontage as they were required, and how that interconnected with the broader system was not just the issue of that project alone. She added that the area has been studied by the MPO related to the pedestrian access, and probably at the state level, if funds became available or as properties redeveloped, they would see a stronger network that placed those pedestrians in safer locations to be moving through that courtroom. Mr. Anderson moved to accept staff recommendations. The motion was seconded by Dr. Sudler and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Anderson moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Ms. Arndt moved for adjournment of the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee meeting; hearing no objection, the meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m. UTILITY COMMITTEE The Utility Committee met with Chairman Rocha presiding. Adoption of Agenda Ms. Hall moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury, and unanimously carried. Page 105

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25, 2026 PAGE 9 Item #8. Annexation Request – 7 Nixon Lane, Owned by Lupe N. Fuller (Dawn Melson- Williams, Principal Planner) Ms. Dawn Melson-Williams, Principal Planner, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the consideration of the utility service lands of Lupe N. Fuller, 7 Nixon Lane. Staff recommended, upon consideration of utility services, that if it is found that electric, water, and sanitary sewer services are provided and/or available to the property at 7 Nixon Lane. The Electric Department and the Department of Water and Wastewater have no objection to its annexation. Responding to Ms. Arndt, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that the owner may continue using the existing services. However, if either the well or septic system were to fail, it was unlikely that permits would be issued for replacement systems due to the property’s location within the City of Dover and the availability of public water and sewer, which would then be required as the preferred long-term option. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that she does not believe that the county was a water service provider. She noted that the county has several private water surveyors who have a territory that they are authorized to serve, so the county was not a water service provider. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that an RS1 (Residential Single Family Zone) is a Kent County zoning classification and noted that it allows single-family detached houses. She explained that the proposed R8 zoning is a City of Dover zoning classification, which allows predominantly single-family detached houses with a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet. Ms. Arndt moved to recommend the approval of the annexation request upon consideration of utility services; it is found that electric, water, and sanitary sewer services are provided and/or available to the property at 7 Nixon Lane. The Electric Department and Department of Water and Wastewater have no objection to its annexation, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Boggerty and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Anderson moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Annexation Request – 1624 North Little Creek Road and Two Adjacent Parcels, Owned by United Worldwide Express, LLC (Dawn Melson-Williams, Principal Planner) Ms. Dawn Melson-Williams, Principal Planner, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the consideration of the utility service lands of United Worldwide Express, LLC, 1624 North Little Creek Road, and Two Adjacent Parcels. Page 106

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25, 2026 PAGE 10 Item #8. Staff recommended, upon consideration of utility services, that if it is found that electric, water, and sanitary sewer services are provided and/or available to the properties at 1624 North Little Creek Road and Two Adjacent Parcels. The Electric Department and the Department of Water and Wastewater have no objection to its annexation. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that if the property were annexed into the city and if they wished to develop, the city’s zoning ordinance would have provisions that would limit the amount of woodlands that could be cleared during development activity. Likewise, she noted that if those woodland areas included wetlands, the city also have provisions that would prohibit development in those wetland areas or require buffer and/or require buffers from those areas. She added that there were protections in the city’s code related to protection and wetland areas. She was unsure if DNREC would have any approval necessarily related to cleaning up those areas unless it was part of some requirement that they needed to obtain from that agency. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that those types of activities were related to development and that the process they were in now was to bring the property into the city. She noted that it was not for their development of those plans as of yet. Responding to Mayor Christiansen, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that as part of the annexation process, the application was headed to the Planning Commission, and it was reviewed by the development advisor committee for the city, which was made up of city departments and other outside state agencies, which included the Dover Kent County MPO. She noted that they have provided comments with references to a series of studies that focused on the potential for transportation improvements that could make improvements to the interchange of Route Eight and State Route One. She added that those comments have been provided to the property owner as part of the review process and that they were aware of them at that point. Responding to Mr. Neil, Ms. Melson-Williams clarified that the property was not in the City of Dover and that the process was to annex the property into the city. Responding to Mr. Neil, Ms. Melson-Williams clarified that by annexing the property into the city, it would be added to the property tax base. Responding to Mr. Neil, Ms. Melson-Williams clarified that if any property coming into the city would be subject to their property tax regulations, whether that would be land or land with improvements. Ms. Arndt moved to recommend the approval of the annexation request upon consideration of utility services; it is found that electric, water, and sanitary sewer services are provided and/or available to the property at 7 Nixon Lane. Page 107

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25, 2026 PAGE 11 Item #8. The Electric Department and Department of Water and Wastewater have no objection to its annexation, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Dr. Pillsbury and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Anderson moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Rocha moved for adjournment of the Utility Committee meeting, hearing no objection the meeting adjourned at 7:12 p.m. LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met with Chairman Anderson presiding. Amendment Mr. Anderson invited Ms. Jennifer Jurznak, Polytech Adult Education Aide, and nine (9) students to the podium. She expressed gratitude towards Mr. Anderson for inviting her and her students. She noted that her students had come from different countries. Mr. Boggerty expressed gratitude towards Ms. Jurznak and her students and noted that he supported getting their education because it was to be celebrated. He emphasized that he celebrated them and thanked them for being courageous enough to take that step. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Anderson requested that the agenda be amended by removing Item #1 – Presentation on Affordable Housing (Michelle Williams, Little Living, LLC) from the agenda. Mr. Garfinkel moved for adoption of the amended agenda, seconded by Mr. Shevock, and unanimously carried. Animal Control Officer Briefing (Caitylyn Smith, Animal Control Officer, and Sergeant Christopher Peer) Ms. Caitlyn Smith, Animal Control Officer, and Sergeant Christopher Peer reviewed the background and analysis of the Animal Control Officer. Committee Action was not required. Responding to Mr. Garfinkel, Sergeant Peer stated that one of her duties was follow-ups, and when she was not on duty and during after-hours, the Office of Animal Welfare (OAW) would be called if they were available, and she would follow up the next working day with them and the status of the case. Page 108

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25, 2026 PAGE 12 Item #8. Responding to Mr. Garfinkel, Sergeant Peer stated that to make the public aware of the animal control officer, they would be going out like any other organization, but she would go out to engage with the community. Responding to Mr. Garfinkel, Ms. Smith stated that management of feral cat colonies is handled through volunteer efforts. She explained that if a cat is sick or injured, volunteers would set a trap so the cat could receive the necessary medical treatment and then be released back outdoors. Responding to Mr. Garfinkel, Ms. Smith clarified that they supported the trap- neuter-return (TNR) travel neighborhoods with the other ancillary agents. She noted that there were a few women who consistently cared for a colony of approximately 25 cats and were familiar with each animal and its health status. The volunteers were in regular contact and were able to quickly identify and check on cats if concerns arose, including injured or aging animals. Responding to Mr. Garfinkel, Ms. Smith stated that she could reach out to the Animal Management & Rescue Project (AMR) to determine whether they would be able to assist with trapping and neutering efforts. She noted that monitoring capacity was limited due to having only one trap available. She further explained that she could not monitor the entire cat colony by herself, as three women rotated responsibilities for caring for the single colony and fed the cats twice daily. She added that any relocation of feeding stations or related materials would require reaching out to individuals or organizations with available funding or resources from an existing contact list. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Smith clarified that she does handle cats who are injured and sick, even if they are stray or feral. She noted that they do try to track them and give them to Brandywine SPCA. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Smith clarified that he could contact her with any cat issues. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Sergeant Peer clarified that Ms. Smith does work from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Sergeant Peer clarified that individuals could contact the State or Dispatch directly, or call the Dover Police Department, and the call would be transferred as appropriate. Mr. Neil expressed appreciation for Ms. Smith’s role, noting its importance due to the high volume of animal-related calls received. He referenced frequent community concerns such as barking dogs, animals left on properties, feral cats, and wildlife issues, including the health risks of feeding raccoons. He emphasized the need to increase public awareness of those services and recommended promoting the role through the City’s website. Page 109

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25, 2026 PAGE 13 Item #8. During the council meeting, Mr. Lewis made a motion to defer Item #14 to the next Regular Council Meeting to revisit a conversation that he had with Ms. Bennett in view of the recent loss of a family member. The motion was seconded by Dr. Sudler. Mr. Neil stated that he had no objection to the motion, but it would come up there in order to correct the information that was said passed. Mr. Lewis stated that he had documentation that he would put into the record. (Exhibit #1) Dr. Sudler stated that, to his understanding, the matter concerned a discrepancy in the Animal Control Report. He believed it would be safe to wait until after a conversation to determine what information was accurate, noting that individuals’ recollections can sometimes have an elapse. Mr. Lewis made a motion to defer Item #14 to the next Regular Council Meeting to revisit a conversation that he had with Ms. Bennett in view of the recent loss of a family member. The motion was seconded by Dr. Sudler and unanimously carried. Draft Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) (Patricia Marney, Controller/Treasurer) Ms. Patricia Marney, Controller/Treasurer, reviewed the background and analysis of the Draft Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR). Staff recommended acceptance of the draft report. Mr. Faust raised concerns regarding the potential revenue shortfall, including whether it would be approximately 5% or 10%, and the overall value of the proposed business. He expressed concern about impacts on police services and equipment and questioned how the proposal could be made financially viable. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Ms. Marney stated that staff reviewed the use of unrestricted funds, including the possibility of a PCA credit; however, the city’s reserve policy currently does not allow for such credit. Regarding a two-cent utility reduction, it was stated that the city’s energy authority advisors do not currently recommend that action, though it would continue to be evaluated through the budget process. She acknowledged financial strain within the community and noted that factors such as green energy mandates impacted the city’s ability to offer rebates or reductions. She noted updated guidance from the energy authority was expected next month for Fiscal Year 2027 planning. Additionally, she noted that the city was beginning to align with county property values through ongoing tax assessment efforts that have been in progress since approximately 2021. Responding to Mayor Christiansen, Ms. Marney stated that the current rates did not fully cover the city’s costs. She noted that the most recent rate study indicated that the rates in place for the electric utility did not fully cover extended operational costs. Page 110

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25, 2026 PAGE 14 Item #8. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Marney clarified that the year-end June 30, 2020, was a typo and should be June 30, 2025. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Marney stated that, as previously mentioned in an email to the City Clerk’s Office, the enterprise fund figures for business activities are not complete, and therefore, the reported transfer numbers are not accurate. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Marney clarified that she would provide council with the correct numbers. Ms. Chelle Paul raised concerns regarding the accuracy and transparency of transfer amounts in the budget. She noted that previous budgets from 2015–2019 provided line-by-line, itemized expenditures by department, whereas recent budgets, beginning around 2021, listed expenditures by category without detailing exactly where the funds were being spent. She emphasized the public’s need to understand how the money was allocated, particularly regarding transfers and deficits. Additionally, she raised concern about the Economic and Development Fund, noting it contained nearly $3 million, and questioned the rationale for allocating substantial funds to nonprofits while the city faced budget deficits and utility- related expenses. Responding to Ms. Paul, Ms. Marney stated that the 2024 ordinance for the Economic Development Fund specified that the funds could be used to address general funding deficits. She noted that as the Fiscal Year 2027 budget was being prepared, consideration would be given to that provision. She mentioned that currently, only one application has been approved, with approximately $50,000 allocated for that business. She also added that regarding the financial statements, detailed information behind the numbers could be provided through a FOIA request. Responding to Ms. Paul, Ms. Marney clarified that she was reviewing the budget rather than the financial statements. She explained that financial statements showed actual versus budgeted amounts, while the budget reflected planned allocations, which may differ from actual expenditures. Dr. Sudler moved to recommend acceptance of the draft report as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Dr. Pillsbury. Mr. Boggerty moved to amend the draft report to correctly reflect the year 2025, ensuring it is properly captured. The motion was seconded by Dr. Sudler and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Anderson moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Page 111

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25, 2026 PAGE 15 Item #8. Dr. Sudler moved to recommend acceptance of the draft report as amended, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Dr. Pillsbury and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Anderson moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Update from the Dover Organization of Employees (DOE) on Membership Priorities (Mathew Brown, President of the DOE Union) Mr. Matthew Brown, President of the DOE Union, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the update from the Dover Organization of Employees (DOE). Committee action not required. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Mr. Brown stated that the department is committed to reviewing operations to identify potential budget reductions despite current staff shortages. He emphasized their willingness to help in any way possible, expressed openness to exploring better ways of doing things, and welcomed ongoing discussions on opportunities to save money. Higher Education Public Safety Fund Disbursements: Volunteer Firefighter Stipend Program and Dover Fire Department Security Fence (Chief Carey, Dover Fire Department) Mr. David Carey, Chief of Dover Fire Department, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the Higher Education Public Safety Fund Disbursements: Volunteer Firefighter Stipend Program Staff recommended approval of the disbursements as requested. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Fire Chief Carey explained that the program was based on a 20% share of the city’s marketing salary, which determined federal eligibility limits. The volunteers could earn up to $922 per month if they maximized hours each month, totaling approximately $11,900 annually per individual. He noted that the program currently included around 50–55 members, with all active members able to reach the maximum earnings under the current structure. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Fire Chief Carey stated that the contingency plan would remain unchanged, even if implemented three years ago. He explained that the city could contribute smaller amounts each year to maintain the plan. He also noted that potential grants may be available in the future to help fund the plan, though he was not aware of any current opportunities. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Fire Chief Carey stated that currently, the stipend has approximately $100,000. He noted that they were setting it up to be between $340,000 to $400,000 each year. Page 112

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25, 2026 PAGE 16 Item #8. Responding to Mr. Garfinkel, Fire Chief Carey stated that if a volunteer was on duty for three hours, they would receive a $30 stipend. He noted that in the event of a major fire, additional compensation could apply for those who respond. Responding to Mr. Garfinkel, Fire Chief Carey stated that the purpose of the higher education public safety fund was to help fund the fire department and those agencies that provide services to those organizations, such as Delaware Technical College and Delaware State University, for those agencies to help give them protection. He also added that the other item was that the universities and colleges in Dover do not donate to the fire department. He mentioned that this was helping them operationally for services to the organizations, as well as providing funding that was coming in. Responding to Mr. Garfinkel, Mr. Anderson clarified that the referenced legislation pertained to equipment and fire trucks. He explained that the intent was for the funding to be treated as an offset, allowing it to be considered a hybrid and therefore not subject to set restrictions. Responding to Mr. Garfinkel, Ms. Marney stated that if the $1.6 million were used, it should be applied toward reducing debt service or for capital needs such as fire trucks. She noted that the opinion had been expressed previously. She also stated that, based on their understanding of the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), approximately $1.65 million was intended to be assigned to the Fire Department, with the funds designated for use by both the Fire and Police Departments. She asked that this consideration be kept in mind when making decisions. Responding to Mr. Garfinkel, Ms. Marney stated that the budget analyst, Mr. Jeff Dill, indicated during the previous week’s workshop that the funds should be maintained in the General Fund, if possible, to help offset expenses. She explained that those offsets could include administrative costs, such as employee and departmental expenses, including positions partially supported by grant funding, as well as overhead costs such as building operations, debt service, and related expenses. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Fire Chief Carey clarified that the $1.65 million was unrestricted. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Fire Chief Carey stated that the $1.65 million was based on providing a service to the universities and helping set the cost of the organizations that were providing that. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Fire Chief Carey stated that he wanted to use some of the $1.65 million to build a stipend program and security for the fire station. Responding to Mr. Neil, Fire Chief Carey explained that the Fire Department was working to return to a 15-year replacement cycle for fire apparatus. He stated that Page 113

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25, 2026 PAGE 17 Item #8. once a truck was paid off, the payment could be rolled into the next apparatus purchase, which helped manage costs and offset inflation. He noted that cost savings were achieved by ordering two vehicles early, allowing the city to avoid future price increases and long manufacturing timelines, with fire engines currently taking approximately three years and ladder trucks up to four years to deliver. Regarding the stipend program, Chief Carey clarified that it applies only to career staffing and does not involve volunteers. He explained that accountability was maintained through a kiosk system at the fire stations, where personnel clocked in and out using a key fob and photo verification. Hours were automatically tracked, and if an individual failed to clock out, they were not paid. He noted stipend calculations were completed by the Fire Administrative Manager, reviewed by an accountant, and processed through established safeguards to ensure accuracy and accountability. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Fire Chief Carey stated that several fire departments have reached out with interest in the city’s apparatus replacement cycle and living program, noting that Dover was likely one of the few departments currently operating such a program. He explained that the program had been thoroughly reviewed by the city’s administration and legal counsel and was funded through donations made to the fire companies, ensuring proper accounting and oversight of those funds. Mr. David Carey, Chief of Dover Fire Department, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the Higher Education Public Safety Fund Disbursements: Dover Fire Department Security Fence. Staff recommended approval of the disbursements as requested. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Fire Chief Carey stated that they have reached out to the police department, but they are busy as well with vehicle accidents and crime in other places. Responding to Fire Chief Carey, Dr. Sudler suggested hiring armed security and/or putting that in their budget. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Fire Chief Carey clarified that they had received fence quotes. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Fire Chief Carey addressed a question regarding whether a maintenance contract or warranty was included with the equipment and what potential future costs may arise if issues occur. He noted that the information was not immediately available in the materials but could be provided upon follow-up. He added that he believed the security station would be a one-time expense. He further stated that maintenance would likely be covered through the department’s Page 114

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25, 2026 PAGE 18 Item #8. building program, which was supported by donations, state grants, and funding received by the fire department outside of city funds. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Fire Chief Carey stated that the funds were coming from a grant fund and not from the city budget. Dr. Sudler moved to accept the recommendation for approval of disbursements for Letters A and B. The motion was seconded by Dr. Pillsbury. Mr. Garfinkel moved to divide the question. He believed that the Letters A and B needed to be voted on separately. Dr. Sudler moved to accept the recommendation for approval of disbursements for the Volunteer Firefighter Stipend Program. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rocha and carried by roll call vote of eight (8) yes (Hall, Boggerty, Pillsbury, Shevock, Sudler, Lewis, Rocha, Anderson), two (2) no (Garfinkel, Neil), one (1) absent (Arndt) By consent agenda, Mr. Anderson moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Dr. Sudler moved to accept the recommendation for approval of disbursements for the Dover Fire Department Security Fence. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rocha and unanimously carried. (Arndt absent) By consent agenda, Mr. Anderson moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Amendment – Proposed Ordinance #2025-21 – Amending Chapter 106 - Traffic and Vehicles, Article III - Stopping, Standing, and Parking, by adding Sec. 106-139 - Pedestrian Safety (Councilman Anderson, David S. Hugg, III, City Manager, and Chief Johnson) Mr. Anderson, member of Council, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the Amendment – Proposed Ordinance #2025-21 – Amending Chapter 106 - Traffic and Vehicles, Article III - Stopping, Standing, and Parking, by adding Sec. 106-139 - Pedestrian Safety. Recommended to forward Proposed Ordinance #2025-21 as amended to council for approval. Mr. Anderson referred to an email from Mr. Griffith, City Solicitor. (Attachment #1) Mr. Boggerty raised concerns about Letter G, about medians less than seven (7) feet. Page 115

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25, 2026 PAGE 19 Item #8. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Anderson stated that they were amending Letter G to have the medians be more than seven (7) feet. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Anderson clarified that he was correct and that the medians should be more than seven (7) feet in width. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Anderson, referring to Letter H in the Proposed Ordinance, stated that the intent was to coordinate with willing organizations, and enforcement was achieved by providing funding only to those organizations that agreed to participate. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Anderson explained that if enforcement were desired, a clause could be added and reviewed annually in the next grant cycle. At present, it is not necessary to require participation because the city already follows current procedures. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Mr. Anderson stated that, according to the chart, the City Manager oversees all functions and can delegate tasks to anyone under their authority. He added that while the City Manager was ultimately responsible for ensuring duties were completed, they do not perform all tasks personally but assign them to staff to carry out. Belinda Main, a Dover resident, expressed concern that an ordinance cannot force organizations or individuals to participate in programs or follow directives. She emphasized that all members have opinions and that authority does not allow one individual to override others. She criticized the current approach to the ordinance, suggesting it lacked consideration for practical circumstances and real-life impacts, such as safety concerns at street corners. She also noted that certain well- intentioned actions, such as providing blankets, may not address underlying needs, and that understanding the actual circumstances of individuals was more important than surface-level interventions. Chelle Paul, a Dover resident, emphasized that medians must remain safe and noted that existing state laws, such as those regarding public intoxication, were enforceable. She stated that certain provisions of the amendment were unconstitutional, as the city could not dictate where an individual may move as long as they remain safe. She suggested that the ordinance should focus solely on medians, without specifying width or footage, because safety concerns made medians restricted areas, and that the language should reflect “medians” in general. Mr. Rocha stated that Letter H should be removed from the proposed ordinance, noting that it was based on an assumption about pedestrian safety. He indicated that, in his view, there was no need to require coordination with individuals who might be in need. He also added that he agreed with Ms. Paul that the language should reflect “medians” and did not need more or less. Page 116

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25, 2026 PAGE 20 Item #8. Mr. Rocha moved to strike letter H from the Proposed Ordinance #2025-21. The motion was seconded by Mr. Boggerty and unanimously carried. (Arndt absent) By consent agenda, Mr. Anderson moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Alicia Martin, a Bear resident, emphasized that all members agreed on the importance of pedestrian safety. She noted that the focus should remain on safety itself, rather than comparing different situations, and stressed that sidewalks, crosswalks, and medians were in place to keep individuals safe. She expressed a desire for professionals to maintain high standards and reiterated the goal of ensuring pedestrian safety for all. Gerald Martin, a Dover resident, described observations at intersections, noting safety concerns related to pedestrians and individuals soliciting money. He mentioned that some individuals appeared to be using funds to support drug use, while others gathered in vehicles or businesses to pool money. He highlighted broader safety risks, referencing traffic accidents and the need for safe locations for individuals, while emphasizing the complexity of the situation beyond panhandling alone. Jeannie Anderson, 217 Cecil Street, expressed serious safety concerns regarding pedestrians walking in roadways. She shared video and photo evidence (Attachment #1) of an individual walking between cars at an intersection near Sam’s Club and emphasized that the behavior posed a high risk of accidents. She stressed that the issue was one of pedestrian safety, not related to freedom of speech or homelessness, and emphasized that individuals do not belong on highways or roadways due to the risk of injury or liability for the city. William Faust, 136 Orchard Avenue, responded to a presentation of a photo (Attachment #2), noting that the situation depicted was jaywalking rather than panhandling. He emphasized that the city could not protect individuals from all risky behavior, such as impaired or reckless pedestrians, and that limited police resources made constant enforcement impractical. He stressed that addressing broader issues, such as homelessness, mental health, and substance abuse, would be more effective than the proposed ordinance and urged members to vote against it, noting that it would not improve safety. Vonda Smack, 1001 White Oak Road, referenced a letter from the Delaware Department of Justice, signed by Attorney General Kathy Jennings, sent to all municipalities in the state. She expressed concern that the proposed ordinance may violate individual rights despite pedestrian safety concerns. She requested clarification from Councilmembers Anderson and Rocha regarding any correspondence sent to the Department of Justice (DOJ) about the ordinance, particularly concerning arrest powers. She emphasized that collaboration with Page 117

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25, 2026 PAGE 21 Item #8. stakeholders could address safety issues without infringing on rights. She cited the Department of Justice (DOJ) letter noting constitutional concerns with the enforcement of 11 Del. C. §1321 (loitering) and 21 Del. C. statutes related to pedestrian soliciting and stressed that those areas could not be enforced in ways that violated rights. Stephan Pierce, 437 Barrister Place, stated that the council’s role was to implement rules to keep individuals safe. He noted that Middletown had installed fences along highways to prevent pedestrians from panhandling and crossing roadways in high- traffic areas. Mr. Pierce yielded the remainder of his time to Ms. Smack, who emphasized the importance of collaboration and communication. She noted that stakeholders and community advocates should be involved in discussions. She stressed that the focus should be on doing what was right for the community, not just what the Council wants, and expressed concern that the ordinance, as written, could violate individuals’ rights. She expressed frustrations at why her questions go unanswered about the fences, the number of individuals who have been killed on the median and not on the highway, and why there were 427 homeless children in the City of Dover. Aletha Francheski, a Dover resident, noted that the issue was not only about pedestrians but also about driver safety. She expressed concern over arguments suggesting individuals have a constitutional right to occupy certain areas at any time, describing such behavior as unsafe, selfish, and potentially illegal. She emphasized the need for collaboration and sensible regulations to ensure public safety and a more orderly community. Pastor Leroy Bradshaw, 101 South New Street, expressed concern that while the council addressed safety issues, there should also be a focus on helping vulnerable populations, including the homeless and elderly. He emphasized the moral and ethical responsibility to care for those in need and urged that compassion and community support guide council decisions. Tyler Muck, a resident outside the City of Dover, expressed concern that council has not engaged in good-faith discussions with the community. He criticized the ordinance process as wasting resources and time and emphasized that efforts should focus on programs to help individuals in distress rather than enforcing the ordinance. He questioned the judgment of those making decisions on the council. Police Chief Johnson explained that some were outdated state statutes related to soliciting that remained on the books but were no longer enforceable. Current law did not allow action against someone simply standing on a median, though proposed state legislation could address that in the future. He noted that public intoxication and other incidents were handled case by case, often with the behavioral health unit pairing officers with social workers. He mentioned that Page 118

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25, 2026 PAGE 22 Item #8. enforcement required willing witnesses and compliance with court procedures; otherwise, officers could not act. He emphasized that council could enact a local ordinance in the interim, but officers were limited in approaching individuals engaged in protected First Amendment activity. He noted that the legislative process had been slow, leaving a legal gap that requires careful council consideration. Responding to Ms. Paul, Police Chief Johnson stated that it would depend on enforcement and on specific conditions being met. He noted that a citizen would need to call 911, remain on scene, identify themselves as a witness, and be willing to testify if the case were challenged. He clarified that when he referred to an “arrest” in those situations, it usually meant issuing a citation or charging document on scene, not taking that individual into custody. He added that in most cases, the individual would be identified, checked for warrants, issued a ticket if appropriate, removed from the unsafe area, and then released. He further added that they would not typically be transported to the police station. He explained that if an individual was standing in the roadway, officers do have the authority to act because being in the road was a violation. However, situations became less clear when an individual was primarily on the median with only part of a foot touching the roadway. He noted that while an officer technically could issue a citation in that scenario, he mentioned that such a case would likely not be viewed favorably by a judge and would not be a practical or reasonable use of enforcement. He emphasized the need for common sense and discretion, stating that officers were unlikely to take action over something as minor as a few inches into the roadway when most of the individual was in a protected area. Responding to Ms. Paul, Police Chief Johnson explained that the key difference between relying on state law versus adopting a local ordinance was that, at present, there was no enforceable state law available. The relevant state statute was suspended due to ongoing litigation, which left officers without authority to act solely based on observation. He stated that the proposed ordinance would create a “status offense,” meaning officers could take action based on their own observation. He added that the officer does not need a 911 call. Mr. Garfinkel called to question, and it was unanimously carried. Responding to Mr. Garfinkel, Mr. Anderson explained that the seven (7) foot rule was used to determine whether a median was considered safe for an individual to stand on. The courts and federal safety research have found that medians narrower than about seven (7) to eight (8) feet were unsafe because they do not provide enough space for an individual to stand clear of traffic on both sides. Under this approach, intersections were still covered regardless of width, because intersections were inherently higher-risk areas due to turning vehicles, visibility issues, and traffic movement. He added that the seven (7) foot measurement applies to the entire usable width of the median, running lengthwise through it. If the median was less than seven (or eight) feet wide, courts have often presumed it to be unsafe. He Page 119

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25, 2026 PAGE 23 Item #8. noted that the presumption was what the attorneys relied on when drafting the language, using federal research and prior court rulings to support the distinction. Mr. Rocha moved to approve the amendment letter G, which medians more than seven (7) feet in width. The motion was seconded by Mr. Shevock and carried with Mr. Lewis and Dr. Sudler voting no. (Arndt absent) By consent agenda, Mr. Anderson moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Neil moved to accept the staff recommendation as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rocha and carried by a roll call vote with seven (7) yes (Boggerty, Pillsbury, Shevock, Garfinkel, Rocha, Anderson, Neil), three (3) no (Hall, Sudler, Lewis), and one (1) absent (Arndt). By consent agenda, Mr. Anderson moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Anderson moved for adjournment of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting; hearing no objection, the meeting adjourned at 9:58 p.m. Mr. Neil moved for adjournment of the Council Committee of the Whole meeting; hearing no objection, the meeting adjourned at 9:58 p.m. By consent agenda, Mr. Anderson moved for acceptance of the Council Committee of the Whole Report, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. MONTHLY REPORTS – SEPTEMBER 2025 By motion of Mr. Anderson, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury, the following monthly reports were accepted by consent agenda: City Council’s Community Enhancement Fund Report City Manager’s Report Fire Chief’s Report Police Chief’s Report BAY VILLAGE PLANNED NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN (PND) ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WHITE OAK ROAD – SKETCH PLAN REVIEW. Ms. Dawn Melson-Williams, Principal Planner, briefed members on the Sketch Plan Review of the Bay Village Planned Neighborhood Design (PND) on the south side of White Oak Road. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Melson-Williams clarified that it was across the street from Garrison Oak and noted that if he exited from the east entrance and went straight ahead, he would reach the property on White Oak Road. Page 120

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25, 2026 PAGE 24 Item #8. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that she was not familiar as to whether or not Bay Road was on a high-injury network but she noted that the project had gone through a traffic impact study with DelDOT, and the design of any entrances onto White Oak Road, since it was a state-maintained road, would be subject to the DelDOT review and approval process. Ms. Arndt moved to refer the Bay Village Planned Neighborhood Design (PND) on the south side of White Oak Road to the Planning Commission for further consideration. The motion was seconded by Dr. Pillsbury and unanimously carried. FIRST READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2025-14 – AMENDING CHAPTER 22 – BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, BY INSERTING ARTICLE XIII – LEMON HOUSING. Council President Neil reminded the public that copies of the proposed ordinance were available on the City’s website at www.cityofdover.gov under “Government,” or by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at 302-736-7008 or cityclerk@dover.de.us. Final action by Council on the proposed ordinance will take place during the Council Meeting of March 16, 2026. Mr. Neil briefed members on the Proposed Ordinance #2025-14 – Amending Chapter 22 – Buildings and Building Regulations, by inserting Article XIII - Lemon Housing. Ms. Arndt expressed concerns about the proposed ordinance, specifically regarding the state process and home inspection requirements. She stated that she looked forward to having those questions addressed during the hearing, when real estate professionals would be present to provide answers. In accordance with Section 1-9 of the Dover Code, Council acknowledged the First Reading of Proposed Ordinance #2025-14 as read by the City Clerk, by title only, as follows: ORDINANCE #2025-14 – AMENDING CHAPTER 22 – BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, BY INSERTING ARTICLE XIII – LEMON HOUSING. REZONING REQUEST/FIRST READING REFERRAL OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2026-08 – LANDS OF ASMA PROPERTY, LLC AT 317, 319, 325 WEST DIVISION STREET A request was received for rezoning of properties located at 317, 319, and 325 West Division Street of 0.05 +/- acres, 0.13 +/- acres, and 0.08 +/- acres, for a total of 0.26 +/- acres (11,628 SF) owned by ASMA Property, LLC. The properties are zoned IO (Institutional and Office Zone), and the proposed zoning is C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone). Staff recommended that the request be referred to the Planning Commission for a public hearing on March 16, 2026, and that a Public Hearing/Final Reading be set on April 13, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. (Tax Parcels: ED-05-076.08-05-03.00- 000, ED-05-076.08-05-02.00-000, and ED-05-076.08-05-01.00-000. Planning Reference: Z-26- 02. Council District 4.) Responding to Dr. Sudler, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that the I/O zoning was the Institutional and Office Zone. Page 121

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25, 2026 PAGE 25 Item #8. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that the C-1A zoning represented a limited commercial zone, which allowed a mix of commercial uses, ranging from retail to service establishments, along with certain residential components. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that the properties fronting West Division Street were along a state-maintained roadway, while the adjacent corner on North Queen Street was a city street, and the three (3) properties were also bordered by city alleys. She noted that regarding his question about the high entry network, she was not familiar with that study, but certainly as part of the rezoning process, a lot of detail about zoning and any concerns from their regulatory agencies would be expressed through the development advisory committee review process and focused on the rezoning should the property be redeveloped, then that would be a separate application process if they were looking to change how access occurred. Dr. Sudler expressed concerns regarding traffic and pedestrian safety, noting that DelDOT’s 2026 Comprehensive Plan has adopted a “safe system” approach, which the Mayor has highlighted in discussions with the Planning Commission. He explained that when municipalities add traffic to already congested roads, they risk legal challenges from communities in high-injury network areas. He emphasized that progressive planning in Dover required awareness of DelDOT’s high-injury network and adherence to the quality-of-life standards, as it directly impacted community safety. He suggested establishing a closer partnership with DelDOT to ensure Dover’s planning aligned with the safe systems approach, particularly to protect vulnerable road users, as federal mandates required assessment of high-risk areas and infrastructure issues. He stressed that the coordination was crucial for the safety and well-being of Dover residents. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Melson-Williams clarified that the applicants were asking for rezoning of the property since the I/O zoning does not work for what they hope to utilize those existing buildings for currently. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that the C-1A zoning district was found on nearby properties along the West Division Street Corridor, and the three (3) properties were previously zoned C-1A. She noted that a rezoning in 2021 took them to an I/O zoning at the request of a potential purchaser, but that project did not move forward. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Melson-Williams clarified that two (2) of the properties were involved in the parking lot area and a building that provided an automobile sales and service, and the third parcel was a single-family dwelling. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Ms. Melson-Williams clarified that her earlier reference to “further review” pertained to planned neighborhood design, which was a separate process from rezoning. She explained that the zoning ordinance provided the criteria the Planning Commission and, eventually council use to make rezoning decisions. She noted that the first reading of a rezoning application was an announcement that the application had been filed. As part of the review process, the application was evaluated by the Development Advisory Committee, which included city departments and external agencies such as DelDOT and the Dover-Kent County MPO. She stated that those agencies provided comments regarding the rezoning request and any advisory input Page 122

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25, 2026 PAGE 26 Item #8. related to future redevelopment. She also mentioned that all collected information is then presented to the Planning Commission, and their action, along with the advisory comments, is forwarded to Council when considering the rezoning application. Responding to Ms. Melson-Williams, Dr. Sudler requested that those departments take a look at the DelDOT 2026 Comprehensive Plan for the safe systems approach for the development of roadway systems and utilizing roadway systems, so that they could make sure that the quality of life for their vulnerable road users was high. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that one (1) of their development partners was part of the Dover Kent County MPO, so she believed that the Planning Office could reach out to them to learn more about the previous studies and references to the safe system approach to planning of transportation networks. Mr. Neil moved to refer the Ordinance #2026-08 – Lands of ASMA Property, LLC at 317, 319, and 325 West Division Street to the Planning Commission for further consideration. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried, with Dr. Sudler voting no. Dr. Sudler stated his reason for voting no was that he needed more information pertaining to traffic in order to make a sound decision that would affect the vulnerable road users. In accordance with Section 1-9 of the Dover Code, Council acknowledged the First Reading of Proposed Ordinance #2026-08 as read by the City Clerk, by title only, as follows: ORDINANCE #2026-08 – AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 317, 319, 325 WEST DIVISION STREET. FINAL READING – PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2025-21 - AMENDING CHAPTER 106 - TRAFFIC AND VEHICLES, ARTICLE III – STOPPING, STANDING, AND PARKING, BY ADDING SEC. 106-139 – PEDESTRIAN SAFETY The First Reading of the Proposed Ordinance #2025-21 was accomplished during the Council Meeting of December 8, 2025. The ordinance is available at the entrance of the Council Chambers or on the City’s website at www.cityofdover.gov under “Government.” Ms. Arndt moved that the Final Reading of the proposed ordinance be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Dr. Sudler, and unanimously carried. Mr. Anderson, Councilmember, and Thomas Johnson, Chief of Police, reviewed the Proposed Ordinance #2025-21 – Amending Chapter 106 – Traffic and Vehicles, Article III – Stopping, Standing, and Parking, by adding Sec. 106-139 – Pedestrian Safety. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Police Chief Johnson clarified that he would not consider a constituent giving money to an individual in a median as obstruction of justice, but rather an obstruction of traffic flow. He explained that while such situations may not typically result in serious injuries, they can lead to minor accidents and property damage, particularly in heavy traffic conditions. He Page 123

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25, 2026 PAGE 27 Item #8. described a scenario known in accident investigations as “caravanning,” where vehicles move closely together toward a traffic light. If a driver suddenly stopped in a moving lane to hand money out the window, it could cause a rear-end collision because the driver behind may not anticipate the abrupt stop. He emphasized that he has no issue with individuals giving money; his concern was the timing and manner in which it was done. He stated that the intent of including the language in the draft ordinance was to reduce traffic disruptions and prevent avoidable minor accidents and property damage in flowing traffic lanes. Mr. Anderson moved to open a public hearing for the constituents, seconded by Dr. Sudler, and unanimously carried. Paul Johnston, a Smyrna resident, expressed concerns regarding individuals entering the roadway around Route 8 and along the Route 13 corridor. He stated that individuals are jumping into traffic to solicit money and other items from drivers, creating a dangerous situation. He noted that drivers are fortunate that no one has been struck, as individuals are reportedly stepping directly toward vehicles as they pass. Mr. Johnston further indicated that similar activity is occurring near Wawa, Capital, and along the Route 13 commercial strip, including areas near Lowe’s, Sam’s Club, and Bob Evans. He emphasized that those actions presented a significant safety hazard to both motorists and pedestrians. Referring to prior comments made by Police Chief Johnson, he described situations in which traffic was flowing, and a driver suddenly stopped because an individual stepped off the curb and into the roadway to ask for money. He expressed concern that such sudden stops could easily result in rear-end collisions or other serious accidents. He stated that something should be done to address the issue, either by creating a designated safe area for individuals to solicit or by moving such activity away from busy intersections. He voiced support for the proposed ordinance, emphasizing that high-traffic areas were too dangerous and that proactive measures are needed to prevent potential injuries or fatalities. Tracie Johnston, a Smyrna resident, expressed support for the proposed ordinance and stated concerns for not only the individuals who were on those medians or along the sides of the roads, but for the drivers in the City of Dover. She urged council to vote in favor of the proposed ordinance and referred to Police Chief Johnson’s comment that the ordinance only saves one (1) individual and that individual matters. Belinda Main, a resident of Dover, stated that drivers should not be distracted by cell phones and should instead be focused on the roadway. She expressed the view that motorists should be paying attention to what was in front of them, including individuals standing on medians or interacting with drivers. She suggested that, at times, the issue was not the panhandlers themselves, but drivers who were not attentive. She further commented on the proposed ordinance, stating that different types of medians had not been clearly classified. She noted that some medians were large enough for vehicles and individuals to stand safely without being in immediate danger from traffic, and that in some locations, drivers were able to pull over safely to assist. She emphasized the need for clearer definitions within the ordinance regarding what constituted a median, including its size and configuration. She suggested identifying and marking safe locations where individuals could solicit in a manner that would allow them to earn money while minimizing risks to both them and motorists. She also noted that while churches and community organizations provide support, they often do not provide direct financial assistance that individuals may need to pay bills or to help Page 124

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25, 2026 PAGE 28 Item #8. secure or establish a place to set up tents if they are experiencing homelessness. She expressed concern for individuals who rely on panhandling to support themselves and their families, including those experiencing homelessness. Ronald Eads, a Dover resident, responded to comments made by Mr. Paul Johnston. He stated that he personally stood along Route 13 and asserted that he and others do not intentionally jump in front of vehicles. He indicated that they respect drivers’ property and personal space and was unsure what specific behavior Mr. Johnston was referencing. He noted that he could not speak for individuals located near Route 8. He shared that he and his wife were currently staying in a motel, which required money. He explained that he panhandled in order to afford the motel room and to provide food for himself and his wife. He stated that the income helped keep them off the street and met their basic needs. Aretha Howard, a Dover resident, stated that she did not see anything wrong with panhandling and directed her questions to Police Chief Johnson. She inquired about whether there had been any fatalities directly related to panhandling and asked how many accidents had occurred within the past year involving such activity. She recalled that Police Chief Johnson previously mentioned two (2) deaths but indicated that those incidents were not the result of panhandling. She sought clarification regarding the connection, if any, between panhandling and reported accidents or fatalities. Responding to Ms. Howard, Police Chief Johnson clarified that the previously referenced numbers were not related to panhandling activity. He explained that the individuals involved were not standing on a median but were next to a major highway and had stepped into the roadway, where they were struck by vehicles. He further stated that the two (2) individuals referenced represented the only traffic fatalities from the prior year. He emphasized that he did not state that the individuals were panhandling at the time they were struck, nor did he intend to label anyone, noting only that they were members of an at-risk population. Responding to Ms. Howard, Police Chief Johnson stated that he did not have specific data available regarding the number of accidents involving panhandling. However, he indicated that such incidents have not been reported to him as a huge problem. He stated that, to his knowledge, the number of accidents related to panhandling could be counted on less than one (1) hand, if any. Ms. Howard stated that she had two (2) additional points. First, referring to comments made by Mr. Eads, she asserted that individuals who were soliciting have common sense and were not attempting to cause accidents, as they were seeking money to pay for rent and food. She expressed the view that everyone should have the right to panhandle. Second, she stated that Section 106- 139 of the proposed ordinance should be stricken. She maintained that individuals engaging in panhandling have their safety under control and were not intentionally creating dangerous situations. She emphasized that they were trying to survive and were not acting recklessly. She further expressed concern that the ordinance would serve as a money-making venture for the City of Dover by imposing fines on individuals who do not have money. Crystal Chatham, a Dover resident, expressed opposition to the proposed ordinance and suggested developing better solutions than penalties. She explained that addiction and alcoholism were Page 125

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25, 2026 PAGE 29 Item #8. diseases that needed to be treated physically, mentally, and spiritually, and for long periods of time. Unless anyone has walked that journey with someone, they do not have the right to judge. She noted that homelessness was a disease of society and it needed to be treated with empathy, compassion, and humanity. Addiction, alcoholism, and homelessness were all out on the medians. She questioned where the solutions, housing, and treatments were for those individuals, when council called for safety. Vonda Smack, 1001 White Oak Road, stated that individuals standing on the medians included veterans, mothers trying to earn money for a room, and individuals struggling with addiction. She expressed concern that the proposed measure would criminalize poverty rather than address the underlying issues those individuals face. She criticized the bill for penalizing drivers who slowed down to help individuals, imposing fines that quickly accumulated if unpaid at either the state or city level. She noted that most fines were not being paid back to the city, suggesting the bill seemed more like another way to get money. She suggested a better approach would be to hold stakeholder meetings, involve advocates, and learn from how other cities addressed similar issues. She mentioned that they were advocating because they do not like what they see, and noted that it was the words and how they were written, and how they were violating individuals’ rights. She stated that they do agree on something that it was a pedestrian safety issue, but where they do not agree on because they have not come to the table to discuss bringing individuals who have done the same thing in other cities and see how they did and how it was successful. George Johnson, a Dover resident, stated that he was a strong advocate in the city and would continue being that advocate because he did not want to see anyone less than him because they were all equal. Chelle Paul, a Dover resident, stated that she had sent multiple emails to council outlining issues with the proposed ordinance, highlighting both constitutional and potential legal concerns. She referenced Mr. Anderson, noting that he had based the ordinance on a state law that had previously been challenged and lost. She questioned why that framework was being used, expressing concern that it could put taxpayer dollars at risk. Responding to Ms. Paul, Mr. Griffith clarified that the state statutes referenced as “lost” were never decided on their merits. The challenge concerned loitering and panhandling, specifically whether the statutes overly restricted First Amendment rights, such as the right to ask for money, assemble, and express oneself. The resolution was that the State of Delaware agreed not to enforce those statutes. He explained that the Attorney General’s Office was working to create a narrowly tailored ordinance that addressed pedestrian safety without infringing on First Amendment rights, ensuring the proposed law balanced safety concerns with freedom of expression and assembly. Responding to Ms. Paul, Mr. Griffith stated that he could not speak on behalf of the state regarding why the agreement not to enforce the previous statutes was made. Responding to Ms. Paul, Mr. Griffith stated that her written version (Exhibit #2) appeared as if she had taken the ordinance and processed it through an AI application. Page 126

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25, 2026 PAGE 30 Item #8. Responding to Ms. Paul, Mr. Griffith stated that the outcome could be similar to any statute or ordinance. He explained that if she used an AI app to analyze the ordinance for potential challenges, it would naturally identify some possible legal or constitutional issues. Shyanne Miller, a Wilmington resident, expressed disappointment with the proposed ordinance and, in the past five (5) months, has not seen an ordinance that has addressed the issue of homelessness, the issue of affordability, the issue of the quality of life, and the types of jobs in Dover. She noted that they have the same problems across the state, and all municipalities have stated 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 have them arrested. She asked for council to vote no on the proposed ordinance and to come up with some real solutions for homelessness because they have a responsibility to their city. Jeannie Anderson, 217 Cecil Street, expressed concern about a situation that she was in when she was at a light and had been approached by an individual who was banging on her window. She noted that if she could go through the light without having to get a ticket, she would. Amber Kennedy, a Magnolia resident, expressed support for the proposed ordinance, emphasizing the need to focus on what is best for Dover. She clarified that the ordinance was not addressing homelessness, which she acknowledged as a separate issue that also needed attention, along with other concerns not covered by the proposed ordinance. She implored council to pass the ordinance to help make Dover a better city. She stated that there was potential to make Dover a hotspot of opportunity and growth, but they must also acknowledge and address these issues directly. Katrina Stubbs, a Dover resident, stated that she has been homeless several times since 2016, and she agreed with what Ms. Kennedy had stated. She noted that homelessness, panhandling, and mental health were completely different, and added that the proposed ordinance was dealing with safety. She explained that she had been in a vehicle where individuals jumped right in front of them to get the resources that they wanted to receive. Jeff Molenda, a Dover resident, stated that he wanted to register a strong objection to the proposed ordinance being considered and was unsure if the notice requirements had been fulfilled. He noted that the ordinance targeted poor individuals—people who should be helped rather than punished. Referring to Police Chief Johnson’s comment, he said the ordinance allowed for the removal of someone from the ordinance. He pointed out that the ordinance specified that violators could be fined as detailed in Appendix F, and there was a warning about additional fines, but nothing in the ordinance indicated that an officer could remove someone from the median. He stressed that the proposed ordinance was not a good use of the resources of the council, police, or city court for enforcement. Reggie Daniel, II, a Townsend resident, stated that even though he may no longer live in Dover, he was still working to invest in the community that has invested so much into him. Understanding the safety concern, he believed that safety could be resolved in the way in which they were doing so, but that they needed to address the lack of affordability, lack of access to resources, and a lack of a continuum of resources. He added that they needed to continue to work towards addressing homelessness and drug use, but that funding and money are scarce, and those were the things that Page 127

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25, 2026 PAGE 31 Item #8. council needed to be advocating to the state. He noted that a community was only successful when its leaders invested in its most vulnerable members, in the same way they came to their activists and advocates. Responding to Ms. Miller, Mr. Griffith stated that the public meeting notice requirement only requires that an agenda or notice include a general statement of the major issues to be discussed. He noted that the FOIA statute for open meetings explicitly allows agendas to be amended in advance of the meeting. He added that the agenda, as originally posted, included a general statement of the major issues to be addressed and was subsequently amended in accordance with FOIA requirements. Responding to Mr. Beardsley, Mr. Griffith stated that council did not violate council rules. Chris Beardsley, a Townsend resident, stated that the focus needs to be on homelessness. He noted that this was his third hearing, and he expressed frustration at hearing a logic rooted in privilege, one (1) that prioritized rules and ordinances over the realities of survival. Yet, he added that this was the reality: people were doing their best to survive, and the question they must ask was how they, as a community, could protect and support the most vulnerable in a world structured around privilege. He mentioned that even with the limited victory in the settlement between the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Attorney General, they spent countless hours listening to testimony from the council president, Mr. Anderson, the police chief, and others. By tiptoeing around the settlement and trying to be “clever by half,” he noted that the city risks knowingly walking into a lawsuit that would cost time and resources when they were at their lowest. He added that it was a reactionary measure perpetuated to cause more pain than a real solution. Meme Sebelist, a Wilmington resident, stated that she has been listening to everyone speak about the unhoused individuals as if they were drug addicts and violent criminals, but because a few isolated incidents do not permit others to smear an entire group of individuals. She emphasized that harassment was already illegal. She stated that the law does not care what it states; it cares about who it hits, and that would hit poor and unhoused individuals. She asked council to vote no on the proposed ordinance. Meryem Dede, a Wilmington resident, stated that she was in opposition to the proposed ordinance and believed that it was both cruel and futile. She noted that several individuals had mentioned that individuals who were panhandling were the obvious target of the ordinance. She emphasized that there was a real problem with individuals who were unhoused in the City of Dover and in the municipalities across Delaware. She concluded that individuals have to exist somewhere, and ordinances such as the proposed ordinance waste time and resources when they could be discussing real solutions. Adem Whitney, a Wilmington resident, suggested that an amendment be made to the proposed ordinance so that it could also apply to another group of individuals he believed had not been addressed in the discussion. He stated that he has observed a group of individuals, who he described as wearing the same color and appearing to engage in drug-related activity, frequently standing on medians. He further alleged that he has seen them take hundreds of dollars from their victims rather than asking. He emphasized that the ordinance should be amended to specifically target those individuals who were the police. He explained that he has not seen any panhandler Page 128

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25, 2026 PAGE 32 Item #8. causing accidents, but has seen a police officer throw a man over the road railing and then tase him. He stated that Dover City Council was not working with the State or the Attorney General’s Office to have a statewide joint effort to harass individuals to try to make ends meet. Sean Samitt, a Middletown resident, stated that as a healthcare provider who has spent over a decade in emergency pharmacy and trauma, he was reminded of all the experiences of individuals living at the intersection of poverty, disability, mental illness, and housing instability. He explained that it was an intersection of humanity and the community they wanted to be, and the proposed ordinance was not careful governance. The ordinance attempted to manage visible symptoms rather than address underlying causes. He noted that it was not a safety issue, but it was a social and healthcare issue being routed through enforcement. He emphasized that they should be building solutions and not citations and mentioned that he was concerned that the council’s choice to bring the hearing on short notice, less than a week before and after a record-setting storm hit the region. He concluded that there needed to be more discussion on the proposed ordinance and the issue, and that the constituents deserve that. Anthony Floyd, Jr., a Dover resident, stated that they have natural resources here in the City of Dover. He noted that there were several doctors, Master of Business Administration Professionals, three (3) hot schools of higher education, Delaware State University, Wilmington University, and Delaware Technical College, that have advanced degree individuals who could tap into to provide a focus group, a coordinated effort to find out successful ways of dealing with unsheltered and homelessness. He added that the last thing he wanted to do was to criminalize those who were at the bottom of their lives. William Faust, Jr., 136 Orchard Avenue, stated that if they really wanted safety, they needed to address gun violence, prostitution, and drug dealing. He noted that Mayor Christiansen and council should be talking with the Attorney General’s office to start prosecuting those individuals that the officers have arrested before they go out onto the streets to commit another crime. He emphasized that they need to do better by their citizens, and the proposed ordinance was not going to provide security or safety. He urged council to vote no on the proposed ordinance because, as it stood, it would not pass public scrutiny or legal scrutiny, as there would be a lawsuit. Bonnie Pettington, a Dover resident, stated that she was in opposition to the proposed ordinance. She noted that she drives past Sam’s Club and Wal-Mart daily and has not experienced a pedestrian approaching her vehicle. She added that she has encountered more individuals walking in front of her vehicle on West Denneys Road than panhandlers approaching her window. She stated that, in her view, if someone was out there in need of food, she intended to help them, just as she would hope others would help her if she were in need. Tyler Muck, a Dover resident, expressed concern that direct questions being asked at the microphone were not being acknowledged or clearly answered. He further stated that in his view, the ordinance resembled a “sturdy beggar” law, an approach to have individuals pushed aside and not have to provide services to. He questioned whether the Council’s actions reflected hypocrisy or incompetence. Dr. Sudler read Representative Sean Lynn’s statement. (Exhibit #3) Page 129

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25, 2026 PAGE 33 Item #8. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Griffith stated that, to his understanding, the issue raised by Representative Lynn and what was being asked was whether the ordinance was preempted by state law, and the issue of preemption was pretty complicated. He explained that there were two (2) types of preemption: issue and field preemption. Issue preemption was where a municipality attempted to legislate an area where the state had already legislated, and the municipality's legislation was inconsistent with or different from the state’s legislation; then, in that case, the municipality’s legislation was preempted by the state. He noted that they could not enact anything inconsistent with state law. He further explained that field preemption was where there might not be a state law directly applicable or comparable to what the municipality was doing, but the state law directly applicable or comparable to what the municipality was doing, but the state had expressed its intention to regulate that field to the exclusion of municipalities. He stated that he was unsure whether it was an issue of preemption or field preemption. He noted that when they invited the Attorney General’s input for the proposed ordinance, the Attorney General’s office provided them with a similar type of bill, and that the Attorney General’s office had presented to the General Assembly. He also added that a similar type of bill was also a pedestrian safety type of bill, which included similar language about median width. He took that to mean that, at least in the Attorney General’s view, the state had not yet determined to be a comparable state statute. Mr. Griffith read the Chief Deputy Attorney General Dan Logan Letter (Exhibit #4). Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Griffith clarified that he could not call it a model, but a draft of the bill, prepared by the Attorney General’s office, seemed compatible with the proposed ordinance. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Griffith stated that he was uncertain whether he would characterize Sandy City as an Eighth Amendment issue. He noted that the question of whether requiring individuals to relocate homeless encampments constituted an Eighth Amendment violation. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Griffith stated that with Sandy City and the similar federal cases that have addressed whether or not a purported pedestrian safety ordinance was an impermissible violation of First Amendment rights, several factors. He noted that it looks at things such as whether the council has done sufficient pre-enactment investigation to make sure that it was narrowly tailored to only impact the most minimal number of individuals, whether or not there were alternatives to constituents if they wanted to express their right to free speech and freedom of assembly, other alternatives available other than medians, statistical evidence of injuries or fatalities, things like that. He added that it was a balancing test to make sure that the ordinance was narrowly tailored enough that constituents have a First Amendment right of free speech and freedom of assembly that they could express, but that the government took the narrowly tailored approach as narrowly as they could. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Griffith explained that the limitation of the width on the median was one important legal issue because courts considered whether individuals were using them to exercise their First Amendment rights, such as protesting or expressing themselves. If a municipality could narrow the size of the median so that larger medians, such as seven (7) feet or more, individuals could still congregate and express their First Amendment rights. He noted that Page 130

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25, 2026 PAGE 34 Item #8. the courts would like to see the size of the median be narrowed so that it would only be applied to those cases where individuals were not congregating using their First Amendment rights. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Mr. Griffith stated that, to his understanding, the bill was given to the General Assembly about a year ago, and no action has been taken. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Mr. Griffith stated that giving money and giving food were considered First Amendment rights. Dr. Sudler moved to deny the Proposed Ordinance #2025-21 – Amending Chapter 106 – Traffic and Vehicles, Article III – Stopping, Standing, and Parking, by adding Sec. 106-139 – Pedestrian Safety. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lewis. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Griffith stated that if there was legislation by the state, which made it very clear that the state intended to regulate that field exclusively, then a municipality could not enact their own ordinance if the state had expressly reserved that field for itself. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Griffith stated that they were not in the category, but they would be if the bill that the state and the Attorney General’s office had circulated were in effect. If the bill ultimately gets enacted into law, then they might be in that area because they are in the field, and to the extent that there was any conflict between the provision and the state. He noted that he has not analyzed it in any detail, but if there were competing provisions, the state’s provisions would prevail. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Griffith stated that it would negate those portions of the proposed ordinance that would be inconsistent with state law and noted that he has not done enough analysis to figure out whether there would be inconsistencies between the proposed bill from the state. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Griffith clarified that the proposed bill has not yet been brought to the floor and that certain lawmakers have not been made aware of its contents. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Griffith stated that he understood Representative Lynn’s concerns to be a preemption issue that either there was already a state law on the books which would conflict with the provision, or the state had expressed its intention to occupy the field exclusively. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Griffith stated that the Attorney General’s office would be circulating a draft bill if it was believed that there was already sufficient statute on the books on the issue. Dr. Sudler stated that Representative Lynn had texted him regarding the matter. According to Representative Lynn’s understanding, the Department of Justice bill that was referenced does not currently have a sponsor and has not been heard in committee. He further stated that Representative Townsend had removed his name from the bill following an article published by Spotlight Delaware. Page 131

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25, 2026 PAGE 35 Item #8. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Neil stated that the no vote would be in opposition to the motion that was made. Ms. Arndt stated that she was confused as to how the motion was stated and wanted to make sure that she knew which way to vote based on the motion. Dr. Sudler stated that regarding Item #26, Ordinance #2025-21 – Amending Chapter 106 – Traffic and Vehicles, Article III – Stopping, Standing, and Parking, by adding Sec. 106-139 – Pedestrian Safety, was to deny the proposed ordinance. He clarified that his motion was to deny the proposed ordinance, reflecting the expressed intent to vote no. Mr. Anderson stated that negative motions can often be confusing and that it was easier to proceed with a motion to approve, allowing council members to vote yes or no. He further stated that he would like to make a motion to lay on the table the motion that was just made. Mr. Griffith stated that Dr. Sudler’s motion, which he presented, was an acceptable way and amenable and in order of parliamentary procedures. He noted that it might be more confusing, but it does not mean it cannot be done. He encouraged council members, especially on a matter that had generated so much publicity, to express their reasons rather than stating yes or no when placing their vote. He stated that it would be clear from the expression of reasons which way each council member was voting. He mentioned that the motion was to deny the ordinance. Mr. Neil stated that attorneys often stand on both sides of legal issues, but ultimately, justice must guide decision-making. He referenced concerns raised by members of the public about other crimes, such as prostitution, and noted that the Attorney General’s Office has indicated it would not prosecute certain offenses, limiting the City’s ability to act in some areas. He emphasized that the proposed ordinance was strictly a public safety issue. He stated that whether the state addressed the matter or the city did, there was no guarantee that the state would act. He acknowledged that concerns about homelessness were valid; however, he asserted that the ordinance did not address homelessness directly. He explained that there were limitations within the city’s charter, noting that the city could not undertake responsibilities such as education, healthcare, or social work, services that were often integral to addressing homelessness. He stated that the city does have a law enforcement behavioral health unit that has made extensive efforts to assist individuals living on the streets by connecting them with available services, but in some cases, those who have been offered assistance have declined. Mr. Neil called the question and noted that a yes vote meant that they would be denying the proposed ordinance, a no vote meant that they would be turning it down, and accepting the ordinance. Ms. Rivera, Assistant City Clerk, read the motion to deny the Proposed Ordinance #2025-21 – Amending Chapter 106 – Traffic and Vehicles, Article III – Stopping, Standing, and Parking, by adding Sec. 106-139 – Pedestrian Safety. She stated that if they voted yes, they were voting to deny the adoption of the ordinance, and if they voted no, then they were in favor of passing the ordinance. Page 132

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25, 2026 PAGE 36 Item #8. Ms. Hall stated by observations made from some months ago, she believed that there were better uses of money to address the issue, and she had also mentioned that the outcry behind the ordinance would lead to a legal challenge. She noted a recent conversation regarding how much they had allocated for legal recourse and that they were probably somewhere around 50% of what had already been budgeted right after the first quarter of the fiscal year. She mentioned that she does not feel that it was wise or in the best interest of the taxpayer dollars to welcome more legal challenges that would put them in a deficit for having to defend the proposed ordinance when the state was trying to find a way to deal with the issue. She emphasized she was not in support of the ordinance, and her vote would be yes to deny the ordinance. Mr. Boggerty stated that he was not supportive of charging fines and/or fees to individuals, and that has been his position from the beginning. He noted that they have several legal matters before them and could not afford another matter. He called to have legal matters before them and the costs associated with them during the budget meetings to see if that was possible, as well as to be mindful of how much they spend on their legal matters. He stated that he would vote yes, that he was not for the ordinance and the framework, and he believed that it would expose them too much. He further added that he did not believe the net gain was worth the investment. He believed that they should find a means and a methodology of encouraging individuals. He asked that the police officers and others do their level best to work within the guidance that was permitted within their state ordinance, which was already available to do the best that they could. Mr. Anderson stated that he would vote no because the proposed ordinance was needed, and that they had addressed other issues first. He noted that the City of Dover has invested $3.4 million in helping to open new shelters and transitional housing, which was beyond the scope of what was expected to do in their charter. Dr. Pillsbury stated that she would vote no because most constituents in her district who have reached out to her are a bit in favor of having individuals on the medians in West Dover, at least in the neighborhoods. She noted that the sidewalk was accessible and wider, so that the cars could still stop and support them. She further noted that she empathized with the needs of the individuals, but she was concerned about the safety, and if one (1) individual was killed, the driver who would hit them unintentionally would be likely sued and lose everything and be on the corner as well. She stated that they needed to find good solutions and all of the concerns voiced, she understood them, but she had to support her constituents. She supported the ordinance. Ms. Arndt stated that her position on the ordinance had not changed and reiterated that her opposition was based on four (4) primary concerns: individual choice, enforcement clarity, strain on law enforcement, and penalties. She questioned whether the government should regulate private charitable giving, expressed concern about unclear enforcement boundaries due to inconsistent signage, noted that the Police Department was already stretched thin, and found it ironic to fine individuals who were asking for money. For those reasons, she stated that she would vote to deny the ordinance. Mr. Rocha stated that he had not heard a strong legal opinion justify moving forward with the proposed ordinance. He noted that he had been waiting to review case logs and had not received information indicating that the ordinance would withstand legal scrutiny if challenged. While he Page 133

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25, 2026 PAGE 37 Item #8. expressed support for the safety objectives of the ordinance, he stated that he was not convinced it would pass a legal “litmus test” in a potential lawsuit. He stated that he would vote yes to deny the ordinance. Dr. Sudler concurred with Mr. Boggerty and stated that he was in opposition to the ordinance because he did not believe it was the appropriate course of action. While he acknowledged that a safety issue existed, he disagreed with the approach and method taken to address it. Mr. Lewis stated that they have been going back and forth for the past five (5) months, and he has heard from individuals who were in opposition and those who support the proposed ordinance. He noted two (2) concerns he had with the ordinance: drastically affect those individuals already down on their luck or suffering from hardships, and persecute those individuals who would be attempting to help those in need. He stated that he would vote yes on the ordinance. Mr. Neil stated that he would be voting no on the ordinance. He noted that, in addition to being a safety issue, there were real challenges involving individuals who were unable to act rationally due to factors such as drug addiction, mental health issues, or a sense of hopelessness. He further noted that they would continue to offer help, but for those who reject that help, the problem was still there, and the city would need to revisit the issue and explore additional solutions. He added that he was voting on principle, noting that if an individual struck, hurt, or killed someone, that would scar them for life. He emphasized that no one should suffer such harm. Dr. Sudler moved to deny the Proposed Ordinance #2025-21 – Amending Chapter 106 – Traffic and Vehicles, Article III – Stopping, Standing, and Parking, by adding Sec. 106-139 – Pedestrian Safety. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lewis and carried by roll call vote six (6) yes (Hall, Boggerty, Arndt, Rocha, Sudler, Lewis), three (3) no (Anderson, Pillsbury, Neil). CITY MANAGER'S ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Hugg had no announcements. MAYOR’S ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Christiansen had no announcements. COUNCIL MEMBERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS Dr. Sudler stated that he had received several calls about snow being plowed in front of seniors’ homes, particularly those with medical issues. He suggested exploring options such as identifying contractors or creating a list of contractors willing to assist seniors and vulnerable residents who may be at risk of code violations. He recommended placing the matter on the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee agenda to develop a solution in the near future. Mr. Lewis echoed Dr. Sudler’s concerns, noting that he had received complaints from residents regarding snowplowing, salting, and related issues. He stated that he had been in contact with Ms. Duca and thanked her for her prompt responses and efforts to address citizens’ concerns. He requested that Ms. Duca and Mr. Hugg work together to present a report at the next Council Committee of the Whole meeting detailing the snow removal process, including road plowing Page 134

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25, 2026 PAGE 38 Item #8. operations and salt costs. He also expressed appreciation for the workers and Code Enforcement staff for the outstanding job they have been doing. Mr. Anderson thanked the citizens of Dover for their support of Ordinance #2025-21. He announced that the Booted and Suited Career Academy would host a Dover Community Cleanup Day on Saturday, February 28th, from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., with participants gathering at 9:00 a.m. at the Zimmerman parking lot at Division Street and Governors Avenue. He shared that interested individuals could email bedford1369@gmail.com or refer to the posted flyers for additional information. He stressed the importance of keeping the community clean to encourage downtown investment. Additionally, he noted that affordable housing would be discussed at upcoming Council Committee of the Whole meetings, including presentations from Kent Economic Partnership (KEP) and Little Living scheduled for March 10th, and encouraged public participation either in person or online. The meeting adjourned at 9:44 p.m. ANDRIA L. BENNETT CITY CLERK All ordinances, resolutions, motions, and orders adopted by the City Council during their Regular Meeting of February 25, 2026, are hereby approved. ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN MAYOR /AB Exhibits Exhibit #1 – Brian Lewis – Stray – Public Drop Off/Intake Form Exhibit #2 – Chelle Paul’s Ordinance #2025-21 Breakdown of Current and Suggested Revision Concerns Exhibit #3 - Representative Sean Lynn’s Opposition to Ordinance #2025-21 Exhibit #4 - Chief Deputy Attorney General Dan Logan Letter Page 135

Item #9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE The Council Committee of the Whole met on February 26, 2026, at 6:10 p.m. with Council President Neil presiding. Members of Council present were Mr. Anderson, Ms. Arndt, Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Hall (via WebEx), Mr. Lewis, Dr. Pillsbury, Mr. Rocha, and Dr. Sudler. Mayor Christiansen was absent. Civilian members present for their Committee meetings were Ms. Smack (Safety, Advisory, Transportation), Mr. Garfinkel, and Mr. Shevock (via WebEx) (Legislative, Finance, and Administration). Ms. Jackson (Safety, Advisory, Transportation) was absent. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Boggerty moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury and unanimously carried. Future Trends in Zoning and Economic Development (Linda Parkowski, Executive Director, Kent Economic Partnership Ms. Linda Parkowski, Executive Director, Kent Economic Partnership, reviewed the presentation entitled “Choose Central Delaware (CDCC) Economic Forecast”. This item was informational, and committee action was not required. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Ms. Parkowski stated that she believes zoning, housing growth, and the Dover/Kent MPO Comprehensive Safety Action Plan can coexist and complement one another. She stated that roadway and transportation safety are important and noted that DelDOT’s shift from a level-of-service model to a safe system approach is a positive development. She expressed that this approach is well-intended and should integrate effectively with ongoing planning efforts. She further explained that the Kent Economic Partnership (KEP) commissioned the East-West Freight Study to better understand how trucks and trains move materials to and from facilities, emphasizing the importance of coordinating freight movement with land use planning. She acknowledged that past planning decisions over the last 20 years have at times placed housing adjacent to freight rail lines and indicated that improved coordination and safety-focused planning will help avoid similar conflicts in the future. Ms. Parkowski also stated that her organization works closely with the MPO and has commissioned several studies, including the connector road study from Garrison Oak to Horse Pond Road, as well as a rail study and other transportation-related analyses. She concluded by noting that additional truck parking is needed. Dr. Sudler recommended including more information on the growth of the road infrastructure to start planning how to handle the traffic volume that will come as the city continues to grow. Responding to Ms. Arndt, Ms. Parkowski stated that in the industrial land needs assessment, they are looking at both redeveloping current sites that are underutilized and new lands. She explained that the study is ongoing and they are looking to have it completed by the end of summer. Page 136

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 2026 PAGE 2 Item #9. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Parkowski stated that she had suggested to the County that one of the simplest ways to expedite development would be to designate certain uses as “by right,” thereby eliminating the need for extended public hearing processes. She indicated that if the goal is to incentivize specific types of development, such as housing, permitting those uses by right would help avoid months of delay. She acknowledged that the City of Dover’s system differs from the County’s but advised that planners could provide guidance on how to structure an expedited process. She further noted that other jurisdictions across the country have implemented alternative approaches, including allowing construction to begin while permits are still being processed. She offered to provide additional information Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. Parkowski expressed the opinion that, to effectively incentivize middle-market housing, such uses should be permitted by right. She explained that by-right zoning involves an administrative review process without public hearings and reflects trust in the administrative framework to implement established policy goals. She stated that if that type of housing is desired, the approval process should be simplified. She further noted that contractors would likely agree that such an approach would ease the financial burden associated with prolonged approval timelines, including the significant costs incurred while awaiting project approval. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. Parkowski expressed hope that planning and development efforts would begin to focus on the area near the Dover Air Force Base and the broader East Dover industrial area, with the goal of making it the next major project for the City of Dover and the County. She noted that several industrial parks throughout the county were currently in various stages of development, including projects in Smyrna, Milford, and Harrington, and that the Garrison project was nearing completion. She emphasized the need to initiate another industrial park project in Dover as soon as possible. Proposed Audio and Visual Upgrades for the City Council Meetings (Joe Simmons, Information Technology Director, and AJ Rahman, Assurance Media) Mr. Joe Simmons, Information Technology Director, and Mr. AJ Rahman, Assurance Media, reviewed the proposed audio and visual upgrades needed for the City Council meetings. This item was informational, and committee action was not required. Mr. Joe Simmons, Information Technology Director, provided an update on the status of the City Hall Council Chambers audiovisual (AV) system and discussed the need for upgrades. He stated that Assurance Media had recently conducted a comprehensive audit of the existing system and would present detailed findings and recommendations, while his remarks were intended to frame the broader discussion regarding next steps and direction. Mr. Simmons emphasized that the Council Chambers are a critical space where city decisions are made and public input is received, and that reliable communication is essential. He stated that failures in technology do not merely create inconvenience but undermine public confidence. He Page 137

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 2026 PAGE 3 Item #9. explained that the current AV infrastructure is aging and no longer meets modern expectations for accessibility, reliability, and remote or hybrid participation. He noted that the system had been installed incrementally over many years, resulting in a patchwork of equipment and temporary fixes that had become fragile and difficult to service. He cited outdated components, including a 12-year-old camera that had failed and could not be directly replaced due to obsolescence and lack of warranty or maintenance coverage. He stated that staff often rely on workarounds rather than sustainable solutions and expressed concern about potential downtime during meetings. Mr. Simmons indicated that an upgrade was necessary to provide clear audio, assisted listening capabilities, captioning for remote participants, reliable hybrid functionality, user-friendly controls, backup systems, remote monitoring, and equipment suitable for continuous operation. He stated that the next steps would include evaluating the existing equipment to determine what could be preserved, identifying high-risk components for replacement, developing a budget, and drafting a request for proposals (RFP) for modernization. He concluded that AV infrastructure should be viewed as an essential component of civic operations and public communication rather than an optional technology. Mr. AJ Rahman, Assurance Media, is a professional AV integrator in Delaware. He presented their findings regarding the City Hall Council Chambers AV system. He stated that much of the current equipment was at the end of its life and no longer supported, including the failed camera noted by Mr. Simmons. He explained that replacing individual components, such as the camera, would require replacing interconnected equipment, which could become very costly. He emphasized that continued use of temporary fixes or “band-aids” would likely be more expensive over time and would reduce system reliability. Mr. Rahman stated that a full system upgrade would provide a stable, fully supported, and cost- effective long-term solution. He indicated that his colleague, Josh McKinley, an engineer and programmer, could address more technical questions for council if needed. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Rahman stated that an exact cost for the AV system upgrade could not yet be determined. He explained that a full evaluation of the system had been completed, noting that while much of the equipment was outdated and at risk of failure, some components, such as the microphones, remained fully functional. He emphasized that certain underlying equipment for the audio system would need updates, and that a complete assessment was necessary to identify which components were likely to fail or required replacement to prevent further issues. Once that evaluation was finalized, a reliable cost estimate could be provided. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Rahman stated that the expected warranties of the AV systems varied, with some products being covered for a minimum of one year, others for two or three years. He explained that a maintenance agreement could be established, which, depending on its level, would provide full replacement and service for any hardware that failed during the coverage period. This agreement would ensure that repairs or replacements were handled as needed each year. Page 138

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 2026 PAGE 4 Item #9. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Simmons stated that the level of maintenance required depended on the type of equipment. While the IT department could manage standard computers, specialized AV components, such as encoders, bridges, and feeds to Comcast, required expertise from AV professionals. He recommended establishing a maintenance contract with an AV company to ensure proper upkeep of those systems. Regarding cost, he explained that a precise figure could not yet be determined, as additional options could be considered if council chose to pursue them. These options included streaming meetings to social media platforms, upgrading remote meeting capabilities, and enhancing video retention and indexing tools to allow easy access to past meetings. He emphasized that the upgrade could not only replace aging equipment but also expand and improve city communications, offering a broader enhancement to public accessibility and engagement. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Rahman stated that the issue with staff having to hold the microphone to the streaming camera so that the speaker can be heard online is a big part of the plan to repair the issue. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Simmons stated that the choice of platforms for streaming meetings would ultimately be a decision for council. He noted that the existing agreement with Comcast, managed in part by Kay Sass, involved public funding for that service. He explained that while additional streaming platforms, such as YouTube or Instagram, were not required, having the capability to use them would be highly beneficial. He emphasized that expanding streaming options and social media integration were important considerations for the city’s future communications strategy. Ms. Arielle Rivera, Assistant City Clerk, stated that the current broadcasting company with access to the encoder and decoder is Telvue. During a review of their system improvements, they noted that they are beginning to incorporate the new ADA compliance features with subtitling, and they also have the capability to take the meeting recordings and upload them to a YouTube channel for staff. The changes simply need to be implemented. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Rivera stated that the city’s encoder and decoder had failed, which was the primary reason meetings were not currently being broadcast live. She noted that she, Kay, and Andria had been in contact with Telview Solutions regarding the issue and that the replacement equipment would be covered at no cost to the city. Ms. Rivera stated that the installation of the new equipment would serve as the next upgrade when the technicians began work. She also noted that Telview Solutions provides technical support by phone and that staff often troubleshoot issues with them. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Rivera noted that broadcasting on television was a benefit to the city, as Mr. Simmons stated, because funds were collected from the broadcasting services. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Mr. Rahman stated that much of the existing equipment would be able to migrate to the new location. He noted that some components that are part of the current infrastructure, such as the speakers, would likely remain in place rather than be replaced immediately, as they were still functioning adequately but may become outdated. Mr. Rahman Page 139

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 2026 PAGE 5 Item #9. explained that much of the equipment located in the AV rack would be transferable. He further noted that, depending on the timeline for relocation, some equipment might be considered for upgrade due to typical technology lifespans of approximately five to six years, while certain components, such as control processors and touch panels, may have a lifespan closer to eight or nine years. Dr. Sudler expressed concerns about keeping the failed equipment and replacing bits and pieces to cut costs. He noted that eventually those pieces will be outdated, too. He requested that Mr. Rahman provide the cost of replacing all the components and the cost of upgrading the system to one that is compatible with today's technology. Mr. Simmons stated that the purpose of the presentation was to begin the discussion and obtain Council’s direction regarding potential upgrades. He explained that the project would ultimately require an RFP process and that specific cost estimates were not yet available. Mr. Simmons noted that costs could vary depending on whether the city chose to replace the entire system or reuse certain high-quality components, such as the existing microphones. He emphasized the importance of implementing a system that would be easier for staff to monitor and manage during meetings while also providing high-quality audiovisual service for both in-person attendees and remote viewers through television or potential social media platforms. Mr. Simmons also noted that the discussion was being held during budget season, so council could begin considering the matter in advance and review potential options with varied costs. He stressed that the current systems are aging, lack a maintenance plan, and could potentially fail at any time. Dr. Sudler acknowledged that the city would soon begin budget hearings and noted that council would be addressing complex decisions related to balancing the budget and allocating restricted and unrestricted funds. He stated that he would like to see several scenarios presented, including a worst-case scenario involving full system replacement, a maintenance plan, and an option for replacing equipment only as needed. Dr. Sudler also recommended providing a projected timeframe for when equipment may potentially fail so council could plan financial appropriations accordingly. He emphasized the importance of timing in the budget process and expressed appreciation for the issue being brought forward in advance of budget hearings so council could better evaluate the matter and ensure responsible stewardship of city funds while maintaining quality service for constituents. Mr. Rocha concurred with Dr. Sudler’s comments and stated that the matter should be presented during the upcoming budget hearings so council could determine how to incorporate it into the budget. He noted that he had raised concerns about the issue for several years and emphasized that delaying the project had likely increased costs. Mr. Rocha stated that the item should be included in the proposed budget, under the appropriate department, so council could review it and make a determination during the budget process if adjustments were necessary. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Rahman stated that a leasing option was available and noted that additional information could be provided, including a link previously included in email correspondence for review and distribution. Page 140

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 2026 PAGE 6 Item #9. Mr. Boggerty requested that staff provide a comparison outlining the pros and cons of leasing versus purchasing the equipment outright. It was also acknowledged that an RFP process would be required, following an initial assessment of the existing system. SAFETY, ADVISORY, AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE The Safety, Advisory, and Transportation Committee met with Chairman Boggerty presiding. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Rocha moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury and unanimously carried. Request for Waiver – Appendix A – Subdivision, Article VI – Subdivision – General Requirements and Design Standards, Section E – Lots, Item 5. (Site Development Master Plan for Dupont Plaza Master Plan): Waiver to allow creation of lots without Public Street frontage with the associated Subdivision Plan to subdivide the proposed shopping center into multiple lots (Dawn Melson-Williams, Principal Planner) (Property Owner: Rojan DD 15 LLC. Property Address: 747 N. Dupont Highway. Tax Parcel: ED-05-068.05-01-15.00-000. Planning Reference: S-26-04) Ms. Dawn Melson-Williams, Principal Planner, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the Subdivision Waiver request for lots without public street frontage. Planning Commission recommended approval of the Subdivision Waiver – Lots without Public Street Frontage. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Melson-Williams explained that the subdivision of land represents what she described as an “invisible line plan,” noting that property lines are not apparent on the physical site. She stated that site elements such as drive aisles, fire lanes, and parking would function as a unified development, and visitors or emergency responders would not necessarily be aware of the property boundaries. Ms. Melson-Williams indicated that, in her opinion, the subdivision would not create safety concerns. She also noted that the entrance to Leipsic Road already exists and was constructed as part of the adjacent Edge Apartments project, and that required linkages between the two sites are already included in both development plans. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that the property is located within a Source Water Protection Overlay Zone, specifically within the Tier 3 Excellent Recharge Area. She explained that this designation places limitations on the types of uses permitted on the site and includes regulations regarding impervious surfaces and the amount of paved or hard surface allowed. Ms. Melson-Williams noted that the applicant is currently working to ensure compliance with the applicable provisions of the city’s zoning ordinance. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that the request before the committee was for a subdivision waiver to modify the shape of the properties. She clarified that the waiver would not affect how the properties are developed, nor would it impact regulations related to water Page 141

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 2026 PAGE 7 Item #9. recharge, stormwater management, or other applicable provisions. The request solely concerns the configuration of the property lines. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that the Source Water Protection Overlay Zone does not have requirements for minimum lot size or anything that would affect striking property lines. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Melson-Williams explained that the applicant intends to divide a single tract of land into three parcels. Under the city code, each lot is required to have frontage along a public roadway. In this case, the northernmost parcel, which contains the largest building, would have no frontage on a public street. A second lot would have some frontage but not meet the full requirement, while the third lot would have proper frontage on a public road. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that the property has some frontage on Leipsic Road and a larger frontage on DuPont Highway. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that a similar situation had occurred with the Dover Mall, where large “big box” stores occupy individual parcels without direct frontage on DuPont Highway. She noted that two parcels behind the mall, located behind the loop road, also lack frontage, and a waiver had previously been granted in that case. She explained that such waivers are common in shopping centers where land is subdivided to accommodate tenant preferences for property acquisition. Mr. Rocha stated that he did not see an issue with granting the waiver. He noted that, as Dr. Sudler had mentioned, the owner’s intent to sell the property could be beneficial, as owning the property may encourage business continuity and commitment to the city. Mr. Rocha expressed support for granting the subdivision waiver. Ms. Arndt agreed with Councilman Rocha, stating that flexibility is beneficial for redevelopment. She also expressed appreciation for the thorough review the application had received from the State, the DAC, and the Planning Commission. Mr. Neil noted that the site is located across from the Speedway complex on Leipsic Road, near a former Berry Van Lines location, and referenced the planned development of 250 apartment units and additional townhouses. While he acknowledged the city’s need for housing and the associated tax benefits, he expressed concern that the MPO had declined to conduct a study of Leipsic Road, which already experiences significant traffic from existing developments and the Speedway. Mr. Neil emphasized the importance of evaluating traffic impacts due to the anticipated increase in vehicles. He stated that he would vote to advance the project but stressed that a traffic study should be conducted promptly. Ms. Arndt moved to recommend approval of the subdivision waiver as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. Page 142

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 2026 PAGE 8 Item #9. Mr. Boggerty moved for adjournment of the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee meeting, hearing no objection the meeting adjourned at 7:23 p.m. LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met with Chairman Anderson presiding. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Shevock and unanimously carried. Mr. Rocha recused himself from the discussion regarding the People’s Community Center Economic Development Fund Application. Review of The People’s Community Center Economic Development Fund Application (Councilwoman Hall and David S. Hugg, III, City Manager) Mr. David S. Hugg, III, City Manager, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the People’s Community Center Economic Development Fund Application. Staff recommended approval of the grant by the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee in the amount of $47,363. Dr. Sudler requested, for ethical and litigation purposes, that the City Solicitor provide guidance on whether a resignation would require a 30-day period before a council member could participate without recusal. He emphasized wanting clarity to avoid potential violations or scrutiny. Mr. Anderson noted that even if recusal was required, no personal benefits had been received and confirmed that the matter under discussion was a voting issue. Dr. Sudler expressed that he would feel more comfortable obtaining an interpretation from Mr. Boggerty, given his human resources background, or having someone contact the City Solicitor to clarify the requirements. Mr. Boggerty stated that, while the matter is not strictly a human resources issue, the timing of a recent resignation raises ethical considerations. He explained that resigning this week and then being involved in a matter where funding is requested, with the potential for reappointment afterward, could create public scrutiny. Mr. Boggerty noted that, under the City Charter, board members are generally not supposed to authorize funds to entities they serve. He described the situation as a close call and advised that it is ultimately a moral decision for the individual and the Council President to determine whether the person should participate or if someone else should be appointed to hear the matter. He clarified that this was his consulting opinion, not a directive from the City’s bylaws. Page 143

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 2026 PAGE 9 Item #9. Mr. Lewis recalled a prior situation involving Bay Health, where he is employed by the organization, and there was a vote on hospital expansion. He stated that he consulted the City Solicitor, who advised him to recuse himself, which he did, as reflected in the meeting minutes. Dr. Sudler stated that, according to the city’s ethics training, a conflict of interest does not have to be direct; even the appearance of impropriety is relevant. He expressed that, given the recent resignation, participating in the meeting could create such an appearance. Dr. Sudler clarified that he was not implying any intentional wrongdoing but emphasized the importance of protecting the city and constituents. He recommended that Mr. Anderson recuse himself to avoid any perception of impropriety, noting that the final decision remains with him. Council President Neil took over as chair. Ms. Hall stated that she had several areas of concern based on information that had been presented. She noted the importance of allowing Pastor Grimes and Mr. Stafford to give their presentations without wasting their time. However, Ms. Hall suggested that, due to the complaints received, the Council should consider holding off on a vote until the merit of those issues could be determined. Mr. Hugg explained that the application had originally been presented in January, along with a similar application for the Railhaus, and was postponed, allowing for additional information. He stated that the application proposes creating a workforce development program to assist community members, particularly those who have been incarcerated, in overcoming obstacles to employment, such as a lack of identification or an unprepared resume. Mr. Hugg noted that he had previously recommended approval of a grant in the amount of $47,363 to develop and implement the program at the People’s Community Center, based on funding requirements and information obtained from Dr. Hodge and others. However, Mr. Hugg expressed concern that several outstanding complaints regarding the use of the building and its operations, which were brought to his attention, remain unresolved. He stated that these issues need to be addressed before moving forward with providing additional funding for the program. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Hugg stated that, to his understanding, the proposed program was new and would serve many of the clients that they already serve in their operations. Mr. Neil requested that the application submitted by the People’s Community Center, located within the People’s Church, for economic development funds be denied at this time. He cited multiple complaints regarding zoning violations, ongoing unsafe activities at the center, and the potential for litigation. Mr. Neil noted that five convicted sexual offenders reside at the facility while programs for children operate in the same building. He acknowledged the need for services for individuals with addiction or mental health issues, but stated that the behavior of some individuals at the site had not improved and was negatively affecting surrounding neighborhoods and the downtown area. Page 144

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 2026 PAGE 10 Item #9. He detailed that streets, backyards, and public spaces have been misused, including incidents involving trash, needles, public sexual activity, and solicitation. Mr. Neil indicated that as many as 23 properties, including historic homes converted to offices, have been sold due to the deteriorating conditions. He referenced a formal complaint submitted on December 2, 2025, and a follow-up letter from attorney Kevin Baird on February 4, 2026, which raised similar concerns. He noted that responses from staff and the City Solicitor had not been shared with council. Mr. Neil acknowledged that three elected officials, including one Council member, serve on the Center’s board, but stated they cannot control the behavior of individuals once they leave the facility. Mr. Neil stated that while he agreed individuals served by the center needed food and shelter, he expressed concern that the activities occurring there were not changing the dynamics of their lives and were negatively impacting the surrounding community. He stated that the city could not allow the inability of some individuals to act rationally to diminish the quality of life of others. Mr. Neil further stated that the Attorney General’s Office was not expected to object to the City of Dover reestablishing the Aldermen’s Court. While he noted it would not be a panacea, he stated that it could provide a more responsive, community-based court and help restore accountability. He requested that staff provide information regarding the cost of reestablishing the court. Additionally, Mr. Neil reported that the Delaware State Health Department had filed a complaint regarding the kitchen being used to serve approximately 75 to 100 individuals. He stated that the report had been provided to City Code Inspectors and subsequently forwarded to the Police Department; however, the council had not yet seen the contents of the report. Mr. Neil concluded by stating that there continued to be ongoing concerns with the building and its impact on the surrounding area. He emphasized the city’s responsibility to ensure that property uses did not negatively affect the tax base needed to support city services. Based on these concerns, he requested that the item be pulled from the agenda and denied at this time. Mr. Neil moved to recommend removal and denial of the application submitted by the People’s Community Center located within the People’s Church for Economic Development Funds. The motion was seconded by Mr. Shevock. Mr. Boggerty questioned what programs had been offered by the People's Church throughout the duration of its operations, stating that, given the number of years the center had been in operation, he would have expected work-life skills programming to already be established. He expressed concern that such initiatives appeared to be under consideration only now. After briefly reviewing the proposed budget, Mr. Boggerty also inquired about a line item reflecting $1,000 in rent for the organization that would be implementing the program. He asked what space within the facility would be utilized for that purpose and noted that while $1,000 per month may not seem significant, it would total approximately $12,000 annually. Mr. Boggerty further noted that several institutions in the area already provide similar services, including Polytech and DelTech, which offer workforce development programs, skills training, and GED preparation. He suggested that transportation assistance to connect individuals with Page 145

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 2026 PAGE 11 Item #9. these existing programs might be a more effective approach and stated that partnerships and collaboration with organizations already providing these services could be more efficient. He also noted that the People's Church had previously received significant funding from the city, including funds during the COVID-19 pandemic, and stated that he was concerned about providing additional funding without seeing measurable outcomes. Mr. Boggerty concluded by stating that, based on the concerns raised during the meeting and the matters that had recently come to light, he would not support the request at this time until those issues were resolved. Mr. Lewis stated that he agreed with the comments made by Council President Neil. He noted that when the matter had previously come before the committee, there were issues with the application. He referenced an email sent to council members by Mrs. Francis Perry, which raised concerns regarding possible misrepresentation of information in the application, including references to veterans. Mr. Lewis further stated that, to his understanding, the Veterans Affairs Department already operates its own workforce development programs. He indicated that the concerns raised in the email were significant and contributed to his position on the matter. Additionally, Mr. Lewis stated that he believed the proposal would duplicate existing services, noting that the Department of Labor already provides workforce development programs. He reported that he had spoken with representatives from the Department of Labor, who indicated that they already offer a range of programs available to assist homeless individuals seeking employment and job training. Based on these concerns, Mr. Lewis stated that he would not support the funding request. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Hugg stated he was not aware of a recent decision from the solicitor and that no response had been received to the solicitor’s letter to Mr. Baird. He noted that staff were reviewing several zoning issues, particularly regarding building uses that were inconsistent with current zoning. He reported that, following a meeting with planning, code enforcement, the fire marshal, and emergency management staff, serious violations relating to building use and condition were identified. Mr. Hugg recommended that the matter not proceed at this time. He acknowledged that a potential legal risk existed due to zoning issues. Pastor Hodge introduced Pastor Grimes of Solid Rock Baptist Church and Harold Stafford, founding director of the HELP Initiative and former Delaware Secretary of Labor, noting that Mr. Stafford served on the board to guide workforce development efforts. He stated there appeared to be three main issues and noted several factual misunderstandings. He emphasized that all parties shared a common goal of reducing street homelessness, supporting individuals in stabilizing their lives, and protecting property values. Pastor Hodge clarified that the economic development application was unrelated to the church’s shelter operations, which had historically provided emergency winter housing for the homeless. He described the workforce development program’s target population as individuals seeking to re-enter the workforce or stabilize their lives, and emphasized that the program was not intended to duplicate existing services, including those for veterans, but rather to operate through Page 146

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 2026 PAGE 12 Item #9. partnerships with organizations such as Neighborhood Partners and the Delaware Department of Labor. He noted that funding had been secured to renovate a segregated space for program activities, including workshops, computer access, and vocational assessments. Dr. Sudler stated that the proposed program primarily served as a mediator to connect participants with existing services and occasionally host workshops, rather than providing a unique or differential advantage in workforce development. He noted that partner organizations, including Neighborhood Partners and Solid Rock Baptist Church, already had space to host workshops, and questioned the necessity and amount of funding requested. He emphasized support for housing and homeless services, including assistance for vulnerable populations, but expressed concern that unresolved compliance issues, such as zoning, health, or code violations, needed to be addressed before additional city funding could be considered. Dr. Sudler concluded that, given current budget constraints and existing community services, approval of economic development funds at that time was not feasible, and that any proposal would need to demonstrate a clear, extraordinary advantage to justify funding. Pastor Hodge stated that the program provided an advantage through partnerships and affirmed that the organization was in compliance with health and code regulations. Mr. Neil expressed concerns that, despite claims of compliance, the city could be held liable if legal action arose, noting that the property’s current use did not align with zoning and code requirements. He cited multiple detailed letters from residents reporting that activities at the location, such as feeding 75–100 people nightly, were negatively impacting the surrounding residential area, including property damage and quality-of-life concerns. He emphasized that while the program’s goals were positive, the same services could be provided at alternative locations without affecting local homes, and that the city could not defend noncompliant uses. Pastor Hodge stated that having a satellite location in the neighborhood would increase accessibility for individuals who might not travel to other sites, such as Blue Hill Mall, due to psychological or logistical barriers. He noted that situating services locally could facilitate workforce readiness assessments for populations less likely to access distant locations and asked Mr. Stafford to confirm this point. Mr. Harold Stafford stated that he was the co-founder and board president of the HELP Initiative in Dover, which had provided services to over 20,000 residents since its founding. He noted he was not speaking in his former capacity as Delaware Secretary of Labor. He explained that the organization supported Pastor Hodge’s workforce development program by supplementing services, providing funding for pre-apprenticeship positions, and partnering with vocational schools to train and employ participants, including individuals recently released from correctional facilities. Mr. Stafford emphasized that establishing a satellite location in the neighborhood would increase access to workforce development services for populations unlikely to travel to other sites, aligning with past efforts to bring services directly into the community. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Will Grimes, Pastor of Solid Rock Baptist Church, stated that the first floor of the CURE building housed Restore Central Dover, providing community Page 147

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 2026 PAGE 13 Item #9. development and engagement services, and the second floor was used by Delaware State University, clarifying that these functions were separate from the proposed workforce development activities. He emphasized that the center’s programs were designed to bring resources directly into the community, serving residents who would not otherwise access college or Department of Labor services. Mr. Grimes noted that many of the people being assisted were already part of the neighborhood and that the center’s work had positive outcomes for participants. He asserted that the People's Community Center was contributing to solutions for vulnerable populations rather than creating problems, though he acknowledged that the organization could improve how it communicated its successes. William G. Faust, Jr., Dover, expressed concerns regarding the proposed funding, noting that the Department of Labor already provided similar services and questioned the sustainability of the program after grant funds were expended. He cited fiscal constraints and emphasized the council’s responsibility to protect vulnerable residents. He raised public safety concerns, particularly regarding the presence of sex offenders in the facility and potential conflicts with participants, including single parents and children. Mr. Faust concluded that the program should not receive funding until outstanding issues, including allegations and compliance questions, were resolved, and recommended postponing or voting against the proposal. Cameron Llewellyn, property owner and business operator in Dover, stated that he owned several properties and businesses in the city and expressed concerns regarding the activities associated with the People's Community Center. He questioned whether workforce development activities were a permitted use within the applicable zoning district and raised concerns about the number of services advertised at the location and whether they were properly licensed. Mr. Llewellyn reported that, based on his observations and security camera footage near his property, individuals frequenting the area had created public safety and quality-of-life concerns, including drug activity and medical emergencies. He stated that these issues had negatively impacted nearby businesses, including his own, including the closure of a retail shop operated downtown. He further alleged that individuals seeking assistance at the center were not receiving adequate services and called for further review, including an audit of the organization’s finances and operations. Andrea Freud, S. Bradford Street, stated that she had lived in the neighborhood for many years and previously participated in the Mayor’s Unsheltered Working Group. She indicated that she supported efforts to address homelessness, addiction, and mental health issues, noting that her professional experience as a Superior Court Commissioner provided her with direct knowledge of these challenges. Ms. Freud reported that conditions in her neighborhood had significantly worsened in recent years, particularly since 2023, citing increased drug activity, prostitution, and safety concerns. She stated that these conditions had impacted residents’ quality of life and their ability to safely walk in the neighborhood. While acknowledging the need to assist vulnerable populations, she expressed concern that locating services in a residential area placed a disproportionate burden on nearby homeowners. Page 148

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 2026 PAGE 14 Item #9. Ms. Freud also noted that, during the meeting, she overheard a conversation suggesting that a council member who had previously served on the organization’s board may have resigned in connection with a potential mayoral run and being able to better assist the center. She stated that she was uncertain of the accuracy of what she heard, but raised the matter due to concerns about a potential appearance of impropriety. Ms. Freud concluded by encouraging the city to pursue solutions that assist individuals in need while also protecting the safety and quality of life of neighborhood residents. Ms. LaChelle Paul, Dover, stated that the issues being discussed were part of a broader, long- standing challenge in the city related to homelessness, drug activity, and public safety. She described participating in community cleanups in several neighborhoods and reported observing drug use, discarded materials, and other related activity during those efforts. Ms. Paul noted that individuals experiencing homelessness often moved from one area to another when enforcement actions occurred and emphasized that the issue required a comprehensive community response. Drawing on her prior experience working at a shelter, she discussed the importance of providing structured services and resources, such as employment assistance, identification documents, and job readiness programs, to help individuals transition to stable housing and employment. Ms. Paul questioned the proposed funding request and suggested that any financial investment should focus on resources that directly assist individuals in obtaining identification, employment, and other necessary services. She acknowledged the role of faith-based organizations in providing support but emphasized the need for accountability and clear expectations for individuals receiving services. Ms. Paul concluded by urging the city to address crime and public safety concerns, including the establishment of a previously discussed mobile police substation, and to work toward a balanced solution that supports individuals in need while protecting neighborhood residents. Mr. Anderson stated that he agreed with several points raised by Ms. Paul regarding public safety concerns in the downtown area. He noted that the council had previously approved the creation of a dedicated downtown policing unit based on a professional recommendation from the Police Department, but implementation had not yet occurred. He acknowledged the suggestion of a mobile police station by Dr. Sudler and explained that the Police Department had indicated a dedicated downtown unit would be a more practical approach due to cost considerations. Mr. Anderson expressed hope that funding for such a unit would be considered during the upcoming budget process. He also emphasized the importance of neighborhood watch programs and community involvement in addressing safety concerns. Mr. Anderson further stated that programs such as the one proposed could potentially help address underlying issues rather than contribute to them, noting that some services referenced were already supported through other grant funding. However, he suggested that the applicant Page 149

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 2026 PAGE 15 Item #9. might consider withdrawing the request at this time due to the concerns raised, indicating that reapplying later would be preferable to having the request formally denied. Mr. Neil called for a vote, seconded by Dr. Sudler. Ms. Arndt requested that Ms. Rivera restate the initial motion. Responding to Ms. Arndt, Ms. Rivera stated that Mr. Neil moved to recommend denial of the application submitted by the People’s Community Center located within the People’s Church for Economic Development Funds. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Mr. Neil confirmed that they could bring their application back at a later time. Mr. Neil moved to recommend denial of the application submitted by the People’s Community Center located within the People’s Church for Economic Development Funds. The motion was seconded by Mr. Shevock and carried by a roll call vote of nine (9) yes (Hall, Boggerty, Pillsbury, Arndt, Sudler, Lewis, Neil, Shevock, Garfinkel), one (1) abstention (Anderson), and one (1) absent (Rocha). Mr. Anderson resumed his role as the chair, and Mr. Rocha entered the meeting again. Training, Conference, and Travel Policy Updates (Tammy Kelledes, Assistant Controller/Treasurer) Ms. Tammy Kelledes, Assistant Controller/Treasurer, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the proposed Training, Conference, and Travel Policy changes. Staff recommended acceptance of the Training, Conference, and Travel Policy as amended. Mr. Rocha moved to recommend approval of the staff recommendation to accept the Training, Conference, and Travel Policy as amended. The motion was seconded by Dr. Pillsbury and unanimously carried. Mr. Anderson moved for adjournment of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting, hearing no objection the meeting adjourned at 8:56 p.m. Mr. Neil moved for adjournment of the Council Committee of the Whole meeting, hearing no objection the meeting adjourned at 8:56 p.m. Fred A. Neil Council President Page 150

Item #15. Page 151

Item #15. CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT FUND JULY 1, 2025 - JUNE 30, 2026 100-10-12-99-000-53037 Current Balance - $ 13,850.00 BUDGETED AMOUNT ######### COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT FUND - $2, 500 FOR EACH COUNCIL MEMBER PER DISTRICT AND $5, 500 FOR THE AT-LARGE COUNCIL MEMBER. THE PURPOSE OF THE FUND IS TO ALLOW MEMBERS TO CONTRIBUTE FUNDS TO A SMALL PROJECT OR COMMUNITY NEEDS IN EACH DISTRICT. Total ######### YEAR TO Date COUNCIL SPONSOR Vendor Description P.O. #/INVOICE # BATCH# TOTAL CHARGES DATE BALANCE Councilman Anderson authorized the designation of Email from David Anderson dated 06/02/2025 and $500 of his community enhancement funds to the an email from Anthony (Tony) Velazquez Hispanic Organization of Latin Hispanic Organization of Latin Americans (HOLA) for Founder/CEO dated 06/02/2025 7/1/2025 Anderson Americans (HOLA) their Baila Con Dover Festival. 6577 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $24,500.00 Councilman Sudler authorized the designation of $1,000 Email from Roy Sudler, Jr dated 07/03/2025 and a of his community enhancement funds to Holy Trinity letter from Pastor Sheila Lomax dated 06/20/2025 7/3/2025 Sudler Holy Trinity UAME Church UAME Church for their Youth Empowerment event. 6577 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,500.00 $23,500.00 Email from Gerald Rocha, Sr. dated 07/05/2025 Councilman Rocha authorized the designation of $200 of and an email from Pastor Sheila Lomax dated his community enhancement funds to Holy Trinity UAME 07/04/2025 7/5/2025 Rocha Holy Trinity UAME Church Church for their Youth Empowerment event. 6577 $ 200.00 $ 1,700.00 $23,300.00 Councilman Anderson authorized the designation of Email from David Anderson dated 07/07/2054 and $200 of his community enhancement funds to Holy a letter from Pastor Sheila Lomax dated 06/20/2025 7/7/2025 Anderson Holy Trinity UAME Church Trinity UAME Church for their Youth Empowerment event. 6577 $ 200.00 $ 1,900.00 $23,100.00 ` Councilman Lewis authorized the designation of $400 of Email from Brian Lewis dated 07/07/2054 and a his community enhancement funds to Holy Trinity UAME letter from Pastor Sheila Lomax dated 06/20/2025 7/7/2025 Lewis Holy Trinity UAME Church Church for their Youth Empowerment event. 6577 $ 400.00 $ 2,300.00 $22,700.00 Councilman Boggerty authorized the designation of $150 Email from Andre Boggerty dated 07/09/2025 and a of his community enhancement funds to Holy Trinity letter from Pastor Sheila Lomax dated 06/20/2025 7/9/2025 Boggerty Holy Trinity UAME Church UAME Church for their Youth Empowerment event. 6656 $ 150.00 $ 2,450.00 $22,550.00 Councilwoman Pillsbury authorized the designation of Email from Julia Pillsbury dated 07/11/2025 andan $200 of her community enhancement funds to Holy email from Pastor Sheila Lomax dated 07/04/2025 7/14/2025 Pillsbury Holy Trinity UAME Church Trinity UAME Church for their Youth Empowerment event. 6656 $ 200.00 $ 2,650.00 $22,350.00 Councilwoman Pillsbury authorized the designation of Email from Julia Pillsbury dated 07/11/2025 and an $200 of her community enhancement funds to the email from Anthony (Tony) Velazquez Founder/CEO Hispanic Organization of Latin Hispanic Organization of Latin Americans (HOLA) for dated 07/11/2025 7/14/2025 Pillsbury Americans (HOLA) their Baila Con Dover Festival. 6656 $ 200.00 $ 2,850.00 $22,150.00 Councilman Boggerty authorized the designation of $200 Email from Andree Boggerty dated 07/14/2025 and of his community enhancement funds to the Hispanic an email from Anthony (Tony) Velazquez Hispanic Organization of Latin Organization of Latin Americans (HOLA) for their Baila Founder/CEO dated 07/11/2025 7/14/2025 Boggerty Americans (HOLA) Con Dover Festival. 6656 $ 200.00 $ 3,050.00 $21,950.00 Councilwoman Hall authorized the designation of $200 Email from Donyale Hall dated 07/11/2025 andan of her community enhancement funds to Holy Trinity email from Pastor Sheila Lomax dated 06/20/25 7/17/2025 Hall Holy Trinity UAME Church UAME Church for their Youth Empowerment event. 6764 $ 200.00 $ 3,250.00 $21,750.00 Councilman Rocha authorized the designation of $250 of his community enhancement funds to the Hispanic Email from Gerald Rocha dated 07/28/2025 and an Hispanic Organization of Latin Organization of Latin Americans (HOLA) for their Baila email from Anthony (Tony) Velazquez, 7/29/2025 Rocha Americans (HOLA) Con Dover Festival. Founder/CEO, dated 07/11/2025 6854 $ 250.00 $ 3,500.00 $21,500.00 Councilman Lewis authorized the designation of $500 of his community enhancement funds to the Hispanic Email from Brian Lewis dated 07/31/2025 and an Hispanic Organization of Latin Organization of Latin Americans (HOLA) for their Baila email from Anthony (Tony) Velazquez, 7/31/2025 Lewis Americans (HOLA) Con Dover Festival. Founder/CEO, dated 07/30/2025 6906 $ 500.00 $ 4,000.00 $21,000.00 Councilman Lewis authorized designation of $300 of his community enhancement funds to the Caribbean Culture Awareness Inc. for their 2nd Annual Delaware Caribbean Email from Brian Lewis dated 08/11/2025 and an 8/11/2025 Lewis Caribbean Culture Awareness Inc. Carnival. email from Eveann Fenty-Marseil dated 8/09/2025 6959 $300.00 $ 4,300.00 $20,700.00 Councilman Rocha authorized the designation of $500 of Email from Gerald Rocha dated 08/12/2025 and A 2nd Chance A Haven for Abused his community enhancement funds to Ms. Faye White at email from City Clerk's Office dated 08/12/2025 8/12/2025 Rocha and Battered Woman and Children A 2nd Chance, for their Annual Veterans Honorary Dinner 6959 $ 500.00 $ 4,800.00 $20,200.00 Councilman Neil authorized the designation of $100 of Email from Fred Neil dated 08/12/2025 and email A 2nd Chance A Haven for Abused his community enhancement funds to Ms. Faye White at from City Clerk's Office dated 08/12/2025 8/12/2025 Neil and Battered Woman and Children A 2nd Chance, for their Annual Veterans Honorary Dinner 6959 $100.00 $ 4,900.00 $20,100.00 Councilman Anderson authorized the designation of $200 of his community enhancement funds to Ms. Faye Email from David Anderson dated 08/12/2025 and A 2nd Chance A Haven for Abused White at A 2nd Chance, for their Annual Veterans email from City Clerk's Office dated 08/12/2025 8/12/2025 Anderson and Battered Woman and Children Honorary Dinner 6959 $ 200.00 $ 5,100.00 $19,900.00 Councilman Sudler authorized the designation of $500 of his community enhancement funds to the Hispanic Email from Roy Sudler dated 08/15/2025 and an Hispanic Organization of Latin Organization of Latin Americans (HOLA) for their Baila email from Anthony (Tony) Velazquez, 8/15/2025 Sudler Americans (HOLA) Con Dover Festival. Founder/CEO, dated 06/06/2025 7002 $ 500.00 $ 5,600.00 $19,400.00 Councilman Anderson authorized the designation of $750 of his community enhancement funds to Holy Trinity UAME Church for their Back to School Book Bag Email from David Anderson dated 08/19/2025 and 8/19/2025 Anderson Holy Trinity UAME Church Drive an email from Pastor Sheila Lomax dated 08/19/25 7002 $ 750.00 $ 6,350.00 $18,650.00 Councilwoman Pillsbury authorized the designation of Email from Julia Pillsbury dated 09/4/2025 and an $200 of her community enhancement funds to I Am My email from Marcille Sewell-Liningham dated 9/8/2025 Pillsbury I Am My Sister's Keeper (MSK) Sister's Keeper (MSK) for their Founders Day 09/4/25 7165 $ 200.00 $ 6,550.00 $18,450.00 Councilman Boggerty authorized the designation of $250 Email from Andre Boggerty dated 09/4/2025 and an of his community enhancement funds to I Am My Sister's email from Marcille Sewell-Liningham dated 9/8/2025 Boggerty I Am My Sister's Keeper (MSK) Keeper (MSK) for their Founders Day 09/4/25 7165 $ 250.00 $ 6,800.00 $18,200.00 Councilman Neil authorized the designation of $50 of his community enhancement funds to I Am My Sister's Email from Fred Neil dated 09/4/2025 and an email 9/8/2025 Neil I Am My Sister's Keeper (MSK) Keeper (MSK) for their Founders Day from Marcille Sewell-Liningham dated 09/4/25 7165 $ 50.00 $ 6,850.00 $18,150.00 Councilman Rocha authorized the designation of $200 of his community enhancement funds to 1NA Foundation Email from Gerald Rocha dated 09/4/2025 and an 9/8/2025 Rocha 1NA Foundation for their 2nd Annual 1NA Day of Giving Back email from Deanna Wright dated 09/4/25 7165 $ 200.00 $ 7,050.00 $17,950.00 Councilwoman Pillsbury authorized the designation of $200 of her community enhancement funds to 1NA Email from Julia Pillsbury dated 09/4/2025 and an 9/8/2025 Pillsbury 1NA Foundation Foundation for their 2nd Annual 1NA Day of Giving Back email from Deanna Wright dated 09/4/25 7165 $ 200.00 $ 7,250.00 $17,750.00 Councilman Boggerty authorized the designation of $300 of his community enhancement funds to 1NA Foundation Email from Andre Boggerty dated 09/12/2025 and 9/16/2025 Boggerty 1NA Foundation for their 2nd Annual 1NA Day of Giving Back an email from Deanna Wright dated 09/1/25 7121 $ 300.00 $ 7,550.00 $17,450.00 Councilwoman Hall authorized the designation of $500 of her community enhancement funds to The Veterans The Veterans Awareness Center Awareness Center Foundation Stand-Down for their 9/17/2025 Hall Foundation Stand-Down Delaware 2025 Veterans' Stand Down Email from Donyale Hall dated 09/17/2025 7263 $ 500.00 $ 8,050.00 $16,950.00 Councilman Anderson authorized the designation of $500 of his community enhancement funds to the Inner City Cultural League for their Martin Luther King Jr. Email from David Anderson dated 10/16/2025 and 10/16/2025 Anderson Inner City Cultural League National Holiday Celebration a letter from Reuben Salters dated 10/13/2025 7504 $ 500.00 $ 8,550.00 $16,450.00 Councilman Lewis authorized the designation of $200 of his community enhancement funds to the Hispanic Email from Brian Lewis dated 11/10/2025 and an Hispanic Organization of Latin Organization of Latin Americans (HOLA) for their Winter email from Anthony (Tony) Velazquez, 11/10/2025 Lewis Americans (HOLA) Wonderland Extravaganza Holiday Coat & Toy Giveaway Founder/CEO, dated 11/06/2025 7602 $ 200.00 $ 8,750.00 $16,250.00 Councilman Sudler authorized designation of $500 of his community enhancement funds to the Inner City Cultural Verbal phone call by Dr. Sudler 1/6/2026, will be League for their Martin Luther King Jr. National Holiday sending an email and letter from Reuben Salters 1/6/2026 Sudler Inner City Cultural League Celebration dated 11/25/2025 7914 $ 500.00 $ 9,250.00 $15,750.00 Councilman Boggerty authorized designation of $100 of his community enhancement funds to the Zeta Phi Beta Email from Andre Boggerty dated 1/6/2026 and an Zeta Phi Beta Sorority, Inc., Theta Sorority, Inc. for their 19th Annual Prayer Breakfast and email from Soror Karen Drummond and Soror 1/6/2026 Boggerty Zeta Zeta Chapter Scholarship Fundraiser Jermein Bell dated 12/31/2025 7914 $ 100.00 $ 9,350.00 $15,650.00 Councilman Lewis authorized designation of $500 of his community enhancement funds to the Inner City Cultural League for their Martin Luther King Jr. National Holiday Verbal conversation with Mr. Lewis 1/7/2026 and an 1/7/2026 Lewis Inner City Cultural League celebreation email from Reuben Salters dated 1/7/2026 7930 $ 500.00 $ 9,850.00 $15,150.00 Councilwoman Hall authorized designation of $250 of her community enhancement funds to the Inner City Email from Donyale Hall dated 1/9/2026 and an Cultural League for their Martin Luther King Jr. National email and letter from Reuben Salters dated 1/9/2026 Hall Inner City Cultural League Holiday Celebration 11/30/2025 7930 $ 250.00 $ 10,100.00 $14,900.00 Councilman Boggerty authorized designation of $750 of his community enhancement funds to the H.O.P.E Email from Andre Boggerty dated 12/8/2025 and a 1/13/2026 Boggerty H.O.P.E Foundation Foundation for their Youth Leadership Conference letter from Gregory Bunkley dated 12/8/2025 7930 $ 750.00 $ 10,850.00 $14,150.00 Councilman Lewis authorized the designation of $300.00 of his community enhancement funds to the Easter Egg Email from Brian Lewis dated 02-26-2026 and 3/3/2026 Lewis Tracy Palmer Ministries Hunt at the Elizabeth W. Murphey School. flyers from the Tracy Palmer Ministries $ 300.00 $ 11,150.00 $13,850.00 TOTALS $ 11,150.00 ######### BUDGETED AMOUNT DISTRICT COUNCIL SPONSOR YTD EXPENDITURES BALANCE $ 5,000.00 At-Large Boggerty $ 1,750.00 $ 3,250.00 $ 2,500.00 1st District Pillsbury $ 800.00 $ 1,700.00 $ 2,500.00 1st District Rocha $ 1,150.00 $ 1,350.00 $ 2,500.00 2nd District Hall $ 950.00 $ 1,550.00 $ 2,500.00 2nd District Lewis $ 2,200.00 $ 300.00 $ 2,500.00 3rd District Arndt $ - $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 3rd District Neil $150.00 $ 2,350.00 $ 2,500.00 4th District Anderson $ 2,150.00 $ 350.00 $ 2,500.00 4th District Sudler $ 2,000.00 $ 500.00 TOTAL $ 11,150.00 $ 13,850.00 Page 152

Item #16. CITY MANAGER’S MONTHLY REPORT January 2026 Page 153 1

Item #16. Blank Page Page 154 2

Item #16. Page 155 3

Item #16. Page 156 4

Item #16. CENTRAL SERVICES MONTHLY REPORT January 2026 PROCUREMENT & INVENTORY DIVISION Purchase Orders for Stock by Fund FY 2026 to Date Difference from FY 2025 Electric $603,179.10 -245.4% Water $46,321.64 -11.7% Wastewater $2,487.19 3.6% General $101,069.79 45.9% Total $753,057.72 -191.1% Issues from Stock by Fund FY 2026 to Date Difference from FY 2025 Electric $792,893.60 -1.5% Water $69,621.17 -9.6% Wastewater $1,658.12 13.7% General $77,607.77 4.1% Total $941,780.66 -1.6% Bids/RFPs Solicited FY 2026 to Date Difference from FY 2025 25 -4.0% Money Spent for Postal Services FY 2026 to Date FY 2025 to Date $119,483.15 $126,789.74 Fuel Usage Type FY 2026 to Date FY 2025 to Date Unleaded 88,046 87,952 Diesel 44,535 48,830 Dollars Spent $308,289.55 $332,128.08 Page 157 5

Item #16. Warehouse Stock Value FY 2026 FY 2025 $5,637,425.13 $5,237,989.70 Purchase Orders for Stock are down 191.1% compared to this time last year. Issues from Stock are down 1.6% compared to this time last year. Bids/RFP's are down 4.0% compared to this time last year. Postal Expenses are down 6.1% compared to this time last year. Fuel Costs are down 7.7% compared to this time last year. Overall warehouse value is up 7.1% compared to this time last year. FLEET DIVISION PM Work Orders Scheduled: PM Work Orders Total Work Orders PM & 32 Completed: 37 Repair: 136 Total Hours Turned: Excess Hours Turned: Uncaptured Time: 226 0 208.5 MEASURE January 2026 January 2025 Completed PM's 37 57 DIFFERENCE -35.09% There were 32 PM's scheduled for this month. A total of 37 PM's were completed along with 99 repair work orders. There were a total of 136 work orders completed. Page 158 6

Item #16. FACILITIES DIVISION Routine Work Orders Emergency Work Orders Completed: 49 Completed: 5 City-owned Facility Work Events & Support Work Orders: 47 Orders: 7 MEASURE January 2026 January 2025 Completed Work Orders 54 56 DIFFERENCE -3.57% There were 54 routine and emergency Work Orders completed during this month. The work orders consisted of 47 for maintenance and repair of City-owned facilities and 7 related to events and other support work. Central Services Narrative Warehousing & Procurement is operating as normal. Project CS2502 equipment on order. Facilities is operating as normal; two positions posted. Fleet is operating as normal. Involved in five 12-hour shifts for the snow event. Page 159 7

Item #16. CENTRAL SERVICES PROJECT UPDATE January 2026 FY/PROJECT NUMBER DEPARTMENT STATUS CITY HALL FC2601 QUOTING FLAT ROOF PEAR STREET FC2600 SCHEDULED FOR 3/2/26 ABATEMENT CITY HALL COMPLETE - WAITING FOR FC2602 FIRE ALARM EQUIPMENT FINAL INSPECTION UPGRADE WEYANDT HALL ABATEMENT COMPLETE EA2601 STAIRWELL FLOORING AWAITING FLOORING FUEL ISLAND CONTRACT AWARDED CS2502 UPGRADE EQUIPMENT ORDERED Page 160 8

Item #16. Recap of monthly activities / notations – As of January 31, 2026, the City of Dover served 25,284 electric utility customers, an increase from 25,095 in January 2025. Water utility customers totaled 13,329 compared to 13,269 in January 2025. Data is sourced from the Monthly Utility Bill Summary Report and includes all utility rate classifications. Customer Services answered a total of 2,500 calls during the month. While inclement weather created temporary billing impacts, the team responded proactively to minimize customer disruption and maintain service continuity. The Customer Services Department remains focused on delivering service excellence, supporting the community, and strengthening daily operations through collaboration and process improvements.The current write-off request reflects two quarters. The prior quarter’s amount was not included in the previous reporting cycle due to a documentation and process training gap, which has since been addressed to ensure accurate and timely reporting moving forward. Receivable Comparison FY 2025 to Utility Disconnections for January 2025 FY2026 to date (January 2025) 85 accounts were disconnected for non-payment of service. Compared to the same time last year the Total receivable collected through the disconnection process $72,499.48. City had open receivables of $10,885,971.84 vs $11,051,339.54. Ending Utility Receivable Due -$9,379,888.79. Customer Service Department Mission Continually provide quality public service to our diverse group of customers with professionalism, respect, & integrity. ~ City of Dover Customer Service Department Page 161 9

Item #16. ASSESSOR’S REPORT Number of Deeds Stamped for Transfer Tax Dollar Amount for the Month of Jan. 2025/2026 the Month of Jan. 2025/2026 25 25 21 $200 17 19 20 14 Thousand $109 $80 15 $100 $37 $37 10 2 0 3 2 6 s $30 $19 $20 5 2025 $0 2025 0 $0 2026 2026 First Time Buyer for the Month Jan. 2025/2026 Realty Property of Jan. 2025/2026 Sales in Dollars Received Prior 25 to Recording 25 21 $7 20 17 $8 $5 $5 $4 14 $6 $2 Millions 15 Res. Non-First $1 $4 $1 Time Buyers $2 $0 202 10 $0 Res. First Time 5 5 Buyers 0 2025 2026 Major Updates November December January Assessment Change $392,600 $6,340,000 $0 Residential Sales Ratio Report Sales in Study Total Assessed Total Sale Price Ratio PRD Value 29 $4,762,000 $7,766,300 0.64 1.04 Ratio – Assessed Value divided by Sale Price. PRD – Mean – A PRD above 1.03 tends to indicate assessment regressivity – high valued properties are under appraised relative to low valued properties. A PRD below .98 tends to indicate assessment progressivity – high valued properties are relatively over appraised. Page 162 10

Item #16. ASSESSOR’S REPORT Tax Office Wild Meadows / Persimmon Park Place Home Sales for January 2026: Property Address Assessed Value Sales Price 122 Beth Place $79,300 $200,000 January Supplemental Billing - 2026 January Supplemental bills were mailed out totaling $13,760. Page 163 11

012ÿ456ÿ4748 74ÿ 9 ÿ 0ÿÿ1 1ÿ 1 ÿ 1ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ 94   B2C D9 1 DB  1 2   1 019D ÿ 1ÿ  91   !"#$#" $ ,% $ÿ./0ÿ1+))2ÿ, % %$ %#( ' %(&% = +1 ÿÿÿÿÿ%#%A% %&?+0' ÿÿÿÿÿ'!&A# ÿ"!  !"%$%#" $ ,% ÿ3,440ÿ, %  %#! ' '!%' + 15 ÿÿÿÿÿ$'%A$ '#?+0' ÿÿÿÿÿ'&(A ÿ%"$  !"%&%" ' , %$ 'ÿ*4))5ÿ, % %& ''$ % %%!' = 5 ÿÿÿÿÿ%A  ?+0' ÿÿÿÿÿ$A ÿ"&#  !"%&'%!" ' ,% ''ÿ64,73ÿ*,8ÿ, % %$ %#! ' %&!! * +1 ÿÿÿÿÿ%'%A& (?+0' ÿÿÿÿÿ% A ÿ"!&  !"'$ " ( ,' &%ÿ0ÿ541,04,7ÿ+1 ' % %# ' '(& = +1 ÿÿÿÿÿ'$'A! '?+0' ÿÿÿÿÿ$$$A ÿ"!  ("%&&'$" ! ,% %'&ÿ7.,9+0*ÿ, % %$ %#( ' ## * ., ÿÿÿÿÿÿ #A' ''?+0' ÿÿÿÿÿ%(&A ÿ"$(  ("%$&" ,% %&%ÿ7ÿ:+0*4*8ÿ+1 % %& %## % %$&& * +1 ÿÿÿÿÿ%#$A( '(?+0' ÿÿÿÿÿ$'&A# ÿ"   ("%%$" ,% '%$ÿ3+ÿ.+,32ÿ3,)  %$ '' ' %&# = +1 ÿÿÿÿÿ%!(A! '(?+0' ÿÿÿÿÿ'A ÿ"!  ("%(" ! ,% !'!ÿÿ/1/7/40ÿ73 % $ %# % % %& * 5 ÿÿÿÿÿ% (A% ?+0' ÿÿÿÿÿ'A ÿ" !  ("%#'($" ,% '&ÿ;+:45+02ÿ.) % ( %## ' %# * +1 ÿÿÿÿÿ%&!A( (?+0' ÿÿÿÿÿ'!A ÿ"  ("%#&" %& ,% % %ÿ)</05340ÿ.) % %$ '% ' '$ *@ 5 ÿÿÿÿÿ%(!A( $?+0' ÿÿÿÿÿ$'&A ÿ"( ! "$'(" %& ,% '#ÿÿ7:),+8ÿ*/, % ( '! ' %( *@ +1 ÿÿÿÿÿ% !A# $?+0' ÿÿÿÿÿ'(#A# ÿ"( ! "$'#" %& ,% $ ÿ3,/==/33ÿ73 % %$ '%! ' %!$' *@ +1 ÿÿÿÿÿ% $A# ''?+0' ÿÿÿÿÿ'!'A ÿ"  ! "%'!" %& ,% '%#ÿ0ÿ*+,4)/0ÿ.) %  %##$ ' %( & = +1 ÿÿÿÿÿ''A& !?+0' ÿÿÿÿÿ$$&A# ÿ"  ! "&%"'(%' , #ÿ.+,ÿ:+10ÿ, % ' %#!( % &(% * +1 ÿÿÿÿÿÿ$$A (?+0' ÿÿÿÿÿÿ#A ÿ"$! ! "!'&" %! ,% !%ÿ=/*0300/+)ÿ=)1 % $ %##& % %#! = 5 ÿÿÿÿÿ'$&A% #?+0' ÿÿÿÿÿ$$A ÿ"! ! "(' '" # ,% ''ÿ0ÿ0>ÿ73 % %$ %#($ ' %&'( * +1 ÿÿÿÿÿ%%!A$ %?+0' ÿÿÿÿÿ'('A ÿ"&' ! "#'$ " %& ,% '!%ÿ3,+6+)5+,ÿ, % ( '& ' %!& *@ +1 ÿÿÿÿÿ%!A# '!?+0' ÿÿÿÿÿ$(A# ÿ" ! "%'$&" ' ,% (!ÿ>ÿ04,3:ÿ73 % $ %#$ %" #'& * 6, ÿÿÿÿÿÿ#$A '?+0' ÿÿÿÿÿÿ!(A ÿ%"' ! "%'$#"% ' ,% !&#ÿ>ÿ04,3:ÿ73  % '%# ' %&'( *@ +1 ÿÿÿÿÿ% (A' '$?+0' ÿÿÿÿÿ'(A ÿ"  ! "%$'& " %& ,% '%'ÿ*:+,,/05ÿ*,477ÿ, % %$ %##! ' %(& *@ +1 ÿÿÿÿÿ%&&A% $?+0' ÿÿÿÿÿ'A ÿ"( ! "'$'$" %' ,% $ÿ>4475ÿ, %  %#  ' %  = 5 ÿÿÿÿÿ%#(A% % ?+0' ÿÿÿÿÿ$(A ÿ"% !!"$'" # ,$ '%&ÿ>ÿ/1/7/40ÿ73 $ % %# ' '%& * +1 ÿÿÿÿÿ%&&A# ?+0' ÿÿÿÿÿ%'A ÿ%"% !!"(%%'" ,% '$'ÿ,4?+0ÿ, % %$ '' ' %#! *@ +1 ÿÿÿÿÿ%! A '$?+0' ÿÿÿÿÿ$'#A ÿ"& !!"%'!" ' ,% &$ÿ*4))/07ÿ, % %& %# % # * 6, ÿÿÿÿÿÿ#&A $?+0' ÿÿÿÿÿ% &A# ÿ"! !!"%!%'&"  ,% (%%ÿ79073ÿ3, % % %## % %( ( *@ +1 ÿÿÿÿÿ%!'A# '#?+0' ÿÿÿÿÿ$!%A ÿ"&! !!"%! %#" %' ,% '' ÿ>24;/05ÿ+1 % $ %#$! %" %#'# * +1 ÿÿÿÿÿ'%A  %?+0' ÿÿÿÿÿ$$A ÿ"  (" %%!" %% ,% $!ÿ*,/*8)ÿ*,8ÿ)0 %  ' ' '$& = +1 ÿÿÿÿÿ'$A# %$?+0' ÿÿÿÿÿ$##A# ÿ"# )*("%(%(" %+ ,% %''ÿ=3:ÿ.) % %% %## % %( @ +1 ÿÿÿÿÿÿ!#A$ #?+0' ÿÿÿÿÿ'A ÿ"& Page 164 Item #16. 12

Item #16. ELECTRIC DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT For the month of January 2026, the Electric Department contributed to the quality of life for all our customers. The city experienced a system peak of 115.37 megawatts, an increase of 6.66 megawatts from last month and a 1.62 megawatt decrease from the same month last year. There was a total of 8 outages for the month, affecting a total of 4024 customers with an average outage lasting 46.2 minutes. For the month, three were blown fuses, potentially from squirrels, one bad switch, one bad cutout, an underground wire hit by a contractor, a limb on a line and a breaker operation of an unknown reason. The system held up well in the storm and we experienced only one outage directly related to the snow and ice and that was a broken tree limb. Project Updates: The department continues to work on FY26 projects. Work on transmission pole replacements continues as well as the substation project. Metering assisted Customer Service in the testing of their load restrictors, the Engineering team conducted a study of a potential load expansion by a large industrial customer, coordinated with Governor’s office and OMB to assist in oil shipments for Van Sant during snow event. Van Sant was dispatched by PJM numerous times and ran for 57.5 hours this month. The unit was awarded day ahead runs twice but not called on by PJM as well. For perspective, the unit ran a total of 110 hours all last year. FY 26 YTD Outages and Response Time: Total – 53 Average Response Time – 25.5 minutes (Goal – Less than 30 minutes) Lost Time Accidents – Workorders Generated – Current Month – 0 Total FY – 0 Current Month – 115 Total FY – 1050 Historical Peak Load 180 160 140 120 100 2023 Megawatts 80 2024 60 2025 40 20 2026 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Page 165 13

Item #16. Emergency Management and Communications The Department of Emergency Management and Communications is dedicated to protecting lives, property, and the well-being of our community through coordinated emergency preparedness, effective communication, and responsive public safety services. Through transparent public information and proactive community engagement, we strive to build trust, enhance readiness, and strengthen the City’s resilience before, during, and after any crisis. We oversee and support Emergency Management, Emergency Medical Services, Public Communications, and the Office of the Fire Marshal, ensuring rapid, professional, and compassionate response to emergencies. Director Kay M. Sass Deputy Director & Fire Marshal Jason A. Osika Deputy Fire Marshal’s FM2 Matthew C. Brown FM3 Phillip M. Lewis FM4 Sean P.M. Christiansen EMS Primary Contacts: Senior Regional Director of Operations Tyler Selak Dover EMS Division Chief Michael Jenkins Page 166 14

Item #16. Fire Marshal’s Office - At a Glance January 2026 The Fire Marshal’s Office investigated 7 incidents during the month of December. Staff is conducting mercantile annual fire and life safety inspections. Matt Brown continues to assist with the building department as the liaison to the third party plan reviewer. Jason Osika is tasked with ICS/NIMS compliance citywide. Currently he has documented 155 employees obtaining their ICS 100 and ICS 700 for federal compliance. Month Year to Date Previous Year to Date Annual Fire & Life Safety Inspections 11 174 176 Deficiencies From the Above Inspections 8 126 293 Fire Code Violations/Deficiencies/Complaints 17 131 227 C/O & Fire Equipment Acceptance Tests 4 106 74 Meetings & Walk Through 42 177 100 Fire Plan Review & DAC 13 71 67 Month Year to Date Previous Year to Date Accidental 5 totaling $5,001 24totaling $208,959 32 totaling $638,102 Incendiary 0 4 totaling $2,200 7 totaling $3,004 Undetermined 2 totaling $15,000 7 totaling $115,503 8 totaling $526,100 Natural 0 1 totaling $1,000 0 Investigation time 17 hours 78 hours 128 hours Injuries 2 6 11 Deaths 0 1 0 Page 167 Arrest Made with DPD 0 0 0 15

EMS JANUARY 2026 Item #16. RUN VOLUME: A total of 1160 responses by Dover EMS for the month. Of those 1160, 839 required transport (876 patients) 226 received services and did not transport and 95 cancelled or refused. Sick persons was the most frequent calls, followed by MVC’s, and chest pains at the time of dispatch. Average Response Times: State of Delaware compliance requirements are that 90% of responses be below the response time guidelines. Dover EMS exceeded the 90% minimum in every category. Alpha 9.9 min. 95.51%(Low priority - Ie: non life threatening Ie: non serious illness, back pain, flu like symptoms) Bravo 7.4 min. 91.75% (Moderate Priority - Ie: minor allergic reaction, fainted now alert) Charlie 7.4 min. 98.62% (Urgent - Ie: difficulty breathing, severe abdominal pain, diabetic emergency) Delta 7.3 min. 97.84% (High Priority - ie: cardiac arrest, not breathing severe trauma or choking, childbirth complications) Echo 7.4 min. 100% (Highest priority - Ie: cardiac arrest confirmed, not breathing at all, mass casualty, CPR in progress) Omega 8.5 min. 100% (Lowest Priority - Ie: Minor nosebleed, non injury fall assists DOVER EMS assisted our partners in Smyrna with coverage during their annual banquet Relocated resources during storm. Had units on State St, FD 1, FD 2 and in north Dover crews rented a hotel to stay on that end of town for faster response to the north end. Additional information: 31 Total Surge Emergencies - Surge emergences refer to situations where the demand for EMS exceeds normal capacity causing the implementation of a surge plan (Bringing on additional units) 9 Total Surge Unit Activations with Transports 18 dispatches with a 27– Run Card (Penetrating Trauma) - 12 patients transported (ie: gunshot wound, stab wounds, other types of impalements) Average response time 7 min Dover was dispatched out of district 49 times, and transported 24 of those. Total calls transported by mutual aid into Dover is 14. Dover was dispatched out of district 49 times (arrived 39) resulting in 24 transports. 52% of the overall calls were individuals without a home. Page 168 16

Item #16. HUMAN RESOURCES JANUARY 2026 City of Dover Human Resources Mission Statement: The City of Dover’s Human Resources Department strives to provide quality service to assist our greatest asset, our employees. Equity, Integrity, and Urgency is our focus to ensure employee satisfaction as well as company wellness. We implement policies and procedures that align with organizational goals, including a safe and compliant workplace, effective training and professional development, and addressing both the needs of employees and the organization. City of Dover Human Resources Value Statement: Innovation: We strive to include best HR practices to enhance a robust technological movement to enhance the quality and efficiency of the department. Collaboration: We honor knowledge sharing, diversity of thoughts and ideas, and experiences to encourage an inclusive workforce. Integrity and Transparency: We honor our commitments and promote a healthy environment that promotes fairness, honesty, respect, and trust. Results Driven: Customer service is front and center, and we advocate for employees' and retirees’ needs at all times. JANUARY SUMMARY: JANUARY Hiring Trends FY26: MONTH NEW HIRE AMOUNT STATUS JANUARY 4 4 FT JANUARY Voluntary Termination/Involuntary Termination Trends FY26: VOLUNTARY 1 FT INVOLUNTARY 0 FT RETIREMENT 1 FT Page 169 17

Item #16. HUMAN RESOURCES EEO DATA EEO DATA OTHER RACE HISPANIC CAUCASIAN AFRICAN AMERICAN ASIAN AMERICAN INDIAN 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% AMERICAN AFRICAN ASIAN CAUCASIAN HISPANIC OTHER RACE INDIAN AMERICAN 26-Jan 2% 2% 16% 74% 4% 2% 25-Dec 2% 2% 16% 75% 3% 2% 25-Nov 2% 2% 16% 75% 3% 3% 25-Oct 2% 2% 16% 75% 3% 2% 25-Sep 2% 2% 16% 75% 3% 2% 26-Jan 25-Dec 25-Nov 25-Oct 25-Sep Page 170 18

Item #16. HUMAN RESOURCES EEO DEMOGRAPHICS EEO DEMOGRAPHICS 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 CAUCASIAN MINORITY OTHER RACE 25-Sep 298 90 7 25-Oct 298 93 8 25-Nov 299 93 9 25-Dec 302 97 9 26-Jan 301 98 9 25-Sep 25-Oct 25-Nov 25-Dec 26-Jan Page 171 19

Item #16. HUMAN RESOURCES GENDER REPORT GENDER REPORT NONBINARY MALE FEMALE 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% FEMALE MALE NONBINARY 26-Jan 28% 72% 0% 25-Dec 28% 72% 0% 25-Nov 28% 72% 0% 25-Oct 29% 71% 0% 25-Sep 28% 72% 0% 26-Jan 25-Dec 25-Nov 25-Oct 25-Sep Page 172 20

Item #16. HUMAN RESOURCES FULL-TIME VS. PART-TIME EE’S FULL-TIME VS. PART-TIME EE'S 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC FULL TIME PART TIME TOTAL EE'S Numbers do not reflect committees, or council members. Page 173 21

Item #16. HUMAN RESOURCES INTERNAL EE AGE DEMOGRAPHICS AGE DEMOGRAPHICS 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 25-Sep 7% 26% 23% 23% 16% 5% 25-Oct 7% 25% 23% 23% 16% 6% 25-Nov 7% 25% 24% 23% 16% 5% 25-Dec 7% 26% 24% 22% 16% 5% 26-Jan 8% 26% 24% 22% 15% 5% Page 174 22

Item #16. HUMAN RESOURCES HIRING DETAILS Position Hired: EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT, MOTOR EQUIPMENT OPERATOR II, COMUNICATIONS OPERATOR (2) Transferred/Promoted: Position Terminated/Resigned/Retired/Other: Terminal Leave: N/A CURRENT VACANT POSITIONS *Not used for Budgeting Purposes Page 175 23

Item #16. HUMAN RESOURCES TURNOVER STATISTICS Page 176 24

Item #16. HUMAN RESOURCES Monthly Turnover Rates (Percentage) 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% Page 177 25

Item #16. HUMAN RESOURCES Quarterly and Annual Turnover Rates 0.6% Q1, 0.5% Annual, 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% Q2, 0.0% Q3, 0.0% Q4, 0.0% 0.0% Page 178 26

Item #16. HUMAN RESOURCES JANUARY WORKER’S COMPENSATION DATA MONTH Dec-25 Jan-26 WORKERS COMP INJURY DETAIL 6 7 WORKERS COMP COST JANUARY 2026 Streets $574.22 Police $3,612.33 Grounds $81.82 $0.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 $1,500.00 $2,000.00 $2,500.00 $3,000.00 $3,500.00 $4,000.00 Respectfully Submitted by H. Naomi Poole Page 179 27

Item #16. Information Technology Department December2025/January 2026 Report IT Resources Presented IT overview at the Department Workshop meeting that included and IT overview and some of the accomplishments and opportunities for the department. Page 180 28

Item #16. IT Support: Overall service quality was impacted since the unexpected resignation of a LAN/Analyst; response times are maintaining consistency in the interim. We are investigating implementing a new Ninja One RMM (Remote Management and Maintenance) tool. Average first response time is 6 minutes 30 seconds on support calls/tickets (well under seven minutes). With partial staffing, ticket handling remains at acceptable levels with an opportunity to upgrade RMM tools to strengthen proactive monitoring, remote diagnostics, and automation — aiming to reduce Mean Time to Resolve (MTTR) and increase First Contact Resolution (FCR). IT Projects: IT started preliminary planning and scoping for Network modernization project for storage & network enhancements; early analysis supports a Mid-March installation target date. Other IT capital projects are in the planning initiation stages. 1) City Hall A/V system upgrade – Presentation to City Council set for Jan ’26 2) Reed Street 2nd Floor and City Hall wiring and wireless access upgrades. 3) Windows 10 to Windows 11 PC software upgrade in progress est <15 PC to go. 4) Transition to .gov domain for city email now scheduled for the first quarter of 2026 Page 181 29

Reference Transactions January 2026 Item #16. Adults 797 Teens 116 Children 155 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 Circulation Jan. '26 FYTD '26 Jan. '25 FYTD '25 City of Dover Residents 7,928 64,395 9,277 70,808 Electronic Materials 8,528 58,148 7,483 50,211 Kent County Residents 8,797 68,899 9,663 72,952 Non-County Residents 1,154 8,868 1,315 9,119 New Library Registrations City of Dover Residents 270 1,920 331 1,780 Kent County Residents 99 937 88 721 Non-County Residents 3 35 6 32 Registered Library Users as of 01/01/2026 Registered Library Users as of 01/31/2025 City of Dover Residents 18,613 20,436 Kent County Residents 10,178 9,674 Non-County Residents 668 708 TOTAL 29,459 30,818 Other Visitors 13,932 102,601 14,356 99,672 Meeting Room Attendance 2,023 20,289 1,953 20,737 Number of Computer Users 1,175 10,347 1,482 5,557 Number of Wireless Computer Users 1,309 10,429 1,279 10,021 Inter/Intralibrary - Loaned 35 48 Inter/Intralibrary - Borrowed 44 68 Holds Sent 2,719 2,794 Holds Received 1,806 2,001 TOTAL 4,604 31,131 4,911 29,609 Tech Services/Items Added 1,082 887 Tech Services/Items Deleted 857 662 Passport Services/Customers 266 1,425 321 1,617 Passport Services/Revenue $9,535 $55,045 $13,436 $68,744 Monthly Highlights ►300 attended 37 programs for adults. ►237 attended 23 program for teens. ►785 attended 26 programs for children. ► 0 volunteers. Program Spotlight 0 Page 182 30

Item #16. Parks & Recreation Monthly Report – January 2026 PARKS & RECREATION HIGHLIGHTS Dover Park Building and Spray Pad: Please visit our web page for frequent updates: https:// www.cityofdover.gov/departments/ParksRecreation/Splashpadandcommunitycenter All Accessible Playground: Will begin construction once the building and spray pad are complete. Skate Park: Staff are working with WRA on final design for bidding project. Parks & Recreation: John W. Pitts stayed busy in the month of January. Indoor sports started such as Bocce ball with 11 participants every week, indoor soccer for the youth on Friday nights, Girls Volleyball season with 6 teams playing on Saturday evenings and our basketball and indoor field hockey continued. Grounds Department: The grounds department had themselves a fresh new start to the year. The 2026 ice storm did not stop them, they worked hard and diligently through this storm making sure our city was prepared and cleaned. Outdoor Sports & Leagues FY 26 General FY 25 Participant & Spectator Count Recreation Sports General Activity Participants Spectators Location Recreati Leagues on Indoor Field Hockey 161 322 Schutte Park Trips Sports Basketball Participation 248 496 Schutte Park Bldg, Field, Pavilion & Stage Leagues Indoor Soccer 70 140 Schutte Park Camps Volleyball 80 160 Schutte Park January 2026 January 2025 General Recreation $1089.00 General Recreation $1069.00 Sports $451.00 Sports 860.00 Leagues $2440.00 Leagues $1,950.00 Trips $2088.00 Trips $2,954.00 Bldg, Field Pavilion Bldg, Field Pavilion $1050.00 $50.00 Stage Permits Stage Permits Camps $0.00 Camps $0.00 Parks & Recreation FYTD FYTD Jan 26 Jan 25 Programs 26 25 General Recreation 78 1,279 104 1,201 Open Gym 183 1033 194 850 Sports 367 1,626 898 1,259 Leagues (Inside) 3,419 24,209 7,374 20,790 Bldg, Field, Facility, 157 8,613 225 8,269 Stage permits Camps 0 1,700 0 1,609 Page 183 31

Item #16. Grounds Monthly Report Arborist Crew January-2026 Tree Work Completed Tree's Trimmed 41 Arborist Crew: Tree's Removed 5 Root Pruning 0 - Christmas lights Stumps Removed 0 - Stump grinding Trees Planted 0 - Tree removal - Snow removal Beautification Crew: Litter Cans Collected - Assist with Christmas decorations 800 - Maintained flower beds 600 - Trim buses and remove leaves around city buildings 400 - Snow removal 200 0 Mowing Crew: Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec - Cleaned up mowing areas 2023 2024 2025 2026 - Assist with Christmas decorations - Snow removal Litter Removal: Trees Removed - Litter route is being picked up on schedule 80 - 241 cans picked up 60 Parks Crew: 40 - Maintain parks, picked up litter and fallen tree limbs 20 - Assist with Christmas decorations 0 - Helped set up events and the Pitts Center Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Miscellaneous: 2023 2024 2025 2026 - Winterized equipment - Bushhog areas around the city Trees Trimmed 250 200 150 100 50 0 Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 2023 2024 2025 2026 Page 184 32

Item #16. City Planner’s Monthly Report Department of Planning & Inspections January 2026 Planning & Inspections Highlights Some Items to Call to Your Attention Planning Office staff reviewed 43 Building Permits and 9 Certificate of Occupancy Permits. Staff also provided support to the Planning Commission (4 application) and the Board of Adjustment (1 application). The Historic District Commission did not meet in January due to a lack of items. Three (3) vacancies remain including the Director, Planner II and Planner I. Due to these vacancies, the Department continues to utilize a consultant to assist staff in addressing the current workload. Tracey Harvey (Community Development Manager) retired on January 5, 2026, after twenty-five years of service. Her replacement, Debbie O’Brien, completed her training and will ensure the program will continue efficiently. In January, two families settled on their first home under the First Start Program. In addition, two families are at mortgage ready status. Of the American Rescue Plan Act Funding, 91% of the funds have been spent on Round 1 and 89% of the funds have been drawn down on Round 2. Construction activity continued in January with both residential and non-residential projects having Building Permits and Certificates of Occupancy issued. Residential development areas consisted of Eden Hill Farm TND, The Edge Apartments, and single family detached dwellings on North Kirkwood Steet. Non- residential development included renovations at 800 Silver Lake Boulevard, the Agricultural Building on the Delaware State University main campus, an office renovation in a building on the Wilmington University Dover campus and a restaurant tenant fit-out at 1028 S. Little Creek Road. Overall, 160 permits were issued resulting in 163 inspections. The Inspections Division consists of both Building Inspections and Permitting & Licensing. Within Building Inspections, two (2) vacancies remained for the Chief Building Inspector and a Building Inspector I in January. In order to ensure construction activity is not stalled, the Department continues to utilize a contractor to assist with Building Permit/Plan reviews as well as with Building Inspections as needed. Code Enforcement staff conducted Annual Housing Inspections (81 cases) as part of the Rental Dwelling Permit program. Other Code Enforcement cases focused on exterior property maintenance issues/violations (66 cases), and Dover Code of Ordinance violations (99 cases). January ended with 125 registered vacant buildings, 69 dangerous buildings, and 7,864 active rental dwelling units. Code Enforcement had one (1) vacancy remaining for Code Enforcement Officer in January. Page 185 33

Item #16. PLANNING OFFICE Planning Office Operations The Meetings of the Boards and Commission supported by the Planning Office are presented in the Hybrid format with both In-Person and Virtual (using Webex) meeting options for participation. Conducting Meetings and Trainings in virtual formats are also offered. Department Staff participated in the City Council Annual Retreat presenting informational summary of the Department’s responsibilities. City Offices were closed on January 26 and 27, 2026 due to a snow and ice weather event. Tracey Harvey (Community Development Manager) retired on January 5, 2026 after twenty-five years of service. The Planning Office is part of the review process for certain types of construction activity permits (Building Permits, Sign Permits, etc.) and Certificate of Occupancy permits to confirm compliance with the Zoning Ordinance provisions. For January 2026, Planning Staff was involved with the review of 43 Building Permits and 9 Certificates of Occupancy that were issued for a monthly total of 52 and a calendar year total of 52. The 2026 year-to-date calendar year’s tally as compared to the calendar year totals of Permits and COs is comparable to the totals seen in 2025 at 48 and the 2024 at 52. Staff also reviews new applications for Business Licenses and Rental Dwelling Permits. Planning & Inspections Revenue FY 2026 Revenue Estimates from FY2026 Actual Revenue Stream Budget (YTD) January % of Budget Business License $1,540,000 $ 1,542,273 100% Manufactured Home License $16,000 $ 15,567 97% Building Permits $500,000 $ 375,467 75% Cert. of Occupancy $9,000 $ 6,745 75% Public Occupancy $45,000 $ 34,605 77% Lodging House $28,000 $ 29,472 105% Plumbing/Heating/Air $110,000 $ 58,771 53% Rental Inspection Fee $750,000 $ 271,780 36% Miscellaneous $21,000 $ 12,087 58% Fire Protection Fees $100,000 $ 49,213 49% Code Enforcement Fines $80,000 $ 41,456 52% Vacant Building Reg. $50,000 $ 27,750 56% Total P&I Revenue $3,249,000 $ 2,465,186 76% Page 186 34

Item #16. 2026: Welcome to Dover! Progress in Pictures— 3000 Winners Circle at The Edge Apartments 217, 225, 229, 235 N Kirkwood Street Construction progress at 4000 Winners Circle at The Edge Apartments – Center Photo Page 187 35

Item #16. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICE January marked a meaningful period of transition and progress within the Community Development Office. The month concluded the onboarding and training schedule for our new Community Development Manager, Debbie O’Brien. At the same time, we bid a fond farewell to one of the City’s most dedicated public servants. Mrs. Tracey Harvey retired after more than 25 years of faithful service to the City of Dover. Her institutional knowledge, commitment, and professionalism have left a lasting legacy, and she will be deeply missed. We extend our sincere gratitude and best wishes to Mrs. Harvey as she begins this well-deserved next chapter. First Start Program The First Start Program continues to expand homeownership opportunities for low- to moderate-income residents within Dover city limits through down payment and settlement assistance. In January, two families achieved first-time homeownership, bringing the fiscal year- to-date total to seven households assisted. Two additional families are mortgage-ready; one is actively searching for a home and the other is scheduled to settle in March. Homeowner Rehabilitation and Emergency Home Repair Programs Milford Housing Development Corporation’s programs continue to improve housing quality and safety for low-income homeowners. In January, two households received critical repairs addressing health and safety concerns. Improvements included door and window replacements, accessibility modifications, HVAC replacement, roof replacement, and updated smoke and carbon monoxide detectors. These investments preserve affordable housing stock and enable residents to safely remain in their homes. Year-to-date, a total of ten households has received assistance through these programs. Central Delaware Housing Collaborative The House of Hope operated its 45–60-day emergency shelter program for single women experiencing homelessness, providing housing and case management in a trauma-informed, strengths-based environment. Eleven clients were served during the month. Three transitioned to transitional housing, one received a job offer, and two attended interviews and are awaiting employment decisions. Four referrals were received but did not result in entry. Services remain focused on stabilization, employment readiness, and long-term housing placement. American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Funding During the month of January, one ARPA reimbursement was processed for Dover Interfaith Mission for Housing (DIMH) to support eligible staffing costs associated with emergency shelter operations. Three subrecipients are actively working to expend the remaining balances of their ARPA allocations: Central Delaware Habitat for Humanity, Dover Interfaith Mission for Housing, and People's Community Center. As of month-end, 91% of Round 1 funding and 89% of Round 2 funding have been expended. Page 188 36

Item #16. JANUARY 2026 CASE TYPE MTD MTD FY25 % YTD FY26 YTD FY25 YTD % No Valid Rental Permit 21 9 133% 136 203 -33% No Valid Building Permit 0 2 -100% 17 18 -6% Tall Grass and Weeds 0 0 0% 200 264 -24% Additional Tall Grass and Weeds 0 0 0% 44 36 22% Annual Housing Inspection 81 105 -23% 211 538 -61% Property Maintenance Exterior 66 10 560% 256 351 -27% Electric Termination 3 0 0% 62 40 55% Dover Code of Ordinances 99 28 254% 323 197 64% Dangerous Buildings 8 17 -53% 40 101 -60% Zoning 12 5 140% 55 62 -11% 0 Total Cases 326 779 -58% 1,387 2,896 -52% Total Inspections 518 1,204 -57% 4,161 5,437 -23% Total Admin Inspections 6 2 200% 93 57 63% Total # of Violations 415 879 -53% 2,003 3,133 -36% Dangerous Buildings, Vacant Buildings, Demolitions  Vacant Buildings currently registered - 125  Dangerous Buildings – 69 ❖ 301 & 303 W Division St- Demolition in process ❖ 415 W Division St- Demolition in process ❖ 29 S New St- Demolition in process ❖ 111 S Queen St- Demolition in process  Active Rental Dwellings – 7,864 units Page 189 37

Item #16. Boards & Commissions There were Meetings in January for the Boards and Commissions supported by the Planning Office. The Planning Commission met on January 20, 2026 to consider two Site Plan Applications and two Site Development Master Plans. The Board of Adjustment met January 21, 2026 to consider a variance application. The Historic District Commission did not meet in January 2026. Planning Commission: The Planning Commission met on January 20, 2026. The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for February 17, 2026. The following applications were considered: • S-26-01 – Bayhealth Medical Center, Inc. - Kent Campus: Master Plan Phases 1-3 –The Planning Commission granted conditional approval to include the Waiver Request and the Parking Adequacy Statement for the Site Development Master Plan and Parcel Consolidation Plan for the Bayhealth Medical Center – Kent Campus. The Master Plan outlines three (3) phases (with subphases) of construction as follows: Phase 1A – Emergency Department 2-story Expansion (Overbuild) and Central Services Building 6,000 SF Addition; Phase 1B - Bed Tower 6-story Overbuild; Phase 2A – New 5-story Parking Garage (500 spaces) and Main Entry Addition with Drop-off Area; Phase 2B – Demolition of Existing Parking Garage and a Podium Expansion as 3-story Surgical Pavilion; Phase 2C - Emergency Department 3-story Expansion; and Phase 3 - Demolition of Existing Legacy Building. The properties involved consist of a total land area of 22.55 acres ±. The properties are zoned IO (Institutional and Office Zone) and partially subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone). The project is generally located in the block created by South State Street, Hope Street, South Governors Avenue, and South Street with additional project area located on the north side of South Street. The main property address is 640 South State Street. Council District 2. Waiver Request: Reduction of Bicycle Parking Requirement, For Consideration: Parking Adequacy Statement/Reduction of Parking Requirement. The Board of Adjustment on October 15, 2025 granted approval of variances for the front yard setback and to allow a building height of 175 feet (V-25-05). • S-26-02 – R.E. Pierson Regional Headquarters (Office, Garage and Contractors yard) at 30 Lafferty Lane –The Planning Commission granted conditional approval to include the Waiver Request for the partial elimination of upright curbing for the Site Plan Application to permit the construction of R. E. Pierson Regional Headquarters to consist of a 9,900 SF Office Building, a 9,600 SF Garage with a fenced Contractors Work Yard (laydown and equipment storage) area, and associated site improvements. The project development area is 5.284 acres of the overall parcel of 29.6135 acres. The property is zoned M (Manufacturing Zone) and is subject to the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone): Accident Potential Zone I (APZ I) and Noise Zone A. The property is located on the south side of Lafferty Lane between Bay Road and Horsepond Road. Council District 2. Waiver Requests: Partial Elimination of Sidewalk, Partial Elimination of Upright Curbing. For Consideration: Performance Standards Review Application. Page 190 38

Item #16. • S-26-03 – The Enclave Apartments: Revised Walker Road Apartments – The Planning Commission granted conditional approval to include the Waiver Request for Curbing for the Site Development Application for the construction of two (2) three story, garden style apartment buildings consisting of twenty-four (24) units each for a total of 48 units. Also proposed are a Clubhouse, parking lot improvements, and four (4) outdoor recreation areas. The property is zoned RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone). The subject site consists of one parcel totaling 6.08 acres +/- located on the north side of Walker Road and west of Independence Boulevard. Waiver Request: Partial Elimination of Upright Curbing. For Consideration: Active Recreation Area Plan. The project was previously reviewed as S-23- 22 Walker Road Apartments in December of 2023; that plan is being superseded. • S-26-04 – DuPont Plaza at 747 N. DuPont Highway: Revised Master Plan – The Planning Commission granted conditional approval of the Revised Site Development Master Plan with Minor Subdivision Plan to permit phased construction of a retail center known as DuPont Plaza. The center consists of four buildings totaling 44,366 SF and is to be constructed in phases. The buildings proposed include a 7,440 SF Building A - Retail; 12,950 SF Building B - Retail; 2,046 SF Building C – Restaurant; and 21,930 SF Building D – Retail (Tractor Supply). The property consists of 9.954 acres and is proposed to be subdivided into multiple lots. The property is zoned SC-2 (Community Shopping Center Zone) and subject to the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone). The property is located on the east side of North DuPont Highway and south of Leipsic Road. Waiver Requests: Subdivision Waiver – Lots without Public Street Frontage. This site was subject to S-19-03 Retail Center at 747 N. DuPont Highway: Master Plan reviewed by Planning Commission in 2019 with its Final Plan approval issued in 2021 along with Administrative Site Plan S-19-18 DuPont Plaza: Phase 1; the plans are expired. Board of Adjustment: The Board of Adjustment met on January 21, 2026. The next Board of Adjustment meeting is scheduled for February 18, 2026. The following application was considered. • Application #V-26-01 Proposed 7-Eleven Convenience Store with Fuel Pumps Sign Variance Request Series of properties referred to as 736 N. DuPont Highway. - The Board of Adjustment moved to deny the request for a Variance from the requirements of Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 §4.7 associated with signage for a new convenience retail store with fuel pumps and site improvements. The Variance Request seeks to allow the installation of a 99.6 SF pylon sign along the North State Street frontage of the development area (current property at 1021 N. State Street). North State Street is an urban minor arterial where pylon signs are not a permitted freestanding sign type. The development area consists of four (4) properties to be consolidated and that are zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone). Historic District Commission: The Historic District Commission did not meet on January 22, 2026. The next Historic District Commission meeting is scheduled for February 19, 2026. Page 191 39

Item #16. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 2019 Comprehensive Plan Implementation of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan continues as Departments citywide focus on the plan implementation items as found in Implementation Plan (Chapter 15) items such as the projects, studies, code amendments, and other activities. A copy of the Final Plan (as amended) is available on the Comprehensive Plan website: https://www.cityofdover.gov/2019-comprehensive- plan . No Applications were received for Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Visit the Dover Parcel and Zoning Viewer on the City’s website www.cityofdover.gov to see zoning information for properties located in Dover. Use the Quick Link on the GIS Division page to reach the Viewer: https://doverde.maps.arcgis.com/home/index.html Other Activities • Downtown Dover Strategic Master Plan: The Downtown Dover Partnership’s Strategic Master Plan is known as “Transforming Downtown Dover: Capital City 2030” (January 2023). Various partners are focusing on aspects of Plan implementation. The Downtown Dover Partnership is moving forward with planning for the development of priority project sites. Also, the City is involved in planning for water and sanitary sewer improvement projects for the Loockerman Street corridor. Utility relocations associated with the Dover Mobility Center project are underway. Construction Activities • In January 2026, Residential Building Permits were issued for two (2) Apartment Buildings in Eden Hill Farm TND; one single family detached dwelling (Chatham Bay) and four (4) Duplex units (Chatham Bay) in Eden Hill Farm TND; and six (6) Duplex units (D.R. Horton) in Eden Hill Farm TND; and a manufactured home placement in Dover East Estates. • Temporary Certificate of Occupancy was issued for one Apartment Building in The Edge Apartments on Leipsic Road. • Certificates of Occupancy were issued for four (4) single family detached dwellings on North Kirkwood Street in the Downtown Development District area. • Building Permits were issued in January for office renovations at 800 Silver Lake Boulevard. • A Temporary Certificate of Occupancy was issued for the Clubhouse at The Edge Apartments. • Certificates of Occupancy were issued for the Agriculture Building on the Delaware State University main campus; for office renovation in a building on the Wilmington University Dover campus; and for a restaurant tenant fit-out at 1028 S. Little Creek Road. JAN 2026 (FY26) TOTAL FOR FY26 New Home Permits Issued 11 56 Value of Commercial Projects $3,545,395.00 $20,692,120.00 Downtown Incentives (Fees Waived) $8,588.00 $14,866.40 Page 192 40

Item #16. Building Inspections & Licensing Summary July 2025– July 2024— June Current June 2026 Dec FY’25 2025 PERMITTING AND LICENSING Permits Issued JAN (2026) FYTD 26 JAN (2024) FYTD 25 FY 26 FY25 Administrative Permit 3 20 4 19 Building Addition/Renovation Permits 26 177 18 174 Building Permits 18 116 10 147 Demolition Permits 2 7 3 18 Fence Permits 5 85 5 109 Fire Prevention Permits 9 58 10 48 Mechanical Permits 68 313 21 268 Plumbing Permits 22 293 32 243 Sign Permits 7 56 5 47 Swimming Pool Permits 0 3 1 10 Wireless Communications Facilities 0 12 1 12 Subtotal 1140 1095 Business Licenses 32 1759 26 1703 Merchant Licenses 4 318 6 323 Contractor Licenses 24 1202 37 1197 Subtotal 3279 3223 Lodging House Licenses 34 49 14 17 Public Occupancy 249 366 140 216 Rental Dwelling 937 1063 803 976 Subtotal 1478 1209 Manufactured Homes 4 332 4 305 BUILDING INSPECTIONS Inspections JAN (2026) FYTD 26 JAN (2025) FY25 FYTD 25 FY 26 Building (Inspections/CBI/Site Meetings) 112 1243 46 1866 Plumbing/Mechanical 46 914 79 1877 Certificate of Occupancy 5 55 14 97 Page 193 41

Item #16. Page 194 42

Item #16. Page 195 43

Item #16. Page 196 44

Item #16. Page 197 45

Item #16. CITY OF DOVER DEPARTMENT OF WATER & WASTEWATER MONTHLY REPORT Jan-26 Inflow & Infiltration Costs This chart indicates the amount of money the City is spending on treating ground and / or rain water through Kent $200,000.00 County. This cost is being offset by the Ground Water Inflow Adjustment rate passed on to the customers. April 2025 and July 2025 had a large amout of rainfall, causing a significant I & I deficit. $150,000.00 $100,000.00 $50,000.00 $- Jan-25 Feb-25 Mar-25 Apr-25 May-25 Jun-25 Jul-25 Aug-25 Sep-25 Oct-25 Nov-25 Dec-25 Jan-26 $(50,000.00) $(100,000.00) I & I Cost Water & Wastewater Repairs 8 Water mains and services are typically repaired at a higher rate when drastic change in temperature 7 occurs. This freeze and thaw cycle expands and contracts the soil, causing cracks in the water line. 6 January 2025 had large fluctuations of temperature, causing a large volume of repairs. 5 4 3 2 1 0 Jan-25 Feb-25 Mar-25 Apr-25 May-25 Jun-25 Jul-25 Aug-25 Sep-25 Oct-25 Nov-25 Dec-25 Jan-26 Water Mains Repaired Water Services Repaired Wastewater Mains Repaired Wastewater Laterals Repaired Page 198 46

Item #16. CITY OF DOVER DEPARTMENT OF WATER & WASTEWATER MONTHLY REPORT Jan-26 Number of Brown Water Complaints 9 This chart indicates the number of complaints the Department receives. 8 February and March 2025 were high due to flushing being scheduled in April 7 2025. 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Jan-25 Feb-25 Mar-25 Apr-25 May-25 Jun-25 Jul-25 Aug-25 Sep-25 Oct-25 Nov-25 Dec-25 Jan-26 Number of Brown Water Complaints Linear (Number of Brown Water Complaints) Department Spotlight - January The Department of Water & Wastewater is required to provide a Water Quality Report every year, this is typically completed in May and provides information on the previous calendar year. It is found on our website. Page 199 47

Item #17. DOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT January 2026 FIRE CHIEFS REPORT Page 200

Item #17. To: Mayor and Council From: David Carey, Fire Chief Date: February 8, 2026 Subject: January 2026 Fire Chief’s Report Emergency Responses The Dover Fire Department responded to 164 calls for service during the month of January. Major Incidents: • Trailer Fire – Voshell’s Mill, Star Hill Road • Motor Vehicle Collision with Entrapment – Southern Boulevard Personnel Updates Newly Qualified Drivers • Roc Reb – Engine 2 Certifications & Training • Chase Christiansen has successfully completed Fire Officer I certification. Regulatory Update The Delaware State Fire Commission 709 Regulation went into effect on January 1, 2026. This regulation requires all employees, appointed members, and elected members to hold the appropriate Fire Officer training certification for the position they serve in. The department has forwarded the 709 Regulation to our insurance carrier for review to assess any potential liability implications. Fire Department Training Network (FDTN) We currently have four members scheduled to attend Fire Department Training Network training in Indianapolis, Indiana, from April 18–22: • Witifia Harrison • Ethan DuPont • Roc Reb • Jaquan Gartley Page 201

Item #17. Financial Overview The Stipend Program continues to perform strongly. In November, 55 firefighters participated in the program. Month Total ($) Members January $25,830.00 53 Total Expenditure to Date: $25,830.00 Personnel Activities Category Hours Meetings 138 Training 93 Duty Crews 6,286 Incident 4,030 Total Hours 10,547 Total Calls for the month of January: 164 Average Attendance: 23.78 Closing The Fire Department continues to operate with professionalism, adaptability, and commitment to public safety. Ongoing training, policy updates, and staffing efforts are strengthening operational readiness. The department appreciates the continued support of City Council and remains committed to transparent communication and service excellence. Respectfully submitted, David Carey, Fire Chief Page 202

Item #17. Page 203

Item #17. Page 204

Item #17. Page 205

Item #18. Page 206

CITY OF DOVER DEPARTMENT OF POLICE Item #18. 400 SOUTH QUEEN STREET DOVER, DELAWARE 19904 302-736-7111 Chief of Police Police Captains THOMAS A. JOHNSON, JR. RANDY R. ROBBINS Deputy Chief of Police ROBERT E. ROSWELL PAUL D. KUNTZI KEVIN A. STREADWICK March 9, 2026 Honorable Robin Christiansen, Mayor Members of Dover City Council City Hall Dover, DE 19901 Mayor Christiansen and Council Members: The following is the monthly report of Dover Police Department activities for January: COMPLAINTS/EVENTS YTD Totals compiled through January numbered 3,451. This represents a decrease of 196 from the 3,647 reported over the same period in 2025. 3,800 3,710 3,647 3,600 3,451 3,342 3,400 3,229 3,200 3,000 2,800 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS Burglary: 3 cases reported, 2 cases cleared and 2 cases was cleared from previous months. Robbery: 3 cases reported, 1 case cleared and 1 case was cleared from previous months. Sex Assault: 8 cases reported, 3 cases cleared and 2 cases was cleared from previous months. Homicide: 0 case reported, 0 case cleared and 0 case cleared from previous months. There were 4 Non-Criminal Death Investigations, 4 cases cleared and 0 cases cleared from previous months. 1 Page 207

Item #18. DRUG, VICE, & ORGANIZED CRIME / STREET CRIMES UNIT ENFORCEMENT Marijuana: 1,846.27 grams seized Cocaine: 197.8 grams seized Ecstasy: 80 doses seized Prescription Pills: 129 doses seized Methamphetamine: 2.2 grams seized Opiates: 1,121.67 grams seized Other Rx Drugs: 1.76 grams/doses seized Drug Proceeds: $4,625 seized FIREARM SEIZURES/INSIDE CITY LIMITS 15 10 5 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CI DVOC/STREET CRIMES PATROL SEU HANDGUN RIFLE SHOTGUN Firearms: 6 Handguns & 1 Rifle TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT YTD Citation Totals compiled through January numbered 594. This represents a decrease of 546 from the 1,140 reported over the same period in 2025. 1,200 1,140 1,000 800 659 594 600 550 400 356 200 0 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 TRAFFIC CRASHES: YTD = 143 2 Page 208

911 CENTER ACTIVITY Item #18. Total compiled during January numbered 7,509 calls. This represents an increase of 664 from the 6,845 reported during the same period in 2025. 7,600 7,509 7,400 7,299 7,200 7,128 7,000 6,845 6,800 6,624 6,600 6,400 6,200 6,000 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 CITY ORDINANCE SUMMONS YTD Totals compiled through January numbered 213. This represents a decrease of 62 from the 275 reported over the same period in 2025. 300 275 250 205 213 184 200 152 150 123 92 75 100 50 53 50 0 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 ISSUED 123 205 75 275 213 PAID 50 92 53 152 184 3 Page 209

COMMUNITY POLICING Item #18. This proactive unit takes the lead on community engagement and supporting our community organizations. They have administrative responsibilities and also support other departmental units, such as patrol, during times of high work volumes or special operations with enforcement activities. In addition to those duties, the unit accomplished the following in January:  Assisted Patrol Units during major incidents, high 911 call volume and/or low staffing  Training Events: Sniper, and SORT  Completed lessons plans- CPR training and DUI refresher  Conducted property checks of problem areas from community complaints  Planning for Easter Egg Hunt, Christmas in July, Punt/Pass/Kick event, Downtown Winterfest, a visit from [Roy] to the Silver Lake Nursing Home & a community event involving the Ronald McDonald House  Participated in the Downtown Winterfest Event  Participated in the Special Olympics/Polar Bear Plunge committee meeting  Participated in the Foodbank of Delaware event – Liberty Court  21st Century Program activities at the Central Middle School [PAL]  Beginning of the Sponsored Student Athlete program [PAL]- student introductions  [PAL] coordinator attended the Board of Directors meeting – 2026 Budget approval  Assisted DVOC with a Barricaded subject situation  Handled a felony violation of privacy situation- Whatcoat Drive  Handled trespass situations- Stevenson Drive, North New Street, South Governors  Handled a juvenile situation- Lake Club Apartments  Handled a suspicious activity concern- Forrest Avenue WAWA  Assisted the Police Academy with Day 1 & Special Olympics related activities  Assisted with the search for a missing person- Emerald Pointe area  Liaison with identified property managers for monthly statistical analysis  Liaison with representatives of both DSU and CSD- youth mentorship program  Continued liaison with ownership- Hamlet Shopping Center- Trespassing concerns  Attended Grand Jury proceedings – Superior Court  Follow-up- Parking Complaint – The Grande Apartments  Follow-up- ongoing situation- Arbor Management  Assisted with the Police Prosecution Project (PPP) – JP Court #7  Fugitive arrested- 2022 Felony Domestic Violence case  Trespass arrests- 28 & 40 South Governor’s Avenue [different days]  Participated in the large scale response- Swatting Event- BayHealth Kent Campus/CVS  Liaison with North Dover Elementary regarding Super Science Day  Continued efforts regarding Quality of Life complaints on South Governor’s Ave.  Meeting with Eden Hill representatives regarding property checks/trespassing  Participated in preparation and attendance duties – DSP LODD Funeral  The Behavioral Health Unit (BHU) responded to and/or assisted with 30 notable Calls for Service (CFS). Of those 30 CFS, the following occurred: o 7 involved transports to the Dover Police Department or Medical/Mental Health Facilities. 4 Page 210

o 12 involved Mental Health contacts and 5 involved Substance Abuse contacts, Item #18. while 3 CFS involved a combination of both. o 24 involved other circumstances and/or CFS types. o 31 direct field contacts occurred during the 30 complaints involving Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and/or Other Circumstances.  BHU Meetings/Events/Community Engagement/Projects/Training: o Most Notable: The BHU assisted Street Crimes and the Drugs, Vice, and Organized Crime Unit with a Human Trafficking complaint that was occurring at Bally’s Casino/Hotel. The BHU assisted with interviews, transportation, housing, assessment, and resources during this multi-day case. o CPL Shepherd assisted with negotiations related to a barricade situation near Fairway Lakes Dr. o CPL Shepherd assisted with a Lethal Violence Protective Order investigation, and the subsequent evidence and hearings related to the case. o BHU continued to meet with stakeholders and resources in reference to a treatment/detox facility in Kent County. o BHU presented about the unit’s barriers, goals, and achievements at the Criminal Justice Council meeting. o CPL Shepherd met with TACT Consulting in reference to a needs assessment for the State of Delaware related to the Prescription Opioid Settlement Distribution Commission. o CPL Shepherd completed a safety plan with the Risk Management Director at Dover Behavioral Health after threats were made to staff. o Continued meetings with the Prescription Opioid Settlement Distribution Commission and others about upcoming funding for the City of Dover, Kent County, and the Behavioral Health Unit. o CPL Shepherd continued to meet with Dover Behavioral Health and Bayhealth Emergency Department staff to improve crisis response throughout Dover and the State.  BHU continued to assist all Units within the Department with Behavioral Health related cases or inquires. PROGRAMS AND INITIATIVES On January 6th, the Dover Police executed a mission of planned support to the Delaware State Police in relation to the LODD Funeral for Corporal Ty Snook. In addition to the attendance at the services, this support included patrol coverage in the DSP zones of Kent County and activities related to our Honor Guard, Motorcycle Unit, and our team of Public Information Officers. Cpl. Snook was murdered as he stood a post at a New Castle County branch of the Delaware DMV. Our continued condolences go out to his friends and family. Our five (5) Recruit Officers began the Police Academy on January 11th. All of them have performed well and are progressing through the curriculum. Background investigations continue on a small number of candidates who were successful during preliminary assessment on December 7, 2025. Chief’s interviews will occur in early February for any candidates that advance from the background. There was considerable time invested during the early part of January in preparation for the DPD 2030 Strategic Vision presentation. I would like to take a moment to thank all of the 5 Page 211

members of the leadership team for their efforts in gathering and organizing the data as well Item #18. as City Council for their kind consideration. The Department activated its snow emergency procedures for the January 26th ice storm that impacted the region. The plan worked well as it related to preparatory activities all the way through to the recovery after the storm. The typical amount of stuck vehicles were experienced as well as the usual rate of slip/fall events. Fortunately, we experienced minimal damage to departmental property and no significant injuries. As we begin the year, a number of supervisors were transferred to new assignments to continue their professional development. They are as follows: Lieutenant Jordan Miller assumed command of the Criminal Investigations Unit. Lieutenant Mark Hoffman assumed command of the Patrol Unit. Lieutenant Peter Martinek assumed command of the Special Services Unit. Lieutenant Christopher Bumgarner assumed command of the Administrative Unit. Master Corporal Robert Cunningham is now a supervisor in Patrol Platoon A. Master Corporal Scott Hurd is now assigned to the Training Unit. Master Corporal Mathew Krogh is now assigned to the DVOC Unit. Please visit our website at www.doverpolice.org for up to date information on crimes and activities in the City of Dover. Respectfully Submitted, Thomas A. Johnson, Jr. Chief of Police 6 Page 212

Item #20. Tax Office MEMO TO: Mayor & Council FROM: Andréa L. Griffin. Customer Service Director RE: Property Assessment Appeal Dates I request that the following dates and times be established for the 2026 Property Assessment Appeals. June 1–June 5, 2026 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. One evening – if needed One evening session may be scheduled if needed. Hearing times are subject to change. If you have any questions, please contact the Tax Office. Page 213

Item #22. FINAL READING City of Dover PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2025-14 1 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN 2 COUNCIL MET: 3 4 That Chapter 22 - Buildings and Building Regulations, Article XII – Vacant Buildings, be 5 amended by inserting the text as follows: 6 7 Secs. 22-407-499. – Reserved. 8 9 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 10 11 That Chapter 22 - Buildings and Building Regulations, be amended by inserting the text as follows: 12 13 14 ARTICLE XIII. LEMON HOUSING 15 16 Sec. 22-500 Lemon Housing Protection 17 18 Section 1. Purpose 19 20 The purpose of this ordinance is to promote the safety, health, and welfare of the residents 21 of Dover. This ordinance establishes the requirements for home inspections prior to the 22 transfer of residential properties. 23 24 Section 2. Definitions 25 26 The following words, terms, and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings 27 ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different 28 meaning: 29 30 Transfer of Property means the sale, exchange, or any legal conveyance of residential 31 property from one party to another. 32 33 Home Inspection means a comprehensive, whole-house evaluation of the property’s 34 structure, systems, and components conducted by a licensed home inspector. 35 36 Defect means any condition identified during the inspection that does not meet safety, 37 operational, or structural standards. Page 214

Item #22. FINAL READING 38 39 Section 3. Inspection Requirement 40 41 (a) Timeline - A home inspection shall be conducted within one (1) year prior to the 42 date of property transfer. 43 44 (b) Inspector Qualifications - The inspection must be carried out by a licensed home 45 inspector recognized by the State of Delaware. 46 47 Section 4. Owner Occupancy Requirement 48 49 (a) Any additional professional practices that are standard at the time of the sale, 50 which shall be deemed incorporated into this ordinance by reference and 51 automatically enforceable as local law. 52 53 (b) The seller must disclose in writing if he or she has never lived in the house or has 54 lived for less than one year in the house. 55 56 (c) The seller must disclose if he or she is in the business of buying and selling homes. 57 58 Section 5. Acknowledgement of Defects 59 60 (a) A report detailing all identified defects shall be provided to the buyer. 61 62 (b) The buyer must initial each noted defect in acknowledgment of receipt and 63 awareness. 64 65 Section 6. Enforcement and Penalties 66 67 (a) Non-compliance shall be reported in writing by email or written hard copy to the 68 city manager. Based on confirmation, the city manager may levy a penalty. 69 70 (b) Failure to comply with this ordinance may result in the seller and or the seller’s 71 agent, real estate representative (realtor) losing their license to practice in the City of 72 Dover. 73 74 (c) A fine shall be paid unto the city as provided for in Appendix F—Fees and Fines. 75 76 (d) A penalty may be appealed to the Construction and Property Maintenance Code 77 Board of Appeals. 78 79 80 Section 7. Appeals 81 82 (a) Appeals – Whenever any person is aggrieved by a decision of the city manager 83 with respect to the provision of this chapter, it is the right of that person to appeal to Page 215

Item #22. FINAL READING 84 the construction property maintenance code board of appeals. Such an appeal must 85 be filed, in writing, within 30 days after the penalty is levied by the city manager. 86 87 (b) Notice of Hearing – Upon receipt of such an appeal, the construction and property 88 maintenance code board of appeals shall set a time and place in not less than 10 nor 89 more than 30 days for the purpose of hearing the appeal. Notice of the time and place 90 of the hearing of the appeal shall be given to all parties, at which time they may appear 91 and be heard. The determination by the construction and property maintenance code 92 board of appeals shall be final in all cases. 93 94 Section 8. Effective Date 95 96 This ordinance shall take effect on March 9, 2026, following its adoption and publication as 97 required by law. 98 99 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 100 101 That Appendix F – Fees and Fines, be amended by inserting the text indicated in bold, blue font 102 as follows: 103 104 Chapter 22. Buildings and Building Regulations 105 Chapter 22. Buildings and Building Regulations Fees and Fines Article XIII. Lemon Housing Protection Sec. 22-500 Sec. 6 – Enforcement and Penalties (c) $ 106 107 108 109 ADOPTED: 110 111 SYNOPSIS 112 The ordinance establishes requirements for licensed home inspections prior to the transfer of 113 residential property in Dover. It defines key terms, outlines inspection timelines and disclosure 114 obligations, and requires sellers to acknowledge whether they have lived in the home or are 115 engaged in the business of selling homes. Buyers must be provided with inspection reports and 116 confirm acknowledgment of any identified defects. The ordinance provides for enforcement by the 117 City Manager, including fines and potential loss of licensure for non-compliance. It also 118 establishes a formal appeals process through the Construction and Property Maintenance Code 119 Board of Appeals. 120 121 122 (SPONSORS: NEIL, ROCHA) 123 124 Actions History 125 02/25/2026 – Scheduled for Final Reading – City Council Page 216

Item #22. FINAL READING 126 02/25/2026 - First Reading – City Council 127 01/13/2026 - Introduction - Council Committee of the Whole/Legislative, Finance, and Administration 128 committee Page 217