REGULAR COUNCIL MINUTES & EXHIBITS 1-3

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING The Regular City Council Meeting was held on November 8, 2021 at 6:30 p.m. with Council President Sudler presiding. Council members present were Mr. Anderson, Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Neil, Mrs. Arndt, Mr. Rocha, Mr. Taylor, and Mr. Hare. Staff members present were Police Chief Johnson, Ms. Peddicord, Mr. Hugg, Mr. Rodriguez, and Mrs. McDowell. Mayor Christiansen was also present. OPEN FORUM The Open Forum was held at 7:15 p.m., prior to commencement of the Official Council Meeting. Councilman Hare declared the Open Forum in session and reminded those present that Council was not in official session and could not take formal action. Mrs. Jeannie Anderson, 217 Cecil Street, Dover, spoke to regarding meeting the father of a young woman who had been murdered in Dover. Mr. Steven Hall, 326 North Bradford Street, spoke in support of recreational opportunities for the young people behind the General’s Green Complex; the increase in the homeless population; and his support of the rezoning for Dover Interfaith Mission for Housing. Ms. Lachelle Paul, 55 Glenn Street, Dover, spoke regarding Uniqua Caldwell's murder. She advised that Ms. Caldwell’s parents, Mr. David Wilson and Ms. Elisha Caldwell were present and that they would like the opportunity to speak. Mr. David Wilson, 500 Persimmon Tree Lane, Dover, regarding meeting Jeannie and David Anderson. He also advised that he did not support the proposed dawdling ordinance. Ms. Lorraine Loper, 426 Court Street, Dover, spoke against the proposed dawdling ordinance because her sons, as African Americans, have been profiled all their lives and she thought this would be very dangerous. Ms. Benita Rufus-Gassi, former resident of Dover, spoke against the proposed dawdling ordinance for safety reasons. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Elder Ellis Louden. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilperson Arndt. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Rocha and unanimously carried.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 8, 2021 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. Mr. Boggerty moved that item #22 - Proposed Ordinance #2021-26 - Creating a New Chapter 28 - Dawdling and Amending Chapter 62 - Law Enforcement, Article II - Police Department, Section 62-38 - Police Cadet Program and Chapter 74 - Parks and Recreation, Article I - In General, Section 74-11 - Loitering be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered as item #2-B. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sudler and failed by a roll call vote of five (5) no (Anderson, Neil, Arndt, Taylor, and Hare) and three (3) yes (Boggerty, Rocha, and Sudler). Mr. Anderson moved that item #22 - Proposed Ordinance #2021-26 - Creating a New Chapter 28 - Dawdling and Amending Chapter 62 - Law Enforcement, Article II - Police Department, Section 62-38 - Police Cadet Program and Chapter 74 - Parks and Recreation, Article I - In General, Section 74-11 - Loitering be removed from the Consent Agenda. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hare and unanimously carried. Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the consent agenda, as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Taylor and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. TRIBUTE #2021-01 - JENNIFER L. HARRIS The City Clerk read the following Tribute into the record: WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council of the City of Dover are saddened by the passing of Jennifer Lynn Harris on July 27, 2021; and WHEREAS, Ms. Harris pursued higher education in psychology, history, and education, receiving her Bachelor's Degree from San Francisco State University, a teaching certificate from Dowling College, and a Master's Degree from New York University. She also saw the beauty that the world had to offer and dedicated much of her life to exploring the nation; WHEREAS, Ms. Harris valued her community and made a point to be of service from the moment she was eligible to vote until her last days. She served as a VISTA volunteer, fought for equal rights during the Civil Rights movement, ran a camp for inner-city youths, became a public school teacher and active union member, served as a Red Cross volunteer, advocated for policy change at local, state, and federal levels, and prior to her passing was appointed to the Utility Committee for the City of Dover; and WHEREAS, Ms. Harris will be deeply missed by her friends, family, and all of those whose lives she has touched.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 8, 2021 PAGE 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and Council extend their deepest sympathy and condolences to the family and friends of Jennifer Lynn Harris, and hope that they will be consoled by the memories of her life and achievements. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and Council direct the City Clerk to place this Tribute in the permanent records of the City of Dover and that a copy of this Tribute be provided to the family of Jennifer Lynn Harris. ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 8, 2021 On behalf of the Mayor and Council, Mayor Christiansen presented the Tribute to the family of Jennifer Lynn Harris. Councilman Rocha recognized Mrs. Harris as a soldier, a term he does not use lightly, and noted that when he needed someone to appoint to the Utility Committee, she did not blink an eye. She accepted right away and then it was shortly after that, that she found out she was sick and was not able to serve. Mr. Rocha attested that she would have served the City well, given that opportunity, but unfortunately that opportunity was taken away from her. He noted that they were honoring Mrs. Harris for her willingness to participate, to make the City of Dover a better place. Ms. Kerri Evelyn Harris, daughter of Jennifer Harris, advised that her family was watching from across the nation. She stated that her mother taught them all to be more than they ever thought they could be. Ms. Harris noted that, while there may be disagreements, anyone that knew her knew that what was most important was that they had dialogue. That it was respectful, that they found a central point. That they saw each other as human beings instead of groupings of people and understanding that it was their duty to serve each other, whether in an elected position or as community leaders, as community members. Ms. Harris stated that it was an honor to have received the Tribute, but it was even more of an honor to know that people will continue her mother’s legacy by doing good works, by uniting communities, by making sure that tomorrow is brighter for everyone. And that they do the work and do not just live to be the change they want to see in the world, but do the work to create that change. By unanimous consent, Tribute No. 2021-01 was adopted. PROCLAMATION - GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS (GIS) DAY AND GEOGRAPHY AWARENESS WEEK The City Clerk read the following Proclamation into the record: WHEREAS, fascination with the earth's geography inspired the early explorers of our country to learn and record information about the surface of the land and its people, environments, resources, political boundaries, and characteristics and today remains a fundamental part of our national heritage; and

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 8, 2021 PAGE 4 WHEREAS, geographic information has many useful applications for our municipal government and is a valuable resource used in the analysis of infrastructure, emergency services, economic development, and long-range planning. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology provides an efficient means of managing geographic information and providing data that allows for effective decision-making and improved delivery of services to the residents of the City of Dover and our surrounding area; and WHEREAS, this annual public awareness program encourages all citizens to think and learn about the significance of place and how we affect and are affected by it. The City of Dover's GIS Division plays a vital role in the continued growth of the City and has been nationally recognized for its outstanding efforts in the advancement of GIS and its foresight in creating programs that can be used to better manage services in the City. NOW, THEREFORE, I, ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE, do hereby proclaim November 17, 2021 as GIS Day, and November 15 -19, 2021 as GEOGRAPHY AWARENESS WEEK in the City of Dover and urge all residents to participate in this special observance. On behalf of the Mayor, Council, and citizen of the City of Dover, Mayor Christiansen presented the proclamation to Mrs. Sharon Duca, Public Works Director. Mrs. Duca thanked the Mayor and Council for recognizing GIS and all that it provides to the City. It is a service that is used by nearly every department in the City to help make the work more efficient and effective. She advised that the City of Dover earned a special achievement award this year from Esri, which is a worldwide award that the City was in competition with. Mrs. Duca stated that it is a pretty big success for the City to be part of that group. PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2021-19 A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider approval of proposed zoning text amendments to Appendix B - Zoning, Article 3 - District Regulations, Section 19 - Manufacturing Zone (M); Article 4 - Zoning Bulk Parking Regulations, Section 4.16 - M, IPM Zones; and Article 5 - Supplementary Regulations, Section3 - Supplementary Regulations Applying to Nonresidential Buildings, except in IPM Zone. Mr. Neil moved that the Final Reading of proposed Ordinance #2021-19 be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Boggerty and unanimously carried. (The First Reading of the ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of September 27, 2021.) Mr. Dave Hugg, Interim City Manager, advised members that the ordinance amends some of the provisions of the zoning ordinance relating to the manufacturing zone, including adjusting the height limitations, removing a requirement that all manufacturing activity receive conditional use approval, and making other changes to make the language consistent with sections of the Dover Code that had been revised in recent months.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 8, 2021 PAGE 5 Mr. Hugg noted that the purpose of the ordinance was to maintain Dover's competitiveness for new industry, new development in the community, modern manufacturing, and multipurpose buildings. He advised that Industrial buildings increasingly require taller ceilings than the Code permits and the amendment makes an adjustment for that. Mr. Hugg stated that the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the proposed ordinance. Council President Sudler declared the public hearing open and, with no one present wishing to speak, Council President Sudler declared the hearing closed. Mr. Boggerty moved for adoption of the Ordinance, as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and, by a unanimous roll call vote, Council adopted Ordinance #2021-19 (Exhibit #1). PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2021-21 - REZONING REQUEST FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 317, 319, AND 325 WEST DIVISION STREET A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider the rezoning of properties located at 317, 319, and 325 West Division Street, consisting of three (3) parcels (0.05 +/- acres, 0.13 +/- acres, and 0.08 +/- acres, for a total of 0.26 +/- acres), owned by E. Vernon Ingram Jr. And Alice M. Ingram. The properties are currently zoned C-1A (Limited Commercial) and the proposed zoning is IO (Institutional and Office). (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-21-06. Council District 4.) Council President Sudler reminded members of the public that copies of the proposed ordinance were available at the entrance of the Council Chambers or on the City’s website at www.cityofdover.com under “Government.” Mr. Neil moved that the Final Reading of Proposed Ordinance #2021-21 be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. (The First Reading of the ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of September 27, 2021.) Planner's Review Mr. Dave Hugg, III, Interim City Manager, reviewed the petition to amend the zoning district and the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission. He noted that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning request. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, Interim Director of Planning and Community Development, advised that the rezoning request was consistent with the 2019 Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Anderson asked what uses were allowed in the Institutional and Office (IO) zone. Mrs. Melson-Williams advised that the IO zone is described in the Zoning Ordinance in Article 3, Section 10 of the Dover Code as a mix of commercial and institutional type uses. The types of uses

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 8, 2021 PAGE 6 that are allowed in that zone are a variety of offices, banks, research and design laboratories, public and institutional uses ranging from hospitals, medical clinics, libraries, philanthropic and charitable institutions, public utility rights-of-way, child daycare centers, emergency shelters, and transitional housing, as well as adult daycare facilities. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that there are also a number of conditional uses, meaning uses that require a special review process in order to be instituted in that zone, as well as several accessory uses. She noted that the IO zone really focuses more on institutional type uses. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that the location of those properties on West Division Street places it on a major East/West corridor within the City of Dover. She noted that there was existing infrastructure in place with streets, access to a rear alley, options for transit and alternative modes of transportation, as well as the City’s infrastructure. Mr. Anderson asked what the next step would be if the rezoning were approved. Mrs. Melson-Williams advised that the process for development of the site, if they were to utilize the existing buildings, could potentially mean just a building permit process. If they were planning to remove the buildings and build new, it would likely trigger the site development plan review process, which is an application to the City's Planning Commission which is subject to public hearing. Public Hearing Council President Sudler declared the public hearing open. Mr. Ken Abraham, 430 Kings Highway, Apartment 414, Dover, stated that he was a former resident, staff member, and volunteer of Dover Interfaith Mission for Housing and noted that it was a great asset to the community and urged approval of the rezoning to allow them to relocate. Mr. Jeff Hall, 240 South Shore Drive, Dover, advised that although he was the Kent County Levy Court Commissioner for the 2nd District, he was not speaking on behalf of Levy Court. Mr. Hall expressed his support for the rezoning application. Ms. Jeanine Kleimo, Chair of the Dover Interfaith Mission for Housing (DIMH) at 684 Forest Street, Dover, provided a brief history of the DIMH. She advised that she had been raising significant funds for this project and urged the City to approve the rezoning request because it was in the interest of the City to enable the Dover Interfaith Mission for Housing and the 50 or 60 faith communities, organizations, and the 1,000 volunteers who work with them every day and whom have had a rewarding and positive experience in working with the DIMH. Council President Sudler reminded members that they were only considering the rezoning, not any particular project. Responding to Mr. Hare, Ms. Kleimo stated that they respected the outpouring of concern by the neighbors of Bicentennial Village when DIMH was considering a location on Walker Road. She advised that they had not had opposing views from the neighbors that they met on Division Street

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 8, 2021 PAGE 7 and that they had also progressed over a couple of years to have a much stronger and a more effective program. Mr. Hare asked if DIMH had considered working with the State, like Newcastle County did, to buy a hotel. He noted that some people were willing to sell their hotels. Responding, Ms. Kleimo stated that she would like the information on hotels for sale. Mr. Hare stated that people were afraid to come forward because this property is not in the low crime area. He noted that the property is not even a 10th of a mile from Delaware State University's campus. Mr. Hare asked if DIMH had the option to use church properties or properties that were not in the middle of a residential neighborhood that Habitat for Humanity was trying to rebuild. Responding, Ms. Kleimo stated that this location was the result of a very long process. Mr. Neil noted that he had been a part of the process and he did not think that the location would add anything in terms of crime, if anything it was helping those people who were willing and wished to get back into society. Mr. Taylor asked if there were any issues with the proximity to the schools, churches and parks. Responding, Ms. Kleimo assured members that this site was not within any place that they were not permitted to be, in terms of any schools or any places that had restrictions. She noted that they had a very cooperative relationship with the churches in the community and in this neighborhood. Council President Sudler reminded members that they were only supposed to be discussing the zoning, but since the applicant is proposing a men’s shelter, that information is now added into their decision for the rezoning and could be used to either deny or approve the rezoning request since it was brought to them. Mrs. Arndt restated that the rezoning request was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Institutional and Office zoning was compatible with nearby uses and that was the basis for which they should be making their decision. Pastor Amy Yarnall, Wesley United Methodist Church, stated that she was not aware that they were going to separate out the decision. She advised that, based on her conversations among other colleagues and churches, there was support for the rezoning request. Mr. Taylor asked if the City put any mechanism in place to look at the distance from the park on Kirkwood Street versus the new location that is being proposed and, if so, what the distance was. Responding, Mrs. Melson-Williams advised that the zoning ordinance did not have prescriptive spacing distances for any particular use outlined in the IO zone. She believed those distance requirements that had been referenced were provisions in Delaware Code. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that planning staff did not review Delaware Code for compliance with what potentially could be a use. They looked only at the zoning. Mr. Taylor asked Ms. Kleimo what mechanism their organization used to assess whether or not they were within the guidelines from the Kirkwood Street Park to the proposed new location. Ms. Kleimo

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 8, 2021 PAGE 8 replied that there was no known ordinance that prohibited proximity to a park by residents or users of a facility such as theirs. The only restriction applied to schools and there were no nearby schools that would affect this particular use of the property. Ms. Kleimo also noted that there was nothing within any distance that would be a concern or that would violate any ordinance. She advised that they had worked very closely with the City Planning staff and the Department of Probation to make sure that there was no conflict with any city or state ordinances. Mr. Taylor expressed concern with the proximity of sex offenders to a public park where kids play and schools. Responding, Ms. Kleimo stated that it did not affect the proximity of any facility, noting that individuals by virtue of their tier and their probation status may be prohibited from being in certain places, but that is not a matter of the building's location proximate to a park or any other facility other than a school. Police Chief Thomas Johnson advised that there had been revisions to that law in recent years and the latest legislation limits residence and location of sex offenders only to school buildings. There is no reference in the current statutory law about parks, churches, or daycares. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Rodriguez, City Solicitor, stated that the rezoning application was in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and everything seemed to be covered completely by staff. Ms. Anne Smith, 132 Oakmont Drive, Dover, stated that she had worked with the homeless for years; however, she was not in agreement with the rezoning if it meant bringing that facility to that particular area. Ms. Smith advised that the area was minority populated and she did not think the area was healthy in terms of the citizens there and questioned whether the facility would strengthen that community. Ms. Smith stated that if it was not going to strengthen the citizens in that community, they would be doing the families in that area a great disservice. Ms. Sarah Rhine, Policy Director at Housing Alliance Delaware and a Dover resident at 186 Carnoustie Road, spoke in support of the Dover Interfaith Mission for Housing’s rezoning application and urged support for all of the citizens in need of housing. Mr. Herbert Konowitz, 55 Beloit Avenue, outside the City of Dover, advised that he had been a member of the staff at DIMH and the vice chair for the past 14 years. He noted that he was also on the parole board for the State of Delaware. He requested approval of the rezoning application to assist those being released from prison. Ms. Lachelle Paul, 55 Glenn Street, Dover, spoke in opposition to the rezoning application, noting that the Fourth District was already stressed with regards to the high crime rate and poverty level. She noted that when people get out of jail and they are homeless, they need placement in an area where the crime rate is lower. Ms. Paul also expressed concern about sex offenders and the children living in the area.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 8, 2021 PAGE 9 Ms. Karen Grady, 55 Beloit Avenue outside of the city limits, stated that she had been volunteering for DIMH for years and she saw them as a solution to the problems in the city. She noted that DIMH gave people a hope and a prayer and a change and without them they were going to add more people to the streets. She requested approval of the rezoning application. Ms. Karen Speakman, Executive Director of NCALL, 101 Maple Glen Drive, Dover, stated that if the property were rezoned, it would go from an old auto repair and sales store to something that would be very valuable to the community. She noted that NCALL was working with the residents of the Fourth District and other parts of the City to engage each other and to improve the community. Ms. Speakman stated that having a place for the homeless to live and be trained to have jobs would make a huge difference in the community. She urged approval of the rezoning application. Mrs. Georgiana Windley (via WebEx), 725 Bicentennial Boulevard, Dover, stated that she was in support of the rezoning because it was consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Karma Amos (via WebEx) stated that she was a local minister in support of the rezoning. Council President Sudler, noting that no audience members in attendance lived near a homeless shelter (by show of hands) or experienced what is was like, stated that he would support the rezoning but that he was opposed to the DIMH’s men's shelter at that location. He stated that a lot of time had been spent cleaning that area up and a shelter would clutter the Fourth District area. Mr. Sudler referenced the opposition to the shelter in the First District and noted that the Fourth District residents were not as outspoken for whatever reason. He stated that he believed in the mission; however, the Fourth District was already cluttered and they needed other districts to share the responsibility. Ms. Yolanda Jackson (via WebEx), member of the Board of Directors at the Dover Interfaith Mission for Housing, advised that DIMH was an interfaith mission - an effort by local churches in the area. She stated that they needed the adequate resources and staff to represent an interfaith platform as is Dover Interfaith Mission for Housing. Mr. Anderson reminded members that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning application; NCALL, which is investing very heavily in the neighborhood, supports the application; and DIMH has been working successfully in the Fourth District for 10 years a couple of blocks from the proposed location. He stated that he would want to see that the site plan was done properly to safeguard members of the neighborhood, the aesthetics, and proper fencing. Council President Sudler acknowledged the receipt of correspondence in support of the rezoning application from the Housing Alliance of Delaware, the National Council on Agricultural Life and Labor Research Fund (NCALL), and Mr. James Short (Exhibit #2). Mr. Neil moved for approval of the rezoning request, as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Arndt and, by a unanimous roll call vote, Council adopted Ordinance #2021-21, as follows:

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 8, 2021 PAGE 10 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 317 WEST DIVISION STREET, 319 WEST DIVISION STREET, AND 325 WEST DIVISION STREET WHEREAS, the City of Dover has enacted a zoning ordinance regulating the use of property within the limits of the City of Dover; and WHEREAS, it is deemed in the best interest of zoning and planning to change the permitted use of properties described below from C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) to IO (Institutional and Office Zone). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 1. That from and after the passage and approval of this ordinance the Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance of the City of Dover have been amended by changing the zoning designation from C-1A (Limited Commercial Zone) to IO (Institutional and Office Zone) on that property located at 317 West Division Street, consisting of 0.05+/- acres, 319 West Division Street, consisting of 0.13+/- acres, and 325 West Division Street, consisting of 0.08+/- acres, (on the north side of West Division Street and east of North Queen Street) , owned by E. Vernon Ingram, Jr. & Alice M. Ingram. (Tax Parcel: 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-21-06; Fourth Council District) ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 8, 2021 ADOPTION OF MINUTES - SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 25, 2021 The Minutes of the Special Council Meeting of October 25, 2021 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Neil, seconded by Mr. Anderson and bore the written approval of Mayor Christiansen. ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 25, 2021 The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of October 25, 2021 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Neil, seconded by Mr. Anderson and bore the written approval of Mayor Christiansen. COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT - OCTOBER 26, 2021 The Council Committee of the Whole Meeting was held on October 26, 2021 at 6:00 p.m., with Council President Sudler presiding. Members of Council present were Mr. Anderson, Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Neil, Mr. Hare, Mrs. Arndt, Mr. Rocha, and Mr. Taylor. Mayor Christiansen was also present. Civilian members present for their Committee meetings were Dr. Jackson and Mr. Shelton (via WebEx) (Safety Advisory and Transportation), Mr. McCutchen (Utility), and Mr. Shevock (Legislative, Finance, and Administration). Mr. Contant (Legislative, Finance, and Administration) was absent.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 8, 2021 PAGE 11 Mr. Anderson requested that the Committee begin with the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee Informational Item #16 - Update on COVID-19 Vaccine (Dr. Kandis Samuels, MD, Bayhealth Family Medicine and Rev. Rita Paige, President of the Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance of Dover (IMA) and strike the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Item #12 - Proposed Amendments to Personnel Policy (Employee Handbook) (Matt Harline, Interim City Manager) from the agenda. Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda, as amended. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Arndt and unanimously carried. SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE The Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee met with Chairman Taylor presiding. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Boggerty and unanimously carried. Update on COVID-19 Vaccine (Dr. Kandis Samuels, MD, Bayhealth Family Medicine and Rev. Rita Paige, President of the Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance of Dover (IMA) Dr. Kandis Samuels-Leutzinger, MD, MPH, Bayhealth Family Medicine and Dr. Cameron Golden, reviewed a presentation entitled “COVID-19 Update,” dated October 26, 2021. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Dr. Samuels stated that regarding the effectiveness of the vaccine diminishing has to do with immunity and antibodies. She stated that there have been conversations about if people should get antibody testing to see how high their antibodies were. Mr. Taylor asked if someone gets the COVID-19 virus and they are unvaccinated, are they going to have a stronger immune system than someone who would receive the vaccination. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Dr. Samuels stated that question comes up often and there is not a definitive answer, because there are a lot more variables involved and depends on risk factors. She noted that they are still gathering more of that information with the vaccines, but it is not like it would last indefinitely. Dr. Golden noted that new data came out this August stating that for patients who have had COVID-19 infection and have not gotten the vaccine, they are actually two times more likely to be reinfected versus someone who has the COVID-19 infection in the past, but also been vaccinated. There is more evidence to suggest, even if someone has been infected, the vaccine should still be administered to patients. Dr. Samuels noted that there are some long haul COVID symptoms that people have

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 8, 2021 PAGE 12 and tend not to get after someone has been vaccinated. Responding to Mr. Taylor regarding variants, Dr. Samuels stated that the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had a COVID variant proportion tracker on their website. She explained that when the vaccines were initially formulated it was not for the Delta variant. Dr. Samuels noted that because of this the vaccines were not as effective as the initial data which was saying 91% but they were still effective. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Dr. Samuels stated that they encouraged everyone to get vaccinated, especially pregnant women because they already have reduced immunity. She explained that they were still learning about the virus so there was no hard answer to whether or not COVID had an effect on infants whose mothers had experienced COVID while pregnant. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Dr. Samuels stated that everyone should contact their doctor or healthcare provider to see what worked best for their needs when it came to receiving third shots or boosters, but generally anyone 65 years or older should receive a booster about six (6) months after they receive their second dose. Dr. Samuels noted that anyone 18 years or older should also receive a booster if they work in high risk settings or have underlying medical conditions such as but not limited to the following: • Cancer • Depression • Chronic kidney disease • Schizophrenia • Chronic liver disease • Obesity • Chronic lung diseases • Pregnancy • Dementia • Current or former smoker • Diabetes (type one (1) or two (2) • Stroke • Down’s syndrome • Substance abuse disorder • HIV • Opioid addiction • Immuno compromised • Tuberculosis Responding to Mr. Taylor, Dr. Samuels stated that currently they were not sure if additional shots would continue to be required because the data was evolving. She explained that flu shots were recommended yearly because viruses like the flu mutate, so it was likely COVID would be more similar to that than a shot for the chicken pox which an individual only needed to receive once but the situation was still evolving. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Dr. Samuels stated that regardless of whether it was COVID or not pregnant women fall into the category of decreased immunity. She explained that there are side effects with every vaccine but they still recommend that pregnant women be vaccinated due to the risk to the fetus and the risk of death of the mother if COVID were contracted.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 8, 2021 PAGE 13 Responding to Mr. Taylor, Dr. Samuels stated that as of that afternoon the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) panel stated that it was safe to use the vaccine potentially in children 5 years and up. She explained that for Pfizer, a third of the adult dose would be given to children. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Dr. Samuels stated that they did not know for certain what the long term effects of the vaccine would be and whether or not it would affect children’s innate immunity, adaptive immunity, or passive immunity, they were just operating in the midst of a pandemic and trying their best to give children the best chance for immunity. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Dr. Samuels stated that they did not know at this time if boosters would be recommended for children because they were just starting with the vaccine and adults did not receive a booster until about six (6) months after the last dose of the series. Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee meeting recessed by unanimous consent. Meeting recessed at 6:31 p.m. UTILITY COMMITTEE The Utility Committee met with Chairman Rocha presiding. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Hare moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Evaluation of Proposals - Turnberry Pump Station Upgrade Engineering Design Support (Jason Lyon, Water and Wastewater Director) Staff recommended awarding contract to Century Engineering for the Turnberry Pump Station Upgrade Engineering Design, RFP #22-0005WW, for the amount of $20,592. Mr. Hare moved to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Anderson. The motion failed with Mr. Neil, Mrs. Arndt and Mr. Anderson voting no. Mr. Jason Lyon, Water and Wastewater Director, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the evaluation of proposal for the Turnberry Pump Station Upgrade Engineering Design Support.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 8, 2021 PAGE 14 Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mr. Lyon stated that it was an option to put the same amount of money into training City engineering staff to do these types of jobs in the future. Mr. Anderson moved to recommend awarding contract to Century Engineering for the Turnberry Pump Station Upgrade Engineering Design, RFP #22-0005WW, for the amount of $20,592, as recommended by Staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Annexation Request - Right-Of-Way at Raymond Street, Grove Street, and Railroad Avenue (Dawn Melson-Williams, Principal Planner/Dave Hugg, Planning and Community Development Director) Mr. Dave Hugg, Planning and Community Development Director, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the Annexation request right-of-way at Raymond Street, Grove Street, and Railroad Avenue. Staff recommended that the right-of-way known as Raymond Street (aka Jason Street), Grove Street, and Railroad Avenue be annexed into the City to close an enclave and “clean up” the City boundary by including areas of right-of-way that were intended to be included in the City upon the previous annexations of neighboring properties. Furthermore, certain utilities are already available in this area under some of the right-of-way described and can be brought up to current standards with any further development of the area. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Hugg stated that he believed the request encompassed the streets that were coexistent with properties in the City that were specifically affiliated with some of the potential development that had been suggested for the area. He explained that there were a number of private parcels that were not in City limits in the annexation exhibit but the responsibility for requesting annexation would fall on those property owners. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Hugg stated that the area was a combination of a couple of zones but he did not have that information with him. He noted that he would get the explanation to the Committee. Mr. Hugg clarified that the City was initiating the zoning request. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Hugg stated that his understanding was that Conwell Street was in City limits but was not an improved City street and was not part of this annexation. He explained that his understanding was that it was a partially improved or pretty much unpaved street.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 8, 2021 PAGE 15 Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Hugg stated that Conwell Street was a separate matter from what was before the Committee in this request but City Council could direct staff to address it. Mrs. Sharon Duca, Public Works Director, stated that Conwell Street was not a recognized City street, the only streets in that area which belonged to the City were portions on Mishoe Street and Raymond Street. She explained that part of Conwell Street was adjacent to sections that were not in the City. Mrs. Duca noted that she would assume that as a part of this annexation it would be brought in for dedication to the City for the right-of-way so her personal opinion was that Conwell Street should be included. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Duca stated that the streets would need to be dedicated to the City. She explained that the original development was from 1899 so there was not a developer to dedicate it to the City which was why she asked if part of the annexation was to accept the streets as City of Dover street in addition to being within City limits. Mrs. Duca noted that staff would want to make sure it was documented as dedicated streets so they could report it to the State. Mr. Anderson moved to add the dedication and if needed an annexation of Conwell Street to the item. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sudler. Responding to Mrs. Arndt, Mrs. Duca stated that the parcels adjacent to Conwell Street on the north were not in the City but were on the South end so the right-of-way was never dedicated to the City or annexed in as the other parcels were. Mr. Anderson moved to recommend adding the dedication of Conwell Street and, if needed, the annexation of Conwell Street to the item. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sudler and unanimously carried. Mr. Anderson moved to recommend that the right-of-way known as Raymond Street (aka Jason Street), Grove Street, and Railroad Avenue be annexed into the City to close an enclave and "clean up" the City boundary by including areas of right-of-way that were intended to be included in the City upon the previous annexations of neighboring properties. Furthermore, certain utilities are already available in this area under some of the right-of-way described and can be brought up to current standards with any further development of the area, as recommended by Staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hare and unanimously carried. (City Clerk’s Office Note: This item was removed from the Consent Agenda and considered during the latter part of the meeting.)

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 8, 2021 PAGE 16 Mr. Hare moved for adjournment of the Utility Committee meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:53 p.m. LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met with Chairman Anderson presiding. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Hare requested that the Committee begin with item #15 - Presentation - Downtown Dover Partnership Update on the Comprehensive Downtown Dover Parking Plan (Diane Laird, Executive Director, DDP). Mr. Sudler moved for adoption of the agenda as amended, seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Presentation - Downtown Dover Partnership Update on the Comprehensive Downtown Dover Parking Plan (Diane Laird, Executive Director, DDP) Ms. Diane Laird, Executive Director, DDP, introduced Mr. Jed Hatfield, president of Colonial Parking, Inc. And his colleague Chris Hankins. Mr. Hatfield and Mr. Hankins reviewed a presentation from the Downtown Dover Partnership and Colonial Parking entitled “Downtown Dover Parking,” dated October 26, 2021. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Hatfield stated that residents downtown could get a monthly permit which would cost $30 per month instead of paying daily which equaled $150 per month. He explained that the permits would be available to anybody. Mr. Hatfield noted that there were also different programs that had not been contemplated for Dover because the hours did not quite fit. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Hatfield stated that there was a cost to using a credit card at the meter but it would be absorbed by the program and would not be passed on to the consumer. He explained that he believed there was a service charge on parking applications such as Park Mobile but that would be independent of them and the application would assess that charge. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Hatfield stated that he did not know which application would be used for the Dover area, it would be a bid process. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Hatfield stated that they were currently contemplating piloting two (2) electric vehicle charging stations, it would be one (1) unit with two

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 8, 2021 PAGE 17 (2) charging cords for the Bradford Street parking lot. He explained that depending on acceptance and demand it would grow from there. Evaluation of Bids - Award of Circuit Breakers for Garrison Oak Technical and Business Park Substation (Paul Waddell, Electric Director) Mr. Paul Waddell, Electric Director, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the evaluation of bids - award of circuit breakers for Garrison Oak Technical and Business Park Substation. Staff recommended awarding the bid for circuit breakers for Garrison Oak Technical and Business Park Substation #22-0007EL to Southern States via Anixter, as they were the only bidder to offer Siemen's breakers. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Waddell stated that Irby was a distributor would handled different vendor line cards but Siemens was the manufacturer. Responding to Mr. Bogerty, Mr. Waddell stated that there were three (3) different levels of vendor preference, local within the City, within the State, and minority owned businesses. He clarified that Anixter was in the State, not the City. Mr. Waddell noted that there were not any bidders within the City. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Waddell stated that there was a total budget of $7 million for this project, they had not budgeted each individual line item. He explained that for the circuit breakers, the circuit switchers, the transformer, and the switch gear they were at about $2.5 million which eft upwards of $4.5 million for construction and everything else they may be needed. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mr. Waddell stated that for Electric equipment or bids they usually did not do pre-bid meetings. He noted that he would speak to Mr. Barry Wolfgang, Contract and Procurement Manager, about possibly implementing them. Mr. Neil moved to recommend awarding the bid for circuit breakers for Garrison Oak Technical and Business Park Substation #22-0007EL to Southern States via Anixter, as they were the only bidder to offer Siemen's breakers, as recommended by Staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rocha and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 8, 2021 PAGE 18 Evaluation of Bids - Award of Circuit Switcher for Garrison Oak Technical and Business Park Substation (Paul Waddell, Electric Director) Mr. Paul Waddell, Electric Director, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the evaluation of bids - award of circuit switcher for Garrison Oak Technical and Business Park Substation. Staff recommended awarding the bid for circuit switcher for Garrison Oak Technical and Business Park Substation #22-0006EL to Southern States via Anixter, as they were the only bidder. Mr. Sudler moved to recommend approval of Staff’s recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Approving Proposal of Advantech for Weyandt Hall Security Upgrade (Kay Sass, Public Affairs and Emergency Management Coordinator) Mrs. Kay Sass, Public Affairs and Emergency Management Coordinator, reviewed the background and analysis for the Weyandt Hall security upgrade. Staff recommended authorizing the City Manager to accept the reimbursement grant for all costs associated with the purchase and installation of the video surveillance and access control expansion and authorize the sole source designation for Advantech. Mr. Sudler moved to recommend approval of Staff’s recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Weyandt Hall Building Security Modifications (Kay Sass, Public Affairs and Emergency Management Coordinator) Mrs. Kay Sass, Public Affairs and Emergency Management Coordinator, reviewed the background and analysis for the Weyandt Hall security modifications. Staff recommended authorizing the City Manager to accept the reimbursement grant for all costs associated with modifications of security enhancements in Weyandt Hall and proceed with the project. Mr. Neil moved to recommend approval of Staff’s recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rocha and unanimously carried.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 8, 2021 PAGE 19 By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. City Emergency Operations Plan Update and Inclusion of Cybersecurity (Kay Sass, Public Affairs and Emergency Management Coordinator) Mrs. Kay Sass, Public Affairs and Emergency Management Coordinator, reviewed the background and analysis for the City Emergency Operations Plan Update and inclusion of cybersecurity. Staff recommended authorizing Staff to accept the reimbursement and execute a contract to rewrite the Emergency Operations Plan with the addition of including cybersecurity. Mr. Boggerty moved to recommend approval of Staff’s recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sudler and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Administration Proposal (Tracey Harvey, CDBG Program Administrator) Mr. David Anderson, Councilman Fourth (4th) District, reviewed the proposal to manage the American Rescue Plan Act funding awarded to Nonprofit Organizations for Housing and Homelessness. Staff recommended approval of the proposal as submitted. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Anderson stated that Ms. Harvey’s role would be to administrate the funds, help the committee with the applications, hold the public meetings, and make sure the funds are administered to the different organizations in conjunction with the Finance Department. Mr. Rocha moved to recommend approval of the proposal to manage the American Rescue Plan Act funding awarded to Nonprofit Organizations for Housing and Homelessness, as recommended by Staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Boggerty and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Fiscal Year 2021B Street and Alley Program - Additional Work (Sharon Duca, Public Works Director) Mrs. Sharon Duca, Public Works Director, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the Fiscal Year 2021B Street and Alley Program - Additional Work.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 8, 2021 PAGE 20 Staff recommended awarding the additional work of regrading and repaving the American Legion, Walter L. Fox Post #2 parking lot to Grassbuster's Landscaping Company, Inc. for the City of Dover FY 2021B Street and Alley Program in the amount of $201,284 for a total project cost of $582,367. Mr. Anderson thanked the legislators who participated in this including the Senator Paradee, Representative Sean Lynn and Senator Colin Bonini. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mrs. Duca stated that they did try to make contact with legislators annually at a minimum to go over the roads that are in poor condition or need addressing. She explained that they had a meeting with them a few months ago and provided a map of all the roads in the City that were at a reconstruct level eight (8), but they were scattered throughout the City not in a particular zone, it was based on their use. Mrs. Duca noted that they were trying to make them aware of the needs of the City and trying to get more focus on them. She stated that staff expected that the program would continually expand year after year. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mrs. Duca stated that the City would want to keep itself aware of what funding opportunities were out there so it could continually improve its streets. Mr. Neil moved to recommend awarding the additional work of regrading and repaving the American Legion, Walter L. Fox Post #2 parking lot to Grassbuster's Landscaping Company, Inc. for the City of Dover FY 2021B Street and Alley Program in the amount of $201,284 for a total project cost of $582,367, as recommended by Staff. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Arndt and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Kent County Levy Court Grant (Thomas Johnson, Police Chief) Police Chief Thomas Johnson reviewed the background for the Kent County Levy Court Grant. Staff recommended approval of the new grant program and the intended purchases. Mr. Hare moved to recommend approval of Staff’s recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Boggerty and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 8, 2021 PAGE 21 Proposed Ordinance #2021-24 - Project Carry-Forward Budget Balances/Proposed Budget Amendments (Lori Peddicord, Controller/Treasurer) Ms. Lori Peddicord, Controller/Treasurer, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the Proposed Ordinance #2021-24 - Project Carry-Forward Budget Balances/Proposed Budget Amendments. Staff recommended approval of the proposed Budget Amendments totaling $9,773,800 for Fiscal Year 2022 and adoption of Ordinance #2021-24.) Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. Peddicord stated that staff planned to bring another proposed budget amendment before Committee and that what was presented was a lot of cleanup of 2021 carrying projects into 2022. She explained that Jeff Dill, Budget Analyst had spent a lot of time preparing this proposed amendment but she thought it would cleaner if they brought back another amendment identifying the bond bill money. Ms. Peddicord noted that there was a possibility the City would get some Federal funds but it was still unknown and there would be some additional American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds that would be pulled through depending on when the second tranche of that was received. She stated that staff figured it would be cleaner to have a smaller report that identifies just those projects. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. Peddicord stated that staff would bring another proposed budget amendment before in the next month or two (2). Mr. Hare moved to recommend approval of the proposed Budget Amendments totaling $9,773,800 for Fiscal Year 2022 and adoption of Ordinance #2021-24, as recommended by Staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sudler and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. (The First Reading of the ordinance will take place during the latter part of the meeting.) Proposed Amendments to Personnel Policy (Employee Handbook) (Matt Harline, Interim City Manager) This item was removed from the agenda at the beginning of the meeting. Mr. Hare moved for adjournment of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rocha and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:56 p.m.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 8, 2021 PAGE 22 SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE The Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee reconvened with Chairman Taylor presiding. Mr. Taylor requested that the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee Item #14 - Request to Lower Speed Limit on North State Street into North Governors Boulevard and North Governors Avenue (Mayor Robin Christiansen) be considered before Item #13 - Proposed Ordinance #2021-26 - Creating a New Chapter 28 - Dawdling and Amending Chapter 62 - Law Enforcement, Article II - Police Department, Section 62-38 - Police Cadet Program and Chapter 74 - Parks and Recreation, Article - In General, Section 74-11 - Loitering (Councilman David Anderson and Councilman Ralph Taylor, Jr.). Request to Lower Speed Limit on North State Street into North Governors Boulevard and North Governors Avenue (Mayor Robin Christiansen) Mayor Robin Christiansen briefed Committee members on the request to lower speed limit on North State Street into North Governors Boulevard and North Governors Avenue. Mr. Anderson and Mr. Taylor both stated that they did not support lowering the speed limit in this area. Mr. Anderson stated that as a compromise he would proposed a petition to the State to allow the this area to be a strictly enforced zone. Mr. Boggerty stated that he supported lowering the speed limit. Mr. Neil moved to recommend a study to evaluate the use of strict speed limit enforcement and the reduction of speed limit without prohibiting the flow of traffic. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rocha and carried with Mr. Anderson voting no. (City Clerk’s Office Note: This item was removed from the Consent Agenda and will be considered during the latter part of the meeting) Proposed Ordinance #2021-26 - Creating a New Chapter 28 - Dawdling and Amending Chapter 62 - Law Enforcement, Article II - Police Department, Section 62-38 - Police Cadet Program and Chapter 74 - Parks and Recreation, Article I - In General, Section 74-11 - Loitering (Councilman David Anderson and Councilman Ralph Taylor, Jr.) Mr. David Anderson, Councilman Fourth (4th) District, briefed Committee members on the Proposed Ordinance #2021-26 - Creating a New Chapter 28 - Dawdling and Amending Chapter 62 - Law Enforcement, Article II - Police Department, Section 62-38 - Police Cadet Program and Chapter 74 - Parks and Recreation, Article I - In General, Section 74-11 - Loitering.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 8, 2021 PAGE 23 Mr. Anderson requested striking lines 24, 25, and 26 which read “Among the circumstances which may be considered in determining whether such alarm is warranted is the fact that the actor takes flight upon the appearance of a policeman or refuses to identify himself or herself” due to Police Chief Thomas Johnson’s concerns about the district’s constitutional interpretation. Mr. Boggerty stated that he was opposed to the proposed ordinance and wanted everything dealing with Parks and Recreation to be struck from the ordinance due to his not being consulted as the Chairman of the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee. Mr. Anderson stated that he would be amenable to striking the Parks and Recreation language from the proposed ordinance. He explained that it was not part of the original draft. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Anderson stated that the proposed ordinance did not repeal disorderly premise or affect any of those types of ordinances but there was a problem in that eventually when crowds gather a lot of police are needed. He explained that if somebody reported a crowd was starting to gather, this would give a mechanism to prevent the large crowds by allowing the police officers to say, “Move on”. Mr. Anderson noted that what the proposed ordinance said was that a violation cannot occur until an individual receives a warning, a chance is given to move on. He explained that the proposed ordinance was made to affect law breakers, not law abiding citizens. Mr. Anderson noted that a person had the right to be in the City anytime and any place but there were certain activities after hours that if they could not be done on private property should not be able to be done on public property. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Anderson stated that several factors led his reasoning for this ordinance at this time to include: • Several complaints that have come about dealing with certain areas including Minus Street. • There have been several gatherings in parking lots which have created certain problems. • There was a shooting at a popular restaurant on the highway and he had spoken to the father of a young lady who was shot and had told him he would do his best to do something about it. • He had been at the hospital with people too many times not to do something. Mr. Hare stated that he agreed that there was a need for a curfew 30 minutes after the bars closed.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 8, 2021 PAGE 24 Responding to Mr. Taylor, Thomas Johnson, Police Chief, stated that the loitering statute was a State statute. He explained that the Attorney General’s Office had informed him that the most recent case law on loitering enforcement had shown that the courts recognize loitering enforcement. Chief Johnson noted that similar to the proposed ordinance, as long as the person affected by the enforcement was given proper notice about the pending enforcement to give them an opportunity to move on and take corrective action, passes constitutional muster. He stated that from a practical standpoint, they could effectively use the existing State statute to address similar conduct that was described in the proposed ordinance, however, there was a practical barrier he was not sure how to fix or resolve. Chief Johnson explained that the loitering statute was considered a very low level offense and once a loitering charge made it to the judiciary there was almost no scenario, absent any other circumstance, that serious accountability occurred. He noted that the mechanism currently was fines or some other kind of financial levy or a probationary type of resolution. Chief Johnson stated that even upon default of fines or violation of that probation, there was almost nonexistent decisions made to take the step of incarceration, even for a brief time. He explained that for those that would tend to violate the loitering ordinance, it became learned behavior and once it was recognized that there was no consequences, it was hard to get compliance. Chief Johnson noted that as a police administrator if you cannot get the follow through on the judicial side of the equation, you have to think about what you do with your staff time, and whether or not you need to find another strategy to address the issue that was before you, that loitering was a byproduct of. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Chief Johnson stated that without having asked his records team he did not think the number of counts of record keeping per offence would change, they would just have another category that would be getting data for them to compile. He explained that he would not view it as an additional burden if this proposed ordinance were passed, it would just be one more thing they had to add to their record management and one more data point they would have to track. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Chief Johnson stated that regarding collecting fines, the records department would attempt to follow up like they would with any other local ordinance violation through a process of repeated mailings and at some point there was a mechanism to turn it over to collections. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Chief Johnson stated that there was a mechanism that would allow the Police Department to upgrade the ordinance violation to an applicable State violation but then the collection of the fine and the disposition over the fine would be transferred to the judiciary. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Chief Johnson stated that if there was a capias, an arrest would occur briefly. He explained that they had 24 hour judge accessibility so if someone was taken before the judge at 2:00 a.m., they wouldn’t be taken to a secure

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 8, 2021 PAGE 25 facility, they would be given a new court date and the process would start over. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Chief Johnson stated that he did not believe there was a conflict with the proposed ordinance and the State because it was not being called the same thing. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Dr. Jackson stated that she did not know if the Police Chief’s Advisory Committee would be able to take on a complex study on this issue. Ms. Lachelle Paul, 55 Glenn Street, stated that as a business owner she did not want her patrons to be harassed by criminal elements or police. She noted that the police department should be allowed to do their job and figure out how to implement the laws that were already in place rather than reinventing the wheel. Responding to Mr. Will (a WebEx participant), Mr. Anderson stated that the metric counts were the crime statistics and they looked over them monthly. He explained they had seen a number of reports and complaints in different areas of the City. Ms. Javonne Rich, Policy and Advocacy Director of The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Delaware, stated that they were asking that City Council to reject the proposed ordinance. She explained that Council was correct to eliminate its ordering because Federal courts, including the United States Supreme Court had generally struck down similar laws. Ms. Rich noted that re-framing the loitering Code as a dawdling ordinance did not make it any less unconstitutional. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Ms. Rich stated that she would send her public comment and an informal letter to the City Council the following day for their review. Mr. Hare moved to table the ordinance, seconded by Mr. Boggerty and unanimously carried. (City Clerk’s Office Note: This item was removed from the Consent Agenda and will be considered during the latter part of the meeting) The Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee meeting adjourned by unanimous consent. Meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Mr. Hare moved for adjournment of the Council Committee of the Whole meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for acceptance of the Council Committee of the Whole Report, seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 8, 2021 PAGE 26 MONTHLY REPORTS - SEPTEMBER 2021 By motion of Mr. Neil, seconded by Mr. Anderson, the following monthly reports were accepted by consent agenda: City Assessor’s Report City Council’s Community Enhancement Fund Report City Manager’s Report City Planner’s Report Controller/Treasurer’s Budget Report Fire Chief’s Report (August and September) Police Chief’s Report ELECTION OF OFFICERS - ROBBINS HOSE COMPANY - YEAR 2022 FIRE LINE OFFICERS The Fire Line Officers of the Robbins Hose Company are elected annually on the third Monday of November. Members were provided the results from the November 15, 2021 Robbins Hose Company Election for consideration as follows: Fire Chief - David Carey Deputy Fire Chief - Sean Christiansen First Assistant Chief - Ben Smetana Second Assistant Chief - Brian Bashista Third Assistant Chief - Wesley Liberto Fourth Assistant Chief - Sierra Brown First Fire Line Captain - Jason Boc Second Fire Line Captain - Chad Knotts By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for acceptance of the Fire Line Officers for Robbins Hose Company No. 1 for the Year 2022, as submitted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. APPOINTMENTS By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the following appointments, seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried by a unanimous roll call vote Interim City Manager - David S. Hugg III (Effective October 28, 2021) Interim City Planner/Building Inspector - Dawn Melson-Williams (Effective October 28, 2021) Assistant City Clerk - Rachel N. Engle (Effective November 3, 2021)

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 8, 2021 PAGE 27 PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2021-26 - CREATING A NEW CHAPTER 28 - DAWDLING AND AMENDING CHAPTER 62 - LAW ENFORCEMENT, ARTICLE II - POLICE DEPARTMENT, SECTION 62-38 - POLICE CADET PROGRAM AND CHAPTER 74 - PARKS AND RECREATION, ARTICLE I - IN GENERAL, SECTION 74-11 - LOITERING (COUNCILMAN DAVID ANDERSON AND COUNCILMAN RALPH TAYLOR, JR.) During their meeting of October 26, 2021, the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee tabled this item. Proposed Ordinance #2021-26 was removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion. Mr. Anderson stated that discussion of the ordinance or to have a public hearing at this juncture was not consistent with the rules of the body. He advised that there was ongoing research and the Committee was waiting for a legal opinion from the City Solicitor. Mr. Anderson gave a brief summary of the ordinance. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Nicholas Rodriguez, City Solicitor, advised that he had a chance to review approximately 20 cases. He stated that he had received correspondence from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), as follows: "We would be happy to work with council members to repeal the unconstitutional parts of your existing anti-loitering ordinance and formulate policies and practices that more effectively and humanly address homelessness in the Dover community". Mr. Rodriguez advised having the ACLU, which is very active in similar cases, provide the City with its concerns with the proposed ordinance and then work from there because, if it is passed, it will be opposed, as written, by the ACLU and probably other organizations. Mr. Anderson asked if Mr. Rodriguez’ review of cases included certain elements such as advanced warning, specificity of offenses, and not regulating daily living activities and if he thought the proposed ordinance followed those guidelines. Responding, Mr. Rodriguez advised that the proposed ordinance was so broad, any one particular activity could be challenged. He stated that he had no question that, if passed, the ordinance as written would be contested and the City would go to court. Mr. Rodriguez recommended having the ACLU provide its concerns with the proposed ordinance. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Rodriguez advised that the State loitering law was broader than the proposed ordinance would cover. Mr. Anderson stated that the State law did not seem to address the problem activities and if they allowed the state law to be the primary tool, it is more likely to create the problems that the ACLU complained about than this ordinance. Mr. Rodriguez stated that it was a fair statement. Mr. Hare recalled that he thought the Committee sought definitions in regard to the proposed ordinance and he was still not clear on the definition of loitering. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Anderson stated that he would not call it reaching out; however he did respond to the ACLU and asked them to offer their suggestions. As the City Solicitor noted, the ACLU had provided any specific suggestions. Mr. Anderson noted that the precedents that the

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 8, 2021 PAGE 28 ACLU offered were not related to the specifics of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Boggerty noted his experience working in human resources and the impact that a loitering charge on a background check has in the hiring process. He suggested that this particular ordinance could be developed with the assistance of constituents, other partners, the ACLU, the City Solicitor, and Councilman Anderson in the spirit of not harming someone's future. Mr. Taylor advised that the ordinance recommends a fine only and does not involve the court system so there are no lifelong consequences. He also noted that the ordinance was not designed to change people, only behaviors, and it is one of the most progressive ordinances. Mr. Taylor reiterated that the ordinance was not designed to hurt, only to help. Mr. Taylor requested that time limits and speech content parameters be enacted for the open forum related to the ordinance. Council President Sudler stated that he believed in freedom of speech and addressing the issue that needs to be addressed. He also noted that he believes in professionalism. Mr. Neil stated that Police Chief Johnson indicated that the ordinance would give the police a choice, which meant no criminal record. Mr. Neil also advised that he emailed the ACLU after the meeting and requested its assistance in drafting the ordinance so that it would not cause harm. He noted that he had not heard back from them. Mr. Taylor moved to suspend the rules to allow public comment. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rocha and carried with Mr. Anderson voting no. Ms. LaChelle Paul, 55 Glenn street, Dover, asked what it meant that the ordinance would give the police a legal tool to move people along. She stated that she had discussions with Police Chief Johnson about someone using the ordinance out of context. Ms. Paul asked for clarification on whether or not, if the ordinance were adopted, any police officer could use it any time and any place because the ordinance was not specific. Chief Johnson responded affirmatively and added that it is in the same category of most other low level offenses that are often enforced in areas that are experiencing difficulties, to open the door to more effective crime fighting. He noted that this would be one of many other minor offenses that could be used in that capacity and will not distinguish itself more than any of the others, just for context. Ms. Paul stated that it was not attacking a person’s integrity if you are repeating back what they said. Mr. David Wilson, 500 Persimmon Tree Lane, stated that he had six girls and five boys and lost one. He noted that he does not get into trouble now, but he had in the past and he does not want his kids and then his grandkids to get into trouble because it would be hard to get a job as they get older. Mr. Wilson noted that it is a little rougher now and this law will make it easier because cops can see you, ask for I.D., and apprehend you if you walk away. Mr. Wilson stated that he did not think the ordinance should be adopted.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 8, 2021 PAGE 29 Mr. Ken Abraham, 430 Kings Highway, Apartment 414, Dover, stated that he was a former prosecutor and for the last 15 years or so he had immersed with his organization, Citizens for Criminal Justice. He advised that this ordinance was not necessary because there were other ordinances and statutes that address what some people perceive to be the problem. Mr. Abraham stated that the ordinance was unconstitutional in several ways and suggested contacting the ACLU and asking them what they consider the objections to be. He noted that the ordinance could be refined in such a way that it would not fail the first time it encountered a legal challenge. Mr. Abraham suggested that enacting this ordinance is asking to waste City time and money litigating issues that it will lose no matter what court it ends up in. Ms. Rita Mishoe Paige, 355 Rita Wilma Road, Dover, stated that she was appalled that they were having a discussion about a dawdling or loitering ordinance. She asked what the purpose was, why it was needed, and what the difference was between it and the current loitering ordinance. Ms. Paige advised that she was offended that the City was considering consulting with the ACLU but not including the Central Branch of the NAACP and the IMA Social Action Committee to discuss this City problem. She suggested that those groups be included in the discussion. Ms. Leandra Casson Marshall, 3 Starboard Court, Dover, stated that she looked at supreme court cases that dealt with similar information and she was opposed to the proposed ordinance for the following reasons: • There are too many elements in the ordinance that are unconstitutional. There are precedents that they can look at and address them one after another and a task force is needed to sit down and look through the elements that are extremely unconstitutional first and then remedy them and then move forward. • In this particular proposed ordinance, there is still the element of suspicion where the actual police officer can decide whether or not he wants to talk to the person or engage with the individual. The suspicion is a problem because it is subjective, not objective. The ordinance should say what can and cannot be done when the police encounter an individual. • The current loitering ordinance and the nuisance law can be expanded upon. Ms. Casson Marshall stated that increased encounters with police normally do not end well, particularly for black or brown people. She suggested that maybe in these encounters, the police officer could log the race of the person that they are dealing with, along with some other demographics, so that the City can then gauge whether or not this was something that was necessary. Ms. Casson Marshall noted that they could then determine if they were targeting certain groups and not other groups. Ms. Casson Marshall stated that she did not support any law that was reminiscent of stop and frisk or has any of those elements. She also suggested diversity training. Ms. Fleur McKendell, 44 East Fred Circle, Camden, Delaware, speaking on behalf of the Central Delaware NAACP branch noted that several other NAACP members were in the audience. She thanked Council members for allowing them an opportunity to speak on the proposed ordinance.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 8, 2021 PAGE 30 Ms. McKendell read the following statement: “As expressed in our November 2nd letter, the NAACP does have grave concerns that the proposed anti-dawdling ordinance will have a disproportionate impact on under served and already marginalized communities, subjecting them to increased police oversight. In our view, it’s nonsensical to subject this population, who more often than not, already does not have their basic living needs and public safety needs met, and expect them to be able to pay fines and fees in the namesake of public safety for everyone else. Nonsensical. We need to make that make se Given the police murders of Brianna Taylor, George Floyd, and others, we have spent the last 18 months engaging in direct action to demand police accountability, transparency, and transformative community policing strategies that would build trust between city residents and law enforcement. This ordinance would walk us back backwards. Believe me, when I tell you we hear from our constituents. There is already a high level of mistrust within the city. Particularly black and brown community members and constituents and stakeholders. This would walk us back significantly. It will not be conducive to achieving these goals and would in fact achieve the opposite, which would be increased resentment towards police that will fuel an already uncontainable fire. We know. Ahmaud Arbery's murder is a testament to the consequences that communities suffer when vague, ambiguous, and harm based legislation that involves subjective judgements about people's criminal propensity are involved. This is why the NAACP supports and encourages community led initiatives to address and overcome community crises because those most impacted by the problem must be at the table for policy development. That's real diversity and inclusivity. We like to toss that phrase around, but we need to make it work and the only way to do that is to put the most marginalized at the center of decision making. These types of ordinances have been challenged by the NAACP and other municipalities and we will continue to be vigilant as we work to secure equality, equity, and justice for all. I would like to conclude my comments by addressing my friend and fellow NAACP member, Councilman David Anderson, whom I have a deeper respect for. Brother David, I am really disappointed in the comments that were made about the ACLU. You calling them the American criminal lovers union or whatever it was. They have been a long time ally, as you know of the NAACP and our work. They have been on the front lines for social justice. They have been on the frontline for civil rights enhancements for decades. We, at this point, are navigating a critical time in history we need an abundance of comradery, not discord. In love and with conviction, I would ask you to please issue an apology to them for that comment. I do think that it was below the belt and it was not necessary. Again, that is with love. Thank you, have a good evening.” Mr. Anthony Floyd Jr., 326 North Down Drive, Dover, provided his history with the NAACP and several police departments. He stated that the ordinance was of significant concerns to the community that it will greatly impact. Mr. Floyd advised that it creates a precursor for the possibility of long range, hyper increased allegations of police misconduct, potential for increased civil rights violations that the City of Dover would not have the capacity to pay out. It would not be healthy to

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 8, 2021 PAGE 31 the City of Dover or to the officers of the Dover police department. He noted that the ordinance has long term ramifications and is similar to stop and frisk, which was a precursor to the riots in Philadelphia last year. Ms. Sarah Rhine, Policy Director for Housing Alliance Delaware and resident of Dover at 186 Carnoustie Road, read the following: “Good evening. Thank you for considering my testimony in opposition to Proposed Ordinance #2021-26. My name is Sarah Rhine, I am the Policy Director at Housing Alliance Delaware-a statewide nonprofit whose mission is to serve Delawareans by advancing housing opportunities, ending homelessness, and promoting vibrant communities. First, I want to thank the City Council for your thoughtful consideration of this ordinance. Second, I encourage the City Council to vote in opposition to the Dover proposed "dawdling" ordinance #2021-26 which is unconstitutional and unsound public policy. According to established case law, an individual has the constitutional right to ask for help and to be in a public place. Dover's "anti-dawdling" ordinance is overbroad and discriminatory towards those in our community who may need to ask for help. Individuals who are experiencing homelessness in Dover are not on the street asking for money by choice. Therefore, punishing individuals who are asking for help is a misguided public policy. Putting criminal penalties and fines into place does not solve problems-in fact, it exacerbates them. Not only does it make it harder for the individual to access housing and employment, it also costs the city money in law enforcement and jail time. In addition, the criminalization of homelessness disproportionately impacts communities of color. Under this ordinance the likelihood of a Black individual being cited and punished is exponentially higher than a White individual. We should not support any ordinance that increases racial disparity. Instead of putting a criminal penalty into place, there is a need for additional services and housing opportunities in Dover. Housing and services are a solution that enables individuals and families to gain and maintain housing and employment. It is both the humane choice and a fiscally sound choice for the City of Dover. The COVID crisis has demonstrated that access to safe, affordable housing is a universal need. The health effects of the COVID virus have devastated low- and moderate-income families and communities. These communities have faced a higher incidence of illness and have struggled to maintain stable housing, employment, access to food, schooling and childcare. However, the COVID crisis has not created the housing crisis. It has exposed a crisis that

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 8, 2021 PAGE 32 already existed. And, I can state with certainty, this crisis is not over. There will be an increase in evictions, there will be an increase in foreclosures, there will be an increase in the market rate of housing and there will be an increase in homelessness. According to the most recent Point in Time count, homelessness in Delaware increased by 35% in 2021. The majority of the increase in homelessness was among families with children-more than 500 children under 18. These families must not be criminalized when they ask for help. We must work together to find solutions that are sound public policy. Housing Alliance Delaware urges the Dover City Council to oppose Proposed Ordinance #2021-26 and support solutions that support individuals experiencing homelessness. Ms. Javonne Rich, Policy and Advocacy Director at ACLU of Delaware (via WebEx), stated that for nearly 100 years the ACLU has worked in courts, legislatures, and communities to protect the constitutional rights of all people. ACLU of Delaware has worked to provide children with physical and intellectual disabilities full access to education, lead the fight to desegregation of schools in the City of Wilmington, and most recently fought in court successfully to bring new financial commitments to the way that Delaware serves disadvantaged students. Ms. Rich advised that she opposed the proposed ordinance, noting that loitering laws have long been used to exclude visibly poor and homeless people from public places. Last week, ACLU along with National Homelessness Law Center, Building People Power Campaign, Delaware Campaign to End Debtor's Prison, Delaware Center for Justice, The Homes Campaign, Housing Alliance Delaware, Network Delaware, Project New Start, The Southern Delaware Alliance for Racial Justice, and the Unitarian Universalist Delaware Advocacy Network urge the City Council to 1) reject the anti dawdling ordinance; 2) place an immediate moratorium on enforcement of the anti loitering ordinance; and 3) instead of this ordinance to divert funding that will be spent enforcing the ordinance to invest in housing and services that would address and end homelessness in Dover. Ms. Rich stated that, as previous commenters have stated, the solutions to the issue that precipitated this ordinance would best be served by people who live in that community to offer solutions. She advised that, in considering those solutions, ACLU of Delaware is more than happy to accept any invitation for further conversation and hope to join other community advocates and residents who have also spoken tonight in those discussions. Council President Sudler askd Ms. Rich if she had received any correspondence from the City of Dover and, if so, if there was a reason she had not responded. Ms. Rich advised that she had received an email from Councilman Anderson and in the email she did not recall an explicit invitation. She noted that it was arguing the validity of their letter. Ms. Rich noted that she would be more than happy to set up a phone call with Councilman Anderson; however, she did not think that the best way to have that engagement was via email given the context and content.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 8, 2021 PAGE 33 Mr. Anderson asked if Ms. Rich said she opposed the enforcement of the current state anti loitering law and wanted a moratorium on enforcing it. Ms. Rich replied that she did. Mr. Anderson asked if the ACLU’s position was that there should be no recourse for people who have people standing outside the doors of their businesses discouraging customers while they are begging for money or that there should be loud parties, etc. in parking lots, which are leading to fights, or activities of people who are standing on the public streets and rallies and distributing substances. Responding, Ms. Rich stated that what they see with the loitering ordinance is that it is not actually targeting the group of intended folks. It is most likely targeting people who are homeless. She noted that what they see is that the instances Mr. Anderson referred to are not what the majority of loitering charges are used for. They are being used arbitrarily for other things, which concerns people. Ms. Rich stated that if someone is committing a crime it is likely that there is already a law or charge that can be charged for someone who is engaging in criminal behavior. Mr. Boggerty offered to participate in a solution oriented task force with the ACLU, NAACP, IMA, and any other organization or individual to work towards a viable solution. Mr. Taylor requested that a task force to be assembled under the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee involving citizens, law enforcement, NAACP, ACLU, and any council member who decides they want to be a part of it. He suggested that this task force should have a limited amount of time, from 30 to 60 days, and the scope should be the issues of dawdling in comparison with the current loitering laws. Mr. Taylor advised that the current loitering laws are a state charge that follow you for the rest of your natural life. This is a city ordinance. You pay the fine and it is done. He noted that those supporting the loitering laws should know that they are supporting hindering the futures of black and brown people. REQUEST TO LOWER SPEED LIMIT ON NORTH STATE STREET INTO NORTH GOVERNORS BOULEVARD AND NORTH GOVERNORS AVENUE (MAYOR ROBIN CHRISTIANSEN) During their Meeting of October 26, 2021, the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee recommended requesting the Staff and State to evaluate the use of strict speed limit enforcement and the reduction of speed limit without prohibiting the flow of traffic. This item was removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion. Mayor Christiansen advised that, since the last meeting, he was in contact with Ms. Amy Rocha from DelDot and she advised that data collection would probably not occur until late December or at least by the first of the year, depending on the weather. Mayor Christiansen requested consideration of lowering the speed limit beginning at the Pancake House. He noted that Mr. Jim Biernes, North Governors Avenue resident and spokesperson for the neighborhood, had been in attendance to speak on the issue but left due to the late hour. Mayor Christiansen advised that Mr. Biernes sat by the speed sign in front of his house and clocked someone going 55 mph that day and that is not acceptable. He reminded members that there was a motor vehicle accident there at 1:17 AM on October 23, 2021 and the passenger wrapped himself

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 8, 2021 PAGE 34 around a tree and it took 25 minutes to cut him away from there. There were some extenuating circumstances, but that is a dangerous stretch of road beginning from Dover Pools into the city. Mayor Christiansen noted that Police Chief Thomas Johnson has placed officers there to control the speed but people do not get the message. Mr. Rocha asked if Mayor Christiansen was suggesting that they cancel the traffic study. Responding, Mayor Christiansen stated that he would still like for the traffic study to be conducted; however, he would like to have the speed limit reduced to 25 mph, even if it was just on a temporary basis. He also suggested installing “strictly enforced” signs. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mayor Christiansen advised that there was a 35 mph speed limit sign just before you get to the bridge. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mayor Christiansen suggested a temporary sign around the curve from Dover Pools to get people’s attention and then another one a little further down and reducing the speed limit from 35 mph to 25 mph. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mayor Christiansen stated that he agreed to changing it if, in fact, they see that traffic backs up due to the slower speed at a longer range and discover that what they created was counterproductive. Mr. Neil stated suggested installing a "Reduced Speed Ahead Enforced" sign so that there is an understanding that the speed limit is going down. He suggested that they would also need assistance from Chief Johnson in enforcing the speed limit. Responding to Mr. Hare, Chief Johnson stated that the State of Delaware did not have speed tracking camera boxes like they use in Maryland. Mr. Anderson noted that the speed limits are designated based upon the types of roads that exist now. He thought it would be a bad idea to change the speed limit before it is studied in the next month because it could potentially ruin the study by polluting the statistics. Mr. Anderson noted that, based on road type, the speed limit is typically 35 throughout the city. He stated that better signage was needed when it comes to strict enforcement. Mr. Anderson stated that lowering the speed limit there will create other problems such as people are going to naturally come the highway at a certain speed and there will be a speed differential between them and the other people who are aware and trying to abide by the speed limit, which increases accidents. Mr. Anderson stated that this area is not conducive to easy speed enforcement and enforcement in this area will take away enforcement in other areas, such as Bicentennial Village, Lincoln Park, all the neighborhoods off of Wyoming Avenue, etc. Mr. Hare moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation for a study to evaluate the use of strict speed limit enforcement and the reduction of speed limit without prohibiting the flow of traffic. The motion was seconded by Mr. Boggerty and unanimously carried.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 8, 2021 PAGE 35 ANNEXATION REQUEST - RIGHT-OF-WAY AT RAYMOND STREET, GROVE STREET, AND RAILROAD AVENUE (DAWN MELSON-WILLIAMS, PRINCIPAL PLANNER/DAVE HUGG, PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR) During their Meeting of October 26, 2021, the Utility Committee recommended adding the dedication of Conwell Street and, if needed, the annexation of Conwell Street to the annexation request for Raymond Street, Grove Street, and Railroad Avenue. This item was removed from the Consent Agenda to discuss the annexation process. Mr. Dave Hugg III, Interim City Manager, advised that when this matter came before Council on November 8, 2021 it was for the annexation of Raymond Street, or Jason Street, as it is sometimes known, Grove Street, and Railroad Avenue, as part of a process to close the enclave and clean up the boundaries. During the Committee meeting of October 26, 2021, members recommended that Conwell Street be added to this annexation. Staff requested that Conwell Street not be combined with the annexation of Raymond Street, Grove, Street, and Railroad Avenue for the following reasons: • The required public notices did not include Conwell Street. • There is a State law that prohibits municipalities from annexing rights of way or annexing streets in order to get from one point to another point without there being adjacent properties annexed at the same time. There are two propertis on the southern end of Conwell street that are within city limits, but there are no annexations of adjacent properties to which the right of way could be attributed for the section of the street known as Conway Street. Staff would like to research and determine what part, if any, of Conwell Street may in fact have been annexed when the other two properties were annexed years ago. Mr. Hugg advised that the action before City Council would be to proceed with the annexation of Raymond Street (or Jason Street), Grove Street, and Railroad Avenue and allow Staff to bring forward a separate annexation request for Conwell Street. Mr. Hare moved for approval to proceed with the annexation of Raymond Street (or Jason Street), Grove Street, and Railroad Avenue and allow Staff to bring forward a separate annexation request for Conwell Street, as recommended by Staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. FIRST READING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2021-24 Council President Sudler reminded the public that copies of the proposed ordinance were available at the entrance of the Council Chambers, on the City's website at www.cityofdover.com under "Government," or by contacting the City Clerk's Office at (302) 736-7008 or cityclerk@dover.de.us. Final action by Council on the proposed ordinance will take place during the Council Meeting of November 22, 2021. In accordance with Section 1-9 of the Dover Code, Council acknowledged the First Reading of the proposed Ordinance as read by the City Clerk, by title only, as follows:

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 8, 2021 PAGE 36 ORDINANCE #2021-24 PROJECT CARRY-FORWARD BUDGET BALANCES/PROPOSED BUDGET AMENDMENTS FINAL READING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2021-22 Council President Sudler reminded members of the public that copies of the proposed ordinance were available at the entrance of the Council Chambers or on the City’s website at www.cityofdover.com under “Government.” Mrs. Arndt moved that the Final Reading of the proposed ordinance be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. (The First Reading of the proposed ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of October 25, 2021) By motion of Mr. Neil, seconded by Mr. Boggerty, Council, by a unanimous roll call vote, adopted Ordinance #2021-22 Amending Chapter 46 - Fire Prevention and Protection (Exhibit #3). CITY MANAGER'S ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Dave Hugg III, Interim City Manager, noted the appointment of Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams as the Interim City Planner, Building Official, and Director of Planning and Community Development and wished her well. Mr. Hugg also announced the appointments of Mrs. Sharon Duca as the Assistant City Manager and Mr. Mark Nowak as the Interim Public Works Director. Mr. Hugg advised that he would start the process of filling the positions of Public Works Director and Human Resources Director. COUNCIL MEMBERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Anderson, Councilman for the Fourth District, announced that Solid Rock Community Center would be in the Kirkwood Street area from Governors Avenue, North Governors Avenue and Division Street. Mr. Anderson also announced that the North Kirkwood Street Neighborhood Watch Association would be meeting at 5:00 p.m. at the Solid Rock Community Center on West Street on Tuesday, November 9, 2021. Council President Sudler announced that the City of Dover Special First District Municipal Election would be held on Tuesday, November 16, 2021, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. The polling place would be at Elks Lodge, Number 1903, at 200 Saulsbury Road. The entrance is at the rear of the building. This election is to fill the unexpired term of the First District City Council seat. The term of the office is December 13, 2021, through May 8th, 2023. Residents who wish to vote in this election must be a resident of the First District, 18 years of age or older by the time of the election, and registered to vote with this State of Delaware Department of Elections by November 6, 2021. For more information on the election, please visit the website at www.cityofdover.com.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 8, 2021 PAGE 37 Council President Sudler also recognized Ms. Brandy Walker, candidate for the First District, in the audience. Mr. Hare moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 10:33 p.m. TRACI A. McDOWELL INTERIM CITY CLERK All ordinances, resolutions, motions, and orders adopted by City Council during their Regular Meeting of November 8, 2021 are hereby approved. ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN MAYOR /TM S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Council-Minutes\2021\11-08-2021 REGULAR COUNCIL.wpd Exhibits Exhibit #1 - Ordinance #2021-19 Amending Appendix B - Zoning Exhibit #2 - Correspondence Related to Division Street Rezoning Application Exhibit #3 - Ordinance #2021-22 Amending Chapter 46 - Fire Prevention and Protection

EXHIBIT #1 Regular City Council Meeting of 11/08/2021 City of Dover CITY OF DOVER ORDINANCE #2021-19 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: That Appendix B – Zoning, Article 3 - District Regulations be amended to read as follows: Section 19 – Manufacturing zone (M). 19.1 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 the site development plan approval as set forth in article 10, section 2: 19.11 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 accessory uses incidental to the use. 19.12 Research, design and development laboratories. 19.13 Wholesale storage and warehousing, transshipment and distribution, logistics support. 19.14 Building contractors' yards. 19.15 Public utilities uses. 19.16 Ministorage 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, 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. 19.17 Railroad yards, sidings, and storage facilities.

Ordinance #2021-19 - Appendix B - Zoning Page 2 19.18 Accessory uses: (a) On-site offices, clinics, food service facilities, recreation facilities and child day care services collocated within the permitted use and limited to exclusive use by employees, and such other accessory uses and structures clearly incidental to, and customary to and associated with the permitted use (b) 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: (1) Associated retail uses in conjunction with and accessory to a permitted use, provided that the associated retail uses do 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. (2) Outside storage which is incidental to the primary uses on the lot, within a completely enclosed and secure area appropriately screened from public view and not in any required setback from property lines. 19.2 Uses prohibited. The following uses are specifically prohibited: 19.21 Residences. 19.22 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, 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; gelatin, glue and size (animal); linoleum and oil cloth; matches; paint, varnishes and turpentine; rubber (natural and synthetic); soaps, including fat rendering; [and] starch. 19.23 The following processes: nitrating of cotton or other materials; milling or processing of flour, food, or grain; 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. 19.24 Operations involving stock yards and slaughter houses, grain elevators, and slag piles. 19.25 Storage of explosives and bulk or wholesale storage of gasoline above the ground. 19.26 Dumps, except those owned and operated by the city. 19.27 Quarries, stone crushers, screening plants, and storage of quarry screenings, accessory to such uses. 19.28 Junkyards, automobile dismantling plants or storage of used parts of automobiles or other machines or vehicles or of dismantled or junked automobiles.

Ordinance #2021-19 - Appendix B - Zoning Page 3 19.3 Site development plan approval. Site development plan approval in accordance with article 10, section 2 hereof shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits for the erection or enlargement of all structures and prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for any change of use. 19.4 Performance standards. All uses are subject to performance standards as set forth in article 5, section 8.1. (Ord. of 7-12-1993, § 8; Ord. of 7-10-2000; Ord. of 2-12-2001; Ord. of 7-23-2001) BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: That Appendix B - Zoning, Article 4 – Zoning Bulk and Parking Regulations, be amended by inserting the text indicated in bold, blue font and deleting the text indicated in red strikeout as follows: Section 4.16 -M, IPM zones. Bulk and parking regulations for industrial zones in M and IPM zones are as follows: For All Permitted Uses M IPM IPM (Planned IPM2 IPM3 (Conventional Industrial (Business and (Aviation and Planned) Park) Technology Aeronautics Center) Center) Lot area ½ acre 2½ acres 2½ acres 10 acres 1 acre average; 60,000 sq. ft. minimum Lot width (ft.) 100 200 150 100 100 Lot depth (ft.) 150 300 250 100 100 Front yard (ft.) 40 60 60 60 40 Side yard (ft.) 20 40 40 40 20 Rear yard (ft.) 20 40 40 40 20 Side or rear yard 50 100 100 100 50 which adjoins a residential zone (ft.) Off-street parking space: Per 800 sq. ft. 1 1 1 1 1 of floor area Per employee, 1 1 1½ 1 1 per largest working shift (if greater than the requirement under the floor area calculation) Maximum permitted: Building height Stories Not Limit Not limit Not Limit Not limit Not limit

Ordinance #2021-19 - Appendix B - Zoning Page 4 Feet 60 Equal to 60 Equal to 75* distance to distance to nearest lot line nearest lot line Floor area ratio 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lot coverage 85% 75% 65% 65% 85% * Building height shall comply with all applicable Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Defense, and Unified Facilities Criteria height restrictions and obstruction marking and lighting standards. (Ord. of 3-24-1986; Ord. of 7-12-1993, § 1; Ord. of 8-23-1999; Ord. No. 2009-18, 10-12-2009; Ord. No. 2018-06 , 8-27-2018; Ord. No. 2019-15 , 9-9-2019) BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: That Appendix B - Zoning, Article 5 – Supplementary Regulations, be amended by inserting the text indicated in bold, blue font and deleting the text indicated in red strikeout as follows: Section 3 - Supplementary regulations applying to nonresidential buildings. 3.1 Supplementary height regulations in nonresidential zones. 3.11 Except for one- or two-family dwellings, where a lot has frontage on two or more streets or other public ways, the height limitation shall apply only as measured from the curb level along the street or way with a higher elevation above sea level. 3.12 When penthouses, bulkheads, roof structures housing stairways, elevators, skylights, cooling towers, air-conditioning units, or other equipment, etc., are over 12 feet high and cover more than 20 percent of the roof area, measurements must be taken to the top of such elements. 3.13 An ornamental or decorative part of a building which is not used as a living or storage area, such as steeples, spires and the like may not be greater in height than the maximum height of the building to which the same is attached. 3.14 All penthouses, bulkheads, roof structures housing stairways, elevators, skylights, cooling towers, air-conditioning units, or other equipment, etc., must be ten feet back of the sidewalls, except that walls of elevators and stair enclosures may be built on the sidewall when required by the plan of the building. 3.2 Courts for nonresidential buildings. 3.21 Inner courts. No inner court shall have a minimum dimension less than one-half of the average height of all surrounding walls. 3.22 Outer courts. The minimum width of an outer court shall be 20 feet and the depth thereof shall not exceed its width. ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 8, 2021 S:\ORDINANCES\2021\DRAFT\ORDINANCE #2021-19 - APPX B, ART III, SEC 19 - MANUFACTURING ZONE\PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2021-19.DOCX

Ordinance #2021-19 - Appendix B - Zoning Page 5 SYNOPSIS This ordinance is a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance provisions related to the “M” Manufacturing Zone. It increases the maximum allowable building height, removes the requirement that all manufacturing uses are subject to a Conditional Use approval, revises the description of allowable accessory uses, and makes technical changes to ensure consistency with other provisions. All these intended to improve Dover’s competitiveness. (SPONSORS: ANDERSON AND NEIL) Actions History: 11/08/2021 - Public Hearing/Final Reading – City Council 10/18/2021 - Public Hearing – Planning Commission 09/27/2021 - First Reading - City Council 09/14/2021 - Introduced at Council Committee of the Whole/Legislative Finance, and Administration Committee

EXHIBIT #2 Regular City Council Meeting of 11/08/2021 November 8, 2021 Dover City Council P.O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903-0475 Sent Via Electronic Mail Re: Support for the Dover Interfaith Mission for Housing to Purchase and Re-Zone 317-325 W. Division Street Dear Dover City Council: Housing Alliance Delaware supports Dover Interfaith Mission for Housing’s proposed shelter and program facility at 317-325 W. Division Street in Dover. According to the most recent Point in Time count, a count of individuals experiencing homelessness on a single night in January, homelessness in Delaware increased by 35% in 2021. In Kent County, there were 514 individuals who were experiencing homelessness in Kent County on that one night. The problem of homelessness is not one that goes away when it is ignored; it is one that gets worse. Housing Alliance Delaware operates a statewide homeless crisis hotline called Centralized Intake. In September of 2021, Housing Alliance Delaware received 256 calls from households in Kent County seeking access to shelter or housing resources. In October, Housing Alliance Delaware received calls from 381 households that reported they were sleeping outside, in a car, or other unsheltered place - 381 people and families on our streets without safe shelter here in our state. We all have a moral responsibility to care for the least among us. Everyone deserves a safe place to sleep. Currently, there are not enough resources to serve the needs of individuals experiencing homelessness in Kent County or in Dover. And, clearly, the housing crisis is getting worse not better. It is essential that Dover provide the space and the opportunity for someone to provide essential services to our unhoused neighbors. Housing Alliance Delaware urges the Dover City Council approve the application from the Dover Interfaith Mission for Housing to rezone 317-325 W. Division Street in Dover as it provides invaluable services to Dover. Sincerely, /s/ Rachel Stucker Rachel Stucker Executive Director Housing Alliance Delaware 100 W. 10th St., Suite 611 Wilmington DE 19801 Phone: 302-654-0126 ext101 rstucker@housingalliancede.org www.housingalliancede.org

Housing Alliance Delaware Dover City Council— Support For Dover Interfaith Mission for Housing to Purchase and Re-Zone 317-325 W. Division Street in Dover November 8, 2020 Good evening. Thank you for considering my testimony in support Dover Interfaith Mission for Housing’s proposed purchase and re-zoning of 317-325 W. Division Street in Dover. My name is Sarah Rhine, I am the Policy Director at Housing Alliance Delaware—a statewide nonprofit whose mission is to serve Delawareans by advancing housing opportunities, ending homelessness, and promoting vibrant communities. I am also a resident of Dover. I have two young children that attend Capital School District and I care deeply for my community. First, I want to thank the City Council for working to address issues of homelessness in Dover. Second, I encourage the City Council to vote in support of Dover Interfaith Mission for Housing’s proposed purchase and re-zoning of 317-325 W. Division Street in Dover. The need for housing assistance is greater now than it has ever been. In October, Housing Alliance Delaware received calls from 381 households that reported they were sleeping outside, in a car, or other unsheltered place—381 people and families on our streets without safe shelter here in our state. It is our responsibility to create more affordable housing options in Delaware to address this urgent need. It is shameful that our neighbors are experiencing homelessness. It is heartbreaking that Dover is unable to provide each and every individual with the services they need. In a time when both a health and housing crisis continues to face Dover—we must develop resources to meet the growing need and we should not stand in the way of any individual or organization that is doing good work for our community. A simple first step towards addressing our homelessness crisis is to support the Dover Interfaith Mission as they work to provide essential services to our unhoused neighbors. Dover Interfaith Mission is a mission driven and well-respected organization that provides thoughtful and comprehensive services for those who are most in need. Without their work, our city would be almost entirely without shelter and services for men experiencing homelessness. Housing Alliance Delaware urges the Dover City Council to support the application from the Dover Interfaith Mission for Housing to rezone 317-325 W. Division Street in Dover as it is essential to the wellbeing of the city. Thank you for your time.

NATIONAL COUNCIL ON AGRICULTURAL LIFE AND LABOR RESEARCH FUND, INC. “First in housing services, because we care.” November 5, 2021 City Clerk City of Dover P.O. Box 475 Dover, DE 199034075 Dear Sir or Madam: I am writing this letter to express NCALL’s full support for Dover Interfaith Mission for Housing’s rezoning application for the property they wish to purchase a 317 – 325 West Division Street. Dover Interfaith has provided essential, compassionate services to the homeless of our City for 13 years and deserves the backing of the Council and the Dover community to find a new location to continue to offer shelter and a lifeline to homeless adults. The lease on their current location is coming to an end and it is urgent that a new location is approved so that they can commence development, and not risk a pause in services. Dover Interfaith has an extraordinary success rate in helping homeless men stabilize their lives so that risk living on the street, particularly now as the weather dips to freezing. They offer a drop-in center and case management. Dover Interfaith constantly seeks other housing solutions such as transitional housing at Walt Bagley Hall, as well as renting homes and sub-leasing rooms to men ready to transition to the community but unable to afford to rent an apartment. They are also in discussion with NCALL about developing permanent rental housing for low-income seniors and those with physical disabilities. Housing Alliance Delaware reports that there has been a 35% increase in the homeless population in Delaware in the past year. More shelters are needed, not less, and we cannot afford to lose Dover Interfaith Mission for Housing being located within our community. Please offer your support at Monday night’s rezoning hearing. Sincerely, Karen B. Speakman Karen B. Speakman Executive Director 363 Saulsbury Road, Dover, DE 19904 ۰ (302) 678-9400 ۰Fax (302) 678-9058 ۰www.ncall.org

2

James D. Short PO Box 391 Dover DE 19903 November 8, 2021 City of Dover 15 Loockerman Plaza Dover, DE 19903 Attn: City Council Subject: Establishment of a Homeless Shelter on Division Street Dear City Council Members: There are many reasons that someone may experience homelessness: lack of affordable housing, foreclosures, unemployment, low wages/poverty, domestic violence, mental health issues and substance abuse being among the leading causes. And homelessness is without prejudice affecting people irrespective of their age, race or sex. Regardless of the reasons that resulted in someone experiencing homelessness, the homeless are our fellow citizens that need our help during what is likely the most difficult period in their lives. Lack of access to shelter, nutrition, healthcare and guidance will only serves to set the homeless up for on-going failure. It is extremely important to understand that by providing these resources many of the homeless can and have returned to being productive members of society. Why? Simply because that is truly what they desire and because they have been given the opportunity and assistance to do so. Jay Bazzinotti (Author and avid Bostonian) puts it like this: “Everyone is fighting a secret battle we cannot see and the line between victory and defeat is often razor thin. Sometimes a person is standing right on that line and doesn’t even know it. A kind word or gesture from someone could be the thing that pushes them forward to victory, while a mean word or spiteful gesture could be the thing that pushes them backwards into defeat. That is why kindness is so important. Words and actions have power and consequences. Be the kind of person who helps others achieve their personal victory and you take part in achieving your own as well.”

What is patently obvious to anyone paying the slightest bit of attention to the issue of homelessness is that the problem is getting worse, much worse. We as a society must develop ways to address the problem of homelessness or it and its impact on both the homeless themselves and society as a whole are only going to get worse. We cannot just ignore the issue and simply hope it will go away. To do so will only serve to exacerbate an already worsening problem. By virtue of helping the homeless, we also help ourselves. DIMH has provided significant assistance to over 3000 men experiencing homelessness over the past 13 years and simply aspires to continue to do so. I respectfully request Dover City Council pass the necessary ordinance so DIMH can continue to provide this invaluable and important service for the City of Dover and to those in need. Thank you for your consideration of this important issue. Sincerely, James D. Short James D. Short

EXHIBIT #3 Regular City Council Meeting of 11/08/2021 City of Dover CITY OF DOVER ORDINANCE #2021-22 WITH STAFF AMENDMENT #1 (SA #1) BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: That Chapter 46 – Fire Prevention and Protection, Article IV – Public Occupancies, be amended to read as follows: Section 46-161 – Compliance required. No person shall use or permit to be used any public occupancy structure which does not comply with the most currently published edition of NFPA Life Safety Code 101. Public Occupancies shall include but not be limited to: (a) Assembly occupancy (facilities used for gathering of 50 or more people to include, but not be limited to auditoriums, assembly halls, auditoriums, bowling lanes, club rooms, college and university classrooms with 50 or more persons, conference rooms, courtrooms, dance halls, drinking establishments, exhibition halls, gymnasiums, libraries, mortuary chapels, motion picture theaters, museums, passenger stations and terminals of air, surface, underground, and marine public transportation facilities, places of religious worship, pool rooms, recreational piers, restaurants, skating rinks, special amusement buildings, theaters) (b) Educational occupancy (academies, kindergartens, schools) (c) Day Care occupancy (adult, child, homes, nursery, center) (d) Health Care occupancy (hospitals, limited care facilities, nursing homes) (e) Ambulatory Health Care occupancy (facilities used to provide services or treatment simultaneously to four or more patients that provides, on an outpatient basis, one or more of the following: 1. Treatment for patients that renders the patients incapable of taking action for self-preservation under emergency conditions without the assistance of others 2. Anesthesia that renders the patients incapable of taking action for self preservation under emergency conditions without the assistance of others 3. Treatment for patients who, due to the nature of their injury or illness, are incapable of taking action for self-preservation under emergency conditions without the assistance of others.) (f) Residential occupancy (lodging or rooming houses, hotel, dormitory, apartment buildings, bed and breakfast inns, short term rentals)

Ordinance #2021-22 – Public Occupancies Page 2 (g) Residential Board and Care occupancy (group housing, facilities for social rehabilitation, alcoholism, drug abuse or mental health; assisted living) (h) Mercantile occupancy over 10,000 square feet (auction rooms, department stores, drugstores, restaurants with fewer than 50, shopping centers, supermarkets) (i) Business occupancy over 10,000 square feet (city halls, college and universities instructional buildings, classrooms under 50 persons and laboratories, courthouses, dentist’s office, doctor’s office, general office, outpatient clinics (ambulatory), town halls) (j) Industrial occupancy (dry-cleaning plant, factories of all kinds, food processing plants, gas plants, hangars, laundries, power plants, pumping stations, refineries, sawmills, telephone exchanges) (k) Storage occupancy over 10,000 square feet (barns, bulk oil storage, cold storage, freight terminals, grain elevators, hangars, parking structures, truck and marine terminals, warehouses) (l) Assembly occupancy - special provisions 1 (to include, but not be limited to outdoor facilities which are not part of the normal every day operation of the building/land use and are subject to a City of Dover current special event permit) (m) Assembly occupancy - special provisions 2 (to include, but not be limited to Special Amusement Buildings, carnivals, circus, fireworks, pyrotechnic displays, outdoor music concerts/festivals, special events) (Code 1981, § 7-63; Ord. of 11-22-1993; Ord. of 1-27-1997) BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: That Chapter 46 – Fire Prevention and Protection, Article IV – Public Occupancies, be amended by inserting the text indicated in bold, blue font and deleting the text indicated in red strikeout as follows: Section 46-164 Fees. A person desiring the permit required by the provisions of this article shall pay the appropriate permit fee as provided for in Appendix F—Fees and Fines. (Code 1968, §§ 17-38, 17-46, 17-50, 17-54, 17-58; Code 1981, § 7-65; Ord. of 3-23-1992; Ord. of 11- 22-1993; Ord. No. 2009-09, 6-22-2009) That Appendix F – Fees and Fines, Chapter 46 – Fire Prevention and Protection, be amended by inserting the text indicated in bold, blue font and deleting the text indicated in red strikeout as follows: Chapter 46. Fire Prevention and Protection Fees and Fines Article I. In General

Ordinance #2021-22 – Public Occupancies Page 3 Sec. 46-1. Means of egress Subsec. (f) Penalties Any exit access, exit, or exit discharge, with the exception of a $100.00 first offense locked exit door, found to be in violation of this section $200.00 second or subsequent offense Any required exit door found to be locked against egress $100.00 each locked exit first offense, $200.00 subsequent offense Sec. 46-3. Impairment of fire protection equipment Subsec. (f) Fines $100.00 per device first offense; $200.00 per device second and subsequent offenses Sec. 46-7. Preventable and malfunctioning alarms to the fire company Subsec. (a)(1) Responsibility for malfunctioning and preventable Should the person notified alarms, owner response, and corrective action; generally fail to appear at said premises within 30 minutes after being notified to do so, the city may charge the owner of the premises a fine of $100.00 Subsec. (a)(2) Responsibility for malfunctioning and preventable Failure to return alarms, owner response, and corrective action; malfunction documentation of service/repair within the period of time stated on the notice of violation, which is satisfactory to the fire marshal, will result in assessment against the owner of a fine of $100.00 for the fire alarm malfunction Subsec. (b)(1) Fine charges; multiple fire alarm malfunctions or preventable alarms; amount of fine Number of preventable or malfunctioning fire alarms Fine per preventable or malfunctioning fire alarm Third alarm $100.00 Fourth alarm $200.00 Fifth alarm $250.00 All over fifth alarm, each alarm $250.00 Subsec. (b)(2) Fine charges; multiple fire alarm malfunctions or A $50.00 fine may be preventable alarms; panel reset assessed to the owner of a premises where the fire

Ordinance #2021-22 – Public Occupancies Page 4 alarm has been reset before the fire department or assisting fire department arrives. $100.00 for second or subsequent offenses Sec. 46-8. Maintaining a known violation or hazard Subsec. (c)(1) Penalties; Any fines issued for violation of this section Not less than $25.00, nor more than $1,000.00 Article II. Fire Department Sec. 46-44 Failure to answer alarms, orders and perform duties Fine of not less than orderly; Penalties $25.00, nor more than $1,000.00 or by suspension from the fire department or both Article III. Fire Codes Fees established in subsection (b) of this section shall be doubled in the event that a permit is applied for after construction has commenced without the permission of the fire marshal. The fire marshal shall waive the doubling of fees in cases where the permit applicant is not a professional contractor and the work is not being done by a professional contractor. Sec. 46-126. Fire prevention permit Subsec. (b) Fee; each applicant $25.00 for each $1,000.00 of costs or multiple thereof of the fire protection system; provided that a minimum fee for each permit shall be $150.00 Subsec. (c) Reinspection First reinspection No charge Second reinspection $100.00 Third reinspection $200.00 Any subsequent reinspection $250.00 Subsec. (d) Fire signaling system inspection fee Certificate of inspection $25.00 each fire alarm system Exception: Apartment or other multifamily dwelling—Five or less $25.00 each fire alarm buildings per complex system Exception: Apartment or other multifamily dwelling—More than $15.00 each fire alarm five buildings per complex system up to a maximum of 20 buildings. Maximum fee per complex not to exceed $300.00 for fire alarm systems Subsec. (e) Fire suppression system inspection fee

Ordinance #2021-22 – Public Occupancies Page 5 Certificate of inspection $25.00 each fire suppression system Exception: Apartment or other multifamily dwelling—Five or less $25.00 each fire buildings per complex suppression system Exception: Apartment or other multifamily dwelling—More than $15.00 each fire five buildings per complex suppression system up to a maximum of 20 buildings. Maximum fee per complex not to exceed $300.00 for fire suppression systems Sec. 46-127 Smoke detection devices Fines not paid within 14 days of the day the fine was issued, including the day the fine was issued, shall be automatically doubled in amount. Subsec. (g) Violations; penalties Revocation of any existing license to do business in the city, or a fine of not more than $150.00 per violation, or both such penalties Article IV. Public Occupancies Sec. 46-164. Fees Assembly No Charge for an occupant load less than 75; $100.00 for an occupant load of 75 or greater Assembly-Fixed Seating $100.00 for first 200 seats and $10.00 each additional 50 seats Educational $100.00 Day Care $50.00 for Day Cares as defined by Appendix B – Zoning, Article 5, Sections 14.22, 14.23 and 22.1; $100.00 for other day cares Heath Care $100.00 first 25 rooms and $5.00 for each additional room Ambulatory Heath Care $100.00 Residential $100.00 per building Residential Board and Care $100.00 Mercantile over 10,000 Sq. Ft. $100.00 Business over 10,000 Sq. Ft. $100.00 Industrial $100.00

Ordinance #2021-22 – Public Occupancies Page 6 Storage over 10,000 Sq. Ft. $100.00 Assembly special provisions 1 $25.00 Assembly special provisions 2 $100.00 Sec. 46-168. Reinspection fee Subsec. (a) Amount $25.00 for any repeated violation cited by the fire marshal, determined to be a violation and which requires a follow up inspection to confirm the correction of the violation Subsec. (b) Fee attached A fee may be attached to any summons written for any violation found to be uncorrected upon reinspection Article V. Fire Lanes Fines not paid within 14 days of the day the fine was issued, including the day the fine was issued, shall be automatically doubled in amount. Sec. 46-202. Violations; penalties Subsec. (c) Other obstructions Any property owner or tenant found to be in violation; $50.00 Subsec. (d) Failure to mark Any property owner found to be in violation; $50.00 Sec. 46-205. Responsibility of owner or tenant Any property owner found to be in violation; $50.00 ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 8, 2021 S:\ORDINANCES\2021\DRAFT\ORDINANCE #2021-22 - CHAPTER 46 - FIRE PREVENTION AND PROTECTION - PUBLIC OCCUPANCIES\PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2021-22 - CHAPTER 46 - FIRST READING - STAFF AMENDMENTS.DOCX SYNOPSIS This ordinance amends portions of Chapter46, Fire Prevention and Protection, Article IV to revise and update definitions in Section 46-161 relating to Public Occupancies to conform with current NFPA Life Safety Code 101. The Ordinance also revises the provisions in Appendix F – Fees and Fines applying to Chapter 46, Fire Prevention and Protection, which have not been updated in at least 9 years. (SPONSORS: NEIL AND HUGG) Actions History: 11/08/2021 - Final Reading – City Council 10/25/2021 - First Reading – City Council 10/12/2021 - Introduction – Council Committee of the Whole