Regular Council Minutes and Exhibits 1-3

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING The Regular City Council Meeting was held on March 11, 2024, at 6:31 p.m. with Council President Hare presiding. Council members present were Mr. Anderson, Mr. Boggerty (arrived via WebEx at 6:33 p.m. And departed at 7:20 p.m.), Mr. Neil, Dr. Pillsbury, Ms. Arndt, Mr. Rocha, Mr. Sudler, and Mr. Lewis. Staff members present were Police Chief Johnson, Ms. Marney, Mr. Hugg, Ms. Melson- Williams, Chief Carey (via WebEx), Mr. Rodriguez, and Ms. Bennett. Mayor Christiansen was also present. OPEN FORUM The Open Forum was held at 6:17 p.m., prior to commencement of the Official Council Meeting. Council President Hare declared the Open Forum in session and reminded those present that Council was not in official session and could not take formal action. There was no one present wishing to speak during the Open Forum. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Elder Ellis B. Louden. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Sudler. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Ms. Arndt, and unanimously carried. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA All Consent Agenda items are considered routine and non-controversial and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the Council. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of Council requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered a separate item. Mr. Sudler moved for adoption of the consent agenda as amended, seconded by Mr. Neil, and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. PRESENTATION – ANNUAL REPORT – PLANNING, INSPECTIONS, AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2023 ANNUAL REPORT Ms. Sharon Duca, Assistant City Manager, reviewed the 2023 Annual Report. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that the results of the C-2 revisions are scheduled this evening for the public hearing on the proposed ordinance. Ms. Melson-Williams further stated that she would defer the details until they get to the agenda item. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Duca stated that one of the biggest things that they need to ensure is consistency within the department. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Ms. Duca stated that she is helping with the administration of all five

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 11, 2024 PAGE 2 (5) divisions. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Ms. Duca explained that they could find the pros and cons on both sides and keeping them together, they are very intertwined in a lot of aspects. Such as, the permit process goes through numerous departments. It goes through the division’s planning as well as building inspections in the fire marshal’s office and the inspections are performed by all of them. Ms. Duca further explained that some of them overlap with code, which greatly involves planning and that definitely a tie that keeps them together. The city does have a history of splitting apart departments and putting them back together and you could find reasoning to try to consolidate some of that a little better. Ms. Duca believes that it’s more of what the overall intent is and where they would have to look at what the financial ramifications would be of splitting. Mr. Anderson moved for acceptance of the Planning, Inspections, and Community Development 2023 Annual Report. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE/FINAL READING – PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. #2024-01 – AMENDING APPENDIX B – ZONING, ARTICLE 3 – DISTRICT REGULATIONS, SECTION 13 – CENTRAL COMMERCIAL ZONE (C-2) AND OTHER SECTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider the text amendments of Appendix B – Zoning, Article 3 – District Regulations, Section 13 – central Commercial Zone (C-2) and other sections of the Zoning Ordinance. Council President Hare 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 #2024-01 be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury, and unanimously carried. (The First Reading of the proposed ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of January 22, 2024.) Ms. Dawn Melson-Williams, Principal Planner reviewed Proposed Ordinance No. #2024-01 – Amending Appendix B – Zoning, Article 3 – District Regulations, Section 13 – Central Commercial Zone (C-2) and other sections of the zoning ordinance. Responding to Ms. Melson-Williams, Mr. Lewis explained that the letter dated January 8th, 2024, addressed to City Clerk Bennett concerning parking indicates in paragraph three (3) that there are no parking requirements for existing buildings in the C-2 zone, and there are also no minimum parking requirements for new construction in the C-2 zone. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Melson-Williams highlighted that there are several parking options available, with many parcels already having on-site parking capabilities. She noted that parking options range from areas with no street parking to managed parking lots and alternative transportation modes like walking and transit options. Ms. Melson-Williams clarified that the

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 11, 2024 PAGE 3 zoning ordinance does not compel existing locations to alter their parking arrangements. Instead, it primarily addresses parking requirements for new developments, whether they involve existing buildings or new construction, outlining the parking standards applicable in those scenarios. Responding to Ms. Melson-Williams, Mr. Lewis asked that for the existing residents, it would not have an effect on the record for the existing residents that live in that area. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Melson-Williams noted that existing residents may already have various parking options at their disposal. However, she clarified that the specifics of how individuals, property owners, or landlord-tenant arrangements choose to manage parking is not addressed by this ordinance provision. The provision primarily pertains to new developments and does not dictate how existing parking situations should be managed. Responding to Ms. Melson-Williams, Mr. Lewis mentioned that on page 59 of the packet, there is a reference to the text amendment C-2 central commercial zoning uses and standards, specifically related to development standards. He noted that it lists public comments received through February 7th, 2024, including letters from the Downtown Dover Partnership and Donnie Legends, whom he believes owns a business in the city. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Melson-Williams explained that the package Mr. Lewis is referencing contains a series of written comments received before the Planning Commission meeting. During the meeting, representatives from various groups spoke, but she would need to check if any of them spoke solely as residents. She noted that while some speakers were residents of the City of Dover, their discussions mainly centered around their roles as business owners or their involvement in other organizations, rather than focusing on themselves solely as residents. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Ms. Melson-Williams explained that the city's parking requirements are currently specified in several different ways within the zoning ordinance. Ms. Melson- Williams further explained that individual zones may have specific parking requirements. Article six (6) of the ordinance deals with parking regulations, which are tied to zoning and specific land uses. If there is a particular use, then there is a different parking requirement that is listed. The current proposal suggests that in the downtown redevelopment target area, new construction projects can claim a parking exemption for certain uses. However, they must provide a detailed parking strategy as part of their development plan process, which would then be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that the process would be to submit a parking strategy and that strategy could include building a certain number of parking spaces on- site. The parking strategy might involve anticipating visitors parking once and then visiting multiple locations without moving their car. Alternatively, it could involve expecting users or tenants to arrive via transit or other multimodal options. Ms. Melson-Williams clarified that the proposed approach leaves room for flexibility in how developers address their parking strategy. She noted that it is unlikely that all parking needs would be met through on-street parking alone. Ms. Melson-Williams explained that there are various factors to consider when developing a parking strategy. These include time limits for parking spaces, restrictions on parking for certain streets, and eligibility criteria for the residential parking permit program. Developers have

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 11, 2024 PAGE 4 flexibility in how they package together their parking strategy, considering these factors. The City of Dover's code already acknowledges that the downtown area is likely to have transit options and be conducive to multimodal transportation and walkability. This recognition is reflected in how parking is addressed in the area. Council President Hare declared the public hearing open at 7:12 PM. Todd Stonesifer, 115 North State Street, stated that he has had the opportunity to serve as the President of the Downtown Dover Partnership. Mr. Stonesifer expressed concern that under the current C-2 zoning, developers may be deterred from investing in the area. Mr. Stonesifer believes that the solution to the downtown area is density and more pedestrians on the streets. Mr. Stonesifer explained that he believes that the road system needs to shrink in size in order to make it safer and easier to walk along the Loockerman Street corridor. Mr. Stonesifer also suggested that Loockerman Street should not function as a through street but rather as a destination in itself. He proposed that the side streets off Loockerman should be the primary modes of transportation. Mr. Stonesifer expressed his support for the zoning changes and requested their approval. John Childress, 297 Katy Court, New Jersey, stated that he is the Interim Planning Director leading the Mosaic Development Partners in creating the master plan. He explained that the requirements and regulations proposed by the planning department will serve two crucial purposes. First, they will attract more developers and encourage private investment in the area. Second, they will enhance the city's aesthetic appeal and align with its overall beauty. Jed Hatfield, Colonial Parking, 715 North Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware, stated that they are considering a property located in the heart of downtown to serve as the Center for All Transit Movement. The plan includes providing bus access to the facility, as well as accommodating automobiles, bicycles, scooters, and other modes of transportation, all in one central location as outlined in the code. Mr. Hatfield further explained that having a centralized parking facility takes the burden off some of the other projects, as well as creating a much more efficient parking within downtown. A single facility or a series of facilities could cater to both businesspeople during the day and residents primarily at night. This approach would ensure a more efficient use of parking spaces downtown, avoiding overbuilding and having empty spaces during the day. By managing these facilities effectively, we can make better use of the available space. Zach Prebula, 173 Abigail Lane, Magnolia, stated that he is in support of the text amendments and believes that they will contribute to the revitalization of the downtown area. He expects that these changes will not only attract developers but also entice new businesses to the area and bring in new residents. Mike Lick, Lighthouse Construction, 859 Golf Links Lane, Magnolia, stated that he is one of the developers for the old Dover Post. Mr. Lick explained that the changes that are before them tonight are absolutely critical for successful development in downtown Dover. Ed Dougherty, 25 Lotus Street stated that he highly recommends that they take the initiative and start pushing for change. He emphasized the need for something different, noting that the city is

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 11, 2024 PAGE 5 expecting an influx of new residents who will deserve a functional downtown Dover. Andria Bennett, City Clerk read three (3) letters of support for the proposed ordinance (Exhibits 1-3). Toby Jackson Oakley,12 Representative Lane, stated that she is not in opposition to anything that is going on downtown. Ms. Oakley explained that she is the daughter of two (2) elderly parents and is concerned for elderly people because her mom cannot walk long distances. Ms. Oakley further explained that if a proposal were made to block off Loockerman Street, allowing parking only on the outskirts, it would raise concerns. She highlighted that this arrangement would be particularly challenging for elderly individuals, citing her mother's difficulty in walking long distances. Council President Hare declared the public hearing closed at 7:31 PM. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Stonesifer clarified that there are no plans to close Loockerman Street to vehicular traffic and make it pedestrian-only. He explained that they are considering a concept to narrow the street, which would slow down traffic, widen the sidewalks, and retain all existing street parking. This approach aims to enhance pedestrian safety and comfort without reducing available parking spaces; instead, it would add to the overall parking capacity. By motion of Mr. Neil, seconded by Ms. Arndt, Council, by a roll call vote of seven (7) yes (Anderson, Neil, Pillsbury, Arndt, Rocha, Sudler, and Hare), one (1) no (Lewis), and one (1) absent (Boggerty), adopted Ordinance #2024-01, as follows: BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: That Appendix B – Zoning, Article 3 Section 13. Central Commercial Zone (C-2) be amended to read as follows: APPENDIX B – ZONING ARTICLE 3 - DISTRICT REGULATIONS Section 13. - Central commercial zone (C-2). 13.1 Uses permitted. In a central commercial zone (C-2), 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: (a) Retail stores. (b) Restaurants, cafes, and eating establishments. Commercial kitchens. Microbrewery, craft distillery, and meadery establishments. (e) Hotels, including bed and breakfast inns.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 11, 2024 PAGE 6 (f) Art galleries and artisan studios. (g) Service establishments. (h) Banks and financial institutions (i) Personal service establishments. (j) Business, professional, and government offices. (k) Apartments and multi-family dwellings, provided that no dwelling units shall be permitted on the first floor on the street frontage of Loockerman Street. Uses accessory to the residential units such as lobby and amenity spaces are permitted on the first floor. (l) Live-work units. (m) Indoor recreation and amusement establishments. (n) Parking lots and parking structures as a principal use. (o) Places of public assembly. (p) Manufacturing, assembling, converting, altering, finishing, cleaning, cooking, baking, or any other processing of products where goods so produced or processed are to be sold at retail on the premises or online and where the size of the establishment shall not exceed 5,000 square feet in floor area. (q) Open space areas. 13.2 Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted, conditional upon the approval of the planning commission in accordance with the procedures and subject to the general conditions set forth in article 10, section 1: (a) Manufacturing, assembling, converting, altering, finishing, cleaning, cooking, baking, or any other processing of products where goods so produced or processed are to be sold at retail on the premises or online and where the size of the establishment exceeds 5,000 square feet in floor area. 13.3 Uses prohibited. The following uses are prohibited: (a) Fuel pumps and motor vehicle storage, sales, or repairs. 13.4 Enclosed buildings. All permitted uses and all storage accessory thereto, other than offstreet parking, shall be carried on in buildings fully enclosed on all sides, except for outdoor eating areas, outdoor gathering areas, and outdoor sales areas approved by the city planner or approved as part of the site development plan approval required by article 3, section 13.6. 13.5 Design standards. The following standards shall apply to the site and building development in the central commercial zone (C-2): 13.51 Façade Articulation. Building facades should incorporate design elements to provide a base, middle, and top of the building to reinforce the pedestrian scale at the street level. 13.52 Height. For buildings greater than four (4) stories in height, then the upper floors above the fourth story shall step back six (6) feet for fifty percent (50%) of the width of the primary facade. For buildings greater than six (6) stories, then the upper floors above the sixth floor shall step back an additional six (6) feet on the primary façade. These step

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 11, 2024 PAGE 7 back areas may begin at a lower height than these minimums as part of the building design in order to be compatible with the character of the area. 13.53 Step back areas. The step back areas should be open to the sky and can be open air balcony spaces or other design architectural features that are not enclosed spaces. 13.54 Off-street Parking. Off-street parking lots shall not be permitted to be situated between the street line and the primary facade of the principal building. Consideration should be given to locating parking to the side or rear of the building. 13.55 Screening. Any off-street parking lots provided shall be screened from the street line by buildings, landscaping, or other means. Off-street parking lots shall be screened from adjacent residential zones and residential uses. This screening provision does not apply to adjacent alleys. 13.6 Performance standards. All uses are subject to performance standards as set forth in article 5, section 8.1. 13.7 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. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: That Appendix B – Zoning, Article 4 Section 4.14 amended to read as follows: Section 4.14. - C-1, C-1A, C-2, C-2A zones. Bulk and parking regulations for neighborhood commercial (C-1), limited commercial (C-1A), central commercial (C-2), and limited commercial (C-2A) zones are as follows: C-1 C-1A C-2 C-2A Minimum required: Lot area (sq. ft.) 2,500 Lot width (ft.) 25 Lot depth (ft.) 70 100 Front yard (ft.) 25 25 0 15 Side yard (ft.) None required, None required, None required, None required, but 5 feet min. but 5 feet min. but 5 feet min. if but 5 feet min. if if provided if provided provided provided Rear yard (ft.) 15 15 20 above ground 20 above ground floor. At ground floor. At ground floor, 5 ft. floor, 5 ft. required required Side or rear yards 15 15 15 25

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 11, 2024 PAGE 8 C-1 C-1A C-2 C-2A which adjoin a residential zone (ft.) Off-street parking Per 300 sq. ft. floor 1 area or Per employee 1 (whichever is greater) Maximum permitted: Building height Stories 2 2 10 6 Feet 30 30 125 75 Floor area ratio 1.0 1.5 5.0 4.0 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: That Appendix B – Zoning, Article 5 Section 6 amended to read as follows: Section 6. - Dumpsters for trash and recycling. 6.1 Location of trash receptacles. In all zones of the City of Dover (except in residential zones where standard City of Dover 90-gallon trash containers are used), all trash receptacles and bulk recycling bins (excluding publicly operated recycling drop off centers), which shall be referred to collectively as "dumpsters" in this ordinance, are to be situated in order to allow safe and efficient access by trash collection vehicles and shall be screened from public view. All dumpsters must comply with the following regulations: 6.11 Location and screening required. All dumpsters must be located in approved locations on the lot. Dumpsters must be placed on hard, paved, dust-free surfaces and may not be placed in designated parking spaces, fire lanes, or access ways. Outside storage of trash, cardboard, or shipping pallets is prohibited. A dumpster enclosure is required to screen the dumpster from view whenever these units are situated so that they will be visible from any public right -of-way or from an adjacent property. 6.12 Minimum dumpsters required. Use Dumpsters Required Apartment complex or Apartment Two required for the first 48 apartments; one required for Building with over 10 units each additional 24 apartments or fraction thereof Non-residential uses Two required per property 6.13 Selection of trash service. Applicants for site development plan approval shall specify the proposed method of trash collection at the time of application. A change in the method of

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 11, 2024 PAGE 9 collection may require an alteration of the site plan, subject to approval of the city planner or the planning commission. 6.14 Maneuvering space. Adequate off-street truck maneuvering space shall be provided on- lot and not within any public street right-of-way or other public lands. Internal site circulation lanes are to be designed with adequate turning radii to accommodate the size and efficient maneuvering of trash collection vehicles. 6.15 Minimum dimensions for dumpster enclosures. All dumpster enclosures must be adequate to screen dumpsters from public view. Enclosures for private collection must be no less than seven feet in height. The height of enclosures for City of Dover collection may be no less than five feet high. 6.16 Enclosure construction. All dumpster enclosures shall be constructed of durable materials that will withstand the normal use and wear expected in trash removal operations. Whenever a dumpster, in its enclosure, will be visible from a public right-of-way, the appearance of the dumpster enclosures shall complement the architecture of the principal building on the lot, and be constructed with the same or similar exterior materials. 6.17 Gates. Gates are required whenever a dumpster, in its enclosure, will be visible from a public right-of-way. Gates must be designed to swing back behind the front of the enclosure and lock in the open position. If City of Dover trash service is provided, it is the responsibility of the property owner or occupant to open and securely lock back the gates to allow for trash pick up. The gates may be opened 12 hours prior to pick up and must be closed within 12 hours after pick up. 6.18 Reduction of dumpster requirement. When a use is required to provide dumpsters as part of site development plan approval, the required number of dumpsters may be reduced under the following circumstances: a) Dumpster pads reserved for future use. An area of the site reserved for a dumpster may be substituted for an actual dumpster. The provided area must be large enough to accommodate a dumpster and must be accessible to trash collection services. The city planner may require that the owner of record of the property provide a dumpster in the reserved location, together with any enclosure required, upon determining there is need for the additional dumpster. b) Trash compactor substitution. Trash compactors may be substituted for ordinary dumpsters at a two to one ratio. The city planner may approve a higher substitution ratio if specifications are provided indicating the machine will achieve a correspondingly higher trash compaction ratio. Trash compactors must meet the same location and screening requirements as other dumpsters. Sites providing trash compactors must still provide separate receptacles for recycling. c) Alternative solutions. Alternative solutions for the storage of and collection methods for trash and recycling receptables may be considered. The city planner or planning commission may authorize alternative solutions.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 11, 2024 PAGE 10 6.2 Location and screening approval required. The locations of new dumpsters on a site and any screening necessary shall be approved through the site development plan approval process, according to the type of review required in article 10 of this appendix. 6.3 Unauthorized dumpsters. Any dumpster not previously approved through the site development plan approval process may be required by the city planner to be moved, removed, or screened if said dumpster is a nuisance to neighboring properties by virtue of its current location. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: That Appendix B – Zoning, Article 6 Section 3.1 amended to read as follows: Section 3. - Required off-street parking spaces. 3.1 Schedule of requirements. Accessory off-street parking spaces, open or enclosed, shall be provided for any lot as specified in Article 4—Zoning Bulk and Parking Regulations, or as specified below for each use in any zone, whichever is greater. (a) Exceptions. i. Where Article 3—District Regulations, specifies a minimum parking requirement, this parking requirement shall prevail. ii. For existing buildings within the C-2 zoning district, the requirements of Article 4, Section 4.14—C-1, C-1A, C-2, C-2A zones, bulk and parking regulations governing the C-2 zoning district shall prevail. iii. For new construction within the downtown redevelopment target area, as described in appendix C of the Dover Code of Ordinances, there is no minimum off-street parking requirement based on use. To utilize this exception, a parking strategy statement must be submitted for review as part of the site development plan approval required by appendix B, zoning, article 10, section 2. For: At Least One Parking Space For Each Places of worship Two hundred (200) square feet of floor area, but not less than one (1) space for each four (4) seats, where provided Libraries Three hundred (300) square feet of floor area Medical offices—All types Three hundred (300) square feet of floor area Nursery school or kindergarten Adult attendant, plus one for every 20 children

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 11, 2024 PAGE 11 For: At Least One Parking Space For Each Elementary or junior high school Eight (8) seats in main auditorium/cafeteria or gymnasium High school, technical school, college or Five (5) seats in main auditorium/cafeteria or university gymnasium; if none, see Article 4—Zoning, Bulk and Parking Regulations Hospitals or sanitariums Three beds Apartments Two (2) per dwelling unit and one (1) for every two hundred (200) square feet of office space and 0.25 per dwelling unit for visitor space Roominghouses Guestroom Dormitories Three (3) beds Eating and drinking places Four (4) seats plus one (1) for every three (3) bar seats Funeral homes Two (2) employees, plus five (5) spaces for each chapel Hotels and motels Guestroom, plus one (1) for every 200 square feet of office space, banquet hall, or meeting areas Athletic fields, baseball, football or Three (3) seats boxing stadiums and arenas; race tracks Golf courses Per employee and four (4) parking spaces for each hole Golf or baseball driving range One-half (½) stall Airports Per employee and for each two (2) airplanes in storage 3.2 Areas computed as parking spaces. Areas which may be computed as open or enclosed off- street parking spaces include any private garage, carport, or other area available for parking, other than a street or driveway. However, a driveway within a required front yard for a one- family or two-family residence may count as one parking space, other than a corner lot as provided in article 5, section 1.3. 3.3 Location and ownership of required accessory parking facilities. Required accessory parking spaces, open or enclosed, may be provided upon the same lot as the use to which they

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 11, 2024 PAGE 12 are accessory, or elsewhere, provided all spaces therein are located within 150 feet walking distance of such lot. In all cases, such parking spaces shall conform to the regulations of the district in which they are accessory and shall be subject to deed restriction, filed with the city clerk, binding the owner and his heirs and assigns to maintain the required number of spaces available either: (a) Throughout the existence of such use to which they are accessory; or (b) Until such spaces are provided elsewhere. 3.4 Size of spaces. The minimum parking space dimensions shall be at least nine (9) feet in width and at least 18 feet in length. Disabled accessible spaces shall meet ADA requirements. 3.5 Access. Unobstructed access to and from a street shall be provided. Each drive lane shall have at least ten feet of width so that one-way drives have at least ten feet of width and that two-directional drives have two lanes of ten feet each. Unless otherwise specified within this section, access shall be provided by at least one two-directional drive lane or two one- directional drive lanes. 3.6 Drainage and surfacing. (a) All open permanent parking areas and access drives shall be properly drained, and all such areas shall be provided with paved asphalt, concrete or other hard, paved, dust - free surface. (b) All permanent parking areas shall be enclosed with upright concrete curbing at least six inches in height. The city planner may relax this requirement for a portion of a parking area when there is a demonstrated need to convey stormwater to a proposed or approved stormwater management area. Curbing shall not be required for loading areas, handicapped access and for parking spaces accessory to a one-family or two-family residence (see also article 6, section 5.3). 3.7 Joint facilities. Required parking spaces, open or enclosed, may be provided in spaces designed to serve, jointly, two or more establishments, whether or not located on the same lot, provided that the number of required spaces in such joint facilities shall be not less than the total required for all such establishments. 3.8 Combined spaces. When any lot contains two or more uses having different parking requirements, the parking requirements for each use shall apply to the extent of that use. Where it can be conclusively demonstrated that one or more such uses will be generating a demand for parking spaces primarily during periods when the other use or uses is not or are not in operation, the planning commission may reduce the total parking spaces required for that use with the least requirement. (a) Campus Parking Plan. When a new building or building addition is made to a campus involving multiple buildings under common ownership where one or more of the uses will be generating demand for parking when the other use or uses are not in operation, the applicant shall present a campus parking plan as a part of the site

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 11, 2024 PAGE 13 development plan that includes an analysis of the parking needs based on the provisions of section 3.8 of this article. 3.9 Adjustments to parking requirements. The planning commission or city planner, according to the type of plan review required by appendix B, zoning, article 10, planning commission, may reduce, in an amount not to exceed 50 percent, the number of parking spaces required when, in the opinion of the commission, it has been demonstrated that the use is adequately served by transportation and parking alternatives, including but not limited to: (a) Site plan proposals within the downtown redevelopment target area, as described in appendix C of the Dover Code of Ordinances, may be granted a 20 percent reduction in the amount of off-street parking normally required, due to the availability of mass transit, municipal parking and existing pedestrian amenities. (b) Designated off-street parking reserved for car pools, van pools, and bicycle parking facilities, in accordance with the following schedule: (1) Each carpool space shall be equivalent to three standard parking spaces. (2) Each vanpool space shall be equivalent to five standard parking spaces. (3) Every group of five bicycle parking spaces shall be equivalent to one standard parking space. (c) Employer participation in a traffic-mitigation plan approved by the Delaware Department of Transportation. (d) Cash-in-lieu of parking contributions toward the capital construction or improvement of municipal parking facilities that are proposed. The cash-in-lieu of parking contribution shall be in a monetary amount equivalent to the estimated cost of construction for the number of standard surface parking spaces for which the reduction is sought. To take advantage of this option, the developer shall submit to the city engineer a cost estimate for the parking requested to be waived. The city engineer shall examine the estimate for accuracy in current prevailing costs of construction at the time of proposal and shall report to the planning commission his/her findings. (e) Proposals involving superior urban design which contribute to an enhanced pedestrian environment, and which include such features as pedestrian plazas and pocket-parks, pedestrian-way connections with existing sidewalk systems and community facilities, park benches and other street furniture, mass transit connections and shelters, and landscaping and shade tree plantings. In all areas, except the downtown redevelopment target area, the planning commission or city planner, according to the type of plan review required by appendix B, zoning, article 10, planning commission, may require the development plans to have an area of open space designated where parking could be constructed less than or equal to the number being reduced. In such cases the plan shall bear a note which explains that the petitioner, in accepting a parking reduction, agrees to construct such additional parking as is otherwise required under the provisions of this appendix, if the planning commission, after a hearing, determines that the

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 11, 2024 PAGE 14 reasons for granting said reduction no longer exist. In all such instances where the planning commission determines that the reasons for granting a reduction no longer exist, the owner of record for the subject property for which a reduction was previously granted must construct the parking required to meet the regulations of the city during the next construction season. 3.10 Bicycle parking. Bicycle parking shall be provided for parking spaces at a rate of one bicycle parking space for every 20 parking spaces or a fraction thereof. The planning commission may waive the requirement for the bicycle parking if it is demonstrated that bicycle parking would not be appropriate for safety reasons or due to the nature of the use of the site. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: That Appendix B – Zoning, Article 12 – Definitions be amended to read as follows: Live-work unit: A first floor business use, such as an office, studio, shop, café, service establishment, personal service establishment, or other permitted use in combination with an office and a dwelling unit located above such place of business. A person or persons other than the proprietor of the first floor business may occupy the dwelling unit portion of a Live-work unit. ADOPTED: March 11, 2024 ORDINANCE/FINAL READING – PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. #2024-03 – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 2024 - CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO MAP 12-1: LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN MAP A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider the Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2024 – Consideration of Amendment to Map 12-1: Land Development Plan Map. Council President Hare 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 the proposed ordinance be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury, and unanimously carried. (The First Reading of the proposed ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of January 22, 2024.) Ms. Dawn Melson-Williams, Principal Planner briefed members on Proposed Ordinance No. #2024-03 - Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2024 – Consideration of Amendment to Map 12-1: Land Development Plan Map. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that the current consideration does not entail outlining a development plan for a specific parcel. Instead, it focuses on the general land use classification and planning for traffic and road improvements in the area. Ms. Melson- Williams explained that this would be part of any kind of site development plan review process

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 11, 2024 PAGE 15 and that Silver Lake Boulevard, she believes, is a city-maintained street. Ms. Melson-Williams further explained that their Public Works Office and Department of Water Wastewater would provide regulatory comments regarding any future development of the parcel in question, as well as other parcels in the City of Dover, when the time comes. Responding to Ms. Melson-Williams, Mr. Anderson stated that a goal of mixed land use is "to encourage the creation of neighborhood centers" and that within the close-knit neighborhood fabric, there are opportunities for the creation of urban centers. Mr. Anderson explained that these centers should be established along major roadways and feature mixed-use development. He questioned how this concept would fit in with the current discussion, as the area in question is anything but a major roadway; it is a small neighborhood cul-de-sac and dead end. The area in question includes a nursing home with medical and ambulance traffic going in and out. Council President Hare declared the hearing open at 7:42 p.m. Kyle Burchard with Mountain Consulting, 103 South Bradford Street stated that he is requesting to amend the Comprehensive Plan designation of the property from office to mixed-use. Mr. Burchard explained that this is the seed of an idea for a development that requires this as part of the process. It begins with the land, and these amenities are highly desirable for residential purposes, making it a potentially good investment for some retail commercial development as well. Mr. Burchard further explained that the road system is a concern, and the development is restricted by what the road system and walkways can accommodate. This would go through the city’s review process out of Walker Road. Additionally, there will be impact studies required through DelDOT as part of the site plan review process. Mr. Burchard expressed eagerness to make the necessary mitigation adjustments to ensure that the roadway is adequate and appropriate for the community. Nick Patel, with Equitable Ownership, 1671 South State Street, stated that there are some growing concerns that a few City Council members have brought up previously, as well as some residents, regarding the rezoning. Especially since there has not been any real discussion about the potential proposed project. Mr. Patel explained that they would love to provide details, but they do not have a clear vision of what they would like to see there. Until the rezoning is approved, they cannot begin to formulate any concrete plans or ideas for the area. Mr. Patel further explained that the goal is to develop a mixed-use project that includes residential housing and community retail, offering grocery stores, dining options, entertainment venues, and other community-accessible amenities. The plan also includes the creation of walkways and spaces where community members can walk their dogs or take their kids for a stroll. Mr. Patel stated that they understand and acknowledge that many concerns revolve around increased traffic. He emphasized their commitment to working with the relevant agencies to study these impacts thoroughly and to seek solutions that minimize disruptions to the council and residents. Mr. Patel further stated that whether the property is developed with the current zoning type, or the new zoning type requested, an increase in traffic is inevitable. Mr. Patel explained that they are looking to introduce a vibrant mix of residential and commercial spaces. This endeavor seeks not to alter the community’s essence, but to enrich it, respecting the city’s growth aspirations and leveraging the potential of this well-placed parcel. Mr. Patel believes that this will have a positive impact on the community.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 11, 2024 PAGE 16 Kathy Masser, 937 Silver Lake Boulevard, stated that there are two important factors that have not been mentioned. First, the area is residential, and the road ends in a cul-de-sac with a speed limit of only 25 miles per hour. There are school buses that pick up and drop off kids right on the street, and children are often riding their bikes and playing in the area. Ms. Masser further stated that she has great concern about the potential traffic implications of any building in the area and how it might disrupt safety. Ms. Masser explained that second important factor is that the property backs right onto Silver Lake. She noted that the wildlife in the area has increased, including herons, water birds, owls, and their families, but the main concern is the presence of bald eagles. Ms. Masser further explained that if they build either too high or too close to the end, it could disrupt the wildlife habitat and might even violate the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Ms. Masser clarified that she is not opposed to the building itself or to supporting it, but she would need to know specific details such as its height, proximity to other structures, and its purpose before she could endorse a change in zoning. Michael Braun,18 Wimbledon Drive, stated that he was troubled when he learned after the meeting that the zoning request violated the Comprehensive Plan. This information was not mentioned during the meeting, and he noted that there is a separate agenda item or process to change the Comprehensive Plan. Edward Dougherty, 25 Lotus Street, stated that there are traffic, speed, and safety concerns. Nikko Brady, 973 Silver Lake Boulevard, stated that the city had initiated the 18-month clock for amending the Comprehensive Plan. However, given the dates of the Planning Commission hearing, the City Council Meeting, and the first reading of the amendment, all of which fall outside of the 18-month timeframe, there may be an issue with the timing of the process. Crystal Dyke, 16 Representative Lane, stated that she speaks against this item because this is a safety concern. Ms. Dyke explained that this is a small, close-knit community, and constructing a mixed development could potentially bring unwanted traffic and individuals who may disrupt the community. She expressed concern about the impact on the surrounding area where the nursing home and corporate offices are located. Ms. Dyke expressed concern about the impact on wildlife, noting that there is a lot of wildlife in the area. She feels that building on the available land would take away their homes as well. Ms. Dyke suggested that if there is a desire to build something in the area, it should be a development for the youth. Eugene Davis, 6 Representative Lane, stated that the main issue and concern is public safety, and that they do not need any suspicious characters back where they live. Mr. Davis further stated that they need a clearer answer to what is going to happen there. Karen Waters McGee, 43 Representative Lane, stated that she opposes Comprehensive Planned Amendment 2024-03, which aims to revise the plan to allow the vacant lot to be changed to a mixed-use area. She reiterated her opposition to revising the plan for this purpose and stated that she will also oppose the next item on the agenda. Toby Jackson Oakley, 12 Representative Lane, expressed concern about the potential increase in

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 11, 2024 PAGE 17 traffic and the number of people going to the area. She also voiced concerns about the impact on the habitat. Ms. Oakley further stated that as far as the road structure goes, the infrastructure cannot make another outlet out of there because the lake is there. They would have to come back through the neighborhood where all the kids play and where they are just trying to have a life. Shelly Heath, 16 Silver Lake Representative Lane, stated that she is concerned about the potential impact on the nursing home. Ms. Heath explained that the residents, who are preparing to transition to another stage of life, may not find calmness or readiness if there is busy traffic, safety issues, and noise due to new construction in the area. Jill Quick, 27 Representative Lane expressed concerns about the safety of children in the area. She also voiced concerns about the potential impact of a retail establishment in the area, noting that it is not an appropriate location, especially near Silver Lake. Ms. Quick emphasized that their neighborhood is beautiful, and with more retail businesses, there is an increase in litter and pedestrian traffic. She stated that she does not support a mixed-use development in the area. Dana Lyman, 961 Silver Lake Road, stated that mixed-use is not appropriate for the area. Mr. Lyman suggested that if there is a need to repurpose something in the area, they should consider converting the credit union into additional office space as needed. Angela West, 971 Silver Lake Boulevard, stated that the intentions for development on the property of any kind of mixed-use property will negatively impact the quality of life for all the residents. Ms. West explained that those speaking in favor of this proposal do not reside in the affected area, and any development would directly impact the residents' front and backyards. An increase in population, consumers, or office workers would lead to increased pollution, trespassing, and worsened traffic conditions. Council President Hare declared the hearing closed at 8:13 p.m. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Hare stated that Mr. Rodriguez indicated that his question is not pertinent to this motion. Responding to Dr. Pillsbury, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that currently the property is zoned CPO which stands for Commercial Professional Office. explained that according to the CPO (Commercial Planned Office) zoning ordinance, permitted uses include business, professional, or government offices, banks, medical facilities, laboratories, drive-in facilities, accessory uses related to permitted uses, and uses that are allowed outright. Ms. Melson-Williams further explained that there are a series of conditional uses, which require a special review process with the Planning Commission for approval. These uses include cafeterias, restaurants, barbershops, beauty shops, copy centers, office supply stores, retail stores, newsstands, spas, health clubs, and associated laboratories that are not related to medical uses. Accessory uses to a permitted use on the same lot are allowed if there is already an office, a bank, and a medical lab on the property. Additionally, conditional uses that are on the residential side would need to undergo a special review process in the CPO zone. The CPO zoning, as it currently stands, is designated for office use. However, there are other potential uses that could be developed through the conditional use process if the Planning Commission deems it appropriate. In any case, development on this tract

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 11, 2024 PAGE 18 of land would likely be subject to a site development plan that requires Planning Commission review. Currently under consideration is the Comprehensive Plan amendment, which relates to the land use classification. Responding to Ms. Melson-Williams, Dr. Pillsbury stated that the zoning category, being commercial and professional office, is somewhat misleading. She expressed that if it were solely for office use, it would be easier to understand everyone's concerns. However, based on the description of a CPO, there is a lot of concern regarding that zoning designation. Mr. Anderson stated that he would like to see an opportunity for the community to come together. He acknowledged that some community members are looking to invest in the area and want to ensure they have a fair chance at proposing something acceptable to the community. However, he voiced skepticism about the appropriateness of mixed-use zoning, as it could open the area to being rezoned in various ways. Mr. Anderson further explained that changing the comprehensive plan is a significant decision that can only be done once a year. He emphasized the importance of community input in this process. Due to these considerations, he moved deferring this item for 30 days. Mr. Anderson moved to defer Proposed Ordinance No. #2024-03 for 30 days, seconded by Mr. Sudler, and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Anderson explained that the reason for the deferral would be to allow the community and developers to come together and understand each other's perspectives better. He emphasized the importance of fostering a willingness among all parties to collaborate and reach a mutual understanding of their respective goals. Mr. Anderson stated that this could be a whole different discussion in 30 days if they are allowed to do that, but if not, they have nothing to lose, but 30 days can make a big difference. Mr. Neil stated that before making any decisions in the next 30 days, they should carefully consider the potential impact of this project, as it could be an extremely important addition to their neighborhood. Ms. Arndt stated that she has seen conversations with the city solicitor and just wanted to get the solicitor’s opinion on whether it would be appropriate to defer this motion for these reasons. Responding to Ms. Arndt, Mr. Hare stated that it is acceptable. Ms. Arndt stated that she would rather see it as something for the residents to use and enjoy. ORDINANCE/FINAL READING – PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. #2024-04 – LANDS OF DOVER FEDERAL CREDIT UNION AT 1079 SILVER LAKE BOULEVARD: CPO TO C-2A A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider the Proposed Ordinance No. 2024-04 – Lands of Dover Federal Credit Union at 1079 Silver Lake Boulevard: CPO to C- 2A. Council President Hare 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

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 11, 2024 PAGE 19 www.cityofdover.com under "Government. The First Reading of the proposed ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of January 22, 2024. Mr. Hare stated that council cannot consider changing the zoning from CPO to C-2A because they did not consider the first item. As Mr. Rodriguez pointed out, they are not permitted to do so. Therefore, council will need to defer this decision as well, in alignment with the decision regarding item number three (3). Mr. Sudler moved to defer Proposed Ordinance No. #2024-04 for 30 days, seconded by Mr. Neil, and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Sudler stated that Councilman Anderson, Councilman Boggerty, and himself are willing to facilitate a meeting between the developers, property owners, and the community. ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 26, 2024 The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of February 26, 2024, were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Neil, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury, and bore the written approval of Mayor Christiansen. COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT – FEBRUARY 27, 2024 The Council Committee of the Whole met on February 27, 2024, at 6:00 p.m. with Council President Hare presiding. Members of Council present were Mr. Anderson, Ms. Arndt, Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Neil, Dr. Pillsbury, Mr. Rocha, and Mr. Sudler. Mayor Christiansen was absent. Civilian members present for their Committee meetings were Ms. Smack (Safety, Advisory, and Transportation), Mr. Shevock (via WebEx) (Legislative, Finance, and Administration). Dr. Jackson-Short (Safety, Advisory, and Transportation), and Ms. Smith (Legislative, Finance and Administration) were absent. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Rocha and unanimously carried. SAFETY, ADVISORY, AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE The Safety, Advisory, and Transportation Committee met with Chairman Lewis presiding. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Lewis requested to remove Item #2 – Citizen Concern over Safety Issues in Towne Point, as the citizen who initiated the item being put on the agenda chose to not speak publicly.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 11, 2024 PAGE 20 Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda as amended, seconded by Mr. Rocha and unanimously carried. Quarterly Briefing on Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Projects (Marilyn Smith, Executive Director of the Dover/Kent County MPO) Ms. Marilyn Smith, Executive Director of the Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), provided a quarterly briefing on Dover/Kent County MPO Projects. Committee Action Not Required. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Ms. Smith stated they have applied for a Rail Corridor Identification Grant in partnership with DelDOT, DART, WILMAPCO, and Salisbury/Wicomico MPO. Ms. Smith stated that they received a $500,000 grant to do the study however, since there is no identified passenger corridor operating right now, one must be identified. Ms. Smith explained that because DART was the applicant, they had to sign the agreement with the Federal Highway Administration. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Ms. Smith stated that the study should take 12 to 16 months to complete, once the federal contracts are in place. Ms. Smith explained that would put them at a year to a year and a half before they have a finalized study with recommendations. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Smith stated that in the Downtown Dover Pathways study, they are focusing on bike, pedestrian, and micro-mobility. Ms. Smith noted that micro-mobility includes electronic scooters. Ms. Smith explained that there will be a chapter that talks about micro-mobility including ebikes as well, and then shows how they could be implemented. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Smith stated that she is not sure what kind of funding is available for elevating the railroad tracks but if that is something that the city would like to pursue, then there would need to be a conversation with the Federal Railroad Administration. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Smith stated that the Bay Road Path & Walking Trail Connections study went from Chesapeake Utilities, onto Bay Road, down Bay Road, and then provided a safe crossing over to DelDOT. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Smith stated that if there is a specific section of trail that he has concerns with, they would have to find out who the trail sponsor is. Ms. Smith explained that the sponsors can be DNREC, DelDOT, the county, or a municipality. Ms. Smith also stated that when they recommend new trails or new connections, they include lighting as a part of the development to make sure the trail is safe.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 11, 2024 PAGE 21 Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. Smith stated that in the meantime to help aid the need for truck parking, DelDOT created a flyer that provides some preferred truck parking areas. They are trying to get the word out to truck drivers that parking exists, and some are in Dover and Kent County. Ms. Smith explained that DelDOT has re-striped some truck parking spaces at the DMV and a couple of park-and-ride locations. Ms. Smith stated that their GIS mapper is working on pulling parcels that are owned by private landowners and could potentially be designated as temporary truck parking spaces. Ms. Smith explained that there is an RFP out to make significant upgrades to the Smyrna rest area so that it can accommodate more truck parking. Mr. Lewis moved for adjournment of the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee meeting, hearing no objection the meeting adjourned at 6:39 p.m. LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met with Chairman Anderson presiding. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury and unanimously carried. Discussion – Establishing a Conduit Bond Program (Emilie Ninan, Partner at Ballad Spahr) Ms. Emilie Ninan, Partner at Ballad Spahr, reviewed the presentation entitled, Using Conduit Tax-Exempt Bonds to Finance Capital Projects. Committee recommended referring to staff for the next steps. Responding to Mr. Neil, Ms. Ninan stated that the bank is lending the money based on their credit. The city would not have any responsibility as a conduit issuer to repay the debt because the city is not giving them any of their credit for them to obtain the lower rate. Ms. Ninan explained that the only thing to be concerned about as the issuer is the reputational risk and whether the city wants to be associated with that borrower. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Ms. Ninan stated that in some counties, the whole council is the approver. Ms. Ninan explained that if the President is selected by the members, then they are not considered elected as President, so the whole council would be the approver. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Ninan stated that they would ask for a commitment letter indicating that there is interest in the market for the requested type of bonds. Ms. Ninan explained that council would not want to spend their

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 11, 2024 PAGE 22 time considering an application for someone with wishful thinking. Instead, council would want them to have a real project that can pass the credit scrutiny. Mr. Neil moved to refer to staff for further development and consideration. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sudler and unanimously carried. Update from the General Employee Pension Plan and Committee Report (Bob Gedney, General Employee Pension Chair, and Christina Kober, City of Dover Retiree) Mr. Bob Gedney, General Employee Pension Chair, and Christina Kober, City of Dover Retiree and General Employee Pension Board member reviewed an update from the General Employee Pension Plan. Committee Action Not Required. Mr. Sudler expressed gratitude to the retirees for their dedication. Mr. Sudler explained that council is committed to showing that they value all employees, past and present. Mr. Anderson mentioned that there will be legislation on a future agenda to address the concerns of pensioners. Mr. Anderson stated that the actuary numbers should be in for the workshop and that they will be available for the committee meeting in March. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Kober stated that the link he provided did not have any assistance information available for her to pass on, but she appreciated the help. Ms. Arndt expressed concern with the 25.5% cost of living adjustment and explained that she would need to see all the data before making any decisions. Dr. Pillsbury stated that 25% is what they did not receive over the past seven or eight years. Dr. Pillsbury explained that they have taken the percentages each year and added them up to come up with 25%. Mr. Anderson mentioned that the city's actuary, with whom they contract, has reviewed the numbers, and arrived at a figure close to what is being requested. He emphasized that the requested amount is not unreasonable. He also explained that once the numbers are back for the workshop meeting, they will review several proposals from staff before committing to anything they cannot fulfill. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Anderson stated that regarding the pension COLA and the proposed retitling and regrading one will not take away from the other. Mr. Anderson stated that council is not breaking the budget to make the changes for this year.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 11, 2024 PAGE 23 Responding to Ms. Kober, Mr. Anderson stated that he has not been provided with the report but anticipates that they will be talking about it on Friday at the workshop. Responding to Mr. Gedney, Mr. Anderson stated that council will have the report by March 1st. Proposed Ordinance #2024-02 – Amending Chapter 106 – Traffic and Vehicles, Sec. 106-136 – On-street disabled parking (Councilman Neil and Councilwoman Arndt) Mr. Neil reviewed the background and proposed changes to the proposed Ordinance #2024-02. Staff recommended approval of Ordinance #2024-02. Mr. Neil moved to include the staff amendments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Shevock and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Sudler moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Neil and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Hugg stated that the City Clerk’s Office has researched and made the proposed changes. He did not want to have more than one person calling to try to get different answers. Mr. Hugg explained that he has the contact information for the Council on Disabilities of the State, which is a State ADA Administrator. However, he has not taken any further steps knowing that Mr. Neil, Ms. Arndt, and the Clerk’s Office were doing the research. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Neil clarified that the changes to the city's code were intended to add extra information, emphasizing that anyone requesting a parking spot would be granted one if the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) approved. He noted that the ordinance detailed existing city code requirements, responsibilities regarding curb cuts, and other provisions aligning with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Mr. Neil, who has 20 years of experience in vocational rehab, reassured that the changes were not meant to harm the individuals he had previously assisted. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Hugg stated that the city does not have an ADA Coordinator in the sense that Mr. Lewis asked. Mr. Hugg explained that the city has an individual who is responsible for ensuring that anything the city does by way of contracting or construction, including streets and curb cuts, meets ADA standards. Mr. Hugg stated that it is not their responsibility to determine if someone is eligible for a placard. Mr. Hugg explained that the Public Works Department is the entity that issues the handicapped spaces and they do that following the ADA requirements of depth and width.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 11, 2024 PAGE 24 Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Hugg stated that if an individual walks into the Public Works Department with a DMV certificate along with the various forms stating that they meet the requirements, Public Works will go out and paint the space. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Neil clarified that if a resident has a driveway, they do not need two placards. However, if they have a driveway and one parking spot, they will need two placards. If they do not have access to a driveway but have two placards, they would have two parking spots. He explained that the changes primarily focus on driveway access, specifying responsibilities for ensuring ADA compatibility. Andria Bennett, City Clerk stated that the staff amendment was added at the request of Mark Nowak, Public Work’s Director because a lot of times when there is a disabled spot in front of someone's home, they think that they own that spot. Ms. Bennett clarified that even if someone has requested a parking space and it is in front of their home, they do not own the space. Anyone with a placard indicating a need for accessible parking may rightfully park in that space. Mr. Boggerty expressed his concerns with not being able to assign a requested parking spot in a non-residential area to the disabled person who requested the space. Mr. Boggerty stated that 30 years ago, the slope of the driveway may not have been an issue. Now it is for someone using a walker or wheelchair and they should be able to have rights to the spot that they requested. Mr. Boggerty emphasized that it is not a matter of whether an altercation will occur, but rather when it will happen. Mr. Sudler agreed with Mr. Boggerty and Mr. Lewis and stated he feels that there is a need for a more expert viewpoint and opinion on the matter. Mr. Sudler questioned how many complaints were received and were the complaints made in writing. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Neil stated that there are a series of emails that have transpired with the person making the complaint. Mr. Neil explained that Ms. Arndt and Mr. Boggerty were able to review the emails and Mr. Boggerty also met with the person. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Neil stated that if they have a driveway, one person can still have the parking spot, and two placards are needed. Mr. Neil explained that two people need two parking spots, and one person needs one parking spot. Mr. Neil stated that if they have a placard and the placard runs out then the parking spot will disappear. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Neil stated that when the placard expires the spot should disappear unless they renew the placard.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 11, 2024 PAGE 25 Sharon Duca, Assistant City Manager stated that the program in the Public Works Department has been around for some time. Ms. Duca explained that typically a resident would call in requesting a spot to be designated on their road. Ms. Duca stated that the residents would be asked to come in to show their identification, and the placard, and give their address. Ms. Duca explained that the Streets Supervisor or another member of the Streets Division would then go out to the site and evaluate if a spot could be placed there. Ms. Duca stated that the resident would then be contacted with the verdict if the spot would fit, and the city would paint the spot. Ms. Duca explained that the Public Works Department has started tracking the spots through the GIS system so that they have a list of all the spots because they must be repainted on a certain frequency. Also, so that they can check expired tags, in which case they would contact the resident for an updated record. Responding to Dr. Pillsbury, Ms. Duca stated that if they both want to have a greater probability of getting a spot, then they both should request a spot. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Duca stated that because there have been other people who have requested designated spots not related to this, council would have to move to allow into code to have individually designated spots. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Duca stated that the way the code is written, they would have the one in the driveway and then the one on the street. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Duca stated that even though it is not addressed in the code, if the city were to evaluate a personal driveway, they would have to look for an ADA-accessible route from each parking spot. Therefore, to get from their parking spot, they would still need to use their driveway to get to the front door or sidewalk, which may or may not follow the slope requirements. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Ms. Duca stated that Public Works does not enforce who is parking in the space but if someone has a placard, then they are allowed to park there. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Ms. Duca stated that none of the spots are designated solely for anyone in particular. Ms. Arndt stated that the reason the text was added in green at the end was that it stated that disabled parking spaces on public streets and parking lots are for public use for validated placarded vehicles, not for personal or private use. Ms. Arndt explained that if there is a handicapped space and they hold a handicapped placard, they can park there regardless of whether they were the ones who sought to have the space put there. Ms. Arndt stated that the intent was to preserve the opportunities, in that folks who have an accessible option on their property that they could use, that they would then not need to use the public space on the public street that someone else might need for public space handicapped parking. Ms.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 11, 2024 PAGE 26 Arndt stated that they would then use their property, their driveway, or their parking pad and that would constitute their opportunity to have an ADA- compliant place to park and to preserve additional space on the street. Ms. Arndt explained that the proposed changes are for those who have space where they could park on their property, but still choose to get a handicapped placard and a space on the street in front of their home. Which in turn, will then take away space that others could use. Ms. Arndt stated that the proposed changes are just trying to encourage people to park on their property and not on the street. William Faust, 136 Orchard Avenue, Dover, expressed his concerns with the enforcement of the abuse related to the use of handicapped placards. Ron Krause stated that the appropriate term and the term used in state legislation is accessible parking space, not disabled or handicapped. Mr. Krause also stated that the Mid-Atlantic ADA would be a great resource. Arielle Rivera, Assistant City Clerk, read into the record the opposition letter from Mr. Richard Senato (Attachment #1). Mr. Neil moved to recommend approval of the staff recommendations. The motion was seconded by Ms. Arndt. Mr. Rocha stated that the terms handicapped and disabled are outdated and that he believes based on the recommendation that they should be changed to accessible. Mr. Rocha moved to make an amendment to update the ordinance recommendation to remove the terms handicapped and disabled and replace them with accessible or the term that is the preference of what the ADA recommends. Mr. Neil and Ms. Arndt stated that they are amendable to the changes. Ms. Bennett stated that the original email from Mr. Neil included emails from constituents as well as information from different municipalities that were suggested. One of the suggested ordinance changes was too stringent and one was not stringent enough. Ms. Bennett explained that the email suggested that there was a situation going on in one of the communities and it concerned more than one person. Mr. Neil moved to recommend approval of the staff recommendations with the requested changes. The motion was seconded by Ms. Arndt and carried by a roll call vote of seven (7) yes (Boggerty, Neil, Rocha, Arndt, Anderson, Hare, and Shevock), three (3) no (Pillsbury, Sudler, and Lewis), and one (1) absent (Smith). By consent agenda, Mr. Sudler moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Neil and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 11, 2024 PAGE 27 Procedure for the City Manager When Meeting with Legislators (Councilman Rocha) Mr. Rocha reviewed the background for the proposed procedure for the City Manager when meeting with legislators. Staff recommended adoption of the procedure. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Rocha explained that the procedure is for formal meetings to ensure that everyone is on the same page. He emphasized that if a council member has heard the information during meetings and understands the direction, they will not be blindsided by the information. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Rocha stated that the policy would not apply to a meeting on the street, it would be for official meetings between the City Manager and Legislators. Mr. Boggerty expressed concerns about limiting the number of council members present to not have a potential quorum and what constitutes a formal meeting. Mr. Sudler stated that he feels Mr. Rocha intended to create a policy that is as simple as council receiving an informal notice such as an email or memorandum, stating that he will be meeting with a Legislator, and they will be discussing whatever the topic may be. Mr. Sudler stated that if council knows that the City Manager is scheduled to meet with Legislators, council can then follow up on how the meeting went and what his thoughts are. Mr. Sudler explained that based on their form of government, this policy would help make council aware that the City Manager is meeting with Legislators about these specific topics so that council is aware when they are approached by legislators. Mr. Hugg expressed appreciation for the improved communication with council. He shared an experience where he was approached by a legislator on a topic that blindsided him, highlighting the challenge of staying informed. Mr. Hugg, who has been in local government for a long time, mentioned that he sometimes runs into legislators during lunch and has conversations that he may not be able to relay to the council ahead of time. Responding to Mr. Hugg, Mr. Rocha clarified that the policy was not intended to suggest Mr. Hugg was not doing a good job. He explained that the policy was unrelated to chance encounters with legislators but rather focused on ensuring that if Mr. Hugg were to convene a meeting with the Governor's Aides and legislators, someone from the council should be aware or invited. Mr. Rocha expressed willingness to adjust the language of the policy as needed. Ms. Arndt emphasized that council sets the vision and goals, and Mr. Hugg's work is crucial in realizing those objectives. She suggested that it might be beneficial for the council to receive a synopsis after the meetings to help them feel more informed. She mentioned a previous City Manager who sent out weekly

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 11, 2024 PAGE 28 review emails summarizing meetings and discussions, which she found helpful in staying informed and connected with the city's progress. Mr. Hugg stated that he has made sure that council will be included in the League of Local Government emails. Mr. Hugg also stated that he will make sure to summarize weekly what he has been involved in. Mr. Hare interpreted the proposed policy as allowing the Council President to request a specific council person to attend a meeting where the City Manager plans to be present and where that council person may have relevant experience. Mr. Neil expressed concerns about micromanaging the City Manager. Mr. Neil stated that if more communication is what council wants then council can simply ask that the City Manager communicate more with a verbal request. Dr. Pillsbury suggested that council provide Mr. Hugg with a list of their expertise. Dr. Pillsbury stated that it is not appropriate for meetings to be scheduled and council to be excluded. Dr. Pillsbury stated that the council members all have different expertise and could be of value to Mr. Hugg and the Mayor in doing their job effectively. Mr. Sudler emphasized that the council is seeking increased transparency and engagement with the City Manager. He stated that the council is engaged, educated, and wants to be involved in the decision-making process. While acknowledging that the City Manager is the boss of the department heads, Mr. Sudler stressed that the council wants to be actively involved and engaged in city affairs. Mr. Neil moved to recommend tabling the policy to rework the language. The motion was seconded by Dr. Pillsbury and carried with Mr. Rocha voting no. By consent agenda, Mr. Sudler moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Neil and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Anderson stated that the author and the City Manager could work out the wording because the only issue was with the last sentence. Mr. Rocha stated he would work with Mr. Hugg to make the changes and bring it back on the future agenda. Consideration of Re-titling and Re-grading Positions (David S. Hugg, III, City Manager) David S. Hugg, III, City Manager reviewed the background and analysis of the re- titling and re-grading of the Accounts Payable Clerk and the Administrative Assistant to the Mayor.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 11, 2024 PAGE 29 Staff recommended approval of the re-titling and re-grading of the positions. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Hugg stated that support for the mayor and Kay Sass is being covered by Yvonne or himself. Mr. Hugg stated that handicaps the City Manager's office and they have asked Kay to do more of the clerical functions that the mayor’s office would handle. Mr. Sudler stated that when the wage study was done, it was stated that they were doing duties outside of the scope of their job description, so they were compensated for those duties. Mr. Sudler explained that his concern is that once those duties are relieved from them, will they still be making that amount of money, the same amount that they were making while doing those duties? Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Hugg stated that the Administrative Assistant to the mayor’s job description was a team effort between Kay, Yvonne, and Naomi because they did not have a good job description. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Ms. Patricia Marney, Interim Controller/Treasurer stated that the Accounts Payable position was reviewed by looking at the current account clerk job description, job descriptions for other municipalities, and looking at the job duties from the knowledge of those who have performed the job. Ms. Marney stated that the rest of the document was created by the Human Resources Department to the best of her knowledge. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Ms. Marney stated that the account clerk II position will be replaced with the accounts payable clerk, which has a higher education requirement. Ms. Marney explained that they reviewed the education requirements of Middletown, Milford, and Smyrna and that their educational component is the same as what was presented. Ms. Marney stated that the salary scale has already been worked into the current fiscal year budget. Ms. Marney explained that the individual who currently holds the Accounts Payable position is planning to retire in December and it is imperative that she be able to replace her. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Hugg explained that the hiring process for the mayor’s position is similar to that of any other position in the city. Mr. Hugg stated that the position will be posted, there will be a selection committee that involves the Human Resources Department and someone in a similar position elsewhere in the city, and then there is usually a second and third person. After the job is posted, the Human Resources Department will determine qualified candidates, an interview panel will be convened, and the mayor will have the final hiring authority among the qualified candidates. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Hugg stated that both the Human Resources Department and the department heads are involved in creating the job descriptions. Mr. Hugg stated that the Human Resources Department drafts an outline and will loop in the department head or hiring manager to identify and confirm what the responsibilities are, and then in most cases, they are passed on to

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 11, 2024 PAGE 30 him or the assistant city manager. Mr. Hugg explained that some of the education issues have come up over the years as the human resources world has evolved. Mr. Hugg stated that in the State, they are getting away from degree requirements and allowing agencies to look at experience and other skills. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Hugg stated that the mayor’s position is a budgeted position but not at the presented level. The mayor’s position is currently budgeted as an administrative assistant. Ms. Bennett reviewed the background and analysis of the Administrative Assistant to the City Clerk/City Council. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Hugg stated that the wage study that they are referring to is the one that Sharon took the lead on and got everyone moved into a more reasonable structure. Mr. Hugg explained that at the end of the wage study, they looked at various jobs that do not exist in other jurisdictions like the Executive Assistant to the City Manager, and people were doing those duties but not under that kind of title. Mr. Hugg stated that they did not make any adjustments to the City Clerk’s Office because they had not had any discussions about the evolution of the office. Mr. Hugg noted that the functional category of executive assistant exists across various departments under different titles. However, only the Executive Assistant in the City Manager's Office has been implemented so far, and this was done in the budget when the wage study was adopted. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Hugg stated that there were significant problems with the Segal study from both the credibility and the accuracy. Mr. Hugg explained that the study did not give a full-scale look at the city employees, so it did not have much influence on the assessments that they did. Mr. Hugg stated that if the assessments they did said someone should be a pay grade of 120 that is the scale they assigned. Mr. Hugg explained that was based on several factors, including the required skill set, job specifications, and how the position compared to similar roles in other jurisdictions that were considered during the review process. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Hugg stated that they started by comparing salary by salary and that is when the city came out 30% under the market. Mr. Hugg explained that then they made the adjustment based on the job specifications because of the difference in name compared to other municipalities. Mr. Hare moved to accept staff recommendations and approve the retitling and regrading of the positions. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson. By consent agenda, Mr. Sudler moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Neil and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 11, 2024 PAGE 31 Responding to Mr. Neil, Ms. Bennett stated that the Mayor’s position would be changed from Administrative Assistant to Executive Assistant, then in the City Clerk’s office, the Administrative Assistant would be retitled and regraded to an Executive Assistant. Then with that process, the other three positions in the office must be regarded because of the hierarchy. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Hugg stated that there is minimal impact on the budget for the accounts payable clerk because there is not much difference in the pay scales. Mr. Hugg explained that there is sufficient money to pay for the positions as they are. Mr. Hugg stated that in approving the reclassifications there needs to be a second motion as to when they become effective so that it is clear if there will be a financial impact now or in next year's budget. Ms. Bennett stated that the City Clerk’s Office has salary savings from when the office had a vacant position. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Hugg stated that the Accounts Payable Clerk is critical to the reorganization of the Finance Department. Mr. Sudler moved to divide the question. Council moved to approve the Accounts Payable Clerk position. The motion was unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Sudler moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Neil and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Neil moved to approve retitling the Administrative Assistant to the Mayor to Executive Assistant. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hare and carried with Mr. Lewis voting no. By consent agenda, Mr. Sudler moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Neil and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Council moved to approve the retitling and regrading of the Administrative Assistant to the City Clerk to Executive Assistant along with the other items in the memorandum. The motion was unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Sudler moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Neil and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Sudler moved to recommend accepting the City Manager's recommendation to have the Accounts Payable Clerk position effective immediately. The motion was seconded by Mr. Boggerty and unanimously carried.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 11, 2024 PAGE 32 By consent agenda, Mr. Sudler moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Neil and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Boggerty moved to recommend the change of the Administrative Assistant to the mayor effective as of one (1) July. The motion was seconded by Ms. Arndt and carried with Mr. Lewis voting no. By consent agenda, Mr. Sudler moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Neil and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Anderson stated that if they decided to hire someone for the mayor’s position, that person would know that the position is going to be bumped up one (1) July. Mr. Boggerty moved to recommend that the Administrative Assistant to the City Clerk/Council and all of the positions included in the submission as recorded be effective one (1) July. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sudler and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Sudler moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Neil and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Anderson moved for adjournment of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting, hearing no objection the meeting adjourned at 9:41 p.m. By consent agenda, Mr. Sudler moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Neil and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Hare moved for adjournment of the Council Committee of the Whole meeting, hearing no objection the meeting adjourned at 9:41 p.m. By consent agenda, Mr. Sudler moved for acceptance of the Council Committee of the Whole Report, seconded by Mr. Neil and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. ITEMS NOT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA SETTING OF PROPERTY ASSESSMENT APPEALS Mr. Hare stated that Staff recommends the 2024 property assessment appeal be scheduled for June 5th, 2024, through June 7th, 2024, from 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM, and one evening if needed. The hearing times are subject to change. Mr. Neil moved for approval of Staff recommendations for the Setting of the 2024 Property Assessment Appeals, seconded by Mr. Lewis and carried by a unanimous roll call vote and unanimously carried. ORDINANCES

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 11, 2024 PAGE 33 ORDINANCE/FINAL READING PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2024-06 – AMENDING CHAPTER 102 – TAXATION, ARTICLE VIII – LODGING TAX (DAVID S. HUGG, III, CITY MANAGER, COUNCILMAN ANDERSON, AND COUNCILMAN NEIL) The First Reading of the Proposed Ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of February 12, 2024. Council President Hare reminded members of the public that copies of the proposed ordinance is available on the City’s website at www.cityofdover.com under “Government.” Mr. Neil moved that the Final Reading of the proposed ordinance be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Anderson, and unanimously carried. Responding to Mr. Hugg, Mr. Lewis stated that he read in the newspaper last Friday that Levy Court is looking to impose a 3% lodging tax. Mr. Lewis stated that his concern is that the City of Dover is in Kent County and if the County imposes a 3% lodging tax, this is going to be 6%. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Mr. Hugg clarified that his understanding is that the county could impose a hotel/motel tax on properties within the county but not within the City of Dover. Conversely, the City of Dover would not be able to impose a motel tax on properties outside its city limits. Mr. Hugg explained that they can confirm this is the case, and the county can impose a property tax that is countywide. He further explained that to his understanding, they cannot and would not be able to do this. Mr. Hugg stated that if the ordinance is approved tonight, the effective date would be July 1st, as requested by the Chamber of Commerce and the tourism representatives. By motion of Mr Neil, seconded by Ms. Arndt, Council, by a roll call vote of eight (8) yes (Anderson, Neil, Pillsbury, Arndt, Rocha, Sudler, Lewis, and Hare) and one (1) absent (Boggerty) adopted Ordinance #2024-04 as follows: BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: ARTICLE VII – Lodging Tax Sec. 102-190. – Local lodging tax. (a) A local lodging tax is hereby levied of up to three percent of the cost of the rent, in addition to the amount imposed by the state and the county, for any room or rooms in a hotel, motel or tourist home, as defined in 30 Del. C. §6101, within the boundaries of the city. The tax will be implemented beginning July 1, 2020, at the rate of one-half of one percent for 2020; one percent for 2021; and one and one-half percent for subsequent years ending upon the effective date of this ordinance. The tax shall be set at three percent effective 30 days after the adoption of this ordinance. (b) The local lodging tax, pursuant to this article, is the responsibility of the occupant of the room and shall be collected at the time the rental is paid. Operators of the hotel, motel or tourist

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 11, 2024 PAGE 34 home are responsible for the collection of the local lodging tax and the remittance of the taxes to the city within 20 days after the end of each calendar month, in accordance with procedures established by the city manager and using forms designated by the city finance department. The tax imposed shall be shown on the billing to the occupant as a separate and distinct item. (c) Failure to remit the lodging tax due, shall result in an overdue balance statement from the city finance department based upon records of lodging tax paid to the State of Delaware for such period, and subject to penalty, license, or tax lien in accordance with city policies. (d) Alternatively, the city manager is authorized to engage the Delaware Division of Revenue to collect the city’s portion of the lodging tax simultaneously with the receipt of the state tax, to seek collection from operators, enforce rules relating to failure to file and failure to pay, and remit funds to the city. (e) The first one and one-half percent of lodging tax receipts will be accounted for in a committed fund balance account to be used only for infrastructure. (f) No local lodging tax pursuant to this article shall be collected for reservations or contracts for lodging executed or completed before July 1, 2020. ADOPTED: March 11, 2024 CITY MANAGER'S ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Hugg had no announcements. MAYOR’S ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Christiansen congratulated the Dover High School Varsity basketball team for winning the state championship. He announced that the Annual St. Patrick's Day Parade would take place on Saturday, March 16th, at 1:00 PM. Additionally, the Dover Bar Crawl was scheduled for March 16th, between 2:00 and 6:00 PM. Mayor Christiansen also mentioned that on March 19th, at 7:00 PM at Fairview Elementary School, the City of Dover Electric Department would be sponsoring an informational meeting for the neighborhoods of Woodcrest, Fairview, and Northwest Dover Heights regarding the demolition of the power plant and McKee Run. COUNCIL MEMBERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Lewis wished everyone a Happy St. Patrick’s Day and to come out to the parade on Saturday, March 16th. He announced that an Easter Egg Event sponsored by Tracy Palmer Ministries, scheduled for Saturday, March 23rd, at the Murphy School. The event will run from 12:00 PM to 4:00 PM and is open to all members of the public. Mr. Sudler stated that the Mount Zion Ame Church is feeding the unsheltered every Wednesday of March at 101 North Queen Street, starting at 11:45 AM. Additionally, he congratulated Dover High School, noting that he graduated from Dover High and played varsity basketball for the school. He expressed his understanding of the significance of this achievement to the school's alumni and the City of Dover as a whole.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 11, 2024 PAGE 35 Mr. Anderson wished the citizens of the city and his colleagues a happy Women’s History Month. The meeting adjourned at 8:17 p.m. ANDRIA BENNETT CITY CLERK All ordinances, resolutions, motions, and orders adopted by the City Council during their Regular Meeting of March 11, 2024, are hereby approved. ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN MAYOR /AB Exhibits Exhibit #1 - Linda Parkowski - Letter in support of proposed Ordinance #2024-01 Exhibit #2 - Sarah E. Keifer - Letter in support of proposed Ordinance #2024-01 Exhibit #3 - Wesley Stefanick - Letter in support of proposed Ordinance #2024-01

EXHIBIT #1 Regular City Council Meeting of 03/11/2024 City of Dover Attn: Dover City Council 15 E. Loockerman Plaza Dover, DE 19901 March 4, 2024 Dear Dover City Council: Kent Economic Partnership (KEP), the economic development agency for Kent County, strongly supports the initiatives proposed by the Downtown Dover Partnership regarding Proposed Ordinance #2023-01, which seeks to amend Appendix B- Zoning, Article 30 District regulations, Section 13- Central Commercial Zone (C-2), and other relevant sections of the zoning ordinance. The proposed text amendments to the C-2 zoning, particularly those concerning the implementation of 6-foot step backs on floors above the 4th story and the requirement for developers or landlords to present a tailored parking strategy to meet the needs of tenants, will play a pivotal role in transforming Downtown Dover. These changes are anticipated to attract developers, businesses, and residents to the area, thereby contributing to its revitalization. The City Council’s approval is vital in ensuring that Downtown Dover receives the necessary backing to undergo its transformation. Thank you for the opportunity to provide support for the initiatives put forth by the Downtown Dover Partnership concerning the amendment of the Central Commercial Zone (C-2) text. Sincerely, Linda Parkowski Executive Director

EXHIBIT #2 Regular City Council Meeting of 03/11/2024 Sarah E. Keifer 613 Fairview Avenue Dover, DE 19904 March 7, 2024 Dover City Council City Hall 15 Loockerman Plaza Dover, DE 19901 Dear Council Members: Please accept this letter of support for Ordinance #2024-01 regarding the regulations in the Central Commercial Zone (C-2) scheduled for final reading on Monday, March 11, 2024. As a homeowner in Dover, a land use planner, and a member of the Downtown Dover Partnership, I appreciate the effort of the Council and staff to develop the new development standards. The revisions are a necessary step in realizing the goals of the Downtown Dover Master Plan. The flexibility built into the ordinance affords property owners and developers the opportunity to fully meet market demands and bring new life into the city. I encourage the City Council to support Ordinance #2024-01and continue embracing such flexibility in future ordinance amendments. Again, thank you and the staff for your efforts. Sincerely, Sarah E. Keifer, AICP

EXHIBIT #3 Regular City Council Meeting of 03/11/2024 March 11, 2024 City Council City of Dover Sent via Email to: cityclerk@dover.de.us Dear Councilors: On behalf of the Delaware Association of REALTORS® and the Kent County Association of REALTORS®, I am writing to express our collective support for the recommended C2 zoning changes in downtown Dover—Proposed Ordinance #2024-01. With our headquarters being located downtown, we care about the future of our city, and we believe that these changes are necessary to improve the area and make it a destination once again. It is no secret that downtown Dover needs improvement, and we are convinced that the best way to start is through housing. However, to achieve the desired housing density, we need improved zoning regulations and creative solutions to these tough problems. That is why we are in favor of the proposed changes which include some of those solutions. Specifically, we believe that the removal of the parking requirement is hugely beneficial. Developers will set themselves up for success, and they know best how to deal with parking. Additionally, the increase in height from 6 to 10 stories allows for additional density, which is necessary to attract more people to live in the district. With more people living in the area, we can expect an increase in demand for services such as grocery, dining, entertainment, and more. This, in turn, will attract more businesses to the area, and the quantity and quality of those businesses will improve. Ultimately, we believe that these changes will make downtown Dover a destination once again. Thank you for your time, and I hope you will consider our views. Sincerely, Wes Wesley T. Stefanick Chief Executive Officer