Regular Council Minutes

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING The Regular City Council Meeting was held on November 25, 2024, at 6:33 p.m. with Acting Council President Hare presiding. Council President Anderson was present. (out at 7:18 p.m.) Council members present were Mr. Hare, Mr. Neil, Dr. Pillsbury, Ms. Arndt, Dr. Sudler, and Mr. Lewis. Mr. Boggerty and Mr. Rocha were absent. Staff members present were Police Chief Johnson, Mr. Hugg, Ms. Marney, Ms. Melson- Williams, Mr. Rodriguez, and Ms. Bennett. Fire Chief Carey was absent. Mayor Christiansen was also present. OPEN FORUM The Open Forum was held at 6:15 p.m., prior to commencement of the Official Council Meeting. Acting 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. EShed Alston, 406 Arnold Court, Dover, presented a follow-up to his proposal that was recently discussed with council. His proposal centers on creating a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who serve in the military or as an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent. He highlighted their determination in crossing the borders and suggested this resilience be utilized as a manpower resource. He proposed selecting 10% of the undocumented population, approximately 1.8 million individuals, for the initiative: 1.4 million for military enlistment and 400,000 for ICE agent roles. The plan includes a 22-week training period, extended by an additional four (4) weeks for linguistic and on-the-job training. He emphasized that these individuals, familiar with cartel operations and border dynamics, could offer valuable insights. Additionally, he advocated for holding cartels financially accountable, citing the significant impact of fentanyl-related deaths on Americans. He proposed redirecting resources seized from cartels to fund this initiative, framing it as a way to turn their exploitation into a resource for national benefit. Cleveland Wilson, 234 North Kirkwood Street, urged council to consider holding community meetings once every two (2) months. He emphasized that these gatherings should differ from formal council meetings by providing an open forum for constituents to ask questions and gain information. Mr. Wilson believed that this approach would help bridge divides, foster transparency, and allow residents to feel more connected to city government. By gaining insight into the roles and responsibilities of officials, such as the Chief of Police and council members, constituents can become more informed and actively engaged in their community. Additionally, he expressed concerns about rising crime and the fear it creates among residents. While he clarified that he was not proposing to halt Project 2030, Mr. Wilson stressed the need for solutions that ensure people feel safe in their homes. He emphasized that addressing public safety was critical for maintaining trust and improving the quality of life for all residents. Lachelle Paul, 501 Silverside Drive, raised concerns regarding the city's revitalization project and its financial implications. She noted that some constituents believe the project should be paused, as current finances do not align with community needs, particularly regarding the city's

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 2024 PAGE 2 high crime rate. Ms. Paul emphasized that rebuilding is futile if criminal activity continues to undermine progress and criticized the use of taxpayer money for projects that might lack immediate impact. She also questioned the practice of allocating funds from property sales to nonprofits. She stressed the importance of transparency, asking for clarification on where these funds are directed and expressing skepticism about tracking nonprofit expenditures once funds are disbursed. With the budget already under strain, she advocated prioritizing financial clarity over approving additional allocations. Regarding the city's financial management, Ms. Paul noted issues with understanding and interpreting financial reports. She referenced an email she had sent urging the council to delay budget approval to allow time for identifying potential cuts. However, the budget was approved despite unresolved gaps. She called for financial reports to be presented in layman’s terms and highlighted the lack of itemized departmental budgets, which makes it difficult for citizens to understand fund usage. Ms. Paul also criticized the council's lack of transparency, stating that the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests often yield vague responses about funds being in a general account without specific details. She emphasized that the council is ultimately responsible for ensuring effective budget oversight and improving the distribution of taxpayer dollars to address critical issues like crime and financial accountability. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Elder Ellis B. Loudon. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Boggerty. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Dr. Sudler moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Neil, and carried unanimously. (Boggerty, Rocha absent) 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. Lewis requested the removal of Item #14, Proposed Resolution No. 2024-15 Creating Economic and Community Funds, be removed from the consent agenda. Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the consent agenda as amended, seconded by Mr. Anderson, and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. (Boggerty and Rocha absent) ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2024 The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of October 28, 2024, were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Neil, seconded by Mr. Anderson, and bore the written approval of Mayor Christiansen. (Boggerty, Rocha absent)

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 2024 PAGE 3 ADOPTION OF MINUTES – SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 6, 2024 The Minutes of the Special Council Meeting of November 6, 2024, were unanimously approved by motion of Nr. Neil, seconded by Mr. Anderson, and bore the written approval of Mayor Christiansen. (Boggerty, Rocha absent) COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT OF OCTOBER 29, 2024 The Council Committee of the Whole met on October 29, 2024, at 6:00 p.m. with Council President Anderson presiding. Members of Council present were Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Lewis (out at 9:09 p.m.), Mr. Neil, Dr. Pillsbury, Mr. Rocha, and Dr. Sudler (out at 8:27 p.m.). Ms. Arndt and Mr. Hare were absent. Mayor Christiansen was also present. Civilian members present for their Committee meetings were Dr. Jackson-Short (via Webex) (Safety, Advisory, and Transportation), Mr. Iriowen (via Webex), Mr. Wilson (Utility), Mr. Garfinkel, and Mr. Shevock (Legislative, Finance, and Administration). Ms. Smack (Safety, Advisory, and Transportation) was absent. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Dr. Sudler moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. SAFETY, ADVISORY, AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE The Safety, Advisory, and Transportation Committee met with Chairman Boggerty presiding. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. Request for Waivers – Appendix A – Subdivisions, Article VI – Subdivision – General Requirements and Design Standards, Section A – Streets: Subdivision Waiver of Requirement for Two Connections to a Public Street and Section E – Lots: Subdivision Waiver of Requirement for Lot Frontage on a Public Street as associated with Conditional Use Site Plan/Master Plan for the development of Luther Village Planned Neighborhood Design – Senior Citizen Housing Option (Apartment Units). Property Owner: Martin Luther Foundation of Dover, Inc. Property Address: 101 Babb Drive. Tax Parcels: ED-05-077.06-02-90.00-000, ED-05-077.06-02-90.01-000, ED-05- 077.06-02-90.02-000, and ED-05-077.06-02-90.03-000. Planning Reference: C- 24-02) (Dawn Melson-Williams, Principal Planner) Ms. Dawn Melson-Williams, Principal Planner, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the request for waivers for Luther Village.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 2024 PAGE 4 The Planning Commission recommended approval of the subdivision waiver of the requirement for two connections to a public street and approval of the subdivision waiver of the requirement for lot frontage on a public street. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that the first waiver is related to the number of dwelling units. When a site has more than 150 dwelling units, there must be two connections or access points to a public street. Regarding the request, they only have one connection at Babb Drive, and they would like to continue to only use one connection with a future second connection happening in a later phase. They will be providing a second connection, but it will be done at a later date. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that he was correct. When phase five is built the second connection will be installed. Currently, Babb Drive ends and appears to go into the farm field. Eventually, that will turn into a second entrance that will serve the eastern side of the overall project which has four future buildings to come. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that they have received the waivers in the past for the other phases. One of the things that was looked at with the Planning Commission is that their current entrance is divided. There is one side of the median which is the entrance, and the other side is the exit. Therefore, if something should happen on one side there is always the ability to go the wrong way in the case of an emergency. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that it is hard to tell when the plans will be available. Their approval will be in place for several years. She explained that they have built out the site as they have funds or achieved grant funding to assist with construction. She stated that they realize that there is a need for the units, but it depends on the timing of achieving funding and the time to build. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that the application was subject to a public hearing as a part of the Planning Commission review process, at which time the property owners within 200 feet of the overall site were notified of the hearing process. She explained that at the Planning Commission meeting, only one member of the public spoke, and that the individual was a resident of Luther Village. They have not heard any additional questions or statements from the adjacent neighborhood of Clearview Meadows. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that regarding congestion, when Babb Drive was originally laid out, there was a right of way given from the Luther Village parcel, as well as from the landmass that became Clearview Meadows. Therefore, Babb Drive is a city street, city street standards have been planned for and it is currently built to those standards. It has also been on the books for a number of years.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 2024 PAGE 5 Mr. Neil moved to recommend following the Planning Commission recommendations for approval of the waivers as requested. The motion was seconded by Dr. Pillsbury and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. (Boggerty, Rocha absent) Responding to Dr. Sudler, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that regarding the timeframe for approval, because the project is a senior plan and design, the plan neighborhood design has a life expectancy of up to five years. However, there are timeframes to start and continue action. She explained the project is back before the committee because the original plan approvals lapsed due to a lack of activity at the site, due to the timing of their construction. Several years ago, the last building was built during phase three. The current code allows for a timeframe between phases before starting the next one, if progress is not made, approval is lost. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that she believed that the timeframe between phases is two years, but the code reflects that they should be actively moving along through the project. Responding to Mayor Christiansen, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that notification of a Planning Commission hearing occurs in three ways. A mailing is sent to adjacent property owners within 200 feet of the address. The city provides the mailing list to the applicant, who is responsible for completing the mailing and providing proof that notifications were sent to the listed addresses. A legal ad is published in a local newspaper that runs one time. Then there is a physical posting, which is a bright yellow sign that is placed on the property so that anyone passing by the property would have notice of the public hearing process in front of the Planning Commission. All three components must be completed within a minimum of 15 days before the Planning Commission meeting. Responding to Mayor Christiansen, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that proof of mailing is required. A lot of applicants tend to use certified mailings to accomplish that, but it is not required. Dr. Sudler recommended requiring the applicant to use certified mail with a return signature. He explained that mail can be lost, especially when dealing with apartment units, and certified mail would ensure that everyone has been properly notified.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 2024 PAGE 6 Presentation – Dover Municipal Freight Plan and Downtown Dover Pathways (Marilyn Smith, Executive Director of the Dover/Kent County MPO, Cooper Bowers, DelDOT Planning, and Leah Kacanda, Whitman, Requardt & Associates) Ms. Marilyn Smith, Executive Director of the Dover/Kent County MPO, Cooper Bowers, DelDOT Planning, and Leah Kacanda, Whitman, Requardt & Associates, reviewed the background and analysis of the Dover Municipal Freight Plan and Downtown Dover Pathways. This item was informational, and committee action was not required. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Ms. Kacanda stated that she would investigate the traffic density on both Kenton Road and Saulsbury Road, as well as the freight density, and provide him with the findings. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Smith stated that the initial study did not recommend a direct on-and-off option to Route 1 because there was not enough room to accommodate the required acceleration and deceleration. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Smith stated that the Future Horsepond Road Extension would provide Whiteoak Road with a southern connection to the nearest Route 1 on-and-off ramp, under the current circumstances. She explained that the study now needs to be revisited with the current state of Garrison Oak and the Civil Air Terminal, to evaluate if the three additional sections are still correct. If they are not, then they need to provide connections that would be more appropriate given the current changes. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Bowers stated that they do their best to reach out to the physical truck drivers, operators, and carriers who are working for the businesses in the area that are taking the routes. They have tried to implement signage to ensure they find the correct truck routes. He explained that sometimes it is difficult to find the right person from the company or reach the truck drivers directly. He stated they have tried to work with Waze, the geolocation app, which they had a little bit of success with. However, they experienced more issues with Google as they tried to reach out to them and were not always able to get a response. He explained that they are not only engaging the stakeholders but also looking into GPS devices and apps trying to communicate with them about the current freight routes and the correct avenues of travel that do not impact local residents. Presentation – Police Officer Standards and Training Commission (POST) (Sean Moriarty, Executive Director) Mr. Sean Moriarty, Executive Director, reviewed the presentation titled “State of Delaware Police Officer Standards and Training Commission” (Attachment #1). This item was informational, and committee action was not required.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 2024 PAGE 7 Responding to Dr. Sudler, Mr. Moriarty stated that there is a great deal of focus on officer wellness and resiliency. Particularly within the last few years, training has focused on what can be done for officer intervention in situations where other officers need to intervene for one reason or another. He explained that there has also been a great deal of emphasis on realistic training rather than lecture-based training and sitting in a classroom, they are using kinesthetic training. They are performing car stops and so forth with actors and simulation rounds, working through those situations. He explained that they are trying to get as close to the real situation as possible. They then go from the academy to three months of field training, working with another senior officer in the streets, and then working on their own. They will experience nine months of training where they try to encompass all the different simulations to hopefully mitigate the use of excessive force and get people to comply successfully, easily, and within the law. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Mr. Moriarty stated that POST would not have any intervention regarding psychological assessments. However, part of the accreditation process does inadvertently look at early warning signs. He explained that there is a system in place that looks at how many disciplinary cases, how many citizen complaints were there, how many uses of force were there, justified or not. That system requires supervisors to look at the body-worn cameras by pulling the video at random and addressing any issues. He explained that most agencies, particularly larger agencies, have a tracking system to be able to look at and use a code to evaluate those statistical anomalies. In other words, they look at how many citizen complaints of use of force, and how many times the officer has been written up, which may trigger a sit down for review. In terms of the psychological impacts, that would be up to the agency to look at the barometers and speak to the officers. Specialized units such as those looking at horrific images on computers, and those involved in critical incidents, such as mass shootings with casualties, do go through a psychological, critical incident debrief with a psychologist and then in the future if there is something there, a fit for duty evaluation. He explained that his knowledge is from his prior position however, if any of those things trigger an issue regarding fitness for duty and whether the person should be employed anymore, then POST would get involved. They would look to evaluate if the person should be suspended or de-certified, as a possibility. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Moriarty stated that regarding taking officers off patrol for unnecessary training, they have begun to review what hours are devoted to a specific subject and whether they should be devoted to something else or does training need to be increased. He explained that in most cases it is the latter. They do not have enough officers to be able to do their job and they are taking them off for training, which is a constant struggle. He stated that training is important, and they train so that they can do the right thing as a police officer.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 2024 PAGE 8 Discussion – Community Concerns Surrounding Trash, Glass Bottles, and Needles (Bishop Lott) Bishop Lott expressed that his primary concern was for the safety of children catching the bus in the early morning and evening, as well as for senior citizens. He stated that with the progress being made in the downtown Dover area, with the new homes, the population is changing, and there are more children and senior citizens. He explained that he is seeking the city’s help because the children are having to walk through syringes, small blue bags, clear bags, and blue strips, and they tend to pick them up as they grab their attention. Bishop Lott stated that to prevent this he currently pays between $160 to $200 a month for someone to clean it all up. He asked the city to help clean up New Street around the bus stop. He explained that drug dealers seem to bring drugs to their clients around 6:00 every morning which is about the time kids are going to the bus stop. He emphasized that people are lying on the sidewalk, and against the building and the children must walk by them. He explained that parents must constantly encourage the kids to not pick up syringes or anything off the ground because it has become a safety issue. Bishop Lott conveyed that he is concerned about the situation as it exists and although it would not be a permanent solution he would like to see the committee put something in place so that the children do not have to be exposed to the different experiences. He explained that he does not mind coming out of pocket to help keep the kids safe, especially since he is on-site and deals with it daily, but he feels the city can do a better job. Furthermore, Bishop Lott explained that there have been games of dice with people rolling dice on the sidewalk in front of the senior citizen's homes. The senior citizens are taxpayers who do not have the freedom to walk out of their door through 15 people who have decided to play a game of dice. Bishop Lott also stated that the drug dealers are placing their drugs in potato chip bags so that they appear to be trash. He explained that he was informed that the drug dealers are not allowing certain parts of the street to be cleaned up because they have drugs hidden as trash and debris in the area. Bishop Lott asked if the city could come through with the vacuum trucks and perhaps vacuum up their drugs. Lastly, Bishop Lott explained that the community is facing an issue with shopping carts. He explained that on New Street, shopping carts are often seen filled with trash, left on sidewalks, and placed on any corner where they can fit. This item was informational, and committee action was not required. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Bishop Lott stated that they purchased brooms and encouraged individuals to clean the debris. Most of the debris accumulates between the sidewalk and the curb. He explained that they asked everyone to gather the debris and clean it up. Most of the trash they are having issues with is not in the containers on private property, it is where the individuals park their

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 2024 PAGE 9 cars. He noted that some individuals clean out their cars on the street, leaving trash along the curb and in the space between the sidewalk and the curb Mr. Rocha stated that when it comes to needles and things of that nature, council needs to find a way to help out. The families are doing their job by using a broom to get the trash to the street so the city needs to figure out a system that comes through and will pick it up. Mr. Rocha explained that he is not sure what tools may be needed but internally there needs to be a discussion to rectify the situation. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Bishop Lott suggested that it would be best to operate the street sweepers on Mondays and Wednesdays. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Ms. Duca stated something to keep in mind is that the additional days of street sweeping will need to be posted otherwise the cars will not move from the location to allow the sweeping to be completed. She also explained that depending on the items that are in the street, there is a chance that the sweeper will not necessarily pick them up and some materials could be left behind. Furthermore, she explained that they will have to provide personal protective equipment to staff, as they have to clean the debris out of the sweepers. She also stated that currently the materials are sent to the Sandtown landfill and must be tested on a regular basis. If there ends up being an excessive number of questionable debris, it could affect where the city can send the waste. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Duca stated that she can certainly look into providing permit parking as is done in a certain number of other places. She recommended seeking input from the community as she could not speak to whether they were working during the day or night. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Bishop Lott stated that there are parking options for the individuals who live on the street. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Bishop Lott stated that a sign indicating no parking during street sweeping would not hurt the homeowners. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Duca stated that they can have signs made. Sean Christiansen, Capital School District Board of Education Vice President, stated that during the discussion an email was sent to Interim Superintendent Victoir Cahoon, as well as Tiffany Hamm of the transportation office to set up a meeting. The meeting would be to look at the logistics of moving the bus routes affected by the situation on Reed Street, which is on every corner between South Governors Avenue and Kirkwood Street. If it is logistically possible, they will put in to change the stops to get the students out of the area to protect the safety of the students.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 2024 PAGE 10 Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Chief Johnson stated he would take the message of providing enforcement in those areas affected by the street sweeping. He explained that he would manage the enforcement in a way that would meet the goal of getting movement on the issues so that the cleaning process can occur, but not disproportionately hammer someone with fines and costs. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Chief Johnson stated that the issue with the dice rolling comes down to trespassing. They are either on their property or not and do the property owners condone their presence or do they not? He also recommended that individuals fill out an enforcement form, which would give the police department the authority to take action on their property after hours. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Chief Johnson stated that it is likely that if they are on the sidewalk they are on city property which can create concerns of the police authority to act on. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Chief Johnson stated that they are not allowed to impede the occupant of the resident from using the sidewalk. However, that can be a subjective assessment because their presence does not necessarily equate to a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. If they do not refuse to move or yield in any kind of way, they create a situation where it is harder to complete an arrest. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Mayor Christiansen stated that the city is responsible for the maintenance of the sidewalks as well as the trees that are in the little section of grass. He also stated that the maintenance of the sidewalks still falls under the responsibility of the homeowner to keep them clear when it snows. Discussion – Community Concerns Surrounding Trespassing (Kim Adams) This item was informational, and committee action was not required. In the absence of Ms. Adams, Mr. Anderson stated that there has to be a priority on addressing trespassing. He thanked Chief Johnson for reminding everyone about the enforcement forms and working to compile an updated list. He explained that he does not agree with the attorney general, and the decisions implemented do not represent the community when it comes to loitering and panhandling laws. He went on to explain that it is terrible that those that citizens entrust to prosecute the laws pick and choose which laws they want to prosecute at the expense of the will of the people and the safety of the citizens. Mr. Boggerty moved for adjournment of the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee meeting, hearing no objection the meeting adjourned at 8:16 p.m. UTILITY COMMITTEE The Utility Committee met with Chairman Neil presiding.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 2024 PAGE 11 Adoption of Agenda Dr. Pillsbury moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Boggerty and unanimously carried. Evaluation of Bids – Persimmon Park Place Drainage Basin Improvements (Jason Lyon, Water/Wastewater Director) Mr. Jason Lyon, Water/Wastewater Director, reviewed the background and analysis of the evaluation of bids for the Persimmon Park Place Drainage Basin Improvements. Staff recommended awarding the contract to Gateway Construction, Inc. for the Persimmon Park Place Drainage Basin Improvements, ITB #25-0006WW, for $1,198,025. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lyon stated that the original project was originally developed in the late 80s, and the statute of limitations would be over for anyone to approach the prior developer. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lyon stated that all of the funding comes from a bond bill, and the only thing that would come out of the budget would be the time of staff. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Lyon stated that the local vendor preference is a part of the procurement policy. It is an incentive to have local businesses bid on projects to keep the work local. When there is a three percent reduction, it is not that the price will be reduced by three percent, it is the evaluated price. For example, George and Lynch, which has a Dover proper address and local vendor preference, have an evaluated price three percent lower than the base bid. Mr. Rocha moved to recommend accepting the staff recommendation to award the contract to Gateway Construction, Inc. The motion was seconded by Mr. Boggerty and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. (Boggerty and Rocha absent) Mr. Neil moved for adjournment of the Utility Committee meeting, hearing no objection the meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met with Chairman Rocha presiding.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 2024 PAGE 12 Adoption of Agenda Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Shevock and unanimously carried. Presentation – Unsheltered Working Group (Leandra Marshall) Mr. Alex Cropper, Unsheltered Working Group Chair, and Ms. Leandra Marshall, Vice Chair, reviewed the presentation titled “Greater Kent County Coalition Plan” (Attachment #2). This item was informational, and committee action was not required. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Cropper stated that intake would be completed at a service center or hub. Once the individual arrives at a facility an assessment will be done and placed in their electronic health record. He explained that they will be mirroring the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) system Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) to keep the data mainstream. This would allow for resources that are needed to be identified and where they are needed. The individual will be assigned to a case worker and put into a housing placement. The only housing access they currently have available is 14 acres of land that was identified during the research process. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Cropper stated they will be collaborating with drug organizations throughout the state. If those organizations wish to do the intakes and assessments, they will have access to the proposed systems as well. He explained that he chose the proposed system because it allows unlimited users and allows for reports of data collected. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Cropper stated that they would have medical staff on site. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Cropper stated that the Capital Park location is scheduled to have a nurse practitioner, a psychiatric nurse practitioner, and a medical nurse practitioner. The hub locations will also have nurse practitioners and medical providers and will incorporate telehealth services. Ms. Marshall stated that they have additional information regarding the nurse practitioners and qualified staff, not only at Synergy Recovery Solutions but also from the agencies and organizations they will be collaborating with within the Greater Kent County Coalition. Ms. Marshall further explained that they did a lot of comprehensive research to evaluate where the gaps were and what things were missing. She explained that they needed to look at the organizations and evaluate their services. Mr. Cropper then conducted additional research on what other places were doing and what approaches were successful, which enabled them to develop their plan. She explained that they took an extra step by verifying the organization's licenses, as

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 2024 PAGE 13 many did not have all the necessary paperwork. She emphasized that they would establish memorandums of understanding with those organizations and ensure they are certified and accredited in their respective areas of expertise. Ms. Marshall explained that they have five sober living houses willing to assist in the process, ensuring that once a person begins treatment, they are not returned to the street or the same environment they started in. Discussion – Update on the State Pension (Naomi Poole, Human Resources Director) Ms. Naomi Poole, Human Resources Director, updated the committee on the status of the state pension. Ms. Poole stated that a link was sent out to eligible employees who do not currently have a pension to determine their interest in the state pension. The preliminary figures show that seventy-nine said yes, they were interested, forty- one people needed more information, and eight said no. She explained that she created a FAQ sheet answering questions that she felt employees may ask and providing them with responses. She explained that the next task would be to schedule a representative from the state pension office to conduct a question-and-answer session with the eligible employees, which would be scheduled for November 6, 2024, at 1:00 p.m. She asked that employees send questions ahead of time, so the representatives are prepared to answer them. Also, they planned to record the session since the representatives were only available for one meeting. This item was informational, and committee action was not required. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. Poole stated that she would leave the timeline up to Mr. Hugg because the state pension board still needed to give approval, and the resolution would need to include a new effective date. Presentation – Council Dashboard (Sharon Duca, Assistant City Manager) Ms. Sharon Duca, Assistant City Manager, reviewed the background and analysis of the Council Dashboard presentation. This item was informational, and committee action was not required. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. Duca stated that a presentation on how to use the system would be provided. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Duca stated that the portal can be used from a desktop or phone.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 2024 PAGE 14 Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Duca stated that she would provide the City Clerk’s office with links as soon as the final adjustments are made. Responding to Mr. Garfinkel, Ms. Duca stated that the Code Enforcement Department is a receiving agency. The Fire Marshal’s office was not included based on the current issues received from council however, they could be added later if needed. The Fire Department was not included because most of the issues that would be received would be constituted as an emergency therefore the proposed process would take too long to track the issue. Responding to Mr. Neil, Ms. Duca stated that to report a constituent issue, council will contact either herself or the City Clerk’s Office. Based on the GIS recommendations, they will enter the information into the system and begin tracking it from there. Proposed Resolution No. 2024-15 – Creating Economic and Community Development Funds (David S. Hugg, III, City Manager) Mr. David S. Hugg, III, City Manager, reviewed the background and analysis of Resolution No. 2024-15 – Creating Economic and Community Development Funds. Staff recommended adopting Resolution No. 2024-15 establishing Economic Development and Community Development Funds. City Manager Hugg explained that in March of 2023, the city realized that they were receiving significant amounts of funds from some of the property sales that were going on and that they really should be segregated so that they could use them for more dedicated purposes and not simply to augment the general fund. Mr. Hugg further explained that he was given a draft of an economic development fund, and the minutes from that meeting suggest that committee action was not required. Mr. Hugg stated that even though the council committee did not take action at that time, an economic development fund was created. He further explained that when the city received a million dollars from the Garrison Oak proceeds, the money was placed into a special revenue fund at that time. Mr. Hugg explained that they have spent approximately $260,000 of that money to have Chesapeake Utilities advance install gas lines in the park. Mr. Hugg stated that they have approximately $700,000 left in that fund. Mr. Hugg explained that in discussions with the mayor and the council president, it seemed that they should officially create this fund and not just have it be there because they thought it was a good idea a couple of years ago. He further explained that there are two funds, one for community development and the second fund for economic development. There are some thresholds for minimum

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 2024 PAGE 15 and maximum amounts to open the funds. Mr. Hugg stated that both funds will be set up as special revenue funds. Mr. Hugg went on to explain that what is a bit different is that council needs to provide input on each of the two funds. They have created a mechanism where the appropriate council committee will consider the request to spend the money, and it will then require the approval of the committee chair and the city manager to initiate the expenditure Mr. Hugg stated that they are working to put a mechanism in place so that those most directly involved, such as the Community Development Committee, will have an opportunity to provide input. He explained the need to develop some guidelines for this process. Mayor Christiansen explained that one of the responsibilities of the mayor's office is economic development, and he believes it is a great idea to develop an economic development fund with a solid base to operate from and move forward. He further stated that as they consider future economic development, land acquisitions, and other projects, it is essential to have a cash reserve in place to avoid drawing from the general fund budget. Mayor Christiansen expressed his support for this fund. Mr. Hugg added to the discussion that the proceeds for the fund will come from respective land sales or other sources. As the city disposes of property to improve the community, that will serve as a funding source for community development. Mr. Hugg further added that as the city finalizes the remaining lots at Garrison Oak, those proceeds will also contribute to the economic development fund Mr. Anderson moved to recommend adoption of proposed Resolution No. 2024-15, establishing an economic and community Development fund, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Dr. Pillsbury and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. (Boggerty, Rocha absent) Mr. Rocha moved for adjournment of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting, hearing no objection the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Mr. Anderson moved for adjournment of the Council Committee of the Whole meeting, hearing no objection the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 2024 PAGE 16 By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for acceptance of the Council Committee of the Whole Report, seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. (Boggerty, Rocha absent) COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT OF NOVEMBER 12, 2024 The Council Committee of the Whole met on November 12, 2024, at 6:00 p.m. with Acting Council President Arndt presiding. Members of Council present were Mr. Boggerty (via Webex), Mr. Hare, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Neil, Dr. Pillsbury, Mr. Rocha, and Dr. Sudler. Council President Anderson was absent. Mayor Christiansen was also present. Civilian members present for their Committee meetings were Mr. Iriowen (out at 7:49 p.m.), and Mr. Wilson (Utility). ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Rocha and unanimously carried. Council Reports – October 2024 First District Dr. Pillsbury reported that she attended the Habitat for Humanity dinner on Saturday and that it was very well attended, except for the attendees from the City of Dover. She noted that only five people had come from the City of Dover. She announced that next Monday, November 18, 2024, she would be meeting with Chief Johnson to qualify with weapons, and anyone interested is welcome to join her. They will need to be at the location by 4:30 p.m. and, if anyone is interested, they should let Chief Johnson or herself know. On December 12, 2024, they would be having a District One Town Hall meeting at the Fire Station. Mr. Rocha reiterated Dr. Pillsbury's announcement and reminded everyone that the First District would be having a meeting on December 12, 2024, at 6:30 p.m. He noted that he has been working with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and on November 13, 2024, the Homeless Resource Fair at Dover Christian Church. The address for the Dover Christian Church is 1738 Forest Avenue. Mayor Christiansen and several officials would be present. Mr. Rocha stated that if Mr. Lewis’s schedule permits, he would attend, along with Dr. Pillsbury. Second District Mr. Hare reported that a flyer for the Shepherd Place was on Council’s desks. The event will be held on Saturday, November 16, 2024. He noted that any help would be appreciated and mentioned that he had stopped by Shepherd Place to speak with the director. Mr. Hare encouraged everyone to visit and engage with the organization, emphasizing that any contribution or assistance would be appreciated.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 2024 PAGE 17 Mr. Lewis had nothing to report. Third District Mr. Neil stated that he had attended the Dover Downtown Partnership (DDP) and the Kent County Tourism meetings. He had attended the Habitat for Humanity dinner and attended the Delaware League of Local Governments (DLLG) meeting that discussed the chemicals and water supply. He also attended a State Legislative Task Force meeting as a member of the Manufactured Housing Subcommittee. Mr. Neil attended a public open house of the Dover Municipal Freight Plan at the library. Mr. Neil has received several phone calls and emails, including concerns about the speed at Dover Motor Speedway and the rollout of the stormwater service fees, which he noted has been rather bumpy. He attended meetings as the utility chair with Mr. Hugg, Mayor Christiansen, and Mr. Novak and his team. He noted that Mr. Novak addressed the Dover Motor Speedway concern, but that the vice president had not informed the general manager about what was discussed. In addition to that meeting, he attended a meeting with over 50 residents at Wild Meadows. He had extensive emails from a homeowner because of the unique situation that was faced by the lease land community. Mr. Neil explained that he filed a complaint with the Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding Wild Meadows's 2005 rent increase and requested and attended a meeting with the Dover Committee Community Police, with the HOA President and the manager of Persimmon Park Place (PPP). The meeting focused on a homeowner and management within the leasehold common interest community. Additionally, Mr. Neil completed the IT testing program. He sent a special report in the Wild Meadows November Newsletter and referred a constituent to the Community Legal Aid Society for Legal help. A constituent questioned about the need for a camera near the synagogue on Queens Street and a constituent problem with a light being out on Townsend Boulevard. The report by Ms. Duca indicated that they were aware of the problem created by burying the overhead electrical lights. This situation was referred to as an unintended consequence and involved an email exchange with the East Lake President, who had a problem with dogs. Additionally, a constituent from North State Street expressed gratitude for the leveled sidewalks, and their appreciation was forwarded to Ms. Duca and Mr. Novak. Ms. Arndt shared that she had attended several meetings with Nr. Neil, and brought up an additional constituent issue at Persimmon Park Place. The concern was about the need for a bus stop and a sidewalk for children to ensure their safety while walking to the bus. She also mentioned that she attended the Citizens Police Academy, a nine-week course, and found it insightful. Ms. Arndt appreciated gaining a better understanding of the daily challenges officers face and encouraged others to attend, noting that the academy runs once a year, with the final session taking place next week.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 2024 PAGE 18 Fourth District Dr. Sudler stated that on November 8, 2024, at 4:00 p.m. he met with Mr. Boggerty and Mr. Anderson, the owner and a staff member of the Duncan Center to discuss erosion in their parking lot caused by heavy rainfall or by a burst of pipes near their manhole. The discussion was centered on who was responsible for the repairs to the parking lot, which has caused major parking lot sinkhole damage. They advised the Duncan Center administration to contact the Assistant City Manager and State Representatives to examine prospective steps moving forward. At-Large Mr. Boggerty had nothing to report. Council President Anderson Council President Anderson was absent. UTILITY COMMITTEE The Utility Committee met with Chairman Neil presiding. Adoption of Agenda Dr. Pillsbury moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Rocha and unanimously carried. Evaluation of Bids – Brandywine Court Condominiums Water Service Replacement (Jason Lyon, Water/Wastewater Director) Mr. Jason Lyon, Water/Wastewater Director, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the Brandywine Court Condominiums Water Service Replacement. Staff recommended awarding the contract to Gateway Construction, Inc. for the Brandywine Court Condominiums Water Service Replacement, ITB#25- 0009WW, for $371,660.00. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lyon stated that they have used Gateway Construction for a current stormwater project that is next to the library parking lot. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lyon rated Gateway Construction as extremely satisfactory. They have done some water main replacement projects as well as emergency projects for them. When the city had a sewer or water break, they stepped up for the city. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lyon stated that the Brandywine Court Condominiums was a private entity.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 2024 PAGE 19 Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lyon clarified that they are not replacing the water line in the Brandywine Court Condominium Association. Instead, they were stubbing out the water services to each individual building, as outlined in the handbook. Mr. Lyon further clarified that the Brandywine Court Condominium Association can have water service to each building, but the association would need to hire a private plumber to complete the connections to each building’s water service. He explained that the work stopped at the easement line of the water main, and the project would use federal funds to provide the condominium association with the opportunity to connect to water and to disregard their aged infrastructure. He emphasized that federal funding was not allocated to private entities. Instead, it would follow a process similar to bond bill funding or Community Transportation Fund (CTF) funding. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lyon stated that the project could be coordinated through the City of Dover, provided there was available funding from the federal government. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lyon stated that the city would be responsible for carrying out the project under the infrastructure law. Dr. Pillsbury moved to recommend accepting the staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lewis and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. (Boggerty, Rocha absent) Evaluation of Bids – Puncheon Run Pump Station Roof Replacement (Jason Lyon, Water/Wastewater Director) Mr. Jason Lyon, Water/Wastewater Director, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the Brandywine Court Condominiums Water Service Replacement. Staff recommended awarding the contract to Kirkin Exteriors for the Puncheon Run Pump Station Roof Replacement, for $52,168.00. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lyon stated that the flow would go to the county, and they own the building. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lyon clarified that the wastewater in the city would go to the county at Frederica’s wastewater treatment facility, which operates under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. He explained that the city operated its wastewater treatment facility several years ago, but now the city has been a contract user of the county’s wastewater system for nearly 50 years. Mr. Lyon clarified that the wastewater

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 2024 PAGE 20 flow from the city is directed to the Punch-to-Run station, located between Lynnhaven Drive and Webb’s Lane, where it is collected in a basin. From there, the wastewater is sent to the county’s treatment facility for processing and, after treatment, is deposited back into the environment. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lyon noted that the city pays the county for wastewater services, and the cost is structured as a pass-through expense that is billed to the citizens. There is a line item for the city sewer fee and another line item for the county sewer. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lyon stated that he would rate the project as a critical situation that must be addressed within this fiscal year. He emphasized that the components inside the station are extremely expensive and high-tech. The roof leaks, allowing water to get inside, which could lead to component failures and potentially trigger a catastrophic event, such as sewer spilling out of the building. He further noted that there is a river directly next to the building, adding to the urgency of the situation. Responding to Mr. Iriowen, Mr. Lyon stated that the city has used Kirkin Exteriors on several facility roof replacement projects in the past. He mentioned that the company has been very forthright in its dealings, and after speaking with the facilities team that managed those projects, they have nothing but positive feedback about their work. Responding to Mr. Iriowen, Mr. Lyon stated that he could only speak about the lasting quality of the work done on the projects Kirkin Exteriors has completed recently. He noted that these projects appear to be holding up adequately. While he has not personally reviewed all of their projects in detail, he trusts the judgment of the facilities team that manages those projects and has heard nothing but positive feedback from them. Responding to Mr. Iriowen, Mr. Lyon stated that they recently completed a project for another pump station roof replacement on the east side of town. This was a smaller-scope project that did not require Council approval due to the funding amount. He noted that the team addressed the work promptly, and the project was completed without any issues. The pump station had been experiencing water leakage, which was a significant concern, but since the roof replacement, no further issues have been observed. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lyon stated that the pump station was built in the 1960s, though he was unsure of the exact date. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lyon stated that an evaluation was included in the Wastewater Master Plan presented to the Utility Committee about a month ago. Prior to that, the facilities team conducts routine checks on facilities throughout

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 2024 PAGE 21 the city, including the pump stations. Mr. Lyon stated that he would need to check with the facilities team on the exact rate that they check on them. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lyon stated that the roof only needs to be replaced for the pump station and that it would cost $52,000. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lyon stated that they went through a competitive bidding process and believed that this was the best option available at the time. He explained that the building is fairly large with a flat roof, which includes several components, as well as the vapor barrier mentioned earlier. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Mr. Lyon explained that the roof would be an Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer (EPDM) roof, which is the material commonly used for flat roofs. He mentioned that they could go over the specifications and installation process, which would include a vapor barrier rubber overlap to prevent leaks. Mr. Lyon stated that he could provide a detailed quote if necessary for the committee. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lyon stated that the life expectancy of the proposed roof was a 20-year manufacturer with a 15-year craftsmanship warranty. Responding to Mr. Lyon, Dr. Sudler expressed his concerns about the roof costs. While he understood the complexity of the project, he questioned the value, given that the roof has only a 15 to 20-year life expectancy. He was concerned that the price of the roof did not align with the relatively short lifespan it would provide. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Mr. Lyon stated that it was not his area of expertise and that he would talk with the facilities team to address the concerns. He noted that when the paperwork was submitted by the different bidders, there were no concerns raised regarding the roof’s lifespan. He explained that he does not know the actual industry standard for the flat roof material used. Responding to Mr. Lyon, Dr. Sudler suggested that they wait to receive additional information on the lifespan of the typical flat roof and consider reopening the bid. He expressed concerns that the cost of a flat roof with limited coverage might not be the best option. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Lyon stated that the original building was built in the 1960s. He is unsure of how long the particular roof has been in place, but he will check with the facilities team to find out. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Lyon stated that based on his experience with a smaller pump station, which had less flow, a component failure occurred about seven years ago, costing upwards of $200,000 for cleanup and repairs, excluding overtime staff costs. The pump station in question handles approximately one and a half times more flow. Using the equations from seven years ago, adjusted for

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 2024 PAGE 22 inflation, the cost could approach half a million dollars. He emphasized that if something were to happen, especially since the station is near a river, it could significantly impact the environment. He believes it is not worth waiting, as delaying the repairs could result in much higher costs in the long run. Mr. Neil stated that the pump station in question is located near Route 13, close to the Home Depot area. He expressed his belief that they should not wait, as any issues that arise could lead to significantly higher costs in the long run. Dr. Pillsbury believes that because the roof is flat, its life expectancy is much shorter than that of a typical resident or office-type roof. She explained that water, snow, and ice tend to accumulate on flat roofs, which increases the likelihood of damage. Despite these concerns, Dr. Pillsbury stated that she supported the proposal. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Mr. Lyon stated that while he does not believe the roof would collapse immediately, the project was included in the budget in March 2023, when they first became aware of the issue. After consulting with the facilities team, he explained that the roofing companies typically do not keep their prices firm for long. He noted that a standard bid process, as Mr. Lewis mentioned, would take one to two months, during which time they could risk higher costs due to price changes or potentially different pricing for a longer warranty from another company. Responding to Dr. Pillsbury, Mr. Lyon stated that the roof surface area would be close to 2,000 square feet. Ms. Arndt stated that after reviewing the three bids, the bid before them was the lowest of the three. She believes that it is competitive and trusts the specifications that were provided to determine the final costs. Ms. Arndt does not see a need to rebid and express confidence in both the bid before them and the staff’s expertise in selecting the contractor. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Mr. Lyon stated that there had been standing water in some locations, skylights were tearing apart from the roof, and some skylights that are in the building were pulling away from the membrane. He noted that those are two major issues that he has seen. If it rains, there would be leakage in the building, though it would be minimal and not a critical issue. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Mr. Lyon stated that in the other bids, they had guaranteed the same as Kirkin Exteriors. He noted that he did do a Google search and with a flat roof, the life expectancy would be between 15 to 25 years. For the record, Mr. Lewis stated with hesitation and for the safety of civilians that he would vote yes.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 2024 PAGE 23 Dr. Pillsbury moved to recommend accepting the staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Ms. Arndt and carried by unanimous roll call vote. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. (Boggerty, Rocha absent) Dedication of Rights-of-Way and Public Infrastructure – Patriot Village (Jason Lyon, Water/Wastewater Director) Mr. Jason Lyon, Water/Wastewater Director, reviewed the background and analysis of the Dedication of Rights-of-Way and Public Infrastructure for Patriot Village. Staff recommended accepting the dedication of rights-of-way and public infrastructure of the Patriot Village Subdivision. Dedication is to include all of the referenced public improvements noted in Attachment A. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Mr. Lyon emphasized that the financial impact of the budget over the next year or two was expected to be minimal. On the water and wastewater side, he pointed out that the infrastructure is new, which would reduce the likelihood of significant work outside of routine maintenance tasks, such as maintaining the fire hydrants. Additionally, he noted that snow removal may be required if it snowed, but given the limited length of road involved, it would not have a substantial effect on the budget. Responding to Ms. Arndt, Mr. Lyon clarified that the Patriot Village community is working together to pull the funding to do the upgrade. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Lyon clarified that the roads are up to the standards of the city. The building was subdivided into a design portion, and they were told that there was a certain width for the curb and sidewalk, so they built it per the plan. Dr. Sudler moved to recommend accepting the staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rocha and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. (Boggerty, Rocha absent) Discussion – Stormwater Utility Billing Concerns (Sharon Duca, Assistant City Manager) Ms. Sharon Duca, Assistant City Manager, and Mr. Jason Lyon, Water/Wastewater Director reviewed the Stormwater Utility Billing Concerns. This item was informational, and committee action was not required.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 2024 PAGE 24 Responding to Dr. Sudler, Ms. Duca noted that the annual operational costs are expected to range between $1.1 to $1.2 million, with adjustments for inflation over time. She emphasized that the projects best suited for funding through the infrastructure bill would fall under the capital program. These capital programs typically progress through feasibility, design, and construction in different years. Projects that are well-designed and prepared are likely to receive favorable consideration from the federal government for funding acceptance. By securing funding for capital projects from external sources, such as the infrastructure bill, the financial burden on rates could be reduced. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Ms. Duca highlighted that obtaining funds from the $11.7 billion being allocated to states would be the preferred approach, rather than continuing along their current path. She noted that one of the projects under the capital program involved the meeting house branch and improvements to PW2. However, eligibility for funding under the infrastructure bill would need to be verified, especially given that PW2 had contamination issues caused by the City of Dover. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Duca mentioned several concerns that have been raised with the Customer Service and Public Works Departments. The Public Works Department has been reviewing billing discrepancy issues, such as residents receiving a commercial bill as to a residential bill. The Public Works Department has been working to resolve these discrepancies and address the concerns that have been brought forward. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Mark Nowak, Public Works Director, clarified that the billing label “commercial” could be misleading. He explained that while the tier might be labeled as commercial and all other, it applies to properties that are not in a residential zone, such as manufactured housing. If a property is in any zone other than residential, it is categorized under a commercial tier for billing purposes. If the bill has a “C” for commercial, it does not mean that they are being charged because they are in a commercial zone, it is just not a residential zone. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Nowak explained that the credits and appeals manuals outline a process for parcel owners to appeal their tier classification if they believe it was assigned incorrectly. He emphasized that Public Works has been handling over 30 phone calls daily about the issue, not including emails and other inquiries. Staff have been informing customers about the credits and appeals manual and addressing their concerns. Mr. Nowak noted that the billing should have indicated “all other” rather than “commercial/all other” on the bill because it is anything other than residential zoning. He reassured customers that there was a way to request a tier reassignment through the appeal process, which involved a review of the case.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 2024 PAGE 25 Responding to Mr. Hare, Ms. Duca stated that some of the projects were cut in previous years because of limited funding. Several capital projects that they are looking at are receiving more complaints about drainage concerns. Ms. Duca noted that they are finding some failed infrastructure in certain locations with sinkholes. They are doing their best to patch them up, but they are trying to address the overall infrastructure problem. Responding to Mr. Hare, Ms. Duca noted that they have ignored the problems for the past eight years. Responding to Mr. Hare, Ms. Duca explained that currently the transfer from the electric fund is capped at $10 million per year, which is what they had included in the budget that followed the financial policy. Doing any further work would require an act of council to change it under the advisement, which would most likely affect the bond rating to go above $10 million. Responding to Mr. Hare, Ms. Allison Haines, Interim Customer Service Director, stated that they had to set it up as a general bill because that was where the tax bills were in the Tyler Program and that would be different from the utility bills, different customer and location numbers. Ms. Haines noted that they have made it easier for them to pay online and that they have taken off the part where they would have to set up an account, so they could use their customer number or the invoice number and make a credit card payment. She further noted that they could mail the bills to Wilmington, and at the office, payments could be made via cash, check, or money order, or customers could use the drop-off boxes. Ms. Haines stated that they are looking to rewrite some of the information on the bills to make it easier for people because they do not know their parcel ID numbers. The Tyler Program currently handles the payment of taxes, and at the moment, they are exploring the possibility of setting up automatic payments. However, this feature is not feasible at this time. Responding to Mr. Hare, Ms. Haines stated that it could not be the same account number because then the payments would go to the utility bill. She clarified that if customers pay through bill pay, they must set up the bill with a different customer number, ensuring that the payment is sent to a different lockbox address than their utility bill. This is necessary to keep the funds separate, as the system for tax payments and utility payments operate in two different systems. Responding to Ms. Arndt, Ms. Haines clarified that customers received a double- sided flyer, with one side containing information about the stormwater utility, and the other side about the sanitation enterprise fund. This flyer was sent out with the utility bills for July and August. She noted that the same information was available on the website and that it would also be included with the tax bills. Exempt parcels would not be required to pay the fee, and the homeowner's cost would increase.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 2024 PAGE 26 Responding to Ms. Arndt, Mr. Nowak stated that based on the size of the lot versus the size of the impervious surface would not factor in as a credit to reduce the bill. He explained that it is based on the allowable impervious surface according to the person’s zoning as outlined in the code. The classification of the property is grouped according to its zone, rather than the specific size of the impervious surface relative to the lot. Responding to Ms. Arndt, Mr. Nowak stated that they do not calculate the impervious surface for residential zones, it is only for commercial or all other zones. Mr. Nowak noted that they only use the allowable impervious surface according to the zoning. In communities, people could apply for credits depending on whether they have stormwater ponds in their community, swales, or things of that nature. He suggested that a homeowner’s association put together a meeting and figure it out. There was a question from the Village of Westover regarding their ponds. They do not go case by case. He stated that a parcel owner can appeal their tier, but it had to be justifiable according to the credits and appeals manual, which would be reviewed by him. Mr. Nowak would then give a response in 60 days, and then if the customer does not agree with the response, they can appeal to the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee. Responding to Ms. Arndt, Mr. Nowak clarified that if a neighborhood has a stormwater management pond, then all homes within that neighborhood would be able to take advantage of the credit for having the stormwater pond. He stated that there are certain criteria that they need to provide to the city that are in the credits and appeals manual. It states what they need to do, but everyone would get that credit. Responding to Ms. Arndt, Mr. Nowak stated that the homeowner’s association would be able to apply on behalf of the entire neighborhood and the city would adjust the rate for all of the parcels in that neighborhood. Responding to Ms. Arndt, Mr. Nowak stated that the Public Works Department has been able to provide customers with information and discuss the credits and appeals manual on a one-on-one basis. Mr. Nowak noted that they are providing them with guidance and what options are available to them. Responding to Ms. Arndt, Ms. Haines stated that the Customer Service Department has been forwarding customers a link to the credit and appeals manual with instructions on how to pay. She noted that the flyer that was sent out contained information on how customers could apply for the credit. Ms. Haines stated that when customers call, she provides them a link via email so that more detailed information can be sent. Unfortunately, she mentioned that more questions are being directed at the Public Works Department as a result. Ms. Arndt suggested organizing an interactive webinar where customers could listen and go through the appeals process. She noted that the webinar could be recorded, allowing customers to view it later, and that it would provide an

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 2024 PAGE 27 opportunity to take comments and address their concerns. could listen to the recording, and they could take comments and address their concerns. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Duca stated that $5 million was available through the state only for wastewater projects, not for stormwater. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Duca explained that #5 other funding sources, one example is the Community Transportation Fund (CTF). Currently, CTF is funding a project for Bogs Drive to address drainage concerns, with legislators assisting in covering the cost of the design. Additionally, the Meeting House Branch project was supported by state bond fill funding. Ms. Duca clarified that the capital budget for fiscal year 2027 included $10 million, which incorporates both city and state funding, helping to offset some of the project requirements. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Duca stated that most of the stormwater projects would be classified as community development-related projects. Ms. Duca highlighted ongoing concerns from constituents, particularly in older neighborhoods with insufficient drainage infrastructure, such as fewer catch basins. This often results in roadway ponding and related issues. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Duca stated that the community development funds from the sale of city properties. The parcels recently reviewed could likely cover the cost of a feasibility study, but there would not be enough funding for construction. Therefore, the community development funds would not be sufficient for the entire project. Dr. Sudler expressed concern that employees are spending excessive time addressing issues related to the new process, which detracts from productivity and costs the city money. He suggested that the city return to relying more heavily on grants to meet its funding needs, rather than placing the burden on constituents. He emphasized that taxpayers, who are already financially strained, have been affected by raising utility bills over the past three years. Dr. Sudler agreed with Mr. Hare's suggestion to explore alternative funding sources and reduce the reliance on taxpayers. He proposed leveraging resources such as Delaware State University and nearby institutions, which could assist with grant writing to support city projects. This collaboration, he argued, would provide relief to residents, improve their quality of life, and benefit the council by offering a more sustainable financial strategy. Additionally, Dr. Sudler pointed to opportunities under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and EPA grants, which he viewed as attainable sources for covering infrastructure costs. He expressed discomfort with the current method of generating income for the city and strongly advocated abandoning the existing approach in favor of pursuing alternative funding avenues.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 2024 PAGE 28 Responding to Mr. Hare, Ms. Duca stated that she would need to gather information to determine the exact amount currently available in the Water and Wastewater System Reserve Fund (WWSRF) and would provide an update once the details are confirmed. Responding to Mr. Hare, Ms. Marney stated that she would need to confirm the exact amount currently held in the Electric Reserve fund and would provide that information once it was available. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Marney stated that the city did generate some revenue by supporting states in the southern U.S. with electricity during hurricane recovery efforts. She noted that the income was added to the city’s reserves and stated that she would provide the specific financial details upon request. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Mr. Hugg clarified that the funds referenced by Dr. Sudler pertained to the Meeting House Square and the drainage program around that section of the city. He noted that these funds were committed and have not yet been spent. The money had a specific, dedicated purpose, and redirecting it to another use would negatively impact the Meeting House Square initiative. Mr. Hugg also shared that he had received a call from the property owner and Senator Paradee regarding the responsibility for a particular pipe. Based on his understanding, the pipe was installed when the building was originally constructed by its initial owner, although he could not confirm this conclusively. He further explained that the type of infrastructure was not something the city regularly maintained. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Mr. Hugg strongly suggested that they avoid using the community development funds for the project due to the critical nature of the Meeting House Branch drainage project, which has been in development for several years and is essential to address ongoing drainage concerns. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Mr. Lyon clarified that the funding from Senator Paradee was earmarked for the Meeting House Branch project along with the Persimmon Tree drainage project, as presented to the committee last session. He noted that the funds have an expiration date of June 30, 2026. Currently, they are in the design phase and working with the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) to develop an appropriate work plan, particularly given the challenges of dealing with contaminated soil. Additionally, they are collaborating with Bayhealth to redesign its property to accommodate upstream stormwater improvements. The redesign was considered in Bayhealth’s long-term plans, which would include constructing a building over the area in question. Mr. Lyon reiterated that while they are still in the design phase, the funding remained secure until the specified expiration date. Responding to Mr. Hare, Mr. Lyon clarified that the money was for the Meeting House Branch project.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 2024 PAGE 29 Responding to Mr. Hare, Ms. Duca explained that part of the money budgeted for the capital project was allocated for the necessary remediation work. The funding received through the bond bill would specifically cover the actual construction of the improvements, not the remediation efforts. Responding to Mr. Hare, Ms. Duca clarified that the construction remediation is more than $3 million. Mr. Neil explained that there were two categories for residents living on leased land: those who pay property taxes because their homes have been assessed, and those who pay an annual fee, often collected by the community owner and remitted. He pointed out that the funding for projects could lead to higher rents for those residents, creating a unique issue regarding their classification as residential. He stated that the situation is nuanced because these properties are residential but also not entirely straightforward. Mr. Neil mentioned that a packet had been provided for Mr. Nowak to review the process of appealing the matter. Mr. Neil highlighted concerns regarding the appeals process, noting that some individuals in leased land situations are incorrectly identified as property owners, which they are not. Misclassification creates challenges that need resolution. Mr. Neil emphasized that the issues with the Tyler system and any related platforms need to be resolved. He pointed out that resolving those technical issues would allow residents to make regular payments, including their monthly bills and taxes, through an integrated process. He expressed that the current situation was unsatisfactory and created unnecessary challenges for those who are willing and able to pay. Responding to Ms. Arndt, Mr. Hugg explained that the budget put together and enacted by the council was designed with the establishment of the enterprise fund in mind. The general funding portion of the budget assumed that certain expenses would not be charged to the general fund. He clarified that if any changes were made to the budget, a budget amendment would be necessary. That would allow for a detailed review of the budget to identify whether there are other funds the council wishes to transfer or if an alternative mechanism needs to be found to increase general fund revenue to cover additional costs. Responding to Mr. Hugg, Ms. Arndt stated that she would be in favor of making modifications, and that would reduce the revenue that they would collect and offset that somewhere else. Mr. Neil cautioned that there was uncertainty when it came to securing grants and that the city should not rely on them as guaranteed funding. He emphasized the importance of focusing on what they could reliably count on and maximizing the grants that they could secure. He suggested that by leveraging available funding sources, the council could minimize the impact on the general fund while still

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 2024 PAGE 30 advancing essential projects. The approach will provide flexibility if they need to shift money around to address any funding gaps. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Hugg stated that, to his understanding, the council’s discussions about the stormwater program began between 2015 and 2017. These discussions eventually culminated in the decision to create a utility to cover the associated costs. He clarified that he was not involved at that time, but that the creation of the utility was the result of several years of deliberations within council. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Hugg mentioned that while there was always a possibility of receiving funding, the chances of securing money for general operations were slim. However, there is a higher likelihood of receiving funding for specific projects. For example, if they had a significant stormwater pond that was failing and needed to be rebuilt, it might be possible to receive assistance from the general assembly for that particular project. He noted that they did not receive any general assembly funding for running the program itself. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Duca stated that they used a financial model originally developed by a consultant to project over a five-year period. The model accounted for both personnel expenses and regular operating costs, including items like leaf collection, as well as the proposed capital program. By utilizing the model, they adjusted the capital program to make it more manageable, as attempting to include everything within five years was becoming too costly. Responding to Mayor Christiansen, Mr. Nowak explained that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) created the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDS) program, which was administered through the State of Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC). The program ensured that the city remained compliant with environmental regulations, and it is reviewed every five years. The most recent review was extended to 10 years due to organizational issues, but now it is more stringent. The city is required to follow specific guidelines, or risk citations and fines. He noted that the stormwater coordinator and environmental scientists have been actively enforcing regulations, and the sanitation division helps by notifying the department whenever issues arise, such as grass clippings and things of that nature. If compliance is not met, code enforcement steps in. Mr. Nowak explained that the outfall inspections have become more demanding, with the inspection rate increasing from 5% to 20% per year. This year, the team worked with the fire department to inspect outfalls at Silver Lake, which had never been inspected before. The city was also required to comply with mandates regarding chemical containment at facilities like the fleet shop and pump stations. Additionally, Mr. Nowak mentioned that a new outreach program was mandated, and they had to prove that it was completed. He expects that the process will become even more cumbersome in five years when a new permit is required.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 2024 PAGE 31 Responding to Mayor Christiansen, Mr. Nowak stated that fines were imposed when there was an issue with handling the process in a disorganized manner through the Planning Department. He indicated that the lack of effort or proper coordination contributed to the problem, which led to the fines. He noted that he was not directly involved in the matter and could not provide detailed information. He offered to look into it further for more details. Arielle Rivera, Assistant City Clerk, read an email from Donna Mitchell regarding the stormwater utility fees. (Attachment #1) Responding to Ms. Mitchell, Ms. Duca stated that the legality of the proposal has been researched and found to be legal. She also mentioned the utility was modeled after the system in Newark, which operated as an enterprise fund. Responding to Ms. Mitchell, Ms. Duca clarified that the classification of commercial and all other customers was not determined by zoning but by the actual impervious surface on their property. She reiterated Mr. Nowak’s point that the property owners can request a review and potentially receive credit by following the process outlined in the credits and appeals manual, which addresses those calculations. Responding to Ms. Mitchell, Ms. Duca stated that the billing is completed by using the property tax module in the Tyler System. Responding to Ms. Mitchell, Ms. Haines stated that bank drafting was currently not supported by the Tyler system. However, residents can make payments using their checking accounts through EFT on the website, pay with a credit card, visit the office, or mail payments to Wilmington. She noted that the team is exploring the option of enabling bank drafting but working with Tyler has limitations. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Ms. Duca acknowledged her awareness of the $11.7 billion grant from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the EPA’s Clean Water State Revolving Fund. She noted that while their previous grant writer had applied for projects under this initiative, the success was limited, and they only received a portion of the requested funding. Despite the challenges, she confirmed that they intend to explore the funding opportunity again for future projects. Dr. Sudler moved that the City Manager and supporting staff review the criteria for submitting a letter of interest for funding through the Sewer Overflow and Stormwater Reuse Municipal Grant program to help the capital of Delaware address the stormwater and sewer infrastructure needs and provide the committee with an update by the subsequent Utility committee meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lewis.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 2024 PAGE 32 Mr. Hare amended the motion to add having staff review the Wastewater Revolving Fund and the electric reserve fund to determine the amount in each. Then, the council can hold a budget review with the possibility of a budget amendment. Mr. Hare would like to see if there was money to cover the $2 million needed for the year. Dr. Sudler and Mr. Lewis were amenable to the amendment. Dr. Sudler stated for the record that council and the committee as a whole, needed to start moving towards a quarterly budget review. He emphasized that the approach would allow them to address issues more proactively quarterly rather than annually since they are not seeing what they need to see throughout the year in a budgetary manner. Responding to Dr. Pillsbury, Mr. Hare stated that the largest bill a business had received was for Edgewell, amounting to $60,000, and for the quarter, the largest bill that would have been received was from Dover Speedway, totaling $40,000. Dr. Pillsbury expressed confusion regarding the billing amounts, particularly whether the charges discussed were annual or quarterly. She noted that the discussion was about a quarterly bill and believed the charges reflected an annual amount divided into quarterly payments. She emphasized the need for clarification to ensure that the highest amount was not charged every quarter. Dr. Sudler moved that the City Manager and supporting staff review the criteria for submitting a letter of interest for funding through the Sewer Overflow and Stormwater Reuse Municipal Grant program to help the capital of Delaware address the stormwater and sewer infrastructure needs, provide the committee with an update by the subsequent Utility committee meeting, and have staff review the Wastewater Revolving Fund and the Electric Reserve Fund to determine the amount in each. Then council could hold a budget review with the possibility of a budget amendment. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lewis and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. (Boggerty, Rocha absent) Mr. Neil moved for adjournment of the Utility Committee meeting, hearing no objection the meeting adjourned at 7:59 p.m. Ms. Arndt moved for adjournment of the Council Committee of the Whole meeting, hearing no objection the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 2024 PAGE 33 By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for acceptance of the Council Committee of the Whole Report, seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. (Boggerty, Rocha absent) MONTHLY REPORTS By motion of Mr. Neil, seconded by Mr. Anderson, the following monthly reports were accepted by consent agenda (Boggerty, Rocha absent): City Council’s Community Enhancement Fund Report City Manager’s Report Controller/Treasurer’s Budget Report Police Chief’s Report Fire Chief’s Report PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 2024-15 – CREATING ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUNDS (DAVID S. HUGG, III, CITY MANAGER) Mr. Lewis made a motion to suspend the rules so members of the public could speak. The motion was seconded by Dr. Sudler and failed by a roll call vote of four (4) yes, (Anderson, Sudler, Lewis, Hare), three (3) no, (Neil, Pillsbury, Arndt), and two (2) absent, (Boggerty and Rocha). Responding to Ms. Arndt, Mr. Hugg stated that she was correct and that there was a draft of guidelines and procedures that he had shared with the council president. Mr. Hugg was awaiting comments from Mr. Anderson before proceeding. It would specify what would be required, the kind of eligible projects, and the process for dispensing money. Ms. Arndt stated that, based on Mr. Hugg’s comments, the item would be addressed in an upcoming committee agenda, with details provided to the council. She noted that there would be an opportunity for open discussion at that time and expressed opposition to suspending the rules. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Hare clarified that, as the motion failed, individuals are not permitted to ask questions regarding the resolution. Responding to Mr. Hare, Mr. Lewis stated that he would ask the questions on behalf of the individual, emphasizing that it was his right as a council member to bring those questions forward. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Hugg confirmed that the proceeds would come from the sale of city-owned property. He explained that the two (2) funds would initially be managed by two (2) of the council committees, which he believed are appropriately tasked with addressing economic and community development. He stated that proposals would be presented during committee meetings, providing an opportunity for public participation. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Hugg affirmed that the proceeds from the sale of city properties would go into the general fund, but with the proposed resolution, those funds would no longer be used to cover shortfalls in the city budget as they had in the past. He explained that previously

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 2024 PAGE 34 when there were no designated funds, the proceeds were treated as excess or unanticipated revenue and went into the general fund. Two (2) years ago, Mr. Hugg proposed using these proceeds on a one-time basis to balance the budget, though they were not needed for that purpose and remained in the economic development fund or a similar account. He reiterated that the council committee administered those funds, with the committees holding the authority to decide their use. The resolution also includes a provision requiring council approval if those funds were to be used to offset other budget obligations. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Hugg explained that, under item number three (3), transfers from the funds for ordinary operating expenses should only be made with a majority vote of city council and only if critical to the city’s financial condition. He clarified that if the city needs to use those funds, the council can decide whether to allocate the proceeds to either fund. He emphasized that those funds were intended for one-time, unanticipated expenditures with no guarantee of future property sales or additional proceeds. However, the funds remain under the control of two (2) council committees, and council retains the authority to direct their use for financial needs, if necessary. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Hugg agreed with him, stating that if the funds were not available, there could be a possibility of raising property taxes and utility fees to cover a budget shortfall. He explained that if the fund had a balance and council determined it was important, they could use that balance to either balance the budget or cover unanticipated expenses, such as costs from a major weather event. However, if the funds had already been used for other projects, there would be no funds left to transfer. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Hugg clarified that the term “off-budget fund” was not a technical term. He explained that those were special revenue funds, which would be included in the budget but were not part of the general fund’s line-item operating budget. Instead, they are accounted for as part of the fund’s balance. Mr. Lewis made a motion to retract the resolution and postpone until council has gone through the budget process. The motion was seconded by Dr. Sudler. Responding to Mr. Hare, Mr. Hugg clarified that if the property was sold in the city and $3 million became available, council would have the authority to decide how the funds should be allocated. He emphasized that, regardless of the procedures or special funds established, it was ultimately council’s responsibility to determine how money was spent and where it should be allocated. He stated that, if a large sale occurred, council had both the right and responsibility to decide the allocation of those funds. Given the specific situation, he believed the money should be used in some way, noting that it would require a budget amendment, which always needed to be approved by council. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Mr. Hugg stated that there would be a set of guidelines to determine eligibility for funding. In both cases, the council committee would decide which projects are appropriate and who would receive the funds. He mentioned that community cleanup could be one of the uses for the development fund, and unless the committee had other concerns, he suspected it could be awarded to any qualified applicant who could carry out that mission.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 2024 PAGE 35 Dr. Sudler expressed concern that small business contractors might not be given the opportunity to bid on proposals and be awarded contracts. While he supported the concept of creating economic and community development funds, he wanted to ensure that the funds would not be restricted to nonprofit organizations. He believed the funds should be used to clean up areas that Public Works may not have the capacity to address. Mr. Anderson explained that there would be an opportunity to draft the exact guidelines, which were not fixed in the resolution. He emphasized that the purpose of creating the resolution was to ensure that the public and the community have a voice in shaping those guidelines. It would include civilian members of the committee, who would have more flexibility to allow public discussion time to be set, part of the reason for the community development fund stemmed from a recent town hall, where the public expressed a desire for proceeds from property sales to benefit the communities from which the money originated. Mr. Anderson also highlighted that the funds are one-time money and should be reinvested back into the community. Mr. Anderson explained that the money should be allocated back to the community rather than simply going into the general fund. He noted that some communities have specific needs, with one of the main priorities being cleanup efforts. He suggested that, in the winter, council could hire small businesses for cleanup projects. The intent was to allow nonprofits to participate in bid proposals and take turns doing weekly cleanups, which was why the term “nonprofit” was mentioned during discussions. Regarding community development, Mr. Anderson pointed out that it was clearly defined in the code, encompassing a wide range of activities, from enhancing community quality and housing to various development projects. He suggested that, if there were concerns about funding for neighborhood watches or street cleanups, council could consider implementing one-time pilot projects to test their effectiveness before including such items in the regular budget. Mr. Anderson emphasized his desire to ensure that people can see the benefits of ongoing initiatives without the need to create new programs, raise taxes, or rely on grant agencies, which often involve long waiting periods. He wanted to focus on achieving results more quickly and efficiently. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Dr. Sudler wanted to emphasize the need for funds to assist seniors, particularly when it comes to snow removal. He pointed out that seniors are responsible for clearing their sidewalks and suggested that some of the funds could be used to help them with the task, ensuring that the city remains in compliance with regulations. Mr. Lewis moved to retract the resolution until council has gone through the budget process. The motion was seconded by Dr. Sudler and failed by a roll call vote of one (1) yes (Lewis), six (6) no (Anderson, Neil, Pillsbury, Arndt, Sudler, Hare, and two (2) absent (Boggerty and Rocha). Mr. Anderson moved for approval of Resolution No. 2024-15. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and carried by a roll call vote of six (6) yes (Anderson, Neil, Pillsbury, Arndt, Sudler, Hare), one (1) no (Lewis), and two (2) absent (Boggerty and Rocha).

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 2024 PAGE 36 REZONING REQUEST FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1216 MCKEE ROAD – FIRST READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2024-31 A request was received to rezone properties located at 1216 McKee Road, consisting of 1.2302 +/- acres, owned by PAM Cubed Real Estate. The property is currently zoned C-PO (Commercial and Professional Office Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) and the proposed zoning is IO (Institutional and Office Zone) and subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). (Tax Parcel: ED-05-067.00-01-34.00-000; Planning Reference: Z-24-06) Prior to amending the zoning ordinances and zoning map of the City of Dover, a public hearing is required. Mr. Neil moved to refer the request to the Planning Commission on December 16, 2024, and set a public hearing for January 13, 2025, at 6:30 p.m. The motion was seconded by Dr. Pillsbury and unanimously carried. In accordance with Section 1-9 of the Dover Code, Council acknowledged the First Reading of Proposed Ordinance #2024-31 as read by the City Clerk, by title only, as follows: ORDINANCE #2024-31 – AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1216 MCKEE ROAD. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that the location of the proposed rezoning is on the west side of McKee Road, which is between a rehabilitation hospital and a multi-tenant commercial building at the corner of McKee Road and College Road. The property in question is a vacant tract of land. She clarified that the specific address referred to is 1205 McKee Road and that is across the street. CITY MANAGER'S ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Hugg had no announcements. MAYOR’S ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Christiansen announced that the Turkey Burn 5K, sponsored by Rail Haus, would take place on Saturday, November 30, 2024, and start at 8:30 a.m. He also announced that the Annual Capital Holiday Tree Lighting Celebration would be held on December 5, 2024, from 5:00 to 8:00 p.m. Mayor Christiansen noted that it was Mr. Neil’s birthday. COUNCIL MEMBERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Lewis shared that he had the honor of volunteering to feed the homeless at the People’s Community Center in Dover over the past weekend. He mentioned that on November 24, 2024, he volunteered with Tracy Palmer Ministries for their Annual Thanksgiving Giveaway. He wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 2024 PAGE 37 The meeting adjourned at 7:24 p.m. ANDRIA L. BENNETT CITY CLERK All ordinances, resolutions, motions, and orders adopted by the City Council during their Regular Meeting of November 25, 2024, are hereby approved. ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN MAYOR /AB