REGULAR CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING The Regular City Council Meeting was held on August 8, 2022, at 6:30 p.m. with Council President Sudler presiding. Council members present were Mr. Anderson, Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Neil, Dr. Pillsbury (via WebEx), Ms. Arndt, Mr. Rocha, Mr. Taylor, and Mr. Hare. Staff members present were Major Spicer, Ms. Peddicord, Mr. Hugg, Ms. Gray, Mr. Junge, and Ms. Bennett. Mayor Christiansen was present. OPEN FORUM The Open Forum was held at 6:15 p.m., prior to the commencement of the Official Council Meeting. Council President Sudler declared the Open Forum in session and reminded those present that Council was not in official session and could not take formal action. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Elder Ellis B. Louden. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Andre Boggerty. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Ms. Arndt, and unanimously carried. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA All Consent Agenda items are considered routine and non-controversial and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the Council. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of Council so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered a separate item. Mr. Hare moved for adoption of the consent agenda, seconded by Mr. Rocha, and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 26, 2022 The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of July 26, 2022, were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Hare, seconded by Mr. Rocha, and bore the written approval of Mayor Christiansen. COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE The Council Committee of the Whole met on July 26, 2022, at 6:00 p.m. with Council President Sudler presiding. Members of Council present were Mr. Anderson (arrived via WebEx at 7:45 P.M.), Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Neil, Dr. Pillsbury, Mr. Rocha, Mr. Taylor, and Mr. Hare. Ms. Arndt was absent. Mayor Christiansen was also present. Civilian members present for their committee meetings were Mr. Contant (via WebEx) and Mr. Shevock (via WebEx) (Legislative, Finance, and

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2022 PAGE 2 Administration), and Dr. Jackson and Mr. Hosfelt (Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee). Mr. McCutcheon and Mr. Shelton (Utility) were absent. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Boggerty, and unanimously carried. LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met with Council President Sudler presiding. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Hare moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Rocha, and unanimously carried. Discussion – Fiscal Year 2022 Audit Program (Lori Peddicord, Controller/Treasurer) Lori Peddicord, Controller/Treasurer, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the Fiscal Year 2022 Audit Program. Staff recommended acceptance of the audit program. Mr. Hare moved to recommend acceptance of the audit program, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for acceptance of the Council recommendation, seconded by Mr. Rocha, and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Hare moved for adjournment of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting, seconded by Mr. Rocha and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:04 p.m. UTILITY COMMITTEE The Utility Committee met with Chairman Rocha presiding. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Hare moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Neil, and unanimously carried.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2022 PAGE 3 Evaluation of Proposals – Silver Lake Production Well (Jason Lyon, Director of Water Wastewater) Mr. Jason Lyon, Director of Water & Wastewater, and Kate Mills, Water Production Manager, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the Evaluation of Proposals for Silver Lake Production Well. Staff recommended to award the contract to Davis Bowen & Friedel, Inc. for the design /build services of the Silver Lake Production Well, RFP #22-0033WW, for $2,942,000. Mr. Hare moved to recommend awarding the contract to Davis Bowen & Friedel, Inc. for the design/build services of the Silver Lake Production Well, RFP #22- 0033WW, for $2,942,000, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil. Responding to Mr. Neil, Ms. Mills stated that the department had completed the test well process that was approved by the state. Ms. Mills explained that they needed to obtain a permit to drill a test well at that location. Ms. Mills stated that the state is aware of the project and that they have taken all the proper steps thus far. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Ms. Mills stated that the city has not run out of water in another well. Ms. Mills explained this well will be for redundancy, and that they are constructing and replacing the pipe on North State Street that is near the well. Ms. Mills further explained that they are upgrading the size of the water main to handle the well’s production, and creating redundancy for the water system, so if another well does go down, the new well will help support it. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Ms. Mills stated that this project started four to five years prior and that the well was simulated in a water model that an engineering group looked at. Ms. Mills explained that this is what led to the decision to upgrade North State Street. Ms. Mills noted that they are using all the material needed to make it a viable location. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mr. Lyon stated that the vendor would have every opportunity to use minority subcontractors, but that they are not mandated to do so. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mr. Lyon explained that when the project went out for bid, they worked with the procurement team. Mr. Lyon noted that his department gave them a bidder list about a month before the mandatory pre-bid meeting, so minority contractors were solicited. Mr. Lyon explained that when they pull the list, they go to the state website and choose companies that can do the work. Mr. Lyon further explained that they solicited them, that there is a bid out for this project, and a date of the pre-bid meeting. Mr. Lyon noted that unfortunately, they did not get any takers.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2022 PAGE 4 Mr. Taylor stated that he has had his fill of one company being selected. Mr. Taylor explained that there are minority businesses everywhere and that they do not feel as though they are getting their proper opportunity. Mr. Taylor believes that they are not because they do not know when these bids are coming out and what is happening. Mr. Taylor clarified that he did not believe Mr. Lyon, or his department was doing anything wrong but that the city needs to step up its measures to make sure that they get the information out to more people. Mr. Taylor believes that they must do a better job of recruiting minority businesses for these accounts. He explained that one of the reasons why he has insisted on a mandatory pre-bid meeting is to get everyone in the room, so those smaller companies that will not get the contract can subcontract with the larger company. Mr. Taylor stated that they cannot keep coming with just one bid or he will start saying no and solicit his colleagues to say no. Mr. Taylor explained that this is something that must be at the forefront of our minds when they start putting these contracts out, and not something that comes up right at the end, of a council meeting. Mr. Taylor noted that Ms. Mills and Mr. Lyon are doing a great job, but this process must be altered. Responding to Mr. Lyon, Mr. Taylor clarified that by mandatory, he means everyone who will bid, everyone who will subcontract and wants to be a part of the project must attend the mandatory pre-bid meeting. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mr. Lyon stated that historically when the city had mandatory pre-bid meetings the issue was that they were receiving a small pool of candidates because companies from outside the area were not coming down. After all, they did not want to make the trip. Mr. Lyon explained that if they did not attend the meeting, the contractors were not able to bid on the project. Mr. Lyon further explained that the city had made pre-bid meetings not mandatory to increase the number of bids they receive. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mr. Lyon stated that regarding the Evaluation of Proposals – Silver Lake Production Well, they did solicit from disadvantaged minority, women-owned businesses from the State of Delaware website. Mr. Lyon assured the council that if there was another avenue to solicit from, he would be happy to work together. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Mills stated that once the well is built, residents may notice slightly better pressure. Ms. Mills explained that they will be replacing the cast iron main during the upgrade. Ms. Mills further explained that the portion of Dover and the other parts connected to it should see less brown water. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Lyon stated that the City of Dover Purchasing Policy currently does not include a provision that a percentage of work is to be performed by a minority contractor.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2022 PAGE 5 Mr. Sudler requested the Water & Wastewater and Procurement Departments work together to create a workshop to include what is the criteria for a sole vendor and what parameters are set in place in regards to trying to achieve a mandate that a percentage of work must be completed by a minority contractor. Mr. Sudler stated that Mr. Lyon and his team are doing a good job, thanked him for the transparency in the procurement process, and for explaining exactly how they solicited bids. Mr. Sudler agreed with Mr. Taylor and explained that if the city mandated pre-bid meetings, the city will not be perceived as always using the same vendor and if the other contractors do not show up then it will be on them. Mr. Boggerty stated that he would be willing to provide staff with someone who will help them navigate and mirror what the federal government is doing and how they drill down on contractors. Mr. Hare moved to recommend awarding the contract to Davis Bowen & Friedel, Inc. for the design /build services of the Silver Lake Production Well, RFP #22-0033WW, for $2,942,000, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for acceptance of the Council recommendation, seconded by Mr. Rocha, and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Neil moved for adjournment of the Utility Committee meeting, seconded by Mr. Boggerty, and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:24 p.m. SAFETY, ADVISORY, AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE The Safety, Advisory, and Transportation Committee met with Chairman Taylor presiding. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury, and unanimously carried. Status Update - Loockerman Street Fire of March 16, 2022 - Dangerous Building (Jason Osika, Fire Marshal, and Eddie Kopp, Code Enforcement Supervisor) Mr. Jason Osika, Fire Marshal, stated that the fire occurred on March 16, 2022, and that there is still an open investigation, so his comments will be limited. Mr. Osika stated that they immediately did a structural engineer’s report on the day of the fire. Mr. Osika said that this report was done to make sure the building did not need to be demoed on the spot. Mr. Osika explained that the report showed that there is no danger of the building falling into the street or causing any further damage.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2022 PAGE 6 Mr. Osika explained that the process of handling a fire such as the Loockerman St. Fire is to condemn the building as unfit for habitation, enter a case, and turn it over to Code Enforcement. Mr. Osika further explained that Code Enforcement then follows up with repairs, tear down and any permits needed. Mr. Osika stated that Code Enforcement will send letters and work with the homeowner and insurance companies with obtaining permits to make sure the proper work is done. Eddie Kopp, Chief Code Enforcement Officer, stated that the Code Enforcement Office sent the first notice on March 17th, 2022, with the violations that needed to be corrected and the obvious condemnation. Mr. Kopp explained that the owner was allotted 60 days and that there was no response from the property owner. Mr. Kopp stated that a second notice was sent on June 15th, 2022, which is the normal process. Mr. Kopp stated that after receiving no feedback from the property owner, they sent a letter of intent, on July 1st, 2022, to the property owner and the attorney representing the property owner. Mr. Kopp explained that the letter of intent is a notice stating that they have 30 days to correct the property, or else Code Enforcement will present it before council to be declared dangerous and set a demolition date. Mr. Kopp further explained that he contacted the attorney representing the property owner on July 26, 2022, and he said that there is no update. Mr. Kopp stated that the lawyer cannot provide any information other than what they are aware of, so they receive our letters. Mr. Kopp stated that as far as he knew, in speaking with the attorney, the owner of the property is out of the country, with no return date set, so the attorney is representing the property and has been included on all notifications. Mr. Kopp stated that he has sent proper notices to all the addresses on file, of which there are three. Mr. Kopp stated that the follow-up date for the letter of intent is August 4th, 2022, which, after that, if no response is received, Code Enforcement will arrange a meeting with the City Clerk’s office for a council meeting. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mr. Kopp confirmed that the owner of the property on file is SAG Holdings, LLC and that the next follow-up date is August 4, 2022, which will result in a notice of a Council Hearing. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mr. Kopp confirmed from his conversation with the attorney, that the property is uninsured. Mr. Kopp also noted the building is a standalone building with a very small gap between the damaged building and the adjacent building. Mr. Boggerty asked if the city could require tenants or building owners, to show proof of insurance. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Hare stated that the businesses are more than likely insured. However, it would be different to mandate a property owner who has paid off a building, be required to have insurance.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2022 PAGE 7 Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mr. Hugg stated that if the city were to declare a building dangerous, they would take on the responsibility for tearing it down. Mr. Hugg explained the city would take ownership of the building and that the only way to recoup the demolition money it to sell it or develop the lot. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mr. Kopp stated that Code Enforcement has recommended making changes to the Dangerous Building Ordinance. Mr. Kopp explained that the way the Ordinance currently is written is a drawn-out process that will take six months to a year to demolish a building. Mr. Kopp insured Council that the Dangerous Building Ordinance would be on an upcoming agenda for Council because Code Enforcement is aware that it is an issue and is taking steps to address it. Mr. Rocha noted that he was concerned from a safety perspective that if someone entered the building unlawfully and was injured. Mr. Rocha asked if it would be a liability to the city. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Kopp explained that there is a provision in the code that would shorten the time and that is only if the building is in imminent danger to the public. Mr. Kopp further explained the Structural Engineer’s Report stated that the building was structurally sound and had been boarded up to prevent unlawful entry. Mr. Kopp stated that if they called the building an imminent danger would only remove the letter of intent and lessen the time frame by 30 days. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Hare stated that if the process goes as it has in the past 5, 10, and 15 years, Code Enforcement will bring it to council, the owner is going to show up and council is going to say, "Oh, well, okay, you get another 60 days to get it done," then they are not going to do anything, and then come back to council. Mr. Hare explained what council needs to do is, state that the owner has had all the opportunities to tear it down and give the owner 15 days to fix it. Mr. Hare explained that if the property was not fixed, then it will need to be torn down. Mr. Sudler moved to recommend the Safety, Advisory, and Transportation Committee waive the letter of intent and send the building straight to City Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rocha. Mr. Hare stated that he did not disagree with Mr. Sudler’s thought process however, council cannot change the rules and must follow the Dover Code of Ordinances. Mr. Hare suggested getting a legal opinion from Mr. Rodriguez, City Solicitor. Mr. Neil agreed with Mr. Hare. Mr. Neil stated that council should check for legal sufficiency to make sure that they have dotted all their I’s and crossed all their T’s legally. Mr. Neil stated that as soon as a legal opinion has been rendered, then they need to bring it before council as quickly as possible. Mr. Neil noted that he is looking forward to changing the ordinance to speed up the process.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2022 PAGE 8 Mr. Sudler stated that after hearing the consensus of council he would like to rescind the motion and make another motion. Mr. Rocha agreed to rescind his second to the motion. Mr. Sudler moved to recommend based on the City Solicitor’s opinion that if it is permissible that Council waives the 30-day Notice, Letter of Intent, and the matter go straight to Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rocha and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for acceptance of the Council recommendation, seconded by Mr. Rocha, and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Sudler recused himself and left Council Chambers at 6:47 p.m. Mayor Christiansen stated that the discussions on revising the Dangerous Building Ordinance of procedures and building code appeals had begun. Mayor Christiansen noted that he met with the Planning Director and hopefully, council will have those revisions brought to them by the early part of September for council action. Mayor Christiansen stated that he has spoken with a party that is interested in the property located on Loockerman Street which may help the city recoup their money once those expenses are in. Mayor Christiansen stated that he would be willing to issue an Executive Order to have the building on Loockerman Street torn down. Mayor Christiansen explained that the building needed to be taken down, that he was there the night of the fire, and that every day he drives by it he believes it looks worse and worse. Request for Waiver - Appendix A - Subdivisions, Article VI - Subdivision - General Requirements and Design Standards, Section A - Streets (Right-of-Way known as Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue) - Waiver of Requirements for the Reduction of the Minimum Street Right-of-Way Width, Increase in Maximum Length of a Dead-End Street (Cul-de-Sac), and the Elimination of Sidewalk on One Side of a Public Street associated with a Site Development Plan for the improvements to the rights-of-way of Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue to allow for further development of the properties that these streets will give access. (Dawn Melson- Williams, Principal Planner) Mr. Taylor introduced Attachment #1- Petition Against the Request for Waiver submitted by adjacent property owners. Ms. Dawn Melson-Williams, Principal Planner reviewed the background and analysis regarding the Request for Waiver for Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue regarding planning reference: S-22-04. The Planning Commission recommended approval with Conditions of the Request to Reduce the Minimum Street Right-of-Way Width, Increase in Maximum Length

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2022 PAGE 9 of a Dead-End Street, and the Elimination of Sidewalk on One side of a Public Street. Mr. Neil noted that he had sent his question to the Planning Commission in preparation for this meeting. Mr. Neil stated there was a key to opening the property for development and that was through the waivers. Responding to Mr. Neil, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that the zoning around Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue is a collection of different residential zoning districts. The lands that are owned by the Patel properties, Patel College Road Properties, are zoned RG-5, which is a general residence zone for mid-rise apartments. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that the apartments are permitted use. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that the RG5 zone also allows for the uses that are allowed in the one-family resident zone. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that it means that one- family detached houses could go there as well. There are also several, non- residential uses that could happen through a conditional use process, which is a specialized review process. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that these include properties where schools, places of worship, and daycare centers for children and adults are located. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that public utilities and wireless communication facilities could go into this area. Ms. Melson-Williams explained that under the current zoning of that land area, you have a series of residential, and then some non-residential uses. Ms. Melson-Williams noted that under its current zoning, it would not allow for what you think it would with normal commercial businesses, such as retail components, manufacturing, or industrial use. Ms. Melson-Williams explained that there are properties in this area that have some of the City’s other residential zones, both RM-2 and R-8. Several properties are zoned IO, which is institutional, and office, which have other uses. Ms. Melson- Williams stated that it is predominantly a road network, if you will, on the east side of the railroad tracks that are flanked by properties that are residentially zoned. Ms. Melson-Williams further explained that several properties are not within the corporate limits of the City of Dover and fall under Kent County's jurisdiction. Responding to Mr. Neil, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that the Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) currently has a study underway. Ms. Melson-Williams explained that several years ago, they did a study focused on the rail network throughout Kent County and that they were looking at properties adjacent to the railroad that have a zoning classification that would be amenable to rail-side usage by a developer. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that most recently they have been revisiting that study and looking more specifically at land that is adjacent to the railroad, that remains undeveloped and could have potential. Ms. Melson- Williams noted that the area near Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue is certainly an area that has land that is not developed. However, the current zoning of this large tract of land that is adjacent to the railroad is for residential use. Ms. Melson- Williams further explained that for the property to be used for some type of manufacturing or industrial zoning, it would require a rezoning application. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that most likely in the case of some of these properties, an

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2022 PAGE 10 amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Plan would be required. Ms. Melson- Williams also stated that there is a process, but that this is not what is before council this evening, and that this request is for subdivision waivers related to the street network. Responding to Mr. Neil, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that if the Request for Waivers were not approved, the applicant then would be able to proceed in building the apartment complex. Ms. Melson-Williams noted that there may be limitations in the number of units. She explained that in the case of the sidewalk, they would have to build the sidewalk on both sides of the street, and they would follow the Dover Code of Ordinances. Ms. Melson-Williams further stated that in regards to the question about the right-of-way width, the applicant is technically providing the right-of-way where they can and where they have ownership of the land that is directly adjacent to it. She noted that it would not be unusual for a property to dedicate additional right-of-way, for the area that is in front of their parcel. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that the city cannot force the applicant to dedicate the right- of-way in front of somebody else's property. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that the biggest question would be the length of the cul-de-sac. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that there are probably ways to work around that by creating a larger street network in that specific area so that you can eliminate the length of the dead end that exists, but that this area is also encumbered by some significant environmental concerns. She then explained that there is a brownfield area, floodplain, and wetland on the subject site that limit development. Ms. Melson-Williams noted that the choices for redesigning the site and the road network are also somewhat limited. Responding to Mr. Neil, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that an alternative way to reach this property, which included outreach efforts, did not happen. Ms. Melson- Williams stated that she would most likely not see an at-grade crossing of the railroad at a different location in her lifetime. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that typically, new railroad crossings and at-grade crossings are not being created. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that if you want to create a new one, you’d have to close one that already exists and that crossing that railroad from the west to get to this area is probably not an option. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that looking at other locations, such as crossing a tract of land owned by Delaware State University, that has an Athletic Annex Building just immediately after where the railroad crosses College Road, it would be on the left if you are heading towards DuPont Highway. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that any improvements to that existing entrance, or creation of a new road in that area would be subject to Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) review because College Road is a state-maintained road, and that she did not believe that DelDOT would even consider something that close to the railroad crossing. Ms. Melson-Williams further explained that if it puts cars basically sitting on a railroad track to make a left, that is not something they are going to approve from a traffic transportation-design standpoint.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2022 PAGE 11 Ms. Melson-Williams stated that other options for reaching the site were not considered because it is adjacent to a public street right-of-way that already exists. She noted that there were early conversations with the applicant and DelDOT that were related to, how you would get to the site. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that it involves making use of the existing road network at Mishoe Street. Ms. Melson- Williams explained that Mishoe Street has a dedicated left-turn lane and wider- width street standards. Ms. Melson-Williams further explained that the city and the county were also involved in some of those early conversations because they had to go through an annexation process to ensure that the street right-of-way area was located within the corporate limits of the City of Dover. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that last year the city went through an annexation process to clarify that these rights-of-way were intended to be part of the city and would be mapped as such. Responding to Mr. Neil, Ms. Melson-Williams confirmed that even if the waivers are denied, that the property will still be developed. She explained that with apartment buildings, the owner can reach a certain number of units and then will need to have two access points to a public street network. Ms. Melson-Williams noted that there could be two access points on Railroad Avenue but with the waiver, design-wise, it would be much easier to achieve. Ms. Melson-Williams referred to the map on page 23 in the packet and explained that this area of land is adjacent to the property and that several properties are owned by Mishoe Cove Apartments. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that this is the area where the additional right-of-way is not being proposed because this applicant does not have control of the adjacent land areas. Ms. Melson-Williams noted that the existing 35-foot right-of-way is what is in that area and that for about half of that area we already maintain it as a city street. Ms. Melson-Williams referred to the map on page 24 of the packet, which shows where the existing road of Mishoe Street and Raymond Street is marked in green. She explained that the actual right-of-way property of the road is shown in the red- hatched area. Ms. Melson-Williams explained that what is out there today does not match up with where the right-of-way technically is and any improvements to Raymond Street would be done where the right-of-way exists for that road. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that Railroad Avenue is currently unimproved meaning it exists on paper, but there is no pavement, gravel, et cetera, out there at this present time. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that Raymond Street dead ends on the map on page 24 of the packet, shown in green, and ends on the property owned by Mishoe Cove. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Melson-Williams referred to the map on page 24 of the packet and stated where the proposed street would be is not owned by Mishoe Cove, it is shown in red hatch marks. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that this area is property of the street, the right-of-way. Ms. Melson-further explained that

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2022 PAGE 12 Raymond Street is part city dedication and part a public right-of-way that is yet to be improved, so if their activities are happening in the right-of-way that exists, then no agreement would need to be made with the adjacent property owner. Responding to Mr. Hosfelt, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that the right-of-way would be 60 feet. Ms. Melson-Williams explained that the paved section of the road is required to be a minimum of 24 feet in width from curb to curb. Ms. Melson- Williams noted that there is no parking. Ms. Melson-Williams explained that if the applicant would want to have parking on that street, then the width of the paved part would need to be increased. Responding to Mr. Hosfelt, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that the Dover Code of Ordinances outlines provisions for what the width of that street section must be to have on-street parking. Ms. Melson-Williams noted that if a street has a paved width of 24 feet, then that means no parking. She explained that if there is to be on- street parking on one side of the street or both then you would have to get into that increased paved width, which is in code. Ms. Melson-Williams noted that it is a code requirement as to what that width would need to be. Responding to Mr. Hosfelt, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that there would be potentially two access points to the property, but that is not what Council is here to discuss, because they do not have a design for what that complex looks like. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that if the applicant is looking to have more than a certain number of units then they need two access points, and design would dictate where those access points can happen. Ms. Melson-Williams noted that the plans would also be reviewed by the City’s Department of Public Works since it would be a city street that they are taking access from. Responding to Mr. Hosfelt, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that the paved width or the right-of-way width for 60 feet has been in the City of Dover land subdivision regulations for some time. Ms. Melson-Williams noted that there has not been any recent change in the last 20 years, that there were some changes related to on-street parking such as what those qualifications would need to be but that the right-of- way width has not changed for a street such as this. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Melson-Williams referred to the map on page 23 of the packet and stated that the request for a waiver of eliminating a sidewalk is in an area that is not improved with sidewalks presently. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that Railroad Avenue is unimproved, which means that there is nothing out there on the landscape. Ms. Melson-Williams explained that they are seeking to eliminate the sidewalk where it would be adjacent to the railroad tracks. Ms. Melson- Williams further explained that they are going to provide sidewalks on the other side of the road, which would be adjacent to where the potential development would happen. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that there are existing sidewalks along College Road, Mishoe, and that there is a little bit, along parts of Raymond Street that do exist already. Ms. Melson-Williams noted that with this project, they are proposing sidewalks along the frontage of Railroad Avenue and building the

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2022 PAGE 13 sidewalk network that does not yet exist along Raymond Street for a portion of Raymond Street on both sides. Ms. Melson-Williams noted that this would also be done along the south side of Raymond Street, which is the side that is closer to College Road. Ms. Melson-Williams noted that should this property develop, there would be a sidewalk network that a resident of that property could walk on down Railroad Avenue, Raymond Street, and then down Mishoe Street to get to College Road, where there is an existing sidewalk system. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Melson-Williams confirmed that the applicant is seeking to eliminate the requirement to build a sidewalk on one of the sides of Railroad Avenue. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that if the waiver was not approved, then it would require having a sidewalk on both sides of Railroad Avenue, as well as a little corner where a sidewalk would then have to be constructed also as Raymond Street intersects with Railroad Avenue. Ms. Melson- Williams noted that if the right-of-way does not accommodate that, then they are not going to add a sidewalk that impacts an adjacent property. Ms. Melson- Williams noted that there is going to be a leftover piece of Raymond Street that does not have a sufficient right-of-way that needs to get the paved width of a street and a sidewalk on both sides implemented. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that the code states when you build a public street, you have sidewalks on both sides and that in this situation, they're asking for relief because the road that they hope to build is right next to the railroad tracks. Ms. Melson-Williams further explained that this is probably not where they would want people walking anyway and that they probably would not walk in that area. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that they certainly do not want them trying to cross the tracks to get to whatever is on the other side, because there is not a pedestrian crossing of the tracks in that area either. Mr. Hare stated that he did not have a problem not having a sidewalk running alongside the railroad track. Mr. Hare noted that the Police Station and the new Post Office in downtown Dover do not have sidewalks on the other side of the street, by the courthouse along the railroad tracks. Mr. Hare stated that he agreed with Mr. Hosfelt and that the streets should not be like Mayfair where the streets are narrow and have on-street parking on both sides. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mayor Christiansen stated that it would be difficult to get a fire apparatus down a 35-foot street in an emergency with vehicles parked. Mayor Christiansen explained that the wider the street, the easier it is for fire apparatus, police vehicles, EMS, and Paramedics. Mayor Christiansen stated that the bulk of traffic is on College Road and adding a street that feeds into it would be a nightmare. Mayor Christiansen asked who would be putting a light on Mishoe Street.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2022 PAGE 14 Responding to Mr. Neil, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that Council could certainly act on each waiver individually, however, the reduction in the minimum street right-of-way is for the right of way, which is the property of the street. Ms. Melson- Williams noted that it does not impact the paved width requirement. Ms. Melson- Williams stated that they would be subject to what the code says for paved width, depending on if it has no parking or parking on one or both sides. Ms. Melson- Williams noted that the code dictates what the minimum paved width of the street needs to be. Mr. Neil stated that Council has brought up a concern in terms of an emergency basis, and it would depend upon the developer’s willingness to make sure whatever has to happen and to make sure that they have an additional width on that property to ensure that emergency vehicles will be able to get through for the protection of the residents who will be living in the apartments. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Melson-Williams referred to the map on page 22 of the packet and stated that 400 feet is the measurement of the length of the cul-de- sac and that the measurement begins at Raymond Street. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that she does not know the measurement of the distance between the railroad tracks and the street. Mr. James Paige, 355 Rita Wilma Road, stated that from what he has heard so far, it is opening Pandora's box as far as he is concerned. Mr. Paige explained that once that box is opened and things are in place, Patel's can do what they want to because it is done. Mr. Paige asked how many people are satisfied with where they live, and how many have been there for 10 years or more. Mr. Paige also asked if you have lived there for 10 years and love their neighborhood. Mr. Paige asked how you would like for him to come into your neighborhood, take up your sidewalks and do this to your land. Mr. Paige stated that he could say he is going to do whatever and that it seems as though he cannot be stopped. Mr. Paige stated that the only people that can stop it are Council. Mr. Paige said that they are going to put in 150 apartments and if they do not get all these waivers done, then they will only be able to have 125 apartments. Mr. Paige suggested that the Patel Group build 125 apartments and then all parties would be satisfied. Mr. Paige asked, do you know how much traffic that is going to bring through our neighborhood, with no stop lights? Mr. Paige stated that the neighborhood does not want that. Dr. Wilma Mishoe stated that she had been to Council three times and is tired. Dr. Mishoe stated that part of Raymond Street that has been discussed is not even in the City of Dover, it is in Kent County. Dr. Mishoe stated that she has the maps, pays taxes on the property, and owns the land that is being discussed. Dr. Mishoe explained that when Raymond Street stops being a paved curve, that is where the

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2022 PAGE 15 City's portion of it ends. Dr. Mishoe stated that if they do not believe her to ask Mr. Raymond, who is here. The street was named after him, Raymond Fisher. Greg Rishell, Engineer, Pennoni Associates Inc., representing Patel Properties, thanked everyone tonight and stated that they hopefully they got their questions answered as best they could. Mr. Rishell thanked Ms. Melson-Williams, who did a fantastic job answering pretty much all of the questions. Mr. Rishell stated that he wanted to clarify one item that came up in the conversation about emergency vehicle access. Mr. Rishell clarified that the road that is being proposed is not being narrowed, it will be 24 feet on Raymond Street and Railroad Avenue. Mr. Rishell stated that the only thing that is technically getting narrower is where the applicant is proposing and dedicating a full 60-foot right-of-way where it narrows down to a 35-foot right-of-way or as what Ms. Melson-Williams referred to as the property of the road. Mr. Rishell stated that this is the only thing that is narrowing, which is an imaginary line. Mr. Rishell stated in regards to emergency vehicle access, the 24-foot width is a minimum standard set by the City of Dover, which is also consistent with the minimum width of a fire lane that is required by the Office of the State Fire Marshal and that is a fire lane width in front of a building. Mr. Rishell explained that for actual access to a property, the Office of State Fire Marshal says for two-way access it only needs to be 20-feet wide and 16-feet wide for one way, which is the state regulations. Mr. Rishell noted that even if someone was illegally parked on the side of the road, a fire truck could still get by. Mr. Rishell confirmed that no parking is being proposed. Mr. Rishell stated that this would be part of a site plan application, and that there have been no decisions made yet on the development of the property as far as that. Mr. Rishell stated that there was no discussion or desire to have any on-street parking as part of the applicant’s part. Mr. Rishell noted that the streets could be always signed as No Parking, so, if someone is parking illegally, they cannot control that. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Rishell stated that to his knowledge a title search and boundary survey have been done and that the work that is being proposed in the right-of-way is public land. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Melson-Williams referred to the map on page 24 in the packet and stated that the red hatched area shows the public right-of-way, and the property of the road where development activity would happen. Ms. Melson- Williams noted that what does exist out there on the land, does show that the paved areas currently are located on private property. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that however, with this development project, they would be limited to working within the right-of-way, which is the red hatched area. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that there is a portion of Raymond Street that is already accepted for city maintenance and that ends about halfway, probably right around

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2022 PAGE 16 the second entrance to the Mishoe Towers, and is already in the City's maintenance. Ms. Melson-Williams explained that with this area being plotted in the 1890s, it is not surprising that ownership questions arise. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that the property of the road went through an annexation process to clarify that those land areas are now within the City of Dover and that typically, when the property is annexed any adjacent right away is brought in and made part of the City. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that once the property is annexed the right-of-way is owned by the public and the City of Dover acts on behalf of the public in ownership. Ms. Melson-Williams explained that they do not call dedication for maintenance until that formal process happens after the street has been built to the City’s standards. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Melson-Williams explained that the red hatched lines are showing on the deed research and that the survey shows where the property of the road and the right-of-way exist today. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mr. Rishell stated that they have not considered Mr. Paige’s proposal of 125 apartments because they have not fully explored the full development options of the property, other than just looking at developing the property by right. Mr. Rishell explained that as far as density requirements go, they must explore their development options. Mr. Rishell noted that he did not believe there was any consideration given to the reduction in density, as it relates to this application. Mr. Rishell stated that they are primarily focused on accessing the property using public lands in trying to meet city standards and requirements as much as possible. Mr. Rishell also discussed improving a scenario in a situation that is much better than exists today. Mr. Rishell explained that as you can see the road, as it exists today, it is half on private property and that asking for a few waivers that are due to existing conditions that are out of anyone's control, such as the way the properties were plotted. Reverend Raymond Fisher, a property owner on Raymond Street stated that years ago that the City named the street after him because he lived there for so long. Mr. Fisher stated that he was concerned about traffic and agreed with Dr. Mishoe and her brother, Mr. Paige. Mr. Fisher stated that for over 60 years, that is where he raised his children, his oldest son is 60 years old, and they have not had traffic problems. Mr. Fisher stated that as Brother Paige said, if you open the door, you'll never get it closed. Mr. Fisher stated that he knew they would not want it, nor anybody else running through their street at all times of night with all kinds of noise and everything. Mr. Fisher noted that he did not think his heart could stand it; he is too old now to try to go through that kind of process.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2022 PAGE 17 Mr. Fisher stated that his objection is to get rid of those apartments or limit the number of units. Mr. Fisher stated that the gentleman would want him to come into his territory and that he sees it is going to be a problem. Mr. Fisher stated that he thinks they need quietness as a community, just like everybody else, and that they are not asking for any favors. Mr. Fisher noted that they are asking for what is right for them, just as what is right for you, your family and your community. Ms. Bennett read Mr. Anderson’s comment on WebEx that stated “I am troubled by the number of exceptions and waivers sought. It shows me that the infrastructure is inadequate for the density of the project. The safety concerns are inescapable to me. I want to support growth. I believe in property rights. I also believe in common sense safety rules. I would like to see a couple of single-family homes. If this is to be developed, the safety and infrastructure concerns and environmental sensitivity of the land mitigate against high-density development.” Mr. Neil moved for the recommendation of the approval of the Planning Commission’s recommendation to accept the Request for Waivers to include the elimination of the sidewalk and extension of the cul-de-sac and denying the Request for Waiver for the Reduction of the Minimum Street Right-of-Way Width, Increase in Maximum Length of a Dead-End Street (Cul-de-Sac). The motion was seconded by Mr. Boggerty and the motion failed by a roll call vote of 1-6. (Mr. Neil voted yes) (Mr. Anderson and Ms. Arndt were absent, and Mr. Sudler recused himself prior to this Agenda item) By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Rocha, and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Taylor moved for adjournment of the Safety, Advisory, and Transportation Committee meeting; hearing no objection, the meeting adjourned at 8:04 p.m. Mr. Sudler reentered the meeting at 8:04 p.m. Mr. Sudler moved for adjournment of the Council Committee of the Whole meeting; hearing no objection, the meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for acceptance of the Council Committee of the Whole Report, seconded by Mr. Rocha, and unanimously carried. MONTHLY REPORTS – JUNE 2022 By motion of Mr. Hare, seconded by Mr. Rocha, the following monthly reports were accepted by consent agenda: City Assessor’s Report City Council’s Community Enhancement Fund Report City Manager’s Report

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2022 PAGE 18 City Planner’s Report Controller/Treasurer’s Budget Report Fire Chief’s Report Police Chief’s Report REAPPOINTMENTS RECOMMENDED BY MAYOR CHRISTIANSEN - DOVER FOURTH OF JULY CELEBRATION COMMITTEE - ONE-YEAR TERM TO EXPIRE MAY 2023 Mayor Christiansen recommended the following reappointments to the Dover Fourth of July Celebration Committee for one (1) year terms to expire in May 2023. Bret Scott Andrea Maucher Lori Peddicord Carolyn Courtney Justin Strickland By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for approval of the reappointments to the Dover Fourth of July Celebration Committee, as recommended by Mayor Christiansen, seconded by Mr. Rocha, and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. REAPPOINTMENTS RECOMMENDED BY MAYOR CHRISTIANSEN - HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION- THREE-YEAR TERMS TO EXPIRE JULY 2025 Mayor Christiansen recommended the following reappointments to the Historic District Commission for three (3) year terms to expire in July 2025. Jonathan Street Eric Czerwinski By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for approval of the reappointments to the Historic District Commission, as recommended by Mayor Christiansen, seconded by Mr. Rocha, and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. REAPPOINTMENT RECOMMENDED BY MAYOR CHRISTIANSEN - PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE DOVER/KENT COUNTY MPO- TWO-YEAR TERM TO EXPIRE JULY 2024 Mayor Christiansen recommended the following reappointment to the Public Advisory Committee of the Dover/Kent MPO for a two (2) year term to expire in July 2024. Dr. Shanita Powell By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for approval of the reappointments to the Public Advisory Committee of the Dover/Kent County MPO, as recommended by Mayor Christiansen, seconded by Mr. Rocha, and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2022 PAGE 19 REAPPOINTMENT RECOMMENDED BY MAYOR CHRISTIANSEN - SILVER LAKE COMMISSION- TWO-YEAR TERM TO EXPIRE JULY 2025 Mayor Christiansen recommended the following reappointment to the Silver Lake Commission for a two (2) year term to expire in July 2024. John DeMarie By consent agenda, Mr. Hare moved for approval of the reappointments to the Silver Lake Commission, as recommended by Mayor Christiansen, seconded by Mr. Rocha, and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. CITY MANAGER'S ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. David Hugg, III, City Manager, reminded everyone of the City of Dover employee cookout on Thursday, August 18, 2022, and urged members of Council to attend, if possible. Mr. Hugg explained that what makes this event particularly relevant and important are two things. The first is the title, Together We Succeed, which is the title that was picked by the DE&I committee, the sponsors of the event. Mr. Hugg further explained that the idea is to bring as many employees as possible together to get to know each other and exchange thoughts, ideas, and goals, and interact with the members of the Council. COUNCIL MEMBERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Taylor announced that on Wednesday, August 10, 2022, at 6:30 p.m. at Dover Police Department they will be reviewing the proposed loitering ordinance. He encouraged everyone to come out and hear the way it is constructed and the way it is presented. He explained that at some point real soon, hopefully on the September agenda, there will be enough feedback from the constituents to move forward with this ordinance. Mr. Taylor asked for everyone to come out and attend on Wednesday at 6:30 p.m. at the Dover Police Station. Councilman Rocha announced that on Saturday, September 10th, 2022, Dover Christian Church, which is located at 1738 Forest Avenue, is holding the inaugural Providing Dream Achievement Community Resource Expo. This will be done in partnership with the United Way of Delaware, Comcast, Tracy Palmer Ministries, the Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance (IMA), and the Capital School District. They are going to take over the parking lot, have a bunch of activities for children and they are going to have resources for adults. They are going to set up tables for job placement and they are going to be inviting certain companies here that are looking for workers. They will be doing COVID testing and vaccines at the same time. They are going to have information for behavioral health and health and human services. There will be a plethora of resources where residents can come out and gain knowledge including energy tips. They are going to be using the parking lot at Dover High School to park the cars, and then everyone can come over. They will have food, activities and at the end of the expo, there will be a concert. Interested participants in the concert that evening, it's $35 per car and all monies that are generated will go towards activities like this. The expo will be from 12 p.m. to 4 p.m. on Saturday, September 10th. The concert will start that evening at 7 p.m.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2022 PAGE 20 Mr. Neil asked if these events are being linked to the city website and stated that both events are worthwhile. Mr. Neil noted that we need to make sure that we have maximum publicity for these events. Mr. Rocha stated that he failed to mention that Comcast is coming out and providing school supplies. Mr. Rocha noted that they don't even have to pay for the school supplies. They are sponsoring it, they are bagging it up, and then they are going to be handing them out at the event. The intent is, to answer your questions and then get them on the City's website. Also, they have asked the city to even have a table set up to be present out there. I know that they had requested but I must check with the Dover Library to see if they can bring the bookmobile there or some form of literacy that they would like to have out there. Mr. Rocha explained that they are still working on those things within the next week or so. Mr. Rocha stated that once Comcast confirms the date and time with us, the flyers will be sent over. I'll get with Kay and make sure that she has them so they can go in the newsletter on the website. Mr. Anderson announced that the Concert at the Park Series on Thursday will have a great musician, Michelle Danette & Friends, and please feel free to drop by. Mr. Anderson stated that it is going to be a great time and that hopefully, the weather will cooperate this year. Mr. Anderson stated that it did not cooperate last year with her, so she's due. Mr. Anderson stated that it is coming up on the 15th at 6 PM. Madame Clerk has that been confirmed? Council President Sudler thanked everyone for their announcements and wished a happy belated birthday to Councilman Ralph Taylor and Councilman David Anderson. Mr. Sudler also wished Mayor Robin R. Christiansen a happy birthday, too. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Sudler moved for adjournment of the Regular Council meeting, hearing no objection the meeting adjourned at 8:04 p.m. ANDRIA BENNETT CITY CLERK All ordinances, resolutions, motions, and orders adopted by City Council during their Regular Meeting of August 8, 2022, are hereby approved. ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN MAYOR /AB