Regular Council Minutes and Exhibits 1 & 2

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING The Regular City Council Meeting was held on December 9, 2024, at 6:45 p.m. with Council President Anderson presiding. Council members present were Mr. Hare, Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Neil, Dr. Pillsbury, Ms. Arndt, Mr. Rocha, Dr. Sudler, and Mr. Lewis. Staff members present were Fire Chief Carey. Police Chief Johnson, Mr. Hugg, Ms. Marney, Ms. Melson-Williams, Mr. Rodriguez, and Ms. Bennett. Mayor Christiansen was also present. OPEN FORUM The Open Forum was held at 6:18 p.m., prior to commencement of the Official Council Meeting. Council President Anderson declared the Open Forum in session and reminded those present that Council was not in official session and could not take formal action. William Faust, 136 Orchard Avenue, voiced concerns about the stormwater fees and other increasing costs imposed by the city. He noted that the stormwater fee was implemented without prior notification, and while a refund is now being processed due to corporate complaints, he fears this will deplete the electric reserve funds, raising questions about their replenishment. Mr. Faust highlighted several recent financial burdens on residents, including EMS fees, a 2% square footage tax, and increases in electrical rates and services. He questioned what cost-cutting measures have been implemented and raised concerns about the potential impact on the city’s bond rating. While he supports raises for city workers, recognizing their hard work, he pointed out that many residents are struggling with rising costs, often working multiple jobs, and may be hesitant to voice their concerns publicly out of fear of repercussions. Mr. Faust emphasized that he would prefer paying the $39 stormwater fee quarterly rather than facing higher taxes or utility bills later. He urged the city to clarify what cuts are being made to manage these costs, stressing the importance of maintaining essential services like police and EMS. EShed Alston, 406 Arnold Court, addressed Mayor Christiansen to revisit a conversation with him from 2023 concerning the original concept of Lenape Moore Day, which took place on October 9 of that year, not Columbus Day of this year. Mr. Alston recounted meeting an elder during the event, where they exchanged information about shaman rituals, including one performed that day at McKinney's Garage. He has been trying for nearly two (2) years to identify and reconnect with this elder, emphasizing the importance of respecting elders and seeking the mayor's assistance in facilitating this connection. Mr. Alston raised concerns about annexing the Generals Green area into the City of Dover, noting that residents have lived there for nearly 40 years. They highlighted that Dover Police can pursue vehicles up to the gates of the Dover Air Force Base, which requires passing through Generals Green, suggesting the city should also have jurisdiction over the neighborhood. He pointed out that while they pay their electric bill to the City of Dover, they are not considered part of the city, describing it as "taxation without representation." Mike Harrington, 516 Jefferic Boulevard, expressed concerns about the wastewater management tax, advocating for a more equitable distribution method rather than basing it on land. He cited the example of Best Buds, which faces nearly $1,000 per quarter in taxes for its parking lot.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2024 PAGE 2 Mr. Harrington highlighted the challenge of managing this cost and noted his struggle to pass it on to tenants who are already financially burdened. Frank Zabe, 903 Schoolhouse Lane, expressed concerns about the wastewater management tax and the stormwater fees. Mr. Zabe expressed his opposition to the policy, stating that he was a victim of the backflow device mandate for his buildings. He explained that he spent $4,500 to install the system, only to later learn it was unnecessary. Adding to his frustration, a third-party contractor was now requiring them to have the backflow devices inspected annually, which incurs additional costs for hiring a plumber. Mr. Zabe expressed dissatisfaction with being forced to comply with these requirements despite the initial installation not being needed. He stated that he has spoken to Mayor Christiansen and Mr. Hugg, but no one wants to take responsibility for it. Mr. Zabe had asked for a rebate or some kind of concession for spending $4,500 on something that was not needed and now he had found out that he was being billed by another company representing the City of Dover Public Works to have a plumber come and inspect the device, with payment to be submitted for the inspection. He stated that he was having problems with his meters. He has four (4) meters on one of his buildings and he was billed four (4) times for the EMS fee because he has four meters, but he only has one geographical location, and he believes that this is unfair. Mr. Zabe expressed that he has gone to the City of Dover Electric Department and was told that they only collect the money. He has talked with the City Clerk’s Office and council, with no answer as to why. He is a small business owner who has been successful for the past 60 years in the City of Dover and noted that the fees are getting excessive. If they hit each resident once, some of the people like himself are being hit four or five times on the fees and they add up. Dr. Sudler asked if they could have a follow-up on how to merge the meters since at least two of them are duplicates and asked if they could put a priority on following up on that. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Mr. Zabe stated that after making three (3) separate trips to address the issue, he eventually gave up on the matter and expressed that no one was taking responsibility for resolving the matter. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Mr. Zabe shared the contact number for the Army Navy Store. Dr. Sudler noted that he would follow up with the city manager. Responding to Mr. Zabe, Dr. Sudler mentioned that, depending on the circumstances, they may be able to apply a credit to his account, such as his electric account, as a possible solution. Mark Reeves, 10 Tanzanite Court, representing the Emerald Point Homeowner Association, raised concerns about the safety and traffic flow between McKee Road and Gemstone Boulevard. He highlighted that the community has only one (1) entrance and one (1) exit, causing residents to wait around 10 to 15 minutes each time to leave. Despite multiple discussions with DelDOT, the association has not received any resolution regarding the installation of a traffic control device. Mr. Reeves, who has lived in the neighborhood since 2011, pointed out that the community has grown from 70 to 107 homes, and now approximately 250 vehicles enter and exit the neighborhood. Initially, the decision was made not to install a

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2024 PAGE 3 traffic control device but given the growth in the number of homes and vehicles, the need for one has become more pressing. Mr. Reeves further expressed that it is challenging for residents to exit onto McKee Road due to the high traffic speed—45-50 miles per hour in both directions. While there is a traffic light at the intersection of McKee Road and Saulsbury Road Extension, there is no middle relief lane for drivers to pull into, and the area has seen numerous accidents. He mentioned a proposal for a development across Gemstone Boulevard that would create a four-way intersection, but construction for the development has been delayed, with an extension applied for. A traffic light was promised after the fifth certificate of occupancy for the development, but this would mean starting construction without a traffic control device in place, creating potential safety concerns for both the construction entry and exit. Mr. Reeves requested the opportunity to attend an official agenda meeting, where they could speak to the Safety Committee and have the community voice their specific safety concerns. Don Anderson, 505 Oak Lane, shared concerns along with his wife, Cecilia Ventura, about the trash at Silver Lake. Ms. Ventura echoed her husband's concerns, specifically highlighting the litter and shopping carts scattered throughout the neighborhood. She expressed that the presence of trash makes her, and her husband feel unsafe. He mentioned that while they enjoy living in the neighborhood, they wish it were cleaner, as Dover is a city where many people retire and should live up to its reputation for cleanliness. (Exhibit #1) Cecilia Ventura, 505 Oak Lane, expressed concerns about the trash at Silver Lake. She stated that every day that they go into their home, there are litter and shopping carts in the neighborhood. She noted that she and her husband do not feel safe because of what they see. Lachelle Paul, 501 Silverside Drive, expressed frustration about the lack of consistency in trash collection, and street sweeping, despite having signs indicating the scheduled days for pickup, which were Wednesday and Friday. She pointed out that the streets were not being swept, garbage was not being collected, and the streets were not being washed. When there is a holiday pickup, it is often delayed by a day or two (2), and sometimes entire pickup cycles are skipped, forcing residents to wait another week for service. Ms. Paul emphasized that regardless of financial status, all residents pay taxes and pay for trash pickup, so they deserve consistent service. She urged council to ensure that the scheduled pickups are being carried out properly. Ms. Paul acknowledged Chief Johnson and the visible presence of his police officers in the area. She pointed out that when the officers are present, it helps reduce undesirable behavior, but when they leave, it becomes noticeable as people regroup and the situation deteriorates. She emphasized that reviewing the cameras would provide evidence of this pattern. Ms. Paul highlighted that the officers' presence contributes to the safety and well-being of the residents. She complimented Chief Johnson for his attention to this issue and the improvements seen in recent times. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Elder Ellis B. Loudon.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2024 PAGE 4 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Neil. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Ms. Arndt requested that items 32 and 33 be considered in front of Item 29 so all marijuana items could be considered sequentially. Ms. Arndt moved for adoption of the agenda as amended, seconded by Mr. Neil, and carried unanimously. 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. Dr. Sudler requested the removal of Item #10, Discussion – Stormwater Utility Billing Concerns, 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. PRESENTATION – RECOGNITION AND CONGRATULATIONS – DEBBIE A. O'BRIEN The City Clerk read the following Certificate of Recognition and Congratulations into the record: CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION presented to Debbie A. O’Brien In recognition of your outstanding accomplishment in completing the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) certification process and achieving the designation of Certified Public Finance Officer (CFPO) Your dedication to excellence in public finance, unwavering commitment to professional growth, and extraordinary achievement as only the third individual in the State of Delaware to earn this prestigious certification are truly amenable. Your accomplishment reflects your expertise, determination, and leadership in advancing the principles of accountability, transparency, and fiscal responsibility in public service. The City of Dover honors your exceptional achievement and thanks you for your continued contributions to the Finance Department and our community.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2024 PAGE 5 PRESENTATION – RECOGNITION AND CONGRATULATIONS – SHARON J. DUCA The City Clerk read the following Certificate of Recognition and Congratulations into the record: CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION presented to Sharon J. Duca In recognition of your outstanding accomplishment in obtaining the prestigious ICMA-CM (International City/County Management Association Credentialed Manager) designation. Your dedication to professional growth, commitment to excellence in local government management, and tireless efforts to serve your community exemplify the highest standards of leadership and service. This significant milestone reflects your unwavering commitment to ethical governance, continuous improvement, and effective management practices. The City of Dover extends sincere appreciation for your exceptional accomplishment and looks forward to your continued contributions to public service and leadership excellence. PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING – PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2024-29 – AMENDING APPENDIX B – ZONING, ARTICLE 3 – DISTRICT REGULATIONS, SEC. 19 – MANUFACTURING ZONE (M), SEC. 20 – INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING ZONE (IPM), SEC. 23 – AGRICULTURAL ZONE (A), ARTICLE 5 – SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS, SEC. 24 - MARIJUANA RELATED BUSINESSES, ARTICLE 12 – DEFINITIONS (FORMERLY PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2024-25A – RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA LAND USE AND ZONING: CULTIVATION, MANUFACTURING, AND TESTING FACILITIES) A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider approval of proposed zoning text amendments to Appendix B-Zoning, Article 3 – District Regulations, Section 19 – Manufacturing Zone (M), Section 20 – Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone (IPM), Section 23 – Agricultural Zone (A); Article 5 Supplementary Regulations; Section 24 – Marijuana Related Businesses, Article 12 – Definitions. Mr. Neil moved that the Final Reading of Proposed Ordinance #2024-29 be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury, and unanimously carried. (The First Reading of the ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of October 28, 2024.) Ms. Dawn Melson-Williams, Principal Planner, briefed the members of council on the proposed Ordinance #2024-29 – Amending Appendix B-Zoning, Article 3 – District Regulations, Section 19 – Manufacturing Zone (M), Section 20 – Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone (IPM), Section 23 – Agricultural Zone (A); Article 5 Supplementary Regulations; Section 24 – Marijuana Related Businesses, Article 12 – Definitions. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that there have been several inquiries

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2024 PAGE 6 regarding the recreational marijuana land use in general and they have advised those individuals that there was currently a moratorium in place through the end of the calendar year as council was still considering ordinances related to those land use activities. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Ann Marie Townsend, Rossi Group, stated that one of the items under the regulations, once a business was selected through the lottery process, they have 18 months to find a location. There have been businesses selected in Kent County, but they were not tied to location, and they needed to provide the paperwork that verifies that they are eligible under zoning. She noted that there are no specific locations in the city at this point, however, the conversion licenses have been approved but not issued. The medical dispensary that is in the city was one of the recipients of a conversion license, so if the ordinance does not pass to allow that, they would have to relocate. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Townsend clarified that it has nothing to do with manufacturing. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Townsend explained that the map highlights certain areas, marked in purple, where industrial marijuana-related businesses could potentially be located, as long as they aren't covered by the gray boundaries. The areas include limited spaces near Kraft and the Dover Air Force Base, as well as a small location on McKee Road. However, the map doesn't account for specific building footprints, which is important because if a building is partially within the eligible area, the entire building may not qualify for use by these businesses. Therefore, while the map shows potential locations, the actual availability of space and building suitability could limit the number of businesses that can be established in these zones. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Ms. Townsend explained that Mr. Lyon and his staff had conducted a model to identify the locations where industrial marijuana-related businesses could potentially be established based on the map. These locations would not require major upgrades, and any necessary upgrades would be the responsibility of the applicants, not the city. However, she noted that some areas would be ineligible because they would not be able to accommodate the fire flow requirements. Specifically, certain locations near Bay Road and Dover Air Force Base might not be suitable, depending on their water usage. If a site cannot meet these regulations, individuals will not be able to open a facility there. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Ms. Townsend clarified the distinction between manufacturing and cultivation in the context of marijuana-related businesses. She explained that cultivation refers to the growing process of the operation, which consumes a significant amount of water and electricity. On the other hand, product manufacturing involves taking the grown plants and processing them into various end products, such as vape oil, edible products, or raw flour. Dr. Sudler expressed his concern about the cultivation component of the ordinance, stating that he would not vote in favor of it. He believed that cultivation would place additional strain on the water system, especially since upgrades are already being considered to address wastewater and other infrastructure issues. While he is not opposed to the manufacturing or testing facility components of the ordinance, his concern centers on the impact of cultivation. Council President Anderson declared the hearing open.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2024 PAGE 7 Dina Vendetti, 435 North DuPont Highway, represented the Central Delaware Chamber of Commerce and emphasized that the Central Delaware Chamber of Commerce's stance on the ordinances has remained consistent throughout the process. She pointed out that, based on the ordinance under discussion and the associated questions and concerns, it appears the city would gain no fiscal benefits from its approval and could face potential costs. For these and other reasons, she expressed that pursuing the ordinance might not be a prudent decision for the city. Responding to Ms. Paul, Mr. Hugg stated that all proceeds from the licensing and regulation portion of the marijuana ordinance are directed at the state, with no local share of licensing or fees. He explained that the city's revenue would depend on the utility usage of the operation, such as water, sewer, and electric services, for which the operation would pay like any other large customer. Additionally, he noted that there might be property tax benefits depending on the level of investment, particularly in manufacturing. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Hugg clarified that they could not estimate potential revenue without knowing the scope of the operation. He explained that until an application is submitted detailing the amount of land to be cultivated and the space allocated for manufacturing, they would not have a solid basis for determining potential revenue figures. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. Townsend stated that Mr. Lyon had analyzed models to estimate water usage and projected revenue for a 100,000-square-foot facility. She noted that water revenue would be a minimal $3,000 annually. However, significant revenue was projected from electricity, based on other growth facilities in the state. With an average consumption of 5.36 kilowatt hours per square foot, a 100,000-square-foot facility could generate approximately $462,000 annually in electricity revenue. A portion of this would cover power purchase costs, but some would benefit the city. She emphasized that this would likely be the primary source of revenue, depending on the facility's size. The analysis used a large facility to ensure the system could support it, acknowledging that smaller facilities would have reduced electricity usage and revenue. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Townsend stated that other facilities can cultivate, manufacture, and test all in one in the state and that is where they are fully vertically integrated. A facility in Newark called Fresh Delaware grows manufactured products, testing, and retail all at the same location. William Faust, 136 Orchard Avenue, inquired whether, given limited resources, there would be sufficient funding for the Police and Fire Departments if the policy were implemented. He also asked whether there was any information about the storage of chemicals for marijuana manufacturing and any security concerns for the police associated. He referenced Chief Johnson’s earlier statement about being understaffed and suggested that an additional 10 officers would be beneficial. Mr. Faust expressed concern about whether the city has enough manpower to manage these responsibilities while ensuring public safety. EShed Alston, of 406 Arnold Court, discussed that there were thousands of dollars made on the streets every day and the idea that there was no value added to marijuana and street-level drugs in Delaware was ridiculous because there is a lot of money involved. Citing reports from California and other areas that have embraced similar policies, he highlighted public safety

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2024 PAGE 8 concerns, such as accidents caused by individuals under the influence. Mr. Alston raised two key issues: the economic viability of the drug trade in Dover, with marijuana being a substantial part of it, and the question of who would benefit financially from it and where the money would go. There being no one else present wishing to speak, Council President Anderson declared the public hearing closed. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. Townsend explained that the state enforces strict security measures through statutes and regulations. Every plant and growth are tagged and barcoded, allowing it to be monitored from cultivation to product creation and final sale. She noted that facilities must comply with stringent security standards, including video surveillance and secure storage requirements. Additionally, manufacturing, cultivation, and testing facilities are not open to the public and have security procedures to restrict access to areas where products are handled. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Chief Johnson acknowledged ongoing concerns and, referring to Ms. Townsend's remarks, questioned the necessity of strict regulations for retail-destined products from seed to sale. He noted that tracking valuable items invites risks such as burglary at growth, testing, or cultivation sites, hijacking during transit, and robbery during delivery. While expressing concerns across the board, he clarified that he did not want to sound negative, since they were not discussing the significant number of locations, but all the concerns are omnipresent. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Townsend clarified that, as of now, there are no recreational marijuana facilities in the state. Regarding conversion licenses, she explained that existing growers are expected to transition into the cultivation and manufacturing of the product. She stressed that they are still in the early stages of the process and have not yet reached the point where any legal marijuana is being sold. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Townsend clarified that facilities within the state, whether recreational or medical, were already engaged in production and manufacturing activities. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Townsend stated that she was not aware of any reports of criminal activity at marijuana facilities, whether recreational or medicinal. She mentioned having discussions with municipalities where the facilities are located and with the Office of the Marijuana Commissioner, noting that the issue had not been raised. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Townsend explained that security measures begin at the very start of the process, as soon as a facility is licensed to cultivate. While she admitted some uncertainty about the initial source of the seeds, she emphasized that once the seeds enter the cultivation facility, until it is sold, they are tracked throughout the process. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Townsend stated that she was unaware of any incidents or increases in crime related to marijuana facilities. She mentioned having spoken with staff in Milford and Newark, where the facilities are located, and confirmed that no issues had been raised. Mr. Lewis referenced a previous meeting where Chief Johnson confirmed that the current

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2024 PAGE 9 medical marijuana facility in Dover, Best Buds, had only experienced one alarm, with no other incidents. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Chief Johnson clarified that there have been no incidents of any significance related to the marijuana product, they have only responded to calls you would except for a typical address. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Townsend explained that the industrial zones, where marijuana facilities are located, have several warehouses. She pointed out that multiple factors must be considered when looking for suitable spaces, ensuring that the building footprint does not interfere with required distance regulations. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Townsend acknowledged that most of the industrial zones are located in the inner population of Dover. However, she pointed out exceptions like the Enterprise Business Park and Kraft Foods, which are closer to town, but are separated from residential areas. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Townsend highlighted the potential on Horse Pond Road for marijuana facilities but noted a limitation due to the Airport Environs Zoning Overlay (AE). The map indicated that the clear zone and APZ-1 areas prohibited food manufacturing. As a result, marijuana products would not be allowed in those zones since marijuana would be considered consumable, which cannot be produced in areas where food manufacturing was prohibited. Mr. Neil expressed that they are on the horns of a dilemma. He acknowledged that the state has legalized marijuana, and the focus would be to determine where it should be allowed and how to control the impact on the community. He recognized that while the benefits would not be significant, one advantage would be that the marijuana facilities could help manage the risks associated with marijuana laced with dangerous substances like fentanyl. Mr. Neil stated that marijuana legalization would not be a cure-all for the city, and the financial gains would not be big, only limiting too small amounts of money from utilities like electricity and water. Mr. Neil stated that it would generate property tax revenue by filling empty spaces and serving a purpose. Mr. Neil explained that if he was in the legislature he would have voted against it because he believed that there is a dependency, except for the medical aspect of it. He noted that from the medical aspect, without the conversion license, the one marijuana facility could not stay open. Mr. Neil believed that it needs to be approved and that placing the marijuana facilities in the best possible locations, whether for retail or cultivation, would be best. This is the best option for them because it cannot be stopped. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Townsend stated that it was unlikely the state would return a portion of its revenue to municipalities once the marijuana program was in place. She mentioned that if the League of Local Governments felt strongly about the issue, they could potentially lobby the state to secure even just 1% of the 15% revenue. She emphasized that they would need to rely on the League of Local Governments to advocate for them. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Townsend stated that she had not heard of any plans for the state to allocate additional revenue to municipalities beyond fees. However, she noted that each year,

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2024 PAGE 10 the League of Local Governments determines what their legislative priorities are. With many municipalities adopting ordinances to allow cannabis to some degree within their limits, Ms. Townsend emphasized the importance of those municipalities continuing to bring up the issue to advocate for any potential benefits. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Townsend clarified that it was always possible to amend the zoning ordinance. If the municipality decided to expand the zones in the future, they could do so. She noted that while it was more challenging to reverse changes, it is easier to expand, but that could always be an option. Ms. Arndt reflected on the long process of considering the ordinance, noting that public comments were roughly split, with a slight majority against it during this evening session. She acknowledged the mixed opinions heard during the listening sessions and public comment hearing, emphasizing that marijuana was legal statewide. Ms. Arndt agreed with many of Mr. Neil’s points and noted that council had made a good-faith effort to address concerns. She highlighted the stringent state regulations and the additional layers of considerations in the ordinance, such as odor, safety, and utilities. She expressed satisfaction with the compromise reached, even though she anticipated their stance might not be popular, suggesting that if half the people were upset, they may have successfully balanced both sides of the issue. Mr. Neil moved for the adoption of Ordinance #2024-29. The motion was seconded by Ms. Arndt. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Ms. Melson-Williams explained that the motion was to approve Ordinance #2024-29 presented for its final reading. The ordinance addressed manufacturing, cultivation, and testing. She noted that it established where the uses can happen, supplementary regulations, and definitions. Responding to Mr. Hare, Ms. Melson-Williams clarified that the ordinance would establish that the manufacturer's cultivation, facilities, manufacturing facilities, and testing would be allowed in the Manufacturing Zone (M). These same uses for the marijuana cultivation facilities, marijuana manufacturing facilities, and testing facilities would be allowed in the Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone (IPM Zone) and marijuana cultivation facilities in the Agricultural Zone (A). The ordinance further outlines the supplementary regulations and specific definitions for each land use category. Responding to Dr. Pillsbury, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that the ordinance addresses three specific land use activities: cultivation, manufacturing, and testing. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Townsend described the marijuana industry as a developing sector. She noted that Del-Tech offers a training program for the marijuana business industry. She also mentioned concerns raised by the commissioner’s office about mold, pesticides, and toxins in plants due to a lack of oversight in cultivation, as well as the concerns Mr. Neil raised about the fentanyl in the plants. While a PhD in chemistry is not required to work in the industry, some level of education and training is necessary. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Ms. Townsend stated that the initiative would provide an

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2024 PAGE 11 opportunity to create jobs, though on a small scale. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Townsend stated that waste from marijuana manufacturing is addressed in the regulations. While she is unsure of the specific disposal methods, she noted that such waste cannot simply be disposed of. Dr. Sudler explained that he would be voting no, citing concerns that high demand from manufacturing could necessitate upgrades to the water system infrastructure, with the financial burden falling on the constituents. Mr. Neil moved for the adoption of Ordinance #2024-29. The motion was seconded by Ms. Arndt and carried, by a roll call vote of eight (8) yes (Hare, Boggerty, Neil, Pillsbury, Arndt, Rocha, Lewis, Anderson), one (1) no (Sudler), Council adopted Ordinance #2024-29, as follows: BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: That Appendix B – Zoning, Article 3 – District Regulations, Section 19 – Manufacturing Zone (M) be amended as follows: Section 19. – Manufacturing Zone (M). 19.1 Uses permitted. No building or premises shall be used, and no building or part of a building shall be erected, which is arranged, intended, or designed to be used, in whole or in part, for any purpose, except the following, and in accordance with performance standards procedure as set forth in article 5, section 8 and subject to the site development plan approval as set forth in article 10, section 2: 19.17 Railroad yards, sidings, and storage facilities. 19.18 Marijuana cultivation facilities, marijuana manufacturing facilities, and marijuana testing facilities subject to the requirements outlined in article 5, section 24. 19.19 Accessory uses: (a) On-site offices, clinics, food service facilities, recreation facilities and child day care services collocated within the permitted use and limited to exclusive use by employees, and such other accessory uses and structures clearly incidental to, and customary to and associated with the permitted use. (b) The following uses may be permitted as conditional uses if approved by the planning commission in accordance with the provisions and procedures set forth in article 10, section 1 and any specified requirements set forth below: (1) Associated retail uses in conjunction with and accessory to a permitted use, provided that the associated retail uses do not occupy more than 30

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2024 PAGE 12 percent of the gross floor area of the building or group of buildings on a lot. Parking shall be provided at a rate of one parking space per 300 square feet of retail space for the exclusive use of retail customers in addition to the bulk parking requirements of this zoning district for a particular use. (2) Outside storage which is incidental to the primary uses on the lot, within a completely enclosed and secure area appropriately screened from public view and not in any required setback from property lines. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: That Appendix B – Zoning, Article 3 – District Regulations, Section 20 – Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone (IPM) be amended by inserting the text indicated in bold, blue font as follows: Section 20. – Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone (IPM). 20.1 Uses permitted. No building or premises shall be used and no building or part of a building shall be erected, which is arranged, intended, or designed to be used, in whole or in part, for any purpose, except the following, and in accordance with performance standards procedure as set forth in article 5, section 8, and subject to site development plan approval as set forth in article 10, section 2: 20.19 Marijuana cultivation facilities, marijuana manufacturing facilities, and marijuana testing facilities, subject to the requirements outlined in Article 5, Section 24. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: That Appendix B – Zoning, Article 3 – District Regulations, Section 23 – Agricultural Zone (A) be amended by inserting the text indicated in bold, blue font as follows: Section 23 - Agricultural Zone (A). 23.1 Uses Permitted. In an agricultural zone (A), no land or building shall be used and no building or part of a building shall be erected or altered which is arranged, intended or designed to be used, in whole or in part, for any uses except the following: 23.17 Marijuana cultivation facilities, subject to the requirements outlined in Article 5, Section 24. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: That Appendix B – Zoning, Article 5 – Supplementary Regulations, be amended by inserting the text indicated in bold, blue font as follows: Section 24. Marijuana Related Businesses.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2024 PAGE 13 24.1 Purpose. The purpose of this section is to protect public health and safety by applying standards under which marijuana related businesses may operate within the City of Dover, Delaware. 24.2 A compassion center is classified as retail use and is permitted in all commercial zones where retail uses are permitted. 24.3 Where permitted in accordance with Article 3, marijuana cultivation facilities are subject to the following restrictions: 24.31 The building footprint within which a marijuana cultivation facility is to be located shall be at least 750 feet away from any residential zone, and any private or public K-12 school, hospital, college or university, child day care center, or State of Delaware licensed substance abuse disorder treatment facility. 24.32 All marijuana cultivation facilities shall install odor control technology, as necessary, to control ventilation at the establishment in such a manner that no odor from cannabis products can be detected outside the building on the same property or on adjacent properties or in public rights-of-way, or within any other unit located within the same building. The facility owner/operator shall properly maintain all odor mitigation equipment to ensure maximum efficiency. An application for a certificate of occupancy shall be accompanied by a certification by a Professional Engineer, Certified Industrial Hygienist, or other equivalently qualified professional that proposed odor control measures will effectively eliminate outdoor odors associated with the cultivation of marijuana. 24.33 An application for a certificate of occupancy shall be accompanied by a photocopy of a valid license as required by Chapter 13, Title 4 of the Delaware State Code. 24.34 All building openings, entries and windows shall be located, covered or screened in such a manner as to prevent a view into the interior from any public or semipublic area. 24.35 The applicant is responsible for complying with the Code of Ordinances of the City of Dover, Delaware including all provisions in Chapter 110, Article II, Sec. 110-31 and Chapter 110, Article III, Sec. 110-63. 24.36 The applicant is responsible for all costs associated with infrastructure upgrades, alterations, changes, or extensions required to provide adequate water, wastewater, and electric utility service, including off-site upgrades required to support the demand for water, wastewater, and electric utility service. 24.4 Where permitted in accordance with Article 3, marijuana product manufacturing facilities are subject to the following restrictions:

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2024 PAGE 14 24.41 The building footprint within which a marijuana product manufacturing facility is to be located shall be at least 750 feet away from any residential zone, and from the lot line of any private or public K-12 school, hospital, college or university, child day care center, or State of Delaware licensed substance abuse disorder treatment facility. 24.42 All marijuana product manufacturing facilities shall install odor control technology, as necessary, to control ventilation at the establishment in such a manner that no odor from cannabis products can be detected outside the building on the same property or on adjacent properties or in public rights-of-way, or within any other unit located within the same building. The facility owner/operator shall properly maintain all odor mitigation equipment to ensure maximum efficiency. An application for a certificate of occupancy shall be accompanied by a certification by a Professional Engineer, Certified Industrial Hygienist, or other equivalently qualified professional that proposed odor control measures will effectively eliminate outdoor odors associated with the manufacturing of marijuana. 24.43 An application for a certificate of occupancy shall be accompanied by a photocopy of a valid license as required by Chapter 13, Title 4 of the Delaware State Code. 24.44 All building openings, entries, and windows shall be located, covered, or screened in such a manner as to prevent a view into the interior from any public or semipublic area. 24.45 The applicant is responsible for complying with the Code of Ordinances of the City of Dover, Delaware including all provisions in Chapter 110, Article II, Sec. 110-31 and Chapter 110, Article III, Sec. 110-63. 24.46 The applicant is responsible for all costs associated with infrastructure upgrades, alterations, changes, or extensions required to provide adequate water, wastewater, and electric utility service, including off-site upgrades required to support the demand for water, wastewater, and electric utility service. 24.5 Where permitted in accordance with Article 3, marijuana testing facilities are subject to the following restrictions: 24.51 The building footprint upon which a marijuana testing facility is to be located shall be at least 750 feet away from any residential zone, and from the lot line of any private or public K-12 school, hospital, child day care center, or State of Delaware licensed substance abuse disorder treatment facility. 24.52 An application for a certificate of occupancy shall be accompanied by a photocopy of a valid license as required by Chapter 13, Title 4 of the Delaware State Code.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2024 PAGE 15 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: That Appendix B – Zoning, Article 12 – Definitions, be amended by inserting the text indicated in bold, blue font in proper alphabetical order as follows: Article 12. – Definitions. Compassion center means an entity registered pursuant to § 4914A of Title 16 of the Delaware State Code that acquires, possesses, sells, supplies, or dispenses marijuana, paraphernalia, or related supplies and educational materials to registered qualifying patients who have designated the dispenser to cultivate marijuana for their medical use and the registered designated caregivers of these patients. Marijuana cultivation facility or cultivation facility means an entity licensed by the State of Delaware to cultivate, prepare, and package marijuana and sell marijuana to retail marijuana stores, to marijuana product manufacturing facilities, and to other marijuana cultivation facilities, but not to consumers. A marijuana cultivation facility may not produce marijuana concentrates, tinctures, extracts, or other marijuana products. Marijuana product manufacturing facility means an entity licensed by the State of Delaware to: purchase marijuana; manufacture, prepare, and package marijuana products; and sell marijuana and marijuana products to other marijuana product manufacturing facilities and retail marijuana stores, but not to consumers. Marijuana testing facility means an entity licensed by the State of Delaware to test marijuana for potency and contaminants. ADOPTED: December 9, 2024 PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING – PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2024-30 – AMENDING APPENDIX B – ZONING, ARTICLE 3 – DISTRICT REGULATIONS, SEC. 16 – HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL ZONE (C-4), ARTICLE 5 – SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS, SEC. 24 – MARIJUANA RELATED BUSINESSES, ARTICLE 12 – DEFINITIONS (FORMERLY PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2024-25B – RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA LAND USES AND ZONING: RETAIL MARIJUANA STORES) A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider approval of proposed zoning text amendments to Appendix B - Zoning, Article 3 – District Regulations, Section 16 – Highway Commercial Zone (C-4); Article 5 – Supplementary Regulations, Section 24 – Marijuana Related Businesses; Article 12 – Definitions. Mr. Neil moved that the Final Reading of proposed Ordinance #2024-30 be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury, and unanimously carried. (The First Reading of the ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of October 28, 2024.) Ms. Dawn Melson-Williams, Principal Planner, briefed the members of council on the proposed Ordinance #2024-30 – Amending Appendix B- Zoning, Article 3 – District Regulations, Section

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2024 PAGE 16 16 – Highway Commercial Zone (C-4); Article 5 – Supplementary Regulations, Section 24 – Marijuana-Related Businesses; Article 12 – Definitions. Responding to Dr. Pillsbury, Ms. Townsend referred to the map and highlighted that the red areas that were not encumbered by a gray or yellow buffer were the areas where facilities could be located. She noted that the way the ordinance was written, a retail facility cannot be located within one (1) mile of another retail facility within the city. The ability to get more than three (3) facilities would be highly unlikely because the math would not work out by the time the distances were met. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. Townsend stated that the limit on the number of retail licenses is six (6) for Kent County. Responding to Ms. Arndt, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that in order to prohibit something in the zoning ordinance, it would need to be specifically listed in the zoning ordinance. If there were no provisions in place, for example, a retail store was to come to Dover, and they would have to look wherever retail establishments were allowed. There either needs to be an ordinance that places them in a specific zone with conditions, something that prohibits it, or they could choose not to do anything. She noted that not doing anything means they would have to look at it like any other retail establishment in the zoning ordinance because it was not specifically eliminated by that product type. Certain zones allow for retail that does have some prohibitions on their product type. If there is no action, then the interpretation would reside with the Planning Staff and the zoning ordinance. Responding to Ms. Arndt, Ms. Townsend concurred with Ms. Melson-Williams in the absence of addressing the use based on the type of product. She explained that it was basically what that use was, so manufacturing is considered manufacturing, and there are places in the zoning ordinance where, for example, someone could have retail, but they cannot sell gasoline. Ms. Townsend noted that unless it was expressly prohibited, it would fall to that use. Responding to Ms. Arndt, Ms. Townsend clarified that if an ordinance was not in place after December 31, 2024, the use could be permitted in any zone where retail was allowed. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Townsend stated that if they wanted to extend the moratorium it would need to be published on the agenda in advance of a meeting. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Anderson stated that he would not call for a special meeting. They have been doing this for two (2) years. Responding to Mr. Hare, Ms. Townshend clarified that if nothing was done before the end of the year, then the retail sale of marijuana could be anywhere where retail sales were allowed, including downtown. Council President Anderson declared the hearing open. Mark Pugh, 728 Leipsic Road, addressed his concerns about the distance between the businesses, noting that similar rules do not apply to other establishments like gas stations or liquor stores. He

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2024 PAGE 17 highlighted that those regulations seem inconsistent compared to state guidelines for distances from schools and churches. Mr. Pugh mentioned that he had received an offer on their property and implied the importance of the matter in that context. He emphasized the significance of the issue, agreeing with the council president that only six (6) licenses would be available across Kent County. He expressed skepticism about Dover obtaining all of them. Drawing on his own experience as a council member, he advised against imposing further restrictions, as the current limitations are already substantial. He urged council to amend the ordinance, either removing the additional restrictions entirely or aligning them with the state’s existing standards for schools and churches. Michael Pillsbury, 141 Shinnecock Road, expressed support for businesses in Dover selling marijuana, highlighting Puffster as a suitable candidate. He noted that such businesses could boost foot traffic on Loockerman Street. Mr. Pillsbury referenced an article stating that in areas where marijuana has been legalized, teen usage has declined because legal access is more difficult for underage individuals compared to the black market. Aaron Epstein, Chief Operating Officer of CannTech Research, operating as Best Buds in Dover, expressed gratitude for being part of the local business community and appreciated the council's thorough debate on the issue. He emphasized the importance of allowing their marijuana business to continue operating in the city, highlighting the job opportunities it creates. Operating for two years as a unionized shop, he pointed out that the industry promotes unionization, providing residents and constituents with benefits such as job security, health insurance, retirement plans, and other employee protections. He highlighted the wide range of opportunities that the marijuana industry offers, benefiting a wide range of individuals, including veterans, recent college graduates, pharmacy technicians, former teachers, and even ex-police officers. He emphasized the industry's capacity to unite people from various disciplines into meaningful employment roles, such as scientists, laborers, and growers. Mr. Epstein stated that another benefit to the program was designed to stamp out the black market largely in its implementation and what they have seen in other states was that when the practice of retail is banned, they are promoting the black market. Mr. Epstein addressed safety concerns and discussions that there would be violence or there might not be enough ambulances, police officers, or the fire department to handle the influx of crime that would come about from allowing businesses to operate. He stated that it was not true. He pointed out the successful integration of marijuana businesses in cities like Newark, Jersey City, Hoboken, and Paterson, New Jersey, where no significant issues have arisen after two years of legalization. He criticized opponents for spreading fear and adopting a "not in my backyard" mindset, advocating instead for a safe and regulated environment in Dover. Lachelle Paul, 501 Silverside Drive, expressed concerns about legalizing marijuana in relation to fentanyl overdoses, as Mr. Neil had previously stated. She highlighted that New Street averages about two overdoses per week involving illegal drugs. She emphasized the dangers of not knowing the contents of illegal drugs. While acknowledging that marijuana is now legal, she questioned whether individuals already using drugs would travel 20-30 minutes for legal purchases when they could easily obtain substances around the street corner. She directed her concerns to Chief Johnson, asking for statistics on marijuana drug use and the impact of the

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2024 PAGE 18 black market. She suggested that understanding current black-market trends and incorporating those numbers, how would help with those statistics if they made it legal. Responding to Ms. Paul, Chief Johnson noted that her question would be a lot to unpack and in the interest of brevity, the greater Dover, because it is one of those situations where in the profession, they call crime that occurs across jurisdictional lines. He explained that while Dover has a significant drug market, some of it is nearby, while most of it comes from far away. The idea of the network of illicit drug distribution at times is complex. He clarified that his earlier comments about potential concerns were not intended to be alarmist but from someone who has dialed into the intel of the conditions that they have there. Chief Johnson stated that it was not necessarily persuaded that one (1) or two (2) retail establishments to speak to the issue of the statistics of what they would encounter in law enforcement would move the needle that much. Comparing marijuana retail establishments to alcohol distribution centers, he suggested similar issues could arise, such as loitering or solicitation. Chief Johnson does not necessarily believe that adding legal retail in the city would solve juvenile consumption. He offered to provide supporting data in the future, should council request it. EShed Alston, 406 Arnold Court, shared his personal experience with the street-level marijuana trade, emphasizing its reality as an economic resource and supporting efforts to regulate and redirect the associated money into legitimate channels. He acknowledged the existence of the black market and recognized it would continue to compete with legal establishments but argued that regulation provides a better alternative for managing the industry. Mr. Alston defended Councilman Hare’s concerns as legitimate and expressed support for legal marijuana businesses despite potential competition. He highlighted the importance of ensuring that communities of color, often at the forefront of street-level trade, have opportunities to participate in the legal industry, referencing promises made during legalization discussions. He called for prioritizing education and outreach to younger users, advocating for a "teach one, reach one" approach to guide them toward safer, regulated products. Mr. Alston urged the council to begin meaningful discussions that focus not just on immediate concerns but on long- term benefits for future generations. Cindy Christiansen, 714 Carroll Street, identifying as someone who does not use marijuana, raised several concerns about its legalization and regulation. She criticized the lack of clear enforcement mechanisms, fines, and ordinances at both state and local levels, citing examples of public consumption violations in Dover, such as smoking on sidewalks and in cars. She expressed doubts about the police force's ability to address these issues effectively, including the capacity to test marijuana intoxication. While she supported medical marijuana dispensaries requiring prescriptions, she opposed opening dispensaries to the public, arguing it wouldn't prevent issues like fentanyl contamination. Ms. Christiansen emphasized the dangers of fentanyl-laced products and questioned the inconsistency in distancing requirements, pointing out that cultivation facilities must be 700 feet from schools while retail locations need only be 500 feet away. She also expressed frustration that churches were not considered in zoning regulations, despite their

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2024 PAGE 19 activities during the week. Ms. Christiansen referenced other cities like Dewey Beach rejecting marijuana sales and argued that Dover, as the capital of the first state, should follow suit. She concluded by opposing the legalization of public dispensaries, advocating instead of stricter regulations, and rejecting marijuana sales in the city. Eric Czerwinski, 34 Maple Lane, raised concerns about the high-security requirements for marijuana businesses, suggesting that such establishments are not suitable neighbors and could attract crime. He highlighted the differences between medicinal and recreational marijuana sales, noting that recreational sales would bring significantly increased foot traffic and related challenges. Drawing comparisons to experiences in states like Colorado and California, he argued that legal retail sales often fail to eliminate the black market due to high costs, with many consumers continuing to buy from illegal sources. He warned of potential issues such as drug dealers loitering in retail parking lots, increased crime along major corridors like DuPont Highway, and the stigma associated with marijuana sales, which could deter other businesses from investing nearby. He also expressed concerns about straw buyers enabling underage access to marijuana and noted that any potential revenue from sales would likely be offset by increased enforcement costs. Mr. Czerwinski concluded by urging the council to vote against allowing retail marijuana sales in Dover and Kent County, presenting it as a straightforward decision to protect the community. Dina Vendetti, 435 North DuPont Highway, representing the Central Delaware Chamber of Commerce, reiterated her opposition to the retail sale of marijuana in Dover. She emphasized that the Chamber had consulted with chamber executives from across the country, particularly from cities where marijuana retail has already been implemented, to learn from their experiences. She shared several concerns, notably that the legalization of marijuana retail led to increased illicit drug use and a rise in crime. She noted that the black market did not disappear but instead grew due to the high costs of marijuana in dispensaries, with drug dealers often congregating in parking lots of legal retail facilities. The majority of those she spoke with across various cities, including Denver, Portland, and Atlantic City, advised against allowing retail marijuana sales, citing negative impacts on crime and community welfare. She also emphasized that restricting marijuana sales could help a community grow economically and become a more attractive destination rather than a pass- through area. Ms. Vendetti reaffirmed the Central Delaware Chamber of Commerce's position against the retail sale of marijuana, urging the council to consider the lessons learned from other areas that have already experienced these challenges. Scott Kidner, 3 Shinnecock Road, reiterated his strong opposition to the proposed marijuana retail sales ordinance. He shared a recent experience at Elizabeth W. Murphey School’s Christmas gift-wrapping event, where he spoke with Michael Kopp, Executive Director, who expressed concerns about the city's decision to legalize marijuana sales. Mr. Kidner highlighted the challenges faced by the 26 young people at Elizabeth W. Murphey School, suggesting that introducing legal marijuana sales would make it harder for them and other residents by glorifying drug use and making it more accessible.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2024 PAGE 20 He argued that the decision to allow marijuana sales would negatively impact the progress made by the Downtown Dover Partnership in revitalizing the area, fearing it would deter people from coming to the city. Mr. Kidner emphasized that the issue is not about access, money, or taxes but about the type of community Dover wants to be. He urged the council to reconsider the ordinance, suggesting that allowing marijuana sales would make the city a place where people "walk to get their drugs," which he believed would harm the city's reputation and future growth. Bill Winters, 117 Loockerman Street, expressed opposition to the retail sale of marijuana. He raised concerns about the current widespread public marijuana use, noting that it is already a problem in the city, particularly in the downtown area. Mr. Winters emphasized that the police force struggles to enforce existing laws around public marijuana use and that allowing retail sales would exacerbate the issue. He described how, during events like the St. Patrick's Day parade, marijuana use was persistent, with the smell infiltrating businesses and affecting those with health conditions. (Exhibit #2) Mr. Winters pointed out the challenges faced by businesses in downtown Dover due to the existing marijuana use and argued that retail sales would undermine the city's revitalization efforts. He emphasized the importance of the vision for downtown Dover's future, which he believes would be threatened by the legalization of marijuana retail sales. Mr. Winters voiced his opposition to retail sales both in the downtown area and along major highways, stressing that the city's progress and revitalization efforts would be compromised. Jun Xu, White Oak, explained that he moved to the area seeking a safer, higher quality of life for his children. He expressed concern over the proximity of marijuana retail stores to residential areas, particularly with a 500-foot buffer, questioning how such proximity would affect families and children. Mr. Xu was unclear on how the buffer zones work and worried about the pervasive smell of marijuana and its impact on the community. He emphasized the desire for a clean, safe environment for his children and hoped that the council would make a wise decision in consideration of the community's wellbeing. Joan Denney, 350 North State Street, and the vice chair of the Dover Planning Commission, shared her opposition to the retail sale of marijuana. She explained that she made the motion at the planning commission meeting to simply "say no" to marijuana, reflecting her concerns about its potential impact on the city. While she might have been okay with restricting marijuana sales to the highway, she strongly opposed its presence downtown, especially with the upcoming investments in downtown development. Ms. Denney highlighted the efforts to revitalize Downtown Dover and expressed her belief that allowing marijuana retail sales in the area would undermine those efforts. She and her husband, who enjoy visiting downtown for local events and dining, were concerned about the negative effects such a decision might have on the community's vibrancy. Ms. Denney continued her remarks by emphasizing that she didn't believe downtown Dover, particularly areas like Lockerman Street, was an appropriate location for retail marijuana sales. She stressed that events like St. Patrick's Day exemplified the potential for downtown Dover to thrive with community activities and foot traffic, and the addition of marijuana sales would not be beneficial for its growth. Ms. Denney expressed a preference for not having marijuana sales at

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2024 PAGE 21 all but suggested that if retail marijuana was allowed, it should only be permitted on the highway, rather than in the downtown area. She also voiced concerns about the growing disregard for laws, referencing her background in law enforcement, and suggested that once marijuana retail sales were allowed, it would be difficult to reverse the decision. There being no one else present wishing to speak, Council President Anderson declared the public hearing closed. Dr. Pillsbury made a motion for the Recreational Marijuana Ordinance Amendment #2, the building footprint within which a retail marijuana store is to be located shall be at least 500 feet from the lot line of any other retail marijuana store within the City of Dover. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Mr. Anderson stated that several buffers would not be qualified. If they look at the map and ignore the grayed-out areas, the red would be in that area with that buffer. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. Townsend stated that by looking at the map, there could be potentially a few more locations on the east side of the highway, if the one (1) mile was off, particularly as it gets closer to Leipsic Road and North State Street. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. Townsend stated that there looks to be potentially two (2) locations if they go north of Best Buds and possibly one if they go south if the mile is taken off. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Townsend clarified that the Town of Smyrna has already implemented ordinances for marijuana sales, treating them in a manner similar to liquor stores. She also mentioned that the City of Milford is currently in the process of developing its ordinances regarding marijuana, with two versions of the ordinance pending. One version would be a prohibition on retail marijuana sales, while the other would allow it as a conditional use. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Townsend stated that as of right now, it is only for medical purposes, but facilities are eligible for a conversion license, which means that they would be able to sell retail as well. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Townsend stated that the new location would be within one mile of an existing location, so it would apply to future locations. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Townsend stated that as the ordinance was written, Best Buds would be grandfathered in. If nothing has passed, they would have two (2) weeks where there would be no rules in effect. The question would be if property owners come in requesting the ability to open something, what would the city do? She does not know that they can administratively put it on hold until the ordinances are approved. She noted that there was a pending ordinance doctrine where if there was a pending ordinance, they would not approve of something contrary to it. Responding to Ms. Townsend, Mr. Rodriguez clarified that if an ordinance was pending approval, actions that would conflict with the potential ordinance should not be approved.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2024 PAGE 22 Ms. Arndt stated that this would be the first time that they would be seeing the change from one (1) mile to 500 feet and that the maps were based on the information presented. To her understanding, the 500 feet is consistent with other buffers within the ordinance, but if they have come that far with one (1) mile in the ordinance, she would not be comfortable with changing it via an amendment. Responding to Dr. Pillsbury, Mr. Anderson stated that if they do not allow retail, then they would not be allowed to do the conversion license, and it has been said that they would shut their doors and move their jobs. Dr. Pillsbury expressed concerns about losing a business in Dover when the business has already invested a tremendous amount of money in security and everything. She noted that it does not make any sense to pass an ordinance that would put them out of business. Dr. Pillsbury stated that the first thing they should do was to approve the ordinance and then work on the amendments. Responding to Dr. Pillsbury, Mr. Anderson stated that parliamentary-wise, they could not do that. Dr. Pillsbury noted that she has concerns about shutting down the ordinance and not allowing retail sales in the city. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Townsend clarified that the ordinance currently being considered permits retail sales only in the C-4 zone. If the property of Mr. Pugh was in a different zoning classification, it would not be allowed under the proposed ordinance. Mr. Anderson stated that according to the Kent County Pride server, Mr. Pugh’s property is currently zoned C-4. Ms. Townsend stated that there are properties that are used residentially but are not zoned in a residential zone. The ordinance specifies a residential zone. Ms. Melson-Williams stated that the apartments off Route 13 have a shopping center zone because it was related to the neighboring parcel on DuPont Highway. Ms. Townsend clarified that there would be no distance required from the apartments off Route 13 because they are not in a residential zone. Dr. Pillsbury made a motion for Amendment #2 that the building footprint to be within which a retail marijuana store is to be located shall be at least 500 feet from the lot line of any other retail marijuana store within the City of Dover. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and failed by a roll call vote of four (4) yes (Boggerty, Pillsbury, Lewis, Anderson), and five (5) no (Hare, Neil, Arndt, Rocha, Sudler). Dr. Sudler stated on record that he wanted to initially say yes but voted no due to concerns from constituents and uncertainty about the potential future impact.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2024 PAGE 23 Mr. Neil moved to approve the Ordinance #2024-30. The motion was seconded by Ms. Arndt. Mr. Rocha stated that the only reason why he considered the ordinance and personally felt that this had nothing to do with what was discussed. He worked in anti-drug prevention for several years, as a mobilizer and knows what the effects are. As a mobilizer, Mr. Rocha stated that he had studied instances that have occurred in other cities and states, such as Denver, Colorado, and Portland. He agreed with Dr. Dina Vendetti's concerns and leaned in favor of Ms. Christiansen's statement. Mr. Rocha stated on record that he was going to stand with those who were against the retail sale of marijuana in the city. Mr. Boggerty stated that he was challenged due to people who are against having concerns which make those concerns his own. He noted that the smell would not go away, whether it be recreational or bought from the street. He expressed concerns about individuals incarcerated for low-level marijuana offenses. Mr. Boggerty stated that individuals are incarcerated strictly for marijuana distribution and that was a way to feed their families. Responding to Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Anderson clarified that the ordinance could be revisited and adjusted over time to address emerging issues. Mr. Hare apologized to the constituents but expressed that he did not see any benefit to the city from the proposed ordinance. He pointed out that the city is not generating revenue from it and believes it would lead to additional issues. As a result, Mr. Hare stated that he would not be able to support the ordinance based on the discussions held that evening. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Mr. Anderson clarified that marijuana would remain legal regardless of the council's decision. The issue at hand was determining how it would be regulated within the city. Responding to Dr. Pillsbury, Mr. Anderson stated that the part of the ordinance that specifically allowed the business to convert as the ordinance is currently. If the ordinance passes, there would be no such concern. Responding to Dr. Pillsbury, Mr. Anderson explained that if the ordinance failed, a new ordinance would need to go through the legislative process, including committee review, first reading, second reading, and so on. He noted that if Best Buds license to convert was granted during that time they would likely be grandfathered in, and it would be unreasonable not to do so. However, if their license to convert was not granted, their status would depend on the provisions of the new future ordinance. Responding to Dr. Pillsbury, Mr. Epstein explained that their application process for conversion was thorough, similar to that of a standard applicant. This included detailing general operations like product dispensing and facility security, as well as providing extensive narratives on protecting the current patient population, serving both adult-use customers and medical patients, and supporting social equity applicants and programs. These plans were submitted to the commissioner’s office, and the conversion was officially approved. He further clarified that any potential closure would not result from regulatory decisions but from economic challenges.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2024 PAGE 24 Following the legalization of adult-use cannabis in nearby states like Maryland and Delaware, fewer people are registering for medical cannabis programs. While medical products are tax- advantaged, costs such as card renewals and doctor’s fees reduce incentives to maintain medical registrations. Mr. Epstein noted that this shift has made it financially unsustainable to operate solely as a medical cannabis facility, putting the business at risk of closure due to economic pressures. Responding to Dr. Pillsbury, Ms. Townsend stated that she had discussed the situation with the Commissioner’s Office regarding Best Buds. While the business has been approved for a license, the office would not issue it until verification was provided that the use is permitted. She noted that if marijuana was not allowed in Dover, the city would not be able to provide the verification that it was permitted, which could jeopardize the issuance of their license. Responding to Dr. Pillsbury, Ms. Townsend clarified that they would still be allowed for medical only, but the market would not support it. Responding to Mr. Hare, Mr. Anderson clarified that they would not have to come up with something else if the ordinance did not pass. He noted that if they did not have something, then it would put them in a situation like the Town of Smyrna was in, where any appropriate retail avenue could open up a marijuana shop and it would be like a smoker/vape shop. Responding to Mr. Hare, Ms. Townsend stated that if the ordinance were voted down, the current moratorium would remain in effect until December 31, 2024. She noted that if the council's goal was to prohibit marijuana, they would need to introduce a specific ordinance to that effect and follow the necessary process. Responding to Mr. Hare, Ms. Townsend stated that potentially anyone with a retail shop could sell marijuana, but it would require them to go through the state to get the license. Responding to Ms. Townsend, Mr. Hare believed that the decision being voted on that night was final, but since it was not, they would have voted differently to keep the 500-foot requirement along the corridor Route 13. Responding to Mr. Neil, Ms. Melson-Williams stated that council was considering an amendment that would change a distancing requirement related to retail marijuana stores. The amendment was to an ordinance that was proposed #2024-30 that establishes where retail marijuana stores could happen in the City of Dover. The ordinance aims to designate retail marijuana stores as permitted use in the C-4 zoning district, which would cover the areas along DuPont Highway and the Bay Road Corridor. Ms. Melson-Williams emphasized that without the ordinance, the zoning ordinance would be silent, potentially allowing retail marijuana stores to open in any zone where retail businesses would be allowed, without considering the type of product being sold. Dr. Sudler stated that based on the majority of his constituents that have voiced their opinion on the matter they do not support the legalization of marijuana in the State of Delaware. He noted that the constituents prefer that there would be a safe pathway to a healthier alternative to cannabis usage, that would be free from the fear of lethal dosage of fentanyl.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2024 PAGE 25 Mr. Lewis called the question on the motion. Mr. Hare moved to reconsider the proposed amendment #2. The motion was seconded by Dr. Pillsbury and carried with Mr. Rocha voting no. Mr. Hare moved to approve the amendment #2 of Ordinance #2024-30. The motion was seconded by Dr. Pillsbury and carried by a roll call vote of six (6) yes (Hare, Boggerty, Pillsbury, Sudler, Lewis, Anderson) and three (3) no (Neil, Arndt, Rocha) Mr. Anderson voted yes because 60% of the people in the city stated what direction they wanted to go. He believed that they could save people from dying from contaminated marijuana by having a legal alternative available. Mr. Hare moved for the adoption of Ordinance #2024-30 as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried, by a roll call vote of eight (8) yes (Hare, Boggerty, Neil, Pillsbury, Arndt, Sudler, Lewis, Anderson), one (1) no (Rocha), Council adopted Ordinance #2024-30, as follows: BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: That Appendix B – Zoning, Article 3 – District Regulations, Section 16 – Highway Commercial Zone (C-4) be amended as follows: Section 16. Highway Commercial Zone (C-4). 16.1 Uses permitted. In a highway commercial zone (C-4), no building or premises shall be used, and no building or part of a building shall be erected, which is arranged, intended, or designed to be used, in whole or in part, for any purpose, except the following: (q) Retail marijuana stores, subject to the requirements outlined in Article 5, Section 24. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: That Appendix B – Zoning, Article 5 – Supplementary Regulations, be amended by inserting the text indicated in bold, blue font as follows: 24.6 Where permitted in accordance with Article 3, retail marijuana stores are subject to the following restrictions: 24.61 The building footprint upon which a retail marijuana store is to be located shall be at least 500 feet away from any private or public K-12 school, child daycare center, State of Delaware licensed substance abuse disorder treatment

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2024 PAGE 26 facility, hospital, and at least 250 feet away from any residential zone, and from the lot line of any college or university. 24.62 The building footprint within which a retail marijuana store is to be located shall be at least 1 mile away from the lot line of any other retail marijuana store within the City of Dover. 24.63 An application for a certificate of occupancy shall be accompanied by a photocopy of a valid license as required by Chapter 13, Title 4 of the Delaware State Code. 24.64 All building openings, entries, and windows shall be located, covered, or screened in such a manner as to prevent a view into the interior from any public or semipublic area. 24.7 A Compassion Center licensed by the State of Delaware on or before January 1, 2024, that obtains a conversion license under the State of Delaware Marijuana Regulations, must comply with the requirements of Article 3 District Regulations, and shall be exempt from distancing requirements detailed in Appendix B- Zoning, Article 5- Supplementary Regulations, 24.61 and 24.62. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: That Appendix B – Zoning, Article 12 – Definitions, be amended by inserting the text indicated in bold, blue font in proper alphabetical order as follows: Article 12. – Definitions. Retail marijuana store means an entity licensed by the State of Delaware to purchase marijuana from marijuana cultivation facilities; to purchase marijuana and marijuana products from marijuana product manufacturing facilities; and to sell marijuana and marijuana products to consumers. ADOPTED: December 9, 2024 Mr. Hare voted yes due to not wanting marijuana to be able to be opened in the Downtown Dover Business District. Mr. Boggerty voted yes so, they can have control of the retail of marijuana within the city and not allow others to make decisions for them. Dr. Pillsbury voted yes to protect the businesses that currently exist. Ms. Arndt voted yes because they had done their due diligence. Dr. Sudler voted yes because he believed that this would be a safer pathway to any marijuana usage free from the legal dosage of fentanyl. He noted that he does not want it downtown as his

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2024 PAGE 27 constituents have expressed their concerns, so he was voicing their concerns. His vote was based on his constituents. Mr. Hare noted that his understanding is that if the ordinance did not pass marijuana retail sales could be in the city anywhere retail sales are allowed. Mr. Anderson stated that Mr. Hare was correct. Dr. Sudler stated he would like to add Mr. Hares's comment to his reason for voting yes as well. ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 2024 The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of November 25, 2024, were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Neil, seconded by Mr. Anderson, and bore the written approval of Mayor Christiansen. COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT OF – NOVEMBER 26, 2024 The Council Committee of the Whole met on November 26, 2024, at 6:00 p.m. with Council President Anderson presiding. Members of Council present were Ms. Arndt, Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Hare, Mr. Lewis (in at 6:15 p.m.), Mr. Neil, and Mr. Rocha (via WebEx). Dr. Pillsbury and Dr. Sudler were absent. Mayor Christiansen (out at 8:16 p.m.) was also present. Civilian members present for their Committee meetings were Dr. Jackson-Short (via WebEx), Ms. Smack (Safety, Advisory, and Transportation), Mr. Iriowen, Mr. Wilson (Utility), Mr. Garfinkel, and Mr. Shevock (Legislative, Finance, and Administration). ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Hare moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Ms. Arndt and unanimously carried. Citizen Problem Reporter – Council Dashboard Training (Sharon Duca, Assistant City Manager) Ms. Sharon Duca, Assistant City Manager, reviewed the proposed Citizen Problem Reporter website created for council to track citizen concerns in real- time. This item was informational, and committee action was not required. Responding to Mayor Christiansen, Ms. Duca stated that she would work with Mike Walker, GIS Manager, to add the mayor’s office to the city manager's office in the system. Responding to Ms. Arndt, Ms. Duca stated that the website would be an internal application that is used by internal staff. Currently, the only people able to enter concerns are herself, the City Clerk and the Assistant City Clerk to limit the number of people entering items.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2024 PAGE 28 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 Ms. Arndt and unanimously carried. Discussion – Safety and Relationship Between the City of Dover Police Department and Delaware State University (James Overton, Vice President of Student Affairs, and Delaware State University Police Superintendent) Mr. James Overton, Vice President of Student Affairs, and Delaware State University Police Superintendent, detailed the relationship that Delaware State University has with the City of Dover Police Department. Mr. Overton explained that he oversees the entire university police department which is led by Police Chief Donald Baynard. He explained that upon his return, he established a Memorandum of Understanding with the Dover Police Department to outline the partnership in addressing issues both on campus and off campus. He stated that they can proudly say that through their partnership they have not had one incident that has gone unsolved. Mr. Overton stated that all their officers attend the Dover Police Department Academy and when the university lacked officers, the City of Dover Police Department stepped up and helped fill in the gaps. He explained that Homecoming 2023 was a homecoming that he will never forget and for 2024 he was able to work with Dover Police Department, DelDOT, Fire Marshal, and County members to have a mostly incident-free homecoming. He thanked the Dover Police Department for their cherished relationship. Chief Johnson, Dover Police Department, commended Mr. Overton for his hard work and willingness to foster a relationship with the City of Dover Police Department. He explained that Mr. Overton has been very proactive in addressing issues such as homecoming and fostering a plan to prevent any incidents. Chief Johnson stated that some of the fluidness can be attributed to training together in both the academy and drills hosted by the university. This item was informational, and committee action was not required. Responding to Ms. Arndt, Mr. Overton stated that they immediately worked on a solution to put a stop to the parties being held in the parks. He explained that the university does not schedule any events off campus. He stated that they have told students that if they participate in the events and represent a fraternity or sorority, and they are found to be involved, they will be held responsible on campus. Mr. Overton explained that they got word of a larger party being planned, called in the organizations, and let them know that the parties reflect poorly on the university to the City of Dover as well as the County and they needed to encourage their

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2024 PAGE 29 organizations to not participate in the parties. He further explained that they have begun to monitor social media to where students, and people from outside areas like Philadelphia, and Washington D.C. are advertising parties. Through this work, they have been able to shut them down and establish a presence before the parties begin. Discussion – Capital School District Community Concerns Update (Sean Christiansen, Capital School District Board of Education, Vice President) Mr. Sean Christiansen, Capital School District Board of Education, Vice President, explained that on October 29, 2024, Bishop Lott had brought forth concerns regarding Capital School District students and their downtown Dover bus stops. Mr. Christiansen explained that an onsite meeting was scheduled for October 31, 2024, with Councilman Boggerty, Mayor Christiansen, Dr. Cahoon, Ms. Hamm, Officer Piazza, a member of community policing, himself, and Bishop Lott. He stated that they walked the area to identify the issues, which were primarily at New Street and Reed Street. After that, the Capital School District began rerouting the buses for the elementary school, the middle school, and the high school. An email went out to the people present at the onsite visit, the routes were approved, and they were communicated to the parents as well as the school. The new routes went into effect on November 13, 2024, and as of November 26, 2024, there had been no issues and there was an overwhelming response from the parents expressing gratitude. Mr. Christiansen requested that council have more open lines of communication with the board if they have any issues that affect the Capital School District. He explained that the board likes to be proactive and get things done rather quickly. This item was informational, and committee action was not required. Mr. Boggerty moved for adjournment of the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee meeting, hearing no objection the meeting adjourned at 6:33 p.m. UTILITY COMMITTEE The Utility Committee met with Chairman Neil presiding. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Hare moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. Discussion – Stormwater Utility Billing Concerns (Sharon Duca, Assistant City Manager) Ms. Sharon Duca, Assistant City Manager, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the Stormwater Utility billing concerns. This item was informational, and committee action was not required.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2024 PAGE 30 Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Marney stated that the last financial policy adjustment was made in 2019. She explained that the bond ratings are adhering to the bond covenants and therefore are adhering to the adjustments made to the financial policy at that time. As far as transfers are concerned, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) states that the funds must be used for their designated purpose. Therefore, the funds must be specifically used for the electric fund and not any other fund. She explained that the stormwater utility is its own enterprise fund and the funds from the electric reserve should not be used to fund the stormwater utility. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Marney clarified that the reserve balance for the rate stabilization reserve cannot exceed twenty percent of the purchase power cost in any given year. She explained that she spoke with the bond counsel regarding the depreciation reserve and the financial policy dictates that the depreciation reserve needs to have a minimum balance of $10 million per bond. As of 2017, the city must maintain at least $13.6 million. She explained that there are some other things that must be considered and one of them is the payback. There is a seven-year payback period therefore if those funds were chosen to fund the process they would need to be paid back. She stated that she does not advise using those funds, but it is possible according to bond counsel as long as it does not dip below $13.6 million. She also explained that with a depreciation reserve, the specific funds are to be used for utility capital projects, specifically electric fund utility capital projects, not other enterprise fund capital projects. Lastly, she explained in speaking with Mr. Paul Wadell, Electric Director, that there is approximately $10.5 million in capital projects that will be brought forward in fiscal year 2026. By removing the proposed $5 million from the reserve he would be limited in the projects he could move forward with such as the smart metering and he would have to put that project off for several years. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Marney stated that he is correct in saying that if any money is utilized from the electric fund and it brings the city below the 10 percent threshold the interest rates would potentially be high because the rates at which the city receives a loan could be compromised. Ms. Marney also explained that any time funds are taken from the electric reserve there is a direct impact on the electric rates. The citizens will either be paying through a stormwater utility rate or the electric rate. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Duca stated that if council were to use the money from the economic and community development fund, council would have to adjust the motion that was already made to designate the purpose of those funds. She also emphasized that those funds are one-time funds, so if they are not being used to invest in something else or pay operational costs they are only going to help for a limited amount of time.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2024 PAGE 31 Responding to Mayor Christiansen, Ms. Duca stated that he is correct in that the concept of the stormwater utility is not new. Responding to Mayor Christiansen, Ms. Marney stated that the city produces about 13,301 tax bills a year. Responding to Mayor Christiansen, Ms. Marney confirmed that number roughly represents 58 percent of the properties in the City of Dover. Responding to Mayor Christiansen, Ms. Marney stated that they estimated that it would add between 10 and 15 cents more to the tax rate. Responding to Mayor Christiansen, Ms. Duca stated that the formula to establish the fees was from a model generated by a consultant starting back in 2015. She explained that it had been modified over the years by the consultant and staff to improve the accuracy. The model based residential on their zoning district and the commercial was based upon impervious maps from the state. Responding to Mayor Christiansen, Ms. Marney stated that he is correct in that if they go the route of taxation to cover the total expenses, 58 percent of the homeowners and businesses will incur a possible nine-and-a-half cent increase on their taxes while anyone in the city who is tax exempt will not. Responding to Mr. Hare, Ms. Marney stated that in the past they would include a reassessment fee to pay the assessment company, which happens to be the same as the County uses, Tyler Technologies. She explained that when Ms. Bundek retired, the recommendation to the council was that at the appropriate time, the city would use the County’s assessment values, and the next city assessment happens to be in January 2025. She stated that there will be some cost savings in the general fund for fiscal year 2026 regarding the reassessment. Mr. Hare moved to set the stormwater utility rate to zero, transfer funds to pay for it from the electric depreciation reserve fund in the amount of $5 million and also find a way to refund or credit the money that people have already paid. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson. Mike Harrington, 516 Jefferic Boulevard, Dover, stated that small businesses are suffering because of the new assessments, insurance rates are constantly on the rise, and then the stormwater utility. He explained that several of his tenants owe him thousands of dollars because they are suffering. He stated that if someone has a large parking lot, like himself, the stormwater fees were a large increase and passing them on to the tenants is hard when they are barely making it as it is. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Hugg stated that they have not specifically asked any of the state legislators for help in funding the stormwater utility. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Marney stated that if the money is taken from the electric reserve, then the city will either have to raise taxes or the electric rates.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2024 PAGE 32 She added that there are certain legal and regulatory requirements when funds are involved. The electric fund is restricted to being used for the electric utility. In the financial policies, it does say that a certain percentage or dollar amount can be transferred. The current dollar amount for the inter-fund transfer from the electric fund to the general fund, which is specified in the policy that it cannot be other funds, is $10 million. The city has reached that cap for fiscal year 2025. She explained that Mr. Lewis is correct in that there could be long-term implications in using the funds from the deprecation reserve and not repaying them. She emphasized that there would be a cost associated which may be in the form of a tax rate increase or an electric utility rate increase. Taking anything from the electric reserve means staff will have to go back to the rate study and the professionals that assist with that and modify the rate study and rate structure that is currently in place for the electric fund. Those changes would then affect anyone who receives an electric bill. She explained that the expenses would still exist whether they are in the general fund or a stand-alone stormwater fund because they are mandated. She also emphasized that if they are not paid there are significant fines. According to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit there is a fine of $10,000 a day if the city does not comply with the permit. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Marney stated that she would have to speculate how long it would take for the city to return to a value that would give them a better interest rate if they were to need to purchase a large piece of equipment. She stated that in talking to Paul Waddell, two transformers will need to be replaced next year, costing $2 million apiece. Taking money from a specific reserve that is in place to cover in the case of an emergency is not recommended. If something drastic happens such as a hurricane or tornado and electric utility items need to be replaced, the reserve has then been depleted. She also explained that the wording implies that there must be reserves equal to the depreciation expense. For example, the depreciation for fiscal year 2024 may be $ 4 million. Fiscal year 2025 may also be $4 million. So based on the estimation that there is $21 million, the city must keep at least $18.7 million. Even though the bond covenants say the city can go down to $13.6 million it would be best to leave $19 million, leaving a $3 million reserve for emergencies. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Hugg stated that if the stormwater utility were to be paid from taxes it would have required a nine-to-ten-cent increase on the tax bill. When the budget was prepared for the year, it was prepared with the understanding that the stormwater utility would have its own enterprise fund, therefore funding itself. In doing that the city was able to keep the tax increase down to around two cents and by adjusting other fees at a modest rate. Had that not been done there would have been a need for substantially more funding. Ms. Marney stated that there could be legal replications by transferring funds from one enterprise fund to another. She asked that they return the stormwater utility expenses to the general fund to aid in the regulatory requirements that are in the financial policies. She explained that a few years ago during the budgetary process, council voted to extend the inter-fund transfer from the electric fund to

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2024 PAGE 33 the general fund. The transfer was increased from $10 million to $12 million. She stated that in the financial policies, through the budgetary process, they must find a solution in three years, next year will be three years. They will have to find a solution to the increasing costs and increasing expenses versus the lower revenues. In closing, she stated that there would be fewer regulatory issues if the money is pulled from the general fund rather than being transferred from one enterprise fund to another. Responding to Mayor Christiansen, Ms. Marney stated that he was correct and that the electric rates would need to be adjusted to replenish the funds. Part of the rate studies is that all the reserves and all the draws come from the reserves in the electric fund. If more is drawn than is typically planned through the financial policy, then the future use of the electric revenue is affected. According to financial policy, the reserves from the electric revenue must be replenished, which has a direct impact on the electric rates. Responding to Mayor Christiansen, Ms. Marney confirmed that if the money is transferred back into the fund, during the 2026 budget consideration, the expenses for the current wastewater utility will have to be added in the form of taxes. George Gaudioso, 167 Maple Glen Drive, Dover, stated that he is the President of the Maple Glen Homeowners Association. He explained that the individual owners, as well as the homeowner’s association, received the invoices in varying amounts. Mr. Gaudioso stated that his biggest concern was that, in 2014, Kent County set up a Stormwater Maintenance District (SWMD) to maintain the ponds. He explained that they are one of the original homeowner associations that joined and have been members ever since. Kent County Conservation District monitors the pond, and they pay a lot of money to Enviro Tech to make sure the pond is functioning and treated properly. He stated that the invoices were improperly constructed, and many people thought that the charge was a one-time yearly charge. He explained that they must take the invoice and multiply it by four and that would be what they must pay yearly. Mr. Gaudioso expressed frustration with the information on the website as well as the appeal process. He explained that to file an appeal the homeowner’s association would need to hire a civil engineer and incur the cost of doing so. He expressed frustration with doing the right thing in their community through Kent County and then being hit with an additional fee. Jeff Wark, 612 Mary Street, Dover, stated that as one of the owners of Teal Construction, their property taxes would have gone up two hundred and fifty percent with the utility fee. He expressed dissatisfaction with the ordinance when it came to the impervious versus pervious areas. He stated that the impervious and pervious areas are not consistent with what they deal with in their line of business. He explained that their entire property was considered impervious, and they currently had two to three feet of stone gravel on about seventy percent of their property.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2024 PAGE 34 Responding to Ms. Arndt, Mr. Wark stated that the property taxes would be around $5,000 and the annual stormwater fee would have been around $13,000. Mr. Wark stated that they started the appeal process with a civil engineer, but the engineer stopped working on it because the definition in the ordinance considered anything that had been driven on once would be considered impervious therefore the engineer stopped the process. Mr. Neil moved to amend that the stormwater utility go back to the general fund for the time being and to allow staff to figure out where the money is going to come from while ending the stormwater utility at this time. The motion was seconded by Ms. Arndt. Ms. Arndt clarified that Mr. Neil was stating that he would like to take the stormwater enterprise fund and transfer that back to the general fund and allow the opportunity to make the transfer from the electric fund to the general fund as an interim measure, if necessary. He also recommended revisiting the enterprise fund to reevaluate and make any necessary corrections. Mr. Neil confirmed that was his intention so that next year it can be done correctly. Responding to Mayor Christiansen, Mr. Neil stated that the original motion included figuring out how to credit those who had paid or return the money paid. Ms. Marney stated that she spoke with Ms. Haines, and she devised a plan that if anyone has already made the payment on their account, the money will be credited back to them either through a credit balance refund or credit to their utility bill. Those who have not paid will have the bill adjusted, if moved by council. Mr. Neil moved to amend that the stormwater utility go back to the general fund for the time being and to allow staff to figure out where the money is going to come from while ending the stormwater utility at this time. The motion was seconded by Ms. Arndt and carried with Mr. Lewis abstaining. Mr. Hare moved to set the stormwater utility rate to zero, transfer the stormwater utility back to the general fund for the time being, allow staff to figure out where the money is going to come from while ending the stormwater utility at this time, and find a way to refund or credit the money that people have already paid. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried with Mr. Lewis abstaining. During the council meeting, Dr. Sudler requested an update from staff. Ms. Sharon Duca, Assistant City Manager, stated that with regards to the EPA grant, the sewer overflow and stormwater reuse municipal grant that was researched was approved by the EPA on May 9, 2024. All records regarding what they have been able to find on

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2024 PAGE 35 the grant show that it was going to be transmitted to the state in order to be administered and based upon their discussions with DNREC, they have not received any funds yet to open up a grant cycle. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Ms. Duca stated they had not received any details on an estimated timeframe. Responding to Dr. Sudler, Ms. Duca stated that they could reach out and try to find contact numbers. She explained that it was noted in the memo that the grants do not pay for operation costs, which would be personnel costs or other material, which would equate to about $1.2 million of the budget. The way they have been administered was since they include combined sewers and sanitary sewers, the money would be going to compete with wastewater flows. Ms. Duca noted that there would be a level of competition to try to get it, but it was still something they could look at timing for. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Duca mentioned that many of the local municipalities charge stormwater fees, and some municipalities have a stormwater utility like Newark does, which is the model they follow, and other municipalities have them contained within their general fund as they used to. She explained that Dover has experienced an increase in costs for departments that are under the general fund, such as the Police Department, Public Works, Streets, Finance, and Central Services. All the general fund service costs have been increasing over the years and by looking at the expenses and revenues through the budgetary documents, the expenses have slowly increased revenues since the 2019 Fiscal Year. Ms. Duca stated that the expenses had exceeded the revenues and that the stormwater utility was to be an option to pull out the expenses to increase the overall revenue. It would be no different than pulling out the sanitation or trash fees, which originally years ago were covered by taxes. She noted that the fees have slowly increased to cover the expenses until this year when it was solely an enterprise fund. Mr. Lewis put on the record that in the Kent County Activity Guide, page nine (9), it had its stormwater fee at $28.00 per residential property per year. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Duca stated that the services are still being provided. The biggest issue would be trying to reconcile the books. If services are not provided, then they will be fined by the EPA and the State of Delaware. She noted that in 2003, the fines were up to $25,000 per day per occurrence. It would be an option to pay for it out of the general fund or take money from the depreciation of the electric reserve to stop services, which included street sweeping and leave collection. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Marney clarified that according to the bond counsel for the electric bonds, the reserves were considered restricted funds. The rate stabilization fund, while not restricted in the operating fund, was meant to be the electric customers’ money, not property taxpayers' money, based on policy. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Marney stated that part of the motion was to move the stormwater utility back to the general fund rather than having it held separately as a stormwater utility enterprise fund. If they have them remain as enterprise funds, that

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2024 PAGE 36 could be a possibility of a class action suit by the bondholders, but she would have to defer to the bond council for a decision. She explained with the enterprise funds, the ratepayers and each enterprise fund were responsible for the expenses to those enterprise funds. For example, if they have a stormwater utility, the ratepayers would be responsible for the expenses incurred for the stormwater utility. It was the reason to have a separate rate specific for those services and the same for electric to have a set of separate electric rates for electric services. Ms. Marney further stated that part of the motion was to return the stormwater utility expenses to the general fund and to treat any transfer as an inter- fund transfer to the general fund, which would be part of their financial policies. She noted that they do have a $10 million threshold in their financial policies for the transfer to the general fund. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Marney stated that she does have concerns with that transaction being made. She explained that when those expenses are in the general fund or whether they have transferred from the electric fund, no matter what, they would have to pass those charges to the constituents. No one likes to have increased fees, and it would either increase tax fees, increase electric rates, or even both. Responding to Mr. Hare, Ms. Duca stated that the stormwater fee was no different than the trash fees. She noted that 50 years ago, whatever service was provided by hand to collect the trash, not with automated trucks, was paid for by their taxes. The expenses, disposal services, mandate recycling fees, personnel costs, and automated trucks have all increased over the years, which led them to the point where it was now its enterprise fund. It could be compared the same way as stormwater. It used to be absorbed by taxes, but they were no longer able to continue doing so with the increase in expenses. Mr. Anderson emphasized that reversing the stormwater maintenance fee would be the most prudent course of action, as calculations did not turn out the way they had anticipated when they were voted upon, and the projections and the modeling did not add up. He acknowledged that they would need to find a way to bridge this year and plan for a supplemental budget. Several options were available, by transferring funds to the general fund would give them the maximum options. One (1) option would involve using depreciation reserves while staying within bond covenant thresholds, while another option would be pending land sales after the economic development fund is completed, which the amount of money from those pending sales would get them closer to where they needed to go and be a bridge for this year. However, they would need to bridge and plan out the next step, and work towards various grants. Mr. Anderson was not optimistic about the $41 million EPA grant due to high competition but pointed to the bipartisan infrastructure bill as a more promising pathway for funding for water waste, water, stormwater infrastructures, et cetera. Mr. Anderson stated that various people have pledged to help, including the Delaware League of Local Governments. They have reached out to him about this and are willing to help them get those particular grants. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Anderson stated that a lot of the extra money would be driven by projects, and they would not be charged a fee that would need to be paid. There are a certain number of projects that have to happen to accomplish a certain result to get

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2024 PAGE 37 permits with Silver Lake, Near Lake, and other areas. These projects are required to keep their permit. Dr. Sudler recommended having quarterly budget reviews. Dr. Sudler concurred with Mr. Anderson that when something is not right, it is best to go back to the drawing board and find other types of innovative strategies that they all can come up with together. Mr. Hare moved for acceptance of the committee report. The motion was seconded by Dr. Sudler and carried with Mr. Lewis abstaining. Mr. Neil moved for adjournment of the Utility Committee meeting, hearing no objection the meeting adjourned at 7:48 p.m. LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met with Chairman Rocha presiding. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Boggerty requested that Item #5, “Campground of Hope” for the Unsheltered Population of the City of Dover, be considered as Item #1 and be renamed “Campground of Hope” for the Unsheltered Population of the City of Dover and other programs. Mr. Boggerty moved for adoption of the agenda as amended, seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. “Campground of Hope” for the Unsheltered Population of the City of Dover and Other Programs (Leandra Marshall, Vice Chair, City of Dover Unsheltered Working Group) Ms. Leandra Marshall, Vice Chair, City of Dover Unsheltered Working Group reviewed the background and analysis regarding the Campground of Hope. This item was informational, and committee action was not required. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. Marshall stated that he is correct because the campground would fall outside the city limits, they plan to focus the money on the projects within the city and privately raise money or obtain funding from the state and county to establish the campground. For example, Synergy Recovery Solutions, a coalition member, has helped to cap Medicaid rates to serve the unsheltered population. She explained that they would offer mental health services, medically assisted drug and alcohol treatment, and primary care. The intake rate for Medicaid for example, is typically $146 but Synergy has decided to cap the rate at $100, the individual session rate for Medicaid is $119 but Synergy has decided to cap the rate at $90, and the group session rate would be $25 for mental health services.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2024 PAGE 38 Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Marshall stated that the original proposed budget was for the whole program. However, due to concerns about the campground being outside the city, she acknowledged that the budget would need to be revised. She explained that they came up with the campground as a relief to the city. She stated that with the constraints, they plan to revamp the budget and add additional services. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Anderson stated that there is approximately $91,000 in American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding left. He explained that by December 09, 2024, they are going to have to earmark where the money is going, and they will be able to make adjustments afterward. If the money is not allocated by December 31, 2024, then the city will lose it. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Anderson stated that they can redirect the funding to the Kent County Coalition. He explained that the Community Development Director reviewed the two proposals for legal reasons and the current proposal is being revamped. He stated that they wanted to make sure there was no room for error because of the timeframe and the unsheltered group being formed by the city made sense because it is a city-directed project. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Anderson stated that it would be up to the committee to decide whether the unsheltered working group would be allocated $91,000. Ms. Marshall stated that she has worked with ARPA funds for many years and the city is allowed to reallocate them depending on the stipulations that were in the original proposal for the funding. She explained that they plan to create a budget based on what funding they are provided, and they will continue to raise money through private partnerships, grants, and other private agencies. She stated that the goal is to address the needs of the unsheltered population without putting a Band- Aid on it. Mr. Anderson stated that when the city obtained the ARPA money, they followed the revenue offset provision which allowed them to direct the money anywhere they choose within certain restrictions. The funds cannot be used in retirement funds, and a few other things, so it must be treated like general revenue. Reverend Dr. Maxine Johnson, John Wesley AME Church, 217 W. Division Street, Dover, stated that since her appointment in March of 2023, she has experienced the church's connection with the community and through the many partnerships. She explained that shortly after her appointment, Mr. Garcia “Gus” Walker let her know that the ceiling fell in. She stated that they had to cancel services and projects within the community such as the clothes closet. She explained that they are before council to ask for funding through the ARPA funding program.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2024 PAGE 39 Ms. Carla Benson-Green, Steward Pro Tem, provided the history of the church. She explained that the church has always been utilized as a refuge station or resource spot for the people in the community. She stated that in 2005 John Wesley engaged in a collaborative effort within the community during the HIV Epidemic and it became a part of the ministry to reach the people that are in the community. She emphasized that they are a boots-on-the-ground church, and everyone knows the church with the blue door as the place for services, support, and refuge. She stated that they initially started working with the Division of Public Health and the DC3 Coalition, and later expanded their collaboration to include Kent County Counseling, Brandywine Counseling, as well as additional external resources such as Dover District Ministerial and the State of Delaware Office of Defense Services to provide expungement services. She explained that through their yearly projects and partnership with Brandywine Counseling, they have gone from reaching one hundred and eighty-five people in 2016 to eight hundred and fifty-six currently. She stated that they would like council to consider John Wesley as a candidate for ARPA funding to address their aging structure. The roofing issues were about $19,300 and the ceiling issue was around $10,200. Mr. Anderson stated that in the past the People’s Church was awarded around $600,000 for renovations and the Murphy School was awarded around $30,000 for the HVAC system. It would not be out of the ordinary to provide funding for community purposes because the city is not supporting any religious organization. He asked that they provide three bids for each project to stay consistent with the City of Dover purchasing policy if approved. Mr. Boggerty moved to recommend that from the remaining ARPA funds of $91,000, grant $30,000 to John Wesley Church, once they comply with the request for the bids, and that the remainder of the funds be allocated to the Unsheltered Working Group. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson. Mr. Anderson requested that they return on December 09, 2024, with as firm of numbers as possible for when council votes. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Anderson stated that they were not required to advertise the ARPA funding, but they decided to do it the first time because they wanted the broadest reach, therefore they did two rounds of advertising. He explained that if they chose to advertise this reallocation there would be no time to award the funding because it must be done within the next few weeks. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Boggerty stated as co-chair of the ARPA funding, he went around the community, spoke at several community events, and did several social media campaigns. He stated that there was not one step that was not taken to include groups like Tracy Palmer Ministries, The People’s Church, and many other organizations. There were several applications, and when they did not give out all the money in the first round, they did it all over again. He emphasized

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2024 PAGE 40 that there were social media campaigns galore, and he drove to events large and small to share about ARPA funding. Unfortunately, in many instances, the agencies were not prepared from an administrative standpoint to apply. Some had issues with taxes and the 501 formations, and they did not comply, which meant they had to revisit awards and provide extra money to dispense all the funds. He stated that unfortunately with less than 30 days to have the funding allocated they had to reach out to individuals such as Leandra Marshall and John Wesley Church, knowing the work that they do within the community. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Boggerty stated that unfortunately, due to other issues that he could not make public, there was funding that was not allocated. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Anderson stated that when the money was pulled back it was decided that the funding would need to be reallocated. Responding to Mr. Garfinkel, Ms. Marney stated the money could not be used to fund the stormwater utility. Responding to Ms. Marney, Mr. Anderson stated that part of the ARPA funding was allocated towards water/wastewater because infrastructure is one of the items that was specifically mentioned in the ARPA final regulations, therefore the funding could be used to fund the stormwater utility. Mr. Garfinkel moved to amend the motion that the $91,000 be put into the stormwater infrastructure. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lewis. Responding to Ms. Arndt, Ms. Marney stated that she would have to specifically look at whether the funding could be used. She stated she believed that ARPA funding could be used for infrastructure and not operational expenses. A stormwater utility may be considered operational expenses and not infrastructure. She explained that portions of stormwater utility would be infrastructure that could possibly qualify but she would have to research that. Mr. Garfinkel moved to amend the motion that the $91,000 be put into the stormwater infrastructure. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lewis and failed by a roll call vote of six (6) no (Hare, Boggerty, Neil, Arndt, Rocha, Anderson), three (3) yes (Lewis, Shevock, Garfinkel), and two (2) absent (Pillsbury, Sudler). 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. Mr. Boggerty moved to recommend that from the remaining ARPA funds of $91,000, grant $30,000 to John Wesley Church, once they comply with the request of the bids, and that the remainder of the funds be allocated to the Unsheltered Working Group. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2024 PAGE 41 and carried by a roll call vote of eight (8) yes (Hare, Boggerty, Neil, Arndt, Rocha, Lewis, Anderson, Shevock), one (1) no (Garfinkel), and two (2) absent (Pillsbury, Sudler). 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. Mr. Rocha moved to sunset the Unsheltered Working Group as the Kent County Coalition will be taking over going forward. The motion was seconded by Ms. Arndt and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Dover Fire Department Volunteer Stipend (Chief David Carey and President Jason Osika) Chief David Carey and President Jason Osika, Dover Fire Company, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the volunteer stipend. Staff recommended approval of the volunteer stipend program. Mr. Hare moved to recommend acceptance of the staff recommendation for the fire department volunteer stipend. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lewis. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Chief Carey stated that they currently have two hundred and thirty-three people. They range from the age of thirteen to the age of ninety-five. There are approximately fifty-two members active. He clarified that active means any member who makes one hundred and twenty-five calls or more a year. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Osika clarified that not everyone would get the stipend. There are guidelines that specify what the volunteer must do, such as duty crew hours or responding to general alarms. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Osika stated that they hired their department attorney and Dave Truax who provides audits of ambulances, finances, and other issues within the fire service. Mr. Truax put them in touch with an attorney who is well-versed in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) since that was the biggest thing that needed to be looked at. The portion that Mr. Lewis quoted regarding the nominal fee was pulled from the FLSA advisory letter that the attorney gave them. It states that to maintain volunteer status they cannot be paid; however, they can be compensated a nominal fee. The nominal fee is not determined or defined by the Congress of 1985.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2024 PAGE 42 He went on to explain that there is a twenty percent rule that states they can get a nominal fee for the items listed which was covered in their policy after going to the state auditor's office. The twenty percent rule states that you cannot make more than twenty percent of what someone would make doing that job full-time. The numbers that were used in the upcoming budget for a firefighter position was approximately $54,000, therefore $10,000 is the most someone could make without violating the FLSA rule. He stated that the goal is to have duty crew shifts that volunteers are signing up for so that the station is staffed 24/7 with a crew at each station. If they were to complete a 12-hour shift they would receive credit for four calls. He explained that it would calculate to $10 an hour equating to $30 a call while staying at the firehouse. He stated that they would only be paid if they were on those shifts. He explained that the goal is to have crews in place to run silent alarms so that they do not have to blow the fire whistle every time. Currently, they are running about one hundred and seventy-five calls, and the whistle blows an average of about twenty-five times. The whistle blows for accidents and fires, and when a crew is not in the station, they need people to respond. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Osika stated that the reasonable benefits are not medical benefits. He explained that the verbiage was taken from the Congress Act of 1985, which states what can be paid with the nominal fee while maintaining a volunteer status. The State Auditor's office recommended calling it a nominal fee to encompass everything so that no one can say something was left out and ask for reimbursement. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Chief Carey stated that the funding came from the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) program, which is funding provided by the State of Delaware to Wilmington, Dover, and Georgetown. He explained that the City of Newark raised concerns about the number of university buildings that are government buildings within the City of Newark and that they are not able to tax to receive income to subsidize some of their needs. One of the state legislators asked to award Newark $2 million in Grant-in-Aid funds to subsidize the PILOT money that they do not receive. Senator Paradee requested that the City of Dover receive the same funds. The City of Dover was awarded $2 million, with a clear allocation that $500,000 was designated for the police department, and the remaining funds were allocated to the fire department. He stated that as President Osika mentioned, there were no guidelines as to how the money had to be spent. In speaking to Senator Paradee, he explained that he does not foresee the Grant- in-Aid money being eliminated any time soon, however, Grant-in-Aid does change year to year, so the possibility is there. Mr. Osika stated that the $1.1 million that would be transferred should last anywhere from two to three years, but it would have to be monitored. He explained that after meeting with city staff they have decided to place the funding in a separate account and do monthly reports that include how much is going in and out because it will likely go back and forth depending on the time of the year.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2024 PAGE 43 He stated that they predict they will receive another million or so next year but if the legislature decided to end the Grant-in-Aid, they would have to go back to the drawing board because once the program is started there would be no going back. He explained that once someone is being paid you would not get them back in the door by taking the money away. In closing, he stated that the goal is to use half a million dollars for the volunteers versus half going to paid staff. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Chief Carey stated that if they were to go to a paid fire department it would be roughly $26 million doing a comparison to that of the City of Annapolis, Maryland, who have two fire stations and a similar population. Mr. Hare moved to recommend acceptance of the staff recommendation for the fire department volunteer stipend. 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. Discussion – Amending Bond Council Requirements (Patricia Marney, Controller/Treasurer) Ms. Patricia Marney, Controller/Treasurer, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the bond council requirements. Ms. Marney stated that the request had come as a result of publication issues at the local newspaper’s office during the budget season and in discussions with the Bond Counsel regarding changes made to the Tax Equity and Financial Responsibility Act (TEFRA) requirements from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) which allowed for public notice to be done on websites. Staff recommended amendment of all city code requirements for public notice to include modern communication tools. Responding to Mr. Neil, Ms. Marney stated that adding more modern publications does not mean that staff cannot publish in the newspapers. Adding more modern publications provides staff with additional tools to post on the website, in specific public notice portals used by some government entities, and on social media. The recommended change would allow staff to utilize additional tools to legally get the word out. Mr. Neil stated that even though the newspapers have reduced publications he would recommend continuing to include one publication in the newspaper for public record. Ms. Arndt moved to recommend accepting the staff recommendation to amend city code requirements for public notice to include modern communication tools. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hare and unanimously carried.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2024 PAGE 44 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. Discussion – Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) (Patricia Marney, Controller/Treasurer) Ms. Patricia Marney, Controller/Treasurer, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR). Ms. Marney stated that the delay in completing the financial report was due to staff turnover in the finance department, including the Controller/Treasurer position, as well as unfinished reconciliations that were necessary to complete the schedules. Ms. Marney stated that they have been working to fill positions within the finance department, however, there is a shortage of candidates as it relates to the accounting field. Currently, they are in need of someone who is experienced in certain specialties within municipal government accounting. She explained that her goal is to have the final draft of the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report released by January, if not sooner. This item was informational, and committee action was not required. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Marney stated that they are actively working on the audits for both 2023 and 2024. For fiscal year 2024, they need to complete bank reconciliations for the cash concentration fund and the disbursement funds, which are reconciled through February 2024. Part of the delay was the health reconciliations, which have since been completed, once the bank reconciliations are complete, and the depreciation expense schedules are recorded they will be in a better position for the audit of fiscal year 2024. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Marney stated that fiscal year 2023 should be completed by January. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Ms. Marney stated that she believes the city's federal funding is safe. She has contacted the bond carriers with the bond rating agencies, and they are aware of the challenges that have occurred over the past year, the city is currently on watch, however, the city is still at a double-A or triple-A rating. Mr. Neil moved to recommend acceptance of the report. The motion was seconded by Mr. Boggerty and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2024 PAGE 45 Proposed Ordinance #2024-32 – Abandoned Shopping Carts (David S. Hugg, III, City Manager) Mr. David S. Hugg, III, City Manager, reviewed the background and analysis regarding Proposed Ordinance #2024-32. Staff recommended forwarding Proposed Ordinance #2024-32 to council. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Hugg stated that if sanitation workers find a cart, the owner of the cart will be notified, if they do not take the cart, the city would take the cart and when it is delivered back to the owner, there will be a fine given to them. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Hugg stated that Mr. Lewis was correct, if there were a cart in the retention pond at Stoney Creek, sanitation would collect the cart if Target did not and when the cart is delivered back to Target, they would be given a fine. Mr. Hare moved to recommend acceptance of the staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Ms. Arndt and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Anderson moved for adjournment of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting, hearing no objection the meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Mr. Anderson moved for adjournment of the Council Committee of the Whole meeting, hearing no objection the meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for acceptance of the Council Committee of the Whole Report, seconded by Mr. Anderson and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. ORDINANCE/FINAL READING – PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2024-24 – AMENDING CHAPTER 26 BUSINESSES, ARTICLE II – LICENSES, SEC. 26-31. DEFINITIONS, APPENDIX F – FEES AND FINES, CHAPTER 26 (FORMERLY PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2024-24A – RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA BUSINESS LICENSES: CULTIVATION, MANUFACTURING, AND TESTING FACILITIES) The First Reading of the Proposed Ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of October 28, 2024. Council President Anderson reminded members of the public that copies of the proposed ordinance were available at the entrance of the Council Chambers or on the City’s website at www.cityofdover.com under “Government.” Ms. Arndt moved that the Final Reading of the proposed ordinance be

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2024 PAGE 46 acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Neil, and unanimously carried. (The First Reading of the proposed ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting on October 28, 2024.) By motion of Mr. Neil, seconded by Dr. Pillsbury, Council, by a roll call vote of eight (8) yes (Hare, Boggerty, Neil, Pillsbury, Arndt, Rocha, Lewis, Anderson) and one (1) no (Sudler), adopted Ordinance #2024-24, as follows: BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN 1 COUNCIL MET: That Chapter 26 – Businesses, Article II – Licenses, Section 26-31. – Definitions, be amended as follows: Sec. 26-31. Definitions. The following words, terms, and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Marijuana cultivation facility or cultivation facility means an entity licensed by the State of Delaware to cultivate, prepare, and package marijuana and sell marijuana to retail marijuana stores, to marijuana product manufacturing facilities, and to other marijuana cultivation facilities, but not to consumers. A marijuana cultivation facility may not produce marijuana concentrates, tinctures, extracts, or other marijuana products. Marijuana product manufacturing facility means an entity licensed by the State of Delaware to: purchase marijuana; manufacture, prepare, and package marijuana products, and sell marijuana and marijuana products to other marijuana product manufacturing facilities and retail marijuana stores, but not to consumers. Marijuana testing facility means an entity licensed by the State of Delaware to test marijuana for potency and contaminants. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: That Appendix F – Fees and Fines, Chapter 26 – Businesses, Article II. - Licenses be amended as follows: Chapter 26. Businesses Fees and Fines Article II. Licenses Sec. 26-35. License required; fees Subsec. (d)(2) Manufacturers/contractors/marijuana $0.00046 of aggregate cultivation, product manufacturing, and testing gross receipts/Minimum facilities rate fee $128.00

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2024 PAGE 47 ADOPTED: December 9, 2024 ORDINANCE/FINAL READING – PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2024-25 – AMENDING CHAPTER 26 BUSINESSES, ARTICLE II – LICENSES, SEC. 26-31. DEFINITIONS, APPENDIX F – FEES AND FINES, CHAPTER 26 (FORMERLY PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2024-24B – RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA BUSINESS LICENSES: COMPASSION CENTERS, RETAIL MARIJUANA STORES) The First Reading of the Proposed Ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of October 28, 2024. Council President Anderson reminded members of the public that copies of the proposed ordinance were available at the entrance of the Council Chambers or on the City’s website at www.cityofdover.com under “Government.” By motion of Mr. Hare, seconded by Mr. Neil, Council, by a unanimous roll call vote, adopted Ordinance #2024-25, as follows: BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: That Chapter 26 – Businesses, Article II – Licenses, Section 26-31. – Definitions, be amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-31. Definitions. The following words, terms, and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Compassion center means an entity registered pursuant to §4914A of Title 16 of the Delaware State Code that acquires, possesses, sells, supplies, or dispenses marijuana, paraphernalia, or related supplies and educational materials to registered qualifying patients who have designated the dispenser to cultivate marijuana for their medical use and the registered designated caregivers of these patients. Retail marijuana store means an entity licensed by the State of Delaware to purchase marijuana from marijuana cultivation facilities; to purchase marijuana and marijuana products from marijuana product manufacturing facilities, and to sell marijuana and marijuana products to consumers. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: That Appendix F – Fees and Fines, Chapter 26 – Businesses, Article II. - Licenses be amended by inserting the text indicated in bold, blue font as follows: Chapter 26. Businesses Fees and Fines Article II. Licenses Sec. 26-35. License required; fees

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2024 PAGE 48 Subsec. (d)(3) Merchants/bottlers/retail marijuana $0.00046 of aggregate stores/compassion centers rate gross purchases for resale/ Minimum fee $64.00 ADOPTED: December 9, 2024 REALLOCATION OF AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT (ARPA) FUNDING FOR HOUSING AND COMMUNITY SERVICE PROJECTS (COUNCILMAN ROCHA, UNSHELTERED AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING LIAISON AND COUNCILMAN BOGGERTY, COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT LIASON) (Committee recommendation: That the remaining ARPA funds of $91,000, grant $30,000 to John Wesley Church, once they comply with the request of the bids, and that the remainder of the funds be allocated to the Unsheltered Working Group and to sunset the Unsheltered Working Group as the Kent County Coalition will be taking over going forward) Mr. Hare moved for acceptance of the committee recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rocha and unanimously carried. SETTING THE STORMWATER FEE TO ZERO, STORMWATER PAYMENT CREDIT/REFUND PROCESS (SHARON DUCA, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER AND ALLISON HAINES, INTERIM CUSTOMER SERVICE DIRECTOR) (Committee recommendation: Set the stormwater utility rate to zero, transfer the stormwater utility back to the general fund for the time being, allow staff to figure out where the money is going to come from while ending the stormwater utility at this time, and find a way to refund or credit the money that people have already paid.) Mr. Hare moved for acceptance of the committee recommendation. The motion was seconded by Dr. Sudler. Ms. Allision Haines, Interim Customer Service Director, stated that the plan was to set all the fees back to zero and for individuals that have paid anything under $100.00, if they have an open utility account in their name, it will transfer the credit to the utility. Individuals who have paid over $100.00, would have to research and issue refund checks. Mr. Hare moved for acceptance of the committee recommendation. The motion was seconded by Dr. Sudler and carried with Mr. Lewis abstaining. RESCHEDULING APRIL 14, 2025, REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AND APRIL 15, 2025 COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING DUE TO THE 2025 MUNICIPAL ELECTION (Staff recommendation: Reschedule April 14, 2025, Regular Council Meeting and

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2024 PAGE 49 April 15, 2025, Council Committee of the Whole Meeting to April 7, 2025, and April 8, 2025) Mr. Hare moved to accept the staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Dr. Sudler and unanimously carried. CITY MANAGER'S ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Hugg had no announcements. MAYOR’S ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Christiansen announced that there would be three (3) events happening on December 14, 2024. The first event is a holiday celebration sponsored by the Dover Police Department and Habitat for Humanity. The event is from 12:00 to 4:00 p.m., at the Legislative Mall. The second event, sponsored by the City of Dover and Delaware State University, How the Grinch Stole Christmas, would be shown at The Schwartz Center of the Arts, at 4:15 p.m. He noted that there would be free popcorn and other goodies available, and the movie would be free of charge to those who show up. He further noted that there would be the Annual Dashing Through Dover Electric Light Parade down from Loockerman Street through Downtown Dover, starting at 6:30 p.m. COUNCIL MEMBERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Rocha stated that he had two (2) announcements. In the first announcement, he emphasized to Mr. Hugg and the Clerk’s Office to get together to make bids into redoing the audio and video and to tie in the video with WebEx so that they could see in real-time what they see on the screen. He noted that whatever comes through with the microphones goes directly to WebEx in real-time. In the second announcement, he stated that he would be seeking re-election for another term. Mr. Rocha noted that he wanted to accomplish things for the city and would continue to work hard for the constituents in his district and throughout the city. Mr. Boggerty announced that he would be seeking re-election. He noted that he was celebrating his second anniversary with his wife. Mr. Anderson wished Mr. Boggerty, Mr. Rocha, and Mr. Lewis upcoming birthdays. Dr. Pillsbury announced that there would be a District One meeting on Thursday, December 12, 2024, at the West Dover Fire Station, starting at 6:00 p.m. Mr. Rocha stated that he had to attend a funeral in New York and would not be in attendance for the District One meeting. The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. ANDRIA L. BENNETT CITY CLERK

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2024 PAGE 50 All ordinances, resolutions, motions, and orders adopted by the City Council during their Regular Meeting of December 9, 2024, are hereby approved. ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN MAYOR /AB Exhibits Exhibit #1 - Don Anderson’s Photos – Public Comment Exhibit #2 – Bill Winter’s Statement – Public Hearing

EXHIBIT #1 Regular City Council Meeting of 12/09/2024

EXHIBIT #2 Regular City Council Meeting of 12/09/2024