CCW PACKET MM

CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING Tuesday, November 09, 2021 at 6:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers, 15 Loockerman Plaza, Dover, Delaware AGENDA Public comments are welcomed on any item and will be permitted at the appropriate time. When possible, please notify the City Clerk (736-7008 or email at cityclerk@dover.de.us) should you wish to be recognized. VIRTUAL MEETING NOTICE This meeting will be held in-person with electronic access via WebEx. Public participation information is as follows: Dial: 1-408-418-9388 Link: https://rb.gy/oothlt Event number: 2345 366 2231 Event password: DOVER (if needed) If you are new to WebEx, get the app now at https://www.webex.com/ to be ready when the meeting starts. CALL COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING TO ORDER LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA ACTIONABLE ITEMS 1. Discussion - City Council Compensation (Councilman David Anderson) 2. Request for American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Funds to be Used for Rental Assistance, Utility Bills, and Hotel Vouchers (Mayor Robin Christiansen) (Staff recommendation: Approval of the proposed budget totaling $500,000) ADJOURNMENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE • 1

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING - November 09, 2021 PAGE 2 PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA ACTIONABLE ITEMS 3. Silver Lake Dam - Annual Inspection Review (Sharon Duca, Public Works Director) (Staff recommendation: Accept the 2021 Silver Lake Dam: Dam Safety Inspection Report and the Fiscal Year 2021 Silver Lake Dam Inspection Update Memorandum) MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS - AUGUST 2021 4. Council President Sudler 5. First District 6. Second District 7. Third District 8. Fourth District 9. At-Large 10. Mayor Christiansen ADJOURNMENT OF THE PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE ADJOURNMENT OF THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE THE AGENDA ITEMS AS LISTED MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN SEQUENCE. PURSUANT TO 29 DEL. C. §10004(e)(2), THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OR THE DELETION OF ITEMS, INCLUDING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS, WHICH ARISE AT THE TIME OF THE MEETING • 2

D Item 1. Dover City Council Pay Increase DISCUSSION ITEM: C I T Y C O U N C I L C O M P E N S AT I O N S P O N S O R : C O U N C I L M A N R A L P H TA Y L O R , 2 N D D I S T R I C T C O - S P O N S O R : C O U N C I L M A N B I L L H A R E , 2 ND D I S T R I C T P R E S E N T E D B Y: C O U N C I L M A N D AV I D A N D E R S O N , 4 TH D I S T R I C T • 3

D Item 1. For Scripture says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,” and “The worker deserves his wages.” - 1 TIMOTHY 5:18 4

D Item 1. Dover City Council Pay Increase Executive Summary: Current Salary: $7,416, Council President: $8,652 which is based on 20-25 hours/week Historically: 2008 pay was cut due to recession 2009 pay was restored Last increase: 2001 Based on fewer meetings Based on approximately 10-15 hours/week at minimum wage for 2001 ($5.15/hr) 5

D Item 1. Comparison #1 CITY OF DOVER COUNCIL PERSONS KENT COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Population: 39,450 Population: 180,000 Salary: $7,416 Salary: $33,422 Expectation for compensation: Expectation for compensation: 44+ meetings/yr 44 meetings/yr Manage $170 million budget Manage $76,731,000 budget 6

D Item 1. Comparison #2 CITY OF WILMINGTON COUNCIL CITY OF DOVER COUNCIL PERSONS PERSONS Population: 38,000 Population: 70,000 Salary: $7,416 Salary: $29,000 Expectation for compensation: Expectation for compensation: 44+ meetings/yr 23 meetings + committee meetings Manage $170 million budget Manage $163.5 million budget 7

D Item 1. Comparison #3 CITY OF DOVER COUNCIL PERSONS CITY OF ANNAPOLIS COUNCIL PERSONS Population: 39,450 Population: 40,800 Salary: $7,416 Salary: $19,653 Expectation for compensation: Expectation for compensation: 44+ meetings/yr 36 meetings/yr + committee meetings Manage $170 million budget Manage $147million budget 8

D Item 1. Charter Change Discussion Charter change requirements Would allow a pay increase to take effect before the next election (2023) Discussion: one-time exception or permanent change to charter Council pay increases as city employees increase (raise equal to average city employee’s increase annually) 9

D Item 1. Dover City Council Pay Increase Segal Study indicated that City of Dover pay scale was seriously outdated, lacking the ability to compete with municipalities of equal size. City of Dover Compensation Commission conducted a previous study as well. They discussed historic salary, based on 10-15 hours/week. Converted previous per meeting salary to monthly salary adjusted for inflation and related to minimum wage, . The minimum wage in 2001 was $5.15/hour. If the average council person spends 20 hours/week, the annual salary should be $5356/year. Present minimum wage is $7.25/hour; 20 hours/week should yield $7540/year. If the minimum wage goes to $9.25/hour; 20 hours/week should yield $9620/year. At present, Dunkin Donuts (Rt 8) is hiring and offering $15/hour; 20 hours/week should yield $15,600/year. 10

Proposal #1 D Item 1. Mirror Kent County Levy Court Pay Scale at $33,422/year 1- City of Dover Council far exceeds the number of required meetings 2- City of Dover Council manages a more significant annual budget ($170,000,000 vs $76,731,000) 11

Proposal #2 D Item 1. Pay based upon participation 44 meetings $500/month $200 additional for every meeting attended $200 additional for retreat $2400 miscellaneous meetings, town halls and district requirements etc up to $17,200 12

Proposal #3 D Item 1. Based at $15/hour Flat change at $15/hour for 25 hours/week for 48 weeks/year $18,000/year 13

D Item 1. Dover City Council Pay Increase Further considerations: Greatly increased time commitment An unprecedented 3 council persons have resigned mid-term over the last 3 years due to the time commitment There are others who did not seek re-election due to the enormous time commitment Budget week often requires close to 40 hours/week 14

D Item 1. Dover City Council Pay Increase For the reasons stated, as well as many more, I strongly support a pay increase for the members of Dover City Council. Thank you! 15

COMPENSATION COMMISSION D Item 1. The Compensation Commission meeting was held on June 21, 2011 at 4:00 p.m. with Mr. Hogan presiding. Members present were Mr. Cook, Mr. Perza, Mrs. Webb, Mrs. Hawkins (Human Resources Director), and Mrs. Mitchell (Controller/Treasurer). Dr. Williams was absent. City Clerk’s Office Note: This is the first meeting of the Compensation Commission, which was established by City Council on October 26, 2009 through the adoption of Ordinance #2009-23, amending Chapter 2 - Administration - Article IV - Officers and Employees - Division I. Generally - Section 2-201, by adding a new Subsection (b) Compensation commission, to the Dover Code. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS By unanimous consent, members agreed to amend the agenda by adding a new Item #4A, Election of Chair. Mr. Cook moved for approval of the agenda, as amended, seconded by Mrs. Webb and unanimously carried. Self Introductions of Membership Members introduced themselves and provided a brief background summary, as follows: • Mr. Hogan advised members that he is a former Council member, with seven (7) years tenure, whose term expired in May 2011. He is also a retired educator who worked at Delaware Technical and Community College. • Mr. Cook stated that he retired from the Federal Government as a Director of Civilian Personnel after 17 years of service. He is a University of Delaware graduate and a resident of the City since November 1974. • Mrs. Mitchell indicated that she is the City Controller/Treasurer and is serving as an ex-officio member of the Commission. • Mrs. Hawkins advised members that she is the City Human Resources Director, with prior experience in the Payroll Office. She stated that she has been working for the City for 15 years. Mrs. Hawkins noted that she is an ex-officio member of the Commission. • Mr. Perza stated that he has lived in Dover his entire life, was born at Kent General Hospital, lives on State Street, and works in downtown Dover as an attorney. • Mrs. Webb indicated that she retired from the Dover Proctor & Gamble plant ten (10) years ago. She stated that she spent her entire 30-year career in finance, accounting, budget management, and forecasting. She noted that she is originally from northeastern Pennsylvania and moved to Dover in 1999. • 16

COMPENSATION COMMISSION MEETING D Item 1. OF JUNE 21, 2011 PAGE 2 Welcome by Council President Leary and Explanation of the Committee’s Purpose Mr. Hogan advised members that Council President Leary was unable to attend the meeting and requested Mr. Hogan to welcome members on his behalf. Mr. Hogan expressed his appreciation to members for agreeing to serve the City in this capacity. Mr. Hogan explained that the purpose of the Commission is to consider compensation for the Mayor, City Council, and paid members of City committees and commissions and to make recommendations to Council in this regard. He noted that the Commission consists of five appointed (5) members, in addition to the Controller/Treasurer and the Human Resources Director, who serve as non-voting, ex-officio members. He reminded members that they will serve a two (2) year term. Mr. Hogan stated that the Commission will meet as needed in order to provide a recommendation to Council in October 2011, six (6) months prior to the next municipal election, which is scheduled for April 2012. Adoption of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised - Parliamentary Authority for Conducting Meetings Mr. Cook moved for adoption of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised as the parliamentary authority for conducting meetings of the Commission, seconded by Mr. Hogan and unanimously carried. Election of Chair Mr. Cook requested that the election of a Chair be postponed until a future meeting. Noting the absence of Dr. Williams, Mrs. Webb concurred. Mr. Perza also agreed, suggesting that the election be delayed until members develop a “background” with each other. By unanimous consent, members agreed to postpone the election of a Chair until a subsequent meeting. Discussion - Meetings Dates and Times, Meeting Format, Etc. Noting the requirement to schedule a Public Hearing (possibly in mid-September), prior to providing a report to Council in October, Mr. Perza suggested the following dates and times be established for subsequent meetings: July 12, 2011 July 26, 2011 August 9, 2011 August 23, 2011 By unanimous consent, members agreed to meet at 3:00 p.m. on the dates and times proposed by Mr. Perza. Mr. Perza suggested that information be obtained from other municipalities regarding compensation rates for elected officials and committee members. • 17

COMPENSATION COMMISSION MEETING D Item 1. OF JUNE 21, 2011 PAGE 3 In response to Mr. Cook regarding the history of the establishment of rates of compensation, Mr. Hogan stated that compensation rates for Council have evolved over time. Mrs. Mitchell recalled that Council members’ salaries were last raised in approximately 2000, when payment was doubled from $300 to $600 monthly, with an inflation factor added. She stated that the salary escalator was subsequently removed. Mr. Hogan requested that the Clerk’s Office provide information regarding the history of how compensation rates were established. Responding to Mr. Cook, Mr. Hogan stated that the time that Council members devote to City business varies widely; however, he estimated that at least 10-15 hours per week are required, with additional hours dedicated by the Council President. Mrs. Mitchell noted that City Council members are called upon to review a great deal of information which is provided to them in meeting packets and that additional time is required to respond to constituents. Mr. Hogan concurred, noting that members are also required to serve on various Council committees, commissions, and boards. He suggested that Council members be consulted to obtain input regarding their responsibilities and time commitment related to their service. By unanimous consent, members agreed to request the Clerk’s Office to survey City Council members to obtain information regarding the scope of their responsibilities. Mr. Hogan requested that the Clerk’s Office provide members information regarding the function and membership structure of the various committees involved. Mr. Perza questioned how the scope of responsibilities performed by Kent County Levy Court Commissioners compares to that of City Council, noting that Levy Court Commissioners receive significantly more compensation. Mr. Hogan noted that Levy Court Commissioners also receive a pension and benefits after five (5) years of service. Mrs. Hawkins advised members that she recently performed an employee salary survey and obtained population figures for ten (10) local municipalities from the Planning Department. She suggested this information might prove useful in helping members to determine comparable municipalities and offered to provide it to members. Mrs. Mitchell stated that she and Mrs. Hawkins would develop a survey to be issued to various municipalities to obtain rate comparisons. She proposed that, when making comparisons, factors to be considered should include the size of population, form of government, and whether the municipality administers electric or water/sewer utilities. After much discussion, members developed a list of municipalities that could be surveyed to obtain rate comparisons, as follows: Newark Seaford Easton, Maryland Wilmington Georgetown Chestertown, Maryland Middletown Annapolis, Maryland Salisbury, Maryland Lewes Chester, Pennsylvania New Castle Magnolia New Town, Pennsylvania Milford • 18

COMPENSATION COMMISSION MEETING D Item 1. OF JUNE 21, 2011 PAGE 4 Mr. Perza suggested that locations in New Jersey not be considered since much of Delaware statute originates in Pennsylvania. Mrs. Webb concurred, noting that the cost of living is also much higher in New Jersey. Mr. Perza suggested consulting municipalities in Delaware and on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, as well as some municipalities in Pennsylvania that are similar in size to Dover. Responding to Mrs. Webb, Mr. Hogan stated that, if the Commission’s recommendations are approved by Council, rate changes would go into effect in May 2012. Mr. Perza moved for adjournment, seconded by Mrs. Webb and unanimously carried. Meeting Adjourned at 4:52 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Kenneth L. Hogan Member KLH/JS/ac/dd S:\AGENDAS & MINUTES\Misc-Minutes\COMPENSATION COMMISSION\06-21-2011.wpd • 19

COMPENSATION COMMISSION D Item 1. The Compensation Commission meeting was held on July 12, 2011 at 3:03 p.m. with Mr. Hogan presiding. Members present were Mr. Cook, Mr. Perza, Mrs. Webb, Dr. Williams, Mrs. Hawkins (Human Resources Director), and Mrs. Mitchell (Controller/Treasurer). AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS By unanimous consent, members approved the agenda as presented. Dr. Harry Williams introduced himself to members and noted that he missed the Commission’s initial meeting as he was traveling out of the country. He explained that he is a former lifelong resident of North Carolina who recently moved to Delaware to accept his position as President of Delaware State University. Mr. Perza expressed his appreciation to City staff for the work put into assembling informational materials provided in the Commission’s packet. Election of Chair Mr. Hogan opened the floor for nominations to serve as Chair of the Commission. Mrs. Webb moved to nominate Mr. Hogan to serve as Chairman, seconded by Mr. Cook. By unanimous consent, the floor was closed for nominations. By unanimous consent, Mr. Hogan was elected to serve as the Chairman. History of Establishment of Compensation Rates for City Officials. Members reviewed information regarding the history of compensation rates for City officials. Mr. Hogan noted that many of the changes made to City compensation policies occurred relatively recently in the City’s history. Mr. Perza noted that the Mayor and City Council initially received compensation on a per diem basis and that salaries for these positions were instituted in the 1990s. He indicated that the minutes from earlier meetings reflect that service was perceived as a donation of an individual’s time for the betterment of the City, rather than equating time to a dollar amount. Mr. Cook commented that fluctuations and adjustments made to salaries did not appear to be “fact-based” but were the result of circumstantial changes in the City. City Council and Mayor Responsibilities Members discussed the Results of Survey - Council Responsibilities as well as the Mayor’s response to the Survey. Mr. Cook commented that, according to the Survey, Council members receive an hourly rate which is lower than that paid to election workers or the City’s lowest-paid employees. Mrs. Webb felt that the public does not have a good understanding of the extent of Council’s responsibilities. Mr. Hogan expressed his opinion that Council members do not typically serve primarily to • receive monetary remuneration but to benefit the City, and felt that this orientation was appropriate. He stated his belief that the estimates provided by Council members regarding the number of hours 20

COMPENSATION COMMISSION MEETING D Item 1. OF JULY 12, 2011 PAGE 2 dedicated to service were conservative. Concurring, Dr. Williams noted that those who hold public office are never “off duty,” as they are frequently called or approached by constituents. Comparison of City Salary/Reimbursement Rates for Mayor, Council, and Other Paid Commission/Committee Members with Other Local Governments Members reviewed information regarding the rates of compensation paid by other local government agencies. Mr. Hogan stated that it appeared that the City of Dover’s committees and boards are compensated at a higher rate than other municipalities and that many municipalities provide no reimbursement at all for this type of service. Noting that (according to the information reviewed) those jurisdictions that provide higher rates of compensation to Council members often have elections in November, Mr. Perza speculated that more significant salaries may be linked to municipalities that have partisan councils. He suggested that several different approaches could be taken when deliberating about the City’s rates of compensation, including a historical perspective that considers Council’s past actions, a comparison of the City’s rates to other jurisdictions, and consideration of a non-partisan versus a partisan council. Mr. Hogan advised members that the primary responsibilities of the Mayor involve attending meetings, representing the City at public functions, and overseeing the Police Department. He explained that the Mayor does not have a vote on Council but has veto power, which is typically not exercised often. Mr. Hogan stated that, in his opinion, the $45,000 salary allocated to the mayoral position is more than adequate since the City Manager serves as Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and Council has ultimate authority; however, he noted that the Mayor serves as the “face of the City” and the current Mayor works in excess of 40 hours per week. Mr. Hogan advised members that the City operates under a Council/City Manager form of government. He stated that, prior to 1987, the Mayor presided at City Council meetings and was entitled to vote. In 1987, the City was redistricted and the Council President position was created. Mr. Hogan explained that the City Manager now functions as the CEO of the City and reports to City Council. He noted that during a referendum held on April 20, 2004, citizens approved the full-time status of the mayor. In response to Mr. Perza, Mr. Hogan explained that the Compensation Commission was created to review rates of compensation for the Mayor, Council, and City committees, commissions, and boards annually and to provide a recommendation to Council for any adjustments that may be necessary. Mr. Hogan stated that, after reviewing the information provided by other municipalities, his initial reaction was that there did not appear to be justification for a pay raise for Council and that the boards appear to be compensated fairly. Mrs. Webb indicated that any recommendation made by the Commission should be data-based. Concurring, Mr. Cook noted that the goal of the Commission should be to provide a fact-based, business-based model so that the logic for making decisions on compensation would be established for the future. Mr. Hogan was in favor of surveying Council on an annual basis regarding the time commitment involved in serving, stating that this would provide information which would be increasingly valuable over time. Concurring, Mr. Perza suggested that this be completed at the end of the legislative year, in April, so that information could be obtained from outgoing Council members. • 21

COMPENSATION COMMISSION MEETING D Item 1. OF JULY 12, 2011 PAGE 3 Mr. Perza suggested that the Commission could structure future meetings by devoting July to investigation and research, August to formulating a recommendation, and September to the public process. The Commission could then submit a recommendation to Council in October. Mr. Perza stated that the following approaches could be considered by the Commission when developing a recommendation: 1) Returning to the City’s historic philosophical view that holding public office is a public service (possibly returning to per diem reimbursement). 2) Basing a recommendation on a comparison of the City’s rates of remuneration with other comparable local government entities. Mr. Perza requested that staff obtain the rates of compensation paid to Kent County Levy Court Commissioners and County committee, commission, and board members. In addition, he requested information regarding the amount paid by the City during previous years to members of committees, commissions, and boards and election workers. Dr. Williams suggested that information from the Town of Smyrna be added to the survey. Mr. Perza noted that the combined salary of the Dover City Manager and the Mayor exceeds the rate paid to the Mayor of Annapolis, who appears to perform this combined function. Mrs. Webb moved to recommend that staff be directed to distribute a survey to outgoing members of Council each year, prior to their departure, to obtain information regarding the responsibilities and time commitment involved in service, and that staff perform comparisons with other jurisdictions each year regarding rates of compensation for the Mayor, Council, and paid members of committees, commissions, and boards. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cook and unanimously carried. In response to Mr. Perza, Mrs. Traci McDowell, City Clerk, stated that communication between members outside of meetings should be confined to superficial matters involving meeting schedules, etc. This would prevent members from engaging in discussions that could be perceived as “a serial meeting” under the Freedom of Information Act and would also ensure that members have access to the same information when formulating their recommendation to Council. She stated that if members have information that they wish to share, the City Clerk’s Office would be glad to distribute this information to all members of the Commission. By unanimous consent, the meeting adjourned at 4:04 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kenneth L. Hogan Chairman KLH/TM/js/ac/dd S:\AGENDAS & MINUTES\Misc-Minutes\COMPENSATION COMMISSION\07-12-2011.wpd • 22

COMPENSATION COMMISSION D Item 1. The Compensation Commission meeting was held on July 26, 2011 at 3:00 p.m. with Mr. Hogan presiding. Members present were Mr. Cook, Mr. Perza, Mrs. Webb, Dr. Williams, and Mrs. Mitchell (Controller/Treasurer). Mrs. Hawkins was absent. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS By unanimous consent, members approved the agenda as presented. Review of Compensation Rates - Kent County and Town of Smyrna Members reviewed information regarding rates of compensation provided by Kent County and the Town of Smyrna to public officials. The Commission took no action. Review of Compensation Paid by the City to Members of Committees, Commissions, and Boards and Election Workers During Previous Years Members reviewed information regarding Annual Payments to Mayor/Council/Committee Members/Commissions and Election Workers. Mrs. Mitchell explained that differences in annual compensation for the Mayor were the result of varying amounts of reimbursement for taxes paid due to vehicle use and computed income on life insurance; however, she noted that the Mayor’s salary was established by charter at $45,000. She noted that fluctuations in the amounts paid to committee members resulted from variations in the number of meetings held and the number of members in attendance. Members also reviewed information regarding changes in the function of Election Board members resulting from amendments to the election law. Mrs. Mitchell advised members that the Election Board has five (5) members, one from each Council District and one (1) who represents the City at large. Mr. Hogan explained that all Election Board members must be available during an election. The Commission took no action. Continued Research and Discussion Regarding the City of Dover Compensation for Public Officials Noting the requirement for a public hearing regarding compensation for public officials, Mr. Hogan suggested that this hearing be scheduled in early September, followed by a meeting of the Commission during which a final recommendation to Council regarding compensation could be developed. He stated that Mrs. Traci McDowell, City Clerk, could be consulted to determine an appropriate time frame for the public hearing. Mr. Hogan stated that copies of information reviewed by members in meeting packets could be made available and informational charts summarizing the information could also be presented during the public hearing. He felt that the public should be advised of the Commission’s decision to obtain a compensation comparison between municipalities and survey of time commitment of the Mayor and Council on an annual basis. In response to Mr. Perza, Mr. Hogan stated that the purpose of the public hearing would be to present the data gathered by the Commission and solicit public input regarding rates of compensation. • 23

COMPENSATION COMMISSION MEETING D Item 1. OF JULY 26, 2011 PAGE 2 By unanimous consent, members agreed to contact the City Clerk to request that a public hearing be scheduled for September 13, 2011, to schedule a follow-up meeting on October 4, 2011 to formulate the Commission’s recommendations, and to present their final recommendations during the City Council Meeting scheduled for October 24, 2011. By unanimous consent, the meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kenneth L. Hogan Chairman KLH/JS/ac/tm S:\AGENDAS & MINUTES\Misc-Minutes\COMPENSATION COMMISSION\07-26-2011.wpd • 24

COMPENSATION COMMISSION D Item 1. The Compensation Commission meeting was held on September 13, 2011 at 6:00 p.m. with Chairman Hogan presiding. Members present were Mr. Cook, Mr. Perza (arrived at 6:07 p.m.), Mrs. Webb, Mrs. Hawkins (Human Resources Director), and Mrs. Mitchell (Controller/Treasurer). Dr. Williams was absent. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS By unanimous consent, members approved the agenda as presented. Public Hearing - City of Dover Compensation for the Mayor, City Council, and Paid Members of City Committees, Commissions, and Boards Mr. Hogan explained that the Compensation Commission was established by City Council on October 26, 2009 to consider compensation for the Mayor, City Council, and paid members of City committees and commissions. He explained that, by ordinance, the Commission is required to hold a public hearing prior to submitting their recommendation to City Council and that Council is scheduled to consider this matter on October 10, 2011. Mr. Hogan explained that the Commission reviewed a variety of information including surveys of Mayor and Council responsibilities and compensation paid by other jurisdictions, a history of compensation paid by the City for these services in the past, and a study of the amount of funds expended for this purpose during several previous years. He stated that the Commission recommended that the surveys of Mayor and Council responsibilities and compensation paid in other jurisdictions be completed on an annual basis and that no other recommendations had been formulated to date. He introduced the members of the Commission and opened the floor for public comment. Mrs. Fran Savin, 226 N. Governors Avenue, read the following statement into the record: With confidence in Government at an all time low, coupled with the fact that only 4% of the registered voters in Dover actually voted in the last council election, I believe that there should be no pay for persons serving on the City Council. This would save the City of Dover $66,744 per year, especially in a year where Council seems more concerned with cutting the number of employees, their benefits and city services instead of trying to find creative revenue to at least maintain the status quo. I say that Councilpersons should run because they have the City's Best interest at heart! Many Councilpersons mention that they are on boards and committees of local non-profit and community organizations that they are not paid for, yet they expect the City to pay them. When an individual decides to run for a seat on Council, he or she asks the residents of their district to vote for them. Therefore, the City of Dover didn't hire them to serve as members, the citizens did in the form of their votes! (4%) I say if you don't really have the citizen's best interest in mind and don't want to volunteer your time, then don't run!!! With that being said, I would ask that if this policy was implemented tonight, how • 25

COMPENSATION COMMISSION MEETING D Item 1. OF SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 PAGE 2 many council members seated today would choose to run for re-election. Are you indeed here to voice the will of your constituents and help the City of Dover move forward or are you just here for the pocket change!! Secondly, I believe the position of Mayor should be reduced back to a part-time position, saving the City of Dover an additional $25,000.00 per year. There is no need for the mayor to supervise the Dover Police Department, as that is what the qualified Chief of Police is paid to do. The Police Chief can answer directly to the City Manager, just as other Departments are required to do. The Mayor should simply become a much needed Ambassador for the City and be able to spend his time soliciting new businesses to come to Dover, thus creating jobs, Tax revenue, Electric, Water and Sewer revenue, Builders Fees etc. Thank you for your time. Mr. Michael Hemmig, 740 E. Division Street, explained that he serves as the Chairman of the City of Dover Planning Commission. He emphasized that he was not speaking on behalf of the Commission or any of its members, but simply on his own behalf as he serves in that capacity. He stated that he felt it was fair that City Council members are compensated for their time and effort. Mr. Hemmig noted that if Council was not partially compensated, the City would have to hire individuals to perform functions that are currently being performed for a small stipend. In regard to compensation for commissions, he noted that Planning Commissioners receive $100 per month and attend one (1) meeting each month. Mr. Hemmig felt that this level of compensation was appropriate, explaining that this stipend provides compensation for the time expended (approximately ten (10) hours per month) in previewing properties being discussed at meetings and helps to defray the cost of gas used for this purpose. He noted that when he accepted his appointment to the Planning Commission, he was unaware that commissioners were compensated. However, having served on the Commission for over ten (10) years, he felt it was appropriate to recover some of the costs that are incurred in serving. Mr. Hemmig stated that he supported the compensation received by City Council and commissions. Mr. Hogan invited the public to review the materials provided. There being no one else present wishing to speak, the Public Hearing was closed. By unanimous consent, the meeting adjourned at 6:14 p.m. Kenneth L. Hogan Chairman KLH/JS/dd/tm S:\AGENDAS & MINUTES\Misc-Minutes\COMPENSATION COMMISSION\09-13-2011.wpd • 26

COMPENSATION COMMISSION D Item 1. The Compensation Commission meeting was held on September 20, 2011 at 4:13 p.m. with Chairman Hogan presiding. Members present were Mr. Cook, Mr. Perza, Mrs. Webb, Mrs. Hawkins (Human Resources Director), and Mrs. Mitchell (Controller/Treasurer). Dr. Williams was absent. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS By unanimous consent, members approved the agenda as presented. Compensation for the Mayor, City Council, and Paid Members of City Committees, Commissions, and Boards Mr. Hogan reiterated that the goal of the Commission was to develop a recommendation to Council regarding compensation for: 1) City Council, 2) the Mayor, and 3) members of City committees, commissions, and boards. He suggested that the Commission begin its task by formulating a recommendation in regard to City Council. City Council Mrs. Webb stated that she could not support a raise for Council in the current economic climate. Mr. Cook felt that the Commission should establish a basis for their recommendation to Council regarding the level of compensation suggested. He noted that Council members are currently paid $7,416 per year and that a survey regarding Council’s responsibilities revealed that members work an average of 20 hours per week (half-time). He advised members that the federal minimum wage is currently $7.25 per hour and that 20 hours per week at that rate would total $7,540 per year. Mr. Cook moved to recommend that Council’s level of compensation be changed to $7,540 annually, that this be the basis for future evaluation and recommendations regarding compensation, and that the Council President receive an additional 15% of this amount, or an annual salary of $8,671. In response to Mrs. Hawkins, Mr. Cook stated that, under this proposal, if the federal minimum wage were to increase, this could be addressed during the Compensation Commission’s regularly scheduled review of compensation. Mr. Perza felt that tying compensation to the minimum wage rate could bring unintended consequences in the future. Mrs. Webb noted that, since this was the first time the Compensation Commission would be presenting a recommendation to Council, their initial recommendation could serve as the basis for reviewing this issue in the future. The motion to recommend that Council’s level of compensation be changed to $7,540 annually, that this be the basis for future evaluation and recommendations regarding compensation and that the Council President receive an additional 15% of this amount, or an annual salary of $8,671, failed for lack of a second. • 27

COMPENSATION COMMISSION MEETING D Item 1. OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 PAGE 2 Mr. Hogan suggested that the Commission advise Council that, in reviewing this matter, members found that the current salary was reasonable and just for the work that Council members perform. Mrs. Webb moved to recommend that, because: 1) in reviewing this matter, the Commission found that current Council salaries are very similar to compensation at the current federal minimum wage level for a half-time (20 hour per week) position; and 2) there was no empirical data or overwhelming public sentiment that demonstrated that change was indicated, current salary levels for City Council remain unchanged. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cook and unanimously carried. Mayor In reviewing the Mayor’s salary, Mr. Hogan noted that there was no strong public opinion regarding a change in the current level of compensation. Mr. Cook moved to recommend that the Mayor’s salary and compensation remain at the current level ($45,000), in view of the lack of evidence of strong public opinion to support a change, seconded by Mr. Perza and unanimously carried. City Committees, Commissions, and Boards In considering compensation for members of City committees, commissions, and boards, Mr. Hogan felt that the City provides fair compensation to these individuals. He noted that members of the Election Board have had a decrease in responsibility since their compensation was set; however, he noted that they are involved in the City’s redistricting process which occurs every ten (10) years following the census. Mrs. Webb moved to recommend that no changes be made in the compensation of paid members of the City’s committees, commissions, and boards but that Council review the compensation and work responsibilities of the members of the Election Board due to changes made by the State in regard to their duties. The motion was seconded by Mr. Perza and unanimously carried. By unanimous consent, members agreed that the previous recommendations made by the Commission be incorporated in their final recommendations to be presented to City Council on October 10, 2011, as follows: 1) It is recommended that staff be directed to distribute a survey to outgoing members of Council each year, prior to their departure, to obtain information regarding the responsibilities and time commitment involved in service. 2) It is recommended that staff be directed to perform comparisons with other jurisdictions each year regarding the rates of compensation for the Mayor, Council, and paid members of committees, commissions, and boards. • 28

COMPENSATION COMMISSION MEETING D Item 1. OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 PAGE 3 By unanimous consent, the meeting adjourned at 4:37 p.m. Kenneth L. Hogan Chairman KLH/JS/dd/tm S:\AGENDAS & MINUTES\Misc-Minutes\COMPENSATION COMMISSION\09-20-11.wpd • 29

COMPENSATION COMMISSION D Item 1. The Compensation Commission meeting was held on January 11, 2017 at 6:02 p.m. with Council President Slavin (departed at 6:09 p.m.) presiding. Members present were Mr. Brockton, Mr. Leary, Mr. Wagner, Mrs. Hawkins (Human Resources Director), and Mrs. Mitchell (Controller/Treasurer). Mrs. Taylor was absent. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Leary moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Brockton and unanimously carried. Self-Introduction of Members At the request of Mr. Slavin, members introduced themselves. Mr. Brockton and Mr. Wagner indicated that they were residents and Mr. Leary advised that he was nearly a lifelong resident and a former member of Dover City Council. Welcome by Council President Slavin and Explanation of the Commission’s Purpose Council President Slavin thanked members for agreeing to serve in this capacity. He advised that the charge before members was stated in Sec. 2-201(b) of the Dover code and that the Commission was to meet as needed, with a report due to council six (6) months prior to the regular municipal election, with one (1) public hearing. Mr. Slavin indicated that there were further restrictions on what Council can and cannot do with the Commission’s recommendations, noting that the Dover Code states that, “upon receiving the resolution of the commission, the city council may reduce or reject the commission's recommendation, but it may not increase any item in the resolution.” Responding to Mr. Wagner, Mr. Slavin stated that there would have to be a majority vote when Council considers the Commission’s recommendations. He noted that if there were any recommended changes to compensation levels, those recommendations would have to go through the ordinance process, and this is what the vote would entail. Mr. Slavin stated that the Code reference is a restrictor plate so that Council cannot ask members of the Compensation Commission to serve and make a recommendation, and then disregard the Commission’s recommendation and triple it. Mr. Slavin advised that there was also language stating that “the recommendations contained in the resolutions, and any permitted changes to such recommendations, shall not become effective unless adopted by ordinance enacted at least three months prior to the elections of the next succeeding mayor and council, and shall take effect only for the next succeeding terms of office of the mayor and council.” He indicated that this honors the provision of the United States Constitution that a sitting Congress cannot raise its own pay and must wait for an intervening election. Mr. Slavin advised members that the City is bound by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and all meetings would be in public session. He requested, if members had a need to go into executive session, that they work with the City Clerk’s Office to identify what that need might be, noting that Mr. Leary was well versed in FOIA. Mr. Slavin stated that Robert’s Rules of Order are used for the conduct of meetings. He pledged his support in whatever members needed to conduct their business, noting that they also had the full support of the City Clerk’s Office, as well as the other departments in the government, including the Finance and Human Resources Departments. Mr. Slavin expressed his desire to keep the process free from any interference whatsoever from other members of Council. • 30

COMPENSATION COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 11, 2017 PAGE 2 D Item 1. He asked members to alert him if they felt there was undue influence or attempted undue influence, noting that he would be glad to police this for them. Mr. Leary noted that if a Councilman was to approach a member of the Commission they would not have to run and hide. Mr. Slavin stated that members would want to find an appropriate public venue to hear that Council member so that they could feel that they were heard. Election of Chair Mr. Leary advised that he would be happy to volunteer to serve as Chair. Mr. Brockton moved to nominate Mr. Leary to serve as Chair. Mr. Wagner moved to close the floor for nominations, seconded by Mr. Brockton and unanimously carried. By unanimous consent, Mr. Leary was elected to serve as Chair of the Compensation Commission. Mr. Leary noted that if the Commission was to have an effect on the 2017 elections, they would be making their recommendation now. He stated his understanding that members should not feel compelled by the clock since, as a practical matter, their recommendation would be looking toward 2019. Responding, Mr. Slavin stated that the import of asking members to serve was not to squeeze something in, and he asked members to take the time they need to get through the issue. Discussion - Meeting Dates and Times, Meeting Format, Etc. Mrs. Jody Stein, Administrative Assistant, City Clerk’s Office, stated that when members of the Commission were contacted by email, Wednesday was the only night when all members seemed to be available, and members agreed to confine meetings to Wednesdays for the most part. Mr. Leary volunteered to get in touch with the Clerk’s Office to see how this matter had been approached in the past and how frequently the Commission had met. He stated that he did not think weekly meetings were necessary and he suggested meeting once per month for a while. After further discussion, members agreed to schedule their next meeting for February 22, 2017. Mr. Leary asked Mrs. Mitchell and Mrs. Hawkins to contact him before the next meeting if they had any suggestions regarding what type of data would be needed. Mrs. Hawkins noted that the Commission meets as needed and questioned if this meeting had been requested by someone. Responding, Mrs. Stein stated that she would have to consult meeting minutes to be sure; however, some members of Council had suggested that a lot of time was being devoted to their offices. She noted that the last time the Commission met was in 2011. Mr. Wagner expressed his understanding that the Commission had gone through the laborious process of trying to compare Dover to other cities the last time, stating that he was unsure if this was a particularly effective rationale; however, it would be for the members to decide. • 31

COMPENSATION COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 11, 2017 PAGE 3 D Item 1. Mr. Leary suggested perhaps taking a look at cost-of-living figures over approximately the last five (5) years, thinking like an economist. Mr. Wagner stated that he did not understand how to operate without a proposed budget. He indicated that he would like to know what percentage the salaries and fringe benefits were of the operating budget, excluding the capital budget. Mr. Wagner asked if there would be a recommendation from the City Manager. Responding, Mr. Leary stated that he did not see this called for, at least not in writing, noting that this matter would not affect employees but the Mayor, Council, and committee members. He noted that the Commission would deal only with elected and appointed officials. Mr. Leary stated that he would like to have attendance figures, particularly for elected officials but not confined to them. He suggested taking the last six (6) months and annualizing figures to see who was attending and who was not. Mr. Leary stated that, while serving on Council, he had a hand in transitioning to salaries for Council. He indicated that before the transition, Council members were compensated per meeting. Mr. Leary explained that those who showed up received $75 and those who did not show did not receive $75. Mrs. Mitchell asked if members would be looking at just Council or the committees as well. Responding, Mr. Leary indicated that it would be the whole structure. Mrs. Hawkins stated that approximately a year ago, Council changed the meeting format and began holding Council Committee of the Whole meetings on Tuesdays. She noted that instead of attending meetings only on Monday nights with committee meetings being held before Council meetings, they now attend two (2) evenings. Mrs. Hawkins commented that, trying to be equal, if it was said that Council members deserved additional compensation because they were attending meetings two (2) nights per week, there were dedicated staff members, such as Mrs. Mitchell and the City Manager, who were doing the same. Mr. Leary stated that he was not necessarily inferring that there would be additional compensation. Mrs. Mitchell expressed her understanding that Mr. Leary was referring to equitable compensation tied to attendance, so that if members do not attend they do not get paid. Mrs. Hawkins advised that she had heard from both Council and staff that the additional night was an underlying issue. Mr. Leary stated that he would consider the Commission insulated from those concerns with Council in this regard, and it would be up to Council to decide. He expressed a desire to look at who is showing up and who is not, as well as who is doing the work and who is not. Mr. Leary advised that he was not trying to lecture but was afflicted with a long memory going back to when Council was paid per meeting, Council meetings were held on one (1) night and committee meetings on another, and former Councilman Francis Weyandt would sit and stare at members who did not make it on time. Mr. Leary noted that there were ways to better implement this. Mrs. Mitchell stated that, along those same lines, there was the same issue with committees. Mr. Leary indicated that he was not trying to dominate; however, attendance was something that had been on his mind. He noted that members should feel free to mention things that they would like researched or otherwise brought forward. • 32

COMPENSATION COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 11, 2017 PAGE 4 D Item 1. Mr. Wagner asked if there was rationale for the current discussion or if it was just that people wanted more. Responding, Mrs. Hawkins stated that, from what she had been hearing, individuals were working an additional night and having to be away in the evening from their families and other commitments. She noted that this was like saying to an hourly employee that they would start working 48 hours versus 40. Mr. Wagner advised that it did not work that way, stating that he did not receive a check when serving on the school board. Responding to Mr. Leary, Mrs. Stein confirmed that the Commission met last in 2011, and Mr. Leary noted that this was five (5) or six (6) years ago. In response to Mrs. Mitchell regarding when adjustments were last made, Mrs. Stein indicated that she was unsure. Mr. Leary noted that Council had taken a voluntary cut in approximate 2001 or 2002 and the figures then went back to the way they were. He stated his belief that these figures had not changed much in a while. Mrs. Mitchell commented that compensation had been tied to something like an inflation rate; however, she believed that this was stopped after the first year. Mr. Wagner asked if there was an original ordinance regarding paying Council members a salary. In response, Mr. Leary advised that Council members were originally paid the sum of $10 per meeting, starting sometime in the 1950s, which increased to $25 and then $50. He stated that the rate was $50 per meeting when he began serving on Council in 1992 and increased to $75. Mr. Leary explained that in 1993, he sat down with Mr. Mike Karia, former Finance Director/Treasurer, to figure out compensation. Mr. Leary advised that the population literally tripled between the 1950 and 1990 census. He and Mr. Karia had considered inflation on an annual basis, rather than quarterly or monthly, and came up with $600 per month as what the $10 per meeting equated to back in the 1950s. Mr. Leary noted that the amount had jumped a bit since, but not a lot. Mr. Wagner questioned if the ordinance specified why members were being paid. Responding, Mr. Leary advised that he did not think that it did, stating that he would have to read it. Mr. Wagner asked if there was something to indicate that these were full-time salaries for full-time participation in all activities. In response, Mr. Leary stated that the intent was not for compensation to become a salary but to fairly compensate members for gas, going to meetings, and walking around type of expenses, rather than for a job that was worth $7,200 per year. He indicated that the only discussion regarding a salary for full-time duties revolved around the Mayor’s office. Mr. Leary stated that the minutes could be checked to confirm. Mr. Wagner stated that it would be interesting if it stated that compensation was for full-time participation. Responding, Mrs. Mitchell explained that the Code states that members shall receive an annual salary but does not state that they are expected to be full-time or part-time. Mr. Leary suggested that members email and communicate with him to provide their input, stating that he did not want this to be just about him and how he thought it should be run. Mrs. Stein suggested that members communicate through the City Clerk’s Office to prevent a serial meeting and Mr. Leary concurred. • 33

COMPENSATION COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 11, 2017 PAGE 5 D Item 1. By unanimous consent, the meeting adjourned at 6:25 p.m. Thomas J. Leary Chairman TJL/JS S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Misc-Minutes\COMPENSATION COMMISSION\01-11-2017 COMPENSATION COMMISSION MINUTES.wpd • 34

COMPENSATION COMMISSION D Item 1. The Compensation Commission meeting was held on March 22, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. with Chairman Leary presiding. Members present were Mrs. Taylor, Mr. Wagner, and Mrs. Mitchell (Controller/Treasurer). Mr. Brockton and Mrs. Hawkins (Human Resources Director) were absent. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mrs. Mitchell moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mrs. Taylor and unanimously carried. Determination of Data to be Collected Mr. Leary advised that the first task before members was to have some consensus as to the general data members wanted to review so that staff would have a cogent task to perform. Mr. Leary referred to the samples of information that were provided in the past for Compensation Commission studies, stating that members would not necessarily accept them. Referring to the Survey of City Council Member Responsibilities, he noted that he completed such a survey in years past and suggested that members obtain these surveys. Mrs. Taylor concurred, stating that in order to make a sound decision, she would need to know what members do and how much of their time it requires. She indicated that she also liked the data that was provided regarding how cities of similar sizes are run and how they choose to compensate. Mrs. Taylor noted that she was starting from ground zero and did not have a lot of history and would like to know what she is looking at before she decides. In response to Mr. Leary, Mrs. Taylor stated that she was in favor of surveying other municipalities. Mr. Wagner pointed out that members had that information. Responding, Mrs. Taylor explained that the data was collected by the Compensation Commission in 2011 and was, therefore, old. Mrs. Jody Stein, Administrative Assistant, City Clerk’s Office, noted that the Survey of City Council Member Responsibilities indicated that it was only for City Council members. Mr. Leary stated that members would consider distributing it to the Mayor as well. Mr. Leary advised that, prior to the meeting, Mr. Wagner had mentioned job descriptions for the Mayor and Council and asked if Mr. Wagner would like to see if other municipalities had job descriptions. Responding, Mr. Wagner indicated that it would depend on what other members thought, noting that there was only so much that members could do. Mr. Wagner stated that the public should know about the job so that someone would not come back saying that they were attending more meetings than they wanted to attend. Mr. Wagner expressed the desire to find out how many meetings members attended. He stated he was unsure if members could get job descriptions. Mrs. Mitchell noted that Mr. Wagner was not asking just for a job description but to know how many meetings members attended so they would know that a Councilperson was really involved and active when they come up for elections. She indicated that there was no score card for the public to see that information. Mr. Wagner advised, when looking at City elections, that there is no ruler to evaluate those who are serving or those who are running. He noted that there are pseudo debates where these things should • 35

COMPENSATION COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 22, 2017 PAGE 2 D Item 1. come up. Mr. Wagner stated that Mr. Leary had mentioned that members were previously paid per meeting and Mr. Wagner advised that he thought this was the right way to do it. He noted that this was discontinued because Council wanted a salary and that they are paid approximately $7,400. He stated that this should encompass everything that a Councilperson does. Mr. Wagner indicated that if Council members have to attend six (6) meetings, then they should do so, this is part of the job, and members should not complain that they have too many meetings to attend. He stated that the school board members were the only ones left in the State of Delaware with no compensation, noting that as a school board member he worked very hard for no pay. Mr. Wagner advised that he thought it would be very valuable from a public standpoint to begin evaluating Council and educating the public as to what these individuals do and whether people qualify. He stated that this may be why the public is not interested. Mr. Leary noted that he had also brought up the subject of attendance, stating his understanding that Council members would be expected to attend normal and customary Council meetings, executive sessions, and the meetings of committees that Council members are assigned to, and he asked if he was missing anything else. Mrs. Jody Stein, Administrative Assistant, explained that the City Clerk’s Office had been tracking attendance for approximately the last year on a specific checklist, and that this information was available. Mrs. Taylor asked if just attending the meetings was all of the job description. Mr. Leary advised that hopefully those attending the meetings would be active participants and do the types of things they were supposed to do to prepare for or participate in meetings. Mrs. Taylor noted that a bit of time should be spent before meetings. Mr. Leary commented that this would be part of the survey that would be distributed to members. Mr. Wagner stated that Council had accepted a deal to be paid $7,400 to get the job done, and Mr. Leary concurred. Mr. Wagner commented that he had no objection to members being paid per meeting, as Mr. Leary had been paid previously. Responding, Mr. Leary suggested seeing what the data would show. Mrs. Mitchell explained that Mr. Wagner was basically saying the Council members should be like exempt employees who have to work whatever it takes to get the job done. Mr. Wagner noted that this was public service. Mrs. Mitchell noted that members are paid whether or not they are present at meetings. Mr. Leary advised that he had not heard any objections to getting a fresh survey of the numbers from other municipalities and doing the survey for members of Dover City Council. He asked if members wanted to add the Mayor to the survey. Mr. Wagner and Mrs. Taylor indicated that they did. Mr. Leary noted that attendance figures could be obtained from the City Clerk’s Office. Mr. Leary informed members that the National League of Cities (NLC) is a good resource on a number of topics dealing with local government and suggested that information might be easily garnered from their website. Mrs. Mitchell stated that she could ask Mrs. Yvonne Martine, Secretary, City Manager’s Office, to perform this task, and members concurred. Mr. Wagner reiterated the importance of the Commission’s opportunity to educate the public about what was going on. Mr. Leary stated his belief that members would want to present their recommendations to Council in open chambers. • 36

COMPENSATION COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 22, 2017 PAGE 3 D Item 1. Mrs. Taylor noted that she is a business person and when she has an open position in her company she creates at least a bare minimum job description that would at least include things like the number of meetings members should attend. She advised that she states the compensation that goes along with the position and it is then up to her as a business owner to choose the right person. Mrs. Taylor indicated that this would also be true for the public. Mr. Leary suggested asking for job descriptions for Councilpersons or Mayor as part of the survey of other jurisdictions and Mrs. Taylor concurred. Mrs. Mitchell recalled that former Mayor Stephen Speed had written a job description for Mayor when he was serving but was unsure if it went through a Council adoption process or not. Mrs. Taylor asked if this record would still be available and Mrs. Mitchell advised that it would. Mr. Wagner stated that the tax base of each city being compared should have some bearing on what is paid or not paid, for instance, when trying to compare Dover to Newark or Annapolis. Mrs. Mitchell stated her understanding that, when looking for this information through the NLC, members would like to use NLC cities rather than those listed on the municipal survey. In response, Mr. Leary stated his recollection that the NLC’s information was organized and broken down somehow, noting that there were small city and big city committees. Mrs. Mitchell commented that there may be a population range. Mr. Leary advised that he was not as interested in what the NLC had for salaries as much as job descriptions; however, whatever Mrs. Martine could find would be helpful. Mr. Wagner stated that the Mayor of Annapolis, Maryland, receives $98,000 a year and Annapolis has three (3) times the taxpayers that Dover has; therefore, $98,000 was probably not enough. Mrs. Stein asked if members wished to survey the municipalities and jurisdictions that were used previously and Mr. Wagner responded yes. Mr. Leary stated, hypothetically, that members may get into a discussion about whether Dover’s Mayor should be paid as much as the Mayor of Annapolis. He noted that this data could be used to indicate that apples and oranges were being compared. Mrs. Taylor advised that in 2011, the populations that matched most closely were Dover and Newark in Delaware, Chester in Pennsylvania, and Annapolis and Salisbury in Maryland; however, the other municipalities’ tax bases were quite different from Dover’s. She noted that these may not actually be appropriate cities to look at. Mr. Wagner questioned where the Mayor’s $45,000 salary came from originally. Mr. Leary advised that Mayor Hutchison was the first to receive this salary; however, he did not recall that being the original figure and that he thought it was a lower number. Mrs. Taylor stated her recollection that the salary may have been in the $20,000s; however, Mr. Leary stated that he thought this was low and the minutes would have to be researched to see what happened back in approximately 1990. He advised that he could provide a history of what the rationale was for paying the salary in the first place; however, he could not recall why this number was picked. • 37

COMPENSATION COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 22, 2017 PAGE 4 D Item 1. Mrs. Mitchell commented that the Mayor does not normally stay for the entirety of City Council meetings but listens to them in his office; therefore, it may appear that he is absent. She was unsure if this was true for every meeting. Mrs. Mitchell explained that when the dynamics changed and the Mayor was taken off the dais, he did not feel it proper for him to be there since these meetings were Council deliberations. Mrs. Taylor noted that there were no other benefits for Council members and asked if benefits could be part of the comparison with other municipalities. Mrs. Taylor asked, when members were talking about responsibilities, if they were talking about the Mayor’s responsibilities as well as Council members. Mr. Leary replied that they were. Future Meeting Dates Members agreed to schedule their next meeting for April 26, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. In regard to the Survey of Mayor and Council Member Responsibilities, Mr. Leary asked if these surveys could be returned before April 26, 2017. He noted that this would be the best opportunity for the Mayor or members of Council to have input because the Commission has no interface with them on this subject. Mr. Leary stated that it would be to their benefit to submit the survey, and if they did not do so he would assume that they do not care. Mrs. Mitchell noted that, because there was an upcoming election, some members may not fill out surveys. By unanimous consent, the meeting adjourned at 6:22 p.m. Thomas J. Leary Chairman TJL/JS/ S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Misc-Minutes\COMPENSATION COMMISSION\03-22-2017 COMPENSATION COMMISSION MINUTES.wpd • 38

ACTION FORM D Item 2. PROCEEDING: Committee of the Whole (Legislative and Finance) DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Mayor’s Office DATE SUBMITTED: October 27, 2021 PREPARED BY: Robin R. Christiansen SUBJECT: American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding proposal for Motel Vouchers and Utility Payments in response to the impact of COVID-19 in disadvantaged communities REFERENCE: N/A RELATED PROJECT: American Rescue Plan Act Funding (ARPA) REVIEWED BY: EXHIBITS: N/A EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $500,000 AMOUNT BUDGETED: FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): TIMETABLE: Pending Council approval, ARPA funding will be awarded to the Department of Health and Social Services for the issuance of motel vouchers and utility payment assistance for persons affected from COVID-19 and Dover Interfaith Mission for Housing for the issuance of motel vouchers to homeless persons. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed budget totaling $500,000 BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS With the eviction moratorium set to expire on October 31, 2021, there were 276 filings during the first week of October and a total of 10,654 since March 15, 2020 for the State of Delaware according to the Eviction Lab.* This data indicates there will be an increase in homelessness due to lack of affordable rental housing and all emergency shelters will be filled to capacity. Currently, the case management program for Dover Interfaith Mission for Housing has 10 homeless families, 40 homeless men and 72 homeless women in need of housing. The City of Dover only has 3 homeless shelters located within city limits along with Code Purple providers. Over the past year, the issuance of motel vouchers has become the primary resource of reducing homelessness throughout the State with temporary housing. Although it is not a permanent solution, it will be necessary to provide motel vouchers for the anticipated numbers individuals and families that will experience homelessness. The City of Dover partnered with the Delaware Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) in April of 2020 to administer the CARES Act funding to prevent, prepare and respond to coronavirus (COVID-19). The funds were used to provide motel vouchers to homeless families and individuals and pay utilities for persons facing disconnection of their services due to Covid-19. The City received an allocation of $475,372 in which 99% of the funds have been spent year to date assisting over 70 families and individuals. The Mayor’s Office is proposing to allocate $450,000 to the Department of Health and Social Services for the issuance of motel vouchers to decrease homelessness in the City of Dover and pay utilities for persons facing disconnection of their services due to Covid-19. The Mayor’s Office is also proposing to allocate $50,000 to Dover Interfaith Mission for Housing to provide motel vouchers to homeless men when there is no available shelter space. *Filings in the last week may be undercounted as a result of processing delays. The numbers listed are current as of October 27, 2021. • 39

D Item 2. • 40

D Item 3. CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: Council Committee of the Whole (Parks, Recreation & Community Enhancement) DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Public Works SUBMITTED ON: October 29, 2021 PREPARED BY: Sharon J. Duca, P.E., Public Works Director REVIEWED BY: Dave Hugg, Interim City Manager SUBJECT: Silver Lake Dam – Annual Inspection Review TIMETABLE: In accordance with the FY 2021 Silver Lake Dam Inspection Update Memorandum RELATED PROJECT: n/a REFERENCE: n/a EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: n/a AMOUNT BUDGETED: n/a FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): n/a STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To accept the 2021 Silver Lake Dam: Dam Safety Inspection Report and the FY 2021 Silver Lake Dam Inspection Update Memorandum. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: The Department of Public Works (DPW) utilizes a consultant to perform an annual inspection of the Silver Lake Dam. The annual inspection is required by the State of Delaware’s Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) as well as our insurance carrier. The FY 2021 above water inspection was performed on June 9, 2021 and the underwater inspection was performed on June 16, 2021. The final report was fully executed on September 30, 2021. The next inspection will occur in the spring of 2022. The 2021 Silver Lake Dam: Dam Safety Inspection Report provides the results of the field observations of the embankment dam, concrete spillway and drop inlet including the sluice gate. The report also includes recommendations for repair and maintenance. The FY 2021 Silver Lake Dam Inspection Update Memorandum provides a summary of the recommendations provided in the report. Action items are assigned to either the Parks & Recreation (P&R) Department’s Ground Division or the DPW Engineering Division. The plan of action and/or status for the recommendations are included within the memorandum. The breakdown of the thirty (30) action items contained in the report is as follows:  No further action required – 1  P&R Grounds Division – Annual Maintenance Checklist – 15 • 41

 P&R Grounds Division – Evaluate / Monitor – 4 D Item 3.  DPW Engineering Division – Future CIP Proposal – 1  DPW Engineering Division – Evaluate / Monitor – 3  DPW Engineering Division – Silver Lake Dam Repairs CIP - 6 . • 42

D Item 3. MEMORANDUM Department of Public Works P.O. Box 475 Dover, Delaware 19903 Phone: (302) 736-7025 Fax: (302) 736-7092 E-mail: sduca@dover.de.us TO: Dave Hugg, Interim City Manager CC: Robin Eaton, Parks & Recreation Director FROM: Sharon J. Duca, P.E., Public Works Director DATE: October 29, 2021 SUBJECT: FY 2021 Silver Lake Dam Inspection Update Due to the projected cost of the project, a Request for Quotes to perform the FY21 Silver Lake Dam Inspection was sent out on May 7, 2021 to eleven (11) consulting firms. One firm, Remington & Vernick Engineers (RVE), responded to the request and was ultimately awarded the project. The Silver Lake Dam Inspection Report, originally dated June 28, 2021, last revised September 27, 2021, contains various recommendations necessary to maintain the dam in good working order. The tables below provide a summary of the recommendations as well as a status update of each. A Silver Lake Dam Annual Maintenance Checklist for the Parks & Recreation Department Grounds Division was developed in January 2020. Since that time, annual maintenance activities have been performed and will continue to be performed. Some of the recommendations below added additional activities to the Annual Maintenance Checklist. CATEGORY DESCRIPTION ASSIGNMENT STATUS Upstream All weeds noted within the rip rap should be Grounds Annual Maintenance Slope controlled with herbicide and removed. Checklist – 3x Per Year The trash that has accumulated along the water Grounds Annual Maintenance line at the west end of the left embankment Checklist – 1x Per Year should be removed. (To be completed 11/21) The bare spots on the left and right embankments Grounds Annual Maintenance should be covered with new grass. Checklist – 2x Per Year (To be reseeded 11/21) The two small stumps by the signs near the boat Grounds Annual Maintenance ramp can be left in place provided they are no Checklist – 3x Per Year longer alive and should be monitored periodically. Remediate the isolated area of erosion behind the Grounds Annual Maintenance rip rap near the crest on the left embankment. Checklist – 2x Per Year (See Section 3.2.1.2 of the inspection report) (To be completed 11/21) • 43

FY 2021 Silver Lake Dam Inspection Update October 29, 2021 D Item 3. Page 2 of 4 CATEGORY DESCRIPTION ASSIGNMENT STATUS Upstream Consideration should be given to repair the Engineering Future CIP proposal. Slope asphalt roadway along the crest of the embankment. Although not observed, continue to monitor for Engineering Continue to monitor. the depression in the left crest noted in the 2019 report. Downstream All weeds noted within the rip rap should be Grounds Annual Maintenance Slope controlled with herbicide and removed. Checklist – 3x Per Year The bare spots on left side of the spillway should Grounds Annual Maintenance be covered with new grass. Checklist – 2x Per Year (To be reseeded 11/21) The woody bushes/weeds that were noted Grounds Annual Maintenance growing in the fence that cordons off the bottom Checklist – 2x Per Year of the fish ladder and near the fish ladder sign can be left in place provided they are no longer alive and should be monitored periodically. It was unknown what the purpose of the No. 57 Engineering Not for erosion stone noted between the fish ladder and the mitigation. No further chain link fence is. If it is for erosion mitigation, it action required. should be replaced with rip-rap. Remediate the eroded area adjacent to the upper Grounds Continue to monitor parking lot. (To be completed 11/21) Remediate the eroded area and exposed roots on Grounds Annual Maintenance the extreme left of the embankment. (See Section Checklist – 2x Per Year 3.2.3.2 of the inspection report) (To be completed 11/21) Concrete Repair spalls in concrete wingwalls with epoxy Engineering Silver Lake Dam Repairs Spillway – concrete. CIP ($51,700 total). Upstream Bids due 11/8/21. Face and Wing Repair crack in left wingwall with pressure Engineering Silver Lake Dam Repairs Walls injected epoxy. CIP ($51,700 total). Bids due 11/8/21. Concrete Repair incipient spalls on left wingwall with epoxy Engineering Silver Lake Dam Repairs Spillway – concrete. CIP ($51,700 total). Downstream Bids due 11/8/21. Face and Wing Walls • 44

FY 2021 Silver Lake Dam Inspection Update October 29, 2021 D Item 3. Page 3 of 4 CATEGORY DESCRIPTION ASSIGNMENT STATUS The rust stain, efflorescence and water leakage on Engineering Silver Lake Dam Repairs right wingwall appears to be originating from a CIP ($51,700 total). crack/spall in the concrete / which suggests water Bids due 11/8/21. is penetrating from earth side of wall. The condition of the rust stain and water leakage appears similar to that observed in FY20 inspection. There is no immediate concern, if it is left alone there could be a potential issue in future. The source of the water leaking and condition of the concrete should be investigated to determine an appropriate repair. Fish Ladder Repair broken weld splice on fish ladder support. Engineering Evaluate solution with consultant due to wet conditions. Pedestrian Repair joint material delamination on pier 6. Engineering Silver Lake Dam Repairs Walkway CIP ($51,700 total). Bids due 11/8/21. Repair topside crack on span 4 and the underside Engineering Silver Lake Dam Repairs cracks throughout with pressure injected epoxy. CIP ($51,700 total). Bids due 11/8/21. Clean and paint guardrail posts and railings. Grounds P&R Director determined monitoring most appropriate response of this aesthetic item. Outlet Works Replace corroded hardware below the waterline Grounds Lake did not drawdown throughout the outlet structure. low enough to address in 10/2020. P&R researching utilizing an underwater contractor. Operate low level gate valve to ensure the gate is Grounds Annual Maintenance operable. Checklist – 1x Per Year Video inspection of low level outlet pipe. Engineering Evaluate solution with consultant due to underwater conditions. Exit Channel All weeds noted within the rip rap should be Grounds Annual Maintenance controlled with herbicide and removed. Checklist – 3x Per Year. Multiple bare spots were noted along both the Grounds Annual Maintenance left and right sides. Spots should be covered with Checklist – Quarterly new grass. (To be completed 11/21) • 45

FY 2021 Silver Lake Dam Inspection Update October 29, 2021 D Item 3. Page 4 of 4 CATEGORY DESCRIPTION ASSIGNMENT STATUS Boat Dock Provide vegetation for the bare spots and remove Grounds Annual Maintenance the weeds noted adjacent to the rip rap that lines Checklist – 2x Per Year the banks of the channel. (To be completed 11/21) Replace the northwest dock piling. Grounds P&R Director inspected this item and determined that monitoring would be the most appropriate response at this time. General Area where new grass seed has been planted Grounds Annual Maintenance Maintenance should be monitored for growth. Checklist – Quarterly Items Weeds growing from the joints between the rip Grounds Annual Maintenance rap stones should be removed and maintained to Checklist – Quarterly prevent further growth. TASK TOTALS 30 No further action required. 1 P&R Grounds Division – Annual Maintenance Checklist 15 P&R Grounds Division – Evaluate / Monitor 4 DPW Engineering Division – Future CIP proposal 1 DPW Engineering Division – Evaluate / Monitor 3 DPW Engineering Division - Silver Lake Dam Repairs CIP ($51,700 total) 6 • 46

Item 3. SILVER LAKE DAM DAM SAFETY INSPECTION REPORT Prepared for City of Dover Department of Public Works June 28, 2021 REMINGTON &VERNICK ENGINEERS • 47

REMINGTON University Office Plaza, Bellevue Building 262 Chapman Road, Suite 105 D Item 3. &VERNICK Newark, DE 19702 0 : (302) 266-0212 ENGINEERS F: (302) 266-6208 June 11, 2021 City of Dover Department of Public Works P.O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 Attention: Mr. Bob LaFountain Project Manager Reference: Silver Lake Dam 2021 Inspection Final Report Dover, Delaware RVE Job No.: DKDR-T-003 Dear Mr. LaFountain: Remington and Vernick Engineers (RVE) is pleased to submit the final results of our visual dam safety inspection of the Silver Lake Dam. This report contains the results of the dam safety inspection and a discussion of our observations and recommendations for remedial repairs for the existing dam. The following scope of work was performed: (1) Review previous dam safety inspection reports and available plans. (2) Perform field observations by geotechnical and structural engineers to determine the conditions of the crest, upstream and downstream slopes of the embankment dam and concrete spillway per DDSD’s checklist. (3) Perform underwater condition survey of the submerged portions of the concrete spillway and drop inlet including the sluice gate. (4) Prepare a written report to provide the results of the field observations of the embankment dam concrete spillway and drop inlet and recommendations for repairs and maintenance items that should be performed. Should you have any questions or comments or if we can be of service to you in the future, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, REMINGTON & VERNICK ENGINEERS Kim Charles Westen, PE Christopher J. Fazio, PE Associate Principle • 48

D Item 3. Dam Inspection Report Silver Lake Dam; City of Dover, DE June 28, 2021 Prepared for: City of Dover Department of Public Works P.O. Box 475 Dover, DE 19903 Prepared by: Remington & Vernick Engineers University Office Plaza, Bellevue Building 262 Chapman Road, Suite 105 Newark, DE 19702 Contact: Kim Charles Westen, PE ____________________________ Office Phone: (302) 266-0212 Signature July 9, 2021 ____________________________ REMINGTON ~&VER NICK Date L!!~!!:J ENGINEERS • 49

Item 3. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 2.0 DAM INFORMATION 3 2.1 General................................................................................................................................ 3 2.2 Embankment Dam ..................................................................................................................4 2.3 Concrete Spillway ...................................................................................................................4 2.4 Outlet Works ..........................................................................................................................4 2.5 Pedestrian Walkway ...............................................................................................................5 3.0 OBSERVATIONS 7 3.1 General................................................................................................................................ 7 3.2 Earth Embankment.................................................................................................................7 3.2.1 Upstream Slope .........................................................................................................7 3.2.2 Downstream Slope ....................................................................................................8 3.3 Concrete Spillway and Wing Walls ...................................................................................... 8 3.3.1 Upstream Face and Wing Walls .............................................................................. 8 3.3.2 Downstream Face and Wing Walls ......................................................................... 7 3.3.3 Fish Ladder ................................................................................................................9 3.4 Pedestrian Walkway ............................................................................................................ 10 3.5 Outlet Works ....................................................................................................................... 10 3.6 Exit Channel ......................................................................................................................... 11 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 12 4.1 General.............................................................................................................................. 12 4.2 Earth Embankment.............................................................................................................. 12 4.2.1 Upstream Slope ...................................................................................................... 12 4.2.2 Downstream Slope ................................................................................................. 12 4.3 Concrete Spillway ................................................................................................................ 12 4.3.1 Upstream Face and Wing Walls ............................................................................ 12 4.3.2 Downstream Face and Wing Walls ....................................................................... 13 4.3.3 Fish Ladder ............................................................................................................. 13 4.4 Pedestrian Walkway ............................................................................................................ 13 4.5 Outlet Works ....................................................................................................................... 13 4.6 Exit Channel ......................................................................................................................... 13 5.0 CLOSING 14 APPENDICES Appendix A - Inspection Photos Appendix B - Delaware Dam Safety Inspection Checklist Appendix C – Cost Estimate • 50

D Item 3. 1.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Originally constructed in 1944, the Silver Lake Dam is an earthen embankment type dam with a concrete ogee spillway located near its center. In order to drain the reservoir in emergency situations, a riser structure with a sluice gate and 24-inch pipe that outlets through the downstream face of the concrete spillways is located towards the western side of the concrete spillway. The base flow is controlled by a concrete chute that is located on the western side of the emergency spillway. Due to the failure implications and state guidelines, the Silver Lake Dam is classified as a high hazard dam. Failure of this dam has the high probability to cause loss of human life in addition to other consequences. As such, the City has requested RVE to perform an inspection of the dam and report our findings herein. RVE performed an above water inspection of the Silver Lake Dam on June 9, 2021. W.J. Castle & Associates performed an underwater inspection of the Silver Lake Dam on June 16, 2021. These inspections were performed to assess the functionality of the dam and identify deficiencies and the need for remedial repairs. Our underwater inspections included the concrete spillway, and the drop-inlet outlet works while visual observations of the above water components included the earth embankment, concrete spillway and wing walls, pedestrian walkway, drop-inlet outlet works, and the exit channel. Observations of the dam’s condition and recommendations made herein are intended to assist the City of Dover in programming the dam repairs in order to maintain safe operations of the dam. The following is a summary of our observations and recommendations: OBSERVATIONS: • Upstream Slope of Earthen Dam o Visual inspection indicates the slope is in generally good condition. o Rip rap appears to be in good condition with the exception of some woody weeds and an isolated area of minor erosion on the left embankment. o The Crest appears to be in good condition with the exception of large bare areas that were observed on the left and right sides of the boat ramp as well as areas adjacent to the rip rap on the right embankment. New grass seed previously planted in these areas has failed. o The concrete crack repairs located on the boat ramp and underneath the dock appeared to be adequately repaired and in good condition. • Downstream Slope of Earthen Dam o Visual inspection indicates the slope is in generally good condition. o Previous erosion adjacent to the upper parking lot has been remediated, but adjacent erosion is occurring, and the reinforcement put in as part of the repair is failing. o Some bare spots possibly due to mower disturbance were noted on the downstream slope left of the spillway. o Some woody bushes/weeds were noted growing in the fence that cordons off the bottom of the fish ladder, near the fish ladder sign at the left downstream slope and in the rip rap near the bottom of the fish ladder. o Some small stumps were noted near the gate for the fish ladder fence. o Some erosion exposing tree roots were noted near the upper portions of the parking lot. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers Page 1 June 28, 2021 • 51

D Item 3. • Concrete Spillway and Wing Walls o Water was flowing over the crest of the spillway at the time of the inspection; therefore, it was not possible to properly inspect the concrete surface. Visual inspection indicates the spillway is in generally good condition. o The wing walls were generally in good condition except for the following: ▪ Concrete damage noted on the wing walls included cracks with efflorescence, spalls, pop-outs, and light to heavy abrasions with exposed aggregate were noted on the upstream and downstream faces. See the observations section of the report for additional details. ▪ Two spalls were noted on the downstream left wingwall and one crack on the downstream right wingwall was noted to have rust staining. o The pond bottom was protected at the upstream edge of the spillway with approximately 1 to 1 ½ foot nominal size stone riprap, except between spans 2 through 4 where no riprap was noted. • Fish Ladder o Visual inspection indicates the fish ladder is in generally good condition with the exception of the following: ▪ There are areas of mild to moderate corrosion of the steel support members. ▪ A broken weld splice and leaks located at several of the joints along the fish ladder were noted. • Pedestrian Walkway o The pedestrian walkway was in fair condition with noted concrete damage included abrasions with exposed aggregate, failed previous repairs, light cracking with efflorescence and honeycombing were noted. See the observations section of the report for additional details. • Drop-Inlet Outlet Works o The wooden outlet structure upstream of Span 8 is in satisfactory condition. o The sluice gate and all associated components are all in good condition. o The right downstream pile has heavy checking and heart rot with up to 50% section loss in the top 5 feet but is believed to be sacrificial and no repair is recommended at this time. o The sluice gate was not operated during this inspection cycle. • Exit Channel o Rip rap and smaller stone was noted above the waterline in the fish ladder side of the stilling basin. • Boat Dock o The decking has been replaced. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers Page 2 June 28, 2021 • 52

D Item 3. RECOMMENDATIONS: This report contains observations and recommendations in accordance with dam safety regulations and standard inspection techniques for such facilities. Overall, results indicate that the dam is considered in good condition without the need for immediate remedial actions. However, RVE has identified several non-emergency remedial actions that we recommend become prioritized and programmed for action over the next two years. These remedial actions are summarized below and included in Section 4 of this report. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers Page 3 June 28, 2021 • 53

D Item 3. 2.1 DAM INFORMATION 2.2 General The Silver Lake Dam is located within Silver Lake Park and is at the terminus of Lewis Mill Drive in Dover, Delaware as shown in Figure 1 and Appendix A of this report. The City of Dover requested RVE to perform an inspection of the dam based on Delaware state guidelines and sound engineering principles. The above water inspection of the dam occurred on June 9, 2021. The underwater inspection of the dam occurred on June 16, 2021. Due to the lack of existing dam drawings, most dimensions mentioned in this report were estimated. Figure 1. Silver Lake Dam Location The Silver Lake Dam is classified as a high hazard dam in accordance with the Delaware Dam Safety guidelines. Based on its definition, a high hazard dam has the potential to cause probable loss of human life in the event of a dam failure or faulty operations. In addition, failure would cause economic loss, environmental damage, disruption of lifeline facilities, or can impact other concerns. The dam is located along the St. Jones River and is an earthen embankment dam with a length of approximately 630 feet. The dam’s western abutment is located near its intersection with a sandy beach. The dam consists of a concrete gravity dam spillway approximately 150 feet in length, which is located near the middle of the earthen dam. A boat ramp is located about 85 feet east of the east wall of the spillway. The dam’s outlet works consists of a wood riser structure with a 24-inch diameter cast iron pipe that exits the dam through the downstream toe of the concrete spillway on the eastern side. Figure 2 highlights the critical components of the dam. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers Page 4 June 28, 2021 • 54

D Item 3. ,..... ..... Outlet Works Structure I ..... I ..... ' \ • ' I ..... I ,t . I ,_.. . '· \ ',I i - ' Ir; - - - ... - I I ........,g . rt:'- ·J -- ~ I • : - ----· · ·· 1, .. · ,, ,,_, - - - - ' I I - 1----------:'.-.-:T;'", ' - - ~ ' ·' " { ! I l, ~ , , ':'"" , , ~ - f 7jl,1F - - - - t II I ' I .,.,:· ---t I Figure 2. Silver Lake Dam Inspection Components 2.3 Embankment Dam Based on measurements from the staff gauge located on the east wall of the concrete spillway, the dam’s top elevation is EL 20.0 and the downstream toe is EL 5.0, resulting in an overall dam height of approximately 15 feet. The crest width of the dam is about 20 feet at its narrowest point. The side slopes of the upstream face of the dam are roughly 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter. The downstream slopes of the dam are 2:1, where the slopes are more gradual near the earthen portions of the dam at the east and west abutments, they are in the range of 5:1 or flatter. 2.4 Concrete Spillway The concrete dam spillway serves as both the principal and emergency spillway. The entrance and exit channels to the spillway consist of concrete gravity retaining walls. A concrete chute measuring about 2.5 feet wide (W) by 1.5 feet deep (D) is located on the east side of the spillway and is believed to have been designed to carry the base flow over the spillway. Flash boards are located in the upstream end of the concrete chute which can be removed to lower the lake about 1.5 feet below the top of the concrete spillway. A fish ladder is located between the east wing wall of the spillway and the base flow concrete chute. 2.5 Outlet Works The riser structure for the outlet works is located about 50 feet out into the lake from the top of the concrete spillway. The riser structure was constructed with timber materials and measures approximately 10 feet by 10 feet in plan dimensions. A 24-inch cast iron pipe extends from the downstream side of the riser structure and exits through the downstream side of the concrete spillway. A sluice gate is located on the upstream side of the riser structure and is believed to be used for reservoir drawdown in emergency situations. The sluice gate consists of a flat metal plate and stem. The stem can be accessed through a trap door in the top of the riser structure to raise and lower the sluice gate. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers Page 5 June 28, 2021 • 55

D Item 3. 2.6 Pedestrian Walkway A pedestrian walkway is located on the top of the concrete spillway. The walkway measures 3 feet wide and was constructed with reinforced concrete. The walkway is supported by concrete piers fixed to the top of the concrete spillway. A chain link fence is located on each side of the walkway to act as a railing and fall protection. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers Page 6 June 28, 2021 • 56

D Item 3. 3.0 OBSERVATIONS 3.1 General The Silver Lake Dam consists of an earthen embankment dam with a concrete spillway. RVE performed visual observations of the dam on June 9, 2021. In addition to ground inspections, RVE contracted W.J. Castle & Associates to perform underwater inspections with diving crews. These inspections were performed on June 16, 2021. Included in Appendix B are photographs taken during the inspection that represent the observations that are summarized below for the various dam components. The Delaware Dam Safety Inspection Checklist is included in Appendix C. Please note that all references regarding direction (i.e. left or right) are referenced as if the observer was facing downstream. Therefore, left was noted to be in the general east direction and right was noted to be in the general west direction. 3.2 Earth Embankment 3.2.1 Upstream Slope Overall view of left bank Photo 1 Overall view of right bank Photo 2 1. Some trash and debris have collected upstream of the rip rap at the left upstream slope. (Photo 3) 2. Left bank rip rap is in good condition with some woody weeds noted left of the boat ramp. A small, isolated area of minor erosion was observed at the top of the rip rap east of the boat ramp. (Photo 4) 3. Left bank upstream grass areas are generally in good condition. Large patches of bare ground were observed to the left and right of the boat ramp. Previous efforts to seed grass have failed. (Photo 5) 4. Some 2 to 3 inch diameter woody stumps were noted near the signs and wooden bollards to the left of the boat ramp, and some asphalt has been placed along both sides of the boat ramp. (Photo 6) 5. There is a shallow crack in the left upstream embankment boat ramp, +/- 6 feet long. (Photo 7) 6. Some weeds were noted in the rip rap along the left upstream slope. 7. Previously placed rip rap on the left upstream wingwall is in good condition. (Photo 8) 8. The right upstream embankment is generally in good condition. Areas of bare slope were observed adjacent to the top area of rip rap along the slope. (Photo 2) 9. Previously placed rip rap on the right upstream wingwall is in good condition. (Photo 9) 10. Previously trimmed weeds and vegetation still remain in the right upstream rip rap. (Photo 10) 11. There is an isolated area of missing rip rap in the right upstream embankment. (Photo 11) 12. There are areas of bare grass at the right upstream slope / dam crest interface. (Photo 12) Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers Page 7 June 28, 2021 • 57

D Item 3. 3.2.2 Dam Crest Overall view from right embankment Photo 13. 1. The dam crest is in overall good condition. 2. A concrete slab measuring about 10 by 8 feet was noted in the crest of the right slope, approximately 50 feet west of the right wing wall. (Photo 14) 3. Moderate alligator cracking and a shoving failure was noted in the asphalt roadway near the upper parking area/left slope crest. (Photo 15) 3.2.3 Downstream Slope General views of left and right downstream slopes adjacent to wingwalls Photos 16 & 17. General view of the right downstream slope protection Photo 18. 1. The downstream slope is in satisfactory to good condition. 2. Isolated minor erosion and exposed roots are present at the extreme left of the left downstream embankment. (Photo 19) 3. The previous erosion and exposed roots south of the upper parking area on the left downstream slope has been filled and reinforced. The reinforcing net appears to be failing. (Photo 20) 4. Areas adjacent to the upper parking lot on the left downstream slope are exhibiting minor erosion adjacent to the repaired area. (Photo 21) 5. The vegetation and weeds in the left downstream bank rip rap adjacent to the outfall channel have been trimmed but still remain. (Photo 22) 6. There is a large area of no. 57 stone placed above the rip rap on the left downstream slope. Weeds are growing in the slope. (Photo 23) 7. Some woody bushes/weeds were noted growing in the fence that cordons off the bottom of the fish ladder and near the fish ladder sign at the left downstream slope. (Photos 24 and 25) 8. There is moderate erosion adjacent to the southern fence section on the left downstream slope. The erosion is beginning to undermine the south fence post. (Photo 26) 9. There is minor to moderate erosion adjacent to the outfall channel above the rip rap south of the left downstream bank fenced area. Roots are exposed. (Photo 27) 10. The grassed slope adjacent to the left downstream wingwall exhibits bare areas. (Photos 16 and 28) 11. The weeds and vegetation in the right downstream slope protection have been trimmed but still remain. (Photo 29) 3.3 Concrete Spillway and Wing Walls 3.3.1 Upstream Face and Wing Walls Overall view of right wingwall (Photo 30) Overall view of left wingwall (Photo 31) Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers Page 8 June 28, 2021 • 58

D Item 3. 1. The upstream face is in good condition with areas of mild abrasion up to ¼” deep (D). (Photo 32) 2. The previous repairs on the left wingwall are beginning to fail. (Photo 33) 3. 5 feet south of the north end of the left wingwall, 1.4 feet above the mudline, there is a 4’L x up to 1”W horizontal crack. 4. 9 feet south of the north end of left wingwall, 2 feet above the waterline, there is a 12”L x 4”H x 1”D spall. 5. 12 feet south of the north end of the left wingwall, 4 feet above the mudline, there is a 5” diameter x ½”D spall. 6. There is a 1.2’L x 6”H x 2”D spall on the left wingwall where the wall meets the spillway. 7. There are fine cracks with efflorescence throughout the left and right wingwalls. 8. The right wingwall has random, small pop-outs up to 3”D throughout. 9. 10 feet south of the north end of the right wingwall, there is a 2’L x 6”H x 1”D area of heavy abrasion with exposed aggregate. 10. The pond bottom was protected at the upstream edge of the spillway with approximately 1 to 1 ½ foot nominal size stone riprap, except between spans 2 through 4 where no riprap was noted. The pond bottom consisted of silt and sand at this location. 3.3.2 Downstream Face and Wing Walls Overall view of right wingwall (Photo 34) Overall view of left wingwall (Photos 35 & 36) 1. The timber flash boards for the base concrete flow chute are in satisfactory condition. The stainless-steel angle has moderate corrosion and the hardware has mild corrosion. (Photo 37) 2. The downstream toe of the spillway was in satisfactory condition with moderate abrasion up to ½”D. The toe is exposed the entire length with a vertical exposure of 5”-16”H. There is no undermining. 3. There is 8”-12” diameter riprap in the downstream channel and along the base of the exposed toe. 4. At the south end of the left wingwall there is a 6”L x 7”H x 1”D spall. (Photo 38) 5. 10 feet south of the spillway on the left wingwall, 2.5 feet above the mudline, there is a 1SF incipient spall with rust staining. (Photo 39) 6. 4 feet south of the spillway on the left wingwall, 2.5 feet above the mudline, there is a crack with efflorescence and rust staining. Other cracks with efflorescence are present throughout. (Photo 40) 7. The right downstream wingwall exhibits widespread cracking with light efflorescence and isolated rust staining. (Photo 41) 8. There is a 7”H x ¼”D band of abrasion with exposed aggregate along the base of each wingwall. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers Page 9 June 28, 2021 • 59

D Item 3. 3.3.3 Fish Ladder Overall view of fish ladder (Photos 35 & 36) 1. The stainless-steel fish ladder was in good condition. 2. There are areas of mild to moderate corrosion of the steel support members with up to 10% section loss. 3. The middle support has a broken weld splice. (Photo 42 and 43) 4. There were leaks located at several of the joints along the fish ladder. 3.3.4 Spillway Overall view of spillway (Photo 44) 1. Water was flowing over the crest of the spillway at the time of the inspection; therefore, it was not possibly to properly inspect the concrete surface. 2. There appeared to soft marine growth and light abrasion throughout the face of the spillway and the downstream apron. (Photo 45) 3.4 Pedestrian Walkway (spans numbered from right to left) 1. There is light to moderate abrasion up to ½”D with exposed aggregate, located from the waterline down on all piers. 2. Pier 2 has a failed repair on the top of the right face and has left a 2’L x 3”H x 1”D spall. (Photo 46) 3. There is fine cracking with efflorescence in the repaired area under spans 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9. (Span 4 Photo 47, Span 9 Photo 48). 4. There is mild honeycombing of the concrete under span 3. 5. Pier 6 has corner edge abrasion on the top right side 18”L x 6”H x 1”D. 6. Pier 6 has delamination of joint material topside. (Photo 49) 7. Pier 7 has corner edge abrasion on the top left side 12”L x 2”H x 1”D, and on the right side near the waterline 8”L x 3”H x 1”D. (Photos 50 and 51) 8. The water level at the time of the inspection was 4.1 feet below the bottom of the walkway. 9. Span 4 contains a diagonal crack (approx. 12” long) topside near pier 4. 10. The guard rails on the walkway are rusted and in fair to poor condition. 3.5 Outlet Works Overall view of structure (Photo 52) 1. The wooden outlet structure upstream of Span 8 is in satisfactory condition. There is a light covering of soft marine growth and minor checks in the timber elements with up to 1/16”D penetration with an awl. 2. The trash rack and fencing are in good condition. (Photo 53) 3. The sluice gate and all associated components – frame, stops, wedges, seal, stem guide, and hardware – are all in good condition. 4. The timber structure’s galvanized hardware is in poor condition below the water with up to 30% section loss. (photos unavailable due to water clarity) 5. The floor slab beneath the gate has mild abrasion with exposed aggregate. 6. There was ½”D of silt covering the floor slab. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers Page 10 June 28, 2021 • 60

D Item 3. 7. The right downstream pile has heavy checking and heart rot with up to 50% section loss in the top 5 feet. These piles are believed to be sacrificial. 8. There was approximately 8 feet of water above the top of the sluice gate at the time of the inspection. 9. The sluice gate was not operated for evaluation. 3.6 Exit Channel Overall view of downstream channel. (Photo 54) 1. Water was flowing through the exit channel, therefore it was not possible to visually observe the bottom of the exit channel. However, divers walked in the exit channel downstream of the spillway. 2. Some bushy/woody weeds were noted at the base of the rip rap along the right side of the exit channel. 3. Many bare spots were noted along both the left and right sides of the exit channel. 3.7 Boat Dock 1. The boat dock was observed to be in fair condition. 2. The boat deck planks, rub rails and cleats have been replaced. (Photo 55) 3. The northwest dock pile exhibits moderate section loss (Photo 56). Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers Page 11 June 28, 2021 • 61

D Item 3. 4.1 RECOMMENDATION 4.2 General Based on our observations, we consider the dam in good condition and not in danger of failure. The results of our observations indicated that there are various components of the dam that need remedial repair. These repairs are not considered critical and do not require immediate attention. However, we recommend that these repairs be prioritized and programmed to be addressed in the next one to two years to prevent further problems that could lead to failure. The following parts of this section detail recommendations for specific remedial actions categorized by its location. The remedial repairs are also outlined in the Delaware Dam Safety Inspection Checklist is included in Appendix C. 4.3 Earth Embankment 4.3.1 Upstream Slope 1. All weeds noted within the rip rap should be controlled with herbicide and removed. 2. The trash that has accumulated along the water line at the west end of the left embankment should be removed. 3. Seed the areas of bare ground on the left and right embankments. 4. Remediate the minor erosion at the top of the left embankment rip rap. 5. The two small stumps near the signs near the boat ramp can be left in place provided they are no longer alive and should be monitored periodically. 6. Consideration should be given to repair the asphalt roadway along the crest of the embankment. 7. A depression that was holding water was noted in the left portion of the crest of the left embankment in the 2019 report but was not noted during the current inspection. Depressions in the crest should be monitored periodically. 8. Any gaps present in the rip rap along the right upstream embankment should be filled with additional rip rap. 4.3.2 Downstream Slope 1. All weeds noted within the rip rap should be removed and controlled with herbicide so future weeds do not grow. 2. The bare spots on left side of the spillway should be seeded and covered with new grass. 3. The woody bushes/weeds that were noted growing in the fence that cordons off the bottom of the fish ladder and near the fish ladder sign can be left in place provided they are no longer alive and should be monitored periodically. 4. It was unknown what the purpose of the No. 57 stone noted between the fish ladder and the chain link fence is. If it is for erosion mitigation, it should be replaced with rip rap. 5. Remediate the eroded area adjacent to the upper parking lot. 6. Repair the soil reinforcement netting adjacent to the upper parking lot. 4.4 Concrete Spillway and Wing Walls 4.4.1 Upstream Face and Wing Walls 1. Repair the spalls in the concrete wingwalls with epoxy concrete. 2. Repair the crack in the left wingwall with pressure injected epoxy. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers Page 12 June 28, 2021 • 62

D Item 3. 4.4.2 Downstream Face and Wing Walls 1. Repair the incipient spalls on the left wingwall with epoxy concrete. 2. The rust stain, efflorescence, and water leakage on the right wingwall appears to be originating from a crack/spall in the concrete/ which suggests water is penetrating from the earth side of the wall. The condition of the rust stain and water leakage appears similar to the condition observed in the 2020 inspection. Though there is no immediate concern, if it is left alone there could be a potential issue in the future. The source of the water leaking and condition of the concrete should be investigated to determine an appropriate repair. 4.4.3 Fish Ladder 1. Repair broken weld splice on the fish ladder support. 2. The leaks noted to originate from joints in the fish ladder are not considered significant enough to warrant repair, at this time. However, the leaks should be monitored and if they progress to show signs of structural fatigue they should be repaired. 4.5 Pedestrian Walkway 1. Repair joint material delamination on Pier 6. 2. Repair topside crack on Span 4. 3. Clean and paint guardrail posts and railings. Secure any loose fencing to the railing posts with appropriate non-corrosive wire ties. 4. Continue to monitor the sag in the pedestrian bridge noted in the previous report. If signs of structural fatigue are noted, they should be reobserved by a structural engineer to provide updated recommendations on the need for repair. 4.6 Outlet Works 1. Replace corroded hardware below the waterline throughout the outlet structure. 4.7 Exit Channel 1. All weeds noted within the rip rap should be controlled with herbicide and removed. 2. The bare spots should be covered with new grass. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers Page 13 June 28, 2021 • 63

D Item 3. 5.1 CLOSING This report has been prepared to provide the City of Dover with the results of observations and recommendations for remedial repairs that should be performed on the dam. This report is intended to provide the City of Dover with the necessary information to program on going repairs and maintenance of the dam. The report scope is limited to recommendations pertaining to specific scope of the project and the location described. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers Page 14 June 28, 2021 • 64

D Item 3. Photo 1: Left upstream embankment, looking west. General View Photo 2: Right upstream embankment, looking west. General view, slope areas adjacent to rip rap are bare of grass. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers • Page 15 June 28, 2021 65

D Item 3. Photo 3: Left upstream embankment, looking north. Trash and other debris on shoreline, typical on left upstream embankment. Photo 4: Left upstream embankment, top of riprap near crest, looking west. Isolated pockets of erosion behind riprap, several isolated areas. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers • Page 16 June 28, 2021 66

D Item 3. Photo 5: Left upstream embankment, looking east. Areas of bare slope between riprap and crest. Photo 6: Left upstream embankment, adjacent to crest just east of boat ramp, looking north. Old stump remains. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers • Page 17 June 28, 2021 67

D Item 3. Photo 7: Left upstream embankment boat ramp, looking south. Shallow crack in boat ramp. Photo 8: Left upstream embankment adjacent to upstream wingwall, looking north. General View Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers • Page 18 June 28, 2021 68

D Item 3. Photo 9: Right upstream embankment, adjacent to upstream wingwall, looking north. General view. Photo 10: Right upstream embankment, looking north. Weeds and previously trimmed vegetation in rip rap. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers • Page 19 June 28, 2021 69

D Item 3. Photo 11: Right upstream embankment, looking northwest. Isolated area of missing riprap. Photo 12: Right upstream slope, west end looking west. Bare ground at slope crest / right upstream embankment interface. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers • Page 20 June 28, 2021 70

D Item 3. Photo 13: Right dam crest, looking east. General View Photo 14: Right upstream embankment, looking northwest. Concrete slab at crest of right upstream embankment. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers • Page 21 June 28, 2021 71

D Item 3. Photo 15: Left dam crest roadway, looking south. Isolated areas of roadway failure. Photo 16: Left downstream slope, adjacent to wingwall, looking south. General view, bare slope. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers • Page 22 June 28, 2021 72

D Item 3. Photo 17: Right downstream slope, adjacent to wingwall, looking south. General view. Photo 18: Right downstream slope, adjacent to outfall channel. General view. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers • Page 23 June 28, 2021 73

D Item 3. Photo 19: Left downstream slope, east end looking North. Exposed roots and adjacent erosion. Photo 20: Left downstream slope, in front of upper parking lot, looking north. Work Done: Previous erosion has been filled and reinforced. Reinforcing net is failing. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers • Page 24 June 28, 2021 74

D Item 3. Photo 21: Left downstream slope, in front of upper parking lot, looking east. Areas adjacent to repaired erosion are eroding. Photo 22: Left downstream slope, adjacent to downstream channel, looking south. Weeds and previously trimmed vegetation present in rip rap. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers • Page 25 June 28, 2021 75

D Item 3. ·----\W.·.• ·· - -- · . f= , ,-_..;.,. =:--•.--,r Photo 23: Left downstream slope, adjacent to left downstream wingwall, looking southeast. Dense graded aggregate used as slope cover, vegetation growing. Photo 24: Left downstream slope, adjacent to left downstream wingwall, looking east. Stumps remain in fence. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers • Page 26 June 28, 2021 76

D Item 3. Photo 25: Left downstream slope, adjacent to left downstream wingwall, looking northwest. Bush growing. Photo 26: Left downstream slope, adjacent to outfall channel, looking west. Southern fence post foundation is becoming undermined due to erosion. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers • Page 27 June 28, 2021 77

D Item 3. Photo 27: Left downstream slope, adjacent to outfall channel, looking west. Erosion occurring above riprap line, exposing roots. Photo 28: Left downstream slope, adjacent to left downstream wingwall, looking east. Bare slope. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers • Page 28 June 28, 2021 78

D Item 3. Photo 29: Right downstream slope, adjacent to outfall channel. Weeds and previously trimmed vegetation remain in rip rap. Photo 30: Right upstream wingwall, looking west. General view. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers • Page 29 June 28, 2021 79

D Item 3. Photo 31: Left upstream wingwall, looking east. General view. Photo 32: Right upstream wingwall, looking west. Moderate abrasion at the waterline. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers • Page 30 June 28, 2021 80

D Item 3. Photo 33: Left upstream wingwall, looking south. Previous repairs below north fence post and middle fence post are failing. Photo 34: Right downstream wingwall, looking west. General view, several minor cracks and efflorescence. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers • Page 31 June 28, 2021 81

D Item 3. Photo 35: Left downstream wingwall & fish ladder, looking east. General view Photo 36: Left downstream wingwall & fish ladder, looking southeast. Previously repaired cracks are reopening. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers • Page 32 June 28, 2021 82

D Item 3. Photo 37: Concrete flow chute, east end, looking southwest. Wood pilings appear to be in good condition. Stainless-steel angle has moderate corrosion. Photo 38: North end of left downstream wingwall, under fish ladder, looking east. Spalling at wall end. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers • Page 33 June 28, 2021 83

D Item 3. Photo 39: Left downstream wingwall, adjacent to center fish ladder support, looking east. Small spall. Photo 40: Left downstream, wingwall, 4 ft south of spillway, looking east. Crack with efflorescence and rust staining. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers • Page 34 June 28, 2021 84

D Item 3. Photo 41: Right downstream wingwall, looking northeast. Widespread cracking with light efflorescence. Isolated rust staining. Photo 42: Fish ladder, looking northeast. Broken weld causing moderate leakage. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers • Page 35 June 28, 2021 85

D Item 3. Photo 43: Fish ladder, looking north. Broken weld causing moderate leakage. Photo 44: Spillway, looking north. General View. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers • Page 36 June 28, 2021 86

D Item 3. Photo 45: Spillway face at crest, looking upstream. Light abrasion, typical throughout. Photo 46: Top end of Pier 2, right face, looking east. Shallow spall with adjacent efflorescence. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers • Page 37 June 28, 2021 87

D Item 3. Photo 47: Span 4, looking east. Cracks and efflorescence Photo 48: Span 9, looking east. Cracks and efflorescence. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers • Page 38 June 28, 2021 88

D Item 3. Photo 49: Pier 6, topside looking west. Delaminated and chipped joint material. Photo 50: Pier 7, left face, looking southwest. Corner edge abrasion. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers • Page 39 June 28, 2021 89

D Item 3. Photo 51: Pier 7, north face looking south. Mild to moderate abrasion at water line. Photo 52: Outlet structure, looking northwest. General View. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers • Page 40 June 28, 2021 90

D Item 3. Photo 53: Outlet structure fencing, looking southeast. Fence is in good condition. Photo 54: Downstream channel, looking south. General view. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers • Page 41 June 28, 2021 91

D Item 3. Photo 55: Left upstream embankment boat ramp, looking west. Work Done: New deck planks have been installed. Photo 56: Northwest boat ramp dock pile, looking northeast. Moderate loss of section. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers • Page 42 June 28, 2021 92

D Item 3. Delaware Dam Safety Program Visual Inspection Checklist This general checklist should be used as an aid when examining all dams. This checklist may not, however, include all features or conditions found at a specific dam that are relevant to the safety of that dam. All features integral to the safety of the dam being examined should be inspected and their condition reported. TYPE OF INSPECTION: (Regular, Formal or Informal): REGULAR DE INSPECTION YEAR: 2021 DAM NAME: Silver Lake Dam NID ID: S137 STATE ID: DE00031 LOCATION: St. Jones River, Dover, DE OWNER: The City of Dover, DE OPERATOR: The City of Dover, DE DATE OF INSPECTION: June 9, 2021 & June 16th 2021. RESERVOIR INFORMATION Normal Reservoir Elevation (ft): N/A Reservoir Elevation at time of inspection (ft): N/A WEATHER CONDITIONS (including recent rainfall): Sunny, light breeze, 88 degrees F Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers Page 43 June 28, 2021 • 93

INSPECTION PERSONNEL Delaware Licensed Professional Engineer(s): D Item 3. Name Affiliation K. Charles Westen, P.E. Remington & Vernick Engineers Assisted By: Name Affiliation Christopher Gilbert, P.E. Remington & Vernick Engineers Christopher Keller, P.E. Remington & Vernick Engineers Katherine Kelly, P.E. WJ Castle & Associates Richard Parisi, P.E. WJ Castle & Associates Kevin Hay WJ Castle & Associates Note: Above water inspection performed by RVE on June 9, 2021. Underwater inspection performed by W. J. Castle & Associates on June 16th, 2021. DNREC Dam Safety Program Representative(s): Name Affiliation Janice L. Shute, P.E., CFM DNREC Dam Owner Representative(s): Name Affiliation Robert LeFountain Dover DPW Others: Name Affiliation Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers Page 44 June 28, 2021 • 94

2008 DELAWARE DAM INVENTORY INFORMATION (provided by DNREC): D Item 3. HISTORY Date Constructed: 1944 Dates(s) Reconstructed: N/A Designer: Albright & Friel, Inc. Consulting Engineers Constructed By: N/A Owner & Address: The City of Dover, DE 19903 Owner/Operator present during inspection (yes or no): YES PREVIOUS INSPECTIONS Last Inspection: Last Regular Inspection: May 28,2019 Phase I Inspection: January 1978 Last Formal Inspection: April 3, 2020 List all recommendations from previous inspection reports and note whether those items have been completed: Immediate Repairs No immediate repairs required. Non-Immediate Repairs Earth Embankment Upstream Slope • All weeds noted within the rip rap should be controlled with herbicide and removed. Partially completed – Weeds have been treated but some remain • The trash that has accumulated along the water line at the west end of the left embankment should be removed. Partially completed – Trash was observed at time of inspection • Monitor the areas that have been reseeded with grass to ensure full coverage and fill in any that have not germinated with additional seed. Continue to monitor – Previously seeded areas are now bare. • The two small stumps near the signs near the boat ramp can be left in place provided they are no longer alive and should be monitored periodically. Continue to monitor • Consideration should be given to repair the asphalt roadway along the crest of the embankment. Continue to monitor • A depression that was holding water was noted in the left portion of the crest of the left embankment in the 2019 report but was not noted during the current inspection. Depressions in the crest should be monitored periodically. Continue to monitor • Any gaps present in the rip rap along the right upstream embankment should be filled with additional rip rap. Not completed Downstream Slope • All weeds noted within the rip rap should be removed and controlled with herbicide so future weeds do not grow. Partially completed – Weeds have been treated but some remain • The bare spots on left side of the spillway should be seeded and covered with new grass. Continue to monitor – Previously seeded areas are now bare. • The woody bushes/weeds that were noted growing in the fence that cordons off the bottom of the fish ladder and near the fish ladder sign can be left in place provided they are no longer alive and should be monitored periodically. Continue to monitor • It was unknown what the purpose of the No. 57 stone noted between the fish ladder and the chain link fence is. If it is for erosion mitigation, it should be replaced with rip rap. Not completed – No. 57 Stone remains Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers Page 45 June 28, 2021 • 95

• Remediate the eroded area with exposed tree roots on the downhill side of the upper portions of D Item 3. the parking lot Completed – Eroded area has been filled, reinforced and seeded. Reinforcement is failing Concrete Spillway and Wing Walls Upstream Face and Wing Walls • Repair the spalls in the concrete wingwalls with epoxy concrete. Not completed • Repair the crack in the left wingwall with pressure injected epoxy. Not completed • Re-adjust rotated fence extension on left wingwall and secure to prevent rotation again. Completed Downstream Face and Wing Walls • Repair the incipient spalls on the left wingwall with epoxy concrete. Not completed • The rust stain, efflorescence, and water leakage on the right wingwall appears to be originating from a crack/spall in the concrete/ which suggests water is penetrating from the earth side of the wall. The condition of the rust stain and water leakage appears similar to the condition observed in the 2020 inspection. Though there is no immediate concern, if it is left alone there could be a potential issue in the future. The source of the water leaking and condition of the concrete should be investigated to determine an appropriate repair. Not completed Fish Ladder • Repair broken weld splice on the fish ladder support. Not completed • The leaks noted to originate from joints in the fish ladder are not considered significant enough to warrant repair, at this time. However, the leaks should be monitored and if they progress to show signs of structural fatigue they should be repaired. Continue to monitor. Pedestrian Walkway • Repair joint material delamination on Pier 6. Not completed • Repair topside crack on Span 4. Not completed • Clean and paint guardrail posts and railings. Secure any loose fencing to the railing posts with appropriate non-corrosive wire ties. Not completed • Continue to monitor the sag in the pedestrian bridge noted in the previous report. If signs of structural fatigue are noted, they should be reobserved by a structural engineer to provide updated recommendations on the need for repair. Continue to monitor. Outlet Works • Replace corroded hardware below the waterline throughout the outlet structure. Not completed Exit Channel • All weeds noted within the rip rap should be controlled with herbicide and removed. Partially completed – Weeds have been treated but some remain. • The bare spot should be covered with new grass. Not Completed Boat Dock • Remove the existing decking and replace with new lumber and stainless-steel fasteners. Completed • Remove and replace the existing rub rail. Completed • Replace the 4 outboard cleats and provide new matching inboard cleats. Completed Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers Page 46 June 28, 2021 • 96

EMERGENCY ACTION PLAN (Required for all High and Significant Hazard dams) D Item 3. Date of Approved Plan: N/A Date of Plan Revision: N/A Is the notification flowchart complete and current? (If the notification flow chart is not complete and current, all modifications, corrections, and additions must be made and replacement pages submitted with this report) Is inundation mapping or a description included? N/A Are emergency materials and equipment identified? N/A When was the plan last tested? DOWNSTREAM HAZARD CLASSIFICATIONS Present Hazard Classification: High Changes in Downstream Land Use and Habitation: No Is present classification appropriate? Yes OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE Date of Operation and Maintenance Plan: N/A Are instructions adequate? N/A Do operating personnel follow instructions? N/A What are operating personnel capabilities? N/A Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers Page 47 June 28, 2021 • 97

D Item 3. EXAMINATION OF EMBANKMENT DAMS DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE Embankment Material: Earth Cutoff Type: Unknown Impervious Core: Unknown Internal Drainage System: Outlets of a drainage system was not observed, which may indicate that one is not present. Movement (Horizontal and Vertical Alignment): None Observed Junctions with Abutments or Embankments: Good Condition. Isolated areas of erosion exist on left downstream embankment Miscellaneous: None CREST Vertical Alignment: Good Horizontal Alignment: Good Surface Cracks: None Observed Settlement: None Observed Unusual Conditions: None Observed UPSTREAM SLOPE Slope (Estimate) (H:V): 3H:1V Trees, Undesirable Growth or Debris, Animal Burrows: Upstream Slope in good to very good condition except as noted below. No animal burrows observed. 1. The rip-rap on both left and right slopes appeared to be in good condition, with some small to medium weeds noted. 2. Trash and debris accumulation was noted in the water at the end of the left upstream embankment. 3. The rip rap along the right upstream embankment was noted to be in good condition, though the rip rap appeared to be missing in one location. 4. Some moderate bare spots were noted in the upstream embankments throughout. Sloughing, Subsidence or Depressions: 1. None observed. Slope Protection: 1. Riprap at water line was in very good condition with some weeds growing from the joints between the riprap stones 2. There is a small isolated area of erosion behind the left embankment rip rap. Surface Cracks or Movement at Toe: 1. None observed. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers Page 48 June 28, 2021 • 98

Unusual Conditions: 1. None observed. D Item 3. DOWNSTREAM SLOPE Slope (Estimate) (H:V): Variable 2H:1V to flatter than 5H:1V Trees, Undesirable Growth or Debris, Animal Burrows: Downstream Slope in good to very good condition except as noted below. No animal burrows observed. 1. Weeds and vegetation growth within the rip rap was previously treated but weeds remain. 2. There are bare slope areas on the left embankment adjacent to the wingwall and adjacent to the upper parking lot area. 3. There is minor erosion occurring at the extreme left of the left embankment and adjacent to the upper parking lot area. 4. There is moderate erosion occurring at the south end of the fenced in area and will soon undermine the south fence post foundation. 5. The woody bushes/weeds that were noted growing in the fence that cordons off the bottom of the fish ladder and near the fish ladder sign remain but show no signs of further deteriorating the area. 6. It was unknown what the purpose of the No. 57 stone noted between the fish ladder and the chain link fence is. If it is for erosion mitigation, it is inefficient and should be replaced with rip rap. Sloughing, Subsidence or Depressions: None observed Surface Cracks or Movement at Toe: None observed Seepage: None observed External Drainage System (Ditches, Trenches, Blanket): None observed Condition Around Outlet Structure: 1. Stilling basin at toe of concrete spillway in good conditions. No signs of seepage, boils or undermining of concrete spillway. Unusual Conditions: None observed ABUTMENTS AND TOE AREA Erosion at Contract: None observed Seepage or Wet Area Along Contract: None observed Signs of Movement: None observed Depressions, Sinkholes: None observed Unusual Conditions: None observed SEEPAGE OR TOE DRAIN FLOW MEASUREMENTS: NOT APPLICABLE Location Estimated Flow Color (Turbidity) OTHER CONDITIONS/OBSERVATIONS: NONE Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers Page 49 June 28, 2021 • 99

EXAMINATION OF SPILLWAYS AND OUTLET WORKS D Item 3. TYPE(S) AND DESCRIPTION OF SPILLWAY(S) Primary: Concrete Dam Spillway with base flow chute with flash boards on west side of spillway Secondary (auxiliary): None Emergency: Combined with Primary Spillway Low Level Outlet (flashboards, operable gates, etc.): Wood riser structure with sluice gate Other: FOR EACH SPILLWAY THE FOLLOWING ASPECTS MUST BE EXAMINED WHERE APPROPRIATE ENTRANCE CHANNEL Description: Cast in place concrete wing walls Vegetation (Trees, Bushes): None Observed Debris: None Channel Side-Slope Stability: Concrete Wing walls were observed to be vertical and in good condition. Slope Protection/Erosion: Rip rap has been placed to remediate erosion along right wing wall and in good condition. Unusual Conditions: None observed SPILLWAY CREST Description: Concrete Condition of Material: 1. Water was breaching overtop the crest of the spillway; therefore, could not clearly see the concrete surface. 2. The mudline is protected with approximately 1’ to 1 ½’ nominal size stone rip rap except, between spans 2 through 4 in which the mudline is sand and silt. Signs of Movement: None Observed Joints: Good Condition Unusual Conditions: None Observed DROP BOX N/A Description: N/A Condition of Material: N/A Signs of Movement: N/A Joints: N/A Floor: N/A Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers Page 50 June 28, 2021 • 100

Unusual Conditions: N/A SPILLWAY WING WALLS AND DOWNSTREAM APRON D Item 3. Description: Concrete Condition of Material: 1. The timber flash boards for the base concrete flow chute are in satisfactory condition. The stainless-steel angle has moderate corrosion and the hardware has mild corrosion. 2. The downstream toe of the spillway was in satisfactory condition with moderate abrasion up to ½”D. The toe is exposed the entire length with a vertical exposure of 5”-16”H. There is no undermining. 3. There is 8”-12” diameter riprap in the downstream channel and along the base of the exposed toe. 4. At the south end of the left wingwall there is a 6”L x 7”H x 1”D spall. 5. 10 feet south of the spillway on the left wingwall, 2.5 feet above the mudline, there is a 1SF incipient spall with rust staining. 6. 4 feet south of the spillway on the left wingwall, 2.5 feet above the mudline, there is a 0.5SF incipient spall with rust staining. 7. 5 feet south of the left wingwall north end there is 1SF incipient spall on the top of the wingwall. 8. 25 feet north of the south end on the right wingwall, there is fine cracking with rust staining. 9. The right wingwall has fine diagonal cracks with efflorescence throughout. 9. There is a 7”H x ¼”D band of abrasion with exposed aggregate along the base of each wingwall. Signs of Movement: None Joints: See above Drains: None Unusual Conditions: None DOWNSTREAM APRON Description: Concrete Condition of Material: Could not be observed due to water flow. Signs of Movement: Could not be observed due to water flow. Unusual Conditions: Could not be observed due to water flow. CULVERTS Description: 24-inch diameter cast iron pipe from low level outlet works penetrates downstream apron Condition of Material: Could not be observed due to water flow Joints: Could not observe. Recommend next inspection include video inspection of inside of the pipe. Signs of Movement: None observed at end of pipe. Seepage: None observed Location Estimated Flow Turbidity Unusual Conditions: TRASH RACKS Description: N/A Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers Page 51 June 28, 2021 • 101

Condition of Material: Unusual Conditions: N/A N/A D Item 3. CHUTES Description: Base flow concrete chute located on west side of downstream apron with wood flash boards Condition of Material: Signs of Movement: None observed Unusual Conditions: None observed STILLING BASIN Description: 6 to 18-inch size stone riprap Condition of Material: Good with no signs of seepage and boils observed to be present Signs of Movement: None observed Erosion: None observed Unusual Conditions: None observed EXIT CHANNEL Vegetation (Trees, Bushes): Some minor vegetation was observed to be growing in riprap that lined the entrance channel at the end of the wing walls for the downstream apron. Debris: None observed Channel Side-Slope Stability: Good Condition. No signs of stability problems. Erosion: Some erosion and bare spots noted Unusual Conditions: None observed LOW LEVEL OUTLET Description: Wood riser structure with sluice gate Condition: 1. The wooden outlet structure upstream of Span 8 is in satisfactory condition. There is a light covering of soft marine growth and minor checks in the timber elements with up to 1/16”D penetration with an awl. 2. The trash rack and fencing is in good condition. 3. The sluice gate and all associated components – frame, stops, wedges, seal, stem guide, and hardware – are all in good condition. 4. The timber structure’s galvanized hardware is in poor condition below the water with up to 30% section loss (photos unavailable due to water clarity). 5. The floor slab beneath the gate has mild abrasion with exposed aggregate. 6. There was ½”D of silt covering the floor slab. 7. The right downstream pile has heavy checking and heart rot with up to 50% section loss in the top 5 feet. These piles are believed to be sacrificial. 8. There was approximately 8 feet of water above the top of the sluice gate at the time of the inspection. 9. The sluice gate was not operated for evaluation. Trash Rack: Appears to be in good condition Leakage: None observed Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers Page 52 June 28, 2021 • 102

Location Estimated Flow D Item 3. Unusual Conditions: None observed Was the low level outlet operated during the inspection? No however sluice gate was reported operational in memo dated 9/26/13 from Sharon Duca, PE, Public Works Director/City Engineer. Were there difficulties operating the low level outlet? N/A When was the low level outlet last operated and did this conform with the Operation and Maintenance procedures? N/A Miscellaneous: None STILLING BASIN FOR LOW LEVEL OUTLET Description: Combined with stilling basin for combined principal and emergency spillways. See description above. Condition of Material: 1. The exit channel was observed to be in good condition. 2. The banks of the channel were lined with 1 to 2-foot diameter size riprap observed to be in good condition. 3. Several bare spots and some weeds were noted in the landscape areas directly adjacent to the riprap along the banks of the channel. Signs of Movement: None observed Erosion: None observed Unusual Conditions: None observed EXIT CHANNEL FOR LOW LEVEL OUTLET Description (Trees, Bushes): Debris: Channel Side-Slope Stability: Slope Protection Erosion: Unusual Conditions: Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers Page 53 June 28, 2021 • 103

EXAMINATION OF CONCRETE AND MASONRY DAMS D Item 3. DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE Type of Dam (Gravity, Arch, etc.): Internal Drainage System: Movement (Horizontal and Vertical Alignment): Miscellaneous: UPSTREAM FACE Condition of Concrete or Masonry: Cracking: Location Orientation Length Width Type DOWNSTREAM FACE Condition of Concrete or Masonry: Cracking: Location Orientation Length Width Type Leakage through Dam (Location and Estimated Flow): CREST Condition of Concrete or Masonry: Cracking Location Orientation Length Width Type Signs of Movement: Differential Movement (Joint or Crack Separation or Offset): GALLERIES Cracking Location Orientation Length Width Type Differential Movement (Joint or Crack Separation): Leakage into Galleries (Location and Estimated Flow): Condition of Gallery Drains: Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers Page 54 June 28, 2021 • 104

FOUNDATION D Item 3. Condition of Rock or Concrete Lining: Cracking: Signs of Movement: Seepage (Location and Estimated Flow): ABUTMENTS AND TOE AREA Seepage or Wet Areas: Signs of Movement: Cracking: Erosion: Unusual Conditions: Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers Page 55 June 28, 2021 • 105

EXAMINATION OF OTHER FEATURES D Item 3. INSTRUMENTATION (Monumentation/Surveys, Observation Wells, Weirs, Piezometers, etc.) location, condition: No Instrumentations except for reservoir staff gauge was present (A separate report including instrument readings, condition of instruments, observations, and conclusions based upon the collected data should be attached.) RESERVOIR Slopes: Good Condition Sedimentation: Could not be observed Unusual Conditions Which Affect Dam: None observed Other Unusual Conditions: None observed APPURTENANT STRUCTURES Description and Condition of Each: Fish Ladder 1. The stainless-steel fish ladder was in good condition. 2. There are areas of mild to moderate corrosion of the steel support members with up to 10% section loss. 3. The 6th support from the downstream end has a broken weld splice. 4. There were leaks located at several of the joints along the fish ladder. Pedestrian Walkway over Spillway 1. There is light to moderate abrasion up to ½”D with exposed aggregate, located from the waterline down on all piers. 2. Pier 2 has a failed repair on the top of the right face and has left a 2’L x 3”H x 1”D spall. 3. There is fine cracking with efflorescence in the repaired area under spans 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9. 4. There is mild honeycombing of the concrete under span 3. 5. Pier 6 has corner edge abrasion on the top right side 18”L x 6”H x 1”D. 6. Pier 6 has delamination of joint material topside. 7. Pier 7 has corner edge abrasion on the top left side 12”L x 2”H x 1”D, and on the right side near the waterline 8”L x 3”H x 1”D. 8. The water level at the time of the inspection was 4.1 feet below the bottom of the walkway. 9. Span 4 contains a diagonal crack (approx. 12” long) topside near pier 4. 10. The guard rails on the walkway are rusted and in fair to poor condition. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers Page 56 June 28, 2021 • 106

RECOMMENDATIONS D Item 3. THE FOLLOWING REPAIRS SHOULD BE MADE IMMEDIATELY: No immediate repairs required THE FOLLOWING NON-IMMEDIATE REPAIRS/IMPROVEMENTS SHOULD BE MADE: Upstream Slope 1. All weeds noted within the rip rap should be controlled with herbicide and removed. 2. The trash that has accumulated along the water line at the west end of the left embankment should be removed. 3. The bare spots on the left and right embankments should be covered with new grass. 4. The two small stumps near the signs near the boat ramp can be left in place provided it is no longer alive and should be monitored periodically. 5. Remediate the isolated area of erosion on the left embankment. 6. Consideration should be given to repair the asphalt roadway along the crest of the embankment. 7. Although not observed, continue to monitor for the depression in the left crest noted in the 2019 report. Downstream Slope 1. All weeds noted within the rip rap should be controlled with herbicide and removed. 2. The bare spots on left side of the spillway should be covered with new grass. 3. The woody bushes/weeds that were noted growing in the fence that cordons off the bottom of the fish ladder and near the fish ladder sign can be left in place provided they are no longer alive and should be monitored periodically. 4. It was unknown what the purpose of the No. 57 stone noted between the fish ladder and the chain link fence is. If it is for erosion mitigation, it should be replaced with rip rap. 5. Remediate the eroded area adjacent to the upper parking lot. 6. Remediate the eroded area on the extreme left of the embankment Upstream Face and Wing Walls 1. Repair the spalls in the concrete wingwalls with epoxy concrete. 2. Repair the crack in the left wingwall with pressure injected epoxy. Downstream Face and Wing Walls 1. Repair the incipient spalls on the left wingwall with epoxy concrete. 2. The rust stain, efflorescence, and water leakage on the right wingwall appears to be originating from a crack/spall in the concrete/ which suggests water is penetrating from the earth side of the wall. The condition of the rust stain and water leakage appears similar to the condition observed in the 2020 inspection. Though there is no immediate concern, if it is left alone there could be a potential issue in the future. The source of the water leaking and condition of the concrete should be investigated to determine an appropriate repair. Fish Ladder 1. Repair broken weld splice on the fish ladder support. Pedestrian Walkway 1. Repair joint material delamination on pier 6. 2. Repair topside crack on span 4 and the underside cracks throughout with pressure injected epoxy. 3. Clean and paint guardrail posts and railings Outlet Works 1. Replace corroded hardware below the waterline throughout the outlet structure. 2. Operate low level gate valve to ensure the gate is operable. 3. Video inspection of low level outlet pipe. Exit Channel 1. All weeds noted within the rip rap should be controlled with herbicide and removed. 2. The bare spots should be covered with new grass. Boat Dock 1. Provide vegetation for the bare spots and remove the weeds noted adjacent to the rip rap that lines the banks of the channel. 2. Replace the northwest dock piling. Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers Page 57 June 28, 2021 • 107

THE FOLLOWING MAINTENANCE ITEMS SHOULD BE COMPLETED: D Item 3. 1. Area where new grass seed has been planted should be monitored for growth 2. Weeds growing from the joints between the rip rap stones should be removed and maintained to prevent further growth. THE FOLLOWING ENGINEERING ANALYSIS/STUDIES SHOULD BE PERFORMED: () Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis (Currently being prepared by RVE) () Embankment Stability Analysis () Dam Failure Analysis/Inundation Mapping (Currently being prepared by RVE) (X) Other: Structural design of concrete walkway over concrete spillway None Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers Page 58 June 28, 2021 • 108

CONDITION ASSESSMENT D Item 3. Silver Lake Dam was personally inspected by me and was found to be in the following condition (select one only): • SATISFACTORY No existing or potential dam safety deficiencies are recognized. Acceptable performance is expected under all loading conditions (static, hydrologic, seismic) in accordance with the applicable regulatory criteria or tolerable risk guidelines. X FAIR No existing dam safety deficiencies are recognized for normal loading conditions. Rare or extreme hydrologic and/or seismic events may result in a dam safety deficiency . Risk may be in the range to take further action . • POOR A dam safety deficiency is recognized for loading conditions which may realistically occur. Remedial action is necessary. POOR may also be used when uncertainties exist as to critical analysis parameters which identify a potential dam safety deficiency. Further investigations and studies are necessary . • UNSATISFACTORY A dam safety deficiency is recognized that requires immediate or emergency remedial action for problem resolution. Delaware Registered Professional Engineer Performing Condition Assessment: Name Kim Charles Westen DE PE License Number: ----=='-"--='----- 22393 Affiliation (Agen~ Company) Remington & Vemick Engineers Signature £ ;f;t{Jji;7 Date:__J_u~ly_9~,_2_0_2_1_ __ Delaware Dam Safety Program Concurrence with Condition Assessment: Name Janice L Shute 10600 --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -DE PE License Number- - - - - - - - Signature _ _ _,_~-'-'---'--'-'·~L'-=-~s~~~~---- Date - -9/27/2021 ----------- Dam Owner Acknowledgement of Condition Assessment: Name_ __:_..:...::..~==----=~"""-L.-4~~---Title T,-i-f~t.~ c.,·-ty fvf ~,y_rv Date 3 0 So/' f 'l. o 2( Silver Lake Dam Safety Inspection Remington & Vernick Engineers Page 59 June 28, 2021 • 109

D Item 3. Appendix D – Cost Estimate Item Description Estimated Cost Rip Rap Repair Clearing and Grubbing $245 Geotextiles, Riprap $200 R-5 Rip Rap $2,250 Turbidity Curtain $11,900 Stabilize Slope Grading $4,620 Borrow, Type F $1,275 Topsoil (6" Depth) $4,800 Streambank Seed Mix, Seeding $10,000 Rehabilitate Piers Shallow Concrete Spall Repair I $3,575 Pedestrian Walkway Shallow Concrete Spall Repair $4,700 Epoxy Injection Crack Repair $7,150 Fish Ladder Connection Epoxy Injection Crack Repair I $1,440 Wing Walls Epoxy Injection Crack Repair $10,720 Petrographic Testing $2875 Test Pit $3,175 Rust Spot Repair* $7,140 *Note: *It is assumed that the rust spot on the wing wall can be repaired by epoxy injection and that no repair to the rebar is necessary. If petrographic testing and/or the test pit indicates otherwise, the cost to repair the rebar and to fill in the hole could be much higher. Pricing assumes all of the work will be completed together. Individual selections of work may increase cost. • 110