COUNCIL PACKET

REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA March 8, 2010 - 7:30 P.M. - Council Chambers - City Hall - City of Dover OPEN FORUM - 15 MINUTES PRIOR TO OFFICIAL MEETING (7:15 P.M.) INVOCATION BY CHAPLAIN WALLACE DIXON PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS * CONSENT AGENDA Those items on the Council Agenda which are considered routine and non-controversial shall be marked with an asterisk (*) and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the Council. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of Council so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered a separate item. * 1. Adoption of Minutes - Council Retreat of January 29, 2010 - Regular Council Meeting of February 22, 2010 2. Recognition of Service - Dover Human Relations Commission - Katrina Brumble - August 13, 2007 through February 1, 2010 3. Public Hearing/Final Reading - Proposed Zoning Text Amendments The First Reading of the Following Proposed Ordinances was accomplished during the Council Meeting of January 11, 2010. Copies of the proposed ordinances are available at the entrance of the Council Chambers. A. ORDINANCE #2009-28 AMENDING APPENDIX B - ZONING , ARTICLE 6 - OFF-STREET PARKING , DRIVEWAYS AND LOADING FACILITIES, SECTION 5 - SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS FOR PARKING AND LOADING FACILITIES, SUBSECTION 5.5 - RACE WEEKEND PARKING B. ORDINANCE #2009-30 CORRECTION TO APPENDIX B - ZONING , ARTICLE 6 - OFF- STREET PARKING , DRIVEWAYS AND LOADING FACILITIES 4. Public Hearings - Violation of Dangerous Building Ordinance - Nottingham Meadows Subdivision A. Property located at 433 Beuvale Lane, Owned by Stover Homes, LLC B. Property located at 312 Gillibrook Lane, Owned by Stover Homes, LLC C. Property located at 328 Gillibrook Lane, Owned by Stover Homes, LLC D. Property located at 329 Gillibrook Lane, Owned by Stover Homes, LLC 5. Planned Neighborhood Design - Bay Village General Sketch Plan - Located on the South Side of White Oak Road East of State Route 1

Council Agenda March 8, 2010 Page 2 6. Special Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee Report - February 22, 2010 A. Presentation by Greater Dover Committee - Kent Sports Complex (Committee Action Not Required) * B. Statistics Regarding Jobs and Businesses Gained and Lost in the City of Dover Since July 2009 (Committee Action Not Required) * C. Benchmarks Established for the Economic Development Office (Committee Action Not Required) * D. Statistics Regarding the Percentage of Pitts Center Users Who Are Non-Dover Residents (Committee Action Not Required) * E. Updates (Committee Action Not Required) * 7. Utility Committee Report - February 22, 2010 A. Water/Wastewater Service Handbook and Related Proposed Ordinance #2010-07 (See Item #14-A) (Committee Recommended Approval of the Handbook and Adoption of Ordinance #2010-07) B. Review of Utility Related CIP's (Electric and Water/Wastewater) (December 2009) (Committee Recommended Acceptance of the Report) C. Update - Green Energy Funding and Programming (Committee Recommended Acceptance of the Update on Green Energy Funding and Programming Report) D. PACE/NAES Monthly Report (December) (Committee Recommended Acceptance of the Report) * 8. Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Report - February 22, 2010 A. Review and Recommendation - Filling Critical Positions - Temporary/Part-Time Account Clerk III (Committee Recommended That Staff Be Granted Permission to Recruit for the Position of a Temporary/Part-Time Account Clerk III, as Requested) B. Proposed Amendment to the United Way Land Lease (Committee Recommended Approval of the Proposed Lease Amendment That Will Allow the United Way to Sublease Property to Partnership Organizations, Contingent upon the City Solicitor's Review) C. Final Report - Revenue/Cost Saving Ideas Submitted for Consideration (Committee Recommended Acceptance of the Report) D. Proposed Ordinance #2010-06 Amending Chapter 102 - Taxation, Article VI - Exemptions; Board of Assessment Appeals, Section 102-183 - Tax Exemptions for Senior Citizens, Subsection (b) - Qualifications, Subsection (3) - Exclusions from Income (See Item #14-B) (Committee Recommended Adoption of Proposed Ordinance #2010-06)

Council Agenda March 8, 2010 Page 3 * 9. Monthly Reports - January 2010 A. Budget Report B. Chief of Police Report C. City Assessor Report D. City Manager’s Report E. City Planner’s Report 10. Letter in Opposition to House Bill #194 - Addition of New Gambling Venues in Delaware (Deferred by Council on February 22, 2010) 11. Setting of Property Assessment Appeals * 12. Annual Reports A. Planning and Community Development Annual Report B. Police Department 13. Rezoning Request/First Reading - Nottingham Meadows (Recommended for referral to the Planning Commission on April 19, 2010 and that a Public Hearing be set for May 24, 2010 at 7:30 p.m.) A. Property located on the south side of Hazlettville Road, west of Wyoming Mill Road, owned by multiple individual property owners, consisting of 88.10+/- acres. These properties are currently zoned RM-1 (Medium Density Residence) and the proposed zoning is R-8 (One Family Residence) (Sponsors: Leary, McGlumphy, Ruane, and Williams) 14. First Reading - Proposed Ordinances The First Reading is offered on the following Proposed Ordinances. Final action by Council will take place during the Second Reading of the ordinances on March 22, 2010. Copies of all proposed ordinances are available at the entrance of the Council Chambers or can be obtained from the City Clerk's Office. A. PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2010-07 AMENDING CHAPTER 98 - STREETS, SIDEWALKS AND OTHER PUBLIC PLACES, CHAPTER 110 - UTILITIES, ARTICLE III - WATER SERVICE, CHAPTER 110 - UTILITIES, ARTICLE IV-SEWER SERVICE , AND APPENDIX F - FEES AND FINES (Utility Committee) B. PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2010-06 AMENDING CHAPTER 102 - TAXATION , ARTICLE VI - EXEMPTIONS; BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, SECTION 102-183 - TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR SENIOR CITIZENS, SUBSECTION (B) - QUALIFICATIONS, SUBSECTION (3) - EXCLUSIONS FROM INCOME (Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee) 15. Council Members Announcements /tm S:\PACKETS\2010\Council\03-08-2010\03-08-2010.wpd THE AGENDA ITEMS AS LISTED MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN SEQUENCE. THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OR THE DELETION OF ITEMS, INCLUDING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS.

COUNCIL RETREAT: THE NEXT BUDGET The Council Retreat: The Next Budget was held on January 29, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. with Council President Williams presiding. Council members present were Mrs. Russell, Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Slavin, Mr. McGiffin, Mr. Hogan, Mr. Salters, and Mr. Ruane. Mr. Leary was absent. Council staff members present were Mrs. Mitchell, Mrs. Townshend, Mr. DePrima, Mrs. McDowell, and Mayor Carey. INTRODUCTION - WHY IS THIS RETREAT DIFFERENT? Mr. Anthony DePrima, City Manager, advised members that this Retreat is different from previous sessions since it will focus on the City’s budget, rather than brainstorming or development of new ideas, programs, etc. He noted that due to the current economic situation, there is a dire need to evaluate the budget. He further explained that since the budget process is continuously being moved forward in the year, staff is able to provide members with more detailed budget information earlier than in the past. REVIEW OF THE VISION, CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS, MISSION, AND LAST YEAR’S PRIORITIES Mr. DePrima, reviewed a Presentation (Exhibit #1) which established that the goals of the Retreat were to validate of the City’s Vision, Critical Success Factors, and Mission Statement, as well as current and pending initiatives (top recommendations from 2009 Retreat). He indicated that members would also review and discuss budgetary goals. Mr. Ruane referred to the recommendation from the 2009 Retreat, Safe/Affordable/Clean Housing, Contingency Planning for CDBG Funds, Section 8 Rental Rehab, Homeowner Assistance, increasing availability of rental properties, and noted that the economic crisis has created housing issues including foreclosures and subdivision “closures” (such as Nottingham Woods), explaining that builders are going out of business. He questioned what provisions the City has for these types of occurrences. He suggested that there be further discussion related to the broader issues that affect home ownership in the City. Mr. Ruane suggested that there may be a need for the City to require additional bonding, an escrow, etc., when site plans are brought forward for approval. Responding, Mr. DePrima suggested that this matter be included as a future agenda item for consideration by the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee. Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, noted that there are some municipalities that require bonding and a letter of credit for open space/recreation plans. Concurring with suggestions of Council President Williams, Mr. Ruane stated that the discussion should include the ability of companies to obtain and/or maintain credit with the banks. NEXT BUDGET YEAR’S SITUATION AND ASSUMPTIONS WE USED Mr. DePrima reviewed a Presentation of next Budget year’s situation and the assumptions used (Exhibit #2). Members were advised that the information provides a glimpse of the future of the budget. Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, assured members that the amounts included in the information are preliminary.

COUNCIL RETREAT OF JANUARY 29, 2010 PAGE 2 Responding to Mr. Slavin, Mr. DePrima confirmed that the projections reflect that the declining trend in revenues will continue. Mr. Ruane referred to the total State funds received by the City and requested the opportunity to further discuss them in terms of providing an understanding of the major sources, and the amounts, and what assumptions staff has used moving forward, citing Payment In Lieu of Tax (PILOT) as an example. He noted that during the last League of Local Governments meeting, two (2) out of the four (4) presenters stated they had chosen to eliminate any state monies from their budget due to the uncertainty of State funding. Mr. Ruane suggested that the City develop a budget without these amounts included. Members took a short break from 9:56 a.m. to 10:10 a.m. Mrs. Mitchell reviewed the Water/Wastewater Fund, beginning with page 5 of the Presentation (see Exhibit #2). During this review, Mr. Ruane requested that members be provided a list of priority projects that were developed by the Utility Committee and approved by City Council. It was also suggested that this information include the effect the costs would have on the rate payers to allow members a better understanding for developing recommendations in the future. Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Mitchell stated that the budget anticipated a net income in the Wastewater Fund; however, staff has projected a $628,483 loss. Mr. DePrima explained that staff has budgeted for Inflow & Infiltration (I/I); however, it is necessary to also budget for the deficit. He confirmed that if the I/I problem is corrected or if there is dryer weather, there will be less I/I. Mr. DePrima utilized his personal utility bill as an example (Exhibit #3) and referred to the sewer flow charge, in the amount of $10.50, and explained that the proposal to increase the existing fee by 35% would result in an additional $3.70 (or $14.20). He indicated that the I/I deficit can be acquired through the sewer flow charge, or through the Kent County sewer adjustment fee. If acquired through the Kent County adjustment fee, the fee would be adjusted each year for the projected I/I, as opposed to imposing an actual rate increase. Mr. DePrima explained I/I and how it is accumulated each day and noted that the cost associated is, in reality, a Kent County sewer treatment fee. For this reason, staff has recommended that, for FY2011, there be a Sewer Treatment Fee included in the utility bills that would include the Kent County sewer adjustment, as well as the I/I charges. After much discussion, several members felt that there should be separate items listed on the utility bills to reflect the charges. Mrs. Townshend advised members that, through the code enforcement program, staff is addressing I/I issues with homeowners as they discover storm drains and sump pumps tied into the sewer system and requiring them to correct these issues; therefore, there should be a reduction observed in the I/I. Mr. Ruane felt that there is a need for public education regarding I/I to allow individuals to take personal responsibility in this regard.

COUNCIL RETREAT OF JANUARY 29, 2010 PAGE 3 BUDGET SOLUTIONS AND GUIDANCE In considering budget solutions, Mr. DePrima provided members with a list of City Programs offered by each department (Exhibit #4) and requested guidance as to which, if any, programs should be considered for reduction or elimination. At this time, he requested that members provide an indication only of those programs that warrant further discussion in this regard. Mr. Hogan suggested that since the County has increased license fees for dogs significantly, the City should eliminate the animal control program. Mr. Slavin felt that members of Council have established a high level of service to the residents of the City of Dover over the years, which provides for a high quality of life for residents. It was his opinion that if programs or services are reduced or eliminated, it would have a detrimental effect on many of the policies that have been established by Council. After much discussion, Council President Williams suggested that members select examples of those services that could be changed in a way that would not reduce any level of service provided to the residents, such as considering the idea of outsourcing a webmaster for the City. Concurring with Mr. Hogan with regards to animal control, Mr. Ruane questioned if there were any other duplications of services that are provided by the City as well as another entity. Responding, Mr. DePrima stated that the State conducts plumbing inspections (although not within City limits) and that this is a service that could be further researched for possible elimination. Mr. Ruane referred to tax assessment and suggested the possibility of this being consolidated with a State-wide assessment. He suggested that the City develop a list of those responsibilities that the City currently bears that could be transferred back to another entity that should bear the responsibility. He felt that, like most municipal assessments, they should be handled by the State and that a State run assessment would prove to be more efficient and effective. Responding, Mr. DePrima suggested that such a review of the program list would have more value after the discussion of revenues. Mr. DePrima distributed a spreadsheet entitled “Estimated Schedule of Expense and Revenues” (Exhibit #5) and explained how it serves as a “model” for making changes to expenses and revenues. He noted that those items highlighted in blue are discretionary items for members of Council, explaining that members have the ability to make adjustments to those revenues. He advised members that staff developed this model in anticipation of increases, as well as cuts in expenses. Mr. Ruane noted that a payment-in-lieu of taxes (PILOT) from the State was included. He felt that these funds (as well as similar payments) should be listed separately if they are to be included in the property line, since they are not within the City’s control. Mr. Hogan noted that there appears to be a mathematical error within the model, explaining that the last two (2) funded/unfunded and cumulative funded/unfunded amounts are mathematically incorrect. Responding, Mr. DePrima assured members that staff would review the model and make any necessary corrections. Mrs. Teresa Tieman, Senior City Administrator, confirmed that the model reflects an incorrect formula.

COUNCIL RETREAT OF JANUARY 29, 2010 PAGE 4 There being no objections, members took a recess for lunch. Meeting recessed at 11:43 a.m. and reconvened at 12:41 p.m. Referring to the discussion that occurred prior to lunch, Council President Williams relayed concern that members were beginning budget discussions and felt that any further discussions in this manner should be deferred until the budget review. With regards to the expense and revenue model, Mr. Hogan suggested that if the model includes assumptions, staff should provide details regarding the assumption on the document. Mr. Ruane relayed concern with the associations of revenues with expenses that have been set by staff. As an example, he questioned why property tax would be associated with safety only. Responding, Mr. DePrima stated that the model is complex and that staff attempted to provide for simplicity. If property tax revenues were spread to the various functions provided to serve the residents, he stated that it would be necessary to then develop a percentage, which would make the process cumbersome. Since property taxes do not cover the City’s police expenses, it was felt that safety would be a more appropriate association for property taxes. Mr. DePrima stated the importance of understanding that staff did not attempt to relate an expense to a particular revenue inclusively but to be used as an indicator of when there is a need to increase or decrease revenues to meet a need. Mr. Ruane suggested that the model reflect the Fire Marshal’s Office under Safety rather than Public Services. Mr. McGiffin felt that the model was offered for fairly discreet and limited purposes and that it accomplishes this purpose very well. It is to be used as a tool for members to immediately see the impact of a change. It was his opinion that the more complicated the model is made, the less likely it will satisfy its intended need and purpose. Council President Williams suggested that those expenses that members of Council have the ability to change also be so noted in blue highlight. In response to Mr. DePrima, Mr. Ruane suggested that since trash is a measurable expense, residents should pay in accordance with their use of the service, which would also provide fairness to the residents. Mr. Slavin reminded members that he did not vote for the budget last year because it was his feeling that the budget deferred too many expenses and that there were too many one-time actions that could not be sustained in the following years. When members consider the possibility of providing employees raises, he suggested that they keep it in context, explaining that the majority of the personnel lines involve employees that are under contract; therefore, when members talk about providing raises, it would be for a small percentage of employees who are not under contract. Mr. Slavin explained that the difficult decisions that members deferred last year are once again before members and are more difficult.

COUNCIL RETREAT OF JANUARY 29, 2010 PAGE 5 Mr. DePrima suggested that the City’s Program list be reviewed by members and that they indicate their preferences or questions, and perhaps utilize the list as a tabulation. Once completed, members should submit their marked-up lists to the City Clerk’s Office. DEMONSTRATION OF LONG-TERM FORECASTING FOR GENERAL FUND Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, reviewed a Presentation of MuniCast®, Financial Sensitivity and Trend Analysis Forecasting Model (Exhibit #6), which was recently purchased by the City . She advised members that although the model will first be utilized for the General Fund, the model can also be utilized for the Water/Wastewater and Electric Funds. In response to Council President Williams, Mrs. Mitchell indicated that she would verify if a “repair” feature is included in the model database. Mr. Salters moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Slavin and unanimously carried. Meeting Adjourned at 1:34 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Beverly C. Williams Council President BCW/tm/jg S:\PACKETS\2010\Council\03-08-2010\01-29-2010 RETREAT.wpd Exhibits (attached to original and file copy) Exhibit #1 - Presentation - Vision, Critical Success Factors, Mission, and Last Year's Priorities Exhibit #2 - Presentation of Next Budget Year's Situation and the Assumptions Used Exhibit #3 - Anthony DePrima Personal Utility Bill Exhibit #4 - City Programs Exhibit #5 - Spreadsheet - "Estimated Schedule of Expense and Revenues" Exhibit #6 - Presentation of MuniCast®, Financial Sensitivity and Trend Analysis Forecasting Model

REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING The Regular Council Meeting was held on February 22, 2010 at 7:30 p.m. with Council President Williams presiding. Council members present were Mr. Leary, Mrs. Russell, Mr. Slavin, Mr. McGiffin, Mr. Hogan, Mr. Salters, and Mr. Ruane. Mr. McGlumphy was absent. Council staff members present were Ms. Russell, Mrs. Mitchell, Mrs. Townshend, Fire Chief Christiansen, Mr. DePrima, City Solicitor Rodriguez, Mrs. McDowell, and Mayor Carey. OPEN FORUM The Open Forum was held at 7:15 p.m., prior to commencement of the Official Council Meeting. Council President Williams declared the Open Forum in session and reminded those present that Council is not in official session and cannot take formal action. Mr. Ron Zink, Sierra Club, reminded members of a previous presentation by Mr. Dave Keifer regarding the planning of a strategy for bringing Cool Cities to Delaware. He advised members that Mr. Anthony DePrima, City Manager, has served as a great ally in this endeavor, making several speeches and presentations. On behalf of the Sierra Club, Mr. Zink presented Mr. DePrima with a plaque in recognition of his distinguished leadership and commitment to energy sustainability, environmental stewardship, and climate protection in Dover and the State of Delaware. Mr. DePrima relayed appreciation for the recognition. Mr. Syl Woolford of Newark, Delaware, advised members that there was an article in the News Journal on Saturday which referenced his father’s story and an apology for slavery. Since there was an agenda item related to the apology for slavery, Council President Williams explained that this matter could not be discussed at this time. The invocation was given by Chaplain Dixon, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. McGiffin moved for approval of the agenda as presented, seconded by Mrs. Russell and unanimously carried. Mr. Salters moved for approval of the consent agenda, seconded by Mrs. Russell and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. McGlumphy absent). ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 25, 2010 The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of January 25, 2010 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Salters, seconded by Mrs. Russell and bore the written approval of Mayor Carey.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2010 PAGE 2 PRESENTATION - CERTIFICATION OF APPRECIATION - SNOW STORM WORKERS The City Clerk read the following Certificate of Appreciation into the record: WHEREAS, the City of Dover experienced two major winter storms during the month of February 2010, resulting in total snow accumulations of approximately 34 inches, wind gusts up to 50 miles per hour, and blizzard conditions; and WHEREAS, the City of Dover staff implemented an Incident Command Structure, which included Mr. Anthony DePrima, City Manager; Mrs. Kay Dietz-Sass, Public Affairs Coordinator; Mr. Scott Koenig, Public Services Manager; Mr. Wayne Hutchison, Emergency Management Coordinator; and Mayor Carleton Carey; who worked tirelessly to coordinate staff efforts to protect the safety and well-being of the residents of the City of Dover; and WHEREAS, City staff established and maintained an Emergency Call Center manned by employees who offered to work; Council Members James McGiffin, Sophia Russell, and Beverly Williams; and Mayor Carleton Carey, which operated for over 90 hours during the snow events, processing over 1375 calls and 28 requests for urgent service during this period; and WHEREAS, Public Services Department crews worked twelve (12) hour shifts over a period of six and half days to remove snow from over 100 miles of City streets and alleys in extremely adverse weather conditions, and staff members worked to clear sidewalks and City-owned parking areas; and WHEREAS, the Fire Marshal’s Office responded to fire calls and monitored road conditions to ensure emergency access during the snow events; and WHEREAS, Public Utilities staff worked steadfastly to maintain power for City residents during the storms, resulting in minimal power outages, and to ensure access to streets, wells, and pump stations under conditions including driving snow and high winds; and WHEREAS, 54 police officers and dispatchers responded to calls and requests for assistance during the period when City offices were closed due to inclement weather, and eight (8) of these individuals resided in local hotels during the emergency because of adverse road conditions; and WHEREAS, special commendation is due for the hard work and dedication demonstrated by City employees. THEREFORE; it is deemed an honor and privilege to present this Certificate of Appreciation to the City of Dover Employees for their diligent efforts and service on behalf of the community. With Sincere Appreciation from the Mayor and Council February 22, 2010

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2010 PAGE 3 RECOGNITION OF SERVICE - BRIAN E. LEWIS - DOVER HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION - OCTOBER 13, 2008 THROUGH FEBRUARY 1, 2010 The City Clerk read the following Certificate of Appreciation into the record: CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION Presented to Brian E. Lewis Dover Human Relations Commission October 13, 2008 - February 1, 2010 Your public service, selflessness, and talents have increased the quality of life for your neighbors, and all of Dover February 22, 2010 Mr. Lewis thanked Mayor Carey for his appointment and allowing him the opportunity to serve the City of Dover. PRESENTATION - CONTRIBUTION TO THE CAPITAL CAMPAIGN OF THE DOVER PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING FUND - BECKER MORGAN GROUP On behalf of Becker Morgan Group, Mr. Gregg Moore presented a $10,000 contribution to the Capital Campaign of the Dover Public Library Building Fund. Ms. Margie Cyr, Library Director; Ms. Dorothy Snyder, President of the Dover Library Foundation; and Ms. Donna Stone, Chairperson of the Capital Campaign, were present to accept the contribution on behalf of the Library. PROCLAMATION - BLACK HISTORY MONTH The City Clerk read the following Proclamation into the record: Whereas, after centuries of unreciprocated labor as slaves, African Americans gained their freedom and found themselves in the struggle to make a living; and Whereas, government codes often prevented blacks from owning land in towns and cities, and in the countryside they were often denied the opportunity to purchase land; and Whereas, pushing against the odds, African Americans became landowners, skilled workers, small businessmen and women, professionals, and ministers; and Whereas, to fight segregation from the economy, they started their own unions and professional associations; as a result, in both the late-nineteenth and early twentieth century we witnessed an unparalleled degree of racial unity and organization; and

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2010 PAGE 4 Whereas, in 1910, a group of dedicated reformers, black and white, gathered to create an organization now known as the National Urban League to address the needs of African Americans as they migrated to the cities of the United States; and Whereas, during the month of February the nation proudly celebrates the accomplishments, contributions, and history of African-Americans. The theme for 2010 Black History Month is the History of Black Economic Empowerment. NOW THEREFORE I, CARLETON E. CAREY, SR., MAYOR OF THE CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE do hereby proclaim February 2010 as BLACK HISTORY MONTH and encourage all citizens to celebrate the contributions of African-Americans to our great society. PROPOSED RESOLUTION - APOLOGY FOR SLAVERY IN DELAWARE (Dover Human Relations Commission) There being no objections, Mr. Salters read a statement into the record, as follows: “I support the apology for slavery in Delaware resolution and hope others will also support this very important initiative. Despite all of the debate that has been going on about this issue since 2007, the interest, rightly so, has not waned and the Human Relations Commission is again bringing to our attention the importance of the City of Dover endorsing the apology resolution to the General Assembly. I am first human in the eye of God and I am the descendent of African slaves and God knows what make up of European blood. I am also proud that as an American I have the opportunity to excel in whatever endeavor I wish to pursue. I encourage citizens of good will to support this apology because it is the moral thing to do. Let us forget about all the news articles on this subject and think of the negative aspects of any form of slavery. Is it the will of God that any man be enslaved by another? Are we justified in our actions when we subjugate another to our cause, whatever the motive? The building of a strong western civilization by whatever means does not justify the inhumane and sometimes barbaric treatment of human life. An apology is only words from the mouth or from the pen. A true apology from the heart and conscience of each individual that really mean it is what I would like to see. It would not be public, it would be evidenced by the actions of the apologist. Despite our wishes, the mere mention of an apology does not clean the slate. There is more to an apology than the words. If we are to live up to the true meaning of love and respect, we need to look to a higher moral and spiritual leader to give us directions.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2010 PAGE 5 I will vote in the affirmative for an apology, and I encourage each of my fellow council members to vote likewise. I also encourage the Human Relations Commission, the NAACP, and the National Urban League to be as ferocious on the issues of education for our children, health of our families, and jobs for all citizens who wish to work. There is much work to be done in the area of criminal justice. Let us tackle the other tough issues, as well as the apology on slavery. Let us marshal the community at the roundtable and find a way to stop our youth from killing one another; let us stay on the case of lawmakers and law enforcers to insure equity in sentencing and guidelines. Let us be aware that we are in danger of losing our freedom if we are not vigilant to the dangers that lurk in our streets. Freedom for every man in every land of this world should be the overriding goal of every law-abiding, self-respecting person. Let us do all in our power to abolish all forms of repression wherever it exists in the world. Let our voices be heard loud and clear that slavery was wrong in the sight of God and that it will never happen again in our great country. Thank you.” Mr. Salters moved for adoption of the Resolution - Apology for Slavery in Delaware, seconded by Mr. Slavin. Mr. Ruane felt that there should be a collective response to a collective injustice. He noted that the proposed Resolution refers not just to slavery but also to the fact that Delaware maintained these conditions for many years, advising members that Delaware continued to discriminate against those of color by approving segregation of education. In reviewing the proposed Resolution, he felt that City Council should recognize what the City of Dover’s contribution was in maintaining the injustices. As an example, he stated that the records of City Council from February 2, 1920 and October 4, 1920, indicate that the delinquent tax records were segregated, explaining that there was a “white” list and “Negro” list. In 1943, there was a Committee of citizens and property owners that came before City Council in opposition to the opening of a “colored” USO Center to be located on the corner of South Governors Avenue and Bank Lane. Mr. Ruane advised members that Council went on record as objecting to the opening of a “colored” USO Center at this location and recommending that notice be sent to executives of the USO advising them to locate the USO Center on Queen Street. In addition, he advised members that on June 12, 1950, City Council authorized the expenditures of up to $350 for repairs to bathing facilities at the lake and the employment of one (1) “white” lifeguard at $45 per week and one (1) “colored” lifeguard at $20 per week. For these reasons, Mr. Ruane stated that he supports the proposed Resolution and expressed his apologies for these actions of the past. Mr. Hogan stated that his opposition to the proposed Resolution is due to its lack of being comprehensive, noting that the apology is to only one (1) group. He explained that in reviewing history, unfortunately, when this nation was “founded”, it was not empty - the land was populated

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2010 PAGE 6 by many tribes of Indians. He advised members that the Indians were mistreated, enslaved, murdered, pushed out west, scalped, etc., and also deserve an apology. In looking at the history of this Nation and State, Mr. Hogan stated that there are many examples of prejudice, discrimination, and slavery against all groups, such as the Italians, Irish, Polish, etc. His reiterated his concern that the apology is for only one (1) group of people and that the real issue is that each of us needs to make a personal apology to our God or the Supreme Being that we serve and to be the best person we can be and not discriminate against others. Mr. Leary recollected the phrase: “one shall not visit the sins of the father upon the son” (or the grandfather or great-grandfather). He questioned when, as people, we stop looking back and start looking forward. He stated that he could not support an apology for something that happened quite some time ago and that no one in the room was a party to. Mr. McGiffin stated that his interpretation of the Resolution is to allow for forgiveness, which is essential in any substantial relationship in order for it to develop. It was his opinion that the proposed Resolution provides just such an opportunity for the relationship that involves the government (State and City) and the people whom the governments represent. He suggested that members accept the proposed Resolution in the spirit in which it is offered in an attempt to help continue the development of relationships with each other, and between the governments and the people which they serve. On a call for the question by Mr. Salters, by a roll call vote of five (5) yes, three (3) no (Mr. Leary, Mr. Hogan, and Council President Williams), and one (1) absent (Mr. McGlumphy), Council adopted the following Resolution: "Whereas, human beings were enslaved and forcibly abducted from Africa and other parts of the world to North America, including Delaware; "Whereas, Delaware legalized slavery and practiced it throughout its colonial period; 'Whereas, Delaware maintained the inhuman and immoral institution of slavery from the time the State ratified the Federal Constitution until slavery was outlawed in 1865 by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which Delaware voted to reject that year; "Whereas, Delaware continued to discriminate against those of color by approving segregation of education in its 1897 State Constitution, a practice that lasted until Brown v. Board of Education in 1954; "Whereas, Delaware passed and enforced Jim Crow laws to deny the rights of African American citizens for much of the 20th century; "Whereas, Delaware today has to deal with the lasting legacy of slavery: an ongoing tension between races;

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2010 PAGE 7 "Whereas, acknowledgment and apology are the first steps in the healing process; "Be it Therefore Resolved that the Dover Human Relations Commission urges the Delaware General Assembly to pass a resolution acknowledging and expressing its profound apology for the State's practice of slavery and for the historic wrongs committed against all persons who suffered discrimination and injustice under this dehumanizing system; "Be it Further Resolved that the DHRC recommends that the Delaware General Assembly recognize the need to address and educate the citizenry regarding the social stigma, stereotyping, racial bias and discrimination which prevail in the state today as vestiges of the institution of slavery; "Be it Finally Resolved that the DHRC implores all citizens of the State of Delaware to be tolerant and understanding of one another so as to eliminate all bias, prejudice, and discriminatory behavior." ADOPTED: February 22, 2010 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #2009-21 - AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF UP TO $2,404,017 WATER AND SEWER REVENUE BONDS (DELAWARE DRINKING WATER STATE REVOLVING LOAN FUND) Members were provided Proposed Resolution #2009-21, Authorizing the issuance and sale of up to $2,404,017 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds of the City of Dover for the construction of certain water and sewer projects and authorizing all necessary action in connection therewith. Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, explained that the purpose of the issuance and sale of said bonds is to provide funds (approximately $2,404,017) to pay a portion of the costs of certain projects including, but not limited to: (1) Bayard Avenue Water Quality Improvements; (2) Route 13 Water Quality Improvements; and (3) East side North State Street. By motion of Mr. Hogan, seconded by Mr. Leary, Council adopted Resolution #2009-21 (Exhibit #1) by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. McGlumphy absent). RESCHEDULING OF PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING - REZONING A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider rezoning of property located at 1051 College Road, owned by Lands of JNK, LLC, consisting of 4.32+/- acres, less a street right-of-way area consisting of 0.55+/- acres that divides the original tract into two (2) pieces. These properties are currently zoned R-8 (One-family Residence) and the proposed zoning is RG-2 (General Residence). Council President Williams advised members that this item was tabled by the Planning Commission until March 15, 2010. As a result, staff recommended that a Public Hearing/Final Reading before City Council be rescheduled for April 12, 2010. The First Reading of proposed Ordinance #2009-29 was accomplished during the Council Meeting of November 23, 2009. Mr. Salters moved to reschedule the public hearing/final reading for April 12, 2010 at 7:30 p.m. for the rezoning of property located at 1051 College Road, owned by Lands of JNK, LLC, consisting of 4.32+/- acres, less a street right-of-way area consisting of 0.55+/- acres

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2010 PAGE 8 that divides the original tract into two (2) pieces. The motion was seconded by Mr. Slavin and unanimously carried. UTILITY COMMITTEE REPORT - JANUARY 25, 2010 The Utility Committee met on January 25, 2010 with Chairman Ruane presiding. White Oak Solar Project During their meeting of July 27, 2009, City Council approved the Utility Committee’s recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute the Solar Energy Purchase Agreement with White Oak Solar Energy, LLC, as per the terms outlined in the Agreement. During the Committee’s consideration of this agreement (meeting of July 13, 2009), members were advised that the agreement presented was the first agreement to be considered from the negotiation process and, if approved, the agreement would be followed by a Land Lease Agreement and an Interconnection Agreement for consideration. During the Council Meeting, Mr. Ruane reviewed “Dover SUN Park (DSP) – A Solar Milestone for Delawareans” (included as an attachment to the Committee minutes) and urged members of Council to take the time to review the benefits of the Solar Project. Members were provided the additional agreements for their consideration, as follows: Energy Land Lease Mr. Ron Lunt, Public Utilities Director, reminded members that the approved Solar Energy Purchase Agreement is between White Oak Solar Energy, LLC and the City of Dover for the energy, capacity, and Renewable Energy Credits generated from a solar photovoltaic electric generation facility located on the Garrison Tract. He submitted a proposed land lease that will be used to construct the 10 Mw (approximated) solar facility. Mr. Lunt advised members that the leased lot is currently identified as Lot 15, which is located in the north-west corner of the Garrison Tract. It is approximately 103.5 acres, of which 96.5 acres is useable land; the remaining seven (7) acres will be reforested at the City’s request to provide a buffer between the solar facility and the Wild Meadows development. Since the Renewable Energy Credits will be purchased by Delmarva Power, Sustainable Energy Utility, Delaware Municipal Electric Corporation, and the City of Dover, Pace Global recommended that a non-Delaware firm perform the land valuation to ensure a global view of the property. Pace had worked with Alvarez and Marsal Real Estate Advisory Services (Alvarez) on a similar project and recommended that staff use them for this project. The City of Dover contracted with Alvarez and Marsal who performed a complete land valuation and prepared the Garrison Tract Estimated Land Valuation Report. It was noted that Alvarez and Marsal recommended that the City collect between $45,000 to $55,000 annually for a 100 acre lot. Mr. Lunt reviewed highlights of the Energy Land Lease, as follows: A. The proposed lease will collect $55,000 annually and include a two and one-half percent annual increase once the construction commences, which is anticipated to be late spring.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2010 PAGE 9 B. From the date of the lease execution until construction begins, White Oak will pay a monthly rent of $1,000. C. The lease is for twenty-eight (28) years from the date the facility starts producing energy, which is anticipated to be in December 2010. D. White Oak may extend the term in one (1) year increments five (5) times for a total of five (5) years. E. White Oak will be responsible for all Real Property Taxes levied by the appropriate taxing authorities. F. They have an option of leasing up to an additional ten (10) acres during construction for forty-six dollars per acre per month to be used as a construction staging area. G. The adjoining lots will have a solar easement to ensure that no structures are constructed that will cause shading on the solar panels. These setbacks are as follows: a. Lots to the east and west – forty feet of horizontal distance for every ten feet of structure or tree height; and b. Lots to the north and south – twenty-five feet of horizontal distance for every ten feet of structure or tree height. H. At the end of the lease White Oak will be required, at its expense, to remove all the equipment, foundations, structures, and similar facilities and backfill any holes created by the removal process. This will be financed through a letter of credit or bond in year fifteen of the Lease. Mr. Lunt assured members that the Ground Lease had been reviewed by the City’s attorney, Mr. Kirk Betts of Betts and Holt, and he approved the document in its final form. Staff recommended that the City Manager be authorized to execute the presented Ground Lease Agreement with White Oak Solar Energy, LLC, as per the terms outlined in the Lease. Noting that the Garrison Tract Estimated Land Valuation Report has a report date of May 22, 2009, Mr. Ruane stated that the fifth and sixth paragraphs (bullets) on page 2, state that: “According to current city zoning regulations, this classification permits the semi-conductor industry as an approved use without further review, meaning that a company could receive a building permit after having their site plan accepted.”; and that “The minimum lot size is presently set at 50 acres”. For record purposes, he noted that on October 12, 2009, the City adopted Ordinance #2009-18 that added electric generation as a permitted use on the site and amended the minimum lot size to 10 acres. The ordinance has been incorporated in the City Code, Appendix B, Section 20A, Article 4.16 - Zoning Bulk. He stated that the new reference in the Code to this zoning classification is IPM-2. Mr. Ruane provided members with a copy of the “Dover SUN Park (DSP) – A Solar Milestone for Delawareans” and referred to the timeline provided on page 4 (included as an attachment to the Committee minutes). He noted that on February 16, 2010, the Planning Commission will be conducting a site plan review for this project and that each parcel of the tract will be reviewed. The Committee recommended that the City Manager be authorized to execute the presented Ground Lease Agreement with White Oak Solar Energy, LLC, as per the terms outlined in the Lease, as recommended by staff.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2010 PAGE 10 By consent agenda, Mr. Salters moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation (Exhibit #2), seconded by Mrs. Russell and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. McGlumphy absent). Energy Interconnection Agreement Members were provided a Small Generator Interconnection Agreement between the City of Dover and White Oak Solar Energy, LLC, for their review. Mr. Lunt explained that in order for White Oak Solar Energy to transmit the power from the site, it will be necessary for them to interconnect to the City’s 69kV distribution system. The Agreement outlines the methods and expectations of the interconnection, notices of outages, construction standards, etc. Mr. Lunt reviewed the provisions of the Interconnection Agreement as follows: A. White Oak will construct the facility according to national standards as recognized by the industry. B. White Oak will own and install the metering and will be required to test the meter every three (3) years. C. White Oak is required to maintain a 98.5% power factor (which is the same requirement that Dover has with Delmarva Power). D. Dover will be notified of any testing and may witness this testing to ensure that the new system will operate properly and not adversely affect the Dover distribution system. E. White Oak will be authorized to operate the generation in parallel with the Dover system. F. The Term of the agreement is twenty (20) years from commercial operation date and White Oak may extend this period annually until such time as they terminate the interconnection. G. There is no compensation to Dover since Dover is purchasing all the energy under a separate Solar Energy Purchase Agreement. H. Dover agrees to not disconnect the generation for routine maintenance during the months of June, July, August, or September. I. White Oak will be financially responsible for all of the expenses related to modifying the existing 69 kV system to allow the interconnection of the generation. White Oak will also be responsible for the construction and maintenance of the interconnection substation located on the generation site. J. In conjunction with the project there will be a 69 kV overhead line extension, approximately one-half mile long, constructed from the existing 69 kV line to the generation site. White Oak will construct this line and turn it over to Dover; this will allow Dover to use the poles for any 12 kV services that they choose. K. Dover supplied White Oak with a detailed Technical Requirements Attachment that specifies the equipment and communication requirements for all the components and systems that could impact Dover’s 69 kV network. White Oak will be required to comply with these requirements.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2010 PAGE 11 Mr. Lunt assured members that the Agreement has been reviewed by the City’s attorney, Mr. Kirk Betts of Betts and Holt, and that he has approved the document in its final form. The Committee recommended that the City Manager be authorized to execute the presented Small Generator Interconnection Agreement with White Oak Solar Energy, LLC, as per the terms outlined in the Agreement. By consent agenda, Mr. Salters moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation (Exhibit #3), seconded by Mrs. Russell and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. McGlumphy absent). Energy Transmission Tariff Mr. Ron Lunt, Public Utilities Director, advised members that White Oak Solar Energy (White Oak), LLC, has requested the development of a standard tariff for the delivery of energy and capacity to the PJM grid through the Delmarva Power and Light transmission network. He explained that the tariff would be required, should the City default on the Solar Energy Purchase Agreement, or at the end of the Agreement. Realistically, he stated that the only occasion that the tariff would be used is if the City were to no longer take power from the solar facility, in which case the City would be in default for the first 20 years of the Agreement, which would be highly unlikely but possible. After the 20 years, Mr. Lunt stated that the City may or may not choose to take energy from the facility and that will be determined at that time. Mr. Lunt reviewed a summary of the provisions contained in the recommended tariff, as follows: A. This tariff limits the transmission of energy at 10 Mw AC. B. White Oak would be required to reserve capacity of the 69 kV system on an annual basis. C. The City of Dover would not be required to facilitate any required interconnection or other agreements; this would be White Oak’s responsibility. D. The City of Dover would not be required to expand capacity on the network to facilitate this reservation; however, White Oak could request expansion at its own expense. E. White Oak is required to maintain a 98.5% power factor (which is the same requirement that Dover has with Delmarva Power). F. The rate for this tariff is $0.23 per kW-month which is consistent with the tariff titled 69 kV Transmission Service Classification for Transmission Service for 16 Mw EWG Unit operated by NRG Energy. Should White Oak exceed the reservation request the penalty rate will be $1.00 per kW-month for the penalty month. Line losses will be recovered by reducing the Net generation by one-percent, which is also consistent with the existing NRG tariff. G. The City of Dover reserves the right to adjust this tariff from time-to-time to reflect changes in the cost of service.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2010 PAGE 12 Mr. Lunt indicated that White Oak Solar Energy has reviewed the proposed tariff and agrees that it is fair and acceptable. In addition, he assured members that the tariff has been reviewed by the City’s attorney, Mr. Kirk Betts of Betts and Holt, and that he approved this tariff in its final form. Staff recommended the adoption of the tariff titled 69 kV Delivery Service Classification to the Grid for White Oak Solar Energy, LLC, and to recognize this as a standard City of Dover Electric Tariff. The Committee recommended approval of staff’s recommendation. At the request of Mr. Ruane, Mr. Lunt reviewed the “Dover SUN Park (DSP) – A Solar Milestone for Delawareans” document (included as an attachment to the Committee minutes). By consent agenda, Mr. Salters moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation for adoption of the tariff titled 69 kV Delivery Service Classification to the Grid for White Oak Solar Energy, LLC (Exhibit #4), and to recognize this as a standard City of Dover Electric Tariff. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Russell and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. McGlumphy absent). PACE/NAES Monthly Report (November) Members were provided the PACE/NAES Monthly Report for November. The report was provided to allow members the opportunity to monitor what is being sold in electric and the revenues received, which will give members a better understanding of any fluctuations and make improvements if deemed necessary. Although it was not staff’s intention to make a presentation of the report, they welcomed any questions. The Committee recommended acceptance of the report. By consent agenda, Mr. Salters moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mrs. Russell and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. McGlumphy absent). Mr. Ruane moved for acceptance of the Utility Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried. LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE REPORT - JANUARY 25, 2010 The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met on January 25, 2010 with Chairman McGlumphy presiding. Review and Recommendation - Filling of Critical Positions During their meeting of February 23, 2009, members recommended approval of the Hiring Freeze for Fiscal Year 2008-2009, but to allow the hiring of critical positions through the review and

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2010 PAGE 13 approval of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee and City Council. It was suggested that there be a “standing” agenda item to consider the filling of critical positions and, if there are no positions to consider, the item could be removed. Fire Chief’s Assistant Mr. Sean Christiansen, Fire Chief, stated that the proposal is to create a new position entitled Fire Chief's Assistant. He noted that the position was originally established as an Administrative Assistant in 1993 and was occupied by Mrs. Pat Braun from that time until 2000 and was subsequently held by Mr. Carter Knotts until his retirement in March 2009. Chief Christiansen noted that Mr. Knotts was a dispatcher and he kept this title while in the position, although he assumed an administrative role. He explained that the incumbent of the new position will work on a daily basis with the Chief, supervise five (5) dispatchers, handle administrative and budgetary functions, and perform other duties as assigned by the Fire Chief. He noted that the position is currently budgeted at $23,000 for the remaining four (4) months of the fiscal year and for a salary range of $34,959 to $54,960 for the following fiscal year. In response to Dr. Jones, Chief Christiansen noted that the position would include some clerical duties, many administrative functions that the Fire Chief would normally handle on a day-to-day basis, and direct supervision, including scheduling and training, of the dispatchers. He stated that the position was considered by the Human Resources Department to be a “super secretary”. Mr. McGlumphy inquired if the previous position was under the Pay for Performance (PFP) plan and if the new position would be. Chief Christiansen stated that it previously was not. Feeling that Mr. Christiansen might not be familiar with the PFP, Mr. McGlumphy requested Mr. Anthony DePrima, City Manager, come forward. Mr. McGlumphy inquired if Mrs. Braun and Mr. Knotts were members of a union. Mr. DePrima stated that he believed that Mrs. Braun was employed as a Secretary III, which was a non-bargaining position. He stated that Mr. Knotts stepped into the vacancy as a dispatcher, did not change his title, and was in a union position. He stated that Mr. Knotts’ title remained Dispatcher, but he did not perform dispatch duties for many years. Mr. DePrima indicated that the position is now reverting to a non-bargaining position, mostly due to the supervisory duties. Mr. DePrima stated that he would not call the position a “super secretary”, but a supervisor of the dispatchers who is providing a lot of administrative assistance to the chief, similar to the work performed by administrative assistants in other departments with the additional responsibility of supervision and authority over technical people. He indicated that it is a non-bargaining position primarily because of these supervisory responsibilities. McGlumphy noted that the wording led to some confusion and inquired if the salary will remain the same as when Mr. Knotts retired. Mr. DePrima stated this would depend on the level at which the person is hired because there is a hiring range, but the rate could potentially be lower than Mr. Knotts’ salary. Mr. McGlumphy mentioned that the paperwork states the intention to hire at

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2010 PAGE 14 midpoint. Mr. DePrima stated that the position is budgeted at midpoint for estimating purposes and that if an individual can be hired lower than midpoint they will be. He stated that the purpose of the midpoint is just to provide a figure for the budget. Mr. McGlumphy questioned when the word “midpoint” was adopted, stating that this term was still being discussed. Mr. DePrima stated that the term “halfway point” would be appropriate. Mr. McGlumphy inquired whether this referred to the market rate. Mr. DePrima stated that it is the halfway point which was derived from taking the high and low figures from the salary range to the middle of the scale and using that figure for budgetary reasons. Mr. McGlumphy inquired if the position would be classified in the 117 category and Mr. DePrima confirmed that it would be. Mr. McGlumphy asked if the person hired would be required to have experience, noting that other employees classified in the 117 category have many years of experience and when new employees are hired at midpoint they are brought in at a higher level. He stated his understanding that additional administrative duties were involved in the proposed position. Mr. DePrima stated that if an employee was hired at midpoint (noting that this was only a possibility as the midpoint figure was used for budgetary purposes) the expectation would be that the selectee would have experience. Mr. McGlumphy asked if it was known at what level the employee would be selected. Mr. DePrima noted that it will be up to Chief Christiansen to sort through the job applications to find the best candidate. Mr. McGlumphy noted that when an individual is placed at midpoint in a class that contains many others who are below midpoint, this can cause friction. Mr. DePrima noted that this possibility exists with all non-bargaining positions. He reiterated that the midpoint was used only for estimating purposes and stated that using a lower figure would be “low-balling”. Mrs. Williams asked if an organizational level rating had been placed on the matrix for the proposed position. Mr. DePrima stated that Mrs. Kimberly Hawkins, Human Resources Director, and Chief Christiansen had ranked the position. He did not recall, but believed that there was no organizational score. Mrs. Williams asked if this meant that the position was assigned a value of “0”. Mr. DePrima stated that he believed that this was the score that Mrs. Hawkins had assigned. Mrs. Williams questioned that rating, stating that if the category of organizational level or value was to be added to the City’s rating system, the fact that an employee is being hired would indicate the organizational value to be at least a “1”. Mr. DePrima stated that he felt that Mrs. Hawkins’ rationale for not putting a value on the organizational level rating was that there are very few employees who have an assigned value. Mrs. Williams stated that there are 13 positions that have organizational value assigned. Mr. DePrima indicated that this would be 13 positions out of approximately 80 non-bargaining employees. Mrs. Williams felt that the purpose of assigning organizational value was to give certain people raises. Mr. DePrima stated his disagreement with that supposition.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2010 PAGE 15 Staff recommended that the Committee forward the request to recruit for the position of Fire Chief’s Assistant to Council with a favorable recommendation. The Committee recommended approval of the request to recruit for the position of Fire Chief’s Assistant. By consent agenda, Mr. Salters moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mrs. Russell and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. McGlumphy absent). Assistant to the Community Development Manager (Temporary/Part Time Employee - CDBG - Grant Funded) Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, explained that the City of Dover’s five (5) year Consolidated Plan is due to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) by May 15, 2010 and the preparation of the plan is a very extensive process. In addition, she stated that the City has received federal recovery funds through the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) and the Housing Rehabilitation Program. She explained that managing these programs results in a significant increase in the workload for the one (1) person office responsible. She stated that the proposal is to hire a temporary, part-time employee to work specifically on the housing rehabilitation program and NSP reporting and specifications. She noted that the position would be entirely grant funded and charged to the housing rehabilitation line of the program rather than the program administration line. Her expectation was that the employee would assist Mrs. Tracey Harvey, Community Development Manager, until summer when the workload is expected to return to normal levels. In response to Mr. Shevock, Mrs. Townshend indicated that the position will end when grant funds terminate. She stated that Mrs. Harvey had indicated that there are a number of retirees from the Delaware State Housing Authority or other housing organizations who may be interested in the position. She noted that these individuals would have experience in the area of housing and would likely have no expectations of long-term employment. In response to Dr. Jones, Mrs. Townshend stated that because the position was temporary and part- time, she did not believe there was an obligation to advertise. She stated that Mrs. Harvey intended to approach retired individuals who have expressed interest and who have a background in housing. She stated her willingness to advertise the position if the Committee advised it, but indicated that if this occurs, the position will not be filled by February 16, 2010, which was the goal stated on the Committee Action Form. In response to Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Townshend stated that she did not believe that a job classification was required for a temporary, part-time position. Mrs. Townshend stated that the pay rate for the position was determined by comparing proposed duties to existing positions within the City. It was determined that the duties were closest to existing employees in the Administrative Assistant category and, therefore, the proposed salary was established based on the hourly rate of this job classification. In addition, she felt the administrative duties and the requirement of a housing background seemed to bring the position into the Administrative Assistant category.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2010 PAGE 16 Mr. DePrima believed that temporary part-time positions may be classified. He stated that this position was “tagged” as an Administrative Assistant and an hourly salary would be tagged to that range. In response to Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Townshend stated that, although the programs are well underway, monitoring and reporting requirements remain significant. Due to the fact that the NSP program is running in tandem with the preparation of the CDBG Consolidated Plan, and the fact that spring is the time when the CDBG action plan is prepared for the following grant year, she indicated there is a 50% or more increase in the office workload. In response to Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. DePrima stated that some permanent part-time positions have been advertised and others have not, depending upon the position. He stated he had assumed this position would be advertised. Mr. Salters felt that there would not be a large number of qualified candidates for the part-time position and felt advertising would cause delay. Mrs. Townshend stated that if the Committee recommended approval of the position, it could be advertised prior to bringing the matter before Council. Tentative selection could then be made pending Council’s granting permission to hire. Staff recommended that the request to hire a temporary part-time employee to assist the Community Development Manager be forwarded to Council with a favorable recommendation. The Committee recommended approval of the request to recruit for a temporary, part-time employee to assist with the Housing Rehabilitation Program and the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, in an amount not to exceed $10,000. By consent agenda, Mr. Salters moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mrs. Russell and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. McGlumphy absent). Review of Extension - Title V Criminal Justice Council Grant - Girls Circle Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, explained that in the fall of 2007, the City became the municipal recipient of a three (3) year grant through the Criminal Justice Council aimed at providing programming for at-risk pre-teen girls. She indicated that the City applied for and has administered this grant for the last two (2) years in partnership with Aid in Dover, who provides the services through an after school program called “Girls Circle”. The program is aimed at at-risk female youths and works to raise self-esteem and teach life skills. Mrs. Townshend noted that the program has had good success in the first two (2) years, demonstrating positive statistics and feedback from participants, and the Criminal Justice Council has been very pleased with it. She stated that the application is being brought to the Committee in accordance with the City’s grant policy to receive City Council approval before submitting formal application for the third year of funding for the program. She noted that all funds are passed through Aid in Dover to provide the Girls Circle program and that the City of Dover incurs no direct expenses for the program, aside from the staff time involved in grant administration.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2010 PAGE 17 In response to Mr. Salters, Mrs. Williams stated that the program is administered by Mr. Mark Harmon, Instructor, and Ms. Lauren Mincy, Project Director, from Aid in Dover. She stated that her position as Executive Director of Aid in Dover creates no conflict of interest because no grant funds go toward her salary, she has no connection with the grant, and, as Council President, has not participated in any votes related to this matter. Mrs. Williams noted that this is the first time that the grant has been awarded outside of the City of Wilmington. Staff requested that the Committee forward the request to City Council with a favorable recommendation. The Committee recommended approval of the submission of a formal application for the third year of funding for the Title V Grant through the Criminal Justice Council. Mr. Salters moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Hogan and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. McGlumphy absent and Council President Williams abstaining). Council President Williams explained that her abstention was due to a conflict of interest since she serves as the Executive Director of the agency that will be providing the services. Proposed Ordinance #2010-05 - Chapter 2 - Administration, Article VI - Other Post-Employment Benefits Fund, Section 2-505 - Medicare Part B Premium Reimbursements Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, explained that during the City Council meeting of July 27, 2009, Council considered four (4) alternatives regarding the elimination of Medicare Part B. At that time, Council approved one (1) of the alternatives: the elimination of Medicare Part B for new hires. Mrs. Mitchell explained that during the City Council meeting of January 11, 2010, Council decided to retain Medicare Part B reimbursement for current employees and retirees as it currently exists and to eliminate this benefit for new hires. Mrs. Mitchell stated that the City Solicitor recommended adoption of the proposed ordinance to document this decision. Responding to Mr. Leary, Mrs. Mitchell verified that this ordinance in no way changes the policies adopted by Council, but merely institutionalizes and formalizes what has already been decided. Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Mitchell stated she was unsure which fund was referred to in Lines 16 and 17 of the draft proposed ordinance, which state that “the fund for payment of the costs of such premium reimbursement shall be continued as in the past”. Mr. Ruane requested that Mrs. Mitchell identify with a memorandum the fund to which this refers and assure Council that, as stated in the City’s charter, “the fund for the payment of costs for such benefits shall be established and identified.” Mr. Lester Blakeman, 209 Falmouth Way, retiree from the City of Dover Electric Department, stated he had several points of concern regarding the draft ordinance, citing the following provisions:

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2010 PAGE 18 1) Line 11-12 - “provided that it is clearly stated and understood that the decision of Council, if approved by Council, is not vested and can be changed or eliminated at any time”; and 2) Lines 15-16 - “provided that this is not to be considered a vested right and can be changed or eliminated by Council at any time by ordinance or resolution enacted to that effect.” Mr. Blakeman agreed that Medicare Part B is not a vested employee right as he stated it is not mentioned specifically in the Employee Handbook; however, he read into the record a selection from the 2004 Handbook which he stated specifically addresses retirement benefits (Article XII, Section 2) as follows: “The City shall make available to full-time employees working at least thirty-seven and a half (37.5) hours per week a City Retirement Plan. All employees hired after July 1, 1991 shall be required as a condition of employment to join a plan. Employees shall remain members until their employment with the City ceases, retires or pass away. Pension benefits shall be provided through one of the following: (A) Police Pension Plan (Sponsored either by the City of Dover or State of Delaware) (B) General Employee Pension Plan (C) Defined Contribution Plan The City shall provide group hospital, surgical and health insurance coverage for retired employees and their families. The City pays 100% of each retiree’s individual coverage and 75% of the cost of dependent coverage. This applies to all retirees, unless otherwise specified in employee labor agreements.” Mr. Blakeman believed that if the City stops paying Medicare Part B, responsibility for paying medical insurance would be transferred to a very small, select group of retirees, those who are not represented by unions. He believed these employees were being singled out and treated differently than other employees. He stated that, although Medicare Part B is not institutionalized, 100% payment of medical retirement health care is stated in the handbook as a benefit to employees. Mr. Blakeman provided members with information regarding Retiree Medical Insurance Cost at Age 65 (included as an attachment to the Committee minutes). He stated that upon retirement, employees enrolled in all plans would revert to the PPO Special Medicfill rate listed on Page 2 of the handout. Referring to the rates listed on Page 1 of the handout, Mr. Blakeman stated that if the City made payments for retirees at the Medicfill rate, the City would incur an additional cost of $5.62 for employees on the First State Basic Plan; however, savings would be realized for employees on the three (3) other health care plans listed.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2010 PAGE 19 Mr. Leary stated he did not understand the connection between the cost sheet provided and the discussion regarding the proposed ordinance. He indicated that the proposed ordinance would make it more difficult to eliminate Medicare Part B for non-represented employees. Mr. Blakeman felt that preserving the language in the ordinance that would allow Council to revisit this issue in the future would amount to having a “sword over the head” of non-bargaining employees. Mr. Salters explained that Council had voted to retain the Medicare Part B benefit for non-bargaining employees, but felt that the City cannot be held to what may happen in the future. After a lengthy discussion, Mr. Blakeman summarized by stating that he began working in the City with the understanding that he would perform his job and the City would perform what it promised to do as well. He believed that the proposed ordinance states that this is no longer true. Mr. Scott Koenig, Public Services Manager, stated his appreciation for the City’s effort to try to memorialize the discussions on this issue over the past few months. He felt some concerns might be eased if some changes were made in the language of the ordinance as follows: 1) Line 16 - Mr. Koenig suggested that the statement that the provision of Medicare Part B can be changed by “ordinance or resolution” be changed by striking the word “resolution”. He believed that the passing of an ordinance requires a public hearing and a higher standard of consideration. 2) Line 16 - Mr. Koenig felt that the phrase “at any time” could cause concern whenever an agenda is posted, which he felt becomes a detriment to the relationship between the City and current employees and retirees. He proposed amending the language to have this decision be evaluated on an annual basis as part of the budget process. 3) Mr. Koenig felt that everyone who is currently eligible or receiving Medicare Part B should be provided a 90-day written notice by the Council if this issue is going to be considered in the future so that those out of the area or unavailable would have ample time to respond. 4) Mr. Koenig’s final concern related to the three (3) distinct groups of employees he believed were affected by the ordinance, which he explained were current non-bargaining employees, those just retired but not receiving the benefit yet, and those who are retired and receiving the benefit. He questioned whether it was Council’s intent to consider all of these employees equally if this matter were to be examined again in the future. In response to Mr. Hogan, Mr. Koenig stated he would be willing to incorporate language into the ordinance to conform with his proposed changes.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2010 PAGE 20 Mr. DePrima indicated his preference that consideration of this matter not be linked to a budget, as this would place a burden on the City Manager to review this issue every year during budget preparation. He felt another time would be appropriate. In addition, he stated that ordinances do not always require a public hearing, and that public hearing and notification procedures mentioned should be written into the ordinance if it was Council’s intent to require them. Mr. Salters felt that the notification process could become cumbersome and suggested Mr. Koenig include an easy way to accomplish this in any proposal prepared for Mr. Hogan. Mr. Ruane stated that the language in the ordinance prepared by Mr. Rodriguez appears to echo the existing language in the City Charter, which states that the “authority to provide benefits on the part of the City shall be evidenced by an ordinance or resolution duly adopted”. He felt that eliminating the word “resolution” would necessitate an amendment of the Charter. The Committee recommended adoption of Proposed Ordinance #2010-05 - Chapter 2 - Administration, Article VI - Other Post-Employment Benefits Fund, Section 2-505 - Medicare Part B Premium Reimbursements, as recommended by staff. By consent agenda, Mr. Salters moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mrs. Russell and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. McGlumphy absent). (The First Reading of the ordinance will take place during the latter part of the meeting). Discussion - Requirement that Council, Committees, Commission, and Board Members Step Down When Running for Other Office Mr. Hogan explained that during their Regular Meeting of December 14, 2009, members of Council considered a request from the Dover Human Relations Commission (DHRC) to remove the requirement that members resign prior to running for other office. Although the recommendation was denied, as recommended by the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee, Councilmen Leary and Hogan suggested the possibility of instituting this requirement for all Committees and commissions of the City of Dover, as alternatively recommended by the DHRC. Mr. Hogan noted that the DHRC and the Ethics Commission are the only Committees in the City that have this requirement. He felt this to be discriminatory and believed all Committees and commissions should have the same set of rules. Mr. Hogan recommended that Council, Committee, commission, and board members be required to resign prior to running for other office and direct staff to prepare necessary ordinances to effect the change, and Mr. Leary stated his support for this action. In response to Mrs. Williams, Mr. Leary explained that, under this proposal, if an individual files papers for an elected office, they would be considered resigned from their current Council, Committee, or commission position. He added that he would like to include the Mayor’s position as well and felt that a Council person should be required to resign before running for Mayor.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2010 PAGE 21 Mr. Hogan stated that when citizen members of Committees file for City Council seats, conflicts of interest can arise. He also believed that if an individual occupies one office while running for another, it is difficult to perform their primary function. Mr. Ruane felt that this action would step beyond the limitations of the charter and the municipality. He stated that the qualifications for offices are set by the City Charter and Code, and by State law. He felt that the focus should be kept on limiting the right to return to an office or appointment already held. In addition, he stated that the nature of the City’s appointments vary broadly, citing examples of the Awards Committee, 4th of July Committee, and Planning Commission. He felt it was important to distinguish between the types of appointees by City government and that the prohibition on running for office should be limited to those positions that have been delegated authority for implementing City ordinances or exercising proscriptive duty specified elsewhere in the Code versus ad hoc Committees. Mr. Leary explained that in approximately 1992, three (3) members of Council sought other elected offices which turned out to be “mildly disruptive”, as campaign issues entered into municipal discussions which became “uncomfortable”. At that time, he stated, he and some of his colleagues sponsored a similar piece of legislation applying to the Mayor and members of Council. He stated that a Charter Amendment was put forth at that time which passed the State House of Representatives but failed in the State Senate. He stated the City can proscribe the activities of its own officials if the Charter is amended and the State accepts this. Mr. McGiffin disagreed with the proposed ordinance, stating that he felt the State or District-level voters should have the authority to determine whether an appointee can handle the responsibility of serving while running for office. In addition, he believed it would be a mistake to prohibit those who serve on Committees from running for Council office, since he felt that Committees are the natural ground from which candidates arise to run for Council. He felt this prohibition would dissuade citizens from running for Council or serving on Committees and urged that the prohibition not be expanded. The Committee recommended tabling this item for further discussion. By consent agenda, Mr. Salters moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mrs. Russell and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. McGlumphy absent). Final Report - Revenue/Cost Saving Ideas Submitted for Consideration This item was deferred until the Committee Meeting of February 8, 2010, due to time constraints. Mr. Salters moved for acceptance of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Slavin and unanimously carried. SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE REPORT - JANUARY 27, 2010 The Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee met on January 27, 2010 with Councilman Hogan presiding in the absence of Chairman Slavin.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2010 PAGE 22 Request for Amendment to Chapter 18 - Animals, Section 18-16 - Keeping Bees Members were provided a letter received from Mr. Bill Benton requesting an amendment to Chapter 18 - Animals, Section 18-16 - Keeping Bees. Mr. Benton advised members that the honey bee is endangered and explained the devastating effect this could have on the food supply. He also explained the benefits of having bees in urban areas and noted that many other cities are now allowing the keeping of bees within city limits. Members were provided with an article, “Bee Bill Creates a Buzz”, regarding action taken during the Denver City Council Meeting in November 2008. He assured members that the bees are bred for gentleness and that most bee stings are caused by other types of bees, such as wasps. Referring to the City’s current ordinance regarding the keeping of bees, Mr. Hogan noted that the City allows for the keeping of bees; however, there are set-back requirements. Mr. Bob Volkomer, Vice President of the Kent County Beekeepers Association (also member of the Frederica Town Council and past Mayor), advised members that he is a suburban beekeeper, residing within town limits, and maintains approximately eight (8) colonies of bees on a 60’ x 100’ lot. Being a beekeeper for 35 years, Mr. Volkomer stated that he has not received a single complaint from any neighbors nor complaints to town hall. He advised members that his eight (8) year old grandson works with the bees. Mr. Volkomer stated that bees are essential to the environment, explaining that bees are responsible for 1/3 of the world’s food supply and that there is a movement to encourage bee keeping. He indicated that bees provide benefits to residents, such as pollination of gardens and shrubs, and that managed bees are gentle. He assured members that as a beekeeper, he has received only positive comments from his neighbors. With regards to the City of Dover’s current ordinance, he advised members that the set-back requirements are such that they disqualify most residents within the City limits. He requested that members consider amending the ordinance in such a manner that would allow beekeepers to keep bees on the suburban lots within the City limits. Responding to Mr. Hogan, Mr. Volkomer stated that there were two (2) City of Dover residents at a recent Beekeepers course, including Mr. Benton, and that he is aware of three (3) beekeepers within the City of Dover limits. He stated that no members of the Kent County Beekeepers Association are from the City of Dover. Responding to Mr. Davis, Mr. Volkomer referred to an article he provided to members titled “Backyard Beekeeping” (included as an attachment to the Committee minutes) and suggested that, in addition to setbacks, there would be additional amendments necessary to the City’s ordinance. He also suggested that members review the “Model Beekeeping Ordinance” (included as an attachment to the Committee minutes) for developing possible amendments to the City’s ordinance. Mr. Robert Mitchell, State Apiarist, Plant Industries Section, Delaware Department of Agriculture, advised members that the Department of Agriculture encourages the keeping of honey bee colonies. He noted that many beekeepers live within city/town limits and they do not experience problems, are good neighbors, etc. It was his opinion that beekeeping should be permitted in the City of Dover and, from a biological perspective, the keeping of bees in urban areas is a wise choice. Based on

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2010 PAGE 23 USDA research, Mr. Mitchell advised members that when an area is saturated with the genetics preferred, which would be managed European bee colonies, when the event of Africanized bees does occur, the amount of genetic material in the area will alleviate many of the problems. Although the genetic material is one resource, he advised members that another resource is the beekeepers themselves. Mr. Mitchell advised members that a minimum of 200 calls per year have been received regarding honey bee swarms in Dover. He assured members that the majority of these swarms are generated from people in the City. Mr. Mitchell stated that nature abhors a vacuum and there will be something needed to fill it, which will be bees of some type. When the Africanized bees arrive, if the domestic bees are abundant and remain well managed through requeening, the Africanized strain will soon become domesticated and its impact will be minimal. Mr. Mitchell encouraged members to consider less stringent requirements and setbacks with regards to beekeeping. With regards to safety and security concerns, Mr. Mitchell advised members that there is a colony of honey bees at the U.S. White House. Responding to Mr. Harmon, Mr. Mitchell stated that there are voluntary programs for beekeepers and regional beekeepers associations that administer tests for beekeepers to become master beekeepers. In Delaware, the only requirement for beekeepers is that they register their honeybee colonies. With reference to the City’s current ordinance, Mr. Leary advised members that there was a beekeeper whose neighbors complained about the keeping of the bees, explaining that they were a nuisance. The 150’ setback was established as a compromise by allowing the keeping of bees while not infringing upon their neighbors. Since there have not been any concerns or complaints since, he encouraged members to consider this history in their consideration of any amendments to the ordinance. In response to Mr. Leary’s comments, Mr. DePrima also recalled that the immediate next door neighbor to the beekeeper had a child that was allergic to bees and was unable to use their backyard due to the bees. However, he stated that he did not recall any discussions regarding fencing, water, or other requirements that could alleviate some of the concerns of residents. Mr. Hogan suggested that if Mr. Mitchell was willing to draft proposed ordinance amendments, the Committee would be willing to consider such amendments at a future meeting. Central Delaware Chamber of Commerce Transportation Recommendations (Frank Fantini) Mr. Frank Fantini, Chair of the Central Delaware Chamber of Commerce Transportation Committee, explained that transportation is an extraordinarily important economic development issue. He reviewed the Delaware Central Chamber Transportation recommendations that were provided to members. Mr. Ray Harbeson, Member of the Central Delaware Chamber of Commerce Transportation Committee noted that many of the project priorities for the Chamber of Commerce are also project priorities that were submitted to DelDOT by the City of Dover. He reviewed the revenue generating concepts being considered for the Transportation Trust Fund to allow some of the projects to begin.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2010 PAGE 24 Although the recommendations have not been approved by the Chamber of Commerce Board, they have authorized the Committee to discuss the issues to determine consensus. Mr. Davis relayed concern with the idea of instituting additional taxes to users during the current economic times and, although he felt that the requests were not unreasonable, additional information would be necessary prior to making any final decision in support of the recommendations. Responding, Mr. Harbeson stated that economists have shown that for every dollar put into a transportation program, an additional transportation infrastructure job is created, and for every infrastructure job that is created, an additional 1.7 jobs are created in the local economy. Mr. Ruane felt that there was a great opportunity for the City to partner with the Chamber of Commerce, noting that the coincidence of priorities is incredible, being practically the same list developed by the Committee and approved by City Council. With the Chamber’s support, he felt that the City would have a better opportunity for drawing attention to the priorities and support from the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) level. With regards to the funding arrangements, it was Mr. Ruane’s opinion that the recommendations presented are a general notion of items to be further considered and that the Committee is not being requested to take a position on the items at this time. The City of Dover, as a municipality, is being provided an opportunity to “lead the way” as the Chamber approaches other municipalities to obtain support. He urged members to adopt the recommendations as presented. In response to Mr. Hogan, Mr. Harbeson explained that the recommendations are ideas that were presented to the Chamber of Commerce Board and that they gave authorization to work with other Chambers, the Committee of 100, the Delaware Contractors Association, etc. to determine if there is support on a consensus on what revenues should be advanced. Although they are not expecting action by the City on the list of recommendations, they welcomed any additional suggestions to be considered for inclusion in the recommendations. Mr. Harbeson indicated that once the presentations have been made to the various groups, a final presentation will be made to the Chamber of Commerce Board for final approval of the recommendations. Mr. Hogan clarified that, at this time, it is being requested that the Committee support the Central Delaware Chamber of Commerce Transportation Committee and encourage the continuation of the process of presenting the recommendations to other groups. The Committee recommended that the City encourage the Chamber of Commerce to continue with this process and look forward to the final recommendations. By consent agenda, Mr. Salters moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mrs. Russell and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. McGlumphy absent). Waiver Request to Allow for the Creation of a Lot Without Public Street Frontage - Garrison Oak Technical Park Members considered a request for waiver from the street frontage requirements for the Garrison Oak Solar Park Lot 15. In accordance with Article 6, Section E of the City of Dover Subdivision Code,

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2010 PAGE 25 all lots in a subdivision shall have frontage on a public street. The solar park would like to begin construction prior to completion of the Garrison Oak Technical Park. In order to develop the solar park on lot 15, it is necessary for the City to provide a 60’ wide access easement from White Oak Road. This lot would later comply with the street frontage requirements once the Garrison Oak Technical Park is built. Because of this peculiar condition, staff believes the necessary requirements to waive the street frontage requirement have been met. Mrs. Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, provided members a revised Waiver Report (included as an attachment to the Committee minutes), and stated that the Planning Commission granted conditional approval on January 19, 2010 of the Site Plan to permit the construction of a photovoltaic electric generating facility on a portion of the total 103.54 +/- acres of Lot #15. The site (Lot #15) is within the Garrison Oak Technical Park and is zoned IPM-2 (Industrial Park/Manufacturing Technology Center) and SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) Tier 2. The property is located on the northwest side of White Oak Road, east of Route 1, owned by the City of Dover. The property address is 1499 White Oak Road (Tax Parcels: ED05-068.00-01-01-00 and LC05-068.00-01-03.00). Mrs. Townshend advised members that the proposed subdivision of Garrison Technical Park is subject to the requirements of the Land Subdivision Regulations, specifically Article VI, Subdivision - General Requirements and Design Standards. In Article VI, §E - Lots, item 5 requires “All lots in a subdivision shall have frontage on a public street”. The proposed parcel configuration to subdivide Lot #15 does not result in the lot having frontage on a public street; therefore, the applicant has requested a waiver under the provisions of Article VII, Special Provisions, Section A - Variance and Waiver. Mrs. Townshend explained that access to Lot #15 would be via a 60 foot wide cross access easement through the Garrison Oak Technical Park site to connect to White Oak Road. This access easement and waiver from the required road frontage will not be necessary once the remainder of the Technical Park is completed and the associated roads for the park are constructed. With the completed Technical Park, the proposed roadway through it will provide Lot #15 with the required frontage. As requested, the waiver will allow the Solar Park to proceed in its development prior to the overall Garrison Oak Technical Park. Staff recommended approval of the waiver request to create a lot (Lot #15) without public street frontage, recognizing the development of this area as a Solar Park. The Garrison Oak Technical Park will follow closely behind the development of the Solar Park and this access easement is meant to be a temporary measure to allow the Solar Park to move forward in accordance with its design needs. In order to achieve any street frontage for the proposed Lot #15, the Solar Park would require an odd property line configuration and the need to reconfigure the Garrison Oak Technical Park once that application comes before the Planning Commission. The configuration for Lot #15, as presented with the waiver of the requirement for lot frontage as a temporary measure, is the better option for clarity.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2010 PAGE 26 During their meeting of January 19, 2010, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed waiver request as part of its review of the Dover Solar Park at Lot #15 of the Garrison Oak Technical Park and recommended approval of the waiver to allow the creation of a lot (Lot #15) without public street frontage, recognizing that this is a temporary measure until the remainder of the Garrison Oak Technical Park is completed. Mr. DePrima reminded members that there is a land lease from the City and, for financing purposes, the solar company needs their facility to be located on a separate legal lot, which created an issue. The Committee recommended approval of the requested waiver, as recommended by the Planning Commission. By consent agenda, Mr. Salters moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mrs. Russell and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. McGlumphy absent). Discussion - Alcohol Related Issues Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development, advised members that over the last year, downtown Dover has experienced increased problems associated with crowds during late hours when bars close. Problems have included nuisance complaints, such as public urination, loitering, and vandalism, and more serious complaints such as fights involving weapons. On a number of occasions, fights in the downtown area have required significant police response involving the entire shift to respond, as well as units from neighboring police departments. Currently, the City is limited in its ability to hold businesses accountable for controlling the crowds in their establishments, especially once these crowds leave. In the downtown area, as soon as patrons leave the building they are in the public right-of-way and not a private parking lot controlled by the business owner. Fights may start inside an establishment and spill out into the street. In cases where the business is not responsive to requests to better manage the situation, there is currently nothing in Dover Code that allows the City to require that the business be responsive. During the Downtown Dover Partnership (DDP) Board Meeting held in December 2009, Mrs. Townshend stated that there were a number of downtown business owners in attendance requesting that the Partnership and the City provide assistance to improve the situation before it jeopardizes their businesses. In early January, the Executive Committee (officers and Committee chairs) of the Downtown Dover Partnership met to discuss how this issue could be addressed. The Planning Office and Police Department presented some potential ideas for Code changes that would give the City tools to address the problems and hold businesses accountable for managing their crowds. Mrs. Townshend advised members that the idea that meeting attendees believed had the most potential was to create a license for establishments that serve alcohol that would include certain conditions that mirror State Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission rules. She stated that an ordinance could be drafted in this regard and brought forward through the City’s process for adoption. Before bringing such an ordinance through the City Council process, staff would work with the DDP and other affected communities to ensure that it addresses the issues appropriately.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2010 PAGE 27 Before investing significant time and resources into this effort, staff felt it was important to get the concurrence of City Council, through this Committee, that such an ordinance is desired. Part of the ordinance development process will include researching provisions that other Delaware municipalities have in place to address such issues. Staff requested that the Committee provide direction in terms of drafting ordinances to address concerns from the community about the impact of bar crowds. Mr. Eric Wilke, business owner and resident of downtown Dover, read a statement into the record (included as an attachment to the Committee minutes). He advised members that this statement was also read to the Downtown Dover Partnership Board a couple of months ago and that the attention provided to him, as a resident and merchant, by the City through the Partnership has been tremendous. He thanked staff for their efforts in their attempts to address these problems. He suggested that members visit downtown late in the evening to observe the problems mentioned in his statement. Mr. Harmon concurred with the concerns relayed and noted that there is a lack of police representation. It was his feeling that more police representation, both foot patrol and riding through, would deter many of the problems that have been expressed. He questioned the current situation for police presence on Loockerman Street. Responding, Mrs. Townshend stated that foot patrol is provided through police extra duty and that there is no dedicated foot patrol for Loockerman Street. With grant funds, she stated that foot patrol has been provided and that the quality of life unit, consisting of four (4) officers, has spent a considerable amount of time along Loockerman Street; however, with the current economic situation and furloughs, these officers have been rotated to patrol. Mr. Ruane felt that the City had the necessary ordinances to prohibit the undesired actions that have been described and have been occurring. He suggested that the issue is with the enforcement of these ordinances, which would require additional policing. Although he felt that businesses should be held responsible for actions that take place on their premises and parking lots, he relayed concern with the development of legislation that would hold a business responsible for the behavior of “customers off premises”. Should additional legislation be drafted, Mr. Ruane suggested that, in addition to the Police Department, staff should include the merchants in the development of any ordinances. In response to businesses being responsible for behavior of “customers off premises”, Mrs. Townshend explained that there are certain behaviors, such as an individual who walks out of an establishment with an open container. In accordance with current laws, the police only have the ability to cite the individual and there is no law that would require a business to be responsible for protecting their entrance by prohibiting the individual from walking out with an open container. Mr. Davis indicated that other municipalities, such as Philadelphia, do hold a business, as well as bartenders, responsible for the actions of customers off premises. Although the City of Dover may not be interested in this consideration, he advised members that other cities have such ordinances.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2010 PAGE 28 The Committee recommended that staff be authorized to begin the process of drafting ordinances to address the concerns of the community. By consent agenda, Mr. Salters moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mrs. Russell and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. McGlumphy absent). Briefing on Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) Projects - Gary Laing Mr. Gary Laing, Community Relations Officer for the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) and Public Relations Liaison, referred to the previous discussion regarding the Central Delaware Chamber of Commerce Transportation Recommendations, and assured members that DelDOT has been internally reviewing ways to be more efficient and reduce costs. As an example, he stated that Department of Transportation Secretary Wicks recently announced the merging of the toll operations with the Division of Motor Vehicles. In addition, the office hours for the E-Z Pass Office are currently 24-7, which will be reduced. He advised members that the Smyrna rest stop is currently staffed 24-7 and that DelDOT will be reducing the hours the facility will be staffed; however, he indicated that customers will still be able to use restroom facilities and vending machines. Mr. Laing provided members a briefing on DelDOT Projects, as follows: West Dover Connector Mr. Laing stated that there is no further information regarding the West Dover Connector. The project is currently at a standstill, partly due to a funding issue and partly due to the legal processes. South Governors Avenue Improvements Mr. Laing reported that there has not been much work on the improvements to South Governors Avenue recently due to the weather, noting that, since November, there has been rain, a major snow storm, and more rain. Due to this moisture, the ground is extremely saturated. Even if conditions improve to the point that would allow work on the improvements, Mr. Laing stated that, due to the time of year, necessary materials are not available, explaining that asphalt plants close during certain periods of the year. Water Street Railroad Crossover Mr. Laing reminded members that the Water Street Railroad Crossover is a long-term project, noting that an agreement with the Railroad and General Assembly will be required. Once the agreement is reached with Northfolk Southern, he indicated that DelDOT will need the concurrence of the General Assembly before a crossing can be closed anywhere in the State. At that time, Mr. Laing stated that DelDOT will need the City’s support in convincing the legislators that it needs to be accomplished. Responding to Mr. DePrima, Mr. Laing assured members that DelDOT has staff working on this project.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2010 PAGE 29 North State Street Paving and Rehabilitation Mr. Laing reminded members that during a previous meeting, there was much discussion, regarding the proposal for conducting overnight work on the North State Street Paving and Rehabilitation Project. He stated that much of the jackhammer work can now be done during daylight hours. He advised members that an agreement has been reached with the City for the milling and paving operations, which DelDOT preferred to have completed during the evening hours. Mr. Laing advised members that this work should only take four (4) evenings, two (2) for milling and two (2) for paving, and is a “rolling” operation; therefore, they would not be in front of a residence all evening. Due to work being performed by Chesapeake Utilities, DelDOT has had to delay this work. He assured members that the work will begin in the spring and that residents will be notified in advance of this work beginning. Briefing on City of Dover Projects Mr. Tony DePrima, City Manager, provided a briefing on City of Dover Projects, as follows: Wyoming Mill Road Project Mr. DePrima indicated that although the Wyoming Mill Road Relocation Project is a DelDOT project, it is being managed by the City of Dover. He advised members that there have been discussions with Ms. Carolann Wicks, Secretary of the Department of Transportation, and that she has indicated an agreement for assuming the management of the project. He explained that the project is more expensive than anticipated and that more match money would be required. Secretary Wicks has also agreed to look for additional dollars from savings from other projects. Mr. DePrima stated that many of the residents were not notified of the realignment of the roadway and that, as a result, there will be more outreach and community discussions regarding the project. Mr. DePrima advised members that a request was submitted by a legislator requesting the installation of a traffic signal at Wyoming Mill Road and North Street. The City is discouraging the approval of this request since there would be a substantial expense for temporary matter. Mr. Laing assured members that due to the costs and the knowledge of there being a realignment, DelDOT will not be taking any action regarding the installation of the requested traffic signal. Briefing on Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Projects - James Galvin Mr. James Galvin, Principal Planner, Dover/Kent County MPO, explained that the Dover/Kent County MPO is currently redoing the Transportation Improvement Projects (TIP) and has begun the process of identifying the projects in the Comprehensive Transportation Program (CTP). He reminded members that the Loockerman Street/Forest Street Project was removed from the CTP last year and that the project has been relisted in the CTP; however, it is listed for an out-year and is not a part of the TIP. Mr. Galvin reminded members that the MPO will be considering a Regional Bicycle Plan for the County and that it is hoped that the plan will include connections for the City of Dover to regional facilities, as well as for other municipalities. He assured members that public input and involvement will be planned.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2010 PAGE 30 Mr. Galvin stated that the MPO is currently assisting the County with their Transportation Investment District Plan, which goes along with their Comprehensive Plan and its relationship to Transportation Projects. There has been consideration of a corridor around the transit center, running along Water Street from West Street to the Capitol. This concept will be presented to City staff, as well as the Downtown Partnership, in an attempt to obtain support. Responding, Mr. DePrima felt that the North Street corridor, from the Railroad tracks to the Townsend Building, needs as much attention as Water Street and requested consideration. By consent agenda, Mr. Salters moved for acceptance of the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee Report, seconded by Mrs. Russell and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. McGlumphy absent). MONTHLY REPORTS - DECEMBER 2009 By motion of Mr. Salters, seconded by Mrs. Russell, the following monthly reports were accepted by consent agenda: Budget Report Chief of Police Report City Assessor Report City Manager's Report City Planner’s Report Dover Fire Department Report CIP Report ANNUAL REPORT - DOVER HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION By consent agenda, Mr. Salters moved for acceptance of the Annual Report of the Dover Human Relations Commission (as on file in the Office of the City Clerk), seconded by Mrs. Russell and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. EVALUATION OF BIDS - SUBSTATION POTENTIAL TRANSFORMERS (PT) AND CURRENT TRANSFORMERS (CT) PURCHASE Members were advised that the Substation Potential Transformers (PT) and Current Transformers (CT) Purchase Project is for replacing aging metering/system protection equipment in the older substations. The equipment to be replaced includes the Potential Transformers (PT’s) which measures the line voltage and reduces it to a voltage level the relays can interpret and the Current Transformers (CT’s) which reduces the current to a level that can safely be measured by the relays and meters, all of which provide electric system protection. Additionally, the lightning arrestors will be replaced, which protects the equipment during lightning strikes. All of the existing components have exceeded their useful life and are subject to failure, which could be catastrophic. A request for proposals (RFP) was sent out and advertised according to the Purchasing policy by the City’s Purchasing Agent. Proposals were received from three (3) vendors; one (1) vendor included five (5) different options and manufactures to choose from. Since this was a RFP, staff evaluated

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2010 PAGE 31 the seven (7) submissions based on the price, reputation of the product, compliance with specifications, and delivery. A point system analysis was performed by three (3) staff members from the Engineering Division to adequately and impartially evaluate the proposals, with the goal of providing the best product and to serve the interest of the City of Dover. Members were provided a summary of the evaluations for each item. Staff recommended awarding the proposals to HD Supply for the total amount of $196,345.80 as outlined in the table below: Vendor Unit $ Quantity Total $ Eval. Score 69 KV PT HD Supply/Ritz $4,526.32 30 $135,789.60 117 69 KV CT HD Supply/Ritz $4,210.53 8 $33,684.24 117 15 KV PT HD Supply/GE $636.00 7 $4,452.00 112 15 KV CT HD Supply/GE $726.00 3 $2,178.00 112 54 KV Lightning Arrestor HD Supply/Siemens $573.68 30 $17,210.40 103 9 KV lightning Arrestor HD Supply/Siemens $168.42 18 $3,031.56 110 Total Bid Award Value $196,345.80 Mr. Ruane moved for to award the Substation Potential Transformers (PT) and Current Transformers (CT) Purchase to HD Supply for the total amount of $196,345.80, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hogan and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. McGlumphy absent). EVALUATION OF BIDS - CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS - DOVER PUBLIC ANCHOR LIBRARY Mr. DePrima, City Manager, reminded members of the presentation provided last month and advised members that the architectural firms of Holzman Moss Bottino Architecture (HMBA) completed the Dover Public Anchor Library Design Development Phase in January 2010. With the completion of the Design Development Phase, the Library Steering Committee is ready to start the next step for the library project, which is the Construction Development Phase that will include furthering the design development documents into the final construction documents. He advised members that this phase will continue the development and coordination of the full set of documents including architectural, structural, civil, landscape, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and fire protection engineering documents. Mr. DePrima indicated that the Construction Document is third and final phase of the design process and is a continuation of the work that HMBA completed with the Design Development. He stated that Holzman Moss Bottino has done an outstanding job with the building progress, Schematic Design, and Design Development. Staff recommended that the proposal for the Professional Services Contract for the Construction Document Phase for the Dover Public Anchor Library from HMBA for the total sum of $955,275 (including reimbursables) be accepted and authorization be granted to the City Manager to enter into the contractual agreement.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2010 PAGE 32 Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. DePrima confirmed that this expense will be split between the City’s Library Reserve Fund and the State of Delaware. Mr. Hogan moved to award the Professional Services contract for the Construction Document Phase of the Dover Public Anchor Library to Holzman Moss Bottino Architecture firm for the amount of $955,275, noting that this amount covers the total expenses and estimated 10 percent project reimbursable expenses, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ruane and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. McGlumphy absent). RETAIL VOLUNTARY CUSTOMER DEMAND RESPONSE TARIFF Mr. DePrima, City Manager, reminded members that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued Order No. 719 which attempts in part to remove barriers to demand response programs operated by Regional Transmission Organizations such as PJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM). Of specific interest to the City of Dover is a requirement that utilities that sell less than four (4) million MWh’s must have the relevant electric retail regulatory authority (City Council) approve the participation of their retail customers in the program. In order to document and prove that the City of Dover approves participation in this program, he advised members that staff has created a tariff to allow this action. Mr. DePrima stated that the tenets of the PJM operated Demand Response Program (DSP) are to compensate customers that reduce their consumption during periods of tight energy supply or high usage. The reduction of load also ensures electric grid reliability and helps alleviate costs associated with new generation plants and transmission upgrades, both of which are a concern on the Delmarva Peninsula. In calendar year 2009, Mr. DePrima advised members that there were approximately five (5) customers who participated in the DSP through various Curtailment Service Providers (CSP) that are registered with PJM. These customers have been removed from the program by PJM until such time as Dover approves their participation. The City of Dover does not provide the CSP services; however, the retail customers may choose from a list of registered CSP’s from the PJM website. Staff recommended adoption of the tariff titled Retail Customer Demand Response Tariff and that this be recognized as a standard City of Dover Electric Tariff. Mr. DePrima assured members that the proposed tariff has been reviewed by the City of Dover attorney, Kirk Betts, Betts and Holt, and heapproves this tariff in its final form. Mr. Hogan moved for adoption of the tariff titled Retail Customer Demand Response Tariff and that this be recognized as a standard City of Dover Electric Tariff, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Russell and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. McGlumphy and Mr. Salters absent). LETTER IN OPPOSITION TO HOUSE BILL #194 - ADDITION OF NEW GAMBLING VENUES IN DELAWARE Mayor Carey advised members that the Greater Dover Committee has requested their membership to submit a letter to their Legislators in opposition to the addition of new gambling venues in Delaware (House Bill #194).

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2010 PAGE 33 Mr. Ruane moved to refer the draft letter to the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee for further review and analysis, seconded by Mr. Leary. Mr. Ruane felt that the letter should be worded in a manner to be more reflective of City Council rather than another entity. He also relayed disappointment for not being provided a copy of House Bill #194, explaining that this is not a simple issue and involves State revenues and many aspects of the future in terms of the economy. He advised members that there have been several amendments to the House Bill and that members should not simply endorse something without a thorough review. Mr. Ruane requested that if the matter is presented to the Committee for further review, that members be provided with substantive material. The motion to refer the draft letter to the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee for further review and analysis failed by a roll call vote of three (3) no, four (4) yes (Mr. Leary, Mrs. Russell, Mr. Slavin, and Mr. Ruane), one (1) abstention (Mr. Salters), and one (1) absent (Mr. McGlumphy). Mr. Hogan moved that the letter be redrafted in a format that is appropriate for the City of Dover and that House Bill #194 and other appropriate materials be provided and resubmitted at the next City Council Meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Salters. Mayor Carey explained that there is a timing issue with this matter, noting that the last Regular Council Meeting was cancelled due to the snow storm and that the Legislators are scheduled to begin reviewing legislation in March. Therefore, he requested that action regarding this matter be taken as soon as possible. Mr. McGiffin felt that the letter should eliminate any reference to Harrington. Mr. Hogan suggested that the letter be written to reflect a statement from the City Council supporting the concept of maintaining only three (3) casinos and not mention the effect of Harrington or Delaware Park, but to address the effect at Dover. Mr. Ruane suggested that members read the amendments, indicating his feeling that a different letter should be written. The motion, that the letter be redrafted in a format that is appropriate for the City of Dover and that House Bill #194 and other appropriate materials be provided and resubmitted at the next City Council Meeting was unanimously carried. SELECTION OF POLLING PLACES FOR 2010 REGULAR MUNICIPAL ELECTION Council President Williams reminded members that the elimination of multiple polling places has been recommended as a cost-saving measure; however, it has not yet been acted upon by Council. As a result, staff has requested that this matter be presented for consideration. Council President Williams noted that, typically, there would be three (3) polling places: Elks Lodge for the First and Fourth Districts; the Seventh Day Adventist Church for the Second District; and the Dover Park Recreation Center for the Third District. If the decision is made for only one (1) polling place, staff recommended that the voting take place at the Elks Lodge.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2010 PAGE 34 Mr. Ruane moved that the 2010 Municipal Election be held at the three (3) polling places: Elks Lodge for the First and Fourth Districts; the Seventh Day Adventist Church for the Second District; and the Dover Park Recreation Center for the Third District. The motion was seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried. APPOINTMENTS - AD-HOC HEALTH BENEFITS COMMITTEE During their Regular Meeting of January 25, 2010, City Council approved the formation of a Health Benefits Committee and appointment of two Council members to serve on the Committee, with the understanding that meetings will be conducted during City business hours. Members were provided the following appointments for approval: Thomas J. Leary, Council Member Beverly C. Williams, Council Member Anthony J. DePrima, City Manager (ex-officio) Kimberly D. Hawkins, Human Resources Director Donna S. Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer David Spicer, FOP Representative Paul M. Simon, IBEW Representative Kenneth Clendaniel, IUE/CWA Representative Stephen A. Enss, Non-Bargaining Representative By consent agenda, Mr. Salters moved for approval of the appointments to the Ad-Hoc Health Benefits Committee, seconded by Mrs. Russell and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. McGlumphy absent). APPOINTMENTS - OPEB TRUST FUND BOARD In accordance with Section 2-503 - Management of the OPEB Fund of Chapter 2 - Administration, Article VI - Other Post-Employment Benefits Fund, of the Dover Code, the following appointments were submitted for approval: Kenneth L. Hogan, Council Member James G. McGiffin, Jr., Council Member Anthony J. DePrima, City Manager Donna Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer Kimberly D. Hawkins, Human Resources Director By consent agenda, Mr. Salters moved for approval of the appointments to the OPEB Trust Fund Board, seconded by Mrs. Russell and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. McGlumphy absent).

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2010 PAGE 35 REZONING REQUEST/FIRST READING - SOUTH SIDE OF WHITE OAK ROAD, OWNED BY TLFD MANAGEMENT, LLC A request was received to rezone property located on the south side of White Oak Road, south of Mourning Dove Lane, consisting of 12.78+/- acres, owned by TLFD Management, LLC. The property is currently zoned R-20 (One Family Residence) subject to SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) and the requested zoning is R-8 (Once Family Residence) subject to SWPOZ. Prior to amending the zoning ordinances and zoning map of the City of Dover, a public hearing is required. By motion of Mr. Salters, seconded by Mr. McGiffin, Council unanimously referred the request to the Planning Commission on March 15, 2010 and set a public hearing before City Council for April 12, 2010 at 7:30 p.m. In accordance with Section 1-9 of the Dover Code, Council acknowledged the First Reading of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment as read by the City Clerk, by title only, as follows: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WHITE OAK ROAD, SOUTH OF MOURNING DOVE LANE. FIRST READING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2010-05 - CHAPTER 2 - ADMINISTRATION, ARTICLE VI - OTHER POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS FUND WITH PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 1 Council President Williams reminded the public that copies of the proposed ordinance are available at the entrance of the Council Chambers or can be obtained from the City Clerk's Office. Final action by Council on the proposed ordinances will take place during the Council Meeting of March 8, 2010. Mr. Hogan stated that during the Committee meeting, a member of City staff submitted some suggested language which he felt would make the ordinance more appropriate and agreeable. Members were provided the ordinance with the proposed amendments that are reflective of the suggestions, as follows: lines 12 and 13, by eliminating “can be changed or eliminated at any time” and inserting “can be reevaluated annually for changes or elimination”; and lines 17 and 18, by eliminating “or resolution” and inserting “, with a public hearing,” and “and with a 90-day written notice to those employees who are currently receiving or who are eligible for Medicare Part B Reimbursement,”. Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. Hogan explained that the ordinance presented for consideration at this time has been amended since the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee made its recommendation.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2010 PAGE 36 For clarification, Council President Williams explained that the proposed amendments are being presented at this time and that a motion for their adoption would be necessary prior to the motion for acknowledgment of the First Reading of the ordinance. Mr. Ruane relayed opposition to the proposed amendments, feeling that it would create a precedent and obligate future Councils to actions that are totally unnecessary. Mr. Leary felt that the more appropriate manner to handle this matter would be to present the amendment back to the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee for their review and recommendation. Mr. Hogan moved to accept Amendment #1 to Ordinance #2010-05, seconded by Mr. McGiffin. The motion failed by a roll call vote of five (5) no, three (3) yes (Mrs. Russell, Mr. McGiffin, and Mr. Hogan), and one (1) absent (Mr. McGlumphy). Mr. Slavin moved to refer Amendment #1 to Ordinance #2010-05 back to the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee for their review and recommendation, seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried. FINAL READING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2010-03 The First Reading of Proposed Ordinance #2010-03 was accomplished during the Council Meeting of January 25, 2010. FY2009 Budget Balances and Projected Carry Forward Balances Mr. Salters moved that the Final Reading of the proposed ordinance be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Hogan and unanimously carried. Mr. Hogan moved for adoption of Ordinance #2010-03, FY2009 Budget Balances and Projected Carry Forward Balances, seconded by Mr. McGiffin. Mr. Ruane referred to the estimate of revenues included in the proposed ordinance and questioned if staff felt that some of the reductions have been significant enough that it would not be necessary to move forward with the estimates. Responding, Mrs. Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, indicated support of the amounts provided in the ordinance. Mr. Ruane stated that his opposition was due to his lack of confidence in the revenue estimates included in the ordinance. The motion for adoption of the Ordinance #2010-03 (Exhibit #5) was carried by a roll call vote of seven (7) yes, one (1) no (Mr. Ruane), and one (1) absent (Mr. McGlumphy).

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2010 PAGE 37 COUNCIL MEMBERS ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. McGiffin reminded members to mark their calendar for June 26, 2010 for the next African American Festival. Mr. McGiffin moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried. Meeting Adjourned at 8:38 P.M. TRACI A. McDOWELL CITY CLERK All orders, ordinances, and resolutions adopted by City Council during their Regular Meeting of February 22, 2010, are hereby approved. CARLETON E. CAREY, SR. MAYOR /TM/jg S:\PACKETS\2010\Council\03-08-2010\02-22-2010.wpd Exhibits Attached to Original Minutes and File Copy Exhibit #1 - Resolution #2009-21 - Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds Exhibit #2 - Ground Lease Agreement with White Oak Solar Energy, LLC Exhibit #3 - Small Generator Interconnection Agreement with White Oak Solar Energy, LLC Exhibit #4 - Tariff titled 69 kV Delivery Service Classification to the Grid for White Oak Solar Energy, LLC Exhibit #5 - Ordinance #2010-03 - FY2009 Budget Balances and Projected Carry Forward Balances

CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION Presented to Katrina Brumble Dover Human Relations Commission August 13, 2007 - February 1, 2010 Your public service, selflessness, and talents have increased the quality of life for your neighbors, and all of Dover March 8, 2010 CARLETON E. CAREY, SR. BEVERLY C. WILLIAMS MAYOR COUNCIL PRESIDENT

PETITION TO AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT Public Hearing before the Dover City Council March 8, 2010 Proposed Zoning Change: Ordinance #2009-28 – Amendment to Zoning Ordinance Article 6 – Off-Street Parking, Driveways and Loading Facilities, Section 5.5 – Race Parking Summary of Amendment: Dover is host to a NASCAR racing event that draws tens of thousands of people to the City of Dover two separate weekends each year. Over the past five years, the City has worked hard to improve the crowd management associated with this influx of visitors. Many race patrons camp in Dover in campgrounds owned and managed by Dover International Speedway. In recent years, many non-traditional campgrounds have emerged, including shopping center parking lots, retail parking lots, and the like. Additionally, many property owners allow race patrons to park on their property in lots where permanent parking areas would typically not be permitted. In order to properly manage the influx of people, cars, and recreational vehicles, staff has proposed that the section of the Zoning Ordinance that addresses parking associated with auto racing events be amended to ensure that passenger vehicle parking areas and campground areas be managed in a way that preserves public health, safety and welfare. The proposed changes would allow for the Fire Marshal’s Office, Police Department, Code Enforcement Division, and Fire Department to more effectively manage the influx of people and vehicles in the time surrounding the race events. Currently property owners wishing to park passenger vehicles and/or recreational vehicles are not obligated to notify the City of their intention. While we have gotten voluntary cooperation from many property owners, under the current lack of requirements, City emergency responders could potentially have no knowledge of a parking or camping location until after the fact or until an emergency occurs. Having an ordinance that would require the property owner or obtain a permit from the City prior to parking

passenger vehicles or recreational vehicles for the race events would allow the Fire Marshal’s Office and the Emergency Management Coordinator to review the location and arrangement of such parking areas for means of egress, proper spacing between vehicles, emergency contact numbers, and site identification. The monitoring of these parking/camping areas is a weeklong endeavor involving the Fire Marshal’s Office, Code Enforcement Division, and the Office of Emergency Management. The proposed ordinance would codify the system that has been implemented on a voluntary basis in recent years and will protect the safety of the residents and visitors of Dover during these large events. Following the review and recommendation of the proposed ordinance by the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee on December 7, 2009, the First Reading was completed by City Council on January 11, 2010 and referred to the Planning Commission for review. The First Reading of the proposed amendment consisted of the proposed Ordinance #2009-28 including Staff Amendment #1. Summary of Staff Amendment#2: The proposed amendment (SA#2) would clarify the separation requirement between recreational vehicles and give the Fire Marshal’s Office flexibility in applying the provisions of the ordinance if it can be demonstrated that such flexibility provides an equivalent means of protecting public safety. Summary of Planning Commission Amendment#1: The proposed amendment (PCA#1) would clarify the language regarding fee based parking to avoid confusion with parking of commercial vehicles. Recommendation of the Planning Commission: Following a public hearing on February 16, 2010, before the City of Dover Planning Commission, the Planning Commission unanimously (7-0, 2 members absent) recommended in favor of adoption of the proposed amendment (Ordinance #2009-28) to the Zoning Ordinance, including the proposed Staff Amendment #1, proposed Staff Amendment #2, and Planning Commission Amendment #1. The motion also included a recommendation that City Council consider a lower permit fee for non-profit organizations. An amendment has not been prepared in this regard, as the motion was not specific as to a fee. File Number: MI-10-01

The following is an excerpt from the draft Planning Commission meeting minutes of February 16, 2010, including public testimony and Planning Commission discussion regarding the proposed ordinance. These minutes have not yet been approved by the Commission. MI-10-01 Proposed Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance: Race Weekend Parking: Proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to Race (Motorsports) weekend parking. This Ordinance revises Appendix B: Zoning, Article 6 – Off-street Parking, Driveways and Loading Facilities, Section 5 – Supplementary Regulations for Parking and Loading Facilities, Subsection 5.5 – Race weekend parking. Ordinance # 2009-28 with Staff Amendment #1. Representative: Staff Mrs. Townshend stated that Dover sees a large influx of people two weekends of every year. A number of people spend the weekend here and sometimes a few days before or after camping in what are not conventional campgrounds such as shopping center parking lots. The City’s Fire Marshal’s Office, Police Department, Code Enforcement, and Fire Department work very closely with Dover International Speedway and with property owners who provide race parking on their properties. We try to work on ensuring that emergency access is maintained, fire lanes are not blocked, cross access easements are not blocked, and that recreation vehicles are a safe distance apart. Mrs. Townshend further stated that to date, we have had a good amount of voluntary cooperation with these issues; however, there is nothing in Code that essentially documents the way that we monitor the parking situation. There have been, on occasion, situations that have come up that in having an emergency access available, has proven helpful. This Ordinance would add a section in Article 6 of the Zoning Ordinance relating to off-street parking that specifically addresses parking for motorsports racing in two sections. One would be automobile parking and the other section would be recreational vehicle parking that would establish a fee structure for a permit. The intent was not to make money; however, to cover some of the costs that the City incurs in administering these services. Staff Amendment #2 is an outcome of a meeting that we had with Dover International Speedway with the intent to clarify some items. The Ordinance had stated that “recreation vehicles shall be parked no closer than ten feet.” The idea is ten feet side by side not necessarily end to end. The concern was that if we left it as it was, we would be requiring ten feet on all sides. Mr. Tolbert questioned if recreational vehicles would be limited to motor homes? Responding to Mr. Tolbert, Mrs. Townshend stated that it would be an enclosed vehicle not a tent. It would be a trailer type or a class A drive behind. Mr. Hemmig stated that under Subsection 5.51 (a) we use the term “commercial” at least four times in this section. The second sentence seems to be contradictory with what you are trying to get across. He believes that what you are trying to say is that “property can be used for “fee based” parking of privately owned vehicles.” He feels that what you are trying to say is “such parking shall not include parking of commercial vehicles for commercial activity.” He feels that using the word “commercial” in the first sentence should be omitted and replaced with “fee based” parking because you are not

allowing them to park commercial vehicles. Responding to Mr. Hemmig, Mrs. Townshend stated that Staff could propose an amendment that would state “fee based” parking instead of “commercial” with the idea that this would not be the vending area. It would then state “property within a residential zone may be used for “fee based” parking” then take out “(for a fee).” Then continue by saying such parking shall not include parking of commercial vehicles for use by commercial vendors and sales representatives.” Mr. Hemmig further questioned under 5.52(a) it refers to parking on a residential lot. It would seem that B, C, D, E, F & G refer to parking on other than residential lots. Should this be separated? Responding to Mr. Hemmig, Mrs. Townshend stated that B would be a residential lot; however, the other ones C, D, E & F would still relate everywhere. Mr. Hemmig further questioned with regards to Staff Amendment #2 you stated that the required ten feet shall exclude bump outs, what is the purpose of the ten feet? Responding to Mr. Hemmig, Mrs. Townshend stated that yes it would exclude bump outs. The purpose of the ten feet is to allow access to in between the units if there was a fire or other type of need. With the bump out, it would still be six feet from the bump out and the Fire Marshal’s Office would have to develop the procedures. Mr. Hemmig further stated that if you have two trailers next to each other that both have a four foot bump out, it would leave you only two feet. He does not feel that this exclusion is appropriate if you are trying to maintain a pliable space in which you can get between the units. Mr. Ambruso stated under recreational vehicle parking 5.52 (e) it states that “recreational vehicle parking areas shall have drivable surfaces engineered to hold the weight of recreation vehicles” what kind of surface are you talking about? There are numerous vehicles that park on grass, would they be precluded? Responding to Mr. Ambruso, Mrs. Townshend stated that it would be a stone surface. The vehicles are parked on grass; however, they are accessible by drive aisles so if we needed to get an apparatus to them they (the apparatus) would stay on the stone surface. Mr. Nichols questioned with regards to the section of 51-100 recreational vehicles with a fee of $100 that would be in the Penney’s parking lot, would they have to obtain prior approval? Responding to Mr. Nichols, Mrs. Townshend stated that yes they would. They would submit drawings ahead of time along with the permit fee and then the permit would be issued. Mr. Friedman opened a public hearing. Mr. Ken Roberts, representing the American Legion Post #2 at 835 Bay Road – Stated that he would like to refer to the proposed ordinance #2009-28; Paragraph 5.52, Section E. This was the only information provided to the American Legion, Section E “Recreation Vehicle Parking shall have drivable surfaces engineered to hold the weight of recreational vehicles.” He feels that this is loose and that we (the American Legion Post site) already have this provision; however, one of your Fire Marshal’s does not see it that way. We feel that we are in compliance with this section. There is nothing in here regarding stone. We have been parking RV’s for several years in inclement and

fair weather and have never had any problems. We have never had any of them stuck and never had to have one towed out. In addition to that our unpaved lot where we park RV’s is approximately 170 feet deep and is adjacent to a paved blacktop parking lot. Fire trucks carry more than 1,000 feet of hose and would allow for any RV to be accessed from the paved area. Finally, we do not feel that a Fire Marshal is qualified to judge the conditional of the driveway. This falls in the relm of an engineer or someone with extended experience in that area. The quality and durability should not be at the whim of a Fire Marshal. Mr. Hemmig questioned who would have the authority to make the determination of drivable surfaces? Responding to Mr. Hemmig, Mrs. Townshend stated that it would be the Fire Marshal’s Office because this is a typical duty of theirs in terms of determining whether areas are accessible by emergency response vehicles. Mr. Roberts further questioned how does the Fire Marshal’s Office training include judging the durability of a road surface? Responding to Mr. Roberts, Mr. Koenig stated that the Fire Marshal’s Office would consult with him. There is a standard fire lane construction that has been used in residential developments in other parts of the City. If there is a question of whether it can hold the weight of a fire truck, he is qualified to determine that. Mr. Richard Mallock - Volunteer with the Delaware Agricultural Museum – Stated that they have parked RV’s for a number of years with no problems or issues with the Fire Marshal. Their only request which will probably seem small and petty is could there be any consideration given for a fee schedule for non-profit organizations as compared to profit organizations? We rely on NASCAR for the major part of our budget because we are a non-profit organization, we do not get federal funding. Although the fee is small and we do generate income from it, we would request that you give consideration to non-profit organizations. Even if you were to only adjust the fees; however, not eliminate them that would help. Mr. Ed Klima – Director of Emergency Services and Loss Control for Dover International Speedway - Stated that he would like to comment with regards to the questions of bump-outs. We have a very robust planning committee that includes local, state, and federal agencies along with the Dover Fire Department, Dover Fire Marshal’s Office, City Police Department and the City’s Emergency Management Coordinator, and State Fire Marshal’s Office and on up to dealing with the Federal Homeland Security agency. This is a great process because we sit down and talk about all the different levels of risk that we are faced with and have developed a number of things on site through these collaborative efforts that is a model across the motorsports industry. One of the things is the RV lots in working with the Fire Marshal’s Office regarding access. Some of the language when it comes to distances is a collaboration of the experiences we have had as well as the National Fire Protection Association document #1194 which has to do with RV parks. With regards to distance, obviously you could not drive a piece of fire apparatus down a six foot lane. It has a lot more to do with flame spread and having something six feet apart for ten feet is something we feel is an acceptable risk; however, having something six feet apart for forty feet is something we would not want to see from a fire protection standpoint.

Mr. Jerry Dunning – Dover International Speedway – Stated that over the last ten years we have only had five incidents with about 70,000 RV’s parked which represents one ten thousandths of one percent for a fire related incident. We have always had fire protection services on site and security overnight with roving Staff for security and our own operational Staff. We have a twenty-four hour manned joint operations center where calls that come in get dispatched immediately. The City has implemented a GIS system for many years that is also utilized in the field. In the last ten years, there have been no incidents. The last incident that we did have was in 1994 that was of a serious nature that had to do with someone putting a flag pole into a power line that resulted in a couple of deaths because of that. Mr. Friedman closed the public hearing after seeing no one else wishing to speak. Mr. Hemmig stated that as a result of their presentation concerning the obvious planning that has been done with regard to the ten feet, he has re-thought his objection to this input and this would be fine. Mr. Tolbert moved to forward to City Council approval of MI-10-01 Proposed Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance: Race Weekend Parking with the necessary changes that would be the addition of Staff Amendment #2 and with the amendment that Mr. Hemmig proposed, seconded by Mr. Holt and the motion was unanimously approved 7-0 with Mr. Baldwin and Colonel Welsh absent. Mr. Hemmig questioned if any consideration would be given by Staff for consideration to non-profit status? Responding to Mr. Hemmig, Mrs. Townshend stated that this would be something that you (the Planning Commission) would need to include in the motion for recommendation to City Council. Mr. Hemmig stated that he would like to add to the motion to recommend that City Council consider with Staff’s input the possibility of a reduced fee for non-profit organizations. Mr. Tolbert moved to approved this amendment, seconded by Mr. Holt and amendment was unanimously approved 7-0 with Mr. Baldwin and Colonel Welsh absent.

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT #1 TO ORDINANCE #2009-28 1 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN 2 COUNCIL MET: 3 That Ordinance #2009-28 be amended by amending section 5.51, subsection a (lines 9-11) by 4 deleting the text in red bold strike-through and adding the text in blue bold italics to read as 5 follows: 6 a. Property located within a residential zone may be used for commercial fee-based 7 parking (for a fee) of motor vehicles. Commercial Fee-based parking shall not 8 include parking of commercial vehicles for use by commercial vendors and sales 9 representatives. 10 SYNOPSIS 11 The proposed amendment would clarify the references to fee based parking so 12 as to avoid confusion with the prohibition in the same section of commercial 13 vending vehicles.

SA #2 ORDINANCE #2009-28 1 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN 2 COUNCIL MET: 3 That Ordinance #2009-28 be amended by striking subsection d (lines 31 and 32) in its entirety 4 and replacing it with the following: 5 d. Recreational vehicles shall not be parked closer than ten (10) feet to other recreational 6 vehicles, buildings or other structures, as measured from the long side of the vehicle; nor closer 7 than two (2) feet from other recreational vehicles, buildings or other structures, as measured 8 from the front or rear of the vehicle. The required ten (10) feet shall exclude any bump-outs or 9 other protrusions from the side of the vehicle. 10 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 11 That Ordinance #2009-28 be amended by striking subsection g (lines 38 and 39) in its entirety 12 and replacing it with the following: 13 g. The Fire Marshal’s Office may grant an exception to any provision of section 5.52 if it can be 14 demonstrated that equivalent means of public safety and fire protection is being provided. 15 h. The Fire Marshal’s Office shall develop policy guidance on the implementation of this section. 16 SYNOPSIS 17 The proposed amendment would clarify the space requirement between 18 recreational vehicles and give the Fire Marshal’s Office flexibility in applying 19 the provisions of the ordinance if it can be demonstrated that such flexibility 20 provides an equivalent means of protecting public safety. 21 Actions History: 22 March 8, 2010 – Introduced at City Council 23 February 16, 2010 – Introduced at Planning Commission

1 FINAL READING 2 3 4 CITY OF DOVER PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2009-28 WITH SA#1 5 6 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN 7 COUNCIL MET: 8 9 That Appendix B - Zoning, Article 6 - Off-street Parking, Driveways and Loading Facilities, 10 Section 5 - Supplementary Regulations for Parking and Loading Facilities, Subsection 5.5 - Race 11 weekend parking, be deleted in its entirety and inserting, in lieu thereof, the following: 12 13 5.5 Parking for Motorsports Racing. During any ten-day period prior to or two-day period 14 following an auto racing event the following provisions shall apply: 15 16 5.51 Automobile parking 17 18 a. Property located within a residential zone may be used for commercial 19 fee-based parking (for a fee) of motor vehicles. Commercial Fee-based 20 parking shall not include parking of commercial vehicles for use by 21 commercial vendors and sales representatives. 22 23 b. Unimproved surfaces may be used for automobile parking. Such areas 24 shall be reviewed by the Fire Marshal to ensure adequate emergency access. No 25 stormwater management areas or other preserved open space shall be used for 26 automobile parking. 27 28 c. Automobile parking shall in no case obstruct fire lanes, parking lot drive 29 aisles, emergency access, fire protection equipment, or cross access easements 30 between properties. 31 32 5.52 Recreational vehicle parking. Recreational vehicle parking shall be permitted 33 within all zones subject to the following requirements: 34 35 a. No more than three recreational vehicles shall be parked on a residential 36 lot. 37 38 b. Property owners wishing to provide parking for more than five (5) 39 recreational vehicles shall apply for a permit from the licensing and permitting 40 division a minimum of 60 days prior to the race event. Fees for the permit will be 41 charged in accordance with Appendix F. Prior to issuance of a permit, the 42 property owner or his agent must submit a legible diagram of the camping area to 43 the licensing and permitting division. The diagram shall show recreational 44 vehicle parking location, emergency access, drive aisles, entrance and exit, 45 number of proposed recreational vehicles to be parked, location of power lines, 46 and location of restroom facilities. 47

Proposed Ordinance #2009-28 - Appendix B, Article 6, Section 5, Subsection 5.5 Amendments Incorporated in red bold strike-through and blue bold italics Page 2 48 c. Recreational vehicles shall not be parked within 25 feet of power lines as 49 measured from the center of the utility pole. Vertical extensions from recreational 50 vehicles shall not be closer than 25 feet to power lines as measured from any 51 point on the vertical extension. 52 53 d. Recreational vehicles shall not be parked closer than 10 feet to other 54 recreational vehicles, buildings, or other structures. Recreational vehicles 55 shall not be parked closer than ten (10) feet to other recreational vehicles, 56 buildings or other structures, as measured from the long side of the vehicle; nor 57 closer than two (2) feet from other recreational vehicles, buildings or other 58 structures, as measured from the front or rear of the vehicle. The required ten 59 (10) feet shall exclude any bump-outs or other protrusions from the side of the 60 vehicle. 61 62 e. Recreational vehicle parking areas shall have drivable surfaces engineered 63 to hold the weight of recreational vehicles, fire equipment, and other emergency 64 response equipment in all types of weather. 65 66 f. Any changes to the layout of recreational vehicle parking areas shall be 67 required to be submitted to the licensing and permitting division at least 30 days 68 prior to the race event. 69 70 g. It shall be the permit holder's responsibility to ensure compliance 71 with these requirements. Failure to comply with the provisions of this section 72 shall result in a fine. The Fire Marshal’s Office may grant an exception to any 73 provision of section 5.52 if it can be demonstrated that equivalent means of 74 public safety and fire protection is being provided. 75 76 h. The Fire Marshal’s Office shall develop policy guidance on the 77 implementation of this section. 78 79 80 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 81 82 That Appendix F - Fees and Fines, Appendix B - Zoning, be amending by inserting a new Article 83 6 - Off-street Parking, Driveways and Loading Facilities, immediately following Appendix B-- 84 Zoning, Article 5--Supplementary Regulations, as follows: 85 Fees and Fines Description (in dollars) Appendix B--Zoning, Article 6--Off-street Parking, Driveways and Loading Facilities Sec. 5 Supplementary Regulations for Parking and Loading Facilities Subsec. 5.5 Parking for Motorsports Racing

Proposed Ordinance #2009-28 - Appendix B, Article 6, Section 5, Subsection 5.5 Amendments Incorporated in red bold strike-through and blue bold italics Page 3 Fees and Fines Description (in dollars) Subsec. 5.52(b) 1-5 Recreational vehicles No fee 6-25 Recreational vehicles $25.00 26-50 Recreational vehicles $50.00 51-100 Recreational vehicles $100.00 >100 Recreational vehicles $150.00 86 87 ADOPTED: * 88 S:\ORDINANCES\2009\Draft Ordinances\Ordinance 2009-28 - Appendix B - Art 6 - Sec 5 - Supplementary Regulations - NASCAR Final Rdg.wpd 89 90 SYNOPSIS 91 The proposed ordinance would establish standards for motor vehicle and recreational 92 vehicle parking for motor sports events. It would codify the existing policy that ensures 93 that such parking is compatible with emergency access needs. 94 95 The proposed amendment establishes a fee schedule for a permit to park more than five 96 recreational vehicles during a motorsports racing event. 97 98 Actions History 99 January 11, 2010 - First Reading 100 December 7, 2009 - Considered by Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee

PETITION TO AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT Public Hearing before the Dover City Council March 8, 2010 Proposed Zoning Change: Amendment to Zoning Ordinance, Article 6 – Off-Street Parking, Driveways and Loading Facilities, Section 3 – Required off-street parking spaces Summary of Amendment: Staff brought forward proposed amendments to the off-street parking requirements in the Zoning Ordinance in 2009. City Council adopted these changes in fall 2009. One of the provisions included in the ordinance, to add clarity to the ordinance, was to require that the parking calculation used be consistent with those listed in the bulk standards or the “schedule of requirements” table, whichever is greater. This created an unintended consequence within the C-2 (Central Commercial Zone), where the bulk standards do not require parking except for residential uses and new construction. Under the new provisions, for example, a downtown restaurant would be required to provide off-street parking in accordance with the schedule of requirement. This was not the intent and could significantly inhibit new businesses in the downtown. The proposed ordinance would correct this unintended consequence. Recommendation of the Planning Commission: Following a public hearing on February 16, 2010, before the City of Dover Planning Commission, the Planning Commission unanimously (7-0, 2 members absent) recommended in favor of adoption of the proposed amendment (Ordinance #2009-30) to the Zoning Ordinance. No public testimony was presented and no comments or questions were offered from Commission members. File Number: MI-10-02

FINAL READING CITY OF DOVER PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2009-30 1 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN 2 COUNCIL MET: 3 That Appendix B - Zoning, Article 6 - Off-Street Parking, Driveways and Loading Facilities, 4 Section 3 - Required Off-Street Parking Spaces, be amended by inserting the text in bold, blue, 5 italics, as follows: 6 3.1 Schedule of requirements. Accessory off-street parking spaces, open or enclosed, 7 shall be provided for any lot as specified in article 4, zone bulk and parking 8 regulations or as specified below for each use in any zone, whichever is greater, 9 except for existing buildings within the C-2 Zoning District, where Article 4, 10 Section 4.14, zoning bulk and parking regulations governing the C-2 Zoning 11 District shall prevail. 12 ADOPTED: * 13 S:\ClerksOffice\Ordinances\2009\Draft Ordinances\Ordinance 2009-30 - Appendix B, Art 6, Sec 3 - Off-Street Pking Final Rdg.wpd 14 SYNOPSIS 15 This amendment would clarify that uses in existing buildings within the 16 C-2 (Central Commercial) zone would not be required to construct new 17 parking spaces. 18 Actions History 19 January 11, 2010 - First Reading 20 December 14, 2009 - Considered by the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee

ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: Council AGENDA ITEM DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Public Services DATE SUBMITTED: 02-25-2010 PREPARED BY: Scott D. Koenig, P.E., Public Services Manager SUBJECT: Violation of Dangerous Building Ordinance (Nottingham Meadows Subdivision) : 433 Beuvale Lane, 312 Gillibrook Lane, 328 Gillibrook Lane & 329 Gillibrook Lane. REFERENCE: Article XI – Dangerous Buildings, Sec. 22-388 Emergency Cases RELATED PROJECT: N/A APPROVALS: City Manager, Controller/Treasurer EXHIBITS: N/A EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: Less than $600. AMOUNT BUDGETED: $50,000 (All demolitions City-wide). $34,801.75 expended to date. FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): 110-1600-534-30-33, page 400 of the 2010 Annual Operating Budget. TIMETABLE: As soon as possible. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Declare these buildings dangerous. 2. Order the Building Inspector to have immediately secured . 3. Order the City Manager with the assistance of the City Solicitor to cause the cost of securing these structures to be charged against the land on which the building exists as a municipal lien or cause such cost to be added to the tax duplicate as an assessment, or to be levied as a special tax, or to be recovered in a suit at law against the owner. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS All four (4) properties are owned by Stover Homes, LLC. Each property is under construction for a single family home. The City of Dover has received an informal notice that the developer, Stover Homes, LLC is no longer operating; therefore, these structures are currently unsecured and represent a potential danger to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. Several neighbors have complained that people are entering the unsecured structures. Staff intends to board up the open garages since there are no doors on the garages at this time. In addition, staff will either board the entry doors to the homes or place locks on the doors to secure the structures. No other work is intend to be done at this time. These properties meet several definitions of a dangerous building under Chapter 22, including but not limited to Section 22-381 Definitions (12) Unoccupied Buildings: Those which are left unoccupuied and unattended for a period of three months or more so that decay is being accelerated by natural or man made cuases or which may be attracting trespassers and vagrants, increasing the probability of fire and danger to human life; and, (13) Incomplete Buildings: Those under construction, if the authorized work is substantially suspended or abandoned for a period of three months or more. Because these properties are unsecured we feel it is appropriate to use the emergency provision under Section 288 of the code waiving the public notice requirements and the order to repair.

PLANNED NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN APPLICATION Before the Dover City Council March 8, 2010 Project Name: Bay Village PND Applicants/Owners: Bay Village, LLC Location: South side of White Oak Road, East of SR 1 Tax Parcel ID #: LC-05-068.00-01-03.01-000 LC-05-068.00-01-04.00-000 LC-05-068.00-01-05.00-000 LC-05-068.00-01-06.00-000 Size: 76.72 ± acres Proposed Use: Planned Neighborhood Design Present Zoning: RM-2 (Recreational and Commercial)/SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) – Tier 2 Primary Wellhead Protection Area File Number: MI-10-05

MI-10-05 Bay Village – Planned Neighborhood Design General Sketch Plan Review by City Council – March 8, 2010 Page 2 The applicant is requesting to utilize the Planned Neighborhood Design (PND) as specified in the Zoning Ordinance, Article 3, Section 24, to construct 462 residential units on approximately 76.72 acres known as Bay Village, south of White Oak Road and east of State Route 1. Bay Village was the subject of another PND application in 2004, but this application included 224 acres and was proposing to utilize the Senior Citizen Housing Option. Planned Neighborhood Design – Review Process For proposals involving land subdivision, the Zoning Ordinance prescribes a 2-step review process for PND development projects. The first step is a review of a general sketch plan and statement of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan by City Council to “determine whether the proposed project is of such a design and type that it warrants further review by the planning commission.” If the City Council determines that further review is warranted, the second step is a Conditional Use/Conceptual Subdivision review and public hearing before the Planning Commission. The third step is Preliminary Subdivision review and public hearing before the Planning Commission. For the City Council’s review of the application, the applicant must present a general sketch plan and a statement documenting the project's compliance with the goals of the comprehensive plan for review. These items are included as attachments. Planned Neighborhood Design According to Article 3, Section 24.1(a) of the Zoning Ordinance, Planned neighborhoods. In order to encourage superior residential environments through a unified planning process, the planned neighborhood design option shall be permitted in R-20, R-15, R-1O, R-8, RM-1 and RM-2 zones as a conditional use subject to the provisions of article 10 of this ordinance and after a determination by the planning commission that the proposed planned neighborhood design presents a superior community design than would be possible under the conventional zone and is in accordance with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. The minimum size required for a planned residential development shall be 20 acres. Project Description: The proposal is to develop 462 residential units (11 townhouse units, 76 duplex units, 51 single family detached units, and 7 apartment buildings with a total of 224 apartment units). The subject site is zoned RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone) and subject to the requirements of the SWPOZ (Source Water Protection Overlay Zone) – Tier 2 Primary Wellhead Protection Area. Surrounding Land Uses: The adjacent land to the south and west is zoned A (Agriculture). The land to the south is protected from development through an easement held by the State of Delaware. There are a number of residential parcels to the north between the subject parcel and White Oak Road that are zoned R-20 (One Family Residence Zone). The parcel immediately east is also zoned R-20

MI-10-05 Bay Village – Planned Neighborhood Design General Sketch Plan Review by City Council – March 8, 2010 Page 3 and is a vacant parcel for which the owner has applied for R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) zoning. This matter will be decided by City Council in April 2010. To the north across White Oak Road is the Garrison Oak Technical Park, zoned IPM-2 (Industrial Park Manufacturing – Technology Center). This site is currently in the development process within the City of Dover. Planned Neighborhood Design – Design Requirements The Zoning Ordinance prescribes certain design requirements for projects developed under the Planned Neighborhood Design within Article 3, Section 24.6. The Zoning Ordinance requires that for PND proposals, 25 percent of the total land area be preserved open space. Active Recreation must be provided as required in Article 5, Section 10 of the Zoning Ordinance. An Active Recreation Plan must be submitted for review by the Parks, Recreation and Community Enhancement Committee before a Preliminary Subdivision Plan is submitted to the Planning Commission. The Zoning Ordinance requires that a 40-foot buffer be provided around the perimeter of a PND development. Staff recommends that this 40-foot buffer be located outside of individual lot lines. This will need to be identified on the plan prior to final approval. The Zoning Ordinance requires that the project be designed to minimize disruption of the natural environment and to provide privacy for residents of the development and maintain privacy for adjacent residences. Comprehensive Plan: In the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, the Land Development Plan designates this area as Residential Medium Density. The Plan includes language that specifically addresses this proposed project. This language is as follows: The Land Development Plan recommends that the area east of SR1 on White Oak Road known as Bay Village be developed as medium density residential. The developer who owns the property is interested in developing it in an environmentally sustainable manner to provide workforce housing that could provide quality housing for the middle income families within the City. While previously, there was concern that development of this area could be a “domino” leading to additional development of land east of SR1, the State’s purchase of development rights in the area has reduced the concern that development of this site will lead to additional development in the area. Additionally, the site’s location across from Garrison Oak, which is planned as a major employment center, makes it a good location for workforce housing. The City shall ensure that the development of the Bay Village site proceeds as a master planned community with transit access and bicycle and pedestrian amenities both within the site and connecting with Garrison Oak and other areas to the west. Additionally, the City must ensure that the viability of Garrison Oak is protected by requiring that the phasing and design of development on the site minimizes any potential conflicts between the residential and industrial uses. Development of the Bay Village site should coincide with a master plan for Garrison Oak and the design of Bay Village must include adequate buffering from

MI-10-05 Bay Village – Planned Neighborhood Design General Sketch Plan Review by City Council – March 8, 2010 Page 4 the industrial area. Finally, the City should look at Bay Village and other areas identified as medium and high density residential as potential receiving areas under a transfer of development rights program. The applicant’s proposal relates to the following goals from the 2008 Comprehensive Plan: o Encourage balanced housing opportunities for all income levels and phases in life; o To develop and maintain an adequate supply of housing of varying type, size, and densities that are aesthetically pleasing and located within neighborhoods designed or redesigned to promote convenience, conservation, and access to the greater community, but which are properly buffered through distance and landscaping from incompatible uses. Prior Application In September 2004, City Council reviewed a general sketch plan for Bay Village Planned Neighborhood Design Senior Citizen Housing Option. This application included a proposal of up to 700 units on 224 acres. On September 27, 2004, City Council approved the following motion: The motion to refer the Bay Village of Dover Planned Neighborhood Design Proposal to the Planning Commission for further detailed analysis and consideration, as recommended by staff, was carried by a roll call vote of seven (7) yes, and one (1) no (Mr. Ruane) (Mr. Slavin absent). Below is an excerpt of the minutes of this meeting which included discussion of the development proposal. CONCEPTUAL PLAN - BAY VILLAGE - PLANNED NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN The Planning Office has received a proposal to establish a Planned Neighborhood Development (PND) on 224+/- acres of land located on the north side of White Oak Road extending from Route 1 east to Long Point Road and being adjacent to the Oak Shadows log home development. The proposed project site is located east of Route 1 and north of North Little Creek Road. The development is currently known as Bay Village. The property is currently zoned A (Agricultural). The owner of record is L.D. Shank III and the project sponsor is Bay Village of Dover, LLC. Members were reminded that in accordance with Article 3, Section 24.1.a of the Zoning Code, City Council must determine whether the proposed project is of such a design and type that it warrants further review by the Planning Commission. If it is determined that further review is warranted, then the project shall proceed to the more detailed Conditional Use Site Plan review and public hearings before the Planning Commission. The Zoning Ordinance allows the opportunity for a Planned Neighborhood Development: Senior Citizen Housing Option (PND:Senior) on lands with agricultural zoning.

MI-10-05 Bay Village – Planned Neighborhood Design General Sketch Plan Review by City Council – March 8, 2010 Page 5 Mr. Galvin explained the proposed project and provided details and sketches depicting the project and its features (Exhibit #2). The applicant is requesting a PND:Senior development consisting of up to 700 dwelling units, including a continuing care residential community composed of a congregate care building and related cottages, single family homes, small service commercial uses and places of worship. Mr. Galvin noted that there are elements of the Bay Village proposal that may be supported, allowed or be contrary to the Comprehensive Plan. There are elements of the Garrison Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that seem to be contrary to the project; however, that, in fact, may not apply to this proposal. He stated that the development of this site may have some negative impacts, explaining that a development immediately across White Oak Road from the Industrial land may create a new source of complaints about truck traffic or industrial noises. Most significantly, for the State, its development may set a precedent for development east of Route 1. Mr. Galvin also noted that there are positive impacts of the development. The development team has presented an estimate of value of the properties and the potential income that may be generated. The development would be utilizing soils that have minor value for agriculture and would protect the wetlands identified by the State, more so than an agricultural use. The developer has cited the concepts of a quality project that exemplifies the concepts in Livable Delaware and it appears to include concepts that the City requires for projects that go through discretionary review. Mr. Galvin advised members that this may be an opportunity to determine the way the City approaches development and advised them to weigh the merits of the proposal. Based on the balance, this proposal will have a positive impact and has merit; therefor, staff recommended referring the proposal to the Planning Commission for detailed analysis and consideration. It was noted that if Council chooses to forward the proposed project to the Planning Commission, the applicant has been advised of the requirement of preparing the Conditional Use Site Plan in accordance with the requirements set forth in Article 3, Section 24 and Article 10, Section 1 of the Zoning Code. The act of forwarding a proposal to the Planning Commission for further review is not intended to represent, nor shall it be construed to mean that the project is approved. The approval authority over Conditional Use applications rests with the Planning Commission. Mr. Salters moved to refer the proposed Bay Village of Dover PND to the Planning Commission for further review, seconded by Mr. Carey. Relaying concern with the proposal, Mr. Ruane stated his opinion that Council action is a matter of “good faith” and suggested that members consider that when the MOU with the State and County was approved, it was agreed that the City would abide by its Comprehensive Plan. He noted that Chapter 4 of the City’s Comprehensive Plan states that “the City has had an official policy of considering SR1 an urban boundary by keeping the lands east of SR1 for agricultural uses,

MI-10-05 Bay Village – Planned Neighborhood Design General Sketch Plan Review by City Council – March 8, 2010 Page 6 except around Dover Air Force Base”. He also felt that the State’s comments are significant that they will not support any infrastructure in this area, including ingress and egress. Mr. Ruane suggested that the application jeopardizes the Garrison Tract’s feasibility as the City’s economic base, a much more significant economic opportunity than the proposed PND project. His opposition is not with the project but rather the location of the project, and should not be evaluated based on what it is but rather where it is. It was his opinion that the proposed project violates guiding principles, including Livable Delaware, preservation of farmland and open space, protection of quality of life while slowing sprawl, etc. In accordance with the PLUS report, Mr. Ruane stated that no infrastructure will be supported by any State agency, no mitigation provided by the State for traffic, wetlands, etc. It was also his opinion that the proposal violates the City’s Comprehensive Plan, which is the law, and that approval of the project may place the City in the position of being non-compliant with the Delaware Code. He reiterated that throughout the Comprehensive Plan, it is stated that the City supports the concept of limiting development east of SR1. Mr. Ruane advised members that the criteria to be used in assessing a PND is that the proposed use shall be in such location, size, and character, that it will be in harmony with the appropriate and orderly development of the zone in which it is proposed to be situated and will not be detrimental to the orderly development of adjacent properties in accordance with the zoning classification of such properties. He reminded members that such a project must be in accordance with other goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, such as availability of public transit services, which will not be available to this area. Mr. Salters reminded members that those involved in the PLUS process and making decisions to limit growth east of SR1 are politicians. As politicians change, ideas and plans change. He relayed concern with not allowing property owners the privilege to develop their property and allowing them the opportunity for due process. It was his feeling that if this matter is not referred to the Planning Commission, then Council would be taking this right away from the owner. Mr. Hogan stated that although he is very much in support of the preservation of farmland, he is very interested in the City growing. He noted that this property was located within the City limits before SR1 was constructed. He realizes that the proposal has both pros and cons and the importance of this decision. Mr. Hogan indicated that his decision will be based on what is best for the City. Responding, Mr. Ruane advised members that the City chose SR1 as a boundary. If Council no longer agrees with this boundary, then he suggested that the City consider making this change. The Comprehensive Plan was reviewed with the policy statement that the City’s official policy is to keep SR1 as the urban boundary. He suggested that Council reject the proposed project and open negotiations with the State and the County to have the boundary changed and then such an application could be considered. The motion to refer the Bay Village of Dover Planned Neighborhood Design Proposal to the Planning Commission for further detailed analysis and

MI-10-05 Bay Village – Planned Neighborhood Design General Sketch Plan Review by City Council – March 8, 2010 Page 7 consideration, as recommended by staff, was carried by a roll call vote of seven (7) yes, and one (1) no (Mr. Ruane) (Mr. Slavin absent). This proposal ultimately did not move forward to the Planning Commission, and the State purchased development rights on a portion of the subject land. This current application is to develop the remaining portion of the land that is not subject to the easement. PLUS Review The State of Delaware reviewed the proposed development application in June 2009 through the Preliminary Land Use Service (PLUS) process. The PLUS comments received from the State are attached to this report. The applicant must submit a response to these PLUS comments prior to submitting an application to the Planning Commission. Action Required by City Council City Council must determine if the project proposal is of a design and type that warrants further review by the Planning Commission. If City Council believes that the proposal warrants review by the Planning Commission, a motion should be passed to refer the application to the Planning Commission. Advisory Comments to the Applicant 1. The City Council may choose not to forward a proposal to the Planning Commission. In such instances, the proposal would be considered denied. 2. The act of forwarding the proposal to the Planning Commission for further review does not represent, nor shall it be construed to mean that the project is approved, nor is it intended to represent that any variances necessary to construct the project are approved or supported by City Council. Attachments: Sketch Plan Submitted by Applicant Exhibit Map Showing Project Location Letter from Applicant Explaining Proposal PLUS Comment Letter Dated July 22, 2009 cc: Project File MI-10-05 LD Shank, Applicant

City of Dover Application No.: MI-10-05 Department of Planning & Inspections IPM R-8 R-20 IPM-2 Site RM-2 A Plan Title: Lands of Bay Village Legend Location: White Oak Road Road Plan Type: Planned Neighborhood Development Dover Parcels Tax Parcels: LC-05-068.00-01-03.01-000, LC-05-068.00-01-04.00-000, Zoning LC-05-068.00-01-05.00-000, SWPOZ Tier 2 LC-05-068.00-01-06.00-000 Zoning: RM-2 and SWPOZ – Tier 2 Primary Wellhead Protection Area Owner: Bay Village, LLC Date: 12-13-09 0 390 780 1,560 Feet «

July 22, 2009 Mr. Jason Halpin Halpin Engineering & Design, LLC 1465 Cedar Land Road Middletown, DE 19709 RE: PLUS 2009-06-03; Evergreen Acres Dear Mr. Halpin: Thank you for meeting with State agency planners on June 24, 2009 to discuss the proposed plans for the Evergreen project to be located on the south side of White Oak Road, approximately 2,000 ft. southeast of State Route 1 and White Oak Road intersection. According to the information received, you are seeking a rezoning of 79.16 acres from AR to RM-2 for a 480 unit residential subdivision. Please note that changes to the plan, other than those suggested in this letter, could result in additional comments from the State. Additionally, these comments reflect only issues that are the responsibility of the agencies represented at the meeting. The developers will also need to comply with any Federal, State and local regulations regarding this property. We also note that as Sussex County is the governing authority over this land, the developers will need to comply with any and all regulations/restrictions set forth by the County. Executive Summary The following section includes some site specific highlights from the agency comments found in this letter. This summary is provided for your convenience and reference. The full text of this letter represents the official state response to this project. Our office notes that the applicants are responsible for reading and responding to this letter and all comments contained within it in their entirety.

PLUS – 2009-06-03 Page 2 of 26 State Strategies/Project Location This project represents a major land development application that will result in 480 residential units East of Route 1 in the City of Dover. This project is located in Investment Levels 2 and 3 according to the Strategies for State Policies and Spending. Although areas located in Investment Level 2 are typically seen as favorable for new development and State Investments by the State Strategies, the project’s location East of State Route 1 is of particular concern. We have considered this conceptual subdivision plan as it relates to the City of Dover’s certified comprehensive plan and the 1999 MOU that addresses the development of the Garrison Oak Business Park and the area East of Route 1. Our office does not object to the development of this site as “workforce housing” in conjunction with the development of the Garrison Oak Business Park, with the following conditions: • The plan should be revised to improve the protection of natural resources on and adjacent to the site, and to protect sourcewater resources. See DNREC’s comments in this letter for more detail. • Final plan documents should show and document the State owned conservation easement adjacent to this property. • The plan should address land preservation goals for the area East of Route 1, perhaps as a TDR receiving area. • The City should review this plan in the context of the “master plan” for Garrison Oak Business Park, and phase approvals and construction to coincide with business park development. • It is recommended that the two sides of the community be connected by pedestrian and vehicular access ways. Street Design and Transportation • DelDOT estimates that the proposed development would generate about 3,284 vehicle trip ends per day and about 310 vehicle trip ends in the evening peak hour. This trip generation is significantly greater than the 1,980 vehicle trip ends per day shown on the PLUS application and it places the project in a range wherein a traffic impact study (TIS) is required by DelDOT regulations • DelDOT supports the idea of having two entrances for a development the size of the one proposed, and under normal circumstances the amount of frontage that the subject parcel has would probably be sufficient to allow it. However, the bridge over the Little River may be a constraint.

PLUS – 2009-06-03 Page 3 of 26 • DelDOT recommends that at least one of the travelways in the apartment and condominium complex be connected to the main street serving the rest of the development. • DelDOT suggests that the entrance to the Garrison Oak Business Park be relocated to a location opposite the proposed East entrance to this development. • DelDOT suggests that the main entrance road in this development leading from the East entrance be extended with a street stub, and that it be redesigned so that it may become the northerly portion of the service road leading from Garrison Oak to the Route 8 interchange. Natural and Cultural Resources • From several indicators (hydric soils, wetlands, floodplain, tax ditch/drainage), the site is wet, suggesting that this site is not the most favorable place to develop houses. • Impervious cover: The applicant indicated on the PLUS Application Form that impervious cover was projected at 17%. According to the TR-55 methodology for determining impervious cover, given a mixed (single family, duplex, townhouse, and apartment/condominium) residential development that averages 6 units/acre (gross density), impervious cover is more likely to be between 38 and 65 percent. This is particularly significant, given the palustrine headwater water riparian wetlands associated with the Little River in the southern portion of the development and the potential effect on water quality and the maintenance of ecological integrity and functions throughout the length of the stream; also, this site lies almost totally within a wellhead protection area. • Wetlands: We highly recommend that the wetlands delineation be submitted to the U.S Army Corps of Engineers for their review. Any stormwater BMP of any type in State-regulated wetlands would require a permit; there is no guarantee that a permit would be granted, depending on what exactly was being proposed. This office has received the following comments from State agencies: Office of State Planning Coordination – Contact: David Edgell 739-3090 This project represents a major land development application that will result in 480 residential units East of Route 1 in the City of Dover. This project is located in Investment Levels 2 and 3 according to the Strategies for State Policies and Spending. Although areas located in Investment Level 2 are typically seen as favorable for new development and State Investments by the State Strategies, the project’s location East of State Route 1 is of particular concern.

PLUS – 2009-06-03 Page 4 of 26 This application involves the lands formerly reviewed as Bay Village of Dover (PLUS 2004-08-09). The State strongly opposed the Bay Village of Dover plan, and in fact purchased a conservation easement on a portion of these lands to prevent large scale development of the parcel. In accordance with the City of Dover’s recent comprehensive plan update (certified by the Governor on February 9, 2009) these lands were designated for future medium density residential use. As a part of the State review of Dover’s comprehensive plan we identified the following criteria that would be acceptable to the State to guide future development of the parcel. Our comments on the concept plan follow each criterion. Criteria 1: The lands are developed in a manner which respects the environmental features on the site, including wetlands, woodlands and wellhead protection areas; Comment: The subdivision plan makes some honest efforts to preserve environmental features on the site and buffer adjacent forest and wetland areas. Yet this is clearly a maximum yield plan, and it is recommended that more be done to protect the on-site and adjacent natural features. See DNREC’s comments below for more detail. Please be advised that DNREC cautions that hydric soils, headwater wetlands, and floodplain areas all create challenges to developing this site in an environmentally sensitive manner. We encourage the developer to work with DNREC and the City to develop a sustainable design for this sensitive site. Criteria 2: The project respects the conservation easement purchased by the State; Comment: The concept subdivision plan appears to respect the boundaries of this conservation easement. It is strongly recommended that final plan documents show the boundaries of the easement and reference easement documents in the notes. Criteria 3: The project enhances land conservation objectives East of Route 1, perhaps as a TDR receiving area; Comment: The applicant provided no information about this topic as a part of their application, or during the PLUS meeting. It is strongly encouraged that the applicant and the City work together to address this State comment through the rezoning and subdivision process. Criteria 4: The project is developed as “workforce housing” and is developed in conjunction with the Garrison Oak business park; and Comment: The applicants have presented this project as a “workforce housing” proposal, with price points geared towards working families. Our office strongly recommends that this plan be reviewed in the context of the larger effort to “master plan” the Garrison Oak business park. The City should require revisions

PLUS – 2009-06-03 Page 5 of 26 and conditions to this plan through its approval process to ensure harmony between the economic development uses and the new housing on this site. It is further recommended that the City phase this development so that construction begins in conjunction with the business park. Criteria 5: There is a clear understanding by all parties that this development is a special circumstance which addresses both economic development and land conservation objectives, and does not in any way represent a policy shift which would allow or encourage other land developments E. of Route 1. Comment: Our office does not object to the development of workforce housing on this site in conjunction with the Garrison Oak business park development. It is the State’s hope that the City will honor its commitments in regards to the 1999 MOU regarding business park funding and development and in the certified Dover Comprehensive Plan and ensure that additional development does not occur in this area. In addition to these criteria, we would like to close by offering one design comment. The plan presented at the PLUS meeting did not have an interconnection between the multi- family portion of the project and the single family / duplex / townhouse area. This is very undesirable because it will complicate emergency access and service delivery, promote unnecessary car trips, and limit interaction between the two sides of the community. It is recommended that the two sides of the community be connected by vehicular and pedestrian access ways. State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) – Contact: Terrence Burns 739-5685 There does not appear to be any known historic or cultural resources such as archaeological sites or National Register listed properties on or within this project area, and the Division of Historical & Cultural Affairs has no objection with this development project. However, if this development goes forward as proposed, they request that there be sufficient landscaping around this development in order to block any noise or visual intrusions if there happens to be any potential historic houses nearby. If you would like to discuss this issue further or technical assistance, please contact Terence Burns at (302) 736-7404. Department of Transportation – Contact: Bill Brockenbrough 760-2109 L.D. Shank seeks to build a residential development consisting of 41 single-family detached houses, 20 duplex (semi-detached) houses, 64 townhouses, 139 condominium apartments and 216 rental apartments on a 79.16-acre parcel (Tax Parcel LC-05-068.00- 01-06.00). The land is located in the City of Dover on the south side of White Oak Road (Kent Road 66), for the most part immediately east of the Little River. The land is zoned Agricultural and a rezoning to RM-2 would be needed to permit the development.

PLUS – 2009-06-03 Page 6 of 26 1) DelDOT estimates that the proposed development would generate about 3,284 vehicle trip ends per day and about 310 vehicle trip ends in the evening peak hour. This trip generation is significantly greater than the 1,980 vehicle trip ends per day shown on the PLUS application and it places the project in a range wherein a traffic impact study (TIS) is required by DelDOT regulations. This study may lead to requirements for off-site improvements beyond those discussed below. It is recommended that the developer have their traffic engineer contact Mr. Troy Brestel of this office when they are ready to discuss the scope of work for that study. Mr. Brestel may be reached at (302) 760-2167. 2) Immediately across White Oak Road from the subject site is the Garrison Oak tract, where the City proposes to develop a technology park. One of the challenges that City faces in developing this park is obtaining access to Delaware Route 1. White Oak Road is not a desirable place for such access due to the proximity of the main line toll plaza to the north. In the initial planning for the technology park, a service road to connect the park to Delaware Route 8 was contemplated. This service road would begin opposite the existing farm lane on the property, extend along an existing tree line to the edge of Route 1 and extend south along Route 1 to the Cartanza Property (Tax Parcel ED-05-068.00-01- 07.00). From there it would either follow the Route 1 on-ramp south to Route 8 or swing east and follow an existing farm lane south to intersect Route 8 opposite Fox Road (Kent Road 344). As proposed, however, the north end of this service road would have poor sight distance with respect to eastbound traffic on White Oak Road crossing the bridge over Route 1. DelDOT has expressed concerns to the City previously about the development of a technology park on the Garrison Oak tract. However, if the City still intends to develop the park there, DelDOT suggests that the proposed east entrance to the subject development is a better location for the technology park entrance. For that reason they recommend that the City require Mr. Shank to extend the street leading in from the east entrance straight to the rear property line, at Tax Ditch Prong B, to serve as the north end of the service road. An alignment for the continuation of the service road would still have to be determined, but one apparently viable option would be to extend it east to Long Point Road, which presently handles industrial traffic associated with a large borrow pit (sand and gravel quarry). Additional discussion with DelDOT regarding this issue is warranted. 3) White Oak Road is classified as a local road. Beginning just east of the Little River Bridge, and extending east, the road is substandard, having no shoulders and, from aerial photography, approximately 9.5 foot wide lanes. DelDOT anticipates requiring the developer to widen the road from the bridge to the east limits of their frontage to meet our standards for local roads, which include 11- foot lanes and 5-foot shoulders. Similarly, they anticipate requiring the developer to dedicate sufficient right-of-way to provide a depth of 30 feet from the road centerline to the right-of-way line, and to provide appropriate bicycle and

PLUS – 2009-06-03 Page 7 of 26 pedestrian facilities parallel to the right-of-way. The standard requirement is a 10-foot wide multi-use path in a 15-foot easement bordering the right-of-way. However DelDOT is willing to work with the City to the extent that their requirements differ and with the developer regarding the location of the easement. 4) DelDOT supports the idea of having two entrances for a development the size of the one proposed, and under normal circumstances the amount of frontage that the subject parcel has would probably be sufficient to allow it. However, the bridge over the Little River may be a constraint. Normally they do not permit a right- turn deceleration lane to begin on a bridge because of the proximity to the parapet wall. It is recommended that the developer’s site engineer check the adequacy of the entrance locations early in the plan development process. Mr. Julio Seneus, the DelDOT Subdivision Manager for the city of Dover, can provide assistance in this regard if necessary. Mr. Seneus may be reached at (302) 760-2145. 5) DelDOT recommends that at least one of the travelways in the apartment and condominium complex be connected to the main street serving the rest of the development. One way to do that would be to eliminate the cul-de-sac proposed next to the condominium building. The intent would be to provide secondary access to both parts of the development in case one of the entrances becomes blocked, such as by an accident or utility construction. 6) DelDOT notes that a 16-foot travelway is proposed for at least one part of the apartment and condominium complex. Such a width is workable in low-volume situations with a negligible number of trucks and a strict prohibition on parking. However, they question the ability of the developer or their management company to maintain those conditions. They would urge the City to consider requiring at least 20-foot travelways. The Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control – Contact: Kevin Coyle 739-9071 DNREC’s concerns about this project include: • What appears to be a significant underestimation of impervious cover for a project that lies entirely within a City of Dover wellhead protection area; • The location of the project along the southern boundary of palustrine headwater water riparian wetlands associated with the Little River and the potential effect on water quality and the maintenance of ecological integrity and functions throughout the length of the stream; and • The impact of impervious cover and development near these headwater wetlands on an already impaired watershed.

PLUS – 2009-06-03 Page 8 of 26 DNREC strongly urges the developer to consider reconfiguring the project to less than a maximum-yield site plan to preserve more forest cover and protect habitat and water quality. Fish and Wildlife Rare Species. DNREC Fish and Wildlife Division scientists have not surveyed this project area; therefore, they are unable to provide information pertaining to the existence of State-rare or federally listed plants, animals or natural communities at this project site. Forest Preservation. Cumulative forest loss throughout the State is of utmost concern to the Division of Fish and Wildlife, which is responsible for conserving and managing the State’s wildlife (see www.fw.delaware.gov and the Delaware Code, Title 7). Because of an overall lack of forest protection, we have to rely on landowners and/or the entity that approves the project (i.e. counties and municipalities) to consider implementing measures that will aid in forest loss reduction. With a maximum yield site plan such as this one, there are few measures that will minimize habitat loss other than downsizing or reconfiguration so that a larger area of forest is left as open space. Forested wetlands are especially important as this habitat type can support an array of plant and animal species. To reduce impacts to nesting birds and other wildlife species that utilize forests for breeding, we recommend that clearing not occur April 1st to July 31st. This clearing recommendation would only protect those species during one breeding season; because once trees are cleared the result is an overall loss of habitat. The site plan depicts a minimum of 100-foot wetland buffers; DNREC highly recommends that this buffer zone be comprised of the existing trees and vegetation, not a maintained lawn area. This buffer area should not contain structures, lot lines, or infrastructure. Forested buffers serve as critical habitat for many terrestrial species that are dependent on aquatic and wetlands habitats for a portion of their annual life cycle. Buffers are also an integral component of aquatic and wetland habitats, reducing the amount of sediments, pollutants, and other non-point source material that may affect the function and integrity of habitat and the condition and survivability of aquatic organisms. Nuisance Species. Wet ponds created for stormwater management purposes may attract resident Canada geese and mute swans that will create a nuisance for community residents. High concentrations of waterfowl in ponds create water-quality problems, leave droppings on lawn and paved areas and can become aggressive during the nesting season. Short manicured lawns around ponds provide an attractive habitat for these species. DNREC recommends native plantings, including tall grasses, wildflowers, shrubs, and trees at the edge and within an adequate buffer (15-30 feet in width) around the ponds, to be planted in accordance with the Sediment and Stormwater Plan approval agency requirements. When the view of the surrounding area from the pond is blocked, geese can’t scan for predators and are less likely to reside and nest in the area of the pond.

PLUS – 2009-06-03 Page 9 of 26 At this time, DNREC does not recommend using monofilament grids due to the potential for birds and other wildlife to become entangled if the grids are not properly installed and maintained. In addition, the on-going maintenance (removing entangled trash, etc.) may become a burden to the homeowners association or land manager. The Division of Fish and Wildlife does not provide goose control services, and if problems arise, residents or the home-owners association will have to accept the burden of dealing with these species (e.g., permit applications, costs, securing services of certified wildlife professionals). Solutions can be costly and labor intensive; however, with a reduction in the number of ponds, proper landscaping, monitoring, and other techniques, geese problems can be minimized. Wildlife Entanglement. For erosion control, DNREC recommends the applicant consider using materials that are biodegradable and that don’t include plastic netting or have welded-joint poly-based matting. Wildlife entanglement in rolled erosion control products (RECP), especially that which contains plastic netting, is well documented throughout the U.S. (references available upon request). Some of these species are already undergoing major declines due to the impact of habitat loss, pollution, collection pressure and other causes. Plastic netting, even which marketed as ‘biodegradable,’ is particularly hazardous because of its durability, flexibility and resistance to degradation. Birds that occur within wetlands such as herons, ducks and geese are susceptible to entanglement, and snakes and lizards are particularly susceptible due to their twisting escape behavior when caught. Also, plastic netting is often placed on the ground or over vegetation where these species typically traverse or forage. Fishing Pond. According to PLUS materials, access to a pond on an adjacent property is planned to provide recreational opportunities for residents. Tax parcel information indicates that this pond is owned by the Delaware Department of Transportation. If this pond will have public access, the Division of Fish and Wildlife can provide technical assistance and potential funding to improve its use for anglers. If the applicant/landowner would like more information they can contact Jared Jacobini, Fisheries Biologist, DNREC-Division of Fish and Wildlife at (302) 653-2887. Edna Stetzar - (302) 653- 2880, Edna.Stetzar@state.de.us Soil and Water Sediment and Stormwater Program. A detailed sediment and stormwater plan will be required prior to any land disturbing activity taking place on the site. It is strongly recommended that the owner and consultant contact the Kent Conservation District to schedule a pre-application meeting to discuss the sediment and erosion control and stormwater management components of the plan. The site topography, soils mapping, pre- and post-development runoff, and proposed method(s) and location(s) of stormwater management should be brought to the meeting for discussion. The plan review and approval as well as construction inspection will be coordinated through the Kent

PLUS – 2009-06-03 Page 10 of 26 Conservation District. Contact Jared Adkins, Program Manager, at the Kent Conservation District at (302) 741-2600, ext. 3, for details regarding submittal requirements and fees. Because of the parcel's location in an impaired watershed and the amount of impervious surface, green-technology BMPs and low-impact development practices should be considered a priority to reduce stormwater flow and to meet water quality goals. Drainage Program. This project is located within the White Oak Tax Ditch, which has existing tax ditch rights-of-way. Any modification of the tax ditch or tax ditch right-of- way will require approval of the Tax Ditch Association and a change to the White Oak Tax Ditch court order. Please contact the Drainage Program in Georgetown at (302) 855- 1930 as soon as possible to request a review of the tax ditch rights-of-way. The proposed foot bridge and stormwater management areas may pose problems for maintenance of the tax ditch. Routine maintenance primarily consists of mowing ditch bank vegetation and the removal of small blockages. Periodic tax ditch reconstruction involves the removal of sediment from the ditch bottom to reestablish the original design grade. The removed sediment, referred to as spoil, is typically disposed of by spreading within the tax ditch right-of-way. Tax Ditch maintenance and the release of stormwater into the tax ditch should be discussed at the sediment and stormwater pre-application meeting. The Drainage Program requests that the engineer take precautions to ensure the project does not hinder any off-site drainage upstream of the project or create any off site drainage problems downstream by the release of onsite storm water. The Drainage Program requests that the engineer check existing downstream ditches and pipes for function and blockages prior to the construction. Notify downstream landowners of the change in volume of water released on them. Have all drainage easements recorded on deeds and place restrictions on obstructions within the easements to ensure access for periodic maintenance or future re-construction. Future property owners may not be aware of a drainage easement on their property if the easement is only on the record plan. However, by recording the drainage easement on the deed, the second owner, and any subsequent owner of the property, will be fully aware of the drainage easement on their property. Preserve existing riparian buffers on this site to aid in the reduction of nutrients, sediment, and other pollutants entering the watershed. Please explore methods to filter excess nutrients in stormwater runoff from this site before releasing the stormwater into the watershed. The Drainage Program does not support the removal of trees for the creation of stormwater management areas. However, the Drainage Program does recognize that tree removal is unavoidable in some cases. Where practical, plant native trees and shrubs to compensate for the loss of nutrient uptake and stormwater absorption the removed trees provided.

PLUS – 2009-06-03 Page 11 of 26 Sediment/Stormwater and Drainage comments provided by James Sullivan - (302) 739- 9921, James.Sullivan@state.de.us Flood Management. DNREC was unable to locate where the 1% annual chance floodplain line is located on the site plan. Using FEMA FIRM panel 10001C0186H, there is a Zone AE floodplain that runs north into the property from the 90 degree bend in the Little River. It appears as though the Condominium building, one apartment building, and multiple twins and single-family homes are located in the floodplain. We suggest altering the site plan to put as little development in the floodplain as possible. The additional burden of having to purchase flood insurance would be difficult for the "first- time homebuyers" this parcel is geared toward. They were also unable to determine the amount of fill being placed in the floodplain by looking at the site plan. Gregory Williams - (302) 739-9921, Gregory.Williams@state.de.us Water Resources Soils Assessment. According to the NRCS soil survey update Leipsic (LeB), Crosiadore (CsA), Tent (TeA), and Zekiah (Za) were mapped in the immediate vicinity of the proposed construction (See figure 1). Leipsic is a moderately well drained soil of low- lying uplands that has moderate limitations for development. Crosiadore is a somewhat poorly-drained transitional soil between wetlands and uplands that is likely to contain both wetland and upland soil types. Tent is a poorly-drained wetland associated (hydric) soil that has severe limitations for development. Zekiah is a very poorly-drained wetland associated (hydric) soil associated with floodplain or riparian wetlands and has severe limitations for development.

PLUS – 2009-06-03 Page 12 of 26 Figure 1: NRCS soil survey update mapping in the vicinity of Evergreen Acres Wetlands. According to the Statewide Wetland Mapping Project (SWMP) mapping, palustrine scrub-shrub emergent wetlands (PSS1/EM1A) and palustrine forested wetlands (PF01/3A & PF04/1A) were mapped in much of the northeastern portion of the parcel. Palustrine riparian wetlands (PFO1C7) wetlands bound the southeastern portion of this parcel (Figure 2).

PLUS – 2009-06-03 Page 13 of 26 Figure 2: SWMP mapping in the immediate vicinity of Evergreen Acres The applicant is responsible for determining whether any State-regulated wetlands (regulated pursuant to 7 Del.C. Chapter 66 and the Wetlands Regulations) are present on the property. This determination can only be made by contacting the Division of Water Resources’ Wetlands and Subaqueous Lands Section at 302/739-9943 and consulting the State’s official wetland regulatory maps, which depict the extent of State jurisdiction. The area regulated by State law may be very different from the area under federal authority. No activity may take place in State-regulated wetlands without a permit from DNREC’s Wetlands Section. In addition, most perennial streams and ditches and many intermittent streams and ditches are regulated pursuant to the Subaqueous Lands Act (7 Del.C. Chapter 72) and the Regulations Governing the Use of Subaqueous Lands. Ponds which are connected to other waters are also regulated, while isolated ponds are not. Any work in regulated streams, ditches or ponds requires a permit from the Wetlands and Subaqueous Lands Section. An on-site jurisdictional determination is recommended in order to determine whether any regulated watercourses exist on the property. Please Note: Little River and its associated headwater wetlands bound the southern boundary of the proposed project; regulatory requirements that specifically restrict impacts to riparian wetlands are provided in the aforementioned provisions of the State Code. Please contact the Wetlands and Subaqueous Lands Section at 302-739-9943 to schedule an on-site visit. Such appointments can usually be scheduled within 2 to 3 weeks. Also, when designing a project on a site with regulated watercourses, any

PLUS – 2009-06-03 Page 14 of 26 extensive piping, filling or burying of streams or ditches in excess of minimum needed for road crossings should be avoided. Where road crossing are necessary, bridge spans which avoid significant impacts to stream banks and channels should be used wherever possible. Where placement of culverts is unavoidable, culvert designs which utilize multiple barrels at different elevations to preserve low flow channel are preferred. Contact the Wetlands and Subaqueous Lands Section for further information regarding preferred designs. The applicant should also be reminded that they must avoid construction/filling activities in those areas containing wetlands or wetland associated hydric soils as they are subject to regulatory jurisdiction under Federal 404 provisions of the Clean Water Act. A site- specific field wetlands delineation using the methodology described in the 1987 United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE or “the Corps”) manual is the acceptable basis for making a jurisdictional wetland determination for nontidal wetlands in Delaware. The applicant is forewarned that the Corps views the use of the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping or the Statewide Wetlands Mapping Project (SWMP) mapping as an unacceptable substitute for making such delineations. To ensure compliance with said Corps regulatory requirements, it is strongly recommended that a field wetlands delineation using the above-referenced methodology be performed on this parcel before commencing any construction activities. It is further recommended that the Corps be given the opportunity to officially approve the completed delineation. In circumstances where the applicant or applicant’s consultant delineates what they believe are nonjurisdictional isolated (SWANCC) wetlands, the Corps must be contacted to evaluate and assess the jurisdictional validity of such a delineation. The final jurisdictional authority for making isolated wetlands determinations rests with the Corps; they can be reached by phone at 736-9763. As noted previously, the palustrine headwater water riparian wetlands associated with the Little River bound a portion of the southern boundary of the proposed project area. Headwater riparian wetlands serve to protect water quality which helps maintain the ecological integrity and functions throughout the length of the stream, including the floodplain system and/or water bodies further downstream. Since headwater riparian wetlands serve as natural buffers that protect the water and habitat quality of steams from sediment and nutrient-laden runoff, their protection deserves the highest priority. Therefore, the Watershed Assessment Section strongly recommends that a 100-foot upland buffer be maintained or established from the riparian wetlands bounding the Little River. A literature review of existing buffer research by Castelle et al. (Castelle, A. J., A. W. Johnson and C. Conolly. 1994. Wetland and Stream Buffer Requirements – A Review. J. Environ. Qual. 23: 878-882) has documented consensus among researchers that a 100-foot upland buffer is the minimum buffer width necessary, under most circumstances, to protect water quality. Impervious Surfaces and Best Management Practices. Based on a review of the PLUS application form, post-construction surface imperviousness was projected to reach

PLUS – 2009-06-03 Page 15 of 26 about 18 percent. However, given the projected scope and density of this project this estimate appears to significantly understate the actual amount of created post- construction surface imperviousness. When calculating surface imperviousness, it is important to consider all created forms of constructed surface imperviousness (i.e., rooftops, sidewalks, roads, and stormwater management structures) in the calculation for surface imperviousness; otherwise, an inaccurate assessment of this project’s environmental impacts will result. Surface imperviousness should be recalculated if the above-mentioned forms of constructed surface imperviousness were not included. Studies have shown a strong relationship between increases in impervious cover to decreases in a watershed’s overall water quality. It is strongly recommended that the applicant implement best management practices (BMPs) that reduce or mitigate some of its most likely adverse impacts. Reducing the amount of surface imperviousness through the use of pervious paving materials (“pervious pavers”) in lieu of asphalt or concrete in conjunction with an increase in forest cover preservation or additional tree plantings are some examples of practical BMPs that could easily be implemented to help reduce surface imperviousness. TMDLs. Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for nitrogen and phosphorus have been promulgated through regulation for the Leipsic River watershed. A TMDL is the maximum level of pollution allowed for a given pollutant below which a “water quality limited water body” can assimilate and still meet water quality standards to the extent necessary to support use goals such as, swimming, fishing, drinking water and shell fish harvesting. Although TMDLs are required by federal law, states are charged with developing and implementing standards to support these desired use goals. In the Leipsic River watershed, “target-rate-nutrient reductions” of 40 percent for both nitrogen and phosphorus are required. Additionally, “target-rate-reductions” of 75 percent will be required for bacteria. A pollution control strategy will be used as a regulatory framework to ensure that these nutrient reduction targets are attained. The Department has developed an assessment tool to evaluate how your proposed development may reduce nutrients to meet the TMDL requirements. Additional nutrient reductions may be possible through the implementation of BMPs such as increasing the amount of passive, wooded open space (planted with native woody and herbaceous vegetation), wider vegetated buffers along watercourses, use of pervious paving materials to reduce surface imperviousness, and the deployment of green-technology stormwater management treatment technologies. Contact Lyle Jones at 302-739-9939 for more information on the assessment tool. Soils, wetlands, subaqueous lands and TMDL comments provided by John Martin, Watershed Assessment Section, (302) 739-9939, John.Martin@state.de.us Water Supply. The project information sheets state water will be provided to the project by the City of Dover via a public water system. Our records indicate that the project is located within the public water service area granted to the City of Dover under Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity 90-CPCN-07.

PLUS – 2009-06-03 Page 16 of 26 Should dewatering points be needed during any phase of construction, a dewatering well construction permit must be obtained from the Water Supply Section prior to construction of the well points. In addition, a water allocation permit will be needed if the pumping rate will exceed 50,000 gallons per day at any time during operation. All well permit applications must be prepared and signed by licensed water well contractors, and only licensed well drillers may construct the wells. Please factor in the necessary time for processing the well permit applications into the construction schedule. Dewatering well permit applications typically take approximately four weeks to process, which allows the necessary time for technical review and advertising. Ricardo Rios - (302) 739-9944, Ricardo.Rios@state.de.us Water Resource Protection Areas. DNREC Water Supply Section, Ground-Water Protection Branch (GPB) has determined that the project falls entirely within a wellhead protection area for the City of Dover as delineated by DNREC. Although the City of Dover’s Source Water Protection Ordinance meets the minimum standards of protection, this protection does not extend over all the scientifically delineated wellhead areas. This project is located in one of these areas. Given that this is a wellhead protection area, the City is strongly encouraged to apply impervious cover limitations on this development. The Developer states that the impervious cover for this project is approximately 17%. Based on a review of the site plan, GPB finds this to be a significant underestimation (Figure 1). Impervious cover prevents precipitation from infiltrating through the soil to the water table aquifer. Impervious cover refers to structures including but not limited to roads, sidewalks, parking lots, and buildings. Any impervious cover within this wellhead protection area has the potential to have a negative affect the quality and quantity of drinking water available to the City. The DNREC Water Supply Section recommends that the portion of the new development within the scientifically delineated wellhead protection area not exceed 20% impervious cover (DNREC, 2005). Some allowance for augmenting ground-water recharge should be implemented if the impervious cover exceeds 20% but is less than 50%. However, the development should not exceed 50%. A water balance calculation should be required to determine the quantity of clean water to be recharged via a recharge basin (Kaufmann, 2005). The purpose of an impervious cover threshold is to minimize loss of recharge (and associated increases in storm water) and protect the quality and quantity of ground water and surface water supplies. In addition, because the project is located within a wellhead protection area and the wellhead is a source of public drinking water, the storage of hazardous substances or wastes should not be allowed within the area unless specific approval is obtained from the relevant state, federal, or local program. References

PLUS – 2009-06-03 Page 17 of 26 Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, 2005, Source Water Protection Guidance Manual for the Local Governments of Delaware, p. 144. http://www.wr.udel.edu/publications/SWAPP/swapp_manual_final/swapp_guidan ce_manual_final.pdf Kauffman, G.J., Wozniak, S.L., and Vonck, K.J., 2005, Delaware Ground-Water Recharge Design Manual: Newark, DE, Water Resources Agency, University of Delaware, p. 31. Listed as: “Supplement 1 – Groundwater Recharge Design Methodology” http://www.wr.udel.edu/swaphome/Publications/SWPguidancemanual.html Figure 1. Site Plan for Evergreen Acres (PLUS 2009-06-03) Impervious cover is shaded in orange. The Blue areas are storm water management ponds. Anne Mundel - (302) 739-9945, Anne.Mundel@state.de.us Parks and Recreation In May and June of 2008, the Division of Parks and Recreation conducted a telephone survey of Delaware residents to gather information on outdoor recreation patterns and preferences as well as other information on their landscape perception. These findings

PLUS – 2009-06-03 Page 18 of 26 will be the foundation of the 2008-2011 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) providing guidance for investments in needed outdoor recreation facilities. Eighty-eight percent of residents living in Kent County indicated that outdoor recreation was very or somewhat important to them. With Kent County residents living an average of six miles from the nearest outdoor recreation facility, nearly two thirds (62%) of residents interviewed indicated the need for more close to home outdoor recreation opportunities. Based on the public opinion survey, the most needed outdoor recreation facilities in Kent County include: Walking/jogging paths, public swimming pools, bicycle paths, playgrounds, and picnic spaces or gathering areas. The Evergreen Acres project is on the eastern side of Rt. 1 and is removed from close to home and easily accessible active recreational opportunities. As proposed this design will provide 355 renter occupied units and 64 ‘first time homebuyer’ units. Most of these 419 units will be occupied by young families with children. In an effort to provide easily accessible close to home recreational opportunities, it is suggested that the proposed development include some of the recreational amenities mentioned above. The parcel to the southwest border of the proposed development (Parcel # ED05-068.00- 01-06.01) is owned and managed by the Delaware Department of Transportation. Has DelDOT granted public access to this pond? The applicant should demonstrate an agreement with DelDOT to provide recreational access to the adjacent 8-acre pond. Kendall Sommers - (302) 739-9242, Kendall.Sommers@state.de.us Air and Waste Air Quality. Housing developments may unnecessarily emit, or cause to be emitted, significant amounts of air contaminants into Delaware’s air, which will negatively impact public health, safety and welfare. These negative impacts are attributable to: • Emissions that form ozone and fine particulate matter; two pollutants relative to which Delaware currently violates federal health-based air quality standards, • The emission of greenhouse gases which are associated with climate change, and • The emission of air toxics. Air emissions generated from housing developments include emissions from: • Area sources like painting, lawn and garden equipment and the use of consumer products like roof coatings and roof primers. • The generation of electricity needed to support the homes in your development, and • Car and truck activity associated with the homes in your new development. These three air emissions components (i.e., area, electric power generation, and mobile sources) are quantified below, based on a per household/residential unit emission factor

PLUS – 2009-06-03 Page 19 of 26 that was developed using 2002 Delaware data. These emissions in the table represent the actual impact the Evergreen Acres development may have. Emissions Attributable to Evergreen Acres Subdivision (Tons per Year) Volatile Fine Organic Nitrogen Sulfur Particulate Carbon Compounds Oxides Dioxide Matter Dioxide (VOC) (NOx) (SO2) (PM2.5) (CO2) Direct Residential 14.9 1.6 1.4 1.8 60.2 Electrical Power ND* 5.9 20.5 ND* 3,021.2 Generation Mobile 22.0 23.0 0.7 0.3 14,186.4 Total 36.9 30.5 22.6 2.1 17,267.8 (*) Indicates data is not available. Note that emissions associated with the actual construction of the subdivision, including automobile and truck traffic from working in, or delivering products to the site, as well as site preparation, earth moving activities, road paving and other miscellaneous air emissions, are not reflected in the table above. Recommendations: The applicant shall comply with all applicable Delaware air quality regulations. These regulations include: Regulation 6 - • Using dust suppressants and measures to prevent Particulate Emissions transport of dust off-site from material stockpile, from Construction and material movement and use of unpaved roads. Materials Handling • Using covers on trucks that transport material to and from site to prevent visible emissions. Regulation 1113 – • Prohibiting open burns statewide during the Ozone Open Burning Season from May 1-Sept. 30 each year. • Prohibiting the burning of land clearing debris. • Prohibiting the burning of trash or building materials/debris. Regulation 1145 – • Restricting idling time for trucks and buses having a Excessive Idling of gross vehicle weight of over 8,500 pounds to no more Heavy Duty Vehicles than three minutes. Additional measures may be taken to substantially reduce the air emissions identified above. These measures include: • Constructing only energy efficient homes. Energy Star qualified homes are up to 30% more energy efficient than typical homes. These savings come from building envelope upgrades, high performance windows, controlled air infiltration, upgraded heating and air conditioning systems, tight duct systems and

PLUS – 2009-06-03 Page 20 of 26 upgraded water-heating equipment. Every percentage of increased energy efficiency translates into a percent reduction in pollution. The Energy Star Program is excellent way to save on energy costs and reduce air pollution. • Offering geothermal and/or photo voltaic energy options. These systems can significantly reduce emissions from electrical generation, and from the use of oil or gas heating equipment. • Providing tie-ins to the nearest bike paths and links to any nearby mass transport system. These measures can significantly reduce mobile source emissions. • Funding a lawnmower exchange program. New lawn and garden equipment emits significantly less than equipment as little as 7 years old, and may significantly reduce emissions from this new development. The builder could fund such a program for the new occupants. Additionally, the following measures will reduce emissions associated with the actual construction phase of the development: • Using retrofitted diesel engines during construction. This includes equipment that are on-site as well as equipment used to transport materials to and from site. • Using pre-painted/pre-coated flooring, cabinets, fencing, etc. These measures can significantly reduce the emission of VOCs from typical architectural coating operations. • Planting trees at residential units and in vegetative buffer areas. Trees reduce emissions by trapping dust particles and by replenishing oxygen. Trees also reduce energy emissions by cooling during the summer and by providing wind breaks in the winter, whereby reducing air conditioning needs by up to 30 percent and saving 20 to 50 percent on fuel costs. This is a partial list, and there are additional things that can be done to reduce the impact of the development on air quality. The applicant should submit a plan to the DNREC Air Quality Management Section which address the above listed measures, and that details all of the specific emission mitigation measures that will be incorporated into the Evergreen Acres development. Deanna Morozowich - (302) 739-9402, Deanna.Morozowich@state.de.us Hazardous Waste Sites. DNREC's Site Investigation and Restoration Branch (SIRB) has reviewed the proposed project. No SIRB sites were found within a ½-mile radius of the proposed development. One salvage yard, White Oak Salvage yard, is located approx. 0.13 miles north of the proposed development. Based on the previous agricultural use of the proposed project site, which may have involved the use of pesticides and herbicides, and the potential contamination from the salvage yard, SIRB recommends that a Phase I

PLUS – 2009-06-03 Page 21 of 26 Environmental Site Assessment be performed prior to development. In addition, should a release or imminent threat of a release of hazardous substances be discovered during the course of development (e.g., contaminated water or soil), construction activities should be discontinued immediately and DNREC should be notified at the 24-hour emergency number (800-662-8802). SIRB should also be contacted as soon as possible at 302-395- 2600 for further instructions. Krystal Stanley - (302) 395-2644, Krystal.Stanley@state.de.us Tank Management Branch. There is one inactive LUST site located within a quarter mile of the proposed project: Name: Garrison Farm Facility ID: 1-000589 Project: K9907126 No environmental impact is expected from the above inactive LUST sites. However, should any underground storage tanks or petroleum contaminated soil be discovered by any person during construction, the DNREC-TMB at (302) 395-2500 and the DNREC Emergency Response Hotline at (800) 662-8802 must be notified within 24 hours. Should any contamination be encountered, PVC pipe materials would have to be replaced with ductile steel and nitrile rubber gaskets in the contaminated areas. Also, please note that if any aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) less than 12,500 gallons are installed, they must be registered with the TMB. If any ASTs greater than 12,500 gallons are installed, they are also subject to installation approval by the TMB. Elizabeth Wolff - (302) 395-2500, Elizabeth.Wolff@state.de.us State Fire Marshal’s Office – Contact: Duane Fox 856-5298 No comments received regarding this project. Department of Agriculture - Contact: Scott Blaier 739-4811 The Department of Agriculture has no objections to the proposed project. The project is located within the City of Dover, and in Investment Level 2 and 3 areas according to the State’s Strategies for State Policies and Spending. Right Tree for the Right Place The Delaware Department of Agriculture Forest Service encourages the developer to use the “Right Tree for the Right Place” for any design considerations. This concept allows for the proper placement of trees to increase property values in upwards of 25% of appraised value and will reduce heating and cooling costs on average by 20 to 35 dollars per month. In addition, a landscape design that encompasses this approach will avoid future maintenance cost to the property owner and ensure a lasting forest resource.

PLUS – 2009-06-03 Page 22 of 26 Do Not Plant List Due to the high risk of mortality from insects and disease, the Delaware Forest Service does not recommend planting any of the following species: Callery Pear Leyland Cypress Red Oak (except for Willow Oak) Ash Trees Native Landscapes The Delaware Department of Agriculture and the Delaware Forest Service encourages the developer to use native trees and shrubs to buffer the property from the adjacent land- use activities near this site. A properly designed forested buffer can create wildlife habitat corridors and improve air quality to the area by removing six to eight tons of carbon dioxide annually and will clean our rivers and creeks of storm-water run-off pollutants. To learn more about acceptable native trees and how to avoid plants considered invasive to our local landscapes, please contact the Delaware Department of Agriculture Plant Industry Section at (302) 698-4500. Public Service Commission - Contact: Andrea Maucher 739-4247 Any expansion of natural gas or installation of a closed propane system must fall within Pipeline Safety guidelines. Contact: Malak Michael at (302) 739-4247. Delaware Economic Development Office – Contact: Jeff Stone 672-6849 No comments were received regarding this project Delaware Division of Public Health- Health Promotion Bureau- Contact: Michelle Eichinger (302) 744-1011 Ensuring that new residential and commercial development incorporates pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly features allows people to travel by foot or by bicycle and promotes physical activity as part of daily routines. Regular physical activity offers a number of health benefits, including maintenance of weight and prevention of heart disease, type 2 diabetes and other chronic diseases.1 Research shows that incorporating physical activity into daily routines has the potential to be a more effective and sustainable public health strategy than structured exercise programs. 2 This is particularly important considering about 65% of adult Delawareans are either overweight or obese. 3 This current obesity crisis is also affecting children. Approximately 37% of Delaware’s children are overweight or obese4, which places them at risk for a range of health consequences that

PLUS – 2009-06-03 Page 23 of 26 include abnormal cholesterol, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, asthma, depression and anxiety. 1 In Delaware, as in other states across the nation, certain patterns of land use can act as a barrier to physical activity and healthy eating for children and adults alike. Examples of such barriers include neighborhoods constructed without sidewalks or parks and shopping centers with full-service grocery stores situated too far from residential areas to allow for walking or biking between them. This proposed development is in a Level 2/3 area. Developing is such an area is consistent with the Strategies for State Policies and Spending. DPH is committed to the Strategies and therefore, does support development in the proposed area. DPH supports new development in and around existing towns and municipalities where compact and mixed land use patterns facilitate physical activity. As a way to promote physical activity and access to healthy foods, we recommend that the following amenities be included in the Evergreen Acres plan: Amenities to encourage active transportation • Ensure safe connectivity with sidewalks, crosswalks and walking/bicycling paths within the site. The planned cul-de-sac is not recommended. • Designate bike paths to supplement the sidewalks already so that residents can travel by foot or by bicycle to the site. In addition, install bike racks throughout the development in convenient and safe locations within the site, especially around the amenities for recreation. Amenities to encourage recreation • Designate open space for active recreation that promotes physical activity for all ages. Amenities to consider include a playground, tennis/basketball courts, horseshoe pit, etc. Ensure that amenities are centrally located in the site plan, and away from the main entrance to the site. Having the amenities too close to the entrance poses a safety concern due to the traffic volume in and out of the development. Having the amenities centrally located would encourage optimal use and accessibility. • The planned walking trail along the river is encouraged. Increase opportunities for healthy eating • Designate an area for a community garden. Community gardens not only provide residents access to healthy nutrition, but they also provide opportunities for physical activity and community cohesiveness.5 1 Nemours Health and Prevention Services (2005). Delaware Children’s Health Chartbook, Newark, DE. 2 Active Living by Design. Transportation Fact Sheet. Retrieved May 17, 2007, from http://www.activelivingbydesign.org/fileadmin/template/documents/factsheets/Transportation_Factsheet.pd f.

PLUS – 2009-06-03 Page 24 of 26 3 Delaware Health and Social Services (2008), Division of Public Health, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), 1990-2007. 4 Nemours Health and Prevention Services (2007). 2006 Delaware Survey of Children’s Health Descriptive Statistics Summary, Volume 1. 5 Hancock, T. (2001). People, partnerships and human progress: building community capital. Health Promotion International, 16(3), 275-80. Delaware State Housing Authority – Contact Valerie A. Miller 739-4263 This proposal is for a rezoning of 79 acres from AR-1 to RM-2 for 480 residential units, approximately 2,000 feet southeast of State Route 1 and White Oak Road Intersection, within the City of Dover. According to the State Strategies Map, the proposal is located in an Investment Level 2 and Level 3 area. DSHA supports this proposal because residents will have proximity to existing services, markets, and employment opportunities. In addition, this proposed subdivision is a residential planned community that features a variety of housing types and largely targets first-time homebuyers. These developments can be the most economical to construct, and are necessary to meet the needs of low- and moderate-income families. Furthermore, rental communities give residents housing options and create a balanced housing stock for the community. For informational purposes, the most recent real estate data collected by DSHA shows the median home price in Kent County to be $213,000. However, households earning respectively 100% of Kent County’s median income only qualify for mortgages of $205,035, thus creating an affordability gap of $7,965. The provision of units within reach of households earning at least 100% of Kent County’s median income would help increase their housing opportunities. Department of Education – Contact: John Marinucci 735-4055 This proposed development is within the Capital School District boundaries. DOE offers the following comments on behalf of the Capital School District. 1. Using the DOE standard formula, this development will generate an estimated 240 students. 2. DOE records indicate that the Capital School Districts' elementary schools are very close to 100% of current capacity based on September 30, 2008 elementary enrollment. 3. DOE records indicate that the Capital School Districts' secondary schools are very close to 100% of current capacity based on September 30, 2008 secondary enrollment. 4. This development will create additional elementary and secondary student population growth which the school district will need to address. 5. The developer is strongly encouraged to contact the Capital School District Administration to address the additional students that this development will likely generate. 6. DOE requests developer work with the Capital School District transportation department to establish developer supplied bus stop shelter ROW and shelter

PLUS – 2009-06-03 Page 25 of 26 structures, interspersed throughout the development as determined and recommended by the that school district. Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization- Contact: Jim Galvin 302- 387-6030 The Dover/Kent MPO has requested and has been offered the opportunity to comment on land use proposals in Kent County. They understand that the proposal under consideration by the City of Dover is the rezoning of the subject parcel and some minor subdivision changes. The package posted to the State’s PLUS site and to be considered in the PLUS meeting is the full subdivision of the property for several housing types. The MPO is compelled to comment on this proposal as our initial foray into plan review by the significance of the project and the opportunities it presents. They are taking the opportunity to review the substance of the PLUS submissions early in the process, rather than make our comments before the Dover Planning Commission. Notice and Disclosure: This evaluation was prepared by Jim Galvin. Mr. Galvin recommended the development of this project to the City of Dover City Council while the Director of Planning and Inspections in 2005. Jim was asked to assist the developer with this project; first while working for Davis, Bowen & Friedel in 2005 and then while unemployed. He last reviewed the status and plans in the spring of 2007. He met with the developer on the project one time in the past three years. Comments: Kent County is in the Philadelphia, PA NJ DE MD non-attainment area for air quality. One of the major factors impacting air quality is emissions from vehicles. A primary interest and responsibility of the MPO in a non-attainment area is reduction of transportation related vehicle emissions affecting air quality. Many of the comments are meant specifically to address the concerns. The plan provided in the PLUS package indicated two entrance roads to two separate sides of the proposed development and no interconnection. The MPO encourages this subdivision request, like all others, include interconnecting streets. This will reduce the frequency of vehicles being required to enter White Oak Road to travel to the other side of the neighborhood. White Oak Road is considered a local road. Neighborhood traffic using White Oak Road to make intra-neighborhood trips also unnecessarily burdens traffic flow. It is not obvious from the plan that there is intent to include sidewalks in the neighborhood. The MPO advocates the developer incorporate a Complete Streets concept. This should be a walkable neighborhood that facilitates safe pedestrian movement while reducing the reliance on an automobile for every trip. Similarly, the MPO advocates design that promotes the safe use of bicycles in a neighborhood and

PLUS – 2009-06-03 Page 26 of 26 interconnections in a community. The traffic volume in a neighborhood of this size should not be so great as to require designated bike lanes in the neighborhood streets. White Oak Road is more heavily traveled and at a higher speed, however. The MPO supports the DelDOT requirement for a bike lane on this road. There is no provision for a transit stop in the Plan, despite that the neighborhood is to have well over 1000 residents. The MPO recommends a transit stop be included in the plan. If it is not warranted immediately, it provides the opportunity for service in the near future. The 1000 residents of the subdivision will be required to drive anywhere for their daily needs, even to a store to purchase a gallon of milk or loaf of bread. These trips add to the already non-compliant air quality and traffic congestion of the County. Under most circumstances, the MPO would advocate services be included in the plan so the residents wouldn’t be required to drive everywhere for occasional trips. We would have suggested neighborhood grocery/convenience store or other services for developments of this size and density. This, however, is a unique site. Beyond the site to the east is the one other subdivision in which 11 single family detached log homes have been built. The addition of commercial establishments would likely serve owners to the east and perhaps encourage development further east. The benefit is that the trip to purchase those staples at a replacement for Metro in the Center at Dover, about one mile away or Safeway, about two miles away. The VMT is not as great as other projects outside the Growth Zone, though the number of trips, the vehicles on the road and their emissions are not reduced. For this project, the MPO is not advocating including commercial uses. PLUS reviews aren’t intended to dictate or critique design. There are, though, urban design considerations to this neighborhood plan that require citation. There is tremendous opportunity on this site to create a more cohesive community that supports the residents. We urge the developer to review the designs of projects in surrounding areas such as Cannery Village in Milton, or the Overlook in Dover. The characteristics these share is the sense of ‘place’ when developed. We encourage the developer to look for opportunities to create that in Evergreen Acres. Following receipt of this letter and upon filing of an application with the local jurisdiction, the applicant shall provide to the local jurisdiction and the Office of State Planning Coordination a written response to comments received as a result of the pre-application process, noting whether comments were incorporated into the project design or not and the reason therefore. Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions, please contact me at 302-739-3090. Sincerely, Constance C. Holland, AICP Director

SPECIAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT A Special Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee meeting was held on February 22, 2010, at 12:00 noon with Chairwoman Russell presiding. Members present were Mr. Ruane, Mr. Hogan, Mr. Lewis, and Mrs. Horsey. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Hogan moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mrs. Horsey and unanimously carried. Presentation - by Greater Dover Committee - Kent Sports Complex Ms. Linda Parkowski, Director, Delaware Economic Development Office, Tourism Division, explained that her office had received a number of Requests for Proposals to hold sporting events in Delaware and that these requests involved a significant amount of money. She subsequently met with Cindy Small, Executive Director, Kent County & Greater Dover Delaware Convention and Visitors Bureau, to discuss the possibility of locating such a facility in Delaware. Ms. Parkowski reviewed a presentation regarding a proposal for the construction of a sports complex in Kent County. She indicated that the complex could potentially include 15 multipurpose fields that could host “long-field” sports such as soccer, lacrosse, and field hockey, as well as other tournaments, and would also include a lighted turf stadium which could seat 1,000 people. She estimated that such a facility could result in an economic impact of as much as $30 million in one (1) year for Kent County. Ms. Parkowski noted that there is a need for more athletic fields in Kent County and that such a facility could alleviate problems stemming from the overuse of existing fields in the area. She anticipated that the facility would be organized through a public/private partnership and identified various potential stakeholders in the project. She reviewed a map of the proposed complex, which she explained would occupy 100 acres. She noted that Kent County donated a 600-acre site and offered effluent water from a nearby sewage treatment plant to irrigate the sports complex fields. Mr. Gregg Moore, President of the Greater Dover Committee (GDC), explained that his organization has adopted this project, believing that it could be a great enhancement to the community and a very strong economic development opportunity for Kent County and its municipalities. He explained that a consultant will be commissioned to perform a feasibility study to determine whether the proposed location, type of facility, number of fields, and connection with Route 1 are viable options. The study will also provide information regarding how other competing facilities operate, as well as who the owner and operator of the complex should be. He reviewed a map of the project’s proposed location, stating that the complex was originally considered for a location in central Dover; however, there were no properties large enough to accommodate 15-20 fields. However, the County had 600 acres of property which they were willing to donate. Mr. Moore stated the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) is planning to eliminate crossings on Route 1 to expedite traffic south and has designed an interchange directly at the proposed site, which is scheduled for construction in 2013. He felt that the high speed highway connection to Dover and the beaches is a key factor in the plan, stating that this would be a great asset to the project in terms of both accessibility and visibility, and projected a very positive economic impact for Dover, as families attending sporting events would be drawn to Dover lodging and attractions.

SPECIAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2010 PAGE 2 In response to Mr. Anthony DePrima, City Manager, Mr. Moore identified the area in discussion as being positioned off Route 1 near the bridge that crosses the Murderkill River, southeast of Frederica, and near the sewage treatment plant. He explained that Kent County had purchased the property surrounding the plant to prevent housing development in that area. Responding to Mr. Hogan, Ms. Parkowski explained that one option that is being considered as a funding source to help sustain the facility is a “room booking engine” which is an approach that is sometimes used by similar facilities. Under this system, when hotel rooms are booked for a tournament event, a rebate goes directly to the facility. She explained that this results in a user fee that is charged only to those who use the facility, as opposed to a general, overall tax. In response to Mr. Hogan, Mr. Moore stated that most Dover hotels are within 15-16 miles of the proposed site, which is similar to the situation in Downingtown, Pennsylvania, where a sports facility is currently operating successfully. He noted that this complex would be Dover’s closest competitor. He stated that Harrington hotels were approximately ten (10) miles from the site, but believed that the municipality of Dover would be the biggest beneficiary from users due to the availability of hotels and restaurants in close proximity to shopping in the City. Responding to Mr. Hogan, Ms. Parkowski stated that the proposed feasability study should provide recommendations to help identify an owner/operator for the facility, and that possibilities include a partnership arrangement or a non-profit group that hires a professional sports operator or management company. In response to Mr. Hogan, Mr. Moore indicated that baseball is not being proposed at the complex at this time because there are competing facilities presently both in northern Delaware and in southern Delaware. However, he stated that various types of offerings to be available at the site will also be considered in the feasibility study. Mr. DePrima provided a brief history of his involvement with the project, noting that it was first proposed for the City’s Garrison Tract. He stated this was ruled out as an option for various reasons, including zoning issues and the need to proceed with energy goals established by the City’s 2030 committee. He indicated that there was an attempt at that time to partner with Delaware State University for the project, but this was unsuccessful. In response to Mr. DePrima, Mr. Zachery Carter, Director of Parks and Recreation, confirmed that fields at Schutte Park are overused due to both league demands and utilization of the site for practice and “pick-up” games. Responding to Mr. Ruane, Ms. Parkowski stated that it is believed that, in order to be successful, the facility must operate 12-15 tournaments per year, but presumably could be used by the community the rest of the time. She emphasized that the feasibility study should provide information on which uses could be both economic generators and serve the community. In response to Mr. Ruane, Mr. Moore stated that the Central Delaware Soccer Association (CDSA) has been involved in the discussion regarding the facility and is interested in participating.

SPECIAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2010 PAGE 3 Responding to Mrs. Russell, Mr. Moore stated that he hopes the facility would operate at no cost to the taxpayers. However; he noted that the GDC plans to approach a number of different sources for money, including the State, Kent County, the City of Dover, other Kent County municipalities, and any outside entities who want to help build, fund, and operate the facility. Mr. Ruane noted that City of Dover taxpayer money is already at stake in that City residents contribute $2.5 million per year in County taxes and have, therefore, contributed to funds used to purchase the land. In response to Mrs. Russell, Mr. Carter stated he felt the facility would not impact use of Schutte Park, as local teams will still need a place to play, and the proposed complex would host large tournaments with entry fees of approximately $500-$700 per team. Responding to Mrs. Russell, Mr. Moore stated that he is currently hoping to raise funds for the feasibility study, which is estimated to cost from $50,000-$100,000. He noted that he had recently received proposals from five (5) firms, one of which is the Ripken Baseball Group of Maryland, which has had success operating a similar facility in Baltimore. In response to Mrs. Russell, Mr. Moore stated that the feasibility study would provide projections for the number of jobs that could be created in both construction and operation of the facility; however, he felt that the greatest potential benefit to Dover will be the thousands of people who will be drawn to the City, resulting in increased jobs in local hotels, restaurants, and stores. Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Moore projected that the feasibility study could take approximately three (3) months and that he anticipates the planning stage to continue for 12-18 months. Mr. Moore requested the City’s support for the project. Statistics Regarding Jobs and Businesses Gained and Lost in the City of Dover since July 2009 Mr. William Neaton, Economic Development Director, reviewed a report listing employment statistics on the 12 largest employers in the Dover area and explained that his office has established relationships with the management and human resources departments of these companies in order to track job growth or decline. He stated that he plans to update the Committee and Council with this information on a semi-annual basis. Mr. Hogan noted that Dover Downs is planning to hire approximately 200 people and that Wal-Mart is planning to leave Dover, which will result in job loss. In response to Mr. Ruane, Mr. Neaton stated that December statistics indicate a decline in the unemployment rate in Dover. Mr. Ruane noted that the Committee would benefit from information regarding specific employment sectors such as construction, manufacturing, and finance and noted that some of the smaller businesses are being hurt the most.

SPECIAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2010 PAGE 4 Mr. DePrima noted that the report is “organic” and will improve over time. He noted that the report is a good starting point and has value, as it allows staff to monitor employment trends. He felt that some decisions should be made on the boundaries to be included, noting that Comcast is not within City of Dover limits and that Wal-Mart will move outside City limits but will not result in job loss for residents of Dover. In addition, he suggested that statistics from Dover Air Force Base (civilian, uniformed, and active duty personnel) be added to the report. Mr. Neaton stated that information on the Air Force Base is readily available and will be provided to members. Benchmarks Established for the Economic Development Office Mr. William Neaton, Economic Development Director, reviewed a report on benchmarks established by the Economic Development Office. He explained that the Downtown Dover Partnership (DDP) recently partnered with an informal association of Bar, Restaurant, and Tavern owners in the downtown area, who will bring in three (3) or four (4) Friday night events to the area. He provided a verbal update to the report, stating that a total of three (3) new businesses have recently relocated to the downtown target area, resulting in the filling of three (3) vacant commercial tenant spaces. Mr. Neaton provided members an updated version of the Downtown Dover Partnership Vacant Building Inventory/Update (Attachment #1) for review. He noted that the format was revised to include property profiles, asking price, and contact information so that this information is readily available to interested parties. Mr. Ruane suggested that the achievements of the Downtown Dover Partnership be reflected in the report, including the good work done in assembling land parcels and assuming responsibility for managing DDP-owned parcels. Statistics Regarding the Percentage of Pitts Center Users Who Are Non-dover Residents Mr. Zachery Carter, Director of Parks and Recreation, reviewed the John W. Pitts Recreation Center Report of Participant Use, noting that 39% of all users are City residents, 53% non-City, and 8% are under age 12 or visitors. He indicated that non-revenue generating users consist of 41% City residents, 50% non-City, and 9% under 12 or visitors. He added that statistics for league play reflect that 20% of participants are City residents and 80% are from outside the City, and 33% of league sponsors are located in the City compared to 67% outside the City. In response to Mr. Hogan, Mr. Carter stated that access to the Open Gym varies by season and that there is sometimes no access available on Saturdays due to youth basketball and field hockey leagues. Mr. Hogan expressed frustration that the City is providing a “tremendous amount” of recreational opportunities for those residing outside of City limits. He felt that at some point, fees for non-City residents should be considered. Mr. Ruane suggested that the report be provided to the County and that they be encouraged to proceed with building an additional indoor recreation facility, as they had stated their intention to partner with the City in meeting this need for area residents.

SPECIAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2010 PAGE 5 In response to Mr. Ruane, Mr. DePrima indicated that he intends to share this information with Mr. Michael Petit de Mange, Kent County Administrator. UPDATES Puncheon Run Watershed Action Team Report Mr. Scott Koenig, Public Services Manager, stated that he had no further information to report at the current time. Planning and Funding for New Library Mr. Zachery Carter, Parks and Recreation Director, stated that the Library Fundraising Campaign is active and $100,000 has been raised to date. He noted that approval to hire an architectural firm to prepare construction documents for the new library will be considered by City Council on February 22, 2010. Comprehensive Plan for Implementation Status Report A written report was submitted by Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development. Skate Park Committee Mr. Chris Asay, member of the Skate Park Committee, stated that after receiving permission from the Committee to proceed with a temporary skate park, Skate Park Committee members evaluated the site of the former water treatment plant south of Legislative Hall, determined it would be adequate, and met with neighborhood residents who granted conditional approval pending more details. However, he explained that after meeting with Mr. DePrima and Mr. Carter at the site, it was determined that the location had drawbacks, including limited visibility for monitoring purposes, and would also require fencing, which would cost over $10,000. It was the conclusion of the Skate Park Committee that a temporary skate park was not a viable option and that the City is continuing to leave skateboarders on their own to find non-sanctioned surfaces for practicing their sport. Mr. Asay stated that the Skate Park Committee requests that the City: 1) incorporate a modest allocation in the Parks Department budget for in-house construction of “skate spots”, which are small concrete areas within larger parks in the city that could be built immediately; and 2) finalize a site to be designated for a larger, permanent regional skate park. He stated that it is the Skate Park Committee’s hope that this permanent project be incorporated in the master plan for Schutte Park. He noted that taking these steps would demonstrate the City’s commitment to providing local skateboarders with legitimate places to skate and allow the group to begin fundraising efforts. He stated that Kent County has expressed an interest in participating and requested that the Committee support these two (2) ideas. In response to Mrs. Horsey, Mr. Carter stated that Dover Park, Silver Lake, and a small area at Schutte Park are being considered for the addition of skate spots, which would provide locations in central Dover, as well as on the east and west sides. Mrs. Horsey expressed her support for these recommendations in view of the problems the City is currently experiencing due to unmonitored skateboarding activities.

SPECIAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2010 PAGE 6 Mr. DePrima stated that the Skate Park project, which includes identifying three locations for skate spots and preparing a proposed concept, budget, and design for a major park, is one of Mr. Carter’s evaluation goals. He stated the Skate Park Committee could assist in this process by producing a document that would outline its recommendations for Mr. Carter’s consideration. In response to Mr. Ruane’s request that funds for skate spots be included in the budget for the next fiscal year, Mr. DePrima stated that he and Mr. Carter were discussing both skate parks and spray parks but did not feel both could be funded simultaneously. He stated that he would like to get a recommendation from the Committee regarding their priorities. Youth Advisory Committee Mrs. Russell stated that the previous Youth Advisory Committee meeting was canceled due to inclement weather, but the group remains active. Mr. Hogan moved for adjournment, seconded by Mrs. Horsey and unanimously carried. Meeting Adjourned at 1:38 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Sophia R. Russell Chairwoman SRR/js/rr/tm S:\AGENDAS & MINUTES\Committee-Minutes\2010\02-22-2010 PR&CE.wpd Attachments Attachment #1 - Downtown Dover Partnership Vacant Building Inventory/Update

ATTACHMENT #1 PR & CE Meeting of 2/22/2010 DOWNTOWN DOVER PARTNERHSIP VACANT BUILDING INVENTORY/UPDATE Investment/Purchase Opportunity Building Name/Address Building/Owner Profile Property Profile Current Status Owner: Ashraf Monain *Two Parcel Building *Building is currently 139 Beach Drive *ea. Parcel has 5,000 listed with R&R Dover, DE 19904 SF Commercial Realty. *22 West Loockerman *Pending Sheriff Sale on Rep: R&R Commercial space vacant for past March 4th, 2010 Realty four yrs. *Listed for $265,000 (302) 674‐3400 *formerly “C” Moore Restaurant 22 – 24 W. Loockerman Street Owner: WSFS is holding *Formerly Ben’s *Pending Foreclosure the note on the property. Clothing & Shoes Store Processings. *Up to 2,200 SF on two *Property is being sold Rep: Patterson Schwartz floors AS‐IS. Real Estate *Listed for $115,000 (302) 672‐9400 138 – 140 W. Loockerman Street Owner: Edward Bolds *Building is currently *Property Owner has 706 Ponderosa Drive vacant expressed selling Magnolia, DD 19962 property. (302) 697‐0570 *Property to be sold AS‐IS *Property owner noted Status: Inactive Business $330,000 as selling price. 312 W. Loockerman Street Owner: Ernest Danneman *Up to 10,000 SF of *Building to be sold AS‐IS Dover Realty 1 Space on this site *Property listed at *Major renovation $900,000. Rep: R&R Commercial project needed to Realty restore building (302) 674‐3400 *half acre lot *includes adjacent parking spaces. 326 W. Loockerman Street Owner: Sherie Vaughn *Building has been *Property Owner has 11 Highview Ave vacant for the past five expressed selling Dover, DE 19904 years. property. (302) 678‐4402 *Up to 1,600 SF on two *Property to be sold AS‐IS floors. *Property owner noted Status: Vacant space *Retail space $185,000 as selling price. *Formerly Cell Phone opportunity Business 213 W. Loockerman Street

Owner: Sherie Vaughn *Property includes *Property Owner has 11 Highview Ave three parcels. expressed selling all three Dover, DE 19904 *ea. Space has up to parcels/properties as a (302) 678‐4402 1,200 SF. package deal. *Property currently is *Property to be sold AS‐IS Status: Property for Sale occupied by Needful *Selling price to be Things Consignment determined. Store 217‐221 W. Loockerman Street Owner: Sherie Vaughn *Building has been *Property Owner has 11 Highview Ave vacant for the past five expressed selling Dover, DE 19904 years. property. (302) 678‐4402 *Up to 1,400 SF on two *Property to be sold AS‐IS floors. *Property includes five Status: Property for Sale *Retail space parking spaces located at *Vacant space opportunity rear of building. *Property owner noted $150,000 as selling price. 225 W. Loockerman Street Owner: Terain Bordley *Building is currently *Property to be sold AS‐IS Chesapeake, VA 23380 vacant *Listed at $170,000. *Building is in Rep: Remax Horizon deteriorating Karen Smolarek conditions (302) 678‐4596 Status: Vacant Property 317‐319 W. Loockerman Street NAI Emory Hill Commercial *Ready to build Office *Build your own office or Realty Space built to suit quotes Dave Morrison *Building Pad provided (sale or lease) *Up to 20,000 SF on Site: Building Pad two floors *Near Eden Hill Medical Center 655 North Street Leasing Opportunity Building Name/Address Building Profile/ Building History Current Status Owner: Von Croy Rudolph *580 SF of Space *Lease for $531/Month *Great Retail Space Rep: Colonial Investment *Space vacant for past 9 E. Loockerman Street two years Ste 202 Status: Vacant Space 32 W. Loockerman Street, Ste 32A

Owner: Ann DeFransico *750 SF of Retail Space *Lease for $650/Month 142 W. Loockerman Street *Space vacant for past 2nd Floor year Status: Space vacant for past year. Formerly Wedding Boutique 142 W. Loockerman Street Owner: Del Mar Appliance *Space pending *Property owner to 230 S. Governors Ave renovations by owner. follow up with P&I on (302) 674‐2414 progress of renovations. Status: Vacant Space 210 S. Governors Avenue Owner: D&S Investments *Space was formerly *Lease for $950/Month Contact: Scott Slacum the Flower Shop. (302) 233‐1971 *Space vacant for the past year. Status: Vacant *Space needs major renovation work. 131 W. Loockerman Street Owner: CABE Engineering *3,000 SF available on *$14 per square foot, net 1st floor. Rep: McGinnis Commercial Real Estate 555 E. Loockerman Street Status: Available Space 144 S. Governors Ave Pending Redevelopment Project Owner: Jessica Moore *Building is pending *Property owner will not Dover, DE final renovation phase. return calls or provide updates on project Status: Vacant past three progress. years 201 W. Loockerman Street

Owner: Henry Mast *Pending Demolition *Pending Redevelopment Capitol Plaza, LLC Process. site. 144 Kings Hwy 200 – 216 W. Loockerman Street

Kent County Sport Facility: Making a Dream a Reality Greater Dover Committee

Questions? • What can meet the wants and needs of the majority of youth in Kent County area? • What can serve as an economic generator by attracting visitors to Kent County? • What is somewhat recession proof? • What is healthy and receives parental support? • What can enhances overall quality of life for everyone in Kent County?

ANSWER Sport & A Sport Facility •

IMAGINE • 15 multipurpose fields hosting soccer, lacrosse, field hockey and football. • A lighted, Turf stadium seating for up to 1000, • A concession stand and pro shop. • Locker rooms, meeting rooms, and restrooms. • Thousands of children and adults from Kent County using the facility • Thousands of outside visitors in Kent County because of the facility

IMAGINE United Sports Training Center Downingtown, PA

Benefits of Kent County Sport Facility • Economic Impact • Increased Visitors/Tourist to County • Improved Quality of Life in Kent County • Recreational Outlet for Youth • Increased Property Values and taxes • Increased County and State Visibility • Effective Use of County Land Bank • Could host State Championships

Benefits of Kent County Facility • Allows Kent County and State to pursue bids to host more youth sport events • Increased Revenues for Hotels, Restaurants and Shopping • Job creation • Better ROI than other possible facilities • Brings people from different backgrounds together

Economic Impact Facts • Amateur Sport – Estimated $3.3 billion to $4 billion in direct spending at amateur sports events in the United States. – That's more than 10 times the estimated economic impact of the 2005 Super Bowl. • The Greater Chattanooga Sports and Events Committee – estimated that economic impact generated from sporting events held in Chattanooga in 2005, surpassed the $23.8 million mark.

Economic Impact Facts • U.S. Youth Soccer Region 1 Championships • Charlestown, West Virginia • Provided over $ 12 million in economic impact • Over 20,000 people in 5 days

Why Tournaments? • The visitors shop in our stores • Eat in our restaurants • Stay in our hotelsÆpay accommodations tax • Buy groceries and snacks • Buy gas and pay tolls • ** All with out-of-state money**

To Host Tournaments Selection criteria for tournament site committees includes: • At least 14 fields in one location • Minimum number of Hotels in close proximity • Variety of Restaurants in close proximity. • Central geographic location for individuals and or teams participating.

Tournaments • Imagine a permanent home for the Tournament of Bands • 10,000 participants plus 7,000 spectators every year in November • Economic impact to Kent County $ 4 million

Tournaments • Imagine 4-6 regional tournaments for each of the sports listed with economic impact of $2.5 million each annually • Imagine 2-4 national tournaments with economic impact between $3-6 million dollars each. • Imagine Tournament of Bands $4 million annually • That’s an estimated economic impact of $30 million in one year!!!

Lost Business in 12 Weeks: • US Lacrosse 2009 U-15 National Championships – 64 Teams - July 2009 - 3000 attendees - 5 days – Estimated economic impact = $ 2.7 million – Needed 15 Lacrosse fields • AY Football Regional Tournament November 2009 – 36 Teams - November 2009 - 3 days – Estimated economic impact = $ 1.8 million – Needed 6 Football Fields • Tournament of Bands – November every year needs a Football stadium – Economic impact $ 4 million Total Economic Loss = $ 8.5M in 12 weeks

Example of Economic Impact to Kent County US Lacrosse U15 National Championship Out of Town Average Length of Item Visitors Spending/Day Stay (days) Multiplier Total Spectators 5,000 $215 5 1.5 $8,062,500 Participants 1,536 $115 5 1.5 $1,324,800 Economic Impact $9,387,300.00

Delaware Sports Commission “To bid, recruit, and host regional and national sporting events at all levels of competition in the State for the purpose of utilizing sports facilities in the State, enhancing the economic development of the State, and promoting Delaware as a destination for amateur and professional sports.” Goal: Attract sporting events to the State for economic development

We Need the Business • Economic Recession has had a severe effect on numerous Delaware businesses • Hotel occupancy rates have dropped dramatically in the past few years • More and more hotels have been built, which has flooded the market increasing inventory by 40% • Kent County Sport Facility can bring business to the area

Excess Demand for Fields • With thousands of youth players participating in sports, grass fields are being overused and destroyed • The overuse of these fields leads to a poor quality playing surfaceÆ LESS SAFETY • Decreasing number of quality fields in Delaware • Kent County Sports Facility would alleviate these problems

Growth in Longfield Sports in Delaware 2000 2008 Rate 13%of Increase Soccer 10,000 11,500 13% Field 1372 1511 9% Hockey Lacrosse 400 960 42%

Closest Competing Facilities: • United States Training Facility in Downingtown PA • Maryland Soccer Plex Germantown, MD • Virginia Beach SportsPlex

Could be this… Maryland SoccerPlex Germantown, MD

Or This… Maryland SoccerPlex Germantown, MD

Proposed Intersection

Sample Layout

Sample Layout

Public/Private Partnership • Public (Kent County) – Land Bank – Infrastructure – Bonds and or Taxes • Private (Sport Club) – Expertise in Running – Revenue Generation – Secure Capital

Stakeholders/Partners • State Tourism Office • Kent County Levy Court • Kent County Convention and Visitors Bureau • Greater Dover Committee • Local Sport Organizations • Members of the Local Community

Path Forward • Feasibility Study to include site evaluation • Fund the study • GDC has agreed to issue RFP • GDC will fundraise for the project

THANK YOU! Copy of the presentation: www.greaterdovercommittee.org

UTILITY COMMITTEE The Utility Committee Meeting was held on February 22, 2010 at 5:01 p.m. with Chairman Ruane presiding. Members present were Mr. Hogan, Mr. McGiffin, and Major Kosior. Mr. Snaman was absent. Councilman Leary (arrived at 5:08 p.m.) and Mayor Carey (arrived at 5:09 p.m.) were also present. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS Mr. Hogan moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. McGiffin and unanimously carried. Water/Wastewater Service Handbook and Related Proposed Ordinance #2010-07 Mr. Ron Lunt, Public Utilities Director, informed members that the Public Utilities Department identified a need for an up-to-date document that outlined the standards and requirements of the water and wastewater utilities and associated infrastructure. He further mentioned that, historically, the various codes, rules, regulations, standards, specifications, requirements, and practices were not located or referenced within a single document. To rectify this situation, Staff developed a new document complete with several appendices and related ordinance amendments. Mr. Lunt stated that the primary goal of this handbook is to have all of the information in one document, benefitting property owners, customers, developers, consultants, contractors, and City of Dover staff. Mr. Lunt thanked Ms. Sharon Duca, Water/Wastewater Manager, and Mr. Jeremy Johnson, Electrical Engineer I, for their hard work on this project. Ms. Duca reviewed the Water/Wastewater Service Handbook (Attachment #1) and Related Proposed Ordinance #2010-07 (Attachment #2). Mr. Ruane commended the Public Utilities staff for their efforts on the handbook. Mr. Hogan suggested that the authors of the handbook should be listed on the document and that a copy of the handbook should be kept at the Library. Responding to Mr. Hogan, Ms. Duca stated that she was unsure if a double trap would be needed if an irrigation system was installed at a location where only one trap exists. In response to Mr. McGiffin, Ms. Duca stated that the handbook would be used for answers regarding installation and would be adopted along with the Ordinance. Major Kosior requested that the changes and updates be incorporated into a separate, condensed document to be used as a quick reference guide. Responding to Mr. Ruane, Ms. Duca concurred that separate, subject-specific handouts will continue to be provided at the entrance of the Public Utilities Department. In response to Mr. Ruane, Ms. Duca stated that, although new construction requires two cleanouts, only the one outside of the right-of-way or easement line is the jurisdiction of Public Utilities; the cleanout located near the house is the responsibility of the Planning and Inspections Department. Ms. Duca further mentioned that the handbook is not meant for code enforcement on existing buildings but for use on new projects.

UTILITY COMMITTEE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2010 PAGE 2 Responding to Mr. Ruane, Ms. Duca stated that the section stating that no trees may be planted within ten feet (10’) of water and wastewater utility refers to the main line, not the lateral. In response to Mr. Ruane, Ms. Duca stated that, because the City is a contract user of Kent County, the City must adhere to the sewer section of the County code. Mr. Ruane suggested that a pamphlet be created to explain the codes related to sewer. In addition, he suggested that the City offer caps free of charge to residents to aid in the elimination of illegal discharges to the sanitary sewer system, similar to the City’s smoke detector giveaway, and requested that Staff research the cost of caps. Mr. Anthony DePrima, City Manager, thanked those involved in putting this document together. Mr. Hogan moved to recommend approval of the Water/Wastewater Service Handbook and Related Proposed Ordinance #2010-07, seconded by Mr. McGiffin and unanimously carried. Review of Utility Related CIP’s (Electric and Water/Wastewater) (December 2009) Members were provided the Capital Investment Plan Project Tracking Report (as of December 31, 2009) and Major CIP Project Reports for the General Fund, Community Transportation and General Fund Street Funds, Water/Wastewater Improvement and Extension Fund, and Electric Improvement and Extension Fund. Mr. Anthony DePrima, City Manager, advised members that the CIP Report has been returned to the previous format, as it is more comprehensive. He stated that all of the electric projects have been started and that great progress is being made on the water/wastewater projects. Responding to Mr. Hogan, Mr. DePrima stated that the City received a substantial Federal grant for the Lincoln Park Center project, which involves the extension of Clarence Street from North Street to Forest Street and includes the redevelopment of the industrial land on those streets. In response to Mr. Ruane, Mr. DePrima stated that the water tower project might be delayed due to a decrease in growth projections; however, three (3) potential sites for the tower are being considered. Mr. Hogan moved to recommend acceptance of the report, seconded by Mr. McGiffin and unanimously carried. Update - Green Energy Funding and Programming Mr. Anthony DePrima, City Manager, advised members that the City received notification from the Federal Government that the $180K for the Energy Efficiency Community Block Grant can now be expended. He further advised members that the contract for the Solar Project at the power plant has started, the specification process for the LED Project is underway, and the wastewater motor replacement is ready for the bidding process. Responding to Mr. Hogan, Mr. DePrima stated that the LED replacement lights will continue to work on a sensor as they currently do and advised members to report any flickering lights.

UTILITY COMMITTEE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2010 PAGE 3 In response to Mr. Ruane, Mr. DePrima stated that he has not received any word regarding the State distribution of $9M of Federal funds allocated for green energy projects. Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. DePrima confirmed that the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) is an electric customer of the City of Dover that received a $30K Green Energy Grant award. In response to Mr. Ruane, Mr. Ron Lunt, Public Utilities Director, stated that a recipient can be awarded more than one (1) grant if applying for different technologies, such as geothermal and solar. He further advised that there is a seven (7) month delay in grant awards, as there are more applications than available funds. Mr. McGiffin moved to recommend acceptance of the Update on Green Energy Funding and Programming Report, seconded by Mr. Hogan and unanimously carried. PACE/NAES Monthly Report (December) Members were provided the PACE/NAES Monthly Report for December. The report was provided to allow members the opportunity to monitor what is being sold in electric and the revenues received, which will give members a better understanding of any fluctuations and make improvements if deemed necessary. Although it was not staff’s intention to make a presentation of the report, they welcomed any questions. Mr. Anthony DePrima, City Manager, advised members that the budget was reset as part of a mid- year review process. He further mentioned that December was the coldest month on record and that there were no run time or accidents. Mr. DePrima noted that CO2 credits were added in the amount of $6K. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has requested that the plant be turned on for testing, and when this occurs there will be costs involved. Mr. McGiffin moved to recommend acceptance of the PACE/NAES Monthly Report for December, seconded by Major Kosior and unanimously carried. Mr. McGiffin moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Hogan and unanimously carried. Meeting Adjourned at 5:53 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Eugene B. Ruane Chairman EBR/rr/js/tm S:\AGENDAS & MINUTES\Committee-Minutes\2010\02-22-10 UTILITY.wpd Attachments Attachment #1 - Water/Wastewater Service Handbook Attachment #2 - Ordinance #2010-07 - Amendments to Chapter 98 – Streets, Sidewalks and Other Public Places, Chapter 110 – Utilities, Article III – Water Service, Chapter 110 – Utilities, Article IV-Sewer Service, and Appendix F, Fees and Fines

ATTACHMENT #1 Utility Committee Meeting of 2/22/2010 City of Dover Water/Wastewater Handbook Public Utilities Department Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us Table of Contents Introduction and Contact Information 5 I. Definitions 8 II. Process Outline 11 A. Applicable Projects 11 1. Renovation to Existing Building or Developed Site 11 2. Site Development 11 3. Subdivision 12 B. Waivers and Extensions 12 1. Administrative Waivers 12 2. Administrative Extensions 12 C. Approvals Required 13 D. Time Line 14 III. Plan Requirements 16 A. General Plan Data 16 B. Utility Plan Data 17 C. Standard Water / Wastewater Notes and Requirements 18 IV. Design and Installation Standards 20 A. General 20 B. Water 20 1. Design Requirements 20 2. Infrastructure Components 22 3. Installation Requirements 26 C. Wastewater 28 1. Design Requirements 28 2. Infrastructure Components 30 3. Installation Requirements 35 D. Wastewater – Pumping Stations 37 1. Design Requirements 37 2. Infrastructure Components 37 3. Installation Requirements 47 2 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us V. Construction Phase 50 A. Pre-Construction Meeting and Requirements 50 1. Scheduling 50 2. Submittals 50 3. Notice to Proceed 51 B. Inspection Requirements 51 1. Accessibility and Notification 51 2. Authority and Inspections 53 C. Water Testing Requirements 56 1. Pressure Testing 56 2. Sterilization Testing 57 D. Water Meter Inspections 58 E. Wastewater Testing Requirements 58 1. Air Testing 58 2. Hydrostatic Testing 59 3. Infiltration Inspections 60 4. Video Inspections 60 F. Tracer Wire and Identification Tape Verification 61 G. Final Inspection, Request for Acceptance and Dedication 62 1. Final Inspection 62 2. Request for Public Infrastructure Acceptance 62 3. Public Infrastructure Dedication 63 VI. Operations and Maintenance 64 A. Water 64 1. General 64 2. Repairs and Replacement 66 3. Water Distribution System Flushing Program 67 4. Fire Hydrant Flow Testing and Fire Suppression System Testing 68 5. Fire Hydrants 69 6. Water Meters 70 7. Backflow Prevention 71 8. Concerns and Problems 71 B. Wastewater 72 1. General 72 2. Repairs and Replacement 73 3. Maintenance 75 4. Sanitary Sewer Main Jetting Program 76 5. Wastewater Meters 76 6. Prohibited Discharges 77 7. Concerns and Problems 78 3 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us VI. Operations and Maintenance con. C. Customer Services 78 1. Application for Service 78 2. Transference, Discontinuance and Suspension of Service 79 3. Water and Wastewater Rates and Tariffs 81 4. Billing 81 5. Payments 83 6. Tampering 84 APPENDIX A: Water / Wastewater Initial Plan Submission Checklist A1 APPENDIX B: Water / Wastewater Final Plan Submission Checklist B1 APPENDIX C: Water / Wastewater Pre-Construction Meeting Checklist C1 APPENDIX D: Acceptable Water Materials Checklist D1 APPENDIX E: Acceptable Wastewater Materials Checklist E1 APPENDIX F: Acceptable Wet Well/Dry Well Pump Station Materials Checklist F1 APPENDIX G: Acceptable Vacuum Primed Pump Station Material Checklist G1 APPENDIX H: Standard Details H1 APPENDIX I: Operations and Maintenance Exhibits I1 4 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us Introduction and Contact Information Dear Customer: The City of Dover Public Utilities Department provides public water and wastewater services to our customers within the City limits and to some customers just outside the City limits. As of the effective date of this Handbook, we currently register over 13,000 water accounts and over 11,500 wastewater accounts. In order to ensure that our current and future customers, as well as developers and consultants, are informed of our policies and procedures, we are pleased to provide this Handbook which details design, construction and operation and maintenance aspects of both the water and wastewater systems. The City of Dover operates and maintains all components of the water system. The determined safe capacity for the water system is currently 10.64 MGD (million gallons per day). In addition, staff performs over 1,800 routine analyses per month to ensure the provided water meets all State and Federal requirements. The infrastructure elements of the City of Dover water system as of the effective date of this Handbook include the following: Fifteen (15) deep production wells (micro-plants) which deliver potable water directly to the distribution system. A shallow well field consisting of seven (7) production wells that supply water to the water treatment plant. The water treatment plant in turn delivers potable water directly to the distribution system. Six (6) elevated storage tanks with a combined capacity of 3.75 million gallons. Approximately 195 miles of water main ranging in size from one and one-half inches (1-1/2”) to sixteen-inches (16”). The distribution system also contains over 1,600 fire hydrants and 1,800 division valves. The City of Dover operates and maintains all components of the wastewater collection system. The wastewater that is collected is then sent to the Kent County wastewater system for treatment. The average daily flow from the City of Dover system to the Kent County system is approximately 4.5 MGD (million gallons per day). Industrial waste lab analyses are performed to ensure compliance with Kent County regulations for treatment. The County has established regulations, which are herein adopted by reference, prohibiting various discharges to the system, that could threaten protect public safety and 5 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us the physical integrity of the system, violate any of its permit requirements or preclude the use of the most cost-effective alternatives for treatment and disposal. The infrastructure elements of the City of Dover wastewater system as of the effective date of this Handbook include the following: Forty-one (41) pumping stations. Approximately 185 miles of gravity sanitary sewer main and force main ranging in size from four-inches (4”) to thirty-six inches (36”). Due to the extent of the City of Dover’s water and wastewater system, we hope that this Handbook will assist customers, developers, contractors and consultants in understanding the policies and procedures associated with the water and wastewater utility systems. In turn, this will help make it easier for you to do business with the City of Dover Public Utilities Department. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact us through our website, www.dover.de.us, or by phone, at 302.736.7070. Additional contact information is also provided on the following page for your use. Thank you for your interest in the City of Dover and for allowing us to serve your needs. Sincerely, Ronald Lunt Sharon Duca, P.E. Public Utilities Director Water/Wastewater Manager 6 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us WATER / WASTEWATER UTILITY CONTACT INFORMATION CUSTOMER SERVICE Customers can contact this Department to obtain 5 East Reed Street information regarding rates, billing questions, meter costs, Dover, DE 19901 deposits, credit information, and application for service. 302.736.7035 MISS UTILITY Contractors must contact Miss Utility prior to performing 800.282.8555 or 811 excavation to ensure that utilities are field located. PLANNING & ZONING Owners, developers and consultants can contact this City Hall – The Plaza Department regarding site development and subdivision P.O. Box 475 plans, the administrative review and Development Dover, DE 19903 Advisory Committee process and related issues. 302.736.7010 PUBLIC SERVICES – INSPECTIONS Owners, developers, consultants and contractors can City Hall – The Plaza contact this Department regarding plumbing permits, P.O. Box 475 building permits, impact fees and related issues. Dover, DE 19903 302.736.7010 PUBLIC UTILITIES – DISPATCH Customers can contact this Division of the Public Utilities Emergency Service – 24/7 Department 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to report water 302.736.7060 leaks, sewer backups or other concerns or service problems. PUBLIC UTILITIES – WATER TREATMENT & Customers can contact this Division of the Public Utilities PRODUCTION Department regarding the annual water quality report and 860 Buttner Place other aspects of the City’s drinking water. Dover, DE 19904 302.736.7070 PUBLIC UTILITIES – WATER / WASTEWATER Owners, developers, consultants, contractors and CONSTRUCTION & INSPECTIONS customers can contact this Division of the Public Utilities 860 Buttner Place Department regarding projects currently under Dover, DE 19904 construction by the Department as well as private 302.736.7070 construction projects. PUBLIC UTILITIES – WATER / WASTEWATER Owners, developers, consultants, contractors and ENGINEERING customers can contact this Division of the Public Utilities 860 Buttner Place Department regarding any aspect of this Handbook, Dover, DE 19904 particularly the plan review process. 302.736.7070 PUBLIC UTILITIES – WATER / WASTEWATER Customers and contractors can contact this Division of the MAINTENANCE Public Utilities Department regarding existing water and 860 Buttner Place wastewater infrastructure including repairs and other Dover, DE 19904 maintenance activities. 302.736.7070 7 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us I. Definitions Acceptable Materials Checklists – Checklists provided in Appendices D through G which must be completed and submitted in conjunction with the Water / Wastewater Pre-Construction Meeting Checklist. The Acceptable Materials Checklists contain materials which have been approved for use by projects involving work related to the water utility system and/or wastewater utility system as well as projects proposing wet well mounted or recessed wet well mounted pump stations. When the notation “Full Specification Required” or similar language appears within the Acceptable Materials Checklists, or when required materials do not appear within said lists, complete shop drawing submittals are required for review by Public Utilities Department personnel. Administrative Review Process – Site development projects which do not require submission to the Planning Commission, as determined by the City Planner, shall be subject to the Administrative Review Process. This process is administered through the City of Dover Planning Department and is not subject to review through the Development Advisory Committee. Business Day - Shall mean any day except Saturday or Sunday, a legal holiday prescribed by statute, or recognized operator holidays. A business day begins at 7:00 a.m. and ends at 3:30 p.m. Check Print - Plan submitted for any proposed renovation, site development or subdivision project subsequent to the initial plan submission. One (1) complete set of construction plans, the scope of which may vary depending upon the scale of the proposed project, must be submitted to the Water / Wastewater Manager of the Public Utilities Department for review. Plans must meet all requirements of the Water / Wastewater Handbook. Development Advisory Committee (DAC) Review Process – Projects which require submission to the Planning Commission, as determined by the City Planner, shall be subject to the Development Advisory Committee (DAC) Review Process. This process is administered through the City of Dover Planning Department. Final Inspection - Following the completion of all work, the developer shall request a final inspection through the Public Services Manager or Public Utilities Construction & Inspections Manager as established through the pre-construction meeting. The final inspection will be scheduled within five (5) to ten (10) days of the request. At the final inspection, all items of work, if any, which must be completed, replaced or repaired, will be identified. Final Plan Submittal - Upon receipt of notification from the Public Utilities Department, four (4) complete sets of plans, signed and sealed by either a Delaware licensed Professional Engineer, or 8 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us Delaware licensed Professional Land Surveyor, as per Delaware State Code, in addition to a digital copy of the plans compatible with AutoCAD in addition to all current City GIS requirements, and a digital copy of the plans in .pdf format shall be submitted to the Water / Wastewater Manager for water and wastewater utility plan approval. The Water / Wastewater Final Plan Submission Checklist shall also be submitted in this package, this checklist can be found in Appendix B. Final plan approval is typically provided from the Public Services and Planning & Zoning Departments. Initial Plan - Initial plan submitted for any proposed renovation, site development or subdivision project. Plans requiring Administrative review or Development Advisory Committee review are submitted through the City of Dover Planning & Zoning Department. All other plans are submitted directly to the Water / Wastewater Manager of the Public Utilities Department. One (1) complete set of plans must be submitted for review. Notice to Proceed - The Public Services Manager or Public Utilities Construction & Inspections Manager, in accordance with the pre-construction meeting requirements, will issue a Notice to Proceed for the project once all requirements established in the pre-construction meeting have been met. All water and wastewater utility work must be scheduled directly with the Public Utilities Construction & Inspections Manager. Pre-Application Meeting (Public Utilities) – Unless waived by the Public Utilities Department, developers / owners shall meet with Departmental staff to discuss utility availability and approval requirements prior to the filing of an application and/or the submission of plans for review. Pre-Construction Meeting - Following the receipt of all approvals, the developer shall request a Pre- Construction Meeting through the Public Services Manager. This meeting will be scheduled to ensure the attendance of all relevant City staff including Public Utilities Department personnel, the Developer, his/her Engineer and Contractor, utility firms and other agencies as may be deemed appropriate. All requirements set forth in the meeting must be met prior to the start of construction. A minimum of five (5) business days notice is required to schedule this meeting for typical projects. A minimum of ten (10) business days notice is required to properly schedule this meeting for large projects. Projects which do not meet the project scope and scale requirements of a typical pre-construction meeting will be identified in the Water / Wastewater Utility Plan Approval letter. These projects must schedule the pre- construction meeting with the Public Utilities Construction & Inspections Manager. Public Infrastructure Dedication - The Public Infrastructure Dedication procedure shall commence upon satisfactory completion of every prior step and receipt of recommendations to accept infrastructure from the Public Services and Public Utilities Departments. City Council shall grant final approval of dedication. This approval will authorize the acceptance and ownership of all public infrastructure associated with the project. 9 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us Renovation - A renovation project, for the purposes of this Handbook, consists of any project which proposes to change the character of the water and/or wastewater service at the subject location. Examples of such changes include, but are not limited to, changes in plumbing fixture quantity, changes to the size of the water line serving the location, changes to the size of the sanitary sewer line serving the location, and/or relocation of the water meter, water line and/or sewer line serving the location. Request for Public Infrastructure Acceptance – The Request for Public Infrastructure is required for all projects which contain components which are to be dedicated to the City of Dover. Upon completion of the final inspection, and when all resulting punch list items have been completed to the satisfaction of the Public Utilities Department, the Developer shall submit a written Request for Public Infrastructure Acceptance to the Public Services Manager with copy to the Water / Wastewater Manager. This request will be reviewed by the Public Services and Public Utilities Departments. Site Development - The improvement of one or more parcels of land for residential, commercial or industrial structures or groups of structures. Subdivision - A division, or redivision, or any tract of land into two or more lots, plots, sites or parcels for immediate or future sale or for building development. Water / Wastewater Initial Plan Submission Checklist - Checklist provided in Appendix A that must be submitted with all initial plan submissions. The checklist provides a listing of all principle requirements that must be included as part of the plan set, or supplemental design material, that must be submitted for review. Water / Wastewater Pre-Construction Meeting Checklist - Checklist provided in Appendix C that must be submitted to the Public Utilities Department representative at the pre-construction meeting. All supplemental materials noted within the checklist must be included with the submission. Water / Wastewater Utility Plan Approval - Approval granted by the Public Utilities Department following receipt of final plans. This approval is valid for two (2) years. 10 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us II. Process Outline A. Applicable Projects 1. Renovation to Existing Building or Developed Site i. All renovation projects are required to bring the component of the water and/or wastewater service to be changed up to current standards and specifications as part of the proposed project. ii. All projects requiring review through the Administrative review process or through the DAC (development advisory committee) review process must submit a plan for review. Plans shall be submitted in accordance with the appropriate process requirements. For all other projects, the Water / Wastewater will evaluate whether a plan is required or not based upon the size and scope of the project. Should a plan be required, it shall be submitted directly to the Water / Wastewater Manager. iii. Approval for the water and/or wastewater utilities must be obtained from the Water / Wastewater Manager prior to the start of work. iv. Plumbing permit and building permit applications will be assessed for applicability through the use of forms or similar means provided to the applicant in conjunction with the appropriate application. These forms will be forwarded to the Public Utilities Department to allow a representative of the Department to contact the applicant directly regarding specific requirements and additional information that may be required. All requirements will be provided under separate cover to the applicant from the Water / Wastewater Manager and copied to the Public Services Department in order to confirm completion with the Public Utilities Department prior to final inspection by the Public Services Department. All projects subject to these requirements shall not be closed out until all requirements have been met. 2. Site Development i. A plan must be submitted for any site development project proposed. ii. These plans may be submitted directly to the Water / Wastewater Manager, through the Administrative review process or through the DAC (development advisory committee) review process, as applicable. iii. Plan approval for the water and wastewater utilities must be obtained from the Water / Wastewater Manager prior to the start of work. 11 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us 3. Subdivision i. A plan shall be submitted for any subdivision proposed. ii. These plans may be submitted directly to the Water / Wastewater Manager, through the Administrative review process or through the DAC (development advisory committee) review process, as applicable. iii. Plan approval for the water and wastewater utilities must be obtained from the Water / Wastewater Manager prior to the start of work. B. Waivers and Extensions 1. Administrative Waivers i. The Public Utilities Director and/or Water / Wastewater Manager may waive the requirements of this Handbook for any project when such requirements are clearly not applicable for a project due to the project scope. ii. The Public Utilities Director and/or Water / Wastewater Manager may accept, for review, waiver requests from requirements within this Handbook when implementation infeasibilities exist. They must ensure, however, that the alternatives proposed are technically superior for the subject location, in no way negate the overall intent of this Handbook, and represent options that are in the best interest of the utility and the public in order to grant approval to such requests. iii. All waiver requests, other than those referenced in II.B.1.i., must be submitted in writing with justification and alternatives provided. 2. Administrative Extensions i. Water and wastewater utility approval is valid for two (2) years from the date of issuance. ii. All projects which have not started prior to the expiration date of the approval must submit a request for an extension prior to the expiration date. Justification for the request must be provided. iii. All projects with expired approvals are subject to resubmission for review and approval. 12 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us C. Approvals Required In addition to approval from the Water / Wastewater Manager for the water and wastewater utilities, approval from the following agencies may be required prior to the start of work, depending on the scope of work for the project. 1. City of Dover Public Services and Planning & Zoning Departments - Approval from the City of Dover Public Services and Planning & Zoning Departments is required for all projects requiring Administrative plan review / approval or Development Advisory Committee (DAC) / Planning Commission review / approval as per the City of Dover Code. Approval from the Public Services and Planning & Zoning Departments, respectively, is typically obtained after receiving approval from the Water / Wastewater Manager. 2. State of Delaware Health and Social Services, Division of Public Health, Office of Drinking Water - After all Public Utilities Department comments have been addressed, and prior to water and wastewater utility approval, the water system plans must be submitted to the Office of Drinking Water for review and approval. The owner/developer will be responsible for providing all completed forms and plan sets, as required, to the Public Utilities Department for submission to the Office of Drinking Water. Plans will not be submitted to the Office of Drinking Water until review has been completed by the Public Utilities Department. Applicability of this requirement will be determined by the Public Utilities Department during the initial plan review. 3. State of Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC), Division of Water Resources, Surface Water Discharges Section - Prior to water and wastewater utility approval, the sanitary sewer system plans must be submitted to the Surface Water Discharges Section for review and approval. The owner/developer is responsible for providing all application fees, completed forms and plan sets directly to the Surface Water Discharges Section. Applicability of this requirement will be determined by the Public Utilities Department during the initial plan review. 4. State of Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) District Public Works Section - All water and/or wastewater utility work proposed within State roads requires a utility permit to be issued by the District Public Works Section of the Department of Transportation. All completed forms and plan sheets required must be submitted to the Public Utilities Department representative at the Pre-Construction Meeting. All utility permit applications must be submitted directly by the utility. 13 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us 5. The owner / developer is responsible for obtaining all permits necessary to complete the work required by the project. These include, but are not limited to, DNREC subaqueous lands / wetlands permits, US Army Corps 404 permits, sediment and stormwater permits and railroad crossing permits. D. Time Line The following chart is an organizational tool to better understand the process from pre- application meeting to plan approval through construction and dedication of utilities. PROJECT TIME LINE ACTION BY TIME FRAME 1. Pre-Application Meeting (Public Utilities) Developer Recommended 2. Application and Initial Plan Submission Developer n/a Water / Wastewater Initial Plan Submission Checklist (Appendix A - required with all initial plan submissions) Public Utilities submission; Administrative review submission; or Development Advisory Committee (DAC) submission 3. Initial Plan Review Public Utilities 4 weeks 4. Check Print Submission Developer n/a Public Utilities submission 5. Check Print Review Public Utilities 4 weeks 6. Final Plan Submission Developer n/a Water / Wastewater Final Plan Submission Checklist (Appendix B – required with all final plan submissions) Public Utilities submission 7. Final Plan Approval Public Utilities 2 weeks Public Services (Public Planning & Utilities Zoning only) (as required) 8. Pre-Construction Meeting Request Developer n/a 14 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us PROJECT TIME LINE (continued) ACTION BY TIME FRAME 9. Pre-Construction Meeting Public Services 1-2 weeks Submit Water / Wastewater Pre-Construction or Meeting Checklist and Acceptable Materials Public Utilities Checklists to Public Utilities personnel at meeting (as required) 10. Notice to Proceed Public Services n/a Upon completion of all pre-construction meeting or requirements. Public Utilities 11. Construction Developer n/a 12. Inspections and Testing Public Utilities 48 hours The Contractor must provide a minimum two (2) business days notification. 13. Final Inspection Request Developer n/a 14. Final Inspection Public Services 1-2 weeks or Public Utilities (as required) 15. Request for Public Infrastructure Acceptance Developer n/a Submit request and all required materials to the Public Services Manager and Water / Wastewater Manager 16. Public Infrastructure Dedication Public Services upon Public Utilities completion City Council of all requirements 15 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us III. Plan Requirements All plan submissions shall be neat and legible. The following are minimum requirements to be instituted for each plan submission and are subject to change. The Water / Wastewater Manager may waive certain plan requirements for certain projects if warranted by the scope of the project. In an effort to ensure complete plan submissions a checklist has been created to assist the submitter with meeting plan requirements. The Water / Wastewater Initial Plan Submission Checklist provided in Appendix A must be submitted with all initial plan submissions. Subsequent plan submissions will not be reviewed unless all previous comments have been clearly addressed within the plan set and accordingly identified within an itemized response letter. A. General Plan Data 1. Sheet dimensions shall be no larger than twenty-four (24) by thirty-six (36) inches. 2. Plan sheets shall be at a scale no smaller than 1” = 60’. Index sheets shall be at a scale no smaller than 1” = 200’. (Whenever two (2) or more sheets are used to illustrate the plan view, an index sheet is required, illustrating the entire project on one (1) sheet.) 3. Location map at a scale of 1” = 400’. 4. Title block. 5. Plan date and all revisions dates. 6. North arrow, scale, datum and benchmark. 7. Name and address of owner, developer (if applicable) and engineer or surveyor. 8. Seal and license number of the professional engineer or surveyor including a certification as to the accuracy of the plan and survey. 9. Property lines of abutting land including property address and name of owner. 10. Existing and proposed boundaries of the property including easements and rights-of- way. 11. Existing and proposed contours at intervals of one foot or less as well as significant existing features. Finish floor elevations shall be included. 16 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us B. Utility Plan Data 1. A seven and one-half feet (7.5’) wide public utility easement shall be provided along all side lot lines, to be unoccupied by buildings or other structures. 2. A fifteen feet (15’) wide public utility easement shall be provided along all rear lot lines, to be unoccupied by buildings or other structures. 3. A ten feet (10’) wide public utility easement shall be provided along all front lot lines, to be unoccupied by buildings or other structures. 4. All water and wastewater mains not located in the right-of-way shall be located within five feet (5’) of the center of a twenty feet (20’) wide public utility easement. 5. A master phasing plan must be provided for all projects to be constructed in phases. The phasing plan must be reflected throughout the plan set. 6. The size, type and location of all existing and proposed water mains, service lines, valves, fire hydrants and other appurtenances must be shown on the plan. 7. The size, length, slope, type, flow direction and location of all existing and proposed sanitary sewer mains and laterals must be shown on the plan. The size, type and location of all existing and proposed sanitary structures (including manholes, cleanouts, and pumping stations) must be shown on the plan. Rim and invert elevations must be labeled on all sanitary structures. 8. Profiles of all sanitary sewer mains must be provided on the plans. All water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer crossings, including services, must be shown on the profiles. 9. The proposed location of grease traps, if applicable, must be provided on the plans. In addition, a construction detail for the structure proposed must also be provided. 10. A materials listing table for all proposed water and wastewater utility infrastructure (including, but not limited to, water mains and services, fire hydrants, valves, sanitary sewer mains and laterals, and manholes) must be provided on the plan. 11. Utility schedules for all wastewater utility infrastructure and storm water infrastructure must be provided on the construction plans. At a minimum, the following must be included: i. Sanitary Sewer Manhole Schedule: manhole number, rim elevation, diameter, depth, invert(s) in, and invert out. ii. Sanitary Sewer Pipe Schedule: pipe number, size, material, length, slope, invert in, and invert out. 17 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us iii. Storm Drain Manhole Schedule: manhole number, rim elevation, diameter, depth, invert(s) in, and invert out. iv. Catch Basin Schedule: catch basin number, inlet box type or size, cover slab size, top unit type, frame/grate type, grate elevation, invert(s) in, and invert out. v. Storm Drain Pipe Schedule: pipe number, size, material, length, slope, invert in, and invert out. 12. A public infrastructure dedication table listing all proposed water and wastewater utility infrastructure, storm water infrastructure, streets and alleys to be dedicated to the City of Dover must be provided on the construction plan. At a minimum, the following must be included: i. Length, material and size of water and sanitary sewer mains. ii. Quantity, length, material and size of water services and sanitary sewer laterals (as measured to the right-of-way). iii. Quantity of fire hydrants. iv. Quantity and size of valves. v. Quantity, size and vertical feet of manholes. vi. Length, material and size of storm drain lines. vii. Quantity, size and vertical feet of storm drain manholes and catch basins. viii. Streets and alleys with stationing. C. Standard Water / Wastewater Notes and Requirements 1. Hydrant connections by the contractor are prohibited. This method may not be utilized during any phase of the project. 2. The site contractor shall contact the City of Dover Public Utilities Construction & Inspections Manager at (302) 736-7070 prior to the start of construction. A representative from the City of Dover Public Utilities Department must observe and approve all water and sanitary sewer interconnections and testing. All water taps and sanitary sewer connections must be performed by a City of Dover approved contractor. The proposed location for the connection may need to be adjusted in the field due to conditions of the existing main. Possible conditions that would require tapping / connection relocation include proximity to pipe joints, other taps, concrete encasements, conflict with other utilities, and the like. Test holes must be performed by the contractor to determine the best tapping / connection location. The City of Dover will not be held responsible for field conditions requiring adjustment of the tapping / 18 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us connection location or for any work required by the contractor to make an appropriate and lawful connection. 3. All water and wastewater utility construction and materials shall meet all City of Dover standards and specifications as well as current requirements and practices. 4. All existing utilities shall be field verified prior to the start of construction. 5. All existing utilities shall be adjusted to grade, and repaired or replaced when deemed necessary by the Public Utilities Department, in all areas of disturbance associated with construction. 6. Any existing water or wastewater utility lines not to be utilized by the proposed project shall be properly abandoned at the mains by the developer / owner. 7. All non-metallic water lines (mains and services) shall be installed with a tracer wire and identification tape. The wire shall be a minimum of twelve (12) gauge blue coated solid copper wire, wrapped around the pipe, and extending up into all valve and curb boxes. The identification tape shall be six-inches (6”) wide, laid one foot (1’) above the pipe, with the following text: “Caution: Buried Water Line Below”. 8. All non-metallic wastewater lines (mains and laterals) shall be installed with a tracer wire and identification tape. (Tracer wire is not required on gravity mains.) The wire shall be a minimum of twelve (12) gauge green coated solid copper wire, wrapped around the pipe. The identification detector tape shall be six-inches (6”) wide, laid one foot (1’) above the pipe, with the following text: “Caution: Buried Sewer Line Below”. 9. Part II, Chapter 180, Article III, Section 180-10 of the Code of Kent County requires that “No person shall discharge or cause to be discharged any stormwater, surface water, uncontaminated groundwater, roof runoff, subsurface drainage, uncontaminated noncontact cooling water or unpolluted industrial process waters to any sanitary sewer”, this shall include condensate. Section 110-231 of the City of Dover Code defines storm sewer as “…any system used for conveying rain water, surface water, condensate, cooling water or similar liquid wastes, exclusive of sewage.” The contractor, developer, owner and designers shall ensure during construction that no illegal discharges to the sanitary sewer system are created as a result of the site improvements. 10. No trees may be planted within ten feet (10’) of water and wastewater utility infrastructure. 11. No structures, including permanent signage, may be located within ten feet (10’) of water and wastewater utility infrastructure. 12. Water and wastewater lines may not be located near any potential source of contamination. 19 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us IV. Design and Installation Standards A. General All water and wastewater utility construction and materials shall meet all City of Dover standards and specifications as well as current requirements and practices. In addition to the standards and specifications contained herein, the following are incorporated by reference. In the event of a conflict, the most stringent requirement shall apply. 1. City of Dover, Delaware Code of Ordinances and Charter, as revised 2. American Water Works Association (AWWA) Standards, as revised 3. Recommended Standards for Water Works, as revised (Ten States Standards) 4. Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities, as revised (Ten States Standards) 5. Delaware Department of Transportation Utilities Manual, as revised 6. Kent County, Delaware Code of Ordinances, Part II, Chapter 180 Sanitary Standards, as revised 7. State of Delaware Administrative Code, Title 7, Section 7200 Surface Water Discharge Section, as revised 8. State of Delaware Administrative Code, Title 16, Section 4462 Public Drinking Water Systems, as revised 9. Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations, as applicable, as revised 10. American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards, as applicable, as revised 11. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) / ASTM International standards, as applicable, as revised B. Water 1. Design Requirements i. Sizing calculations must be submitted for all water mains, as required by the Public Utilities Department. ii. Design Capacities In general, water lines shall be designed for the estimated contributory demand to be served in the future as defined by the Public Utilities Department. 20 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us Provisions shall be made to extend water service / mains to all adjoining properties, parcels or lots, regardless of ownership or control of adjoining properties, parcels or lots, as required by the Public Utilities Department. The design of extensions to the existing water system shall be based on data if adequate records are available. In the event that adequate records are not available, or when new systems are being established, the design criteria shall not be less than 250 gpd per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU). iii. Sizing calculations must be submitted for all water service lines greater than one-inch (1”). iv. Water usage projections (peak flows and plumbing fixture data) must be submitted for all uses other than single-family dwellings. Projections for domestic use and irrigation (if applicable) must be provided. All meters will be sized by the Public Utilities Department. Meter sizes must be provided on all plans prior to approval. v. Any other data determined during review to be necessary to justify the design. vi. All water mains located within public right-of-ways shall be offered for dedication to the City of Dover and thereafter will be maintained by the City of Dover. vii. The owner / developer is responsible for all costs associated with all water infrastructure upgrades or extensions required to provide adequate fire and domestic service and capacity in relation to the project proposed. viii. Connections and Taps All connections / taps to existing water mains shall be performed by the Public Utilities Department or by an approved utility contractor. All connections / taps required for Site Plan and Subdivision projects shall be completed by the Developer, at his / her expense, through an approved utility contractor in accordance with the approved plans. All connections / taps required for existing, developed residential lots shall be performed by the Public Utilities Department, or by an approved utility contractor, as determined by the Department. When work is to be performed by the Public Utilities Department, the property owner shall submit the necessary funds, prior to installation, to the City of Dover for all labor, material and equipment required to install new connections from the main to the curb stop. The charge for making a 21 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us water tap and installing a service line to and including the curb box shall be in accordance with a schedule set by City Council and set forth in the rules and regulations of the water system. These charges shall be due and payable prior to installation. 2. Infrastructure Components i. All materials shall be in conformance with the Acceptable Water Materials Checklist provided in Appendix D. ii. Water Mains The minimum size for all water mains shall be eight-inches (8”). Larger mains may be required to meet service requirements. This shall be determined by the Public Utilities Department and conveyed during the plan review process. All water mains shall be cement lined Class 52 ductile iron pipe. All ductile iron pipe shall be in accordance with AWWA C151, latest revision (ANSI A21.51) and shall be in eighteen to twenty feet (18’-20’) lengths with single rubber gasket (push-on) joints in accordance with AWWA C111, latest revision (ANSI A21.11). All Class 52 ductile iron pipe shall be in accordance with AWWA C150, latest revision (ANSI A21.50). A minimum of forty-eight inches (48”) of cover shall be provided over all water mains. Water mains shall be located under the street, a minimum of four feet (4’) horizontally from the face of the curb. A minimum ten feet (10’) horizontal and eighteen-inch (18”) vertical separation, as measured from the outside of each pipe, shall be provided for all water mains from sanitary sewer (gravity lines and force mains). This shall be the case whether the water main is above or below the sewer. Wherever possible the sewer shall be beneath the water main. Crossings shall be arranged so that the sewer joints will be equidistant and as far as possible from the water main joints. A minimum eighteen-inch (18”) vertical separation, as measure from the outside of each pipe, shall be provided for all water mains from storm sewer. Due to the limiting width of some streets, the horizontal separation between all water mains and storm sewer shall be provided to the maximum extent possible. When feasible, a minimum ten feet (10’) horizontal separation, as measured from the outside of each pipe, 22 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us shall be provided for all water mains from storm sewers in accordance with Ten States Standards. Water mains shall have a minimum of eighteen-inch (18”) clearance from electric lines, gas mains, and all other utilities. No water line (mains, services, etc.) shall pass through or come in contact with any part of a sewer manhole. All water mains must be looped. Dead end mains are not permitted. The utility plan must incorporate the appropriate termination valves on the water system between construction phases. iii. Division Valves and Boxes The maximum spacing between division valves shall be 800 feet. Valves shall be provided at all water main intersections. The quantity of valves shall be as determined necessary by the Public Utilities Department to properly maintain and operate the water system. Sufficient valves shall be provided to ensure that inconvenience and hazards are minimized during repairs and to allow for effective flushing and other maintenance practices. All valves shall be right hand, resilient wedge gate valves. Valve stem extensions shall have a two-inch (2”) square operating nut and self-centering rock plate support. Valves with an operating nut more than four feet (4’) below grade shall have a valve stem extension to raise the operating nut to within three feet (3’) of the ground surface. Valves shall be set vertical with a cast iron valve box provided for each valve. Valve boxes shall be centered and plumbed over the operating nut. The valve box may not transmit shock or stress to the valve. All valve boxes shall be set to the required grade (final grade). Screw type adjustable valve boxes shall be adjusted to final grade by excavating around the valve box, as necessary, and turning it to achieve the required grade. Drop in valve box riser rings are not allowed. iv. Fire Hydrants The minimum size for all fire hydrant leads shall be six-inches (6”). The maximum spacing between fire hydrants shall be 600 feet, as measured along the curb. 23 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us Fire hydrants shall be placed between the curb and sidewalk at intersections or centered on lot lines. The minimum spacing between fire hydrants and hydrant valves shall be fifteen feet (15’). (See construction detail W-3.) All hydrant valves shall be right hand, resilient wedge gate valves. Fire hydrants shall be set to stand plumb with the nozzles parallel with or at right angles to the curb. The steamer nozzle shall face the curb. v. Fire Mains All structures requiring provision of a sprinkler system shall be served with a combined, minimum eight-inch (8”) fire/domestic service. The domestic water service shall be tapped off the fire/domestic service line within five to ten feet (5’-10’) of the building. (This distance may be expanded to allow adequate room for meter installation.) A valve must be provided at the tee on the domestic water service line to isolate it from the fire main. The proposed restraining system for the fire main located within the buildings must be clearly shown on the plans. The Public Utilities Department will test and inspect all fire mains to a blind flange located inside the buildings. The blind flange with tap is used for hydrostatic pressure testing (200 psi for two (2) hours) and dechlorination. The flange must be restrained in the direction of the pipe entering the building. A pipe entering horizontally through a wall sleeve shall be restrained with rods through the wall. A pipe entering vertically through a slab shall be restrained through the floor to the ninety degree (90 ) bend and thrust block. All rods shall be a minimum of ¾” all thread. All pipes through walls and slabs must be Class 52 cement lined ductile iron pipe. vi. Service Lines The minimum size of all water service lines shall be one-inch (1”). Water service lines, from the main to the meter pit, shall extend perpendicular to the main. Water service lines shall be installed five feet (5’) to the right of the sewer lateral as viewed from the center line of the street (or as per the most recent Plumbing Code adopted by the City of Dover). This requirement may be waived by the Water / Wastewater Manager for non-residential applications if deemed appropriate. 24 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us Each property shall be served by a single water service line which shall be furnished and installed by the property owner. In the event a property contains multiple principle structures, such as shopping centers or apartment complexes, the property shall be served by a single water main where a water service line may be provided to each principle structure. Each structure, which is capable of being offered for sale, shall have its own separate water facilities. vii. Curb Stops and Boxes Curb stops shall be installed one foot (1’) outside of the right-of-way or easement line for each lot, in a non-traffic bearing location. Curb boxes shall be centered and plumbed over the curb stop. The curb box may not transmit shock or stress to the curb stop. All curb boxes shall be set to the required grade (final grade). viii. Water Meters Each water service line from the main to a property or principle structure shall be metered by a single water meter so as to control the entire domestic supply. The Public Utilities Department shall determine the size, location, and type of meter to be used for all applications. All water meters shall be installed outside, in a meter pit or vault, on the domestic water service, in a non-traffic bearing location (which includes vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic). Meter pits shall be located within two feet (2’) of the right-of-way or easement line. In cases where water mains are not located along the street frontage, or in non- residential settings, the location of the meter pit or vault shall be determined by the Public Utilities Department. The size, type and dimensions of the pit or vault shall be approved by the Public Utilities Department and shall give adequate access to the meter and permit its installation, removal and maintenance. All meter pits and vaults shall be set to the required grade (final grade). All meter vaults shall be pre-cast or cast-in-place reinforced concrete. Appropriate piping support and an access hatch centered over the meter must be provided. All vaults deeper than four feet (4’) must also be provided with a ladder. All water meters, regardless of location, shall be accessible to the Public Utilities Department and City of Dover meter reading personnel, at all 25 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us times. This requirement applies to all meters, existing and proposed, regardless of location prior to the effective date of this Handbook. All meters shall have a minimum clear area around the meter of three feet long by three feet wide by six feet high (3’L x 3’W x 6’H) for accessibility purposes. Existing non-pit meters shall not be blocked from access by walls, equipment or any other materials. All water meters must be installed per manufacturer’s recommendations. All interior installations, should interior meter replacement be permitted by the Public Utilities Director, shall be in a horizontal position with the register upright and not more than twenty- four inches (24”) above the floor line. (New interior meter installations are not permitted.) All meter pit or vault installations shall have the meter register located not more than twelve-inches (12”) or less than six-inches (6”) below finished grade. The Water / Wastewater Manager may approve additional distance between the meter register and finish grade only if determined necessary due to the size of the meter. In the event that an irrigation system is to be installed at a property, a dual meter pit shall be required to house both the irrigation service and the domestic service. All meters shall be installed with backflow prevention. At a minimum, this shall consist of an angle ball valve at the inlet and an angle cartridge dual check valve at the outlet. Vault meters shall be provided with an outside screw and yoke (OS&Y) valve at the inlet and a dual check valve at the outlet. In addition, all installations, regardless of location, shall include the most current remote metering devices in use by the City at the time of installation. 3. Installation Requirements i. All installations shall be in conformance with the Construction Details provided in Appendix H. ii. All existing utilities shall be field verified prior to the start of construction. iii. All existing utilities shall be adjusted to grade, and repaired or replaced when deemed necessary by the Public Utilities Department, in all areas of disturbance associated with construction. iv. Any existing water utility lines not to be utilized by the proposed project shall be properly abandoned at the mains by the developer / owner. 26 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us v. Excavation and Trenching The bottom of the trench shall be cut true and even so the barrel of the pipe will have a bearing for the full length to provide a minimum cover of four feet (4’) from finished grade and shall be excavated to such a depth as will provide pipe elevations as indicated on the plans. The Contractor shall keep all excavation free from water or other liquids during the progress of the work. The trenches for water service connections shall be excavated to the minimum standard depth or to such depth as required to connect to existing mains or service pipes. No water service lines shall be laid in the same trench with gas pipe, storm drain or sanitary sewer pipe or within three feet (3’) of any open excavation or vault. vi. Bedding Continuous and uniform bedding shall be provided in the trench for all buried pipe. Stones found in the trench shall be removed for a depth of at least six inches (6”) below the bottom of the pipe. The pipe shall be laid in the trench and secured in place with compacted backfill up to the crown of the pipe thus ensuring adequate support for the entire circumference of the pipe. Twenty-four inches (24”) of uncompacted backfill cover shall then be laid above the pipe to adequately protect the pipe before further compaction layers. Trench backfill shall then be placed and compacted in eight-inch (8”) minimum and twelve-inch (12”) maximum lifts. Trench compaction shall be 95% maximum dry density. Compaction shall be tested once per lift for each run of pipe. vii. Installation of Pipe and Fittings The laying and jointing of water main shall be in accordance with all applicable standards and manufacturer’s recommendations. All pipe and fittings shall be thoroughly cleaned before laying and shall be kept clean until acceptance of work. At the end of each work day, the end of the pipe shall be tightly closed to prevent dirt, foreign substances or small animals from entering the line. Pipe and fittings shall be carefully handled and lowered into the trench. Special care shall be taken to make sure all pipes are well bedded on a 27 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us solid foundation. Any defects due to settlement shall be corrected by the Contractor at his/her expense. Where the manufacturer’s recommended pipe joint deflection is exceeded, mechanical joint bends shall be required and installed to the satisfaction of the Public Utilities representative. Thrust blocks of Portland Cement Concrete Class B of adequate size and weight shall be used on all pressure piping for all fittings and all bends, including and in excess of eleven and one-quarter degrees (11-1/4°) unless specifically called for otherwise on the plan. Thrust blocks (buttresses) shall conform to the details shown on the plan and/or construction details contained herein. All tapping sleeves, tees, bends, plugs and hydrants shall be provided with reaction blocking, tie rods and retainer glands designed to prevent movement. No pipe shall be laid upon a foundation into which frost has penetrated, nor at any time when the Public Utilities representative shall deem there is danger of frost penetration at the bottom of the excavation, unless all requirements as to the minimum length of open trench and promptness of refilling are observed. C. Wastewater 1. Design Requirements i. Sizing (flow) calculations must be submitted for all sanitary sewer mains showing that velocity and all other requirements are met. Any projected future flow requirements must be clearly identified. ii. Design Capacities In general, sewer lines shall be designed for the estimated contributory population to be served in the future, plus adequate allowance for infiltration, institutional and industrial flows for the basin as defined by the Public Utilities Department. Provisions shall be made to extend sewer service to all adjoining properties, parcels or lots, regardless of ownership or control of adjoining properties, parcels or lots. The maximum hourly quantity of domestic wastewater, maximum hourly quantity of wastewater from industrial plants and groundwater 28 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us infiltration shall be considered in determining the capacities of sanitary sewers. The design of extensions to existing wastewater collection systems shall be based on data if adequate records are available. In the event that adequate records are not available, or when new systems are being established, the design criteria shall not be less than 250 gpd per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU). Laterals shall be designed, when flowing full, assuming flow equivalent to three (3) times the average daily flow. Main sewers shall be designed based on Ten States Standards as represented by the following equation: Qpeak hourly/Qdesign avg = (18 + [P]1/2) / (4 + [P]1/2) where: Qpeak hourly = maximum rate of wastewater flow (peak hourly flow) Qdesign avg = design average daily wastewater flow P = population in thousands iii. Sizing (flow) calculations must be submitted for all sanitary sewer laterals (other than for single-family dwellings) showing that velocity and all other requirements are met. iv. Any other data determined during review to be necessary to justify the design. v. All sanitary sewer mains located within public roadways shall be offered for dedication to the City of Dover and thereafter will be maintained by the City of Dover. vi. The owner / developer is responsible for all costs associated with all wastewater infrastructure upgrades or extensions required to provide adequate service and capacity in relation to the project proposed. vii. Connections and Taps All connections / taps to existing sanitary sewer mains shall be performed by the Public Utilities Department or by an approved utility contractor. All connections / taps required for Site Plan and Subdivision projects shall be completed by the Developer, at his / her expense, through an approved utility contractor in accordance with the approved plans. All connections / taps required for existing, developed residential lots shall be performed by the Public Utilities Department, or by an 29 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us approved utility contractor, as determined by the Department. When work is to be performed by the Public Utilities Department, the property owner shall submit the necessary funds, prior to installation, to the City of Dover for all labor, material and equipment required to install new connections from the main to the cleanout. The charge for making a sanitary sewer tap and installing a lateral to and including the cleanout shall be in accordance with a schedule set by City Council and set forth in the rules and regulations of the wastewater system. These charges shall be due and payable prior to installation. 2. Infrastructure Components i. All materials shall be in conformance with the Acceptable Wastewater Materials Checklist provided in Appendix E. ii. Sanitary Sewer Mains The minimum size for all sanitary sewer mains shall be eight-inches (8”). All sanitary sewer mains shall be designed and constructed to give mean velocities, when flowing full or half full, of not less than two feet per second (2 ft/s) as per Ten States Standards. Full flow velocities shall not exceed ten feet per second (10 ft/s). The minimum slopes for sanitary sewer mains shall be as follows (or as revised by current Ten States Standards): Nominal Sewer Size Minimum Slope (feet/foot) Eight-inch (8”) 0.0040 Ten-inch (10”) 0.0028 Twelve-inch (12”) 0.0022 Fifteen-inch (15”) 0.0015 Eighteen-inch (18”) 0.0012 Twenty-one inch (21”) 0.0010 Twenty-four inch (24”) 0.0008 Twenty-seven inch (27”) 0.00067 Thirty-inch (30”) 0.00058 Thirty-six inch (36”) 0.00046 30 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us Larger mains may be required to meet service requirements. This shall be determined by the Public Utilities Department and conveyed during the plan review process. Main sewers shall be designed at minimum slope and maximum depth. A minimum of three feet (3’) of cover shall be provided over all sanitary sewer mains. Sanitary sewer mains shall be located under the street, a minimum of four feet (4’) horizontally from the face of curb. A minimum ten feet (10’) horizontal and eighteen-inch (18”) vertical separation, as measured from the outside of each pipe, shall be provided for all water mains from sanitary sewer (gravity lines and force mains). This shall be the case whether the water main is above or below the sewer. Wherever possible the sewer shall be beneath the water main. Crossings shall be arranged so that the sewer joints will be equidistant and as far as possible from the water main joints. Sanitary sewer mains shall have a minimum of eighteen-inch (18”) clearance from drains, electric lines, gas mains, and all other utilities. Poly Vinyl Chloride (PVC) pipe shall be used for gravity sanitary sewer eight-inch (8") through fifteen-inch (15") diameter with a maximum cover of eighteen feet (18'). PVC pipe shall conform to the size, standard dimension ratio (SDR) and strength requirements of ASTM D- 3034 and ASTM F-679. The grade used shall be resistant to aggressive soils or corrosive substances in accordance with the requirements of ASTM D-543. SDR35 pipe shall be used for depths to twelve feet (12’). SDR26 pipe shall be used for depths from twelve feet to eighteen feet (12’ – 18’). All PVC gravity sanitary sewer pipe and related fittings shall be manufactured in accordance with ASTM C3034, SDR 35 and/or SDR 26, Type PSM polyvinyl chloride wastewater pipe and fittings. PVC gravity sewer pipe shall be supplied in twelve and one-half feet (12.5’) lengths with bell-and-spigot joints. All fittings shall use rubber gaskets which conform to the requirements of ASTM F477. Ductile iron pipe (DIP) shall be used for all sanitary sewer lines with a maximum cover greater than eighteen feet (18’). The DIP and fittings used in sanitary sewer construction shall be mechanical joint and conform to the applicable dimensions and tolerances of ANSI A21.50 and A21.51. Unless otherwise specified, DIP shall conform to ANSI 31 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us A21.51 standard thickness class 53. Every pipe and fitting shall be tar coated on the outside and shall be cement lined on the inside. Cement mortar lining shall be in accordance with ANSI A21.4. An approved water stop gasket shall be used at manhole connections as directed by the Public Utilities representative. DIP shall be grade 60-42-10 with 40/90 metal strength and shall be tested in accordance with ASTM A339. Fittings for ductile iron pipe shall conform to ANSI A21.10. Twelve-inch (12”) lines and smaller shall be Class 250. Sixteen-inch (16”) lines and larger shall be Class 150. All DIP shall be supplied in eighteen to twenty feet (18’-20’) lengths with single rubber gasket (push-on) joints in accordance with ANSI A21.11/AWWA C111. iii. Manholes One-tenth of a foot (0.1’) drop must be provided across all manholes. The maximum spacing between manholes shall be 400 feet. Manholes shall be placed at the points of all changes in alignment, grade or size of sewer, intersection of sewers, and junction of streets. Watertight manholes are required at all times. Manhole frame covers may only be adjusted to finish grade with a maximum of twelve-inches (12”) of non-porous, “red sewer” brick above the manhole cone. Additional adjustment will require the replacement of manhole sections or reconstruction of the cone. Adjustable rings may not be used. Flow channels shall be made to conform as closely as possible to the shape of the connecting sewers to not obstruct maintenance, inspection or flow in the sewers. Concrete channels shall be smooth and semi- circular in section. When brick channels are used, the invert shall be brick laid on edge. Precast channels may be utilized with the approval of the Public Utilities Director with the understanding that if the alignment of flow is off, the channel must be removed and a brick channel installed to correct the flow alignment. All manhole frames and covers shall be installed flush to the pavement, or to final grade if located outside of the roadway. Manholes shall be State of Delaware Department of Transportation certified. Manholes shall be manufactured in accordance with ASTM C478-80 and shall be precast with monolithic base and eccentric cone. 32 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us All manholes with a four foot (4’) inside diameter shall have five-inch (5”) thick walls. All manholes with a five foot (5’) inside diameter shall have six-inch (6”) thick walls. Manholes shall be waterproofed on the exterior with a bituminous coating. Inlet and outlet pipes shall be joined to the manhole with a gasketed flexible watertight connection or any watertight connection arrangement that allows differential settlement of the pipe and manhole wall to take place. Connections to existing manholes shall be made by core drilling and a water tight pipe to manhole connector must be used. A drop manhole should be provided for a sewer entering a manhole at an elevation of twenty-four inches (24”) or more above the manhole invert. If the drop is less than twenty-four inches (24”), the invert should be filleted to prevent the deposit of solids. All manholes over fourteen feet (14’) deep (top of rim to lowest point) shall be at least five feet (5’) in diameter. All manholes with twenty-one inch (21”) or larger pipes shall be at least five feet (5’) in diameter. The standard joint shall be sealed with hydraulic cement meeting ASTM C109 specifications. “O” ring joints shall conform to the requirements of ASTM C443. A neoprene rubber flexible gasket shall be cast in the manholes to tie the pipe to the manhole, in new manhole applications. All manholes deeper than four feet (4’) shall have steps. Manhole steps will be press set plastic, or approved equal. Steps will also be provided on the outside of raised manholes when the top elevation is greater than three feet (3’) above the existing ground elevation. Raised manholes shall also be provided with a slab top to provide adequate work area for access, maintenance and inspection purposes. All industrial discharges shall provide an easily accessible monitoring manhole. All discharge from the property must pass through one monitoring manhole before entering the public sewer system. Manholes in flood plains shall extend two feet (2’) above the 100-year flood elevation or be provided with sealed covers. All manhole frames and covers for new installations shall be of the hinged, locking variety. “Dog house” manholes are not permitted. In the event a manhole is required on an existing line, a standard manhole must be installed on the line in conjunction with bypass pumping operations. 33 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us iv. Laterals The minimum size of all sanitary sewer laterals shall be six-inch (6”). The minimum slope for all sanitary sewer laterals shall meet the current plumbing standard accepted by the City of Dover, typically 0.0104 feet/foot for a six-inch (6”) sewer lateral. Sanitary sewer laterals, from the main to the first cleanout located one- foot (1’) outside the right-of-way or easement line, shall extend perpendicular to the main. Sanitary sewer laterals shall be installed to the center of each lot. This requirement may be waived by the Water / Wastewater Manager for non-residential applications if deemed appropriate. Sanitary sewer laterals shall be connected directly to the main, not manholes, unless impracticable, as determined by the Public Utilities Department. Sewer laterals are to be installed to one foot (1’) beyond the right-of- way line at a typical depth of three feet (3’), preferably not exceeding five feet (5’). Each property shall be served by a single sanitary sewer lateral which shall be furnished and installed by the property owner. In the event a property contains multiple principle structures, such as shopping centers or apartment complexes, the property shall be served by a single sanitary sewer main where a sanitary sewer lateral may be provided to each principle structure. Each structure, which is capable of being offered for sale, shall have its own separate wastewater facilities. v. Cleanouts Cleanouts must be installed on sanitary sewer laterals within five feet (5’) of the building, one foot (1’) outside of the right-of-way and at all bends. The maximum spacing between cleanouts shall be 100 feet. All cleanouts shall be constructed with a wye connection. Tee connections are not acceptable. A supporting, twelve-inch (12”) diameter concrete collar must be provided in accordance with the Standard Details. Cleanouts located within a traffic bearing location shall be installed with a heavy duty cast iron frame and cover to prevent damage to the cleanout and lateral. Applicable material is provided by East Jordan Iron Works, part number 1566. 34 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us vi. Grease Traps All structures containing food service facilities require the installation of a minimum 1,000 gallon, two chamber grease trap. All grease traps shall meet all current Kent County, Delaware Code of Ordinances requirements (Article III, § 180-13) 3. Installation Requirements i. All installations shall be in conformance with the Construction Details provided in Appendix H. ii. All existing utilities shall be field verified prior to the start of construction. iii. All existing utilities shall be adjusted to grade, and repaired or replaced when deemed necessary by the Public Utilities Department, in all areas of disturbance associated with construction. iv. Any existing wastewater utility lines not to be utilized by the proposed project shall be properly abandoned at the mains by the developer / owner. v. Excavation and Trenching The bottom of the trench shall be cut true and even so the barrel of the pipe will have a bearing for the full length to provide a minimum cover of three feet (3’) from finished grade and shall be excavated to such a depth as will provide pipe elevations as indicated on the plans. The Contractor shall keep all excavation free from water or other liquids during the progress of the work. The trenches for sanitary sewer lateral connections shall be excavated to the minimum standard depth or to such depth as required to connect to existing mains or service pipes. vi. Bedding Continuous and uniform bedding shall be provided in the trench for all buried pipe. Stones found in the trench shall be removed for a depth of at least six inches (6”) below the bottom of the pipe. The pipe shall be laid in the trench and secured in place with compacted backfill up to the crown of the pipe thus ensuring adequate support for the entire circumference of the pipe. Twenty-four inches (24”) of uncompacted backfill cover shall then be laid above the pipe to adequately protect the pipe before further compaction layers. Trench 35 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us backfill shall then be placed and compacted in eight-inch (8”) minimum and twelve-inch (12”) maximum lifts. Trench compaction shall be 95% maximum dry density. Compaction shall be tested once per lift for each run of pipe. vii. Installation of Pipe and Fittings All sanitary sewer mains shall terminate at manholes between construction phases. This may require sewer lines to extend beyond proposed phase lines to the next manhole. For any connection to an existing sanitary sewer manhole, the manhole must be core drilled and a water tight pipe to manhole connector must be used. The connector must be approved by the Public Utilities Department prior to installation. The existing manhole flow channel shall be reconstructed accordingly. The laying and jointing of sanitary sewer main shall be in accordance with all applicable standards and manufacturer’s recommendations. All pipe and fittings shall be thoroughly cleaned before laying and shall be kept clean until acceptance of work. At the end of each work day, the end of the pipe shall be tightly closed to prevent dirt, foreign substances or small animals from entering the line. Pipe and fittings shall be carefully handled and lowered into the trench. Special care shall be taken to make sure all pipes are well bedded on a solid foundation. Any defects due to settlement shall be corrected by the Contractor at his/her expense. No pipe shall be laid upon a foundation into which frost has penetrated, nor at any time when the Public Utilities representative shall deem there is danger of frost penetration at the bottom of the excavation, unless all requirements as to the minimum length of open trench and promptness of refilling are observed. When making a lateral connection directly to an existing main line, the following shall apply: on PVC main, cut hole in pipe using appropriate saw, glue and Geneco (or approved equal) service saddle over hole. 36 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us D. Wastewater – Pumping Stations 1. Design Requirements i. The Public Utilities Department shall determine during the initial plan review phase as to whether pumping stations are to be offered for dedication to the City of Dover or remain private. All stations dedicated to the City will be maintained by the City of Dover and shall be turned over to the City immediately following final acceptance. ii. A hydraulic system analysis shall be provided for each pumping station including force mains. It shall include the calculation of the system-head curves and the use of these curves in conjunction with the characteristic curves of available pumps. The criteria provided in C.1.ii. for average and peak flow shall be used to determine the influent peak flow. iii. Any other data determined during review to be necessary to justify the design. iv. The owner / developer is responsible for all costs associated with all wastewater infrastructure upgrades or extensions required to provide adequate service and capacity in relation to the project proposed. 2. Infrastructure Components i. All materials shall be in conformance with the Acceptable Wastewater Materials Checklist provided in Appendix E, the Acceptable Wet Well/Dry Well Pump Station Materials Checklist provided in Appendix F, and the Acceptable Vacuum Primed Pump Station Materials Checklist provided in Appendix G. ii. General In the selection of a site for a pumping station, consideration shall be given to its accessibility and its potential nuisance aspects. The station shall not be subject to flooding. The 100-year flood plain elevation and stormwater management pond elevation must be shown on the plan when adjacent to the station. All equipment, electrical and mechanical structures shall be located above the 100-year elevations. The station shall be accessible during all types of weather with mobile equipment. Stations shall be located at the lowest elevation including adjoining areas. Adequate provisions must be made for continuous operation, and for emergency treatment or storage of the wastewater in the event of an unanticipated breakdown of the pumping station facilities or power failures. 37 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us All pump stations to be dedicated to the City of Dover shall be located on lots to be dedicated to the City of Dover. Stations may be located within permanent public utility easements if site limitations exist with approval from the Public Utilities Director. All pump station sites shall include a paved driveway, fencing along the perimeter of the site with a twelve feet (12’) double gate, and either stone covering of entire site or landscaping as determined appropriate by the Water / Wastewater Manager based upon the size of the station. In general, all pumping stations shall be Wet Well / Dry Well Stations or Smith & Loveless Vacuum Primed Stations. Grinder pump stations shall be reserved primarily for single-family dwellings. Exceptions may be made with the approval of the Water / Wastewater Manager. Ejector stations are not permitted. Ventilation shall be provided for all pumping stations, including both wet wells and dry wells. Mechanical ventilation shall be provided for all dry wells where equipment is located. The ventilating system and lights shall be turned on by a switch located near the entrance, as well as automatic, when feasible. The ventilation system of the wet well and dry well of the station should be entirely separate, provide positive ventilation and conform to Ten State Standards. All openings for pipes or electric cables shall be caulked gastight. All pumping stations, except those entirely below ground, shall be supplied with automatically controlled heaters to prevent freezing in cold weather. On stations pumping a minimum of 500,000 gpd, a channel grinder shall be provided prior to the wastewater being pumped. The Muffin Monster by JCM Environmental, or approved equal, shall be specified. A bypass channel with a manually cleaned bar screen with openings not exceeding two and one-half inches (2-1/2”) shall be provided where channel grinders are utilized to provide screening while maintenance is performed on the channel grinder. Manually cleaned screens should be provided with stairway access, adequate lighting and ventilation, and convenient and adequate means for removing screenings. If there is not adequate room in the wet well for a channel grinder, a separate station should be used. Three (3) copies of station manuals and all other equipment manuals for operations and maintenance shall be provided to the City of Dover. 38 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us iii. Pumps and Valves Except where grinder pumps are used in order to minimize clogging, open impeller or non-clog-type pumps capable of passing spheres of at least three-inches (3”) in diameter shall be provided. At least two (2) pumps shall be provided at all pumping stations. If no more than two (2) pumps are provided, both should have the same capacity and each shall be capable of pumping the maximum flow with the standby pump out of service. It is desirable for three (3) or more pumps to be provided which are designed for actual flow conditions and of such capacity that with any one (1) pump out of service, the remaining will be of sufficient capacity to handle maximum flows. Each pump shall have an individual flow intake and suction line. Wet well design should be such as to avoid turbulence near the intake. Intake piping shall be a minimum of four-inches (4”) and shall be as straight and short as possible. Full-closing shutoff valves shall be placed on the suction line of each pump except on vacuum primed pumps. Suitable shutoff and check valves shall be placed on the discharge line of each pump. The check valve shall be located between the shutoff valve and the pump. Valves shall be capable of withstanding normal pressure and water hammer. Valves shall not be located in the wet well. In the event that all pumps are inoperable and must be pulled for service a shutoff valve shall be provided downstream of the discharge header and a blind flange provided on the discharge header or between this shutoff valve and the individual pump shutoff valves. iv. Electrical and Emergency Power Supply Three-phase, two-hundred-and-eight-volt (3P, 120/208V Grounded Y) service is recommended for use at stations requiring less than forty horsepower (40 hp) motors. Where the stations have higher horsepower requirements, three-phase, four-hundred-eighty-volt (3P, 277/480V Grounded Y) service is required. The power panel shall typically include the meter pan, main breaker, transfer switch (based upon generator type), generator hook-up (based upon generator type), and a separate breaker for the RTU and radio to be fed by normal power only. All stations shall have a minimum ninety-five percent (95%) power factor. 39 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us All pumping stations, except for single-family dwelling grinder pump stations, shall be provided with emergency power supply. Portable generator hookups and manual transfer switches and electric outlets will be accepted for stations with a capacity of less than fifty (50) gpm. Larger stations shall be provided with on-site emergency power generation equipment and an automatic transfer switch. The automatic transfer switch shall be provided with a bypass to allow for service of the switch without shutting down the station. All on-site emergency power generation equipment shall be provided with diesel engines and comply with all federal, state and local regulations. Generator fuel storage tanks shall be double walled, above ground and sized for forty- eight (48) hours of operation at full load. The fuel tank shall be filled prior to acceptance and a diesel fuel stabilizer added when appropriate for the size of the tank. The on-site emergency power generation equipment shall also be provided with a critical silencer / muffler, weatherproof housing, battery charger, block heater and standard monitoring and control panel. The installation shall be on a concrete pad and in accordance with the manufacturer’s written requirements and recommendations. v. SCADA and Alarms All stations shall be provided with a remote telemetry unit (RTU) that shall be a panel-mount TG5700 RTU TELEGYR 5700. The RTU Station Manager shall be equipped with RS232 Master Station communication port equipped with TG6500 communication protocol, RS485 I/O LAN communication port, and maintenance/diagnostic communication port. The RTU Combination Controller Card shall consist of eight (8) status/SOE/accumulator input points, six (6) bipolar DC analog input points, and four (4) trip/close point of on board (expandable to thirty- two (32) with add-on relay assemblies). General requirements of the RTU shall also include: SBO controller for management of communications on I/O LAN; 125 VDC/120 VAC power converter (100 watts); a 120 VAC battery charger with battery cables and two (2) twelve volt (12V), seventeen amp hour (17AH) batteries; mounting panel measuring twenty-inches high by twenty-inches wide (20”H x 20”W); null modem cable to connect Station Manager to MDS radio; and configuration/maintenance hardware manual. 40 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us The radio shall be a Microwave Data Systems MDS 9710, 900 mHz SCADA radio. A battery charger with a twelve volt (12V), seven amp hour (7AH) battery shall be provided. An antenna shall be mounted on a pole of sufficient height to allow reliable communications with the Public Utilities Department’s master station. The RTU cabinet shall be a NEMA 4X cabinet, thirty-six inches high by thirty-inches wide by eleven-inches deep (36”H x 30”W x 11”D). The cabinet shall include a communications/power interface panel and heater. The alarm system shall be activated in cases of power failure, pump failure or any cause of pump station malfunction as determined by the Public Utilities Department. Alarms shall be connected to Public Utilities System Operations. vi. Metering and Controls A magnetic flow meter and a seven-day circular, or strip, chart recorder shall be provided at all pumping stations deemed necessary by the Public Utilities Department. The flow meter shall provide flow totalization and digital instantaneous flow rate in gpm. The flow tube shall be sealed and suitable for continuous submergence. The magnetic flow meter primary device shall not be located in the wet well. The primary device shall be located in the dry well, above ground structure, valve pit or separate metering pit. A separate sump pump shall be provided to drain the flow meter location. The primary device shall be located the appropriate number of straight upstream pipe diameters from any bend, valve, "T" or other turbulence producing fitting as required / recommended by the manufacturer. The primary device shall be located where the pipe remains full at all times and shall not be located on a vertical downward flowing pipe. The primary device shall be provided with a bypass. Shutoff valves shall be provided on the bypass and upstream and downstream of the primary device. The chart recorder shall be located in an enclosure adjacent to the SCADA enclosure. The wet well must be large enough so that excessive pump starting and stopping will not take place, which may result in overheating of motors and controls. For constant speed pumps the minimum time interval at peak flow between pump stop and lead pump start shall be five (5) minutes. Soft starts shall be provided for all pumps of twenty horsepower or greater and/or with peak flows greater than 500 gpm. 41 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us Variable speed pumps and variable frequency drive controls shall be provided for all pumps discharging into a shared or transmission force main or as deemed necessary by the Water / Wastewater Manager. Except with suction lift pumps, the high-water level should never be below the top of the pump casing and the impeller to ensure that the pump will prime. The low-level setting should be twice the diameter of the suction pipe but not be less than six-inches (6”) above the suction pipe. Control systems shall be of the encapsulated-float type or the electronic-transducer type. Float-tube type and bubbler type controls are not permitted. These devices shall be located so that they will not be affected by flow currents created by the entering sewage or pump suctions. Provision shall also be made to prevent floating material in the wet well from interfering with the operation of the controls. The pump control unit shall automatically alter the pumps in use and provided with a manual override. The pump control cabinet shall be provided with on-off-automatic switches and a green run light (preferred) for each pump. vii. Wet Well / Dry Well Stations Pumps shall be of the centrifugal type, capable of passing a three-inch (3”) sphere, located in the vertical position. They shall be self-cooling (sewage cooled not preferred) and provided with covers for the volutes for use during repairs. Extended shaft configurations are not preferred. Full flow OS&Y resilient wedge gate valves shall be provided on the suction piping and discharge side of the check valve. Check valves shall be weighted swing arm types that accept air cushion and oil control devices. Support structures, thrust blocking and restraining systems shall be provided for all piping and equipment. The motor control room and dry well shall be climate controlled by an HVAC system. Dehumidification must also be provided. Coatings and wall finishes shall be appropriately selected based upon the application. All grating shall be non-skid fiberglass material. An above grade pump around connection, station bypass, must also be provided. Wet wells shall be provided with sloped bottoms (minimum 1 to 1) to prevent the buildup of grit and debris. The pump intake basin should be long and narrow trench type to facilitate self cleaning. A fixed catwalk 42 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us shall be provided for easy cleaning of the wet well. Fall protection devices shall be included in the wet well design. A wet well lining system, poly-triplex or approved equal, shall be provided to prevent deterioration of the wet well. Surface coatings and paint will not be permitted. The wet well and dry well shall be separated by a watertight and gas- tight wall with separate entrances provided to each. Equipment requiring regular or routine inspection and maintenance shall not be located in the wet well. A separate sump pump shall be provided for removal of leakage or other water from the dry well floor. The sump pump shall be capable of delivering twenty gallons per minute (20 gpm) discharge. The pump shall discharge into the wet well with two check valves and ball valve on discharge side of the check valve. Stairwells shall be provided for dry well and wet well access, to allow for inspection and maintenance of equipment, when station size permits. Ladders may be provided in small stations where it is impractical to install stairways. Manhole steps are not acceptable. Wet well ventilation duct work shall be PVC and all mounting hardware shall be corrosion resistant stainless steel. Wet well ventilation shall be controlled by a percentage timer and hatch activated limit switch or activated by the wet well light switch. Dry wells and motor control rooms shall be ventilated to the outside supplied by fresh air. All heavy equipment, in excess of 100 pounds shall be accessible for removal or lifting by a crane or hoist. Hoists shall be positioned to allow access to all major pump station equipment. Hatches in the floor shall be positioned above the dry well to allow for easy removal of each pump and other large equipment. Structural beams shall be provided in the drywell where the lifting of equipment is out of reach from a hoist. Cranes, hoists and lifting devices shall be electrically operated. Where possible cranes shall extend to the exterior of the building for easy loading of equipment on to a truck. Lights and switches will be properly provided for all stations. All fixtures shall be located so that they are easily accessible for maintenance with a ladder. Adequate lighting shall be provided for convenience and safety of operation. 43 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us Exterior security lighting shall be provided to function on a photo-cell or timer. Additional lighting to operate manually should be provided anywhere work might need to be performed (i.e. bypass connection, loading dock, generator, etc.). Interior lighting shall be come on instantly (high pressure sodium are not preferred). Switches shall be located at all access points. At least two light fixtures shall be provided at all interior locations no matter what the size of the room. Lighting shall provide illumination for all areas in the station and control panels. In dry wells lighting fixtures shall be provided at different elevations to prevent shadowing from structural supports and stairways. Wall mounted lights shall be provided six feet (6’) above the floor level to provide additional illumination at the floor. A vapor tight light fixture with lamp guard and a one-hundred-watt incandescent bulb shall be installed in wet wells. All lighting located where gases exist shall be explosion proof. One-inch (1”) water service hose connections shall be provided at all locations where cleaning may be required. Proper backflow prevention and vacuum breaks (above flood level) shall be provided. A bathroom with toilet and washing facilities shall be provided when station size permits. The level of noise control shall be considered based on the location of the station. The safety of the worker and nuisance to neighbors should be taken into consideration during the design. All combustion engines such as generator sets and standby pumps shall be provided with a minimum of Type 2 critically silenced enclosures and exhaust systems. Noise reduction measures shall include specifying the quietest equipment and installing sound proofing materials, acoustical linings and enclosures. viii. Vacuum Primed Stations Wet well mounted vacuum primed package pump stations may be used for up to eighteen and one-half feet (18-1/2’) of suction pipe. Recessed wet well mounted vacuum primed package pump stations may be used for over eighteen and one-half feet (18-1/2’) of suction pipe. All wet wells shall have a minimum diameter of eight feet (8’). Wet wells shall be provided with sloped bottoms (minimum 1 to 1) to prevent the buildup of grit and debris. A wet well lining system, poly- 44 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us triplex or approved equal, shall be provided to prevent deterioration of the wet well. Surface coatings and paint will not be permitted Standard Equipment to be incorporated in the vacuum primed package pump station shall include: automatic alternator, vacuum pumps, duplex 120V GFI receptacle, spare Smith & Loveless mechanical seal, control circuit breaker, three (3) original copies of the Smith & Loveless operations and maintenance manuals, spare volute and seal gaskets, and ventilation fan with thermostat. Pre-Engineered Options to be incorporated in the vacuum primed package pump station shall include: phase monitor relay, auxillary heater, running time meter (totalizing and individual), NEMA starters, 3 KVA transformer (where required), selector switch (either Auto, Base 1 or Base 2), wet well blower, pump running lights, insulated hood, separate pump valves for each pump (preferred if available), and timer with two (2) second delay for electrode relay. Wet well mounted stations shall also be provided with a wet well ladder to extend to the normal wastewater level. Recessed wet well mounted stations shall also be provided with a recessed wet well manway ladder, to extend to the normal wastewater level, with ladder assist extensions and a dehumidifier. Special Modifications to be incorporated in the vacuum primed package pump station shall include: remote contacts (pump #1 run, pump #2 run, high water alarm, lead pump (FS/LL), lag pump (FS/HL), and phase monitor relay), additional one and one-quarter inch (1-1/4”) auxiliary conduit, additional float switch for redundant high water alarm, and spare sonic start probe and relay (if sonic start specified). Recessed wet well mounted stations shall also be provided with an eight and one-half feet (8’-6”) diameter layout, a shell height two feet (2’) above grade and a switch in the manway entrance hatch that will turn on the wet well blower when the hatch is opened. Additional components to be included on the site shall include the following: a one-inch (1”) water service as per standard details for the cleaning of wet wells and other infrastructure, security/work light with photo eye and manual override, flush mount safety equipment for wet and dry well access and four-inch (4”) bypass pump hook-up with valves as per standard details. 45 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us ix. Force Mains All force mains shall be appropriately sized based upon the design requirements for the pump station. All force mains four-inches (4”) and larger shall be ductile iron pipe including an epoxy lining meeting all current Kent County Department of Public Works requirements. Non- metallic force main shall be AWWA C-900, minimum SDR18, or HDPE DR11 (directional drilling applications) when warranted by the application and approved by the Water / Wastewater Manager. The following values of "C" are recommended for use in the Hazen-Williams equation for computing the friction losses in a force main for design conditions: C Value Pipe Characteristics Unlined cast iron, ductile iron and steel pipe: twenty- 100 four inches (24”) and larger (existing). Unlined cast iron, ductile iron and steel pipe: twelve- 96 inches (12”) and larger (existing). Unlined cast iron, ductile iron and steel pipe: four- 89 inches (4”) and larger (existing). 120 Cement-lined ductile iron pipe. 130 Various types of gasketed plastic pipe. 140 HDPE pipe. For friction loss in pipe fittings the Hazen-Williams Minor Loss Coefficients (K) are to be used as a multiplier of the velocity head evaluated at the downstream velocity. The minimum velocity shall not be less than two feet per second (2 fps) for force main design. In general force main velocities shall not exceed five and one-half feet per second (5-1/2 fps) for force main design. If the total dynamic head at the pump discharge exceeds 100 feet, a larger diameter force main will be used, provided that a velocity of two feet per second (2 fps) can be maintained. Air release valves shall be provided on lines at all high points in the profile. Blowoff valves shall be provided at all low points in the profile. Grinder pump force mains shall be laid on a rising profile as proceeding downstream. Where force mains are constructed of material which might cause the force main to 46 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us be confused with potable water mains, the force main shall be appropriately identified. A minimum ten feet (10’) horizontal and eighteen-inch (18”) vertical separation, as measured from the outside of each pipe, shall be provided for all water mains from sanitary sewer (gravity lines and force mains). This shall be the case whether the water main is above or below the sewer. Wherever possible the sewer shall be beneath the water main. Crossings shall be arranged so that the sewer joints will be equidistant and as far as possible from the water main joints. Force mains shall have a minimum of eighteen-inch (18”) clearance from drains, electric lines, gas mains, and all other utilities. All ductile iron pipe shall be in accordance with AWWA C151, latest revision (ANSI A21.51) and shall be in eighteen to twenty feet (18’-20’) lengths with single rubber gasket (push-on) joints in accordance with AWWA C111, latest revision (ANSI A21.11). All Class 52 ductile iron pipe shall be in accordance with AWWA C150, latest revision (ANSI A21.50). 3. Installation Requirements i. All installations shall be in conformance with the Construction Details provided in Appendix H. ii. All existing utilities shall be field verified prior to the start of construction. iii. All existing utilities shall be adjusted to grade, and repaired or replaced when deemed necessary by the Public Utilities Department, in all areas of disturbance associated with construction. iv. Any existing wastewater utility lines not to be utilized by the proposed project shall be properly abandoned at the mains by the developer / owner. v. Excavation and Trenching The bottom of the trench shall be cut true and even so the barrel of the pipe will have a bearing for the full length to provide a minimum cover of four feet (4’) from finished grade and shall be excavated to such a depth as will provide pipe elevations as indicated on the plans. The Contractor shall keep all excavation free from water or other liquids during the progress of the work. The trenches for water service connections shall be excavated to the minimum standard depth or to such depth as required to connect to existing mains or service pipes. 47 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us vi. Bedding Continuous and uniform bedding shall be provided in the trench for all buried pipe. Stones found in the trench shall be removed for a depth of at least six inches (6”) below the bottom of the pipe. The pipe shall be laid in the trench and secured in place with compacted backfill up to the crown of the pipe thus ensuring adequate support for the entire circumference of the pipe. Twenty-four inches (24”) of uncompacted backfill cover shall then be laid above the pipe to adequately protect the pipe before further compaction layers. Trench backfill shall then be placed and compacted in eight-inch (8”) minimum and twelve-inch (12”) maximum lifts. Trench compaction shall be 95% maximum dry density. Compaction shall be tested once per lift for each run of pipe. vii. Installation of Pipe and Fittings The laying and jointing of force main shall be in accordance with all applicable standards and manufacturer’s recommendations. All pipe and fittings shall be thoroughly cleaned before laying and shall be kept clean until acceptance of work. At the end of each work day, the end of the pipe shall be tightly closed to prevent dirt, foreign substances or small animals from entering the line. Pipe and fittings shall be carefully handled and lowered into the trench. Special care shall be taken to make sure all pipes are well bedded on a solid foundation. Any defects due to settlement shall be corrected by the Contractor at his/her expense. Where the manufacturer’s recommended pipe joint deflection is exceeded, mechanical joint bends shall be required and installed to the satisfaction of the Public Utilities representative. Thrust blocks of Portland Cement Concrete Class B of adequate size and weight shall be used on all pressure piping for all fittings and all bends, including and in excess of eleven and one-quarter degrees (11-1/4°) unless specifically called for otherwise on the plan. Thrust blocks (buttresses) shall conform to the details shown on the plan and/or construction details contained herein. All tees, bends and plugs shall be provided with reaction blocking, tie rods and retainer glands designed to prevent movement. 48 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us No pipe shall be laid upon a foundation into which frost has penetrated, nor at any time when the Public Utilities representative shall deem there is danger of frost penetration at the bottom of the excavation, unless all requirements as to the minimum length of open trench and promptness of refilling are observed. 49 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us V. Construction Phase A. Pre-Construction Meeting and Requirements 1. Scheduling i. Following the receipt of all approvals, as outlined in this Handbook (Section II, B), the developer shall request a Pre-Construction Meeting. For all projects which require final approval from the Public Services Department the developer shall request a Pre-Construction Meeting through the Public Services Manager. For all projects which only require water / wastewater utility plan approval from the Public Utilities Department the developer shall request a Pre-Construction Meeting through the Public Utilities Construction & Inspections Manager. ii. The Public Services Manager or Public Utilities Construction & Inspections Manager, as per the above, will schedule the Pre-Construction meeting to ensure the attendance of all relevant City staff, the Developer, his/her Engineer and Contractor, utility firms and other agencies as may be deemed appropriate. A representative from the Public Utilities Department must be in attendance for all projects which have received Water / Wastewater final plan approval. iii. A minimum of five (5) business days notice is required to schedule this meeting for typical projects. A minimum of ten (10) business days notice is required to properly schedule this meeting for large projects. iv. All requirements set forth in the meeting must be met prior to the start of construction. 2. Submittals i. The Water / Wastewater Pre-Construction Meeting Checklist provided in Appendix C shall be completed in its entirety and submitted to the Public Utilities Department representative at the pre-construction meeting. ii. In conjunction with the Water / Wastewater Pre-Construction Meeting Checklist, the following items must be submitted: Construction schedule. List of subcontractors including contact information, as applicable. 50 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us Completed DelDOT Utility Construction Permit Application including 8- 1/2” x 11” drawing, as applicable. This application must be submitted to DelDOT by the Public Utilities Department. Completed Acceptable Water Materials Checklist provided in Appendix D. This checklist must be completed for all projects involving work related to the water utility system. Completed Acceptable Wastewater Materials Checklist provided in Appendix E. This checklist must be completed for all projects involving work related to the wastewater utility system. Completed Acceptable Wet Well/Dry Well Pump Station Materials Checklist provided in Appendix F. This checklist must be completed for all projects proposing a wet well mounted pump station. Completed Acceptable Vacuum Primed Pump Station Materials Checklist provided in Appendix G. This checklist must be completed for all projects proposing a recessed wet well mounted pump station. When the notation “Full Specification Required” or similar language appears within the Acceptable Materials Checklists, or when required materials do not appear within said lists, complete shop drawing submittals are required for review by Public Utilities Department personnel. 3. Notice to Proceed i. The Public Services Manager or Public Utilities Construction & Inspections Manager, in accordance with the pre-construction meeting requirements, will issue a Notice to Proceed for the project once all requirements established in the Pre-Construction Meeting have been met. ii. All water and wastewater utility work must be scheduled directly with the Public Utilities Construction & Inspections Manager. B. Inspection Requirements 1. Accessibility and Notification i. The Developer shall provide the Public Utilities Construction & Inspection Manager or his/her representative (herein after referred to as Public Utilities representative), access to all parts of the work and furnish such information and assistance as is required to make a complete and detailed inspection. 51 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us ii. During construction, the Developer shall provide the Public Utilities representative with at least two (2) working days notice prior to commencing all major constructions activities at (302) 736-7070. Contractors are subject to work stoppages and/or having work rejected if proper notification is not provided. Activities requiring notification shall include, but are not limited to, the following: Installation of water or wastewater utilities. Scheduling and testing of water or wastewater utility systems. Restoration of utility trenches. Placement of paving material. Underground utilities must be installed and utility permits closed out prior to placement of paving and seeding. iii. The site contractor shall contact the City of Dover Public Utilities Construction & Inspections Manager at (302) 736-7070 prior to the start of construction. A representative from the City of Dover Public Utilities Department must observe and approve all water and sanitary sewer interconnections and testing. All water taps and sanitary sewer connections must be performed by a City of Dover approved contractor. The proposed location for the connection may need to be adjusted in the field due to conditions of the existing main. Possible conditions that would require tapping / connection relocation include proximity to pipe joints, other taps, concrete encasements, conflict with other utilities, and the like. Test holes must be performed by the contractor to determine the best tapping / connection location. The City of Dover will not be held responsible for field conditions requiring adjustment of the tapping / connection location or for any work required by the contractor to make an appropriate and lawful connection. iv. All work requiring inspections shall be performed during the normal working hours of 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. If it is required that work be performed outside this time frame, a request must be made in writing to the Public Utilities Construction & Inspections Manager a minimum of two (2) working days in advance. Approval must be received in advance of scheduling work. The Contractor is responsible for reimbursement to the City for all costs incurred as a result of providing the necessary Public Utilities representative(s) on site for such work outside of normal working hours. 52 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us 2. Authority and Inspections i. Public Utilities representatives shall ensure that all work is completed in compliance with all local, state and federal requirements and the approved plans. The Public Utilities representatives shall have the authority to require any changes necessary to ensure all local, state and federal requirements are met, including any changes necessary to the approved plans. ii. Public Utilities representatives shall have the authority, but not the obligation, to require changes in work practices, up to and including the stoppage of work, if determined to be in the best interest of public safety and welfare. iii. All plans shall have been prepared based upon the best available information. Should existing facilities vary in size or any other characteristic from that shown on the plans when exposed, the Contractor shall provide the necessary fitting, or any other appurtenance necessary to connect and install the water or wastewater line at their expense. All modifications in work, and proposed appurtenance, shall be approved by the Public Utilities representative prior to use. iv. All existing water or wastewater lines, which are to be abandoned and are located within the limits of excavation, shall be removed and become the property of the Contractor after removal, unless otherwise noted. Pipe openings due to abandoned pipes shall be plugged as required by the Public Utilities Department. v. Proper and adequate implements, tools, and facilities satisfactory to the Public Utilities representative shall be provided and used by the Contractor for the safe and convenient implementation of work. During the process of unloading, all pipe and accessories shall be inspected by the Contractor for damage. The Contractor shall notify the Public Utilities representative of all material found to have cracks, flaws or other defects. The Public Utilities representative shall inspect the damaged materials and have the right to reject any materials found to be unsatisfactory. The Contractor shall promptly remove all rejected material from the site. All materials shall be handled carefully, so as to prevent damage to protective coatings, linings, and joint fillings; preclude contamination of interior areas; and avoid jolting contact, dropping, or dumping. All work and materials are subject to tests by the Public Utilities Department at such frequency as may be deemed appropriate. While suspended and before being lowered into laying position, each pipe section and appurtenant unit shall be inspected by the Contractor to detect damage or unsound conditions that may need corrective action or be cause for rejection. The Contractor shall inform the 53 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us Public Utilities representative of any defects discovered. The Public Utilities representative may require corrective actions or order rejection as deemed appropriate. Immediately before placement, the joint surfaces of each pipe section and fitting shall be inspected for the presence of foreign matter, coating blisters, rough edges or projections, and any imperfections so detected shall be corrected by cleaning, trimming, or repair as needed. vi. Trench excavation and bedding preparations shall proceed ahead of pipe placement to permit proper laying and joining of the pipe units at the prescribed grade and alignment without unnecessary deviation or hindrance. All foreign matter or dirt shall be removed from the inside of the pipe and fittings before they are lowered into position in the trench and they shall be kept clean by approved means during and after laying. Materials shall be carefully lowered into laying position by the use of suitable restraining devices. Under no circumstances shall the pipe be dropped into the trench. At the time of pipe placement, the bedding conditions shall be such as to provide uniform and continuous support for the pipe between bell holes. Bell holes shall be excavated as necessary to make the joint connections, but they shall be no larger than would be adequate to support the pipe throughout its length. No pipe material shall be laid in water or when the trench or bedding conditions are otherwise unsuitable or improper. When in the Public Utilities representative's opinion, placement or handling precautions prove inadequate, the Contractor shall provide and install suitable plugs or caps effectively closing the open ends of each pipe section before it is lowered into laying position, and they shall remain so covered until removal is necessary for connection of an adjoining unit. Unless otherwise permitted by the Public Utilities representative, bell and spigot pipe shall be laid with the bell ends facing upgrade and the laying shall start on the downgrade end and proceed upgrade. As each length of bell and spigot pipe is placed in laying position, the spigot end shall be centered in the bell and the pipe forced home and brought to correct line and grade. The pipe shall be secured in place with approved backfill material, which shall be thoroughly compacted by tamping around the pipe to a height of at least twelve-inches (12”) above the top with hand operated mechanical tamping devices or by hand. Trench compaction shall be 95% of AASHTO T180. Compaction shall be tested once per lift for each run of pipe. The joint areas shall remain exposed and precautions shall be taken to prevent the soil from entering the joint space, until the joint seal is effective. Backfill in the bell area shall be left loose until the next section of pipe is placed. Connection of pipe to existing lines or previously constructed manholes shall be accomplished as 54 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us shown in the plans or as otherwise approved by the Public Utilities representative. Where necessary to make satisfactory closure or produce the required curvature, grade or alignment deflections at joints shall not exceed that which will assure tight joints and comply with any limitations recommended by the pipe manufacturer. Entrance of foreign matter into pipeline openings shall be prevented at all times to the extent that suitable plugs or coverings can be kept in place over the openings without interfering with the installation operations. vii. Public Utilities representatives shall have the right to limit the amount of trench opened in advance of pipe laid, and the amount of pipe laid in advance of backfilling, in order to ensure proper coordination of work and that all efforts are in the best interest of the public. viii. Public Utilities representatives shall be empowered at any time to require the refilling of open trenches over completed pipelines if, in their judgment, such action is necessary. The Contractor shall, therefore, have no claims for extra compensation, even though to accomplish such refilling, he/she is compelled to temporarily stop excavation or any other work. ix. If work is stopped on any trench or excavation for any reason and the excavation is left open for any unreasonable length of time in advance of construction, in the opinion of the Public Utilities representative, the Contractor shall, if so directed, refill such trench or excavation at his/her own expense and shall not again open said trench until he/she is ready to complete the work therein. x. The terms "auger", "boring", "jack", "jacking", and "tunneling" in the plans refers only to non-open cut construction. A Public Utilities representative must be on site while this work is taking place. The Contractor shall inspect and verify soil conditions to his own satisfaction in order to determine the type of construction to employ. During the construction, the Contractor shall be responsible for protecting all existing utilities above or below the pipe invert. The minimum inside diameter of the casing pipe shall be four-inches (4”) greater than the outside diameter of the bell of the carrier pipe. For any installation beneath a railroad, the top of the casing pipe shall not be closer than the specified dimensions indicated in the railroad permit. No jacking/augering of pipe will be allowed below the water table unless the water table has been lowered sufficiently to keep the water below the pipe being installed. The use of water under pressure (jetting) will not be permitted to facilitate jacking/augering operations. If any installation is augered, the head shall be 55 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us approved by the Public Utilities representative and the auger shall be located six-inches (6”) behind the lead edge of the casing or carrier pipe. Casing chocks shall be used as necessary to install the carrier pipe to the proper line and grade inside the casing pipe. Voids between carrier and casing pipes shall be filled with sand and the casing pipe sealed at both ends with a suitable material to prevent water or debris from entering the casing pipe. xi. Directional boring/drilling installation shall be accomplished where required on the plans to minimize disturbance of existing surface improvements. A Public Utilities representative must be on site while this work is taking place. The installer shall have a minimum of three (3) years of experience in this method of construction and have installed at least 1,000 feet of eight-inch (8”) or larger diameter pipe to specified grades. The field supervisor employed by the Contractor shall have at least three (3) years of experience, shall be at the site at all times during the boring/drilling installation, and shall be responsible for all of the work. The Contractor shall submit boring/drilling pit locations to the engineer before beginning construction. The drilling equipment shall be capable of placing the pipe as shown on the plans. The installation shall be by a steerable drilling tool capable of installing continuous runs of pipe, without intermediate pits, a minimum distance of 200 feet. The guidance system shall be capable of installing pipe within one and one-half inches (1-1/2”) of the plan vertical dimensions and two-inches (2”) of the plan horizontal dimensions. The Contractor shall be required to remove and reinstall pipes which vary in depth and alignment from these tolerances. Pull back forces shall not exceed the allowable pulling forces for the pipe being installed. Drilling fluid shall be a mixture of water and bentonite clay and shall be designed to meet existing soil conditions. Disposal of excess fluid and spoils shall be the responsibility of the Contractor. C. Water Testing Requirements 1. Pressure Testing i. Water main installations shall be pressure tested by the Contractor, utilizing individuals qualified to perform the testing, and approved by the Public Utilities representative. All pressure testing shall be performed under the Public Utilities representative’s observation. All equipment and labor required to perform the tests shall be furnished by the Contractor. ii. The test shall be in accordance with AWWA C-600 and a pressure of 165 psi shall be maintained for two (2) hours with no variation. Fire mains shall be 56 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us tested to the blind flange located inside the building. Fire mains shall be tested at a pressure of 200 psi maintained for two (2) hours with no variation. iii. The Contractor shall install any taps required at all high points on the line to expel trapped air prior to conducting the pressure tests. Following the tests, all such taps shall be tightly plugged with suitable threaded brass plugs. All costs of tapping and plugging the line for this purpose shall be borne by the Contractor. iv. Water for testing purposes shall be furnished by the City unless a fill tank is required. The Contractor shall furnish and install adequate pumping and gauging equipment to develop the required hydrostatic pressure and to measure the pressure and amount of water lost by leakage. Duration of the pressure test shall not be less than two (2) hours. All visible leaks shall be repaired regardless of total leakage as shown by test. v. If inspection or test shows defects, including visible leaks, such defective work or material, shall be replaced at the expense of the Contractor, and inspection and tests shall be repeated. All repairs shall be made with new material; failure to meet the tests specified above will be sufficient cause to reject the work until the defects are satisfactorily repaired. All expenses and costs incurred in carrying out the specified tests shall be borne by the Contractor. The Public Utilities Department shall have sole authority and responsibility to determine if the tests are acceptable. 2. Sterilization Testing i. Prior to the final connection of the newly installed pipe into the existing water main, and with plugs used in the pressure test still in place on the installed pipe, the entire system shall be sterilized, using the procedures as specified in AWWA Standard C601-54 and as required by the Public Utilities representative. Dechlorination of super-chlorinated lines shall be the responsibility of the contractor. ii. All disinfection procedures shall be in accordance with AWWA C-652. The preferred method of chlorination is the installation of the appropriate amount of H.T.H. 65%-35% granular chloride during the installation of the water main. iii. Before the final connection is made, all surfaces of the relocated line, and the existing water main that are to become part of the closing joint, including all gaskets and glands, shall be thoroughly cleaned and shall be treated with a five percent (5%) solution of Sodium Hypochlorite. Extreme care is to be exercised in order to prevent the entrance of any contaminants into the main. 57 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us iv. The Contractor shall provide an adequate blow-off for use in flushing of the main. The Public Utilities representative will collect water samples, for bacteriological tests, from the blow-off. All samples will be delivered to the Delaware State Laboratory by the Public Utilities representative for analysis. Each section of water main shall receive approval from the Public Utilities Department and Office of Drinking Water prior to being placed in service. v. If testing results do not meet the requirements necessary, the Contractor shall repeat sterilization procedures, and any other work determined necessary, as directed by the Public Utilities representative, and tests shall be repeated. Failure to pass the tests specified above will be sufficient cause to reject the work until satisfactory results have been obtained. The Public Utilities Department shall have sole authority and responsibility to determine if the tests are acceptable. vi. All expenses and costs incurred in carrying out the specified sterilization work and tests shall be borne by the Contractor. D. Water Meter Inspections 1. All water meter installations shall be inspected by a Public Utilities representative to ensure compliance with all installation requirements, including completion of finish grading. (See construction detail W-1.) 2. Requests for a meter inspection shall be made to the Public Utilities Department providing at least two (2) working days notice. 3. Water service will not be turned on to the property or structure until the installation has passed meter inspection. E. Wastewater Testing Requirements 1. Air Testing i. Sanitary sewer main installations shall be air tested by the Contractor, utilizing individuals qualified to perform the testing, and approved by the Public Utilities representative. All air testing shall be performed under the Public Utilities representative’s observation. Copies of the testing results must be provided to the Public Utilities representative. All equipment and labor required to perform the tests shall be furnished by the Contractor. ii. Air testing shall be completed after all the utility pipes have been installed in the area to be tested and prior to commencement of the street construction. 58 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us iii. Air testing shall be performed on each section of sanitary sewer main, including sewer laterals. A pressure of four (4) psi shall be maintained for five (5) minutes with no variation. iv. Disposal of any wastewater or test water into the City’s sanitary sewer system is subject to charges in accordance with current wastewater rates and user fees. Discharge requests must be submitted in writing to the Water / Wastewater Manager. Written approval must be obtained prior to the occurrence of any discharge to the system. v. If inspection or test shows defects or testing failure, such defective work or material, shall be replaced at the expense of the Contractor, and inspection and tests shall be repeated. All repairs shall be made with new material; failure to meet the tests specified above will be sufficient cause to reject the work until the defects are satisfactorily repaired. All expenses and costs incurred in carrying out the specified tests shall be borne by the Contractor. The Public Utilities Department shall have sole authority and responsibility to determine if the tests are acceptable. 2. Hydrostatic Testing i. Sanitary sewer force main installations shall be hydrostatically tested by the Contractor, utilizing individuals qualified to perform the testing, and approved by the Public Utilities representative. All hydrostatic testing shall be performed under the Public Utilities representative’s supervision. Copies of the testing results must be provided to the Public Utilities representative. All equipment and labor required to perform the tests shall be furnished by the Contractor. ii. Hydrostatic testing shall be completed after all the utility pipes have been installed in the area to be tested and prior to commencement of the street construction. iii. During the hydrostatic testing of force mains, a pressure of seventy-five (75) psi shall be maintained for two (2) hours with no variation. iv. Disposal of any wastewater or test water into the City’s sanitary sewer system is subject to charges in accordance with current wastewater rates and user fees. Discharge requests must be submitted in writing to the Water / Wastewater Manager. Written approval must be obtained prior to the occurrence of any discharge to the system. v. If inspection or test shows defects or testing failure, such defective work or material, shall be replaced at the expense of the Contractor, and inspection and tests shall be repeated. All repairs shall be made with new material; failure to 59 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us meet the tests specified above will be sufficient cause to reject the work until the defects are satisfactorily repaired. All expenses and costs incurred in carrying out the specified tests shall be borne by the Contractor. The Public Utilities Department shall have sole authority and responsibility to determine if the tests are acceptable. 3. Infiltration Inspections i. Each manhole, wet well or similar structure installed within the sanitary sewer system shall be inspected for infiltration by the Public Utilities representative. ii. If inspections show any defects or signs of infiltration, such defective work or material, shall be repaired or replaced at the expense of the Contractor, and inspection shall be repeated. All repairs shall be made with new material; failure to prohibit infiltration into wastewater utility system will be sufficient cause to reject the work until the defects are satisfactorily repaired or replaced. 4. Video Inspections i. Within three (3) months of the Request for Public Infrastructure Acceptance, all sanitary sewer lines and manholes shall be televised. All lines must be flushed and cleaned by the Contractor prior to televising. ii. Video inspection reports shall be reviewed with the Public Utilities representative. Workmanship and cleanliness of the installation will be checked. All video inspection reports shall be compatible with current Public Utilities Department video inspection software and shall include the following: All video inspections shall be performed utilizing the NASSCO PACP (National Association of Sewer Service Companies Pipeline Assessment Certification Program) methodology. Reference the start and end of each video segment as it begins, by clearly identifying the manhole number where the video segment begins and the manhole number where the video segment ends. Footages along the sewer line must be shown on the video report and zeroed out at the beginning of each segment starting from the center of the manhole. The video camera shall be guided forward at a moderate to slow pace along the bottom of the pipe as per PACP guidelines. iii. If the video inspection shows any defects, such defective work or material shall be replaced at the expense of the Contractor, and the video inspection and any other required tests shall be repeated. All repairs shall be made with new 60 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us material; failure to meet testing requirements will be sufficient cause to reject the work until the defects are satisfactorily repaired. All expenses and costs incurred in carrying out the specified tests and video inspections shall be borne by the Contractor. No sanitary sewer infrastructure will be accepted by the City of Dover until all defects have been corrected. The Public Utilities Department shall have sole authority and responsibility to determine if the tests are acceptable. F. Tracer Wire and Identification Tape Verification 1. All non-metallic water lines (mains and services) shall be installed with a tracer wire and identification tape. The wire shall be a minimum of twelve (12) gauge blue coated solid copper wire, wrapped around the pipe, and extending up into all valve and curb boxes. The identification tape shall be six-inches (6”) wide, laid one foot (1’) above the pipe, with the following text: “Caution: Buried Water Line Below”. 2. All non-metallic wastewater lines (mains and laterals) shall be installed with a tracer wire and identification tape. (Tracer wire is not required on gravity mains.) The wire shall be a minimum of twelve (12) gauge green coated solid copper wire, wrapped around the pipe. The identification tape shall be six-inches (6”) wide, laid one foot (1’) above the pipe, with the following text: “Caution: Buried Sewer Line Below”. 3. Within three (3) months of the Request for Public Infrastructure Acceptance, all mains, laterals, and services requiring tracer wire and identification tape shall be verified for the functionality of the same by a Public Utilities representative. 4. Requests for tracer wire and identification tape verification shall be made to the Public Utilities Department providing at least two (2) working days notice. 5. If the tracer wire and identification tape verification identifies any defects or non- functioning areas, such defective work or material shall be replaced at the expense of the Contractor, and the tracer wire and detector tape verification and any other required tests shall be repeated. All re-testing expenses shall be charged to the Contractor by the Department. All repairs shall be made with new material; failure to meet testing requirements will be sufficient cause to reject the work until the defects are satisfactorily repaired. All expenses and costs incurred in carrying out the specified tests shall be borne by the Contractor. No water or wastewater infrastructure will be accepted by the City of Dover until all defects have been corrected. The Public Utilities Department shall have sole authority and responsibility to determine if the tests are acceptable. 61 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us G. Final Inspection, Request for Acceptance and Dedication 1. Final Inspection i. The Developer shall request a final inspection when all work is complete. This request shall be made to the Public Services Manager or Public Utilities Construction & Inspections Manager as established through the pre- construction meeting. ii. The final inspection will be scheduled within five (5) to ten (10) days of the request. iii. The final inspection will be conducted by all relevant City staff. City staff shall be accompanied by the Developer, and/or his/her representative, and inspect the site. All items of work, if any, which must be completed, replaced or repaired, will be identified. iv. The Public Utilities Construction & Inspection Manager will provide the Public Services Manager or the Developer, in accordance with F.1.i. above, a punch list of the remaining work to be completed within ten (10) working days of the final inspection. The punch list will include information required under Request for Acceptance. v. Should the Developer fail to request a final inspection, the Public Utilities Construction & Inspection Manager may provide the Developer with a punch list of all remaining work to be completed for the project at his/her discretion. 2. Request for Public Infrastructure Acceptance i. A Request for Public Infrastructure Acceptance is required for all projects which contain components which are to be dedicated to the City of Dover. ii. Upon completion of the final inspection, and when all resulting punch list items have been completed to the satisfaction of the Public Utilities Department, the Developer shall submit a written Request for Public Infrastructure Acceptance to the Public Services Manager with copy to the Water / Wastewater Manager. iii. In conjunction with the written request, the following items must be included: As-Built Infrastructure Plans including strike through corrections to the materials listing table, utility schedules, and public infrastructure dedication table. Final Sanitary Sewer Line and Manhole Video Inspection Reports. Video inspections and reports can be submitted on CD-ROM or DVD-ROM. The video report will be used to view the condition of the sanitary sewer 62 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us pipe prior to acceptance. All defects shall be repaired by the Contractor prior to submission. All video inspection reports shall become the property of the City of Dover. Release from Unpaid Bills (To be submitted to Public Services Manager only.) Ten percent (10%) Maintenance Bond (To be submitted to Public Services Manager only.) Verification of Installation of Street Signs (To be submitted to Public Services Manager only.) Verification of Installation of Permanent Monuments (To be submitted to Public Services Manager only.) iv. The Request for Public Infrastructure Acceptance will be reviewed by the Public Services and Public Utilities Departments. v. The Water / Wastewater Manager will provide a recommendation to accept or deny acceptance of the water and wastewater utility infrastructure associated with the Request for Public Infrastructure Acceptance to the Public Services Manager. 3. Public Infrastructure Dedication i. The Public Infrastructure Dedication procedure shall commence upon satisfactory completion of every prior step and receipt of recommendations to accept infrastructure from the Public Services and Public Utilities Departments. ii. The Public Services Manager shall be responsible for all necessary forms and documentation to be submitted to the appropriate Council Committee and to City Council to request dedication of public infrastructure. iii. City Council shall grant final approval of dedication. This approval will authorize the acceptance and ownership of all public infrastructure associated with the project. In addition, private infrastructure will also be identified. Private infrastructure shall be maintained by others in accordance with any special conditions associated with the project. iv. Until dedication approval is granted by City Council, the Developer is responsible for all costs associated with the repair and maintenance of all public infrastructure. This includes, but is not limited to, reimbursement to the City for repairs and maintenance performed when determined to be in the best interest of public health, safety and welfare.  63 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us   VI. Operations and Maintenance  A. Water 1. General i. The City does not guarantee any special service, pressure, capacity or facility other than is permitted by the ordinary and changing operating condition of the City's water system, as the same exists from day to day. The city shall be free and exempt from any and all claims for injury to any person or property damage by reason of fire, water, and failure to supply water pressure or capacity. ii. In case of breakdown, emergency or for any other unavoidable cause, the City shall have the right to cut off the water supply temporarily in order to make necessary repairs or connections. In such case, the City shall not be liable for any damage or inconvenience suffered by the customer; or any claim against it at any time for interruption in service, lessening of supply, inadequate pressure, poor water quality, or any cause beyond its control. The same rule shall apply if the City discontinues service pursuant to any other provision of this Handbook or the City Code. iii. The Public Utilities Department shall maintain all water utility facilities dedicated to the City of Dover. All dedicated facilities shall be located within a public right-of-way, public utility easement, or on City of Dover Property. iv. It shall be unlawful for any person, other than Public Utilities Department personnel, to open or close any curb stop or valve on the public water mains or service lines. v. The property owner shall maintain all water utility facilities that have not been dedicated to the City of Dover. vi. The City of Dover shall have the power to regulate all water utility infrastructure, whether dedicated or undedicated, including that located on private property at the present time and all infrastructure to be located on private property in the future. Public Utilities Department and/or Fire Marshal’s Office shall periodically inspect water utility infrastructure located on private property, or undedicated, to see that it is functioning properly. If any defects are discovered, the property owner shall be directed to correct such defects or make such improvements, additions or alterations as deemed necessary to 64 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us make the water utility infrastructure functional at his/her expense. The property owner shall be provided with a set time within which such repairs shall be made. If the property owner shall fail to comply with the directive, water service shall be discontinued until such time as the location reaches compliance to the satisfaction of the Public Utilities Department, but in no event shall water supply to fire hydrant(s) be discontinued. The Public Utilities Director may proceed with the necessary repairs utilizing Department personnel or other authorized independent contractors, if determined in the best interest of public health, safety, and welfare. The property owner shall be billed for the work and labor performed and materials and equipment furnished. In the event that the property owner fails to pay said bills or expenses within 30 days from the date the same are mailed to the owner, then such bills shall be entered in the municipal lien docket as a lien owing the City and the same may be turned over to the city solicitor for collection. vii. Water service shall be resumed after discontinuance only when the conditions under which such service was discontinued are corrected to the satisfaction of the Public Utilities Department and upon the payment of all proper charges or amounts. The customer or property owner shall pay a fee covering service charges incident to discontinuance and resumption of water service. viii. The City Manager and his/her authorized agents shall have the authority to enter any building or premises within the City or service territory at reasonable times to inspect all pipes, valves, spigots or other attachments or to make necessary and reasonable tests consistent with good engineering practice to determine condition or to determine if any violations of this Handbook or City Code exist. ix. The Public Utilities Department shall be responsible for the operations of all water utility facilities to ensure that all local, state and federal laws and requirements are met, including Drinking Water Standards. In the event maintenance activities, repairs, replacements or upgrades are determined necessary to dedicated facilities in order to meet the requirements noted above, such activities shall be completed within the time frame required. When such activities are required of undedicated facilities, the property owner shall perform such activities as directed by the Public Utilities Department within the time frame required at his/her expense. If the property owner shall fail to comply with the directive, all response shall occur in accordance with Section VI.A.1.vi. 65 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us x. The customer will give immediate written notice to the Water / Wastewater Manager of any proposed substantial increase or decrease in demand, or change of use or purpose of the customer’s location. The water service connection, sanitary sewer lateral connection and water meters for each customer have a maximum capacity and no additional demand will be permitted except by the written consent of the Department. Failure to give notice to additions or changes will render the customer liable for upgrades required or performed by the Department on behalf of the location. xi. No trees may be planted within ten feet (10’) of water utility infrastructure. xii. No structures, including permanent signage, may be located within ten feet (10’) of water utility infrastructure. xiii. Water lines may not be located near any potential source of contamination. 2. Repairs and Replacement i. Public Utilities Department Responsibilities The Public Utilities Department will immediately repair all water utility infrastructure, including water mains, valves and fire hydrants, dedicated to the City of Dover whenever leaks, breaks or other failures are identified. The Public Utilities Department will repair water services between the main and the curb stop (when installed within one foot (1’) of the right- of-way or easement line as per requirements), whenever leaks, breaks or other failures are identified. For all other water service cases, repairs or replacement shall be made to the right-of-way or easement line only. The Public Utilities Department reserves the right to charge any party responsible for damage to water utility infrastructure for labor, equipment, materials and other expenses incurred due to the repair of such facilities. The Public Utilities Department will replace water utility infrastructure dedicated to the City of Dover only when determined appropriate by the City. ii. Property Owner Responsibilities The property owner shall immediately repair all undedicated water utility infrastructure, including but not limited to water mains, valves, fire hydrants, fire mains and service lines whenever leaks, breaks or other failures are identified at his/her expense. Inspections shall be 66 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us performed by a Public Utilities representative in accordance with all requirements of this Handbook. All said facilities, including fixtures and other attachments furnished by the customer or property owner on the property, shall be maintained in good order and condition and free from leaks. The City shall in no event be responsible for maintaining any portion of the water utility infrastructure owned by the customer (infrastructure located outside of the right-of-way or easement), or for damage done by water escaping there from. The property owner shall have seventy-two (72) hours to complete all repairs required to a standard water service line. Repairs required to all other water utility infrastructure components (such as water mains) shall be initiated within two (2) hours. If the Public Utilities Department is aware of an issue, notice shall be provided at the property directly to either the property owner or customer. If the property owner shall fail to comply with the directive, all response shall occur in accordance with Section VI.A.1.vi. The property owner shall be responsible for the replacement and maintenance of undedicated water utility infrastructure at his/her expense. All replacement activities shall meet the requirements of this Handbook including plan development. 3. Water Distribution System Flushing Program i. Water system flushing is performed on a regular basis as a critical part of normal system maintenance. The goal of this program is to ensure water quality is maintained at its optimal level. ii. Water mains are typically sized to allow adequate and safe flows for fire protection. Under normal demand conditions, water moves through the mains at a low velocity. This slow movement allows mineral deposits, to build up and accumulate in pipes over time. The buildup can restrict water flow in the pipes and contributes to corrosion, water color problems, and inadequate fire flow. iii. The Public Utilities Department systematically utilizes fire hydrants, and other outlets, throughout the system to perform the Water Distribution System Flushing Program. This allows water to move through a water main at a high velocity, creating a scouring action. The water is discharged through the hydrant, or other outlet, which in turn removes settled particles, such as iron, from the system. System evaluation is also performed during the flushing operation. 67 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us iv. All water system flushing operations shall be scheduled by the Water / Wastewater Manager to ensure the water distribution system is optimally maintained based upon current practices. v. Water system flushing shall be performed on all dedicated water mains on a regular basis. Water system flushing on water mains which are not dedicated to the City of Dover is the responsibility of the property owner. The City reserves the right to require water system flushing to be performed, upon request, by the owner / operator. Public Utilities Department personnel will perform private system flushing, in conjunction with regular flushing operations, upon request. Requests must be made in writing to the Water / Wastewater Manager. The property owner shall reimburse the Public Utilities Department for labor, materials and equipment perform water system flushing. The City shall be free and exempt from any and all claims due infrastructure defects that may be identified or repairs which may be required as a result of flushing operations. Should the property owner opt to utilize an independent contractor to perform flushing, these operations must be scheduled with the Water / Wastewater Manager in conjunction with regular flushing operations. 4. Fire Hydrant Flow Testing and Fire Suppression System Testing i. The Public Utilities Department performs fire hydrant flow testing to determine the flow pressure and volume of water that is expected from each hydrant. Flow testing is one of the ways the Department uses to ensure that hydrants are operable and to determine any system limitations that may need addressed. All hydrants are color coded following testing so Fire Department personnel can identify what water flow a certain fire hydrant can deliver during an emergency situation. Flow testing results are also utilized by sprinkler system designers to ensure a system for a structure is appropriately designed. ii. Flow testing on fire hydrants dedicated to the City of Dover shall be performed by Public Utilities Department personnel only. iii. Flow testing on fire hydrants which are not dedicated to the City of Dover is the responsibility of the property owner. The City reserves the right to require flow testing to be performed, upon request, by the owner / operator. Public Utilities Department personnel will perform these tests upon request. Requests must be made in writing to the Water / Wastewater Manager. The property owner shall reimburse the Public Utilities Department for labor, materials and equipment to flow test and appropriately mark the hydrant. Should the property owner opt to utilize an independent contractor to perform these tests, the testing operations must be scheduled with the Water / Wastewater Manager and flow 68 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us testing results must be submitted for review within five (5) business days of testing completion. iv. Sprinkler system designers may also request flow testing data through the Public Utilities Department. Should more recent testing data be required, the flow test shall be scheduled by the Water / Wastewater Manager. v. All fire hydrant flow testing, whether performed by the Public Utilities Department or through an independent contractor for dedicated and undedicated facilities, shall be scheduled through the Water / Wastewater Manager in order to maintain the integrity of the system and minimize system disturbance. All requests to perform fire hydrant flow testing on undedicated facilities by an independent contractor must be submitted in writing to the Water / Wastewater Manager. vi. Fire suppression systems are inspected and tested by an independent contractor for the building owner or occupant. Testing activities to be performed on systems connected to the water system, that will required water usage, must be scheduled through the Water / Wastewater Manager in order to maintain the integrity of the system and minimize system disturbance. Scheduling requests must be made in writing. Within five (5) business days of testing completion, a water usage report, including calculations must be submitted to the Water / Wastewater Manager. 5. Fire Hydrants i. It shall be unlawful for any person other than members of a Fire Department engaged in the performance of their duties, any person in the event of an emergency endangering life or property, or the Public Utilities Department for authorized purposes to open, use or take water from any fire hydrant. ii. Fire hydrants shall not be used for the filling of swimming pools. This shall be accomplished only through the metered supply that serves the property. iii. Fire hydrant connections by contractors are prohibited. This method may not be utilized during any phase of a construction project. iv. Fire hydrants shall not be used for the filling of tank trucks. The City has provided a filling station for such use at the William Street municipal facility. All tank trucks shall use this facility. Tickets can be purchased at 5 East Reed Street for use of this service. 69 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us 6. Water Meters i. All water meters, regardless of location, shall be accessible to the Public Utilities Department and City of Dover meter reading personnel, at all times. This requirement applies to all meters, existing and proposed, regardless of location prior to the effective date of this Handbook. All meters shall have a minimum clear area around the meter of three feet long by three feet wide by six feet high (3’L x 3’W x 6’H) for accessibility purposes. Existing non-pit meters shall not be blocked from access by walls, equipment or any other materials. ii. The Public Utilities Department shall maintain all water meters within the system as far as ordinary wear and tear are concerned. iii. All water meters should be routinely tested by the Public Utilities Department. Should a customer contest the results of a routine test, all costs to retest the meter shall be incurred by the customer. Should a customer desire to have their meter tested before its next scheduled test date and the meter is found to be correct within established tolerances as identified in this Handbook, all costs to test the meter shall be incurred by the customer. iv. Damage to any non-pit meter or radio read due to external causes due to negligence, freezing, or hot water, or to any pit or vault meter or radio read due to external causes due to negligence, shall be the responsibility of the property owner. The owner shall reimburse the Public Utilities Department for labor, materials and equipment required to repair or replace the meter or radio read. v. All water meters and appurtenances shall be purchased by the customer through the City of Dover. For all non City stocked meter sizes, the meters shall be purchased by the customer through an approved vendor as directed by the City. All new and replacement meters require authorization from the Water / Wastewater Manager or his/her designated representative prior to purchase to ensure appropriate sizing and location of the meter. (The customer shall be responsible for the purchase and installation of the initial meter for a site as well as any replacement meter that may be required due to a change in demand. The Public Utilities Department will be responsible for the purchase and installation of any replacement meter due to age or normal wear and tear.) vi. Once water service is established through the initial service application, all water meters registered with the City of Dover shall become the property of the City. vii. The City of Dover reserves the right to relocate water meters from inside a facility or structure to outside the facility or structure. Said meters will be 70 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us installed within a meter pit or vault in accordance with the provisions of this Handbook. This shall include the provision that each property or principle structure shall be metered by a single water meter so as to control the entire domestic supply. 7. Backflow Prevention i. Backflow prevention is required at all connections to the City of Dover water utility system to prevent contamination of the public water system from backflow. ii. All backflow prevention shall be provided through the use of dual check valves to prevent against backsiphonage and backpressure. The dual check valve shall be manufactured in full conformance with the standards established by the American Water Works Association titled AWWA C510-07 (Standard for Double Check Valve Backflow Prevention Assembly). iii. Backflow prevention shall be provided on all domestic supply lines through the installation of a dual check valve at the meter. iv. Backflow prevention is required on all Class 3, Class 4, Class 5 and Class 6 fire protection systems. Backflow prevention can be waived by the Water / Wastewater Manger on Class 1 and Class 2 fire protections systems if all AWWA requirements are met. v. In all cases backflow prevention shall be installed before the first branch line leading off the service line. vi. The property owner shall be responsible for the testing, maintenance, repair and replacement of all backflow prevention devices. vii. Locations identified without the required backflow prevention assembly, or with assemblies which do not function properly, will be provided written notice to install / replace said device as per the requirements of this Handbook. The property owner shall have fourteen (14) business days to complete all work required. If the property owner shall fail to comply with the directive, all response shall occur in accordance with Section VI.A.1.vi. 8. Concerns and Problems i. Customers may contact the Public Utilities Department during the normal working hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding holidays, at 302-736-7070 with any questions or concerns regarding the City of Dover Water Utility. 71 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us ii. Customers may contact the Public Utilities Department System Operations at 302-736-7060 or 302-736-7086 (twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week) with any problems or emergencies relating to the City of Dover Water Utility. iii. The customer shall immediately notify the Public Utilities Department of damage to or malfunction of the water meter as soon as it comes to his/her knowledge. B. Wastewater 1. General i. The Public Utilities Department shall maintain all wastewater utility facilities dedicated to the City of Dover. All dedicated facilities shall be located within a public right-of-way, public utility easement, or on City of Dover Property. ii. The property owner shall maintain all wastewater utility facilities that have not been dedicated to the City of Dover. iii. The City of Dover shall have the power to regulate all wastewater utility infrastructure, whether dedicated or undedicated, including that located on private property at the present time and all infrastructure to be located on private property in the future. Public Utilities Department shall periodically inspect wastewater utility infrastructure located on private property, or undedicated, to see that it is functioning properly. If any defects are discovered, the property owner shall be directed to correct such defects or make such improvements, additions or alterations as deemed necessary to make the wastewater utility infrastructure functional at his/her expense. The property owner shall be provided with a set time within which such repairs shall be made. If the property owner shall fail to comply with the directive, water service shall be discontinued until such time as the location reaches compliance, but in no event shall water supply to fire hydrant(s) be discontinued. The Public Utilities Director may proceed with the necessary repairs utilizing Department personnel or other authorized independent contractors, if determined in the best interest of public health, safety, and welfare. The property owner shall be billed for the work and labor performed and materials and equipment furnished. In the event that the property owner fails to pay said bills or expenses within 30 days from the date the same are mailed to the owner, then such bills shall be entered in the municipal lien docket as a lien owing the City and the same may be turned over to the city solicitor for collection. 72 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us iv. The City Manager and his/her authorized agents shall have the authority to enter any premises within the City or service territory at reasonable times to inspect, repair or replacement wastewater utility infrastructure or to make necessary and reasonable tests consistent with good engineering practice to determine condition or to determine if any violations of this Handbook or City Code exist. v. The Public Utilities Department shall be responsible for the operations of all wastewater utility facilities to ensure that all local, state and federal laws and requirements are met. In the event maintenance activities, repairs, replacements or upgrades are determined necessary to dedicated facilities in order to meet the requirements noted above, such activities shall be completed within the time frame required. When such activities are required of undedicated facilities, the property owner shall perform such activities as directed by the Public Utilities Department within the time frame required at his/her expense. If the property owner shall fail to comply with the directive, all response shall occur in accordance with Section VI.B.1.iii. vi. No trees may be planted within ten feet (10’) of wastewater utility infrastructure. vii. No structures, including permanent signage, may be located within ten feet (10’) of wastewater utility infrastructure. viii. Wastewater lines may not be located near any potential source of contamination. 2. Repairs and Replacement i. Public Utilities Department Responsibilities The Public Utilities Department will repair all wastewater utility infrastructure, including sanitary sewer gravity lines, force mains, manholes and pumping stations, dedicated to the City of Dover whenever breaks or other failures are identified. The Public Utilities Department will repair sanitary sewer laterals between the main and the cleanout (when installed within one foot (1’) of the right-of-way or easement line as per requirements), whenever breaks or other failures are identified. In the event a cleanout is not available, the property owner is responsible for installing said cleanout 73 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us as required by this Handbook. Once the cleanout has been installed, the location of any failures or defects can then be identified. The Public Utilities Department reserves the right to charge any party responsible for damage to wastewater utility infrastructure for labor, equipment, materials and other expenses incurred due to the repair of such facilities. The Public Utilities Department will replace wastewater utility infrastructure dedicated to the City of Dover only when determined appropriate by the City. ii. Property Owner Responsibilities The property owner shall repair all undedicated wastewater utility infrastructure, including but not limited to sanitary sewer gravity lines, force mains, manholes, sanitary sewer laterals, cleanouts, grease traps and pumping stations whenever breaks or other failures are identified at his/her expense. Inspections shall be performed by a Public Utilities representative in accordance with all requirements of this Handbook. All cleanouts are the full responsibility of the property owner. All said facilities, including fixtures and other attachments furnished by the customer or property owner on the property, shall be maintained in good order and condition. The City shall in no event be responsible for maintaining any portion of the wastewater utility infrastructure owned by the customer (infrastructure located outside of the right-of-way or easement), or for damage done by or penalties resulting from wastewater escaping there from. The property owner shall have seventy-two (72) hours to complete all non-critical repairs. All critical repairs shall be initiated within two (2) hours. If the Public Utilities Department is aware of an issue, notice shall be provided at the property directly to either the property owner or customer. If the property owner shall fail to comply with the directive, all response shall occur in accordance with Section VI.B.1.iii. The property owner shall be responsible for the replacement and maintenance of undedicated wastewater utility infrastructure at his/her expense. All replacement activities shall meet the requirements of this Handbook including plan development. 74 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us 3. Maintenance i. Public Utilities Department Responsibilities The Public Utilities Department shall clean and maintain all sanitary sewer gravity lines, manholes and pumping stations dedicated to the City of Dover (see also Sanitary Sewer Main Jetting Program) on a regular basis to ensure a functioning wastewater system. The Public Utilities Department shall video inspect all sanitary sewer gravity lines and manholes dedicated to the City of Dover on a regular basis to analyze pipe and manhole condition. ii. Property Owner Responsibilities The property owner shall clean and maintain all undedicated wastewater utility infrastructure, including but not limited to sanitary sewer gravity lines, manholes, sanitary sewer laterals, cleanouts, grease traps and pumping stations on a regular basis to ensure a functioning wastewater system at his/her expense. All dedicated / undedicated sanitary sewer gravity lines shall be cleaned and maintained to the point of connection to the City of Dover sanitary sewer main line. Any blockage occurring in a dedicated / undedicated sanitary sewer gravity main or lateral, to the point of connection at the main, shall be the sole responsibility of the property owner unless a blockage is found within the City of Dover sanitary sewer main line. All sanitary sewer laterals shall be cleaned and maintained from the structure receiving wastewater service to the point of connection to the City of Dover sanitary sewer main line by the property owner. The property owner is responsible for ensuring adequate cleanouts are located on the lateral, including one (1) cleanout one foot (1’) outside the right-of-way or easement line as per this Handbook, to allow for proper maintenance in conformance with the requirements of this Handbook. Any blockage occurring in a sanitary sewer lateral, to the point of connection at the sewer main, shall be the sole responsibility of the property owner unless a blockage is found within the City of Dover sanitary sewer main line. In the event repairs are required to the sanitary sewer lateral within the right-of-way or easement, the Public Utilities Department shall perform such repairs only after obtaining first hand evidence that the problem is located within the right-of-way and that the problem requires repair or 75 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us replacement of the lateral. This shall ensure that the City road or right- of-way is restored properly. 4. Sanitary Sewer Main Jetting Program i. Sanitary sewer main jetting is performed on a regular basis as a critical part of normal system maintenance. The goal of this program is to remove debris, grease and other deposits to ensure a functioning wastewater system. ii. Sanitary sewer mains are typically sized to allow adequate conveyance of peak flow conditions. Flow occurring under non-peak conditions can move through the mains at lower velocities resulting in material deposits and build up in pipes. The buildup can restrict flow in pipes and if not removed can contribute to line blockages. iii. The Public Utilities Department utilizes a jetting truck at manholes throughout the system to perform the Sanitary Sewer Main Jetting Program. The jet truck sends water through the main at a high velocity, creating a scouring action, which removes build up within the lines. iv. All sanitary sewer main jetting operations shall be scheduled by the Water / Wastewater Manager to ensure the wastewater system is optimally maintained based upon current practices. v. Sanitary sewer main jetting shall be performed on all dedicated sanitary sewer mains on a regular basis. 5. Wastewater Meters i. Wastewater meters shall be permitted only with approval from the Public Utilities Director. ii. Design calculations, installation and site plans must be submitted to the Water / Wastewater Manager for review and approval prior to receiving final approval from the Public Utilities Director. iii. All wastewater meters shall be installed outside in a pit or vault as appropriate. All wastewater meters, regardless of location, shall be accessible to the Public Utilities Department at all times for inspection. All meters shall have a minimum clear area around the meter of three feet long by three feet wide by six feet high (3’L x 3’W x 6’H) for accessibility purposes. Existing non-pit meters shall not be blocked from access by walls, equipment or any other materials. iv. The property owner shall be responsible for maintaining, repairing and replacing individual wastewater meters at his/her expense. Certificates of calibration, 76 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us meeting NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technologies) requirements, shall be submitted to the Water / Wastewater Manager annually. v. The City of Dover reserves the right to discontinue direct read wastewater billing service in the event the property owner is not properly maintaining the wastewater meters. 6. Prohibited Discharges i. It shall be unlawful for any person or group of persons to throw, place, or deposit, or attempt to throw, place or deposit, or cause to be thrown, placed or deposited, any article, object or substance into any wastewater utility infrastructure, which object, or substance would injure, damage or curtail flow in any manner in said wastewater system or pumping station into which wastewater utility infrastructure empties. ii. It shall be unlawful to pour, drain or run into the wastewater utility infrastructure of the City, by any method whatsoever, any tar or tar product, or petroleum or petroleum product, or any flammable substance or material. iii. It shall be unlawful to pour or drain into or permit the drainage into the wastewater utility infrastructure of the City any substance or chemical which would damage the machinery or equipment, or hinder the proper functioning or flow of the wastewater system or of pumping stations, owned and operated by the City. iv. Prohibited discharges shall include that contained within Part II, Chapter 180, Article III, Section 180-10 of the Code of Kent County, as revised. This Code requires that “No person shall discharge or cause to be discharged any stormwater, surface water, uncontaminated groundwater, roof runoff, subsurface drainage, uncontaminated noncontact cooling water or unpolluted industrial process waters to any sanitary sewer”. This shall include condensate as Section 98-161 of the City of Dover Code defines storm sewer as “…any system used for conveying rain water, stormwater, surface water, condensate, cooling water or similar liquid wastes, exclusive of sewage”. v. Trucks carrying sanitary sewer waste may discharge into the sanitary sewer system, in accordance with this Section, only upon approval by the Public Utilities Director or Water / Wastewater Manager. Requests shall be submitted in writing and reviewed on a case by case basis. All waste proposed to be discharged must have been generated by a customer of the City of Dover Wastewater System and meet all requirements of this section. 77 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us 7. Concerns and Problems i. Customers may contact the Public Utilities Department during the normal working hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding holidays, at 302-736-7070 with any questions or concerns regarding the City of Dover Wastewater Utility. ii. Customers may contact the Public Utilities Department System Operations at 302-736-7060 or 302-736-7086 (twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week) with any problems or emergencies relating to the City of Dover Wastewater Utility. C. Customer Services 1. Application for Service i. In order to receive water and/or wastewater service, each customer is required to apply at the Customer Service Department and if approved the customer shall enter into a contract with the City for water and/or wastewater service, as appropriate for the location, which is subject to the terms of service. Any prior outstanding debts to the City of Dover will result in service not being granted until the debt is paid in full. ii. When requesting service, individuals need to complete an application for utility service at least twenty four (24) hours or one (1) business day before the requested service date. The City requires a signed lease agreement or proof of ownership, a Social Security card, and one form of photo identification. The City will obtain credit reports to determine the amount of a deposit, if required. Charges for water and/or wastewater service, as applicable for the account, shall begin at the time service is made available to the customer. iii. The application form must be completed and approved to engage in a contract for service. This Handbook and any Rules and Regulations adopted by the City shall be part of every contract for water and/or wastewater service. iv. The City Manager is empowered to create and enforce all rules and regulations in order to maintain and operate the City’s water and wastewater systems. The City Manager, or designee, is authorized to review every contract for water and/or wastewater service. Additional information regarding policies and regulations may be obtained by contacting the City of Dover’s Customer Service Department. v. The City may reject any application for service if the applicant does not meet all the requirements of the City. 78 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us vi. The City does not charge a service fee to establish or discontinue service. However, the City reserves the right to charge a service fee to process changes or cancelations to any type of work order requests. An individual requesting to establish service without providing the required notice shall be subject to a service fee according to the published connect and disconnect service fees. vii. The City may require a service deposit for all utility (electric, water and/or wastewater) accounts. This amount varies depending on the customer’s credit rating. The requested deposit can be as much as three times the average monthly bill at the residence in question or as little as zero. Service deposits are held in an interest bearing account. Interest is paid on the deposit at a rate set by the City Council. When the customer account is terminated the deposit will be applied to the final bill. Any credit remaining on the account after the final bill is satisfied will be refunded to the customer once it has been determined that the customer has no other outstanding balances with the City of Dover. viii. As long as a residential customer (owner or renter) maintains a good credit standing, they will never be asked for an additional deposit. A customer who fails to pay their bill and has services disconnected or who has a returned check, and either occurs twice in a twelve month period, will be charged an additional deposit. Additional deposits may be required for any reason the City may deem appropriate. 2. Transference, Discontinuance and Suspension of Service i. When requesting a service transfer, individuals must apply at Customer Service and complete an application for utility service. A signed lease document or proof of ownership, a Social Security card, and one form of photo identification is required. ii. Establishment of water and/or wastewater service to a customer at a new location or transference of water and/or wastewater service to a new location shall be rendered only when all City of Dover outstanding debts are paid in full. Any delinquent balance must be paid in full and the account must be brought current in order to have service established at another location. At this time, the deposit for both locations will be reviewed. Any deposits will be transferred and an additional deposit may be required. The final bill is due and payable when rendered. iii. The customer shall give the City at least (1) business day, or twenty-four (24) hours, written notice to discontinue water and/or wastewater service unless otherwise agreed upon and shall be liable for water and/or wastewater service 79 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us used, as applicable for the account, until the meter is disconnected or final reading is recorded. iv. If, by reason of any act, neglect or default of a customer, the City’s water and/or wastewater service is suspended or the City is prevented from supplying water and/or wastewater service in accordance with the terms of any water and/or wastewater service contract it shall have entered into, the minimum charge for the unexpired portion of the water and/or wastewater service contract term shall become due and payable immediately as liquidated damages in lieu of the anticipated returns from the water and/or wastewater contract. v. Regular meter readings shall be made monthly for all customers, by City personnel, during normal working hours. Failure to have meter accessible for this purpose could result in termination of service. vi. Water and/or wastewater service may be disconnected by the City pursuant to this Handbook and shall be reconnected only upon advance payment of published service fees in addition to all arrearage due under the customer's utility service contract. There will be no charge for turning on or off any service for maintenance or repair purposes if done during normal working hours. Service calls after normal working hours are subject to charges at the rate approved by City Council. Prior to turning on any service discontinued for nonpayment, a service charge at the rate approved by City Council must be paid, together with all current and overdue charges. vii. The City reserves the right to discontinue water and/or wastewater service without notice for the following reasons: For shortages or interruptions in the City’s source of water supply or in other cases of emergency such as the performance of repairs as referenced in VI.A.1., VI.A.2., IV.B.1. and IV.B.2. Whenever an unsafe condition, or condition that may affect public health, safety and welfare, is found to exist on the customer’s premise that is related to or would be affected by water and/or wastewater service. (For example, if a site is discharging wastewater from the site due to a sewer backup or other cause the City may turn off water service to the site to prevent further wastewater discharge from the site in the interest of public health, safety and welfare until the necessary repairs are performed.) 80 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us viii. The City may discontinue water and/or wastewater service to a customer with notice upon a determination by the City Manager, or designee, that the Notice of Termination is correct or that the customer has waived his right to dispute the Notice of Termination for the following reasons: Failure to repair conditions having a detrimental effect on the City’s water and/or wastewater service or public health, safety and welfare as referenced in VI.A.1., VI.A.2., IV.B.1. and IV.B.2. Violation or noncompliance with this Water / Wastewater Handbook and/or Federal, State, or Local rules and regulations. Nonpayment of water / wastewater bill upon a determination by the City Manager, or designee, following the regulation as adopted by the City which may follow the guidelines as adopted by the Public Service Commission of the State of Delaware. 3. Water and Wastewater Rates, Tariffs and Charges i. Copies of the Water and Wastewater Rates, Tariffs and all rules and regulations adopted by City Council are available for the public review at the Customer Service Center, Public Utilities Department, City Clerk’s office and on the City of Dover website. The rules and regulations apply to every customer or applicant for utility service. Revisions and amendments may occur from time to time, and customers are encouraged to contact the City for updates. ii. The failure by the City of Dover to enforce any of the provisions of the Tariffs shall not be deemed a waiver of its right to do so. 4. Billing i. Deduction meters, for irrigation or any other purpose, are not permitted. ii. All water service connections must be metered. The water meter will be utilized to generate both water and wastewater usage. A separate meter may be utilized for irrigation purposes which will not generate a wastewater billing. All meter planning questions should be directed to the Public Utilities Department. iii. Meter readings are obtained by the City’s meter reading staff on a monthly basis on a pre-determined route. The area of the service address determines the date the meter is read, billed and due and requests for a specific billing date cannot be accommodated. The water and/or wastewater bill, as applicable for the account, shall be due and payable within twenty-one (21) days after the water and/or wastewater bill is dated. 81 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us iv. When the City’s meter reader is, at any regular meter reading date unable to gain access to the customer’s premises the City may render an estimated utility bill based on prior usage. v. When terminating services, the customer must make a request to the City one (1) business day, or twenty-four (24) hours, prior to the termination date. The final bill will be due and payable when rendered. Any service deposit on file will be applied to the final bill. If unpaid, the City may refer the account to a collection agency. The customer will be responsible for any fees, penalties, legal expenses and attorney fees incurred during the collection process. vi. The City Manager, or his/her authorized agents, are hereby authorized to discontinue the water supply to any premises for nonpayment of water and/or wastewater service fees, as applicable to the account, thirty-six (36) days after a statement of the amount due shall have been mailed to the owner or occupant of the premises. The overdue water and/or wastewater service fees shall be entered in the municipal lien docket as a lien against property owned by the chargeable. vii. When demands are reassessed as the result of an investigation made at the customer's request or by routine inspection when it is found that the customer has been miss-billed for any reason, the City has the option to render corrected bills to the customer. The corrections will begin with the month when it is established the error occurred, but will not exceed twelve (12) billings. viii. A billing adjustment will be made when a water meter is tested and found to be in excess of five percent (5%) fast / slow. A meter that tests fast – the City will either credit or refund the customer any amount equal to the excess Tgal (thousand gallons) usage, for water and/or wastewater, as applicable for the account, for a period not to exceed the three (3) previous monthly billing periods unless the time at which the error first developed or occurred can be definitively identified. In this case, the estimated Tgals overcharged will be based on that date but will in no case be retroactive beyond a twelve (12) month period. For a meter that tests slow – the customer may be charged any amount equal to the under-registered Tgal (thousand gallons) usage, for water and/or wastewater as applicable for the account, for a period not to exceed the three (3) previous monthly billing periods unless the time at which the error first developed or occurred can be definitively identified. In this case, the estimated Tgals under-charged will be based 82 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us on that date but will in no case be retroactive beyond a twelve (12) month period. ix. A billing adjustment will be made for stopped water meters, jammed registers or non-functioning water meters. The customer’s consumption for water and/or wastewater, as applicable for the account, will be estimated based on the customer’s usage during similar periods. The estimate will cover only the period subsequent to the last recorded meter consumption. x. Sewer (wastewater) meters are permitted to the benefit of the customer and as such the appropriate function and calibration of the meter is the responsibility of the customer. Should it be determined that the sewer meter is malfunctioning or cannot be read for any other reason the wastewater bill will either be estimated based upon the customer’s usage during similar periods or be based upon the water meter reading as most appropriate for the subject location as deemed appropriate by the Public Utilities Department and Customer Service Department. xi. A billing adjustment for water and/or wastewater, as applicable for the account, will be made when water meter tampering and/or theft of service occurs. The usage will be based on the recorded registration of the meter if it is determined that all illegal usage went through the meter. If the usage was not recorded through the meter, the usage will be estimated based on the consumption during similar periods. In cases that only part of the usage passed through the meter, both metered and estimated usages will be used to calculate the total consumption. 5. Payments i. To better serve our customers the City of Dover offers a variety of payment options. Cash, checks, money orders, cashier’s check, certified checks, credit cards, and bank drafting are some accepted forms of payment. Payments can be mailed, brought to the office during normal business hours (8:30 AM to 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday), or placed in the drop box located at Customer Service. Cash payments cannot be accepted in the drop box. For complete details on payment options, please contact Customer Services. ii. It is important to maintain a good payment record. Payment is due (21) twenty- one days from the billing date indicated on the bill. Before disconnecting water and/or wastewater service for nonpayment, a disconnection notice shall be mailed to the customer giving an additional (14) days to make the payment or make arrangements with Customer Service, if the customer meets eligibility 83 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us requirements. Delinquent balances are subject to penalties at the percentage approved by City Council. More details on the City’s credit policy are available by contacting Customer Service. iii. All property owners shall be responsible for the fees for water and/or wastewater service, as applicable, on their property and shall not be relieved of the payment of water and/or wastewater service fees because of any agreement between themselves and any tenants in possession. Should a tenant become in arrears for water and/or wastewater service, as applicable for the account, the property owner is ultimately responsible for the payment of the water and/or wastewater bills for the property. Due to this obligation, the property owner may call the Customer Service Department to determine if any water and/or wastewater account for the subject property is in arrears. iv. The City will charge an established service fee for any check or electronic funds transfer returned unpaid for any reason from the bank. In the event the item returned was used for the payment of reconnection of water and/or wastewater service the City may terminate the water and/or wastewater service, without written notice, until the matter is resolved. All returned check payments must be made in cash, credit card or money order at Customer Service, during normal business hours. If the returned check resulted in water and/or wastewater service interruption, an additional service fee will apply. To be reconnected after hours contact the City of Dover Public Utilities Dispatch Center. Only money orders or cashier’s checks will be accepted. v. An equalized payment plan will be permitted for residential customers, property owners only, meeting the requirements. Monthly payments for the service address will be based on the estimated cost of total consumption for the eleven month period October through August, with additional billing being made in the remaining one (1) month. Adjustments in monthly payments may be made after each quarterly review, and may indicate that the original estimate consumption was too high or too low. Additional information can be obtained by contacting Customer Service. 6. Tampering i. Tampering with the infrastructure, appurtenances or equipment of the water and wastewater systems of the City of Dover Public Utilities Department is prohibited. ii. It is unlawful for any person to tamper or interfere with the City’s water meter. It is unlawful for any person, except a duly authorized representative of the City, 84 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

City of Dover Public Utilities Department www.dover.de.us to make any modifications to the City’s meter. The City is not liable for any injury or damage as a result of unlawful activity. iii. In the event that the City's water meters or other property are tampered or interfered with, the customer receiving service through that equipment shall pay the amount which the City estimates is due for water and/or wastewater service, but not registered on the City's water meter, for any repairs or replacements required, and for changes in the customer's installation that the City may require. iv. The City may file Criminal or Civil charges against the responsible party and the customer is subject to arrest for tampering and/or theft of service. Before the service can be restored, all repairs must be made with inspections obtained (if necessary) and full payment for all monies owed the City must be made, including any additional security deposits that may be required. In cases where it cannot be determined who was being supplied, the owner of the property may be held responsible for the tampering/theft. 85 Water/Wastewater Handbook Effective Date: ?/??/2010

Appendix A: Water / Wastewater Initial Plan Submission Checklist

CITY OF DOVER PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT WATER / WASTEWATER INITIAL PLAN SUBMISSION CHECKLIST This form is intended for use by the owner, developer or design consultant for Renovation to Existing Building or Developed Site projects, Site Development projects or Subdivision projects. This form must be submitted with all initial plan submissions. An authorized representative of the owner / developer shall fill out this form in its entirety (including the checklist which starts on Page A2) and sign the certification statement below. If an item is not required as part of the project scope please note Not Applicable in the appropriate project description column. If a particular design aspect is not currently complete, but will be provided in the check print phase, please note Check Print in the appropriate project description column (typically pertains to DAC projects). Public Utilities Department personnel will review this form and all attachments. Review comments and/or approval will be provided under separate cover. PROJECT NAME: _____________________________________ SUBMISSION DATE: _________ CODPU #: _______ (Provided by City of Dover) DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: ______________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ OWNER/DEVELOPER/APPLICANT INFORMATION CONSULTANT INFORMATION Name (Company) Name (Company) Contact Person / Title Contact Person / Title Mailing Address Mailing Address City, State, Zip City, State, Zip Telephone / FAX Telephone / FAX E-mail Address E-mail Address I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge the attached plans meet all City of Dover Public Utilities Department standards and specifications including all applicable local, state and federal requirements. _____________________________________ _____________________________________ _________________ Printed Name of Authorized Representative Signature of Authorized Representative Date

CITY OF DOVER PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT WATER / WASTEWATER INITIAL PLAN SUBMISSION CHECKLIST PROJECT NAME: ______________________________________________________________________________ Site Public Utilities Item Renovation Subdivision Development Comments Sheet dimensions shall be no larger than twenty- four (24) by thirty-six (36) inches. Plan sheet scale shall be no smaller than 1” = 60’. Index sheet scale shall be no smaller than 1” = 200’. (Index sheet provided whenever two (2) or more sheets are used to illustrate the plan view.) Location map at a scale of 1” = 400’. Title block. Plan date and all revisions dates. North arrow, scale, datum and benchmark. Name and address of owner, developer (if applicable) and engineer or surveyor. Seal and license number of the professional engineer or surveyor including a certification as to the accuracy of the plan and survey. Property lines of abutting land including property address and name of owner. Existing and proposed boundaries of the property including easements and rights-of-way. Existing and proposed contours at intervals of one foot or less as well as significant existing features including finish floor elevations. A seven and one-half feet (7.5’) wide public utility easement provided along all side lot lines. A fifteen feet (15’) wide public utility easement provided along all rear lot lines. A ten feet (10’) wide public utility easement provided along all front lot lines. All water and wastewater mains not located in the right-of-way located within five feet (5’) of the center of a twenty feet (20’) wide public utility easement. A master phasing plan provided for all projects to be constructed in phases. Phasing plan reflected throughout the plan set. Page A2

CITY OF DOVER PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT WATER / WASTEWATER INITIAL PLAN SUBMISSION CHECKLIST PROJECT NAME: ______________________________________________________________________________ Site Public Utilities Item Renovation Subdivision Development Comments The size, type and location of all existing and proposed water mains, service lines, valves, fire hydrants and other appurtenances shown. The size, length, slope, type, flow direction and location of all existing and proposed sanitary sewer mains and laterals shown. The size, type and location of all existing and proposed sanitary structures (including manholes, cleanouts, and pumping stations) shown. Rim and invert elevations labeled on all sanitary structures. Profiles of all sanitary sewer mains provided. All water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer crossings, including services, shown. The proposed location of grease traps, if applicable, provided on the plans. A construction detail for the structure proposed provided. A materials listing table for all proposed water and wastewater utility infrastructure provided. Utility schedules for all wastewater utility infrastructure and storm water infrastructure provided on the construction plans. A public infrastructure dedication table listing all proposed water and wastewater utility infrastructure, storm water infrastructure, streets and alleys to be dedicated to the City of Dover provided on the construction plans. Standard Water / Wastewater notes provided. Sizing calculations for all water mains provided including design capacities. Sizing calculations for all water service lines greater than one-inch (1”) provided. Water usage projections (average and peak flows and plumbing fixture data) for domestic use and irrigation provided. (Irrigation only must be submitted for single-family dwellings.) Page A3

CITY OF DOVER PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT WATER / WASTEWATER INITIAL PLAN SUBMISSION CHECKLIST PROJECT NAME: ______________________________________________________________________________ Site Public Utilities Item Renovation Subdivision Development Comments Sizing (flow) calculations provided for all sanitary sewer mains showing that velocity, design capacities and all other requirements are met. Any projected future flow requirements must be clearly identified. Sizing (flow) calculations provided for all sanitary sewer laterals showing that velocity and all other requirements are met. (Must be submitted for all uses other than single-family dwellings.) Hydraulic system analysis provided for each pumping station including force mains. Calculation of the system-head curves and the use of these curves in conjunction with the characteristic curves of available pumps included. Criteria provided in C.1.ii. for average and peak flow used to determine the influent peak flow. Pumping station site requirements provided including: power requirements and panels, one- inch (1”) water service as per standard details, security/work light with photo eye and manual override, flush mount safety equipment for wet well access, steps/ladder within wet well to extend to normal wastewater level, four-inch (4”) bypass pump hook-up with valves, flow meter / chart recorder (to be located in pit with bypass and associated valving), sump pump and electrical hook-up in flow meter pit with manual switch, pole and antenna for RTU, paved driveway, fencing with twelve feet (12’) double gate along perimeter of site, and stone covering of entire site. Standard water details provided. Standard wastewater details provided. Page A4

Appendix B: Water / Wastewater Final Plan Submission Checklist

CITY OF DOVER PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT WATER / WASTEWATER FINAL PLAN SUBMISSION CHECKLIST This form is intended for use by the owner, developer or design consultant for Renovation to Existing Building or Developed Site projects, Site Development projects or Subdivision projects. This form must be submitted with all final plan submissions. An authorized representative of the owner / developer shall fill out this form in its entirety (including the checklist which starts on Page B2) and sign the certification statement below. If an item is not required as part of the project scope please note Not Applicable in the appropriate project description column. Public Utilities Department personnel will review this form and all attachments. Review comments and/or approval will be provided under separate cover. PROJECT NAME: _____________________________________ SUBMISSION DATE: _________ CODPU #: _______ (Provided by City of Dover) DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: ______________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ OWNER/DEVELOPER/APPLICANT INFORMATION CONSULTANT INFORMATION Name (Company) Name (Company) Contact Person / Title Contact Person / Title Mailing Address Mailing Address City, State, Zip City, State, Zip Telephone / FAX Telephone / FAX E-mail Address E-mail Address I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge the attached plans meet all City of Dover Public Utilities Department standards and specifications including all applicable local, state and federal requirements. _____________________________________ _____________________________________ _________________ Printed Name of Authorized Representative Signature of Authorized Representative Date

CITY OF DOVER PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT WATER / WASTEWATER FINAL PLAN SUBMISSION CHECKLIST PROJECT NAME: ______________________________________________________________________________ Site Public Utilities Item Renovation Subdivision Development Comments Four complete sets plans. Signed by owner and signed and sealed by either a Delaware licensed Professional Engineer or Delaware licensed Professional Land Surveyor as per Delaware State Code. Digital copy of the plans compatible with AutoCAD in addition to all current City of Dover GIS requirements and digital copy of the plans in .pdf format. Public Utilities Department meter sizing / verification completed. State of Delaware Health and Social Services, Division of Public Health, Office of Drinking Water Plan Approval received (water). State of Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC), Division of Water Resources, Surface Water Discharges Section Plan Approval received (wastewater). State of Delaware Department of Transportation Plan Approval received with copy attached. Kent Conservation District Sediment and Stormwater Plan Approval received with copy attached. Page B2

Appendix C: Water / Wastewater Pre-Construction Meeting Checklist

CITY OF DOVER PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT WATER / WASTEWATER PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING CHECKLIST This form is intended for use by the developers or contractors constructing water or sewer facilities within the City of Dover service area. An authorized representative of the developer shall fill out this form in its entirety (including the checklist on Page C2 and all associated forms) and sign the certification statement below. If an item is not required as part of the project scope please note Not Applicable in the appropriate project description column. Public Utilities Department personnel will review this form and all attachments. Review comments and/or approval will be provided under separate cover. PROJECT NAME: _________________________________________ SUBMISSION DATE: ____________ SUBMITTAL #: ______ CODPU PROJECT #: ___________ (Provided by City of Dover) DEVELOPER INFORMATION CONTRACTOR INFORMATION SUPPLIER INFORMATION Name of Developer (Company) Name of Contractor (Company) Name of Supplier (Company) Contact Person Contact Person Contact Person Mailing Address Mailing Address Mailing Address City, State, Zip City, State, Zip City, State, Zip Telephone Telephone Telephone FAX FAX FAX E-Mail Address E-Mail Address E-Mail Address I hereby certify that the specific products indicated within the attached Acceptable Materials Checklists represent a true list of materials to be used within the project indicated above, and I acknowledge understanding of the requirements that follow. Any and all specified requirements detailed in the Water / Wastewater Handbook shall apply to all materials proposed for use on this project. When the notation “Full Specifications Required” or similar language appears within the attached Acceptable Materials Checklists, or when required materials do not appear within said lists, complete shop drawings submittals are required. All materials supplied to the job site shall conform in all ways to the requirements of the Water / Wastewater Handbook. _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ __________________ ____________________ Printed Name of Developer or Contractor Representative Signature of Developer or Contractor Representative Date Telephone

CITY OF DOVER PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT WATER / WASTEWATER PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING CHECKLIST PROJECT NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ SUBMITTAL #: _________________ Item Renovation Site Development Subdivision Public Utilities Comments Construction Schedule List of Subcontractors including contact information Completed DelDOT Utility Construction Permit Application including 8- 1/2” x 11” drawing Completed Acceptable Water Materials Checklist (Appendix E) Completed Acceptable Wastewater Materials Checklist (Appendix F) Completed Acceptable Wet Well Mounted Pump Station Materials Checklist (Appendix G) Completed Acceptable Recessed Wet Well Mounted Pump Station Materials Checklist (Appendix H) Shop Drawing Submittals for Approval (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Page C2

Appendix D: Acceptable Water Materials Checklist

x CITY OF DOVER PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT ACCEPTABLE WATER MATERIALS CHECKLIST This form is intended for use by the developers or contractors constructing water facilities within the City of Dover service area. An authorized representative of the developer shall fill out this form in its entirety and submit it in conjunction with the Water / Wastewater Pre-Construction Meeting Checklist. Please check a single selection box per item for materials to be used in conjunction with the project. If an item is not required as part of the project scope please note Not Applicable in the Comments section. Please contact the Public Utilities Department if part numbers or models indicated are no longer available. PROJECT NAME: _________________________________________ SUBMISSION DATE: ____________ SUBMITTAL #: ______ CODPU PROJECT #: ___________ (Provided by City of Dover) Item Description Manufacturer Selection Comments Compression Connector Adapter ANSI/AWWA C800, I.P.T. to CTS O.D.tubing Mueller 110 Compression Adapter o Corporation Stop ground key corporation valve, ANSI/AWWA C800, inlet - 1"; Mueller, H-15008 o AWWA taper (Mueller cc) thread, outlet - Mueller 110 conductive compression connection for CTS O.D. tubing Corporation Stop Ori-Corp corporation valve, ANSI/AWWA C800, inlet - 1-1/4" to 2"; Mueller, H-15013 o AWWA taper (Mueller cc) thread, outlet - Mueller 110 conductive compression connection for CTS O.D. tubing Curb Stop Valve ANSI/AWWA C800 1" to 2", Mueller Oriseal, H-10291 F.I.P. o (requires Mueller 110 compression connectors adapters to connect to CTS tubing)

CITY OF DOVER PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT ACCEPTABLE WATER MATERIALS CHECKLIST PROJECT NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ S UBMITTAL #: _________________ Item Description Manufacturer Selection Comments Fire Hydrants AWWA C502 and UL236, 5-1/4" opening, 200 psi Darling Co. B-62-B Breakaway o rating, 2-1/2" hose nozzles (2 ea.), 4-1/2" pumper nozzle (1 ea.), caps and operating nut shall have the "DOVER SPECIAL" taper Fittings ductile iron, full body, 350 psi rating, ANSI/AWWA American Pipe o A21.10/C110 U.S. Pipe o Tyler Union o Other (Full Specifications Required) o Gate Valves resilient wedge, epoxy coated, 250 psi rating, domestic Mueller (A-2360) o manufactured IAW ANSI/AWWA C509 / C515, NSF 61 AFC 2500 series o Certified (right hand valves) Kennedy 8571 o Other (Full Specifications Required) o Retainer Glands manufactured of high strength ductile iron conforming Tyler Union o to the requirements of ASTM A536, Grade 65-45-12; US Pipe o wedging mechanisms shall be manufactured of ductile EBBA Iron o iron, heat treated to a hardness of 370 BHN minimum; dimensions of the gland shall be conforming to the Other (Full Specifications Required) o requirements of ANSI/AWWA A21.11/C111 and ANSI/AWWA A21.53/C153; the mechanical joint restraining device shall have a water working pressure rating of 350 psi minimum (in sizes 4" thru 16") with a safety factor of at least 2:1 Page D2

CITY OF DOVER PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT ACCEPTABLE WATER MATERIALS CHECKLIST PROJECT NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ S UBMITTAL #: _________________ Item Description Manufacturer Selection Comments Service Valve (Curb) Box cast iron, ASTM A-48/AASHTO H20 wheel load, Tyler Union 6500, Cast Iron Screw Type o domestic manufactured W/WATER lid Street Valve Box cast iron, three piece, 5-1/4" shaft, screw type, Tyler Union (6860 3-piece, #6 Base) o domestic manufactured Other (Full Specifications Required) o Tapping Sleeve Type 304 (18-8) stainless steel per AWWA C115, Powerseal 3490AS o Fabrications: Type 304 (18-8) Stainless Steel per ASTM A240, Bolts & Nuts: Type 304 (18-8) Stainless Steel per ASTM A193 and A194 for sleeves with stainless steel flange. Tapping Valve resilient wedge, epoxy coated, 250 psi rating, domestic Mueller (A-2360T) o manufactured IAW ANSI/AWWA C509 / C515, NSF 61 AFC 2500 series o Certified Kennedy 8572 o Other (Full Specifications Required) o Tracer Wire and Detector Tape tracer wire shall be a minimum of 12 gauge blue Calpico Type 1 o coated solid copper wire; detector tape Empire Level o (warning/identification tape) shall be non-detectable, Proline Safety o 6" wide, colored blue, with continuous warning Other (Full Specifications Required) o "CAUTION: BURIED WATER LINE BELOW." Water Mains ductile iron, cement lined, Tyton joint, Class 52, U.S. Pipe o domestic manufactured IAW ANSI/AWWA A21.5/C151, Atlantic States o A21.4/C104 Tyler Union o Other (Full Specifications Required) o Page D3

CITY OF DOVER PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT ACCEPTABLE WATER MATERIALS CHECKLIST PROJECT NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ S UBMITTAL #: _________________ Item Description Manufacturer Selection Comments Water Service type 'K' copper tubing coils, 1" to 2", ASTM B88, SPECIFY DOMESTIC SUPPLIER o minimum 1" Water Service SDR9 (poly tubing), permitted for use instead of 2" SPECIFY DOMESTIC SUPPLIER o copper Page D4

Appendix E: Acceptable Wastewater Materials Checklist

x CITY OF DOVER PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT ACCEPTABLE WASTEWATER MATERIALS CHECKLIST This form is intended for use by the developers or contractors constructing wastewater facilities within the City of Dover service area. An authorized representative of the developer shall fill out this form in its entirety and submit it in conjunction with the Water / Wastewater Pre-Construction Meeting Checklist. Please check a single selection box per item for materials to be used in conjunction with the project. If an item is not required as part of the project scope please note Not Applicable in the Comments section. Please contact the Public Utilities Department if part numbers or models indicated are no longer available. PROJECT NAME: _________________________________________ S UBMISSION DATE: ____________ SUBMITTAL #: ______ CODPU PROJECT #: ___________ (Provided by City of Dover) Item Description Manufacturer Selection Comments Casing End Seal 1/4" thick styrene butadiene rubber sheet end seal, Advance Products & Systems o use 1" wide stainless steel bands, zippered end seals Pipeline Seal & Insulator o with stainless steel bands may also be used Powerseal o Other (Full Specifications Required) o Casing Spacer stainless steel casing spacer center restrained position Advance Products & Systems o type with PVC liner and non-metallic anti-friction Pipeline Seal & Insulator o runners Powerseal o Other (Full Specifications Required) o Cleanout Frame and Cover 10" nominal diameter cast iron frame and cover per East Jordan Iron Works, #00156601 o ASTM A48, Class 30; cover: 14 lbs; frame: 39 lbs; Other (Full Specifications Required) o marked with "S" Coupling, Flexible made of an elastomeric compound that meets the Calder o requirements of ASTM D5926, C1173 and applicable DFW/HPI o portions of ASTM C443 / C425 / C564 / CSA B602 / Fernco o D1869; leak-proof, root-proof and are resistant to Other (Full Specifications Required) o chemicals, ultraviolet rays, fungus growth, and normal sewer gases; stainless steel clamps are corrosion- resistant and rust-proof

CITY OF DOVER PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT ACCEPTABLE WASTEWATER MATERIALS CHECKLIST PROJECT NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ S UBMITTAL #: _________________ Item Description Manufacturer Selection Comments Damp-Proofing Kop-Coat Bitumastic Super Service Black o Other (Full Specifications Required) o Fittings, PVC gasketed sewer fittings, wall thickness SDR 35/26, Certainteed o ASTM D-3034.D1784 / D3212 / F-477 Harco o J-M Pipe o Other (Full Specifications Required) o Liner System felt or fiberglass liner system for lining of precast No Manufacturer Specified o manholes and sewer pipe (Full Specifications Required) Manhole Frame and Cover 31-1/2" nominal diameter cast iron frame and cover East Jordan Iron Works, #00196012 o per ASTM A48, Class 30, with machined seats; inner (frame), #00196029 (cover) cover: 152 lbs; frame: 165 lbs; marked with "CITY OF Other (Full Specifications Required) o DOVER" Manhole Frame and Cover, Hinged / Locking 31-1/2" nominal diameter cast iron frame and cover East Jordan Iron Works, #NCR08-1856F1 o per ASTM A536, Class 30, with machined seats and Other (Full Specifications Required) o bronze lock lugs; hinge to have 120 degree opening radius; marked with "CITY OF DOVER" Manhole Frame and Cover, Locking 31-1/2" nominal diameter cast iron frame and cover East Jordan Iron Works, #NCR08-1856C o per ASTM A48, Class 30, with machined seats and Other (Full Specifications Required) o bronze lock lugs; inner cover: 152 lbs; frame: 165 lbs; marked with "CITY OF DOVER" Manhole Joint Sealant Compound pre-formed, rubber gasket to form a watertight seal A-Lok o between manhole sections, ASTM C443 D-Lok o Other (Full Specifications Required) o Page E2

CITY OF DOVER PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT ACCEPTABLE WASTEWATER MATERIALS CHECKLIST PROJECT NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ S UBMITTAL #: _________________ Item Description Manufacturer Selection Comments Manhole Pipe Connector (Existing Precast and Non-Precast Manholes) provides a flexible, watertight, environmentally safe Press-Boot o joint that exceeds ASTM C923 specifications; (breaking Kor-N-Seal o into existing manholes) Other (Full Specifications Required) o Manhole Pipe Connector (Precast Manholes) rubber flexible type connector for pipe to manhole A-Lok X-Cell o connection for precast manholes meeting ASTM C443 Z lok o Other (Full Specifications Required) o Manhole, Precast Concrete access manholes for sewer mains; cones, risers, and Atlantic Concrete Products o bases designed for H-20 highway loading ASTM C478; Gillespie Precast o exterior coating finish: 2 coats of Koppers bitumastic Other (Full Specifications Required) o 300M water epoxy at 8.0-mil dry thickness (200 SFPG) per coat Pipe, Ductile Iron cement lined, Tyton joint, Class 50, 51, or 52; domestic American Pipe o manufactured; IAW ANSI/AWWA A21.5/C151, Atlantic States o A21.4/C104; for use on wastewater gravity and force U.S. Pipe o mains Tyler Union o Other (Full Specifications Required) o Pipe, PVC for sewers between 6" and 15", ASTM D 3034, SDR 35 Diamond Plastics o and SDR 26 sewer pipe Certainteed o Johns-Manville o Other (Full Specifications Required) o Rock, Crushed Delaware 57 stone used for bedding sewer lines DELDOT Approved (Provide Source) o (Full Specifications Required) Page E3

CITY OF DOVER PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT ACCEPTABLE WASTEWATER MATERIALS CHECKLIST PROJECT NAME: __________________________________________________________________________________ S UBMITTAL #: _________________ Item Description Manufacturer Selection Comments Service Saddle 6" minimum, used for connecting new sewer lateral to GENECO o existing sanitary sewer mains, Sealtite Sewer stainless Other (Full Specifications Required) o steel, Sealtite as manufactured by GENECO Tracer Wire and Detector Tape tracer wire shall be a minimum of 12 gauge green Calpico Type 1 o coated solid copper wire; detector tape Empire Level o (warning/identification tape) shall be non-detectable, Proline Safety o 6" wide, colored green, with continuous warning Other (Full Specifications Required) o "CAUTION: BURIED SEWER LINE BELOW." Page E4

Appendix F: Acceptable Wet Well/Dry Well Pump Station Materials Checklist

x CITY OF DOVER PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT ACCEPTABLE WET WELL/DRY WELL PUMP STATION MATERIALS CHECKLIST This form is intended for use by the developers or contractors constructing wet well/dry well pump stations within the City of Dover service area. An authorized representative of the developer shall fill out this form in its entirety and submit it in conjunction with the Water / Wastewater Pre-Construction Meeting Checklist. Please note that all selections under each item are required. Please contact the Public Utilities Department if components indicated are no longer available. PROJECT NAME: _________________________________________ SUBMISSION DATE: ____________ SUBMITTAL #: ______ CODPU PROJECT #: ___________ (Provided by City of Dover) Item Description Manufacturer Selection Comments Cabinet NEMA 4X cabinet, (Hoffman UU1008030 4X Enclosure) Hoffman (Full Specifications Required) o 36"H x 30"W x 11"D with communications/power Other (Full Specifications Required) o interface panel and heater Chart Recorder Single Pen Chart Recorder (Honeywell DR4500 Trueline Honeywell o 12" Circular Chart Recorder) or Multipen Chart Recorder Other (Full Specifications Required) o (Honeywell DPR100 Multipen Strip Chart Recorder) Flow Meter located in pit with bypass and associated valving; Siemens o Siemens Flowmeter Mag 5100W Nema 6P and Siemens Convertor Mag 6000 Pump Station pump station specifications shall include the following: Smith & Loveless o General