CCW PACKET - MM

CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 6:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers, 15 Loockerman Plaza, Dover, Delaware AGENDA Public comments are welcomed on any item and will be permitted at the appropriate time. When possible, please notify the City Clerk (736-7008 or email at cityclerk@dover.de.us) should you wish to be recognized. VIRTUAL MEETING NOTICE This meeting will be held in City Hall Council Chambers with electronic access via WebEx. Public participation information is as follows: Dial: 1-408-418-9388 Link: https://rb.gy/ph1dcm Event number: 179 223 2393 Event password: DOVER (if needed) If you are new to WebEx, get the app now at https://www.webex.com/ to be ready when the meeting starts. CALL COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING TO ORDER UTILITY COMMITTEE ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA ACTIONABLE ITEMS 1. Update to the City of Dover Water Master Plan (Jason Lyon, Water and Wastewater Director) (Staff Recommendation: Acceptance of the Water Master Plan and to utilize as a guide for the future of the water utility) ADJOURNMENT OF THE UTILITY COMMITTEE 1

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING - August 10, 2021 PAGE 2 LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA ACTIONABLE ITEMS 2. Review of Pension Equity Concerns between Deceased and Disabled Employees (Kim Hawkins, Human Resources Director) (Staff recommendation: Consideration of Councilman David Anderson's recommendation) 3. Elimination of the City Assessor's Position (Patricia Marney, Customer Service Director) (Staff recommendation: Do not eliminate the Assessor's position, but amend City Ordinance Chapter 102 - Taxation, leave Charter in tact as is currently written) 4. City of Dover Impact and Permit Fees – Capital School District (Matt Harline, Interim City Manager) (Staff recommendation: That City Council charge the existing fees as prescribed in Code) 5. Fiscal Year 2022 Fund to Combat Violent Crime Grant (Thomas Johnson, Police Chief) (Staff Recommendation: Approval of the grant and intended purchases) 6. Fiscal Year 2021 Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program - Joint Grant with Kent County (Thomas Johnson, Police Chief) (Staff recommendation: Approval of the grant project as requested) 7. Fiscal Year 2021 Body-Worn Camera Policy and Implementation Program to Support Law Enforcement Agencies Grant Program (Thomas Johnson, Police Chief) (Staff Recommendation: Approval of the grant project as requested) ADJOURNMENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE SPECIAL SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA ACTIONABLE ITEMS 8. Proposed Resolution No. 2021-21 – Establishing that the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee Shall Serve as the Bicycle Pedestrian Committee for the City of Dover (Councilman Ralph Taylor, Jr.) (Staff recommendation: Adoption of Resolution No. 2021-21, as presented or with Committee amendments, or table for further review) ADJOURNMENT OF THE SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE 2

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING - August 10, 2021 PAGE 3 ADJOURNMENT OF THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE THE AGENDA ITEMS AS LISTED MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN SEQUENCE. PURSUANT TO 29 DEL. C. §10004(e)(2), THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OR THE DELETION OF ITEMS, INCLUDING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS, WHICH ARISE AT THE TIME OF THE MEETING 3

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: Council Committee of the Whole (Utility) DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: City Manager’s Office SUBMITTED ON: July 30, 2021 PREPARED BY: Jason A. Lyon, P.E., Director of Water & Wastewater REVIEWED BY: Matthew C. Harline, Interim City Manager SUBJECT: Update to Water Master Plan - Presentation TIMETABLE: N/A RELATED PROJECT: X REFERENCE: X ATTACHMENTS:Attachment A – City of Dover City Council PowerPoint Presentation Attachment B – 2021 Update to the Water Master Plan EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: N/A AMOUNT BUDGETED: N/A FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance of the Water Master Plan and to utilize as a guide for the future of the water utility. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: The City of Dover Department of Water & Wastewater entered into an agreement with Whitman, Requardt & Associates to perform and update to the 2006 Water Master Plan. This plan includes the following topics; water demands, water supply, water storage and distribution, modeling, water quality and future capital improvement plan. Staff believes that this plan is thorough and does a solid job of forecasting the future needs of the City of Dover. If after the presentation, the Committee is satisfied that the plan is thorough and provides good direction for the City, City staff recommends that this Master Plan be adopted and used as a guide for the future of the water utility. 4

Item 1. City of Dover, DE Update to the Water Master Plan Presentation for: Council Committee of the Whole August 10, 2021 5

Agenda Item 1. • Water Demands • Water Supply • Water Storage and Distribution • Hydraulic Modeling – Results and Recommendations • Water Quality Modeling – Results and Recommendations • Capital Improvement Plan 6

Water Demands Item 1. • Existing water use Projected Water Demands – Analyzed production/use from 2016-2020 14.00 • Calculated gal/capita 12.00 demands for residential use 10.00 Million Gallons of Water • Calculated gal/acre 8.00 demands for commercial and industrial use 6.00 • Projected water use from 4.00 2021-2040 based on: 2.00 – Population growth 0.00 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 – Annexed land use Year – Planned developments Avg. Day Water Production Projected Max. Day Demand Projected Avg. Day Demand 7

City of Dover Annexation Plan Map Item 1. 8

Demand Distribution Map Item 1. Year Development 2025 McKee Run Power Plant 2025 Starlifter Ave. Manufacturing Cardboard Manufacturing 2025 Facility 2025 Garrison Oak Technical Park 2025 Stonebrook East 2025 Stonebrook West 2030 Garrison Oak Technical Park 2030 Rojan Meadows 2030 1080 & 1106 Bay Road 2030 Apartments on College Road 9

Water Supply Item 1. Safe Yield vs. Projected Demands 14 Safe Yield (All Wells) - 13.7 MGD • Water production comes from New Well #1 three aquifers 12 Daily Production Limit (Permit) - 11.0 MGD New Well #2 – Columbia Aquifer (25%); Cheswold Safe Yield (Growing) - 9.8 MGD Aquifer (30%); Piney Point Aquifer 10 (45%) Projected Water Use, (MGD) Safe Yield (Non-growing) - 8.2 MGD • Available water supply 8 Average Day Demand – Safe Yield Maximum Day Demand 6 – Cannot surpass DNREC Water Allocation Permit limits 4 • Additional water source – New groundwater wells 2 – Surface water 0 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 10 Year

Water Storage and Distribution Item 1. • Seven (7) Elevated Water Tanks • Distribution pipe makeup: – 5.25 MG of available storage Existing Elevated Water Tanks HDPE GSP ACP UNK PVC 0% 0% 1% 1% Construction Storage Volume 5% Storage Tank Type Date (MG) CIP General Foods Tank Legged 1963 0.25 41% Bayard Ave Tank Legged 1955 0.25 McKee Road Tank Legged 1974 1.0 Dover Park Tank Fluted Column 1987 1.0 Walker Road Tank Fluted Column 1987 1.0 DIP Kent Co. Aeropark 52% Legged 1993 Re-erect 0.25 Tank Garrison Oak Tank Composite 2016 1.5 – Planned 1 MG tank at Denneys Rd 11

Hydraulic Modeling Item 1. • Modeling process: – Review model and provided information – Update and calibrate model – Build model for 5 timesteps (2020, 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040) • Model scenarios: – Max. Day (EPS) – Max. Day and Fire flow (EPS & SS) – Water Age: Average Day (EPS) 12

Hydraulic Model Interface Item 1. 13

Hydraulic Modeling Results Item 1. • Max Day Demand • Recommendations – System able to maintain pressures – Continue replacement/upsizing of • 45 psi to 70 psi pipes downtown • Decrease due to development in – Promote increased Tank cycling Year 2035 – Addition of sources/pumping – Velocities below 4 ft/s capacity for Year 2035 – Low Tank cycling – Denneys Rd Tank to replace • General Foods Tank controlling tank General Foods Tank (Year 2035) – Pumps run continuously • Stabilize pressures on west side of • Low Tank levels Year 2035 City • Fire Flow Tests • Maintain higher tank levels – Downtown area experiences low pressures and high velocities – Remainder of system performs well • Tanks maintain water level 14 • Some pipeline improvement required

Water Quality Modeling Item 1. 15

Pipe Material vs Water Quality Complaints Item 1. 16

Water Quality Results Item 1. • Potential Causes – Water age, pipeline material, disinfection reactions • Modeling Results – Likely tuberculation of cast iron pipe • Suggested Improvements – Pipe replacement in downtown – Cleaning & lining – Increase tank cycling – Water quality evaluations 17

Capital Improvement Plan Item 1. Project Type Cost • Total $46,898,035 over 20 Raw Water Supply $582,000 years Water Treatment $145,000 – $14.3 million allotted for new Water Main Replacement $9,779,755 water main in potential New Water Main $16,361,280 annexation lands west of the Installation City. Water Main Cleaning and $14,950,000 • Recommended Evaluations Lining – Water Quality Storage Tank Maintenance $5,000,000 – SCADA and Installation Community Outreach $80,000 18

Item 1. Questions? 19

Update to the City of Dover Item 1. Water Master Plan City of Dover, Delaware July 29, 2021 RFP No. 21-0013WW DRAFT FINAL 20

Item 1. 0 Executive Summary The City of Dover (the City) Department of Water and Wastewater provided water to approximately 11,125 residential users, and 1,370 commercial and industrial users in 2020. The system is fed by twenty one (21) wells; fifteen (15) deep wells which pump directly into the distribution system and six (6) shallow wells which supply water to the City’s 3 million gallon per daty (MGD) water treatment plant. Seven (7) elevated water towers maintain system pressures and provide fire and emergency storage. The distribution system consists of approximately 233 miles of pipe comprised of a variety of materials, sizes, and ages. This updated Water Master Plan incorporates a new 20-year projection for the City’s population and water demand through 2040. Included is a complete re-evaluation of the water system which entails: • A review and update of the projected water demands • Review of available water from the Columbia, Piney Point and Cheswold aquifers including research for aquifer recharge • Review of the City’s existing elevated water tower inspection reports • Inspection of the existing well facilities and water treatment plant • Update to and calibration of the City’s existing hydraulic water model to perform hydraulic analysis on the distribution system • Hydraulic analysis of water age as an indicator of water quality to address concerns • Evaluation of existing operating procedures including public outreach Results of the water supply, storage, and distribution system evaluations will be presented in the recommended Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). 0.1 Water Demands Whitman, Requardt, and Associates, LLP (WRA) reviewed water meter records from 2018 to 2020 to calculate actual water consumption by zoning category. 2020 consumption data was not included in the analysis due to the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on water usage. Data available for use in calculating future system water demands included residential population projections from the City’s 2019 Comprehensive Plan and the State of Delaware’s 2020 Population Consortium, and a list of proposed residential and industrial developments provided by the City. Unit demands were calculated utilizing the current population and residential demand as well as current commercial and industrial demands and total acreage, and these unit demands were applied to future population and industrial/commercial acreage. Table ES-1 and Figure ES-1 illustrate the projected water demands for the City through 2040, and the detailed demand analysis is included in the Appendices. Table ES-1 – Projected Water Demands Residential Commercial Industrial Water Total Average Day Maximum Day Year Water Demand Water Demand Demand Demand (MGD) Demand (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MDG) 2019 2.35 1.45 1.37 5.16 7.79 2025 2.47 1.62 1.75 5.84 8.82 2030 2.55 1.67 2.55 6.77 10.22 2035 2.61 2.01 2.87 7.49 11.34 2040 2.68 2.35 3.19 8.22 12.41 21

Item 1. 14.00 12.00 Million Gallons of Water 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Year Avg. Day Water Production Projected Max. Day Demand Projected Avg. Day Demand Figure ES-1 – Projected Water Demands 0.2 Water Supply Groundwater is the sole source of water for Dover. The City of Dover uses the following aquifers (from shallowest to deepest): the Columbia Aquifer, the Cheswold Aquifer, and the Piney Point Aquifer. Water from the deep (confined aquifer) wells in the Cheswold and Piney Point Aquifers is dosed with chlorine and fluoride (Cheswold only) and pumped directly into the distribution system. Water from the shallow (unconfined) Columbia Aquifer wells supply the City’s water treatment plant. The elevations of the potentiometric surfaces in the confined aquifers have dropped from their pre-development levels in response to decades of groundwater pumping by multiple users including the City of Dover. The City has indicated that it plans to manage aquifer withdrawals to address their influence on saltwater intrusion in the Columbia Aquifer, protection of the Cheswold Aquifer, and depletion of the Piney Point Aquifer. The management would entail reduction in use from specific aquifers during certain times of the year. Based on safe yield of all wells, the City has sufficient capacity to meet projected average daily demands. However, additional wells are required to meet future demands as part of the planned aquifer management (Figure ES-2). 22

Item 1. 14 Safe Yield (All Wells) - 13.7 MGD 12 Daily Production Limit (Permit) - 11.0 MGD 10 Safe Yield (Growing) - 9.8 MGD Projected Water Use, (MGD) Safe Yield (Non-growing) - 8.2 MGD 8 Average Day Demand Maximum Day Demand 6 4 2 0 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Year Figure ES-2 – Safe Yield vs. Projected Demands Surface water is an additional potential drinking water source for the City. Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) is a possible option which would allow seasonal water storage during wet times of the year and recovery and use during dry periods. Discussions with DNREC need to be initiated soon if the City is interested in pursuing this option, as the approval process can be lengthy. Water supply facility inspections were conducted by WRA mechanical and electrical engineers for all active well houses and the Water Treatment Plant. Reports are included in the Appendices, and recommended improvements were summarized and included in the CIP. 0.3 Water Storage and Distribution Recent water tank inspection reports performed by the City’s tower maintenance consultant for the City’s seven water towers were reviewed by WRA. Guidelines for future tower inspections, as well as a list of additional maintenance activities was provided. Calculations were also performed to compare theoretical water storage needs with the City’s existing storage volume and indicated that the City has sufficient storage to meet demands through 2040. The City’s water distribution system consists of 233 miles of piping, with various sizes and materials. Evaluation of the distribution system was performed with the hydraulic model, which is discussed below. 23

Item 1. 0.4 Hydraulic Modeling At the start of this effort, the City provided WRA with the latest version of their hydraulic water model. WRA updated the model with recently constructed pipeline projects, checked elevations and connections, adjusted well pump curves and well and tank water levels/elevations, added and distributed demands for all time steps (current through Build-Out), and calibrated the model based on recent hydrant flow data. Following update of the hydraulic model, a series of simulations were performed to evaluate system operations such as pressures and pipeline velocities, available fire suppression flows and residual pressures, and system water age as an indicator of water quality. Recommended improvements were included in the proposed Capital Improvement Plan. Modeling results indicate that under MDD the current distribution system, wells, and operational scheme can maintain pressures and velocities in the system until hydraulic Year 2035. In Year 2035, the addition of demands associated with Category 3 annexation lands results in a large enough increase to warrant additional water sources. Available fire flow within the older portions of the City is limited by allowable velocities, specifically in old small diameter cast iron lines. Replacement of these mains results in an increase in available fire flows. In general, water age in the majority of the distribution system remains below 2 days throughout all hydraulic timesteps. Comparison of water quality complaints to current water age and existing piping materials seems to indicate a stronger correlation between brown water complaints and older cast iron mains than retention times in the system. Throughout the water quality modeling scenarios, at least half of the in-service tanks experience water ages greater than 5 days due to low tank cycling. Overall water age within the tanks decreases as demand increases in the system. The greatest reduction in water age within tanks is observed due to increased tank cycling and it is recommended that the City modify system controls to promote deeper tank cycling in their larger volume tanks. It is also possible that when resting wells for aquifer management purposes, the City coordinate these out of service wells with nearby higher age Tanks to cause increased draw down. 0.5 Capital Improvement Plan Recommended improvements to facilities or operations, studies, or evaluations shown to be needed by the hydraulic modeling results, water source review, and existing facility investigations are summarized in this Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Projects have been given designations based on system type: RS for raw water supply, T for water treatment, M for distribution mains, S for storage tanks and O for operations. The proposed CIP is shown below in Table ES-2 and illustrated in Figure ES-3. 24

Item 1. Table ES-2 - City of Dover, DE Capital Implovement Plan Costs Project Project Cost Project Description Number Immediate 2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 2036-2040 RAW WATER SUPPLY (RS) RS-1 Test Well/Development/Production Well $ 200,000 $ 200,000 RS-2 General Wellhouse Maintenance $ 45,500 $ 45,500 $ 45,500 $ 45,500 WATER TREATMENT (T) T-1 Ventilation Improvements for electric equipment room $ 25,000.00 T-2 Eyewash / shower in hypochlorite room $ 10,000.00 T-3 Slope Backwash Tank floor to pump suction $ 30,000.00 T-4 Enhance Water Treatment Plant site security $ 80,000.00 DISTRIBUTION MAINS (M) M-1 940 LF, 8" DIP, Ross St $ 199,271 M-2 1600 LF, 8" DIP, N West St Alley West $ 396,998 M-3 3200 LF, 12" DIP, State St $ 923,910 M-4 1600 LF, 8" DIP, N West St Alley East $ 322,920 M-5 1600 LF, 8" DIP, Fairview Ave Alley West $ 322,920 M-6 1600 LF, 8" DIP, Fairview Ave Alley East $ 322,920 M-7 500 LF, 8" DIP, N Bradford St $ 98,670 M-8 4000 LF, 8" DIP, Queen St $ 789,360 M-9 4000 LF, 8" DIP, New St $ 789,360 M-10 7000 LF, 12" DIP, S Little Creek Rd Loop to Starlifter Ave $ 2,009,280 M-11 600 LF, 10" DIP, White Oak Rd $ 152,490 M-12 20 LF, 16" DIP, Long Point Rd $ 16,146 M-13 80 LF, 16" DIP, North Little Creek Rd $ 37,674 M-14 1400 LF, 8" DIP, Bradford St $ 278,070 M-15 1600 LF, 8" DIP, Kings HWY $ 457,470 M-16 2300 LF, 8" DIP, Reed St $ 197,340 M-17 1000 LF, 8" DIP, Queen St $ 197,340 M-18 2000 LF, 8" DIP, Bank Ln $ 394,680 M-19 1300 LF, 8" DIP,Lakewood Pl Alley East $ 260,130 M-20 1200 LF, 8" DIP, Governors Bvld/N. Bradford St Alley West $ 242,190 M-21 1200 LF, 8" DIP, Bradford St Alley East $ 242,190 M-22 1000 LF, 8" DIP, Clara St $ 197,340 M-23 4000 LF, 8" DIP,Governors Ave $ 789,360 M-24 1600 LF, 8" DIP, Bradford St $ 322,920 M-25 1100 LF, 8" DIP, Cecil St $ 224,250 M-26 1500 LF, 8" DIP, Fulton St $ 296,010 M-27 1300 LF, 8" DIP, State St $ 260,130 M-28 2600 LF, 8" DIP, Kirkwood St $ 520,260 M-29 3200 LF, 8" DIP, Loockerman St and Loockerman Pl $ 636,870 M-30 300 LF, 8" DIP, Federal St $ 62,790 M-31 540 LF, 8" DIP, College Rd $ 114,816 M-32 50,000 LF, 12" DIP, Southern and Western Annexation Lands $ 7,176,000 $ 7,176,000 M-33 80,000 LF, Distribution main Cleaning and Lining $ 3,737,500 $ 3,737,500 $ 3,737,500 $ 3,737,500 STORAGE TANKS (S) S-1 Tank Maintenance Program $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 S-2 Denneys Road Tank (1.0 MG) $ 3,000,000 OUTREACH (O) O-1 Community Outreach Evaluation $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 TOTAL $ 621,269 $ 10,109,980 $ 6,166,966 $ 16,831,800 $ 13,455,060 Notes: 1. Projects shown in italics are planned City projects scheduled for FY 2023 to FY 2026 PLANNING PERIOD TOTAL $ 47,185,075 25

Legend Tanks + $ Existing Tanks + $ Proposed Tanks Water Main Installation Immediate 2021-2025 DE N NE 2026-2030 YS 2031-2035 RO AD PE Y NN O AD CH R LA AN E BR NE DYK LEWIS R O AD 2036-2040 SH BU AY W H R O AD DR IC IV E R W NO LEIPSIC AD RO K EE MC AD ST RO H CH SM IT E UR N CH LA MARLEY LA L NE IC RA LA ST NT EE CE RU D TR A N S RO M O NY M E SI N N DE ER LA AD R P IC CA OUGH RO ST Denneys Rd AD L IS RU RO KE LE YS NT O + $ KO PERS IMM ON CIR DR E RE NN N S-2 AN SCARBO R IV AD DE E RO AR W DS AR LE VE YD R TE RA HO AP BB M NS HAR YH LE M EM E O DW G IV O RS LE R AD RI D AL OO E N E RO HI CT DR IN Garrison Oak K DD G YW OA D HW AY R TE BR AN + $ WHI M-11 M-31 JA SO N ST AD R EE E RO E T NU AR AV AD OO U E N RO ME SQ + McKee Rd N R DR Y IO E IN CO STATE STREET TR W LE N EG $ BA L RO E LL ER D T RO AD VA AD IV CO DR VAND MI DR NE LL NI M S PI Y IV BA GG PIN E SO BO IT Z M-12 Y DR WI L IV O RD AWA LO NG PO IN E AK RO DR RD MA P AD AD BR D 8.2 DO R ND NS ON D IV DAVI LE E R ure SU FR LE VE e Fig ET R I VE IVE D R R L Y EA DA TD W ET Y MON Se M-33 E IM EN BA RO PA OAK TT G R BL DR M-32 ER BU R R OW DR AD RD K ACO FO R ANN Dover Park OA ET NE O D TR E LD SS RN D AD R RO S R TO TU R PL U N BE $ + AVEN TH O E RO RRY AC EN U LA N DRI I A AV VE UM B GE E I LL CO L E LE W T E L NS EE O AD R EE HA CHESTNUT GROVE ROAD ER R S ST IS SW PEA CO L K M AP WA L I A T SE WI LL M RO TG Walker Rd MO N T R ST Y RD LE ET AD TR E LO OC RO AD UM RA S GE KER M LA L RO TI E DR US + $ BL A R EE CL A HAZ E NE ED HI AD AN C IRCL E M-13 LITTLE CREEK ROAD H ST E IV D RO AD T NC B T SMI NO LL PARKW EET E E R IV S TR AV E CA Y AY DRIV LD MAR R L D RI VE LVD NU HA ONY T D CO NCO X CO L HWAY E LC ROA FO S HIG R TE A NEW KING CHE KIRK FOX PARK DRIVE L SEA S TR N EW WA HU MATH Y WO EET N W N BL ST ET RO L S TR E Bayard Ave HO OD REED VD LE G AD FORRES T AVENUE HARTLY RO AD S BABB DR CT ME R EE TI V + $ ISLA ST SAUL S ET L R O AD LINCO LN STRE JH BRO CO URT STR HARO N HIL T S EET FARMVI EW DRI VE E AV OA BURY TR D FOREST AVENUE EN U VD AF K LA NE RR BL RO B MAGG IES WAY AL EN GA J ST BAN RE ET H ROAD NIN E R ST RI V UE F ER BAN R MI E WAT E DR T BL E R EE WES FL AY AV IN CO MM ERCE W TA GS EET T RO S TR E S TR TH NU IG HW AD T Y SOU ES BA EL AY SH W ET EET NO RTH STRE AD IGHW TO DR LLO RO AY EL VE SH AK $ + NT H NEW ST H R RUT YD S M-10 E D General Foods DR CI R M-32 IAL H E IV DUP Y AN AK R E BA E LE O YL T WAY E AD RT DR ET RO MOR E C TR FF BRADFORD STRE S TR E LA V PINE S ME WA PLES AVENUE UN ET LA IC A AD R RO L E E ON R AN R VA EN U HO LE EU MORRIS DRIVE N CH UE IL D PU RE TI B SE AR V E TE E TT ER AVEN PO IL LE WYOM ING AVENUE S TA M-33 Aero Park A ND Z FL QU DR E WAR HA RO OSEVELT AV IV IC DR IV ENUE U N R V TD AD IL NR KE RO E S R HE O EN + $ STARL IFT NE ID C T NC ES EAN T RC PU ST DR EE PR LD OAK DRIV E KOR KIL RIVERSIDE RD AD M-32 VEN R O LYNN HA E JANES RO AD IV TODDS MILL ROAD FID DL DR E B EE ST, JONES AVE DO G W O OD AV ER HE CL E SG UT CIR SO T L EY UE RE HUN KESS ELRING AVEN EN PORCHER ST HAM AN DRIVE D RO M ILL RO A EN UE MIM O SA AV GARTON ROAD AD N UE O AD AVE R EW AXT ON H VI S HI G UE N SS ETT RO AD AVE TE S RI CHARD BA WYO M IN OD R WO STA EC H G ED BE WA R D YN PER D AD ROA CO O T EX RO O AD M-32 N EL L TE N DAVI D HAL L RT SI O O ITC H R T BU N RS LM SH ST NE B ST TAY R EE W NIE OR UA LO T E DR D NAT IV RT HA E E RI V FAIR FI E LD DRI VE / City of Dover, Delaware Water System Master Plan Figure ES-3 Figure 8.1 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Capital Improvements Plan Miles

Item 1. Table of Contents Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................................ i List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................................. iii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................................ iii Appendices ................................................................................................................................................................ iv 0 Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... ES-1 1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Data Collection ...........................................................................................................................................2 2 Water Demands...................................................................................................................................................3 2.1 Historical Water Production ........................................................................................................................3 2.2 Water Demand Projection...........................................................................................................................4 2.2.1 Projected Demands ................................................................................................................................4 3 Water Supply .......................................................................................................................................................8 3.1 Hydrogeologic Setting.................................................................................................................................8 3.2 Water Production Wells ..............................................................................................................................8 3.3 Water Allocation Permits ......................................................................................................................... 12 3.4 Water Use ................................................................................................................................................ 12 3.5 Groundwater Availability .......................................................................................................................... 12 3.6 Aquifer Management ............................................................................................................................... 14 3.7 Safe Yield ................................................................................................................................................ 15 3.8 Additional Water Sources ........................................................................................................................ 16 3.8.1 Water Supply Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 18 3.9 Facility Inspections .................................................................................................................................. 18 3.9.1 Deep Wells........................................................................................................................................... 18 3.9.1.1 Cheswold Wells ........................................................................................................................... 18 3.9.1.2 Piney Point Wells ......................................................................................................................... 20 3.9.2 Water Treatment Plant and Columbia Aquifer Wells ........................................................................... 21 4 Water Storage .................................................................................................................................................. 23 4.1 Existing Elevated Water Towers .............................................................................................................. 23 4.2 Water Storage Requirements .................................................................................................................. 25 4.3 Storage Facility Condition Assessments ................................................................................................. 26 4.3.1 Storage Inspection Report Summary .................................................................................................. 28 5 Water Distribution ............................................................................................................................................. 30 6 Hydraulic Modeling ........................................................................................................................................... 33 6.1 Water Model Update ................................................................................................................................ 33 27

Item 1. 6.1.1 Validation Testing ................................................................................................................................ 34 6.2 Demand Distribution ................................................................................................................................ 35 6.3 Model Calibration ..................................................................................................................................... 37 6.3.1 Hydrant Flow Tests .............................................................................................................................. 37 6.3.1.1 Unidirectional Flow Testing.......................................................................................................... 37 6.3.2 Calibration Results ............................................................................................................................... 38 6.4 Model Analysis Summary ........................................................................................................................ 41 6.4.1 Model Assumptions ............................................................................................................................. 41 6.4.1.1 Physical Attribute Assumptions: .................................................................................................. 41 6.4.1.2 System Operation Assumptions and Parameters:....................................................................... 41 6.4.2 Model Results ...................................................................................................................................... 43 6.4.2.1 Year 2019 “Current” ..................................................................................................................... 43 6.4.2.2 Year 2025 .................................................................................................................................... 44 6.4.2.3 Year 2030 .................................................................................................................................... 45 6.4.2.4 Year 2035 .................................................................................................................................... 45 6.4.2.5 Year 2040 .................................................................................................................................... 47 6.4.3 Water Age Results ............................................................................................................................... 47 6.4.3.1 Water Age Modeling Results ....................................................................................................... 50 6.4.4 Hydraulic Modeling Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 52 7 Regulatory Review ........................................................................................................................................... 53 7.1 Existing Regulations ................................................................................................................................ 53 7.1.1 National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (1986) .......................................................................... 53 7.1.2 National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations (1986) ..................................................................... 53 7.1.3 Total Coliform Rule (TCR) (1989) and Revised Total Coliform Rule (RTCR) (2013): ......................... 54 7.1.4 Lead and Copper Rule (1991; 2000 Minor Revision; 2007 Short Term Revisions): ........................... 54 7.1.5 Radionuclides Rule (2000): ................................................................................................................. 55 7.1.6 Arsenic Rule (2001): ............................................................................................................................ 55 7.1.7 Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts (D/DBP) Rule (1998): ......................................... 55 7.1.8 Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts (D/DBP) Rule (2006): ......................................... 56 7.1.9 Ground Water Rule (2006): ................................................................................................................. 56 7.2 Possible Future Regulations .................................................................................................................... 56 7.2.1 Lead and Copper Rule Revisions ........................................................................................................ 56 7.2.2 Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) ...................................................................................... 57 8 Capital Improvement Plan ................................................................................................................................ 58 8.1 Summary of Recommended Improvements and Evaluations ................................................................. 58 8.1.1 Recommended Improvements............................................................................................................. 58 8.1.1.1 Raw Water Supply (RS) ............................................................................................................... 58 28

Item 1. 8.1.1.2 Water Treatment Plant (T) ........................................................................................................... 58 8.1.1.3 Distribution Mains (M) .................................................................................................................. 59 8.1.1.4 Storage Tanks (S) ........................................................................................................................ 59 8.1.1.5 Outreach (O) ................................................................................................................................ 60 8.1.2 Recommended Evaluations ................................................................................................................. 61 8.1.2.1 Water Quality ............................................................................................................................... 61 8.1.2.2 SCADA......................................................................................................................................... 61 8.2 Project Cost Estimates ............................................................................................................................ 67 8.3 Capital Improvement Plan ....................................................................................................................... 67 List of Tables Table 2.1 – Future Development Demands and Hydraulic Timestep ........................................................................5 Table 2.2 – Projected Water Demands ......................................................................................................................7 Table 3.1 - Water Production Wells ......................................................................................................................... 11 Table 3.2 – Cheswold Aquifer Wells Inspection Summary...................................................................................... 18 Table 3.3 – Piney Point Aquifer Wells Inspection Summary ................................................................................... 20 Table 3.4 – Dover Water Treatment Plant / Columbia Aquifer Wells Inspection Summary .................................... 21 Table 4.1 – Existing Elevated Water Towers .......................................................................................................... 23 Table 4.2 – Water Storage Calculations .................................................................................................................. 25 Table 4.3 – Summary of Tank Inspection Report Review ....................................................................................... 29 Table 5.1 – Existing Water Distribution System ...................................................................................................... 30 Table 6.1 – Hydrant Flow Test Results ................................................................................................................... 38 Table 8.1 – City of Dover, DE Capital Improvement Plan ....................................................................................... 64 Table 8.2 – Unit costs .............................................................................................................................................. 67 Table 8.3 – City of Dover, DE Capital Improvement Plan Costs ............................................................................. 68 List of Figures Figure 1.1 – City of Dover, DE Location Map .............................................................................................................1 Figure 2.1 – Historical Water Production Trends .......................................................................................................3 Figure 2.2 – Land Annexation and Future Development............................................................................................6 Figure 2.3 – Projected Water Demands .....................................................................................................................7 Figure 3.1 – Hydrogeologic Cross-Section of Kent County, DE .................................................................................9 Figure 3.2 – City of Dover, DE Groundwater Well Locations .................................................................................. 10 29

Item 1. Figure 3.3 – Cheswold Aquifer: Monthly Groundwater Depth ................................................................................. 13 Figure 3.4 – Piney Point Aquifer: Monthly Groundwater Depth .............................................................................. 14 Figure 3.5 – Aquifer Management: Safe Yield Production ...................................................................................... 15 Figure 3.6 – Safe Yield vs. Projected Demands ...................................................................................................... 16 Figure 3.7 – St. Jones River Monthly Streamflow ................................................................................................... 17 Figure 4.1 – Tank Locations .................................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 4.2 – Storage Requirements ........................................................................................................................ 26 Figure 5.1 – Existing System Pipeline Material Distribution .................................................................................... 30 Figure 5.2 – City of Dover Water Distribution System ............................................................................................. 32 Figure 6.1 – In Service Parallel Pipes ..................................................................................................................... 34 Figure 6.2 – Projected Demand Distribution ........................................................................................................... 36 Figure 6.3 – Calibration Unidirectional Hydrant Flow Test Schematic .................................................................... 37 Figure 6.4 – Hydrant Test Locations and Calibrated Friction Coefficients .............................................................. 40 Figure 6.5 – EPS Fire Node Locations .................................................................................................................... 42 Figure 6.6 – Brown Water Complaints and Existing System Pipe Material ............................................................. 49 Figure 6.7 – Current System Water Age Results and Brown Water Complaints .................................................... 51 Figure 8.1 – Capital Improvements Plan ................................................................................................................. 65 Figure 8.2 – Downtown Dover Water Main Improvements...................................................................................... 66 Appendices Appendix A Demand Memorandum ............................................................................................................................. Appendix B Field Inspection Reports ........................................................................................................................... Appendix C Tower Inspection Review .......................................................................................................................... Appendix D Model Calibration ...................................................................................................................................... Appendix E Model Operational Data ............................................................................................................................ Appendix F Hydraulic Modeling Results ....................................................................................................................... 30

Item 1. 1 Introduction The City of Dover (the City) is centrally located in Kent County, Delaware and is the state capital. In 2020, the City Department of Water and Wastewater provided water to approximately 11,125 residential users, and 1,370 commercial and industrial users (total of 12,500 accounts). It is anticipated that residential, commercial, and industrial growth will continue. Projections indicate a served population of 43,000 and an additional 5,216 acres of commercial and industrially zoned land will be annexed to the City’s water service area by 2040. The system is currently fed by twenty one (21) wells (20 in service); fifteen (15) deep wells which pump directly into the distribution system and six (6) shallow wells which supply water to the City’s 3 million gallon per day (MGD) water treatment plant. Seven (7) elevated water towers maintain system pressures and provide fire and emergency storage. The distribution system consists of approximately 233 miles of pipe comprised of a variety of materials, sizes, and ages. Source: City of Dover, DE - 2019 Comprehensive Plan Figure 1.1 – City of Dover, DE Location Map 31

Item 1. In 2006, Whitman, Requardt and Associates, LLP (WRA) completed a Water Master Plan for the City which analyzed the City’s water supply, storage, and distribution for a 20 year planning period through 2025 and provided recommended system improvements. WRA was retained by the City again to assemble an update to the City of Dover’s Water Master Plan. This updated Plan incorporates a new 20-year projection for the City’s population and water demand through 2040. Included is a complete re-evaluation of the water system which entails: • A review and update of the projected water demands • Review of available water from the Columbia, Piney Point and Cheswold aquifers including research for aquifer recharge • Review of the City’s existing elevated water tower inspection reports • Inspection of the existing well facilities and water treatment plant • Update to and calibration of the City’s existing hydraulic water model to perform hydraulic analysis on the distribution system • Hydraulic analysis of water age as an indicator of water quality to address concerns • Evaluation of existing operating procedures including public outreach Results of the water supply, storage, and distribution system evaluations are captured in the recommended Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The CIP includes a recommended improvement implementation schedule and cost estimate. 1.1 Data Collection The following is a list of the data and information that has been provided to WRA and utilized in the development of this plan: • City of Dover, De – Maps of future annexation plans • Fire hydrant flow testing data • List of changes to the water system since the 2006 Master Plan • City of Dover Comprehensive Plan • Water allocation permits • Well drawdown reports • Pump test reports and curves • Water purchase agreements • Water quality reports • Metered water consumption data • Water production data • City of Dover zoning maps • Tank level data • Pump operation tables • Population projections 32

Item 1. 2 Water Demands WRA first completed water demand projections for the City in 1985. These projections estimated the Year 2015 maximum day demand (MDD) to be 14.7 million gallons per day (MGD). Updated 20-year projections were completed for the 2006 Master Planning effort which resulted in a reduction of estimated maximum day demands to 13.72 MGD in Year 2025. As part of this update, WRA completed a new water demand analysis utilizing recent water production data, water meter consumption records, proposed developments, and proposed annexation land areas. The detailed water demand analysis and projections are included as the Master Plan Demand Projection Memorandum in Appendix A. 2.1 Historical Water Production The City maintains detailed daily water production records from their groundwater wells. These records are more detailed than the totalized yearly water meter consumption data; therefore, production numbers have historically been utilized to establish the City’s annual average day demand (ADD) and yearly maximum daily demand (MDD). These numbers are then analyzed to establish the average day to maximum day peaking factor (PF). WRA received water production records from 2016 through the end of 2020. Calculations resulted in an annual average day production rate of 5.16 MGD and a maximum day production of 7.80 MGD. The average daily production to maximum day production peaking factor was then calculated using the following equation: 𝑀𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝐷𝑎𝑦 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑃𝐹 = 𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐷𝑎𝑦 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 The resulting PF is 1.51. This represents a reduction in the peaking factor from 1.7 which was utilized in previous modeling efforts. However, the data reviewed shows that yearly peaking factors for the most recent data sets range from 1.41 to 1.53. In addition, data from the 2006 Master planning effort was reviewed to establish water production trends. Comparing these data sets indicates that annual production rates have stayed relatively consistent while the yearly maximum day production rate has decreased (see Figure 2.1). 10 Avg. Annual and Max. Day Water 9 8 7 6 Production (MGD) 5 4 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Year Historical Avg. Day Water Production Historical Max. Day Water Production Figure 2.1 – Historical Water Production Trends 33

Item 1. 2.2 Water Demand Projection WRA reviewed water meter records from 2018 to 2020 to calculate actual water consumption by zoning category. Based on the yearly meter reports, the total average day consumption for 2018, 2019, and 2020 is 4.56 MGD, 4.77 MGD, and 4.51 MGD, respectively. The largest portion of water consumed in Dover is from residential users followed by commercial (including office space) and industrial/manufacturing users. The remaining users make up less than 3% of the total water consumed in the City’s service area. To simplify water projection calculations, WRA merged the City designated zoning categories into three (3) types; residential, commercial, and industrial users. Merging categories resulted in a water use breakdown of approximately 45% residential consumption, 28% commercial consumption, and 27% industrial consumption. These percentages were then applied to water production numbers to account for any unaccounted for flows to ensure that the hydraulic modeling and improvement recommendations account for the full quantity of water needed to supply the system. This established a Current (Year 2019) average day water demand of 2.35 MGD for residential users, 1.45 MGD for commercial users and 1.37 MGD for industrial users. Analysis of the 2020 data revealed differences in water production and consumption trends due to the Covid-19 pandemic as compared to the other yearly data sets. Therefore, while the data was included in the initial review, WRA did not utilize the 2020 data for demand projection calculations. In addition, the percentage of total water usage for 2020 attributed to residential accounts increased by approximately 13% as compared to previous years, which could be attributed to the related shift to work from home. 2.2.1 Projected Demands Data available for use in calculating future system water demands included residential population projections from the City’s 2019 Comprehensive Plan and the State of Delaware’s 2020 Population Consortium, future land annexation areas from Maps 13-1: Potential Annexation Areas and 13-2: Potential Land Use for Annexation Areas found in the Comprehension Plan, and a list of 5 to 10 year residential and industrial developments provided by the City. WRA calculated unit demands utilizing the current population and residential demand as well as current commercial and industrial demands and total acreage. A detailed explanation on the unit demand calculations can be found in Appendix A. These unit demands were then used to calculate future demands based on population projections and future annexed land areas. Land annexation areas are categorized as Category 1, 2, 3, and Areas of Concern. After discussions with the City, it was decided that Category 1 areas will be associated with 5-year projections (Year 2025), Category 2 areas will be associated with 10-year projections (Year 2030), and Category 3 areas will be split between 15- and 20-year projections (Year 2035 and 2040). Areas of concern were not considered as part of the study as the likelihood of these areas being annexed into the City’s water service area are low. Table 2.1 includes the list of provided developments and their associated zone types and estimated average day demands. Residential timesteps were assigned based on projected population growth and estimated time of construction. Industrial timesteps were assigned based on information provided by the City and estimated duration of construction. The approximate location of the proposed developments along with the potential land annexation areas can be found in Figure 2.2. It was observed that none of the upcoming industrial developments are located within the proposed annexed land areas. This indicates that their demands would not be included in those calculated purely on estimated annexed areas. Therefore, WRA added the identified industrial development demand to the industrial water demand calculated through land annexation. Residential demands calculated for each development are assumed to be included in the City’s overall projected population increase. 34

Item 1. Table 2.1 – Future Development Demands and Hydraulic Timestep Average Day Timestep Development Zone Description Demand (gpd) 2025 McKee Run Power Plant -64,800 Industrial Decommissioning of Power Plant 2025 Starlifter Ave. Manufacturing 3,900 Industrial New Manufacturing User Cardboard Manufacturing 2025 7,502 Industrial New Manufacturing User Facility 2025 Garrison Oak Technical Park 45,014 Industrial New Industrial Development 2025 Stonebrook East 39,111 Residential 255 Unit Apartment Development 2025 Stonebrook West 27,147 Residential 177 Unit Apartment Development 2030 Garrison Oak Technical Park 45,014 Industrial New Industrial Development 2030 Rojan Meadows 24,387 Residential 159 Unit Apartment Development 2030 1080 & 1106 Bay Road 7,362 Residential 48 Unit Apartment Development 2030 Apartments on College Road 50,307 Residential 328 Unit Apartment Development 35

Item 1. Legend Dover City Boundary Roads ( Future Development Areas ! Proposed Annexation Plan 2021 Category 1 2 3 Areas of Concern Stonebrook (East & West) ! ( Apartments on College Road ! ( Garrison Oak Technical Park ! ( Rojan Meadows ! ( Starlifter Ave Manufacturing 1080 & 1106 Bay Road Cardboard Manufacturing Facility ! ( ! ( ! ( Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Figure 2.2 Land Annexation and 0 2,200 4,400 8,800 Feet / Future Development City of Dover, Delaware Water System Master Plan 36

Item 1. Using the provided growth information and unit demands calculated from the City’s existing water consumption and production the updated projected maximum day water demand is 12.41 MGD in Year 2040. See Table 2.2 and Figure 2.3 for the projected water demands for each hydraulic timestep. Table 2.2 – Projected Water Demands Residential Commercial Industrial Water Total Average Day Maximum Day Year Water Demand Water Demand Demand Demand (MGD) Demand (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MDG) 2019 2.35 1.45 1.37 5.16 7.79 2025 2.47 1.62 1.75 5.84 8.82 2030 2.55 1.67 2.55 6.77 10.22 2035 2.61 2.01 2.87 7.49 11.34 2040 2.68 2.35 3.19 8.22 12.41 14.00 12.00 Million Gallons of Water 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Year Avg. Day Water Production Projected Max. Day Demand Projected Avg. Day Demand Figure 2.3 – Projected Water Demands 37

Item 1. 3 Water Supply WRA assessed the City of Dover, Delaware groundwater supply based on information provided by the City and data published by the Delaware Geological Survey (DGS). This is a planning-level, desktop effort. In addition, in- person inspections were completed of the existing wellhouses, water treatment plant and associated equipment. Recommendations for maintenance and/or improvements based on the in-person inspections are included. 3.1 Hydrogeologic Setting The City of Dover is within Kent County in central Delaware. Figure 3.1 is a schematic hydrogeologic section of the aquifers in the region. Dover is in the Atlantic Coastal Plain Physiographic Province, according to DGS Report of Investigations No. 72, titled Geology and Extent of the Confined Aquifers of Kent County, Delaware, by Peter P. McLaughlin and Claudia C. Velez (2006). Layers of gravel, sand, silt, and clay underlie the region. The layers both thicken and dip at a low angle in a southeastern direction. Groundwater is the sole source of water for Dover. Water-supply aquifers exist in the coarse-grained coastal plain geologic units that are comprised mainly of sand. The aquifers are bounded by fine-grained confining layers composed of silt and clay. The City of Dover uses the following aquifers (from shallowest to deepest): the Columbia Aquifer, the Cheswold Aquifer, and the Piney Point Aquifer. The upper surface of the Columbia Aquifer is a water table on top of saturated sands. Therefore, the Columbia Aquifer is unconfined, though it is bounded underneath by a layer of silt and clay. The Columbia Aquifer is up to approximately 60 feet thick in the area. The Cheswold Aquifer is a confined aquifer. It is approximately 50 feet thick in the Dover area. The top of the Cheswold Aquifer is approximately 75 feet below sea level. The Piney Point Aquifer is also a confined aquifer. It is approximately 170 feet thick in Dover. The top of the Piney Point Aquifer is approximately 250 feet below sea level. 3.2 Water Production Wells The City has twenty-one water production wells (twenty are currently in service), according to their application for renewal of the State water allocation permits dated September 19, 2018. Figure 3.2 is a map of the wells. Table 3.1 is a summary of available data about the wells. 38

Item 1. Figure 3.1 – Hydrogeologic Cross-Section of Kent County, DE 39

Item 1. Legend Dover City Boundary Recharge Areas Water Bodies Poor Rivers & Streams Fair Roads Good # Treatment Plant Excellent ( Cheswold Aquifer Wells ! ( Piney Point Aquifer Wells ! ( Columbia Aquifer Wells ! ( Proposed Silver Lake Well ! ( Abandoned Wells ! Well #1A ( ! Well #8A ( ! Well #4B ( ! Well #2A ( ! Well #5A ( ! #!( Treatment Plant Well #6A Well #7 ( ! ( ! ! ( Well #1 ( ! Well #13 (! !( Well #8R Well #2 Well #4 Well #9 ( ! ( ! ( ! (! !( Well #15 Well #3 ! (!( Well #12R Well #10 Well #14 ( ! ( ! Well #11 ( ! Well #6 ( ! Figure 3.2 / Well Locations 0 1,750 3,500 7,000 Feet City of Dover, Delaware Water System Master Plan 40

Item 1. Table 3.1 - Water Production Wells Depth Diameter Maximum City DNREC Maximum Aquifer of Well of Screen Pumping Well No. Well No. Use (gpd) (feet) (inches) Capacity (gpm) PW-1A 85025 60 16 500 720,000 PW-2 59727 60 16 500 720,000 PW-4B 85021 60 16 400 576,000 Columbia PW-5 85022 60 16 500 720,000 PW-6A 85023 60 16 500 720,000 PW-8A 85020 60 16 300 432,000 1 10205 208 12 237 341,280 3 10206 222 10 290 417,600 4 10214 221 10 400 576,000 5 10207 X X 400 576,000 Cheswold 8R 221103 225 10 350 504,000 9 37893 222 12 585 842,000 13 171720 230 10 250 360,000 14 10365 221 12 160 230,000 15 171719 250 10 500 720,000 2 31640 500 12 1,150 1,656,000 6 10208 456 12 800 1,152,000 7 10209 382 12 250 360,000 Piney Point 10 10212 483 12 1,100 1,584,000 11 10213 446 12 475 684,000 12R 242962 410 12 1,000 1,440,000 The six Columbia Aquifer production wells have depths of approximately 60 feet, and screens with diameters of 16 inches. The wells are located off Long Point Road. Their maximum production rates are approximately 300 to 500 gallons per minute (gpm) per well. Water from these wells is treated by the City’s water treatment plant prior to entering the distribution system. The treatment plant has recently undergone upgrades to enhance the facilities treatment capabilities. The upgrades are detailed later in this section. The nine Cheswold Aquifer production wells have depths ranging from approximately 200 to 250 feet, and screens with diameters of 10 or 12 inches. Their maximum production rates are approximately 200 to 600 gpm per well. The City indicated that it will develop another Cheswold Aquifer production well at Silver Lake Park in about two years. Well 5 is currently out of service. The six Piney Point Aquifer production wells have depths ranging from approximately 400 to 500 feet, and screens with diameters of 12 inches. Their maximum production rates are approximately 200 to 1,100 gpm per well. The most recently added Piney Point Aquifer well is at Schutte Park (Well 12R). Water from the wells in the Cheswold and Piney Point Aquifers is dosed with chlorine and pumped directly into the distribution system. Fluoride treatment is administered at the Cheswold wells. Details on the deep well pumps and chemical delivery system are included later in this section. 41

Item 1. 3.3 Water Allocation Permits The City of Dover has three water allocation permits from the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC). Each permit is for one of the aquifers in use. Columbia Aquifer - The permit for the Columbia Aquifer is designated 92-0002M1. Its withdrawal limit is a maximum of 3,000,000 gallons per 24 hours. The permit also requires monthly chloride sampling for a group of shallow monitoring wells, to assess saltwater intrusion into the Columbia Aquifer. Cheswold Aquifer - The permit for the Cheswold Aquifer is designated 87-0018 RAM3. Its withdrawal limit is a maximum of 4,327,000 gallons per 24 hours. The permit limits pumping water levels in the aquifer to various depths ranging from 118 to 165 feet. Piney Point Aquifer - The permit for the Piney Point Aquifer is designated 87-0018 BRM1. Its withdrawal limit is a maximum of 6,876,000 gallons per 24 hours. The permit limits pumping water levels in the aquifer to various depths ranging from 291 to 315 feet. In addition to the withdrawal limit for each aquifer, the State water allocation permits limit the total City groundwater withdrawals from all three aquifers combined as follows: 11,043,000 gallons per 24-hours; 258,000,000 gallons per 30-days; and 2,252,000,000 gallons per year. The Delaware River Basin Commission permits groundwater withdrawals by the City of Dover under Docket No. D-2001-43 CP. The total allocation is 438.24 million gallons per 30 days. 3.4 Water Use In 2019 the City pumped approximately 5.2 million gallons per day (MGD) from the production wells. The Columbia Aquifer pumpage was 25% of the total pumpage, based on the reported maximum rates per well. The Cheswold Aquifer pumpage was 30% of the total, and the Piney Point Aquifer pumpage was 45%. (The percentages are estimated from the maximum pumping rates in the City’s application for water allocation permits and may differ from the percentages in the most recent year.) The future City average day demand for water will be approximately 5.8 MGD by the year 2025. (See Appendix A for a memorandum dated May 14, 2021 documents the water demand projections.) The estimated average day demand will be 6.8 MGD, 7.5 MGD, and 8.2 MGD in 2030, 2035, and 2040, respectively. The 2040 demand represents an increase of approximately 3 MGD (58%) over the current demand. 3.5 Groundwater Availability WRA generally assessed future groundwater availability in the Dover area. As would be expected, the elevations of the potentiometric surfaces in the confined aquifers have dropped from their pre-development levels in response to decades of groundwater pumping from multiple users including the City of Dover. The land surface elevation in Dover is about 30 feet above sea level. Over the last 10 years, the potentiometric surface in the Cheswold Aquifer has been an average of 5 feet above sea level in DGS monitoring well Jd-14-01 (Figure 3.3). This potentiometric surface remains about 80 feet above the top of the Cheswold Aquifer. Some of the remaining unused drawdown in the Cheswold Aquifer will need to be maintained to protect the aquifer. 42

Item 1. Figure 3.3 – Cheswold Aquifer: Monthly Groundwater Depth The impact of long-term pumping has been relatively greater on the Piney Point Aquifer. Its pre-development potentiometric surface was above sea level. Over the last 10 years, the potentiometric surface in the Piney Point Aquifer has been an average of about 130 feet below sea level in DGS monitoring well Id 55-01 (Figure 3.4). This potentiometric surface remains 120 feet above the top of the aquifer. The current potentiometric surface represents historical use of a significant part of the available drawdown in the Piney Point Aquifer, and much of the remaining drawdown will need to remain undeveloped to protect it. 43

Item 1. Figure 3.4 – Piney Point Aquifer: Monthly Groundwater Depth 3.6 Aquifer Management In a July 1, 2020 memorandum, the City of Dover indicated that it plans to manage aquifer withdrawals to address its impact on the following issues related to the water supply: saltwater intrusion in the Columbia Aquifer due to over-pumping; protection of the Cheswold Aquifer; and depletion of the Piney Point Aquifer. The City has indicated that it will continue to use the deep confined aquifer production wells throughout the year, but not as heavily in the winter months (“non-growing” season usage). They will continue to rest the two largest wells when possible. Also, in accordance with this approach, the City would decrease use of the Columbia Aquifer from May to September. This is when the agricultural demand on the Columbia Formation is larger (“growing” season usage). 44

Item 1. 10 9 Average Day Demand 8 8.2 MGD (Yr 2040) 7.5 MGD (Yr 2035) 7 6.8 MGD (Yr 2030) Available Water, MGD 6 5.8 MGD (Yr 2025) 5.2 MGD (Current) 5 Safe Yield (Growing) 4 Safe Yield (Non-Growing) 3 2 1 0 Month of the Year Figure 3.5 – Aquifer Management: Safe Yield Production 3.7 Safe Yield The safe yield of a groundwater supply may be considered the yield available on a day when the largest- producing well is out of service. Assuming all the City wells could be used simultaneously, the safe yield would be 13.7 MGD with the largest well, No. 2 (1.7 MGD) out of service. Actual permit conditions such as aquifer pumping level limitations, or hydraulic conditions may limit what total rate of groundwater could be pumped on a given day. The estimated safe yield of the Columbia Aquifer wells is only 3.2 MGD assuming one of the largest Columbia Aquifer wells (at 0.7 MGD) is out of service. The safe yield of the fifteen confined aquifer wells is 9.8 MGD, which assumes Well No. 2 is out of service. To meet future average demands, WRA estimated future water sources based on equivalent wells. This assumes one well would be needed per additional 1 MGD developed. Figures 3.5 and 3.6 assume the two largest confined aquifer wells are being rested in the non-growing season which means 8.2 MGD (Safe Yield Non- Growing) would be available. A new water production well is needed by year 2035. By 2040, another new well would be needed. The planned Silver Lake well would be in addition to these future wells. 45

Item 1. 14 Safe Yield (All Wells) - 13.7 MGD New Well #1 12 Daily Production Limit (Permit) - 11.0 MGD New Well #2 10 Safe Yield (Growing) - 9.8 MGD Projected Water Use, (MGD) Safe Yield (Non-growing) - 8.2 MGD 8 Average Day Demand Maximum Day Demand 6 4 2 0 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Year Figure 3.6 – Safe Yield vs. Projected Demands 3.8 Additional Water Sources Theoretically the St. Jones River, which flows generally southeast through the Dover area, is a potential additional source of water for the City of Dover. Further southeast of Dover the river is surrounded by marshes and wetlands. Figure 3.7 is a monthly streamflow graph for the St. Jones River at Dover from the Delaware Geological Survey. A representative order-of-magnitude minimum streamflow in the St. Jones River is 10 cubic feet per second (cfs), which is equivalent to about 6.5 MGD. A representative maximum streamflow is an order higher, about 65 MGD. 46

Item 1. Figure 3.7 – St. Jones River Monthly Streamflow Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR), in which water is injected underground during wet periods and recovered during dry periods, is also theoretically an option for the City. Surface water would be injected into a confined aquifer in the Dover area and be pumped out months later. To assess the feasibility of a surface water intake and ASR, extensive studies would be necessary including elements such as well drilling, aquifer testing, and groundwater modeling. To withdraw water from a surface water body, the City of Dover would need to obtain a State water allocation permit from DNREC. The State limits withdrawals from surface waters based on factors including existing permitted withdrawals, water quality standards, protection of fish and wildlife, maintenance of adequate flows downstream, saltwater intrusion, and other ecological, recreational, aesthetic, and private benefits that depend on surface water flows. Water withdrawal from a surface water source exceeding a daily average of 100,000 gpd in a 30-day period would also require a permit from the Delaware Basin Commission (DRBC). The DRBC requires assessment of the 100- year floodplain because pumps and related facilities may not be located within a 100-year floodway. Also, the City would be required to identify wetlands that may be impacted by a surface water source project. Further, implementing seasonal water storage during the wet season and recovering it during the following dry season through ASR would involve the construction and testing of injection wells. To inject water into an aquifer, the City would need to obtain approval from DNREC for Class V injection wells, which are used to inject non- hazardous fluids underground. Site investigation and modeling of the injected water and its direction of movement in the aquifer are required as part of the injection well permitting process. 47

Item 1. Lastly, ASR requires treatment of the surface water prior to injection to ensure no biological or chemical contamination is transferred to the aquifer and/or the water chemistry is compatible with that of the groundwater. To that end, surface water after sufficient treatment at a newly constructed water treatment plant, could also be discharged directly to the City’s water distribution system to meet additional supply needs. This option would not provide for aquifer recovery but would eliminate the need for the development and operation of injection wells. Surface water treatment would still require a DNREC allocation permit and possible DRBC assessment. In addition, the City would need to assess the compatibility of the treated waters in the distribution system from different sources as mixing within the distribution system can lead to water quality or corrosion problems. 3.8.1 Water Supply Recommendations Recommendations for additional water sources are: (1) The City should add two additional confined aquifer wells; one by 2035 and one by 2040 based on the safe yield analysis. WRA also concurs with the City plan to add a confined aquifer well at Silver Lake Park. (2) The City should initiate a discussion with DNREC concerning a water allocation permit for surface water withdrawal because, although technically feasible in concept, new withdrawal from surface water is subject to limits of the water resource in conjunction with downstream and ecological water users. 3.9 Facility Inspections WRA completed on-site facility inspections of the City’s deep well houses and the recently updated Water Treatment Plant (WTP) and associated shallow wells. Detailed reports for each facility are located in Appendix B. A summary of inspection results, discussion of well operations and recommended improvements are included below. 3.9.1 Deep Wells Fourteen (14) of the City’s twenty (20) operational wells draw water from deep, confined aquifers – the Cheswold and Piney Point. A condition assessment of these deep well facilities was performed on March 29, 2021. Recommendations resulting from the site visits are summarized below, and the full inspection reports are included in Appendix B. 3.9.1.1 Cheswold Wells Table 3.2 – Cheswold Aquifer Wells Inspection Summary Well Number / Location Design Capacity Recommended Improvements 1 – Jones Station 250 gpm @ 280’ tdh • Paint interior walls • Seal drums / day tanks, vent to outside • Replace metal door w/fiberglass • Install GFCI receptacles and in-use receptacle covers • Replace fluorescent fixtures and incandescent lamps with LED 3 – Dover East 300 gpm * • Seal drums / day tanks, vent to outside • Replace metal door w/fiberglass • Install GFCI receptacles and in-use receptacle covers • Replace incandescent lamps with LED 48

Item 1. • Evaluate ambient conditions for proper VFD operations 4 – West Water Street 240 gpm * • Seal drums / day tanks, vent to outside • Replace metal door w/fiberglass • Install GFCI receptacles and in-use receptacle covers • Replace fluorescent fixtures and incandescent lamps with LED • Replace motor starter in next 5 years 8R – Blue Hen Mall 400 gpm @ 250’ tdh • Paint interior walls • Seal drums / day tanks, vent to outside • Install GFCI receptacles and in-use receptacle covers • Replace fluorescent fixtures and incandescent lamps with LED • Evaluate ambient conditions for proper VFD operations 9 – Kerbin Street 500 gpm @ 308’ tdh • Raise the floor elevation above flood plain • Replace mower-damaged vinyl siding • Pressure wash building exterior • Seal drums / day tanks, vent to outside • Replace metal door w/fiberglass • Install GFCI receptacles and in-use receptacle covers • Replace fluorescent fixtures and incandescent lamps with LED • Evaluate ambient conditions for proper VFD operations • Replace 120/240v panelboard 13R – Bayard Avenue 350 gpm @ 270’ tdh • Paint interior walls • Seal drums / day tanks, vent to outside • Replace metal doors w/fiberglass • Install GFCI receptacles and in-use receptacle covers • Replace fluorescent fixtures with LED equivalent • Evaluate ambient conditions for proper VFD operations 14 – Danner Farm 265 gpm • Paint interior walls • Seal drums / day tanks, vent to outside • Install GFCI receptacles and in-use receptacle covers • Replace fluorescent fixtures and incandescent lamps with LED • Replace VFD with newer model drive 15 – Dover Street Park 500 gpm @ 300’ tdh • Paint interior walls • Seal drums / day tanks, vent to outside • Replace metal doors w/fiberglass • Install GFCI receptacles and in-use receptacle covers • Replace fluorescent fixtures with LED equivalent • Evaluate ambient conditions for proper VFD operations *Estimated design flow and pressure not available 49

Item 1. 3.9.1.2 Piney Point Wells Table 3.3 – Piney Point Aquifer Wells Inspection Summary Well Number / Location Design Capacity Recommended Improvements 2 – Horsepond 900 gpm @ 500’ tdh • Paint interior piping • Install new magnetic flowmeter • Seal drums / day tanks, vent to outside • Replace metal doors w/fiberglass • Install GFCI receptacles and in-use receptacle covers • Replace fluorescent fixtures with LED equivalent • Replace VFD with newer model drive 6 – Rodney Village 700 gpm @380’ tdh • Clean and paint interior walls • Pressure wash exterior • Seal drums / day tanks, vent to outside • Replace metal door w/fiberglass • Replace corroded ventilation fan • Install GFCI receptacles and in-use receptacle covers • Replace fluorescent fixtures and incandescent lamps with LED • Replace VFD with newer model drive • Replace all corroded metallic conduits in chemical feed room with non-metallic 7 – McKee 200 gpm @ 430’ tdh • Paint interior piping • Install new pressure gauge • Seal drums / day tanks, vent to outside • Replace metal doors w/fiberglass • Install GFCI receptacles and in-use receptacle covers • Replace fluorescent fixtures with LED 10 – Danner Farm 1000 gpm @420’tdh • Clean and paint interior walls • Seal drums / day tanks, vent to outside • Replace metal doors w/fiberglass • Install GFCI receptacles and in-use receptacle covers • Replace fluorescent fixtures and incandescent lamps with LED • Replace all corroded metallic boxes 11 – Crossgates 475 gpm @ 425’ tdh • Clean and paint door & bldg. trim and interior walls • Seal drums / day tanks, vent to outside • Replace metal doors w/fiberglass • Replace corroded ventilation fan • Install GFCI receptacles and in-use receptacle covers • Replace fluorescent fixtures and incandescent lamps with LED • Replace LFMC at pump connector box 50

Item 1. 12R – Schutte Park 600 gpm @ 417’ tdh • Seal drums / day tanks, vent to outside • Install GFCI receptacles and in-use receptacle covers • Replace fluorescent fixtures and exterior wall pack with LED equivalent • Provide conduit sleeve to protect LFMC installed through metal vent 3.9.2 Water Treatment Plant and Columbia Aquifer Wells Six (6) wells draw from the shallow, unconfined Columbia aquifer, and send flow to the water treatment plant. A condition assessment of the shallow wells and WTP was performed on March 30, 2021. Results are summarized below, and the inspection reports are included in Appendix B. Table 3.4 – Dover Water Treatment Plant / Columbia Aquifer Wells Inspection Summary Facility Number / Location Design Capacity Recommended Improvements Dover WTP 3.0 MGD • Mechanical: - Ozone Room (electrical gear) HVAC improvements - Eyewash / shower in hypochlorite room - Backwash tank floor – slope to pump suction - Correct analyzer labels on influent, pre- and post-mixing - Enhance security; barbed wire, sliding gate with card access, CCTV at gate and building access, and lighting • Electrical: - Exit sign and emergency light repair and replacement - Replace fluorescent ceiling fixtures with LED equivalent - Replace incandescent lamps with LED lamps - Replace or repair pilot lamps in transfer switch - Install GFCI receptacles in Laboratory - Replace exterior flood lights with LED - Replace exterior light controls (photocell) - Replace SO cords to instruments at GAC tanks, and other boxes and raceways as needed - Replace all HID high and low-bay fixtures with LED, and include lowering devices for light fixtures in high bay - Review emergency generator installation for proper air flow; supplied with weather-tight enclosure but installed inside a building PW1A – Chandelle 500 gpm • Replace sump pumps • Paint piping • Install ladder safety grab bar • Install GFCI receptacles and in-use receptacle covers • Replace fluorescent fixtures with LED equivalent 51

Item 1. • Replace all electrical equipment and relocate to above-ground • Replace all metallic raceway, supports, fittings and boxes in well pit with PVC PW2A – Long Point 443 gpm @ 31 psi • Replace sump pumps • Paint piping • Install ladder safety grab bar • Install in-use receptacle covers • Replace fluorescent fixtures with LED equivalent • Replace or protect fluorescent lamp fixtures in surface cabinet • Replace all metallic raceway, supports, fittings and boxes in well pit with PVC • Provide hole plugs for all unused knockouts in wireway PW4A – Slaughter 400 gpm • Paint interior walls and piping • Add corrosion resistant bird screen to louver • Install GFCI receptacles and in-use receptacle covers • Replace fluorescent fixtures with LED equivalent PW5A – Tarburton 365 gpm • Replace sump pumps • Paint piping • Install GFCI receptacles and in-use receptacle covers • Replace fluorescent fixtures with LED equivalent • Relocate electrical equipment to above-grade NEMA 3R cabinet PW6A – Tilcon 368 gpm • Replace sump pumps • Paint piping • Install GFCI receptacles and in-use receptacle covers • Replace fluorescent fixtures with LED equivalent • Replace all corroded boxes and conduit in the well vault PW8A – White Oak 300 gpm • Paint the door • Install GFCI receptacles and in-use receptacle covers • Replace fluorescent fixtures with LED equivalent 52

Item 1. 4 Water Storage The City’s existing elevated water towers were inspected by Corrosion Control Corp. in April of 2020. These inspection reports were provided to WRA for review. Based on these physical tank inspection results, WRA compiled a list of recommended improvements which are incorporated into the proposed CIP. In addition, WRA evaluated the required storage volume to serve the distribution system based on the updated water demand projects. 4.1 Existing Elevated Water Towers Dover maintains seven (7) existing elevated water towers for a total storage capacity of 5.25 million gallons (MG). The first storage facility, the Bayard Avenue Tank, was constructed in 1955 with the most recent tower, the Garrison Oak Tank, constructed in 2016 to service a future technology park. Table 4.1 provides a listing of the existing tanks, tank type, date constructed, and tank volume. Table 4.1 – Existing Elevated Water Towers Storage Tank Type Construction Date Storage Volume (MG) General Foods Tank Legged 1963 0.25 Bayard Ave Tank Legged 1955 0.25 McKee Road Tank Legged 1974 1.0 Dover Park Tank Fluted Column 1987 1.0 Walker Road Tank Fluted Column 1987 1.0 Kent Co. Aeropark Tank Legged 1993 Re-erect 0.25 Garrison Oak Tank Composite 2016 1.5 Total Current 5.25 53

Item 1. Legend Dover City Boundary Water Bodies Rivers & Streams Roads Tank Locations $ + Existing Tank $ + Proposed Tank $ + Garrison Oak $ + McKee $ + Dover Park Walker Rd $ + $ + Bayard Ave $ + General Foods $ + Aero Park $ + Figure 4.1 / Tank Locations 0 1,550 3,100 6,200 Feet City of Dover, Delaware Water System Master Plan 54

Item 1. 4.2 Water Storage Requirements WRA compared the storage capacity with the storage volume required to serve the distribution system. The total system storage required is typically calculated by the following formula which was utilized during the development of the 2006 Master Plan. STORAGE VOLUME REQUIRED = EQUALIZATION + FIRE FLOW + EMERGENCY Equalization = 0.15 x Maximum Daily Demand (MDD) Fire Flow = 5,000 gpm for 4 hours (Commercial/multi-family) 1,200,000 gallons Emergency = 0.10 x MDD (to cover water main break, interruption in treatment/supply, etc.) The above storage calculation in relation to projected demands are summarized below in Table 4.2 and shown in Figure 4.2. Table 4.2 – Water Storage Calculations Available MDD Equalization Fire Flow Emergency Required Storage Difference Scenario (MGD) (MG) (MG) (MG) Storage (MG) (MG) (MG) 2019 7.29 1.09 1.20 0.73 3.02 5.25 + 2.23 2025 8.83 1.33 1.20 0.88 3.41 5.25 + 1.85 2030 10.24 1.53 1.20 1.02 3.75 5.25 + 1.50 2035 11.34 1.69 1.20 1.13 4.02 5.25 + 1.22 2040 12.45 1.86 1.20 1.24 4.30 5.25 + 0.95 1. Available storage volume may not all be at a usable hydraulic grade level. Based on the storage calculations, the City has sufficient storage volume to provide for system demands and emergency flows through 2040. Of note, excessive storage volume can lead to high water retention times within the distribution system and low cycling rates within the tanks. High retention times or “Water Age” and minimal cycling/mixing in tanks can lead to water quality problems such as discolored water or order and taste problems. In systems with high organic content in the source water high water age can lead to the creation of disinfection by products. The City currently has a new elevated water storage tank scheduled (FY23 start of construction) for Denneys Road in the northwest quadrant of the City. This tank will add 1.0 MG of storage for a total of 6.25 MG and is located near Category 1 – High Priority and Category 2 – Priority annexation areas in the 2019 Comprehensive Plan. Per the water storage calculations, additional storage volume in the system in not necessary; however, hydraulic water modeling was completed to evaluate if additional storage is required to balance pressures, provide fire storage volume, or to control the system. Results of that analysis are summarized in Section 6.0 – Hydraulic Modeling. 55

Item 1. Water Storage 6.00 5.00 Million Gallons of Water 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Year Required Water Storage Water Storage Figure 4.2 – Storage Requirements 4.3 Storage Facility Condition Assessments Maintaining steel water storage towers is increasingly important in view of rising replacement costs. Relatively small outlays for scheduled inspections and subsequent maintenance can substantially delay major refurbishments or even eliminate the need to replace large capital investment in elevated water towers. A good, comprehensive maintenance program can extend the life of an existing water tower as well as that of a new water tower indefinitely. Water towers are usually the primary water storage facility for a community, providing for safe drinking water, reliable pressure, and fire protection. To keep the water flowing it is important to make sure the tank is functioning properly. AWWA Manual M42 – “Manual of Water Supply Practices – Steel Water Storage Tanks” recommends that water tanks should be inspected, inside and outside, at least every three (3) to five (5) years. This time can vary due to prior quality of workmanship and the type of specified repairs and coating systems applied to the interior immersion surface and the specified coating system applied to the outside, either subjected to a mild (rural) or to a severe (industrial/seacoast) environment. The inspection, evaluation and subsequent recommendations should adhere to the American Water Works Association (AWWA) steel tank standards noted below. Any and all recommended remedial work for the water tower structure must comply with the latest OSHA, state, and local regulations. In addition, the inspector should be qualified and have a working knowledge of inspection “methods and means”. • AWWA D100, “Standard for Welded Steel Tanks for Water Storage” • AWWA D102, “Standard for Coating Steel Water Storage Tanks” 56

Item 1. • AWWA D101 – 53 (R86) “Standard for Inspecting and Repairing Steel Water Tanks, Standpipes, Reservoirs, and Elevated Tanks for Water Storage” • AWWA Manual M42 “Manual of Water Supply Practices – Steel Water Storage Tanks” Important general areas of focus for the elevated water tower inspection procedure are listed below: Washout: Should be performed by the Owner or a hired contractor prior to the water tower inspection. Without washouts, towers may accumulate large amounts of sediment and staining therefore prohibiting proper inspection on covered surfaces. See appropriate noted AWWA Standard. Foundations: Sufficient information from visual observation and testing should be gathered to determine the structural integrity of concrete foundation. Concrete foundations tend to show a greater level of deterioration than any other structural component. See appropriate noted AWWA Standard. Supporting Tower: Report detailed information on condition of sway rods, riser rods, tension, all connections thereof, bolts, welds, riser, etc. See appropriate noted AWWA Standard. Container (roof, shell, bottom): Inspect interior and exterior to determine extent of metal loss and remaining thickness. See appropriate noted AWWA Standard. Coating: The condition of the coating on the tank, inside and outside, should be effectively evaluated. To determine if a full removal of the existing system is prudent or overcoating is permissible, it is necessary to estimate the remaining effective life of the present coating systems. Factors to consider are the age of the coating, if available, the percent of rusting, peeling, total film thickness, and adhesion; inter-coat and to the steel substrate. If present coating system types are not known, tests should be performed to identify the present generic type. Existing coatings shall be tested for total lead percent and chromates to determine proper procedures to effectively treat and/or lawfully dispose of any hazardous waste as necessary. See appropriate noted AWWA Standard. Vents: Tank venting is critical so air can exit and enter the tank at the same time water enters and exits the tank. This prevents a vacuum, which can cause detrimental structural damage. Tank venting should follow design guidelines set by AWWA D100, incorporating proper screening to prevent debris, birds, and other contaminants from entering the tank. The shroud (or cap) must cover the screen when viewing from the side, so wind driven rain does not enter the tank. The screen must be fully intact, and its mesh properly sized to comply with current established guidelines. Corrosion resistant material such as stainless steel or fiberglass should be used for screening, Screening, if attached correctly, should be flush above and below the openings in the vent frame. Also, the interior screen should include a designed frost-free pallet that moves freely with the flow of air. Older elevated tanks with floating access tubes will also include a screened venting system; this too must be inspected and maintained. Vent screens should be part of an annual inspection program. If distribution systems and pumping capacities are ever increased, the vent capacity should be reevaluated to ensure adequacy. See appropriate noted AWWA Standard. Overflow Pipe: Tank overflow pipe needs to be properly screened and/or with a flap-gate arrangement over the end of the pipe to prevent unwanted contaminants from entering the tank, and unwanted animal intrusion. Most state standards recommend that overflow on elevated tanks be extended down the side of the tank to within 12 to 24 inches above grade and directed beyond the tank exterior perimeter to avoid damage to the tank grade or foundation. Most governing agencies require an air gap between the overflow piping and final drainage system in order to protect against backflow. Overflow pipe should not extend directly into storm sewers without an air gap. As permissible, and in lieu of an air gap, a rubber “duckbill” check valve may be installed at the end of the overflow pipe. Exterior overflow pipes are recommended over internal to prevent any ice buildup in cold weather which may become a problem. Exterior overflow pipes and brackets are easily accessible for maintenance, repair, and inspection. Overflow pipe should be part of an annual inspection program. If distribution systems and 57

Item 1. pumping capacities are ever increased, the overflow pipe capacity should be reevaluated to ensure adequacy. See appropriate noted AWWA Standard. Manholes and Roof Openings: Inspector shall note structural condition and confirm that sizes and types of manholes comply with current OSHA safety regulations. A minimum of two (2) roof openings are required for personnel access and ventilation during maintenance and rehabilitation work on welded steel tanks. See appropriate noted AWWA Standard. Ladders and Safety Devices: Inspector shall note structural condition of all ladders (inside “wet”, inside ”dry” and outside), platforms, handrails, and safety cables or climbing rails. Confirm that ladders comply with current OSHA safety regulations. See appropriate noted AWWA Standard. Telecommunications: Inspector shall note the condition of telecommunications equipment installation mounted on the tank. Is the integrity of the coating system or tank structure compromised by the installation? Is there equipment present on the tank that should be removed? Is there equipment which can impede any required maintenance necessary on the tank? Is there faulty installation or damaged equipment which can permit water and dirt to enter the tank? It is important that any ancillary installations maintain the integrity of the tank. Maintenance tank painting requiring exterior abrasive blasting will require that all telecommunications equipment be completely removed from the outside of the tank structure. Also, any equipment shelters on the ground, under or adjacent to the tank must be enclosed and secured from any possible abrasive damage. The City would have to get the carriers to strip all cables, etc. off tank, mount antennas on temporary pole, and reinstall on tank after painting completion. Cathodic Protection: A cathodic protection system, if installed, should be evaluated, and properly maintained. The newer impressed-current systems with automatic controls and long-life anodes require less maintenance than the old manually controlled temporary anodes. Because of this, the impressed current system is more easily forgotten. These systems should be checked every year by the manufacture’s corrosion specialist technician. Tower Security: Since 2001, water storage facilities have been designated as federally protected sites. The inspector should note the security measures in place at the tower location. Does site have fenced and locked enclosure? Are all roof manhole hatch covers locked? Is there a locked aluminum cover over the access ladder? Is pump house secured and locked? Is valve pit hatch cover locked? Is there closed circuit tv monitoring and/or intrusion switches? All security items in place should be listed. 4.3.1 Storage Inspection Report Summary WRA reviewed tower inspection reports performed by Corrosion Control Corp. (CCC) in March of 2020. Several observations were noted on the tank inspection reports which should be included in the Tank repair schedule and are summarized in Table 4.3. The findings were considered in the development of the updated CIP. The inspection reports and full summary of observation and recommended improvements are included as Appendix C. 58

Item 1. Table 4.3 – Summary of Tank Inspection Report Review Location Inspection Report Summary Dover Park Tank - Photo document condition of failing grout - Provide condition of tower appurtenances (vent, overflow, ladders, safety climb, security) Walker Road Tank - Photo document condition of failing grout - Provide condition of tower appurtenances (vent, overflow, ladders, safety climb, security) - Provide assessment of how communications equipment may affect coating system - Check report of 55% topcoat failure. If this is correct, it should be addressed. Garrison Oak Tank - Photo document condition of failing grout - Provide condition of tower appurtenances (vent, overflow, ladders, safety climb, security) - Provide assessment of how communications equipment may affect coating system McKee Road Tank - Photo document condition of failing grout - Provide condition of tower appurtenances (vent, overflow, ladders, safety climb, security) - Provide assessment of how communications equipment may affect coating system - Determine source of water in valve pit, and address Kent Co. Aeropark Tank - Provide recommendation of schedule for tower refurbishment and what coatings should be applied - Determine whether interior shell ladder is needed - Provide condition of tower appurtenances (vent, overflow, ladders, safety climb, security) - Provide information on when tank was originally constructed - Confirm that ladders, manholes, roof openings, platforms and handrails meet current OSHA standards Bayard Ave Tank - Re-evaluate condition of concrete column piers - Evaluate the free-standing overflow pipe inside the bowl and lack of top supports - Provide assessment of how communications equipment may affect coating system - Provide condition of tower appurtenances (vent, overflow, ladders, safety climb, security) - Confirm that ladders, manholes, roof openings, platforms and handrails meet current OSHA standards General Foods Tank - Provide lead and chromate paint laboratory testing prior to refurbishing - Provide assessment of how communications equipment may affect coating system application. Since tower is recommended for refurbishment, cellular antennae and cables will have to be removed by the cellular companies, and equipment shelters will need to be protected - Provide condition of tower appurtenances (vent, overflow, ladders, safety climb, security) - Confirm that ladders, manholes, roof openings, platforms and handrails meet current OSHA standards 59

Item 1. 5 Water Distribution The City of Dover maintains a Geographic Information System (GIS) database of the existing piping within the distribution system. The GIS mapping was utilized to create Dover’s hydraulic water model which was provided to WRA for this study. Further discussion about the hydraulic model and pipe condition analysis is included in the hydraulic modeling section of this report (Section 6.0 – Hydraulic Modeling). The distribution system is comprised of approximately 233 miles of piping which varies in size from 4-inch to 30- inch in diameter. Most of the piping (67%) is 8 inches in diameter or smaller. The oldest piping in the system (approximately 1 mile), located in the downtown area of the City, was installed in 1882 and is unlined cast iron pipe (UCIP). Most of the piping in the distribution system is either cast iron pipe (CIP) or ductile iron pipe (DIP) with a majority of the piping installed in the last 40 years being DIP. Other materials in the system include polyvinyl chloride pipe (PVC), high density polyethylene pipe (HDPE), galvanized steel pipe (GSP), and asbestos cement pipe (ACP). Table 5.1 and Figure 5.1 provide a statistical breakdown of the water distribution system components. Table 5.1 – Existing Water Distribution System Length % of Material Average Year of Installation (mile) System CIP 95 40.76 1964 DIP 121 52.01 1995 PVC 12 4.96 1996 HDPE 0.07 0.03 1997 GSP 1 0.48 1963 ACP 2 1.06 1960 Unknown 2 0.70 N/A Total 233 100 PVC HDPE GSP ACP UNK 5% 0% 0% 1% 1% CIP 41% DIP 52% Figure 5.1 – Existing System Pipeline Material Distribution 60

Item 1. The City’s existing elevated storage tanks and deep wells (those that pump directly to the system) are distributed throughout the system while the City’s water treatment plant is connected to the system in the northeast of the water service area. The shallow aquifer wells (Wells 1A though 8A) which pump to the treatment plant are located in this area as well. A map of the City’s water distribution system including pipe materials and facility locations is included as Figure 5.2. Evaluation of the distribution system was completed using the City’s hydraulic model to identify deficiencies. Recommended system improvements, developed to remedy identified deficiencies, are outlined in Section 8.0 – Recommended Improvements. 61

Item 1. Legend Well #1A Dover City Boundary ! ( Water Bodies Well #8A Rivers & Streams ! ( Roads Well #4B ! ( ! ( Active Wells ! ( Abandoned Wells Well #2A # Treatment Plant $ + Garrison OakTank ! ( ! Well #5A ( Treatment Plant $ + Tank Pipe $ + McKeeTank #!( Well #6A Diameter Well #7 < 6-inch ! ( Dover ParkTank ! ( 6-inch Walker RdTank $ + 8-inch 10-inch $ + Well #1 12-inch ! ( Bayard AveTank Well #13 14-inch 16-inch $ + ! ( ! ( Well #8R Well #2 Well #4 ! ( ! ( (! ( Well #9 20-inch General FoodsTank ! ( ! $ + Well #15 Well #3 ! (!( Well #12R Well #10 Well #14 ! ( ! ( Aero ParkTank $ + Well #11 ! ( Well #6 ! ( 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles / City of Dover, Delaware Water System Master Plan Figure 5.2 Existing System Overview 62

Item 1. 6 Hydraulic Modeling In 2006, WRA constructed and calibrated a hydraulic model of the City water distribution system for use in the master planning effort. Since then, the City has maintained and upgraded their hydraulic model for use. The City provided WRA with the current system model constructed in Innovyze InfoWater software which is a GIS based program. WRA reviewed and updated the provided model to assess the capabilities and limitations of the existing storage and distribution system, as well as to plan a logical and cost effective program of system improvements to meet existing and future demands. Two types of analyses were utilized to examine the City of Dover’s water distribution system: steady state (SS) analyses and extended period simulations (EPS). A steady state analysis is used to examine the system at an instantaneous moment. The operational settings are based on typical values provided by the City. Steady State analysis allows for evaluation of pressure and velocity in the system. An extended period simulation is used to evaluate operational settings and their time-related effects on water storage tanks and pumps supplying the system, movement of water through the system, as well as system reaction and recovery. 6.1 Water Model Update The City provided WRA with the current version of their hydraulic water model. The model provided was created in the most recent version of InfoWater. WRA reviewed the model for piping configuration and input parameters, pump input parameters and operational controls, tank input and operations, water treatment plant output flows and pressures, and demand distribution. In addition, WRA utilized the various validation tools available within the InfoWater software to uncover duplicate pipes, nodes in close proximity that are not connected, orphan nodes, etc. Observations from the provided model include the following: 1. Piping network was created using the City’s GIS. 2. Pipe friction coefficients ranged from 110 to 150 which is typical for smooth wall new pipe in good condition. The model had not yet been calibrated; therefore, it was expected that these coefficients would be adjusted to system conditions during the calibration process. 3. Base demands are included which were distributed utilizing the 2018 metered consumption records. 4. A typical system diurnal curve was provided for extended period simulations. 5. The Monday pump operating rules were installed and operating during simulations. 6. All existing system Elevated Storage Tanks were included with an overflow elevation of approximately 166. WRA checked assigned elevations and diameters to confirm volumes against tank inspection reports. 7. The Water Treatment Plant was represented by a reservoir (all shallow wells) and pump. The pump curve is set to the high service pumps at the treatment plant. 8. All wells that directly connect to the system are represented by a pump and reservoir. The reservoir is set to the elevation of the groundwater at each well. All pumps were set to their design point flow and head gain. 9. The planned future well is included with anticipated flow and head conditions. 10. The model was able to function under both steady state and extended period simulations and produced pressure, velocity, and water age results with minimal to no errors. WRA modifications to the model are as follows: • Pump curves for well pumps which had undergone field testing were adjusted to current field conditions based on the provided well reports. • Reservoir levels at groundwater wells were adjusted to reflect actual groundwater conditions recorded in the field during inspection and testing. 63

Item 1. • A pipeline extending west of the Village of Cannon Mill on Hazlettville Road was removed from the model as it does not exist. • Elevations were updated and assigned to all model nodes utilizing available aerial topology and the Elevation Extractor tool within the InfoWater software. • “Current” or base demands were updated based on WRA’s demand memo (Appendix A) and distributed to the nearest model node through GIS utilizing meter addresses found in the 2018 consumption information. Future demand distribution is detailed in Section 6.2. • Pipeline improvements currently under construction (Ross St. Water Main and N. West St. Water Main) were added to the model under existing conditions. • Pipeline C-factors were adjusted through model calibration efforts (See Section 6.3). 6.1.1 Validation Testing Once updates to the model were completed a series of validation tests were conducted. These tests are available through the software and review the base model input for duplicate pipes, detached nodes, overlapping nodes in close proximity, and pipe split candidates. Results indicated that several duplicate pipes existed in the system. Duplicate pipes refer to model pipelines that are constructed during the GIS to model element conversion on top of one another. These pipes do not refer to parallel water lines that are currently in service in the downtown area of the City as shown in Figure 6.1. Identified duplicate pipes were removed from the model. The remainder of the tests did not indicate any other issues with the model. Figure 6.1 – In Service Parallel Pipes 64

Item 1. 6.2 Demand Distribution WRA utilized the City’s existing meter location shapefile to accurately distribute demands throughout the model based on addresses of metered accounts. Actual metered consumption data were proportionally adjusted to meet the “Current” (Year 2019) demands as detailed in Section 2 - Water Demands. These adjusted demands were then associated via GIS to the nearest model nodes allowing for accurate location in the model. Spot checks of larger demands were completed to ensure that they were accurately located, and locations adjusted if necessary. Future demands (Year 2025 through Year 2040) were distributed within the model based on address locations provided by the City and land annexation and use GIS files provided from planning and zoning. Piping connections from the new model nodes to the existing system were initially sized based on demands. Connection locations and looping were assumed based on review of the most reasonable connection location. Further review of connections and impacts to the distribution system were reviewed during the hydraulic modeling. Figure 6.2 depicts added demands as compared to the existing distribution system through buildout (Year 2040). 65

Item 1. Legend ( ! ! ( ! ( Dover City Boundary Proposed Annexation Roads Category 3 ! ( Stonebrook East Apts. ! ( Pipe Proposed Annexation ! ( ! (! ( ! ( ! (! ( ! ( ! ( (Category 1 and 2) ! (! ! ( ! ( Pipes ( Stonebrook West Apts. Junction Land Use Phase Industrial & Agricultural Garrison Oak ! ( Technical Park ! ( 2025 Commercial ! ( ! ( ! ( 2030 College Road Apts. ! ( ! ( Residential ! (! ( ! ( 2035/2040 ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( Rojan Meadows Apts. ! ( ! (! (! (! ( ! ( ! (! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ( ! ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! (! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( Starlifter Ave. ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ! ( Bay Road Apts. ! ( Manufacturing Development ( New Burton Rd !! ( (! ( ! ( ! ( Cardboard Manufacturing ! ( ! ( ! (! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ( ! ! ( ! ( ! (! (! ( ! ( !! ( (! (! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles / City of Dover, Delaware Water System Master Plan Figure 6.2 Projected Demand Distribution 66

Item 1. 6.3 Model Calibration Calibration of a hydraulic model should be completed following model construction/update to enable the model to provide results that represent actual system conditions. In order to calibrate the model, data from the operating distribution system needs to be collected and simulated. System pressures under normal and fire flow conditions are important tools in the calibration process. Calibration of the City of Dover hydraulic model was completed through numerous steady state analyses utilizing previous collected hydrant flow data and data collected as part of this analysis. 6.3.1 Hydrant Flow Tests Hydrant flow tests are conducted by measuring the available flow from one hydrant, while monitoring its effect on other points in the system through pressure recorders placed on select hydrants. These hydrants are known as residual hydrants. Pressures are recorded for the residual hydrants under static conditions, before the flow hydrant is opened; and under residual conditions, while the flow hydrant is open and flowing steadily. The flow available from the flow hydrant is measured and recorded. This testing provides an indication of the available flow for fire suppression and allows pressures to be recorded in the system during such an event. The City provided 4 years of hydrant flow data throughout the distribution system to provide testing points for model calibration. WRA reviewed the tests completed by the City and chose 18 hydrants based on the year of test completion and location within the system to provide distributed data points. An overall map showing the locations of the chosen test hydrants used in the model calibration is included in Figure 6.4. The hydrant flow information utilized in the calibration include results from hydrants 12, 107, 164G, 166, 195, 225, 546, 597, 719, 726, 1090, 1249, 1518, 1574, 1591, 1606, 1684, and 1702. 6.3.1.1 Unidirectional Flow Testing In addition to the hydrant flow test data provided by the City, WRA identified locations of five (5) additional hydrant flow tests to capture additional system information and flow characteristics on a variety of pipe diameters, materials, and ages specifically for model calibration purposes. If a non-interrupted section of pipe is used for the flow test, and flow to the flow hydrant is unidirectional, the roughness factor (C-value) of the pipe can be calculated from the pressure loss between the hydrants, which gives an indication of the pipe interior condition. A schematic of the procedure is included as Figure 6.3. Flow Residual Residual Hydrant Hydrant 1 Hydrant 2 Flow Meter Pressure Pressure Gauge or Gauge or Recorder Recorder Closed Valve or Dead-end Line Flow Direction Figure 6.3 – Calibration Unidirectional Hydrant Flow Test Schematic 67

Item 1. Four (4) out of five (5) suggested hydrant flow tests were completed by the City in April and May of 2021. The test that was not completed was due to coordination requirements, timing, and potential impacts to large costumers. Test location forms and recorded field information can be found in Appendix D. For each of the flow tests, pressures at the residual hydrants were monitored using pressure gauges. Flow was calculated using pitot pressure and the diameter of the orifice on the flow hydrant Testing results show that available flow at hydrants during the additional unidirectional testing ranged from 932 gallons per minute (gpm) to 1,022 gpm. Table 6.1 provides a summary of results from each location. As a result of the pressure and flow information collected from the flow tests an estimate of the pipe friction coefficients, or C- values was determined. The calculated C-values are also included in Table 6.1. Based on the calculated results, it was apparent that unidirectional flow was not achieved. Therefore, WRA utilized the collected pressure and flow data only and iteratively determined C-values in each testing area. Table 6.1 – Hydrant Flow Test Results Table 6.1 - Hydrant Flow Test Results Pipe Pipe Static Residual Unidirect Flow Diamete Length (ft) Hydrant Pressure Static Pressure Residual Change in Calculated Test # Location (gpm) r (in) R1-R2 Hydrant # Position Elevation (psi) HGL (ft) (psi) HGL (ft) HGL (ft) C-value 1 College Rd 1,022 12 1188 302 Flow 51 42 N/A N/A 301 Resid1 48 41 142.7 40 140.4 299 Resid2 43 45 147.0 41 137.7 2.7 142 2 -- -- -- -- -- Flow -- N/A -- Resid1 -- -- -- -- -- -- Resid2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 3 Stoney Rd 1,022 8 1243 381 Flow 43.0 45 N/A N/A 382 Resid1 44.0 45 148.0 42 141.0 384 Resid2 42.0 47 150.6 45 146.0 4.9 305 4 North Halsey Rd 1,022 6 914 573 Flow 33.9 50 N/A N/A 572 Resid1 33.4 48 144.3 43 132.8 570 Resid2 32.6 50 148.1 49 145.8 13.0 325 5 Kesselring Ave 932 8 739 1150 Flow 28.0 55 N/A N/A 1151 Resid1 30.0 50 145.5 46 136.3 1152 Resid2 32.0 52 152.1 46 138.3 2.0 342 The unidirectional flow procedure shown in this section and described in the unidirectional flow testing plan included in Appendix D is a particularly useful tool during calibration of a hydraulic model. While normal hydrant testing procedures should not be modified, the City should consider completing unidirectional flow testing throughout their system during the next model calibration effort. 6.3.2 Calibration Results A steady state calibration analysis was completed to ensure model conditions are accurate to the real world distribution system. The hydraulic model calibration is considered adequate when pressures within the model are +/- 5 pounds per square inch (psi) from pressures observed in the field. Detailed (continuous) SCADA data for pump output flow/pressure and tower levels was not available. Therefore, WRA utilized the available typical tank ranges and the average tank level at night (approximately midnight) provided and ran a 24-hr extended period simulation to estimate tank levels in each tank at 30 minute intervals throughout an average day. Tank levels for each steady state calibration scenario were then set in the model based on the time each hydrant test was completed to estimate system conditions. In addition, pump operations at the time of each test are unknown. Therefore, WRA allowed the pumps in the hydraulic model to turn on/off based on the assigned tank levels. The pump control scheme is explained in more detail under the model analysis summary discussion. Due to the calibration assumptions, WRA was able to match most but not all of the static pressures within the model to the static pressures observed during the various hydrant tests. For those tests where a static pressure 68

Item 1. match could not be achieved, WRA focused on matching pressure losses to balance head loss due to internal pipe conditions. Due to the amount of assumptions that were utilized during the calibration effort as well as the variety of years, times, and techniques used in collecting the hydrant tests, WRA was not able to match all test locations. However, 94% of tests were matched to within 5 psi of residual pressure or pressure losses, therefore, the model was considered calibrated. A summary of all tests and model results is included in Appendix D. Figure 6.4 shows pipe C-values in the model as a result of the calibration efforts. The calibration efforts resulted in C-values of 70-90 for older cast iron mains, 125-140 for ductile iron mains and 150 for PVC. 69

Item 1. Legend Dover City Boundary Hydrant 726 Roads ¡ Calibration Points (Hydrants) Calibration Points (Tests) Hydrant 719 Pipe Hydrant Test #2 Hydrant 107 ROUGHNESS Hydrant 164G < 80 Hydrant 166 Hydrant 597 80-100 100-120 Hydrant Test #1 120-130 Hydrant 195 Hydrant Test #4 130-150 Hydrant 12 Hydrant 1518 Hydrant 225 Hydrant Test #3 Hydrant 1090 Hydrant 1684 Hydrant 1606 Hydrant 1249 Hydrant 1702 Hydrant 1274 Hydrant 1591 Hydrant Test #5 / Figure 6.4 City of Dover, Delaware Hydrant Test Locations and 0 0.225 0.45 0.9 1.35 1.8 Water System Master Plan Miles Calibrated Friction Coefficients 70

Item 1. 6.4 Model Analysis Summary Utilizing the calibrated hydraulic model, the City of Dover water distribution system was simulated under various conditions. Scenarios were completed as both steady state and extended period simulations. The modeled scenarios evaluated system operations such as pressures and pipeline velocities, supply of fire flow and residual pressure and system water age as an indicator of water quality. Results were assessed based on a series of system minimum and maximum requirements which are summarized in the following section. The modeling scenarios utilized per timestep are as follows: 1. Maximum Day Demand Extended Period Simulation 2. Maximum Day Demand Steady State plus Fire Flow 3. Maximum Day Demand Extended Period Simulation plus Fire Flow 4. Water Age (Average Day Demand) Extended Period Simulation WRA identified and evaluated system improvements as a function of projected demands over a 20 year planning period in 5-year increments. Five (5) hydraulic timesteps, “Current” or Year 2019, Year 2025, Year 2030, Year 2035, and Year 2040 or “Build-Out”, were utilized resulting in a total of 20 modeling runs. 6.4.1 Model Assumptions The following is a record of physical and operational assumptions utilized in the hydraulic model for analysis. 6.4.1.1 Physical Attribute Assumptions: 1. Pipeline replacement projects in the downtown Dover area to replace old small diameter cast iron mains scheduled to be constructed prior to FY 2025 are included in the Year 2025 in hydraulic timestep. Projects scheduled to be constructed after FY 2025 are included in the Year 2030 hydraulic timestep. Information on scheduled pipeline projects can be found in Appendix E. 2. Tank Levels for Steady State fire flow analysis were set to half (50%) full. 3. Initial Tank levels for EPS are based on available Tank SCADA data and are the average of the Tank’s level at midnight (equivalent model start time of 0 hours). 4. New piping is assumed to be cement lined ductile iron with a C-value of 130. 6.4.1.2 System Operation Assumptions and Parameters: 1. Minimum allowable system pressures under maximum day conditions is 35 psi. 2. Maximum allowable velocity is 4 feet per second (ft/s). 3. Steady State Fire Flow tests will be conducted at 2,000 gallons per minute (gpm) with a minimum 20 psi residual pressure requirement. SS fire flow testing will occur at all new developments. SS fire flow testing locations are shown on model result figures located in the Appendix F. 4. Extended Period Simulation Fire Flow tests conducted in the downtown Dover area will be 5,000 gpm for 4 hours with a minimum residual pressure of 20 psi during peak demand (7:00 am to 11:00 am). Testing occurred at three nodes located in the Dover downtown area in the vicinity of planned water main replacement projects. Nodes were chosen based on location and diameter of water mains. Water Mains tested were 6-inch, 8-inch and 16-inch CIP. See Figure 6.5 for test node locations. 5. Water age analysis will be for 10 days under Average Day Demand. 6. Maximum allowable water age in Tanks is 5 days (from 2018 Ten States Standards). 7. Detailed demand information is not available to create a specific diurnal curve for the City. Therefore, WRA assumed the curve utilized during the 2006 modeling effort was still applicable as the curve was developed based on conversations with the City operations staff at the time. The diurnal curve assigned for this modeling effort can be found in Appendix E. 71

Item 1. 8. Well pump rule controls are set to the City’s Monday rule scheme. The City’s daily pump operation rule schedule can be found in Appendix E. Due to the complicated daily nature of the City’s operational scheme only the Monday conditions were modeled. Under normal operations, the system in controlled by levels in the General Foods Tank. 9. Based on conversations with City staff, the water treatment plant was set to operate daily from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm with a maximum output of 3.0 MGD. 10. The new groundwater well (Silver Lake Well) was assigned to be in service starting the Year 2025 timestep and is set to open and operates as needed. Figure 6.5 – EPS Fire Node Locations 72

Item 1. 6.4.2 Model Results Results of the hydraulic model analysis are summarized in the following section. Model result data, figures and graphs can be found in Appendix F. 6.4.2.1 Year 2019 “Current” Hydraulic analysis of the system under current conditions allows for optimization of the existing system in preparation for future expansion and development. System Operations: Under existing conditions all pressures in the system remain above 35 psi with pressures ranging from 40 psi to 70 psi. The lowest pressures are located on the west side of the system which is the furthest from the City’s water sources. The highest pressures in the system are observed downstream of pumped sources, and in the vicinity of Kentland Avenue, Governors Boulevard, Horsepond and Starlifter Roads, Long Point and N. Little Creek Roads and White Oak Road. Velocities in the system are below 4 ft/s in a majority of the system. Periodic instantaneous high velocities (< 6 ft/s) are observed in discharge lines from groundwater wells and tanks. However, the velocities are associated with pump on/off or initial tank draining. Therefore, no improvements are recommended. Additional areas of minor high velocities (4.2 ft/s to 5.5 ft/s) are observed at three locations in which a short reduction in the diameter of the water main exists. High velocities are observed in approximately 600 linear feet (lf) of 8-inch DIP on White Oak Road, 20 lf of 10-inch DIP on Long Point Road and 80 lf of 12-inch on N. Little Creek Road. Recommended improvements include: • Upsize 600 lf of 8-inch DIP to 10-inch DIP along White Oak Road • Upsize 20 lf of 10-inch DIP to 16-inch DIP along Long Point Road • Upsize 80 lf of 12-inch DIP to 16-inch DIP along N. Little Creek Road WRA reviewed pump operations and tank levels under maximum day demands. Results indicate that the General Foods Tank controls groundwater well operations. Cycling the small volume of the tower (0.25 MG) its full operating range results in very little level change in the other larger in service storage tanks. Levels in all Tanks remain above 60% full throughout the simulation. With the exception of the WTP, which operates on a timed schedule, operating pumps run continuously but are able to supply pressures and flows while maintaining tank levels. Fire Flow: To test the existing system’s fire flow capabilities, WRA spaced steady state fire flow testing nodes throughout the City. Results showed that the system was unable to supply 2,000 gpm at a 20 psi residual while maintaining velocities below 4 ft/s. Available flows were approximately 1,400 gpm. After review of the results, WRA determined that the 4 ft/s maximum velocity requirement was the limiting constraint. During fire flow events it is common in systems for velocities to increase to levels greater than typical maximum levels. Therefore, WRA retested the selected nodes allowing for a maximum velocity of 6 ft/s which is within typical operating ranges. Results indicate that greater flows were achieved at all locations. EPS hydrant testing indicates that the existing downtown system is not able to maintain a fire flow of 5,000 gpm through the existing 6” and 8” mains. Pressures within the downtown area in the vicinity of these nodes drop below 20 psi (minimum pressure (-)10 psi) with velocities in the old CIP 4-inch and 6-inch mains increasing to 26 ft/s. The City is planning on completing a series of water main upgrades in this area. These projects will replace the existing cast iron small diameter lines with new 8-inch DIP increasing available fire flow in the area. Replacement projects scheduled to be completed prior to Year 2025 include: • 3,200 lf of -inch pipeline replacement State St. • 1,600 lf of 8-inch pipeline replacement along N. West St. • 3,200 lf of 8-inch pipeline replacement along Fairview Ave. • 500 lf of 8-inch pipeline replacement along N. Bradford St. • 4,000 lf of 8-inch pipeline replacement along Queen St. 73

Item 1. • 4,000 lf of 8-inch pipeline replacement along New St. After discussions with the City, the scheduled year of the pipeline replacement along N. Bradford Street has been altered. While modeled under the Current timestep, this improvement will be included under Year 2035 in the proposed CIP. 6.4.2.2 Year 2025 Year 2025 hydraulic analysis was completed including recommended improvements from the previous hydraulic timestep. Anticipated new developments include the Starlifter Ave. Manufacturing facility, a cardboard manufacturing facility, the initial phase of the Garrison Oak Technical Park, the Stonebrook East and West apartments (432 units), and Category 1 annexed lands. The City also anticipates that a new groundwater well (Silver Lake Well) will be in operation. As mentioned in the Water Storage section of this report, the City has a new 1.0 MG elevated water tank scheduled for FY 2023 along Denneys Road. Per the water storage calculations, additional storage volume is not needed, however, WRA reviewed the need for this proposed tank for system operations and pressure maintenance. Construction of the tank was assumed to be in the vicinity of Denneys Road and McKee Rd. System Operations: Model results indicate that the addition of the Denney’s Road Tank during this timestep does not provide measurable benefits to the system. Results show that the system is able to maintain pressures above 35 psi even in the vicinity of additional developments in the northwest corner of the system without the addition of this Tank. No additional areas of velocities over 4 ft/s are observed. All new development areas were connected utilizing a 12-inch diameter main. Results show that groundwater pumps (including the proposed Silver Lake well) and tank storage are able to adequately supply the increase in system demands. Fire Flow: Six (6) steady state fire flow tests were completed at the locations of the new developments and one downtown node. Fire flow testing was completed at the proposed Starlifter Avenue manufacturing area, Burton Rd cardboard manufacturing facility, Garrison Oak Technical Park, and Stonebrook East and West Apartments. Results indicate that at an allowable velocity of 6 ft/s, the distribution system can supply 2,000 gpm at a 20 psi residual pressure at all locations except for the downtown node and development along Starlifter Avenue. Results indicate that a fire demand at the new manufacturing facility results in significant drainage of the Aero Park Tank and reduction of pressures below 20 psi along the existing dead end main in Starlifter Avenue. Flow and pressure deficiencies were also identified in this area under the 2006 Master Plan. To meet requirements, the 2006 Master Plan suggested looping approximately 5,500 lf of 12-inch main along the northwest edge of the Dover Air Force Base between S. Bay Road and Horsepond Road. Concerns about land availability and delays in development had stalled the project. Therefore, WRA reviewed alternative improvements. To meet fire flow requirements in this area approximately 7,000 lf of 12-inch DIP is required to loop the dead end line on Starlifter Avenue to S. Little Creek Road. Once in place, the system can supply fire flows to the new manufacturing development and maintain levels in the Aero Park Tank. As an additional benefit to this alignment, the proposed main bisects lands included under Category 2 – Priority annexation areas and can be used to supply this future development. In general, distribution supply requirements can be met along Starlifter Avenue by installing either improvement or both of the improvements discussed above. The 12-inch line connecting Starlifter to S. Little Creek Road is included in the CIP. EPS hydrant testing indicates that the test completed on small diameter lines in the downtown area cannot maintain a fire demand of 5,000 gpm for 4 hrs while maintaining minimum pressures. However, replacement of mains in this area increases available flows and reduces velocities. It is recommended that the City continue their program of replacing small diameter cast iron mains in the downtown area. Replacement projects already scheduled to be completed prior to Year 2030 but after Year 2025 include: • 1,400 lf of 8-inch replacement pipeline along N. Bradford St. (improvement included under Year 2035 improvements in the CIP) 74

Item 1. • 1,600 lf of 8-inch pipeline replacement along Kings Highway • 2,300 lf of 8-inch pipeline replacement along Reed St. • 1,000 lf of 8-inch pipeline replacement along Queen St. • 1,940 lf of 8-inch pipeline replacement along Bank Lane Additional recommended pipeline replacement projects in the same downtown vicinity include: • 1,300 lf of 8-inch pipeline replacement along Lakewood Place • 1,200 lf of 8-inch pipeline replacement along Bank Lane 6.4.2.3 Year 2030 Year 2030 hydraulic analysis assumes improvements suggested in previous timesteps are complete and in service and includes the addition of annexed lands, the remainder of the Garrison Oak Technical Park, Rojan Meadows (159 unit apartment), 1080 and 1106 Bay Road (48 unit apartment), and the Apartments at College Road (328 unit apartment). All proposed developments were connected to the system using a 12-inch diameter pipeline. System Operations: MDD analysis indicates that the distribution system is able to water demands. Pressures throughout the distribution system remain above 35 psi. No new areas of high velocity are observed. An overall decrease in tank levels is observed as compared to previous timesteps, however, all tanks remain above 55% full with the lowest levels observed in the General Foods and Aero Park Tanks. Since the Tanks are still cycling within a normal operating range and pressures are maintained throughout the system, no additional improvements are recommended. Fire Flow: Steady State hydrant flow tests were competed at all new development areas and one node located in the downtown area of the City. Results show that 2,000 gpm at 20 psi residual is only able to be met at the Garrison Oak Technical Park when using 4 ft/s as a velocity constraint. At a constraint of 6 ft/s, the system can supply 2,000 gpm and maintain a residual pressure of 20 psi at all proposed developments with the exception of the Apartments at College Road. To meet hydrant demands, WRA recommends upsizing approximately 540 lf of 8-inch pipeline to 12-inch diameter line along College Rd. The system cannot supply 2,000 gpm at the downtown test location. An increase in available flow in this area is observed due to scheduled pipeline replacement projects. WRA recommends the City continue replacing the small undersized cast iron lines in this area to increase available flow during emergencies. Downtown EPS fire flow results show that an increase in flow is available due to the pipeline replacement and upsize projects currently scheduled for completion. The remaining small diameter mains in the direct vicinity of the test nodes still see velocities of up to 32 ft/s. Residual pressures in the system remain above 20 psi with the exception of the hydrant test nodes. Increased draw down as compared to results from previous hydraulic timesteps is observed in the General Foods Tank, but the tank is able to recover. Recommended improvements as a result of Year 2030 hydraulic analysis include: • Upsize 540 lf of 8-inch watermain with 12-inch along College Road • 2,800 lf of 8-inch pipeline replacement along Bradford St. (improvement included under Year 2035) • 1,000 lf of 8-inch pipeline replacement along Clara St. • 4,000 lf of 8-inch pipeline replacement along Governors Ave. • 1,100 lf of 8-inch pipeline replacement along Cecil St. 6.4.2.4 Year 2035 Hydraulic analysis of Year 2035 included demands from 50% of the future annexed land areas located primarily along the western edge of the City’s service area (Category 3 annexation areas). No water mains exist in this 75

Item 1. area to service these potential developments. Therefore, WRA assumed approximately 50,000 lf of 12-inch diameter transmission water mains with appropriate looping connections to the existing system is required to serve this area. Exact timing of development in these areas or if they will ever be developed is unknown. WRA recommends re-evaluating pipeline needs within these annexed lands if/when development occurs. The 50,000 lf of new pipeline will be evenly divided between 2035 and 2040 timesteps in the Capital Improvement Plan. System Operations: Hydraulic analysis results show that a reduction in overall system pressure is observed due to the increase in demand as compared to previous timesteps. However, pressures remain above 35 psi throughout the system. The lowest pressures in the system are located in the southwest corner of the system and in areas of new development with pressures in the vicinity of water sources remaining above 50 psi. No new areas of high pipeline velocities are observed but an overall increase in maximum pipeline velocities is seen throughout the distribution system. It is noted that as compared to previous hydraulic timesteps all storage tanks in the system operate at lower levels with the General Foods Tank draining to 5 ft without recovery. In general, pressures and velocities are able to be met throughout the model scenario, however, the well pumps are running continuously at full capacity while maintaining lower water levels in the elevated tanks. WRA suggests additional water sources to increase the available flow in the system to meet projected max day demands. This result confirms the need for additional water sources by year 2035 as discussed in Section 3.0 – Water Supply. The need will also be highly dependent on the actual development of these additional long-term annexation lands. In addition to the recommendation of a new water source, WRA reviewed changes in operational settings and/or the addition of the Denneys Road Tank to better maintain tank levels and pressures in the system. Based on results, WRA recommends the addition of the Denneys Road Tank to balance pressures on the west side of the distribution system and the removal of the General Foods Tank from service since levels in this tank cannot be maintained under the current operational scheme. Assuming a storage volume of 1.0 MG for Denneys Road, this change results in a total storage volume of 6.0 MG. MDD Results show that levels in all tanks under this scenario remain above 35%. Further analysis of tank cycling under this tank configuration is completed under the water age analysis portion of this report. The construction of and volume of the Denneys Road Tank will be highly dependent of actual development of the Category 3 lands. WRA recommends re-evaluating the need for and volume of the Denneys Road Tank as well as system operating requirements when the development schedule of these Category 3 areas is clearer. Fire Flow: Steady State Fire flow availability was tested at 4 ft/s and 6 ft/s at multiple locations throughout the annexed land area. At all locations the system is able to provide 2,000 gpm at 20 PSI residual pressure. EPS fire flow analysis in the downtown Dover area shows that the system is able to supply 5,000 gpm for 4 hours at 20 psi residual throughout with the exception of the flow hydrant node. In addition, areas immediately adjacent to the test nodes experience high velocities, however, improvements have greatly increased available flows. WRA suggests the City continue their program to replace old undersized cast iron mains in the area to continue to increase available flows. Recommended improvements include: • 50,000 lf of new 12-inch DIP within the proposed long term annexed lands • 1,500 lf of 8-inch pipeline replacement along Fulton St. • 1,300 lf of 8-inch pipeline replacement along State St. • 2,600 lf of 8-inch pipeline replacement along Kirkwood St. • 3,000 lf of 8-inch pipeline replacement along Lockerman St. and Lockerman Plaza • 300 lf of 8-inch pipeline replacement along Federal St. • Construction of 1.0 MG (assumed volume) Denneys Road Tank • New water source (1.0 MGD equivalent) 76

Item 1. 6.4.2.5 Year 2040 Year 2040 (Build-Out) analysis includes remaining demands from the future annexed land areas along the western edge of the City’s service area (Category 3). No additional transmission lines other than those noted during Year 2035 are required. Modeling was completed assuming the construction of a 1.0 MG tank along Denneys Road and the decommissioning of the General Foods Tank. Pump controls were assumed to be based on the McKee and or Walker Road Tanks (current second tier control levels). WRA recommends further review of pump control levels if the Denneys Road Tank is in service. System Operations: Under MDD, pressures below 35 psi (between 33 psi and 34 psi) are observed in the vicinity of the Cannon Mills Apartment Homes, Village of Westover Apartment Homes, off of Kenton Road just north of Forrest Avenue, and off of Kenton Road east of College Road. WRA reviewed various improvements to increase pressures in this area. The easiest way to increase pressures was observed when the existing well 12R was operationally allowed to pump at 100% capacity (currently setting in model is 90%). Similar to Year 2035, the additional demand results in increased draw down and operating levels of all tanks in the system indicating that additional water production is needed to maintain system pressures in conjunction with tank levels. Recommendations for additional water sources at system Build-Out are included in Section 3.0 – Water Supply. No additional areas of high velocities are observed. Fire Flow: Fire flow during steady state was tested at the same locations as in Year 2035 hydraulic analysis as no water mains have been added to the system but demands throughout the annexation areas have increased. At 4 ft/s and 6 ft/s, all locations are able to achieve 2,000 gpm at 20 PSI residual pressure. Similar results during EPS analysis in downtown Dover to Year 2035 were recorded during 2040 analysis. No additional pipeline replacement projects are recommended. Recommended Improvements as a result of Year 2040 modeling include: • New water source (1.0 MGD equivalent) 6.4.3 Water Age Results WRA completed a 10-day EPS under average day demand conditions to review water age as an indicator of water quality for each hydraulic time step. Water age result figures and elevated tank levels and ages are included in Appendix F – Model Results. Common water quality issues that occur in systems include development of odor, taste, and color (brown water) as well as the creation of disinfection by product (DBPs). DBPs are formed when free chlorine (chlorine residual) in the distribution system reacts with various elements in the water such as organic compounds. Water age, or the retention time of an element of water in the system, is used as a surrogate for more detailed, expensive, and often much more difficult water quality modeling, as water age is easy to calculate and is not dependent on variable chemical reactions. Results of water age analysis provide guidance for municipalities into areas of the system that could develop problems with water quality. These results do not necessarily indicate that there is a problem. Further study is required to establish specific water quality issues. Areas of high water age can be used in conjunction with anecdotal evidence such as customer complaints, and laboratory testing results to establish areas of concern. Changes in system operations or the addition of physical improvements to promote lower water age can be implemented to minimize the likelihood of water quality problems. The City has experienced regular brown water issues throughout its distribution system. Reasons for water discoloration within the distribution system include the corrosion of old cast iron mains, chemical disinfection reactions or sediment build up. As described in Section 5 – Water Distribution, approximately 41% of the distribution system is comprised of unlined cast iron mains, the corrosion of which may be the reason for brown water. The City maintains a regular water main flushing program to mitigate the brown water problems and 77

Item 1. remove corrosion and sediment from the system. Despite these efforts, brown water complaints continue to be a problem. Dover provided WRA with their log of water quality (brown water) complaints from customers which includes a list of complaints and associated addresses from 2002 to 2020. Prior to water age modeling, WRA imported the complaint locations into GIS and compared them to pipeline material type to see if a correlation exists. To simplify the comparison, only the past five (5) years of complaint data was utilized. In addition, complaints received during times of system flushing were removed. Figure 6.6 shows piping in the existing system as compared to the filtered customer complaints. Based on review of this figure, water quality complaints are concentrated in the areas of small diameter cast iron water mains in the downtown area and older communities on the east and south sides of the distribution system. Water main replacement and upsize recommendations included for the downtown area in the modeling results section above will result in the replacement of a majority of the undersized cast iron mains. The remaining cast iron lines in the older communities are 6-inch and above. Therefore, WRA recommends the City start a program to clean and line the old cast iron mains that are adequately sized (approximately 80,000 lf). As compared to replacement, cleaning and lining typically results in a slightly lower cost per linear foot and minimizes impacts to the community due to a reduction in open trench excavation. Figure 6.6 also shows that areas of newer ductile iron and PVC mains in the east/northeast portion of the system have seen recent water quality complaints. These areas are located in a portion of the system that is most likely supplied water via the City’s water treatment plant. It is possible that the differences in treatment at the WTP as compared to the deep wells or the actual water chemistry of the shallow Columbia Aquifer results in an increase in water quality problems within this zone of influence. The City recently completed upgrades to the WTP including the addition of Greensand+. Once the plant is operating consistently, the City should monitor complaints in this area of the distribution system to see if the change in treatment leads to a decrease or a change in location. The treatment plant operation could also have an impact on the quantity of cleaning and lining required as complaints within the older communities in this area could also decrease. 78

3 & Legend Item 1. 3 & Recent Brown Water Complaints Pipe & 3 3& 3& & 3 & 3 MATERIAL 3 & 3& &3 & 3 DIP 3 & Garrison Oak & 33 3 & & 3& 3 & ^ 3 & 3& &3 & 3 CIP & 3 & 3 & 3 WTP Mckee Rd & 3 3& 3& & 3 3& & 3 & 3& 3&3 > & 3 ^ & 3 & 3 3 & 3 && 3 & 3 && 3 3 & & 3 UCIP 3 & 3 & & 3& 3 3 & & 3& 3 & 3 & 3& 33 & & 3 3 & 3 & 3& & & 3 & 33& & 3 3 & WELL_7 3 & 3 3& & 3 & 33 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 BCIP 3 > & 3 Dover 3 Park & 3 & & 3 & & 3 3 3 & & 3 & & 3 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3& &3& 3 & 3 & ^ 3 & & 3 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & & 3 33 & 3 & 3 & 3 & & 3&3 & 3 3 & 3& 3 ACP Walker Rd 3 & & & 3& & 3 3 & & 3& 3 & 3 3 & & 3 & 3& 3 3 & & 3 3& 3 ^& 3 & & 3 & 3 3 & & 3 3 & 3 & & 3 3& 3& & 3 3 3 & & & 3 3 & 3& 3 WELL_1 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 33 3 & 3 & & 3 & 3& & 3 33 GSP 3& &3 3 & & 3& & 3 & 3& 3 & & 3& 3& &3 & &3 & & & 3 3 & 3 3 & 3 & 3 & > 3 3 & 3 3& & 33& &3& 3 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3& & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 Bayard & & 3 Ave WELL_13 & 3& & 3 PVC & 3 3 3&& 3& 3 & 3& 3 3 & & 3 & 3 3& & 3 & 3&3& 3 ^ 3 & 3 &3 &3& & 33 & 3 & 3 & 3&3 & 3& 3 3 > 3 & & 3 &3 & 3 & 3& WELL_8R 3 3 & & & 33 & 3& & 3 3& &3 & 3 & 3 WELL_2 3 & & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 3 & & 3& HDPE 3& &3 WELL_4 3 & 3 WELL_9 & & >3 > & 3 3 3 & 3 & > & 3 > 3& & 3 Tank 3 & WELL_15 ^ 3 WELL_3 & & 3 General Foods > 3 > & 3& &3 33 & Tank 3 & & 3& &3& 3& WELL_12R 3 WELL_14 WELL_10 ^ & 3 & 33 & & 3& 3 & 3 & 3 Aero Park > & 3 & & 3 > Reservoir 3 3 & ^ & 3 & 3 3 & & 3 & 3 & 3 3 & WELL_11 Reservoir & 3 > > &3 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & WELL_6 > / Figure 6.6 City of Dover, Delaware 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Pipe Materials and Miles Water System Master Plan Water Quality Complaints 79

Item 1. 6.4.3.1 Water Age Modeling Results Tank cycling graphs and results figures for average day demand water age analysis are located with all modeling results in Appendix F. Results of the City of Dover water age modeling are as follows: Year 2019: Based on results of the 10 day extended period simulation, water age at individual nodes throughout a majority of the system was measured under 5 days. Pockets of water age between 5 and 7 days old were concentrated in the system at three general locations: north of College Rd, in the areas immediately east/northeast of Dover Park, and near the Garrison Oak Technical Park. Nodes with water older than 7 days were scattered throughout the system, as well as concentrated near the Aero Park Tank along Horsepond Road and Starlifter Avenue. All of these higher water age areas can be attributed to dead ends or branches of pipe with very low demand without looping which causes water to sit stagnant in the water lines. WRA recommends the City loop dead end lines to promote increased water movement whenever funds are available or in conjunction with other planned improvements or maintenance. Water age in the Bayard Ave. Tank was less than 5 days old; the Garrison Oak Tank has water between 5 and 7 days old, and the remaining tanks – Aero Park, General Foods, Dover Park, Walker Rd, and McKee Rd – have water ages between 7 and 10 days old. Per the City’s current control scheme, all deep well pump operations are controlled based on levels in the General Foods Tank. Due to its smaller volume (0.25 MG) cycling occurs quickly within this tower. To maintain levels in this tank, the well pumps continue to pump water which results in low cycling in the other larger tanks. Low cycling within tanks results in higher water retention times which typically results in the reduction of chlorine residuals and can lead to the formation of water quality issues. The 2018 Ten States Standards suggest tank turnover of 5 days or less. Increased cycling of tanks can often result from an increase in demands or a change in system operating procedures. As Year 2019 results represent current system operating conditions, WRA compared the water age results to the filtered water quality complaint locations. Figure 6.7 depicts water age results versus customer complaints. A majority of the recent water quality complaints are located within areas depicting water age as less than 2 days. Therefore, it looks as if the brown water concerns correspond greater to pipe age and material rather than the water retention time in the system. One area of concentrated complaints (the areas north/northeast of Dover Park) was observed to overlap with higher water ages (still below 10 days). Cleaning and lining of the pipes in this area has already been recommended which should prevent iron from leaching into the water due to prolonged contact time. Year 2025: Water age modeling for timestep 2025 included improvements recommended under the water modeling results section. Water age in the 2025 system sees a vast improvement in the lines around the Aero Park Tank due to the proposed 7,000 lf loop from Starlifter Avenue to S. Little Creek Road and the new manufacturing development off Starlifter Ave. The areas near Dover Park and north of College Road are still experiencing pockets of water between 5 and 7 days old, however, as compared to current system results. Water older than 7 days was still found at isolated dead end locations throughout the system. A slight increase in tank cycling is observed in all Tanks due to the increase in demands. Water age in the Bayard Ave Tank is still between 2 and 5 days old. The Aero Park and Dover Park Tanks have improved to between 5 and 7 days old, and General Foods, Walker Rd, and McKee Rd are all still more than 7 days old. However, water age in all tanks was reduced. As the City’s water quality complaints seem to be tied to pipeline materials and the system already contains excess storage volume, no additional system improvements are recommended. 80

3 & Legend Item 1. 3 & Recent Brown Water Complaints Junction & 3 3& 3& & 3 & 3 MAX_QUAL & 3 Max. Water Age (hr) & 3& 3 Garrison Oak ^ & 3 less than 48.00 3 & & 33 & 3 & 3& 3 & & 3 & 3 3& &3 48.00 ~ 124.00 Mckee Rd 3 & ^ 3 & 3 & WTP & 3 3& & 3 & 3& 3&3 & 3 & & 3 3& & 3 & 3& 3& 3 & 3 3 &3 & & 3 > & 3 3 & 124.00 ~ 168.00 & 3 3 & & 3& 3 3 & 3& & 3 & 3 & 3& 33 & 3 & & 3 3 & 3& & 3 & & 33& & 3 3 & WELL_7 3 & &3 3&3 & 33 & 3 & & 3 ^ 3 & 3 168.00 ~ 240.00 3 > & & 3 3 & & 3 & 3 & 3 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3& &3& 3 & & 3 3 & & 3 3 & 3 & & 3 & 3 3 & 3 & Walker Rd 3 & 3 33 3 & ^ & Tank & & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3&3 & 3 & 3& 3 & 3 3 & & 3& 3 & Dover Park& 3 3& & 33 & 3 & 3 3 & 3 & 3 &3 & 3 & 3& 3 3 & 3 & & 3 3 & & 3 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 &3& & & 3 & 3 & 3& 3 WELL_1 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 33 & 3 3 & & 3 & 3& MAX_QUAL 3 & & & 3 & 33 &3 & & Max. Water Age (hr) 3& &3 3& & & 3 3& 3 & 3& 3& &3 & 3 & 3 3 & & 3 3 & 3 & > 3 3 & 3 3& & 33& &3& 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 3& & 3 ^ & 3 3 & ^ & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 3 WELL_13 3& & & 3 less than 48.00 & 3 & 3&& 3& 3 3& &3 3 & & 3 3 & 3& & 3 & 3&3& 3 & 3 3 &3 &3& & 33 & 3 & 3 3& & 3 & 3& 3 3 > 3 & & & 3& 3 3 & 3& WELL_8R 3 & 3 & & 33 & 3& 3 Bayard Ave & & 3& 3 & 3 3 & WELL_2 ^ 3 & & 3 3 & & 3 & 3 3 & 3& & WELL_4 >3 > 48.00 ~ 120.00 3 & 3& &3 & 3 3 WELL_9 & & 3 3 & > & 3 3& & 3 ^ & 3 > ^ 120.00 ~ 168.00 3 & General Foods WELL_15 33 & 3 WELL_3 & > 3 > & & 3& 3 3 & ^ 3 & & 3& 3& 168.00 ~ 240.00 & 3& 3 WELL_14 WELL_10 WELL_12R 3& & & 3 Aero Park ^ & 3 & & 3 3 33 & > > 3 & & 3 & 3 3 & Reservoir 3 & 3 & 3 & & 3 & 3 3 & 3 & WELL_11 & 3 > Reservoir > & 3 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & WELL_6 > / Figure 6.6 City of Dover, Delaware 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Water Age and Miles Water System Master Plan Water Quality Complaints 81

Item 1. Year 2030: As compared to Year 2025, water age throughout the entire distribution system is observed to improve in the 2030 hydraulic timestep. The pockets of higher water age north of College Road between 5 and 7 days old have significantly diminished. The areas north/northeast of Dover Park and near the Garrison Oak Tank also experienced a reduction in water age. Water older than 7 days was still found at isolated dead end locations throughout the system. Tank water age stayed consistent with 2025, with the exception of the Dover Park Tank. The Dover Park Tank saw an increase in water age, from between 5 and 7 days to between 7 and 10 days old. This is most likely associated with buildout of the Garrison Oak Technical Park and a resulting change is water flow patterns. As piping in the Dover Park area is included in the cleaning and lining recommendation, no additional improvements are recommended. Year 2035: The 2035 timestep saw the addition of the Denneys Road Tank, and the removal of the General Foods Tank. This resulted in the areas north of College Road again experiencing water ages between 5 and 7 days old. The areas near Dover Park also saw an increase in water age. Nodes near the Aero Park Tank saw a significant decrease in water age due to new developments in the area. Water in the new Denneys Road Tank, the Walker Road Tank, and the McKee Road Tank was between 7 and 10 days old. Water age in the Dover Park Tank again improved to between 5 and 7 days old. Water in the Garrison Oak Tank remained between 5 and 7 days old, and the Aero Park Tank water age improved to between 2 and 5 days old. With the General Foods Tank out of service, the system is operating utilizing controls based on the McKee Rd and Walker Rd Tanks. The City should evaluate the control levels and controlling tanks to provide for the greatest tank cycling when/if the Category 3 annexation areas are ever developed. Year 2040: Water age throughout the entire system improved in the 2040 hydraulic timestep. The pockets north of College Road, the area north/northeast of Dover Park, and the area around the Garrison Oak Tank all experienced a reduction in water age, with pockets of water between 5 and 7 days old nearly disappearing. Water older than 7 days was still found at isolated locations throughout the system, but the system as a whole experience a reduction in water age. Water in the Denneys Road Tank, the Walker Road Tank, and the McKee Road Tank remained between 7 and 10 days old. The Dover Park Tank water age remained between 5 and 7 days old. The Garrison Oak Tank water age improved, joining the Bayard Ave Tank and the Aero Park Tank at between 2 and 5 days old. 6.4.4 Hydraulic Modeling Conclusion Under MDD the current distribution system, wells, and operational scheme can maintain pressures and velocities in the system until hydraulic Year 2035. In Year 2035, the addition of demands associated with Category 3 annexation lands results in a large enough increase to warrant additional water sources. Available fire flows within the older portions of the City are limited by allowable velocities, specifically in small diameter cast iron lines. Replacement of these mains results in an increase in available fire flows. In general, water age in the majority of the distribution system remains below 2 days throughout all hydraulic timesteps. Comparison of water quality complaints to current water age and existing piping materials seems to indicate a stronger correlation between brown water complaints and older cast iron mains than retention time in the system. Throughout the water quality modeling scenarios, at least half of the in-service Tanks experienced water ages greater than 5 days due to low tank cycling. Overall water age within the Tanks decreases as demand increases in the system. Additional pipeline improvements which would increase water movement but add system volume are not recommended as storage volume in the system is already significantly oversized. The greatest reduction in water age within tanks is observed due to increased tank cycling and it is recommended that the City modify system controls to promote deeper tank cycling in their larger volume tanks. It is also possible that when resting wells for aquifer management purposes, as described in Section 3 – Water Supply, the City coordinate these out of service wells with higher age tanks to cause increased draw down. 82

Item 1. 7 Regulatory Review Finished water quality and operation of the City of Dover’s water production and treatment facilities are impacted by local, state, and federal regulations. The most significant of these is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974, SDWA Amendments of 1986 and 1996 and subsequent “Rules” that apply to all public water systems (PWSs) in the United States. The Amendments to the SDWA have resulted in the promulgation of numerous “Rules” relating to new drinking water quality standards and treatment regulations to ensure that the drinking water is safe. Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) Division of Public Health (DPH) in collaboration with the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) Division of Water regulates, oversees, and enforces compliance with the SDWA requirements. 7.1 Existing Regulations The following describes the water regulations that have been finalized and are applicable to the City’s water system: 7.1.1 National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (1986) National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs or primary standards) are legally enforceable standards that apply to public water systems. Primary standards protect public health by limiting the levels of contaminants in drinking water. These primary standards include disinfectants, disinfection byproducts, inorganic chemicals, microorganisms, organic chemicals, and radionuclides. The City is required to monitor for these contaminants at various intervals based upon the specific contaminant and past history of compliance (longer monitoring intervals are allowed for certain contaminants if there is no history of non-compliance or non-detection). 7.1.2 National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations (1986) National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations (NSDWRs or secondary standards) are non-enforceable guidelines regulating contaminants that may cause cosmetic effects (such as skin or tooth discoloration) or aesthetic effects (such as taste, odor, or color) in drinking water. EPA recommends secondary standards to water systems but does not require systems to comply. However, states may choose to adopt them as enforceable standards, and maintaining values / concentrations below the SMCL should minimize the potential for customer complaints. Several secondary contaminants that could potentially be present in the City’s groundwater supply include the following: Chloride: The secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL) for chloride is 250 mg/L at which concentration many people can detect a “salty” taste. Saltwater intrusion and up-coning typically result in increases in chloride concentrations. Color: The SMCL for color is 15 color units (CU). Color can sometimes be experienced in ground water treatment systems during iron and manganese removal if treatment is not optimized. Iron: The SMCL for iron is 0.30 mg/L. Concentrations of iron at or above 0.30 mg/L have potential to discolor drinking water and to stain laundry. Manganese: The SMCL for manganese is 0.05 mg/L. Treatment techniques used for iron precipitation and removal are also typically effective for the removal of manganese. Similar to iron impacts, concentrations of manganese at or above 0.05 mg/L have potential to discolor drinking water and to stain laundry. 83

Item 1. 7.1.3 Total Coliform Rule (TCR) (1989) and Revised Total Coliform Rule (RTCR) (2013): The TCR became effective in 1989, with the RTCR becoming effective in 2013. Collectively the rules set public health goals (MCLGs) and legal limits (MCLs) for the presence of total coliforms in drinking water. EPA selected total coliforms as a useful indicator of other pathogens since they are common inhabitants of ambient water and are impacted by water treatment in a manner similar to most bacterial pathogens and many viral enteric pathogens and are thus useful indicators of these pathogens. Total coliforms are used to determine the adequacy of water treatment and the integrity of the distribution system. The TCR detailed the type and frequency of testing that systems must undertake to demonstrate compliance. The frequency and number of sample sites is proportional to the number of people served. Under the TCR, if any sample tests positive for total coliforms, the system must conduct additional tests as follows: • Test that culture for presence of either fecal coliforms or E. coli • Take one set of 3-4 repeat samples at sites located within 5 or fewer sampling sites adjacent to the location of routine positive samples within 24 hours • Take at least 5 routine samples the next month of operation The RTCR updated the requirements for repeat testing as outlined above under the TCR with the objective to improve public health protection. The RTCR was published in 2013 and there were minor corrections issued in 2014. The RTCR applies to all public water systems (except aircraft PWSs) and the compliance start date was April 1, 2016. In general, the RTCR retains the objectives and the basic monitoring requirements of the TCR along with the addition of new requirements as briefly summarized below: • Establishes an E. coli maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) of zero. • Requires that all routine or repeat samples that test positive for total coliforms be tested for E. coli. • Establishes requirements for PWSs to conduct assessments depending on monitoring results. • Level 1 and Level 2 assessments are established in the RTCR, with the system required to submit a report documenting the corrective action. • Assessments are triggered based on the number of positive total coliform results and E. coli results. 7.1.4 Lead and Copper Rule (1991; 2000 Minor Revision; 2007 Short Term Revisions): The Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) was promulgated in 1991 following the 1986 lead ban and the resulting Lead Contamination Control Act of 1988 which amended the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to help control and remedy lead contamination in drinking water supplied at daycares and schools. Following the SDWA amendment, the LCR was conceived by the EPA, requiring public water systems (PWSs) to apply corrosion control treatment strategies to reduce corrosion of distribution systems and ultimately control lead and copper dissolution into drinking water. The LCR established action levels (AL) of 0.015 mg/L for lead and 1.3 mg/L for copper based upon the 90th percentile level of tap water samples. If the AL is exceeded, other requirements are triggered that include water quality parameter monitoring, corrosion control treatment, source water monitoring/treatment, public education, and lead service line replacement. The monitoring is to be conducted every six months with number of sample sites proportional to system size. Frequency of monitoring can be reduced if certain criteria are met. The original LCR has since undergone minor revisions in 2000, and short term revisions in 2007 to assist PWSs with clarifications to the rule and implementation practices. The 2000 revision included a requirement that systems on reduced monitoring must report to the state primacy agency (Office of Drinking Water) any changes in treatment or the addition of a new water source. The 2007 short term revisions modified the requirement to simply report a change in treatment or the addition of a new water source to a requirement for prior notice and 84

Item 1. approval from the state primacy agency. In addition, the 2007 short term revisions included several other changes to the LCR related to the definition of the monitoring and compliance periods, and public education information materials and distribution. Future revisions to the LCR are currently being finalized. Additional discussion of these revisions is included in Section 7.2.1. 7.1.5 Radionuclides Rule (2000): The Radionuclides Rule provides regulations for the following four contaminants and associated maximum contaminant levels (MCL): • Beta/photon emitters: 4 mrem/yr • Gross alpha particle (not including radon and uranium): 15 pCi/L • Combined radium-226/228: 5 pCi/L • Uranium: 30 ug/L All systems must have completed the initial monitoring that included four consecutive quarters of monitoring. The Rule provides for reduced or increased monitoring depending upon measured concentrations. Minor corrections to the Radionuclides Rule were published in 2004. This correction identified a detection limit for uranium. 7.1.6 Arsenic Rule (2001): The Arsenic Rule was promulgated on January 22, 2001 and the new lowered maximum contaminant level (MCL) concentration of 10 ug/l became effective January 23, 2006. The new MCL replaced the previous standard which was 50 ug/l. For ground water systems, if the initial sample is less than the MCL, one sample is then to be collected every 3 years. Quarterly samples are required for systems with a sampling point result above the MCL until the system is consistently below the MCL. 7.1.7 Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts (D/DBP) Rule (1998): The Stage 1 D/DBP Rule established more stringent requirements for Trihalomethanes and new requirements for five haloacetic acids and concentrations of disinfectants in drinking water. The maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for the regulated disinfection byproducts under the Stage 1 D/DBP Rule are as follows: Total Trihalomethanes (TTHM): 0.080 mg/L (based upon a running annual average of all quarterly measurements) Five Haloacetic Acids (HAA5): 0.060 mg/L (based upon a running annual average of all quarterly measurements Bromate (if using ozone): 0.010 mg/L Chlorite (if using chlorine dioxide): 1.0 mg/L In addition, EPA established a maximum residual disinfectant level (MRDL) for chlorine dioxide of 0.8 mg/L. Under the Stage 1 D/DBP Rule, the required number of compliance sampling sites was dependent upon the population served. The Stage 1 D/DBP Rule required that running annual average (RAA) DBPs not exceed 80 μg/L for TTHMs and 60 μg/L for HAA5. 85

Item 1. 7.1.8 Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts (D/DBP) Rule (2006): The Stage 2 Disinfectants/Disinfection By-Products Rule (Stage 2 D/DBPR) was promulgated on January 4, 2006. This rule provides for the selection of new additional sampling sites for rule compliance monitoring and requires that compliance be based upon a Locational Running Annual Average of quarterly results. LRAA is defined as the running annual average concentration for each sample site location. Although the MCLs of the Stage 1 D/DBPR have remained the same, the LRAA requirement can result in some locations being in compliance and others not. Therefore, the Stage 2 D/DBP Rule requires that systems must comply with MCLs of 0.080 mg/l for TTHM and 0.060 mg/l for HAA5 as a locational running annual average (LRAA, average of previous 4 quarterly TTHM and HAA5 sample results) for each individual sampling site. In addition to the above referenced LRAA for 4 previous quarterly results, systems must comply with rule requirements to determine compliance with the operational evaluation levels. The operational evaluation level (OEL) for any monitoring location is exceeded when the sum of the two previous quarters’ concentrations plus twice the current quarter’s result, divided by 4 to determine an average, exceeds the MCL (0.080 mg/l for TTHM and 0.060 mg/l for HAA5). If the operational evaluation level is exceeded, an operational evaluation must be conducted, and a written report submitted to the State and made available to the public upon request. Typical strategies for compliance can include maximizing the use of the highest quality wells, implementing aeration in water storage tanks, and reducing water retention time within the distribution system via a flushing program. 7.1.9 Ground Water Rule (2006): The Ground Water Rule was promulgated on November 8, 2006 with the objective to reduce illness by microbial contamination in public ground water systems. The basic provisions of the Ground Water Rule (GWR) include: • System Sanitary Surveys conducted by State • Hydrogeologic Sensitivity assessments for undisinfected systems • Source water microbial monitoring by systems that do not disinfect and have “issues” • Corrective Actions by any System with significant “issues” • Compliance monitoring for systems which disinfect to ensure 4-log (99.99%) inactivation or removal of viruses 7.2 Possible Future Regulations The following drinking water regulations have been identified as pending or possible future regulations that may impact the City of Dover water system in terms of testing and monitoring. 7.2.1 Lead and Copper Rule Revisions After the Flint Water Crisis developed in 2014, the nation’s need for heightened regulations governing lead in drinking water was emphasized. Since the LCR implementation, large drinking water systems with action level exceedances (ALEs) for lead have decreased by over 90 percent, however lead contamination is still prevalent in some communities across the Nation. To address concerns about the future of lead contamination, the National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) – a Federal Advisory Committee to the EPA – provided a list of LCR long term revision recommendations to the EPA in December 2015. The list includes: • Require PWSs to enact proactive lead service line replacement (LSLR) programs instead of waiting for a lead service line (LSL) to have an ALE. 86

Item 1. • Establish stronger public education between PWSs and customers by updating Consumer Confidence Reports (CCRs) to increase information provided to the public. • Strengthen CCT if new scientific information warrants a change • Establish a health-based, household action level for lead concentrations in tap water • Modify requirements for monitoring, inform public health agency when household action levels are exceeded, assess CCT effectiveness • Implement system-specific water quality parameters for the respective CCT strategy being employed at the PWS, and to increase WQP monitoring • Separate water quality parameters to analyze copper and lead specifically. Establish new regulations governing water that is corrosive to copper and implement compliance and enforcement techniques. By March 2016, the American Water Works Association (AWWA) had voted to unanimously support the NDWAC recommendations. By October 2016, the EPA issued a Lead and Copper Rule Revisions White Paper. Included within the White Paper document are the above-mentioned recommendations from the NDWAC, as well as proposed revisions by the EPA. On June 10, 2021, the EPA signed a final rule to extend the effective date of the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) Revisions to December 16, 2021. This action allows the agency to continue gathering valuable input from communities that have been impacted by lead and to seek feedback from national water associations, Tribes and Tribal communities, and EPA’s state co-regulators. It also extends the revised LCR’s compliance deadline to October 16, 2024 to ensure that drinking water systems and primacy states continue to have the full three years provided by the Safe Drinking Water Act to take actions needed for regulatory compliance. EPA’s new Lead and Copper Rule better protects children and communities from the risks of lead exposure by better protecting children at schools and childcare facilities and getting the lead out of our nation’s drinking water. Improvements under the new rule include: • Using science-based testing protocols to find more sources of lead in drinking water. • Establishing a trigger level to jumpstart mitigation earlier and in more communities. • Driving more and complete lead service line replacements – utilities must develop lead service line inventories, regardless of ownership. • For the first time, requiring testing in schools and childcare facilities. • Requiring water systems to identify and make public the locations of lead service lines 7.2.2 Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are persistent synthetic compounds used in a variety of industrial and consumer product applications including non-stick cookware and firefighting foams. The presence of PFAS compounds in source water and drinking water is of increasing public concern due to their widespread use, environmental persistence, and possible adverse health effects. The USEPA issued its PFAS Action Plan in February 2019 and continues to collect data and prepare to work toward issuing a regulation for these substances. Currently DNREC is investigating PFAS at two areas in Kent County, Delaware. One area is at Chestnut Grove Road and Fire School Road in Dover. The other area includes five sites at Dover Air Force Base. The reports of PFAS occurrence are not necessarily reports of drinking water contamination. However, it would be prudent for the City of Dover to include monitoring for PFAS when sampling groundwater extracted from the City of Dover production wells at Long Point Road, which are in the unconfined Columbia Aquifer. In general, unconfined aquifers are relatively more vulnerable to contamination originating at the land surface. 87

Item 1. 8 Capital Improvement Plan Recommended improvements to facilities or operations, studies, or evaluations shown to be needed by the hydraulic modeling results, water source review, and existing facility investigations are summarized in this Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) using the following improvement categories: • Immediate: address as soon as possible (Year 2020) • 5-Year: address by Year 2025 • 10-Year: address by Year 2030 • 15-Year: address by Year 2035 • Comprehensive: address by Year 2040 (Build-Out) In addition to the list of CIP projects, estimates of probable construction costs and a distribution of those costs over the 20-year planning period are included. The capital improvement projects presented below are an outline of potential projects as seen by the current model using current growth and development projections, as well as current system operational priorities. As the projections and priorities change, the water system improvement projects and their timing will change as well, so this plan will need to be revisited and updated on a regular basis. 8.1 Summary of Recommended Improvements and Evaluations Based on system analysis the following projects have been identified. Projects have been given designations based on system type: RS for raw water supply, T for water treatment, M for distribution mains, and S for storage tanks. In addition, a discussion of operational improvements (O) focusing on public outreach have also been included. Numerical order of the projects included in the list below do not reflect importance or prioritization of projects. Locations of all system projects can be found in Figure 8.1 and Figure 8.2. 8.1.1 Recommended Improvements Recommended system improvements for raw water supply, the water treatment plant, distribution system and elevated storage tanks, and water system operations are summarized herein and corresponding Table 8.1. 8.1.1.1 Raw Water Supply (RS) RS-1: Test Well/Development/Production Wells – Based on the City’s desired operational scheme, existing permit limits, and projected demands, WRA estimates two (2) new wells with an average capacity of 1 MGD each (or other equivalent water sources) will be required to supply the City through buildout. WRA estimates that one (1) well will be required by 2035 and one (1) well by 2040. RS-2: General Wellhouse Maintenance – A program to perform routine maintenance on the well facilities as outlined in the facility inspection reports. Maintenance items include replacement of corroded doors, painting, upgrades to fixtures, installation of GFCI receptacles, etc. 8.1.1.2 Water Treatment Plant (T) T-1: Ventilation Improvements – Ventilation improvements in the electrical room due to presence of high temperatures around equipment. T-2: Eyewash / Shower in hypochlorite room – Project to include an eyewash/shower in the hypochlorite room. Eyewash/shower is required due to chemical exposure risk. 88

Item 1. T-3: Slope Backwash tank floor – Project to increase drainage in the Backwash tank room. T-4: Enhance site security – Installation of secure gate and card reader, barbed wire, etc. to protect the Water Treatment Plant and minimize trespassing risk. 8.1.1.3 Distribution Mains (M) M-1 through M-2: 2,540 LF of in-progress 8-inch Water Main Replacement - The project includes the replacement and upsizing of approximately 2,540 LF of old small diameter cast iron pipe in downtown Dover. 4- inch and 6-inch CI main will be replaced with 8-inch DI line on Ross Street and N. West Street from the alley west. These projects are currently under construction. M-3 through M9: 16,500 LF of 8-inch and 12-inch Water Main Replacement in Downtown Dover – City scheduled projects to continue replacement of old small diameter cast iron water mains in downtown Dover. Modeling indicates that replacement and upsizing of the water mains results in an increase in available flow. This project includes upsizing of mains along State Street, N. West Street from the alley east, Fairview Avenue, N. Bradford Street, Queen Street and New Street. M-10: 7,000 LF of new 12-inch Water Main looping– Project includes looping dead end lines from Starlifter Avenue to S. Little Creek Road to maintain levels in the Aero Park Tank. M-11: 600 LF of 10-inch Water Main Replacement, White Oak Road– Project upsizes approximately 600 lf of 8- inch pipe to 10-inch pipe along White Oak Road to reduce velocities. M-12: 20 LF of 16-inch Water Main Replacement, WTP – Project upsizes approximately 20 lf of 10-inch pipe to 16-inch south of the water treatment plant to reduce velocities. M-13: 80 LF of 16-inch Water Main Replacement, N. Little Creek Rd. – Replacement of approximately 80 lf of 12- inc main with 16- pipe along N. Little Creek Road prior to Fox Rd. Project reduces system velocities. M-14 through M-18: 7,700 LF of 8-inch Water Main Replacement in Downtown Dover – City scheduled projects to continue replacement of old small diameter cast iron water mains in downtown Dover. Modeling indicates that replacement and upsizing of the water mains results in an increase in available flow. This project includes upsizing of mains along Bradford Street, Kings Highway, Reed Street, Queen Street and Bank Lane. M-19 through M-30: 20,300 LF of 8-inch Water Main Replacement in Downtown Dover – These projects include upsizing additional old 4-inch and 6-inch cast iron mains in downtown Dover. Modeling indicates that replacement and upsizing of the water mains results in an increase in available flow. M-31: Upsize of 540 LF of 8-inch water main to 12-inch, College Road – Project includes upsizing 540 lf of 8-inch pipeline to new 12-ingh DIP due to fire flow requirements for the proposed Apartments at College Road. M-32: 50,000 LF of new 12-inch Water Main, Western Annexation Lands – Possible transmission main expansions to supply future annexed land areas along the western edge of the City water service area. M-33: 80,000 LF Distribution main Rehabilitation – Cleaning and lining of small diameter (6-inch) cast iron distribution lines in the eastern portion of the distribution system. The project is included due to high concentrations of customer water quality complains in these areas. Lines are considered adequately sized. 8.1.1.4 Storage Tanks (S) S-1: Tank Maintenance Program – Continuation of the City’s Tank inspection, repair, and painting program S-2: 1.0 MG Denneys Road Elevated Water Tank – Construction of a 1.0 MG elevated water Tank along Denney’s Road. 89

Item 1. 8.1.1.5 Outreach (O) O-1: Public Outreach - The City of Dover has a current Public Outreach program to inform the public of various activities relating to the water system. The City deals with periodic brown water complaints, so this is a concern that needs to be specifically addressed. The current outreach program includes: • Notification of upcoming flushing operations via website, print, TV, social media, e-newsletter • Notification of upcoming Water Construction Projects via website, handouts, social media, e-newsletter • Distribution of Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) via print, website, social media, e-newsletter Public Outreach programs conducted by other local water providers in the region were researched, and recommendations for enhancing the current program by including multiple ways to reach various audiences include the following: General: • Provide a robust and up to date web site that includes information such as o Who We Are: Mission, Vision, Values, if applicable; department directory, with contacts for various aspects of the water/wastewater operations. o What We Do: Information about everyday system operations; major upcoming projects; other system work such as flushing programs and PM activities that impact customers; water quality information including annual Consumer Confidence Reports o Real-time mapping that includes locations of planned work, flushing operations, emergency work, etc., and that customers can navigate to find out what impacts them directly. Include project status, City contact, current schedule, estimated start and completion dates. - Link to current City mapping, such as https://doverde.maps.arcgis.com/home/index.html o Upcoming events including public meetings, special events, outreach events like visits to schools or community groups o Customer feedback link o News and press releases o Links to groups such as AWWA and the Water Environment Federation (WEF), where the public can find other general information and resources. Also check www.csawwa.org for more local resources and suggestions for outreach programs and activities. • Establish Facebook page that can include the various items above, or link to the website. o Update Facebook page with notices, etc., that are shared to other audiences • Consider using Twitter to send out notices and updates • Establish relationships with community groups, HOAs, schools so that they feel empowered to reach out to the City with questions and feedback o Attend meetings, events, fairs, festivals • Consider visits to schools to educate students about the water/wastewater system and its importance in everyday life o Provide opportunities for tours of City facilities • Establish customer “subscription” to e-newsletters, informational news releases, etc., allowing them to select which information to receive • Include updates and CCR with customer bills Flushing Operations: • Provide press releases to media outlets, detailing plans and timing for the flushing program and providing contact information (phone, e mail, links to web site or Facebook page) for the public’s use. Include “why” flushing is done, possible impacts like brown water, and what a customer should do if they observe brown water • Post copies of the press releases on the web site under a header such as “What We Do” 90

Item 1. • Provide real time mapping on the web site that includes locations for upcoming flushing work • Post road-side signs several days prior to flushing in the areas that will be impacted • Establish contacts with community groups, HOAs, etc., with contacts who can forward information to their constituents, and provide them with notice of upcoming flushing operations to share with their audiences • Include information in e-newsletters Upcoming construction projects: • Provide press releases to media outlets, detailing plans and timing for the construction and providing contact information (phone, e mail, links to web site or Facebook page) for the public’s use • Post copies of the press releases on the web site under a header such as “What We Do” • Provide real time mapping on the web site that includes locations for upcoming construction projects, including projects in the planning or design phases • Establish contacts with community groups, HOAs, etc., with contacts who can forward information to their constituents, and channel questions/feedback to the city • Include information in e-newsletters Limited funding has been included in the CIP to pursue selected programs. 8.1.2 Recommended Evaluations 8.1.2.1 Water Quality Additional system evaluations to optimize system performance and reduce the potential for the development of water quality problems are provided in the list below. • Perform a water quality analysis to see if the different water sources (Cheswold / Piney Point / Columbia aquifers) could create water quality issues when mixed in the distribution system. • Continue to monitor brown water complaints and compare historic trends to current complaints once the upgraded Water Treatment Plant is fully operational. • Study tank mixing to see if it would provide a cost-effective method for improving water age and chlorine residual. • Promote water movement by looping dead end water mains when funds are available or as part of other improvements or maintenance. 8.1.2.2 SCADA The City water SCADA system was originally based on the Autocon Microcat RTU product line. This unit has gone through several iterations of ownership and has been an obsolete product for quite some time. The migration path to upgrade the Microcat RTU was to use the Intra-Link LC series of controllers by US Filter. The Intra-Link was developed as an updated controller to the Microcat using the same proprietary communications protocol in order to be a straight-forward replacement. This product line also has gone through several series of ownerships from US Filter to Siemens and finally to Evoqua. The City is currently upgrading the Microcat controller in the SCADA system to the LC controller. The City has been using their own personnel to perform these upgrades, and to date, about half of the facilities have been upgraded. Based on our recent research on the LC series, it is no longer a current product line supported by Evoqua. No new owner of the product is known, nor is it clear if there are any plans for it to be continued to be manufactured. WRA was able to find two vendors in the US that are able to provide these products, but through our discussions we were discouraged by both of the vendors for its continued use. It is unclear as to the long-term viability of the LC products in the future, even as spare parts to replace existing units. 91

Item 1. The software used to interface and program the LC controllers is based on the Windows 7 operating system. The Windows 7 operating system is also obsolete and is no longer supported by Microsoft. Software upgrades and security patches are no longer available for Windows 7. Maintaining any computer running on the Windows 7 operating system exposes a significant cybersecurity vulnerability. Connecting this computer to the City’s network should not be permitted. Moving forward, any programming environment would need to be hosted on a computer with an up-to-date operating system running a virtual Windows 7 shell to run the programming software. This arrangement could also be a cybersecurity risk to the City if the computer is connected to the City’s network. The communications for the SCADA System are based on GE/MDS iNet series radios operating on the unlicensed 900 MHz frequency spectrum that is open to access from the public domain. These radios communicate locally to the RTUs using a direct serial link. The radios have a number of security features built into them that can reduce the risk of outside, unauthorized access to the system. Although these radios are inherently secure due to the spread-spectrum frequency hopping pattern and the proprietary data encapsulation, there are still risks that can be mitigated through enabling elective security features and disabling remote administrative tools. Other vulnerabilities such as public interference from third-party transmitters is harder to mitigate. It is unknown if the radios have been set up with these elective security features which would more effectively manage these risks. SCADA Recommendations: The operations of the water system are dependent on the SCADA system. Water Treatment Plant staff must be able to remotely monitor and control the wells and tanks in the system from the Water Treatment Plant. Based on our evaluations of the existing SCADA system, we recommend that the City perform some immediate actions to assess the SCADA system’s ability to provide uninterrupted secure and reliable remote monitoring and control of the water facilities. We recommend the following: • Conduct an evaluation of the current inventory of LC controllers for requirements to continue the transition from the Microcat to LC products. • Verify the supply chain and product life cycle of the Intra-Link LC product line. The City should have conversations with representatives of the current owner of the product line that provide a written guarantee of product life cycle and support for the hardware and software. • Temporarily stop the upgrade at the remote facilities until an accurate inventory and lifecycle assessment of LC products is completed. Since the system is currently running, the products may be needed in the short-term to replace failed or damaged product to keep the system operational. • If the LC product lifecycle cannot be guaranteed by the manufacture, the City should plan on a comprehensive SCADA upgrade project for the controllers, communications and WTP HMI interface software. WRA’s recommendation for the upgrade path is to select a PLC based system that uses an open-architecture that can be readily supported by local system integrators and uses an open published communications protocol such as DNP3 over Ethernet that would allow for easier planed upgrades in the future. The upgrade should also consider migrating to a Private IP based wireless network. • Complete a thorough cybersecurity assessment and evaluation to identify cyber risks and cyber vulnerabilities as they relate to the Operational Technology (OT) of the SCADA System. This cybersecurity assessment should review the connected hardware, software, network architecture, remote access and the followed/enforced practices, policies, and procedures for cybersecurity of the OT system. An OT cybersecurity focus should be the availability of the SCADA system as an operational asset. A significant portion of the cybersecurity assessment should include the supply of in-house stocked spares, factory available spare parts and trained personnel to keep the system running. • Review of the setup of the radios to evaluate if the elective cybersecurity features have been enabled. We recommend enabling features such as authentication, approved access point and remote 92

Item 1. site white-listing and AES-128 encryption. Other vulnerabilities such as allowing remote login and remote management of services for the RTU radios should be eliminated. • The City should evaluate the long-term man-power resources required for continued in-house support of the SCADA system. The City should immediately start the process of succession planning for SCADA system personnel. Required personnel at a minimum includes a SCADA System/OT Administrator to manage the overall asset including training programs, maintenance, cybersecurity policies and technicians skilled in programming, trouble shooting, repair of the controllers, networking, and communication systems. 93

Item 1. Table 8.1 - City of Dover, Delaware Capital Improvements Plan Number Name Description Quantity Reason Modeled Timestep Replace 940' of 6" CIP with 8" DIP on Ross St from Pear St to M-1* Ross St Water Main the alley east of Carrol St 940 Replace Small Diameter CIP Yes Immediate Replace 1600' of 4"-6" CIP with 8" DIP in the alley west of M-2* N West St Alley West Water Main West Street from William St to Walker Rd 1600 Replace Small Diameter CIP Yes Immediate RS-1 Raw Water Supply Test Well/Development/Production Well - 2 Wells Immediate T-1 Water Treatment Ventilation improvements for electric room High temperatures around equipment Immediate 80,000 LF of cleaning and lining distribution mains throughout M-33 Distribution main cleaning the distribution system Ongoing O-1 Operations Community Outreach Evaluation Ongoing RS-1 Raw Water Supply Test Well/Development/Production Well Ongoing RS-2 Raw Water Supply General Wellhouse Maintenance Ongoing S-1 Tank Maintenance Tank inspections, painting, and repairs Ongoing Replace 3200' of 4" CIP with 12" DIP on State St from Division M-3* State St Water Main St to Pennsylvania Ave 3200 Replace Small Diameter CIP Yes 2023 Replace 1600' of 4"-6" CIP with 8" DIP in the alley east of West M-4* N West St Alley East Water Main Street from William St to Walker Rd 1600 Replace Small Diameter CIP Yes 2024 Replace 1300' of 4"-6" CIP with 8" DIP in the alley east of M-5* Fairview Ave Alley East Water Main Fairview Ave from William St to Walker Rd 1300 Replace Small Diameter CIP Yes 2024 Replace 1600' of 4"-6" CIP with 8" DIP in the alley west of M-6* Fairview Ave Alley West Water Main Fairview Ave from William St to Walker Rd 1600 Replace Small Diameter CIP Yes 2024 Replace 4000' of 4" CIP with 8" DIP in Queen St from William M-8* Queen St Water Main St to Loockerman St 4000 Replace Small Diameter CIP Yes 2025 Replace 4000' of 4" CIP with 8" DIP in New St from William St M-9* New St Water Main to Loockerman St 4000 Replace Small Diameter CIP Yes 2025 Install a loop in the system to support new industrial M-10 Starlifter Ave Water Main Loop Install 7000' of 12" DIP from S Little Creek Rd to Starlifter Ave 7000 developments and the Aero Park water tower Yes 2025 White Oak Rd Water Main Replace a total of 600' of 8" pipe with 10" DIP at two locations Fix bottleneck in the distribution system causing water to M-11 Bottlenecks on White oak Rd 600 flow faster than 4 ft/s No 2025 Replace 20' of 10" DIP with 16" DIP directly adjacent (south) to Fix bottleneck in the distribution system causing water to M-12 Long Point Rd Water Main Bottleneck the WTP 20 flow faster than 4 ft/s No 2025 North Little Creek Rd Water Main Replace 80' of 12" DIP with 16" DIP on N Little Creek Rd Fix bottleneck in the distribution system causing water to M-13 Bottleneck immediately before it splits with Fox Rd 80 flow faster than 4 ft/s No 2025 T-1 Water Treatment Ventilation improvements for electric room 2025 T-2 Water Treatment Eyewash/shower in hypochlorite room 2025 T-3 Water Treatment Slope backwash tank floor to pump suction 2025 T-4 Water Treatment Enhance water treatment plant security 2025 Replace 1600' of 4"-12" CIP with 8" DIP form Division St to M-15* Kings Hwy Water Main Loockerman St 1600 Replace Small Diameter CIP Yes 2026 Replace 2300' of 4"-6" CIP with 8" DIP on Reed St from Water M-16* Reed St Water Main St to State St 2300 Replace Small Diameter CIP Yes 2026 94

Item 1. Replace 1000' of 6" CIP with 8" DIP on Queen St from North St M-17* Queen Street Water Main - 2 to Water St 1000 Replace Small Diameter CIP Yes 2026 Replace 1940' of 4"-6" CIP with 8" DIP on Bank Ln from West M-18* Bank Ln Water Main St to The Green 2000 Replace Small Diameter CIP Yes 2026 Replace 1300' of 4"-8" CIP and GSP with 8" DIP on Lakewook Pl M-19 Lakewood Pl Alley East Water Main alley east from Walker Rd to William St 1300 Replace Small Diameter CIP, and galvanized steel pipe No 2030 Governors Bvld/N Bradford St Alley Replace 1200' of 4" CIP with 8" DIP on Governors Bvld and N M-20 West Water Main Bradford St alley West from Ross St to William St 1200 Replace Small Diameter CIP No 2030 Upsize existing main to meet fire flow demands for a new M-31 College Rd Apartments Water Main Replace 540' of existing 8" DIP with 12" DIP on Rita Wilma Rd 540 development No 2030 S-2* Denneys Road Tank Install a 1 million gallon tank on Denneys Road 2035 Replace 500' of 4" CIP with 8" DIP in N. Bradford St from M-7* N. Bradford St Water Main Walker St to Ross St. 500 Replace Small Diameter CIP Yes 2035 Replace 1200' of 4" CIP on Bradford St alley east from Ross St M-21 Bradford St Alley East Water Main to William St 1200 Replace Small Diameter CIP No 2035 Replace 1400' of 4"-6" CIP with 8" DIP on Bradford St from M-14* Bradford St Water Main Division St to Loockerman St 1400 Replace Small Diameter CIP Yes 2035 Replace 1000' of 6" CIP with 8" DIP on Clara St from Pear St to M-22 Clara St Water Main Queen St 1000 Replace Small Diameter CIP No 2035 Replace 4000' of 4" CIP with 8" DIP on Governors Ave from M-23 Governors Ave Water Main William St to Loockerman St 4000 Replace Small Diameter CIP No 2035 Replace 1600' of 4" CIP with 8" DIP on Bradford St from M-24 Bradford St Water Main William St to Cecil St 1600 Replace Small Diameter CIP No 2035 Replace 1100' of 6" CIP with 8" DIP on Cecil from Kirkwood St M-25 Cecil St Water Main to Governors Ave 1100 Replace Small Diameter CIP No 2035 Install 50,000' of 12" DIP along the southern and western Water Main Addition to Support limits of the distribution boundary to support serve future M-32 Annexed Lands annexation lands 50,000 Install infrastructure for City annexations Yes 2035 Replace 1500' of 6" CIP with 8" DIP on Fulton St from West St M-26 Fulton St Water Main to Governors Ave 1500 Replace Small Diameter CIP No 2040 Replace 1300' of 6" CIP with 8" DIP on State St from Division M-27 State St Water Main St to Lockerman St 1300 Replace Small Diameter CIP No 2040 Replace 2600' of 4"-6" CIP wit 8" DIP on Kirkwood St from M-28 Kirkwood St Water Main Mary St to Forest St 2600 Replace Small Diameter CIP No 2040 Loockerman St and Loockerman Plaza Replace 3000' of 4"-6" CIP with 8" DIP on Loockerman St and M-29 Water Main Loockerman Pl from Federal St to West St 3200 Replace Small Diameter CIP No 2040 Replace 300' of 4" CIP with 8" DIP on Federal St From M-30 Federal St Water Main Loockerman Plaza to E North St 300 Replace Small Diameter CIP No 2040 * Planned City projects scheduled between FY 2023 - FY 2026 Legend Immediate Ongoing 2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 2036-2040 95

Legend Tanks + $ Existing Tanks + $ Proposed Tanks Water Main Installation Immediate 2021-2025 DE N NE 2026-2030 YS 2031-2035 RO AD PE Y NN O AD CH R LA AN E BR NE DYK LEWIS R O AD 2036-2040 SH BU AY W H R O AD DR IC IV E R W NO LEIPSIC AD RO K EE MC AD ST RO H CH SM IT E UR N CH LA MARLEY LA L NE IC RA LA ST NT EE CE RU D TR A N S RO M O NY M E SI N N DE ER LA AD R P IC CA OUGH RO ST Denneys Rd AD L IS RU RO KE LE YS NT O + $ KO PERS IMM ON CIR DR E RE NN N S-2 AN SCARBO R IV AD DE E RO AR W DS AR LE VE YD R TE RA HO AP BB M NS HAR YH LE M EM E O DW G IV O RS LE R AD RI D AL OO E N E RO HI CT DR IN Garrison Oak K DD G YW OA D HW AY R TE BR AN + $ WHI M-11 M-31 JA SO N ST AD R EE E RO E T NU AR AV AD OO U E N RO ME SQ + McKee Rd N R DR Y IO E IN CO STATE STREET TR W LE N EG $ BA L RO E LL ER D T RO AD VA AD IV CO DR VAND MI DR NE LL NI M S PI Y IV BA GG PIN E SO BO IT Z M-12 Y DR WI L IV O RD AWA LO NG PO IN E AK RO DR RD MA P AD AD BR D 8.2 DO R ND NS ON D IV DAVI LE E R ure SU FR LE VE e Fig ET R I VE IVE D R R L Y EA DA TD W ET Y MON Se M-33 E IM EN BA RO PA OAK TT G R BL DR M-32 ER BU R R OW DR AD RD K ACO FO R ANN Dover Park OA ET NE O D TR E LD SS RN D AD R RO S R TO TU R PL U N BE $ + AVEN TH O E RO RRY AC EN U LA N DRI I A AV VE UM B GE E I LL CO L E LE W T E L NS EE O AD R EE HA CHESTNUT GROVE ROAD ER R S ST IS SW PEA CO L K M AP WA L I A T SE WI LL M RO TG Walker Rd MO N T R ST Y RD LE ET AD TR E LO OC RO AD UM RA S GE KER M LA L RO TI E DR US + $ BL A R EE CL A HAZ E NE ED HI AD AN C IRCL E M-13 LITTLE CREEK ROAD H ST E IV D RO AD T NC B T SMI NO LL PARKW EET E E R IV S TR AV E CA Y AY DRIV LD MAR R L D RI VE LVD NU HA ONY T D CO NCO X CO L HWAY E LC ROA FO S HIG R TE A NEW KING CHE KIRK FOX PARK DRIVE L SEA S TR N EW WA HU MATH Y WO EET N W N BL ST ET RO L S TR E Bayard Ave HO OD REED VD E LE G AD ST AVENU HARTLY RO AD S BABB DR CT FORRE ME R EE TI V + $ ISLA ST SAUL S ET L R O AD LINCO LN STRE JH BRO CO URT STR HARO N HIL T S EET FARMVI EW DRI VE E AV OA BURY TR D FOREST AVENUE EN U VD AF K LA NE RR BL RO B MAGG IES WAY AL EN GA J ST BAN RE ET H ROAD NIN E R ST RI V UE F ER BAN R MI E WAT E DR T BL E R EE WES FL AY AV IN CO MM ERCE W TA GS EET T RO S TR E S TR TH NU IG HW AD T Y SOU ES BA EL AY SH W ET EET NO RTH STRE AD IGHW TO DR LLO RO AY EL VE SH AK $ + NT H NEW ST H R RUT YD S M-10 E D General Foods DR CI R M-32 IAL H E IV DUP Y AN AK R E BA E LE O YL T WAY E AD RT DR ET RO MOR E C TR FF BRADFORD STRE S TR E LA V PINE S ME WA PLES AVENUE UN ET LA IC A AD R RO L E E ON R AN R VA EN U HO LE EU MORRIS DRIVE N CH UE IL D PU RE TI B SE AR V E TE E TT ER AVEN PO IL LE WYOM ING AVENUE S TA M-33 Aero Park A ND Z FL QU DR E WAR HA RO OSEVELT AV IV IC DR IV ENUE U N R V TD AD IL NR KE RO E S R HE O EN $ + STARL IFT NE ID C T NC ES EAN T RC PU ST DR EE PR LD OAK DRIV E KOR KIL RIVERSIDE RD AD M-32 VEN R O LYNN HA E JANES RO AD IV TODDS MILL ROAD FID DL DR E B EE ST, JONES AVE DO G W O OD AV ER HE CL E SG UT CIR SO T L EY UE RE HUN KESS ELRING AVEN EN PORCHER ST HAM AN DRIVE D RO M ILL RO A EN UE MIM O SA AV GARTON ROAD AD N UE O AD AVE R EW AXT ON H VI S HI G UE N SS ETT RO AD AVE TE S RI CHARD BA WYO M IN OD R WO STA EC H G ED BE WA R D YN PER D AD ROA CO O T EX RO O AD M-32 N EL L TE N DAVI D HAL L RT SI O O ITC H R T BU N RS LM SH ST NE B ST TAY R EE W NIE OR UA LO T E DR D NAT IV RT HA E E RI V FAIR FI E LD DRI VE / City of Dover, Delaware Water System Master Plan Figure 8.1 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Capital Improvements Plan Miles

Item 1. M-7 M-5 M-4 M-20 M-21 M-1 M-6 M-19 M-2 M-24 M-3 M-22 M-23 M-8 M-28 M-9 M-25 M-26 M-27 M-14 M-15 M-16 M-30 M-29 M-17 M-18 / City of Dover, Delaware Figure 8.2 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Downtown Dover Miles Water System Master Plan Water Main Improvements 97

Item 1. 8.2 Project Cost Estimates An estimation of cost was completed for all identified projects. Costs were estimated based on the following assumptions. • New Water Main / Replacement: New water mains include all new proposed piping and piping to be upsized. New water main construction assumes open cut installation within roadways (no private easements). Price per linear foot includes pipe materials, trenching, backfilling, paving, seeding and sodding and replacement of valves and other appurtenances, and was based on Ductile Iron Pipe. Note that in the current economic climate, PVC and DIP prices are fluctuating rapidly. PVC may offer some benefits in terms of cost and corrosion resistance, but that will need to be analyzed during design, bidding and award. For purposes of cost estimating it is also assumed new fire hydrants will be installed at five hundred-foot intervals. • Clean and Line: Unlined cast iron piping will be cleaned and lined using cement. Price per linear foot includes medium cleaning of the water main, temporary water service, replacement of all valves and lining of the interior of the pipe. • Lump Sum: Lump sum cost estimates are based on engineering judgement and past studies of similar scope and are utilized for specific facility improvements and general maintenance programs. Unit costs utilized for this construction cost estimate are included in Table 8.2. All construction costs will be in 2021 dollars and have not been escalated to time of construction. A 15% contingency and a 30% increase in costs have been added to all construction cost estimates to account for associated planning and engineering costs. Estimated costs are included in the Capital Improvement Plan tables included in Section 8.3. Table 8.2 – Unit costs Item Price Unit 6-inch $ 90.00 LF 8-inch $ 120.00 LF 10-inch $ 150.00 LF 12-inch $ 180.00 LF 16-inch $ 240.00 LF Fire Hydrant and Assembly $ 6,000.00 ea Rehabilitation (clean and line 4” through 14”, includes $ 125.00 LF excavation costs) 8.3 Capital Improvement Plan Total cumulative construction costs for recommended water projects through the Year 2040 planning period is approximately $47 million. Projects have been prioritized into Immediate (Year 2020), 5-Year, 10-Year, 15-year and Comprehensive (Year 2040 Build-Out) categories based on hydraulic modeling results as well as discussions with the City regarding projected timing of development. Table 8.3 includes estimated construction costs which are distributed by year of implementation. 98

Item 1. Table 8.3 - City of Dover, DE Capital Improvement Plan Costs Project Project Cost Project Description Number Immediate 2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 2036-2040 RAW WATER SUPPLY (RS) RS-1 Test Well/Development/Production Well $ 200,000 $ 200,000 RS-2 General Wellhouse Maintenance $ 45,500 $ 45,500 $ 45,500 $ 45,500 WATER TREATMENT (T) T-1 Ventilation Improvements for electric equipment room $ 25,000.00 T-2 Eyewash / shower in hypochlorite room $ 10,000.00 T-3 Slope Backwash Tank floor to pump suction $ 30,000.00 T-4 Enhance Water Treatment Plant site security $ 80,000.00 DISTRIBUTION MAINS (M) M-1 940 LF, 8" DIP, Ross St $ 199,271 M-2 1600 LF, 8" DIP, N West St Alley West $ 396,998 M-3 3200 LF, 12" DIP, State St $ 923,910 M-4 1600 LF, 8" DIP, N West St Alley East $ 322,920 M-5 1600 LF, 8" DIP, Fairview Ave Alley West $ 322,920 M-6 1600 LF, 8" DIP, Fairview Ave Alley East $ 322,920 M-7 500 LF, 8" DIP, N Bradford St $ 98,670 M-8 4000 LF, 8" DIP, Queen St $ 789,360 M-9 4000 LF, 8" DIP, New St $ 789,360 M-10 7000 LF, 12" DIP, S Little Creek Rd Loop to Starlifter Ave $ 2,009,280 M-11 600 LF, 10" DIP, White Oak Rd $ 152,490 M-12 20 LF, 16" DIP, Long Point Rd $ 16,146 M-13 80 LF, 16" DIP, North Little Creek Rd $ 37,674 M-14 1400 LF, 8" DIP, Bradford St $ 278,070 M-15 1600 LF, 8" DIP, Kings HWY $ 457,470 M-16 2300 LF, 8" DIP, Reed St $ 197,340 M-17 1000 LF, 8" DIP, Queen St $ 197,340 M-18 2000 LF, 8" DIP, Bank Ln $ 394,680 M-19 1300 LF, 8" DIP,Lakewood Pl Alley East $ 260,130 M-20 1200 LF, 8" DIP, Governors Blvd./N. Bradford St Alley West $ 242,190 M-21 1200 LF, 8" DIP, Bradford St Alley East $ 242,190 M-22 1000 LF, 8" DIP, Clara St $ 197,340 M-23 4000 LF, 8" DIP,Governors Ave $ 789,360 M-24 1600 LF, 8" DIP, Bradford St $ 322,920 M-25 1100 LF, 8" DIP, Cecil St $ 224,250 M-26 1500 LF, 8" DIP, Fulton St $ 296,010 M-27 1300 LF, 8" DIP, State St $ 260,130 M-28 2600 LF, 8" DIP, Kirkwood St $ 520,260 M-29 3200 LF, 8" DIP, Loockerman St and Loockerman Pl $ 636,870 M-30 300 LF, 8" DIP, Federal St $ 62,790 M-31 540 LF, 8" DIP, College Rd $ 114,816 M-32 50,000 LF, 12" DIP, Southern and Western Annexation Lands $ 7,176,000 $ 7,176,000 M-33 80,000 LF, Distribution main Cleaning and Lining $ 3,737,500 $ 3,737,500 $ 3,737,500 $ 3,737,500 STORAGE TANKS (S) S-1 Tank Maintenance Program $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 S-2 Denneys Road Tank (1.0 MG) $ 3,000,000 OUTREACH (O) O-1 Community Outreach Evaluation $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 TOTAL $ 621,269 $ 10,109,980 $ 6,166,966 $ 16,831,800 $ 13,455,060 Notes: 1. Projects shown in italics are planned City projects scheduled for FY 2023 to FY 2026 PLANNING PERIOD TOTAL $ 47,185,075 99

Item 1. Appendix A Demand Memorandum 100

Item 1. Date: 5/14/2020 To: City of Dover, DE Work Order Number: 14466.000 From: WRA Contract Number: Contract number Subject: Master Plan Demand Projection Project: City of Dover, DE - Update to the Water Master Plan CC: File Redline Markups are reflective of new data received May 24th, 2021. The City of Dover, Delaware (the City) has retained Whitman, Requardt & Associates, LLP (WRA) to assemble an update to the City of Dover Water Master Plan. This updated Plan includes a 20-year projection for the City’s population and water demand. The demand analysis is a critical element in updating the Water Master Plan, as it sets the basis for the hydraulic analysis of the distribution system, and the supply and storage needs. This memo will provide the following information: • Summary of existing water supply agreements • Historical water production, consumption, and determination of water-use patterns • Build-out flow projections and growth pattern assumptions • Review of City annexation plans • Water storage calculations Water Supply Agreements In addition to providing water to City residents and businesses, The City of Dover has several supply agreements with Tidewater Utilities, Inc. (Tidewater). The City is contracted to provide a minimum of 1,250,000 gallons per month to the Carlisle Village Development, with a 20% surcharge on water supply exceeding 2,500,000 gallons per month. The City is also contracted to provide an estimated 800,000-1,200,000 gallons of water per month to the Lakeland Service Area for fire protection. Table 1 below provides a summary of the City’s metered supply of Tidewater Utilities along with their average monthly demands. Table 1 – Tidewater Utilities Metered Connections Demands Average Daily Development Purpose Demand (gal) Carlisle Village Residential 52,754 Lakeland Service Area Fire Protection 20,695 Bush Manor via Wilmington College Residential 22,329 The water used by these communities is included in the City billing records and will be accounted for in the current and projected water use. 101

Item 1. Current Water Production and Consumption The City provided WRA with the below listed water demand and production data: • Monthly water production data from each well (2016-2020) • Daily water production data from each well (2018-2020) • Yearly water meter consumption for each meter and connection (2018-2020) • Maximum Day Production (2016-2020) Water Production Using the provided daily and monthly water production data from the City’s wells, the annual average daily production was calculated and the maximum day production was assessed. A maximum day peaking factor (PF) was calculated by dividing the maximum day production by the average annual daily production. Results are included in Table 2. Table 2 - Water Production Annual Average Maximum Daily Year Daily Production Maximum Day Factor Production (MDG) (MGD) 2016 5.23 7.80 1.49 2017 5.25 7.70 1.47 2018 5.01 7.67 1.53 2019 5.16 7.29 1.41 20201 4.82 7.12 1.47 Overview Avg. 5.162 Max 7.803 Comb. 1.514 1. Data from Year 2020 not used for Overview calculations as 2020 water usage/production do not match typical yearly patterns due to effects of COVID-19 pandemic. 2. Average of Year 2016 through 2019 Annual Average Daily Production 3. Overall maximum day production from the years analyzed. 4. Combined Maximum Day Factor determined from Overall Max. Day / avg of Annual Average Day Year 2020 production data was reviewed, however, due to changes in daily water use attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic (i.e. more people working from home, reduction in manufacturing, etc.) the data was not utilized for calculations or demand projections. In general, water production numbers for 2020 were lower than previous historical water production numbers. Table 3 includes additional historical production numbers over a 10 year time period that were analyzed as part of the City’s 2006 Master Planning effort. Figure 1 depicts yearly average production over this time period as well as trends in average and max day production. Overall, the annual average day water production in the City over the last 25 years has remained fairly consistent. The calculated maximum day peaking factor based on recent data is 1.51 as compared to the 1.7 peaking factor calculated for the 2006 Master Planning effort. As indicated in Figure 1, maximum day production has decreased. This can be a result of more accurate metering, reduction in system losses or the effect of water saving measures. 102

Item 1. Table 3 – Historical Water Production Annual Average Daily Maximum Daily Production Maximum Day Year Production (MGD) (MGD) Factor 1995 5.02 N/A1 N/A 1996 5.26 8.31 1.58 1997 4.85 7.59 1.56 1998 5.14 8.19 1.59 1999 5.30 8.46 1.60 2000 5.17 8.65 1.67 2001 5.13 7.85 1.53 2002 5.26 8.77 1.67 2003 5.17 8.19 1.59 2004 5.11 9.286 1.82 2016 5.23 7.80 1.49 2017 5.25 7.70 1.47 2018 5.01 7.67 1.53 2019 5.16 7.29 1.41 20202 4.82 7.12 1.47 Overview 5.123 8.774 1.725 1. Data for full fiscal year not provided, accurate maximum daily demand unable to be determined. 2. Data from Year 2020 not used for Overview calculations as 2020 water usage/production do not match typical yearly patterns due to effects of COVID-19 pandemic. 3. Average of Year 1995 through 2019 Annual Average Daily Production 4. Overall maximum day production from the years analyzed. 5. Combined Maximum Day Factor determined from Overall Max. Day / avg of Annual Average Day 6. The 9.28 value was omitted because it was seen to be an anomaly Figure 1 - Historical Water Production Trends 10 Avg. Annual and Max. Day Water 9 8 7 6 Production (MGD) 5 4 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Year Historical Avg. Day Water Production Historical Max. Day Water Production 1. Max. Day data unavailable for 1995. 103

Item 1. Water Consumption WRA reviewed the City’s yearly water meter records from 2018 to 2020 to calculate actual water demand and the percent water consumption by zoning type. Based on the yearly meter reports, the total average day consumption for 2018, 2019 and 2020 is 4.48 million gallons per day (MGD), 4.72 MGD, and 2.77 MGD, respectively. The City classifies their water meter types by 9 main categories. Table 4 below shows the water use as percentage of total water consumed by category for the 2018, 2019 and 2020 meter data. The City is undergoing rezoning efforts at the time this report was written. WRA was provided with the proposed rezoning plan; all references to zoning or usage categories have been adjusted to reflect the changes in zoning of the 164 parcels indicated in the City of Dover Comprehensive Rezoning Project 2021 DRAFT Map Date 3/8/2021. Table 4 - Water Consumption by Type Zone 2018 2019 2020 Manufacturing 25.49% 28.08% 21.95% Agricultural 0.01% 0.01% 0.02% Commercial 15.07% 14.06% 11.03% Institutional 1.61% 1.60% 1.29% Office 12.08% 11.58% 7.29% Open Space 0.13% 0.10% 0.03% Service 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% Residential 45.09% 44.11% 57.89% Residential/Com 0.51% 0.46% 0.49% Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% As shown in Table 4, the largest portion of water consumed in the City of Dover is from Residential demands followed by Commercial (including Office Space) and Industrial demands. The remaining demand categories make up less than 3% of total water consumption in the City’s service area. For the purpose of simplifying demand projections for this study, water demands will be attributed to residential, commercial, and industrial sources. Residential demand will include water consumption from the residential, residential/commercial, and empty zone categories. Commercial demands will include water consumption attributed to the commercial, institutional, office, open space and service zoning categories while Industrial demands will include consumption by the agricultural and manufacturing zoning categories. Combining categories results in residential, commercial, and industrial water use contributions of approximately 44.9%, 28.3% and 26.8%. Table 5 below includes the total average day water use as calculated from the metered water consumption files as well as a break down of estimated consumption per use type. A comparison of the 2020 water use percentages as well as the total average day consumption highlights the changes in water use the City experienced due to the current pandemic. Residential water use contribution increased by approximately 13% while work related contributions (commercial, office, manufacturing, etc.) significantly reduced. In addition, the City saw a 41% reduction in overall average day water consumption. Table 5 - Metered Water Consumption Total Average Day Demand Residential Commercial Industrial Demand Year (MGD) Demand (MGD) Demand (MGD) (MGD) 2018 4.48 4.56 2.04 2.08 1.30 1.28 1.14 2.21 2019 4.72 4.77 2.10 2.04 1.30 1.25 1.33 1.19 2020 2.77 4.51 1.61 2.06 0.55 1.26 0.61 1.19 1. Data from 2020 is not used in calculating water use percentages as 2020 usage patterns do not match typical or projected patterns. 104

Item 1. Metered water consumption in Dover is historically less than water production. This is typical and is usually due to water loss, meter inaccuracy, or unaccounted for flows (fire flows, hydrant flushing, ect.) which are found in any water distribution system. Table 6 shows the water loss percentages in the City of Dover’s system compared to the national average of 16% (EPA 816‐F‐13‐002). Typically, the City’s water loss percentage is less than the national average, but data from the year 2020 shows a significant decrease in water use accounted for by water meters. Table 6 – Yearly Water Loss Percentages Yearly Water Yearly Water Year Consumption (gal) Production (gal) Water Loss (%) 1,665,068,000 2018 1,635,780,000 1,826,967,000 10% 8.9% 1,743,929,000 2019 1,724,073,000 1,882,452,000 8% 7.4% 1,647,663,000 2020 1,012,227,000 1,765,218,000 43% 6.7% To ensure that hydraulic modeling and recommended future improvements account for the full quantity of water needed, the percentages utilized for Table 5 were applied to the City’s water production numbers to establish a total system water demand (See Table 7). Table 7 - Yearly System Commercial, Residential, and Industrial Water Demand Total Average Day Estimated Residential Estimated Commercial Estimated Industrial Year Production (MGD) Demand (MGD) Demand (MGD) Demand (MGD) 2016 5.23 2.35 2.38 1.48 1.46 1.40 1.38 2017 5.25 2.36 2.39 1.49 1.47 1.41 1.39 2018 5.01 2.25 2.28 1.42 1.40 1.34 1.33 2019 5.16 2.32 2.35 1.46 1.45 1.38 1.37 2020 4.82 2.17 2.20 1.37 1.35 1.29 1.28 Avg. 5.16 2.32 2.35 1.46 1.45 1.38 1.37 1. Data from 2020 is not used in calculating water production averages as 2020 usage patterns do not match typical or projected patterns. 105

Item 1. Water Demand Projections Two methods of projecting water usage were reviewed to estimate the future water demand for the City of Dover: straight-line projection of the historical average day demand and a projection of water demands based on expected population increase and City planning and zoning land annexation estimates. Projections were completed for a 20- year planning period at 5-year increments. Straight line Projection Straight-line projections were completed by calculating a linear trendline from the available annual average day production data. Data from 2020 was left out of the calculation as the usage patterns are not typical and inclusion of 2020 data does impact the projection. Straight-Line projection values can be found in Figure 2 and Table 8. Figure 2 - City of Dover Straight-Line Water Production Projection 8.50 8.00 7.50 Water Production (MGD) 7.00 6.50 6.00 5.50 5.00 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Year Avg. Day Water Production Max. Day Water Production Linear Projection of Max. Day Water Production Linear Projection of Avg. Day Water Production Table 8 – Projected Demands; Straight-Line Projection Year Projected Avg. Day Demand (MGD) 2021 4.95 2025 4.77 2030 4.54 2035 4.32 2040 4.09 Based on the linear projection method, projected water demands will decrease to approximately 4.0 MGD by 2040. However, the City anticipates an increase in residential population as well as annexation of lands into the water service area. Therefore, projected demands should reflect the City’s growth. 106

Item 1. Development, Growth and Land Annexation Projection Water demand projections were completed by analyzing possible future developments, population growth projections, and the City’s planned land annexations. Unit Demand Calculations To predict future demands, WRA calculated unit demand numbers for Residential, Commercial, and Industrial users. Residential water demand (as calculated in Table 7) was divided by the total population to calculate the water usage per capita (gpdc). Commercial and industrial water production was divided by the total acreage occupied by each respective water use type to calculate the unit water demand per acre. Current commercial and industrial acreage was calculated utilizing meter designations and GIS parcel information available for the State of Delaware. Parcel areas with assigned commercial or industrial services (as indicated by the metered consumption document) were identified and totaled resulting in a current total commercial and industrial acreage within the City’s water service area of 2,628.0 acres (ac) and 623.4 ac, respectively. Commercial and Industrial unit demands were then calculated by dividing the estimated water demand by the respective total area. Table 9 includes the unit demand calculations for each designated water use. Table 9 – Commercial, Residential, and Industrial Water Production Unit Demands Industrial Unit Residential Unit Total Commercial Unit Total Water Year Population Water Production Commercial Water Production Industrial Consumption (gpd/capita) Acreage (gpd/acre) Acreage (gpd/acre) 2016 37,229 64.02 63.11 2,628.03 557.42 563.96 623.35 2,247.51 2221.70 2017 37,416 63.94 63.04 2,628.03 559.55 566.12 623.35 2,256.11 2230.20 2018 38,008 60.07 59.22 2,628.03 533.97 540.24 623.35 2,152.97 2128.25 2019 38,166 61.61 60.74 2,628.03 549.96 556.41 623.35 2,217.43 2191.97 20201 38,412 57.18 56.37 2,628.03 513.72 519.75 623.35 2,071.32 2047.54 Avg. 62.41 61.53 550.23 556.68 2,218.50 2193.03 1. Data from 2020 is not used in calculating water production averages as 2020 usage patterns do not match typical or projected patterns. Population Growth and Land Annexation Future residential demands were estimated using population projections from the City’s 2019 Comprehensive Plan and the State of Delaware’s 2020 Population Consortium. Future commercial and industrial acreage was estimated from Maps 13-1: Potential Annexation Areas and 13-2: Potential Land Use for Annexation Areas found in the City’s 2019 Comprehensive Plan. The City categorizes the potential annexation areas as Category 1 – High Priority, Category 2 – Priority, Category 3 – Long Term Annexation, and Areas of Concern. After discussions with the City, it was decided that the Category 1 area will be associated with 5 year projections (Year 2025), Category 2 areas will be associated with 10 year projections (Year 2030), and Category 3 areas will be equally split between 15 and 20 year projections (Year 2035 and 2040). The areas of concern will not be considered as part of this study as the likelihood of those areas being annexed is low. Map 13-2 provided a land use break down of Category 1 and Category 2 annexation lands. WRA calculated areas for each classification and categorized the non-residential uses into commercial and industrial. These quantities 107

Item 1. were then added to the existing area to project future demands. Land use for Category 3 was not provided. Therefore, WRA assumed the land distribution in Category 3 to be similar to current land distribution; 47% residential use, 43% commercial use, and 10% industrial use. The resulting increase in commercial and industrial areas from the planning and zoning information is summarized in Table 10. Table 10 – Total Projected Population and Commercial and Industrial Land Area Area of Commercial Land Area of Industrial Land Year Population (Acre) (Acre) 2025 39,606 2,935.28 803.22 2030 40,836 3,030.94 1,146.15 2035 41,887 3,646.53 1,292.16 2040 42,966 4,262.12 1,438.17 Future projections were then calculated by multiplying the unit demands by the estimated population, commercial acreage, and industrial acreage. Future Development The City provided WRA with a list of potential future developments. Industrial developments were accompanied by an estimated water demand and the number of potential residential units were provided with Residential developments. For the residential demand calculations, each residential unit was assumed to be occupied by 2.5 people. The residential unit demand calculated in Table 9 was then applied. A map showing the location of each development, as well as Category 1, 2, and 3 annexation lands can be found in Figure 3. Each development, its demand, assigned hydraulic timestep, zoning designation, and a brief description can be found in Table 11. Hydraulic timesteps (the year the development is assumed to be constructed and in service) were assigned to each development based on conversations with the City and assumed construction durations. 108

Figure 3 - Annexation Plans and Future Developments Item 1. Legend Proposed_Annexation_Plan_2021 Category 1 2 3 Areas of Concern Stonebrook East Stonebrook West Garrison Oak Tachnical Park City of Dover Apartments on College Road Rojan Meadows McKee Run Power Station Planned Water Main Replacement 1080 & 1106 Bay Road Starlifter Ave Manufacturing User Cardboard Manufacturing Facility 109

Item 1. Table 11 – Future Development Demands and Hydraulic Timestep Average Day Timestep Development Demand Zone Description Change (gpd) 2025 McKee Run Power Plant -64,800 Industrial Decommissioning of Power Plant 2025 Starlifter Ave. Manufacturing 3,900 Industrial New Manufacturing User Cardboard Manufacturing 2025 7,502 Industrial Facility New Manufacturing User 2025 Garrison Oak Technical Park 45,014 Industrial New Industrial Development 2025 Stonebrook East 39,111 Residential 255 Unit Apartment Development 2025 Stonebrook West 27,147 Residential 177 Unit Apartment Development 2030 Garrison Oak Technical Park 45,014 Industrial New Industrial Development 2030 Rojan Meadows 24,387 Residential 159 Unit Apartment Development 2030 1080 & 1106 Bay Road 7,362 Residential 48 Unit Apartment Development 2030 Apartments on College Road 50,307 Residential 328 Unit Apartment Development Table 12 Assumptions: 1. Residential timesteps were assigned based on projected population growth and estimated time of construction, 2. Industrial timesteps were assigned based on information provided by the City and estimated time of construction. It was observed that none of the upcoming industrial developments are located within the proposed annexed land areas (See Figure 3). This indicates that their demands would not be included in those calculated purely on estimated annexed areas. Therefore, WRA added the identified industrial development demand to the industrial water demand calculated through land annexation. Residential demands calculated for each development are assumed to be included in the City’s overall projected population increase. Projected Development, Growth and Land Annexation Demands Based on calculated unit demands, developments, and proposed residential growth and land area increases, Table 12 includes the City of Dover’s projected water demands at each hydraulic timestep in the planning period and Figure 4 includes the projected increase. Table 12 – Projected Water Demands based on Population Growth and Land Annexation Residential Commercial Industrial Total Average Day Maximum Day Year Water Demand Water Demand Water Demand Demand (MGD) Demand (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MDG) 2019 2.35 2.32 1.45 1.46 1.37 1.38 5.16 7.79 7.29 2025 2.47 2.44 1.62 1.63 1.75 1.77 5.84 8.82 8.83 2030 2.55 2.51 1.67 1.69 2.55 2.58 6.77 6.78 10.22 10.24 2035 2.61 2.58 2.01 2.03 2.87 2.90 7.49 7.51 11.31 11.34 2040 2.68 2.64 2.35 2.37 3.19 3.23 8.22 8.24 12.41 12.45 110

Item 1. Figure 4 - Past and Projected Industrial, Commercial, and 9.00 Residential Water Demand 8.00 Water Production (MGD) 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Year Average Industrial Water Production Avg. Commercial Water Production Avg. Residential Water Production Demand Distribution Demands associated with specific developments will be added to the hydraulic water model at the locations provided by the City. This allows for any necessary improvements due to the specific developmental increases to be assessed. The demands in Table 11 do not account for the entirety of projected demand increase at each timestep (Table 12). Therefore, the remaining demand increase will be distributed throughout the potential annexed land areas and the existing water model. Water Storage The City maintains seven elevated storage tanks with a total storage capacity of 5.25 MG and is planning for the addition of a 1 MG tank on Denneys Rd in 2023. Table 13 provides a listing of the tanks in the City of Dover System. Table 13 – Water Tank Storage Storage Tank Storage Capacity (MG) General Foods Tank 0.25 Bayard Ave Tank 0.25 McKee Road Tank 1.0 Dover Park Tank 1.0 Walker Road Tank 1.0 Kent Co. Aeropark Tank 0.25 Garrison Water Tower 1.5 Denneys Road Tank1 1.0 Total Current 5.25 Total Future 6.25 1. Installation planned for 2023 111

Item 1. WRA compared the storage capacity with the storage volume required to serve the distribution system. The total system storage required is typically calculated by the following formula which was utilized during the development of the 2006 Master Plan. STORAGE VOLUME REQUIRED = EQUALIZATION + FIRE FLOW + EMERGENCY Equalization = 0.15 x Maximum Daily Demand (MDD) Fire Flow = 5,000 gpm for 4 hours (Commercial/multi-family) 1,200,000 gallons Emergency = 0.10 x MDD (i.e. Cover raw water main break) The above storage calculations are summarized below in Table 14. Table 14 – Water Storage Calculations Available MDD Equalization Fire Flow Emergency Required Storage Difference Scenario (MGD) (MG) (MG) (MG) Storage (MG) (MG) (MG) 2019 7.29 1.09 1.20 0.73 3.02 5.25 2.23 2025 8.83 8.82 1.33 8.82 1.20 0.88 3.41 3.40 6.25 2.84 2.85 2030 10.24 10.22 1.53 1.20 1.02 3.75 6.25 2.49 2.50 2035 11.34 11.31 1.69 8.82 1.20 1.13 4.02 4.03 6.25 2.21 2.22 2040 12.45 12.41 1.86 1.20 1.24 4.30 6.25 1.94 1.95 1. Calculated storage volume may not all be at a usable hydraulic grade level. This required volume is based on one method of calculation and does not take into account the amount of “usable” storage volume (volume at a sufficient head to be effective) in the system, or the impact of groundwater wells. The hydraulic model will be used to evaluate the system storage in further detail. Conclusions The demand projections will be utilized in the hydraulic water model for analysis of the system and creation of recommended system improvements. This memorandum outlines the build-out flow projections and growth pattern assumptions for the City of Dover water distribution system. The ability of the system to meet the projected demands outlined in the memo will be included as part of the hydraulic analysis and the updated water master plan. _________________________________________ Allyson Merola, P.E. 112

Item 1. Appendix B Field Inspection Reports 113

Item 1. WELL FACILITIES INSPECTION Project: Update to the City of Dover Water Master Plan RFP 21-0013WW DATE OF INSPECTION: March 29, 2021 WELL NO.: 1 TYPE: Deep, Confined LOCATION: Jones Station AQUIFER: Cheswold DESIGN: 250 gpm @ 280’TDH PRODUCES, gpm: 155 (per 2017 well report). 144 gpm observed DEPTH, ft.: 228 ELECTRIC: 230v/3PH, 30HP YEAR DRILLED: 1939 CONSTRUCTION: CHEMICAL FACILITY: Brick & Block PUMP FACILITY: Stick Frame w/ vinyl siding (Detachable) CHEMICAL(S) FED: Sodium Hypochlorite 13%, Hydrofluosilicic Acid 23% A. ASSESSMENT 1. AREA FENCING: Yes 2. EXTERIOR CONDITION: Good 3. PUMP FACILITY: a. Pump Status: Operating b. Pump Layout: Submersible pump with blow-off piping, magnetic flow meter, pressure gauge, flow switch, air release valve and check valve. (1) Observation: Flow meter reading at 144 gpm. Area of wall need painting. (2) Recommendation: Paint wall as needed. c. Heating/Ventilation: (1) Observation: No-ventilation, Room stay cool with submersible well pump. 4. INSTRUMENTATION/CONTROLS: Siemens magnetic flowmeter and chlorine residual analyzer. The 900MHz serial licensed radio MDS 9710 is obsolete from Manufacturer as of 12/15/12. It is used to communicate facility status include alarms and control. The City is in the process of having it replace with new MDS SD9 radio which are backward compatible with the 9710. 5. CHEMICAL FACILITY: a. System Layout: 15-gallon Sodium hypochlorite drums with Pentair transfer pump to fill a day tank and LMI metering feed pump. 15-gallon hydrofluosilicic acid (fluoride) drums fed neat with a LMI metering feed pump. Electronic scale is no longer used. The State no longer require report on chemical usages. (1) Observation: Open chemical drums vent vapors/fumes into the room. Corrosion on door. Wall need painting. (2) Recommendation: 114 N:\14466-000\Reports\Draft\Appendicies\Field Inspection Reports\field report Well No.1.docx

Item 1. Page 2 14466.000 (a) Use drum-bung fitting to seal day tank opening spaces and run vent to the outside in accordance with RSWW (Recommended Standards for Water Works 2018) Sections 5.1, paragraph 5.1.11.b. (b) Replace metal door with corrosion resistance fiberglass door and paint walls. . b. Heating/Ventilation (1) Observation: The chemical room is positively pressurized via supply fan and with two door mounted gravity dampers for exhaust. (2) Recommendation: None. The current system is City’s preferred layout. 6. ELECTRICAL: a. Observations: (1) Lighting is provided by incandescent lamps in Pump Room Area and in the Panel Area. Chemical Room is lighted by surface mounted totally enclosed fluorescent fixture with missing cover. (2) Two services provide power at 480V, 3 phase, and 240/120V, single phase. Meter # single phase 27082586 Schlumberger Meter # three phase 40 171 762 Itron (3) No ground fault receptacles are installed. Some receptacle covers are missing (4) Conduit in Chemical Room is all PVC. (5) Electrical equipment is in good condition. (6) Service is 3 phase, 4 wire from Power Co. Aerial pole line runs to pole No. 4-2, then underground to the station and turns up on the outside of building 5 feet above ground where the conduit elbows into building. (7) Pump Room -Raceway installed is a mixture of PVC, LFMC and Metallic all in fair condition b. Recommendation: (1) Provide ground fault receptacles in place of existing receptacles. (2) Provide LED A19 socket lamps in place of existing incandescent lamps. (3) Replace existing fluorescent fixture with LED equivalent. (4) Replace all receptacle covers with in-use type . 115 N:\14466-000\Reports\Draft\Appendicies\Field Inspection Reports\field report Well No.1.docx

Item 1. WELL FACILITIES INSPECTION Project: Update to the City of Dover Water Master Plan RFP 21-0013WW DATE OF INSPECTION: March 29, 2021 WELL NO.: 2 TYPE: Deep, Confined LOCATION: Horsepond AQUIFER: Piney Point DESIGN: 900 gpm @ 500’TDH PRODUCES, gpm: 1,127 (per 2011 well report) DEPTH, ft.: 502 ft. ELECTRIC: 480v/3PH, 150HP, Square D VFD YEAR DRILLED: 1975 CONSTRUCTION: CHEMICAL FACILITY: Stick Frame w/Vinyl Siding PUMP FACILITY: Stick Frame w/ vinyl siding CHEMICAL(S) FED: Sodium Hypochlorite 13% A. ASSESSMENT 1. AREA FENCING: Yes 2. EXTERIOR CONDITION: Good 3. PUMP FACILITY: a. Pump Status: Operating b. Pump Layout: Vertical turbine, by-pass piping, magnetic flow meter, pressure gauge, flow switch, air release valve and check valve. (1) Observation: Portable standby generator and transfer switch. Corrosion on door. Piping need repainting. (2) Recommendation: none c. Heating/Ventilation: (1) Observation: Two wall mounted air conditioning unit with roof mounted exhaust. (2) Recommendation: none. 4. INSTRUMENTATION/CONTROLS: Siemens magnetic flowmeter and chlorine residual analyzer. The 900MHz serial licensed radio MDS 9710 is obsolete from Manufacturer as of 12/15/12. It is used to communicate facility status include alarms and control. The City is in the process of having it replace with new MDS SD9 radio which are backward compatible with the 9710. 5. CHEMICAL FACILITY: a. System Layout: 15-gallon Sodium hypochlorite drums with Pentair transfer pump to fill a day tank and LMI metering feed pump. Electronic scale is no longer used. The State no longer require report on chemical usages. (1) Observation: Open chemical drum vent vapors/fumes inside the room. Corrosion on lower door. (2) Recommendation: 116 N:\14466-000\Reports\Draft\Appendicies\Field Inspection Reports\field report Well No.2.docx

Item 1. Page 2 14466.000 (a) Use drum-bung fitting to seal day tank opening spaces and run vent to the outside in accordance with RSWW (Recommended Standards for Water Works 2018) Sections 5.1, paragraph 5.1.11.b. (b) Replace metal door with corrosion resistance fiberglass door. b. Heating/Ventilation (1) Observation: The chemical room is positively pressurized via supply fan and with one door mounted gravity damper for exhaust. (2) Recommendation: None. The current system is City’s preferred layout. 6. ELECTRICAL: a. Observations: (1) Utility Meter #46 494 256 ITRON (2) Service 480v 3 phase (3) Exterior CT cabinet, Meter, and utility main disconnect switch mounted to Unistrut support system NEMA 3R. (4) Well pump is 150 Hp, 460V, 3 phase, VFD Controlled. The VFD model 58M currently installed is out of production and is at or approaching end of life in addition supplemental cooling has been provided but we cannot verify if it would be sufficient to keep the space withing the necessary ambient conditions for proper VFD operations. (5) Chemical Room - All PVC conduit, no GFI receptacles, lighting fixtures are fluorescent type surface mounted totally enclosed. (6) Pump Room - Raceway installed is a mixture of PVC, LFMC and Metallic all in fair condition, no GFI receptacles, lighting fixtures are fluorescent type surface mounted totally enclosed. Power panel and transformer provides 120/240 volt power, with a 100 amp main breaker and 20 Spaces, Transformer is single phase 15 kVA. (7) Electrical equipment is in good condition. b. Recommendation: (1) Replace existing receptacles with GFI type and provide in-use covers. (2) Replace existing fluorescent fixtures with LED equivalent. (3) Replace existing VFD with a newer model drive. 117 N:\14466-000\Reports\Draft\Appendicies\Field Inspection Reports\field report Well No.2.docx

Item 1. WELL FACILITIES INSPECTION Project: Update to the City of Dover Water Master Plan RFP 21-0013WW DATE OF INSPECTION: March 29, 2021 WELL NO.: 3 TYPE: Deep, Confined LOCATION: Dover East AQUIFER: Cheswold DESIGN: Unknown PRODUCES, gpm: 299 (per 2019 well report). 255 gpm @ 56.5 hz observed DEPTH, ft.: 222 ft. ELECTRIC: 230v/3PH, 30HP, VFD YEAR DRILLED: 1948 CONSTRUCTION: CHEMICAL FACILITY: Brick & Block PUMP FACILITY: Stick Frame w/ vinyl siding (Detachable) CHEMICAL(S) FED: Sodium Hypochlorite 13%, Hydrofluosilicic Acid 23% A. ASSESSMENT 1. AREA FENCING: Yes 2. EXTERIOR CONDITION: Good 3. PUMP FACILITY: a. Pump Status: operating b. Pump Layout: Submersible, blow-off piping, pressure gauge, check valve, flow switch and magnetic flow meter inside a vault. (1) Observation: pump operating at 255 gpm @ 56.5 Hz. Discharge pressure is at 57 psi. All pipe, valves and fittings are in good condition. (2) Recommendation: None. c. Heating/Ventilation: (1) Observation: Adequate ventilation and heating. (2) Recommendation: None. 4. INSTRUMENTATION/CONTROLS: Siemens magnetic flowmeter and chlorine residual analyzer. The 900MHz serial licensed radio MDS 9710 is obsolete from Manufacturer as of 12/15/12. It is used to communicate facility status include alarms and control. The City is in the process of having it replace with new MDS SD9 radio which are backward compatible with the 9710. 5. CHEMICAL FACILITY: a. System Layout: 15-gallon Sodium hypochlorite drums with Pentair transfer pump to fill a day tank and LMI metering feed pump. 15-gallon hydrofluosilicic acid (fluoride) drums fed neat with a LMI metering feed pump. Electronic scale is no longer used. The State no longer require report on chemical usages. 118 N:\14466-000\Reports\Draft\Appendicies\Field Inspection Reports\field report Well No.3.docx

Item 1. Page 2 14466.000 (1) Observation: Open chemical drums vent vapors/fumes into the room. (2) Recommendation: (a) Use drum-bung fitting to seal day tank opening spaces and run vent to the outside in accordance with RSWW (Recommended Standards for Water Works 2018) Sections 5.1, paragraph 5.1.11.b. (b) Replace metal door with corrosion resistance fiberglass door. b. Heating/Ventilation (1) Observation: The chemical room is positively pressurized via supply fan and with wall mounted gravity damper for exhaust. (2) Recommendation: None. The current system is City’s preferred layout. 6. ELECTRICAL: a. Observations: (1) Chemical Room All PVC conduit, no ground fault receptacles. Conduit for light and light switch box are metal with EMT conduit. Lighting fixtures are glass globes with incandescent lamps. Fan on light switch with contactor and no timer. (2) Electric Room Raceway installed is a mixture of PVC or Metallic all in fair condition, no ground fault receptacles Meter # single phase 46 493 748 Itron Meter # 40 171 763, three phase. Itron Disconnect, VFD and power panel all found in good condition (3) Service is from 3 pole mounted transformers, 3- 25kVA on the corner outside property at Dover and South New Street from Pole #58. Aerial line runs to pole #59 and underground into a wireway inside the building. b. Recommendation: (1) Replace existing receptacles with GFI type and provide in-use covers (2) Provide equivalent LED A19 socket lamps in place of existing incandescent lamps. (3) Evaluate ambient conditions in the space for proper VFD operations 119 N:\14466-000\Reports\Draft\Appendicies\Field Inspection Reports\field report Well No.3.docx

Item 1. WELL FACILITIES INSPECTION Project: Update to the City of Dover Water Master Plan RFP 21-0013WW DATE OF INSPECTION: March 29, 2021 WELL NO.: 4 TYPE: Deep, Confined LOCATION: West Water Street AQUIFER: Cheswold DESIGN: Unknown PRODUCES, gpm: 240 (per 2011 well report) DEPTH, ft.: 221 ELECTRIC: 230v/3PH, 30HP, NEMA3 Starter (Square D) YEAR DRILLED: 1952 CONSTRUCTION: CHEMICAL FACILITY: Stick Frame with Vinyl Siding PUMP FACILITY: Brick & Block CHEMICAL(S) FED: Sodium Hypochlorite 13%, Hydrofluosilicic Acid 23% A. ASSESSMENT 1. AREA FENCING: None 2. EXTERIOR CONDITION: Good 3. PUMP FACILITY: a. Pump Status: Operating b. Pump Layout: Submersible, blow-off piping, check valve, pressure gauge, flow switch, sodium hypochlorite & fluoride injection points and an outside magnetic flow meter vault include a small dedicated water meter. (1) Observation: Piping surface rust. (2) Recommendation: Remove piping surface rust and repaint as needed. Replace metal door with corrosion resistance fiberglass door. c. Heating/Ventilation: Observation: No-ventilation. Room stay cool with submersible well pump. 4. INSTRUMENTATION/CONTROLS: Siemens magnetic flowmeter and chlorine residual analyzer. The 900MHz serial licensed radio MDS 9710 is obsolete from Manufacturer as of 12/15/12. It is used to communicate facility status include alarms and control. The City is in the process of having it replace with new MDS SD9 radio which are backward compatible with the 9710. 5. CHEMICAL FACILITY: a. System Layout: 15-gallon Sodium hypochlorite drums with Pentair transfer pump to fill a day tank and LMI metering feed pump. 15-gallon hydrofluosilicic acid (fluoride) drums fed neat with a LMI metering feed pump. Electronic scale is no longer used. The State no longer require report on chemical usages. (1) Observation: Open chemical drums vent vapors/fumes into the room. (2) Recommendation: 120 N:\14466-000\Reports\Draft\Appendicies\Field Inspection Reports\field report Well No.4.docx

Item 1. Page 2 14466.000 (a) Use drum-bung fitting to seal day tank opening spaces and run vent to the outside in accordance with RSWW (Recommended Standards for Water Works 2018) Sections 5.1, paragraph 5.1.11.b. (b) Replace metal door with corrosion resistance fiberglass door. b. Heating/Ventilation (1) Observation: The chemical room is positively pressurized via supply fan and with two wall mounted louvers with gravity dampers for exhaust. (2) Recommendation: None. The current system is City’s preferred layout. 6. ELECTRICAL: a. Observations: (1) Utility Meter #40 171 764 (2) Service 240v 3 phase (3) Exterior Meter and interior utility main disconnect switch (4) Well pump is 30 Hp, 240V, 3 phase, with size 3 FVNR starter. (5) Chemical Room - All PVC conduit, no GFI receptacles, lighting fixtures are fluorescent type surface mounted totally enclosed with missing lens (6) Pump Room - Raceway installed is a mixture of PVC, LFMC and Metallic all in fair condition, no GFI receptacles, lighting fixtures are socket type. Power panel provides 120/240-volt power, with a 100 amp main breaker and 20 Spaces. Existing Pump Starter is showing signs of corrosion. (7) Electrical equipment is in good condition. b. Recommendation: (1) Replace existing receptacles with GFI type and provide in-use covers. (2) Replace existing fluorescent fixtures with LED equivalent. (3) Provide equivalent LED A19 socket lamps for all socket fixtures (4) Plan to replace existing motor starter within 5 years. 121 N:\14466-000\Reports\Draft\Appendicies\Field Inspection Reports\field report Well No.4.docx

Item 1. WELL FACILITIES INSPECTION Project: Update to the City of Dover Water Master Plan RFP 21-0013WW DATE OF INSPECTION: March 29, 2021 WELL NO.: 6 TYPE: Deep, Confined LOCATION: Rodney Village AQUIFER: Piney Point DESIGN: 700 gpm @ 380’TDH PRODUCES, gpm: 777 (per 2017 well report). 708 gpm observed DEPTH, ft.: 456 ELECTRIC: 480v/3PH, 100HP, Square D VFD w/by-pass starter YEAR DRILLED: 1970 CONSTRUCTION: CHEMICAL FACILITY: Stand-alone stick frame with vinyl siding PUMP FACILITY: Detached- stick frame with vinyl siding CHEMICAL(S) FED: Sodium Hypochlorite 13% A. ASSESSMENT 1. AREA FENCING: Yes 2. EXTERIOR CONDITION: Good but some areas have mildew. 3. PUMP FACILITY: a. Pump Status: Operating b. Pump Layout: Vertical turbine, blow-off piping, magnetic flow meter (exterior), pressure gauge, flow switch, air release valve and check valve. (1) Observation: pump running at 708 gpm @ full speed on the VFD. Gauge pressure reading is at 66 psi. Exterior mildew on siding. Interior walls need painting. (2) Recommendation: Clean and paint inside walls. Power wash exterior siding. Replace metal door with corrosion resistant fiberglass door. c. Heating/Ventilation: (1) Observation: Roof mounted. exhaust fans with window mounted air conditioner. (2) Recommendation: none. 4. INSTRUMENTATION/CONTROLS: Siemens magnetic flowmeter and chlorine residual analyzer. The 900MHz serial licensed radio MDS 9710 is obsolete from Manufacturer as of 12/15/12. It is used to communicate facility status include alarms and control. The City is in the process of having it replace with new MDS SD9 radio which are backward compatible with the 9710. 5. CHEMICAL FACILITY: 122 N:\14466-000\Reports\Draft\Appendicies\Field Inspection Reports\field report Well No.6.docx

Item 1. Page 2 14466.000 a. System Layout: System Layout: 15-gallon Sodium hypochlorite drums with Pentair transfer pump to fill a day tank (55-gal. drum) and a LMI metering feed pump. (1) Observation: Open chemical drums vent vapors/fumes into the room. Interior wall need painting. Corrosion on bottom of exterior door. (2) Recommendation: (a) Use drum-bung fitting to seal day tank opening spaces and run vent to the outside in accordance with RSWW (Recommended Standards for Water Works 2018) Sections 5.1, paragraph 5.1.11.b. (b) Clean and paint inside walls. Replace metal door with corrosion resistant fiberglass door. b. Heating/Ventilation (1) Observation: Corrosion on fan box. (2) Recommendation: Replace fan with new fan that has corrosion resistant coating. 6. ELECTRICAL: a. Observations: (1) Chemical Building - no GFI receptacles, all PVC conduit and fluorescent surface mounted fixtures. Some metal conduit supports were installed and are corroded the non-metallic supports installed are in good. (2) Pump House 125Hp pump motor 460v, 3 phase, VDF controlled The VFD model 58M currently installed is out of production and is at or approaching end of life in addition supplemental cooling has been provided but we cannot verify where it would be sufficient to keep the space withing the necessary ambient conditions for proper VFD operations. Raceway installed is a mixture of PVC, LFMC and Metallic all in fair condition (3) Lighting fixtures were porcelain outlet with 60W bulb. provides lighting, transformer 25kVA single phase 480//120/240V, service 480V, 3 phase, 4 wire, all PVC conduit, RTU in a Steel Box. The VFD, panelboards, and transformer are all in fair condition. (4) Vent system - separate from lighting switch add thermostat and recycle timer. (5) Service is from 3 pole mounted transformers outside fence area. (6) Meter #46 494 030 ITRON Pole #2 b. Recommendations (1) Replace existing receptacles with GFI type and provide in-use covers. (2) Replace existing fluorescent fixtures with LED equivalent. (3) Replace existing VFD with a newer model drive. (4) Provide LED A19 socket lamps in place of existing incandescent lamps. (5) Replace all corroded metallic conduit supports in the Chem Feed room with non-metallic type 123 N:\14466-000\Reports\Draft\Appendicies\Field Inspection Reports\field report Well No.6.docx

Item 1. WELL FACILITIES INSPECTION PROJECT: Update to the City of Dover Water Master Plan RFP 21-0013WW DATE OF INSPECTION: March 29, 2021 WELL NO.: 7 TYPE: Deep, Confined LOCATION: McKee AQUIFER: Piney Point DESIGN: 200 gpm @ 430’TDH 2017 new pump PRODUCES, gpm: 225 (per 2019 well report). 250 observed DEPTH, ft.: 382 ELECTRIC: 480v/3PH, 30HP. NEMA 3 Starter (Square D) YEAR DRILLED: 1961 CONSTRUCTION: CHEMICAL/PUMP FACILITY: Stick frame with vinyl siding (Rebuilt in 2020) CHEMICAL(S) FED: Sodium Hypochlorite 13% A. ASSESSMENT 1. AREA FENCING: Yes, it is located inside a fenced City complex. 2. EXTERIOR CONDITION: Very good, newly renovated. 3. PUMP FACILITY: a. Pump Status: Operating b. Pump Layout: Submersible, blow-off piping, check valve, magnetic flow meter, pressure gauge, flow switch and sodium hypochlorite injection point. (1) Observation: Piping surface rust, bent pressure gauge needle, corrosion at door bottom. (2) Recommendation: Remove piping surface rust and repaint as needed. Replace pressure gauge and replace metal door with corrosion resistant fiberglass door. c. Heating/Ventilation: (1) Observation: No-ventilation. Room stay cool with submersible well pump. 4. INSTRUMENTATION/CONTROLS: Siemens magnetic flowmeter and chlorine residual analyzer. The 900MHz serial licensed radio MDS 9710 is obsolete from Manufacturer as of 12/15/12. It is used to communicate facility status include alarms and control. The City is in the process of having it replace with new MDS SD9 radio which are backward compatible with the 9710. 5. CHEMICAL FACILITY: a. System Layout: 15-gallon chemical drums with Pentair transfer pump to fill a day tank and LMI metering feed pump. Electronic scale is no longer used. The State no longer require report on chemical usages. 124 N:\14466-000\Reports\Draft\Appendicies\Field Inspection Reports\field report Well No.7.docx

Item 1. Page 2 14466.000 (1) Observation: Opening on day tank releases vapors/fumes into the room. Corrosion in bottom of door. (2) Recommendation: (a) Use drum-bung fitting to seal day tank opening spaces and run vent to the outside in accordance with RSWW (Recommended Standards for Water Works 2018) Sections 5.1, paragraph 5.1.11.b. (b) Replace metal door with corrosion resistance fiberglass door. b. Heating/Ventilation (1) Observation: The chemical room has a light switch-controlled supply fan with gravity damper/louver for positive pressure ventilation. (2) Recommendation: None. The current system is City’s preferred layout. 6. ELECTRICAL: a. Observation: (1) Meter #51 955 245 ITRON 150kVA pad mounted transformer provides service at 277/480V, three phase. (2) A step-down dry type transformer inside building provides single phase power, 15kVA 120/240V. (3) 30 HP pump, Square D starter, NEMA Size 3. Fair condition. (4) All electrical panels disconnect and wireway are in fair to good condition. (5) A Cutler-Hammer 30A disconnect switch and transformer is installed on wall but not connected. (6) No ground fault receptacle. (7) Light fixtures are enclosed surface fluorescent. With fixture in chemical Room missing lense (8) Raceway installed is a mixture of PVC, and LFMC all in good to fair condition. b. Recommendation (1) Provide GFI receptacles with in-use covers (2) Replace existing fluorescent fixtures with LED equivalent. 125 N:\14466-000\Reports\Draft\Appendicies\Field Inspection Reports\field report Well No.7.docx

Item 1. WELL FACILITIES INSPECTION Project: Update to the City of Dover Water Master Plan RFP 21-0013WW DATE OF INSPECTION: March 29, 2021 WELL NO.: 8R TYPE: Deep, Confined LOCATION: Blue Hen Mall Access road AQUIFER: Cheswold DESIGN: 400 gpm @ 250’TDH PRODUCES, gpm: 402 (per 2019 well report) DEPTH, ft.: 225 ELECTRIC: 480V/3PH, 40HP, Cutler-Hammer VFD YEAR DRILLED: 2008 CONSTRUCTION: CHEMICAL FACILITY: Brick & Block PUMP FACILITY: Exterior pump head, Stick Frame w/ vinyl siding (Detachable) CHEMICAL(S) FED: Sodium Hypochlorite 13%, Hydrofluosilicic Acid 23% A. ASSESSMENT 1. AREA FENCING: Yes 2. EXTERIOR CONDITION: good. 3. PUMP FACILITY: a. Pump Status: Operating b. Pump Layout: Submersible turbine pump with exterior pump head and pitless adaptor. Blow-off piping, magnetic flow meter, pressure gauge, flow switch, air release valve and check valve. (1) Observation: pump was operating at 308 gpm @ 60 Hz, 50 psi. (2) Recommendation: none c. Heating/Ventilation: (1) Observation: No-ventilation (2) Recommendation: none. Room stay cool with the submersible well pump outside. 4. INSTRUMENTATION/CONTROLS: Siemens magnetic flowmeter and chlorine residual analyzer. The 900MHz serial licensed radio MDS 9710 is obsolete from Manufacturer as of 12/15/12. It is used to communicate facility status include alarms and control. The City is in the process of having it replace with new MDS SD9 radio which are backward compatible with the 9710. 5. CHEMICAL FACILITY: a. System Layout: 15-gallon Sodium hypochlorite drums with Pentair transfer pump to fill a day tank and LMI metering feed pump. 15-gallon hydrofluosilicic acid (fluoride) drums fed neat with a LMI metering feed pump. Electronic scale is no longer used. The State no longer require report on chemical usages. 126 N:\14466-000\Reports\Draft\Appendicies\Field Inspection Reports\field report Well No.8R.docx

Item 1. Page 2 14466.000 (1) Observation: Open chemical drums vent vapors/fumes into the room. Wall need painting. (2) Recommendation: (a). Use drum-bung fitting to seal day tank opening spaces and run vent to the outside in accordance with RSWW (Recommended Standards for Water Works 2018) Sections 5.1, paragraph 5.1.11.b. (b). Paint wall. b. Heating/Ventilation (1) Observation: The chemical room is positively pressurized via supply fan with door mounted gravity dampers for exhaust. (2) Recommendation: None. The current system is City’s preferred layout. 6. ELECTRICAL: a. Observations: (1) Two services provide power at 480V, 3 phase, and 240/120V, single phase. Meter # single phase 46 179 553 Itron Meter # three phase 51 955 265 Itron (2) Well pump is 40 Hp, 480V, 3 phase, VFD Controlled. (3) Chemical Room - All PVC conduit, no GFI receptacles, lighting fixture is fluorescent type surface mounted totally enclosed with missing lens (4) Pump Room and Panel Area - Raceway installed is a mixture of PVC, LFMC and Metallic all in fair condition, no GFI receptacles, lighting fixtures are socket type. Power panel provides 120/240-volt power, with a 100-amp main breaker and 20 Spaces. Existing Pump VFD is Eaton and is in good condition. (5) Electrical equipment is in good condition. (6) Panel Area where VFD is located is not conditioned. b. Recommendation: (1) Provide ground fault receptacles in place of existing receptacles. (2) Provide LED A19 socket lamps in place of existing incandescent lamps. (3) Replace existing fluorescent fixture with LED equivalent. (4) Provide and or replace all receptacle covers with in-use type (5) Evaluate environmental conditions in the space for Proper VFD operations 127 N:\14466-000\Reports\Draft\Appendicies\Field Inspection Reports\field report Well No.8R.docx

Item 1. WELL FACILITIES INSPECTION Project: Update to the City of Dover Water Master Plan RFP 21-0013WW DATE OF INSPECTION: March 29, 2021 WELL NO.: 9 TYPE: Deep, Confined LOCATION: Kerbin Street AQUIFER: Cheswold DESIGN: 500 gpm @ 308’TDH PRODUCES, gpm: 570 (per 2019 well report). 536 gpm @ 58 Hz observed DEPTH, ft.: 220 ELECTRIC: 240v/3PH, 50HP. Cutler Hammer VFD YEAR DRILLED: 1977 CONSTRUCTION: CHEMICAL FACILITY: Stick frame with vinyl siding PUMP FACILITY: Stick frame with vinyl siding (Detachable) CHEMICAL(S) FED: Sodium Hypochlorite 13%, Hydrofluosilicic Acid 23% A. ASSESSMENT 1. AREA FENCING: Yes 2. EXTERIOR CONDITION: Weed whacker damage to the lower portion of siding all around. Backside of building need power wash. Station located in flood plain. 3. PUMP FACILITY: a. Pump Status: Operating b. Pump Layout: Vertical turbine, Air/vacuum valve, pressure gauge, check valve, flow switch and an outside magnetic flow meter vault. (1) Observation: Saturated gravel floor. Station is located within flood plain. (2) Recommendation: Station need to be raised up above the flood plain. The design is in progress per City. Replace weed whacker damaged lower siding. c. Heating/Ventilation: (1) Observation: Roof mounted fan with two (2) wall air conditioners. (2) Recommendation: None. 4. INSTRUMENTATION/CONTROLS: Siemens magnetic flowmeter and chlorine residual analyzer. The 900MHz serial licensed radio MDS 9710 is obsolete from Manufacturer as of 12/15/12. It is used to communicate facility status include alarms and control. The City is in the process of having it replace with new MDS SD9 radio which are backward compatible with the 9710. 5. CHEMICAL FACILITY: a. System Layout: 15-gallon Sodium hypochlorite drums with Pentair transfer pump to fill a day tank and LMI metering feed pump. 15-gallon hydrofluosilicic acid (fluoride) drums fed neat with a LMI metering feed pump. Electronic scale is no longer used. The State no longer require report on chemical usages. 128 N:\14466-000\Reports\Draft\Appendicies\Field Inspection Reports\field report Well No.9.docx

Item 1. Page 2 14466.000 (1) Observation: Open chemical drums vent vapors/fumes into the room. Corroded metal door. (2) Recommendation: (a) Use drum-bung fitting to seal day tank opening spaces and run vent to the outside in accordance with RSWW (Recommended Standards for Water Works 2018) Sections 5.1, paragraph 5.1.11.b. (b) Replace metal door with corrosion resistance fiberglass door. b. Heating/Ventilation (1) Observation: The chemical room is positively pressurized via supply fan and with two door mounted gravity dampers/louvers for exhaust. (2) Recommendation: None. The current system is City’s preferred layout. 6. ELECTRICAL: a. Observations: (1) Service provide power at 240/120v, 3 phase, 4w. Meter # three phase 51 955 278 Itron (2) Well pump is 50 Hp, 240V, 3 phase, VFD Controlled. (3) Chemical Room - All PVC conduit, no GFI receptacles, lighting fixture is fluorescent type surface mounted totally enclosed. (4) Pump Room and Panel Area - Raceway installed is a mixture of PVC, LFMC and Metallic all in fair to good condition, no GFI receptacles, lighting fixtures are socket type. Power panel provides 120/240- volt power, with a 100-amp main breaker and 20 Spaces but is extensively corroded. Existing Pump VFD is an Eaton SVX 9000 type in a NEMA type 1 Enclosure and is in Fair condition. (5) Electrical equipment is in good condition. (6) Panel Area where VFD is located is not a clean space. b. Recommendation: (1) Provide ground fault receptacles in place of existing receptacles. (2) Provide LED A19 socket lamps in place of existing incandescent lamps. (3) Replace existing fluorescent fixture with LED equivalent. (4) Provide and or replace all receptacle covers with in-use type (5) Evaluate environmental conditions in the space for Proper VFD operations. Existing Enclosure is NEMA type 1 with no filters. The space conditions with stone floor at a minimum should be in a NEMA type 12 enclosure with filters to prevent dust and debris from entering the enclosure. (6) Replace 120/240v panelboard 129 N:\14466-000\Reports\Draft\Appendicies\Field Inspection Reports\field report Well No.9.docx

Item 1. WELL FACILITIES INSPECTION Project: Update to the City of Dover Water Master Plan RFP 21-0013WW DATE OF INSPECTION: March 29, 2021 WELL NO.: 10 TYPE: Deep, Confined LOCATION: Danner Farm AQUIFER: Piney Point DESIGN: 1000 gpm @ 420’TDH, new pump 2009 PRODUCES, gpm: 1,000 (per 2019 well report) DEPTH, ft.: 480 ELECTRIC: 480V/3PH, 150HP. Square D VFD w/ bypass starter YEAR DRILLED: 1965 CONSTRUCTION: CHEMICAL FACILITY: Stick frame with vinyl siding PUMP FACILITY: Stick Frame w/ vinyl siding (Detachable) CHEMICAL(S) FED: Sodium Hypochlorite 13% A. ASSESSMENT 1. AREA FENCING: Yes 2. EXTERIOR CONDITION: Good, recently renovated. 3. PUMP FACILITY: a. Pump Status: Operating b. Pump Layout: Vertical turbine, blow-off piping, pressure gauge, flow switch, air release valve and check valve. (1) Observation: Electrical and control is located inside the adjacent Well No.14. (2) Recommendation: none c. Heating/Ventilation: (1) Observation: Roof mounted exhaust fan with air conditioner to dissipate the heat generation from the turbine motor. (2) Recommendation: none. 4. INSTRUMENTATION/CONTROLS: Siemens magnetic flowmeter and chlorine residual analyzer. The 900MHz serial licensed radio MDS 9710 is obsolete from Manufacturer as of 12/15/12. It is used to communicate facility status include alarms and control. The City is in the process of having it replace with new MDS SD9 radio which are backward compatible with the 9710. 5. CHEMICAL FACILITY: a. System Layout: 15-gallon Sodium hypochlorite drums with Pentair transfer pump to fill a day tank and a LMI metering feed pump. (1) Observation: Open chemical drums vent vapors/fumes into the room. Interior wall need painting. Corrosion on bottom of exterior door. 130 N:\14466-000\Reports\Draft\Appendicies\Field Inspection Reports\field report Well No.10.docx

Item 1. Page 2 14466.000 (2) Recommendation: (a) Use drum-bung fitting to seal day tank opening spaces and run vent to the outside in accordance with RSWW (Recommended Standards for Water Works 2018) Sections 5.1, paragraph 5.1.11.b. (b) Clean and paint inside walls. Replace metal door with corrosion resistance fiberglass door. b. Heating/Ventilation (1) Observation: The chemical room is positively pressurized via large sidewall mounted roof type supply fan and louver on the door. (2) Recommendation: none. 6. ELECTRICAL: a. Observation: (1) Building only contains the Well Pump and Chemical equipment, no electrical service or equipment is in the building, power feeds from Well House #14. (2) Well Pump is 150 HP, 460V, 3 phase, VFD controlled located in well house #14 (3) Chemical Room - All PVC conduit, no GFI receptacles, lighting fixture is fluorescent type surface mounted totally enclosed. (4) Pump Room - Raceway installed is a mixture of PVC, LFMC and Metallic all in fair to good condition, no GFI receptacles, lighting fixtures are socket type. Metallic boxes are corroded b. Recommendation: (1) Provide GFI receptacles with in-use covers (2) Provide LED A19 socket lamps in place of existing incandescent lamps. (3) Replace existing fluorescent fixture with LED equivalent. (4) Replace all corroded metallic boxes. 131 N:\14466-000\Reports\Draft\Appendicies\Field Inspection Reports\field report Well No.10.docx

Item 1. WELL FACILITIES INSPECTION Project: Update to the City of Dover Water Master Plan RFP 21-0013WW DATE OF INSPECTION: March 29, 2021 WELL NO.: 11 TYPE: Deep, Confined LOCATION: Crossgates AQUIFER: Piney Point DESIGN: 475 gpm @ 425’TDH new pump 2004 PRODUCES, gpm: 458 (per 2019 well report). 408 gpm @ 54 Hz observed DEPTH, ft.: 443 ELECTRIC: 480v/3PH, 75HP. Cutler Hammer VFD YEAR DRILLED: 1965 CONSTRUCTION: CHEMICAL ROOM: Brick & Block PUMP ROOM: Stick Frame w/ vinyl siding (Detachable) CHEMICAL(S) FED: Sodium Hypochlorite 13% A. ASSESSMENT 1. AREA FENCING: Yes 2. EXTERIOR CONDITION: good. 3. PUMP FACILITY: a. Pump Status: Operating b. Pump Layout: Submersible turbine pump with a tilting disc check valve, blow-off piping, air release valve with remote magnetic flow meter. All electrical and control panels are located in an adjacent room. (1) Observation: The original vertical turbine pump has been replaced with a submersible turbine pump in 2019. Exterior door and trim need painting. (2) Recommendation: Clean and paint door trim and replace metal door with corrosion resistant fiberglass door. c. Heating/Ventilation: (1) Observation: Existing roof mounted exhaust fan in the pump side of the building. An exterior wall mounted dome exhaust fan and air conditioner in the electrical and control side of the building. (2) Recommendation: None. 4. INSTRUMENTATION/CONTROLS: Siemens magnetic flowmeter and chlorine residual analyzer. The 900MHz serial licensed radio MDS 9710 is obsolete from Manufacturer as of 12/15/12. It is used to communicate facility 132 N:\14466-000\Reports\Draft\Appendicies\Field Inspection Reports\field report Well No.11.docx

Item 1. Page 2 14466.000 status include alarms and control. The City is in the process of having it replace with new MDS SD9 radio which are backward compatible with the 9710. 5. CHEMICAL FACILITY: a. System Layout: System Layout: 15-gallon Sodium hypochlorite drums with Pentair transfer pump to fill a day tank (55-gal. drum) and a LMI metering feed pump. (1) Observation: Open chemical drums vent vapors/fumes into the room. Interior wall need painting. Corrosion on bottom of exterior door. (2) Recommendation: (a) Use drum-bung fitting to seal day tank opening spaces and run vent to the outside in accordance with RSWW (Recommended Standards for Water Works 2018) Sections 5.1, paragraph 5.1.11.b. (b) Clean and paint inside walls. Replace metal door with corrosion resistant fiberglass door. b. Heating/Ventilation (1) Observation: The chemical room has a light switch-controlled exhaust fan with supply louver for negative pressure ventilation. Corrosion on fan box. (2) Recommendation: Replace fan with new fan that have corrosion resistance coating. 6. ELECTRICAL: a. Observations: (1) Two services provide power at 480V, 3 phase, and 240/120V, single phase. Meter # single phase 59 296 526 Itron Meter # three phase 40 171 802 Itron (2) Well pump is 75 Hp, 480V, 3 phase, VFD Controlled. (3) Chemical Room - All PVC conduit, no GFI receptacles, lighting fixture is fluorescent type surface mounted totally enclosed. Some metallic cover plates and screws installed are showing signs of corrosion (4) Pump Room and Panel Area - Raceway installed is a mixture of PVC, LFMC and Metallic all in fair condition, no GFI receptacles, lighting fixtures are socket type. Power panel provides 120/240-volt power, with a 100-amp main breaker and 20 Spaces. Existing Pump VFD is an Eaton SVX 9000 and is in good condition. LFMC connection from wire box to pump is broken at pump connector. (5) Electrical equipment is in good condition. b. Recommendation: (1) Provide ground fault receptacles in place of existing receptacles. (2) Provide LED A19 socket lamps in place of existing incandescent lamps. (3) Replace existing fluorescent fixture with LED equivalent. (4) Provide and or replace all receptacle covers with in-use type (5) Replace LFMC at pump connector box 133 N:\14466-000\Reports\Draft\Appendicies\Field Inspection Reports\field report Well No.11.docx

Item 1. WELL FACILITIES INSPECTION Project: Update to the City of Dover Water Master Plan RFP 21-0013WW DATE OF INSPECTION: March 29, 2021 WELL NO.: 12R TYPE: Deep, Confined LOCATION: Schutte Park AQUIFER: Piney Point DESIGN: 600 gpm @ 417’TDH new pump house 2013 PRODUCES, gpm: 600 (per 2013 well report). 490 gpm @ 55 Hz observed DEPTH, ft.: 410 ELECTRIC: 480v/3PH, 100HP. VFD Schneider Altivar 61 YEAR DRILLED: 2013 CONSTRUCTION: CHEMICAL FACILITY: Brick and Block PUMP FACILITY: Brick and Block with exterior well head CHEMICAL(S) FED: Sodium Hypochlorite 13% A. ASSESSMENT 1. AREA FENCING: Yes 2. EXTERIOR CONDITION: Good, new building. 3. PUMP FACILITY: a. Pump Status: operating b. Pump Layout: Submersible pump with check valve, magnetic flow meter, blow- off piping, surge relief valve, pressure gauge, flow switch, air/vacuum valve, and check valve. (1) Observation: Facility newly constructed in 2013 at this new location replaced the old well No.12. This facility included a standby Kohler generator with belly fuel tank. (2) Recommendation: none c. Heating/Ventilation: (1) Observation: exterior wall mounted dome fan and a wall mounted air conditioner. (2) Recommendation: none. 4. INSTRUMENTATION/CONTROLS: New Siemen SCADA system with Intra-Link 013000 communication. 5. CHEMICAL FACILITY: a. System Layout: 15-gallon Sodium hypochlorite drums with Pentair transfer pump to fill a day tank and a LMI metering feed pump. 134 N:\14466-000\Reports\Draft\Appendicies\Field Inspection Reports\field report Well No.12R.docx

Item 1. Page 2 14466.000 (1) Observation: Open chemical drums vent vapors/fumes into the room. (2) Recommendation: Use drum-bung fitting to seal day tank opening spaces and run vent to the outside in accordance with RSWW (Recommended Standards for Water Works 2018) Sections 5.1, paragraph 5.1.11.b. b. Heating/Ventilation (1) Observation: Wall mounted fan and a wall mounted air conditioner. (2) Recommendation: none 6. ELECTRICAL: a. Observations: (1) Service power at 480/277V, 3 phase, 4 wire Meter # three phase 40 495 623 Itron (2) Well house provided with 150KW diesel backup power generator with Transfer switch (2) Well pump is 100 Hp, 480V, 3 phase, VFD Controlled. (3) Chemical Room - All PVC conduit, GFI receptacles, NON-GFCI receptacles, lighting fixture is fluorescent type surface mounted totally enclosed. (4) Pump Room and Panel Area - Raceway installed is a mixture of PVC, FMC, LFMC and Metallic all in Excellent condition, some Non GFI receptacles, lighting fixtures are fluorescent type surface mounted totally enclosed. Power panels provides 480/277v and 208/120v power Via a 30 Kva transformer, with a 100-amp main breaker and 30 Spaces. Pump VFD is a Square-D type Altivar 61 and is in excellent condition. (5) Electrical equipment is in excellent condition. (6) LFMC installed through a metal vent (7) Exterior fixture wall Pack HPS b. Recommendation: (1) Provide ground fault receptacles in place of existing non-GFCI receptacles. (2) Replace existing fluorescent fixture with LED equivalent. (3) Provide and or replace all receptacle covers with in-use type (4) Provide conduit sleeve to protect LFMC installed thru metal vent (5) Replace exterior wall pack with LED equivalent 135 N:\14466-000\Reports\Draft\Appendicies\Field Inspection Reports\field report Well No.12R.docx

Item 1. WELL FACILITIES INSPECTION Project: Update to the City of Dover Water Master Plan RFP 21-0013WW DATE OF INSPECTION: March 29, 2021 WELL NO.: 13R TYPE: Deep, Confined LOCATION: Bayard Ave AQUIFER: Cheswold DESIGN: 350 gpm @ 270’TDH new pump 2009 PRODUCES, gpm: 331 (per 2014 well report) DEPTH, ft.: 238 ELECTRIC: 480v/3PH, 30HP. Cutler Hammer VFD YEAR DRILLED: 2000 CONSTRUCTION: CHEMICAL FACILITY: Split-face block PUMP FACILITY: None, exposed outside wellhead CHEMICAL(S) FED: Sodium Hypochlorite 13%, Hydrofluosilicic Acid 23% A. ASSESSMENT 1. AREA FENCING: Yes 2. EXTERIOR CONDITION: Very good. 3. PUMP FACILITY: a. Pump Status: Off b. Pump Layout: Submersible sump with pitless adapter, blow-off, pressure gauge, flow switch, air release valve, check valve and magnetic flow meter. (1) Observation: Corrosion on both doors. (2) Recommendation: Replace metal door with corrosion resistance fiberglass doors. c. Heating/Ventilation: (1) Observation: Exterior wall mounted dome supply fan with wall mounted gravity damper/louver for exhaust. (2) Recommendation: None. 4. INSTRUMENTATION/CONTROLS: Siemens magnetic flowmeter and chlorine residual analyzer. The control and communication system is located inside the abandoned Well House No. 5. The 900MHz serial licensed radio MDS 9710 is obsolete from Manufacturer as of 12/15/12. It is used to communicate facility status include alarms and control. The City is in the process of having it replace with new MDS SD9 radio which are backward compatible with the 9710. 5. CHEMICAL FACILITY: a. System Layout: 15-gallon Sodium hypochlorite drums with Pentair transfer pump to fill a day tank and LMI metering feed pump. 15-gallon hydrofluosilicic acid (fluoride) drums fed neat with a LMI metering feed pump. Electronic scale is no longer used. The State no longer require report on chemical usages. 136 N:\14466-000\Reports\Draft\Appendicies\Field Inspection Reports\field report Well No.13R.docx

Item 1. Page 2 14466.000 (1) Observation: Open chemical drums vent vapors/fumes into the room. Walls need painting. Corrosion on bottom of door. (2) Recommendation: (a) Use drum-bung fitting to seal day tank opening spaces and run vent to the outside in accordance with RSWW (Recommended Standards for Water Works 2018) Sections 5.1, paragraph 5.1.11.b. (b) Replace metal door with corrosion resistance fiberglass door. (c) Paint interior wall. b. Heating/Ventilation (1) Observation: The chemical room is positively pressurized via supply fan and with a wall mounted gravity damper/louver for exhaust. (2) Recommendation: None. The current system is City’s preferred layout. 6. ELECTRICAL: a. Observations: (1) Service at 480V, 3 phase. Meter # three phase 51 955 277 Itron (2) Well pump is 30 Hp, 480V, 3 phase, VFD Controlled with remote Non Metallic Nema 4X disconnect switch at pump head. (3) Chemical Room - All PVC conduit, no GFI receptacles, lighting fixture is fluorescent type surface mounted totally enclosed missing cover. (4) Pump Room and Panel Area - Raceway installed is a mixture of PVC, LFMC and Metallic all in good condition, no GFI receptacles, lighting fixture is fluorescent type surface mounted totally enclosed. 208/120-volt power provided by a Square D mini zone panel, Catalog #MPZ15T2F with a 40AMB on the 480V side and a 3 pole 60A secondary main breaker, 6- 1 pole, 20 A, 2- 2 pole 20A, and 2- 1 pole spaces. Existing Pump VFD is an Eaton SVX 9000 and is in good condition (5) Electrical equipment is in good condition. (6) Panel Area where VFD is located is not conditioned. b. Recommendation: (1) Provide ground fault receptacles in place of existing receptacles. (2) Replace existing fluorescent fixture with LED equivalent. (4) Provide and or replace all receptacle covers with in-use type (5) Evaluate environmental conditions in the space for Proper VFD operations. Existing Enclosure is NEMA type 1 with no filters. Due to the space conditions consider adding filters to the intakes to prevent dust and debris from entering the enclosure. 137 N:\14466-000\Reports\Draft\Appendicies\Field Inspection Reports\field report Well No.13R.docx

Item 1. WELL FACILITIES INSPECTION Project: Update to the City of Dover Water Master Plan RFP 21-0013WW DATE OF INSPECTION: March 29, 2021 WELL NO.: 14 TYPE: Deep, Confined LOCATION: Danner Farm AQUIFER: Cheswold DESIGN: 265 gpm new pump 1999 PRODUCES, gpm: 79.5 (per 2011 well report). 118 gpm observed. DEPTH, ft.: 218 ELECTRIC: 230v/3PH, 15HP. NEMA 2 Starter YEAR DRILLED: 1964 CONSTRUCTION: CHEMICAL FACILITY: Brick & Block PUMP FACILITY: Stick Frame w/ wood siding (Detachable) CHEMICAL(S) FED: Sodium Hypochlorite 13%, Hydrofluosilicic Acid 23% A. ASSESSMENT 1. AREA FENCING: Yes 2. EXTERIOR CONDITION: Building exterior trims need painting. 3. PUMP FACILITY: a. Pump Status: Operating b. Pump Layout: Submersible pump with blow- off piping, pressure gauge, flow switch, air release valve, check valve & magnetic flow meter. (1) Observation: Pressure gauge reading @ 50psi. Wall need painting. (2) Recommendation: Paint walls. c. Heating/Ventilation: (1) Observation: Air conditioner (2) Recommendation: none. 4. INSTRUMENTATION/CONTROLS: Siemens magnetic flowmeter and chlorine residual analyzer. The 900MHz serial licensed radio MDS 9710 is obsolete from Manufacturer as of 12/15/12. It is used to communicate facility status include alarms and control. The City is in the process of having it replace with new MDS SD9 radio which are backward compatible with the 9710. 5. CHEMICAL FACILITY: a. System Layout: 15-gallon Sodium hypochlorite drums with Pentair transfer pump to fill a day tank and LMI metering feed pump. 15-gallon hydrofluosilicic acid (fluoride) drums fed neat with a LMI metering feed pump. Electronic scale is no longer used. The State no longer require report on chemical usages. (1) Observation: Open chemical drums vent vapors/fumes into the room. 138 N:\14466-000\Reports\Draft\Appendicies\Field Inspection Reports\field report Well No.14.docx

Item 1. Page 2 14466.000 (2) Recommendation: (a) Use drum-bung fitting to seal day tank opening spaces and run vent to the outside in accordance with RSWW (Recommended Standards for Water Works 2018) Sections 5.1, paragraph 5.1.11.b. . b. Heating/Ventilation (1) Observation: The chemical room is positively pressurized via a side wall mounted roof type supply fan. (2) Recommendation: None. The current system is City’s preferred layout. 6. ELECTRICAL: a. Observation: (1) Three services feed the Well House a. (1) 480v 3 phase feeding 150HP pump in well House #10 pump room i. Meter # 40 171 932 Itron b. (2) 240v 3 phase service feeding 15 HP pump in pump rm i. Meter # 40 168 354 c. (3) 240/120v single phase service feeding 100 amp load center i. Meter # 57 907 097 (2) Well pump is 15 HP, 240v 3 phase, with FVNR size 2 starter (3) The VDF installed for the 150 HP pump in well house #10 is a Square-D model 58M which is out of production and is at or approaching end of life. (4) Chemical Room - All PVC conduit, no GFI receptacles, lighting fixture is fluorescent type surface mounted totally enclosed. (5) Pump/equipment Rooms - Raceway installed is a mixture of PVC, LFMC or Metallic all in fair to good condition, no GFI receptacles, lighting fixtures are socket type. (6) All equipment was found to be in fair to good condition b. Recommendation: (1) Provide GFI receptacles with in-use covers (2) Provide LED A19 socket lamps in place of existing incandescent lamps. (3) Replace existing fluorescent fixture with LED equivalent. (4) Replace existing VFD with newer model. 139 N:\14466-000\Reports\Draft\Appendicies\Field Inspection Reports\field report Well No.14.docx

Item 1. WELL FACILITIES INSPECTION Project: Update to the City of Dover Water Master Plan RFP 21-0013WW DATE OF INSPECTION: March 29, 2021 WELL NO.: 15 TYPE: Deep, Confined LOCATION: Dover Street Park AQUIFER: Cheswold DESIGN: 500 gpm @ 300’TDH new pump 2009 PRODUCES, gpm: 280 (per 2019 well report). 141 observed @ 50 hz DEPTH, ft.: 255 ELECTRIC: 480v/3PH, 50HP. Cutler Hammer VFD YEAR DRILLED: N/A CONSTRUCTION: CHEMICAL FACILITY: Split-face block PUMP FACILITY: FRP box enclose the exterior wellhead CHEMICAL(S) FED: Sodium Hypochlorite 13%, Hydrofluosilicic Acid 23% A. ASSESSMENT 1. AREA FENCING: None 2. EXTERIOR CONDITION: Good 3. PUMP FACILITY: a. Pump Status: Operating b. Pump Layout: Submersible pump with pitless adapter, air/vacuum valve, blow-off piping, pressure gauge, flow switch, air release valve, check valve and magnetic flow meter. (1) Observation: Chemical room wall need painting. (2) Recommendation: Paint chemical room walls as needed. Replace replace metal door with corrosion resistance fiberglass door. c. Heating/Ventilation: (1) Observation: Wall mounted dome exhaust fan. (2) Recommendation: None. 4. INSTRUMENTATION/CONTROLS: Siemens magnetic flowmeter and chlorine residual analyzer. The 900MHz serial licensed radio MDS 9710 is obsolete from Manufacturer as of 12/15/12. It is used to communicate facility status include alarms and control. The City is in the process of having it replace with new MDS SD9 radio which are backward compatible with the 9710. 5. CHEMICAL FACILITY: a. System Layout: 15-gallon Sodium hypochlorite drums with Pentair transfer pump to fill a day tank and LMI metering feed pump. 15-gallon hydrofluosilicic acid (fluoride) drums fed neat with a LMI metering feed pump. Electronic scale is no longer used. The State no longer require report on chemical usages. (1) Observation: Open chemical drums vent vapors/fumes into the room. 140 N:\14466-000\Reports\Draft\Appendicies\Field Inspection Reports\field report Well No.15.docx

Item 1. Page 2 14466.000 (2) Recommendation: (a) Use drum-bung fitting to seal day tank opening spaces and run vent to the outside in accordance with RSWW (Recommended Standards for Water Works 2018) Sections 5.1, paragraph 5.1.11.b. (b) Replace metal door with corrosion resistance fiberglass door. b. Heating/Ventilation (1) Observation: Observation: The chemical room is positively pressurized via supply fan and a gravity damper for exhaust. (2) Recommendation: None. The current system is City’s preferred layout. 6. ELECTRICAL: a. Observations: (1) Service at 480V, 3 phase. Meter # three phase 51 955 277 Itron (2) Well pump is 30 Hp, 480V, 3 phase, VFD Controlled with remote Non Metallic Nema 4X disconnect switch at pump head. (3) Chemical Room - All PVC conduit, no GFI receptacles, lighting fixture is fluorescent type surface mounted totally enclosed missing cover. (4) Pump Room and Panel Area - Raceway installed is a mixture of PVC, LFMC and Metallic all in good condition, no GFI receptacles, lighting fixture is fluorescent type surface mounted totally enclosed. 208/120-volt power provided by a Square D mini zone panel, Catalog #MPZ15T2F with a 40AMB on the 480V side and a 3 pole 60A secondary main breaker, 6- 1 pole, 20 A, 2- 2 pole 20A, and 2- 1 pole spaces. Existing Pump VFD is an Eaton SVX 9000 and is in good condition (5) Electrical equipment is in good condition. (6) Panel Area where VFD is located is not conditioned. b. Recommendation: (1) Provide ground fault receptacles in place of existing receptacles. (2) Replace existing fluorescent fixture with LED equivalent. (4) Provide and or replace all receptacle covers with in-use type (4) Evaluate environmental conditions in the space for Proper VFD operations. Existing Enclosure is NEMA type 1 with no filters. Due to the space conditions consider adding filters to the intakes to prevent dust and debris from entering the enclosure. 141 N:\14466-000\Reports\Draft\Appendicies\Field Inspection Reports\field report Well No.15.docx

Item 1. WELL FACILITIES INSPECTION Project: Update to the City of Dover Water Master Plan RFP 21-0013WW DATE OF INSPECTION: March 30, 2021 WELL NO.: PW1A TYPE: Shallow, Unconfined LOCATION: Chandelle AQUIFER: Columbia PRODUCES, gpm: 500 DEPTH, ft.: 70 ELECTRIC: 480v/3PH, 15HP YEAR DRILLED: 1991 CONSTRUCTION: PUMP FACILITY: Below grade Precast Valve Vault CHEMICAL(S) FED: None locally, all treatment is at the Water Treatment Plant A. ASSESSMENT 1. AREA FENCING: None 2. EXTERIOR CONDITION: Remote 3. PUMP FACILITY: a. Pump Status: Off b. Pump Layout: Submersible pump located within the precast vault with access hatches, automatic throttling/ pump check service valve controlled via maintaining the aquifer level, magnetic flow meter, pressure gauge, and air/vacuum valve. All electrical panels are located inside the vault. The control panels are located at grade. (1) Observation: Inside valve vault was very muddy, problem with occasional flooding. The vault utilizes two small sump pumps to keep dry and a high-level float for alarm. Some area of piping need painting. No ladder safety grab-bar for easier/safer access. (2) Recommendation: To keep the vault drier to avoid potential electrocution, suggest replacing the polypropylene float type sump pump level control with a more sensitive level switch to start/stop the sump pump at a lower sump water level and possibly replace the small sump pumps with large capacity pumps. Paint piping. and install a ladder safety grab-bar. c. Heating/Ventilation: (1) Observation: new unit heater (2) Recommendation: None. 142 N:\14466-000\Reports\Draft\Appendicies\Field Inspection Reports\field report Well PW1A.docx

Item 1. Page 2 14466.000 4. INSTRUMENTATION/CONTROLS: The City have a program under way to replace the throttling/ pump check service valve with regular swing check valve and use VFD to remotely control the pumping capacity. The current control and radio communication are Control Systems Interalink 01300 with MDS Transnet 900. 5. SAFETY: In general, the precast valve vault would be categorized as a confined space, therefore; all entries into the vault should be in accordance with the City of Dover’s confined space entry program. Also, wet floor should be avoided for potential electrocution. 6. ELECTRICAL: a. Observations: (1) Service at 480V, 3 phase, 200 amp Meter # three phase 46 494 363 Itron (2) Well pump is 15 Hp, 480V, 3 phase, Pump Control panel with size 2 FVNR starter. Well pump controller was deenergized at the time of the inspection (3) Well Pit - Raceway installed is a mixture of PVC, LFMC and Metallic mostly in good condition except all Metallic conduits, supports and fittings are showing corrosion, some receptacles installed are not GFCI, lighting fixture is fluorescent type surface mounted totally enclosed. Power panel 480V- 225 amp MLO- 3 pH, 5 KVA 480//240/120v enclosed Transformer, 240/120v, 12 space single phase load center 125A MLO (4) Electrical equipment is in fair to poor condition. b. Recommendation: (1) Provide ground fault receptacles in place of existing receptacles. (2) Replace existing fluorescent fixture with LED equivalent. (3) Provide and or replace all receptacle covers with in-use type (4) Replace all electrical equipment and relocate to above ground in NEMA 3R Enclosure(s). (5) Replace all metallic raceway, supports, fittings and boxes with PVC in well pit. 143 N:\14466-000\Reports\Draft\Appendicies\Field Inspection Reports\field report Well PW1A.docx

Item 1. WELL FACILITIES INSPECTION Project: Update to the City of Dover Water Master Plan RFP 21-0013WW DATE OF INSPECTION: March 30, 2021 WELL NO.: PW2A TYPE: Shallow, Unconfined LOCATION: Long Point AQUIFER: Columbia PRODUCES, gpm: 500. 443 gpm @ 31 psi observed DEPTH, ft.: 70 ELECTRIC: 480v/3PH, 15HP YEAR DRILLED: 1985 CONSTRUCTION: PUMP FACILITY: Below grade Precast Valve Vault CHEMICAL(S) FED: None locally, all treatment is at the Water Treatment Plant A. ASSESSMENT 1. AREA FENCING: None 2. EXTERIOR CONDITION: Good 3. PUMP FACILITY: a. Pump Status: on b. Pump Layout: Submersible pump located within the precast vault with access hatches, automatic throttling/ pump check service valve controlled via maintaining the aquifer level, magnetic flow meter, pressure gauge, and air/vacuum valve. Free standing electrical and control panels at grade due to flood plain location. (1) Observation: Inside valve vault was very muddy, problem with occasional flooding. The vault utilizes two small sump pumps to keep dry and a high-level float for alarm. Some area of piping need painting. No ladder safety grab-bar for easier/safer access. (2) Recommendation: To keep the vault drier to avoid potential electrocution, suggest replacing the polypropylene float type sump pump level control with a more sensitive level switch to start/stop the sump pump at a lower sump water level and possibly replace the small sump pumps with large capacity pumps. Paint piping. and install a ladder safety grab-bar. c. Heating/Ventilation: (1) Observation: unit heater (2) Recommendation: None. 144 N:\14466-000\Reports\Draft\Appendicies\Field Inspection Reports\field report Well PW2A.docx

Item 1. Page 2 14466.000 4. INSTRUMENTATION/CONTROLS: The City have a program under way to replace the throttling/ pump check service valve with regular swing check valve and use VFD to remotely control the pumping capacity. The current control and radio communication are Control Systems Interalink 01300 with MDS Transnet 900. 5. SAFETY: In general, the precast valve vault would be categorized as a confined space, therefore; all entries into the vault should be in accordance with the City of Dover’s confined space entry program. Also, wet floor should be avoided for potential electrocution. 6. ELECTRICAL: a. Observations: (1) Service at 480V, 3 phase, 200 amp Meter # three phase 46 494 373 Itron (2) Well pump is 15 Hp, 480V, 3 phase, Pump Control panel with size 2 FVNR starter in NEMA 4x Non Metallic enclosure. (3) Surface NEMA 3R Cabinet - Raceway installed is a mixture of PVC, LFMC and Metallic mostly in good condition except all Metallic conduits, supports and fittings are showing corrosion. Metallic wireway has open knockouts on the top and some signs of corrosion. Power panel 480V- 225 amp MLO- 3 pH, 5 KVA 480//240/120v enclosed Transformer, 240/120v, 12 space single phase load center 125A MLO all showing signs of mild corrosion. lighting fixture is fluorescent type surface mounted with exposed lamps (4) Well Pit - Raceway installed is a mixture of PVC, LFMC and Metallic mostly in good condition except all Metallic conduits, supports and fittings are showing corrosion, Receptacles installed are GFCI, lighting fixture is fluorescent type surface mounted totally enclosed. (4) Electrical equipment is in fair to good condition. b. Recommendation: (1) Replace existing fluorescent fixtures with enclosed LED equivalent. (2) Replace fixture in surface cabinet for safety issue if lamps are struck, they may shatter causing injury. At a minimum provide protective sleeve for each exposed fluorescent lamps (3) Provide and or replace all receptacle covers with in-use type (4) Replace all metallic raceway, supports, fittings and boxes with PVC in well pit. (5) Provide hole plugs for all unused knockouts in wireway 145 N:\14466-000\Reports\Draft\Appendicies\Field Inspection Reports\field report Well PW2A.docx

Item 1. WELL FACILITIES INSPECTION Project: Update to the City of Dover Water Master Plan RFP 21-0013WW DATE OF INSPECTION: March 30, 2021 WELL NO.: PW4B TYPE: Shallow, Unconfined LOCATION: Slaughter AQUIFER: Columbia PRODUCES, gpm: 400 DEPTH, ft.: 70 ELECTRIC: 240/120v, Single Phase, 15 HP YEAR DRILLED: 1991 CONSTRUCTION: PUMP FACILITY: Brick & Block Well House with Roof Hatch CHEMICAL(S) FED: None locally, all treatment is at the Water Treatment Plant A. ASSESSMENT 1. AREA FENCING: Yes 2. EXTERIOR CONDITION: good 3. PUMP FACILITY: a. Pump Status: Off b. Pump Layout: Submersible pump located inside the well house with roof hatch, automatic throttling/ pump check service valve controlled via maintaining the aquifer level, magnetic flow meter, pressure gauge, and air/vacuum valve. All electrical panels are also located inside the well house. (1) Observation: The well house is well maintained, and all of the equipment is in good working condition. Interior walls and piping need painting. (2) Recommendation: Paint interior walls and piping. c. Heating/Ventilation: (1) Observation: Roof mounted exhaust fan with wall mounted supply louver, and thermostat control. There is also a unit heater for freeze protection. The supply louver needs bird screen to keep out birds and small mammals. (2) Recommendation: Install corrosion resistance bird screen to the louver to keep out birds and small mammals. 4. INSTRUMENTATION/CONTROLS: The City have a program under way to replace the throttling/ pump check service valve with regular swing check valve and use VFD to remotely control the pumping capacity. The current control and radio communication are Control Systems Interalink 01300 with MDS Transnet 900. 146 N:\14466-000\Reports\Draft\Appendicies\Field Inspection Reports\field report Well PW4B.docx

Item 1. Page 2 14466.000 5. SAFETY: No safety issues. 6. ELECTRICAL: a. Observations: (1) Utility Meter #Unknown (2) Service 240/120v 3 phase, 3 wire (3) Well pump is 15 Hp, 240V, single phase, 72 FLA with size 3 FVNR starter. (4) Well House - Raceway installed is a mixture of PVC or Metallic all in good condition, not all receptacles are GFCI, lighting fixture surface mounted enclosed fluorescent. Power panel provides 120/240-volt power, with a 225-amp main breaker and 200 amp sub feed breaker to pump controller and 30 Spaces. (5) Electrical equipment is in good condition. b. Recommendation: (1) Replace existing non GFCI receptacles with GFCI type and provide in-use covers on all devices (2) Replace existing fluorescent fixtures with LED equivalent. 147 N:\14466-000\Reports\Draft\Appendicies\Field Inspection Reports\field report Well PW4B.docx

Item 1. WELL FACILITIES INSPECTION Project: Update to the City of Dover Water Master Plan RFP 21-0013WW DATE OF INSPECTION: March 30, 2021 WELL NO.: PW5A TYPE: Shallow, Unconfined LOCATION: Tarburton AQUIFER: Columbia PRODUCES, gpm: 365 gpm @ 3 psi observed. DEPTH, ft.: 70 ELECTRIC: 240/120v, Single Phase, 15 HP YEAR DRILLED: 1991 CONSTRUCTION: PUMP FACILITY: Below grade Precast Valve Vault CHEMICAL(S) FED: None locally, all treatment is at the Water Treatment Plant A. ASSESSMENT 1. AREA FENCING: None 2. EXTERIOR CONDITION: good 3. PUMP FACILITY: a. Pump Status: On b. Pump Layout: Submersible pump located within the precast vault with access hatches, automatic throttling/ pump check service valve controlled via maintaining the aquifer level, magnetic flow meter, pressure gauge, and air/vacuum valve. All electrical panels are also located inside the vault. The control panels are located at grade. (1) Observation: The vault utilizes a small sump pump to keep dry and a high-level float for alarm. Some area of the floor is wet. All control panels have been recently moved out of the vault. Some area of piping need painting. Perimeter French drain system recently installed to improve the area drainage. (2) Recommendation: To keep the vault drier to avoid potential electrocution, suggest replacing the polypropylene float type sump pump level control with a more sensitive level switch to start/stop the sump pump at a lower sump water level. Paint piping. c. Heating/Ventilation: (1) Observation: Unit heater (2) Recommendation: None. 148 N:\14466-000\Reports\Draft\Appendicies\Field Inspection Reports\field report Well PW5A.docx

Item 1. Page 2 14466.000 4. INSTRUMENTATION/CONTROLS: The City have a program under way to replace the throttling/ pump check service valve with regular swing check valve and use VFD to remotely control the pumping capacity. The current control and radio communication are Control Systems Interalink 01300 with MDS Transnet 900. 5. SAFETY: In general, the precast valve vault would be categorized as a confined space, therefore; all entries into the vault should be in accordance with the City of Dover’s confined space entry program. Also, wet floor should be avoided for potential electrocution. 6. ELECTRICAL: a. Observations: (1) Utility Meter #40 168 638 (2) Service 240/120v 3 phase, 3 wire (3) Well pump is 15 Hp, 240V, single phase, 72 FLA with size 3 FVNR starter. Showing signs of corrosion (4) Well Vault - Raceway installed is a mixture of PVC or Metallic all in Fair condition, all receptacles are not GFCI, lighting fixture surface mounted enclosed fluorescent. Power panel provides 120/240-volt power, with a 225-amp main breaker and 200-amp sub feed breaker to pump controller and 30 Spaces. (5) Electrical equipment is in fair to poor condition. b. Recommendation: (1) Replace existing receptacles with GFCI type and provide in-use covers on all devices (2) Replace existing fluorescent fixtures with LED equivalent. (3) Suggest relocating the electrical equipment to above grade NEMA 3R Cabinet 149 N:\14466-000\Reports\Draft\Appendicies\Field Inspection Reports\field report Well PW5A.docx

Item 1. WELL FACILITIES INSPECTION Project: Update to the City of Dover Water Master Plan RFP 21-0013WW DATE OF INSPECTION: March 30, 2021 WELL NO.: PW6A TYPE: Shallow, Unconfined LOCATION: Tilcon AQUIFER: Columbia PRODUCES: 368 gpm @ 5 psi observed DEPTH, ft.: 70’ ELECTRIC: 240/120v, Single Phase, 15 HP YEAR DRILLED: 1991 CONSTRUCTION: PUMP FACILITY: Below grade Precast Valve Vault CHEMICAL(S) FED: None locally, all treatment is at the Water Treatment Plant A. ASSESSMENT 1. AREA FENCING: None 2. EXTERIOR CONDITION: Good 3. PUMP FACILITY: a. Pump Status: On b. Pump Layout: Submersible pump located within the precast vault with access hatches, automatic throttling/ pump check service valve controlled via maintaining the aquifer level, magnetic flow meter, pressure gauge, and air/vacuum valve. All electrical and control panels are at grade. (1) Observation: The vault utilizes a small and a large capacity sump pumps to keep dry and a high-level float for alarm. Some area of the floor is wet. All electrical and control panels have been recently moved out of the vault. Some area of piping need painting. (2) Recommendation: To keep the vault drier to avoid potential electrocution, suggest replacing the polypropylene float type sump pump level control with a more sensitive level switch to start/stop the sump pump at a lower sump water level. Paint piping. c. Heating/Ventilation: (1) Observation: New unit heater (2) Recommendation: None. 4. INSTRUMENTATION/CONTROLS: The City have a program under way to replace the throttling/ pump check service valve with regular swing check valve and use VFD to remotely control the pumping capacity. The current control and radio communication are Control Systems Interalink 01300 with MDS Transnet 900. 150 N:\14466-000\Reports\Draft\Appendicies\Field Inspection Reports\field report Well PW6A.docx

Item 1. Page 2 14466.000 5. SAFETY: In general, the precast valve vault would be categorized as a confined space, therefore; all entries into the vault should be in accordance with the City of Dover’s confined space entry program. Also, wet floor should be avoided for potential electrocution. 6. ELECTRICAL: a. Observations: (1) Utility Meter #52 184 442 (2) Service 240/120v 3 phase, 3 wire (3) Well pump is 15 Hp, 240V, single phase, 72 FLA with size 3 FVNR starter. In surfaceNema 3R enclosure (4) Surface NEMA 3R power panel provides 120/240-volt power, with a 225-amp main breaker and 200- amp sub feed breaker to pump controller and 30 Spaces. (4) Well Vault - Raceway installed is a mixture of PVC or Metallic all in Fair condition, all receptacles are not GFCI, lighting fixture surface mounted enclosed fluorescent. (5) Electrical equipment is in good condition. b. Recommendation: (1) Replace existing receptacles with GFCI type and provide in-use covers on all devices (2) Replace existing fluorescent fixtures with LED equivalent. (3) Replace all corroded boxes and conduit remaining in the well vault. 151 N:\14466-000\Reports\Draft\Appendicies\Field Inspection Reports\field report Well PW6A.docx

Item 1. WELL FACILITIES INSPECTION Project: Update to the City of Dover Water Master Plan RFP 21-0013WW DATE OF INSPECTION: March 30, 2021 WELL NO.: PW8A TYPE: Shallow, Unconfined LOCATION: White Oak AQUIFER: Columbia PRODUCES, gpm: 300 DEPTH, ft.: 59 ELECTRIC: 480v, 3PH, 10 HP YEAR DRILLED: 1991 CONSTRUCTION: PUMP FACILITY: Brick & Block Well House with Roof Hatch CHEMICAL(S) FED: None locally, all treatment is at the Water Treatment Plant A. ASSESSMENT 1. AREA FENCING: None 2. EXTERIOR CONDITION: Good 3. PUMP FACILITY: a. Pump Status: Off b. Pump Layout: Submersible pump located inside the well house with roof hatch, automatic throttling/ pump check service valve controlled via maintaining the aquifer level, magnetic flow meter, pressure gauge, and air/vacuum valve. All electrical panels are also located inside the well house. (1) Observation: The well house is well maintained, and all of the equipment is in good working condition. Door need painting. (2) Recommendation: Paint door. c. Heating/Ventilation: (1) Observation: Ceiling mounted exhaust fan with wall mounted supply louver/damper, and thermostat control. There is also a unit heater for freeze protection (2) Recommendation: None. 4. INSTRUMENTATION/CONTROLS: The City have a program under way to replace the throttling/ pump check service valve with regular swing check valve and use VFD to remotely control the pumping capacity. The current control and radio communication are Control Systems Interalink 01300 with MDS Transnet 900. 152 N:\14466-000\Reports\Draft\Appendicies\Field Inspection Reports\field report Well PW8A.docx

Item 1. Page 2 14466.000 5. SAFETY: none. 6. ELECTRICAL: a. Observations: (1) Utility Meter #46 494 245 (2) Service 480v 3 phase, 3 wire (3) Well pump is 10 Hp, 460v, 3 phase, with size 2 FVNR starter. (4) Well House - Raceway installed is a mixture of PVC, LFMC and Metallic all in good condition, not all receptacles are GFCI, lighting fixture surface mounted enclosed fluorescent.. Power panel 480V- 225 amp MLO- 3 pH, 5 KVA 480//240/120v enclosed Transformer, 240/120v, 12 space single phase load center 125A MLO (5) Electrical equipment is in good condition. b. Recommendation: (1) Replace existing non GFCI receptacles with GFCI type and provide in-use covers on all devices (2) Replace existing fluorescent fixtures with LED equivalent. 153 N:\14466-000\Reports\Draft\Appendicies\Field Inspection Reports\field report Well PW8A.docx

Item 1. WATER TREATMENT PLANT INSPECTION Project: Update to the City of Dover Water Master Plan RFP 21-0013WW DATE OF INSPECTION: March 30, 2021 A walk-through inspection of the water treatment plant was made on this date. The purpose of the inspection was to identify the areas of the treatment plant that need improvements based on the established industrial standards and sound engineering practices. The following attendees were present at the inspection: Kate Mills City of Dover John Sisson City of Dover Dave Chung Whitman, Requardt and Associates Scott Miles Whitman, Requardt and Associates A. OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Treatment Process: a. The original treatment plant design capacity was for 5 MGD. Currently the newly installed pressure filters are designed for 3 MGD total and the current permitted Columbia Aquifer Wells have a safe capacity yield of 3.1 MGD. 154 N:\14466-000\Reports\Draft\Appendicies\Field Inspection Reports\WTP Inspection2021.docx

Item 1. Date of Inspection: March 30, 2021 Page 2 14466.000 b. The original Ozone system has been completely removed and replaced with the new pressure filtration system to treat the iron and manganese in the water. c. In order to optimize the performance of the new pressure filters, a new mixing tank has been added to the process to raise the raw water pH with lime prior to the existing intermediate pumps wet well. in addition, a new pre-chlorine feed has also been added to the intermediate pumps discharge prior to the pressure filters. d. Downstream of the new pressure filters, the original five-60,000 gal. (100,000 lbs. total) carbon absorbers remain in service for taste and odor control. e. A new 95,000 gallons Backwash tank with a 16,000 gallons residuals tank and a three bay Sand Drying Beds have been incorporated to handle the pressure filters backwash waste stream. The backwash supernatant is recycled back ahead of the pressure filters. f. The original lime feed system has been modified to include a new pneumatic transfer system to feed additional lime to the new mix tank in order to raise the well water pH prior to the pressure filters. g. The original FRP bulk sodium hypochlorite outside storage tank area has been enclosed and converted into a new sodium hypochlorite room to house and feed from 55-gallon drums. h. The original abandoned stainless-steel bulk Aqua Ammonia outside storage tank area has also been converted into an outside storage room. The original system was never put in use, primary due to the use of Chloramines treatment for system residual was not recognized by the State at the time. i. There are three-finished water pumps designed for two pumps to handle max plant capacity with third installed as a spare. j. The abandoned polyphosphate feed/storage room has been modified into a fluoride feed and storage room. Hydrofluosilicic Acid is currently used for fluoride feed and is consists of two- metering pumps with one as a standby unit, feeding from the 150-gal. drums. k. The onsite standby generator provides enough standby services for the laboratory and the office with the understanding during a power failure, if the wells do not have power, there would be no water to treat. l. Only the laboratory and the office space are air conditioned. 2. RECOMMENDATIONS: The following list of recommendations are based on our observations: a. The existing Ozone generator room is very hot with lack of sufficient ventilation to remove the heat generated by the electrical gear. It is recommended to convert/replace the existing supply fan SF-2 to an exhaust fan (keeping the ductwork in-place) and also to convert/replace exhaust fan EF-4&5 to supply fans. This will bring fresh air in down below and exhaust the hot air in the upper space out. It is also recommended to install window shades or window films to the huge glass wall to minimize the direct heat from the sun. b. Install a tepid water emergency shower and eye wash station inside the sodium hypochlorite room for personnel safety. 155 N:\14466-000\Reports\Draft\Appendicies\Field Inspection Reports\WTP Inspection2021.docx

Item 1. Date of Inspection: March 30, 2021 Page 3 14466.000 c. The floor of the new backwash tank is flat, and the iron solids settle very quick. It is recommended to slope the tank bottom toward the residual pump suction to improve solids pick-up and to minimize pigeon-hole effects at the pump suction. d. Currently, the labels on the plant influent (well water) analyzers (Fluoride, Chlorine, Turbidity, and pH) prior to the new mixing tank are labeled “Treated”. We believed this should read “Raw Water” instead. Whereas, the pH analyzer downstream of the mix tank should read “Treated” instead of “Raw Water” since lime has been added. Also, the analyzers (Turbidity, Chlorine and pH) ahead of the pressure filters should read “Treated” instead of “Raw Water”. e. Add barbed wire to the existing fence for security. The existing double gate does not appear to have sufficient size to be functional. It is recommended to install an automatic key-card control sliding gate to control access. It is also recommended to install closed circuit video cameras located at the gate and at all doors exiting the building. Additional lighting may be needed at the main gate for nighttime surveillance. 3. ELECTRICAL RECOMMENDATIONS: a. In general, it appears the majority of the electrical distribution equipment has been replaced recently and is in excellent condition. However, some equipment, devices, and fixtures remain that have now been in service for about 25 years and wear and tear has taken its toll. b. Older exit signs and emergency lights with integral batteries need servicing or replacement to make them meet the NFPA codes to provide 90 minutes of power. c. Recessed fluorescent fixtures in the Lobby, Office, Laboratory, Lunchroom Areas need to be replaced with LED equivalent fixtures. In addition, we recommend upgrading the lighting controls to meet current ASHRE 90.1 standards. d. Replace any remaining incandescent A19 socket lamps with LED equivalent. e. The duplex receptacles on the reagent shelf in the Laboratory within 6 ft of a sink are not of the ground fault interrupter type (GFI) they should be replaced with GFCI type to meet code requirements. f. Flood lights at the front of the building and all exterior wall packs are HID and should be replaced with LED equivalent. g. The pole mounted parking lot lighting fixture was on during day light hours. Replace failed local Photocell h. The SO cords to instruments on the (5) GAC tanks needs to be replaced. Insulation is cracked and pulled loose at fittings and should be replaced with LFMC raceways. Other equipment, boxes and raceways are corroded and should be replace as needed. 156 N:\14466-000\Reports\Draft\Appendicies\Field Inspection Reports\WTP Inspection2021.docx

Item 1. Date of Inspection: March 30, 2021 Page 4 14466.000 i. All existing HID high and low bay lighting fixtures should be replaced with LED equivalent fixtures. The high bay lighting fixtures in the new electrical room should be provided with a lowering device to permit plant personnel to replace lamps or LED drives when needed. j. A security fence with barb wire to control access should be provided along with closed circuit television cameras located at the gate and at all doors exiting the building. Additional lighting may be needed at the main gate for nighttime surveillance. A motorized gate with card access and a two-way Ai-phone video system with gate control should be provided to allow visitor access. k. The Exterior Generator has had a shelter/shed built around it after installation. A generator with a standard weather tight enclosure is not designed with the intent to be put indoors. We would recommend a study be performed to insure that the combustion and ventilation air requirements are being met to avoid generator damage and possible future generator failures. 157 N:\14466-000\Reports\Draft\Appendicies\Field Inspection Reports\WTP Inspection2021.docx

Item 1. Appendix C Tower Inspection Review 158

Item 1. Review and Comments on Tank Inspection Reports for The City of Dover, Delaware Performed by Corrosion Control Corp. (CCC) March, 2020 DOVER PARK 1,000,000 gal. Fluted Column Elevated (aka. “Hydropillar”) Year built: 1987 Year last painted: 2016 by CCC Inside “wet”; Inside” dry”; outside Inspection Report Recommendations: • Repair: Cleaning and Painting o Inside – None o Outside - None • Repair: Structural (metal) – None Review Comments 1. Tank was repainted by CCC but details of specification for type of cleaning and specified coating systems were not provided. No information that a one year warranty inspection was performed. 2. Tank was not drained, only portions of inside roof was visible. Report states that all interior “wet” area is in good condition. 3. Report states there were small areas of grout breaking loose. It is not stated but I therefore assume it is the support grout underneath the column base plate. No photo provided. No repair is recommended at this time. Review Recommendation 1. Photo of grout condition would have helped; any failure should be documented to show the extent. Minor repairs may halt further degradation. 2. No mention of conditions of vent, overflow, ladders, safety climb, security. 159

Item 1. WALKER ROAD 1,000,000 gal. Fluted Column Elevated (aka. “Hydropillar”) Year built: 1987 Year last painted: 2014 by CCC Inside “wet”; Inside” dry”; outside Inspection Report Recommendations: • Repair: Cleaning and Painting o Inside – None o Outside – Overcoat in 2 to 3 years • Repair: Structural (metal) - None Review Comments 1. Tank was repainted by CCC but details of specification for type of cleaning and specified coating systems were not provided. No information that a one year warranty inspection was performed. 2. Tank was not drained, only portions of inside roof was visible. Report states that all interior “wet” area is in sound condition except for minor rusting on edges of roof framing. 3. Report states there were small areas of grout breaking loose. It is not stated but I therefore assume it is the support grout underneath the column base plate. No photo provided. No repair is recommended at this time. 4. Report states that 55(sic) 55% ? of outside top coat is peeling from undercoat. 5. Report notes antennas mounted on roof and roof edge. Review Recommendation 1. Photo on grout condition would have helped; any failure should be documented to show the extent. Minor repairs may halt further degradation. 2. The failure of the top coat estimated to be on 55% of the entire exterior seems like a lot to be let go for 2 to 3 years. If this is true I would think the City would not want this unsightly condition with the possibility of paint chips floating in the air. Could this be a typo error, the 5 and the % are on same key. 3. No mention of conditions of vent, overflow, ladders, safety climb, security. 4. No detailed information provided on the antennas of how they might affect the painting. 160

Item 1. GARRISON OAK 1,500,000 gal Composite Elevated Year built: 2016 Year last painted: 2016 new construction Inspection Report Recommendations: • Repair: Cleaning and Painting o Inside – None o Outside - None • Repair: Structural (metal) - None Review Comments 1. Report states there were small areas of grout breaking loose. 2. Tank was not drained, only portions of inside roof was visible. Report states that all interior “wet” area is in good condition except for minor rusting on edges of roof framing. 3. Report notes antennas mounted on roof and roof edge. Review Recommendation 1. Photo of grout location and condition would have helped. Composite tanks do not have base plates and therefore are not grouted. 2. No mention of conditions of vent, overflow, ladders, safety climb, security. 3. No detailed information provided on the antennas and cables and how they might affect future painting. 161

Item 1. McKEE ROAD 1,000,000 gal. Column Elevated Year built: 1974 Year last painted: 2012 by CCC Inside “wet”; Inside” dry”; outside Inspection Report Recommendations: • Repair: Cleaning and Painting o Inside – None o Outside – None • Repair: Structural (metal) - None Review Comments 1. Tank was repainted by CCC but details of specification for type of cleaning and specified coating systems were not provided. No information that a one year warranty inspection was performed. 2. Report states there is minor surface cracking of grout under column base plates 3. There is also minor surface cracking on column concrete piers 4. Valve pit has 1 to 2 inches of water on floor 5. Tank was not drained, only portions of inside roof was visible. Report states that all interior “wet” area is in sound condition except for minor rusting on edges of roof framing and lap seams. 6. Top portion of ladder was visible and showed spot rusting of rungs. 7. Outside coating exhibits chalking but judged to be in good condition. 8. Report notes there are three cell carriers on the tank; will create difficult repainting situation. Review Recommendation 1. No photos to show concrete and grout cracking condition. No mention if hollow sounding test performed to indicate deterioration. 2. Valve pit was noted to have 1 to 2 inches of standing water on floor. Report states that no pipes/valves are leaking. No other possible source of leaking investigated. 3. Photos show bolted covers over roof antenna cables. No mention of the condition of roof coating under the covers. No suggestions offered on means to proceed with future painting. 4. No mention of conditions of vent, overflow, safety climb, security. 162

Item 1. AEROPARK 250,000 gal. Column Elevated Year built: Re-erected on site 1993 Year last painted: 2014 by CCC Inside; Outside Inspection Report Recommendations: • Repair: Cleaning and Painting o Inside – None o Outside – None • Repair: Structural (metal) - None Review Comments 1. Tank was repainted by CCC but details of specification for type of cleaning and specified coating systems were not provided. No information that a one year warranty inspection was performed. 2. Report states inside coating is in sound condition with minor rusting on roof framing. Outside coating is judged to be still protecting the steel but do not recommend overcoating existing system in the future. 3. Tank does not have inside ladder. 4. Tank has cellular antennas on roof. Review Recommendation 1. No recommendation given when tank should be scheduled for refurbishing and suggested coatings. 2. No recommendation for installing interior shell ladder for use in servicing tank. 3. No mention of conditions of vent, overflow, ladders, safety climb, security. 4. Tank was re-erected on current site in 1993. Is there information when tank was originally built? 5. No confirmation is noted that tank ladders, manholes and roof openings meet current OSHA standards. 163

Item 1. BAYARD AVE. 250,000 gal. Column Elevated Year built: 1955 Year last painted: 2011 by CCC Inside “wet”; Inside” dry”; outside Inspection Report Recommendations: • Repair: Cleaning and Painting o Inside – None o Outside – None • Repair: Structural (metal) - None Review Comments 1. Tank was repainted by CCC but details of specification for type of cleaning and specified coating systems were not provided. No information that a one year warranty inspection was performed. 2. Prior repairs to the column concrete piers are failing. 3. Photo shows tank to have interior center overflow pipe without any top support rods to shell. 4. It is noted that the tank has an inside ladder but photo shows Tank has no interior ladder. 5. Tank was not drained, only portions of inside roof was visible. Report states that all interior “wet” area is in sound condition except for minor rusting on edges of roof framing. 6. Tank has significant number of cell carriers Review Recommendations 1. Tank was repainted by CCC but details of specification for type of cleaning and specified coating systems were not provided. No information that a one year warranty inspection was performed. 2. No confirmation is noted that tank ladders, manholes and roof openings meet current OSHA standards. 3. No mention of conditions of vent, overflow, ladders, safety climb, security. 4. Report says that no structural repairs or painting are recommended at this time. It appears though that the condition of the piers should be reevaluated. Also, I have concerns about the integrity of the free standing overflow pipe inside the bowl. 5. The condition of the antenna and cable supports and the portion of roof plate were not fully described. 164

Item 1. GENERAL FOODS 250,000 gal. Column Elevated Year built: 1955 Year last painted: 2009 inside by CCC (overcoat) 2009 outside by CCC (overcoat) Inspection Report Recommendations: • Repair: Cleaning and Painting o Inside – 2 to 3 years o Outside – 2 to 3 years • Repair: Structural (metal) - None Review Comments 1. Tank was repainted by CCC but details of specification for type of cleaning and specified coating systems were not provided 2. Recommendation is to fully remove inside and outside coating systems. 3. Noted minor surface cracking on concrete column piers. 4. Significant number of cell phone carriers on the tank 5. Tank interior was not drained 6. The condition of the outside paint is judged to be poor on areas with scattered degree of spot rusting showing light to medium rusting to extreme metal loss on anchor bolts. 7. Inside paint was merely overcoated at last painting and is recommended for full removal and new system, description not noted in the report. Review Recommendation 1. With the recommendation for refurbishing this tank, no analytical laboratory test report for lead and chromates from paint chips was performed and submitted with the inspection report. 2. In order to properly paint and repair this tank all cellular cables and equipment have to be removed by the cellular companies. Also, equipment shelters under or adjacent to the tank have to be protected from any possible damage during the surface preparation and painting phases. All cables and antennas must be moved to a temporary pole for the duration of all work. The City must inform the carriers well in advance. 3. No detailed description is supplied of the current conditions of vent, overflow, ladders, safety climb, and tank security. 4. Tank was built in 1955. No information supplied that during past refurbishing work that certain appurtenances i.e. tank ladders, manholes, roof openings platforms and handrails were brought up to current OSHA Standards. 165

Item 1. Appendix D Model Calibration 166

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER, DE UNIDIRECTIONAL FLOW TESTING PLAN APRIL 2021 Equipment: • Pitot Gauge / Flow Diffuser (1) • 2.5” Hydrant Cap with Pressure Gauge (2) UDF Procedure: 1. Notify customers of Fire Flow/Hydrant flushing 2. Start with Test #1. Close valve(s) indicated on map. 3. Install hydrant caps and pressure gauges on Residual Hydrant #1 and #2. 4. Open hydrants and bleed air from column. 5. Flush Flow Hydrant to remove sediment. Install pitot gauge / diffuser, and open hydrant fully. 6. Record flow at Flow hydrant, and pressures at Residual Hydrants once pressure and flow is stable. 7. Close all hydrants, remove equipment, open valve(s) closed in Step #2. 8. Proceed to next test. GENERAL NOTES 167

Item 1. CITY OF DOVER, DE WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN HYDRAULIC EVALUATION Field Hydrant Testing Test #: __________________________ Personnel: ______________________________ Location: ________________________ _______________________________________ Date: ___________________________ _______________________________________ Time: ___________________________ Hydrant Outlet Flowed: 2½” 4” (circle) Main Size: _______________________ (in) Gauge ID: _______________________________ Pre-Test Pressure: ________________ (psi) Residual Pressure: ________________ (psi) Hydrant Flow: ____________________ (gpm) Duration of Flow: _________________ (min) Comments: ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Flow Residual Residual Hydrant Hydrant 1 Hydrant 2 Flow Meter Pressure Pressure Gauge or Gauge or Recorder Recorder Closed Valve or Dead-end Line Flow Direction Procedure: 1. Measure Pressure at flow hydrant prior to test. 2. Open hydrant, Notify other personnel. 3. Read flow meter when a steady flow rate is reached. 168

Item 1. Test #: 1 Location: College Rd between Kenton Rd and Oakmont Dr Main Size: 12-inch Material/Age: Cast Iron / 1969 PROCEDURE MAP Fire Hydrant Table Fire Hydrant Number Fire Hydrant Location Test Use 302 College Rd, noted above Flow hydrant 301 College Rd, noted above Residual 1 299 College Rd, noted above Residual 2 Valves to be closed: Valves to be closed as noted above. 169

Item 1. 170

Item 1. 171

Item 1. 172

Item 1. Test #: 2 Location: Denneys Rd between Carlisle Dr and Kenton Rd Main Size: 12-inch Material/Age: Ductile Iron / 1997 PROCEDURE MAP Fire Hydrant Table Fire Hydrant Number Fire Hydrant Location Test Use 147E Denneys Rd, noted above Flow hydrant 147F Denneys Rd, noted above Residual 1 147H Denneys Rd, noted above Residual 2 Valves to be closed: Valves to be closed as noted above. 173

Item 1. Test #: 3 Location: Stoney Rd between Forrest Ave and Tallowick Ln Main Size: 8-inch Material/Age: Ductile Iron / 1984 PROCEDURE MAP Fire Hydrant Table Fire Hydrant Number Fire Hydrant Location Test Use 381 Stoney Rd, noted above Flow hydrant 382 Stoney Rd, noted above Residual 1 384 Stoney Rd, noted above Residual 2 Valves to be closed: Valves to be closed as noted above. 174

Item 1. 175

Item 1. 176

Item 1. 177

Item 1. Test #: 4 Location: North Halsey Rd between Division and White Oak Rd Main Size: 6-inch Material/Age: Cast Iron / 1963 PROCEDURE MAP Fire Hydrant Table Fire Hydrant Number Fire Hydrant Location Test Use 573 North Halsey Rd, noted above Flow hydrant 572 North Halsey Rd, noted above Residual 1 570 North Halsey Rd, noted above Residual 2 Valves to be closed: Valves to be closed as noted above. 178

Item 1. 179

Item 1. 180

Item 1. 50 181

Item 1. Test #: 5 Location: Kesselring Ave between Alder Rd and Fiddlers Green Main Size: 8-inch Material/Age: Cast Iron / 1963 PROCEDURE MAP Fire Hydrant Table Fire Hydrant Number Fire Hydrant Location Test Use 1150 Kesselring Ave, noted above Flow hydrant 1151 Kesselring Ave, noted above Residual 1 1152 Kesselring Ave, noted above Residual 2 Valves to be closed: Valves to be closed as noted above. 182

Item 1. 183

Item 1. 184

Item 1. 55 185

City of Dover, Delaware Appendix Water Master Plan Draft Item 1. June 2021 Hydrant: 12 Static Residual Hydrant: 166 Static Residual Field Measurement 54 51 Field Measurement 49 47 Model Measurement 57.08 53.8 Model Measurement 47.75 45.36 Date: Fall 2019 Time: 11:40 AM Date: Summer 2018 Time: 1:55 PM Hydrant 12 Calibration Hydrant 166 Calibration H 12 Residual H 166 Residual H 12 Static H 166 Static 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Model Measured Model Measured Hydrant: 107 Static Residual Hydrant: 195 Static Residual Field Measurement 48 47 Field Measurement 50 40 Model Measurement 48.85 46.37 Model Measurement 50.93 45.25 Date: Spring 2018 Time: 10:38 AM Date: Fall 2017 Time: 1:38 PM Hydrant 107 Calibration Hydrant 195 Calibration H 107 Residual H 195 Residual H 107 Static H 195 Static 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Model Measured Model Measured Hydrant: 164G Static Residual Hydrant: 225 Static Residual Field Measurement 47 35 Field Measurement 44 42 Model Measurement 42.92 38.7 Model Measurement 43.03 40.08 Date: Summer 2018 Time: 7:55 AM Date: Fall 2017 Time: 2:15 PM Hydrant 164G Calibration Hydrant 225 Calibration H 164G Residual H 225 Residual H 164G Static H 225 Static 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Model Measured Model Measured 186

City of Dover, Delaware Appendix Water Master Plan Draft Item 1. June 2021 Hydrant: 546 Static Residual Hydrant: 726 Static Residual Field Measurement 61 56 Field Measurement 52 47 Model Measurement 65.69 62.21 Model Measurement 53.29 47.71 Date: Spring 2019 Time: 1:30 PM Date: Fall 2018 Time: 1:40 PM Hydrant 546 Calibration Hydrant 726 Calibration H 546 Residual H 726 Residual H 546 Static H 726 Static 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Model Measured Model Measured Hydrant: 597 Static Residual Hydrant: 1090 Static Residual Field Measurement 58 57 Field Measurement 53 52 Model Measurement 64.07 63 Model Measurement 55.9 53.54 Date: Fall 2019 Time: 12:40 PM Date: Fall 2019 Time: 11:00 AM Hydrant 597 Calibration Hydrant 1090 Calibration H 597 Residual H 1090 Residual H 597 Static H 1090 Static 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Model Measured Model Measured Hydrant: 719 Static Residual Hydrant: 1249 Static Residual Field Measurement 57 53 Field Measurement 47 46 Model Measurement 61.28 55.96 Model Measurement 49.26 46.41 Date: Spring 2019 Time: 1:45 PM Date: Spring 2018 Time: 11:35 AM Hydrant 719 Calibration Hydrant 1249 Calibration H 719 Residual H 1249 Residual H 719 Static H 1249 Static 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Model Measured Model Measured 187

City of Dover, Delaware Appendix Water Master Plan Draft Item 1. June 2021 Hydrant: 1518 Static Residual Hydrant: 1606 Static Residual Field Measurement 58 57 Field Measurement 58 57 Model Measurement 62.19 61.43 Model Measurement 62.49 60.52 Date: Fall 2018 Time: 1:07 PM Date: Fall 2019 Time: 1:25 PM Hydrant 1518 Calibration Hydrant 1606 Calibration H 1518 Residual H 1606 Residual H 1518 Static H 1606 Static 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Model Measured Model Measured Hydrant: 1574 Static Residual Hydrant: 1684 Static Residual Field Measurement 54 51 Field Measurement 54 52 Model Measurement 56.41 51.26 Model Measurement 58.23 57.04 Date: Smr 2018 Time: 7:35 AM Date: Fall 1018 Time: 1:20 PM Hydrant 1574 Calibration Hydrant 1684 Calibration H 1574 Residual H 1684 Residual H 1574 Static H 1684 Static 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Model Measured Model Measured Hydrant: 1591 Static Residual Hydrant: 1702 Static Residual Field Measurement 57 49 Field Measurement 61 54 Model Measurement 59.96 52.91 Model Measurement 65.77 62.6 Date: Spring 2019 Time: 2:07 PM Date: Fall 2019 Time: 1:10 PM Hydrant 1591 Calibration Hydrant 1702 Calibration H 1591 Residual H 1702 Residual H 1591 Static H 1702 Static 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Model Measured Model Measured 188

Item 1. Appendix E Model Operational Data 189

Item 1. Diurnal Curve 1.4 1.2 1 Demand Multiplier 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Hour 190

Pump Rule Control Item 1. GeneralFoods NORMAL ENABLED Date: 01/12/16 McKee NORMAL ENABLED Date: 01/12/16 Start Stop Step Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Start Stop Step Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 24.00 26.00 1 10 7 10 7 10 7 10 36.60 38.60 1 10 7 10 7 10 7 10 23.80 25.80 2 2 10 2 10 2 10 2 36.40 38.40 2 2 10 2 10 2 10 2 23.60 25.60 3 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 36.20 38.20 3 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 23.40 25.40 4 15 4 4 6 4 4 15 36.00 38.00 4 15 4 4 6 4 4 15 23.20 25.20 5 4 6 9 3 9 6 4 35.80 37.80 5 4 6 9 3 9 6 4 23.00 25.00 6 13R 11 11 4 11 11 13R 35.60 37.60 6 13R 11 11 4 11 11 13R 22.80 24.80 7 3 15 15 9 15 15 3 35.40 37.40 7 3 15 15 9 15 15 3 22.60 24.60 8 9 13R 13R 11 13R 13R 9 35.20 37.20 8 9 13R 13R 11 13R 13R 9 22.40 24.40 9 11 3 3 15 3 3 11 35.00 37.00 9 11 3 3 15 3 3 11 22.20 24.20 10 9 13R 9 34.80 36.80 10 9 13R 9 22.00 24.00 11 ~ 48 Hz 34.60 36.60 11 ~ 48 Hz 21.80 23.80 12 ~ 51 Hz 34.40 36.40 12 ~ 51 Hz 21.60 23.60 13 ~ 54 Hz 34.20 36.20 13 ~ 54 Hz 21.40 23.40 14 ~ 57 Hz 34.00 36.00 14 ~ 57 Hz 21.20 23.20 15 ~ 60 Hz 33.80 35.80 15 ~ 60 Hz WalkerRd NORMAL ENABLED Date: 01/12/16 Wells Normally in HAND DISABLED Date: 01/12/16 Start Stop Step Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Start Stop Step Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 33.80 35.80 1 10 7 10 7 10 7 10 ON 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 33.60 35.60 2 2 10 2 10 2 10 2 13.80 OFF 2 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 33.40 35.40 3 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 ON 3 8R 8R 8R 8R 8R 8R 8R 33.20 35.20 4 15 4 4 6 4 4 15 ON 4 12R 12R 12R 12R 12R 12R 12R 33.00 35.00 5 4 6 9 3 9 6 4 ON 5 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 32.80 34.80 6 13R 11 11 4 11 11 13R 6 32.60 34.60 7 3 15 15 9 15 15 3 BLUE: Controlled by VFD, starts @ 45 Hz (min flow), 32.40 34.40 8 9 13R 13R 11 13R 13R 9 speed increases w/ Steps 11-15. 32.20 34.20 9 11 3 3 15 3 3 11 RED: No VFD, starts & runs at 100% at Step indicated. 32.00 34.00 10 9 13R 9 GREEN: VFD controlled manually at present (study). 31.80 33.80 11 ~ 48 Hz BLACK: Out of Service 31.60 33.60 12 ~ 51 Hz 12 31.40 33.40 13 ~ 54 Hz 13 31.20 33.20 14 ~ 57 Hz 14 31.00 33.00 15 ~ 60 Hz 15 191

Item 1. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS # FY 2022 % # FY 2023 % # FY 2024 % # FY 2025 % # FY 2026 % State Street (Division - Pennsylvania) 1 965,300 1 520,500 GROWTH [capacity upsize 8"] 153,483 15.9% 82,760 15.9% NON-GROWTH [base 4"] 811,817 84.1% 437,741 84.1% Survey for Future Projects 2 75,000 GROWTH [capacity upsize 8"] 3,750 5.0% NON-GROWTH [base 4"] 71,250 95.0% West Street East Alley (William Street to Walker Road) 2 410,000 GROWTH [capacity upsize 8"] 16,810 4.1% NON-GROWTH [base 4"] 393,190 95.9% Fairview Ave East Alley (William Street to Walker Road) 1 420,000 GROWTH [capacity upsize 8"] 18,480 4.4% NON-GROWTH [base 4"] 401,520 95.6% Fairview Ave West Alley (William Street to Walker Road) 1 420,000 GROWTH [capacity upsize 8"] 18,480 4.4% NON-GROWTH [base 4"/6"] 401,520 95.6% N. Bradford Street (Walker to Ross) 1 140,000 GROWTH [capacity upsize 8"] 9,100 6.5% NON-GROWTH [base 4"] 130,900 93.5% Queen Street (William St. to Loockerman) 1 632,400 GROWTH [capacity upsize 8"] 27,826 4.4% NON-GROWTH [base 4"] 604,574 95.6% New Street (William St. to Loockerman) 1 632,400 GROWTH [capacity upsize 8"] 27,826 4.4% NON-GROWTH [base 4""] 604,574 95.6% Bradford Street (Division to Loockerman) 1 278,000 GROWTH [capacity upsize 8"] 72,558 26.1% NON-GROWTH [base 4"/6"] 205,442 73.9% Kings Highway (Division to Loockerman) 1 238,000 GROWTH [capacity upsize 8"] 20,706 8.7% NON-GROWTH [base 4"] 217,294 91.3% Reed Street (West Street to State Street) 1 284,000 GROWTH [capacity upsize 8"] 24,140 8.5% NON-GROWTH [base 4"] 259,860 91.5% Queen Street (North Street to Water Street) 1 150,000 GROWTH [capacity upsize 8"] 9,000 6.0% NON-GROWTH [base 4""] 141,000 94.0% Bank Lane (West Street to The Green) 1 300,000 GROWTH [capacity upsize 8"] 33,900 11.3% NON-GROWTH [base 4"/6"] 266,100 88.7% 192

Item 1. Appendix F Hydraulic Modeling Results 193

Legend Item 1. Tank Junction MIN_PRESS Min. Pressure (PSI) Pump and Well House ^ less than 20.00 P 20.00 ~ 35.00 Water Treatment Garrison Oak Tank ^ 35.00 ~ 40.00 Plant Water Treatment Plant McKee Rd Tank WTP 40.00 ~ 50.00 WTP ^ 50.00 ~ 70.00 P Dover Park Tank Well 7 ^ Pipe Walker Rd Tank ^ MAX_VELOC Max. Velocity (ft/s) Well 1 P less than 1.00 Bayard Ave Tank ^ 1.00 ~ 2.00 P P Well 8R P Well 2 2.00 ~ 3.00 P Well 4 Well 9 ^ General Foods P 3.00 ~ 4.00 P Tank Well 15 Well 3 P 4.00 ~ 5.00 P P Aero Park Tank Well 14 Well 12R Well 10 ^ P Well 11 P Well 6 / City of Dover, Delaware Appendix F.1 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Water System Master Plan 2019 System Minimum Pressure Miles and Maximum Water Velocity 194

Item 1. 2019 MDD TANK LEVELS City of Dover, DE Appendix F Water Master Plan Draft June 2021 Walker Road Tank Bayard Ave Tank 100 100 90 90 80 80 Percent Full (%) Percent Full (%) 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Time (hr) Time (hr) Dover Park Tank McKee Rd Tank 100 100 90 90 80 80 Percent Full (%) Percent Full (%) 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Time (hr) Time (hr) 195

Item 1. 2019 MDD TANK LEVELS City of Dover, DE Appendix F Water Master Plan Draft June 2021 General Foods Tank Garrison Oak Tank 100 100 90 90 80 80 Percent Full (%) Percent Full (%) 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Time (hr) Time (hr) Aero Park Tank 120 100 Percent Full (%) 80 60 40 20 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Time (hr) 196

Item 1. Legend Junction HYD_AVL_FL Hydrant Flow Available (gpm) less than 1,900.00 Garrison Oak Tank 1,900.00 ~ 2,000.00 Water Treatment Plant 2,000.00 ~ 10,000.00 McKee Rd Tank WTP Tank P Dover Park Tank Well 7 Walker Rd Tank Pump and Well House P Well 1 P Bayard Ave Tank Water Treatment P P Plant P P Well 8R Well 2 Well 4 Well 9 WTP General Foods P P Tank Well 15 Well 3 P P P Aero Park Tank Well 14 Well 12R Well 10 P Well 11 P Well 6 / Appendix F.2 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 City of Dover, Delaware 2019 Max. Day Miles Water System Master Plan Steady State Fire Flow (6 ft/s) 197

Item 1. Hydrant Pressure Hydrant Available Critical Pipe ID at Critical Pipe Velocity at ID Static Demand (gpm) Static Pressure (psi) Static Head (ft) Fire-Flow Demand (gpm) Residual Pressure (psi) at Available Flow Flow (gpm) Available Flow Available Flow (ft/s) (psi) J12706 0.00 51.51 148.89 2,000.00 44.36 3,711.36 31.54 P1049 6.01 J13954 1.77 53.53 143.53 2,000.00 -37.14 1,007.27 27.67 4404 6 J18624 0.00 46.53 142.39 2,000.00 36.92 1,461.23 40.87 P5085 6.04 J19914 0.00 41.11 142.87 2,000.00 24.11 1,745.73 27.78 P6435 6 J24268 0.55 48.06 143.91 2,000.00 -6.59 682.31 40.26 P8017 6.01 J6626 3.29 51.93 147.84 2,000.00 18.92 1,820.85 24.18 3431 6 Hydrant Pressure Hydrant Available Critical Pipe ID at Critical Pipe Velocity at ID Static Demand (gpm) Static Pressure (psi) Static Head (ft) Fire-Flow Demand (gpm) Residual Pressure (psi) at Available Flow Flow (gpm) Available Flow Available Flow (ft/s) (psi) J12706 0 51.51 148.89 2,000.00 44.36 2,474.24 41.4 P1049 4.02 J13954 1.77 53.53 143.53 2,000.00 -37.14 671.51 41.07 4404 4 J18624 0 46.53 142.39 2,000.00 36.92 960.88 43.66 P5085 4 J19914 0 41.11 142.87 2,000.00 24.11 1,163.82 34.63 P6435 4 J24268 0.55 48.06 143.91 2,000.00 -6.59 454.88 44.22 P8017 4.01 J6626 3.29 51.93 147.84 2,000.00 18.92 1,213.90 38.39 3431 4.01 198

Item 1. Legend Junction Min. Pressure (PSI) MIN_PRESS less than 20.00 ^ 20.00 ~ 30.00 30.00 ~ 40.00 Garrison Oak Tank ^ 40.00 ~ 50.00 Water Treatment McKee Rd Tank Plant 50.00 ~ 80.00 ^ WTP Pipe Max. Velocity (ft/s) MAX_VELOC P Dover Park Tank Well 7 ^ less than 1.00 Walker Rd Tank ^ 1.00 ~ 2.00 P 2.00 ~ 3.00 Well 1 Bayard Ave Tank 3.00 ~ 4.00 ^ 4.00 ~ 30.00 P P P Well 8R Well 2 P Tank Well 4 Well 9 ^ General Foods P P Tank Well 15 Well 3 P Pump and Well P P Well 14 Aero Park Tank Well 12R Well 10 ^ House P P Well 11 Water Treatment Plant WTP P Well 6 / Appendix F.3 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 City of Dover, Delaware 2019 J15534 Fire Flow Miles Water System Master Plan Minimum Pressure and Maximum Water Velocity 199

Item 1. Legend Junction Min. Pressure (PSI) MIN_PRESS less than 20.00 20.00 ~ 30.00 30.00 ~ 40.00 Garrison Oak Tank 40.00 ~ 50.00 Water Treatment Plant McKee Rd Tank 50.00 ~ 80.00 WTP Pipe Max. Velocity (ft/s) MAX_VELOC P Well 7 Dover Park Tank less than 1.00 Walker Rd Tank 1.00 ~ 2.00 P 2.00 ~ 3.00 Well 1 Bayard Ave Tank 3.00 ~ 4.00 4.00 ~ 30.00 P P Well 8R Well 2 Tank P Well 4 P Well 9 P P General Foods Well 15 Well 3 Tank Pump and Well P P P Well 14 Aero Park Tank Well 10 House Well 12R P P Water Treatment Well 11 Plant WTP P Well 6 / Appendix F.4 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 City of Dover, Delaware 2019 J15662 Fire Flow Miles Water System Master Plan Minimum Pressure and Maximum Water Velocity 200

Item 1. Legend Junction Min. Pressure (PSI) MIN_PRESS less than 20.00 ^ 20.00 ~ 30.00 30.00 ~ 40.00 Garrison Oak Tank ^ 40.00 ~ 50.00 Water Treatment McKee Rd Tank Plant 50.00 ~ 80.00 ^ WTP Pipe Max. Velocity (ft/s) MAX_VELOC P Dover Park Tank Well 7 ^ less than 1.00 Walker Rd Tank ^ 1.00 ~ 2.00 P 2.00 ~ 3.00 Well 1 Bayard Ave Tank 3.00 ~ 4.00 ^ 4.00 ~ 30.00 P P Well 8R Well 2 Tank P Well 4 P Well 9 ^ General Foods P P Tank Well 15 Well 3 Pump and Well P P P Well 14 Aero Park Tank House Well 12R Well 10 ^ P P Water Treatment Well 11 Plant WTP P Well 6 / Appendix F.5 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 City of Dover, Delaware 2019 J11512 Fire Flow Miles Water System Master Plan Minimum Pressure and Maximum Water Velocity 201

Legend Item 1. Junction MAX_QUAL Max. Water Age (hr) less than 48.00 Garrison Oak Tank 48.00 ~ 124.00 ^ Water Treatment 124.00 ~ 168.00 McKee Rd Tank ^ Plant >WTP 168.00 ~ 240.00 Dover Park Tank Tank > ^ P Well 7 Walker Rd Tank MAX_QUAL Max. Water Age (hr) ^ > ^ less than 48.00 >P Well 1 ^ Bayard Ave Tank ^ 48.00 ~ 120.00 > > P > P ^ 120.00 ~ 168.00 Well 8R Well 2 >P ^ Well 4 > P Well 9 ^ 168.00 ~ 240.00 General Foods Tank Well 15 >> P P Well 3 ^ P Aero Park Tank Pump and Well > P > Well 14 Well 10 P Well 12R House P > P Well 11 Water Treatment Plant WTP >Well 6 P 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles / City of Dover, Delaware Water System Master Plan Appendix F.6 2019 System Water Age 202

Item 1. 2019 ADD TANK LEVELS City of Dover, DE Appendix F Water Master Plan Draft June 2021 Walker Road Tank Bayard Ave Tank 100 100 90 90 80 80 Percent Full (%) Percent Full (%) 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time (hr) Time (hr) Dover Park Tank McKee Road Tank 100 100 90 90 80 80 Percent Full (%) Percent Full (%) 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time (hr) Time (hr) 203

Item 1. 2019 ADD TANK LEVELS City of Dover, DE Appendix F Water Master Plan Draft June 2021 General Foods Tank Garrison Oak Tank 100 100 90 90 80 80 Percent Full (%) Percent Full (%) 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time (hr) Time (hr) Aero Park Tank 100 90 80 Percent Full (%) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time (hr) 204

City of Dover, DE Appendix F Water Master Plan Draft 2019 ADD TANK WATER AGE July 2021 Item 1. Walker Rd Tank Bayard Ave Tank 250 250 200 200 Water Age Water Age 150 150 100 100 50 50 0 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time (hr) Time (hr) Dover Park Tank McKee Road Tank 250 250 200 200 Water Age Water Age 150 150 100 100 50 50 0 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time (hr) Time (hr) 205

City of Dover, DE Appendix F Water Master Plan Draft 2019 ADD TANK WATER AGE July 2021 Item 1. General Foods Tank Garrison Oak Tank 250 250 200 200 Water Age Water Age 150 150 100 100 50 50 0 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time (hr) Time (hr) Aero Park Tank 250 200 Water Age 150 100 50 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time (hr) 206

Item 1. Legend Pipe Max. Velocity (ft/s) MAX_VELOC less than 1.00 ^ 1.00 ~ 2.00 2.00 ~ 3.00 Garrison Oak Tank 3.00 ~ 4.00 ^ Water Treatment Plant 4.00 ~ 5.00 McKee Rd Tank ^ WTP Junction Min. Pressure (PSI) MIN_PRESS P Dover Park Tank Well 7 ^ less than 20.00 Walker Rd Tank 20.00 ~ 35.00 ^ P 35.00 ~ 40.00 Well 1 Bayard Ave Tank 40.00 ~ 50.00 ^ 50.00 ~ 70.00 P P Well 8R Well 2 Water Treatment P Well 4 P Well 9 Plant ^ General Foods P P Tank WTP Well 15 Well 3 P Pump and P Well 12R P Well 10 Well 14 Aero Park Tank ^ Well House P P Well 11 Tank P Well 6 / Appendix F.7 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 City of Dover, Delaware 2025 System Minimum Pressure Miles Water System Master Plan and Maximum Water Velocity 207

Item 1. 2025 MDD TANK LEVELS City of Dover, DE Appendix F Water Master Plan Draft June 2021 Walker Rd Tank Bayard Ave Tank 100 100 90 90 80 80 Percent Full (%) Percent Full (%) 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Time (hr) Time (hr) Dover Park Tank McKee Road Tank 100 100 90 90 80 80 Percent Full (%) Percent Full (%) 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Time (hr) Time (hr) 208

Item 1. 2025 MDD TANK LEVELS City of Dover, DE Appendix F Water Master Plan Draft June 2021 General Foods Tank Garrison Oak Tank 100 100 90 90 80 80 Percent Full (%) Percent Full (%) 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Time (hr) Time (hr) Aero Park Tank 100 90 80 Percent Full (%) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Time (hr) 209

Item 1. Legend Junction HYD_AVL_FL Hydrant Flow Available (gpm) ^ less than 2,000.00 Garrison Oak Tank 2,000.00 ~ 10,000.00 ^ Water Treatment Tank Plant McKee Rd Tank WTP ^ Pump and Well P Dover Park Tank Well 7 ^ House Walker Rd Tank ^ P P Well 1 Water Treatment Bayard Ave Tank Plant ^ WTP P Well 8R P Well 2 P P Well 4 Well 9 ^ P General Foods P Tank Well 15 Well 3 P P P Aero Park Tank Well 14 Well 12R Well 10 ^ P Well 11 P Well 6 / Appendix F.8 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 City of Dover, Delaware 2025 Max. Day Steady Miles Water System Master Plan State Fire Flow (6 ft/s) 210

Item 1. Static Demand Static Pressure Residual Hydrant Available Hydrant Pressure at Critical Pipe ID at Critical Pipe Velocity at ID Static Head (ft) Fire-Flow Demand (gpm) (gpm) (psi) Pressure (psi) Flow (gpm) Available Flow (psi) Available Flow Available Flow (ft/s) J19862 0.00 56.36 145.06 2,000.00 54.71 5,704.96 48.15 3775 5.98 J24268 0.56 49.39 146.98 2,000.00 43.93 1,679.23 45.23 P12653 6.01 J26518 4.09 56.87 150.24 2,000.00 44.12 2,115.07 42.85 P12439 6 J26524 7.87 49.19 144.54 2,000.00 24.64 2,115.07 22.2 P13021 6 J26530 28.46 61.45 141.82 2,000.00 47.52 2,115.07 46.49 P12451 6 J26532 41.01 61.45 141.82 2,000.00 47.76 2,115.07 46.91 P12449 6 Static Demand Static Pressure Residual Hydrant Available Hydrant Pressure at Critical Pipe ID at Critical Pipe Velocity at ID Static Head (ft) Fire-Flow Demand (gpm) (gpm) (psi) Pressure (psi) Flow (gpm) Available Flow (psi) Available Flow Available Flow (ft/s) J19862 0 56.36 145.06 2,000.00 54.71 3,878.92 52 3775 3.97 J24268 0.56 49.39 146.98 2,000.00 43.93 1,119.49 46.93 P12653 4.03 J26518 4.09 56.87 150.24 2,000.00 44.12 1,410.04 49.92 P12439 4 J26524 7.87 49.19 144.54 2,000.00 24.64 1,410.04 36.22 P13021 4 J26530 28.46 61.45 141.82 2,000.00 47.52 1,410.04 53.87 P12451 4 J26532 41.01 61.45 141.82 2,000.00 47.76 1,410.04 54.1 P12449 4 211

Item 1. Legend Pump and Well House Junction P MIN_PRESS Min. Pressure (PSI) Tank ^ less than 20.00 Garrison Oak Tank 20.00 ~ 35.00 ^ Water Treatment Plant 35.00 ~ 40.00 McKee Rd Tank ^ WTP 40.00 ~ 50.00 P Dover Park Tank 50.00 ~ 70.00 Well 7 ^ Walker Rd Tank Pipe ^ P MAX_VELOC Max. Velocity (ft/s) Well 1 Bayard Ave Tank less than 1.00 ^ P P 1.00 ~ 2.00 P P Well 8R Well 2 Well 4 Well 9 ^ 2.00 ~ 3.00 General Foods P P Tank Well 15 Well 3 3.00 ~ 4.00 P P P Aero Park Tank Well 14 Well 12R Well 10 ^ 4.00 ~ 30.00 Water Treatment P Well 11 Plant WTP P Well 6 / Appendix F.9 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 City of Dover, Delaware 2025 J15662 Fire Flow Miles Water System Master Plan Minimum Pressure and Maximum Water Velocity 212

Item 1. Legend Pump and Well House Junction P MIN_PRESS Min. Pressure (PSI) Tank ^ less than 20.00 20.00 ~ 35.00 Garrison Oak Tank ^ Water Treatment 35.00 ~ 40.00 McKee Rd Tank Plant ^ WTP 40.00 ~ 50.00 50.00 ~ 70.00 P Dover Park Tank Well 7 ^ Pipe Walker Rd Tank ^ MAX_VELOC Max. Velocity (ft/s) Well 1 P Bayard Ave Tank less than 1.00 ^ 1.00 ~ 2.00 P P Well 8R P Well 2 P Well 4 Well 9 2.00 ~ 3.00 ^ General Foods P P Tank Well 15 Well 3 3.00 ~ 4.00 P P P Aero Park Tank Well 14 4.00 ~ 30.00 Well 12R Well 10 ^ Water Treatment P Plant Well 11 WTP P Well 6 / Appendix F.10 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 City of Dover, Delaware 2025 J11512 Fire Flow Miles Water System Master Plan Minimum Pressure and Maximum Water Velocity 213

Item 1. Legend Pump and Well House Junction P MIN_PRESS Min. Pressure (PSI) Tank ^ less than 20.00 Garrison Oak Tank 20.00 ~ 35.00 ^ Water Treatment Plant 35.00 ~ 40.00 McKee Rd Tank WTP ^ 40.00 ~ 50.00 P Dover Park Tank 50.00 ~ 70.00 Well 7 ^ Walker Rd Tank Pipe ^ P MAX_VELOC Max. Velocity (ft/s) Well 1 Bayard Ave Tank less than 1.00 ^ P P 1.00 ~ 2.00 P P Well 8R Well 2 Well 4 Well 9 2.00 ~ 3.00 ^ P P General Foods Tank Well 15 Well 3 3.00 ~ 4.00 P P P Aero Park Tank Well 14 Well 12R Well 10 ^ 4.00 ~ 30.00 Water Treatment P Plant Well 11 WTP P Well 6 / Appendix F.11 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 City of Dover, Delaware 2025 J15534 Fire Flow Miles Water System Master Plan Minimum Pressure and Maximum Water Velocity 214

Item 1. Legend Junction Max. Water Age (hr) MAX_QUAL less than 48.00 48.00 ~ 124.00 ^ Garrison Oak Tank 124.00 ~ 168.00 Water Treatment 168.00 ~ 240.00 ^ McKee Rd Tank Plant WTP Tank Max. Water Age (hr) MAX_QUAL ^ ^ P Dover Park Tank Well 7 less than 48.00 ^ Walker Rd Tank ^ 48.00 ~ 120.00 ^ P Well 1 ^ 120.00 ~ 168.00 Bayard Ave Tank ^ 168.00 ~ 240.00 P P Well 8R P Well 2 ^ P Pump and Well Well 4 Well 9 House P P General Foods Well 15 Tank Well 3 P Aero Park Tank ^ P P P Well 14 Well 10 Water Treatment Well 12R Plant WTP Well 11 P P Well 6 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles / City of Dover, Delaware Water System Master Plan Figure 7.12 2025 System Water Age 215

Item 1. 2025 ADD TANK LEVELS City of Dover, DE Appendix F Water Master Plan Draft June 2021 Walker Rd Tank Bayard Ave Tank 100 100 90 90 80 80 Percent Full (%) 70 Percent Full (%) 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time (hr) Time (hr) Dover Park Tank McKee Road Tank 100 100 90 90 80 80 Percent Full (%) Percent Full (%) 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time (hr) Time (hr) 216

Item 1. 2025 ADD TANK LEVELS City of Dover, DE Appendix F Water Master Plan Draft June 2021 General Foods Tank Garrison Oak Tank 100 100 90 90 80 80 Percent Full (%) 70 Percent Full (%) 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time (hr) Time (hr) Aero Park Tank 100 90 80 Percent Full (%) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time (hr) 217

City of Dover, DE Appendix F Water Master Plan Draft 2025 ADD TANK WATER AGE July 2021 Item 1. Walker Rd Tank Bayard Ave Tank 250 250 200 200 Water Age Water Age 150 150 100 100 50 50 0 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time (hr) Time (hr) Dover Park Tank McKee Road Tank 250 250 200 200 Water Age Water Age 150 150 100 100 50 50 0 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time (hr) Time (hr) 218

City of Dover, DE Appendix F Water Master Plan Draft 2025 ADD TANK WATER AGE July 2021 Item 1. General Foods Tank Garrison Oak Tank 250 250 200 200 Water Age Water Age 150 150 100 100 50 50 0 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time (hr) Time (hr) Aero Park Tank 250 200 Water Age 150 100 50 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time (hr) 219

Item 1. Legend Pipe Max. Velocity (ft/s) MAX_VELOC less than 1.00 ^ 1.00 ~ 2.00 2.00 ~ 3.00 Garrison Oak Tank 3.00 ~ 4.00 ^ Water Treatment Plant 4.00 ~ 5.00 McKee Rd Tank ^ WTP Junction Min. Pressure (PSI) MIN_PRESS P Dover Park Tank Well 7 ^ less than 20.00 Walker Rd Tank 20.00 ~ 35.00 ^ P 35.00 ~ 40.00 Well 1 Bayard Ave Tank 40.00 ~ 50.00 ^ 50.00 ~ 70.00 P P Well 8R Well 2 Water Treatment Water P Treatment Well 4 P Well 9 Plant Plant ^ General Foods P P Tank WTP Well 15 Well 3 P P Aero Park Tank Pump and P Well 12R Well 10 Well 14 ^ Well House P P Well 11 Tank P Well 6 / Appendix F.13 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 City of Dover, Delaware 2030 System Minimum Pressure Miles Water System Master Plan and Maximum Water Velocity 220

Item 1. 2030 MDD TANK LEVELS City of Dover, DE Appendix F Water Master Plan Draft June 2021 Walker Rd Tank Bayard Ave Tank 100 100 90 90 80 80 Percent Full (%) Percent Full (%) 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Time (hr) Time (hr) Dover Park Tank McKee Road Tank 100 100 90 90 80 80 Percent Full (%) 70 Percent Full (%) 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Time (hr) Time (hr) 221

Item 1. 2030 MDD TANK LEVELS City of Dover, DE Appendix F Water Master Plan Draft June 2021 General Foods Tank Garrison Oak Tank 100 100 90 90 80 80 Percent Full (%) Percent Full (%) 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Time (hr) Time (hr) Aero Park Tank 100 90 80 Percent Full (%) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Time (hr) 222

Item 1. Legend Junction HYD_AVL_FL Hydrant Flow Available (gpm) ^ less than 2,000.00 Garrison Oak Tank 2,000.00 ~ 10,000.00 ^ Tank Water Treatment Plant McKee Rd Tank ^ WTP Pump and Well P Dover Park Tank Well 7 ^ House Walker Rd Tank ^ P P Water Treatment Well 1 Bayard Ave Tank Plant ^ WTP P Well 8R P Well 2 P P Well 4 Well 9 ^ General Foods P P Tank Well 15 Well 3 P P P Aero Park Tank Well 14 Well 12R Well 10 ^ P Well 11 P Well 6 / Appendix F.14 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 City of Dover, Delaware 2030 Max. Day Miles Water System Master Plan Steady State Fire Flow (6 ft/s) 223

Item 1. Static Demand Static Pressure Static Fire-Flow Residual Pressure Hydrant Available Hydrant Pressure at Critical Pipe ID at Critical Pipe Velocity at ID (gpm) (psi) Head (ft) Demand (gpm) (psi) Flow (gpm) Available Flow (psi) Available Flow Available Flow (ft/s) J19862 0 56.29 144.92 2,000.00 54.61 5,627.47 48.16 3775 5.95 J24268 0.55 49.3 146.79 2,000.00 44.11 1,679.13 45.33 P12653 6.02 J26534 29.72 56.92 146.36 2,000.00 34.94 2,115.07 33.43 P12453 6 J26698 25.58 55.3 145.62 2,000.00 52.48 2,115.07 52.29 P12637 6 J26700 7.72 50.38 148.28 2,000.00 38.1 2,115.07 36.97 P12639 6 J26702 52.76 49.15 141.44 2,000.00 31.69 2,115.07 30.77 P12643 6 Static Demand Static Pressure Static Fire-Flow Residual Pressure Hydrant Available Hydrant Pressure at Critical Pipe ID at Critical Pipe Velocity at ID (gpm) (psi) Head (ft) Demand (gpm) (psi) Flow (gpm) Available Flow (psi) Available Flow Available Flow (ft/s) J19862 0 56.29 144.92 2,000.00 54.61 3,829.03 51.95 3775 3.98 J24268 0.55 49.3 146.79 2,000.00 44.11 1,119.42 46.96 P12653 4.04 J26534 29.72 56.92 146.36 2,000.00 34.94 1,410.04 44.5 P12453 4 J26698 25.58 55.3 145.62 2,000.00 52.48 1,410.04 53.6 P12637 4 J26700 7.72 50.38 148.28 2,000.00 38.1 1,410.04 43.57 P12639 4 J26702 52.76 49.15 141.44 2,000.00 31.69 1,410.04 39.96 P12643 4 224

Item 1. Legend Pump and Well House Junction P MIN_PRESS Min. Pressure (PSI) Tank ^ less than 20.00 Garrison Oak Tank 20.00 ~ 35.00 ^ Water Treatment Plant 35.00 ~ 40.00 McKee Rd Tank ^ WTP 40.00 ~ 50.00 P Dover Park Tank 50.00 ~ 70.00 Well 7 ^ Walker Rd Tank Pipe ^ P MAX_VELOC Max. Velocity (ft/s) Well 1 Bayard Ave Tank ^ less than 1.00 P P Well 8R 1.00 ~ 2.00 P Well 4 P Well 2 Well 9 ^ 2.00 ~ 3.00 General Foods Tank P P Well 15 Well 3 3.00 ~ 4.00 P P P Aero Park Tank Well 14 Well 12R Well 10 ^ 4.00 ~ 30.00 Water Treatment P Well 11 Plant WTP P Well 6 / Appendix F.15 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 City of Dover, Delaware 2030 J11512 Fire Flow Miles Water System Master Plan Minimum Pressure and Maximum Water Velocity 225

Item 1. Legend Pump and Well House Junction P MIN_PRESS Min. Pressure (PSI) Tank ^ less than 20.00 20.00 ~ 35.00 Garrison Oak Tank ^ Water Treatment 35.00 ~ 40.00 McKee Rd Tank Plant ^ WTP 40.00 ~ 50.00 50.00 ~ 70.00 P Well 7 Dover Park Tank ^ Pipe Walker Rd Tank ^ MAX_VELOC Max. Velocity (ft/s) Well 1 P Bayard Ave Tank less than 1.00 ^ P 1.00 ~ 2.00 P P Well 8R Well 2 P Well 4 Well 9 2.00 ~ 3.00 ^ P General Foods P Tank Well 15 Well 3 3.00 ~ 4.00 P P P Aero Park Tank Well 14 4.00 ~ 30.00 Well 12R Well 10 ^ Water Treatment P Plant Well 11 WTP P Well 6 / Appendix F.16 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 City of Dover, Delaware 2030 J15534 Fire Flow Miles Water System Master Plan Minimum Pressure and Maximum Water Velocity 226

Item 1. Legend Pump and Well House Junction P MIN_PRESS Min. Pressure (PSI) Tank ^ less than 20.00 20.00 ~ 35.00 Garrison Oak Tank ^ 35.00 ~ 40.00 Water Treatment Plant McKee Rd Tank ^ WTP 40.00 ~ 50.00 50.00 ~ 70.00 P Dover Park Tank Well 7 ^ Pipe Walker Rd Tank ^ MAX_VELOC Max. Velocity (ft/s) P Well 1 less than 1.00 Bayard Ave Tank ^ 1.00 ~ 2.00 P P P Well 8R Well 2 P Well 4 2.00 ~ 3.00 ^ Well 9 General Foods P P Tank 3.00 ~ 4.00 Well 15 Well 3 P P P Aero Park Tank 4.00 ~ 30.00 Well 12R Well 10 Well 14 ^ Water Treatment Plant Well 11 P WTP P Well 6 / Appendix F.17 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 City of Dover, Delaware 2030 J15662 Fire Flow Miles Water System Master Plan Minimum Pressure and Maximum Water Velocity 227

Item 1. Legend Junction Max. Water Age (hr) MAX_QUAL less than 48.00 48.00 ~ 124.00 ^ Garrison Oak Tank 124.00 ~ 168.00 168.00 ~ 240.00 Water Treatment ^ McKee Rd Tank Plant Tank WTP Max. Water Age (hr) MAX_QUAL ^ ^ Dover Park Tank P less than 48.00 Well 7 ^ Walker Rd Tank ^ 48.00 ~ 120.00 ^ 120.00 ~ 168.00 Well 1 P ^ Bayard Ave Tank ^ 168.00 ~ 240.00 P Well 8R P Well 2 Pump and Well ^ P P Well 4 Well 9 House P P General Foods Well 15 Well 3 P Tank ^ Aero Park Tank P P P Well 14 Water Treatment Well 12R Well 10 Plant WTP P Well 11 P Well 6 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles / City of Dover, Delaware Water System Master Plan Appendix F.18 2030 System Water Age 228

Item 1. 2030 ADD MDD TANK TANK LEVELS LEVELS City of Dover, DE Appendix F Water Master Plan Draft June 2021 Walker Rd Tank Bayard Ave Tank 100 100 90 90 80 80 Percent Full (%) Percent Full (%) 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time (hr) Time (hr) Dover Park Tank McKee Road Tank 100 100 90 90 80 80 Percent Full (%) Percent Full (%) 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time (hr) Time (hr) 229

Item 1. 2030 ADD TANK LEVELS City of Dover, DE Appendix F Water Master Plan Draft June 2021 General Foods Tank Garrison Oak Tank 100 100 90 90 80 80 Percent Full (%) Percent Full (%) 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time (hr) Time (hr) Aero Park Tank 100 90 80 Percent Full (%) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time (hr) 230

City of Dover, DE Appendix F Water Master Plan Draft 2030 ADD TANK WATER AGE July 2021 Item 1. Walker Rd Tank Bayard Ave Tank 250 250 200 200 Water Age Water Age 150 150 100 100 50 50 0 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time (hr) Time (hr) Dover Park Tank McKee Road Tank 250 250 200 200 Water Age Water Age 150 150 100 100 50 50 0 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time (hr) Time (hr) 231

City of Dover, DE Appendix F Water Master Plan Draft 2030 ADD TANK WATER AGE July 2021 Item 1. General Foods Tank Garrison Oak Tank 250 250 200 200 Water Age Water Age 150 150 100 100 50 50 0 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time (hr) Time (hr) Aero Park Tank 250 200 Water Age 150 100 50 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time (hr) 232

Item 1. Legend Junction Min. Pressure (PSI) MIN_PRESS Denneys Rd Tank less than 20.00 ^ 20.00 ~ 35.00 35.00 ~ 40.00 Garrison Oak Tank ^ 40.00 ~ 50.00 Water Treatment Plant McKee Rd Tank 50.00 ~ 70.00 WTP ^ Pipe P Dover Park Tank Max. Velocity (ft/s) MAX_VELOC Well 7 ^ less than 1.00 Walker Rd Tank ^ 1.00 ~ 2.00 P Well 1 2.00 ~ 3.00 Bayard Ave Tank 3.00 ~ 4.00 ^ P P 4.00 ~ 5.00 P Well 8R Well 2 P Well 4 Water Treatment ^ Well 9 Plant Well 15 P P Well 3 WTP P P P Aero Park Tank Well 14 Well 12R Well 10 ^ Pump and Well House P P Well 11 Tank P Well 6 / Appendix F.19 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 City of Dover, Delaware 2035 System Minimum Pressure Miles Water System Master Plan and Maximum Water Velocity 233

Item 1. 2035 MDD TANK LEVELS City of Dover, DE Appendix F Water Master Plan Draft June 2021 Walker Rd Tank Bayard Ave Tank 100 100 90 90 80 80 Percent Full (%) Percent Full (%) 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Time (hr) Time (hr) Dover Park Tank McKee Road Tank 100 100 90 90 80 80 Percent Full (%) Percent Full (%) 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Time (hr) Time (hr) 234

Item 1. 2035 MDD TANK LEVELS City of Dover, DE Appendix F Water Master Plan Draft June 2021 Denneys Rd Tank Garrison Oak Tank 100 100 90 90 80 80 Percent Full (%) Percent Full (%) 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Time (hr) Time (hr) Aero Park Tank 100 90 80 Percent Full (%) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Time (hr) 235

Item 1. Legend Junction HYD_AVL_FL Hydrant Flow Available (gpm) Denneys Rd Tank ^ less than 2,000.00 Garrison Oak Tank 2,000.00 ~ 10,000.00 ^ Water Treatment Tank Plant McKee Rd Tank WTP ^ Pump and Well P Dover Park Tank Well 7 ^ House Walker Rd Tank ^ P P Well 1 Water Treatment Bayard Ave Tank Plant ^ WTP P P Well 8R P Well 2 P Well 4 Well 9 ^ P P Well 15 Well 3 P P P Aero Park Tank Well 12R Well 10 Well 14 ^ P Well 11 P Well 6 / Appendix F.20 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 City of Dover, Delaware 2035 Max. Day Miles Water System Master Plan Steady State Fire Flow (6 ft/s) 236

Item 1. Static Demand Static Pressure Fire-Flow Demand Residual Pressure Hydrant Available Hydrant Pressure at Critical Pipe ID at Critical Pipe Velocity at ID Static Head (ft) (gpm) (psi) (gpm) (psi) Flow (gpm) Available Flow (psi) Available Flow Available Flow (ft/s) J15118 1.5 43.26 143.83 2,000.00 39.33 3,818.85 31.31 P4243 6.05 J26724 30.35 48.04 143.87 2,000.00 39.78 3,396.40 27.45 P13003 6.02 J26732 38.9 44.06 143.68 2,000.00 36.7 3,167.17 27.96 P12993 6.03 J26734 38.9 43.9 143.31 2,000.00 39.5 3,445.96 32.69 P12991 6.04 J26738 38.9 44.74 143.26 2,000.00 38.73 3,486.42 29.16 P12985 6.02 J26742 5.71 46.04 143.26 2,000.00 39.08 4,190.30 20.81 P12975 6 J26752 64.4 40.4 143.24 2,000.00 27.3 2,649.95 20 P12965 3.93 J26758 72.3 56.56 147.54 2,000.00 37.89 3,072.02 20 P13009 4.67 J26760 72.3 47.89 147.51 2,000.00 20.97 2,115.18 20 P13027 3.56 Static Demand Static Pressure Fire-Flow Demand Residual Pressure Hydrant Available Hydrant Pressure at Critical Pipe ID at Critical Pipe Velocity at ID Static Head (ft) (gpm) (psi) (gpm) (psi) Flow (gpm) Available Flow (psi) Available Flow Available Flow (ft/s) J15118 1.5 43.26 143.83 2,000.00 39.33 2,493.68 37.54 P4243 4 J26724 30.35 48.04 143.87 2,000.00 39.78 2,234.61 38.26 P13003 4 J26732 38.9 44.06 143.68 2,000.00 36.7 2,081.99 36.42 P12993 4 J26734 38.9 43.9 143.31 2,000.00 39.5 2,261.51 38.61 P12991 4 J26738 38.9 44.74 143.26 2,000.00 38.73 2,324.28 37.17 P12985 4.03 J26742 5.71 46.04 143.26 2,000.00 39.08 2,793.54 33.68 P12975 3.98 J26752 64.4 40.4 143.24 2,000.00 27.3 2,649.95 20 P12965 3.93 J26758 72.3 56.56 147.54 2,000.00 37.89 2,628.59 28.62 P13009 4 J26760 72.3 47.89 147.51 2,000.00 20.97 2,115.18 20 P13027 3.56 237

Item 1. Legend Pump and Well House Junction P MIN_PRESS Min. Pressure (PSI) Tank Denneys Rd Tank ^ less than 20.00 20.00 ~ 35.00 Garrison Oak Tank ^ Water Treatment 35.00 ~ 40.00 McKee Rd Tank Plant WTP ^ 40.00 ~ 50.00 50.00 ~ 70.00 P Dover Park Tank Well 7 ^ Pipe Walker Rd Tank ^ MAX_VELOC Max. Velocity (ft/s) Well 1 P Bayard Ave Tank less than 1.00 ^ P 1.00 ~ 2.00 P P Well 8R Well 2 P Well 4 Well 9 2.00 ~ 3.00 ^ P P Well 15 Well 3 3.00 ~ 4.00 P P P Aero Park Tank Well 14 4.00 ~ 30.00 Well 12R Well 10 ^ Water Treatment P Plant Well 11 WTP P Well 6 / Appendix F.21 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 City of Dover, Delaware 2035 J15662 Fire Flow Miles Water System Master Plan Minimum Pressure and Maximum Water Velocity 238

Item 1. Legend Pump and Well House Junction P MIN_PRESS Min. Pressure (PSI) Tank Denneys Rd Tank ^ less than 20.00 Garrison Oak Tank 20.00 ~ 35.00 ^ Water Treatment 35.00 ~ 40.00 McKee Rd Tank Plant ^ WTP 40.00 ~ 50.00 P Dover Park Tank 50.00 ~ 70.00 Well 7 ^ Walker Rd Tank Pipe ^ MAX_VELOC Max. Velocity (ft/s) Well 1 P Bayard Ave Tank less than 1.00 ^ P P 1.00 ~ 2.00 P P Well 8R Well 2 Well 4 Well 9 2.00 ~ 3.00 ^ P P Well 15 Well 3 3.00 ~ 4.00 P Aero Park Tank P P Well 12R Well 10 Well 14 ^ 4.00 ~ 30.00 Water Treatment P P Plant Well 11 WTP P Well 6 / Appendix F.22 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 City of Dover, Delaware 2035 J11512 Fire Flow Miles Water System Master Plan Minimum Pressure and Maximum Water Velocity 239

Item 1. Legend Pump and Well House Junction P MIN_PRESS Min. Pressure (PSI) Tank Denneys Rd Tank ^ less than 20.00 Garrison Oak Tank 20.00 ~ 35.00 ^ Water Treatment Plant 35.00 ~ 40.00 McKee Rd Tank WTP ^ 40.00 ~ 50.00 P Dover Park Tank 50.00 ~ 70.00 Well 7 ^ Walker Rd Tank Pipe ^ P MAX_VELOC Max. Velocity (ft/s) Well 1 Bayard Ave Tank less than 1.00 ^ P P Well 8R Well 2 1.00 ~ 2.00 P Well 4 P Well 9 ^ 2.00 ~ 3.00 Well 15 P P Well 3 3.00 ~ 4.00 P P P Well 14 Aero Park Tank Well 12R Well 10 ^ 4.00 ~ 30.00 Water Treatment P Plant Well 11 WTP P Well 6 / Appendix F.23 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 City of Dover, Delaware 2035 J15534 Fire Flow Miles Water System Master Plan Minimum Pressure and Maximum Water Velocity 240

Item 1. Legend Junction Max. Water Age (hr) MAX_QUAL less than 48.00 48.00 ~ 124.00 ^ Denneys Rd Tank ^ Garrison Oak Tank 124.00 ~ 168.00 168.00 ~ 240.00 McKee Rd Tank Water Treatment ^ Plant Tank WTP Max. Water Age (hr) MAX_QUAL ^ ^ P Dover Park Tank less than 48.00 Well 7 Walker Rd Tank ^ 48.00 ~ 120.00 ^ ^ 120.00 ~ 168.00 Well 1 P ^ Bayard Ave Tank ^ 168.00 ~ 240.00 Pump and Well P P P Well 8R P Well 2 Well 4 Well 9 House P P Well 15 Well 3 P Aero Park Tank ^ P P P Well 14 Water Treatment Well 12R Well 10 Plant WTP P Well 11 P Well 6 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles / City of Dover, Delaware Water System Master Plan Appendix F.24 2035 System Water Age 241

Item 1. 2035 ADD TANK LEVELS City of Dover, DE Appendix F Water Master Plan Draft June 2021 Walker Road Tank Bayard Ave Tank 100 100 90 90 80 80 Percent Full (%) Percent Full (%) 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time (hr) Time (hr) Dover Park Tank Mckee Road Tank 100 100 90 90 80 80 Percent Full (%) Percent Full (%) 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time (hr) Time (hr) 242

Item 1. 2035 ADD TANK LEVELS City of Dover, DE Appendix F Water Master Plan Draft June 2021 General Foods Tank Garrison Oak Tank 100 100 90 90 80 80 Percent Full (%) Percent Full (%) 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time (hr) Time (hr) Aero Park Tank Denneys Road Tank 100 100 90 90 80 80 Percent Full (%) Percent Full (%) 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time (hr) Time (hr) 243

City of Dover, DE Appendix F Water Master Plan Draft 2035 ADD TANK WATER AGE July 2021 Item 1. Walker Rd Tank Bayard Ave Tank 250 250 200 200 Water Age Water Age 150 150 100 100 50 50 0 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time (hr) Time (hr) Dover Park Tank McKee Road Tank 250 250 200 200 Water Age Water Age 150 150 100 100 50 50 0 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time (hr) Time (hr) 244

City of Dover, DE Appendix F Water Master Plan Draft 2035 ADD TANK WATER AGE July 2021 Item 1. Denneys Road Tank Garrison Oak Tank 250 250 200 200 Water Age Water Age 150 150 100 100 50 50 0 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time (hr) Time (hr) Aero Park Tank 250 200 Water Age 150 100 50 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time (hr) 245

Item 1. Legend Junction Min. Pressure (PSI) MIN_PRESS Denneys Rd Tank less than 20.00 ^ 20.00 ~ 35.00 35.00 ~ 40.00 Garrison Oak Tank ^ 40.00 ~ 50.00 Water Treatment Plant McKee Rd Tank 50.00 ~ 70.00 WTP ^ Pipe P Dover Park Tank Max. Velocity (ft/s) MAX_VELOC Well 7 ^ less than 1.00 Walker Rd Tank ^ 1.00 ~ 2.00 P Well 1 2.00 ~ 3.00 Bayard Ave Tank 3.00 ~ 4.00 ^ P P 4.00 ~ 5.00 P Well 8R Well 2 P Well 4 Water Treatment ^ Well 9 Plant P P Well 15 Well 3 WTP P P P Aero Park Tank Well 14 Pump and Well Well 12R Well 10 ^ House P Well 11 P Tank P Well 6 / Appendix F.25 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 City of Dover, Delaware 2040 System Minimum Pressure Miles Water System Master Plan and Maximum Water Velocity 246

Item 1. 2040 MDD TANK LEVELS City of Dover, DE Appendix F Water Master Plan Draft June 2021 Walker Rd Tank Bayard Ave Tank 100 100 90 90 80 80 Percent Full (%) Percent Full (%) 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 Time (hr) Time (hr) Dover Park Tank McKee Road Tank 100 100 90 90 80 80 Percent Full (%) Percent Full (%) 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 Time (hr) Time (hr) 247

Item 1. 2040 MDD TANK LEVELS City of Dover, DE Appendix F Water Master Plan Draft June 2021 Denneys Rd Tank Garrison Oak Tank 100 100 90 90 80 80 Percent Full (%) Percent Full (%) 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 Time (hr) Time (hr) Aero Park Tank 100 90 80 Percent Full (%) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 Time (hr) 248

Item 1. Legend Junction HYD_AVL_FL Hydrant Flow Available (gpm) Denneys Rd Tank ^ less than 2,000.00 Garrison Oak Tank 2,000.00 ~ 10,000.00 ^ Water Treatment Tank Plant McKee Rd Tank WTP ^ Pump and Well P Dover Park Tank Well 7 ^ House Walker Rd Tank ^ P P Well 1 Water Treatment Bayard Ave Tank Plant ^ WTP P Well 8R P Well 2 P P Well 4 Well 9 ^ General Foods P P Tank Well 15 Well 3 P P P Aero Park Tank Well 12R Well 10 Well 14 ^ P Well 11 P Well 6 / Appendix F.26 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 City of Dover, Delaware 2040 Max. Day Miles Water System Master Plan Steady State Fire Flow (6 ft/s) 249

Item 1. Legend Pump and Well House Junction P MIN_PRESS Min. Pressure (PSI) Tank Denneys Rd Tank ^ less than 20.00 20.00 ~ 35.00 Garrison Oak Tank ^ Water Treatment 35.00 ~ 40.00 McKee Rd Tank Plant ^ WTP 40.00 ~ 50.00 50.00 ~ 70.00 P Dover Park Tank Well 7 ^ Pipe Walker Rd Tank ^ MAX_VELOC Max. Velocity (ft/s) Well 1 P Bayard Ave Tank less than 1.00 ^ 1.00 ~ 2.00 P Well 8R P Well 2 P P Well 4 Well 9 2.00 ~ 3.00 ^ P P Well 15 3.00 ~ 4.00 Well 3 P P P Aero Park Tank Well 14 4.00 ~ 30.00 Well 12R Well 10 ^ Water Treatment Plant P Well 11 WTP P Well 6 / Appendix F.27 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 City of Dover, Delaware 2040 J15534 Fire Flow Miles Water System Master Plan Minimum Pressure and Maximum Water Velocity 250

Item 1. Legend Pump and Well House Junction P MIN_PRESS Min. Pressure (PSI) Tank Denneys Rd Tank ^ less than 20.00 20.00 ~ 35.00 Garrison Oak Tank ^ Water Treatment 35.00 ~ 40.00 McKee Rd Tank Plant WTP ^ 40.00 ~ 50.00 50.00 ~ 70.00 P Dover Park Tank Well 7 ^ Pipe Walker Rd Tank ^ MAX_VELOC Max. Velocity (ft/s) Well 1 P Bayard Ave Tank less than 1.00 ^ P 1.00 ~ 2.00 P P Well 8R Well 2 P Well 4 Well 9 2.00 ~ 3.00 ^ P P Well 15 Well 3 3.00 ~ 4.00 P P P Aero Park Tank Well 14 4.00 ~ 30.00 Well 12R Well 10 ^ Water Treatment P Plant Well 11 WTP P Well 6 / Appendix F.28 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 City of Dover, Delaware 2040 J15662 Fire Flow Miles Water System Master Plan Minimum Pressure and Maximum Water Velocity 251

Item 1. Legend Pump and Well House Junction P MIN_PRESS Min. Pressure (PSI) Tank Denneys Rd Tank ^ less than 20.00 Garrison Oak Tank 20.00 ~ 35.00 ^ Water Treatment Plant 35.00 ~ 40.00 McKee Rd Tank WTP ^ 40.00 ~ 50.00 P Dover Park Tank 50.00 ~ 70.00 Well 7 ^ Walker Rd Tank Pipe ^ P MAX_VELOC Max. Velocity (ft/s) Well 1 Bayard Ave Tank ^ less than 1.00 P P Well 8R Well 2 1.00 ~ 2.00 P Well 4 P Well 9 ^ 2.00 ~ 3.00 Well 15 P P Well 3 3.00 ~ 4.00 P P P Well 14 Aero Park Tank Well 12R Well 10 ^ 4.00 ~ 30.00 Water Treatment P Well 11 Plant WTP P Well 6 / Appendix F.29 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 City of Dover, Delaware 2040 J11512 Fire Flow Miles Water System Master Plan Minimum Pressure and Maximum Water Velocity 252

Item 1. Legend Junction Max. Water Age (hr) MAX_QUAL less than 48.00 48.00 ~ 124.00 ^ Denneys Rd Tank ^ Garrison Oak Tank 124.00 ~ 168.00 168.00 ~ 240.00 Water Treatment ^ McKee Rd Tank Plant Tank WTP Max. Water Age (hr) MAX_QUAL ^ less than 48.00 Walker Rd Tank P Well 7 ^ Dover Park Tank ^ 48.00 ~ 120.00 ^ ^ 120.00 ~ 168.00 Well 1 P Bayard Ave Tank ^ 168.00 ~ 240.00 ^ P Well 8R P P Well 2 Pump and Well Well 4 P Well 9 House P P Well 15 Well 3 P Aero Park Tank ^ P P P Well 14 Water Treatment Well 12R Well 10 Plant WTP Well 11 P P Well 6 / City of Dover, Delaware Appendix F.30 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles Water System Master Plan 2040 System Water Age 253

Item 1. 2040 ADD TANK LEVELS City of Dover, DE Appendix F Water Master Plan Draft June 2021 Walker Rd Tank Bayard Ave Tank 100 100 90 90 80 80 Percent Full (%) Percent Full (%) 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time (hr) Time (hr) Dover Park Tank McKee Road Tank 100 100 90 90 80 80 Percent Full (%) Percent Full (%) 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time (hr) Time (hr) 254

Item 1. 2040 ADD TANK LEVELS City of Dover, DE Appendix F Water Master Plan Draft June 2021 Denneys Road Tank Garrison Oak Tank 100 100 90 90 80 80 Percent Full (%) Percent Full (%) 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time (hr) Time (hr) Aero Park Tank 100 90 80 Percent Full (%) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time (hr) 255

City of Dover, DE Appendix F Water Master Plan Draft 2040 ADD TANK WATER AGE July 2021 Item 1. Walker Rd Tank Bayard Ave Tank 250 250 200 200 Water Age Water Age 150 150 100 100 50 50 0 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time (hr) Time (hr) Dover Park Tank McKee Road Tank 250 250 200 200 Water Age Water Age 150 150 100 100 50 50 0 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time (hr) Time (hr) 256

City of Dover, DE Appendix F Water Master Plan Draft 2040 ADD TANK WATER AGE July 2021 Item 1. Denneys Road Tank Garrison Oak Tank 250 250 200 200 Water Age Water Age 150 150 100 100 50 50 0 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time (hr) Time (hr) Aero Park Tank 250 200 Water Age 150 100 50 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time (hr) 257

Item 1. W.O.#: 14466.000 258

Item 2. ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: Council Committee of the Whole – Legislative, Finance & Administration DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Human Resources DATE SUBMITTED: 8/2/21 PREPARED BY: Kim Hawkins, Human Resources Director SUBJECT: Elimination of Pension Equity Concerns between Deceased and Disabled Employees REFERENCE: City of Dover General Employee’s Pension Plan RELATED PROJECT: July 1, 2021 General Employee’s Pension Plan meeting REVIEWED BY: Matt Harline, Interim City Manager EXHIBITS: EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: AMOUNT BUDGETED: FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): Approval could have an impact to the General Employee’s Pension plan fund and Other Post Employment Benefit (OPEB) fund TIMETABLE: Effective immediately upon approval STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Consideration of Councilman Anderson’s recommendation BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS During the July 1, 2021 General Employee’s Pension Plan, the committee was considering a pension request of a surviving spouse of an employee who unexpectedly passed away during active employment. During the meeting, Councilman Anderson noted a disparity between an employee who retires with a disability and one who passes away during active employment. It was recommended that the pension ordinance be reviewed to provide equity for these two situations. The pension ordinance currently state that the surviving spouse would receive a reduced pension, one half percent for each month the participant was under age 65; 6% for each year. This reduction would occur even if the employee was within days/months of being eligible for a service/age related pension. With this reduction, based on labor contract language, some employees would not be eligible for retirement health care. An employee retiring with a disability pension would not be subject to a reduced pension and would be eligible for retirement health care. The intent is to make the surviving spouse equal to the employee retiring with a disability pension. Below are the affected sections of the pension code with recommended changes noted. Sec. 80-504. Normal retirement. The normal retirement date for each participant shall be the first day of the month following the attainment of the age of 65 years, provided that he has completed ten years of continuous service. (Code 1968, § 2-99; Ord. of 1-12-1970; Code 1981, § 2-181; Ord. of 6-24-1996; Ord. No. 2017-03 , 2-13-2017) Sec. 80-508. Amount of retirement benefits. Retirement January 1, 1995, or later. The amount of retirement benefits payable to a participant who retires on or after January 1, 1995 shall be computed on the basis of one-fiftieth of his average actual monthly earnings multiplied by the total number of years of continuous service. Average actual monthly earnings shall be a participant's base pay plus scheduled overtime, payment for being on call, except those hours reported for 259

Item 2. being called out, and any retroactive pay corrections which involve any one of the mentioned payments during any period of 36 consecutive months in his final ten years of continuous service which results in the highest average monthly earnings. If an employee's approved absence is the result of a workers compensation injury, the base wages that the employee would have earned had he not been on workers compensation leave will be included when determining the highest 36 consecutive months within his final ten years of continuous service. The value of lost base salary as a result of mandatory furlough shall be added to an employee's final average compensation and considered in the calculation of the amount of retirement benefits, if the time period in which the mandatory furlough was required is within the highest 36 consecutive months or earnings within the final ten years of continuous service. (Code 1968, § 2-103; Ord. of 1-12-1970; Code 1981, § 2-185; Ord. of 10-12-1982, § 2; Ord. of 7-26-1993, § 4; Ord. of 4-25-1994; Ord. of 5-22-2000; Ord. of 7-10-2000; Ord. No. 2010-13, 6-28-2010; Ord. No. 2017-03 , 2- 13-2017) Sec. 80-509. Form of benefits. (a) Normal form. A monthly benefit shall be payable on the first day of the second month preceding the date on which application for such benefit is filed. Payment will be retroactive to the retirement date. Payments of benefits shall be payable monthly thereafter during his lifetime, and terminating with the last payment on the first day of the month of the death of the participant. (b) Death of participant, etc. Upon the death of a participant who has retired, or who is eligible to be retired under any of the provisions of this division, payment shall be made to their eligible survivors in the amount of 50 percent of the monthly payments to which the participant was or would have been entitled. Upon the death of a participant who has completed a minimum of 20 10 years of service but is not yet eligible to retire because of age and/or years of service, payment shall be made to their eligible survivors in the amount of 50 percent of the monthly payment to which the participant was or would have been entitled. that would have resulted by using the participant's service time; The pension amount will be based upon section 80-508. There shall be no reduction in benefit. however, the benefit is to be computed at a reduced rate of one-half percent for each month the participant was under the correct age for normal retirement. In no instance shall actual monthly payments be less than $200.00, to be effective July 1, 2000. Upon the death of both the participant and eligible survivor, if the benefit payments received in aggregate are less than the member's contributions, the balance of the member's contributions, plus five percent interest, will be paid to the surviving beneficiary designated or his estate if no designation has been made and submitted to the general employee pension plan board. The amount of benefit payments received and the amount of the member's contributions shall be determined from the record of the pension board. (c) Eligible survivor. An eligible survivor shall be one of the following in the order of preference listed: (1) Spouse. The participant's spouse who was married to the participant for at least one year. Surviving spouse shall be required to provide supporting documents of marriage. (2) Children, unmarried. a. The surviving children, biological or legally adopted, of the participant, who have not attained their 18th birthday. b. If said child is attending school on a full-time basis and provides proof of attendance each year of eligibility, with the payment due for the month in which he ceases to attend 260

Item 2. school on a full-time basis or with the payment due for the month in which his 22nd birthday shall occur, whichever shall occur first. (d) Commencement of payment. Benefits payable to eligible survivors shall commence on the first day of the month following the date of the participant's death. (e) Benefits payable. Benefits payable to eligible survivors shall cease: (1) Spouse. With respect to an eligible survivor who is a spouse, with the payment due for the month in which their remarriage or death shall occur, whichever occurs first. (2) Children. With respect to an eligible survivor who is a child(ren), with the payment due for the month in which his 18th birthday or death shall occur, whichever shall occur first. Payments shall be made in accordance with subsections (2)a. and b. (f) Eligibility for benefits. The eligibility of any person or persons to receive payment of benefits as an eligible survivor shall be determined conclusively by the general employee pension plan board based on application of such person or persons and any other information which the pension board deems to be appropriate. (Code 1968, § 2-104; Ord. of 1-12-1970; Code 1981, § 2-186; Ord. of 6-8-1987; Ord. of 7-26-1993, § 5; Ord. of 4-25-1994; Ord. of 12-11-1995; Ord. of 4-14-1997; Ord. of 5-22-2000; Ord. of 7-10-2000; Ord. of 3-12-2001; Ord. of 5-12-2003; Ord. No. 2010-13, 6-28-2010; Ord. No. 2011-28, 12-12-2011; Ord. No. 2013-10, 7-22-2013; Ord. No. 2017-03 , 2-13-2017) Sec. 80-510. Early retirement due to permanent disability. Any employee who, after completing at least ten years of continuous service, shall be injured or whose health shall become permanently impaired to such an extent as to render him totally and permanently disabled, shall be retired upon application and approval of the general employee pension plan board. The pension amount will be based upon section 80-508. There shall be no reduction in benefit. (Code 1968, § 2-105; Ord. of 1-12-1970; Code 1981, § 2-187; Ord. No. 2010-13, 6-28-2010; Ord. No. 2017-03 , 2-13-2017) 261

Item 2. SPECIAL GENERAL EMPLOYEE PENSION PLAN BOARD MEETING A Special Meeting of the General Employee Pension Plan Board was held via video conference on July 1, 2021, at 2:02 p.m. with Ms. Peddicord, Chair, presiding. Members present were Mr. Anderson, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Gedney, Mr. Coburn, Ms. Courtney, and Mr. Harline. Staff members present were Mrs. Hawkins, Ms. Tauchus, and Mrs. Ramsey. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Anderson moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Taylor and unanimously carried. Request for Unreduced Pension (In accordance with Chapter 80 - Personnel, Article IV - Pension Plans and Retirement Benefits (Except Police) - Division 3 - General Employee Pension Plan - Section 80-509(b) - Death of participant, etc. Mrs. Lynette Carson reviewed her late husband’s, Robert Carson, history of employment with the City of Dover and asked that the General Employee Pension Plan Board allow Bob to officially use his terminal leave which would allow him to retire directly from the City with his unreduced retirement benefits. Mrs. Kim Hawkins confirmed that the dates, times, and number of sick and vacation hours Mrs. Carson gave were correct. She stated that Mr. Carson only needed seventy-six (76) days to get him to his retirement date and he had eighty-five (85) days on the books. Mrs. Hawkins advised that the Pension Ordinance dictated that Mrs. Carson was eligible for a reduced pension and when cross- referenced with the DOE Labor Agreement which represented Mr. Carson, it indicated that a person was not eligible for healthcare if they had a reduced pension. She noted that Mrs. Carson was seeking an unreduced pension so she would qualify for healthcare effective June 1, 2021. Ms. Carolyn Courtney moved to approve Mrs. Carson’s request for an unreduced pension for Mr. Robert Carson. The motion was seconded by Mr. David Anderson. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mrs. Hawkins stated that during her tenure this was the first time the City had experienced this situation. Responding to Mr. Harline, Mrs. Hawkins stated that she would not be able to speak to the legal risk of granting Mrs. Carson’s request. The City would need to follow up with an attorney on that matter. Responding to Ms. Peddicord, Mrs. Hawkins stated that if the request was not approved, Mrs. Carson would never be eligible for healthcare because of the reduced pension. She advised that the ordinance was clear as to how a reduced pension was calculated. Mrs. Hawkins noted the two things to consider were the benefits and the goodwill to a long-term employee and the family, or the financial cost, current and long-term, to the City. Responding to Ms. Peddicord, Mrs. Hawkins stated that if the request was granted she was not sure how to proceed and staff would have to figure out how to do it from a payroll standpoint. She noted the terminal leave would not be taken in its normal fashion as the City was not able to provide compensation to a person who had passed away. She advised that any time an exception of any type was approved it left the door open for additional exceptions. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mr. Anderson stated that if both sides agree to the matter, there would not be a legal dispute. He advised that he was not an attorney but his opinion was that the Code was 262

Item 2. GENERAL EMPLOYEE PENSION PLAN BOARD, POLICE PENSION RETIREMENT COMMITTEE, AND OPEB BOARD MEETING OF JULY 1, 2021 PAGE 2 vague in this area. Mr. Anderson noted that if approving the request set a precedent, it was a precedent he was comfortable with and he felt it should be clarified in the Code to support this type of unique circumstance that earned terminal leave would count towards retirement. Mr. Anderson stated that if Mr. Carson had lived and been totally and permanently disabled he would have been eligible, so he felt that the inequity seemed wrong. Ms. Peddicord stated that she was concerned with the payroll aspect if this was to be used as a precedent and she thought that legal counsel would need to be consulted in that respect. Responding to Mr. Harline, Mrs. Hawkins confirmed that there was no reduction in benefits if an employee was permanently disabled per Chapter 80 - Personnel, Article IV. - Pension Plans and Retirement Benefits (Except Police) - Division 3. - General Employee Pension Plan - Section 80- 508. - Amount of Retirement Benefits and Section 80-510. - Early retirement due to permanent disability. Responding to Mr. Harline, Ms. Peddicord stated that she could not remember if the Board had set a precedent to pay out sick leave and vacation benefits owed to an estate in prior instances. Mrs. Hawkins clarified that the ordinance would provide Mrs. Carson 50% of Mr. Carson’s pension. Ms. Courtney moved to approve the request before the Board to treat Mr. Robert Carson’s accrued leave as terminal leave which entitled Mr. Carson and/or his beneficiaries to the reduced 50% benefit and benefits associated with retirement. The motion was seconded by Mr. Gedney and unanimously carried. Responding to Mrs. Hawkins, Mr. Anderson stated that he would like to work with her to discuss the possibility, including the ramifications, of changing the ordinance. Mr. Anderson echoed Mr. Harline’s suggestion that, once ready, this item be added to a Legislative, Finance, and Administrative Committee agenda. Mr. Taylor moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 2:35 p.m. Lori Peddicord Chair, General Employee Pension Plan Board LP/mr S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Misc-Minutes\PENSION AND OPEB\2021\07-01-2021 SPECIAL GENERAL EMPLOYEE PENSION PLAN BOARD MINUTES - MR.wpd 263

Item 3. ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: Council Committee of the Whole - Legislative, Finance & Administration Committee DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Customer Service / Tax Office DATE SUBMITTED: 8/2/2021 PREPARED BY: Patricia Marney, Customer Service Director SUBJECT: Elimination of the City Assessor’s Position REFERENCE: n/a RELATED PROJECT: n/a REVIEWED BY: Matt Harline, Interim City Manager EXHIBITS: Exhibit A: Legal Opinion, June 9, 2021 Exhibit B: City Ordinance Chapter 102 - Taxation EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: AMOUNT BUDGETED: FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): TIMETABLE: Effective immediately STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Do not eliminate the Assessor’s position, but amend City ordinance Chapter 102 – Taxation, leave Charter in tact as is currently written. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS With the retirement of City Tax Assessor, Cheryl Bundek and the determination that it would be possible to enter into an agreement with Kent County for regular valuations of real property in the future, staff recommends that the position of Tax Assessor not be eliminated but reassigned to the direction of the City Manager’s Office. In doing so, staff recommends code amendments that assign the duties and supervision of the Tax Assessor’s Office to the City Manager or his designee with assessment responsibilities assigned to the City’s approved assessment contractor. Making the recommended changes to the ordinances will allow the City the flexibility to hire an Assessor in the future should Council choose not to move forward with the use of Kent County valuations. This is in keeping with Chapter 102, Article 1, Sec. 102-1 language with a slight variation of adding City Manager’s Office for Supervision of the Department. (See recommended amendments in the attachments) Chapter 102, Sec. 102-1 states: Sec. 102-1. Valuation and assessment. Section 47 of the Charter provides that an impartial valuation and assessment of all real property within the city may be conducted by the city assessor or assessors. The council may also direct that in lieu of the assessment and valuation by the city assessor, a reassessment and revaluation may be done by the assessor or assessors or an outside mass appraisal company or a consortium of appraisers chosen by the council. Commencing with the year 2010 and every fifth year thereafter, unless otherwise directed, the revaluation and reassessment of all real property may be conducted, under the supervision of the assessor or in conjunction with the assessor, by an outside mass appraisal company or a consortium of appraisers chosen by the council. The mass appraisal company or consortium of appraisers shall be licensed to conduct business in the State of Delaware and the City of Dover and shall employ appraisers who are licensed by the Delaware Division of Professional Regulations. All property shall be valued as to its status; as of its ownership; as of its current market value as of the January 1 assessment date and shall reflect fair market value. (Code 1981, § 19.5-1; Ord. of 1-22-2001; Ord. No. 2009-17, 11-9-2009; Ord. No. 2010-01, 2-14-2011; Ord. No. 2011-31, 4-9-2012) 264

Exhibit A Item 3. 265

Exhibit A Item 3. 266

Exhibit A Item 3. 1 Code, Ch. 102. Art. I. Sec. 102-1. Valuation and assessment. 2 Section 47 of the Charter provides that an impartial valuation and assessment of all real 3 property within the city may be conducted by the city assessor or assessors. The council may 4 also direct that in lieu of the assessment and valuation by the city assessor, a reassessment and 5 revaluation may be done by the assessor or assessors or an outside mass appraisal company or 6 a consortium of appraisers chosen by the council. Such contractor and tax office staff will be 7 under the supervision of the City Manager or his/her designee. 8 Commencing with the year 2010 and every fifth year thereafter, unless otherwise directed, 9 the revaluation and reassessment of all real property may be conducted, under the supervision 10 of the assessor or in conjunction with the assessor and / or the City Manager or his / her 11 designee, by an outside mass appraisal company or a consortium of appraisers chosen by the 12 council. The mass appraisal company or consortium of appraisers shall be licensed to conduct 13 business in the State of Delaware and the City of Dover and shall employ appraisers who are 14 licensed by the Delaware Division of Professional Regulations. All property shall be valued as to 15 its status; as of its ownership; as of its current market value as of the January 1 assessment date 16 and shall reflect fair market value. 17 (Code 1981, § 19.5-1; Ord. of 1-22-2001; Ord. No. 2009-17, 11-9-2009; Ord. No. 2010-01, 2-14- 18 2011; Ord. No. 2011-31, 4-9-2012) 1 Updated Thursday, August 5, 2021Thursday, August 5, 2021Wednesday, August 4, 2021 Page 1 of 16 267

Exhibit A Item 3. 1 Code, Ch. 102. Art I. Sec. 102-3. Administrative reporting. 2 The city assessor shall be selected in accordance with the City Charter, and shall be directly 3 responsible to the mayor and council. The city council may appoint the city manager or his/her 4 designee as the city assessor to provide supervision and support to the tax office. If the 5 appointed assessor is not certified with the State of Delaware, the city council shall hire an 6 approved contractor with licensed by the State of Delaware professional regulations to provide 7 assessment services. 8 (Ord. of 7-24-2006(2); Ord. No. 2009-25, 11-9-2009). 9 … 1 Code, Ch. 102. Art I. Sec. 102-4. Omitted real property assessments. 2 (a) … 3 (b) Collection of taxes. The failure to receive a bill or receive an accurate bill does not relieve 4 the taxpayer of the obligation to pay taxes. The city assessor, city manager or his/ her 5 designee, or contractor shall cause for the collection of any and all taxes due for the 6 respective years or any supplemental tax periods that may result from omitted 7 assessments. The omitted assessments shall be applicable and consistent with and shall 8 apply to every assessment of taxes for the previous year or years and to the collection of 9 the taxes. 10 (c) Periods covered, and penalties. Errors that cause an inaccurate assessment or billing can be 11 corrected and the correction shall be applied. Every such omitted assessment shall be Page 2 of 16 268

Exhibit A Item 3. 12 collected retroactively for a period of ten years, in addition to the current tax year, prior to 13 the discovery by the city assessor, city manager or his/ her designee, or contractor of 14 omitted assessments. The city shall add a penalty of one and one-half percent per month 15 for each respective month not assessed unless it is evident that there was no prior 16 knowledge of the omitted assessment by the property owner. 17 (d) Notice; required. The city assessor, city manager or his/ her designee, or contractor shall 18 give notice of any proposed omitted assessment of any real property for any previous tax 19 year or years or supplemental tax periods, to all persons liable to the tax. The notice shall 20 contain a general description, according to Kent County Property Identification Numbering 21 system (PIN), of the real estate and state the year or years for which the real estate is 22 liable to assessment, the name or names of the person or persons liable to assessments or 23 reassessments, according to the legal owners of record on file with the Kent County 24 Recorder of Deeds, and further the value of the assessment. Notice of "omitted 25 assessments" shall be by certified mail, return receipt requested and regular United States 26 postal mail service within 30 days of discovery of any omitted assessment. 27 (e) …. 28 (Ord. of 9-10-2007) 1 Code, Ch. 102. Art I. Sec. 102-5. Income and expense reports. 2 The assessor, city manager or his/ her designee, or contractor shall request that an annual 3 report of income and expenses be completed and filed for all commercial/industrial income- Page 3 of 16 269

Exhibit A Item 3. 4 producing property within the city limits of Dover. The income and expense report forms shall 5 be developed and provided by the assessor, city manager or his/ her designee, or contractor. 6 This information will become mandatory if the owner of the commercial/industrial income- 7 producing property petitions for appeal. 8 (Ord. No. 2009-05, 7-27-2009; Ord. No. 2009-27, 12-14-2009; Ord. No. 2011-19, 8-8-2011) 9 Code, Ch. 102. Art II. Sec. 102-36. Eligibility for valuation, assessment and taxation. 10 … 11 (1-2)… 12 (3) Time of application. Application by the owner of such land for valuation under this 13 section is submitted on or before February 1 of the year immediately preceding the 14 tax year to the city assessor or contractor on a form prescribed by the city assessor, 15 city manager or his/ her designee, or contractor. 16 (Code 1968, § 34-6; Ord. of 3-26-1979; Code 1981, § 19.5-16) 1 Code, Ch. 102. Art II. Sec. 102-37. Assessment procedures. 2 (a) Valuing land. The city assessor or contractor under the supervision of the city manager or 3 his/her designee, in valuing land which qualifies as land actively devoted to agricultural, 4 horticultural or forest use under the tests prescribed by this article, and as to which the 5 owner thereof has made timely application for valuation, assessment and taxation under 6 this article for the tax year in issue, shall consider only those indicia of value which such 7 land has for agricultural, horticultural or forest use. In addition to use of his personal Page 4 of 16 270

Exhibit A Item 3. 8 knowledge, judgment and experience as to the value of land in agricultural, horticultural or 9 forest use, he shall, in arriving at the value of such land, consider available evidence of 10 agricultural, horticultural or forest capability. 11 (b), (c) … 12 (d) Rollback taxes. 13 (1-2) … 14 (3) In determining the amounts of the rollback taxes chargeable on land which has 15 undergone a change in use, the city assessor or contractor under the supervision of 16 the city manager or his/ her designee shall, for each of the rollback tax years involved, 17 ascertain: 18 a. … 19 b. The amount of the additional assessment on the land for the particular tax year 20 by deducting the amount of the actual assessment on the land for that year from 21 the amount of the land assessment determined by the city assessor or contractor 22 under the supervision of the city manager or his/her designee; and 23 c. … 24 (e) … 25 (Code 1968, § 34-7; Ord. of 3-26-1979; Code 1981, § 19.5-17; Ord. of 3-14-1988; Ord. of 4-22- 26 1996) Page 5 of 16 271

Exhibit A Item 3. 1 Code, Ch. 102. Art II. Sec. 102-38. Annual review. 2 (a) Application. Eligibility of land for valuation, assessment and taxation under this article shall 3 be determined for each tax year separately. An application shall be submitted by the 4 owner to the city assessor, city manager or his/ her designee, or contractor on or before 5 February 1 of the year immediately preceding the tax year for which such valuation, 6 assessment and taxation are sought; provided, however, that unless the land usage 7 changes, those applications which have met the provisions to qualify under this article 8 shall be automatically renewed without the owner having to apply annually. 9 (b) Change in land use. If the land usage changes, the farm owner shall, on or before February 10 1 of the year in which the land usage changes, notify the city assessor, city manager or his/ 11 her designee, or contractor of the change in land use. 12 (Code 1968, § 34-8; Ord. of 3-26-1979; Code 1981, § 19.5-18) 13 Code, Ch. 102. Art III. Sec. 102-71. Definitions. 14 (a), (b), (c) … 15 (d) Transfers through conveyance of interest. 16 (d1), (d2) … 17 (3) Where the beneficial owners of real property, prior to the conveyance or series of 18 conveyances referred to in this subsection (d), own 80 percent or more of the 19 beneficial interest in the real estate following said conveyance or series of 20 conveyances, such transfers shall not be subject to tax under this subsection (d). Page 6 of 16 272

Exhibit A Item 3. 21 Where the beneficial owners of real property, prior to the conveyance or series of 22 conveyances referred to in this subsection (d), own less than 80 percent of the 23 beneficial interest in the real estate following said conveyance or series of 24 conveyances, such transfers shall not be subject to tax under this subsection (d), 25 unless under regulations promulgated by the city assessor, city manager or his/ her 26 designee, or contractor, such transfer or transfers are properly characterized as a sale 27 of real property. Such characterization shall take into account the timing of the 28 transaction, beneficial ownership prior to and subsequent to the conveyance or 29 conveyances, the business purpose of the corporation, partnership or trust, and such 30 other factors as may be relevant. 31 (Code 1981, § 19.5-19; Ord. of 6-27-1988; Ord. of 4-22-1996; Ord. of 8-10-1998; Ord. of 12-13- 32 1999; Ord. of 8-8-2005(1); Ord. No. 2009-23, 10-26-2009; Ord. No. 2011-17, 8-8-2011; Ord. No. 33 2015-03, 2-23-2015 ; Ord. No. 2016-16 , 8-8-2016) 1 Code, Ch. 102. Art III. Sec. 102-72. Applicability to certain construction. 2 (a) … 3 (b) Building permit. No building permit shall be issued unless and until the person or persons 4 (including corporations and/or other associations) requesting such permit shall 5 demonstrate, in whatever form may be specified by the city assessor, city manager or his/ 6 her designee, or contractor, including, at his discretion, a form of affidavit, that: 7 (b1), (b2), (b3), (c ), (d), (e), (f), (g)… Page 7 of 16 273

Exhibit A Item 3. 8 (Code 1981, § 19.5-19.1; Ord. of 4-22-1991) 9 Code, Ch. 102. Art III. Sec. 102-74. Payment generally; documentary stamps generally. 10 (a) … 11 (b), (b1) … 12 (2) By complying with such other method of cancellation as the city assessor, city 13 manager or his/ her designee, or contractor may prescribe. 14 (c), (d), (d1-4)… 15 (Code 1981, § 19.5-21; Ord. of 6-27-1988) 16 Code, Ch. 102. Art III. Sec. 102-76. Recordation of documents. 17 (a), (b)… 18 (c) Every document, when lodged with or presented to the recorder of deeds and city 19 assessor, city manager or his/ her designee, or contractor, shall set forth therein, and as a 20 part of such document, the true, full, and complete value thereof, or shall be accompanied 21 by an affidavit, executed by a responsible person connected with the transaction, showing 22 such connection and setting forth the true, full, and complete value thereof or the reason, 23 if any, why such document is not subject to tax under this article. 24 (Code 1981, § 19.5-23; Ord. of 6-27-1988) 1 Code, Ch. 102. Art III. Sec. 102-77. Duties of city assessor. 2 In addition to the other duties of the city assessor: Page 8 of 16 274

Exhibit A Item 3. 3 (1) Stamps. The city assessor, city manager or his/ her designee, or contractor shall 4 prepare and furnish adhesive stamps of such denominations and in such quantities as 5 may be necessary for the payment of the tax imposed by this article and shall make 6 provisions for the sale of such stamps in such places as may be deemed necessary and 7 indicate on the document the amount of transfer tax that has been paid. 8 (2) Other evidence of payment. The city assessor, city manager or his/ her designee, or 9 contractor may, by regulations, provide for the evidence of the payment of the tax to 10 be shown on the document by means other than the affixing of documentary stamps. 11 (3) Regulations. The city assessor, city manager or his/ her designee, or contractor is 12 charged with the enforcement of this article and is authorized and empowered to 13 prescribe, adopt, promulgate, and enforce regulations relating to: 14 a, b, c. … 15 (4) Audit. The city assessor, city manager or his/ her designee, or contractor is charged 16 with review of the payment and the "value" stated for the purpose of the tax. 17 a, b. … 18 (Code 1981, § 19.5-24; Ord. of 6-27-1988; Ord. No. 2009-05, 7-27-2009) 1 2 1 Page 9 of 16 275

Exhibit A Item 3. 1 Code, Ch. 102. Art IV. Sec. 102-113. Qualifications. 2 (a), (b), (c) … 3 (d) …. In order to obtain the tax abatement, the homeowner must make application by 4 affidavit submitted to the city assessor, city manager or his/ her designee, or contractor 5 showing qualification for the abatement and each year thereafter, submit a similar 6 affidavit showing their continued right to the abatement. If qualification for the abatement 7 ceases within the four-year period of abatement the homeowner is required to notify the 8 city assessor, city manager or his/ her designee, or contractor of the lack of qualification 9 for the abatement and within 90 days from the date the qualification ceases, pay all taxes 10 abated in the past. … 11 (Code 1981, § 19.5-33; Ord. of 12-11-2000; Ord. of 8-8-2005(3); Ord. No. 2011-11, 7-11-2011; 12 Ord. No. 2011-17, 8-8-2011; Ord. No. 2015-03, 2-23-2015 ; Ord. No. 2019-20 , 1-13-2020) 1 Code, Ch. 102. Art IV. Sec. 102-114. Application process. 2 (a) Letter. An initial application for abatement shall be by letter sent to the city assessor, city 3 manager or his/ her designee, or contractor by the taxpayer, specifying the exact 4 provisions under which the applicant qualifies (i.e., type of industry, financial investment, 5 level of city/county resident staffing, level of ownership and control, etc.). 6 (b) … 7 (c) Notice. The city assessor, city manager or his/ her designee, or contractor shall notify the 8 applicant within 30 days if the project would meet all conditions for approval. Page 10 of 16 276

Exhibit A Item 3. 9 (d) To council. After a certificate of occupancy is issued for the subject property, the city 10 assessor, city manager or his/ her designee, or contractor shall determine if all 11 qualifications for a tax abatement have been met. When so satisfied, the city assessor, city 12 manager or his/ her designee, or contractor shall present the abatement request, with all 13 qualifying documentation, to the city council for approval. 14 (e) Extension. When the applicant cannot meet all qualifications for tax abatement at the time 15 the certificate of occupancy is issued, an automatic 24-month approval extension shall be 16 activated. If qualifications remain unfulfilled at the expiration of the approval extension, 17 the abatement application will be denied by the city assessor, city manager or his/ her 18 designee, or contractor. 19 (f) … 20 (Code 1981, § 19.5-34; Ord. of 12-11-2000) 21 Code, Ch. 102. Art IV. Sec. 102-116. Affordable apartment housing complexes. 22 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) 23 (g) The approval of all abatements under this program shall be by the city assessor, city 24 manager or his/ her designee, or contractor. Notice of action taken in determining 25 entitlement to the abatement shall be given to the property owner. The property owner 26 shall have rights of appeal as outlined in section 47 of the Dover City Charter. 27 (Ord. of 7-10-2006) Page 11 of 16 277

Exhibit A Item 3. 1 Code, Ch. 102. Art IV. Sec. 102-117. Construction of new facility. 2 (a)… 3 (b) Application; eligibility. 4 (1) Separate application under this subsection shall be submitted to the tax office 5 pursuant to the requirements of subsection 102-114(a) no later than 30 days after 6 notice of eligibility is issued. 7 (2) … 8 (c) Limitation on applicability. 9 (1) … 10 (2) Notwithstanding other provisions of this subsection, the abatement period may, at 11 the discretion of the assessor, city manager or his/ her designee, or contractor, be 12 extended for a period not to exceed an additional 12 months for good cause shown. 13 Good cause includes, but is not limited to, increase in the scope of the project, acts of 14 nature, and, as long as no party with control of the new facility is at fault, fire or 15 vandalism. Abandonment of a project shall not be considered good cause. 16 (d) Right to appeal. Any aggrieved taxpayer shall have the right to appeal the decision of the 17 assessor, city manager or his/ her designee, or contractor to the city council. Appeals must 18 be filed with the council not more than ten days after the date the written decision is 19 issued. 20 (Ord. No. 2011-02, 2-14-2011) 1 Page 12 of 16 278

Exhibit A Item 3. 1 Code, Ch. 102. Art V. Sec. 102-153. Application review and approval. 2 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) … 3 (e) Tax credits. The tax assessor, city manager or his/ her designee, or contractor shall apply 4 approved tax credits during the fiscal year subsequent to the submittal to the city planner 5 by the applicant of the contractor's final invoice to verify the cost of the repairs to the 6 building and following certification from the city planner that the work has been 7 completed in accordance with the approval of the tax credit application, building permit, 8 and/or architectural review certificate. 9 (Code 1981, § 19.5-42; Ord. of 1-12-1998; Ord. No. 2015-03, 2-23-2015 ) 10 Code, Ch. 102. Art VI. Sec. 102-182. Authority to exempt real property from taxation. 11 The city council shall have the power to exempt real property located within the city from 12 municipal property taxes when, in the opinion of the board, the same will best promote the 13 public welfare. The city assessor, city manager or his/ her designee, or contractor shall be 14 empowered to grant tax exemptions to senior citizens where the requested income verification 15 is completed and meets the requirements of section 102-183. Pursuant to Del. C. title 9, §§ 16 8105 and 8110, the city assessor, city manager or his/ her designee, or contractor shall be 17 empowered to grant tax exemptions to property owned by governmental, religious, 18 educational, charitable agency or civic associations owning parkland, upon receipt of an 19 application filed by the organization establishing its entitlement to such exemptions. The city 20 assessor, city manager or his/ her designee, or contractor shall be empowered to grant tax Page 13 of 16 279

Exhibit A Item 3. 21 exemption to and waive delinquent taxes on real property which has been required by the City 22 of Dover to be set aside for public parkland or open space once the subdivision/phase of 23 subdivision has reached 80 percent completion and/or street dedication, whichever occurs first, 24 in concurrence with the city manager. Any outstanding penalty or interest incurred as a result 25 of unpaid taxes on said property shall be forgiven. 26 (Code 1981, § 19.5-51; Ord. of 3-12-2001; Ord. No. 2009-17, 11-9-2009; Ord. No. 2016-11, 3-28- 27 2016) 28 Charter reference(s)—Tax exemptions, subpart B, § 3. 29 State law reference(s)—Tax exemptions, Del. Const. art. VIII, § 1. 1 Code, Ch. 102. Art VI. Sec. 102-183. Tax exemption for senior citizens. 2 (a), (b, b1-7) … 3 (8) Filing applications. Applications for exemption shall be filed in accordance with 4 regulations adopted by the city council and for cause shown. The city assessor, city 5 manager or his/ her designee, or contractor may accept and act upon applications 6 received after any established application filing date. 7 (9) Refund. The city assessor, city manager or his/ her designee, or contractor is 8 empowered to refund taxes paid by a qualified applicant who is entitled to an 9 exemption and successfully files for the same. 10 (10) Evidence. The tax office shall be authorized to require any applicant to submit 11 evidence substantiating income reported for receipt of the exemption. The city Page 14 of 16 280

Exhibit A Item 3. 12 assessor, city manager or his/ her designee, or contractor may deny applications 13 where requested income verification is not submitted by the applicant. 14 (11) Denial; appeals. Denial of exemptions by the city assessor, city manager or his/ her 15 designee, or contractor and any other complaints regarding the exemption process 16 may be appealed by the taxpayer directly to the board of assessment appeals. The 17 board of assessment appeals shall have the power to affirm, overrule or remand the 18 decision of the city assessor, city manager or his/ her designee, or contractor. 19 (b12-14) … 20 (Code 1981, § 19.5-52; Ord. of 3-12-2001; Ord. of 5-23-2005; Ord. of 4-28-2008(1); Ord. NO. 21 2010-06, 3-22-2010; Ord. No. 2012, 3-12-2012) 22 Charter reference(s)—Tax exemptions, subpart B, § 3. 23 State law reference(s)—Tax exemptions, Del. Const. art. VIII, § 1. 24 Appendix A. Art IV. C. Plat. 25 1-6. … 26 7. After filing the plat with the county recorder of deeds' office, the subdivider shall enter the 27 county file number and date of filing on one reproducible transparency on stable base 28 material and three block or blue line prints on white paper, and shall deliver them to the 29 city planner, together with one print of the plat reduced to a scale of 400 feet to the inch 30 and one to a minimum scale of 50 feet to the inch, if requested by the commission. The Updated 8/4/2021 Page 15 of 16 281

Exhibit A Item 3. 31 city planner shall deliver the reproducible transparency and one print to the city engineer 32 and one print to the city tax office. 33 8. The subdivider shall secure the assessment lot and house numbers from the assessor, city 34 manager or his/ her designee, or contractor. 35 9… 36 (Ord. of 7-12-2004(2); Ord. No. 2009-09, 6-22-2009) Updated 8/4/2021 Page 16 of 16 282

Item 4. CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: Council Committee of the Whole (Legislative, Finance & Administration) DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: City Manager’s Office SUBMITTED ON: July 30, 2021 PREPARED BY: Jason A. Lyon, P.E., Director of Water & Wastewater REVIEWED BY: Matthew C. Harline, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: City of Dover Impact and Permit Fees – Capital School District TIMETABLE: N/A RELATED PROJECT: N/A REFERENCE: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Letter of April 13, 2021 to City Manager Randy Robertson from Dr. Sylvia Henderson, Interim Superintendent, Capital School District Attachment B: Letter of May 12, 2021 from Randy Robertson to Mr. Adewunmi Kuforiji, Assistant Superintendent, Capital School District Attachment C: Letter of May 20, 2021 to Mayor, Robin Christiansen and Councilman, David Anderson from Dr. Sylvia Henderson, Interim Superintendent, Capital School District EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: Request to reduce the City revenues by as much as $657,625 AMOUNT BUDGETED: N/A FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council charge the existing fees as prescribed in code. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: The Capital School District is in the process of building two (2) new middle school buildings at 1 Pat Lynn Drive. This site was the former location of the Dover High School. As with every other construction project within the City, this construction project is subject to building and water / wastewater impact fees. It should be noted that in May of 2014, City Council voted to approve the transfer of impact fee credits from 1 Pat Lynn Drive to the new Dover High School. The site does not have any impact fee credits and is subject to fees. The waiver for the construction of the Dover High School was granted because the existing building was going to be demolished. By demolishing the building, they eliminated the impact on the water and wastewater system that are the basis for the one-time impact fees. 283

Item 4. The Capital School District (CSD) submitted a letter to the City on April 13, 2021 where they requested impact fees to be dropped because they are not increasing the number of students and faculty in the district, rather they are relocating students from the district. Impact fees are based on the student population served by the school. If the existing middle school buildings are not slated for demolition, the potential usage remains. The aggregate water and wastewater impact fee totals $448,240, this figure includes a transfer of $179,335 to Kent County as we are contract users to their treatment facility. Unless Kent County were to waive their fees, that amount must be paid by the CSD or the City will be paying out fees they did not collect. The balance of fees owed to the City, based on the student population is $268,905. In the same letter, the CSD requested relief from the building permit fees. Their belief is the fees are not a reasonable cost for inspections and enforcement and they would like to negotiate the costs. Currently, the approximate building permit fees equate to $388,720. As noted in the letter from former City Manager Randy Robertson, the City has reduced fees based on some modifications made by CSD. The total project cost is in excess of $68 million, and staff feels the fees of 0.57% of project costs are reasonable. To the best knowledge of staff, the requests put forth by the Capital School District are unprecedented. The concern with relief of the water and wastewater impact fees is that staff would have to track student population in order to confirm additional impact fees are not incurred. If the building permit fees were reduced upon negotiation, it would set a precedent that each time the City puts forth building permit fees, it would have to be negotiated, which would take considerable staff time to evaluate. The engineering firm on the project is Becker Morgan, a firm that is very familiar with City regulations, so CSD should have had notice to anticipate these costs in their budget. Staff recommends that the current protocol be followed for both the building fees and impact fees with this project. 284

Item 4. 285

Item 4. 286

Item 4. 287

Item 4. Board of Education Interim Superintendent of Dr. Chanda Jackson-Short, President Schools Sean P. M. Christiansen, Vice-President Sylvia M. Henderson, Ed. D. John C. Martin, Jr. Voice: (302) 857-4222 Joan L. Engel Fax: (302) 672-1727 Dr. Anthony J. DePrima Email: sylvia.henderson@capital.k12.de.us 198 Commerce Way Dover, DE 19904 May 20, 2021 The Honorable Robin Christiansen, Mayor and The Honorable David L. Anderson City of Dover Councilman, City of Dover PO Box 475 Chairman, Legislative Committee Dover, DE 19903 Dear Mayor Christiansen and Councilman Anderson: This letter is an appeal of the City of Dover decision to charge Capital School District the full cost for a Building permit and Impact Fees when State law states the City should only charge appropriate and reasonable fees for school construction projects. Impact Fees - As stated in 14 Del.C. § 2006(b)(1), impact fees are for maintaining or increasing water supply, wastewater transmission line capacity, or waste water facility capacity. If I understand correctly, Section 110-283 of the City Code; impact fees are for “additional users” contributing to the expansion of the City’s wastewater collection and transmission system. The District is not increasing water supply or changing wastewater capacity, we are simply shifting usage from existing buildings to the new one. No additional students or staff are being added to the district, we are just moving them from one building to another. Therefore, a $268,905 impact fee is not reasonable. Building Permit Fees - As stated in 14 Del.C. § 2006(b) (2), the City is permitted to be reimbursed for the “approximate and reasonable cost” to inspect and enforce applicable building, zoning, water, and wastewater codes or ordinances. For the building permit, we do not think $388,720 is an approximate and reasonable cost for inspections and enforcement of codes and ordinances for the project. We would like to engage in discussion on what those “appropriate and reasonable fees” should be. We would like to meet with you to come up with the approximate and reasonable costs for the building permit and impact fees. I look forward to working with the City to reach a reasonable cost for these fees and avoid the arbitration process laid out in 14 Del.C. § 2006(c). Please let Ade Kuforiji and me know what the next steps are in seeking relief from both impact and permit fees. Sincerely, Dr. Sylvia Henderson Interim Superintendent cc: Ade Kuforiji, Interim Assistant Superintendent The Capital School District is an equal opportunity employer and does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, gender (including pregnancy, childbirth and related medical conditions), national origin, citizenship or ancestry, age, disability, marital status, veteran status, genetic information, sexual orientation, or gender identity, against victims of domestic violence, sexual offenses, or stalking, or upon any other categories protected by federal, state, or local law. Inquiries regarding nondiscrimination policies should be directed to the Title IX, District 504 and ADA Coordinators: Capital School District, 198 Commerce Way, Dover DE 19904. Phone (302) 672-1500 288

Item 5. ACTION FORM (REVISED) PROCEEDING: Council Committee of the Whole – Legislative, Administration and Finance DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Police PREPARED BY: Captain Hermance / Administrative Division Commander SUBJECT: FY 22 Grant - Fund to Combat Violent Crime REFERENCE: Annual Recurring Grant Funding RELATED PROJECT: N/A APPROVALS: City Manager EXHIBITS: None FY22 Fund 209: $200,000 budgeted EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ 145,733.96 PROJECT BUDGET: for Violent Crimes Grants (33165) FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): Recurring grant program expenses TIMETABLE: Upon receipt of the grant award and council approval, the equipment will be purchased from Axon and undercover vehicle leased from a state contract vendor. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the grant and intended purchases. BACKGROUND The Fund to Combat Violent Crime Program is a recurring grant program managed by the Department of Safety and Homeland Security for use by local law enforcement agencies in connection with initiatives to combat violent felonies pursuant to Section 4201(c) of Title 11 of the Delaware Code. The first increment of funding was released in FY13. Items requested for grant funding must be supplemental to local funding programmed/budgeted. The summary of the items requested will be approved by the Fund to Combat Violent Crimes grant committee on 9/7/21 follows: Approved Items Amount Extra duty patrols $30,733.96 DVOC undercover vehicle lease 9,000.00 Axon Taser replacements 50,000.00 Axon in-car cameras (8 each) 56,000.00 Total $145,733.96 The new Tasers and in-car camera systems will be purchased from Axon. There are no other sources for which to submit bids for this purchase. Axon is the selected vendor for the Tasers and in-car cameras because the data and programming for these systems integrate with the body worn camera program implementation that is also planned for FY22 implementation. DPD reviewed multiple body-worn camera systems and chose the Axon body camera/taster integrated system. There is a separate grant application for the body-worn camera system which should cover the costs for FY22. ACTION REQUESTED Approval of the application by the Council Committee of the Whole for this grant and the purchases identified. 289

Item 5. Department Grant Application Analysis Form For Use in Evaluating Grant Opportunities General Information Department: Police Staff Contact: Capt Hermance Grant/Project Title: Police Equipment and Extra Duty Patrols Brief Grant/Project Description: Funding will be used for: Police Extra Duty Patrols ($30,733.96), DVOC undercover vehicle rental ($9,000), Axon Taser replacements ($50,000) and Axon in-car cameras ($56,000). Application Information Due Date: 8/13/21 New Related Grants: Recurring Previous years’ grants Anticipated Award Date: 9/7/21 Anticipated Notification Date: 9/7/21 Start Date: 9/7/21 End Date: 9/30/22 Award Amount: $ 145,733.96 Cash Reimbursement Approx. reimbursement turn-a-around time 1-2 weeks Council Approval Needed: Yes No Which apply? Match amount (Council approval is needed for grant projects > $25,000, when match amounts Project shortage equal or exceed $25,000, or when expressly required by the granting authority.) Other grant requirement Grant/Project Costs Match Budget Category Award Amt Match Amt Source Contractual (undercover vehicle rental) $9,000.00 $0.00 Not Applicable Equipment/Supplies (Tasers & in-car camers) 106,000.00 $0.00 Not Applicable Indirect Cost (ie, vehicle repairs, mileage, IT, 0.00 0.00 telephone) Personnel 0.00 0.00 Additional Personnel/Overtime (Police Extra Duty) 33,733.96 $0.00 Not Applicable Travel/Training 0.00 0.00 Capital Voicemail System 0.00 0.00 Other (ie, informant/buy money) 0.00 0.00 Total $148,733.96 $ 0.00 GRANT TOTAL $148,733.96. Award + Match 290

Item 5. Department Grant Application Analysis Form For Use in Evaluating Grant Opportunities Other Information 1. Are any of this project’s costs included in the City budget? Funds for this grant and the associated operating expenses were included in the FY22 budget. The Axon Tasers were included on the CIP project approved in the budget for the Body Worn Camera program. Another Federal grant was submitted for a portion of the body worn camera funding on July 26, 2021 by the CJC on the behalf of the Dover Police Department. Grant Fund 209 - $200,000 in revenues and expenses were budgeted. The amount was high because the amount of the grant was unknown during the budget process. 2. Are there any long-term costs or commitments? The Taser upgrade was included with the body worn camera costs in the Axon package deal that was briefed to and approved by city council in January 2021. The package deal from Axon spreads the costs over a five- year cycle. This grant is only funding a portion of the Taser replacement program, so the balance will have to be funded from the budget. 3. How will this program/project be funded after the grant expires? Future requirements will be requested in the annual city budget. 4. What is the maximum amount of funds available from this funding source? The allocation of funds is specified by State legislation and is formula driven and based on police manpower assigned each year as of July 1st 5. If the Department receives only a portion of the amount requested, how will the project be funded? The amount allocated is the amount that is requested, so there are no additional funds available. 6. Are there other departments in the City eligible for this funding? No. 7. Are other departments in the City willing to collaborate on this project? Not Applicable. 8. Will this project duplicate or compete with other services or programs provided by the City or other local agency? No. 291

COMMITTEE ACTION FORM Item 6. PROCEEDING: Council Committee of the Whole - Legislative, Administrative and Finance DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Police DATE SUBMITTED: 7/26/21 PREPARED BY: Captain Christopher Hermance / Administrative Division Commander SUBJECT: FY21 Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program – Joint Grant with Kent County REFERENCE: Annual Recurring Grant Funding RELATED PROJECT: CTF Funding APPROVALS: City Manager EXHIBITS: None EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $59,196 PROJECT BUDGET: $60,000 FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): USDOJ Grant (Fund 207, Div. 33) TIMETABLE: The grant application deadline is 8/9/21 and will be awarded within 3 months. Grant items will be ordered within 60 days of the grant award. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the grant project as requested. BACKGROUND The Dover Police Department recently received its annual allocation from the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) for the 2021 Justice Assistance Grant (JAG). Similar to previous years, the Dover Police Department and Kent County were identified as disparate funding agencies. This requires the submission of a joint grant application for the two agencies. The Smyrna Police Dept was not included in this year’s award due to the funding level approved. Kent County is not eligible for an award from this program since there are no criminal justice services provided at the county level The City of Dover will serve as the fiscal and administrative agent for the grant. The following table shows the breakout for the grant funds: Department Amount Dover Police Department – 2 each drug canines and associated gear, contract services for $59,196.00 public information videos, training equipment and Street Crimes Unit extra duty. The City also received $124,017.96 in CTF Funds for the purchase of two new Ford Explorers with the K-9 package. None of these funds were budgeted, but no matching funds are required in this year’s budget. This restores the force to 4 dogs which is the standard K-9 force. ACTION REQUESTED Approval by the Council Committee of the Whole for the application for this grant and the purchases identified. 292

Item 6. Department Grant Application Analysis Form For Use in Evaluating Grant Opportunities General Information Department: Police Staff Contact: Capt Hermance Grant/Project Title: FY21 Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Brief Grant/Project Description: Recurring formula based Federal grant program which provides funding for various Law Enforcement programs. This grant is a joint grant with Kent County. These grant funds will supplement CTF money obtained this spring to fully fund two K-9 dogs and equipment. Supplies for year one are covered too. Application Information Due Date: 8/9/21 New Related Grants: Recurring Previous years’ grants Anticipated Award Date: 11/1/21 Anticipated Notification Date: 11/1/21 Start Date: 10/1/21 End Date: 9/31/24 Award Amount: $59,196.00 Cash Reimbursement Approx. reimbursement turn-a-around time 1-2 weeks Council Approval Needed: Yes No Which apply? Match amount (Council approval is needed for grant projects > $25,000, when match amounts Project shortage equal or exceed $25,000, or when expressly required by the granting authority.) Other grant requirement Grant/Project Costs Match Budget Category Award Amt Match Amt Source Contractual $15,000.00 0.00 Not Applicable Equipment/Supplies 33,742.72 $0.00 Not Applicable Indirect Cost (ie, vehicle repairs, mileage, IT, 0.00 0.00 telephone) Personnel 0.00 0.00 Additional Personnel/Over-time (extra duty) 10,453.28 0.00 Not Applicable Travel/Training 0.00 0.00 Contract Services 0.00 0.00 Other (ie, informant/buy money) 0.00 0.00 Total $59,196.00 $ 0.00 GRANT TOTAL $59,196.00 Award + Match 293

Item 6. Department Grant Application Analysis Form For Use in Evaluating Grant Opportunities Other Information 1. Are any of this project’s costs included in the City budget? No additional expenses will need to be funded from the department’s budget. 2. Are there any long-term costs or commitments? Annual costs for the care and up-keep of the new canines will be budgeted. However, the increase from 2 to 4 canines is nothing new, the department is resuming the traditional number previously authorized in prior year budgets. 3. How will this program/project be funded after the grant expires? Not Applicable. 4. What is the maximum amount of funds available from this funding source? The amounts shown on the preceding table are the maximum amounts available. 5. If the Department receives only a portion of the amount requested, how will the project be funded? The funds are explicitly authorized for Dover PD’s use, so the full amount will be available. 6. Are there other departments in the City eligible for this funding? No. 7. Are other departments in the City willing to collaborate on this project? Not Applicable. 8. Will this project duplicate or compete with other services or programs provided by the City or other local agency? No. 294

Item 7. ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: Council Committee of the Whole – Legislative, Finance & Administration DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Police PREPARED BY: Captain Christopher Hermance, Administrative Division Commander FY22 Body-Worn Camera Policy and Implementation Program to Support Law SUBJECT: Enforcement Agencies Grant Program REFERENCE: Competitive Grant Program RELATED PROJECT: N/A APPROVALS: Matt Harline, Interim City Manager EXHIBITS: None $407,000 (over EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: PROJECT BUDGET: $64,800 three years) FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): FY22 Police Dept Capital Budget TIMETABLE: The Federal grant application deadline was 7/26/21. We hope to receive notification of the award within 90 days. Cameras will be purchased beginning in this fiscal year. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the grant project as requested. BACKGROUND The City Council has advocated for body-worn cameras for many years. On January 26, 2021 at the Council Committee of the Whole meeting, Council approved the implementation of the body-worn camera / Taser upgrade program in concept. The estimated cost of the program based on the quote from the preferred vendor was ($799,930.10 over five years) and the evidence manager position ($357,572.00 over five years). In the FY2021-22 budget the first $64,800 of funds were approved, with the assumption that grant funds could be found. Chief Johnson stated in January that the Police Department would pursue grant funding to offset as much of the cost of the program as possible. This grant application requires Council approval because the match requirement exceeds $25,000. Subsequent to that date, the Federal FY21 Body Worn Camera program competitive grant solicitation was released, and the Police Department teamed up with the Criminal Justice Council (CJC) to apply for the grant. The rationale was, with the CJC’s assistance, it would be more likely that the Police Department would compete more favorably for the grant and have a better chance in securing the funding. As a result, the CJC submitted the grant application on July 24, 2021. The funding on this grant program is limited to $2,000 per camera, including allowable associated costs such as licensing and data cloud management. As a result, the Federal application portion total $140,000 for 70 body-worn cameras. Although the department has 106 officers authorized, the cameras requested will equip only the units with regular direct contact with the public, including Patrol, Street Crimes and Community Policing Units. The program also requires a 1:1 match in local funding. However, the wages and benefits for the evidence manager position may be cou8nted toward that match and therefore the total program costs associated with the body worn cameras in the original program identified in January well exceed the total match required by the grant guidelines. ACTION REQUESTED DPD requests the Council Committee of the Whole approve the application for this grant and the purchases identified 295

Item 7. Department Grant Application Analysis Form For Use in Evaluating Grant Opportunities General Information Department: Police Staff Contact: Capt Hermance Grant/Project Title: FY21 Body-Worn Camera Policy and Implementation Grant Program Brief Grant/Project Description: Competitive Federal grant program for Body-Worn Cameras and associated equipment. This grant is a three year grant program and includes costs spread over the three year period. Application Information Due Date: 7/26//21 New Related Grants: Recurring Anticipated Award Date: 11/1/21 Anticipated Notification Date: 11/1/21 Start Date: 10/1/21 End Date: 9/31/24 Award Amount: $140,000.00 Cash Reimbursement Approx. reimbursement turn-a-around time 1-2 weeks Council Approval Needed: Yes No Which apply? Match amount (Council approval is needed for grant projects > $25,000, when match amounts Project shortage equal or exceed $25,000, or when expressly required by the granting authority.) Other grant requirement Grant/Project Costs Match Budget Category Award Amt Match Amt Source Contractual $77,615.00 $48,727.00 Local Budget Equipment/Supplies 62,385.00 Indirect Cost (ie, vehicle repairs, mileage, IT, 0.00 0.00 telephone) Personnel 0.00 $217,773.0000 Local Budget Additional Personnel/Over-time (extra duty) Travel/Training 0.00 1,200.00 Local Budget Contract Services 0.00 0.00 Other (ie, informant/buy money) 0.00 0.00 Total $140,000.00 $217,074.00 GRANT TOTAL $407,000.00 Award + Match 296

Item 7. Department Grant Application Analysis Form For Use in Evaluating Grant Opportunities Other Information 1. Are any of this project’s costs included in the City budget? Yes, City Council approved the costs for the evidence manager position and the body-worn camera program, on 1/26/21. These costs are also included in the three- year grant program. In addition, the costs for the data cloud management and licensing that exceed the grant funding authorized will also be funded locally. 2. Are there any long-term costs or commitments? Once the three-year program ends, the costs for continuing the program will be funded from the local budget. 3. How will this program/project be funded after the grant expires? Local budget funds. 4. What is the maximum amount of funds available from this funding source? The amounts shown on the preceding table are the maximum amounts available. 5. If the Department receives only a portion of the amount requested, how will the project be funded? IF the funds are not awarded on this grant, the associated costs will be funded from local funds exclusively. 6. Are there other departments in the City eligible for this funding? No. 7. Are other departments in the City willing to collaborate on this project? Not Applicable. 8. Will this project duplicate or compete with other services or programs provided by the City or other local agency? No. 297

City of Dover Item 8. MAYOR AND COUNCIL PROPOSED COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2021-21 1 A RESOLUTION FORMALLY ESTABLISHING THAT THE SAFETY ADVISORY AND 2 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE SHALL SERVE AS THE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN 3 COMMITTEE FOR THE CITY OF DOVER 4 5 WHEREAS, the City of Dover is committed to safe and efficient multi-modal transportation for 6 all citizens, which includes the complete integration of pedestrian, bicycle, and other forms of non- 7 motorized transportation into the City’s transportation plans; and 8 9 WHEREAS, the City of Dover has adopted the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle 10 Facilities, a Complete Streets policy, incorporated pedestrian and cycling facilities in the 11 Comprehensive Plan for the City of Dover since 2008 and including the 2019 update, worked with 12 the Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to update the 13 Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan for the City of Dover, and cooperated; and 14 15 WHEREAS, the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee is a Standing Subcommittee of 16 the City of Dover Council Committee of the Whole established in the City Code Sec. 2-82.(a) (3) 17 to advise the City Council on matters of transportation. 18 19 NOW, THEREFORE, THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER 20 HEREBY FORMALLY ESTABLISH THAT THE SAFETY ADVISORY AND 21 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE SHALL SERVE AS THE BICYCLE / PEDESTRIAN 22 COMMITTEE FOR THE CITY OF DOVER, WHICH SHALL: 23 24 1. Promote bicycling, walking and other non-motorized transportation as a healthy 25 and environmentally preferable mode of transportation whenever it can be done 26 safely, efficiently, and within the City’s financial capacity. 27 28 2. Provide quarterly reports to City Council on construction and maintenance projects 29 on bicycle and pedestrian (bike-ped) facilities, bike-ped activities and programs, 30 and bike-ped traffic accidents. The City Manager, Police Chief, Director of 31 Planning, Inspections and Community Development (City Planner as described in 32 Sec. 82-2), and other staff will provide information as necessary to complete the 33 reports. 34 35 3. Appoint ad hoc task forces as necessary for particular projects, for no more than 36 two years without reappointment. Appointments will be made by the 37 Subcommittee Chair with the advice and consent of the majority of the 38 Subcommittee members. Such Task Forces shall report only to the Subcommittee 39 and may be disbanded by a majority vote of the Subcommittee. 40 41 42 43 P.O. Box 475 ❖ Dover, Delaware ❖19903 298 Community Excellence Through Quality Service

Proposed Council Resolution No. 2021-21 – Bicycle Pedestrian Committee Page 2 Item 8. 44 4. Deliver and Annual Report to the Council in January of the condition of bicycle 45 and pedestrian transportation in the City including an update of sidewalks, and 46 bicycle paths/trails/facilities between January 1, and March 1 each year. The 47 Committee may choose to accept public comment prior to issuing the Annual 48 Report. 49 50 ADOPTED: * 51 \\doverfp\Public Docs\Committee Action Forms\Drafts\DRAFT - Resolution No. 2021-XX Establishing SATCommittee as Bioke-Ped Committee.docx 52 53 54 55 ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN ROY A SUDLER, JR. MAYOR COUNCIL PRESIDENT Actions History 08/10/2021 - Introduction – Council Committee of the Whole - Safety Advisory and Transportation Committe P.O. Box 475 ❖ Dover, Delaware ❖19903 299 Community Excellence Through Quality Service

300 Item 8. Slit 04111 ' hytil It I'm 'r & 7t) i%4al ; tl :I,' l' Af'%..ffla