Attachment

EXHIBIT 1 COUNCIL MINUTES 09/13/04 PETITION TO AMEND ZONING DISTRICT Before The Dover City Council September 13, 2004 Applicants/Owner Rebecca Gates and Joseph Gates 605 South State Street Dover, DE 19901 Equitable Owner Bayhealth Medical Center, Inc. 640 South State Street Dover, DE 19901 Location: 605 South State Street across from South Street intersection Size: 3.60 acres +/- Present Zoning: R-10 (One Family Residence Zone) Proposed Zoning: IO (Institutional and Office Zone) permitting business, professional, or governmental offices, and research, design and development laboratories, including incidental clinics, cafeterias and recreational facilities for the exclusive use of company employees. Public and institutional uses including hospitals, sanitariums, for general medical care, medical clinics, libraries, police stations, court houses, transit centers, schools, colleges and universities, places of worship, philanthropic and eleemosynary institutions, parks, playgrounds, public indoor recreation centers, civic centers, athletic fields and public utility rights-of-way. Through the Conditional Use process, planned senior housing developments are permitted. Present Use: Two buildings of the residence and a shed Proposed Use: Hospital offices with no changes to the buildings proposed File Number: Z-04-08

Z-04-08 Lands of Rebecca Gates at 605 South State Street Planning Commission Recommendation Report to City Council Page 2 Findings and Recommendations of the Dover Planning Commission This petition was considered at the August 16, 2004 meeting of the Planning Commission. The following members were present: Mr. Friedman, Mr. Nichols, Mrs. Young, Mr. Tolbert, Mr. Holt, Mr. Winsley, Mr. DiMondi, Mr. VonReider, and Col. Welsh. The Planning Commission recommends that this request for rezoning from R-10 to I-O be approved. The motion for approval of the rezoning passed 9-0 of those members present. The following information was considered by the Planning Commission: Surrounding Land Uses: The area of petition consists of one parcel located on the east side of South State Street across from the intersection with South Street known as 605 South State Street. The property is currently zoned R-10 (One Family Residence Zone). The proposed zoning is IO (Institutional and Office Zone). Immediately surrounding this property is one parcel currently owned by the equitable owner and zoned IO. The major part of the adjacent parcel is to the south and includes the structure known as the Scull Mansion (Cultural Resource Survey #K-126, individual property listed in the National Register of Historic Places). The parcel does surround the subject parcel with a 27 +/- feet border on three sides. This is an area of mixed zoning and mixed uses. To the north is the Elm Terrace neighborhood zoned R-8 One Family Residential. To the west is an area largely influenced, if not owned by, Bayhealth Medical Center zoned IO with the parcel on the corner of South Street zoned RGO (General Residence and Office). The property to the east includes hospital uses and ends at the St. Jones River, all zoned IO. The actual uses in the area are primarily medical related offices and a residential area. Comprehensive Plan: In the 2003 Comprehensive Plan Update, the Land Development Plan recommends Residential Use for this property. The conflict with the Comprehensive Plan has been addressed by the Office of State Planning Coordination by the issuance of a waiver from further State review of the proposal and stipulating that the rezoning is in the interest of the community. See attached letter. Request for IO (Institutional and Office Zoning) The types of permitted uses in the IO (Institutional and Office Zoning) are outlined in Article 3 §10 and include a variety of office type uses. Section 10. Institutional and Office Zone (IO). Uses Perm itted. Business, professional, or governm ental offices, and research, design and developm ent laboratories, located entirely within a building on the sam e lot therewith, including incidental clinics, cafeterias and recreational facilities for the exclusive use of com pany em ployees. Public and institutional uses including hospitals, sanitarium s, for general m edical care, m edical clinics, libraries, police stations, court houses, transit centers, m otor vehicle storage and repair facilities accessory to a public or institutional use, schools, colleges and universities, places of worship, philanthropic and eleem osynary institutions, parks, playgrounds, public indoor recreation centers, civic centers, athletic fields and public utility rights-of-way and structures necessary to serve areas within the city. Restaurants accessory to perm itted uses located on the sam e lot.

As required with a request for IO (Institutional and Office Zone) Zoning, the applicant submitted a Preliminary Site Plan. This Plan shows basic information on the existing buildings, parking areas, and landscaping. Because there are no changes to the buildings or site proposed with this rezoning, no changes are noted on the plans. The subject property meets the requirements that it have a minimum width of 50 feet and depth of 100 feet. There is no minimum lot area requirement. Since any allowed use under the new zoning district will require a site plan, the reuse, redevelopment or expansion of the existing buildings on the site will require a Site Plan reviewed by the Planning Commission as per the Zoning Ordinance. Other Considerations: While the subject parcel is surrounded by lands zoned IO, it functionally abuts a residential neighborhood. The distance of the developed portions of the property are most remote from this neighborhood. The request is being made to allow the holdings of Bayhealth Medical to maintain common zoning and permitted uses and is a part of the facility’s campus plan. Compliance with all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance will be reviewed as part of the Site Plan approval process. Recommendation of the Planning Staff: Although the Comprehensive Plan recommended the parcel be retained as residential, the waiver obtained from the Office of State Planning accurately depicts the value of the property in the campus of Bayhealth Medical. The primary zoning to the south and east are the same as proposed and the adjacent residences are relatively remote from the buildings on the site. The Planning Staff recommends that the rezoning from R-10 to IO be approved. Advisory Comments to the Applicant: 1) The applicant shall be aware that approval of the Rezoning does not represent Site Plan approval. A separate application process for Site Plan approval is required for the development of this property due to the change of use. 2) The details of the Plan will be reviewed during the Site Plan process for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. These items include site access, curbing, parking, utilities, tree plantings, Dumpster location, lighting, etc. Public Comments: The application was represented by Gregory V. Moore, Becker Morgan Group and Jerry Peters, Director of Planning for Bayhealth Medical Center, Inc. The following individual appeared and spoke in regards to the rezoning application: · Mrs. Rose Bryan, 600 South State Street – She noted changes in the area surrounding the hospital, the number of properties in hospital or hospital related ownership, and her concerns about the hospital’s future overall plan for development. (The written statement she submitted at the hearing is attached.) A memorandum dated August 12, 2004 was received from Gene Ruane, Dover Councilman: Second District regarding Dover’s Institutional Master Plan Review Process and the Gates/Bayhealth Medical Center and Zimmerhaus II/Wesley College Applications. The Planning Commission members received this via email and a hardcopy was provided to them at the August 16, 2004 meeting.

Agency Comments from DAC Report: Department of Public Works has no objections to the rezoning. They also noted the future review and calculation of impact fees should additional fixtures be added. The City Electric Department has no comments on the rezoning application. DelDOT has no comments on the rezoning. Attachments to the Report: · Exhibit Location Map Development Advisory Committee Application Review Commentary (comment sheets) from the following: Department of Public Works City Electric Department Delaware Department of Transportation · Letter from Office of State Planning Coordination – June 30, 2004 · Exhibits from Public Hearing at Planning Commission: o Written statement read by Mrs. Rose Bryan o Summary of Bayhealth/ Gates Property/ Master Planning Process submitted to staff by Gregory V. Moore on 8/16/04 · Memorandum from Gene Ruane, Dover Councilman: Second District – August 12, 2004 regarding Dover’s Institutional Master Plan Review Process and the Gates/Bayhealth Medical Center and Zimmerhaus II/Wesley College Applications.

CITY OF DOVER C I P T U DEVELOPM ENT ADVISORY COM M ITTEE Y B L APPLICATION REVIEW COM M ENTARY O I F C APPLICANT D.A.C. M EETING DATE: July 29, 2004 D W O O ======================================================================= V R E K APPLICATION: Lands of Rebecca Gates at 605 South State Street: Rezoning from R-10 to IO R S FILE#: Z-04-08 REVIEW ING AGENCY: City of Dover Public W orks CONTACT PERSON: Scott Koenig or Andrew Riggi PHONE#: 736-7025 =================================================================================== TH E SU BJECT PRO PO SAL H AS BEEN REVIEW ED FO R CO D E CO M PLIAN CE, PLAN CO N FO RM ITY AN D CO M PLETEN ESS IN ACCO RD AN CE W ITH TH IS AGEN CY 'S AU THO RITY AN D AREA O F EXPERTISE. THE FO LLO W IN G ITEM S H AVE BEEN ID ENTIFIED AS ELEM ENTS W H ICH N EED TO B E ADD RESSED BY THE APPLICAN T: CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. The Department of Public Works has no objection to the proposed rezoning of tax parcel ED-05- 77.13-01-49.00-000 from R-10 to I-O. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES: ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: 2. Should any changes to the building become proposed at any time, particularly regarding the addition of fixtures, additional information must be submitted to our office for review and the calculation of impact fees. A maximum credit of 2 E.D.U.s will be provided at that time by our office for the 2 dwelling units currently location on the property. D IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR NEED TO DISCUSS ANY OF THE ABOVE COMMENTS , PLEASE CALL THE ABOVE CONTACT PERSON AND THE P LANNING D EPARTMENT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE .

D O E CITY OF DOVER V L DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING E E APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY R C T J ULY 29, 2004 - 10:00 A.M. - CAUCUS ROOM R I C APPLICATION: LANDS OF REBECCA GATES – 605 S. STATE STREET FILE NO.: Z-04-08 REVIEW ING AGENCY: CITY OF DOVER ELECTRIC CONTACT PERSON: STEPHEN A. ENSS PHONE #: 736-7091 THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE W ITH THIS AGENCY'S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOW ING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS W HICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT: CITY & STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: T HE E LECTRIC D EPARTMENT REVIEWED THE APPLICATION AND HAS NO COM MENTS . RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED FOR AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES: ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: I F YOU SH OU LD H AVE AN Y QU ESTION S OR N EED TO D ISCU SS AN Y OF TH E ABOVE COM M ENTS , PLEASE CONTACT S TEPH EN E N SS AT 736-7091 OR C ON TACT THE P LANN ING D EPARTM ENT AT 736-7010 AS SOON AS POSSIBLE .

CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D.A.C. MEETING DATE: JULY 29, 2004 =============================================================== APPLICATION: LANDS OF REBECCA GATES AT 605 S. STATE STREET -REZONING FILE#: Z-04-08 REVIEWING AGENCY: DELDOT CONTACT PERSON: RICHARD A. WOODHALL PHONE#: 760-2262 =============================================================== T H E SU BJEC T P R O PO SAL HAS BEEN R EV IEW ED FO R C O D E C O M PLIA N C E, PLA N C O N FO R M ITY AN D C O M PLETEN ESS IN AC C O RD AN C E W ITH THIS AG EN C Y 'S AU THO R ITY AN D AR EA O F EX PERTISE. T H E FO LLO W IN G ITEM S HAV E BEEN ID EN TIFIED AS ELEM EN TS W HIC H N EED TO BE AD D R ESSED BY T H E APPLIC AN T: CITY & STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: NO COMMENTS RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES: ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR NEED TO DISCUSS ANY OF THE ABOVE COMMENTS , PLEASE CALL THE ABOVE CONTACT PERSON AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE .

EXHIBIT 2 COUNCIL MINUTES 09/13/04 City Of Dover, Delaware Department of Planning and Inspections MEMORANDUM DATE: August 17, 2004 TO: Gene Ruane, Dover Councilman, 2nd District FROM: James J. Galvin, Jr., AICP Director of Planning & Inspection RE: Dover’s Institutional Master Plan Inclusion T h a n k yo u for your letter. As you know, the Compr e hensive Pla n is a n imp o r ta n t d ocu m en t th at h el p s gu i de t h e D ep ar tm en t , t h e P l an ni n g C o mm i ss i on an d t h e C i t y t h ro ugh t he co m in g f iv e year s. It i s a p ro sp ect i ve d ocu m en t th at i ns t it u tes s om e w o r k i n g goals for us all during this pe riod. Y ou rai s e s ev er al i ss ues i n yo ur co rr es po nd en ce t o wh i ch I w il l res po nd wi t h t h is m e m o r a n dum. In general, how e ver , the docume nt is a pla n tha t was de ve lo p ed a t a p o i n t i n time w ith the informa tion known a t tha t time . The pla n did not, n o r l i kel y co ul d , s pecu l at e o n al l po t en t ial (ap pr op ri at e) op po rt u ni t ies fo r s peci fi c p a r ce l s, w hether in the C ity of Dover or a pote ntia l a nne xa tion. As suc h, a p la n m u st b e a ble to respond to changing cir c umsta nc es until a ne w pla n is de velo p e d . A n y c h a n ge may be in the best inte r est of a pr oper ty owne r or a prospe c tive o w n e r, b ut it mus t be in the bes t inte r est of the City of Dover a s a whole . T h e Ci t y of D over established a polic y to “ Pa r tic ipa te in the Ma ste r Pla nnin g p r o c ess f or instituti onal facilitie s a nd c ampuse s a nd e ncour a ge a pprova l by th e P l a n n i n g C ommission of the Maste r Pla n a s outline d in the Zoning Or dina nce ” as yo u c i t e d . T his is actually a two f old polic y. E n co u ra gi n g I n st it ut io n al Pl a nn i n g

T h e f i rst is to “(p)articipate in the ma ste r pla nning pr oc ess f or instituti onal f a ci l i t i e s and campuses…”. The sta f f of the Depa r tme nt of Pla nning a nd In sp e c t i o ns met w ith the major institutions pr ior to or dur ing the de velopme n t o f t h e C o m p rehensive P lan U pdate of 2003. For e xa mple , I be lie ve eve r y Dire cto r o f t h e O ffice of P lanning and Inspe c tions ha s me t with Dr . Mille r or Dr . Co p la n , a s h a s t h e C ity C ouncil, to disc uss the ir Ma ste r Pla n f or the c a mpus. Their Pla n i n f l u e n c ed the C omprehensive Pla n’ s La nd Deve lopme nt Pla n a s e videnc e d b y th e La n d D ev elopment Map 11-1 potentia l de ve lopme nt c ate gor y f or the block b ou nd ed by N . G ov er no rs , N . N ew , Fu l to n an d C eci l . BayHe al t h i s wo rk i ng on t hei r M as t er P l an an d has s har ed s om e o f t hei r f i n d i n gs w i t h st a f f of this D epartment, as we ll a s the Sta te Off ic e of Pla nning C o o r d i n a tion. I believe their pr e limina r y f indings we r e pr e sente d to sta f f i n c l u d i n g Mr. J orgensen and to the Pla nning Commission C ha ir , Mr . Fr ie dm a n d u r i n g t h e preparation of the P la n Upda te . De la war e Sta te Unive r sity is in th e p r o c ess o f developing a new C a mpus Pla n a nd has hir e d a fir m to a ssist them. W e f u l l y anticipate input into the pla n a fte r the pre limina r y wor k has be e n c o m p l e t e d, particularly identifying utility loc a tions a nd pr ojec ting a tte nda n ce . T h e U n i v ersity has undertaken this ne west Ca mpus P la n a t the sugge stion o f th e P l a n n i n g C ommission. A l l o f t h ese are ex amples that r ela te to our loc al insti tutions pr e pa r ing or s h a rin g m a st e r p l a ns and including C ity sta f f in the proc e ss at some point. Ma ste r Pla n s a r e t yp i c ally not a continuous pr oje ct f or suc h institutions. J ust a s the y we re i n vo l ved i n t h e d ev el o pm en t of th e C i t y’ s C o mp reh en si v e P l an i n 2 00 3, we w il l c o n t i n u e to request input into t he pr oce ss of institutiona l pla n de ve lopme nt a s th e o pp or tu ni t y ex i s t s. At t im es , w e h av e v i rt u al l y m an dat ed an i ns t it u ti o n co m pl et e su c h a p l an. We can not, how eve r , insist tha t the y c onsult with sta f f or ac cep t o ur su gges t io ns du ri n g t h e d ev el o pm en t ph as e. Fo r t h e m o st p ar t o ur co m men t s a r e w e l l r eceived. Pl a n n i n g C ommission A p p rov al T h e se co nd policy statement include d in the Compr ehe nsive Pla n e ncour a ge s “ . . . a p p ro v al by the P lanning C o mmission of the Ma ste r Pla n as outline d in th e Zo ni n g O rd i nan ce. ” T he r ef er en ced sect i on of th e Zo ni n g O rd i nan ce i s Ar ti cl e 1 0 , S e c t i on 2.58 is supplemente d by Se c tion 2.491. The f orme r desc r ibe s t h e t i m e f r a me of consecutive constr uction pr oje c ts tha t would be re quir ed f or co ns i der at i on fo r s i te m as t er pl an ap pr ov al . Th e s peci fi c ci t at i on read s: “. .. ap pr ov al o f t h e m as t er pl an sh al l rem ai n val i d f or a p er io d n ot t o ex c eed fi v e ( 5) year s f ro m th e d at e o f p l an ni n g co m mi s si o n ap pr ov al , p r o vided that the authorize d c onstr uc tion or use has c omme nc ed w i t hin one (1) year of approva l a nd is pr oce e ding towa r d comple tion, u n l ess an extension of time is a pplie d f or by the a pplic ant a nd gr a nted by the planning c ommission. In a ddition, the time be twe en t h e co m pl et i on of on e p has e an d t h e i n it i at i on of th e n ex t p h as e s hal l n o t exceed a period of tw o ( 2) ye a rs.” T hu s, t he ap pr ov al o f m as t er pl an s b y t h e P l an ni n g C o mm i ss i on i s t o acco m mo dat e s ev er al p ot en t ial l y s ep ar ab l e co ns t ru ct i on pr oj ect s th at ar e l i kel y t o o c c u r over a five year period. Ther e is no r equir e me nt r ef e re nc ed in the C o mp reh en si v e P l an or th e Zo ni n g O rd i nan ce f or an i ns t it u ti o n t o pu bl i cal l y

7/5/99 MEMO 3 s har e t h ei r m as t er pl an . T her e m ay b e a d i si n cen t iv e f or an i ns t it u ti o n t o rel eas e st r a t e gi c information on potentia l pr oper ty a c quisitions. T o an sw er yo ur sp eci fi c q ues t io ns : 1 , 2 a n d 3) R epresentatives from the Depa r tme nt of Pla nning a nd Inspe c tio n s h a s m e t w i t h B ayH ealth to review the plans the y ha ve pre pa re d to da te . The y h a v e n o i m m e d i a t e plans for expansions tha t would sugge st a ma ste r pla n a pprova l p r o c ess. W e have made comments on the na tur e of the ir pla ns and ha ve off e re d o u r t e ch n ical assistance for a ma ste r pla n submission t o the Pla nning C o mm i ss i on . T he o nl y o t her in st i tu t io n t h at i s act i vel y p rep ar in g a n ew pl an i s D e l a wa r e S tate U niversity, It is our unde r sta nding tha t the y ha ve not progr e s s ed b eyo nd t he s i te i n fo rm at i on gat h er in g s t age. W e h av e s po ken wi t h U ni v er si t y r e p re se n t atives about staff partic ipa tion in the pla n de velopme nt pha se . W e s le y C o l l e g e had developed a master pla n the y a r e using to guide de cisions. It is n o t b e i n g u p dated. It is my understa nding tha t the City Counc il wa s of f er e d th e o p p o r t u n ity to visit the campus a nd r e view the pla n tha t was de ve loped. 4 ) I c a n o nly speak to the recent histor y on BayHe alth’ s pla n. The pote ntia l p u r c h ase of the Gates property wa s pr ese nte d dur ing my intr oduc tion to the i n st i tu t io n’ s d raf t p l an s. My i n tr od uct i on t o t h e W e sl ey C o ll ege P l an sh or tl y a f t er a rr i ving did not include any pla ns f or use of the Zimme r ha us II f a cilit y a s d o r m i t o r ies. My understanding is tha t the ide a was de ve loped within a f e w m o n t h s o f application for a change of use. 5 ) T h e Zoning Ordinance at A rtic le 10, Se c tions 2.491 a nd 2.58 desc r ibe s th e p ro ces s fo r p res en t in g an i ns t it u ti o n’ s m as t er pl an . It i s s peci fi cal l y r el at ed t o se q u e n t i a l construction projects a nd inc lude s a public hea r ing be f ore the C o m m i ssion. 6 ) N ei t her BayH eal t h n or W es l ey C o ll ege h av e p res en t ed an y p ro j ect s th at wo ul d m e e t t h e thresholds for a master pla n r evie w by the Commiss ion. 7 ) I h op e t h at t he i n fo rm at i on pr es en t ed i n t h is res po ns e an d as an sw er s t o sp e c i f i c q uestions documents tha t the Depa r tme nt of Pla nning a nd Inspe c tio n s h a s f o l l o w ed the policies of the Compr e hensive Pla n. The one institution t h a t m a d e ap p lication follow ed the proc e sses r e quir ed f or such a r eque st. The W e sl e y C ollege related application wa s ma de by a pr ivate e ntity. Conside r a tio n o f t h e se did not and does not constitute a “ viola tion” of the Compr e he nsiv e Pla n b y t h e C i t y. 8 ) T h e Department of P lanning and Inspe c tions ha s and will e nc our age our i n st i tu t io ns t o i n vo l ve s t af f an d/ o r t h e C o mm i ss i on i n t h e d ev el o pm en t of th ei r p l a n s. W e are aw are of tw o that a r e on- going. As the pla ns r esult in si te pla n r eq ues t s b ef or e t h e P l an ni n g C o mm i ss i on , w e w il l req ui re t h em t o p res en t th ei r p l an s f or dev el o pm en t du ri n g t h e f iv e year per io d i n co nf or man ce w it h th ei r Ma st e r P lan and our Zoning Ordina nce . 9 ) W e a r e constantly evaluating the ef f ic ac y of our polic ie s and r e gula tions a n d

7/5/99 MEMO 4 m a y r e q u est some changes to the Zoning and/or Subdivisi on or dina nce s in th e f u t u r e . No changes are necessary to me e t the inte nt of the Compr ehe nsive Pla n . I d o n ot an t ici p at e an y ch an ge t h at wo ul d req ui re t h e i n st i tu t io ns t o p res en t th ei r Ma st e r / . Campus P lans for “certif ic a tion” by the City. To the e xte nt tha t w e c an e n c o u ra ge presentation of Maste r Pla ns to the Pl a nning Commi ssion, we w ill d o s o. W e w il l req ui re t h at d ev el o pm en t pr op os al s th at p ot en t ial l y i n cl u de m u lt i pl e st a ge s b e presented as site Maste r Pla ns be f or e the Commiss ion. C o n c l u si on T h e D ep a rtment of P lanning and Inspe c tions ha s complie d with the inte nt o f th e C o m p r e h ensive P lan and the req uir e me nts of the Zoning Or dina nce in r eview in g a n d p r ese nting requests from B ayHe alth Me dic a l Ce nte r a nd the princ ipa ls o f Zi m m erh aus II. T h e en t i t ies that w ould li kely be involve d in ma ste r planning and de ve lopme n t o f a sc al e t h at w ould require maste r pla n r evie w a s def ine d by the Zoning O r d i n a n ce, are those that are cr itic a l to the he alth a nd we ll be ing of City o f D ov er an d o ur res i den t s. Th ei r act i vi t ies m ay h av e an i mp act o n t h ei r n e i gh b o r h oods. T herefore, it is most i mpor ta nt f or the City, inc luding staf f , th e C o m m i ssion and the C ity C ouncil, to ma inta in a r e la tionship with e a ch of th e m. S t a f f c an (and does) provide tec hnic al a ssista nc e with the Ma ste r Pla ns whe n t h e y a r e b eing developed. Wit h pa r tic ipation of the Commis sion, we c an be a f i l t e r f o r ideas. We can all be s uppor te rs of the ir sound la nd use de c isions . I a m a v ai lable to discuss this ma tte r with you or a ny of the othe r r e cipie nts . cc: P res i den t an d M em b er s o f C i t y C o un ci l T o ny D eP rima, C ity Manage r Dr . S co t t M i l l er , P re s i den t , W es l ey C ol l ege T o m B urns, C hairman of Ba yHe alth Me dic a l Ce nte r Boar d D e n nis K lima, P resident & CEO, BayHe alth Me dic a l Ce nte r C o n nie H olland, D irector, Sta te Of fic e of Pla nning Coor dina tion

EXHIBIT 3 COUNCIL MINUTES 09/13/2004 September 13, 2004 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Gene Ruane SUBJECT: Continuation of the Transportation Advisory Committee I believe that the historical outline which I provided to the Mayor and Council on May 20, 2004 provides compelling evidence why the Transportation Advisory Committee should continue as a separate Council committee.. I request that my May 20, 2004 memorandum be included by reference in the minutes of this meeting. In that memorandum I explained how the Committee was first established by a unanimously approved Council Resolution in October, 2001; and, then unanimously approved by an Ordinance, just a year ago this month. All but three of the members of that Council are still members of the current Council and none of these six members has ever personally indicated to me or to my knowledge to members of the public that the Transportation Advisory Committee had not effectively addressed some of the city’s most pressing transportation issues. I think they have not done that because they know in their hearts that this Committee was outstanding in closely coordinating its efforts with the State Department of Transportation, the Dover/Kent MPO, the Central Delaware Chamber of Commerce, the Dover Parking Authority, the Delaware Truckers Association, the Dover Planning and Public Works Department and other important transportation related organizations and individuals who are responsible for transportation investments and services in Dover and Kent County.. They know that its three Council members and its two civilian members, Mr. Chris Asay and Mr. Richard Ornauer did in fact make the contributions which Mr. Ornauer outlined so well in his Letter to the Editor, dated September 8, 2004, which I request be included by reference with the record of this meeting. After all, he and Mr. Asay provided much of the knowledge and dedication that made this Committee so successful. --------- If this committee is abolished, the transportation priorities which the city has already identified with the assistance of this dedicated committee and future transportation needs will not receive the priority attention that only a dedicated council committee can provide. As Mr. Steven Cain, the President of the Mayfair, Crossgates, Wedgwood, Mayfair II Civic Association stated in his August 23, 2004 letter, if this Council adopts these ordinances tonight, the Council will be sending “the wrong message to the citizens of Dover”; and, I might add to all those organizations that I just mentioned.

September 13, 2004 Memo Councilman Ruane to Mayor and Council Page 2 They will understand that transportation issues are no longer considered important enough by the Dover City Council to receive the concentrated effort that only a dedicated committee can provide. Instead, they are being told that the Council will be acting more efficiently when transportation issues are actually being relegated to a shared responsibility of a Public Safety committee, whose critical responsibilities, as Councilman Ritter has shown in recent months already justify a single focused committee. As Mrs. Janice Sibbald, pointed out in her August 15, 2004 letter, critical transportation issues like those associated with the proposed West Dover Connector will not get the attention from the Council that they deserve. Her neighbors also realize this, and that’s why she has spoken up and testified and written letters. And, I request that her letters and the others this Council has received be included by reference and date when the minutes of this meeting are adopted. ----- Isn’t it ironic that one of the chief sponsors of this Ordinance to merge the two committees has already unfairly critized Councilman Ritter for holding meetings that take too much time….and the Safety Committee has not even begun to address transportation issues in any serious way. What does that criticism say about the future success of a combined Committee? The existing responsibilities of the Public Safety Committee, which include matters related to both our Police and Fire Service, will be adversely affected because of the time and effort that transportation issues will demand. The meeting agenda of the Public Safety Committee has already been lengthened to the point where sufficient time will not be allowed for the serious exchange of information and discussion that are necessary for informed decision making. State officials and representatives from other organizations and citizens whose interest is only in transportation issues or public safety issues have already had to sit through meetings until the topic of their expertise and/or interest is addressed. So, why is this proposal being placed before the Council? The Council just reviewed the number and responsibilities of the council’s committees in September 2003. What has changed since then? I have not heard anything other than the Council Presidency. Have the sponsors of this proposal, who all voted affirmatively to establish the Transportation Committee as a standing committee of the Council learned something about the Committee’s activities since then which justify the elimination of the Committee? I certainly would like to know what has happened since then to change your minds. S:\ClerksOffice\Attachm ents and Exhibits\Council Exhibits\2004 Exhibits\09-13-2004-Exh3 - Ruane M em o - TR Com m .wpd

EXHIBIT 4 COUNCIL MINUTES 09/13/04