BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'
May 12, 2004
Harris Hall Main Floor
Commissioner Bobby Green, Sr., presided with Commissioners Bill Dwyer, Don Hampton, Anna Morrison and Peter Sorenson present.† County Administrator Bill Van Vactor, Assistant County Counsel Stephen Vorhes and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.
a.SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. 11-04/In the Matter of Amending Chapter 16 of Lane Code to Revise the Rural Commercial Zone (RC, RCP) as Part of Periodic Review and to Amend the Floor Area Standard Outside Unincorporated Communities (LC 16.291)† (NBA & PM 4/28/04).
Bill Sage, Land Management, reported rural commercial lands are under LC 16.291, adopted in April 2002 and applied within the McKenzie Watershed.† He said it was countywide for all developed and committed exception areas outside of the communities and the other four watersheds.† He noted in March 2004 the Board applied the zone inside the communities of the Siuslaw and the Long Tom Watershed.† He noted that during the process of going through periodic review in the McKenzie Watershed in 2002, they submitted and got acknowledgment from the state from everything in the watershed except for inside the commercial zone itself. He added they had a provision that allowed for motels and hotels to be allowed and those restricted under the Oregon Administrative Rules to only being within an unincorporated community boundary.† He said they made that distinction in the definition section but they didnít state it in the use section. He noted that LCDC remanded it and wanted Lane County to clean it up.† He said they need to consider whether or not to adopt that change.† He added if they do adopt it, they will submit it back to LCDC and they will be in full compliance for the McKenzie Watershed.
Sage said when they did the small scale and low intensity definition for commercial uses, there was a mandate that they use a 4,000 square foot limitation for floor area for any single use in a commercial zone inside an unincorporated community.† He said there wasnít any mandate in the OAR for what happens outside a community.† He said they had to address Goal 14.† He said the Board took the option at that time to make a clear objective statement on how to define small scale and low impact and they set it for a limitation in a developed and committed exception area outside communities at 3,000 square feet.† He said in 2003, two counties submitted to DLCD amendments to their rural comprehensive plans in the commercial zones and they both went in with 3,800 limitation for commercial uses outside of communities and in both cases it was rejected.† He said with that rejection, LCDC established in the remand orders 3,500 square feet as a limit to what they would consider to be less intensive than the use that is inside the community.† He recommended for the Board to adopt that standard and raise it outside an unincorporated community from 3,000 to 3,500 feet.† He noted those were the principle changes.
Sorenson asked what the purpose of the 50-foot setback was.
Sage responded that in 1992 the Board adopted the current provisions in ORS 16.253 and they copied what they had done in 1984 that adopted 50 and 100 feet in those zones.† He noted it had always been an arbitrary standard and one they have used.
Sorenson asked if this could be amended after the public hearing with a different number inserted.
Vorhes indicated they would have to go back to the public for work sessions and have Planning Commission public hearings and go through the process under a separate ordinance.† He said the 50-foot setback was developed in response to the Goal 5 riparian resource protections.† He said it is the mechanism they put in place in 1984 and revised in 1992 to address riparian resource protection.† He said it is to look at what happens to the riparian resources in the 50-foot area, it is not a public safety issue.† He noted nothing shows a change to the 50 feet in the ordinance.† He added the only change to that section of the code is the removal of the words ďor sign.Ē† He indicated that everything else was language that was already in the code and they are not proposing any change to that.
Commissioner Green opened up the Public Hearing, there being no one signed up to speak, he closed the Public Hearing.
Vorhes recalled the Board was given new copies of Ordinance 11-04 and Ordinance 12-04.† He said they incorporated into those pages (attached to the ordinance) a new copy of the changes they adopted last week as part of the Transportation System Plan so the provisions of the pages (if they adopt the ordinances) would reflect the changes as well as the changes that are in front of the Board that relate to the rural commercial zone specifically.
MOTION:† to adopt Ordinance 11-04.
Morrison MOVED, Green SECONDED.
Morrison asked if the only changes they were making in the codes were those that were noticed and the riparian set back was not an issue noticed at that time.† She asked if all they were dealing with was the housekeeping piece around motels and the square footage in Swisshome, Leaburg, Vida, Triangle Lake and Horton that are unincorporated, outside of urban growth boundaries.
Sage responded that was correct.
Morrison asked with the changes proposed if it impacted anything with economic development in those areas.
Sage indicated there was some potential for impact in that by raising the floor limitation from 3,000 to 3,500 they might be able to do more business and produce more income to provide more jobs.
Sorenson asked if there was any opposition to the language on page 16-5 that was the legislative format for new motels.
Sage responded there was no opposition.† He added when they adopted that in May 2002, they only referenced rural communities.
ROLL CALL VOTE: 5-0.
b.SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. 12-04/In the Matter of Amending Chapter 16 of Lane Code to Revise the Rural Industrial Zone (RI, RCP) and Rural Comprehensive Plan Amendment Provisions to Comply with Amendments to State Law Related to Industrial Development and to Industrial Zoning of Abandoned or Diminished Mill Sites (LC 16.292 and 16.400) (NBA & PM 4/28/04).
Sage explained there are four basic issues that the Board has options for to adopt them into the industrial codes. He said the first one came out of the stateís effort of the Oregon Legislature in 2003 to address industrial uses both in resource land and in rural and industrial zones.† He stated the legislature defined abandoned mill sites as a mill that had closed after January 1, 1980 and a diminished mill site is one that after January 1, 2003 had reduced its capacity to produce below 25%.† He didnít think Lane County had any old mill sites that are not already in an industrial zone.† He said if they found a mill that was in a farm or forest zone, they could rezone those to rural commercial without taking any exceptions to Goal 2, 4, 11 or 14.† He said this was part of the legislature and executive orders from the governorís office to move these into an industrial use so other types of industries other than forest productivity could use them.
Sage indicated that one of the house bills went further and discussed any rural industrial site that was in that zoning on June 10, 2003.† He added if it was outside of the Willamette Valley and west of the summit of the coast range, they could take for a period of time between the time it was enacted up to January 2, 2006 and any industrial use would be allowed on that property of any size of any intensity, outright as long as they gave notice to any incorporated city within ten miles.† He said they only have Florence and Dunes City that were incorporated, but if they wanted to site any kind of new use in any of the corridors along the coast or ten miles up Highway 126 going toward Mapleton, then those two communities would have the opportunity to put any concerns into the record.† He said the County would have to mitigate (through conditions of approval) for that use before it would be allowed.† He noted that LCDC adopted in the ORS industrial zones and said the 10,000 inside an unincorporated rural community could be raised to 40,000 square feet if they had an urban unincorporated community.† He said they took this to the Planning Commission and they recommended that they raise the 10,000 to 40,000 in the industrial zone in the rural communities.† He noted the Planning Commission reviewed LCDCís guidelines in the commercial zone and they came across an industrial zone and it said if there is a use and it is outside an unincorporated community, in an a developed committed exception area in an industrial zone, to raise the level from 7,500 to 35,000 square feet.
Sorenson was concerned about the possibility of violations of water quality rules and didnít think they should put the opponents of the projects to an unreasonable burden to show that it has an adverse or minor impact.
Morrison was not opposed to the language that was currently in the ordinance.
Sage noted the Planning Commission recommended all the changes unanimously.
Commissioner Green opened up the Public Hearing.
Bill Kloos, P. O. Box 11906, Eugene, supported the rural industrial zone, boosting the maximum number of square feet on an existing piece of rural industrial land from 4,000 to 35,000.† He said it makes sense.† He thought it was appalling the time it takes to make changes in state law. He said the legislature and LCDC are always changing rules.† He commented since 90% of this applies to Lane County, he suggested adopting a code provision that is directly applicable with state statutes, goals and rules.
There being no one further signed up to speak, Commissioner Green closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION:† to move to adopt Ordinance No. 12-04.
Morrison MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.
ROLL CALL VOTE: 5-0.
Sorenson suggested inviting the new LCDC director to a future Board meeting and request on the policy issues an opportunity to streamline things.
c.SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. 7-04/In the Matter of Amending Chapter 13 of Lane Code to Add Definitions Pertaining to Legal Lots and Property Line Adjustments and to Add a Legal Lot Verification Provision (LC 13.010 and 13.020) (NBA & PM 4/28/04).
Steve Hopkins, Land Management, explained that this is a text amendment to Chapter 13 of the Lane Code.† He said the purpose of the amendment is to give landowners and neighbors certainty regarding legal lot status, prior to submittal of a development application.† He noted the amendment addresses a† broad and complex issue with a small change to the Lane Code.† He said the change would provide a service that was requested by the citizens and recommended by the Land Management Task Force and the Planning Commission.† He noted the changes to the code are located in attachment 1 (copy in file).
Hopkins indicated there are three definitions and small subsection code on the legal lot explanation.† He explained a legal lot is a lawfully created lot or parcel.† He noted a legal lot verification is a process and determination that a unit of land was created in conformance with Lane Code and other applicable law.† He explained that a property line adjustment is the relocation of a common property line between two abutting properties.† He indicated that this amendment does not regulate property line adjustments and does not change the criteria for determining a legal lot.† He said the criteria for determining a legal lot is a list of policies and applicable statutes that they refer to during the legal lot verification process.† He noted that last July the Board did not want to regulate property line adjustments and the Board did not want to change the legal lot criteria.
Hopkins explained what the amendment will do is that a legal lot verification will become a land use decision if the property is the result of a property line adjustment and if the owner requests it.† He noted that the Land Management Task Force did not reach consensus on property line adjustments or the legal lot criteria so this was the quickest way to address all of these issues.† He reiterated the Board limited the scope of the amendment to include just notification of certain legal lot verifications.
Hopkins indicated there were two comments that were submitted yesterday.† He noted in February of 2004, the Planning Commission voted 3-2 to recommend approval of the amendment and they also voted unanimously to recommend that the Board create a work program to address regulation of property line adjustments and legal lot criteria.† He discussed the three options regarding the amendment: to approve, deny or modify.† He explained if the Board chooses to modify, they will need to schedule a third reading for June 2 to allow staff and counsel to make the appropriate changes to the ordinance and the final reading would need to be set for June 16.
Dwyer asked why Lane County didnít adopt state law as it relates to legal lots and lot line adjustments.
Hopkins responded there was nothing user friendly in the statutes.† He wanted to provide a service to the citizens so they would have certainty of their legal lot status prior to submitting any type of development application.
Kent Howe, Land Management, indicated they are implementing state laws in their current process. He added that state law doesnít require them to do any notice for property line adjustments and this is a way to deal with it.† He said it isnít regulated and they are not proposing to regulate property line adjustments.† He stated they want to provide notice that if there is development proposed on a given piece of property that is a property that went through a property line adjustment, the surrounding areas will be noticed.† He added that would fix about 95% of the issues that people have with being uninformed about development in their neighborhood.† He commented they are consistent with statutes and this is going beyond the statutes to allow notice to go out on legal lot determinations that involved property line adjustments.
Commissioner Green opened up the Public Hearing.
Robert Emmons, 40093 Little Fall Creek Road, Fall Creek, stated he represents the following comments on behalf of the Goal 1 Coalition, Land Watch Lane County and himself.† He noted the present proposal would amend Lane Code 13.010 definitions to include definitions of legal lot and legal lot verification.† He commented the proposed definition of legal lot is confusing, incomplete and not helpful.† He noted the proposed definition of legal lot verification fails to directly address property line adjustment problems with which prompted the revisions under consideration.† He said insofor as the proposed revisions formalized current county practices concerning property line adjustments; they ratify a procedure that fails to comply with state law.† He said the completeness and pertinence of the definitions is critical to the Boardís understanding of why the present proposal and its endorsement by developer consultants are inadequate. He commented that Lane Code 13.010 currently reiterates the ORS 92.010 3, definition of lot and the ORS 215.010 1, definition of parcel.† He noted the proposed definition of legal lot adds nothing useful in addition to the existing definitions.† He explained the proposed Lane Code, 13.010 definition of legal lot, confusingly mixes lot with parcel.† He commented that it offers no guidance as to what ordinances and regulations apply or applied at any time in the past.† He added it fails to identify the date when county ordinances or regulations governing partitions became applicable.† He said that any Lane Code 13.010 definition should also make clear that the existence of a road is not sufficient to subdivide or partition land.† He indicated the proposed definition of property line adjustment is identical to that found in statutes 92.010 1 and 92.010 7 (b) to reflect its requirements that the proposed definition of property line adjustment should be amended to read:† Property Line Adjustment: the re-location of a common property line between two abutting properties where an additional unit of land is not created and where the existing unit of land reduced in size by the adjustment complies with applicable provisions of Lane Code.
Norm Maxwell, 79550 Fire Road, Lorane, noted that for lot line adjustments, there was a case in Cottage Grove where there was a triangular lot and they used a lot line adjustment to make it larger.
Jim Just, Executive Director, Goal 1 Coalition, spoke on behalf of Land Watch, Lane County and their membership in Lane County.† He commented that the coalitionís problem with the proposed Lane Code revisions is that Lane County currently has no process governing property line adjustments.† He noted that current county practice allows property owners to record a deed reflecting the property line adjustment.† He said the property owner then asks for preliminary legal lot verification and when the occasion arises requiring an application and a land use decision, that preliminary legal lot verification becomes part of the record of that proceeding and becomes final, concurrent with the land use decision becoming final.† He noted that Lane Countyís current practice does not comply with ORS 92.190 that authorizes local governments to adopt property line adjustment procedures that comply with minimum statutory requirements.† He added if a local government fails to adopt compliant property line adjustment procedures, the local government must use re-platting procedures and standards consistent with ORS 92.180 and 185 to accomplish property line adjustments.† He said because the Countyís property line adjustment procedures do not comply with ORS 92.190, every land use proposal that includes a legal lot verification is subject to challenge.† He said that Lane County does have re-platting procedures that are consistent with statutory standards and those are found in Lane Code Chapter 13.† He noted that the draft Lane Code 13.020 would formalize Lane Countyís current property line adjustment practices that do not comply with state law.† He thought that the draft Lane Code 13.020(1) allows the legal lot verification process to accomplish property line adjustments but it does not comply with state law.† He said that Lane County could comply with state law by using its existing re-platting procedures to accomplish property line adjustments as required by ORS 92.190 or the Board might want to adopt property line adjustment procedures that comply with ORS 92.190.† He commented what the Board cannot do is adopt the draft of Lane Code 13.020 if it is to comply with state law and any suggestion that the legal lot verification process can be used to accomplish property line adjustments must be removed.† He thought the Board could amend the draft Lane Code 13.020 so as to be in compliance with state law by providing for an appeal period and deleting 13.020-1.† He noted the appeal period he referred to in the first paragraph of 13.020 states that the decision becomes final when the director approves it.† He added it doesnít become final until the notice of the decision goes out to whoever is entitled to it and the appeal period has expired.† He thought that was a minor problem that needed to be addressed.
Lauri Segel, 120 W. Broadway, stated the comments are on behalf of 1000 Friends of Oregon.† She said the problem with the proposal is that it is too simple.† She noted that it fails to address the property line adjustment.† She indicated that Lane County admits that it does not regulate or process property line adjustments so the legal lot verification is an after-the-fact recognition of an action that hasnít been done in accordance with the statutory provisions. She commented that proposed definition of legal lot is confusing and it does nothing to clarify the Countyís interpretation of the appropriate statutory provisions found in ORS 92.010(3), the definition of lot, and ORS 215. 010(1) the definition of parcel.†† She added the proposed definition of legal lot verification fails to directly address property line adjustments.† She stated the proposal does nothing to alleviate the Countyís vulnerability to legal challenge of its procedure for processing property line adjustments.† She added the proposal before the Board does not go far enough in addressing the statutory provisions for property line adjustments.† She indicated that members of the Planning Commission understood this but it was too complex and they were offered no options from staff other than to approve or deny the recommendation.† She noted in the staff report that the Planning Commission (after a split vote on the recommendation from staff for approval of the proposal) voted unanimously to ask the Board to create code and policy provisions to regulate property line adjustments.† She noted what the minutes actually reflect is that the request that the Board look for a work program to address the issues identified during the public hearing and open the discussion with the intent of adopting significant policy and code revisions that address those problems.† She thought staff misrepresented the Planning Commissionís intent.† She thought a draft proposal should be amended to specifically include property line adjustment procedures and those should be consistent with state law found in ORS 92.180, 92.185 or alternatively with ORS 92.190, the re-plat procedures.
Mike Evans, 1071 Harlow Road, stated he was a member of the Land Management Task Force who gave the Board the initial recommendation to do what staff has proposed.† He commented that what staff proposed was in keeping with what the task force recommended, to provide notification for property line adjustments through the legal lot determination process and to give the option to people to apply for notification for legal lots.† He said it is his opinion that they were taking things one-step further than most jurisdictions by notifying people of property line adjustments. He thought if the Board was going to take time to make a decision, he suggested they revise the language to see if it should be considered.† He believed it to be consistent with what staffís intent is, but it is worded differently.† He thought the existing staff language was adequate.† He noted there is confusion on whether lot line adjustments are regulated or are not regulated.† He noted there has been a procedure for legal lot determinations and most jurisdictions donít have that.† He explained that any parcel that has been created through a property line adjustment involved in any type of development is going to be notified to the neighbors and there is an opportunity to deal with that.
Sorenson asked if this applied to land within the urban growth boundary.
Evans responded it doesnít and that Springfield and Eugene do their own planning in the urban growth boundary.† He noted that Springfield and Eugene both do not have a process for legal lot determinations, they regulate lot line adjustments.
Sorenson noted on page 13-1 of the legislative format, the language re-states that it applies to any partition or subdivision of land within any part of Lane County outside of incorporated cities.† He asked if this didnít apply in that area.
Vorhes responded that it does not apply to the Eugene and Springfield areas because the County has delegated and adopted other provisions that supersede Chapter 13.† He thought Chapter 13 applies in all other urban growth areas around cities unless they have adopted a contract zoning district and delegated authority to the city for a specific property.
Evans thought the primary issue that is of concern to Land Watch, 1001 Friends and Goal 1 is there have been instances in the County where a paper road had been used to distinguish two separate parcels of land and the road doesnít exist and they believe it is an improper interpretation of Lane Countyís longstanding provision that roads do divide property.† He indicated in 1991 the legislation was changed to whenever a new public road is created, it doesnít divide property.† He noted that was done as a direct result of activities in Lane County where ODOT was going through acquiring right of way and severing properties.† He explained that since 1974, Lane County has historically maintained the policy that roads divided parcels of land.† He said hundreds of parcels had been sold based upon the road recognizing two separate parcels. He thought they could redo verbiage, but he thought they were relying on state statutes.† He commented there is confusion and lack of consistency across the state.
Dwyer said they need to define a road as a road that is actually in existence and in use.† He asked if Lane County could refer to the state by reference.
Vorhes explained that one of the issues raised by an adoption by reference is the issue of delegated decision making authority off to someone else.† He said it is difficult to sustain when state law changes and the County doesnít take action to specifically adopt those changes.† He thought there was some risk involved.
Dwyer asked how they could put in provisions to define a road.
Vorhes responded that the issue of dealing with what creates a legal lot is part of a larger policy discussion of regulating property line adjustments, defining the criteria for a legal lot. He said if they want to get into that with this ordinance, it is a bigger work program than the direction of this Board and what staff responded to.
Steve Cornacchia, 180 E. 11, Eugene, indicated the Board had a memo from him dated May 10. He indicated in the letter, the changes were recommended to make it simple.† He commented that the staff language is difficult.† He noted the definitions his group proposed for legal lot verification, simplifies the exercise and draws in existing definitions that are already in the code in Chapter 16 that are the same exact definitions of lot and parcel that are in state law.† He thought there was value in looking at suggestions they made and by others to see if there is a way to make it more simple and easier to understand.†† He didnít think they should regulate all lot line adjustments.† He noted the majority of the County is made up of commercial timber land and the commercial timber owners are moving their boundaries daily and are not interested in making an adjustment.† He believed certain lot line adjustments should be regulated, but not all of them.
There being no one else signed up to speak, Commissioner Green closed the Public Hearing.
Sorenson asked what the purpose of the ordinance was.
Hopkins responded that the ordinance was to give landowners and neighbors certainty regarding the legal lot status of their property prior to development. He added it gives property owners a chance to get involved in the process and to know that something is planned.
Sorenson stated that he didnít want to take action today.
Green thought they could have Vorhes work on the packet to harmonize it so it is simple and meets the expectation and the intent.† He wanted to roll this item and polish up the areas where there is a difference of opinion.† He wanted Vorhes to come back with a final document that everyone could approve.
Hampton liked the notification of neighbors in the proposal.† His goal was to deal with the issues.† He wanted to start with state law and if they have to tweak it, that it would be better than having their own way of doing things.† He thought the director of LCDC might have advice that would be beneficial.
Dwyer suggested defining what a road is for these purposes.† He said a road is not a road that exists on a plat or something that is dedicated or not built or developed.† He said they need to define a road that is in the near planning stage and accepted and definite plans to be developed or that it is already developed and it exists.† He said they need to end the concept that the roads create parcels.
Sorenson said they need to think about putting in an ordinance they are going to be adopting in compliance with state law.† He thought the lot line adjustments should be regulated by Lane County.† He didnít hear any opposition that if they did create such a policy in an ordinance that lot line adjustments become land use decisions and they require notice to the property owners and an opportunity for public hearing.† He commented they should focus on the public buildings being built too close to watercourses and riparian protection, as that is more important than something like this.
Morrison recalled that yesterday the Board gave direction to review Land Managementís work plan on an annual basis.† She said if there is an issue that is a primary concern, then it should have been raised last year.† She indicated staff had come back with their work plan and now there are additional questions that have been raised.† She said they have to decide whether they want to finalize this and move on or to put this on the bottom and re-prioritize the planning departmentís work plan and put other things on the list that had not been on there before.
Dwyer didnít want to put this off.† He didnít think the changes they had to make were that great.† He wanted finality on what the definition of a legal lot is.† He said there has to be notice to landowners whenever there is a property line adjustment that could result in development and they have to keep it as simple as possible.
Vorhes explained the issue for staff on the proposal is to refine it and make it clearer as it relates to the direction they were given initially, to provide a means for notification of legal lot verification decisions that involve property line decisions.† He said if the Board wants them to go into the criteria for what is a legal lot and what is criteria, that is a different process. He added the same was true for coming up with regulations for property line adjustments.† He commented that would require more work.† He thought in this context, the effort of staff and what the Board has in front of them is close to relying on state law.† He said it provides a definition of legal lot that is consistent with what they have currently adopted in Chapter 16 as a definition of legal lot.† He indicated it uses the definition of property line adjustment terminology from the statute and tries to set up a simple process where there is a lot or parcel to develop on.† He added if someone wants to know if it is a lawfully created or legal lot, they would get a final determination if it resulted from a property line adjustment and notice would have to be given from the County if that is the case.† He indicated if there was something that doesnít involve a property line, they could ask the County to notice the decision to make it final.† He said if his and staffís charge is to revisit the language to try to clarify what is currently there, but not go into the area of the criteria they use to determine that something is a legal lot or not, it would take longer and they will try to come back with a work program presentation that would address that.
Green commented that based on direction, he thought the first option of clarification was what the intent was.† He wanted to take action on the first part and then bring back the secondary piece, measuring that against the other work that needs to be done to see where the priorities would be at that point in time.
Vorhes indicated if the Board wants staff response to the proposals that had been given today, that could be given in a short quick turnaround time but if the Board wanted to go into the other areas, they would have to discuss a work program.
Dwyer concurred with Green.
Sorenson thought this broadened the topics raised and it merits a public hearing on whatever the proposal ends up being.
Vorhes explained if what they want to come back is a proposal to incorporate some of the new concepts, in order to do that, they would need more of a work plan discussion; his intent would be a quick report back on how and to what extent could the language in front of the Board be clarified more, if at all, because of what they currently have in place.† He said they didnít want to redesign what they already have in place and the definitions they had already adopted in other parts of the code.† He said unless the direction of the Board is to incorporate those new concepts of addressing the criteria for when a lot is lawfully create, it† could be created by a road dividing two parcels, or to include some regulatory process for dealing with property line adjustments.† He will focus only on coming back with suggestions to revise what the Board has in front of them.† He had concerns about the proposal with some of the changes and some of the issues that had been raised.
Green stated the center of the Board wanted a quick turn around.
Howe stated he would come back re-visiting the ordinance before the Board with some minor fixes.† He said if the Board on June 15 wants to direct them to do an additional work program effort that goes beyond the ordinance, they would take that direction.
MOTION:† to approve a Second Reading and Setting a Third Reading and Deliberation on June 15, 2004, for Ordinance No. 7-04.
Dwyer MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.
a.ORDER 04-5-5-7/In the Matter of Adopting the Public Works Five-Year Capital Improvement Program FY 04/05-FY 08/09.
Green recalled the Board had a hearing last week.† He said they gave staff direction and today is the finalization of that direction.
MOTION:† to approve ORDER 04-5-5-7.
Dwyer MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.
16.CORRESPONDENCE TO THE BOARD
There being no further business, Commissioner Green adjourned the meeting at 5:10 p.m.