|
***Monday,
December 02, 2013,
Commissioners met in regular session with
Chairman Dan Dinning, Commissioner LeAlan
Pinkerton, Commissioner Walt Kirby, Clerk Glenda
Poston, and Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser.
Commissioners gave the opening invocation and
said the Pledge of Allegiance.
9:00 a.m.,
Road and Bridge Superintendent Jeff Gutshall
joined the meeting to give the departmental
report. Mr. Gutshall presented a written report.
Mr. Gutshall said plows are being installed on
the sand trucks. Road and Bridge has started
receiving calls about snow and road conditions,
according to Mr. Gutshall. Mr. Gutshall said he
and his employees will work on their Mining
Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) and
Idaho Counties Risk Management Program (ICRMP)
training sessions. Mr. Gutshall said the crusher
pit has been shut down and it will be winterized
today.
Mr. Gutshall reviewed his department report to
include: replacing a culvert by Bill Irwin’s
former residence on
Parker Canyon Road,
getting caught up on road sign work, preparing
an existing grader for trade-in, and re-writing
the Transportation Plan over the next few
months. Mr. Gutshall discussed putting the
brush-head on the excavator so it can be used to
brush the roads on and off all winter. Mr.
Gutshall discussed touring the
Trout
Creek Bridge
with an engineer and said Dan Coonce with the
Local Highway Technical Assistance Council wants
Boundary County
to be involved in negotiations.
Mr. Gutshall discussed financing for the new
grader. Mr. Gutshall said Panhandle State Bank
had implied that paperwork would be ready for
him to review, but he hasn’t seen it as of yet.
CAT’s financing is 3.2% and Mountain West Bank
is 3.05% and Mr. Gutshall said he would contact
the local bankers.
Chairman Dinning asked if there is a Road and
Bridge mechanic on duty with the new winter
shift for Road and Bridge. Mr. Gutshall said
there will be a mechanic on call during the
weekend shift, but there will not be an
electrician readily available sitting in the
shop. Mr. Gutshall said it depends on the
situation, but he can get a mechanic at the shop
within one half hour if need be. Chairman
Dinning asked who mans the answering machine at
Road and Bridge as far as checking messages. Mr.
Gutshall said the messages are checked every
morning. Chairman Dinning asked if Jim Ball has
contacted Road and Bridge about specific trees
he is concerned about. Mr. Gutshall said he
knows there are cars and other objects sitting
on county property. Chairman Dinning asked if
there are any trees to the south that could fall
onto the neighboring property. Commissioners
decided to wait for Mr. Ball to contact the Road
and Bridge Office.
Commissioners and Mr. Gutshall discussed
chipsealing and drainage options for the area of
the fairgrounds parking lot that doesn’t drain.
Chairman Dinning asked about the possibility of
laying pavement as he was thinking about a 12
foot lane between the barns. Chairman Dinning
said he would like to know the cost. Chairman
Dinning and Commissioner Kirby mentioned issues
with dust. Clerk Poston said there is the
possibility of grants for paving as that is how
some of the sidewalks at the fairgrounds have
been obtained.
The meeting with Mr. Gutshall ended at
9:20 a.m.
Commissioners tended to administrative duties.
9:30 a.m.,
Courthouse Maintenance Jerry Kothe joined the
meeting. Mr. Kothe did not present a written
report and stated that he didn’t have much to
discuss. Chairman Dinning said with the weather
getting cold Commissioners want to make sure
someone is available to make sure the furnace is
working. Mr. Kothe said he spoke to Doug Dirks
with Dirks Tree Care the other day and Mr. Dirks
asked whether or not the remaining trees at the
Courthouse needed trimmed. The cost was $330 per
tree, according to Mr. Kothe.
The meeting with Mr. Kothe ended at
9:45 a.m.
9:50 a.m., Blue Sky Broadcasting Reporter Mike
Brown, Bonners Ferry Herald Reporter Laura
Roady, Airport Manager Dave Parker, Clerk Glenda
Poston, Planning and Zoning Administrator Dan
Studer, Appellant Craig Wheatley, and County
Attorney Tevis Hull joined the meeting for the
purpose of addressing Mr. Wheatley’s appeal
hearing as it pertains to Planning and Zoning
Application #13-049. The appeal hearing was
recorded.
Attorney Hull
provided a recap and said after the initial
appeal hearing filed by Craig Wheatley,
Commissioners decided to enter into mediation
and there wasn’t a time frame imposed for that.
Commissioners will have to decide within 30 days
and render a written decision and finding of
facts to reach that decision, which is to deny,
modify, or uphold the application. At conclusion
of the last hearing, the Commissioners directed
mediation in this matter. Attorney
Hull
said there was to be a meeting or a series of
meetings and just working between Commissioners,
Mr. Wheatley, or his council to see if a
determination could be made. After that meeting
information was provided by Mr. Wheatley in an
attempt to make a factual determination as to
whether the court would mediate. During that
time discovery was made as to the elevation
presented to the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA), how the FAA had given their decision that
the application violates airspace and the reason
Mr. Studer denied the application. That was a
big issue so Attorney Hull contacted Mr.
Wheatley’s Attorney Marc Lyons to review the
diagram and discrepancy in elevation of 25 to 30
feet that absolutely affects Mr. Wheatley’s
ability to build. Attorney
Hull
said he had been able to meet with Attorney
Lyons on November 15th after ending a
long trial and he received a letter about
untimely filing. Attorney
Hull
said he knows from correspondence from Attorney
Lyons that Mr. Wheatley was to receive an email
about having an engineering study done. It was
said Attorney Hull is here for the mediation
process and not appeals process, and with that
Commissioners can engage Mr. Wheatley.
Mr. Wheatley said he is acting in lieu of
counsel. Mr. Wheatley said the term mediation
was used loosely as we don’t have mediation
here. Mr. Wheatley said at the close of the last
hearing, within the last 60 days, Commissioners
and he were to meet in order to solve the bigger
issue. The county did not avail itself to that
opportunity, according to Mr. Wheatley. Mr.
Wheatley said he had a meeting in the hallway
with Attorney Lyons and Attorney Hull and it was
clear there would be dates given to discuss
finding a resolution. Having an elevation study
done, especially during the Thanksgiving
holiday, is ludicrous and in lieu of litigation,
it would be in the best interest to sit down and
that has not happened in over two years. Mr.
Wheatley said he hasn’t been able to use his
land and he has not been approached in an
official capacity, except by J-U-B Engineering.
Mr. Wheatley said he still doesn’t know how much
land the county wants. As far as height
elevations, Mr. Wheatley said he can have Dick
Staples survey his property for a 30 foot
building and submit the information to the FAA,
have it all turned down and get to the same
point where we are right now. Mr. Wheatley said
there needs be a conversation with
Commissioners, Attorney Hull, and the Airport
Board for a win-win situation, but he doesn’t
see negotiations proceeding in good faith.
Mr. Wheatley said as for height elevation, how
much ground elevation difference could it make
to the FAA as he was told he’s in a protected
zone and with the airport filing for an extended
runway, it doesn’t matter how high. It’s just
the fact that the airport has requested an
extension so even a dog house wouldn’t be
allowed.
Chairman Dinning said the other issue is
allegedly what the examiner told him that
Commissioners are not dealing with. Mr. Wheatley
said this is the same area and same buildings.
Mr. Wheatley said all three permits he applied
for fall within that area the airport is
requesting for expansion. Chairman Dinning said
what Commissioners are trying to come up with is
height at the north end so there could be a
significant difference in elevation that would
allow the potential for building. Mr. Wheatley
said he understands that, but he disagrees. The
height of the building is zero feet above ground
level and Mr. Wheatley said he asked the
examiner about that and was told it doesn’t
matter how high as the property is in a
protected zone. Mr. Wheatley said his property
falls inconveniently into that area. Mr.
Wheatley said he is in favor of expansion, but
it’s a problem and the easy solution is the
county has to get the FAA to fund land. The FAA
has determined that nothing should be built
there. Mr. Parker said from what he thought,
there could be land that buildings could be
built on so it would be important to get a
second opinion on that. Attorney
Hull
said the person who told Mr. Wheatley this
information is the same person who signed off on
the paperwork. Mr. Wheatley said he could have
Mr. Staples survey his property, apply to the
FAA for 29 buildings, provide the GPS locations,
send Mr. Studer the 29 applications, and then go
through this process again when he’s denied.
Chairman Dinning said he’s trying to deal with
three locations today, not the negotiations for
the rest of land that Mr. Wheatley may want to
incorporate what may or may not be built on.
Chairman Dinning said there should be discussion
with the examiner about the three parcels.
Chairman Dinning said this is to determine what
is exactly on the ground, not necessarily 29
sites. Off the end of the runway there was
discussion about the lines. Attorney
Hull
informed Mr. Wheatley that Commissioners
authorized him to contact him sooner than he
did, but the delay was in his scheduling and he
apologized to Mr. Wheatley for that. The issues
are the three building locations and if Mr.
Wheatley has another issue with a taking of the
rest of his property that will have to be for a
different day. Attorney Hull
said his understanding is the person who
conducted the analysis of the property is in
Texas
and he doesn’t know the area, and he just made
his decision based on what was submitted. Gary
Gates with the FAA Office in
Helena,
MT would have more knowledge. Mr. Gates is
in charge of one-half of the airports in the
State of Idaho.
Attorney Hull
said the FAA needs those footprints and the
actual elevation so they can review it. Attorney
Hull
said the statement made that the height doesn’t
matter wasn’t communicated from the FAA, just
that certain building locations were not
permitted. Commissioner Pinkerton said the
reason for the FAA Office in
Helena
to review the footprints is because
Commissioners were lead to believe building was
possible. Commissioner Pinkerton said ultimately
Commissioners want to see building as well as
the expansion of the runway, but if it is zero
feet above ground level, then Commissioners
cannot do anything with that. Attorney
Hull
said then the matter gets into a takings
analysis.
Attorney Hull
said Mr. Gates need to be engaged in this
communication. Attorney
Hull
said he doesn’t have a problem offering the
letter to Mr. Gates and to the examiner. Mr.
Wheatley said he would take care of the letter
himself. Chairman Dinning said regardless of
elevation Commissioners want to know if a
building of any height can be built and that
should be addressed to Mr. Gates and the
examiner. Mr. Wheatley said he will send the
letter to the examiner and Attorney Hull can
forward it to Mr. Gates. Commissioners can set
up another meeting, even a special meeting, once
an answer comes back from Mr. Gates.
The meeting with Mr. Wheatley ended at 10:30
a.m.
10:30 a.m., Commissioner Pinkerton moved to go
into executive session under Idaho Code
67-2345(1)f, to communicate with legal counsel
for the public agency to discuss the legal
ramifications of and legal options for pending
litigation, or controversies not yet being
litigated but imminently likely to be litigated
regarding the airport. Commissioner Kirby
second. Commissioners voted as follows: Chairman
Dinning “aye”, Commissioner Pinkerton “aye” and
Commissioner Kirby “aye”. Motion passed
unanimously. 10:45 a.m., Commissioner Kirby
moved to go out of executive session.
Commissioner Pinkerton second. Motion passed
unanimously. No action was taken.
Commissioners tended to administrative duties.
Commissioner Kirby moved to amend the agenda to
sign the Environmental Site Assessment Sponsor
Summary of Airport Improvement Program
Compliance for the Dinning, Speed, Merrifield
and Byler properties as it is time sensitive.
Commissioner Pinkerton second. Motion passed
unanimously.
Commissioners tended to administrative duties.
11:30 a.m., Planning and Zoning Administrator
Dan Studer met with Commissioners to discuss the
possibility of merit of a complaint made by Dave
and Debbie Miller to the commercial development
permit applied for by Mack Worley. Present were:
Jessica Bremer, Scooter Bremer, Boundary
Economic Development Specialist David Sims, Blue
Sky Broadcasting Reporter Mike Brown, Matt
Bremer, Debbie Miller, David Miller, Pace-Kerby
Realtors Joe Farrell and Darlene Schneider, and
Travis Smith. The meeting was recorded.
Chairman Dinning said the purpose of the meeting
is to discuss the request for an appeal from
David and Debbie Miller on the application filed
by Mack Worley of Beaver Valley Backyard Garden
Products. The meeting is not a hearing and it’s
just for Commissioners to decide if there is
merit to the Miller’s request and to go forward
with a hearing. Commissioners said they would
speak with Planning and Zoning Administrator Dan
Studer and Attorney Tevis Hull about the need
for a hearing.
Mr. Studer said he presented Commissioners with
documents from Mr. Worley to include drawings,
etc. Mr. Studer spoke of the commercial
development permit application process. The
subject property consists of 105.7 acres and the
application is for a commercial building for the
production of plant and plant by-product to be
used for garden mulch. The application does
require additional inspections, a permit to the
Idaho Transportation Department has been applied
for as far as obtaining access to Highway 2. The
general location is the junction of
Hermann Lake Road and
Highway 2, according to Mr. Studer. The
operator’s plan is to operate from 7:00 a.m. to
3:30 p.m., and the number of employees will be
up to 10. There will be an estimated 40 traffic
trips per day. Mr. Studer said also provided in
Commissioners’ packet is an aerial photo view of
the location and proximity of development. The
concerns outlined by Mr. and Ms.
Miller
are also listed in Commissioners packet and Mr.
Studer read the letter into the record. Mr.
Studer referenced his response to the Miller’s
letter.
The county’s ordinance was changed in year 2011
and the subject area was zoned ag/forestry with
a minimum lot size of 10 acres. Chairman Dinning
asked Mr. Studer to explain the application
process and what is involved with the term
moderate use. Mr. Studer said if there were
residences within 500 feet of the planned use,
Mr. Worley would be required to apply for a
permit, but the distances he measured were over
1,000 feet and approximately more than
one-quarter of a mile. Mr. Studer said he found
that residences on adjacent properties are over
1,000 feet from the allowed use. Mr. Worley’s
application is within the specifications for
moderate use and the number of proposed
employees is less than the standards required to
meet occupancy. Attorney
Hull said this is
referenced in Chapters 15.5 & 15.6 of the
Boundary County Zoning Ordinance. The
application doesn’t reflect a higher amount of
traffic trips per day and the number of
employees that constitute a higher use. The
Comprehensive Plan guides also indicate this is
compatible use for this zone. Idaho Code does
apply as well as the Idaho Right to Farm
regulations. Farming is a natural right and it
shall be permitted throughout the state, ag
facilities are not a nuisance except when there
are improper or negligent operations and to be
considered a public nuisance the business has to
be proven to be improper or negligent. This is
found in Idaho Code #22-4501 and this process
was also in the 2011
County
Ordinance.
Chairman Dinning said it was a rumor in the
community that one person changed the Ordinance,
but that is not true. Chairman Dinning asked if
a noise comment was made. Chairman Dinning
mentioned air and ground pollution, dust from
by-products and chemical usage and he asked if
those are issues that are addressed in the
County ordinance. Mr. Studer said no, but for
dust, etc., there are other agencies and he
referred to the County
Road
and Bridge Department, Panhandle Health District
for septic issues and the Idaho Division of
Building Safety. Chairman Dinning asked about
wildlife habitat, and Mr. Studer said nothing
here would alert to a violation of the County’s
Comprehensive Plan. As it pertains to traffic
the County’s Ordinance allows up to 100 to 120
traffic trips per day, according to Mr. Studer.
Chairman Dinning said property values had been
mentioned in the Millers’ letter, but he’s not
aware of affects of ag to property values listed
in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Studer said he
would guess the Miller’s statement is
hypothetical. There had also been no public
notice, but that is not required as per the
criteria, according to Chairman Dinning. Mr.
Studer said that was correct. Chairman Dinning
said the complaint refers to odor of
by-products, but would that fall to another
agency such as Department of Environmental
Quality? The allowable business hours are 7:00
a.m. to 3:30 p.m., and that is “allowed” to be
seven days per week. Mr. Studer said if the
application was for a conditional use, Planning
and Zoning would take a look at those hours of
operation as it pertains to surrounding
neighbors.
Attorney Hull
said Commissioners are operating under Ordinance
section 13.2.4, which is the criteria for the
Board of Commissioners to determine if an appeal
comes forward from this point. Commissioners
have received an appeal and have addressed it on
the next available agenda, which is today, and
they will determine whether or not to move
forward or dismiss the appeal. Chairman Dinning
reviewed the chapter section allowed for the
procedures to follow.
Chairman Dinning asked Commissioners if they see
any procedural error. Mr. Studer said all
procedures have been documented. Attorney
Hull said he does not see
any procedural error. Chairman Dinning said
Commissioners would allow public comments.
Ms. Miller said Idaho Code statute #22-4501
refers to the right to farm and to perform
agricultural activities, but Mr. Worley’s
business is not an ag business, it’s an
industrial/commercial business so why bring this
up. Ms. Miller said she spoke to someone with
the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) and this person has not been contacted by
anyone connected with Mr. Worley’s business. A
business owner has to go through the permit
process for this to happen and this particular
person at DEQ hasn’t seen anything come across
his desk. It was stated there are three
different permits Mr. Worley has to apply for.
Chairman Dinning said the county’s ordinance is
written that the county will not enforce the
permits of other state agencies. According to
this county ordinance
Boundary
County has approved Mr. Worley’s
application, but Mr. Worley has another
responsibility to get those other permits. The
county does not want to regulate agencies and
withstand all of the costs for rules and
regulations of another state agency.
Ms. Miller informed Commissioners that Mr.
Studer has been giving Mr. Worley courtesy phone
calls so why hasn’t she and her husband been
receiving those courtesy calls as well. Mr.
Miller said the neighbors have wells and they
are concerned about affects to the wells as how
much water this business operation will use is
not known. Mr. Miller also spoke of a grinder
used for this business and how
loud that can be as well as the
type of traffic this business would consist of
such as tractor trailers. Ms. Miller said she
heard that the noise level is supposed to be
about the same as a neighbor mowing their lawn.
Mr. Studer said the Comprehensive Plan states
moderate use in the forestry zone can have a
noise level at the boundary that should not
exceed the sustained use of a lawnmower.
Ms. Bremer asked how Mr. Worley’s application
falls under the definition of agriculture. Mr.
Miller said it is for agriculture. Chairman
Dinning mentioned that the Comprehensive Plan is
written to promote economics. Ms. Miller said
she had been told the business operation
shouldn’t be a problem as there aren’t many
people who live in that area and that statement
came from Mr. Studer. Mr. Sims said there is
some confusion about the business as it relates
to the aquifer and pollution. Behind
Moyie
Springs City Hall
there is a business that uses a grinder to shave
bark and after the bark is shipped. Mr. Sims
said he doesn’t know what water requirements
are, but thinks it could be for a restroom. Mr.
Farrell said he was the realtor for Mr. Worley
and he was told by Mr. Worley that the water
will be used for domestic use. Mr. Sims said
Idaho has the right to
farm statute, natural resources issue are very
important and this county is natural resource
based. The Idaho Code section states the right
to farm is permitted use throughout
Idaho
and the definition of this was read aloud.
Mr. Smith clarified the operation behind the
City of Moyie Springs
Office
is not the same kind of grinder this business
would use. It was stated that the definitions
are broad and if the business falls under
general agriculture practices, it cannot be
declared a nuisance and agriculture and
silviculture, etc., are uses throughout the
county. Mr. Sims said if you look at those uses,
he doesn’t think the use can be restricted and
he also referred to General Feed and Grain. Mr.
Smith asked about buffer zones and who regulates
these zones as he is concerned about the
operation hours of 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Mr.
Smith asked how this operation would get shut
down. Chairman Dinning said the application did
not state if the hours are seven days per week.
Commissioners said they are just here to
determine if the appeal had merit to warrant a
full public hearing.
Attorney Hull
said Commissioners have gone well beyond what
they could by allowing public input as that is
not a procedure used and they couldn’t base
their decision on what has been received.
Ms. Miller asked about impact as far as
benefiting local businesses. Mr. Sims said this
business will bring outside dollars into this
region. Chairman Dinning said Commissioners need
to decide if the appeal has merit. Mr. Studer
explained the process for his enforcement of a
permit. Mr. Studer said the Idaho Right to Farm
rule does apply. Noise levels were briefly
mentioned and it was said there is no decibel
level for the county. Mr. Bremer said if the
distance is 1,000 from another residence, where
is the business? Ms. Bremer said she lives right
on the highway and this business is right across
from her house so the business has to be within
1,000 feet. Attorney
Hull said the Ordinance actually
refers to 500 feet. Ms. Bremer said she may even
be within 500 feet. Ms. Miller said she was also
told Mr. Worley can have a 4,000 square foot
permanent structure, but in addition he is also
allowed a non-permanent structure of up to 8,000
square feet. If you Google the already
established business, there is more than this in
feet that are permanent buildings that aren’t
going anywhere. Mr. Studer said Mr. Worley is
allowed 8,000 feet for storage in addition to
the 4,000 square feet. Barns and ag buildings
often exceed that, according to Mr. Studer. Ms.
Miller questioned what is in an ag zone.
Chairman Dinning said Commissioners need to
determine going forward with a public hearing or
have this matter handled in an open meeting.
Attorney Hull
said Commissioners can dismiss the appeal or if
they accept the appeal, then Commissioners can
hold a public hearing and invite testimony or
hold an open meeting and not invite testimony.
Chairman Dinning said if Commissioners choose to
dismiss the appeal, the decision needs to be
based on whether or not the process has been
followed, discussion of use and whether the use
is industrial or ag use, and decide how to
proceed. Ms. Bremer said if her residence is
within 500 feet, then the process hasn’t been
followed properly. Mr. Studer said he hasn’t
physically been to the site. Ms. Bremer said if
Mr. Studer went to the site, he would see the
distance. Mr. Studer said he could stand to be
corrected. Ms. Miller asked when measuring is it
straight as the crow flies, and Mr. Studer said
yes. Mr. Studer said the road access to the
business would not be developed until spring.
Attorney
Hull asked if the appeal was timely.
Mr. Studer said yes, the issue date was November
12th and he was contacted by Ms.
Miller and later that same week was contacted by
Mr. Miller. Attorney Hull
said the letter was received November 18th.
Mr. Smith said the hours are the biggest issue
for him as a tub grinder is loud.
Alan Winkelseth has certain hours to operate and
cannot go beyond five days per week. If a
business can get away with longer hours, they
will. Mr. Bremer said he can’t comprehend how
Mr. Worley’s business is ag related. Gravel pits
were mentioned and Chairman Dinning said if
someone wanted a gravel pit in an ag zone, it
would fall under the same guidelines. Mr. Studer
said yes. Chairman Dinning asked if
Commissioners can wait to determine merit until
Mr. Studer has had a chance to determine the 500
foot distance. Chairman Dinning said to be
honest, if he was the owner, he would just move
the business beyond the 500 feet. Attorney
Hull
said there is only one of two decisions
Commissioners can make since no error in the
process has been made. Information on the
distance of 500 feet can be determined by
holding an appeal hearing and getting additional
information, according to Attorney Hull.
Commissioner Pinkerton moved to hold an appeal
hearing, with the time to be set in the future,
to consider the appeal filed by Dave and Debbie
Miller as it pertains to a Planning and Zoning
application filed by Mack Worley of Beaver
Valley Backyard Products. Commissioner Kirby
second. Motion passed unanimously.
It was said in Chapter 13.2.4.2, following the
appeal review the Zoning Administrator will
notify the appellant by mail of the decision.
Attorney Hull said the
Millers will have 10 days to remit a fee to
continue the appeal process, but traditionally
Boundary County
has not had a fee so there will not be that fee.
The appellant, affected parties and
Commissioners will receive notice of this.
Attorney Hull
said the affected properties are generally the
surrounding area and he suggested Ms. Miller
forward the names of the affected parties to Mr.
Studer so he can send them notices.
The meeting to discuss the merit of the Miller’s
appeal to Mr. Worley’s application ended at
12:30 p.m.
Commissioners recessed for lunch at 12:30 p.m.
1:30 p.m., Commissioners met for the afternoon
session with Chairman Dan Dinning, Commissioner
LeAlan Pinkerton, Commissioner Walt Kirby, Clerk
Glenda Poston, and Deputy Clerk Michelle
Rohrwasser.
Chief Deputy Clerk Tracie Isaac and Restorium
Administrator Karlene Magee joined the meeting.
1:30 p.m., Commissioner Kirby moved to go into
executive session under Idaho Code #67-2345(1)a,
to consider hiring a public officer, employee,
staff member or individual agent. Commissioner
Pinkerton second. Commissioners voted as
follows: Chairman Dinning “aye”, Commissioner
Pinkerton “aye” and Commissioner Kirby “aye”.
Motion passed unanimously. 4:50 p.m.,
Commissioner Kirby moved to go out of executive
session. Commissioner Pinkerton second. Motion
passed unanimously. No action was taken.
There being no further business for the week,
the meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m.
/s/
DAN R.
DINNING, Chairman
ATTEST:
/s/
GLENDA POSTON, Clerk
By: Michelle Rohrwasser, Deputy Clerk
|
