COMMISSIONERS
MINUTES
May 23, 2007
The Elmore County Commissioner’s met in special session to hold a public hearing
on the above date in the Commissioner’s room, basement of the Elmore County
Courthouse, 150 South 4th East, Mountain Home, Idaho.
Present at the meeting were Chairman Larry Rose, Commissioners Connie Cruser and
Arlie Shaw. Also present were the Clerk, Marsa Grimmett, Civil Attorney Richard
Roats, Growth and Development Director Bonnie Sharp, and Mark Pecchenino from
Pecchenino & Associates, Inc.
The Purpose of the Public Hearing was to hear testimony of: 1. Proposed text
changes to the April 7, 2004 Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 5 Land Use,
specifically the Land Use Categories/Districts and applicable Goals and
Objectives required to review applications under the proposed districts. The
proposed new Land Use Categories/Districts are: a. Planned Community (PC) b.
Planned Unit Development (PUD) and c. Planned Unit Development District (PUDD).
2. A proposed ordinance amendment to amend the Elmore County Zoning and
Development Ordinance to allow for development of Planned Communities, Planned
Unit Developments, and Planned Unit Developments Districts. 3. A proposed
ordinance amendment of the Elmore County Zoning and Development Ordinance to
adopt Chapter 4 – Planned Community Standards to allow for the orderly and
regulated development of planned communities. 4. A proposed ordinance amendment
of the Elmore County Zoning and Development Ordinance to repeal the current PUD
ordinance, Article XV-1 Planned Unit Development (PUD) and to adopt Chapter 5 –
Planned Unit Development Standards. 5. A proposed ordinance amendment of the
Elmore County Zoning and Development Ordinance to adopt Chapter 6 – Planned Unit
Development District Standards.
Jeff Day from Fish and Game read a letter prepared by the Department of Fish and
Game:
_________________________________________________________________________________
May 22, 2007
Subject: Planned Community Zoning Ordinance
Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) has reviewed the proposed Planned
Community Zoning Ordinance, dated March 2, 2007 and offer the following comments
for your consideration.
Fish and Wildlife populations and the habitats upon which they depend are
important economic and social resources in Elmore County. Dollars generated from
hunting and fishing contribute significantly to local economies throughout the
County. From waterfowl and warm water fishing on the Snake River to big game
hunting and trout fishing on the South Fork of the Boise River; fish and
wildlife resources provide a wide variety of benefits to the citizens of Elmore
County.
The quantity and quality of winter range is one of the primary factors
determining big game herd size. Large-scale, high density development in winter
range will have significant, unmitigateable impacts to big game and their
limited winter range habitat. The current rate of development and the size of
projects pose a significant threat to existing winter range and thus big game
populations.
Article II-4 Definitions
Qualified Wildlife Biologist:
In addition to a minimum of five (5) years of professional experience, a
qualified wildlife biologist should hold a graduate level degree in wildlife or
fisheries biology, not any biological field.
Article III-4 Applicability, Work Sessions, and Application Requirements
Section B.3-4: Work Session and Noticing Requirements
4.B.3-4 IDFG recommends that appropriate agencies are brought into the process
as early as possible, prior to any platting of the property. This will ensure
issues are identified and addressed early in the process before significant
resources have been expanded by the project proponent.
Section C.3-4 Application Requirements
2.c.3-4 Element B, Planned Community Comprehensive Plan
IDFG recommends that a Natural Resources Plan be included as part of the
Comprehensive Plan. This plan would included an inclusive description of natural
resources in the area, potential impacts and threats to those natural resources,
potential actions and mitigative steps needed to protect natural resources etc.
4.C.3-4 Element D, Zoning Ordinance Text, Planned Community Zoning Ordinance (PCZO):
IDFG recommends that wildlife friendly designs standards be required in this
section. These standards would include but not be limited to fencing design
requirements to ensure wildlife migrations are not blocked, landscape standards,
lighting requirements, soil stabilization/plant rehabilitation requirements,
etc.
6.C.3-4 Element F, Planned Community Development Plan (PCDP):
1. Natural Features Analysis
d. Vegetation: The analysis should include classification and mapping of plant
communities found on the property. We recommend the classification and mapping
is consistent with the Bureau of Land Management’s Indicators for Rangeland
Health (Technical Reference 1734-6) and the Ecological Site Descriptions
identified by the Natural Resources Conservation Service.
e. Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species: This analysis should include aquatic
species if applicable. It should also include other high priority species and
their habitats (e.g. sage grouse leks, seasonal big game habitat and migration
routes). We offer our assistance in helping the County identify these species
and habitats.
h. Map Features: The map should also show important wildlife habitats such as
winter range and migration routes. IDGF can help project proponents identify
these important features.
6. An open space, parks and trails plan and map
a. Ten percent natural open space is insufficient to provide meaningful wildlife
habitat, especially with respect to wintering and migrating big game. In order
to ensure the long-term survival and viability of a wide range of wildlife
species and populations, a minimum of 50% of the gross area within the Planned
Community should be dedicated as natural open space. These areas should
constitute functional habitat. The designation of natural open space should be
based on the geo-physical characteristics (e.g. slope, elevation, aspect, plant
communities, anthropogenic features, etc.) of the property. Natural open space
should occur as large contiguous pieces, not small, isolated, and fragmented
parcels. The location of the dedicated natural open space should be determined
in concert with IDFG or a committee of natural resource and wildlife
professionals (including IDFG).
7. Wildlife Mitigation Plan:
The Wildlife Mitigation Plan should clearly outline how the project will
identify and mitigate/compensate for direct and indirect impacts to fish,
wildlife, rare plants, and their habitats. We recommend the plan follow the
outline and guidelines developed by IDFG (attached). Mitigation should include
(but not be limited to) actions such as habitat enhancement, on-site
conservation easements, and/or off-site conservation easements or acquisitions.
Permanent protection of additional similar habitat (off-site mitigation) should
be determined jointly by the County and IDFG (and in compliance with IDFG’s
mitigation policy) in the form of conservation easements and/or acquisitions and
should be required for development in big game winter range.
The plan should be reviewed and approved by IDFG and a committee of experts and
organizations with wildlife and natural resource expertise.
IDFG recommends that language be included in this ordinance that states “No
planned communities shall be located in areas designated as Crucial Wildlife
Habitat by Idaho Department of Fish and Game.” For the purposes of this section,
“Crucial Wildlife Habitats” are those lands capable of supporting wintering big
game, big game migration routes, sage grouse leks, or special status fish,
wildlife, and/or plant species.
The plan should also include an analysis of the probability of success of
proposed mitigation measures, as well as an assessment of the cumulative impacts
of large-scale development including the effects of past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future actions within and beyond the boundaries of the
proposed project.
d. The detailed mitigation action table should list mitigation goals and
objectives.
f. A plan should indicate how the conservation director will implement as well
as monitor and enforce the wildlife mitigation plan.
IDFG welcomes the opportunity to work with the Elmore County Planning and Zoning
in developing
a Planned Community Ordinance that meets the needs of development in Elmore
County while
protecting the fish and wildlife resources of the County.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please
contact Eric Leitzinger
in the Southwest Regional Office at 465-8465 or Mike McDonald in the Magic
Valley Region at 324-
4359.
Sincerely,
/S/ Scott T. Reinecker, Southwest Regional Supervisor
David Parrish, Magic Valley Regional Supervisor
Mitigation Plan Outline
Prepared by Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Southwest Region, September 29,
2005
The Southwest Region envisions any approved mitigation plan to be a stand alone
document that is submitted prior to or at the same time as the master or
conceptual plan for the proposed development. Thus, at a minimum it should have
the following elements:
I. Introduction/Description of the Property and Surrounding Area
This should include a description of the existing natural resource value
present, wildlife commonly found in and near the project and habitat types.
Included should be estimates of the quantity and quality of the various habitats
found on the property as well as mapping of existing vegetation (habitat).
Aquatic species and habitat should be included if streams are present. It should
also include the scope of the mitigation plan (i.e. if it covers the entire
project or just a particular phase). In the case of projects/proposals in high
value wildlife habitat, and to provide objective and measurable pre-project
wildlife values, a habitat evaluation procedure should be conducted for key
species. Includes goals and objectives of the mitigation.
II. Project Description
A detailed description of the proposed project should be provided here. It
should include such things as housing number and density, streets, lots, the
types and amounts of open space, etc.
III. Assessment of Potential Impacts.
This would include anticipated impacts, both direct and indirect resulting from
the project. Direct impacts include, but are not limited to, acres of habitat
lost or altered (decreased quality) due to the project (converting to housing,
village, streets etc.), amount of wetland fill, flow alteration if streams are
present, wastewater treatment and disposal, water quality impacts, wildland
urban fire interface requirements etc.
Indirect impacts include, but are not limited to, disturbance (by humans and
pets) both on site and off site, increased risk of fire, invasion of noxious and
invasive weeds, increased wildlife-vehicle collisions etc.
IV. Proposed actions to avoid, reduce, compensate for, and mitigate impacts.
This should include both on-site and off-site mitigation necessary to achieve a
no-net loss of wildlife values. On site would include, but are not limited to,
project design that reduces impacts, maximizes available wildlife habitat,
improving or maintaining habitat quality, using wildlife friendly fence designs,
etc. Off-site mitigation would include, but are not limited to, land acquisition
and conservation easements for wildlife habitat, enhancement of habitat and
wildlife values, seasonal closures of trails that allow access to winter range
outside the property boundary etc.
V. Description of net impacts after mitigation is implemented. This would
include a description of unavoidable impacts and those impacts that have been
minimized through actions described in IV above.
VI. Timeline for implementing these actions.
VII. Monitoring to insure effectiveness of mitigation actions and long-term
operations and maintenance to insure mitigation lasts in perpetuity.
There should be actions described in the plan that insure that mitigation
actions are permanent (e.g. in the case of easements) and continue in perpetuity
(e.g. habitat improvement). Recourse for failed mitigation efforts should be
identified.
VIII. Other relevant documents (such as U.S. Army Corps of Engineers required
mitigation for wetland impacts, P&Z requirements, etc.)
This outline should not be considered a complete list of items to include in the
mitigation plan but a rough outline sufficient to begin the wildlife mitigation
planning process.
The Department’s Southwest Regional Office has adopted the “no net loss” of
wildlife habitat value concept for mitigation. This is similar to the no net
loss of wetland function used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers when
implementing section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
In order to objectively evaluate the adequacy of proposed mitigation, the
project proponents need to measure, map and quantify the existing vegetation
(habitat) on the property as well as on any offsite areas that are proposed for
mitigation, and assess the quality of these habitats through an established and
accepted procedure. Qualified wildlife consultants can and do perform this work.
Habitat mitigation should “in kind”, meaning lost habitat should be replaced
with the same type of habitat.
Then, when the Department evaluates these mitigation plans we have an estimate
of the quantity and quality of the existing usable habitat, the quantity and
quality of the habitat that will be impacted as well as the quantity and quality
of the usable habitat proposed for mitigation.
_________________________________________________________________________________
The Board asked questions of Mr. Day after he read the letter. Mr. Day suggested
getting more of the Community together for example ranchers, sportsman, wildlife
groups and developers. The Board thanked Mr. Day for his testimony.
Richard McMahon, Jr., 40 NE Aulbach Drive, Mountain Home, testified he had
reviewed the proposed ordinances. He asked questions of the Board regarding
proposed acreage on page 4. Mr. Pecchinino answered the question. Mr. McMahon
asked where the water was going to come from. Mr. McMahon suggested the
notification process of property owners needs to be expanded greater than one
mile where new subdivisions will be built. He feels a letter to property owners
should be sent along with notification in the paper. If we are so concerned
about the developments than people should be notified of them.
Carl Claycomb representing the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation read a letter into
the record prepared by that organization:
_________________________________________________________________________________
Elmore County Commissioner Meeting – May 23, 2007
RMEF comment on planned community ordinance for Elmore County, ID.
As Idaho’s population rapidly grows it will be imperative that wildlife and
wildlife habitat is strongly considered as a crucial element in all phases of
community and development planning. Idaho citizens have long had a strong tie to
the land and the resources that accompany it. In Elmore County, critical winter
range and migration corridors exist for elk, mule deer, and pronghorns. This
winter range and open space is a necessary life component for the thousands of
big game animals that summer throughout the higher elevations of Ada, Elmore,
and Camas County. Simply put, there is nowhere else for these animals to go.
The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation strongly urges the Elmore County Commissioners
and the Elmore Planning and Zoning board to work with the Idaho Department of
Fish and Game to identify the critical winter range areas and migration
corridors along the Danskin Front that runs from the Ada-Elmore County boundary
west and north through the Bennett Mountains to the Hammett and King Hill areas,
as well as in other parts of the County that are being considered for
development. Along with this process it will be essential that all planning
ordinances have strong and enforceable wildlife protections in place. These
protections should include but not be limited to:
1. Recognition of critical big game winter range as an endangered resource in
Elmore County;
2. Requirements for open space that are actually a benefit to wildlife, not just
cosmetic;
3. Identification by developers of big game winter range in and adjacent to
proposed developments;
4. Requirements for off-site mitigation through conservation easements,
acquisitions of critical habitat, and winter range enhancement at levels equal
to the loss of habitat; and
5. Requirement for enforceable wildlife mitigation plans from each developer,
prior to approval of development plans, with funding sources created early in
the process.
The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation applauds the efforts of the elected Elmore
County officials to properly address the growth issues that are coming to the
forefront. Throughout this effort, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation would be
willing to assist both the County and the Idaho Fish and Game Department in
their efforts to conserve and protect a portion of Idaho’s greatest asset,
natural resources.
Signed by Jeff Day and Carl Claycomb
________________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Claycomb stated it is critical we protect this area for the wildlife. When
we build in these wildlife areas it will create an ongoing problem for years to
come. Mr. Claycomb thanked the Commissioners for the opportunity to speak on
behalf of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.
Spencer Hafen, 305 S. 3rd E. St. Panaca, Nevada, asked the Board if a golf
course would count towards the open space that is required in the community
developments. Mr. Pecchenino stated it would be up to the preliminary studies if
a golf course was part of the plan. The applicant defines what the open space
would be with approval of the Commission. Building on top of hills was
discussed. Mr. Pecchenino said there was no text book definition of a hill. Mr.
Hafen said in the proposed ordinance it is not clear if you can or can not build
on a hill. Mr. Pecchenino said you can build on the hillside, not on the top.
Chairman Rose asked Growth and Development Director Bonnie Sharp to review the
memorandum she had submitted as testimony:
Dear Board, Staff would like to amend the Proposed Planned Community Ordinance
to make the following corrections. To add text that was inadvertently deleted as
shown underlined in 2.C.3-4(4) and to allow for additional technological
advances in wastewater management as shown underlined in 6.C.3-4(5).
2.C.3-4 Element B, Planned Community Comprehensive Plan:
4. A conceptual densities and intensities map, modeled after the conceptual land
use map, showing the proposed general densities and intensities within the PC
boundary by neighborhood and district. This conceptual map shall indicate the
proposed densities and intensities and be in sufficient detail to aid in the
development and the minimum, and maximum percentage of densities proposed in
each land use district. The goal of a PC is to provide a variety of housing
options at a variety of pricing points. Higher densities provide for more
affordable housing opportunities and mass transit options. Therefore, Planned
Communities shall provide a minimum net density of 6 to 8 dwelling units per
acre (DU/A) regardless of any overlay restrictions or requirements. Higher
density residential development greater than 8 DU/A and senior housing options
within the Planned Community are encouraged.
6. C.3-4 Element F, Planned Community Development Plan, (PCDP):
5. A community services and utilities plan with maps or diagrams where
appropriate shall be provided describing the routing and proposed points of
connections for electric service, natural gas service, storm drainage and flood
control systems, central wastewater treatment and collection facilities,
community water system, irrigation, telephone, internet, television cable,
public safety services, community meeting or recreation centers, public
transportation services, libraries and schools. Lagoon water treatment
facilities or systems, septic tanks and/or septic systems shall not be permitted
in planned communities. A plan describing how the proposed Wastewater
Collections System and community water system will be managed by professional
company with specific details regarding the operation and management,
accompanied by a financial plan that includes at a minimum initial construction
costs, funding source, ongoing maintenance costs, operational costs, projected
profit and loss. A lagoon system may be allowed for an interim period with Board
approval for a specific period, not to exceed twenty-four (24) months if the
applicant provides a bond in compliance with this Title to remove the lagoon
system and for the installation of the MBR or SBR system prior to the expiration
period granted by the Board. The Commission and Board may also consider
wastewater treatment systems other than the MBR or SBR systems provided the
proposed systems are similar in design, water quality output or further advance
wastewater treatment systems through technological advances. A plan describing
how the proposed Wastewater Collection System and community water system will be
managed by a professional company with specific details regarding the operation
and management, accompanied by a financial plan that includes at a minimum
initial construction costs, funding source, ongoing maintenance costs,
operational costs, projected profit and loss.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Pecchenino stated when converting the file to another format the above
information was left out.
Mr. Hafen spoke again asking about open spaces and do the parks have to be all
green or can some be left as natural habitat? Mr. Pecchenino stated that they
can be both and would be defined by the developer and reviewed by the
Commission. Mr. Hafen stated if water is such an issue in our area it needs to
be clearly stated what the 13 acres should be. Mr. Hafen asked if migration
areas had been mapped and was told that Fish and Game has those maps. Mr. Hafen
asked who will hire the qualified planners. Mr. Pecchenino reviewed the
procedure of hiring the qualified planners. Mr. Hafen again spoke regarding the
open spaces and who would be responsible for the open spaces and Mr. Pecchenino
stated a conservation coordinator or committee with representatives from
different entities. The open space would be put into a conservation easement and
the cost would come from the developer.
Tom Westall was next on the sign in sheet but had left the hearing.
Brent Bowden, from Mesa Arizona, stated that he was one of several people that
asked Mr. Lakey to prepare the letter that was sent to the commission on May 16,
2007. He urged the Commissioners to strongly consider the changes as proposed in
the letter.
Brent Bowden stated other letters should have been submitted supporting Todd
Lakey’s proposed suggestions. Letters received were from Bryan Waggoner, Omerta
Investments LLC, Ryan Kealy, Elmore & I-84 LLC, David Francis, Snake River 1,280
acres, David Francis, JDF Consulting, and Tony Bagneschi, NYNY LLC.
Mr. Bowden was concerned with having to come in every two years for review and
the Director has the ability to say your project is not working. Mr. Pecchenino
stated what your consultant submits is what is reviewed by the County, not just
the Director.
Cameron McDonald, also from Mesa Arizona, joined Mr. Bowden and the letter of
Todd M. Lakey was read into the record, with the interruption of discussion on
some points.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Todd M. Lakey, Elmore County Planned Community Ordinance
Suggested Changes, Comments and Questions
Prepared by Todd Lakey, May 16, 2007
Elmore County Commissioners, 150 South 4th East, Mountain Home, Idaho
Dear Commissioners,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment and participate in this process. I
represent property owners in Elmore County that have approximately 1320 acres.
They are very interested in the Planned Community concept. I participated in the
Planning and Zoning hearing and met with Mr. Pecchenino regarding our concerns.
A number of those concerns have been addressed while on others we are willing to
take a wait and see approach. However, we still have a few principal remaining
concerns. I have addressed those concerns in this letter and attached our
suggested changes to the ordinance.
1. Definitions: We would ask that the definitions of Qualified Economist,
Expert, Biologist and Planner not include the requirement for a graduate level
degree. A bachelor’s degree would be appropriate. We would make the same request
for the Community Conservation Director. (See attached pages).
There are planners, economists and other experts out there that may have more
experience and be better qualified than another individual that meets the
educational requirement of a graduate degree. This also seems to seriously limit
the pool of those that could work on the project in the State of Idaho based
solely upon whether they went to graduate school. Idaho Schools do not offer a
graduate degree in planning but there are many qualified Idaho Planners. The
quality and sufficiency of the analysis and reports prepared by these individual
professionals can be evaluated during the process.
2. Section 2.C.3-4. Element B, Planned Community Comprehensive Plan.
Element 3.b. The County ordinance requires an economic study showing that the
project will be supported by existing market conditions etc. The project itself
will be designed by the developer to meet market demand or they will not have a
profitable venture. However, at the same time the proposed ordinance is
requiring certain types of development without consideration for the market. The
Town Centers are required to contain high density/clustered residential,
commercial, retail, office and civic uses. Elmore County is still a fairly rural
county and high density may not be viable in a particular location. The better
wording would be for the town centers to contain a mix of uses which “may
include….”
3. Sections 6.C.3-4 Element F, Planned Community Development Plan, (PCDP)
Subsection 6. There is a requirement for a minimum of ten percent natural open
space. Natural open space is not defined. Additional open space is required for
whatever natural features are identified in the natural features analysis. We
would request that this open space be a maximum of ten percent. We would also
ask that the open space identified in the natural features analysis be
considered toward that then percent of the gross area to be preserved in natural
open space. This is the type of area that should be included in natural open
space. Open space is a positive aspect of Planned Communities but the
requirements can become too onerous. The ordinance also calls for additional
open space in the form of parks, specifically, 13 acres of parks are required
per one thousand population. At four dwelling unit per acre, for example, the
park space alone would be thirteen percent (13%). We propose a 15% open space
requirement with the ability to discuss this with staff and mutually agree to
include an additional five percent. This is a more reasonable degree of mandated
open space while the developer has the ability to include more if it makes
sense.
7. Section C.4-4 Action by the Board and Amendments.
Any applicant for a PC is very concerned that once they have their project
approved and moving forward that a governmental entity will come in and attempt
to amend their project and the approved plans and ordinances based upon what the
government entity feels may be a better direction or fulfillment of market
needs. The applicant has a very large financial investment in the project and
developed the market analyses, plans and ordinances for it to be successful.
Granted the market may change and the applicant may need to apply for a change
in the project with the County. However, once approved, that change should be
applicant driven. The County should only be monitoring the project for
compliance with the approved ordinances and plans.
8. Section D.4-4 Periodic Evaluation. Our preference would be to remove this
section but we understand there are some items that could need compliance
review. Each phase of the project will have to go through the platting process
which should include review for compliance with the PC Plans and Ordinances. If
each phase complies with the plans and ordinances then the project would be
developing as proposed. This review during platting reduced the need for
biennial review.
If as things progress over time there is no further need for a biennial review
the Board can waive the requirement. Of major concern is the language in section
3.D.4-4 which states that the Director is to evaluate the progress and long term
viability of the PC and any amendments or modifications required or anticipated
to maintain long term viability. The long-term viability of a project is a
question of the market. The County should limit its review to compliance with
the PC Plans and Ordinances developed and any required items or conditions. The
ordinance provides for the ability to modify the PC as part of the biennial
review. Again the very real concern exists that these amendments or
modifications should be requested by the applicant. The County would review and
determine whether to approve the requested changes but should not be initiating
changes to an approved project. The developer needs to be able to rely on an
approval to move forward and make further investments in the project.
11. Section F.6-4. Amendment or Termination for the Development Agreement.
I think the wording in certain sections needs to be adjusted where if refers to
the parties to the agreement and then references the Board separately. The Board
would be one of the parties to the Development Agreement, so for example, if the
parties mutually requested amendment of the agreement there is no need to
reference a separate approval by the Board because they would be one of the
parties requesting an amendment to the agreement.
The agreement may be terminated for non-compliance by either party. Giving one
party the authority to unilaterally amend an agreement tends to nullify the fact
that there is an agreement. An agreement requires a mutual agreement between the
parties.
12. Article IX-4, Section 9.9-4. We would like to strike the require finding
that vehicle trips be reduced. Planned communities may have that effect but it
is a goal to work toward as stated in Paragraph 2.C 3-4 subsection 5.a. of the
proposed ordinance. The applicant and staff will work toward this goal but it
should not be a mandated finding.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments.
Todd Lakey
_________________________________________________________________________________
Mary Frisch, 155 S. Pronghorn Drive, Boise, Idaho, asked the Commissioners if
there was going to be another public hearing, they stated they were reasonably
sure there would be, so she chose not to speak and left the meeting.
Charles Olson, 8813 Old Highway 30, Mountain Home, stated that he felt the
Commissioners should not require that the planners to have a Master’s Degree,
only a Bachelor’s Degree. Experience is very important also. He stated his
concerns were regarding water, landscaping, and the requirements for schools,
police and other public services.
Civil Attorney Richard Roats and Mark Pecchenino will get together to discuss
any changes that are needed.
No other parties came forward to give testimony. The public hearing was
recessed.
/s/ LARRY E. ROSE, Chairman
ATTEST: /s/ MARSA GRIMMETT, Clerk
