> Meetings & Minutes > 1994 Minutes

PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

MONDAY, AUGUST 8, 1994

MEETING TO CONSIDER APPLICATION

TO THE STATE FOR ENTERPRISE ZONES

(#87)

The Board of County Commissioners met at 1:30 p.m. in regular session to consider the application to the State for Enterprise Zones. Chair Duvall presided; Commissioners Disney and Hotchkiss were present. Also present were: Lew Wymisner, Enterprise Zone Administrator; Rowland Mower, President of Fort Collins, Inc.; Frank Bruno, Economic Development Director for City of Fort Collins; Donna Hart, Assistant to the County Administrator; Neil Gluckman, Assistant County Administrator; and Frank Lancaster, Interim County Administrator. Recording Clerk, S. Graves.

Chair Duvall stated that the purpose of today's meeting is for the Board to receive further information regarding a request to expand the area designated as the enterprise zone, as approved by the City of Fort Collins, and to consider adoption of a resolution to be forwarded to the State requesting this expansion. Previously, the Board sent a letter of support to Governor Roy Romer requesting his support for extending the boundaries of the Larimer County Enterprise Zone to include the four corners at the NCR site (Harmony Road and County Road 9); the request today is for expansion of a much larger area. Mr. Bruno presented slides showing the proposed expanded enterprise zone area..

Mr. Tom McKenna, citizen and taxpayer, voiced his strong opposition to the designation of enterprise zones and suggested that the Board make a strong effort for the State to abolish all enterprise zones. Mr. McKenna expressed his concern that the designation of enterprise zones does not create jobs for local people and it is not government's job to use taxpayers money to provide jobs for private companies.

Much discussion followed. Mr. Mower stated that approximately 90% of the area in the proposed expanded area qualifies according to the criteria originally established for enterprise zones. Commissioner Disney described his struggle in supporting this request, as it stretches the guidelines established in the original enterprise zone resolution, and the intentions of the legislature, to assist economically distressed areas, create local jobs, help the working poor, help existing businesses and contribute toward clean environment. In his reluctance to support this request, Commissioner Disney requested that a follow-up meeting be scheduled with the Board, the Mayor of Fort Collins, the Department of Local Affairs Director, and other interested parties, to discuss tightening the criteria for designation of enterprise zones in Larimer County in the future; Mr. Mower stated that he will schedule this meeting.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Hotchkiss moved that the Board adopt the Resolution Regarding Designation of an Enterprise Zone, and authorize the Chair to sign same.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

R94-97g RESOLUTION REGARDING DESIGNATION OF AN

ENTERPRISE ZONE

The meeting recessed at 2:30 p.m.

MEETING TO DISCUSS KEY CURRENT AND UPCOMING ISSUES

AND LOBBYING STRATEGIES FOR URBAN DISTRICTS

(#88)

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 2:45 p.m. in regular session with Jane Uitti, Urban Coordinator for Colorado Counties, Inc. Chair Duvall presided; Commissioners Disney and Hotchkiss were present. Also present were: Neil Gluckman, Assistant County Administrator, and Frank Lancaster, Interim County Administrator. Recording Clerk, S. Graves.

Ms. Uitti stated that the purpose of today's meeting is to discuss the Board's current and upcoming priorities for the county and how those priorities can be incorporated into the Urban District and CCI lobbying efforts in 1995; she noted she will be meeting with all the Urban District counties for the same purpose. Ms. Uitti presented a listing of the 1994 major Urban District issues and a summary of county and legislative actions taken on each issue, and requested feedback from the Board regarding issues of particular interest to them. The Board indicated their interest in Senate Bill 35 regarding subdivision regulation of 35+ acres and in growth management; Commissioner Disney expressed interest in transportation funding and requested guidance concerning how the counties are going to fund themselves under the Tabor and Gallagher Amendments. It was agreed that affordable housing is also a priority. The Board expressed disagreement with Ms. Uitti spending over half of her time on social services and indicated that her time could be better spent working on the growth problem. Ms. Uitti asked the Board if they would like for CCI to ask the Legislature to consider a study looking at the financing system for counties; i.e., property tax, income tax, sales tax, and to look at the whole picture with CCI as active partners. The Board responded affirmatively; Commissioner Hotchkiss stated that there needs to be a better balance in financing and the whole structure of financing local and state governments needs to be reviewed. Chair Duvall also requested assistance from CCI for a proposal the Sheriffs are trying to get through Legislature to get the State to help pay for forest fires.

The Board expressed a desire to meet with the local legislators on a regular basis to discuss these priorities and provide an opportunity to keep the legislators updated on priorities of the Board, etc.; Mr. Lancaster will attempt to schedule legislative breakfasts on a regular basis for this purpose.

The meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m.

TUESDAY, AUGUST 9, 1994

PERSONNEL STANDING MEETING

(#89)

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 9:30 a.m. in regular session with Ralph Jacobs, Director of Personnel. Chair Duvall presided; Commissioners Disney and Hotchkiss were present. Also present were: Patsi Maroney, Compensation and Benefits Specialist; Frank Lancaster, Interim County Administrator; Neil Gluckman, Assistant County Administrator; Donna Hart, Assistant to the County Administrator and Bob Keister, Budget Manager. Recording Clerk, A. Jensen.

Mr. Jacobs began the meeting by passing out a folder containing the agenda for today's meeting and information regarding a variety of subjects relative to the Personnel Department.

1. RECRUITING FOR A COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR. Mr. Jacobs passed out a copy of the current County Administrator job description to the Commissioners requesting clarification of the job description and the selection process. It was noted by Mr. Jacobs that the Interim County Administrator position should not exceed six months to comply with the Commissioners' policy regarding interim positions. The Commissioners have until February, 1995 to complete the selection process. Commissioner Hotchkiss raised the question of whether or not the position should be opened up to the public or kept as a promotional opportunity only and suggested that the Commissioners present this issue to the Cabinet for feedback. Mr. Lancaster said the next Cabinet meeting won't be until September 1, 1994. Chair Duvall requested Mr. Lancaster to move the Cabinet meeting to an earlier date to expedite the process and how much longer they had on Ms. Friedman's Interim Administrator position. Mr. Jacobs replied by saying that there is four more months before the six month time period elapses on her position. The Commissioners agreed to present the questions whether to have the selection process remain a promotional opportunity or have it open to the general public and to what extent shall they advertise the vacancy to the Cabinet. The Commissioners must also decide on a job description. Once these decisions have been made, the

Commissioners will contact Mr. Jacobs to proceed. Discussion ensued about the possibility of including the public in the screening process; form a panel to make the selection, or narrow the field down to a manageable level.

2. PAYROLL SURVEY. Discussion moved to the results of the Payroll Survey. Mr. Jacobs felt the most important question posed in the survey was No. 4 requesting suggestions to make the payroll process more efficient. Most departments seemed to be satisfied with the existing payroll system. Many departments made suggestions which would improve the system and are being evaluated. Mr. Lancaster interjected that the payroll system is considered an administrative nightmare for the departments that have employees who work outside the Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. time frame. Mr. Jacobs responded by saying that the payroll system is very complex and involves every employee's participation.

3. UPDATE ON 1995 PAYROLL ISSUES. Since the budget process will not be complete until September, it was suggested that the Commissioners wait until the budget is decided upon and then fit a payroll plan into what is available from a budgetary standpoint. The payroll plan the Commissioners have been considering would mean a 3.8% raise for County employees. Mr. Keister cautioned the Commissioners that this plan may be overly ambitious and should wait until the budget process has been completed. A 3.0% raise was considered more realistic. Concerns regarding trying to meet the Front Range Budget Conference (FRBC) survey figures were raised. Mr. Jacobs will draft a letter to clear up any misunderstandings about raises and meeting FRBC goals.

4. PERSONNEL ITEM-EXECUTIVE SESSION:

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board go into Executive Session at 10:20 a.m. with Mr. Jacobs to discuss a personnel matter.

Motion carried 2-0.

The Board came out of Executive Session at 10:25 a.m.; no action taken.

MEETING REGARDING OPERATIONAL COSTS FOR THE

PROPOSED JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY

(#90)

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 1:30 p.m. in regular session with Paul Cooper, Director of Community Corrections. Chair Duvall presided, and Commissioner Hotchkiss was present; Commissioner Disney was attending another meeting. Also present were Brent Nittmann, Youth Services Bureau Program Manager; Bob Keister, Budget Manager; Donna Hart, Assistant to the County Administrator; and Frank Lancaster, Interim County Administrator. Recording Clerk, S. Graves.

Mr. Cooper submitted to the Board an estimated budget, as reviewed by Mr. Keister, for operating the proposed Juvenile Detention Facility and the number of staff which will be required to operate the 24-hour facility. The total cost for personnel and operations is estimated to be $407,215; however, if the Family Emergency Team (FET) is included in the staff secure facility with its allocation of $156,233, an increase of approximately $250,982 will be required from the General Fund.

Much discussion followed regarding this unanticipated expense and Chair Duvall stated she had been under the assumption that $350,000 was currently being generated for FET and these funds would be diverted to run the new facility and no additional monies would be required; Mr. Cooper responded that these monies go to Youth Services Bureau (YSB) and not FET. There was discussion if YSB would be eliminated if the staff secure facility is built; Mr. Cooper and Mr. Nittmann stated they would be vehemently opposed to the elimination of YSB in place of the juvenile detention facility. Mr. Cooper requested direction from the Board regarding their willingness to commit to this expenditure in the event that the state announces that they are ready to proceed with building the juvenile detention facility and the 12-bed staff secure facility in Larimer County; if the Board is not ready to commit, they need to instruct Mr. Cooper now to stop further discussions with the state. Mr. Lancaster asked if there were other alternatives for the Board to consider other than a staff secure facility. Several alternatives were discussed; such as, would it be possible to use space in the Gateway Center for Youth Safe and as a staff-secure facility and, if approved by the voters, could the Law Enforcement Agency (LEA) help operate the staff-secure facility at the detention center. The Board asked Mr. Cooper what is his top priority, if the Board can come up with the $250,000--where could this money best be spent? The Board asked Mr. Cooper how soon the Board needs to make a definite decision regarding this whole issue; he responded six weeks. In the meantime, Mr. Cooper will check with the Sheriff about the possibility of approval of an LEA and to ascertain if YSB money could be dovetailed into the 'Communities in Schools' project. Mr. Cooper will report back to the Board in three weeks with answers to some the questions raised today and invite the Sheriff to be present for the meeting.

The meeting recessed at 2:40 p.m.

INFORMATIONAL MEETING REGARDING CASE LOAD MANAGEMENT

(#91 & #93)

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 4:30 for an informational meeting. Chair Duvall presided; Commissioners Disney and Hotchkiss were present. Also present were: John Barnett, Director of Planning; Russ Legg, Senior Planner; and Frank Lancaster, Interim County Administrator. Recording Clerk, S. Graves.

1. INTRODUCTION: Chair Duvall stated that the purpose of this informational meeting is for open discussion of a problem regarding caseload management and to provide an opportunity for persons in the audience to offer suggestions and ideas to the Board regarding how to best solve the problem. Chair Duvall reviewed the estimated timeline for when action will be taken, if a decision is made to proceed. Chair Duvall noted that the Board is not planning to shut down growth, but they do have a revenue and resource problem. The Board has already put a lot of new resources into planning and the county does not have unlimited resources. A solution has been proposed, which is to determine the carrying capacity of the planning office; the Board wants to put some of the planners back into long-range planning instead of spending all their time on development review, look at streamlining the process, establish some new policies, and do a quality job of reviewing applications.

2. FISCAL CONSIDERATIONS: Mr. Keister described the fiscal considerations the Board reviews each year; they determine where they are with the current budget and where they might be with next year's budget. Mr. Keister stated that when they reviewed the budget for the Planning Department, there were abnormally large increases and since revenues are limited, the increases needed in the Planning Department would deplete about half of the monies needed for all the other department requests for additional support in the county.

3. BACKGROUND AND PROPOSAL: Mr. Barnett described the current situation in the Planning Department: On the building side of their operation, since 1990 they have slightly more than doubled the number of permits and slightly less than tripled in total valuation in construction. They have responded to this increase by adding several new employees and have been able to keep up. On the planning side, there are two efforts going on, both of which are increasing dramatically; there is a special projects effort, issues such as fire-safe roofing, the Fort Collins-Loveland Corridor, implementation of a geographic information system, work on the subdivision and exemption review group, transferable development rights, and discussions with utility and fire districts. On the development review side, many of the projects have generated a great deal of citizen interest and controversy, which has increased staff time greatly; they have considered setting aside all special projects and just work on development review, but there are many citizens interested in these special projects. Mr. Barnett stated it is not effective to continue to devote all their resources to development review; therefore, the concept of caseload management was devised as an attempt to try and manage the development review workload and reduce the number of development projects. Mr. Barnett noted that they are not limiting the number of new lots created, they are just limiting the number of projects that can be reviewed to a number that is more realistic. The proposal will not affect the issuance of building permits for construction on approved lots or any actions requiring variances. Mr. Barnett added that this proposal would not have an effect on anything already in the process and it will take about six months before staff time really gets released by this..

4. CITIZEN COMMENT: Twenty-two citizens addressed the Board and offered their comments, suggestions, criticisms, etc. In summary, the comments ranged from the county over-reacting to a market that is beginning to steady, staff needs to get back to long-range planning, this action will put a significant restriction on the use of the land, the county is maxed out and growth has become unmanageable, a time out would be good, etc. Suggestions offered were that the developer should be required to pay all the development review fees and impact fees, hire volunteers to help with the back log and help devise a more efficient system, streamline the regulations so applications could move forward quickly, applications not be allowed to move forward until all conditions have been met, eliminate duplications in the process, etc. The Board was complimented for providing this opportunity for citizen input.

At this time, Commissioner Disney left the meeting to attend a meeting in Loveland.

5. SUMMARY: To summarize, Commissioner Hotchkiss stated that it is easy to identify the problem, and there is no easy solution; however, this type of meeting provides an opportunity for people to learn how complex the problem is. Commissioner Hotchkiss stated that raising fees is not the answer - fees should be related to the cost of service; fees should not be punitive. The "first come, first served" idea of processing seems to be elementary; however, if adopted, he would like to condition that to "first come, first served, if the application is all in order". Commissioner Hotchkiss cautioned staff not to over re-act and to be careful; we need to certify the experts and eliminate duplication. Commissioner Hotchkiss wants to put money in service and the other Board members want money to go into long-range planning, so they have to find a balance. Chair Duvall stated she wants to reach this balance, currently all monies are going into service and some needs to be diverted to long-range planning. She also stated that it is not the intention of the County to shut down growth; they want to be fiscally responsible. Chair Duvall thanked everyone for coming to the meeting and for their comments.

The meeting adjourned at 5:55 p.m.

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 10, 1994

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

(#93 @ 100)

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:30 a.m. in regular session with Frank Lancaster, Interim County Administrator. Chair Duvall presided; Commissioners Disney and Hotchkiss were present. Also present were: Patty Arnett, Health Department Business Office Manager; Rex Smith, Director of Public Works; and Donna Hart, Assistant to the County Administrator. Recording Clerk, S. Graves.

1. REQUEST FOR AN ADDITIONAL FTE FOR THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT: Ms. Arnett noted that the Health Department has experienced an overwhelming increase in administrative workload related to the tremendous volume of Medicaid billing and grant billings added in the past year and a half. She requested Board approval to add 1 FTE to the General Administration staff to assist with meeting the demands of the expanded workload created by the increases in services. The position would be funded in combination by the Medicaid fees and grant administrative reimbursement funds and would not require any county funds.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Hotchkiss moved that the Board approve the addition of 1 FTE to the General Administration staff in the Health Department, with the understanding that salary and benefits will be paid from non-county funds, as requested by Ms. Arnett.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

2. CITIZEN COMPLAINTS - HOW TO HANDLE: Discussion ensued regarding a procedure to be followed regarding citizen complaints. Mr. Smith noted there is a lot of duplication of efforts in returning calls of complaint; their office receives dozens of calls every week. His staff responds and then the citizen calls to complain to the Board; if the Board then directs staff to call again to respond, the citizen is unhappy and feels he is getting the run-around. Mr. Lancaster will work on a follow-up system for citizen complaints--a tracking or funneling system. In the meantime, if a call or letter is addressed to a specific Board member, Mr. Lancaster will two-track it; if the complaint is to the Board in general, Mr. Lancaster will handle it. Chair Duvall noted, however, that if it is a land use issue, she wants to be made aware of it.

3. LANDFILL PAVING PROJECT: Mr. Smith informed the Board that a project has been developed to pave the entrance at the landfill down to the recycling center and to put in left turn lanes on County Road 19. Mr. Smith stated that the low bid for this project is $207,000; Mr. Smith proposed taking $50,000 out of Street Impact Fees, which would be a legitimate use of those funds, and Solid Waste has a uncommitted fund balance of $150,000. Mr. Smith requested approval from the Board to proceed with contract negotiations and use the funds as suggested. CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD was to approve this request and the revised 94' budget will reflect these funding changes.

4. WORKSESSION:

-- Mr. Lancaster asked the Board if there is anything they would like added to the agenda for tomorrow's policy worksession; Chair Duvall would like to discuss the possibility of drafting a "framework for action" to give to the Planning Office so they will know upfront the conditions or requirements the Board will either vote for or against.

5. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS:

-- Commissioner Disney reported on the meeting he attended last night with the Loveland City Council and Berthoud Town Board on POST 2001; the Loveland City Council indicated they will be passing a resolution in support very soon and the Berthoud Town Board passed a resolution supporting POST 2001 last night.

-- Chair Duvall asked Mr. Lancaster if, in addition to the follow-up system to be instituted to follow up on complaints, a system could also be devised to follow up on projects; she would like to have regular progress reports so the Board will know what is happening. Mr. Lancaster stated that he has a pending list and will keep the Board updated.

6. DOCUMENT REVIEW: The following documents, of a routine nature, were considered by the Board:

M O T I O N

Commissioner Hotchkiss moved that the Board approve a revision to the Minutes of July 25, 1994 on page 11, 1st paragraph, as suggested by Chair Duvall.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Hotchkiss moved that the Board approve the Minutes for the week of August 1, 1994 and the Agenda for the week of August 15, 1994, as submitted.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Hotchkiss moved that the Board approve Petitions for Abatement for the following, as recommended by the County Assessor Steve Miller: Skaar; McKenna; Bishop/Hughes; Last Chance Properties; Pedron; Akers/Megilligan; Buckskin Associates; Illick; Smeims; Owens/Cross; Slimak; Thissen; Hoyle; Orme; Hartzell; Zimmerman; Phillips; Roberts Cattle Company; and Trojahn.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Hotchkiss moved that the Board approve the following miscellaneous documents: Site Application for Davies Mobile Home Park; Meadowdale Hills 2nd Amended Plat; Bland Minor Residential Development #S-205-92; and Orton-Sullivan Amended Plat.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

LIQUOR LICENSES: Licenses were issued to: Casa De Colorado - 6% WITH EXTENDED HOURS - Fort Collins, CO. and Sol's Long Branch Saloon - 6% WITH EXTENDED HOURS. County approval was granted to: The Jammer Lounge - 6% - Loveland, CO.; CSU Concessions (Marriott Management Service Corp.) - 3.2% - Fort Collins, CO.; and Sparks General Store - 3.2% - Fort Collins, CO.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Hotchkiss moved that the Board approve the following documents:

C94-50 CONTRACT (AGREEMENT) BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF

LARIMER, COLORADO, CROSSROADS SAFEHOUSE, INC.,

THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, AND RHOADS CONSTRUCTION,

INC. (CDBG Grant for construction of Crossroads Safehouse

building addition)

R94-98s FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE MASTER

PLAN AND PRELIMINARY PLAT OF PARAGON ESTATES

PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT

Motion carried 3 - 0.

At this time, Assistant County Attorney Jeannine Haag and Rex Burns, Engineer joined the meeting for legal matters.

Ms. Haag presented closing documents for the Chair's signature for the purchase of the property at Midpoint Drive (Centerpoint 2nd Filing) in Fort Collins, CO.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Hotchkiss moved that the Board authorize the Chair to sign the closing documents for the purchase of property at Midpoint Drive (Centerpoint 2nd Filing), as presented by Ms. Haag.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board go into Executive Session to discuss litigation.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

The meeting adjourned at 11:30 a.m.; no action taken.







THURSDAY, AUGUST 11, 1994

MEETING REGARDING PROPOSED RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING

THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS

(#94)

The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. in regular session with the Director of Planning, John Barnett. Chair Duvall presided; Commissioners Disney and Hotchkiss were present. Also present were: Joel Davis and Greg Heming, CEO of Common Lands Limited Liability Co.; Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney; and Frank Lancaster, Interim County Administrator. Recording Clerk, S. Graves.

Mr. Heming read a prepared statement describing the systematic clear and concise plan which defines, regulates, encourages and promotes a county-wide multi-jurisdictional planning tool for the transfer of development rights. Mr. Heming submitted proposed enabling legislation, referred to as the Larimer County Conservation P.U.D., which would give Larimer County a powerful and equitable tool to carve out policies which protect and enhance the character of the county and allow development to occur in appropriate clusters to reduce the extent of urban sprawl. Mr. Heming stated that their legislation is voluntary and preservation motivated and is fair to landowners, developers, and the public.

Mr. Davis explained why this enabling legislation is necessary; this legislation is focused on taking the density off lands that are worthy open space and will preserve land that is worthy of preservation and transfer density closer to urban services. This legislation sets forth specific criteria for the qualification of a sending parcel, where the development is to be removed, and the qualifications for a receiving parcel.

Much discussion and a question and answer period followed: Chair Duvall asked if this is an exclusive partnership. Mr. Davis answered it is available to any landowner in Larimer County--it is a procedure and it is not pro-growth or no-growth, it is neutral. Commissioner Disney asked if it was possible to transfer development rights from county to county; Mr. Davis answered affirmatively, if that county agrees and has similar legislation. Chair Duvall noted that the City of Fort Collins' biggest concern is about the receiving area concept and why should they accept the density, and at what point does the government and the public have input regarding design; she is concerned that the people near the receiving areas will be upset if the design isn't spelled out.

Chair Duvall stated that the Board is not only trying to preserve open space, they are also trying to drive development in certain areas. Commissioner Disney asked if the county were to identify a receiving parcel in their jurisdiction and develop a master plan for that receiving parcel, which had certain covenants, does that make it impossible or market restrictable for a developer. Also, he noted that if the County decides to adopt this concept, it is absolutely critical that the first one be done right--it has to be a model. The

Board also asked about the quality of land in the exchange--is there anything in the process to define what is being transferred and without identifying receiving areas, how can you do long-range planning in terms of planning for services. Chair Duvall asked what kind of argument can the Board use for convincing the cities they should cooperate with the county and be supportive of this concept. Commissioner Hotchkiss stated that it is a good idea, but is has limited application.

CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD was to ask Mr. Barnett to proceed with exploring the possibility for adopting legislation for transferable development rights. A review team will be set up to work with staff to review this concept; Mr. Barnett suggested that outside persons also be included on this review team and Mr. Lancaster suggested that the Assessor should be included on the review team. Mr. Barnett stated that, if adopted, each request for transferable development rights will go thru the normal process of review-- concept technical review, before the reviewing agencies, and to public hearing before the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Disney asked about timeline; Mr. Barnett stated that if steps are combined, the review process will take 3 months, and 5 months to completion. Commissioner Disney recommended that steps be combined as the Board has previously concurred that exploring this concept is a top priority.

The meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m.



______________________________________

JANET S. DUVALL, CHAIR

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

( S E A L )

ATTEST:


_______________________________________

Sherry E. Graves, Deputy County Clerk



_______________________________________

Aimee Jensen, Deputy County Clerk

August 8, 1994