
    On appellant’s petition for reconsideration filed June 14, and intervenor-respondent’s response to appellant’s petition for reconsideration filed June 28,
    reconsideration allowed; former opinion (242 Or App 580,256 P3d 178) modified and adhered to as modified July 27,
    respondent’s petition for review allowed; decision of the Court of Appeals vacated, and case remanded to Court of Appeals for reconsideration November 10, 2011 (351 Or 318)
    STATE OF OREGON, by and through the Department of Land Conservation and Development, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CROOK COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon, Defendant-Respondent, and Shelley HUDSPETH, Intervenor-Respondent.
    
    Crook County Circuit Court
    08CV0045; A142004
    261 P3d 1264
    John R. Kroger, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, and Stephanie L. Striffler, Senior Assistant Attorney General, for petition.
    Edward P. Fitch, Lisa DT Klemp, and Bryant, Emerson & Fitch, LLP, for response.
    Before Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Armstrong, Judge, and Duncan, Judge.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

Appellant, State of Oregon by and through the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), seeks reconsideration of our decision in DLCD v. Crook County, 242 Or App 580, 256 P3d 178 (2011). We allow DLCD’s petition for reconsideration and adhere to our opinion as modified.

Specifically, DLCD seeks reconsideration of the final two sentences of the second paragraph of footnote 5 of our opinion that state:

“On appeal, the parties make different assertions as to whether the numerator in the expenditure ratio is approximately $500,000, as determined by the county, or approximately $900,000, as noted by the circuit court. We need not resolve that issue because it was not assigned as error on appeal. See ORAP 5.45(1) (providing, in part, that ‘[n]o matter claimed as error will be considered on appeal unless the claim of error was preserved in the lower court and is assigned as error in the opening brief in accordance with this rule’).”

242 Or App at 584 n 5.

On reconsideration we modify the second paragraph of footnote 5 to state as follows:

“On appeal, the parties make different assertions as to whether the numerator in the expenditure ratio is approximately $500,000, as determined by the county, or approximately $900,000, as noted by the circuit court. Given our analysis and disposition, we need not address and resolve any dispute in that regard.”

Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified.  