1,000 Friends of Maryland v. Ehrlich, 170 Md. App. 538, 550, 907 A.2d 865 (2005) involved another challenge to a decision of the Board of Public Works. In order to approve funding for improvements to a portion of Route 32, the Board was required to determine that the project was warranted by "extraordinary circumstances." 170 Md. App. at 542. The Board's decision that extraordinary circumstances warranted the Route 32 project was challenged, among other reasons, on the basis that the Board was required to make specific findings of fact. Id. at 544. The Court explained why the argument was unavailing: In approving funding of a growth-related project, the Board is not adjudicating a contested case involving fundamental rights of life, liberty, or property. Rather, it is performing a "quasi-legislative" function, such as promulgation of a regulation or approving a budget. "Where . . . the action is quasi-legislative in nature, the concepts applicable to an adversary proceeding have no relevance." Union Investors, Inc., v. Montgomery County, 244 Md. 585, 588, 224 A.2d 453 (1966). Any requirement to issue findings of fact does not apply to the Board in this case. The Board held a meeting at which it heard statements from, among others, representatives of the Department of Transportation as to whether the project satisfies the requirements for "extraordinary circumstances." The Board then voted 2-1 to approve the project for funding. In our view, the Board's actions satisfied its plain duty under the statute. (Id. at 549-551.)