Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-10-15 Minutes166 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS October 15, 1974 The Board of Directors of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas met in a regular session on Tuesday, October 15, 1974, in the Director's Room of the City Administration Building at 7:30 p.m. Present: Administrative Assistant David McWethy, City Attorney Jim McCord; Darlene Westbrook, City Clerk, and Directors Orton, Purdy, Noland, Utley, Murray, Carlson, and Stanton. Absent. City Manager Donald L. Grimes Others Present: Representatives of the news media, and members of the audience. CALL TO ORDER AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES 166.1 After the call to order by Mayor Russell T. Purdy and a brief moment of respectful silence, the Mayor asked if there be any corrections or addi- tions to the minutes of the October 1, 1974, meeting. Copies of the minutes had been distributed to each Board member prior to the meeting. 166.2 Director Carlson requested an addition to the second sentence of paragraph 158.1 to cause it to read: "Director Carlson suggested that the Advisory Committee coordinate their study with the City Attorney and City Controller so as to investigate any legal and financial problems that might be involved in such a purchase, and that they be asked to report their recommendations and findings to the Board within two months." She also requested an addition to paragraph 160.6 to cause it to read: "She requested that the Board ask the planning commission to reconsider the commercial zoning at the intersection and requested the City Manager to place the item on the agenda of the next Board meeting for the Board's discussion and action." Director Carlson then requested that the question of commercial zoning at the intersection of Highway 16 West and Highway 71 Bypass be placed on the November 5, 1974, agenda. 166.3 City Attorney McCord said the proper procedure by the Board in initiating a request asking the planning commission to reconsider the zoning of any area of the City would be for the Board to make the request in the form of a resolution. The planning commission would then consider the re- quest and render its recommendation to the Board. He assured the Board that he would draft such a resolution to be considered at the next meeting. After some discussion, Mayor Purdy ruled that the item would be placed on the agenda of the November 5, 1974, meeting. 166.4 Director Carlson then requested amending paragraph 163.2 to cause it to read: "During discussion, Director Carlson expressed that she did not approve of the practice of presenting nominations and voting on them at the same Board meeting. It was Carlson's opinion that the nominations be presented sufficiently in advance of voting to allow for consideration by the Board before the Board voted on the nominations." 166.5 There being no further additions or corrections to the minutes, Mayor Purdy declared the minutes approved as amended. 166 1 1 1 1 i ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS - Baldwin Piano and Organ Co. The proposed ordinance would authorize the issuance of Act 9 revenue bonds in the amount of $2,000,000 to finance an expansion of the Baldwin Piano and Organ Company. The voters of Fayetteville approved such an issue in a referendum held on August 27, 1974. The City Attorney reported that `th:e bond ordinance had been drafted by the bond attorney firm of Smith, Williams, Friday, Eldredge $ Clark. Mr. Friday was scheduled to be at the meeting to answer any questions but due to transportation difficulties was not able to attend. Mr. McCord said he had reviewed the proposed ordinance and the proposed lease agree- ment and that the documents appeared to be legally sufficient. Upon request by the Mayor, the City Attorney read the proposed ordinance for the first time. Following the first reading and a motion by Director Murray to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading, Director Carlson requested that the bond indenture be read in its entirety and stated that a copy of the bond indenture document was not available in the City Clerk's office during the afternoon of October 15 when she appeared in person requesting to review the document. Mr. McCord explained that the bond indenture was quite lengthy and the reason it had not been available at the time she appeared at the City Clerk's office was because he had checked the document out of the Clerk's office in order to examine it. He reminded the Board that the document had been on file in the City Clerk's office :'r several days prior to the Board meeting. During discussion the City Attorney said that if the Board had any qualms about proceding with the proposed ordinance, Mr. Friday could arrange to attend the November 5 Board meeting to reply to any questions the.Board might have concerning the issue. Director Utley then seconded the motion made by Director Murray to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading. In roll call vote of the Board, six directors answered "Aye" and one, Director Carlson, answered "Nay". Mayor Purdy declared the motion passed and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. Following the second reading, Director Utley motioned to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. The motion was seconded by Director Murray and was declared passed by the Mayor following a roll call vote of six "Ayes" and one "Nay", the "Nay" vote being cast by Director Carlson. The City Attorney then read the ordinance for the third and final time. During discussion Director Carlson expressed her opinion that the Board should defer action on the proposed ordinance to allow the Board members, particularly herself, to study the trust indenture. She stated that the trust indenture was in fact a part of the_nrdinance and if it were not read publicly as a part of the ordinance, the portion of the statutes requiring ordinances to be read -would fail to have been performed. She said the reason she wanted to know the terms of the indenture was because the proposed lease agreement was based upon the bond indenture. She said the terms of the lease agreement were such that one of the propositions or agreed conditions to the bond issuance was that Baldwin Piano and Organ Company would pay a sum to the City in lieu of county, city,•,and school.taxes•. It was her opinion that Mr. Friday's office had overlooked that portion of the proposition that the citizens voted on and that had been represented to the City. "The terms of this (lease agreement) 167 167 167.1 167.2 167.3 167.4 167.5 167.6 167.7 168 do not include any provision for the Baldwin Company to be making a payment in lieu of those taxes ", she stated. 168.1 The City Attorney disagreed with Carlson and said that the lease acknowleged the fact that property acquired under Act 9 is exempt from being taxed but also provided that the lessee would pay all taxes and assessments, if any, in connection with the project which may be lawfully levied or assessed upon the leased premises when the same shall become due. 168.2 Director Carlson then stated that "something" in lieu of taxes does not constitute a lawful assessment. She cited Section 402 of the lease agreement and said that it contained no statement saying that there would be any assessment or additional rent and further that the lease agreement did not include any binding statement upon Baldwin or its successors con- cerning any payments in lieu of taxes. She said that the terms of the lease agreement coincided with the terms of the bond indenture in that both stated that the basic rent and additional rents would be paid by Baldwin to the trustee and that any time the sums of that payment exceeds what is necessary in the bond fund the Baldwin Company may apply the excess to rent or may use the extra funds to redeem some of the bonds. 168.3 Mr. Pat Watkins, representative of the Baldwin Company, stated that the intention of the Baldwin Company was that the company would sign an agreement to pay monies in lieu of any taxes due the City, county, or school district and that it was his understanding that the separate agreement stipulating this fact would be executed at the appropriate time. 168.4 Carlson felt that the agreement for payments in lieu of taxes should be attended to at the same time the Board considered the bond indenture and lease agreement. 168.5 In answer to a question put by the Mayor, Mr. Watkins said that, even though his company would like the Board to act as soon as possible on the proposed bond ordinance and lease agreement, a delay in the Board's action would be agreeable if such a delay were in accord with the will of the Board. He further requested that should the Board have any other questions concerning the documents and their terms that the questions be discovered prior to the November 5 meeting. 168.6 The City .Attorney suggested that Board members take the opportunity to review the documents which would be on file in the City Clerk's office and then submit any questions they may have to him to be forwarded to Mr. Friday's office for reply at the next meeting. 168.7 Director Carlson then cited Section 5 concerning insurance and asked if, in view of the increase in property value in the last three years, the section could be amended to state: "The term 'full insurable value' means such value as shall be determined from time to time at the request of Lessor, Lessee or Trustee (but not more frequently than once in every thirty-six (36) months) by one of the insurers selected by Lessee." The section as presented stated that the value would be determined not more frequently than forty-eight months. Mr. Watkins said that he would check the possibilities of such an amendment. 168.8 Director Carlson then asked Mr. Watkins who would be supervising the construction and whether or not the contractor would obtain general public liability insurance. In reply, Mr. Watkins stated that it was his under- standing that the contractor would have liability coverage and that con- struction would be supervised by the project's architects and company representatives. 168 i 1 1 1 1 Following comments by Mayor Purdy and Director Utley expressing their faith and confidence in the legal counsel retained by the city, Director Stanton motioned to leave the ordinance on third reading. The motion was seconded by Director Murray and was passed unanimously in roll call vote of the Board. ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE LEASE AGREEMENT The proposed lease agreement was to be considered in conjunction with the proposed issuance of the revenue bonds for the Baldwin Company. In view of the fact that the proposed ordinance to issue the bonds was left on third reading, Director Orton motioned to table the proposed lease n until"the November 5, 1974, meeting. The motion was seconded by Director Murray and was passed unanimously by the Board. ORDINANCE CLOSING AND VACATING ALLEY - Mitchell's Addition Petitioners requesting the closing were R. L. and Mary Lou Wommack; L. D., -Nellie, and Mettle Wagnon, and Wood and Lois Cunningham. The pro- posed ordinance was left on third reading at the October 1, 1974, Board meeting to allow the Plat Review Committee to review the request for clearance and comments as to whether the utility easements should be retained. The City Attorney reported that retention of the utility ease- ' ment was found to be unnecessary and that the retention clause had been deleted from the ordinance. Mayor Purdy asked if the ordinance should pass and in roll call vote of the Board the ordinance received a unanimous vote. Mayor Purdy declared the ordinance passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2056 APPEARS ON PAGE 202-203 OF ORDINANCE 6NRESOLUTION BOOK IV REPORT FROM BOARD NOMINATING COMMITTEE Director Stanton, Chairman of the Board Nominating Committee, prefaced the introduction of the nominations by stating that the committee deemed it preferable to appoint people to committees who had been serving faith- fully and who had shown a willingness to be reappointed. He further stated that it was the opinion of the nominating committee that the work of the various committees could be expedited and more effective if current members could be reappointed to their positions when those members indi- cated the desire to serve. He then announced the following nominations: COMMITTEE • Board of Adjustments Civil Service Commission Municipal Parking Auth. .elks and Recreation Pafkssand' Recreation Advisory Board NOMINEE Carl Yates Charles Carnes Dr. C. G. Melton, Jr. W. C. Morton, Jr. R. Rodney Ryan David Lashley Elizabeth Reagan Mrs. Frank Broyles 169 169 169.1 169.2 TO REPLACE EXPIRES reappointment It John Power reappointment 169.3 169.4 1-1-80 4-1-80 6-5-79 6-5-77 1-1-77 1-1-77 1-1-77 1-1-77 170 170.1 Director Carlson then motioned that the nominations submitted by the nominating committee and any that may be submitted to the City Manager be taken under consideration and that approval of the nominations be included in the agenda of the November 5 meeting in addition to an acceptance and approval from the City Manager. Director Orton, who agreed that the procedure for presenting nominations should be amended, seconded the motion. 170.2 Director Carlson stated that it was the City Manager's statutory obligation to submit nominations and for the City Manager to make the appointments subject to the Board's confirmation. Director Orton pre- ferred not to embarass present committee members by having the Board vote from among several nominees. 170.3 Director Stanton, who reminded the Board that the present procedure had been followed for several years, did not object to the nominations being submitted by the City Manager but saw no reason to change the procedure so long as the Board Nominating Committee functioned satisfactorily. 170.4 Discussion completed, Mayor Purdy requested a vote on the motion made by Director Carlson and seconded by Director Orton. In roll call vote Directors Orton and Carlson answered "Aye" and the remaining five directors answered "Nay". Mayor Purdy declared the motion failed. 170.5 Director Utley then motioned to accept the nominations submitted by the nominating committee. The motion was seconded by Director Orton and in roll call vote of the Board, six "Ayes" and one "Nay", which was cast by Director Carlson, were recorded. Mayor Purdy declared the motion passed. ORDINANCE APPROVING LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - Wal Mart Properties, Inc. 170.6 The proposed ordinance, left on third reading October 1, 1974, pending execution of necessary right-of-way grants, would approve the development and would accept and confirm the dedication of street right-of-way and/or utility easements. The proposed development would be located north of Highway 62 West, south of Old Farmington Road, and east of the Highway 71 Bypass. 170.7 City Attorney McCord reported he had received executed copies of all the requested documents and saw no reason why the Board could not consider approval of the plan. 170.8 There being no discussion, Mayor Purdy asked if the ordinance should pass. In roll call vote of the Board the recorded vote was seven "Ayes" and no "Nays". Mayor Purdy declared the ordinance passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2057 APPEARS ON PAGE 204 OF ORDINANCE $ RESOLUTION BOOK IV ORDINANCE APPROVING LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - Fayetteville Public Schools 170.9 The proposed ordinance would approve the large scale development plan of the Fayetteville Public School System to allow construction of a library at the Asbell School on North Sang Avenue. The ordinance would also accept and confirm the dedication of street right-of-way and/or utility easements. 170.10 The City Attorney suggested that the Board table the ordinance in recognition of the fact that the required right-of-way dedication had not been executed. There being no discussion, Director Noland motioned that the ordinance be tabled until the November 5, 1974, meeting. The motion was seconded by Director Utley and received a unanimous vote from the Board. 170 1 1 1 1 1 1 171 ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY - Petitioners: James O. Witt, Jr.; Loris L. Stanton The proposed ordinance would rezone a 36.61 acre tract of land located on the west side of City Lake Road south of Pump Station Road from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to R-2 (Medium Density Residential) and I-1 (Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial). City Attorney McCord called the Board's attention to the fact that the rezoning request had not beenapproved by the planning commission as presented. His opinion was that legal notice be published stating that the petitioners were requesting the I-1 zoning befogeathehBodrdacdnsidered the request. The Board could consider an ordinance rezoning a portion R-2 as requested by the petitioners, Mr. McCord advised. Director Carlson stated that she had been informed that a petition had been signed by area property owners who objected to the R-2 zoning. Mr. McWethy, who had attended the planning commission meeting, said that no such petition hadd'eenrpresented at the time of the meeting. After discussion, Director Orton motioned that the ordinance be tabled to allow for -proper notices to be given. The motion was seconded by Director Carlson and was passed by the Board during roll call vote in which six "Ayes" and one "Abstain", cast by Director Stanton, were recorded. ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY - Petitionerx•Bernard Dresselhaus The proposed ordinance would rezone a 21.33 acre tract of land lo- cated on Fifteenth Street south of Shenandoah Mobile Home Park from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to I-1 (Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial). The ordinance was read for the first time by the City Attorney after which Mayor Purdy requested that further readings be delayed until comments had been heard from the audience The proponents of the rezoning request were invited to speak but none were present. The Mayor then asked form comments from those opposing the rezoning. Mr. Joe Segers, legal representative of residents of Shenandoah Mobile Home Park and its owner, said the residents of the park opposed the rezoning because they did not wish to have an industrial environ- ment located across the street from their homes. Another reason for their opposition, Mr. Segers said, is that many children live in the mobile home park and school buses must travel the area and that an industrial installation would jeopardize the safety of the children and buses.. Mr. Segers explained that a study made by Mr. Woods, planning consultant, indicated that the most desireable division from R-1 and I-1 would be at a creek located behind the property. He said the only reason the property was being requested zoned I-1 was so the property could be sold, not because it was conducive to industry. It was Mr. Seger's request that more time be given form consideration of the proposed land use plan in the area before the Board made a final decision. City Attorney McCord said the proper procedure for the Board to follow would be to refer the request back to the planning commission for further consideration in view of Mr. Woods' recommendation for land use in the area. Director Orton then moved that the request be referred back to the planning commission for reconsideration and the motion was seconded by Director Murray. The motion passed in a unanimous roll call vote of the Board. 171 171.1 171.2 171.3 171.4 171.5 171.6 171.6 171.7 171.8 172 ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY - Petitioners: Doctors Coker, Kaylor, Kendrick, and Johnson 172.1 The proposed ordinance would rezone a 30.4 acre tract of land located at 649 East Township Road from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to R-0 (Residential Office). Following the first reading of the ordinance by the City Attorney, Mayor Purdy, with the approval of the Board, asked for discussion from those in favor of the rezoning. There being no one to speak in favor of the ordinance, the floor was yielded to Mr. Bill Miller, legal representative of opposing property owners, who presented the Mayor a petition containing the signatures of 211 property owners protesting the rezoning request. The Mayor then presented the petition to the City Clerk and acknowledged receipt of the petition. 172.2 Mr. Miller said the rezoning should be denied in order to preserve the character of the neighborhood and because the rezoning would compound existing traffic problems. He also expressed the property owners' fear that if the doctors decided not to build on the site after it had been rezoned, the surrounding property owners would, he felt, have no remedy as to what type of activities allowed under R-0 would be built. 172.3 Property owners who were present in the audience and expressed their opposition to the rezoning based their opposition upon the fact that the rezoning would destroy the character of the neighborhood and would intro- duce additional traffic to the tranquil neighborhood. One property owner with small children reminded the Board that additional traffic would create a hazard to children who rode their bicycles to and from school. The property owners expressed that they were not prejudiced against the doctors but felt the clinic could be built in another area of town that was zoned for that purpose. 172.4 During comments from the Board, Director Orton said she felt the request should be denied as it would be the most consistent way of acting since the planners said it should not be used for anything but R-1. 172.5 Director Utley, mho tailored a compromise on the rezoning between the petitioners and the surrounding property owners, told the property owners that some type of buffer zone between pure commercial and R-1 should be provided to allow the property owner a reasonable utilization or sale of his property. In Mr. Utley's opinion, the property in question would not be beneficial if left R-1 because of purely commercial land bordering the parcel to the west. He stated that the best interests of the City would be served if a "cushion" between the commercial and R-1 property were provided; however, he said he did not favor rezoning the entire tract R-0 as he believed that a doctor's clinic which would encompass 30 acres could not be supported by Fayetteville. 172.6 Also opposing the rezoning of the entire tract were Directors Noland and Carlson. Director Carlson felt the professional planners' recommenda- tion for retaining the R-1 classification should be heeded. 172.7 When asked why the City had a responsibility to the petitioners, Director Stanton answered that the Board had the same obligation of consider- ing the petitioners' request as it did to those requesting that the regoning be denied. 172.8 Director Carlson asked why the petition for the appeal of the rezoning request was signed by the doctors and not by the property owner. Mr. McWethy explained that the petition for appeal had been filed for the owner by a party having the owner's power of attorney. 172 1 1 1 1 Discussion completed, Director Carlson moved that the rules be sus- pended to allow for the second reading. The motion was seconded by Director Orton and the recorded vote of the Board was six "Ayes" and one "Nay", which was cast by Director Utley. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time after which Director Stanton motioned to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. The motion was seconded by Director Noland and was passed by the Board's voterof six "Ayes" and one "Nay", which was cast by Director Utley. The ordinance was then read for the third and final time. No further dis- cussion being offered, the Mayor asked if the ordinance should pass. During roll call vote of the Board, seven "Nays" and no "Ayes" were recorded. The Mayor declared the ordinance failed. ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY - Petitioner: Charles E. Barrett The proposed ordinance would rezone a .9 acre tract of land located on the northeast and southeast corners of South College Avenue and Rock Street from R-2 (Medium Residential) to R-0 (Residential Office). The ordinance was read for the first time by the City Attorney after which Director Carlson motioned to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading. The motion, seconded by Director Stanton, was passed in a unanimous roll call vote of the Board. Following the second reading, Director Stanton motioned to further suspend the rules and place the ordi- nance on third and final reading. The motion was seconded by Director Murray and was passed unanimously by the Board in roll call vote. The ordinance was then read for the third and final time. Director Stanton, who bitedtthe zoning pattern in the area, said he saw no reason why Mr. Barrett should have to have a 25 foot setback for parking as required under an R-0 zoning classification when he would only be required to set back five feet under a C-3 classification. Director Carlson said she favored the C-3 zoning for the parking lot on the southl side of Rock Street but not for the nertA between' the spro- po eTa,lbui*lld nghandothe, courihodS,te, be zoned P -l. Mr. Barrett explained that he had asked for the C-3 classification in order to avoid a 25 foot setback as required by R-0. The five foot setback required by C-3 would allow him extra parking spaces. He said the planning commission had suggested that the property be rezoned R-0 with the recommendation that the Board of Adjustment waive the 25 foot setback requirements. He said he had made the application for such a waiver. Director Utley said that if the property were zoned C-3 and limited to parking, the property would be less expensive to acquire if the Rock Street/College Avenue intersection were ever widened. City Attorney McCord said that,in his opinion, the Board could vote to rezone the property R-0; then, if the Board of Adjustment denied Mr. Barrett's request for variance of the setback requirements, he could submit the request to rezone the property C-3. without,haviingcVot*ai.t " one: leam.:i vatec to gra-t the zoning, it would not :1e denying t .e rr•ra::.; said that Yr. Barrett xould have to prorede throng's the planning pmr,ssion if the BL.:_1 cf kdj stnent reiected the wai,er and he should -lest C-3. After further slight comment, Mayor Purdy asked if the ordinance should pass. In roll call vote of the Board, seven "Ayes" and no "Nays" were recorded. The ordinance was declared passed by the Mayor. ORDINANCE NO. 2058 APPEARS ON PAGE 205 OF ORDINANCE $ RESOLUTION BOOK IV 173 173 173.1 173.2 173.3 173.4 173.5 173.6 173.7 173.8 174 PURCHASING ITEMS AND AWARD OF BIDS Bid 269: Replacement vehicles for Police and Fire Departments 174.1 A bid for 12 police vehicles to be purchased over an eight month period was recommended by the City Manager to be awarded to Whit Chevrolet Company, Fayetteville, in the amount of $4,482.00 per vehicle Present police vehicles with higher mileages would be replaced first with other vehicles being replaced when the present medium mileagelhad increased The last order would be placed near mid-June, 1975. 174.2 The fire chief vehicle bid was recommended to be awarded to llatfield Pontiac in the amount of $4,349.00 and would be paid for from the 1974 Revenue Sharing Budget. It was recommended that $569.00 be appropriated from the 1973 Revenue Sharing Contingency Account to the Revenue Sharing Account Number 7402 to provide additional funds for the purchase and installation of warning lights. 174.3 Mayor Purdy cited the closeness of the bids submitted by Whit Chev- rolet and Hatfield Pontiac for the police vehicles. During discussion the Board favored awarding the bid to Hatfield Pontiac instead of to Whit Chevrolet, the low bidder. The Board discussed the superior per- formance and reasonable maintenance expenses .experienced with the Pontiac vehicles currently in use. 174.4 Director Stanton motioned that the bid for the police vehicles be awarded to Hatfield Pontiac on the condition that the company would give a written price::guarantee for the eight month period in the amount of $4,486.07 per vehicle; and, that the bid for the fire depart- ment vehicle be awarded to Hatfield Pontiac, the low bidder, in the amount of $4,349.00. The motion was seconded by Director Carlson and was passed in a unanimous roll call vote of the Board. 174.5 City Attorney McCord then read a resolution to appropriate the $569.00 from the 1973 Revenue Sharing contingency account to the Revenue Sharing account number 7402 for the purpose of providing additional funds for the purchase of the firetdepartment vehicle and the installation of warning lights. Director Noland motioned that the resolution be adopted and Director Murray seconded the motion. In roll call vote of the Board, the motion was passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 75-74 APPEARS ON PAGE 92 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK IV CORRESPONDENCE AND OTHER BUSINESS 174.6 The City Attorney then read a resolution to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a gas line easement to Arkansas Western Gas Company to serve the Nature Center Building at Lake Fayetteville Park. A motion was made by Director Orton and seconded by Director Noland that the resolution be adopted. In roll call vote of the Board, the resolution was passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 76-74 APPEARS ON PAGE 93 OF ORDINANCE $ RESOLUTION BOOK IV 174.7 Mr. McWethy then asked that the record reflect that the Directors were presented with the annual Water and Sewer Department financial statements. 174 1 1 1 1 Director Carlson then expressed her dismay at the correspondence con- cerning City affairs being channeled through the Chamber of Commerce. She cited correspondence pertaining to the Baldwin Bond issue and a western access to the Standard Register Company that she felt should have been ad'dres'sed directly to the City Manager's office. She felt persons having requests or business with the City should come directly to the City and not channel their business through:.the Chamber of Commerce. Director Stanton expressed that the procedure seemed to be a hold over from the Mayor -Council form of government and that there seemed to be some confusion in people's minds about the relationship between the City and Chamber of Commerce. He said he did not feel that the procedures used by some parties who contacted the Chamber of Commerce about City business was an attempt to have the Chamber influence or coerce the City government. ADJOURNMENT No further business being offered, Director Stanton motioned that the meeting be adjourned. The motion was seconded by Director Murray and was approved by the Board. Mayor Purdy then declared the meeting adjourned. ATTEST: Darlene Westbrook, City Clerk APPROVED: Russell T. Purdy, Mayor 175 175 175.1 175.2 175.3