Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-07-15 Minutes• 321. MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS JULY 15, 1975 The Board of Directors of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas met in a regular session on July 15, 1975 at 7:30 p.m. in the Director's Room of the City Administration Building. PRESENT: City Manager Donald L. Grimes; Administrative Assistant David McWethy; City Attorney Jim McCord; City Clerk Darlene Westbrook; and Directors Ernest Lancaster, Paul Noland, John Todd, Al Hughes, Russell Purdy, and Morris Collier. ABSENT: Director Marion Orton OTHERS PRESENT: Members of the audience and representatives of the news media. CALL TO ORDER AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES In absence of the Mayor, the meeting was called to order by Vice -Mayor Ernest Lancaster. Following a brief moment of respectful silence, the minutes of the July 1, 1975 meeting were considered for approval. Director Todd requested amendment to the last sentence of paragraph 317.7 to cause it to read. "Director Todd felt that the purpose of the ordi- nance could be accomplished if isolated areas of the city were not patrolled on a regular basis unless specific complaints were received." There being no further amendments to the minutes, they were approved as amended. ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE - Retail Liquor Stores The proposed ordinance would amend the City Code by allowing retail liquor stores as a use -by -right in C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial and C-3 Central Business zoning districts. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the first time after which Director Hughes, seconded by Director Purdy, motioned to place the ordinance on second reading. In roll call vote of the Board, with one member absent, the motion passed unanimously. The ordi- nance was read the second time. Director Purdy, seconded by Director Hughes, motioned to further suspend rules and place the:ordinance on third and final reading. In roll call vote of the Board, with one member absent, the motion passed unanimously and the ordinance was read the third and final time. Mr. Tom Keith, representing the Skelton Street committee, was present in the audience and presented the committee's proposals for use conditions for retail liquor stores. Also, the committee had submitted a proposed ordinance which would designate the area within the city in which liquor stores, private clubs, restaurants and taverns might sell and dispense alcoholic beverages; that area being bounded on the south by Fifteenth Street, on the west by the railroad right-of-way, on the north by the city limits, and on the east by a line 250 feet east of and parallel to North College Avenue, Archibald Yell Boulevard, and South School Avenue unless the establishment were located in a bona fide shopping center. Under the proposal, liquor outlets desiring to locate outside the proposed boundary would have to be approved by the Board. 321 321.1 321.2 321.3 321.4 321.5 322 The committee also requested that a use restriction be imposed to disallow retail liquor stores from locating "across the street from" residentially zoned property. 322.1 In discussion of this proposed restriction, Director Todd felt strongly that residential property located across the street from commercially zoned property deserved protection from the possibility of having a retail liquor outlet located across the street. Chairman of the Planning Commission, Mort Gitelman, informed that the Planning Commission preferred deletion of the "across the street" terminology because the restriction might be viewed as applying to one specific situation (Skelton Street) rather than the city as a whole. He also stated that the Plannning Commission felt that the terminology might create problems of interpretation. 322.2 A motion to adopt condition (a) of the ordinance was made by Director Collier and seconded by Director Todd. The Board discussed at length the necessity of conforming with state statute and how distance requirements would be measured. Mr. Marshall Carlisle was present in the audience and said that even though the 1975 Legislature had adopted a new statute setting minimum distance requirements from churches and schools within which retail liquor stores could be located, the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board had not yet interpreted the statute nor had a new regulation specifying the method of measuring the distance been adopted. He advised that he thought it would be questionable whether the city could pass an ordinance which would conflict with the new state statute and suggested that the Board wait until the ABC Board had made an interpretation of the statute before adopting an ordinance that established a method for measurement of the minimum distance. 322.3 Director Collier then amended his motion to amend restriction (a) to read: "No retail liquor store shall be located whithin 600 feet of any church, hospital, or school house. For the purpose of the section, 'school- house' shall include classrooms and dormitory buildings of the University of Arkansas". The second to the motion stood and in roll call vote of the Board, with one member absent, the motion carried with a vote of five "Ayes" and one "Nay" which was cast by Director Purdy. 322.4 Restriction (b) was moved by Director Todd to be adopted as originally written and approved by the Planning Commission and with the terminology "across the street" included to restrict retail liquor outlets from locating across the street from residentially zoned property. Mr. Pete Estes, speak- ing in opposition to the proposed terminology, pointed out to the Board that his property on Skelton Street at which he planned to locate a liquor store, was located across from residentially zoned property at the southwest corner of the Bypass interesection with Highway 71 and implied that Mr. Keith's clients were requesting the terminology as a means of preventing the loca- tion of his liquor store on his property. The Board assured Mr. Estes that they were not considering the language for that purpose. With one member absent, the recorded roll call vote of the Board on Todd's motion, which was seconded by Director Collier, was four "Ayes" and two "Nays" which were cast by Directors Hughes and Purdy. Director Hughes insisted that a definition for "street" be provided and moved that the restriction be further amended to read: "...or are across the street from and perpendicular to property zoned residential, provided for the purposes of this ordinance that the term 'street' shall not include a federal highway." The motion was seconded by Director Todd. The recorded vote of the Board, with one member absent, was four "Ayes" and two "Nays" which were cast by Directors Purdy and Lancaster. 322 1 323 In regard to restriction (c) requiring an obscuring fence or wall to be erected when a liquor store has a common boundary with residential property, Director Collier moved that it be adopted as written. The motion was seconded by Director Todd and carried unanimously in roll call vote of the Board with one member absent. Director Noland, seconded by Director Collier, moved to amend the ordi- nance by adopting the use restricitons as amended by the Board. In roll call vote of the Board, with one member absent, the motion carried unanimously. Following slight further discussion in which the Board considered the Skelton Street Committee suggestions for amendments, Vice -Mayor Lancaster asked if the ordinance should pass as amended. In roll call vote of the Board, with one member absent, the recorded vote was six "Ayes" and no "Nays" whereupon the ordinance was declared passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2122 APPEARS ON PAGE 312 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK IV Director Hughes, seconded by Director Noland, moved that Item 6 of the agenda be considered before Item 5. The recorded roll call vote of the Board, with one member absent, was four "Ayes"; one "Nay", cast by Director Todd; and one "Abstain", cast by Director Purdy. The motion was declared passed. ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY - Parker Rushing, R75-8 Tabled for further study by the Planning Commission after second reading at the May 20, 1975 meeting, the ordinance would rezone an 80 -acre tract of land located at the north end of Stone Bridge Road, east of Crossover Road, from R-1 Low Density Residential to A-1 Agricultural. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the third time after which Director Purdy moved that the ordi- nance be amended to rezone the square east 40 acres A-1. Discussion followed Purdy's motion during which Mr. Rushing explained the area in which he proposed to locate riding stables. He stated that the main entrance to the stables would be from Crossover Road but that he would still close Stone Bridge Road if requested to do so in order to avoid routing trafficnear residential areas. Mrs. Wanda Yoe was present in the audience and told the Board that she would not have any objection to the rezoning if it involved only the square east 40 acres, nor would she object to the entrance on Crossover Road. She would, however, object to rezoning the entire 80 acres. Mr. Sam Taylor, whose residence is near Mr Rushing's proposed operation, questioned whether A-1 zoning would be proper for the property since so many objectionable operations could be. placed in the A-1 zone. Mr. Rushing stated that he had no plans for locating objectionable operations on the property and cited the pasturing of horses and cows on other property in the area. Purdy's motion to rezone only the square east 40 acres was seconded by Director Collier In roll call vote of the Board, with one member absent, five "Ayes" and one "Nay", cast by,Director Hughes, were recorded. The Vice -Mayor then asked if the ordinance should pass as amended and in roll call vote of the Board, with one member absent, Directors Purdy, Collier, and Lancaster voted "Aye". Directors Hughes, Todd, and Noland voted "Nay". The ordinance was declared failed. ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE - Riding Stables The proposed ordinance would amend the zoning ordinance by permitting riding stables in R-1 Low Density Residential zoning districts as a condi- 323 323.1 323.2 323.3 323.4 323.5 323.E 323.7; 324 tional use and would also establish use conditions. Read the first time by the City Attorney, Director Noland, seconded by Director Hughes, moved to suspend rules and place the ordinance on second reading. In roll call vote of the Board, with one member absent, the motion carried unanimously and the ordinance was read the second time. Director Hughes, seconded by Director Purdy, motioned to further suspend rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. In roll call vote of the Board, with one member absent, the motion carried unanimously and the ordinance was read the third and final time. 324.1 During discussion, Mr. John Williams, present in the audience, believed that more open spaces should be provided in centers of housing areas; and Ms. Ginger Parker, also present in the audience, termed riding stables as recreational facilities and pointed out that no city ordinance regulated the location of park and other recreational facilities. She believed that the regulation of riding stables would be in conflict with ordinances regulating recreational areas. Director Hughes stated that, unlike most recreational facilities, the riding stables would involve the keeping of animals in R-1 zoning districts. 324.2 In discussion of the use conditions, Director Collier, seconded by Director Purdy, motioned to delete a condition requiring that entrance and exits be located more than 500 feet from any existing residential dwelling. In roll call vote of the Board, with one member absent, the motion passed unanimously. Director Collier then motioned to delete requirements for the setback from residentially zoned property. The motion died for lack of a second. Director Todd, seconded by Director Purdy, then motioned to require a 250 feet setback. In roll call vote of the Board , with one member absent, the motion carried unanimously. 324.3 Director Collier stated that a riding stable would need lights and public address systems in order to control riders. Mrs. Yoe stated that floodlights and loudspeakers would be objectionable to residential property. Director Noland, seconded by Director Collier, moved to delete a condition prohibiting loudspeakers and floodlights. In roll call vote of the Board, with one member absent, the motion carried unanimously. Director Hughes motioned to accept as written, the section of the ordinance specifying extent of riding stable operations. The motion died for lack of a second and Director Purdy, seconded by Director Noland, motioned to include the boarding of horses, giving of riding lessons, and to allow hours of opera- tion from 6 a.m. until 10 p.m. In roll call vote of the Board, with one member absent, the recorded vote was four "Ayes" and two "Nays" which were cast by Directors Hughes and Lancaster. 324.4 A motion to delete the use condition limiting the number of horses per- mitted was made by Director Purdy and seconded by Director Collier. In roll call vote of the Board, with one member absent, the motion failed in a vote of two "Ayes" and four "Nays" which were cast by Directors Hughes, Lancaster, Todd, and Noland. Director Noland then motioned that the condition limiting the number of horses be amended to provide that no more than one horse be per- mitted for every 3/4 acre. The motion was seconded by Director Todd and in roll call vote of the Board, with one member absent, four "Ayes" and two "Nays", which were cast by Directors Hughes and Lancaster, were recorded where- upon the motion was declared passed. 324.5 The Vice -Mayor then asked if the ordinance should pass as amended. In roll call vote of the Board, with one member absent, four "Ayes" and two 324 325 "Nays", cast by Directors Hughes and Lancaster, were recorded whereupon the the ordinance was declared:passed. The ordinance contained an emergency clause; however, in roll call vote of the Board, with one member absent, the clause failed in a vote of four "Ayes" and two "Nays" which were cast by Directors Hughes and Lancaster. ORDINANCE NO. 2123 APPEARS ON PAGE 313-314 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK IV REPORT FROM BOARD FINANCE COMMITTEE Chairman of the Finance Committee, Ernest Lancaster, reported to the Board that the Commmittee had met July 14, 1975 to hear and review results of a recent public opinion poll regarding new sources of revenue for the city. The results showed that a reduction in services was not preferred, that a local sales tax was highly favored as a means of raising revenue for the city's general operations, and that chances for approval by the voters of a local sales tax were extremely good. Therefore, the Finance committee recommended that an election be scheduled for September 9, 1975 to permit the citizens of Fayetteville to vote on a one -cent local sales tax. The Committee also recommended that a ceiling of $10 be applied on any single transaction for the purpose of (1) avoiding placing merchants who deal in large ticket items at a competitive disadvantage with merchants outside the city, and (2) avoiding placing an undue tax burden on young families who must purchase home building materials, furniture, appliances and other high-cost items. The establishment of a separate department to administer the tax ceiling was recommended by the Committee. Director Noland, seconded by Director Collier, motioned to accept the Committee's recommendations. Mrs. Ann Hauser, present in the audience, was of the opinion that an income tax would be a more equitable means of raising revenue while Mr. Steven Winkler , also present in the audience, felt that if the city would trim some of the "fat" from operations, the city could do without additional revenues or the necessity of levying the tax. Mrs. Sylvia Swartz stated that she did not like the idea of placing a ceiling on the tax since she felt it would be more regressive and discriminatory. She felt that if the ceiling were adopted it would be tested in court and would endanger passage of the sales tax. Mrs. Betty Lancaster, president of the Washington County League of Women Voters, stated that the organization had reviewed the city's financial status carefully and was convinced that the city is in critical need of re- placement funds and recommended that the question of a local sales tax be placed before the people for their vote. Mr. Kenneth Bailey, whose services the Board retained to conduct the public opinion survey, explained how the survey was made and reported some of the results. He reiterated that the telephone survey of a random sampling of registered voters of the city indicated that the sales tax would stand a better than average chance of being approved by the voters. Mrs. Hauser questioned the method of the survey and felt that it represented the views of only a small segment of the community. Mr. Bailey assured Mrs. Hauser that the sampling, representing two percent of the city's registered voters, was considered large and quite accurate for the type of survey conducted. Following further discussion and comment, a roll call vote of the Board, with one member absent, was unanimous to accept the committee's recommenda- tions. 325 325.1 325.2 325.3 325.4 326 326.1 The City Attorney informed the Board that he had checked with the County Election Commission and that the September 9, 1975 date for the election was satisfactory. He then read a prepared ordinance to levy the sales tax and to call a special election in which the citizens of Fayetteville would vote on the sales tax question. Director Hughes, seconded by Director Collier, motioned to suspend rules and place the ordinance on second reading. In roll call vote of the Board, with one member absent, the motion carried unanimously and the ordinance was read the second time Director Purdy, seconded by Director Collier, motioned to further suspend rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. In roll call vote of the Board, with one member absent, the motion carried unanimously and the ordinance was read the third and final time. The City Attorney told the Board that this ordinance did not establish the ceiling. The Vice -Mayor asked if the ordinance should pass and in roll call vote of the Board, with one member absent, six "Ayes" and no "Nays" were recorded whereupon the ordinance was declared passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2124 APPEARS ON PAGE 315-316 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK IV 326.2 In discussion of the ordinance which would place a ceiling on the sales tax, the City Attorney said he questioned the legality of such an ordinance and requested that he be allowed to research the ordinance's legality before its adoption. Director Todd felt the Board should make a decision on the ordinance so as to indicate to the citizens what the Board's intentions were. The City Attorney said he would research the ordinance's legality should the Board pass the ordinance. He then read the ordinance for the first time after which Director Hughes, seconded by Director Noland, moved to suspend rules and place the ordinance on second reading. In roll call vote of the Board, with one member absent, the motion passed unanimously and the ordinance was read the second time. Director Noland, seconded by Director Purdy, moved to further suspend rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. In roll call vote of the Board, with one member absent, the motion passed unanimously and the ordinance was read the third and final time. 326.3 There being no discussion, Vice -Mayor Lancaster asked if the ordinance should pass. In roll call vote of the Board, with one member absent, six "Ayes" and no "Nays" were recorded. ORDINANCE NO. 2125 APPEARS ON PAGE 317 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK IV 326.4 Following passage of the ordinance, Mrs. Sylvia Swartz stated that she felt the Board was making a mistake in placing a ceiling on the proposed sales tax. She felt the ceiling would cause the tax to be more regressive and termed the ordinance as class legislation WARNER CABLE RATE STUDY 326.5 Dr. William F. Hardin was present in the audience and explained that representatives of Warner Cable Company had assured him and his associate that the company would supply the information that had been requested. He suggested that a written interim report included with the agenda preclude an oral report at this time. He stated that a final report would be made the first of August upon completion of the study. The Board concurred with Dr. Hardin's suggestion. 326 • 327 ORDINANCE AMENDING SIGN ORDINANCE The proposed ordinance, aimed at clarifying regulations applicable to the use of signs within the city, would allow "nonconforming uses" to have conforming signs. The ordinance was read the first time by the City Attorney after which Director Hughes, seconded by Director Todd, motioned to suspend rules and place the ordinance on second reading. In roll call vote of the Board, with one member absent, the motion passed unanimously. The second reading completed, Director Purdy, seconded by Director Hughes, moved to further suspend rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. In roll call vote of the Board, with one member absent, the motion carried unanimously and the ordinance was read the third and final time. There being little discussion, the Vice -Mayor asked if the ordinance should pass. With six members present, the recorded vote of the Board was six "Ayes" and no "Nays". The ordinance was declared passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2126 APPEARS ON PAGE 318 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK NO. IV 327.1 ORDINANCE APPROVING LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - General Growth Properties (Shoney's) The ordinance would approve the large scale development plan of General 327.2 Growth Properties for the construction of a Shoney's restaurant on property located north of the Northwest Arkansas Plaza, and would accept and confirm dedication of street right-of-way and/or utility easements contained therein. The City Attorney read the ordinance the first time after which 327.3 Director Hughes, seconded by Director Noland, moved to suspend rules and place the ordinance on second reading. In roll call vote of the Board, with one member absent, the motion carried unanimously and the ordinance was read the second time. Director Purdy, seconded by Director Toddd, moved to further suspend rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. In roll call vote of the Board, with one member absent, the motion carried unanimously and the ordinance was read the third and final time. There being no discussion, the Vice -Mayor asked if the ordinance should pass. In roll call vote of the Board, with one member absent, six "Ayes" and no "Nays" were recorded whereupon the ordinance was declared passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2127 APPEARS ON PAGE 319 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK IV ORDINANCE APPROVING DEVELOPMENT PLAN - Sundowner Realty/D. B. Thomas The ordinance would approve the location of a real estate sales office 327.4 !, on property located on the southwest corner of the Highway 112 and Highway 71 intersection. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the first time after which Director Noland, seconded by Director Hughes, moved to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading. In roll call vote of the Board, with one member absent, the motion carried unanimously and the ordinance was read the second time. Director Hughes, seconded by Director Purdy, moved to further suspend rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. In roll call vote of the Board, with one member absent, the motion carried unanimously and the ordinance was read the third and final time. The City Manager reported that in order to grant the request, three 327.5 4 city ordinances--theaccess road ordinance, large sclae development ordinance, and mobile home ordinance --would have to be waived for a period of six months. 327 328 328.1 Mr. D. B. Thomas was present in the audience and explained that difficulties had been experienced in trying to develop the property and that he planned to temporarily locate a mobile home on the property to house the real estate office in order to promote development. 328.2 Director Noland stated that he would be willing to grant a six month waiver of the ordinances. Other Board members were not convinced that the mobile home would be removed after six months; therefore, Director Noland motioned to amend the ordinance to require the execution of a contract in which Mr. Thomas would agree to remove the trailer at the end of the six month period at the request of the city. In roll call vote of the Board, with one member absent, three "Ayes" and three"Nays" which were cast by Directors Purdy, Lancaster and Collier were recorded whereupon the motion was declared failed. The Vice -Mayor then asked if the ordinance should pass and in roll call vote of the Board, with one member absent, one "Aye" cast by Director Noland and five "Nays" were recorded. The ordinance was declared failed. 328.3 Mr. Thomas repeatedly questioned the Board as to what basis they denied the ordinance. Vice -Mayor Lancaster replied that his particular vote was cast on the basis that city ordinances would have to be waived for a temporary situation. When Mr. Thomas asked if there would be objections to placing a temporary structure which was approved by the Building Inspector, the City Attorney replied that he felt the Board might consider a portable building. The City Manager suggested that the matter be delayed until August 5 in order to give the Board members more time in which to become acquainted with the situation and Mr. Thomas requested that the matter definitely be placed on the August 5 agenda. ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE - Fines 328.4 The ordinance would amend the City Code by increasing the maximum amount of fines which may be levied for violations of city ordinances. The ordinance was read the first time by the City Attorney after which Director Hughes, seconded by Director Todd, moved to suspend rules and place the ordinance on second reading. In roll call vote of the Board, with one member absent, the motion carried unanimously and the ordinance was read the second time. Director Purdy, seconded by Director Todd, motionedto further suspend rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. In roll call vote of the Board, with one member absent, the motion carried unani- mously and the ordinance was read the third and final time. Following slight comment, the Vice -Mayor asked if the ordinance should pass. In roll call vote of the Board, with one member absent, six "Ayes" and no "Nays" were recorded whereupon the ordinance was declared passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2128 APPEARS ON PAGE 320 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK IV RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF STIPULATION AGREEMENT - Environmental Protection Agency 328.5 The resolution would authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a stipulation for regional administrator's approval for withdrawal of a request for an adjudicatory hearing on the proposed EPA discharge permit for the Fayetteville Pollution Control Plant. The City Attorney read the • 328 resolution and Director Purdy, seconded by Director Hughes, moved to adopt the resolution. In roll call vote of the Board, with one member absent, six "Ayes" and no "Nays" were recorded. RESOLUTUION NO. 54-75 APPEARS ON PAGE 173 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK IV RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT - Ozark Aircrafters The resolution would authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an agreement between the city and Ozark Aircrafters regarding the demolition of one old building and the repair of another at Drake Field Municipal Airport. Following the reading of the resolution, Director Purdy, seconded by Director Todd,•moved that the resolution be -adopted. In roll call vote of the Board, with•one member absent, the motion carried in roll call vote of five "Ayes" and one "Abstain" which was cast by Director Lancaster. RESOLUTION NO. 55-75 APPEARS ON PAGE 174 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK IV APPROVAL OF WATER AND SEWER BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1975-76 City Manager Grimes suggested that consideration of the 1975-76 water and sewer budget be delayed at this time and that a resolution authorizing water and sewer expenditures until approval of the budget be adopted. The City Attorney read a resolutuion authorizing expenditures from water and sewer funds in amounts necessary to sustain operations of the department at their present level. Director Hughes, seconded by Director Todd, moved that the resolution be adopted. In roll call vote of the Board, with one member absent, the motion carried unanimously. Director Todd suggested that the budget be reviewed by the Board Water and Sewer Committee for recommendation to the full Board. RESOLUTION NO. 56-75 APPEARS ON PAGE 175 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK IV PURCHASING ITEMS AND AWARD OF BIDS Bid 287 - Concrete Construction Work: Sturman Mackey, Purchasing Director, recommended award of the bid to Jerry Sweetser for a one-year contract to expire August 6, 1976. Director Hughes, seconded by Director Todd, moved that the recommendation be accepted. In roll call vote of the Board, with one member absent, the motion carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS CONTROL ACCESS ROAD ORDINANCE 1661 City Attorney McCord reported that it was his opinion that the Control Access Road Ordinance should be repealed. Members of the Board stated that they would first like to see a new ordinance drafted before repealing the old one. When asked if the pending building permit of Mr. Robert L. Dowell could be processed before repeal of the ordinance, the City Attorney stated that, "If I advise that the ordinance is unconstitutional and not to enforce it, I think they (Building Inspection Department) would have basis to 329 329 329.1 329.2 329.3 329.4 329.5 329.6 330 approve the building permit. We will authorize the Inspection Department to issue the permit." ADJOURNMENT 330.1 There being no further business for the Board's consideration, Director Hughes motioned to adjourn the meeting. The motion met with Board approval whereupon the Vice -Mayor declared the meeting adjourned. ATTEST: Darlene Westbrook, City Clerk APPROVED: o� Ernest Lancaster, Vice -Mayor 330