PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 1984
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 1984, AT 5:00 P.M. IN ROOM 211 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: RONALD J. WHITEHEAD ALICE SHEARER GRANT MABEY IONE M. DAVIS SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER EARL F. HARDWICK.
Council Chairperson Ronald Whitehead presided at and conducted the meeting.
Beau Grimes, police department, showed the Council the plaque that was made listing the Council Members names. The plaque will be be placed on the Police Memorial Monument. John Florez briefed the Council on the status of El Centro Civico. Chief Willoughby indicated that although El Centro Civico had problems in the past getting their program started, they were now well on their way and they would be asking for funding for their building from 10th Year CDBG funds. Mayor Wilson told the Council he had recommended an appropriation for El Centro Civico from 10th Year CDBG funds.
Leigh von der Esch, executive director of the council, briefed the Council on items on the agenda. She discussed the budget opening. Most questions regarding the budget amendments had been answered, with the exception of the amendment relating to purchase of police vehicles. Councilmember Shearer recommended that the Council adopt the resolution relating to the amendments omitting the police vehicles purchase. Other members of the council agreed.
The policy session adjourned at 5:55 p.m.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 1984, AT 6:00 P.M. IN ROOM 301 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: RONALD J. WHITEHEAD ALICE SHEARER GRANT MABEY lONE M. DAVIS SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER EARL F. HARDWICK.
Mayor Ted L. Wilson, Albert Haines, Chief Administrative Officer, and Roger Cutler, City Attorney, were present at the meeting.
Council Chairperson Ronald Whitehead presided at and conducted this meeting.
The invocation was given by Police Chaplain Joel Moriyama.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes:
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to approve the minutes of the Salt Lake City Council for the regular meeting held Tuesday, January 10, 1984, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(M 84-1)
Special Recognition:
#1. RE: Resolution of appreciation to Dan Hammond who is retiring as president of the Sugar House Chamber of Commerce.
Councilmember Parker presented the resolution expressing gratitude for Mr. Hammond’s outstanding contributions to Salt Lake City and to Sugar House. Dr. Parker said that Mr. Hammond would be missed because of his positive, enthusiastic spirit. Mr. Hammond thanked the Council for this recognition and indicated that he had enjoyed being part of Salt Lake City and being active in the community. Mayor Wilson expressed his appreciation to Mr. Hammond for his dedication and said that Mr. Hammond was great to work with. He said that when Mr. Hammond asked for something he always had a realistic view of how it could be accomplished. He was also willing to take the long view in Sugar House and impress upon the business community the need to revamp Sugar House.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to adopt Resolution 9 of 1984, Resolution of Appreciation to Dan Hammond, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(R 84-2)
#2. RE: Acknowledge Portland Cement Association’s First Place Award of Excellence in 1983 for Distinguished Environmental Treatment for construction of the 7,000,000 gallon McEntire Water Storage Reservoir. Merlin Holland, Regional Manager of the Rocky Mountain Northwest Region of Portland Cement, presented the award. He explained that the Portland Cement Association is an association of cement manufacturers throughout the United States and Canada. They are a trade association which does educational and promotional work to improve and extend the uses of cement and concrete.
He said that the McEntire Reservoir is a perfect example of how tank structures can be incorporated aesthetically into the countryside and also provide recreation facilities. For this reason, the Portland Cement Association has selected this reservoir for their first place award for excellence in environmental treatment in 1983. Mr. Holland presented plaques to Mayor Wilson, representatives of Coon, King, and Knowlton, engineers, and representatives from BBR Prestressed Tanks, the contractor that did the prestressing on the tank. Mayor Wilson said that this award was a great honor and he expressed his appreciation to Portland Cement.
PETITIONS
Petition 8 of 1982 by Upland Industries Corporation.
RE: An ordinance annexing property known as the Centennial Park Annexation No. 4 as requested by Union Pacific Land Resources Corporation (Upland Industries).
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to schedule a public hearing for Tuesday, February 14, 1984, at 7:15 p.m. to consider the ordinance, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Hardwick who was absent when the vote was taken.
(P 82-171)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
#1. RE: Presentation of the report entitled Capital Improvement Investment Recommendations for Salt Lake City, prepared by the Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Committee on capital improvements. Mayor Wilson presented the report to the Council (a copy of the report is on file in the Office of the City Recorder). He felt that the future of the city, whether it is business enterprise or the residential community, is in large part dependent upon having good capital improvements. He said that the citizen committee met many hours with city staff to indentify needed improvements to bring the city to an acceptable level. This report does not address an ongoing situation; that would be addressed each year with the budget.
Mayor Wilson felt that throughout the United States, over the past 20 years, the concept of public investment for public improvements has diminished and he did not want to see this happen in Salt Lake City. He said that he did not tamper with the specific site capital improvements which the committee has endorsed. But he suggested that the Council might find changes which need to be made because they represent specific districts in the city. The Mayor said that he wanted to see a vote from the Council, in the future, to put this issue on a ballot for the taxpayers to consider a general revenue bond. Mayor Wilson did not specify a date for the referendum because he wanted to wait for the results of the current legislative session. Mayor Wilson thanked the committee for their hard work and said that they did an excellent job.
Peter Billings, Jr., Chairman of the Committee on Capital Improvements, said that the committee had represented a good cross section of the community and their recommendations are unanimous. Mr. Billings said that the report recommends making 2 of the 3 mills permanent, which were temporarily imposed for the flood, to pay for a $16,000,000, 20-year bond issue. This money would be used for “catch-up” work: storm drainage, building roads under I-215, various other street repairs that have been neglected, construction of police and fire stations, and improvements of parks in various locations. The needed improvements to the City and County Building were not included as part of the committee’s recommendation. Mr. Billings said that a recommendation was made for a permanent Capital Improvement Advisory Board to be established to make annual recommendations to the Council and Mayor. Mr. Billings mentioned that 24 years ago another citizen panel submitted a very extensive report which recommended that certain monies be set aside for capital improvements. This recommendation was followed for only a short time and now the city is facing the same problems. Mr. Billings felt that a mechanism needed to be created to ensure that capital improvement funds would be provided on an annual basis. Delays in making needed improvements add to the cost, detract from the quality of life, and slow the attraction of new jobs and new housing.
Mr. Billings indicated that bonding was one way to raise money although it is costly because interest has to be paid. He said that capital improvements last more that one year and bonding would distribute the cost over the life of the facility. He felt that if an improvement is made which will last 20 or 30 years then future taxpayers ought to share the cost. The committee felt that $16,000,000 was barely adequate to make the needed improvements but they also felt that this was as much as the citizens could be expected to pay. The 1 mill per year recommended to be used on an annual basis, to avoid “catch up”, may not he enough but it is a starting point.
Mr. Billings recognized that when the Council voted to impose the temporary mill levy increase they made it clear that the increase was temporary. He also recognized that the Council wanted to keep this increase temporary. The bond election would give the voters a chance to make a choice about the mill levy. Councilmember Davis was concerned about holding a special election because of low voter turnout. Mr. Billings said that in a general election bond issues are often overlooked but he agreed that voter turnout may be low by holding a special election.
Councilmember Mabey mentioned the possibility of using a “pay-as-you-go” method of financing because there are potentially two major bonding issues: bonding for capital improvements and bonding for City and County Building improvements. If “pay-as-you-go” is used to fund capital improvements the ‘catch-up” work could probably be paid for in four years. After that 1 or 2 mills could be kept to continue the level of maintenance for capital improvements. He felt that two bond issues plus an additional mill for maintenance would be difficult for taxpayers.
Mr. Mabey said that if the 3-mill increase, imposed for the flood, was increased to 4 mills then about $4,000,000 in revenue would be generated per year. After the fourth year the mill could be reduced to 1 or 2 mills. Mr. Mabey expressed concern about raising the mill levy to bond for both the capital improvements and the City and County Building because people may be paying 6 or 7 mills for 20 to 30 years. He felt it would be better to fund the infrastructure as quickly as possible so the mill levy could be reduced. Mr. Billings agreed that “pay-as-you-go” would be cheaper but he felt that politically this would not be feasible. Councilmember Fonnesbeck mentioned that the committee was concerned with the “pay-as-you-go” plan because it would be too easy for money to be spent in other areas. Councilmember Whitehead was concerned about a big mill increase that may not be reduced in the future. Councilmember Shearer mentioned that historical sections of the report do not reflect that there is an ongoing program of capital improvements in all of the enterprise funds. She felt that this makes the city look more derelict than they actually have been.
Councilmember Parker referred to a section of the report which states that property owners of new streets should pay 50% of the cost. Mr. Billings said this refers to the 1-215 streets. The committee felt that property owners near I-215 on either side who own industrial property would primarily benefit. The value of their property would be greatly enhanced by having the roads built and having the interchange constructed. Councilmember Davis referred to parks development and asked how the committee determined their selections. Mr. Billings said that each committee member was given a brief description of the projects and they were rated according to various criteria. Everyone on the committee rated the projects and then the ratings were averaged. He mentioned that the parks listed in the report are in a rough priority but the order could be changed without difficulty.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that part of the committee’s recommendation was for a review committee on the CUP. She asked how this was progressing. Mayor Wilson said that his staff is working on this and a recommendation should be presented to the Council in the near future. Councilmember Shearer thanked the committee on behalf of the Council for the time they spent and for the report which has been submitted.
Without objection, Council Chairperson Whitehead referred the report, Capital Improvement Investment Recommendations for Salt Lake City, to the Committee of the Whole.
(B 84-1)
#2. RE: Mayor’s recommendations for allocation of Salt Lake City’s $4,628,840 10th Year Community Development Block Grant funds. Craig Peterson, Director of Development Services, presented the 1984-85 CDBG funding recommendations (a copy of this document is on file in the Office of the City Recorder). Mr. Peterson briefly outlined the format of the report and said that project descriptions will be given to the Council Office. He said that a hearing will be scheduled for March 13, 1984, and hopefully the Council will make a final decision by mid-April. Councilmember Parker asked about $40,000 designated for economic development strategy. Mr. Peterson said the money will be used towards private work in terms of promotion of the city for economic development. Councilmember Davis mentioned that the Mayor had cut funding from the streets, sidewalk, curb and gutter project. Mr. Peterson said this was a special sidewalk program in the target areas; he said that there are not specific streets cut. Councilmember Whitehead complimented Mr. Peterson on the format of the report. Mayor Wilson said that most of his changes were made so that money could be allocated to El Centro Civico.
Without objection, Council Chairperson Whitehead referred the 1984-85 CDBG funding recommendations to the Committee of the Whole.
(T 83-28)
FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
#1. RE: Industrial Development Revenue Bonds for Associated Specialties Co.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Resolution 10 of 1984 ordering the holding of a public hearing on Tuesday, February 14, 1984, at 6:00 p.m. before the City Council and providing for public notice of such hearing on the issuance by Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds to finance a project for Associated Specialties Co., a Utah Corporation, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Hardwick who was absent when the vote was taken.
(Q 83-24)
#2. RE: An ordinance relating to the adoption of an employment staffing document for Salt Lake City.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Ordinance 4 of 1984, amending Section 25-1-2 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, as last amended by Bill No. 31 of 1983, relating to the adoption of an employment staffing document for Salt Lake City, by including four new dispatchers in the Fire Department, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 83-18)
#3. RE: A resolution authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah Department of Community and Economic Development providing funds ($363,349.50) to eligible applicants to assist in repair of public facilities damaged or destroyed by flooding or mudslides.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Resolution 11 of 1984 authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement with Utah Department of Community and Economic Development providing funds ($363,349.50) to eligible applicants to assist in repair of public facilities damaged or destroyed by flooding or mudslides, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(C 84-5)
#4. RE: A resolution authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah Department of Community and Economic Development providing funds ($164,859) to eligible applicants to assist in repair of public facilities damaged or destroyed by flooding or mudslides.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Resolution 12 of 1984 authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement with Utah Department of Community and Economic Development providing funds ($164,859) to eligible applicants to assist in repair of public facilities damaged or destroyed by flooding or mudslides, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(C 84-4)
#5. RE: A resolution amending the budgets of Salt Lake City for Fiscal Year 1983-84.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Hardwick seconded to adopt a resolution amending budgets for Fiscal Year 1983-84.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to amend the motion to remove the item relating to Fleet Management (police vehicle purchases) from consideration under the resolution, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Hardwick seconded to adopt Resolution 13 of 1984, as amended by Councilmember Shearer’s motion, amending budgets of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1983, and ending June 30, 1984, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
The Council then discussed the issue of Fleet Management purchasing police cars in FY 1983-84 which are scheduled to be replaced in FY 1984-85. Councilmember Mabey felt that the big issue was whether money should be spent out of next year’s budget. He also questioned the $68,000 savings which would be realized by purchasing the vehicles this year; he wanted to know the cost of maintaining the new vehicles and the number of vehicles that would impact the police fleet. Mr. Mabey mentioned that if the money, proposed to be spent on vehicles, was put into low interest funds it would earn between $28,000 and $30,000. Lance Bateman, Director of Finance, indicated that Fleet Management would only be borrowing from the general fund for two months because the vehicles would be paid for in May.
If the purchase is not approved at this time then the purchase will be delayed for 10 months. Interest would be earned on the money for that period of time, which would be $26,000-$28,000, but the extra maintenance cost on the old cars will also be for 10 months. Councilmember Shearer asked if this would be encumbered as a debt to the Police Department under next year’s budget. Mr. Bateman said that Fleet charges a department for vehicles which are purchased for that department. As of July 1 it is expected that there would be money in the police budget to pay for the vehicles and the Police Department will then pay Fleet Management. Mr. Bateman said that Fleet will purchase the vehicles so there won’t be a debt and the Police Department will lease the vehicles but the lease will be collected in July. Mr. Bateman indicated that this would be a transaction between the internal service fund and the general fund. Money should be saved by the Police Department and Fleet Management because the maintenance charges should be less than the current vehicles which are operating.
Councilmember Shearer asked if the Police Department had enough money in their budget to buy the vehicles in April. Mr. Bateman said not in the fleet purchase line item in the Police Department. The transaction between the Police Department and Fleet Management is an intergovernment transaction. Police Chief Bud Willoughby said that the Police Department wanted to buy 30 vehicles at the current bid price because there will be additional charges on next year’s model. By purchasing this year’s model the city will save money. This purchase will replace the old cars that have 80,000 to 120,000 miles and then the revolving cycle of replacement will start.
Chief Willoughby indicated that the maintenance cost on the old, high-mileage cars is high. By purchasing the cars now $70,000 will be saved. Councilmember Whitehead asked if 60 cars are purchased instead of only 30, which have been budgeted this year, will cars be purchased next year. Chief Willoughby said that the only cars purchased would be 15 cars for the unmarked fleet; the Police Department has been authorized to purchase 45 cars. Mr. Haines said that the maintenance cost of the old vehicles is to a point where salvage value is less than cost of maintenance. By making the acquisition now the operation and maintenance costs can be reduced. Mr. Haines said that the city’s pooled cash would make a two-or three-month loan, with interest, and Fleet would pay off the loan on July 1.
Councilmember Shearer asked if it was legal to borrow from next year without an appropriation. Roger Cutler, City Attorney, indicated that on the surface it appeared that money was going to be borrowed which has to be paid back from next year’s appropriation. However, he said that he was not prepared to give an opinion about whether or not this particular situation is in violation of the law. Councilmember Mabey asked about delaying the purchase until the City Attorney can check into the legal question. Chief Willoughby said that the bid price on the cars won’t be held.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck suggested that the policy of when cars are purchased should be changed so that savings are realized naturally. Jim McClure, Fleet Management Director, said that it is difficult to judge when the price of cars will be increased but usually it is at the end of the year. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that as effective fleet managers the Council expects them to buy cars at the cheapest time possible during the year. Ms. Fonnesbeck said that in this case there are two questions: is this encumbrance on next year’s budget legal and if this is legal does the Council, as a matter of policy, want to approve this. She also said that hereafter, Fleet Management should purchase cars at the cheapest time possible and should arrange the budget in order to do so. Mr. Haines asked if the Council increases the expenditure appropriation in Fleet Management, to purchase the vehicles ($298,000), and there is available, in the Fleet fund, $566,000 in cash revenue, would this constitute a legal appropriation? Mr. Cutler said that he did not know where the money was coming from and there may be a deficit in that fund. Mr. Bateman said that the retained earnings in the Fleet fund is a positive retained earnings with enough to cover the $298,000 vehicle purchase.
Mr. Cutler said if there are unencumbered funds available for appropriation and the Council opens the budget and appropriates the money to buy the cars then that is not encumbering a future budget. Mr. Cutler said he needed to consider the issue of whether or not the constitution is being violated which says that a debt cannot be created without a vote by the people and that future Councils’ appropriation power cannot be bound. Councilmember Shearer said that this is the second year that the Council has had this kind of decision and she felt that unless a policy is established to deny these kinds of budgetary requests then these requests may occur more often.
Councilmember Whitehead felt that if money can be saved then the Council should do what they can to save the money. Councilmember Shearer felt that the savings, which would be realized by an early purchase, may not be enough to make it worthwhile for the Council to pre-budget. Mr. Bateman said that state law refers to appropriation and fund equity. Both of these will be positive if the appropriation is made but cash may fall negative; however, the city’s cash would remain positive. A pooled-cash concept is used and the State Auditor’s Office indicated last year that this was legal. Mr. Bateman felt that future appropriations would not be bound because if the Council does not appropriate the $298,000 next year in the Police Department, Fleet can cover the appropriation. Mr. Bateman said that if Fleet Management continues to be operated like the airport or golf courses then Fleet can go negative in cash and positive in cash, legally, according to the State Auditor. He said that cash is going to fluctuate and it is not a legal problem.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to approve the amendment to the 1983-84 Fleet Management fund contingent upon the City Attorney researching the legality of this amendment, which motion failed, all members voting nay except Councilmembers Hardwick, Mabey, and Whitehead who voted aye.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck was concerned that a dangerous precedent would be established. She felt that this issue appears as if funds are being encumbered in a future budget. Mayor Wilson felt the Council should consider that denial of this amendment will cost the taxpayers money. He recommended that one of the Council Members, who voted negatively, consider changing their vote and move to reconsider the motion. He also suggested that they ask Roger Cutler to act as the Council’s attorney to research this issue.
(B 83-3)
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
#1. RE: Reappointments of J. Alan Blodgett and Kern C. Gardner to the Airport Authority Board.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to approve the reappointments of J. Alan Blodgett and Kem C. Gardner to the Airport Authority Board, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Hardwick who was absent when the vote was taken.
(I 84-5)
#2. RE: Reappointments of Joseph S. Fenton, Wilbur C. Parkinson, and Jim Talebreza to the Mosquito Abatement Board.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to approve the reappointments of Joseph S. Fenton, Wilbur C. Parkinson, and Jim Talebreza to the Mosquito Abatement Board, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Hardwick who was absent when the vote was taken.
(I 82-3)
#3. RE: Reappointments of Emanual E. Floor, Genevieve Atwood, Ralph H. Steenbiik, and Ray Arnold to the Public Utilities Advisory Board.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to approve the reappointments of Emanual E. Floor, Genevieve Atwood, Ralph H. Steenhlik, and Ray Arnold to the Public Utilities Advisory Board, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Hardwick who was absent when the vote was taken.
(I 84—6)
PUBLIC UTILITIES
#1. RE: A resolution authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities and Salt Lake County for repairs to the Big Cottonwood Creek Water Treatment Plant Bypass Channel. LeRoy Hooton, Director of Public Utilities, said that during the last spring run-off damage occurred to the bypass channel that routes the water around the Big Cottonwood Treatment Plant. The bottom was severely scoured and large holes have developed in the structure. Mr. Hooton said that repairs will have to be made this winter in order to prevent further damage this coming spring. Damage could occur to the treatment facility if the repairs are not made. This is part of the county flood control project. The project has been bid and the cost, less contingencies, for the Public Utilities Department is $129,512. Mr. Hooton indicated that this item was included in the budget amendment for the Public Utilities Department.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Resolution 14 of 1984 authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement with Salt Lake County, in the amount of $129,512, for the restoration and/or repair of several flood-damaged areas, including other structures at or near the Big Cottonwood Creek Water Treatment Plant Bypass Channel, with the understanding that if the $20,000 contingency is needed then Public Utilities will bring the request back before the Council, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Hardwick who was absent when the vote was taken.
(C 84-2)
PUBLIC WORKS
#1. RE: A resolution authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah State Department of Public Safety to provide design and construction for urban system project coordination of traffic signals at 900 West, 2100 South, 2100 East and 2300 East in Salt Lake City.
Without objection, Council Chairperson Whitehead referred the interlocal agreement with the Utah State Department of Public Safety to the consent agenda for February 7, 1984.
(C 84-3)
#2. RE: Notice of Intention for the Federal Heights Alley Refuse Collection Special Service District. Councilmember Davis asked if the establishment of this special service district had to be done by election. Roger Cutler, City Attorney, indicated that no election had to be held. The district is created by adoption of a resolution after the notice of intention is mailed and there is a protest period. A board is established which has the authority to levy taxes, borrow money, etc., and he indicated that the Council is the board. The powers of the board can be limited by the resolution which the Council adopts. Mr. Cutler said in this special service district a property tax will not be levied, he understood that a service charge will be added to the district for garbage collection. He said there is a difference because property tax is collected by the county and goes on the mill levy.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Resolution 15 of 1984 declaring the intention of the City Council of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, State of Utah, to create a special service district under authority of the Utah Special Service District Act for the purpose of providing refuse collection within the district and of defraying the cost and expenses of such service by taxes to be levied upon taxable property within the district or by fees and charges; and to provide notice of intention to authorize such district and to fix a time and place for protests against the services or the creation of such district, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 83-7)
The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.