Chickasha Industrial Authority approves contract with Chamber; city obligation capped at $30,000

The Chickasha Industrial Authority voted to enter a contract for services with the Chickasha Chamber of Commerce and authorized the chairman to execute the agreement, with the city’s obligation capped at $30,000.

Board members raised a discrepancy in the draft contract’s payment section, noting that clause 3.1 lists a payment amount of $33,000 while other places in the document state $30,000. "It actually says 1 month sum payment of 33,000," a board member said. The same or another board member replied, "That is a typo." Later clarification on the record specified that the city is obligated for $30,000 under the contract and that the $33,000 figure is the obligation of a different party referenced in the contract as the FOL. "The city is only obligated 30,000, but the FOL is obligating 33,000," a board member confirmed.

A motion was made to approve entering the contract and to authorize the chairman to execute it with the not-to-exceed $30,000 cap. The motion carried on a roll-call vote. Board members recorded as voting in favor included Elliot, Give, Smith, Loggins, Eloqua (also heard as Ewaquay/Ewaqua in the record), McCarty and Grayson; later roll-call entries on the item similarly recorded Loggins, Ewaquay, McCarty, Elliott and Carson voting yes. No vote against or formal abstention was recorded on the final roll call for the item.

Board members requested that staff correct the payment-amount inconsistency in the contract text before finalization. A board member said, "We will get that corrected." The board did not amend the motion to raise the authorized amount; the motion as made and approved remained limited to a city obligation not to exceed $30,000.

The contract and the board’s authorization allow the chairman to execute the agreement once the typographical inconsistency is corrected. The item was discussed during agenda item 3 and revisited later in the meeting for clarification about clause 3.1 and party obligations.

No ordinance, statute, grant number, or effective date for the contract was specified in the meeting record.