Board of Directors

MINUTES BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING APRIL 19, 2004, AT 7:00 P.M. The regular meeting of the Board of Directors was held on Monday, April 19, 2004, at 7:00 p.m., Hot Springs Civic and Convention Center, Wheeler Room, with Mayor Mike Bush presiding. The invocation was given by Mr. Dusty Diggs, and Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Mayor Bush. Mayor Bush called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 1. Roll Call Roll call was as follows: Present: Directors Peggy Brunner-Maruthur, Elaine Jones, Burt Newell, Carroll Weatherford, Bill Edwards, Bob Wheeler, and Mike Bush, total 7. 2. Approval of Agenda A motion was made by Director Edwards, duly seconded by Director Wheeler, that the agenda be approved; and upon voice vote, the motion unanimously carried. 3. Approval of Minutes of April 5, 2004 Board Meeting A motion was made by Director Edwards, duly seconded by Director Jones, that the minutes of the April 5, 2004 Board Meeting be approved; and upon voice vote, the motion unanimously carried. 4. Recognition of Guests Mayor Bush recognized Ms. Faith Skoog, Chairman of the Rotary Centennial project, who stated that in 2002, the Rotary International challenged all Rotary Clubs to submit a centennial project; the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee proposed that 100 years ago the first Rotary project in Chicago was a public restroom. She mentioned that the Greenway needs a public restroom; and the group is raising $50,000, with plans to break ground on Thursday, April 22, at 9 a.m., close to the Hollywood Park, for construction of this restroom, paved parking lot, foun- tain and bicycle racks. Ms. Jean Wallace, Parks and Recreation Director, expressed appreciation to the Rotary Club for taking the lead on this project and mentioned that the name will be the Rotary Centennial Trailhead. Ms. Skoog added that they plan to submit the plans in a couple of months. CONSENT AGENDA The Consent Agenda consisted of the following: 5. Public Safety Report (April 7, 2004). 6. Proposed Resolution No. R-04-90 Approving Certain Bid Awards (a) Janitorial Supplies - Various Departments [annual supply contract awarded to American Paper and Twine, Arkansas Bag and Equipment, Brown Janitorial, Kerr Paper and Supply, Myers Janitorial Supply, and Unisource]; and (b) Pipe - Utilities [awarded to Hughes Supply in the amount of $23,385]. 7. Proposed Resolution No. R-04-91 Authorizing an Agreement Between the City and the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department for Relocation of Water and Sewer Lines Located at the MLK Interchanges, Central Avenue and Higdon Ferry Road.  8.. Proposed Resolution No. R-04-92 Approving the Extension of Hot Springs Municipal Sewer Service to Dakota Drive. 9. Proposed Resolution No. R-04-93 Adopting a Facility Use Policy for the Exchange Street Parking Plaza and Repealing Resolution No. 5172. 10 Proposed Resolution No. R-04-94 Renaming Technology Circle as Office Park Drive.. 11. Proposed Resolution No. R-04-95 Authorizing the Mayor to Execute a Contract with Ron Lutz to Conduct a Historical Survey of the Hot Springs Rehabilitation Center. 12. Proposed Resolution No. R-04-96 Approving the Destruction of Certain City Records. (Removed from the Consent Agenda for Separate Consideration) 13. Proposed Resolution No. R-04-97 Authorizing the Mayor to Execute a Lease Agreement Between the City and Sam E. Childs, d.b.a. Hot Springs Car Rental and Sales, LLC, for Concession Space at the Terminal Building at the Airport. 14. Proposed Resolution No. R-04-98 Awarding a Contract for Board Chambers Renovation to Charlie Jones Construction, Inc. A motion was made by Director Wheeler, duly seconded by Director Brunner-Maruthur, that the Consent Agenda be approved. Upon discussion, Director Maruthur requested that Item No. 12 (Proposed Resolution No. R-04-96 Destruction of City Records) be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration. Mayor Bush then called for a vote on the motion to approve the Consent Agenda, as amended; and upon roll call, the following voted “aye”: Directors Brunner-Maruthur, Jones, Newell, Weatherford, Edwards, Wheeler, and Bush, total 7; motion unanimously carried. NEW BUSINESS 12. Proposed Resolution No. R-04-96 A resolution entitled, “A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CITY RECORDS,” was taken from the agenda and read by title only. A motion was made by Director Edwards, duly seconded by Director Wheeler, that the resolution be adopted as read. Ms. Victoria Olmedo was recognized and spoke in opposition to the resolution pointing out that real estate records, such as plats and warranty deeds, should not be destroyed. City Manager Kent Myers explained the records to be destroyed do not include real estate or any property records. He added that these are records which have been kept internally, and most of them date back ten years. He also noted there are no contracts or documents of a legal nature included. City Attorney David White pointed out that the records she is referring to are maintained by the County. Director Brunner-Maruthur stressed that the records for the Math and Science School should be retained since they include documents for the School renovation. City Manager Kent Myers stated that staff would not have any objection to removing the first three items (Math and Science School renovation documents) from the destruction list and maintain those for historical reasons. There were no objections from the Board in removing those items from the list. Mayor Bush then called for a vote on the motion to adopt, with the deletion of the first three items pertaining to the Math and Science School renovation; and upon roll call, the following voted “aye”: Directors Brunner-Maruthur, Jones, Newell, Weatherford, Edwards, Wheeler, and Bush, total 7; motion unanimously carried. Whereupon the res- olution was declared adopted. 15. .Proposed Ordinance No. O-04-25 An ordinance entitled, “AN ORDINANCE REZONING TO PD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, TO INCLUDE A PARCEL OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT KEATS PLACE, ZONED R-2, SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL,” was taken from the agenda for consideration. A motion was made by Director Wheeler, duly seconded by Director Edwards, that the rules be suspended and the ordinance be read for the first time by title only; and upon voice vote, the motion unanimously carried. The ordinance was then read for the first time by title only; and upon the question “Shall the ordinance be passed as read?” and upon motion of Director Wheeler, duly seconded by Director Brunner-Maruthur, that the ordinance be passed as read. Upon discussion, Mr. Jerry Raetz, Planning and Development Director, explained that the Planning Commission received an application for a rezoning of approximately six acres to change from R-2, Suburban Residential, to PD, Planned Development. The Planned Development was an extension of a planned building group that was rented to a developer in 1983, when the developer was granted permission to build apartments in a single-family zone. The present applicant made an application to expand that from the 22 units that were approved in 1983 to include 50 units today. The Planning Commission held a public hearing, and the Planning Commission voted 4 to 1 to recommend denial of this rezoning. Mr. Rick Goff was recognized and stated that he and his partner, Tony Allen, own ROA Properties, which consists of real estate investment properties based in Hot Springs. Also, he is a developer and realtor. He explained they are currently developing a residential, planned development on Malvern Avenue called Seven Oaks, which will also be his personal residence, pointing out that they have a vested interest in Hot Springs. He said it is his belief that the Planning Commission’s decision was influenced by a small of number of residents who raised unfounded concerns in objection to the proposal (Knollwood Apartments expansion project). He commented that the benefits outweigh the concerns, and they are appealing the Planning Commission’s decision. He distributed information describing the project and stated that they have existing on the property of approximately six acres, three four-plexes, a swimming pool, and a single-family residential house. They are proposing to add three more four plexes in Phase I of the process in the rear. In the front, they will be adding six four-plexes and one duplex. He pointed out that the land is already being used for multi-family apartments and is a natural transition. He added that the project will consist of a mixture of one, two and three bedrooms with a total of 50 units when completed. Site improvements on the project include, other than the buildings, a playground and a sidewalk along Malvern Avenue and landscape it to comply with the Malvern overlay project. He mentioned there are many community benefits to this project: (1) Malvern Avenue and Lakeside School District have a demand and a need for affordable housing. In a letter from the Lakeside School Board of Directors, they support the project. He noted that additional units will provide a potential home for 70 to 80 additional students for the Lakeside School District; (2) he spoke of the financial benefits, such as this will be a $2.5 million construction project. Also, approximately $1.5 million of that will be for materials purchased from local firms; (3) $120,000 in sales tax revenue will be generated. A $1 million construction payroll will be generated for this proj- ect; (4) existing property with expansion significantly increases the property taxes that they are currently paying; (5) the City will also receive increased revenue from the tax revenues generated by the new tenants who will be living in the apartments; and (6) there is also incremental revenue for the City in terms of water, sewer and sanitation usage. He stated there are four properties that touch their property on Forest Heights. He pointed out there is nothing to support that apartment dwellers are any more noisy than residential neighbors. Regarding crime, he stated there have been concerns that this expansion will only increase that. He met with the Police Department, and there have been eight calls in the last five years and primarily calls associated with assistance in terms of 911-type calls and emergencies. There have been only two, arrest-type violations in that period of time. There have not been any calls since 2000. Also, the neighbors are concerned that the addition of 60 cars, which the project will generate, will cre- ate a traffic problem at Malvern Avenue and Forest Heights. The current Malvern Avenue traffic count is 8,700 cars per day according to the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department. He pointed out that prior to the bypass, the traffic count in front of the Knollwood Apartments was 16,000; and the bypass cut in half the number in the Knollwood/Forest Heights area. They checked with the Police Department, and there have been three accidents there in the last five years; but none included any personal injury. The estimated damage of those three accidents was $1,500. Mr. Herbert Gray, 218 Forest Heights Trail, read a prepared statement and distributed a packet of information. He stated that Keats Place contains approximately six acres with one house and three, four-unit apartments known as the Knollwood Apartments, which were built in 1984. After the Planning Commission denied the request, the prop- erty owners on Forest Heights Trail had a meeting with Mr. Goff and Mr. Allen to explain their side. A letter was received from Mr. Goff and Mr. Allen stating that although the Forest Heights property owners were against their pro- posal in the beginning, they stated the residents now support it, which is not true. Also, there is a petition signed by 60 residents in the area, not counting the residents of Knollwood Apartments, opposing any proposed changes or rezoning. He said they still object to the rezoning and to any further construction on the property that was allowed by a former Planning Commission group that approved a Conditional Use of the property. At a meeting on November 10, 1983, the Planning Commission allowed a Conditional Use Permit to be issued, which he believes was illegal then as it is now. The Zoning Code at that time where the property was zoned R-2, Suburban Residential, had two permitted uses: single family residences and customary accessory uses or structures. The only permitted uses for Conditional Use Permits were for churches and charitable institutions or expansion of such, country clubs, golf cours- es, daycare centers and home occupations with stipulations. A second reason for asking for rejection of the request to rezone is spot zoning. According to the Zoning Code adopted February 17, 2003, spot zoning is defined as the zoning of a small land area for a use which differs measurably from the zoned land use surrounding this area. He quoted from the Zoning Code stating that land may not be merely zoned in the interest of an individual or small group but must be in the general public interest. Such zoning does not conform to the future Land Use Plan and is not oth- erwise necessary in order to protect the health, safety, welfare or morals of the community. He said a third reason is also found in the Zoning Code under conformity which states that no land shall be used or occupied; no structure shall be erected, altered, used or occupied; and no use shall be operated unless it is in conformity with the regula - tions herein prescribed for the district in which the structure or land is located. He stated this land is located in the Malvern overlay district, and the Zoning Code sets out three important reasons for establishing this district: (1) pro- tect and enhance the visual appearance and character; (2) promote traffic safety; and (3) maintain harmony with the adjacent residential neighborhoods. It further states to allow land use patterns comparable with the present and future traffic capacity for Malvern Avenue. He pointed out that according to the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department’s latest traffic count available, there are approximately 14,000 cars in a 12-hour period in the Malvern Avenue area. Keats Place has only one entrance, which is also the exit. If this rezoning were to pass and a total of 50 apartments existed in Keats Place, he pointed out the problems in the mornings and afternoons with 75 to 100 cars trying to exit or enter, as well as school buses picking up or dropping off children. According to police records, there have been approximately 75 reported accidents in a three-block area of Malvern Avenue between Carpenter Dam Road and Cedarwood from 1999 to 2004. This area includes their street, as well as Keats Place. He stated the fourth reason for the denial concerns drainage. The lay of the land in Keats Place drains entirely toward Forest Heights Trail, which floods during heavy rains. If this project is approved, there would be an increase in water flow to their street. The proposed site plan does not adequately address the means of controlling the water, as well as the oil and transmission fluid that will flow off the parking lots. All of this flows into a creek which eventually flows into a lake affecting the aquatic life in this stream. The current Zoning Code under preservation plan calls for the preservation of the natural amenities with a planned development, including topography, trees, ground cover, natu- ral bodies of water and other significant natural features. Regarding property values, on November 11, 1983, Mr. Don Beavers, an engineer for the development of Knollwood Apartments, presented a site plan to the Planning Commission, showing five, four-unit buildings along with two existing houses. According to the minutes of that meet- ing, the plan took advantage of the topography of the land and left a tremendous amount of green area and buffer from the adjoining property. At that meeting, a Conditional Use permit was issued. Only 12 of the proposed 12 units were built leaving a substantial buffer and watershed between them and Forest Heights Trail. Since then, at least four new homes have been built and three extensive remodels have taken place on Forest Heights Trail with the belief that it would remain a quiet, secluded neighborhood. Regarding the proposal to remove a large amount of green area and substantial buffer and level some or most of the ground. 38 additional apartments would create a drastic change in the character of the neighborhood, bringing increased noise, traffic, density and drainage problems, along with the negative impact on property values. Another reason given by the developer for the need of these apartments is affordable housing in the Lakeside School District. The school district map will show that a portion of Amity Road is in the Lakeside district. Several apartments have been constructed there with more coming soon. Some of these are under the government housing authority or HUD. In the area surrounding Lakeside School, there are numerous small houses, apartments, and duplexes available, as well as mobile home parks. He said there will be some economic benefit in building these apartments but mostly for the developers and builders. He pointed out that generally people from the district will move into these apartments; therefore, this does not necessarily create new students in the school or new revenue for the City B only new revenue for the developers at the expense of the adjoining neighborhoods in lost property values. He noted that also in the Zoning Code, it states that no new zones may be created within the land area of an existing zoning classification unless such rezoning is appropriate to the area and is in the general public interest and not in the interest of an individual or small group. Such rezoning must also convincingly demonstrate that the character of the neighborhood will not be materially or adversely affected by the uses permitted in the proposed change. He noted that the Forest Heights property owners and residents of sur- rounding neighborhoods request that the Board uphold the Planning Commission’s decision and deny the request to rezone Keats Place from R-2 to PD and further investigate restraining the developers from building any additional apartments at Keats Place as they propose to do. Mr. Tony Allen advised they did not send a letter to the Board of Director stating that Forest Heights residents were in favor of this rezoning. He said they are not asking for spot zoning but for planned development. According to the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, the number of vehicles was 16,000 in 1994 average daily traffic between Carpenter Dam Road and the bypass; in 2003, the number was 8,700. Regarding the 75 police acci- dents, this is extending it up to Carpenter Dam Road where there are many accidents and is not relevant to the area. He added there have been only three accidents in the last several years in the Forest Heights/Keats neighborhood. He stated that according to the pictures distributed, the residents cannot see their property. He reported that the hous- es are a football field away from the property line, which over 300 feet. He stated there have been families from other districts and out-of-state move into their other existing rental properties; therefore, it will impact the Lakeside School District. City Manager Kent Myers questioned what will remain on the east side of the property; and Mr. Allen advised if this is approved, they are agreeing to build a wood, privacy fence and leave as much of a tree and brush buffer as pos- sible. City Manager Kent Myers asked if there is a width of the buffer that is defined on paper, and Mr. Goff replied that as required by the planning and development guidelines, there has to be a minimum of 25 feet. He added they have no reason to take down the brush, and there has to be a 25-foot buffer all the way around the property. City Attorney David White questioned if there is any state or federal funding involved, and Mr. Goff replied there is federal financing but no subsidized funding or federal funding. Mayor Bush questioned why the staff and Planning Commission denied this request; and Mr. Jerry Raetz explained that after hearing both sides at the public hearing, incompatibility was the primary reason for the denial. He added there were no specific items such as what Mr. Gray presented tonight because it was felt it met most of that criteria. City Attorney David White pointed out that the Board Action Form indicates staff disapproved this before it was con- sidered by the Planning Commission and questioned staff’s rationale for recommending the rezoning be denied. Mr. Raetz replied that this is the recommendation to the Board of Directors to support the Planning Commission’s deci- sion. The recommendation at the Planning Commission meeting was to look at this favorably and recommend approval of the rezoning. City Attorney David White asked why the staff has changed its recommendation, and Mr. Raetz explained that it was to support the Planning Commission’s decision and their findings that they felt it was incompatible with the development of Malvern Avenue. Director Newell questioned if staff was in support of this rezoning going into the Planning Commission meeting, and Mr. Raetz advised that it was. He added that staff was looking at the logical transition from the commercial develop- ment to a children’s home to multi-family dwellings to single-family dwellings. Staff did not feel that it would adverse- ly affect it because of the amount of open space that remained in this planned development. He explained that according to the Zoning Code if a planned development is approved, the plan must be developed exactly to that plan. The staff reviewed this plan and believed it was a logical transition along Malvern Avenue and recommended it at that time. Once the public hearing was held, the Planning Commission voted 4 to 1 to recommend denial. Staff has taken the side to support the Planning Commission’s decision and make that same recommendation to the Board. Mr. Wayne Bennett, 215 Forest Heights Trail, pointed out when there is an accident on Carpenter Dam Road, traffic backs up past his road. He also mentioned the density they are going to install is out of character with what is there now. Mr. James Allen, residing at the corner of Forest Heights and Malvern Road (2605 Malvern) stated it is easier to enter and exit his driveway today than it was over the past several years. He said from a traffic standpoint, the only time there is any problem on Malvern Road and the only time there is a delay on Malvern Road is at school starting and ending time. He mentioned there is increased foot traffic on Forest Heights and increased traffic as well, but this is due to the children now having their own cars; also, additional homes have been built. He pointed out that the Lakeside School District is in need of additional, affordable housing, and there is a waiting list for their housing. He said he believes this project will have a positive impact on Hot Springs. Dr. Jon Robert, 240 Forest Heights, stated that some of the information presented by the applicant is incorrect. He spoke of a reported felony theft at his home in 2002, but there was no firm evidence that it came from the apart - ments. He said that he has lived at his residence for 25 years; and during that time, he has seen two fatal accidents between Carpenter Dam Road and Forest Heights. Also, he and his neighbor has been tail ended turning into Forest Heights Drive. He spoke of the small amount of reaction time for motorists turning out of Keats Place to the right and left. He said the real issue is the hour before and after school closing and a large amount of school bus traffic. He mentioned that it is purported to be an apartment that deals with families who are going to be turning out of this street onto Malvern Road, which poses a threat to their safety. He said that the safety issue is a prime consideration, and loss of life and injury has been significant on this street. Also, volume will increase with another 100 cars coming out of this street that close to an intersection. Mr. Jim Horner spoke in favor of the rezoning pointing out that he is in the building and construction industry, and the project would have a positive impact on the economy. Mr. Jim Kellstrom distributed an information sheet and stated that he is a realtor and also owns property, which he rents, in the Lakeside District. He noted it has been mentioned that the property values and the marketability of the homes within this area would decrease. He spoke of Beverly Hills Subdivision, which abuts up to the Somerset Apartments, which is high density. He noted that homes have sold very rapidly in that subdivision between January 1, 2002, and today. Also, the property in that subdivision is not only sought after but continues to increase in price. He said he only saw one piece of property that has changed hands in the Forest Heights area in the last 22 years, which was a vacant lot. From a marketability standpoint and value of the property standpoint, he said the develop- ers could build another 10 or 12 units. In his opinion as a realtor, he does not believe this project will decrease prop- erty values and will probably enhance the neighborhood. In response to Director Brunner-Maruthur, Mr. Kellstrom stated that he resides at 215 West Mountain View Circle, which is not gated and is not in the City. He added that he owns seven pieces of property in the City, which are investment properties and are leased B some commercial and some residential. He stated there are six that are multi-family units. Ms. Terry Payne, 216 Forest Heights Trail, stated the residents have concerns regarding the teenagers who have had accidents trying to exit Forest Heights Trail during the times that Lakeside School is opening or closing. She point- ed out that the buses for Lakeside School District do not load inside of Forest Heights Trail or Keats Place but actu- ally unload at the street, which poses a hazard at the time when school children are trying to get on or off the buses and at the same time when people are trying to enter or leave their street. She said the residents are concerned that the large expansion of Knollwood Apartments would add to the traffic hazard that has already been experienced by the residents on their street, as well as on Keats Place. She pointed out that in the Board packet, there are a num- ber of signatures of residents who are opposed to the expansion. Also, every resident of the Knollwood Apartments, who was approached, was opposed and willing to sign a petition against this development and cited traffic concerns as their No. 1 concern. She added there is also a list of signatures that were gathered by neighbors on her street of residents in the surrounding areas that are close enough to be affected by the cars that would come out of Keats Place and the Knollwood Apartments. They also cite traffic as their No. 1 concern. Regarding the Hillcrest Children’s Home, she said it is understood there are 10 or 12 houses that have just been placed on the market because they are experiencing declining enrollment at the Children’s Home; and they are now allowing their staff to move onto the premises. She pointed out this frees up 10 or 12 rental houses in the area that would be available. She stated there are a number of people who care about their neighborhood and about the safety of the people in the area and asked that the Board consider upholding the Planning Commission’s denial of this rezoning. Mr. Bill Malone said he would probably be doing the civil site work for the project; and that the water, sewer and drainage facilities would be developed in accordance with the regulations on record with the City and with assistance from the City’s Engineering staff. Mr. Herbert Gray stated that the time on the market for houses is usually 30 to 45 days, but according to information distributed, it shows 132, 78, 89, 80, and 262 days on the market ,which does not seem that it was sold in a rea - sonable period of time of 30 to 45 days. He said traffic is the main issue, and he would appreciate the Board’s deny- ing the rezoning. Mr. Jim Gray said he will be moving his family on Malvern Avenue in three months, and they will be making a left- hand turn in and out of the neighborhood everyday. He pointed out that he has two teenagers and would not ever put them in danger by adding traffic on Malvern Avenue. Also, the other report was that the average days on the market is 102 days. He mentioned that the Somerset Apartments with 256 units on 11 acres did not affect the prop- erty value in the area. Mr. Dick Smedley, 119 Forest Heights Trail, spoke of the drainage, pointing out that the creek has already risen and runs from the meadow behind the Children’s Home to Gulpha Creek about three miles. Also, it runs through the mid- dle of this development; and they are building two apartment houses on the creek bed and a 36-inch culvert under them. He mentioned the creek moves through his property and three other properties and crosses the Forest Height Trail bridge. He spoke of flooding in the area pointing out there are two residences that flood. He noted that the last white house next to the expressway floods because Lakeside School has expanded east. They have built schools, sidewalks, athletic facilities and installed a 36-inch culvert, which has not worked and has overflowed twice. He requested that the Board deny this rezoning due to the excessive amount of water on Malvern Avenue. Director Newell asked if they could nearly double the number of units without any Board action, and Mr. Raetz replied that they could since they have 12. Director Brunner-Maruthur commented that everyone in this neighborhood, except for the developer’s father, is opposed to this project. She questioned if there was a Bill of Assurance, and Mr. Raetz said that he was not famil- iar with the details since the subdivision has been in place for a number of years and has never come under review by his office. He pointed out that a Bill of Assurance is only a contract among the property buyers inside that subdi- vision. Director Brunner-Maruthur said that she supports development and growth and would welcome this project on Park Avenue or in District No. 1 where they need affordable housing. She said that she has received calls from the resi- dents in opposition and if this project enhanced their quality of life and their investment, then she would question why they oppose it. She explained that her reason for questioning Mr. Kellstrom’s place of residence is due to the fact that many people are investing in rental property or non-owner/occupied housing in the community, but they are choos- ing to live outside the city and later they want to come into the community. She pointed out that it appears many of these residents are long-term residents who bought in an area where they thought their quality of life was going to be secure, which is her reason for mentioning the Bill of Assurance. She said she would like to see the residents in the City be able to stay in their neighborhoods and the policy of the Board be there to protect the neighborhoods. She commented that she hopes these residents have a neighborhood organization that stays active regardless of the vote on this issue and that the Board of Directors will support the residents who do not have Bill of Assurances.  Director Weatherford questioned if this property is still zoned R-2, and Mr. Raetz replied that it is. Director Weatherford asked why they requested a PD, and Mr. Raetz advised that it was for expansion beyond the planned building group that was permitted the developer in 1983. An R-2 would not support an expansion of that plan so a PD was sought out as a logical zoning request rather than going to an R-4, which is a higher density residential and would support even more dense apartment complex. Mayor Bush then called for a vote on the motion to adopt; and upon roll call, the following voted “aye”: Directors Newell, Wheeler, and Bush, total 3. Voting “no”: Directors Brunner-Maruthur, Jones, Weatherford, and Edwards, total 4; motion failed. Whereupon the ordinance was declared failed. 16 Proposed Resolution No. R-04-99 A resolution entitled, “A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE EXTENSION OF HOT SPRINGS MUNICIPAL WATER SERVICE TO McCLENDON ROAD,” was taken from the agenda and read by title only. A motion was made by Director Wheeler, duly seconded by Director Edwards, that the resolution be adopted as read. Upon discussion, Mr. Don Cochran, Director of Utilities, explained that a request has been received to extend a water line to the proposed VFW Post 2278 on McClendon Road. Staff recommends approval contingent on annexation. He stated the request is for a six-inch water main approximately 1,000 feet and will be extended from Grand Avenue to the property on McClendon Road. He added this piece of property is adjacent to the existing city limits. For a future connection between this six-inch main and the existing two-inch main, staff is recommending reimbursement of $1,500 in construction costs so they can add a “ T” and valve on the end of their line and then the City would do a connection between their line and an existing two-inch line at a later date. He advised that the developer will pay all of the costs except for the $1,500. Mr. Jack Smoot, representing the VFW, explained that the six-inch water main was included since there is no fire hydrant in that community. He said the plans are to install a fire hydrant for that community under the cost of the VFW. He added that the VFW Board has agreed to give an easement to take the “T” off and bring the six-inch main over to McClendon Road to give them proper water. Director Jones asked if he has agreed to annexation, and Mr. Smoot replied that he has not. Mayor Bush asked if he and his Board agreed with the contingency of annexation, and Mr. Smoot asked if annexa- tion was only the VFW or if the City would try to annex the residents around them. City Manager Kent Myers advised that at this time, the City has no plans to annex any of that area but is focusing on Highway 70 West and 270 West. He added that as water is extended into this area, it has been the Board’s policy, if it is contiguous to the City, to annex it. He stated if the property contiguous to the VFW wanted water in the future, then the Board would, based upon past practice, require them to be annexed prior to receiving water. Mr. Smoot commented that when the bypass is completed in that area, it is going to be annexed anyway and ques- tioned if the City is asking him to annex immediately; and Mayor Bush advised that he needs to agree to annex his parcel of property immediately in order to receive water. Director Brunner-Maruthur asked if he agrees to the contingent annexation just for his parcel, would that mean the other residents in the area will not receive water unless they annex into the City; and City Manager Kent Myers advised that is a Board decision. He noted that any extension of utility requires Board approval. When that comes before the Board, the Directors can consider annexation at that point. He advised that it is a discretionary authority on behalf of the Board and is not saying that every parcel would have to have annexation before they receive utility. Mr. Smoot stated that the KOA Campground is closer to the City limits than the VFW, and they are not annexed into the City; but they have water. City Manager Kent Myers asked that when people ask him in the future where the VWF Post is located, will he tell them it is in the City of Hot Springs, and Mr. Smoot said that he would. He said they have a beautiful site to enhance that area, and they will agree to be annexed if that is what is required to install a fire hydrant.  Director Brunner-Maruthur questioned what District this would be located in if it is annexed; and Deputy City Manager Lance Hudnell explained that according to the law, the area annexed is attached to the nearest district. In this case, it would be District 1. Mayor Bush then called for a vote on the motion to adopt; and upon roll call, the following voted “aye”: Directors Brunner-Maruthur, Jones, Newell, Weatherford, Edwards, Wheeler, and Bush, total 7; motion unanimously carried. Whereupon the resolution was declared adopted. 17. Proposed Resolution No. R-04-100 A resolution entitled, “A RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE TREASURE ISLE 30-INCH WATER MAIN PROJECT TO DIAMOND CONSTRUCTION,” was taken from the agenda and read by title only. A motion was made by Director Edwards, duly seconded by Director Jones, that the resolution be adopted as read. Upon discussion, Mr. Don Cochran, Director of Utilities, explained the resolution noting that bids were received on the Treasure Isle water main project. This project consists of approximately 15,000 feet of 30-inch water main from the end of the existing water main, which is located on Black Snake Road, to the Music Mountain pump station. This water line will benefit the City in giving the City two water transmission mains to supply water. Five bids were received from contractors; and Diamond Construction was the lowest, qualified bidder with a bid of $1,798,454. Director Weatherford questioned several items on the bid tabulation sheet, such as erosion control. He pointed out that the bidders had a low figure, but Coakley had a very high figure. Also, in testing and sterilization, Coakley had a high figure; but the other bidders had a low figure. He expressed concern with the difference in the bid items. Mr. Don Cochran responded that Mr. Coakley is a very qualified contractor; and if he was low bidder, staff would have no problem recommending him for this project. He noted that he works with the City on several other projects, and the staff has confidence with his abilities. He pointed out that Diamond Construction is working on the Central Avenue water project and has the experience to bid these jobs properly. Director Weatherford commented that he did not want to see the City award a low figure and then return with an addendum because this has happened in the past due to an item being overlooked. City Manager Kent Myers explained that they all bid on the same set of specifications and did not believe anyone wanted additional clarification of those specifications. Director Weatherford asked if the contractors are required to pay an occupation tax; and Deputy City Manager Lance Hudnell advised that they are. Director Weatherford pointed out that Diamond Construction currently is not paying an occupation tax. Deputy City Manager Lance Hudnell responded that it depends on whether they have an office in the City, and there is also some reciprocity in the State law. However, he will check if they are paying an occupation tax in another city. Director Weatherford stated that the City should be charging them an occupation tax, and City Attorney David White advised that Arkansas law contains reciprocity, which means if they are paying an occupation tax in another city in the State, they are not required to pay an occupation tax in Hot Springs. Director Weatherford mentioned if he works in Little Rock, he has to pay an occupation tax. City Attorney David White stated if the principal place of business is Hot Springs, then the City of Little Rock is unlaw- fully charging him an occupation tax that he does not have to pay. He added that he should submit his license show- ing that he has paid his tax and is current in Hot Springs. Then by Arkansas law, they cannot charge that tax. Mayor Bush then called for a vote on the motion to adopt; and upon roll call, the following voted “aye”: Directors Brunner-Maruthur, Jones, Newell, Edwards, Wheeler, and Bush, total 6. Voting “no”: Director Weatherford; motion carried. Whereupon the resolution was declared adopted. 18 Proposed Resolution No. R-04-101 A resolution entitled, “A RESOLUTION APPROVING A NOTICE OF INTENT FOR DISCHARGES OF STORM WATER RUNOFF ASSOCIATED WITH REGULATED SMALL MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYS - TEMS,” was taken from the agenda and read by title only. A motion was made by Director Brunner-Maruthur, duly seconded by Director Wheeler, that the resolution be adopt- ed as read. Upon discussion, Mr. Ron Kohler, Public Works Director, explained this is a request by the State to send in a Notice of Intent on what the City plans to do regarding control of discharge into the creeks and streams. He mentioned this was caused by the current census when Hot Springs was declared an urbanized area. He said that he compiled this Notice of Intent, which covers a five-year plan, with the assistance from Catlett Engineering. He stated that it is a mandated requirement, and the first year the City has set out in the plan to put together a manual of how it is going to proceed to do the inspections and check the information it needs to do and also put together the storm water ordi- nance. Director Edwards asked if the amount paid will depend on the size of a person’s lot; and City Manager Kent Myers explained that at the present time, the City is not proposing a fee. He added there are some communities that have established fees in order to comply with this; but at this time, the City is planning on accomplishing this with in-house resources. At the present time, the City is getting started on the permitting process and the education process, which will be a low-cost item. At a later time, the City will be assuming more expenses; but this is an unfunded, federal man- date; and the City has to comply with what is defined. Mr. Walt Catlett, with Catlett Engineering, expressed appreciation to Mr. Kohler and his staff in assisting him compile the Notice of Intent. He noted they have added just the items the City needs to be doing to remain in compliance Director Weatherford questioned when will the City start seeing something in writing on this, and Mr. Kohler advised that he will get this submitted by April 30. Once they approve the permit and issue a permit, then the City will start drafting the plans; and Mr. Catlett will assist with that. In the first year of the plan, the City will be developing the ordi- nance and all of the requirements to maintain it. Mayor Bush then called for a vote on the motion to adopt; and upon roll call, the following voted “aye”: Directors Brunner-Maruthur, Jones, Newell, Weatherford, Edwards, Wheeler, and Bush, total 7; motion unanimously carried. Whereupon the resolution was declared adopted. 19 Presentation of Wastewater Impact Fee Study and Sewer Rate Options City Manager Kent Myers reported that the rate consultant, Mr. Dan Jackson, and Mr. Larry Stone with NRS Engineering, presented a cost of service study for sewer operations and maintenance and capital improvement pro- gram. At that time, the Board was presented with five different options for new sewer rates; and following a discus- sion, the Board instructed staff to work with Mr. Jackson in preparing an impact fee study. Over the last 30 days, Mr. Cochran, Director of Utilities, and his staff have done a detailed review of the capital improvement plan and have trimmed some money out of the capital expenses. Therefore, the rates to be considered tonight are lower than what was received last month. He and Mr. Cochran have met and after talking with Mr. Jackson and Mr. Stone, they are recommending the option that is a six percent rate increase for in-city customers this year; three percent next year; and no increase in 2006. Mr. Dan Jackson, rate consultant, stated that the last rate adjustment on wastewater was in 1998. Since 1998, the inflation rate has been almost 15 percent; therefore, the cost of wastewater service has been 15 percent cheaper in the last six years. The national average water and wastewater rate has increased by almost 20 percent during this same period. Currently, the City’s wastewater fund is operating at a substantial deficit and is losing money on every gallon of wastewater service that the City is providing to the citizens and barely covering operating costs and is not sufficiently covering all of the debt service. The City had to borrow money from other funds in order to meet all of its obligations. One of the most significant findings of the study is that the cost data has clearly justified charging a high- er rate for outside city customers than for inside city customers. Those inside the city limits are responsible for all of the liabilities of the wastewater system, but those outside are not. Those factor into the cost calculations that are done for inside city limit and outside city limit customers. If the City continues to charge the same rate for customers both inside the city and outside the city, that means the inside city limit customers are going to be subsidizing the out- side city limit customers. The most important factor to be considered when looking at the wastewater rates over the next decade is the extent to which the City has to fund capital replacements. There is a capital improvement pro - gram that will be used for repairing the existing system and expanding the system to meet new growth. That will be the single, largest element of cost the City is going to incur. The City will have to spend approximately $25 million over the next decade to repair the system, to make sure all environmental standards are met and to service new growth. The City will be building a new wastewater treatment plant, which will cost about $4.7 million, which is only about 20 percent of the total capital improvements the City is going to have to spend. Regarding impact fees, Mr. Jackson explained that an impact fee is a one-time charge paid by new development to finance the construction of public facilities needed to serve it. As the city grows, it incurs additional costs, which are to expand the wastewater system to serve the new customers moving into the area. The issue then becomes who will pay the cost of these improvements. By implementing an impact fee to the best extent possible, the City insures that its existing ratepay- ers are not financing the cost of new development. There are many guidelines that have to be followed in order to put an impact fee in place, but one thing that is tantamount is that an impact fee cannot be used for personnel or operating expenses. The purpose of the money the City receives from an impact fee is to fund the capital improve- ments needed to service the new growth. There are several issues to be considered if the City is willing to consider implementing an impact fee. One of those issues is that an impact fee is not designed to control growth. He stated the impact fee recommendations that he is going to provide tonight are for the maximum impact fee that can be charged. It will be about $800 for a 5/8-inch residential connection, which means the City has the option of setting impact fees from $0 to $800 but cannot go over $800. The capital improvement plan is a critical component of the impact fee. Developers will likely impose impact fees, and there are advantages to an impact fee to a developer. One advantage is that it compels the City to try to make its growth as orderly as possible, to develop land use plans, to ensure that growth occurs in a manner that is most in keeping with what city leaders envision their city to ultimately be. Second, impact fees result in additional revenue. Some cities do not have the money to service the growth so development cannot occur if there is no money to put in the facilities to serve the growth. Some cities allow exemp- tions from impact fees for certain developments that create extraordinary economic opportunities. Typically for most states, they can assess a fee at the time a building permit is issued or at the time service is requested; but in Arkansas, the law is more restrictive. An impact fee in Arkansas can only be collected at the time of closing on the property. If the City decides to implement an impact fee, he would recommend that it be reviewed on a periodic basis. Most of the growth that will occur in this area over the next decade will be outside the city limits. Growth outside the city limits is due to be between 200 to 250 new accounts per year over the next decade, whereas inside the city lim- its, the amount is going to be lower (150 or so accounts per year). He stated that $25 million in capital improvements are required for the wastewater system in the next decade. Of that $25 million, about 43 percent of it or about $10.8 million is growth-related. The remainder is for repair of the existing system, but the City cannot implement an impact fee to recover expenses associated with repairing the system. He said that he is recommending that the maximum wastewater impact fee to be imposed would be $802 for a 5/8-inch equivalent water meter. Also, he would recom- mend that the City implement an impact fee based on the corresponding water meter because many cities in the past have implemented impact fees based on land uses, which can be subject to controversy and disputes between builders and cities as to what the proper classification of a land use is. However, when it comes to water meters, there is no dispute. Another benefit is that it ensures that a new development is not going to have a meter size any larg- er than what is needed to service the development. If the City were to implement the maximum impact fee, the City would collect between $300,000 and $350,000 a year, per year for the next decade, which is about $3.2 million in revenue that would offset growth-related costs the City would collect over the next decade. Based on feedback received from the initial draft of the wastewater rate study, they have developed three new options. Each rate option would require implementation over the next three years and each option would allow sufficient revenue to be recov- ered to meet operating and capital expenses in 2006 and beyond. Currently, customers pay a minimum charge of $10.50 for the first thousand gallons and $2.45 per thousand gallons beyond that. The amount is currently the same for both inside and outside city limit customers. The first option that they propose is that the City decides not to implement any impact fee. If the City decides on that option, they would recommend instituting a separate inside and outside city limit rate in order to ensure that they pay more of their share of the costs that are incurred in servic- ing them. On the outside city limit customers, they recommend a rate adjustment of 20 percent immediately followed by a rate adjustment of 15 percent in January 2005, followed by a rate adjustment of 10 percent in January 2006. On the inside city limit customers, they recommend an immediate adjustment of 6 percent, followed by a 3 percent rate adjustment in January 2005 and a 3 percent adjustment in January 2006. He explained that Option 2 assumes that the City decides to put in a wastewater impact fee of $500 for a 5/8-inch meter. The outside city limit increase would still be the same and is still the same under any option. On the inside city limit rate, there would still need to be a 6 percent rate adjustment immediately, followed by a 3 percent rate adjustment in January 2005 but would not need another rate adjustment in 2006. Under Option 1 and Option 2, after January 2006 rate adjustment is put in place, he predicts the City would not need another rate adjustment for at least five years. He stated that Option 3 assumes that the City decides to implement the maximum wastewater impact fee of $800. Under that, the City still has to do the same rate adjustment for the outside city limit customers and would still have to do the immediate six percent rate adjustment for the inside city limit customers. However, the City would not need to do another rate adjustment in 2005 or 2006 for the inside city limit wastewater customers. Currently, the average user of about 5,000 gallons a month pays $20.30 per month for wastewater service. Under Option 1, with no wastewater impact fee, that rate would have to increase by $1.20 for inside city limit customers fol- lowed by another $.75 per month in 2005, and another $.65 in 2006, which is a total increase of $2.50 over the next three years for the average inside city limit customer. For the outside city limit customer, who also currently pays $20.30, that increase would be about $4.00 per month, effective immediately, followed by about another $4.00 per month effective in January 2005, and another $2.80 per month, effective in 2006. By 2006, they would be paying $10.50 per month more than they are paying at the present time. Under Option 2 if the City decides to implement a $500 impact fee, there is no change on the outside city limit cus- tomers. They would still have the same rate adjustments; but the inside city limit customers would see an increase of $1.20 per month immediately, followed by another $.75 per month in 2005, but no further increase after that. The 2006 rate increase would not be necessary. Under Option 3 with an $800 impact fee, the difference is no change at all for the outside city limit customers. On the inside city limit customers, they would have to pay $1.20 per month more, and then no further rate adjustment would be required in either 2005 or 2006. He stated that if there are further options the Board would like to consider, they can be analyzed also. He said there are many different rate structures that could be recommended to ensure that the City meets the operating and cap- ital obligations. However, due to growth and new developments, he said the City will need to decide if it wants to pay for new development by doing modest increases on the existing ratepayers or by implementing a one-time impact fee on new customers that come into the City. Director Brunner-Maruthur stated that the City is basically subsidizing the system for the growth in the county. She pointed out that Option No. 2 has the impact fee of $500, and the City would realize an increase of $.71 in January 2006. She questioned if this could be passed along to the county instead of the city where the City would have no increase in 2006. She said if the City were to go with Option 1, which would be no impact fee, it would encourage growth in the city and the county; but the county residents would be paying more because the City is subsidizing the capital improvements, etc. She asked if the cost of $.71 could be passed along in their charges because with no impact fee, revenue is being received on a regular basis. She questioned how he formulated the $.71 more for January 2006 between Option No. 1 and Option No. 2. Mr. Jackson explained if an impact fee is imposed, the City will recover approximately $300,000 per year in revenue that can be used to offset the cost of growth. That $300,000 would not have to be recovered in rates. He added if the City decides not to implement an impact fee, it will have to raise the monthly rates a little higher to recover an additional $300,000. Director Brunner-Maruthur asked if the $.71 increase could not be passed along to the outside city customers in Option 1. Mr. Jackson explained that it would have to be higher than $.71 in order to offset the $300,000 in impact fee revenue because there are not as many people outside the city limits as there are inside the city limits. If the City increases its rate by $.71 for inside city limit customers (15,000 customers), that will be $300,000 a year. There are only 7,500 outside city limit customers, so if the City raises that rate by $.71 also, it would get only half the revenue. Therefore, the City would actually have to raise the rate by an additional $1.50. Director Brunner-Maruthur asked if the City could do that, and Mr. Jackson replied that it is an option. Director Newell pointed out there is already a 45 percent increase over the next three years for the county; and under Mr. Jackson’s theory, this would be a 60 or 70 percent increase. Director Brunner-Maruthur pointed out if the City went with Option No. 1 and no one paid an impact fee and no one was being penalized in the city or county for building. In January 2006, the City would realize inside the city an increase of $.71; and Mr. Jackson stated that was correct. Director Newell questioned if there has to be a rational basis at some time under the law to treat out-of-city customers differently than in-city customers. Mr. Jackson replied that the principle is cost of service, and the concept is that the City sets the rates so that it recovers no more than the cost of service for an outside city limit customer. Director Newell pointed out that this theory appears to be penalizing people for not living in the City when referring to nearly 70 percent increases. Mr. Jackson stated that one of the findings of the last study was that the cost to serve the outside city limit customers is about 50 to 55 percent more than it is to service the inside city limit customers. Anything over 55 percent would result in the outside city limit customers subsidizing the inside city limit customers. City Manager Kent Myers advised if the Board wants to go to the maximum amount recommended by the consult- ant, that can be figured and return to the Board for the different in-city rate, which will be much less than a 71 per - cent increase. Director Brunner-Maruthur reiterated that her concern is if anything happens to the City’s plant, it is the City that is responsible. Mr. Jackson replied that is correct, and that is one of the primary reasons for the difference in the cost of service. Director Edwards stated he believes the City should proceed with the impact fee, which is a one-time charge. Mayor Bush said that he agreed and believes the City needs an impact fee. Director Weatherford asked how he arrived at the $802, and Mr. Jackson explained that it is a five-step process. The first step is calculating the total volumes that are currently being used by the plants today and what the forecast vol- ume will be over the next decade. Also, he calculated the amount of new capacity the City is going to add under its capital improvement plan. Step 2 is calculating the total amount of dollars the City is going to spend under the cap- ital improvement plan and then determining what percentage of it is due to replacement, which cannot be funded through an impact fee, and what percentage is due to new growth. Step 3 is determining what percentage of the City’s capital improvement plan is going to be funded through debt. The interest on the debt that the City incurs to fund growth-related capital improvements can be included in the fee. Step 4 is taking the total growth costs, dividing it by the total expected new growth and arriving at a per gallon impact fee. Then multiplying that per gallon impact fee by the total average daily gallons of use by a wastewater customer in the city, and arrive with the unit impact fee for a 5/8-inch water meter. He arrived with the higher impact fees for the larger meters by using the AWWA meter equivalent standards. Director Weatherford noted that Hot Springs would be the first city in Arkansas to charge an impact fee. He added that Rogers is considering it at the present time. Mr. Jackson advised Fayetteville has an impact fee of $835 for sewer, and Conway has impact fees but not for water and sewer. He said that impact fees are not as widespread in Arkansas as in other states. Director Weatherford said it was mentioned if someone is using a 2-inch water meter size, he may not do that so that his costs are not as high for his impact fee. He said that person might not get what was needed when applying for that water meter and cause a problem. Mr. Jackson explained that it would be up to the person to determine what his flow is going to be, and he would hope that someone would not install a meter that is too small for the amount of flow they are going to need. He stated if they need a 2-inch meter, then they have to have a 2-inch meter. Director Newell asked what type of development needs a 2-inch meter; and Mr. Jackson said with residential devel- opments in particular, there are many irrigation meters that are 1 and 2 inches; also, retail and commercial, such as an apartment complex that has landscaping or a factory. Director Newell pointed out that he is referring to a very limited residential, and Mr. Jackson said that is correct. He added that approximately 97 percent of the meters that are in service at the present time are 5/8-inch. Director Newell mentioned that Director Weatherford’s concern is that someone underestimates, but Mr. Jackson is referring to anyone who might need a 2-inch meter is someone putting in a multi-million dollar project anyway. City Manager Kent Myers stated he has seen in most impact fee ordinances that they do undersize the meter and come back for a larger meter at a later date. However, they will get a credit for that previous fee so they will not have to pay the full amount. Director Brunner-Maruthur commented in his formulation, he has projected growth and then the risk factor to the facility, which are unkowns. She stated the only thing that is known for sure is realizing the monthly revenue from what is charged, which is a constant. She stated the other ones are variables, which is the reason she is against the impact fee. She pointed out if there is a major capital improvement or something happens to the City’s facility, it can- not necessarily depend on the impact fee; but the City can guarantee the monthly payment that would be realized from the charges. Mr. Jackson responded that an impact fee is dependent on growth; and if the growth does not occur, then the rev - enues will not materialize. If there is a disaster or depression or growth stops for whatever reason, that is one of the disadvantages of an impact fee in that it is more dependent on growth whereas revenues based on monthly rates tend to be more certain. Director Maruthur-Brunner said that she was not referring to a depression, but there could be growth in the sur - rounding cities outside of Hot Springs where the City would not be charging and the growth could be somewhere else. However, when there is a monthly charge, the City can depend on that revenue coming in. After polling the Directors on the options, the options were as follows: Director Newell - Option 3; Director Jones - Option 2. Director Brunner-Maruthur - Option 1 because the City is entitled to be compensated for the risk that it takes. Director Edwards - Option 2. Director Wheeler- Option 1; Director Weatherford - Option 3; and Mayor Bush - Option 2. City Manager Kent Myers stated there have been 3 Directors express support for Option 2; 2 Directors for Option 1; and 2 supported Option 3. He advised that staff will bring an ordinance back with Option 2 since that had the most votes; but after hearing comments at the public hearing, the Board can change that. He noted at this time Option 2 is the $500 impact fee with the increase of 9 percent over the next three years for in-city customers and 45 percent increase over the next three years for out-of-city customers. Deputy City Manager Lance Hudnell advised that according to state law, at the next Board Meeting, the Board will have the first reading only of the ordinance, with no debate. On May 17, the Board will hold a public hearing and then consider discussion on the ordinance.  OTHER BUSINESS 20. Board of Directors Items Director Edwards expressed appreciation to Lt. Bill Cooley, Sergeant Johnny Mann and the Police Department for controlling the traffic during the racing season. Director Jones congratulated Ms. Karen Smith, Mrs. Hot Springs 2004, who is a member of her church, and also an employee at the Police Department. She stated that Ms. Smith will need assistance with her ads and will be in the Mrs. Arkansas Pageant on June 12 at the Hot Springs Civic and Convention Center. She also reminded everyone of the Boston Butt BBQ Cook-off on Saturday, at 4 p.m., at the Exchange Street Parking Plaza; the cost is $3.00. Director Brunner-Maruthur reminded the public of the new street light program. If a street light is out, residents may call 1-800-368-3749. For prompt service, residents should provide the street ID No. and the street name. Director Weatherford commended Interim Finance Director Laury Fiorello for an outstanding job she did in that capacity. 21 City Manager’s Report City Manager Kent Myers gave the following report: 1.He expressed appreciation to those who were involved in yesterday’s troop homecoming ceremony at the Hot Springs Mall. 2.On the Consent Agenda, the Board approved an annual fee for the parking plaza. The City is continuing to try to find ways to increase the utilization of the parking deck, and there has been additional signage on the building which has helped. Ms. Lois Baker, Public Information Assistant, is creating a new brochure on the parking deck that will be available next week. Also, annual fees have been added; and businesses can rent a space for the entire year. At mid-year budget, the Board will be considering additional recommendations from the Transportation Advisory Committee. 3. On Thursday, April 22, at 6:30 p.m., Room 104, the Hot Springs Civic and Convention Center, there will be a meeting of the Hot Springs Landlord Association, which is a group of local landlords who have been meeting over the last couple of years and are very supportive of the new nuisance abatement program. Police Chief Gary Ashcraft, Mr. Bart Jones, and some of the legal staff will present the program and an update on the code enforce- ment program. 4.A Board tour will be held next Monday, at 12 noon, on some of the new facilities that have been added. The high- lights of that tour will be the new composting operation in District 6. Plans are to tour the new Entergy Park, which will be completed in the next 60 days, as well as the new bus barn off Shady Grove Road. 5.Mr. Bob Walters, Chief Engineer for the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, will be on ‘Inside Hot Springs” this week. He will be discussing all of the highway projects that are scheduled for this year. It will be rebroadcast Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, at 9 a.m., 3 p.m., and 6:30 p.m. 22. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m., to meet again on Monday, May 3, 2004, at 7:00 p.m.