Board of Directors

MINUTES BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING APRIL 4, 2005, AT 7:00 P.M. The regular meeting of the Board of Directors was held on Monday, April 4, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., Board Chambers, City Hall, with Mayor Mike Bush presiding. The invocation was given by Ms. Deborah Wright, 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 Maruthur, Elaine Jones, Steve Smith, Carroll Weatherford, Bill Edwards, Tom Daniel, and Mike Bush, total 7. 2 Approval of Agenda A motion was made by Director Edwards, duly seconded by Director Maruthur, that the agenda be approved; and upon voice vote, the motion unanimously carried. 3 Approval of Minutes of March 21, 2005 Board Meeting A motion was made by Director Weatherford, duly seconded by Director Daniel, that the minutes of the March 21, 2005 Board Meeting be approved; and upon voice vote, the motion unanimously carried. 4 Recognition of Guests Director Edwards recognized Ms. Linda Schiermeyer, who announced the Teen Challenge Banquet on Thursday, April 14, at 7:00 p.m., Mountain Valley Retreat Center.  CONSENT AGENDA The Consent Agenda consisted of the following: 5 Budget Transfer - $7,750 (Development of MS4 Documents). 6 Proposed Resolution No. R-05-104 Approving Certain Bid Awards (a) Aluminum Sulfate - Utilities [annual supply contract awarded to Bay Chemical]; (b) Pipe - Utilities [awarded to National Waterworks in the amount of $85,050]; (c) Pipe, Valves, Tees, Etc. - Utilities [awarded to Hughes Supply in the amount of $10,994.31; National Waterworks in the amount of $29,213.92; and Arkansas Water Products in the amount of $38,585.66]; (d) HVAC Comprehensive - Various Departments [annual supply contract awarded to Powers of Arkansas]; and (e) Truck - Utilities [state contract awarded to Landers GMC in the amount of $20,118]. 7 Proposed Resolution No. R-05-105 Authorizing Revisions to the 2005 Budget; and Repealing Resolution No. 5821. 8 Proposed Resolution No. R-05-106 Authorizing Revisions to the 2005 Budget (Intracity Transit). 9 Proposed Resolution No. R-05-107 Awarding a Contract for Consulting Services to Ken Freeman (Trails Coordinator). 10 Proposed Resolution No. R-05-108 Fixing a Time and Date for a Hearing on a Request to Vacate, Abandon and Close a Portion of Hendricks Street in Block 1 of Gaines Addition, Garland County, Arkansas. 11 Proposed Resolution No. R-05-109 Fixing a Time and Date for a Hearing on a Petition to Vacate, Abandon and Close a Portion of an Unnamed Alley Located in Brown=s Addition, Garland County, Arkansas. Board of Directors Meeting 2 April 4, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. 12 Proposed Resolution No. R-05-110 Confirming the Appointment of Tim Dean, Jeanie Dean and Bill Erickson as Commissioners to the Townsquare Sewer, Street and Water Improvement District No. 101. 13 Proposed Resolution No. R-05-111 Authorizing the Filing of a Grant Application with the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program to Hire a Consultant to Create Design Review Guidelines for the Pleasant Street Historic District. 14 Proposed Resolution No. R-05-112 Authorizing the Filing of a Grant Application with the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program for Training and Travel Expenses for the Historic District Commissioners and Staff. 15 Proposed Resolution No. R-05-113 Approving a Cost-Sharing Agreement Between the City of Hot Springs, Arkansas, and Centerpoint Energy/Arkla Related to the Park Avenue Water Improvements, Phase I. 16 Proposed Resolution No. R-05-114 Accepting Certain Water and Wastewater Projects into the Hot Springs Municipal Water and Wastewater System. 17 Proposed Resolution No. R-05-115 Awarding a Contract to NRS Consulting Engineers for Engineering Services Related to the Preliminary Study of the Filter Systems for Ouachita Water Treatment Plant and Wastewater Treatment Plant. 18 Proposed Resolution No. R-05-116 Approving the Extension of Hot Springs Municipal Water and Wastewater Service to Lighthouse Point Condominiums on Grand Point Drive. A motion was made by Director Edwards, duly seconded by Director Maruthur, that the Consent Agenda be approved; and upon roll call, the following voted Aaye@: Directors Maruthur, Jones, Smith, Weatherford, Edwards, Daniel, and Bush, total 7; motion unanimously carried. Board of Directors Meeting 3 April 4, 2005 at 7:00 P.M.  UNFINISHED BUSINESS 19 Proposed Resolution No. R-05-86 A resolution entitled, AA RESOLUTION APPROVING THE EXTENSION OF HOT SPRINGS MUNICIPAL WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICE FOR THE GARDEN HOME DEVELOPMENT OFF McDONALD LOOP,@ was taken from the agenda and read by title only. (Tabled March 21, 2005) A motion was made by Director Jones, duly seconded by Director Maruthur, that the resolution be adopted as read. Upon discussion, Mr. Don Cochran, Director of Utilities, stated that at the March 21 Board Meeting, the Board requested that staff conduct a site survey of the property and has determined there is line of site between the property asking for the extension and the city limits. For that reason, the Board may consider that this property be annexed. He stated that the developer will be paying all of the costs of installing the water and wastewater utility lines. Mr. Q. Byrum Hurst, Jr., attorney representing the developer, stated that the developer is asking for the permits for water and wastewater at his cost but did not want them tied to annexation. He noted this property is not contiguous with any city property and heard the term Aline of site@ today. In researching, he could not find any authority either in the previous orders of courts, in any case, or any statute that would authorize forced annexation as a result of line of site to the City. He said if the City attempted to annex this property, it would be a disservice to the City due to the costs to provide other services. Director Maruthur questioned the origin of the point of line of site as described; and Mr. Hurst stated that in trying to research the line of site issue, there has been a dispute as to whether the City can annex noncontiguous land; and it is still a dispute. However, there was a procedure related to him today that said if it is not contiguous but is in the line of site of city property, then it might be able to be annexed. He stated in Judge Larry Williams Opinion regarding Garvan Gardens, no where does he reference the term Aline of site.@ He said that he did not believe that line of site is a legitimate means by which to justify an annexation. He commented if he were challenging this and had to take it to court, he would try to determine if it is in line of site because it cannot be seen from the 70 West bridge nor from most normally traveled areas within the city. Therefore, he does not know how the City employees came up with the fact that it can be seen. Board of Directors Meeting 4 April 4, 2005 at 7:00 P.M.  City Attorney David White commented that according to staff, this development is located a considerable distance outside the city limits and would not be considered for annexation at this time. He questioned why there is a discussion regarding line of site when it appears there is no annexation involved. Director Maruthur asked where does a person have to be located to determine a line of site, and Mr. Hurst said he could not answer that because he does not think line of site is a legal term. City Attorney David White advised that it is not a legal term, and the legal term is that one must be contiguous to the City to be annexed. Director Weatherford questioned how the City annexed Garvan Woodland Gardens when it is not contiguous even though it was voluntary. City Attorney David White pointed out that relates to natural barriers, such as water, roads, mountain ranges, etc. State Representative Bill Sample reported that he has talked with the experts at the State Capitol regarding the line of site issue; and they have a problem with the line of site annexation, whether it is constitutional or not. He stated that since water is level, he does not believe this is in line of site. Director Edwards questioned how he expected cities to grow, and Representative Sample said there are ways to petition to annex. However, withholding water and forcing annexation are not the right answers. Mayor Bush said that he would like to delay the line of site discussion for a couple of months, and Representative Sample replied that he would be glad to return and address Director Edwards= question anytime the Board would like. Mayor Bush then called for a vote on the motion to adopt; and upon roll call, the following voted Aaye@: Directors Maruthur, Jones, Smith, Weatherford, Edwards, Daniel, and Bush, total 7; motion unanimously carried. Whereupon the resolution was declared adopted. 20 Proposed Resolution No. R-05-101 A resolution entitled, AA RESOLUTION ADOPTING A POLICY FOR THE EXTENSION OF WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICES,@ was taken from the agenda and read by title only. Board of Directors Meeting 5 April 4, 2005 at 7:00 P.M.  A motion was made by Director Edwards, duly seconded by Director Jones, that the resolution be adopted as read. Upon discussion, Mr. Don Cochran, Utilities Director, advised that staff is recommending that the Board approve a revised version of the water and wastewater services extension policy. The existing policy has been amended over several years, and this revised policy is a consolidated version of the existing policy with two changes: (1) within the policy when it addresses annexation, it is worded as Aextensions may not be approved without annexation.@ This is referring to property that is contiguous to the City; and (2) giving the City Manager and Utilities Director the authority to approve or deny or modify requests for utility extensions from developers. This is for extensions that are beyond the five-mile radius of the city limits and where the developer will pay all the costs associated with the extensions that are well outside the city boundaries. He then showed a map depicting the service area outside the city limits. City Manager Kent Myers questioned how it would be handled under this policy if a developer in the County is wanting water and sewer service and willing to pay all utility costs. Mr. Cochran advised that the developer would submit a request to utility staff and submit the plans and specifications on what they would put in. He would approve that on staff level as is the present policy and make sure they are planning to install everything to the City=s plans and specifications. He and the City Manager would then review it, and send the developer a letter of approval or denial or make any modifications. On the monthly report that he submits to the City Manager and the Board, that information would be presented at that time and notify the Board of those that come in on a monthly basis. City Manager Kent Myers stressed there is concern from the 70 West area that this will apply to them; however, it will not. Director Jones asked if the developer could appear before the Board if he was denied by City staff, and Mr. Cochran advised that anyone can submit a request to appear before the Board. Attorney Q. Byrum Hurst, Jr. spoke against the amendment to the policy. He commented that at the present time if water and sewer services are required from a developer or development, the regulatory authority may require annexation as one of the conditions. If the Board approves this resolution, the term Ashall@ would be substituted. He noted that in the legal system the word Ashall@ is an important word because it is mandatory. He urged the Board to vote against amending the present policy. Board of Directors Meeting 6 April 4, 2005 at 7:00 P.M.  Representative Bill Sample pointed out that Amay@ is permissive, and Ashall@ is a mandate. He said that the preference is that Ashall@ be omitted. Director Maruthur stated there are two parts to this policy: (1) may not be approved, which is an option and that would be on a case-by-case approval of somebody getting the extension; and (2) shall not be approved is a Ano.@ She noted that individuals do not get the extension unless they annex. She recommended tabling it and drawing some specific criteria for the facility and what it can service before further approvals. She then read a prepared statement which relates to No. 2 of the extension request. She stated that the City is leaving the potential of creating a bigger problem than it faced on June 21, 2004, when the City placed the outrageous water increases onto the public. The City experienced a substantial impact on its facilities that deliver these services, and the people are the ones who are paying for this burden. The City was not able to support this growth, and now the Board is considering those extensions not coming before the Board. She stated the public deserves to know how many are being approved, the location of these extensions, and the property owner=s position on whether they want to become part of the City or remain in the County. During the water and impact fee study report, she stated there was discussion regarding methodology and how the City=s facilities were overburdened. The City paid $35,000 between NRS and Economists.com to hear that the City=s delivery system needs to be carefully monitored for the future. She stated that these extensions are cumulative, and the City pays. She noted that at the work sessions regarding rate increases, it was reported that the City had not increased its rates since 1998. In the study, the consultant spoke about inflation and the general increase of doing business with new federal regulations. However, there was unresponsiveness since 1998. Also, in the study it said if the City=s future growth was not monitored, it could exceed the projected growth and find itself in the same or a worse situation again. The projected growth of the City was expected to be 1 percent in the next ten years and in the County 2.5 percent. Also, it stated that the City personnel was not expected to increase even though thousands of feet of new lines could be extended outside of the city limits over the next ten years; and the City will be forced to prioritize who gets repairs first B the City or the County. She stressed that the City needs to protect the interest of the people and keep these requests for extensions before televised meetings of the Board. Also, the City must remain good stewards of their money. She emphasized that a report of who the Utility Director and City Manager approve for the extensions is taking away the ability for the public to view exactly where their money is being spent. She stated that Amay@ versus Ashall@ needs to be studied because the City needs to find out exactly how much its facility can handle. She asked what is substantial impact and how can it be defined. She questioned if there are ten simultaneous applications, will they be considered individually or cumulatively as creating a substantial impact. She advised that the comment was made if the Board turns over its authority to the Utilities Director and the City Manager, whose interest is being monitored and what is happening behind the scenes. Also, will applications over the next years be considered as an individual impact or in relation to those that Board of Directors Meeting 7 April 4, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. have been accepted previously? She noted the City Manager has proposed this to streamline and to allow him and the Utilities Director to make decisions that are now held in the province of the Board. She pointed out that she has confidence in the City Manager and Utilities Director but feels she has an obligation to those who have voted for her. Also, if the Board relinquishes its watch to those who are not elected, she questioned what happens when they are replaced. Regarding the people who replace the Directors, the City Manager and Utilities Director in the future, she stated it is unknown about their honesty and integrity and whether or not they have an agenda. She said that she has no problem with presenting the water and sewer extensions in the future on the Consent Agenda; and if someone has a problem with it, then removing it from the Consent Agenda and placing it under New Business for discussion. She noted that she is not going to vote for this resolution because there is nothing wrong with the way it has been handled. She stated that handing over the authority from the elected officials to a department head and City Manager is inappropriate because of the continuity that the Directors need to keep in place for the protection of the government and the citizens in the County and the City. Mayor Bush then called for a vote on the motion to adopt the resolution; and upon roll call, the following voted Ano@: Directors Smith, Weatherford, Edwards, Daniel, Maruthur, Jones, and Bush, total 7; motion unanimously failed. Whereupon the resolution was declared failed. 21 Report from National Park Service on Status of Bathhouses (Removed from Agenda) 22 Proposed Resolution No. R-05-117 A resolution entitled, AA RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING USE OF THE 2005 ANNUAL SUPPLY CONTRACT WITH COAKLEY COMPANY, INC. FOR THE PARK AVENUE WATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, PHASE I, WATER UTILITY LINE INSTALLATION,@ was taken from the agenda and read by title only. A motion was made by Director Maruthur, duly seconded by Director Jones, that the resolution be adopted as read. Upon discussion, Mr. Don Cochran, Utilities Director, stated that the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department is scheduling to resurface Park Avenue and Central Avenue in August and September. In order to meet that schedule, staff would like to use Coakley Construction, which has already gone through a bidding process on an hourly contract and was the low bidder. The expected time for the project is around 66 days; and the estimated work is approximately $2,650 per day, which is a total of $174,900 for the contract. If the contract extends Board of Directors Meeting 8 April 4, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. longer, then staff will return to the Board and ask for an extension. He added that the City will supply the pipe and materials, and this contract is just for the labor. The City will also be working with the Gas Company again and sharing the cost of the trench and traffic control, etc. Director Weatherford asked if the cost of $174,900 is split between the City and Arkla or is that the City=s cost. Mr. Cochran advised that is the estimated cost at the present time; and a portion of that would be split, such as the excavation and the labor for street resurfacing. Mayor Bush then called for a vote on the motion to adopt the resolution; and upon roll call, the following voted Aaye@: Directors Maruthur, Jones, Smith, Weatherford, Edwards, Daniel, and Bush, total 7; motion unanimously carried. Whereupon the resolution was declared adopted. 23 Proposed Ordinance No. O-05-33 An ordinance entitled, AAN ORDINANCE WAIVING THE REQUIREMENTS OF COMPETITIVE BIDDING FOR THE PURCHASE OF A LOCALIZER SHELTER TO BE LOCATED AT THE AIRPORT FROM DUPONT BUILDING, INC. (SOLE-SOURCE); APPROPRIATING FUNDS; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,@ was taken from the agenda for consideration. A motion was made by Director Weatherford, duly seconded by Director Maruthur, 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 AShall the ordinance be passed as read?@ and upon motion of Director Weatherford, duly seconded by Director Daniel, that the ordinance be passed as read. In reply to Director Edwards, Mr. George Downie, Airport Director, explained that a localizer is part of the instrument landing system, which without it, pilots cannot land in inclement weather or minimal conditions. Mayor Bush then called for a vote on the motion to adopt; and upon roll call, the following voted Aaye@: Directors Smith, Weatherford, Edwards, Daniel, Maruthur, Jones, and Bush, total 7; motion unanimously carried. Whereupon the ordinance was declared passed. Board of Directors Meeting 9 April 4, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. 24 Proposed Resolution No. R-05-118 A resolution entitled, AA RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A GRANT APPLICATION WITH THE STATE AERONAUTICS DEPARTMENT FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF FUNDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF A LOCALIZER SHELTER AT THE AIRPORT,@ was taken from the agenda and read by title only. A motion was made by Director Daniel, duly seconded by Director Edwards, that the resolution be adopted as read. Upon discussion, Mr. George Downie, Airport Director, advised that since the FAA would not approve purchase of this through their funds, the Airport has elected to go before the State Aeronautics Commission and ask for a 50-50 grant (50 percent of the $18,975). Mayor Bush then called for a vote on the motion to adopt; and upon roll call, the following voted Aaye@: Directors Smith, Weatherford, Edwards, Daniel, Maruthur, Jones, and Bush, total 7; motion unanimously carried. Whereupon the resolution was declared adopted. 25 Proposed Resolution No. R-05-119 A resolution entitled, AA RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CITY RECORDS,@ was taken from the agenda and read by title only. (Police Department records) A motion was made by Director Daniel, duly seconded by Director Weatherford, that the resolution be adopted as read. Upon discussion, Director Maruthur questioned if this is transferring of records; and Police Chief Gary Ashcraft explained that this destroys the paper copy of the record because they have been scanned in the database. He added either these records have all been scanned in, or they are past the statute of limitations on anything for which the Police Department can use these records. Director Maruthur asked if the records are still being scanned that are past the statute of limitations, and Police Chief Ashcraft responded the Police Department is not losing anything. The Board appointed Director Edwards to witness the destruction of the records. Board of Directors Meeting 10 April 4, 2005 at 7:00 P.M.  Mayor Bush then called for a vote on the motion to adopt; and upon roll call, the following voted Aaye@: Directors Maruthur, Jones, Smith, Weatherford, Edwards, Daniel, and Bush, total 7; motion unanimously carried. Whereupon the resolution was declared adopted. 26 Proposed Resolution No. R-05-120 A resolution entitled, AA RESOLUTION APPROVING CERTAIN BID AWARDS PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 4609 (PURCHASING PROCEDURES) [Video Equipment],@ was taken from the agenda and read by title only. A motion was made by Director Jones, duly seconded by Director Weatherford, that the resolution be adopted as read; and upon roll call, the following voted Aaye@: Directors Smith, Weatherford, Edwards, Daniel, Maruthur, Jones, and Bush, total 7; motion unanimously carried. Whereupon the resolution was declared adopted. 27 Proposed Ordinance No. O-05-34 An ordinance entitled, AAN ORDINANCE CONFIRMING MATTERS PERTAINING TO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY,@ was taken from the agenda for consideration. (Magic Springs) A motion was made by Director Daniel, duly seconded by Director Weatherford, 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 AShall the ordinance be passed as read?@ and upon motion of Director Weatherford, duly seconded by Director Daniel, that the ordinance be passed as read; and upon roll call, the following voted Aaye@: Directors Maruthur, Jones, Smith, Weatherford, Edwards, Daniel, and Bush, total 7; motion unanimously carried. Whereupon the ordinance was declared passed. The emergency clause was then read; and upon motion of Director Weatherford, duly seconded by Director Edwards, that the emergency clause be passed; and upon voice vote, the motion unanimously carried. Whereupon the emergency clause was declared passed. 28 Presentation on Sanitation Cart Program Mr. Bill Burrough, Sanitation Director, reported on December 3, 2004, the City began a pilot program utilizing some carts for the waste collection. There were 120 participants in the program, Board of Directors Meeting 11 April 4, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. which ended on February 25, 2005. He reported out of 120 participants, 107 surveys were returned. Ninety-three percent of the participants stated that the waste container was sufficient for their size family. Three percent stated it was too small, and some respondents indicated that it was fine. Ninety-nine percent responded that the container was easier to get to and from the curb. He explained that he chose these dates because it was the most extreme time that families would generate the largest amount of volume as far as the waste. Compared to the other trash containers, transporting the new containers to and from the cart, 84 percent responded that it was easier to transport. Ninety-nine percent stated it was easier to use, and 84 percent stated it was easier to get to the cart. There was 12 percent in that mix that stated there was no difference. Compared to the old trash container versus the new containers, 72 percent felt it was easier to store; however, 24 percent stated there was no difference. Since the program began, his department asked how they would rate the actual service with this new cart collection, and 96 percent stated it was good or even better with 89 percent rating that the service was excellent. There was one percent that rated the service as being poor. He noted there was some inclement weather during the pilot program that postponed service due to the ice for about three days, and it was during one of those collection schedules, which may have had some impact. He stated they are close to meeting the right size container with the right size families. However, there is about three percent that it did not accommodate. This container will accommodate a family of five; and if there are more than that, then he will have to look at some additional volumes or additional containers for some of those families. However, it was a very small percentage. Seventy-eight percent of the participants felt that it improved the look of their neighborhood. Because he chose to do some in every district, it was very sporadic. Nineteen percent stated there was no difference; three percent had no opinion either way. There was no responses stating that it was worse. Ninety-three percent of the respondents stated they would like to continue the new cart system on a permanent basis; four percent did not want to make that change, but they may not be using a cart now. Overall, 93 percent of the participants were completely satisfied; five percent were neutral; and two percent were displeased with the system. He said that he will be looking at some costs for this type of system and bring it back to the Board to evaluate. Mayor Bush said he would like to see this as soon as possible. He pointed out some residents may need two carts and suggested that consideration be given to a second cart and if there will be a charge. Mr. Burrough stated that normally in most cities, that is the case; there are four to five percent that need an additional cart. He said there is a certain overhead cost to come by each house and pick up the waste. The additional cost that he would have would be landfill costs. He advised that there is a rate for that container with a reduced rate for a second container. Board of Directors Meeting 12 April 4, 2005 at 7:00 P.M.  Director Maruthur asked if only the 96-gallon container was offered to everyone in the program, and Mr. Burrough replied there were two containers offered. He stated there were some that would meet the criteria of a senior citizen who generated a very small volume of trash. Therefore, he was able to offer some 48-gallon containers. Director Maruthur asked if there will there be a reduction rate reflected in their bill if there is an option for the larger and smaller, and Mr. Burrough replied there would be two rates for two different size containers. He pointed out the City would have to be careful in setting up a specific criteria for those who were eligible to have that smaller container. He said other cities have experienced everyone wanting the smaller can because of a reduced rate. Director Smith commended Mr. Burrough and his staff on this project and said he supported the program. 29 Status Report on Knickerbocker and Darch Hotels City Manager Kent Myers stated at this time, there is nothing new to report on the Darch and Knickerbocker Hotels, and staff is scheduled to meet with the property owner on Wednesday. Following that meeting, the City will negotiate a plan for correction to the additional code enforcement issues. He stated the Board may want to table this until staff has an opportunity to meet with the property owner this Wednesday and bring back a written plan that the Board can consider in more detail. A motion was made by Director Jones, duly seconded by Director Edwards, that the report on the Knickerbocker and Darch Hotels be tabled until after meeting on Wednesday with the property owner. Mr. John Girolamo, owner of the Knickerbocker and Darch Hotels, stated he was not notified of the Board=s last meeting and has not been notified of many meetings which has been a problem with the City. He pointed out that several agendas prior to that meeting, he did not notice anything about the Knickerbocker yet there have been discussions about it. He criticized Directors Weatherford and Smith for their comments at a previous meeting regarding the buildings and insinuations that he was avoiding that meeting. He noted that he was in Illinois on that day and had documentation to prove that. He stated that he had made an appointment with Director Weatherford and Mr. Bart Jones, Housing Administrator, to inspect the building; however, Director Weatherford did not appear. He added that Mr. Jones looked at the building and did not issue any violations but made some suggestions, which were followed. He noted that the Code Compliance Department has stated numerous times that the buildings were stable and that the work is continuing. He also Board of Directors Meeting 13 April 4, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. commented that Director Weatherford had questioned if he had a grease trap in the restaurant, which is located in the building on Bridge Street. He stated that several days after that meeting, Director Weatherford targeted several restaurants, which he believed he owned but actually built. Upon finding that out and using his name specifically, he went to the City and made several complaints, including to the City Manager. He said that Director Weatherford then filed a complaint on every food establishment in the City which triggered the six-month clause for them to comply with grease traps. He pointed out that he is trying to show the Board the total disregard for small businesses, citizens, and a development. City Manager Kent Myers pointed out that he has not shown anything in his comments that indicates what he will do on the Darch and Knickerbocker Hotels. Therefore, he is not sure this report is adding any substance to the discussion tonight. He noted if he wants to report to the Board how he is going to correct the Code Enforcement issues, then that is pertinent to the agenda item; and Mr. Girolamo replied that work has continued. Mayor Bush asked what he is going to do about the hotels, and Mr. Girolamo said there has been continuous work on them. He stated that prior to the last meeting, he met with Mr. Jones and they agreed to inspect the buildings every two months, including the Federal Building. He noted that Director Maruthur looked the building. City Manager Kent Myers stressed that staff is meeting with Mr. Girolamo on Wednesday; and once they put together a written plan and if the Board wants to place it on the next agenda, it would be to their discretion. City Attorney David White suggested that the Board table any action tonight until the meeting on Wednesday. Director Maruthur stated that she looked at the building on Bridge and Malvern, but she has no knowledge of the plumbing, electrical, etc. and is not educated in the area of inspections. However, she said it is a beautiful building and encouraged everyone to look at it. She reported that she was told by Mr. Jones that it was secured. City Attorney David White suggested voting on the motion to table until after the meeting with the property owner on Wednesday. He added that the Board is free to either accept or reject the recommendation of Code. However, he has always advised the Board that when it rejects recommendations of staff, it places the City in a difficult position legally. Board of Directors Meeting 14 April 4, 2005 at 7:00 P.M.  Mayor Bush then called for a vote on the motion to table this item until after the meeting between the property owner and City staff on Wednesday; and upon roll call, the following voted Aaye@: Directors Maruthur, Jones, Smith, Weatherford, Edwards, and Daniel, total 6. Voting Ano@: Mayor Bush; motion carried. 30 Status Report on National Baptist Hotel City Manager Kent Myers stated that Mr. Dean Baxter, from Tennessee and the owner of the National Baptist Hotel, is present tonight. Director Jones asked when he planned to get started, and Mr. Baxter replied that this a large building with a lot of expenses to making it work. He advised they have had reservation for low- income housing tax credits, and they get tax credits for the amount of money they spend provided they are doing certain things. However, the State of Arkansas has a fairly low cap on that; and the end result was the amount of subsidy they received through the tax credits was not that great for the amount of work that needed to be done on the building. He stated they have been able to revise their plans. Therefore, instead of converting the entire building into apartments as originally planned, they would only do a phase of it. He explained they get a tax credit per dollar spent up to a cap, but they were over the cap. Therefore, much of what they were spending, they were not getting the dollar-for- dollar subsidy through the State. At the ADFA Board=s last meeting, they voted to defer that to staff. At this point, he advised they have been working with the staff at ADFA and believe an approval of that new plan is close to being forthcoming. City Attorney David White asked if that will give him additional tax credits, and Mr. Baxter responded that the cost of the entire project goes down; but they still get the same subsidy. Therefore, they basically are not having to spend as much and not having to borrow as much but still have the same subsidies, which results in a greater debt coverage. City Attorney David White questioned when the staff at ADFA will have their decision, and Mr. Baxter said possibly they will have that within the week. Director Daniel said to his knowledge he does not believe Code Compliance has been inside the building and made an assessment. He stated the last building permit they pulled was to put a new roof on the building and finish one floor. He said it was his understanding that the Fire Department was having difficulties and had to use a hook and ladder or boom truck to get upon the roof. Also, the only way they could look in the building was to go down the elevator shaft. Board of Directors Meeting 15 April 4, 2005 at 7:00 P.M.  Fire Chief Ed Davis said that was true the time before last, and they inspected the building last year with some of the architects and found the building to be in about 1/8 collapse on the southwest corner. The Fire Department at that time ascertained it would only be defensive operations that would go on if a fire occurred in the building unless there was a large number of people in there for some reason. He said it is an issue that needs to be addressed, and the Fire Department believes it should be left as it is. Director Daniel asked when was the last time Code Compliance inspected it, and Mr. Raetz stated they inspected it the last time they took out their permits for the roofing and electrical, which was two years ago. Mr. Baxter stated they were given a permit but not for a new roof. He added that initially they purchased the mortgage on the building and then went through a process of foreclosing on the previous owners. He reported they were given a list at that time of items that needed to be addressed in order to stabilize the building so that condemnation would be averted and addressed all of the items on that list. He noted that the general idea at that time was to keep the building dry and inaccessible either to birds or people, and he believe that was accomplished. He stressed that they have not denied access to anyone from the City. City Manager Kent Myers stated that he talked to a representative with ADFA today, and consideration of splitting the project into two phases is before ADFA at this time. Phase 1 would still have to be completed by the end of 2005, but they would give Mr. Baxter and his group additional time to develop Phase 2. Phase I would have to be done with a Certificate of Occupancy by the end of 2005. He asked how realistic is it to get Phase 1 completed by the end of this year. Mr. Baxter advised that the requirement to preserve the present tax credit reservation is not to have the entire project completed but is to have the Certificate of Occupancy for one unit by the end of the year. He advised that their contractor and architect have assured him that is not a problem. City Manager Kent Myers asked how he proposed to meet the December schedule. Also the Certificate of Occupancy on one unit is not a matter of repairing 1,000 square feet of space but would include a large amount of work on the floor and ceiling in order to get that for one unit. He asked when he was going to get started and how he was going to accomplish that. Mr. Baxter stated they have a commitment for financing the debt and equity. He said they were given the impression that they were going to be able to get $150,000 in Community Development Block Grant funds. When they began working on the 49-unit revision, they were working under the impression of being able to have $150,000. Board of Directors Meeting 16 April 4, 2005 at 7:00 P.M.  Director Weatherford asked who told him that, and Mr. Baxter stated that Mr. Nelson Self, Community Development Block Grant Coordinator, and City Manager Kent Myers. He clarified that they were never told they had the funds, but it was his understanding that amount could potentially be available. He pointed out that the Clinton Cultural Center received $150,000 of CDBG money. Director Smith commented they bought out the note and basically a discounted mortgage that was on this property; and Mr. Baxter replied that he did and acquired title in that manner. Director Smith asked how much he paid for the note, and Mr. Baxter said he did not recall the specific amount; but they paid $180,000 or $185,000 for the mortgage. They also had some extensive legal costs over and above that. Director Smith questioned what other amount has he or his group put into the building. Mr. Baxter said as far as the funds they have actually spent directly on work on the building, it is between $20,000 and $30,000. Director Smith asked if he has ever done a project similar to this, and Mr. Baxter said he has not personally as a developer. He added that he is co- owner of this and is not the sole owner. Director Smith stated that he has a reservation for low- income tax credits and questioned if he is out of the deal should he not receive those for any reason. Mr. Baxter replied for this particular project, he is not. Director Smith asked if he could get a specific response, and Mr. Baxter said he did not believe that question lends itself to a specific response. He added that the particular project they have planned now is a tax-credit project, and the tax credits are crucial. Director Edwards said that he passed the building several days ago, and the door on the northwest corner on the second floor was open, and Mr. Baxter said that he would check it out. Director Edwards pointed out that cleaning around the building and cutting the grass would improve the neighborhood. Director Weatherford asked why he thought the City would give him a Certificate of Occupancy for one unit in an unfinished building of that size. Mr. Baxter replied that his architect and contractor have been talking with Mr. Raetz, and it is his understanding if they have one unit by itself that meets codes and is accessible, that they can get a temporary Certificate of Occupancy. Director Weatherford asked if there is another project similar to this where the City has done that, and Mr. Raetz said it is not all that unusual. He added the portion of the structure that requires the finish has to be isolated and has to be stabilized all throughout. He mentioned there has to be absolutely zero access by any of the occupants or anybody other than the construction people to any other parts of the building that are not finalized. Director Daniel stated this permit was issued two years ago, and Mr. Raetz explained that was the stabilization permit. Director Daniel asked when he has been back to inspect it, and Mr. Board of Directors Meeting 17 April 4, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. Raetz stated it was when they put the netting out front, installed the chain link fence, and the new roof. Director Daniel asked if anyone has inspected the roof in the last two years, and Mr. Raetz said they have not since that time. Director Daniel commented it is safe to say if the interior and stairways are collapsing, it probably would have to have a complete new roof in order to stabilize one unit; and Mr. Raetz said that is not impossible. City Manager Kent Myers commented that the Board needs to decide if it wants to wait until the end of this year to deal with this or try to deal with it over the next couple of months. He pointed out that one of the things to keep in mind is that there are some real concerns about the structural integrity of the building. As a public safety issue, he believes the Board needs to be concerned about this. He suggested that the City proceed with entertaining proposals for a structural engineer to evaluate the structural integrity of the building. That contract would have to be presented to the Board for consideration and over the next couple of months look at the structural integrity of the building. If the Board would give staff that direction tonight, then staff would return with a proposal in the next 60 days. If the Board wanted to wait until the end of the year and if the tax credits expire and Mr. Baxter has not made progress, the Board can move forward very quickly, particularly at the recommendation of the structural engineer to address those safety issues. City Attorney David White pointed out that the Board has no concern over whether or not this project can make money for Mr. Baxter. That is totally outside the Board=s realm of consideration, but he agreed that the City needs a structural engineer to determine whether or not it is feasible to proceed with this project. Director Maruthur stated it should be the owner of the building who pays for the structural engineer to assess the structural integrity of the building since it is privately owned. She questioned if the $150,000 in CDBG funds that was discussed between Mr. Baxter and the City Manager and Mr. Self was verbal or written. Mr. Baxter stated that it was verbal. He added that Director Weatherford was at this meeting also where it was discussed, and Director Weatherford stressed that the only figure discussed that day was $30,000. City Manager Kent Myers stated he did not recall any discussion on $150,000 because he knows what the level of commitment is to address the housing needs in Districts 1 and 2; and the CDBG budget does not allow excess money to appropriate $150,000. He mentioned that Directors Jones and Maruthur have some serious housing needs in their neighborhood, and the majority of the funds are committed to address those needs. He stressed that he has never considered $150,000 to be feasible because the City does not have that much money to appropriate for this project. Board of Directors Meeting 18 April 4, 2005 at 7:00 P.M.  Mr. Baxter asked if $150,000 was given to the Clinton Cultural Center, and City Manager Kent Myers advised that it was. He added they have a proven track record of dealing with historic old buildings and repairing them. Also, there were numerous other factors that went into the recommendation of staff to appropriate that money, which was a two-year appropriation. After the first year, they had to show some visible progress in terms of their financing and commitments. Mr. Baxter clarified that they do not need $150,000 immediately. He said it is his understanding that the City has committed $30,000 to this project, and City Manager Kent Myers stated that was correct. Mr. Baxter stated if the City is willing to commit out of next year=s budget $120,000 of CDBG money toward this project, he will get it done. Director Maruthur questioned the Certificate of Occupancy and pointed out that the City went through this with the Arkansas School for Mathematics, Sciences and the Arts many years ago. Until everything was met, they did not receive a Certificate of Occupancy; and it was a big issue. She said she would like some clarification from Mr. Raetz. Mr. Raetz explained the City can isolate a certain portion of the building so that the remainder of the building is not accessible by the general public and have the remainder of the building entirely stabilized. It may even include a sprinkler system throughout the remainder of the building that is not being worked on or looked at for Certificate of Occupancy in order to safeguard the building. He stated the entire building has to be safeguarded, but only one portion of it needs to be finished. Director Maruthur asked if this would crossover to the Goddard Hotel or any large structure, and Mr. Raetz replied that it would. Director Weatherford commented at the meeting they were discussing CDBG money, which hinged on whether or not he filed the proper forms with the City, and asked if that was done. Mr. Raetz replied that the City received an application a day after the deadline and still reviewed it. Mr. Nelson Self came in on a Saturday to help put that package together the day after the deadline. Director Weatherford asked if he has been approved to get the $30,000; and Mr. Raetz replied that he has. He added that they reviewed it, which was part of the consideration for the $30,000. City Manager Kent Myers advised that the Board has already approved the $30,000 and is part of the CDBG plan that came to the Board several months ago. Board of Directors Meeting 19 April 4, 2005 at 7:00 P.M.  Mr. Baxter stated that his direct understanding was never that they were approved for $150,000; but that it was being considered. Regarding meeting the deadline, he explained that he was sent an e-mail that listed one date, but the deadline was another date. It was a day different in the e-mail, and he sent that over and showed it to Mr. Self; but it was a minor error. There were no objections from the Board for staff to proceed with accepting proposals for a structural engineer to evaluate the structural integrity of the building. 31 City Manager 2005 Annual Performance Goals A motion was made by Director Jones, duly seconded by Director Maruthur, that the City Manager annual performance goals be approved. Upon discussion, City Manager Kent Myers stated that in regard to Item No. 10 (address truck traffic on Central Avenue from Grand to Park) which Director Daniel submitted, he had clarified that to include better regulation of delivery trucks downtown. Director Daniel said at one time there was an ordinance that they had to be off the street by 11 a.m. Director Maruthur commented that the large trucks compromise the integrity of the older buildings, and loosens the grout between the bricks. As soon as the last leg of the MLK is completed, she said that the City needs to pursue whatever it can within the law to prohibit those large trucks from downtown. Director Edwards pointed out that the City cannot jeopardize those people downtown from getting their deliveries, and Director Maruthur stated that she was referring to 18-wheelers and logging trucks. Mayor Bush then called for a vote on the motion to approve the City Manager=s 2005 annual performance goals; and upon roll call, the following voted Aaye@: Directors Maruthur, Jones, Smith, Weatherford, Edwards, Daniel, and Bush, total 7; motion unanimously carried. Board of Directors Meeting 20 April 4, 2005 at 7:00 P.M.  OTHER BUSINESS 32 Board of Directors Items Director Jones commended the Pleasant Street Association and recognized the Assistant Treasurer, who was in attendance. She stated she would also like to see more members from associations attend the Board Meetings and possibly get any questions answered on the same night. Director Maruthur announced that any resident who has a street light out, may report it to 1- 800-ENTERGY; and on each utility pole, there is a metal tag with SL and four numbers. If citizens will report the address or intersection and give those four numbers, they will promptly repair or replace the light that is out. 33 City Manager=s Report There was no report by the City Manager. 34 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m., to meet again on Monday, April 18, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. ATTEST: _____________________ APPROVED:__________________ Lance Hudnell, City Clerk Mike Bush, Mayor Board of Directors Meeting 21 April 4, 2005 at 7:00 P.M.