Board of Directors

MINUTES BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING JUNE 6, 2005, AT 7:00 P.M. The regular meeting of the Board of Directors was held on Monday, June 6, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., Board Chambers, City Hall, with Mayor Mike Bush presiding. The invocation was given by Mr. Gerald Michau, 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 Jones, that the agenda be approved. Upon discussion, City Manager Kent Myers requested that Item No. 23 (Bid Award on CCR Report) and Item No. 24 (Bid Award for Paving Trail at Entergy Park) are not ready for presentation and, therefore, should be removed from the agenda. Mayor Bush then called for a vote on the motion to approve the agenda, as amended; and upon voice vote, the motion unanimously carried. 3 Approval of Minutes of May 16, 2005 Board Meeting A motion was made by Director Jones, duly seconded by Director Maruthur, that the minutes of the May 16, 2005 Board Meeting be approved; and upon voice vote, the motion unanimously carried. 4 Recognition of Guests Police Chief Gary Ashcraft introduced newly hired police officers Paul Allen, Leann Howe, and Eric Wacaster. CONSENT AGENDA The Consent Agenda consisted of the following: 5 Public Safety Report (May 26, 2005). 6 Budget Transfer - Sponsorship of AML Conference Breakfast ($10,940). 7 Proposed Resolution No. R-05-183 Approving Certain Bid Awards (a) Sulfur Dioxide - Utilities [annual supply contract awarded to Harcros]; (b) Street Bores - Utilities [annual supply contract awarded to R. L. Wyles]; (c) HVAC - Noncomprehensive - Public Works [annual supply contract awarded to GTS]; (d) GPS Equipment - Utilities [awarded to Navigation Electrical, Inc. in the amount of $46,438.60]; (e) Drilling Machine - Utilities [awarded to Ditch Witch of Arkansas in the amount of $142,978.69]; (f) Backhoe - Utilities [awarded to Timberline International in the amount of $34,800]; (g) Pipe, Valves, Couplings- Utilities [awarded to Hughes Supply in the amount of $2,116.50, National Waterworks in the amount of $495.50, and Arkansas Water Products in the amount of $9,675]; (h) Adjustable Speed Drives - Utilities [awarded to R&E Supply in the amount of $38,910]; (I) Truck Bodies - Utilities [Keasler Body in the amount of $17,667 (rescind bid)]; (j) Truck Bodies - Utilities - Utilities [awarded to Davis Trailer/Truck in the amount of $22,265]. 8 Proposed Resolution No. R-05-184 Approving a Traveler Rebate Program for Persons Utilizing Mesa’s Air Midwest Airline Service from Hot Springs Memorial Field Airport. 9 Proposed Resolution No. R-05-185 Adopting Revisions to the 2005 Budget by Authorizing the Addition of an Employee (Firefighter) at the Hot Springs Municipal Airport. 10 Proposed Resolution No. R-05-186 Fixing a Time and Date for a Hearing on a Petition to Vacate, Abandon and Close a Portion of an Unnamed Alley Located in Briggs and O’Neill Subdivision. 11 Proposed Resolution No. R-05-187 Approving the Extension of Hot Springs Municipal Water Service to Wicker Terrace. 12 Proposed Resolution No. R-05-188 Approving the Extension of Hot Springs Municipal Water and Wastewater Service to 534 and 536 Airport Road. 13 Proposed Resolution No. R-05-189 Approving Change Order No. 2 with Coakley Construction for Construction Personnel and Equipment. 14 Proposed Resolution No. R-05-190 Approving a Street Name Change from Breckling Way to Breckling Circle. 15 Proposed Resolution No. R-05-191 Accepting $468,059 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds for FY 2005 Annual Action Plan Neighborhood Revitalization Activities, as Approved by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 16 Proposed Resolution No. R-05-192 Authorizing the Submission of an Application for $400,000 IN HUD Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program Funding to the Arkansas Development Finance Authority to Expand Affordable Housing Activities. 17 Proposed Resolution No. R-05-193 Authorizing Disbursement of HUD Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Funds to ARC of Arkansas for Reimbursement of Architectural Fees. 18 Proposed Resolution No. R-05-194 Appointing Bob C. Clark and Marion Smith to the Animal Control Advisory Committee. Board of Directors Meeting June 6, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. 3  A motion was made by Director Daniel, duly seconded by Director Edwards, that the Consent Agenda be approved. Upon discussion, Director Maruthur noted that the City received recognition for the HOME Program through HUD and expressed appreciation to the City employees for an excellent job. Mayor Bush then called for a vote on the motion to adopt; and upon roll call, the following voted “aye”: Directors Maruthur, Jones, Smith, Weatherford, Edwards, Daniel, and Bush, total 7; motion unanimously carried. NEW BUSINESS 19 Proposed Ordinance No. O-05-49 An ordinance entitled, “AN ORDINANCE WAIVING THE REQUIREMENTS OF COMPETITIVE BIDDING FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF SITE SOFTWARE LICENSE FOR THE CITYWORKS WORK ORDER SYSTEM AND RELATED SERVICES FROM VARION SYSTEMS; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,” was taken from the agenda for consideration. A motion was made by Director Edwards, 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 “Shall the ordinance be passed as read?” and upon motion of Director Edwards, duly seconded by Director Maruthur, that the ordinance be passed as read. Upon discussion, Utilities Director Don Cochran advised that the Utilities Department and Public Works Department have purchased the Cityworks Workorder System and are currently using that system to track and monitor work and maintenance activities from the field crews. Between the two departments, they have already purchased approximately $40,000 worth of individual licenses for employees to use; but in order for the system to expand, the most cost- effective means is to purchase a site license, which will cover any employee in the City who could use the system at any time. Cityworks has agreed to give the City credit for the licenses it has already purchased. The site license is approximately $100,000; and the company will give the City credit for the $39,975 in licenses it has already purchased, leaving a cost of $60,025 to purchase the citywide license. This will be budgeted through the Utilities Department and the Public Works Department. Board of Directors Meeting June 6, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. 4  Director Smith questioned if the main benefit would be sharing by other departments and can place more people on at the same time, and Mr. Cochran advised that whenever another department comes onto the system, they will not have to purchase any license but may have to purchase a software module for their particular work area. Mayor Bush then called for a vote on the motion to adopt; and upon roll call, the following voted “aye”: Directors Maruthur, Jones, Smith, Weatherford, Edwards, Daniel, and Bush, total 7; motion unanimously carried. Whereupon the ordinance was declared passed. 20 Proposed Ordinance No. O-05-50 An ordinance entitled, “AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A SHORT-TERM FINANCING AGREEMENT WITH FIRST NATIONAL BANK AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO EAST MANUFACTURING COMPANY FOR THE PURCHASE OF TWO TRANSFER TRAILERS FOR THE SANITATION DEPARTMENT; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,” was taken from the agenda for consideration. A motion was made by Director Jones, 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 “Shall the ordinance be passed as read?” and upon motion of Director Edwards, duly seconded by Director Maruthur, that the ordinance be passed as read. Upon discussion, Sanitation Director Bill Burrough explained these trailers are used to transport the waste out of the City to the landfill in Little Rock. The City purchased one trailer over the past several years and needs to add two more to keep up with the waste load. In October, the City will be using the new landfill in Jefferson County and would like to have the trailers in place. Director Edwards asked if the City is still working on the possibility of moving to Curtis Junction, and Mr. Burrough said there has been no action from the Solid Waste District on that proposal; but that opportunity still exists. However, it has not moved forward; and recently the City was able to secure a ten-year commitment with a landfill in Jefferson County. Mayor Bush then called for a vote on the motion to adopt; and upon roll call, the following voted “aye”: Directors Maruthur, Jones, Smith, Weatherford, Edwards, Daniel, and Bush, total 7; motion unanimously carried. Whereupon the ordinance was declared passed. Board of Directors Meeting June 6, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. 5 21 Proposed Ordinance No. O-05-51 An ordinance entitled, “AN ORDINANCE NAMING AND ACCEPTING A CERTAIN ALLEY AS A PUBLIC ALLEY (BETWEEN RECTOR AND GARLAND); AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,” was taken from the agenda for consideration. A motion was made by Director Jones, 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 “Shall the ordinance be passed as read?” and upon motion of Director Jones, duly seconded by Director Edwards, that the ordinance be passed as read. Upon discussion, Public Works Director Steve Mallett explained that based on the number of calls the City has received, staff is requesting that the City name and accept this alley for maintenance. City Manager Kent Myers noted that several calls were received today from citizens who were confused on the location of this alley; but once it was clarified, it resolved their concerns. There was a letter from Mr. Cliff Keheley in the area who learned of the correct location, and he withdrew his concerns. Mayor Bush then called for a vote on the motion to adopt; and upon roll call, the following voted “aye”: Directors Maruthur, Jones, Smith, Weatherford, Edwards, Daniel, and Bush, total 7; motion unanimously carried. Whereupon the ordinance was declared passed. 22 Proposed Resolution No. R-05-195 A resolution entitled, “A RESOLUTION ADOPTING PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES FOR THE HOT SPRINGS BOARD OF DIRECTORS,” was taken from the agenda and read by title only. A motion was made by Director Jones, duly seconded by Director Smith, that the resolution be adopted as read. Board of Directors Meeting June 6, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. 6  Upon discussion, City Manager Kent Myers pointed out there are four revisions concerning policies and guidelines for conducting the Board Meetings. He added there is a separate set of policies relating to citizen input, and none of these changes will revise that policy. There have been four revisions suggested by the Board for consideration, which came out of a recent Board work session: (1) calling for the question. If a Board Member, following extended discussion, wants to call for the question, then that procedure is set out under proposed Section A-5 of the guidelines; (2) Section E would establish a time limit for Board Members to speak on an agenda item; (3) Section H would be a new section that would require a written statement made to the Board submitted by Board Members in the agenda packet so that Board Members would be able to read the statement prior to being read at the meeting; and (4) Section I relates to the seating arrangement of the Board Members. Director Maruthur commented that on extended discussion, there could be a call for the question; but there is nothing in the Board packet that refers to extended discussion; and a member can just call for the question. She stressed she wanted to clarify that. Ms. Barbara Anable, 120 Samsun Place, expressed appreciation to Director Maruthur for the letter in the newspaper regarding this resolution. She pointed out that after the agenda meeting on Tuesday, the Directors have a short time to receive input from citizens, check facts and research material before the Directors can have a statement to be included in the packet for Thursday. She said she cannot understand how a citizen would expect the Directors to perform as representatives for the people where they are going to learn many facts and important issues between Thursday and Monday night. She commented that she is opposed to having any limitation on her Director or other Directors who are expressing their opinion when representing the citizens. She requested that the Directors have freedom of speech and rights of representation. Director Maruthur clarified there will not be a restriction on the speech with what is being proposed. Ms. Anable asked if the Directors will be able to readdress an issue after they have made a statement on it. Director Maruthur responded they cannot bring any supportive material, documentation, newspaper articles or write anything according to any new information. Also, they cannot respond to any telephone calls, information that is e-mailed, faxed, or dropped off by a constituent or any member of the community regardless of what district they are in or the county. She wanted to clarify that they can make statements from memory if they can remember information that has been related to them. Board of Directors Meeting June 6, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. 7  Mr. Ralph Robinson, 105 Westbrook, spoke of the problems with the intersection at Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Expressway and Central Avenue and the location of the new post office on Central Avenue. He said he was told years ago, the City was given plans for the interchange at Central and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Expressway and instructed the Highway Department to build it. He pointed out the City was warned about the possible congestion, and the Highway Department said it would regulate the congestion by the permitting process. He noted that limiting debate is what he is trying to address. Mr. Casey Jones, 100 Harrell Street, noted it was said earlier that only the Directors are affected by this; but they speak for their constituents. He commented that Director Steve Smith had admitted at the agenda meeting that he had made these proposals. He stressed this is about Freedom of Speech and where people died on D-Day 61 years ago today. He stated with the Freedom of Speech, there is prior restraint; and the Supreme Court of the United States calls prior restraint any burden placed on communication prior to its dissemination regardless of the form or the burden that it takes. He stated that censorship is a restriction of freedom of speech and reflects a society lack of confidence in itself. He added that speech concerning public affairs is more than self-expression and is the essence of self-government. Speaking of prior restraint, he mentioned a court case in 1931, where the Supreme Court of the United States said there is a heavy presumption that any prior restraint on publication of information or ideas is constitutionally invalid. He commented that the ACLU would be very interested in this if it were passed. Director Daniel said it was his understanding that the U. S. Congress operates on a five- minute rule, and Mr. Jones replied that he did not research the workings of the Congress. However, he is sure they will be able to speak. He commented if the Board passes this resolution, he is confident someone will file a lawsuit. Also, he mentioned that Directors are subject to recall. Director Daniel asked if he knew whether or not the U. S. Congress operates on a five- minute rule. He added that the City has a three-minute limit on those who speak from the audience, but he has gone over his three minutes; and the Mayor did not stop him. He pointed out if the five-minute rules is enacted and a Director is speaking an important subject, he did not believe the Mayor would stop them. Director Maruthur said she is aware of the five-minute limit of the U. S. Congress, and they do not have to submit information before they speak. She added if they receive information, they can prepare a statement and are not prohibited from free speech. Board of Directors Meeting June 6, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. 8  Director Daniel replied this is not prohibiting anyone from free speech, and this was brought about by prepared statements, which would be 10 or 15 minutes long. Director Maruthur pointed out that is not in the proposed resolution, and Director Daniel said it is not because of the intent of the prepared statements. Mr. Wayne Roberts, 515 Jerome Street, stated he did not believe the Board would want to inhibit anyone from having an opportunity to speak and would hope that any Director would have the right to speak on any subject. Regarding limits for debate, he said he can understand that. However, if the Directors listen to what other people have to say, they might learn new facts that will change their mind. Regarding a prepared statement, he stated there will be issues that the Directors will to need to discuss; and if it is a rule they cannot discuss it unless it was included in the Board packet, there will be possibilities of a lawsuit, costing the taxpayers. Mr. Dennis Magee, 318 Bower Street, said he is opposed to any time limit on any response and to a prepared statement, which is unconstitutional. He stated he did not believe his representative should be limited in any way, and the information she can gather from Thursday to Monday night might be of importance since she does her research. He said that he believes a person who is elected to an office to represent the constituents should have the right to speak as long as he/she needs to convey the constituents’ needs and voice their concerns. Attorney Q. Byrum Hurst, Jr. pointed out that the constituents are concerned with the ability of their Directors to properly represent them. He noted that time limits are designed for organization and to keep things moving. He expressed concern with the inability to make a prepared statement that was not offered in the packet because he knows that issues change in the Board Meetings; and if they are a good Director, they may listen and change their opinion. He said that the Directors may come with three prepared statements based upon what citizens have given them and decide which one is proper after they have heard experts, people testify and information presented. He spoke of a case filed against the City, in which a citizen believed his freedom of speech and freedom of expression had been violated by passage of an ordinance. The Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that the ordinance was a prior restraint, and his constitutional rights had been violated by the City by the passage of the ordinance. He said he believes this resolution has some real constitutional issues and urged the Board to vote against it. City Attorney David White explained that the case he is referring to is one where the Supreme Court ruled that topless dancing and the City’s regulation of it was unconstitutional. However, the City amended that ordinance and subsequently won that case. He commented that Board of Directors Meeting June 6, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. 9 the City is engaged in litigation all the time, and sometimes it concerns First Amendment issues. The Sign Ordinance case was a First Amendment issue, and it was reversed on appeal. Director Smith asked if Mr. Hurst was aware there are four possible changes, and he said that he was aware of it and has no objections to some of the changes. However, his main objection is the inability to give a prepared statement without submission. Director Smith said that he agreed; and based upon his comments and the citizens who have spoken tonight, the Directors seem to have the most concern with the prepared statement part of it. He added that he wants to be sensitive to that. Director Jones asked if the prior restraint that Mr. Casey Jones was referring to is different than what Mr. Hurst just explained. Mr. Hurst replied there could be many different types of prior restraints. In the case that City Attorney David White and he were discussing, the Supreme Court had problems with the City’s failure to impose time periods in their ordinances. Therefore, there are different ways to have a restraint on freedom of expression. What the courts are usually concerned with is that everyone has the ability to express and the right to speak. He said that he believes Mr. Jones’ application was that if someone has a prepared statement and cannot give it and possibly they prepared it after the packet was due, that would be considered restraining that freedom of speech. Director Daniel said he does not have a problem with the five-minute rule or the seating arrangement. He added if there were a prepared statement, he is sure if it were handed out prior to the meeting, there would be no problem. However, these prepared statements are read; and no one is aware there is going to be a prepared statement. Mr. Zachary Smith, 919 Whittington, said this is a law that would erode democracy and is simply a rubber stamp for meetings that have previously happened. He added that two Directors would be able to cut off any debate that people wanted to have, which is not a democracy. Mayor Bush asked that he explain rubber stamp, and Mr. Smith explained that it is limiting the amount of debate. Mayor Bush pointed out that the Board has not limited or voted on anything. Director Maruthur read a prepared statement commenting that this resolution is a multi- faceted approach to curb the expression of free speech, which would be a violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution. According to the proposed resolution, she stated by the time the Directors receive their board packets, they cannot prepare anything. She added the Directors will Board of Directors Meeting June 6, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. 10 be prohibited from writing down information that is given to them, any charts, graphs, or newspaper articles that they might retrieve, and any citizen input that is written down in a prepared statement. She pointed out that much of the Directors’ information contains the amount of bid awards, names of companies, and specific locations that could be rezoned. The board packet also includes maps, the amount of land involved, the history of an issue, monetary accounts and amounts. She stressed that the Directors can only begin to get prepared for a Board Meeting after the delivery of the Board packet, which this resolution will prohibit them from preparing. She added the Board has to check out the information that is included in the Board packet and respond to input from the citizens. She stated this resolution will restrict the Directors to what they are able to memorize. However, a citizen can prepare and read a statement, which is for three minutes unless a Director were to interrupt and then additional time is given. She noted this is an attempt to silence any opposition by preventing an elected official from reading facts or articles that could change other Directors’ votes, which has happened. She pointed out that many times, the Directors receive the facts and figures on a weekend or just before leaving for the Board Meeting and present them to the City. She said this would not happen in the State Legislature. Regarding the Directors being given five minutes to speak on an issue, Director Maruthur stated that according to this resolution, it cannot be backed up by any research or paperwork if it is in writing. She noted this is during the Board’s time to discuss and debate, and she finds this unacceptable as an elected representative. While a Director is trying to speak as a representative for all people, according to this resolution, Director Maruthur commented that all another Director has to do is call for the question. She noted that perhaps this is an effort to prevent people and other Directors from hearing what some history facts and research might show. If this call for the question is seconded from another Director and a vote is taken, it could prohibit any further information from being aired. She mentioned that facts can easily be silenced and a vote can be taken. Regarding seating, she stated that Director Smith handed her a paper at his first Board Meeting giving her two choices in regard to where she could sit. She mentioned that he wrote on the top of the paper that “we” have two suggestions for the Board Meeting as far as the seating. She then questioned Director Smith who “we” referred to, and Director Smith replied that he had no comment. She stated there is a law known as FOI (Freedom of Information), which requires that the press be notified when two or more elected officials meet so that the press or media have the opportunity to be there in order to witness what is being discussed or planned. She said this was enacted in order to stop “deals” from being made behind closed doors. She commented that no one had any problems with the seating arrangement since the Board of Directors Meeting June 6, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. 11 Directors do not vote in order of their district and rotate the voting with the Mayor always voting last. She said since the Board Chambers has been redesigned, there is now one seat that has a limited range of view to face the seated audience, which is the City’s Attorney’s seat. Because of this, the seat was quietly exchanged with Mr. White; and he has since expressed to her his pleasure of this arrangement because it has allowed him to exit the meetings with lower visibility. She mentioned that the Board has important issues that it must review and vote on and issues that pertain to the citizens. She emphasized that the City has many challenges without mandating a resolution regarding specific seating arrangements that serve no purpose. She asked the Deputy City Clerk if she could utilize her chair should the seating arrangement be changed in order for her to see the audience, to which the Deputy City Clerk replied that would be no problem. Director Maruthur mentioned that she would like to see who attends the Board Meeting. She added that being told where to sit is a very serious issue, and she will not sit where Director Smith tells her. She said that she has not spoken to most of the people who came tonight. She commented she could not read a letter from a legal counsel of the Arkansas Municipal League, because when the Directors receive their Board packet on Thursday night, it is too late because that would be considered a prepared statement. She advised that the legal counsel stated, as they discussed by phone, he had some reservations regarding the provision restricting reading of a prepared statement unless they have been submitted in advance for distribution. He had stated there could be some First Amendment concerns as this might unduly limit a Board Member’s freedom to speak on matters of public concern. Information may come to light after the deadline, or a Board Member may not have time to prepare a statement by the deadline. However, there is no problem with requiring copies to be distributed to other Board Members; but a limitation on a member’s right to read prepared materials or statements in the absence of advance distribution is constitutionally suspect in his view. He said he was also concerned constitutionally aside that a court might find the rule arbitrary or capricious or otherwise beyond the scope of the Board’s power. Admittedly, he has not heard from the proponent of this rule, which Director Maruthur said would be Director Steve Smith. He said that he cannot think of a valid reason for restricting a Board Member’s discretion in the presentation of material in this way. She said that a “yes” vote on this resolution could provoke a federal, civil rights litigation, which would result in thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees to the City. She asked that the Board reject the resolution in its entirety. She added that a “no” vote will preserve the right to free speech for the elected officials. She said after she receives her information, she has no problem with any Director being limited to a certain amount of time. She explained that she did this because she was inundated with e-mails and telephone calls. She said that she wrote a letter to the editor and has received some e-mails that are passionate and a few of them are actually afraid to be mentioned. Board of Directors Meeting June 6, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. 12  Director Maruthur urged the Board not to pass the resolution, adding that the Mayor does an excellent job running the meeting; and she has no problem with being limited to a prepared statement after she receives her information. She said that she is pleased to have the position of Director and to represent the people of her district, the City, and any residents in the County. Director Jones questioned why Director Maruthur moved when Director Smith was elected since that was when the seating arrangement was changed. Director Maruthur noted that she moved before that time. Director Jones said she does not have a problem with the prepared statement; but when she came on the Board six years ago, the Directors were in order by district. She stated that in her opinion, the City Attorney should sit next to the Mayor. Director Edwards commented that several people have questioned him why the Directors have changed seats, and it appears to him that the Directors should be seated according to their districts. Mayor Bush said that in regard to seating, he does not consider this a big issue and has no opinion as to where the Directors should sit. Mayor Bush recommended voting on each of the four issues in the resolution separately. City Attorney David White read the resolution entitled, “A RESOLUTION ADOPTING PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES FOR THE HOT SPRINGS BOARD OF DIRECTORS,” with the following amendment: “Section A-5 which states previous question or immediate considerations [nondebatable] [2/3 of a quorum]. When a Board Member desires to call for the question, he or she shall motion for a call for the question. Such motion shall require a second. If a second is made and the original motion is voted on (either approved or disapproved), then the discussion on this item is concluded, and there shall be no further discussion on the motion.” He commented that if this motion were made, it has to be read in conjunction with Section E which is debate; and debate allows each Board Member to speak for at least five minutes on each issue. He advised that a Director cannot call for the question until each Director has had a chance to have his/her five-minutes of debate on the issue. Director Maruthur pointed out this is contingent upon voting on this first and is contingent upon the Directors’ ability to read a prepared statement. She commented if the Directors cannot read anything or have any material printed in front of them, then there is no reason for five minutes. Board of Directors Meeting June 6, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. 13  City Attorney David White explained that Section H (prepared statements) says there will be no limit placed on the amount of information included in any written statement made by the Board. However, these statements should be submitted no later than Wednesday prior to the Board Meeting so that they can be copied and included in the agenda packet. No prepared statement will be allowed to be read by a Board Member unless it is included in the agenda packet. He said it is not preventing the Directors from including it in the agenda packet, but it is simply requiring them to get in on Wednesday prior to the Board packet. Director Maruthur pointed out that the Directors do not have information until they receive the Board packet. She said she waited until she received the Board packet on Thursday and saw the supportive information that was included; and from that she prepared what she was going to say and responded to the people who called her on the telephone. She stressed if she has to make a prepared statement without knowing the information, she cannot prepare anything. Regarding calling for the question, Mayor Bush stated that he has been on several boards, and no one on the board was allowed to call for the question while another board member had the floor. He said that he does not agree with the five-minute time limit and would hope that the Directors would try to limit discussion and make it as concise as possible. A motion was made by Director Jones, duly seconded by Director Edwards, to approve Section A-5 (Calling for the Question); and upon roll call, the following voted “aye”: Directors Jones, Smith, Weatherford, Edwards, and Daniel, total 5. Voting “no”: Director Maruthur and Mayor Bush, total 2; motion carried. City Attorney David White read the following amendment to the resolution: “Section E (Debate), which states that when a Board Member desires to speak, the member shall respectfully address himself or herself to the Mayor and, upon recognition, he or she may address the Board. No Board Member can proceed until recognized by the Mayor, and the Board Member must confine himself or herself to the question on the floor. A five-minute time limit will be established for each Board Member to speak on each agenda item. However, such time limit will not include responses to questions posed by other Board Members and citizens.” A motion was made by Director Jones, duly seconded by Director Smith, that Section E (Debate) be approved. Upon discussion, Deputy City Manager Lance Hudnell pointed out that he assumed the Board’s intention is to vote on the part that is underlined, not the whole paragraph, because the part that is not underlined is the current policy. Board of Directors Meeting June 6, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. 14  Director Smith clarified that the five-minute rule can be longer because it allows time to respond to questions posed by Board Members and citizens. Therefore, it could last 10, 15 or 20 minutes. Mr. Wayne Roberts questioned if anyone can stand up and ask another question, and City Attorney David White advised that he could be recognized again. Director Maruthur pointed out this only further supports the fact that if the Directors do not have all of the information, they cannot make an informed vote or decision. She said that in her letter to the editor she tried to explain what was happening tonight and what was at risk. She stated that she did not do anything intentionally to mislead anyone. Director Weatherford commented that it says a five-minute time limit will be established for each Board Member to speak on each agenda item; however, such time limit will not include responses to questions posed by other Board Members and citizens. He said if he talked for four and half minutes and somebody asked a question and it came back to him, he should be able to have another five minutes. Mayor Bush replied that as far as he is concerned he does. Director Weatherford pointed out that he could talk for 30 minutes with interruptions. Mayor Bush then called for a vote on the motion to approve Item E (debate), which is limiting the debate to five minutes per Director, per agenda item; and upon roll call, the following voted “aye”: Directors Jones, Smith, Weatherford, Edwards, Daniel, and Bush, total 6. Voting “no”: Director Maruthur; motion carried. City Attorney David White read the following amendment to the resolution: “Section H (Prepared Statements) there will be no limit placed on the amount of information included in any written statement made by the Board. However, these statements should be submitted no later than Wednesday prior to the Board Meeting so that they can be copied and included in the agenda packet. No prepared statement will be allowed to be read by a Board Member unless it is included in the agenda packet.” A motion was made by Director Jones, duly seconded by Director Edwards, that Item No. H (prepared statements) be approved. Upon discussion, Director Smith expressed appreciation to everyone who spoke on these issues tonight and said he is open-minded enough to know that he can change, which he will do Board of Directors Meeting June 6, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. 15 on this item. He mentioned that he has been shown tonight how important it is, and he wanted everyone to know that he has listened to them and appreciates the input. Director Maruthur said she is glad Director Smith can understand that his recommendation is not needed because what the Directors are going to vote on is preparing a statement before they receive the information, which would be a violation of free speech. Mayor Bush then called for a vote on the motion to approve Item No. H (Prepared Statements), and upon roll call, the following voted “no”: Directors Maruthur, Jones, Smith, Weatherford, Edwards, Daniel, and Bush, total 7; motion unanimously failed. City Attorney David White read the following amendment to the resolution: “Section I (Seating) All Board of Directors’ regular meetings will include a seating arrangement in District order starting with District 1 and ending with District 6. The Mayor shall sit in the middle of the seating arrangement with the City Attorney and City Manager seated on each side of the Mayor and the City Clerk adjacent to the City Manager.” A motion was made by Director Weatherford, duly seconded by Director Edwards, that Item No. I (seating) be approved. Upon discussion, Director Maruthur said that the matter of the seating is ridiculous. She added that she and the City Attorney very quietly changed places for a reason which was the City Board Chambers was redesigned. Therefore, she requested, in case this is approved, that she and the Deputy City Clerk change places so she can have a full view of the audience. City Attorney David White said the only concern he had was if the Mayor needed him to sit next to him during meetings to answer questions, etc. He advised that he told Director Maruthur he had no problem changing places with her as long as it did not create a problem with the Mayor. He added that it does serve a purpose for him with diabetes being seated next to the door. However, if it did not create a problem with the Mayor, then he does not have a problem with where he is seated. Director Daniel said that Director Maruthur had mentioned visibility, and he thought he was the same distance as the City Attorney. Therefore, he did not understand the difference between that side of the room and this side of the room not being able to see the audience. He stated that he has no problem seeing those in the audience. He questioned what is the difference between his side of the room and the other side of the room. Board of Directors Meeting June 6, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. 16  Director Maruthur commented that the elected officials should be able to have a clear view of the people who attend. She said that she would sit where the Deputy City Clerk is sitting, and everyone else can sit where they want. City Manager Kent Myers clarified that if this item is passed, then it would not allow Director Maruthur to change seats with the Deputy City Clerk. He said if she wants to make an amendment, then she can do that. Director Maruthur stated that the change in the seating arrangement was not her idea and pointed out there was a redesign of the Board Chambers to accommodate ADA. She said that City Attorney David White also told her this is beneficial to him, and the Deputy City Clerk will be sitting where the City Attorney now sits. She made a motion to amend the motion to change seating with the Deputy City Clerk. There being no second to the motion, the motion died for lack of a second. Mayor Bush then called for a vote on the Section I (seating); and upon roll call, the following voted “aye”: Directors Jones, Smith, Weatherford, Edwards, and Daniel, total 5. Voting “no”: Director Maruthur and Mayor Bush, total 2; motion carried. Mayor Bush declared the resolution passed, as amended. 23 Consider Bid Award on CCR Report (Removed from agenda). 24 Consider Bid Award for Paving Trail at Entergy Park (Removed from agenda). OTHER BUSINESS 25 Board of Directors Items Director Jones announced that on Saturday, June 11, the Pleasant Street Association will have a fish fry. Citizens are working in their neighborhood, and they have the Teen Challenge people going through the neighborhood cutting grass and refurbishing some people’s houses that the CDBG money will be able to expand further for their benefit. There is a $3 donation ticket to be sold for $50 worth of gas and a DVD. She pointed out that Director Maruthur had mentioned the CDBG letter that was received in the mail, and Mr. Nelson Self, CDBG Coordinator, and his Board of Directors Meeting June 6, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. 17 assistant, Mr. Randy Ross, were instrumental in obtaining the funds. He also kept her and Director Maruthur informed on the program. Director Smith reported that the trolleys are running downtown and are free during the summer. The blue line is the local route, and the red line goes to Magic Springs. He advised that there is an $80 rebate on airfare to Dallas. Also, the Music Festival has started and will continue during the month and urged everyone to support it. Director Edwards expressed appreciation to the city brushhog crew for the outstanding job they are doing. Director Maruthur stated that Mr. Nelson Self, CDBG Coordinator, said he had received recognition from HUD, and he was going to place it in her mailbox; however, she did not receive it. City Manager Kent Myers advised that it was in the Director’s packet last Friday, and the rest of it will be in their packets on Friday. Director Maruthur reported if citizen’s street lights are out, they may call 1-800-ENTERGY. There is a metal strip on the lights (SL and a four-digit number). Citizens need to provide the adjoining streets and the SL number, and Entergy will respond in a timely fashion in replacing the street light. If citizens have any problems, they may call her at 624-1965. She expressed appreciation to the Directors for allowing the citizens to continue calling them and providing them with information. 26 City Manager’s Report City Manager Kent Myers gave the following report: 1. On the Consent Agenda, the Airport is now offering a rebate program as a result of an Air 21 Federal Grant that was received. This program is intended to encourage local utilization of the commercial airline services provided by Mesa Airlines. Part of the program is a marketing program that was started with brochures and billboards, but the largest part of the program is a rebate program. Effective June 1, anyone using Mesa Airlines for round trip between Hot Springs and Dallas/Fort Worth airport will receive an $80 rebate. If people take advantage of the cheapest Mesa rates available, which is $161 for round trip ticket, their net cost for that round- trip flight will be $81. There are two flights per day between Hot Springs and DFW Airport. This program will be effective immediately and will continue until the funds are depleted. There is $165,000 appropriated for the program through the federal grant and will entitle 2,000 people to take advantage of the rebate program. Board of Directors Meeting June 6, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. 18  2. The Board approved an application for HOME funding this year. Previously, the City took advantage of HOME funding for housing rehabilitation. With the efforts of Mr. Nelson Self, CDBG Coordinator, and his staff and Mr. Jerry Raetz, Planning and Development Director, the City has been able to do a large amount of housing rehab as part of the CDBG program. In order to expand the housing rehab program, the City is going to apply for a $400,000 HOME grant that will allow more housing rehab in some of the target areas. It is not automatic that the City receives the funds, but it has received them before and did a good job with the funds. Therefore, the City is optimistic it will be receiving that funding. 3. The Board approved two representatives on the Animal Control Advisory Committee (Mr. Bob Clark and Ms. Marion Smith). 4. Next week, the City will be hosting the Arkansas Municipal League Conference on June 15 through 17 at the Hot Springs Civic and Convention Center and hosting a breakfast. Approximately 1,500 conference attendees are expected for this conference, and the City will be hosting that conference for the next several years. 5. The Farmer’s Market is open in the Transportation Plaza on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday mornings beginning at 6 a.m. and is selling out by 10 a.m. or 11 a.m. Also, there is entertainment being provided. 6. Deputy City Manager Lance Hudnell and Public Information Officer Terry Payne met with some consultants last week and have agreed on a three-phase installation schedule for the equipment to be installed in the Board Chambers. Phase I is scheduled to be concluded by the next Board Meeting, which will address the audio equipment. Phase 2 will be the video equipment, which will be the new cameras, and should be ready for the July 5 meeting. Phase 3 will be the touch screen equipment. The computer modules will be available on the Board table and will take longer to install and will also require some training. This should be in place by the end of the summer and everything ready to go by the September 5 Board Meeting. He expressed appreciation to Ms. Payne and her staff and all of the other departments for their involvement. Deputy City Manager Lance Hudnell reported that regarding the laptops, they are in; and staff is in the process of getting that software installed. Also, a scanner is in place and will be used for the paperless agenda. 27 ADJOURNMENT Board of Directors Meeting June 6, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. 19  There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m., to meet again on Monday, June 20, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. ATTEST: _____________________ APPROVED:__________________ Lance Hudnell, City Clerk Mike Bush, Mayor Board of Directors Meeting June 6, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. 20