Board of Directors

MINUTES BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING JANUARY 9, 2006, AT 7:00 P.M. The regular meeting of the Board of Directors was held on Monday, January 9, 2006, at 7:00 p.m., Board Chambers, City Hall, with Mayor Mike Bush presiding. The invocation was given by Ms. Drew Terry, 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 Elaine Jones, Steve Smith, Carroll Weatherford, Bill Edwards, Tom Daniel, and Mike Bush, total 6. Absent: Director Peggy Maruthur. 2 Approval of Agenda A motion was made by Director Edwards, duly seconded by Director Jones, that the agenda be approved; and upon voice vote, the motion unanimously carried. 3 Approval of Minutes of December 19, 2005 Board Meeting A motion was made by Director Daniel, duly seconded by Director Smith, that the minutes of the December 19, 2005 Board Meeting be approved; and upon voice vote, the motion unanimously carried. 4 Recognition of Guests Mayor Bush welcomed guests from Sister City Hanamaki, Japan, and presented them with a gift from the City. Mr. Ichiro Fudai, Assistant Manager of the International Relations Office, Hanamaki, Japan, expressed gratitude to the City and presented Mayor Bush with a key to their city. Mayor Bush asked that Mr. Fudai deliver a letter from him to Mayor Watanabe.  CONSENT AGENDA The Consent Agenda consisted of the following: 5 Public Safety Report (December 28, 2005). 6 Proposed Resolution No. R-06-1 Approving Certain Bid Awards (a) Title Search - Code/All Departments [annual supply contract]; (b) Lead Paint Testing Services - Code/All Departments [annual supply contract]; (c) Tree Services - Public Works/All Departments [annual supply contract]. 7 Proposed Resolution No. R-06-2 Approving the Extension of Hot Springs Municipal Water and Wastewater Service to Covington Place Subdivision. 8 Proposed Resolution No. R-06-3 Approving the Extension of Hot Springs Municipal Water and Wastewater Service to Shady Oak Trail (Lots 52 and 53). 9 Proposed Resolution No. R-06-4 Awarding a Contract for Engineering Services to B&F Engineering for the Water Main Improvements Project (Ramble Road and Park Avenue Area). 10 Proposed Resolution No. R-06-5 Extending a Franchise Agreement for the Operation of a Specialty Transit Service (Hot Springs Carriage Company). A motion was made by Director Smith, duly seconded by Director Edwards, that the Consent Agenda be approved; and upon roll call, the following voted “aye”: Directors Jones, Smith, Weatherford, Edwards, Daniel, and Bush, total 6. Absent and not voting: Director Maruthur; motion unanimously carried. PUBLIC HEARING Board of Directors Meeting 2 January 9, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. 11 Public Hearing on Levying Annual Assessment for CBID No. 3 This being the time and date set for a public hearing on levying annual assessment for CBID No. 3, Mayor Bush declared the public hearing open. Mr. Ray Owen, Jr., 110 Leigh Circle, attorney for Central Business Improvement District No. 3, stated that in working through the plans and construction last year, a determination had been made that the set of plans the properties were assessed under were slightly different from what actually was being constructed in the sense that a set of plans the assessors had used in arriving at the assessments did not include the improvements along Bridge Street. It showed only parking but did not show the lights, benches, etc. The suggestion was made by the CBID Board of Commissioners to the assessors that a reassessment be conducted to correct that error and to make the proper entry in regard to those two parcels of land, which has been done. Letters have been sent to those two property owners, and those assessments are of record. If the reassessment stands, then there would be slightly more in the way of a total assessed benefit than before. If the reassessment of those two parcels stands, then there is a request to reduce the levy by a small share, which will result in less annual tax for all but two of the property owners – those two being the ones whose reassessment has had an increase. The board wants to do a levy to provide monies for annual maintenance and repairs, such as for hanging baskets and Christmas lights, etc. that will have to be purchased. The Board will be considering an ordinance levying an annual supplemental maintenance assessment that will be collected during 2006. The board of commissioners of the Central Business Improvement District No. 3 would then contract with the City to provide those services and would reimburse the City at the end of the year after the collection of the monies. The assessments of the two parcels that were reassessed have been brought into the place, and the assessments are appropriate. The total assessed benefits reflect the enhancement in value of the property as a result of the improvements that have been made. In both of these cases, there have also been physical improvements to the properties. Mr. John Girolamo, appealing the reassessments, stated there are several reasons for the Board not to approve the reassessment of CBID No. 3: (1) the formula for reassessment of these properties remains a mystery. The State Code specifically states that the vote on establishing municipal improvement districts is based on each property owner’s assessment value, which shall govern the power of that property owner’s vote in the establishment of the district, meaning less value, less vote. He stated Mr. Owen has made his own interpretation of how assessments are to be done. However, he is unwilling to share that formula. He stated that when he asked Mr. Owen how he came to these assessments, he could not produce a written formula. When asked where the formula existed, he stated that it was in his head. When asked to share that calculation of the formula that he keeps in his head, he refused to share it. He stated this has been an ongoing issue since the Board of Directors Meeting 3 January 9, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. inception of CBID No. 3. Mr. Owen first asserted that the assessment was based on 50 percent frontage and 50 percent assessed value. Since the vote was based on assessed value, he pointed out to him that the Code did not include a provision for such an assessment; but that the Code only bases assessment on ad valorem tax provided by Garland County based on the last tax assessment. In essence, the vote of a particular property is limited and, therefore, no other formula of assessment is proper. He stated the whole purpose of the CBID is to create momentum and investment for undeveloped properties creating momentum to develop or bring investment into these properties. However, under Mr. Owen’s inventive assessment practices, he created the exact opposite. The properties that are the least developed shall be taxed the most. He said that he can only assume that Mr. Owen has figured out that his original formula was not proper and no longer uses the term frontage and assessment value. He commented when one uses the Code out of its original context and creates contortions in the assessment process, one violates a basic, American position that being taxation without representation. He noted the actual term for this under Arkansas Code is illegal exaction. He added the right of a property owner is to first request a review of how the assessment is made by the assessor to see if there is uniformity done with all other property owners. However, Mr. Owen refuses to do so. He stated codes enacted by the State are expected to operate on the same standards of the State, but Mr. Owen refuses to do that. He said if the largest property owner has 34 percent of the vote, then that owner must pay 34 percent of the project; and Mr. Owen may not alter that on his own initiative. If he wishes to do this, he must submit an amendment to the General Assembly and have it passed. He said Mr. Owen now appoints himself a County Assessor and reinvents the Code. He directly said that one property owner he reassessed was based on the improvements by the owner, but this can only be done by the County Assessor. He added that this property was reassessed by the County Board of Assessors upon request of the owners. He stated the term assessment of benefits in a CBID is when the CBID actually does improvements upon the owner’s land or building, which this CBID has not done in this instance or any other instance. He added assessments of benefits does not mean sidewalks, streetscape or any improvement of that sort. These are public areas and do not fall within the scope of assessments of benefits. He said he has read all of the minutes of CBID No. 3 Board of Directors, and there was no motion or second for a request for reassessment. Therefore, Mr. Owen took it upon himself to reassess the properties on a secret formula that only he knows and is unwilling to divulge because there is no way to justify the original assessment nor this reassessment now that he knows it is not proper. He requested that the Board reject this reassessment. City Attorney Brian Albright asked what property he owned in CBID No. 3, and Mr. Girolamo advised that he represents 101 Bridge Street. He clarified that when he met with Mr. Owen at his office, he questioned when Bridge Street become part of this project; and at first he said it was always part of the project and stated this must have been calculated in the original assessment. He then said that it was not quite in there and could not produce a correct map. Mr. Girolamo stated either Bridge Street was in the original program and calculated on what was being done on that Board of Directors Meeting 4 January 9, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. street, or it was never in it. He stated in order to be in it, new proposals would have to be sent to those property owners to have those people included in the CBID. City Attorney Brian Albright questioned who the property owner is on Bridge Street that Mr. Girolamo purports to represent, and Mr. Girolamo said that it is Landmark Holding. City Attorney Brian Albright asked how long he has represented them, and Mr. Girolamo said that the corporation is owned by several other individuals including another corporation, which he is part of. City Attorney Brian Albright asked if he was authorized to represent that corporation, and Mr. Girolamo replied that he was. City Attorney Brian Albright commented that on other occasions, even last week, Mr. Girolamo denied that he had the authority to represent that corporation. Mr. Girolamo said that he denied the fact that there were certain violations issued to other properties other than this property and that he was the proper person to be noted as the person that had to respond. City Attorney Brian Albright asked for tonight’s purposes, if he claims to have authority to represent that corporation, and Mr. Girolamo said that he did. City Attorney Brian Albright asked if that authority changes from day-to-day, and Mr. Girolamo said that it depends on the scope of the project – it may or it may not. City Attorney Brian Albright asked if he was the one who decides whether or not he is going to be responsible for the corporation, and Mr. Girolamo said that he has been in many situations in the City in over 20 buildings as the project coordinator with interest in companies that have an interest in these companies, not just Landmark. There being no further comments, Mayor Bush declared the public hearing closed. NEW BUSINESS 12 Proposed Ordinance No. O-06-1 An ordinance entitled, “AN ORDINANCE REASSESSING THE VALUE OF THE BENEFITS TO BE RECEIVED BY THE OWNERS OF EACH OF THE SEVERAL LOTS, BLOCKS AND OTHER REAL PROPERTY WITHIN CENTRAL BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 3 OF THE CITY OF HOT SPRINGS, ARKANSAS, AND PROVIDING FOR THE COLLECTION OF THE BENEFITS IN ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS,” was taken from the agenda for consideration. A motion was made by Director Smith, duly seconded by Director Edwards, that the rules be suspended and the ordinance be read for the first time by title only; and upon voice vote, the motion unanimously carried. The ordinance was then read for the first time by title only; and upon the question “Shall the ordinance be passed as read?” and upon motion of Director Jones, duly seconded by Director Smith, that the ordinance be passed as read. Board of Directors Meeting 5 January 9, 2006 at 7:00 p.m.  Upon discussion, Director Daniel questioned Subchapter 5 of the appeals from assessments, noting that it says the remedy of one complaining of reassessments for local improvements is in the Chancery Court and not by appeal to the City Council. City Attorney Brian Albright explained that would be an appeal of the reassessment, and this is the reassessment. The Board is approving or denying the reassessment of the district, and an individual would appeal the decision of this Board to Circuit Court. Director Daniel said that Mr. Girolamo made statements that he did not have a copy of the formula and asked for clarification. Mr. Ray Owen, Jr. explained on an improvement district of any type, one takes into consideration the value that the improvements add to the property. That sometimes appears to be a little vague; therefore, it is helpful to have something to use as a guide in doing so. In this case, the assessors took into consideration front footage, as well as value. Mr. Girolamo’s viewpoint is that because value is the only vote when forming one of these districts, there has to be 2/3 of the value that Mr. Girolamo thinks the assessment should be related to and nothing else. The assessors take into consideration the value of the building as it sits and front footage. They may also take into consideration other factors as appropriate in order to arrive at an appropriate difference or enhanced value. That is why there is some objectivity and some subjectivity for these types of assessments. He said the Bridge Street area has always been included within the boundaries of the CBID No. 3. There were drawings at different points in time by the City that showed an option where there would be lights along Bridge Street, and there were some where there were no lights, benches or trash receptacles along Bridge Street. The set of plans that he received from the architectural firm that did the final design on this shows trees, lights, benches, trash receptacles, etc. along Central and along one side of Market Street but does not show that on Bridge Street. When they did the assessment, they did not take into consideration those improvements, which led to an erroneously low assessment on those two parcels of land (the Spencer’s Corner property and the old white bank building that faced Bridge Street). The commissioners suggested that they do the reassessment to correct that problem, which they did. They used criteria similar to that used in originally assessing this district; and those assessments, which were adopted by the Board of Directors more than a year ago, are not before the Board tonight except for the two that have been reassessed. Director Daniel asked if Bridge Street will have the enhanced improvements as far as the benches, lights, etc.; and Mr. Owen replied that they are there now. Director Daniel commented that he did not see them on the Spencer’s Corner side, and Mr. Owen replied that they are on the north side of Bridge Street and the Spencer’s Corner side. He explained there was problem with the substructure of the sidewalk that has to be resolved first with new steel before they can do some things above it. Board of Directors Meeting 6 January 9, 2006 at 7:00 p.m.  Mayor Bush then called for a vote on the motion to adopt; and upon roll call, the following voted “aye”: Directors Jones, Smith, Weatherford, Edwards, Daniel, and Bush, total 6. Absent and not voting: Director Maruthur; motion unanimously carried. Whereupon the ordinance was declared passed. 13 Proposed Ordinance No. O-06-2 An ordinance entitled, “AN ORDINANCE LEVYING THE SUPPLEMENTAL ANNUAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE CENTRAL BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 3 OF THE CITY OF HOT SPRINGS, ARKANSAS FOR 2006,” was taken from the agenda for consideration. A motion was made by Director Edwards, duly seconded by Director Smith, 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 Smith, duly seconded by Director Edwards, that the ordinance be passed as read. Upon discussion, Mr. John Girolamo stated there was a letter from another property owner that was faxed to the City and asked that it be read. City Manager Kent Myers advised that a letter was received today from Dr. Mary Mason, owner of the Goddard Hotel, which stated that it is her understanding that “at tonight’s City meeting, assessments for CBID No. 3 are on the agenda. Although, I have been provided proper official notification of the agenda item, several other property owners have told me about it. If this is true, I am very disappointed that as one of the larger property owners in CBID No. 3, I was not properly notified. I have other plans for tonight and will not be able to attend tonight’s meeting. In light of the recurrent recent events regarding notification of meetings and questionable methods of assessing CBID No. 3 properties, plans with respect to rehabing the building at 824 Central Avenue may be reconsidered at the all-day strategic planning meeting by members of the project on Thursday. I am confused and disturbed as to the method utilized to assess CBID No. 3. As taxation without representation flies in the face of what our nation stands for, I am quite sure you will want to clarify these issues for me. As a faithful taxpayer, I once again request the following: (1) the courtesy of being provided with timely notifications by post or e-mail of meetings scheduled by the City to discuss issues that directly impact my property; (2) that the CBID No. 3 assessor send to me in writing the formula used to evaluate my property at 824 Central Avenue and that used to evaluate all other properties in CBID No. 3. I need this information to present to others involved with the project and entitled to it. Notwithstanding my fundamental belief that the City and I share a common goal, I just wish we could better communicate so that our common objectives may be Board of Directors Meeting 7 January 9, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. realized without misunderstandings. As stated in the City’s Services Guide, our code of citizen service states promoting the City of Hot Springs and serving its citizens is the responsibility of every employee. Sincerely, Mary Mason.” City Manager Kent Myers advised that the City has no responsibility in the notification process, which is the responsibility of the assessor for each improvement district. He stated that Ms. Mason will receive a response within the next several days. Mr. Ray Owen, Jr. stated that taxation without representation has been mentioned several times and noted that at the top of the petitions circulated to form this district are large letters (¼ inch required by the statute) that says those signing this petition may be required to make payments and goes into depth. It requires 2/3 of the value of the property within the district to sign those petitions to be able to create the district. In this case, 82 or 83 percent of the value of the property actually signed up to create this district. That district asked the Board of Directors to appoint the commissioners, which was done when the Board adopted the ordinance forming the district. The assessments were prepared and mailed out by certified mail to all property owners within the district as required by law. The Board of Directors held a hearing in October or November 2004, at which time it considered those assessments. There were three or four people who had questions about those assessments and had their opportunity to speak. The Board of Directors then made the determination that the assessments were okay as presented and adopted an ordinance accepting those specific assessments. All but two of those are still there in the same amount and the same way they were originally. It is only those two that he described earlier where there was a mistake made and that they did not take into consideration the improvements along Bridge Street. Over a month ago, there was an earlier letter received from Dr. Mason; and shortly thereafter, he met with her attorney and provided him then with information concerning her assessment because that was already public record. She also had a concern with the assessment associated with maintenance. Mr. Owen explained that the same petition which was signed to create this district also made specific provisions concerning a maintenance assessment. That was also included in the ordinance adopted by the Board of Directors. He pointed out that at the time this district was created in December 2002, Dr. Mason did not own that building but was owned by Ms. Katherine Pennino. He said Dr. Mason did not purchase it until September 2003, but she had ownership of that when the assessments went out. He noted she should have known there was a probability that her property was going to be affected by the assessments because the ordinance in creating this district included the property that she purchased and should have been at her property closing that there was some acknowledgment she was purchasing property that was subject to CBID No. 3. He advised that the property owners in that area have been discussing improving the sidewalks, lighting, etc. for a number of years. He said that he gave this information to Mr. Lax, Dr. Mason’s attorney, over a month ago. As far as the levy is concerned on the supplemental assessment, it says a levy of not more than five percent of the total assessed benefits can be adopted for this supplemental Board of Directors Meeting 8 January 9, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. assessment. The commissioners of the district are only asking for .44 percent ($22,300 to take care of all the things they are putting in for this next year), and they voted to do that. Mayor Bush then called for a vote on the motion to adopt; and upon roll call, the following voted “aye”: Directors Jones, Smith, Weatherford, Edwards, Daniel, and Bush, total 6. Absent and not voting: Director Maruthur; motion unanimously carried . Whereupon the ordinance was declared passed. Mayor Bush asked that the Board deviate from the agenda and consider Item No. 17 (presentation by Circuit Judge Vicki Cook regarding the Garland County juvenile crisis intervention program) prior to the condemnations. 17 Presentation by Circuit Judge Vicki Cook Regarding the Garland County Juvenile Crisis Intervention Program City Manager Kent Myers reported last year when the Board was developing the 2004 budget, Circuit Judge Vicki Cook and her staff appeared before the Board; and the Board agreed to fund one-half of the Crisis Intervention Officer position. He expressed the following concerns: (1) he thought at that time, the City was looking at a one-year funding and never got the impression they were looking for long-term city funding to fund a permanent County position. Now, it appears to be evolving into a permanent city funding when he thought it was for one-year funding; (2) originally the position was funded out of the Police Fund, and Police Chief Gary Ashcraft agreed this was a position that benefitted the Police Department. The Police Chief has now taken the position that although it does benefit the Police Department, he cannot justify the expenditure of that type of funding out of the Police Fund; (3) the City has a long history of working with Garland County in terms of joint funding of the District Court where the City and County split the operation of the District Court 50-50, but the City has not been involved in any joint funding between the City and Juvenile Court. He said his concern is that by taking this step, the City may become involved in a joint funding situation between the City and Juvenile Court if so, this will be an expensive impact on the City’s budget on an annual basis; and (4) this position started as a grant-funded position. When Juvenile Court applied for a grant, no one informed the City they were applying for this grant and came to the city after the fact requesting that the City help fund the position. Judge Vicki Cook explained if they gave the City the impression this was a one-time crisis situation, she apologized because the federal government has reduced monies for children and for the elderly. Before last year, they were given $2 million (Juvenile Prevention Grants) to the State. Now, it is reduced to $600,000; but this grant was so successful that they had national recognition. She stated this grant has been in place since 1995; and they were able to increase it. They had a Board of Directors Meeting 9 January 9, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. school liaison with the alternative learning environment which the City is now funding but is still being channeled through the County, and the County is taking care of the fringe benefits for that particular position. There is also the opportunity to have a part-time and full-time person, and it was renewed three times. Last year, they did not receive the grant and went to the County, City and the Police Department and asked if there was any way to get some assistance. At the present time, the State is giving some monies because if they have a full-time probation officer, the State will help pay for one-half of that salary. Between the State and County, they are funding over 60 percent of this full-time and part-time position; and the County is taking care of all of the fringe benefits. She pointed out this is a case where there is a crisis intervention for both city juveniles and county juveniles. She mentioned this is helping juveniles stay out of jail, thereby saving taxpayers money and also helping these juveniles be safe, be a home and at school when they should be, and helping the juveniles to be accountable for their actions because they have someone checking on them everyday. She stated that Shelly Ledbetter is responsible for the budget, and Sharon Smith is the juvenile delinquent intake officer. Mr. Mike Muldoon, crisis intervention officer, explained that he is on call from 4:30 p.m. to 8:30 a.m.; and this is the first holiday season where they have ever had a crisis call in the 5-1/2 years he has been associated with this program. He said they are down to 12 phone calls they make a night to make sure the juveniles are home. If they do not have a phone, they go to their home, which is seven days a week. He said his part-time weekend officer does it on Friday and Saturday nights. During the day, if there is a crisis, they are to call Juvenile Court. He pointed out that one of the things that helps the Police Department is that 95 percent of the calls they make on crisis calls on the scene, there will not be an arrest but more of a mediator trying to settle down a situation. Many times if there is a situation where they cannot get along, they try to place them at Ouachita Children’s Center or with a relative of the family. Mayor Bush asked if this position they are requesting the City to fund is for the entire County, and Mr. Muldoon advised that it was and added that the County is paying 50 percent of it. Director Smith said he believes this is an excellent program and pointed out that Judge Cook is asking for a commitment from the City for $17,541 payable a year from now. He said that he understands the City Manager’s concern about setting a precedent; however, he considers this an extraordinary program and should be looked at on its on merits and a stand-alone basis. Director Jones said that they have been working together for a few years with Webb Community Center in sending these children to them, and she has seen a lot of progress with these juveniles. Board of Directors Meeting 10 January 9, 2006 at 7:00 p.m.  Director Daniel questioned if the funds being requested would be from the Board Reserve; and City Manager Kent Myers stated that would be left to the Board’s discretion. He explained there are two options: (1) fund it out of the Police Fund, which was done last year; or (2) fund it out of the General Fund. He urged the Board to take action on this request tonight. Director Weatherford stressed that all they are requesting is for the Board to make an obligation, and there will be a year to find these funds. Director Daniel asked Finance Director Dorethea Yates where these funds should come from, and Ms. Yates advised that if it is from the General Fund, then it should come from the Board Reserve. If it is from the Police Fund, then it is going to come from the Prior Year Fund Balance of the Police Fund. In reply to Mayor Bush, City Manager Kent Myers explained that Prior Year Fund Balance are carry-over funds. They end up with a fund balance, and this year there was approximately a $1 million fund balance. Police Chief Gary Ashcraft stated this is a good program, and they help the Police Department and County to some extent. However, this is a community program and is for the youth of the community, not just the Police Department. He stated that he did not believe they had $1 million but around $600,000. He pointed out that they do not have any way of making up their fund reserve and suggested that the funds come from the Board Reserve. City Manager Kent Myers asked how much money the Board has in their Reserve Fund, and Ms. Yates explained that money had been put in there for the trolley operations, which was about $52,000. There are some adjustments tonight that will come from the Board Reserve in the amount of $23,000, which will leave around $30,000 in the Board Reserve. There was some Board Reserve that was unrelated to the trolleys, and the amount this year was $50,000. City Manager Kent Myers pointed out that the Board Reserve has about $82,000 to last the remainder of the year. By approving this tonight, this will use about 15 to 20 percent of the Board Reserve. Director Weatherford asked if the Board has to make a commitment tonight on whether or not these funds will come from the Board Reserve or the Police Fund. He stressed that the City has one year to find this money. Board of Directors Meeting 11 January 9, 2006 at 7:00 p.m.  Ms. Yates explained that the Board has to appropriate it in order to be able to spend it. Therefore, a determination has to be made whether or not it will come from the General Fund or the Police Fund. A motion was made by Director Weatherford, duly seconded by Director Edwards, that the funds come from the General Fund; and upon roll call, the following voted “aye”: Directors Jones, Smith, Weatherford, Edwards, Daniel, and Bush, total 6. Absent and not voting: Director Maruthur; motion unanimously carried. 14 Presentation of Condemnation Resolutions Mr. Bart Jones, Rehab Administrator, showed photos of the proposed condemnation resolutions. He requested that two items be deleted from the condemnation list (14a Condemning Certain Property at 1024 Mineral and 14f Condemning Certain Property at 120 Rugg). 14a Proposed Resolution No. R-06-6 Condemning Certain Property at 1024 Mineral (Removed from Agenda) 14b Proposed Resolution No. R-06-7 A resolution entitled, “A RESOLUTION CONDEMNING CERTAIN PROPERTY AT 136 MAGNOLIA (FRONT STRUCTURE),” was taken from the agenda and read by title only. A motion was made by Director Jones, duly seconded by Director Daniel, that the resolution be adopted as read. City Attorney Brian Albright asked if there was anyone present to speak in opposition to the condemnation at 136 Magnolia (front structure). There being no one to speak in opposition, Mayor Bush called for a vote on the motion to adopt; and upon roll call, the following voted “aye”: Directors Jones, Smith, Weatherford, Edwards, Daniel, and Bush, total 6. Absent and not voting: Director Maruthur; motion unanimously carried. Whereupon the resolution was declared adopted. Board of Directors Meeting 12 January 9, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. 14c Proposed Resolution No. R-06-8 A resolution entitled, “A RESOLUTION CONDEMNING CERTAIN PROPERTY AT 136½ MAGNOLIA (REAR STRUCTURE),” was taken from the agenda and read by title only. A motion was made by Director Smith, duly seconded by Director Daniel, that the resolution be adopted as read. City Attorney Brian Albright asked if there was anyone present to speak in opposition to the condemnation at 136½ Magnolia (rear structure). There being no one to speak in opposition, Mayor Bush called for a vote on the motion to adopt; and upon roll call, the following voted “aye”: Directors Jones, Smith, Weatherford, Edwards, Daniel, and Bush, total 6. Absent and not voting: Director Maruthur; motion unanimously carried. Whereupon the resolution was declared adopted. 14d Proposed Resolution No. R-06-9 A resolution entitled, “A RESOLUTION CONDEMNING CERTAIN PROPERTY AT 612 GAINES STREET,” was taken from the agenda and read by title only. A motion was made by Director Edwards, duly seconded by Director Smith, that the resolution be adopted as read. City Attorney Brian Albright asked if there was anyone present to speak in opposition to the condemnation at 612 Gaines Street. There being no one to speak in opposition, Mayor Bush called for a vote on the motion to adopt; and upon roll call, the following voted “aye”: Directors Jones, Smith, Weatherford, Edwards, Daniel, and Bush, total 6. Absent and not voting: Director Maruthur; motion unanimously carried. Whereupon the resolution was declared adopted. 14e Proposed Resolution No. R-06-10 A resolution entitled, “A RESOLUTION CONDEMNING CERTAIN PROPERTY AT 103 ELMER TERRACE,” was taken from the agenda and read by title only. Board of Directors Meeting 13 January 9, 2006 at 7:00 p.m.  A motion was made by Director Smith, duly seconded by Director Edwards, that the resolution be adopted as read. Upon discussion, Director Smith commented that he wanted it to be clear for the record that there is a separate structure in the back, which is included. Mr. Bart Jones replied that is correct and is an accessory structure that is on the same lot. Therefore, both are on the same legal description. City Attorney Brian Albright asked if there was anyone present to speak in opposition to the condemnation at 103 Elmer Terrace. There being no one to speak in opposition, Mayor Bush called for a vote on the motion to adopt; and upon roll call, the following voted “aye”: Directors Jones, Smith, Weatherford, Edwards, Daniel, and Bush, total 6. Absent and not voting: Director Maruthur; motion unanimously carried. Whereupon the resolution was declared adopted. 14f Proposed Resolution No. R-06-11 Condemning Certain Property at 120 Rugg (Removed from the Agenda). 14g Proposed Resolution No. R-06-12 A resolution entitled, “A RESOLUTION CONDEMNING CERTAIN PROPERTY AT 211 FAIRMONT,” was taken from the agenda and read by title only. A motion was made by Director Edwards, duly seconded by Director Jones, that the resolution be adopted as read. City Attorney Brian Albright asked if there was anyone present to speak in opposition to the condemnation at 211 Fairmont. There being no one to speak in opposition, Mayor Bush called for a vote on the motion to adopt; and upon roll call, the following voted “aye”: Directors Jones, Smith, Weatherford, Edwards, Daniel, and Bush, total 6. Absent and not voting: Director Maruthur; motion unanimously carried. Whereupon the resolution was declared adopted. Board of Directors Meeting 14 January 9, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. 14h Proposed Resolution No. R-06-13 A resolution entitled, “A RESOLUTION CONDEMNING CERTAIN PROPERTY AT 211 EAST MAURICE,” was taken from the agenda and read by title only. A motion was made by Director Edwards, duly seconded by Director Jones, that the resolution be adopted as read. City Attorney Brian Albright asked if there was anyone present to speak in opposition to the condemnation at 211 East Maurice. Ms. Margo Diaz, 412 Henderson, stated she is taking care of an elderly person; but when she is no longer at this address, she plans on building a house at 211 East Maurice and living in it. If the house is torn down, she stated she will not be able to build on that property because it is only 30 feet. Director Edwards asked if she wants to bid on the property as it is and repair it; and Ms. Diaz replied that if the house is torn down, then she cannot build on it. However, with the house standing, she can build. Mr. Jones explained this is the third time this property has been on the agenda and was removed on two different occasions. He stated that Garland County still shows Mr. Kenneth Huchingson as the owner, and Ms. Diaz said that she is now the owner. Mr. Jones stated this has been placed back on the agenda since the City has been told for three years the structure is going to be repaired. He advised that staff’s recommendation is to proceed with the condemnation, but the owner still has that 30-day window. Director Daniel questioned when the last building permit was issued, and Mr. Jones advised that it was two years ago when this was before the Board. It was removed from the agenda per an agreement with owner that they were going to repair it at that time. Director Edwards asked if Ms. Diaz owned the house when it was originally condemned, and Ms. Diaz said she did not and bought it two years ago. Director Edwards asked when she planned to get a permit to repair the house, and Ms. Diaz said that she will do that tomorrow. She added that she did not want to put any money into a house if she cannot have it and was told by Mr. Jones that it was going to be torn down. She said that she has lake property that she will sell and repair the house. Board of Directors Meeting 15 January 9, 2006 at 7:00 p.m.  Director Weatherford questioned why the condemnation of property at 1024 Mineral Street was removed from the agenda, and Mr. Jones explained there was an agreement with the owner of that structure that he signed a contract and agreement. Director Weatherford pointed out this structure was burned completely, but Ms. Diaz has a house. He asked how long the structure on Mineral Street has been in that condition, and Mr. Jones advised that it has been like that for a long period of time. Director Weatherford commented that he always votes against these condemnations because he does not think they are fair. He questioned why Ms. Diaz’s structure was not removed from the agenda, and Mr. Jones replied that he has been dealing with this particular structure for three years. Director Weatherford asked how long he has dealt with the structure at 1024 Mineral Street, and Mr. Jones stated it was a similar amount of time. He added that the structure went to condemnation, and the owner bought a permit but did not actually do anything. Staff brought it back; and if it were on the agenda, it would be the third time on this property. Mr. Kenneth Huchingson, 1103 Spring Street, said he had the documentation that he originally pulled the permit on the house June 3, 2004. He had signed the deed over to Ms. Margo Diaz and was notarized on February 20, 2004. He stated that the house is not liveable, but he believes the house can be reconstructed. He said it has four good plastered walls, new roof rafters, and a lot of new tin. He noted the front porch was in bad repair and was torn off; also, the bathroom was in bad repair and was torn down. He stated the front porch and bathroom need to be reconstructed. In reply to Director Daniel regarding the condemnation process, Mr. Jones explained that she can pull a permit and has 30 days to either repair it or raze and remove it. He advised the floor joists are rotten, and he has been told for two consecutive years that it is going to get repaired; but nothing has been done. Director Jones said she has received calls where somebody was going in and out of that house, and Ms. Diaz explained that they were repairing it and cleaning it up. Director Jones said it was her understanding that somebody was living in it, and Ms. Diaz stated that no one lives in it since it is padlocked and boarded up. Mayor Bush called for a vote on the motion to adopt; and upon roll call, the following voted “aye”: Directors Smith, Daniel, and Bush, total 3. Voting “no”: Directors Jones, Edwards, and Weatherford, total 3. Absent and not voting: Director Maruthur; motion failed Whereupon the resolution was declared failed. Board of Directors Meeting 16 January 9, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. 15 Progress Report on National Baptist Hotel Mr. Mike Scott, Chief Building Official, submitted photos of the National Baptist Hotel. He advised that a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued for the one unit; but since then, there has been very little construction. There has been some demolition and hauling off the debris. He said from his understanding, they are waiting on other funding. Director Daniel stated that when he was by there over the weekend, the back of the building was not secure as it shows in the picture. Mr. Scott explained that Marco Construction has an open building permit and is getting bids at the present time to replace all of the windows in the building. As far as the Vacant Structure Code, they should start trying to board some of those up. However, some of them are boarded up, and they have 30 days just like everyone else. Director Daniel questioned why they would leave a building open after spending $200,000 to get one unit ready. Mr. Scott explained that the one unit is separated from the rest of the building by a fire wall. They cannot get into it unless they go in the marked exit and entry doors. Mr. Bob Kempkes advised that they are making every attempt to secure the building at night. Since the work has begun in that building, he said there has not been anyone going in there. Director Daniel pointed out with one unit that was supposed to be ready, if people would live in them when they were in the condition they were before, they would certainly want to take advantage of it now. Mr. Kempkes mentioned that is a valid point; but with the activity going on, it has kept people away. He noted they have not had any vandalism, broken bottles, or littering. He explained that they are ongoing with demolition in the wooden structure of the building, as well as with the structural engineering analysis of that wooden structure. They are re-looking at some of the phasing for the next part of the project. He stated a letter has been received from PNC MultiFamily Capital regarding the lending situation, construction financing, and permanent financing. They also had lenders in a week ago from Elk Horn Bank and Trust Parent Company, Southern BankCorp from Arkadelphia interested in making interim financing. He said the object here is for the construction not to stop. They feel confident interim financing will become available, which will begin with Entergy and the power line removal. They have a masonry contractor coming in tomorrow to look at the project and have had HVAC contractors and factory representatives on the site. Regarding the windows, they do have contracts getting ready to be issued and would like for the public to be able to see a change in the exterior of the building. Board of Directors Meeting 17 January 9, 2006 at 7:00 p.m.  Director Weatherford asked when he anticipated they are going to get financing to start this, and Mr. Kempkes replied that they are hoping by the end of February. He added that they are still operating under the $200,000 that had initially been put into the bank account. Of that, they can continue on for about another four weeks; therefore, they are really going to need some help in about a month. Director Weatherford asked if that gives him ten months to finish that project, and Mr. Kempkes replied that is correct. 16 Proposed Resolution No. R-06-14 A resolution entitled, “A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR PLACEMENT OF MOBILE HOMES EXCEEDING TEN YEARS IN AGE IN THE FOREST GLADE MOBILE HOME PARK LOCATED AT 400 GOLF LINKS ROAD,” was taken from the agenda and read by title only. A motion was made by Director Jones that the resolution be adopted as read. There being no second to the motion, the motion died for lack of a second. In regard to this item, City Attorney Brian Albright informed the Board that it may have been titled as a resolution, but it was filed with the Board as a Notice of Appeal and advised that the Board needs to consider the appeal. Mr. Jim Williams, 301 Talisman, stated he is an attorney representing the owner of the Forest Glade Mobile Home Park. He said there are a couple of manufactured homes in excess of ten years that were moved to Forest Glade Mobile Home Park and in violation of the City’s ordinance that it adopted in October 2003. He said that, in his opinion, the ordinance, contrary to the legislative authority granted by the General Assembly, permitted the City in a comprehensive zoning ordinance certain aspects, such as the location, height, bulk, number of stories, size of buildings, open space, lot coverage, density and distribution of population of the uses of land, buildings and structures. However, no where in that specific grant of authority does it entitle the City to regulate the age of structures. He said it appears the ordinance came to pass as a result of the lobbyists from the manufactured home industry appearing before the Planning Commission and suggesting that this ordinance be enacted. They had initially recommended that the City not allow any manufactured homes in excess of five years into an existing manufactured home park in the City. The Planning Commission apparently made the decision that five was arbitrarily short and decided on ten. He mentioned that HUD views the life of such manufactured homes as approximately 55 years. He stated that the owner has lost about $20,000 in revenue so far by being unable to fill her existing Board of Directors Meeting 18 January 9, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. mobile home park. He pointed out this mobile home park will not be a candidate for the new double wide mobile homes to go into these places with a single pad. There are three structures at the mobile home park, one of which has electricity and water, and the other two, the City has denied permits. He commented this ordinance amounts to an unconstitutional taking of the owner’s property because there is no legitimate public use that is behind this ordinance as enacted, and there has been no compensation to the owner for what results in a diminishment of value of the property. He stated that the power given by the legislature to make this act to enact such an ordinance is limited. He said it is against the common law because it can result in the taking of property, and it has to be strictly construed in favor of the property owner, which has not been done in this case. He pointed out there is no restriction on the movement of an existing home such as frame structure if an individual wants to move it to another location regardless of the age. In the case of metal structures, individuals can have a metal structure that is over ten years old, dismantle it, take it to another part of the City, and reconstruct it. Ultimately, there is no reasonable basis that this ten-year restriction can be justified; therefore, the ordinance is invalid. Mr. David Campbell, 345 Columbia Hills, stated that the lobbyists did not come to the Planning Commission; but the Planning Commission asked the lobbyists to come to them. He mentioned they did not emphasize the five years but were in the process of trying to get legislation passed through the State to limit them to five years, which was introduced by the League of Cities to the manufactured home organization; that Bill ultimately failed. He advised that the Planning Commission spent about two years drafting this ordinance, and numerous public hearings were held. They looked at others around the State, and Jonesboro had an eight-year limit. The Planning Commission felt this was too restrictive; and in talking with the Manufactured Home Association president, Mr. J. D. Harper, the Commission told them that ten years was the time limit it wanted to settle with. His organization was represented, the dealers were present, there were mobile home park operators, and people who had manufactured housing around the city as rental property; and there were four public meetings with those individuals. When this appeal was presented to the Planning Commission, the commission did not feel it could change an ordinance that was passed by the Board without a public hearing. He requested that the Board deny this appeal. Director Smith asked if the Planning Commission vote was unanimous against it, and Mr. Campbell replied that it was. Mr. Gary Threadgill, Chairman of the Planning Commission, commented that Mr. Williams made the statement that a structure could be moved to a different piece of property in the City, set it up, and get the permits. However, the City requires them to get the permits; there is an electrical inspection, plumbing, and sewer. If a mobile home is brought in, there is no electrical inspection; and it is brought in and set up; and the Code Compliance Department does not do an inspection. Also, in the Code under Manufactured Home Parks (16-3-5[b]), it states ten years; and the Planning Board of Directors Meeting 19 January 9, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. Commission has to follow these guidelines. He pointed out that according to the photos included in the Board packets, the ten-year limit was put in was because the mobile homes depreciate if not taken care of. According to the photos, they are not well maintained. Mr. David Campbell stated that when this ordinance went into effect, anything that was in a park at that time was “grandfathered” in. He added this ten-year rule not only applies to the mobile home parks but also applies to a subdivision situation, an overlay district, or a replacement of a nonconforming manufactured home that is there. A motion was made by Director Smith, duly seconded by Director Weatherford, to deny the appeal; and upon roll call, the following voted “aye”: Directors Jones, Smith, Weatherford, Daniel, and Bush, total 5. Voting “no”: Director Edwards. Absent and not voting: Director Maruthur; motion carried. 18 Proposed Resolution No. R-06-15 A resolution entitled, “A RESOLUTION APPROVING CERTAIN ADJUSTMENTS TO THE 2006 BUDGET,” was taken from the agenda and read by title only. A motion was made by Director Smith, duly seconded by Director Weatherford, that the resolution be adopted as read. In reply to Director Edwards, Finance Director Dorethea Yates explained the budget adjustments. Mayor Bush then called for a vote on the motion to adopt; and upon roll call, the following voted “aye”: Directors Jones, Smith, Weatherford, Edwards, Daniel, and Bush, total 6. Absent and not voting: Director Maruthur; motion unanimously carried. Whereupon the resolution was declared adopted. 19 Proposed Ordinance No. O-06-3 An ordinance entitled, “AN ORDINANCE WAIVING THE REQUIREMENTS OF COMPETITIVE BIDDING FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF CERTAIN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,” was taken from the agenda for consideration. 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, Board of Directors Meeting 20 January 9, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. 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 Weatherford, that the ordinance be passed as read; and upon roll call, the following voted “aye”: Directors Jones, Smith, Weatherford, Edwards, Daniel, and Bush, total 6. Absent and not voting: Director Maruthur; motion unanimously carried. Whereupon the ordinance was declared passed. 20 Approval of Annual Performance Goals of the City Manager City Manager Kent Myers stated that he has listed 14 goals and objectives that he presented to the Board before the holidays, and these goals and objectives were taken from his performance evaluation that he recently had by the Board and during some recent budget meetings. He said that he believes by the end of the year, these goals and objectives will be fully implemented. A motion was made by Director Edwards, duly seconded by Director Daniel, that the goals and objectives for the City Manager for 2006 be approved; and upon roll call, the following voted “aye”: Directors Jones, Smith, Weatherford, Edwards, Daniel, and Bush, total 6. Absent and not voting: Director Maruthur; motion unanimously carried. 21 Out-of-State Travel for Board to Attend the National League of Cities Conference in Washington DC City Manager Kent Myers advised that there are five Directors who are planning to attend the National League of Cities Conference in Washington, DC (Mayor Bush, Directors Smith, Jones, Daniel, and Edwards). He stated that the National League of Cities provides an opportunity for the Board not only to be updated on federal issues, but there are one-on-one meetings with the Congressional delegation. A motion was made by Director Weatherford, duly seconded by Director Smith, that the out- of-state travel for the above-named Directors to attend the National League of Cities Conference in Washington DC be approved; and upon roll call, the following voted “aye”: Directors Jones, Smith, Weatherford, Edwards, Daniel, and Bush, total 6. Absent and not voting: Director Maruthur; motion unanimously carried. Mayor Bush added that the four members of the Mayor’s Youth Council will also be attending. OTHER BUSINESS Board of Directors Meeting 21 January 9, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. 22 Board of Directors Items Director Jones announced that on Saturday, January 14, 8 a.m., the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. breakfast will be held at Horner Hall. Tickets are $20, but there will be no tickets sold at the door. The annual parade will be on Saturday, at 2 p.m.; and floats are $15 each and cars $20 each. On Monday, at 11 a.m., there will be the awards program with a guest speaker. On Monday, January 16, at 6 p.m., R.E.G.A.R.D. will have their annual potluck at Webb Community Center. There is no charge, and everyone is welcome but has to bring a dish. Director Edwards expressed appreciation to citizens who are no longer using utility poles to display their garage sale signs. Director Daniel said that he agreed with Director Smith’s Letter to the Editor and congratulated the firefighters who were first responders to the fire due to the dry weather conditions. He said that he hopes the National Park Service and Forest Service appreciate what the City does for them since the City was first on the scene, and the firefighters did an excellent job protecting federal and city property. 23 City Manager’s Report City Manager Kent Myers gave the following report: He commended the Sanitation Department for the work done over the last several months to implement the new residential cart program. The cart program finished its first run last week. During the last several months, Sanitation Director Bill Burrough and his staff have put in extra hours delivering the carts, getting information out to the public and responding to comments and concerns. It has proven to be a big success in the community; and in the future, the community will realize that it will help with neighborhood beautification and make the system more efficient. 24 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m., to meet again on Monday, January 23, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. ATTEST: _____________________ APPROVED:__________________ Lance Hudnell, City Clerk Mike Bush, Mayor Board of Directors Meeting 22 January 9, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. Board of Directors Meeting 23 January 9, 2006 at 7:00 p.m.