Board of Directors

MINUTES BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2006, AT 7:00 P.M. The regular meeting of the Board of Directors was held on Monday, September 18, 2006, at 7:00 p.m., Board Chambers, City Hall, with Mayor Mike Bush presiding. The invocation was given by Mr. Les Warren, 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 Daniel, duly seconded by Director Edwards, that the agenda be approved; and upon voice vote, the motion unanimously carried. 3 Approval of Minutes of September 5, 2006 Board Meeting A motion was made by Director Jones, duly seconded by Director Edwards, that the minutes of the September 5, 2006 Board Meeting be approved; and upon voice vote, the motion unanimously carried. 4 Recognition of Guests City Manager Kent Myers recognized Ms. Shirley Southard, Police Department Records Supervisor, retiring from the City with 34 years of service; and Police Chief Gary Ashcraft presented her with a retirement plaque. Ms. Southard expressed appreciation to the City for the opportunity to work for the City. CONSENT AGENDA  The Consent Agenda consisted of the following: 5 Public Safety Report (September 6, 2006). 6 Proposed Resolution No. R-06-288 Accepting Certain Bid Awards (a) Gate-Utilities Service Center [reject and rebid]; (b) Two Fuel Vehicles - Airport [awarded to Garsite in the amount of $187,767]; (c) Asphalt Cold Mix - Public Works [annual supply contract awarded to Martin Marietta]; (d) Chlorine - Utilities [annual supply contract awarded to Allied Universal Corporation]; and (e) Pest Control - Various Departments [annual supply contract awarded to Terminix]. 7 Proposed Resolution No. RB06-289 Approving the Extension of Hot Springs Municipal Water and Wastewater Services to The Legends Located on Highway 7 South and Massey Road. 8 Proposed Resolution No. R-06-290 Approving Change Order No. 1 with Martin Marietta Materials for Hangar Construction Project at the Airport. 9 Proposed Resolution No. R-06-291 Approving a Land Exchange Agreement with the National Park Service. 10 Proposed Resolution No. R-06-292 Fixing a Time and Date for a Hearing to Vacate, Abandon and Close Certain Streets Located Within the Hot Springs National Park (Block 37, Hot Springs Reservation). 11 Proposed Resolution No. R-06-293 Fixing a Time and Date for a Hearing to Vacate, Abandon and Close a Portion of Certain Street Rights-of-Way Located Adjacent to the Hot Springs National Park (Reserve and Fountain Streets). 12 Proposed Resolution No. R-06-294 Adopting a Permit and Inspection Fee Schedule for the Hot Springs Fire Department Pursuant to the Arkansas Fire Prevention Code (Ordinance No. 5162). Board of Directors Meeting 2 September 18, 2006 at 7:00 P.M. 13 Proposed Resolution No. R-06-295 Authorizing the Mayor to Execute a Lease Agreement Between the City of Hot Springs, Arkansas, and Community Development Block Grant Program Office (Transportation Depot). [Removed from Consent Agenda for Separate Consideration] 14 Proposed Resolution No. R-06-296 Approving the Board Mission Statement, Vision Statement, Values Statement and Strategic Goals. A motion was made by Director Daniel, duly seconded by Director Smith, that the Consent Agenda be approved. Upon discussion, Director Maruthur requested that Item No. 13 (Proposed Resolution No. R-06-295 Authorizing the Mayor to Execute a Lease Agreement Between the City of Hot Springs, Arkansas, and Community Development Block Grant Program Office) [Transportation Depot] be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration. Mayor Bush then called for a vote on the motion to approve the Consent Agenda, as amended; and upon roll call, the following voted Aaye@: Directors Maruthur, Jones, Smith, Weatherford, Edwards, Daniel, and Bush, total 7; motion unanimously carried. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 15 Proposed Resolution No. R-06-287 A resolution entitled, AA RESOLUTION APPROVING AN OPTION TO PURCHASE WITH WILLIAM R. AUSTIN FOR THE MUNICIPAL UTILITY BUILDING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 349 MALVERN AVENUE,@ was taken from the agenda and read by title only. (Tabled September 5, 2006) A motion was made by Director Jones, duly seconded by Director Edwards, that the resolution be tabled. Upon discussion, Director Maruthur stated that the Board was prepared to vote on this issue at the last meeting; but Mr. Austin was not present and questioned why a motion has been made to table this resolution tonight. Board of Directors Meeting 3 September 18, 2006 at 7:00 P.M.  City Manager Kent Myers explained that on Friday, he received a phone call from the Austin Hotel indicating that Mr. Austin was unable to be present; and he requested that this be removed from the agenda tonight. Director Maruthur questioned why it is necessary to have Mr. Austin present since the Board was prepared to vote on the resolution at the last meeting until there were some concerns expressed. City Manager Kent Myers advised that in discussion with individual Directors, one of the items of interest to the Board is future expansion plans for the Austin Hotel; and Mr. Austin was prepared to discuss those tonight. He said that he believes this would be an important factor the Board would want to consider in determining whether or not to sell this building and the economic impact the sale of that property would have on the community. Therefore, he believes Mr. Austin=s presence would be important in the Board=s decision-making process. Director Maruthur stated that City Manager Kent Myers had included the minutes of the Board Work Session in the board packet and circled certain items. She mentioned it clarified her Letter to the Editor, and there is still no specific plan in place for the Utility and Finance relocation, which she asked be part of the record. Director Smith questioned the time limit for tabling this resolution, and City Manager Kent Myers replied that Mr. Austin had indicated he would contact him later this week. He added that Mr. Austin may withdraw his offer. Mayor Bush then called for a vote on the motion to table the resolution for two weeks; and upon roll call, the following voted Aaye@: Directors Jones, Weatherford, Edwards, Daniel, and Bush, total 5. Voting Ano@: Directors Smith and Maruthur, total 2; motion carried. NEW BUSINESS 13 Proposed Resolution No. R-06-295 A resolution entitled, AA RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HOT SPRINGS, ARKANSAS, AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM OFFICE (TRANSPORTATION DEPOT),@ was taken from the agenda and read by title only. Board of Directors Meeting 4 September 18, 2006 at 7:00 P.M.  A motion was made by Director Edwards, duly seconded by Director Smith, that the resolution be adopted as read. Upon discussion, Director Maruthur stated that moving the administrative offices of the Community Development Block Program to the Transportation Depot will mean $4,212 in rent, which will cut into the salary of the two employees who administer this program or will come out of the intent of this program, which is to help develop blighted areas and help those in need. She said she does not think is fair and recommended transferring $4,212 out of the General Fund to pay the rent, pointing out that the Board transfers money from the General Fund for various purposes; and this is for a program that has an excess of applicants. A motion was made by Director Maruthur, duly seconded by Director Jones, that $4,212 be transferred from the General Fund to CDBG. Upon discussion, City Manager Kent Myers pointed out that the CDBG Program is similar to the Intracity Transit, which receives federal funding. He added that the City charges the federal transit funds for lease space at the Transportation Depot and is proposing that the CDBG Program be handled the same way. He stated it would be difficult for the General Fund to handle additional expenses at this time as a result of the additions that were made during the mid-year budget process. Director Daniel questioned the space that CDBG is using at City Hall and asked if they have been charged for that. City Manager Kent Myers advised that they have not been charged, but they have not used that much space. However, there has been an expansion of staff requiring more space. City Attorney Brian Albright advised that because the Transportation Depot is subject to Department of Transportation funds, rent will have to be charged to some fund, whether it be General Fund or through the grant program. Director Jones commented she did not think it should be taken from the administrative or the CDBG Funds because those funds are needed for the houses in District 2. She noted there are homes that were not finished due to the fact that $35,000 or $40,000 was spent, and there are many homes that are not going to be repaired for five more years. She stressed that the money should not come from the CDBG funds. Director Maruthur stated there has been an abundance of applications, and she believes it would be benevolent of the Board to find it in their hearts to help fund this. Board of Directors Meeting 5 September 18, 2006 at 7:00 P.M.  Director Weatherford questioned the number of employees in that department, and City Manager Kent Myers advised there are two full-time employees and one part-time employee. Director Weatherford asked if that money comes from CDBG, and City Manager Kent Myers advised that it did. He added they are fully funded by the federal grant. He mentioned that the City provided administrative support through the Finance Department that is not charged back to the grant. Director Weatherford commented that the rent should come from that same fund. City Attorney Brian Albright stated that the amendment would amend Paragraph 4 of the Lease Agreement to state that Athe City of Hot Springs would pay from the General Fund the annual rent amount of $4,212.@ Mayor Bush then called for a vote on the amendment as stated by the City Attorney; and upon roll call, the following voted Aaye@: Directors Maruthur, Jones, Smith, Edwards, Daniel, and Bush, total 6. Voting Ano@: Director Weatherford; motion carried. Mayor Bush then called for a vote on the motion to adopt the resolution, as amended; and upon roll call, the following voted Aaye@: Directors Maruthur, Jones, Smith, Edwards, Daniel, and Bush, total 6. Voting Ano@: Director Weatherford; motion carried. Whereupon the resolution was declared adopted, as amended. 16 Proposed Resolution No. R-06-297 A resolution entitled, AA RESOLUTION APPROVING A REVISED SITE PLAN FOR THE PEAKS APARTMENTS LOCATED IN THE 400 BLOCK OF LAKE HAMILTON DRIVE,@ was taken from the agenda and read by title only. A motion was made by Director Jones, duly seconded by Director Maruthur, that the resolution be adopted as read. Upon discussion, Attorney Brian Reis, 135 Section Line Road, representing The Peaks, LLC, was recognized. He introduced Mr. Brian Edwards, engineer for the project; Mr. Keith Richardson, representative of the developer; and Mr. Ernie Peters, traffic engineer. He stated they are asking for approval of the site plan as they have modified it. Also, they are presenting a signed Annexation Agreement and want to annex the 19-acre tract of real estate and develop it as part of the City. He stressed they are committed to annexation. He pointed out there are people present tonight who he anticipates are going Board of Directors Meeting 6 September 18, 2006 at 7:00 P.M. to speak in opposition but do not live inside the City and resist being a part of the City. He stated that no one has ever suggested that this project is in any way inconsistent with the long-term planning and zoning of the City. In the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the staff made clear they thought this project would be a good buffer between residential on one end and the commercial development on the highway. He stated that the negative comments made at the Planning Commission meeting centered mainly on traffic and safety concerns. As a result, they have amended the plan; and there are two significant amendments: (1) the site plan now shows alternate access which would be the northwest corner. There is in existence right now at Mall Road and there has existed since 1980 a Cross Easement Agreement between the owners of this property and the Mall. They have been in contact with the representatives of the Mall in order to open that easement so they can access the project through that alternate route. They believe that would address any traffic or safety concerns that might occur. They have been in contact with the Mall about opening that access route but have not heard from them. He stressed that his clients are committed to alternate access to this project. He said his clients have in mind and have the rights to access this property through two other means and distributed photos of that. He pointed out the resistance at the Planning Commission Meeting was over the fact that the site plan showed the only access was from Lake Hamilton Drive. (2) they have shown two accesses off Lake Hamilton Drive and asked that this be approved as long as they provide another alternate access, not from Lake Hamilton Drive; and they are committed to doing that. He stated the Board has been provided with a traffic study. However, there was no traffic study at the Planning Commission meeting; but it is now available. He added this plan now brings together two development plans B the four acres and then the balance of the property. The traffic study contemplates that the project is fully developed; and if when fully developed, the level of service for Lake Hamilton Drive ( Level A) is the lowest level free-flow with little or no delay at a.m. or p.m. rush hour. With respect to volume, the traffic study concludes that it will be well below ordinary service volume of a two-lane country road. He said he believes they have addressed traffic concerns by providing alternate access. He noted there were questions at the Planning Commission meeting regarding the plan because it showed only the southeast corner. There were also questions regarding what is going to happen to the rest of the 19 acres. He explained his clients have now brought the entire plan of development for the entire 19 acres together and amended the plan to show that project as well. He mentioned there was discussion at the Planning Commission meeting regarding how this project helps provide affordable living. He explained this is not a HUD project but known as an AFDA (affordable housing project). He said his client receives certain incentives for developing this project and providing housing within certain rent structures. He noted according to the document he distributed earlier, there are 264 units in the entire development. Among those units, only 38 or 14 percent are the affordable Board of Directors Meeting 7 September 18, 2006 at 7:00 P.M. housing units. The rest (226 units) are simple, market-rate apartment complexes. He said his clients believe this complex will provide affordable housing to many and will provide nice housing to others. He noted that every photograph included in the board packets is from their affordable housing projects. He pointed out that questions have been raised regarding whether the project on Lakeland Drive is one of their projects, and it is not. Director Maruthur questioned the methodology used on Page 1 of the traffic study, and Mr. Reis replied that he left the methodology to Mr. Ernie Peters, traffic engineer. He stated there are published statistics of per-unit use, and Mr. Peters applies those. Director Maruthur mentioned that it states Aevaluate existing traffic conditions at this site.@ She questioned what is located on the 19.04 acres, and Mr. Reis replied that it is trees and is unimproved property. Also regarding the traffic study, Director Maruthur stated it does not factor in any future traffic increases that would result from further development on Highway 7 South, and this is going to be an increase in traffic. She pointed out there are trees there at the present time and questioned the environmental impact to this area. She mentioned all of this will need a foundation, which will require concrete and asphalt. She noted many people feel there has been a saturation of development in Highway 7 South area; and even though there have been traffic studies done, there is a traffic problem there at the present time. She stated they must remember the people who live on the peripheral of the lake who are opposed to it, and that is the reason the Planning Commission rejected it. Director Maruthur questioned if there was an Environmental Impact Study, and Mr. Reis replied that he did not have an answer. However, according to the engineer, no environmental work was necessary. Mayor Bush recognized Mr. Richard Wootton, 350 Exchange Street, attorney representing Hot Springs Mall, who stated that he is present to discuss the access question insofar as it affects the Hot Springs Mall. He said the proposal that has been presented to the Board for an alternate access to the property predisposes that they have a right to use a private driveway, which is owned by the Hot Springs Mall. He explained it is a private driveway and was built and installed as a private driveway based upon traffic studies related to the development. He pointed out the effect of what they are asking to do would be to change that private driveway into a public street in terms of at least to the use and access to the property, which is maintained by the Mall, paid for and maintained by the Mall, and designed for its use only. He stated they propose they want to come in over the Hot Springs Mall what is called the ring road. He said Mr. Reis made reference to a Cross Easement Agreement that was entered into between the Gillims and the Hot Springs Mall at the time the Mall was constructed in 1980. However, that agreement does not give the Gillims an access or right to the complete use of that property; and the Hot Springs Mall will not voluntarily permit that street to be used as such. He explained the Board of Directors Meeting 8 September 18, 2006 at 7:00 P.M. Easement Agreement that was entered into had two phases. One of them dealt with use of some property for sewer prior to the time the public was served in that area. The remaining portion of the Cross Easement Agreement had to do with construction of the ring road and the use of it and contemplated some access to the ring road that the Gillims wanted because they owned some additional property other than the property they sold to the Mall. The Gillims owned an adjoining tract of land just to the east (Southcenter) next to the Mall at the present time. The Cross Easement Agreement provided that the Gillims would go in at some point to have primary access to their property by a road they would construct on a north-south basis between their property and Highway 7 South. There was to be a possibility of a road from that over to the Hot Springs Mall ring road, and they were to give notice and do various things in connection with that. Those conditions upon which they were to be given that right were never met. The conditions upon which they would be permitted to do that expired many years ago. He said they have no legal right, either the Gillims or the people who are proposing to do this, to use the Hot Springs Mall ring road. He said his client will not permit that voluntarily; and if they permit them to use that ring road, it will increase traffic tremendously resulting in a dangerous situation. In addition, if they are permitted to put this additional traffic load on the traffic on that ring road, this will place a tremendous potential liability on the Mall in the event of pedestrian and automobile accidents. He said that his clients intend to exercise their rights to see that they are not permitted to use this as an access road. He pointed out they are not taking a position for or against the project itself, but the developers want to use this property for their own private purposes; and his client is not in a position to agree to that. Mr. Brian Reis stated that in response to comments by Mr. Wootton, he has the Cross Easement Agreement, which was provided to the City Attorney. He said that he and Mr. Wootton disagree over the terms of that Cross Easement Agreement; but he would like the Board to consider approving the project subject to alternate access, not from Lake Hamilton Drive. He said if they cannot work out a deal with the Mall, then his clients know they have to go elsewhere; and that is what he is requesting from the City. City Attorney Brian Albright asked if he would be willing to stipulate that they will not begin development of the property until they have secured that alternate access, and Mr. Reis replied that is correct. He added they will have alternate access, and it may be that they decide they do not want to fight with the Mall. He said they will evaluate the best way to do it, and they do not object to the Board saying they must have alternate access. Mr. Bill Randel, 416 Lake Hamilton Drive, stated he is not against development, against development of that property, or the family selling that property. However, he supports a well-planned development. However, he has a problem with the traffic on Board of Directors Meeting 9 September 18, 2006 at 7:00 P.M. Lake Hamilton Drive, which is very narrow; and much of the traffic is pedestrian. In front of the proposed development, he said it is a county road; but from that point, traveling west to the first of two entrances and exits to the Mall, it is a county road. Also, a few hundred feet west before the second entrance to the Mall, and in between those two entrances, a few hundred feet from the corner of this development, there is a sign indicating leaving or entering the City of Hot Springs. When coming east, people are walking, jogging, riding bicycles, as many people do from the Hot Springs Fitness Center Springs; and they are not on a county road but on a city street. He stated there is now discussion about building the apartments on 19 acres, and he believes this plan has been amended. He added there are now an additional 216 units that were not considered by the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission said what was there already was too much. Also, this would be placing additional traffic on Lake Hamilton Drive, probably in the area of 400 to 800 additional cars per day. He pointed out that the developer should have developed the infrastructure first not just the asphalt parking lots or the hundreds of new units. He added they should include the water, sewer, utilities and access to and from that property; and that access is now Lake Hamilton Drive, which is not large enough to carry that traffic. He stressed that the taxpayers should not be burdened with having to pay part of the developer=s cost to widen Lake Hamilton Drive. Director Daniel stated the city limits is at the Boardwalk Condominiums and from Boardwalk coming around Lake Hamilton Drive by Willowbeach and then up to the back of the Mall, and questioned if is there anything on the lake side across the road inside the city limits. Mr. Randel replied that he is not sure of the exact boundary. He stated that traveling from Willowbeach going toward the Mall, when people are coming up and going around that hill at the Health Spa, that is inside the City. If people are traveling west on Lake Hamilton Drive from the development before they get to the second exit of the Mall, there is a sign that says AEntering the City of Hot Springs,@ which is before that second entrance. Director Daniel questioned if the City performs maintenance on it, and Deputy City Manager Lance Hudnell replied that the actual Lake Hamilton Drive itself is not in the city limits except for a small portion, which is past the second entrance to the Mall. Mr. Randel said that he disagreed or either the sign is in the wrong place. Deputy City Manager Lance Hudnell commented that the signs indicate entering city limits as far as the north side of the Lake Hamilton Drive, not the south side. Mr. Randel stated that the north side of Lake Hamilton Drive is still part of Lake Hamilton Drive; and even though it says AEntering the city limits,@ they are not. Deputy City Manager Lance Hudnell explained that the private property is in the City, but the road is not. Board of Directors Meeting 10 September 18, 2006 at 7:00 P.M.  Director Edwards stated the north side of Lake Hamilton Drive is in the City, and the south side is in the County. Mr. Randel stated when people exit from the Mall area in that west entrance onto Lake Hamilton Drive, according to the city signage, they are in the city limits. He said directly in front of those apartments, that is correct; but down several hundred feet, there are portions of Lake Hamilton Drive, that according to the signage, are in the City. He commented in terms of public safety, it is a City issue, not just a County issue. Director Daniel noted that Mr. Randel said the Health Spa has a tremendous amount of traffic, and Mr. Randel stated he walks around 5:45 a.m.; and there are between 20 and 40 cars in the parking lot of the Fitness Center. Director Daniel asked if he was as opposed to the Fitness Center being built bringing in all the traffic as he is to the other end of the road with the housing units, and Mr. Randel said that he has lived on Lake Hamilton Drive for five years. Therefore, he was not living in that residence when that occurred. Director Daniel asked if he would have been as opposed to that Fitness Center, and Mr. Randel said he would not have because most of the access to the Fitness Center is coming off Central Avenue onto the Mall loop and into the Mall parking lot. He requested that the Board listen to the Planning Commission. Mr. Brian Edwards, Edwards Engineering, 9802 Maumelle Boulevard, North Little Rock, Arkansas, stated he is representing The Peaks Limited Partnership and did the civil engineering site work and related work and would yield his time to Mr. Ernie Peters, traffic engineer. Mr. Jim West, 456 Lake Hamilton Drive, said that Mr. Reis had mentioned a traffic survey had been done; and if the traffic survey were not conducted in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, which is a federal regulation administered by the Federal Highway Department in Washington, DC, then that traffic survey has no meaning. He added this traffic survey has to be conducted by a certified traffic engineer; and if the developer does not have one on staff, he must either hire a graduate degree traffic engineer or make arrangements with the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department to furnish one. He pointed out this will be placing another 400 to 800 cars on that road, which is only 18 feet wide. He stated where Central crosses, there is a large drainage pipe that comes from Temperance Hill Mall, runs across the parking lot and underneath the mall buildings where Kroger is located. He stated in dry conditions, there is always water draining through there, so that is the natural drainage of Board of Directors Meeting 11 September 18, 2006 at 7:00 P.M. the property. On the back side of this property, that water drains down to three ponds that accumulate water and goes under Lakeland Drive into Lake Hamilton. He said if they continue the same drain pipe that runs from Temperance Hill Mall under Central, underneath the Mall parking lot and underneath the buildings, and continue that drainage pipe on down and then backfill that, they will have plenty access for their road to put their entrance and exits out on Lakeland Drive as opposed to Lake Hamilton Drive. He stated there is already plenty of land to widen that road. He pointed out the developer has not addressed where they are going to get fire protection for the units if there is an emergency and how are they going to get the equipment in that area. He said there is the Lake Hamilton Volunteer Fire Department and questioned if they have the equipment to service another 300 residential units or if the City has the capacity. Mr. Ernie Peters, traffic engineer, with Peters and Associates, 234 Valley Club Circle, Little Rock, Arkansas, said he was present to answer any questions. Director Maruthur stated that in his traffic study, he has not factored in the expected growth on Highway 7 South and the widening of Higdon Ferry Road, which will empty out traffic. She expressed concerned with the existing traffic with the trees there at the present time. She commented that she is not saying it should not be developed because something will go there eventually. However, it is the location of 264 units with all of their needs and the amount of asphalt and concrete that will saturate this area. She said she did not find anything in his report about the other growth, not just this development, but Highway 7 South and the widening of Higdon Ferry Road. She pointed out at the present time, motorists are using Higdon Ferry Road in lieu of Central Avenue; but soon they will not want to use Higdon Ferry Road regardless of the number of lanes because if it continues to grow with too many curb cuts, etc., there will be problems. She pointed out these people do not have a Bill of Assurance and noted that the Wal-Mart Supercenter did not have a Bill of Assurance, and they were in the County but something was worked out. However, it did place more traffic on Central Avenue. She expressed concern that the growth of Hot Springs in this area is not being factored in, and Mr. Peters= traffic study does not reflect that growth. Mr. Peters commented that Director Maruthur is correct in that their study has not factored in growth in the Highway 7 corridor or the Higdon Ferry Road corridor. He said it is not that those are not legitimate issues of concern by the City, but the focus in this study, at the request of the developer and as they understood the issues raised at the Planning Commission meeting, related to what the conditions were and would be on Lake Hamilton Drive and the immediate proximity of this development. Board of Directors Meeting 12 September 18, 2006 at 7:00 P.M.  Mr. Jim Watkins, 496 Lake Hamilton Drive, stated he is looking forward to becoming part of the city limits and is not against development of this property. However, if this project is built before the necessary street improvements are made, he said there will be a large traffic problem that will be inherited by the City. He noted that according to the plat, there are three entrances. One is the Mall just north of the Cinema Theater, and he heard this entrance may not be allowed. Regardless if it is or is not, the traffic problem on Lake Hamilton Drive, spanning behind the Mall to Lakeland Drive and out to Central, will have to be addressed. He questioned who should be responsible for the improvement and who is going to pay for it. He mentioned the streets will have to be widened the length of Lake Hamilton Drive and curbs and gutters and sidewalks should be installed, and the developer should be responsible for the costs. Also, proper provisions are not in the plan to support the increase in traffic that result from the construction of this project. Ms. Dorothy Skallerup, 322 Lake Hamilton Drive, said she understands before the City can take this property in, it has to be zoned R-1, Residential, Single-Family; and in order to approve it, it has to be zoned to R-4, which tells her the master plan for the City and the five miles surrounding it intended this to be residential and not R-4. She stated if homeowners are trying to sell a home that is facing three-story apartments, the value is going to decrease and will be a delay in selling it. She said she has not heard any comments regarding a buffer zone. Regarding annexation, she was told it is in the event they annex, which is not a done deal. She stated that the State Environmental Agency has fined them $12,300. She reported they did not get an environmental permit and have allowed silt, paint and cement into the lake. Also, there is a small pond that is half-full of vegetation, whereas it was a nice pond. However, there is now vegetation creeping under the causeway into the lake at the Williamson Marina and will run into the lake. She stated those apartments are now 224 units; and if they had 264 apartments, there are now 528 apartments. Of those, the 264 are coming out on Lake Hamilton Drive. She said they were told that 38 of the Peak Development, which is 48 units are going to be government-assisted. Now the residents are told that is 14 percent. She questioned if that is for the whole total and no government-assisted in the others. Regarding the traffic study, she said she was not aware of any traffic study. She commented that she lives on a hilly, curvy, and narrow, two-lane road; and they to go over the yellow line because there is very little visibility. Also, the road is already being used by mechanics from the Ford and Cadillac dealerships who test their cars. She stated they have not seen the traffic study and know nothing about it. As to the fire protection, she said the City tried to annex them a number of years ago but decided against it because the City would have to build a fire station and with this project, that should be a consideration. Board of Directors Meeting 13 September 18, 2006 at 7:00 P.M.  Mr. Ronald Cox, 288 Lake Hamilton Drive, said he has owned his property for over 26 years; and his home represents a sizeable part of his net worth. He said he purchased the property because of the beautiful lake location and heavily wooded area that was mostly made up of owner-occupied homes, which was very important. He also thought the value of his property would increase over time. He commented that he objected to the proposed apartment project for the following reasons: (1) it is contrary to the housing profile of the area; (2) it will dramatically increase the density of the neighborhood. Now, that they understand that there are 264 units, he said the density is going to increase dramatically from what appeared to be a modest initial proposal; (3) it will negatively impact the value of their property; and (4) as a homeowner, it will not provide any major benefit to the neighborhood or the homeowners. He said it seemed that low-income housing, whatever portion of this entire project it represents, should really provide an uplift to a community, thus encouraging further investments which would benefit that community. He pointed out in looking at the first sentence in the Mission Statement of HUD=s Office of Housing, it states that it should contribute to building and preserving healthy neighborhoods and communities. He said that this proposal does just the opposite. Mr. Tim Farrell, 384 Hamilton Drive, said the original proposal was for three buildings and 48 units with one entrance on Lake Hamilton Drive onto an 18-foot country road; and that was denied. He said the denial was due mainly to the added traffic to existing, unsafe conditions. He pointed out that The Peaks is now proposing additional nine buildings and a total of 264 units, which is five times the number of units still going in and out of Lake Hamilton Drive. He said they started with 48 units and one access on Lake Hamilton Drive. Now, they have 264 units and two accesses to Lake Hamilton Drive; and even if the proposed back access to the Mall is worked out and that is successful, the formula still means more traffic on Lake Hamilton Drive than the originally denied proposal. He said this is about public safety and requested that the Board deny the appeal. Mr. Q. Byrum Hurst, Jr. said there is not one property owner in this neighborhood who is in favor of this project. He stated that he has owned property at 346 Lake Hamilton Drive since 1978 and has lived there for the last eight years and has personal knowledge of how dangerous Lake Hamilton Drive can be. He also spoke of increased pedestrian traffic. He pointed out that Director Maruthur was correct when she commented that Highway 7 South has shown tremendous growth; but at some point in time, infrastructure has to be in place before continuing to grant building projects such as this. He said when they appeared before the Planning Commission, there was one plan; but now there is another plan. He urged the Board to deny this appeal and allow the structure of the City Board of Directors Meeting 14 September 18, 2006 at 7:00 P.M. to catch up with some of the growth in the Highway 7 South area, particularly a project as large as this. Director Smith asked how many individual property owners are in the neighborhood, and Mr. Hurst replied that he saw a petition that was circulated and counted every single residence on Lake Hamilton Drive as having signed that petition but cannot remember the exact number. Director Daniel said that the Directors are elected to take care of the people within the boundaries of Hot Springs, and he is a property owner on Central Avenue by the Mall and on Higdon Ferry Road. He mentioned he had a condo on Lake Hamilton Drive for 17 years and is aware of the traffic. His concern is that the City would like to have 26 residents who reside on the lake come inside the city limits; and if that had happened, the Board would not be considering this tonight. He stated these people want the protection of the City but questioned if they are willing, as one unit, to annex into the City so this does not happen again because eventually someone is going to sell a piece of property down by the water, and there will be someone wanting to construct some condos. He said these residents will return asking the Board to help them. He stated unless they are willing to annex into the City, it is difficult for him to be a person, who is elected by city residents, to say he does not want 20 acres of real estate to come into the City with 400 residents. Mr. Hurst said he cannot speak for other residents regarding annexation; but even though they may be in the County by a few feet, they still look to the Directors as leaders of the City and believe the project is detrimental to the City because of the issues that Director Maruthur and other Directors pointed out. Director Daniel asked Mr. Gary Threadgill, Chairman of the Planning Commission when the Commission denied this if it was his impression that the four acres were going to be in or were all 20 acres going to come in and have more than one access into the project. Mr. Threadgill replied when it was brought before the Planning Commission, it was brought in as 48 units at the southeast corner. The Commission questioned them about the other part of the 19 acres and why they would not develop it at the same time. They stated they were probably going to develop that in the future. The Commission also asked them about an alternate exit or entrance other than onto Lake Hamilton Drive, and they said they did not have one; and there was not going to be one. They were also questioned about the 18-foot width on Lake Hamilton Drive. Mr. Threadgill stated with a County trash truck coming, other motorists have to pull off the side of the road; and there is no way the two can pass because it is too small. He stated the Commission was Board of Directors Meeting 15 September 18, 2006 at 7:00 P.M. looking at the 48 units and the width of the road, and that would be 96 more cars, twice a day, over 200 vehicles traveling in and out of this area each day, in addition to the other vehicles. He mentioned the developer has now planned on 264 units and the full 19 acres. He said the Commission has not seen a preliminary site plan, nor has it seen a DRC Review from the Fire Marshall or Police Chief on whether the development is in good shape or the water and sewer. He advised that what the Commission looked at and what it asked them to try to do, the developer was in opposition; and the Planning Commission went to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. He noted if that increased traffic on that small of a road, it would be a hazard to the neighborhood. Now, they are wanting to double that to 528 cars, twice a day with the same 18-foot wide road. He commented that the developer needs to do some serious consideration. Director Daniel asked if any consideration was given to an easement for the road in the plan, and Mr. Threadgill stated he has not seen this new development package. He added when the Planning Commission saw it, it was four acres, and the Commission has not seen the 19.4-acre development. Director Daniel said he needs to hear comments from the Police Chief and Fire Chief before he can vote on this issue. City Manager Kent Myers advised that the Development Review Committee has not reviewed the entire development, which is the normal process. He said that he agreed with Mr. Threadgill that the normal process has not been followed for the entire development presented tonight. Director Maruthur said she feels the Board may send this back to the Planning Commission, but it still is not going to change the fact that there is a traffic problem there at the present time; and all that is there are trees. She stressed there are some environmental problems, which is her concern. She stated there are existing residents as opposed to new people coming into the City; and as far as mentioning a protection of people in the County, she pointed out the City protected the people by the old Music Mountain Jamboree; and there was entire community that came to the Board for protection. However, the area they wanted protected was in the City. She said the Board did the same consideration for the people who live behind the new Wal-Mart Supercenter off Buena Vista, and those people are now in the City. She commented there are benefits to coming into the City, but the City is in the County; and the Board represents these people. She stated when the Directors are elected to the Board, it not just for their district but for the entire city and the effect it has on people in the County because if they are treated right, they will want to annex into the City. Board of Directors Meeting 16 September 18, 2006 at 7:00 P.M.  Director Weatherford asked for a clarification since this resolution is for an appeal, and they are appealing what the Planning Commission denied, which is 48 units and 4.3 acres. He pointed out it is not for this entire project, which has not been before the Planning Commission. City Attorney Brian Albright said that he thinks what Director Weatherford is speaking of is the Board Action Request Form where the discussion portion speaks to 48 units on 4.3 acres. He explained that all appeals from the Planning Commission to the Board are heard de novo, and it was his understanding they had submitted an amended site plan, which is what is before the Board. Director Weatherford said they are presenting that to the Board instead of the Planning Commission. Director Edwards commented this property is going to be developed now or at a later time. If it is annexed, the City will increase in population and receive additional funds. Director Maruthur said on page 1 of the traffic study conducted by Peters and Associates, it says 264 residential apartments, which is Phase I; but they have not factored in the impact of the growth of the area. She pointed out it is not a matter of developing the area but how it is developed and does this fit. She stressed this is about the residents and their quality of life and their investment. Mr. Keith Richardson, with Rich Smith Development, 9800 Maumelle Boulevard, North Little Rock, Arkansas, said that in the first page of the traffic study, it says that Phase I is 48 apartments. At some point in the future, they will build the balance of the project. He said it will be a market rate project and will not be affordable housing from that part of it. He advised they do not currently own the property but are going to purchase the property this week or the first of next week regardless of what the Board decides tonight. He stated they never tried to deceive the community or the Planning Commission. He stated the Planning Commission and people in the community wanted to know what the rest of the property is going to be, and they addressed that. He said they did not have to do the traffic study but did it voluntarily and hired Mr. Peters to do the traffic study on the existing traffic count at the present time and how it would affect it with the 48 units but also once they fully build out to the 264 units, how it is going to affect Lake Hamilton Drive. He stated they accept the fact that the City would prefer an alternate access, and they will get that. He said if they cannot get the Mall, they will find another access point. Board of Directors Meeting 17 September 18, 2006 at 7:00 P.M.  In light of the magnitude of this issue and new developments that have been presented tonight on both sides, Director Smith made a motion, duly seconded by Director Weatherford, to table this issue for a minimum of 30 days and refer this back to the Planning Commission. Upon discussion, City Attorney Brian Albright asked for clarification if he is asking that it be remanded back to the Planning Commission or that it be tabled and heard by the Board at a subsequent meeting. Director Smith stated that he is making the motion to remand it back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Richardson asked if this was not an appeal for 48 units from the Planning Commission, and Director Weatherford responded that is what he thought; but others say it is for 216 units. City Attorney Brian Albright explained that the resolution on the table says that is for the approval of a revised site plan. Director Weatherford pointed out that the Board cannot get ahead of the Planning Commission. Mr. Richardson said they are fine to appeal just the 48 units if that is what the Board chooses to do. Mayor Bush then called for a vote on the motion to remand the issue back to the Planning Commission; and upon roll call, the following voted Aaye@: Directors Daniel, Jones, Smith, Weatherford, and Bush, total 5. Voting Ano@: Directors Edwards and Maruthur, total 2; motion carried. City Attorney Brian Albright stated that the result of the motion is that this matter will be remanded back to the Planning Commission with direction to take more fact-finding and bring something back to the Board. 17 Proposed Resolution No. R-06-298 A resolution entitled, AA RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE LEASE ADDENDUM NO. 5 WITH AIRBORNE FLYING SERVICE FOR INSTALLATION OF UNDERGROUND FUEL TANKS,@ was taken from the agenda and read by title only. Board of Directors Meeting 18 September 18, 2006 at 7:00 P.M.  A motion was made by Director Edwards, duly seconded by Director Smith, that the resolution be adopted as read. Upon discussion, Mr. Connie Meskimen, attorney representing Airborne Flying Service, stated they presented this matter to the Airport Advisory Commission several weeks ago; and the Commission voted 4-1 to allow Mr. Jolly Higdon to install underground fuel tanks. He explained that Airborne Flying Service is an ambulance service and an air charter service that has been in business at the Airport for 28 years and employs about 15 people. He stated that Hot Springs Airport has a monopoly on the sale of fuel, and the federal government requires the Airport to allow a 135 air taxi operator, such as Airborne Flying Service, to self-fuel their own aircraft. He pointed out they compete with people all over the United States who self-fuel their own aircraft, and there are some savings associated with that. In addition, Airborne Flying Service is in a position to where they can buy fuel when they think fuel is low. He advised that Airborne Flying Service wants to position its tanks at its A-1 Hangar. He stated that Airborne Flying Service launches its air ambulance flights at all hours of the day and night on Hangar A-1 and wants to install two, 10,000-gallon fiberglass state-of-the-art tanks with monitoring walls around them. He advised they have to put in underground tanks because of the safety issue, pointing out they are close enough to the Highway 70 corridor that the fire district requires underground tanks. He stated Mr. Mark Perin is present from the Southern Company if there are any technical questions. He said there have been proposals made by management at the Airport, and these proposals involve Mr. Jolly Higdon and Airborne Flying Service putting in above-ground tanks at the Hot Springs Fuel Farm, which is about one-half mile from his operation. That would require his purchasing two fuel trucks, trucking his fuel across the Airport and fueling his aircraft, which they think is unreasonable. He stated that having above-ground tanks at the A-4 Hangar is not a good idea because it has a tremendous slope. He stated Mr. Higdon has also agreed that with the installation of these tanks, he will provide a Letter of Credit or a Performance Bond. If these tanks need to be removed, he will pay to have them removed. He said the City of Hot Springs is the name of the insured on the liability insurance policy, plus these underground tanks will have monitoring wells and sensors and will also have with them a liability pool policy in case there are any problems. He said Mr. Higdon is asking that the Board accept the findings of the Airport Advisory Committee and allow him install underground fuel tanks. Director Daniel asked if the aircraft sits there with empty tanks, and Mr. Meskimen said that weight is a tremendous consideration in an aircraft. He added they cannot just Board of Directors Meeting 19 September 18, 2006 at 7:00 P.M. fill an aircraft up since they do not know how far they are going and do not know the weight of the patient or the nurse. Director Daniel stated it appears if they are going to fuel up, they have plenty of time to move the plane and fuel up; and Mr. Meskimen replied they do not have the time since these are air ambulance flights. He advised that from the time the pilot makes his calculations, it is about a 30-minute process. Mr. Meskimen said that he distributed the FAA=s interpretation of the grant assurances that he referred to earlier, and it says the FAA has concluded that Athe existence of an exclusive right to conduct any aeronautical activity at an airport limits the usefulness of the airport and deprives the public of the benefits of competitive enterprise. The airport may not refuse to permit an air carrier, air taxi or flight school to fuel its own aircraft. Any unreasonable restriction imposed on the owners or operators of aircraft regarding the servicing of their own aircraft and equipment, may be construed as a violation of this policy.@ He said Mr. Higdon has made a business decision that he wants to refuel his own aircraft. Director Smith mentioned that he is comfortable with the underground tanks and is going to ask that he double-wall them with the necessary warning apparatus that he assumes can be hooked up with a double-wall tank. Mr. Perin stated that is exactly correct. Director Smith stated he wanted him to have the same economic advantages as his competitors and does not want the City to hold him back or place him at a disadvantage. However, he is uncomfortable with the fact that the City has had to take care of some underground storage tanks in the past that were left over by former tenants. He stressed he did not want the City to get stuck with that bill; therefore, the City needs to restrict how that is going to be handled. Mr. Meskimen said that he is passing out a proposal for the Southern Company that they have no problem making that a part of the motion, if the Board so desires, for the removal of the tanks and resurfacing of the area where the tanks go. He stated he believes that Airborne Flying Service is willing to post a Letter of Credit or a Performance Bond which will increase with the Consumer Price Index every year for the term of this lease so that the City will not be burdened with removing these tanks if somebody later does not want to use them. He pointed out that many problems with tanks in the past have been that they are metal tanks when anybody could put a tank in the ground that Board of Directors Meeting 20 September 18, 2006 at 7:00 P.M. wanted to without proper approval. He advised these are fiberglass tanks and are exactly like Mr. Perin had installed at Central Flying Service. Mr. Perin said they installed some fiberglass-coated steel tanks at the Batesville Airport and completed that project last month. Also, there is one at Central Flying Service and Little Rock National Airport, where they have four, 20,000 gallon and two, 10,000 gallon, single-wall, steel tanks with an epoxy exterior coating. Texarkana Airport has a 20,000-gallon and a 10,000-gallon single-wall underground tank. He stated the proposal they have provided to Airborne Air Ambulance and are presenting tonight for approval is state-of-the-art equipment. Director Smith said he is concerned about the issue if they put up a Performance Bond or a Letter of Credit, and the issue is transferability should they decide in a couple of years from now they want to move. He pointed out their Letter of Credit expires and their Performance Bond goes away. He emphasized that he wants something to continue that guarantees to the City of Hot Springs that money-wise, it will be taken care of. City Attorney Brian Albright advised that can be addressed several ways. First, any assignment of Mr. Higdon=s lease at the Airport would have to be approved by the Board; therefore, the City could require that they post a bond to replace the one that Airborne Flying Service has put up. However, he expressed concern if there were a termination of the lease through some situation other than a voluntary termination. He asked if these monitors would notify the City immediately whether there has been any leakage or contamination, and Mr. Perin said that they would. City Attorney Brian Albright asked if there is some mechanism by which the City could also have access to the read-outs on these, and Mr. Perin advised that the monitor wells are checked on a monthly basis, and the system that is in the tank has a console inside the office can be set to monitor on a daily basis. Also, the State requires at least one reading every 30 days. City Attorney Brian Albright said the Board needs to discuss the possibility of having the line of credit or the bond to not be terminated until 60 days after termination of the lease, whether it is voluntary or involuntary. Mr. Meskimen said they would not have a problem with that. He pointed out the City might also receive some benefit if Mr. Higdon=s lease were involuntarily terminated because there are two state-of-the-art tanks that become the property of the City. He said he would strongly recommend that Mr. Higdon consider a double-wall tank if that is what the Board says. Director Maruthur pointed out there are changes in technology, and she has concerns with lighting hitting a tank and terrorism. She said that it sounds as if Mr. Higdon Board of Directors Meeting 21 September 18, 2006 at 7:00 P.M. has all of his bases covered, including comments from the City Attorney regarding the contract, the Performance Bond or Letter of Credit, the monitoring wells, the censors, and the vote of the Airport Advisory Committee recommending this. She stated that the City needs to accommodate this emergency service. Mr. George Downie, Airport Director, stated that Airborne Flying Service submitted this request in June the first time, and the Airport Advisory Committee asked the staff to get an opinion from the FAA before deciding on this issue. City Attorney Brian Albright wrote a letter to the FAA, and they responded August 4 that the Airport was not in conflict with the Airport Grant Assurances. Not in conflict with Airport Grant Assurances assured him that the Airport was not placing any unreasonable standards covering the refueling of aircraft. Under these same grant assurances, the City, as the owner of the Airport, may establish reasonable standards; and he feels this has been done. In this particular case, the Airport is requesting that the fuel tanks be placed above ground adjacent to the current fuel farm and Airborne transport fuel to its hangar by fuel trucks the same way the Airport does. Based on their past fuel consumption, this may be only once a month for the AV gas truck and maybe once a week for the Jet-A truck. He said they do not feel this is unreasonable, and that is all depending on the size of the fuel truck they choose to operate. He stated Mr. Higdon claims this is unsafe or unreasonable, but the Airport considers it a part of everyday business. He added that fuel trucks coming and going is a standard operational procedure within the boundaries of the Airport. The location that Airborne Flying Service proposed is adjacent to Hangar A-1 and underground, and the Airport staff has several issues with this location. It is only a few hundred feet from a storm drainage system leading to Lake Hamilton. It is underground, thereby requiring removal if the tenant at this location does not require a tank. If a future tenant comes in and does not want to use these tanks, the EPA will require removal of underground tanks if not in use. He pointed out even though they are willing to put up a bond for removal, this bond will need to be amended annually due to the constant cost increases in removing underground tanks. He added even though these tanks meet all EPA requirements and leak detections, that does not remove the fact that it could be days or even 30 days before a leak is detected and/or corrected. As stated by the environmental consultant, Mr. Allen Stanich of Diversified Environmental Consultants Service, the migratory potential for underground tanks is much higher than for above-ground tanks. He further states while the below-grade installation relies primarily on inventory control measurements and monitoring wells, a leak may not be detectable for weeks or months with this type of control. He further stated that the above-ground system is easily detectable by visual inspections and a place adjacent to the fuel farm, it would be inspected daily and in some cases twice a day. In discussing liability, he asked Mr. Stanich which represents the greatest liability to the landowner (City of Hot Springs), the underground or above-ground Board of Directors Meeting 22 September 18, 2006 at 7:00 P.M. tanks; and Mr. Stanich responded by this statement: ABased on the worst-case scenario that assumes a major discharge of fuel, the below-ground represents clean-up costs that can run as high as 20 times as a similar above-ground tank spill because of migratory potential under the ground that is not detectable. In the past, the Airport removed metal tanks, and four of them were left by previous tenants. Contaminated soil from these underground tanks remained on Airport property for eight years while they did testing of that soil on a six-month basis. He advised they turned the soil and had it in storage on Airport property before they were given permission by the Arkansas PC&E to utilize the soil as fill under a roadway this year. The attorney also wrote the FAA, and the FAA responded by informing Mr. Meskimen that in review of the information provided by the City Attorney, the City does not conflict with the Airport grant assurances and further stating that the policy decision regarding installation of above-ground fuel tanks versus underground is a local decision. He said the Fire Marshall recommends that these tanks be placed above ground and adjacent to the current fuel farm, where any fire or leak will represent the least threat to property, persons and buildings. He pointed out it is the Board=s decision on whether or not the City wants underground fuel tanks at the Airport again. If approved, then the provisions of the same Airport grant assurances that gives him the right to install underground tanks, other tenants will have the right to put in underground tanks; therefore, the Board is setting a precedent with this vote tonight. He advised he has been talking to several maintenance companies, and they will have the option to fuel their own aircraft just as Mr. Higdon does. Also, because Mr. Higdon has decided to go this route, it is a loss of revenue to the Airport; and the loss in annual revenue in contract fuel handling fees is approximately $54,000 a year, which is based on his current usage. He stated on contract fuel sales, the Airport does not make a lot of profit and only makes $.45 a gallon when the Airport handles his fuel. Based on Airport property Management Policies, the Airport will be able to recoup some of this loss because he will have to pay fees and will have to purchase annual permits on types of aircraft he plans to fuel. Overall, net loss to the Airport is around $46,000. He also stated that the Airport possibly could utilize these tanks in the future; but in order to do that, the Airport would have to have an agreement with the next tenant for that building. The Airport would have to travel across his leasehold and would have to move aircraft trucks across this person=s leasehold to fuel aircraft, which is not feasible and probably would not be acceptable to the next tenant. Although the Airport Advisory Committee voted 4-1, the Airport staff feels this is not in the best interest of the City or the Airport. Director Daniel commented that aboveground tanks are more accessible than below-ground tanks. He said that Mr. Higdon can store the fuel in his truck at his facility and make one trip a week, which is the same as having a small tank. Mr. Downie said Board of Directors Meeting 23 September 18, 2006 at 7:00 P.M. that it depends on the size of the truck he gets, noting some of the largest trucks are 3,000 gallons; and some of the smallest trucks are 750 gallons. Director Daniel questioned the cost of a 3,000-gallon truck, and Mr. Downie replied that they recently purchased a new 750-gallon AV gas truck and a 2,200 gallon Jet-A; and the cost was $187,000 for two new trucks. Mr. Downie said he has met with the FAA, and they have assured him by two letters (one to Attorney Connie Meskimen and one to City Attorney Brian Albright) that the Airport is not placing any unreasonable standards covering the refueling of aircraft. Director Maruthur questioned if they have underground tanks in Little Rock, and Mr. Downie replied that it varies from airport to airport. He added there are underground tanks at Northwest Regional and some are underground at Little Rock Airport. Director Maruthur said when she referred to terrorism, there is risk with tanks above ground and also accidents happen. She stated she did not like the idea of having above-ground fuel tanks if there is advanced technology. She also pointed out that lightning could hit the tank. She noted the Airport Advisory Committee approved this matter, and she is in favor of it. A motion was made by Director Smith, duly seconded by Director Maruthur, to amend the resolution to include a double wall tank, with the censored devices, and a bond for 60 days after the end of the lease; and upon roll call, the following voted Aaye:@ Directors Maruthur, Jones, Smith, Daniel, and Bush, total 5. Voting Ano@: Directors Weatherford and Edwards, total 2; motion carried. Mayor Bush then called for a vote on the motion to approve the resolution, as amended; and upon roll call, the following voted Aaye@: Directors Smith, Jones and Maruthur, total 3. Voting Ano@: Directors Daniel, Edwards, Weatherford, and Bush, total 4; motion failed. Whereupon the resolution was declared failed. 18 Proposed Resolution No. R-06-299 A resolution entitled, AA RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE INTENT OF THE HOT SPRINGS MUNICIPAL UTILITIES TO PROVIDE WASTEWATER SERVICES TO TRIPLE T AND B, INC. DEVELOPMENT, AMITY TRACT,@ was taken from the agenda and read by title only. Board of Directors Meeting 24 September 18, 2006 at 7:00 P.M.  A motion was made by Director Jones, duly seconded by Director Weatherford, that the resolution be adopted as read. Upon discussion, Mr. Don Cochran, Director of Utilities, explained that on February 6, 2006, the Board approved Resolution No. 6137 expressing the City=s intent to provide water and wastewater service to Copper Station, Amity Tract Development. This proposed development is in the general area of the City=s new Southwest Wastewater Treatment facility, but Kimzey Water District claims this territory or part of southwest Garland County as their water service area. Staff has met with representatives of Kimzey Water District to work out an arrangement where the City could provide water service to this area, but those negotiations have been unsuccessful. At this time, Triple T and B, a local developer, is working with the Copper Station properties as far as developing this Amity Tract and has submitted a request to the City for wastewater service only. It is staff=s understanding that Triple T and B will be working with Kimzey Water District to acquire water service for their development. In preliminary discussions with Triple T and B, they have requested that City staff develop proposed wastewater rates in two forms B a wholesale rate for treatment only and retail rate which would include treatment, operations, maintenance and the ownership of the system. The wholesale rate that the consultant presented was $3.46 per thousand gallons; retail rate is $6.27 per thousand gallons. He stated the developer would share some of the costs of operations and maintenance of the whole system with the retail rate. If the Board approves extending wastewater service to this development, staff is recommending that with either rate, the City bill the developer, the POA or the Kimzey Water District with a single-monthly bill and measure their wastewater flows through a single-master meter that would deliver wastewater flows to the treatment plant. This would make the POA or the Kimzey Water District responsible for billing the individual customers since they will not be City of Hot Springs water customers. Regarding the impact this development would have on expanding the wastewater facility, the development and build-out will be 1,500 homes, and they are projected to have that in 2012. The 1,500 homes would take up approximately 40 percent of the capacity of the new wastewater plant. If the area west of Lake Hamilton continues at its current growth rate and the build-out of these 1,500 homes, the City would have to start planning the design and financing of the plant expansion by 2010 and within the next two years be ready to go under construction for the expansion of the wastewater plant. He stated the developer would be subject to the wastewater impact fees, and the City=s current wastewater impact fee is $500 for a 5/8 inch residential meter. At the 1,500 homes, that would be approximately $750,000 in wastewater impact fees that would come back to the City. He mentioned this resolution is contingent on a satisfactory service agreement between the POA or the developer, the Kimzey Water District, and the City of Hot Springs. He stated there will have to be a very Board of Directors Meeting 25 September 18, 2006 at 7:00 P.M. detailed service agreement that addresses the billing, how the City is going to serve the development, and what the City=s responsibilities would be if it\ chooses to take the retail rate. As far as long-term fiscal impact with this agreement, if approved, that has not yet been determined. Director Smith questioned under the billing comments, using a single-master meter allowing the City to bill either the POA or the Kimzey Water District on a monthly basis. He asked if he was confident in the City=s ability to do that because the City is relying on them to bill their individual customers and then they will turn the money back to the City. Mr. Cochran advised they would be responsible for receiving those revenues from the individual customers. If the City bills the Kimzey Water District or the POA, their responsibility is to pay that one monthly bill. The City is not waiting for them to collect money from the individual customers, and they are responsible to pay that monthly bill to the City, which protects the City=s interest as far as not being able to bill the individual customers through the water meter. Mr. Bill Malone, 130 Hobson, said he is designing the lots for this project and is projecting approximately 300 golf course lots and about 1,200 other lots that will be off site. He said that 2012 might be a little optimistic as far as their time frame, but it is going to be one of the largest residential projects in the County other than Hot Springs Village. He pointed out the treatment site is adjacent to the project site. City Manager Kent Myers reported there has been some additional discussion with Mr. Malone about the possible sale of treated affluent for the golf courses. Instead of disposing of the affluent, there is a possibility the City could reuse it to water the golf courses and would be a good project for the City to consider. Mayor Bush then called for a vote on the motion to adopt; and upon roll call, the following voted Aaye@: Directors Maruthur, Jones, Smith, Weatherford, Edwards, Daniel, and Bush, total 7; motion unanimously carried. Whereupon the resolution was declared adopted. 19 Proposed Resolution No. R-06-300 A resolution entitled, AA RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO LARSON, BURNS AND SMITH TO DEVELOP A CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN AND ECONOMIC REPORT FOR KIMERY PARK EXPANSION,@ was taken from the agenda and read by title only. Board of Directors Meeting 26 September 18, 2006 at 7:00 P.M.  A motion was made by Director Smith, duly seconded by Director Weatherford, that the resolution be adopted as read. Upon discussion, Director Maruthur questioned if this is for a conceptual plan for $495,000 to consider purchasing 33 acres; and City Manager Kent Myers advised that approval of the resolution will contract $22,500 for a conceptual plan and economic impact report. Director Maruthur stated at the agenda meeting, it was stated that it was for 33 acres for $495,000 eventually. City Manager Kent Myers advised that is the listing price; although the pricing on that property is negotiable. He stated the City has not agreed to any pricing to-date, and that is something that would be well into the future. Director Maruthur said that she copied it down from the meeting and knows there were two other parcels, but she wanted to make sure the City wants to do the conceptual plan for $22,500 and might be considering the purchase of 33 acres for $495,000. Mayor Bush then called for a vote on the motion to adopt; and upon roll call, the following voted Aaye@: Directors Jones, Smith, Weatherford, Edwards, Daniel, and Bush, total 6. Voting Ano@: Director Maruthur; motion carried. Whereupon the resolution was declared adopted. 20 Proposed Ordinance No. O-06-75 An ordinance entitled, AAN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2770 PROVIDING FOR THE FURNISHING OF A BADGE AND AN IDENTIFICATION CARD TO EACH POLICE OFFICER WHO RETIRES AFTER TWENTY (20) YEARS OF ACTIVE DUTY WITH THE HOT SPRINGS POLICE DEPARTMENT,@ was taken from the agenda for consideration. A motion was made by Director Weatherford, 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 AShall the ordinance be passed as read?@ and upon motion of Director Daniel, duly seconded by Director Weatherford, that the ordinance be passed as read. Upon discussion, Police Chief Gary Ashcraft explained this cleans up an ordinance that was passed in the 1950's where the officers were to receive a metal identification tag on retirement. The Police Department would like to change that to conform to what it has been doing for the last several years, which is providing a small badge and an Board of Directors Meeting 27 September 18, 2006 at 7:00 P.M. identification card. It also allows the Chief of Police to award a retiring officer his badge that he wore while was on duty to be kept as a memento. Director Maruthur questioned when this will go into effect, and City Attorney Brian Albright advised that the effective date of the ordinance was September 1, 2006. Mayor Bush then called for a vote on the motion to adopt; and upon roll call, the following voted Aaye@: Directors Maruthur, Jones, Smith, Weatherford, Edwards, Daniel, and Bush, total 7; motion unanimously carried. Whereupon the ordinance was declared passed. 21 Proposed Ordinance No. O-06-76 An ordinance entitled, AAN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING GREATWOOD COURT AND FOXWOOD AS PUBLIC STREETS; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,@ was taken from the agenda for consideration. A motion was made by Director Weatherford, 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 AShall the ordinance be passed as read?@ and upon motion of Director Weatherford, duly seconded by Director Edwards, that the ordinance be passed as read. Upon discussion, Public Works Director Steve Mallett explained these streets meet all of the City=s criteria and recommend accepting them. Mayor Bush then called for a vote on the motion to adopt; and upon roll call, the following voted Aaye@: Directors Maruthur, Jones, Smith, Weatherford, Edwards, Daniel, and Bush, total 7; motion unanimously carried. Whereupon the ordinance was declared passed. OTHER BUSINESS 22 Board of Directors Items Board of Directors Meeting 28 September 18, 2006 at 7:00 P.M.  Director Edwards reported that he was approached by Ms. Theresa Sellers, who uses a motorized wheelchair, and would like to sponsor an ordinance to allow everyone who uses a wheelchair to have a flag attached to a pole on their wheelchair. Deputy City Manager Lance Hudnell advised that has been considered in the past, and most of the disabled community is opposed to that. However, staff can research it if the Board so desires. Director Edwards said that he may contact Ms. Sellers at 623-4653. 23 City Manager=s Report City Manager Kent Myers gave the following report: 1. On the Consent Agenda, the Board approved its Mission Statement, Values Statement, Vision Statement and Strategic Goals that are on the initial stages in the development of the Strategic Plan. About 500 surveys were submitted over the last several months, and he expressed appreciation to the citizens who submitted input for the Board=s consideration in developing those items, which will be referred to the department heads. Staff will start developing the Comprehensive Strategic Plan and present it to the Board in about three or four months for consideration. 2. He expressed appreciation to various City departments, particularly the Police Department, for their assistance in helping with the motorcycle rally; and positive comments were received about the Police Department. City staff is evaluating the event; and next Monday, he and Police Chief Gary Ashcraft will be meeting with Mr. Steve Arrison, Executive Director of the Advertising and Promotion Commission, to discuss some of the constructive comments that were made over the last several days. If the Board has any additional comments, those need to be submitted to him or Steve Arrison for the meeting on Monday. 3. Several Board Members have indicated an interest in holding another joint meeting with the Planning Commission and the Board of Zoning Adjustment. That meeting has been scheduled for Monday, October 9, at 5 p.m. He requested that agenda items be submitted at least a week prior to the meeting. 4. On Thursday, September 21, Hot Springs will be participating in the International Day of Peace. From 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., on the Hot Springs Greenway, there will be the Walk for Peace; and on Thursday from 6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., at the Exchange Street Parking Plaza, there will be Citywide Peace Celebration. This is open to the public and free of charge. Board of Directors Meeting 29 September 18, 2006 at 7:00 P.M.  5. There will be a discussion on the Board=s 2007 budget priorities at the first meeting in October. Director Maruthur stated that at the work session, Director Weatherford asked her to stay because he proposed the joint meeting with Planning and the Board of Zoning Adjustment, which she thinks is a good idea. However, the last few meetings that have been held, she has not been called about the availability on that date. City Manager Kent Myers pointed out there is a total of 20 individuals on the Board, the Planning Commission and the Board of Zoning Adjustment; and it is going to be difficult to select a date that will work for everyone=s schedule. He stated that he polled the Mayor and the Chairman of the Planning Commission, and that was the date they agreed upon. Director Maruthur said she knows it is 20 people, but at least the Board of Directors should be asked if they are available on that date as a starting point. Director Weatherford commented it is difficult to work around everyone=s schedule, and they just have to set a date. Director Maruthur said she did not get notified at all and received notice that it was already set. She said that she is asking in the future as a courtesy. City Manager Kent Myers noted that it is difficult to work around seven people=s schedules, and generally the chairman is called. Director Weatherford said if there is going to be meetings every two or three months with these groups, a date needs to be set for the next four or five meetings. City Manager Kent Myers stated they usually try to stay with Mondays because generally that is the day the Board has set aside for Board items. 24 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m., to meet again on Monday, October 2, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. ATTEST: _____________________ APPROVED:__________________ Lance Hudnell, City Clerk Mike Bush, Mayor Board of Directors Meeting 30 September 18, 2006 at 7:00 P.M. Board of Directors Meeting 31 September 18, 2006 at 7:00 P.M.