Board of Directors

MINUTES BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING MARCH 3, 2008, AT 7:00 P.M. The regular meeting of the Board of Directors was held on Monday, March 3, 2008, at 7:00 p.m., Board Chambers, City Hall, with Mayor Mike Bush presiding. The invocation was given by Ms. Terry Michau, and Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Mayor Bush. Mayor Bush called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 1 Roll Call Roll call was as follows: Present: Directors Peggy Maruthur, Elaine Jones, Steve Smith, Carroll Weatherford, Tom Daniel, and Mike Bush, total 6. Absent: Director Bill Edwards. 2 Approval of Agenda A motion was made by Director Jones, duly seconded by Director Maruthur, that the agenda be approved; and upon voice vote, the motion unanimously carried. 3 Approval of Minutes of February 19, 2008 Board Meeting A motion was made by Director Daniel, duly seconded by Director Jones, that the minutes of the February 19, 2008 Board Meeting be approved; and upon voice vote, the motion unanimously carried. 4 Recognition of Guests No guests were present for recognition.  CONSENT AGENDA The Consent Agenda consisted of the following: 5 Public Safety Report (February 20, 2008). 6 Proposed Resolution No. R-08-53 Authorizing the Mayor to Execute a Lease Agreement Between the City and Aerotech International, LLC., for Hangar A-5 at the Airport. 7 Proposed Resolution No. RB08-54 Authorizing an Agreement with Glazier Peau Water Improvement District No. 40; and Accepting Certain Improvements. 8 Proposed Resolution No. R-08-55 Approving a Certain Street Name as Garden View Circle. 9 Proposed Resolution No. R-08-56 Approving the Purchase of a Minibus for Hot Springs Intracity Transit Through the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department. 10 Proposed Resolution No. R-08-57 Certifying Local Government Endorsement of Business to Participate in the Tax Back Program (as Authorized by Section 15-4-2706 (d) of the Consolidated Incentive Act of 2003) [The Art Exchange]. 11 Proposed Resolution No. R-08-58 Approving the Assignment of Certain Property Liens to Lee C. Matous of CSA Investments, Inc. (210 Greenwood). A motion was made by Director Daniel, duly seconded by Director Maruthur, that the Consent Agenda be approved; and upon roll call, the following voted Aaye@: Directors Maruthur, Jones, Smith, Weatherford, Daniel, and Bush, total 6. Absent and not voting: Director Edwards; motion unanimously carried. Board of Directors Meeting 2 March 3, 2008, at 7:00 P.M.  OLD BUSINESS 12 Proposed Resolution No. R-08-59 A resolution entitled, AA RESOLUTION APPROVING A LETTER OF INTENT WITH SIEMENS BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES, INC. FOR CERTAIN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (WATER SYSTEM ENERGY AND WATER LOSS AUDIT),@ was taken from the agenda and read by title only. A motion was made by Director Weatherford, duly seconded by Director Jones, that the resolution be adopted as read. Upon discussion, Mr. Steve Mallett, Public Works Director, advised that at the last Board Meeting, this item included, in addition to the water loss audit, an energy audit for various city facilities. However, that portion, at the request of the Board, was removed. He received a revised Letter of Intent from Siemens in the amount of $65,000 to cover the water loss audit only which includes the accuracy of water meters in regard to age, model, and size. He stated a system-wide survey will include a random sample test of all meters up to two inches, including furnishing and pulling a minimum of 100 meters to replace existing meters pulled during a random sample testing procedure. Those meters will be sent to a third-party testing facility that will evaluate low, medium, and high flow; also, a physical survey of all large meters (2 2 inches and up), in-ground accuracy testing of a random sample of these large meters, and a data analysis of the entire water meter system; also, feasibility of automatic meter reading system if study warrants, efficiency of equipment at the two existing water treatment facilities with regard to pumps, motors, blowers, controls, etc.; efficiency of equipment at the one existing wastewater treatment facility on Davidson Drive and energy water conservation and usage. He advised that staff did not do anything different from the original rating and ranking but used the same rating and ranking and modified the scope of their services. Director Daniel said that Mr. Mallett had informed him that to replace a meter and put it in working order would cost about $30 each. He questioned how far $65,000 would go at $30 a meter and hire someone to start replacing meters on a daily basis Board of Directors Meeting 3 March 3, 2008, at 7:00 P.M. and that would be their job to refurbish and repair and replace meters. He stated that Mr. Mallett had told him that Simens would do it in about a year, but he has not heard any hard figures on what it would cost. He pointed out it is going to cost $65,000 for them to advise the City what it needs, but they have not given any figure on what it is going to cost per meter to replace them. Mr. Mallett advised that they will give the City a recommendation of the age, size, and brand of meters to be replaced but does not believe they will state all the meters in the system will be replaced because if the City were going to do that, it could contract somebody to replace all of the meters in the system. He stated that the City does not want to replace the good meters but only wants to replace the bad and is in the process at the present time of trying to replace the oldest meters in the system and get to possibly 100 to 200 per year. He mentioned the City is not keeping up with that rate and would need a full-time person to start replacing all of the meters. He added it may take a full-time person several years to get that work done if that is all they did because there are 32,000 meters, and they would not know which ones were good and which ones were bad. He noted they would just be on a wholesale meter change-out program. He said the City would like to know what areas to pinpoint and target; and if it chooses to go that route after they are through with the study, then the City can hire somebody at that point and replace the ones that they have recommended replacing. However, the City will also have other options; but as far as being able to finance that through performance contracting, that will be an option. He said there would be an option to hire a firm or person to come in and do some wholesale change-out much like they would, or the City could hire one or two extra people and have them do that for several years= time, which would be an ongoing process. He noted there would be several options on how the City handles it later, but he believes they are going to determine where the City gets the most for its money and also gives some recommendations on how much money the City can expect to see from replacing them. Director Daniel asked how far back does the City go where it can accurately tell how many meters it has installed that should be in running condition. He asked if the City could not eliminate those in the beginning, and Mr. Mallett said that the City is trying to eliminate the ones that it knows are 20 years or older. He pointed out there are certain brands of meters that may be 20 years old that are as accurate or more accurate than those of a different brand that may be five years old. He stated the City wants to get out of this study defining which meters are the most accurate and if it is worth saving $3 or $4 to buy the cheapest meter according to the bid or pay a few dollars more and get one that the accuracy is better at low flows and lasts years into the future. He noted they will provide the City a listing of meter brands, size, etc. and will Board of Directors Meeting 4 March 3, 2008, at 7:00 P.M. be able to estimate how much revenue the City is losing because he believes the $60,000 is going to be recovered fairly quickly. He said if it takes four or five years to get them changed out, then his opinion is that the City is losing revenue during that period of time it takes for it to be done in-house. Director Daniel said he did not realize the meters were that low cost and economical, and Mr. Mallett replied if the City goes to automatic meter reading, they will be; also, there are some of those in the system at the present time. He added about 1/10 of the meters at the present time are automatic meter read (AMR), and he would imagine one of the recommendations that will come out of this is going to be a system-wide automatic meter reading in which case the cost will be much greater. However, that will be the City=s option if it wants to proceed in that direction. Director Daniel questioned the cost of the automatic meter readers, and Mr. Mallett replied they are $250 each. He added that Mr. Hal Smith is present, with HD Supply (Census meters), which has several different systems. Mr. Mallett further stated there is one where the employee can touch-read, and one where they can drive by but have to be in a localized area to pick up the signals. He mentioned there are now basically satellite-read meters where they all either transmit to a satellite or a repeater antennae that transmits all of the numbers back at once. He stated from a billing standpoint, the Finance Department would like to get all of the numbers at the same time; and all of the billing cycle would come out at once. He said that is just one option they are going to present, and they are also going to present the cost, savings, and the payout. Also, they are going to look at the three plants that he mentioned in respect to all of the pumps, blowers, and aerators specific to wastewater treatment equipment. Director Smith asked if some of this could be done in-house, and Mr. Mallett replied that he is trying that now but not without hiring people. He stated the City could do as much as it wants to in-house by hiring additional staff and equipping them with vehicles and hiring them full-time on a job like this. However, it would take a while for those people to come in and once they go through the system and change it out, if it is it not time to do it again, then the City has these people on staff who have basically done the job and questioned what the City would do with them then. Director Smith asked how many of the meters that have been installed are 5, 10 and 20 years old, and Mr. Mallett advised that he knows there are 10 to 20 percent that are over 20 years old, which are the ones the City is trying to change out. He stated this past year, the City did not have extra manpower to do any; and the year before, it Board of Directors Meeting 5 March 3, 2008, at 7:00 P.M. did about 100. He pointed out the ideal system is not having anything in the system more than ten years old, and that is going to depend on accuracy, low flow, high flow, and how well some of these meters perform over time. City Manager Kent Myers noted that the City=s utility system is not a typical system, and there are some very old pumps, motors, and blowers, particularly at the water and wastewater plants. He added the older the equipment, the more inefficient it is. He pointed out the City has an opportunity with this energy audit to create some efficiencies in its system within a short period of time. If the City hires people, it will take a while to hire and train them, and it will take an extended period of time to do all of the work that Siemens is proposing. He said this could be five to ten years to create the efficiencies within the City=s system. He commented it is the Board=s decision if it wants to make the system more efficient now, or do a more graduated approach over a more extended period of time. He said staff is proposing to get it done now through Siemens and try to get their options identified, and the Board will have the ability to select from these options. Director Maruthur pointed out the City had a wastewater rate study and impact fees done in March 2004; and when the City increased the rates, the areas that the City Manager just mentioned were specifically identified as things that were going to be improved at the cost to the citizens. Therefore, she does not understand why this is being brought up. City Manager Kent Myers explained that the City still has an old system, and Director Maruthur said that she understands that; but the City raised the rates, and also implemented impact fees. She stressed that the Board needs to decide and is stewards of the taxpayers= money. She noted there are several questions that need to be answered. She questioned the catalyst for this and noticed on the front page of the newspaper that the City did not know where its water was going; but after that, everything was okay. She said then it was determined something needed to be done to find out where the water was going. She stated she would like to know what the City has in place to measure the loss of water at the present time. Mr. Mallett explained this is a part of that, and staff is proposing everything it can do to correct this problem as quickly as possible. He added there are leak detection groups that come in, and two leaks have already been found and estimated approximately one million gallons a day; and those leaks were repaired. He stated the City is losing revenue and water, and the water is going through the meters. However, no one is paying for it; and the City is not accounting for it. He said the Board of Directors Meeting 6 March 3, 2008, at 7:00 P.M. revenues will go up to the point where it will offset the $65,000. However, if the City waits for a five to ten-year period, $65,000 is going to look cheap to the amount of revenue the City continues to lose every year. Director Maruthur asked if it could be a software and hardware problem, or could be an employee problem. She stated it could be many things that are not going to be covered by this. Mayor Bush questioned why she thought it would be an employee problem, and Director Maruthur explained that it could be from shortage of employees. She pointed out Director Smith had mentioned having a scheduling of the age of the meters; and if it is just a matter of the age, then the City could begin the process of replacing the old meters. She commented that apparently, that is not the only problem; and there are some other problems built in. She pointed out that City Manager Kent Myers stated the City has a unique situation, and she thought part of that was remedied when the City raised rates and decided, even though she voted against it, on the impact fees. She said the City needs to make sure the money is being well spent and when people get their bill, they feel good that they are paying for an accurate reading and that the City has good equipment and enough employees to provide the services that the City charges. She said if the City were to take the 32,000 meters at $30 per housing, that would be $960,000. Mr. Mallett replied if the Board chose, that is something the City could pay for out of the Water Fund. Director Maruthur mentioned that the newer meters would not have to be replaced, but there is nothing in place to measure the efficiency of the meters. She questioned the cost of a meter tester, and Mr. Hal Smith said that a regular six-meter tester bench will probably be $25,000. Director Maruthur advised that she called another city and received a quote of $12,000, and Mr. Mallett stated a smaller one probably would be that price. Director Maruthur pointed out if the City were just to buy a tester, that could be a short-term fix for one facet of the problem. However, the City needs to make sure it is going to allocate the funds for something that is going to be effective and not have another glitch in the process. She said that she did not understand the $20,000 less and would like a full and detailed explanation on the methodology used to come up with the $20,000 and how that is justified. Mr. Mallett explained said that he originally went to Siemens with the water loss only, and they said they provided those services. He informed them that he would present it to the Board for its decision. As far as the meter test bench , he stated that he is prosing that after everything is caught up. He added this is just to get the City caught Board of Directors Meeting 7 March 3, 2008, at 7:00 P.M. up to where it can get started and then have the meter test bench. He noted if the City goes with an AMR system, then there will be a lot of meter readers who now are not reading meters; and they can do meter testing and help keep up and provide faster and better service to the customers. He said he did not see the City getting rid of any jobs but just reallocating resources so the City can stay caught up. Director Smith pointed out this is something the City should have been doing 10 or 15 years ago. Ms. Diane Silverman said when she read the Siemens contract for water meter audit was $65,000, she was concerned and contacted a few former directors. She stated she did not believe it is possible that $20,000 would be taken off for the energy audit; and when she asked to see a copy of Siemens proposal, she did not see any scope of services. However, something may have been submitted since then. She noted that at the last Board Meeting, there was not any scope of services for this water audit, and she does not understand how they arrived at $65,000. She commented that water meters and water are visible and are not that hard to audit. However, when referring to energy, electricity and gas, this is not visible and the details are very complex. She mentioned at the last meeting, Mr. Bob Driggers warned everyone not to get into a performance contract. She said she made calls to utility directors in several cities who informed her there were no cities in Arkansas that have entered into performance contracts. She stated she found at least three in Texas and has the names and phone numbers of those people and cities; and of the three from which she was able to get information, none expressed satisfaction in Siemens performance contracts in which they were involved. She pointed out there is a lot of expertise in the community, such as Mr. Bob Driggers, who has done water and energy audits. Another individual is Mr. Newton White, who owns Instrument and Supply, Inc. and has a division in Tennessee and Oklahoma but lives in Hot Springs. She said he has been involved in water and wastewater treatment equipment and controls all over the United States. She stated the City can spend from $12,000 to $30,000 and get its own testing service. She commented that people she has spoke with have said that any city with more than 30,000 meters needs to have its own testing equipment because meters sometimes after five years can lose as much as 20 percent efficiency. She said the City may or may not have to hire somebody; however, if the City bought its own testing equipment for $20,000, there are local people who can manage and is sure Mr. Driggers would do it free of charge if he were asked. She added at the same time they are doing the study, they could be training a couple of people, and the City would have ongoing efficiency in the system. She mentioned if someone comes in and does an energy/water testing audit, they are going to do it again in a few years; and this needs to Board of Directors Meeting 8 March 3, 2008, at 7:00 P.M. be done on an ongoing basis. She noted if the City is talking about saving money, then it pays to hire somebody to save the money. She stated the money in Hot Springs needs to stay in Hot Springs, and the City needs to utilize local people who are available that have as much expertise if not more than some of the national companies. She said she believes this needs to be looked into further in an appropriate fashion. Director Maruthur said she heard Ms. Silverman mention $12,000, and Ms. Silverman replied there are three companies regarding the testing equipment (Honeywell, Johnson, and Siemens). She stated the City can get testing equipment anywhere from $12,000 to $30,000; and it is the City=s brand new. Director Maruthur asked where she heard about the $12,000 because she made calls and wondered if it was the same people. Ms. Silverman said that it was from Newton White and a couple of people in Texas. City Manager Kent Myers advised that Mr. Driggers submitted a proposal today at 4:30 p.m., but this is limited to the electrical energy audit only; and he did not submit anything for the water audit. He said that will be put in with the other proposals. He advised that Mr. Mallett is circulating Request for Proposals; and he anticipates getting three or four more proposals, which will be a separate item to be considered by the Board in the next month or so. Director Maruthur said this was presented at the last Board Meeting and was tabled for two weeks, and it was because of Mr. Driggers. She then asked to hear from Mr. Driggers. Mr. Bob Driggers stated he would not do the gas audit for free but would recommend the City=s purchasing its own test bench, and those who manufacture the test bench are the only two U.S. manufacturers B Ford and Mars. He explained that the City can buy the sophisticated test bench that the computer controls everything and gives a printout and can do ten meters at one time (large meters on one side and small meters on the other side) for $30,000. He stated there is a manual brand new test bench from Mars for $12,000 but can purchase the Ford somewhat cheaper than that. He mentioned the City might want to consider spending $65,000 purchasing the equipment. He advised that the American Waterworks Association informed him that once a meter is five or ten years old, it is quite common to have 20 percent that is not being registered. He stated that the audit will be able to tell which meters to replace; and he will advise the City which meters to replace for free, which is to replace the large ones. He noted all the residential meters eventually will be placed on a rotating basis. He said the City does not need to buy new vehicles and equipment but perhaps add an Board of Directors Meeting 9 March 3, 2008, at 7:00 P.M. employee to operate the meter test. He questioned if the City could not better spend this money because it is going to find out very quickly which meters are more inaccurate when the City is doing them. Director Maruthur asked if he could explain performance contracts, and Mr. Driggers advised that he does not do performance contracts anymore. He added they typically and nearly always end up in controversy and problems. He said that he met with the City Manager and Mr. Mallett pointing out the problems with performance contracting. He urged them to talk to cities and school districts that have been in them, and he can provide names and phone numbers. Director Smith questioned how the performance contract works, and Mr. Driggers advised that the City pays for whatever equipment it is installing, and school districts like them because they can replace inefficient lighting and air conditioning at no cost because the performance contractor will provide the capital cost for that equipment, install it, and starts paying them back from the energy savings derived. He added it is simple when replacing inefficient lighting or replacing low EER ratings with high EER ratings and inefficient water meters with efficient meters and generate enough savings to pay but end up paying based on the primary problem, which is taking these people=s word for how much is actually being saved. He said he mentioned to City Manager Kent Myers that the superintendent of a particular school took him seven years and a lot of lawyers and several thousand dollars to get out of a five-year performance contract. He noted that many of them do not have terms on them, and it is just once everything is paid for. Director Maruthur questioned if the amount of money saved is applied to the equipment, and Mr. Driggers said that was correct. He added it costs the City no capital cost up front, and the City would pay for it based on the savings the new equipment will provide. He added the City generally is going to have to take the performance contractor=s word when the equipment is paid for and how much the annual or monthly savings that are accumulating actually amounts to. City Manager Kent Myers clarified the resolution before the Board does not include a performance contract. He stated that is one of the options the consultant will identify as part of this audit report, and the Board will have the ability to approve or disapprove a performance contract at a later time. Director Daniel asked if the representative from Siemens had anything to add, and Mr. George Rash, with Siemens Corporation, Austin, Texas, said he has been in Board of Directors Meeting 10 March 3, 2008, at 7:00 P.M. the utility business (electric, water and gas) for over 35 years. He stated Siemens has over $3 billion in guaranteed performance contracts, and they have not had a shortfall or the guarantee to pay someone if they do default or do not fulfill the contract. He explained that performance contracting, as described by Arkansas law, Texas law, and all the other 48 states, is a financing mechanism that any entity can use to analyze, study, and put together a performance contract or a utility savings plan, whether it be water, gas or electric, and use those savings to justify and pay for the means to do this. He pointed out what is unique in performance contracting is that it says it has to be guaranteed. He said if they project there is a savings out there, they, by Arkansas law, have to take the risk upon themselves. If they told the City they are going to save $1 million a year and only saves $900,000 a year based on the analysis, Siemens has to pay the City that other $100,000. He noted it is a mechanism to do improvements and affects the City=s budget zero. He stated the City can pay an audit fee if it chooses; but once it gets an analysis, the City may want to take those savings and make those improvements. He said if the City puts in an AMR system, it is approximately $250 to$300, depending on the mechanism; and if the City has 32,000 meters and is only going to replace 16,000, most cities do not change the meters over five percent per year on new change-outs. If that were done, it would take 45 years to replace them in the City. He mentioned that he went into a city that had 25,000 meters, and he projected $1.3 million savings per year; the first year, they had savings in excess of $2 million; and it was projected to go ten years for the guarantee. He noted that the guarantee lasts for ten years, but they paid that off in less than six years. He stated the City has a projected loss factor, which is a little higher than normal. He added the loss factor should be between five, six and seven percent. He mentioned that Siemens has been in the business over 100 years and is stable enough that it can take that guarantee and put that cost together. He commented they cannot do this audit for $65,000 but hoped they could be a partner with the City. He stated whatever the life of the project is, Siemens has to be here because they have to do a measurement and verification every year, and the contract states Siemens will do a minimum of 100; AWWA (American Waterworks Association) says it will probably be two to three percent. He noted that is in excess of 400 or 500 meters that have to be tested on an annual basis. If that is done on an annual basis and doing that 400 and cycling them every year, in five years, 2,000 meters have already been replaced. He noted it is a continual testing every year of the system. He pointed out the City can buy a $12,000 or $20,000 water test; but if it does a performance contract, in the future, that measurement and verification takes that place. However, one of the things done in performance contracting is training goes on all the time, and that training becomes free. He added that the City will get a report every year also of what that testing is telling. He stated they do a random test right now and would be doing a random test. Also, they will be Board of Directors Meeting 11 March 3, 2008, at 7:00 P.M. doing a random leak test and will be testing large meters. He mentioned that in some cities, large meters are the highest consumers and can have a high loss; but if the City has an older system, the 32,000 meters is at least 25,000 residential. If they are put on low flow, it is not metering it and is revenue. He advised that a guarantee does not guarantee dollars but guarantees billable gallons, and he has seen cities actually lower their rates. He added that performance contracting is a financial mechanism, and this mechanism totally puts the risk on Siemens and JCI. He said it is a tremendous benefit to any city and any school district. He stated Siemens passed a contract last week with Pulaski County, which has a tremendous problem with some of their systems, deferred maintenance. He said not changing out water meters is deferred maintenance, and the City can gain that back in a short period of time. However, if the City goes the band-aid method, it will take a long period of time; and in five years, the City will wish it had done this. Director Maruthur commented that Mr. Rash made some good comments. She stated that Siemens is not going any where, and she would like to see a committee formed to look into what would be best to do before proceeding with this commitment. She pointed out that she wants to make sure the Board makes the right decision. She mentioned many good points were presented tonight, and she does not feel secure enough with everything that has been given to the Board for an affirmative vote on this. She urged the Board to form a committee, perhaps of business people or people who are in this type of business, to assess what the future needs are and what should be addressed first and put something out to bid that would be consistent with what the City is facing. Mayor Bush pointed out that everyday that goes by, if the City does have water loss, then it is going to keep the water loss going. Director Maruthur replied that the City could form a committee immediately, pointing out that the Board deferred this resolution for two weeks. She said it does not mean that within a month, the Board could not have some very specific ideas put together by people who are well versed. Mayor Bush then called for a vote on the motion to adopt; and upon roll call, the following voted Aaye@: Directors Weatherford and Bush, total 2. Voting Ano@: Directors Jones, and Daniel, Maruthur, total 3. Abstaining: Director Smith. Absent and not voting: Director Edwards; motion failed. Whereupon the resolution was declared failed. NEW BUSINESS 13 Proposed Resolution No. R-08-60 Board of Directors Meeting 12 March 3, 2008, at 7:00 P.M.  A resolution entitled, AA RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CITY OF HOT SPRINGS LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES FOR THE 2009 LEGISLATIVE SESSION,@ was taken from the agenda and read by title only. A motion was made by Director Jones, duly seconded by Director Smith, that the resolution be adopted as read; and upon roll call, the following voted Aaye@: Directors Maruthur, Jones, Smith, Weatherford, Daniel, and Bush, total 6. Absent and not voting: Director Edwards; motion unanimously carried. Whereupon the resolution was declared adopted. 14 Proposed Ordinance No. O-08-22 An ordinance entitled, AAN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE HOT SPRINGS SIGN CODE (ORDINANCE NO. 5086) BY REVISING THE REGULATIONS CONCERNING MURALS; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,@ was taken from the agenda for consideration. A motion was made by Director Daniel, duly seconded by Director Maruthur, that the rules be suspended and the ordinance be read for the first time by title only; and upon voice vote, the motion unanimously carried. The ordinance was then read for the first time by title only; and upon the question AShall the ordinance be passed as read?@ and upon motion of Director Smith, duly seconded by Director Maruthur, that the ordinance be passed as read. Upon discussion, Director Maruthur questioned if it is correct that an area no larger than six square feet with the artist=s name. Deputy City Manager Lance Hudnell explained that it can have an area no larger than that which has the artist=s name, etc. on it. He said that is to keep it from becoming an advertisement and calling itself a mural. Director Maruthur asked if the mural would be limited to six square feet, and Deputy City Manager Lance Hudnell advised that it would not. He added it would be whatever is approved by the Planning Commission. He noted it was a recommendation from the Arts Advisory Committee to the Planning Commission and from the Planning Commission to the Board. 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, Daniel, and Bush, total 6. Absent and not voting: Director Edwards; motion unanimously carried. Whereupon the ordinance was declared passed. Board of Directors Meeting 13 March 3, 2008, at 7:00 P.M. 15 Proposed Ordinance No. O-08-23 An ordinance entitled, AAN ORDINANCE WAIVING THE REQUIREMENTS OF COMPETITIVE BIDDING FOR EVIDENCE BAR CODING AND HARDWARE FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,@ was taken from the agenda for consideration. A motion was made by Director Smith, duly seconded by Director Maruthur, that the rules be suspended and the ordinance be read for the first time by title only; and upon voice vote, the motion unanimously carried. The ordinance was then read for the first time by title only; and upon the question AShall the ordinance be passed as read?@ and upon motion of Director Daniel, duly seconded by Director Maruthur, that the ordinance be passed as read; and upon roll call, the following voted Aaye@: Directors Maruthur, Jones, Smith, Weatherford, Daniel, and Bush, total 6. Absent and not voting: Director Edwards; motion unanimously carried. Whereupon the ordinance was declared passed. OTHER BUSINESS 16 Board of Directors Items Director Smith announced that on Friday night, the Veterans Memorial Committee will be at Horner Hall from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m., and they have a major fund-raiser underway. He urged the citizens to support the Veterans. He stated it will be televised on Channel 5, and they are collecting 10 million pennies. Also, he was given a letter from the 18th East Judicial Drug Task Force, which he read, dated February 20, 2008, to the Board of Directors, expressing its appreciation to the City in supporting the war on drugs in Garland County and signed by Sergeant Chris Chapmond. Director Maruthur noted that Director Edwards is not in attendance tonight and wished him a rapid recovery. Board of Directors Meeting 14 March 3, 2008, at 7:00 P.M. 17 City Manager=s Report City Manager Kent Myers gave the following report: 1. The Board approved the Consent Agenda that included authorizing the acquisition of a new minibus for Paratransit system; a resolution certifying endorsement of The Art Exchange to participate in the tax back program. This is where a new business is in the process of expanding and adding a new building or refurbishing existing buildings and is qualified for a reimbursement of sales tax paid on construction costs. The Art Exchange is adding a major addition to their business, which will be a picture framing operation that will add some 50 employees over the next two years. They qualified for this tax reimbursement, and this is through the State. The city government has to endorse it in order for them to get their tax benefits. 2. A second City Manager=s coffee is scheduled for Thursday, at Starbucks on Central Avenue. At the first coffee, there were seven citizens in attendance and received good comments and shared those with the Board. 3. He recognized several employees who received some positive comments. There was a Letter to the Editor from Mr. David Campbell, who complimented Mr. Larry Merriman, Utilities Project Manager, and also to Coakley Construction regarding a sewer line project near Columbia Hills.; there was a positive comment on Patti Veazey (Code Compliance) and Trent Daniels (Deputy City Attorney, who worked closely on 815 Park Avenue (location of a motel in that area where there was a nuisance case); a resident in the 100 block of Circle Drive sent a complimentary e-mail regarding one of the Sanitation employees (Brian Shelor); a complimentary letter was received from the administrative office of the Hot Springs District Court regarding Ms. Minnie Lenox, Human Resources Director, who provided some training for the courts office. A letter was received from the assistant superintendent of Hot Springs School District thanking Lt. Mike Gregor, who recently did a comprehensive security analysis of the Hot Springs School system and recommended a number of security improvements to the various schools within the Hot Springs school system. Board of Directors Meeting 15 March 3, 2008, at 7:00 P.M. 18 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m., to meet again on Tuesday, March 18, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. ATTEST: _____________________ APPROVED:__________________ Lance Hudnell, City Clerk Mike Bush, Mayor Board of Directors Meeting 16 March 3, 2008, at 7:00 P.M.