Board of Directors

MINUTES BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING SEPTEMBER 7, 2010, AT 7:00 P.M. The regular meeting of the Board of Directors was held on Tuesday, September 7, 2010, at 7:00 p.m., Board Chambers, City Hall, with Mayor Mike Bush presiding. The invocation was given by Mr. Landon Trusty, 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, Cynthia Keheley, Pat McCabe, Rick Ramick, Tom Daniel, and Mike Bush, total 7. 2 Approval of Agenda A motion was made by Director Maruthur, duly seconded by Director Keheley, that the agenda be approved; and upon voice vote, the motion unanimously carried. 3 Approval of Minutes of August 17, 2010 Board Meeting A motion was made by Director Daniel, duly seconded by Director Maruthur, that the minutes of the August 17, 2010 Board Meeting be approved; and upon voice vote, the motion unanimously carried. 4 Recognition of Guests Mayor Bush recognized Mr. Mark Toth, residing on Montclair Lane, vice president of the Whittington Valley Neighborhood Association, who expressed appreciation to Ms. Jean Wallace, Parks Director and her staff, for the efforts they have made to revitalize Whittington City Park. He stated it is the second oldest municipal park in Hot Springs and wanted to thank them for making it an asset to the community. He then presented Ms. Wallace with a certificate and said a certificate was also presented to the several of the employees, who worked very hard and deserve attention for the good deeds they do. Ms. Wallace thanked Mr. Toth and Mr. John Lewis, president of the Association, for their efforts in improving the park. She mentioned they have been supportive, and she appreciated the recognition. Director Maruthur stated that she is a member of the Whittington Valley Association and reported there are ten cookbooks left to sell. 5 Board of Directors Announcements Director Maruthur announced since the last Board Meeting, there was a celebration of the 90th anniversary of the Women’s Right to Vote. She said there was a presentation at the Capitol Building and also at the Garland County Courthouse where Judge Larry Williams read a proclamation. She added that 91 years ago women could not vote and had no voice at all. 6 Consider Acknowledgment of Financial Statements Notice for July 2010 Mayor Bush stated that the Financial Statements for July 2010 are on file in the Finance Department for review by the Board and the public. CONSENT AGENDA The Consent Agenda consisted of the following: 7 Public Safety Report (August 17, 2010). 8 Revised Board Schedule (July thru December 2010). 9 Proposed Resolution No. R-10-190 Approving Certain Bid Awards (a) Chain Link Fencing-Dog Park at 410 Hollywood (Reject and Rebid). 10 Proposed Resolution No. R-10-191 Awarding a Contract and Bid Award to Crown Products, Inc. for the Construction and Installation of an Aviation Self-Fueling System at the Airport. Board of Directors Meeting 2 September 7, 2010, at 7:00 P.M. 11 Proposed Resolution No. R-10-192 Authorizing the Filing of a Grant Application with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the State Aeronautics Department to Fund a Wildlife Hazard Assessment Project; and Accepting Grant Offer. 12 Proposed Resolution No. R-10-193 Accepting a Grant from the U. S. Department of Justice Pursuant to the Edward Byrne Memorial Local Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program for Certain Law Enforcement Services. 13 Proposed Resolution No. R-10-194 Authorizing the Mayor to Execute a Fourth Tolling Agreement Between the United States Environmental Protection Agency for Claims Under the Clean Water Act. 14 Proposed Resolution No. R-10-195 Approving Change Order No. 1 to the Contract with FTN Associates for Additional Work on the Valley Street Creekwalk, Phase 2, Hydraulic Impact Evaluation. 15 Proposed Resolution No. R-10-196 Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an Amendment to the Contract for Services Between the City of Hot Springs, Arkansas, and Garland County, Arkansas, for Information System (IS) Services; and for Other Purposes. A motion was made by Director Jones, duly seconded by Director Maruthur, that the Consent Agenda be approved; and upon roll call, the following voted “aye”: Directors Maruthur, Jones, Keheley, McCabe, Ramick, Daniel, and Bush, total 7; motion unanimously carried. NEW BUSINESS 16 Consider Request from Mr. Douglas Hayes for City Water at 104 and 108 Freida Mr. Steve Mallett, Deputy City Manager for Public Works and Utilities, advised that a request has been received from Mr. Douglas Hayes to extend city water service to two lots that he owns and desires to develop at 104 and 108 Freida Street within the Board of Directors Meeting 3 September 7, 2010, at 7:00 P.M. Bates Subdivision. He said in order to provide service to these lots, a 200-foot extension of two-inch water pipe would have to be installed; and the cost of this extension with meter service would be about $3,800. He advised that staff recommendation is to deny since the developer is responsible for all capital costs related to the development. He explained the City is concerned about setting a precedent extending services to undeveloped lots since it is not consistent with the City’s policy. He said the City’s policy and procedure for extension of water and sewer main criteria states that the total cost of construction, including engineering, design and Health Department review fee shall be paid by the individual or developer desiring water or sewer service. He added any financial participation by the City will be as approved by the Board of Directors by resolution prior to or concurrent with approval of the proposed plans and will be limited to oversizing of mains for future extensions and/or extensions in addition to those required to provide the service requested as determined by the utility to be necessary to prove the level of service in the community. He stated the only reason it is allowed by the City’s policy is if the City considers it to be necessary to upsize the main or pay for part of the main to extend it to serve other properties. He pointed out that the Board has the authority to waive that if it so desires. He said that over the weekend, he received a voice mail from Mr. Hayes asking that he also be considered for wastewater service. He commented there is also some wastewater service to the lot; but it is to the northern side of the lot, which is uphill. He added there is a wastewater line to the south side; and the City could extend a wastewater gravity main 125 feet of 6-inch PVC line on the south side, which would eliminate the need for a pump. From staff’s point of view for maintenance reasons, he pointed out anytime the City can eliminate a pump, it would do that. He stated staff would be willing to recommend to the Board if the developer were to put up the money he would have spent on the pump station and provide that to the City, then the City would pay the difference. He added that would be approximately $8,600 to do that. He advised the pump station will cost around $4,000 so if the developer would be willing to put in $4,000 that he would normally spend for the pump station, the City could use some money that it set aside every year in pipeline to unsewered areas. He said the City would be willing to do that because in the long-run that will help the City by not having to maintain it and will also benefit the property owners by not having a power bill for the pump station. Regarding the water, he stated staff was not in favor of that since it is a direct benefit to the developer; and to his knowledge, the City has only done that on occasions where there was a hardship inside the city limits where a well went out. However, those decisions are left to the discretion of the Board. Director Ramick questioned if Mr. Hayes plans to build on these lots in the near future; and Mr. Scott Hrdlicka, 316 Bafanridge, a representative of Mr. Hayes, advised Board of Directors Meeting 4 September 7, 2010, at 7:00 P.M. that Mr. Hayes plans to build rental units and nice brick homes, which will benefit the City. He pointed out there will be customers who will buy the water, and it is good to have development instead of vacant lots. He pointed out that eventually if there is no city water, people grow tired of mowing the lots; and the City ends up mowing them with many of those lots going back to the State for taxes. As far as the water, he said he would like to get the water paid for; however, that is up to the developer to know that before he buys the property. Director Keheley questioned his relationship to the project, and Mr. Hrdlicka advised that he is a contractor and at times does some work for Mr. Hayes. Also, he has done a lot of intercity development himself. Director Daniel asked how long Mr. Hayes has owned the property, and Mr. Hrdlicka replied that it is about two or three months. Director Daniel commented that he knew at that time, it was not on city water; and Mr. Hrdlicka replied that he should have known it. Director Maruthur pointed out that it is the property owner’s responsibility, not the City’s, that would be mowing the lot. Mr. Hrdlicka said he is aware that the property owners are responsible, but many times they do not mow the lot; and the City files a lien on the property. He added that usually when it goes through the process of not paying the taxes, the money never gets back to the City. Director Maruthur pointed out that the City has a very effective Code Department. Mayor Bush called for a motion, and there was no motion on this item. 17 Proposed Resolution No. R-10-197 A resolution entitled, “A RESOLUTION APPROVING A WAIVER OF A NEW SIDEWALK ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF MOTE STREET,” was taken from the agenda and read by title only. A motion was made by Director Maruthur, duly seconded by Director Ramick, that the resolution be adopted as read. Upon discussion, Ms. Kathy Sellman, Planning and Development Director, explained this is a request by the applicant, who is also the property owner, Mr. Robert Brooks. He has made application to appeal a decision of the Board of Adjustments Board of Directors Meeting 5 September 7, 2010, at 7:00 P.M. and Appeals; and he requested a waiver from the Hot Springs Code section that requires a sidewalk with a nonresidential development. She advised that Mr. Brooks is the developer of a large, assisted living facility on Sawtooth Oak Street. She advised that notice was provided on this appeal, and a letter was mailed to the adjacent property owners. Also, a notice of public hearing was published in The Sentinel-Record. She stated the appellant provided a number of reasons for his request to waive the sidewalk, and one of the reasons referenced The Americans with Disabilities Act, as well as safety. He asserted that a certain slope of a sidewalk on a public right-of-way violates The Americans with Disabilities Act and would be unsafe, thereby being detrimental to the public safety, health and welfare. She said she provided mention of an e-mail from a couple of years ago from the ADA Compliance Guide Advisory Board Member Bill Hecker in which he cited the Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines that allow the sidewalks within the right-of-way to be as steep as the general grade of the adjoining roadway regardless of that slope. She said the claims by the appellant to the contrary are undocumented opinions. Also, the appellant stated his property is in two zoning parcels; and because of that, the development that is occurring does not cause that requirement of the sidewalk to kick in. She added the appellant has one, single undivided piece of land; and the classification of the Building Code is commercial, which is the way the use is determined. She advised the appeal fails to demonstrate that the criteria for granting the requested waiver are unmet, and the criteria are as follows: (1) the conditions upon which the request for variance is based are unique to the property because of its particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions; and (2) the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public safety, health or welfare of, or injurious to other property. She said because this does not meet the requirements for that waiver, the recommendation is that the Board accept the findings of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and not approve the resolution amending the site plan granting the waiver from Hot Springs Code §15-10-1.7 because the appeal fails to demonstrate that the standards for granting such a waiver are met. Director Maruthur questioned the grading of the slope, and Ms. Sellman replied that she did not have that information. Director McCabe asked Ms. Sellman to review the rationale on the finding of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Ms. Sellman replied she has included in the packet the letter from the Board of Adjustments and Appeals detailing that they reviewed the proposed waiver, heard public testimony, and found that a waiver was not appropriate because the application failed to demonstrate that the standards for granting such a waiver were unmet. She commented their finding was there was Board of Directors Meeting 6 September 7, 2010, at 7:00 P.M. nothing about that particular piece of property that differentiated in such a way that the sidewalk requirement should not have to be met. Director McCabe questioned if this was a similar kind of review with the backside of the shopping center that abutted up to Panama, and Ms. Sellman replied that it is similar. Director Ramick answered a question posed by Director Maruthur regarding the slope and stated it drops 16 feet and 90 feet. Director Keheley questioned the vote before the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, and Ms. Sellman advised that it was 2-2. She explained the 2-2 vote is not adequate to approve the appeal. Ms. Vickey Clark, 15 Queens Row in Townsquare, said she manages a piece of property on Sawtooth Oak Street, which is neighboring the Brookfield Assisted Living. She stated she is not against the appeal to eliminate a sidewalk but pointed out motorists cannot see when exiting from Sawtooth to turn left on Mote Street. She added there is a very short distance to the left before it takes an extreme dip and cannot see traffic coming, and motorists have to pull into Mote Street before they can see far enough to the left to see if any traffic is coming. She mentioned she has called the City several times to trim the bushes and distributed photos of this area. Director Keheley pointed out this appears to be a separate issue as far as this intersection is concerned and said she understands that Mote Street is under consideration for expansion and perhaps widening, curbs and gutters at a future date. Ms. Sellman replied that is not on the near horizon. Director Keheley asked who the right-of-way belongs to that Ms. Clark has questioned, and Ms. Sellman said she cannot answer that without looking at it. She commented if it is the right-of-way, it is the City; if it is the adjacent property, then the private property owner would be responsible. City Attorney Brian Albright asked if that road is a prescriptive road or a dedicated right-of-way, and Ms. Sellman said that she believes it is a prescriptive road. City Attorney Brian Albright advised that it makes a difference because the edge of the pavement on is the owner’s responsibility. He questioned if the sidewalk being required under the site plan is solely on the property owner’s property and is not in the City right-of-way. Ms. Sellman replied there was some dedication that was done adjacent to that property. City Attorney Brian Albright stated there is a site plan that shows a Board of Directors Meeting 7 September 7, 2010, at 7:00 P.M. right-of-way, but it does not indicate whether it is a dedicated right-of-way or an existing right-of-way. Ms. Sellman stated that typically that question would come up at the time of subdivision, and this is a step subsequent to that. She said if it occurred, it usually would not occur at this point unless it is voluntarily done by the applicant. Director Maruthur pointed out on the Board Action Request Form, the recommendation is to accept the findings of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. She stressed before the Board makes a decision, the votes cast by the Board need to be clarified so that no one makes a mistake. City Attorney Brian Albright advised that a “yes” vote would grant the appeal which would eliminate the requirement of the sidewalk. He mentioned the staff recommendation in the Board Action Request Form does say to accept the findings of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. However, the vote of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals was 2-2. He said that he is uncertain how to ascertain someone’s findings when it is a 2-2 vote. He added that “yes” would grant the appeal and “no” would deny the appeal. Mr. Bob Brooks, 330 North Lancaster, Wichita, Kansas, gave a slide presentation of Brookfield Assisted Living, which is under construction and plans to open later this month. He stated that a pamphlet put out by the U. S. Justice Department - Access to Civic Life by People with Disabilities is a fundamental goal of the Americans with Disabilities Act. To insure that this goal is met, Title II of the ADA requires that state and local governments make their programs and services accessible to people with disabilities. Public entities such as city governments are required to construct facilities in accordance with ADA standards; these standards apply to all new construction, and these requirements include sidewalks, curbs and gutters. He said that he agrees with Ms. Sellman that they do not apply here, and he was wrong in his previous discussion. He added they recognize that the ADA requirements do not apply to this sidewalk, and they do not apply because the City is not funding the sidewalk. He advised that the regulations require that they construct the sidewalk. However, the sidewalk could not be constructed on their property because their funding source (Housing and Urban Development) would not let them. He noted from the Department of Justice manual, sidewalks must meet slope requirements; and a sidewalk must have a slope of less than 1:20. He showed a slide depicting a slope of an ADA compliant sidewalk. He mentioned their property is about 340 feet long, which a 1:20 would say that the maximum slope that ADA would allow is 17 feet. Across their property from Sawtooth Oak to the fire lane, there is a 34-foot drop, which is a 1:10 slope (twice the slope that ADA allows). He noted that Mote Street is not a steady curve, and there is a hill that has already been referenced in which there is a 16-foot drop over 90 feet, Board of Directors Meeting 8 September 7, 2010, at 7:00 P.M. representing a 1: 5.6 slope. He then showed slides indicating the ADA compliant, the overall on their property, and slope of the hill that is on their property, which is 3½ times as steep as ADA will allow. He said they take ADA safety and accessibility guidelines as measure of safety. He noted an unsafe sidewalk is unsafe whether the City funds it or whether the City requires somebody else to fund it. He mentioned that Brookfield Assisted Living is going to be the residence of 75 senior citizens, and most of these people have difficulty walking; many of them have wheelchairs, canes and walkers. He stated the residents of Brookfield Assisted Living will be the only residents along Mote Street that can even access this proposed sidewalk without walking on Mote Street, and the safety of their residents is the reason for being. He pointed out that falls are the number one cause of death due to injury for people 65 and older, and he believes this sidewalk is a prescription for disaster. He mentioned other injuries, such as broken hips, other broken bones, head injuries; and if a person is bedridden, they have pressure ulcers, joint problems, pneumonia, and depression. He stated they have seen people falling in this age group on a very level carpet in their building and cannot imagine what they would do if they were on the sidewalk that is on the perimeter of the property. Regarding liability, he said that he understands the City has sovereign immunity from prosecution. However, Brookfield Assisted Living and its contractors do not have sovereign immunity; and they believe City requirements for them to build a sidewalk, which clearly violates the safety standards, is a prescription for a lawsuit. He pointed out this age group is not particularly litigious, but his company has been sued by a number of people who have fallen in the building. Regarding Mote Street safety, Mote Street is .6 miles long. There are no other sidewalks along Mote Street; and walking along Mote Street in either direction, north or south, is unsafe. He mentioned in addition to walking, access for their citizens also involves people using wheelchairs, walkers and canes. He then showed slides of Mote Street and said the criteria Ms. Sellman mentioned for determining whether a variance shall be granted is (1) the granting of a variance will not be detrimental to the public safety, health or welfare or injurious to other properties. He said the granting of this variance is definitely not detrimental to the public safety and enforcing this regulation would be detrimental to public safety; (2) the landscaping plan they have had to submit to the City calls for their planting 37 new trees on their property. However, taking out this road would involve removing 54 trees in order to install the sidewalk. He mentioned trees form a nice, visual barrier to their facility and having just a sidewalk there would expose them to any passerby. He stated the assisted living residence is under construction and is classified by the Building Code as commercial. However, despite that technicality, it is a residence; and 75 people are going to live there. He noted the east side of the property is zoned commercial, and one of their buildings is fully contained in that. The second building straddles the west side, which is zoned residential. He said this is a Board of Directors Meeting 9 September 7, 2010, at 7:00 P.M. residence that straddles a residential/commercial zoning split, and the City would like to call this a commercial property. He advised that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals said that financial hardships are not a consideration, and the cost of this sidewalk has been estimated by the general contractor to be about $40,000. He pointed out that typically, a sidewalk this long on a flat surface would be $7,500; and the reason is that all of the trees would have to be removed, as well as all the rock. He said their original plans had the two buildings connected by a hallway/corridor with an elevator, and there is 17 feet of elevation difference. Because of the hardness of the rock and the extra costs that they have had to endure, that had to be removed. When he presented this to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, Commissioner Campbell said they have already spent $10 million; and another $40,000 should not make any difference. However, it does matter because they have overshot their budget considerably on this project already. He advised they are planning on putting in patio homes in the rest of that residential area; and if those patio homes were in, there would be no requirement for a sidewalk. He said the points he has tried to make to give some reasons for their request to grant a variance are (1) sidewalk safety; (2) the liability aspect that falls on their shoulders; (3) Mote Street walking safety; (4) the trees that need to be removed; (5) believe it is still residentially zoned; (6) it would be a financial hardship; and (7) future development would not require a sidewalk there. Director Maruthur asked if he thinks this is the beginning or the end of development in this area, and Mr. Brooks responded that he could not answer that question. Regarding sovereign immunity, which is called tort immunity by the City, Director Maruthur asked if he could put a disclaimer in their contract and also have some kind of signage there so that people who are in a wheelchair could negotiate this area. She mentioned the incline to the Rehabilitation Center is quite steep, and they are already established. She said that in the future, she hopes to have everything connected and that is why she asked if this is the beginning or the end of development in this area. Mr. Brooks said that he could not answer that. He added that the opinion quoted by Ms. Sellman was by ADA Compliance Advisory Board Member Bill Hecker, whom he was never able to locate. He said that he believes that he made a ridiculous statement and says that it will allow sidewalks within the right-of-way to be as steep as the general grade of the adjoining roadway regardless of slope. City Manager Lance Hudnell explained that Mr. Hecker is one of the authors of the ADA regulations, and the sidewalk regulations in the ADA are referring to the path of travel from a person’s car to the front door of a business. Therefore, the sidewalks addressed in ADA are the sidewalks that are adjacent to a business. However, there is a gap in the ADA regulations with regard to sidewalks in the right-of-way; and several Board of Directors Meeting 10 September 7, 2010, at 7:00 P.M. years ago, this was pointed out and questioned what to do since the only requirement in the public right-of-way has to do with curb cuts at the intersections. He added then the curb cut either leads to no sidewalk or to a sidewalk that has to go over a hill, etc. Therefore, sidewalk requirements in ADA have nothing to do with the sidewalk requirements on public right-of-way; and there are no sidewalk requirements with regard to grade in the public right-of-way -- only with regard to curb cuts. He pointed out the sidewalks that Mr. Brooks is quoting have to do with the sidewalks that would be immediately in front of a building, such as at a doctor’s office, etc., that would lead to the front door of the building. Director Daniel said that he understands the sidewalks will be on their property and not on city right-of-way. City Manager Lance Hudnell advised that the City does not have the final plat, and he is not arguing the point with regard to the variance but is just clarifying that this would clearly be sidewalks that are for general public use not specifically for getting to the front door of the business. He added in the ADA regulations, it is called path of travel; therefore, this would not be part of the path of travel to this particular facility. Director Daniel said he agreed with Director Maruthur, and no one knows if this is going to be the beginning or the end of development in this area. However, there is a horse farm across the street and bordering it on the backside is city property with city maintenance facilities, etc. He stated on the other end is a cemetery and country club on the other, and he doubts if it is going to be developed anymore. He commented this would be another sidewalk to nowhere, and the City is having them build a sidewalk that will probably never be tied into from anywhere else. He said that he believes the Board needs to grant the appeal. Director Keheley commented that she feels the City is imposing a very severe burden on this development and does not think the City codes are clear, especially since there have been additions and changes through the years. She stated she will be voting for the appeal. Director Maruthur questioned if Mr. Brooks is planning curbs regardless of how this vote goes; and Mr. Brooks replied as far as he is aware, there are no requirements for curbs. Director Maruthur asked if he is going to be doing curbs on a $10 million development. Mr. Brooks replied that they had not planned it on this site. Director Ramick said his concern is not only the residents of Brookfield, but it would be open to the public, and he believes children would love to ride skateboards Board of Directors Meeting 11 September 7, 2010, at 7:00 P.M. down that sidewalk and then into the street. He stressed that he is thinking more about public safety than the residents. Director Keheley stated that she reviewed the site, and there are sidewalks and wonderful curbs on Sawtooth. She said it is a wonderful complex, and Mr. Brooks is to be complimented. Director McCabe asked that Ms. Sellman address the right-of-way and where the road ends and said he is concerned why he is voting on an issue where staff is not sure whether there is a right-of-way or not. City Attorney Brian Albright advised the issue is whether or not this is a prescriptive roadway or a dedicated right-of-way, and the City has not seen anything that would indicate either. Ms. Sellman pointed out that in a drawing included in the Board packet, there are lines that would indicate that possibly the property line is significantly back of the developed area of the road. However, it is not labeled as such; and she cannot say with certainty that is the case. She added that her recollection is that there is a curb, gutter, and sidewalk requirement on Mote Street. Director Keheley asked if Ms. Sellman is telling the Board if Mr. Brooks builds a sidewalk, then he has to build curbs and gutters; and Ms. Sellman replied that is the condition as she recalls it. Director Jones asked if the curb goes with the gutter, and Ms. Sellman advised that in this case it does. Director McCabe questioned the City’s requirements under each of the two scenarios, and City Attorney Brian Albright advised that a prescriptive roadway ends at the edge of the pavement. He explained if it is 40 feet from center, there would be a public right-of-way 20 feet from center. Therefore, if the sidewalk were being required to be built within the public right-of-way, then there would be issues regarding public right-of-way. He said if it is prescriptive and unless there has been a subsequent dedication, Mote Street was a prescriptive right-of-way; therefore, all of the sidewalk is going to be on the developer’s private property, not within the right-of-way. He stated the issues regarding ADA and their exemption, because they are in the public right-of-way, would not apply since they would not be within the public right-of-way. City Manager Lance Hudnell stated that his previous comment had to do with when the whole Sawtooth Court was a subdivision. Therefore, when the subdivision plat was filed, he assumed that it included the dedication of right-of-way on Mote Street Board of Directors Meeting 12 September 7, 2010, at 7:00 P.M. because that would be the normal requirement as indicated by the drawing in the Board packet, indicating 30 feet from center of Mote Street, which would indicate a right-of-way for that but would be part of their final plat. City Attorney Brian Albright advised that the Supreme Court in Vuncanon vs. City of Jonesboro says that the City cannot require a dedication of the right-of-way for that purpose. Director Maruthur asked if the Board had all of the information needed to vote on this, and City Attorney Brian Albright replied that he does not have all the information he needs to answer the Board’s questions. A motion was made by Director McCabe, duly seconded by Director Maruthur, to table the resolution until the second meeting in September; and upon roll call, the following voted “aye”: Directors Maruthur, Jones, Keheley, McCabe, Daniel, and Bush, total 6. Voting “no”: Director Ramick; motion carried 18 Proposed Ordinance No. O-10-42 An ordinance entitled, “AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 5324 (ACCEPTING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE CITY - THORNBURY COURT IN CANTERBURY HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION) BY REPEALING SECTION 2 AND ADOPTING A NEW SECTION 2,” was taken from the agenda for consideration. A motion was made by Director Ramick, duly seconded by Director Maruthur, that the rules be suspended and the ordinance be read for the first time by title only; and upon voice vote, the motion unanimously carried. The ordinance was then read for the first time by title only; and upon the question “Shall the ordinance be passed as read?” and upon motion of Director Ramick, duly seconded by Director Keheley, that the ordinance be passed as read; and upon roll call, the following voted “aye”: Directors Maruthur, Jones, Keheley, McCabe, Ramick, Daniel, and Bush, total 7; motion unanimously carried. Whereupon the ordinance was declared passed. Board of Directors Meeting 13 September 7, 2010, at 7:00 P.M.  OTHER BUSINESS 19 Board of Directors Items for Discussion Director Jones stated there was a balloon ride at the Oaklawn end-field on Saturday morning. Regarding the ordinance on amending the annexation of Thornbury Court in Canterbury Heights Subdivision, Director Maruthur asked that City Manager Lance Hudnell clarify the redistricting as a result of the census pointing out that the area will be placed in District No. 5. City Manager Lance Hudnell explained that it has nothing to do with the census, and there will be a redistricting once the new census comes out. He explained at the agenda meeting, he had said it is possible this could be put into District 6 when the census is redone. City Attorney Brian added when this property was annexed to the City, it was mistakenly placed in District 6 because the map appeared that it should have been in District 6. However, the island across the street was in District 5. Therefore, the only property it was contiguous to was District 5 and should have always been in District 5. He noted this is correcting a technical error in the original ordinance. 20 City Manager’s Report City Manager Lance Hudnell gave the following report: 1. Some of the Board Members will be participating in a Municipal League finance and budgeting workshop on September 15. This is a new initiative of the League for voluntary certification program. 2. On September 16, at 5 p.m., Board Chambers, there will be a proposed Ouachita Avenue Historic District public meeting. The purpose of this meeting is for informational purposes only. This is not proposed to be a local ordinance district as the other historic districts but is for the purpose of placing buildings on the historic register as opposed to the local ordinance district which is regulatory in nature. 3. Sometime ago, the Board passed a resolution agreeing to participate in the National League of Cities prescription discount drug program. To date, there have been 44 users to participate; and the program is available to all citizens within the City. If anyone is interested, they may call City Clerk Lance Spicer, at 321-6815. Board of Directors Meeting 14 September 7, 2010, at 7:00 P.M.  4. The Third Operation Clean Sweep in the Valley Street area was concluded, and some 37 tons were collected. 5. The Mountain Xpress, which was a demonstration project with the National Park Service, has concluded; and there was approximately 5,400 riders, which was for weekends only. 6. Mr. Adam Roberts, director of the Hot Springs/Garland County Beautification Commission, was able to secure the Third Annual Shine Award. Hot Springs is the only city that has received it three times, and there will be a special ceremony in the Board Chambers on Tuesday, September 28, at 10 a.m. 7. Compliments were received on a Sanitation crew for work they did on Leonard Street; the Urban Forestry in the Cedar Glades area for work on Forest View; and Mr. Lawrence Ault, Street Department for work on Westminster Place. 8. The City had a successful kickball season this year, and it more than doubled this year; and one of the primary events was Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Co-Ed Tournament. The referees and other individuals donated their time. 10. There is an opening on the Community Development Advisory Committee due to a resignation. If anyone is interested in serving, they may call the City Manager’s Office. 11. The Annual Prayer Breakfast will be held on Tuesday, October 5, 2010, at 6:20 a.m, in Horner Hall. The speaker this year will be Mr. Ken Hatfield, former coach of the Arkansas Razorbacks. 21 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m., to meet again on Tuesday, September 21, 2010, at 7:00 p.m. ATTEST: _____________________ APPROVED:__________________ Board of Directors Meeting 15 September 7, 2010, at 7:00 P.M.  Lance Spicer, City Clerk Mike Bush, Mayor Board of Directors Meeting 16 September 7, 2010, at 7:00 P.M.