Board of Directors

MINUTES BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING FEBRUARY 1, 2011, AT 7:00 P.M. The regular meeting of the Board of Directors was held on Tuesday, February 1, 2011, at 7:00 p.m., Board Chambers, City Hall, with Mayor Ruth Carney presiding. The invocation was given by Mr. James Frierson, and Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Mayor Carney. Mayor Carney 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, Karen Garcia, Tom Daniel, and Ruth Carney, total 7. 2 Approval of Agenda A motion was made by Director Keheley, duly seconded by Director Jones, that the agenda be approved; and upon voice vote, the motion unanimously carried. 3 Approval of Minutes of the January 18, 2011 Board Meeting A motion was made by Director Daniel, duly seconded by Director Garcia, that the minutes of the January 18, 2011 Board Meeting be approved; and upon voice vote, the motion unanimously carried. 4 Recognition of Guests At this time, Director Garcia recognized Ally Bell, Kelsey Ridgeway, and Isis Nero, who were selected to be on the 2011 Arkansas All-Star Team, and Coach Tina Moore, who was selected as the 2011 All-Star Team Coach. She stated 25 years ago was the first recognition of National Girls and Women in Sports Day in recognition of a volleyball player, Flo Hyman, for her athletic achievement and commitment to ensure equality in women’s sports. To commemorate the anniversary of this day, Mayor Carney presented a Proclamation to each of the guests. Mayor Carney then read a Proclamation proclaiming February 2, 2011 as “Girls and Women in Sports Day in Hot Springs, Arkansas.” Mr. Stan Grise, president of the Garland County Economic Development Corporation, introduced Ms. Amanda Bryant, communications director for the Garland County Economic Development Corporation and the Greater Hot Springs Chamber of Commerce. Relocation Guides were then distributed to the Board, and she stated the media that they have committed to advertise in throughout 2011 is Arkansas Parks and Tourism Fall/Winter insert and Spring/Summer insert - Where to Retire, Triple A Southern Traveler, Facebook and Google; other media outlets they are considering for 2011 are NARFE Magazine, which is for the active and retired federal employees; AARP Preservation, which is a magazine for historic preservation areas; Citydata.com and Discoverourtown.com. 5 Board of Directors Announcements Director Keheley announced that Ms. Jean Wallace, Director of Parks and Recreation, has traveled to Little Rock to receive the award of the year from the Arkansas Recreation and Parks Department for the Farmers Market, which has been named the “Facility of the Year” for the State of Arkansas. Mayor Carney stated that due to the cold weather, Ms. Kathy Allen, with United Way, and several people, provided a warming center at Webb Community Center for the homeless to have a place to sleep at night. She said they are in need of volunteers who would monitor the building from 4:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. tomorrow night, and Thursday night from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. She stated they need donations to help pay for the utilities, and individuals may call Ms. Allen at 318-7201. Director Garcia reminded everyone that Sunday, February 6, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m., is the 7th Annual Chocolate Festival at the Embassy Suites to benefit the Charitable Christian Medical Clinic. Director Daniel explained that he has interest in Item No. 13 (Proposed Ordinance No. O-11-2 Accepting Annexation of Property Located at 2194 Higdon Ferry Road). Therefore, he will be recusing himself from that item. Board of Directors Meeting 2 February 1, 2011 at 7:00 P.M. 6 Acknowledgment of Financial Statements Notice for December 2010 Mayor Carney announced that the Financial Statements for December 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 Committee Report (January 18, 2011). 8 Proposed Resolution No. R–11-13 Approving Certain Bids (a) Generator for Wastewater Plant - Utilities [awarded to All Service Electric in the amount of $74,931]. 9 Proposed Resolution No. R-11-14 Accepting a Grant from the Federal Transit Administration, United States Department of Transportation, for Federal Transportation Operating Assistance as Authorized by 49 U.S.C., Chapter 53, Title 23, United States Code, and Other Federal Statutes Administered by the Federal Transit Administration. A motion was made by Director Daniel, duly seconded by Director Maruthur, that the Consent Agenda be approved. Upon discussion, Ms. Diane Silverman, 1404 Cedar Glades Road, asked if the Board is aware of what the bids are. City Manager Lance Hudnell advised that staff includes the bid summary which in many cases will include the recommendation from the engineer and then a copy of what the bottom line bid was by each person. He explained that staff does not include the bid packet since they are filed in the Purchasing Department for the Directors to review if they wish because the bid packets are quite voluminous. Ms. Silverman asked if they know the individual companies that have bid, and City Manager Lance Hudnell replied they are included in the packet. Ms. Silverman commented from her observance of the agenda meetings and board meetings, actions on items happen so fast and would appreciate going at a slower pace Board of Directors Meeting 3 February 1, 2011 at 7:00 P.M. so the public would have better knowledge of what is happening and have time to contact people. Mayor Carney asked if the bid information is online, and City Manager Lance Hudnell replied that the bid packet is online and includes the bid information. Director Maruthur said about 1½ years ago, she had requested that Mr. Steve Mallett, Director of Public Works and Utilities, include in the Board packet all the vendors, their addresses and contact numbers and commended him for responding to her request. City Manager Lance Hudnell advised that all bid openings are advertised in the newspaper, and the actual bid opening is a public meeting although it is not conducted by the Board but by staff and is normally held at the Finance Department at 2 p.m. Director Garcia expressed appreciation to Mr. Mallett for answering her questions regarding bids and noted this bid has been awarded to a local contractor. Mayor Carney then called for a vote on the motion to adopt the Consent Agenda; and upon roll call, the following voted “aye”: Directors Maruthur, Jones, Keheley, McCabe, Garcia, Daniel, and Carney, total 7; motion unanimously carried. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10 Proposed Resolution No. R-11-11 A resolution entitled, “A RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONTRACT TO JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. FOR CERTAIN ENGINEERING SERVICES (STORMWATER OUTFALL MAPPING OF THE CITY’S DRAINAGE SYSTEMS - PHASE IV),” was taken from the agenda and read by title only. (Tabled 1-18-11) A motion was made by Director McCabe, duly seconded by Director Daniel, that the resolution be adopted as read. Upon discussion, Director Keheley advised that she read the contract that was proposed by Jacobs Engineering and has raised several questions. She said she has talked with City Attorney Brian Albright and City Manager Lance Hudnell regarding the language in the contract specifically concerning the matters of the limitation of Jacob’s Board of Directors Meeting 4 February 1, 2011 at 7:00 P.M. liability. Also, it excludes any liability on Jacobs’ part to the City. She commented she believes this is far from being in the best interest of the Hot Springs. Therefore, she suggested that the contract be tabled until the next meeting in order for the City Attorney, City Manager and Mr. Mallett to work out a more agreeable contract. A motion was made by Director Garcia, duly seconded by Director Jones, that the resolution be tabled until the next Board Meeting or until such time as there are negotiations in case something came up between now and the next Board Meeting, which the City was not able to complete. Director Maruthur commented that the Board is going to give the City Attorney and Mr. Mallett time to review the contracts before they come before the Board because the Board is not responsible for looking through these. She pointed out the Board receives these, and the assumption is that everything is correct. She noted she spoke to City Attorney Brian Albright; and if a document is not thoroughly reviewed, it will be delayed. Director Keheley requested that all future contracts be reviewed by City Attorney Brian Albright before they are placed on the agenda, and she would like to see the City Attorney’s approval of the contracts duly noted on the Board Action Request Form. She added the City Attorney should have the opportunity to review any contract that comes to the Board before it is placed on the agenda, and the Board will not waste time considering contracts that are going to be sent back. Mayor Carney then called for a vote on the motion to table the resolution until the next Board Meeting or until such time as there are negotiations in case something came up between now and the next Board Meeting; and upon roll call, the following voted “aye”: Directors Maruthur, Jones, Keheley, McCabe, Garcia, Daniel, and Carney, total 7; motion unanimously carried. NEW BUSINESS 11 Request from Mr. Brian White Regarding Adoption of Resolution Requiring GCEDC to Provide a Detailed Accounting of All Public Funds on an Annual Basis Mr. Brian White, 360 Lakeland Drive, stated in December when the Contract for Services with the Garland County Economic Development Corporation was considered, he spoke of the end-of-the year report with no financial accounting. He said he did not Board of Directors Meeting 5 February 1, 2011 at 7:00 P.M. know at that time there was an audit that is done and did not find that out until last Thursday when he had a meeting with City Manager Lance Hudnell and Mr. Dave Byerly, president of the Garland County Economic Development Corporation. He commented that he trusts every number in the audit because it was done by his friend, Mr. Keith Crass. He said after speaking with Mr. Byerly, they came to some agreements and suggestions, and he requested the Board consider a resolution that GCEDC have an accounting presented at the same time as the budget request. He mentioned one of the issues discussed in their meeting was splitting the audit so that public and private funds are accounted for because by virtue of the contract, there are no public funds that go into anything such as spec buildings, etc. Mr. Dave Byerly, 413 Pauline, president of the Garland County Economic Development Corporation, said he did not believe that he and Mr. White disagreed on anything except whether or not it is stronger enforcement if it is enforced by the contract or by the resolution. He said they agreed there is room for improvement, and Mr. White had some good suggestions that seemed very simple, such as stapling the audit that is on file to the back of their annual report so that it is not an affixed piece of the annual report. Therefore, if anyone wants to get the singular document, it has the financials. He pointed out whether the Board passes a resolution to that effect or not, that is a practice he will begin this year. He mentioned they have long desired to have public and private funds segregated, but Mr. Crass insisted those funds remain the way they were. He said he hopes they can segregate those funds and be able to report to the Board specifically what the public funds are and how they are allocating those resources toward the contract. He stated the quarterly reports and annual report, along with an annual audit, are documents that the City requires in its contract. He said he believes that is the strongest position for the City to have that as an enforceable action in the contract rather than confusing it with a resolution. However, if the Board had rather do it in the form of a resolution, then he will abide by that. Director Maruthur said besides segregating the private and the other funds, her concern is performance based; and she understands he cannot disclose a business that he is recruiting to Hot Springs. However, there is a track record of how many businesses GCEDC did try to bring to Hot Springs and what the results were; and that is where a lot of citizenry would like to see their performance-based results. Mr. Byerly responded that they track the number of leads they respond to versus the number of businesses that come in versus the number of projects that enter into negotiations and who they decide to locate here. He said he believes that is information tracked in that order and shows they responded to a certain amount of leads in a certain month and sent RFP’s to a certain number of companies. He added they may not identify that Board of Directors Meeting 6 February 1, 2011 at 7:00 P.M. company and probably will not ever identify who that company is. He said at the point that the company comes forward and accepts a public incentive from Garland County or Hot Springs, they agree they are entering into the public arena. He advised every time GCEDC does a tax-back resolution for a company, those are on file by name; and whenever there is a negotiation that takes place that is dealing with the state’s incentives or the government’s quick action closing fund, there is a very strict confidentiality agreement that is entered into. He explained they are not allowed to disclose the name of those companies until these companies decide they want to do that. When they accept public incentives at the local level, in the tax-back resolution, it identifies who the company is and identifies the anticipated amount of capital investment that is going to take place. Director Maruthur stated she is concerned about the return and mentioned that he travels. She asked how many years has he been here, and Mr. Byerly replied that it is six years. Director Maruthur commented in the last three years, the communications, the travel, the efforts that he has made, the companies that he has been working with that are either here and could be public information or that went somewhere else, the City needs to know that information. She said she understands that he has to keep it confidential unless somebody becomes public, etc. She stated it is a track record, but the Board does know what it is. Mr. Byerly said the Board knows what it is by looking at the report and sees the progress that has been made. He stated he will be glad to answer those questions when there is more time. Director Maruthur said she would like to read the last three or four years what the GCEDC has been doing and where the companies have gone and track down why. Mr. Byerly explained that he cannot identify who that company is, and she is asking for something from a legal standpoint that he is not allowed to provide to the Board. He advised there is a confidentiality agreement that is entered into with the State of Arkansas that he cannot do that. He stated the Board would be bound by the same confidentiality agreement if it decided to enter into those meetings and negotiations. Director Maruthur asked if the businesses they have tried to bring to Hot Springs that have gone somewhere else, there is no way to know about it. Mr. Byerly advised there is no way for the Board to know who those companies are unless they identify themselves. He added in every project, when Hot Springs is eliminated and they decide they no longer want to come to Hot Springs, usually the last question GCEDC asks is can they explain specifically what eliminated Hot Springs, but it is a matter of whether they want to share that or not. Director Maruthur mentioned sometimes there are rumors that a company went somewhere else because Hot Board of Directors Meeting 7 February 1, 2011 at 7:00 P.M. Springs’ taxes were too high. Mr. Byerly responded they have never worked a project where they lost one because of that. Director Garcia pointed out the Contract states the corporation shall submit not less than quarterly reports to the City which illustrate the activity in the corporation and the current financial status. She said it may be beneficial to further define what the activity means because Director Maruthur may interpret that to mean one thing, and she may interpret it to mean something else. Mr. Byerly responded that activity, as it is currently being defined in deliverables, is the prospects they have responded to, the site visits they have received from prospects and ultimately the decision to locate or not locate. He mentioned that as excited as they continue to be about recruitment, the financial means of this business continues to be about working with existing companies and making sure they are able to keep employees. He noted they also track the local companies that they are working with. City Manager Lance Hudnell suggested that in response to Director Maruthur’s concerns, the Directors might want to individually get back with him and Mr. Byerly to look at the annual report and then note some things they would like to see different or things they feel it is deficient in. He said that would give him some feedback to give to Mr. Byerly as to what type of format the Board would like to see or what types of numbers that are not included they would like to see. Mr. Byerly said in regard to the detailed financials, he would be glad to do that. He commented he is not very happy about the circumstances as to why they have to solicit a new auditor. He stated in the solicitation of a new auditor and the audit moving forward, GCEDC hopes that it will be in a position where it can successfully segregate those funds. Mr. Chuck Lilly, 111 Roxbury, said he supports this proposal for a resolution to get more in-depth and inform the public what is happening to their money. He stated that he read the contract and the audit and has talked to Mr. Byerly and believes the contract is poorly written and has been the same for a number of years. He said a definition needs to be made as to what detail level he is looking at, and he personally wants to see it down to the penny on the expense report that somebody took the public’s money and went out of town to a meeting. He commented he did not want an audit that it takes an auditor to interpret and should be a document that can be read. As far as nondisclosure of confidential information, he stated he has never heard where they could not write a nondisclosure statement and have somebody sign it and hold them to that to get the information being requested. He added if it is not written in the Board of Directors Meeting 8 February 1, 2011 at 7:00 P.M. contract, he should be able to come to Mr. Byerly if it is under the Freedom of Information Act, and defy Mr. Byerly to keep him from getting that information if he is willing to sign a nondisclosure statement. He said he cannot understand why the City, City Manager and Directors cannot get that information. Mr. George Pritchett, 210 Carl Drive, said he supports Mr. Byerly’s position that most people do not want to be identified; but his concern is that every citizen gives $3.05 to the Chamber of Commerce; and if they live in the County, they give another $1.00. However, in Little Rock, the citizens give about $1.00. He pointed out there is a lot of infrastructure that the City needs to devote more of its money to and perhaps provide less money to the Chamber in future budgeting. He pointed out in the 2011 budget process in October and November, the Board promised the public it would take some input during the budgeting period as opposed to the last day when it was adopted. He commended Mr. Brian White and Mr. Dave Byerly on what they have done to provide a report. He also commended the Chamber but believes that sometimes the City gives them too much money. He added what they have done has been positive and hopes they continue. There being no further comments, no action was taken on this item. 12 Proposed Resolution No. R-11-15 A resolution entitled, “A RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONTRACT TO BROWN ENGINEERS, LLC, FOR GRINDER LIFT STATION INTEGRATION SERVICES,” was taken from the agenda and read by title only. A motion was made by Director Keheley, duly seconded by Director McCabe , that the resolution be adopted as read. Upon discussion, Mr. Steve Mallet, Deputy City Manager for Public Works and Utilities, explained this contract with Brown Engineers is in the amount of $335,000. He said at the agenda meeting last week, Mr. Brown was in attendance to make a presentation, which included this contract. On December 7, 2010, the Board approved the contract to install radio alarm devices at all of the grinder pump stations within the wastewater system for less than $500 per station. Currently, the system is not capable of receiving this signal but will be transmitted by these devices and will not be able to incorporate them into the existing monitor software without this contract. The units are being purchased from Sensus Meters, which is the same company that is providing for Board of Directors Meeting 9 February 1, 2011 at 7:00 P.M. AMI water meters software, and will utilize that same communication network for this hardware that is being installed. He advised this project will allow the City to monitor all 2,800 grinder lift stations and is a major component of the City’s ability to comply with the Wastewater Consent Administrative Order. He noted if there is a station that is down and the City is not aware of it in a timely manner, then it will eventually result in an overflow which is reported by a homeowner. He explained this will allow the City to be proactive and get to the station before it happens. He advised that is one of the major components of the Administrative Order, and staff has completed the rating and ranking process for an engineering firm; and in accordance with State Law recommends Brown Engineers for this project. Director Keheley said that she carefully reviewed the contract and finds it to be acceptable and the Board should approve it. However, she questioned if the City should not be considering a future maintenance contract on this system since it is important to the wastewater system. She asked how the City is going to maintain it and the equipment, the software, and all the interfaces to keep this system going at all times and said that she is very concerned about proper maintenance. Mr. Mallett advised that the City is also, and that is one of the reasons the City is under an Administrative Order because some of the equipment purchased over the years has not been maintained; and the Order is no longer supported. He advised these units will be specific to Sensus Meters, and they will train city staff to be able to work on them. He said he is sure whoever the City chooses would be more than willing to provide an annual maintenance contract. Director Maruthur asked that he explain a Consent Administrative Order, and Mr. Mallett explained that on August 15, 2008, the City was placed under Consent Administrative Order; and it is an Administrative Order that is placed on the City that it may not agree with; and there is a Consent Administrative Order that both parties comes together on the front-end and agree that this is a reasonable action. He said the City was placed under a Consent Administrative Order in 2008. The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, working under the Environmental Protection Agency, gave the City deadlines to address overflows. It is primarily related to wastewater overflows that were in the system; dry weather overflows that were a result of power going out at stations on a normal, dry day; or grease clogging a line and having an overflow. He stated the primary issue is the wet weather overflows, which is basically rainfall entering the system and overwhelming the pipes, pump stations and plant; and basically the wastewater has no place to go. He said the lines are full, and it comes out at certain manhole locations. He explained this Administrative Order states 2018 is the final deadline, and the City has taken action with a $26 million bond issue as Board of Directors Meeting 10 February 1, 2011 at 7:00 P.M. of last year to address these items. Part of that money is what is being used to pay for this contract and installation of these meters. Director Maruthur asked what would happen if the City did not comply, and Mr. Mallett advised there are penalty provisions within the contract at a per-day fine they could charge. He said the City presented a plan to them where it committed to certain things; and if the City does not follow its own plan that was given to them, then they could come back and fine the City. Director Maruthur questioned the amount of the fine, and Mr. Mallett advised they are daily fines; and it is from $500 to $1,000 per day. Ms. Diane Silverman commented that the City has until 2018 to comply. She pointed out this is the first reading and asked that the Board consider going to three readings at three separate meetings for ordinances and contracts, especially of this nature. City Attorney Brian Albright advised that Arkansas Code Annotated §14-55-202 states that the reading requirement relates to ordinances only, not resolutions; and this is a contract requiring a resolution to approve. Director Maruthur commented that the Board used to read ordinances three times prior to voting on them, and then it was changed. She pointed out it gave the public the opportunity to have input and questioned if the Board could go back to three readings. City Attorney Brian Albright advised that he was not the City Attorney at the time it was changed, but most cities do not have three readings because the law specifically authorizes the Board to suspend the rule and read by title only if 2/3 of the Board votes that way. Regarding the three readings, he said he believes initially when this law was enacted in 1875, people had to ride on horseback to the town hall to see what was posted on a pole. However, there is the ability for better communication now than in 1875, and the information is out there for public discussion at many levels. He explained there are certain issues that require additional readings, such as rate issues; and that requirement is met. He mentioned it was discussed at the Board Retreat if the Board feels there items important enough that need three readings, the Board can do that. Director Maruthur commented when the public hears about an issue, they will come to a meeting with concerns; but it is read by title only and voted on that day. She asked if a citizen is able to request if they attend an agenda meeting that an ordinance be read three times because this needs to be reviewed. City Attorney Brian Albright replied if that is the Board’s pleasure. He added the City can post it on the agenda as Board of Directors Meeting 11 February 1, 2011 at 7:00 P.M. reading for the first time only if that is what the Board directs staff to do. Director Maruthur pointed out when the Directors come to an agenda meeting, they do not know what is on the agenda and have no information except the title of the resolution or ordinance. She said they do not know the details except what is presented by the staff person. She said this needs to be done so the public can have some input. Mayor Carney said this was discussed earlier today, and she believes the Directors can have some more information so they will know which ones will need to be read three times. There being no further discussion on the resolution, Mayor Carney called for a vote on the motion to adopt; and upon roll call, the following voted “aye”: Directors Maruthur, Jones, Keheley, McCabe, Garcia, Daniel, and Carney, total 7; motion unanimously carried. Whereupon the resolution was declared adopted. 13 Proposed Ordinance No. O-11-2 Prior to reading of the ordinance Director Daniel recused himself from this item. An ordinance entitled, “AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY LOCATED AT 2194 HIGDON FERRY ROAD TO THE CITY OF HOT SPRINGS, ARKANSAS; MAKING SAME A PART OF THE CITY OF HOT SPRINGS; ASSIGNING SAID LANDS TO THE ZONING DISTRICT; REVISING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP; ASSIGNING SAID LANDS TO A BOARD DISTRICT; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,” was taken from the agenda for consideration. A motion was made by Director McCabe, duly seconded by Director Keheley, that the rules be suspended and the ordinance be read for the first time by title only; and upon voice vote, the motion carried. The ordinance was then read for the first time by title only; and upon the question “Shall the ordinance be passed as read?” and upon motion of Director Jones, duly seconded by Director McCabe, that the ordinance be passed as read. Upon discussion, Ms. Kathy Sellman, Planning and Development Director, advised this item is being brought by applicants Tom and Mary Daniel, who have voluntarily petitioned Garland County Court for annexation of their property at 2194 Higdon Ferry Road. This petition was on October 9, 1998; and notice was published pursuant to the Arkansas Statute requirements and appeared three times in the Board of Directors Meeting 12 February 1, 2011 at 7:00 P.M. newspaper. The County annexation hearing was October 27, 1998; and County Judge Larry Williams considered and approved the Petition; and the Decree of Annexation is included in the Board packet. She advised there were no proceedings to prevent annexation. She explained that Arkansas Code Annotated provides for a 30-day appeal period, and that passed without appeal. Also, included in the ordinance is the initial zoning of the land. The Planning Commission has advertised and conducted a public hearing to discuss the zoning of the proposed annexed area; and as required by the Code, any modifications to the Comprehensive Plan that may be appropriate. The property owner requested that the Planning Commission recommend initial zoning of C-4 Regional Commercial/Open Display District and requested that be assigned by the Board upon annexation. The property has approximately .68 acres and is developed with four buildings. The Future Land Use Map designation on this property is currently Residential Suburban. Should the Future Land Use Map be amended to Business Commercial, the initial zoning on the C-4 would be consistent with the objectives of the Code to not base exclusively upon the applicant’s desire to increase the value or income potential of the property and that is consistent with the requirements of Hot Springs Code. The subject property is at the intersection of Higdon Ferry Road and Central Avenue. Both of these are designated as highways by the City’s Street Specification Ordinance classification table. Other than an adjacent multi-family development, all other adjacent properties are currently zoned C-4, or they are unzoned because they are still in the County; they are improved and are in use in a C-4 manner. The Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing on January 13, 2011, and voted unanimously to recommend that the Board zone the subject property C-4 and amend the Future Land Use Designation to Business Commercial. In that way, the standards for such an initial zoning application are met. Based upon that, their recommendation to the Board is to approve the ordinance to annex and zone approximately .68 acres at 2194 Higdon Ferry Road, C-4, Regional Commercial/Open Display District and amend the Future Land Use Map designating the property Business Commercial. Attorney Ray Owen, Jr., 209 Hobson, representing Tom and Mary Daniel, advised the City has been expanding its boundaries for many years; and in the past, it has done so primarily by annexation election in which the voters in the City and in the area to be annexed participated in the election. He stated until about 25 years ago, most of the annexations in Hot Springs were done by elections; and the last two successful annexation elections were for a portion of a city park on Whittington in 1970 and a small area north of Hobson Avenue in the “Little Chicago” area in 1984. He stated that subsequently, four separate annexation elections failed (1987, 1989, 1992 and 1998) because they lacked support in the city limits. He advised that property Board of Directors Meeting 13 February 1, 2011 at 7:00 P.M. owners can petition to voluntarily annex into the City; and in recent years, that has been the primary means of expanding the city limits. He mentioned after the last annexation was won in 1984, since then there have been approximately 70 voluntary annexations by petition; and these petitions were filed by people who had a variety of reasons to become part of the City (fire and police protection, lower fire insurance rates, zoning, and city utilities). He pointed out the impact that voluntary annexations have had in the best interest of the City, such as orderly growth; and this growth produces better services and a larger tax base for the community. He reported that the Fire Chief says if the land is annexed, it will have little or no effect on delivery of Fire Department services. He commented that business on the site will generate additional sales tax revenue for the City; and if sometime in the future, the City should adopt a millage, additional revenue will be generated as a result of the property being in the City. He stressed there is no logical reason to deny this voluntary annexation petition; and approving this annexation ordinance will be in the best interest of the City. He then showed a map depicting all of the annexations by election and petition. Mr. George Pritchett, 210 Carl Drive, said he does not support or oppose it. He pointed out as the City continues to annex areas voluntarily, it does add to the burden of the Fire Department and Police Department. He reported that the Fire Chief informed him that it was little or no effect. He pointed out if fire stations are not built because of lack of funds in the infrastructure, citizens might see the fire insurance rates increase. He mentioned that the Board has a precedent of not having to adopt this because it is voluntary; and the Planning Commission frequently presents a number of issues to the Board that comply with the codes and the laws; and the Board overrules them. He requested that the Board amend this by adding the City will not take in any more land and allow the use for fireworks sales inside the city limits. However, if that is not going to be the case, then the City should open it up and allow civic organizations and other businesses to compete fairly for this business. Mr. Brian White, 360 Lakeland Drive, said that he supports the annexation; and in 1998, when the petition was presented, Director Daniel did not know he would be a City Director. He pointed out he is going to be operating the fireworks stand whether he is annexed or not and questioned if the City wants the additional tax revenue. Director Keheley said she had submitted several questions last week to the Fire Chief, and Fire Chief Ed Davis advised that the annexation is unusual in that it is an island, which means the Fire Department is going to respond to any call inside that island as well. He noted there are exposures that are inside the city limits. The Ridgewood Apartments are located in the back of Director Daniel’s property, the mini Board of Directors Meeting 14 February 1, 2011 at 7:00 P.M. golf course to the south of it, and Arvest Bank across the street. He said the Fire Department does this in all the areas that are islands inside the City. He noted it is a service the Fire Department provides to the residents of the City to ensure their property is not impinged upon by a fire that occurs in the County. He added as far as the ISO rating, the point deduction for not having an engine company in that area has already been done. He stated that Director Daniel’s property does not require an aerial apparatus to respond. He advised there are some areas along the lake that will need an engine company in the future. As far as Code Compliance, he said he does not think anyone in the City can go out and form a test on the steel used in that building, but it is a prefabed steel building. He said it is his assumption that it was built to code at the time the building was built in the 1990's; and at that time, the stringentness of the code of that type of occupancy was not as great as it is today. However, Director Daniel is not building that building today but built that building in the 1990's so the Building Code was in place at that time. Director Garcia said she understood this annexation would actually provide him more control and regulation over this business than he has now, and Fire Chief Ed Davis replied that it would. City Attorney Brian Albright said he wanted to make points of clarification based on Mr. Pritchett’s comments in which he recommended that the City amend the proposed ordinance tonight to provide that no future fireworks businesses should come into the City. He advised that this ordinance does not deal with that; and in order to do that, the Board would need to amend Ordinance No. 4691 of 1997, which is the Fire Prevention Code. He noted that he not trying to comment on whether or not the Board should or should not do that, but that would be a separate action. In regard to setting a precedent about matters that come from the Planning Commission, he said it is true that the Board has overturned the Planning Commission on many occasions. However, this is an annexation issue; and according to Mr. Owen’s research in the City records, that record is 70 to 0. Director Garcia commented that a Director should not receive preferential treatment but on the other hand a Director should not receive unequal treatment just because the owner of property requesting annexation is a Director. Therefore, whether the owner is a Director or not, the same level of due diligence should be applied in determining this request and that is what she believes each Director has performed in this due diligence review before taking a vote. Board of Directors Meeting 15 February 1, 2011 at 7:00 P.M.  Mayor Carney then called for a vote on the motion to adopt; and upon roll call, the following voted “aye”: Directors Maruthur, Jones, Keheley, McCabe, Garcia, and Carney, total 6. Director Daniel had recused himself from this item; motion carried. Whereupon the ordinance was declared passed. 14 Proposed Resolution No. R-11-16 A resolution entitled, “A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS TERM OF APPOINTMENT ON THE ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION COMMISSION; AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 3110 OF 1995,” was taken from the agenda and read by title only. A motion was made by Director Maruthur, duly seconded by Director Keheley, that the resolution be adopted as read. Upon discussion, City Attorney Brian Albright advised that at the request of Mayor Carney, he prepared this resolution which would establish a procedure reducing the standard term to two years. In 1995, the Board adopted Resolution No. 3110 which formerly established the term of office on the Advertising and Promotion Commission as the appointee from the Board to a term of four years or until the expired term of the Board Member on the Board. The proposed resolution would reduce that from that term to a term of two years. Ms. Diane Silverman, 1404 Cedar Glades Road, said she is in favor of the two-year term without consecutive terms to allow diversity that is more than color or race. She noted each Director has a diverse background, has something to contribute, has been elected by the public, and from their experience, as many Directors as possible should have the opportunity to serve. Mr. Mark Fleischner, 402 Central, (business address) stated having served on many commissions for the City, civic boards, state and national boards, there is a learning curve. He said his background in education provides him with an advertising background, as well as his business. He pointed out they are constantly marketing the City, and he believes it is critical and many citizens benefit from it. He recalled when the City had no Advertising and Promotion Commission or a Civic Center. He urged the Board to leave things, in this particular instance, the way they are. He said that he feels confident in the people who are in place, whether it is this particular issue or issues that are forthcoming. He requested that the Board consider some of the larger Board of Directors Meeting 16 February 1, 2011 at 7:00 P.M. issues that it has. He stated that he realizes this is all about money; but in some instances, it seems like it is about more; and in his opinion, it is a waste of time. He said he believes everyone who is serving the city has the best interest of all. Therefore, he respectfully requested that the Board leave the resolution as it is. Mr. Pat Patterson, 129 Buster Reed Drive, said he cannot completely disagree with Mr. Fleischner. He pointed out that recently there was a change with the Planning Commission and he believes there is better communication. He stated that he sometimes believes change is for the better, and questioned why the Board should deprive others from serving on the Commission. He added that Director Jones is a good friend, but he believes what is fair is fair. Ms. Ruby Worley, 1201 Cones Road, said she supports changing this from four years to two years. She mentioned at the last election, the citizens voted for a change by electing a new Mayor and Director; and this is time for a change to start on the Advertising and Promotion Commission. She thanked Director Jones for the time she served but believes it is time for the other Directors to have an opportunity to serve. She said she thinks it should be mandatory for no Director to serve more than one term until all Directors have served their term. She asked that the Board start by nominating the District 3 Director where she owns property. Mr. Brian White, 360 Lakeland Drive, said he supports the two-year term and mentioned he has heard comments about the Civic Center being in District 2 and the District 2 Director should have a seat on that commission. He pointed out that physically, the Convention Center and the Advertising and Promotion Commission that operates out of it are in District 2, but it is called the Hot Springs Civic and Convention Center and belongs to the entire City; and the entire City benefits. He suggested some type of rotation on the Commission and spoke of the diverse talent of each Directors and their qualifications to sit on the Commission. Mr. Elmer Beard, 202 Henry, requested that the Board oppose this resolution and expressed appreciation to Mr. Fleischner for his comments. He said in 1988, the old Convention Center, with 75,000 square feet, was placed with the new convention center with 240,000 square feet of space, at $34 million; and this did not come without cost to the community in which it stands. He advised late Director Bob Wheeler, who was a man of his word, led the City into more than $100 million worth of progress and buildings, including the Convention Center. He advised when the community (District 2) asked what it was going to get for that which they were losing, they were told they would always have a position on the Advertising and Promotion Commission. He said that Board of Directors Meeting 17 February 1, 2011 at 7:00 P.M. the citizens in District 2 trusted him, and he led the City into the greatest projects it has ever had and should not forget that. He said they have roots in the ground on which the Convention Center sits, and it belongs to the City; and they will always feel a part of it. He mentioned it is inconceivable that in District 2, the citizens would not have a person on the Advertising and Promotion Commission as they try to keep things fair and balanced. He pointed out where they live in a population where they are denied comparably improvements and benefits according to the parts of the city, District 2 harbors a disproportionate share of public housing, missions, liquor stores; also it harbors a disproportionate share of organizations that feed, clothe, and shelter the homeless and provide information to those seeking relief for unpaid bills, for criminal activity, and medical care. Yet those seeking to have this change because they want to make it fair and equitable have forgotten the role District 2 plays in the heart of the City for they have been here long enough to know they have a right. He said in the efforts to change this, they are losing rather than gaining. He stated they are requesting this based on geography rather than personalities. Mr. Jock McGregor, 240 Morphew Road, spoke in support of the two-year term on the Advertising and Promotion Commission and also the idea of a rotating the terms. He said taxes from all over the city go into the Convention Center, which has been a net gain for District 2. However, he believes there should be a rotating of the Board on a two-year basis. Mr. Wallace Marroy, 117 Thornbury Court, said he did research on the duties of the Advertising and Promotion Commission: (1) it administers the collection and expenditure of the City’s three percent tax on prepared food and lodging for the purpose of promoting Hot Springs; (2) it also operates the Civic Center, Mid-America Museum, and Hot Springs Mountain Tower; (3) it has broad powers in the collection of taxes; (4) it sets the rules for collection; (5) it sets how they are collected and when they are collected; (6) it has all the authority for spending the money that is collected; (7) it hires personnel; (8) it sets the salary for the personnel; (9) it fires personnel; and (10) it decides who can rent the facilities. He said that he elected Director Garcia, and he wants his representative representing him on this Commission. He noted at the present time, the Commission consists of seven members (four are business leaders, and they either have to own a motel, hotel, or restaurant; two are Board Members; and one is at-large). He proposed going to three business leaders, three Board of Directors, and one at-large. He said with a two-year term all Directors have a chance to serve in their four-year term. Board of Directors Meeting 18 February 1, 2011 at 7:00 P.M.  Director Daniel advised that the Board of Directors does not set out who serves on the Commission, and they do not set the number of people that are from the Board or at-large; but that is done by the State of Arkansas. He explained the State of Arkansas says there will be two people representing the municipality; there will be one person at-large; and four people from the industry. City Attorney Brian Albright explained that the State of Arkansas authorizes the Commission to be formed, and it is formed by ordinance; but the State of Arkansas, according to Arkansas Code Annotated §26-75-605 sets forth the structure of the Commission, which is four people from the industry; two from the Board of Directors; and one at-large. Mr. Marroy asked if it can be 4-3-1, and City Attorney Brian Albright advised that state law would have to be amended in order to do that. Mayor Carney pointed out that the one person at-large is appointed by the Board of Directors; therefore, the Board actually can appoint three people; and it does not have to be one person from that District. Mr. Marroy commented everyone would get a chance to be on the Advertising and Promotion Commission. He noted there are many complaints about the “hamburger” tax, and no one is in favor of it. Therefore, it would be nice if they had some input as to how it is spent. Director Maruthur stated since this was discussed at the Board Retreat, she heard the comment “that is always the way we did it.” She said she expressed that she would be interested in serving on the Advertising and Promotion Commission. She commented the positions on the Board representing the Districts and the at-large position the Mayor now occupies, supercedes the appointment to the Advertising and Promotion Commission. She commented if the Board did it the same way and that is the way it was always done, the women in this audience would not be here and would not have the right to vote. She mentioned Director Jones has been the representative for a number of years on the Advertising and Promotion Commission and has done a good job working with the Commission. However, the Directors represent the people who elected them; and in her opinion, the Directors should have the opportunity to have a voting position. She said if things are kept the way they are, it will be the same results, and that is not going to benefit a lot of people. She said when people are not represented, there are problems; and she does not think there is one Director who could not serve on the Advertising and Promotion Commission and should not have the opportunity. She commented that some of the people in the audience would not have the right to vote either if things stayed the way they were. She stressed that the Board has to be fair to all people. Board of Directors Meeting 19 February 1, 2011 at 7:00 P.M.  A motion was made by Director Maruthur that there be no consecutive terms for any Director and change the terms from four years to two years. Mayor Carney called for a second to the motion; and there being no second, the motion died for lack of a second. Director McCabe commented there are seven positions on the Commission, and four of them are appointed by the Advertising and Promotion Commission at four-year terms; one is an at-large position that has a four-year term; and the proposal is to have the two Director positions with two-year terms. He pointed out when this happens, there will be five people being replaced at the same time, which is 5/7 of the Commission. He stressed that is a terrible situation to get into. He stated in governance, there needs to be continuity of leadership within the Commission or the Board. He said there is no corporation in the United States, unless that industry is just failing, where there would be such a massive change in governance. He commented that Hewlett Packard recently had a retreat and wiped out their board and put four new board members on because they felt that the talents within that board were not going to lead them forward. He said that is very rarely seen, and with this change on the Advertising and Promotion Commission there will be commissioners changing constantly. He said although he is not speaking for the executive of the entity, it puts him in a difficult situation because they are always in the situation of training. He added there was an amendment which died that there would not be succession. He said everyone has talents, but there is also a learning curve. He stressed for those executives who report to a board, that is a terrible situation to be in where there would be five new commissioners out of seven. As it relates to the two-year term, he said he could never support that. Director Keheley said for years District 2 has been represented on the Advertising and Promotion Commission, and she believes it is appropriate because of the impact that facility had on some of the neighborhoods, that community, and those citizens who live in that district. She commented that hopefully, this facility will continue to grow; and it is going to need expansion. She said the City has to look to the future, and that is more reason District 2 has to be directly represented on the Advertising and Promotion Commission because it is their community and neighborhood. She noted that one part that concerned her were the terms, and she would like to make it fair and let everyone have a voice. She said she would like to see everyone go to the Advertising and Promotion Commission meetings and participate. She added that all of the other Advertising and Promotion commissioners serve a four-year term. She expressed concern if the Board sends representatives for just two years, they will not be on equal Board of Directors Meeting 20 February 1, 2011 at 7:00 P.M. footing with the others, less experience, and, therefore, a lesser voice. She pointed out in the business of the Commission, there needs to be an equal voice. Therefore, she supports the four-year term at this time. At this time, Director Daniel made a motion, duly seconded by Director McCabe, to call for the question. City Attorney Brian Albright explained that the Board is voting on the resolution which would change the term of office for a Director on the Advertising and Promotion Commission from the established four-year term to a two-year term. He said a vote “yes” changes it from four to two; and a vote “no” keeps it at four. Mayor Carney then called for a vote on the motion; and upon roll call, the following voted “aye”: Directors Maruthur and Carney, total 2. Voting “no”: Directors Garcia, Jones, Keheley, McCabe, and Daniel, total 5; motion failed. Whereupon the resolution was declared failed. 15 Proposed Resolution No. R-11-17 A resolution entitled, “A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE PROCEDURE FOR THE SELECTION OF BOARD OF DIRECTOR POSITIONS ON THE ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION COMMISSION,” 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, City Attorney Brian Albright advised that pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated that has been referenced tonight (§26-75-605) and Ordinance No. 4002 of 1989, those provisions provide that two of the members of the Advertising and Promotion Commission shall be members of the Board of Directors. He said the intent of the proposed resolution is to establish a procedure by which a member of the Board may be nominated to serve on the Advertising and Promotion Commission. Heretofore, the Board has exercised an informal process by which nominations came before the Board; and the proposed resolution, if it were adopted, would set into place a structured way of coming up with the nominees, not the appointment actually to the Board because that requires a separate appointment by resolution. He then read Section 1 of the resolution which stated: “Whenever a vacancy in one or more of the Board of Directors positions on the Advertising and Promotion Commission shall occur Board of Directors Meeting 21 February 1, 2011 at 7:00 P.M. by expiration of a term of office or otherwise, procedure for filling said vacancy shall be as follows: (1) the Mayor shall draw from lots consisting of the position number of each Board Member, excluding the Mayor and any Board Member whose term on the Advertising and Promotion Commission has not yet expired. The purpose of said drawing is to establish the order of voting on candidates to the Advertising and Promotion Commission. As each eligible Board position number is drawn, any number not wishing to serve on the Advertising and Promotion Commission may so indicate by stating “pass” upon the drawing of his or her lot or position number. Otherwise, voting on such candidates shall occur immediately by way of calling the roll. Such a candidate not receiving the requisite four affirmative votes when the Mayor has drawn, then there will be the continuation of drawing the remaining lots; and the process will continue thereafter until a candidate has received the requisite four affirmative votes at which time the drawing shall cease and the Board Member receiving the four affirmative votes shall be considered the Board’s nominee for appointment. After the nominee has been selected in accordance with the above-described procedure, his or her appointment shall be confirmed by resolution of the Board of Directors.” He stated if this resolution were adopted, there is a container with Board Position Nos. 1 through 5 because currently, Director Daniel is still serving an unexpired term (Position 6); and Mayor Carney would draw one of the pieces of paper. He advised the position number that is drawn would then have the option if they want to be considered for the Advertising and Promotion Commission. If so, the Board would vote on that position immediately. If that Board Member receives four votes, it stops; and that is the nominee. The next item of business on the agenda is the appointment resolution which will now be for four years. If they do not receive four votes, then the Mayor draws again and asks the Board Director if he or she is interested in serving on the Advertising and Promotion Commission. If they say “yes,” then the Board votes immediately; and the process continues until there are four affirmative votes. He advised the other procedure was any Director could nominate anyone, and it was very informal. Ms. Diane Silverman, 1404 Cedar Glades Road, said she thinks the idea of drawing the numbers is as good an idea as any other; and she supports it. Mr. Kurt Schatzel, 400 Convention Boulevard, manager of the Embassy Suites Hotel, advised that about nine years ago, the company invested $40 million; and because this is a great tourism community, it has the largest convention facility in the state. He noted having the largest convention center there and probably the largest, single private investment in tourism in Hot Springs’ history in District 2, he is concerned that representation would be lost in District 2. He mentioned that the District 2 Director, without question, would be the largest stakeholder of any Directors. He stated the Board of Directors Meeting 22 February 1, 2011 at 7:00 P.M. system in place began with the late Bob Wheeler’s leadership, and that informal system allowed for District 2 to be represented. He said he believes that is a great reason for the continued success of this Convention Center and tourism development in general in the City. He commented for that to go to a drawing, does not give him great comfort as a business leader. He pointed out the continuity of leadership and the learning curve is real, and there is a great deal of comfort in not changing something that is working so well. He emphasized if anything in Hot Springs is working well, it is tourism. He said to undo something that has worked so well, there have to be bigger issues that the City and Board should be directing its attention to. Mayor Carney pointed out that the statute says that the Advertising and Promotion Commission selects four people themselves. She questioned if there are not other people they could choose. She pointed out they have four selections themselves that they can choose, but she does not know which ones he thinks on the Board of Directors are not capable of serving on the Commission. She stated if they are not capable, the rest of the Directors being board members on another entity, then they probably should not have been on the City Board of Directors because there are a lot of issues they have to handle and a lot of research they have to do. She commented there are many things that are required of the Directors but probably not required on the Advertising and Promotion Commission. She asked if he thinks some of the Board Members are incompetent to serve on the Advertising and Promotion Commission. Mr. Schatzel replied that he did not believe that at all and is sure the Directors would not have been elected if they did not have a great deal of competence and leadership. Mayor Carney pointed out the only people in the container are the ones on the Board, and these are districts that they represent. Mr. Schatzel said it is his understanding that the Board has two appointments and an at-large appointment, and the current system allows them to make sure that District 2 is represented. He stated if they are looking in the future of continued growth or things that might happen to impede the growth of the Convention Center, it is a real concern. He stressed that their company made a big investment in this area, and it would not have happened without a great Board of Directors and an outstretched hand from the Mayor and the Chamber of Commerce. He added anything that would undo that is a concern. He commented that he has worked in the industry as the general manager level for 26 years and has never seen it work this well. He noted he worked in cities where they had great facilities, but it did not work because the funding mechanism was not in place or the leadership was not in place on a director level or the professional staff level. He advised that he has been in cities around the country, and this does work for one reason being representation from the district where the facility is located. Mayor Carney asked if the Advertising and Promotion Commission does not hold some responsibility to nominate one of their Board of Directors Meeting 23 February 1, 2011 at 7:00 P.M. four from that district. Mr. Schatzel replied that he is sure there is, and the requirements are business owners and managers in that district that are in the tourism industry. He said he really cannot speak to that what pool of talent is available in District 2. Director Garcia commented the selection process is basically the order of the vote, and the drawing of the name is not how this appointment will be elected but is just the order of the vote. City Attorney Brian Albright advised that is correct, and the Board is not selecting its representative on the Advertising and Promotion Commission by a draw. He pointed out the draw is to ascertain whether or not that Director is interested in the position; and if so, there will be a vote on that Director or until a Director gets four votes. Director McCabe commented that the Board would not move forward to the next draw, and the only reason the Board would move forward to the next draw is if the first draw did not get four affirmative votes. Director Keheley questioned if the Board establishes this new procedure if it is going to be a permanent selection process, and City Attorney Brian Albright advised with regard to the Advertising and Promotion Commission, it would establish a permanent process by which a vacancy would be filled whether it is a result of an expired term or otherwise, meaning someone resigns, passes away, etc. Director Keheley asked if a “no” vote would leave it like it is, which is informal. City Attorney Brian Albright advised that it would be informal which would be just a voice nomination from the Board. Mr. Nathaniel Freeman, 207 Hermlee, requested that the Board elect District 2 Director back to the Advertising and Promotion Commission. He stated District 2 should have a direct voice with this Commission basically because District 2 is more impacted than any other district with the Hot Springs Civic and Convention Center adjoining it, the parking lots, potential future of expansion, and activities that are associated with all of the things under District 2. He said it is of the utmost importance that District 2 Director be part of that Commission. He pointed out that many low-income families have already been displaced in District 2 by the Convention Center expansion, and it is important for the needs of District 2 to be able to be at the table when changes are made or discussions are held. He said the Board of Directors is entitled to two representatives on the Advertising and Promotion Commission, and these two representatives can provide a fair and balanced approach for District 2, as well as the other districts for the City. He noted he lives in District 5 and believes his Board of Directors Meeting 24 February 1, 2011 at 7:00 P.M. needs will be addressed by electing the person back from District 2. He respectfully requested that the Board elect the Director back from District 2. Mr. Kevin Glover, 808 Gaines, stated he is going to allocate his time to Mr. Elmer Beard. Mr. Elmer Beard said that he wants the two people who spoke in favor of this to know that he appreciates their attitude and their spirit; and it is about geography, pride, moving people, and is about the entire City of Hot Springs; but they are about the City of Hot Springs also. He pointed out the Convention Center is big business, and it will have to expand again; and somebody will have to move. He said that he hoped the Board will be open-minded and fair. Mr. Bob Driggers, #3 Stonegate, commented he is disappointed to see this item so politicized and the intimidation, etc. that has gone with it. He said the Advertising and Promotion Commission is the Hot Springs Advertising and Promotion Commission because it represents all of Hot Springs. He commented this seat does not belong to one district, and the Advertising and Promotion Commission does not belong to one district. Regarding the perception of the Advertising and Promotion Commission and the Directors who have served on the Advertising and Promotion Commission, he said he has not seen doing a great job of accountability or reporting back to the public. He stated he believes the primary job the Directors have in serving on the Advertising and Promotion Commission is to come back and inform the rest of the Board and the public what is happening. He said the perception of the public is they see the three-cent tax; they see hundreds of thousands of dollars being spent on hot air balloons, and then all of a sudden upgrade the hot air balloons. He commented the public sees lavish parties that are given for one of the current Directors that would not be available to the public. He said that he is very concerned because of actions of the past Board Members not understanding what conflicts of interest are. He stated that he believes District 2 deserves a voice, and the Advertising and Promotion Commission needs to open a public comment section at every meeting just like the Board does. He urged the Board to do what is fair and what is equitable. Ms. Jewel Porter, 126 Maiden Street, said since the Convention Center sits in District 2, it seems District 2 should be represented. She stated she has lived across the country and does not know of any other place where people from another district would sit on the board of an address that is not in their district. She commented she would be be angry if she thought her Director did not represent the institution in District 2. Board of Directors Meeting 25 February 1, 2011 at 7:00 P.M.  Mr. Alvin Clayton, 131 Lafayette, said that views the Board Meetings on television but came tonight to listen and see how the Directors work. Mr. George Pritchett, 210 Carl Drive, stated that he was an advocate of the two-year term. He spoke of his respect for Mr. Elmer Beard and Ms. Cheryl Batts and said that he learned more from Ms. Batts about Hot Springs, and in particular the black community, than he knew about anything in his life. He added that he understood they want this representation in District 2. He mentioned that Director Jones is probably one of the friendliest people one is going to meet and stated that he opposed the drawing of lots. He pointed out he is a resident of District 5 and has never been represented on the Advertising and Promotion Commission. He commended Mr. Steve Arrison, executive director of the Advertising and Promotion Commission, and Director Tom Daniel and Director Elaine Jones for their work. However, he said he would like to be represented and believes every citizen in Hot Springs, regardless of what district they live in, should have an opportunity to be represented. He pointed out the Advertising and Promotion Commission may operate under a different structure, but it still is the City’s money; and all citizens need to be represented and all citizens have roots in the area in which they live. Ms. Susan Jones, 907 West St. Louis, said her biggest concern is the fact that a large majority of those who addressed the Board tonight make it sound as if the only thing the Advertising and Promotion Commission is supposed to cover is the Convention Center, and everybody is saying they will not be represented. She commented that all of Hot Springs is not the Convention Center, and each district has things that affect its residents differently. She said if the residents do not have someone who represents them that is held accountable, then they do not have a voice. She commented that all four of the individuals that the Advertising and Promotion Commission brings in could be from District 2, and that would be their option. She added that District 2 is not being left out if changes are made but is just opening it up to the point that all of Hot Springs is being represented. She stated some decisions that are made to support one business may be detrimental to a community because it causes conflicts and hardships or draws from another community to where that community suffers because all of the Advertising and Promotion Commission was put here. She stated Hot Springs deserves to have the Advertising and Promotion Commission support businesses and things that are going on in their area just as well as the other districts. She said her concern is that all citizens pay the tax but are very limited in how they are represented and would like to see the Commission take in one or two from District 2. Board of Directors Meeting 26 February 1, 2011 at 7:00 P.M.  Mr. Pat Patterson said that he lives in the County, but he spends most of his money in the City. He noted the City gets his sales tax, and the Advertising and Promotion Commission gets his three percent every time he goes out to eat. He stated he feels like everybody should be represented, and he is asking for a fair system of representation, not who, but a fair system. Mr. Willie McCoy, 707 Cypressvale, stated he did not realize he was going to hear a situation where his community has to fight by way of directorship to actually get a position on the Advertising and Promotion Commission. He said he thinks it is sad there is no one looking at other people in the community when they have those other four positions. He questioned if there has there ever been a black person that the Advertising and Promotion Commission selected other than just a Director. He added he believes all of the Directors should have a hand in what goes on with the Advertising and Promotion Commission but does not think they are going to be able to wipe out the black community and not hear something about it. He said he did not know of any black other than Director Jones who has served on the Advertising and Promotion Commission. He mentioned that when he came tonight, he thought he was going to hear about taxes and fees because no one knows where the taxes are going, and the citizens need a little more transparency. He said he hopes the Directors try to get a handle on this maybe not tonight but at least try to address it where there is more transparency. He noted people are upset with the “hamburger” tax, and they want to know where the money is going. He pointed out the Board has heard the black community say they want to make sure they have representation on the Advertising and Promotion Commission. Director McCabe commented at the Board Retreat, this topic probably comprised a large amount of time; and the Board recognizes thoroughly what he is saying and what others have said about the four positions that are selected by the Advertising and Promotion Commission. He added the community needs to do a better job in reaching out and recruiting individuals of a minority background to serve in some of those positions so the pressure is not always on District 2. He said he believes it is important to have diversity within those four positions selected by the Advertising and Promotion Commission or the at-large position because there is no guarantee that the District 2 representative is going to be a member of the African-American community. He mentioned that he was the City Director of the majority-minority district in 1994, and he met with the ministers within District 2 and they were very concerned about the Civic Center expansion. He said he met with them, and they felt they did not have a connection to the Advertising and Promotion Commission. He noted when he met with Board of Directors Meeting 27 February 1, 2011 at 7:00 P.M. them, he believed their real concern was the AME Visitor’s Chapel and whether that would be raised for the expansion of the Civic Center. He mentioned he coordinated a meeting with them and the executive director of the convention center at that time and shared with them the vision. He added they were well at ease and knew that was not going to be razed. He stressed there is a real tie between District 2 and the Advertising and Promotion Commission. He pointed out there is nothing in writing that says there will always have to be a representative from District 2, and as there is diversity within the other slots on the Advertising and Promotion Commission, there may be an opportunity. He commented there is no guarantee that District 2 will always be held by someone of a minority background. Director Daniel advised that Mr. Aaron Gordon was on the Advertising and Promotion Commission before Director Jones. He noted the State law says the four positions on the Advertising and Promotion Commission have to be people from the industry, which is hotels, tourism, and restaurants. He noted if there is not someone in District 2 who is in the hotel, tourism, or restaurant business, the Advertising and Promotion Commission cannot appoint those people. Regarding comments about diversifying and the need to get these people, he advised this needs to go through the State to get it changed. He mentioned there was representation from the black community when Mr. Aaron Gordon was on the Commission and now Director Elaine Jones. In regard to how the money from the 3 percent tax is collected and spent, he said the Civic Center is owned by the City of Hot Springs; but it is run by a separate administration that collects the tax and spends the tax to advertise and promote the City of Hot Springs. Regarding comments about the hot air balloon, he stated it is something that will be seen everywhere; and since there are comments about the hot air balloon means that the advertising works. Director Keheley pointed out that the Advertising and Promotion Commission already has a minority (a Hispanic) serving on the Commission so they do have representation. Mayor Carney stated in regard to the at-large position, the Board could choose anyone for the at-large position, and it does not have to be a Director. Director Garcia pointed out this resolution and the vote taken is the bottom line order of votes for the next item of business for the election. At this time, Director Maruthur called for the question, duly seconded by Director Keheley. Board of Directors Meeting 28 February 1, 2011 at 7:00 P.M.  Director McCabe said for clarification, a “yes” vote is to change the system and go with drawing of the lots; and a “no” vote is to vote it down and remain with the previous method. Mayor Carney then called for a vote on the motion to adopt the resolution; and upon roll call, the following voted “aye”: Directors Daniel, Garcia, Maruthur, and Carney, total 4. Voting “no”: Directors McCabe, Keheley, and Jones, total 3; motion carried. Whereupon the resolution was declared adopted. City Attorney Brian Albright asked that Mayor Carney begin the drawing process to determine who will be considered first. Prior to the drawing, Director Garcia stated there has been much discussion about Board appointments to the Advertising and Promotion Commission; and each Director is duly elected from their respective districts; and she respects them and their positions. She mentioned that each of the Directors have different skills and bring something different to the table, and each Director is eligible to serve on the Advertising and Promotion Commission. She said each Director interested in serving on the Commission should be provided the opportunity to serve as one of the two representatives from the City Board. She advised the State of Arkansas law dictates as to what and how the Advertising and Promotion Commission can spend money. She mentioned there has been much discussion about District 2 and having a direct voice to the Advertising and Promotion Commission, and District 2 is more impacted than any other district regarding the physical location of the Convention Center and adjoining parking lot. She pointed out that potential, future parking lot, as well as other activities at the Convention Center, are of concern to these residents. Also, many low-income families have already been displaced during the expansion. She said it has been expressed overwhelmingly by the citizens speaking tonight that it is important for the needs of District 2 to be considered by the Commission. She said she has visited the Webb Center, and the youth of this community are involved in activities of the Center located in the back door of the Convention Center. She also visited Head Start on Garden Street, and the children of low-income families have access to great programs there; and they are just up the hill from the Convention Center parking lot. She stressed it would be a travesty for either of these facilities to be displaced, and citizens in this area have a real concern of these issues. She added that currently the only representative that the citizens in District 2 believe they have a direct voice is through their Director on the City Board, and the citizens of District 2 should have a voice regarding commission decisions that could impact their community. Currently, this is Board of Directors Meeting 29 February 1, 2011 at 7:00 P.M. believed to be from the District Director of District 2. She pointed out it may be possible that the Advertising and Promotion Commission could consider a citizens advisory committee which could provide access and input to the Commission, and it may also be prudent for the Commission to recruit and seek diversity candidates for at-large positions. She said that she is deeply committed to diversity in all of the committees, in the city government, and the Advertising and Promotion Commission. She commented it is through diversity of race, gender, age, culture, economic levels, ethnic backgrounds, and religion that everyone can best reflect the citizenry of the City, as well as obtaining the best decisions for the community. She noted she does not believe it is the sole responsibility of the City Board to ensure diversity on the Advertising and Promotion Commission, and possibly the Commission will consider other opportunities to seek diversity, as well as providing direct input from the citizens of District 2, that might be physically impacted by the decisions of the Commission. She stated the City Board may not always be able to provide this level of diversity to the Commission in the future or direct voice of District 2. However, at this time, the Board is perceived the only way that the citizens of District 2 feel they have this direct voice. She said she expects that whomever the representative of the Board to the Commission is will take her and other Board Members input to the Commission and work for all citizens of Hot Springs. After drawing for position number by Mayor Carney, City Manager Lance Hudnell announced that the first position to be considered for nomination to the Commission will be Position 1 (Director Maruthur). City Attorney Brian Albright explained that Director Maruthur is given the opportunity to pass. If she does not want to pass, then the Directors will vote immediately. Mayor Carney announced that Director Maruthur’s position came up and asked if she would be willing to serve on the Advertising and Promotion Commission, and Director Maruthur replied that she would. At this time, Mayor Carney called for a vote to approve the nomination of Director Maruthur to the Advertising and Promotion Commission; and upon roll call, the following voted “aye”: Director Maruthur and Mayor Carney, total 2. Voting “no”: Directors Jones, Keheley, McCabe, Garcia, and Daniel, total 5; nomination failed. At this time, Mayor Carney drew for the next position; and Position No. 2 was drawn. Mayor Carney called for a vote to approve the nomination of Director Jones to Board of Directors Meeting 30 February 1, 2011 at 7:00 P.M. the Advertising and Promotion Commission; and upon roll call, the following voted “aye:” Directors Maruthur, Jones, Keheley, McCabe, Garcia, and Daniel, total 6. Voting “no”: Mayor Carney; nomination passed. City Attorney Brian Albright advised that the nominee which will be included in Proposed Resolution No. R-11-18 will be Director Elaine Jones, and will be Position 2, not because she is District 2, but that is the way it appears on the Advertising and Promotion Commission and will be a term for four years or until the expiration of her term of office as Board of Director, which is December 31, 2014. 16 Proposed Resolution No. R-11-18 A resolution entitled, “A RESOLUTION APPOINTING DIRECTOR ELAINE JONES TO THE ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION COMMISSION,” was taken from the agenda and read in its entirety. A motion was made by Director Daniel, duly seconded by Director McCabe, that the resolution be adopted as read; and upon roll call, the following voted “aye”: Directors Maruthur, Jones, Keheley, McCabe, Garcia, Daniel, and Carney, total 7; motion unanimously carried. Whereupon the resolution was declared adopted. OTHER BUSINESS 17 Board of Directors Items for Discussion Director Garcia thanked Mayor Carney and Ms. Margaret Parris, executive secretary to the City Manager, for the Proclamation that was issued earlier tonight. Mayor Carney mentioned and thanked all of the people who helped with the homeless count for 2011. She added it is the first one that will be held and will be continually held every year as a federal mandate to determine how much federal and private money the community will receive. She reported a week ago today at 7:30 a.m., the volunteers went all over the city trying to count the homeless. She expressed appreciation to the Samaritan Ministries, Quapaw House, OCC, Arkansas Hospice, Garland County Cares, Hot Springs Police Department, and many citizens who participated. She also thanked Chick-Fil-A that donated biscuits for breakfast and Starbucks for the coffee, which was taken into the homeless areas and to the streets Board of Directors Meeting 31 February 1, 2011 at 7:00 P.M. and fed people. She said they also knocked on hotel doors and got people out who are actually homeless. Director Jones asked how many homeless people there are in the community, and Mayor Carney advised that she is not sure of the final count, but it was for several counties around; and they were computing all of the papers that were turned in by a lot of different people. Director Jones thanked all of those who showed up to support her tonight. She said she will be more transparent if that is going to make her a better person because when she was appointed to the Commission, she intended to serve the entire City not just District 2 but said District 2 is in her heart and everyone knows that. She stated she will report to the Board what happened each month at the Advertising and Promotion Commission meeting. 18 City Manager’s Report City Manager Lance Hudnell gave the following report: 1. Free Ride Day was observed for the 30th anniversary of the Transit System and had 1150 passengers ride. There were many local merchants who donated give-a-way’s for that day to the passengers. He expressed appreciation to all of the merchants who participated. 2. There are a number of openings on the Boards and Commissions. If citizens live within the City and are interested in serving on one of the boards or commissions, they may go online at www.cityhs.net or call the City Manager’s Office at 321-6811 to receive an application for consideration to serve on one of the boards or commissions. 3. Youth Softball registration will be held until March 14 for girls, ages 4 to 13 years of age. Those interested may contact the Parks and Recreation Department at 321-6871. 4. There is some installation of remote monitoring devices underway around the City on the wastewater pumps. If residents are concerned or wondering what is happening, they may call the Utilities Department at 623-7473. Board of Directors Meeting 32 February 1, 2011 at 7:00 P.M. 19 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m., to meet again on Tuesday, February 15, 2011, at 7:00 p.m. ATTEST: _____________________ APPROVED:__________________ Lance Spicer, City Clerk Ruth Carney, Mayor Board of Directors Meeting 33 February 1, 2011 at 7:00 P.M.