rescheduled regular meeting of the board of …€¦ · rescheduled regular meeting of the board of...

09082009minutes.doc 1

RESCHEDULED REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

OF THE CITY OF TEXARKANA, ARKANSAS SEPTEMBER 8, 2009

__________________________________ MEMBERS PRESENT:

The Board of Directors of the City of Texarkana, Arkansas, convened in rescheduled

regular session at 7:00 PM on September 8, 2009 with the following members present: Mayor

Horace G. Shipp, Assistant Mayor Chad Dowd, and Directors Ruth Penney Davis, Laney J.

Harris, Sue Johnson, James Mike Jones, and Londell Williams. Also present were City Manager

Harold E. Boldt, City Attorney Ned Stewart, and City Clerk Patti Scott Grey.

INVOCATION: The invocation was given by Director Ruth Penney Davis.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Director Ruth Penney Davis led everyone in the Pledge of Allegiance.

MAYOR WELCOME: Mayor Shipp welcomed two students from Dr. Bughes' class at Texas A & M University,

Clayton Tinkes and Max Brackeen. EXECUTIVE SESSION:

The Mayor announced, with the Board’s support, he would like to move item “5.

Executive Session” from the beginning of the agenda to the end of the agenda following Citizen

Communication time. The board voiced their approval.

EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS: Mayor Shipp presented awards to Robert W. Nix and Mark Aaron. Each recipient

received a City of Texarkana, Arkansas, Employee Service Award and a Texarkana, Arkansas

City pin. The award recognized Robert W. Nix for 35 years service with the Fire Department

and Mark Aaron for 25 years service with the Texarkana Water Utilities. They accepted the

honor and thanked Mayor Shipp, the Board of Directors, and City Manager Harold E. Boldt.


Mayor Shipp commented Alton Endsley, Josh McGilberry and Doyle Seward were

unable to attend tonight’s meeting and he would make sure they received their awards and pins.

Mr. Endsley would have been recognized for 20 years of service with the Fire Department, and

Mr. McGilberry and Mr. Seward would have both been recognized for 5 years of service with

the Texarkana Water Utilities respectively.

CONSENT AGENDA: Director Johnson moved to approve the consent agenda. The motion was seconded by

Director Jones and carried unanimously. The items approved by consent were:

MINUTES: The minutes approved were of the regular meeting of August 17, 2009.

RESOLUTION NO. 5628: Resolution No. 5628 grants permission to the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation

to have the 2009 Race for the Cure on Saturday, October 17, 2009, from 8:30 AM to 10:00 AM.

The race would cover 3.1 miles, beginning and ending at the Ben and Jane Collins home located

at 20th and Olive Streets, Texarkana, Texas.

REGULAR AGENDA: ORDINANCE NO. L-359:

An ordinance was introduced to be entitled, "AN ORDINANCE WAIVING

COMPETITIVE BID REQUIREMENTS AND AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF TRAINING

LAB USE OF FORCE—COMPUTER SIMULATOR FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT;

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES". Said ordinance authorizes the purchase of a Training Lab Use

of Force—Computer Simulator from Ti Training Corporation of Golden, Colorado, to allow

officers to experience a wide variety of use of force scenarios to enhance their decision-making

on correct department procedures without having to make the drive to the closest use of force

simulator located in Camden, Arkansas at the Arkansas Law Enforcement Training Academy.

The competitive bidding requirement was being waived due to the fact this company, Ti Training

Corporation, was the “sole source”.


City Manager Harold E. Boldt spoke briefly in regard to the item, restating the police

department would like to purchase a Training Lab Use of Force – Computer Simulator for use by

the Training Section to allow officers to experience a wide variety of use of force scenarios to

enhance their decision making on the correct department procedures for following the agency

use of force continuum as outlined in the department general order manual. The closest use of

force simulator was located in Camden, Arkansas at the Arkansas Law Enforcement Training

Academy. These systems were used by police departments to put officers in training situations

where they have to make quick decisions when placed in a situation which require them to use

the different types of force to protect themselves and/or a citizen at a police call for service.

The police department had evaluated a wide variety of simulators used by police

departments. They looked at the equipment capability, the cost, warranty, service, and whether

it met the training expectations of the command staff with a balance between cost and delivering

quality training in relation to product cost. The agency had requested “sole source” designation

for this equipment. The police department plans to amend the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant

(JAG) with the Department of Justice (DOJ) to utilize their funds for this equipment. It would

also amend the budget in accordance with the proposed sources of funds available. They

propose the following funding sources for this item, stating no City General Funds were needed,

as follows:

$10,000.00 DWI Fund 107

$10,000.00 USMS Fund 401

$10,000.00 FY 2009 JAG Stimulus Supplemental Appropriation

$10,000.00 Prosecutor Drug Forfeiture Funds

The City Manager and staff recommend board approval.

Police Chief Bob Harrison stated most of the simulators start at $100,000 to $150,000.

Ti Training Corporation was the only company the police department could find that gave them a

price of $48,000 and reduced the price to $40,000, because of the police department’s

geographical location. This training simulator was compact and portable. The more expensive

simulators were in a fixed location at a training facility.


Chief Harrison said he would be happy to respond to questions.

Mayor Shipp stated this ordinance was to waive competitive bidding. He asked Chief

Harrison about comparative simulators.

Chief Harrison said no other simulators were in the $40,000 price range.

Director Davis asked if this simulator was as good as the more expensive simulators.

Chief Harrison said yes it was as good as the more expensive simulators.

Mayor Shipp asked Chief Harrison what accounted for the price difference, one simulator

was portable and the other more expensive simulator was fixed.

Chief Harrison said the fixed simulator included more firearms, a larger screen, and more

sound. He said the simulator from the Ti Training Corporation was set up in the training room at

Bi-State and the simulator worked exceptionally well. He was extremely pleased with the

simulators performance. In time, the simulator would save the police department money, fuel,

time from going to the firing range and also the cost of ammunition. This simulator fires a laser

cartridge that shows exactly where the officer hit the target.

Director Williams moved to have the ordinance read in abbreviated form. The motion

was seconded by Director Harris and carried unanimously.

The ordinance was read the first time.

Director Williams moved that the rules be suspended and the ordinance be placed on its

second reading. The motion was seconded by Director Johnson. The Clerk called the roll and

the following vote resulted: Directors Davis, Dowd, Harris, Johnson, Jones, Williams, and Shipp

voted aye. The Mayor declared the motion carried, as there were seven ayes and no nays. The

ordinance was read the second time and the Mayor declared the ordinance open for discussion.

Mayor Shipp then moved that the rules be further suspended and the ordinance be placed

on its third and final reading. The motion was seconded by Director Jones. The Clerk called the

roll and the following vote resulted: Directors Davis, Dowd, Harris, Johnson, Jones, Williams,

and Shipp voted aye. The Mayor declared the motion carried, as there were seven ayes and no

nays. The ordinance was then read the third and final time and the Mayor declared the ordinance

open for discussion.


The Mayor then put the question, "Shall the Ordinance pass?" The Clerk called the roll

and the following vote resulted: Directors Davis, Dowd, Harris, Johnson, Jones, Williams, and

Shipp voted aye. The Mayor declared the ordinance passed, as there were seven ayes and no

nays.

PUBLIC HEARING: Mayor Shipp opened a public hearing to receive comments regarding lead based paint

abatement for the City of Texarkana, Arkansas and for amending the Texarkana, Arkansas Code

of Ordinances to add Chapter 7.6, Lead Based Paint Abatement.

Public Works Director Paul Hackleman spoke briefly regarding the Environmental

Protection Agency [EPA TSCA § (402)(3)] requirements for contractors, who disturb lead-based

paint in homes, child care facilities and schools, built before 1978, to be certified and follow

specific work practices to prevent lead contamination. The Lead Based Paint Abatement

Ordinance outlines specific requirements for the removal of lead based paint, including control

of dust and safe disposal of removed paint; prohibits certain methods of removing paint; outlines

requirements for obtaining City permits; specifies contractor certification requirements; and sets

penalties for failure to comply with the ordinance. The EPA law takes effect April 22, 2010.

The City, in cooperation with Ark-Tex Council of Governments and Texarkana, Texas,

accepted a grant to provide funding for materials for distribution to the public through

neighborhood centers and at the City Public Works Permit desk; provide EPA/HUD developed

training for renovators, remodelers, and painting contractors, and City Code Enforcement staff;

and develop a Lead Based Paint Abatement Ordinance for adoption before the end of September,

2009.

The Board action requested was to conduct a required public hearing regarding the

adoption of the Lead Based Paint Abatement Ordinance and adopt the ordinance.

Mr. Hackleman said he would be happy to respond to questions.

Mayor Shipp asked if the ordinance would reflect the City of Texarkana, Texas’

ordinance regarding lead based paint.


Mr. Hackleman said he and his staff worked in conjunction with the City of Texarkana,

Texas to keep the ordinance similar in both cities. For a year the Public Works department had

pamphlets, regarding lead based paint in their office, which were passed out to the contractors.

The Public Works department held a public meeting in April, 2009, and invited the contractors.

The Ark-Tex Council of Governments had held several public meetings throughout the year and

provided training. They would start a training program for the contractors in October, 2009.

Contractors must be certified to work with lead based paint.

Mayor Shipp asked about the $50.00 charge.

Mr. Hackleman said the $50.00 charge was for the permit. The permit was a way to

control approved lead based paint removal.

Mayor Shipp asked if this was a one time permit or a permit per job.

Mr. Hackleman stated this was a permit per job location.

Director Davis asked how the ordinance would be enforced.

Mr. Hackleman stated the ordinance would be enforced through the Building Code

Division. The same as the City enforces a regular building permit. Power washing an older

home would raise a red flag. Research would be done to determine the age of the house. If the

homeowner chooses not to receive a permit for lead base paint removal, the homeowner would

be required to have the house tested and prove the house paint does not contain lead. The test

would cost more than the fee of the permit. The test would relieve the homeowner of the

disposal methods for the lead paint. The federal government would modify the disposal methods

of lead based paint through the years. They want to treat lead based paint as hazardous waste.

Director Davis asked about the present requirement for disposal of lead based paint.

Mr. Hackleman said today the contractors could haul the lead based paint to the landfill

as long as the lead based paint was bagged in a particular way called a gooseneck wrap. After

the bag was filled, the opening of bag was twisted tightly and secured with duct tape. The top of

the bag was rolled to the bottom of the bag and taped again. The ordinance states disposing of

the lead based paint in a legal manner.


Director Williams asked if he needed a permit to power wash a part of his house and

repaint.

Mr. Hackleman stated removing paint from your home using a power washer would

require a permit. He said manually using sandpaper to remove paint would not require a permit.

Anything mechanical, water pressure, sprayer used to remove paint would require a permit. The

federal government requires a drop cloth twenty feet from the house to catch all the lead paint,

wrap the drop cloth and put the drop cloth in a bag in the manner as mentioned early. Removal

of the lead base paint by hand would also require a drop cloth twenty feet from the house to

catch all the lead paint, wrap the drop cloth and put the drop cloth in a bag in the manner as

mentioned early, but would not require a permit.

Director Jones asked if a permit was required only for lead based paint removal.

Mr. Hackleman said yes, a permit was required for lead based paint removal. If your

house was built after 1978, that would be a flag for code enforcement. If your house was built in

1982, it would be taken for granted the house would not have lead based paint. If there were any

indications of lead based paint in your house, for your safety and the safety of your children, you

would not want to assume your house was free of lead based paint. He said one indication of

lead based paint was as the lead based paint ages, it becomes chalky. He remembers scraping the

paint off his grandmother’s house, which he should not have been doing, and the paint had the

feel of chalk.

Director Davis noted Mr. Hackleman was still alive.

Mr. Hackleman said it was amazing. He also said when you were around a lot of lead; it

could cause brain damage and impair learning skills. Apparently, lead was sweet and little kids

like to suck on the paint items, such as flaky lead based paint and the little fishing weights,

because of the sweetness. The lesson from this was to keep your children away from lead as

much as you could. Lead does not affect adults on the same level as lead affects children.

Director Jones asked if a house was built after 1978, would power washing the house

require a permit.


Mr. Hackleman said a permit would not be required unless the house was flagged for

some reason. For example, remodeling was being done at a house and our inspectors were

making a walk through and they make the determination that the house had lead based paint

based on that chalky feel; the removal of the paint during remodeling would require a permit.

The service of guaranteeing your home does not have lead based paint after 1978 was not a

service Public Works would provide.

Mayor Shipp stated the presence of lead based paint triggers all this.

Mr. Hackleman said if you stock piled lead based paint for thirty years and were using

the same paint to paint your house now, it would be the trigger.

Director Davis said her house was built about the time Abraham “Abe” Lincoln was in

office. When they bought the house, they remodeled the house and they were unaware of lead

paint. She thought her house was scraped and painted over and everything else. She asked if she

had her trim on her house painted again, would that require a permit.

Mr. Hackleman said if the original paint was on the house and the paint was layered over

it.

Director Davis said no, everything was redone in 1982. She asked if she had to have a

permit for repainting in the future.

Mr. Hackleman stated the permit would allow the homeowner to paint the house

following the rules. If you want to do away with the rules the federal government had, you

would have to have your house tested for lead based paint. The problem with lead based paint

was that it soaks into the walls and stays. His training over the last few months made him aware

that one could never get rid of all the lead in the house. He said there were different methods of

putting a special protective coating over the lead based paint on the house and then put the

decorative paint on top of the protective coating. Using regular paint over lead based paint

would not seal off the lead. Mr. Hackleman said Director Davis still had lead in her house.

Director Davis stated the lead would have to account for her slow learning.

Mayor Shipp asked about the alternative to approving the ordinance.


Mr. Hackleman said the board did not have to approve the ordinance tonight. Grant

money was used from the Ark-Tex Council of Governments. The alternative was that the City

delays and modifies or the City refunds the grant money back to Ark- Tex Council of

Governments because the City would be in default of the agreement.

Mayor Shipp asked about the City’s responsibility to the federal government.

Mr. Hackleman stated the rules for lead paint would still be in place. The City would not

have an ordinance. There would still be federal law and requirements the City would have to

follow.

City Attorney Ned Stewart said the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) mandates

contractors to be licensed for the removal of lead based paint.

Mr. Hackleman said the federal government had the authority to enforce the correct

removal of lead based paint, without a permit fee or a City ordinance. The federal government

would not have the ability to police the City. The City was too wide spread.

Mr. Stewart said the ordinance would allow the City to enforce federal EPA regulations.

City Manager Harold E. Boldt said when we were demolishing the sixty homes and such;

many of those homes date back to George Washington; he had to get former Building Official

Ernie Bradford trained through the Arkansas Environmental Quality Department before they

would let them tear the houses down. He guessed the same would be true for asbestos.

Mayor Shipp asked if anyone in the audience or board members had any additional

questions or comments concerning this item.

No one else came forward; therefore the Mayor Shipp declared the public meeting

closed.

ORDINANCE NO. L-360: An ordinance was introduced to be entitled, "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE

TEXARKANA, ARKANSAS CODE OF ORDINANCES TO ADD CHAPTER 7.6, LEAD BASED

PAINT ABATEMENT; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES". Said ordinance would revise the City

Code of Ordinances, to include Chapter 7.6, Lead Based Paint Abatement, which would

review and list the requirements for the removal of lead based paint within the City of


Texarkana, Arkansas, under certain Environmental Protection Agenda (EPA) regulations, as

follows:

Chapter 7.6

LEAD BASED PAINT ABATEMENT Art. I. In General §§7.6-1—7.6-10 Art. II. Definitions, §§7.6-11—7.5.20 Art. III. Administration, §§7.6-21—7.5.30 Art. IV. Enforcement, §§7.6-31—7.5.40

ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL Sec. 7.6-1. Purpose The purpose of this ordinance is to control lead hazards in target housing and child-occupied facilities, commercial structures, and animals, including establishing standards for inspection and providing penalties for violations of the provisions hereof [EPA TSCA § (402)(3)]. Secs. 7.6-2—7.5.10. Reserved.

ARTICLE II. DEFINITIONS Sec. 7.6-11. Definitions The following terms, phrases, words and their derivations shall have the following meaning for this chapter, unless the context clearly requires otherwise: Abatement means any measure or set of measures designed to permanently eliminate lead-based paint hazards. Certified renovator means a person(s) that has successfully completed an accredited renovator training course, or successfully completed an accredited refresher renovator training course, or has completed an EP, HUD, or EPA/HUD model renovation training course. Certified dust sampling technician means a person(s) has successfully completed an accredited dust sampling technician course, or successfully completed an accredited refresher dust sampling technician course. Child occupied facility means a building, or portion of a building, constructed prior to 1978, visited regularly by the same child, age of six years or younger on at least two different days within any week, provided that each day’s visit lasts at least three hours and


the combined weekly visit lasts at least six hours, and the combined annual visits last at least 60 hours. Child occupied facilities may include, but are not limited to, daycare centers, preschools, and kindergarten classrooms. Direct physical supervision means that a person with a city lead abatement permit is physical present on the job site at all times. Exempt structure is a structure built after 1978 or a structure for which a certificate of exception has been issued. Hazard means any source of lead contained in an exposed surface or exposed coating of any structure that can come in contact with humans or animals. Owner means a holder of any legal or equitable estate in the premises, where alone or jointly with others, and whether in possession or not, and includes but not limited to tenant or renter. Power assisted equipment includes but not limited to, sandblasting, water blasting, power assisted sanders, and power assisted wire brushes. Surface means the outermost materials of which a building is constructed including but not limited to plaster, putty, wood, plasterboard, concrete, brick and metal. Process means the manner of removal of a source of lead or abatement of same. Source of lead means any surface or applied surface coating, which contains a quantity of lead more than six-hundredths (0.06) of one (1) percent lead by weight calculated as lead metal in the total nonvolatile content of a liquid coating: or one-half (½) of one (1) percent lead in the dried film for a coating previously applied, or more than seven-tenths of one (1) milligram of lead per square centimeter (0.7 mg/cm2 ) of surface when tested by a radioisotope x-ray fluorescent analyzer (XRF), or by a lab licensed by the Environmental Protection Agency or the State of Arkansas. Target housing means any housing constructed prior to 1978, except housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities (unless one or more children age six years or under resides or is expected to reside in such housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities or any zero-bedroom dwelling. Secs. 7.6-12—7.5.20. Reserved.

ARTICLE III. ADMINISTRATION

Sec. 7.6-21. Control of Interior Paint Removal.

A. Prepare work area. Remove furniture, curtains, and other objects from the area. Place protective covering over belongings that can not be moved. Close windows and doors, and seal off HVAC vents.


B. Cover flooring. Place protective sheeting at least five feet on all sides of area,

using a second smaller layer if using chemical strippers. Place a tack pad at edge of protective sheeting. Lay protective sheeting on frequently used walking path to outdoors and bathrooms.

C. Limit access. Instruct residents to stay away from work area. Do not allow small

children or pets near work area. Place a barrier or tape across entrances. Post a warning sign. Do not allow eating, drinking or smoking in the work area.

Sec. 7.6-22. Control of Exterior Paint Removal

A. Drop cloths shall be used for the removal or exterior paint, regardless or the method of removal.

1. Drop cloths shall cover all vegetation and soil. Drop cloths shall be secured

at the base of the work area of the structure and extend twenty (20) feet from the structure, or to the property line, whichever is less. With the consent of adjacent property owner(s), drop cloths shall extend onto adjacent property if the property line of the work site is less than twenty (20) feet from the structure.

2. If a building has three (3) stories or more, drop cloths shall extend an

additional five (5) feet for each story greater than two (2). 3. After completion of work each day, the drop cloths shall be carefully rolled

up and disposed of, and all paint and paint dust residue shall be removed from the premises, adjacent property and public right-of-way, to the extent reasonably possible. All window sills or other ledges shall be brushed off. All debris and work areas shall be swept and wiped with water and a detergent or mopped with water and a detergent. It is recommended that a detergent containing phosphate be used.

B. All windows in the structure shall be kept closed during the paint removal process

except when working on windows or window area. C. All work surfaces must be kept damp to prevent lead dust from entering the

atmosphere.

D. No work shall be conducted during rains, when the wind speed exceeds fifteen (15) miles per hour or other weather conditions which the Chief Building Official determines to be unsafe for such work.

E. Only individuals with a city lead abatement permit or individuals under the direct

physical supervision of a person with such a permit may remove paint using power assisted equipment. Direct physical supervision requires the person with the city issued permit to remain on the jobsite at all times when power assisted equipment is


being used. F. If the method of paint removal is by power assisted equipment, only methods taught

in a city approved, Environmental Protection Agency approved, or state approved course shall be used.

Sec. 7.6-23. Prohibited Methods of Removal

A. Open-flame burning or torching. B. Machines that remove lead based paint through high speed operation such as

sanding, grinding, power planning, needle gun, abrasive blasting, or sandblasting, unless such machines are used with HEPA exhaust control.

C. Operating a heat gun above 1100 degrees Fahrenheit.

Sec. 7.6-24. Permits

A. No permit is required for interior paint removal. B. A permit shall be required for the removal of exterior paint if the removal is by

power-assisted equipment. A separate permit shall be required for each location or worksite. To obtain a permit for the removal of paint, a person shall file with the city an application that provides the following information:

1. Name, home address, business address, home telephone number, business

telephone number, and facsimile number (if available). 2. Proof of satisfactory completion of a city approved course of training in lead

abatement.

C. Upon receipt of a completed application and receipt of the applicable permit fee, the Chief Building Official shall issue the permit to the applicant. A permit issued under this section is nontransferable and shall expire as denoted in the adopted building code.

Sec. 7.6-25. Certificate of Exemption To exempt a structure from the requirements of this section, an owner may apply for a certificate of exemption to be issued by the Chief Building Official. If an owner wishes to obtain a certificate of exemption, the owner must furnish the City proof that the structure has been inspected by a lab licensed by the Environmental Protection Agency, or the state, and the results of tests or lab analysis do not indicated a source of lead. The cost of such tests or lab analysis shall be at the owner’s expense. Upon receipt of test or lab analysis showing that exterior source of lead has been abated, the City shall deliver to the owner, in recordable form a certificate of exemption. Sec. 7.6-26. Disposal of Lead Based Paint


A. Lead based paint shall be disposed of in accordance with local, state, and federal

regulations for disposing of hazardous waste. B. All repairs, renovations, or remodeling waste which contains lead based paint shall

be disposed of according to local waste disposal regulations. No person shall reuse or recycle such waste for residential purposes.

C. The methods of dust collection shall be conducted in such a manner that allows a minimal release into the environment.

Sec. 7.6-27. Reporting Any health care provider or veterinarian receiving notification of an elevated blood lead level, as defined by the Center for Disease Control, shall report to the Miller County Health Department the existence and circumstances of each case within thirty (30) days. Secs. 7.6-28—7.5.30. Reserved.

ARTICLE IV. ENFORCEMENT Sec. 7.6-31. Enforcement Unless structure is exempt, it shall be an offense for a person, or the owner of a structure to remove or to allow or authorize a person to remove exterior paint from a structure by a process not in accordance with this ordinance. It shall be the duty of the Chief Building Official to enforce the provisions of this ordinance. Sec. 7.6-32. Penalty The violation of this chapter shall be punishable by a fine of not less than two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) or more than two thousand dollars ($2000.00). Each day a violation of this chapter continues shall constitute a separate offense. Both owner and contractor are liable for penalties under this chapter. Secs. 7.6-33—7.5.40. Reserved.


was seconded by Director Jones and carried unanimously.



second reading. The motion was seconded by Director Jones. The Clerk called the roll and the

following vote resulted: Directors Davis, Dowd, Harris, Johnson, Jones, Williams, and Shipp




Director Williams then moved that the rules be further suspended and the ordinance be

placed on its third and final reading. The motion was seconded by Director Johnson. The Clerk

called the roll and the following vote resulted: Directors Davis, Dowd, Harris, Johnson, Jones,

Williams, and Shipp voted aye. The Mayor declared the motion carried, as there were seven

ayes and no nays. The ordinance was then read the third and final time and the Mayor declared

the ordinance open for discussion.




nays.

PUBLIC HEARING: Mayor Shipp opened a public hearing to receive comments regarding the establishment

of a flood damage prevention program for the City of Texarkana, Arkansas, which would amend

Chapter 19, Article IV, floodplain, of the Texarkana, Arkansas Code of Ordinances.

Public Works Director Paul Hackleman spoke briefly regarding the Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA)’s requirement for the City to adopt an ordinance and Flood Plain

Prevention Code before December 18, 2009. FEMA states the following: “If the City does not

adopt the ordinance and code by this date, the City would be suspended from the National Flood

Insurance Program (NFIP) and no flood insurance would be available to protect property within

the City. The City would also be ineligible for most mortgage loans within the designated 100-

year floodplain, and for certain disaster assistance and mitigation funds. This includes safe

rooms in schools or other public buildings.”

FEMA required the City to adopt a new flood plain ordinance eight years ago in 2001.

At that time, the City’s flood plain ordinance, Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), and Flood

Insurance Study (FIS) dated back to December 1976. Since 2001, FEMA had been relocated

under the Department of Homeland Security. Once the ordinance was adopted, the City was


required to forward a copy of the adoption ordinance and flood plain prevention code to both the

Arkansas Natural Resources Commission in Little Rock, Arkansas and to FEMA in Denton,

Texas.

The Board action requested was to 1) conduct a required public hearing, and 2) consider

adopting an ordinance (the Flood Plain Prevention Code was adopted by reference in the

ordinance). FEMA had mandated the Flood Plain Prevention Code be adopted by December 18,

2009. Mr. Hackleman said he would be happy to respond to questions.

Director Davis said when she had the Orleans Apartments east of 24th Street, one of the

buildings was in the floodplain because Nix Creek ran behind it. That building never flooded.

The apartments on 24th Street flooded and were not in the floodplain. She asked if removing a

building from the floodplain would cost anything.

Mr. Hackleman stated there would be no cost to an individual homeowner. A business

would have to pay a fee anywhere between $400 and $4,000.

Director Williams said a few years ago he tried to get flood insurance and could not.

After that flood, the banks and various agencies got together and said everyone had to have flood

insurance. He asked how he could get out of paying $500 to $600 for the flood insurance.

Mr. Hackleman stated if Director Williams did not want to pay flood insurance, Director

Williams would have to get an elevation certificate. The certificate would reduce your flood

insurance based upon location. To get out of the floodplain, Director Williams would have to

get a letter of map amendment (LOMA). When FEMA remakes the flood plain maps, the maps

would reflect those changes. If FEMA puts you on the floodplain map, most lenders mandate

flood insurance. Most homeowners come to the City asking if we can tell their lender they are

no longer in the floodplain. He stated he could not do that. The homeowner would have to hire

a surveyor and prove to Mr. Hackleman the property was out of the floodplain, then he would

start the paperwork. The paperwork would still go through FEMA. He does not make that

determination whether you are in or out of the floodplain. FEMA makes that determination.

Director Williams asked what happens when you refinance and the bank mandates the

homeowner to have flood insurance.


Mr. Hackleman stated he had one homeowner with the same situation. The homeowner

did the elevation certificate and they were taking that back to the bank. He informed the

homeowners, the certificate would not get rid of their flood insurance. FEMA had steps the

homeowner must go through to remove the individual’s property from the flood plain.

Director Williams asked if this included schools located in the flood plain. He stated

practically everything in Ward 3 was in the floodplain.

Mr. Hackleman stated schools would have to go through the same process. The federal

government does not exempt anyone. Their goal was to one day solve all the drainage problems.

As the City moves toward the drainage study and the drainage issue, it would actually decrease

flood insurance for people in Texarkana. We were a decade away from seeing that happen. We

have to put money into drainage infrastructure and to cure those problems. If the City did a real

drainage solution in those areas that flood and lower the base flood elevation there, then we

could as a group, amend these FEMA maps, not per property but per that section of the City.

The City would still have to jump through hoops the same as everyone else; pay the $4,500 fee,

do the engineering, turn it in to FEMA for review. FEMA would issue a Letter of Map Revision

(LOMR)

Mayor Shipp asked if anyone in the audience or board members had any additional

questions or comments concerning this item.


closed.

ORDINANCE NO. L-361: An ordinance was introduced to be entitled, "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING

CHAPTER 19, ARTICLE IV, FLOODPLAIN ORDINANCE OF TEXARKANA, ARKANSAS

CODE OF ORDINANCES; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES". Said ordinance would revise the

City Code of Ordinances, Chapter 19, Article IV, Floodplain Ordinance, to update the

floodplain code which was last amended in 2001. Arkansas Code Annotated §14-268-101 et

seq., delegates the responsibility of local governmental units to adopt regulations to minimize

flood losses, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) had identified Special Flood


Hazard Areas of Texarkana, Arkansas, in the current scientific and engineering report entitled

“The Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for Miller County and Incorporated Areas" dated December

18, 2009, with an effective Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) dated December 18, 2009, and the

City was required by FEMA to amend its floodplain code before December 18, 2009, to promote

the public health, safety and general welfare, to prevent adverse impacts from any floodplain

development activities, and to minimize public and private losses due to flooding events in

identified Special Flood Hazard Areas within the jurisdiction of Texarkana, Arkansas; therefore,

the City staff had prepared the required amendment to City Code, as follows:

ARTICLE IV. FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION

Div. I. Statutory Authorization, Findings of Fact, Purpose, and Methods, §§19.66—19.69 Div. II. Definitions, §19-70 Div. III. General Provisions, §§19.71—19.76 Div. IV. Administration, §§19.77—19.82 Div. V. Provisions for Flood Hazard Reduction, §19.83—19.84

DIVISION I. STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION, FINDINGS OF FACT, PURPOSE AND METHODS

Sec. 19-66. Statutory authorization. The Legislature of the State of Arkansas has in Ark. Code Ann. § 14-268-101 et seq., delegated the responsibility of local governmental units to adopt regulations to minimize flood losses. Therefore, the Board of Directors of Texarkana, Arkansas, does hereby ordain the following provisions of this Article. Sec. 19-67. Findings of Fact. (A) The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has identified Special Flood Hazard Areas of Texarkana, Arkansas in the current scientific and engineering report entitled “The Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for Miller County and Incorporated Areas," dated December 18, 2009, with an effective Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) dated December 18, 2009. (B) These Special Flood Hazard Areas are subject to periodic flooding events that result in loss of life and property, pose health and safety hazards, disrupt commerce and governmental services, and cause extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and relief, all of which adversely affect the public health, safety and general welfare.


(C) These periodic flooding events are exacerbated by the cumulative effect of floodplain developments which cause an increase in flood heights and velocities, and by the placement of inadequately elevated, inadequately flood proofed or otherwise unprotected structures or uses vulnerable to floods into Special Flood Hazard Areas. Such structures or uses are inherently hazardous to other lands because of their adverse impact on flooding events. Sec. 19-68. Statement of purpose. The purpose of this ordinance was to promote the public health, safety and general welfare, to prevent adverse impacts from any floodplain development activities, and to minimize public and private losses due to flooding events in identified Special Flood Hazard Areas. This ordinance advances the stated purpose through provisions designed to:

(1) Protect human life and health; (2) Protect natural floodplains against unwise development; (3) Eliminate adverse impacts of necessary floodplain development; (4) Minimize expenditure of public monies on flood control projects; (5) Minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding and

generally undertaken at the expense of the general public; (6) Minimize prolonged business interruptions due to flooding events; (7) Minimize damage to public facilities and utilities such as water and gas mains,

electric, telephone and sewer lines, streets and bridges located in Special Flood Hazard Areas;

(8) Minimize future flood blight areas to help maintain a stable tax base; and (9) Provide for notice to potential buyers when property is in a Special Flood

Hazard Area. Sec. 19-69. Methods of reducing flood losses. This ordinance uses the following methods to accomplish the stated purpose:

(1) This ordinance restricts or prohibits structures or uses in Special Flood Hazard Areas that adversely impact health, safety or property during flooding events;

(2) This ordinance requires protection against flood damage for structures or uses

vulnerable to floods at the time of initial construction, or after substantial improvement of the structure, or after substantial damage has occurred;


(3) This ordinance controls the alteration of natural floodplains, stream channels and natural protective barriers which are involved in the accommodation and transport of flood waters;

(4) This ordinance controls floodplain development (structural development,

placement of manufactured structures, clearing, grading, mining, drilling, dredging, placement of fill, excavating, watercourse alteration, drainage improvements, roadway or bridge construction, individual water or sewer installations and other activities) which may increase flood damage by increasing flood elevations, flood water velocities, or flood discharge patterns; and

(5) This ordinance regulates the construction of flood barriers which unnaturally

divert floodwaters or which may adversely impact other lands.

DIVISION II. DEFINITIONS Sec. 19-70. Definitions. Unless specifically defined below, words or phrases used in this Code have their common usage meaning to give the most reasonable application to this Code. Additional definitions for floodplain management terms can be found at Part §59.1 of 44 CFR. 44 CFR (Emergency Management and Assistance – National Flood Insurance Program Regulations) Parts 59-75 contain Federal regulations upon which local floodplain managements are based 44 CFR § 65.12 – contains the section of the Federal regulations which involves revision of flood insurance rate maps to reflect base flood elevations caused by proposed encroachments. “100-year flood” is any flood with a 1% chance of occurring in any given year. The term is misleading, because of its statistical derivation. A “100-year flood” may occur many times in any given 100-year period, or it may not occur at all in 100 years. “500-year flood” is any flood with a 0.2% chance of occurring in any given year. As with the 100-year flood, this term is also misleading, because of its statistical derivation. A “500-year flood” may occur many times in any given 500-year period, or it may not occur at all in 500 years. “Accessory Structures” are structures which are on the same parcel of property as the principle structure and the use of which is incidental to the use of the principle structure (such as garages and storage sheds). “Adverse impact” means any negative or harmful effect.


“AE or A1-30 Risk Zones” are special flood hazard areas where detailed studies have determined base flood elevations. AE has replaced A1-30 in newer flood maps. “AH Risk Zones” are special flood hazard areas characterized by shallow flooding with ponding effects (where floodwaters accumulate in depressions and linger until absorbed or evaporated). “AO Risk Zones” are special flood hazard areas characterized by shallow flooding with sheet flow (where floodwaters flow in a broad, shallow sheet rather than through a narrow channel). “A Risk Zones” are special flood hazard areas without detailed studies, where base flood elevations have not been determined. “Appeal” is a request for a review of the floodplain administrator's interpretation of any provision of this ordinance or a request for a variance from the Board of Adjustment. “Appeal Board” means a person or persons specifically designated to render decisions on variance applications and floodplain management complaints. “Automatic” entry and exit of floodwaters means that the water must be able to enter and exit with no intervening action from a person. “Base flood” is the flood profile used as the basis for the NFIP regulations. The Federal government has selected the “100-year flood” as the base flood. “Base Flood” is the flood profile used as the basis for the NFIP regulations. The Federal government has selected the 1% chance flood as the base flood. “Basement” is any enclosed area that is below grade on all sides. “BFE” is the acronym for Base Flood Elevation. “Board of Adjustment” is the board created in Section 28-43. “Building Official” is the official of the City of Texarkana, Arkansas empowered by the Board of Directors to inspect buildings and structures under the building and other codes adopted by the city, and to enforce the provisions of the building and other codes pertaining to building and construction adopted by the city. “Buoyancy” is the upward force exerted by water. Buoyancy can cause underground tanks to float free and can lift structures off foundations. “Certificates of Compliance” are formal documents issued by floodplain administrators certifying that completed projects comply with the requirements of the local Code. “CFR” is the acronym for the Code of Federal Regulations. The Code of Federal


Regulations is the codification of the general and permanent rules published in the Federal Register by the executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government. It is divided into 50 titles that represent broad areas subject to Federal regulation. The Federal regulations pertaining to the national Flood Insurance Program are found in title 44, Emergency Management and Assistance. “City engineer” is the official of the City of Texarkana, Arkansas, given the responsibility by the Board of Directors to provide engineering expertise for the planning, designing and execution of the professional and constructional services performed by or for the city. “Clearing” is the act of cutting timber or shrubs from an area “Commercial Business Park” is typically an area of offices or light industrial usage, although retail, service, or industrial usage is sometimes included in supporting roles. For example, a commercial business park of office complexes may also include restaurants that service these offices. “Commission” means the Planning Commission of the City of Texarkana, Arkansas. “Concrete deadman anchors” are heavy steel rods embedded in buried sections of concrete, used to secure items in place under tension. “Covenant” is a clause in a contract that requires one party to do, or refrain from doing, certain things. A covenant frequently appears as a restriction that a lender imposes on a borrower. “Crawlspace” is a type of structural foundation where the space beneath the lowest floor is typically not deep enough to allow a person to stand and not all four walls are below grade. “Critical Facilities” include: Governmental facilities that are considered essential for the delivery of critical services and crisis management (such as data and communication centers and key governmental complexes); facilities that are essential for the health and welfare of the whole population (such as hospitals, prisons, police and fire stations, emergency operations centers, evacuation shelters and schools); mass transportation facilities (such as airports, bus terminals, train terminals); lifeline utility systems (including potable water, wastewater, oil, natural gas, electric power and communications systems); high potential loss facilities (such as nuclear power plants or military installations); hazardous material facilities (such as industrial facilities housing or manufacturing or disposing of corrosives, explosives, flammable materials, radioactive materials and toxins. “D Zones” areas in which the flood hazard has not been determined, but may be possible. “Deed restriction” refers to a clause in a deed that limits the future uses of the property in some respect. Deed restrictions may impose a vast variety of limitations and conditions, for example, they may limit the density of buildings, dictate the types of


structures that can be erected, prevent buildings from being used for specific purposes or even from being used at all. “Designated floodplain area” means the area of the city described in the flood insurance study as being subject to inundation by floodwaters. “Development” means any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate. It includes, but not limited to, construction, reconstruction, or placement of a building, or any addition or substantial improvements to a building. “Development” also includes the installation of a manufactured home on a site, preparing a site for a manufactured home, or installing/parking a travel trailer. The installation of utilities, construction of roads, bridges, culverts or similar projects are also “developments.” Construction or erection of levees, dams, walls, or fences; drilling, mining, filling, dredging, grading, excavating, paving, or other alterations of the ground surface are “developments.” Storage of materials including the placement of gas and liquid storage tanks are “developments,” as are channel modifications or any other activity that might change the direction, height, or velocity of flood or surface waters. “Development” will normally not include maintenance of existing drainage ditches, gardening, plowing, planting, harvesting of crops, or similar practices that do not involve filling, grading, or construction of levees. “Development Permit” refers to the permit required for placing a “development” in the floodplain. “Easements” are rights or permissions held by one person to make specific, limited use of land owned by another person. “Elevated Building” is a non-basement building (i) built, in the case of a building in Zones A1-30, AE, A, A99, AO, AH, B, C, X, and D, to have the top of the elevated floor, or in the case of a building in Zones V1-30, VE, or V, to have the bottom of the lowest horizontal structure member of the elevated floor elevated above the ground level by means of pilings, columns (posts and piers), or shear walls parallel to the floor of the water and (ii) adequately anchored so as not to impair the structural integrity of the building during a flood of up to the magnitude of the base flood. In the case of Zones A1-30, AE, A, A99, AO, AH, B, C, X, D, “elevated building" also includes a building elevated by means of fill or solid foundation perimeter walls with openings sufficient to facilitate the unimpeded movement of flood waters. In the case of Zones V1-30, VE, or V, “elevated building", also includes a building otherwise meeting the definition of “elevated building", even though the lower area is enclosed by means of breakaway walls if the breakaway walls meet the standards of Section 60.3(e)(5) of the National Flood Insurance Program regulations. “Elevation Certificate” refers to FEMA form 81-31, which for the purposes of this Code must be properly completed by a Professional Engineer, Surveyor or Architect licensed to practice in the State of Arkansas. “Erosion” is the process of soil removal by moving water. “Existing Structure” means, for floodplain management purposes, a structure that is


in place before any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other improvement takes place. “Existing Manufactured Home Park or Subdivision” means a manufactured home park or subdivision for which the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured homes are to be affixed (including, at a minimum, the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads) is completed before the effective date of the floodplain management regulations adopted by a community. “Expansion to an Existing Manufactured Home Park or Subdivsion” means the preparation of additional sites by the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured homes are to be affixed (including the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads). “Federal Emergency Management Agency” (FEMA), is the Federal agency responsible for administering the National Flood Insurance Program. “FEMA” is the acronym for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. “Fill” refers to the placement of natural sand, dirt, soil, rock, concrete, cement, brick or similar material at a specified location to bring the ground surface up to a desired elevation. “FIRM” is the acronym for Flood Insurance Rate Map. “Flood Fringe” refers to the portion of the 100-year floodplain that is outside the floodway (See definition of floodway below.) “Flood Insurance Rate Map” (FIRM) refers to the official flood map of a community on which FEMA has categorized Special Flood Hazard Areas into risk premium zones. “Flood Insurance Study” (FIS) is the official report provided by FEMA. It contains flood profiles, floodway tables, engineering methods, and other descriptive and technical data. “Floodplain Management” means the operation of an overall program of corrective and preventive measures for reducing flood damage, including but not limited to emergency preparedness plans, flood control works and floodplain management regulations. “Flooding events” are general or temporary conditions of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas from the overflow of inland or tidal waters, or from the unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any source. “Floodplain” refers to any land area susceptible to inundation by floodwaters from any source. For the purposes of this Code, floodplain refers to the land area susceptible to being inundated by the base flood.


“Floodplain Administrator” refers to the community official designated in the local Flood Damage Prevention Code as responsible for the Code’s administration. “Floodplain Development Permit” is a permit issued by the local Floodplain Administrator and is required before beginning any development in an area designated as a Special Flood Hazard Area on the community’s FIRM. “Floodproofing” is a combination of structural and nonstructural additions, changes, or adjustments to structures that reduce or eliminate the risk of flood damage. “Floodproofing Certificate” refers to FEMA form 81-65, which for the purposes of this Code must be properly completed by a Professional Engineer or Architect licensed to practice in the State of Arkansas. “Floodway Fringe” is the area of the floodplain lying between the floodway and the boundary of the one in one hundred-year flood which could be completely obstructed by fill, structures and buildings without increasing the water surface elevation of the one in one hundred-year flood more than one foot at any point. “Floodway” or “Regulatory Floodway” refers to a stream channel and the land to either side of the stream channel that must remain undeveloped and open in order to allow floodwaters to pass without increasing the base flood elevation more than a designated height. For the purposes of this Code, the height is one foot (1 ft.). Severe restrictions or prohibitions are imposed on development within the floodway. “Flow-through openings” are openings specifically designed to allow floodwaters to flow into and out of enclosed spaces, minimizing the danger of foundation or wall collapse from lateral hydrostatic pressure. “Functionally dependent use” means a use which cannot perform its intended purpose unless it is located or carried out in close proximity to water. The term includes only docking facilities, port facilities that are necessary for the loading and unloading of cargo or passengers, and shipbuilding and ship repair facilities, but does not include long-term storage or related manufacturing facilities. “Grade” means the surface of the ground. “Grading” means to smooth the surface of the ground, typically with heavy construction equipment. “Highest Adjacent Grade” (HAG) means the highest natural elevation of the ground surface prior to construction next to the proposed walls of a structure. “Historical Structure” means any structure that is:

(1) Listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places (a listing maintained by the Department of Interior) or preliminarily determined by the


Secretary of the Interior as meeting the requirements for individual listing on the National Register;

(2) Certified or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as

contributing to the historical significance of a registered historic district or a district preliminarily determined by the Secretary to qualify as a registered historic district;

(3) Individually listed on a state inventory of historic places in states with historic

preservation programs which have been approved by the Secretary of the Interior; or

(4) Individually listed on a local inventory or historic places in communities with

historic preservation programs that have been certified either:

a. By an approved state program as determined by the Secretary of the Interior or;

b. Directly by the Secretary of the Interior in states without approved programs.

“Hydrodynamic forces” are the forces and stresses associated with moving water, including impacts from objects carried in the water. “Hydrostatic flood forces” are the forces and stresses associated with standing floodwaters. “Lacustrine Flooding” is flooding associated with a lake. “Lateral forces” are the horizontal hydrostatic forces associated with standing water. Water exerts an equal force in all directions, and as little as three feet of standing water can generate sufficient lateral force to collapse a foundation or wall. “Lowest floor” refers to the lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including Basement). For a typical slab-on-grade construction, the lowest floor is the top of the first floor of the structure. For a typical basement foundation construction, the elevation of the lowest floor is the top of the basement floor. For a typical crawlspace foundation construction, the elevation of the lowest floor is the top of the first floor of the structure. For a typical split-level construction, the elevation of the lowest floor is the top of the first living area floor. For a manufactured home installation, the elevation of the lowest floor will be the bottom of the lowest I-Beam. The garage floor and crawlspaces are not the lowest floor as long as there are no living areas in the garage and it is used solely for storage, parking vehicle and entry to the structure, provided that such enclosure is not built so as to render the structure in violation of the applicable non-elevation design requirements of Section 60.3 of the National Flood Insurance regulations. “Manufactured Homes” or Structures means a structure, transportable in one or more sections, which is built on a permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when attached to the required utilities. The term ``manufactured


home'' does not include a ``recreational vehicle''. “Manufactured Home Park or Subdivision” means a parcel (or contiguous parcels) of land subdivided into two or more manufactured home lots for rent or sale. “Mean Sea Level” (MSL) means, for the purposes of the NFIP, the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) of 1929 or other datum, to which base flood elevations shown on a community’s FIRM are referenced. “Mixed Use Structures” are structures with both a business and a residential component, but where the area used for business is less than 50% of the total floor area of the structure. “New Construction” means, for floodplain management purposes, structures for which the “start of construction” commenced on or after the date of a floodplain management regulation adopted by a community and includes any subsequent improvements to such structures. “New Manufactured Home Park or Subdivision” means a manufactured home park or subdivision for which the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured homes are to be affixed (including at a minimum, the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads) is completed on or after the effective date of floodplain management regulations adopted by a community. “No Adverse Impact principle” is a principle of restricting or prohibiting land development that does harm or “adversely affects” someone else’s property or land. “Nonresidential Structures” are structures used only for commercial or public purposes, such as businesses, schools, churches, etc... “No-Rise Certificates” are formal certifications signed and stamped by a Professional Engineer licensed to practice in the State of Arkansas, demonstrating through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses performed in accordance with standard engineering practice that a proposed development will not result in any increase in flood levels within the community during the occurrence of a base flood event. “Piers” are columns of masonry or other structural material (commonly cement blocks stacked up to support a manufactured home), usually rectangular, used to support other structural members. For the purpose of this ordinance, piers must be permanent in nature. “Pilings” are steel tubes driven to rock or a suitable soil-bearing layer and connected to the foundation of a structure. “Ponding” is a flooding effect where floodwaters accumulate in shallow depressions and linger until absorbed or evaporated.


“Recreational vehicles” means a vehicle which is: (a) built on a single chassis; (b) 400 square feet or less when measured at the largest horizontal projections; (c) designed to be self-propelled or permanently towable by a light duty truck; and (d) designed primarily not for use as a permanent dwelling but as temporary living

quarters for recreational, camping, travel, or seasonal use. “Risk Zones” categorize special flood hazard areas into groupings by the specific risk of flooding. Zones A, AE or A1-30, AO, and AH are Special Flood Hazard Areas. See “X Risk Zones” in this section. “Riverine flooding” is flooding associated with a river or stream channel. “RV” is the acronym for recreational vehicle. “Screw augers” are any type of anchor that twists into the soil, typically to a depth of 4 feet or more. They are not suitable for securing manufactured homes against floodwaters because saturated grounds often soften and fail to hold the anchor in place. “Section 404 Wetlands Permit” is a permit required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the discharge of dredged and fill material into any surface water of the United States. The US Army Corps of Engineers issues Section 404 permits. “SFHA” is the acronym for Special Flood Hazard Area. “Shallow flooding” means a depth of less than 3 feet. “Slab anchors” are anchors where the hook of the anchor is wrapped around a horizontal rebar in the slab before the concrete is poured. “Special flood hazard areas” are geographical areas identified on FEMA flood maps as being at-risk for flooding. The maps further categorize these areas into various flood risk zones A, AE or A1-30, AH, and AO. “Start of Construction” includes substantial improvement and means the date the building permit was issued, provided the actual start of construction, repair, reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition placement, or other improvement was within 180 days of the permit date. The actual start means either the first placement of permanent construction of a structure on a site, such as the pouring of slab or footings, the installation of piles, the construction of columns, or any work beyond the stage of excavation; or the placement of a manufactured home on a foundation. Permanent construction does not include land preparation, such as clearing, grading and filling; nor does it include the installation of streets and/or walkways; nor does it include excavation for basement, footings, piers or foundations or the erection of temporary forms; nor does it include the installation on the property of accessory buildings, such as garages or sheds not occupied as dwelling units or not part of the main structure. For a substantial improvement, the actual start of construction means the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of


a building, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the building. “State Coordinating Agency” is the agency that acts as a liaison between FEMA and a community for the purposes of floodplain management. The Arkansas Natural Resources Commission is the State Coordinating Agency for Arkansas. “Stream channels” are depressed natural pathways through which water of any quantity routinely flows. “Structural development” is a development that includes the placement or construction of a structure. “Structure” means for floodplain management purposes, a walled and roofed building, including a gas or liquid storage tank that is principally above ground, as well as a manufactured home. “Substantial damage” is damage of any origin where the cost to restore a structure to its original undamaged state would equal or exceed 50% of the market value of the structure before any damage occurred. In determining whether substantial damage has occurred, estimators must use standard contractor and materials costs. There are no exceptions for homeowners who make their own repairs or for discounted or free raw materials. “Substantial improvement” is any reconstruction, remodeling, addition or improvement to a structure with a cost equaling or exceeding 50% of the market value of the structure before any improvement. Improvements to correct identified violations of local health, sanitary or safety Codes are not substantial improvements, regardless of the cost, as long as they are the minimum improvement necessary to bring the structure up to Code. Alterations to historical structures are also exempted, as long as the improvement does not affect the structure’s official status of “historical structure.” “Uses vulnerable to floods” are simply any land or structural uses that may be negatively affected by a flood. “Variance” is a formal, written permission from the Appeals Board to construct or develop in a way that is inconsistent with the requirements of this Code. The variance only deals with this Code – the Appeals Board has no authority to waive any other governmental requirement, and has no say in the cost of flood insurance. “Violation” means the failure of a structure or other development to be fully compliant with the community's floodplain management regulations. A structure or other development without the elevation certificate, other certifications, or other evidence of compliance required in this Code is presumed to be in violation until such time as that documentation is provided. “Watercourse alteration” refers to any change that occurs within the banks of a watercourse.


“Water Surface Elevation” means the height, in relation to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) of 1929 (or other datum, where specified), of floods of various magnitudes and frequencies in the floodplains of coastal or riverine areas.

DIVISION III. GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 19-71. Lands to which this ordinance applies. This ordinance applies to all Special Flood Hazard Areas within the jurisdiction of Texarkana, Arkansas. Sec. 19-72. Compliance. Constructing, locating, substantially altering or changing the use of any structure or land after the effective date of this ordinance requires full compliance with the provisions of this ordinance and all other applicable regulations. Sec. 19-73. Abrogation and greater restrictions. This ordinance does not repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing easements, covenants, or deed restrictions. Whenever there is a conflict or overlap between this ordinance and another ordinance, easement, covenant, or deed restriction, the instrument with the more stringent restrictions applies. Sec. 19-74. Interpretation. In the interpretation and application of this ordinance, all provisions must:

(1) Be considered as minimum requirements; (2) Be liberally construed in favor of the governing body; and (3) Be deemed to neither limit nor repeal any other powers granted under State

statutes. Sec. 19-75. Warning and disclaimer of liability. The degree of flood protection required by this ordinance is considered reasonable for regulatory purposes. Documented scientific and engineering data form the basis for these requirements. On rare occasions, flooding events greater than those considered for this ordinance will occur. In addition, flood heights may increase over time due to man-made or natural causes. This ordinance does not imply that land outside Special Flood Hazard Areas will be free from flooding, nor that strict adherence to this ordinance protects uses permitted within Special Flood Hazard Areas from all flood damages. This ordinance specifically does not create liability on the part of the community, nor any official or employee of the community, for any flood damages that result while strictly following this


ordinance, or from any lawful administrative decision made under the provisions of this ordinance. Sec. 19-76. Severability If any court of competent jurisdiction finds that any section, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance is invalid or unconstitutional, that finding in no way affects the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance.

DIVISION IV. ADMINISTRATION

Sec. 19-76. Designation of the floodplain administrator. The Public Works Director of Texarkana, Arkansas, or his designee, is hereby appointed the Floodplain Administrator. Sec. 19-77. Duties and responsibilities of the floodplain administrator. It is the duty and responsibility of the Floodplain Administrator or his designee to:

(1) Obtain accreditation each year as required by A.C.A. §14-268-106 through the State Coordinating Agency, which is the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission.

(2) Administer and implement the provisions of this Code and other appropriate

sections of 44 CFR (Emergency Management and Assistance - National Flood Insurance Program Regulations) as they pertain to floodplain management.

(3) Review applications for Floodplain Development Permits to:

(a) Evaluate proposed projects for reasonable safety from flooding; (b) Evaluate proposed projects for conformance with No Adverse Impact

principles; (c) Ensure that all other permits necessary (including Section 404 Wetlands

Permits as required by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 33 U.S.C. 1334) for proposed projects are obtained from the appropriate government agency prior to issuing a Floodplain Development Permit; and

(d) Ensure that proposed projects conform to the applicable provisions of this

Code.

(4) Approve or deny applications for Floodplain Development Permits on the basis


of:

(a) The proposed development’s compliance or non-compliance with the provisions of this Code;

(b) The expected flood elevation, flood water velocity, flood duration, rate of

rise and sediment transport of the floodwaters expected at the proposed development site;

(c) The proposed development’s potential to adversely impact life and

property by changing flooding patterns, changing erosion rates, or being swept onto other lands by flood waters;

(d) The proposed development’s susceptibility to flood damage; (e) The proposed development’s compatibility with existing and planned

community development; (f) The proposed development’s accessibility by ordinary and emergency

vehicles during flooding events; (g) The anticipated costs of providing governmental services to the proposed

development during and after flooding events, including maintenance and repair of streets, bridges, facilities and public utilities such as sewer, gas, electrical and water systems;

(h) The proposed development’s functionally dependent use; (i) The availability of alternative locations, not subject to flooding or erosion

damage, for the proposed development; and

(j) The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan for that area.

(5) Interpret the exact location of the boundaries of Special Flood Hazard Areas

whenever a mapped boundary appears to be different from actual field conditions. (The sole purpose of this interpretation is to determinate the applicability of the provisions of this Code to the proposed project.)

(6) Notify adjacent communities and the State Coordinating Agency, which is the

Arkansas Natural Resources Commission, a minimum of 60 days prior to any alteration or relocation of a watercourse, and submit evidence of all such notifications to FEMA.

(7) Inspect floodplain developments as necessary to ensure construction is in

accordance with the application data that formed the basis for the decision to issue the Floodplain Development Permit.


(8) Issue Certificates of Compliance.

(9) Maintain all records and documents pertaining to this Code for public inspection.

Sec. 19-78. Development permit. A Floodplain Development Permit is required for all structural development, placement of manufactured structures, clearing, grading, mining, drilling, dredging, placement of fill, excavating, watercourse alteration, drainage improvements, roadway or bridge construction, individual water or sewer installations or any other development in a Special Flood Hazard Area to ensure conformance with the provisions of this Code. Sec. 19-79. Permit procedures. (A) Application for a Floodplain Development Permit shall be presented to the Floodplain Administrator on forms furnished by him/her and may include, but not be limited to, plans in duplicate drawn to scale showing the location, dimensions, and elevation of proposed landscape alterations, existing and proposed structures, including the placement of manufactured homes, and the location of the foregoing in relation to areas of special flood hazard. (B) The documentation required with each Application for a Floodplain Development Permit, and the specific provisions of this Code applicable to the proposed development, are dependant upon the type of development proposed and the Risk Zone of the proposed development site. Article 3, Section A contains standards for all developments in all Risk Zones. Article 3, Section B contains standards for specific development types in specific Risk Zones. (C) The decision of the Floodplain Administrator to approve or deny issuance of a Floodplain Development Permit is subject to appeal to the designated Appeal Board. Within Texarkana, Arkansas, the designated Appeal Board is the Board of Adjustment. Sec. 19-80. Penalties. Flood hazards are reduced by compliance with the provisions of this code. Accordingly, enforcement of this ordinance discourages non-compliance and is a recognized mechanism for flood hazard reduction. (A) The Floodplain Administrator must enforce the provisions of this ordinance and is authorized to

(1) Issue cease and desist orders on non-compliant floodplain development projects;

(2) Issue citations for non-compliance; (3) Request that FEMA file a 1316 Action (Denial of Flood Insurance)


against non-compliant properties; and (4) Take any other lawful action necessary to prevent or remedy any instance

of non-compliance with the provisions of this ordinance.

(B) It is a misdemeanor to violate or fail to comply with any provision of this ordinance. (C) Any person found, in a court of competent jurisdiction, guilty of violating this ordinance is subject to fines of not more than $500 per day for each violation; in addition the defendant is subject to payment of all associated court costs and costs involved in the case. Sec. 19-81. Variance procedures (A) Applicants must submit petitions for variances directly to the Appeal Board. (B) Variances may only be issued:

(1) if showing a good and sufficient cause; (2) granting of the variance will not result in any adverse impact upon other

lands; (3) if granting of the variance will not result in any additional threats to public

safety; (4) if granting of the variance will not result in extraordinary public expense; (5) if granting of the variance does not create a nuisance, cause fraud on or

victimization of the public, or conflict with existing laws or ordinances; (6) if granting of the variance will not result in increased flood heights or an

increase in expected flood velocities; (7) if the requested variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood

hazards, to afford the necessary relief; and (8) upon determination that the requested variance is necessary to avoid an

extraordinary hardship to the applicant.

Sec. 19-82. Appeal Board (A) Within Texarkana, Arkansas, the Board of Adjustment is the designated Appeal Board. (B) The Appeal Board will consider an appeal only with allegations of an error in any requirement, decision, or determination made by the Floodplain Administrator in the


enforcement or administration of this Code. (C) Upon consideration of the factors noted in Article 2, Sections E and F, and the intent of this ordinance, the Appeal Board may attach such conditions to the granting of variances as it deems necessary to further the purpose and objectives of this ordinance. (D) The intent of this ordinance, the Appeal Board may attach such conditions to the granting of variances as it deems necessary to further the purpose and objectives of this ordinance. (E) Appeal Board decisions are binding only upon the requirements of this Code, and have no bearing on the decision of any lending institution to require the purchase of flood insurance or on the rate determination of such insurance. (F) Any time the Appeal Board issues a variance, it must provide the applicant with a formal written warning of an increased risk of flood damage due to removal of restrictions designed to lessen such risks. The notice must also warn of a corresponding increase in the cost of flood insurance, since the cost of such insurance will be commensurate with the increased risk. (G) Aggrieved parties may appeal any decision of the Appeal Board to a court of competent jurisdiction.

DIVISION IV. PROVISIONS FOR FLOOD HAZARD REDUCTION

Sec. 19-83. General standards. The following standards apply to all developments in Special Flood Hazard Areas, regardless of the type of proposed development or the Risk Zone of the proposed site. (1) All new construction or substantial improvements shall be designed (or modified) and adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of the structure resulting form hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads, including the effects of buoyancy. (2) All new construction or substantial improvements shall be constructed by methods and practices that minimize flood damage.

(3) All new construction or substantial improvements shall be constructed with materials resistant to flood damage. (4) All critical facilities constructed or substantially improved in Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA) must be constructed or modified to exceed 500-year flood protection standards or located outside the SFHA. (5) The placement or construction of all new structures must be in full compliance


with the provisions of this Code. (6) For the purposes of this Code, all mixed-use structures are subject to the more stringent requirements of residential structures. (7) A substantial improvement or substantial damage to an existing structure triggers a requirement to bring the entire structure into full compliance with the provisions of this Code. The existing structure, as well as any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other improvement, must meet the standards of new construction in this Code. (8) Any improvement to an existing structure that is less than a substantial improvement requires the improvement, but not the existing structure, to be in full compliance with the provisions of this Code. (9) All manufactured homes to be placed within a Special Flood Hazard Area on a community's FIRM shall be installed using methods and practices which minimize flood damage. For the purposes of this requirement, manufactured homes must be elevated and anchored to resist flotation, collapse, or lateral movement. Methods of anchoring may include, but are not limited to, use of over-the-top or frame ties to ground anchors. This requirement is in addition to applicable State and local anchoring requirements for resisting wind forces. Screw augers or expanding anchors will not satisfy the requirement of this provision. (10) The design or location of electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air conditioning equipment for new structures, or for any improvements to an existing structure, must prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during base flood events. (11) The design of all new and replacement water supply systems must minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the system during base flood events. (12) The design of all new and replacement sanitary sewage systems must minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the system during flooding events, and must prevent sewage discharge from the systems into floodwaters. (13) The placement of on-site waste disposal systems must avoid impairment to, or contamination from, the disposal system during base flood events. (14) Construction of basement foundations in any Special Flood Hazard Area is prohibited. (15) New construction and substantial improvements, with fully enclosed areas (such as garages and crawlspaces) below the lowest floor that are usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage in an area other than a basement and which are below the base flood elevation shall be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters. Designs for meeting this requirement must either be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect or meet or exceed the following minimum criteria:


(a) A minimum of two openings on separate walls having a total net area of

not less than 1 square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding shall be provided.

(b) The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than 1 foot above grade. (c) Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, valves, or other

coverings or devices provided that they permit the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters.

(16) The placement of recreational vehicles (RV) in Special Flood Hazard Areas must either

(a) be temporary, as demonstrated by the RV being fully licensed, being on wheels or a jacking system, attached to the site only by quick disconnect type utilities and security devices, having no permanently attached additions, and being immobile for no more than 180 consecutive days; or else

(b) meet all provisions of this Code applicable to manufactured home

structures. (17) All proposals for the development of a residential subdivision, commercial business park or manufactured home park/subdivision must have public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical and water systems located and constructed to minimize or eliminate flood damage.

(18) All proposals for the development of a residential subdivision, commercial business park or a manufactured home park/subdivision must include an adequate drainage plan to reduce exposure to flood hazards. (19) All proposals for the development of a commercial business park or a manufactured home park/subdivision must include an adequate evacuation plan for the escape of citizens from affected nonresidential structures during flooding events. Sec. 19-84. Specific standards. In addition to the General Standards, the following standards apply to specific development types in specific Risk Zones. Risk Zones listed in this Code that do not appear on the current FIRM are not applicable.

(1) In AE or A1-30 Risk Zones: Special Flood Hazard Areas with base floods determined

(a) For Residential Structures in Zone AE or A1-30:


1. For all new residential structures, the top surface of the lowest floor must have an elevation 2 feet or more above the published BFE. This elevation must be documented on an Elevation Certificate properly completed by a Professional Engineer, Surveyor or Architect licensed to practice in the State of Arkansas.

2. For all substantial improvements or substantial damage to existing

residential structures, the entire structure becomes subject to the requirements of a new residential structure.

3. For any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other

improvement to an existing residential structure that is less than a substantial improvement, only the improved area, but not the entire structure, becomes subject to the requirements of a new residential structure.

(b) For Nonresidential Structures in Zone AE or A1-30:

1. All new commercial, industrial or other nonresidential structures

must either:

a. have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated 2 feet or more above the base flood level or

b. be floodproofed such that, together with attendant utility and

sanitary facilities, be designed so that below an elevation of 3 feet above the base flood level the structure is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy.

c. A registered professional engineer or architect shall develop

and/or review structural design, specifications, and plans for the construction, and shall certify on a Floodproofing Certificate that the design and methods of construction are in accordance with accepted standards of practice as outlined in this subsection. A record of such certification which includes the specific elevation (in relation to mean sea level) to which such structures are floodproofed shall be maintained by the Floodplain Administrator.


commercial, industrial or other nonresidential structures, the entire structure becomes subject to the requirements of a new nonresidential structure.


improvement to an existing nonresidential structure that is less than


a substantial improvement, only the improved area, but not the entire structure, becomes subject to the requirements of a new nonresidential structure.

c) For Manufactured Homes in Zone AE or A1-30:

1. All manufactured homes that are placed or substantially improved

on sites:

a. outside of a manufactured home park or subdivision, b. in a new manufactured home park or subdivision, c. in an expansion to an existing manufactured home park or

subdivision, or d. in an existing manufactured home park or subdivision on

which a manufactured home has incurred "substantial damage" as a result of a flood, be elevated on a permanent foundation such that the lowest floor of the manufactured home is elevated 2 feet or more above the base flood elevation and be securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation system to resist flotation, collapse, and lateral movement.

2. Require that manufactured homes be placed or substantially improved

on sites in an existing manufactured home park or subdivision on the community's FIRM that are not subject to the provisions of paragraph (1.) of this section be elevated so that either:

a. the lowest floor of the manufactured home is 2 feet or more

above the base flood elevation, or b. the manufactured home chassis is supported by reinforced

piers or other foundation elements of at least equivalent strength that are no less than 36 inches in height above grade and be securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation system to resist flotation, collapse, and lateral movement.


manufactured home, the entire structure becomes subject to the requirements of a new manufactured home.


improvement to an existing manufactured home that is less than a substantial improvement, only the improved area, but not the entire structure, becomes subject to the requirements of a new manufactured home.


(d) When a regulatory floodway has not been designated, the Floodplain Administrator must require that no new construction, substantial improvements, or other development (including fill) shall be permitted within Zones A1-30 and AE on the community's FIRM, unless it is demonstrated that the cumulative effect of the proposed development, when combined with all other existing and anticipated development, will not increase the water surface elevation of the base flood more than one foot at any point within the community.

(2) Floodways:

High-risk areas of stream channel and adjacent floodplain

(a) Developments in regulatory floodways are prohibited, unless:

1. A No-Rise Certificate, signed and stamped by a Professional Engineer licensed to practice in the State of Arkansas, is submitted to demonstrate through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses performed in accordance with standard engineering practice that the proposed development would not result in any increase in flood levels within the community during the occurrence of a base flood event; or

2. All requirements of 44 CFR §65.12 are first met.

(b) No Manufactured Home may be placed in a regulatory floodway,

regardless of elevation height, anchoring methods, or No-Rise Certification.

(3) In AH or AO Risk Zones:

Special Flood Hazard Areas of shallow flooding

(a) For Residential Structures in Zones AH or AO:

1. All new residential structures must be constructed with the top surface of the lowest floor elevated 2 feet or more above the published BFE, or 2 feet or more above the highest adjacent grade in addition to the depth number specified (at least 2 feet if no depth number is specified) on the community's FIRM. This elevation must be documented on an Elevation Certificate properly completed by a Professional Engineer, Surveyor or Architect licensed to practice in the State of Arkansas.






(b) For Nonresidential Structures in Zones AH or AO:

1. All new commercial, industrial or other nonresidential structure

must either: a. have the top surface of the lowest floor elevated 2 feet or more

above the published BFE, or 2 feet or more above the highest adjacent grade in addition to the depth number specified (at least 2 feet if no depth number is specified) on the community's FIRM, with documentation on an Elevation Certificate properly completed by a Professional Engineer, Surveyor or Architect licensed to practice in the State of Arkansas; or

b. be floodproofed such that the structure, together with attendant

utility and sanitary facilities be designed so that below 3 feet or more above the published BFE in Zone AH, or 3 feet or more above the base specified flood depth in an AO Zone, the structure is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads of effects of buoyancy.


commercial, industrial or other nonresidential structures the entire structure becomes subject to the requirements of a new nonresidential structure.


improvement to an existing nonresidential structure that is less than a substantial improvement, only the improved area, but not the entire structure, becomes subject to the requirements of a new nonresidential structure.

(c) For Manufactured Homes in Zones AH or AO:

1. All manufactured homes that are placed or substantially improved on sites: a. outside of a manufactured home park or subdivision, b. in a new manufactured home park or subdivision,


c. in an expansion to an existing manufactured home park or subdivision, or

d. in an existing manufactured home park or subdivision on

which a manufactured home has incurred "substantial damage" as a result of a flood, be elevated on a permanent foundation such that the lowest floor of the manufactured home is elevated 2 feet or more above the published BFE, or 2 feet or more above the highest adjacent grade in addition to the depth number specified (at least 2 feet if no depth number is specified) on the community's FIRM, and be securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation system to resist flotation, collapse, and lateral movement.


on sites in an existing manufactured home park or subdivision on the community's FIRM that are not subject to the provisions of paragraph of this section be elevated so that either:

a. the lowest floor of the manufactured home meets the elevation

standard of paragraph 1., or b. the manufactured home chassis is supported by reinforced



manufactured home, the entire structure becomes subject to the requirements of a new manufactured home.



(d) Where FEMA has not established a regulatory floodway in Zones AH or

AO, no Floodplain Development Permit may be issued unless a detailed engineering analysis is submitted along with the application that demonstrates the increase in base floodwater elevation due to the proposed development and all cumulative developments since the publication of the current FIRM will be less than 1 foot.

(e) Require adequate drainage paths around structures on slopes, to guide

floodwaters around and away from proposed structures.


(4) In “A” Risk Zones:

Special Flood Hazard Areas with no base flood elevations determined

(a) In Zone A, The applicant or the applicant’s agent must determine a base flood elevation prior to construction. The BFE will be based on a source or method approved by the local Floodplain Administrator.

(b) For Residential Structures in Zone A:

1. For all new residential structures, the top surface of the lowest floor

must have an elevation 2 feet or more above the BFE. This elevation must be documented on an Elevation Certificate properly completed by a Professional Engineer, Surveyor or Architect licensed to practice in the State of Arkansas.





(c) For Nonresidential Structures in Zone A:

1. All new commercial, industrial or other nonresidential structures

must either:

a. have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated 2 feet or more above the base flood level or

b. be floodproofed such that, together with attendant utility and

sanitary facilities, be designed so that below an elevation of 3 feet above the base flood level the structure is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy.

c. A registered professional engineer or architect shall develop

and/or review structural design, specifications, and plans for the construction, and shall certify on a Floodproofing Certificate that the design and methods of construction are in accordance with accepted standards of practice as outlined in this subsection. A record of such certification which includes


the specific elevation (in relation to mean sea level) to which such structures are floodproofed shall be maintained by the Floodplain Administrator.


commercial, industrial or other nonresidential structures the entire structure becomes subject to the requirements of a new nonresidential structure.


improvement to an existing nonresidential structure that is less than a substantial improvement, only the improved area, but not the entire structure, becomes subject to the requirements of a new nonresidential structure.

(d) For Manufactured Homes in Zone A:

1. All manufactured homes that are placed or substantially improved on sites:

a. outside of a manufactured home park or subdivision, b. in a new manufactured home park or subdivision, c. in an expansion to an existing manufactured home park or

subdivision, or d. in an existing manufactured home park or subdivision on

which a manufactured home has incurred "substantial damage" as a result of a flood, be elevated on a permanent foundation such that the lowest floor of the manufactured home is elevated 2 feet or more above the base flood elevation and be securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation system to resist flotation, collapse, and lateral movement.


on sites in an existing manufactured home park or subdivision on the community's FIRM that are not subject to the provisions of paragraph (1.) of this section be elevated so that either:

a. the lowest floor of the manufactured home is 2 feet or more

above the base flood elevation, or b. the manufactured home chassis is supported by reinforced



3. For all substantial improvements or substantial damage to existing manufactured home, the entire structure becomes subject to the requirements of a new manufactured home.



(e) Base flood elevation data and a regulatory floodway, utilizing accepted

engineering practices, shall be generated for subdivision proposals and other proposed development including the placement of manufactured home parks and subdivisions which is greater than 50 lots or 5 acres, whichever is lesser, if not otherwise provided.

Mayor Shipp asked if the Board of Directors was approving the new floodplain map.

Public Works Director Paul Hackleman said yes, the board was approving the adoption

of the 2009 maps which have the effective date of December 18, 2009; which allows the City

and citizens of Texarkana, Arkansas to utilize those maps. The board was also approving those

major changes of two feet or three feet above the base flood elevation.

Mayor Shipp asked if the change of two feet or three feet above the base flood elevation

was a national change.

Mr. Hackleman said, yes, it was the FEMA ordinance. FEMA sent a compact disk (CD)

and a letter to public works mandating these changes, making revisions, and approving the

changes before December 18, 2009 or the City would lose flood insurance.





second reading. The motion was seconded by Mayor Shipp. The Clerk called the roll and the

following vote resulted: Directors Davis, Dowd, Harris, Johnson, Jones, Williams, and Shipp





placed on its third and final reading. The motion was seconded by Director Jones. The Clerk








nays.

PUBLIC HEARING: Mayor Shipp asked City Planner Eston McGee to come forward and review the item

regarding the establishment of approximately eleven (11) blocks as a new historic district,

namely Smith Burke Historic District (SBHD).

City Planner Eston McGee spoke briefly in regard to the item, stating the sixty-three

percent (63%) of the property owners within the proposed Smith Burke Historic District (SBHD)

voluntarily signed petitions requesting the district be established. The Arkansas Code of 1987

Annotated only requires fifty-one percent (51%) of the property owners sign a petition seeking

establishment of a historic district. The Planning Commission had recommended the historic

district be established. The State of Arkansas (Arkansas Historic Preservation Program) concurs

with the efforts to establish this local ordinance historic district. On a motion to approve a

Historic District Commission (HDC) resolution, Resolution No. 08-001, urging establishment of

the SBHD by Mr. Sarah Meredith and seconded by Ms. Jamie Simmons, the HDC recommended

the City Board of Directors consider an ordinance establishing the SBHD by a 6-0 roll call vote

(one commissioner was absent). No one spoke in opposition to the request at the required Public

Hearing conducted by the Historic District Commission on August 19, 2009.


The SBHD was adjacent to the Kenneth and Margaret Dickey’s historic district at the SE

corner of East 19th and Ash Streets, which was established in the late 1980s and the Beech Street

Historic District (BSHD) established in 2008. If established, the City’s historic preservation

regulations apply only to exterior modifications, renovations, demolitions, and new construction.

Although there are no National Register structures within the proposed SBHD, many of the

structures were constructed around 1924, as was evidenced by the 1924 hand-drawn Sanborn

Insurance Maps are deemed contributing structures.

There are few if any commercial intrusions within the proposed SBHD. The other local

ordinance historic districts are as follows:

Orr School Ordinance Historic District (831 Laurel Street) - 1978;

Jim Davis Whitmarsh House Historic District (711 Pecan Street) - 1978;

Margaret & Kenneth Dickey ordinance historic district (SE corner of E.

19th & Ash Streets) - 1978;

Original City Historic District (OCHD) – 2006;

Quality Hill Historic District (QHHD) - 2007;

Beech Street Historic District (BSHD) - 2008.

The Board action requested was to 1) conduct a public hearing, and 2) to consider an

ordinance establishing the Smith Burke Historic District (SBHD), which will be the City’s

seventh local ordinance historic district.

Mr. McGee said he would be happy to respond to questions.

Mayor Shipp opened the public hearing to receive comments regarding the establishment

of approximately eleven (11) blocks as a new historic district, namely Smith Burke Historic

District (SBHD).

Mayor Shipp asked if anyone in the audience or board members had questions or

comments concerning this item.

Director Johnson asked how many homeowners signed the petition.

Mr. McGee said forty-nine of the property owners signed the petition out of seventy-

seven total property owners; fifty-one percent was the scale.


Mayor Shipp asked about the percentage of property owners in this case.

Mr. McGee stated in this case the percentage was sixty-three point sixty-three.

Director Davis asked about those property owners who did not sign the petition.

Mr. McGee said it was like an annexation. The City was given a viable petition for the

boundary that was established by the group of petitioners. He said it was likely the property

owners who did not sign this petition would be included in the historic district against their

wishes. It was under democratic rule and under provisions of the Arkansas Code of 1987

Annoted Statutes.

Director Davis asked about the affect of new construction on the vacant lots within the

proposed historic district.

Mr. McGee pointed out the few vacant tracks on the 2008 GIS map of the proposed

historic district. Most of the vacant lots were actually owned by multiple property owners,

giving them a lot and a half. A new home would require a certificate of appropriateness, just like

an existing home would require the certificate for any exterior paint or remodel. The contractor

of the new house would submit their building plans for the exterior of the house. The height and

style of the new house would be required to closely resemble the existing houses. The Historic

Commission would review a request for new construction in this district. Historic districts

stabilize and improve property values. In time these districts are highly sought out places to live.

New construction was covered by regulations and requires approval from the Historic District

Commission. The commission would require typical materials similar to other houses on the

block, typical windows such as six panes over one, and similar hip or gable roofs.

Director Harris asked if the reason this petition came forth was because of proposed new

construction in this area.

Mr. McGee said, specifically, there were three empty lots within the proposed historic

district and the way the City ordinance was written, three single family homes could be built on

those lots. This zone also allows duplexes and apartments. The property owner wanted to build

two duplexes but the property owner did not have enough land area. The property owner applied

to the Board of Adjustment and his land area variance was denied. All property owners within


100 feet of those three lots were notified of the variance application. The genesis of the historic

district petition came from the notification of the variance application. He said right now three

single family homes and one duplex were being constructed within the proposed area, but would

pre-date the historic district approval.

Director Harris asked if the petition for the historic district, had a “yes” for the historic

district and a “no” against the historic district, or was the petition just for the approval of the

district.

Mr. McGee said the petition asked if the property owner supported the establishment of a

historic district within these boundaries. The City did not write or support the petition but did

advise the petitioners of the requirements. The City just reacted to the petition. The petition was

submitted in May 2009, and the City deemed the petition viable.

Director Harris asked if there were regulations on the type of petitions.

Director Davis asked if there was a standardized petition form.

Mr. McGee stated no, there was not a standard petition. He said if someone wanted a

copy of a petition and they adjust the petition for their use, the City was an open book and would

provide the petition. In this case, the petition was written by one of the property owners.

Mayor Shipp asked about the primary individual or individuals that spearheaded this

effort for the historic district.

Mr. McGee said Scott Taylor and his wife were the primary individuals. He said they

lived in Lynn and Bruce Malcolm’s house on the west side of Laurel.


closed.

ORDINANCE NO. L-362: An ordinance was introduced to be entitled, "AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING

SMITH BURKE HISTORIC DISTRICT (SBHD)". Said ordinance creates eleven (11) block

area designated as Smith Burke Historic District (SBHD), the same more specifically described

as follows: Starting at a point on the North boundary line of the Fractional Section 19, Township-15-


South, Range-28-West and the centerline of East 24th Street, point being approximately 499.77’ West of the NE corner of NW¼, Fractional Section 19, Township-15-South, Range-28-West; Thence Westerly approximately 828.1’ parallel with the centerline of East 24th Street to a point of intersection with the projected centerline of an alley in Block 1 T. A. Bryant Addition; Thence Southerly approximately 1,321.6’ with the centerline of the alley in Blocks 1 & Block 3 of T. A. Bryant Addition, Block 1 & Block 2 of Smith & Burke Addition and Block 1 of W. H. Arnold 2nd Addition to a point of intersection with the centerline of East 19th Street; Thence Easterly approximately 638.9’ with the centerline of East 19th Street to a point of intersection with the centerline of Ash Street; Thence Northerly approximately 778.9’ with the centerline of Ash Street to a point of intersection with the projected South property line of Lot 9, Block 1, Scott & Jones 2nd Addition; Thence Easterly approximately 164.2’ with the projected South property line of Lot 9, Block 1, Scott & Jones 2nd Addition to a point of intersection with the centerline of an abandoned alley in Block 1, Scott & Jones 2nd Addition; Thence Northerly approximately 537.7’ with the centerline of an abandoned alley in Block 1, Scott & Jones 2nd Addition and the centerline of the alley in Block 2 of Scott & Jones 1st Addition to a point of intersection with the centerline of East 23rd Street; Thence Westerly approximately 164.2’ with the centerline of East 23rd Street to a point of intersection with the centerline of Ash Street; Thence Northerly approximately 162.1’ with the centerline of Ash Street to a point of intersection with the projected South property line of Lot 10, Block 1, Scott & Jones 1st Addition; Thence Easterly approximately 164.2’ with the projected South property line of Lot 10, Block 1, Scott & Jones 1st Addition to a point of intersection with the centerline of an abandoned alley in Block 1, Scott & Jones 1st Addition; Thence Northerly approximately 165.9’ with the centerline of an abandoned alley in Block 1, Scott & Jones 1st Addition to a point of intersection with the centerline of East 24th Street and point of beginning containing ±27.5 Acres more or less.





second reading. The motion was seconded by Director Jones. The Clerk called the roll and the

following vote resulted: Directors Dowd, Johnson, Jones, Williams, and Shipp voted aye.

Directors Davis and Harris voted nay. The Mayor declared the motion carried, as there were five

ayes and two nays. The ordinance was read the second time and the Mayor declared the

ordinance open for discussion.

Mayor Shipp opened the floor for additional comments to clarify the details on the

establishment of the new historic district.


Director Davis said she wanted another opportunity for the property owners that were

against the historic district to come forward and be heard.

Director Harris said the petition supported the property owners for the historic district

and did not voice the opinion of the opposed property owners.

Mayor Shipp asked Mr. McGee about the participation of the opposed property owners in

this area.

Mr. McGee said the item was brought before the Planning Commission in June or July

2009, and was brought before the Historic Commission in July or August 2009. In advance of

those two meetings, the City did notify all property owners of the meetings and forwarded them

a copy of the proposed historic district map.

Mayor Shipp asked Mr. McGee if all seventy-seven property owners were notified.

Mr. McGee said, yes, all were notified. He said after the petition was received with

forty-nine names, the City consulted the Miller County Tax Assessor office and compiled the

master list of seventy nine property owners. There were two multiple property owners, Mr. and

Mrs. Brown own two properties and their son also owns two properties. Each property owner

had one opportunity to sign the petition, regardless of how many properties they owned. After

receiving the petition, the City coded the proposed historic district map with the signatories of

the petition in green, property that had issue of ownership record were indicated in blue, blanks

indicate property owners that did not sign the petition, and red indicated multiple property

owners. The Planning Commission and the Historic District Commission issued resolutions

which were included in the report.

Director Johnson asked if Mr. McGee received any opposition concerning the letters that

were sent to the property owners.

Mr. McGee said he did not receive any opposition throughout the whole process.

Mayor Shipp asked Assistant Mayor Dowd if he had any feedback concerning this item.

Assistant Mayor Dowd said Mr. Taylor approached him about this item many months

ago when the duplexes were proposed to be built in that area. He said Mr. Taylor needed to

speak with City Planner Eston McGee, concerning the duplexes which were going before the


Board of Adjustment. The Board of Adjustment turned down the adjustment. He told Mr.

Taylor at that point, there was nothing the City could do to prevent the property owner from

building single-family homes on their property. There were no ordinances against anyone

building single-family homes, if it was in the correctly zoned area. He said at that point, Mr.

Taylor decided to petition for the historical district, formed committees and spearheaded this

item in order for any new construction to keep the appearance of the neighborhood as one period

or distinct. Assistant Mayor Dowd stated he had received no phone calls or letters opposing the

historic district.

Director Davis said her main concern was whether all the property owners had an

opportunity to voice their support or opposition.

Mr. McGee said yes, all property owners have had the opportunity.


placed on its third and final reading. The motion was seconded by Director Jones. The Clerk








nays.

CITIZEN COMMUNICATION TIME: Ryan Keel, 2906 E. 46th Street, said as a citizen of Texarkana, Arkansas, he was very pleased

with the city’s Mayor and Board of Directors. He also commended the Chief of Police and

his staff and said they were doing an excellent job. He wanted to notify the board of an

instance that took place on July 4, 2009 at the Four States Fair grounds, during the Sparks in

the Park celebration. He came to the Four States Fair grounds with a church group to pass

out gospel material and for witnessing. He said they were approached by security guards


who said the church group could not pass out material, per his superior’s instructions. An

official from the Four States Fair association informed the church group of the same thing.

Mr. Keel explained to the official the First Amendment right of freedom of the press and the

right of free speech. The official stated the fairgrounds was private property and contacted

their supervisor. Before their supervisor came down, the church group dealt with a police

officer. The church group had stopped handing out material. The police officer began to get

hostile toward the church group in a manner that could have gotten out of control. Mr. Keel

said he was not speaking at the board meeting to get anyone into trouble or to file a

complaint. He said the main official told the church group that they may speak to people, but

the group could not pass out any material. He said the group complied with the official’s

decision. He said during the day the church group was watched, but did not have any more

problems. Mr. Keel said he was the only one in the church group, who was a citizen of

Texarkana, Arkansas. He wanted the Board of Directors to be aware of the situation. Mr.

Keel said he wanted to stop any hostility towards the preaching of the gospel as it relates to

open air, public preaching and the dissemination of materials. Preaching the gospel was

protected under the constitution. The language in the Arkansas constitution was actually

stronger than our nation’s constitution with regards to freedom of religion, freedom of press,

and freedom of peaceable assembly. He said he believes God had blessed this City. He said

the least we could do was allow free speech and peaceful assembly without harassment from

officials. He ended his comments with Article II from the Declaration of Rights in the

Arkansas Constitution, which falls under the protection of religion; “religion, mortality, and

knowledge being essential to good government, the general assembly shall enact suitable

laws to protect every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of

public worship”. Mr. Keel said he would be glad to answer any questions.

Mayor Shipp thanked Mr. Keel for his comments. He said it would be appropriate for the

city attorney, staff, city manager, and the police to discuss this situation and that they would

be in communication with Mr. Keel.

Mr. Keel thanked Mayor Shipp.


Jeff Pritchett, 4303 Sunnyside Drive, said he tried to get this item on the regular agenda but

was too late. He was aware of the time constraints in this format and he prepared a statement

to read before the board.

Mayor Shipp asked Mr. Pritchett his place of employment.

Mr. Pritchett stated his place of employment was the Texarkana, Arkansas Fire Department.

Mr. Pritchett said he was the President of the Texarkana Firefighters Local 502. He was at

the board meeting on behalf of the Local Firefighters Association to voice opposition of the

recent personnel policy changes approved by this board. The board approved a change in the

manner of how compensatory (comp) time was charged. He said it seems the new policy

change states comp time would be charged before sick or vacation leave. He said the comp

time charged prior to sick leave was in violation of federal law and that comp time charged

prior to vacation leave may be legal but was disingenuous at best and would put firefighters

approved vacation leave at risk. He asked the board to review these policy changes and

revert back to the original comp time policy. He also stated two additional holidays were

added to the City staff calendar. He said if this was the case then firefighter’s holiday pay

should be adjusted accordingly. He objected to the manner in which these policies were

changed. He asked when policy changes affect our firefighters; they should be advised prior

to such changes being enacted. Mr. Pritchett asked if anyone had any questions.

Director Davis said she did not know she had voted for the policy change for comp time.

She said Mr. Pritchett surely you are wrong. She said that on August 3, 2009 she asked Ms.

Harris if the only change the board was voting on was the one she had eluded. Director

Davis said in fact Ms. Harris assured her the changes were cleaning up the language.

Director Davis said she made a grammatical change on page thirty one to be exact, thinking

that was the only thing she was voting to change. She stated she needed to reread the policy.

Mr. Pritchett stated that was why he was asking the board to revisit the personnel policy

revisions. He stated items in the policy were fiscal and not minor changes.

Director Davis said she did not know about the additional holidays or the changes in comp

time.


Mr. Pritchett said he was unsure the board knew of these changes.

Director Davis said she did not know of these changes. She said again that she asked

specifically, if there were any other changes and she was assured there were not.

City Attorney Ned Stewart said the policy changes were brought to his attention today and he

was asked to render an opinion. He said Mr. Pritchett was correct, at least based on the

Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit. He said it was entirely up to the individual when to

be charged comp time. The only way a governmental entity could restrict the charging of

comp time was if an individual requested to use the comp time on occasion that created an

unreasonable difficulty to the City. He gave the example of the fire department not having

many active employees to staff all the stations. It may be denied in certain situations. He

said the current status of the law was comp time could be used at the individual’s discretion.

The law may be changed if the Supreme Court ever looks at the current comp time law.

Director Davis asked if the additional holidays were added to the policy and if she voted for

those holidays and did not know it.

City Manager Harold Boldt said the policy changes started some time before. He said not all

firefighters were involved, it was usually a committee of department heads and so forth that

brought forth these changes. The personnel policy needed to be reviewed for changes that

made sense. He said quite frankly a comp time policy such as this change makes all the

sense in the world, except where the fire department was concerned. He said that most of the

comp time that had been earned really goes back in time. He asked Mr. Pritchett if that was

correct.

Mr. Pritchett stated that was correct.

Mr. Boldt said it was never our intent that anything would be taken away. He said to Mr.

Pritchett’s circumstance as a firefighter filling in for understaffed fire stations, to keep from

closing those fire stations, comp time would continue in certain cases. He said as an

organization as a whole, comp time should be managed and not allowed to accumulated

without some sort of strain over time. He said ideally the best policy was to use the comp

time within a reasonable period of time.


Mr. Pritchett said that issue was addressed in the policy and the max balance in the fire

department for comp time was 480 hours.

Mr. Boldt stated the policy does not have to be changed at this point because Section 8 of the

policy severability clause states if there were any state or federal laws were involved, the

policy was inoperative. He also said the finance department had been told not to implement

this policy as it relates to comp time. He said he spoke with Ned Stewart about this matter

and was unaware that the Fifth Circuit had ruled on comp time and the Eight Circuit had

ruled on comp time and they were in juxtaposition with one another. The Supreme Court

would decide the case. He said an email was sent out to City employees stating the August

3, 2009 revised comp time policy was preferred. In the case of firefighters in general the

policy was inoperative right now. He said another thing about this court case relates to non

civil service employees. He again stated the policy was inoperable at this point.

Mr. Pritchett asked about charging comp time before vacation time. He wanted to know if

that change would be reversed.

Mr. Boldt said he did not remember the specifics of vacations. He asked if Good Friday

were one of the days.

Mr. Pritchett said, no sir; he was not talking about the two new City holidays. He said he

asked about comp time being charged before vacation time.

Mr. Boldt said no, you take it as you want.

Mr. Stewart stated the comp time was yours, the courts look at it just like money. You could

spend it anyway you want to or not at all.

Mr. Pritchett asked if the policy handbook had to be revised.

Mr. Stewart said no, not at all.

Mr. Boldt said if we try to implement this policy; you would be before the board again.

Mayor Shipp asked if there was a policy in the handbook that made a change, and yet the

City would not abide by the policy change. He stated he was not present at the time the

policy was changed.

Director Davis stated she did not think she voted for the policy change.


Director Johnson said according to the summary, the board voted for Americans with

Disabilities Act, the Family Medical Leave Act, the computer chapter and grammatical

corrections.

Director Davis said that was all the board believed they had voted on. She said she

specifically asked if there were any changes in the policy that would affect personnel. She

stated her question should be in the minutes of the August 3rd, 2009 board meeting. She

stated Ms. Harris told her specifically, no.

Mr. Pritchett stated he assumed the changes were vague and did not expect the board to vote

on those changes.

Mr. Boldt stated when he authorized the proposed policy changes, he slowed down the policy

for a four or five month period, because he thought the policy changes were going to fast.

He said he never thought about the circumstances of the fire department regarding the policy

changes. He said he was aware firefighters were filling in to cover shifts as needed.

Mayor Shipp asked if the fire department was a different entity, because they have accrued

more comp time.

Mr. Pritchett said he did not think the comp time was excessive. He said the balance of

comp time from 2004 and 2005 had dwindled significantly.

Mayor Shipp asked why comp time was an issue for only the fire department.

Mr. Pritchett said there were some firefighters with a large number of comp hours, and if

they are forced to take comp time before any other leave, it would drive their vacation

balance up and there was a cut off at 360 hours.

Mayor Shipp asked how the policy was as it stands now.

Mr. Pritchett said the policy was against the law.

Director Davis said the policy needed to be changed.

Mayor Shipp stated if the City had a policy it was not following, the policy needs to be

changed. He said the City should change the policy if the policy was not correct.

City Attorney Ned Stewart said the policy was not correct in Arkansas today and it was the

reverse of that in Texas.


Director Davis stated the City was in Arkansas.

Mr. Stewart said at some point, the law may change.

Mayor Shipp said a change in the law would require a change to the policy at that time.

Mr. Stewart said you could change the policy, but it was not required because the policy

could not be enforced.

Mayor Shipp said the City should not keep the policy on the books, if it was not going to be

enforced.

Director Johnson said the board should review the revised policy.

Director Davis said she would read the handbook from cover to cover. She assured Mr.

Pritchett. She wanted to know when the two extra holidays were voted. She said the extra

holidays would cost the City money.

Director Johnson said the holidays added were New Year’s Eve and Good Friday. The

previous policy did not show those particular holidays. Previously New Year’s Eve and

Good Friday were holidays at the city manager’s discretion.

Mr. Boldt said if the board wants the policy reversed, it would only be pulling the comp time

change out of the policy. He also said if the law changed, the policy on comp time would

change again. He said curtailing comp time for any department needed to be controlled.

Director Harris asked if there was a Personnel Policy Committee.

Mr. Boldt said the committee generally consisted of department directors.

Director Harris asked if this issue was discussed by the committee.

Mr. Boldt said he never met with the Personnel Committee or the board.

Director Davis said a Personnel Committee was needed.

Director Harris said he did not receive a response and asked again if this issue was discussed

by the committee.

Mayor Shipp said there was no Personnel Policy Committee other than the department heads.

Director Harris asked if this issue was discussed by the department heads.

Mayor Shipp also asked if this issue was discussed by the department heads.

Mr. Boldt said sure, department heads were involved in this process.


Director Davis asked if the department heads voted themselves two extra holidays.

Mr. Boldt said they did not vote themselves two extra holidays. He said the policy states the

city manager could make that determination.

Personnel Administrator Heather Tutolo said she had a couple of answers for the board. She

said concerning the two holidays, the City had been using those holidays at the city

manager’s discretion.

Director Davis said someone had to pay those holidays, if they were paid holidays. She

asked if they were paid holidays.

Ms. Tutolo said yes, they were paid holidays. She said either change the policy to what the

City was doing or do what the policy says. Ms. Tutolo also said consistently, those two

holidays have been paid holidays.

Mayor Shipp asked if the new holidays were Good Friday and the Friday after Thanksgiving.

Ms. Tutolo said yes, one was Good Friday and the other was New Year’s Eve.

Director Johnson said the city manager had the authority to grant the day after Thanksgiving

and Christmas Eve as holidays. She said in the past the board had made decisions regarding

holidays.

Director Davis said with money involved, the board should make the decision on that policy.

Mr. Pritchett said the fire fighters base there holiday pay on eleven days and this policy had

thirteen holidays.

Ms. Tutolo said the Finance Department would have adjusted that issue. The first time the

new policy affected civil service, which would be New Year’s Eve.

Mr. Pritchett said his main concern was the policy changes without the fire department are

input.

Mr. Boldt asked if Mr. Pritchett wanted the new holidays or not.

Mr. Pritchett said yes, everyone likes holidays.

Mayor Shipp said the board may not want additional holidays.

Mr. Boldt said he would not have approved the two new holidays unless those days have

been given in past practice in various points of time.


Director Johnson asked if the additional holidays would require a budget amendment.

Director Davis asked how many holidays were approved in the budget and asked if anyone

knew.

Ms. Tutolo asked if there was an amount of holiday pay that was approved. She was not

aware that the holiday pay approved in the budget was broken apart into each holiday. She

said on June 25, 2009 department heads were sent a handbook to review. She said the

handbook did not have the comp time in the policy. She said on July 24, 2009 comp time

was discussed at a department head meeting. She said she asked for questions regarding

comp time, no one had any comments or questions. She did not know if everyone

understood the changes. She said if she had to do it again, she would have sent the handbook

via email.

Director Davis asked who was present at the meeting.

Ms. Tutolo said she did not know and asked if a sign in sheet was kept of the meeting.

City Clerk Patti Scott Grey said yes, we do keep a sign in sheet for staff meetings.

Director Davis said she would like a copy of the sign in sheet.

Ms. Tutolo said the meeting was rescheduled for Friday July 24, 2009 not on the regularly

scheduled Thursday, July 23, 2009. She said it was never the intention to cause problems for

anyone concerning comp time, which was why it was not included as a major change. She

said we were asked for the major changes to the policy. She said the ADA, the FLMA, the

customer service were the major changes. She said we had no idea the comp time policy

would be an issue. She also said she did not view the two additional holidays as a major

issue. Ms. Tutolo also clarified it was herself, not Ms. Harris, at the August 3, 2009, who

told Director Davis there were no other changes. She said she did not want the board to feel

deceived.

Director Davis said she felt that way.

Ms. Tutolo said she was very sorry Director Davis felt that way.


Director Davis stated again, she specifically asked. She also stated she made a grammatical

correction on page thirty one concerning the word “about”. She asked if the policy was only

changing language and your response was, yes.

Mr. Boldt stated most of the changes were generally housekeeping.

Director Davis said she was told the changes were housekeeping.

Ms. Tutolo said you asked Harold if there were any more major changes and he said that was

it. She said we just viewed the other changes as housekeeping. She said if you had asked if

there were any other changes, she would have listed every little bitty thing.

Mayor Shipp said changing a holiday from the discretion of the city manager and adding the

holiday to the personnel policy would be considered a major change.

Mr. Boldt asked Ms. Tutolo to find that provision and bring it back to the board. He said he

would not approve those holidays if he did not have the authority to do so.

Ms. Tutolo asked Mr. Boldt what provision he was referring.

Mr. Boldt said she did not have to do it now. The provision would be sent out in a memo

concerning the holidays. He said he wanted Ms. Tutolo to show him the section where he

had the authority to approve holidays at the discretion of the city manager.

Ms. Tutolo asked if anyone had any questions.

Director Harris said he wanted the list of department heads at the July 24, 2009 staff meeting.

Director Davis also asked for the list.

Mayor Shipp told Mr. Pritchett that his five minutes was about up.

Mayor Shipp asked if anyone else in the audience had questions or comments for the

board.

No one came forward; and the Mayor asked if any of the Board Members had questions

or comments. There being no response the Mayor moved to the next item on the agenda.

EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Mayor announced that the Board would go into executive session to discuss

personnel matters.

MEETING RECONVENED:


The meeting was reconvened by the Mayor following the executive session.

ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Board, on motion duly made,

seconded, and unanimously carried, the meeting adjourned.

_______________________________ Horace G. Shipp, Mayor

ATTEST: _____________________________ Patti Scott Grey, City Clerk

rescheduled regular meeting of the board of …€¦ · rescheduled regular meeting of the board of...

Documents