Hot Springs, Arkansas - Hwy 70 East -  Bypass

The fourth regular meeting of the Scenic Gateway Steering Committee was held on Thursday, July 11, 2002, at KOA Kampground, Hwy. 70E. Committee members or representatives in attendance were (in alphab. order): Anita Barrett, Vickie Bernie, David Campbell, Cliff Caughman/David Chittum, Lynn Cole, Carl Hughes, Tom Lucek, Peggy Maruthur, Carl McChesney, Kent Myers, Steve Teague*, Bob Wheeler, Gerald Wheeler & Evan Yother. Not present: Laurence Adkins, Steve Arrison*, Mike Bush, Jay Chesshir, Randy Cox, Wyley Elliott*, David French, Ted Mullenix, Jerry Raetz, Ken Wheatley, & Larry Williams. Members and guests introduced themselves by name and association. *Non-voting members.

Minutes of the June 4, 2002, meeting were approved without further corrections/ additions.

However, Anita Barrett & Gerald Wheeler questioned why we were having a meeting before the upcoming S/G Property Owners Action Committee -70E P/O/ Meeting? Lynn explained that a motion by Bob Wheeler, which passed at our June 4^th meeting, stated the Steering Committee would meet ASAP following the S/G Action Committee P/O meeting, which we all agreed would be held the end of June or early in July. A report on the P/O meeting was to have been made to the Steering Committee (SC) at this July 11^th meeting. Because the P/O meeting was moved to a later date (i.e., August 13^th), we held our July 11^th meeting to handle ‘housekeeping issues; but, mainly to hear our guest speaker and fellow Committee member, Steve Teague from the AR Hwy. Commission re crucial timing on the 70E bridge concepts.

Carl McChesney, retired AR/TX Highway Planning Section, introduced Steve Teague, Asst. Chief Engineer/Planning with the AR Highway Commission and our SC Special Transportation Advisor. (Carl and Steve worked together years ago.) Steve has been with the Highway Commission for 32 years. He shared with us the status on the approaching 70E ‘ByPass project’: Everything is on targetJ Grading is underway; the interchange bridges and roadway designs are in progress. Everything is under contract for 2003, with an (early) ’03 completion date goal. The Bypass and Westinghouse Interchanges, when open, are expected to relieve traffic on Highways. 70 & 7 and downtown H.S. by late 2005, or early 2006, by redirecting traffic presently restricted to current road choices to the Bypass.

Hwys. 7 & 5 environmental work is in early planning stages. Public meetings and handling environmental assessments will be forthcoming. The plans for construction and buying property should start as early as 2005. Improvements up to Hwy. 7 were included in the 1991 thru 2006 Hwy. Commission 15-year program. Beginning on Hwy. 7 should start in 2006 or ’07…they are on progress and money is coming on ongoing basis.

The Magic Springs’ traffic study covers flow relief, new access points, and new signage. Projection for completion of study is end of this summer. Group discussion re 70E followed.

Evan Yother stated, "The 70E study by the Hwy. Dept. showed there was not enough traffic to make a four lane (to I30)." In response, Steve Teague said, "The ’91 program calls for four lanes all the way to Benton; although, no date has been scheduled for starting this project."

"Money is the key issue!" per Steve. In the interim, a third lane is planned until the four lanes can be constructed. Hot Springs/Garland County priorities with the AR Hwy. Commission are: Martin Luther King Expressway at 7 South; Higdon Ferry Road; and, 70E Interchanges.

Kent Myers commented re Garland County’s unique arrangement: City, County, & HSV together sent the Hwy. Dept. their highway priorities (top 10 – 12) for near-future needs. Currently, and for some time, the MLK/Central area has been the most important issue. There is a three-year funding plan. Next year, S T E P is due to be updated and probably 70E will become a high priority.

Anita mentioned a ‘town meeting’ at Hot Springs High School some 4-5 years ago. Issues discussed were: Directions for tourists because highway signage is so confusing re 270, 270B, 270W, 270E, 70, etc. Also, using the term ‘ByPass’ gives a mental image of ‘bypassing’ Hot Springs. Steve responded, "When the Bypass opens, it will probably be a throughway." They are currently discussing what to name it. Evan stated we should ‘split the difference’ – i.e., name it 170. Steve stated it would probably have numbers rather than names. Carl McChesney commented the word "Expressway" came from the City.

David Campbell asked when the 70E Interchange would be started? Steve responded maybe October, 2002. Steve emphasized that now is the time for us to have input re design, esthetics, color, landscaping, etc. David asked if they were doing a ‘diamond’ interchange? Steve said it loops as well as it is a ‘diamond’, but he didn’t have any diagrams to show us.

Carl McChesney made a photo concept/idea presentation to the group. He recommended larger, but fewer, columns; perhaps "Y" shapes; and, an elevated bridge with the ramp curving because of bridge height; plus, adding colors. Steve discussed color schemes being appropriate that could blend with area and/or Hot Springs’ logo colors. Kent stated that any construction in the County would require decisions by the County officials, not the City of Hot Springs.

Carl detailed joint programs he has overseen that involved planting/landscaping, water and fountains, and ‘welcome’ signs. Kent stated it would be a good idea for our Steering Committee to form an Action Committee to look into options to improve the area which the Hwy. Dept. could adapt and/or include. We have 6 – 12 months before landscaping begins. The H.S./G.C. Beautification Comm. could get involved to make a more attractive entrance. Our S/G Steering Committee wants to be involved and active in making this gateway as beautiful and pleasing as possible.

Gerald Wheeler asked about basic costs and projected dollar amounts. Steve will work with us; but the bridge design is now 55% planned. We need to move quickly re any proposals and design requests.

Lynn Cole asked who would like to be on this Bridge Concept Action Committee. The following members volunteered: Kent Myers, with Jean Wallace (H. S. Parks & Recreation Dept.) and Julie Dickson (G.C. Beautification Commission); Peggy Maruthur, Carl McChesney, Evan Yother, & Lynn Cole.

Lynn verified that we have one – two months maximum re our presentation of concept and design. Steve recommended we get a bridge designer and/or engineers to speak with us re

ideas and specifics. This Action Committee will meet to determine what ideas, concepts and designs to bring before the AR Hwy. Comm. at a full Steering Committee meeting to be scheduled in late August or early September, 2002.

Lynn also suggested we discuss and plan a ground-breaking ceremony. Steve agreed it would be appropriate. However, this would not be coordinated by the AR Hwy. Dept. but, instead, by our Steering Committee. Carl inquired about January ’03, as a projected ground breaking. Steve said it would be weather related and could be later.

Kent recapped the five issues we need to address immediately: (1) Landscaping; (2) Column shapes; (3) Color options; (4) Signage; and (5) Structure add-ons (i.e., bike and/or pedestrian lanes on bridges).

Dave Campbell asked what effect, if any, the Cutter Morning Star’s possible city incorporation would have? Kent and Steve both responded it would not have any negative impact or change…that H.S./G.C. would still work with the AR Hwy. Dave asked if the sign would then read "Welcome to City of Morning Star," or "Hot Springs." Kent suggested we create a generic sign without reference to any city. Gerald reminded everyone about the 7:30 p.m. mtg. that evening re CMS becoming a city. Vickie Berni asked if a change in city designation would result in Magic Springs being ‘relocated’ out of H.S.? Kent responded that Magic Springs was/is in H.S. and would remain so as the H.S. City limits would not change.

Evan mentioned a petition re the frontage road on the North side (not South side) re asking the AR Hwy. Dept. to upgrade Spring Street…$l,000 into project & someone take over and upgrade rather than the City or County. Steve recommended Evan’s request be transmitted by letter, & Evan said he planned to do this.

Carl Hughes stated that Cutter Morning Star School had nothing to do with the meeting re CMS becoming a ‘city’ and is not involved in the issue. He stated he had to allow the meeting to be held at the school because of citizens in the local district requesting same: For instance, Sky Tapp, the Attorney who is spearheading this idea, lives in the district.

Kent brought up Director Ron Treaster’s Resolution before the H.S. Board of Directors re Act 1197, and the Board not forming a district in the S/G. The legal opinion was the Board should not consider the Motion as the wording was not satisfactory nor of any legal substance. The Motion was dropped by the Board.

Ron Treaster (a guest at this meeting) stated the purpose of the Motion was a friendly jester re the 70E S/G property owners’ peace of mind. Although the issue is not (formally) being addressed, it doesn’t change the intent of the Board and City of H.S. He presented a couple of questions and related answers for our Steering Committee:

(1) Q: Can H.S. City form a district? A: "Yes. The purpose would be to allow the property owners in the S/G to dictate taxes."

(2) Q: Re. Issue of eminent domain and can it be exercised by the Board? A: "Yes; but, the Board is not (presently) using nor planning to exercise this; and, the Scenic Gateway property owners’ fears are groundless."

Cliff Caughman responded to Ron’s statements: "If a district is formed through Act 1197, then Ron is wrong…the City can exercise the right of eminent domain." Ron replied, "The right of eminent domain can be done now for ‘public use’…but, (the City) can turn around and lease to a private business. So, the power is already there." Gerald Wheeler stated, "The courts ruled against eminent domain." Ron responded the courts not (?) involved or (?).

(Note: I did not catch balance of statement, so please let me know).

Cliff said, "We are all for improving the Scenic Gateway property values; and, I (personally) have a lot to gain. But, Kent Myers is for ...I know this is Kent’s intention…to push through and convince the Board of Directors to set up a district in the Scenic Gateway."

Ron said a district would freeze taxes and (?)… Right of eminent domain is exercised in public interest…to use (eminent domain) will be decided by governing body (i.e., a vote). Cliff asked Ron, and then Kent, a direct question: "Is it your intent to form a district in the Scenic Gateway?" Ron Treaster answered, "No." Kent Myers answered, "No, Sir." Ron further commented: "All this talk about eminent domain, forming a district, and Act 1197 has created furor…(and) is not necessary. It’s not a threat…it is doing more harm than good."

Lynn called upon Carl McChesney to share his idea re a petition created by the S/G Steering Committee and/or S/G Property Owners Action Committee re determining, or presenting our stand, on these (above) issues. Carl commented that he did suggest such a petition; but, now suggests we forget it. He is "not interested now; and, we should drop it."

Gerald stated re Act 1197, he is "for anything for the betterment of the S/G, especially the school." Re a district, he will "propose we (i.e., S/G Steering Committee) state we are not for Act 1197; and, we should go to the State Capitol…work for changing the laws for the betterment of the Scenic Gateway." Lynn asked ‘whom’ Gerald meant by "we" re spearheading actions against Act 1197 - specific individuals, property owners only, and/or the Steering Committee and/or property owners in S/G? Before Gerald could reply, Evan suggested we vote now re Steering Committee being "for or against Act 1197." Gerald stated the City has opposed (it). Lynn recommended we hold off, or table this vote, until after this Committee addresses how we intend to handle voting on issues (i.e., wait and bring up after we decide our voting criteria and rules). Evan agreed and tabled his call for a vote.

Lynn suggested we wait to vote re Act 1197 until Committee members can research the Act; and, therefore, each member should obtain a copy to read before the next meeting so we are prepared to discuss and cast an educated vote on this issue, if that is our plan. Kent stated, "No one (in Arkansas) has used 1197, because, it doesn’t make sense financially…costs are greater than potential results." He further remarked, "Also, in Hot Springs, we are not dependant on property taxes, and 1197 won’t finance (projects, development, etc.)" Anita asked if downtown H.S. was forming a district (referencing an article in S-R - July 11th edition)? Kent responded, "The downtown is still discussing this; and, it is a totally different situation from the S/G forming a district." (Lynn brought article for members to review.)

Lynn moved to discussion and voting on Agenda items re the S/G Steering Committee operatives: (1) Meeting schedule and frequency. Discussion: Gerald said we should wait until after the August 13th Property Owners Action Committee meeting with 70E property owners before scheduling the next Steering Committee meeting. Lynn stated we have a meeting scheduled for August 13^th (re Ed Hart, President of Magic Springs in town at that time, and he will be speaking to us) and, we would get to that a little later in discussions. Anita mentioned the S/G Property Owners Action Comm. 70E property owners’ (invitation) meeting will be on August 13^th, at 7:00 p.m. We discussed the p/o meeting, and the Action Committee’s report on their meeting being presented at the September Steering Committee meeting. (There was no report as to response from 70E p/o’s attending.)

Kent spoke about purpose of our Steering Comm. meeting on Aug. 13^th: Ed Hart is going to be in H.S. for two days and agreed to meet w/us. It is timely for us to hear plans re ‘MS’.

Carl McChesney stated our meeting with the AR Hwy Dept. re the bridge concept and landscaping should be ASAP…prior to the August 13^th meeting, if possible. We decided to call a special meeting between our Bridge Concept Action Comm. and the Hwy Dept. before the end of July. Discussion followed as to best time to set up a meeting. It was decided Steve Teague and Kent would coordinate this meeting date/time. [F.U. Note: A meeting was held on Friday, July 26^th with appropriate City officials, AR Hwy Dept. reps and certain committee members pertinent to the bridge concept and landscaping. Follow-up actions resulting from this meeting will be shared with the Steering Comm. Bridge Concept Action Comm. about one hour prior to a special Steering Committee meeting with the Hwy Dept., yet to be set. We hope to do this in August, ASAP. The goal is to develop a professional, feasible, attractive and environmentally-correct design concept for the 70E main interchange as well as the Westinghouse interchange. Those with expertise in these areas are working on a presentation that, hopefully, will be accepted by the AR Hwy Dept.; and, they will present same to the S/G Bridge Concept Action Comm. prior to the full Steering Committee presentation.]

Returning to agenda #1 item: It was decided the Steering Committee would meet once a month and set special meetings as necessary. We have much to accomplish in upcoming months. No changes were recommended re the style or format of our meetings.

We next discussed voting procedures issues. Lynn brought up voting options: Ballots (with hard copy of several choices presented); hand count, or voice vote. Kent commented that "we started with an informal process re our meetings and should probably keep it that way…and, ballots might be too formal." Peggy Maruthur agreed with KentJ Evan stated, "We are totally open as a committee, and secret ballots would defeat our purpose." He felt "verbal voting is okay and do a hand vote if verbal is ‘too close’ or can’t be determined by verbal vote." Anita, Carl McChesney, and Bob Wheeler agreed: no ballots. Lynn read from notes re pros and cons on various voting methods and recommended hand vote over voice vote as there is no way to accurately determine numbers in a simultaneous voice vote; plus, some pp are louder than others and can make it appear a strong ‘yea, or ‘nay’ vote. Evan felt "a voice vote is better because more people are apt to vote, and people won’t raise their hand anyway." Lynn questioned this logic stating that "our members surely are not that lazy they cannot raise their hand to vote." Also, she stressed the importance of an accurate, true vote count being achieved with hand vs. voice voting. Further, we need to know if a vote on an issue has enough support to pass, or not (i.e., a quorum present and sufficient percent to pass). Peggy stated a hand count would be her recommendation. Bob commented, "Everyone should participate in a hand vote and be honest and comfortable enough to do so"… that, "it is our duty to do so; and, those not interested in voting should probably not be on this Committee." Gerald made a Motion re adopting the hand-count vote; Bob seconded Motion, and it passed (10/13 by hand count J ).

Next Agenda issue: Minutes being posted on Evan’s Internet Connection, or not? Evan stated, "The Sentinel-Record is already here anyway, so not a problem to post our Minutes on the Net." Anita agreed and feels "not publishing creates suspicion we are doing something secretly." Vickie Berni stated she felt "the S-R was ‘open enough’ as to our actions, and the Committee was still in preliminary stages. We should wait until we have something to share" (before putting Minutes on the Net). Lynn agreed with Vickie and suggested maybe the P/O Action Comm. might publish their meeting Minutes; and, any ‘public meetings’ of the Steering Comm. could be on the Net. She reminded members about our decision to have a ‘public meeting’ every quarter or semi-annually; and, we could publish those Minutes.

Evan made a Motion to "post Minutes of regular meetings on Internet Connection and in the S-R….or ‘nothing/none at all’" (i.e., publish Minutes no where). Anita & Lynn questioned this narrow Motion to publish ‘all or nothing’…whereupon someone (?) mentioned we are not ‘publishing’ but are ‘posting’ said Minutes.

Carl McChesney asked Evan if he meant for us to post the complete formal Minutes? (Which, Lynn reminded everyone, "were usually very detailed and long."J ). Evan said, "Yes, why not?" Bob stated he felt "it is important for Hot Springs (citizens) to know it all! Everything our Steering Committee is trying to do for the betterment of the area and H.S." Peggy made a Motion to put the Minutes on Internet Connection. Carl Hughes stated, "Publish Minutes! Make them public," and, he seconded the Motion. Tom Lucek commented it would save time & reduce hard copy being mailed. Lynn supported saving the money for the City; plus, she hopes to send all correspondence by e-mail as soon as all Steering Committee members’ e-mail addresses were recorded.

Wendy Ledbetter, City Reporter with the Sentinel-Record, stated the paper won’t publish our Minutes and not to count on her to get our Minutes out. "It’s not what the paper does…we report on events," she said. We voted with 11/13 passing the Motion to post Scenic Gateway Steering Committee Minutes on Internet Connection. Lynn will forward all past Minutes (now done: lc) and future ones to Evan. [Note: Meeting Minutes will be posted after approval by Steering Committee and any changes, deletions or additions thereto so noted.]

Steve Teague asked about his ‘Advisory’ capacity. (He did not want a voting status and was making sure he has no vote). Lynn called for a Motion/discussion re ‘Advisory’ members’ voting status: yes or no? Gerald made the Motion Advisory members have a ‘no-vote status.’ Carl McChesney seconded, and Motion passed 12/13. (Steve, as an Advisor, has no vote.)

Lynn brought up several voting issues: Member ‘categories’ and multiplication of vote representation: property owners (9); City & County (several); and Board of Directors (2). Also, members representing the COC, as well as the Mayor and/or County Judge, may not want voting responsibility. Some members may be moved to the ‘Advisory’ capacity with no voting privileges; and, importance of each member being present at meetings as issues arise for vote. Also, the members may want to address the level of issues put to vote and our feelings re members present being sufficient or all members (present or not) being polled for their vote: i.e., those issues with lower or less importance such as: date, time, place of meetings, and speakers; vs. higher level issues such as replacing/adding Steering Committee members, establishing Action Committee/s/ and committee purposes such as research, design or SC actions; and, those issues in between re decisions on event planning, fact finding, etc.

Kent suggested we wait until we have a better picture of who is actually going to remain a member of the Steering Committee and their voting capacity preference, which will be determined after we receive back their Commitment Letter. (Lynn drafted a letter and commitment form that was sent to SC members, in which is presented options of membership status, as well as highlights of upcoming critical issues being addressed and importance/ need for voting participation of each regular member. Response deadline is August 10^th.)

Gerald commented, "The City of H.S. brings a lot to the Scenic Gateway; and, we need their support." Also, he feels ‘property owner’ status shouldn’t matter in voting recognition. He asked Bob Wheeler how he felt on this? Bob stated he wants to vote if he is participating and spending two + hours at our meetings…that, he should have a (right to) vote or not attend the meetings. Lynn questioned whether, on certain significant or high-level issues, we should request a vote of all voting members, whether present or not (i.e., obtain their vote after the meeting and include in compilation before decision re vote result is made)? Anita questioned if a quorum is present, should we vote with (only) those present? Discussion followed re quorum presence: i.e., there are 23 current voting members, and 2/3 of those present could pass a motion. Dave Campbell suggested a majority of people at a meeting would allow for passing a vote. Bob said a quorum of members and majority of voters present passes an issue.

Kent suggested we table decision until we know who is remaining on the Committee and categorize members and voters so we would know numbers. Evan said he and Carl may not be on the Steering Comm. as the AR Hwy Comm. is taking their property…and, he asked if they will still get to be on? Consensus was ‘probably’ but may move them to the top section, out of p/o section.

Gerald asked about S/G area being only the 70E bordering property? Bob said, "Yes, but over to the Civic Center." Lynn reminded members that in a prior meeting, we voted to set the S/G 70E borders and boundaries: 70E from Convention Center to Grand, Grand 70E to proposed main Interchange. Also, for purposes of the upcoming meeting with the S/G property owners, only those p/o’s bordering 70E in S/G were to be invited to this meeting. As development progresses, and when appropriate, other property owners may be invited to attend an S/G Steering Committee P/O Action Comm. meeting.

We adjourned at 12:55 p.m….tabling balance of Agenda and certain issues mentioned above for the following meeting.

Respectfully Submitted:

Lynn D. Cole, Coordinator/Facilitator