Commentary

06-25/08: Ballance seated on Planning Commission through July 1, 2011, not July of 2008.

06-17-08: Why so late, why so unprepared, for the mid-year budget review?

06-13-08: In Honor of Herroner. Looking a lot like Mayor Joy, this hot-dog-man is.

06-08-08: Kerplunk! The sky is falling, the Mayor cries just one too many times.

05-30-08: The Hate-and-Swiftboat Effect. Some observations and commentary on the recent elections.

05-29-08: That Puts the Lie to That! Tony Perkins, the homophobic president of the homophobic Family Research Council, has just appeared on pro-LGBT Stephen Colbert’s show, to talk anti-gay stuff. Guess that puts the lie to the Mayor’s tale, that ES Folk kept the Daily Show with Jon Stewart from coming to town for letting it be known that the show wouldn’t be homophobe-friendly.

05-24-08: The Law Nobody Knew. Does an increase in water/sewer rates require a public hearing?

05-21-08: Begging your pardon, ma’m, it was a good time for a young boy to learn about dissent in America.

05-19-08: Beyond Bounds. Poll Captain Mickey Schneider’s name-calling and bearing false witness are way beyond what any poll captain should be involved in. Our votes are literally in her hands. We understand that her commentary on a local bulletin board is being looked at by those at the highest levels of state government.

05-14-08: Open government: It Should be Brought back to Eureka.

05-06-08: Former Sheriff Medford Violated a Prisoner’s Constitutional Rights, Court Magistrate Says

04-28-08: Hold those horses! There no need for the Council to act in haste to pass a water/sewer rate increase.

04-19-08: CAPC Director Says “Probably Not” to Invite to be on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

04-18-08: Black Bass Dam: A Sore Spot.

04-17-08: Limousine Service Uses City Parking Lot for Private Business

04-14-08: Planer Hill Belongs to the City

Planer Hill is the gateway to Eureka Springs. It belongs to the City. It does not belong to Transit Director Lamont Ritchie.

Ald. Joyce Zeller evidently thinks so. She had the gall to say that Ritchie, and Ritchie alone, should be the one who governs our gateway, and say what should and shouldn’t happen there. If Ritchie didn’t want the Farmers’ Market to happen on Planer Hill, then the Farmers’ Market shouldn’t happen there.

At the last Council meeting, Zeller threw out the most disingenuous reason imaginable– that it would be micro-managing Ritchie even to broach the subject of what should happen with the City’s gateway. (Check out the second definition down on Devil in the Pot; for our definition of “micro-manage.”)

Micro-managing is to attend to the little details, not the overarching issues. What happens to our gateway is clearly an overarching issue.

Ald. Patrick Brammer joined in. He, along with another mayoral favorite Alvin Byrd, wanted the market to be in the lot across from the train station. Brammer abstained, though, so he wouldn’t be caught with his pants down.

The Farmers’ Market is an extremely popular event in Eureka Springs.

No Political Liability for Others

The Mayor brought a special message to Council from Ritchie. Ritchie wanted everybody to know, she said, that he wasn’t opposed to the Farmers’ Market. It just wouldn’t do for it to be located in the Planer Hill parking lot.

The Mayor seems to have agreed. Of course she knew she would need a minority of only two votes– the always-reliable Zeller and Brammer- to kill any support for the Farmers’ Market on Planer Hill.

Given the situation, she could afford to be gracious. Not only that, she had an email at hand to support Ritchie.

“The FTA encourages incidental use of real property that can raise additional revenues for the transit system…,” she read. That “additional revenues” looked like a sure stopper.

What the Mayor Did not Read

What the Mayor did not read from the email gets to the core of the issue:

Non-Profit Use. While FTA is particularly interested in encouraging incidental use as a means of supplementing transit revenues, non-profit uses are also permitted.

The Farmers’ Market is a non-profit 501(C)(3).

The Farmers’ Market is not in any way prohibited from using the Planer Hill parking lot in spite of what Ritchie and the Ritchie coterie says.

Ritchie Must be Stopped

Smooth as can be, isn’t it? It’s the Ritchie/Joy transit connection, whereby Planer Hill is given away to Lamont Ritchie.

One man’s control of the Gateway to our City must be stopped. Our gateway belongs to us all, not the few who control Ritchie and the interests he represents.

*******************************************************

04-07-08: Settling In: The Farmers’ Market Has a New Home

The Farmers’ Market will be settling in to a new location for its opening this April 10, 7 am. The market will be located in the parking lot in front of the old Eureka Screams on Hwy 23 south.

Market founder Patrice Gros, left, says he is happy with the new arrangement. (Good changes from WordPress. You can now click on a picture to enlarge it.)

Transit Director Lamont Ritchie had earlier thrown down the gauntlet, saying he would not recommend the Planer Hill lot be used for the market in spite of federal regulations that would have allowed it, according to information we have received from reliable sources.

Gros declined combat, saying “I felt it [locating in the Planer Hill lot] was creating another divisive issue in town, and I didn’t want to go there.”

“The fact that the market needed to be started right away, and stabilized in one location, was part of the decision. It would have been too much of an uphill battle given the time,” he said.

“I felt that we should re-unite the whole town around a location that is not a controversial one,” he added.

Philosophical Issues at Stake

Gros said that some of the town was “not ready to embrace what we represent.”

“Farmers’ markets are very popular,” he said, “but only with a certain portion. And that portion is just not the majority.”

At a presentation before Council, Gros spoke not only of the health benefits but of an entire green way of living.

Progressive Eureka Springs

Ah! the gentle Patrice Gros. So eloquent he has been on the issue. We understand his position, that he wants “to make everyone relaxed, and be there for everyone, as opposed to being embroiled in politics.”

But it is a shame that we have Council members who have no honorable position; and a Transit Director who has no legal reason, assuring everyone that they support the market even while denying them prime visibility in the showplace entrance to our City.

So much for progressive Eureka Springs.

Our best to Patrice Gros, founder-farmer, who has been eloquent, thoughtful and progressive in his acts, deeds and words.

********************************************************************************

04-07-08: The Futzing around of Council: It Needs to Stop

The City Code is quite specific about water rate increases. Under Muni Code 10.44.04 (G)(4), Fees and Charges, “a rate increase or decrease shall not exceed three percent (3%) in any year (Ord. No. 1894, 11-18-02).” [boldface added]

At present, the Mayor is asking for a 22% rate increase. Council just passed a 30% increase.

From here it looks like the 30% increase was in violation of the law. It looks like the proposed 22% increase will be in violation.

How did we get here?

Automatic Increases Built In but not Used Leads to Unacceptable Increase Today

In 2002-03, Council built in automatic annual increases “based on the South Urban Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for November of the preceding year as shown in the release from the Bureau of Labor Statistics,” Muni Code 10-44-04(G)(1).

The ordinance provided an example of how to calculate the increase so the method would be clear to later administrations/finance departments.

We seem to be in a situation similar to the one the City was in 2002-03. At that time, when there had been no rate increases for several years, Council was catapulted into enacting what was considered an unacceptable increase, according to the Lovely County Citizen. The residents of the town were so incensed that they threatened a referendum. The crafting of the automatic-increase ordinance, according to the Citizen, was not far behind.

It looks like we have, once again, had no increases for several years now– just as in 2002-03.

The difference is that we today have an ordinance Council is supposed to follow. And we as citizens are under threat of one large increase (22%) on top of a humongous one (30%), leaving us even worse off than the citizens were in 2002-2003.

Automatic Increase Waived Once and Once Only

Following the 30% increase in 2002-03, any increase at all, meaning the automatic increase, was waived for one year only, as stated in Muni Code 10-44-04(H):

The rate increases authorized for the calendar year of 2004 are waived. The waiver shall apply only to billing periods from January 2004 through December 2004 and shall in no way be construed to be a continuing waiver of possible future rate adjustments. (Ord. No. 1943, Secs. 1-2, 2-2-04) [emphasis added].

We are not now under that waiver. Nor should we be.

Increases Not Determined in a Timely Manner

Under Muni Code 10-44-04(G), rates were to be assessed January 1 of each year:

All rates shall be subject to an annual review which may result in a fee adjustment beginning with the January 1st billing period of each year.

At one of the budget workshops this year, in 2007 or ‘08, it was said that two fee increases– the one needed because of the Carroll/Boone Water District increase– and the one called for under the automatic increase as detailed in the ordinance (10-44-04(G)(1)– would be too much to load on the citizenry all at one time.

Turns out neither the Carroll/Boone increase, nor the automatic City increase, was acted on in a timely manner.

On to the Future and Impact Fees

What could Council have been thinking? Surely no one believed that the needed increases would disappear if everyone just sat tight….

Whatever, The Futzing around of Council is not to be countenanced– not now, not in the future, not ever again.

Council should sit down and develop alternatives– new impact fees, for example, that keep up with the development Eureka Springs has been experiencing.

And then Council should stick to their duty to assess as need be, within the 3% limit, the necessary fees– every year, at the beginning of the year. It’s the law.

********************************

Mayor Would Illegitimately Restrict Council’s Right to Discuss

At the Council meeting of March 31, 2008, Eureka Springs Mayor Dani Wilson said there would be no discussion at Council of the lawsuit filed against her by Pat Matsukis, Rae Hahn, Kathy Harrison and Eric Scheunemann, and Ernst Schrader for her veto of Matsukis’ election to Council.

[I just realized that I used titles of elected officials, an inappropriate designation given the particulars of the lawsuit. I have deleted them.]

The Mayor has no authority to silence Council on such a matter. Perhaps she needs to be reminded of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) ruling saying that lawsuits are not exempt from FOIA. That means silence cannot be imposed on legal matters in terms of the open record and open meeting laws.

Roberts’ Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR) gives the Chair no authority to silence debate on issues germane to the proceedings.

So if there’s no FOIA prohibition, and none in RONR, where does the Mayor get her high hat?

**************************************

Annexation: Its Problems, Its Promise

The Eureka Springs Annexation Committee circled around itself at its March meeting making only some little progress– and that, mostly about what to do next time. Attending were Ald. Rae Hahn, Kathy Harrison, and Joyce Zeller, along with Planning Commissioner Ken Pownall and local real estate broker Gene Blandes.

The discussion bogged down in a back-and-forth between those who did not want to move forward, and those who favored action.

Pro and Con

Planning Commissioner Ken Pownall wanted to stake out the City, running from all the way east to all the way west, with a detailed set of plans that are not required for annexation. Pownall wanted studies, maps, street plans and vision plans, and jurisdictional extensions that would be neither economically feasible– nor at this point in time, supported by Council.

At one point Pownall said, “we need to start over.” Ald. Hahn responded saying that, “It will take too long. We’re not trying to re-stamp the historic district.”

To require many of these items de nouveau would also have tied annexation up in the Planning Commission. That Commission has been singularly ineffective in getting things done in a timely manner, assuring the likely demise of any program for annexation before uncontrolled development would take over areas now just on the borders of the City.

Ald. Hahn pointed to the significant increase in tax revenue from future growth. Ald. Zeller said she had understood that the additional tax revenues would amount to plus-or-minus $60K.

Some Concerns Answered

Broker Gene Bland had concerns more legitimate to the issue than Pownall’s, asking how the City would pay for the streets. Ald. Harrison pointed out that streets are paid for out of a separate street fund, which would be used, and which had approximately $400K, according to Ald. Harrison.

Bland was also concerned about an extension of public services. Although there is no requirement that one “promise” anything in annexation, if there is a promise, there is an obligation to fulfill.

The Passion Play area currently has water and sewer for the most part, as well as some roads, Harrison said.

The City clearly was in error in the past in providing these services to people outside city limits but now that they have been extended, the City can offer lower rates for these services (currently people outside the City are metered, and pay a somewhat higher rate).

Ald. Harrison said the City could also provide City police and fire services rather than the County, as is the case now.

Movement Forward

Committee Chair Ald. Hahn pointed out that the City had a zoning map, and from that, could draw up a land use plan. She also pointed out that the Municipal League’s Planner on staff, Jim vonTongeln, had said on his visit here that our vision plan should be a part of land use.

The most recent vision plan, the Donaghey Plan, was a careful study of the City and environs, carried out by the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. The Planning Commission of the time signed off on the methods that would be used.

Among them was the creation of six focus groups:

• Residential Neighborhoods
• Commercial Neighborhoods
• Environment, Parks and Recreation
• Community Facilities
• Infrastructure
• Zoning and Land Use

The comments of these focus groups became the framework for the entire study.

In spite of the care with which the plan was drawn up, Pownall objected.

Hahn, in what can only be considered a bad move toward reconciliation, suggested that the committee might rework the Donaghey Plan with an earlier plan, the Harbin Plan.

Neither of these plans is needed to determine that annexation should take place.

The Legalities of Annexation

Under Arkansas law 14-40-302, annexation is enacted “by a vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the total number of members making up the governing body.” Although those to be annexed may vote on the issue, it is, according to members of the committee, not necessary that they do so.

In the case of the Passion Play Road area, the annexation would be based on land that “represent[s] the actual growth of the municipality beyond its legal boundary,” as per Arkansas law, 14-40-302-(3).

It has been the opinion of the committee since its first meeting, that priority for annexation should go to the area out by Passion Play Road. The area is already beginning significant development. There is in addition some suggestion that the new hospital might locate in that area.

On Balance Annexation Is Best

We understand the difficulties of annexation. Those in real estate in particular have shown their opposition. They favor being able to do with lands what a buyer wants. That makes sense– from their point of view.

There are also some in real estate who have bought outlying lands to develop as they see fit in the future, not as the City determines. Particularly now, with the housing distress of the nation hounding us, these developers for the future do not want restrictions put on what they can do later when conditions are more favorable. That, too, make sense.

However, the larger interests of the City must be taken into account. We should not allow for unfettered development. We need to assure an orderly process that preserves our heritage at the same time that we move forward.

As noted in the Donaghey plan, the city’s ties to its founding are:

reinforced by significant historic preservation, by the abundant beauty of its natural surroundings, and the sensitivity with which its new development relates to and reinforces the character of the city.

It is this new development that “relates to and reinforces the character of the city” that annexation would protect.

It is this that we must preserve through annexation.

Revenue Stream Is also Important

As we look at Council’s agenda for this evening, we see that an increase in water/sewer rates is on the docket. We just had one increase, imposed by the Carroll/Boone water district.

It seems that the revenue stream from annexation would also be valuable in covering water/sewer increases.

On balance, annexation is in the best interests of the City.