Just six months after announcing that the lights on the city’s trail system would remain lit all night, city staff has decided to turn them back off in order to save money.
Besides calling for a day of unpaid leave for city employees, Mayor Lioneld Jordan’s plan to reduce shortfalls in the city’s budget will also require trail lighting timers to be changed to de-energize or turn off the lights from 11:00 p.m. until 5:30 a.m. beginning Monday, May 3.
Exceptions to the change will include the Fulbright Expressway tunnel, which remains illuminated 24 hours a day, and the tunnel at Gordon Long Park where Scull Creek Trail passes under Gregg Street, which will continue its regular lighting schedule.
:(
Gaaah! Don’t they now how dangerous cyclist/pedestrian collisions are? Most cyclists have lights, but walkers don’t. It is very dark on many sections of the trail. I think mayor Jordan should try walking the trail from Dickson to restaurant row and see how dark it is.
This is like selling your airbag for beer money.
Surely there is better way to save money. Late night riding/walking is optimal during the summer when the days are hot.
Wish we didn’t give money away to a stupid motorcycle event twice a year… but I guess that’s more important to some folks.
I propose that all trail users be required to use city approved lights which will be available for purchase at city hall for a reasonable fee. Use of non-compliant lighting devices will be punishable by a fine equal to the monthly cost to operate a single light; repeat offenders will have the number of lights paid for increased exponentially.
Seriously? You guys are gripeing about the lights getting turned off to save money when the city is cutting everything they can to try and keep people on the job that build and maintain the trails? Not to mention the other city services they are trying to keep going like fire, police, city hall. How self centered are you? You want the lights to stay on, go out and BUY SOMETHING in Fayetteville. 99% of city services are funded through sales tax. Go buy a candy bar, hot dog, bed room set, new car, house, SOMETHING!
Good idea, Ronnie. I’m gonna go buy a crappy T-shirt from a non-resident street vendor during the Bikes fest while my tax dollars are providing services at a loss to the event.
Good point, Innarested. I think lighting the trail would be a prime use of HMR funds. Definitely makes the city more attractive.
@ Michael: lights on bicycles are already a requirement. I like to keep mine lit up like Christmas. Are you saying people should have to buy a city approved flashlight to walk home from work? Lame.
As far as the fine being the cost of one light, that’s kinda novel.
I wish we could sponsor single lights to stay on, but I assume they are wired in big sections. Too bad. If they could leave every other light on, or every third one, it would still be plenty of usable light.
hey, while we are at, let’s just turn off all the streetlights as well. that would save a LOT of money, and since all the cars have headlights, who needs them? not THAT many people drive at night. we could also auction off the stop signs, people should know to stop before they go.
the city of fayetteville is obviously more concerned with finances than the safety and wellbeing of the citizens. i understand the budget constraints, but i am sure there is something more frivolous they could divert funds from.
If Fayetteville announced, “We’re going green and shutting off trail lights during late hours to conserve a significant amount of electricity,” the prevailing response would be, “How progressive!”
Really, how many people gotsta, gotsta hit the trails from 11 PM to dawn? Not many. If it were my choice, I would do the same thing and not waste the money.
Meet your own lighting needs with low-draw LED’s and rechargeable batteries. It’s more environmentally friendly and less costly to the rest of taxpayers who don’t find a critical need to wheel around at some witching hour.
In related news, creepy dudes will be hanging out along the bike trail from 11:00 p.m. until 5:30 a.m. beginning Monday, May 3.
Easy enough to add a light to your bike, but it can’t keep the whole trail lit at all times, and thus prevent the touchers from moving in.
This once again proves that the city doesn’t take the trail system as a serious avenue for transportation. Although it is largely used for casual/leisure purposes, the potential to increase the number of people (myself included) that use system to get to work, etc. is huge, and should be the goal of the program. Ben’s comparison to removing street lights is right on point.
So, I live right on the bike trail and pretty much walk everywhere. Thus, I didn’t get all worked up about the ‘paid parking on Dickson St.’ issue. But I’m an itty bitty gal, and I will absolutely not be walking home from Dickson with the lights out. I walk that trail every day, and I’ve seen plenty of people I would not want to meet up with in a dark, wooded area. Guess this is just one more way the city can get us to fuel up, drive our cars down to Dickson, and pay for parking. Way to embrace going green, Fayetteville!
This blows! Maybe they should have used those auto-dimming lights like in Walmart that go dark when noone is using that part of the trail.
Fayetteville wants to be a green city, right?
How about some solar power lights? Charge during the day, then keep themselves lit at night.
OffChamber is right on this one.
This is somewhat predictable. Those who relish in getting worked up just to get worked up are……….predictably getting worked up. Tough times call for tough decisions. And this one isn’t even all that tough. City needs to save money, this is one of I am sure many measures that they must take for the time being. The overeactions are quite entertaining. This is just not worth getting angry about.
Just think of it as a step to save the environment. It will make you feel better about the situation. They should have been turned off anyways, it is a waste of energy. Think of the polar bears people! Geez
What about a pay-per-use after 11:00 pm (like some softball fields have for their lights) that lasts the average amount of time to complete the trail. Pay the price, or use the trail at your own peril. Problem solved. Your welcome.
too bad. i use the bike trail to ride home after work or school, but it is pretty creep/dangerous without lights. i have a light on my bike, but it doesn’t do much more than alert others there is a bike coming.
solar or led lights are a great suggestion. so is leaving on every third light.
Again, I have to agree with OffCamber. I’d like to know the some usage numbers for that section of time.
This seems like another case of people getting upset over losing one of many options open to them. Regardless of whether or not they actually used the trail regularly during the 11pm-5:30am window, they like knowing they have the option if they ever wanted it. Is this option really worth the money the city would save?
Fayetteville is way overgrown with trees. How about we use some gas-powerd chainsaws to help clear some of the green clutter around town, and set up big bonfires every 50 yards.
Win, win.
This conversation requires more analysis of the facts…
If the current deficit trend continues for the rest of the year, the City will be $1M in the hole come December 31.
Through leaving positions unfilled and other cost-cutting measures, like the trail lights, the City will save $976k.
A furlough day saves the city $100k.
The City is already taking one furlough day, giving us roughly an $80buffer for the anticipated $1M deficit. Addtionally, the dates for more furlough days have already been set, if needed.
Now, all of the cost-cutting measures in Parks, which includes trail lighting, totals $80,000. The measures including the trail lights, mowing, and opening the Wilson Park pool one week late.
In other words, even if we keep the trail lights on, we’ve still addressed the problem, unless our sales tax revenue declines even more compared to last year, in which case we’ll have to add another furlough day (or days).
That might happen, and at that time it might be drastic enough to cut off the trail lighting, but it’s not that drastic yet. Including this cost-cutting measure was part of a “shotgun play” to reduce all costs as quickly as possible. The Administration should reverse their decision on this item until/unless things become much worse.
@Offcamber – That’s not true. Anyone claiming cutting the trail lighting off was environmental progress would be challenged for increasing the use of automobiles. At worst, it would be greenwashing; at best, it would be inappropriately-applied good intentions.
RE – street lights- I made the suggestion that we turn off the street lights in unbuilt subdivisions and on lesser-used streets in the wee hours (3am-5am). It’s a good suggestion and one the administration is looking at, but it won’t reduce our draw on sales tax revenue. Those utility costs are paid for out of the street fund, which mostly comes from gas taxes (I think).
If that was too long, here’s the short version: Call/email the Mayor and send him a link to this article along with your comments.
In the fifth paragraph, that should be “$80k buffer”
@Mark_Landry I was hoping my comment was over the top enough that the sarcasm would be evident even on the interwebz.
some people use that trail for work, i used to ride home 7 miles on that trail at 2am, and portions of it werent light, i cant imagine how horrible, and unsafe it will be now.
i think any new lighting needs to solar powered, and have motion sensors, that way the energy cost would be much lower.
I wish the lights could just have a lower wattage setting and stay on all night.
@Mpetty: So, in other words, in order to keep on the lights for a group of people whose population you don’t know, you’re perfectly willing to take another day of salary from Fayetteville employees? Can you go ahead and let the rest of us know when you’ll be injecting more facts into this discussion?
Nice balance, that. “Sorry about taking food off your tables, folks, but, ya know, got to make sure I can ride my stolen tricycle home from another rockin’ house show!”
No, I’m pretty sure there’s enough of a buffer to keep the trail lights on, unless things get so bad that we have to take a second furlough day.
Hey Matt,
how much undesignated fund balance is there above the five million that is held in reserve for unforeseen hard times? Or how much is in the entire undesignated fund balance?
At the beginning of the year, there was $8.3M in the general reserves, $5.8M of that is required by ordinance for emergencies.
We used $1.1M to balance the 2010 budget, so there is $1.4M leftover that is uncommitted.
Of that, we’ll need to use $500k for 2011 to get vehicle purchases caught back up (we delayed many 2010 purchases). That will leave about $900k in uncommitted reserves.
I’m not sure the trail lights should be kept on using reserves (I think there’s still enough money to keep them on now anyway), but I do think we should use them for wise investments that start saving us money in three years or less.
That’s a little off-topic though. I generally like the Mayor’s plan to adjust the budget. It has all been carefully considered and I think it’s wise to avoid using our reserves at this point.
But trail lights is one part of it that shouldn’t be in there. If it gets much worse, let’s turn them off, but we’re not to that point yet.
And if we get there, then I think we need to start talking about other painful cuts and evaluating the reserves as an option.
I read my question again just to make sure what I asked. I didn’t say anything about using the reserve for trail lights. I just wanted to know how the reserves are these days. Thanks for the info.
Well, this seems economically backwards: If a furlough saves $100k, and turning off the lights (amidst others) saves $80k, and city is going to be ~$20k in the hole, why are we taking money OUT of the pockets of employees instead of turning off the damn lights?
Sorry, but nobody’s going to convince me that the number of people who use a bicycle trail between 11p and 5:30a over the course of a year is equivalent to the number of people who are losing their salary for a day. And, since we’re talking about finances and income, the economic impact of a bicycle trail in regards to filling the city’s coffers pails in comparison to the income of employees, who then spend that money throughout the city and impact the tax base.
Even setting THAT argument aside, you’re saying “We have $80k to spare” at the end of April/beginning of May, and advocating that if it gets bad we can continue to furlough people. The fact that ANY idea that takes money out of people’s pockets is somehow an option before the equivalent of shutting off the lights when you leave a room is ridiculous.
Sorry to the 12 of you who I’m sure use the bicycle trail at such hours but have you considered perhaps using some of the roads (which we keep lit) that go around the city? Sure, you might go an extra mile or two, but hey, you being inconvenienced to pedal a bit longer is certainly better than taking food off the table of people.
This is serious times, folks. Let’s not argue about the relative merits of whether this or that should or should not be cut. We ALL have to pitch in. Our Mayor is committed to the City staff keeping their jobs. He also wants to minimize the impact on all services we as citizens have come to expect. We also have a City Council that is doing what they think is right to get this city through our tough economic times. If later we don’t agree with what they have done we can elect other people to run our city.
This is way too complicated to limit to one or two items. It is that mentality that causes us to get in bad economic shape. “Well it’s only $20,000. We have that much.” $20K times 5 equals $100K. It’s not hard at all to find five things that can be said merit a $20K expenditure. But those five equal a furlough day for City employees.
We need to be finding things that we can do that will result in long-term, on-going savings. The City seems to be doing great so far finding “one-offs” and single, one-time cost-saving measures. Turning off trail lights is a good example of an on-going savings. Maybe we can find some more.
This economic situation for the City is not going anywhere any time soon. We are like a family who has had to figure out how to deal with a significant reduction in income. (lots of them have in the last couple of years) We need to give up some things we’ve come to enjoy, so we can keep the light bill paid and food on the table. We need to make hard choices now, so they are not made for us later. We can fight about whether to give up the movie channels or the housekeeper or going out to dinner, or we can all pitch in and contribute to the solution.
Just my opinion. To which their own everyone has the right.
If turning off the trail lights now saves us $50k over the rest of the year, and we make a decision to keep them on for now and turn them off if it gets worse, then we aren’t writing the whole of their savings off.
If it gets worse and we turn them off in July, we’ll still save $35k or so.
So yes, there’s definitely room for $10k or 15k of use now, until it gets worse.
If this $10k or $15k makes all of the difference, then we should be looking at every small line-item in the general fund. The Air Museum gets $6k and has nothing to do with public safety. Could $6k keep the trail lights on for a month during the summer when they are seeing even more use?
a lot of you seem to be missing the point that we are talking about a safety concern here. i am all for cutting money where it is feasible. let the grass grow a little longer. let the pool open a week late. but the issue here is that many of you think that since you don’t use the bike trail at night, it isn’t important to the community.
when the original decision to keep the lights lit all night was made, matt mihalevich stated that for september, there were about 1300 users during the 11-530 timeframe. go back and read the article yourself, from october 20, 2009.
regardless of how you commute, there are those who do use the bike trail at night. are those citizens not entitled to the same level of safety as other community members? we don’t turn off any of the streetlights. it is arrogant and elitist to think that one’s own needs are the only needs that matter. i would wager that many of those using the trail at night hold graveyard shifts or do not have automobiles. should we compromise their right to travel safely?
it does take a united effort to solve these types of issues. everyone has to pitch in. but you cannot compromise the safety of one portion of the community simply because it does not affect you. what if we turned off 911 response from 11 to 530? i am sure we could save a lot of money there. we have to keep the safety of all in mind. because when it comes to safety, one victim is one victim too many.
Hear, hear! “it is arrogant and elitist to think that one’s own needs are the only needs that matter.”
Thank you for condensing my entire post into a sentence. Safety IS a concern, and is one of the government’s highest priorities. As it should be. I believe that is where some of this is breaking down, that being how the priorities are set.
When we all just cling to our own narrow interests and fail to see a bigger picture, we fail each other. We’re all in this together, and whether it’s the Air Museum, the pool, sidewalk art, concerts in the park or parking on Dickson Street, we need to be really careful in how the priorities are determined. I”m rather appalled that Connie Edmonston even suggested turning off the lights. But then I don’t suspect she’s out on the trails at night anyway and certainly doesn’t use them as a way to get around the city.
Talk to your City Council member. Let them know how you feel. The lights on the trails need to stay on. Not because it’s cool or turning them off discriminates against certain people or because it’s someone’s cause du jour. They need to stay on because it’s a public safety issue.
As Ben said, “one victim is one victim too many.”
Just my opinion. To which their own everyone has the right.
Just heard back… turns out the savings amounts only to $8k. Less than $1000 per month.
8K??? Ok, this is officially ridiculous. The safety issue easily outweighs 8K. Leave the lights on.
Why not turn off the lights on the square around Christmas? Maybe get the FPD to stop using fuel and they could (gasp) walk the beat, or put two of them per car. If it only saves 8K a year why not have a fund raiser to keep the lights on? or tax motorcycle and Wal-Mart festivals a bit more.
The lights on the trail encourage use, many use it to commute to and from work, not everyone works 9am-5pm.
Keep the lights on!
hillbillyfunk… We do “walk a beat” and ride bicycles when applicable, but lets not forget, Fayetteville is 30 square miles. It would be pretty hard to get anywhere in a decent amount of time, notwithstanding having the ability to carry your equipment, transport subjects, etch.
We also due what we can to conserve fuel, by being sure to turn the vehicle off whenever we can, (i.e. no idling when we aren’t in the car) The fuel savings from that practice have been documented by the city.
As for doubling up in police units, that not logistically feasible, no does it make economic sense. Then you have two officer going to the majority of calls that one officer can handle, leading to inefficient use of the officers.
Maybe all officers haven’t gotten the memo. I noted just last Friday a patrol car idling for more than half an hour while the patrolwoman directed traffic on Dickson Street. Sadly, this is not unusual. I have never heard any good excuse for this practice, yet the police continue to waste fuel with this bad habit. The ambulances are just as bad when they are required to attend events.
Our police department does a fantastic job and we’ve already held back several officer positions to save money in that department. In fact, that’s where we’re getting the majority of the savings so far.
On the trail lights, they are going to remain off for now and once the March sales tax numbers come back to us in two weeks, we’ll revisit the decision. If the March numbers are flat, we’ll be able to turn them back on. If they’re not, then we’re going to have to have a conversation about even more cuts (or a millage increase).
It is my opinion that there are other cuts that should be made before trail lights, but getting the rest of the Council to reach a consensus on that is difficult. Write your alderpersons if this is something you care about.
Why don’t we just charge for walking on the trail? Isn’t that the same concept of charging for parking on Dickson? (insert sarcasm punctuation here)
This all seems ridiculous. There has to be dozens of other places to cut the budget before the lights are turned off. I would support decreasing the wattage, but that’s it.
And while everyone is rightly pointing out how wasteful the police department is, let’s not forget that the votes of fayetteville told them in an election that we considered marijuana enforcement to be the LOWEST PRIORITY. That direction stands in stark contrast to all of the recent busts and the bragging by the police cheif in the local paper. He essentially said that their strategy was to make as many small time traffic stops as possible so they could shake down potential pot users. What a tool. Cut their budget , please.
Oh, and by the way, concerned citizen, it is not the job of the fayetevvile taxpayer to put food on everyone’s table. I don’t know what kind of socialist daydream you are living in, but we, as taxpayers, have a right to expect the services we have approved and are willing to pay for–which includes lighting the trail. The city isn’t a jobs program. Frankly, no one will even notice when the furloughs occur, but they’ll notice if there are no lights on the trail.
If we had not GIVEN more than $16,000 of city services to a stupid biker festival the last year that we have numbers for, it would fund TWO YEARS of trail lights.
Priorities, people. I know this is pretty much preaching to the choir, but… after 10 years, that event no longer needs the city’s financial support. Bikes should now pay for all city services it requires. And not be a drain on things such as bike path lighting.
It appears the bike trail lighting is too densely spaced, IMO.
I say cut the proposed light pole budget in half by doubling
the proposed light spacing on future trails; then cut every other
light off after midnight..
just a thought…flame on…
Hello,
I am a concerned citizen who has already written to the city council about this issue. I am now collecting anecdotal incident “reports” (informal reported information) about problematic issues that occur along the bike trail AS A RESULT of the lights being turned off at night. My intention is to collect a body of facts, if they exist, to present to the city to prove that there is a need to keep the lights on. It pains me, though, that these will be “after the fact” reports.
IF you or someone you know has a problem on the city bike trails AS A RESULT OF THE LIGHTS BEING OFF BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 11pm and 5:30am, please send a brief email of the incident to: marthamidwife@gmail.com.
Please do not abuse this address, it’s a personal one, but because I am extremely concerned about this safety issue I want to be able to receive information immediately.
Thank you,
Martha McBride,RN
(not so) Smart Citizen–
The marijuana arrests you have been reading about have been for POUNDS, NOT misdemeanor small amounts. I would bet most FPD feel they have better things to do than busting some kid with a one-hitter. And no matter what happened in the last election, the citizens of Fayetteville cannot repeal State law. If you really want marijuana laws to change, it has to be done on the State level. So please lay off the folks that are doing their job and put themselves in harm’s way for you and every other citizen of our fair City.
casual observer–
did you also observe if the flashing lights on that car were on? If they were, the engine has to run or they will kill the battery quickly.
It usually pays to have all the facts, and present all the facts. Otherwise, it’s just “stirring the pot” and not really contributing to a civil, productive discourse on the issue. Of course, maybe that’s not really what anyone wants anyway…..
Just my opinion. To which their own everyone has the right.
No, the lights were not on. I’m not just stirring the pot, just reporting the facts. I also know a young man who was arrested for just smoking a joint while sitting in a parked car, so it’s not all pounds. Maybe you need to check your facts first.
What about solar powered lights? Or did someone already say that? And, no, I don’t have a one-hitter…
@tatersalad – That’s a good idea, and it’s similar to some of the suggestions that have been made, but unfortunately we can’t implement a (more) complex lighting schedule like that now. Because there aren’t any electronic controls on our lights, the only way to turn a few off is to actually take out the bulb.
Your idea about increasing the spacing is something definitely worth talking about. I’ll remember it.
@mischki – Even upgrading all of the trail lights to LED’s wouldn’t produce savings for a decade, and there’s no point in upgrading them to solar if they’re just going to leak the electricity (through heat). Unless we upgraded them to LED’s, the payback period on the solar would be just as long. Besides, we simply don’t have the money for capital improvements like that. Unless the voters rise up and demand we pass a property tax, or even more grants start coming in, or more financing options for clean energy emerge, we won’t have money for things like that for two or three years, at least.
–
re: marijuana and Sensible Fayetteville
This is way off-topic, but someone should do a FOIA for the number of misdemeanor arrests, prosecutions, and pleas/sentences for the last decade and see if anything has changed. I would love to see an in-depth Fayetteville Speaks where we could discuss that particular issue in depth.
Matt, taking out half the bulbs is the easiest compromise I’ve heard yet! Cut the bill in half, keep the trail halfway lit. The city would then have a big stockpile of replacement bulbs, too.
Matt, with the lights going off has there been any consideration of emergency phones stationed at intervals along the trail much like what you see on most college campuses?
If all city officials making over 80K a year would take a voluntary 10% pay cut maybe that money could go into a fund for things like lighting trails. Or maybe institute a fine on all officials who voted for no lights per criminal act committed on the trails.
If all citizens voluntarily paid 10% of their salary to the city we could also pay for the lights… fat chance! Just because they work for the city and make 80k doesn’t make them any more willing to give up their hard earned money. I’m amazed that there wasn’t another solution for this, but pay cuts are hard to swallow for anyone… especially considering the furlough. What is funny though it that we are turning out the lights to save money while building more trail at the same time… don’t you think we should have lighting in the budget before we continue building? It would be stupid for me to add on to my house when I can’t pay the electricity bill on the current house.
I am fully in favor of keeping these lights on all night in some fashion. To do otherwise is just inviting trouble. I will most likely never be on the trail during these hours but I’m sure plenty of honest, hard-working folks will be and they deserve a safe environment. The alternatives are either a riskier trail or alternate transportation, neither of which is in line with the philosophy behind the building of these trails. Two other points:
@marthmello, for statistical validity you should also request reports from folks who use the trail during those hours without incident. I doubt you get many responses, which speaks to the ‘squeaky wheel / silent majority’ dichotomy I have discussed before in local issues. Knowing a number of incidents is one thing; knowing a ratio of incidents per 1000 users is much more informative, especially if you can compare that ratio to the time period when the lights were operational.
@mpetty says “Unless the voters rise up and demand we pass a property tax…” Don’t hold your breath. Most citizens believe they pay plenty in taxes already, but they do not trust the government to allocate those funds wisely. This trail light issue is a perfect example. I suspect even folks who have never used the trail feel like it’s a bad idea to turn the lights off at night, but that is exactly what this administration is suggesting. Instead of the knee jerk suggestion that higher taxes will solve every issue, I think you could have great success campaigning on a ‘smarter spending, not higher taxes’ platform.
Me–
While the Scull Creek-Frisco trail connection is being built with local money, other trail projects underway are funded at 80% with federal grants. It is easier for a city to get such grant funding, which increases the efficiency of its internal spending, when it shows a serious commitment to coordinated projects such as a trail system. If commitment to the trail system is part of what makes Fayetteville, then the decision to build is correct. The money for lighting is from a different budget, so a Peter-and-Paul relationship between building and lighting doesn’t really exist. The Scull Creek-Frisco trail connection is relatively short and will require less lighting than some trail segments because it can take advantage of light spillover from adjacent parking lots.
Your analogy to adding to your house isn’t always correct. If you pay a mortgage and have enough equity in your house to cover the cost of the addition, you can likely refinance the whole thing so as to lower your payment and improve your cash flow, making it easier to pay the electric bill. If your addition includes replacing inefficient heating and cooling with more efficient units, and if the addition is built to higher energy-conservation standards (whether or not you renovate the existing house), your electric bills might be smaller and you might be eligible for a tax break, which improves your financial situation. Of course, you shouldn’t try to add to your house in a way that overbuilds it for the market– too much square footage or too fine a level of finish– but building trails doesn’t fit that analogy. Trails cost relatively little, particularly at the local level when federal funding is available. The benefits in terms of real and perceived quality of life– especially in a town like Fayetteville– justify the expense.
@ArkInvestor – I assure you, my comment was entirely tongue-in-cheek.
@David Franks – We have received several grants for recreational trails, but none that I am aware of for transportation-corridors (except maybe a Safe Routes 2 School grant we got last year, but I don’t know if that went to trails or sidewalks or crosswalks or all three).
Ray LaHood, Obama’s transportation secretary, has promised that public transit and other “alternative” means of transport will be given equal priority to automobiles, but that was a recent announcement and I haven’t been made aware of any money coming down the pipes yet because of it.
mpetty–
I got that from Matt Mihalevich. I might have misunderstood what he said, though. He referred, I think, to the Oak Ridge and Old Missouri Road trails. I did conflate recreational and transportation trails, but so does the complaint about building more trails versus lighting them, and so does consideration for federal funding.
@mpetty – So you were tongue in cheek today, and either misquoted, misunderstood, or just presenting an item on a menu of options last time (http://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/2009/10/08/fayetteville-speaks-re-petty-proposes-raising-your-property-taxes/). What I see is someone who instinctively looks to raising taxes as a solution to political problems, then backpedals and dissembles when that proves unpopular. You can’t have it both ways. Look inside yourself and decide what you really believe then support it consistently.
Just saw this article, and I’m disappointed again, Fayetteville.
@Ben – - I agree that many users may be working a late shift and we should not “compromise their safety” to save money. I try to walk and bike whenever possible, and though I mostly use the trail coming and going to the movie theater that late at night, I feel no one should have to be concerned with safety on the trail when on other roads drivers may pay very little attention to bicyclists. I use a bike light, but as someone noted above, that only alerts people that you are coming. People that could jump out of the shadows with ill intentions.
@hillbillyfunk Agreed. Turn off some of the freakin’ Christmas lights.
@inarested observer Agreed. Stop funding crap like BBB. It should be self-sustaining, and one festival is enough. Allowing and funding a second one in any way should not be a priority over the safety of our citizens.
@David Franks – Matt would know better than I would. I’d trust what he told you. I have a hard time remembering all of the various grants and awards we’ve received off the top of my head.
@ArkInvestor – I do believe there are several initiatives that would be worthy of a tax increase. I’ve never been shy about saying that. However, campaigning on the issue and casually mentioning it are two different things. There are degrees of support and activism and every politician has to choose his/her battles.
Fayetteville has the lowest tax rate in Northwest Arkansas, and we have the best city services. That speaks volumes. A few more well-placed, tax-funded initiatives would cement our city in a position of regional leadership for the next decade, but this year isn’t the year to campaign on it. Nor was last year.
That said, there’s almost never a bad time for discussing all of our options, which was my position last year that was misrepresented by the paper and misunderstood by some citizens. I take the blame for that for not making my initial communications on that subject more clear.
It may be a detailed, nuanced position, but I think I’ve been very consistent about my view on whether/when we should use taxes.
Now unfortunately, if the sales tax collections continue to decline (we get the March numbers in two weeks), we’re going to have to consider using a discretionary mil to cover it. Everyone at the City is aware of that, and each of us, including myself, are doing everything we can to prevent that from being necessary. Despite what each of us think about the decision to turn off the lights, we should all be proud of the plan the administration has brought forward. It minimizes damage as much as possible.
The good news is that sales tax collections were up nationally and for the state. We’re optimistic about the Fayetteville numbers when they are reported to us.
How low is our tax rate compared to the rest of NWA? I have a house valued under $150k and I pay over $100/month in property taxes. That seems high to me, but I haven’t owned a hose anywhere else so I don’t know what is normal. I do agree that I would much rather live in Fayetteville than the rest of NWA and from looking at the traffic on 540, many others agree with me. Since we don’t have near as many employment opportunities in Fayetteville as the rest of NWA, we really need to maintain lower taxes and a higher living standard to keep people living here, right?
The lights will be back on next week for Bike to Work Week and according to Chief of Staff Don Marr, if the March sales tax numbers that come out on the 23rd are good, they could stay on longer than just next week.
ArkInvestor–
In the post you quoted, Mr. Petty didn’t “instinctively look to raising taxes as a solution to political problems”, he listed it facetiously in a set of possible funding sources. Your post reads as if you think higher taxes wax and wane in popularity from week to week.
Mr. Petty realistically sees that if residents keep demanding services without compromising on their quality, then they are going to have to pay more in order to have them. I find that his willingness to articulate such a realization is hardly the political cowardice you portray Mr. Petty as possessing.
FWIW, we should all applaud Mr. Petty for consistently taking a public stand on the issues, whether we agree with him or not. It would be nice if ALL of our public officials took interaction with the constituency as seriously as he does. Thank you, sir.
That is very kind of both of you to say, thank you.
According to the Washington County web site
http://www.co.washington.ar.us/ –> Information –> Millage rates
the ad valorem millage rate (which includes school district millage and other taxes) for Fayetteville is, at 51.50 (highest rate based on school district attended), lower than in-town millages in Farmington (54.10), Johnson (54.40), Elkins (54.40), Lincoln (52.80) and Springdale (53.30). The lowest rate in Fayetteville (47.20, with children in Springdale schools) is lower than in-town millages in Elkins (51.10), Greenland (48.90), Prairie Grove (49.90) and West Fork (50.10).
@Me – I’m looking through my files now, but can’t find the exact figures. I do remember that we were between 3 and 4 millage points lower than our northern neighbors. Our taxes were between 1 and 2 points lower than Springdale’s.
In general, your philosophy about maintaining our position of leadership is correct. However, I contend that there are investments which could be made which would increase our quality of life while keeping Fayetteville’s tax rates competitive.
@Cassy and @Todd – Here’s some more detailed information from Matt Mihalevich that he sent to me in an email (our staff is on top of things!):
“As negotiations continue with Maple Street apartments for the new Frisco trail connection, we have moved the trail to the back of the apartments per request by the apartment owners. We are also planning to construct a fence between the fence and the apartments to increase safety and privacy. Ultimately the owners of the apartments plan to destroy the existing apartments and construct a new development on the site. We are planning an 8′ wide trail for now, and once the apartments are removed, the trail will be widened to the standard 12′.”
Although that’s probably way more detail than most people care to know…
@David – D’oh! I didn’t think of checking their websites. Ha!
Here is Benton County’s: http://co.benton.ar.us/static/Collector/MILLAGERATES.htm
Remember, they are listed by school district…
@mpetty I do sincerely appreciate your participation on this website and others that I may not check. I may not always agree with your opinions, but you are the only public figure I have any sort of dialog with and without you or the Flyer, I would be completely in the dark on city politics. I don’t criticize you like others have chosen to because I value the connection with you over the details of your opinion… and I don’t give a crap about your tricycle incident! I live in Ward 2 and honestly don’t know more than 1 or two other aldermen without looking up the washington county site. Thank you for having the balls to come on an anonymous public forum and speak your mind so often!
@David Franks – I am enjoying the reasonable discussion and appreciate your thoughts. You got the wrong implication from my comment, however. Clearly higher taxes are consistently unpopular. My sense is Mr. Petty’s expressed support for higher taxes begins at a high level when faced with a political issue, then wanes as political realities set in. His reply that “A few more well-placed, tax-funded initiatives would cement our city in a position of regional leadership for the next decade” tells me that his core philosphy is one of higher taxes and more government spending and control. His comment that last year and this year are not the time to pursue those projects demonstrate the fair weather application of those principles to me. But I’m also old enough to understand that politics is compromise.
That being said, let me be 100% clear and join the chorus complimenting Mr. Petty for being involved and open in this and other conversations. I aired a valid, perhaps prickly, concern and Mr. Petty addressed it honestly and to my complete satisfaction. While I may not agree with his philisophy, I have absolute respect for his candor. I wish every politician had that courage.
@Cassy- (tongue-in-cheek)Hmmm…another festival…maybe a quarterly festival…we can call it Bikes Beer Bands and Bulbs (as in lightbulbs). Maybe it could be held on the trail between the hours of 11pm and 5:30am and the proceeds help keep lights on throughout the year. Wow, how many ordinances would that violate??? (again, just playing here). The clean up probably wouldn’t justify the event.
The University of Arkansas allows motorized vehicles under a certain engine displacement to be ridden on sidewalks.
Scooters don’t strike me as being very safe during rush hour, but they are common and economical. Many teens younger than driving age commute to school and work on scooters, which I’m sure is constant concern for parents and fellow motorists.
The wide paved trail network throughout Fayetteville would be a safe and efficient driving alternative for teens and other scooter riders. Very direct routes through town, which would entice many people needing powered mobility to shed cars regularly on their daily commutes.
An annual trail permit program for small-displacement motorized and electric two-wheeled vehicles could raise a substantial amount of money. Five hundred people paying $100 per year would be an easy $50,000, for example – enough to keep the lights burning all night long.
@offcamber could you provide more details on what you mean by “motorized vehicles under a certain engine displacement”? my interpretation is that you mean the work vehicles such as the kubota’s that the university of arkansas uses as their workforce fleet. because, i know for a fact that scooters are NOT allowed on the sidewalks, and are only allowed on the roadways.
here is the issue: the kubota’s and other workforce vehicles DO use the sidewalks on campus to arrive at destinations that are not able to be reached by road. when there IS road access, the vehicles use the road. additionally, the vehicles yield to all pedestrian traffic during between class rush, and are generally careful to avoid pedestrians.
the difference with scooters, is that scooter drivers are often not as thoughtful. during the 2006 and 2007 school year, before the university really enforced the scooter rule, scooters were common on the sidewalks. but instead of yielding to pedestrians and being thoughtful drivers, the scooters sped down the sidewalks, narrowly avoiding collisions. i remember countless times that i have had near collisions with scooters as i walked across campus. that is why the university started enforcing the rule in earnest: there was too much risk involved. i do not KNOW of any accidents, but is that the environment we want to propose on the bike trail?
the bike trail has a posted limit of 15 miles per hour. it would be easy to exceed that speed on even a bicycle, let alone a scooter. scooters are made for quick transport from point to point. i find it hard to believe that scooter drivers would restrain themselves to that limit. moreover, it isn’t at all SAFE to exceed the 15 mph limit for a number of reasons. the trail is too narrow, and has some considerable bends and turns. additionally, the sheer volume of pedestrians is just too great to condone motorized transport. this is not a safe alternative.
the bike trail was designed to be just that: a bike and walking/running trail. it was meant for nonmotorized transport. scooters are meant to be driven on the road, so let’s keep it that way.
i like the fact that you are proposing new ideas, i just don’t happen to agree with this one…
Can we get a sarcasm font?