Sidewalk Inventory Complete.

Public Works Committee members viewed a map of the non-City-owned sidewalks at their meeting Tuesday afternoon. According to Engineering Department Head Joe Butler, the City has 257,326 linear feet of such sidewalks, with 92,821 feet or 36% in need of repair. He estimated the repair cost at $1.25 million.

Butler recommended that as the City considers repairs of non-City-owned sidewalks, they concentrate on the major foot traffic areas first.

"Some of these need to be fixed immediately," said Butler. "They are just terrible sidewalks, they’re a terrible liability to the property owner, to the City."

"Even if we did a 50-50 program with the property owners," said Committee Chair Bill Fortune, "we’re looking at about $600,000 in City cost."

The general concept for undertaking repairs of non-City-owned sidewalks outlined by Fortune includes an incentive program for property owners which splits the cost between the City and owners, money placed in the budget to fund the first year of the program in the $50,000 to $100,000 range, and the ability of property owners to pay their portion of repair expenses through a tax assessment.

To get a perspective on the possible cost to property owners, committee members considered an owner with 100 feet of frontage all of which needs to have the sidewalk replaced. According to Butler this would cost $1300-$1400. With a 50-50 incentive program, the property owner would pay $650-$700.

"People who can’t afford to pay need a payout system or an incentive from the City," said Butler. "I’m not saying they need both, but they need at least one of them....I’m not sure the City needs to do both if you have a $600 job. The City pays $300 in incentive and the owner pays the remaining $300 over a 5-year period, it’s not going to be worth the paperwork to mess with it."

Butler suggested setting parameters so that only projects above a certain dollar amount are eligible for a tax project.

I can’t see us doing that," said Committee Member Larry Ross referring to the tax assessment option. "That puts the City in the position of being a bank, and we could have a lot of money out every year that we don’t get back for five years."

Fortune suggested that a short payback period, possibly a year, be allowed for projects over a certain dollar amount and that interest be charged.

Sandy Schuske, an interested citizen, asked Fortune how the program would get started: First come, first served or worst first?

As Fortune sees it, sidewalks would have to be condemned to qualify for the program, and the Engineering Department would condemn the worst ones first.

Schuske then asked about the eligibility of people without sidewalks who would like to have them.

"That’s not a high priority on my list," said Fortune. "I think we need to fix what we have first."

Both Ross and Committee Member Charlie Bastin agreed.

Discussion at the meeting also touched on historical districts, materials for sidewalks and enforcement mechanisms. Based on the direction gained at this meeting and input from members concerning the new Eureka Springs sidewalk ordinance Butler will prepare a draft ordinance to present to the committee for further discussion in January.

Just Jake Talkin'
Mornin',

The idea of usin' a special tax district to finance infrastructure improvements is not a new one. The City has in place just such a plan for sewer districts and also uses the same mechanism for housing developers. The real question is how serious the City is about getting the community's sidewalks up to code.

There is more at stake here than just a mere convenience for those walkin' in the neighborhood. The City is facing law suits now because of its shared responsibility with private landowners for the condition of sidewalks. The City bears the largest liability because it is at least perceived to have the deepest pockets. It only makes sense for the Council to eliminate this liability. This is one of those times when the government can help do what the private sector cannot do alone.

This is some fact, but mostly,

Just Jake Talkin'.

by

Metcalf Auto Supply

Click and Clack Talk Cars

Dear Tom and Ray:

My future brother-in-law claims that it's more cost-effective to use your brakes rather than downshifting. He says this is true for both hills and normal driving. He argues that it only costs him a couple hundred dollars to replace his brakes, while engine overhaul may cost thousands. Is it more cost-effective to use your brakes? -Eddy

TOM: It totally depends, Eddy. "Hills," and "normal driving" are two completely different situations in this regard.

RAY: Let's take "normal driving" first. It's not the engine that takes the brunt of downshifting. It's the clutch that takes the punishment. Think about it. If you shifted up from first gear to fifth then downshifted all the way back down again, you'd be using your clutch twice as often, and therefore wearing it out twice as fast, right? And a clutch can cost hundreds of dollars.

TOM: So in "normal driving," it is much better, as your wise brother-in-law says, to use the brakes to slow and stop the car.

RAY: On steep down hills, however, it's a completely different story. And you'd be crazy to listen to the advice your knucklehead future brother-in-law.

TOM: If you overuse your brakes on long, steep hills, you can cause the brake fluid to boil. If the brake fluid boils, you can lose your brakes entirely. And if you check with your local body shop and emergency room, they'll confirm that having "no brakes" is not a very cost-efficient way to go down a hill.

RAY: So on steep hills, you're much better off putting the car in a lower gear and using the natural braking action of the engine to keep the car at a reasonable speed.

ARCHIVES Index