Keep the Courthouse in Downtown Bentonville - Guest Column from the NWADG

Beyond sentimentality

Keep courts facility in downtown Bentonville

By Barry Moehring

Posted: April 8, 2015 at 1 a.m.

• Editor's note: This guest commentary is a response to this newspaper's March 25 editorial that suggested the decision on where to build a new Benton County courts facility boiled down to efficiency vs. sentimentality.

  
  

  Keeping the Benton County circuit courts facilities in downtown Bentonville has been described as a sentimental decision. In fact, keeping the court facilities downtown makes sound fiscal sense and would meet the needs of the court system for decades to come.

The Benton County Quorum Court is wrestling with the decision of where to locate the courthouse, either on Arkansas 102 adjacent to the Benton County jail or to modernize the existing historic courthouse in downtown Bentonville and build a new adjacent court facility.

On one issue both sides agree: The current historic courthouse is inadequate for today's Benton County circuit courts system and will become even more obsolete in the future as the county's growth far outpaces the courthouse's capacity.

Proposals for both locations have been developed by highly competent architectural design firms and both meet the basic criteria for a new courts facility. The first and most important need is to create a safe and secure facility for the judges, staff and public. Both proposals envision one secure and contiguous facility with a single entrance for the public, a separate entrance and secure areas for inmates, and secure chambers and parking for judges and court personnel.

Another key consideration is capacity. Both proposals contain significant additional capacity to accommodate courtroom needs both now and for many years in the future along with additional public space for safety, comfort and convenience.

Finally, parking will be a key consideration and both proposals have identified existing and new parking spaces to accommodate the expansion.

Taken objectively, either proposal would be a tremendous improvement over the current court facility.

So let's take a look at the other factors that will help drive the decision.

First and foremost, there is cost. On the surface, the Arkansas 102 proposal would cost $24 million. Digging deeper, however, this figure does not accommodate all of the costs associated with this proposal.

The current Highway 102 proposal makes no mention of how the historic courthouse would be used or at what cost for that use. It is safe to say the cost will run in the millions of dollars to renovate a nearly 100-year-old building for whatever future use is proposed.

The Highway 102 proposal has been presented within the context of a much larger shift of Benton County facilities from multiple locations to two locations. No cost has been offered for this proposal although there has been speculation that the sale of some existing county properties would help pay for this significant move of county facilities. In reality it is unclear right now how much this part of the plan would cost, but again, it is safe to say the tab will run in the millions of dollars.

These two unknown variables will add unknown millions of dollars to the Highway 102 proposal.

The downtown Bentonville proposal carries a price tag of $31.2 million. An important consideration for this proposal is that the actual cost to taxpayers will be substantially less.

The Walton Family Foundation has already committed $2.9 million for initial renovations to the historic courthouse. If the downtown proposal is adopted by the Quorum Court, the foundation has pledged an additional $2 million toward the cost of construction.

These two commitments to the downtown proposal take the actual cost to taxpayers down to $26.3 million. There have also been additional pledges and donations of land (approximately half a block) and parking space to accommodate the new downtown courts expansion.

Three additional considerations heavily tilt the decision toward the downtown proposal.

First, in the downtown proposal, the historic courthouse will continue to function both as a courthouse and as home to several key court functions. No mystery here of how the historic courthouse will be used in the future, and unlike the proposal for the Highway 102 location, the cost to fully renovate the historic courthouse is included in the downtown proposal.

Second, one study estimated the annual economic impact of the courts facilities on downtown Bentonville is approximately $3 million. Moving the facilities to Highway 102 will put a substantial portion of this impact at risk.

Finally, as a member of the Quorum Court, I've heard from a wide variety of county employees as well as others who frequent the historic courthouse that they enjoy all of the restaurants, shops and other amenities offered in downtown Bentonville. These quality of life factors do not exist on the Highway 102 property adjacent to the county jail.

Choosing to keep the Benton County circuit court facilities in downtown Bentonville is not a sentimental decision. It's the right decision that upgrades and modernizes our court facilities, saves taxpayer dollars, improves and maintains the historic courthouse and preserves the economic impact of the court facilities on downtown Bentonville.

------- * --------

Barry Moehring is the justice of the peace serving District 15 on the Benton County Quorum Court.

Commentary on 04/08/2015

Pressing for BHS West Roads

On Thursday February 12th the Transportation Committee of the Quorum Court met to discuss several issues, one of which was the road plan for the new Bentonville West High School.  

I had asked that this issue be placed on the agenda so that the Committee and citizens could get an update from Judge Clinard and the County Road Department.
Also in attendance were Centerton Mayor Bill Edwards, Centerton Road Superintendent Rick Hudson and the Bentonville Public Schools Facilities Director, Paul Wallace.

What we learned is that the City of Centerton and Bentonville Public Schools are moving ahead rapidly on developing needed roads and other infrastructure for BHS West.  

The County's current plan is to wait until 2016 to move forward on building the roads and include funding for this purpose in the 2016 budget.  In the meantime, the County Road Department has moved ahead on securing right-of-way and other preliminary steps that will be needed to move forward.

However, an overall plan for how the County is addressing the needs of BHS West was not presented.

Members of the Committee, myself included, expressed concern that the County was not moving fast enough and that we needed concrete (no pun intended!) action soon on this issue, particularly in conjunction with the work being done by Centerton and Bentonville Public Schools.
During the meeting, I asked that a detailed plan for the County's portion of the BHS West roads be presented at the next Transportation Committee meeting.
Additionally, the Committee took an informal "straw poll" vote to gauge interest in accelerating the work into 2015 instead of waiting until 2016.  That vote was unanimous.
The ultimate decision will rest with the recommendations of Judge Clinard but clearly the Quorum Court wants to see a detailed plan and a way to get work done sooner rather than later.  If you're interested, here's a link to an article that appeared in the paper about this issue.  I'll post more information here as it becomes available.

On a side note, the NWADG recently ran an editorial about how committee meetings are run in Washington County.  Several good points were made but one in particular called out the fact that in Washington County, members of the Quorum Court are paid $200 when they  attend committee meetings -- even committees that they are not members of. 

In Benton County that's not the case.  Benton County Quorum Court members only receive per diem (lower than Washington County I might add - $150) for attending meetings for committees that they are members of.  We have many members who attend various committee meetings (like the Transportation Committee meeting referenced above... I'm not a member and several JPs were in attendance who are not members) and we have an agreement that any and all can attend and participate regardless of whether or not they are a formal member. They just cannot vote on ordinances or resolutions in the committee meeting itself.  And they do not get paid a per diem for their participation.

As always, let me know your thoughts!

Thanks,

Barry

New Issues On Quorum Court Agenda for 2015

Its only early February and we've already addressed or will address a number of new issues facing Benton County in 2015.  I'll spend a little more time on many of these in subsequent posts but below are quick updates.  As always I would really like to have your comments.

• Sales Tax: I'm very pleased with how our sales tax revenue is coming in.  We're starting the year with a 7.28% year on year increase which reflects the strength of our economy in Northwest Arkansas.  We finished 2014 roughly 2.5% over 2013 so keeping this momentum going is terrific news for all of the residents of Benton County.  Keep in mind that the County sales tax rate is 1%.  But of that amount Benton County itself only receives about 20% of that revenue.  The rest goes to cities and other local government entities.
• Benton County Courthouse: The Walton Foundation has generously granted the County $2.8M to repair and refurbish parts of the courthouse.  The County has an obligation to maintain the integrity of the current courthouse and the grant from the Walton Foundation is much appreciated as we consider the future use of this historic building on the Bentonville Square.  I'll have more info on this throughout the year as we consider the future of the courthouse and the potential for developing, financing and ultimately building a new judicial center.
• War Eagle Bridge: I attended a very spirited community meeting at Hobbs State Park this past Saturday concerning the future of the War Eagle Bridge.  No doubt the bridge has tremendous practical and historic significant both to the surrounding War Eagle Valley and all of Benton County.  Benton County Judge Bob Clinard will ultimately have to make a recommendation on the future use of the bridge.  The Quorum Court will then have to decide how to fund that recommendation.  More to come on this as well.
• Funding for State Inmates at the Benton County Jail: We've had several discussions about the state providing appropriate per diem for state prisoners while housed at the County Jail.  Currently the state pays only $28 per day while cities and the federal government pay much higher per diem rates.  A recent state report put the actual cost at more than $60 per day.  The Legislature is addressing this issue in its current session and hopefully we'll see the first increase in per diem in many years.  In the meantime there has been some discussion of filing suit against the state.  I would only support this as a very last resort and we're a long way from that point.
• County Roads for Bentonville West High School:  I've asked that this issue be put on the agenda as a discussion item for the Transportation Committee meeting that will be held on Thursday, February 12th.  The City of Centerton and the Bentonville Public School District have been working diligently to ensure that roads and other infrastructure leading to the new high school will be ready when the school opens in August 2016.  Several Benton County roads and intersections also need to be improved in anticipation of the new school.  I'll have a new update on this after Thursday's meeting.

These are just a few of the issues on our agenda so far in 2015.  Again, please let me know your thoughts on these or any other issues impacting Benton County.

Thanks!

Barry

Public Education Effort Begins on Benton County EMS Issue

The Benton County Quorum Court is beginning its public education effort to inform voters about the two Emergency Medical Services (EMS) funding issues that will be on the ballot in November.

As you may recall, one proposal would impose a 2/10% millage tax on all real and personal property in Benton County (including businesses) to fund ambulance service in the rural areas.  This new tax will be on the ballot across all of Benton County.

The second proposal would impose a $40 per household fee on unincorporated homes only.  This proposal will be on the ballot in unincorporated areas of Benton County.  If you live in one of the incorporated cities or towns in Benton County, you will not have this proposal on your ballot.

Click here for the actual language of the two ballot proposals.

Below are the town hall dates that have been scheduled thus far to disseminate information to voters.  I expect other dates to be scheduled and that this issue will receive more media attention as election day draws near.

• Sept 20th, 9:00 am (Centerton): Coffee with the Mayor of Centerton, Centerton City Hall, 290 Main St., Centerton
• Oct 6th, 6:30 pm (Highfill): Highfill City Hall, Hwy 102, Highfill
• Oct 16th, 6:00 pm (Bentonville): Benton County Courthouse Main Courtroom, 100 NW A St., Bentonville
• Oct 20th, 6:00 pm (Siloam Springs): Siloam Springs Community Building, 110 North Mt. Olive, Siloam Springs
• Oct 24th, 6:00 pm (Gravette): Bill V. Hall Senior Services, 1870 Limekin Road, Gravette
• Oct 30th, 6:30 pm (Centerton): Centerton City Hall, 290 Main St., Centerton

I'll do my best to keep everyone informed of additional town halls as they are scheduled.  I'll also disseminate any other information I receive.

As always, please don't hesitate to send me your questions and comments.  I like hearing from you!

Best,

Barry

Two EMS Funding Measures Going to November Ballot

The Quorum Court met last night in special session to consider sending two proposals to the ballot in November to fund ambulance services in unincorporated Benton County.  

Both resolutions passed and thus both will be on the ballot in November.

As you may recall, proposal would impose a 2/10% millage tax on all real and personal property in Benton County (including businesses) to fund ambulance service in rural areas.  

The other proposal would imposed a $40 per household fee on unincorporated homes only.

I voted against the resolution sending the millage to all Benton County voters and voted for the resolution sending the fee to unincorporated voters.

Why?

Under the 2/10th% tax, 84% of revenues would be collected in incorporated cities and towns --  where people already pay taxes for ambulance service to their homes and businesses.  

Only 16% of the revenues would be collected in the unincorporated areas.  

When I looked at the actual EMS runs into unincorporated Benton County, approximately 80% of ambulance runs in the rural areas were to specific unincorporated addresses -- meaning rural county residents.  

Under this proposal, 84% of the revenue would be collected in incorporated areas to pay for 80% or more of the runs specifically to unincorporated residents.

This does not make sense to me.

On the other hand, the $40 per household fee in the unincorporated areas addresses a number of concerns that came up during the February special election on this issue:

1) The fee has been lowered from $85 per household to $40 per household.

2) The previous fee was approved by the Quorum Court and then disapproved by rural voters -- this fee goes directly to the voters.

3) The previous proposal funded ambulance 100% from the revenues derived from the fee while this proposal funds roughly half from the fee and half from the general fund -- so the overall cost is spread more broadly and not just among rural county residents.

I believe $40 per year per household to continue ambulance service into rural Benton County is not too much to ask of rural county residents.

Frankly, the alternative is that we continue to find dollars from other parts of the county budget -- such as county roads -- to fund ambulance service.  

I've also been asked why I did not support sending both proposals to the ballot and giving voters the choice for themselves.  

First I believe having both on the ballot will be highly confusing.  Rural voters will have two propositions (fee and millage) to consider while city voters will only have one proposition (millage) on their ballot.

I believe explaining the differences between the two to these different sets of voters will be daunting.  Many voters will believe its just easier (and it will be) to just vote no.

Secondly, I'm not sure why voters in incorporated Benton County would vote in favor of a new tax for a service they already pay taxes for?  So automatically that will skew the vote against the millage.

Meanwhile in the rural areas it will be much easier for those voters to vote for a county-wide tax and not for the fee.  Why wouldn't they?  It would be the cheaper and easier route to take.  

Each side gets to pick the financial fate of the other side... you can imagine how that will play out.

Which is why I supported giving rural Benton County residents a clear and clean choice.  A $40 fee to continue ambulance service or, failing that, signaling to the Quorum Court that we need to continue to cut other areas of the county budget to fund the service.

Regardless, now unincorporated county voters will get to choose among both funding options while incorporated voters will get to choose whether or not to support a new millage tax to fund unincorporated ambulance service.

As always, let me know your thoughts and questions.  This is a very complicated issue and there are no easy answers.  We may not always agree, but I highly value your input.

Thanks,

Barry

Latest on the Benton County EMS Issue

The Quorum Court met this past Thursday to consider sending two proposals to the ballot in November to fund ambulance services in unincorporated Benton County.  In a strange twist, both issues were passed as ordinances but then both were defeated as resolutions to refer the ordinances to the ballot.

Action must be taken prior to August 26th in order to refer anything to the November ballot.  Calling a special meeting has been floated as one idea since two members were unavoidably absent from Thursday's meeting and their votes may have impacted the outcome.

As you may recall, one ordinance would impose a 2/10% millage tax on all real and personal property in Benton County (including businesses) to fund ambulance service in rural areas.  

The other ordinance would imposed a $40 per household fee on unincorporated homes only.

I voted against the ordinance and resolution sending the millage to all Benton County voters and voted for the ordinance and resolution sending the fee to unincorporated voters.

Why?

Under the 2/10th% tax, 84% of revenues would be collected in incorporated cities and towns --  where people already pay for ambulance service by virtue of higher sales and property taxes (for the most part).  

Only 16% of the revenues would be collected in the unincorporated areas.  

When I looked at the actual numbers, approximately 80% of ambulance runs in the rural areas were to specific unincorporated addresses -- meaning rural county residents.  

Under this proposal, 84% of the revenue would be collected in incorporated areas to pay for 80% or more of the runs specifically to unincorporated residents.

That does not make sense to me.

On the other hand, the $40 per household fee in the unincorporated areas addresses a number of concerns that came up during the February special election on this issue:

1) The fee has been lowered from $85 per household to $40 per household.

2) The previous fee was approved by the Quorum Court and then disapproved by rural voters -- this fee goes directly to the voters.

3) The previous proposal funded ambulance 100% from the revenues derived from the fee while this proposal funds roughly half from the fee and half from the general fund -- so the overall cost is spread more broadly and not just among rural county residents.

I believe $40 per year per household to continue ambulance service into rural Benton County is not too much to ask of rural county residents.

Frankly, the alternative is that we continue to find dollars from other parts of the county budget -- such as county roads -- to fund ambulance service.  

I've also been asked why I would not support sending both proposals to the ballot and giving voters the option for themselves.  

First having both on the ballot would be highly confusing.  Rural voters would have two propositions (fee and millage) to consider while city voters would only have one proposition (millage) on their ballot.

I believe explaining the differences between the two to these different sets of voters would be daunting.  Many voters will believe its just easier (and it will be) to just vote no.

Secondly, I'm not sure why voters in incorporated Benton County would vote in favor of a new tax for a service they already pay taxes for?  So automatically that will skew the vote against the millage.

Meanwhile in the rural areas it will be much easier for those voters to vote for a county-wide tax and not for the fee.  Why wouldn't they?  It would be the cheaper and easier route to take.  

Each side gets to pick the financial fate of the other side... you can imagine how that will play out.

What this approach probably guarantees is the defeat of both measures -- and by a significant margin.

This would be a disservice to rural Benton County voters who deserve a choice on how to fund ambulance service.

Which is why I support giving rural Benton County residents a clear and clean choice.  A $40 fee to continue ambulance service or, failing that, signaling to the Quorum Court that we need to continue to cut other areas of the county budget to fund the service.  

As always, let me know your thoughts and questions.  This is a very complicated issue and there are no easy answers.  We may not always agree, but I highly value your input.

Thanks,

Barry

Comments on two stories from the BCD yesterday

The Benton County Daily Record ran two front page stories yesterday that I wanted to post about.

The first was regarding a message from the City of Siloam Springs that indicates it will cut off ambulance service to rural Benton County if the County does not pay the requested budget for that service for the whole year.  

My earlier post describes the overall issue.  The bottom line is the defeat of the $85 annual fee by rural residents during the February 11 special election will result in uncertainty about the future of ambulance service in unincorporated Benton County.  In the unincorporated areas around Siloam Springs it appears that service could be disrupted or ended.

I completely understand that rural county residents are upset about this.  I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment that we already pay too much in taxes and fees to the various levels of government.  Unfortunately this is a unique circumstance that has been building for years and one way or another ambulance service is going to have to be paid for with either a fee, cutting other county services or by raising taxes in some other way (which I am opposed to all of the options I've seen to date).

The worst outcome is ending ambulance service to some parts of Benton County.

The other story had the lead, "Benton County's courts building project is moving forward."

That's not exactly the case.

A study has been completed and three options for a new courts facility have been identified -- each around $50 million.  However no decision has been made to proceed with any of these options.  Additionally pursuing any of these options will almost certainly mean going to the voters to approve some sort of tax increase -- something I believe would have a very difficult chance of passing.

What we (Benton County and the Quorum Court) still need to do is explore scaled back options at much lower cost that don't need a tax increase for funding.  That work should begin this year.

So, a courts building is not moving forward at this point.  We've simply accumulated more information from a study and now additional work and investigation is required to determine our next steps.

As always, please feel free to let me know your thoughts.