Has the City of Malvern...

[SteveGabbard]

Ever considered an Advertising and Promotion "hamburger tax" to help fund the ledge improvements?

The tax would be on restarants and lodging in the city. I think the City Council can pass the tax without a vote by the citizens. It would have a sunset clause.

In addition to the ledge project the money could be used on anything to promote and bring visitors to Malvern. i.e. promote brickfest, ball tounaments, etc... The money is not earmarked for any particular project. The limitations on what it can be used for are set by the law that allows this type of tax to be created.

I'm not an expert on the subject. It is just a thought. I've watched the numbers on the one in Benton and it brings in alot of money.

[SteveGabbard]

http://thebison.harding.edu/index.php/o ... -p-tax-101" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here is a link that explains a&p taxes and what they can be used for.

[Roger]

I hate to inject politics, but I can imagine what some segments of our voting population would do with that idea in an ad for a political campaign which is where this would go.

Not to say that it is not a feasible idea as this tax is used in Little Rock (NOLA paid for the SuperDome with a hotel tax and never took it off the books when the structure was paid for as I recall) to raise monies for advertising the city as I recall. There is some question there about how those monies are used and who directs the spending since there seems to be a lot questionable procedures regarding that city's spending practices and who really benefits from the tax.

Back to Malvern, it appears they have a sales tax rate of 9% so if you could convince voters to add .25% to hotel/restaraunt sales for as long as it would take to raise the needed monies to develop (some accountant could figure that easily enough) and kill the tax with a sunset date then it could be done without a lot of "pain."

Big gorilla in the room is convincing those voting blocs that it is a "good" tax and will benefit the area as whole in light of the political climate today and the public's attitude toward taxes and government. Better have some good data about the dollar impact down the road that this investment will bring. Forty years ago, your representative to Congress would have found some way to sneak $150k into a spending bill to pay for it if the city leaders thought it was good idea.

[okieboater]

Roger speaks the truth.

Here in Tulsa, a similar tax for river based water parks and improvements was put up for county wide vote. Cities along the water more or less voted yes, those not located along the river voted no.

Not saying it is not a good idea, just pointing out tax increases directed toward "recreational use" are hard if not impossible to get voter support when police and fire fighters are being laid off for lack of money.

[okieboater]

Roger speaks the truth.

Here in Tulsa, a similar tax for river based water parks and improvements was put up for county wide vote. Cities along the water more or less voted yes, those not located along the river voted no.

Not saying it is not a good idea, just pointing out tax increases directed toward "recreational use" are hard if not impossible to get voter support when police and fire fighters are being laid off for lack of money.

[Roger]

Give me a double truth icon from Brother Dave!!!

[SteveGabbard]

The idea of an A&P tax is to bring people in. As I stated above, I believe the City Council can enact one without a vote of the citizens.

I read through some of the minutes that were posted and it seems this has been a project that has been in the works for a while. If the City Fathers of Malvern have been open to the idea for so long there must be some economic benefit to the City they are seeing.

I am not an expert on the Ledge project, A&P taxes, or the City budget.

I was mainly wondering if this has been considered. As of yet, no one has answered my question. But thanks for the constructive criticism.

[Lifejacket]

Biggest problem I see is most people going to the ledge do not even visit the city of Malvern. The walmart and any business west or north of Tanner Street however you want to look at is is in the town of Rockport.

[Roger]

Biggest problem I see is most people going to the ledge do not even visit the city of Malvern. The walmart and any business west or north of Tanner Street however you want to look at is is in the town of Rockport.

So make it a county tax which spreads the tax base which can result in a shorter life for the tax. Lots of locals use both accesses for swimming, fishing, etc. Remember seeing some local and county LEO's training for swiftwater rescue there which is a selling point for local officials. Create the ideal spot for training and it can become a regional training site for swiftwater rescue which equals $$$$$$ for the whole area.

Folks, the selling points are there for this but it will need to be initiated by a local citizen along with the aforementioned evaluation of what that finished product can produce in dollars. Heck, might even get the rivergate gods to let loose with a little extra water to help train those who work to keep us safe.

It's all in the presentation.

[Michael]

What improvements are being worked on?

[SteveGabbard]

Michael,

I don't think anything is physically being worked on right now. There have been some proposals to modify the riverbed to develop a whitewater park as well as enhance SWR training.

I'm not sure what the exact proposals are but I know the cost estimates have been high.

[Michael]

Steve, This sounds pretty interesting. Do you know who to contact for specific information?

[SteveGabbard]

No

[CAPTAIN ALEVE]

The "Lower Ledge Project", as it is officially called, began about the year 2000 with a few ACC members visualizing improved whitewater surfing at both the Upper Ledge near the boat ramp and the Lower Ledge in the rapid under the Tanner Street Bridge. By the way, Malvern's city limits do include a lot of ground north of Tanner Street, including Wal-Mart. A map of the city limits is available online, but I forget what the link is. Improved surfing was easy to sell to ACC members and funds were raised through donations and sales of locally produced whitewater dvds. About $1800 was spent to bring a whitewater park design firm, Recreation Engineering and Planning, to Malvern to assess the site, I believe in 2003. REP said the sites (both the Upper Ledge and Lower Ledge) had the potential to have good whitewater waves built. They produced drawings in 2004 showing a new wave at the Lower Ledge and improvements to the Upper Ledge. They also produced a cost estimate of $171,650 for the Lower Ledge and $41,500 for the Upper Ledge. The Mayor of Malvern had been whitewater rafting out-of-state and saw the potential for increased tourism which would help the area’s economy if the waves were built. He enthusiastically endorsed the project. The cost estimate for the lower ledge included $78,000 for 1300 cubic yards of stone. Since Malvern owned the old quarry adjacent to the Upper Ledge, and since the quarry was full of large stones, the cost of stone could be reduced substantially from what was estimated. The project now looked like it could be done for about $100,000 at the Lower Ledge. Malvern applied for and obtained the 404 Permit using REP’s assistance.

More funds were raised: a $50,000 grant was obtained from the Ouachita River Commission, the Walton Foundation contributed $75,000, Entergy donated $10,000. A grant request was made to a fund controlled by Entergy/AGFC/DEQ for $100,000 that is available for improvements to the fish habitat in the Ouachita River, to make up for the negative effects of dams built upstream of Malvern. The grant request was not successful. With the ACC donations which included $12,000 in 2007, we thought we were ready to begin design and construction. Malvern holds all the funds except for about $8000 that the ACC has left from the Entergy grant.

REP was hired by Malvern through a local engineering firm (a license issue) to design the Lower Ledge improvements. Plans were completed and let out for bids in August of 2007. All the bidders were informed that the rock was free for the taking from the quarry before the letting. Two bids were received: about $995,000 and $775,000. They were rejected as being too high. The plans were trimmed down to the minimum components, a 60 feet wide wave feature and a stone wing and let out for bids in October 2007. One bid was received, $505,000, and was rejected. A review of the plans was made and two reasons for the high bids were arrived at: too much risk for the contractor and not enough information in the plans. According to the plans, the contractor would have to pay whatever it cost to start over if a flood washed out his partially completed work. No specific amount of rock or concrete grout was spelled out in the plans, so the contractor could not accurately determine what his costs were going to be. Those are two good reasons to bid high! The plans were described by the designers to be “conceptual” in nature, hence no specific amounts. Hence no low bids, either. Malvern declined to assume the liability of paying for rebuilding a partially constructed wave feature. We were at a dead end.

In January 2008, Ted Smethers of both the ACC and the Ouachita River Park Commission, began an effort to involve the AGFC in the project in order to use AGFC personnel, equipment, and expertise and hopefully qualify for the $100,000 that was available. On February 8, the AGFC, ACC, and Malvern met and worked out a plan that was to be a “win-win-win” situation. Here is the conclusion section of the minutes:

Plan to Move Forward
• AGFC has agreed to provide technical support and assistance. They have a professional engineer who can provide design assistance and PE approval of design documents. They will also assist with contract bid documents and provide names and contacts of proven contractors.

• Steve Filipek will contact Mr. Terry Ferris who was described as an artist with a track hoe in placing large boulders in rivers. We will see if Mr. Ferris would agree to come and view the site, discuss with us what we will want to build and give us a rough estimate of the cost to construct it. This will be very useful for grant applications and other funding requests.

• Lance Jones and the Arkansas Canoe Club will inquire with Recreation Engineering Planners to determine if they are interested in the redesign of the project without the use of structural grout. If not, the ACC will locate another whitewater recreation design firm for us to work with. Lance has already made contact with one such firm. Once the ACC selects a whitewater design firm, a meeting will be set up for them to come to the site and meet with everyone to discuss details. If all goes well, the AGFC engineer can work with the WW designer and develop a set of drawings and specifications suitable to bid the project.

• All construction bid documents will be reviewed by the City of Malvern Attorney and Mayor and once found acceptable, bidding and construction contracting will be performed by the City. Details on whom and how construction oversight will be conducted has yet to be worked out.


The meeting concluded with some very positive and encouraging comments by Mayor Steve Northcutt. All who attended left encouraged that this project can be done and that we now have a viable plan with which to move forward.

End

It looked like the project was on track once again. A year later a Request for Qualificaions for a new design firm was put out. McLaughlin Whitewater Design Group (MWDG) was paid $2000 by the ACC to come to Malvern for a site review. Their assessment was good; they were hired by Malvern near the end of 2009. Their preliminary plans were received in the middle of 2010. In my opinion, there were many problems with the plans, both in concept and design. I am a civil engineer with a lot of experience in bridge design (including designing the Tanner Street bridge) and placement of rock in rivers to avoid scour failures of bridges. The ACC committee and the ORPC committee for the project met jointly in August and decided to proceed with the MWDG plans, subsequent to MWDG adjusting them as necessary. The resulting plans would use the same design technique (stones embedded in concrete, see third bullet in the meeting minutes above) that received the high bids in 2007 and that failed to get AGFC backing ($100,000 grant) in 2007. In addition, the new plans would involve much more work than the October 2007 plans did. In my opinion the cost of building the MWDG plans would greatly exceed that of the 2007 plans.

I resigned from the ORPC at that point rather than devote more time to the Lower Ledge Project. I was secretary of the ORPC and have copies of all plans, minutes, correspondence, etc. It has been eight months since I resigned and I am no longer aware of the progress of the project. I haven’t seen any posts by the ACC committee members giving updates. MWDG was supposed to supply a cost estimate for the project when they completed the plans. It would be interesting to see that.

Captain Aleve, alias Mike Coogan