OPPOSE SALES TAX | MCAR Republicans

MARION COUNTY REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE PASSED RESOLUTION OPPOSING SALES TAX

1. Fiscal and Economic Concerns

High Initial Costs: Construction requires massive upfront investment requiring this tax hike. A 0.5% sales and uses tax for approximately 21-26 years for a bond issue of $16.5 million for a building that Marion County will ultimately pay about $27 million.
Operating Deficits: Studies have shown community centers rarely turn a profit and will require ongoing taxpayer subsidies to cover maintenance, utilities, and staffing, which will drain government budgets. The proposed community center would be staffed and maintained by county employees by an additional 0.25% sales tax. This same percentage does not fully pay the county employees and maintenance to run the current Law Enforcement Center.
Hidden Costs: Expenses always exceed initial estimates due to construction delays, rising material costs, or unforeseen, long-term maintenance needs.
Unpopularity of User Fees: To stay afloat, centers will implement membership or program fees, which are unpopular and limits access for the very residents they are intended to serve.
Counties Do Not Operate Community Centers: Community centers across the state are financed by the cities where they are located. The county should not be in the business of running a community center. They are a financial strain to an already limited budget. If it was such a good idea Marion County would probably not have been the first to have taken it on.

2. Usage and Operational Viability

Low Utilization Risks: There is no guarantee the center will be used as intended; it may end up as an expensive, empty building that wastes public money.
Land for Construction: Over the years, citizens have been told by the non-profit organization, the 25 acre m/l piece of property was purchased “for the people”. The organization stated to the quorum court it would be willing to give the county the “foot print” of the building plus a parking lot. The County has a lot on the line financially and in previous administration contributed a $50,000 community grant to purchase 2 acres to give access to highway 14 for this non-profit entity. The current County Judge ·requested more and the organization’s representatives agreed to give 10 of the 25 acres to the county. The bond issue allows for “the purchase of property”. If the proposed community center is given just a “footprint” or even 10 acres this private non-profit controls all the surrounding land. How would it benefit the county? And just who are “the people” the funds have been raised for?
Swimming Pool: The proposed pool is not Olympic-size and would not be conducive to having swim meets in the facility. The cost of insurance, training for lifeguards, liability, and utilities would be a financial burden on citizens of the county.

3. Equity and Socioeconomic Factors:

Accessibility Issues: High membership fees can create a "pay-to-play" environment, making the center inaccessible to low-income families.
Other Facilities Available: Both the cities of Mountain Home and Harrison have significantly larger facilities and can offer more programs.
Misplaced Priorities: Funding a community center will divert resources from more essential services, such as police, road maintenance, or other county departments that serve the residents of Marion County.

4. Comparable Taxes

Tax Base: The cities of Harrison with estimated population of 14,000 people and Mountain Home with estimated population of 13,300 people have industry and are commercial hubs to support their community centers. Marion County is estimated to have 17,000 people in the entire county with a limited retail base. The citizens of Marion County are not in the same financial situation as Harrison, Mountain Home, or other cities where community centers are located. Marion County does not have the tourism base as our surrounding areas.

Special Election - Ballot Questions

Marion County Republican Committee does not support either tax.

Question 1) 0.25% SALES AND USE TAX

Adoption of a 0.25% local sales and use tax within Marion County, the net collections of which remaining after deduction of the administrative charges of the State of Arkansas and required rebates will be distributed only to the County and used for one or more of the following: (a) to acquire, construct, improve, expand, equip, furnish, operate and maintain park and recreational facilities, including particularly, a new community center and any facilities or improvements related thereto or in support thereof, (b) to pay and secure the repayment of bonds approved by the voters and issued by the County from time to time to finance capital improvements, and (c) for general purposes of County government. The levy of the tax is not dependent on any bonds being approved or issued.

Question 2) PARK AND RECREATIONAL IMPROVEMENT BONDS AND 0.5% SALES AND USE TAX

Bonds of Marion County in one or more series in the maximum aggregate principal amount of $16,500,000 to finance all or a portion of the costs of acquiring, constructing, equipping and furnishing new park and recreational facilities, including particularly, without limitation, a new community center with swimming facilities, a multipurpose gymnasium, a walking track, a banquet hall and meeting rooms and any necessary land acquisition, furnishings, equipment and any utility, road, parking, drainage, signage, and lighting improvements related thereto or in support thereof, and, in order to pay the bonds, the levy and pledge of a 0.5% local sales and use tax within the County. If the bonds are approved, there will be levied within the County a new 0.5% sales and use tax, the net collections of which remaining after deduction of the administrative charges of the State of Arkansas and required rebates will be used solely to retire or pay obligations with respect to the bonds in accordance with Amendment No. 62 to the Arkansas Constitution. The tax will expire after the bonds have been paid or provision is made therefor in accordance with Arkansas statutes. In order to provide additional funds to pay or to further secure repayment of the bonds, the County may also pledge to the bonds the net collections of an additional county-wide 0.25% sales and use tax if such additional tax is separately approved by the voters. The issuance of the bonds is not dependent on the additional 0.25% tax being approved.