Marion County court votes 5-4 to put community center bond and two sales-tax questions on special election

Marion County’s quorum court voted to adopt an amended ordinance placing two sales-tax measures and a bond question on a special-election ballot, approving the action on a 5–4 roll-call vote. The ordinances together would ask voters whether to (1) levy a 0.5% sales-and-use tax pledged to repayment of bonds to finance a new community center and (2) levy a 0.25% sales-and-use tax for operation and maintenance of that facility.

Why it matters: The ballot language lists a "not to exceed" principal amount of $16,500,000 for bond financing; an underwriter’s example in the meeting estimated total repayment (principal plus interest) could approach $27.5 million under a conservative scenario. If approved, the half-cent tax would be dedicated to debt service; the quarter-cent would be available for operation and maintenance and could serve as secondary security for the bonds if needed. Court members and community presenters said the projects are intended to provide recreational and community services in a county that officials described as having an older population and limited local tax base.

Attorney Sarah Giamo, who advised the court on ordinance form, told justices "there are 3 ordinances that are before you tonight," and explained that the quarter-cent language was included so the county would have a place to use the tax “in the event that the voters approved the quarter cent tax and they did not approve the bond tax, the tax still has to be used for something.”

Michael McBride of Stevens Inc., the underwriter who appeared at the meeting, said the $16.5 million figure on the ballot is the principal cap and described typical protective features underwriters use to market municipal bonds. "On my conservative figures, this 25 year transaction would have about a 4.5% interest rate," McBride said, and added that the not-to-exceed principal plus interest in a worst-case illustrative scenario could be just over $27.5 million. He also explained that bonds cannot be sold until at least 30 days after an approving election.

Community center representatives told the court the project site would be gifted to the county, that the city of Yellville had approved zoning, and that utilities are present at the property. A spokesperson for the center said the effort has been pursued locally for many years: "We've been working on this for 15 years," the representative told the court, and described plans for a Marion County Foundation and an administrative board intended to raise funds and help sustain the facility.

Alongside expressions of support, multiple justices asked whether the quarter-cent would reliably cover operation and maintenance and whether the county general fund could be called on to make up shortfalls. Counsel clarified the ordinances do not legally obligate the county to cover operating shortfalls from county general funds, but several justices warned the court and public should plan for contingencies and budget implications. One justice said that if the quarter-cent "does not meet the maintenance expenses of that facility, then all of the other expenses will come out of county general because this is a county facility," and others urged full transparency to voters about how combined measures would affect the county’s overall sales-tax rate.

The court approved an amendment to insert the prior ordinance number and the meeting date into the whereas clause, then adopted the amended ordinance calling the special election on a recorded 5–4 vote. The adopted language calls a special election on the question of issuing bonds for the community center and levying the half-cent sales tax pledged to repayment of those bonds, and references the quarter-cent question for operations.

What’s next: If the questions are placed on a ballot and voters approve them, the county would proceed with the bond sale no sooner than 30 days after the election, and the county and community center organizers would need to finalize agreements covering land transfer, governance, and maintenance responsibilities. The court discussion also signaled follow-up work on budget impacts: members debated whether to send the county budget back to the budget committee for additional reductions.

Votes at a glance: The ordinance calling a special election on the community center bonds and levies was adopted (recorded count: 5 yes, 4 no). The court also debated and acted on a motion concerning the 2026 budget and adopted a revised personnel policy during the same meeting.

The court adjourned after completing the special-meeting agenda and canceled the regular quarterly meeting scheduled the next day.