Marion County court approves ballot language for community center bonds, amends ordinance to insert numbering

Marion County’s quorum court on Dec. 8 advanced the legal steps needed to ask voters to approve a proposed new community center and related sales-tax measures, approving procedural motions to place a half-cent bond question and a quarter-cent operations tax on a special-election ballot and amending draft language to reflect enacted ordinance numbers.

The court’s attorney, Sarah Giamo, told members there were three ordinances before the body and explained how, "with a two-thirds vote, we can suspend the rules requiring a full reading of the ordinance and read by title only," a point the court invoked repeatedly during roll-call votes. Counsel identified the quarter-cent levy as Ordinance 2025-53 and said a separate ordinance (described on the record as 2025-55) would call a special election to issue bonds and levy a one-half cent sales and use tax pledged to repay those bonds.

Why it matters: The measures would change local sales taxes and create a long-term bond repayment obligation for the county if voters approve the ballot questions. Justices asked detailed questions about who would maintain the facility, revenue allocations between debt service and operation, and whether county general funds could be required to cover shortfalls.

At a planning-level briefing, Michael McBride of Stevens Inc., the underwriter identified on the record, described the ballot's construction figure as a "not to exceed" $16,500,000 and said the figure is the stated principal on the bonds, not the total repayment. "On my conservative figures, this 25 year transaction would have about a 4.5% interest rate," McBride said, and estimated the total principal-plus-interest payback could approach $27.5 million under a sample scenario. He also described a debt-service reserve as an optional coverage feature when marketing bonds to investors.

Members repeatedly returned to affordability and timeline questions. One justice warned voters that if both the half-cent and quarter-cent measures passed and another law-enforcement tax sunsets, total sales-tax burdens could rise; another justice urged the proponents to be "honest about it" when communicating effects to voters. Counsel clarified on the record that the quarter-cent levy language allows the tax to be used for operations and maintenance, bond payments, or general county purposes in that order of potential use depending on voter approvals.

Project-specific issues surfaced. Court members asked whether the site had city zoning approval and whether utilities could support an aquatic facility. Project representatives said zoning approval from the city of Yellville exists and that utilities front the property; they confirmed a building permit had not yet been issued. The project team said part of the project property would be gifted to the county and that the Marion County Foundation has been formed to raise endowment funds to help sustain operations.

What happened next: The court voted to amend the draft ordinance's whereas clause to insert the prior ordinance number and today's date; the clerk recorded the amendment as passing by roll call. The court also took procedural votes to suspend reading requirements and read the ordinances by title only so the measures can proceed to ballot placement. The record shows multiple roll-call sequences and the court moving the ordinances forward; no sale of bonds or issuance can occur until voters approve the ballot questions and the statutory post-election processes are completed.

The court’s actions clear the way for a special election on the bond and tax questions; proponents and staff were directed to finalize the drafting details and provide the written confirmations (e.g., zoning letter) the court requested. The county will publish official ballot language and election timing consistent with Arkansas election law and the court’s subsequent administrative steps.