The year was 1988, and the city was trying to convince voters to approve a 1-cent sales tax on the November general election ballot.
We've had a number of elections over the years to approve sales taxes for various reasons, ranging from the construction and expansion of the Hot Springs Convention Center to the new Garland County Detention Center, but city fathers faced a hard sell at the time, for a tax that was never pledged to sunset.
So the city came up with a compromise in September of that year that subsequently helped sell the issue at the ballot box: If city voters approved the tax, they would eliminate the city's 7-mill ad valorem tax.
The plan was attractive to property owners, who would no longer have to solely share the burden of the city's revenue base. It would "spread the wealth," so to speak, because visitors to the Spa City, who derived the benefits of police and fire protection, without the cost, would finally be "chipping in."
The plan also proved attractive to voters because the accompanying resolution that the Hot Springs Board of Directors approved to eliminate the tax included the following language: "Provided further we request of future board of directors that said levy may not be so reinstated unless so authorized by the majority vote of the citizenry of Hot Springs at an election called for that purpose."
The city attorney at the time, David M. Love, noted that the board of directors could not legally guarantee those taxes would be off the books forever.
Well, forever just jumped the tracks in the city of Hot Springs.
Earlier this week, Interim City Manager Bill Burrough said he will ask the Hot Springs Board of Directors on Tuesday to consider reinstituting an ad valorem tax, levying 1 mill for general purposes and 0.4 mill for each of the police and fire pension funds, for a total of 1.8 mills.
Burrough said if an ad valorem tax was passed, it would generate between $650,000 and $670,000, with about 85 percent of that being collected.
"Currently, we're paying down the old fire and police pension funds. In 1988, when the sales tax was voted on by the people for public safety, the initiative provided that the city would continue funding them at the then-current rate which was $8.4 million. That has increased to $11.5 million, so the General Fund dependency has grown over the years," he said.
City Attorney Brian Albright said the board's request in 1988 was precatory language and not binding; it states a preference or a request.
I don't agree. I think the board's action in 1988, which I covered extensively as one of the City Hall reporters at that time, represents a larger concept.
Looking back through some old newspaper clippings, I found something that his predecessor noted in 1988: the only action the board at that time could take was to create a document that "morally obligates" future boards from reinstating property taxes without voter approval.
I was brought up believing you were only as good as your word. A city government is only as trustworthy as the foundation upon which it is built. The city, if it approves this tax increase -- let's call it what it is -- without a vote of the people is flirting with losing the trust of the electorate.
There is no doubt that the city needs to find a way to generate revenue to cover the pension funds, a problem that has sat unresolved, growing in size, for years. But if property taxes are to be part of that solution, the city needs to honor the obligation that was made 27 years ago.
To do otherwise is not "morally" right.
Editorial on 11/15/2015