Little Rock voters reject both components of proposed sales-tax increase | The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette - Arkansas' Best News Source

Little Rock residents on Tuesday rejected a sales-tax proposal put forward by Mayor Frank Scott Jr., the second time in roughly three years they have decided against increasing the city’s rate.

The two-part proposal before voters called for a three-eighths percent (0.375%) tax to fund operations and a five-eighths percent (0.625%) tax to fund capital improvements. The tax for operations would have been collected permanently while the tax for capital improvements would have expired after 10 years.

Complete but unofficial returns on Tuesday were:

Question 1: Three-eighths percent (0.375%) tax

Against: 43,087

For: 29,131

Question 2: Five-eighths percent (0.625%) tax

Against: 45,659

For: 26,575

[Check the live vote totals for the Little Rock sales-tax proposal.]

Both components would have taken effect on April 1, 2025, raising the overall sales-tax rate on most purchases in Little Rock to 9.625%.

The city’s portion of the overall sales-tax rate in Little Rock is 1.125%. Pulaski County levies 1% and the state levies 6.5%. Little Rock receives a population-based share of the 1% county sales tax.

The outcome represents a major setback for Scott, who had pushed for the $650 million proposal as a way to obtain more revenue for vital city priorities like infrastructure and public safety while also making transformative investments elsewhere, especially in parks and recreation.

The mayor’s previous efforts ran aground. Scott called off an early-stage push for a tax increase when the covid-19 pandemic began during his first term. A proposed increase that went before voters in September 2021 was rejected, 62%-38%.

The 2023 tornado that hit the metro area ultimately doomed Scott’s attempt to get a proposal before voters last year.

Scott unveiled the latest proposal in early May. Members of the Little Rock Board of Directors were mostly in agreement when they voted to move ahead with the referendum in late July, with City Director Joan Adcock voting “present.” (One member was absent.)

When pitching the tax proposal, Scott referred to the “four Ps” of parks, public infrastructure, public safety and the Port of Little Rock.

The largest share of the new revenue from the “Results for the Rock” proposal would have been devoted to parks and quality of life. The category was expected to receive close to $295 million over the next 10 years, or 45% of total spending.

With the proposal, officials made a big bet on two new sports complexes — one for indoor sports and the other for outdoor sports — that officials hoped would draw visitors for youth sports tournaments and other events.

Both complexes would have had flexible configurations in order to accommodate various sports.

The plan contemplated placing the indoor complex in downtown Little Rock near the Clinton Presidential Center and the outdoor complex in southwest Little Rock at a location west of Interstate 430, possibly in the area of the Outlets of Little Rock, although nothing was set in stone.

City officials anticipated hiring one or more contractors to handle the day-to-day management of the facilities.

The plan called for $60 million in capital investment for the indoor complex and $55 million for the outdoor complex over the next 10 years. Each complex would have received $4 million in operating expenses over the same period, meaning the combined expenses associated with both complexes might have reached $123 million.

A consultant recently predicted that the total direct economic impact from the indoor complex would be $13 million during its first year of operations and $23 million during its fifth year.

The same complex might attract close to 106,000 visitors during its first year and more than 177,000 by its fifth year, not including patrons who live within 90 minutes of Little Rock, according to the projections.

Beyond the new sports facilities, officials were expected to pursue a slew of other improvements to city parks, trails and related facilities.

General improvements and maintenance to city parks and trails would have received $34 million in additional funding over the next 10 years when accounting for capital investment and operating expenses.

War Memorial Park and Hindman Park each were due to receive $15 million in combined capital investment and operating expenses so officials could build out new amenities.

A total of $10 million would have supported the construction of a new downtown park expected to make use of land available in the wake of the 30 Crossing interstate construction project.

The Little Rock Zoo would have received $30 million in capital investment to implement elements of a master plan along with a $10 million increase to its operating expenses over the next 10 years.

The category of public infrastructure was slated to receive $137 million over the next 10 years, or 21% of overall spending, giving the city more funding to deploy on streets, drainage and sidewalks as well as the acquisition of new trash collection equipment.

Public safety would have received $113 million — all of it designated as new operating expenses — or 17% of total spending under the plan over the next 10 years.

The replacement of police, fire and code enforcement vehicles would have received $50 million. A $30 million allocation was meant to fund technology, the Police Department’s real-time crime center and field operations, according to the plan.

Land acquisition and infrastructure work at the Port of Little Rock would have received $8 million in capital investment. Another $22 million designated as an “economic development impact fund” was meant to support business prospects around the city.

The proposal was endorsed by the Little Rock Regional Chamber of Commerce as well as the two primary local unions that represent police officers and firefighters.

Arkansas Community Organizations, which advocates for renters and low-income people, opposed the proposal. The group previously opposed the 2021 proposal.

A ballot question committee backed by the chamber raised over $215,000 in support of the “Results for the Rock” proposal, while an opposition committee with ties to Republicans received support from poultry executive Ronald Cameron and the Arkansas affiliate of Americans for Prosperity.

After leaving a polling place at the Dunbar Community Center on Tuesday, Patti Hedrick, 80, said she voted for the permanent tax for operations and against the temporary tax for capital improvements.

She cited the planned sports complexes when explaining her opposition to the latter.

“I’ve done some studying up on it and I just don’t think it’s necessary or that it’s gonna profit the city in any way,” she said, adding that the maintenance associated with the complexes will require taxpayer money.

Her husband, John Hedrick, 80, voted in favor of both components, although he described the proposed sports complexes as “questionable” because of the large share of money dedicated to them under the plan.

A complex in the area of the Outlets of Little Rock will be difficult to access for people who do not have a vehicle, he predicted.

“But overall, gotta take some of the good with the bad,” he said.

Support journalism that digs deeper into topics that matter most to Arkansans. Donate today to preserve the quality and integrity of local journalism.