While opponents of Blytheville's new one percent Sales and Usage Tax agree that population has declined drastically, causing a revenue decline of $4.6 million dollars since 2008, they argue that adding a new one percent to an already high 10 percent sales tax is not the solution.
They say that Mayor James Sanders projects an increase of $2.8 million dollars in city revenue with the new tax, but that the sales volume of Blytheville businesses will drop anywhere from 15 percent to 25 percent of its current level if the tax passes, and therefore will be disastrous for business.
Numerous business owners have reported that customers have told them if the tax passes they will do business elsewhere, in other cities. If, as a result, business falls by 25 percent, the net increase in city revenue will only be $787,500. Tax opponents say that the loss of small businesses and jobs will be much more detrimental than the slight increase in revenue. Higher taxes mean lower sales. Lower sales mean fewer employees and/or small businesses. Fewer employees mean less money in the hands of Blytheville citizens to spend in Blytheville stores. They argue that this is precisely why Blytheville Unlimited, the Chamber of Commerce and Main Street Merchants have all come out publicly against the tax.
Opponents also argue that the proposal is a laundry list of bait, but that the hook is a lack of guarantees. They argue that the "wish list" promised could not be fulfilled even if the administration wanted to, there simply isn't enough of an increase in revenue to cover the entire list. Additionally, with all of the revenue from the new tax being non-earmarked and therefore destined for general funds (the equivalent of miscellaneous), opponents cry that there is no transparency or accountability with how the money will be spent.
Opponents also argue that the city does not have a specific, prioritized plan of how the new money will be spent. The list includes multiple "we could" items, but does not include any "we promise to" items. Also, opponents argue that the extremely high permanent combined tax rate of 11 percent will limit the city's future ability to deal with emergencies when they arise.
Another complaint by opponents is that the administration has not met with any business leaders, nor did they hold any town hall meetings, nor did they meet with every member of the City Council for input before arriving at the size of the tax increase or the permanency of it. They point out that the tax is a "forever tax" with no sunset provision.
Opponents insist that the solution to the city's financial woes is more about slashing expenses than about raising taxes. They allege that the administration's management style is reactive and not proactive. They also argue that the city has not made any realistic, tough progress toward cutting expenses.
They point to the fact that the city has a budget that includes nearly 50 percent of its expenditures in the area of payroll, while most businesses run around 25 percent labor cost. Additionally, complaints have been made that when Public Works cut out one sanitation truck, instead of retaining crews of three people, they increased to crews of four. In other words, instead of four trucks of three people, there are now three trucks of four employees. Also, allegations have been made and confirmed that the city pays sanitation workers for eight hours, even if they get the job done in four hours. Opponents ask, why can't these workers be cross-trained to perform other jobs for the city such as city beautification. They also complain about the massive drain on the city budget by Thunder Bayou.
In the area of city beautification, there are allegedly six mowing crews in the city, coming from multiple departments that bounce all across the city from location to location throughout the workday. Opponents ask why one centralized authority can't do all mowing, implementing a simple rotation of mowing (similar to trash pickup) where the crews start in one location and continue in one fluid movement across town.
Some opponents suggest the city implement contract labor for services; thereby reducing costs (by elimination of benefit packages and by shifting liability) in area such a mowing, janitorial, etcetera.
Opponents of the tax argue that the city's history of fiscal mismanagement, in tandem with the lack of accountability and transparency of a "general funds only" tax, having no designation attached to it, is a recipe for disaster.
Additionally, there is the argument that there is a psychological impact from the tax. While the tax savings of doing business in Jonesboro rather than Blytheville might not be enough to cover the cost of gasoline on smaller shopping trips, the perception that Blytheville is "closed for business due to its extremely high combined tax" is very real and tangible in the marketplace.
Opponents also caution voters to take notice that when the administration says that currently Blytheville only gets one percent of the current 10 percent combined sales tax, it is technically true semantically, but absolutely false in reality, and that when state turn back funds are added to the portion the county returns to Blytheville from the County tax, then total revenue that the City of Blytheville receives from the 10 percent combined tax is actually closer to two percent.
Also, while those that favor the tax wish to only point to the one percent "city sales tax" portion, opponents make a point to show voters the combined 11 percent total sales and usage tax charged on each Blytheville retail sale. They also complain that Blytheville will, by far, have the highest combined sales and usage tax rate in the area, and perhaps in the state.
thenry@blythevillecourier.com