After several months, the city of Blytheville has come up with a clear definition of "infrastructure" acceptable by auditors, allowing leaders more options in spending the 1/4-cent infrastructure tax money.
More equipment now falls under the umbrella of infrastructure, and that should lighten the load on the city's overburdened General Fund in the future.
By setting clear boundaries, city leaders don't have to worry about being nailed by Legislative Audit for spending the infrastructure tax on those particular needs by various departments -- and there are plenty, to be sure.
Those responsible for the city's finances have probably felt encumbered by the restricted uses of the sales taxes -- one exclusively for parks and recreation; another strictly for police and fire; and of course, the infrastructure tax. Having a need in one place and a pot of money that can't be touched in another is probably a little frustrating at times.
The original ordinance defined us of the infrastructure money as "including, but not limited to, maintaining and closing ditches, building and repairing sidewalks and maintaining alley ways."
And the city has used infrastructure money for some ditch work, writing six checks of varying amounts to Ty Shannon DBA Shannon SVC for a total of $53,100 from September 2012 to March 2013. According to Councilman Stan Parks, the city didn't have to equipment to do the ditch work, and Public Works Director Marvin Crawford has estimated a mini-excavator would cost in the $65,000-$70,000 neighborhood.
Under the new infrastructure definition, the city can purchase an excavator and avoid contracting out such jobs.
There's no disagreeing that the term, "Not limited to," is vague and needed to be clarified, something taken care of now. Certainly, city departments can justify needing the special tax money for equipment, especially those barely scraping by with tools on their last leg.
With all that said, the danger is the money will disappear without the streets being fixed properly.
Consider that nearly half of the $1.1 million excess parks and recreation bond money is gone with no major parks projects. While the parks are in much better shape these days, it seems reasonable to feel that $500,000 could have allowed for something new in the parks, whether it's playground equipment or other additional features.
Hopefully, the yearly $800,000-plus infrastructure funds will be used to improve street conditions, along with meeting equipment needs in the different city departments.
Streets have been put on the back burner for far too long.
In the years leading up to the money becoming available, local politicians would often repel street complaints by reminding residents that the infrastructure funds would take care of those needs in the future. I know many bought into that claim and were looking forward the long overdue street work. So far, after some $2,223,862 has been collected since 2011, if my math is right, it seems all that has been done is some failed attempt by Barker Brothers of Jonesboro at a cheaply done fix (although it cost $424,326) to a few sections on the main thoroughfares. Filling the cracks and spraying an asphalt sealer proved to be an unsuccessful method that didn't produce the results city leaders had hoped it would.
Now, there will be some additional street monies this year, via the new temporary, half-cent state sales tax supporting a $1.8 billion highway program. The city of Blytheville is scheduled to receive a projected $278,225 a year and $2,782,247 over the 10-year life of the tax.
There seems to be a real opportunity to improve the streets, if the funds are handled properly.
According to figures from the Collector's Office, the infrastructure tax generated $685,507.02 from January to November and brought in $803,856.51 total in 2012, after totaling $734,499.19 in 2011.
What's a little concerning is, of the $2,074,293.88 spent from Jan. 1, 2012 to Oct. 1, 2013, $1,397,988 was transferred to the General Fund, according to the Infrastructure Payment Journal. Those transfers included $50,000 (Sept. 13, 2012), $100,000 (Nov. 19, 2012), $75,000 (Dec. 4, 2012), $194,873.50 (Dec. 18, 2012), $200,670.22 (Jan. 2), $100,000 (Feb. 27), $237,445.32 (April 9), $170,000 (May 21), $40,000 (June 4), $200,000 (June 18) and $30,000 (July 2).
The General Fund has repaid a large chunk of that to the Infrastructure Fund; the finance office hadn't provided an exact total at press time. Councilman Tommy Abbott has reported that the General Fund still owes the Infrastructure Fund, $543,115.54. Some of those expenditures may indeed fall under the new infrastructure definition; we'll see. In any event, according to figures from Abbott, the November Infrastructure Fund balance was $465,667.25. It seems to be generating in the $60,000 range, monthly, providing a fairly substantial revenue stream, potentially, for street work.
The onus is on the mayor and City Council to make sure taxpayers are getting their best bang for their buck. While there will be justified requests for different equipment, leaders would do well to make sure some of those funds provide adequate streets for the taxpayers who put them in office in the first place.
mbrasfield@blythevillecourier.com