Oro Valley was founded in 1974 on the concept that residents would not have property taxes. Since 2010, due to extravagant spending, that concept is being cast aside. Proposition 454 is not a decision of being for or against children. Proposition 454 is a question of fiscal responsibility. Multiple ball fields are already available to provide services to our Citizens. The Amphitheater Public Schools have ball fields that Citizens could use, if the Town entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement. Pima County has multiple ball fields for use, all within a reasonable commute. Additionally, funds have been allocated in the FY 17/18 budget to build two lit multi-use fields. With a fiscally responsible government, more funds could be made available.
Since 2010, Oro Valley’s population has grown by 4.9%, yet OV Town staff has grown by 12.4% with every employee receiving a 4% raise for the past 8 years. Not including vehicles utilized for public safety and transit, the Town owns an additional 153 vehicles. Since the Town purchased the Golf and Community Center, it has lost over $200,000 in its Town-owned restaurant and over $7 million in its Town-owned golf courses.
Since 2010, the Town has instituted a 4% Utility tax and increased your Sales Tax 25%. Now this government wants you to approve a Property Tax to cover their irresponsibility. The money is available to fulfill the desires of the Citizens IF it is spent wisely. You told the Government in June 2014 what you desired at Naranja Park and they ignored your wishes. Now they want to fulfill your wishes but only with an additional tax.
This is not a question of supporting our youth. This is an opportunity to say NO to continued fiscal irresponsibility and additional taxes.
Ballot Argument 2
There is no apparent end to the financial disasters of this Oro Valley Town Council. The Naranja Park improvements bond issue, to be voted on November 7, 2017, is a prime example. The council requests the citizens to approve a $17 million bond issue with a 20-year property tax increase. This dollar figure does not include the interest to be paid, totaling several million more. Cost for just putting the ballot to citizens:
The charming appeal of the children, and their parents, must be weighed against yet another financial burden being imposed on the citizens of Oro Valley. It is always difficult to say no to the children, but there are alternatives to meeting the children’s desires other than another tax.
We, the taxpayers, have had a half-cent sales tax imposed in 2015 in order to subsidizethe Community Center fiasco. This amount has failed in every regard to cover the losses; in addition there is no ‘sunset’ for this tax increase. The town council recently hired a research firm, costing $50,000, to analyze the present situation regarding the Community Center. Those who attended the July 12 council meeting learned that every option would cost millions, with no guarantees of success, as proven by the thorough analysis.
A NO vote in November will, hopefully, put an end to this bond issue, as well as new undefined, unfunded major future projects such as the “Main Streets Plan,” and cause the Town of Oro Valley to operate within its available cash flow without debt. Was there no forethought when the Naranja Park property was purchased? Was a feasibility study done? Apparently not. This issue was brought to ballot before and rejected. We the taxpayers in the town of Oro Valley would be wise to reject it again.
Cost of Special Bond Election
Through the adopted FY 17-18 budget, Council authorized a total of $145,000 to conduct the November 7, 2017 Special Bond Election. The estimated cost breakdown is as such:
Pima County Recorder - $78,000
Pima County Elections Division - $50,000
Publicity Pamphlet - $12,000
The remaining $5,000 of the $145,000 is to cover all other advertising and administrative costs associated with conducting the election.
On June 21, 2017, Council approved an IGA with the Pima County Recorder since the previous IGA with the Pima County Recorder expired at the end of 2016.