Thu. May 1--- WLB Group Meeting With Homeowners

One last reminder--- Tomorrow night, Thursday MAY 1@ 6:00PM--WLB Group will meet with homeowners in the HOPI ROOM at Town Hall to discuss their request for a General Plan Amendment for the parcel known as The Kai Property.

Try to attend---especially if you are a resident off of Palisades Rd. (off of 1st ave.)

Previous posts on this issue: Oh! Oh! Developer Will Seek A Major General Plan Amendment<

Is This A Good Time For Oro Valley To Borrow Millions Of Dollars?

Is it prudent for a municipality (Oro Valley) to go forward with any unnecessary bond issue at this time? Please read excerpts from this Az Republic article.
Art
________________________________________________________________

Credit woe pinches governments

Jahna Berry
The Arizona Republic
Apr. 27, 2008 12:00 AM

Shockwaves from the Wall Street credit crunch may hit Valley residents' pocketbooks in ways they might not expect.

Historically, government bonds have been seen as the sensible shoes of the investment world: reliable, with low risk. That has started to change. Cities and government agencies, like millions of consumers who are having a harder time qualifying for loans, face investors who want more assurances they can handle debt payments that bankroll projects like sewer upgrades, airport taxiways and fire stations. "

If it cost more to issue debt for a project, it will eventually cost the people more when they want to build parks, light rail, or other projects," Todd Curtis, a fund manager for Aquila Investment Management. Across the nation, cities, counties and other government agencies are cutting programs, weighing their options and looking to refinance debt.

Nationally, "everything hit the fan at once," said Curtis, the Phoenix-based fund manager who specializes in municipal bonds. Bonds are the long-term debt that cities and counties use to pay for construction projects and equipment. But now bond insurance, which used to work like a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, is under scrutiny. Before, if a city bought bond insurance with a high rating - AAA - buyers would invest with few worries about the town's underlying credit. Recently, however, some bond-insurance firms' ratings are under question.


While several experts say that the market will stabilize, cities are watching closely, said Tom Belshe, deputy director of the League of Arizona Cities and Towns. "Even if a city is not at the point where it's going to go out, get in the market and sell (bonds) they need to be aware of what the market is like," Belshe said. "I don't think anyone can say they are economy-proof as far as what their bond rating is concerned."

Little Interest For State Land Auction In Phoenix

This from the April 30 edition of the Arizona Republic.

Developers appear reluctant to bid on two tracts of state trust land in the northeast Valley that are set for auction today. The tracts are the 112-acre Paradise Ridge site northwest of Scottsdale Road and Loop 101, and the 206-acre Desert Ridge Superblock southeast of Pinnacle Peak Road and Tatum Boulevard. "The show will go on, and we'll see how entertaining it ends up being," State Land Commissioner Mark Winkleman said. The auction is at 10 a.m. at the Arizona State Land Department, 1616 W. Adams St., Phoenix.
No bidders registered for the Paradise Ridge commercial site that Westcor wants for its Palisene shopping center and mixed-use project. Only two bidders signed up to bid for the residential land in Desert Ridge.

Shades of Arroyo Grande?

Major Town Council Discussion On Impact Fees May 7

As we noted in previous postings, there is potential legislation pending in the State that will have a negative impact on the way a municipality like Oro Valley can collect impact fees from new developments. As reported in The Explorer, the OV Council will take up this issue at their May 7 meeting at 7:00 PM

Council weighs new, increased impact fees

Next Wednesday, the Oro Valley Town Council plans to vote on a resolution to consider additional development impact fees. The proposed new fees would fund parks and recreation, library services, police and transportation. The request would also raise the two existing water impact fees. Last summer, the council voted to raise water impact fees incrementally over five years. The change town officials now are seeking is in reaction to legislation moving through the state legislature that would limit a town’s ability to collect impact fees.

The legislation does not permit a town to raise impact fees annually unless they are tied to a construction cost index.

The proposal before the council, which meets at 7 p.m. at town hall May 7, would forgo the incremental increases, instead skipping directly to the peak rate. If the council approves, a public hearing on the issue will be held on July 16.

Oro Valley 2008-2009 Proposed Budget---Up $82 Million

The April 30 Explorer reports that the Oro Valley proposed new budget is $201 million. This is an increase of $82 million from last year.

Why such a big increase, you ask? An Explorer article answers the question.

Nearly $50 million of the increase tracks from budgeted expenses tied to passage of the Naranja Town Site proposed park. In November voters will determine the fate of the park.

Another $32 million of the budget is hinged on the new Municipal Operations Center.

You can read or download a copy of the town manager's recommended budget by visiting the Oro Valley web site. Simply click on the line we have in the bottom left column.

Oro Valley---Some Believe We're A "Cash Cow!"

You may not believe some of the organizations that have come forward asking for money from our town.

To make it easy----rather than have to go to the town web site, The Explorer in the April 30 issue lists the organization, the funding request and the amount proposed by the town manager.

In case you missed it, we did a posting on April 21 titled:

TREO: What Does Oro Valley Get For Its Money?

Last year we gave this group $50,000. They now want $75,000. As far as we're concerned, give them what we get in return! You tell me what we get.

See the whole list here.
http://www.explorernews.com/article/show/21930

Can a Voter Initiative Save Arroyo Grande?

The April 30 Explorer has an article about The Nature Conservancy attempt to get an initiative placed on November election ballots that would permanently protect 570,000 acres of undeveloped Arizona State Land Department holdings across the state.

Included within that sum is 6,200 acres of Arroyo Grande, the 9,100 acres Oro Valley and the state have begun negotiating for.

Now---- isn't that a novel idea? Save some open space for the wildlife, and not have to worry where the water will come from, where the traffic will go or how to pay for the infrastructure.

Read the article here.
http://www.explorernews.com/article/show/21928

Is The Naranja Park Bond Proposal A "Transparent Proposal?"

In the April 30 Explorer, editor/publisher Dave Perry writes that he believes the Naranja Park Bond is "A Transparent Proposal."

Perhaps Dave, who I met and consider an honorable well-intentioned man, has not been an Oro Valley resident long enough to be aware of the many "back-rooms deals" that taken place throughout the years.

As to his comment: "Nobody’s trying to pull wool over anyone’s eyes. Naranja Town Site is not a smoky back-room deal. No one’s trying to pull a fast one. To end cliché, it must be said that Oro Valley is being up-front and visible about what the park would be, how it would be paid for, and what it would cost to operate," we would only say----"Are you sure?"

As recently as last month, the official Oro Valley web site had more inaccurate information listed than you can imagine. Amenities, costs and almost everything was wrong. Was it corrected? Yeah! It was corrected AFTER we did a posting, noting the multitude of errors.

We do agree with Dave's statement, "The question, ultimately, is whether voters think the costs are worthwhile."

To that, we would add, as long as the voters know the MAXIMUM costs are ESTIMATES, and the interest rate on the bonds can be as high as 12% over a 25 year period, and the maintenance & operating costs may be higher than expected.

One last thought---- Let's not forget the voters approved a $23.2 million giveaway to Vestar, expecting an "upscale" & "unique" shopping mall. Need I say more?

Dave's editorial comment can be read here.
http://www.explorernews.com/article/show/21922

Patrick McNamara's story is here.
http://www.explorernews.com/article/show/21933