Our readers should be aware that there is a movement afoot to initiate a Property Tax to subsidize the police department.
As you may know, a Property Tax can not be imposed without voter approval. Those who think this idea has merit would like it to go on the ballot in May 2010----the same ballot that will include the election for mayor & 3 council seats, assuming the primary in March does not fill all these positions.
The suggested rate of $2.75/$100 assessed value would raise $14 million and would cost a homeowner with a $300,000 home approx $825 per year in additional; taxes.
A couple of questions we would ask:
Wouldn't it be prudent to have the police department be a little more fiscally responsible before a citizen would want a property tax? A few examples might be:
Cutting the police budget, not 25%, but to a point where it's comparable to other departments throughout the state. (Yeah! I know, some will say, OV has the best dep't and we shouldn't do as others do.)
Take home vehicles could and should be cut drastically
Spending "slush fund" money of $20,000 or more to do a "recruitment video" when we're in a "hiring freeze," makes no sense. That money could have been used much more efficiently.
A property tax if absolutely necessary should be considered. A property tax to subsidize the police dep't? No way!
We welcome your comments on the merits of this potential idea.
29 comments:
Art,
Very scarey thought.
OVPD challenges the Council with its noncompliance. In business such behavior is sanctioned monetarily or by job loss.
I am for dedicated, committed, well trained police with integrity who are hardworking, value their service and believe they should be paid.
Not producing an explanation for car use at TOV's meeting 5/20, gives constituents the impression that "work" being a four letter word to the PD. They did not complete their assignment.
A dedicated leader might assign the task to his brightest officers and reward them for meeting the deadline. Instead only an excuse was offered. Does this show a work ethic the public should support with more taxes?
With all the negative press the OVPD received lately, it appears that their "quality" is one of image only. Dissatified constituents are very vocal in their objections.
How committed is the Chief to work?
Chief Sharp did not make budget suggestions, delayed their part of the budget for six months, was asked for explanations he could not provide to his superiors, ie the Mayor and Council, and did not produce a study for the last meeting, why should the Town burden itself finding money for his department? He is not a team player.
If the Chief conducts himself like this in front of the Council, who is monitoring work production within his department? Who evaluates the Chief for his $140k salary and perks?
I am for a demonstrated work ethic and feel employees should be paid accordingly.
No property tax.
Did we (OV taxpayers) not just give away over 200K to non-governmental outside agencies? Some with only a faint tie to OV.
Read the various postings concerning the OVPD on this blog and the reasons for a no tax increase policy are clear.
We all want a healthy PD, but at a budget percentage that is in line with other communities.
Rather than increse taxes, a newly restrained PD (Less take home vehichles) (less money in the slush fund) (etc..etc..) should cost the tax payers less and provide money to other essential services. Without a new tax.
My house has lost 30% of its value and I am still paying more in taxes each year.
Hey "Nombre"--- We can't blame anyone in OV for the home depreciation, but your point is well taken. There's no solace in knowing you're not alone, as we too have the same situation---less value with higher assessment & higher taxes.
That in itself is enough reason to NOT subsidize the OVPD with more taxes---but there are many other reasons, some of which I noted in the original posting.
The actions of the OVPD, obstinate
in it's failure over a generous period of time to generate a reasonable and cooperative answer to the overall fiscal condition of the Town, the practice of throwing money at non-profits including non-performers and, in at least one instance, at an institute HEAVILY funded by other entities including the Federal Government which benefit from it but one from which the Town DOES NOT, A Town which still has a tendency to cater to businesses with little regard for the consequences to the people that reside here, potential turmoil with unsettled issues still hanging out there( Arroyo Grands, Naranja Town Site, etc.), a Town which, in reality, has never defined it's soul - HOW CAN ORO VALLEY BE EXPECTED TO GET IT'S CITIZENS TO AGREE TO A PROPERTY TAX?
Some time ago, I expressed to certain members of Town that a property tax most probably would need to be explored here in order that we would not have to depend on impact fees for our survival, that growth must be considered as finite and that the fees from
same would eventually fade and that the Town SHOULD NOT push growth in a manner it deems as a must to sustain the present. With regrets I must now take the position that the Town remains irresponsible and just can't 'put it's foot down'. There ARE those within our Town that do try to solve this dilemma; unfortunately they are met with a lot of special interest prioritizing (including sometimes their own).
Many of us are tired of governments
and other 'municipal subdivisions'
encroaching into our pocketbooks without check. Look at the 'fees' in your water bills, your phone bills, your electric bills, etc.
Look at some of the pathetic begging that comes forth into our Council meetings. And look at some of caving in to them by our 'guardians'.
Yes, we need services, but we don't need them funded and applied irresponsibly. These past few months did it for me; NO MORE FEES, NO MORE TAXES!
In the above I meant 'political subdivisions' not 'municipal subdivisions'.
As an addendum to the above, I would like to note simply that, learning from the state of affairs that our Country, our State, our County, our Municipalities are in, when the 'guardians' get our money, they seem come up with all sorts of ways THEY can 'party' with it. IF this tax thing does make it to ballot, I would recommend to it's advocates that the ONLY hope for it's acceptance would be to include controls absolute in favor of the people with NO WAY OUT for government to screw with it (as they did with the 'sunset clause' provided for in our now-forever utility tax).
Hell hath no fury like a populace scorned (right Arnold?).
Forgive me while I pull out my broken record again, but...
I've spent years listening to how we need more homes (to collect impact fees as a source of revenue) and how we need more businesses (to collect retail sales tax as a source of revenue) etc., so that we would NOT have to institute a property tax.
And all along I kept saying, "Yeah, right! What's really going to happen is that our beautiful town is going to be destroyed with all these homes and all these busineses which will lead to more traffic which will lead to poor air quality and widening the roads and installing traffic lights, etc. etc. until we won't recognize the place anymore and THEN they'll come back and say, 'Oh, gee, we were wrong. It looks like we'll be needing a property tax after all.
OK, now I'm going to turn my broken record over to the other side...
And I kept saying that I was happy to pay a property tax to live in a beautiful town with 2-lane roads with dirt shoulders and minimal traffic and no traffic lights and no street lights and no junk malls and no noise walls, but I WILL NOT PAY a property tax for THIS!
It's not MY fault that the people running this town during the past 10 years had absolutely no vision. I will not be punished for their mismanagement and their greed.
Call Washington. Maybe they can give you a bail-out!
And don't give away $200,000 dollars to "charity" and then tell me that you need to raise more money for essential services.
You said it VC.
Exactly how we feel also!!!
Amen, VC
Artmarth:
I certainly CAN blame someone in Oro Valley for my 401 K and my real estate holdings going into the crapper.
I only have to find a Former First Mangus company officer lurking somewhere within the Town Limits.
Loan officers approving liar loans and alt-A loans to banjo picking miscreants, and then selling these so called "safe" loans as asset based securities(ABS)world-wide is a direct cause of my discomfort.
And please do not get me started on Credit Default Swaps (CDS) or CDOs based on this massive criminal enterprise.
Out of the entire population of OV, there must be ONE criminal-loan officer or excutive!!
VC and Nombe, Native Spirit you all make great points, especially you, VC who states that, at one time, given the alternative, many of us would have considered a property tax as a way to SUSTAIN OUR WAY OF LIFE. Instead, in the name of sustainability, we got the roads THEY wanted, the shopping centers THEY wanted, the developers THEY wanted, the 'yes' persons THEY wanted, and it is thus that the vision of a laid back, unharried, pure scenic attributes, primarily RESIDENTIAL, community went by the wayside. And they still want more commercial to invade what is left of our desired existence. Yes, we the people, are still getting that shaft
Quite frankly, if this is brought to ballot, it is of my opinion that if WE can get across how the 'wrongs' that have been FOISTED on this community have affected the quality of life here, and that certain 'members of the 'team' continue to REFUSE to play ball and simply continue their charades, then a property tax won't fly.
The citizens of California got sick of the powers' lack of sensitivity and accountability and told those 'powers' to 'stuff it'; we can and we MUST do likewise.
A property tax to support the police. I can see it all:
The police union paying discredited and unemployed Republican operatives to dust off the scare machine. (the Rove MK3)
OV Objective Thinker and Terry Parrish claiming that the Talliban or, gasp, the Mexicans are on our town limits.
Mayor Looney signing a purchase order for Porsche patrol cars because the police cannot catch Vcowgirl speeding though school zones in her Kia.
Underemployed Real Estate agents cooking up marketing plans proclaiming Oro Valley to be the "safest" retirement camp in AZ.
Yes I can see it now. If this nutcake tax gets on the ballot, we are in for a nasty election.
A property tax dedicated to a specific department is never a good idea. Period.
Former Councilmember Dankwerth pulled this same stunt when she voted for the utility tax ONLY when the funds could be directed specifically to hiring more police officers and other personnel. This tied the hands of the departments unnecessarily. One of the basic rules of local government: Except for grants, NEVER connect specific positions to specific funding sources.
To make any one department dependent upon the valuations and assessments by the County is wrong for so many reasons. Most importantly, the Council and Manager need to have the ability to budget funds where they are most needed. A dedicated property tax that specifies one department or service takes away that flexibility.
The Town could, however, create a community facilities district with taxing power. The borders of the district would be the same as the borders of the Town. But, this is just a legal end-run around a popular vote to institute a property tax.
[Remember readers--a property tax can only be instituted the first time by a public vote. Thereafter, the Council can raise and lower it at will].
If there are valid reasons for a property tax, they should stand on their own, not be tied to one area of municipal responsibility.
No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. and No.
There are some excellent thoughts on this thread, and, in fact, some of us who often disagree with each other are in complete agreement on this one.
So, let's all stay on top of this issue and if/when the time comes, I think this group of bloggers should form a citizens committee to fight it and to educate the public on why it's wrong, using many of the examples that we've all just listed.
So, if we decide to go that route, who's in?
VC,
Affirmative. I don't want to see a property tax even though eventually it may be necessary.
Plus I cringe at the thought of the council having the ability of raising the property tax once it is approved.
Now that scares me big time.
Vestar pulled off a big con job on the voters so with enough $$ those who want a property tax could also do the same , if the public is not informed.
Just received my water bill--it was over $100 for last month--mostly increased fees. My water usage is the same as previously but the increased bill is typical of what the politicians are doing to us--driving us out of town!
How much more can an average citizen pay?
We have NOT been impressed with OVPD at all! We have needed their help a couple times and the reports have been incorrect, fabrications were made, follow-up was not done as needed. We have one surveillance camera for this whole town, I understand, and many, many "company cars" for the officers! This is a "superior" police department....I don't think so.
No property tax to support a specific activity.
But since we are on the topic of a property tax, I would be interested in the thoughts of this group of implementing a property tax that would REPLACE all of the other "nickle-dime" TOV taxes that we now have. It could easily be indexed to the specific property values here in Oro Valley and I believe managed in such a way as to reflect current values.
That would leave us with two primary taxes that would be dedicated to the operation of town government, sales tax and a property tax?
I am not advocating for or against (at this time) only soliciting your comments?
I think the problem with having a property tax REPLACE all of the other nickel and dime taxes we currently pay is that eventually they'll slowly begin reinstituting those other taxes again over time and then we'll have a property tax AND other taxes. There will always be some "reason" that we need to generate more revenue, so they will either integrate other taxes back into the game or they will RAISE the property tax to generate the extra revenue they claim they need.
As for "temporary" taxes, in my experience they have never been temporary. Look at what happened to our temporary utility tax. It's now permanent. When I lived back east, the Governor raised the state sales tax by 1% and said it was only temporary. It was supposed to be for 6 months and then it was to go back to the original rate. It never did and everyone (except me apparently) seemed to forget all about it. There was never any citizen outcry at how we were manipulated and lied to. The tax was just never spoken of again.
This same Governor said when he ran for office, "I'm a businessman, not a politician. I have no interest in serving multiple terms. I can turn this State around in one term. I will not run for re-election." And then when his term was up, he ran for re-election by saying, "Give me one more term. I'll get the job done."
So I don't trust most politicians and I don't trust any temporary taxes and I wouldn't trust REPLACING one tax with another. It would just be a shell game.
Some time ago I let it be known (I believe I even made a statement before Council) that, in my opinion, sustainability of Oro Valley most probably could not depend on 'profits' from impact fees, special taxes, fees, and the like AND averred that a property tax might be the only way out.
UNFORTUNATELY, as our Council has seen fit to continue a utility fee/tax which was supposed to 'sunset' and thus turned it into a 'forever fee', has allowed for others to rise, most citizens will not believe that all of these fees/taxes will be retired in lieu of a property tax. And, in fact, my wife's experience within governmental budget departments seems to hold that to be a truism
and that excuses dominate.
There is a bill before the State Legislature as to whether or not to take away from the individual communities their right to assess
impact fees on builders/developers
on an 'immediate' basis and allow for State MANDATED postponement of such fees. Now, whereas I don't think that this will 'cure' the developer/builder problems, it could have an impact on a tightly budgeted community to operate with financial sustainability. I will not grant that simply taxing the public will 'solve' this dilemma.
Until such time as the Fed, the State, the Town and whomever can show fiscal responsibility (look at the mess in California), I can't see myself advocating for a property tax. All around us there is waste, there is over staffing, and there is PORK, etc. and I
don't care to finance it.
As VC so aptly describes, if Oro Valley had not been blemished by UNBRIDLED growth, lack of attention to certain attributes that brought us here, and a more sympathetic, less self-interested, and honest approach by our 'guardians' who allowed for desecration, I would have been more than willing to consider a 'controlled' property tax in order to maintain a higher degree of decorum. As it stands, NOW, I would campaign tirelessly against it.
In order to trust others with YOUR money, one needs trustworthy people and safeguards to handle it.
WHOM DO YOU TRUST?
There's another option to consider: Taking a page from Tucson's play book, OV could vote to institute a property tax that would be capped insofar as how much it could be raised each year.
I'm not suggesting this route, only bringing it to everyone's attention.
As for the utility tax, it's virtually standard throughout Arizona cities and towns, as much as we may not like it. In Tucson, it's being raised, too. Of course, the utilities do not HAVE to pass the tax on to their customers, but they do. One thing about the utility tax, though, is that it is a tax on a commodity that we can control. If we cut water, gas and electric usage, we can limit the dollars we pay in taxes.
The down side is that utilities still need to generate and deliver their products. If there's less revenue coming in because customers are using less, then those utilities will have to raise their rates. In any event, that's why we have a Corporation Commission in Arizona--one that continually kicked back at Qwest when it sought rate increases.
Arizona also has a Citizens Utility Office that is supposed to represent you and me in these matters.
One last comment on a tax to support police: If you think that there are budget and union games going on now, you ain't seen nothin' if there's a specific taxing authority for one department.
Until--if ever, there is a full majority of council members that concern themselves with the citizens of Oro Valley and NOT just the special interest entities, a property tax is a bad idea, for one reason, if not more.
My main concern is this. As long as there are council members that we've had for the last decade and more that can do as they will, there is too great a potential AFTER a property tax is approved by the voters, it would be increased.
The less control our government has over us, the better off we will be. That is why most of our citizens will NOT support a property tax.
Just a few examples of actions by our representatives that have cost us dearly.
Approving giveaways of $50 million for the likes of Vestar.
Voting for a Utility Tax with "sunset" clause that was defeated twice, then approved, and then, re-instituted even though it was probably illegal in the first place.
"Caving in" to outside agencies that come to Oro Valley with both hands out looking for donations.
The less control our government has over us, the better off we will be. That is why most of our citizens will NOT support a property tax.
good points posted here! We will not vote for a property tax . Government never ever has enough of our money to spend!
Once we get a property tax in OV , councils will keep raising taxes rather then deal with trying to spend less of our money.
How do the people who live in unincorporated Pima County deal with the "horror" of not belonging to OV, Marana, etc.?
Ok, not suggesting that we get rid of OV, but seriously those area's seem to do ok.
We feel that what we currently pay in property taxes is fair and like others said we would have gladly paid some type of tax to keep OV close to the way it was when we moved here
B-b, California has caps on property taxes and look at the condition THAT State is in; controlled servicing is the ONLY way to begin to curtail this mad cycle of tax and spend.
Zev--With all due respect, I would not compare the state of California and the results of a 1978 election (Prop. 13) to the possibility of a property tax (capped or not) in OV. The situation in the world's 5th largest government budget is more complex than a local community's.
Remember what this thread is about, though, and that's a property tax to support a specific activity/department. That's still a bad idea, period.
I agree, b-b, that a property tax for a specific activity/department is a bad idea. However, was that not the case, even though it was 'disguised' as a bond issue (as is many a case in municipalities), that a property tax was SPECIFICALLY designated for the Naranja Town Site Sports Complex in a past election and didn't you support that?
California's problems are NOT just because of prop 13. This was an ill conceived plan that was supposed to protect 'established' homeowners from runaway property
taxes; the problem is, it had no sunset clause and persons, living longer than expected, have elected stay and to retire in their homes rather than move on. I have a brother and sister-in-law who own a home there with a value of approximately $300,000; their property tax is about $400 per year - good for them, not good for the state.
However, that issue being what it is, THE major problem with California is their cost of operation vs their total income. As the EIGHTH largest economy in the world (I believe that was the latest ranking), the cost of living there is still abominable, the housing is still expensive (where the economy really counts), it is way over built, over the top in commercialization, way over the top in 'socialization', and, the 'powers' still refuse to 'give'.
Political subdivisions have a tendency to become immersed in dreams not realities, and, having the power to tax, they utilize any means they can to pursue them.
Oops, b-b, you stated the 5th largest budget and I thought you meant the economy - sorry.
no tax, you sure give enough tickets to pay for your pleasure
Post a Comment