We believe Explorer reporter Patrick McNamara did an excellent job in documenting the OV Library issue as it was discussed at the June 17 Council meeting, and some of the "shenanigans" going on behind the scene prior to the meeting.
See our post of June 17 Shame On "The Friends Of The Oro Valley Public Library"
See article below.
http://www.explorernews.com/articles/2009/06/24/news/doc4a416247ba2f2246929408.txt
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Oro Valley Town Attorney Signs Letter Opposing Tax- Sharing Deals
On June 6, we did a posting thanking our Town Attorney, Tobin Rosen for his excellent work in preparing a "Friend Of The Court" letter supporting the Goldwater Institute in the upcoming Supreme Court ruling on "giveaways."
A Big "Thank You" To Town Attorney Tobin Rosen For His Letter Re: "Amicus Brief"
We are posting the June 24 Explorer article on this issue mainly because it supplies the details in just how much these "foolish giveaways" are costing us, the taxpayers.
Please read The Explorer article here.
http://www.explorernews.com/articles/2009/06/24/news/doc4a41643ccda48473265952.txt
A Big "Thank You" To Town Attorney Tobin Rosen For His Letter Re: "Amicus Brief"
We are posting the June 24 Explorer article on this issue mainly because it supplies the details in just how much these "foolish giveaways" are costing us, the taxpayers.
Please read The Explorer article here.
http://www.explorernews.com/articles/2009/06/24/news/doc4a41643ccda48473265952.txt
Bill Garner Responds To Inaccuracies In Marketing Intelligence Letter
Bill needs no help from us in setting the record straight. Here is his retort to last week's Explorer letter Re: OV Surveys. The original letter (we didn't post it) is below.
Letter from survey firm off the mark
In response to the letter from Chris Baker of Marketing Intelligence (Survey tries to reach all of OV, June 17, 2009):
It's understandable that a company that makes its living charging taxpayers $17,500 for a survey would take issue with a survey conducted at no expense to taxpayers. However, Baker charges that a previous article "has several inaccuracies and misrepresentations that should be addressed," but then fails to point out any inaccuracies or misrepresentations.
Baker points out that council member K.C. Carter, along with former council members Dankwerth and Parish, "felt very strongly that they represent all residents of Oro Valley, and not just those who are registered to vote." It's interesting to note that Carter, Dankwerth and Parish didn't bother to ask voters whether they were willing to pay $48 million for ball fields before they put that issue on the ballot and proceeded with a $50,000 education campaign. In the ultimate surveys conducted a few months after the $17,500 survey was delivered, the registered voters of Oro Valley proceeded to vote Dankwerth and Parish out of office.
Baker concludes that "Mayor Paul Loomis and council members Paula Abbott, William Garner and Al Kunisch ... asked insightful questions pertaining to the methodology and survey results at the presentation of findings." That's an interesting statement, as I was not on council in January 2008 when the survey findings were presented. So much for accuracy.
Bill Garner, Council member, Oro Valley
*****************************************************************************************
Survey tries to reach all of OV
This letter is in response to the May 6 opinion piece written by Oro Valley Town Council Member Salette Latas entitled "Survey takes OV pulse without expense."
Council member Latas should be commended for her efforts in reaching out to Oro Valley residents and wanting to learn more about their wishes and desires pertaining to how the town operates. However, her article has several inaccuracies and misrepresentations that should be addressed.
Our company, Marketing Intelligence, had the privilege of working with the Oro Valley Town Council in providing them with a community survey that was based on industry standards in terms of methodology, survey question writing and data analysis.
It is important for the residents of Oro Valley to know that in our meetings with the survey sub-committee (consisting of town council member KC Carter and former council members Helen Dankwerth and Terry Parish), the group felt very strongly that they represent all residents of Oro Valley, and not just those who are registered to vote. As such, the research methodology needed to be inclusive of all town residents, making the use of the voter registration list as the sole source of potential survey participants insufficient. This resulted in a telephone survey using a list of registered voters and a supplemental list of residents with Oro Valley addresses, all of whom were subsequently screened at the very beginning of the survey.
In keeping with sound survey design principles and the sub-committee's explicit desires to ensure that the survey was completely unbiased, any questions and / or potential responses that could in any way be perceived as leading were to be re-worded or eliminated. Additionally, each committee member made it apparent that the survey results were to be used by the entire town and should not reflect any of their personal research desires.
The entire town council wanted a survey and subsequent data analysis that was 1) representative, 2) based on solid research methodology, 3) unbiased and 4) touched on a variety of subject matters that are important to town residents. We feel that we have delivered exactly what was asked for and are fortunate to have worked with such a professional client, not only in the three council members mentioned above, but also Mayor Paul Loomis and council members Paula Abbott, William Garner and Al Kunisch, all of whom asked insightful questions pertaining to the methodology and survey results at the presentation of findings.
Chris Baker, Marketing Intelligence, Tucson
Letter from survey firm off the mark
In response to the letter from Chris Baker of Marketing Intelligence (Survey tries to reach all of OV, June 17, 2009):
It's understandable that a company that makes its living charging taxpayers $17,500 for a survey would take issue with a survey conducted at no expense to taxpayers. However, Baker charges that a previous article "has several inaccuracies and misrepresentations that should be addressed," but then fails to point out any inaccuracies or misrepresentations.
Baker points out that council member K.C. Carter, along with former council members Dankwerth and Parish, "felt very strongly that they represent all residents of Oro Valley, and not just those who are registered to vote." It's interesting to note that Carter, Dankwerth and Parish didn't bother to ask voters whether they were willing to pay $48 million for ball fields before they put that issue on the ballot and proceeded with a $50,000 education campaign. In the ultimate surveys conducted a few months after the $17,500 survey was delivered, the registered voters of Oro Valley proceeded to vote Dankwerth and Parish out of office.
Baker concludes that "Mayor Paul Loomis and council members Paula Abbott, William Garner and Al Kunisch ... asked insightful questions pertaining to the methodology and survey results at the presentation of findings." That's an interesting statement, as I was not on council in January 2008 when the survey findings were presented. So much for accuracy.
Bill Garner, Council member, Oro Valley
*****************************************************************************************
Survey tries to reach all of OV
This letter is in response to the May 6 opinion piece written by Oro Valley Town Council Member Salette Latas entitled "Survey takes OV pulse without expense."
Council member Latas should be commended for her efforts in reaching out to Oro Valley residents and wanting to learn more about their wishes and desires pertaining to how the town operates. However, her article has several inaccuracies and misrepresentations that should be addressed.
Our company, Marketing Intelligence, had the privilege of working with the Oro Valley Town Council in providing them with a community survey that was based on industry standards in terms of methodology, survey question writing and data analysis.
It is important for the residents of Oro Valley to know that in our meetings with the survey sub-committee (consisting of town council member KC Carter and former council members Helen Dankwerth and Terry Parish), the group felt very strongly that they represent all residents of Oro Valley, and not just those who are registered to vote. As such, the research methodology needed to be inclusive of all town residents, making the use of the voter registration list as the sole source of potential survey participants insufficient. This resulted in a telephone survey using a list of registered voters and a supplemental list of residents with Oro Valley addresses, all of whom were subsequently screened at the very beginning of the survey.
In keeping with sound survey design principles and the sub-committee's explicit desires to ensure that the survey was completely unbiased, any questions and / or potential responses that could in any way be perceived as leading were to be re-worded or eliminated. Additionally, each committee member made it apparent that the survey results were to be used by the entire town and should not reflect any of their personal research desires.
The entire town council wanted a survey and subsequent data analysis that was 1) representative, 2) based on solid research methodology, 3) unbiased and 4) touched on a variety of subject matters that are important to town residents. We feel that we have delivered exactly what was asked for and are fortunate to have worked with such a professional client, not only in the three council members mentioned above, but also Mayor Paul Loomis and council members Paula Abbott, William Garner and Al Kunisch, all of whom asked insightful questions pertaining to the methodology and survey results at the presentation of findings.
Chris Baker, Marketing Intelligence, Tucson
Pima County Assessor Speaks Out On Proposed New Tax Bill
A letter from Pima County Tax Assessor Bill Staples, signed by 14 other Arizona Assessors was published in the June 24 Explorer.
Many of us blame the Assessor when our Property Tax bill is too high. Here's an example of why the issue belongs in the lap of our State Legislatures----not the County Assessors.
If interested, following is an amended version of the bill, still not approved.
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/adopted/s.1036burns.pdf
Here is the letter. It might be time to speak out if we agree with Mr. Staples.
***************************************************************************************
Assessors want a public debate on tax proposal
As elected officials on the front line of the property tax issue, we need to bring to the public's attention one of most important tax policy changes in recent history.
In Senate Bill 1036, a companion bill to the state's budget, the Arizona Legislature is proposing to redistribute a substantial portion of the current tax burden from commercial and vacant land property owners and place it on residential property owners for voter-approved bonds and overrides.
Simply put, every homeowner will have a tax increase and nearly every business will have a tax decrease for all future bonds and overrides against the status quo.
Every year, thousands of Arizonans interact with their locally elected county assessors and their staffs and struggle to understand our quarter-century old valuation structure. How do we look these taxpayers in the eye and explain this tax shift?
We believe a public debate needs to occur. It appears no public discussion was held on the topic at the legislature and the ramifications are only now coming to light. It really does not matter whether you support the proposed change or you support the status quo, how are the citizens of Arizona suppose to participate in a debate that never happened?
We, the elected assessors of all counties in Arizona, both Republicans and Democrats, asked the new leadership in the Legislature to form a group to examine the property tax structure and were told to wait for an appropriate time. We are still waiting and hoping such a group will be formed soon. The entire property tax system needs to be examined in its entirety.
Transparency in government has been a buzzword used by politicians for decades. This has resonated from the President of the United States to leaders of the Arizona Legislature.
Therefore, if the Arizona Legislature believes this major tax policy change is the right thing to do, then they ought to have the courage to have an open public discussion on the subject. The citizens of this great state deserve no less.
Signed,
Bill Staples, Pima County assessor, And 14 other Arizona county assessors
Many of us blame the Assessor when our Property Tax bill is too high. Here's an example of why the issue belongs in the lap of our State Legislatures----not the County Assessors.
If interested, following is an amended version of the bill, still not approved.
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/adopted/s.1036burns.pdf
Here is the letter. It might be time to speak out if we agree with Mr. Staples.
***************************************************************************************
Assessors want a public debate on tax proposal
As elected officials on the front line of the property tax issue, we need to bring to the public's attention one of most important tax policy changes in recent history.
In Senate Bill 1036, a companion bill to the state's budget, the Arizona Legislature is proposing to redistribute a substantial portion of the current tax burden from commercial and vacant land property owners and place it on residential property owners for voter-approved bonds and overrides.
Simply put, every homeowner will have a tax increase and nearly every business will have a tax decrease for all future bonds and overrides against the status quo.
Every year, thousands of Arizonans interact with their locally elected county assessors and their staffs and struggle to understand our quarter-century old valuation structure. How do we look these taxpayers in the eye and explain this tax shift?
We believe a public debate needs to occur. It appears no public discussion was held on the topic at the legislature and the ramifications are only now coming to light. It really does not matter whether you support the proposed change or you support the status quo, how are the citizens of Arizona suppose to participate in a debate that never happened?
We, the elected assessors of all counties in Arizona, both Republicans and Democrats, asked the new leadership in the Legislature to form a group to examine the property tax structure and were told to wait for an appropriate time. We are still waiting and hoping such a group will be formed soon. The entire property tax system needs to be examined in its entirety.
Transparency in government has been a buzzword used by politicians for decades. This has resonated from the President of the United States to leaders of the Arizona Legislature.
Therefore, if the Arizona Legislature believes this major tax policy change is the right thing to do, then they ought to have the courage to have an open public discussion on the subject. The citizens of this great state deserve no less.
Signed,
Bill Staples, Pima County assessor, And 14 other Arizona county assessors
Oro Valley Approves $121.5 Million Budget on a 4-3 Vote
As much as Council Members Garner, Gillaspie & Latas tried, the majority of Mayor Loomis, Council Members Abbott, Carter & Kunisch passed the $121.5 million budget, in part, by raiding our contingency fund.
I was proud to have addressed the council on this issue, but to no one's surprise, my plea of not balancing a budget by using "rainy day" funds fell on "8 deaf ears."
We previously posted my addressing the council on the issue, that, by the way garnered 90 comments to date, thanks mostly to Don Cox making it into an "OV survey issue chastising Salette Latas." For those that may have missed it, here is that posting.
Art To Council: Be Citizen Centric... Don't Raid The Contingency Fund
Here is The Explorer article on the budget vote.
http://www.explorernews.com/articles/2009/06/24/news/doc4a4165ea639c6574918357.txt
I was proud to have addressed the council on this issue, but to no one's surprise, my plea of not balancing a budget by using "rainy day" funds fell on "8 deaf ears."
We previously posted my addressing the council on the issue, that, by the way garnered 90 comments to date, thanks mostly to Don Cox making it into an "OV survey issue chastising Salette Latas." For those that may have missed it, here is that posting.
Art To Council: Be Citizen Centric... Don't Raid The Contingency Fund
Here is The Explorer article on the budget vote.
http://www.explorernews.com/articles/2009/06/24/news/doc4a4165ea639c6574918357.txt
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)