As reported in The Explorer, just what we don't need----An Amphi School District tax increase.
The article states:
At last week’s Amphitheater school board meeting, Chief Financial Officer Scott Little detailed the reasons for higher taxes, citing cost shifts from state government to the district, higher property values from two years ago that are now affecting tax bills, and a rise in delinquent taxes.
Read the article here:
http://www.explorernews.com/articles/2010/08/18/news/doc4c6adf1caa863438440230.txt
17 comments:
Did not the voters just approve a .5 sales tax increase to help our schools?
I see that other tax increases are going to be approved.
It is time to cut services, not raise taxes. Close the library. Books are going the way of traditional newspapers. We read them on electronic devices not paper.
Some weeks ago I wrote on the LOVE Blog:
The citizens of Oro Valley pay both primary and secondary property taxes to support the Amphitheater School District.
The State of Arizona has a School Safety Program
The School Safety Program was a state-funded grant that places School Resource Officers (SROs) and/or Juvenile Probation Officers (JPOs) in selected schools to contribute to safe school environments that are conducive to teaching and learning. School Safety Program officers maintain a visible presence on campus; deter delinquent and violent behaviors; serve as an available resource to the school community; and provide students and staff with Law-Related Education (LRE) instruction and training.
Tucson District One school Board and the Amphitheater School District were both eligible for the Arizona School Safety grants that could be used to offset the costs of the School Resource Officers.
It is unfortunate that state grants dried up. The Tucson District One and Amphitheater School District had no budget for School Resource Officers.
The citizens of Oro Valley will pay additional taxes ($671,632 and $692,888 from the FY2010/2011 Recommended Budget) from the General Fund to support the Amphitheater School Resource Officer Program. The Oro Valley Police Department, in cooperation with the Amphitheater School District, has seven (7) fulltime School Resource Officers (SRO). There is also one sergeant in charge of the SRO unit.
This is double taxation for a resident of Oro Valley.
Then, because of budget shortfalls and major cutting of teachers in the Amphitheater School District the taxpayers were asked to support a 1-cent state sales tax increase. This tax increase was approved by the taxpayers to help save teachers jobs.
As Oro Valley taxpayers we can now look forward to our reward for continuing to support the Amphitheater School District:
On Aug. 17, the Pima County Board of Supervisors was expected to set property tax rates for all political subdivisions in Pima County, including an increase in rates within the Amphitheater School District.
Taxation! Taxation! Taxation! This seems to be the governmental solution to any problem.
John Musolf
Thank you AZ Moose:
I stand corrected. NOT a .5 sales tax increase, a 1.0 increase.
My home has lost 25% of its value, but my taxes have increased. Cut services, do not raise taxes.
I hate to say it, but when I went to school, we did not have SRO assigned. Cut them. Cut them all.
If the Super Majority of the Oro Valley Council had any sense, they would take John Musolf's words to heart.
John has nothing but the best intentions and is doing everything possible to get this council to not only listen, but act on his recommendations.
Sadly, it is doubtful this Super Majority has any interest in serving best interests of the people of Oro Valley and not the Special Interest groups.
Ok - did anyone actually read the article? It very clearly states that the tax increase is not due to a budget increse, Amphi's budget actually went down, but due to the shifiting of funding at the State level, property value fluxuations and delinquent tax rate increases. Also, the Amphi increase went from 4.6112 to 5.0511 per $100 assessed value, which on a $200,000 house equates to about $85. (AZ star article)While I am not any happier about higher taxes than the next person, $85 a year to the school district is a price I can live to pay. As for the SRO program, as a mother with two small children I like the idea of having a Town officer in the school so that my kids learn to trust law enforcement and feel safe while they learn. As sales tax is the only thing we pay to the Town to fund these positions, I don't agree with Mr. Musof's characterization that we are being taxed twice. If you don't like the SRO program, don't shop in Oro Valley.
cyclone-- It is no surprise that you disagree with John Musolf.
As the writer of the posting, you can rest assured I read it, and actually noted the reasons for the potential rate hike in our school tax.
So, your point is nothing but a "red herring."
As to your comment;
"If you don't like the SRO program, don't shop in Oro Valley,"
I would only say this:
To suggest folks don't shop in OV because of "your" SRO program is nothing but ludicrous.
My suggestion: If you don't like your tax dollars going to Vestar, DON'T SHOP THE ORO VALLEY MARKETPLACE!
Art-
I'm curious why it is no surprise? Do you have some fabulous insight into my psyche I am unaware of? I tried to be respectful in stating my opinions and I would hope you would do the same. Mr. Musof ususally is, it would be great if you could follow suit. And, I simply expressed my disagreement with Mr. Musof's characterization of the taxing structure in Oro Valley - I did not say his conclusions were "ludicrous" or that his analysis is not thourough and thoughtful - I simply don't agree with his conclusions as is my right. As for MY SRO program (give me a break) again I was simply stating my opinion and the basis therefore - which is kinda what I thought was the point of this blog. As for my opening - I know that you read the article before you posted the link as was obvious from your excerpts. It was an attempt to be sarcastic which obviously doesn't translate well and will be avoided in the future.
cyclone---It was "no surprise" because, although you remain anonymous, your views are quite well known.
As to your last comment, would it make you feel any better if I acknowledged it was It was "an attempt to be sarcastic which obviously doesn't translate well" with you?
So all you folks with $200,000 homes are fine with 85$ extra. Well, I don't think there are that many $200,000 homes in the OV. My bill will be a bit more than 85$ AND that comes on top of all the other tax costs.
I say again, I did not have police patrolling my K through 12! I would guess that there was some sort of campus security at the mighty University of Maryland, although since I was a good student, I never ran into them AND I think my fees paid for at least some of the campus police.
Cut services, do not raise taxes.
When it can be justified why we need a cop in every school, plus the Sgt to oversee them, let us know.
Perhaps if the OV police supposedly working on patrolling the community did more "patrolling" and less sitting around and running their engines either talking with another patrol car occupant or hiding---yes, "hiding" down some dead end street or behind a building, then those that say we need more cops will have a valid argument.
Otherwise, I totally agree with Nombe.
I have to agree wholeheartedly with cyclone1's views of school funding and the need for SROs on school campuses. (As an aside, not too long ago, there was a discussion regarding respect on this blog...Sadly, it seems that nothing has changed.)
For those of you who question what goes on in our schools, let me ask you these questions:
1. Have you ever taken the time to talk to local principals, teachers, parents, etc?
2. Have you volunteered at the school or offered to participated as a community representative on a school site council?
3. Do you have any idea how crowded the classrooms are, how much money teachers spend out of their own pockets for classroom supplies and materials, or how little they get paid?
In terms of SROs, life is not like it was when we were all growing up. No one had heard of school shootings. There were not meth and heroin problems on our school campuses. And 1 out of every 2 marriages did not end in divorce, resulting in issues that kids today have to deal with, that did not exist when we were young!
If you spend a little bit of time researching the value of SROs, you would understand the importance of PREVENTION! Did you know that many studies have demonstrated that students are more apt to report concerns regarding potential crimes or safety worries if they regularly see adults on campus and those adults, including SROs, become trusted and valued campus members? Have you considered talking to an SRO on a local school campus to find out what goes on there? It's so easy to form opinions, without having facts to back those up.
Finally, Art I realize that you have issues with the OVPD...I'm not sure why this is, but I strongly encourage you to talk to the people at police headquarters, ask the questions that seem to concern you regarding police "hiding" or talking with their engines running. I am proud to live in a community that is safe and where I can count on a quick response by my police department if I need them!
JD and Cyclone, your heart is in the right place. I know these are different times than when Thomas Jefferson and I went to school. And I know that the horrible political gridlock and insane posturing has hurt our schools. And I know that the schools are the most important function of any civilization. BUT there must be cuts in other services so that what few remaining funds are diverted to education rather than other tasks.
Cyclone1
I agree that you have every right in the world to express your opinion. However, you do need to get your facts straight when offering an opinion.
To quote and clarify two of you postings:
“And, I simply expressed my disagreement with Mr. Musof's characterization of the taxing structure in Oro Valley - I did not say his conclusions were "ludicrous" or that his analysis is not thourough and thoughtful - I simply don't agree with his conclusions as is my right. As for MY SRO program (give me a break) again I was simply stating my opinion and the basis therefore - which is kinda what I thought was the point of this blog”.
Taxing structure in Oro Valley:
When you pay your real estate taxes a portion of those taxes called primary and secondary Amphitheater School tax rates go to support the entire School District budget. The School District then decides what to use the money for. They use a significant portion of that budget to provide teachers and materials to educate our children. The Amphi School District provides no budget for School Resource Officers.
The Town of Oro Valley and the Oro Valley Police Department continue to support the Amphitheater School District in the Town of Oro Valley Budget (1 Sergeant, 7 Officers, $639,930 2010 Adopted Budget, $671,632 2010 and 692,888 2011 for FY2010/2011 Recommended Budget). Where do you think Oro Valley gets the money to be able to “donate” dollars to the Amphi School District? Those are your state tax dollars that Oro Valley uses to fund government operations. This is the double taxation I refer to, not the sales taxes.
“While I am not any happier about higher taxes than the next person, $85 a year to the school district is a price I can live to pay. As for the SRO program, as a mother with two small children I like the idea of having a Town officer in the school so that my kids learn to trust law enforcement and feel safe while they learn. As sales tax is the only thing we pay to the Town to fund these positions, I don't agree with Mr. Musof's characterization that we are being taxed twice. If you don't like the SRO program, don't shop in Oro Valley”.
Cyclone1 is confused about taxes. On Aug. 17, the Pima County Board of Supervisors was expected to set property tax rates (real estate) for all political subdivisions in Pima County, including an increase in rates within the Amphitheater School District.
This real estate tax increase has nothing to do with the 1 cent sales tax increase. The sales tax was approved by the voters to prevent massive teacher lay-offs in School Districts. The increased sales tax goes to the School District to alleviate teacher lay-offs. None of the sales tax money goes to the Town or is used to fund the School Resource Officers.
Thanks
John Musolf
Mr. Musoff-
Although I appreciate your explanation, I assure you I am not confused. I was not referring to the 1% sales tax increase but the fact that we do not pay a property tax to the Town of Oro Valley and that the average tax payer's primary contirubution to the Town's coffers are in the form of sales tax which we pay when we shop or use services within the Town. I did not consider you were including the state shared revenues in your "double taxation" comment - so touche. My original comment was meant to illustrate that residents of the Town basically have three options if they don't like how the Town spends money:
1. Vote for a new council
2. Lobby the current council as you do
3. Limit the amount of money they contribute to the Town by way of limiting how much they shop in Town, thereby reducing the amount of sales tax the Town receives. Granted with the utility tax one cannot completely eliminate contributing to the Town through sales taxes, but that is even arguably something folks can control by their power/water usage.
Cyclone1--- John can respond,or not, as he sees fit.
But, pray tell, what do you suggest if and when this council Super Majority" decides it is prudent to give OUR tax dollars to the likes of TREO & MTCVB?
There's only one option that I can think of.
Hmmm! Might we need to consider a recall?
It worked in the past for those of us here "back then."
Cyclone1
Your quote: “My original comment was meant to illustrate that residents of the Town basically have three options if they don't like how the Town spends money:
1. Vote for a new council
2. Lobby the current council as you do
3. Limit the amount of money they contribute to the Town by way of limiting how much they shop in Town, thereby reducing the amount of sales tax the Town receives.
Option 1 (not very viable)
The old mayor and council worked with town staff over 5 months on constructing the current budget. We just voted in a new mayor and three new council members. The council then appointed a new council member (Steve Solomon). There are two existing council members (Barry Gillaspie and Bill Garner). It will be a few years before we can consider whether the current council can perform well enough to get elected again.
Option 3 (not very viable)
Even if we limit our shopping in Oro Valley it will result in reducing the local sales tax revenue and cause more budget shortfalls (not a sensible solution).
If we continue shopping in Oro Valley we still give away a large portion of our local sales taxes to developers instead of using it for our citizens:
Oro Valley Marketplace (Vestar Development Company) 45 percent of sales taxes up to $23.2 million
Oracle Crossings (BP Oracle Crossings Investors) 46 percent of sales taxes up to $6.5 million
Steam Pump Village (Evergreen/Diamond Ventures) 40 percent of sales taxes up to $7.6 million.
Option 2 (offer information to help the council make reasonable budget decisions and corrections)
Lobby the current council as you do.
Thank you for your support.
John Musolf
Mr Musolf-
I see I cannot say anything right in your opinion so I will stop trying to explain myself. I didn't say any of those options were particularly effective - they are what they are. I just bristeld at your accusation that I was "confused". In re-reading my previous comments, I see how I was not clear in separating my opinions on the property tax and the SRO program so my bad.
Post a Comment