There doesn't appear to be too many members of the Oro Valley Town Council---if any at all, that consistently stand up for the people of Oro Valley.
Bill Garner has worked for us since his election in 2008.
Bill recently hosted a "Council On Your Corner," meeting with Oro Valley residents.
One major point Bill brought up was the fact the Oro Valley's population, according to the recent census, is at 41,011, an increase of only 1100 over 2005.
The question then is: Why did we have a 2005 budget of $99 million, and a current budget of $116.2 million?
For those not proficient in math,the population increased ONLY 3% and the current budget(2010-11)increase is approx. 17.5%!
This increase is $2 million more than the cost of living from 2005 to 2011.
I repeat the question: WHY???
Read why Bill Garner deserves the accolades of the people of Oro Valley in The Explorer article. (Note The Explorer article notes a population increase of 8% As I said, the population increased ONLY 3% since 2005.)
http://explorernews.com/news/oro_valley/article_fed1de08-6ad3-11e0-879c-001cc4c03286.html
38 comments:
I know math is hard and "for those not proficient in math," here is the way to calculate this correctly:
$99 million in 2005 Dollars are $114.8 million in 2011 Dollars. That's inflation alone. (http://www.halfhill.com/inflation.html, using CPI-W, which is the best index for the average Oro Valley citizen)
Now, those $114.8 million were the budget for 38,900 citizens, which makes for a per capita share of roughly $2951. Multiplying this share with 41,011 citizens that live here now, yields a budget of ...
wait for it...
...
$121 million!
Art, in the proposed budget, each citizen is paying LESS than they were in 2005. Your treatment of numbers is disingenuous to say the least.
Bill Garner, who is obviously troubled with math too, should not be heralded - I want my representatives to be able to calculate correctly.
I am thankful that OV Dad, at least, can do the math. Outstanding post. The math gives us a base of $2951.
per citizen, now the question is how to reduce the base so that tax increases are not required.
My take is that the OV government is intent on maintaining a status quo rather than cutting expenses.
Take home vehicles, employee retirement and health care costs as well as manpower levels need to be addressed.
OV Dad--- Inflation??? There's no inflation. At least that's what the government says. If there was inflation, we retired citizens would be seeing an increase in our social security benefits.
The ONLY thing that seems to be inflated is the cost of food & gasoline, that the government doesn't count.
Then, there's also the Oro Valley budget!
I repeat! Bill Garner as a young man with a family cares about his constituents.
The vast majority, especially the newly elected and "The Appointed One" care about everything, but the people!
I stand by my posting. I'm sure Bill Garner stands by his comments. Good for him!
I want to commend Bill Gardner on his STAND FOR THE PEOPLE of this wonderful Town.
I just read on Facebook that someone posted that they wondered if the New Council had a HIDDEN AGENDA. They made a point of not mentioning the possible Property Tax,when they were running for Council, yet attacked another candidate stating he was for it , which was not true. and that was a reason not to vote for this candidate. HOW SNEAKY of them. In this economy, especially when there has not been that much growth and many forclosures and lost businesses and jobs, I am shocked they would even entertain the idea of taxes. From what people are saying, BOTH the Democrats are appauled as well as the Republicans, also Independents. On Facebook someone mentioned that in the Explorer, etc. many financially astute individuals have tried to show these "blinded" Council Members that these Taxes are not necessary.
Many individuals purchase second homes in our Town because, we do not have a Property Tax. Also our Sales Tax is higher than the County, and the County shopping is not that far from Oro Valley, so you will see many individuals purchasing their large items elsewhere, because most individuals are watching their "pennies", not just the retired, but also the young people who are raising families, who have them involved in sports etc.
Just look arounds, how many forclosures are or have been in your neighborhood?
Garner continues to hear constituents and address our issues. He offers solutions, raises questions, probes. He appears to be the only one who researches, utilizes Town staff to get answers and dares to confront the violators. On a key issue at TOV meeting, he was the only "no" vote. What a lonely position to be in!
While Zinkin's article, Garner's Corner Council, Culver's 3 minute speech suggested, as well seniors with long experience, a single working mom, a self employed man running a business, and the head of the Tea Party made suggestions of how to reduce the budget and tax questions, the other six seemed impervious to the feelings of constituents.
Solomon compared a utility tax to a cup of Starbucks. But is Solomon aware that many in OV never go to Starbucks to save the $3.50 and buy a 40oz bag of Dunkin Donuts coffee which yields 135 cups? His example is very revealing. He is out of touch with ordinary citizens. In this economy it's about needs not wants.
Note the Mayor's statement that "residents have a disconnect with what government does", Is he acknowledging that Hiremath and five other council members implement their own agendas not what their constituents are asking for? Once elected they can ignore their voters?
Inspite of the tremendous odds he faces, Garner continues to battle his opponents. Where are we, his constituents? Before Garner wearies of championing our causes, he needs to feel our support and appreciation.
I definately agree with Desert Dove. We need to vet our candidates better. As one speaker stated, the Council members never answered his question about Property Taxes.
We need more fiscally responsible candidates like Bill Gardner, who listens to his constitutents. These Council members apparently felt guilty, because they didn't look individuals in the eyes, instead just lower their heads and looked at the floor. That says volumes.
INFLATION. Just like the very famous AZ Monsoon, inflation only starts when it rains at MY house. I buy food and gas. Therefore, inflation exists.
Nombe wantabe,
A form of rain fell in "the appointed one's" house when he foreclosed on 128 properties a year ago. Maybe that generated empathy for developers.
TD, yes, OV needs more fiscally responsible candidates. However, some of the five appeared to have those qualities but elected not to use them, a Pontius Pilate quality.
NB: While Garner cared enough to research the lease in question, six of the others elected felt the superficial information they had was sufficient for them to vote. HMMM???
Are OV voters satisfied that six elected officials don't care enough about what they vote on, and vote with minimal research, and let the consequences(costs) fall back on us the voters?
Yes, TD, we do have to vet many aspects of how candidates demonstrate their fiscal responsibility.
Travelling Dancer would your comments be about "Bill Garner"?
Sorry Ferlin, you are correct. I have a friend whose last name is Gardner and my finger keeps hitting that "d". I stand corrected. I apologize to Bill Garner for the misspelling of his name. Also, Desert Voice I apologize for calling you a "Dove".
The Mayor last night apparetly did not listen to some of the speakers stating "increasing taxes DOES NOT HELP BUSINESS.....Just listen to KVOI from 6:00 AM 8:00 AM. Raising Sales Taxes does not make this town "Business Friendly". People want
value for their dollar. The disconnect is not the residents of Oro Valley, but the Town Council to their constitutents. I suppose they think noone is paying attention, but when the time to vote comes around again. They will be surprised!!!!
To repeat what Travelling Dancer said, "The disconnect is not the residents of Oro Valley, but the Town Council to their constitutents."
I can live with what Nombe is saying (and yes, I do get his/her sarcasm) - and I know that if we ever were to meet (or maybe we have met already?), we could agree to disagree on some topics and yet remain civil.
With some of you others, I'm not so sure.
Art falsifies an official government statistic by saying: "There's no inflation. At least that's what the government says. If there was inflation, we retired citizens would be seeing an increase in our social security benefits." Oh, what sweet irony.
Travelling dancer reverts to conspiracy theories and claims people will drive to other parts of town to buy stuff (because a couple of cents are going to be worth the extra gas - please show me what big ticket item you can currently get in OV that would make your drive worth it).
Desert Voice - if Garner could research half as well as you suggest he can, how could he possibly miss the fact that his calculations need to be adjusted for inflation? Or are you saying that he did that on purpose to mislead the Oro Valley citizens? Moreover, ordinary citizens of Oro Valley don't go to Starbucks? Are we talking about the same town here? The town where (according to the latest Census data) the average household has 20k more income than the national average? If we aren't the ones who can afford a cup of Starbucks, then I expect to see that company going bankrupt very soon.
Seriously, I try not to engage with you all anymore because the responses posted here are based on fear-mongering and attempts to distort reality, but not facts. If I were like you, I'd come up with names for Bill Garner (and it really is too easy: what does everyone think about 'Art's Seagull' or 'Billie the are-you-KIDding-me?') to question his ability. But I don't need to do that. I can just point out his glaring mathematical problems. But then I once again find myself in this hopeless debate of reason versus irrationality. My only hope is that reason's win in the last election was not the last one. (I'm hopeful Nombe is going to get this one.)
Using the CPI index published monthly by the Bureau of Labor Statistics the average rate of inflation in 2009 was -0.4%, and in 2010 was 1.6%.
Recently purchased electronics two miles outside of OV town limits, and saved $42.16 in taxes.
I'd be interested in your responses to this question-- If the town polled their employees and asked them if they would prefer 1) that all employees take a 5% pay reduction or 2) the town reduces its employee head count by 5%. Which option would they prefer?
Nice one, Turtle. Remind me again how much money you spent on those electronics, because that seems like quite a lot... My point is also that for most purchases, it will not 'pay' to drive outside of city boundaries.
On top of that, Garner and Art are comparing 2005 and 2011, not 2009 and 2011. I'm sure you know that, though.
Chuck- My gut feeling is they will say (1) but hope it's (2) and they are part of the 95%. Also, the two options aren't fiscally equivalent.
OVDad--- Or picking up on your version of names, I should say OV's Ignorant Dad"---
You seem to be able to come up with answers for everyone's valid points.
They're "answers," but they are totally non-sensible answers.
Oh. By the way, you were not at all missed during your all to short hiatus.
Chuck Davis: Good question and good post.
I hate to beat the faded tom-tom of my past life as a faithful government employee again. BUT at the Federal level we paid for a portion of our health care and we paid into our IRA retirement account. From what I understand OV employees take no monthly deduction for health care. Is this true? Do they contribute to a retirement fund? If not, that is a big problem.
OV Dad: 40LB Bag of Rock Salt at the local Home Depot just went up about $1.00 per sack.
OV Dad,
Please allow me to reframe my post.
When a document does not appear in a study package until the last minute, it raises question
When a lease that does not expire for eight months must be decided without in depth study, it raises question.
If the lease has integrity, ie without legal loopholes, it can pass the litmus test of careful scrutinity. Why would six councilpersons not want that?
The process raises more questions about the six voters. Why didn't they want to study it? What was the rush to push it through? Did the six not get the potential for a four year contract? Where were other councilpersons with discerning questions and why did they not ask them?
In the past, most requests for further study has been granted because it is reasonable. What was unreasonable was the rigid stance of the six yes votes. This is why some bloggers feel Garner is the only Councilperson who cares.
OV Dad,
Please share with bloggers your source for the income information you cited, ie. "...according to the latest income information the Town is $20k higher than the national average." Your reference to census data is vague. Please be specific.
Thank you.
Art: Let me explain to you the irony of you calling me 'ignorant.'
I have successfully shown that Bill Garner either was incapable of thinking correctly about the issue at stake or was purposefully misleading his constituents. If someone had done that about any other councilperson, you know it would be on the front page of LOVE.
You try to refute my point with a totally invalid remark about your social security benefits that is either aimed to deflect from the issue at stake or indicating a lack in awareness on your part.
You then say that I come up with answers to everyone's valid points. The problem is that those aren't valid points, they are opinions. A valid point is saying that Bill should have adjusted his calculation for inflation. Mathematics/Economics - call it what you wish, but that's a point, not an opinion. (I'd actually like to hear your buddy John Musolf's view on this one. He's been awfully quiet so far although he's to be trusted with numbers according to you. Here's a chance for him to prove himself.)
According to Wikipedia (no, Desert Voice I will not give you specifics on that one), "The word "ignorant" is an adjective describing a person in the state of being unaware and is often used as an insult."
You calling me ignorant proves that you are ignorant. Congratulations, you just successfully insulted yourself.
To be honest, I am a little confused by your post, Desert Voice. There is only one U.S. Census and the website is census.gov.
Search of Oro Valley town, AZ. Find the fact sheet, look at it.
1) Please note that the median is a better indicator than the mean, as the income distribution is strongly skewed in favor of the rich.
2) Please note that not only do OV households have significantly more income than the average U.S. household, but they are also significantly smaller (which means that each person has even more money to spend on 'luxury items' such as Starbucks coffee). On top of that, they sit on a lot more wealth (home values compared to mortgage costs) than the average U.S. household.
Oro Valley is no slum. I hope this was specific enough for you.
Obviously OVdad is on this blog to insult anyone who doesn't agree with his points, and to end any meaningful dialogue.
Follow this wise old advise when dealing with those who would have you sink to their level..... "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides the pig likes it".
Nombe-
As a former Town employee and a present Federal employee, I hope this answers your question..
The Town pays 100% of the the employee's health insurance premium and 75% of the dependent premium... when I worked there I had coverage for me and my family which, if memory serves, ran about $150 per paycheck. The Town participates in the Arizona State Retirement System, which mandates by law a percentage contribution paid by both the employee and the employer. There is also a percentage long term disability deduction. I think total the ASRS deduction was 9-11% per paycheck, but I can't remember.
Well, you just gotta love how the "argument" changes depending on what bill of goods is being sold at the moment.
When we wanted upscale shopping, we were told that this wasn't possible with our demographic and that what we really needed was a Wal-Mart because there are a lot of elderly people living here who are on fixed incomes and a lot of young families just starting out who also can't afford upscale shopping venues.
Now that the council is discussing tax increases, OV Dad informs us that...
"...not only do OV households have significantly more income than the average U.S. household, but they are also significantly smaller (which means that each person has even more money to spend on 'luxury items' such as Starbucks coffee)."
I think we should change the town's name from Oro Valley to Forked Tongue.
AZMOOSE Comments
OV Dad is a great mathematician. He refers us to a web site: (http://www.halfhill.com/inflation.html) which has a free software program that calculates inflation for him.
OV Dad states: “using CPI-W, which is the best index for the average Oro Valley citizen”. That is strictly OV Dad’s opinion!
The CPI-U is the most commonly used index because it has the broadest coverage which accounts for about 87 percent of the U.S. population.
The CPI-W covers only about 32 percent of the U.S. population.
The Town created a budget of 116.2 Million for 2011. This is 1.4 Million above OV Dad’s 114.8 CPI-W and 2.1 Million above the more commonly used CPI-U. Wonder what inflation rate the Town used?
Then OV Dad goes off on a tangent of calculating a per capita share of a budget: “Now, those $114.8 million (2011 inflated dollars from 2005) were the budget for 38,900 citizens, that makes for a per capita share of roughly $2951”. So what does this calculation accomplish? Nothing! Per Capita is not used to calculate a budget.
The question to ask is how wisely did the Town create a budget directly for me for my per capita share of a budget?
For example, how does giving every Town Employee their Birthday, Christmas Eve and New Year Eve as Holidays (cost $264,000) in 2012 directly benefit me as a citizen? How does raising the insurance deductible for all employees from 80/20 to 90/10 (increased cost $43,000) in 2012 directly benefit me as a citizen.
As Bill Garner stated: Let’s do a little soul-searching in determining the content of the budget before we raise my taxes 1.3 Million dollars to cover a budget deficit shortfall in 2012!!!
John Musolf
Once again OV Dad shows us what a “factual” person he is. He tries to belittle each person who disagrees with “his version of the facts”.
Art Marth
OV Dad attacks Art Marth by quoting Art’s statement: “OV Dad--- Inflation??? There's no inflation. At least that's what the government says. If there was inflation, we retired citizens would be seeing an increase in our social security benefits”. I believe Art was pointing out that during the last two years the Social Security Administration has issued yearly statements to the retired (that’s me) that states the inflation is zero. The Social Security Department has already publicly stated that the inflation rate will be zero for 2012. I don’t think that Art falsified an official government statistic.
Travelling Dancer
OV Dad accuses Travelling Dancer of “conspiracy theories”. The postings I looked at from Travelling Dancer discussed his opinion of the Mayor and five members of the council being obsessed with taxation. Also, I believe when Travelling Dancer was talking about driving to another part of the county (not another part of the Town as OV Dad incorrectly stated) it was to avoid OV sales taxes. Perhaps, this was Travelling Dancer’s way of protesting “taxation without representation” similar to our Founding Fathers.
Desert Voice
OV Dad then leads a two prong attack on Desert Voice’s comments. I believe Desert Voice was contrasting the fact that Garner did do some research on the budget unlike the Mayor and five other council members who did not. Also, I believe that Desert Voice was using the Solomon’s (the appointed one) example: “Solomon compared a utility tax to a cup of Starbucks” to show how “out of touch” Solomon was with the rest of the citizens. Some of us “ordinary folks” consider that buying Starbucks is a luxury we can’t afford just like raising the utility tax.
All LOVE Posters
Then OV Dad summarizes his disdain for All LOVE Posters by stating: “Seriously, I try not to engage with you all anymore because the responses posted here are based on fear-mongering and attempts to distort reality, but not facts.” “But then I once again find myself in this hopeless debate of reason versus irrationality.” Gosh, I find myself enthralled with OV Dad’s great genius to lead us poor intellectual souls to his reasonable (and of course “factual”) conclusions!
Civility
Lastly, I wish to compliment OV Dad on his wonderful civility that allows him to insult Mr. Garner: “If I were like you, I'd come up with names for Bill Garner (and it really is too easy: what does everyone think about 'Art's Seagull' or 'Billie the are-you-KIDding-me?') to question his ability”. I am so happy that OV Dad has shown us the true depth of his character.
John Musolf
John--Thanks for setting the record straight.
In this world, there are two types of people: Those that think they're so damn smart, and those that others know are so smart.
OVDad is obviously in the former group. John Musolf is in the latter group.
That says it all, except for "The Turtle's" outstanding analogy in his prior comment.
Again, OV Dad gives us more facts:
“2) Please note that not only do OV households have significantly more income than the average U.S. household, but they are also significantly smaller (which means that each person has even more money to spend on 'luxury items' such as Starbucks coffee). On top of that, they sit on a lot more wealth (home values compared to mortgage costs) than the average U.S. household.”
Thanks for letting us ordinary citizens know that we are “rich”. Not only can I afford a luxury item like Starbucks but I must certainly have enough money to afford 1.3 Million extra taxes. The weak economy and rising prices on gas and food be dammed! We “rich” can afford more taxes! Full speed ahead!
John Musolf
Art – you’re funny. That’s it.
John – Let’s take your argument step by step. ‘Being skilled at computing numbers’ relates to ‘mathematician’ in the same way as ‘being able to hammer a nail into a wall’ relates to ‘engineer.’
At least I tell you my sources. You look up ‘CPI’ on Wikipedia and make an irrelevant claim. Look at the baskets for the respective indices and tell me CPI-U fits better than CPI-W – that would be valid. .In fact, the CPI-W vs. CPI-U debate is completely irrelevant: I would have zero problem with Garner’s argument if he had used any inflation measure to adjust for inflation, but he did not.
Next, you wonder which inflation measure the Town used. and say per capita is not used to calculate a budget. In that sense, you might as well compare OV to LA and claim that OV’s budget is incredibly small. Bill Garner argued that the town grew little but the budget grew a lot, which is true in nominal but not in real terms. I took offense to that argument. I never put the two in relation, Garner did. Nonetheless, I maintain that, when comparing budgets from different years you must (a) look at it in real, rather than nominal terms (inflation-adjustment is necessary) and (b) look at it per capita – you need to adjust for differences in population size: If the town’s population shrunk, I think you and I would agree that the budget (in real terms) should shrink too.
Also, even if your numbers were adjusted for population growth, you do realize that we are talking about differences in the 1-3% range here – hardly a reason to cry alarm as Garner did.
‘The question to ask is how wisely did the Town create a budget directly for me for my per capita share of a budget?’ I absolutely agree with you on this one. But let’s make the debate about this issue and let’s not claim the budget grew excessively... as Garner did.
Do you even know what the word ‘falsifying’ means? I earlier agreed with Turtle that we had deflation in 2009 and little inflation in 2010. But again, Art was deflecting from my claim that, over the course of 5-6 years, inflation played a large role by pointing to two of those 5-6 years.
Travelling dancer earlier spoke of a ‘hidden agenda.’ First says he/she read it somewhere else, than adopts it. That's a conspiracy theory.
John, so I play a spoof on Art’s ‘The Appointed One’ and that shows my true character? So be it, I won’t be able to ever change your perception about that.
But you won't ever be able to change that Garner did not (know how to?) compare budgets from different years.
Too funny.
What "bubble" is OV dad living in and what "koolaid" is he drinking.
On "Face te Nation" it was noted that 47% of Americans have lost their investment in their homes. 12% have increased and 41% remained the same. Many people were using their homes as their "retirement" On my job I was asked to take a 6% pay cut, which was better than losing my job. The Company totally changed their Retirement plan, out of necessity. I am sure that this is the case for many individuals.
Is the Town planning to offer "big buck" retirement packages instead of taking a "cut"?.
The economy is worse off than in the past where he is making his references. The town needs to make cuts and the employees should be happy to have a job. Many in the private sector had to take cuts. They were willing to do that to keep their jobs. I wonder what OVDad does for a living. Perhaps he has his own business and just jacks up his fees to the consumer.
As for the conspiracy comment. I attended many of the meetings where questions were asked of the candidates, so it was not just hear say.
Since the town bumped up at a 20% rate, pehaps we need to cutback 20%
To the person with a spelling mistake in their user name -
and to clarify this once and for all.
I admit I should not have allowed Desert Voice's starbucks v. dunkin donuts claim to sidetrack me. My mistake, although I will stand behind the claim that the average OV citizen is better off than the average U.S. citizen, which is NOT the same as claiming that all of us are filthy rich and nobody experiences economic hardship. Nonetheless, I started this debate for a different reason:
The town did not 'bump up at a 20% rate.' That's the result you get when comparing 2005 to 2011 dollars. However, remember how far a dollar got us when we were younger? Those times are gone, thanks to inflation. Between 2005 and 2011 there, too, was inflation. You must adjust for that.
Then, the town of Oro Valley grew significantly in the mean time. You wouldn't think of comparing Oro Valley with Chicago, would you? You must adjust for the difference in population.
When you do this, you realize that the town didn't 'bump up' at all. Please accept this.
From there, we can talk about our preferences (for example, you can say you would like to have them cut this budget) - but I think we can agree by now that, between me and most of the LOVE bloggers, there won't be much common ground here. I can accept that and move on - that's why I generally lay low. Can you accept this too?
But I CANNOT accept when factually incorrect statistics are presented to argue the town's budget grew by 20% while the population grew by only 3%. Either you are presenting such a statistic due to a lack of awareness (for which Art won't hesitate to use the word 'ignorant,' but I personally think none of us are flawless - besides, maybe, Nombe) or you are presenting it to mislead the voters, in which case I WON'T hesitate to call it demagoguery. Let me know if any of you can think of a third alternative though.
Well, poor OVDad, apparently he has not had the opportunity for much international travel, or the reading of old British classics. FYI. The Americans spell it traveling. The British spell it travelling. This scenario is quite common in many words. Another example: American, favor, British, favour; American, savor, British, savour, just to mention a few.
With the economy, progressing negatively as it has recently with more foreclosures here in Oro Valley, it is not surprising that the population of Oro Valley would decrease even more. Therefore a programme (brit.) of less services needed---smaller budget.
OV Dad,
Since bloggers refined the debated points so exquisitely (thank you, AZ Moose,CD, TD, Ferlin, Fear, Victorian Cowgirl, OVCares,Art) this will address my original position: only Garner listens to constituents and studies the issues.
While the lease issue mirrors the proposed tax increases, the lack of research by Hornat, Solomon, Gillaspie, Snyder, Waters and Hiremath was dramatically clear. Their silence spoke volumes! Yes, Solomon and Snider referenced their experience with business leases. However, did they see the need to look twice, to question, to get beneath the surface? Sounds superficial to me. How responsible is that to citizens? Are they working for OV voters?
Hiremath, Hornat, Snider and Waters were against the prop tax during the campaign. Now elected do they remember and voice the concerns that their constituents have? NO! During the time of Gillaspie's campaign, the possibility of a property tax rarely surfaced. Solomon was appointed, not elected. Does this make them less complicit? You decide.
Are these six concerned about the citizens? Do you trust decisions they make with little or no study? How well are they listening to our concerns and demanding transparency from government?
(1) Do you, then, admit that Garner was wrong in his calculations?
(2) Was there a motive or was this due to inability?
I hope to see answers to these questions, but don't expect it.
Touché, Travelling Dancer - the few people that read this and know my identity will get a kick out of what you said though.
While I think that foreclosures are generally a sign of people leaving, I think in the current times it is not so: people are defaulting all over the US, they still have to live somewhere, right? But alright, this is another side-debate we probably shouldn't open.
Desert Voice -
I'm not blaming you for this; I think many of your co-bloggers have a very narrow view of 'constituents' as well; one which includes mainly you and your co-bloggers. Within the group I socialize with I have heard only good things about the current council. And, no, we are not a bunch of developers, Wal-Mart owners, small business owners, etcetera. In fact not one of us fit any of these descriptions - I would describe us as regular Oro Valley families. We are constituents, too. So please stop the claim that this council is favoring some hidden elite interests and is not listening to their constituents. This claim is not only unreasonable, I also think it devalues your argument from the perspective of those less involved in local politics. The latter is just my advice though and you can take it or leave it.
Sorry to disappoint you OV Dad! I did not use Wikipedia as the source of my CPI discussion. I used the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) as my source for the calculation of CPI (http://www.bls.gov/cpi/).
Under the BLS - CPI Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ).
Whose buying habits does the CPI reflect?
The CPI reflects spending patterns for each of two population groups: all urban consumers and urban wage earners and clerical workers. The all urban consumer group represents about 87 percent of the total U.S. population. It is based on the expenditures of almost all residents of urban or metropolitan areas, including professionals, the self-employed, the poor, the unemployed, and retired people, as well as urban wage earners and clerical workers. Consumer inflation for all urban consumers is measured by two indexes, namely, the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) and the Chained Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (C-CPI-U).
The Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) is based on the expenditures of households included in the CPI-U definition that also meet two requirements: more than one-half of the household's income must come from clerical or wage occupations, and at least one of the household's earners must have been employed for at least 37 weeks during the previous 12 months. The CPI-W population represents about 32 percent of the total U.S. population and is a subset, or part, of the CPI-U population.
As I stated previously, you (OV Dad) used another web site from a gentleman named Tom R. Halfhill (Tom is a senior technology analyst and journalist for Microprocessor Report in Silicon Valley) to calculate your CPI-W. Tom’s site offers 5 different inflation rates for inflation calculation and you chose CPI-W instead of CPI-U. I used the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
OV Dad: Please tell me the source you used to calculate a budget using a per capita approach. I happen to have a degree in accounting and done hundreds of budgets in my working career. I checked with a few accountants I know and they told me they have never seen a budget derived from a per capita approach. Neither have I! We are all waiting with curiosity. Obviously, you have some expert knowledge or an expert web site you can refer us to for those calculations.
John Musolf
John:
(1) It still makes no difference whether CPI-W or CPI-U is used - the result is highly similar. CPI-W is used to adjust social security benefits, for example. I'm sure you looked into that, though. It is the index that determines Art's income increases. Unemployment rates in OV are below the nat'l avg; less than 6% of Oro Valley's civilian work population is self-employed, next to nobody works in the armed forces. Are you telling me the CPI-U should be preferred here? So be it. I don't care - I think the CPI-W is theoretically the right one, but there is enough uncertainty in all of them that it doesn't matter. The main point is: If you adjust the 2005 budget for inflation, there is only a tiny increase - not the 17.5% Art and Bill talk about.
(2) I was unaware that we are 'deriving' a budget. I have no idea why one would ever do that. Nor have I a clue why you would think that was my intent. I thought we were 'comparing' the budget from 2005 (not a reference point I set) to the current one. At least that is what both Art and Bill were doing. Let me quote the original post. "For those not proficient in math,the population increased ONLY 3% and the current budget(2010-11)increase is approx. 17.5%!."
I just continued on with their approach. And I give credit to them - when comparing(!) two budgets of any municipality or between municipalities, it is important to adjust the budgets for differences in population size. It wouldn't make much sense to compare Oro Valley to Phoenix in absolute terms, would it? It wouldn't make much sense to compare Oro Valley of today (which has grown in population size) to Oro Valley of six years ago in absolute terms, would it?
Now, as an accountant I am sure you know it is easy to make mistakes when you compare growth rates - thus, to be sure I made the right adjustment, I did the following (and, just for you, I will use CPI-U this time):
1) Adjust the 2005 budget of $99 million for inflation: We get $114.1 million (as you have already pointed out).
Please note that we could now compare the current budget to this budget and determine that this amounts to a 1.8% growth rate from 2005 to now. Meanwhile, population grew by 3% (according to Art, I didn't calculate it myself).
To put this in Art's terms: For those not proficient in math,the population increased 3% and the current budget(2010-11)increase is ONLY approx. 1.8%!
2) To make a correct adjustment for the increase in population, I divided the 2005 budget in 2011 dollars by the 2005 population (again using Art's data). 114.1 million / 39911 = $2858.86 .
I then multiplied this with 2011's population. This yields $117.24 million.
Even using CPI-U, this is larger than the current one.
Please tell me why this is not the correct way to compare the budgets for two municipalities of different sizes.
Cyclone One: Thanks for the information. Looks like the wonks have taken over the thread, light reading anyone? Your information was very helpful.
Post a Comment