Mayoral candidate Mark Napier recently compared Oro Valley to his fictional neighbor Joe, a man who misses his income forecast, withdraws money from savings, postpones home improvements, and reduces maintenance because he cannot afford it. Napier concludes that Joe is in financial trouble and says the Town is being managed in the same way. He then accuses candidates who disagree of being “in denial for personal and political reasons.” It is an effective campaign story. It is not an accurate explanation of Oro Valley’s finances.
Yes. town's financial pressures are real
Napier is right that Oro Valley’s revenue outlook has weakened. The Town substantially reduced its sales tax forecast after collections fell below expectations. The fiscal year 2027 budget took action. Council removed or deferred approximately $11.6 million of proposed capital spending. None of this spending was essential. Council directed General Fund departments to reduce operating and maintenance spending by one-half of one percent. It reduced excess police pension contribution by approximately $1.5 million while maintaining a fully funded police pension, These are real adjustments; responsively done.
 |
| Click To Enlarge |
But Napier does not see it that way. Instead, his "Neighbor Joe Story" says the Town missed its “income projections” by 12.5 percent. That wording makes it sound as though all Town revenue fell 12.5 percent below budget. It did not. The figure applies only to projected local sales tax revenue. As we have previously explained in several articles, much of that shortfall resulted a construction project that did not begin when Town staff assumed they would. It was a timing issue. It is not evidence of a permanent, long-term revenue decline. Yes, the staff forecast miss was substantial, and staff should be held accountable for it. However, a shortfall in one major revenue category is not the same as a 12.5 percent shortfall in all Town income.
In fact, the approximately $4 million shortfall represents about 3.7 percent of the Town’s anticipated total revenues.
A Fund balance is not a rainy-day account
The “Neighbor Joe Story” also says the Town regularly takes large sums from “long-term savings just to balance the budget.” That description treats every reduction in the General Fund balance as evidence that the Town is living beyond its means. This is where Napier gets it wrong. A municipal fund balance is not merely a household savings account. It includes money available for planned capital transfers, debt service, and other authorized uses, as well as the amount needed to satisfy the Town’s reserve policy. A decline in the General Fund balance does not necessarily mean the Town has dipped below its required reserve or used emergency savings to pay routine operating expenses, any more than a change in your bank balance means you are going broke.
Which projects and which maintenance?
Also in the “Neighbor Joe Story", Napier says that the Town is delaying or canceling “very significant improvements” and scaling back normal maintenance because it lacks the money. He does not identify which capital projects have been deferred, why they are essential, why they were deferred, or how the delays affect residents. Nor does he identify which maintenance work will not be performed.
A Fund balance is not a rainy-day account
The “Neighbor Joe Story” also says the Town regularly takes large sums from “long-term savings just to balance the budget.” That description treats every reduction in the General Fund balance as evidence that the Town is living beyond its means. This is where Napier gets it wrong. A municipal fund balance is not merely a household savings account. It includes money available for planned capital transfers, debt service, and other authorized uses, as well as the amount needed to satisfy the Town’s reserve policy. A decline in the General Fund balance does not necessarily mean the Town has dipped below its required reserve or used emergency savings to pay routine operating expenses, any more than a change in your bank balance means you are going broke.
Which projects and which maintenance?
Also in the “Neighbor Joe Story", Napier says that the Town is delaying or canceling “very significant improvements” and scaling back normal maintenance because it lacks the money. He does not identify which capital projects have been deferred, why they are essential, why they were deferred, or how the delays affect residents. Nor does he identify which maintenance work will not be performed.
It has been the history of Oro Valley budgeting that proposed capital plans routinely change as projects are reprioritized, redesigned, rescheduled, or moved outside the five-year planning period. A change in proposed capital spending is not, by itself, proof that the Town cannot afford to maintain its essential infrastructure.
A household comparison has limits
A household analogy can make a complicated issue easier to understand, but only when the comparison accurately reflects the facts. A municipality operates multiple funds, receives revenues that are legally restricted to specific purposes, transfers money between funds, pays debt service, and finances assets that may serve residents for decades. Oro Valley’s finances cannot be accurately evaluated by treating the General Fund as a checking account and the entire fund balance as personal savings.
Questions require more than an analogy
Napier has raised fair questions about revenue forecasting, capital priorities, spending discipline, and long-term financial planning. Those questions should be debated. However, declaring the Town to be in serious financial trouble requires more than comparing it to an overspending homeowner. It requires identifying which recurring expenditures exceed recurring revenues, which deferred projects materially affect residents, which maintenance needs are going unmet, and when the Town is projected to fall below its required reserve. The “Neighbor Joe Story" provides none of that.
Challenges are not the same as mismanagement
All candidates agree that Oro Valley faces financial challenges. Sales tax revenues have flattened, staff badly overestimated the timing of major construction projects, and the Town must carefully manage spending as it approaches build-out. Those are legitimate election issues. They do not, by themselves, prove that the Town is financially mismanaged.
The most troubling part of Napier’s “Neighbor Joe” story is his suggestion that those who disagree with his conclusion are “in denial for personal and political reasons.” There is no evidence that Melanie Barrett, during her eight years on the Town Council, ever acted out of personal or political interest in assessing the Town’s finances. Voters deserve a fuller explanation of why Napier would imply otherwise.
- - -
