As an Oro Valley citizen, John Musolf has the expertise and knowledge to bring budgetary issues to the Town Council.
Here is John's most recent correspondence to the mayor & council.
We trust John's work will receive the attention it deserves.We hope OV residents will take a few minutes to read John's report below.
Art
*************************************************************************************
Mayor and Council
As an individual taxpayer I would like to question some of the operations and budgets for various Town Departments.
Please review the attached analysis of the new Development & Infrastructure (DIS) Super department.
John Musolf
Oro Valley Taxpayer
In theory, the Building & Safety Department, the Public Works Department, and the Planning & Zoning Departments were combined into a new Super department called Development and Infrastructure (DIS) to streamline some functions and to reduce full time equivalents (FTEs). In my opinion, the FTEs could have been reduced without the creation of a new Super department. In my opinion, the creation of the new super department called Development & Infrastructure (DIS) is nothing more than creating a new super bureaucracy. The workloads in those individual departments had significantly dropped because of lower economic activity and needed some FTE reductions. This could have been accomplished without a super reorganization.
“The Development section is organized into three functional divisions: Planning, Permitting, and Inspection & Compliance. The Infrastructure section is organized into three functional divisions: Engineering, Operations, and Transit (Coyote Run). The number of departmental directors will be reduced from three (3) to one (1)”.
Really?
The Planning & Zoning Director position is eliminated (however, the individual that was in the Planning & Zoning Director position remains and was simply reclassified as Division Manager: Planning & Development with the same salary and benefits).
The former Public Works Director also remains with a reclassification and title change to Town Engineer with the same salary and benefits.
The former Building & Safety Director assumes the new super title of Development & Infrastructure Director.
“The number of divisional managers/administrator remains the same; however, duties are realigned by functional area described in the proposed organization above.”
“A reduction of staffing from 40 full time equivalent (FTE) budgeted in FY10 to 30 FTE budgeted in FY 11 is proposed in the General Fund. The reductions are comprised of the following positions:”
Discussion:
Eliminated Position:
Planning & Zoning Director
(This is true. However, the individual that was in the Planning & Zoning Director position was simply reclassified as Division Manager: Planning & Development with the same salary and benefits). Musical Chairs?
Staff Reassigned:
Civil Engineer, PW Dev Review Division reassigned to Stormwater Division
(Only in government accounting can a reassignment from one group to another group be called a reduction of a FTE. The Public Works Development group has one less Civil Engineer and Stormwater has gained one Civil Engineer. Seems like a net wash to me?).
Unfunded Vacancies:
The five (5) FTE are counted here as reductions in staff because of the formation of the new DIS department. In my opinion, this is argumentative. The reduction is due to decreased workload. The town staff wants to argue these reductions two ways: They want to count them as FTE reductions, yet recommend that a vacant placeholder column be added to the budget because these positions are essential. If they are essential then they should be in the budget, not listed as unfunded vacancies.
In my opinion, when a position is not funded it is not authorized it should not appear in a projected budget. If the workload increases (supported by facts and figures) then an increase in personnel would be justified and added back to the budget. However, even if the workload is justified, these positions cannot be added back without having the associated revenue that would fund them.
Civil Inspection Technician, PW Dev Rev Div
The Civil Inspection Technician, PW Dev Rev Div had 2 positions in FY10 but in the New DIS Super Department - Inspection & Compliance Division in FY 11 it has only 1 funded position. Did we have to create a new super department to gain this reduction? Then the Town staff is saying that one (1) vacant position column should be added to the budget to reflect that an added position may become essential to the operation of that department in the future if the economy improves? Huh?)
Civil Engineer, PW Dev Review Division
(How many times do we count this Civil Engineer in the FTE reduction analysis? Under the Staff Reassigned section above this Civil Engineer, PW Dev Review Division was already reassigned to the Stormwater Division.)
Development Coordinator, P & Z
(The Development Coordinator, P & Z had 2 positions in FY10 but in the New DIS Super Department - Development Division – Permitting section in FY 11 has 1 funded position. Did we have to create a new super department to gain this reduction? Then the Town staff is saying that one (1) vacant position column should be added to reflect that an added position may become essential to the operation of that department in the future if the economy improves?)
Zoning Inspector Technician, P & Z
(The Zoning Inspector Technician, P & Z had 1 positions in FY10 but in the New DIS Super Department - Development Division – Inspection & Compliance section has no funded position. Did we have to create a new super department to gain this reduction? Then, the Town staff is saying that one (1) vacant position column should be added to reflect that an added position may become essential to the operation of that department in the future if the economy improves?)
Office Assistant, P & Z
(The Office Assistant, P & Z had 1 positions in FY10 but in the New DIS Super Department - Development Division – Administration section has no funded position. Did we have to create a new super department to gain this reduction? Then the Town staff is saying that one (1) vacant position column should be added to reflect that an added position may become essential to the operation of that department in the future if the economy improves?)
Reduction in Force:
Assistant Building Official, Building Safety
(Was the elimination of this position prompted by reduced development activity or as a result of the formation of the new DIS Super Department.)
Inspector I, Building Safety
(Was the elimination of this position prompted by reduced development activity or as a result of the formation of the new DIS Super Department.)
Planned Retirements:
Plans Examiner I, Building Safety
(If this was a planned retirement why does the formation of the new DIS Super Department claim credit for reducing an FTE?)
Inspector II, Building Safety
(If this was a planned retirement why does the formation of the new DIS Super Department claim credit for reducing an FTE?)
Summary:
Staff Reassignment (1)
Unfunded Vacancies (5) (Civil Engineer already counted in staff reassignment)
Reduction In Force (2)
Planned Retirement (2)
Total FTE (10)
Perhaps the new Mayor and Council would like to revisit the justification for the creation of the DIS Super department?
Showing posts with label . Town Finances. Town Council. Show all posts
Showing posts with label . Town Finances. Town Council. Show all posts
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
John Musolf Says: "Why Not Boost Our Taxpayer Morale By Less Spending?"
We agree 100% with John Musolf as it concerns his letter to The Explorer printed below.
With More Town Holidays, OV Taxpayer Loses
On July 21, the Oro Valley mayor and council voted 7-0 to pass Resolution 10-50 (add employee holidays).
A memo from Human Resources supported this action.
Discussion:
"In 2009, Dec. 24 and Dec. 31 was authorized as paid 'vacation' days for all staff for the first time by the interim town manager. This act was initiated on factors that included no cost of living or merit increases, difficult economic conditions and a reduction in force resulting in heavier work loads and strain on employee morale."
Why not boost our taxpayer morale by less spending?
Why no Resolution in 2009 but added for 2010? Hmmm.
"Designating these dates (added holidays) is beneficial to our customers and staff for the following reasons:"
"The Town may effectively communicate to the community that business offices will be closed Dec. 24, 25 and 31 and Jan. 1 due to holiday schedule."
The town must add two additional holidays so a communication can be made to the public? Logical?
"For payroll, financial and individual department accountability, having set dates is more efficient for each department to administer."
How will adding two additional holidays make it more efficient for each department to administer?
"Staff may plan for customers' needs and holiday gatherings proactively."
How does adding two additional holidays help town customers needs? The only thing it does help is the employees in planning their personal holiday gatherings.
Fiscal impact:
"For essential services there will be a holiday payroll cost associated with this change. For FY10-11 this cost will be absorbed through vacancy savings and year end operational line item savings."
In my opinion, a sweeping statement that the added holiday cost will be absorbed is insufficient justification. The Oro Valley taxpayer loses again.
John Musolf, Oro Valley
With More Town Holidays, OV Taxpayer Loses
On July 21, the Oro Valley mayor and council voted 7-0 to pass Resolution 10-50 (add employee holidays).
A memo from Human Resources supported this action.
Discussion:
"In 2009, Dec. 24 and Dec. 31 was authorized as paid 'vacation' days for all staff for the first time by the interim town manager. This act was initiated on factors that included no cost of living or merit increases, difficult economic conditions and a reduction in force resulting in heavier work loads and strain on employee morale."
Why not boost our taxpayer morale by less spending?
Why no Resolution in 2009 but added for 2010? Hmmm.
"Designating these dates (added holidays) is beneficial to our customers and staff for the following reasons:"
"The Town may effectively communicate to the community that business offices will be closed Dec. 24, 25 and 31 and Jan. 1 due to holiday schedule."
The town must add two additional holidays so a communication can be made to the public? Logical?
"For payroll, financial and individual department accountability, having set dates is more efficient for each department to administer."
How will adding two additional holidays make it more efficient for each department to administer?
"Staff may plan for customers' needs and holiday gatherings proactively."
How does adding two additional holidays help town customers needs? The only thing it does help is the employees in planning their personal holiday gatherings.
Fiscal impact:
"For essential services there will be a holiday payroll cost associated with this change. For FY10-11 this cost will be absorbed through vacancy savings and year end operational line item savings."
In my opinion, a sweeping statement that the added holiday cost will be absorbed is insufficient justification. The Oro Valley taxpayer loses again.
John Musolf, Oro Valley
Friday, July 23, 2010
Will The Oro Valley Council Consider John Musolf's Input Re: Financial Recommendations?
John Musolf spends many hours attempting to serve our community with his financial expertise. It behooves the council to consider John's recommendations. Will they? We'll have to wait and see, but based on their decision to "kill" the police department management study, it's doubtful.
Please read what John recently sent to the town council & staff.
Art
*************************************************************************************
Mayor and Council
Oro Valley has conducted past professional management studies of some of its departments such as Building Safety, Public Works, Legal, and Library to provide a detailed analysis of how the Town compares to established standards and benchmarks of operations.
Management studies are conducted with the intent of utilizing an experienced and independent third party to review current strategies and operations and make recommendations to improve efficiency and delivery of services.
Two management studies of the Police and Parks/Recreation Departments had been approved and scheduled to commence in the summer of 2010.
The new Oro Valley Mayor and Council decided to eliminate those studies.
Therefore, it falls to the individual taxpayer to question the operations and budgets for various Town Departments.
Please review the attached analysis that I have made of the PRLCR department (which contains the Parks/Recreation department). I would also request that this email be made part of the Oro Valley Public Records.
Thank You
John Musolf
Prior to the election of May 18, 2010, the old Mayor and Council created a new super-department (a super-grab-bag of two disparate departments (Parks & Recreation and Library) and threw in some Cultural Resource project teams) in an attempt to become more efficient in delivery of services and reduce the budget. In my opinion, the creation of the PLCLR could be comparable to an attempt to “rearrange the deck-chairs on the Titanic”.
Discussion of the new PLCLR super-department
In the memorandum dated March 15, 2010 to the Mayor and Council concerning the new PLCLR Department formation:
Page 127-128
Staffing
Parks and Recreation
“Assistant Aquatics Manager: Recommend elimination of this 30 hour per week (0.75) benefit-eligible position which is currently vacant. Workload of this position to be completed by Water Safety Instructors (WSIs) with 26 hours per week (0.65 FTE) added into the WSI budget line. This change will result in a savings of $6000 annually”.
How can you count savings of $6000 when the position was already vacant? Only in government accounting can an already vacant position be counted as savings.
Library
“Library Technical Assistant 1 (LTA1): Two existing staff members filling LTA1 positions planned to leave their employment with the Town by the end of May 2010. It was recommended that these two 19 hour, non-benefit eligible positions be combined into one 35-38 hour per week, benefit-eligible LTA1 position”.
Swap two part time non-benefit positions (19 hours each) that cost the Town no benefit dollars with one (38 hour) benefit-eligible dollar position. Not only have you maintained the same 38 hours (no hour reduction) but are causing the Town to pick up added benefit dollars.
Page 130
Purpose and Justification for Consolidation
1. The consolidation, in combination with the budgeting process, will reflect a decrease of 11 staff members in parks & recreation and the library, and a net savings of $64,000 in personnel costs.
There was no statement in the memorandum supporting the decrease of 11 staff members and the savings of $64,000 for setting up the consolidated PRL&CR.
However, the following information was documented in the FY2010/2011Budget.
Parks & Recreation
According to the recommended budget the Parks & Recreation went down from 27.56 (2009) to 27.05 (2010) to 23.95(2011). This 3.10 personnel reduction between 2010 and 2011 was due to .70 reduction of park monitor, 1.00 reduction of park monitor, .75 reduction of assistant aquatics manager (position already vacant), and .65 reduction of water safety instructor.
Library
According to the recommended budget the Library went down from 18.68 (2009) to 18.53 (2010) to 18.36 (2011). A personnel reduction of .17 personnel between 2010 and 2011.
A new group called Cultural Resources was added to the PLCLR super-department with 4 new project teams workload.
Cultural Resources Projects
Property Management & Maintenance (Dual Assignments)
PRL&CR Director
Parks Maintenance Manager
Parks Maintenance Crew Leader
Programs & Special Events (Dual Assignments)
Recreation Manager
Assistant Recreation Manager
Historic Preservation Commission (Dual Assignments)
PRL&CR Director
Senior Office Specialist
Grants & Funding (Dual Assignments)
PRL&CR Director
MultiModal Planner
There was no workload analysis for the dual assignments that some positions are responsible for. For example, the PRL&CR Director is listed as 1 FTE under Administration but has dual assignments (increased workload) under the Cultural Resource Project Teams (Property Management & Maintenance, Historic Preservation Commission and Grants & Funding). There is no decimal workload analysis of how much time will be spent on dual assignments by these positions.
There is also no line item for Operations & Maintenance cost for these 4 Project Teams.
The new Mayor and Council had an opportunity to validate the correctness of that new super-department formation by allowing the Parks/Recreation independent Management Study to proceed.
Instead, that study was eliminated.
Perhaps the new Mayor and Council would like to revisit the justification for the PLCLR super-department.
Please read what John recently sent to the town council & staff.
Art
*************************************************************************************
Mayor and Council
Oro Valley has conducted past professional management studies of some of its departments such as Building Safety, Public Works, Legal, and Library to provide a detailed analysis of how the Town compares to established standards and benchmarks of operations.
Management studies are conducted with the intent of utilizing an experienced and independent third party to review current strategies and operations and make recommendations to improve efficiency and delivery of services.
Two management studies of the Police and Parks/Recreation Departments had been approved and scheduled to commence in the summer of 2010.
The new Oro Valley Mayor and Council decided to eliminate those studies.
Therefore, it falls to the individual taxpayer to question the operations and budgets for various Town Departments.
Please review the attached analysis that I have made of the PRLCR department (which contains the Parks/Recreation department). I would also request that this email be made part of the Oro Valley Public Records.
Thank You
John Musolf
Prior to the election of May 18, 2010, the old Mayor and Council created a new super-department (a super-grab-bag of two disparate departments (Parks & Recreation and Library) and threw in some Cultural Resource project teams) in an attempt to become more efficient in delivery of services and reduce the budget. In my opinion, the creation of the PLCLR could be comparable to an attempt to “rearrange the deck-chairs on the Titanic”.
Discussion of the new PLCLR super-department
In the memorandum dated March 15, 2010 to the Mayor and Council concerning the new PLCLR Department formation:
Page 127-128
Staffing
Parks and Recreation
“Assistant Aquatics Manager: Recommend elimination of this 30 hour per week (0.75) benefit-eligible position which is currently vacant. Workload of this position to be completed by Water Safety Instructors (WSIs) with 26 hours per week (0.65 FTE) added into the WSI budget line. This change will result in a savings of $6000 annually”.
How can you count savings of $6000 when the position was already vacant? Only in government accounting can an already vacant position be counted as savings.
Library
“Library Technical Assistant 1 (LTA1): Two existing staff members filling LTA1 positions planned to leave their employment with the Town by the end of May 2010. It was recommended that these two 19 hour, non-benefit eligible positions be combined into one 35-38 hour per week, benefit-eligible LTA1 position”.
Swap two part time non-benefit positions (19 hours each) that cost the Town no benefit dollars with one (38 hour) benefit-eligible dollar position. Not only have you maintained the same 38 hours (no hour reduction) but are causing the Town to pick up added benefit dollars.
Page 130
Purpose and Justification for Consolidation
1. The consolidation, in combination with the budgeting process, will reflect a decrease of 11 staff members in parks & recreation and the library, and a net savings of $64,000 in personnel costs.
There was no statement in the memorandum supporting the decrease of 11 staff members and the savings of $64,000 for setting up the consolidated PRL&CR.
However, the following information was documented in the FY2010/2011Budget.
Parks & Recreation
According to the recommended budget the Parks & Recreation went down from 27.56 (2009) to 27.05 (2010) to 23.95(2011). This 3.10 personnel reduction between 2010 and 2011 was due to .70 reduction of park monitor, 1.00 reduction of park monitor, .75 reduction of assistant aquatics manager (position already vacant), and .65 reduction of water safety instructor.
Library
According to the recommended budget the Library went down from 18.68 (2009) to 18.53 (2010) to 18.36 (2011). A personnel reduction of .17 personnel between 2010 and 2011.
A new group called Cultural Resources was added to the PLCLR super-department with 4 new project teams workload.
Cultural Resources Projects
Property Management & Maintenance (Dual Assignments)
PRL&CR Director
Parks Maintenance Manager
Parks Maintenance Crew Leader
Programs & Special Events (Dual Assignments)
Recreation Manager
Assistant Recreation Manager
Historic Preservation Commission (Dual Assignments)
PRL&CR Director
Senior Office Specialist
Grants & Funding (Dual Assignments)
PRL&CR Director
MultiModal Planner
There was no workload analysis for the dual assignments that some positions are responsible for. For example, the PRL&CR Director is listed as 1 FTE under Administration but has dual assignments (increased workload) under the Cultural Resource Project Teams (Property Management & Maintenance, Historic Preservation Commission and Grants & Funding). There is no decimal workload analysis of how much time will be spent on dual assignments by these positions.
There is also no line item for Operations & Maintenance cost for these 4 Project Teams.
The new Mayor and Council had an opportunity to validate the correctness of that new super-department formation by allowing the Parks/Recreation independent Management Study to proceed.
Instead, that study was eliminated.
Perhaps the new Mayor and Council would like to revisit the justification for the PLCLR super-department.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
John Musolf Writes About Oro Valley Council Decision To Eliminate OVPD Management Study
John Musolf needs no introduction to our readers. John is an Oro Valley citizen with an extensive background in finance. He has been good enough to copy us on an email he sent to the Town Council & staff.
Please take the time to read John's questioning of the council's decision to "kill" the police department management study.
Art
*************************************************************************************
Mayor and Council
Oro Valley has conducted past professional management studies of some of its departments such as Building Safety, Public Works, Legal and Library to provide a detailed analysis of how the Town compares to established standards and bench marks of operations.
Management studies are conducted with the intent of utilizing an experienced and independent third party to review current strategies and operations and make recommendations to improve efficiency and delivery of services.
Two management studies of the Police and Parks/Recreation had been approved and scheduled to commence in the summer of 2010.
The new Oro Valley Mayor and Council decided to eliminate those studies.
Therefore, in my opinion, it has fallen to the individual taxpayers to question some of the operations and budgets for Town Departments.
Please review the attached analysis that I have made of the Amphitheater School Resource Officer Program. I would also request that this email be made part of the Town's public records.*
Thank You
John Musolf
Oro Valley Taxpayer
* The Town Clerk complied with this request. Art
State of Arizona 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.
What impact did this situation have on “partner” municipal budgets?
Two examples are given:
City of Tucson School Resource Officer (SRO) Program
History
In 1962, former Tucson Police Chief Bernard Garmire met with the Tucson District One School Board and developed the unique working relationship between the police department and the school district.
Staffing
The School Resource Officer program was staffed by 23 experienced officers, specially selected and trained to work with young people. Each officer was assigned to a public middle school and the neighborhood elementary schools or high schools within the city limits. Each SRO was responsible for about six schools and worked closely with the faculty and staff in situations that may have required mediation or intervention in problems involving students.
The City of Tucson has eliminated their entire School Resource Officer Program. The City was trying to close a huge budget gap.
In 2010, the Tucson Police Department no longer has a job description for a School Resource Officer.
Oro Valley Police Department
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.
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).
The citizens of Oro Valley pay both primary and secondary property taxes to support the Amphitheater School District.
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.
This is double taxation for a resident of Oro Valley.
In 2010, there is no specific job description for a SRO Officer. The Oro Valley Police Department considers the seven SRO officers as an operational assignment. The SRO job description is for a police officer (classification 2760). There are no specific skill requirements or training for the position of school resource officer.
Amphitheater News, Wednesday, April 14, 2010
The Amphitheater governing board approved $14.5 million in budget cuts and finalized the elimination of more than 210 positions.
The board's 5-0 vote to slash the 2010-2011 budget represented a worst-case scenario for the district by Arizona voters next month.
Although a 1-cent state sales tax increase was approved, board members said, nearly $7.9 million and more than 95 positions will still be cut because of reductions in state funding.
The Amphitheater School District has had to cut into their core services because of budget shortfalls.
What is the justification behind the Town of Oro Valley continuing to provide support for Amphitheater school resource officers?
Perhaps the Oro Valley Town Council might want to “earmark” their contribution to the Amphitheater School District to save some teacher jobs instead of funding School Resource Officers?
Please take the time to read John's questioning of the council's decision to "kill" the police department management study.
Art
*************************************************************************************
Mayor and Council
Oro Valley has conducted past professional management studies of some of its departments such as Building Safety, Public Works, Legal and Library to provide a detailed analysis of how the Town compares to established standards and bench marks of operations.
Management studies are conducted with the intent of utilizing an experienced and independent third party to review current strategies and operations and make recommendations to improve efficiency and delivery of services.
Two management studies of the Police and Parks/Recreation had been approved and scheduled to commence in the summer of 2010.
The new Oro Valley Mayor and Council decided to eliminate those studies.
Therefore, in my opinion, it has fallen to the individual taxpayers to question some of the operations and budgets for Town Departments.
Please review the attached analysis that I have made of the Amphitheater School Resource Officer Program. I would also request that this email be made part of the Town's public records.*
Thank You
John Musolf
Oro Valley Taxpayer
* The Town Clerk complied with this request. Art
State of Arizona 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.
What impact did this situation have on “partner” municipal budgets?
Two examples are given:
City of Tucson School Resource Officer (SRO) Program
History
In 1962, former Tucson Police Chief Bernard Garmire met with the Tucson District One School Board and developed the unique working relationship between the police department and the school district.
Staffing
The School Resource Officer program was staffed by 23 experienced officers, specially selected and trained to work with young people. Each officer was assigned to a public middle school and the neighborhood elementary schools or high schools within the city limits. Each SRO was responsible for about six schools and worked closely with the faculty and staff in situations that may have required mediation or intervention in problems involving students.
The City of Tucson has eliminated their entire School Resource Officer Program. The City was trying to close a huge budget gap.
In 2010, the Tucson Police Department no longer has a job description for a School Resource Officer.
Oro Valley Police Department
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.
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).
The citizens of Oro Valley pay both primary and secondary property taxes to support the Amphitheater School District.
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.
This is double taxation for a resident of Oro Valley.
In 2010, there is no specific job description for a SRO Officer. The Oro Valley Police Department considers the seven SRO officers as an operational assignment. The SRO job description is for a police officer (classification 2760). There are no specific skill requirements or training for the position of school resource officer.
Amphitheater News, Wednesday, April 14, 2010
The Amphitheater governing board approved $14.5 million in budget cuts and finalized the elimination of more than 210 positions.
The board's 5-0 vote to slash the 2010-2011 budget represented a worst-case scenario for the district by Arizona voters next month.
Although a 1-cent state sales tax increase was approved, board members said, nearly $7.9 million and more than 95 positions will still be cut because of reductions in state funding.
The Amphitheater School District has had to cut into their core services because of budget shortfalls.
What is the justification behind the Town of Oro Valley continuing to provide support for Amphitheater school resource officers?
Perhaps the Oro Valley Town Council might want to “earmark” their contribution to the Amphitheater School District to save some teacher jobs instead of funding School Resource Officers?
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Steam Pump Ranch Gets Funds With Oro Valley Council Unanimous Vote
Without much fanfare the Town Council voted unanimously as a "consent agenda" item to fund Steam Pump Ranch.
Here are the details from The Explorer article.
Steam Pump to get reserve cash
The Oro Valley Town Council approved a plan to pull more than $310,000 from its general fund reserve to pay for building restoration work at town-owned Steam Pump Ranch.
The move would fund work on two buildings at the historic property, which the town purchased in 2007.
The unanimous vote on Wednesday, July 7, would restore funding taken out of the Steam Pump Ranch fund in June as part of the final approval of the fiscal 2010-'11 budget. Money taken from the Steam Pump Ranch fund was used to supplement losses in state support for the town's needs-based transit system, Coyote Run.
The town intends to award a $410,000 contract to Chandler-based Gonzalez and Associates, LLC, to complete the work. The remainder of the funding for the work would come from Pima County bonds.
Here are the details from The Explorer article.
Steam Pump to get reserve cash
The Oro Valley Town Council approved a plan to pull more than $310,000 from its general fund reserve to pay for building restoration work at town-owned Steam Pump Ranch.
The move would fund work on two buildings at the historic property, which the town purchased in 2007.
The unanimous vote on Wednesday, July 7, would restore funding taken out of the Steam Pump Ranch fund in June as part of the final approval of the fiscal 2010-'11 budget. Money taken from the Steam Pump Ranch fund was used to supplement losses in state support for the town's needs-based transit system, Coyote Run.
The town intends to award a $410,000 contract to Chandler-based Gonzalez and Associates, LLC, to complete the work. The remainder of the funding for the work would come from Pima County bonds.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
A Big Plus: Oro Valley Council Restores Funds For Coyote Run Bus Service
At last week's council meeting, the vote was unanimous to restore the necessary funds for Coyote Run, the bus service that serves mainly senior citizens and those with disabilities.
The council deserves the thanks of all Oro Valley residents for doing the right thing.
Read the Explorer story here.
http://www.explorernews.com/articles/2010/06/23/news/doc4c2139a44f80f110112008.txt
The council deserves the thanks of all Oro Valley residents for doing the right thing.
Read the Explorer story here.
http://www.explorernews.com/articles/2010/06/23/news/doc4c2139a44f80f110112008.txt
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)