Revenues earned from the utility tax are buried deep in the bowels of the 2013-2014 Oro Valley Town manager recommended budget, In fact, they are buried so deep that they are indecipherable. You cannot find them. They are not listed separately. We can find all other kinds of things like for example the $500,000 that you pay to Comcast gets paid to the town in an annual franchise fee.But what we can't find is the amount of the utility tax planned revenue.
So I asked town Finance Director Stacey Lemos. Her response: "The 4% utility tax is not segregated separately in the budget. It is included in the Local Sales Tax figure in the General Fund. The amount we estimate for utility tax specifically is $2.9 million for next year." That's $725,000 for each percentage point of the tax. It is an increase per point over prior years because TEP rates are higher. That's right. Whenever your utility bill goes up, so does you utility tax. It's "the gift that keeps on giving."
"The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program."(Source) Our utility tax has reached this level. The utility tax was enacted by Town Council in December 2006 as a 2% tax. At that time, a sunset clause was included to end the utility tax in April 2009. (Source) The Town Council in March 2009 voted to extend the utility tax, at the 2% level, with no sunset clause. Mayor Hiremath and those elected with him on May 4, 2011 decided to increase the tax to a 4% level. The vote was 5-2 on Council with Council Member Gillaspie and Garner voting "no."
As we look through the budget for 2013-2014 we find ample areas that can be reduced such that the town can recind the 2% increase of two years ago and return us to the voter approved level. At least, they can give us back the 2%. Give us back $1.45 million. They can give us back our money.
You think its gonna happen? You think? Not in your lifetime. Governments never reduce or eliminate a tax. Instead, they find ways to spend the money... your money.
Yes. I'm a bit frosted on this. Yes, I am like a dog with a bone. I just can't let go.
This is because the utility tax hurts everyone. And, yes, its a good reason for those businesses and residences that the town wishes to annex to avoid annexation. After all, this tax will cost them big bucks.
The utility tax is nothing more than a property tax in disguise and the voters of Oro Valley have never approved a property tax. They never voted for a utility tax. Perhaps we need to begin action to eliminate this tax. Perhaps we need a voter referendum.
---
26 comments:
The OV Town Budget is addicted to the Utility Tax.
Rather than scrap or kill it, why not reduce it by 1% over the next few years?
The town must be raking in the cash will all the building going on. Now is a good time to demonstrate respect for the tax payers.
It will never happen, they need to keep purchasing all of those excessive take home vehicles.
The Utility Tax has always been against the will of Oro Valley residents.
The majority of the Council in 2006 didn't listen.
Every vote to increase and extend this tax has filled Town Hall with residents objecting to it.
I hope the voters remember who voted to double this tax. They're up for re-election in 2014.
The old gray mare she ain't what she used to be,
Once again, that's because the horse is dead and you need to get off and try another horse.
If the council refuses to act on reducing the tax, is there another way? Referendum on next ballot? Others?
Your thoughts would be appreciated.
More bumper sticker slogans from OVOT who can't explain why "Tax and Spend" is acceptable on the local level but not on the national level.
I guess it's OK when it's YOUR friends who are doing the taxing and spending.
How about we cut wasteful spending and eliminate the tax instead?
I'll vote to cut the wasteful spending. We know where so much of it is.
Maybe some of you that think the Town is flush with cash would like to share where you think the "wasteful spending" might be.
Instead of just typing useless words , come up with some specifics.. Put the money where your words are.
What do you not understand about TAKE HOME VEHICLES?
I say again:
If OVOT is correct then, we should increase the number of take home vehicles by 50%, then we would have a further reduction in crime. If we increased the number of take home vehicles by 100% we would be crime free.
Why not give every member of the US Armed Forces a Ford Focus? Following OVOT- logic, the criminal North Korea leadership would vanish in a puff of blue smoke.
Blue Smoke is a critical component of the OVOT's thought process.
While there are many people/positions with the town who work hard and have a heavy workload, there are positions and people who do not. That is wasteful spending when you have people who should just GO. Instead of wandering aimlessly doing very little on a daily basis.
Take home vehicles needs to seriously be addressed. They shouldn't be leaving Town limits, they shouldn't be given to positions that don't need them, And when they aren't in use for a extended period of time, they should be turned in for other officers to use. There are town take vehicles that travel a great distance to and from work. Why should we be paying for this? This is wasteful spending. The Town pays the upkeep and maintenance for this extended travel, it pays for the gas.
The argument from the Chief that I hear is that the Tak home vehicles are needed for officers to responded quickly from home to a scene. I agree with this for the positions that actually do this. But there are positions that have take home vehicles that do NOT need them, and they don't need to respond from home. This is wastfeul spending.
Building a substation on Sun city property when there already is one in a rental space is unnecessary. It will take the town 8-10 years to break even on this expense.
Maybe you should look openly at this instead of being one sided in your thoughts. It's great to be their friend, and supportive but you can also be objective and reasonable.
The town certainly isn't flush with cash, but they are managing the budget and the budge can be reduced from what it is, and what is being proposed for next year. An increase of 1.2 million in one department needs to be looked at and scrutinized.
Oh, and they absolutely and definitely should not be using the vehicles for personal use.
PART 1
Nombe…….
I have always appreciated your humor. Your last post is no exception. But you offer nothing factual to support your objections. I’ll follow your “Blue smoke” comment with an extension and maintain your ‘theme’. BS is a central necessity for your commentary.
Christopher….. The real question is not what I don’t understand, but what is it that you KNOW about the take home vehicle subject. To date you have offered no factual information that you have any basis for your condemnation of the practice other that rhetoric.
Since the discussion on take home vehicles began several years ago, I have been educating myself on the subject by reading articles posted on line from police departments across the country. I don’t consider myself an expert on the subject by any means, but I suspect that I have read more on the subject than most folks who post on this blog. Recent (2012/2013) publications are suggesting that there may be some room for reconsideration IF the distance to “home” is greater than 50 miles…round trip. However the greatest financial implication to take home vehicles is that ACROSS THE BOARD take home vehicles last 3-5 years longer than pool vehicles. The difference is that routine maintenance is far better when an officer has ‘pride of ownership in their vehicle’ rather than just reporting to a station and being assigned a vehicle at random. That financial benefit far outweighs the mileage aspect. In addition there are officers whose assignment (command, SWAT Team members, special assignment, detectives, etc.) almost demand that they take home a vehicle.
Also there can be argument that take home vehicles allow police to respond to an emergency faster than if they have to report to a remote location to pick up a vehicle. If you recall the recent incident in Indianapolis where an explosion rocked a neighborhood and several people were killed and 4-6 homes were instantly engulfed in flames the response by the Indy police department was overwhelming BECAUSE many officers reported to the scene directly from home.
Unfortunately this site does not allow me to add links to articles but I would be more than happy to share them with you if you would like to provide an e-mail address.
PART 2
R U……
Your theory in your first paragraph is excellent. But you offer no evidence that your assumption is true. If you have specifics then I would hope that you share them with the managers responsible within the Town.
Hopefully I have addressed some of your comments regarding take home vehicles in the previous response to Christopher.
You go on to say, “Maybe you should look openly at this instead of being one sided in your thoughts. It's great to be their friend, and supportive but you can also be objective and reasonable.” I don’t think you know me well enough to make that comment. If you would like to take the time to check, you would discover I have contacted the OVPD and expressed my concern when I observed five police vehicles behind Target a couple of years ago. I have called the OVPD when I observed an officer responding to an emergency call at a rate of speed that was excessive and endangered both himself and others. I have personally spoken to command staff when I felt the performance of an individual was not appropriate.
I do praise our police department frequently because they deserve it. But when appropriate, I do call to their attention issues that I feel are inappropriate. My relationship with the department is not totally one-sided as you suggest.
I don’t disagree that the budget for next year can be reduced. That’s a statement that is accurate for any budget, any year. But that’s not the important issue. What is important are the values of the MAJORITY of the folks in the community and are the costs allocated to meeting those values in line.
To that end, do you remember the elderly lady who was the victim of the home invasion in Oro Valley this past year? The perpetrators of that crime were caught by the Oro Valley PD within a week. Do you remember the driver of a vehicle on Oracle at Pusch View Lane that was murdered in his vehicle as a result of a road rage incident? The shooter was apprehended later that same night by the Oro Valley PD. Do you remember the children at Ironwood Ridge High School who were sexually assaulted by a teacher. She was recently sentenced to prison as a result of the information provided to the School Resource Officers assigned to the school.
How do you think those folks and everyone else effected by those crimes want the police department budget cut? Cuts have circumstances. There is a point at which you cut the “safety” from public safety.
Regarding the woman who was a victim of a home invasion, you say that, "The perpetrators of that crime were caught by the Oro Valley PD within a week." You neglect to mention that it was the woman herself who solved the crime!
If I remember this correctly, she saw pictures of her ex-boyfriend's new girlfriend's sons on Facebook and recognized one or both of them as being the ones who invaded her home that night. Those people were then found with the stolen items.
Ditto for the road rage incident. There were witnesses who got a good look at the vehicle and license plate and where it headed. Since it wasn't a stolen vehicle, it was very easy to find the owner/driver of the car.
Ditto for the teacher who was having sex with her students. It was reported to the police and she was arrested. Pretty simple stuff.
How well do the police do with solving crimes where there are no witnesses? Two homes on my street have been broken into and items (including dogs) were stolen. Neither case was ever solved.
I can't remember, but did the OVPD ever solve the case of the woman who was raped in her apartment by a man who followed her into the building? I believe he raped her at knife-point inside her apartment.
And by the way, it's not just the PD that could stand to cut back their budget. Frivolous spending happens across the board.
In other instances, we're paying workers to do things for which they are not qualified and they do a hatchet job as a result.
If I read the budget numbers correctly for the police department, this is what I read:
2011 Budget...$12.1 million
2012 Budget...$13 million
2013 Budget...$14.1 million
When ANY department needs an increase of 1 million dollars per year, the citizens have a right to start asking some questions.
Victorian Cowgirl, Thank you for your help with that response. My response was going to be something along the lines that they were doing their jobs. Exactly what they are supposed to do. Although according to you they apparently had some assistance.
OVOT, you say that I don't know you well enough to make the comment I did about you and your support and friendship of the PD. Well the same can be said to you. You don't know me, and yet you attacked me on my very first post. I believe you accused me of anger issues and having an axe to grind with the PD. Your comment to me was rude, disrespetful and completely without any basis. My comment to you was nothing like that. I can be on here and post comments and not attack someone or put them down.
As for the Studies on take home vehicles, I find internal studies to be self serving and will only come out the way they want them too. I too have done my share of investigating and researching. It's intersting that so many studies come up with the very same results. And have the very same reasons for assigning take home vehicles. I did however find some very good information. municipalities, counties, private sector, etc. are cutting back and putting restrictions on take home vehicles. Many already had restrictions on the distance a take home vehicle is allowed to travel home. Many didn't assign them to staff that didn't need them.
Oro Valley does not have any of those restrictions. We have staff that use the vehicles for personal travel to and from work, a distance that is unacceptable for us residents to cover financially. We have staff that do not need take home vehicles at all. If they are not Emergency Responders, they do not need a vehicle.
As for the vehicles being maintained and cared for better when they are assigned to just one person. There is a thing called accountability and responsiblity. If the vehicles are maintained to get the most life out of them, then it shouldn't matter if it has 1 assigned driver, or if it is shared by 2 drivers.
I stand by all that I have said, not all of the staff need a take home vehicle, nor should we be financing personal travel to and from work or other personal use. Changes need to be made in many areas, all departments.
And Re: My first paragraph.....I did voice concerns, complaints, not assumptions, and yes some change was made. My voice was heard and did make a difference for the better.
R u....
"You don't know me, and yet you attacked me on my very first post. I believe you accused me of anger issues and having an axe to grind with the PD. Your comment to me was rude, disrespetful and completely without any basis. My comment to you was nothing like that. I can be on here and post comments and not attack someone or put them down."
I have looked through every post I have made on this issue and don't find any such commentary. What did I miss?
If you are talking about something that occured months ago, you might want to refresh us.
But if you want me to be critical, try this on for size. This is for both for you and some other of the less informed, the police department does not live or work in a vacuum. And to think that they are being less than professional, less skilled or less responsive to the needs of the community because they utilized witnesses to assist in the resolution of a crime is simply, for lack of a better word, ignorant. If they were to not utilize every asset available to the would be careless and derilect in their duty.
Your assessment, and agreement with those who are well known to be less informed, simply defines your point of reference and leaves you with little room for any credibility.
Of course they are supposed to use witnesses. I said nothing about them not being professional,less skilled, or anything along those lines. My comment was going to be that they were doing their jobs and added that they had assistance, which is totally and completely accurate. Witnesses are assistnce. But go right ahead and twist my words to suit your needs and make it sound as if I said something negative and hateful. I did not. They were doing their job and I said exactly that.
I can take your negative comments thrown directly at me. Go right ahead and keep trying to put me down. It won't stop me from posting credible comments. To refresh your memory, it was several months ago regarding the SRO's.
R u..... Here is your comment:
Victorian Cowgirl, Thank you for your help with that response. My response was going to be something along the lines that they were doing their jobs. Exactly what they are supposed to do. Although according to you they apparently had some assistance."
Let's translate.....
Victorian Cowgirl, Thank you for clarifying. I was going to say that they were doing their job and doing exactly what they are supposed to do BUT according to you they had some assistance which made their efforts less credible.
(your first mistake is responding to the far less informed.....note I don't. You are quickly moving toward that category)
Further clarification....
"My comment was going to be that they were doing their jobs and added that they had assistance, which is totally and completely accurate."
NOTE the use of the word "was".
Translation....
I was going to say that until you said otherwise.
Was anything you said "hateful". No, and I didn't say so.
A bit defensive aren't you.
WOW, your translation is remarkable. You really should leave it alone. As I said, you are twisting what I said to suit your needs.
As for my use of "was", strictly used because VC posted prior to my posting. That's all. It's pretty simple. So again, I stand by my words. They were doing there job, which they are supposed to do. With assitance/help from witnesses. This is true and accurate, right?
I'm not at all defensive, and no you didn't say hateful. But I did get that "transalation" when I read what you had to say to me. Maybe we should both stop translating and just read the words for what they are and not try to change them and twist them.
r u kidding me, Thank you for being a voice of reason on this blog. OVOT has always had a problem with civility for some reason.
He likes to repeat as often as he can that the rest of us are "uninformed" and "have no credibility," because if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it.
VC, thank you. I won't be pushed around or bullied. I can be civil, reasonable, rational, and credible and not let someone twist my words to suit their attack.
Notice that OVOT has avoided responding to the following questions:
Was the rapist caught?
Why does the OVPD need an additional one million dollars every year?
His silence is music to my ears!
Post a Comment