March seems a long way off, though the chill of a winter rain storm in Northwest Tucson feels like spring in the rest of America.
Come this March, the people of Oro Valley will be asked to say "yes" or "no" to the "home rule option," already in place, that allows town government to collect and spend tax money.
We strongly urge a "yes" vote.
The home rule option lets the town set an expenditure limitation equal to the total amount of budgeted expenditures/expenses as appears on the annual budget for each of the four fiscal years following its adoption.
What's that mean? Simply, this: when the town sets a budget, it has the ability to spend that amount of money. Not more. This is not a tax increase.
Town government pays for police protection, street and road maintenance, parks and recreation, library services, water service and storm water management, a court system, capital improvements and so much more.
Without home rule, a state-imposed expenditure limit is applied to the town. It is a punitive restriction.
In fiscal 2009-'10, as an example, Oro Valley's operating budget was $69.31 million. Had home rule not been in place, the spending limit would have been $35.33 million — almost half. Future limitations could be even more extreme.
What would we live without? Police? Water? Certainly there'd be no money for capital improvements.
"If it's not passed, it would just cripple the community," said Stacey Lemos, Oro Valley's finance director and assistant town manager.
"We would be out of business as a town," agrees Town Councilman Barry Gillaspie.
Beyond that, a "no" vote would give the state of Arizona more power over local governance. At this point, and into the future, Oro Valley doesn't need a greater state influence, thank you. The community has demonstrated its ability to take care of what needs to be done, and there's no reason to impose arbitrary limitations. Let's retain whatever local control we can muster.
In addition, without home rule, Oro Valley would be able to continue collecting funds — it just could not spend all of them. That's even more offensive. Government should not collect more money than it needs. Government does not need reserves simply to have them. Reserves must have a purpose. Some level of cash is reasonable and prudent; higher levels are not, and when there is excessive cash, give the money back to the people.
In 1998, the people of El Mirage near Phoenix defeated home rule. There, voters had lost trust in their government. The city council decided to simply overspend its limits, and the Legislature issued more than $250,000 in fines. Fines were ultimately waived. The next year, El Mirage passed home rule.
That's too much pain and drama. And the people of Oro Valley are not so drastically distrusting of government. Yes, there is skepticism, but by and large the town does an excellent job managing its resources and delivering services to the people.
If Oro Valley citizens don't like the budgetary decisions of the town council, they have a much more effective way to make changes. They can vote for someone else. Citizens go to the polls this March, and likely again in May, to elect council members and a mayor. That's the forum to express satisfaction, or discontent, with the financial decisions put in place.
In March, Oro Valley voters should say "yes" to home rule.
— DPP
