A little over a decade ago, the Town of Oro Valley developed a general plan, put it before the voters, and then watched them shoot it down.
A plan was eventually approved in 2005, but memory of the voter rejection was on the minds of officials when putting together a similar document that will again be put to an up-or-down vote Nov. 8.
General plans, town planning manager Bayer Vella told the Star, give municipalities guidance as they develop and are required by state law.
“When specific issues come up, we have a general direction that the community wants us to head towards,” he added.
The belief that there was little public involvement in the previous plan was a part of why it failed, according to Vella. To avoid a repeat, Oro Valley went through a long planning process with significant community involvement this time around.
Roughly 60 community events were held to gather input and several committees staffed by residents were tasked with “distilling” that input for inclusion in the plan.
The top three priorities expressed by residents were valuing public safety, “conserving the town’s natural beauty,” and promoting what Vella described as a “complete community,” where people can “live, work and play” in one place.
The level of public outreach for the plan was recognized by the Arizona Planning Association in 2014.
Vella said he was optimistic about the plan’s chances this November. A PDF of the plan is included in the online version of this story and more information can be found online at orovalleyaz.gov/generalplan/yourvoiceov.
Marana ‘home rule’
In another ballot issue in nearby Marana, officials are hoping that voters re-approve so-called home rule, as has happened in every vote since 1985.
Home rule, also known as an alternative expenditure limitation, allows Arizona municipalities to spend more than state-imposed budget restrictions dating back to 1980 and must be put to voters for renewal every four years. Home rule does not raise or lower taxes, according to information on the town’s website.
The current home rule option is effective through June 30, 2017, according to town council documents.
If home rule were not to be passed, the city would be able to spend roughly $54 million in fiscal year 2018, roughly $64 million short of estimated expenditures.
In 1980, the base year used for calculating budget limits, Marana had a population of just 1,425 and a general fund budget of roughly $202,000, said Erik Montague, town finance director. The town also provided fewer services than it does now.
“The calculation only takes into consideration additional population from that base and inflation,” he told the town council at a public hearing in June. “But it doesn’t take into consideration the service level that we have within our community or services that we may not have even provided back then.”
If voters were not to pass home rule, “the town would be mandated to cut expenditures and services like street maintenance, public safety, community development, and parks and recreation programs,” according to information provided to council members in June.
No members of the public asked questions or raised concerns at either of the two public hearings held on the matter in June, according to meeting minutes. Over the summer town officials requested that residents send in written arguments for or against approving and received only one favorable opinion from the local chamber of commerce. In its letter, the chamber urged voters to approve the measure, warning that a no vote “would negatively and severely impact the Town’s ability to provide its core services.”
In May 2013, Marana voters approved home rule by a roughly 2-1 margin.
Typically, home rule votes come in the spring the year before the four-year term expires. However, the 2012 consolidated elections law required Marana to put the item on the November general election ballot, according to Montague.
More information about home rule can be found on the town’s website at maranaaz.gov/home-rule.
