Related articles:

Oro Valley man says town unlawfully seeks to sway voters on bonds

Other articles by Lourdes Medrano:

Community notes Prof's drawings to benefit UA College of Architecture New OV homes must be solar-ready OV orders solar-ready home starts Council OKs $121.5 million town budget Still time to give to CFSD drive Community notes Foothills effort to save teaching jobs falls short Community notes Fundraising campaign for Catalina Foothills schools falls short

Trades/Construction
RANCHO RESORT
MAINTANANCE POSITION General
A1 Communications
Cable Techs Health Care
Sierra Tucson
Eating Disorders Program Coordinator

Oro Valley resident John Musolf thinks his town is unlawfully trying to influence the outcome of a bond issue on the Nov. 4 ballot for a $48.6 million park development.

The town is violating state law because it's using public funds to promote the bond election, including creation of a Web site on the 213-acre Naranja Town Site, Musolf said.

"These people went out and hired an advertising agency and spent $50,000 of taxpayer money to support or influence the ballot issue and get it passed," Musolf said.

Town officials say it's all legal because the town is educating residents, not promoting the bond plan.

"I've reviewed all the materials . . . and there is nothing that advocates either for or against the bond issue," town attorney Tobin Rosen said.

The bond election has stirred passionate debate among residents in a town that was founded in 1974 on a premise of no property taxes.

Musolf is against the secondary property tax that would result from a voter-approved bond issue. The funds would pay for the park's first phase, which includes sports fields, picnic ramadas and tennis courts on West Naranja Drive near North La Cañada Drive.

If passed, the bond issue would translate into a maximum secondary property tax of 52 cents per $100 assessed market value, according to the town's Web site.

Musolf also takes issue with the information on the Web site, which fails to mention that the town still owes money on the park's land acquisition. He also has misgivings about the cost of maintaining and operating the park.

The remaining debt service on the site-acquisition bonds is $380,380, said Stacey Lemos, town finance director. The town is counting on lodging taxes to pay the projected $1.2 million in annual operating and maintenance costs.

Unhappy with the town's explanations, Musolf set out to seek second and third opinions regarding the state statute. He called, wrote or filed complaints with the Pima County Attorney's Office, the Arizona Attorney General's Office and the Arizona Secretary of State's Office.

"Everybody gave me the run-around," a frustrated Musolf said.

Anne Hilby, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Terry Goddard, declined to comment on Musolf's case.

"What I can say is that by and large, election-related complaints that our office handles come to us from the Arizona Secretary of State's Office," she noted.

State Election Director Joe Kanefield said he empathized with Musolf's frustration.

"But that's not a statute that our office enforces," he said of Arizona Revised Statute 9-500.14.

Neither does the Pima County Attorney's Office.

"That particular statute . . . does not give the county attorney or the attorney general, for example, authorization to enforce that statute," said Deputy County Attorney Dan Jur-kowitz.

In a letter to Musolf, Jur-kowitz suggested the Oro Valley resident might have to take matters into his own hands.

"You may wish to consult with a private attorney as to whether there are any personal legal actions that may be brought," Jurkowitz wrote.

Musolf balked at the notion of having to spend his own money to investigate a public entity.

"Nobody wants to take responsibility," he said. "Everybody's passing the buck."