By Paul Emmert
I admit to being a computer geek and a bit of a data hound. So when I recently heard Mayor Hiremath expounding on the advantages of raising a sales tax over other forms of revenue to pay for old buildings and golf courses to rehabilitate them, I decided to go on an Easter egg hunt. During recent radio interviews and public forums, the Mayor has been touting the apparent fact that tourism accounts for 33% of sales taxes paid in Oro Valley. I also saw a similar pronouncement from Council member Mary Snider during the last election campaign, when she also suggested that sales tax revenues from tourism could theoretically rise to as high as 40 or 50 percent.
Being the inquisitive type, while thinking that 33% seems somewhat high (let alone 40 or 50), I first began to search for facts by looking at the Town’s website. Logical place, right? Finding the same number there, the next leg on my information quest was to call the Town staff and inquire about the 33%. I was told, essentially, that they had no specific idea, but did say that 33% is a “best informed, educated estimate.” To me, this sounded like the proverbial WAG – but who knows? The number must have come from somewhere.
I was also told that the number may have come from the Oro Valley Chamber of Commerce. A brief phone call there quickly revealed that the Chamber had no idea what I was talking about. Another dead-end.
As an engineer by education, and thus not an expert in statistical analysis, it seemed to me that if a government agency publishes a statistic, it should be corroborated by data and analysis. So far, the now famous 33% is just floating out there in space, with nothing to back it up. Further, when the electorate is hit with a surprise tax increase and this 33% number is used as a justification for raising this tax rather than other forms of revenue generation, it becomesmore suspect. My quest continued.
What next logical step but to ask Mayor Hiremath himself? Thus I posed the question. He replied by saying this:
“The methodology came from studies we did when I was president of the Arts Council. Here is the report that we went by in order to determine the percentage.
While we were calculating the information, it was apparent that a pattern was beginning to develop and that pattern was that, on average, we were looking at roughly 33% of revenues were coming from visitors. This is where the methodology came from.”
Attached to the Mayor’s email was a lengthy document from a Midwestern university that describes in complex detail how to assess the financial impact of cultural or other events sponsored by cities. On first blush, this “methodology” didn’t appear to fully answer the question of overall sales tax revenue adjustments due to tourism on a much broader, continuing scale.
Furthermore, the statement “a pattern that was beginning to develop” seemed incongruous with a study procedure that requires data acquisition followed by sophisticated, mathematical, detailed analyses, using complex formulas and algorithms. How do you see a “pattern develop” while a statistically valid study is ongoing? Again, I am not an expert, but it was time to dig yet a little deeper.
The referenced methodology requires the use of various survey methods, including phone, mail, and event onsite questioning. Noting that this “methodology” is complex and task intensive, I had more questions for the Mayor. I asked him what survey methods the Arts Council used – he replied all three. The implication was that a lot of work went into this study. But more importantly, I also asked whether the study results are available for review – the answer was no. Where are they? He didn’t say. This apparent study took considerable effort and time, yet the Mayor can’t produce it, or at least tell me where to find it? Another dead-end?
So, again, our famous 33% is still hanging out there, with nothing at all to substantiate it – the study the Mayor refers to is “not available,” without explanation.
Moreover, the Town was unaware of the Art Council study result. I’m thinking this should not be that difficult, right?
The next logical step was to ask others who were on the Arts Council at the time. Those conversations revealed no recollection of the specific study referred to by the Mayor. There was at least one informal survey to assess what citizens want from an Arts Council, but nothing relating specifically to sales tax revenue as a function of tourism. Could it be just poor memories?
Another dead-end, with a touch of suspicion mounting. This is not ringing true now.
As my quest continued, I did find another study from 2010 that was accomplished by the University of Arizona; it precisely answered my question, but with a notably different result. This study found that 10.4% of revenue from sales taxes is derived from tourism, throughout the entire state of Arizona.
A glimmer of hope appeared.
The next appropriate step was to bring this study result to the Mayor’s attention, as it was the first concrete data I could find that answered the question.
So I did. Mayor Hiremath took a moment to critique the study’s validity, followed by a lecture about how I need to disprove his 33% number first in order to have a conversation about the veracity of a study that’s conveniently missing:
“Bottom line is Paul that each of us can provide facts and figures that support or disprove each other’s point. I am not sure exactly what your point is other than to discredit me, but again, that is your prerogative. I very much enjoyed our discussion on this matter but I choose to not have to “prove” my position to you until you can statically and methodically prove to me that the percentage of revenue derived by non-residents and tourists alike don’t equate to the approximation of 33%. I look forward to seeing your statistically valid results and methodology with all of the appropriate facts and figures incorporated.”
There are two major problems with his reply. The first is that the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of the person who makes the assertion, and secondly it’s impossible to prove a negative. Mayor Hiremath misses on both counts – meanwhile he is making an assertion that he is unable to factually substantiate, and then turns it around to suggest that I must provide a “statistically valid result” that “disproves” this alleged 33% figure for him to engage in further discussion. Ironically, the information he received about the 2010 study contains data that affirms its result quite clearly, which is considerably more information than he offers about a study he cannot produce. I’m just asking the question, and offered an alternative study that points to a differing conclusion. But ultimately, even if it were possible to disprove his number, how can I when there is no data to question? It appears to be a random number with no legs to stand on.
The Mayor is the person who must logically answer the original question.
I am the constituent with a perfectly rational, simple question that deserves an answer. But neither he, nor the Town, are able to provide any substantiation of data to support the statement that 33% of sales tax revenue is derived from tourism. He is “choosing” to not defend his assertion. What does that tell us?
A whole range of possibilities exist. None of them are pretty.
Is this an example of exaggeration or skewing information for public consumption?
Hard to tell. Is this suggestive of trustworthy leadership, or something else? I’ve drawn my own conclusions, but I leave it to the reader to decide.
Meanwhile the famous, but now contested 33% keeps right on floating around, as though in very thin air. Keep this in mind as you listen to the Mayor try to sell us on a tax hike for things we didn’t ask for, and ponder the future of Oro Valley.