Oviedo voters may feel a sense of deja vu over two referenda on November’s ballot. The first, which asks voters to authorize up to $35.5 million in bonds for a new police station, follows a 2016 referendum that asked for the same authority. The second question on this year’s ballot asks voters to authorize tax incentives for companies that promise to bring high-quality jobs to the city; it’s a reauthorization required by the state Constitution.
These are two areas voters should always approach with skepticism. In Oviedo’s case, however, leaders have shown themselves in the past to be both cautious and frugal with city resources. This commission has proven itself worthy of residents’ trust. As for future commissions? Well, that’s up to voters as well.
Voting “yes” on both questions will give the city commission and administration the flexibility they need to ensure public safety and attract future economic growth.
Yes on police station bond
The big difference between this year’s police-station referendum and the 2016 approach is the dollar figures involved. Voters authorized up to $11.4 million seven years ago, and it’s important for them to understand that the $35.5 million ask on this year’s ballot will be in addition to that — which would give the commission a total of nearly $47 million.
The backstory on that is a bit complicated. As the Sentinel’s Martin Comas reported, after the 2016 vote, the commission asked for a study of the planned 20,000-square-foot police HQ. The conclusion: That proposed facility would fall short of meeting the police department’s projected needs. It recommended at least 42,000 square feet, which would allow for training, community programs and other activities under the same roof.
It’s a shame the commission didn’t ask for that study prior to the initial vote — and even more regrettable that city leaders didn’t move quickly after hitting pause on the 20,000-square-foot facility. As Mayor Megan Sladek and other commission members have noted, building costs have skyrocketed since then, more than tripling the price tag. But they can’t rewrite history, and current police facilities are clearly overloaded. At the rate the population is going, Oviedo will need at least 20 new officers, and at least as many support staff, within the next 15 years — and the current building is already bursting at the seams.
Authorizing the bonds won’t bind the city to all-new construction, though that’s the direction the current commissioners seem inclined to follow. One proposal, to redevelop property at the Oviedo Mall, might still be possible, and there could be other locations that make sense for police headquarters or substations. If city leaders can construct facilities that realistically meet the needs of a fast-growing Oviedo for less money, they still have that option. This referendum, however, will ensure that the city can borrow a sum that they know will meet the city’s needs, and move forward before costs increase even more.
Yes on corporate tax incentives
Love them or hate them, economic incentive packages have become part of the playbook in Florida when it comes to attracting and expanding employers to a particular area. And though it’s right next to one of the nation’s largest research universities, and about an hour from Florida’s fabled Space Coast, Oviedo hasn’t attracted as much in the way of high-tech industry as it might have. In fact, as Sladek noted during an interview with the Orlando Sentinel’s editorial board, the city is in danger of becoming one of Seminole County’s biggest bedroom communities, dooming it to an inadequate tax base.
Voters are being asked to re-authorize property-tax breaks (the most common form of economic incentive) for employers that plan to offer relatively high-paying jobs in targeted industries. Such tax incentives should be handed out sparingly, subject to tightly worded contracts that spell out a company’s responsibilities. The city has been tight-fisted with these investments in the past; so far, the only project to get tax incentives is the Oviedo Medical Center, built in 2017, which included a badly needed 67-bed hospital and emergency department. The city’s authority to grant incentives has since expired; under the Florida Constitution, voters must re-authorize it before the city can offer tax breaks to anyone else.
Once again, it boils down to trust: Can voters trust their city officials to keep a tight rein on these breaks, and can they trust themselves to elect equally responsible leaders in the future? Answering that question should lead them to an easy “yes” on the ballot initiative.
This week, we wrap up our endorsements for the Nov. 7 primary. However, we urge voters to not rely solely on our opinions in deciding how to cast a vote. Voters should check the city’s informational websites on both ballot issues and look at the Sentinel’s coverage; in addition, they can ask friends and neighbors what they think. Google the issues and go to the city’s website to see who’s giving money to their campaigns. In addition, we’ve recorded our interviews and posted them in full at OrlandoSentinel.com/opinion.
Election endorsements are the opinion of the Orlando Sentinel Editorial Board, which consists of Opinion Editor Krys Fluker, Insight Editor Jay Reddick and Editor-in-Chief Julie Anderson. Sentinel Columnist Scott Maxwell participates in interviews and deliberations. Send emails to insight@orlandosentinel.com.
