City Infrastructure Maintenance needs to improve 23March 2010
LNA Impact Fees to City Council 4 Jan 10
University Place Neighborhood Organization about Impact Fees to City Council 4 Jan 10
Taxes should be seen as Investment 30 Jul. 09
Lincoln City Budget 10 Aug. 09
Lincoln Schools budget 23 June 09
Quality Lincoln & Budget May 2008
Restaurant alcohol sales 10 Sept. 2007
Antelope Valley Redevelopment Plan housing project at 10th Street & Military Road. 16 Nov. 2007
Deadmans Run floodplain & Council Members March 2008
================================================================================
City infrastructure maintenance needs to improve 23 March 2010
The heated comments about potholes should be directed at the reasons why potholes exist and in such large numbers. The answers can be traced back to budget decisions made in the past eight years and the well-orchestrated effort to lower property taxes no matter what the long-range cost and consequences will be.
It is a more efficient use of tax money to maintain streets than to rebuild them. Because of past years of inadequate taxes for streets, Lincoln is now faced with the problem of having to rebuild streets. This has become obvious by the potholes that reveal consequences of bad decisions made to keep "yesterday's" taxes low. Now we have to pay extra to repair non-maintained streets.
President Barack Obama's stimulus money will help tremendously, but Lincoln cannot expect that bailout every year.
It is time for each of us to decide what we want. As inflation drives city expenses up, there is less money to maintain streets and all other services.
The current practice of reducing employees to balance budgets is shortsighted, because those lost employees last summer could have been patching or sealing streets (stopping water from getting under pavement and allowing the freeze-thaw cycle).
Recently Public Works plus Parks Department employees were cold patching, which is a waste of money. Those two departments have lost approximately 90 employees during the past four years, and those employees could have been used for preventive maintenance.
Potholes are an "in your face" type of problem and are obvious to every driver. A similar problem exists with our 80-plus-year-old water and sewer lines, but they are out of sight.
The problem became very obvious to Irving School on Feb. 10 when the area water line broke and the school had to use bottled water and portable toilets. What would the consequences have been if the water line served a hospital or a nursing home?
If the city decided to replace 10 miles of existing water lines a year, it would take 100 years to complete the job, but no money will be spent this current budget year on replacing existing water lines.
Lincoln streets have not been maintained, and potholes are the consequence. More importantly, the city's Web site lincoln.ne.gov/city/pworks/projects/pavement/ provides very pertinent information about maintaining streets. (Click on "Pavement Management Presentation" and scroll to page 29 for arterial life cycle graph.) The graph shows maintained streets will last 50-60 or more years, while new streets without maintenance only last 20-25 years.
A tax increase of 1 cent on assessed property value will recondition approximately 2.5 miles of arterial streets each year.
Our potholes will be forgotten during the coming July budget turmoil, but rain will be seeping through the cracks and preparing to make more potholes and damaged streets after the budget is passed.
A successful businessperson understands the value of maintenance, and it is time for taxpayers to understand that principle, too.
The tax increase will only be higher and more painful the longer we delay in maintaining Lincoln's infrastructure.
=======================================================
Today I am speaking for Lincoln Neighborhood Alliance. LNA requests that the Impact Fee rate be frozen at the current rate. LNA believes that there are many reasons why the rate should be increased to the rate that would exist if the rate had not been frozen in the years 2007 and 2008.
The Mayor’s Impact Fee Task Force Committee Phase I Report of 14 January 09 recommended that if the inflationary increases are overridden then the Mayor and Council should consider recapturing the lost revenue. The actions of the last two years of freezing or not recognizing inflationary increases have cost the City 200 thousand dollars in lost revenue that should have been applied to growth related infrastructure needs. A reversal of this trend must occur so there will be adequate infrastructure money for growth.
Lincoln’s portion of infrastructure needs is funded by property taxes, bonds, wheel tax and impact fees. There was a time when property taxes were 50% higher than today and that money could have been used for infrastructure.
Through all these years the established neighborhoods have paid many times for our current infrastructure. That is because many neighborhoods are 50 and some are approaching 100 years old. In the past the money was raised by higher property taxes and bonds. Those days are gone. Today we have to depend upon bonds, wheel tax and impact fees.
Today the neighborhoods are paying 41 % more for fresh water and 62 % more for waste water which is required to meet the 133.46 million dollar bond obligations that have been approved since 2003. For the current fiscal year essentially 100 % of the CIP water budget is for growth related projects leaving the City’s established neighborhoods and their 80 year old water infrastructure with nothing.
The established neighborhoods are paying increased wheel tax -- $5 increase in 2004 plus $5 more in 2007 and in 2010 another $5. Only 9 % of the wheel tax money is used to repair neighborhood residential streets.
The Duncan Report of 2002 calculated a new house created an infrastructure cost of $9,017 using data current for that year. Seven years later Lincoln’s Impact Fees are only $4,685 with the rest being paid by the established neighborhoods.
It should be obvious that established neighborhoods are paying more than their fair share for infrastructure requirements because of growth. The concept of Impact Fees was implemented in the summer of 2003 to equalize the impact of new homes and to continue the growth of Lincoln. If these are hard economic times for builders then it is equally hard times for those in the established neighborhoods. It is definitely time for those that can afford a new home to pay their fair share of infrastructure required by their home.
Therefore LNA requests that the Council freeze the inflationary portion of Impact Fees at its current level or, better yet, raise it to recoup that which was lost the preceding two years.
Thank you,
Russell Miller for LNA
==========================================================
Lois Haupt
Representing University Place Neighborhood Organization, Inc. (UPCO)
I am speaking on behalf of the University Place Neighborhood Organization, commonly known as UPCO. At our December 15, 2009, monthly Board Meeting, the UPCO Board officially approved requesting the City Council to increase Impact Fees to the level they would now be if they had not been frozen for the last two years. While we understand the reason for the freeze, we believe it is now time to restore the effect of the original legislation.
One of the primary reasons for our concern is the state of the water mains in our older neighborhoods. As this map illustrates, Lincoln has significant miles of 100 year old water mains (shown in red), plus many more miles of water mains over 80 years old and approaching 100 years (shown in orange). These are the mains that are responsible for providing the water the fire department requires to fight fires. As you can see, the downtown area and its adjacent neighborhoods have many miles of 100 year old mains. Much of the University Place neighborhood and most older neighborhoods have primarily 80-100 year old mains.
By today’s standards these water mains in the red and orange areas are under sized for a large fire because they severely limit the available water and thus the number of hoses that can be used to spray water. The fire crew has to monitor the water main pressure to prevent it from dropping below 20 psi because that event could have serious consequences.
If we assume that water mains have a 100 year life expectancy then Lincoln must replace 10 miles of mains every year. Recently we have been replacing only 5 miles per year but this current fiscal year the CIP water budget contains zero money for replacement.
Since 2002 our residential water rates have increased 41%. Most of that money has been used to fund the bond obligations that were necessary for the growth of Lincoln’s water infrastructure and not for the maintenance of the installed system.
It is obvious there is not enough money to replace the old water mains and continue new growth. It should be equally obvious that something must be done for the older neighborhoods' water mains. We are doing our share by paying much higher water rates but our money is not coming back to us to fix our problems.
The solution is to raise Impact Fees to more closely reflect the true cost of growth which is over $9,000 dollars per house and not the meager $4,686 that is currently assessed. This would assure that new growth pays for itself, and would allow water rate income from older neighborhoods to be used for replacing the aging infrastructure in those neighborhoods.
There is much talk about hard economic times and special groups needing special breaks. I remind you that these are also hard times for the occupants of the established neighborhoods. Anyone that can truly afford a new house certainly can afford to pay their fair share of infrastructure which is $9,000.
Please increase Impact Fees to provide adequate funds to continue Lincoln’s growth without continuing the harm being done to the established neighborhoods.
Thank you.
=======================================================================
Taxes should be seen as investment 30 July 2009
Local budget issues have frequently been framed as tax protests rather than rational reviews of what government services accomplish for the community.
As Americans, we have since colonial times recognized the necessity of taxes to accomplish public purposes. Our main quarrel with King George was taxation without representation, not taxation itself.
Lincoln Neighborhood Alliance is not opposed to taxes that are used to pay for needed services. The problem is that needed services for one taxpaying group may be considered a waste by another taxpaying group.
Retirees, for example, who make up about 10 percent of Lincoln's population, probably do not need streets cleared of snow so rapidly that city crews must be paid overtime wages, unlike those who must take children to school and get to work.
You seldom need a neighborhood park if your lot consumes one-quarter of an acre of land or more.
Many households have no children of school age, but employers require an educated work force and all of us benefit from a next generation of productive, taxpaying citizens.
Developers of new housing tracts absolutely must have new sewer and water lines, while established neighborhoods need to have their old lines modernized. Lincoln has raised this money by bonds that are repaid through increased rates, but most bond money finances projects on Lincoln's fringe.
Health clinics are low cost when compared to emergency centers, but if clinics are restricted by budget cuts then emergency centers will be used more.
Retail businesses (sales tax) need financially secure customers, which requires a living wage today and adequate retirement plans for tomorrow. It is projected by 2015 that 15 percent of Lincoln's population will be over 65.
Some neighborhoods are cursed with a high crime rate and thus require more police. Other neighborhoods are currently blessed with a low crime rate. In the last three years, Lincoln's population has increased approximately 10,000 persons but the total police force has decreased by 3.5 persons and it is projected to decrease another 3.75 the next fiscal year.
County jails are very expensive but everyone is taxed to pay for them. Police, fire and ambulance services seem to be widely supported by all parts of Lincoln.
The list can go on but every interest group has to realize that we need each other and a minor expense today will avoid major costs in the future. Every adult knows that a decision will have a long term and a short term consequence. But it is very easy to become entangled in the short term and forget the long term.
We should approach taxes as an investment in society. That investment will pay dividends in the short term and in the long term. Many times a tax savings today will have a long term consequence that will be negative.
As human beings, we are raised to think selfishly or generously. Not everyone has been instructed to help the less fortunate. This does not bode well for our society. Lincoln Neighborhood Alliance urges citizens to take the long view and recognize that helping those who need it now likely will benefit all of us in the end.
The LNA Web site ( www.lincolnneighborhoods.org ) has a list of some of the city services cut over the last three years under the heading "Death by 1,000 Cuts."
==============================================================================
Lincoln Neighborhood Alliance Budget Testimony of Aug. 10, 2009
Lincoln Neighborhood Alliance is a citizens group advocating that new city growth not be accomplished at the expense of older neighborhoods. LNA’s Plan for Action has the support of 21 neighborhood associations.
After the mayor’s budget was released, LNA approved a letter in support of the mayor’s outcome-based, citizen-led budget process.
LNA hopes city government will be able to build a popular consensus to stop cutting city services and begin matching revenues to expenditures.
LNA points out that political resistance to city tax increases is based on misunderstanding. Far from being burdensome, city taxes are probably the best bargain citizens get from government.
In 2006, the last year for which federal income tax records are available, 114,000 tax returns were filed from Lincoln showing adjusted gross income of nearly $6 billion. In that same year, the city collected total tax revenue of $124 million, or just 2% of taxpayer income.
City government is a target of taxpayer anger because it is accessible, not because it is expensive. Few taxpayers vent their frustrations on county, school, state or federal elected officials like they do on city elected officials, even though the other levels of government take greater shares of taxpayer income.
LNA believes that balancing the city budget year after year by cutting workers is unwise and has already lowered Lincoln’s quality of life. LNA believes that most of its membership would be willing to pay a minimal property tax increase to maintain a high-quality city.
To boost city revenue in the upcoming year, LNA asks the City Council to address the costs of growth by adjusting impact fees on new building permits. The previous council gave up at least $100,000 in revenue by waiving inflation adjustments for 2008 and 2009.
At present, the city collects only about 42% of the actual impact expenses of new growth. The city received about $1.5 million in impact fees in 2008 but at 100% it would have collected about $3.5 million. That means older neighborhoods subsidized new developments by about $2 million.
Finally, you probably all read Sunday that Deutsche Bank predicts 48% of U.S. mortgage holders will be underwater by two years from now. You probably all know that the vacancy rate for U.S. housing is still rising at 14%, the highest since the Great Depression.
Yet you will undoubtedly hear testimony – today and for as long as you serve on the council – that it is your duty to pave the way for still more growth.
LNA cautions you to keep in mind that both booms and busts are caused by the “irrational exuberance” of homebuilders, realtors and lenders. Only government regulation and sober planning can moderate the economic consequences for the rest of us.
============================================================================================================================================
To : Lincoln Board of Education
From : Lincoln Neighborhood Alliance
Subject : LPS budget
Many people do not like to pay taxes. But many taxpayers realize tax money provides the services that allows a society to function and if the tax money is spent properly it allows society to function very efficiently.
We should approach taxes as an investment in society. That investment will pay dividends in the short term and in the long term. Many times a tax savings today will have a long term consequence that will be negative.
Lincoln Neighborhood Alliance believes that school taxes have a long term consequence and it is very difficult to measure that consequence. I do know that this proposed tax reduction of $15 per year will not benefit LNA in any manner so we will be better served by having that sum invested in after school programs that might prevent vandalism or other undesirable neighborhood activities.
For the past several years the City of Lincoln has been embroiled in a no tax increase controversy. This lack of funding has resulted in no arterial streets being resurfaced since 2004, a deteriorating water system as exemplified by last Wednesday’s closing of South Cotner because of flooding caused by a broken water line or valve, an understaffed police force, a park and recreation program that is just a shell of what it used to be and the list can continue. These service reductions were forced upon Lincoln citizens for a meager tax reduction of 6 or 7 dollars a month for a so called tax savings. Neighborhoods cannot afford anymore of these tax savings because the deferred maintenance will cost us a fortune in the near future.
LNA is asking the School Board to evaluate the future consequences of today’s meager tax reduction carefully. Please do not make the mistake of the City Council and have a tax reduction for the sake of a very vocal minority but which will harm the very large majority.
===================================================================================
Honorable Chris Beutler 28 April 2009
Mayor of Lincoln
Dear Sir:
Lincoln Neighborhood Alliance asks you to transfer $500,000 of the special assessment revolving fund to the Parks and Recreation Department.
The prospect of closing five neighborhood swimming pools, curtailing hours at three recreation centers, charging $3-4 admission to Pioneers Park Nature Center and being unable to meet street shade tree needs is unacceptable to LNA.
LNA deplores the steady erosion of city budgets over the past four years. LNA believes Lincolnites wish to maintain their quality city.
Thank you.
Russell Miller, LNA chair
===================================================================
===================================================================
For the past several years there has been a highly orchestrated movement stating that taxes are bad and tax cuts are very good. Stark reality is that there are no tax cuts. There are only reductions or cuts in City services.
This is a discussion of what City services do you want cut.
It has been well documented that Lincoln is extremely behind in infrastructure building, especially streets . The life expectancy of a street is approximately 20 years BUT if the street is maintained that life will be extended greatly. This city wide maintenance demand plus the developers demand for streets on the Lincoln’s fringes is creating an excruciating money crunch for limited resources.
The beauty of Impact Fees is that the finances generated by Impact Fees have to stay in the district that generates them. Thus Lincoln’s fringe is creating money for the very streets and infrastructure that they need and it is in the areas that need it.
Last January this Council voted to lower Impact Fees just like the the motion before you today. The true question is not about lowering Impact Fees BUT what streets are you not going to build because of no money?
LNA believes that lowering Impact Fees is very shortsighted and it would be best for Lincoln’s long term growth to have them increased so streets could be built on the city fringes.
Thank you,
Russell Miller
for Lincoln Neighborhood Alliance
=====================================================================
=====================================================================
Lincoln City Council 14 May 2008
555 South 10th Street
Lincoln, NE 68508
RE: City of Lincoln Budget
Dear City Council Members:
Americans as consumers gain familiarity with the terms quality and discount. Consumers inherently understand that some brands are worth the higher cost. Experienced end users have learned that some cheaper or discounted products actually cost more in the long run due to inferior quality, leading to dissatisfaction and the need to buy again.
The same principle applies to local government. There is a difference between a quality city and a discount city. While the Lincoln Neighborhood Alliance (LNA) believes that government should provide services at the lowest possible cost, currently the City of Lincoln is flirting with “going-out-of business” prices.
Citizens and visitors notice potholes, neighborhood parks and swimming pools, libraries, empty storefronts, dilapidated buildings, unmowed grass and untrimmed trees. LNA would like to boast of a well maintained, vibrant city, but recognizes that these items require tax dollars.
LNA supports a quality Lincoln. Now is the time to reverse the downward spiral of city revenues. If the cuts are continued, basic neighborhood services will be eliminated, which include pools, senior centers and recreation centers.
For several years, LNA has encouraged elected officials to stop cutting funds for city services, operations, and maintenance. LNA recognizes that taxes are a necessary responsibility of citizens who wish to maintain a quality city. Lincoln’s property tax rate is among the lowest in Nebraska. For example, Lincoln’s 28 mills is much less thatn Omaha’s 47. LNA recognizes that the city share is less than 15% of total property taxes.
On a $150,000.00 assessed home, the city portion of property taxes is approximately $425.00 per year. This comes to $1.16 per day for city services such as police, fire, libraries, parks, trails, pools and roads. To make up the projected $6 million shortfall in the 2008-09 city budget, taxes on the typical $150,000.00 Lincoln home would need an increase of $60.00 per year or $5.00 a month.
Therefore, LNA supports a reasonable rate of taxes to maintain our city services. LNA encourages the city to look at a minimal increase of property taxes to maintain the city at the present level of function and prevent further cuts to much needed services for the 2008-09 budget year. For a longterm solution to the budget crisis, LNA suggests pursuing the ability to levy a city income tax from the state legislature. The choice is ours, as citizens of Lincoln--quality or discount.
Respectfully,
Russell F. Miller, Chairman
Lincoln Neighborhood Alliance
===============================================================================================
August 4, 2007
Lincoln City Council
555 South 10th Street
Lincoln, NE 68508
Dear City Council Members:
During this difficult time of negotiating the City of Lincoln’s budget, the Lincoln Neighborhood Alliance (LNA) would like to remind our elected city council members of their responses to our candidate questionnaire that was distributed during the recent election process.
When asked to rank budget priorities, Beutler, Camp, Cook, Emery, Spatz and Svoboda all ranked “public safety and/or public service officers” as the number one budget priority. “Road maintenance and repair” as well as “expanding the road network” received significantly lower priorities (varying between candidates as to rank).
If there are budget dollars that free up, they should be put towards public safety departments that benefit everyone including, but not limited to, the elderly and neighborhoods.
LNA respectfully asks that our elected officials honor their campaign promises and fund public safety first and foremost.
Regards,
Tracy J. Corr
Lincoln Neighborhood Alliance Chairman Pro-temp
cc: Mayor Chris Beutler
==============================================================================================================
================================================================================================================
September 10, 2007
Lincoln City Council
555 South 10th Street
Lincoln, NE 68508
RE: Conditional Support of Change of Zone #07046
Dear City Council Members:
The Lincoln Neighborhood Alliance (LNA) would like to offer it’s support for Change of Zone #07046 defining a restaurant and establishing conditions for the sale of alcohol at such establishments as amended at the August 15, 2007 Planning Commission public hearing.
LNA’s support is contingent upon the 60/40 split between food and alcohol sales, with no more than 40% of sales originating from alcohol. This would ensure that the facility was in fact operating as a restaurant and not as a bar.
LNA would like to thank Mark Hunzeker and the Planning Commission staff for their diligence in notifying the neighborhoods of this proposed change. We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to work together to make Lincoln a better city to live, work and play.
Regards,
Russell Miller
Lincoln Neighborhood Alliance Chairman
cc: Mayor Chris Beutler
===============================================================================================================================
November 16, 2007
Lincoln City Council
555 South 10th Street
Lincoln, NE 68508
RE: Antelope Valley Redevelopment Plan
Dear City Council Members:
The Lincoln Neighborhood Alliance (LNA) opposes the Antelope Valley Redevelopment Plan to develop a housing project on approximately 10th Street & Military Road.
In the LNA candidate questionnaire for the Spring 2007 elections, Beutler, Camp, Cook, Emery, Spatz and Svoboda all agreed that the city should work to mitigate the adverse impact of development on floodplains and flooding problems. Camp, Emery, Spatz and Svoboda agreed to support enactment of ordinances for zero net rise, no adverse impact and compensatory storage standards within the city limits. The single councilman disagreeing stated that “we can’t run existing businesses out of business” as the reason.
Stormwater ordinances were not enacted to harass or prevent new businesses or development. They protect the many, many current property investments from further floodplain creep. Lincoln Industries (formerly known as Lincoln Plating) at 600 W. ‘E’ Street was built in 1976, expanded in 1980 and at that time was completely out of the floodplain. Today Lincoln Industries is entirely in the floodplain and has the added business expense of flood insurance. This is not efficient planning and is an example of the consequences of floodplain creep.
By federal law (which was adopted by our state and city), property owners can bring fill into the floodplain until the flood water level has been raised one foot from the base flood elevation (BFE). This means that a development whose buildings are “elevated” one foot above the floodplain will have flood water lapping at their door sill as their neighbors develop their properties; i.e. the developer is leaving no room for error and assumes all of the watershed basin calculations are correct and nobody cheats with extra fill.
What can be done with stormwater so that Lincoln Industries is removed from the floodplain or at least has a lower flood water level? (The flood insurance premium is based upon flood water height.) The answer is to develop many parks and open spaces for floodwater storage. That was tried a couple years ago with a parcel of privately owned land close to 1st & South Streets. The idea was dropped because the land’s assessed value was too expensive for the City to purchase. The City does own the land that we are discussing today. From a long term perspective it will be very efficient and cost effective for the City to retain ownership of this parcel because it is one small piece of the floodwater storage solution. If it is sold for development it becomes one small piece of the long term problem.
LNA appreciates your diligence in researching issues such as stormwater as they appear on your agenda and encourages our council to remember their campaign promises as they vote on this matter.
==============================================================================================
January 13, 2008
Lincoln City Council
555 South 10th Street
Lincoln, NE 68508
Dear City Council Members:
At a time when our city is facing a budget crisis, we do not need to limit the dollars available to the city in any way, shape or form.
Ideally, the money to fund new developments should come from the neighborhoods that are being developed. The problem with this scenario in the City of Lincoln is twofold: (1) you can only raise property taxes so high and (2) the core neighborhoods are facing a multitude of problems that they need additional funding to combat (e.g. gangs, graffiti, drugs, prostitution). The solution to this funding problem was to either not build or find a new source of income. Therefore, impact fees were established. LNA feels that this was an appropriate solution because the people benefiting from the problem are now the ones funding the problem.
Although impact fees were established to help fund the infrastructure of new developments, the City of Lincoln continues to struggle to fund new roads, storm sewers, water and sewer lines. The approximately $50,000 we are discussing might not go a long way in paving a road, but it would put in quite a bit of sewer and water lines, which are just as important concerning new construction. Without water and sewer services, a new development can become jeopardized.
To break the impact fee inflation freeze down to a homeowner level, we are talking about roughly $100 per house. Most of the home values in these new areas sell for an average of $200,000; $100 is not going to make or break a decision to purchase a home of that value. If it would, perhaps we should take a look at pulling the inflationary increase out of another revenue stream such as real estate agent fees. But then we would have another special interest group upset because we are taking a chunk out of their income source.
The bottom line is that the economy is struggling not only here in Lincoln, but across the state and the nation. If we cave to one special group, we are going to have other groups wanting the same treatment. If the Everett Neighborhood decided to band together and ask for a property tax decrease because the neighborhood is becoming overrun with prostitution and drugs, would you even consider the request?
If we take the impact fee controversy to a business level and attracting new businesses to build, the solution is special tax credits made available on a one time basis to those types of businesses the City deems appropriate to attract. Therefore, residential impact fees are the root of the issue.
LNA encourages the City Council to treat all citizens of Lincoln equitably by subjecting all demographics to inflation.
===========================================================================================
37th & Baldwin Ave. looking north on 37th street the blue line is the predicted height of the 100 year flood
For several weeks there has been considerable debate on the City Council concerning Deadmans Run Stormwater Master Plan, particularly the watershed area between 33rd & 48th and north to Adams Street.
THE ONE THING YOU NEED TO REMEMBER: THE INVESTORS IN DEADMANS RUN ARE INNOCENT VICTIMS. When they made their investments the floodplain did not exist. The floodplain only exists today because the City issued building permits for many housing and commercial projects east (or upstream) of 56th street without requiring those developments to make provisions for their stormwater runoff. That negligence permits runoff to flow downstream until the banks overflow. In the 37th & Baldwin area (2 blocks north of the creek) this contaminated, slimy liquid will be 3-5 feet above street level. (See picture) The shopping center at 48th & Leighton and the 50 apartment buildings to the west (combined assessed value $23.6 million) will be part of a raging current with an unknown destructive force. There are a total of 534 units in the apartment complexes and in a flash flood there is a strong potential of human injury, not to mention the guaranteed property damage.
At the public hearings, statements were made several times that it would be cheaper to just “pay for everyone’s flood insurance” than to invest the $50 million to correct this deplorable situation. That testimony is the best example of how completely misunderstood this flooding problem is, not to mention an extremely short range vision. These investments have every expectation of lasting 100 years—similar to the historic buildings in the Haymarket. I strongly doubt that the speakers were agreeing to pay the insurance bill for the next 100 years, but someone will! In the last 7 years the insurance premiums have increased 11% and this money leaves our community.
Every property insurance policy states it will cover windstorms (i.e. tornados) but EXCLUDES water damage (i.e. flood). All federally insured banks are mandated to require flood insurance on property loans unless the borrower can prove the property is outside of the floodplain. From a regional perspective there are relatively few properties in the floodplain; therefore, flood insurance is a comparatively high cost item. The cost of cleanup is astronomical.
As Councilman Camp stated in the Council vote on 25 February 2008, these homes are selling at a substantial discount. The investors with these properties are penalized twice: once for having the annual expense of flood insurance and once for having to sell at a discount when they want to cash in their investment. Property owners have testified that they are reluctant to improve their land because of the flood potential. These two penalties exist because of the upstream investors’ actions that were permitted by city government. Perhaps those investors should share their financial gains with the victims downstream.
The approval and vigorous implementation of the Deadmans Run Watershed Master Plan will (1) provide the opportunity for the City Council to correct wrongs permitted 30 years ago in the name of progress; (2) increase the property tax base; and (3) give investors incentives to improve their properties even further which will increase the tax base even more.
The Lincoln Neighborhood Alliance (LNA) recognizes the long term detrimental effect of flood insurance costs as well as the potential flooding damage has on a neighborhood and investments. The LNA Candidate Questionnaire section on Stormwater for last year’s election cycle asked each candidate if they would “work aggressively ...to mitigate ... flooding problems” (lincolnneighborhoods.org click on Candidate Q&A). The four candidates that were elected plus Mr. Svoboda all agreed or strongly agreed with this statement.
The Candidate Questionnaire was a promise to the community. The voting and motions on Deadmans Run Master Plan is action. These actions are contrary to the campaign pledges of some Council members. Excuses that the budget is tight are moot because it will always be tight. However, there will be a budget disaster when the flood occurs. Implementing the Deadmans Run Master Plan today will save major sums of money in the future.
Russell Miller
Lincoln Neighborhood Alliance and Member of Deadmans Run Watershed Citizens Advisory Committee
Using County Assessor public records the following data is presented for your consideration:
Single 50 6 mega Gateway/
Family apartment apartment Shopping Deadmans Eastpark/
Homes* complexes complexes Center Run Total South side of "O"
Assessed $26,936,000 $6,982,700 $11,187,000 $5,468,900 $50,574,600 $57,560,000
Value
Annual flood
insurance
premiums $220,220 $57,228 unknown** unknown** $277,448 unknown***
Deadmans Run apartments & shopping center 30 acres 200 acres
*There are approximately 455 single family homes (investments) in the Deadmans Run floodplain area from 33rd to 48th Streets, Leighton to Adams. Due to the large number of houses, a random sample of 57 homes was taken to determine an average assessed value of $59,200. The average flood insurance premium per home is $484.
**Flood insurance premiums are unknown because FEMA does not insure buildings valued over $200,000.
*** The Gateway complex is out of the floodplain and therefore does not require flood insurance
The Deadmans Run apartments/shopping center complex has a relatively small area devoted to concrete parking lots compared to the Gateway complex which is why the number of acres are not comparable. Both the Gateway complex and the Deadmans Run apartments/commercial buildings were built in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s.
=========================================================================================================
May 14, 2008
Lincoln City Council
555 South 10th Street
Lincoln, NE 68508
RE: City of Lincoln Budget
Dear City Council Members:
Americans as consumers gain familiarity with the terms quality and discount. Consumers inherently understand that some brands are worth the higher cost. Experienced end users have learned that some cheaper or discounted products actually cost more in the long run due to inferior quality, leading to dissatisfaction and the need to buy again.
The same principle applies to local government. There is a difference between a quality city and a discount city. While the Lincoln Neighborhood Alliance (LNA) believes that government should provide services at the lowest possible cost, currently the City of Lincoln is flirting with “going-out-of business” prices.
Citizens and visitors notice potholes, neighborhood parks and swimming pools, libraries, empty storefronts, dilapidated buildings, unmowed grass and untrimmed trees. LNA would like to boast of a well maintained, vibrant city, but recognizes that these items require tax dollars.
LNA supports a quality Lincoln. Now is the time to reverse the downward spiral of city revenues. If the cuts are continued, basic neighborhood services will be eliminated, which include pools, senior centers and recreation centers.
For several years, LNA has encouraged elected officials to stop cutting funds for city services, operations, and maintenance. LNA recognizes that taxes are a necessary responsibility of citizens who wish to maintain a quality city. Lincoln’s property tax rate is among the lowest in Nebraska. For example, Lincoln’s 28 mills is much less thatn Omaha’s 47. LNA recognizes that the city share is less than 15% of total property taxes.
On a $150,000.00 assessed home, the city portion of property taxes is approximately $425.00 per year. This comes to $1.16 per day for city services such as police, fire, libraries, parks, trails, pools and roads. To make up the projected $6 million shortfall in the 2008-09 city budget, taxes on the typical $150,000.00 Lincoln home would need an increase of $60.00 per year or $5.00 a month.
Therefore, LNA supports a reasonable rate of taxes to maintain our city services. LNA encourages the city to look at a minimal increase of property taxes to maintain the city at the present level of function and prevent further cuts to much needed services for the 2008-09 budget year. For a longterm solution to the budget crisis, LNA suggests pursuing the ability to levy a city income tax from the state legislature. The choice is ours, as citizens of Lincoln--quality or discount.
Respectfully,
Russell F. Miller, Chairman
Lincoln Neighborhood Alliance
=================================================================