Now
Fair
74.0°
High
87°
Low
72°
Full Forecast

Coupon

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > News > Local
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

City offers sliver of hope it will help with jail financing

Comments 8 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

BY DEENA WINTER / Lincoln Journal Star

Monday, Jul 07, 2008 - 08:35:34 pm CDT

While several City Council members weren’t too happy Monday about being asked to signal whether they’ll help Lancaster County finance a new jail, the council gave the concept a hesitant green-light anyway.

However, the vote is not binding, and in order to actually help finance the jail, the City Council will have to approve an interlocal agreement later.

With four of the five Lancaster County commissioners watching, the council approved a resolution that says it supports exploring the idea of helping finance the $65 million county jail. Construction of the jail is expected to begin this winter, with inmates expected to move in by early 2010.

Story Photo

The vote is really not much more than a message to the county that the council is open to the idea.

State law prevents the county from financing the jail beyond 10 years, and since county voters rejected the County Board’s proposal to finance the jail over 26 years, the county has been exploring other options.

To avoid sharp property tax increases caused by a shorter repayment period, the County Board wants the Public Building Commission — which manages and maintains public property for both the city and county — to finance construction of the jail over 20 years. They’ve proposed that the $1.4 million the city now pays the county annually for jail operations be used instead for debt payments.

For that to work, the city would have to sign off on an interlocal agreement with the county and building commission.

The county’s financial advisor, Scott Keene of Ameritas Investment Corp., said if the city does not help finance the jail, it would cost city property taxpayers about 1-cent per $100 in property value for the next 10 years, or $15 per year for the owner of an average Lincoln home.

Rather than wait for the issue to get to the council in the form of an interlocal agreement, Councilman Ken Svoboda proposed a resolution to signal the city’s inclination. He said given the fact that 92 percent of the county’s property tax revenue comes from Lincoln residents, it’s important for the city to have a debate about the issue.

County Commissioner Bob Workman said the city’s involvement would be similar to the county’s cooperation on other projects, such as the joint landfill and a $10 million expansion of the health department.

“Time is of the essence,” Workman said. “As we wait, favorable interest rates continue to creep higher while steel and concrete prices show no signs of easing.”

Councilman Jonathan Cook unsuccessfully tried to get Svoboda’s resolution withdrawn, saying the public had not gotten sufficient notice of the public hearing and that it was premature to vote on the issue before negotiating many complex issues with the county.

His motion was supported only by councilmen Dan Marvin and Doug Emery.

“This just seems to me to be an exercise in futility,” Emery said of the vote.

Marvin agreed, saying, “This kind of feels like a shotgun wedding… and I haven’t even been on a date yet with the county commission.”

On the final vote, only Marvin and Cook voted “no.” The Public Building Commission meets today, and is expected to take up the issue.

In other business, the council:

* Increased the minimum fines for people convicted of violating the city housing code. The court fine for a first offense was increased from $25 to $200; from $50 to $250 for a second offense and from $100 to $300 for a third offense.

* Was formally delivered the mayor’s proposed 2008-2009 budget, after which some council members questioned how many of his proposed employee reductions would be pure layoffs, and whether a tax increase is really justified. The council must sign off on a budget next month.

Reach Deena Winter at 473-2642 or dwinter@journalstar.com.


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Local > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
See any irony here wrote on July 7, 2008 9:00 pm:
" Interesting to watch City Council question the Mayor as to why city government may need a one-cent property tax increase and then just moments later adopt a non-binding resolution that will allow a one-cent property tax increase that city taxpayers will have to pay for a new jail. So now our city elected officials give away a tax increase to the county and deny
our own city the same so they can operate? What budget sacrifices has the County made to warrant an increase? County Commissioners let's hear from
you on how you have tightened your belt, laid off 65 employees, cut programs??? The 92% of your constituents that you represent in the city are listening and waiting for your answer. City Council, in the morning take a close look at yourselves in the mirror....don't like what you have become? Neither do we. "
Pure Layoffs wrote on July 7, 2008 9:11 pm:
" If my Department has 50 positions, and 10 of them haven't been filled because of looming budget issues, then I'm short 10 staff whether or not they were pink slipped or not. I fail to see the difference. I also liked how Count Camp tried to draw the Mayor into a discussion of the total prop tax increase, in order, I rationally assume, to get outside the $1.50 a month/$15 a year increase for houses assessed at 150k framework. . . . which is all too reasonable for the vast majority of folks in town. Colby Mach, who is quickly usurping Robin E for most vapid local leader, actually stated without smirking the other night on TV that a lot of people in town own houses worth more than 150k, and the tax increase will be much larger for them? Huh? OK LIBA guy, some wealthy family owns a home worth 300k, so they'll pay an extra $30 bucks a year. I guess I fail to see how that will be a hardship. How these extreme right wingers have managed to insert themselves into roles of influence is a travesty to the regular joes in this town. We shouldn't be reducing library hours and closing park restrooms because some wealthy business owners are too greedy to pry open the wallets for an extra $30 a year. I guess they don't need parks, they have acres and acres for back yards. "
Pezzie wrote on July 7, 2008 9:21 pm:
" I still think that if the city of Lincoln does any sort of financing the current plans must be sent back and smaller more economical Jail must be built instead. There was a lot of fluff as I recall in that original building design. If they cut out all the fluff it might reduce the cost of the jail significantly "
Trina Dubuque wrote on July 7, 2008 10:14 pm:
" Are these council members really going to try and pretend that people are up in arms about a $15 dollar A YEAR increase in property taxes? Most people spend that much on ATM fees/Netflix/Cigars/bubble gum a month. If you really think that roads, sewer, stormwater, streetscapes, downtown developments, parks, sidewalks, libraries, swimming pools, police, fire, emergency, etc.... aren't worth that insignificant increase, then move. Or better yet, go live in a cabin out in the wilderness where you don't have to rely on City services. If it weren't so important, it be fun to sit back and watch the Rep council members twist and turn and devise tortured reasoning on why this proposed tax increase is so brutal. I can't wait to vote against at least one of these rabid right wingers in the next council election. They've allowed politics to trump common sense. We could do with a whole new bunch, truth be told. Some of them have been there WAY TOO long. "
Doug Emery wrote on July 7, 2008 11:45 pm:
" The county has made a decision to go forward with the jail and NOTHING in today's vote changes that. The question is should the city help provide the lowest possible tax rate for our constituents. NOTHING in today's vote changed that. No irony when we control whether to raise taxes in the city and we can only try to mitigate the raise in the county.

There are many agreements to be reached before this comes BACK to the City Council for an actual vote. What if Lincoln is able to house LESS prisoners than they do now in the jail? Are we still obligated for the 1.5 million we pay to house prisoners now? Can some of the prisoners be tried under state law and not city law thus reducing the number of prisoners we have to pay for. As I said during the meeting today this vote was really an excercise in futility as it was NON-BINDING and only authorized the Public Building Commission to look into the feasibility of such action. No one will be in favor of this if the city has to pay more than the 1.5 million that we currently pay "
So wrote on July 8, 2008 8:22 am:
" So Doug Emery is going to tell the police how they should do their jobs. Don't charge them under City law charge them under state law. Well, then if there are two laws get rid of one "
JoBeth wrote on July 8, 2008 10:38 am:
" It seems that Camp is trying to ensure his reelection, even though he is wrong. We need that property tax hike to keep our City vibrant and protected. Come on, what is $15.00 a year John? Maybe it's time we eliminate some positions on the City Council. "
laughing wrote on July 9, 2008 1:37 pm:
" JoBeth it's not just the $15.00 it's the 4 % increase in water rates, 4% increase in sewer, the increase in LES, the increase in Time Warner, the increase in trash pickup. Where does this end. Unfortunately, the Mayors in the past got us in this mess. Plus all the give aways the City seems to want to do. "

Ads by Yahoo!