Test

Shawn-
Is this on the "wish list" that the City of Davenport will take with them to DC when the Quad City Development Group takes everyone out there in March?
 

I spoke on this issue at our last Finance Committee meeting. I have to wonder why other Iowa Cities are getting attention that Davenport cannot. The only Iowa city which lobbies is Des Moines and they have much more to show for it. We lobby through the QCDG and DOne. I believe there will be a presentation on this on Monday. Maybe we need to go in a new direction with this. I believe we must do all we can before turning back to the taxpayers and asking for more funds. During the last trip to DC the "wish list" included twelve items. I think there is a difference between asking for infrastructure funds and asking for funds for amenities. I will try and make a presentation on this at Monday's COW.
 

I cannot make the ward meeting but I thought I would throw in my two cents. I don't appreciate your perpetual campaign. Your stump speeches at the council meetings, making claims about free money to build sewer systems are nothing more than populist posturing. I actually read the legislation you provided a link to. None of the awards paid 100%, most only paid 25% and could not be coupled with other program. I think if Bruemmer can get us up to 55% that is pretty good.

I also disagree with you about the fairness of those in the affected area paying more. When a developer puts in a new street he rolls the costs of that street into the price of the house. Those who benefit pay for it. If the tunnel opens up land for new development, most of the cost should be borne by those who end up building there. It wouldn't be possible without the tunnel. It is your opinion that isn't fair? That seems to be the perfectly fair way to me.

Finally, how is it that property taxes pay for the sewer system? I'm no accountant, but I've heard Mr. Kolwey talk about the different funds and I believe him when he says my sewer bill pays for sewer, not property taxes. He has more credibility to me on that issue than you do.

Start working together with folks up there and stop campaigning all the time. We elected you to get things done, not always look for a way to be cross ways with everyone. Grow up!
 

Anonymous:

I am sorry to hear that you will be unable to make our December Ward Meeting. I welcome a future discussion with you on the items you brought in the above post. You are also welcome to give me a call at (563) 539-4857.

I agree with you that none of the awards given to other cities pay 100% of the projects. Even if they pay 1% we should we applying or lobbying for them. 1% is at least 1% less that you and I as taxpayers will have to pick up as we attempt to pay for this project. Most of the bills you read through are matching funds, some allow us to match our portion paid (not by the possible 55% grant). Assuming the taxpayers will need to fit the remaining 45% wouldn’t it be nice to know that half of that is paid by the federal government? In reality, the 45% the city is liable for will still be nearly $14 million.

I also agree with you analogy of developers charging extra to cover their costs for developing streets. Think of the road use tax. Once that street is built the road use tax is not increased for some portions of town rather than another. You are charged the same no matter where you drive in the corporate limits. It is the continued use that I find interest in.

On the issue of property tax and the sewer system, I will admit that there are not enough funds in the Sewer Fund to pay for all necessary rehabilitation to the current system. This is where the Debt Service Levy has assumed this bill. At the same time my concern is why was the Sewer Fee originally created? Prior to its conception your sewer services were paid out of your property taxes. In much the same way today many of your same services are paid by your property taxes for costs the Sewer Fund cannot cover. If your property taxes where originally intended to pay for this service, the Sewer Fee pays for this service, The Clean Water Fee partially pays for this service and a potential increase in the Sewer fee will go to this service you are essentially paying for the same thing four times.

I agree that this bill must be paid because it is nice knowing that when we flush the toilet that the water goes away, however, if we do not receive all of the 55% of the proposed grant funds and we do not find allocated help from the federal government we are looking at having to fund a $28 million for this project. This will have an affect on both the Sewer Fee as well as the Debt Service Levy which means property taxes will go up. The Debt Service Levy has been maxed due to the construction of the new Police Station.

What I am doing here is attempting to go over all options before I find myself in a corner and am forced to mess with the Debt Service Levy (property taxes) and the sewer fee. In my mind, getting things done, means looking out for the taxpayers. I thank you for your comments. Also know, that if you have any ideas on how to pay for this service with out raising taxes and fees I would welcome them. Give me a ring at (563) 529-4857. I would like to speak with you further on this issue.

Shawn Hamerlinck
 

You are wrong. I went to Mr. Guard's budget presentation and he showed where the Sewer Fund pays its own debt service funded through the sewer bills, not property taxes. I think you'd better double-check with him before you go spouting off more stuff.
 

I was there too and that was NOT what was said at all.

Pay attention.
 

Yes it was. It can also be seen in the city's financial report on-line. Or are they lying in their audited report now? That's my proof. Where is yours?
 

This does make for an interesting discussion. It is interesting to look at the budget and projected CIP budget and what is to be funded by the Debt Service Levy. I think this will make for more conversation. Thanks for your interest.

Shawn Hamerlinck
 

The clowns that think property taxes do not pay for sewer need to have their heads examined. The bean counters have a problem. Much of the sewer fees go for salary. Who is included in this salary allocation? Everyone who handles a piece of paper or talks about sewers. This includes the city administrator, Public works director, sewer crew, sewage treatment plant people, finance director, budget people, the people who handle the bills to be send and the people who receive the money. What is the percentage of the sewer fee that goes for new sewers? Small in relation to all the cost of the people mentioned above.

Some sewer work comes out of the riverboat money that the city gets I have been told by a former alderman (democrat by the way who was there when they changed how costs were allocated).
 

Another finance expert. You should run for alderman.