LIBA News

New LIBA Web site Launched.

Thank you Schrock Innovations and Thor Schrock.

2010 LIBA Business Awards Announced.

Congratulations to our winners.

LIBA Calendar

View the LIBA calendar to view upcoming events and meetings.

Newsletter

View the LIBA Newsletter.

LIBA Roundtable

View the LIBA Roundtable website.

LIBA Scholarship Form

View the LIBA Liba Scholarship Form (due March 31, 2010)

Click Here for
Wayne Stroot's Cartoon

LIBA Positions

Schools | County | City

LIBA Supports the Arena
February 08, 2010

To: Lincoln City Council Members
From: LIBA Board of Directors
Date: February 8, 2010
Re: LIBA Support of the Arena Project

Lincolnites have an important decision to make this spring when they will be asked to vote on a ballot initiative to approve a $25 million bond that will guarantee a funding source for a new arena.

LIBA believes the arena will bring vitality, energy and new development to our community. We believe it is a great opportunity with a low level of economic risk.

LIBA is optimistic that the City has established funding mechanisms (the turn back tax and the Joint Public Agency) as well as a number of public private partnerships with ISG, the University of Nebraska, the 2015 Visioning group, the railroads and the Breslow Ice Center that will provide sufficient funding to build, operate and maintain the arena. While LIBA is concerned about a property tax levy, we are more concerned about the potential loss of revenue from events that have already left Lincoln or are choosing not to come to Lincoln at all

LIBA is proud of the numerous hotels, restaurants and shops that Lincoln has to offer to visitors. However, with the loss of state volleyball and wrestling, Lincoln is losing significant sales tax revenue; furthermore, Lincoln could possibly lose the state basketball tournament. The arena will help ensure those events stay in Lincoln and would generate millions of dollars from visitors who come to cheer for their home team.

LIBA is also proud of the many employment and entertainment opportunities Lincoln has to offer to its citizens. However, we are cognizant of the fact that facilities such as the Pershing and Devaney Centers are aging and thus we are falling behind our regional competitors in attracting talent. While we believe there are many reasons to move forward with the arena, attracting young people to, and keeping them in, our community is certainly a significant benefit.

For all of these reasons, the LIBA Board of Directors voted to endorse the arena project.

The LIBA Board of Directors studied the current arena proposal thoroughly and had several questions and recommendations. Some of these have been accepted into the current proposal, and some were, unfortunately, not able to be included for very good reasons. Even though we intend to continue monitoring this process and these issues, the LIBA Board feels that the arena is an important next step for the future of Lincoln. We feel that the arena project is truly a community project that can bind together all citizens of our community and become a jewel in our Capital City that everyone can be proud of.

The issues we will continue to monitor with this project as it moves forward are: 1) Ensuring responsible management is in place to oversee the construction, maintenance and operations of the arena so that it has the greatest opportunity to see a profit and not rely on property tax dollars; 2) Opposing any plan to refurbish Pershing Auditorium. This could cost millions of dollars and still not attract the types of acts or entertainment the new arena would; 3) Pursuing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) be drafted that requires the university regent on the JPA be from a District that represents the largest section of Lincoln’s population (currently District 1). LIBA believes Lincolnites would be best served if someone from their own district represented them on this taxing authority; 4) Monitoring the cost of ground remediation. Because of the uncertainty of these figures, LIBA encourages the City to investigate insurance or a similar vehicle that protects the City and taxpayer from liabilities that may result from unknown remediation expenses; and, 5) If a sunset of the occupation tax on hotels, rental cars and bars is not possible at this time, then we support establishing a minimum three-year recurring review of the tax.

LIBA is proud to see Lincoln moving forward with the Arena Project at a time when many cities have been paralyzed by the economic climate. Lincoln will continue to thrive if the citizens of our community can come together behind a common vision and goal that unites us as a city to push forward and ensure Lincoln maintains and advances the quality of life we have all come to expect and enjoy.

LIBA Objects to Impact Fee Taskforce’s Property Tax Increase Proposal
January 14, 2009

For more information contact:
Coby Mach
Lincoln Independent Business Association

LIBA Objects to Impact Fee Taskforce’s Property Tax Increase Proposal

Lincoln, Neb. (January 14, 2009) The Mayor’s Taskforce on Impact Fees has released its report, making several significant recommendations. While the Taskforce made some reasonable recommendations, the LIBA Board of Directors cannot endorse rec-ommendations encouraging pre-approved wheel tax increases and raising the property tax levy. Such unchecked allowances contradict LIBA’s fundamental principles.

This report clearly states that all recommendations “would be the unanimous recom-mendation of the entire committee.” This was not the case. The LIBA representative voiced objections to many of the final recommendations. The LIBA Board takes issue with the fact that despite dissenting opinions, the language remains in this document giving the appearance of unanimity.

###

Mid-year Budget Request Calls for Hiring Freeze
December 23, 2008

To: Mayor Chris Beutler
Lincoln City Council Members
Lancaster County Commissioners
LES Administrative Board
Lincoln Board of Education
From: LIBA Board of Directors
Date: December 23, 2008
Re: Mid-year Budget

Thank you for doing all that you can to hold the line on taxes.

We would like to propose, well before your budget discussions, that each of you—Mayor Beutler, City Council Members, County Commissioners, LES Administrative Board, and Lincoln Board of Education—implement a hiring freeze, effective immediately.

Our public employees are valuable members of the community. To protect them, and prevent pos-sible future lay-offs or job elimination in an uncertain economy, we encourage the proactive con-sideration of a hiring freeze. Mayor Beutler had successfully used a hiring freeze the past two years to help control the city budget.

The current economic climate suggests that taking care of our current employees, while serving tax-paying constituents by minimizing labor costs, would be sound policy. We do recognize how-ever, that if an extenuating circumstance arose where you must fill a key position, such an excep-tion would be understandable.

We hope all public managing bodies will choose to implement a hiring freeze. We also hope that such a freeze, if affected, would not signal a growth in consulting costs. This is a time for auster-ity. Relying on our ample expertise found within our current public staff seems a sound approach.

Thank you for your consideration. As always, we appreciate your efforts toward finding govern-ment efficiencies.

Thank You Letter Regarding Antelope Valley
December 02, 2008

2 December 2008

Mayor Chris Beutler
555 S. 10th St. 2nd Floor
Room 208
Lincoln, NE 68508

Dear Mayor Beutler,

The Lincoln Independent Business Association (LIBA) Board of Directors would like to thank you for the leadership you have demonstrated regarding the comple-tion of Phase I of the Antelope Valley Project. Recently, in a November 9, 2008, editorial you penned for the Lincoln Journal Star, you shared some valuable in-sight regarding this project.

In your editorial, you outlined lessons learned—ideas and approaches that worked well and didn’t work very well. Furthermore, rather than ignoring the changing needs and demands of the community and continuing to move forward with a costly project (Phase II), you seem willing to reconsider and reprioritize your goals while keeping in mind the wants and needs of the community.

We sincerely appreciate these efforts.

Sincerely,

Coby Mach LIBA Executive Director For the Board

Continuation of 2008 Impact Tax Freeze
November 17, 2008

To: City Council Members
From: LIBA Board of Directors
Date: November 17, 2008
Re: Continuation of 2008 Impact Tax Freeze

The Lincoln Independent Business Association (LIBA) Board of Directors sup-ports the continuation of the impact tax freeze the Council implemented in Janu-ary 2008. We ask for the continuation of this freeze based on several factors in-cluding research provided by Edsel Charles, President of MarketGraphics Re-search Group, Inc., of Franklin, TN. In a presentation given November 7, 2007, to Lincoln community leaders and interested parties, Charles stated that once impact taxes reach $1.25 per square foot of residential property, one can expect a negative impact on the local economy and construction industry. In Lincoln, im-pact taxes are more than double the $1.25 per square foot rate.

LIBA also believes the decreasing number of building permits issued in Lincoln is indicative of a slowing local economy and a cause for concern. The number of single-family dwelling permits issued has steadily declined from 1,327 in 2003 to 373 in 2008 (through October). Attached you will find a complete listing of the to-tal number of residential permits from 2002 to 2008. On this document, you will also notice that multi family homes have dropped below 100 for the first time since 2002. In fact, they are below 50.

Last year, LIBA encouraged the Council and Mayor to create a task force that would explore the impact tax structure. Such a task force was created, with in-structions to the task force from the Mayor to return with recommendations that were revenue-neutral. While we found those instructions to be somewhat coun-terintuitive, we are nonetheless awaiting the results of the task force and will re-spond to those at the appropriate time.

We sincerely thank you for your time and consideration.

LES Proposed Rate Increase
November 14, 2008

To: LES Board of Directors
From: LIBA Board of Directors
Date: November 14, 2008
Re: Proposed rate increase

The Lincoln Independent Business Association (LIBA) Board of Directors has studied the Lincoln Electric System’s (LES) 4% rate increase that is scheduled to begin March 1, 2009. As we understand it, this increase would offset increased energy costs, fund $1.1 Million to the Sustainable Energy Program (SEP) and provide $4 Million for the Rate Stabilization Fund (RSF).

In the past, LIBA had encouraged LES to increase the RSF at the expense of the SEP. We had initially objected to a methane project, which seemed to have lim-ited viability in the foreseeable future. Since then, LES has taken measures to increase its RSF, thus improving its bond rating and enabling it to be better pre-pared for unforeseen expenses. In addition, LES has prepared an SEP plan, which outlines in considerable detail the savings and benefits commercial and residential customers may see if they participate in applicable programs. We commend LES for these creative solutions. However, we maintain that using a “Check Off” system would allow pro-green residents to donate to the SEP while lowering this 4% rate increase for Lincoln’s poor and disadvantaged.

We would also like to commend LES for conducting internal reviews of its vehi-cle and office space utilization. Such studies can lead to significant savings and efficiencies. In addition, LES has consolidated two departments and eliminated two positions. We are looking forward to seeing the completed study of internal organization and staffing requirements, which we understand is currently under-way.

Finally, we would like to offer the following ideas:

We understand that the interest dollars earned on the Rate Stabilization Funds are being spent on operations. If you keep spending the interest, the only way for this fund to grow is to charge LES customers. We believe that the earned interest should not be spent on operations, but rather re-main in the RSF to increase its value and protect rate payers;

LES should look for small efficiencies that when added together may pro-duce significant savings. Take for example, the LES Annual Report. While we appreciate LES’ efforts to educate and inform its customers, we be-lieve it could do so more efficiently by producing its annual report on lighter stock paper and removing unnecessary inserts;

We encourage LES to work toward reducing its retirement benefits to bet-ter reflect the private sector. LES offers the same outrageous 200% match that is only found at the city of Lincoln; and

Finally, we have some thoughts for the City of Lincoln. As a major power user, the City should examine ways to conserve electricity usage, which will provide a savings to LES. As long as it does not pose a safety issue, reduce the number of street lights, in particular, study 27th Street from O to Cornhusker where each light pole has 4 lights. Turning off every-other light, or a reduction in street lights at 3a.m., etc. would save energy and reduce light pollution.

We would like to thank LES staff for working on transparency within their budget. We also wish to acknowledge LES Board members Kathy Campbell and Richard Evnen who reached out to LIBA to make sure we were receiving needed informa-tion. We sincerely thank you for your time and consideration.

Lighting Standards
September 08, 2008

To: City Council Members
From: LIBA Board of Directors
Re: Lighting Standards
Date: 8 September 2008

Over the past year, the city of Lincoln, specifically Marvin Krout, has gone to ex-treme measures to meet with LIBA regarding the new lighting standards, and we appreciate his efforts very much. Our committee found the first drafts were not very business friendly. However, not only did Marvin and his department meet with us, but they also took our ideas and suggestions and were able to imple-ment them to reduce some of the costs and performance burdens contained in the original document.

LIBA will not oppose these new standards, but we want to be clear that the new standards will create more costs to the business owner. On the other hand, there are parts of the new standards that will reduce costs, and reduce wasted electricity and our natural resources.

LIBA and our members will try and work within these standards and hope you and Marvin will again be open to suggestions if these new standards need to be amended in the future.

LES Proposed Rate Increase of 9.1%
August 18, 2008

To: LES Board
From: LIBA Board of Directors
Date: 18 August 2008
Re: Proposed Rate Increase of 9.1%

The LIBA Board of Directors will neither oppose nor support LES’ proposed rate increase of 9.1%. Like the rest of the community, we are not pleased that LES is going to increase its rates, but we also understand that energy and resource costs have increased significantly.

Three days ago, on Friday, August 15, the Mayor stated in a press release that “LES should do everything in its power to demonstrate to the Mayor and the Council it has made the tough choices before rate increases are sought.” LIBA agrees. We question whether LES has sufficiently reviewed its internal budgets to determine whether more efficiencies could be found. LIBA encourages additional reviews of expenditures for savings in personnel, travel, advertising and public relations. In the future, we would also encourage LES to lower its 2-1 retirement match for employees.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

2008-09 Proposed City Budget
August 11, 2008

To: City Council Members
From: LIBA Board of Directors
Date: 11 August 2008
Re: 2008-09 Proposed City Budget

The Lincoln Independent Business Association (LIBA) would like to commend the Council’s and the Mayor’s efforts to balance the City Budget.

Our first comments are regarding the allocation of the $8Million found in the Spe-cial Assessments Revolving Fund. After much discussion with our members, we would suggest using the interest for infrastructure since that is where the dollars were generated, and leave the $8Million in a reserve fund to grow interest, or cover anticipated budget shortfalls next year.

Second, the Mayor has advocated his Fast Forward project, which includes renovating the 2nd and 3rd floors of the City-County Building. While LIBA generally supports ideas that encourage and streamline economic development efforts, we have to disagree with the timing and cost of this proposal.

LIBA has questioned the need for the level of services the Health Department provides. We acknowledge that the State generally mandates certain services be provided, but does not often specify to what level the services are to be provided. Thus, without reducing any significant services, we offer the following efficiencies to promotion and outreach, so that we may maintain or even expand services:

Eliminate the Health and Outreach Manager position and divide those re-sponsibilities between the Dental Health & Nutrition Services Manager and the Community Services Manager for a minimum savings of $73,700+benefits;

Eliminate two positions in the Promotion and Outreach Department, (1 Public Health Educator III, and a .75 Public Health Educator II). We are not providing alcohol prevention; why do we need four employees in to-bacco prevention? Another of these educators is going into the schools to teach kids bicycle, scooter, helmet, and other safety measures. LIBA would suggest that we could expand this program by having Firefighters, the men and women who respond to childhood accidents, in the schools to provide this education at a savings to the taxpayer;

Expand the volunteer dentists for school screenings to include all dental services;

Continue to seek public-private partnerships, particularly for maternal-child services;

Review pool safety inspection standards for possible cost-savings; and

Intensify efforts to seek grant funding from federal, state, local, and private sources, particularly those which do not require matching funds.

In the LFR budget request, they have sought funding for an Administrative Assis-tant position. Based upon conversations with Fire Chief Ford, we believe this re-quest is reasonable and could provide significant efficiencies in the long term.

Last year, the Council approved additional funding to the Lincoln Police Depart-ment for patrol officers. However, the Mayor hired an aide to address neighbor-hood concerns. We question whether these funds are being used as intended by Council.

Speaking of last year, in 2007, LIBA called for a $1 Million reduction to StarTran. Now, rather than eliminating midday services to meet the proposed budgetary cuts, Council has determined it would like to see fares increased, some services cut, and may offer to give an estimated $150,000 in additional funds. LIBA strongly opposes the added budget of $150,000. However, LIBA believes it is reasonable - in light of fuel prices - to see if revenues and ridership can be in-creased. The fee increase is an interesting alternative; however, if StarTran cannot demonstrate over the next year it can reasonably sustain itself, we will again call for significant reductions. Remember, StarTran placed almost dead last in the Mayor’s Priority Lincoln Survey.

Finally, we would like to encourage Council to review the following:

Worker’s compensation—Based on our understanding, it is entirely possi-ble for an employee to make more money on workman’s compensation than his or her regular salary because the first 2/3 of income is tax free. Please explore this issue.

Employer retirement match –Lower this to equal a 100% match of em-ployee contributions at all levels, rather than the current match that equals or exceeds 200% of the employee contribution. This change, if enacted for all members of the Employees Retirement Plan (which does not include Firefighters or Police pension) would save the City over $3.3 million per budget year. Most private sector employees would consider a 100% (or 1-to-1) match a very generous benefit

Public Works—We question why Public Works is reducing para-professional staff by 3 FTEs and adding 4 professional FTEs.

Administration—It is time to review every departments “administrative” costs. For example, the administrative overhead for the city Libraries is 9% of their budget while Parks & Recreation is only 4%.

Thank you for considering these ideas. We sincerely appreciate your time.

Letter to Request Impact Fee Freeze
July 16, 2008

July 16, 2008

Mayor Chris Beutler
555 S. 10th St. 2nd Floor Room 208
Lincoln, NE 68508

Dear Mayor Beutler:

In 2007, the City Council voted to freeze impact fees at their current level and asked the City to create a task force to study the structure and results of impact fees on the commu-nity.

The task force was charged with reviewing and proposing to you the alternatives or modi-fications to the City’s current impact fee policies and model. Your directive included the requirement that all alternatives and/or modifications were expected to:

A. Be revenue neutral, in terms of total impact fees collected; or

B. Propose a new source of revenue, to the extent total impact fees are reduced.

a. A new source of revenue does not mean a reallocation of existing re-sources.

b. Any new source of revenue should be politically realistic and achievable to the groups represented on the task force and actively supported by them.

The Lincoln Independent Business Association (LIBA) would ask that as the task force moves forward, you would rescind the directive that requires the task force to come up with alternatives that are revenue neutral.

LIBA believes the current application of impact fees is detrimental to our community’s economy. In a letter dated January 8, 2008, LIBA asked the City Council to freeze impact fees based in part on the following: We ask for this freeze based on several factors in-cluding research provided by Edsel Charles, President of MarketGraphics Research Group, Inc., of Franklin, TN. In a presentation given November 7, 2007, to Lincoln community leaders and interested parties, Charles stated that once impact fees reach $1.25 per square foot of residential property, one can expect a negative impact on the local economy and construction industry. In Lincoln, impact fees are more than double the $1.25 per square foot rate.

In closing, LIBA asks that you rescind your directive for a revenue-neutral solution and allow the task force to draw its own conclusions and make recommendations based on the information they collect and analyze.

We thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Coby Mach LIBA Executive Director For the Board

Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget
May 14, 2008

To: City Planning Commission
From: LIBA Board of Directors
Date: May 14, 2008
Re: Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget

Before we propose our budget recommendations to you, we would like to ac-knowledge that we understand your purpose here is to determine whether the projects before you are in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, not to rec-ommend or deny specific line-item budget details. However, because we are aware these projects will likely come before the City Council during its budget public hearings, we would like to be on the record as soon as possible.

We also know that Planning Commission Staff has found that most, if not all, of the programs are in full or general compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. However, we have identified some areas that concern us. They are as follows:

StarTran: We found that StarTran is requesting numerous (15) full-size and (unknown) handivans be replaced over the next several years. We recognize that federal dollars and requirements are attached to this money, but we are concerned that with rising fuel costs and marginal rid-ership, the City may be tying its hands unnecessarily. We need to ask ourselves: Are 15 full-size buses really necessary? Do we need to replace the handivans now or can it wait? How many handivans do we intend to purchase? Do we know the details surrounding the depreciation life of these vehicles and what really are the federal requirements?

Park and Recreation: Contrary to popular belief, we are not all about cut-ting funding to Parks. We recognize that trails, bridges, and other neighborhood amenities need to be maintained. However, what we ques-tion here is the philosophy behind the Comprehensive Plan itself. The Comprehensive Plan seems to indicate that there should be a park for every 1 square mile of residential property. Is this a realistic venture we should continue to pursue? Can we afford it? Would we be better off creat-ing expansive parks that are perhaps easier to maintain and take fewer personnel, thus reducing expenditures but maintaining a park system we can be proud of?

Pershing Auditorium: Currently, $46,000 is allocated to the Pershing Cen-ter for 2008-09. We recommend holding that funding until we see the re-sults of the 2009 arena bond vote. Unless of course this funding is needed for emergency repairs that could result in potential harm to personnel or significant structural damage.

Automatic Vehicle Locators: We offer this purchase be delayed one year unless Chief Ford indicates that the AVLs are necessary for safety pur-poses. We also recognize that he may find the AVLs helpful in his efforts to reorganize and find efficiencies within his department. As such, we would respect his request to keep these items in the budget.

Landfill Gas Control System: According to the CIP budget, this System would address potential landfill odor issues, reduce greenhouse gas emis-sions, and provide a renewable energy resource. The description contin-ues to read that this System is not currently required by any federal regu-lation and must only be installed IF emissions exceed the threshold set forth. So, we ask the following: Is the Bluff Road Landfill exceeding the al-lowable emission threshold? And, why are we spending a $2.7M if there is not a federal requirement to do so?

Unfortunately, as we were preparing for today's presentation, we were dis-pleased to learn that the City had not updated its website with current informa-tion. A memo from the Planning Department and a letter from the Planning Di-rector were updated, however, the budget requests were not. We were working from the 2007-08 final CIP budget information, which was posted on the City's website until 11am yesterday morning. The Lincoln City Council had been given a draft of the 2008-09 CIP budget on May 2nd. Why was this information not im-mediately posted to the City website? We not only find this process frustrating, but find it disingenuous when City staff and officials encourage civic participation and then don't provide accurate information.

However, we do appreciate the opportunity to present just a few of our concerns and thank you for time and commitment to the process.

Anti-Business Petition Out of Step with Lincoln
April 24, 2008

Date: April 24, 2008
ANTI-BUSINESS PETITION OUT OF STEP WITH LINCOLN

(Lincoln, NE) – At a time when the Mayor’s recent survey on Lincoln’s priorities showed citizens rank economic opportunity as a top priority, the anti-business petition offered today is clearly out of step with the citizens of Lincoln. It’s clear that the City should be focusing on developing jobs and new business development and having business leaders serve in elected offices would help the city focus on that priority. Right now there is a positive spirit of cooperation between the City and the business community, and this petition is, unfortunately, a divisive wedge that will split our community.

Unlike the ethics ordinance introduced before the City Council last week that brought accountability and transparency to our city government, this proposed charter amendment has all of the flaws that the first proposed charter amendment had:

It prohibits people from exercising their freedom to participate in the political process by reducing the field of candidates and preventing qualified citizens of Lincoln from the ability to seek office;

It takes away citizens opportunity to vote for a favored candidate;

Ironically, it discriminates against business people and perhaps non-profit organizations, the very people who have demonstrated they know how to balance budgets and manage personnel;

It limits the city’s ability to seek competitive bids, and

It allows city employees and mayoral aides, those arguably with more knowledge and access to privileged information than anyone else to still have city contracts.

The people bringing this up for public scrutiny made no attempt to fix the major flaws that were identified in the public hearing. This indicates this is simply an attempt to use our city charter for anti-business purposes. We find it ironic that this amendment could lead to higher expenses for the city because it may remove competitive bidders. In a time of possible recession, declining sales tax revenue, and a projected $6 million budget shortfall, the taxpayers could end-up paying more for purchases made by the city.

We also believe this amendment is a personal vendetta. As one of the petition’s sponsors, Victor Covalt, indicated in his public testimony before the City Council, this is targeted toward specific elected officials and business owners throughout our community. This was confirmed again today at Mr. Covalt’s press conference when he specifically targeted two city council members.

Finally, under this amendment, mayoral aides who attend privileged meetings would be permitted to have city contracts. Why not go after that prohibition? Because it appears this amendment was written so narrowly as to go after one specific group of citizens and attack sitting council members. In addition to discrimination, legal counsel has told us that this amendment could prohibit leaders of our non-profit organizations who have contracts with the city from serving in an elected capacity.

On Monday, the City Council will vote on an ethics ordinance brought forward by Councilman Spatz. LIBA endorses this ordinance as a fair solution, which brings accountability and transparency to the process. It allows everyone to disclose AND serve.

We would encourage the citizens of Lincoln to NOT sign this flawed petition and we hope they recognize that Mr. Covalt and his accomplices in this effort are simply playing politics with the city charter.

At the press conference today, Mr. Covalt said, “This may not be a wise bill.” We agree. It lacks wisdom!

Groups Support Transparency and Accountability
April 21, 2008

To: City Council Members
From: LCOC, HBAL & LIBA
Date: April 21, 2008

The Board of Directors of the Lincoln Chamber of Commerce, Home Builders Association of Lincoln and the Lincoln Independent Business Association, support the ordinance to amend Chapter 2.54 of the Lin-coln Municipal Code. If adopted, this amendment will bring additional transparency and accountability to the city contracting process.

We believe these are the types of changes citizens want in order to ensure local government is open and accountable while remaining inclusive to all segments of our community. We also believe this type of change should occur through the ordinance process, not the city charter.

First, this amendment is inclusive rather than exclusive. The Charter Revision proposal was exclusionary in that it strictly forbade only elected officials with business interests from participating in the contracting process, while allowing city employees with business interests the continued freedom to do so. We be-lieve that neither group should be excluded from opportunities, but rather both should be subjected and accountable to rules and regulations that ensure a fair, competitive, and transparent process.

Second, this amendment encourages participation in both the contracting and political processes. As most people who believe in the free enterprise system would agree, competition is good. Competition encour-ages businesses to offer quality goods and services for reasonable prices. This amendment allows for local businesses to participate in the process, and in turn, the City benefits by maintaining control over the process and purchasing goods and services at the most reasonable prices for the taxpayer.

It also allows for participation in the political process. As you well know, running and winning an elected office often is an arduous task that consumes your time, energy, and resources. It is increasingly difficult to find candidates who are willing to subject themselves and their families to the scrutiny of the public eye. However, despite all the drawbacks, there are still individuals willing to do so, and prohibiting those willing and eligible individuals from participating in the political process is fundamentally contrary to the basic principles of individual liberty.

Again, this amendment provides the best that can be offered—freedom for individuals to seek office, op-portunity to vote for the candidate of choice, and a process that ensures accountability and transparency.

Wendy Birdsall
For the LCOC Board

Coby Mach
For the LIBA Board

Fred Hoke
For the HBAL Board

LES Rate Increase and Budget Hearing
April 18, 2008

To: LES Board Members
Cc: City Council Members
From: LIBA Board of Directors
Date: April 18, 2008
Re: Rate Increase & Budget Hearings

I’m here today representing the LIBA Board to express concern over the LES rate increase hearing process. Please note that we are not here to attack or be-labor the process, but rather offer some ideas that might better streamline the process.

First, we would encourage LES to clearly and specifically indicate when the pub-lic is to testify on a proposed rate increase. LIBA acted in good faith when we testified at the LES rate increase public hearing and City Council rate increase public hearing.

While LIBA was raising objections to the rate increase, at the rate increase hear-ings, we were called-into-question by two City Council members because we did not testify at the “Budget Hearings”. That left us to wonder why we have a public hearing on the rate, if that is not the appropriate place to testify on the rate.

It did not seem logical for LES to first take its full budget to the City Council to be adopted, with the proposed rate increase already included, and then hold the public hearings on the increase. Would it make more sense to hold the rate in-crease hearings prior to the full budget hearing or even at the same time? By do-ing so, the public could offer other cost-saving ideas as an alternative to rate in-creases and LES would have time to incorporate ideas or suggestions into a full budget the Council would later adopt.

Finally, we found that testifying at the LES hearing was unlike other public hear-ings because the LES Board members were not seated in a place of prominence so we could address our testimony to them or answer questions they might have. While this is probably not a significant change, it would lend even more credibility to the process.

If the LES board does not believe changes are necessary, we would ask that it provide specific directions to guide public testimony.

We look forward to your response and we thank you for your time and considera-tion.

Lincoln Charter Amendment
March 03, 2008

To: City Council Members
From: LIBA Board of Directors
Date: March 3, 2008
Re: Lincoln Charter Amendment

This proposed charter amendment is a solution in search of a problem. No one can show where the abuse exists that would warrant such an extreme proposal as this amendment to the City Charter. There is already a great deal of transparency in the process used to award contracts. Additionally, it could be argued that because of Accountability and Disclosure Commission requirements – as well as the oversight by a watchful public – city council members receive the most severe scrutiny of anyone.

This amendment is ridiculously narrow as to whom it applies to, and ridiculously broad as to what it applies to. This amendment is discrimination against business owners – or even those with indirect ownership - and is perhaps the most anti-business piece of legislation to come before this Council in several years.

This amendment solely targets citizens who have an ownership interest in a business, who provide for their families, employ other citizens of Lincoln, pay taxes and contribute to the economy of Lincoln. Yet nowhere does this charter amendment address the issue of city employees who have a contract with the city. It is a fact that an Aide to the Mayor would have more “inside” information than a part-time city council member. Under this amendment, mayoral aides who attend privileged meetings would be permitted to have city contracts. Why not go after that prohibition? Because it appears this amendment was written so narrowly as to go after one specific group of citizens.

In addition to discrimination, there are at least three other issues we have with this amendment.

First, legal counsel has told us that this amendment could prohibit leaders of our non-profit organizations who have contracts with the city from serving in an elected capacity.

Secondly, there are many distinguished officials who have served Lincoln honorably and capably who would not have been able to serve had this amendment been adopted before. We did not have a problem worthy of this draconian solution then, and we don’t have that kind of problem now. We don’t need a prohibition on serving in city government; we need transparency and accountability. This charter amendment provides neither. In fact, this amendment does nothing to fix the worst contracting problem the city has perhaps ever faced: the fire truck purchase scandal.

Finally, this amendment will lead to higher expenses for the city because it will remove competitive bidders. In a time of possible recession, the taxpayers will end-up paying more for purchases made by the city.

After years of acrimony, we are finally reaching a point in our city where elected officials and community leaders are working well together. LIBA has enjoyed working with the Mayor and the new leadership he has brought to our city. We are encouraged by this Mayor and the City Council’s attempt to come together as city leaders to address city problems with city solutions. This is not a good city solution, it is discrimination.

By definition, discrimination is when you act in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit. We do not want to see an amendment full of intolerance and discrimination poison the productive working relationship we are building upon.

We urge the Council to kill this charter amendment and if it feels the need to address this issue in some way then please treat all citizens equally so one group is not discriminated against and frozen out of our local government process.

State Fair Park Relocation
February 26, 2008

TO: Legislative Agriculture Committee
FROM: LIBA Board of Directors
DATE: February 26, 2008
RE: State Fair Park Relocation

It is the recommendation of the LIBA Board of Directors to adopt a position that the Ne-braska State Fair Park would be best relocated in Lincoln, Nebraska at or near the Lan-caster Events Center on 84th Street.

The rationale is as follows:

The Fair’s current location can be better utilized by the State of Nebraska through the de-velopment of Innovation Park. The development of Innovation Park would enable long-term growth through economic development of the State, UNL, and Lincoln, would ex-pand the job base for our students who wish to stay in Nebraska, expands the tax base in Lincoln, and enhances the job opportunities while going to school.

We acknowledge that Grand Island may offer an alternative, but the utilization of the ex-isting State-owned land with a shift in location to State-owned land on 84th Street would create the best economic opportunity for Nebraska. The existing 500,000 sq. ft. of space at the Lancaster Events Center would complement the Nebraska State Fair and offer the opportunity to add a horse-racing venue. This would be the best use of existing resources and wise use of tax dollars.

Due to these and other considerations we support the 84th Street site as the most feasible choice.

The LIBA Advisory Committee and LIBA Board of Directors both strongly endorsed this position.

Impact Fee Freeze
January 14, 2008

To: City Council Members
From: LIBA Board of Directors
Date: January 14, 2008
Re: Impact Fee/Tax Freeze

The Lincoln Independent Business Association (LIBA) Board of Directors supports the introduced legislation that freezes city impact fees at the 2007 rate. We ask for this freeze based on several factors including research provided by Edsel Charles, President of MarketGraphics Research Group, Inc., of Franklin, TN. In a presenta-tion given November 7, 2007, to Lincoln community leaders and interested parties, Charles stated that once impact fees reach $1.25 per square foot of residential property, one can expect a negative impact on the local economy and construction industry. In Lincoln, impact fees are more than double the $1.25 per square foot rate.

LIBA also believes the decreasing number of building permits issued in Lincoln is indicative of a slowing local economy and a cause for concern. The number of sin-gle-family dwelling permits issued has steadily declined from 1,566 in 2003 to 569 in 2007. Attached below you will find a complete listing of the total number of residen-tial permits from 2002 to 2007.

In addition to a rate freeze, we would also encourage the creation of a task force that explores the fee structure. Because the fees have been in place since 2003, we be-lieve there is sufficient information available to produce a comprehensive analysis of the fees. We hope this analysis will be the basis for changes that positively impact the city of Lincoln

We thank you for your time and consideration.

Proposed LES Rate Increase
January 08, 2008

To: LES Management & Board
From: LIBA Board of Directors
Date: January 8, 2008
Re: Proposed 2008 rate increase

The Lincoln Independent Business Association (LIBA) Board of Directors has discussed the Lincoln Electric System (LES) 5 ½% rate increase that is scheduled to begin March 1, 2008. As we understand it, 4% would cover operational costs; ½ % would be placed in the Sustainable Energy Program (SEP) and 1% in the Rate Stabilization Fund.

In a separate matter, with separate funds, we understand that LES will be funding a renewable energy (methane) program at $4.5 million.

While LIBA appreciates LES’ efforts to proactively address our community’s growing energy needs through alternative processes, we believe such processes could be pursued without implementing a 5 ½% rate increase to LES customers. Therefore, we oppose the current proposal and offer the following instead.

Generally, LIBA does not endorse or encourage any rate, fee, or tax increases. And, LIBA does not support this increase either. However, if LES plans to move forward with a rate increase we suggest that rather than raising it 5 ½%, it only be raised 4% and eliminate the increases for the new Sustainable Energy Program and Rate Stabilization Fund. Since LES has suggested that bond rating agencies would look favorable on new funds to the Rate Stabilization Fund, we suggest that LES could take the $4.5 million it is going to spend toward extracting methane from the Lincoln Landfill and reallocate those funds to the Rate Stabilization Fund.

In addition, rather than implementing a rate increase—which forces all LES customers pay—LES could place a check-off on customers’ bills that allows each customer to voluntarily contribute to the renewable energy (methane) program or Sustainable Energy Program. If the renewable energy program is as popular as LES believes it to be, it is entirely possible they will receive more funding than the program’s current allocation.

We hope that you will consider the alternative proposal we have offered. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at 402-466-3419 or e-mail me at cm@liba.org.

Early Retirement Incentive Program
December 20, 2007

To: Mayor Chris Beutler
Lincoln City Council Members
Re: Early Retirement Incentive Program
Date: December 20, 2007

In an effort to address the City’s forthcoming budget shortfalls, the Mayor introduced an early retirement incentive program for city employees. We appreciate this proactive ap-proach to addressing the City’s financial issues. However, having only a limited time to review the facts and figures associated with this program, the Lincoln Independent Busi-ness Association (LIBA) Board of Directors is not endorsing or opposing its adoption.

LIBA is concerned about the actual amount of money that will be saved, particularly in the first year. Since the City did not calculate in the formula the number of retirees who we would normally expect to retire in a given year (based on previous years), coupled with extensive insurance benefits and sick leave payouts, we are concerned that we have not seen numbers that truly reflect the City’s potential gain or loss of such a pro-gram.

After the last retirement incentive, sixty percent of the retirements were refilled. We are concerned that if numerous positions vacated this year by retirees are not eliminated from the department structure but rather simply refilled with other employees, the City is unlikely to see significant savings. We firmly believe that for this program to be success-ful, most of the vacated positions must be eliminated, thus allowing for the restructuring of City government and leading to potential significant savings.

Finally, we believe that this is a temporary solution to a long-term issue. We recommend City departments undergo a complete restructuring and in doing so, address issues such as capping sick leave and reducing the 200% retirement match to a generous 100% match. We hope these issues are addressed in the next round of negotiations. If the early retirement incentive program is adopted, we will expect to see true savings or of-fers to provide necessary cuts to make up for lost revenues.

Despite these misgivings, we believe the program may have some merit because such programs have demonstrated success for others. We appreciate Mayor Beutler for ap-proaching this issue and will not oppose this package.

Highest regards,

Coby Mach
For the Board

Innovation Park
December 14, 2007

December 14, 2007

Senator Phil Erdman
Chair of the Agriculture Committee
Room 1022 State Capitol
Lincoln, NE 68509

Dear Senator Erdman and Members of the Agriculture Committee:

The Lincoln Independent Business Association Board of Directors supports the University of Ne-braska, the 2015 Vision Group, the City of Lincoln, and Lancaster County’s efforts to jointly create Innovation Park. Based on information we have learned over the past several months, we believe Innovation Park has the potential to provide a tremendous economic boost, generating millions of dollars in new revenue for our community.

The idea of an innovation or research park is not new. Two of the most successful research parks in the country, Research Triangle Park at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (1959) and Stanford Research Park (1951), a research park that contributed significantly to the devel-opment of Silicon Valley, both started in the 1950’s. Since then, numerous other universities in-cluding Florida A&M, Florida State, Illinois, Missouri, Notre Dame, Penn State, Texas A&M, Vir-ginia, and Wisconsin all have research or innovation parks.

The following examples were taken from the respective research parks’ websites. Wisconsin’s University Research Park was established in 1985 with 351 acres. Today, Wisconsin’s Research Park is over 600 acres with 34 buildings, 110 tenants, over 5,300 employees, and more than $318 million in annual payroll. The Park itself is valued at over $160 million and pays $3.5 million in property taxes.

The Missouri Research Park officially opened in 1985. Today, the park has 130 acres developed for high-tech and research facilities. The park has 15 tenants and two federal agencies which employ approximately 2,000 people. Some of the park’s tenants include A.G. Edwards, Bank of America, the Federal Aviation Administration, Westar Aerospace & Defense Group, Inc., and more.

Finally, the University of Illinois’ Research Park opened in 2000. Today, it has over 50 tenants, and employs over 1,000 employees plus 200 University of Illinois student interns. Some of these tenants include Motorola, State Farm, Caterpillar, and Science Applications International Corpo-ration. In addition, the Research Park’s developer is planning to begin construction on a five-story, 124-room hotel, and a 35,000 square-foot conference center.

It appears that the development of Innovation Park has the potential to provide a tremendous economic boost to our community and the University. Therefore, LIBA supports this effort.

LIBA also supports the Governor in his effort to ensure that any move of the State Fair would not require the use of tax dollars. Undoubtedly, the Nebraska Legislature will receive many ideas for the relocation of State Fair Park. Since most of those ideas are only coming forward today, we’ll reserve our final thoughts until a later time. However, the current view of the LIBA Board of Direc-tors would place the State Fair on 84th Street with the Lancaster Event Center. We believe this location provides significant advantages, primarily the $40 Million dollar existing infrastructure, and according to 2015 Vision, a move to this location would fall in line with the Governor’s “no tax dollars” philosophy. We cherish the heritage of the Nebraska State Fair in Lincoln. We believe that this opportunity for UNL also gives everyone an opportunity to enjoy a new and invigorated fair with a larger race track, air-conditioned buildings and other facilities that the State Fair de-serves.

Animal Control Services
October 21, 2007

Recently, the City of Lincoln has discussed the possibility of renewing its contract with the Capital Humane Society. To review, the Capital Humane Society discontinued its contract with the city of Lincoln after a living-wage dispute with then council member Terry Werner.

On October 9, 2007, the Mayor’s office attended a meeting to announce that it was going to renew efforts to find a provider for animal control (cap-ture) and kenneling services. The LIBA Board of Directors congratulates Mayor Beutler for his quick efforts to fix a problem inherited from the pre-vious administration.

The Mayor’s office has announced that Omaha’s Nebraska Humane Soci-ety could provide “both” animal control and kenneling at the cost of $1.7 million annually; however, the City would have to build the Nebraska Hu-mane Society a new multi-million dollar facility for the NHS. On the other hand, Lincoln’s own Capital Humane Society could provide animal control and kenneling services for much less; $1.5 million annually, without the City having to build a new facility. Additionally, Capital Humane has agreed to grant every Animal Control employee a job interview.

LIBA believes it is time to outsource animal control and kenneling respon-sibilities to the Capital Humane Society. The City of Lincoln has spent years struggling with this issue. Undoubtedly, these services are critical in helping to maintain a clean and healthy community; however we question whether the City should continue bearing this responsibility when a private group could provide such services. LIBA believes this issue should be ad-dressed now while this window of opportunity is available.

Dean Hoag
President-Elect - LIBA
dhoag@myproftitle.com
Cell ~ 326-9130
Home ~ 423-2762

StarTran
October 08, 2007

Contact:Coby Mach
Executive Director
466-3419

RE: StarTran
Date: October 8, 2007

The Lincoln Independent Business Association has reviewed the proposed changes to the StarTran routes. We would like to recommend that the updated route proposal be further examined and reworked for potential reductions to the general fund subsidy for public transportation. We believe that StarTran’s mission should be to provide effective, effi-cient, and useful bus service that is concentrated in essential service areas, while saving general fund dollars. For clarification, we do not believe essential service areas consist of just downtown, but rather areas that include “base routes”, or routes used by the greatest number of riders.

Establishing Essential Service Areas

To accomplish this goal, the updated plan would first identify those routes with the great-est number of riders. According to the Proposed Weekday Route Map, which shows the numbers of riders per day, once outside certain areas there are fewer riders, and in many cases only one rider. In fact, if you look south of Pioneers Blvd. there are:

zero red dots (100+ rider category);
zero orange dots (50-100 rider category);
only nine yellow dots (11+ rider category);
49 green dots (2+ rider category). It is important to note that 2 riders can actually be the same person. For example, all the green dots are at least two riders, how-ever, one person can count as two if he gets on the bus at the start of the day and returns on the bus at the end of the day; and
23 blue dots (one rider only).

For those few riders outside the high-ridership areas, outsourcing van trips in this geo-graphic area—for a limited time—is an option we would like to see explored.

It is important for the community to recognize that the city of Lincoln does not have mass transportation; we have public transportation. Hopefully, the essential services areas es-tablished will be those that have the greatest possibility of long term financial stability.

Saving General Fund Dollars

To help alleviate the City’s financial problems, we recommend cutting 10% from the ex-isting StarTran budget. The budget problems the City of Lincoln likely faces over the coming years will impact its ability to continue to provide the level of service it has in the past. This year the Mayor and City Council balanced the budget by using one-time sources totaling $3 million. This means that for next year’s budget we start with a $3 mil-lion deficit. By cutting StarTran’s budget by 10%, we will have approximately 1/3 of the money needed to help resolve next year’s budget problems.

Conclusion

LIBA recognizes there are many in our community who need this public transportation service, and to protect them, we suggest establishing permanent base routes that allows people to make decisions based upon dependable transportation. By making the cuts now, StarTran riders will have the maximum amount of time to prepare for changes as the budget changes would not go into effect until September 2008.

StarTran route changes are being proposed this year. Now is the time to make the cuts.

Thank you for your time and attention as the community works toward continuing to solve the City’s financial challenges.

Note: one person may count as two riders in all categories

Performance Audit Board
September 28, 2007

RE: Performance Audit Board
Date: September 28, 2007

The Lincoln Independent Business Association (LIBA) endorses Mayor Beutler’s proposal to create a City Performance Audit Board. For years, LIBA has been an advocate of performance audits and in 2005, offered this method for supervising the city audits.

LIBA acknowledges and appreciates Mayor Beuetler’s experience with perform-ance auditing in the Legislature. As the Mayor well knows, performance auditing looks beyond just the financial records of the City, and focuses on finding effi-ciencies and effectiveness in the performance of government duties.

We support the Mayor’s proposed audit board with six members, three appointed by the City Council (one of which must a CPA) and three appointed by the Mayor (one of which must also be a CPA). For any proposal to be adopted, there must be a majority of the Board’s approval. We believe this board can be created to provide an acceptable level of knowledge, experience, and oversight. We believe this approach provides the best opportunity for city auditing to occur independ-ently and with the least amount of political influence.

We hope that you are able to move quickly in creating this board.

Sincerely,

Coby Mach
For the Board

In 2005, LIBA initially recommended that the guidelines and recommendations for the auditor be consistent with those established by the National Association of Local Gov-ernment Auditors (NALGA); however, we see in the Mayor’s proposal he recommends using Generally Accepted Government Standards (GAGAS or the Yellow Book), and/or Professional Practice of Internal Auditing when appropriate. We find these sources of oversight acceptable and endorse their implementation.

Mayor is off to a good start
September 14, 2007

Mayor Is Off To Good Start; Now Let’s Keep It That Way
By Coby Mach

As Executive Director of the Lincoln Independent Business Association, I would like to thank Mayor Beutler and the City Council for presenting and adopting a city budget that did not increase property taxes. LIBA appreciated the opportunity to work with both Mayor Beutler and the City Council throughout the process to help develop a balanced budget. That dialogue laid the foundation for a healthy working relationship.

Recently, Mayor Beutler addressed LIBA members and guests at the August LIBA membership luncheon. Mayor Beutler acknowledged that while he and the City Council balanced the budget this year with considerable cuts, difficult choices loom overhead for next year’s budget process as well. The Mayor stated, “While I would like to tell you that this year is truly the end of chronic deficits and a beginning to greater investment in infrastructure to create jobs, I must tell you instead that more work remains in the budget. While we made tremendous progress on cutting the budget, the timeframe was too short to make more thoughtful, long-term changes we need.” LIBA agrees with this assessment. Thoughtful, long-term changes are necessary.

Mayor Beutler suggested that expanding economic development and making government more efficient could bring about such changes. As stated in his speech, the Mayor has worked with community representatives to improve the tax increment financing (TIF) policy, thus making it a more useful tool for economic development. As local governing bodies continue to meet to discuss such projects as the arena, and others that may come along, we hope this tool will spur such growth.

Mayor Buetler also addressed the need to invest in roads. His plan to approach the Legislature and federal government for additional funding is reasonable, and we support his efforts to do so.

The LIBA Board of Directors and I were also encouraged by Mayor Beutler’s early efforts to make government more efficient, such as creating an audit board, evaluating road design and construction standards, and working towards the centralization of the development services center. We agree that these efforts provide a good start and hope the Mayor will continue to create efficiencies where possible.

LIBA believes the proposed changes will produce effective local government that would not require a burdening tax increase to sustain itself. Everyone pays for such tax increases, from the job-creating entrepreneur business owner to the hard-working union wage earner, and especially the struggling fixed-income senior. Money left in the pockets of the citizen is allowed to multiply, being spent freely on goods and services that improve their lives and grow the local economy.

LIBA believes all citizens must participate in the political process to ensure government efficiency. LIBA, whose 1,050 members primarily consist of business owners, understands the importance of operating within a budget and with the greatest efficiency possible. As the Mayor and City Council face another difficult budget session next year, LIBA hopes to again engage in a productive dialogue with city leaders and lend its expertise to constructively contribute to process and help produce a balanced budget without an increase in property tax.

The Mayor summed up his speech with the following: “For too long this city has sat back and said, ‘maybe next year.’ In the meantime, we fall further and further behind in our road building. And we fail to make the changes that speed our city permitting process and encourage investment. The cities that compete with us across this country and across this world will not wait. The businesses that fight everyday for market share will not wait. So why does Lincoln, Nebraska wait? Well, this Mayor believes that next year is long past overdue. From here on out, I want this community to be on notice: we wait for no one.”

I agree. Mayor, we congratulate you on a successful four months!

Lincoln City Budget
August 06, 2007

One year ago, the Lincoln Independent Business Association (LIBA), stood before this Council feeling very discouraged by Mayor Seng’s proposed budget. At that time, we presented many options for cutting the Mayor’s budget. However, because Mayor Seng was unwilling to make those cuts, the City Council was forced to burn the midnight oil for weeks in order to present a balanced budget that didn’t include her tax increases.

Here we are a year later, and the tide has turned. LIBA believes that Mayor Beutler has presented a reasonable and appropriate budget, which keeps his promise of no tax increase. We know that the Council worked with the Mayor, and we wish to thank you and the Mayor for this budget.

Would LIBA have done a few things differently? Of course. But, are we pleased? Yes.

Here are the changes LIBA would propose:

1. Cut at least $1 million from the existing StarTran budget. Achieving this goal would reduce the city’s general fund subsidy paid to StarTran from $6 million to $5 million per year. Methods for achieving such efficiencies may include a full performance audit and a reevaluation of StarTran’s geographic coverage. We believe that StarTran’s mission should be to provide bus service that is concentrated on a citizen-defined city core and essential service areas, with the dual goals of saving general fund dollars, while providing a more effective, efficient, and useful transportation service to a limited area. For clarification, we do not believe the core is just downtown.

2. Eliminate funding to the Lincoln Lancaster Commission on the Status of Women. We encourage the City to follow the County’s lead to cut funding for this jointly funded program. This non-mandated Commission duplicates services already provided by the Nebraska Commission on the Status of Women. The Mayor plans to make cuts to this program that would reduce office supplies, printing, telephone and advertising media services, and eliminate all schools and conference funding. With these cuts already in the works, what services will the LLCSW provide and how will they promote them? Eliminating this funding entirely would save the City over $85,000.

3. Restructure the Lincoln Fire and Rescue Department. Lincoln Fire & Rescue operated without a Fire Chief or an Assistant Fire Chief for a year. While we are not advocating the department should operate without a Fire Chief, we are simply supporting the Mayor’s and City Council reduction in funding and pointing out that restructuring the department’s management may be appropriate. Given the Department’s challenges over the past fiscal year, a full performance audit as soon as possible seems justifiable. Even with the Council reduction in Fire, the department will still receive 1.5% more funding than last year, the same percentage of increase the Police are getting.

LIBA would also like the Council and Mayor to consider some long-term budget views.

1. Annex contiguous property aggressively. Aggressively annexing contiguous property will place already built homes on the Lincoln tax rolls. We encourage the development of a 5-year plan to get them water and sewer. This grows the pie, rather than taking more money from existing residents. This move will add funds to the city from real estate tax, occupation tax, wheel tax, and sales tax.

2. Evaluate the Lincoln Parks and Recreation Department’s properties in Lincoln. Consider selling unused or under-utilized property. Use those funds to enhance the city parks, or set aside some of the funds to explore a public/private partnership for the creation of an economic engine.

3. Encourage the Mayor and Council to work this year to reduce the employer match for the City of Lincoln Employees Retirement Plan and reduce workers Comp claims. LIBA would like the Mayor and Council to reduce the employer match to equal a 100% match of employee contributions at all levels, rather than the current match that equals or exceeds 200% of the employee contribution under the current plan. This change, if enacted for all members of the Employees Retirement Plan (which does not include Firefighters or Police pension) would save the City over $3.3 million per budget year. Most private sector employees would consider a 100% (or 1-to-1) match a very generous benefit. A review of Workers Compensation would also yield a savings to the city.

4. Consider removing Animal Control from the Health Department and outsource to the private Sector. Currently, the department has proposed increasing the animal licensing fees, which would generate an additional $123,100 in revenue. However, we would recommend removing this program entirely and outsourcing it to a private entity. The entire cost of this program is over $1.5 million; over $370,700 comes from the general fund, while user fees and balances make up the rest. We believe the City could outsource this responsibility to a private business.

Finally, LIBA encourages the City Council to follow the Mayor’s lead on performance Auditing. This is a “Must Needed” long-term approach to solving our budget issues and bringing accountability to city government. LIBA is in agreement with the Mayor in his outlined City Performance Auditor position.

Lincoln City Budget
August 06, 2007

Contact: Coby Mach
Executive Director
466-3419

RE: Lincoln City Budget
Date: August 6, 2007

One year ago, the Lincoln Independent Business Association (LIBA), stood before this Council feeling very discouraged by Mayor Seng’s proposed budget. At that time, we presented many options for cutting the Mayor’s budget. However, because Mayor Seng was unwilling to make those cuts, the City Council was forced to burn the midnight oil for weeks in order to present a balanced budget that didn’t include her tax increases.

Here we are a year later, and the tide has turned. LIBA believes that Mayor Beutler has presented a reasonable and appropriate budget, which keeps his promise of no tax in-crease. We know that the Council worked with the Mayor, and we wish to thank you and the Mayor for this budget.

Would LIBA have done a few things differently? Of course. But, are we pleased? Yes.

Here are the changes LIBA would propose:

1. Cut at least $1 million from the existing StarTran budget. Achieving this goal would reduce the city’s general fund subsidy paid to StarTran from $6 million to $5 million per year. Methods for achieving such efficiencies may include a full performance audit and a reevaluation of StarTran’s geographic coverage. We be-lieve that StarTran’s mission should be to provide bus service that is concen-trated on a citizen-defined city core and essential service areas, with the dual goals of saving general fund dollars, while providing a more effective, efficient, and useful transportation service to a limited area. For clarification, we do not be-lieve the core is just downtown.

2. Eliminate funding to the Lincoln Lancaster Commission on the Status of Women. We encourage the City to follow the County’s lead to cut funding for this jointly funded program. This non-mandated Commission duplicates services al-ready provided by the Nebraska Commission on the Status of Women. The Mayor plans to make cuts to this program that would reduce office supplies, print-ing, telephone and advertising media services, and eliminate all schools and con-ference funding. With these cuts already in the works, what services will the LLCSW provide and how will they promote them? Eliminating this funding entirely would save the City over $85,000.

3. Restructure the Lincoln Fire and Rescue Department. Lincoln Fire & Rescue operated without a Fire Chief or an Assistant Fire Chief for a year. While we are not advocating the department should operate without a Fire Chief, we are simply supporting the Mayor’s and City Council reduction in funding and pointing out that restructuring the department’s management may be appropriate. Given the Department’s challenges over the past fiscal year, a full performance audit as soon as possible seems justifiable. Even with the Council reduction in Fire, the department will still receive 1.5% more funding than last year, the same percent-age of increase the Police are getting.

LIBA would also like the Council and Mayor to consider some long-term budget views.

1. Annex contiguous property aggressively. Aggressively annexing contiguous property will place already built homes on the Lincoln tax rolls. We encourage the development of a 5-year plan to get them water and sewer. This grows the pie, rather than taking more money from existing residents. This move will add funds to the city from real estate tax, occupation tax, wheel tax, and sales tax.

2. Evaluate the Lincoln Parks and Recreation Department’s properties in Lin-coln. Consider selling unused or under-utilized property. Use those funds to en-hance the city parks, or set aside some of the funds to explore a public/private partnership for the creation of an economic engine.

3. Encourage the Mayor and Council to work this year to reduce the employer match for the City of Lincoln Employees Retirement Plan and reduce work-ers Comp claims. LIBA would like the Mayor and Council to reduce the em-ployer match to equal a 100% match of employee contributions at all levels, rather than the current match that equals or exceeds 200% of the employee con-tribution under the current plan. This change, if enacted for all members of the Employees Retirement Plan (which does not include Firefighters or Police pen-sion) would save the City over $3.3 million per budget year. Most private sector employees would consider a 100% (or 1-to-1) match a very generous benefit. A review of Workers Compensation would also yield a savings to the city.

4. Consider removing Animal Control from the Health Department and out-source to the private Sector. Currently, the department has proposed increas-ing the animal licensing fees, which would generate an additional $123,100 in revenue. However, we would recommend removing this program entirely and outsourcing it to a private entity. The entire cost of this program is over $1.5 mil-lion; over $370,700 comes from the general fund, while user fees and balances make up the rest. We believe the City could outsource this responsibility to a pri-vate business.

Finally, LIBA encourages the City Council to follow the Mayor’s lead on perform-ance Auditing. This is a “Must Needed” long-term approach to solving our budget issues and bringing accountability to city government. LIBA is in agreement with the Mayor in his outlined City Performance Auditor position.

Letter to the Editor
July 24, 2007

July 24, 2007

Gordon Winters
Editorial Page Editor
Lincoln Journal Star

Re: Letter to the Editor

The Lincoln Independent Business Association (LIBA) has been very encouraged by the responsible and balanced city budget submitted by Mayor Chris Beutler and debated by the City Council. It is unfortunate that remarks by Councilman Jonathan Cook during Monday’s budget debate veered away from the merits of budget cutting and turned into personal attacks on our organization and many other groups and individuals who are leaders in our community.

It’s been said that when one side is losing a debate they start making personal attacks because they don’t have the facts and have lost the merits of their argument. LIBA feels that there are still places in the city budget where efficiencies can be found and taxpayer dollars saved.

LIBA represents more than 1,000 members who live in Lincoln’s neighborhoods, provide Lincoln jobs, educate their children in Lincoln’s public schools and pay Lincoln taxes. We want Lincoln to be a strong, safe community where new jobs are welcomed and economic opportunity can flourish. Our goal for 27 years has been to make city government as efficient as possible and we applaud the Mayor and City Council for working toward this goal.

John Hoppe, Jr.
President, LIBA
466-3419

StarTran Routes
June 14, 2007

The Lincoln Independent Business Association has reviewed the proposed changes to the StarTran routes. We would like to recommend that the updated route proposal be further examined and reworked for potential reductions to the general fund subsidy for public transportation. As you are aware, the city has a $9 Million budget crisis. We believe that StarTran’s mission should be refocused to provide bus service that is concentrated on the city core and essential service areas, with the dual goals of saving general fund dollars while providing a more effective, useful transportation service to a limited area.

To accomplish this goal, the updated plan would first identify those routes within the city core that serve the greatest number of riders. According to the ridership map, once you get outside the city core, there are fewer riders, and in many cases only one rider. In fact, if you look south of Pioneers Blvd., there are no red dots which is the over 100 rider category, there are no orange dots which represent the 50-100 rider category and there are only nine yellow dots, the over 11 riders category. There are other examples which include the green dots where two riders can be the same person. For example, all the green dots are at least two riders, however, one person can count as two if he gets on the bus at the start of the day and returns on the bus at the end of the day.

For those few riders outside the city core, outsourcing van trips in this geographic area, for a limited time, is an option we would like to see explored. If people need to have bus service, they would know that they have this transition period to move within the city core.

It is important for the community to recognize that the city of Lincoln does not have mass transportation, we have public transportation. We recommend that the financial goal of the route plan update be to cut at least $1 million from the existing StarTran budget. Achieving this goal would reduce the city’s general fund subsidy paid to StarTran from $6 million to $5 million. The revised route plan should be based upon spending at least $1 million fewer dollars. The city core routes need to be identified so that they have the greatest possibility of long term financial stability. The budget crises that the City of Lincoln faces over the coming years will impact the City’s ability to continue to provide the level of service it has in the past. LIBA recognizes that there are many in our community that need this public transportation service, and to protect them, we suggest setting up routes that people know they can rely on and assure the users that those core routes will not be changed.

Thank you for your time and attention as the community works toward solving a very difficult budget crisis.

Note: one person may count as two riders in all categories

Neglected Building Ordinance
May 07, 2007

Neglected Building Ordinance
May 7, 2007

The Lincoln Independent Business Association respectfully requests that the City of Lincoln not adopt the proposed ordinance amending Title 20 of the Lincoln Municipal Code. While we generally agree with the purpose of ordinance we disagree with the means. LIBA feels an obligation to address this ordinance on behalf of all of the small businesses in Lincoln who will be negatively affected if this ordinance passes.

After reviewing the proposed ordinance we have several concerns. Before going into the specifics of the proposed ordinance, we would like to state our position that problems related to neglected buildings are adequately addressed under Titles 8, 20, and 21 of the Lincoln Municipal Code.

Below are the problems that we have with specific sections of the proposed ordinance:

1. 20.02.060 Definitions.

A. “Deterioration” is the heart of the ordinance. However, it has no objective criteria. It is entirely subjective. The subjective criteria [‘holes, breaks, rot, crumbling, cracking, etc.”] are not measurable. This same definition is used in the Lincoln Housing Code, but in that instance the term “deterioration” is used in the context of other measurable criteria. In its current context the term is clearly unconstitutional for enforcement purposes. It is vague [readily capable of multiple meanings] and overbroad [readily capable of differing application / vague in effect].

B. “Owner” This definition extends to lien-holders [which arguably includes the City is if it has filed any claim to the property for fines and back taxes]. The ordinance under this definition will affect deeds of trust, trustees, trust beneficiaries, judgment creditors and anyone else who can claim an interest in the property. The most obvious persons affected are as follows:

Bankers
Mortgage Lenders
Limited Partners in LLP’s
Minor children beneficiaries of an investment trust established by their parents’ estate plans
Judgment Creditors
Governmental entities owed taxes
Lien holders for services / repairs on buildings
Any person or entity which claims any interest in the real property

2. 20.02.070 Duty to Register Neglected Buildings.

A. This section of the ordinance requires the “owner” to include the name and addresses of all other “owners.” Since this also includes non-legal, but equitable owners, this includes private information not otherwise of public record. This is will make private information public. Equitable ownership is not of public record.

3. 20.02.090 Resident Agent.

A. This section requires a “resident agent” for each property. The resident agent must be a resident of Lincoln as defined by 20.02.060. This means property owners from other cities are required to hire someone in Lincoln to “own” the “neglected building” in Lincoln. This could deter large companies from coming into Lincoln and attempting to utilize existing structures. Penalizing out-of -city owners with this requirement may violate the “inter-state commerce” clause.

4. 20.02.140 Violations; Penalties.

A. This section makes the violation of this ordinance a criminal misdemeanor carrying a possible jail sentence. The penalty should be civil and monetary.

Misdemeanor charges are appropriate for health and safety hazards as addressed in Chapters 8 and 21 of the Lincoln Municipal Code. However, under the proposed ordinance misdemeanor penalties for “neglected buildings” are excessive and unjustified.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. We appreciate all of your efforts and are confident that the City of Lincoln will take the action that is in the best interests of its citizens.

Storm Water Bond
March 02, 2007

Contact:Coby Mach
Executive Director
466-3419

The Lincoln Independent Business Association (LIBA) would like to thank the City Council for delaying action on the Storm Water Bond issue for one week.

LIBA would like to provide three observations and a solution.

Our first observation is that the proposed spending for preliminary engineering and/or design fees with bond funds is excessive. The reason, in our opinion, is that a significant amount of this spending would be more accurately described as being spent on studies and conceptual plan development rather than engineering fees. The watershed models and studies that have been developed to date do not have a 20 year life span. At best, watershed plans are like the Comprehensive Plan, they have a life cycle of about 5 years. The City’s experience with the two Beal’s Slough watershed studies in less than five years demonstrates this fact. This expenditure pattern is also demonstrated with the 2005 Bond funds as well. In round numbers, the city has spent to date $4.1 Million of the 2005 bond. $1.97 Million of that $4.1 Million has gone to private engineering consultants and $258,000 has gone to city engineers. That is 54% of the “spent” funds going to engineering and more still needs to be done. These “engineering” fees are being spent to do more than just design specific construction projects. We must stop using bond funds to pay for studies and plans that do not have 20 or more years of value. We paid city staff a quarter of a million dollars that will take the taxpayers 20 years to pay-off. This is like paying 6 police officers to work in 2007, but bonding their salary for the next 20 years.

A second observation is that the public assumes these bonds are to fix existing problems, not pay more than a million dollars simply to acquire conservation easements on flood prone/plain land well outside the existing City limits. The taxpayers said no in the last elections to bonds to acquire green space easements along the South beltway. LIBA believes it is hard to distinguish that green space from conservation easements. We do not believe that most citizens are in favor of paying a property tax for 20 years to acquire open areas in the country that by definition are not in the flood plain and are not needed for any flood protection purpose. Watershed Management has said that using bond funds for conservation easements is an opportunity to create a significant green belt for the city of Lincoln. If that is the goal, please state this in the bond language.

Our third observation is that the city has started down the path of using bond proceeds to engineer projects that will not be completed with the same bond funds. While occasionally investing in engineering work on major projects in advance may be prudent, making this a routine practice is not fiscally sound given the fact that future funds are subject to taxpayer approval of future bond issues. LIBA encourages the city to stop engineering projects that will not be constructed with funds available from the same bond issue. We risk having projects “engineered” that can not be completed if the voters were to vote down future bonds.

To improve upon the current proposal, we would suggest that the Council consider doing the following: First, lower the bond amount to no more than $6 million dollars and impose the following restrictions on the use of the bond funds:

A. No bond funds shall be spent on watershed master plans or concepts.
B. All engineering and design fees shall be spent for work on specific, identifiable projects that have as their primary purpose protecting the public from flood and storm water damage.
C. No bond funds shall be used to acquire more land or conservation easements in either flood prone areas or any flood plain, except as may be necessary to construct improvements to protect the public from actual flood and storm water damage.

LIBA further proposes the following specific line item reductions from the proposed project list and suggests that the City Council scrutinize the list to find and remove additional projects that are “desires” rather than true “needs” to reduce the projects to the requested bond amount. The Council should also determine if any of these projects should fall under the responsibility of the NRD. This is imperative at a time when property tax tolerance appears to be at an all-time low.

Remove all projects outside the Lincoln city limits $1,145,000
Remove all BMP projects $250,000
Remove all proposed project designs with construction in a future bond $1,150,000

In order for LIBA to consider supporting this property tax increase, we feel these changes need to be made.

If you would like more information, LIBA is willing to sit down with Council members and the Storm Water Department to discuss this bond.

Outdoor Dining
July 17, 2006

To: Lincoln City Council
From: LIBA Board of Directors
Date: July 16, 2006

The Lincoln Independent Business Association (LIBA) is here today to encourage you to adopt the code changes for outdoor dining.

It's a fact that restaurant business slows down during the summer months. These changes should be viewed as an opportunity to create an alternative outdoor activity that will enhance our city's dining atmosphere and provide new opportunities to the restaurant and dining community.

While these changes may provide an economic benefit to area restaurants, they may also have a positive impact on tax revenues collected by the city.

Thank you for considering these pro-business and positive community changes.

EMS
May 20, 2006

The Lincoln Independent Business Association (LIBA) would like to thank the bipartisan EMS Committee put together by Councilman Jon Camp for their hard work in examining the current budget and management problems involved in operating the ambulance service through the Lincoln Fire Department. Because of the report, we are reassured that there is no compromise in care and we hope there never will be.

Among the 23 recommendations, there are three that have the largest impact on EMS solvency: (1) $450,000 in revenue from fee increases; (2) $400,000 if the employees are reclassified as Paramedics; and $100,000 if billing service is changed.

After reviewing the report and speaking with members of the Committee, we would make the following observations and recommendations to the City Council.

First, the report clearly states that personnel costs are the single largest expense in the EMS system. It also notes that using paramedic-only personnel, instead of cross-staffed firefighter-paramedic personnel could save $200,000 to $400,000 a year in salary expenses. If the City is going to increase fees associated with the service, it must simultaneously pursue reducing the personnel costs associated with the service. LIBA would suggest three options to address this issue: (1) ask the firefighters union to come to the table and discuss renegotiating contract terms to provide for paramedic-only positions at a reduced salary; (2) ask the firefighter's union to come to the table and find some other mechanism to reduce personnel costs by $400,000 as suggested by the Committee; or (3) consider moving the EMS service out from under the Fire Department and moving to another Department that will have different salary standards.

Secondly, LIBA wishes to address the need for clear and experienced leadership for the ambulance service. The City needs a qualified leader who is fully devoted to providing emergency medical services. So we agree with the reports call for someone to be given that role. But LIBA would also renew our call that this position not be an expansion of the leadership within the Fire Department, but be a replacement of an existing captain (either upon retirement or as a termination) or reassignment of an existing staff member. The Fire Department should not get to increase their personnel budget with another 6-figure position because they could not fulfill their promises to the City.

Finally, we note that while the Committee made a comprehensive report, it consciously ignored the 900-pound gorilla that was sitting in the room at each meeting. That gorilla was representing the return of the ambulance service to the private sector. The people of Lincoln deserve to know if a private ambulance service could run the ambulance service more efficiently and more effectively than the Fire Department. LIBA calls on the City to issue an RFP to adequately compare the existing service from the Fire Department to available private providers.

The people of Lincoln are angry. They were promised a better, faster, and cheaper ambulance service. They didn't get better, they didn't get faster, and they didn't get cheaper. Instead, the people lost tax revenue from a private venture and have huge deficits eating into the budget. And no one has held Chief Spadt who staked his job on the Fire Department ability to meet that promise accountable for his failures.

This is not a road that Lincoln had to go down. The elected officials who led us into this debacle should be proposing solutions to resolve the problem. Solutions that do not involve providing a subsidy from taxpayers to cover up the ineptitude that led us to this point. Once you begin a subsidy, there will be no incentive to control costs and wages.

The City will have to make some tough choices, and will need some strong leadership. LIBA calls on the City Council to fulfill their duty to the people of Lincoln and make the right choices.

Park Bond Statement
April 13, 2006

Contact: Coby Mach
Executive Director - 466-3419

Lincoln, Nebraska - April 13, 2006 - The Lincoln Independent Business Association Board of Directors voted today to oppose the South Beltway Linear Park Bond issue on the May election ballot. In recent years, LIBA has supported bond issues for what we thought were urgent community needs. LIBA supported bond elections for our public schools, our streets and our trails. However, with Lincolns current budget situation, taking this much property off the tax rolls adds to an unfair property tax burden placed on Lincolns homeowners and small businesses.

LIBA is encouraging the city to zone the area around the South Beltway with zoning that will encourage economic development.

LIBA has a long history of promoting fiscal responsibility. The Parks and Recreation Department has repeatedly said that it does not have enough funding to take care of its existing property. Therefore, this does not appear to be a good time to purchase more land and remove 130 acres of Highway visible ground from the tax rolls. Many of our existing trails are located on 20-foot easements, we believe that the proposed 100 to 800 foot easements seem excessive.

In forming its position on this issue, LIBA surveyed its membership via email. LIBA's database contains an email address for most of its 857 members. Our non-scientific survey had the following results:

6% undecided
27% for the bond
67% against the bond

The LIBA Board of Directors believes that the city of Lincoln is at a critical time where wants and desires must be compared with true needs. While the green space would serve as a nice amenity, the $2.7 million being requested could be used for other priorities such as roads and infrastructure.

Police Sub Station
April 10, 2006

To: Lincoln City Council
From: Lincoln Independent Business Association
Date: April 7, 2006
Re: Police Sub-station

LIBA is not opposed to a new police sub-station. In fact, we are only writing today because we wonder if the bid process maximized the opportunities for the city and cost savings for the taxpayer.

LIBA believes that the process for bidding on this sub-station may have been flawed for the following reasons:

A. Bids were requested at a specific address (4843 Huntington) where the property and building are not owned by the city.
B. Since 4843 Huntington is owned by a private party, it seems unlikely that competitive bidding could occur.
C. The RFP for bids was placed on the Urban Development site where no regular Bid Request page exists.
D. It appears that normal protocol of including the city purchasing department was not followed. The purchasing department said this has only occurred twice in the past ten years.
E. Only 12 business days were allowed for RFPs.
F. The bid was not open too an area of town. The RFP was to restrictive.

While the Lincoln Police Department may be supporting a new sub-station at 49th and Huntington Ave; it may only be supportive because it's a "bird in the hand". If the real need is in southeast Lincoln, let's figure out how to get a sub station there!

LIBA has three recommendations:

1. Re-opening the bid process, for an area of Lincoln rather than a specific address.

2. Investigate options that would provide LPD with the needed funds for a sub-station that would be owned by the city, if such a station can be built for a lesser cost. LIBA would not encourage any more bond issues, but perhaps allowing for exploration of Public Building Commission revenue bonds, lease purchase options, competitive bidding, more public discussion, and a better open process, we could have a win-win for LPD, the city and the taxpayer.

3. LIBA recommends that all future bidding opportunities be placed on the Purchasing web page. This will allow for consistency and because that page is the official purchasing page for the city, it will allow for maximum exposure.

Lincoln Police Dog
February 09, 2006

Contact:Coby Mach
Executive Director
466-3419
or
Marty Miller
Fundraising Chair
423-8117
432-3004 cell

RE: Lincoln Police Dog

Lincoln, Nebraska February 9, 2006 - The Lincoln Independent Business Association today announced that it will start a fundraising project to provide the Lincoln Police Department with a new dog for its K-9 unit.

LIBA made the offer to Lincoln Police Chief Tom Casady who has heartily endorsed the fundraising project. LIBA contacted Chief Casady following the loss of LPD K-9 member Zito who died last week after being struck by a car. Chief Casady told LIBA that the needs of the K-9 Corps are particularly significant with the loss of Zito, because its other canine member, Kimbo, is 10 years old and will be retiring soon. LIBA hopes to help in the fundraising to help replace both K-9s.

LIBA has a history of helping law enforcement K-9 units. In 1995, LIBA raised $5000 to purchase a police dog for the Lancaster County Sheriff's Department. Chief Casady believes that it will cost $6000 to $8000 to purchase a fully-trained dog for the LPD K-9 unit.

LIBA will ask for donations from its membership, however, anyone wishing to help can make a donation to The LIBA Foundation, 620 North 48th St., Suite 205, Lincoln, NE 68504. The LIBA Foundation is a 501(c)3 organization.

LEC Power
February 07, 2006

February 6, 2006

The Lincoln Independent Business Association commends the City Council for serving as a mediator between LES and the Lincoln Employers Coalition.

The 8-step solution presented today, that is designed to erase the $9 Million Dollar shortfall, is heartily endorsed by LIBA. This is a better plan for all rate classes and has a lower rate increase for everyone; business owners and home owners alike.

Despite our enthusiasm for the 8-step solution, LIBA is concerned about one aspect of the draft resolution. The resolution includes a component increasing Aid to Construction costs. This was not part of the original 8-step solution.

The change in Aid to Construction costs calls for a 120% increase in charges to install underground service in new residential areas. Given that both new home sales and new home starts have been down two years in a row, it seems a particularly poor time to further increase the cost for new homes. Also, if we intend to recapture capital costs of extending new service, it would seem that an adjustment for capital costs to existing service, such as, costs of replacing or servicing old worn out lines and meters should also be made. If an increase for Aid to Construction is determined necessary, LIBA would recommend that the increase be phased-in rather than increased in one large jump. Since LIBA has not had time to study the rate, it is difficult for us to make a recommendation on this phase-in period, but a prudent approach may be to limit the increase for now to 5% or 10% with an annual review.

Again, LIBA wishes to thank the City Council for mediating the 8-step solution and congratulate all parties for reaching a solution that is a win-win for our city.

Home Permits
2003 2004 2005
1566 1227 958

New Home Sales
2003 2004 2005
762 690 587

LES Power Cost Adjustment
January 23, 2006

RE: LES Rate Increase
Date: January 23, 2006

The Lincoln Independent Business Association (LIBA) participated in the public hearing held before the LES Administration on December 1st. At that hearing, LIBA expressed concern about the Power Cost Adjustment or PCA. Today, LIBA wishes to extend its concerns and provide some guidance to Council as it considers this issue.

First, let us disclose and acknowledge that LES is a long time and valued member of LIBA. So are many of the large power customers here today like Linweld, B&R, Li-Cor, Lincoln Plating, Duncan Aviation, Garner Industries and others.

The long term financial health and stability of LES, a locally owned non-profit utility, is critical to our community's ability to continue to grow and prosper. We acknowledge that last year's overall rate increase was necessary to help maintain LES's bond rating and ability to deliver low cost power. Now, with another rate request before you so quickly, LIBA would encourage the following:

1. Continue to review operating costs to reduce fixed costs

2. Implement Late Fees & Finance Charges on late payments

3. Continue to review hedging strategy

4. Continue to review business incentives

As we indicated at the hearing before the LES Administrative Board, LIBA does wish to express concern regarding the trend we have seen in recent rate increases that is mirrored in the PCA. That trend is to level more of each rate increase or adjustment onto business owners compared to the public. For example, homeowners received a 5% rate increase last year while businesses received a 12% increase. The proposed PCA component of this rate adjustment further accelerates this trend. While LES reduced the potential PCA impact on business as a result of the public comments, they did not eliminate it.

Our fear is that these continuous increases may harm Lincoln's ability to compete against surrounding communities. You have or will hear that some large power customers of LES are currently paying more than customers of OPPD and NPPD. It is unprecedented for this group of large employers representing 14,000 jobs in Lincoln to all be on the same side of an issue like this one. LIBA encourages you to take note of what they have to say and weigh it heavily during your deliberations. It is not difficult to understand that as rates become non-competitive, we risk losing current and future employers.

Thank you for your consideration of LIBA's observations on this matter.

Animal Control Services
January 08, 2006

I continue to worry about how our tax dollars are being spent in regard to housing stray animals.

The City of Lincoln and the Capitol Humane Society have severed the arrangement for housing strays, and I fear we are getting close to animal mayhem.

So far, the search for a replacement to the Humane Society has been unsuccessful. The first bid has been rejected, they wanted $375,000 for the first year of the contract. If you compare that with the $253,000 bid made by the Humane Society, it would appear we have an issue!

The latest city request for proposals (they were due January 4th) stated that the city has budgeted $221,000 for this service and that the contract winner must provide housing for up to 2,500 animals per year. The only bid received by the City would require a trip to the Lancaster Otoe County Line to claim a lost pet. That trip would also cost city employees a lot of transportation time and increase the City's fuel budget.

You might also recall that the Humane Society housed 5,000 animals per year. So why only 2,500 animals per year under the new contract? Because the new contract does not include housing for cats. Again, this means that we are being shorted on service. Examine the cost per animal under the new city proposal:

$221,000 @ 2,500 animals = $88.40 per animal (city proposal request)

$253,000 @ 5,000 animals = $50.60 per animal (post-Living Wage Humane Society bid)

$158,000 @ 5,000 animals = $31.60 per animal (current Humane Society contract)

But wait a minute! Why such an increase? That fact is that we would not have this drastic increase if it were not for the $95,000 increase needed in the Humane Society contract so that they could meet the new Living Wage law for City vendors. Please, it's time to stop calling this a Living Wage, it's a Super Minimum Wage law.

But maybe we don't need to pick-up stray cats? After all, we have the Cat House performing the new Trap/Neuter/Release program. The Cat House was given $3,000 of tax payer money for this project. Their December 15, 2005 newsletter proclaimed this a success with 10 cats altered, one of which is friendly enough for adoption. Sure, they had a few start-up costs, but let's look at this cost per animal:

$3,000 @ 10 cats = $300 per animal

The newsletter says a second project is planned for early spring 2006. Can we afford to spend $300 on every stray cat in Lincoln? Can we afford $200 per cat? There are thousands of them!

The Capitol Humane Society will end its service in June 2006. There is little time for a new company to buy land and build needed space to handle strays. If they had the time, I doubt they could do it and run a successful operation on $221,000 a year. The Humane Society, as non-profit, has the space and reduced costs from donations and volunteer workers.

Costs are already going up. A few months ago, the city asked for an increase in the cost of reclaiming a pet. This is about to cost us even more! The Humane Society is the logical agency to handle this service and perhaps should take-over all of the Animal Control functions. Lincoln should work with the Humane Society to put together an acceptable program for the community.

Streetscape Proposal
December 21, 2005

POSITION STATEMENT - STREETSCAPE PROPOSAL

December 21, 2005

The Lincoln Independent Business Association (LIBA) wishes to address the Streetscape Proposals being offered by the City.

A number of the recommendations are helpful, and could lead to a simplification of the process and uniformity in the requirements for new development.

Of course, while we appreciate a number of these recommendations, we feel we must speak out on a few changes that LIBA feels to be excessive.

LIBA is all for the beautification of our City. We like trees, bushes, and well groomed lawns. But we do not like placing additional burdens on the business community that exceed basic needs.

Based on this, LIBA wishes to provide our disagreement with the proposed design standards related to screening, parking lot trees, pedestrian circulation and some setback provisions for certain businesses that are currently before the Planning Commission.

As stated before, LIBA likes trees. However, we disagree with adding more trees in or around parking lots. Evidence shows that trees do not flourish when they are surrounded by cement, or when they are located in concentrated car emission areas. In parking lots, trees take up usable space, require excessive maintenance, tear up concrete, and attract grackles and crows. They cost the business owner in planting them, replacing them after their abnormally short lives, and in maintaining the tree and the parking surface. Increasing tree requirements may also require builders to create larger lots to compensate for the lost parking spaces due to the extra trees. And the increased tree requirement will add an additional drain on our water resources in a time of long-term drought. For the past few years, the Mayor has asked for water conservation in Lincoln.

If Lincoln had no trees, we might understand this proposal. If Lincoln did not have an existing, effective ordinance, we might understand this proposal. But Lincoln is a beautiful city with a lovely existing tree canopy. Parking lots are already required to include trees. This proposed change in ordinance is unnecessary, and adds too much burden on the business community where no identified problem exists.

LIBA also likes greenery and shrubbery, but we do not like the proposed screening ordinance for parking lots and businesses. While we could simply reiterate the maintenance issue we have provided for trees, cite potential problems with screening blocking expensive signs erected by store owners, or point out that vegetation limits snow removal opportunities and shrinks the lots during winter, we would also focus on the security issues raised by this recommendation. A real problem is that such ordinances increase the risk of crime by eliminating public sight lines.

LIBA finds it interesting that this proposal comes on the heels of an October 13, 2005 memo from the Lincoln Police Department circulated to local businesses. That memo included the following information: Since the beginning of the year, 36 robberies have occurred at commercial businesses in Lincoln. Survey your business. Keep shrubbery and landscaping trimmed AND TO A MINIMUM. Parking areas should be well lit and free from obstructions. Make certain employees are parking near the building and AWAY from visually obstructed areas.

The National Institute of Justice indicates that more violent and property crimes occur in parking facilities than any other location except for residential property. Violent crimes are also more likely to occur in parking facilities than in any other commercial location. As a result, the National Institute of Justice and the Department of Justice recommend designing parking facilities to increase surveillance from every source available. Limiting vision into a parking lot from the street, and providing hiding places for criminals behind the screening shrubbery or trees, increases the risk of crime in these locations.

Even camera surveillance systems can be hampered by screening and by trees. LIBA spoke to a number of bankers in the community. Generally, the Lincoln banking community expressed concern about trees and shrubs that would block the view of cameras to their lots. According to a Lincoln bank security officer we spoke with, FBI and LPD officers inspect new bank facilities and branches looking for obstructions such as trees from the facility into the parking lot.

Finally, LIBA is concerned by the changes in certain setback and pedestrian circulation provisions being proposed. While adjusting the setback forward makes great sense, the elimination of driveway and turnaround lanes from that area for certain businesses (drive-in facilities and gasoline pumps) will hamper those businesses and will increase start-up and operating costs for restaurants and gas stations. Likewise, the additional requirements for pedestrian circulation make little sense for health care facilities and clubs when the marketplace will provide sufficient pressure to force proper accessibility and circulation needs. Barring some evidence of failure by the market to address this problem, there is no need for this to be a legislated change.

LIBA believes that the current design standards for parking lot trees and screening are sufficient. We see no call from the community to change these requirements, but we do see a business community that feels that these proposed requirements are unduly burdensome and potentially harmful to the community. We have also seen little environmental or economic data to alleviate our concerns or support the increased standards. Instead, we see an environmental agenda in favor of an aggressive urban forestation program over traditional business accommodations.

Please focus on needs, not desires. LIBA believes that by modifying the proposal to adopt the positive portions of the proposal would well serve our City. Thank you for considering this suggestion.

City Auditor
November 15, 2005

The Lincoln Independent Business Association (LIBA) wishes to encourage the City of Lincoln to move quickly in hiring a City Performance Auditor with the funds designated in the adopted Annual Budget.

Lincoln has already praised the Mayor and the City Council for moving forward with the idea of a City Performance Auditor to help improve efficiency and accountability in our local government. Now that the position has been funded, we believe it is time to fill the position.

In beginning the search for this candidate, LIBA reminds you that we need to find an experienced performance auditor to fill this position. Performance auditing looks beyond just the financial records of the City, and focuses on finding efficiencies and effectiveness in the performance of government duties. Guidelines and recommendations for the auditor should be consistent with those established by the National Association of Local Government Auditors (NALGA).

LIBA also wishes to recommend a unique method for supervising the City Auditor. Nationwide, no single method of supervision seems to exist. Some city auditors report directly to the public (they're elected), some report to the mayor, some report to the comptroller, and some report to the City Council. LIBA would recommend that Lincoln create a City Audit Board made up of five members. The Board members would be selected as follows: two to be named by the mayor; two to be named by the City Council; and one to be named by the Executive Director of the Nebraska Board of Public Accountancy. The Executive Director of the Nebraska Board of Public Accountancy would also serve as an ex-officio, non-voting member and chair of the Board. We feel this approach provides the best opportunity for the City Auditor to act independently and with the least amount of political influence.

In order to assist you in moving forward with this hiring, LIBA is providing you with a draft job description, draft ordinance, and a list of recommended areas for the auditor to start with. The draft job description and ordinance have been tailored for Lincoln from sample documents provided by NALGA.

We look forward to hearing form you and hope that you are able to move quickly in filling the position and making a good city even better.

M Class
September 06, 2005

In the last few weeks, you may have heard about LIBA's activity related to the new salary structure adopted for Lincoln's city management and professional employees (the M Class). This issue was raised by LIBA at the City Council's Budget Hearing last week and has resulted in further investigation by the City Council.

The reasons for concern are many. The new system appears to offer an open check-book for hiring new employees, but also greatly increases the salary limits on what current managers can make.

LIBA's role in bringing this to light was discussed in a front page article in the Journal Star and in a Journal Star editorial that appeared August 17th. The Journal Star Editorial Board said The Lincoln Independent Business Association also has turned up evidence that casts doubt on the reliability of the survey on which the council based it's vote. Wichita, for example, was shown as one of four cities that had adopted broader pay ranges. However, those changes have not yet been implemented.

LIBA found that the information given to the council was largely inaccurate or completely misleading. The city staff told the council that Cedar Rapids was using this new broad band system. However, when questioned by LIBA, one city staffer agreed that Cedar Rapids was NOT using broad bands.

LIBA requested that the City Council delay any cost of living increase to the M Class employees until a review of the entire study can be completed by either outside parties such as ours or by an independent auditor. Nothing should change for the M Class until the City Council has accurate information and can make a decision that the council will feel good about.

In the alternative, we recommend that the City Council place the M Class on the soonest possible Agenda for a complete and full discussion regarding the misstatements made by City personnel to the council and to establish a procedure to do a reliable study of the pay structure for the city's management and professional employees.

City Council Budget 2005
August 08, 2005

As City Council members, you sit here every Monday doing your best to represent, and make decisions that will affect, our entire city. You each have your own thoughts on how much we should spend on parks, trails, salaries, business incentives, streets and other projects. Despite having your own opinions, you really do listen to groups like LIBA, the Chamber, developers and Neighborhood organizations, labor organizations and all citizens of our community. For that I would like to step back a moment and thank you for this past year. LIBA has talked to this body and the Mayor about adding an independent performance auditor and it appears the budget will support the position. We wish to thank the Mayor for opening up the budget process and for proposing the performance auditor. LIBA would encourage you to continue this direction of openness by focusing on efficiencies and priorities.

Our presentation is split into two segments.

1. Efficiencies
2. Spending

Starting with efficiencies.

This budget includes a number of proposed salary changes for M Class employees. Under a recent decision by this body, the City went from 8 different M Class categories to just 3 such categories. Between August 2004 and January 2005, the minimum salary under any M Class designation went from $37,789 to a minimum salary of $40,000. Between August 2004 and January 1, 2005, the maximum salary under any M Class range went from $110,069 to $115,050.

Keep in mind that the maximum salary for 2 of the 3 new ranges now exceeds $115,000, while only 1 of the prior 8 pay ranges exceeded $100,000.

More alarming, is that the amount needed to compensate employees under the changed M Class system creates a long term burden on the City to adjust to this change. During 2005, it cost the City $107,718 to pay for Merit increases under the new system. For the budget under consideration, the number is $231,134.

LIBA has attempted to work with the City to understand the new M Class designations and its impact on the Budget. In a recent meeting, LIBA requested a copy of the salary survey the City used to develop its recommendation for the new M Class system and the need to increase salaries to be more competitive with our neighboring cities. We were denied access to this Study. Our research arrives at different conclusions than the bullet points provided by city staff.

Based on the above information, and the unwillingness of City personnel to release the studies upon which the salary increases for M Class employees were based, we believe the City Council should act inside this Budget to further study M Class and consider returning to the old M Class system.

LIBA wants to thank the Mayor for looking into city health insurance costs, and for moving $250,000 from non-street funds back to the street-funds. Thank you to the Mayor and City Council for adding dollars to the Police and Fire Pensions.

In the budget, there are 2 new fire stations proposed. We have talked with Chief Spadt and he appears willing to look at co-locating with the Police Department where the cost savings could be great in just the land value savings alone. We would ask that you continue to encourage innovative ideas for cost saving measures wherever possible. If a bond is passed by the voters, it will become necessary to staff those fire stations. We hope you take a look at the need for responders. Can we man a truck with 3 employees or are 4 needed? What are the long range plans to integrate with the SE and SW Rural fire districts? With a growing city, we understand there is a need for additional fire stations, however, LIBA can not support this until we know there are plans to have an independent Fire Department study. Independent analysis of locations, technology and delivery times.

Another immediate issue is that the ambulance service is not cash-flowing. It would be easy for LIBA to stand here to recommend returning the ambulance service to the private sector, however, we are offering another solution. In this budget, changes were made in the allocation of EMS salaries. For example, Five employees who received .10 of their salary from the EMS budget, now only get .02 to .05 of their salary from EMS. It appears we are shuffling dollars to improve the financial looks of EMS. If we don't get a handle on EMS now, it will only get worse. So what is our recommendation? You might consider EMS as a project for the new Independent Performance Auditor. Perhaps this person can help turn EMS into a profit center.

Thanks to Council Woman Robin Eschliman who recently presented the council with material for privatizing the Lincoln Handi-Van service. She believes this could save the city 5 to 7% yearly. We understand that a proposal has been made to the city and we hope you will continue exploring this potentially cost saving measure. We understand that StarTran may never be a profit center, but if we are going to lose millions of dollars, lets lose that money more efficiently. We urge you to review this area, perhaps using the performance auditor, to see how we can improve this system.

The second part of our presentation looks at spending.

It is appropriate that the city is spending down our reserves. We hope you will seek out 1-time expenses for these funds. Including even a million of reserve dollars in the budget may make you want to rely on them in the future. At some point those reserves will be spent down and no longer available.

LIBA would encourage the City Council to examine our Road Funds Sources. It's time to spend all the road funds on Street construction or repair. Again, we commend the Mayor for moving $250,000 back into street funds, but as I am sure you are aware, we have no new street projects in the CIP for the next 6 years. In the past 12 months, the city issued bonds for $35 Million in street funds. Where are those funds going? Can we ever catch-up on road projects when we have $35 Million in new highway allocation bonds and have no new projects in the CIP? LIBA believes more of the wheel tax and the sales tax dollars generated by the City from motor vehicles, should like the State of Nebraska, be allocated to and spent on road building projects. This shift of funds should be done gradually with all amounts in excess of the prior year (growth) being allocated this year plus a percentage of the current amount so that over a period of years all of the City's sales tax dollars on motor vehicles would go towards road projects.

LIBA hopes the City Council would take a second look at the Living Wage Tax or Super Minimum Wage. Reasons to reexamine the Super Minimum Wage:

(1) It may not be clearly understood by vendors. For example, the City is looking at a $350,000 cost increase in parking partially due to what appears to be a misunderstanding by the vendor. The parking lot company appears to have increased part-time pay to equal the wages paid to full-time employees. This part-time adjustment is not required under the Super Minimum Wage or Living Wage law.

(2) The Super Minimum Wage is impacting City contracts in a negative way. The Super Minimum Wage helped drive a $90,000 wedge into our contract with the Humane Society and may cost the city thousands more in its contract with another community servant, Cornhusker Place.

(3) The Super Minimum Wage is costing us money. The taxpayers of Lincoln are the ones suffering from the Super Minimum Wage, not the private companies it was intended to influence.

Speaking of the Humane Society. This is a minefield that could cost you a lot of money. We hope you will go back to the Humane Society and try to resurrect their contract. (running short on time and did not read)

We also just mentioned the parking costs in downtown. We know business owners that have moved out of downtown because of the parking need for their employees. Higher parking costs will make it more difficult to recruit employees to downtown. It may also make it more difficult to recruit business owners into downtown. We encourage you to hold down parking costs.

Thank you for assessing the Triplets, we know you will do what you can to prevent the waste of over $300,000. Thank you for closing the original 8 Million dollar budget gap back in March. Congratulations to the Women's commission, Juvenile Diversion, Aging Services, and the Mayor's department all who came in under budget!

We would like to leave you with a final thought.

Economic Development means jobs, jobs, jobs! Of course all of you know that. We just want to remind you to make sure you take into account the effects every law, regulation, fee and tax has on future business activity and jobs in our community.

Thank you for your time today, and your consideration of our concerns throughout the year.

Traffic
June 20, 2005

The Lincoln Independent Business Association (LIBA) would like to express its concern regarding recent positions taken by the City, through its staff or elected bodies, relating to proposed developments on Highway 2 and on 84th Street.

In these instances, changes in traffic flow on little developed portions of major arterial roads are cited as the chief argument against commercial development. On 84th Street, the Planning Commission and City Council rejected a positive recommendation from city staff to determine on their own accord that 84th Street could not handle additional traffic demands at the Adams intersections. On Highway 2, city staff and the Planning Commission opposed permitting additional commercial development largely due to impact on the traffic flow in the area.

In each of these instances, it appears that much of the debate focused on the wisdom of a big box retail facility and the impact national and multinational corporations have on local business. As an association of independent businesses, we appreciate that debate. But what concerns LIBA is the use of traffic flow as a reason to oppose or defeat these developments. Perhaps more disturbing is the wording that appeared in the city staff's recommendation to deny the development on Highway 2. In the Fact Sheet presented to the City Council, the city staff opposed the development because they feared it would establish a precedent resulting in additional requests to intensify land use in this corridor.

If the developments are being opposed not because of traffic, but because of a desire to discourage development on Highway 2 or opposition to certain retailers, the leaders of this City again face issues relating to credibility and trust with the people of Lincoln. If, in fact, Highway 2 and 84th Street are not capable of supporting growth in Lincoln, the City needs to seriously examine how it intends to grow. If Highway 2 and 84th Street cannot handle the traffic, it seems that Lincoln has nowhere to grow.

The Lincoln Independent Business Association asks that the City Council, Planning Commission, and Mayor's Office carefully consider not only a specific development and its impact on the City, but what impact a denial and specifically the reason for that denial may have on Lincoln's future.

Tree Requirements for Parking Lots
May 24, 2005

The Lincoln Independent Business Association surveyed our membership regarding the proposed changes in parking lot tree requirements for commercial locations. Among our business leaders, six percent were in favor of more trees in and around parking lots while 94 percent were in favor of keeping the current standards without change.

The proposed changes do not address the problems associated with requiring more trees in new developments. Some of those problems are as follows:

1. Parking lot trees and associated planting areas with curbs hamper snow removal.

2. Trees bring in birds that create waste on the surface of the parking lot and customers vehicles, requiring more maintenance from the business owner and customers.

3. Tree roots can damage surrounding concrete structures and will increase costs to repair such damage.

4. More trees mean additional pruning costs.

5. Trees can reduce the visibility of store signage.

6. Visibility is reduced for taller vehicles and commercial drivers.

7. Security cameras cannot see around trees. This is a particular concern for banks.

8. There are irrigation issues especially getting water to young trees.

9. The Mayor has asked Lincoln to use the voluntary water restrictions.

10. There will be a loss of parking space.

11. Added cost to the business owner.

The day-to-day costs for a business owner are constantly increasing. We would ask that you look at what is essential versus what is desirable. More trees in or around parking lots may be desirable, however, we feel they are not essential. LIBA hopes you will consider leaving the tree standards for parking lots as is.

City Council
May 17, 2005

Dear Lincoln City Council,

As you know, the Lincoln Independent Business Association (LIBA) is always looking for ways to achieve efficiencies in our local government. It is with this goal in mind that we would like to bring two items to your attention.

First, we would encourage the City Council to quickly assess the contract situation with the Capitol Humane Society. This problem needs to be solved quickly and in a way that will best serve pets and their owners, as well as Lincoln taxpayers. It is unfair to expect the Humane Society to continue providing these services without a contract, and the lack of a contract could lead to the dissolving of cooperative services. Because the Humane Society is subsidized with voluntary donations from the public, we feel that having the City of Lincoln assume this responsibility will cost taxpayers more money than the Humane Society now charges. We urge the City Council to take prompt and responsible action on this matter.

Second, LIBA is concerned that the costs of moving three structures (triplets) out of the Antelope Valley project is cost prohibitive. In a conversation with Ed Zimmer on May 10, 2005, it appears that the city is moving forward with plans to relocate and rehabilitate the triplets at a cost of $660,000. We hope the city has made some effort to negotiate with the State Historical Society and Federal Government to eliminate the relocation project because we believe there is a better use for taxpayer funds.

We thank you for your consideration of our views on these matters and look forward to working with you in the future.

Sincerely,
Coby Mach
Executive Director
For the Board

Lodging Tax Funds
April 29, 2005

The Lincoln Independent Business Association believes that the new Lodging Tax funds will play an important role in the development of Lincoln's future if used correctly. It is possible that by allocating the funds in four or five directions, each entity would receive such a small portion, that the limited funds will not make a difference in any project.

LIBA believes it is time to identify the projects, see the project plans and evaluate the benefits to the community. To truly identify the projects, we need to bring together the following:

Nebraska State Fair
Lancaster County Ag Society
University of Nebraska
Governor Dave Heineman
Mayor Coleen Seng
John Q. Hammons
2 City Council Members
2 County Board Members
Lincoln Independent Business Association
Lincoln Chamber of Commerce
Downtown Lincoln Association

Then we need to ask the following questions:

1. What facilities are needed for Lincoln's future?

2. How many locations and/or buildings are needed?

3. What is the benefit of each to the city as a whole?

4. What is the source of funding for each?

5. Should we combine locations and/or funds?

The City of Lincoln has an excellent opportunity for smart growth. LIBA recommends that the County Commissioners maintain the new lodging tax funds in a separate account until the parties involved have an opportunity to truly assess the needs of Lincoln.

LIBA Endorsements
October 11, 2004

Lincoln, Neb. (October 11, 2004) - In less than a month, the citizens of Lincoln will have the opportunity to make their voices heard in the November elections. The Lincoln Independent Business Association gave each candidate for State Legislature and County Commission, an opportunity to be interviewed, and has announced the following endorsements.

County Commissioner, District 2 - Larry Hudkins
County Commissioner, District 4 - Bernie Heier
State Legislature, District 21 - Carol Hudkins
State Legislature, District 25 - Ron Raikes
State Legislature, District 29 - Mike Foley

The LIBA PAC Chair, Russ Bayer, said these individuals received a LIBA endorsement because they are advocates of business, a strong economy, and efficient Government. LIBA believes that a strong business economy will ensure a good quality of life in Lincoln, Nebraska.

LIBA Executive Director, Coby Mach said that LIBA will be encouraging its members to support these candidates in the upcoming elections. "LIBA is excited to present these candidates to the community. We believe they are all firmly committed to improving Lincoln and Lancaster County," said Mach.

Living Wage Position Statement
February 12, 2004

Living Wage Position Statement LIBA Board of Directors February 12, 2004 The Board of Directors of the Lincoln Independent Business Association (LIBA) has voted unanimously to oppose the adoption of the Living Wage proposal now under consideration by the Lincoln City Council. The objectives of this proposal as outlined by City Council Member Terry Werner, with the help of Nebraska Appleseed, may be laudable, but a Living Wage scheme can not be supported by those of us who champion free enterprise economics. If adopted, the Living Wage will establish a new higher minimum wage with a ripple effect that will stress our local economy. In our community, there are many types of businesses that currently have an entry level wage that will not meet this new standard. There are several national studies that conclude living wage ordinances hurt the very employees that is intended to be helped because it results in the elimination of many entry level jobs. Allowing more government control over business decisions further erodes and weakens the best economic system in the world. It is LIBA's belief that employee salaries should be determined by competition among businesses for quality personnel along with the effort of the individual to increase personal income by improving his/her productivity in the market place not by government mandate.

Focus on Streets
January 09, 2004

Focus on Streets Position Statement LIBA Board of Directors January 8, 2004 The year 2003 ended without the adoption of a fully funded street construction and repair program in our community. While much credit is given to the leadership of Lincoln's mayor and city council in making positive changes that address most of our infrastructure needs as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, the Board of Directors of the Lincoln Independent Business Association is dismayed that the final (and maybe the most important) piece to the infrastructure puzzle is not yet completed. The Mayor's Infrastructure Finance Committee, with help from city staff, has done an admirable job in its work of identifying projects, costs and revenue sources. Many of the Committee's suggestions have been implemented by the mayor and council, with the exception being streets. As we begin a new year, LIBA calls for action in addressing this need. LIBA is aware of many potential needs in our community that will likely be presented to the voters in the form of bond issues or tax increases -- at least some of them in the next 12 months -- such as new school buildings, a new convention center, health department expansion, new Malone Center, support for the Nebraska State Fair, etc. Also, the continued progress of the Antelope Valley Project will continue to take money from other projects until it is completed. LIBA believes that street repair and construction in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan affects all of these projects and should be our community's highest priority. We believe that there is a limited amount of bond approval available from the taxpayers, therefore, the LIBA Board of Directors has adopted the position that we will not support any proposed bond issue for non-street projects until such time that a complete street plan has been formed and is in place.

Smoke Free Air Act
November 13, 2003

Smoke Free Air Act Position Statement LIBA Board of Directors November 13, 2003 The LIBA Board of Directors is opposed to the Smoke Free Air Act as presented by the County/City Health Department. While the LIBA Board understands the objective of eliminating the dangers of second hand smoke, we are not convinced that this ban is necessary to further the health and wellbeing of Lincoln citizens. Since our free society allows both workers and patrons to choose where they work or shop, people have the right and responsibility to make these types of health related decisions for themselves. It is an already established fact that the majority of Lincoln businesses are smokefree by choice, without mandates from our government. These businesses should be commended and others encouraged (not mandated) to join them. This proposal is simply too much Big Brother government control over our personal lifestyle decisions. However, if this City Council insists on passing some form of this proposal, the LIBA Board strongly suggests that non-restaurant businesses, such as bars, should be excluded from this smoking ban and that the burden of enforcement be placed somewhere other than on business owners. Allowing the Health Department the ability and discretion to levy fines on business owners for the actions of their customers has the potential for many unfair actions and a multitude of enforcement problems, significantly increasing the cost of doing business in Lincoln. There must be a more reasonable enforcement solution than unfairly placing the burden on business owners. It is LIBA's belief that all businesses, including restaurants and bars, currently have the choice to be smokefree. Their customers and patrons, and their personal values, should encourage this choice, not our government.

Old Cheney Road Must Remain Open
November 13, 2003

Old Cheney Road Must Remain Open Position Statement LIBA Board of Directors November 13, 2003 LIBA expresses a high level of concern with the proposed closure of Old Cheney Road on both sides of the west bypass. For many years Lincoln has experienced a serious problem with a less than adequate arterial street system. There are too few arterials that allow the safe and efficient flow of traffic from one side of Lincoln to the other. Old Cheney is one of those limited few that does allow this. The community has spent $55+ million along South 14th with the development of Southwest High School, the new Library and the YMCA. The closure of Old Cheney would eliminate one more access to this large community investment from the proposed large growth areas as called for in the Comprehensive Plan in the southwest quadrant of the city. Closing Old Cheney would just make it more difficult to traverse the city, a task already quite difficult. LIBA understands the decision to not build a full interchange at this location. However, we strongly recommend that an overpass be built to accommodate the needs of our growing community. We believe an overpass would be a wise investment for the long-term needs of an orderly and efficient traffic system for the future. LIBA's objective is clear. We must create an easier flow of traffic across Lincoln, not close the few arterials we have and generate more difficult traffic patterns. Cc County Board City Council Mayor Coleen Seng

Budget Parameters
June 23, 2003

June 23, 2003 TO: Mayor Coleen Seng Lincoln City Council Lancaster County Board Lincoln Board of Education FROM: LIBA
The LIBA Budget Monitoring Committee is anxiously awaiting the opportunity to review and respond to the annual budget recommendations as they become available. This anxiety and the current state of our local economy have prompted the Committee to offer a few comments prior to budget readiness. As you are aware, the County Assessor has completed a revaluation of real property in Lancaster County, which has resulted in a growth in total valuation of 14%, plus an additional 4% for new construction. New property values always cause fear in the taxpayer who sees higher value equal to higher taxes. You know that does not happen until the government subdivisions set the tax rate. That poses the question what is a tax increase? The LIBA definition is that a tax increase occurs any time a taxpayer pays one dollar more in taxes than he/she paid in the previous year. Property taxes are a product of valuation times the tax rate, thus when valuations are increased by 14%, the tax rate must be reduced by the same percentage in order to avoid a tax increase. Of course, there will always be individual taxpayers who may experience true increases or decreases with this system, but we must address the whole community, not individual and personal examples. LIBA supports the current level of spending for local government and will continue to accept budget increases that reflect the annual increase in cost-of-living plus growth in population (or student enrollment). As best we can determine, these numbers are as follows: 2.3% cost-of-living increase (from the 2003 consumer price index Federal Reserve Bank of Minnesota) 1.7% annual increase in population (average for past 10 years) .6% projected increase in student enrollment for 2003-04 (LPS Statistical Handbook) These figures then permit city and county budget increases of 4% and a school budget increase of 2.9% for the 2003-04 fiscal year. In dollar terms, these translate as follows: Taxing Entity 2002-03 General Fund Total % Increase Recommended By LIBA 2003-04 General Fund Maximum in $$ Increase LPS $233,690,000 2.9% $240,467,000 $6,777,000 City $113,000,000 4.0% $117,520,000 $4,520,000 County $142,376,000 4.0% $148,071,000 $5,695,000 We know this may be difficult, but our current economy dictates that now is the time to be as fiscally responsible as possible - that now is the time to limit increases to an even lower amount, if at all possible. The members of the LIBA Budget Monitoring Committee appreciate the hard work performed by each of you during budget deliberations and are willing to help in any way. Please contact us with your questions and concerns.

Position Statement Infrastructure Financing
June 12, 2003

Infrastructure Financing Position Statement By LIBA Board of Directors on June 12, 2003 The Board of Directors of the Lincoln Independent Business Association has agreed to support the recommendations contained in the Final Report of the Mayors Infrastructure Finance Committee. This support is conditioned upon adequate safeguards being adopted as part of the implementation process in order to assure the community that all funds raised in conjunction with this report will be used specifically for the purposes identified. To accomplish this, LIBA advocates that the water and wastewater division of Public Works becomes a separately managed utility, operating much like the Lincoln Electric System; and that a business operations advisory board be created to work with Public Works on the management of its remaining functions. LIBA appreciates the user fee aspect of this funding package and believes that Lincoln needs to have a fully funded plan in order to both maintain and improve existing infrastructure and to support the projected growth of our city, thus providing the basis for continuous economic growth and stability.

LIBA Takes no Position on Sewer Bond Issue
April 15, 2003

The Board of Directors of the Lincoln Independent Business Association (LIBA) has voted to not take any position on thee proposed city sewer bond, scheduled for vote by the taxpayers on May 6. LIBA President Richard Meginnis stated, "The LIBA Board believes that this sewer bond should not be presented in isolation but rather should be included as part of a comprehensive solution to all of the city's infrastructure needs."

Position Statement on Sidewalk/Trail Bond Issue: LIBA opposes the $4,000,000 bond issue for sidewalks and trails.
September 26, 2002

Ten years ago, Lincoln citizens voted to make the city responsible for all sidewalk repairs. The City did not follow that directive and funds to maintain sidewalks were not included in the annual budget. Bonds should not be used to finance a city budget obligation. In addition, the proposed $4,000,000 bond does not offer any solution for how to handle future sidewalk costs. The City needs a plan with a comprehensive solution, not one that wastes taxpayer dollars without solving the problem. The Board's position is that sidewalk maintenance belongs in the operating budget not on the ballot. While LIBA has a history of supporting trails, the $1,000,000 portion of the bond issue for trails appears to be an afterthought. This is another item that belongs in the annual budget so there is an ongoing source of funds for maintenance of the trail system. This bond issue should be referred to the Infrastructure Financing Committee after it is defeated in November.

Fire Station Bond Position Statement
September 25, 2002

Does Lincoln need two more fire stations? Yes, eventually, but not right now. While we have a growing city that demands expanded services, the Lincoln Fire Department is currently providing admirable service to the whole community as Lincoln ranks in the top 3% of cities rated by the Insurance Services Office. Two additional fire stations will not improve a top rated system. In fact, an unbiased interpretation of the ISO report would indicate that Lincoln's firefighters have achieved a high level of effectiveness. Lincoln is currently rated in a classification of 3 and homeowners' insurance rates are not in jeopardy of being raised until the classification falls to 6 or less. The proposed 20-year $8 million bond issue contains large expenditures for equipment with a 10-year to 15-year life. Not matching debt and equipment may not be efficient use of tax dollars. However, the real ongoing cost will be to staff the two stations - 55 people per Fire Chief Mike Spadt or 66 people per the CIP. At the average wage and benefit package of $67,000 per firefighter, this cost approaches $4 million annually. With city finances strained due to the local economy, now is not the time for this commitment. A higher priority for the city right now might be to increase the number of police officers, paying them enough to keep them in Lincoln - or maybe even providing infrastructure for a growing community. Modern fire protection demands a review of our overall fire service. New construction methods decrease the number of fire calls. Today, almost 90% are for medical reasons. Continuing to provide service without change does not prepare Lincoln for the future. It is time for an independent assessment of the Lincoln Fire Department and its methods of operation. Do we need the 14 stations we have currently? Should some be closed or relocated? Is there a better system that would limit the use of expensive fire engines for most medical calls? While it is even possible that an independent assessment would tell the community that our current system should continue as planned, with no current emergency demanding action now, the opportunity exists for this assessment process to begin. Upon completion, the community will move forward together to continue Lincoln's tradition of excellent fire protection. In light of these facts, LIBA is opposing the proposed bond issue for two new fire stations. We encourage the Fire Department to continue to efficiently use existing resources.

Impact Fee Resolution
September 12, 2002

The Lincoln Independent Business Association has voiced concern about the city's infrastructure backlog for over 20 years. Our organization is pleased that city government and the community are now seriously addressing this issue. The City's August 26 proposal for Infrastructure Financing acknowledges the need to increase utility rates, to phase in new homeowner costs, and to standardize the assessment process for developer's off-site improvement costs. Most importantly the need to generate revenue from new development as well as the public at large is addressed. This philosophy supports the notion that Lincoln is a growing community and we must work together as a community to address the financing of our infrastructure. Should the current proposal go forward, we believe that two aspects need to be better defined. 1. The four benefit areas are too broad and a more direct benefit clause would be appropriate. 2. Arterial streets are for the most part a city responsibility and that the majority of the cost should be financed with General Obligation an/or Revenue bonds. This is the most equitable method of financing a capital asset that benefits all citizens. As proposed, Impact Fees are an uncontrolled tax levy that can be increased or decreased by future administrations without citizen oversight. The legality of imposing impact fees in the manner proposed is being called into question and we would like to see a definitive resolution prior to enmeshing the city in any potential court actions. Defending a poorly conceived ordinance would be costly and consume resources that we can ill afford to lose. LIBA opposes the current proposal but believes that it is the first step in what must be a multi-step process leading to a more complete solution to the funding gap. We would support the implementation of a Working Committee comprised of industry selected individuals to develop a more comprehensive solution to the problem.

Impact Fee Resolution adopted by LIBA
August 08, 2002

The LIBA Board of Directors unanimously voted to oppose Impact Fees as proposed. LIBA does not believe that all financing alternatives have been explored. For example, Sewer and Water fees have not been increased for the past decade. It is LIBA's understanding that the Sewer and Water funds carry excess balances that could be used to defray infrastructure costs for the city. LIBA believes that it is appropriate to use bonding for future city growth. Lincoln Electric System provides a great example of how this is done. LIBA believes that all the monies collected from developers have not been accounted for. Too often designated funds are appropriated for unrelated obligations and LIBA would like to see more direct accountability of all collected funds. Past management of resources has created the current deficiency. As proposed, Impact Fees are an uncontrolled tax levy that can be increased or decreased by future administrations without citizen oversight. Lincoln citizens do not want their government to be tempted by this potential corruption.

City Budget Comments By Dan Alberts, Budget Monitoring Committee Chair
August 01, 2002

The Lincoln Independent Business Association appreciates the opportunity to provide our views as to the proposed budget for the city for 2002-03 year. LIBA members believe that it is generally best that fiscal resources mainly remain in the hands of the individual and/or private businesses as compared to being in the hands of government. However, LIBA members realize that some core services are best provided by government. From this viewpoint, LIBA, in reviewing proposed budgets, looks to see that services best left in the hands of the private sector remain there and that services best handled by government are funded as needed and that funds are used efficiently. With this background in mind, LIBA uses as a barometer in valuing a proposed budget that the budget increase in spending is either equal to or less than the cost of living increase in the prior year plus the percent of people growth. This year for example, this maximum growth in the budget standard would be 3.5% from a 1% increase in people growth and a 2.5% increase in inflation. From this viewpoint, LIBA appreciates and supports the Mayor's proposed budget that would raise spending for the upcoming year from $111 million and change last year to the $113 million and change this year. This increase is close to a 2% increase in spending and is well within this inflation plus growth standard. However, LIBA would like to remind this council that last year at this same time, the expenditure increase proposed and adopted was an almost a 7% increase over the 2000 fiscal year. So looking over the city budget for a two year period, the increase in expenditures has went from 103.9 million to $113 million-a 9.5% increase over two years while inflation plus growth would increase is 6.7%. (3.2% for the 2001 year and 3.5% for the 2002 year) This brings to light a very important point. Last year at this time the economic picture for the city, the county and state was much rosier. At that time, when there were strong indicators that the property base would continue to grow and that sales tax dollars would rise at a rate much higher than the inflation rate, LIBA cautioned this council to be very prudent during strong economic times. Prudent, from LIBA's viewpoint, means to not spend all of the possible money available but to recognize that the old adage to save for rainy day has merit. With this concept and history in mind, LIBA strongly recommends that this Council resist the desire to do three things: 1. Borrow money from one-time sources to pay for ongoing costs such as the transfer of street construction funds to use for general fund desires. In reality, this is just borrowing on the future instead of pairing back desires now. 2. Shifting dollars from one category to another such as the transfer of KENO funds from a designated and required need to a general fund expenditure. 3. Shifting dollars from appropriated balances of $6.2 million to general fund expenditures. As we see it, you project that you will receive about $107 million in funds through taxes and fees and we think you should make every effort to spend no more than you take in with these sources. Instead, LIBA encourages you to make real cuts as needed to keep the proposed expenditures in line with the 2% increase in expenditures recommended by the Mayor. By doing this, you will assist this community to deal with future budget crunches that are likely to come instead of delaying and compounding the hurt into the future. LIBA also asks that you consider this budget in light of the fact that there is a proposal on the table to ask the people of Lincoln for $8 million more in the near future to pay for two more fire stations. Realize that you, as council members, are confronting difficult economic times on behalf of the city of Lincoln. This is a result of the fact that as individuals, families and businesses, the people you represent are having difficult economic times. Given this, LIBA asks that you make every effort to request less from the people for this budget and do it with the understanding that regardless of whether you ask for money through taxes for the upcoming year's budget or if you ask for it to pay for bonds for new buildings, to the taxpayer, it all means the same, the money goes from the individual to the government. Finally, LIBA asks that you consider an audit of the city's internal budget categories to assure citizens that the resources that are allocated for specific services are indeed used for these services. For example, many citizens are not sure that the ambulance Enterprise Fund fully pays for the entire costs of operating ambulance services. In order for voters to approve an impending $8 million bond issue, it is imperative that people trust that the money now in your hands is being used as promised. An internal audit would answer these types of questions and provide the certainty people need.

Return to Top