[ostargazer]

Once again... that $50 fee... is where we'll be in -2017- after a decade of 9% fee hikes. There will be no $50 monthly fee in 2008. And, frankly, given the scope this issue presents on a national scale... I'd be surprised if the feds didn't step in with some subsidies in the future as well. So no... the sky is not falling... and personally, I prefer to live right in among the amenities... rather than commute to them. Obviously everyone's different, but I look at this no differently than my property taxes (which largely go towards the fine school system which my children are benefiting from)... part of the otherwise modest expense for living the good life.

[ehenningsen]

people do forget where this money is going..
Our rates are higher than average, but for goodness sakes, our standard of living is darn near the highest in the nation, with that in mind we have nearly the best roads, entertainment venues, educational system, government access, top-business recruitment and development reseources, great parks and rest stops, self-help amendities, our exports are doubling every 3-5 years and more.

It's more than just having something to use, it's also about how it works and the successes of everything available and here in Nebraska we are succeeding more so at nearly everything and we are reaping the benefits of doing so. For one, Omaha didn't become the number #2 standard of living metro in nation just by chance. Yes council bluffs is reaping 'some,' but nowhere near all the benefits that we get here and on top of that because our cost of living is darn near the lowest in the nation our per capita taxes are a little above average but nothing to freak about.

I prefer the nebraska side, but that's me. And the saying goes "you get what you pay for, holds true in Nebraska's case"

[GLS]

Returning to the original poster's gripe about taxes, his property tax rate would be higher than mine in California. HOWEVER, "going west on I-80" isn't going to solve the problem if the TOTAL tax burden is more. For example, considering State income tax, sales tax, etc. added to property tax, wouldn't the total tax burden be less in Nebraska than California?

[ostargazer]

Total burden remains relatively high in Nebraska (taxfoundation.org provides all sorts of useful information in this area... currently we rank 13th in total burden) ... although I personally like to think we have excellent public schools to show for it (and that's where by far the largest portion of our taxes are going). In addition, any time you're going to have a state with a relatively low population... yet thousands of miles of rural infrastructure (roads, utilities, schools, etc, etc) which must be maintained... you're going to have a higher per capita tax rate. Perhaps Omaha and Lincoln can secede from the state.

[SCGranny]

Pardon me for butting in. I am not a resident of Omaha nor NE but I am a (shudder) politician.

Doesn't NE have a Council of Governments? Don't they have access to CDBG grants? Wasn't there a plan put into place for gradual yearly upgrading of the sewer system to utilize these grants?

I only ask because we had serious problems with drainage. We got a CDBG planning grant to hire an engineer whose specific field was drainage. He put together a five year upgrade plan. We applied for the CDBG grant to initialize the first year, and every year after that. With the CDBG grants, the money and work is spread out over time, true - but all it takes is a 10% match from the governing entity, and that can be done with in-kind services provided by city workers. Is Omaha not eligible for CDBG grants - median income too high, etc, by Federal standards? Do ya'll not take advantage of federal grants in this manner?

I'm not critical, just confused. The responsibility of a politician as I see it is to not fiscally impact the poor with poor decisions. Oh, and we also charge developer fees for new hookups to offset not only the cost of hooking into the system but the impacts of new residential and commercial growth so that the locals do not have to pay for growth. Do ya'll do that too?

$50 a month seems like an awful lot to hit people with on taxes all at once, especially people on low to moderate incomes, or folks on fixed incomes. Ouch.

[ostargazer]

Once again... that $50 fee... is where we'll be in -2017- after a decade of 9% fee hikes.

Again, not 'all at once'... but certainly significant nonetheless.

You obviously know more about this than any of us here SCGranny... and I assume the administrators of the city of Omaha do as well. Personally, I am thinking the politician side of these guys are thinking... tell Omahans the worst case scenario... and eventually bring to light the revelation that there are options (which they of course uncovered)... to make the whole endeavor much more palatable to tax payers. On the other hand... Omaha is a fairly large city (historically speaking even... going back to when these combined sewer systems were constructed)... it is entirely possible that the $1+ billion estimates that they are coming up with... already take into account any outside funding help it is receiving.

[mattpoulsen]

The property tax comparison between California and Nebraska is simply misleading! I'm not even going to go into all the details of the valuations and levies...I will simply ask one question. How much would your mortgage payment be if you owned an identical house in San Diego or San Fransisco. Yes, property taxes may be a bit higher in Omaha as compared to cities in California. So what??? An average $150,000 home will go for multiples higher in cities such as San Diego, San Fransisco, and etc.

The people whining and complaining about Nebraska property taxes being so high are the same people who are scared of economic development because it will raise taxes. Well, initially it may raise taxes a bit, but the point is to expand the local and state tax base which in turn will lower your property taxes by shifting the burden to income taxes.

The whole argument concerning property taxes in San Diego to property taxes in Omaha is just silly.

[Steve_W]

Originally Posted by mattpoulsen

The property tax comparison between California and Nebraska is simply misleading! I'm not even going to go into all the details of the valuations and levies...I will simply ask one question. How much would your mortgage payment be if you owned an identical house in San Diego or San Fransisco. Yes, property taxes may be a bit higher in Omaha as compared to cities in California. So what??? An average $150,000 home will go for multiples higher in cities such as San Diego, San Fransisco, and etc.

The people whining and complaining about Nebraska property taxes being so high are the same people who are scared of economic development because it will raise taxes. Well, initially it may raise taxes a bit, but the point is to expand the local and state tax base which in turn will lower your property taxes by shifting the burden to income taxes.

The whole argument concerning property taxes in San Diego to property taxes in Omaha is just silly.

Bingo, and if we wanted to simplify it even more for people the entire issue would come down to cost of living.

Everything comes down to cost of living, some things will be higher and some lower but cost of living was designed to show that bottom line figure.

People can ***** and ***** about property taxes or other taxes all they want but the day that tax revenue doesn't reach local governments they will need to get it in a different form.

They're not getting rich and they have a set budget.

[Steve_W]

Originally Posted by SCGranny

Pardon me for butting in. I am not a resident of Omaha nor NE but I am a (shudder) politician.

Doesn't NE have a Council of Governments? Don't they have access to CDBG grants? Wasn't there a plan put into place for gradual yearly upgrading of the sewer system to utilize these grants?

I only ask because we had serious problems with drainage. We got a CDBG planning grant to hire an engineer whose specific field was drainage. He put together a five year upgrade plan. We applied for the CDBG grant to initialize the first year, and every year after that. With the CDBG grants, the money and work is spread out over time, true - but all it takes is a 10% match from the governing entity, and that can be done with in-kind services provided by city workers. Is Omaha not eligible for CDBG grants - median income too high, etc, by Federal standards? Do ya'll not take advantage of federal grants in this manner?

I'm not critical, just confused. The responsibility of a politician as I see it is to not fiscally impact the poor with poor decisions. Oh, and we also charge developer fees for new hookups to offset not only the cost of hooking into the system but the impacts of new residential and commercial growth so that the locals do not have to pay for growth. Do ya'll do that too?

$50 a month seems like an awful lot to hit people with on taxes all at once, especially people on low to moderate incomes, or folks on fixed incomes. Ouch.

Write a letter to our city council! I'm sure they looked into it and have considered many options but maybe they missed something?? We are receiving federal aid for this project I believe.

Who knows, I'm just glad someday I could ski on the Missouri River without getting a mouthful of sewage!

[mattpoulsen]

SCGranny,

Yes, the city of Omaha takes advantage of federal grants. The problem has just been ignored a bit and by some improper planning in the past the present is now paying for it. I'm not an expert on the sewer problem, but my understanding is that it involves very large scale overhauls and is not something that would fit into the category of "annual upgrages." It is also the case that the scale of the project exceeds that which could be externally funded via federal and state grants. Also, yes, developers routinely pay "infrastructure costs" when building new developments.