ISSUES on the BALLOTS
STATE LEVEL
Government Using Non-Tax Revenue Amendment_1
Abolish Office of State Treasurer Amendment_2
DOUGLAS COUNTY
Bennington Schools Bond
Gretna Schools Bond
SARPY COUNTY
Gretna Schools Bond
Springfield Sales Tax
LaVista Advantage Transformational Tourism And Redevelopment Program
Sarpy County Sales Tax
WASHINGTON COUNTY
Bennington Schools Bond
Arlington Swimming Pool Improvements Bond (Research in progress)
LANCASTER COUNTY (If you live in Lancaster County and would like to do research on these issues, email Kathy@voterinformtion.org.)
Hickman Keno
Waverly Sales Tax
Stormwater Improvement Bond
Biennial Budget Charter Amendment
Proposed Amendment No. 1 ---- GOVERNMENT USING NON-TAX REVENUE
Actual Wording | Background and Thoughts |
A vote FOR this amendment will authorize the Legislature to permit municipalities to fund economic or industrial development projects or programs from additional fund sources, subject to a vote of a majority of the registered voters of such municipality voting upon the question. Fund sources may include property taxes, local option sales tax, or any other general tax levied by the municipality or generated from municipally owned utilities or grants, donations, or state and federal funds received by the municipality. A vote AGAINST this amendment will not authorize the Legislature to permit municipalities to fund economic or industrial development projects or programs from additional fund sources. A constitutional amendment to change the powers of municipalities relating to fund sources for economic or industrial development. For Against | Two years ago a very similar proposal was placed on the ballot. Then, instead of saying, “authorize the Legislature to permit municipalities,” the wording said, “remove a requirement…”Some are hoping the people will understand that phraseology better. Basically the idea is to allow cities to use whatever money is in their treasury for the purpose of economic development. Currently the law limits them to using only tax income. This measure would allow them to use grants and donations, but also the money from utilities. For example, if the money for the water department is in excess, the extra could be used in trying to attract a business developer. Then, ideally, that new business would generate adequate sales tax income to refill the water department’s money in time. It should be noted that even though this proposal was put on the ballot with 47 of the 49 senators voting for it, that vote should not be seen as an approval statement for the concept. The senators were voting to put it on the ballot, agreeing with the importance of letting the people decide. Some who oppose this concept suggest there are better ways to provide motivation for developers to build in their communities. One suggestion has been called the infrastructure bank. If infrastructure (road, water, electricity, telephone, cable, sewer, etc.) is already in place, developers are much quicker to move into a community. If there’s money set aside in the “infrastructure bank” a quick loan can get the roads, etc. built soon enough – instead of having to wait for the next election. Other opposition observes the idea might sit better if money was being asked for concerning a specific project rather than giving what appears to be a blanket approval. That can seem like giving the city the freedom to use any funds for any purpose without voter approval. That could appear to open the door for fraud. Some have said this provision might be fine in the smaller communities where voters more personally know city officials. A vote “for” the amendment will change the Nebraska Constitution to say cities can use basically any funds to encourage economic development. A vote “against” the amendment will leave the Constitution the way it is with cities using only the tax revenue assigned them. For specific wordings and other information from the Legislature, see http://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=10170 |
Actual Wording | Background and Thoughts |
A vote FOR this amendment will abolish the office of the State Treasurer on January 8, 2015. A vote AGAINST this amendment will not abolish the office of the State Treasurer. A constitutional amendment to abolish the office of the State Treasurer on January 8, 2015. For Against | The main reason given by the Senator who introduced this bill, was to save money for the state. His view is that the duplication of effort between the Treasurer’s office and the Department of Revenue meant wasted dollars. His recommendation was to eliminate the Treasurer’s office rather than consolidate the jobs under the Treasurer. Those who support this amendment point out that the Treasurer job was established when Nebraska was still a territory in 1855. In those days the job consisted simply of keeping track of the money coming in and the money going out. As years have gone by, agencies have been established, like the Department of Revenue who take in the money and other agencies, like Administrative Services that keep records of where the money goes. Those agencies, however, instead of reporting to the State Treasurer, are under the direction of governor appointees. The appointees do have to be approved by the Legislature. (Note: The appointed Tax Commissioner position was established in the 1920’s and was placed under the Department of Revenue when it was established in 1969 two years after the 1967 institution of sales and income taxes which replaced the state property tax. Today taxes collected by the Revenue Department go to the Treasurer’s office for processing.) Proponents point out that 13 other states have abolished the office of State Treasurer. The basic thinking in those states apparently has been that administrative jobs that make no policy decisions should not have to be elected positions. Some have suggested that those administrative positions could be deemed nonpartisan, but still remain elected positions. If the position is abolished, jobs the State Treasurer’s office manages will have to be given to other agencies. There are four more years in which those decisions can be made. Some of those extra duties include the Unclaimed Property program, the Nebraska College Savings program, the State Disbursement Unit for child support payment, the Long-Term Care Savings Plan, and the newly created website, Nebraskaspending.gov. Opponents point out that i f we abolish the Treasurer’s office, the responsibilities would fall to the bureaucracy. In the past four years the Treasurer’s office has trimmed jobs while accomplishing more output, whereas the Dept. of Revenue (where many of the Treasurer’s responsibilities would likely go) grew. The Treasurer is elected; the bureaucracy is not. We lose accountability of our tax dollars without an elected Treasurer. For more information see, http://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=9611 |
Actual Wording | Background and Thoughts |
Douglas County School District 0059 (aka Bennington Public Schools) School Bond Election “Shall Douglas County School District 0059, in the State of Nebraska, issue the bonds of said District in the principal amount of not to exceed NINETEEN MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($19,750,000) for the purpose of paying the costs of constructing a new elementary school building, the acquisition and preparation of a school building site or sites, construction of an auditorium addition to the existing Jr/Sr High School Building, construction of improvements and renovations to the existing stadium and track and providing for necessary furniture and apparatus for such school buildings, addition, stadium and track, said bonds to bear interest at a rate or rates to be determined by the Board of Education and to become due at such time or times as may be fixed by the Board of Education; and ”Shall the District cause to be levied and collected annually a special levy of taxes against all the taxable property in said District sufficient in rate and amount to pay the interest and principal of said bonds as the same become due?” FOR said bonds and tax AGAINST said bonds and tax | Research in Progress |
Actual Wording | Background and Thoughts |
Vote FOR or AGAINST “Shall Sarpy County School District 0037 (aka Gretna Public Schools), in the State of Nebraska, issue the Bonds of said District in the principal amount of not to exceed Thirty-Five Million Eight Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($35,820,000) for the purposes of constructing a new elementary school building; constructing high school additions; to remodel/renovate and update technology equipment and infrastructure at existing school buildings and facilities; constructing a bus barn addition and site improvements; site acquisition; and, providing the necessary furniture, equipment and apparatus for such buildings, additions and facilities; said bonds to be issued at such time or times as may be determined by the Board of Education, to bear interest at such rate or rates as may be determined by the Board of Education and to become due at such time or times as may be fixed by the Board of Education; and “Shall the District cause to be levied and collected annually a special levy of taxes against all the taxable property in the District sufficient in rate and amount to pay the interest and principal of said Bonds as the same become due?” | Due to the expanding population of Gretna, the education community must respond in one of five ways: 1) Do nothing. 2) Increase class sizes. 3) Cut or change programs. 4) Portable classrooms 5) Build facilities and expand classroom space Voting “FOR” this bond issue will permit the community to expand educational facilities to meet the increased needs. The breakdown of the costs are: 1. $13.2 million for a new elementary school at 192nd and Giles, due to open for the 2012-2013 school year. 2. $16.8 million for a new high school to increase capacity from 800 to 1250. 3. $778K for a bus barn addition and required paving to bring a site up to code. 4. $1 million for technology and security improvements 5. $1.95 million for a new site acquisition between Cornhusker and Highway 370 on 180th St. (80 acres) The total comes to almost $36 million after total financing costs of the bond. Since bond rates are at a low, the property tax levy increase will only be 0.06%, which amounts to $60 per year for a property assessed at $100,000; $120 per year for a property assessed at $200,000; etc. Voting “AGAINST” this bond issue casts a vote to “do nothing,” which will cause the three elementary schools to be overbooked by a projected 40% by the 2013-2014 school year. The high school is also projected to enroll significantly more students than current capacity allows by 2013 without this renovation effort. Reference: http://gretna.esu3.org/GretnaSchoolsPreso/GretnaSchoolsPreso.html Some have suggested that not passing this bond issue this time would mean an even larger expense down the road since the land prices are likely to be going up and acquiring new sites will be even more expensive in the future. Others, on the other hand, suggest that alternatives to public education, like private or home schools would be a suggestion for handling overcrowding. |
SARPY COUNTY
SPRINGFIELD SALES TAXActual Wording | Background and Thoughts |
Vote YES or NO “Shall the governing body of the City of Springfield, Nebraska impose a sales and use tax at the rate of 1.5% upon the same transactions within the City of Springfield, Nebraska on which the State of Nebraska is authorized to impose a tax?” | In order to implement the Community Action Plan resolution placed on file for reference for the next 24 years, the City Council saw the need for the extra income so they put this sales tax provision on the ballot. The potential use of sales tax revenues could include: (1) Improve the appearance and long-term viability of the downtown area; (2) improve street conditions throughout the city (3) construct an outdoor aquatic center (4) improve the municipal park system within the city; (5) develop more trails in the city and connect them to other local and regional trails and parks (6) construct a safe, aesthetically-pleasing, scale appropriate, energy-efficient, fully accessible Community Center to host small private functions and large-scale civic/athletic events (7) consider annexation of adjacent land and existing subdivisions and; (8) promote economic development within the city. At this time, Springfield is the only city in Sarpy County that does not have city sales tax. Also on the ballot is a measure where sales tax would be collected in non-city areas of the county. Assuming spending remains the same, sales tax revenue could benefit the city as indicated above. Those who oppose the tax suggest that the community improvement projects should be funded by donations instead of tax. |
LA VISTA ADVANTAGE TRANSFORMATIONAL TOURISM AND REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Actual Wording | Background and Thoughts |
Vote YES or NO If authorized by the voters at an election, the City of La Vista, Nebraska may direct that some or all of the local option sales taxes-that is, the City’s sales taxes-collected in a designated area be distributed to qualifying businesses to encourage investment in redevelopment or tourism development in those areas. Shall the municipality-the City of La Vista-direct the local option sales tax collected within an area defined by the municipality to require redevelopment or as a tourism development project for the benefit of that area? A “Yes” vote will authorize the City of La Vista to direct some or all of the City’s sales taxes collected in a designated area to be distributed to qualifying businesses to encourage investment in redevelopment or tourism development in those areas. A “No” vote will deny authority to the City of La Vista to direct some or all of the City’s sales taxes collected in a designated area to be distributed to qualifying businesses to encourage investment in tourism development in those areas. | In the spring of 2010, the Legislature passed LB1018, known as, “ Adopt the Nebraska Advantage Transformational Tourism and Redevelopment Act and restrict the use of municipal initiative and referendum on action permitted by the act” – known as (NATTRA). When the Revenue Committee held the public hearing, proponents included the mayors of LaVista and Papillion, spokespeople for the Bellevue Chamber of Commerce, League of the Municipalities and the Nebraska Economic developers and others. There were no opponents present. See http://www.revenue.ne.gov/info/legislation/2010/LB1018.pdf for full reading. With permission from the voters, a city can essentially not collect sales tax from a newly developed area as an incentive to bring in businesses to undeveloped areas of the city (transformational tourism) or to redevelop current areas of the city. Here’s how it works:
-Redevelopment Projects -- $10 million minimum required investment. -Tourism Development Projects -- $50 million minimum required investment.
What will La Vista residents be voting on?
Note that this is not a new tax. Existing sales tax dollars cannot be used. City Council would have authority to rebate up to 1.5% of the newly generated local option sales tax. A project can only be rebated what it generates. Must be approved by a vote of the people. Must be reauthorized by voters every 10 years. (That’s a way to make sure the idea is working.) A NO vote would mean LaVista would collect the sales tax on whatever developments happen, but proponents say less income would result because the developers likely would set up somewhere else. A YES vote would mean only those with significant capitol, and therefore a better “risk”, could be considered. The dollar amount was established by the Legislature. The final vote on the bill was 48 in the affirmative. The 49th senator later said if he had been present, he would also have voted for it. |
SARPY COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY SALES TAX
Vote YES or NO
Actual Wording | Background and Thoughts |
In order to provide funding for public safety needs from sources other than property tax, Sarpy County proposes the imposition of a sales and use tax upon taxable transactions within Sarpy County but outside of any incorporated municipality, as provided by Neb. Rev. Stat §13-319(Reissue 2007) and related statutes. Said tax shall only be available for expenditure for public safety costs incurred by Sarpy County and participating fire protection districts and municipalities. The initial priority of expenditures from said tax shall be for communications equipment and software necessary to operate the 911 Center which is used by all county and city law enforcement agencies in Sarpy County, Nebraska and fire protection districts. Said expenditure shall also be used to equip Sarpy County and the participating municipalities and fire protection districts with necessary communications equipment, public safety equipment and facilities. Said funds may only be expended by a Public Safety Commission formed pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat §13-318 (2)(Reissue 2007). The tax would only be imposed in areas that are not subject to a local-option sales tax. Shall the County of Sarpy, of the State of Nebraska, impose a sales and use tax upon the same transactions within the County, other than in municipalities which impose a local option sales tax, on which the State of Nebraska is authorized to impose a tax to finance public safety services? A vote “Yes” is a vote to allow the imposition of the sales tax to finance public safety services. A vote “No” is a vote to not allow the imposition of such a tax. | To keep pace with how much the county has grown, It will cost $10 million to upgrade the current 911 system shared by Sarpy County and the cities within the county. The need for this upgrade, in technology as well as in physical space, is not under discussion; the question is one of where to find the funds. In the past, when state level prisoners were housed in the Sarpy County jail, state aid would follow. However, in recent years, when the state doesn’t have enough to pay, Sarpy County has been absorbing that cost. That means more and more of the county budget is being allocated to the public safety category, which leads to shortfalls in other categories, like roads. With the current downturn in the economy and people being more careful in gas expenditures, revenue for roads is down. The solution that the County Board is recommending is a 1.5% sales tax which combined with the state 5.5% would make all places in the county charge 7%, except Springfield and they have it on their ballot to add sales tax in their city. (The county cannot tax within municipalities, i.e. cities like Springfield.) By law, sales tax collected in a county MUST be used for public safety. Using the new tax revenue would free up money currently being used for public safety to go into other categories. Those who favor the idea point out that many times Sarpy Country residents drive into Omaha, buy things and support Omaha’s budget. Likewise people from Omaha, or Lincoln, traveling on I-80 near Giles and Harrison, where there are several businesses not in a city, might support the Sarpy County budget. The new baseball stadium would be generating sales tax income for the county from non-county residents. In the event that cities were to annex what is currently county land, the loss of sales tax revenue to the county, ideally, should be offset by the city’s requirements to partially fund the countywide 911 system. Those who oppose the idea suggest cutting costs as a means to have enough for the public safety issues. One suggestion relates to how major parts of property tax goes to the schools. This idea suggests consolidating Sarpy County schools in order to save millions of dollars by decreasing the duplicated administration, supporting staff, and even office buildings. Other opponents suggest that those businesses located in the county (not in a city) would stand to lose the business that currently comes their way. Some of their business results from people choosing to shop where they can pay less sales tax. “Yes” means county sales tax, “No” means continuing with no county sales tax. |