City, county officials unite against aid cut

Thursday, February 3, 2011

McCOOK, Nebraska -- Red Willow County Commissioner Earl McNutt asked Nebraska Senator Mark Christensen to "Please consider strongly opposing LB383," the bill introduced that will eliminate state aid for municipalities, counties and natural resources districts. McNutt said the impact was far reaching and his concerns were echoed by City Manager Kurt Fritsch, during the senator's weekly Chamber of Commerce conference call at the Keystone Business Center, Thursday morning.

Christensen said the governor was the driving force in support of it and named off a list of groups in opposition to the bill, but added, "If not this, we will have to do more cuts against the schools. My fear is either way it ends up back locally and hurting. I can go either way but I can see it hurting locally either way."

Fritsch asked Christensen to also oppose LB165, which he explained would eliminate the local occupation tax on land lines. "Other cities are taking much larger hits, that adopted the tax on cell phones as well. I don't understand why we are going after it?" said Fritsch. Christensen directed Fritsch to contact Sen. Deb Fischer, who introduced the bill and put his opposition to the bill on record.

Fritsch reiterated his stance that if the bill was enacted the city would look for cuts, to compensate for the loss of revenue, as opposed to tax increases.

Larry Eisenmenger voiced his support of LB196, a bill introduced that will change liability insurance and financial responsibility requirements for motor vehicles.

The bill doubles the state minimum requirements on uninsured motorist coverage, underinsured motorist coverage, liability insurance, financial responsibility, motor vehicle and accident coverage as well as doubling the proof of financial responsibility amount from $75,000 to $150,000 per vehicle.

"It's an insurance tactic, we're worse off with high risk and it can make it more difficult for younger drivers to be able to afford it [insurance]," said Christensen.

Eisenmenger said "If you're behind the wheel you have a responsibility to other parties," adding that he believed the current state coverage minimums were almost like not having insurance. Christensen said he could support certain increases but felt there were areas that could be moved down and a middle ground was probably the best alternative.

Eisenmenger explained that many insurance agencies saw it as a responsibility to bypass the state minimums and if the minimum was increased at the state level, the problem would take care of itself.

Duane Tappe raised questions over schools hiring lobbyists and paying for them with tax dollars, also asking if colleges and universities were using foundation or tax money to pay for their lobbyists. Christensen said that raised a good point about ensuring lobbyist dollars weren't effecting the "needs formula" and said he would get with Sen. Adams to look into the issue.

Tappe closed out the conference call with a lighthearted solution to the many directions that state lottery money has been debated to go in recently. "I think the agencies need a lottery to see who gets the lottery money," said Tappe.

Comments
View 7 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • Right now our federal government is on the brink of financial collaspe. I suggested to the City Council during budget discussions to cut spending, freeze wages and pay down debt. I was poo pooed. Nothing ever touches McCook, they are in good shape...

    Now that reality is starting to hit home and the FIRST baby cuts are coming down the hill, our County and City opts to whine instead of being part of the solution they are part of the problem.

    The Governor is acting prudently and McCook and Red Willow County doesn't want to support our governments actions to get ourself in good financial shape. If they have to endure cuts you are going to pay with higher taxes if you don't stop them!

    I think they should be ashamed! Our federal government is headed to a melt down and if the city and county can't pass the first wave they'll never make it when it gets really ugly financially. We have to act now preimptively for self preservation.

    Our City Manager has even resorted to bullying a citizen asking for and end to the telecommunication occupation tax at council meetings only to find out about LB 165 at the state level and now he wants it opposed by Mark Christensen. Why are we putting up with this from a public employee?

    McCook and Red Willow need to suck it up and do their part. Cut spending and don't raise taxes just like the governor is doing!

    -- Posted by Jerie Quinty on Thu, Feb 3, 2011, at 11:35 PM
  • What she said................

    -- Posted by RLD on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 9:01 AM
  • yes obvious, cut away, like the airport

    -- Posted by president obama on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 6:37 PM
  • Under that plan, the airport would be shut down. So, what are your plans for the airport when it is closed? Not to mention the hit that would be taken by local businesses because of the people who would fly to McCook and stay longer, spending more locally, because they don't have to worry about a long drive back home. What should be done with all that expensive equipment? If it's sold, who should get the money for it? Considering much of it was bought with federal funds and some local funds. Don't forget that we could not have medical emergency air service in McCook.

    In the overall picture, there would be a lot of smaller aviation companies going out of business because they can only afford to serve these more rural areas because of the subsidies and rural areas across the country would lose their airports, leaving only the large airports in the large cities.

    Alaska would be hardest hit since most of their airports are rural and the people and businesses there rely very heavily on air service from many of the airports that receive those subsidies.

    Eliminating that subsidy should save around $200 million so that's about $1 of savings to the taxpayer. I'd rather have my dollar go to something that supports businesses that generate revenue. At 1% that's a loss of $100,000 in local sales without even taking into consideration the loss of business done by people who will only fly in to do business here or businesses looking to relocate or expand but require an airport as a prerequisite for establishing themselves in a community. There are so many things that people don't necessarily realize about what happens when you shut down an entire mode of transportation in a community.

    -- Posted by McCook1 on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 3:26 PM
  • Amen McCook, what he said, and all that jazz. I've said it before, "The 1st sign of bankruptcy is down sizing. Then when people are cut, so too must the services be cut, as there isn't enough support to offer the services. Without the services, people reduce doing business with them or quite doing business altogether. Without business, the doors close.

    For a business it's unfortunate, for a big business its catastrophic, for a town or city it's dooms day as it doesn't mean an empty storefront so much as a deserted town.

    What needs to be done is curb federal spending! A single white house dinner function can cost well over $85,000.00. How about they have Sehnert's cater the meal? It will be roughly $83,000.00 less, $82,000.00 with travel considered.

    And I'm supposed to accept that the federal government can't reissue my money back to my own town to assure that municipal needs are met? 1 less whitehouse function will take our burden right away.

    Jerie, am I to understand that you wish your federal tax moneys be spent on a $1200.00 steak dinner rather than a badly needed re-paved street or local highway? Your money is being spent alright.... poorly at that, its going to pay for insurance and retirement for the US congressmen. How's your insurance and retirement portfolio look? Mine isn't that great, but having my hometown shut down will neither better my situation nor stop the $1200 a plate Washington meals. Not in THIS administration.

    -- Posted by Nick Mercy on Tue, Feb 8, 2011, at 1:19 AM
  • "Our City Manager has even resorted to bullying a citizen asking for and end to the telecommunication occupation tax at council meetings only to find out about LB 165 at the state level and now he wants it opposed by Mark Christensen. Why are we putting up with this from a public employee?" Simply put...there's just as many roads out of McCook as there are in. If you don't like what's going on in McCook, get out and explore what's happening elsewhere. I only wish I could relocate back to my hometown and not pay the high taxes and worry about the crime and take 45 minutes to drive six miles to work and pay dearly for a parking stall. I've heard nothing but good things about the city manager in McCook but I guess someone always has to stir the pot and poke at those making the important decisions to keep government operating efficiently. It seems to me that the very things that the city manager is supporting are for the good of McCook. Football season is over for another year. Quit being an armchair quarterback.

    -- Posted by McCook Supporter on Tue, Feb 8, 2011, at 8:50 PM
  • The City Manager IS going in the right direction, in fact he has already "bullied" us into street repairs, park improvements, updated equipment and a generally productive and proactive direction.

    Luckily we also have a forward thinking council which also wants to see the City take forward strides. Keep in mind that the City of McCook isn't a retailer or manufacturer..... It can't put on a sale or promotion to increase revenue. How can we see the cost of living go up but expect our City taxes and municiple service charges remain the same? The City buys fuel at an increased rate just as you and I do. The City pays more for tires today than they did 5 years ago, just like us. Our taxes have NOT increased at these same levels, AND things are getting done, the right way. So, how would those "Anti-City" folks recommend we keep things tax cheap? Put on a sale for sewer rates so more people buy sewer service? Are the Anti's going to buy an additional sewer service? Nope, its that dreaded Federal money that we turn to. Its not city welfare, it's the system. I pay much more into Federal tax than state, and I'm not sure I see anywhere on my tax with-holdings, a City tax. If a lion's share of my earned tax money is going to the Feds, I wouldn't mind getting some back...... After all, I don't spend $1200.00 on a meal, why should the federal leeches?

    -- Posted by Nick Mercy on Tue, Feb 8, 2011, at 10:42 PM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: