Dear Mayor Osborne and Council Members,
Macon County Shared Vision tries to promote an informed and constructive dialogue about pro-growth policies in our community. Maintaining adequate water supplies for citizens is a primary responsibility of city government. We all must accept our collective responsibility for a robust water supply. The Decatur City Council’s consideration of options for meeting the water needs of our community may lead to the most important decisions over three to four decades.
Simply the intent of this correspondence is to encourage you
- be open with the citizens of Decatur,
- consider adverse consequences of funding options,
- examine all options for water supplies,
- exhaust all funding alternatives, and,
- carefully monitor all cost estimates.
We encourage the city to hold at least two well-publicized town hall meetings over the next 30 days. These meetings will enable the City to gather all available input from citizens and permit citizens to hear all of the expert information. A recent MCSV survey of informed registered voters in Decatur revealed that 62% of these respondents needed more information to understand the need for an expanded water supply. Many in this community feel that the alternatives and information provided to the Council is filtered i.) to limit debate and, ii.) to limit informed decision making. One benefits of openness in government is the consensus it will build for City decisions. Hopefully, the Council and City Manager will deem these forums important enough to be active participants. At least one evening meeting would be preferable.
Decatur needs to preserve financial flexibility to maintain other essential services, promote economic development and keep the burden of local taxes modest. Balancing these objectives is never easy. Failure to balance these interests will further impede businesses and individuals from locating here. The Council well understands that there are many demands for resources. Priorities are not frequently debated.
The recent attention on the city’s bond ratings must be revisited if these costs are to be funded with city debt. The $60 million cost being considered would increase city debt by 100%. If compared to city’s annual property tax levies, the added debt service would require a 60% increase (or more) in the city’s property taxes. We have been told it can be paid for with a 59% increase in water rates. Whether taxes are raised, or water rates increased, the economic effect is the same. Citizens, businesses and taxpayers will have less to spend and invest in our city.
Decatur already has one of the highest aggregate tax burdens in Illinois. It is unimaginable to many in Decatur that the expected benefits warrant the estimated costs, unless the burdens are shared with someone other than the citizens of Decatur.
Increasing water rates 59% may not raise the intended revenues. The one difference with increasing water rates versus raising taxes is that water users can self-select to use less water or move elsewhere. Some will suggest that an increased water supply will attract industry. Small-scale water users, which are far more plentiful than large-scale users, will be less likely to bring their business and jobs to Decatur with higher water rates or taxes.
We suggest that the city should exhaust all funding options available. No one should overlook the interdependence of Decatur's industry and water users on the region. If ever there were an argument for regional, state and Federal economic incentives, our water supply would be it. Funding should be sought from state and federal government loans and grants, local government units in Macon County and major water users, before asking the citizens of Decatur to bare an increased financial burden. The MCSV survey also found that over one-half of those surveyed believed it was “very important” or “should be required” to obtain funding from others to expand our water supplies. If any large local water users (i.e. ADM, Tate & Lyle) intend to assist in financing these projects, that information should be known in advance and documented in a letter of intent or contract. Grants should be applied for and committed. Intergovernmental agreements should be negotiated and executed before the city further burdens the community.
If we overlook any funding alternatives, we then face two adverse consequences. One, the City will have substantially less leverage to obtain financial assistance from other sources. Second, the City Council will have neglected one of its most important responsibilities as public fiduciaries for citizens.
Lastly, please give careful attention to the financial consequences of poor implementation of any decision. Nearly every public works project in Decatur has cost substantially more than predicted. Nearly every public works project has under-met expectations in terms of favorable effects. With such large expenditures under consideration, mismanagement or lack of effective financial control can further complicate the adverse consequences. We hope that you will diligently examine the information before you and independently seek out all perspectives.
Comments