The Burlington City Council proposed an expensive method in protecting the City of Burlington's riverfront. They would like to have a flood wall to protect nearby businesses and the rest of the riverfront from future floods.
The Hawk Eye reports the city is hoping to receive at least $16 million dollars from state grants.
http://www.thehawkeye.com/story/flood-mitigation-111314
KBUR reports the overall cost ranging to be between $21.5 and $28 million dollars.
http://www.kbur.com/2014/11/13/public-looks-at-drawings-while-consultants-describe-the-landing/
Earlier this year, the Burlington City Council also eyed in the possibility of building an indoor sporting facility at the RecPlex. The city council is also hoping to raise $6-7 million to cover part of the cost. The overall cost is $16 million.
http://www.kbur.com/2014/09/08/burlington-council-gives-blessing-to-indoor-recplex-funding-feasibility-study/
The Burlington City Council left one thing out: Where's the money going to come from?
The answer? Increase property taxes. Again. Property taxes have been increasing every year. That includes trash collection. What is suppose to be used in paying back the heavily-debt local economy is continuing to be used to pay for outrageous things.
In 2013, The Hawk Eye released information on multiple toxic entities the City of Burlington has been funding through taxpayers money for at least a decade. It was reported that these entities never made any profits. There were entities such as the Flint Hills Golf Course, the RecPlex, and similar government-sponsored businesses.
Around that time, there was a proposal of eliminating the city's BUS transportation and replacing it with the SEIBUS, a more expensive alternative for customers to travel to and fro throughout the city. After many complaints, the city council instead cut funding for the service. The service wasn't losing as much of the profits as the Rec Plex and the Flint Hills Golf Course which continues to drain more taxpayers dollars.
The Burlington City Council tried pushing for a 3% franchise fee without the public to vote on it. However, former mayor Tim Scott told the council to have the voters to vote whether to have it or not. On August 2013, the results came in as the majority of voters voted no on the proposal.
http://www.kbur.com/2013/08/06/august-6th-special-election-results/
The Burlington City Council also forced a child and teenage center that was part of the community for more than two decades. Despite its low impact in hurting the city's profits, the council stopped funding it.
The city council's excuse to proposing to cut insignificant tax payer funded projects? "Its part of the budget plan". A budget plan to help large corporations achieve tax-funded projects that receive no profits that the city can help bring the economy up in the area. Although they have made very few small cuts in the big pork spending entities, they were insignificant enough to make a real impact.
In 2004, the City of Burlington decided to sue Burlington Northern Santa Fe. The reason? Because The City of Burlington council claimed it would bring back jobs and to give them money over a dispute in an agreement from the mid 1800's
http://www.ble-t.org/pr/news/headline.asp?id=13731
Two years later, after wasting more than $2 million in taxpayers dollars, the City of Burlington lost the lawsuit. Of the more than $2 million dollars that were wasted, some $300,000 was spent for lawyer service for one year.
Around this time, the City of Burlington council also forced an entire area of individuals that lived in these WW2-era homes. Some were paid to leave while others were threatened, pushed around, and forced to leave. The reason behind all this? To build a mini mall by of a Minnesota-based company. After everyone was evicted and the homes were demolished, the Minnesota company withdrew their offer to buy and build something with the land.
Some years later, city council proposed about building a community garden full of fruits and vegetables that anyone can grow. It was later scrapped. Around 2010 or so, the city council proposed a voting system where the most votes goes to having their taxpayer dollars to fund the specific item on the list. One of the items listed was building a community youth center behind Walgreens where the Manor use to sit. The vote was later tallied and the community center didn't make the cut. Now a business wishes to build something there (which the city council had stopped the process from happening as of two years ago or so ago.) To this day, its nothing but trees, grass, and abandoned roads with some driveways that use to lead towards some of the homes.
The real issues the council faces is the tax-burden community, the lack of jobs in the area, and the increasing debt the council refuses to fix efficiently and effectively.
