Are Lincoln Park and Armstrong projects viable?

To the Editor:
After witnessing the Oct. 6 City Council hearing, I feel compelled to alert the taxpayers of what Marie Thurn and Allen Robeck (who are running for council positions) and others brought to the engineers’ and Council’s attention.
One: The tax information facing all of us taxpayers is being withheld, including those being assessed for the proposed Lincoln Park and Armstrong projects.
These two projects alone will cost about $11 million, with about a $400,000 annual payment, about 20 percent assessed to those in the project area and about 80 percent to all city taxpayers, including those being assessed.
The 35 percent project-related and contingency cost seems high, and maybe a reason for the engineers’ aggressiveness to get this project under way.
The tax for all city taxpayers will be somewhere between 13 percent and 20 percent, on top of this year’s taxes, depending on the interest rate and length of the bonds. This means on an $80,000 taxed home, we’ll pay an additional $123 to $186 per year in taxes for a total cost of $3,075 to $4,556 on a 25-year bond.
You can figure your own tax cost by taking your city tax and multiplying by 13 percent to 20 percent per year and then by 25 for a total (if a 25-year bond).
Two: The Council has chosen not to invite the public to these informational hearings for unknown reasons. We deserve to know what cost we could incur, and how these projects affect us, as probably not affordable to those in affected areas, nor to the city itself.
Three: I, Allen and Marie, among other taxpayers, think that these two projects should be trimmed down, and put the priority on solving sewer backups and flooding occurring throughout the whole city.
The $11 million to be spent in the two designated areas “will not” solve the problems of sewer backups and flooding through out the city, including the two project areas. So, let’s obtain knowledgeable people to solve the city water problems, which we had little success in the past. Most of this project money should address these problems, along with other city upcoming required needs, and make only emergency repairs in the two projected areas. The city should be setting money aside for these types of needs to reduce the cost to all involved.
Four: It was also brought up the Council is revising the present assessment policy. Why, when we were told the city always assessed for street repairs (reconstruction); this doesn’t smell right.
Five: Allen Robeck has asked the City Council why a city well and a 60-hp pump were given to Seneca. His concern was the well would draw water from a different aquifer and it provided a safety factor to the public if the present wells are ever found to be contaminated or fail. The Council had no answer, but only wanted to look up some health and safety information.
We hope you become involved in these matters; write or call your Council person, the city offices and attend Council meetings.
Gary Ballard
Glencoe