Friday, June 29, 2007
Lakewood traffic, Pt 2 - new taxes?
Those of you who get my email newsletter know not only that a citizens' advisory committee is not only proposing road projects, but also new taxes.
You wouldn't think the Lakewood City Council would be too receptive to someone proposing new taxes, and you would be right. The enthusiasm for such talk was muted on Monday. Many of our residents are on fixed incomes; and the times Lakewood voters have been asked about spending more than the usual - as in, one police station bond and two parks proposals - voters have turned the idea down.
But that said, I could be wrong. I sure called the recent debate over school traffic enforcement wrong. Maybe some other council members do want higher taxes. Whether that will prove true or not, council members complimented the Lakewood Traffic Advisory Committee, made up of volunteers, for coming forward Monday and speaking their minds.
Monday night, the committee of Ken Canfield, William Larkin, Bill Kittrell, J. Paul Wagemann and Sam Wagner, acting through member and chairman Kit Baker, told the city council through a report that if we want to manage roads sufficiently, we need:
- To impose a tax on new development.
- To charge everyone in town $20 per registration on their car tabs.
And/or
- To impose a utility tax.
You can read the committee's deliberations about this proposal in the official record of their meeting. You'll see they feel transportation funding is "in crisis."
One thing I realized at the Monday meeting is that the question of raising taxes is separate from approving a plan for traffic projects. That is one reason that I split these blog postings in two. You will find another posting here about the projects themselves. The posting is also relevant, because the committee members predict in a document mentioned below when they think the city will run out of money.
Meantime, I'd be very interested in your thoughts about traffic funding, and if you want to pay more for better roads. As I mention in the post below, there will be a formal hearing on July 16.
It is very possible that the idea of new taxes may not even come up at that hearing; we may just stick with the question of what roads and street lights to put up when. But the formal project plan does have $80,000 set aside to hire a consultant to study the feasibility of charging the new development tax. It will be very interesting to see if that expenditure makes it past the council when we actually vote on the project list in August.
Forward this post
You wouldn't think the Lakewood City Council would be too receptive to someone proposing new taxes, and you would be right. The enthusiasm for such talk was muted on Monday. Many of our residents are on fixed incomes; and the times Lakewood voters have been asked about spending more than the usual - as in, one police station bond and two parks proposals - voters have turned the idea down.
But that said, I could be wrong. I sure called the recent debate over school traffic enforcement wrong. Maybe some other council members do want higher taxes. Whether that will prove true or not, council members complimented the Lakewood Traffic Advisory Committee, made up of volunteers, for coming forward Monday and speaking their minds.
Monday night, the committee of Ken Canfield, William Larkin, Bill Kittrell, J. Paul Wagemann and Sam Wagner, acting through member and chairman Kit Baker, told the city council through a report that if we want to manage roads sufficiently, we need:
- To impose a tax on new development.
- To charge everyone in town $20 per registration on their car tabs.
And/or
- To impose a utility tax.
You can read the committee's deliberations about this proposal in the official record of their meeting. You'll see they feel transportation funding is "in crisis."
One thing I realized at the Monday meeting is that the question of raising taxes is separate from approving a plan for traffic projects. That is one reason that I split these blog postings in two. You will find another posting here about the projects themselves. The posting is also relevant, because the committee members predict in a document mentioned below when they think the city will run out of money.
Meantime, I'd be very interested in your thoughts about traffic funding, and if you want to pay more for better roads. As I mention in the post below, there will be a formal hearing on July 16.
It is very possible that the idea of new taxes may not even come up at that hearing; we may just stick with the question of what roads and street lights to put up when. But the formal project plan does have $80,000 set aside to hire a consultant to study the feasibility of charging the new development tax. It will be very interesting to see if that expenditure makes it past the council when we actually vote on the project list in August.
