Monday, June 09, 2008
2009? Already?
I dunno about you, but Monday's weather got me thinking that the summer sure came and went pretty quickly. So perhaps it's appropriate that today the Lakewood City Council held our first study session to consider the 2009 budget.
Tough decisions will have to be made when we have detailed budget hearings in the fall. Just as last year, the public generally wants and perhaps even needs more services than there is money to pay for it all. Of course, things get complicated and even heated because individuals often have very different wants - and may think their wants are more important than the wants of others. A couple things add complexity this year in terms of the budget, as opposed to last year: rising gas prices can cost the city an additional $125,000, and the proceeds from real estate transfer taxes are down.
It's funny, because if you read the junk that some people are putting out about the recent initiative proposal, there is some delusion that Lakewood government is bloated and the citizens are overtaxed. In fact, Lakewood government is strained in terms of revenue.
The average amount produced per resident in sales tax in Lakewood is $132; for the 10 largest Pierce County cities, the average is $347. So those cities are generally getting a lot more in taxes from their citizens AND Lakewood citizens who buy things in their cities. Bear in mind, it doesn't mean we are paying less in Lakewood ... it's the sales taxes that we in Lakewood pay in Tacoma, Puyallup, DuPont, and other cities that goes into the city services of Tacoma, Puyallup and DuPont - not Lakewood.
The average amount produced per resident in property tax is $96 in Lakewood, compared to $213 average in the 10 largest Pierce County cities.
You know, it's funny, because you can tell folks these numbers, and then they will quickly ask when we can add more police, take better care of our roads or put new equipment in parks. There's no point in complaining about that reaction. It's human nature to want more and perhaps not understand where or why there might be less.
Monday night, the council talked about scenarios in which the city was down several hundred thousands dollars if we just tried to do what we do now. Obviously there are difficult decisions to be made ... and it was too early to get into those Monday.
Staff provided for the sake of argument some ways of increasing taxes, but I don't expect that to go far. Folks in Lakewood should not have to pay more taxes. What we should do is find ways to keep sales tax dollars in Lakewood, and help people spend their money here and not Tacoma. Ultimately, it's the work we do encouraging redevelopment of places like Tillicum and American Lake Gardens that will provide the funding we need and citizens deserve.
Forward this post
Tough decisions will have to be made when we have detailed budget hearings in the fall. Just as last year, the public generally wants and perhaps even needs more services than there is money to pay for it all. Of course, things get complicated and even heated because individuals often have very different wants - and may think their wants are more important than the wants of others. A couple things add complexity this year in terms of the budget, as opposed to last year: rising gas prices can cost the city an additional $125,000, and the proceeds from real estate transfer taxes are down.
It's funny, because if you read the junk that some people are putting out about the recent initiative proposal, there is some delusion that Lakewood government is bloated and the citizens are overtaxed. In fact, Lakewood government is strained in terms of revenue.
The average amount produced per resident in sales tax in Lakewood is $132; for the 10 largest Pierce County cities, the average is $347. So those cities are generally getting a lot more in taxes from their citizens AND Lakewood citizens who buy things in their cities. Bear in mind, it doesn't mean we are paying less in Lakewood ... it's the sales taxes that we in Lakewood pay in Tacoma, Puyallup, DuPont, and other cities that goes into the city services of Tacoma, Puyallup and DuPont - not Lakewood.
The average amount produced per resident in property tax is $96 in Lakewood, compared to $213 average in the 10 largest Pierce County cities.
You know, it's funny, because you can tell folks these numbers, and then they will quickly ask when we can add more police, take better care of our roads or put new equipment in parks. There's no point in complaining about that reaction. It's human nature to want more and perhaps not understand where or why there might be less.
Monday night, the council talked about scenarios in which the city was down several hundred thousands dollars if we just tried to do what we do now. Obviously there are difficult decisions to be made ... and it was too early to get into those Monday.
Staff provided for the sake of argument some ways of increasing taxes, but I don't expect that to go far. Folks in Lakewood should not have to pay more taxes. What we should do is find ways to keep sales tax dollars in Lakewood, and help people spend their money here and not Tacoma. Ultimately, it's the work we do encouraging redevelopment of places like Tillicum and American Lake Gardens that will provide the funding we need and citizens deserve.
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
Interesting that the city now is facing a budget deficit for 2008. In the budget workshops last year Council members Ron Cronk, Pad Finnigan and John Arbeeny asked that the city plan for a 3% budget cut in 2008 given the declining housing market and looming recession. You Mr. Neary, along with council members Thomas, McGovern and Richardson shot the idea down. According to Mr. Richardson we didn't need to even consider a cut because there was enough in the reserves to cover and short fall. SUPRISE! You were wrong. The reason you are in this financial fix and need a "fix" of gambling revenue is because this council has not learned how to prioritize a budget or conduct long range financial planning. So please don't blame the public for their insatiable desire for services: that too is a myth. The fault is yours collectively as a council. Government will grow or shrink to the extent that tax revenue will allow.
# posted by 
: 9:33 PM
: 9:33 PM
Anon Ymous, thanks for writing, but I am afraid I can't hold up Lakewood CARES as a model. Those guys have been claiming for years there is budget fat that they have been unable to identify or which is not fat but the activities of sound governance.
It sounds good in the papers to claim something that can't be seen - who can argue with the promise of much lower taxes and a free lunch? - but it doesn't get to the question of whether there's something we should be cutting.
You could also argue that coming up with catchy and newspaper-friendly budget proposals is not as useful as engaging in competent management, but I've made my point.
Across the board cuts are the lazy and sloppy way to cut budgets. The way you could make a cut that large - unless CARES surfaces with the courage to actually name a program, and maybe they will - is to cut salaries and benefits. That would drive employees into unions who would only try to win back those benefits. It may be that Lakewood CARES wants to drive employees into unions as part of some agenda, but I don't myself see the value.
I should quickly add, to correct the comment above, there certainly are reserves if we want to tap them. Lakewood has a much larger percentage of reserves than cities of comparable sizes.
The fact that we have sizeable reserves in case of disaster is evidence that the city is financially responsible. And that's why it is so irritating when Lakewood CARES insults the intelligence of the public and suggests otherwise. I have to admit it does bother me when I print the per capita tax collections and CARES continues pandering to and insulting the intelligence of the public by saying citizens are overtaxed.
Anyway, it's too early to consider going into reserves or something drastic like that. Clearly, though, the budget pictures is not bright, and there is much work ahead. I look forward to the CARES folks doing the responsible thing this year and telling us all *specifically what* should be cut. They might even be right. I hope we even get that far.
It sounds good in the papers to claim something that can't be seen - who can argue with the promise of much lower taxes and a free lunch? - but it doesn't get to the question of whether there's something we should be cutting.
You could also argue that coming up with catchy and newspaper-friendly budget proposals is not as useful as engaging in competent management, but I've made my point.
Across the board cuts are the lazy and sloppy way to cut budgets. The way you could make a cut that large - unless CARES surfaces with the courage to actually name a program, and maybe they will - is to cut salaries and benefits. That would drive employees into unions who would only try to win back those benefits. It may be that Lakewood CARES wants to drive employees into unions as part of some agenda, but I don't myself see the value.
I should quickly add, to correct the comment above, there certainly are reserves if we want to tap them. Lakewood has a much larger percentage of reserves than cities of comparable sizes.
The fact that we have sizeable reserves in case of disaster is evidence that the city is financially responsible. And that's why it is so irritating when Lakewood CARES insults the intelligence of the public and suggests otherwise. I have to admit it does bother me when I print the per capita tax collections and CARES continues pandering to and insulting the intelligence of the public by saying citizens are overtaxed.
Anyway, it's too early to consider going into reserves or something drastic like that. Clearly, though, the budget pictures is not bright, and there is much work ahead. I look forward to the CARES folks doing the responsible thing this year and telling us all *specifically what* should be cut. They might even be right. I hope we even get that far.
Walter
I sent a letter to the editor today, after debating whether to publicize it. I watched you typing during the City Council Budget meeting, got home two minutes after the meeting, only to find your blog already posted. After reviewing the complexities of the financial situation the City Council was presented on Monday night, I was a bit incensed that you crafted this blog while the financial future of Lakewood was being discussed. To this layperson, City Council people were elected to advocate for the citizens of Lakewood, from babies to old folks, and when we elected you, we expected you to have the best grasp possible on the issues of the City. I can multi-task (as most mothers can), but I would not be able to simultaneously digest the nuances of four different financial scenarios, revenue projections and potentials for cutbacks, all while entering a blog for posting at the same time. It seems rather self-serving, especially given the fallout from last Monday's City Council meeting and your vow to not blog during meetings. So much for promises.
Thank you,
Mandy Candler
I sent a letter to the editor today, after debating whether to publicize it. I watched you typing during the City Council Budget meeting, got home two minutes after the meeting, only to find your blog already posted. After reviewing the complexities of the financial situation the City Council was presented on Monday night, I was a bit incensed that you crafted this blog while the financial future of Lakewood was being discussed. To this layperson, City Council people were elected to advocate for the citizens of Lakewood, from babies to old folks, and when we elected you, we expected you to have the best grasp possible on the issues of the City. I can multi-task (as most mothers can), but I would not be able to simultaneously digest the nuances of four different financial scenarios, revenue projections and potentials for cutbacks, all while entering a blog for posting at the same time. It seems rather self-serving, especially given the fallout from last Monday's City Council meeting and your vow to not blog during meetings. So much for promises.
Thank you,
Mandy Candler
# posted by : 4:25 PM
: 4:25 PM
Reading Mandy's note was quite humbling for me, because I remembered saying I would not type while members of the public were talking, out of respect for them. So that's why I posted Monday night. But she's correct, I did say in The Suburban Times I would not post at all until after a hearing. So that's what I shall do in the future.
In some ways, I regret saying that, because taking notes during a meeting and blogging both have value. But this situation is confused enough, so I simply won't post until after a meeting.
Post a Comment
In some ways, I regret saying that, because taking notes during a meeting and blogging both have value. But this situation is confused enough, so I simply won't post until after a meeting.
Links to this post:
<< Home
