Friday, November 14, 2008
Ho, ho, ho
Friday is the annual Christmas event at City Hall. Here's the info, heavily borrowed from the city manager's regular weekly report:
Lakewood residents are invited to the 13th annual Christmas tree lighting event from 4 to 7 p.m. on Friday, December 5, at Lakewood City Hall.
The holiday festival includes tree decorating and lighting, children’s crafts and holiday music featuring the Lakes High School Choir, the Greater Life Church Choir and Mann Middle School’s Royal Blue Choir.
Santa’s reindeer will be on display. Lakewood’s Christmas tree will be lighted at 4:30 p.m. Refreshments will be served. Clover Park High School’s Marching Band playing the role of Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer and will guide Santa in about 4:45; Sant will visit with youngsters from 5 to 7 pm in City Hall.
Forward this post
Lakewood residents are invited to the 13th annual Christmas tree lighting event from 4 to 7 p.m. on Friday, December 5, at Lakewood City Hall.
The holiday festival includes tree decorating and lighting, children’s crafts and holiday music featuring the Lakes High School Choir, the Greater Life Church Choir and Mann Middle School’s Royal Blue Choir.
Santa’s reindeer will be on display. Lakewood’s Christmas tree will be lighted at 4:30 p.m. Refreshments will be served. Clover Park High School’s Marching Band playing the role of Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer and will guide Santa in about 4:45; Sant will visit with youngsters from 5 to 7 pm in City Hall.
Catching up: Railroads and the Military Base
Somewhere in the haze of the Neary celebration of 25 years of marriage and my trip, bits of community news flew past that really should be noted on this blog. Here are a couple things from The News Tribune that are worth noting especially if you also missed them the first time:
A proposal on Fort Lewis to undercut the local economy is a reallllly bad idea. I don't think I need to say much more than that because the reflections of News Tribune columnist Dan Voelpel seem pretty definitive.
Well, one thought to add or elaborate on ... Lakewood's civic leaders esp. Mayor Doug Richardson have put an enormous amount of time in to try to convince governments and civic leaders throughout the county to support acquisition of land around McChord. The idea is that if the land is clear, the military would have all the more reason to keep the bases open. Lakewood is doing its best to support the bases. There are a lot of other problems we could have been working on. So building what would essentially be a rival to the Lakewood Town Center is just really tacky at best and economically destructive at worst.
Speaking of The News Tribune, their Lakewood reporter, Brent Champaco, published information about railroad safety that were quite enlightening. If you didn't see it then, it's worth reading his story about big changes in Lakewood.
I think a lot of us had been grumbling about how all these trains will mess with our ability to drive from one end of town to the other. But Brent reminds us that lives are at stake. The story is a bracing call to action.
Forward this post
A proposal on Fort Lewis to undercut the local economy is a reallllly bad idea. I don't think I need to say much more than that because the reflections of News Tribune columnist Dan Voelpel seem pretty definitive.
Well, one thought to add or elaborate on ... Lakewood's civic leaders esp. Mayor Doug Richardson have put an enormous amount of time in to try to convince governments and civic leaders throughout the county to support acquisition of land around McChord. The idea is that if the land is clear, the military would have all the more reason to keep the bases open. Lakewood is doing its best to support the bases. There are a lot of other problems we could have been working on. So building what would essentially be a rival to the Lakewood Town Center is just really tacky at best and economically destructive at worst.
Speaking of The News Tribune, their Lakewood reporter, Brent Champaco, published information about railroad safety that were quite enlightening. If you didn't see it then, it's worth reading his story about big changes in Lakewood.
I think a lot of us had been grumbling about how all these trains will mess with our ability to drive from one end of town to the other. But Brent reminds us that lives are at stake. The story is a bracing call to action.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
That Word 'Weaning' Again
The News Tribune kindly publishes a guest editorial this morning from yours truly on the subject of gambling tax revenues and the Lakewood city budget. I'll keep you posted on the reactions I get. What do you think?
On a personal note, I am going to be interested in what I assume and hope will be strong reactions. The election did not end anything, so the idea here is and was to get people thinking. There's something in my editorial to irritate everyone! Folks against casinos will disagree that I still don't want to ban them. Folks who support casinos know it will be easier to campaign against them if the tax they generate does not support the police budget. I've been surprised at the number of folks who have said directly, 'We voted no this time but you guys better find a way to support police other ways ...'
Gonna be an interesting holiday season ...
Forward this post
On a personal note, I am going to be interested in what I assume and hope will be strong reactions. The election did not end anything, so the idea here is and was to get people thinking. There's something in my editorial to irritate everyone! Folks against casinos will disagree that I still don't want to ban them. Folks who support casinos know it will be easier to campaign against them if the tax they generate does not support the police budget. I've been surprised at the number of folks who have said directly, 'We voted no this time but you guys better find a way to support police other ways ...'
Gonna be an interesting holiday season ...
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Getting ready for the budget showdown, Part One
I don't know if showdown is the right word, but whatever you call it, the next few weeks should be interesting as Lakewood struggles to approve a 2009 budget in a very difficult context. There was a nice story in The News Tribune that can bring you up to date. As the article says, the next meeting about the budget is tomorrow, Wednesday.
I think we will find in the Wednesday evening workshop that council members will have different ideas about what to do next with the budget. I continue to believe we have to make the tough decisions and move our general fund away from support by the gambling tax, as described below.
Meantime, a lesser-known problem with the city budget is that the majority of council members - in fact, all the others, as far as I know - have agreed to take funding that the state says has to be spent on tourism promotion and instead spend it to partially fund a staff person and consultants who would help with economic development.
In other words, as far as I know, the tentative budget knowingly misspends funds in violation of state law.
The funding would come from the taxes visitors pay when they spend the night in a Lakewood hotel. The tax is unusual in that the state specifies how the money should be spent.
Now, anyone who reads this blog knows I am a huge proponent of economic development. Economic development is good. We need jobs. We need tax revenue to pay for streets and parks and a lot more. We definitely need different sources of revenue as we wean Lakewood's budget from reliance on a gambling tax.
But I am unaware of anyone else in the state spending these hotel lodging tax funds on general city staff and economic development consultants, and state law is pretty clear that these monies have to be spent on "tourism promotion." In Lakewood, the money has traditionally gone to entities that bring in tourists, like the Lakewood Chamber of Commerce, Lakewood Playhouse, Lakewold Gardens, and the Lakewood Historical Society.
But I could be wrong about the limits. The state Auditor's Office keeps track of how cities should spend lodging tax funds. This is an excerpt from my email today to folks at the Auditor's Office:
... I am deeply concerned that our council is about to approve a budget for 2009 in which lodging tax funds are used to pay for general economic development. The funds would be used to support a portion of the salary of an economic development staff person and on consultants. My understanding is that our own city staff and other council members are justifying use of the funds by saying we will recruit hotels to town, and recruit businesses that will bring people in for overnight stays.
I have supported economic development in Lakewood for years, but I am concerned that this use of lodging tax may not fit the definitions of 'tourism promotion' as specified by the state law and as practiced by other jurisdictions.
I understand your office does not normally get involved in these situations until money has been misspent. But I would hate for Lakewood to knowingly misspend money. What advice would you have for someone concerned about the use of funding in this context?
So who knows? I could be wrong. I will let you know how this shakes out.
Forward this post
I think we will find in the Wednesday evening workshop that council members will have different ideas about what to do next with the budget. I continue to believe we have to make the tough decisions and move our general fund away from support by the gambling tax, as described below.
Meantime, a lesser-known problem with the city budget is that the majority of council members - in fact, all the others, as far as I know - have agreed to take funding that the state says has to be spent on tourism promotion and instead spend it to partially fund a staff person and consultants who would help with economic development.
In other words, as far as I know, the tentative budget knowingly misspends funds in violation of state law.
The funding would come from the taxes visitors pay when they spend the night in a Lakewood hotel. The tax is unusual in that the state specifies how the money should be spent.
Now, anyone who reads this blog knows I am a huge proponent of economic development. Economic development is good. We need jobs. We need tax revenue to pay for streets and parks and a lot more. We definitely need different sources of revenue as we wean Lakewood's budget from reliance on a gambling tax.
But I am unaware of anyone else in the state spending these hotel lodging tax funds on general city staff and economic development consultants, and state law is pretty clear that these monies have to be spent on "tourism promotion." In Lakewood, the money has traditionally gone to entities that bring in tourists, like the Lakewood Chamber of Commerce, Lakewood Playhouse, Lakewold Gardens, and the Lakewood Historical Society.
But I could be wrong about the limits. The state Auditor's Office keeps track of how cities should spend lodging tax funds. This is an excerpt from my email today to folks at the Auditor's Office:
... I am deeply concerned that our council is about to approve a budget for 2009 in which lodging tax funds are used to pay for general economic development. The funds would be used to support a portion of the salary of an economic development staff person and on consultants. My understanding is that our own city staff and other council members are justifying use of the funds by saying we will recruit hotels to town, and recruit businesses that will bring people in for overnight stays.
I have supported economic development in Lakewood for years, but I am concerned that this use of lodging tax may not fit the definitions of 'tourism promotion' as specified by the state law and as practiced by other jurisdictions.
I understand your office does not normally get involved in these situations until money has been misspent. But I would hate for Lakewood to knowingly misspend money. What advice would you have for someone concerned about the use of funding in this context?
So who knows? I could be wrong. I will let you know how this shakes out.
