For the most part, opponents and proponents agree on one thing: Lakewood is a great place to live. How one views the necessity of ballot measure 2A, however, depends on what one’s definition of “great” is.
Surveys say most residents are pleased with the overall service levels, so opponents of the measure that would raise the city’s sales tax by 1 percentage point (from 2 cents to 3 cents on the dollar) argue that “better management” is the solution to pending deficits.
That would help, as would a robust economy to increase city revenues via sales tax volume. Yet, neither approach in our opinion will keep Lakewood citizens from feeling a noticeably worse quality of life in the next few years if 2A fails. We urge approval.
In a sense, Lakewood’s budget crisis isn’t new. City leaders have trimmed the budget every year since 2001 and most of the time (except in the example of the elimination of school resource officers), the general public hasn’t noticed, cared or spoken up. It would be accurate to say that past budget-cutting efforts lulled citizens into a false sense that there’s plenty of money and the additional $16.7 million isn’t needed.
Some 52 percent of the city’s money comes from sales and use taxes, yet this item has averaged a growth from 2000 through 2004 of just 0.3 percent annually, and that’s even with about $4.4 million annually coming in from the new Colorado Mills and Belmar projects.
Without approval, next year’s budget will have to be cut by about $10 million, according to city officials. The reductions in the police department (where more than half of the city’s expenditures take place), plus recreation centers, city planning and street maintenance will noticeably reduce the Lakewood quality of life. Most likely, property values will suffer as well.
The only element of the referendum we aren’t comfortable with is the exemptions given to Colorado Mills, Belmar and the new Wal-Mart. Opponents say exempting the three largest new retail developments in the city (representing 11 percent of the sales tax) could prove to be poor fiscal foresight. While we understand the desire to not saddle these developments with some of the highest tax rates in the state, due to the public improvement fees and other assessments already in place, we hope the council will revisit the decision to exempt them from the new tax.