The Observation Deck

One reason for the pot holes could be the use of the "re tread" asphalt we keep putting down everywhere because it is cheap and fast. My street is concrete put down 10 years ago (I have heard, don't shoot me Almost never a pot hole. It costs a lot more upfront to do a street this way but in the long run it may work out to be the same since we keep having to "recycle" these asphalt streets at a cost. That is not to say concrete is without fault, my street did have a righteous buckle recently due to a massive swing in temperature. I should have taken a picture.

Charlie Page wrote:

Jim O'Bryan wrote:Charlie, I can buy the cutting expenses, but lets see what they decide to spend money on this year. We are taking
trash to the curb to blow all over, and leave the city looking like it is in a constant garbage day. We are cutting
services and even police and fire. Now we are skipping plowing. This city was known for great services, which
are part of a great living experience. I hope we did not throw the baby out with the bath water these past couple
years for some bullet points on a campaign brochure.

You get what you pay for...or do you?

Individually, we are paying more in taxes and fees than we ever have.

Collectively, we are getting less.

Many reasons why.

Probably because the cost of everything for everyone has gone up, but our Lakewood income tax hasn't changed since when?

And of course there's less people living in the city to collect that income tax from than last time the income tax was changed...and when was that again?

Bryan Schwegler wrote:

Charlie Page wrote:You get what you pay for...or do you?

Individually, we are paying more in taxes and fees than we ever have.

Collectively, we are getting less.

Many reasons why.

Probably because the cost of everything for everyone has gone up, but our Lakewood income tax hasn't changed since when?

And of course there's less people living in the city to collect that income tax from than last time the income tax was changed...and when was that again?

The City tax rate is 1.5% and has been for a long time. The last couple years I've seen a decrease in income but over the last 10 years my income has gone up. I would suspect many others have as well. So we are paying more in taxes. Our property tax has gone up mostly because of school levies/bonds but property appreciates in value so we pay more taxes there. Part of our property taxes go to the City.

In 2008 the City entered a point in time where revenues no longer cover expenditures, so cuts were made. In 2009 more cuts were made. In 2010 more cuts were made. In 2011 more cuts were made. I imagine that in 2012 more cuts will be made. The only question is where are they coming from?

It would be a good idea for the City to share some kind of a 3-5 year plan on where expenses will be and where the next cuts are coming from. I'm sure some would consider it a scare tactic or political suicide but we have to face reality. Over the last few years the City has passed the annual budget prior to the start of the new year, which is a good thing. But where will we be in 3-5 years? Time to get ahead of the curve.

Charlie Page wrote:The City tax rate is 1.5% and has been for a long time. The last couple years I've seen a decrease in income but over the last 10 years my income has gone up. I would suspect many others have as well. So we are paying more in taxes. Our property tax has gone up mostly because of school levies/bonds but property appreciates in value so we pay more taxes there. Part of our property taxes go to the City.

But let's be realistic here. For many, especially middle class or lower-class, their rate of pay increase has hardly, if even kept up with inflation which has a major impact on the cost and services that the city has to deal with.

And another point to inject is what I'll call the "upper class flight" from Lakewood over the last few decades. Calling it that to avoid starting a race argument, but we all know what the reality is.

So with the higher-end earners leaving, property values decreasing, and those incomes being replaced with lower incomes, I'm going to say that the city is not getting anywhere near the same amount of revenue it would have been receiving if the upper income people hadn't left and property values hadn't stagnated.

Let's add to it that mid and lower-income people have a greater reliance on city services than the upper class people which of course adds further strain to city budgets.

You're oversimplifying the truth of the matter.

Bryan Schwegler wrote:You're oversimplifying the truth of the matter.

In 2000, the City had general fund revenues of 32.3 million. In 2010, the City had general fund revenues of 36.4 million. We are paying more in taxes and fees. It’s not over simplification to say we are paying more. Like I said there are many reasons.

Charlie Page wrote:

Bryan Schwegler wrote:You're oversimplifying the truth of the matter.

In 2000, the City had general fund revenues of 32.3 million. In 2010, the City had general fund revenues of 36.4 million. We are paying more in taxes and fees. It’s not over simplification to say we are paying more. Like I said there are many reasons.

So over a 10 year period, the city saw a total "raise" of $4.1 million which is about 12% for the decade which I'm going to guess is far less than the total amount of raise as an individual received and that's not even accounting for inflation, which may very well make this 12% an actual increase of 0% or negative when adjusted.

Just saying, yes, you are oversimplifying.

If you want to complicate things by guessing, inserting variables and converting to real dollars then go ahead. I look forward to your thesis

Charlie Page wrote:If you want to complicate things by guessing, inserting variables and converting to real dollars then go ahead. I look forward to your thesis

But I'm not guessing, nor am I making up numbers. I'm simply adding the real context to the numbers you're sharing. I mean unless you're saying inflation isn't real...I mean then I might be guessing.

I think anyone who thought the city would put out extra effort on a weekend to clean streets when a thaw was imminent was thinking wishfully. For two days of minor misery we probably saved many thousands. It's the kind of decision I have to make at home and work every day. But maybe I should demand more.

Snow plowing, that was the topic, yes?

Charlie Page wrote:It would be a good idea for the City to share some kind of a 3-5 year plan on...

Charlie

On anything, but you are merely wishing as have I. The last "plan" states that we should
work to keep the 7 car dealerships on Detroit Ave.

From that point on, power point presentations, and architects dreams with no financial
backing have been repeatedly called "plans."

There are no plans with anyone that matters, and most that don't either.

FWIW

Paul, as always you are correct.


.

Paul Schrimpf wrote:I think anyone who thought the city would put out extra effort on a weekend to clean streets when a thaw was imminent was thinking wishfully. For two days of minor misery we probably saved many thousands. It's the kind of decision I have to make at home and work every day. But maybe I should demand more.

Snow plowing, that was the topic, yes?

This.

Charlie Page wrote:

Bryan Schwegler wrote:You're oversimplifying the truth of the matter.

In 2000, the City had general fund revenues of 32.3 million. In 2010, the City had general fund revenues of 36.4 million.

so This (http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi) says they 2000 figure is worth $39844180.90 in 2009 dollars.

Population in 2000: 56,646 ($570.21/person or $703.39 2009 inflation adjusted)

Current (?): 54,765 (2007 est) ($665.66/person or $539.62 in 2000 dollars)

So we pay about 86 % of 2000 not figuring inflation or 95% figuring inflation. This does not account for demographics, a possibly aging population, or what percentage of taxpayers in the city actually pay taxes.