Vote for our future

Editor,
    In response to Alan Hale’s article regarding the property tax increase, I would comment that Brighton is hardly a hotbed of “urban sprawl,” but it did experience its first notable growth after building the reverse osmosis plant that removed the unsafe high nitrate level in Brighton’s water and combined with the city’s close proximity to Denver International Airport.
    As growth occurred along the front range, Brighton’s city council took a “pro-active” stance to ensure quality growth in our community. Builders were anxious to start housing developments and the supposedly “unsophisticated” City Council recognized that without growth limitations and building standards, Brighton could end up resembling communities of “matchstick” houses by the dozens.
    City council established building standards and a pacing ordinance to ensure the city would have the water, sewer and drainage needs to support housing growth. The council also adopted a comprehensive plan to make certain that new development complemented Brighton’s traditional hometown atmosphere. As a result, Brighton has grown with “quality” not exceeding what our infrastructure can serve.
    The city experienced growth, but still lacked a variety of restaurants and shopping that many families desired. There were very few amenities, not even a movie theater. Families shopped local, small grocers and although we had a Safeway, in-depth research showed that more than 50 percent of our residents were shopping for groceries outside of Brighton.
    We had a small variety of restaurants and a downtown that needed re-investment, consequently the majority of us were forced to drive out of town, spending our tax dollars in nearby cities. However, as housing development continued, businesses followed. Retail establishments want “rooftops” and it was the increase of “rooftops” that brought retail growth to Brighton. This positive growth also helped open the door to industrial development and created jobs for our citizens.
    Yes, we have new, young families in Brighton whose children attend our schools, but at least we now have some property tax help from retail, commercial and industrial development.
    I recall an eye-opening meeting where the city was trying to prepare the school district by advising them of the increased enrollment coming their way. There seemed to be little urgency or direction from the district in deciding how to address the coming growth.
    Then-Mayor Terry Lucero, was instrumental in establishing the Capital Facilities Fee Foundation, as the city tried to help the district garner private funding from developers – funding that would otherwise not have been available. The developers initially cried “foul,” but they were told if they wanted to build here, the rule would be that they would need to pay a fee on any structure built within the school district, thus investing in the city’s future. There are areas in both Commerce City and Thornton that fall in District 27J and those cities bought into the Capital Facility Fee Foundation also. One example of the use of money collected by the Capital Facility Fee was the $6.2 million that helped in the construction of Prairie View High School.
    Simply put, District 27J has not kept pace with our neighbors in mill levy override funding. Residents from unincorporated Adams County, Thornton, Commerce City and Brighton have failed to support the funding requested by 27J and therefore we have a shortfall. As an example, a $200,000 home in RE8 (Fort Lupton) pays $151.57 per year in property taxes while District 27J residents pay $15.28. Fort Lupton pays in 10 times more and District 12 kicks in 20 times more.
    It is time to support our kids and perhaps there should be an effort to incrementally increase the mill levy override funding by small amounts for a 10-year period.
    Please vote for the future of our youth and FOR the mill levy override.

Jan Pawlowski
Former Brighton councilmember, mayor