Home

another_local (anonymous) says...

Clueless.

August 29, 2007 at 7:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

bubba (anonymous) says...

Q. Do you think that a growth moratorium like Boulder will reduce traffic problems, or push more growth outside town, making traffic and parking that much worse, just like it did in Boulder?

August 29, 2007 at 7:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

localreader (anonymous) says...

Let's answer the water question. Mountain base, mountain base homeowners, mountain---. HOW DOES IT ALL WORK OUT? Glad I'm fortunate enough to live in a tucked in neighborhood in town. Growth is so very hard to deal with.

August 29, 2007 at 2:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

beentheredonethat (anonymous) says...

solving the traffic problem should supersede all other development issues, as in the end, it must efficiently support all developments!

of course the traffic problem is also the most difficult issue to tackle, which is why government has inadequately addressed the problem. it is soooooo much easier to keep approving new development. even a monkey can do that.

time our government rose to a higher plane than monkeys. Can they do that?

August 29, 2007 at 4 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BoulderGrad (anonymous) says...

Mr. Campbell: This "small, but passionate group" supporting the rec center is backed up by a very large number of residents who say they will support a recreation center in Steamboat. Citizens (including my house) were polled by Frederick Polls and other surveys since 1999. 2/3's of those polled were for a recreation center. The residents are ready to vote. I believe it is time to add this wonderful amenity to our community.

The rec center adds things that we do not have in Steamboat: a Youth & Teen Center, an indoor playground, a turf field not at the high school, a supervised skate park, public MAC (multi-activity) gyms, zero-depth entry water and play features for small children, an indoor lap pool, a climbing wall, playrooms and party rooms, and a walk/jog track.

Yes, everyone loves to be outside, but we can't be all of the time. Due to work schedules, weather, health reasons (e. g. skin cancer from sun exposure), etc. This rec center will fill a needed void for our community and be multi-generational.

You say we have a rec center in town. This is a "hot springs." It is not a rec center. The pool is over 40 years old. Renovations are being done that will turn it into a water park that the tourists will love. Fitness equipment is being reduced. If you have traveled anywhere out of Steamboat, you will see that the OTHS is grossly inadequate when it comes to recreational needs, especially in our community. Is it fun to soak in the hot pools? You bet! I do like the place, but it doesn't fulfill the needs of our growing community.

Finally, Council can't bypass a vote on the rec center. It is against the Tabor Laws. No matter what, we would have to vote. The article in the paper was just saying that it is an option for the citizens of Steamboat, and this amazing facility can be achieved without a tax.

Steamboat Springs Ski Town Rec Center is healthy for the community, and will help us maintain our position as a world-class resort.

Vote yes in November!

August 29, 2007 at 6:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

mfishon1 (anonymous) says...

BoulderGrad...do you happen to know what parts of this rec center will be FREE to the kids of our community. Is it just the youth & teen center or will other parts of the rec center be free to all kids?

August 29, 2007 at 8:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

dreamriver23 (jeannie berger) says...

Nothing will be free and as for no new taxes, how does anyone believe that. When you say that 2/3 of the people polled said they wanted a rec center, I find that to be amazing as I was polled and never asked if I wanted a rec center. I was given options and costs and the pollster asked which one I would likely vote for. When I said I would not vote for it at all I was told that question was not on the poll. How many households were polled?
I say vote no on this and lets do something to stop the brutal marketing of this world class resort. Better to spend the money on something more important, like solving the traffic problems we have.

August 29, 2007 at 10:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BoulderGrad (anonymous) says...

First of all, does Omar read these blogs? If not, can someone mail them to him?

The details for the rec center are being finalized, but I think a couple of free things for the kids would be the outdoor skatepark and the turf field. Also, there will be meeting rooms accessible from the outside as well that will be good for all kinds of functions from meetings to birthday parties and receptions.

As far as the Youth & Teen, the consultants are offering even more options than just a place to meet and hang out. Recreation options will be available to just the teenagers. A good example is an August 2, 2007, article in the New York Times titled, "Mom, I'm at the Gym Doing Homework (Really!)."
Here's the link (although I am not sure it will work).

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/02/fas...

Finally, dreamriver, it is unfortunate that the poll did not ask whether you would vote for a rec center at all. You have a valid point. However, please know that the many polls before you have shown strong support from citizens. The two most recent polls were done August 20-22, 2006, and June 18-29, 2007, with 300 likely November 2007 voters and a Margin of Error of plus or minus 5.6%.

Another point is the consolidated option is much more traffic-friendly than what some council members were suggesting with the separated option (Howelsen and Old Town Hot Springs.) In fact, there was a study released June 28, 2007, from the Fox Higgins Transportation Group. This group studied all three sites and said the Ski Town/Tennis Bubble site "offers the best combination of existing roadway access, alternative mode access, and minimal need for expensive transportation system improvements or expansions."

While I understand your frustrations, please know that people are trying to figure out how to best make this available for the citizens of Steamboat. It is something that is needed and it will happen. The cost will only get more expensive year after year. Vote yes in November. Thank you.

August 30, 2007 at 12:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

another_local (anonymous) says...

NO on the rec center. Until there is a fair and equitable method of paying for these things, I have had enough. Don't want it, don't need it, don't want to pay for it. Join health and rec and work with the other members to get the services you want.

Did the poll mention that the cost was 35 million dollars?

Passed without a tax? Dream on. The money to be spent has other uses. If taxes are raised for those other uses the effect is the same. Did the poll let the people know that it would add hundreds to the annual property tax bill?

Do you know that local mom and pop businesses will pay 5X as much as the their neighbors for this boondogle? (4X the rate on the property they lease for the business plus what they pay on their home; assumes equal value for the homes ad commercial space) Get it? If you own a retail business and earn less than a finish carpenter (let alone electrician or plumber) you will pay about $1000 a year over the next 20 years for this thing.

August 30, 2007 at 4:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

kielbasa (Matthew Stoddard) says...

I thought the Gallagher Amendment allocated Business Property tax at 55% to Home Property Tax at 45% splits? Plus, Steamboat doesn't incorporate property taxes- the county does, and the Rec Center is a City venture.

The SSHRA doesn't have much room left to grow on, unless the Post Office closes it's doors. Then, they'd have to compete with the possibility of Coldwell Banker wanting to remain in their own space? Probably not, but Prudential just moved into it's own huge building at Wildhorse Market.

August 30, 2007 at 4:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

bubba (anonymous) says...

Matthew, Gallagher fixes the ratio of taxes COLLECTED, so in the last 20 years while residential property values have increased rapidly and business property taxes have followed inflation, as they tend to do, the relative rates have increased on commercial and decreased on residential, and will continue to do so until that short-sighted rule is revoked, which is unlikely, because that would involve everybody voting to increase their own taxes.

Boulder Grad, if the turf field and skate park are the only free things, doesn't it seem strange that we already have free fields and a skate park? Where is the benefit from that?

August 30, 2007 at 5:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

dreamriver23 (jeannie berger) says...

Matt, this quote was taken from an article that the pilot wrote Aug 29 about the final approval of the site for the rec center.

"The council must finalize language for the ballot issue, which will likely ask voters for funding through property taxes, Sept. 4 in order to include the issue on the ballot in November. City Clerk Julie Jordan has told the council that the ballot must be certified by Sept. 7."

If the rec center does pass it appears that the city will institute a property tax to fund it.

August 30, 2007 at 5:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

another_local (anonymous) says...

The effect Gallegher today is that commercial property pays roughly 4X the amount of tax per assessed value that residential does. In other words if your taxes on a home worth $300,000 were $1000, commercial property worth the same amount would pay about $4,000.

Typical leases pass those taxes to the tennant as an ADD-ON to the rent, so when they rise, the bill gets handed to the tennant. The building owner, developer, whatever, whoever they are, are not the ones that pay it.

A downtown retail building of 2000 square feet is worth well over a million dollars today if it is located on Lincoln in the center of town. That means that the small buisiness owner that rents it will pay the same property tax that a $5,000,000 home would pay.

When you see the quotes about how much this will cost some "average" homeowner whose home is worth $400,000, you can multiply that tax amount by 12 and that is about what a smallish retailer on Lincoln is going to be paying. That small business that leases space does not earn more than a tradesman, but they sure foot the bill.

August 30, 2007 at 8:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BoulderGrad (anonymous) says...

The mil levy and amounts have not yet been decided and the city is working on it. Yes, businesses will pay more if it is a property tax, but not more than three times. In Steamboat, 80% of taxes are residential; 20% are commercial. Another local, your patience would be appreciated until those numbers are officially calculated.

Bubba, I'm not one who hangs out at the skate park, but I do know all of those current skate park structures in the Howelsen parking lot are temporary and are moved out of there in the winter. Jon Casson has raised much of the money privately already for a skate park that is a permanent fixture at a rec center location. This particular skate park at the proposed rec center would be an "organic" skate park, which means it is visually attractive, built of concrete, ensuring not only an excellent riding surface, but durability, lower noise levels and protection against vandalism. It would have street obstacles, banks and bowls that cater for all age groups, abilities and backgrounds. It would have benches and stairs and possibly an Ampitheatre for other events.

The other benefit is that it would sit along the edge of the parking lot and entrance, while outside all of the windows of the rec center. Someone would always be watching the kids at the skate park.

Yes, we have free fields now, but the soccer association says more fields are already needed. Two more fields would go in at Heritage with lights (already approved), and a turf field would go in at the rec center location. This turf field could eventually be covered by a field house. All of our sports teams could desperately use another turf field in Steamboat.

Thanks for your patience with this, as we try to figure out how to best incorporate such a needed facility into our community. Yes, I know it's nice to play outside, but we need the indoor options. Ask anyone with small children.

August 31, 2007 at 8:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

another_local (anonymous) says...

A Business Improvement District (BID) has it's own board of directors who spend the money. It is not the same mechanism as an Urban Renewal Advisory Commitee (URAC).

The city has input on the makeup of the board in a similar way that they do on the library board, but the BID board spends the money.

This type of TABOR election is a mail-in election by qualified electors; those who own or lease property inside the BID boundaries. The matter will NOT be on the general election ballot this fall.

Also, for the most part, the lesees are the business owners, the lessors are the property owners. Both grounps properly have a stake. The lessees because in most instances they end up paying the taxes and the lessors because the tax burden impacts the value of the property (and some of them pay the taxes on older leases)

September 1, 2007 at 5:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

another_local (anonymous) says...

Boulder,

No thanks on the request for patience. So 3X would be OK? You clearly do not pay commercial rent or you would understand the impact better.

80% of the tax is residential since we have so much housing here; that is the factor all over the state that has driven the 55% share for commercial to such heights. Residential property has been added to the market and has increased in value faster than commercial property for the last 20 years leading to a gross imbalance. Collecting the 55% from commercial now means taxing it at roughly 4X the rate of residential. How about letting the folks paying 55% of the cost have 55% of the votes?

Do you like having local businesses rather than chains? Small local business is, collectively, the largest employer here. The tax load being put on them is not fair and equitable in contrast to the burden on others who get paid by the hour or by salary and earn as much or more. All of the social taxes being levied are, in the end, going to be paid by this group. That includes the housing taxes being imposed as the developers will just add it in like additional materials cost when they decide whether or not the project is feasable and what the rents have to be.

These taxes do not exist in a vacuum. It is a zero sum game and the taxes are paid by your neighbor that owns a business and employs people and helps make this economy work. That is money that is not availble to pay wages, reinvest in business, spend at local businesses or donate to local causes.

One local couple that earns 60K in wages pays an extra $50 on their house and another that earns 60K on a business leasing commercial property pays the same $50 on the house they live in and another $600 on the space they lease. It is wrong. It is not like a sales tax that can be passed on, it comes out of the pocket of the hard working local business owner.

So patience? While you pursue your campaign to pass some thing I don't support? Forget it.

First comes the absurd position of no taxes required. Then the shell game of where the money comes from or what the new tax is for.

Even if no new tax is required, that money has other uses. If there is that much slopping around in the system, why did we need a new tax to fund open space? If there is extra money in the system, use it to retire debt and save interest charges or to buy land for future public uses but spare us this wasteful rec center.

Then there is the whole topic of whether our city can build anything for a competitive cost or on budget. Never mind, I bet you have an answer for that too.

NO on the rec center!

August 31, 2007 at 10:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BoulderGrad (anonymous) says...

Another local, I expect continued negative comments from you as I see them on so many articles online. Everyone comes to expect this from you. It's just your opinion and you are entitled to make it.

I don't have all of the answers but I am positive in trying to figure out a way to improve our community in the most economicaly responsible way. If I can further educate people who are reading this about the benefits of such a facility, I will. You have come into this negatively, constantly bashing options and others' opinions. If it is something you won't use, then fine. My feeling is that many in our community see the need for it. Now it's time to vote and everyone knows what you will do.

August 31, 2007 at 12:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

another_local (anonymous) says...

Being opposed to something is bashing?

I am also trying to educate people about the true costs of this and how it impacts the economy. The fact that the costs are inequitably shared is another point people should understand when they vote.

With the exception of my initial comment "clueless" which was directed at the letter and not the poster above me I fail to see where I bash others opinions. What I meant in that instance was that the comments in the letter demonstrate a lack of undertanding about the development process and the fact that the decisions we are living with were made long ago by different city councils and there is little to be done about it now.

If you think my comments are all negative, then you have not been around long. I'll grant you that the posts I make when opposed tend to be longer than when I am in favor and that recently with some of the school district issues there has been plenty to oppsose but I have written in favor of issues and in agreement with letters in the past.

I think most of us want to improve the community. I do not think that a rec center is an fiscally responsible way to do it. I voted for the open space tax, the school tax and the library tax. You are correct though, I will be voting against this one.

August 31, 2007 at 12:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

fish (anonymous) says...

I for one am glad that we are hearing another side of this issue from another local. Supporters of this seem to make it sound like it is going to sprout up out of the ground with no cost to tax payers to build or operate, but I think that most of us are smart enough to know that there are no free lunches and most definitely no free rec centers. Bouldergrad I respect your opinion but you are the one that seems to take this personal that someone is disagreeing with you. I hoe that you are joking when you say wait and see the rec center before you decide, because by then it will be too late.

August 31, 2007 at 2:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

trollunderthebridge (anonymous) says...

And to those debating the mill levy and taxes, do not forget the BID (Business Improvement District) for downtown being proposed for the fall election.

August 31, 2007 at 2:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

another_local (anonymous) says...

I would also suggest that we look for an operating budget for this project and an analysis of whether it covers it's own costs once it is up. My understanding is that the rec centers in our neighbor communities do not cover expenses and need annual subsidies; again, money that has other uses.

Our city is not always very good on this issue. As I understand it, (I heard this from a member of city council) there was no operating budget for the community center when council decided to build it either. (for all I know there still is not)

We need to have carefully considered approaches to spending this kind of money. That includes how much it will cost to build, who is paying for it and how much it will cost to operate. Forgive me if I missed this info (operating plan and budget) somewhere. If someone knows where to find it, please post the location.

August 31, 2007 at 5:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

another_local (anonymous) says...

Speaking of things I am in favor of, I think the BID is a good idea. First of all, it is one of the rare instances where the people who pay the tax get to spend it. Second, it taxes only the commercial property, not residential.

What does this mean? Business and commercial property owners are voting whether to tax themselves. If they decide to do so, they also get to decide how to spend the money for their mutual benefit.

Assuming that the district uses the money well (and it is their own fault if they don't) the benefits should accrue in some relationship to the amount paid as larger, more valuable property in a commercial area tends to benefit more from improvements than smaller property.

So,

People who are paying get to control the money.
Benefits are at least somewhat proportional to tax paid.
People who will be paying ALL of the tax get at least most of the votes.

How about that? Something I am in favor of.

August 31, 2007 at 5:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )