Marc Fraioli: 'Yes' for rec

Advertisement

After decades of discussing the addition of a recreation center with youth/teen elements to our community, we finally have the opportunity to vote to add this amenity to our community.

Almost 30 years ago, there was dialogue of a recreational facility downtown at Howelsen Hill. In the mid-'90s, surveys were done polling citizens of Steamboat as to what the city was lacking and how their performance was on existing services. One of the fundamental issues raised was an indoor, multi-use facility. In the list of action items in which this appeared, this remains one of a couple not yet met. Three other surveys in the past 10 years have reaffirmed this still lacking.

This is an expensive initiative. Typically, whenever financing is acquired with current interest rates as they are, payment is usually double the initial cost if repaid during the full course of the loan, whether a library, a school or even your home. Remember, this is a specific tax and won't divert spending from other community services as some would have you believe.

Here are some reasons to vote yes on a community recreation center:

- All homeowners, primary and secondary, within city limits will be contributing.

- As more homes are built and/or annexed into Steamboat's city limits, the cost for each homeowner should go down.

- There is an actual cap to the mill levy that can be imposed. For a $500,000 home, the tax implication per year is estimated at $13.75 per month, or $165 a year.

- The current consultants have built 16 recreation centers in the past six years. Three were over budget, with the most by 6.7 percent, four were at budget, and nine were under budget, with one by 21.4 percent.

- The current proposal has been padded by almost 30 percent to stop-gap potentially going over budget on this project, with the goal of coming in under budget.

- Every year that we procrastinate, the price will go up. We can pay some now, or a lot more later.

- While Old Town Hot Springs provides a much loved and used service, it falls short on providing adequate, indoor facilities. At the current growth rate, it will just fall further behind.

- Painstaking efforts have been made in more than two years of meetings and mediation, to work with Old Town Hot Springs to try not to duplicate their current services.

- This proposed public facility allows users of all ages access to amenities.

- The proposed amenities include: a youth area for after-school and summer programs; a teen center; public meeting and party rooms; a fitness center with adult and youth equipment; an indoor playground; two multi-activity gyms; a walking/jogging track; outdoor artificial and natural grass fields, both lighted; a six-lane lap pool with multi-generational, year-round use; a warm leisure pool with zero-depth entry; a lazy river; a multi-use diving well; and a skate park.

Having the option of recreating indoors as well as outdoors provides greater choices for recreation in the community. Although almost all of us live here for the outdoors, this proposed facility provides much needed and past due options for fulfilling our recreational needs.

While we respect the healthy dialogue going on in our community about this hot topic, and appreciate everyone's hard work and input from both sides of the fence, I hope you will vote yes for our community's healthy future and approve 2B and 2C on the upcoming ballot.

Marc Fraioli

Steamboat Springs

Comments

addlip2U 6 years, 9 months ago

Stop sending us your unwelcome solicitation in the mail. Instead, put those financial resources to build the rec center as a private "for profit" business.

You want it, YOU pay for it. Not those of us that don't have the means or needs.

VOTE NO! and once for all PLEASE put it to rest. PS Save the trees, your printed adds are filling up the dump:(

0

longtimelocal 6 years, 9 months ago

I totally agree with addlip2u. I was born here in 61' used the SSHR for many years, and am appalled that they would try to put this recreation center on the back of local homeowners. What about all the out of town users that reside in the county? Will they pay more than someone who has a city address to walk in the door to the facility? They should under this poorly designed plan. Make this BUSINESS endeavor just like any other....you know a business plan for a successful operation, not just something else forced upon those of us who struggle with paying for home ownership already! I am not opposed to a new rec center, but a fair business plan needs to be developed. PLEASE vote NO on this poorly thought out plan.

0

stompk 6 years, 9 months ago

Let me guess, the city will borrow the money to build this too!

Just like the Iron Horse. Cost $4 million. We have that money in our reserve according to their website. Yet we finance it?

So the city still doesn't "own" the Iron Horse. Instead, the bank or whoever financed it owns it, and the taxpayers pay the interest.

Let's up the ante. $34 million. And that's proposed. Actual costs will probably run more into $50 million.

But, it's up to the voters, so we'll see.

0

ThreeJobs 6 years, 9 months ago

This is a ridiculously selfish proposal. Sure I like the idea of everyone paying so that I can have a first class facility for my own use but I realize that it is wrong. An ENORMUS expense to all to benefit a few. 40% of the city budget so we can swim inside? (yes, I realize there are other amenities, but most of the other proposed activity can be done elsewhere in town at FAR less expense)

Just because a few former world class athletes think it's a good idea doesn't make it a financially sound idea. Do the math on this one. Annual cost including debt Divided by total individual days usage. THIS IS A HUGE NUMBER so that a few can spend 30 minutes in an indoor pool several days a week. Just one word for it. NUTS!

Consider this: What would the daily use fees and annual memberships have to be if the users had to pay the entire cost to support this ourselves? Selfish, ridiculously selfish to even think of placing this huge burden on others.

0

bikegirl 6 years, 9 months ago

All the talk of an indoor skate park and teen center may sound nice,but the reality is they won't use these facilities.Build an outdoor concrete skate park,thats where the skaters will hang out.Most Teens in this town are busy with other activities,and the kids who are'nt probably won't frequent a center that will cost $$.Stop trying to make this sound like something it is really not intended to be,it is overpriced,and unnecessary.

0

Books 6 years, 9 months ago

ThreeJobs

Let's do the math. It's not nearly as much as you think.

If you have a 500K house, its $13.75 per month If you have a 200K condo, its $5.50 per month If you have a 50K trailer, its $1.38 per month

Membership costs per Month are: Single $27.50 Family $50.00

A family of four in a 500k house would pay $63.75 total per month A single person in a 200k condo would pay $33.00 total per month

A one day lift ticket is $85.00

A monthly membership for a family of four (including taxes) is less than the price of one lift ticket.

0

nxoby36 6 years, 9 months ago

You are still asking us to pay for a facility that only a small minority of the population will use . 500 people is only a small portion of the population here .

VOTE NO ON 2B & 2C !

0

momonmission 6 years, 9 months ago

It IS an outdoor skatepark that will accompany this facility. Those involved have already raised the money to build it. It will be free for all kids to use. Go back and read the teen survey done that states what facilties these kids would like to see. Not all teens are as busy as you say and you know what they say about idle hands, why not give them an option. As far as the funding goes, people were griping when it was proposed that this could be paid for using another funding source through the City. People said, and then you are robbing Peter to pay Paul. Well, what is it? If this does not sound like a wise plan then where were you when all the planning was taking place? You have the option to vote no, this is a democracy last time I checked but please do not go around spreading mistruths to anyone(?) who will listen. People have worked very hard to propose this to the voters, at least give them a fair chance. Most importantly, do you homework and find out the facts before you start to spread lies. Please go to www.skitownrec.com if you interested in learning more.

0

Books 6 years, 9 months ago

stompk

The actual construction cost is around 24 million. They put a 10 million buffer on the bond issue to make sure they didn't have to come back. That's a pretty big buffer considering that this company has done 16 other rec centers in similar towns and were only over budget 3 times and only by 6.7%.

0

retiredinss 6 years, 9 months ago

Books-

Please check and explain what you are calling a 'buffer'. My understanding of the process by which the architectural consultants arrived at their estimate was three steps:

First they estimated the size of the proposed facility; Second, they determined the actual cost of similarly built facilities elsewhere--I think generally in Colorado, and they divided those costs by the sq ft of those facilities, to arrive at an average cost per sq foot for existing facilities elsewhere; Third, they escalated these average per sq foot costs for average inflation (not Steamboat specific inflation) from the time the existing facilities were constructed until the time when it is assumed that the Steamboat facility will be built; Fourth,they used those costs per sq foot multiplied by the sq ft estimate of the proposed Steamboat Springs facility to arrive at an estimated total cost for the Steamboat facility in the year it is expected to be built; and Fifth, they escalated that total cost by 30% to allow for what I think was called 'the Steamboat Factor', that is to acknowledge that building something in Steamboat is more expensive than elsewhere-where the existing facilities were constructed. If this understanding is correct, then it is not appropriate to describe the 30% as a 'buffer'. It is a simple way to estimate the cost in Steamboat versus other locations. Please confirm if the above is the correct description of the 30%, and if it is, then please acknowledge that it isn't a buffer.

Many thanks.

0

elkeye 6 years, 9 months ago

retiredinss...keep on "books"!

A $10 million "buffer"...only in the minds of the proponents of this thing!

"books" is the same individual that is trying to make everyone believe that "It's way more than a ($10-12 million dollar) swimming pool".

The other amentities are merely a transparent effort to try and get support to overcome the huge negatives associated with a six-lane pool and diving well for the benefit of a few.

The construction cost is estimated to be not $24 million but rather $34 million. The actual construction cost could be more than the $34 million!

Moreover, the actual cost to the taxpayers for the construction of this project will be $66 million (paid over the years)... unless "books", BoulderGrad, and their small group of vocal supporters want to write a check today!

0

ThreeJobs 6 years, 9 months ago

Books,

In the words of Ronald Regan, "There you go again..." deliberately trying to sidestep the real issue with fuzzy math of your own.

YOUR MATH REQUIRES EVERYBODY PAY. What I asked you to do is see what the cost per visit is if the actual USERS (estimated) have to pay.

Please re-read my previous post if this is still not clear to you. Then do the math!

Expalin why it is fair and desirable for the many to pay for the few?

0

Books 6 years, 9 months ago

Did you bother to read the letter that you posted on?

"The current proposal has been padded by almost 30 percent to stop-gap potentially going over budget on this project, with the goal of coming in under budget."

I guess it boils down to how many different ways that you can dream up to use the term buffer. It's a category used to catch the extra cost of building in Steamboat as well as items that may go over their budget. If the city had put out these numbers, I'd be scared too. I know the people who put this together, many are contractors and builders whose judgment I trust.

The scary part for me is the next line in the letter

"Every year that we procrastinate, the price will go up. We can pay some now, or a lot more later."

If we do this your way, that is wait five years and then built it, your dream of building it for 50 or 60 million will come true.

0

Books 6 years, 9 months ago

elkeye

12 times now you have posted that this is all about a pool. And everyone comes back and tells you it's more than that, it's all kinds of other things as well. Surely you must have read some of that. You must really hate pools.

Including a pool in a rec center is pretty normal.

0

retiredinss 6 years, 9 months ago

Books-

Yes, I read your posting in response to stompk. Did you read mine? I asked if the mehtodology I described was the one used by the architect consultants? If it was, then the 30% isn't a buffer. It is a step in the process to arrive at an estimated cost for construction in SS versus the locations where the other previously constructed facilities were built, or a Steamboat factor as I called it. It is obvious to anyone living / building here that our costs of construction are greater than other parts of CO, and in some other parts of the country. It is misleading to call the 30% addition a buffer. A buffer would be an additional amount one. would add AFTER one arrived at an estimate for SS. If my description of the method used by the architect is not correct, please describe as I did stepwise the method they used, to justify that the 30% is really a 'buffer'

Also, it is highly misleading to argue that we should make a yes decision now on the basis that it would cost more in the future. This assumes that 'yes' decision is a foregone conclusion and it is only a matter of time before a city funded recreation center is built. Those supporting the recreation center at this time still need to successfully argue that a recreation center paid for by the city ought to be built now. It is not obvious that some other entity (private) would not come along and build a facility negating the argument that the public needs to fund one. The supporters of a publicly funded recreation center have not made the case why this facility is required, they have for the most part argued that one is 'wanted' by a segment of the population.

0

bubba 6 years, 9 months ago

I think for the proponents of the pool, the scary part is really 'if we can't make everyone else pay for this, we will have to pay for our own recreation, and it will cost more for those who want it!'

And really, books, comparing an 85 dollar a day lift ticket to the tax increase is a inaccurate analogy. 85 dollars is what 1 person (without a pass) pays for one day skiing. Your numbers are what I pay for you to have a rec center, not for me to use it. If I wanted to use it, I would have to buy a 600 dollar annual membership. All-in, I think the cost per day for the average user is about 2 bucks more than the cost per day of the average homeowner who doesn't use it, and about 50 cents less than the cost per day of a ski pass (1000/365, not 85 dollars a day, to compare apples to apples).

Again, your only argument why I should pay for this thing is 'because you can probably afford it,' and that is not very convincing!

0

colobob 6 years, 9 months ago

Same song , same dance, same waste of tax money. Eliminate the pool and the proponants would drop this thing like a hot potatoe. Most see this thing for what it is,...............a ruse!

0

elphaba 6 years, 9 months ago

Ironic that many of the supporters of the new rec center don't even live in the City - like Todd Lodwick - and therefore will have the use without the bother of having to pay for it. In their new slick, expensive brochure most of the supporters live in the County - Vote NO

0

addlip2U 6 years, 9 months ago

Books! What a dumb analogy...I can do the math too, thank you. But your figures can NOT be substantiated, until this dream is designed and bid. That is you have a FIRM bid.

But let's use your analogy here: and by the way, remember that we live in a FREE country.
If I choose to buy a one day lift ticket it IS MY choice. I am not asking you to pay for it.

Stop, just stop jamming what YOU want down the throat to those who do not. We don't want to pay for your rec center just as you do not want to pay for my (should I choose to) one day lift ticket or a round of golf.

Get it?

0

fishy 6 years, 9 months ago

unbelievable! i don't know how books has the patience to talk to you guys. addlip, you don't need to be so rude, really you don't. it just makes you look bad (and maybe you have a really bad case of gas?) yes, it's a free country, you're right about that. it's a country where people are allowed to try to improve their communities, allowed to research rec centers and how to get them built and they're even allowed, god forbid, to put them on a ballot! the nerve! if you don't like it, vote no but quit acting like these people have committed some unpardonable sin by putting this on the ballot. no one is "jamming anything down your throat." and all of us pay for things via taxes that we don't use - that's how this country works. if this is such an unpopular idea, it will fail but it has every right to be on the ballot. and books' numbers are a good reality check to all of the screaming about $66 million. the people working on this have done a lot of research looking into every angle of how this could work, it wasn't just tossed onto the ballot with no thought. and do you really think it wouldn't be an asset to many, many people in this town of all ages? (not to mention tourists) you don't want it, we got that. but judging by some of the posts, I think maybe you could use it!

0

VXA 6 years, 9 months ago

Still sitting on the fence on this one, but must say leaning towards a yes vote with all the negativity and lack of research on the no constituents behalf as well as hearing the same thing over and over again, but a "thank you" for making me wake up and look into this issue./I absolutely agree about saving the trees, let's recycle all of the political mailings as possible, and save it a trip to Milner./As far as the 40% coming out of the city budget, this is why the council proposed a property tax and not a sales tax. If there is a beef it should be with this form of payment since some of us remember back to when we decided to be driven by sales tax instead of property tax; that notwithstanding, council makes a point funding it with a property tax, in the event of an economic downturn and decrease in tax revenues./As to the skate park, they have all but a few of the funds necessary to build the skate park, so do we subtract that from the proposed budget? And do we subtract the funds in excess of six figures that the Citizens For A Communnity Rec Center have committed to date, per their latest info?/As far as the budget projections I decided to check with the consultants to ask them the question based on all the erroneous comments from both sides. Their explanation was very in line with retirdenss, except one major point. The cost analysis was based on their conversation with several major contractors that are currently involved on projects underway in town, and this is what they used for their base price, not their padded "Steamboat Factor" price which some seem to keep getting misconstrued./As far as this project getting built for a few. Check with Parks and Rec, as I did, and ask them how this would relieve the strain on current services and facility time programming issues, if not just ask the middle school group how badly we need more gym space. I thought the ice rink was a ruse by the hockey players, try to get ice time there now./As to the pool budget batted around, it is the entire Aquatics facility not just the pool for the numbers being thrown out, and everyone pointing at swimming, give it a rest./Let's consider for a moment you are right and it is built for a few...which I doubt, I and my family as well as the rest of you would probably use this facility. As far as this facility being built for a select user group i.e. pool group, this is a stretch as well. The city picked ad-hoc committee was made up of a diverse group of citizens, of which 2 I'm told were pool proponents, and yet City council saw it in keeping to move forward with these bond initiatives./As to usage fees those paying tax will get a break on fees. Proposed family in the city would be $600, and in the county that would be $800. I dislike taxes as much as the next person, but this one may just prove worthwhile. vxa

0

titsikama 6 years, 9 months ago

addipu, Your round of golf at Haymaker is supported with my tax dollars (sales tax).
Retiredness, we have discussed in previous posts the estimate, and I answered every question you had regarding it and you know it. Heck I even told you how you could contact the architect for further details on how they arrived at this estimate. The costs of building in Steamboat have already been included in the $22-$24 million. The same facility would cost less to build elsewhere elsewhere. 30% is becuase you never know. I suggest that since you are so concerned about this (you have copied and pasted throughout the blog) you contact the architects; brsarchitects.com. They will be happy to answer all of your questions. That is if you really care about the answer and you are not just trying to scare everyone.
Oh, by the way-Phase 2 of the Health and Rec plan, studied to death. The City would have to purchase the Post Office for a cost of $10 million and then all you would get is the pool Funny how you all left that part of the letter. Oh they left a lot out and used my membership money to pay for the mailing. OTHS had been part of this from the beginning. They know the answers to all of the questions. The answer is the proposed ballot. Many of public and private programs are at capicity and cannot reach their full potential due to lack of space. The Igloo is a decrepited old building that is held together with bandaids. OTHS is over run and not family firiendly. There are no facilities for those with disbilities. And, if all of you people had even bothered to attend a public meeting you would know this is not just about a pool! There were several meetings with lots of proposals. Alas, we can all post like crazy and probably never change each other minds.

0

buck 6 years, 9 months ago

$66 million for a town of about 10,000. My family will never set foot in it, yet I will pay as long as I live in Steamboat. If there is a lack of things for teens to do, which I really question, why don't the parents spend some time with their kids, like our family does? Keep Steamboat affordable for families, vote NO on 2B and 2C.

0

dimwitiguess 6 years, 9 months ago

I suggest you all quit writing and wait to vote. Talk about a lot of wasted energy on this blog. I hope the rec center bid does not pass, but I'll just wait and express my opinion in my vote.

0

Books 6 years, 9 months ago

I would like answer all of you. I have a job, I just don't have time. My main point is that your group is running around spinning this whole thing like it's really expensive when in reality it's not that much at all. $13.75 per month for the average family living in a half million house. My comparison to a ski pass was meant to show how much the rec center costs compared to what everyone spends on lift tickets. No one is going to go broke. Especially you guys.

Retiredinss Please refer to titsikama and VXA posts above, sounds like your questions have been answered several times already. If you are really looking for more answers, you should contact the rec center people or the architects; brsarchitects.com. I am sure they will be happy to answer any questions.

Did any of you ever stop and think that if you joined you might actually enjoy it? If you have kids or grandkids, ask them what they think. They will give you the real answer.

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 9 months ago

Nice comment, Judy. You may be asked to explain the tax write-off to people, and provide info as to where you know this from. (Over my head, at least.) More enticing every day now!!!!

0

sbwhocares 6 years, 9 months ago

To the Editor:

Although I do not live in the City of Steamboat Springs, I support 2B and 2C because I and many other residents of NW Colorado will help pay for this indoor recreation center through our memberships and daily use fees.

Why is this new recreation center not a county facility? Because Routt County does not have a parks or recreation department through which this facility could be built or maintained. Nor does it own parkland upon which it could be built. I would gladly vote for an increase of $247 property tax on my $750,000 home, if this were a county-wide vote, to bring this much-needed indoor recreation center and its amenities to OUR COMMUNITY.

We know we will need to pay a higher membership fee because the city residents are paying the property tax. City residents should pay less. Another advantage to city residents is that this property tax is a tax write-off. Remember that when making your decision to vote yes on 2B & 2C.

Thank you!

Judy Zetzman

0

retiredinss 6 years, 9 months ago

titsikama-

Thanks for your note, and for helping Books by trying to answer my question. First, I have talked to the architects, way back when they first made their presentations on the various rc options. I asked specifically how they arrived at their cost estimates, and was told by them what I have written above. If you understand differently, I have no problem with you going step by step as I did through the methodology that you understand they used to arrive at their costing for the $34 million rc. I believe I am doing only what any person being asked to make a serious decision would do--try to understand all the relevant factual information to the best of their ability. If you are saying that $24 million is the full estimated cost of building the rc in SS in 2009, then please do be clear about that, and as I requested above, present the method that the architects used to arrive at the $24 mill. Thanks.

VXA-

You refer to an ad hoc citizens committee. Who were they, what did they do, did they make a recommendation? What was it?

0

elkeye 6 years, 9 months ago

Yea Judy:

Explain how an individual who elects the "standard deduction" can take advantage of the higher property taxes this thing would result in?

People who reside outside the city limits should be charged DOUBLE or TRIPLE the annual membership fees/daily pass fee of city residents (IF this proposal passes).

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 9 months ago

Elkeye- if this can be deducted, I doubt it's under "standard deduction." You probably have to do the long form itemization. Small price to pay to get more money back on your return. If it's not important enough for a person to fill that out, then that's on them individually.

0

outsiderlookingin 6 years, 9 months ago

The city loves to waste money that's what governments do. Instead of paying employees more so housing is affordable they bought the iron horse so they could have affordable housing on their terms in their location adding to the "at will"employment scam. "Oh you miss behaved so we're taking away your housing". Same goes for the Rec. Center Let's vote now then annex the west side of town later so they have to pay but can't complain. And don't let anyone B.S. you into thinking it will ever be paid off. Years ago the bridges in NY were supposed to be paid off by the tolls. alas those loans have been rolled over through a series of compliacated legal matters and will be paid on enfiniteitem(spelling error I know) Say la vie

0

ffv 6 years, 9 months ago

I contacted the consultants to get their answer on how they came up with the costs. The way I read it there is a 30% multiplier to the "Steamboat Costs". Then on top of that there is another 10% contingency. Or another words 43% padding to Steamboat based costs (1.3x * 1.1 = 1.43x or 43%). I think the math is right but I'm sure someone will check it :). Here is their answer verbatim:

The probable estimate of cost for the recreation center is based upon Means Construction Data (a national construction cost database / tracking service) for Steamboat Springs and historic data of similar facilities that was increased by a factor of 1.3 (30%) to compensate for the current building boom in the local construction market and it's upward impact upon fees, labor, material costs. The 1.3 factor was derived by interviewing contractors and utility service providers in the Steamboat Springs construction market to gauge local construction market trends.

A review of the estimated probable cost:

Construction Cost (the cost to build the building) = $22,002,398

Site Cost (the cost to prepare the site, utilities, parking, landscape, etc.) = $3,104,465

Soft Costs (the cost of what it takes to equip the building) = $5,492,637

Contingency (approximately 10% - typical) = $3,400,000

Total = $34,000,000

0

twostroketerror 6 years, 9 months ago

$34,000,000 + $0 (skate park) = Serious embarrassment for a "world class" ski town. Voting NO.

0

twostroketerror 6 years, 9 months ago

Got corrected by elkeye, thanks. Still voting NO.

0

fish 6 years, 9 months ago

What about the cost of maintence and personnel to run this rec center. Has any one got an estimate on those costs yet or are we to just go into this blind?

0

addlip2U 6 years, 9 months ago

ffv, thank you for clarifying how the consultant arrived at the estimated cost. They did the best with the information they had.

FYI....... Means Construction data are generated by a company that offers free Estimating Means Construction data book (with square and linear cost/foot and per item cost) to anyone who provide them with a cost of a recent project.

Since that is the incentive, we (in the industry) really can not (and do not) rely on those $ figures and use them only as a "guide". Ask any architect or engineer, the number in the Means data are NOT accurate.

Consequently, if this is how the architect arrived at the cost for the rec center, the $ number is skewed and inaccurate.

I am repeating myself, but unless you have completed the design and have actual bid, the total $ number is just a figment of your imagination.

Still voting NO.

0

longtimelocal 6 years, 9 months ago

Well, I voted today, count it one vote AGAINST the rec center. I still do not understand the logic of making local city landowners pay for something that will be used somewhat county wide although if I lived in Toponas I might have a problem with that comment as well. Yes, I pay for police, fire, infrastructure and govermental things that are neccesary and God forbid I may need one day. A rec center does NOT fall in this category. To put it in education terms, roads, police and fire are like math, english, and history. A rec center is an elective, not a basic education requirement. I would love a new rec center as much as the next guy, but a good business plan with funding, user fees and such needs to be developed. Not another tax.

0

colobob 6 years, 9 months ago

A vote of common sense is a vote well cast! Way to go LTL.

0

mlindsey 6 years, 9 months ago

The cost of this gigantic rec center is outrageous! We already have a great rec center with membership fees that are less per year than the proposed center AND we don't pay taxes for it.

The council and those who have pushed this proposed new center onto the ballot have never seriously tried to make an accomodation with the hot springs rec center. Instead they are placing their narrow interests for a new rec center above the larger needs of the entire community. They have even recruited COUNTY folks, who won't pay a dime of taxes for this center, to help pay for advertising in support of it. Have they no shame!

If this passes most of us will pay more taxes annually than we currently pay for membership to the hot springs rec center AND, we will have to pay a very large annual membership fee if we want to use the new center. Why is the extremely high cost of this proposed center so hard for folks to understand.

Another point that many don't mention is, if we pass this, we will have established the principle of city property taxes to fund operating expenses which will give the high spending city council access to a potentially very large revenue stream out of our pockets. Yes, out of town homeowners, which we are constantly reminded are more than 40% of the tax payers, will help, but the same tax rate will apply to those of us who live here. In other words, OUR taxes will go up TOO! We are all concerned about the cost of housing in Steamboat. One way to do our part to hold the TOTAL cost of home ownership down is to keep the property tax rate low.

Please let your head rule on this and not your heart. There are better and more economical ways to add "improvements" that might be desired. Vote NO on this proposal which never should have been on the ballot in the first place.

A concerned local

0

JQPUBLIC 6 years, 9 months ago

Books keeps saying things like "My main point is that your group is running around spinning this whole thing like it's really expensive when in reality it's not that much at all $13.75 per month".... WHETHER it's 50 cents or $50 "our group" of taxpayers doesn't seem to want to pay for your recreational wants. I bet "your group" would complain just as loud if the government wanted to raise your taxes to spend millions on something YOU did not want or need, even if it was only "$13.75 per month". It is definitely time to draw the line somewhere, Americans need to stand up and say enough is enough. We need to get the politicians out of our pockets for their special interests, and I mean ALL special interest politicians... from local to federal, but you have to start somewhere and the only thing they understand is to cut off the money.

0

ventrygirl 6 years, 9 months ago

JQ-you are right on. Get out and voice your opinion with the stongest voice you have-your vote.

0

Brianna 6 years, 9 months ago

Get real Steamboat. The last time I looked you earn a lot of your money based on tourism. We have to go to Summit County or Eagle county whenever we take large groups, because you dont have a recreation center. It occupies both kids and adults for a long period of time at a relatively low cost. To be honest, we have been embarassed for a health oriented town such as yours to not have proper recreation facilities. Those who claim it is just for a few are wrong. Go to Silverthorne or Breckenridge and see for yourself that you are missing out on something special for the whole community. Please vote for the rec. center and I assure you it will more than pay for itself over the long haul. Sincerely, Brian Robertson

0

bikegirl 6 years, 9 months ago

Some folks here feel that we have enough large groups,we have plenty of proper recreation opportunities ,and no thanks,we don't want to be just like Breck,or Silverthorne.

0

longtimelocal 6 years, 9 months ago

Brianna,

Move to Silverthorne, save you some travel time, and people like myself who were born here one less in the large crowds. Do us both a favor.

0

dave reynolds 6 years, 9 months ago

Is'nt Fraioli behind the no lease proposal too..don't turn The Boat into what you left..was there a SURVEY showing only 10% of citizens would use the the new rec center.skate park great.why should we pay for your toy

0

panky 6 years, 9 months ago

Look at the Steamboat Airport if you want to see a small group of people having a facility subsidized by the City. This feels exactly the same. I won't use either one but I have to pay for their "club."

What is so important about either one? Both seem frivolous and elitist.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.