Our View: Vote 'yes' for rec center

Advertisement

— Referendums 2B and 2C ask Steamboat Springs property owners to fund the construction and a portion of the ongoing operating and maintenance costs of a community recreation center. At an estimated cost of $34 million, the facility would be the most expensive taxpayer-funded initiative in the city's history.

But the rec center also would provide an amenity we believe residents have wanted for many years. In addition to providing much-needed space for youths and teens, the facility would offer indoor aquatics, meeting and party rooms, multi-use gymnasiums and an expansive fitness center, among other features.

The proposed recreation center is the result of years of studies and planning, and despite the initial sticker shock, it will cost the average residential taxpayer less than he or she might think. Furthermore, that payment is likely to decrease with every passing year.

We don't think the desire for a community recreation center is going away, and such a facility won't get any cheaper in the future. Therefore, we urge voters to approve Referendums 2B and 2C.

It's worth reviewing how we arrived at the rec center ballot initiatives.

For almost 10 years, the city and various interest groups have studied the possibility of a community recreation center. Those discussions often faded after failures to reach consensus about what the facility should include and where it should be located. More recently the city hired consultants Barker Rinker Seacat Architecture of Denver and Greenplay LLC of Broomfield to work together on developing recommendations for a recreation center. The consultants talked to City Council members, city staff, representatives of Old Town Hot Springs, parents who support an indoor swimming facility and others. The consultants researched multiple sites, including the possibility of putting different recreational amenities at different locations.

They eventually recommended a full-scale facility at the present site of Ski Town Fields, a softball and soccer field complex adjacent to the Tennis Center at Steamboat Springs.

We agree that Ski Town Fields is the right site, particularly because its proximity to the ski mountain and base area lodging means it can easily be accessed by the tourists who will help offset the center's operating costs.

We also believe the proposed recreation center includes the right mix of amenities. The facility would include more than 5,000 square feet of space for youths and teens, thereby eliminating the need for the city to continue to house its youth programs in the outdated, space-restricted "Igloo" on Howelsen Parkway. A community survey identified youth and teen facilities as the No. 1 priority in a community recreation center.

As previously mentioned, the rec center also would include an indoor lap pool, leisure pool and diving well, an indoor walking/running track, a 5,000-square-foot fitness center with exercise equipment, an indoor playground, a double-size gymnasium, office space, and room for future additions. An outdoor skate park would be adjacent to the rec center and privately funded.

With a $34 million price tag and annual operation and maintenance expenses expected to total another $1.5 million, the facility is, understandably, a tough sell for many voters - especially given the city's costly record with recent construction projects.

We encourage city officials and contractors to keep recreation center costs at, or below, advertised levels.

The combined mill levies will cost the owner of a $500,000 home less than $200 a year, and that tax burden will almost certainly decrease with each passing year as residential growth continues within city limits. The possible future annexation of Steamboat 700 and other areas could further reduce individual tax payments. Second-home owners will take on a substantial portion of the residential tax burden for the recreation center.

The user fee schedule for the rec center has been staggered to favor the city residents who are funding its construction. Higher rates will be charged to non-city residents and tourists, helping to offset any perceived inequity in the tax base. And because the facility would be funded by a property tax, there should be no impact on the city's ability to fund the services it provides through sales tax revenues.

This November, we urge voters to approve a facility that stands to benefit all community members for decades to come.

Vote "yes" on Referendums 2B and 2C.

Comments

longtimelocal 7 years, 1 month ago

$200 per year on a 500,000 residence IS a lot of money. Maybe we should take $500 per year instead and build other items as well. This is a poorly designed business plan that once again lands squarely on the back of us local homeowners who struggle to make it in Steamboat as it is. Find better funding sources through private funding and user fees. Do Not force this on the back of a minority who may or may not even use the facility. Your view is faulty!

0

sickofitall 7 years, 1 month ago

It's a NO vote for me. The plan is flawed. 66 million to get 34 million? That's just nuts. The fact of the matter is , it cost 34 million!!! Thats alot of freakin money!! Try scaling it down. They justify it by saying it will cost more later...well it's STILL 34 million!

0

dundalk 7 years, 1 month ago

I have a toilet. Let's just flush our money down the drain instead.

NO on this ridiculous "rec" center.

0

another_local 7 years, 1 month ago

If this white elephant could be brought down to a reasonable level, say 20 million and funded by the county rather than the city so everyone that "benefits" would help pay I might be willing to vote for it. As is; no way. NO on this one.

0

dimwitiguess 7 years, 1 month ago

Pilot editorial staff get a free pass to the new center? How can any of us believe a word you write? dimwitiguess

0

panky 7 years, 1 month ago

This newspaper, these people that write these "editorials" consistantly disappoint me.

I want to know...

  1. Who wrote that piece?

  2. Does it represent EVERYONE at the paper?

  3. And if so, who ARE these people?

Also, this group has more than once refused to print information that would have a negative impact on important issues in this town.

We need a paper that is "of the people, by the people, for the people."

We used to have a paper that had integrity and could be a resource to explore the issues without getting in the way of objective discourse.

This is a sham.

0

Books 7 years, 1 month ago

The Pilot didn't completely explain one important part. All of the new construction that is in the works right now will cut that $200 by nearly half. Any future developments and annexations will drop it even further.

Vote yes on 2B and 2C. It's not nearly as much as you think.

0

lowerprofile 7 years, 1 month ago

I would like to see those people who have been complaining about a lack of gym space (indoor soccer and basket ball players) or playing their favorite sports at 11:00 PM standing up for this initiative. A recreation center is at the heart of the solution for them - MORE GYM SPACE!

ESTIMATED yearly tax - $200 (will only get lower) Annual membership fee Family - $600 (same as OTHS) Daily pass - $6

my health, happiness, children, family, friends, community - PRICELESS!!!

YES ON 2A & 2B - The investment is well worth it!

0

colobob 7 years, 1 month ago

Dear lowerprofile, As most already know its more about the pool than anything else. How many people do you think would really support this thing if the pool were to be dropped? Most here know the real answer to that question. The pool is in fact the heart of the proposal the other amenities are not even arteries just veins. The pool would knock off between $9 and $12 million depending on whos estimates you believe. And while I'm on the subject of the pool, to many it makes more sense to build it at the high school. Funding would be one reason but more importantly I would think that it would give more kids the opportunity to try something that they may have not considered before - competitive swimming & diving. It would also give the swimming and diving team a greater opportunity to recruit and develop more talent because of increased participation opportunities. As far as price goes, eveything has a price in life. The price on this proposal without any sort of compromise is just to high! Sometimes you just have to appreciate what you already have or at least be willing to compromise. To the proponants of this thing there is no compromise and that is the heart of the matter.

0

elkeye 7 years, 1 month ago

"To the proponants of this thing there is no compromise and that is the heart of the matter."

and as the saying goes...

"...pigs get fat, and hogs get slaughtered"!

I hope the majority of voters invite the proponants of this thing to a BBQ on November 6th.

0

fishy 7 years, 1 month ago

this is slightly off the subject - (excuse me if it's already been discussed)

but the new slide/tunnel at the hot springs looks horrible! it's a skinny dark thing that you won't even be able to sit up in. i loved the old one. if i'd known this was going in i'd have said forget it and let the new rec center try it.

0

colobob 7 years, 1 month ago

elkeye, I agree with you wholeheartedly that this WHOLE proposed rec center is frivilous and unnecessary. I was trying to prove a point by getting one of the proponents to bite. Unfortunately you struck first Just to set the record straight I will say what I've said many times before. Steamboat is an OUTDOOR community. That's why people came here, that's why people live here, and that's why people will continue to come. They didn't & don't come here because of a rec. center. No on 2B & 2C!

0

Books 7 years, 1 month ago

elkeye - Everyone in town is talking about what a joke that small dark tube is. Even my kids commented on it. You guys blew it! The old slide was great. Why did you rid of it? And you forced the new rec center to not even have a slide. Looks to me like we took a giant step backward.

Anyone coming to Steamboat will be told;

"Well, we had a great slide but they tore it out and now we,,, well,,, we have a slide but, it's a joke."

0

elkeye 7 years, 1 month ago

books...why don't you ask Pat Carney the director of the Old Town Hot Springs facility or Bud Romberg the President of the Steamboat Health and Recreation Association?

Why did "they" get rid of it? Not "you"!

I suggest you try and stay on point! Why should the property owners of the city of Steamboat Springs pay for your recreation center (including a six-lane pool and diving well)?

Neither the proposed recreation center nor the proposed means by which the construction and operation deficit are to be paid for merit my support.

If the Ski Town Fields is the right site, particularly because of its proximity to the ski mountain and base area lodging then the tourists should help pay for the center's construction through a lift ticket tax and an increase in the lodging tax.

The idea of a property tax for the center's construction and/or operating deficit is the wrong solution!

0

Books 7 years, 1 month ago

elkeye - Sorry, didn't really mean you, just the whole group of anti-rec center people which seems to include the old hot springs people.

Just disappointed that we lost the old slide. I've been to a bunch of them and it was one of the better ones. I don't like the small tubes where you have to lay down, if each section isn't aligned perfectly with the next, that little edge sticking up wants to tear the skin off your back. The bigger tube, where you can sit up. just tries to tear off your swimsuit. I prefer the bigger ones.

I think your buddies at old town hot springs do not need to be so worried. There is more business than their small facility can handle. Practically everyday I run into someone who tells me that they quit going there years ago because it's too crowded. I feel the same way. I only go there in mud season.

Have you ever tried to go to the hot springs after skiing? It's crazy. It's elbow to elbow. Or in the summer when Triple Crown is here, it's packed. The place is just too small.

0

Sunspot 7 years, 1 month ago

Great post PS, I agree with all but the stupid part. Misguided maybe. They just need to do their homework and look at the benefits to the whole community.

Vote yes on 2B and 2C

0

bubba 7 years, 1 month ago

PS, thanks for recognizing us as hillbillies. Maybe we can take that word back, the way other minorities have claimed words formerly used by bigots as THEIR own)

And since you are trying to assert your superiority through name calling and referring to fancy analysis you've done, I'd love to see this cost benefit analysis- the proposal is to spend about 6,600 per person on this thing (not tax each person that much, but that will be the expense, divided by the number of citizens). Is there some other way where folk's health care is costing taxpayers of steamboat that much? I do not think so.

My debate, and I believe that of many others, is that this may be a benefit or asset to the community, but the proponents of it need to 'do their homework' and figure out a more reasonable way to fund it. The scare tactic of 'it will cost more later' holds absolutely no water, because if this was responsibly planned, it wouldn't have to cost the taxpayers anywhere close to this amount. There is no reason why the city's budget should have to increase by this amount to fund a minority of the population's recreation.

Go back to the drawing board and figure out a way for the people benefiting from this rec center can pay for it, but don't try to tell me it's benefiting me when I will be paying for it for 30 years to come, even if I never cough up another 600 to use it. The taxpayers don't pay for my health care, and the people who's health care is subsidized by taxes probably aren't planning to purchase gym memberships- they need that money for food or medicine.

0

Books 7 years, 1 month ago

The anti rec center ad is completely wrong and misleading.

The ad in the paper says it costs $6,600 for every man, woman and child. Like a family of three would be 19,800? That's not even close to reality. The tax is based on valuation not head count.

The average family living in a 500k house would start out paying $165 per year. $165 x 20 years is only $3,300.

And that is not even right because as all of these construction projects (mostly 2nd home) get completed the total valuation will nearly double and the $165 will drop substantially. As more projects get built and we annex more land, total valuation goes up and the tax drops even lower.

At least 45% (soon to be about 60%) of RE valuation in Steamboat is second homeowners who are not counted in the total population numbers. It's the second homeowners and the multi million houses that are going to be picking up most of the bill.

This bunch is running a campaign of lies and deception.

0

David Wilson 7 years, 1 month ago

I don't know about the "anti-rec center ad," but I do know this. Assuming that there are 10,000 people in Steamboat and that the rec center costs only $60,000,000 with interest, the cost is $6000 for every person in town. You can argue that not everyone is a homeowner and thus does not share in the tax burden and that some homes are worth more than others and that people who move into town also will pay taxes. But there is no getting around that this is a very expensive and extravagant project that will destroy existing park space (Ski Town Fields). The proposed rec center has the wrong design, the wrong location, and the wrong price. Vote no.

0

Books 7 years, 1 month ago

Wilsond - The tax is based on valuation not head count. Full time residents are only paying about half of the total cost.

I don't think $165 per month for a family in a 500k house is that expensive. And that number goes down as more projects get built.

I am just trying to get people to ignore the false advertising and do a little homework. It's not nearly as expensive as the anti rec center bunch would like us to think.

0

Books 7 years, 1 month ago

Ops. It's $165 per year, $13.75 per month. Sorry.

0

techno_babble 7 years, 1 month ago

Ok, books, if I concede the numbers quoted are in error, will you also concede that your numbers are not quite right either?

You conveniently keep leaving out the 2B that adds an additional $165 per year - for a total of $6600 over 20 years.

Hmmm.

0

bubba 7 years, 1 month ago

Books, I haven't seen the ad, but:

Does it state that the cost is 6600 TO every resident or FOR (or PER) every resident. These are semantics, but truly mean two different things.

The proposed financing structure of this thing is going to cost us, the citizens, who are supposedly in control of the local government and it's spending, 66,000,000 over 20 years. We will increase the city's budget, and their tax raising ability by that amount, so indirectly, 'we the people' are paying for it, by authorizing our government to raise the money, regardless of who's paycheck it comes out of. Since there are 10,000 of us, and it is our government, we (as the entity authorizing this budget increase) are spending on average, 6,600 per (or for each) resident of Steamboat. I can agree that if it says it will be a cost TO each person of 6,600 that it is a mis-statement, but again, I haven't seen the ad.

BUT if I am the average full time resident you keep referring to, that is 165/year by your math, or 3,300 over the same 20 years. Granted the cost by your calculation is only half of what the ad may or may not have stated, but that is just the cost if I don't want to use this facility. You would need to add 600 dollars per year to that cost to use it, making the cost 15,300 if I want to use this thing, by your numbers, right? Now if there was enough demand that there were even 2000 people willing to spend that much on using this facility, you wouldn't need a new tax, you could just build a private club for you and 1999 of your closest friends.

I am guessing this thing won't have capacity for 2000 people, so doesn't it seem like your numbers indicate that the proponents of this are just trying to get all of us to pay for this facility that will be used by the few?

And just for the record, I am not sure your numbers add up- does the 165/year just cover the 34 million, or does it include the debt service? If 165 is the cost to the average homeowner, or 3,300 over 20 years, there would need to be over 20,000 homes in the city of Steamboat for those numbers to cover the costs and debt service? I don't know how many homes there are, but I would guess if there are 10,000 residents, they maybe represent 5,000 homes, and by your assertion, 40% of the homes are 2nd homes, so that totals only 9,000? Doesn't that mean that the average cost to a household is over twice what you are claiming? (which, coincidentally, matches this ad that you are disputing?)

I'd guess the numbers are skewed, because the 'average' house may be worth over 500,000 (but maybe not assessed value?), but even still, it seems that your math isn't going to get this paid off.

0

Books 7 years, 1 month ago

Bubba The ad says "$6,600 for each man, woman & child in Steamboat Springs"
I am only guessing at how they came up with their strange numbers but it appears that they are using a head count. The tax is based on real estate valuation. Big Difference. There could be 5 people in each house.

When the Pilot says: (this article, if you read it)

"The combined mill levies will cost the owner of a $500,000 home less than $200 a year, and that tax burden will almost certainly decrease with each passing year as residential growth continues within city limits."

Doesn't that narrow it down a little? That's not me or the rec center people, that's the Pilot. Anyone looks at that would say $200 per year times 20, well gee that's less that $4000 per home over 20 years. That's nowhere near $6,600 per person.

I do know that $165 per year does cover the debt service. I'm using the numbers put out by rec. center people and the Pilot probably is also. I believe the city finance director put those numbers together.

There is another part you keep missing, "and that tax burden will almost certainly decrease with each passing year as residential growth continues within city limits."

techno_babble - I am working on getting you a solid number that can be used to compare with all of the others. The assessor uses all kinds of different multipliers. It looks to me like it is around $30 per year, which is consistent with the Pilot's $200 per year figure, but I will get a better number.

0

Books 7 years, 1 month ago

Bubba - The other weird thing about the ad, it says:

"So if you're not on the swim team or a dedicated indoor soccer player, maybe you should vote no on the rec center"

There is no indoor soccer field.

They put this in the newspaper? I don't think they have really looked into what this whole rec center really has to offer. They keep saying it's all about a pool. That about the double gym. Or the indoor elevated walking track. Or the fitness center. Or the hot tub. Or the lazy river. Or the outdoor artificial turf field. Or the indoor playground, teen center, meeting rooms. I can only guess, but it looks to me like these vote no people just haven't taken the time to look into it.

You really should take a minute and come up to speed on it.

http://www.yampavalley.info/ccrc.asp

0

Getitright 7 years, 1 month ago

Who gets to vote on the rec center? Anyone registered to vote in Steamboat Springs. Who gets to pay for the rec center? Only the property owners in Steamboat Springs. Vote no!

0

honestythebestpolicy 7 years, 1 month ago

I was with a group last week that was told by a CCRC rec center proponent that Intrawest had already signed a letter of intent to contribute to the costs. Why isn't that ironed out and included in this initiative instead of being held back to see if the taxpayers will just foot the whole bill and the Intrawest contribution can just be some more icing on the cake?

Be Honest. According to the latest CCRC handouts, this rec center now includes an "Artificial Turf field with lights for extended season use". How was this $100,000.00+ added to the building program after the cost estimate was prepared and published by the most recent Consultant Team based on a specific line item budget for specific amenities - an artificial turf field not being one of them? The larger question, how are the needs of the community being assessed or is it simply carte blanche with the taxpayer monies about what amenities will be included at any given time based on a few people's whims?

Bottom line: The financial resources are available in this town to fulfill or at least partially fulfill this wish list. It is a huge missed opportunity not to even try to pursue these and then come to the table with some dollars $$$ and financial backing that solidifies the need/want before asking the taxpayers. Even the tennis center was partially funded privately.

0

honestythebestpolicy 7 years, 1 month ago

The few affluent people who decided "for the community" to try to make this proposal fly on the backs of all the taxpayers without devoting any time or effort to fundraising neither amongst themselves nor by tapping into the considerable partnership potential in town that now includes Intrawest will simply just do that when this proposal fails. My prediction is that this rec center will be realized by other means if this fails that will include private funding as it should and needs to even to 100%. Nothing will be lost by voting NO now.

0

Books 7 years, 1 month ago

Honestythebestpolicy,

Really, where is that Intrawest letter? I think you are making it up! Sorry, but the say no bunch has a history of making things up.

-Ad in newspaper claiming cost to build is $6,600 per person. Actual for a family of 4 in 500k house is less than $825 per person spread out over 20 years - (be happy to prove that)

-Ad in newspaper claiming cost to maintain is $1,000 per person. Actual for family of 4 in 500k house is around $150 per person spread out over 20 years - (be happy to prove that)

-The ad numbers put out by the say no bunch are based on head count. Actual is based on property valuation. They know that. Second homeowners are picking up more than ½ the total bill. (be happy to prove that too)

-Ad in paper saying that there is an indoor soccer field.
No indoor soccer field.

-Endless postings and sample ballot views about a 12 million pool. Actual is 8 to 9 million includes hot tub, lazy river and warm pool.

If there is such a letter, then the way the ballot is written, the bond can actually be reduced. Read the ballot language. Key words "UP TO".

"Referendum 2C SHALL THE CITY OF STEAMBOAT SPRINGS DEBT BE INCREASED UP TO $3,400,000"

I hope you are right. The bond can be lowered. It would be great P.R. for Intrawest.
Vote YES 2B & 2C.

0

honestythebestpolicy 7 years, 1 month ago

Ask any Optimist Club member that was at that CCRC presentation if we were told that an Intrawest letter of intent for financing already exists. Pot calling the kettle black about making things up - for sure. And really, if that isn't true about an Intrawest funding pledge there should be. As there should be from many of the businesses and citizens that support this to show some good faith community effort that this is a REAL community project and not just creating a taxpayer sink hole.

0

honestythebestpolicy 7 years, 1 month ago

BoulderGrad just boasted about the "over six figures" that have been raised privately on behalf of this rec center (See community comments on Michelle Lichtenfels discussion)

BoulderGrad, When did/do you plan on disclosing that "over six figures" of funds have been raised and how will they be applied? If you were honest then that would be part of this ballot initiative and would reduce the capital costs that you are expecting the taxpayers to pay.

This rec center effort has simply been dishonest for some long time and certainly not about community right up to today with BoulderGrad disclosing that there has been over 10 million dollars of funds privately raised on a comment line. That should be at the forefront of your campaign.

Just like when we were told that this rec center HAD TO be built at the Curcci Turner site because it wouldn't all fit at the Ski Town site and when Council rejected the Curcci Turner site all of the sudden lo and behold it does fit at the Ski Town Site with the solution you propose today. The taxpayers had to pay a whole different Consultant Team to tell us what you all already knew and it would have saved a huge pile of money if you would have been honest in the first place. Those are the facts because of a few people's selfish and personal agendas surrounding this rec center. It is sad and ultimately why it will fail.

That is on your back so good that you have your "over six figures" to work with. Sounds like you don't need taxpayer monies to me. Just another one of the rec center scams. Your dishonesty is appalling that I only have more examples in my pocket to illustrate. VOTE NO ON 2B & 2C.

0

Books 7 years, 1 month ago

Honestythebestpolicy,

WOW! I think you set some sort of record with that one.

Six figures would be 100,000. Eight figures would be 10,000,000. You guys have so much trouble with math. Or maybe reading. No wonder the vote no ads are so misleading.

As I pointed out before, the way the ballot is written, any money raised can be used to lower the bond.

At first glance, I also thought that the Ski Town site was too small. When they actually did a plat, I was surprised that the whole thing would fit. I wanted to go with Howelsen Hill and just deal with the traffic problems. The good thing about the Ski Town site is its proximity to the ski area and tourist dollars.

My selfish and personal agenda stems from having visited quite a few of these new rec centers and seen for myself the benefit to the communities that have them. I have seen people from every segment of these communities using these rec centers.

Vote YES 2B & 2C.

0

honestythebestpolicy 7 years, 1 month ago

Thanks for that clarification Books on what over six figures actually means. Don't know the "you guys" you refer to but you and your guys are still not answering the very important questions: 1) Where is that money that has been raised for a rec center? 2) How much is it? 3) Why those monies aren't being disclosed so that the taxpayers know what it is that is really needed to construct this thing? It doesn't seem like that much of a stretch of imagination to me that $10 million or more could and should be raised in our community for this.

And you know, your amateur "first glance" at a site isn't the same thing as spending 100's of thousands of taxpayer dollars for site analysis when our own Parks and Recreation Department had already paid for and been told the same thing. Their first study said the Ski Town site was desirable and Parks and Rec simply rejected it telling that a rec center wouldn't all fit at there (not true as we now know) because they preferred the Curcci Turner site more then based on their own personal agendas. Better views from their proposed offices or something. Their story changed after the Council rejected the Curcci Turner site and here we are today literally 100's of thousands dollars later at the Ski Town site again.

The site solution is not the problem, it's the total loss of trust that is prevalent especially with these high dollar proposals that the people in charge don't have any intention of being honest with or about those hard earned taxpayer dollars. That's is the case here and perhaps the difference between this proposed rec center and the other true community rec centers you have visited.

It just brings me back to my original premise that this rec center will be realized by other financial means if this ballot initiative fails that will include private funding as it should and needs to even to 100%. Nothing will be lost by voting NO now.

0

honestythebestpolicy 7 years, 1 month ago

BOULDERGRAD: You have no credibility. You wasted your time & money in Boulder as you don't know what you are talking about at any given time. You are not a steward of the community. See ALL OF YOUR COMMENTS BELOW:

ALL BOULDERGRAD comments in chronological order from 7/11/07 - mostly concerning a rec center......

"And guess what! A committee has formed to start planning a rec center in Craig. What an embarrassment to have them beat us to it.

FYI, this is what is being discussed. We can get an all-encompassing rec center for everyone in our community to use, without a TAX INCREASE. No property tax. No sales tax.

This could be done without increasing our taxes: property or sales.

Several sets of consultants now have reported, through surveys and studies and their own experience, that the citizens of Steamboat want and need a recreation center.

From what I have learned (unpublished as of yet), a rec center may be able to be achieved responsibly and affordably. I know it sounds crazy, but please be patient. It will really be a benefit to everyone in our community.

If you are outfitting a family full of kids, then you would also welcome a Gap Store and other options.

How about some more affordable restaurant options such as Chipotle, Tokyo Joe's, Olive Garden, Country Buffet, Red Robin, Carrabba's?

But right now, the Old Town Hot Springs (which is downsizing from what it HAD in this new renovation) "won't let" the proposed rec center do that. Why should our community stand to have a private business tell us what we can and cannot do?

Susan Dellinger and Karen Post are the council members who have come up with this latest scheme. Not only are they being fiscally irresponsible, they are being illegally influenced by the one Council member who has to recuse himself from the issue because he works at Old Town Hot Springs.

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.

more to follow...

0

honestythebestpolicy 7 years, 1 month ago

MORE BoulderGrad Quotes:.

"Are you computer savvy enough to read this? I hope so. If not, call the City and ask for the figures yourself.

Obviously, paddlefisher, you didn't make it through school.

Ask the county commissioners why they won't be included. Those outside the city limits will have a slightly higher cost to get in, as they are not paying property tax.

As I have said, a rec center WILL happen. Pay now, or pay later.

Another thing to consider, if this doesn't pass, the project could very well go back to the Curci-Turner site, as that is 33 acres of city-owned property. I would think every homeowner in that neighborhood would have a yard sign in their yard, and be fully in support of the Tennis Bubble site. Don't you?

In closing, how about we all meet at Centennial Hall one night and battle it out in a vat of jello?

Slap on a Speedo, Mr. Turner, and have some fun with the rest of us!

Also, one of our Letters to the Editor also disclosed this fact but the paper didn't choose to run this one.

There was organized neighborhood opposition to the Curci-Turner site, which many still feel is perfect.

If the Curci Turner neighbors were smart, every one of them would have a yard sign out in their yard right now, and get this thing passed."

.....WOW BoulderGRAD, seems you're not above naming names on this anonymous forum when it suits you?

If YOU were smart YOU would not have to resort to threats and lies to get what YOU want. YOU would go do the real work and achieve a solution honestly that the community wants and REALLY do some community building at the same time. And not take advantage of any more taxpayer dollars. Enough. Not like you weren't told that along the way. I hope the right people can still make it happen.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.