Home

JustAsking (anonymous) says...

Has anybody done the math on this one?

What is it really costing to house the city employees?

Wouldn't it be far more cost effective to just pay the employees a housing stipend?

Let's see: management costs, repairs, cash flow.

Donna, are you listening?

June 4, 2008 at 5:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

mountaingirl33 (anonymous) says...

just asking-

Yes obviously the numbers have been looked at here; after all they did hire a management company to run what many in town said the city could not. Besides we don't know the details of the management agreement.

As someone in the business of managing properties I can say that it would most likely be in the city's best interest to hand the day to day management over to professionals.

By the way- have you looked at the cost of renting lately? In a market where you are lucky to find something affordable, or to find something at all; the city is doing what every other large employer is doing in Steamboat- Providing housing options for much needed employees who might otherwise not take the job because they have nowhere to live, or because the cost is more than what they can afford.

June 4, 2008 at 7:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

thecondoguy1 (anonymous) says...

sorry mtgirl, I am a property manager as well, this whole thing does not add up.
See id's post at the housing czar story, this is a real mess on standby ready to get worse.................................

June 4, 2008 at 8:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

JustAsking (anonymous) says...

Woodsman, keep in mind that investors get Market rates for their property-not the case here and that the IH will require EXTENSIVE repair and probably rebuilding and upkeep over the next 20 years. Plumbing, electrical, roofs, windows, heating and cooling, paving, etc. Operating cost will just SOAR for this type of property.

Had a real investor purchased it would have been raised and something built that would create a return on investment in 8 years or less. The city is in no position to do this as evidenced by the reluctance to remodel at 1.5 million. (Good move since this would have put more good money into a bad deal.)

We KNOW there will be very high costs associated with this property but it's value at some future point is a question.

Chances are we are just talking land value vs sunk costs over the years. We can speculate that it could have a good outcome but the fact remains this is a VERY expensive way to house a few city employees.

The crime here is that the city is spending this kind of money over a L O N G period to house a few people. Just think of the projects and programs that would benefit a much larger group of locals if the money dedicated to this fiasco were put to better use.

Consider that the city could find much nicer accomidations for the few employees being housed at far less cost and far less risk.

June 5, 2008 at 8:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

colobob (anonymous) says...

All we need now is the company store!
A little cynical this morning, too little sleep, not enough coffee! Still a bad venture and just another thought, how will the tennants be chosen and by who? Wink, Wink! If you get my drift.

June 5, 2008 at 9:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

thecondoguy1 (anonymous) says...

depreciating...........

June 5, 2008 at 11:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

JustAsking (anonymous) says...

Yes,mountaingirl33, we are all aware of the cost of renting. The question is what are the real costs of the city buying a property to house city employees vs. paying a differential to let them live wherever they like.

I disagree that "the numbers have been obviously looked at." Yes, you are correct (and you agree from your comment) that they have FINALLY (it did take a while didn't it?) figured out that the private sector can do the job of managing cheaper than the city, but that is not the question.

The question is: Who did the math on the WHOLE cost of the city owning this property? The original question still stands: wouldn't have cost FAR less to give the employees a housing allowance than to own this property?

Remember mountaingirl33 that maintaining and upgrading and lost tax revenues are all costs to say nothing of the millions paid to buy it.

Yes, the city has figured out it is cheaper for private business rather than the city to manage the property.

What the dirty little secret they are keeping is that is would cost far less for private business to own it also.

Let me ask you: If you were a prospective city employee would you rather be forced to live at the Iron Horse or be given housing allowance $$$ to live wherever and with whoever you would like?

What continues to amaze me is that apparently no one associated with the "affordable housing" movement does basic business math and economics. I guess they side stepped the subject in school and graduated by focusing on social studies or philosophy or "journalism" (notice how the Pilot writers NEVER dig into the numbers?) because IF they did have a Math and Econ education they would have figured out they had no business buying this property let alone managing it!

June 4, 2008 at 8:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

justathought (anonymous) says...

JustAsking, The government has no business doing half of what they do, they were elected to govern, not come up with their perceived solutions to cure all social ills at taxpayer expense. What's next, gas is too costly for employees to drive from the city owned housing so the city should buy a gas station, give them discounted gas at taxpayers expense? Hey food is on the rise, maybe they can buy a grocery store after the gas station! Just send the employees a welfare check on top of their paycheck, let them make their own living arrangements because either way the taxpayer is getting screwed and someone ought to be happy.

June 4, 2008 at 9:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

colobob (anonymous) says...

Don't forget the cost of Asbestos removal.

June 5, 2008 at 9:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

skitownpuppet (anonymous) says...

The City has no business owning or running a employee housing hostel. The place is a hole, needs repair and is not "affordable" by any means. Vacancy ran in the 60 plus % range April and MAy.
Rates are $50 per night or $45 per night and the big break is a tax free if you pay in advance and in full. Since when is $1,500 month affordable for a hotel room? Why not let peaople who really pay and treat the place with respect be there and have the people taking advantage of our mistake rent "real" property.
The City is all screwed up right now. How about making a real bike path by Staples since the thing is closed all summer because of a piss poor design, how about cleaning up little toots park and putting in an actual restroom instead of the nasty port a potty, how about scraping the grounds at a number of parks and putting in sod and raking leaves and dirt, how about fixing up the rodeo grounds that are the single largest attraction on a weekly basis for our town, etc, etc. Can we focus on real issues that actually speak to the people paying taxes in our town or are we going to continue to focus on the employee housing that is an issue people coming here need to face.
I was never subsidized, I didn't get down payment assistance and daddy didn't leave me a trust fund. Employers need to pay for employees and professionals need to manage the Iron Horse. The town needs to sell it for a loss if necessary and get back to runnning our town into the ground just a little bit more than they already have done.
Quality of life is what I pay taxes for in Steamboat not to subsidize affordable housing for transient workers chasing the dime. The true need for affordable housing is for 25% of the people who are coming here because the other 75% are project workers. Make St Cloud, Edgemont, One Steamboat Place and the others provide housing before the workers get to town not after the fact. Lets count the workers for Trailhead over the 2.5 years(87), Edgemont(60), Trappers Crossing(45), Ski Time Square and Thunderhead demo(30), St Cloud Resort and Spa(100), One Steamboat PLace(90). How many of these workers take inventory out of the housing pool? How many are staying at the Iron Horse? Pro active politics is what we need and unfortunately we are still dealing with the fall out from the previous City Council. I am just suprised the current City Council doesn't start holding Alan LAnning, PArks and Rec and many others accountable for the current state of affairs.
Goverment is another form of business but in a very archiac form. I am hopeful our new City Council, new City MAnager and others step up to the challenge of making Steamboat an example of what a town can become instead of trying to mimic the mstakes and actions of the Vails and Aspens of the world.
Step up to the challenge and focus on issues that mtter to all residents and oh yeah sell the stinking Iron Horse before you really lose money on it.

June 4, 2008 at 10:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

housebound (anonymous) says...

The city is now competeing in the apartment business. Will that encourage growth in that area ?

June 4, 2008 at 11:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

mountaingirl33 (anonymous) says...

While I certainly understand your point behind the politics of "the city's purchase of the Iron Horse"; we can't change what has already happened. Why not make the best of it?

How much do you think the employers should subsidize to each employee- and are you going to agree to a tax increase so they can be paid?

If the average hourly wage is $9 to $15- and the cost of an average 1 bedroom is $900 per month and does not include electricity (extra $60 to $100 per month). After gas, food and whatever else- there is not much month left at the end of the money.

If I were relocating to an area that lacked in "affordable housing options" and my employer offered me a place to live, even with roommates I would take it. It beats the alternative of being homeless or couch surfing (I've done both myself)-

Employers' offering this program in an area like Steamboat is the only option that makes sense right now.

Are any of you home owners willing to open a room in your home or a condo that you hardly use to these workers? At "less than market value"? I am talking like $300 to $500 per month. Most of the private home owners who rent their homes/condos out want as much as the market will allow in monthly rent- maybe you can convince them to take less money on a monthly basis so these people have more options.....

June 4, 2008 at 11:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

JustAsking (anonymous) says...

Mountaingirl33,

You just don't get it do you? WE ARE ALREADY PAYING BY THE CITY OWNING THE IRON HORSE. The point is not spending more but LESS.

Do you think the Iron horse is FREE? It costs money. Quite a LOT actually. All this talk about home owners renting out a room for $500 has NOTHING to do with this discussion.

What we are talking about is the LEAST expensive way for the city to offer housing options to employees.

Again I will ask you the question: If you were a prospective city employee would you rather be forced to live at the Iron Horse or be given housing allowance $$$ to live wherever and with whoever you would like?

Our point is it is BETTER for the employee and CHEAPER for the city to pay the allowance. Then you can go couch surf or rent a nice condo with a roommate. Your choice.

June 4, 2008 at 12:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

mountaingirl33 (anonymous) says...

How can it be cheaper for the employer (in this case the city) to pay an allowance for housing when they have a housing option that they Own?

I am not arguing about how much it costs the city to run the Iron Horse (as I stated in a previous post, we don't know the terms of the management contract) And I am aware of how much it costs to run a place like this-

And I think when it comes to the issue of "Affordable housing" we as a community should look at every option that could possibly be available- I can imagine this may have been one of the many reasons the city decided to invest in the Iron Horse in the first place. As was stated in the article they are not planning any major renovations at this time- so all us tax payers can breathe a sigh.

And I already answered your question- If I were in that situation where little was available in the rental market that I could afford, and my employer offered this option, I would take it.

All of my comments are a collection of things I have herd from employers, employees & home owners- And contrary to what you think- all of these things are important to those who are directly affected by the lack of affordable housing in this area.

June 4, 2008 at 1:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

SilverSpoon (anonymous) says...

Silly mountain girl, the city does not OWN iron horse. They owe 6 million on 20 year loan to certificate holders at 6+%. They used the 1.5 million of the tax payers dollars for the down payment. So, do the math, 7.5 million owed to the tax payers, $33,000 payment each month, down the drain for the next 20 years.

June 4, 2008 at 1:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

colowoodsman (anonymous) says...

The City is just the latest victim of it's own policies of supporting the tourism/ lodging industry. They are just beginning to realize what many other employers have known for a long time; workers cannot afford to live here at prevalent wages. Investors well know the value of City services and capital investments (ballfields, tennis courts etc.) that increase property values and make rental housing here a great investment. The great irony is that the more workers make Steamboat a great place to live, the harder it is for them to stay here. Capitalism will win everytime. As soon as renters start getting a little ahead the landlord raises the rent or turns their unit into a tourism rental.

June 4, 2008 at 1:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

JustAsking (anonymous) says...

SilverSpoon,

Unfortunately, Mountaingirl has LOTS of company that just doesn't understand that the 33 THOUSAND a month PLUS operating costs and "management" costs easily work out to over $4,000 per MONTH per housed (or should I say 'wharehoused") employee.

But then this is the same girl who would take a room at the Iron Horse over getting a housing allowance from her employer to live somewhere else with whoever she wants.

This goes a long way toward understanding why someone with a similar mindset isn't moving up. I guess those who prefer to be spoon fed can't understand what to do if you give them a fork.

As I said: MG33 has LOTS of company. Apparently the city council and the "affordable housing czars" either are ignorant of basic financial tools or just ignoring the obvious in order to keep their jobs.

June 4, 2008 at 3:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

mountaingirl33 (anonymous) says...

Just asking,

sorry for the delay in my response, I was in court geting a tenant evicted for not paying rent.

I was going to respond, but I have better things do do with my time-

June 4, 2008 at 8:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

colowoodsman (anonymous) says...

Even a dumb woodsman is smarter than some of you 'city slickers'. Despite the current drain on resources that will be offset by income from rentals, in the end the City will own the Iron Horse which by that time will be worth several TIMES what they paid for it. This is the same strategy used by investors everywhere and especially here in SS. It is the same strategy that keeps local workers out of the housing market.

June 4, 2008 at 8:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

btheball (anonymous) says...

what skitownpuppet said...

June 5, 2008 at 8:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

JustAsking (anonymous) says...

Woodsman, keep in mind that investors get Market rates for their property-not the case here and that the IH will require EXTENSIVE repair and probably rebuilding and upkeep over the next 20 years. Plumbing, electrical, roofs, windows, heating and cooling, paving, etc. Operating cost will just SOAR for this type of property.

Had a real investor purchased it would have been raised and something built that would create a return on investment in 8 years or less. The city is in no position to do this as evidenced by the reluctance to remodel at 1.5 million. (Good move since this would have put more good money into a bad deal.)

We KNOW there will be very high costs associated with this property but it's value at some future point is a question.

Chances are we are just talking land value vs sunk costs over the years. We can speculate that it could have a good outcome but the fact remains this is a VERY expensive way to house a few city employees.

The crime here is that the city is spending this kind of money over a L O N G period to house a few people. Just think of the projects and programs that would benefit a much larger group of locals if the money dedicated to this fiasco were put to better use.

Consider that the city could find much nicer accomidations for the few employees being housed at far less cost and far less risk.

June 5, 2008 at 8:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

thecondoguy1 (anonymous) says...

don't forget, bought this dump at the TOP of the market, lets face it we won't see a market like that for a while, nobody has copped to that yet, this is a depreciation asset at this time.........................

June 5, 2008 at 11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )