Steamboat 700 Principal and Project Manager Danny Mulcahy addresses members of the Steamboat Springs City Council on Tuesday night after the council voted 4-3 to approve the annexation of the project west of the city.

Photo by Matt Stensland

Steamboat 700 Principal and Project Manager Danny Mulcahy addresses members of the Steamboat Springs City Council on Tuesday night after the council voted 4-3 to approve the annexation of the project west of the city.

Council annexes Steamboat 700

Possibility of referendum election still looms

Advertisement

Video

700 approved

Steamboat 700 Principal and Project Manager Danny Mulcahy talks about Tuesday night's vote by city council.

Steamboat 700 Principal and Project Manager Danny Mulcahy talks about Tuesday night's vote by city council.

— The Steamboat Springs City Council voted 4-3 late Tuesday night to approve the annexation of Steamboat 700, a project that ultimately is expected to bring about 2,000 homes, 380,000 square feet of commercial space and 4,700 residents to the western edge of the city.

For a city with a population of about 12,000 residents, Steamboat 700 is the most substantial annexation since the Mount Werner ski resort area was folded into city limits decades ago. Councilman Scott Myller, who seconded Councilman Jon Quinn's motion to approve the annexation, said the master-planned community gives the city a place to grow in a smart way.

"I think that's what makes this community special," Myller said. "We have not been hemmed in and gone the way of Aspen or Vail. I think this is a better way to annex."

Council President Loui Antonucci and Councilman Walter Magill joined Quinn and Myller in support of the annexation. Council members Steve Ivancie, Meg Bentley and Cari Hermacinski voted against it. Bentley and Ivancie failed in an attempt to voluntarily put the annexation to a citywide vote in a motion that was voted down, 2-5.

Hermacinski said she doesn't think the annexation can fulfill all the goals of the city's West of Steamboat Springs Area Plan.

"This is a big step forward," Steamboat 700 Principal and Project Manager Danny Mulcahy said after the meeting. "It's the culmination of 15 years worth of public process. ... I'm excited about moving forward. This is actually just the first step in a process that will take 20 or more years."

Build-out of the project is expected to take a minimum of 20 to 30 years. The greatest hope for Steamboat 700 is that it will provide a stock of housing to alleviate Steamboat's high housing costs and give working-class residents better opportunities to live and work in the city rather than commute from outlying areas such as Stagecoach and Hayden. The attainability of housing for Steamboat's work force was the most discussed issue during council's deliberation of the annexation proposal Tuesday.

Steamboat 700's community housing plan includes a 15-acre land dedication to the city. In tandem with the proceeds of a 0.5 percent real estate transfer tax within the development, the city will use the land to develop affordable, deed-restricted housing aimed at making 20 percent of the development permanently affordable to residents earning an average of 80 percent of the area median income.

Some council members also were concerned about whether the remaining housing in the development would be attainable for local residents, given the magnitude of infrastructure costs required in the annexation agreement. General language was crafted requiring Steamboat 700 to price a minimum of 30 percent of its homes at prices affordable to residents earning from 120 to 200 percent of the AMI. The details of the proposal, including a target average AMI, will be determined at a future date.

Some pushed for a stronger requirement that the homes be sold only to people who live or work in Routt County, but the majority of council members and the developer did not want to put deed restrictions on homes other than the subsidized units. The plan discussed Tuesday restricts pricing only, and there would be no need to qualify buyers.

During public comment at a packed Centennial Hall, nine people spoke in favor of the project, two opposed it and a few others asked questions or suggested improvements.

Supporters said Steamboat 700 was an unmatched opportunity to give the city a place to grow and a partnership to help the city pay for several improvements such as a new school, a public safety building, parks, trails, improvements to U.S. Highway 40 and retail offerings and other services that would negate the need for west-side residents to travel as often through downtown.

"Steamboat 700 may not be a perfect plan," resident Jim Gill said. "But a really, really good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow. If you wait for a perfect plan, it may never hit the table."

Others said the annexation remains too flawed and hoped it would more specifically address issues such as water and sewer needs and traffic issues downtown.

"It's got too many big holes that haven't been solved," resident Bill Jameson said.

Despite council's approval, Steamboat 700 is not yet a done deal. City residents still have the opportunity to gather enough signatures to initiate the city's referendum process. Visit this story on www.steamboatpilot.com to download a memorandum written by City Attorney Tony Lettunich that describes the referendum process.

Mulcahy said he knows a referendum election is a possibility. He said it would be a shame that only city residents would have an opportunity to vote.

"This is a decision for the Yampa Valley," he said.

- To reach Brandon Gee, call 367-7507

or e-mail bgee@steamboatpilot.com

Comments

danny 5 years ago

We would like to thank the participants of the community planning efforts over the last 15 years, and all of the local supporters of this project, including the Yampa Valley Medical Center, Yampa Valley Housing Authority, County Commissioners, City Planning Commissioners, City Staff, City Council, YVEA, Steamboat Pilot Editorial Board, and countless others.

If anyone has questions or needs more information please feel free to contact me via email at dmulcahy@steamboat700.com, my office 870-0244, or my cell 846-2192.

0

George Danellis 5 years ago

Thanks, Steamboat Today, for quickly publishing this online. nice job.

0

robert nestora 5 years ago

now that the votes are in, you still have a voice create and support boycotts of the businesses of the council members who voted against what you feel. you dont have to feel you are silent express yourself. boycotts can be powerful.

0

grundy 5 years ago

Am I understanding this correctly? It appears a referendum option cannot be exercised without a vote by city council to initiate the process. So, the same 4 people who voted for 700 can control whether a petition for a people's vote has any binding power?

0

space 5 years ago

Bring on the Referendum! I'm ready to vote no, in fact, let's vote the West area Steamboat plan that we the people were not consulted.

0

housepoor 5 years ago

when do presales start? lets gets these babys on the MLS!!!

0

AGM 5 years ago

To those opposed to this. I have some questions: You realize we - as a community have designated 1100 acres to be annexed into Steamboat - denying this will eliminate 45% of that land. This will in turn bring us right in line with Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley or the growth down valley from Vail. Yes, all growth will take place in craig, hayden, stagecoach and throughout the rest of the county. most mountain communities would kill for this problem - we have open, undeveloped land adjacent to our city.

So, I'm confused.

Do you not believe routt county will grow in the future?

or

Do you believe you'd rather us look like aspen and vail?

I'd love to hear some sincere answers and not quick glib remarks.

thanks

0

housepoor 5 years ago

Yes we will grow but just not at the rate they used to justify this annexation. Why not wait until the 2010 census data comes out to give us better numbers?

0

cindy constantine 5 years ago

AGM You must remember that we do not have a sustainable economic community at this time. The trend for the skiing industry is flat to down. Where will it be in 10 to 20 years? Do you see new business or light industry coming to this valley? Do you realize how much housing inventory is on the market now? At a lot less expense than what will be available in 700 I might add. Have you talked with Jeanne Whiddon about foreclosure trends? Do you realize that 2 of our major employers are now owned by out of state corporations? Can we count on them being here 5 to 10 years out? Have you studied the demographic trends and the aging boomers? How many of us want to continue to deal with the snow in our 60S and 70's and 80's? How much more housing inventory will continue to come on line within the existing city limits over the nex 10 years? Attainable housing for our current work force is $30,000 to $40,000 for seasonal jobs and $135,000 to $150,000 for our nurses, city workers, teachers, bank employees, etc. Have you followed qualifying requirements now for new mortgages? Did you see that price range of housing anywhere in the plan? Shall I continue with my concerns or have I blathered on long enough?

0

Marian Marti 5 years ago

Cindy - Where on earth did you get the idea that teachers here make that much money? I'm positive they would enjoy earning that much, but you are no where in the ballpark of their salary and I have personal experience as I am recently retired from this district and my top salary was far shorter than even half of the lowest wage you listed and the figure was closer to 1/3 of the lowest you list. And do you really believe that the majority of bank workers make that much money here? Tellers probably average aournd $12 per hour.

0

boater1 5 years ago

romaney, reread the comment.
cindy was not saying they make that much but rather they qualify for that much mortgage. not sure how accurte that is.

0

freerider 5 years ago

Danny Boy it's a little too soon to be celebrating. The ball isn't in the end zone yet. I'd say more like at the fifty yard line and your about to fumble. Any bets on a petition getting enough signatures to put this to a vote ?? That should take about 2 hours . The vote is what's going to be interesting. If the people of Steamboat approve this then it's legit ....otherwise this goes down as the biggest lube job in Steamboat history...I bet Danny Boy won't have that smerk on his face next time if the voters shut this down

0

bigfatdog 5 years ago

Any VOTE better be county wide and not just the city. This impacts the county, which includes Steamboat II and Heritage. All the negative naysayers will then realize the level of support this annexation has. Don't be fooled by the few outspoken ones. The annexation is a DONE DEAl and a much needed one! It will be interesting to see what & when the market drives the actual building but don't be fooled this annexation is in!

0

1999 5 years ago

whats wrong with aspen and vail?

seriously... i hear people say this all the time.

I'd rather look like aspen that silverthorn.

0

1999 5 years ago

also...why not allow 200 homes now and work out the kinks with that number...OH I FORGOT.......Danny then would not be able to sell the project.

Poor Poor Danny.....

0

housepoor 5 years ago

so what is a buildable lot in 700 is worth in today's market? lets say they release 50 at time

0

Mary Stanton 5 years ago

I would just like to say SHAME on Towny Anderson last night for sinking so low as to not only pull at the raw emotional heartstrings of the recent death of Brady Meier as a speaking point when he got up to speak against the annexation last night but to inaccurately portray that Brady would not have wanted the annexation when he was absolutely for it is inexcusable and pathetic.

How Dare you, Towny! How low will you go?

Not to mention that you have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA of who or what the working class in this town is. It's good that everyone is thinking about the nurses, city workers, teachers, etc, but are we forgetting about all of those restaurant workers who work two to three jobs just to make ends meet and the local construction workers (not the owners, the laborers) and how about the administrative staff of any one of the thousands of real estate offices, attorneys and/or title companies, the county administrative staff (including emergency responders) who just had their pay cut?

Yes, there is need for 2 and three bedroom affordable housing for the small families that are starting out but there is certainly still the need for affordable apartments and townhouses.

0

Mary Stanton 5 years ago

Boater1

Lets hope if they qualify for that much then they make enough to afford that much. If it had been that way all along, the economy might not be where it's at today.

0

ElevenFootPole 5 years ago

Shut this down in referendum. This resort town really only needs 5 star hotels, resort style condos and trophy homes masquerading as old west ranches. We obviously want only the image of a town, not a real town. So shut it down, and quit freaking pretending you want community character & affordable housing. What we want is money to come to this town and fix it all up like a movie set so we all feel like we've made it big - part of the elite. Shuttle our people-props in from shanty town before the sun comes up then shuttle 'em back out when we turn the lights off. We want to be Somebody and the only way to be Somebody is to get rid of the Nobodies. Good job Cari. Vote in favor of piling a ton of costs on new non-elitist middle-class development so you can then deny it on the grounds that it's now too expensive to target the middle-class market. What a strategy.

0

howard_roark 5 years ago

11FootPole - Spectacular! You hit the nail on the head. The naysayers have nothing to lose but a facade.

0

AGM 5 years ago

Cindy,

Please attempt to look out past the next 3 days. How many people had your same attitude in the early 80's?? Not a chance a place like Steamboat would grow again. Foreclosure city - no one moving here and no one with a job. Gosh.....a miracle.....we grew since then. How could that happen?

We are in the same situation today - sure things looks terrible in the short term. But this isn't a short term solution - this is a LONG term solution.

Cindy - what is your real fear? Be honest. Is it that you are scared your home is going to go down in value? Is it that you'd like to close the gate on the top of Rabbit Ears and not let anyone else in because it will change the community that YOU moved into once upon a time.

Stop making up silly arguments and be honest about what it is that is getting to you.

If it really is today's tough economic times, I feel for you. We are all hurting, but being that short sighted is truly a big problem.

0

ElevenFootPole 5 years ago

btw, SteamboatRealityCheck - nice call out on Towny.

0

AGM 5 years ago

My next question for all of the "we need a public vote" cheerleaders.

Would you be demanding this public vote if the city council denied the annexation?

Love to read these answers......

0

boater1 5 years ago

i support this project and those 4 members who voted for it. like it has been said, wait for the perfect deal and you'll wait the rest of your life. it's an illusion. anyone would be follish to think that something greater is round the corner. this is as good as it's gonna get.

as for the naysayers. -times will get better. they always do. -more people will move here. the country/world is growing and this is an extremely great place to live. it's not for everyone but it will be for alot more people in the future. -as for job creation: what about all those unemployed construction men who live here??? last i looked there are ALOT of them & alot of them are struggling. this would provide a steady base of work for years to come.

0

boater1 5 years ago

Steamboatrealitycheck, of course. the new loan system demands that. the wild west days of mortages are gone.

0

maggie 5 years ago

You want to know what scary is - that Towny was on our city council - yiles this guy needs to go back to the backwoods of Vermont!

0

mavis 5 years ago

all of you people celebrating better be focusing on what you are going to support and create for the traffic problem downtown because with this growth the "construction" delays are going to be the new everyday reality which is not exactly going to promote people wanting to move here or build there. (if they can afford it)

0

steamboatparent 5 years ago

How does one sign the petition to get this on the ballot? Currently one city council vote is what is deciding this issue. Let's bring it before the people. Do you like the construction traffic lately coming and going to the west? That's just a sample of what we'd live with if 700 passes. Let's keep the dollars local and grow as needed. I am fine with neighborhoods of 50 to 100 homes as needed. But currently there are seven years worth of homes on the market already. Let's slow down. We do not need 2000 additional homes to the west. And that does not account for the legal in-law units allowed.

0

Scott Wedel 5 years ago

Read the WSSAP. No where does it say or suggest that the entire area covered by the plan is to be annexed all at once. It defies common sense to annex today what is not planned to be developed for 20-30 years. So when the annexation agreement is shown to have portions that do not work as planned, instead of fixing it for the next 1900 homes we are now stuck with the mistakes for the next 1900 homes for the next 30 years.

I think approving 100 homes under the current agreement would have been a good first annexation. But to expect nothing will be learned that will need to be improved in subsequent annexations is going to create huge problems in the future.

0

AGM 5 years ago

Scott,

In reading the WSSAP numerous times your comment strikes me as very superficial. The WSSAP was adopted 14 years ago and not 1 acre of land has been annexed under this plan since. Not 1!

So of the 1100 acres to be annexed not one was annexed in 14 years. I'm not real good with math, but that's an average of 0 acres per year.

so, if you annex 489 acres now, that works out to be about 33 acres per year. Oh my god....slow down this crazy growth - a whole 33 acres per year - this is out of control!!!!

Although the annexation is for 489 acres, it will be built and approved in phases - each phase will take tons of planning and scrutiny from staff, planning commission and city council. This call for phased annexation is ignorant. Not one lender in the world would provide financing for phased annexation. It is an unrealistic scholastic argument. Sure it sounds wonderful on paper, but it makes no sense and has no practicality.

0

JusWondering 5 years ago

Look at Central City... it took them what, 5 years to build a bypass on I-70?

0

JusWondering 5 years ago

Bottom line... unless there is a market there will be no homes built. Look at Stagecoach. That was developed in the 1970's; few houses until recent years (look at all of the fire hydrants in the middle of the forest and meadow). Just because a plat is laid out and infrastructure is developed it does not mean that 2,000 new homes will pop up out of the ground overnight.

Danny, et al are not doing this out of the kindness of their hearts. If they can't make a profit at it I doubt they will grade even one street.

Annexation does not equal traffic, homes, or growth! It equals future planning. Bring on the vote. Those with a vision toward the future will STILL support this. It is good for the long-term health of the town. Oh yeah, and by the way, given this is likely a 20 - 30 year growth plan (10 years at a minimum) doesn't that provide the city time to resolve the downtown traffic issue BEFORE it becomes the Armageddon that the chest beaters are proclaiming.

If it were me I would be asking the City where the plan is for the bypass and whether or not they have begun acquiring land.

My two cents.

0

Karen_Dixon 5 years ago

The question of attainability was identified as the biggest hurdle for 700 coming into Tuesday's hearing.... However, I doubt it was that big of a hurdle. I suspect that they have recognized throughout this process that NOT being able to offer attainable pricing would be their own proforma buster, as the market in that location will only support homes up to a certain price threshold one that will always be lower than that of Old Town and the Mountain. Once the costs pushed the necessary sales prices past that threshold, the project would be a bust a non-starter. (unless, of course, supply is controlled & limited so that it never satisfies demand another discussion.)

The call from the public to put it in writing was appropriate & CC's demand for it was judicious. In concept, this program, as brought forward and massaged Tuesday night, is truly - dare I say it - brilliant. Here is why I believe this:

  1. It is a free market approach - no deed restrictions. It does not create overly burdensome bureaucracy & administration.
  2. 30% (which is significant) of a variety of product types is guaranteed to be offered at a price point that certain income levels are able to purchase - those that make too much money to qualify for the subsidized program, but not enough to afford market rate homes in other locations in the city.
  3. This 30% acts as a stabilizer for 100% of similar product types. Why the heck would I buy a home offered at $500k when I can get a very similar one right next door for $300k?
  4. It is a huge disincentive for flippers. If Cari buys 5 units @ the attainable rate and holds onto them for 3 years (to avoid anti-speculation penalties) then puts them on the market @ an inflated price she will likely have a hard time selling them. She will be forced to offer them at a price point that competes with the next set of homes coming on line at that time - of which similar products to hers are required to have attainable pricing. If the next set of homes isn't coming on line, it's likely because the demand isn't there, in which case, she has no market to sell her 5 units to either. This is not a good risk for a savvy flipper.
  5. It will keep the land value on the entitled raw land from escalating. Developer B, purchasing a large tract to subdivide will know within reason what his sales prices will have to be to meet this program requirement. He will pay for the value that the entitlement has added, but he will likely not OVERpay for it. Knowing his sales prices are controlled, he'll easily back into an appropriate purchase price for the raw land.
  6. The pricing structure is always tied to our Area Median Income, whatever that is in any given year hence it is always addressing the needs of the community.

For an optimist, god is in the details. For a pessimist, the devil is in the details. Over the next few months as this program is developed, I will be looking for god. I hope I don't find the devil.

0

grundy 5 years ago

AGM & friends, why are you so opposed to a vote? Of the 4 council members who voted for this, one's a surveyor, one's a real estate broker, and one's an architect. Makes me wonder how you make your money. Would you actually argue that developers and businesses don't have disproportional representation? If your arguments and viewpoints are so unassailable, you'll win the vote and the community as a whole will recognize the legitimacy of the decision. That's what the referendum is for.

0

mtroach 5 years ago

We don't need a referendum, we need voters with foresight to elect reps to government that represent the citizens who put them into office.

That's why we vote in representatives to City Council, so that we would not have to vote personally on every issue. If you didn't do your homework, and voted in the wrong rep. Who's fault is that? If you are not being well represented by your current councilmember vote him/her out, and run yourself. If your views are supported by the majority, things will go your way, if not, be aware that the majority rules and take the decision of the majority and do what you can with it knowing that your opionion is the minority and that consessions in your ideas must be made to the majority for everyone to move foreward.

0

AGM 5 years ago

I agree with mtroach.

In addition, this plan has been in the works for over 15 years. In 1995, the first WSSAP was adopted. It laid out annexing specific land. It has been modified along the way, but mainly to make it a workable plan.

This isn't a new concept. Vision 2020 was very clear about this desire of our community. Vision 2030 echoed that same feeling. The action of modifying the WSSAP many times also reinforced that this is the direction of our community.

Our community has "voted" many times on this issue. We elect officials to represent the people. The people created the plans and the officials have put in countless hours from staff to planning commission to city council to city consultants to make a workable plan.

Our community studies and studies everything. We measure everything. What we fail to do is execute on a number of these studies or ignore their findings because we know we are "right" and these community based measurements just don't matter. It drives me crazy.

Please someone explain to me why on earth we need a vote after all of this energy and planning has gone into this.

I completely understand the need for a vote for some short term item that came up, but folks.....this has been in the works for decades now.

I still have yet to see one person stand up and say before the city council decision was made that a vote was necessary regardless of the city council decision. Those threatening a vote were opposed to SB700. But that voice never said "let's have a vote regardless of city council's decision." I think that is hypocrisy.

0

Steve Lewis 5 years ago

I'm on record for months now as neutral about the ballot petition. Still am. If the petition succeeds to reach a ballot, I find no ground to criticize the voters for expressing their will and their right. Similarly, if an individual wants this on a ballot they deserve a clear path, free from pressure against voicing that right.

Yes, AGM, there were folks who suggested a ballot on the annexation before the final CC vote. You can't, and shouldn't, distill this petition into something unfair, in my opinion.

0

Steve Lewis 5 years ago

I have also been on record for months posing many comments on what we needed in the annexation, and what was missing. I've attended and commented at lots of public meetings. I wonder if I spent more time on this than Karen in her PC role. We're probably close.

My focus throughout has been this annexation's delivery of affordable and attainable housing. I've been a pain in SB700's side from day one on this, so it seems only fair to write and express appreciation for the final product in this area affordable and attainable housing. It is greatly improved, even greatly improved from what was presented two weeks earlier.

0

space 5 years ago

We need a referendum vote as well on WSSAP. Would the "people" approve that too if they had been asked to vote on that?

0

pitpoodle 5 years ago

Investigative Research?

In an email to the Pilot and Today from Cari Hermacinski on October 11, I learned that she asked the Pilot to "do some good journalistic work" meaning she asked them to go after Kevin Bennett. They did.

Her email states, "Not only is it hard for me to respond to all of Kevin's ads; I want to keep focused on my positive message. I believe that the media has some responsibility for fact checking and digging into a candidate with such an extensive record." To do her dirty work, she goes on to suggest what the Pilot should investigate. They followed up with an article that tried to repudiate his statements by using innuendo and less than accurate "facts".

The newspaper's job is not to go after a candidate at an opponent's request.

Their job, not done at this writing, should be to investigate City staff claims that there is enough water in Fish Creek Reservoir for a huge annexation.

So far the paper has taken at face value the claims of so-called City "experts" who think it is okay to allocate 45% of the city's water reserves for the new development. The City owns a finite amount of water for municipal use and needed reserves. The Pilot doesn't seem to understand that water rights do not necessarily translate into actual water for the City without huge costs to current residents.

The Pilot's job is to investigate why City Council voted for the annexation without a report that tells how much new water filtration and waste water treatment plants will cost existing residents. Find out why SB 700 has committed about $1 million dollars toward "firming up" water rights but apparently not obligated to pay for the systems that will be needed to use that water (except within SB 700), if it ever becomes available.

The Pilot should not be an arm of the City Council. Residents deserve to have a newspaper that gives them independent, accurate information not a regurgitation of what the City wants residents to know, or to kowtow to a candidate for City Council.

0

aichempty 5 years ago

They tried to sell a bunch of lots in Hayden yesterday, and had very poor results.

So much for the demand for "affordable" housing . . . .

0

Karen_Dixon 5 years ago

To Loretta Van Norstrand; aka pitpoodle

I agree with you on the following statements contained in your message: 1) "The newspaper's job is not to go after a candidate at an opponent's request."...... Indeed, it is a shame that it took that in order for good journalistic work to be done. 2) "Residents deserve to have a newspaper that gives them independent, accurate information".... I hope the SP&T takes that criticism to heart, as the people of this community deserve better from their primary source of information.

The rest of your message is rhetoric, implying that investigative journalism would indeed divulge the conclusions you yourself are pushing from an anti-growth platform.

Knock yourself out holding the Pilot & Today accountable for good investigative research. But don't be so upset when it reveals something other than what you expected.

0

pitpoodle 5 years ago

Investigative Research Take Two.

In an email to the Pilot and Today from Cari Hermacinski on October 11, she asked the Pilot to "do some good journalistic work" meaning she asked them to go after Kevin Bennett. They did, in an article a few days later.

Brandon Gee of the Pilot admits they received the e-mail with her suggestions to go after her opponent, apparently he sees nothing wrong with doing her dirty work so she can keep her campaign "positive".

He tried to cover his tracks by saying "it's one of our news-gathering methods." Yeah. Right. I'm not buying it, Brandon.

All in all, this defines exactly the meaning of doing a city council candidate's bidding. Again, a newspaper's job is not to go after a candidate at an opponent's request. But, there is more to it than just this.

Hermacinski's email tells us a lot about the Pilot & Today newspaper and it tells us even more about her ethics. She talks about being transparent but her actions are far removed from her public statements. One more thing, she's used the oldest trick in politics. After being a proponent of SB 700 for months, she was assured that the annexation had enough votes on City Council to pass which allowed her to vote no. Her tactics are underhanded and not the actions of someone who claims she wants openness and honesty.

Regarding the water issue, I agree that the City has enough current water ownership in Fish Creek Reservoir to sustain itself now and to sustain future growth within the City. It's our water reserves that are at risk. Reserves need to be kept for emergencies not to go toward west of Steamboat growth for the benefit of out-of-town developers. Water rights are not the same as actual water but, if developed, could provide water for SB 700. Here's the problem, we do not know how much water rights development will cost nor how much current residents will pay. Logic tells us, the less than $1 million from SB 700 is inadequate.

Brandon asked what I would have the Pilot do differently? The Pilot can start with this.
Instead of investigating Kevin Bennett's traffic counts, the Pilot & Today should find out how much current residents will be expected to pay for new water filtration and waste water treatment expansions for this huge annexation. And, why City Council voted to approve the SB 700 annexation without a critical water & sewer rate study that would have spelled out current residents' financial liability.

This is the kind of investigative research that a real newspaper does.

0

AGM 5 years ago

Why is this so complicated to you, PitPoodle?

A guy makes really brash accusations. Someone questions those accusations and does some research and presents a fact check.

You are so biased you can't see the forest through the trees.

He's the only candidate out there pointing fingers and making brash comments. Maybe we should just give him a free pass - would that be acceptable to you?

Please tell all of us how the Brown water agreement reads - if you want to do some real investigative research - or perhaps some true transparency. Oops....we shouldn't bring up that word transparency as one who has executive sessions in 67% of his meetings might have a tough time keeping a straight face with that discussion.

Your rants are falling on deaf ears. Please stop pointing fingers and present some facts and you'll have the potential of having an audience that might listen.

It is the Pilot's fault It is Cari's fault It is Brandon's fault.

Victim....victim....victim.

I feel sorry for you.

0

steamboatbusiness 5 years ago

I am so happy personally that Council voted in favor of the Annexation. I moved to Steamboat from a very long way, and have lived here 10 years so far. I am glad I now have the opportunity to live in new construction affordable and attainable housing. I can't wait for them to be offered on the market, and I know a lot of my friends in town are also chomping at the bit to get on lists for first offers to buy attainable and affordable housing, and they likely won't get on the market quick enough to match the demand. Good job council, for looking after our future, and believing in the competency of future councils to ensure that the people of Steamboat have OPPORTUNITY that no longer exists in other Colorado resort towns. I thank you.

0

housepoor 5 years ago

steamboatbusiness, are you being sarcastic? i hope so LOL what is affordable? there are already plenty of choices in town for under 500K and low end condos are listed at 06 prices and there a hundreds to choose from. If you think your going to get a single fam for 300K in Steamboat 700 you are dreaming

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.