Lyman Orton: A letter to the City Council

— I am disappointed that you resist matching funds raised by Howelsen Emerald Mountain Park for development of Emerald Mountain Park. I assume you understand that provision in the agreement does not legally bind the city to allocate matching funds in future years. It will, instead, be up to the City Council each year to vote to match H.E.M.P.-raised funds.

This raises the question: Why include the provision in the first place?

As the community’s leaders, your commitment to consider matching community support during the ensuing five years is critical to H.E.M.P.’s ability to raise funds. Emerald Mountain is a sacred place to my fellow residents, a place that is so special that its future must not be left to chance.

The vision for Emerald Mountain is for a year-round park that is accessible to all residents. Many people have told me they believe Emerald Mountain is the most frequented place of nature in town. It draws people. That’s what special places do.

However, no matter that draw, if you are physically unable to get up — or down — you cannot currently experience Emerald Mountain. The vision for Emerald Mountain Park opens that opportunity to residents of all ages and capabilities.

Were it not for the prospect of Great Outdoors Colorado providing $600,000 — but only for a short window — we might go about this differently. We could put the challenge to the community to raise funds, then come to the council; proof of widespread community support.

But it would be a shame to lose those GOCo funds, which will happen if you don’t do the deal now. That’s why I propose to sell the land at $750,000 less than the appraised value, but on the condition that the council demonstrates its moral commitment to the vision. I am willing to forgo that money, but I want it to be used to making the vision a reality.

My position is that although you won’t be legally bound to match funds in the future, you will have to grapple with how you respond to a clear indication from the community that it supports the vision by pulling out its wallet, something that I think will happen.

If you remove the matching provision from the agreement, it sends a negative signal to the community and significantly reduces the incentive for the community to give.

Indeed, the financial condition of the city is difficult. But Emerald Mountain is a forever investment in the quality of life of Steamboat Springs, and the opportunity is now. My motivation to do this deal is now. The community and I need to see that you are sufficiently motivated to fully participate to make the deal happen.

Please reconsider your position and lead the community toward this vision as only you, our elected representatives, can do.

Comments

Dennis O'Connor 2 years, 7 months ago

The overwhelming tone of desperation of this letter, should be a concern to the 'investors' or residents set up to purchase this property. To what extend should the seller of real property to a public entity be in such control of the future of that property with the seller's own 'vision'? Shouldn't that right be the benefit of a straight out donation of land and completed facilities?

0

jk 2 years, 7 months ago

Lymon throws down the gauntlet! Phillanthropist? I think not!!!!

0

mtroach 2 years, 7 months ago

I would like more understanding of the motivation to do this deal now. I have enjoyed this property for years and have respect for the vision for this property, but more and more it seems like the worst timing for this deal because of the economic problems the city faces. Without the GoCo grant there is no deal, but what lies in store for the property if the city cannot adfford to purchase now? Why Can't the vision for the property move ahead without city ownership?

I would like more than anything to see this deal happen but not at the expense of needed city services or other more nessary capitol improvments.

0

Steve Lewis 2 years, 7 months ago

I found Lyman's letter informative on a crucial point. His proposal gave council an annual option to NOT match funds. I don't recall reading that in the Pilot coverage to date,

On the contrary, last Tuesday's story said, "City Council’s vote authorized the spending of $5,000 for an environmental impact study required by GOCo, but only if Orton agrees to revise the contract and remove the city’s obligation to contribute as much as $150,000 annually for the next five years to help implement recreational and community-oriented visions for the land."

Replace "obligation" in that quote with the correct word "option", and the city's requirement to remove that clause is much harder to understand. If I were in Lyman's shoes, I would correct the record as he has.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.