Jump to content
"Anne Small, the city's director of general services, warned the council that seating a vocal and outspoken citizen such as Wedel on the committee could "disrupt" the interview process."
Perfect ... based on the recent failures with the past several city managers I'd say some disruption of the typical process is in order.
Scott Wedel and I disagree on many things ... but disagreements can create great results if everyone involved can learn to listen as well as they speak. I think Scott should be given the chance to participate.
"If the parcel is annexed, the zoning would be determined at a later date."
To me that's the crux of the problem with this process, The developers have stated to me that they would prefer minimal density ... something transitional ... supported by a number of local property owners. The unknown development potential is a huge concern. The city staff and some on council seem to prefer maximum density ... like the transitional mess in cities like Boulder ... open space to maximum density in the blink of an eye.
To me ... the problem with maximum density is the lack of city infrastructure in adjoining streets funneling into Soda Creek Elementary ... narrow streets, no side walks, inconstant snow plowing. Yahmomite and Merritt funnel tons of traffic to SCE already. Someone from city staff needs to watch what happens on Merritt between 8 and 8:30 am and 3 to 3:30 pm to understand the problem.
The developer can't be expected to solve all of these issues on their own ... the city needs to step up, prioritize, and deal with city charter issues like public safety and security (as opposed to notable discretionary items like gravity induced slides at subsidized ski hills) before it expands it's boundaries.
I get the potential need to absorb by expanding through the Urban Growth Boundary .,, but the city (and city staff) also needs to get that it has a responsibility to deal with infrastructure impacts related to that expansion beyond the specific bounds of the UGB.
Count me as a citizen disappointed with city council's vote on this issue.
"As this judicial district’s chief law enforcement officer, I believe that, for this community to have faith in its criminal justice system, the integrity of every officer must be beyond reproach," Barkey said.
Seems kinda odd to me that the judicial district's chief law enforcement officer seems completely unaware of or uninterested in any of the other integrity issues within the Steamboat Springs Police Department. He seems only interested in the whistle blowers Ms. Bantle and Mr. Klieber. Just seems odd ...
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
You know Scott ,,, as annoyed as I am with our current council and city management it was the school district's job to to reach out to them ... not the other way around.
And from the same article:
"Tax impacts are estimates based upon current assessed values. All impacts are multiplied by 3.64 for commercial properties."
Now in a nanosecond Russell Scott will copy and paste to re-post a million previously posted statements and will talk about the total increase in the tax burden and ignore multiplier for commercial property that everyone will eventually have to absorb.
I agree that we have a big issue to deal with ... I reiterate that I don't understand why the district refuses sell other real estate is has repeatedly stated is not appropriate to use for schools (Whistler) to reduce the size of what we are all being asked to borrow. That's just crazy. I could support this if the district sold other assets it seems clear it will never use.
I had the great honor of working with Mr. Ellison when I sat on the Economic Development Council. An honest gentleman ... an intelligent and pragmatic visionary that was not afraid of compromise to reach consensus to move forward for the betterment of the county. Ms. Stahoviak hit the nail on the head ... when Mr, Ellison spoke it was time to listen.
The question was "Do you support the proposed $92 million bond measure? Why or why not?"
So ,,, Do you support the proposed $92 million bond measure? Why or why not?
This plan failures to understand the cost of ownership of assets and the failure to leverage existing assets. The district has decided at least twice now to back away form the Whistler property because it is too small. It will never get bigger and should be sold to reduce the bond requirement. The property where the district offices sits is immensely valuable but not for a broken down building that has failed for years to be reasonably usable, That should also be sold to reduce the debt load. Do those two things and then this proposal makes some sense.
Last login: Friday, May 13, 2016
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |