Jump to content
It would be great if, in the meantime, they could put a water fountain (or one of those giant water coolers) at the park. And maybe start by building a shaded resting spot, too.
Colin, the feedback form on the committee web site doesn't work. Please let me know how to get you my input--I cannot make the meetings this week. Thanks
Is this a joke? Put the money in an interest-bearing account and use it to pay off the debt. Seriously? What are they thinking.
We always take our cars to Bob's because they are fair and honest. They also truly represent that "local" spirit. Last year, our car suddenly wouldn't start and all the electric just went dead, so we had it towed to Bob's; turns out it just needed a new battery, which my husband was capable of buying and replacing. Bob let us keep the car at his garage overnight, let us do all the work on site, and then drive away. No charge. Great staff, great owner, great place. Good luck to the new team!
Thanks Scott. I never would have expected the ball fields to cost so much. Wow!
In order to make an informed decision on this issue, we need to know the total revenues generated by Howelsen (including season passes and one-day tickets, as well as the snack bar) and the total operating costs (which should include everything from staff to utilities to food costs to annual maintenance, including these massive repairs). It will clearly be a huge loss, but the question is, how huge? Only then can the community decide if that expenditure is worth it.
I would also be curious to know the same info for all other city-run rec services, including the tennis center, the ice rink, the rodeo grounds, the ball fields, and so on.
Honestly, this seems like a basic analysis the paper should do, given the importance of this issue.
That's true, but we know we have to build something. So the choice will be this now, or something for a little less (relatively speaking) later.
It seems worth noting that the tax numbers being thrown around aren't telling the full story. It's been said that a $92 million project will cost the average taxpayer $272 or so (I haven't seen anyone contest that, so I assume it's true). But of course, the choice isn't $92 million or nothing; the choice is $92 million or the alternative, and if I recall, the other options come in around $70 million. So, that's a difference of about $60 per taxpayer. One may have very good reasons for opposing C2, but the "crazy high cost" wouldn't seem to be one of them, since we're looking at spending a ton of money regardless.
Thank you for your service to Yampatika and to our city. You were an excellent councilwoman, and you will be missed by the citizens of Steamboat. Good luck with the new job! Glad you get to stay in town!
So, we the taxpayers get to pay for their unwillingness to do their job? Great.
Last login: Thursday, July 7, 2016
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |