Jump to content
I think it would be better for YVHA to leave board seats empty than reappoint board members responsible for bad decisions of the past and lying about those decisions.
And that isn't just how they fired George. They also had a pattern of lying regarding the refinancing of the Elk River parcel. They lied when they said TABOR prevented the mortgage since TABOR just prevented the lender from suing to force YVHA to continue to make payments. They lied when they said that TABOR invalidated the mortgage and meant that YVHA could gain possession of the parcel with reduced debt.
Their lies are so bad that they don't even pretend that their lies are true. To this day they continue to have mortgages on two Sierra View lots, Hillside Village and Fish Creek Mobile Home Park.
Hopefully the new board members will be able to correct YVHA's pattern of deception. The first thing they could do is refuse to conduct their everyday business in executive session. Since real estate is allowed to be held in executive session then YVHA is legally allowed to conduct all of their important business in executive session. That is not a requirement and they will never gain any public trust as long as they chose to discuss their critical issues in secret.
" the ski area needs more than 6.25 inches of snow to fall if it wants to beat the previous driest January, "
I didn't realize the ski area was sentient and had free will allowing it to decide if it wishes to best the previous record. I think having a sentient ski area with free will puts us in an unique category which we have, so far, failed to adequately promote.
Local voters tend to be modestly skeptical. If it is half baked then it will often fail. But generally, locals are willing to pass something if there aren't obvious big problems.
If you look at what SB voters have passed then there is no reason for public officials to be overly concerned of getting public approvals.
The city and county attorneys would not appear in court for YVHA. They are a separate government authority.
Colorado COML states that no decision made in a secret meeting is not valid. YVHA acknowledged that when they held a second meeting in public to make at least a legally defensible argument that the decision was made in the second, publicly held, meeting. Looks to me like Bob Weiss did a good job of treating it as if it was a mistake, holding a public meeting and so on to reduce their legal exposure. You have good reasons to be mad at the YVHA board. But with Colorado being at will employment state then that makes it far harder to not be fired.
Are you arguing that the Sep 2 motion by the SB city council was an illegal motion? And that city staff has been ignoring that motion because they considered it invalid? And that they were keeping their opinion that it was an invalid motion secret while ignoring the motion and continuing to work on proposing an URA?
It is not okay for government board to meet in secret. But they did have to hold another meeting in public to make a legally valid decision. And you could have pursued slander and whatever other issues in court to recover damages. YVHA is a mess of a board and I am disappointed that they still receive funding from the county and city governments.
But, it is still not as bad as city staff ignoring a motion That would be like the YVHA board passing a motion to firing their director and then the director still showing up for work, having control of the bank accounts and still running the agency.
Government boards and councils can make bad decisions, but the decisions have to be followed by staff.
The police station project should have been started with expectation that a public vote will be required. It was clearly wrong to start off trying to figure out how to build a station without requiring a public vote.
What do you normally play for your flotation therapy?
We already have an Affordable Floating program. It is called the Yampa River during the summer.
Well, city staff ignoring a motion should be a big deal. A motion by council is how they make governing decisions.
It is arguably much more important than secret meetings. A secret meeting is somewhat self correcting because no decision made in secret is valid. The board would have to hold another public meeting to officially decide as if the secret meeting didn't occur.
A motion, such as the Sep 2 motion on the necessity of the BID to pass, is an official decision by the city council. It simply cannot be ignored. Last week's agenda item on the URA was a complete violation of the council's rules of procedures.
A motion can be overridden by a new vote, but that would require city councils members that had publicly stated that the BID must pass to now explain why the BID failing to pass is now irrelevant. That will be embarrassing to some or maybe they were not lying in Sep and the URA to pay for downtown improvements will not pass.
And btw, several city council members have defended a SB downtown using by saying Boulder did it for a hotel. Boulder did create an URA to build a parking garage next to the hotel, but the private investors brought at least $26M to the overall project to build the hotel. And the hotel converted a vacant lot to a significant taxpaying business so the project is diverting tax revenues that would not have otherwise have existed.
A quick scan of other URA projects in Colorado indicates the great majority, if not all, was the public paying for infrastructure as part of a much larger project primarily funded by private investors.
The SB URAs at the mountain and proposed for downtown fall into the small minority of URAs, if not unique to SB, that are not directly connected to major business investments.
So, SB City Council members were not wrong to require the BID to pass in order for the URA to proceed.
10,000 visitors with additional walk up visitors likely.
So how many subsidized airline seats into the YVRA this week? Since aren't the Denver shuttle flights operating without subsidies so we are spending millions for the long haul flights that bring in what percentage of visitors?
"URA discussion will continue
After a lot of public input and discussion, a majority of the council committed to investing in downtown Steamboat and decided to have city staff provide more information on eight potential funding mechanisms for downtown improvements. Look for a story on the urban renewal authority discussions in Thursday's Steamboat Today."
And paper wouldn't print my letter to the editor stating that there was a motion passed by the city council on Sep 2 stating that URA would proceed only if the BID was approved. And yet city staff continued to work on URA contrary to the city council's motion.
Last login: Sunday, January 18, 2015
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.