Jump to content
I agree with John that there should be a schedule option for slush fighting and road widening that can be used on warmer days after a storm.
The "Banana Belt" does not extend to CR 14 around Stagecoach. CR 14 is vulnerable to drifting snow. I think it would make sense to work with property owners to see if a snow fence located at an engineered locations on their properties would reduce snow drifts on CR 14.
The one "service" that I would put as being the most important to find a way to offer locally are the drug tests mandated by probation. Having to travel to SB when probably not able to drive means some drug tests are missed by not getting a ride. The probation dept is thus not able to distinguish between some using it as an excuse knowing that they would test positive between those honestly not able to get a ride. I have personally observed both situations and it isn't good because it allows people on probation to mostly get away with using drugs and it puts honest people under suspicion.
It is also extremely disruptive to someone trying to work as the trip to and from SB largely eliminates a day of work with little notice. The drug tester is a specialized job that should have rotating hours in different locations.
Thank you for your clarifying response.
The concerns of managing people in a different building is so 20th century. My sister works in SF and she has managed people spread around the world including Israel. It is an interesting concept to manage people whose 9-5 work day has no overlap with your 9-5 work day, but it is nothing new in the 21st century.
As for how to how to staff remote facilities, it looks like the current ideas are trying to make it way too complex. It should be recognized that the great majority of walk up services are generic simple situations and don't need the most highly trained individuals in that dept. Thus, there is no reason that one employee couldn't accept documents to be recorded for the clerk's office, provide DMV functions of registering a new vehicle, be the initial contact for Human Services, accept property tax payments for the Treasurer's office and so on.
The more complex situations would be expected to have the local rep to typically call in the main office for assistance. Modern video conferencing tools allow a person to demonstrate on their computer how the remote person needs to do it on their computer. It just requires using the proper network security.
If there is enough complex situations then have a day or two a week in which a person capable to handle those is assigned to the local office. It would be very similar to how Bank of San Juans operates local branches where the local office can handle deposits, withdraws, certified checks, etc, but a loan application might have limited hours or require a trip to SB branch.
I strongly suggest that any new Human Services facilities be designed to distribute services around the county.
I can't say how many times I have given rides to people from Oak Creek to SB that are seeking Human Services. It is extremely unfair to many citizens of Routt County that the county government has made so little effort to distribute services around the county.
Private businesses are now days routinely managing people thousands of miles away. It is simply no longer acceptable to say that Human Services will be centrally located in SB and people in need must travel 20+ miles to reach Human Services.
So a decision to divorce an abuse spouse should be expected to have severe consequence including possibly becoming homeless?
I think the big problem with the current system is not the providing of assistance, but the resulting hurdles once on assistance to then doing better so that less or no assistance is needed. For instance, once on assistance then earning money quickly reduces assistance. If in Hillside Village, then a person would see their housing costs increase by $7,000+ a year when earning more than the income restrictions. So that person needs a miraculous 30+% increase in pay to be better off moving to free market housing.
Assistance needs to be able to more easily be a sliding scale so that it is easy so that more money earned modestly reduces assistance so there is always an incentive to earn more and ideally no longer need assistance. For instance, people on disability should be actively seeking a job they could do at least part time since that should be better than not working.
Just to play devil's advocate, so no housing assistance to the working poor single parent?
As for an affordable housing agency, there is an operational model that doesn't require large taxpayer subsidies. They can use ultra low interest loans designed for housing agencies to purchase rental properties. Those loans allowing paying for maintenance and management, but prevent generating cash flow to use elsewhere. So the loan terms basically guarantee that rents will rise slower than inflation and allow the housing authority to build a stockpile of affordable units.
The housing authority can seek to buy units from owners that would be willing to cash out in order to build more rental units at market rates. A competent housing authority has to recognize it is a small player in the overall real estate market and they are not going to bring down the overall costs of housing.
The smart operational model for a housing authority is to then hold the properties until the loan is paid off at which time they can raise rents to be whatever amount less than market and to generate cash flow to be used to generate down payments to purchase more properties.
Unfortunately, there is no suggestion that YVHA has the slightest bit of operational competence. They had Hillside apartments mostly paid off and were getting close to the point where it could generate significant cash flow to use elsewhere. Instead, the socialist ideologues of YVHA then got one of those ultra low interest government housing authority loans. So now rents at Hillside Village are limited by the loan terms to be what are now less than half of market rents. Without that loan, they could have been been 25% below market rent and still generate $250,000 annually to use elsewhere.
Why should taxpayers be asked to fund YVHA when they signed a loan eliminating a $250,000 annual funding source?
What the ideologue socialists fail, or refuse, to understand is that too much of a subsidy becomes a trap. The Hillside Village apts are also income restricted. Since rent is less than half of market then a tenant needs a massive increase in income in order to come out ahead when the raise means they no longer qualify for Hillside. Thus, tenants are in the position of seeking to minimize or prevent their income from rising as would be expected in a normal career path.
Before going to the taxpayer for funding, YVHA should be appealing to HUD or whatever to find a way to get out of this disastrous loan even if penalties are large so that reduced rent isn't so far from market rent and they can use the excess cash flow instead of taxpayer money.
So what is YVHA suggesting it can do so that houses get built upon the many low cost buildable lots in the region? At the rate of subsidy needed to build The Reserves then local taxpayers just need to come up with $150+ million over the next four years.
You originally said "one significant difference".
Nor is there any indication that the public cared if there was some harm to SSSD There is every indication that the voters cared only about local area students. The last renewal which allowed giving money to Hayden and Soroco was, in fact, clearly harmful to SSSD as sharing would result in less money for SSSD.
The EFB has become a tool for the local school districts and forgotten they are supposed to represent the taxpayers.
I think anyone that served in the military that is now homeless can be viewed as a hero because of what they volunteered to do and their current circumstances.
I don't think that everyone that joined the military is automatically a hero as their time in the military might have been a worthwhile financial and career decision due to the education benefits and so on.
Thus, I have no problems saying that Natalie is working with "heroes", but that Eric Morris is not a "hero". :) If local rents go up much more then Rhys would seem at risk of becoming a hero. :(
That 5% of funding is to represent the management costs for overseeing the charter school. it it not supposed to be a "profit" for SSSD overseeing NRCS. Thus, that 5% is just a cost as any other cost.
It is simply not credible to suggest that SB City voters when approving the half cent sales tax after it had been used to give money to NRCS were saying that money to a local charter school was acceptable only if the charter school was overseen by SSSD.
The EFB is making the ridiculous claim that SB voters would have cared if the local charter school was administered by SSSD vs state government Colorado Charter School Institute.
Between this awful decision and the gutting of accountability by switching to an allocation model, I think the EFB risks creating opposition for the first time to renewing the half cent sales tax. At the very least, those decisions need to be reversed in the ballot language for the 2018 renewal.
Last login: Monday, December 19, 2016
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2017 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |