Jump to content
It is important that people get the facts and the terminology straight. The URA (Urban Renewal Authority) is not dead. It still oversees an urban renewal district at the mountain. Only the idea of forming a second urban renewal district downtown is dead, and only temporarily. It can come back in 24 months.
There are only 2 reasons to form an urban renewal district. One is the use of TIF (tax increment financing), and the other is the exercise of eminent domain. The City was not planning on exercising eminent domain downtown, and the use of TIF became too slow, cumbersome, and unpredictable due to the new State law.
Chuck McConnell's petition should absolutely go forward as planned.
Actually, it's a vote of a majority of Council since it's an ordinance.
Actually, the Urban Renewal Law contains the following language about abolishment of URA's. Please see 31-25-115(2) below:
31-25-115. Transfer - abolishment. (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of
this part 1, the governing body of a municipality may designate itself as the authority
when originally establishing said authority. A transfer of an existing authority to the
governing body may be accomplished only by majority vote at a regular election.
(2) The governing body of a municipality may by ordinance provide for the
abolishment of an urban renewal authority, provided adequate arrangements have been
made for payment of any outstanding indebtedness and other obligations of the authority.
Any such abolishment shall be effective upon a date set forth in the ordinance, which date
shall not be less than six months from the effective date of the ordinance.
"Committee member Charlie MacArthur also said the city could buy some time and hold off on building a new facility by doing some modest renovations to the existing facility."
The need for a new facility may not be quite as urgent as City staff led us to believe. Remember, it was not even on Council's radar until, all of a sudden, it was the highest priority. It was all tangled up with a plan to sell the building to BAP, as well as a nebulous idea about revitalizing Yampa St.
Later, staff wrote, in a communication form, contained in a City Council packet, that we are operating out of 6600 square feet, but we need 18,000 square feet just to meet current needs. That is not a credible statement.
Also, I don't understand why the editorial committee cites the "County's outlook on the Urban Renewal Authority" as an impediment to developing a shared facility. It seems to me that the County is more rational than the City when it comes to the URA.
I would like to know more about the functionality of the current facility. Remember, a new police station wasn't even on Council's radar until staff decided it was of the highest priority. Apparently it is not as bad as we were led to believe.
Why should Deb Hinsvark have any say whatsoever about the dissemination of information in the report? There are allegations of misconduct on her part in the initial complaint. Most of the other allegations are against one of her department heads whom she is responsible for supervising.
A big show was made, at the beginning, of Deb being removed from the investigation. I thought that's why we hired Karl Gills to handle communication. Now we are told that Anne Small is overseeing the investigation and Deb is giving her direction. We have hardly heard a word from Mr. Gills, His salary, initially $6,000 a month, and then $3,000 a month, doesn't appear to be included in the summary of expenses in this article.
Can this City ever do anything that passes the smell test?
The consultant was silent on the requirement that the area be a menace to the public health, safety, morals or welfare. Besides, it's not the consultant's opinion that matters. It's the City Council's, and ultimately the District Court's opinion that rules.
RiverWalk should not be included in the district. It was approved 10 years ago.
Thanks for the suggestion, George. I have a stump. I mostly use it for splitting wood. Perhaps I could bring it to Council next time and put it on the podium for 3 minutes. Maybe they can talk, stump to stump, and come to some understanding..
I don't think that "a report of some type" or a report "which if nothing else, provides an outline of what corrective action is being taken to prevent possible misconduct in the future", will suffice.
Perhaps the newspaper could investigate the legal precedent for withholding anything in the report and who gets to decide what is released.
How could the investigation not be conducted as a criminal investigation? There are three types of allegations in the original letter and the two subsequent letters in support of the first..There is workplace misconduct creating a hostile work environment, gross mismanagement, and criminal allegations. It is also alleged that both the City Manager and the City Attorney were informed about some of the problems 15 months before the first letter, and they did nothing. Furthermore, some of the allegations, by necessity, would involve cooperation and collusion from other people and departments outside of the Police Department.
Last login: Thursday, June 4, 2015
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.