Jump to content
One easy way to "Not want a pay raise" and still "respect the will of the voters" might be to donate that unwanted $15,099.48 to some of the great local non-profits. Problem solved?
Tomorrow is important. It is not when the committee members are selected, but more on the details of roles and responsibilities and other formalities.
Applications to be on either committee are due Friday and the interviews are planned for dec 17th. Hopefully council will keep the trail projects moving forward by having the first meeting of the committee on dec 18th instead of waiting until after the holidays when some very big decisions will be coming on project prioritization. Only about 30% of the projects are funded without grants and money stretching options that should be considered.
Trails has 5.1 dedicated over ten years with the balance of the 6.6 million from 2A going to yampa street (900,000), haymaker ($300,000) & marketing ($300,000). Any excess will be up to council on likely an annual basis.
It is very easy to make the trails project work out really well, but there is also plenty of opportunity for council or the committee to use a really good road map and take a wrong turn. We'll be there to warn about those potential wrong turns, but it will ultimately be up to council in the end.
Great article. This should be one heck of a way to really kick of the next 10+ years.
I would like to add an extra emphasis that no one group involved would have convinced IMBA that Steamboat Springs was the best choice by themselves. While Routt County Riders being an IMBA chapter was key in this effort to attract the 2014 IMBA World Summit, it was the Chamber who took the lead on this big success and the Bike Town USA initiative was right there helping them polish the proposal. The collaborative effort in the lodging community and them buying into cycling as a great potential to fill unused rooms was not only important for this summit, but will continue to be as we work with them to best spend the dollars that they contribute to improve this community for both visitors and locals alike.
You'll be hard pressed to find a better place to visit or live in than this hard working and even harder playing community.
Thanks for the well thought out example. Sounds possible based on your description assuming council wants to use the general (or other funds) like a bank. We'll see how all this shakes out soon enough.
From an earlier post to you that went unanswered...
"Wouldn't a loan be the same as committing the money for more than one year? All I have heard is that a city council cannot commit to anything beyond one year with out a vote (whether it is to approve a bond or just approve a multi year commitment). If that is not Colorado Law, then yes, I guess they convinced me of their BS. I would love to see something that shows that a city council can commit to more than one year of funding obligations without a vote. Do you mind finding that? PS. I have not filled out my ballot yet."
John pointed out COPS, but neither of us seems to think council would or should go down that path. Any other ways to do a multi year commitment with out a vote?
I am not as familiar on the workings of government as you. This is how I read it and I asked for an example if you had one. I guess if the loan was paid back sooner than a year it wouldn't really matter, but in the case of the Core Trail, if they were going to rely solely on Accommodations Tax, it does not add up and they would not be able to repay the loan within the fiscal year.
I could be wrong and welcome your experience & examples.
You either do not take the time to read the comments or intentionally twist your words to fit your latest argument.
Either way (2A passes or fails) other money would be needed to complete the core trail and capitalize on the GOCO grant based on the ballot language. It just looks like it needs more if 2A fails.
Council cannot borrow against another fund without making a multi year commitment (avoiding TABOR). That is something I absolutely DO NOT suggest.
If using "certificates of participation" to help pay for the Core Trail or purchasing the land on Yampa Street is how you suggest council should or would get around the limit of a one year budget commitment, I personally think that is a very bad path even if it could be done. I don't think anyone associated with the SSTA wants the trails project compared to the current state of the Iron Horse.
You & John have helped point out a potential very large negative that I had never considered if 2A fails.
Based on a very uninformed and unverified google search it does appear that the Iron Horse was funded by issuing "certificates of participation"
Since I had no idea what those were, I came across this:
"A type of financing where an investor purchases a share of the lease revenues of a program rather than the bond being secured by those revenues."
"The authority usually uses the proceeds to construct a facility that is leased to the municipality, releasing the municipality from restrictions on the amount of debt that they can incur."
Thanks for showing me how bad council and others can be when they work around a system that at first glance is set up to have checks and balances. I have learned a lot in this process. While I am not sure those could even be used to fund the trails projects, I really hope this council does not pull any tricks like that if 2A fails. Hopefully recent history has shown them how bad those types of decisions typically end up.
I would much rather council decides 2014 money (quickly to keep projects moving) and then if council insists, they can clean up the language and redo it like they did for Haymaker when it did not pass on its first attempt.
1) I doubt GOCO will delay funding it 3 years or more (not even the projected 2014 & 2015 tax would equal the required match).
2) Wouldn't a loan be the same as committing the money for more than one year? All I have heard is that a city council cannot commit to anything beyond one year with out a vote (whether it is to approve a bond or just approve a multi year commitment). If that is not Colorado Law, then yes, I guess they convinced me of their BS. I would love to see something that shows that a city council can commit to more than one year of funding obligations without a vote. Do you mind finding that? PS. I have not filled out my ballot yet.
I think you understand that the council cannot commit more than one years funding without a vote right?
I also assume you think getting $1,000,000 dollars from a GOCO grant would be a good thing. Am I wrong?
If 2A does not pass, there is no way to accept the $1,000,000 in grant money without committing other funds (I assume the general fund unless the city has other stashes of money, or private money steps in).
Even with 2A passing the core trail to legacy ranch is in jeopardy based of how the council worded the Ballot. The General fund (or other) would still be involved based on timing because our part of the match would exceed the current plan of $900,000 over the first 3 years. Grants have a timeline the projects need to be completed by (I think this one is three years).
This is a special trail grant round is now or sometime likely 10 plus years down the road if it ever comes back. The Accommodations Tax alone could not be saved fast enough to accrue the matching funds needed the way council currently wants to spend the money.
We have warned council of this possibility for months and we are on a path to decide to: 1) not accept $1,000,000 to help extend the core trail or 2) pay it a large portion of it out of general funds.
GOCO has asked us to complete the full application and only a few other preliminary applications were asked to continue and submit the full application and when you add up all the other applications that were asked to continue, it totals close to the 10 million that GOCO has budgeted for this special grant round for trails.
It is not BS. We did our homework (all volunteer by the way) and have tried to warn others of any and all possible glitches along the way. It would be nice if others listened before they made rash decisions.
Last login: Tuesday, December 3, 2013
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2013 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.