Jump to content
However, I am not making a statement about which is more important.
Actually, entitlement programs (SS, Medicaid, Medicare, Unemployment and Welfare), when added together are three times the expenditures of defense spending. However, I do not believe that considers emergency supplemental appropriations.
Lewi, I was a supporter long before I was paid by SB700. The plan needs to address the inconsistencies with "public benefit" and "affordable housing." Giving current residents a laundry list of capital improvements and then still wanting affordable housing that someone who works a service job in town are overly competing to make it pencil. If the major goal of the WSSAP is affordable housing, then we need to take some the cost off the shoulders of the developer to make the project less expensive. The housing authority needs affordable land to make it work. They have turned over every piece of vacant land that is available for sale to purchase most times to expensive or has major engineering issues to address.
I know you have ownership of the WSSAP because you were involved in its development. I just disagree that IF the major focus is housing, we may have to settle for less public benefit to have the housing delivered. That is why I believe the plan needs to be rewritten with real financial ability to produce what is required.
By the way, I am no longer employed now that the vote is come to its conclusion, but still a housing advocate!!
JLM it is based on adjusted gross income.
SW, it is the median, same number of occurances above that number and below, not taking all reported income and dividing by all occurances, basic bell curve. The calibration is due to differences in family size for certain products that HUD or USDA-RD have in mortgages or down payment assistance. For instance, a family of six can have a higher income level and qualify for a product where a family of three would not qualify at the same income level based on other family needs, such as feeding four children versus one child when comparing ability to afford a mortgage.
The AMI has only increased by about 1% per year over the last five, I do not agree with your assertion that the AMI is seriously flawed. We have had wealthy families move into our community, based on sales of expensive homes, but the AMI has not moved tremendously because of the that fact. In fact, you may see the AMI fall for 2009 because of the current economic state.
Your 10+ year argument is important, that is why the City Council made sure that each pod coming through for development would have to go through the planning process. If our community development code were to change because of community will, then the new pod would be forced to adhere to those new rules, whether is happens next year or 15 years from now. The CC also wrote into the agreement that if any part of the agreement details were not met, no further development would be permitted until the issue cured by the developer. This is the case for the phasing of each of the capital items required by Exhibit F. These capital items were negotiated by City Staff, namely John Eastman and then approved by the Planning Commission and City Council prior to the formal vote of the annexation agreement. In summary, the agreement leaves flexibility for changes the community might find necessary.
AMI is an acronym for "area median income" reported by HUD from information gained by IRS filings, HUD reports this information roughly March of every year. Statistically speaking it has nothing to do with average or mean, just the midpoint for Routt County. The findings are then calibrated for difference in family size.
Part of the issue with the water is creating redundancy in our water supply. That $34 million dollars does not go away if the annexation is not passed. Instead, the residents are burdened even further because there is no developer, or more residents to defray the cost of the new infrastructure necessary.
As for the affordable part, the agreement states that the City will be given acreage and revenue source to address the affordable housing issue, which I hope includes affordable rentals. The developer loses the ability to make a profit on that land, taking the cost of the land out of the equation and subsidizing the cost of construction by giving a revenue stream to pay for it.
Way to go Kir, we will miss you, but the shores of Hawaii must be spectacular!!
What a wonderful way to recognize and immortalize the members of our community who have trained many hours to attend a wonderful international event that represents our country and Steamboat Springs!
aichempty and pitpoodle:
If I am reading the Water Supply Master plan correctly as it identifies our current capacity to supply water versus our daily average usage in millions of gallons per day/mgd, it shows that we are only at 30% of capacity currently. The tables reveal that we use 2.8 mgd in the City and the District (Mounter Werner Water District) with a capacity at the filtration plant (10 filters) currently of 7.5 mgd (max with additional filters of 12mgd) and another 2 mgd from the Yampa River Wells to supply the water.
What this tells me, again, if I am reading the tables correctly, is that we have time to collect fees to anticipate our capital improvement needs, both from new taps and from operational funds put into reserve. Adding new taps today to slowly increase our capacity usage does not seem that it will effect the community's individuall cost to use water in the next 20 years.
I thought some actual data from the Water Master Plan might aid in this discussion.
We know exactly what the existing taxpayers will pay for expansion of the water and sewer facilities= $0.00- Call the Public Works director Philo Shelton for confirmation. The City Council was very clear and adamant that the existing residents not pay for anything or be put at risk.
New tap fees, not monthly user fees, pay for expansion of capital facilities for our water and sewer. Tap fees are only collected from new taps, which is a result of new construction, existing residents do not pay tap fees today or in the future. The tap fees paid by the person/company who built your house, condo, townhome, went to build our current facility.
The user fees that we all pay each month for our water and sewer are used to pay for operations and maintenance of the existing facilities, not for the expansion of facilities.
Past, new development paid for the expansion of the water and sewer facilities to allow for future growth. Excess capacity exists today because of previous development, not because of monthly user fees.
The low reserves from operations you mention came about because the monthly rates were not raised for over a decade while the cost of electricity, man power, tools, and equipment increased over the same period of time.
The water and sewer study that is currently underway will determine what new development will need to pay to expand the water and sewer systems and the timing of the various expansions. It will also project what it will cost to operate and maintain the expanded facilities. Technically, the more users the lower the per user fee should be as there is a relatively fixed cost to operate the plants. However, usage rates, once set, rarely go down.
New development, all over town, will pay tap fees which will be held in reserve until the various expansions are necessary. State law requires sewer facilities to start there expansion efforts when they reach 80% capacity.
Why not call the City Offices, 879-2060, and find out more from our Department Heads:
Philo Shelton - Public Works
Tom Leeson - Planning Services
Jon Roberts - City Manager
They are there to answer your questions.
Last login: Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |