Jump to content
Here is the rub. Some of us remember what they voted for. The ballot win creating these funds followed a campaign which clearly promised the Yampa St $$ would be used to purchase park space on Yampa St.
Thanks for the election coverage.
When your website presents articles on, or writing by, two political opponents, wouldn't it be proper to have these arguments adjacent to each other in your website listing of articles?
Have a nice day.
I wish I had confidence this is about us helping each other.
For months of URA/BID meetings attended by these BID board members, I sought and could not get a single Oak St item into a list of Yampa St improvements. Yampa St's list was initially priced at $10,000,000. This was very frustrating.
Two members of the BID board have insisted in conversation that the best thing for my Oak St property is URA investment on Yampa St.. The same thinking is evident in the current draft budget for the proposed URA which spends 10x more on Yampa than Oak. I completely disagree with this philosophy. Oak St is also vital to the downtown economy.
Did not see your post after the thread grew. TBD = to be determined. Now I believe one location is with Tracy at 4) above. Scott Ford is also putting together info for distributing by hand to tenants.
I don't get it Jerry. Trust should be more valuable. Particularly when asking to tax your neighbors.
The BID's website still has this text:
HOW MUCH WILL A BID COST ME?
Property Value = $100,000
1 mil levy will cost you:
$100,000 * 0.29 * 0.001 = $29 per year
The truth is for $100,000 of property value the BID will cost you $116 per year.
Very, very disappointing.
BID board, isn't your website deceiving the same stakeholders you say you intend to serve?
Thank you Pilot for this editorial.
In one year we will again vote on a city sales tax to support the LMD flight program. This tax began 4 years ago with a last minute arrival on our ballot, and virtually no discussion other than a campaign of horror stories if not passed and rosy outcomes if passed. There was no time for sensible discussion. Let's have that discussion before this next vote.
The business model of the LMD program should be compared with the business model for running a regional airport.
1) The LMD program pursues isolated traffic peaks, an airport runs better with level traffic.
2) LMD contracts interfere with a free market which otherwise would find serving our airport more feasible.
Of course our ski season means that traffic will not be level. But here is where we have gone, exacerbating the problems with running an efficient airport:
"Steamboat Ski and Resort Corp. Airline Program Manager Janet Fischer told the board of the Local Marketing District on Friday that concentrating available seats to Steamboat during times of peak demand has been an effective strategy in recent winters." "That's one of the real positives of this winter — the performance of our contracted flights have really improved significantly in terms of load factors and yield,” Fischer said. “We’re focusing our service on the peak. Peak performs better.” She said that on a weekly basis, peak demand occurs essentially Friday through Sunday.
Its difficult job. I appreciate the LMD and Ski Corp for its work on the air program. But I think the business model for air service that serves the ski area is a poor match with the business model of the airport. It is also a poor match for the best economic outcome for our community. Peaks of visitors and feast or famine are poor nourishment for local businesses.
In addition to reviewing other airport balance sheets, accounting the LMD program's numbers is also a smart review. You will see the revenue cap needed for each available seat has been very steadily rising each year since 2008 at roughly 15-20%. Put differently, even while passenger numbers drop dramatically each year, our contract caps to deliver them are rising dramatically.
Let's have that conversation and make the right choices next November.
I don't disagree with the matching commitment. The question is the use of the BID $$. In particular, applying the $$ to tasks that should be funded out of the City budget, not out of private pockets.
This was easily the largest concern of stakeholders at the Monday BID information session. The BID board insists the BID $$ will never be used to maintain URA items. Scott Ford said the same. I don't believe they are correct, for this reason:
The widely acknowledged City complaint with the Base Area URA was that there were no maintenance obligations for the improvements. So when I read, as I also heard at many meetings in early 2013, the City will not support capitol improvement projects funded by a URA without a BID in place, I take it as fact the BID $$ will be used for maintaining URA improvements.
The BID board controls that $$ - the City appoints the BID board.
Thank you for the responding article explaining many of the how-to's of voting. Very helpful.
Please review the following on your website home page:
" HOW MUCH WILL A BID COST ME?
Property Value = $100,000
1 mil levy will cost you:
$100,000 * 0.29 * 0.001 = $29 per year "
Why publish a wrong answer? The actual BID cost to an owner for $100,000 worth of property is $116, because your ballot is for 4 mils of levy.
Thanks for your viewpoint at this meeting that there is no link between BID funds and future URA project maintenance. You feel the City simply wants to see the private sector make a commitment. I do not share your viewpoint. This is from the BID website:
"City council has been very clear that without a BID in place they will not support capitol improvement projects funded by sources such as a Urban Renewal Authority (URA) and the local lodging tax."
Let's ask the City to clarify this BID-URA connection before the BID election.
Last login: Monday, October 13, 2014
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2014 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.