It is certainly disappointing to hear that the outreach from the City to the School Board has been inadequate. I think that is good feedback for them. Having seen the success that a URA has had on the mountain, I will admit that I am probably biased towards thinking that they can be a very useful tool and tend to also stimulate private investment, and I will admit that I still see more positives than negatives in the downtown URA, for the City as a whole, and for the school district. But I do appreciate your perspectives and you put forward some issues I had not considered. Thanks for taking the time to reply.
Posted 17 January 2015, 11:40 p.m.
I can understand your concerns Scott, and applaud your stewardship of our children's education funds. The presentation that City staff gave the Chamber board on the URA this past week was for a fairly narrow and well defined list of projects. It is anticipated that the URA would collect revenue for 12-13 years in order to fund the pared down project list. Also, it is my understanding that the City, or the URA, would enter into an agreement with RE-2 which guarantees that all tax revenue to the schools will be back-filled, and if for some reason the State cannot meet its obligations to the school district to back-fill the tax revenue, that the URA will cease altogether. Great care is being taken to make sure that there is no downside for the RE-2 school district.
Posted 17 January 2015, 2:10 p.m.
Actually Scott is mistaken. My understanding is that the State of Colorado back-fills any tax revenue from school districts that goes to the URA so in fact there is no revenue to RE-2 school district that is lost to the URA. Not only that, but the reality is that the increase in property values that results, and the likelihood of additional private development will result in an overall increase in RE-2 revenue. The school board may philosophically disagree with the URA mechanism because of its increased reliance on the State to back-fill the dollars, but that does not change the fact that they would not lose ANY tax revenue if the URA is implemented.
I second George's sentiment as well and would like to thank you for serving on the school board, Scott. Your service is appreciated.
Posted 17 January 2015, 9:47 a.m.
Posted 25 June 2014, 12:12 a.m.
How did Kenny Reisman get the job? He ran for the seat in 2009 and defeated the candidate he ran against. Kenny is in his fifth year of service on City Council. Perhaps he decided that another 2-year commitment was more appropriate for him and his family than another 4-year term?
Rob is expert at pulling a couple of sentences from countless hours of dialogue and Monday morning quarterbacking them into the local column. That's his job and he is good at it. I know that this community is deeper than that nonsense though. I'd encourage the rest of the Monday morning quarterbacks on this forum to walk a mile in a man's shoes before judging him.
Posted 6 June 2014, 11:14 p.m.
In my opinion, these are dollars well spent. In case you are wondering, we tax payers spend a bundle providing a "free" bus in our community. We do so in order to provide a positive and easy transportation system for our visitors, our citizens, our employees, and our employers. We recognize that this is an amenity that is required in a successful resort community. And in case you you are wondering... people who want to ride the bus want to know when it will arrive at their stop. I appreciate that the City is trying to encourage ridership and that it continues to make the bus system a critical and relevant component of our transportation plan.
Posted 29 April 2014, 9:40 p.m.
Ah, the summer concerts. Man, there is no better way to see your friends and neighbors and enjoy this beautiful community. Although I don't have the "hard numbers" Mr. Mendell wants to see, and I seriously doubt that any numbers would satisfy him anyway, what I can tell you is that the volunteers who put together the series work really hard to bring the best talent they can to our valley on a fairly limited budget. The City kicks in a bit of dough and the majority is funded by those of us who enjoy a cold beer for ourselves and an overpriced snow-cone for the kids. In both cases, it's money well spent. The City collects no property tax and so the dollars from the City that go towards this event and other community events are collected from Sales tax on goods. Steve, my hunch is that your portion of this tax burden amounts to less than a couple bucks. Tell ya what... track me down at a free show and I'll buy you a beer... or a snow-cone, whichever you prefer. Perhaps then you might be able to feel you can enjoy these wonderful events because it will truly be free to you.:)
Posted 30 March 2014, 11:56 a.m.
The question I have for Mike Lane and the Intrawest team is, since we know that eliminating these benefits will save Intrawest a bundle, how much of the savings are they going to put back into payroll to help pay employees a living wage in our community? My hunch is that the benefits will go away, salaries will stay the same, and the savings extracted from eliminating these benefits will ultimately go to the top 1% of the Intrawest pyramid. Perhaps I am mistaken. Would any member of the Intrawest team care to comment?
Posted 21 March 2014, 3:49 p.m.
I studied this issue in 2007 when the City was considering splitting off and going with a private firm. What I came to understand at that time was that there is little reason to consider privatization unless there is a lack of expertise locally to handle inspections. As Carl mentioned, the department is paid for by the fees that are collected through the permitting process, not by tax dollars. When you ask the folks who are most directly impacted by the building department, the contractors, they will all tell you that privatizing the system is an excellent way to guarantee more delays, and worse service. What you can be sure of is that privatization of the building department means more of the money, and more of the expertise, will leave our community.
I would encourage the county officials studying this to consider the real impacts of this decision, and I hope that they opt to keep these services in the hands of the locals who really know our community and have real experience in our valley. Don't be fooled by the fancy sales pitch!
Posted 16 February 2014, 6:31 p.m.
Mike suggests the following... "Let’s make a requirement that everyone must show valid ID, proof of legitimate employment and pass an intelligence test on the issues and candidates on the ballot before they can vote." I wonder if Mike would agree that the same standards should be enforced in order to purchase or own a firearm? Of course, I'm sure we all know that the his answer would be "no." Please do tell me if I am mistaken, Mike.
I'm with Kathy here. The rhetoric is beyond tired. I have not heard any suggestion that the right to bear arms be abolished. All we are talking about is under what conditions and circumstances the 2nd amendment shall be upheld and how to balance the rights of our citizens to bear arms with their equally important rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
Posted 23 March 2013, 9:42 a.m.
©2015 Steamboat Pilot & Today