The Steamboat Pilot & Today

Posted on June 2 at 10:11 p.m.
On Bob Enever: Strike out fields

another_,

I'm sorry you're cloudy. Your knowledge of the vendor "gift, fee, tax" is certainly extensive. The real topic is beyond that discussion. This city contributes significant taxpayer dollars in a multitude of ways to support a chamber of commerce who has demonstrated no ability to think outside the box. We are a destination resort experiencing flat skier days with community leaders in place that can only continue down the same, worn path.

7.5 million taxpayer dollars should be invested in long-term, broad reaching municipal infrastructure. At 2-3 million a mile, the widening of highway 40 comes to mind. That is the city's job.

The chamber's job is come up with marketing practices that help ALL of the businesses in a community be attractive and competative. Get me a chamber that will do that without threatening the citizens it is there to serve or the city that financially supports it.

Posted on June 2 at 3:09 p.m.
On Bob Enever: Strike out fields

Another_local-

I truly appreciate your efforts to provide information about a confusing topic. My point about the vendor fee is exactly what you verified. You have described it as a fee no, a contribution no, a tax and the business community chooses where the money goes.

How is the public to understand when they pay fees and taxes that are not contributions and they have no say in the matter of how these fees are spent unless they are asked by ballot? My problem with the vendor “gift fee tax” is that it is just another tool used to manipulate the city when an event comes up for discussion that requires more money. It is not a request, it is an expectation; something that is owed to the businesses/chamber because they “give” the city money and if anyone disagrees, inevitably the threat comes out that the city and all its citizens will suffer the consequences of lost revenue. And their little dog, too.

You mentioned that “the funds used by the chamber already are business money.” Who is one of the largest members of the chamber? The City of Steamboat Springs. Not business money, a_l, taxpayer money. Every dime of it and I hope you get back to me with a total of all those spent dimes. Don't forget to include funding the Main Street Program, sponsoring nearly every event including free concerts, attending to URA expenses and legalities, annual costs associated with the chamber, personnel costs in the parks and rec, finance and police departments to name a few.

I am tired of this scam. Do all business pay a “fee?” No. So, which “businesses are stepping up and writing checks” when the citizens are expected to invest every time? Please. Take the vendor “gift fee tax” back and prove me wrong by never coming to any current or future city council asking for additional funds for events or whatever the item of the moment may be.

The topic you didn’t touch on is the main issue. Where is the plan? Where is an insightful, forward thinking, economically sound plan for marketing Steamboat Springs? How would anyone know if “other events are just sitting out there”? Why are we only looking at events? What about new businesses? Why aren’t the business members who pay dues to the “chamber” irate? Why aren’t they demanding a viable, demographically astute, visionary planned use of their dues? Instead, they are allowing our entire summer revenue season to be basically controlled by one business who continually threatens to leave if they don’t get what they want.

We have got to stop doing things the way we always have and start doing things that invest in our future.

PS. About the cutters and auto racers; some mountain businesses paid their staff salaries through the first of the year with just those two weekends, hmm, more revenue with less impact from high end, return customers. We wouldn’t want to encourage that, now would we.

Posted on June 1 at 10:32 a.m.
On Bob Enever: Strike out fields

My question to you, another_local, is how many times can we spend the "vendor" fee you speak of? That money goes to promote tourism by investing in the airline subsidies that are required to bring airlines into the Hayden airport. No airline comes here without incentive. If we give it back to the local businesses, will they be organized enough to actually use it to invest in the real need for our tourism? Let's see.

Let's not have the money go through the city coffers and out to cover the needs to bring airlines here, especially during the winter, let's see instead if our "Chamber of Commerce" can actually be disciplined enough to use business money rather than tax payer dollars to promote tourism. I have no faith that would happen. If it were not for the city handling the money, I do not feel that our Resort/Lodging Association would focus on the needs of retaining airlines. Why? Because there was no hue and cry when we lost the huge money and associated abilities to pay wages as the multi-million dollar Cutting Horse event left town. No upset registered by our Resort/Lodging group when the millions raised by the Vintage Auto races were gone. Both events known years in advance that they were leaving without new venues.

And what has our "chamber" done to replace them? Nothing. No new events. No investment in the future with anything to replace that lost revenue. They have just left us with one, consistent, summer event.

Mr. Enever has hit the nail on the head with his letter. Where is the long-term strategy? Why is the “chamber” willing to invest in someone who has never invested in the community directly but just functions by threatening to leave? Mr. King has not built a field himself, has not committed to doing so and only continues to threaten leaving the area. Why would we be more concerned about retaining that type of community member than those who have committed to become our neighbors? Groups like Strings in the Mountains deserve more of our financing and respect since they have committed to us with substantial investments and certainly bring an excellent tax-impact with them. I am tired of being threatened and am looking forward to the day we have a true chamber of commerce with plans and economic strategies instead of threats and weakness.

Posted on April 10 at 4:59 p.m.
On Airport studies complete

Interesting debate id and Jet. I think one thing missing in the discussion is not just construction costs but the maintenance that all of us do pick up. The FAA fincances 90% of maintenance of the runway but the population foots the continuing bill. Growing the city airport would then mean additional staff, snowplows, admin costs. Will those costs be absorbed by only the users? No, and we all pay for BOTH airports' needs.

I'd have to agree with id on the expansion. At approximately $2.5M a mile, $3-6M would widen Highway 40 between 13th and Steamboat II. How many people would that benefit versus lengthening the runway of an airport that is limited by area, costs and need.

Concentrating on growing an already existing, 11,000 foot runwayed airport that brings in many tourist ski dollars makes a lot more sense to me.

Posted on April 4 at 3:43 p.m.
On Rob Douglas: Put an Emerald on this Crown

Mr. Douglas-

Thank you for the offer of informality, it is my attempt to retain civility in our community blogs. Thank you also for being active and accessible.

For me, dialog is always educational and opposing views always enlightening. Maybe just one more way to combat rumor mongering and encourage more active community members.

Look forward to the next 700 and future discussions.

Posted on April 4 at 3:13 p.m.
On Rob Douglas: Put an Emerald on this Crown

Mr. Douglas-

I think you have put your finger on the problem. This community, county-wide is made up of approximately 28,000 people, city-wide approximately 13,000. Issues all effect one another in communities this size and separating them is how we end up reacting rather than acting.

This will be the second (third?) time discussion of extension of the Triple Crown contract for two years will have come up. If you were they, would you be comfortable with that? If the community needs them, should we be comfortable with that?

Making space for them wherever we can find it at whatever expense to the community each time their contract is reviewed is a reactionary, ridiculous way to manage anything. Especially if they are truly an important part of our economy.

A non-political, coordinated plan has got to be in place for economic stability. We need to define who we want to cater to, how we need to get them here, how much we expect from them, what will we need from the community, what our community costs would be and if it is all as beneficial.

I don't think you can separate discussions anymore. It hasn't worked in the past and only puts us in a position of defense rather than direction.

Posted on April 4 at 12:40 p.m.
On Rob Douglas: Put an Emerald on this Crown

Mr. Douglas-

It is interesting that you can be so informed about a long standing topic having been here such a short period of time however, I don't feel you are examining the subject at the level it truly needs to be reviewed.

If the revenue generation from Triple Crown is of such an importance to the community as you suggest, then why haven't we planned for that need?

The chamber knew for years the Vintage Auto Races were in need of a new venue. The growth of Steamboat Springs was eventually going to eliminate the use of the roads in town. Did they work with any city council and say we need to plan for the future of a revenue generator that at that time equaled Triple Crown and only took one weekend to do it? No.

When the Cutting Horse event felt squeezed by space and time, did the chamber come to a seated council and say we need to work on a schedule and placement for a revenue generator that spent more in that one week than was accumulated over the previous two months? No. So,they finally left town and took their millions with them.

So, we lose two HUGE revenue generators that impacted we citizens for a total of 14 days and somehow, no neighborhood was threatened that they would cause the loss. No single citizen was depicted as the lone destructor of profits for all. These choices were made by the same chamber that has now left us with only Triple Crown. We gave up filet mignon and are left with hot dogs.

So rather than blaming our citizens and neighborhoods, why don't we focus on creating a TRUE chamber of commerce? One that is willing to fund itself rather than relying on city tax support, one that will work with all the businesses in town not just focus on resort lodging and truly devise a marketing plan that reflects capturing high end, high class events with less impact and more revenue for our community.

That type of money can feed our families AND leave us room to recreate in our neighborhoods.

Posted on March 26 at 9:45 p.m.
On Our view: Council should end Harwigs gatherings

gadfly-

I venture to say that if Mr. Ivancie were so used to conducting business outside the public venue, he wouldn't be so quick to avoid the same type of meeting this time. Rather than guessing at Mr. Ivancie's actions, we can just look at the front page of the paper and verify this illegal action. If you are going to go back in time looking for questionable meetings, let's start with Ms. Connell's reign.

Posted on March 24 at 9:07 a.m.
On Council’s Harwigs habit

What member of the public would know the topics of discussion? Perception is everything. Avoid the gathering, avoid the problem.

Posted on March 23 at 6:32 p.m.
On Council’s Harwigs habit

Sorry for cutting in on you Quiet one but you asked a good question.

dv8-
People seem to forget that Paul Hughes RESIGNED in October 2003. When he RESIGNED, the seated council felt he should stay on for another year. In December 2003, the newly elected council, with a 5-2 vote in PUBLIC hearing, chose to end that extension December 31, 2003. The room was empty because many council meetings, (especially late ones) are not well attended by us. Most comments in this forum attest to that! The meeting was a normal council meeting, therefore was PUBLIC, the meeting room was PUBLIC, the lively discussion was PUBLIC and the vote was PUBLIC. Sorry you left before that.

Planning Commission, let' talk about that. Applications are taken, again open to all of the public, to fill the positions of the commission seats. (Perhaps you have seen the LONG running ad for applicants!) The seated council then interviews applicants and chooses members for the commission. It has been done this way for over 15 years. So, you're right, every council hand picks who they want to fill open commission seats. Planning commission interviews were held last week and the seated council again hand picked commissioners. Who do you feel is a "key person" on a volunteer, unpaid commission? Are you upset Ms. Hermacinski and Mr. Myller were chosen? Did you apply and were you not chosen?

Council members, citizens or even you, waking up from a nightmare in the middle of the night, could DRAFT an ordinance. All potential ordinance legislation isl treated exactly the same. There are at least two PUBLIC, advertised, posted hearings. Sometimes more meetings occur if the ordinance is amended in any way but there are never fewer than two. Drafting a document does not make policy, the PUBLIC hearings and PUBLIC vote do.

Having a beer after a meeting is not the problem. Justifying their choice to ignore the law is.