The Steamboat Pilot & Today

notmybus (anonymous)
March 30, 2008 at 5:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Why not give the revenues back to the tax payers?
The city has had the half-cent sales tax for quite some time and it came with no sunset.
Why not put a sunset on the tax for education and shift it to roads. Some thing that every one in the comunity uses?

another_local (anonymous)
March 30, 2008 at 6:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Notmybus, the tax has a susnset and always has. The sunset is why the issue is being discussed now and it is up for ballot approval again. It has already been through the process a couple of times now.

Something everyone uses, hmmmmmmmm Public education expense is the thing that EVERYONE does use. The fact that we use it mainly during youth does not change the fact that we all benefit. Your parents and grandparents generation paid for your education. We all benefit from an educated, productive population. Whether you have children or not, you benefit every day from a community and a nation where basic education is provided for all.

Not to say we don't need roads..... but

jcp1245s (anonymous)
March 30, 2008 at 1:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Where do the people shop that live in those areas? Food Gas Fast Food Wal Mart? It`s so obivous that it should be shared. These people are part of our tax base from sales. How selfish can the city council be? It`s time to step up and accept these areas feed tax money to the fund.

untamedShrewd (anonymous)
March 30, 2008 at 1:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Can we get voters in South Routt and Hayden to also pay a half-cent sales tax in their communities too? Maybe 100 percent of their profits can go towards their schools. And Steamboat can share a percentage of it's profits with them, as well.

addlip2U (anonymous)
March 30, 2008 at 2:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Let's get rid of the half cent sales tax; that will eliminate the bickering:) Besides, we need a brake from all the taxation.

alphadog (anonymous)
March 31, 2008 at 6:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

No, it is a City tax and not designed to be allocated back to all those who happen to buy something in our city. If you use the logic that people other than City residents pay the tax, are we going to give some to all the cities across the country whose residents come to ski/visit as tourists? Also should Steamboat receive money if one of us travels to some other city and buys something?

OnTheBusGus (anonymous)
March 31, 2008 at 7:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I posted this before but Lake County (Leadville) wanted sales tax revenues and other assistance from Eagle and/or Summit Counties to help fund their schools since the Lake County residents work and do all their shopping in the other counties. So, this is not an unusual situation.
I do have to see the point that A-dog is making though. Think of all the sales tax collected from a visiting family of four for a week, that is a good chunk of change!!
So, maybe Hayden could build some stores that the residents will shop at and keep that revenue. Build a Target or Home Depot and you will get revenue from Steamboat residents as well.

hubiem (anonymous)
March 31, 2008 at 8:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

a city tax should go to the city schools. people who live in the county don't pay city taxes on a lot of big dollar items that are delivered to their homes: building materials, appliances, cars. they save a lot on taxes each year by living outside steamboat. the schools in hayden and oak creek are inside the city limits of those towns. hayden and oak creek should charge their own city taxes to pay for education if they want money from sales taxes for that purpose.

justathought (anonymous)
March 31, 2008 at 1:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

adog ranks the working class in Routt County right up there with skiers and tourists, too bad the people of Routt County that do not live in steamboat couldn't keep from shopping and working in steamboat for at least one busy week, stmbt thinks they have employee problems now. Talk about hypocrites, all worried about losing employees because they don't have enough affordable housing but there is no problem telling the employees that commute daily that their children aren't important. Too many people preaching that "it's for the children" and "it takes a village" but actually mean it's for some children and their village.

hubiem, when was the last time you bought building materials, appliances, cars etc., in OC or Hayden? Even if they could raise taxes in their own town, what good would it do when they are spending most of their pay check in yours?

OTBG, ain't quite that easy, target and home depot decide where they build their stores.

jmemcse (anonymous)
March 31, 2008 at 2:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You're going to pay the tax anyway, don't let greed keep ALL the students in Routt county from getting a first class education.

It's not like the superintendents of Hayden & SoRoCo were even asking for a three way split to begin with. Those school districts are so underfunded that a measly 2 or 3% would make a huge difference in their budgets. If SSSD can afford to put a big screen HDTV in every classroom, then they obviously aren't having budget problems like the other school districts are.

I'll bet you people who voted no don't like to see homeless people get fed a free Thanksgiving dinner either - even if it didn't come out of your pocket. For that matter, how many of you have ever donated to Lift-Up?

I don't care what kind of flame my post generates - you can rationalize your greedy natures any way you want - it won't change the facts. The majority of you pompous, self centered posters would never have the courage to say to someone in person what you rant about on this forum, you're all spineless worms.

hubiem (anonymous)
March 31, 2008 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

make a county tax for education then. if everyone were paying the tax all the time then i would have no problem giving the revenues to the other schools in the county. people who live in the city limits get no breaks on the taxation. people who live outside the city limits do. i don't have any kids in any of the three school districts in the county, so i am not biased for my kids and against others. i just feel that when a city enacts taxes, the taxes collected should be for things inside that city. when the county enacts taxes, the taxes collected should go to things in that county.

if we were talking about roads, then city taxes go to city roads. county taxes go to county roads. state taxes go to state roads, and federal taxes go to federal roads. how often does a city government fix a county, state, or federal road? i would bet not very often, if ever. therefore, city taxes shouldn't go to fund county schools.

alphadog (anonymous)
April 1, 2008 at 5:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

To Jememcse, that was quite a leap from a city tax issue to Thanksgiving dinner and Lift-Up. Just to answer your query, I am very much in favor of you providing dinner to anyone you choose at Thanksgiving. As to Lift-Up, I think it is a wonderful facility our City has and I have donated literally thousands of dollars of items to them and SSWSC over the years. Your solutions seems to be that "Steamboat has the money, so I want it". That logic could certainly be applied to many of our issues. Just find someone with more than you and take it from them. Thanks again to you for clarifying the issue under discussion.

Mr_B (anonymous)
April 1, 2008 at 7:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Imagine...

John Lennon

cindiam11 (anonymous)
April 1, 2008 at 11:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I am puzzled as to why those living in Steamboat do not feel that they have a direct impact on the outlying areas when a great majority of their employees and workers live in these areas because they really are more affordable on their salaries. When Steamboat School District was asking the county to help them pay for their security system when our needs in the outlying schools are so much more basic--heating the buildings, up-to-date curriculum materials, the lunch program--all of the county residents shop at different times in Steamboat just because of it's size and "bigger stores" so we are already subsidizing them, but they don't want to ever help the communities where many of their workers live. Steamboat's attitude toward the rest of Routt County seems to be part of this new "Me" generation also.

portagetheyampa (anonymous)
April 1, 2008 at 11:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I will definitely vote NO in November for the issue of the 1/2 tax for education UNLESS it is shared with Soroco and Hayden Schools Districts. Both districts have great programs and many parents who work in Steambboat send their chidren to those schools. The tax should benefit everyone in the county, as education benefits everyone in the county.

The Stamboat Fund Board and City Council have been ridiculously greedy with that money. When Steamboat spends it on teachers' salaries(when that money should come from the general fund) and spends it on a fancy sports field which gets limited use that is just wrong! We are way ovedue to share it!

oldskoolstmbt (anonymous)
April 1, 2008 at 12:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

steamboat has high def's in each class room?
soroco has coal dust in each class room....yeah, i see the balance

hubiem (anonymous)
April 1, 2008 at 1:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

as i said before, the city should not have to "share" a tax that is a city tax. a lot of people who live outside the city limits already have kids in the steamboat school district. a lot of people outside the city limits already benefit from this tax. if you want the tax to pay for the other schools in the county, then try to get it on the ballot as a countywide tax, not just a city tax. by your reasoning, we might as well just give some money to moffat county schools as well. a lot of people from craig work and shop in steamboat every day too.

godfather (anonymous)
April 1, 2008 at 3:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

For everyone that is against sharing the half-cent sales tax with Hayden & South Routt, you obviously have no idea how much more that money will help them than it could ever help Steamboat Schools. Understood, it's a city tax and Hayden & South Routt are within the county, not city. Regardless, I view it as a simple point of greed that continues to polarize the three school districts so that Steamboat can continue to shine & pat themselves on their back while the other two 'stepchildren' have to scramble to survive on a yearly basis. Thanks for your support of all kids, not just the privileged in Steamboat.

lowerprofile (anonymous)
April 2, 2008 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Didn't Hayden and Oak Creek vote against instituting their own 1/2 cent sales tax for their schools?

Don't both communities get access to the District's grant writers FOR FREE? (yes) Both these communities receive more grant money through this FREE grant writing (with amazing grant writers) due to the low income nature of the communities than Steamboat is able to get.

I think they would probably do better monetarily, to leave it as it is with receiving the better grant dollars than to put all that in jeopardy and receive a small portion of the city's 1/2 cent sales tax. It probably looks better to grant funders to not be receiving that "help".

dmurray (anonymous)
April 2, 2008 at 11:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The Steamboat City Council acts as if affordable housing is such an important issue. They've even funded a hefty salary for someone to organize affordable housing opportunities. It seems a bit hypocritical to not support Hayden and South Routt by giving them their fair share of this education tax, since they seem to be the two biggest providers of affordable housing for Steamboat Springs. Additionally, the people who live in these communities year around do not compare in the slightest to the people that visit here. Since Hayden and South Routt are primarily bedroom communities for Steamboat, it's difficult to create many shopping opportunities, as most residents do their shopping where they work, since it's usually a little cheaper. Hayden and South Routt are asking that this education tax be used to create great education for all Routt County kids.

MomFromSteamboat (anonymous)
April 2, 2008 at 6:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Because many of Steamboat's workers live in Hayden and Oak Creek, but shop in Steamboat, it does make sense that they should benefit somewhat from the 1/2 cent sales tax. However, to show that they are not demanding a hand-out from Steamboat taxpayers, those cities should enact 1/2 cent sales taxes of their own as well. If it is true that their residents do the majority of their shopping in Steamboat, then their actual tax burden will not change substantially -- after all, it's a sales tax, so you only pay it when you buy something.

Phaedrus (anonymous)
April 2, 2008 at 10:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As I read a number of posts on the 1/2 cent sales tax issue I think the issue is very complex and there are a number of misunderstandings out there about the issue. First, as I understand it, Steamboat Springs is able to have the 1/2 cent sales tax because it is a "home rule municipality." South Routt, Hayden, and Routt County are not able to ask voters for a 1/2 cent sales tax because these entities are limited by statute and are at their state statuatory limit of possibe tax increases. Second, the original 1/2 cent sales tax question asked voters to raise taxes for "educational purposes." The Steamboat City Council then specified the funds be used for the Steamboat Springs School District. Currently, the funds benefit the Steamboat Springs School District even though Strawberry Park Elementary, Steamboat Middle School, and North Routt Charter school are not within the city of Steamboat Springs. Third, current funds do support a county-wide grant writer and those services are very beneficial because the position forces the three school districts to collaborate and most grant proposals are strenthened when multiple districts apply under one grant instead of competing with each other. Lastly, the concept of permitting other public educational organizations like Hayden and South Routt to come before the Educational Fund Board with funding requests would force greater collaboration between the three Routt County School Districts. Greater collaboration between three small school districts improves each district's capacity to improve education. Improved education locally, ultimately benefits the city of Steamboat Springs and the resort industry by being able to attract and retain quality employees where workforce housing is available in Stagecoach, Oak Creek, Phippsburg, Yampa, and Hayden. "And what is good Phaedrus, And what is not good --- Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?" by Persig

alphadog (anonymous)
April 3, 2008 at 8:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Many comments seem to be missing the question. The question is not whether or not Steamboat schools have more than the county schools. The question is SHOULD A CITY TAX BE SHARD WITH THE COUNTY? It is not pertinent that Steamboat has more, or that the county needs more, or that education benefits Steamboat, or that someone thinks Steamboat is greedy, or that county residents shop in Steamboat or how much we donate to LIft Up etc etc. The question is SHOULD A CITY TAX BE SHARED WITH THE COUNTY? I think not. If the residents of the county want to shop in Steamboat, great. If they want to not pass their own taxes, fine. But don't come to ask for our City taxes to supplement your own taxing system.

coffeelady (anonymous)
April 3, 2008 at 10:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Phaedrus gave us all a very good nuts and bolts of the politics of how things need to be done in the educational world statewide. Thank You. Some of my questions were answered after reading it. Up front, I will tell you, I live in STAGECOACH. We are not a city, and can not vote for Oak Creek or Steamboat city tax; We just kind of pay for anybody's education in the county whenever we buy things. No problem. Some of our kids go to South Routt, some of our kids go to Steamboat. I am not biased either way, as I understand both sides. I agree with Alphadog that we shouldn't play the blame game and keep score, and also that city tax should stay city tax, and county should stay county. However, Phaedrus explained very well that South Routt is NOT ALLOWED BY THE STATE MANDATE to ask for more at this time. Did you know that a large portion of South Routt property taxes was just passed to go to South Routt Schools, but that it is only half of what is needed to give our students an "excellent" rating. Did you also know that 1.5 million or so in grant money was just given to South Routt Schools, but it had to be used for a new heating system - since the original one finally went out and the kids had no heat? - whoa, Surprise !. The issue poses a serious question - By Steamboat city sales tax giving a very small amount to the outlying schools, (and many, if not most of those taxes paid by visitors hoteled in Steamboat) will it eventually aid in the overcrowding at Steamboat Schools, keeping Steamboat Schools rated high, and Steamboat residents taxes being lower when they do not have to raise more money to fund another new building or annex to what already exists in order to accomodate the children of outlying schools? This tax is a creative preventative measure since the outlying schools are not allowed to ask for more at this time. THAT, Alphadog, is where the importance of city taxes being used county wide makes sense; It's cheaper for the City of Steamboat and it's residents in the long run, AND it is benefiting ALL of the children of ALL of the people who keep Steamboat businesses in business... that means this measure is helping Steamboat residents, South Routt residents and West Routt residents. This issue is not about greed or handouts on either side, it's very complicated in this county that has been booming for over a decade. This is about protecting and enhancing what we have.

TheInformant (anonymous)
April 3, 2008 at 4:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry for the bad spelling earlier, the coal dust from our century old heating system must be getting to my BRAIN. Mature way to handle it. Seriously, it might have been spelt wrong but did you even read it to try and decipher the point? Either way it doesn't matter.

But honestly and truefully. Maybe all of us from Soroco do spell like that? How would you know?! Have any of you not supporting this BEEN to Soroco to see WHAT we have to deal with!? Everything we have is either tagged from the government, or borrowed from ANOTHER school. Until you come out here to realize what we as STUDENTS of the Soroco school system have to deal with on a daily basis due to the lack of funding. Please. Shut up.

We are talking about the education of children here for heck's sake! Now ask yourself this. If you lived between Oak Creek and Steamboat Springs and you were required to pay ALL your primary taxes to the STEAMBOAT schools. EVENTHOUGH your child goes to SOROCO. Would you be upset?

It's not like Soroco is asking for ALL of your sales tax. It would be for the better education of Colorado and our future.

=]

armchairqb (anonymous)
April 3, 2008 at 10:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Can't we all learn to get along & share?????? I thought we all learned this in kindergarten. Maybe we should all take a lesson from our kids.

TheInformant (anonymous)
April 3, 2008 at 11:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Cute. Excuse me armchairqb for this if your not directing that comment at me. My intention is honestly to get along with no one and to make a point. Sorry if that upsets you. My whole intent is of sharing.

Look I'm not looking to start an arguement over the internet. It's pointless and it's more fun irl. I'm trying to explain, for those of you who haven't been down this way to open your eyes. Funding is pretty low down here. A lot going for the fact that most taxation gets absorbed to the SSHS whether we like it or not.

My parents own a very successful business in Steamboat, yet they have to pay full taxes to your high school even though I attend elsewhere. Yes it is my choice to and I am proud of that choice. Yet my school will never see a dime of my parents profits, even though my parents would much rather support my school.

The point boils down to the plain and simple fact. One, this deals with education of kids....kids who are our coming future. Two, our education systems are the foundation that builds us for the rest of our lives. Three, you should want to support EVERY single school in this entire country whether your child attends there or not because it is from these places that our most billiant minds of tomorrow are born.

Yet we're debating weather we should support just one school or all of them in this county. The answer is obviously simple to me. Let's support them all, so we can better educate the students for a brighter, more positive tomorrow. There is no need for selfish greed.

Share the love.

alphadog (anonymous)
April 4, 2008 at 2:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Informant, WOW! you want to support every single school in the country. What a noble thought, albeit somewhat impractical. I suggest you beware of speaking or printing your thoughts as your liberal bent may cause you to spontainously burst into flames. To coffeelady, I am very much in favor of education and have happily paid school taxes many, many years even though my wife and I do not have children. We are not talking about recinding the tax, only whether or not to allocate some of it to the county. If the voters decide to share the tax I am not leaving town, I'm only expressing an opinion. Sharing the tax with the county makes no sense to me. What about Moffatt county? If you don't want to consider tourists, how about the residents of Craig, Kremmling, Denver, Silverthorne etc. etc. They are all good Colorado citizens? Should we exclude them from their fair share? If so should we ask those folks to reimburse us some of their tax receipts as we all shop in Denver etc. on occassion.

TheInformant (anonymous)
April 4, 2008 at 3:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Alphadog. I'm not saying I would or I could support every school in the country. Honestly. Quit thinking like a child and go a little more out of the box. I said you should have the heart to WANT to support everyone in the country. Obviously you are too narrow minded to understand my view points though.

Either way. I ignore your pety insults about my way of thought, you cannot help the weak minded, only ignore them.

Please. Do something productive. Take a day through SSHS and take note on that which you observe. Then. Blog it, before your bias thoughts can come to mind. After that, come on down to Soroco High School. I'd be happy to give you a tour. Again blog your observations.

Now tell me we don't need funding from the large community almost all of us work in? Thanks. Look forward to seeing your results =]

Share the love.

alphadog (anonymous)
April 5, 2008 at 5:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Informant: boy you sure spent a great deal of time ignoring my insults (your word not mine). Is being a liberal an insult? Anyway, could we come back to the question at hand. That is SHOULD we share a city tax with the county, not DOES the county need more funding. I think all would agree that the county schools need more funding and the COUNTY or the cities in question should come up with their own taxing ideas. A Steamboat city tax was passed and should stay in Steamboat. Share the love, just keep the tax dollars where they belong.

TheInformant (anonymous)
April 5, 2008 at 2:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just out of curiousity have you seen how big Oak Creek and Hayden are compared to Steamboat? Quite large. Most residents of Hayden and Oak Creek also work in Steamboat, yet their children go to school in their hometowns (Oak Creek and Hayden). A lot of them do most of their shopping within Steamboat. So should those people who spend their money in Steamboat not see any of it come back to them in the benefit to their schools?

I would completely agree with you that the cities should come up with their own taxation ideas but the point comes down to it, where there is not enough population to make a difference in the money our school would see.

Most of us spend money in Steamboat. All the surrounding ares benefit Steamboat. Without the surrounding area, Steamboat would be nothing. A lot of us cannot afford to live in the city. All those who don't should see something in return. =]

Share the love.

TheInformant (anonymous)
April 5, 2008 at 2:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Quite small I mean*

marthalee (anonymous)
April 5, 2008 at 4:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It's my opinion that sales taxes are regressive and need to be lowered. On the other hand, property taxes ought to support our school systems, as they do in other areas of the country. The tax revenues collected by West Routt/Hayden are supported by the Hayden Station and the mine, among other businesses. SOROCO's tax base is unknown to me.
Increased property taxes would be paid by absentee owners in our county, as well as local owners. What better way to support the public education of our children?

alphadog (anonymous)
April 5, 2008 at 6:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Informant: let's try another tact. If we start sharing sales tax revenue that was proposed to the voters of the city of Steamboat to benefit Steamboat schools where will the sharing stop? Oak Creek needs money for water treatment infrastructure, police, completion of the ice rink etc. etc. Should Steamboat send money for those issues as well? Your argument is that Steamboat is nothing without those surrounding areas. Forget shopping sales tax. Do those in the surrounding area come to Steamboat hospital? Botanic park? Golf? Tennis? Library? Those are city owned-should the surrounding areas contribute to those? I voted to pay the tax to benefit Steamboat schools, voted to expand the library etc. I did not vote to subsidize other cities. If the population is so small in those surrounding cities then how much do they really pay in sales taxes? Are you asking for more than a proportional share? Why should only Hayden and Oak Creek get money? Why not Craig? Kremmling? Denver? Dallas? Detroit? etc. etc. They all spend more than Oak Creek and Hayden and yet you dont include them in your allocation. Why?