Colorado State Fair to Denver? (Pueblo: insurance, dorms, depreciation)

[Josseppie]

Originally Posted by mbalmedpoet

I agree with this. There is too much at stake for Pueblo not to put more of it's own into this. Pueblo has no right to complain in the instance it loses the fair if it does not step up. The tax increase that was voted down went to many things that would have helped tourism here.

It's difficult, however, to try and justify a tax increase, beyond perhaps a hotel tax, when schools are being closed here and City Schools are on the verge of a takeover by the state. Maybe a clause could be written in, that would provide a discount for Pueblo County residents, should they approve a tax that provides for the fair.

At times government and citizens are short-sighted, but the long-term needs to be looked at. Pueblo is not guaranteed to keep the fair.

What needs to happen is the city/county/ fair/ state meet to come up with a plan that includes more money from local and state. I would be for this.

[eatsDEN]

So, ALL State residents should more heavily subsidize the Fair -- even though local residents refuse to do so?

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Josseppie

Its about 3 million and like we have been talking about upgrading the fair I think would solve this. Plus keep in mind the state budget is 30 billion which is I think its .01% of the budget. Not a lot.

This was a decent report from 9 News in Denver:

Moving State Fair to Denver 'a mistake'

But a lot of that state budget is locked up in non-discretionary spending. The General fund is only about 1/3 of the overall state budget. That's still a small amount, but 3M a year could be the service payment on a new facility at one of the state's colleges. Would a new science building at CSU-Pueblo be worth more than the Fair to Pueblo?

It would be fair that if the state provides additional funding to the Fair to subsidize its losses and to fund renovation of the dilapidated facilities that Pueblo cough up a contribution as well. It doesn't have to be in-kind, we all recognize that Pueblo is a poor, struggling town with limited prospects, but I would say it needs to be in the 25-50% range of whatever the state would contribute. So if the state up the subsidy to $3M, Pueblo should be kicking in $1-1.5M annually.

[Josseppie]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

But a lot of that state budget is locked up in non-discretionary spending. The General fund is only about 1/3 of the overall state budget. That's still a small amount, but 3M a year could be the service payment on a new facility at one of the state's colleges. Would a new science building at CSU-Pueblo be worth more than the Fair to Pueblo?

Honestly no. I mean we are talking one building at the university or losing the fair. Big difference. Plus its a different budget anyway and as you know the university is increasing in attendance.

Originally Posted by wong21fr

It would be fair that if the state provides additional funding to the Fair to subsidize its losses and to fund renovation of the dilapidated facilities that Pueblo cough up a contribution as well. It doesn't have to be in-kind, we all recognize that Pueblo is a poor, struggling town with limited prospects, but I would say it needs to be in the 25-50% range of whatever the state would contribute. So if the state up the subsidy to $3M, Pueblo should be kicking in $1-1.5M annually.

If it was 25% then it would be $750,000 a year. Considering we give them $300,000 now I would have no problem if it went to up that much especially if it was part of a overall plan to improve the fair grounds.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Josseppie

What needs to happen is the city/county/ fair/ state meet to come up with a plan that includes more money from local and state. I would be for this.

It starts at the local level, which has not happened. This is why this whole bothersome subject comes up again and again- Pueblo isn't proposing anything to solve the structural deficit that the Fair has.

The Neville's of this world hate fiscal wastefulness, especially when it appears to be welfare instead of subsidization.

[Josseppie]

Originally Posted by eatsDEN

So, ALL State residents should more heavily subsidize the Fair -- even though local residents refuse to do so?

Its the state fair and I would have no problem if the state worked with the city and county to develop a master plan. I mean the state helped pay for the Stock Show in Denver.

[Josseppie]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

It starts at the local level, which has not happened. This is why this whole bothersome subject comes up again and again- Pueblo isn't proposing anything to solve the structural deficit that the Fair has.

The Neville's of this world hate fiscal wastefulness, especially when it appears to be welfare instead of subsidization.

Pueblo does help. $300,000 a year. As I have posted I have no problem if they come up with a plan that includes more money from local and state.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Josseppie

Its the state fair and I would have no problem if the state worked with the city and county to develop a master plan.

Since that's your argument, that it's a state instead of a local responsibility to propose a solution, then the state should consider all possibilities including including a move. Subsidies versus a self-sustaining enterprise should be the framework within which to evaluate the Fair's future.

[Josseppie]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Since that's your argument, that it's a state instead of a local responsibility to propose a solution, then the state should consider all possibilities including including a move. Subsidies versus a self-sustaining enterprise should be the framework within which to evaluate the Fair's future.

The reality is the state owns the land so it should be mutual between the city and state to come up with a viable plan that is good for all parties involved. As you posted the fair is not moving so they should be working together to make it better. I mean look at it this way even if it was to leave how much would it cost the state to redevelop the land as there is no way anyone would let them tear it down? A lot more then they put into it now.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Josseppie

Its the state fair and I would have no problem if the state worked with the city and county to develop a master plan. I mean the state helped pay for the Stock Show in Denver.

Sure, but Denver came up with the plan- and kicked in a hell of a lot more money then the state put in. Using this as an argument weakens your position because it's an example of the local level proposing the solution and finding a way to pay for it.