“This new report is good news for the tens of thousands of Veterans we have helped find a home. Our progress in the fight against homelessness has been significant, but our work is not complete until no Veteran has to sleep on the street,” said Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric K. Shinseki. “We have been successful in achieving this milestone due to strong leadership from the President and hard work by countless community organizations and our federal, state, and local partners who are committed to helping Veterans and their families get back on their feet.”

HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan added, “We’re absolutely headed in the right direction as we work to end homelessness amongst those who have served our nation. This significant decline tells us that the Obama Administration is on the right path, working together across agencies to target Federal resources to produce a sharp and measureable reduction in Veteran homelessness. As we put forth in the first Federal plan to prevent and end homelessness, there’s plenty of work ahead to reach our goal, but these numbers validate the work done by both HUD and VA to reach our nation’s homeless Veterans and get them into permanent housing.”

According to the 2011 supplement to the Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) released today, 67,495 Veterans were homeless in the United States on a single night in January 2011 — a significant reduction from last year’s single night count of 76,329.

Since 2009, working with over 4,000 community agencies, VA and HUD have successfully housed a total of 33,597 Veterans in permanent, supportive housing with dedicated case managers and access to high-quality VA health care. The complete 2011 Annual Homeless Assessment Report will be available in 2012.

VA also announced it will make $100 million in grants available to community agencies across the country to prevent nearly 42,000 Veterans and their families from falling into homelessness or to quickly return them to stable housing. The funds are offered for fiscal year 2012 through VA’s Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF) program, a homeless-prevention and rapid re-housing program.

“The problems that lead to homelessness begin long before Veterans and their families are on the streets,” said Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric K. Shinseki. “By putting more resources into prevention services for those at risk of becoming homeless, we will continue to help more Veterans and their families turn their lives around.”

Last year, VA provided $60 million through the SSVF program to community providers, affecting nearly 22,000 people through 85 non-profit community agencies in 40 states and the District of Columbia. The program provides community organizations with funding for counseling, training, education assistance, direct time-limited financial assistance, transportation, child care, rent, utilities, and other services aimed at preventing homelessness or providing homes for participating Veterans and family members.

The available funds were announced in a message posted in the Federal Register and at VA’s website, www.va.gov/homeless/ssvf.asp. Private non-profit organizations and consumer cooperatives interested in the grants have until February 15, 2012 to submit completed applications.

In December 2011 and January 2012, VA will sponsor free workshops to review the grant application process. Community organizations interested in applying for funds under this program can use the website to find dates for workshops in Atlanta, Baltimore, Denver, San Francisco, and St. Louis. Community organizations seeking more information on the SSVF program can also contact VA at 1-877-737-0111 or at SSVF@va.gov.

Tiffany.M.Thomassmith@hud.gov, 202-402-6440

The county commissioners are considering a number of options to generate additional revenue. One option is an incremental 1/2 cent sales tax county-wide sales tax kept 100% by the county. Another option would keep the total sales tax rates the same within the municipalities but would increase the sales tax in unincorporated areas. This second option involves each municipality reducing their sales tax by 2% and then adding 2% to the county. The county would continue to distribute a portion of their total sales tax collections to each municipality as they do today.

The implementation of a use tax on motor vehicle sales and building materials is also being discussed.

What are your thoughts? Solutions and positive ideas are always appreciated. -Cit

Among other points, Jacob noted:

• Many people were really hungry for information (especially those whose homes were at risk), and updates from conventional channels (TV, radio, print) were too infrequent.
• Facebook and Twitter were the main tools for quick, frequent updates.
• Jacob’s email list — otherwise used to regularly update his constituents — was an important supplement for the short messages sent via Twitter. While not everyone in the city was subscribed, those who were got more detailed information than was available from either social or conventional media.
• Some people began using social media as a result of the fire, because it was the best resource for timely updates.

It’s an interesting case study in how proactive elected officials (Jacob and Councilor Bill Fisher) used available tools to complement established protocols for distributing information during a crisis.

The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) recently announced the merger of the Colorado Division of Wildlife and the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation into a single division proposed to be named the “Division of Parks and Wildlife.” Senator Schwartz is sponsoring legislation to authorize the merger, thereby creating a new division under the DNR. In a challenging budget year, the legislature, Department of Natural Resources and Governor’s office see the consolidation as a means to minimize lost services given declining revenues.

As the process moves forward, the Parks and Wildlife Board – formed when the new Division is created – will consider citizen and stakeholder input as they develop recommendations concerning how the new division will be organized.

The Department will request additional legislation during the 2012 session with specifics on program budget and administration within the new Division.

Colorado State Senator Gail SchwartzSenator Schwartz gave the following comment regarding the bill: “This is an important opportunity for the administration and General Assembly to consider the preservation of the missions and services of both Divisions into the future.  I have requested that DNR director Mike King communicate his and the Board’s intentions throughout a transparent process to all the stakeholders including our park users, anglers, hunters and wildlife watchers who enjoy our facilities throughout Colorado including SD5.

I support moving forward with this legislation and thank the members of the Parks Board and the Wildlife Commission for their work in bringing these entities together with full consideration of stakeholder issues.”

The bill will also be sponsored by Representative Jerry Sonnenberg (R-Sterling), and Representative Cheri Gerou (R-Evergreen).

Salida City Administrator

I have read the stream and I can offer a couple of thoughts to answer some of the questions that are being tossed around. I must let you and your readers know that I am not going to comment on the specifics of the Forest Service proposal for I, along with all the other bidders on this deal, signed a non-disclosure agreement and to date I have not been released of that obligation.

First and I think most to the point, this is a project that has been discussed very publicly, out in the open, for the past eight plus years. When I arrived in Salida a little over two years ago the City Council when setting goals for me to work on unanimously set development of the Natural Resource Center (NRC) as my number one goal. The City was just coming off a rough experience with a developer that was under contract to purchase the Vandaveer Ranch that would have included the NRC as a main focal point of the Hwy 50 development. At that time the NRC was planned to be developed by a not for profit entity. I am sure that the developer was thinking that the energy and traffic the NRC would bring to the eastern end of town would benefit the sale of the rest of the property. The City is now in that same situation as the owner of the Vandaveer Ranch. The NRC and it’s development of utilities to that end of the City opens up a number of possibilities for sales to the private sector. Here the goal is to recapture as much of the $2,200,000 the City paid for the Ranch as possible. Given that I had previous experience in development and not for profit development I suggested to the Council the 63-20 option. While the 63-20 takes a City sponsor in order to form the corporation it is a private not for profit entity that is independent and creates no obligation to the sponsoring City. The NRC project will have to stand on its own secured by the leases or sales it generates.

Additionally the corporation will pay for all the costs associated with the project, extending the utilities, without any participation of city crews. The 63-20 has a defined life. Once the debt is paid off in 20 to 25 years the corporation dissolves and the property becomes an asset of the City of Salida the sponsoring agency. It is absolutely true that I will spend time on the project as a part of my normal work day. To that end I am accomplishing the number one goal of the City of Salida.

The string brought up the fact that the feasibility study indicated a national developer should be selected to build the project. I believe at one time there was a developer out of Arkansas or Louisiana that was interested in the deal and had talked to people here about doing the project. Tim Glenn would be a better resource to ask about that. Again given my experience and background I recommended that we form the 63-20 and keep that work as much as possible here in Salida. The corporation conducted a RFQ process that attracted a number of qualified firms both local and from around the State to act as our development team. We went through an complete and thorough evaluation ultimately selecting a firm from Denver, the BYG Group, that teamed up with a local firm, Natural Habitats. The team has an outstanding track record and has completed a Forest Service project here in Colorado. I believe we have put together a team that is as good as any in the country.

Regarding the not for profit nature of the Corporation and its advantages. The nature of the corporation was discussed in open session, on TV, and reported in the Mountain Mail. The City Council understood the concept. It was also clearly understood that the not for profit corporation would be competing with the private sector for the Forest Service office building. The pure nature of the 63-20 being not for profit gives it an advantage, no profit motive. I also acknowledge that not paying property tax and being able to tap the municipal bond market are also advantages.

To recap the City was looking to develop the NRC for a number of reasons. It becomes a gateway for people entering the City from the east and might even stop a few from the west that will emphasize the importance of natural resources to our community. It will assist those travelers and point out to them the many opportunities of the area, where they might stay or eat or what activity they might want to participate in. It will provide services for RV’s. Most of these reasons would fall in the general category of economic development for the City. In addition for locals in the spirit of community building we have been talking to a number of institutions of higher learning about relocating to the campus to bring those opportunities to Salida as well as one stop shopping for all the services the agencies locating to the project bring from Christmas tree permits to big game licenses. If it brings the energy we believe it will the City may have the opportunity to sell some of the land it has to offset what it spent on purchasing the Vandaveer Ranch. These are large ambitions and they can only be accomplished one step at a time. The first step was to secure the Forest Service and the Colorado Division of Wildlife as our first tenants.

Jack Lewis

DEFINITION: “The use of nonprofit corporations (sometimes referred to as “63-20 Corporations”) in structuring public/private infrastructure financings has recently attracted a great deal of attention. Its use is being promoted as a way to preserve the ability for a project to be financed with tax-exempt bonds, while maintaining for both the public and private participants most of the benefits of private development.” -more information.

Download the 2006 Feasibility Study PDF [2.4MB]

Update: We received this response from Jack Lewis

The Governor has requested that each county develop or update its economic development plan based on current input from local citizens, businesses and other interested parties. By May 15th, the objective is to have the county plans rolled up into 14 regional plans, which collectively will roll up into a statewide economic development plan.

While recognizing that some counties and regions are already moving forward on this effort (thank you), our office is also developing a process to assist all counties. We understand that not every county is in the same place and we will be available to assist those counties as needed.

Please participate in the Governor’s Bottom-Up Economic Development Plan. Take the online survey and/or attend one of the meetings in your region.

For more information on this and to access the tools & resources on the website visit Advance Colorado and click on “Governor’s Bottom-Up Economic Development Plan” button in the upper right hand corner of the webpage.

An additional concern might be the possible backlash by a largely hurtn’ populace, some of whom  might now be eyeing a run for a City Council, or Mayoral seat this fall —for the wrong reasons.

The current council has, for the last few years, represented a sane approach to governance. It’s hard to peg them as too liberal, or too conservative. They are individuals who can agree to disagree —and remain respectful of each other’s positions. Moreover, it’s hard to nail them for representing “new values” or being out of touch. They have been accessible listeners who have somehow, as virtually unpaid civil servants, guided the community through tough times and moved us forward. Refreshing.

So, what happened here?

The question may be answered this fall when voters remember, albeit incorrectly, that the current council’s record is one of being “too liberal, and out of touch” based on this one high profile vote. To some, this decision appears to be representative of the money management disaster that is our current state and federal government, and one on which a less progressive-minded candidate might choose to build a platform. So, the question is why our current Council would risk upsetting a culture of progressive governance and its record of success stories?

When the economy turns (yes, I’m an optimist), Chaffee County will see significant and possibly berserk growth. Now is the time to have forward thinking elected officials who communicate well. Fortunately, we do, which makes this all the more confusing.

If we would like to see a highly-conservative old school City Council, as represented by our County Commissioners, just keep voting pay raises; Candidates will come out of the woodwork.

For those city employees who are cheering the vote, consider how quickly things can change come November.

If there is something being left out of the article, the community would appreciate hearing from those involved in the decision to set the record straight.

60, 61 and 101 failed. Hickenlooper is the Governor. Tom Massey won. Dave Potts won. Joyce Reno won, Wood won. Pete Palmer won. Brenda Runyon lost. Gail Schwartz won. It appears John Salazar lost. In national news..there are so many places to find info, try Politics Daily.

Here is some beta from The Huff Post, mostly editorial, with a left leaning slant. Also, The Denver Post has some info, though their site is being updated this morning, and may be jumpy. CBS4 has detailed information in a simple list format.

Next month’s elections represent an off-year for cities and towns, with very few having candidate elections. However, there are a number of local questions before municipal voters. The most popular issue is medical marijuana.

Marijuana

Twenty-six cities and towns have questions before local voters on whether to allow or to prohibit medical marijuana centers: Akron, Aurora, Broomfield, Castle Pines North, De Beque, Dinosaur, Elizabeth, Federal Heights, Fountain, Fraser, Granby, Hillrose, Hot Sulphur Springs, Jamestown, La Junta, Lake City, Lone Tree,  Loveland, Minturn, Olathe, Otis, Ouray, Paonia (including a separate question on whether to allow a grow operation), Ramah, Sugar City, and Windsor.

New state law adopted during the last session of the General Assembly allows for these municipal votes.

Eight municipalities also have questions on the ballot dealing with marijuana taxation: De Beque, Fraser, Fruita, Granby, Hot Sulphur Springs, Mountain View, Paonia, and Pueblo.

Taxes

There are a number of questions dealing with taxes with lodging taxes leading the pack.

Aspen, Blue River, Boulder, Breckenridge, Craig, Cripple Creek, and Fountain have such questions up next month using the revenue generally for tourism and marketing promotion.

Sales tax increases for various capital improvements are before municipal voters in five communities: Blue River, Fort Collins (various public improvements), Greeley (streets), Limon (wellness facility and equipment), Milliken (streets).

Greeley voters also will be voting on whether to continue an expiring food sales tax. Voters in Northglenn (for capital improvements, including water and sewer upgrades) and Pueblo (for economic development programs) will decide to continue expiring city sales taxes.

Related to sales taxes are use taxes. In Blue River, Louisville, and Minturn local voters will decide on adopting such taxes.

Voters in Carbondale (streets), Mountain View (police protection), and Snowmass (two questions, one for transportation services and the other for an open space property acquisition) will decide the fate of property tax increases.

A utility occupation tax is up in Boulder to replace an expiring Xcel franchise.

Black Hawk’s voters will consider a square footage business tax.

Only one city in the state has a debt question before voters: Pueblo would like to issue a revenue bond using sales tax vendor fees for a $10 million restoration of Memorial Hall.

In terms of revenue retention votes, Colorado Springs is asking voters for one on property taxes for road and bridge improvements, and Fountain has two different questions up to cover economic development and baseball fields.

Miscellaneous

In Aspen, voters will consider eliminating instant runoff elections. Aspen will ask voters to allow for the publication of ordinances on the city’s Web site.

In Hot Sulphur Springs, Jamestown, and Mead the towns will ask voters for permission to publish ordinances by title only in order to save money.

Three cities have questions altering the structure of local government. Idaho Springs will ask whether the city clerk can be appointed rather than elected. In Colorado Springs and Wheat Ridge, voters will be given a chance to decide whether the city manager form of government should be replaced with the mayor-council system.

Currently, 171 of the state’s 271 municipalities are governed by the council-manager system, and only one, Denver, operates under the mayor-council system. Pueblo voters rejected such a change over a year ago.

Voters in Wheat Ridge will also decide whether to give the mayor a veto over certain council actions.

Castle Pines North voters will be asked to drop North from the newly incorporated city’s name. Additionally, that city’s voters will also decide whether or not to keep the urban renewal authority. In recent elections, Estes Park and Windsor voters decided to abolish their authorities.

Can police impound cars driven by unlicensed drivers? Lakewood’s voters will consider this proposal, similar to one considered in the recent past by Denver’s voters.

Boulder will be asking voters to consider an exception to that city’s height restriction ordinance for rooftop renewable energy devices.

Finally, it will be a first in Colorado, and perhaps the nation, if Denver’s voters approve the formation of a municipal extraterrestrial affairs commission.

For more information, contact Sam Mamet, CML Executive Director at 303-831-6411.

CML is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization established in 1923 and represents the interests of 264 cities and towns.  For more information on the Colorado Municipal League, please visit our site or call 303-831-6411.

The sponsors of Amendments 60 and 61 and Proposition 101, also known as the “Dr. Evil Initiatives,” had to endure some uncomfortable questioning as well as fines after it was discovered they may have had ties to TABOR author Doug Bruce who has denied any hand in the budget-strangling measures.

Petition proponents for Amendment 60 are Bonnie Sloan of Black Hawk and Louis Schroeder of Greenwood Village. Proponents of 61 are Russell Haas of Golden and Michelle Northrup, also of Black Hawk. Proposition 101 was proposed by Jeff Gross, a house painter from Kersey, Co., and Freda Poundstone of Centennial. Schroeder, Haas and Gross were all ordered to pay fines of $2,000 each by Colorado Administrative Law Judge Robert Spencer after a complaint was filed alleging violations of fair campaign finance and practice laws as they failed to register as issue committees and failed to report financial contributions. The Colorado Court of Appeals received an appeal on July 21 regarding all three cases, and they are set to be heard on October 18.

Meanwhile, Northrup testified in May that she did not approve of the evasion tactics being used by the other backers of the ballot issues, according to the Colorado Springs Gazette. She claimed she didn’t “approve of orders being barked at me” by Doug Bruce.

It is thought that the proponents may have fallen on the sword for Bruce, the alleged mastermind of the measures. He was cited for contempt of court after failing to testify about the identity of the financial backers of the initiatives. El Paso County Sheriff’s deputies have made 30 attempts to serve Bruce but he has continually evaded them. Bruce has since retained the services of Denver attorney David Lane who also represented the father of the infamous “balloon boy” Richard Heene.

According to records at the Colorado Secretary of State’s office, eight professional petition circulators who gathered a large number of signatures for the three measures all lived in an apartment house in Colorado Springs owned by Bruce.

The campaign coordinator for the three ballot measures is Natalie Menten of Lakewood, who ran unsuccessfully for both State Senate, District 21, in 2008, and for City Council of Lakewood in 2009 on the Republican ticket.

The largest contributors to the campaign to get the measures on the ballot are members of the wealthy Hasan family of Pueblo. That same family recently made headlines when it was learned they paid former U.S. Congressman Scott McInnis $300,000 to write about water issues, which led to charges of plagiarism. Those charges may have cost McInnis in his gubernatorial primary loss against Dan Maes. To date, the Hasans have contributed a total of $10,000 to support the initiatives. They made their millions by creating one of the largest health maintenance organizations (HMOs) in America. The next largest contributors were Coleen and William Robinson, retired, of Denver, who contributed $2,760 for office space, according to the Colorado Campaign Finance Database.

© 2010 Colorado Central Magazine Cozine.com

What do you do with the anger of others? It’s hard not to get angry back. There may be a lesson in that, but when face-to-face with rage, what do you do? In this case, you vote.

You vote No on the jumble of angry anti-tax, anti-public-sector measures contained in Proposition 101 and Amendments 60 and 61.

I don’t mean to belittle anyone’s frustration with society and government. You may not like the status quo, just as you may not like a bulging middle and flabby thighs, but how do you lose weight? Do you diet and exercise, or do you cut off a leg?

Proposition 101 and Amendments 60 and 61 propose cutting off a leg, leaving the body permanently crippled and sadly less able to exercise.

Amendment 60 is about “property taxes” but in so many different ways it’s hard to believe this got through the “single-issue” rule for election questions.

Amendment 61 is ostensibly about “government debt,” but it plays off fear of the current crisis in personal and national debt, hoping to write into the Colorado constitution crippling restrictions on state and local government. It’s not about a crisis of debt in Colorado government.

Proposition 101 is another hodge-podge, reducing vehicle and telecommunications taxes and fees, and incrementally reducing the state income tax, eventually cutting a quarter of the state’s income tax revenues. (Remember this cut when we come back to mandates in Amendment 60 below.) Proposition 101 alone will cut the Salida Regional Library budget by $85,000 per year.

Pro-forces complain that analysis of these measures never mention that parts are phased in over a number of years. This is an absurd complaint. We’re still talking about cutting off a leg – quickly or slowly doesn’t matter. Don’t be fooled.

Let’s look closely at Amendment 60 as an example of how all three are composed. If you get out your text of the ballot language, you’ll see that Section (b) is a mixture of property tax issues of varying importance.

“Electors may vote on property taxes where they own real property.” This might sound reasonable, but it is a profound change from the American tradition of voting where you live. Think about it.

“Adapting state law, all districts shall allow petitions to lower property taxes as voter-approved revenue changes.” This may sound harmless enough, but look at how easy it is to get an amendment to the state constitution – the highest order of law – on the ballot. Do you want your local ballot cluttered every year with even more cranky initiatives? Citizen initiatives are fine in principle; messy in practice. There are good reasons for representative democracy.

“Property tax issues shall have November election notices and be separate from debt issues.” Someone dislikes Title 32 Special Districts, which can have non-November elections. Do you think this is important enough to amend the constitution? This line is sleight of hand; humming you to sleep.

“Property tax bills shall list only property taxes and late charges.” Who cares? And why should this be in the Colorado Constitution?

“Enterprises and authorities shall pay property taxes; lower rates shall offset that revenue.” This is a red herring. Taxpayers pay one way or the other. If this helps anyone, it’s non-resident property owners, who would also get new local voting privileges (see above).

“Enterprises and unelected boards shall levy no mandatory fee or tax on property.” Not sure yet what this will mean. The Salida Regional Library board, for example, is unelected but appointed by elected officials; it also, as required by law, certifies a property tax mill levy to the county commissioners each year. Some legal opinions argue this circumstance will remain legal. We’ll see, probably after years in court, as happened with TABOR questions after 1992. I don’t see the point of this proposal except to throw a wrench in the works.

As a voter, you may be nodding off now reading the very question that requires your full attention and vote. Maybe something in there even sounds reasonable. Now, without warning, it hits the fan:

“Future property tax increases will expire within ten years.” Bang. Doesn’t matter what local voters want. Maybe you want to commit to a bigger library or more fire protection. Fine, but in ten years, you have to vote again, and then again, and again …

“Prior actions to keep excess property tax revenue are expired; future actions are tax increases expiring within four years.” Boom. This will cut the Salida Regional Library budget by hundreds of thousands of dollars annually; other districts and local governments nearly a billion. The decisions of local voters across Colorado to keep tax revenues in excess of TABOR will be nullified in one fell swoop.

“Non-college school districts shall phase out equally by 2020 half their 2011 rate not paying debt; state aid shall replace that revenue yearly.” Ka-Booom! Remember the state income tax reduction mentioned above? On top of that cut, Amendment 60 requires the state to backfill local revenue reduction for school districts. Reduce income but increase expenses.

If this were fully implemented today, K-12 education would consume over 99% of the state budget, leaving $38 million for everything else. Everything: corrections, health and human services including Medicaid, higher education, highways, everything else. Over $3.5 billion of state services cut to $38 million. You decide.

Amendment 61 writes new debt restrictions into the state constitution that are pointless except as vindictive, anti-public sector measures. Restricting all debt to voter-approved, bonded debt of ten years or less is designed to virtually eliminate government projects. Any government currently paying off debt, regardless of the revenue source, must reduce its tax rate once the debt is paid off. It’s like having your salary cut once your house is paid off. And under Amendment 61, there will be only ten-year mortgages, so there won’t be many.

The bottom line: What do these amendments improve? Whom do they benefit? Even supporters will suffer, regardless of their fantasies of a New America. These are adolescent proposals – lashing out in careless anger.

These initiatives have many facets, some of them unclear and destined for the courts. If you don’t fully understand all the effects of a proposal – especially a constitutional amendment – the only responsible vote is No.

Jeff Donlan currently nurses at the public teat as director of the Salida Regional Library. Mindful of the disagreeable nature of this arrangement, he strives to give taxpayers an excellent return on their dollar.

© 2010 Colorado Central Magazine Cozine.com

Thanks Mike and Jeff -bd