Saturday, February 12, 2011, 9:00am: ShinDig to Open Little Rainbow.

Weather permitting, SMT is scheduling the February Volunteer ShinDig to coincide with the Grand Opening of the Little Rainbow Trail and to do some re-routing of the trail as it reaches the CR110 parking lot. Meet at the CR110 trailhead parking lot, which is 2.2 miles south on CR110 from Hwy 50. Turn left at the 2.2 mile point and go up a short incline to the parking lot. We will work on the trail until 12 noon, at which time the trail opening ceremony will take place. After the ceremony, lunch will be provided to the volunteers behind or inside the Salida Cafe and Roastery. As usual, come prepared with water, gloves, long pants and sturdy boots. Be sure to dress warmly for the low February morning temperatures. Tools will be provided

Meet at the U.S. Forest Service office on HWY 50 (325 West Rainbow Boulevard, Salida) at 8:30AM, Saturday, August 14, 2010.  The group will carpool to the worksite from there.

Please confirm your attendance with me (eric@salidamountaintrails.org) no later than August 11th, so the Forest Service knows how many sandwiches to provide.  If you don’t confirm before then, you’ll need to bring your own lunch.

As usual, come prepared with water, gloves, long pants and sturdy boots. Tools will be provided. Find out how satisfying digging in the dirt can be.

As the first year of the second decade of the 21^st century dawns I’d like to see the Chaffee County government agree to a new year’s resolution whose time is past due. In 2010 I’d like to see the Board of County Commissioners make a resolve to lead county government to greater heights of democracy through the implementation of policies and tools to instill transparency throughout county government. To riff on a line from OpenTheGovernment.org: If the saying ‘Information is the Currency of Democracy’ has meaning, then the taxpayers of Chaffee County are being pick-pocketed.

No-bid contracts and conflicts of interest are standard operating procedure here. Most recently, as last year drew to a close the commissioners approved a budget which included allocating $30,000 to a fledgling economic development group comprised of a handful of local Republican business leaders appointed by Republican Commissioners Frank Holman and Dennis Giese. Commissioner Tim Glenn, a Democrat, cast the dissenting vote over concern for the composition of the inaugural board, not its purpose. Subsequently, a short-term startup business plan, to be funded by the county, was put forth by appointee Mike Allen, who also serves as Nestle Waters North America’s local development liaison. Allen’s a bright guy and a savvy businessman so the plan is likely very intelligently laid out. However, when the county spends that much tax money on an issue so many concur is vital to our future, it would be prudent to issue a formal request for proposal to explore other approaches to creating a sustainable effort for an issue that enjoys widespread non-partisan support. From a public relations perspective, though I have the utmost respect for the individual members of the fledgling economic development corporation I personally know, the semblance of backdoor politics as usual and the aura of secrecy casts an unsavory pallor over the group that was entirely avoidable. Unless this group is able to quickly get off its feet and become self-sufficient before the next regime change in the commissioners’ chambers, this latest chapter in the county’s economic development saga is doomed to failure as its many, equally well-intentioned, predecessors.

The Chaffee County Visitor’s Bureau provides another example of how little regard the county holds for transparency. Board members enjoy no-strings-attached contracts and grants ranging from $500 for videography to some $40,000 for advertising for a company of which one board member is a shareholder, albeit that the company is hugely important to the winter tourism economy,. Meeting minutes indicate CCVB Chair Michael Varnum seems to consider financial oversight micromanagement. Meanwhile, the CCVB’s contract marketing director is using tourism tax dollars to pay for office supplies and equipment totaling upwards of $3,000 that, according to the terms of her contract with the county, she should be paying for out of her own pocket. No bid contracts and overly cozy relationships between board members, vendors and contractors with a near complete lack of accountability mean conflict of interest in decision making and budgetary matters is inevitable and considerable.

When public funds are on the table there is a compelling responsibility to conduct business with the utmost transparency and integrity. Where there’s smoke there’s fire. The likelihood that the CCVB is the only enterprise or department in the county guilty of financial and ethical conflicts is slim. Transparency benefits the entire community by building trust, and making government more accountable to the taxpayers funding it. As OpenTheGovernment.org maintains: “The public’s right to know promotes equal and equitable access to government, encourages integrity in official conduct, and prevents undisclosed and undue influence from special interests.”

Thankfully there is a way to help the county shine a light on its finances, operations and political appointments. The advent of social media and its associated technological advances make real-time information sharing easier and more affordable than ever which has, as a result, contributed to elevating the people’s right to know as a central social value.

However, the simple fact is that government at every level will only become transparent when we demand it of them and hold our elected officials accountable for it. That’s why I resolve to join with the Sunlight Foundation to bring to the local level their campaign to let government know that what it does is public information, and today, “public” means online and in real-time.

I am encouraged about our chance for local success by organizations like OpenIllinois.org, OpenMinneapolis.org and even our own federal government as they make strides toward greater transparency.

To that end the county needs to provides a complete, itemized, clear and searchable online description of all expenditures, including but not limited to all contracts, vendors, and grants. All expenditures must have a detailed account of the payment’s purpose and who authorized the payment. The information already exists in the county finance office, it just needs to be organized for sharing online.

The same goes for political appointments, which if transparency were already the norm, would have mitigated the political wrangling going on over the appointment of the land use code advisory committee. In this technological age there is no reason why the criteria and deadlines for application for posts, credentials of appointment seekers and broader community dialogue on candidates and appointees – as well as proposed land use code revisions and other matters of public interest – can’t easily be made public for all to see and comment on, not just those with the ability to take time off work to attend mid-day public hearings or make personal phone calls and visits to the commissioners.

In that vein, recently the Obama Administration began to publish online the names of everyone who visits the White House offices; provide online access to White House staff financial reports and salaries; disclose and limit lobbyist contacts; publish the membership of Federal advisory committees in downloadable form; and create unprecedented ways to track how the government spends taxpayer dollars. From online listening tours and chats to web-based brainstorming by government officials with the American public, the White House and federal agencies are opening up the way they work to improve accountability in government and deepen the roots of democracy. Last month, to mark the publication of the Open Government Directive every one of the White House Cabinet Departments launched a brand new open government initiative.

If a giant bureaucracy like the federal government can do such things, we Chaffee County taxpayers can and should demand parallel action in our own local government. By following the White House’s lead and making government data available in real time and inviting greater public collaboration in developing new products and tools for the public good, the county could take the values of openness and transparency and translate them into practical ways to address local priorities.

Together we must join in demanding less secrecy and more democracy of our local elected officials, their appointees, contractors and transparency and accountability in the operations and services they provide.

County Commissioner Dennis Giese has been at the forefront of the push for an economic development program that doesn’t fizzle out like so many before it. Giese explained the evolution of the project and its key players in an interview with the Citizen. While the fledgling economic development organization is not yet officially registered, for the purposes of this story, it will be referred to as Chaffee Economic Development Corporation (CEDCO).

Earlier this year, the county spent $50,000 to explore the possibilities and mechanics of establishing an economic development corporation modeled on what many consider to be a shining example of such a public-private partnership in Pueblo. The study and resulting report was coordinated by Jim Spaccamonti, founder of Pueblo based SpacGroup LLC, who was an active, veteran member of the Pueblo Economic Development Corporation (PEDCO). The report was commissioned by the county with financial contributions from the towns of Poncha Springs, Salida and Buena Vista as well.

Giese identified those leading the local charge as Buena Vista realtor Wayne Lovejoy, Mount Princeton Hot Springs Resort General Manager Tom Warren and Salida realtor Jeff Post. Using a list of prospective board members assembled by the ad hoc group of businessmen who had been quietly working to create an economic development organization, last month the county commissioners appointed CEDCO’s first board which, in addition to Lovejoy, Warren and Post, included Collegiate Peaks Bank chief executive Charlie Forster, Paul Moltz, owner, ACA Products; Ken Leisher, Heart of the Rockies Regional Medical Center CEO, Scott Martinez, Waste Management District Manager; Karin Adams, realtor; Dale Enck, attorney; and Mike Allen of Apex Development Services. The board was appointed by a 2-1 vote of the Commissioners. Commissioner Tim Glenn had concerns about the makeup of the board and voted against the motion.

Giese was quick to explain that once the organization gets off the ground and begins to establish a membership base, it will be up to CEDCO members, not the county commissioners, to elect future CEDCO boards of directors. Giese said ultimately, the keys to success for CEDCO would be threefold: local business support, a good director and tangible results.

Giese is hoping to fund the startup of the group with $30,000 tentatively proposed in the county’s 2010 budget. He pointed out the city of Pueblo contributes about half of PEDCO’s $1 million annual budget. The rest of PEDCO’s budget comes from a half-cent sales tax approved by voters in 1984 for the purpose of bringing jobs to the city. Dues from PEDCO’s 300-plus member businesses are also important to the organization’s bottom line. Giese said the local group still has a lot of details up in the air but had been considering annual membership fees somewhere around $750 per business. PEDCO has four membership levels ranging in price $250 to $5,000 per year. On its website, PEDCO takes credit for saving and creating thousands of jobs in Pueblo.

Giese said the group is stuck in a chicken and egg situation where the organization needs money to operate but needs to be operating in order to generate revenue. Next month, Giese said the county will consider a proposal for a three-month business plan and budget to get CEDCO off the ground. He said the plan is being drafted by Mike Allen and one of the co-owners of Global Garage in Buena Vista. Allen is probably best known locally for his work with the controversial Cottonwood Meadows smart growth community and as the local liaison to Nestle Waters North America in that company’s bid to harvest springwater in Chaffee County. Cottonwood Meadows was shot down by local residents. The Nestle project recently was awarded conditional approval by the county commissioners.

During budget deliberations with his fellow commissioners, Giese explained CEDCO is in a state of flux due to the imminent departure of Lovejoy, who Giese credits with a lot of the heavy lifting necessary to get the effort off the ground. Lovejoy has accepted a job in Texas and is relocating there. When contacted by the Citizen at Giese’s urging, Lovejoy said he didn’t want to talk about CEDCO. He asked the effort be put in a positive light because “we just want to bring jobs to the county.”

“I’d rather cut programs than people,” said County Commissioner Chairman Frank Holman as fellow commissioners Dennis Giese and Tim Glenn nodded in agreement.

At a budget workshop last week, County Finance & Personnel Director Dan Short told commissioners he and County Administrator Bob Christiansen had done all they could to cut out “fluff” in the county $22 million budget but were still facing a $175,000 budget shortfall. Short explained the cuts county departments have already made in an effort to slash away at a budget shortfall that started at $691,000.

At the top of the cost-cutting list was the county road and bridge department which Short said opted to defer $200,000 – $300,000 in chip seal projects until 2011. Instead  $40,000 has been budgeted to patch only the most severe road damage. The road and bridge fund will also be buoyed by an expected $160,000 grant from the state’s FASTER fund. FASTER, which stands for Funding Advancement for Surface Transportation and Economic Recovery, is supported by two revenue streams approved by the state legislature earlier this year: a statewide $2 daily rental car fee and earmarked revenues from a weight-based surcharge on vehicle registration that charges heavier vehicles more since they cause more damage to the roads.

Short said he felt staff had exhausted all ways to raise revenue for the county short of going to voters. He said it could make sense at some point to revisit the idea of a use tax.

The commissioners directed the two men to go back to county department heads to see if further cuts – hopefully close to 20 percent in each department – could be made to help the county get to just a $50,000 deficit in its 2010 balance sheet.

Short, who has been the county’s finance man since 1994, explained to the Citizen that while bleak, the county is in a better financial position than others around the state due to its historically conservative approach to budgeting. “We tend to be “slow on the upswing,” Short said, usually only budgeting for projects well after need has already been identified and maintaining a strong fund balance which provides a cushion against economic hard times and emergencies.

FALLING REVENUE

As elsewhere throughout the state, the largest root causes of looming budget deficits are declines in sales tax revenue, building permit fees and interest earnings.

County sales tax revenues account for nearly one-third of general fund revenues. Gains of five percent annually in 2005 though 2008 have been rolled back by an expected 5.5 percent decline in sales tax receipts by the end of 2009 and a similar decline anticipated in 2010. In 2008, county sales tax revenues totaled just over $2.9 million, the same total as expected by the end of this year. In 2010, sales tax is expected to fall by $150,000 to $2.75 million.

With the local construction industry limping along, the county’s building permit fees have slid $128,000 in just two years; from $503,000 in 2008 to $375,000 in 2010.

The biggest hit to county revenues is in interest earnings, which are projected to plummet to $90,000 in 2010 from just over $252,000 in 2008. Short explained that the county tends to invest in short-term instruments which reached historic lows of less than one percent this year. Short writes in the budget draft that the county will continue to invest in short-term instruments but will “diversify our earning assets by slightly extending maturities when appropriate.”

For the past two years, county finances have ended in the red, 2007 being the last year the county ended in a positive financial position, Short told the commissioners. “At some point we need to balance the budget,” he said.

Giese said public safety and the road and bridge department need to be at the top of the list of basic services the county must provide.

The commissioners broached the topic of sales tax or property tax increases to create dedicated revenue streams for big ticket items such as emergency medical services or roads.

For example, emergency medical services have been a major impact on the budget since the countywide service was established in 2006. A dedicated, tax-supported revenue stream for EMS would aim to save the county $700,000 which could then be re-allocated to support other county priorities.

Christiansen said he would follow through with plans to hold a ballot initiative workshop between the county, the towns, and possibly the school districts to discuss a coordinated approach to what, if any, tax increases might be brought before voters in the coming year.

RISING EXPENSES

In addition to declining revenues, the cost to do county business continues to rise.

The county’s health insurance premium was slated to increase 15.5 percent, Short explained, but thanks to some revisions to the plan, only increased a still significant 8 percent. County paid health insurance, which includes dental, vision and health savings account options, amount to nearly $1 million of general fund expenses.

Also topping the list of expense increases was the county’s general fund legal budget which has mushroomed nearly 44.5 percent in two years, from $137,000 in 2008 to $197,950 in 2010.

The county commissioners’ legal budget alone is increasing $45,000, from $85,000 budgeted this year to $130,000 in 2010. Short and county attorney Jenny Davis attribute much of the increase to the county joining in reply to a grazing rights suit filed against the US Forest Service Pike-San Isabel National Forest by the conservation group Western Watersheds Project.

The sheriff’s department is also anticipating a major increase in legal fees as it battles the district attorney’s office over whether to prosecute as a crime, a death previously ruled accidental. Sheriff’s department legal expenses totaled $4,169 in 2008, more than doubled to $9,403 in 2009, and are budgeted to balloon 219 percent to $30,000 in 2010. Davis pointed out both legal cases are being prosecuted by outside counsel.

The fledgling county economic development corporation championed by Giese also came under scrutiny as the commissioners looked for ways to cut expenses. Giese said that even in this tough economy he still believes “we as a county need to commit funds” to economic development. He suggested cutting proposed economic development funding from $50,000 to $30,000. [See related story]

As commissioners continued to spend the afternoon wrangling with intransigent numbers, they kept returning to the same conclusion: “We need to focus on revenue streams,” Glenn said flatly.

The state mandated deadline for adoption of county budgets is Dec. 15. The next public hearing on the budget had not been scheduled as of this posting. Last week’s meeting was not posted on the county web site. The bulletin board outside the commissioners’ chambers at the county courthouse in Salida is the legal site for county public hearing notices.

Incumbent Dem Jerry Mallett has had some wins, mixed results and all-out duds on this front while Republican challenger Frank Holman has never had any direct experience in the realm and hasn’t outlined any specifics on how to shore up or improve on Mallett’s efforts.
Since his election four years ago, Mallett’s efforts on this front have been earnest and consistent but the results have been spotty.

To his credit, Mallett was instrumental in creating the county’s first economic development coordinator position. This office took some baseline snapshots of such issues as housing needs, business/service leakage, and commissioned Colorado State University to produce the recently released Ranchlands Tourism study. More recently, Mallett helped lobby for development of a Small Business Development Council comprised of representatives from the county, chambers of commerce from Salida, Leadville and Buena Vista, the Upper Arkansas Enterprise Zone and Western State College. Most visibly, counselors from the SBDC provide business advice to area small businesses.

Despite these efforts, results of which can be found on the Chaffee County governmental website, vocal critics in the community are asking what the results of these efforts have been. “Zip!” is Holman’s one-word reply, continuing that the above-mentioned studies didn’t reveal anything anyone didn’t already know and were a “ridiculous expense.”

Mallett’s best result in the economic development arena was in fulfillment of his campaign pledge to develop conference facilities. Mallett helped find and apply for serious grant money that helped Salida complete the SteamPlant Theater and Event Center. He also helped steer resources to upgrade the Chaffee County Fairgrounds buildings and grounds, including the installation of solar panels to make the facility more energy efficient and to make that facility more appealing to event organizers.

A less-happy ending met the star-studded economic development committee that Mallett assembled soon after he was elected. The committee, Vision 2020, fizzled into oblivion before it could achieve any of the lofty results to which is aspired. Infused with great optimism and oozing with business acumen, the group – comprised of some of the area’s most dynamic business leaders – operated well under the radar and had many in the community wondering who was on it and what they were up to. What they were up to was trying to turbo-charge economic development for the valley by developing proactive and progressive efforts to recruit new business and industry. The group gradually disbanded, for reasons unknown or undisclosed, although certainly the lack of a dependable revenue stream to fund their outreach efforts probably played a role.

Of all his campaign promises, Mallet’s vision of rolling out the red carpet for a parade of new businesses was surely the most overly optimistic. In campaign ads, candidate forums and and an interview with the Mountain Mail, Mallett spoke confidently of his ability to attract new manufacturing business to the valley, especially from the outdoor industry. “With some encouragement” he predicted he could lure 10 to 15 new outdoor companies, bringing jobs paying $9 to $12 per hour to the area within two years. Yet while communities elsewhere around the West were offering businesses lucrative tax breaks, financial incentives and in some cases, even free real estate, Chaffee County never developed a business recruitment or incentive plan.

Mallett’s answer to his promise to try to “plug the drain” on dollars leaving the valley was a leakage study. The study was developed and conducted in-house and yielded little new information about consumer buying habits. If any businesses did become healthier as a result of information gleaned from the study, such results have not been documented or quantified. Holman found irony in the leakage study since he charges that the county could plug some leaks of its own by purchasing all its road base and equipment parts from within the county instead of from companies in Fremont County.

Having retired from a career with the state highway department, Holman has had little direct experience on the economic development front. Not surprisingly, he does believe a key to economic development is providing good infrastructure like roads as well as the installation of fiber optic cable for high-speed voice and data communications to help local businesses be competitive.

Holman said it also has to be easier for new businesses to take root in the county, saying he knows of more than a few prospects in the past four years that have taken their businesses elsewhere because it proved too time-consuming and difficult to get through the necessary approvals and permitting processes here.

As he has said on other issues, Holman believes the best way for government to play a role is through creating incentives for businesses but was vague on exactly what those incentives might be. While both candidates seem to agree that renewable energy and new, small-scale local agricultural production are promising components of the future of economy here, neither man has unveiled specific economic development plans with tangible action items, timelines, funding and key performance indicators.

With scant public dialogue, the commissioner races offer voters little more than choosing between the Rs or the Ds. A look at the candidates’ respective web sites shows a shopping list of perennially important issues but ultimately little in the way of substantive plans for how to address those issues.

Though the country is mired in the worst economic crisis – possibly since the Great Depression – not one candidate mentions the economy and how they intend to balance a budget when county departments are struggling to keep pace with citizen needs at the same time revenues are decreasing. It seems nearly impossible that the county will not be faced with really challenging financial scenario as fed and state funding and grant sources wither in what many economic pundits are finally acknowledging to be a real live recession. I have yet to hear any candidate talk about the economy or offer up what they intend to do to mitigate against the book balancing mess-to-be as unpleasant numeric realities hit the fan. Job cuts? Service cuts? Tax increases? Balancing the budget will get far tougher before it gets easier during the next four years.

The lack of discussion on the economy is curious in light of the fact that at least three of the candidates put economic development at the top of their campaign priorities. It’s hard to argue that economic development shouldn’t be a top priority but I have yet to hear a concrete plan that provides real steps and measurable benchmarks toward a well-articulated vision of sustainable economic vitality within the valley.

In numbers that are increasing nearly daily, city and county websites around the country post plans, budgets and annual reports to show the public the progress made toward achieving measurable goals and explain the challenges when efforts to achieve those goals fall short. Chaffee County residents should demand the same of local elected officials.

Speaking of transparency and accountability, how about enacting formal purchasing and procurement policies and procedures? At a time when belts are going to be tightening, formal purchasing procedures can help save money, eliminate redundancies and waste, not to mention ensures fairness. Government run more like a business gives voters more confidence that their tax dollars are being spent wisely.

Another issue a couple candidates are talking about is infrastructure. Can we look beyond county borders when we’re talking about infrastructure? Yes our roads and bridges are riding pretty rough these days but an even thornier issue is transportation. Traffic in and out of this county on our two major, largely two-lane, highways worsens daily. A lack of proactive planning for better infrastructure into, out of and within the county will weigh heavily on the success of economic development efforts, with tourist visits serving as the canary in the coalmine. I’d also love to see county leaders start the dialogue for mass transit options to reduce road congestion, addiction to fossil fuels, carbon emissions, and traffic tickets, especially along the gauntlet between BV and Salida.

It’s less than 50 days until Election Day. I’m anxious to get to the meat of the campaign.