Of all the issues in this election, affordable housing perhaps best illustrates the fundamental difference in approach to government between incumbent Democrat County Commissioner Jerry Mallett and his Republican challenger Frank Holman. Broadly speaking, Holman believes in less government while Mallett’s actions point toward the belief that a judicious infusion of government resources can help cure what ails a community.

A complex question with no easy answer, both candidates acknowledge that affordable housing is a high priority concern for residents of Chaffee County. Earlier this year, Mallett helped create the Chaffee Housing Trust. This is a non-profit that is designated to own the real estate while the homeowner owns the house and any improvements.

Recently, the Chaffee County Board of Commissioners voted to approve the donation of public land at the intersection of Mesa Lane and Crestone Avenues in Salida to help get Crestone Heights, the housing trust’s first affordable housing project, off the ground. During a work session on the project, Mallett rebuffed such basic questions about the project as appraised value of the public land and particulars of the donation and subsequent administration of the project by the non-profit housing trust. By unanimous vote, the county commissioners approved the land donation.

Holman questions whether there was conflict in the above-mentioned county land donation since Mallett is both a county commissioner and member of the board of the housing trust. However, he also said the Chaffee Housing Trust may well be a good solution to this vexing issue but he needs more proof to become a believer that it’s a solution that “works and makes sense.”

From his viewpoint, Holman points to new products in modular homes as a possible solution to the affordable housing issue. He explained some modulars allow for people to add on additional rooms onto the base unit as household budgets allow. Finally, Holman said he believes some of the county’s building regulations and permitting requirements drive the cost of new homes upward and that he would convene a panel of experts to study the issue to see if there can be ways to help mitigate the situation.

Brown’s Canyon

On this issue, the candidates’ positions are pretty clear cut on whether or not to pursue federal Wilderness designation. The short story: Mallett for; Holman against. Backstory: both men consider themselves sportsman. Mallett still actively hunts and fishes. Holman said he hasn’t hunted for a while because he simply found it increasingly hard to pull the trigger. Mallett says the 21,000 acres proposed wilderness provides key winter habitat for many large animal species, includes unique geologic formations and offers one of the few low-elevation wilderness areas in the Rockies. Holman says Wilderness permanently restricts access to public land for those not able-bodied enough to access it without motorized assistance.

Energy

Both candidates conceptually support development of renewable energy in Chaffee County but they differ in emphasis. Although Holman attended, Mallett had the higher profile at last month’s Sustainability Showcase hosted by Colorado Mountain College. Mallett also converted an old VW bug to electric power. Mallett also takes credit for installing solar panels at the county fairgrounds, establishing a local Energy Star program and working with the private sector to evaluate and develop biodiesel, woody biomass, solar photovoltaic (PV) farms, wind generation and low-head hydropower.

Mallett has noticeably been absent from all the public meetings by the folks up Chalk Creek Canyon who are pursuing development of a geothermal energy project. Holman has been at them all and expressed optimism and encouragement for geothermal energy development. Mount Princeton Geothermal LLC shows promise for becoming the first geothermal energy project in the state. Early modelling indicates geothermal-generated power could provide enough electricity to supply most households in Chaffee County. Holman favors encouraging the development of renewable energy through incentives vs. government funding.

AVP, parent company to the Chaffee County Times and Mountain Mail newspapers, shows revenues of $7,328 from the expenditure reports of the county commissioner campaigns through the Oct. 14 reporting period. This excludes any AVP advertising purchased by District 2 County Commissioner candidate Jerry Mallett since Sept. 11. At 10 a.m. Oct. 16, the most recent campaign finance report, due to the state on Oct. 14, had not yet been filed by Mallett’s re-election committee. Mallett campaign ads in the Mountain Mail have been plentiful in recent weeks so the total of Mallett’s spending with AVP is likely to rise.

The biggest consumer of media so far this campaign season is Republican District 1 Commissioner candidate Dennis Giese, who has spent $2,836 on local radio and $1,589 on advertising with AVP for a total media spend of $4,425. Giese’s opponent, Susan Bristol, put all her media buying to date in the AVP basket for total media expenditures of $3,418.

In the District 2 Commissioner race, the Mountain Mail has reaped nearly equal financial attention from the candidates with incumbent Mallett spending $1,151 through Sept. 11, while Republican challenger Frank Holman spent $1,170 through Oct. 14.

Finishing a distant second to AVP in terms of campaign largesse is Chaffee Printing, which has so far enjoyed $3,068 in candidate campaign expenditures.

In funds raised among the commissioner candidates through the Oct. 14 report period, Giese, Holman and Bristol are within a thousand dollars of each other with Giese in the fundraising lead at $12,890 followed by Holman at $11,538 and Bristol at $10,467. Mallett had raised $11,339 through Sept. 11.
The next and last campaign finance report to be filed before the Nov. 4 election must be filed with the state by Oct. 31.

Campaign finance reports can be found online at the Secretary of State’s Election Center campaign finance website.

One can only imagine that the need for this tax has arisen from poor planning, administration and operations of the pool. The failed new pipeline was a massive net loss to the city, (though it has received a grant of $1,500,000 to have the water line replaced) as well as the new roof and structural improvements. It’s not surprising to see the City propose a funding source for the loss, however this is not the best means of doing so.

From the City website, the 2008 expected revenue from pool operations is $260,000 and the cost to operate the pool is $450,000 for an ANNUAL operating loss of $190,000. Originally, the City had proposed a $2.00 charge per room night. Why now the $4.82 per night proposal?

Perhaps the City is thinking that it will cover the annual operating loss of $190,000 and THEN WHAT? Well, the City 2008 budget contemplates the construction of an addition to the pool, presumably a recreation center that will cost $3,500,000 in 2009. It can certainly expect to have operational losses on this facility as well, perhaps as much as $300-400,000 per year. What better way to cover this cost than to charge it to unsuspecting visitors?

The City’s position is that visitors to the community itself are by far the largest user group of the pool. If this is true then why on City letterhead does Trish Bews, write as follows for the 2008 budget:

Department Purpose
“The stated mission of the Salida Recreation and Aquatic Center is to provide excellence in recreation, education, and fitness to enhance the quality of life in our community.”… “Being City-funded, our recreation programs are geared toward locals.”

2007 Department Accomplishments
Too many to list, but all are community oriented.

Hence, the City is contradicting itself as to the purpose and use of the pool.

The City also believes that visitors to town just will not notice an “extra” charge of $4.82 to their hotel bill. I can assure you that they most certainly will. Mixing a flat fee and a percentage tax charge to bills will bring scrutiny to visitor charges and create anger that will modify behavior.

Visitors just do not come to the Valley to swim in the pool, which as far as “Hot Springs” go is a complete farce. When the pool was closed for repairs, there was no drop in visits or CCVB revenue from the lodging tax. The pool is not an attraction that brings in visitors; it is merely an amenity to the town of Salida residents.

Hence, users of the pool should pay any negative cash flow from operations, meaning the community should pay through the existing sales tax of the town/county, which appear to contribute 80% of the operating revenue for the City.

Citizens should scrutinize the costs of operating the pool carefully. The relative utility of the pool and the proposed recreational building appear to be dubious at best given current City finances. City finances are in serious jeopardy given the current national economic situation and the likely rescission of contract by the purchaser of the Vandaveer property.

Taxing visitors for community projects sets a poor precedent and opens the door to further misuse of taxing privilege by the government. If this tax is approved, where does the process end?

Presently, Chaffee County visitors enjoy the best bang for the buck on outdoor activities. This valley offers the widest range and best quality of sports in any season. It also has the best price point by far. In winter, a skier can spend four days at Monarch, stay and eat in town, for what a day would cost at many of the other state ski areas. At Monarch, we intend to be price-sensitive and keep our end of the bargain in offering a great value for the recreation we provide. We simply ask that the City do the same.

Bob Nicolls
Monarch Ski Area

As proposed by City Council, Measure 2B asks voters to approve a $4.82 occupancy tax per room night. The estimated $550,000 to $600,000 in revenues generated by the tax would be allocated to the Salida Hot Springs Aquatic Center, trails and other recreational and cultural amenities, specifically the SteamPlant Theater and Event Center.

Earlier today, Mayor Chuck Rose and interim City Administrator Mike Copp met with the lodging community to discuss the measure. At the time, Rose and Copp, citing the opinion of legal counsel, said there was no way to withdraw the question from the ballot. Information came to light later in the day, researched by the Colorado Hotel and Lodging Association, causing the city’s law firm, Leavenworth and Karp, to acknowledge that state statute “does provide that the city council could withdraw the ballot question no later than 25 days prior to the Nov. 4 election.”

However, County Clerk Joyce Reno said she had already ordered the November ballot and that 2B cannot physically be removed. Therefore, if council were to pass a resolution to withdraw 2B from the ballot, the net result would be votes cast on the measure would simply not be counted. The deadline for Council to pass such a resolution would be Oct. 10.

The lodging community intends to lead the effort to lobby city council to pass the necessary resolution to withdraw the occupancy tax question at the next regularly scheduled council meeting on Oct. 6.

In exchange for withdrawing the current occupancy tax measure from the ballot, de facto Salida lodging industry leader Don Jackson is proposing that lodgers create a committee to work with city council to “create an opportunity to address (the city’s) priorities and come up with a solution that we can all support.”

The reason 2B doesn’t enjoy the lodgers support is their contention that basic assumptions were flawed, that lodgers’ input wasn’t sought, and that the new tax would make Salida’s lodging tax disproportionately high, in fact among the highest in the state.

Market analysis
Statistics from the statewide lodging association demonstrate that the proposed occupancy tax would propel Salida to among the top three destinations with the highest total percent tax on lodging in the state; second only to Pagosa Springs and higher than even Denver. Jackson contends the flat tax (the city isn’t able to charge a percentage tax) unfairly discriminates against smaller motels with lower average base rates and will have an exaggerated affect in the off-season, when occupancy rates are already weak.

Who uses the pool?
The city contends the pool is a visitor attraction and that the lodgers would benefit most from its improvement. Jackson, whose Super 8 Motel is directly across the street from the pool, respectfully disagreed. The pool “does not draw visitors in appreciable numbers,” Jackson said. “If the pool didn’t exist it would not affect occupancy.” A chorus of lodgers chimed in in agreement with their own stories of how little interest there is among their guests in using the city pool.

Steve Office of Thomas House Bed and Breakfast followed up that the cost to run the pool should be borne by the user and that visitors shouldn’t be forced to pay for something they may or may not use.

Lack of input
Sitting squarely on the hot seat fielding lodgers’ questions and criticism for nearly 90 minutes today, Mayor Rose conceded the city’s decision process with respect to the occupancy tax question was flawed.

Rose explained that when council was contemplating its revenue raising options for Salidans top three concerns – affordable housing, roads, and the pool – there was no full-time city administrator, and the city was understaffed.

Rose explained the pool had an operating deficit of $198,000 last year and is a “substandard facility” and that simply isn’t an acceptable situation.

Salida Chamber of Commerce Executive Director John Englebrecht, whose office is next door to the pool, estimated that 10 people per week come into the chamber office to complain about the “deplorable situation” at the pool.

Rose said a fiscal enhancement study conducted by Councilman Hugh Young identified a variety of funding options for roads and the pool including the occupancy tax.

But Rose put the onus of responsibility for the occupancy tax being on the ballot solidly back on the lodgers saying, “You should have been paying attention” and challenging them to form a lodging association and “bring a solution” to city council.

Some lodgers said that the occupancy tax, as first proposed at $2 per room, while not great, was supportable. For most, it seems the flash point came when the proposed occupancy fee was inexplicably raised to $4.82.

In solidarity with the lodgers at today’s meeting were representatives of Monarch Mountain, Pinon Real Estate and Frosty Roe, president of the Land Trust of the Upper Arkansas.

Roe predicted that while the occupancy tax would be most felt by the local innkeepers the trickle down effect would also negatively impact restaurants, retailers, rafters and other businesses. Roe worries that belt-tightening by businesses impacted by the occupancy tax could negatively impact the Land Trust’s revenue stream from its Common Cents for Conservation voluntary donation program. The program’s top two contributors are the Super 8 and Monarch Mountain.

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.