Yesterday in Part One, we discussed the first section of the (lengthy and obscure) ballot question approved on Tuesday, September 4 by the Archuleta Board of County Commissioners, and we mentioned that several mistakes had been made during the approval of Resolution 2018-36 and Resolution 2018-37.
We certainly didn’t expect so many mistakes to be made, when we walked into the meeting room. After all, there appeared to be at least four lawyers in attendance at the meeting, including County Attorney Todd Starr and — attending via video conference —Penfield W. Tate III, an attorney with Kutak Rock LLP, along with public finance associate Ashley S. Dennis.
From the Kutak Rock website, September 6, 2018:
In The Bond Buyer’s 2016 national law firm rankings, Kutak Rock ranked as the number four bond counsel in the nation, with 464 bond issues aggregating more than $16 billion. The firm has a reputation for undertaking sophisticated transactions involving the application of creative approaches to difficult financing problems.
Kutak Rock has served as bond counsel in more than 10,500 municipal bond issues aggregating more than $320 billion in principal amount in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico.
I’m not sure, from the above two paragraphs, whether Kutak Rock has been involved in bonds worth $16 billion… or in bonds worth $320 billion. Or if it was 464 bond issues, or 10,500 bond issues.
It’s confusing.
And we’ll get to the BOCC’s confusing actions on Tuesday, in a moment. But first, to quickly summarize the main points mentioned in Part One of this editorial series, the first section of the ballot language cited in Resolution 2018-36 reads like this:
Shall the County of Archuleta taxes be increased $2,970,000 (first full fiscal year dollar increase) annually and shall the County of Archuleta debt be increased by an amount not to exceed $19,200,000, with a maximum repayment cost of $25,800,000;
This section allows the BOCC to increase our Archuleta County taxes by $2.97 million a year, and to create a new $19.2 million debt. Those are two separate actions, as we noted.
1. A tax increase
2. A new debt
Next, the ballot question defines how the debt will be used — but not necessarily how the sales tax will be used.
… such debt to consist of sales tax revenue bonds or other financial obligations issued solely for the purpose of constructing, improving, equipping and maintaining Justice System Capital Improvements, to include but not be limited to a new Detention Center and a new Sheriff’s Offices, and all necessary and incidental costs related thereto with such sales tax revenue bonds or other financial obligations…
What does the BOCC mean by “Justice Center Capital Improvements, to include but not be limited to…” ?
To discover that information, we had to look carefully at the two Resolutions that were included in the BOCC agenda packet on Tuesday.
Resolution 2018-36, which you can download here.
…and Resolution 2018-37, which you can download here.
These two Resolutions were closely related — but in a rather confusing and frustrating manner, as it turned out. It appeared that Resolution 2018-36 made a direct reference to Resolution 2018-37. But it actually didn’t. (More about that, later.)
During Tuesday’s approval process, it became very clear that the three commissioners — Steve Wadley, Michael Whiting and Ronnie Maez — had never made themselves thoroughly familiar with the two Resolutions. We know that, because they voted unanimously to approve Resolution 2018-36 — and then rescinded their vote, in order to make amendments to the Resolution.
They then approved the amended Resolution — and again rescinded their vote, to make additional changes to the Resolution.
And then voted a third time, to approve the twice-amended Resolution 2018-36.
They also voted twice on Resolution 2018-37.
Worse yet, the two attorneys who had helped write the Resolutions — County Attorney Todd Starr and Kutak Rock counsel Penfield W. Tate III — were unaware of the fact that the two Resolutions improperly referenced one another.
But the part we are interested in, at the moment, is related to the vague term, “Justice System Capital Improvements.” What does the ballot language mean, when it uses that phrase?
From Resolution 2018-36:
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Archuleta County finds that the imposition of a sales tax of one cent per dollar ($.01) of taxable transactions will permit the County to utilize the revenues derived from these taxes for any and all capital expenditures related to, touching upon or concerning the construction or operation of a detention facility, including but not limited to jail cells, sheriff’s administration offices; sheriff’s patrol and transport vehicles, communications and dispatching, courtrooms, district attorney facilities, and related facilities;
Clearly, the BOCC has big plans for your increased taxes.
The above language does not appear in the question that will show up on your November ballot; it appears only in the Resolution that approved the ballot language. But what you will actually be approving — if you vote ‘Yes’ — is Resolution 2018-36.
By proxy — if you vote ‘Yes’ — you will also be showing your approval of Resolution 2018-37, which also talked about how the increased taxes will be spent:
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of the County (the “Board”) has determined that it is in the best interest of the County to make or have made on the County’s behalf certain capital expenditures relating to the acquisition, construction and improvement of a new Sheriff and Detention Facility and to rehabilitate the downtown Court facilities in Pagosa Springs, Colorado, and such other work related and incidental thereto (collectively, the “Project”);
Unfortunately, none of the three commissioners, on Tuesday, seemed to be aware of the fact that Resolution 2018-37 specifically mentioned their intention to “rehabilitate the downtown Court facilities in Pagosa Springs, Colorado.” That paragraph was pointed out to them by a member of the audience, and Commissioner Steve Wadley quickly responded that he didn’t want any mention of the Courthouse to appear in Resolution 2018-37. The wording was indeed amended, prior to the vote, to remove mention of Courthouse rehabilitation.
Removed, that is, from 2018-37.
But the three commissioners left the following wording in Resolution 2018-36:
…will permit the County to utilize the revenues derived from these taxes for any and all capital expenditures related to, touching upon or concerning the construction or operation of a detention facility, including but not limited to jail cells, sheriff’s administration offices; sheriff’s patrol and transport vehicles, communications and dispatching, courtrooms, district attorney facilities, and related facilities;
Which makes it pretty clear that the BOCC wants to spend money on much more than just a new jail.
Where are they planning to get enough money for all that stuff?
From us.