Following the Tuesday, September 4 Archuleta Board of County Commissioners meeting — after watching three County Commissioners and their attorneys scrambling to amend (repeatedly) a proposed tax increase measure designated as Resolution 2018-36 — a person whom I highly respect offered a comment about the fiasco.
“You can’t tell me that any of those people had actually read the resolutions.”
That certainly seemed to be the case. As the learned attorneys — those in the meeting room, and those attending via video conference — argued aloud about the best way to salvage Resolution 2018-36, it appeared (to those of us who had, in fact, read the resolutions prior to the meeting) that the botched documents had resulted from a “cut and paste” activity… using similar documents from last year’s failed election… and that no one — no one — had actually proof-read the documents before presenting them for BOCC approval.
For example…
Resolution 2018-36 stated, in plain black and white:
WHEREAS, by separate resolution considered contemporaneously with the adoption of this Resolution, the Board of County Commissioners will establish a separate fund to be known as the Justice System Capital Fund so that all revenue and expenditures related to the temporary tax increase imposed hereby will be more transparently accounted for and available for review by the general public;
This paragraph states that the “separate resolution” would be approved “contemporaneously” — meaning, at the very same BOCC meeting. The same day.
But on September 4, there was no separate resolution available that established a “Justice System Capital Fund.” The only “contemporaneous” resolution available on September 4 was Resolution 2018-37 — and it made no mention whatsoever of a “Justice System Capital Fund.”
The “Justice System Capital Fund” had in fact been created in August 2017 — in preparation for last year’s tax increase election — and has been in operation ever since.
But by the time these facts were made apparent to the BOCC and their attorneys on Tuesday afternoon — that is, to the people who had apparently not read the resolutions with due diligence — the three commissioners had already approved Resolution 2018-36 (twice).
Now they would either have to re-write Resolution 2018-37 (to somehow include mention of the already-established Fund)… or they would have to rescind their vote on Resolution 2018-36 (again) and revise the language in that document (again.)
After considerable fuss — and 25 minutes of public embarrassment — the attorneys decided to revise Resolution 2018-36.
(If only they had listened to audience member Cynda Green, when she had warned them during public comment, an hour earlier in the meeting, that the two Resolutions were not in legal alignment…)
Commissioner Steve Wadley was unsure how to amend, once again, a resolution that had already been amended — and when the BOCC had already made a motion on a “contemporaneous” resolution that seemed in conflict with the first resolution.
“So we want to revisit 2018-36.” He turned to County Clerk June Madrid, who was taking minutes of the meeting. “How do we do that, June?”
Ms. Madrid: “You’re still in a hearing… so you are going to talk about it again. You’re going to say, ‘Resolution 2018-36 is…”
Commissioner Wadley, interrupting: “So we’re recalling Resolution 2018-36 for further modification. Does anyone have the language?”
County Attorney Todd Starr: “I’m working on it…”
Ms. Madrid: “So you want to pull that motion.”
Commissioner Michael Whiting: “So does the Chair need a motion to withdraw that? What does the Chair need?”
Ms. Madrid: “No, you want to withdraw the motion. Because you’re going to start all over. So, whoever made the motion… That was Michael.”
Commissioner Whiting moved to pull his motion, and the other two commissioners approved the motion.
Attorney Starr instructed Commissioner Whiting. “Now you’re going to make a new motion.” He handed some handwritten text to the commissioner.
Commissioner Wadley: “We do much better with lot line adjustments.”
A new motion by Commissioner Whiting amended the paragraph in Resolution 2018-36 that we quoted at the beginning of this editorial, to now reference a resolution passed in August 2017. The new language read:
WHEREAS, by separate resolution number 2017-41, the Board of County Commissioners established a separate fund known as the Justice System Capital Fund so that all revenue and expenditures related to the temporary tax increase imposed hereby will be more transparently accounted for and available for review by the general public;
So now the commissioners had inserted — extemporaneously — some improvisational language into the resolution referenced by the official November ballot language, which in turn points to a resolution that was approved in August 2017 to support last year’s (failed) election effort.
That resolution from last year, Resolution 2017-41, includes this language:
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Archuleta County have determined it is in the best interest of public health, safety and welfare to ask the voters to approve a sales tax increase to fund justice system capital improvements to include among other things, Sheriff’s administration and detention facilities, including but not limited to the construction of a new facility, the remodeling of an existing facility and capital improvements associated thereto; and…
The Board of County Commissioners of Archuleta County resolves as follows:
1) To immediately create a fund to be known as the Justice System Capital Fund which shall exist for the specific purpose of accounting for all sales taxes received and costs related to construction and completion of the construction and remodeling of the Sheriff’s office, detention center and court facilities and other elements of the overall Justice System, as defined in Resolution 2017-40…
All of which makes it pretty clear (to me) that the aim of the BOCC, since August 2017, has been — and continues to be — to generate enough sales tax income to build not only a new jail and Sheriff’s office, but to create new Court facilities as well.
Will the ballot language they officially placed on the November ballot provide them with that amount of money?
It would certainly appear so. A government can probably build a lot of shiny, new buildings with up to $44.55 million in new taxes… even if that amount — $44.55 million — appears nowhere in the ballot language.
Bill Hudson began sharing his opinions in the Pagosa Daily Post in 2004 and can’t seem to break the habit. He claims that, in Pagosa Springs, opinions are like pickup trucks: everybody has one.