Over the past decade, the Town of Pagosa Springs spent a total of more than $20 million supporting recreation programs and facilities and promoting tourism in Archuleta County.
The Archuleta County government also spent some money on recreation and tourism over the same period, although not nearly as much as the Town spent. But recently, two of our current County Commissioners unveiled their plans to create a $20.8 million debt to fund a new County Detention Center.
That’s only the beginning of the debts our County Commissioners might possibly create over the next decade — without voter approval — to address the list of ‘capital needs’ related to government facilities.
From Finance Director Larry Walton’s December 12 Powerpoint presentation:
We’re not completely sure what the effects of these expenditures, past and future, have had or will have on the local economy, except that we’re now in the midst of an obvious housing crisis, and in a situation where businesses and organizations are struggling to find employees.
Last week, in Parts One and Two of this article series, I shared some facts about the sales presentation delivered at the budget hearing held at the Archuleta County Administration Building last Wednesday.
I also shared some facts that were not included in Mr. Walton’s presentation. And, of course, I shared some opinions about those ‘facts.’
I had expressed some of those same opinions previously, during Wednesday’s budget hearing, when BOCC chair Steve Wadley invited public comments on the proposed 2019 budget. Local activist Mark Weiler had been the first person at the microphone, and had offered his objections to the plan to put the taxpayers in debt for the next 25 years to fund a 54-bed jail — the same size jail rejected by the voters on November 6.
Mr. Weiler’s comments had no influence on the final decision, nor did my own comments. No one else from the public bothered to express an opinion. (We will note, meanwhile, that no one stepped up to speak in support the proposed 54-bed jail.)
The now-approved budget is based on County revenues of $27.7 million, and County expenditures of $33.6 million.
During Finance Director Walton’s 55-minute budget presentation, we heard a lot about why the BOCC must put the taxpayers deeply in debt for a new jail facility. We didn’t, however, hear anything about how a County government can spend $33.6 million when they expect to receive only $27.7 million in revenues.
Ah… the mysteries of government spending, and debt.
We have a problem here in Archuleta County that goes well beyond a 25-year debt for a grossly oversized jail. I’m speaking here about the composition of the Board of County Commissioners, and the state statutes that define the overall operations of our County government. When two commissioners — count ‘em, two — can easily override the will of the taxpayers as expressed at the polls just one month earlier, we have a problem.
A bit of history, based on what little I understand about Colorado governments.
The basic structure of our County government was defined in the Colorado Constitution, in 1876 — one hundred years after the US Declaration of Independence. (You can download a 2018 version of the Colorado Constitution, as shared on the Secretary of State’s website, here.)
Here’s a short section from Article XIV:
Section 6. County commissioners – election – term. In each county having a population of less than seventy thousand there shall be elected, for a term of four years each, three county commissioners who shall hold sessions for the transaction of county business as provided by law; any two of whom shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business…
As far back as 1876, the state of Colorado was allowing just two commissioner votes to make dramatic changes in the communities served by our county governments. This may have made sense in 1876, because most the state’s counties lacked a significant population base, and property taxes were rather meager in many areas. The roads that existed were little more than wagon tracks, plied by horse-drawn vehicles.
I suspect county commissioners had little to do, back in those days. The real work in Archuleta County was probably handled by the Clerk, the Treasurer, the Assessor, the Sheriff, the Coroner, and the County Surveyor. It was relatively harmless, I suppose, to seat a three-person Board of County Commissioners in 1876, when the General Fund budget consisted of a few thousand dollars.
But we’re not in Kansas any more, Toto. The 2019 budget for Archuleta County shows expenditures next year of $33.6 million. Our commissioners are now responsible for 300 miles of roadway, including about 44 miles of paved roads gradually but inexorably falling into disrepair.
It takes a vote of only two people to spend millions of taxpayer dollars in inappropriate ways. And we, the taxpayers, can do nothing at all to stop it — because the BOCC has consistently denied Archuleta County voters the right to put citizen-generated initiatives on the ballot.
The Colorado Constitution provides something of a safety valve, however — in Article XIV, Section 16.
Section 16. County home rule. (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 15 of this article, the registered electors of each county of the state are hereby vested with the power to adopt a home rule charter establishing the organization and structure of county government consistent with this article and statutes enacted pursuant hereto…
The above 59 words have the potential to initiate significant changes in our Archuleta County government, as do these additional words in the Constitution:
(2) The general assembly shall provide by statute procedures under which the registered electors of any county may adopt, amend, and repeal a county home rule charter. Action to initiate home rule may be by petition, signed by not less than five percent of the registered electors of the county in which home rule is sought, or by any other procedure authorized by statute. No county home rule charter, amendment thereto, or repeal thereof, shall become effective until approved by a majority of the registered electors of such county voting thereon…
To convert our County government to home rule, a Home Rule Charter must be created by an elected Charter Commission, and the Charter must then be approved by the voters.
A few important changes could potentially be made to the County government. We could increase the number of commissioners (so that, for example, it would take more than two votes to put the taxpayers deeply in debt for an oversized jail.) We could specify that certain County positions are appointed instead of elected (to improve the chances that qualified people were filling those job positions.)
Perhaps most importantly, a home rule county would allow for citizen initiatives — to allow the voters, as a body, to create and repeal laws.
As far as I can tell, only 2 of Colorado’s 64 counties have successfully voted to adopt “home rule.” (Denver and Broomfield are “city-county governments” and governed by special state statutes.)
You can download the Home Rule Charter for Pitkin County here. As you will note, the Charter is a living document. The Pitkin County Charter was first approved in 1978, and has been amended at least nine times since then.
If any of our Daily Post readers would like to learn more about the Home Rule Charter process, please feel free to send me an email at pagosadailypost@gmail.com
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.