They say, actions speak louder than words.
The Pagosa Springs Town Council allowed public comment, at last night’s regular meeting, Thursday, November 19, during a discussion of their controversial Urban Renewal Authority and its proposed commission, which — under Resolution 2019-18 — was to be composed of the seven voting Council members, one voting member from the County government, one voting member from the School District, and one voting member representing all six of the community’s six taxing districts — the Fire District, the Health Services District, the Library District, and the three water districts.
An eleventh commissioner would be appointed by the Mayor, with Council approval.
Theoretically, then, eight of the eleven voting members would represent the Town, which (according to my calculations) would contribute less than five percent of the Tax Increment Financing for a “URA” project like the proposed Springs Resort expansion. That small percentage includes the contribution that might come from the Town’s sanitation district.
Several special district boards had raised questions about the apparent lack of proper district representation on the URA commission, under the current plan, and had urged the Council to revise Resolution 2019-19 to increase the size of the URA commission to allow for wider special district representation. Letters had been sent to the Council requesting better representation. Special district representatives spoke last night during the discussion, making the case for rethinking the URA commission’s composition.
The Town Council could have voted to change the make-up of the URA commission, making it a 13-member “independent commission” such as we find in certain other Colorado communities — that is, a commission that would not necessarily be dominated by the Town Council. Such a legally-allowed independent commission would be appointed by the Mayor and could, in theory, include various members of the general public… and not a single Council member.
I’ve mentioned before that, in my humble opinion, our current Town Council is the most thoughtful, ethical Council we’ve had in at least the past 15 years. That doesn’t mean that I agree with all their decisions.
For example. The vote last night.
Council member Maddie Bergon:
“I’m happy to see that members from the special districts are eager to be involved in this project. I think that’s a good sign. However, I do agree with what [former Town Manager Greg Schulte] just said. I think it’s important for the Council to make up the majority. This is an opportunity for us to be very intentional about the direction we want development to take within town…”
Council member Matt DeGuise:
“Well, originally, I was in favor of expanding this to a 13-member commission. But it troubled me a little, that it wouldn’t necessarily always be a Town Council majority — if we had a Mayor down the road who chose not to include Council. The projects and the [TIF tax incentives] that are going to be generated that are going to be within the Town boundaries… Some of our special district boards aren’t elected; they’re appointed, and they span fairly large geographical areas…”
Council member Tracy Bunning:
“I recommend staying with what we have currently approved. And I would suggest that, as we begin looking at projects, considering the request that will be made for that project, that we have a mechanism in there whereby some of the people from the special districts are brought in and are included in the conversation, in the work session, to look at the program so we can get that feedback at that time.”
Before we hear from other Council members, I want to note that the Town Council never invited the County, School District, or any of the special districts to participate in the decision, back in November, to form the URA in the first place. Any special district input that the Council has received, since, has also come without an invitation.
But perhaps even more telling, we had several special districts present at last night’s meeting, and the input they offered was basically ignored by the Council. So we can wonder why Council member Bunning would think this Council will listen to input from special districts — who’ve been allotted only one single vote on an 11-member commission — when an attractive, Town-based “economic development project” is on the table, at some point in the future.
Considering how the Council ignored the special district input last night?
Council member David Schanzenbaker confirmed with Town Attorney Bob Cole that an ‘independent’ URA commission could, theoretically, include less than a majority of Town Council members as voting members. Yes, that is true, said Mr. Cole..
Mr. Schanzenbaker then stated his concern:
“I’m open to having greater special district participation on the commission, but I also think the Council needs to be the driving force of that board, to maintain the majority. So I guess I’m a little concerned about the ‘voluntary’ nature of an independent commission, about Council participation in that commission… That makes me a little hesitant about that option…”
Council member Mat deGraaf:
“I agree, David, with what you’ve said. And I feel like some of the special districts are participating because they feel like they have to… at this point? And in doing so, they need to have their voices heard. And I want to make sure that, moving forward, that we give them the space and the attention to be heard, and their requests honored, as best as possible.”
We will again note that the requests coming from the special districts, if they were indeed heard last night, were not honored by the Council.
Following the sharing of words, we had the action. A vote — to retain the currently approved URA 11-member commission, wherein the Council would control eight votes and the six special districts, collectively, would control only one single vote on future urban renewal projects and on potential TIF financing plans — passed by 6-to-1.
Council member Nicole DeMarco was the only Council member to vote ‘No’.
Her remarks during the previous discussion:
“I feel like, if people want to participate, I always want to encourage that. So I think I would be comfortable with the 13-person commission. I do think the Town should retain control, but if you get a Town Council that’s not willing to step forward and serve on the commission, maybe they shouldn’t be the drivers of what’s going on, if they don’t have the initiative to be part of it. So I think that’s a self-correcting mechanism within that legal limitation.”
So as we see, the Town Council wants to be in the URA driver’s seat. That’s understandable.
But do we really want a single government board controlling the future tax incentives extracted from nine different tax-funded entities?