(UPDATE: Although this article, published on July 9, assumed that Pagosa Springs SUN had declined to publish my letter concerning Bruce Dryburgh… it appears that the letter was actually lost in cyberspace. SUN editor Terri House has confirmed that she never received the letter.)
I was disappointed when the weekly Pagosa Springs SUN newspaper, didn’t to print my ‘Letter to the Editor’ in today’s July 9 edition. I’m sure editor Terri House is receiving more letters than she has room to print, during this time of controversy about face coverings and police violence and racism and business failures. Many of us are sheltering at home lately, with nothing to do but think about — and write about — our concerns and fears.
But I only write a letter to the SUN once or twice per decade, and my letter did in fact concern the Urban Renewal Authority election currently taking place within the town limits.
As I said, I was disappointed.
One perpetual concern, here in Archuleta County, is increased taxation due to government overspending. Over the past two years, we’ve watched the Archuleta Board of County Commissioners put us millions of dollars in debt — without our approval — erecting a law enforcement complex that was rejected by the voters, twice. Not the first time elected officials have put the taxpayers millions of dollars in debt without their approval… nor, I suspect, will it be the last time. The Town of Pagosa Springs recently put municipal taxpayers millions of dollars in debt, without voter approval, to build their staff a new two-acre complex of garages and maintenance shops.
Colorado is unique among the nation’s 50 states in having a ‘Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights’ inserted into our state Constitution. TABOR was an attempt, in 1992, to give the taxpayers some control over the unchecked growth of government spending at both the state and local levels.
Article X, section 20. The Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights. (1) General provisions. This section takes effect December 31, 1992 or as stated. Its preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government.
One of the restraints written into TABOR was a requirement that the voters be allowed to approve any new debt placed upon their shoulders.
4(b) Except for refinancing district bonded debt at a lower interest rate or adding new employees to existing district pension plans, creation of any multiple-fiscal year direct or indirect district debt or other financial obligation whatsoever without adequate present cash reserves pledged irrevocably and held for payments in all future fiscal years.
But our thoughtful elected leaders, at the state and local levels, have colluded with financial experts and the Colorado courts to violate the intent of Section 4(b) through a mechanism called “Certificates of Participation”. Through this clever mechanism, the Town of Pagosa Springs and the Archuleta Board of County Commissioners have managed to generate millions of dollars in new taxpayer debt over the past two decades, by pretending that they are “leasing” government facilities they’ve wanted to construct without voter approval — claiming, through their attorneys, that they didn’t actually create any debt, because they can ostensibly stop using the facility and stop paying off the borrowed money.
This is a long-term problem for the taxpayers: well-meaning, thoughtful elected officials regularly violating the spirit of the Colorado Constitution’s TABOR regulations, because… “Well, everyone else is doing it. Our attorney said it was legal. The voters will never approve anything.”
The same general type of subtle government corruption is evident in some Colorado communities, where the Colorado Urban Renewal Law is being used — by well-meaning, thoughtful elected officials — for purposes that have nothing to do with urban renewal. And the excuses are the same, from our well-meaning, thoughtful elected officials. “Well, everyone else is doing it. Our attorney said it was legal. The voters will never approve anything.”
One elected official, School Board member Bruce Dryburgh, stepped forward to present an alternate view of ethical government, and submitted a letter to the SUN (and to the Daily Post) in support of Ballot Question A, the voter measure that will be decided this coming Tuesday, July 14. While Ms. House did in fact publish Mr. Dryburgh’s letter, she appended her own rather lengthy criticism of his comments in her very own Letters section.
So I wrote the following, hoping to share my thoughts about Ballot Question A with Ms. House’s readers.
Dear Editor
I was pleased to see the SUN share Bruce Dryburgh’s letter in its July 2 issue. I first got to know Mr. Dryburgh back in 2010, when we were working together in a volunteer work group assembled by the Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District. Our job was to help define future water storage needs for the district, and Mr. Dryburgh spearheaded the effort to estimate the likely population of Archuleta County in the not-too-distant future. Looking back from the vantage point of 2020, his volunteer team did a much better job than all the highly-paid experts that PAWSD had been relying on up until 2010. His work played no small part in the decision, by subsequent PAWSD boards, to put the Dry Gulch Reservoir project — at that time, projected to cost the taxpayers $357 million — firmly on the back burner.
In his July 2 letter to the SUN, Mr. Dryburgh wrote in support of Ballot Question A, petitioned onto a special July 14 ballot by 140 Town voters. If approved with a “Yes” vote, the measure will require the Pagosa Springs Urban Renewal Authority (URA) to obtain voter approval before giving away tax increment subsidies to private developers, whenever the corporate welfare amount is expected to exceed $1 million. As we have learned in recent months, such URA tax giveaways — by the Town — would be extracted from funds available for local schools — and from the Fire District, the Library District, and other local districts denied direct representation on the URA commission by Town Council.
Without the taxpayer oversight that will be provided by Ballot Question A, future URA commissions could potentially end up giving 25 years’ worth of tax reimbursements to every wealthy, fast-talking developer who happens into town.
I was less pleased, however, with the lengthy 235-word “Editor’s note” amended to the end of Mr. Dryburgh’s letter. The SUN editor appeared to be disparaging and discounting Mr. Dryburgh’s comments, in an argumentative fashion much more suitable to an op-ed column than to a Letters section. This ‘Editor’s note’ — appended to a reader’s Letter — gave the SUN editor “the last word” without providing Mr. Dryburgh any opportunity to rebut.
The Town’s URA commission did, in fact, engage in a lengthy discussion on June 6, during consideration of a resolution specifically designed to discourage a “Yes” vote on Ballot Question A. Fortunately, the resolution was not approved by the commission, but following the failed attempt, URA commissioner Greg Schulte stated: “Maybe just this discussion, and it being reported in the paper, is enough.”
Mayor Volger concurred. “I also agree that I think our SUN newspaper will do an extremely good job as far as expressing our concerns. And I just hope the public is well informed at the ballot box…”
Has the SUN, in fact, done “an extremely good job” of expressing Mr. Schulte’s and Mayor Volger’s concerns, when even a majority of their fellow URA commissioners wouldn’t endorse them?