The Town of Pagosa Springs’ so-called “Urban Renewal Authority” will hold a commissioners’ meeting this evening, Thursday August 20 at 5pm, via Zoom, to approve the minutes from their previous meeting, and to discuss way to circumvent the will of the Town voters… following a 3-to-1 vote on Ballot Question A, amending the Town Home Rule Charter to allow voter approval of future “urban renewal” funding schemes that total more than $1 million.
An attorney’s letter included in the meeting packet (which you can download here) includes a “question and answer” exchange, wherein someone (we’re not told who) has posed questions to Town Attorney Clayton Buchner, asking whether the appointed URA commission can file a court request for a ‘Declaratory Judgment’ in an attempt to overturn the July 14 election results.
Declaratory judgments are not an unusual device, and are sometimes used by government entities to preempt a more expensive lawsuit that might be filed against the government by a private party.
In this letter, someone (we’re not sure who?) is asking, essentially, whether the Town Council and/or the URA can file a lawsuit against the Town voters, and the Town Attorney has responded with a resounding “Sure, go right ahead.”
In my ideal world, a Town Attorney’s primary job would be to keep the Town government from getting sued. It’s a bit unusual, I think, to find a Town Attorney who seems eager to file a lawsuit against the taxpayers. We might note that the letter from Attorney Clayton Buchner does not address the possible political ramifications that might ensue, should the Town government file a lawsuit against its own voters.
It’s a Zoom meeting… the URA commission normally allows public comment at the very start of the meeting, at 5pm.
From the August 20 attorney’s letter:
a. Is it within the purview of the Town Council to initiate filing for a Declaratory Judgment on the legality of the language in Ballot Question A?
Does there have to be a plaintiff?
Attorney Buchner answers “Yes” to both questions.
b. Or, since the Town Council is in possession of sufficient information to have a reasonable belief to question the validity of the ballot language, is that enough to proceed on its own?
Answer: Yes.
c. If it’s true that a plaintiff is not needed and declaratory relief can be requested, are we correct in assuming that since this is now a question about the validity of an amendment to the Town Charter, the PSURA does NOT have standing to pursue a Declaratory Judgement?
It has to be the Town Council, right?
Answer: No, to both questions. The appointed URA commission, in Attorney Buchner’s humble opinion, has ‘standing’ to challenge a 3-to-1 vote by the taxpayers in favor of amending the Town Home Rule Charter… as does the Town Council as well, in his humble opinion.
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.