At the very beginning of the Thursday, August 20 ‘Urban Renewal Authority’ (URA) commission meeting, held via Zoom, Mayor Don Volger invited members of the public to address the commission with their thoughts and concerns. We were told at 14 members of the public were attending via Zoom, but only three of them wanted to offer public comment. First up was Bruce Dryburgh, who is currently serving as president of the Archuleta School District Board of Education. The School Board is legally allowed one seat on the URA commission, given that a big chunk of the potential TIF tax subsidies provided to any ‘urban renewal project’ by the Town of Pagosa Springs would be extracted from property taxes that would otherwise go to the School District.
For various reasons, the School Board has thus far declined to participate on the URA commission.
Mr. Dryburgh reminded the commission that things had not gone so well for the Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District when the PAWSD Board had essentially thumbed their noses at the taxpayers and borrowed $10 million to purchase the Running Iron Ranch in the Dry Gulch Valley, for a future reservoir — without asking the voters’ permission to create the debt burden. Within a few years, all of the existing PAWSD Board members and upper level staff had been replaced, at the apparent behest of the voters.
A cautionary tale?
At the end of the meeting, we heard URA Commissioner JR Ford urge his fellow commissioners to focus their energies — and expenditure of funds — on aligning the commission’s work with the new Home Rule Charter amendment that had recently passed by a 3-to-1 vote. That ballot measure gave the town voters the right to approve any TIF funding for ‘urban renewal’ if the total subsidy was expected to to exceed $1 million. (Sorry, county voters would not be allowed to vote on this town issue.)
Commissioner Ford also described Colorado’s URA mechanism as highly flexible and easily able to accommodate the participation of the voters.
Then Mayor Don Volger — one of the voices heard most often speaking in favor of seeking a ‘Declaratory Judgment’ that could possibly overturn the July 14 Charter amendment vote — asked Town Attorney Clay Buchner whether “it would be cleaner for the Town Council to seek a Declaratory Judgment, or would it be cleaner for the URA [to seek the judgment]?”
“And I know it makes it so confusing, because the majority vote on the URA commission is the Town Council.”
Attorney Buchner offered his opinion on a lawsuit initiated by either board.
“Honestly, sir, I don’t think either are good options. I think that, in effect, the Town would be going against itself, and against its voters and constituents, and that wouldn’t be a good decision. And there might not even be a true ‘resolvable controversy’ for the court to even hear, if it were the Town or the URA commission. I can’t say that for certain, but that’s something that the court is going to address, and it doesn’t seem like there is a controversy. It’s the way the Charter now reads, and we don’t have a problem… yet.
“So the court might say, ‘This is not ripe for even a Declaratory Judgment.’
“I think it’s possible, but insofar as you’re asking my advice on what’s ‘cleaner’ — one option is not ‘cleaner’ than the other. Neither are great options.”
Mayor Volger:
“So then, the ‘third-party developer option’… going ahead and presenting this issue before the court… would be the best option?”
We will note, here, the use of the word “best” by Mayor Volger. It appears our elected mayor is in favor of a lawsuit — any lawsuit — that might overturn a 3-to-1 vote by the taxpayers… and he seems to be saying he would welcome a developer — any developer — filing a lawsuit against the Town.
Attorney Buchner:
“Yes, but that’s not our option. There’s nothing we can do but wait, for someone to either care, or a developer who wants to proceed and has an issue with [the Charter amendment]… Those other [Declaratory Judgement] options still exist. I just would not advise going that route.”
In other words, if we want to try and overturn a legally-approved Charter amendment by town voters, we need the help of a developer willing to spend money on attorneys. Of course, that developer would actually be suing the Town government — which includes, of course, the Town Council and the URA commission — as well as the Town taxpayers.
It’s an awkward situation.
Mayor Volger thanked Attorney Buchner for his advice, and then suggested that the URA commission put aside its dreams of filing a lawsuit against its own voters, and focus on getting itself organized. Not in so many words, but that was essentially his recommendation.
“And then wait and see, if somebody does take this to the court,” said the Mayor hopefully. “For the reasons that Clay explained.”
As the meeting ended, the Mayor once again allowed public comment from the Zoom observers, and Bruce Dryburgh made another quick remark.
“Yes, JR Ford stole all my ammunition. He’s absolutely right. You guys shouldn’t get lost in the technical details on how you would work around a $1 million limit. All of that can be done, through the agreement with the developer.
“There are a lot of real problems here. That’s not one of them, as JR explained so well.”
Commission member (and Council member) Shari Pierce then asked Mr. Dryburgh if the School Board might reconsider joining the URA commission. Mr. Dryburgh indicated he would bring the idea up with his board, as soon as they are able to appoint the new member to fill their current School Board vacancy. You can learn more about that Board vacancy here.
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.