By Rachel Suh
In an email to the Pagosa Springs SUN this past Wednesday, County Attorney Todd Weaver stated the following:
“There is case law that states a local government/municipality cannot ‘materially depart’ from the approved uses of voter-approved revenue. Resolution 2022-98, which is specifically referenced in Ballot Issue 1A, requires that at least 50% of the revenue generated from the sales tax increase, if approved by the voters, must go to road and bridge improvements. … a future Board of County Commissioners could NOT pass a resolution allocating 0% of the revenue generated from the sales tax increase for road and bridge improvements, because that would be a material departure from what was approved by the voters. In order to do that, a future BoCC would have to go back to the voters for approval.”
It should be noted that absolutely NOWHERE in the language on the ballot for voter approval is the requirement to spend a certain percentage of the sales tax on roads, only that some of the sales tax be allocated to the roads.
The allocation to spend 50% on roads was approved only by the County Commissioners, through Resolution 2022-98 — a resolution that can be amended at any time. The voters have nothing to do with this resolution; they can approve (or reject) only the ballot language.
To ensure that I was correct in this analysis about amendments, I contacted the Colorado Department of Revenue and asked them if resolution amendments for allocating certain percentages to specific expenditures went against any Colorado State Law.
They immediately referred me to Archuleta County for the answer to this question.
I simultaneously wrote Kristy Archuleta and asked her whether amendments to the resolution can happen, because they do not materially change the ballot question or voter-approved revenue. I also wrote the state and pressed them to please answer, whether the ballot resolution can be amended through a simple resolution, since it states such under the Miscellaneous provisions in 2022-98.
Specifically, I asked, “Does Colorado Law prevent changing the percentages allocated and discussed in the resolution, without voter approval? Can you point me to this law?”
Both Kristy Archuleta as well as the Local Government Manager for the Department of Revenue told me they wouldn’t answer the question, and that I needed a lawyer to answer this for me.
Lu Ann Pyatt, the Local Government Manager for the Department of Revenue, was at least kind enough to list the statutes involved with State oversight of sales tax increase ballot measures, as I had told her that other resolutions by other counties generally have a provision for amendments that reads similarly to the following:
“Uses or deposits as stated in the resolution cannot be changed or amended except through approval or rejection by a vote of the majority of the electorate.”
When I looked further into the law, I saw what appears to be the relevant text for our county’s conundrum… CRS 29-2-106 section 7… which states that amendments to sales tax resolutions can occur and must be submitted to the state within 10 days of passing. There was no restriction on amendments for funding allocations, which also do not materially change the wording of the ballot initiative.
According to the Use by Archuleta County and Town of Pagosa Springs provisions in 2022-98, “The Board shall direct the utilization of the revenues of the sales tax increase proposed by this Resolution solely as described in the ballot measure referred to the eligible voters of the County by this Resolution.”
So I wrote back Lu Ann about what section 7 appears to allow, and her response was to the affirmative: “It appears so [that section 7 allows for resolution amendments that do not materially change the wording of the ballot initiative, including use allocation]. The Department doesn’t manage the compliance of spending so I apologize for not being able to assist you more.”
I would appreciate — for clarity to the electors of this county — if Attorney Weaver would come forward with the case law supporting the position that they can not change the allocation of funds from 50% to a lower percentage (not necessarily just 0%; there are 49 numbers between 0% and 50%) through a simple resolution, given the Department of Revenue agrees that doing so would not materially change voter-approved revenue as listed in Ballot Initiative 1A and current state law allows for amendments to sales tax revenue resolutions.
Therefore, it is incumbent upon Attorney Weaver to tell people the specific case that he is referencing that states that this resolution cannot be amended… since the resolution was not approved by voters, and an amendment to the resolution by a future commission would not materially change the ballot initiative, if approved.
Obviously, because I have already had two government officials tell me to “lawyer up” to find out the real answers about 1A, I will continue to have the position of voting ‘NO’ on the sales tax increase.
Rachel Suh lives in Pagosa Springs, and is a Certified SCRUM Master and Strategic Consultant working in facilitation, mentoring, training, and coaching. She has a passionate hobby of Political Activism.