Photo: The Archuleta County commissioners discuss government decision-making at a January 2025 work session. From left, Warren Brown, Veronica Medina, John Ranson, County Manager Jack Harper.
As I’ve written before, here in the Daily Post, I’m not opposed to taxes and fees. I think they can easily get out of hand, if we’re not careful, but I generally support the idea that we all kick in, each according to their financial means, to make our community the best place it can be.
The disagreement, of course, centers on what we mean by “the best place it can be.” For some people, the “best place” would have no taxes at all, but would still provide excellent roads, parks, law enforcement, fire protection, drinking water, sanitation services, libraries, schools, health care, walking paths, senior services… you know… all the things generally supported by taxes and fees.
Part One of this editorial included a number of quotes from our current Board of County Commissioners Chair, Veronica Medina, expressing her hope that the BOCC will not find themselves resorting to Certificates of Participation — COPs — when they get around to funding a new administration building. She would like to see other funding options thoroughly explored.
And perhaps, to be explored by the larger community? Not just by County officials?
It goes without saying that some type of facility will be needed in the near future, due to the fact that the BOCC sold the old County Courthouse in 2022, without having any kind of plan for where the three County officials still operating in the Courthouse — the Clerk & Recorder, the Treasurer, and the Assessor — would relocate, with their substantial staff members.
That lack of a plan naturally included a lack of any plan how the relocation would be funded.
Only one of our current commissioners, Commissioner Warren Brown, was part of that decision to sell the Courthouse — without any plan. Commissioner Medina and Commissioner Ranson inherited the problem, and now must make decisions about the best route forward.
After Commissioner Medina brought up her distaste for Certificates of Participation as a funding mechanism, she shared her desire to have authentic conversations with “the community” about the size and cost of the building, and how to fund it. Well… maybe not about the size… or the cost… but at least, about how to fund it. We will see if that happens.
Commissioner Ranson said he totally agreed with Commissioner Medina.
“I think I actually made that statement in the newspaper, during my campaign… that I would not vote for a COP. That’s the business I used to be in: public finance. And COPs were designed for emergency purposes, when you couldn’t bring it to a vote in time. That’s what they were originally designed for. Now all the investment bankers have learned, ‘Gosh, we can do this and get around the voters.’ COPs were not designed for that purpose.
“I did say, in the campaign, I will not vote for a COP.
“Unless we have some serious get-togethers. Even if it’s just constituents coming and yelling at us. We’ve got to involve the public if we’re going to go that route. What you’re saying, I totally support. We’ve just got to include the public if we’re going to go borrow money, and that’s what we’re doing. So thank you for bringing that up.”
Commissioner Brown:
“And I agree with that, John. And not the way it transpired with the purchase of the land… What I had envisioned, and what actually got done, were quite a lot different… I expected we would have a couple of stand-alone input session, and then re-engage it again at our Board meeting, bring it further, and then we could vote. ”
Commissioner Brown is here referring to his dissatisfaction with the report delivered by consultant Troy Bernberg that led up to a BOCC vote, in December, to negotiate the purchase of four acres in Aspen Village. (Those negotiations are apparently still ongoing.)
But we might still be confused about how earnestly the commissioners want input from “the community”. We have heard, for example, that the administration building might include numerous County departments besides the three currently operating in the old Courthouse.
But the three operating in the old Courthouse are the only departments that truly need a location. All of the other County departments are currently housed in reasonably functional offices.
Certainly, it would be convenient to have all the County offices in the same place. I have, once in a while, found myself seeking information from the Assessor, for instance, only to be directed to the Clerk & Recorder. But does “the community” want to pay for a 30,000 square foot office and the related three-acre parking lot… when what we actually need is a 10,000 square foot office with a parking lot one-third that size?
How would the commissioner find out what the community wants to fund — with our taxes? I ask this question because previous trios of commissioners utterly failed to take the pulse of the community, and as a result, have lost the last four ballot measures they placed before the voters.
Judging by election results going back to 2010, our community is supportive of tax increases… if the money will be used to upgrade existing buildings and also, if it will be used to increase salaries.
But our community is historically reluctant to approve tax increases for shiny, new, oversize buildings. And previous commissioners have, as a result, put the taxpayers deeply in debt using COP funding… for a $20.6 million detention facility that could have cost us half that price — and that my grandchildren will still be paying for in 2044, if they can even afford to live here.
Does our current BOCC really want input from “the community”?
If so, they could walk across the street and attend the next ‘Master Plan Advisory Committee’ meeting… the large community group that will be meeting at the Middle School Library over a four month period, to study and discuss the best facilities plan for the Archuleta School District, and then make a recommendation to the School Board.
It would appear that the School District really wants community input.
Read Part Three, on Monday…