From a press release by the Pagosa Springs Police Department on the morning of October 14:
Earlier today, floodwaters and debris caused a failure in the sewer lines beneath the First Street Bridge on US Highway 160. As a result, US Highway 160 is CLOSED from the intersection of US Highway 160 and US Highway 84 through to Hot Springs Boulevard.
Emergency crews are on scene assessing the extent of the damage. The closure will remain in place until further notice. Motorists are urged to use alternate routes and avoid the area for their safety and to allow emergency services to operate without obstruction.
Yet more headaches for the Pagosa Springs Sanitation District in its struggle to maintain a functioning sanitation system.
A letter to the editor appeared in the weekly Pagosa Springs SUN last Thursday, from John Meyer… possibly, the John Meyer who lives in Pagosa Springs and who is registered Republican, according to https://voterrecords.com
The letter was titled: “Town ballot measure”.
What is unfair and should be illegal? The 1-cent sales tax increase on the ballot in November. The town includes all of the commercial property along the [Highway] 160 corridor and at least 90% of the sales in Archuleta County occur in the town and this area. The rest of Archuleta residents will be eliminated from the vote.
This is “taxation without representation!” This vote should extend to all county residents since almost all county residents will be paying the tax. If there is not a lawsuit to prevent this vote, there should be!
John Meyer
The information presented by Mr. Meyer is reasonably accurate. A proposed 1% sales tax — Ballot Measure 2A — will appear on your November ballot if you live within the Pagosa Springs town limits, and will not appear on your ballot if you live outside the municipal limits in the unincorporated county. About 85% of the greater Pagosa Springs community lives outside the town and will not be allowed to vote on Ballot Measure 2A.
The SUN also shared a letter that I had submitted, which suggested a different (and somewhat more complete?) set of facts.
Disclosure: I am a volunteer member of a political committee formed to encourage the passage of Ballot Measure 2A. You can view information posted by our committee on Pagosa-Sewer-Solutions.com
If 2A is approved by the town voters, everyone who shops within the town limits will pay the new 1% sales tax, on top of our existing 6.9% sales tax. The revenue will be used to support long-term maintenance and repairs to the Town’s failing sewer system. Most of the community’s retail businesses — including Walmart, City Market, most of the gas stations, most of the liquor stores, most of the restaurants, most of the hotels and motels — will collect and remit the tax revenues to the Town of Pagosa Springs, to be then used by the Pagosa Springs Sanitation General Improvement District (PSSGID) for critical and long-term repairs and upgrades.
The Town’s financial advisors have estimated that this new tax will generate about $3.5 million a year, and will be paid partly by tourists who stay in our town hotels and motels. About 30% of the tax will be paid by tourists and visitors, according to information provided by the Town.
Mr. Meyer is correct when he states that this can be described as “taxation without representation” for the people living outside the municipal limits.
It is also “taxation without representation” for our tourists and visitors.
This “without representation” effect derives from the model we use in the U.S. to conduct democratic elections. The registered voters who live in Colorado are allowed to vote on statewide issues and candidates… but only those who live within Archuleta County are allowed to vote on Archuleta County issues and candidates… and only those who live within the Pagosa Springs town limits are allowed to vote on Town issues and candidates.
Tourists from Texas or Arizona get to pay sales taxes collected in Pagosa Springs, and must abide by our local regulations, but have no voting rights here.
From what I can tell, we’re all comfortable with that arrangement. I suspect even Mr. Meyer is okay with tourists paying sales tax here.
A local business owner called me last week to ask a simple question that does not have a simple answer.
“Why do we have two governments in Pagosa Springs, when we’re really one community?”
I’ll share some thoughts on that simple question tomorrow, in Part Two. The “two governments” situation definitely has a bearing on why only town residents will be allowed to vote on Ballot Measure 2A.
But for today, we can consider, more closely, Mr. Meyer’s letter to the SUN.
What is unfair and should be illegal? The 1-cent sales tax increase on the ballot in November… If there is not a lawsuit to prevent this vote, there should be!
The Town government has done things, in the past, that may have been illegal.
In 2015, I filed a lawsuit challenging the Town Council’s decision to meet secretly, in executive session, behind closed doors, with their attorney Bob Cole and two private developers. Colorado governments have the legal right to meet in executive sessions, for very specific purposes — but my attorney and I believed the Town Council had violated the public’s legal right to open meetings, when they met behind closed doors with private developers.
District Court Judge Greg Lyman agreed with my position, and ordered the Town to release a recording of that closed-door meeting to the taxpayers.
Had the the meeting been conducted illegally? I thought so. My attorney thought so. Judge Lyman thought so.
The Town Council did not think so, and their attorney, Bob Cole, did not think so. The Town could have appealed Judge Lyman’s decision, but they chose not to do so. An appellate court might have determined that the meeting was held properly and legally. The Colorado Supreme Court could have been asked to rule on the appellate court’s decision.
My point here is simple. The last court to rule on an issue determines the legality of a government’s action. It doesn’t matter what the taxpayers think, or what the government boards think, or what the attorneys think. Only the final judge’s ruling can determine the legality of an action.
And it’s not cheap to find out what the judge thinks. When the Town lost its 2015 case on the executive session, they had to pay my attorney’s fee: $35,000.
Does anyone in Archuleta County want to file a lawsuit to try and prevent the town voters from making a decision about Ballot Measure 2A?
If so, I hope they have deep pockets.