When the Town government creates a new Ordinance, they are legally required to publish the Ordinance for public review following the “First Reading” and then hold a “Second Reading” at least two weeks later, at which time they must hold a public hearing and consider input from the public.
Ideally, the public is able to obtain complete and unbiased information about the proposed Ordinance, and can fully understand its implications, so they can then offer well-informed and thoughtful testimony in support of, or in opposition to, the proposed Ordinance.
That’s an “ideal” situation.
In reality, the general public only rarely takes a deep interest in Town Ordinances, and the Town rarely provides complete and unbiased information about a proposed Ordinance.
Thus, the general public is rarely willing, or able, to offer well-informed and thoughtful testimony. And to be honest, in most cases, the lack of public interest doesn’t matter much, because the implied risks from the Ordinance are not substantial.
But on rare occasions, the general public is able to provide crucial information the Town Council was not aware of, or hadn’t considered fully.
In my 22 years of reporting on Pagosa Springs governments, I’ve experienced only a few occasions where a local government ignored public input and made a disastrous decision that cost the community dearly. Typically — and incredibly — those disastrous decisions resulted from a unanimous vote by whatever board or commission.
The second reading of Ordinances 1030, 1031, and 1032 were each approved on June 29, by a unanimous vote. Should we read anything into that fact?
The two members of the public who testified at that special meeting did not have complete and unbiased information. Whatever information they did have came from online sources or from the local news media — not from the Council itself.
If we were so inclined, we could compare this process with the sketch plan approval process for the proposed Pagosa West subdivision on June 17, wherein the public was provided with no less than 88 pages of written information, including maps and charts, and featuring a thorough analysis of the subdivision plans by the professional staff in the Town Planning Department.
By comparison, the staff analysis presented to the public — concerning the total potential $9.5 million purchase of three bankrupt condominium complexes — totaled about 200 words and could easily fit on a single sheet of paper.
If the Pagosa West subdivision moves forward, nearly all the financial risk rests with the developer.
In the case of Ordinance 1030, 1031, and 1032, all the financial risk, if the project fails, falls on the Town taxpayers.
But were the taxpayers consulted?
Were they asked if they wanted to assume this long-term financial risk?
No.
I’ve been speaking in favor of government involvement in Pagosa’s housing crisis, at Town Council meetings and County Commissioner meetings and Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD) meetings and Pagosa Fire Protection District meetings, for at least 20 years. So have many others in the community.
At the same time, many of us have consistently opposed the creation of long-term debt without voter approval. If our governments want to yoke us with long-term financial obligations, they ought to ask our permission. It’s our money, and our grandchildren’s money. Not incidentally, the Colorado Constitution agrees with that perspective.
But local government boards don’t always see things the same way as the Colorado Constitution.
I’m thinking about our oversized Archuleta County jail. A long-term debt for that proposed project was rejected twice by the voters, but the Board of County Commissioners funded a new jail anyway through Certificates of Participation. COPs. They knew very well that the voters had rejected teir plan, so they went around the public’s back, and used COPs.
I’m thinking about the seven-mile-long Town-to-PAWSD sewer pipeline, financed partly by what was likely an illegal loan from PAWSD to the Town, without any voter approval. We all know now, what a financial disaster that has proved to be.
I’m thinking of the Dry Gulch Reservoir Project. The voters had rejected the purchase of the Running Iron Ranch in 2004, but PAWSD purchased the ranch anyway — for probably twice what it was worth — without taxpayer approval. Another financial disaster.
At the June 29 special meeting of the Council, local resident Nancy Rea had raised important questions about the proposed $9.5 million condo purchases. The Council did not respond to those questions. Ms. Rea also stated that she didn’t understand how “COPs” were involved in the proposed purchase, or what, exactly, “COPs” were.
The Colorado Consitution very clearly prohibits local governments from creating long-term debt obligations (longer than one year) unless they have first obtained voter approval. But local governments and their favored investment bankers have devised a clever way to go around the Constitution, and the taxpayers, by making agreements that theoretically don’t have to be repaid.. Based on that ‘loophole’, Colorado courts have determined that Certificates of Participates do not qualify as ‘long-term financial obligations’… because the debt payments must be approved annually. Thus, they are ‘annual appropriations’ rather than ‘long-term debts.’
But COPS are, in fact, long-term financial obligations, because the local governments always make the annual appropriations.
If it looks like a debt, and swims like a debt, and quacks like a debt… then it definitely is a debt.
The decision by the Town Council last month, to bid $9.5 million that they don’t have, for bankrupt condo units — units that the owners have determined they cannot afford to maintain and have simply walked away from — that decision might, in the end, turn out to be a good one for the community.
We have no idea how the decision was made, however, and what factors were considered, and who was consulted for advice. All the conversations took place behind closed doors, and the public saw no more than 200 words of explanation.
Most definitely, the taxpayers were not consulted.
It’s possible the Wyndham units will generate enough consistent rent to pay off COPs plus the maintenance, operations, and repair costs. The taxpayers have no idea, however, because we’ve never been shown the numbers.
It’s also possible this could be another financial disaster for the taxpayers,,, as has happened before here in Pagosa, with unanimous Council or Board approvals…
Read Part Eight… tomorrow…