From: Alan W. Levine
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016
To: Bentley Henderson
Subject: Hot Springs Boulevard PropertyDear Bentley:
Since our recent conversation, I have had the opportunity to review our historical records concerning the County’s purchase of its roughly 4.87 acre tract on Hot Springs Boulevard, and further consider the matter of the use restriction on that parcel.
Thus begins an email sent to Archuleta County Administrator Bentley Henderson last week, clarifying the position of the Levine Family, on a matter near and dear to the hearts of anyone hoping to build a “justice center” on Hot Springs Boulevard.
For about the past 18 months, two County Commissioners — Steve Wadley and Clifford Lucero — have been focusing a great deal of energy and money on plans to built a “justice center” complex on the roughly 4.87 acre tract mentioned by Mr. Levine. The Levine Family sold the parcel to the County back in 1999, with the express promise that the County would never build a jail or courthouse on the property — that the parcel would be used only for County administrative buildings. That promise was legally enforced via a deed restriction that prohibits the construction of a justice center on the parcel.
During recent public input sessions concerning the Courthouse, the BOCC has repeatedly been asked about this deed restriction, and Commissioners Wadley and Lucero have repeatedly assured us — the taxpayers — that the Levine Family, acting as the Fairway Land Trust, was willing to remove the deed restriction in exchange for a reasonable payment.
Apparently the deed restriction issue is not exactly the “done deal” that certain County Commissioners were suggesting. Here are a few excerpts from Mr. Levine’s October 27 email:
The negotiations which led up to the original purchase and sale transaction all clearly demonstrate that the seller, the County and the Town all agreed that criminal justice and detention facilities would not, and should not, be located on that parcel. It was considered poor land planning and inappropriate for the area and incompatible with the long term master plan for the area…
As previously expressed to Todd Starr and various others, Fairway Land Trust has always maintained its original position, that development of a criminal justice and detention center on the subject parcel (or anywhere in that immediate area) is not the best or most desirable use of the parcel. Notably, this is not just the opinion of one property owner, but rather was the widespread consensus and agreement of all stake-holders and policy makers after extensive meetings, design charrettes, urban planning studies and the input of professional planners both within and outside of government…
I did have discussions this year with Todd Starr regarding the possibility of lifting the restriction, but at that time I reiterated our general sentiments regarding a detention center in that location and made it clear that this was certainly not the preference… When communicating with Todd Starr, it was further expressed that design and aesthetic considerations are of paramount importance to Fairway Land Trust, as they should be to the community in general, for such a highly visible and important location…
The initial assurances made to the undersigned were that the facility would be designed by a prominent firm skilled in aesthetically pleasing governmental design would most certainly be a “very attractive facility” that the community would be proud of and which “will not look like a detention facility at all” and that all law enforcement/detention activities would be concealed from plan sight. These initial assurances were essentially the only reasons we indicated a willingness to discuss granting a release to begin with, but things have obviously changed since then..
Fairway Land Trust was, as you know, given design input rights to whatever administrative facility the County intended to build on the parcel. Of it will be a detention/criminal justice facility, that input becomes of even greater concern and importance (not less.) Despite that basic and obvious fact, I was given the distinct impression that although the County would “listen” to design input, Fairway Land Rust would have no true say in the design, look or feel of the detention center and the County will, quite simply, build whatever it wants to build…
Moreover, in light of financial constraints that have recently come to light, it appears that the County might very well be looking (or forced) to build the most economically priced facility possible, and that is certainly not in line with the prior discussions and representations. Modular construction, low level finishes and other cost saving measures have been mentioned. This is of course understandable for a “jail” — but not for this location. A grand facility that everyone can be proud of (and which does not have the look or feel of a jail and related activities) is one thing, but if cost is going to drive and diminish the design and aesthetics of the facility in an effort to build the least costly facility possible, then in our opinion the facility should be placed in a much less visible (and less valuable) location…
In any case, it seems entirely premature to discuss lifting the restriction at a time when the issue is clearly undecided within the County on numerous fronts. It is an election year and the candidates have strongly opposing views concerning this issues.. It would seem most proper to see what the Commission’s final decision is, after the election takes place and further evaluation of location, affordability and refinement of the budget and source of funding is determined…
On a final note, it has been reported that the use restriction has already been dealt with and is a non-issue, but that is not the case, as it was only under discussion and, to be clear, no final agreement was reached or signed. Aside from the issue being premature and remaining generally divisive within the community, we were never offered any satisfactory written assurances concerning the design, look or feel of the facility and no one even knows if the County can actually afford to build, and what level of funding the voters will ultimately approve. The above being said, Fairway Land Trust does look forward to working with the County and Town towards enhancing our community and its long term interests in a responsible and sensitive manner acceptable to the community at large.
As Mr. Levine’s letter makes clear, the Fairway Land Trust was willing to discuss the removal of the deed restriction, so long as the Trust had input into the facility design, and so long as the project was not done “on the cheap.”
Recent BOCC discussions have indicated, however, that Colorado’s statutory limits on county government borrowing might limit Archuleta County’s total debt to about $9 million. The only professional estimate we have, for the rough-draft facility design approved by Commissioners Wadley and Lucero for the Hot Springs Boulevard parcel, is $28 million.
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.