Walking into the Pagosa Springs Town Council meeting last night, I assumed that very few people had read the complete 165-page housing proposal submitted to the Town government by Texas-based developer Servitas on October 1, 2021… proposing a $20 million for-profit housing development on taxpayer-owned property.
No, I take that back. None of us had read the complete document, because the Town staff had redacted — completely blacked out — over 20 pages, at Servitas’ request.
Perhaps the most important pages? The pages that dealt with financing?
As the evening turned out, the redacted pages were not even mentioned as part of the discussion. The recommendation from a Town subcommittee urged the award of three publicly-owned downtown parcels to the Servitas — vacant parcels worth a total of maybe $1.5 million in our current real estate market? — and that recommendation was approved without any real debate.
The alleged purpose for awarding $1.5 million in vacant, publicly-owned property to Servitas was to facilitate workforce housing, aimed at households at certain income levels. Presumably, this would be rental housing that was affordable to the people working low-wage tourist industry jobs and in other professions, in our little town of Pagosa Springs.
So that working people didn’t have to live in tents and RVs, like some workers are now doing. And so that local employers can find employees — something that is currently challenging for nearly every local business or organization.
As I noted, the Council approved the award without much discussion. But I don’t blame them for rushing through the approval. The meeting had already lasted more than three hours at this point.
Had Mayor Don Volger allowed public comment, however, I believe there were at least two people in the audience who would have asked pertinent questions about this (rushed?) decision. The Servitas proposal had suggested 60 small apartment units, almost all of which were sized at 450 square feet. Estimated total cost of the project would be about $20.4 million. According to my pocket calculator, these ‘affordable’ apartment units were priced at about $640 per square foot.
For comparison, the Rose Mountain Townhomes, now nearing completion across the street from Town Hall on Hot Springs Boulevard, came in at about $350 per square foot.
How the Town Council can believe that $640 per square foot is an affordable style of housing is not immediately clear. Especially when all of the financial details in the proposal were hidden from public view. Also unclear was the amount of profit Servitas will extract from a gift of publicly-owned property.
Servitas had, however, provided us with a slick, 2-minute ‘Executive Summary’ video, recited by a bubbly, enthusiastic narrator, reminding us what a wonderful community we have.
“It’s no secret how special this place is. Pagosa Springs is in a class of its own. It holds more picturesque scenery than one can imagine. And delivers the quality of life that many seek…”
Yes, quality of life… unless, of course, you happen to be a working family living in a wall tent and two used RVs with your four teenagers, because you spent three months looking for a rental… after being kicked out of the last three homes you occupied because they sold to the highest bidder. (This is a true story related to me earlier this week.)
“For these reasons and many more, Pagosa Springs must seek an experienced developer for a creative, long-term partnership.
“The chance to partner with you is one we cherish…”
“We’re envisioning three exciting workforce housing developments that fit perfectly into the community. They respect their surrounding and serve as an excellent example for a public-private partnership. These three developments will serve the needs of the community, with Pagosa Springs essential workforce call them home. Firefighters. Nurses. Teachers. Police officers. Public servants. And those serving during the peak tourist season…”
If only we could find and retain those firefighters, nurses, teachers and police officers. If only those serving during the peak tourist season could afford an actual house to live in.
But this is exactly the problem Servitas is so excited to help us solve, with 60 rather tiny apartments built on public property and providing a welcome profit to the Servitas team of professionals.
But… if this is really such a perfect and excellent idea… why did Servitas hide their financial data from the public?
Was Servitas hiding ‘proprietary secrets’? Or were they hiding the amount of profit they will be extracting from the pockets of our ‘essential workforce’?
The reason that everyone — the Council, the staff, the audience — was a bit weary by the time we arrived at the Servitas award item on the agenda was the result of two lengthy back-and-forth debates on two other topics related to workforce housing.
VII. NEW BUSINESS
1. Ordinance 964, First Reading, Submitting to Town Voters Ballot Issue 1: Redirection of Lodging Tax Expenditures
2. Ordinance 965, First Reading, Submitting to Town Voters Ballot Issue 2: Excise Tax on Short Term Rentals
The lengthy debate on these two topics centered on whether to place certain issues in front of the voters at the Town’s April 5, 2022 election.
Basically:
1. Should the Town Council ask voters to permit more relevant and creative uses of the municipal Lodgers Tax revenues, so that some of the revenues could be used for (poorly debated?) workforce housing projects and other necessary municipal expenditures, instead of being used only to promote tourism… (and the creation of more low-paying tourism industry jobs?)
And…
2. Should the Town Council ask voters to approve a new Excise Tax on STRs — Short-Term Rentals, vacation rentals — with those tax revenues dedicated to workforce housing and related infrastructure?
These two new revenue allocations had been recommended to the Town Council by the Town Planning Commission back in July, and had been promoted — since July — by non-profit Pagosa Housing Partners. (Disclosure: I serve as a volunteer on the PHP board.)
In fact, PHP had made it clear that, should the Council forego its opportunity to put these issues on the April ballot, PHP intended to petition these two questions onto the ballot, through a citizen initiative process.
In Part Three, I will attempt to summarize two hours of debate… and last night’s decisions on the ballot measures.