The word ‘Competently’, which I inserted into my headline this morning, has a number of possible synonyms. For example…
‘Effectively’… ‘Productively’… ‘Fruitfully’… ‘Capably’… ‘Masterfully’… ‘Expertly’…
But since I’m writing about government, those alternate synonyms don’t quite fit my intended meaning. ‘Effectively’ comes close. So does ‘Productively’.
‘Masterfully’ and ‘Expertly’ are not words we usually associate with ‘government boards’.
So I’m going to go with ‘Competently’. It’s not a perfect word, but it’ll have to do. It suggests, for me, that someone is not totally screwing things up. It suggests a vigorous debate, when debate is warranted, often followed by some type of compromise with which no one is entirely happy.
At last night’s regular meeting of the Pagosa Springs Town Council, a number of bookkeeping items were handled competently. Reports were delivered about some of the local boards and organizations with which the Town Council collaborates. An ordinance was approved, clarifying how the Town staff will handle the new fees on Short-Term Rentals (STRs) approved by the voters last month. A communications tower was approved.
A parcel at the corner of Hot Springs Boulevard and Apache had its zoning changed, to facilitate a Town-government-sponsored workforce housing development.
And since we’re on the subject of workforce housing, we’ll summarize a competent discussion about the Town’s ongoing collaboration with Texas-based Servitas, a development company that has proposed 64 units of workforce housing on three parcels along Apache Street, at the south end of downtown. The re-zoned parcel just mentioned is part of that proposal. But one of the parcels in the mix is a public, neighborhood park.
South Pagosa Park.
After working with Servitas for six months to design a housing project to replace the park’s grassy playing field, the Town staff and Council decided to go out and ask the neighborhood what they thought about losing 1/2 acre of playground space.
The neighborhood generally disliked the idea.
But Servitas wants to build at least 64 units of housing — their business model apparently requires a certain ‘volume’ of units — and they can fit only about 36 units, total, on the other two Apache Street parcels.
So the Council, last night, dug competently into the question: Can we find a different site — other that South Pagosa Park — to accommodate at least 28 units of workforce housing?
From the agenda packet:
At the joint work session with Planning Commission on April 28, the market study was presented for workforce housing by Western Spaces, LLC. The need for one and two bedroom rentals is acute. Input was provided by both boards on the use of South Pagosa Park, with split support for this option. Some possible alternative sites for the workforce housing project were discussed. Based on direction from Town Council at their meeting on April 21, the South Pagosa Park site is in need of further consideration.
Attached is information from Servitas, the selected developer, on site considerations. Also attached is the report from 2019 on the Town-owned Trujillo Road property with estimated costs of infrastructure as this site was recently brought up as an option. It should be noted that exploration of other sites besides the three that have been under pre-development will add further costs to the project overall. At this time, the Town Manager has notified Servitas and their team to stop any further pre-development work until direction from Council has been provided on all sites.
Town staff and Servitas wanted direction from the Council. If South Pagosa Park was off the table, and if the Town needs to provide Servitas with enough free, municipally-owned land to allow the construction of 64 units… how do we determine the best location for the 28 units that were planned in South Pagosa Park?
From last night’s packet:
Criteria to be discussed for selecting a site include, but are not limited to the following. Staff is seeking concurrence on the following from Council members in order to find out what is most important in selecting another site(s). Please rank the priorities or otherwise assign weight:
- location-geographic (uptown, midtown, downtown or other?)
- location-within town limits or can it be in county?
- walkability
- proximity to road, sewer, water, natural gas, electricity and other infrastructure
- buildability of the site (slope, soils, geology, access, etc.)
- zoning and neighboring uses
- cost to purchase
- cost to make development ready (pre-construction cost)
- proximity to employment centers and amenities
- number of units it can hold
- possiblity of park/open space adjacent or part of the parcel
- not in an HOA (fees, regulations)
- smaller sites vs. all on one site
A lengthy discussion ensued, based on this list of possible criteria.
Here’s my interpretation of the direction given to Town staff by Council:
- It’s preferable that housing be spread across the community, including downtown, mid-town and uptown, rather than all located on one neighborhood.
- Projects will preferably be located within the Town limits, and will not be located in PLPOA (Pagosa Lakes Property Owners Association) due to association fees and restrictions.
- Walkability is nice, but not crucial.
- Proximity to existing infrastructure is highly preferred.
- Buildability of the site (slope, soils, geology, access, etc.) is crucial, to keep costs down — and thus, to keep rents reasonable.
- Best to put housing within areas already zoned for housing.
- If the Town is going to purchase property to facilitate the Servitas project, then $500,000 is a reasonable limit for property acquisition.
- Proximity to employment centers and amenities is preferred.
- A parcel should accommodate at least 28 units. More would be even better.
Readers might wonder how the municipal government can allocate $500,000 for a parcel of vacant land. Fact is, the Town budget for 2022 includes about $900,000 earmarked to address the workforce housing crisis. This does not include the new fees that will be collected from STRs located within the town limits, as the result of Ballot Question A’s approval last month — and those fees will likely generate about $250,000 this year, to be used for workforce housing development and preservation.
So, then. Where to put 28 units of housing?
If we’re going to be competent about the decision?