Certain people have characterized Pagosa Springs as a “ski town”, and it’s certainly tempting to think of our community in those terms, when we have a light dusting of snow on the streets and rooftops. In fact, Pagosa Springs is an official member of the Colorado Association of Ski Towns. I’m not sure who pays for that membership, but I assume it’s the taxpayers.
But are we really a “ski town”?
We’ll look a bit more deeply into that question in Part Six, on Monday.
During the public comment period at the December 6 Town Council meeting, a couple of people had spoken generally in support of the Root Policy Research “Short Term Rental Fee Study”, a ‘nexus study’ which we might note did not assess, in a comprehensive manner, the overall effects of the STR industry in Pagosa Springs, which are many and varied… including changes to the ‘character’ of downtown Pagosa Springs neighborhoods.
Rather, this was a ‘nexus’ study looking specifically at what kind of fee the Town can reasonably charge, for the privilege of operating a vacation rental within the town limits.
The town voters have already defined, as of last April, a fee that they believe to be reasonable — $150-per-bedroom-per-month. But that fee is being challenged in court by a group of STR owners.
One person who spoke during the Council’s public comment period was STR owner Jeremy Filer.
“Yeah, would just like to make some comments on the Short Term Rental situation going on in the city, and say that I do understand that Pagosa’s got a very ‘down home’ vibe, and I understand that there’s people that might be upset that it’s not the Pagosa they once knew.
“But I would also argue that no great ski town in America is… that they all change. And the same people that want the Pagosa that they once knew, have no problem doing things that have never been done, to small businesses. Increasing Short Term Rental fees by… well, mine grew by 15x overnight, with the new ‘Workforce Housing Fees’. I don’t know anywhere in Colorado or anywhere else that has fees that can affect a Short term Rental owner as high as it affected me. Around 20% of my gross revenue. There’s nowhere else, anywhere…
“I think the nexus study was done as a last ditch effort. It was conducted after the Town realized they were going to go into litigation, so I think it was a last ditch effort to try to save bacon, and, frankly, I don’t think it holds water when you do it after the fact.”
I agree with Mr. Filer’s supposition, that this nexus study will have limited usefulness, in terms of defending the voter-approved ‘Workforce Housing Fee’ currently in litigation.
Mr. Filer has attended several Town Council meetings where STR issues have been discussed, and has testified publicly on several of those occasions. So I’m a little bit surprised if he believes the Root Policy study was conducted to ‘save bacon’. Discussions between the Town Council and Town Attorney Clay Buchner, over the past several months, have made it clear (to me, anyway) that the nexus study was done to support a potential Council-initiated STR fee… should the existing voter-initiated fee get tossed out in court.
Mr. Filer continued.
“I think it’s also watered down a little bit, when you look at some of the affordable housing and the swanky-looking condos on Hot Springs Boulevard, with garages, and in walking distance to national attractions.”
Once again, I must scratch my head. I live downtown, and travel Hot Springs Boulevard on a regular basis, and I’ve somehow failed to notice the appearance of any “swanky-looking condos” on Hot Springs Boulevard. I don’t recall any condos of any type on Hot Springs Boulevard, “swanky” or otherwise.
Meanwhile, we have indeed seen 34 units of new low-income housing completed recently, across the street from Town Hall, and that’s certainly a step in the right direction, if we like the idea of a functional tourist-based economy… because the majority of the jobs created by such an economy do indeed result in low-income households, as illustrated by the Root Policy report.
Our Town and County government have spent millions of dollars, over the past decade, promoting just such an economy through the tax-funded Pagosa Springs Area Tourism Board.
A wise person once said, “When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.” Perhaps it’s time to stop promoting a tourist economy, and direct the taxpayer revenues in a different direction, at least for the next few years? Maybe, to address our worsening housing crisis?
A 2021 Root Policy study suggested that Archuleta County needs 800 more housing units to support the existing economy. That number might be related, in some fashion, to the 1,250 homes and condos that have been removed from the housing stock and converted into vacation rentals over the past decade.
34 units of new housing on Hot Springs Boulevard is a step in the right direction, but only a very small step.
We also note that the Springs Resort is planning to build a new 80-room resort hotel, with restaurant and spa, adjacent to their existing motel and hotel units on Hot Springs Boulevard. That would presumably create 200 additional low-paying jobs. Where do we imagine these workers living?
I understand Mr. Filer and other STR owners having concerns about the Root Policy ‘Short Term Rental Fee Study’. The study suggests that, should the existing voter-approved ‘Workforce Housing Fee’ be thrown out in court, some kind of impact fee might be put in place by the Town Council.
Meanwhile, the Archuleta County government has been conducting secret meetings with an appointed ‘task force’ looking at the STR issue from a county=level perspective.
As far as I can tell, no one outside of these secret meetings understands why Archuleta County would want to keep government deliberations — on a subject as important and as controversial as STR policy — hidden from the public.
The Town government certainly seems comfortable discussing their STR policies in public.
And the recent Magellan Strategies poll of community residents found that voters trust the Town government more than they trust the County government…