Disclosure: I currently serve on the Board of Directors for Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD) but I’m not speaking for the Board here, but sharing only my own opinions.
I don’t want to imply that “recreation” exists in opposition to “shelter”. I do believe, however, that access to housing is a primary human need, whereas access to recreational facilities is a luxury.
Possibly, some people would disagree.
At the conclusion of her comments to the PAWSD Board last Thursday, local activist Candace Jones proposed that the creation of employee housing was outside the purposes for which PAWSD is directly responsible.
More significantly, the Rules and Regulations of PAWSD establish its purpose, which is “to provide for the control, management, and operation of the water and wastewater systems of the District, including additions, extensions, and connections thereto, and to provide for the administration and enforcement of such standards.” It is not the purpose of PAWSD to develop or administer housing, and PAWSD’s management and operations are not designed for PAWSD to act as a housing developer or residential landlord.
(You can download Ms. Jones’ comments here)
The issue at dispute, at Thursday’s PAWSD Board meeting, was whether to use 20 acres of taxpayer-owned property as the site for a recreational facility — as proposed by the San Juan Water Conservancy District (SJWCD) — or whether to use that parcel as the site for PAWSD employee housing. (And possibly, non-employee housing.)
PAWSD has been struggling with recruiting employees, as have all Pagosa Springs businesses and organizations, due partly to the ongoing housing crisis here.
SJWCD has not been struggling with recruiting employees. With an annual budget of only about $90,000, SJWCD has no employees. (It does contract for services, however, with a big chunk of the budget going to attorney fees.)
SJWCD has been struggling, nevertheless… with getting a proposed river access lease approved by the PAWSD Board.
The proposed lease from the Archuleta Board of County Commissioners had been provided to the PAWSD Board, a few months ago… with Archuleta County promising to build, maintain and supervise a recreational boating facility on 20 acres of riverfront property, part of the Running Iron Ranch jointly purchased by PAWSD and SJWCD in 2008.
Archuleta County does not have a parks department, in spite of its ownership of the 80-acre Cloman Park. The County’s reasons for owning a large park, without having a parks department, are not entirely clear.
Recent news stories about terminated employees, mishandled road maintenance projects, a failing landfill operation, ongoing lawsuits, disputes over a shared public health agency (now being dissolved), mounting public debts, and a failure to recruit and retain qualified employees, have caused some of us to question the competence of Archuleta County leadership. Perhaps that, by itself, was sufficient reason for the PAWSD Board to have shown little interest in the proposed river access lease from the County.
Perhaps a strained relationship with SJWCD was another reason.
When the SJWCD Board became frustrated with the lack of PAWSD approval for the County’s recreational proposal, SJWCD Board president Al Pfister asked the board’s attorney, Jeff Kane, to weigh in on the idea that SJWCD could unilaterally sign a river access lease with the County — without PAWSD being a co-signer on the lease.
Attorney Kane responded at the August 21 SJWCD Board meeting, via Zoom.
President Pfister:
“I was talking to Jeff earlier about… are you still on, Jeff?… Yeah… The land ownership issue. Tenants-in-common. So, Jeff, I’ll let you speak to that.”
Attorney Jeff Kane:
“The [San Juan Water Conservancy District] is a tenant-in-common with PAWSD in ownership with the [Running Iron Ranch] parcels, and the District’s share of that is just shy of 11%. What that means is, each entity owns that percentage of the undivided whole. And the law is that each entity is allowed to possess and use the entirety of the property, regardless of that percentage. Each entity is required to deal with the other in good faith, and is entitled to any profits or proceeds, to the extent of that ownership.
“Um… so, really at the end of the day, tenants-in-common have to cooperate and work together on things.
“If the question were to come up, ‘Could the San Juan District enter a lease for this property, without PAWSD doing the same?’ — the answer is probably ‘Yes.’
“Whether the County would do it, with only one of the tenants-in-common, I don’t know.
“But then, there’s prudential reasons why you’d want to try and work cooperatively and only consider something like that as a last resort.
“So, uh… you know… I think the one thing I can do, if PAWSD isn’t prioritizing this enough, to try and get it to the finish line, is reach out to PAWSD’s attorneys and just make sure they’ve seen the lease, and let them know that this District is trying to push it forward, and that way, maybe the Board of Directors on the PAWSD side would hear from someone else that it’s a priority that needs to get addressed.”
As a member of the PAWSD Board in attendance at that August 21 meeting, I was concerned that SJWCD — claiming to have “less than 11%” ownership interest in the Running Iron Ranch — was considering signing a ‘river access lease’ with a possibly-incompetent County government, without the agreement of the PAWSD Board.
As a last resort, presumably? But not a great way to get along with a joint tenant.
At our PAWSD Board meeting on Thursday, an item on the agenda was described thus:
Consideration of 21-Acre Running Iron Western Parcel
The 21-acre Running Iron Western parcel (the riverfront property, a portion of parcel 570105400019) be set aside for PAWSD employee recreation to aid in employee retention, reduced PAWSD construction costs, and to be used in conjunction with item above.
This was rather confusing to me, because I had never heard any suggestion that the riverfront property would be used for “employee recreation”. What I had discussed with my fellow PAWSD directors, at some length and over a period of several months, was the need for employee housing, and the suitability of the 20-acre parcel for just that purpose.
Obviously, SJWCD Board member Candace Jones had seen the same agenda description, and had become concerned about “employee recreation”.
And also, about PAWSD’s capacity to competently provide employee housing.