Looking over the Town Council’s agenda for tonight’s special meeting, I see the Council has not scheduled additional discussions of the geothermal water lease.
My recent two-part editorial about the lease between the Town government and the Springs Resort — allocating the Town’s entire 450 GPM (gallons per minute) water right from the municipal geothermal wells for use by the Resort, with or without any previous use by the Town heating system or by the non-profit Geothermal Greenhouse Partnership — had sparked concerns from several Daily Post readers that the Town appeared to be charging a very low rate for the use of municipal geothermal water.
The Town Council seemed to be asking itself the very same question at its December 21 meeting. Nevertheless, the Council was facing a deadline of January 1 to approve a new lease, and was hesitant to cut the Resort off — cold turkey — from the generous supply of hot , mineral-rich water it’s been drawing from the Town wells for more than two decades. So in a compromise decision, the Council agreed to a one-year lease, charging the Resort considerably less money, per month, than the School District pays for hot water delivered through the municipal heating system.
The one-year Resort lease provides up to 284 million gallons of mineral-rich water annually, for $33 dollars per day, to run the entire resort complex.
According to the Archuleta School District, two of our downtown schools are using the municipal geothermal heating system. Last year, it appears that the District paid about $120 per day for geothermal heating during the heating season. The hot water was provided between October and April.
In conjunction with that vote, Council members Gary Williams and Leonard Martinez agreed to sit on a subcommittee and explore fair solutions to the geothermal issue. The issue being, private use of a public resource.
Presumably, the final solution will be fair to both the Springs Resort and the Pagosa taxpayers.
Also on the agenda for tonight’s meeting is a discussion — and a possible executive session — concerning an 12-acre parcel just outside the town limits, near the junction of Highways 160 and 84.
I have a personal interest in this item because — as far as I know — I was the local citizen who brought this vacant parcel to the Council’s attention, a couple of years ago, during discussions about the provision of public land to help solve the deepening housing crisis in Archuleta County. This tool — the acquisition of land by a government, to be donated to private developers as an incentive to encourage workforce and low-income housing — has been used most recently by the Archuleta Board of County Commissions, when they donated about 35 vacant parcels in the Trails and Chris Mountain subdivisions to Habitat for Humanity and the Pagosa Springs Community Development Corporation, for workforce housing.
A couple of years ago, the Town government acquired three acres of vacant land behind Walmart to be used for the same purpose. But the private developer for whom the land had been earmarked — Texas-based Servitas — has apparently been unable to produce a plan suitable to the Town Council.
Not much information is included in the Town Council agenda packet, about this possible land purchase. Here’s what was provided:
Town Council has expressed interest in potentially purchasing the Robert Goodman property located at 229 #A U.S. Hwy 84. The property owner had provided an “Outline of Proposed Terms” for the Town’s purchase consideration of the property dated July 19, 2023, which prompted the Town Council to discuss their interest in the property and direct staff to conduct due diligence on a few matters to bring back to the Council for their consideration. The property is approximately 11.85 acres in size.
Council may consider entering executive session, pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(a), is concerning the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer or sale of any real property interest regarding the property located at 229 US Hwy 84 #A.
The mention of an ‘executive session’ got me thinking about government transparency.
Colorado governments are legally required to make all decisions in open public meetings. Colorado Revised Statutes, Title 24, article 6, says:
It is declared to be a matter of statewide concern and the policy of this state that the formation of public policy is public business and may not be conducted in secret.
But things don’t always work that way. The same Title 24, article 6 also permits government boards to hold ‘executive sessions’ — behind closed doors — to discuss certain matters, including real estate sales or purchases, and when negotiating contracts.
From my perspective, this makes a certain kind of sense, when you are negotiating a real estate purchase using public funds. You want to get the best deal, and that can mean holding your cards close to the vest.
On the other hand, it also can be a terrible way to do business with public money, because sometimes the public has important information that the seller is not sharing with our government leaders. In some cases, avoiding transparency can mean getting the worst possible deal. We saw that happen, for example, with the 2008 joint purchase of the Running Iron Ranch by the San Juan Water Conservancy District (SJWCD) and the Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD). Government secrecy led to a decision that many have characterized as a “boondoggle”.
I’ve been serving on the PAWSD board of directors for a couple of years, a public entity that — this year — will have a budget about three times as large as the Town’s budget.
Disclosure: I currently serve as a volunteer on the PAWSD board of directors, but this editorial reflects only my own opinions and not necessarily the opinions of any other board members or of the board as a whole.
Under the leadership of Mayor Shari Pierce, the Town Council has held numerous ‘executive sessions’ over the past 18 months, sometimes excluding the public for up to two hours. Additionally, members of the public, under Pierce’s leadership, have been strictly limited to ‘three minutes’ of testimony.
Perhaps this lack of transparency explains why almost no one attends the Town Council meetings, and even fewer bother to offer public comment.
By comparison, I cannot recall the PAWSD Board holding an executive session for any reason, over the past three years. Many of the discussion, held publicly and openly, have involved real estate and real estate leases. During PAWSD meetings, Board President Jim Smith has welcomed public testimony on a wide range of topics, with no time limits imposed. I’ve seen up to a dozen taxpayers engage in discussions of controversial topics. And I believe the PAWSD Board has greatly benefited by those discussion, even the occasion discussion that’s become somewhat heated.
I know that I, personally, have benefited from hearing opinions expressed by the taxpayers.
In my humble opinion, secrecy and cutting off public discussion during government meetings, should be the very last option. Not the very first.
