Photo: Archuleta County Courthouse, winter, 2023.
In Part One, I related the comments by Archuleta County Commissioner Ronnie Maez and County Manager Derek Woodman, indicating that the County had not charged any permit fees or plan review fees related to the ongoing construction of the Snowball Water Treatment Facility, on the basis that Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD) is a sovereign local government capable of following its own building guidelines. The County professes to have no authority to tell PAWSD how and what to build, on PAWSD property.
This might be a template for how local governments treat one another.
At the Board of County Commissioners’ work session on February 6, County Attorney Todd Weaver reinforced this point of view, relative to the attempts by the Town of Pagosa Springs to compel Archuleta County to screen the mechanical devices installed atop the new County Courthouse in Harman Park.
I found out, after I had written most of today’s article, that the Town Community Development Department had in fact issued a building permit to the Archuleta County government, for the new transit facility, following the BOCC work session on February 6.
But I think the comments made by the County commissioners and staff on February 6 remain interesting, nevertheless.
We will note that the County had initially promised to install the Courthouse roof screening, but later applied for a ‘variance’ from the Town, explaining that the screening would cost approximately $100,000 and was, in the opinion of the County, an unnecessary expense. The variance was refused by the Town Planning Commission.
The BOCC subsequently approved a resolution, overruling the Town’s decision.
The Town has subsequently refused to issue a Certificate of Occupancy for the Courthouse.
The disagreement had apparently bled over into a refusal, by the Town, to issue a building permit for the proposed County Transportation Facility, also located in Harman Park. That project is connected, conceptually, with a proposed ‘Town to Lakes Trail’ stretching from uptown to downtown.
Commissioner Maez, speaking at the February 6 BOCC work session:
“If we’re not getting a permit for [the proposed transportation facility] then I want to direct staff to find out how we can issue our own building permit. If we can. And if we can, let’s do that. Let’s move forward and get this building done.
“Because if we don’t get this transportation building built, the Town is going to lose out on their [proposed] $10 million grant for the ‘Town to Lakes Trail’. And the County will lose out on the transportation facility grants. At the end of the day, the people getting screwed are the Archuleta County taxpayers.”
County Attorney Weaver wondered about the amount of the transportation facility grants subject to a deadline, and was told they total about $4 million.
Attorney Weaver:
“So we’re looking at a potential loss of $14 million in grants, over something that is purely aesthetic. The screening has no structural function in either building.” He noted that Town Hall has exposed mechanical units on its roof.
“I just want to remind the commissioners, that the County sought a variance [from the Courthouse screening requirement]. We went to the Town Planning Commission and they voted it down.
“Well, under to [Colorado law] CRS 31-23-209, because this is a County building built with County money, and the Town has no jurisdiction over it, the BOCC has the right to overturn a planning commission [decision], via resolution.
“That resolution was brought before the BOCC on January 17 [2023] and by a 3-0 vote, the BOCC overruled the Town’s Planning Commission. So the County holds a valid and legally-binding variance to the mechanical screening requirements on the Courthouse roof…”
Here’s CRS 31-23-209. It seems to support what Attorney Weaver stated above.
When the commission has adopted the master plan of the municipality or of one or more major sections or districts thereof, no street, square, park or other public way, ground or open space, public building or structure, or publicly or privately owned public utility shall be constructed or authorized in the municipality or in such planned section and district until the location, character, and extent thereof has been submitted for approval by the commission. In case of disapproval, the commission shall communicate its reasons to the municipality’s governing body, which has the power to overrule such disapproval by a recorded vote of not less than two-thirds of its entire membership. If the public way, ground space, building, structure, or utility is one the authorization or financing of which does not, under the law or charter provisions governing the same, fall within the province of the municipal governing body, the submission to the commission shall be by the governmental body having jurisdiction, and the planning commission’s disapproval may be overruled by said governmental body by a vote of not less than two-thirds of its membership. The failure of the commission to act within sixty days from and after the date of official submission to it shall be deemed approval.
Commissioner Maez:
“So can the County issue its own building permit for the transportation facility?”
Attorney Weaver:
“That, I don’t know.”
We might assume the County could, in fact, issue its own building permit for a County-owned building. At least, we could assume it has an existing, well-defined process for issuing building permits, considering the thousands of County building permits issued over the past few decades.
Commissioner Maez:
“I would like to find out about that. The other thing is — we need to do what we need to do. If we owe the Town $99,000, we need to pay them $99,000.” (This road-related debt was discussed earlier in the same work session.)… So what else do we need to do?”
Attorney Weaver:
“The Town is refusing to recognize state law.”
Commissioner Maez:
“Right. So we need to move forward, one way or the other way. And if there’s no other way around it, then the only way around it is to take it to court…”
Ouch.
As mentioned above, the Town has now issued a building permit, as requested, for the County transportation facility.
I don’t know where the situation sits, regarding the County Courthouse roof.