I’ve been following the dispute between two of our local governments — the Town of Pagosa Springs and Archuleta County — concerning a promise to hide some rooftop mechanical equipment from view…
The equipment that the County government had reportedly promised to hide from view, sits atop the recently-built Archuleta County Courthouse.
You cannot see the equipment on the roof, as you approach the building, nor as you enter or leave the building. But the Town put into their land use code, a few years ago, a requirement that rooftop mechanical equipment must be screened from view, if the building were located within the municipality.
The Courthouse is located within the municipality, in Harman Park.
As far as I can tell, the County had every intention of including the required rooftop screening, and more importantly, gave the Town staff and Planning Commission the impression that they had every intention of including the required rooftop screening. But somehow, when the building was completed in 2021, the screening was nowhere to be seen.
So the Town refused to issue a CO (Certificate of Occupancy) for the building. The County applied for a variance from the Town, which was refused. Then the Board of County Commissioners passed a resolution stating that, according to their reading of state law, the BOCC could overrule the Town Planning Commission, and that any promise made or implied was now null and void.
But still, no CO was issued, which meant that the final payment from a remaining Courthouse grant could not be paid to the County.
At last night’s Town Council meeting, Pagosa Mayor Shari Pierce invited her fellow to let bygones be bygones.
Mayor Pierce read from a prepared speech, first summarizing some history, and then one possible solution:
“Since 2020, in an effort to be good community partners, the Town has waived over $54,000 in fees related to remodeling and construction of County facilities in the Harman Park area. This would easily cover the cost of extending the parapet wall high enough to meet the screening requirements.
“Town and County staff, including myself and [BOCC Chair Veronica Medina] have had multiple meetings. The Town has offered low cost options for screens. [Town Community Development Director James Dickhoff] and myself have offered to help with the screening.
“Ultimately, the County provided partial screening of the equipment on the Courthouse roof. It just isn’t high enough to meet the Town’s standards. Our land use and development standards were developed through a public process, with public input.”
This last statement, about “through a public process, with public input” was the only part of the Mayor’s speech I disagree with, and I’m not sure why she said it. Having been an active participant in various “public involvement” processes conducted by the Town government, I can confidently guess that the number of ordinary taxpayers and business owners who had input into the recently-added Town regulation, requiring rooftop screening of mechanical devices, can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
The rest of the Mayor’s speech, however, I can agree with.
Mayor Pierce:
“My hope is that the County understands the Town’s position on the screening and will provide appropriate screening on the Courthouse and the transit facility, and any future facilities, as is required.
“At the BOCC’s February 6 work session, it was suggested that the County consider resolving this situation in court, and that they also consider issuing their own building permit for the transit facility…
…”I do not like the feeling that the Town is being threatened. At this time, the Town has spent in excess of 50 hours of staff time on this one issue, plus the time spent by the Planning Commissioner, Town Council and Town Attorney. I do not believe it’s good practice for us to continue spending staff time and attorney fees. I do not believe the Town should bow down to threats.
“Knowing the importance of the Town and County governments being able to work together on necessary projects for our community — only in order to resolve this untenable situation — and taking the high road — I would like to see a motion [from the Council] that the Town issue a Certificate of Occupancy for the Courthouse facility.
“But before we do that, I want to offer the opportunity for Council members to ask questions of our attorney, if they choose. We’ve noticed this item for a possible executive session, for this purpose. Are there any Council members who would like to enter into executive session?”
Seeing no takers for an executive session, the Mayor said she would entertain a motion.
“So moved,” said Council member Gary Williams. Council member Leonard Martinez seconded the motion.
Council member Mat deGraaf:
“I am not in favor of issuing a Certificate of Occupancy. I feel like the County is bullying us, and I don’t appreciate it. I don’t think that’s professional, in any way, shape or form. And we’ve made the private businesses that have gone up in town over the past few years comply with the land use code and put screening up, at a greater cost than the County will incur on their building.
“I don’t understand why it’s so hard to follow the land use code that they agreed to when they put the plans in place four and a half years ago.”
Council member Leonard Martinez:
“The part about your comments, Mayor, that work for me is the notion of a ‘high ground’. There is some consequence, though, of taking the high ground. Because the next time this situation comes up — we need to say, ‘Let’s make sure we never do this again.’ Four years of this, when we have regulations that can be followed and should be followed, we should stick to that, rather than get ourselves into this kind of a corner.”
Mayor Pierce:
“I would remind you all that this is an aesthetic thing. It’s not a matter of health and safety. And I think, if we got into this again, we could look at that piece of it. I’m hoping we won’t get into this again. That they will understand — I hope — our goodwill that we’re offering. And… yeah.”
The vote, to issue a CO for the County Courthouse, was four in favor and two opposed.