Photo: A view of the Goodman Property, looking due south, May 2022.
When I wrote Part One yesterday, I had an expectation of attending last night’s Pagosa Springs Town Council meeting and hearing the outcome of the ‘second reading’ of Ordinance 1004, which would authorize the Town staff to pull $850,000 out of the Town’s General Fund bank account for the purchase of approximately 12 acres near the County Fairgrounds, at what may have appeared to be a heavily discounted price.
The Town’s real estate consultants — Denver-based CBRE — estimated the value of the 12 acres at around $3.5 million.
In the world of real estate, however, a piece of property is generally worth whatever the highest bidder will pay.
The Town Council was told, at their previous meetings, that Bob Goodman wished to have his property purchased by our municipal government and put to some type of public use, and that the property was not otherwise “on the market”.
As I reviewed my calendar yesterday morning, I realized that the Board meeting for the Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District was scheduled for 5pm yesterday. (I currently serve on the PAWSD Board.) The Town Council meeting was also scheduled for 5pm.
Obviously, I was going to miss the Town Council meeting if I attended my Board meeting, and I would not be able to report, this morning, on the outcome of “VIII UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Ordinance 1004, Second Reading, Authorizing the Acquisition of Real Property Known as 229 U.S. Hwy 84 #A in Pagosa Springs, Colorado from the Robert P. Goodman Revocable Trust.”
My assumption, however, is that the Council did approve the ‘second reading’ — based on the knowledge that the ‘first reading’ passed with a 4-2 vote — and that, as a Town resident, I am now part-owner of 12 acres of property immediately east of Reservoir Hill Park and immediately west of the Tractor Supply store.
Hopefully I will be able to report on the Council vote in a future editorial installment.
(I might also report, later, on the outcome of the PAWSD meeting, which had its interesting moments.)
As also mentioned in Part One, I had myself brought this (mostly vacant) 12-acre parcel to the Council’s attention — two years ago — when the Town was actively seeking to purchase vacant properties that could be dedicated to workforce housing.
At their previous meeting on April 2, the Council had heard the suggestion that the ‘bargain-priced’ parcel would be appropriate for “Workforce Housing, Workforce Camping, Recreation, and Remote Parking.”
Let’s consider “Remote Parking”.
On April 2, we all believed that the Colorado Department of Transportation was going to hire a contractor to tear up and replace the portion of Highway 160 between 1st Street and 8th street, temporarily eliminating a considerable amount of downtown parking The project was scheduled to begin in June and last at least two years. Many people were concerned that the project would kill, or at least seriously harm, some downtown businesses.
Our local governments and local businesses began researching ways to provide ‘satellite parking lots’, possibly served by some type of shuttle bus, to transport folks into, and out of, the torn-up business district.
So “Remote Parking” was top of mind on April 2, when the ‘first reading’ of Ordinance 1004 was approved.
But we learned on April 16 that CDOT received only a single bid on the proposed $19 million project, and the bid was about $6.6 million over budget. So CDOT rejected the bid and will advertise the project again this coming fall, hoping for more affordable bids.
So maybe “Remote Parking” is not the issue it was earlier this month.
But while we’re on the topic of “affordable”… how about “Workforce Camping”?
Over the past year or two, some resort communities in the American West have attempted to address their local housing crisis by establishing parking lots specifically for individuals and families who are living in their cars and vans.
Here in America, most of us can afford a car or van. But we can’t find affordable housing.
An obvious (hopefully temporary?) solution is to make it as safe and convenient as possible — and as legal as possible — to live in your vehicle. An accessible public toilet and shower, for example, would be nice. And occasional security checks by law enforcement?
We don’t need to think very hard about another possible use for 12 acres of (mostly vacant) land within walking distance of downtown jobs and shopping. “Workforce Housing”. Some downtown residential neighborhoods are zoned by the Town as “R-22” meaning that the Town government allows up to 22 dwelling units per acre. (For comparison purposes, there are residential neighborhoods in New York City that have 200 dwelling units per acre.) At 22 units per acre — if zoned that way by the Town — the Goodman Property might accommodate 264 dwelling units.
Unfortunately, the property would require a huge investment — millions of dollars? — to install the necessary streets and infrastructure, before we could consider houses and apartments.
That’s something I didn’t consider when I made a presentation to the Council two years ago.
I also didn’t consider how the property might be priced. According to the Archuleta County Assessor, the price calculated by the Town’s real estate consultants for the property — $3.5 million — doesn’t align with Pagosa recent real estate market. Based on recent sales of similar properties, the Assessor appraised the 12-acre Goodman Property last year at $356,960.
As I said, I missed the Town Council meeting last night, so I can’t tell you if the Council approved the ‘second reading’ of Ordinance 1004. It’s possible the two Council members who voted “No” on the first reading of the ordinance were able to persuade their fellow Council members that pulling $850,000 from the General Fund bank account, in the spring of 2024, was a bad idea.