As I mentioned in Part Two of this editorial series, I missed the April 18 meeting of the Pagosa Springs Town Council, so I didn’t hear whether the Council approved the second reading of Ordinance 1004, which would direct the Town staff and attorney to close on a real estate purchase: about 12 (mostly vacant) acres near the junction of Highways 160 and 84. The property was offered to the Town by former resident Robert “Bob” Goodman, who owned Goodman’s Department Store prior to handing the store over to his daughter Hayley. Mr. Goodman and his wife Valerie once owned a couple of large properties along Cemetery Road.
The 12-acre parcel was offered to the Town for $850,000.
I still don’t know if the ‘second’ reading was approved — I’m hoping to obtain an audio recording of the April 18 meeting today — but I can share a few comments from the earlier April 2 Council meeting, when the ‘first reading’ of the ordinance passed by a 4-2 vote.
From Council member Leonard Martinez:
“I have a little bit of a technical issue, in using capital funds until we have a strategy. So I will not be supporting this, and that’s the reason why… that we don’t have the strategy laid out, at this point.”
Council member Mat deGraaf responded to Council member Martinez:
“Well, I will say, although we don’t have a plan fully developed, I was talking to an East End business owner today, and he was psyched that we were purchasing this property, because as the East End businesses have told us, parking — for whatever happens down there in the future — is going to be a game changer.
“This location, while not ideal, in terms of the parking structure… or, you know, of that entire plan, it will provide needed infrastructure to support those End End businesses. So, I would say, to your point, that the part of the strategy is to support our East End plan… having a place where parking can be accommodated…”
Council member Martinez:
“Well, I appreciate that. Because there’s that option. And there are other options, that I think are all viable.
“But we haven’t done the work yet. That’s my point.”
Indeed, the Council appeared ready, on April 2, to spend close to $1 million on a piece of property without any kind of agreed-upon plan for how the property would benefit the people of Pagosa Springs — who are, after all, paying the bill.
Ordinance 1004 mentioned a number of possible uses.
“Workforce Housing, Workforce Camping, Recreation, and Remote Parking.”
All interesting options. But not necessarily ‘compatible’ uses. Council member deGraaf mentions parking for East End businesses, which are theoretically within walking distance of the Tractor Supply store — the business adjacent to the 12-acre parcel — but I can’t say I’ve ever seen anyone walk between Tractor Supply and any East End business. I’ve lived in Pagosa for 30 years, and I can remember only a couple of times when I was unable to park directly in front of one of those East End businesses.
Council member Martinez notes that the Council has not done the work, to develop a plan for how the $850,000 parcel will be used.
Council member deGraaf mentions parking infrastructure for the East End.
So let’s note here, that the Town spent about $200,000 developing an East End Plan, back in 2021-2022.
Anyone who eager to review that plan can download it from the Daily Post Dropbox using this link… (The file is very large and may take 5 minutes or longer to download.)
The Town has further plans to spend $600,000 or more on the project over the next few years. Whether that will be grant funding, or local tax revenues, or private investment, is not yet clear. However, I was unable to locate, anywhere in the 179-page plan, an estimate of what any of the proposed ‘priority’ improvements would cost.
I mention “private investment” specifically, because the ‘Pagosa Springs East End Multi-Modal Transportation Plan’ doesn’t mention private business funding to help cover the millions of dollars such an extensive re-development plan would likely cost… even though nearly all of the properties that would benefit from the plan appear to be private commercial businesses.
Here are two of the maps that came out of that study. (Note that some of the numbered items shown on the first map are named in the second map text, and vice versa.)
The plan mentions some “Overarching Comments”:
EXCITEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECTS
- Like the wide sidewalk and organized frontage roads
- Looking forward to an ice rink/farmers market shelter
- Prefer angled parking since it allows for more spaces, and people are more familiar with how to park
- Excited to be able to bike to this area much more easily with these improvements in place
- More river access will be beneficial
CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECTS
- Like the wide sidewalk and organized frontage roads
- Would rather see money spent on acquiring space for parking than filling in the pond
- Roundabouts are not preferred by many
We will note that, in spite of spending $200,000 on this plan, the plan does not offer any indication that a parking lot on the Goodman Property is a good idea. But it does mention the idea of purchasing vacant property within the East End.
Council member Gary Williams asked Community Development Director James Dickhoff about the several buildings currently located on the Goodman property:
“Do you have a list of which building you want to retain up there, or do we have an option on that?”
Having listened to numerous conversations about the Goodman Property, at numerous Council meetings, I’ve never had the impression that Mr. Dickhoff fully supported the idea of this property purchase. But he responded to Mr. Williams’ question this way:
“Any buildings that are actually buildings — that are attached to the ground — are staying. All the mobile homes, those are personal property items, mobile homes, equipment, trailers, that’s all leaving.”
Presumably the port-a-johns will also be leaving.
The Town does not have a plan for relocating the people currently living on the property, Mr. Dickhoff explained, nor for the commercial equipment currently stored on the property.
I am reminded of the Blind Men and the Elephant.