Photo: The Stevens Field airport runway, Archuleta County.
A seemingly innocent notice appeared in the Public Meetings section of the weekly Pagosa Springs SUN yesterday.
Although the notice, published on Thursday, suggests that we can review the published agenda for further information… the agenda was still not posted when I checked this morning (Friday). Here’s the link to the Agenda Center.
The SUN does a good job of letting interested taxpayers know about the dates of upcoming government meetings — a valuable service, whenever taxpayers are actually interested. One particular taxpayer — Suzanne Dimeff — sent me a copy of this SUN notice, because she’s concerned about possibly-improper development of airplane hangers adjacent to the old “Bravo” runway at Stevens Field, our County-owned airport on Piedra Road.
While the airport is owned by the people of Archuleta County, it’s managed by the Archuleta County government mainly for the benefit of a few dozen private airplane owners. But the airport also serves as a staging area for emergency medical flights and for aircraft used in fighting wildfires — which is to say, the airport does have benefits for the entire community.
Most of the benefits accrue to just a few airplane owners, however.
According to information I received from Ms. Dimeff, it sounds like the Archuleta Board of County Commissioners might be considering a rather large expenditure in the near future that would benefit only a couple of airplane hanger owners — to be funded with local taxpayer dollars.
Although BOCC work sessions — like the one planned for Tuesday — do not involve final decisions by the commissioners, it’s often clear from the work session discussions whether a majority of commissioners is likely to support a particular expenditure or project. Or not.
Final decisions are made in ‘regular meetings’, where the public is allowed to express opinions at the beginning of the meeting.
In the case of the airport controversy, some previous work session discussions were covered by SUN reporter Josh Pike, including a discussion last February.
[Commissioner Veronica] Medina asked where the County stands on a requirement from the Pagosa Fire Protection District (PFPD) for improvements to the water supply for fire hydrants at the airport hangars.
Torres explained that County staff are working with the Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD) to complete a water model that will guide what pipeline improvements need to be completed to provide the needed water.
A few thoughts about the Airport. As I recall, Stevens Field was originally a private runway, but the County government took it over at some point… I found Quit Clam deeds involving the County going back to 1965, but I’m not clear when the entire airport became a County operation. In the 30 years I’ve been in Pagosa, millions of taxpayer dollars — mostly grants from the federal government and Colorado Department of Transportation — have been spent on airport upgrades, including — notably — an extension of the primary runway to allow for private jet airplanes. (Commercial passenger service is not allowed due to the proximity of the San Juan Mountains.)
The Airport receives regular subsidies from the taxpayers. This year, for example, the County expects to spend about $500,000 running the airport, and expects to collect about $180,000 in fees.
The County leases the main airport building to a private FBO (Fixed Base Operator) and also provides ground leases for private airplane hangers. The hanger buildings are owned by the pilots themselves; the County retains ownership of the ground under the hangers.
This year’s controversy appears to involve some newly-built hangers that the County may have improperly allowed to be built and occupied. The County occasionally does things improperly (don’t we all?) but in this case, the Pagosa Fire Protection District became concerned because there didn’t appear to be sufficient water pressure — along the “Bravo” runway where these new units were built — to properly fight a fire, should one occur.
The phrase “improperly built” refers to the fact that the Fire District didn’t sign off on the new hangers, and also to the fact that the federal and state governments require proposed changes to the airport design and layout to be included in the Airport Layout Plan.
Back in March, the Fire District Board of Directors received an update on the controversy from Fire Chief Robert Bertram. He explained that, for the past five years, Capt. Kelly Robertson, who serves as fire marshal and oversees fire inspections for the district, has been unsuccessfully advocating for improvements in the amount of water supply available for fire suppression at the airport hangars.
In July of 2023, two new hangars were being constructed — and as new construction, required water supply in accordance with the current fire code. Chief Bertram noted that the Fire District cannot retroactively require older hangars to have enhanced water supply, but that the District refused to approve building permits for the new hangars until the water supply issue for those hangars was addressed.
However, construction on the hangars proceeded. The District refused to approve granting certificates of occupancy (COs) for the hangars until the water supply issues were properly addressed. Reportedly, the County went ahead an issued “temporary COs” for the hangers.
Some people wonder why we can’t just get along. The fact is, we can’t. We have different values and different priorities.
And sometimes, as a result, we wind up in front of a judge.
I reached out on Thursday to our three commissioners, to find out where the BOCC stands on this controversy.
For example, where they stand on an estimated $1 million cost for fixing the water pressure problems. And whether they expect the taxpayers to foot the bill, for private airplane owners who built hangers they probably shouldn’t have been allowed to build.
I hope I can report on those concerns, prior to the Tuesday work session.