Image: Architect’s rendering of the proposed facility.
As was mentioned in Part One, I had a chance to sit down last week with three folks from the Pagosa Lakes Property Owners Association leadership: Board President Lars Schneider, General Manager Allen Roth, and Communications Director Jen Pitcher.
We discussed an upcoming vote involving PLPOA property owners, which will take place between late January and March 1. The vote relates to funding for a proposed gymnasium — the PLPOA Sports Center — which would be constructed, if approved, adjacent to the existing PLPOA Rec Center, and would accommodate indoor basketball, volleyball, soccer and pickleball… among other activities. The Sports Center is estimated to cost around $2 million…
…If a ‘special assessment’ is approved… by a simple majority of the Association voters who submit their ballots.
The special assessment on each Association property, if approved, would be $255.
A one-time fee.
In Part One, I referred to an informational slide show posted to the Association website. When I reviewed that slide show, I had the impression that voters might have an option of paying the assessment in monthly payments, over a period of five years. I have since learned that it’s more likely any payment plan would extend for no longer than 18 months… with shorter payment plans also likely to be available.
Speaking as a journalist who has written, since 2004, about dozens of proposed tax increases and fee increases in Archuleta County… a one-time $255 assessment is, I believe, the smallest proposed fee increase I’ve ever discussed in the Daily Post.
And although a majority of the Archuleta County population lives within the 21-square-miles of Pagosa Lakes subdivisions, I think this may be only the third time I’ve written an article about a political situation in PLPOA.
But the basic issues behind the controversy are universal. Trust. Building a thriving community. Private property rights. Abiding by restrictions and rules. Raising healthy children.
The ballot question will likely resemble the following:
Do you approve the construction of a gymnasium, as detailed in the attached project proposal and funded by a special assessment of X dollars, to be issued on [Date] and due in full by [Date]?
A quorum of at least 100 votes is required for the vote to be valid. Ballots will be tallied on March 1, 2025. The proposal to be provided will contain the detailed financial plan and a complete description of the project.
After publishing Part One, I had a chance to sit down with PLPOA Communications Director Jen Pitcher, who has been in charge of publishing pertinent information about the gymnasium and upcoming election in the Association newsletters and on the PLPOA website. I was seeking some clarification about the ‘disinformation’ mentioned by PLPOA Board President Lars Schneider during an earlier conversation. According to Mr. Schneider, social media postings by certain Association property owners had included inaccurate information, including suggestions that ballots might not be properly distributed to all owners, or accusations that the assessment would be spent on projects other than the gymnasium, or that the gymnasium would be open to the wider Archuleta County public in violation of Association rules.
This last issue — about who will be allowed to use the gymnasium — might be the trickiest part of the puzzle. According to PLPOA General Manager Allen Roth, PLPOA-funded facilities cannot be open to the general public. But youth sports teams seeking to use the gymnasium for practice will likely include a mix of “PLPOA youth” and “non-PLPOA youth”. He didn’t see the sense in excluding “non-PLPOA youth” from participation in team practices and games, when a majority of the participants will likely be “PLPOA youth”.
Ms. Pitcher confirmed this approach in an email yesterday.
The gymnasium, like the current recreation center, will be a private facility exclusively for PLPOA members. Non-PLPOA individuals will not have the option to purchase memberships. However, individuals participating in leagues, schools, private clubs, or similar organizations that are officially rostered with those entities can access the gym during designated practice, game, or tournament time slots. These groups will be subject to private gym rental rates for their allotted usage times.
This is a similar policy to the community swim team that currently uses the Rec Center swimming pool and includes “non-PLPOA youth”.
Ms. Pitcher also included, in her email, the answers to some typical Association owner questions.
Why am I paying for something I won’t use?
How do I know we won’t be charged extra for it?
Won’t operations increase our annual assessments?
The gymnasium may not be a need or want for everyone, but it is for many members. Similarly, amenities such as lakes, fishing, trails, restrooms, national forest gate access, mailbox clusters, events, and programs may not serve every individual member directly, but are still valued by some. These amenities are provided for all PLPOA members and funded collectively through membership dues, which is a fundamental aspect of living in a property owners association.
The operational costs of the gymnasium would be covered by revenue from rentals and memberships. It will not require ongoing special assessments, nor will its operations draw from annual assessment funds. This ensures that the gymnasium remains financially sustainable without placing additional financial burdens on PLPOA members.
Investing in a gymnasium or recreation center is not just a physical addition to the community but a foundational step toward building safer, more cohesive, and prosperous neighborhoods.
The Association has a web page dedicated to information about the special assessment and the gymnasium, which you can view here.
A few final thoughts about the benefits of youth programming, provided by Ms. Pitcher:
Safe and Supervised Spaces: Recreation centers offer youth safe environments to engage in sports and activities, reducing idle time and the likelihood of engaging in risky behaviors.
Skill Development and Positive Role Models: Programs in these facilities often emphasize teamwork, leadership, and discipline, providing positive influences and life skills that deter youth from criminal activities.
Statistical Evidence: Studies from organizations like the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) show that communities with active recreation programs experience up to 25% fewer juvenile arrests compared to those without.
Alternative Outlets: Youth programs and sports leagues provide constructive outlets for stress and energy, redirecting potential negative behaviors.