Photo: Audience members viewing a March 25, 2025 presentation of the proposed ‘Pagosa West’ Sketch Plan at Town Hall.
There are at least a couple of ways the idea of “conflicts of interest” can be considered.
In government circles, a “conflict of interest” generally refers to an individual government official who has an obligation to consider the needs of the taxpaying public, but who might also have a personal desire to improve the financial position of their own family, or business, or employer. In such a situation, the correct, ethical action is for the government employee to remove themselves from any and all decision-making situations connected with the project.
As far as I can tell, no one at Town Hall has this type of conflict of interest, regarding the proposed ‘Pagosa West’ mixed-use project that has applied for preliminary “Sketch Plan” approval for development of about 100 acres of vacant land near the Pagosa Springs Medical Center and facing on Highway 160. The property is within the Town limits, and the “Sketch Plan” was presented to the Town Planning Commission.
The Commission tabled the application approval or denial on March 25, asking to receive additional information.
Another type of “conflict of interest” might be a conflict between the interests of the local taxpaying public and the interests of a development company — ArenaLabs LLC — owned by the Montrose-based Dragoo family.
For example, the community might have an interest in preserving wildlife corridors, wetlands, view corridors, and 150-year-old Ponderosa pine trees. In fact, exactly those interests were clearly stated to the Town Planning Commission at the March 25 public hearing.
The Dragoo family might feel perfectly comfortable eliminating those very things, in the interests of making a substantial financial profit on vacant property, as we could infer from the presentation by David and Heidi Dragoo at the public hearing.
The Town of Pagosa Springs has a Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations, both aimed at ensuring that existing residential areas are not unduly impacted by incompatible developments. The overwhelming sense from the community members who offered public testimony at the March 25 hearing was that the ‘Pagosa West’ project — as currently presented for ‘Sketch Plan’ approval — was incompatible with other local uses.
The map below indicates the existing Town Zoning for the 100-acre parcel. The Town, many years ago, determined that the dark rust-colored area ought to be “Mixed Use Town Center” … while the gold-colored area should be “Mixed Use Corridor”.
And the yellow area should be “Mixed Use Residential”. Highway 160 runs across the top of the map, with the City Market Shopping Center to the north, and the Pagosa Springs Medical Center to the west.
These zoning designations were assumed to be preferred, based on the surrounding land uses. To prevent “incompatible” development.
The commercial and residential lots proposed by the Dragoo family are overlaid on the existing zoning in the above map. We might note that the main road tracks the division between the ‘mainly commercial’ and the ‘mainly residential’ areas.
This next map shows the ‘phasing’ proposed by the Dragoo family — to be built out over the next several decades. The yellow indicates Phase One. At the far left, in Phase One, we have a three-story apartment complex, and at the corner, a gas station. That apartment complex fits into the ‘conflicts of interest’ in more than one way.
The map, I have colored the neighborhoods, to the south and east, in green. These are ‘rural residential’ neighborhoods designed to give residents, and migratory wildlife, plenty of elbow room. The homes generally have unobstructed views of the San Juan Mountains.
But the proposed ‘Pagosa West’ development has placed its highest density residential development — including the three-story ‘Phase One’ apartment complex — right up against this rural neighborhood.
A conflict? It would seem so, according to the Town’s own Comprehensive Plan.
But there was yet another “conflict of interest” evident at the March 25 meeting, which I felt compelled to bring up to the Planning Commission that evening.
The conflict concerned the proposed apartment complex, as referenced in the meeting agenda packet:
Housing
Pagosa West will directly address the critical community need for workforce housing through the availability of diverse housing types, creating a pathway to ownership for local workers. The project will deliver a mix of dwelling and unit types and income levels to address community needs. Housing will be located next to existing residential areas and within close walking distance of a multi-modal transit stop with local transit connectivity. There will be nearby recreation trails, parks, and open spaces.
The multi-family housing aims to meet or exceed the 2021 IECC and the National Green Building Standards.
The Town applied for and was awarded a $2 million grant through the Colorado Department of Local Affairs to assist with bringing public infrastructure to the proposed workforce housing site.
I would hesitate to try and count the number of editorials we’ve published in the Daily Post, advocating for more workforce housing in Pagosa Springs. To me, our lack of housing that local workers and retirees can afford is the number one impediment to a healthy Archuleta Springs economy and social structure.
But I may have written just as many editorials about apparent government overreach, incompetence, and lack of fairness. Some of those editorials have concerned various ‘conflicts of interest.’
As clearly stated above, the Town of Pagosa Springs applied for, and was awarded, a $2 million grant from DOLA to “assist with bringing public infrastructure to the proposed workforce housing site.” In other words, the Town agreed to fund the (expensive) new street leading into a privately-owned development.
I would normally be in full support of such a project.
But…
The Dragoo family does not own the property in question. The Town Community Development department — with the blessing of the Town Council — agreed to invest $2 million on behalf of a private company, when this project has not received approval from the Town Planning Commission nor from the Town Council, and when the property is still on the real estate market.
Does anyone think the Planning Commission and the Town Council can make a fair, objective determination about the ‘Pagosa West’ development… when they have already written and received a $2 million grant to the project?