In Part One of this editorial series, we briefly considered some local government projects — both relatively recent projects, and also upcoming projects.
These projects, which we are told are necessary or beneficial, have been financed at least partly by local or state tax dollars, or are proposed to be financed by tax dollars, and are being carried out by:
Archuleta County (New jail; new Courthouse; new Transit Center; new Department of Human Services building; new Sheriff’s office; new park enhancements at Cloman Park; proposed new recycling facility; proposed new administration building)
Town of Pagosa Springs (New sewer pumping system; new Maintenance Department complex; new walking trails; new San Juan River features; new Tourist Overlook; new pickleball courts; proposed $100 million sewer system repairs and upgrades; proposed new riverfront park and amenities; proposed new skating rink; proposed new affordable housing)
PAWSD, Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (Enlargement of Stevens Reservoir; new ‘biosolids greenhouse’; replacement Snowball Water Treatment Plant; upgrades to Vista Wastewater Treatment Plant; proposed Stevens to Hatcher pipeline)
Archuleta School District (New San Juan Mountain School building; security upgrades in all buildings; proposed new building trades facility; proposed new Middle School or K-8 complex)
Upper San Juan Health Services District (Two-story addition to the Pagosa Springs Medical Center; new oxygen extraction building; various expansions as new services come online)
Upper San Juan Library District (Renovation and enlargement of Ruby Sisson Library; financing includes numerous generous private donations)
San Juan Water Conservancy District (Proposed 11,000-acre-foot Dry Gulch Reservoir)
Those are some recent, publicly financed projects that come to my mind. There may be others that I can’t think of, or haven’t heard about.
Disclosure: I currently serve as a volunteer on the PAWSD Board of Directors, but this editorial reflects only my own personal opinions, and not necessarily the opinions of the entire PAWSD Board or staff.
Back in about 2012, the Town Council believed their innovative 7-mile sewer pipeline would cost about $4.5 million. By the time it was completed in 2016, the cost had increased to $10 million. The Town has spend hundreds of thousands of dollars keeping it running.
Back in about 2018, the PAWSD Board believed the new Snowball Water Treatment Facility would cost about $22 million. It ended up costing $44 million.
Those numbers don’t include interest payments, which tend to double the amounts paid over the life of the loan.
This kind of outrageous cost escalation has not been universal across all government projects, however. The Library expansion, for example, was estimated at $4 million, and will apparently cost $5.3 million. Some other projects have come in on budget, or close to it.
And these projects have, in most cases, benefited the community, or will benefit the community in the near future. Only a few were partial or complete failures (the Town’s sewer pipeline, and the PAWSD ‘biosolids greenhouse’, for example.)
Just to be clear, I’m not complaining. To the contrary, the argument can easily be made that spending by our local governments is financially necessary to the viability of Pagosa Springs as a community. And I intend to make just such an argument.
I often hear local leaders use the phrase, “Pagosa has a tourist economy.” This idea, that Pagosa Springs would dry up and blow away if we stopped spending millions of dollars marketing ourselves as a ‘destination’, provides a justification for many forms of government spending.
What I never hear from our community leaders is the phrase, “Pagosa has a government economy.”
So I will say it for them. Pagosa has a government economy, fueled largely by local taxpayers, state taxpayers, and the federal government.
There’s no doubt that, compared to the operations of local government, our tourist are much more ‘visible’ when they arrive — driving through town in RVs and Suburbans with Texas and Arizona license plates, floating down the San Juan River, soaking at the hot springs, standing in the lift lines at the Wolf Creek Ski Area — but they are, in a sense, almost incidental to the overall Pagosa Springs economy.
I will be the first to admit, meanwhile, that understanding the overall Pagosa Springs economy is not a simple task. For example, the most recent estimate I can find for the number of annual tourist visits is from a 2017 Smart Growth report.
375,000 annual visitors.
From a report by the AI platform, Grok:
According to a Placer report cited by the Pagosa Springs Sun, over 63,300 people visited Archuleta County from July 3-7, 2023, during the Fourth of July celebrations. This number reflects visitors who spent more than 10 minutes in the county, with an average stay of about nine and a half hours… Tourism Director Jennifer Green noted that 2023 saw an increase in visitors compared to 2022 but was not as high as the peak of 68,600 visitors during the same holiday period in 2021.
We might note, that the above estimates are counting people who visited Pagosa for an average of less than 10 hours… in some cases, less than 15 minutes.
If we take the 2017 number — 375,000 annual visitors — and we assume that the average visitor stayed for 24 hours… and then spread the visitors over 365 days… that comes to an average of about 1,000 visitors per day.
Visiting a community of 14,500 full-time residents.
So we ask the central question: which group is really driving the local economy? The 1,000 visitors per day, or the 14,500 full-time residents per day?
Tomorrow, in Part Three, we’ll consider some data provided by Region 9 Economic Development District, in their analysis of our Archuleta County economy…
… and we’ll consider the role played by government, compared to the role played by the tourism industry.