Photo: Project examples from Anderson Hallas Architects, included in their response to Archuleta County’s RFP for design and engineering for a proposed Administration Building.
In a recent editorial, I mentioned a decision by the Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD) board, on September 11, to refuse a request for fee waivers for five workforce-family homes proposed by the Pagosa Springs Community Development Corporation (CDC). I had made a motion in favor of the waivers, but a majority of the board — Gene Tautges, Alex Boehmer and Bruce Jones — voted ‘nay’.
One of the reasons given for the negative votes: PAWSD has important capital projects that need to be addressed, and needs to collect Capital Investment Fees whenever possible, including from workforce housing projects.
PAWSD is currently completing two major capital projects that are hopefully covered by loans and customer fees. A $44 million water treatment plant on Snowball Road is nearly finished, and now undergoing testing. A $10 million wastewater plant upgrade, as mandated by the state of Colorado, is in progress.
Disclosure: I currently serve as a volunteer board member for PAWSD, but this editorial reflects only my own opinions, and not necessarily those of the PAWSD Board or PAWSD staff.
Two future projects were specifically mentioned on September 11 as needing funding, and thus as reasons for refusing to support housing project waivers. PAWSD might, at some point in the future, build a pipeline to connect Stevens Reservoir to Lake Hatcher, and thus essentially triple the amount of drinking water available to the Pagosa Lakes area. I believe I’ve heard the cost “$5 million” mentioned in reference to that proposed project.
The other project involves ongoing repairs to underground pipes that are leaking 25-40% of PAWSD treated drinking water, dependent upon the time of year and other factors. Total cost? No one really knows.
I’ve also written about a proposal under discussion at the Archuleta School District, to abandon its current Middle School and Elementary School as “too old to maintain” and to build a new PreK-8 school and its infrastructure. (Somewhere, still to be determined.) The repayment of the bond — if approved by the voters — has been estimated at $218 million, to come from increased property taxes.
The Town of Pagosa Springs has placed a new Town-only sales tax on the November ballot, to address what the Town claims to be $80-100 million worth of sewer problems. The tax would be collected within the town limits.
Those are some of the projects mentioned by local taxpayers at the September 16 meeting of the Archuleta Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) during public comment. The commissioners were considering this agenda item:
C. Consideration to Award of Winning Bid for Engineering and Design Services for New Administration Building
A request for proposals for Engineering and Design Services for New Administration Building fielded with a deadline of August 1, 2025. Three (3) proposals were received. This agenda item is for the Board of County Commissioners to award the winning proposals and direct staff to prepare a contract.
The local taxpayers who addressed the proposed expenditure for design services expressed unanimous opposition to spending money on design and engineering, and to a planned administration building which has been estimated at $20 million.
Here’s local activist Marybeth Snyder, who followed local resident Larry G. Allen:
“I’ve already written to you folks about what I think of this administration building, and I am going to hold my ground on that today.
“If you guys for that today, I’m going to know that you do not treasure our money that we give you…
“I’ve stopped by Talisman. Everybody is settled in and are working there. If they don’t have enough space for some things, then rent them another office…”
Ms. Snyder is here referring to the former Wyndham Resort office at the corner of Talisman and Village Drive, the 8,000 square foot building that’s currently home to the County Clerk, County Assessor, and County Treasurer, who previously operated in 4,000 square feet in the downtown Courthouse.
Ms. Synder:
“This community doesn’t have $20 million to spare, when we have $100 million here and $100 million there, for sewers and schools and all this stuff. Really bad timing. Thank you for considering this.”
Francine Warren:
“I agree with the previous two speakers, that we are being asked as taxpayers for way too much money for the sewers, the schools, the Main Street reconstruction. My road, County Road 200, is a mess all the time…
“So I ask you to vote ‘no’ on spending any more money on a new County building, especially since the one you’re currently using — the Wyndham — is up for sale, I understand, for less than $2 million. I mean, $2 million is a lot, but it’s a lot less than $20 million.
“I’m just exhausted from all the spending, by the Town and the County. I have neighbors who are in their 80s, who have lived in their house for 50 years, and they can no longer afford to live in Pagosa Springs. And so they are packing up their stuff, 50 years worth of belongings, and moving away.
“And it makes me very sad. I have other friends who have moved away because they cannot afford to live here.
“Please. Consider the residents, when you’re making these decisions for the big money all the time. Thank you.”
As noted previously, various BOCCs have been discussing this new administration building for at least ten years, without ever coming up with an actual plan for financing such a project. Obviously, the general idea is to put the taxpayers in debt, either through a general obligation bond (which must be voter approved) or through Certificates of Participation (“COPs” which can be imposed on the taxpayers without their approval.)
Tomorrow, we’ll take a closer look at the County’s history with COPs.