Humans deal with temptations of various types. One of those temptations is power. Another is wealth… money… possession and control of valuable items… like, for example, forested land.
I currently serve as a volunteer Board member for Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD) and in that position, I am expected to make decisions that will benefit PAWSD customers. It’s not a simple matter to properly serve our customers, however, because our customers, generally speaking, would prefer to pay the lowest possible price for PAWSD services, and yet have access to the maximum amount of carefully treated drinking water, sourced from miles away, at their tap.
In order to make those necessary decisions, the PAWSD Board relies on information from our staff.
Speaking for myself, I have considerable trust in our current staff, and am confident that the information I am given is accurate and truthful. There have been times in the past — long before I joined the PAWSD Board — when certain members of the PAWSD staff provided occasional misleading and inaccurate information to the Board and to the community, with unfortunate and costly results. Those staff members no longer work at PAWSD.
Which is to say, I am deeply troubled by misinformation coming from government employees whose salaries are paid by the public.
Meanwhile, I understand that humans are often subject to temptation, and one of the biggest temptations is access to money.
This editorial series has been discussing the proposed purchase, by the Town of Pagosa Springs, of 300 acres of partly-forested land currently owned and maintained by Fairway Land Trust. These 300 acres have been selected by the Town Parks & Recreation staff and by the Fairway Land Trust, from a total of 491 acres owned by the Trust adjacent to and south of the Town’s existing Reservoir Hill Park. We have not yet seen a map of this selection, but I was kindly provided a tour of the subject property last Saturday by Ken Levine, one of the four Levine siblings who own the Trust.
As mentioned in Part Four, the Levines have owned the northern section of this property since 1999, and in 2009, were awarded a Stewardship Award by the Colorado State Forest Service for their exemplary care and treatment of the Ponderosa pine forest that covers much of the 1999 property.
About 284 acres of adjoining non-forested property were purchased by Fairway land Trust in 2007, as part of a plan to market the entire 491 acres to a future subdivision developer.
We learned on April 7, during a Town Council work session, that the Town of Pagosa Springs might be awarded a $5.9 million ‘Forest Legacy Program’ grant to purchase the forested areas owned by the Levine family. This purchase would extend the Reservoir Hill wilderness park with additional forest hiking trails. As I understand it, the grant, if received and accepted, would prohibit the Town from building any structures or amenities on the 300 acres.
A $5.9 million grant is obviously a potent temptation.
Plus, the Town would apparently need to kick in another $2 million in matching funds, taken from local revenues.
I mentioned, above, the temptation by government staff to provide misinformation to their governing board and to the community, because I heard, at the April 7 Town Council work session, what appears to be misinformation. When Town Parks & Recreation staff — Darren Lewis and Amanda Gadomski — were asked by Council if their department has a Town Parks Master Plan, they both indicated that the Town did have such a plan, dated 2016. You can listen to the work session online, here.
According to my subsequent communications with Town staff, no such 2016 Town Master Plan exists. One thing that does exist is a 2006 survey of the public, conducted by Boulder-based consultants RRC Associates and apparently aimed at justifying continued government investment in recreation and parks… and also, a 2007 Regional Parks Plan produced by Archuleta County.
A couple of interesting statements from that 2006 public survey:
A key finding that emerged from the research was residents’ strong enthusiasm for the community’s parks, trails, and open space. Residents are active users of these downtown assets and would like to see expansion in all three areas. When asked to prioritize potential improvements in the areas of parks and recreation, “open space acquisition and preservation” was the top priority (84 percent)… The strength of the community’s desire for “open space acquisition” is an interesting finding given the fact that Pagosa Springs is surrounded by public lands…
Indeed an interesting finding, considering that nearly 50% of Archuleta County — about 435,000 acres — consists of accessible public lands, including hundreds of miles of hiking and biking trails, and ATV-accessible routes and byways.
One interesting aspect to “government surveys” like the one mentioned here. The public is often asked to respond to questions taken completely out of context. “Open space acquisition” is not something that happens magically. It involves vast amounts of money. It affects the uses of the surrounding community. It also removes the “open space” from being available for other community needs. If purchased by a government, it also imposes maintenance costs on the taxpayers, and imposes new administrative duties upon (possibly over-extended?) staff.
If I know anything about government surveys, the results of the 2006 survey were “unscientific”. Of 2,200 surveys mailed, only 459 were returned, and we can easily assume that the 21% who responded were, generally speaking, people with a particular interest in local recreation. That is, “recreationalists.”
Other interesting comments from the 2006 recreation survey:
Reservoir Hill is clearly a unique and important asset to the downtown experience in Pagosa Springs. However, one-quarter of respondents have never visited Reservoir Hill…
…Nearly three-quarters of respondents would like to see improved on-site amenities to Reservoir Hill such as restrooms, water fountains, more picnic tables, and so on. Additional improvements receiving significant support include an expanded hiking trail system, more information on what is available on the Hill, and improved parking.
Of the 75 percent of recreation users who had visited Reservoir Hill Park at least once, they had, on average, visited fewer than 3 times in the past year.
Should our tax-supported municipal government spend perhaps $8 million expanding a rarely-visited wilderness park, without the ability to provide the important on-site amenities that recreationalists care about…
…when we have so many other pressing needs in the community?
Apparently, the Fairway Land Trust hopes they will.