As mentioned yesterday in Part Three, Archuleta Commissioner John Ranson revealed to the public a possible pathway to a new County Administration facility that might be far less expensive than a proposed-but-never-designed facility in Aspen Village.
Part of the reason the proposed facility in Aspen Village has never been designed? The County doesn’t have the money to build it.
The Board of County Commissioners will meet today at 1:30pm to possibly approve placement of a tax increase measure on the November ballot, and also possibly to approve the use of County funds to reimburse Commissioner Veronica Medina for legal expenses related to a complaint filed with the Colorado Division of Real Estate by local resident Rachel Suh. That complaint alleged that Commissioner Medina misrepresented herself as an ‘Independent’ real estate broker during BOCC deliberations over the location of a proposed County Administration facility. Reportedly, that complaint has been dismissed by the Division of Real Estate.
Two years ago, Commissioner Medina participated in official discussions and debates concerning a potential County purchase of five acres of vacant property in the proposed Pagosa West subdivision, across the highway from the City Market shopping center. The proposed property sale was being promoted by EXIT Realty owner Shelly Low, who also happened to be Ms. Medina’s employer. Subsequently, the BOCC decided to purchase a vacant $2.5 million parcel in Aspen Village instead.
At the August 11 BOCC work session, Commissioner John Ranson revealed an alternative to building a new County facility — namely, the purchase of the current ‘Camino Real’ building in the City Market shopping center. According to Commissioner Ranson’s ‘Project 2027’ presentation, the alternative would save the taxpayers many millions of dollars.
Potentially tens of millions, in fact, when the interest payments on a future debt are considered.
A letter provided to the Daily Post by local real estate consultant F. Scott Tonges stated that the ‘Camino Real’ alternative was discussed during an executive session on August 4, and that “2 of the 3 commissioners voted ‘no’ on this matter.”
Mr. Tonges’ also shared a letter in the weekly Pagosa Springs SUN newspaper on August 16, noting again that the ‘Project 2027’ proposal was “voted down at the August 4th meeting”.
The SUN editor, Randi Pierce, appended a note to Mr. Tonges letter:
Editor’s note: No vote regarding the county administration building was taken during the Aug. 4 meeting of the Archuleta County Board of County Commissioners. County facilities were, however, discussed in executive session during that meeting.
This “Editor’s note” suggests an interesting situation. Colorado government boards must, by law, make all official decisions in open public sessions. But boards are allowed. under Colorado law, to meet behind closed doors in executive sessions to conduct confidential discussions about certain topics, including lawsuits, real estate purchases and sales, and employee matters — and when giving direction to staff or board negotiators.
Theoretically, these confidential discussion are supposed to remain confidential.
Theoretically, the SUN editor cannot know whether a vote was taken during the August 4 BOCC executive session.
I’ve served on a few government boards during my time in Pagosa, and participated in my share of executive sessions. I can report that ‘unofficial’ votes are sometimes made during executive sessions, but these are typically not final decisions but rather, ‘straw polls’ to indicate how the board is currently leaning. It’s possible that the BOCC did hold a ‘vote’ of some type while in executive session on August 4, and that two of the three commissioners demonstrated – ‘unofficially’ — a lack of support for Commissioner Ranson’s ‘Camino Real’ proposal.
On August 11, however, the BOCC discussed this proposal — designated as ‘Project 2027’ — in open, public session, and it became apparent that the proposal was still ‘on the table’ in some sense, and that no final decision had been made. It was also apparent that, as of August 11, Commissioner Medina did not support the ‘Camino Real’ proposal. She noted that the location would have certain advantages for the County employees, with restaurants and shopping nearby… but…
“…I just worry that we would cause a hardship, and then we are taking away some buildings — not that main building, but the other two smaller units. We’re taking away… other rental space from the community. I just don’t think it’s the right spot for a County facility. I’m just concerned about the location… and the unknowns and the problems that we’ve had with the Wyndham building. Potentially, we could have the same issues at this building, we just don’t know about it. And even through the due diligence, I don’t know that we would know about it…”
In other words, the BOCC is still shooting in the dark regarding the ‘Camino Real’ proposal. But the BOCC is also shooting in the dark regarding a new building in Aspen Village.
Commissioner Ranson:
“I don’t think the parking would be an issue. And I’m quite the opposite. I think this is an ‘A-plus’ location. I think the Aspen Village location is an ‘A’ — you know, it’s a great location, too.
“But… all I want, is to talk to The People. Because, so far, I haven’t heard one person say, ‘build a new building’. And everybody I’ve talked to, and there’s quite a few now, especially in the past week or so, that have said that’d be a great location, and they don’t want debt. This would give us a way to be out of debt within three years, by selling the Aspen Village land…”
Commissioner Warren Brown:
“Thanks for sharing. I also appreciate all the effort that you put into this. I know it’s a lot, you know, when you probably said, ‘Hey, I have an idea, maybe this’ll work’. I think this is a way to think outside the box…
“I think this has potential, and I’m not a hard ‘No’, but I think this is too premature. Because we do not have hard numbers…”
According to Commissioner Brown, recent professional estimates for the cost for a new 22,000 square-foot administration building in Aspen Village have ranged from $12.5 million to $25 million.
Once again. Shooting in the dark.
Commissioner Brown then gave numerous reasons why a brand new 22,000 square-foot building costing perhaps $20 million was a much better deal for the community’s taxpayers than a 23,000 square-foot remodel costing perhaps $6 million.
We don’t know if the building could be expanded in the future. We don’t know if it has infrastructure issues. We don’t know if the County could effectively deal with the shopping center’s property owners association. Commissioner Brown was concerned that the owners of the Camino Real space may have a deadline for a decision to be made.
“And we have taken much input, and we have spent some dollars in trying to figure out a way to make this work, and we’ve lost momentum, we’ve gained momentum, we’ve lost it again. But I think that we have, to the extent possible, we have included the public, and we have listened to input.
And trying to prepare for the future and make advancements, and I have talked to some people who are in favor of building a new building, in large for the reasons that I said.
“Now, I have to say, in all fairness and clarity. This was before your proposal…”
So of course, the proposal has now been made public, and the BOCC could survey the community and find out whether ‘Project 2027’ has overwhelming support from the taxpayers, or whether the community prefers to see the County go more deeply into debt for a new building, which could easily be designated ‘Project 2030’.
Does the BOCC want to hear from the community about this possible solution to County facility needs? That has not yet been made clear…
Meanwhile, a different tax increase proposal was made more clear last night, when Lisa Scott, campaign manager for ‘Citizens for ASD’ invited the community to a meeting at the Ross Aragon Community Center, to begin a campaign to promote voter approva; of a $125 million property-tax-funded debt for a proposed PreK-8 school facility on Vista Boulevard, at the west end of town.
Unlike the ‘Project 2027’ renovation proposal, which is just a few weeks old, the Archuleta School District (ASD) has spent a couple of years promoting the idea that the existing Pagosa Springs Middle School and Pagosa Springs Elementary School are both beyond repair and need to be abandoned in favor of a totally new facility. To help sell this idea to the community, ASD hired various consultants to document the fact that a new facility was not only reasonable and necessary, but that it was also something the community’s taxpayers would support, and approve.
Read Part Five… tomorrow…