Photo: PLPOA Communications Director Jen Pitcher explains some of the financial details behind the proposed PLPOA gymnasium project at the January 8, 2025, community meeting held at the PLPOA Clubhouse.
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
— Attributed to anthropologist Margaret Mead
A small group of activists has been challenging the information and estimates posted by the Pagosa Lakes Property Owners Association Board of Directors and staff on the PLPOA website, concerning a proposed $255 special assessment to help fund a new Association gymnasium. The group has also been challenging the information shared at PLPOA’s January 8 informational meeting.
One member of the activist group, Linn Moore, posted on the social media site, NextDoor:
There will be meetings at the Ruby Sisson Library downtown to discuss the PLPOA’s gymnasium project, special assessments and their plans for a sports complex. The meetings will be held on Wednesday, January 15 from 1-3pm and Saturday, January 18 from 9-11am.
There are so many of our property owners who are not aware of these projects and the impact they could have on our community and financial resources. Let’s get together and discuss how we can get the word out to all of our friends and neighbors in the PLPOA.
We are an independent group of PLPOA property owners who have not been comfortable with the way these projects are being presented, and are not affiliated with the PLPOA Board of Directors or the staff.
Presumably, this group thoughtful and committed. But also, small. The notice posted on NextDoor.com had been ‘liked’ by 24 people, as of yesterday. The PLPOA has about 4,200 owner families, representing about 8,400 potential voters.
A different small group — namely, the folks serving as PLPOA board members, committee members, and staff — have been promoting the future gymnasium for the past several months, and will be conducting an Association election beginning on January 27 and running through March 1. The Association membership will have a chance to vote “Yes” or “No” on a one-time special assessment of $255 per property, to help fund the construction (but not the operations) of the proposed gymnasium.
So, then. Two small groups of thoughtful, committed citizens, promoting opposite agendas.
And then, we have a rather large group: the rest of the property owners in PLPOA. Local employees. Business owners. Retirees. Working families. Individuals. The larger group that will ultimately make the decision.
At the conclusion of the January 8 community meeting at the PLPOA Clubhouse, I asked a couple of the Association staff members for an estimate of the Pagosa Lakes population, and got an estimate of maybe 9,000 people. That’s close to the estimates I’ve gotten from other sources.
The U.S. Census suggests that about 1,500 of those residents are under the age of 18, and about 2,600 are over the age of 64. These are the two primary groups the PLPOA leadership believes the new gymnasium would serve.
1. Kids playing in sports leagues and participating in after-school programs.
2. And older members, playing pickleball, the fastest growing amateur sport in America.
But to some degree, at least, the gymnasium project as become conflated with a larger capital project — the “sports complex” mentioned in Ms. Moore’s NextDoor post quoted above. That larger capital project includes a proposed outdoor athletic field, and a larger parking lot at the existing Recreation Center.
The PLPOA leadership has had a focus, for many years now, on community health, and that focus has resulted in miles of new walking/biking paths throughout the various Pagosa Lakes subdivisions, and enhancements at the subdivision’s various recreational lakes.
A couple of the primary questions about the proposed gymnasium concern the idea that sports teams that include non-PLPOA residents would be allowed to rent space in the facility. Is such a use allowed by the Association’s rules? And if it is allowed, why wouldn’t the Town and County contribute to the construction of the facility? Recreation has likewise been a focus for Pagosa’s local governments, and the Archuleta County government has made a preliminary commitment to help fund the proposed PLPOA athletic field. Meanwhile, the Town government has spent millions of tax dollars, over the past 20 years, improving its parks and walking paths.
But, apparently, PLPOA rules prohibit local governments from helping to fund indoor facilities within the Association boundaries. This might be related to the fact that, when governments provide funding, they often want control. But the prohibition also appears to be written in Association rules, which allow facilities to be used only by “members”.
What about non-residents using a facility funded by the Association property owners? Is that allowed?
From the PLPOA Bylaws:
Definitions…
…(10) Associate Members – Persons, if not otherwise members, may be associate members subject to such conditions, rules and regulations as the Board may from time to time adopt, provided, however, associate members shall not be entitled to voting privileges.
and…
SECTION 3. Associate Member – The following persons, if not Members, shall be Associate Members:
- The spouse and children of a Member who have the same principle residence as the Member.
- Persons who are tenants or regular occupants of residences constructed on any residential Lot.
- Persons who, by virtue of special written agreement with the Board, or its designee, may be granted permission to use one or more of the facilities, amenities, or properties owned or controlled by the Association.
It appears, from these Bylaws, that the PLPOA Board can assign ‘Associate Member’ status to non-property-owners, according to rules the Board may adopt, from time to time. These ‘Associate Members’ could then, presumably, use PLPOA facilities. And this has historically been allowed, notably in the case of the swimming pool and swim team.
Speaking as a volunteer member of three boards here in Pagosa, I find that some boards pay close attention to constituent sentiments, and some do not. But typically, very few constituents bother to show up at board meetings to express their opinions.
Possibly, some PLPOA owners showed up at the January 9 Board meeting — the evening following the January 8 community meeting — to share their opinions with the Board?
Read Part Four, tomorrow…