Image: Architect’s rendering of the proposed PLPOA gymnasium.
We’ve had a few people weigh in, here at the Daily Post, on the upcoming special assessment vote planned by the Pagosa Lakes Property Owners Association (PLPOA) Board of Directors, to help fund a new gymnasium adjacent to the existing PLPOA Recreation Center.
I don’t live within the 21-square-miles of the Pagosa Lakes subdivisions, unlike the 4,200 Association families who will, if the measure is approved by March 1, pay a special $255 one-time assessment on each property they own.
Another Daily Post contributor who addressed the general idea of improved facilities — Rachel Suh — also is likewise not a PLPOA owner. Although her jumping off point was the PLPOA gymnasium, her op-ed mainly concerned the idea that our Archuleta County government can potentially use Lodging Tax revenues to address our ongoing housing crisis and the shortage of childcare slots, among other needs.
Still another non-PLPOA member, Daily Post columnist Gary Beatty, posed some questions about the gymnasium yesterday.
Obviously, this issue has caught the attention of people living outside the Pagosa Lakes subdivisions.
One actual PLPOA owner who submitted an op-ed on the topic is Patrick Moore, who recently resigned from the PLPOA Board of Directors.
I’ve participated in several political campaigns, here in Pagosa Springs, concerning increased public spending on new facilities… generally as an opponent of the proposals. In 2009, I publicly opposed a proposed $357 million Dry Gulch Reservoir, although in the end, the public was not allowed to vote on that particular project. (Fortunately, the Colorado Supreme Court was able to weigh in, and the voting public was able to replace the PAWSD directors who supported the project.)
In general, however, when a local government decides to build new facilities, they first try to get the project funding approved by the voters.
In 2011, the Archuleta School District attempted to get voter approval for a $98 million bond issue, to fund a new combination elementary school and middle school. That attempt failed. Then in 2014, the Town of Pagosa Springs tried to get voter approval for a planned recreation center near Yamaguchi Park. They failed.
The Archuleta Board of County Commissioners tried twice to get approval for funding for a new, oversized jail, and failed twice… but they built it anyway, using Certificates of Participation (COPs) — a clever financing tool promoted by the financial industry.
When an elected local government puts a funding issue before the voters, they are prohibited by Colorado law from using public funds to campaign in favor of the proposition. The government itself can publish and share “information” about the proposal, but the “information” must refrain from encouraging a “Yes” vote.
Legally, the government must assume a “neutral position.”
Private citizen groups can, however, organize to support or oppose the proposal. The general idea — which doesn’t always succeed — is that the electors will have a fair opportunity to hear both sides of the argument. Often, the best-funded campaign has an advantage, but not always. Sometimes, the proposal is just obviously a bad idea.
The process currently taking place in Pagosa Lakes has some similarities to a government-run election, but also some differences. PLPOA is not a government; it’s a property owners association, with a set of bylaws and covenants that guide the Association’s Board of Directors. As I understand the situation, the PLPOA bylaws require a vote of the property owners when a proposed Board expenditure will exceed 15% of the Association’s valuation, even if no special assessment is involved. In the case of the proposed gymnasium, the Board of Directors have earmarked about $520,000 in current funds towards the gymnasium, but must ask the Association members to approve a $255 special assessment to fully fund the facility construction.
As far as I can tell, there is no legal requirement that the PLPOA Board of Directors assume a “neutral position” on the issue. They are not, as far as I can tell, required to provide complete information about funding, insurance, community uses, or other details.
As far as I can tell, the PLPOA Board of Directors is free to encourage a “Yes” vote in their Association-funded marketing materials.
But as far as I can tell — as an outside observer with no dog in the fight — the PLPOA Board and staff have gone above and beyond what I typically see from a local government, in terms of transparently sharing information about the proposed gymnasium with Association voters. The “Gymnasium” web page on the PLPOA website provides — in my opinion — much more information about the ballot issue, and the current state of the Association’s finances, than what is normally provided by a government involved in a challenging ballot issue.
Of particular note, I think, is the shared “Q&A” page, which contains seven pages of property owner questions and criticisms about the project.
I sensed that many people left the three-hour community meeting on January 8, unconvinced that the gymnasium was a good idea. This is not surprising. Whenever the public is invited to provide testimony around a controversial issue, it’s typically the critics who show up and ask the hard questions. (I am often among them.)
One of the questioners on January 8 complained to Board President Lars Schneider, about Mr. Schneider request that the audience, in the interests of keeping the meeting cordial, ask informational questions, but to please avoid expressing their “opinions”. Mr. Schneider reminded the audience that they will have a perfect opportunity to express their opinions when they mark their ballots “Yes” or “No”.
The audience member obviously felt frustrated that he was not being allowed to express his opinions.
As much as I empathize with that audience member’s frustration… I can imagine how much longer the three-hour meeting might have run, if the 100 people in the audience, and the 100 people attending by Zoom, had all been encouraged to share their opinions.
They will indeed be able to mark their ballots, beginning January 27.