Photo: Town Council member Gary Williams, far left, argues in favor of purchasing 491 acres of property from the Fairway Land Trust, at a Council work session on April 7.
On Friday in Part Eight, I suggested that the Town Council could easily survey our residents and find out how they feel about spending $8 million — or even more — to expand the Reservoir Hill wilderness areas and thus increase opportunities for ‘recreation’.
In fact, a particular kind of survey was conducted on April 7, when the Town asked municipal voters for permission to borrow $3 million to rehabilitate the San Juan River through downtown following the October 2025 flood events.
Town Development Director James Dickhoff had characterized the river as “an important part of our tourism portfolio, and we need to get it cleaned up…” Town Council agreed with the idea of keeping our tourism portfolio in good shape, and voted to pursue a $3 million “zero interest” loan from CWCB (Colorado Water Conservation Board). However, this additional municipal debt required voter approval.
The voters rejected the new debt, even though it was a “zero interest” loan, with 52% voting “No”.
That’s a survey of sorts, indicating on how municipal voters actually feel about “our tourism portfolio” and increased government debt.
We also have a Town-financed recreation survey dating from 2006 conducted by Boulder-based consultants RRC Associates that went out to 2,200 households — including second homes — and received 459 completed surveys, a 21% response rate, which is a relatively decent response. (I mentioned this survey previously in Part Seven of this editorial series.)
Yes, the response rate was relatively decent, but the survey was, in my humble opinion, relatively meaningless, because while it asked about the attractiveness of various recreation amenities, it totally failed to ask, “Would you be willing to increase your taxes — or forego other government services — to pay for these recreational amenities?”
We already know the answer to that question, if we want to be honest with ourselves. Not everyone wants to be honest with ourselves, however.
During the April 7 work session, Council member Gary Williams spoke in favor of having the Town purchase, not merely 300 acres of Fairway Land Trust property, but also the remaining 191 Trust-owned acres that are not forest. At what price? Mr. Williams didn’t suggest a price.
Mr. Williams:
“We should keep [the Fairway Land Trust property] together and just go for [all 491 acres] somehow… We can do other things with it, you know. We can do stuff with the land all the way out to Light Plant Road. It’s not in a conservation easement. We could have a recreation center there…”
If we’re talking about “what the community wants” as well as “what the Town Council wants”, then we want to consider, intelligently and thoughtfully, how the people of Pagosa Springs would feel about going into debt to purchase the non-forested Fairway property as a site for a future recreation center.
Back in 2014, a small group of recreationalists convinced the Town Council to place a ballot issue before the voters, to create a new 1% sales tax and build a recreation center near Yamaguchi Park, at the south end of downtown.
I use the term “a small group” because when the ballots were counted, only 159 people had voted “Yes” and 423 had voted “No”. 3-out-of-4 voters had rejected the planned recreation center and the new municipal debt that would have funded it.
Is that a type of “community survey”? Indeed, it’s one of the most accurate kinds of survey — the kind with actual dollars attached.
At that same 2014 election where the rec center was overwhelmingly defeated, former police chief Don Volger was elected mayor. He commented on the voters’ rejection of the rec center plan, as quoted in the weekly Pagosa Springs SUN:
“Before the election I said that I was going to vote against it,” Volger commented…. “I am relieved, because now we have so many more options that we can pursue.
“If the recreation center issue would have passed, it would become the top priority and we would have had to devote untold numbers of hours and resources to make that thing work. It would have been difficult.”
While Volger admitted he is relieved the town will now be free to finish other projects, he also pointed out that a lot of people put their time, energy and passion into advocating for the rec center project…
“I applaud that effort,” Volger said, “and I just hope they don’t get too bummed right now and discouraged. I hope they can refocus that energy and that passion into something that maybe we can achieve together, instead of having more polarization and division.”
Last November, the Town did indeed pass a new 1% sales tax — approved overwhelmingly by the voters — to meet a serious need. Not a ‘recreation’ project, but a failing sanitation system that has cost the Town millions in repairs since it began operating in 2016.
We have other serious needs in Pagosa Springs upon which the Town Council could refocus its energy and passion — and I am quite intentionally using the word “serious”.
Like, for example, homes for our working families to live in. Before they feel compelled to move to a more accommodating community.
That doesn’t appeared to be the intention of the Town Council, however. I quoted Council member Brooks Lindner previously in this editorial series. Let’s listen again to his argument.
“…The acquisition of [the southern part of] Reservoir Hill offers a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. There’s a cost to not taking advantage of this opportunity. If the Town does not buy the property, it may lose the chance to preserve it permanently. The land could be developed… or become acquired by someone else. And in that case, the opportunity cost of inaction is the lost public benefit of conservation and outdoor recreation, trail connectivity, community character, and future recreational access.
“I would argue that this opportunity is so valuable that it justifies a trade-off of foregoing other identified and unidentified initiatives, to secure the funding to ensure we acquire Res Hill…”
Unfortunately, that’s an argument from someone out-of-touch with his own community’s desires.