Our Daily Post humor writer, Louis Cannon, posted a story this morning about how people act when they get rich: “The Game is Rigged”.
I can’t vouch for Mr. Cannon’s research skills, nor his facts, but it might be true — as he suggests — that, even here in Pagosa Springs, the rich tend to get richer, and the folks who work the hardest, struggle to pay the rent.
Whether that particular dynamic is evident in the two new proposals that developer David Dronet has presented to the Archuleta Board of County Commissioners, I hope our readers will be able to discern by the conclusion of this editorial series.
We discussed one of Mr. Dronet’s previous attempts — in 2019 — to ensure that his proposed Springs Resort expansion project would be able to benefit from massive tax subsidies, when he convinced a majority of the Pagosa Springs Town Council to create an Urban Renewal Authority (URA). In Colorado, a URA is able to refund, to a developer who meets the Authority’s standards, millions of dollars in tax subsidies through a special financing technique known as “Tax Increment Financing” or “TIF”. In order to qualify for these massive subsidies, a developer must prove that his property is threatened by “dangerous urban blight.”
That term — “dangerous urban blight” — used to mean something here in Colorado, once upon a time… it actually meant, “dangerous urban blight”… but over the past couple of decades, municipalities all around the state have concluded that any pretty much any vacant piece of land within the municipal boundaries qualifies as “dangerous urban blight.” And that’s the conclusion reached by a majority of the Town Council back in November, 2019, when the URA was created. The “dangerous urban blight” included all of the vacant property Mr. Dronet said he hoped to develop as part of a $180 million Springs Resort expansion project.
In this situation, Mr. Dronet had been describing himself as “managing principal” of the Springs Resort.
Yesterday in Part One, we quoted from a 2019 essay by Daily Post columnist Cynda Green, who was in turn quoting from a 2019 article in the weekly Pagosa Springs SUN, which was in turn quoting from a press release sent out by the Springs Resort:
“The Springs Resort ownership is exploring the possibility of expanding the resort and developing a portion of the vacant adjacent land.
“Prior to undertaking any serious planning efforts, the resort ownership will hold an open meeting and invites Pagosa residents to join them and discuss the past, current and future feelings and desires about such a development…”
The Pagosa community apparently didn’t make its feelings and desires known during the two community meetings staged by Mr. Dronet. Perhaps they were too busy working? Or perhaps they were unaware that Mr. Dronet was going to ask for up to $79 million in tax subsidies, through a proposed Urban Renewal Authority, to help finance a $180 million resort expansion.
The community’s feelings about the URA tax subsidies didn’t make themselves known until about 18 months later — after the Town Council had created the URA — when several downtown residents petitioned a change to the Town Home Rule Charter, requiring voter approval for any URA subsidies exceeding $1 million. That ballot measure was approved last July by a 3-to-1 margin, in favor of taxpayer control of the URA process.
We’ve not heard anything about the proposed $180 million Springs Resort expansion since then.
One thing that’s worth mentioning, I think, regarding that proposed expansion. Mr. Dronet was very clear, during the community meetings in 2019, that he did not envision any ‘affordable housing’ being included in the Springs project, even though he was proposing up to 235 new residential units. But Mr. Dronet did say that Pagosa Springs needs more affordable housing, and he fully supported the creation fo affordable housing. But somewhere else; not adjacent to the Springs Resort.
Which brings us, perhaps, to one of the two proposals made to the Archuleta Board of County Commissioners last Tuesday at a work session.
Mr. Dronet:
“Commissioners, thanks for having me. A quick summary. We purchased the property at the end of Lewis Street back in December of last year; we pulled permits in late February, early March, and are under construction now, and we’re converting that building into eight workforce housing units. We are going to run the property at ‘zero profit’ — basically meaning, every dollar we save in fees and taxes are going to go directly into reducing rents for the residents and tenants in that building.
“Let me do some quick math. The request here is for the County’s portion of [property] taxes to be abated. We came that conclusion because we know you guys have made workforce housing a priority, and have supported those efforts by others, and this was a way for us to put this in front of you guys and see if participation in this made sense for you, and what it could look like.
“We’re proposing a 15 year abatement or rebate — whatever is best and works easiest for the County — of the County’s portion [of the annual property taxes.] We figure that comes out to about $4,400 a year, which translates to about $45 per month per unit, for reduction in their rents.
“So that’s the overview. I’m happy to answer any questions that you might have.”
There we have a quick summary, and some quick math. In other words, no need for a fully detailed discussion, at this point.
Before we listen to the comments from the BOCC and their staff, I’d like to mention that, as a statutory county government, Archuleta County is considered an arm of state government and is subject to all the state laws that govern statutory counties. A very few Colorado counties have become ‘Home Rule’ counties and are able to be somewhat more flexible with their operations — but are still subject to certain state laws.
Whether a statutory county can legally “abate” or “rebate” property taxes for an affordable housing project? I have no idea. But where there’s a will, there’s often a way.