Construction on a new wastewater treatment plant for the Town of Pagosa Springs will likely not begin until spring 2009, according to a report presented to town council by sanitation supervisor Phil Starks and interim Town Manager Tamra Allen.

Contrary to previous projections by former town Manager Mark Garcia that put groundbreaking at October 2008, the design’s engineering specifications are not scheduled for completion until at least late November or early December of this year.

Several of the delays are attributed to permitting issues with the state regarding environmental and engineering compliances. Newly-imposed limits on nitrogen levels by the state have also led to necessitating redesign and subsequent delays.

The report, presented at Tuesday’s sanitation general improvement district meeting, nonetheless painted a picture of a project that is moving forward despite the delays. Furthermore, the report made it clear that the project, if not currently sufficient, is certainly necessary: the town’s present plant continues to violate state regulations regarding ammonia levels at a rate of about two violations per month and the town can hardly afford the fines dictated by Colorado state law.

Reiterating previous reports, Starks and Allen made it clear that the current waste treatment plant’s lagoon system is over capacity, overburdened, and obsolete. The only way to meet state effluent standards is by constructing a new plant with a mechanical treatment system. Aside from helping the Pagosa Springs Sanitation District meet state environmental standards, another advantage of the new plant would be that it would be expandable to meet increased demand.

Prospects of an economic slowdown and decreased revenues from fewer than projected tap fees created some concern among council members as to how to fully pay for the project. Council member Mark Weiler advised the sanitation district to investigate Community Development Block Grant funding through the federal government in order to assist in paying for the new plant. Allen responded that, “We are exploring all of our options to meet the financial challenges of this project.”

The sanitation general improvement district also reported to council that it has come to the district’s attention that previous fees for wastewater disposal do not match current use. Starks explained to council that, since the town took over sanitation, the manner in which the town calculated equivalent units (EUs) was never reassessed to reflect actual usage. According to Starks, many businesses in town have not been paying for EUs that they are actually using and recommended not only that EU usage be reassessed around town but that previous EU usage be assessed and collected on.

Council was adamantly opposed to retroactively pursuing fees for past EU usage but agreed that current EU usage should be assessed at current rates. Although current EU rates are calculated by water usage rates (provided by PAWSD metering) and business square footage, neither council nor the sanitation district staff were clear what a truly equitable and accurate measure for EU usage might look like and appeared open to suggestions.

The sanitation general improvement district meeting directly follows the town council meeting the first of every month, with the town council acting in the capacity of the district board. The next meeting is scheduled for June 3.

Thursday, May 8, 2008

Town council appoints two to planning commission

Following some lively discussion surrounding interested parties vying for two open planning commission seats, town council reappointed Tracy Bunning and appointed local businessman Bobby Hart to fill those seats.

During its April 1 meeting, council had considered making a commission seat available to county residents. However, interim Town Manager Tamra Allen reminded council that, since council had not resolved to modify municipal code allowing county residents to serve on the commission, notices for the open positions had been limited to town residents.

Council member Shari Pierce made a motion to hold one seat open for a county resident (per modification of the code), saying her experience on the Historic Preservation Board, where there is a diversity of voices, tells her that opening up one seat — and one seat only — to a county resident, could benefit the planning commission.

Mayor Ross Aragon disagreed, saying, “The planning commission has been doing good work for as long as I remember and I don’t see any reason to fix it, if it ain’t broke.”

With no member to second Pierce’s motion, council limited consideration to the three town residents interested in serving.

Council member Mark Weiler’s motion to recommend developer Teddy Herzog to the commission was met with instant opposition by Aragon.

“I have some real problems with that,” Aragon said. “I have an e-mail here that Mr. Herzog distributed ... in which Mr. Herzog made some inappropriate comments regarding the town and I can’t condone that kind of behavior.”

The comments in the e-mail made unflattering references to a previous council member, that member’s bid to serve the town in another capacity, and residences in town that the former council member had represented. Although Herzog apologized for comments in the e-mail, stating, “If I had it to do over again, I would not have written some of the things I wrote,” the mayor was unconvinced and remained vocally opposed to Herzog’s appointment.

Council member Angela Atkinson finally put the matter to rest by making a motion to reappoint Bunning to his old seat and appoint Hart to the vacant seat, saying, “We have two applicants in good faith; we should consider their appointments tonight.”

The motion passed unanimously.

Council also considered a recommendation that a consistent end date for planning commission terms be set in order to better track when terms end. Under the current system, terms are staggered by year but also end dates are set throughout the calendar. Although the new system would continue to stagger the terms by year, the end date would be consistent in any year — July 1. Again, council passed the resolution unanimously.

Council meets again for a special session Tuesday May, 13.

Town moves to change fee structure

With the word “recession” as thick in the air as spring pollen, town council addressed the issues of building and impact fees at its April 17 mid-month meeting.

Acting on citizen’s concerns voiced at an open forum March 20, the council entertained the possibility of changing the town’s planning, building and impact fees.

Council member Mark Weiler said, “I want town council to listen to what you heard at that meeting. I want town council to be cautious when it’s time to be cautious, but I also want town council to be bold when it’s time to be bold. And now is the time to be bold.”

Council member Jerry Jackson agreed that the fees were an obstacle to new development.

“It’s a problem when the fees here in Pagosa Springs are higher than they are in Durango or Telluride,” Jackson said.

Jackson may have been referring to figures cited by local business owner Steve Van Horn, who at the March 20 session, claimed development costs in Durango were about $140 per square foot while costs for building in Pagosa Springs were about $200 per square foot.

After some discussion, town council moved swiftly to develop a three-tiered plan for changing the town’s fee structure. The plan that council developed would change the current structure of collecting all fees up front to the following plan:

• Plan review fees would be due only when building plans are submitted.

• Building permit fees would be due only after a certificate of occupancy has been issued.

• Impact fees would be deferred over a 10-year period, with 10 percent of those fees due each year for that time period. To cover interest due on those fees, a 3.5-percent increase would be built into the impact fees. Furthermore, deferment of impact fees would be handled on a case-by-case basis through resolution to town council and contingent upon their approval. There would be no penalty for paying the impact fees up front and impact fees paid up front would not be assessed the 3.5 percent interest fee.

Answering concerns that the deferred collection of impact fees would affect the town’s available cash for capital improvements, county commissioner candidate John Ranson said, “A revenue stream is valuable, more valuable than cash.” Ranson explained that lenders look more to certain incoming revenue rather than available cash when considering project funding.

Former town manager Mark Garcia said he would draft resolutions reflecting council’s desire to change building and impact fee structures and that those resolutions would be ready for the May 6 council meeting.

Responding to town council’s move in changing the fee structure, Mayor Ross Aragon finished the session, declaring, “What we just did is indicative of what leadership is all about.”

Thursday, April 24, 2008

Council considers downtown development related plans, requests

Given the prospect of millions of dollars in tax revenues flowing into town coffers within the next few years, town council spent the past week mulling over a proposed expansion of The Springs Resort in Pagosa Springs.

The proposed expansion, detailed in a memorandum presented at a town council work session on April 16, outlined plans for new hotels, timeshare residences, and recreational facilities in the area immediately south of the existing resort. Retail and residential spaces adjacent to Hot Springs Boulevard rounded out the rest of the proposal which, if realized, would cost an estimated $250 million.

Bill Whittington, representing The Springs Resort, told council that the initial phase of the expansion would generate $460,000 in annual sales tax revenue, both directly from the resort and through local restaurants and businesses. According to Whittington, capital improvements funded by those revenues would further drive development and expansion of the resort, creating a potential tax revenue base estimated at well over $10 million, annually. However, Whittington cited no sources, nor provided data to substantiate his tax revenue projections.

The proposal was received enthusiastically by council — with some reservations — the matter of geothermal water rights being the most glaring sticking point. (See bullet items below.) Whittington, under the auspices of the Pagosa Springs Resort Company, has filed for adjudicated water rights on effluent discharged from the town’s PS-5 well. The application requests 440 gallons per minute for summer usage and 370 gallons per minute during the winter for use at The Springs Resort.

In the memo Whittington writes, “PSRC (Pagosa Springs Resort Company) has filed for absolute rights on their water right related to the Town lease.”

Council informed Whittington that, although it was happy to receive the proposal, further discussion was warranted and with an assurance of due diligence, discussions would take place within the week.

During its April 21 meeting, town council considered Whittington’s memorandum point-by-point, deciding:

• The town would consider leasing water from its geothermal wells to The Springs Resort but would be opposed to granting any rights. Furthermore, council refused to rescind an objection to a filing for water rights by The Springs Resort and likewise opposed a suggestion that it not object to future filings for geothermal water rights by The Springs Resort.

• The town would expand its current geothermal water lease with The Springs Resort from 100 gallons per minute to 400 gallons per minute, but only if the resort was willing to provide assurances that its planned development was imminent.

• The town would either indemnify The Springs Resort from any liability incurred on trails, water features, or easements common to the town and The Springs resort or it would accept the donation of such trails, water features, and easements to assume any and all liabilities.

• The town agreed that, although it would not compete with private enterprise by constructing geothermal soaking pools, it reserved the right to build public swimming pools.

• The town would support The Springs Resort in its expansion proposal, but only so far in that all plans are subject to approval by the town.

Other items in the memo were either deleted as irrelevant or deferred as separate issues. For example, a proposed trade of the current Pagosa Springs Area Chamber of Commerce building site for the old Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) property adjacent to the Ruby Sisson Library and fronting U.S. 160, or the former Seeds of Learning site — both properties have river frontage — was tabled in order to assess values of the sites. An agent for The Springs Resort purchased the CDOT property at a county auction in August 2006 for $285,000.

Council also discussed adding some items to Whittington’s proposal. Councilman Mark Weiler suggested that The Springs Resort commit to funding open space projects beyond the boundaries of its proposed expansion. Shari Pierce asked for assurances that wherever possible, The Springs Resort employ local labor and materials in the construction of its expansion.

Council will meet with The Springs Resort May 15. Although local residents can’t get a season pass for soaking from The Springs Resort, they can at least be heard, as negotiations between the resort and the town continue.

Town to install sidewalks along section of Apache Street

Anyone who has taken a stroll on Apache Street can tell you the walk can be a harrowing balance between dodging traffic and becoming mired ankle-deep in mud.

By late summer, however, that stroll will be less an adventure and more of a pleasure.

Acting on a resolution presented to Town Council by the Pedestrian Improvement and Safety Task Force (presented last August), the Town of Pagosa Springs will add 1,100 linear feet of sidewalk on the north side of Apache Street from the bridge at the intersection of Hot Springs Boulevard and Apache Street to the Apache Street and 7th Street intersection.

According to Mike Davis, of Davis Engineering, construction should start within the next two weeks, pending approval of the contractor’s bond. Although Davis could not provide an exact date when the contractor (Mike Snook Concrete) would begin construction, he was confident the project would be completed by late summer.

Both Davis and Town Planner Tamra Allen said the project was bid well under budget. However, with $200,000 earmarked for concrete and sidewalks in this year’s town budget, the sidewalks for Apache Street were bid at just under $160,000 — four-fifths of the total money set aside for concrete and sidewalk improvements in 2008.

The Apache Street sidewalk project was not the only recommendation made by the Pedestrian Improvement and Safety Task Force in its resolution presented to Town Council. The resolution (approved by the council last September) included embedding reflective materials at various intersections throughout the downtown area, placing “pedestrian flags” at several intersections on U.S. 160 through downtown, and the exploration of the feasibility of making South 6th Street one way from Pagosa Street to Apache Street, as well as dedicating a pedestrian easement from Great West Avenue to the elementary school.

Since none of those recommendations were considered for the 2008 capital improvements projects (nor money put aside for those projects), it remains to be seen if the town will push for the completion of the remaining recommendations made by the task force.

With work started on Apache Street and Phase II of the Sports Complex project, Apache Street will see a great deal of activity as the weather warms. Drivers who pass through the area should take construction activity into consideration when making their daily commute.

Editor’s Note: This is the second in a series of articles reporting on the various capital improvement projects planned for Pagosa Springs this summer.

Each week, a new project will be featured, letting readers know where to look for improvements to the town — or perhaps avoid potential traffic snarls due to construction.

Incumbents ousted,
new faces on council

Fair spring weather greeted Pagosa Springs residents Tuesday, providing voters no excuse for staying away from the polls. Although voter turnout was not exactly record-breaking, the 22 percent of registered Pagosa Springs voters who did bother to go to the polls managed to unseat two out of three incumbents in the race.

In the six-way contest for town council, the big winner was long-time Pagosa Springs resident Shari Pierce with 122 votes (61.6 percent), followed closely by former council member Jerry Jackson, who took 115 votes (58 percent). Incumbent Stan Holt held his council seat with 98 votes (49.5 percent). According to election officials, during Tuesday’s election there were 912 registered electors in the Town of Pagosa Springs — 198 turned out to vote.

Two other town council incumbents did not fare as well: Tony Simmons lost with 42.4 percent of the vote (Simmons earned 84 votes) while John Steinert was unseated after earning just 71 votes (35.9 percent). Challenger and first-time candidate Bobby Hart placed last, with 60 votes (30.3 percent).

Asked about winning her bid for Town Council, candidate Shari Pierce said, “I’m very honored to have been elected. I will do the very best I can with the job awarded me.”

When asked how it felt to be re-elected, Stan Holt said, “I’m glad I can continue to pursue what’s good for the town.”

Holt said he intends to spend his next term working toward completion of downtown projects, specifically, the downtown streetscape, the river walk and the river project in the short term, and encouraging new business and economic diversity in the long term.

Pierce said that in her first term she would like to see, “Council continuing to be leaders in this area. I hope we can come together to work toward what’s best for the community.”

Unfortunately, Jerry Jackson could not be reached for comment.

With newly-elected board members, the council faces a number of tasks including: revision of the town’s land use and development code; consideration of development proposals and long-term planning issues such as infrastructure, transportation, annexations and the possibility of joint planning efforts with the county; and capital improvement projects such as Lewis Street reconstruction, the Sports Complex and a new sewage treatment facility. In addition, there are questions afoot regarding how to energize the local economy and the council will ultimately decide what role local government will play in that effort — some council members and citizens have already suggested repealing or modifying the town’s impact fee, sign code and big box regulations as ways to jump start the economy.

Holt, Jackson and Pierce will serve until 2012.

Town council makes bold planning moves

With local economic conditions described as “flat, at best” and elections just a week away, town council spent part of April Fool’s Day deciding that, while compromise might not represent statesmanship at its finest, it is, to quote a Scottish proverb, “better to bend than to break.”

The council heard an audit report delivered by Mike Branch.

Branch declared the town’s current financial condition “extremely healthy” — the town holds over $3 million in reserves — but he added one caveat: With sales tax revenues leveling off and expenses increasing, Branch said the town might consider proceeding cautiously with future projects, noting that Pagosa Springs “might not have the kind of revenue growth it’s had in the past.”

Considering 86 percent of the town’s income is, according to town manager Mark Garcia, derived from sales tax revenues, the council considered present and future annexation initiatives as sources for potential property tax income.

Such potential lies in the placement of 1,253-acres of the Blue Sky Ranch property within the town’s Comprehensive Plan planning boundary, and the reapportionment of previously established parcels. However, when the discussion focused on whether the council should approve amending the Comprehensive Plan planning boundary to include the entire ranch — 120 acres of the ranch already lies within the planning boundary — the council was appraised of the daunting task of planning for disparate and discontinuous properties within town boundaries.

Council members Angela Atkinson and Tony Simmons said the issue could take years to resolve.

“Reducing rural residential properties (densities) from one to every thirty-five acres, to one to five, or even one to one, presents real challenges,” said Atkinson.

Nevertheless, council unanimously approved the town planning commission’s recommendation to expand the town planning boundary to include all of the Blue Sky Ranch, without further discussion.

Council’s approval to shift the boundary to encompass the ranch does not mean the property is automatically included in the town’s municipal boundaries. In order to become part of town, property owners must successfully petition for annexation, which will require them to address a number of issues such as contiguity with parcels already within town boundaries.

After the Blue Sky Ranch discussion, the Putnam annexation project met with approval after more than a year of consideration and some 11th-hour contention.

After previous objections to the plan, business owner Katherine Young at last agreed to a compromise struck by the town planning commission that included mixed-use commercial zoning within an area originally conceived as completely residential. Despite the compromise, the annexation is still not complete, with the status of several properties within the annexation boundaries remaining unknown, or in dispute.

In an evening that seemed riveted with compromises, the only debate arose during the discussion involving the evening’s biggest compromise. Using a Colorado statute for the first time in Pagosa Springs’ history, BootJack Management Company (BMC) received “vested rights” on the development of several properties in the downtown area.

The properties, approved for development by the council in November 2006, were essentially allowed by C.R.S. Article 68, Title 24 to remain in stasis for three years, with any plans filed with the town guaranteed for that period. Furthermore, by a provision of the same statute (allowing for the discretion of municipalities), BMC properties are allowed to sit, undeveloped, for up to five years.

Simmons provided the only objection and cast a dissenting vote on both BMC requests. Simmons said the properties at issue were the sites of demolitions dating back at least three years and that empty lots sitting in the downtown area for eight years would do little to invite improvement of the downtown area.

Councilman John Steiner said, “Development is market driven, another three to five years doesn’t matter.”

Apparently Steinert’s comment reflected the rest of the council’s attitude that vested rights encourage investors in a shaky economy. Although there was some confusion on how the precedent of vested rights and its expansion to five years would affect development in the downtown area, no one offered an alternative.

The council meeting concluded with a final stab at compromise, one bred by amity and necessity. With no qualified candidates from the town willing to serve on the planning commission, town planner Tamra Allen suggested that council allow for the placement of a county resident on the commission — one not living within incorporated borders. The council directed Allen to draft an amendment allowing a county resident to serve on the five-person board. If the amendment passes, Allen said a county resident could fill the available seat by sometime in June.

Blue Sky goes to council

The Town of Pagosa Springs Planning Commission voted unanimously Tuesday to expand the town’s planning area boundary by nearly two square miles in order to include Blue Sky Ranch — the approval marks the first boundary amendment to the town’s 25-year Comprehensive Plan, and comes barely two years after the plan’s adoption in May 2006.

Although the planning commission approval came without dissent or discord, the question must go before the Pagosa Springs Town Council for final approval in April.

The ranch, located on the east side of U.S. 84, near the junction of U.S. 84 and Light Plant Road, totals 1,373 acres, with 120 acres of the property located within the town’s current planning area boundary and the remaining 1,253 acres outside the boundary. And therein, said the developer’s representative Nancy Lauro of Russell Engineering Inc., lies part of the problem.

According to Lauro and the planning commissioners, the planning area boundary bisected the property, thus creating the potential for a dual regulatory situation.

For example, the 120 acres of the ranch along U.S. 84 and already within the planning area boundary could be subject to the town’s land use regulations (pending annexation) which allows densities in the ranch area to range from one unit per five acres to one unit per acre. Without the planning area boundary shift, the remaining 1,253 acres could be developed under the county’s land use regulations which allows for one dwelling unit on parcels of 35 acres or more.

Lauro said her clients did not want to pursue the one dwelling unit per 35 acres scenario, and explained that the request to expand the planning area boundary stemmed from the developer’s desire to bring the project under the town’s jurisdiction which could ultimately allow for development at higher densities and pursuit of a cohesive, well planned project.

But before development occurs, the project and the developers must leap a number of hurdles. And Lauro described the planning boundary change as a “baby step” in the process.

“We have a lot to go. We have a lot to prove,” Lauro said.

If the town council ratifies the planning commission’s decision, associate planner Joe Nigg said the next step was for the developer to submit a petition for annexation.

“Just because this line has changed does not mean this will necessarily be annexed into the town,” said planning commissioner Tracy Bunning. “At least by changing the line, we allow them to come up with a plan that is all under one jurisdiction.”

According to the staff report, the town does not have the ability to annex the Blue Sky Ranch because there is no established or future contiguity with the ranch property and properties within the town limits. Under the current administration, contiguity is one of the defining criteria in a successful annexation application. However “creative annexations” could occur, such as annexing up easement utility corridors or U.S. 84, which might ultimately make Blue Sky Ranch annexation possible.

During Tuesday’s proceedings, the commissioners also approved the “Rural Residential” land use designation for the ranch, thus allowing densities of one unit per five acres to one unit per acre. However, the developer will not be able to exercise that development density option until they have successfully annexed. Then, once annexation and zoning are complete, Blue Sky Ranch will go through the development approval process, including a series of public hearings. In addition, the developer will have to address key infrastructure issues such as water and sewer service. Tapping into the town’s sewer system is currently a requirement for a successful annexation.

Project details remain scant, although Lauro said a world-class golf course, small luxury hotel, restaurant and multi- and single-family housing options were being explored.

Based on public comments made during a Feb. 26 hearing, Bunning encouraged Lauro to bring a “pretty detailed plan” for presentation at the annexation hearing.

“The developer needs to step up and get something out there that everyone can see,” Bunning said.

Nigg said submittal of a conceptual plan is part of the annexation application process.

When asked if the boundary shift met the town’s long term planning goals and matched the goals and intent of the Comprehensive Plan, Planning Commissioner Angela Atkinson said amending the planning area boundary to include Blue Sky Ranch represented an effort to balance economic development and land use concerns with the town’s long term planning goals.

County and town to hold planning work session

The Archuleta County Planning Commission will hold a work session at 6 p.m. March 19 in the Board of County Commissioners’ Meeting Room, in the Archuleta County Courthouse.
Public comment is welcome and encouraged.
The agenda includes:

• Call to order.
Work session:

• Joint work session with the Town of Pagosa Springs — discussion of Intergovernmental Agreements between town and county.

SUN photo/James Robinson
Newly-appointed town councilman Mark Weiler reads the candidate oath before taking his seat on the Pagosa Springs Town Council, Tuesday. Weiler replaces former District 1 councilman John Middendorf who resigned in February.

Thursday, March 6, 2008

Mark Weiler appointed to town council

By James Robinson
Staff Writer

Mark Weiler, president of Parelli Natural Horsemanship, secured a seat on the Pagosa Springs Town Council by majority vote, during the council’s regular board meeting Tuesday.

Weiler sought the District 1 seat via appointment after council member John Middendorf resigned in February.
Weiler challenged Shari Pierce for the council nomination; Weiler earned four votes to Pierce’s two.

Weiler’s Tuesday evening effort marked the second time in two years that Weiler has sought a council seat via appointment. Weiler has also sought a post on the town’s planning commission.

Questions about whether Weiler had sufficient time to dedicate to the Pagosa Springs Town Council surfaced again during Tuesday’s proceedings, as Weiler’s business activities often take him out of the Pagosa Springs area.

Weiler said he spends 70 percent of his time in Pagosa Springs, and foresaw no conflicts between his professional and personal commitments and his future obligations to the town.

Weiler received the appointment early in the town council meeting, then took the District 1 chair and participated in the remainder of the council’s proceedings.

During a discussion on economic development, Weiler presented a 10-page, five-point economic plan based on strategies used to develop the Parelli business.

Town and county to discuss Blue Sky Ranch

The Town of Pagosa Springs Planning Commission chose to continue discussions on amending the town’s Comprehensive Plan boundary to include Blue Sky Ranch, following two hours of discussion and citizen input Tuesday.

According to a motion put forth by Planning Commissioner Angela Atkinson, town planning commissioners will meet in a joint work session with the Archuleta County Planning Commission in order to hear the county’s concerns on how the boundary shift may affect land use designations noted in the county’s Community Plan. The work session is targeted for mid-March, and once held, the boundary amendment question will again go before the town planning commission for a decision March 25.

The ranch, located on the east side of U.S. 84, near the junction of U.S. 84 and Light Plant Road, totals 1,373 acres, with 120 acres of the property located within the town’s current planning area boundary, and the remaining 1,253 acres outside the boundary. The ranch is located in Archuleta County.

Although the developer’s plans have not been fully revealed, the project could include a small luxury hotel, golf course, equestrian center and potentially a mix of housing types, including clusters of town homes.

Although citizen comments during the meeting focused largely on project details such as location of homes and other structures, protection of view sheds and wildlife corridors, infrastructure, the decision before the commission hinged not on project details, but whether the inclusion of the ranch was appropriate, necessary, and inherently linked to the town’s long term planning efforts.

“Do town level services belong in this area or not?” Town Planner Tamra Allen said. In short, should the ranch be a town jurisdictional development or a county jurisdictional development?

If the boundary were shifted and the ranch successfully annexed into the town, the entire ranch could obtain a “rural residential” land use designation under the town code, which would allow for densities ranging from one unit per five acres to one unit per acre depending on the amount of land set aside as open space.

According to the Archuleta County Community Plan’s future land use map, the ranch property is categorized as “very low density residential” which equates to parcels of 35 acres or more. In a letter to the town’s planning commission, Rod Proffitt, the county’s director of community development, urged the commission to deny the developer’s request to expand the planning area boundary in order to uphold the future land use designation in the county’s Community Plan.

Depending on the land use designation, development on the property could occur in drastically different ways, and both agencies — town and county — have grappled, and will to continue to grapple, with long term land use issues and development slated for areas on the town’s planning periphery. The Blue Sky Ranch is a case in point, hence Atkinson’s motion to bring players from both agencies to the table.

Although 120 acres of the ranch property already lies with the town’s Comprehensive Plan planning sphere, the question remains whether to broaden that planning envelope, and what impact that change may have on the town and county’s long term planning efforts.

Town seeks candidates to fill vacant council position

The Town of Pagosa Springs has a vacancy in the District 1 Council seat and is seeking qualified candidates to fill the remainder of the term, expiring in April of 2010.

Interested candidates must be 18 years of age and a registered voter, and must have lives within District 1 boundaries for one year.

District 1 is the approximate incorporated boundaries encompassed by Hot Springs Boulevard (to the east), U.S. 160 (to the north), South Pagosa Boulevard (to the west), and the southern corporate boundary.

All candidates must submit a letter of interest detailing their qualifications to Town Hall by 10 a.m. Monday, March 3.

All qualified letters of interest will be considered by the town council at noon on Monday, March 3, and all candidates are asked to attend this meeting.

Contact the Town Clerk at 264-4151, Ext. 237, for more information.

Group works on town signage plans

A steering committee continues to work on ways to improve way-finding signage in town and to link the east and west sections of Pagosa Springs through placement of new signs.

Members of the committee and Nuszer Kopatz, urban design consultants, discussed “way-finding” strategies and creation of a new town logo at a Jan. 31 meeting.

“From a way-finding and signage point, do you think that there should be an underlying or obvious theme of the limits from the west and east end”? asked Mark Kopatz, managing partner of Nuszer Kopatz. “You can have districts. My opinion is that it would strengthen the town. Sometimes it is as simple as the material you use in the areas.”

By focusing on signage placement outside and inside Pagosa Springs boundaries, the consultants seek to create contiguity among the various sections of Pagosa Springs.
Outside sign placement includes the east and west ends of town on U.S. 160, called “entry gateways.”

“The town will want to move forward with entry gateway signs immediately ,” said Joe Nigg, town associate planner.

Inside sign placement involves directional signs within town boundaries, such as pedestrian signs.

“In order for the way-finding signage plan to work, it will have to incorporate east and west Pagosa,” Nigg said. “It is a family of signs ... including trail signs. The intent is consistent signage, applied from one end of town to the other. We will have a family of signs and a palette we can draw from.”

In addition, Pagosa Lakes Property Owners Association is involved with county officials to create a connection with Pagosa Springs.

“They (consultants) will look at signs in Pagosa Lakes for PLPOA’s request for entry signage,” Nigg said.

“The west end is where about 80 percent of the population lives. I think Pagosa could be one town with two different destinations,” said committee member Kellie Stevens.

Town planning staff and town council are working to obtain an easement that will allow for pedestrian access to trails in both the east and west sections of Pagosa Springs. Some trails are not technically established and many abut U.S. 160.

“It (the River Walk trail) is walkable and people do it, but they are not encouraged to. There is that lack of identity. We are not quite sure. I know we are in desperate need of creating an identity. I hope what would come out of your efforts is a cohesive plan,” said Cappy White, business owner.

The consultants will consider feedback from the committee and other interest groups and return with a draft plan. The plan will address a three elements:

• Conceptual logo and identity alternatives.
• Conceptual downtown way-finding plan and sign system alternatives.
• Conceptual downtown streetscape furnishings palette.

Based on the feedback from the draft plan, consultants will create a final plan including the three elements noted above and a final sign system and specification book.

Thursday, February 7, 2008

Town council considers subdivision, annexations

On Feb. 5, the evening of the Colorado caucuses, Pagosa Springs Town Council approved several agenda items.

Council members approved two items concerning the proposed Pradera Point Subdivision, three items regarding the proposed Putnam land annexation, and the expenditure of $358,919 in budgeted town funds for the sports complex construction project.

Council members approved the first reading of the Pradera Point Subdivision Preliminary Plan and the corresponding Ordinance 705 — a request to rezone the property.

Pradera Point is a proposed 119-lot subdivision north of downtown Pagosa Springs.

Council members declined a contribution of $105,000 toward affordable housing and accepted two lots donated to the town by Trinity Land Consultants, representing Gazunga LLC, developers of the project.

The ordinance’s first reading approval concerns rezoning the property from unzoned to an A-district, meaning single-family residential allowing a density of 5.8 dwelling units per acre, or one unit per lot with a minimum lot area of 7,500. square feet.

“Single family residential zone is the most compatible with our comprehensive plan. We do not have a zone district that is between A and B zone districts, which makes it hard to work with. As we go through the Land Use and Development Code updating process, our zone map will be complete,” said Joe Nigg, associate planner. “Designations in the comprehensive plan will be zoned into new districts.”

The developers will now produce a sketch plan, followed by a preliminary plan and final plan for consideration.

Council members also approved Resolution 2008-05 (verifying annexation eligibility of the Putnam Annexation property), the first reading of Ordinance 706 annexing the land, and first reading of Ordinance 707, assigning a “base-zone” district, an A district, for the 16 properties involved.

The annexation, if it is eventually approved, includes 140 acres of property located west of Pagosa Springs Elementary School.
The ordinance approval gives the go-ahead to proceed with annexation agreements with 16 property owners.

“Town is imposing a Real Estate Transfer Assessments fee on the Matthews property,” said Director of Planning Tamra Allen.

The Sam, Jim, Robert, Dewayne and James Matthews property is the largest acreage involved in the proposed annexation — 78.6 acres.

Ordinance 707 includes the Pagosa Springs Cemetery on South 10th Street and designates the land as open space. In addition, council approved the first reading of Ordinance 708 designating the cemetery as a local landmark.

Council members adopted resolution 2008-06, authorizing the expenditure of $358,919 in town funds to be used on the sports complex construction project.

The amount includes in-kind contributions totaling $74,626. The funds will be applied to Phase II of the project.

Phase II includes landscaping, grading, drainage, a perimeter and inner-park trail system and sidewalks. Phase II completion is tentatively scheduled for late fall.

In other business at the meeting:
• Council member Tony Simmons was named to replace former council member John Middendorf on the Land Use and Development Code Advisory Committee.
• Discussion regarding the direction of the proposed recreation center was “put on the back burner,” according to Mayor Ross Aragon.
• Council members continued the second reading of Ordinance 704, reestablishing residential zone district heights, to the mid-March meeting.

Ordinances 705, 706, 707, and 708 will also have second readings in March.

Town considers funding economic development coordinator

The Pagosa Springs Town Council has approved a commitment to explore funding of an economic development coordinator position on the town staff.

Creation of the new position is part of an effort to alleviate the work load on staff members and promote economic growth and stability in downtown Pagosa Springs.

According to Town Manager Mark Garcia, the person filling the position will head a future Downtown Development Authority.

“The person would promote downtown development,” Garcia said. “We identified the need.”

The Downtown Master Plan states, “The Town does not have an economic development office and many inquiries are directed to the Town Manager. The Town should consider the creation of a Downtown Development Authority that assumes responsibility for infill and redevelopment projects and works to stimulate the local economy through Downtown revitalization efforts.”

According to councilwoman Angela Atkinson, “It (the position) is supplementing Archuleta Development Association (AEDA) and identifying the gaps that need resources.”

“We need all the players to come together and work strategically to work toward common goals,” she said.

AEDA is the only organization currently in the area addressing economic development, and “there is so much to do that we should work at this together. It is really a partnership we are talking about,” said Atkinson.

Activity involving retail development in and revitalization of the downtown area is not AEDA’s focus, said Bart Mitchell, director of AEDA. AEDA’s efforts go toward creation of revenue sources and bringing jobs to the county, he said.

Atkinson recognized the need for more “unbiased and objective” input regarding downtown development. “Having that person in house is important. It has just been the builders that come forth,” she said.

“Our administrative costs have gone up significantly. The staff has a lot on their plate,” Atkinson said. “With increases in staff and administration levels, this is where an economic coordinator position will more than pay for itself.”

In another staff change at town hall, the former special projects position will become an assistant manager position, funded in the 2008 budget at $62,000.

Atkinson expressed interest in integrating the role of the economic development coordinator into the assistant manager position.

Although the interest was not shared across the board, council members agreed to seek funding for the economic development coordinator position.

Since the mechanisms for funding the economic development coordinator position are not yet established, no estimated time frame yet exists for final approval of the position.

Middendorf resigns from town council

John Middendorf has tendered his resignation from the Pagosa Springs Town Council, citing a pending move to Australia as the reason for his action.

After serving on the town council for nearly one and a half years, Middendorf announced his resignation last week. He will serve his last day on the council Feb. 12.

At the end of February, Middendorf and his family will leave for Hobart, in Tasmania, Australia, entering the country on a permanent residence visa. By living in Australia before that visa expires, said Middendorf, the family can return to Australia at a later time if they desire.

“It is with sad regret that I am leaving my position as town counselor. It has been a rewarding service. I care a lot about the town, and I hope it progresses into a place where we can raise our family,” Middendorf said.

While in Australia, he will maintain Lynx Geosystems, LLC, his Web-based mapping business.

Middendorf said he and his family will return to Pagosa Springs in 18 months.

“We will build a house in the county in the Lower Blanco area,” he said.

“We moved here for the lifestyle,” Middendorf said. “You make work out of what you can. We are going to take advantage of living and working there (Australia) for a year and a half. We decided perhaps it is an opportunity we can use.”

Dates set for town council election

An election to select members for the Town of Pagosa Springs Council will be held Tuesday, April 1, 2008, from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. at Town Hall, 551 Hot Springs Blvd.

There are three at-large council seats that will be open. They are currently occupied by Stan Holt, Tony Simmons and John Steinert. 

The first day for potential candidates to pick up a petition is Monday, Feb. 11.  The first day a petition can be circulated is Monday, Feb. 11.  Twenty-five signatures of registered electors who reside in the Town of Pagosa Springs are required. 

The last day to file the petition with the Town Clerk at Town Hall is Friday, Feb. 29, before 5 p.m.

Voters can register at the clerk’s office in the Archuleta County Courthouse. The requirements are the same as those governing general elections except the voter must have lived in the Town of Pagosa Springs 30 days immediately preceding the election if they wish to vote.

To run for office, a candidate must have lived within the town limits for 12 consecutive months prior to the election and be a duly registered voter in Archuleta County.

The deadline to register in order to be eligible to vote in the town election is March 1, 2008.

Absentee ballot requests may be picked up at the Town Clerk’s office from now until March 28.

Town council says no to rec center ballot measure

The Town of Pagosa Springs Town Council voted Wednesday, Jan. 2, not to place a recreation center question on the April ballot and to continue exploring feasibility and financing options.

Although some council members were on the fence, each remained firm in their stances, creating the 4-3 decision.

Council members voting for the recreation center ballot proposal were Angela Atkinson, John Middendorf and Tony Simmons. Council members opposed were Stan Holt, Darrel Cotton, Mayor Ross Aragon and John Steinert.

Some members of the council indicated they may consider a plan for a smaller recreation center and expressed interest in forming an ad hoc committee to assist planning staff with such a proposal.

“Fairplay did a nice recreation center. It is small and they did it modular,” said Simmons. “I urge this council to create a recreation center (that is the right size for Pagosa).”

Council members also considered the amount of subsidy required for a recreation center as they deliberated the question of a ballot measure.

“Recreation centers require high subsidies. Carbondale’s recreation center and swimming pool are separate operations,” said council member Stan Holt. “The pool costs $130,000 to operate and subsidy was $80,000. Their recreation center was subsidized at a total operation cost of $453,935. Their revenue is around $200,000. Durango was the most efficient in percentages with a deficit of 19 percent.”

Simmons brought the example of the existing Pagosa Springs community center to the attention of council. The community center’s subsidy is around $360,000 a year, Simmons said.

Councilwoman Angela Atkinson voiced her thoughts on the idea that a recreation center brings families to, and keeps them in Pagosa Springs.

“I feel that the way we keep families here is through jobs. It is like any investment in our infrastructure — it has subsidies,” said Atkinson. “We are one of the few communities in Colorado that do not have a regulation size pool. I would like us to come together and say ‘yes we can.’ That intergenerational dialogue, that is where it happens is in this community.”

Other council members expressed differing opinions.

“I do not have a problem with the recreation center, when it is reasonable,” said council member Darrel Cotton. “Cortez spends over $200,000 a year in utilities. I think it will come, but it is just too early.”

Mayor Ross Aragon held a similar sentiment, indicating “It is not a priority at this time.”

Council member John Middendorf, the strongest proponent, pushed for a decision that would take the question to the voters, but council decided to continue discussions, without a timetable.

Town continues work on land use and development codes

The Pagosa Springs Town Council continued work to change components of the 2007 Downtown Master Plan at a Wednesday, Dec. 19 work session.

Council members modified and removed language in Chapter Six, Design Guidelines, and the meeting prompted discussions concerning the progress of the Land Use and Development Code (LUDC) and the town’s Comprehensive Plan.

On pages 6-13, under East Village (that part of the document dealing with the east end of the downtown area), the plan states: “The conversion of residential structures to commercial uses has increased the need for on site parking.” Council removed the following sentence: “Ensure streetscapes continuity by eliminating curb cuts along the highway.”

On the topic of a need for parking, town Planning Director Tamra Allen said a parking facility may be added on Hot Springs Boulevard in the future, which will update the Vehicular Circulation and Parking Framework map in the master plan.

Language on pages 6-20, under the Building Heights section, was placed into the LUDC document: “Buildings should range between one and three stories in height. Building heights for residentially zoned areas should not exceed two stories.”

The master and comprehensive plans are “vision” and advisory documents, intended to provide a foundation for the creation of specific regulations. The LUDC contains the regulations that serve as guides for builders and developers — and those regulations are being shaped as town council considers public and developer input. The prospect for more dialogue and involvement in the communication process was entertained at the meeting.

Some in attendance at the meeting, and LUDC Advisory Committee members, urged council to expedite progress of the plans with the intent of not carrying out the same conversations in five or 10 years. The LUDC Advisory Committee was formed in February 2007.

Members include volunteers from the development community, engineers and architects and appointees from the Historic Preservation Society, town planning commission, and town council.

The discussion touched on the council better utilizing the committee’s contributions, to include the addition of several members to the committee who have economic backgrounds. Such members would further diversify the input the town council receives.

LUDC Advisory Committee members apprised council members of their desire to be involved in the communication process in three phases of planning, referred to as “modular” in the LUDC document
Module 1 changes to the plan are being discussed by town planning staff and Clarion Associates, a national land-use and real estate consulting firm.

Council members directed the town planning department to provide the committee with the draft changes.

Increased involvement of committee members may allow the town to forgo hiring outside consultants.

“It would be extremely costly when, really, you are the consultants,” said councilwoman Angela Atkinson addressing the public and committee members.

John Hundley of Bootjack Management Company, and a member of the LUDC Advisory Committee, voiced an ongoing concern to council members, indicating that work on the codes and plans remain.

“Our company is telling you that the zones in the comprehensive plan documents do not work,” Hundley said.

Council member and LUDC member John Middendorf explored Hundley’s interpretation.

“If the comprehensive plan is indeed broken, we are giving developers an impossible task,” said Middendorf. “My suggestion is that we should be more proactive than reactive,” Middendorf said. “The LUDC has to reflect the comprehensive plan. I think the comprehensive plan is where we need to focus our efforts.”

He also advocated an approval process similar to an environmental assessment process, in which a 30-day public comment period is provided “between each modular stage.”

Council member Tony Simmons disagreed, stating that expert advice was utilized to create the Comprehensive Plan. “The implementation matrix (in the master plan) will advise the comprehensive plan,” Simmons said.

On Jan. 2, town council entertained the adoption of the Downtown Master Plan, and consider adding several members to the LUDC committee. Read about that action in next week’s SUN.

Module 1 LUDC document updates will be discussed at Feb. 3, 4 and 5 meetings of the town planning commission, which are open to the public.

View the town’s 2007 Downtown Master Plan under “town departments” at www.townofpagosasprings.com.

Town council must make decision on rec center ballot question

Members of the Pagosa Springs Town Council and supporters of construction of a new recreation center in town pondered the feasibility of the proposed $16 million project at a meeting at Town Hall Wednesday Dec. 12.

The fate of the recreation center, at least in the near future, will hinge on a town council decision whether or not to place a question on the April 2008 ballot — at least two funding proposals in that question involving an increase in local sales tax.

How the council might vote, is anyone’s guess.
Earlier in the day Dec. 12, after adjourning another work session, several council members provided feedback about the possible recreation center.

“It would be a nice thing, but we cannot afford it. I will go through and show you all the streets needing improvements,” said Mayor Ross Aragon to council member John Middendorf.

Middendorf advocated letting town voters make the decision about a new center by placing the question on the ballot.

“We will encourage more families to come here and increase revenue two to three years down the line,” Middendorf said in support of a new center. “To me it is more of an issue of what we want this town to become.” He cautioned that the community is “headed for a town of second homes” should the enticements not be here for full-time residency.

Council members Darrel Cotton and Stan Holt