The Archuleta County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) held a special meeting on Tuesday, July 22, at which the board approved Resolution 2025-40, approving donating and transferring 11 county-owned lots on Bonita Drive to the Archuleta County Housing Authority (ACHA) for the purpose of developing workforce and low-income housing.
The conversation on the matter began at a BoCC work session on July 16 that occurred before a meeting later the same day where the BoCC originally scheduled to vote on the resolution, along with deciding to accept or reject an affordable housing financing fund land banking loan commitment for $200,000.
Those matters were both tabled during the July 16 BoCC meeting.
During the July 22 special BoCC meeting, Commissioner Veronica Medina informed the BoCC that the Pagosa Springs Community Development Corporation (PSCDC) board decided to withdraw its application for the land banking financing loan/grant.
During the July 16 work session, County Manager Jack Harper explained that the county attempted to sell the 11 lots on Bonita Drive, which were taken over by the county through tax foreclosure.
Harper indicated that most of the bids received on those lots did not meet even 50 percent of the minimum bid.
In 2023, the BoCC donated a total of 35 lots in the Trails and Chris Mountain II neighborhoods, not including the Bonita properties, to the PSCDC to develop as workforce housing units.
Medina commented that she “wasn’t originally for giving all of them to them.”
Medina also expressed concerns about the “devil in the details,” which she indicated were holding fees that had to be paid on those lots to the Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD) and to the Pagosa Lakes Property Owners Association (PLPOA).
“All of those fees, which none of us thought about, which has become a huge burden,” she said.
PSCDC Executive Director Emily Lashbrooke explained that when the PSCDC applied for the land banking financing loan, it was tied to the Bonita properties, explaining that if the county wants to donate the Bonita properties to the ACHA, then the loan would not be received.
She went on to explain that PSCDC’s intention was to use the funds from the land banking loan to purchase the Bonita properties from the county and request the BoCC to put the $200,000 into the workforce housing fund “and then let that pay for the holding fees for anybody that’s working on workforce housing.”
She noted if the county were to just donate the properties, “then that eliminates our grant and we’re gonna throw away $200,000.”
Medina explained that the land banking loan was being referred to as a grant, “but it’s actually a loan,” noting it would have a 2 percent interest for five years or until the loan is forgiven.
Medina noted that if housing units weren’t developed within five years, the term would be extended and “then you’re still paying that 2 percent on that $200,000 loan,” explaining that it is not a grant until the loan is forgiven when housing units are built.
“All of the interest is deferred,” Lashbrooke said, explaining there would be no payment until the five-year mark, when the landscape is assessed to see if housing units were built with certain area median income (AMI) and deed restrictions.
“Then it will waive the interest and the loan,” Lashbrooke added.
She also noted that “there’s plenty of time for the county to be the holder of those properties after we do the transaction and let the housing authority build.”
Medina explained that there had been conversation about using the $200,000 for developing housing and that with holding fees costing around $16,000 per year on each property, the $200,000 wouldn’t go a long way.
“I think that’s a bigger conversation,” she added.
Medina also commented that grant funding oftentimes comes with “a lot of handcuffs” with trying to stay in compliance with certain restrictions that may be imposed.
“I’m not really for chasing grants to chase a grant,” she said, noting there is “cheaper money” available.
Lashbrooke mentioned the PSCDC initially took on housing as a project because it was asked to and that there wasn’t much else going on in the community other than the Rose Mountain Townhouse project.
She noted that workforce housing became an economic development issue all over the state, “but it’s not meant to be a forever thing.”
She also commented that she attempted to work with the ACHA early in the process before considering the land banking financing loan option, but that “there was just some miscommunication there.”
In response to a question from Commissioner John Ranson, ACHA board vice chairman Clifford Lucero explained that if the language in the land banking grant/loan states the lots can be transferred, “then it’s fine.”
Commissioner Warren Brown explained that he has been on the PSCDC since it started its housing project, which was intended to support the “missing middle” class, noting that it’s difficult for those folks to afford to live in the county, “but yet we need their skilled labor to provide all the services from end to the other.”
He added that if the Bonita properties are transferred to the ACHA, “I think that we need to have kind of the same expectations that have been placed on the [PSCDC],” in regard to a timeline for build out and a request for proposal (RFP) process.
“Obviously the housing authority has experience in this,” Medina commented, while also praising the PSCDC’s work in its first phase of its workforce housing project, which built 10 homes.
She went on to explain that now the ACHA is “willing to take on this new opportunity,” noting that it’s the “right thing to do” with the Bonita properties to let the PSCDC get back to economic development and have the ACHA do a housing project.
Medina also commented on Brown’s point of wanting financial updates and reports from the ACHA, noting the BoCC typically doesn’t get that from the PSCDC, other than a quarterly update.
“Those are things we typically don’t get; that’s not information we’ve received,” she said.
Questions about the county’s and PSCDC’s requirements for the More Housing Now grant that awarded $1.9 million to the county in 2024 from the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) were raised in regard to if 45 homes would need to be built or if simply providing the infrastructure to 45 lots would meet the requirement.
Lashbrooke indicated that DOLA Regional Manager Patrick Rondinelli wanted to renew the contract, while Medina noted that, according to what is actually written in the contract, the requirement should be met by simply having the infrastructure provided to at least 45 lots.
Brown then asked, “Do we have reason to believe the [PSCDC] would not perform?”
He also commented that the PSCDC took on a housing project “that’s never been done here before by a single entity, government or private.”
Medina mentioned that Lashbrooke and the PSCDC board have previously expressed that it’s time for them to get out of housing.
“This is the Housing Authority’s lane. They’re able and willing to do it,” she said.
Medina also mentioned that she didn’t know the ACHA “actually existed” and that the county did not approach them originally “because … I didn’t know that they really existed, that they were an actual Archuleta County Housing Authority.”
Medina explained that it is not about the PSCDC doing anything wrong or not performing, but that it’s not necessarily its lane.
She commented that it “just makes sense” to have the ACHA perform a housing project with everyone staying in their own lane and doing “what needs to be done.”
Brown agreed with Medina’s comments about entities staying in their own lane, unless there is a need that is not being filled.
Brown mentioned that the ACHA historically has been involved in low-income housing projects.
ACHA Executive Director Anissa Griego explained that the Rose Mountain Townhome project serves residents in the 30 to 60 percent AMI range, while the project currently under construction near Walmart will serve either 30 to 60 percent or 40 to 80 percent AMI levels.
Griego also noted the ACHA was able to obtain a $1 million grant to renovate its Casa De Los Arcos property.
“So, we have our hands in a whole bunch of housing,” she said.
Brown explained that he has “no issues” with donating the Bonita properties, but commented that the county needs to be careful about the remaining properties that have already been donated to the PSCDC, “because that’s not the commissioners lane, speaking of staying in our lane — that’s the board decision with the [PSCDC]. They’re not owned properties by the county.”
Brown also mentioned that he has no doubt that the ACHA would be able to complete a project on the Bonita properties.
Brown then commented that he would like to get input from other people involved in this project, such as the homeowners and other locals, to see what the community “can collectively do.”
“I don’t really think it’s … a local conversation. I think it’s the county gave the lots to the [PSCDC],” Medina commented, noting that she has heard from multiple PSCDC board members that they are ready to get out of the housing business.
Medina went on to mention the housing needs assessment recently adopted by the BoCC and Pagosa Springs Town Council shows there is a need for rentals, “and we don’t have that.”
She explained that it’s not the goal to keep everyone in rentals, but that it is a first step in being able to build up and save to afford to purchase a home.
The discussion was interrupted with Rondinelli joining via phone to provide information and clarification on the More Housing Now grant requirements.
He explained that the grant is for infrastructure to be built to support affordable housing, and technically there is “nothing that says you guys couldn’t consider transferring who’s building the homes — there’s nothing in the contract that would say you can’t do that.”
He mentioned that the BoCC should consider the expectations when it was awarded the grant that the county would be on “a pretty aggressive schedule” to try and get 10 plus homes built each year.
He commented that even though that is not a requirement built into the grant, “that expectation is currently associated with this contract.”
Rondinelli went on to explain that “if you’re still able to meet that plan, great, we’re good,” noting the county knows what’s best for its community.
He confirmed that, according to the language in the grant, the only recruitment is that 45 single-family home lots in the Trails and Chris Mountain II neighborhoods would be provided with the infrastructure needed to develop the properties.
Brown asked if the county were to “draw the line” at just providing infrastructure to the lots, if that might affect future grant considerations.
Rondinelli explained it’s not an easy yes or no answer, explaining there are multiple factors that could affect that.
As long as the county continues to strive to meet the goals and stays in communication with DOLA, “we’re fine with that,” he said.
Lucero chimed in noting that the ACHA has history building and that the Colorado Division of Housing built approximately 100 homes in the southwest region during the 1980s and ‘90s.
Lashbrooke commented that she does not mind who builds the homes, but that her main concern is not wanting to obligate the ACHA to build 45 homes if that is not something it is capable of doing.
Ranson noted that he has confidence in the ACHA and Lucero, while Medina noted that 10 of the 45 homes have already been completed.
Lashbrooke added that five more homes are about to go under contract to build.
In a later interview, Lashbrooke explained that the PSCDC voted via email to approve a contract with BWD Construction to have five more homes built as part of the phase two of the PSCDC housing project.
Lashbrooke explained that, according to the PSCDC’s bylaws, the board is allowed to conduct a vote on matters via email.
“So, our board made a decision that they would entertain a contract with the contractor for phase two,” Lashbrooke said during the July 16 work session.
She noted the PSCDC initially considered other options as the contract with BWD included a 3 percent increase in costs, but that the board asked BWD to reconsider and “they were able to reduce their costs.”
Lashbrooke noted that modular options have been “ruled out” for now.
Lashbrooke also explained that the PSCDC board has expressed concern in releasing the liability of 45 homes having to be built and would want to be reimbursed for holding costs.
“There’s money owed on the properties at this point,” she said.
Lashbrooke also commented that she was not “fighting” to keep the lots, but that she just wants “to do the right thing.”
She added, “I have only tried to work with the housing authority.”
During the July 16 meeting, three items were tabled from the new business portion of the agenda, which included making a decision on the resolution to donate the Bonita properties, the land banking financing loan/grant and consideration of support for the PSCDC to donate 10 to 15 lots to the ACHA.
Before the matters were tabled, the BoCC initially considered the resolution to donate the Bonita properties, with Brown commenting that donating the properties for workforce housing to be developed would be more beneficial to the community than accepting a $1,500 bid on each property.
“We would benefit more as a community to donate these parcels of land, to have workforce and low income housing developed on them, than we would for selling these and accepting some of these bids that are ridiculously low,” he said.
Medina explained that if the properties are donated to the ACHA — a quasi-governmental entity — the properties would be restricted for workforce housing.
Ranson motioned to approve the resolution, but ultimately rescinded his motion.
Lashbrooke interjected after Ranson’s initial motion, asking how the BoCC could consider the resolution before considering accepting the land banking financing grant/loan.
Lashbrooke went on to explain that the PSCDC had heard comments that the community was unhappy with the donation of the properties and that the land banking funds could be used to purchase the properties, with the county then setting that money aside in the workforce housing fund.
“I thought it looked better for the community,” she said, explaining the $200,000 would come as a grant, indicating the requirements would be fulfilled.
She went on to state that she was not trying to overcomplicate things and that she is excited about the ACHA taking on a project, “but is this county so rich we can throw away this $200,000 that could help everybody that’s working on workforce housing? I don’t believe we should throw this grant away.”
“It’s not that the county is so rich we can turn down a grant,” Medina replied, indicating that the ACHA has expressed there are other grant opportunities available.
Medina added that by accepting the land banking funding, it might obligate the ACHA to something it may not be comfortable with.
Ranson indicated he was “struggling” with the matter.
Brown indicated that it would not obligate the ACHA to anything as the PSCDC would be taking on the loan/grant.
Ranson also mentioned that he wanted to speak with the ACHA about the matter.
The items were then tabled with the intention of holding a special meeting on July 22 to make a decision.
Lucero and Griego joined the BoCC during a work session held on July 22, with Lucero commenting, “this has come a long ways.”
He also indicated the ACHA will look for a grant “that will fit for the project that we’d like to do, which would be single-family homes.”
He noted the homes could be either rental or for sale, depending on the grant that the ACHA goes after.
Lucero commented that the ACHA’s vision is to have something that fits the community with units that are not all “the same build.”
Griego commented that, “Obviously we have proven that we can develop these properties,” noting the ACHA is excited for the opportunity for another project.
Brown asked when the ACHA would anticipate starting a project and how many units it may build.
Lucero explained that the hope is to apply and hear back for a grant by the end of the year, to be able to start a project next year, noting there are potential savings when building in volume.
“Volume is where you can build cheaper,” he said, explaining that next year the ACHA might not build any homes, but, depending on grants, it might build 11 units the following year.
Ranson mentioned that “rentals, to me, would be big.”
Medina noted that Lashbrooke was not in attendance during the July 22 work session, but explained that Lashbrooke had informed Brown and Ranson that the PSCDC board decided to withdraw its landbanking loan/grant application.
Brown commented that the PSCDC took on a substantial financial risk to get its project started and that he would like to see the ACHA commit to having at least one unit built per year “to have some skin in the game.”
Medina replied, saying, “I find that question a little rude.”
She explained that the PSCDC was not asked the same question and that the BoCC was “very generous when those properties were given.”
“We never asked that of the [PSCDC] and they had no track record of building,” she added.
Griego explained that the Bonita lots are not that large and that some of the lots may have to be consolidated in order to build on them.
Brown clarified that he had no intention of offending anyone with his question and that it was a “business-related question.”
Lucero noted that the goal is to have a project underway within two years.
Ranson commented that Brown’s question wasn’t offensive, but that he knows Lucero well and he has “no reservations” about the ACHA being able to successfully complete a project.
“Everything’s on the table and I think that’s what needed to happen,” Lucero commented.
During the July 22 special meeting, the BoCC unanimously approved the agenda, removing the item to consider accepting or rejecting the land banking financing loan/grant.
Harper presented the Bonita property resolution to the BoCC, explaining that the county agrees to pay holding and tap fees on the properties until units are developed.
According to language included in the July 22 special meeting agenda under the resolution to approve donating the Bonita properties, “This agenda item requests that the Board approve the donation of eleven vacant land lots on Bonita Drive for development as low-income housing. The County intends to pay the TAP fees and Authority fees on the lots until such time as development is complete.”
Harper then reviewed multiple changes to the resolution that were made after it was posted on the county’s website on July 18.
Harper explained that one of those changes includes changing language to reflect that the county received a request to transfer the lots. He also noted that public interest would be served by transferring the lots for affordable housing and that the properties will be deed restricted for full-time residents who qualify for workforce housing.
Harper also noted that under “item c” of the resolution, the county agrees to pay PAWSD and PLPOA fees.
Brown questioned if the county is agreeing to pay holding fees or tap fees, with Harper indicating just holding fees.
Brown then explained that he intended to abstain from voting on the matter. The resolution was then approved with Ranson and Medina voting in favor.
clayton@pagosasun.com
>