The Pagosa Fire Protection District (PFPD) Board of Directors signaled Tuesday a willingness to waive potential service impact fees for new housing developments aimed at assisting low- to moderate-income households, as well as those designated as affordable for the area’s workforce.
As the board continues weighing whether or not to impose the fees, its members heard comments from community members Tuesday night urging the district to consider exemptions for new housing builds aimed at solving what one audience member called a true crisis in the area.
“We don’t have a tourism crisis; we don’t have a recreation crisis; we don’t have an infrastructure crisis,” Bill Hudson said, addressing the board. “What we have is a housing crisis.”
“I would urge you to consider very deeply whether you need these impact fees, whether [they’re] going to discourage construction of homes, and whether you want to put in a 100-percent waiver for projects like the [Pagosa Springs Community Development Corporation, PSCDC] is doing and like [Habitat for Humanity] is doing,” he said.
Hudson’s comments echoed those made by Multijurisdictional Housing Coordinator Jeff Sams, who described some of the challenges his office has faced while building homes for the community’s workforce.
“To get homes built and have buyers qualify for them is very difficult,” Sams said. “All the costs and everything adds up, and every little bit counts.”
If results from the recently completed Housing Needs Assessment Survey confirm PSCDC expectations, Sams indicated many more homes are still needed in the area.
“We’re all expecting that number to be in the hundreds,” Sams said. “So, while we understand the fire district’s need for additional funding, we are hoping that a waiver would be considered, or a petition process in place, for projects that are workforce housing related.”
The fees, scheduled for vote by the PFPD board at its Feb. 4 meeting, would impact new residential and commercial developments within the district, and consist of the following:
• For a new single-family dwelling, a fee of $1,426.
• For a new multifamily dwelling, a fee of $1,104.
• New commercial and other industrial units would be charged 65 cents per square foot.
If passed, those fees would go toward funding expansions to PFPD facilities and equipment — expansions board member James Martin identified as imminently necessary.
“In order for this group of people to continue providing an adequate level of support, it’s going to get more and more difficult,” Martin said. “You’re expanding the county out and it’s going further and further; our call times are getting harder and harder.”
He added, “They’re going to have to have another facility at the other end of town in order to maintain a good response time, and how we get there is the hardest part for the chief to figure out right now.”
Martin acknowledged that the impact fees, which are estimated to bring in roughly $150,000 annually, would not in themselves be enough to fund solutions to some of those challenges.
“The reality is, this [the fee schedule] isn’t the only thing we’re going to have to do to get there. Whether it’s sales tax, whether it’s grants ... these things all have to be studied and they have to be done in the short term. You don’t have three or four years to wait to find out. We’re growing way too fast right now here for the services — and that includes EMS, as well. So, tough call.”
What other campaigns the district may have to stage spoke to concerns relayed to PFPD board member Wayne Hooper, who suggested that imposing impact fees now may limit the district’s ability to ask the public for funds in the future.
“We just have to weigh that out when we vote,” said Hooper.
He summarized some of the feedback he’s heard from community members about the potential fees.
“California all over again,” Hooper recalled, distilling conversations he’s heard around the community. “I talked to a lot of people. They want a choice. They want to know what we’re spending the money on. They just want to be asked and have a say.”
Martin and Hooper, as well as Fire Chief Robert Bertram, agreed that fee waivers for low- to moderate-income households, as well as for new affordable workforce housing developments, were not off the table of consideration.
“If it is approved, I personally like the idea of exempting our workforce housing, employee housing — I think they’re doing a great job,” Hooper said. “We’re trying to get people in here, and I would hate to make that more difficult or make it impossible.”
“There should be a pathway for low-cost housing,” Martin later added. “I tend to agree that we need to look at that real strongly.”
Should the fees be adopted, any waivers extended would be at the district’s “sole discretion,” according to PFPD’s attorney, Dino Ross, who added that the PFPD would also have authority to define the terms.
“You have the ability, in your sole discretion, to determine whether or not you will waive fees for low- and moderate-income housing or affordable employee housing,” Ross said. “Under the statute, it says that you as the board will define what qualifies for those terms.”
Ross recommended those definitions be outlined in a freestanding policy or resolution that could later be adopted after the impact fees are approved.
Asked if the district could also define exemption criteria for other local entities, such as nonprofits, Ross responded in the negative.
“There’s nothing else in the statute that allows you discretion to kind of pick and choose among other types of organizations,” Ross explained. “This waiver is solely with respect to low- and moderate-income housing.”
Looking ahead to the February vote, board member Ryan Foster encouraged the board to “get some definitions together and look at those for a potential waiver, for sure.”
“I think we’re all in agreement with that,” Martin responded. “It’s pretty simple.”
garrett@pagosasun.com
