At its June 11 board meeting, the Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD) Board of Directors heard and denied a request for a reduction of back availability fees owed due to the separation of two lots at 445 Saddle Circle.
Owner of the properties Kirk Bliss spoke to the board, explaining that he has owned the lots for approximately seven years and that they were combined for PAWSD purposes by a 1994 resolution, although the lots were never formally combined.
He stated that this resolution ceased the payment of availability fees for the unoccupied lot but that both addresses remain active and have continued to pay Pagosa Lakes Property Owners Association (PLPOA) fees.
He commented that he believes that the resolution is invalid since the lots were never combined by Archuleta County and PAWSD’s regulations on lot consolidations must occur “in accordance with applicable Archuleta County requirements.”
Bliss then requested that he only have to pay the back availability fees for the time that he has owned the property if the lots were uncombined or that he would be allowed to pay the 32 years of back availability fees owned at their original rates instead of the current PAWSD rate.
He added that availability fees have increased 40 percent in the last four years, partially driving his desire to be charged at the original rates.
The combination resolution that Bliss claimed was invalid states that uncombining the lots would cause the district to charge the owner all back availability fees at the present rates.
Bliss added that the back availability fees currently total $14,722 and the property is worth about $30,000.
PAWSD Programs Manager Renee Lewis explained that, in the 1990s, PAWSD was receiving pressure from PLPOA and Fairfield to consider informal lot consolidations instead of requiring consolidations to go through the Archuleta County lot consolidation process, as PAWSD had previously required.
Lewis stated that some of this pressure came due to the fact that many of the lots in PLPOA were not buildable and owners would buy multiple lots and build a home on one or multiple lots before combining them to reduce fees from PAWSD and other entities.
She indicated that informal lot consolidations were frequent and memorialized by resolutions and attached to the property’s PAWSD account.
The lots in question are combined with Archuleta County for tax purposes, according to the county assessor’s office, Lewis added.
Bliss interjected that the taxes for the properties are paid as one bill but that there are two separate tax bills, one for each lot — an arrangement which he stated he could provide proof for.
Lewis stated the informal lot consolidations did not require that the property go through the formal county process.
She added that PAWSD no longer performs informal lot consolidations and properties are required to go through the county process to gain the availability fee reduction.
“I’m confused,” said PAWSD board chairman Gene Tautges, referring to the question of whether or not the properties are combined.
Lewis reiterated that the assessor’s office indicated that the lots are combined.
“We’re going to closing next week and they’re two separate lots,” said Bliss, adding that the lots are charged at different tax rates but billed together.
He added that PAWSD regulations, including dating back to the 1990s, require that the properties must be combined at the county level, which never occurred.
Lewis commented that there was not an exhibit to the resolution showing this, but the property owner who signed the document would have had to show that they combined the lots, but would not have had to show the formal consolidation costs.
PAWSD board member Glenn Walsh commented that the situation appeared to not be unique and that actions with this set of properties could set precedent for a range of other properties.
Walsh asked if the PAWSD consolidation was memorialized in a way that could have been known to subsequent owners, which PAWSD staff confirmed.
Walsh commented that he was not looking at this issue from a legal perspective, but from a fairness or unfairness standpoint.
He questioned if Bliss was being “hit out of left field” or if it was merely a “convenient time” to raise the issue given the impending sale of one of the lots.
Bliss commented that the bill for availability fees was “shocking” in addition to the other costs of the sale.
PAWSD board member Bill Hudson asked why Bliss received the availability fee bill now.
Bliss replied that he is selling one of the lots with a house and that the other lot would be sold to build a house on, which would bring in revenue for PAWSD in the form of capital investment and tap fees.
“So, I was just trying to negotiate with the team internally at PAWSD, but they said they had to follow the letter of the law,” Bliss said. “Totally get it. They’re following the rule, they’re saying, ‘This is what you owe me if you want to do that.’ And I said I would like to talk because I think there could be some sort of resolution to where we all win.”
Walsh commented that he was “too verbose” previously, adding that if the fees arose unexpectedly he would have been sympathetic to Bliss’ request, but if the fees were well known he would see it like any other lot consolidation.
He added that he was unsure why the next person going through a lot unconsolidation should have to pay back availability fees if this request was accepted.
Walsh commented that the price tag of the fees appeared to be “upsetting,” but that many of PAWSD’s recent expenditures, such as its $45 million water treatment plant expansion project or its $10 million regulatorily required “unnecessary” wastewater treatment plant upgrade, were also upsetting, in addition to future upgrades.
“That’s the things we’re juggling,” he said.
Bliss replied that he heard Walsh’s point and that this was part of why his secondary request was to only have to pay the availability at their historical rates instead of the current rates.
He added that the fees only increased significantly since 2022 and that paying the increased fees for the entire 32-year period “seems a little unreasonable.”
Walsh commented that PAWSD did not raise availability fees for a long time while raising other rates and taxes since raising the fees was a highly “conversant” process with extensive public notice.
Tautges commented that he agreed with Walsh’s concerns about setting a precedent, but wondered if there was a compromise the board would support.
Hudson stated he would be comfortable with using the original rates instead of the current rates for the back-fee period.
Walsh commented that the district would be paid in 1998 dollars in 2026, which would have less benefit to the district than if it had gained this money when it was initially owed.
He added that, since the district is considering steep rate increases and surcharges, he did not see why it would carve out an exception for lot consolidations.
“We’re just spreading the pain here,” he said.
Lewis explained that availability fees are a vacant lot’s contributions to PAWSD’s debt and that this lot has not paid toward the district’s debt since 1994.
She added that the board honored the district’s policy at the last subdivision of a lot it considered in June 2025.
PAWSD board member Alex Boehmer commented that while the situation was “rough,” he agreed with Walsh’s concerns about PAWSD’s upcoming rate increases and setting a precedent of giving waivers.
Tautges then asked for a motion.
Boehmer moved to deny Bliss’ request, which Walsh seconded.
The board approved the motion 3-1, with Hudson in opposition.
josh@pagosasun.com
>