At a March 12 meeting, the Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD) Board of Directors considered a request from Pagosa Springs Community Development Corporation (PSCDC) Executive Director Emily Lashbrooke for an exemption from the PAWSD’s affordable housing waiver policy for five homes constructed in 2024.
The PAWSD board previously granted capital investment fee waivers for these homes in 2024, but disputes between PAWSD and the PSCDC emerged about the area median income (AMI) limits attached to the waivers, with PAWSD arguing that the waivers were granted if the homes were sold to people below 80 percent AMI and the PSCDC arguing that the waivers had been granted for the sale of homes to people within the 80s for percent AMI.
Opening her presentation to the board, Lashbrooke expressed her desire to not “rehash anything” and stated that she wanted to “set the expectations” for the meeting.
“We are here to solve a problem and to stay on topic and not have a personal attack by anyone or anything, and I would just like to stay on the topic and stay on the problem solving and encounter you all to solve the problem of affordable housing,” she said.
Lashbrooke then presented the “agreement to disagree” over the differing interpretations of the events of the previous meeting.
She explained that, due to these differences in interpretation, the PSCDC was now in violation of PAWSD’s affordable housing fee waiver policy, which states that fee waivers can only be given for homes below 80 percent AMI, for five homes.
She stated that she was requesting an exemption from the policy for these five homes, which she stated had already been sold.
“I am asking for you to honor the intent of the agreement and permit these exemptions,” she said.
Lashbrooke noted that she had provided PAWSD with the addresses of the homes, the AMI of the people who purchased these homes and the deed restrictions for them, in addition to other requests from PAWSD.
She added that the homes came in “a little bit over” 80 percent AMI, with some being sold to buyers at 81 percent, 82 percent and 84 percent AMI.
“I’m asking you to honor what our gentlemen’s agreement was to waive these fees for phase one, offer me an exemption for those people that came in above 80 percent AMI and agree to disagree,” she said.
PAWSD board chairman Gene Tautges clarified that the exemptions had not been given yet and that the properties were technically in arrears.
He added that the board’s packet was 226 pages long and questioned if PAWSD received the appropriate documentation to confirm that certain homes met the requirements, adding that he did not have time to go through the 226 pages of the board packet.
Lashbrooke replied that the board had this information “in plenty of time for this board meeting.”
The board, PAWSD staff and Lashbrooke then discussed if the correct information was provided for all homes, with Tautges raising concerns that the information provided was not available and Lashbrooke claiming that it was provided.
Following a lengthy discussion, Lashbrooke clarified that some of the people listed in her documentation were not able to purchase homes, partially leading to the confusion, although additional issues were also raised about variations in the names of buyers listed on various documents.
PAWSD staff emphasized that these clarifications needed to be made and that they would need to compare documents with Lashbrooke to ensure the buyers were properly identified and that PAWSD could effectively track what accounts they are connected to.
Tautges thanked Lashbrooke for clarifying and proposed that the board needed to table the issue until the documents could be clarified before reiterating that the houses are currently in default.
He added that everyone has to follow the rules and that “we need to treat everybody the same.”
“I’m not trying to not follow the rules,” Lashbrooke replied, adding that she adhered to every request from PAWSD, even things that were “not required.”
“Yeah, and now we’re just adding another requirement,” Tautges said.
PAWSD board member Glenn Walsh noted that one of the objections to supporting affordable housing from other board members and staff was that PAWSD would get “dragged into this” and that staff would become “part-time housing coordinators.”
He added, “We really can’t have that, and I think that is starting to happen.”
Walsh stated that he would like to see a letter of qualification from a state-qualified authenticator and an AMI calculation that could be appended to the deed restriction for the property purchased.
He noted that he is sympathetic to affordable housing and willing to agree to disagree with the PSCDC, although he commented that he would have a different opinion about the situation if the houses were sold to people with higher AMI percentages.
Walsh concluded that he needs “very simple, straightforward documentation for every sale,” including the address of the property sold, an authentication letter for the property and a simplified AMI calculation.
He commented that this approach would reduce the number of documents that the board would have to look at when considering requests.
PAWSD board member Alex Boehmer expressed agreement with Walsh and added that the AMI levels for some properties appeared to have changed.
Lashbrooke explained that the certifier only calculates AMI for a potential buyer and does not know what property they are buying when they complete their certification.
She also stated that she refuses to “touch” the certification documents.
“Right, but you could take that certification and simply make it part of what you submit for that property,” Walsh said.
“Well, I could, but I would never do that,” Lashbrooke replied. “I would not even manipulate what you asked me to manipulate. I handwrote it because integrity is everything to me. I would not manipulate somebody else’s work; that is unlawful.”
“Please, you came in here asking for some forbearance and that we not … exchange insults, and now you’re suggesting that I was asking you to commit some kind of fraud?” Walsh interrupted.
Walsh then reiterated his request that a letter certifying the AMI of each buyer be included in the folder for the property that they purchased to clarify the situation.
“I really resent that you kind of took off with charging me with asking you to commit some kind of misrepresentation,” Walsh said.
“Well, I just want to be sure you understand that I would never, ever misrepresent somebody else’s work,” Lashbrooke replied, adding that she felt like this could be perceived as her manipulating someone else’s work. “I work very hard for this county, and that’s so ethically and morally wrong for me.”
PAWSD board member Bill Hudson weighed in, stating that Walsh’s suggestion would help PAWSD track the properties and ensure that they are not sold at a profit in the future and to help PAWSD justify its waivers in the future.
The group then discussed approaches to providing the appropriate information, eventually settling on Lashbrooke providing a letter of authentication for each purchaser and the deed restriction for the home they purchased, which links them to the home they bought.
Lashbrooke commented that she would be satisfied with this process and that this would be a fairly “seamless” process, although she noted that obtaining the specific AMIs for buyers requires additional work since their financial information is protected and requires an additional agreement from the buyer to disclose this information.
Boehmer then raised the possibility that, according to the documentation, Lashbrooke was actually asking for six waivers instead of five.
Lashbrooke stated that she was unsure of whether that was correct or not and would have to examine this issue.
Tautges asked how much money the waivers would cost PAWSD, to which staff responded that the waivers would cost approximately $160,000.
Hudson asked the board if the board would want to make a decision on the exemption requests or would want to wait until the paperwork is clarified.
Tautges and Boehmer stated that they felt the board would need to have the paperwork clarified before making a decision.
Walsh asked if the board felt that it would “agree to disagree” about the interpretation of the board’s AMI policies for these homes and grant the exemptions if the paperwork is clarified as expected.
Hudson and Tautges replied that reflected their opinions on the issue.
Following Lashbrooke providing two “fun facts” about the properties and clarifying the board’s request from her, Hudson asked if the board would be comfortable having PAWSD staff communicate the details of the request once clarifications are made.
Board members expressed comfort with this, but, after board member Bruce Jones expressed concerns about questions arising that only Lashbrooke could answer, Lashbrooke agreed to return to discuss the issue with the board when it is considered again.
josh@pagosasun.com
>