Metropolitan districts, known as metro districts, will not be allowed within town boundaries any time soon.
The Pagosa Springs Town Council unanimously decided to maintain the status quo, not allowing metro districts, at its June 3 meeting, after hearing a string of public comments imploring the council to deny metro districts within town limits.
After hours of deliberation over several meetings, a work session, a joint work session with the town’s planning commission, as well as detailed presentations from Development Director James Dickhoff and Town Attorney Bob Cole, the council came to its conclusion: Now is not the time to allow metro districts.
The council was spurred to make a decision after the developers of the proposed Pagosa West subdivision, Montrose-based Arena Labs LLC, pursued the formation of a metro district to finance the development, across U.S 160 from City Market.
Since a metro district is a type of special district in Colorado, and is another governmental entity existing within another jurisdiction, it gives metro districts access to low-interest loans to finance development, which would be paid back by future property owners through the district’s authority to collect extra property taxes.
Over the course of the meetings and work sessions, this tool has been described by those opposed to metro districts as a financial scheme that lifts the burden of financing development off of the developer and puts it, instead, on the backs of property owners.
During public comment, critic Jane Weitzel remarked, “If the developer can’t fund this development himself, then he has no business developing it.”
Part of the council’s deliberations on the matter included coming to a consensus on the question of what “extraordinary benefit” the town would gain if it allows metro districts.
The council agreed that adding workforce housing (Pagosa West proposes 88 apartment units qualifying as workforce housing, for example) would be the largest benefit gained if metro districts were allowed within town limits.
The build-out of a secondary road network, as an alternative to the highway, was also seen by the council as a potential benefit for allowing metro districts.
If the council were to decide it wanted to allow such districts, then it would need to draft a policy that requires metro districts to achieve these stated town benefits, Cole and Dickhoff have stated at multiple meetings.
Ultimately, the benefits were not seen to outweigh the potential risks of allowing metro districts within the town’s boundaries at this time.
Planning commissioner Mark Weiler said, at the May 29 joint work session, that it seems that all of the benefits would flow to the developer, “trying to get a lower interest rate,” and that the “extraordinary benefit” of adding workforce housing is “not worth the cost or risk.”
Weiler implored the council, who is ultimately responsible for making the decision, to “just say no. We should help the people who already live here.”
At the same work session, council member Brooks Lindner noted that, on the issue of workforce housing, the town is already taking steps to add to the housing inventory with its Enclave project near Walmart and other projects still in the works.
Lindner added that the public comments he heard at the June 3 meeting made some “compelling arguments,” and that he was moving in the direction of “not wanting to support this at this time.”
One of his main concerns is that future residents of a metro district would be overly tax burdened, and this would create a tax-averse voter base within town limits that would make it harder for the town to gain voter support for major town infrastructure needs in the future, Lindner indicated.
Council Member Leonard Martinez also appeared to be moving in the direction of opposing metro districts at this time.
“Basically … I don’t think it’s in our strategic interest to have another micro-authority within our community. I’m not in support of metro districts in this form,” Martinez said.
Council member Gary Williams reiterated a sentiment that he’s expressed since the issue first came up — that he wants the focus of growth and development to be centered downtown, not uptown.
“Keep the center of growth downtown, as a vital, central place people can enjoy,” Williams said, also suggesting that the town should “refocus our legal efforts to revamp the [Urban Renewal Authority].”
Public commenters at the meeting pointed to several “horror stories” from other metro districts in Colorado and elsewhere.
There are approximately 2,473 metro districts currently in Colorado, according to a presentation by Town Attorney Bob Cole.
Several metro districts exist within Archuleta County (Alpha Rock Ridge, Aspen Springs and Timber Ridge, for example), but public commenter Sharon Carter pointed out that these metro districts were set up to serve specific “public services,” such as maintaining roads, adding that she couldn’t see anything in this proposal that serves such a purpose.
Carter added, “The decision you will make tonight is extremely consequential.”
Public commenter Terri Pritchard urged the council, “Listen to the people who live here. We’re trying to tell you things. We don’t need any more stress on this town. Stop pandering to the tourists. Don’t let this Pagosa West disaster happen.”
Mayor Shari Pierce later reminded the audience that denying the developers of Pagosa West the ability to form a metro district would not kill the subdivision proposal.
“If a private developer purchases that land and follows the guidelines we have in place through our Land Use and Development Code, they may still develop that land,” Pierce explained.
An earlier agenda document describes Pagosa West as “a residential and mixed-use commercial development located in Pagosa Springs, situated on a +/- 100-acre site along the south frontage of US Highway 160, between South Pagosa Blvd and Pinon Causeway.”
The applicant — represented at public meetings by David and Heidi Dragoo — proposes “a multi-phased subdivision development with full build-out occurring over the next 10 plus years,” the document states.
When council member Mat deGraaf made a motion that “we no longer pursue metro districts for the Town of Pagosa Springs,” it was seconded by Martinez.
However, several on the council felt uncomfortable with the language of the motion because it appeared to limit future consideration of the metro district issue.
Council member Madeline Bergon explained that she was against allowing them today, but that she was still interested in learning more about the issue and doesn’t want to restrict future councils from exploring the option down the road.
Martinez noted that he did not intend his seconding of the motion to “close the door” to future consideration, so he rescinded his seconding of the motion.
Lindner suggested that the council should just state, “simply, we’re not going to pursue it at this time,” with deGraaf restating the motion: “I move that the Town of Pagosa Springs does not want to pursue metro districts at this time.”
The motion was seconded and passed unanimously by the council.
