On Feb. 3, the Pagosa Springs Town Council approved two ordinances that will place two ballot questions before town voters in its April election.
One ballot question would amend the home rule charter on the maximum fine and maximum jail sentence for violations of town ordinances and regulations; the other would allow the town to incur debt in the form of a loan from the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) to fund disaster recovery related to the October 2025 river flooding.
On the possible change of the maximum fine and jail sentence for violations of town ordinances and regulations, Town Manager David Harris explained it as “charter language cleanup” that would make the town’s fines and sentences more in line with the state’s.
The ordinance states, “Recent amendments to Title 13 of the Colorado Revised Statutes have modified maximum fines and terms of imprisonment permissible in municipal court, and the Supreme Court of Colorado has found maximum sentences for certain non-felony offenses are a matter of mixed statewide and local concern, thus municipal penalties may not exceed the state caps for corresponding state offenses.”
The council has found that these changes “are appropriate and necessary for the function and operation of the Town to provide for municipal court penalties that are consistent with the maximum fines and penalties permitted by state law,” the ordinance states.
If passed, the charter would be amended to delete language in Section 6.6 - Penalties that currently states, “a fine or single violation shall not exceed $1000 and a jail sentence for a single violation shall not exceed one year.”
The language, if passed, would be replaced with, “Fines and jail sentences for violations shall not exceed the maximum fines and sentences by state or federal laws.”
Council member Madeline Bergon asked what would happen if the voters reject the change in language.
“We will cross that bridge if we get there,” Harris replied.
When a motion was made to approve the second reading of the ordinance, placing it on the April 7 ballot, it was seconded and passed unanimously by the council.
The ballot question about the town taking out a $3 million loan to help pay for its disaster flood recovery effort, after being denied Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) dollars in December 2025, received a lengthier discussion from the council.
At the previous meeting, Development Director James Dickhoff explained that, in the wake of being denied FEMA funding, the town has sought and found other ways to pay for the flood recovery efforts, most of which come from state programs.
However, Dickhoff stated that the town is still “about $3 million short” of its estimated cost to make the river “safe” ahead of the summer recreation season, even after all these alternative funding programs have been pursued.
He described the potential loan as a way to pay for what town staff identifies as “the unfunded portions of the river corridor recovery project,” adding that the intent is not to “reconstruct the river corridor to what it was before the flooding,” but to focus on “public safety” for those wanting to recreate in the river this spring and summer.
“We want to make sure it’s as safe as possible … We are really focusing on public safety and [riverbank] stabilization,” he said.
The total project cost of river cleanup and restoration following the October 2025 flood event is estimated to be just shy of $6 million, states Harris in correspondence with The SUN.
The CWCB loan would be a 30-year period and comes with a zero percent interest rate for the first three years, with about a 3.35 percent interest rate for the remaining 27 years of the loan period, an agenda document on the matter states.
This would amount to the town paying about $170,000 a year once the interest kicks in during the 27-year period, Dickhoff explained.
At the most recent meeting, Dickhoff explained that “nothing really has changed since you saw this ordinance last” at the first reading of the ordinance.
Council member Leonard Martinez asked why the town couldn’t just dip into its reserves to fund the recovery, instead of asking voters to incur more debt.
Harris replied, “We don’t want to deplete the reserve fund,” citing the need to have a reserve in case of an “emergency.”
He said the town shouldn’t use that fund “unless it is an absolute emergency.”
Dickhoff added that the town would not be required to borrow the full $3 million if it deems that the flood recovery effort would cost less, which “gives us some flexibility.”
Council member Brooks Lindner focused on the language around “safety,” asking if the ballot language would concentrate on this issue.
Dickhoff replied that “the ballot language was coordinated with our attorney ... to make sure that it met [Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights] requirements and statutory requirements as well.”
The ballot language itself does not specifically refer to “safety” in the river corridor, but instead states that the loan funds will be used “solely for costs of repairs and replacements associated with damages to the town’s public infrastructure caused by” the flood.
The language further states that the funds can be used for damages, “including but not limited to: roads, bridges, culverts, trails, San Juan River fisheries habitat improvement, San Juan River recreational improvements, [and] San Juan River channel sedimentation.”
The main question in the ballot language asks voters if the Town of Pagosa Springs’ debt should be increased up to $3 million with a repayment cost of up to $4,605,297.95 without imposing a new tax or increasing existing taxes, in the form of a flood impact loan from the CWCB.”
On the issue of safety in the river corridor, with the upcoming summer recreation season quickly approaching, Dickhoff explained that the town would be closely working with Southwest River Engineering, as well as Davis Engineering Services and outdoor river guides, to ensure that the river corridor is safe for the upcoming summer season.
Bergon noted that she is glad that specific language around “safety” is not in the ballot language, saying that it would open the town up “to potential liability issues.”
She added that there are “inherent risks” with recreating outside that “we cannot mitigate no matter what we do, so I would not want to give the voters the impression that we are taking away these inherent risks.”
Dickhoff added that, along with safety, a big priority of the recovery project would be to address the lack of “low-flow channels” that were wiped out in the flood, saying there are areas in the river “where we only have about 3 inches of water.”
“We will also be constantly looking for grants,” he said, adding that the CWCB funds would not be going to the entirety of the river recovery project.
When a motion was made to approve the second reading of the ordinance asking the voters to allow the town to take out a loan to fund flood recovery efforts, it was seconded and passed unanimously by the council.
Both ballot questions will appear on town voter ballots for the April 7 municipal election.
derek@pagosasun.com
>