Photo: The Pagosa Springs Area Tourism Board meeting, September 17, 2024.
Yes, it’s budget season again. Maybe we ought to be wearing orange hunting vests?
Yesterday in Part Two, we touched very briefly on the draft budgets for a couple of local government agencies — the San Juan Water Conservancy District and the Pagosa Springs Area Tourism Board. I mentioned that one of the Tourism Board members — Town Council member Gary Williams — had made a recommendation to revise the way the Town’s Lodging Tax is allocated, and how the Tourism Board is funded.
Mr. Williams had made his recommendation last month at a Town Council work session, following an introduction by Mayor Shari Pierce.
Mayor Pierce:
“So our next agenda item is the Lodgers Tax revenues and expenditures. I just want to start this discussion by saying, this is in no way saying that the Tourism Board is not doing a good job, because they are. But I think it’s more, us looking strategically at this resource that we have, and this industry that’s so important to our community. And also, the pressures that it brings on our community and on our infrastructure.
“I think it’s our responsibility to periodically look at these things, as a Council. And I’ve asked Council member Williams to start the discussion…”
This may be the first time I’ve heard one of our elected community leaders come right out and say it: that there are, in fact, negative effects to tourism. Sure, I’ve heard local residents — ordinary people — complain about tourism and tourists, but our local government leaders have tended to treat tourism the same way the timber industry was treated, here in Pagosa, during the first half of the 20th century: as a sacred cow that brings only benefits.
Council member Williams:
“It’s been very pleasant serving on the Tourism Board for the past two years, because it’s such an integral part of the community. Funding events, and things going on; it’s a lot of fun having your fingers on what’s going on in town, that we need money for.
“But, I was thinking, we spend a little over $1 million a year on tourism…”
Actually, the proposed budget for the Tourism Board is closer to $1.5 million.
“…and I’ve often wondered, is it well spent? I mean, is it effectively spent? And I thought, gee, with the Springs Resort bringing 78 new [hotel] rooms online, that could mean — given an occupancy rate of maybe 80% or so — like, $300,000 more per year [in Lodging Tax revenue.]
“And then Shane Prince, who’s on the Tourism Board from Wyndham, said they are about to put 110 units back online. So that’s more Lodging Tax.
“So I asked the Tourism Board the other day, ‘What would we do if we had $300,000 more?’ And nobody had a quick and ready answer.
“You can assume that we’re roughly running ‘at capacity’ during the peak seasons. So the Tourism Board tries to focus only on bringing people in during the shoulder seasons. So half the year is already fully booked. Or operating near capacity…”
My own research into the tourism industry suggests that we’re “at capacity” during July, and maybe “near capacity” around Christmas, if we have snow. That’s not exactly “half the year”. But I suppose we expect elected leaders to exaggerate now and then.
Mr. Williams:
“You don’t need to spend more than about $1 million a year on tourism marketing, to get people to come here… and that just dovetailed with CDOT getting ready to rebuild the highway through the middle of downtown. We need to quickly adapt or spending, as needs arise, and maybe it’s an appropriate use of Lodging Tax — especially if it’s going to be increasing in the next year — that maybe we should create a new part of the Tourism budget. Take a portion of the 4.9% that we contribute, and set it aside, to let Town Council decide how to use it…
“Because I think we [the Council] tend to adapt more quickly, and we can address issues in broader sense. The Tourism Board has kind of been narrowly focused in terms of, it’s trying to put heads in beds to directly benefit the tourist industry.
“So in the context of, this pool of money is going to get larger and larger, and the immediate needs related to CDOT and our ability to adapt to that, I wonder if we should consider sort of a ‘glide path’ for tourism, to level out, in terms of funding…”
This brings up an interesting situation. When a person agrees to serve on a government or nonprofit board, that person owes a fiduciary duty to the community they are serving — including a duty to spend the community’s money in the best manner possible.
Often, that duty of loyalty is interpreted as an obligation to bring in as much money to the board as possible… which is to say, to be loyal to the board itself, rather than to the community as a whole.
This interpretation was evident at the Tourism Board meeting on Tuesday, when Mr. Williams was accused, by a couple of fellow Tourism Board members, of apparent ‘disloyalty’ for suggesting that Town Council make alternative uses of Lodging Tax revenues.
The situation is made even more interesting by the requirement that Mr. Williams be simultaneously loyal to Pagosa Springs’ full-time residents — as a Town Council member — and to the tourism industry — as a Tourism Board member.
Those two groups appear to have rather different needs and desires, from what I can tell.
But… do they really?
Read Part Four, on Monday…
Bill Hudson began sharing his opinions in the Pagosa Daily Post in 2004 and can’t seem to break the habit. He claims that, in Pagosa Springs, opinions are like pickup trucks: everybody has one.