We’re continuing our discussion of the way our governments are handling money in Pagosa Springs. Some of the revenues come from local residents, businesses, and property owners. Some of the money comes from taxes on visitors.
The spending of tax money extracted from Pagosa visitors is essentially assigned to an appointed board called the Pagosa Springs Area Tourism Board. The board has nine members, four at-large members and five recommended by various community boards — one each from the Realtors Association, the Chamber of Commerce, the Lodging Association, the Board of County Commissioners and the Town Council.
Except that to my knowledge, the Lodging Association no longer exists?
From the Town of Pagosa Springs’ Municipal Code:
The Pagosa Springs Area Tourism Board is a citizen’s advisory committee to the Pagosa Springs Town Council and Archuleta County Board of County Commissioners. The purpose of the Tourism Board is to make specific recommendations relative to expenditures of the 4.9% Lodging Tax in Town and the 1.9% Lodging Tax in the County. The Tourism Board shall ensure that all requests for funding from the Town’s Lodging Tax revenues meet the criteria established by Section 16.4.11 of the Town of Pagosa Springs Municipal Code.
Legally, the Tourism Board merely advises the Town Council on expenditures. In reality, I’ve never heard the Council question an expenditure proposed by the Tourism Board. But it could happen someday… in theory.
At the Tourism Board budget retreat held this past Tuesday afternoon (with no members of the public in attendance, other than myself), the Board discussed the problem of declining revenues.
Executive Director Jennie Green proposed that Lodgers Tax revenues will be 20%-30% lower in 2024 than what was collected in 2021 and 2022. Lodgers Tax collections increased dramatically in 2020 and 2021, during the COVID crisis, following many years of gradual increases.
Tax collections were down slightly in 2022. Ms. Green suggested a further decline in 2023 and 2024, maybe back to 2019 levels. About $1.1 million per year?
The COVID crisis is basically over, and Pagosa Springs — a small town in the middle of nowhere — might seem less attractive as a result.
It might also, however, raise questions about the effectiveness of the Tourism Board. Between 2020 and 2022, the Board spent over $4.1 million promoting tourism to Pagosa Springs. If we take inflation into account, $1.1 million in 2024 is not quite the same as $1.1 million in 2019. In fact, just to stay ‘even’ with inflation, the tax revenues in 2024 would need to be about $1.4 million to be comparable to 2019.
That implies that — according to Ms. Green — we can expect to see fewer tourist in 2024 than we saw in 2019, prior to the COVID crisis.
Following such a massive investment — $4.1 million over the most recent three years — why would we see less tourism next year, than in 2019? This question was not discussed by the Tourism Board at their retreat on Tuesday, so I have no idea if the Board members have similar concerns.
If the Tourism Board had, instead, spent $4.1 million helping to subsidize workforce housing during 2020 through 2022, perhaps the tourism industry and all other businesses and organizations in Archuleta County might not be struggling quite so hard to find employees.
But the money was spent subsidizing motels, restaurants, rafting companies, and short-term rentals.
The Tourism Board are dedicated volunteers. Unlike government employees, they did not get paid to spend $4.1 million. I believe they are honestly trying to do the right thing. But I’m compelled to ask the question. If the Tourism Board had chosen to support tourism industry workers… instead of tourism industry capitalists… would their 2024 budget outlook be any different?
Certainly the outlook for tourism workers would be brighter.
Meanwhile, it’s entirely possible that $4.1 million spent, by the Tourism Board, on marketing, tourist infrastructure, and events, has had very little effect on the number of people visiting Pagosa Springs.
No one on the Board seems interested in researching that possibility.
Of course, the Town Council — a board charged with enhancing the general livability of our community, rather than only with the profitability of the tourism industry — makes the final decision about the expenditure of Town Lodgers Tax. The Town Council could take the tourism tax revenues ‘by the horns’, if they were so inclined.
Leaving the decision in the hands of the tourist industry representatives on the Tourism Board, we might get a 2024 tourism budget that looks something like this:
1. Staff, Travel, Training, $400,000
2. Marketing, $400,000
3. Visitor Center, $40,000
4. Events funding, $100,000
5. Informational signs and other infrastructure, $100,000
6. Fireworks, $40,000
The Tourism Board also discussed, at their retreat, the idea of setting aside $500,000 into a special account, to begin saving up for a future “Events Center”. Where this “Events Center” would be located, and what exactly it would provide, was not discussed at the Tuesday retreat.
I will mention that Pagosa Springs already has at least seven dedicated “Events” venues, most of which sit mostly vacant and unused, except for certain parts of the year.
1. The Pagosa Spring Center for the Arts
2. The Tennyson Events Center
3. The PLPOA Clubhouse
4. The Ross Aragon Community Center
5. The High School Auditorium and Lobby
6. The Harman Arena at the Fairgrounds
7. The Liberty Theatre
Most of these events venues are privately financed. Does the Tourism Board really feel a need to go into competition with private businesses, using local tourism taxes?
Additionally, we have numerous “tent events” held at Town Park and Reservoir Hill Park, as occasions arise.
Another discussion at the Tourism Board retreat concerned plans to contribute $200,000 towards a roof for a struggling community ice rink that has been operating for a couple of months each winter in South Pagosa Park, operated mainly by volunteers. The non-profit group hoping to purchase the ice rink structure — Pagosa Springs Multi-Purpose Pavilion — does not yet have a location for the structure, although the latest discussions at Town Hall have suggested a location near the new pickleball courts south of Yamaguchi Park …(courts which were, themselves, subsidized by the Tourism Board.)
The number thrown around for the Pavilion is in the $2 million range.
Who would provide that $2 million is not immediately clear.