I had a chance to chat briefly with our new Town Manager, David Harris, while we waited for folks to show up for the Pagosa Springs Area Tourism Board meeting on November 21. Mr. Harris is in the same boat I was in back in 1993 — new to Pagosa and wondering how things work here, and how best to fit in. Except he actually has a job… something I didn’t have when I moved here.
The great thing about not having a job: no responsibilities. But also, no money coming in.
The great thing about having a job: money coming in. But also, a pile of responsibilities, especially for a Town Manager.
The Tourism Board meeting itself was a bit weird. At the previous meeting I had attended, the Board had nine members. But a few days ago, the Town of Pagosa Springs and the Archuleta Board of County Commissioners signed a new Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) that — due to an stipulation assigning shorter Board member terms — caused the termination four of the nine members, and opened the Board for four new appointees. (The four terminated Board members are eligible to re-apply.) Reportedly, the Tourism Board will be advertising those vacant seats in the coming weeks.
Apparently, no one realized, when the IGA was signed, that it mandated the termination of four Board members. The terminated members sounded surprised to learn they were attending the November 21 meeting merely as ‘members of the public’ with no voting privileges.
Last year, the Colorado General Assembly changed the law governing the use of Lodging Tax by statutory county governments. House Bill 22-1117 expanded the allowed uses of county lodging taxes and Governor Jared Polis signed the bill into law March 31, last year. The law took effect on August 10, 2022. Previously, county governments could use lodging tax only for tourism marketing.
As mentioned previously in this editorial series, the allowed uses of Archuleta County Lodging Tax are, with voter approval, as follows:
(I) Advertising and marketing local tourism;
(II) Housing and childcare for the tourism-related workforce, including seasonal workers, and for other workers in the community; or
(III) Facilitating and enhancing visitor experiences.
The General Assembly recognized that counties who choose to subsidize a tourism economy with lodging taxes, often find themselves faced with social problems as a result — typically including a housing shortage for the community’s workers, and a shortage of affordable childcare options, arising from, among other things, spiraling housing costs, inflation and low wages.
Unlike our statutory County government, the Town of Pagosa Springs has been a Home Rule municipality since 2003, and as such, can freely use its 4.9% Lodging Tax to help address these two social problems. In fact, two years ago, it appeared likely that the Town Council was planning to do exactly that: redirect some of the Lodging Tax revenues towards housing solutions. On November 18, 2021, the Pagosa Springs Town Council considered Ordinance 964, which would have placed a ballot measure before the voters at the April 5, 2022 Town election.
Here’s the title of Ordinance 964, which Council had unanimously requested staff to bring to them, two weeks earlier:
An ordinance of the Town of Pagosa Springs submitting to the registered electors voting in the municipal election, to be held April 5, 2022, a ballot issue modifying the existing requirement that a majority (51%) of the Town Lodgers Tax be directed only for external marketing and allowing such funding to be redirected for workforce housing and town infrastructure, and contingent upon elector approval, amending the Pagosa Springs Municipal Code to provide for the same.
A previous Town Council had elected to establish a policy, directing the Tourism Committee to spend at least 51% of the Town’s Lodging Tax on ‘marketing’. It appeared that this policy could easily be changed by a simple majority vote of the current Council. However, some Council members felt the voters ought to be given a chance to weigh in on this type of change, since it significantly altered the Town’s approach to subsidizing the tourism industry.
Ordinance 964 produced considerable debate, at that meeting in 2021, in part because a local non-profit group, Pagosa Housing Partners, had promised to place a similar ordinance in front of the town voters at the April 5 election via the petition process, if the Town Council refused to take action on the proposed change.
Disclosure: I currently serve on the Pagosa Housing Partners board of directors, but this editorial reflects only my own opinions, and not necessarily the opinions of other Board members or of the Board as a whole.
Pagosa Housing Partners was also encouraging the Council to increase the fees charged to Short-Term Rentals (STRs) and use the added funding to subsidize workforce housing, and the Council directed their staff to present them with a proposed Ordinance that would do exactly that. That ordinance appeared as Ordinance 965 on November 2021.
In the end, the Town Council did not approve Ordinance 964 or Ordinance 965.
Pagosa Housing Partners did, in fact, circulate a petition onto the April 2022 ballot, proposing a sizable STR fee increase to be used to encourage workforce housing, and the ballot measure was approved by the Town voters. But a group of STR owners filed a lawsuit challenging the new fee, and the Town’s then-attorney, Clay Buchner, failed to effectively defend the desires of the Town voters. (Following that failure, Mr. Buchner was replaced as Town attorney.)
Pagosa Housing Partners did not circulate a voters’ petition to allow the Town to spend most of its Lodging Tax on addressing the housing crisis. Nor did the Town Council do so.
Now, with a new Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the Town and County… and a new Town Manager… and a potentially new composition on the Pagosa Springs Tourism Board…
…is it time to re-direct a portion of the more than $1 million a year in tax revenues from subsidizing tourism marketing… towards subsidizing housing and childcare for workers in the community…?
I think that’s a fair question.