The Pagosa Springs Area Tourism Board is jointly authorized by the Pagosa Springs Town Council and the Archuleta Board of County Commissioners.
To summarize the main points from Parts One and Two, regarding the September 3 meeting of the Tourism Board:
1. The Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) approved by Town Council and the BOCC last Tuesday specifically mentions using Lodgers Tax revenues to address the housing crisis.
County and Town Funds disbursed from the Tourism Board shall be restricted to projects specifically identified as tourism-related, including, but not limited to:
- Tourism department staffing
- Visitor Center operations
- Promotion and visitor education of the destination
- Parks or Venues (additions, enhancements, upgrades)
- Trails
- Event-specific (festivals, pickleball, ice-skating, nordic skiing, etc.)
- Signage
- Holiday Lighting
- River Access
- Infrastructure
- Support of Workforce Housing
- Support of childcare or early childhood education
If we take this list as a prioritization with “most important” at the top and “least important” at the bottom — which may or may not be the case — it would indicate that “Trails” are more important to our elected leaders than “Workforce Housing”. Also, that “Holiday Lighting” and “Pickleball” and “Nordic Skiing” are more important.
Let’s hope that’s not the case. But it might well be.
2. When I proposed to the Tourism Board at their meeting that they set aside $400,000 from their projected $1.7 million 2026 budget to help support Workforce Housing, so that the employees who keep the tourism economy functioning can have actual dwellings to live in, I didn’t receive a positive response from the Board. Which is to say, I didn’t get any response at all… no sign from the gathered Board members, that they care deeply about our current housing crisis.
3. The rough budget estimates provided by the Tourism staff at the meeting did not include any mention of Housing. You can download the staff budget estimates here.
4. The newly formed Pagosa Lodgers Association LLC had submitted an alternative budget, a turn of events that may have taken some Board members by surprise. The Board had not requested an alternative budget proposal from anyone.
The Board did not discuss the Association’s budget suggestions at the September 3 meeting. So let’s discuss them here in the Daily Post. What are the main Association concerns? How would they like to see their industry subsidized next year?
You can download the Lodgers Association document here.
The Association focused specifically on the “Marketing” portion of the Tourism Board budget, which they estimate at about $540,000 for 2026. (Apparently, they’re not too concerned about what gets spent on Holiday Lighting and Pickleball.)
One interesting detail in the document. For several months, the Lodgers Association has refused to reveal their members, but the submitted budget proposal does finally contain the business names. Two ‘resorts’… six motels… two ‘cabin’ complexes… two RV parks… one bed & breakfast… and one ‘glamping’ operation:
Alpine Inn of Pagosa Springs
Elk Trace Bed & Breakfast
Fireside Cabins
Healing Waters Resort & Spa
High Creek Lodge & Cabins
Hillside Inn
Mountain Landing Suites & RV Park
Pagosa River Domes
RiverWalk Inn
The Drift Cabins
The Nightingale Motel
The Springs Resort
Wolf Creek Run RV Resort
According to Tourism Director Jennie Green, the Lodgers Association membership appears to represent about 400 rooms — out of an estimated 2,170 rooms in Archuleta County, when you include Wyndham rentals and vacation rentals. So maybe 1/5th of the lodging spaces? (This total doesn’t appear to count the actual “number of bedrooms” available in each vacation rental.)
From the document introduction:
This proposed 2026 tourism budget has been developed by the Pagosa Lodgers Association. It reflects how local lodging operators would like to see lodging tax revenues distributed in the coming year.
This recommendation directly supports the intent of the Town’s tourism ordinance, which defines the purpose of tourism as “…bringing visitors to our community for the purpose of increasing both lodging and sales tax revenues.” (Town Ordinance, Sec. 16.4.1 – Title and Intent). Furthermore, as outlined in Lodgers Tax Use: Sec. 16.4.11 – Use of Revenues, these allocations are structured to meet ordinance requirements by reinvesting in initiatives that generate measurable visitor growth and strengthen the community’s economic impact.
The following graphic illustrates, I think, the dissatisfaction that these 13 lodging enterprises are feeling about the way the marketing budget has been allocated this year. The blue bars reflect a portion of the existing 2025 marketing budget… and the red bars indicate the Association recommendations, which would shift advertising heavily towards Google, Meta, Microsoft, and other online advertising.
According to the Association, the Tourism Board is spending about $178,000 on “US Advertising/External Marketing”. They recommend increasing that budget to about $375,000.
(Which is surprisingly close to the $400,000 I told the Board they should allocate to support of Workforce Housing. Just a coincidence?)
From the document:
Why These Changes Matter
- Focus on domestic advertising to boost occupancy during shoulder seasons.
- Reduce spend in lower-performing international markets; redirect to proven channels.
- Leverage additional PR for cost-effective exposure through earned media and leverage community businesses/experiences.
- Funds reduced from International and CTO participation are reallocated into higher-performing domestic digital channels (Google, Meta, Programmatic) and expanded PR.
As mentioned, the word “housing” does not appear in the budget outline presented by the Tourism staff. Nor does it appear in the Lodgers Association document.
But that word does appear, for some reason, in the IGA approved by the Town and County last week. (Along with “Holiday Lighting” of course.) And the word “housing” appears, multiple times, in this Daily Post editorial.
I wish I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard an elected or appointed official say, “But housing is a problem everywhere…”
As if that makes Pagosa’s problem less significant?