The clerk at the grocery store yesterday made a comment about higher prices.
“The state increased our taxes without asking us,” he complained. I told him I hadn’t heard about this new tax increase.
“Yeah, you’re paying an additional 1% sales tax,” he explained.
Ah yes. The additional penny on every $1. But that’s not a state sales tax, I told him. That’s the new Town of Pagosa Springs sales tax, approved by the voters in November to help pay for repairs to a struggling sanitation system. The tax kicked in on January 1.
Will an additional 1% tax discourage us from buying stuff? Because we’re already a bit discouraged, and worried, by higher tariffs, and other economic and political changes.
Of course, the actual reasons for feeling worried are sometimes vague, especially when the data is slow in coming, as if often is.
Archuleta County Finance Director Chad Eaton released some sales tax data on January 7, but the numbers were from November. The report states that tax collections were down about 10% compared to November 2024.
Sales tax collections during 2025 were generally higher when compared to the same months in 2024, but how much of that increase was due to price inflation is not clear from the numbers the County reports. September collections, for example, were up almost 8%.
But October sales were down about 16% compared to October 2024.
When comparing the year-to-date collections — January through November 2025 compared to January through November 2024 — the County sales tax collections are up a little less than 2%… about $300,000 more than in 2024.
But inflation nationally grew at around 3% during 2025, indicating that the community’s sales tax collections lost ground over the year, calculated for “real dollars”.
The County sales tax is shared 50/50 with the Town of Pagosa Springs, according to an agreement approved by local voters. The Town’s new 1% sales tax, approved by municipal voters in November, is not shared with the County but is dedicated to repairs and upgrades to the Town sanitation system.
We can wonder whether the drop in sales during October and November indicate a general trend — people becoming more careful about their spending habits? — or if it was perhaps directly related to the San Juan River flooding in October, and a resulting decline in tourist visits?
Most readers will remember the two flood events that happened along the river in mid-October. The flood events caused damage to public and private infrastructure within the downtown and north and south of downtown along the San Juan River. The Town government applied for disaster funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in the amount of about $5.7 million to address the damage.
On Wednesday, January 7, the Town Council heard a presentation by Projects Manager Kyle Rickert, who noted that FEMA had refused the request. The slide indicated that Colorado’s U.S. Senators Bennet and Hickenlooper have requested a reversal of that ruling.
The Town did not cry over spilled milk, but instead submitted grant applications to other funding agencies, including the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and Colorado Office of Emergency Management (OEM), and received funding in the amount of about $3.8 million for embankment stabilization and debris removal.
One of the key embankment projects is adjacent to the Pagosa Springs Museum on 1st Street. This damage was particularly unfortunate because the Town has designed a pedestrian bridge to connect the Museum property to the River Center across the river to the east. Due to the flood damage, the bridge will now have to be redesigned at a somewhat longer length.
The NRCS/OEM grants require a $280,000 match from the Town government.
Another grant that will require a Town match — about $19,000 — has been submitted to the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB), requesting $121,000 for additional embankment stabilization.
Yet another grant, to the Colorado Fishing is Fun program, is for $329,000 to help dredge the sediment from the Town-owned ponds behind the River Center. The Town’s match will be about $99,000.
In order to facilitate these required grant matches, Town Community Development Director James Dickhoff recommended that the Town apply for a zero-interest loan from CWCB, for an amount yet to be determined. The Council would need to put it before the voters in an upcoming April election to be legally eligible to take out the loan. The loan would be at 0% interest for the first three years.
The Council directed staff to place such a debt authorization before the voters on the April ballot.
But before the Council vote took place on that ballot measure, Council member Gary Williams posed an interesting question to the Town staff.
Given that a flood is a natural occurrence — and given that the changes to the landscape along the river could also be considered “natural occurrences” — what would happen if the Town didn’t spend $5 million or more, trying to return the river corridor to its previous state?
What if we learned to live with the changes that nature has wrought?
Because it’s going to happen again, someday.
The Town staff didn’t think that was a feasible approach.
Mr. Dickhoff noted that “The river is an important part of our tourism portfolio and we need to get it cleaned up”… to make it safe, before summer hits, for those recreating in the river.
Of course, the staff has spent many hours writing grant applications, and the Town has spent millions of dollars over the past couple of decades, making the river corridor into a pleasant — if less “natural” — recreational landscape.
Nevertheless, I appreciate Council member Williams at least posing the question.