A widely alleged “rift” between the lodging community and the city over enactment of a new citywide occupational lodging tax seems to be on its way to healing. Today, at the latest in a series of meetings between representatives of the local lodging industry and the city, the group agreed to support enacting ballot initiative 2B at the compromise rate of $2.50, despite voter approval of nearly twice that rate.
Since late September, the lodging community has been airing to city officials their fears of adverse effects as a result of the city’s proposal to fund recreational and cultural amenities with proceeds from an occupational lodging tax. On Nov. 4 voters passed the tax measure, known as 2B, by a count of 1,437 for, to 1,394 against. As presented on the ballot, passage of 2B authorizes the city to collect $4.82 per night per occupied room. Proceeds are earmarked to fund citizen-identified priorities outlined in the city’s recreation master plan adopted earlier this year, as well as cultural attractions such as the SteamPlant Theater and Event Center.
At the Nov. 17 city council meeting, council voted to enact 2B within a range from $2.50 to $4.82 pending further negotiations with the lodging community.
According to Recreation Advisory Commission Co-Chair Bill Smith, those present at today’s meeting informally agreed to support enactment of 2B at the $2.50 rate when the full city council considers the matter for final adoption at its next meeting Monday night, Dec. 1.
In addition to Smith, those at today’s meeting included rec commission Co-chair Mike Harvey, Councilman Hugh Young, Interim City Administrator Mike Copp, City Treasurer Greg Amidon, Salida Chamber of Commerce Director John Englebrecht, Monarch Mountain Marketing Director Greg Ralph and Monarch minority shareholder and de facto lodging industry spokesperson Don Jackson.
Jackson, owner of the Salida Super 8, said he felt today’s meeting was productive. “All along I’ve felt $2.50 was acceptable and reasonable,” Jackson said. Jackson sounded pleased that today’s meeting also produced city acknowledgement that its processes need to improve so that the city and business community can work more closely together to find solutions to city challenges rather than be at odds with each other.
Before today’s meeting, Harvey said he hopes that 24 months from now everyone will forget the current “bump in the road” when they get excited about the improvements 2B will bring to the pool and local trails. “A better pool, trails and open space help every sector of the local economy,” Harvey said.
Jackson said it was important to him that the city agreed that future increases in the lodging tax rate would be based on empirical data either from Smith Travel Research data on average daily room rate or the Consumer Price Index for Denver/Boulder.
Jackson, former Chair of the county visitor’s bureau, noted there still has not been a final determination from the state about whether the city’s new tax will prohibit the county from collecting its lodging tax within Salida city limits. Jackson said he now believes the city does recognize the importance of creating a funding mechanism to support the Chaffee County Visitor’s Bureau in the event the city’s tax causes a loss of revenue for the organization. He said he doesn’t care what the funding mechanism looks like as long as the city and county arrive at a mutually acceptable and legal solution. “I don’t have a dog in that fight,” Jackson said.
The CCVB is charged with marketing and advertising tourism throughout the county. CCVB revenues are derived from revenues from a 1.9 percent countywide lodging tax passed by voters in 1991. Many fear that upwards of 50 percent of the CCVB’s $300,000 annual budget could be lost if the state rules the two taxes conflict.
See related stories:
Is 2B Not 2B?
Snapshot of Stakeholders’ Views
Chronology of a Controversy










It was a good meeting yesterday and the tone was as it should be…a disagreement among friends and neighbors who respect each other. The people in that room agree on much more than we disagree. I am looking forward to getting on with the work of creating improvements that both make our town more livable for those of us that call it home and also attract visitors to come here and spend some money.
How can this really work? Is it legal?
A small group of politicians and business leaders decide to overrule the votes of the citizens? Isn’t the whole idea behind a vote that the populace gets to decide?