Area lodgers are gearing up for a big showdown at City Hall Tuesday night, Jan. 20, when city council will consider second reading of a resolution to enact ballot initiative 2B.
In November, voters passed 2B, a measure that establishes an occupational lodging tax to pay for repairs at the Salida Hot Springs Aquatic Center as well as other recreation and cultural amenities such as trails and the SteamPlant Theater and Event Center.
Lodgers have compiled an email list of more than 70 folks, and aided by one-sided depiction of the issue in the Mountain Mail, have succeeded in convincing more than a few folks that the city has ignored the “legitimate and principled community opposition.”
Nothing could be further from the truth. Collectively, Mayor Rose, Councilmen Damman, Yerkey, Young and Acting City Administrator Mike Copp allocated hundreds of hours to address the lodgers opposition in the face of at times uncivilized behavior by members of the lodging group.
An overview of the lodgers objections and city’s responses, in approximate chronological sequence, follows:
• Among the early complaints by lodgers is that the occupational lodging tax would hurt tourism by effectively resulting in one of the highest lodging tax rates in the state. Percentage is one thing but the net effect of the lodging tax increase really is minimal. It’s not like $2.50 or even $4.82 would suddenly put Salida in the ranks of Vail or numerous other pricey, glitzy mountain resort communities in Colorado. Until Salida gets a critical mass of 3-, 4-, and 5-star hotels and restaurants it will maintain it’s reputation as a “sweetly unpretentious” destination for lovers of authentic travel experiences and/or budget-conscious travelers.
• Lodgers also complained that the city did not consult them in the prelude to putting the measure on the ballot. Fair enough. But the city did meet with the lodgers in September then met again with the lodgers and arrived at the compromise position: if voters passed 2B, council would enact it at $2.50 if the lodgers agreed to not to oppose 2B and write letters to that effect to the Mountain Mail. Various configurations of both sides have met more than a dozen times over the course from September to the present.
• The lodgers refused to sign on to the above-mentioned compromise when, about a week before the election, a question arose as to whether the city’s new tax would conflict and negate the county’s ability to collect its lodging tax which is earmarked to support tourism marketing. A bevy of lawyers responded to the question with the opinion that there is no conflict. The lone dissenter was the attorney for the Colorado Hotel and Lodging Association. Eventually, though not nearly as timely as anyone would have liked, the state department of revenue determined there is no conflict: the city can collect its occupational lodging tax and the county can continue to collect its lodging tax.
• Nov. 4 – voters went to the polls and passed 2B.
• In November, the city, led by councilman Hugh Young, entered into discussions with the lodgers that concluded in both sides agreeing to support enactment of 2B at $2.50. At the time, Don Jackson, said he felt that meeting was productive and added, “All along I’ve felt $2.50 was acceptable and reasonable.” During the subsequent Council meeting, an amendment proposed by Tom Yerkey narrowly passed, that set the occupational lodging tax at $2.50 through 2009 with an automatic increase to voter-approved $4.82 on Jan. 1, 2010. Yerkey explained he proposed the amendment out of respect for citizens who voted for 2B and complained to city council about the tax being enacted at anything less than the full $4.82. The lodging group stormed out of the council meeting, primarily, it would be my impression from emails and testimony, because the tax increase was tied to a date certain rather than lodging industry metrics as the lodgers had proposed, even though no one from the city’s side had agreed to this condition.
• Now, as a result of an error by the city attorney necessitating re-crafting and re-approving the resolution authorizing enactment of 2B, the lodgers put forward a new argument. Opposition to the tax now revolves around the issue of who pays the tax – the lodger or the visitor. In response, the city issued a letter authorizing lodgers to indicate on room billing statements that the $2.50 is an occupational lodging tax, a particularly important distinction especially for those lodgers who are part of national franchises where such distinctions have financial consequences.
• But in this past week’s email missives, the primary point of contention is that an occupational lodging tax is not fair since, in this case, it’s imposed on only one industry. One could infer from the rhetoric that perhaps lodgers would feel better if some other industry were also taxed. It is also telling that lodgers had to search back to 1899 to find a quote to support this stance against occupational lodging taxes. Other ideas in vogue in 1899 included thwarting and all-out prohibiting people of color and women from voting. Thankfully society evolves. Our world has become more mechanized and complex and our expectations of basic government services have grown as have the variety of funding mechanisms to support government – for better or worse.
As of this writing, and I hope things change before Tuesday, it is apparent that if City Council doesn’t do exactly as the lodgers say, the lodgers will mount a petition drive seeking to repeal 2B which – due to statutory rules governing such matters – could result in the added city expense of a special election on the matter this summer and a contentious battle for the votes of the citizenry.
The longer this matter drags on, the longer the pool remains in disrepair, trails go unbuilt and any group that wants to fund any other kind of improvements to recreational and cultural amenities around here can go back to firing up the bake sales.
And there went the Salida Citizen’s objectivity. Self proclaimed fair and balanced comes to Salida. Sorry Lee, you have lost me on this one!
There is a lot of misinformation being spread in Letters to the Editor at the Mountain Mail about the lodging occupation tax.
Yes, mistakes were made in framing this ballot issue and in arriving at the current tax amount. It has not been the Council’s finest moment. It was and is a sincere effort to address a real need and tie it to an appropriate source of funding by those who use the Pool.
What remains clear is that the Pool needs work, the tax was passed by the voters and it needs to be implemented. Yes it is a tax on the lodging occupation which innkeepers will need to add into their pricing as a cost of doing business. Will it stop people from staying in Salida inns? I doubt it.
The voters of Salida are not likely to agree to a hike in property taxes to cover needed Pool repairs nor rush out to buy higher priced annual passes either.
Let’s get beyond the rhetoric and start collecting what the voters approved. If Council can’t apply the new funds and get the Pool back in shape, then decide what do do at that point.
Please note this article is flagged as “commentary” and as such includes the writer’s perspective.
Neither the home page nor the article originally indicated that it was filed as “commentary”, so Don wouldn’t have known that we were treating it as such internally.
We’ve changed the formatting on both the home page and the article page to include categories. Hopefully that will make things a little more clear.
Sorry we are not getting past this.
We will create a recall petition if the city passes the ordinance on second reading in fact it is ready.
But if the city will abandon it and we find that it can actually be abandoned with out it being resurrected in the future save and except a vote then we will work with the City to create a more effective method of taxation.
Sorry but process is important, principle is important and the end rarely justifies the means.
Sorry to add to the rhetoric.
Upon further reflection is it not interesting that Mr. Bergin states in his comment, “The voters of Salida are not likely to agree to a hike in property taxes to cover needed Pool repairs nor rush out to buy higher priced annual passes either”. But feels justified in support of either a tax on the visitor or a tax on the lodging businesses to pay for these expenses.
He has framed clearly why at this point it is an issue that must be fought and will continue to motivate our efforts to start a recall petition. To get this issue off the books.
An occupancy tax is hardly a new idea. It is one way towns (especially small/struggling towns) can generate the revenue they need in order to fund important programs which maintain a quality experience for visitors and locals alike. If my lodging property were in Salida I’d support an initiative that’s main goal was to improve the recreational and cultural resources of the town. I know that I paid a lodging tax in nearly every place I visited last summer. I can’t recall a single time it ever altered my travel plans or left me destitute on the side of the road. It’s unfortunate 2B has become such a fiasco.