At a joint meeting between the Pagosa Springs Town Council and the Archuleta County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) on Jan. 26, Commissioner John Ranson requested that both entities look at changing language in their agreement concerning the Pagosa Springs Area Tourism Board so that the county is not potentially liable for how the tourism board spends its money.
Ranson suggested that “issues have arisen” since the agreement was amended in 2025, adding that “there just needs to be some clean up in the language” of the agreement.
Ranson explained that his concern about the agreement stemmed from what he interpreted as taking “away county oversight” of the tourism board, and that the county needs “to protect” itself by putting a “tighter review and control” over the board.
When pressed by the council and the other commissioners to offer specific examples of how the county might be legally liable for how the tourism board conducts its business under the current agreement, Ranson declined to offer specifics on the matter.
The tourism is an advisory committee to the town council and BoCC.
“The purpose of the tourism board is to make specific recommendations relative to expenditures of the 4.9% Lodging Tax in Town and the 2% Lodging Tax in the County,” explains the town’s website.
The website adds, “The Tourism Board shall ensure that all requests for funding from the Town’s Lodging Tax revenues meet the criteria established by Section 16.4.11 of the Town of Pagosa Springs Municipal Code. The board has nine members, five appointed by various boards and four at-large seats.”
At the joint meeting, Ranson proposed “to look at heading down a path to clean up” the language in the joint agreement with the tourism board, saying the county does “not need liability if we don’t have oversight” of the board.
Mayor Shari Pierce suggested that she thought the language was pretty clear in the agreement that the county’s funding contributions to the tourism board could only be spent on “marketing and advertising,” and that both the town and county had this “differentiated in their budgets.”
However, she stated that she’d be willing to “look more into” what Ranson’s concerns were about with the current agreement.
For its part, the town is allowed to fund tourism projects beyond marketing and advertising for tourism, whereas the county’s money can only be spent on these two things.
Commissioner Warren Brown said that he’d also be willing to look into the matter, adding, “I want to be able to have the answers when a constituent asks a reasonable question.”
Both entities, Brown added, should “make sure” that the agreement with the tourism board “is the best product” possible.
“I’m in need of more information,” Council member Brooks Lindner said, adding, “This is the first I’ve heard of any of this.”
Pierce suggested that a small committee made up of town and county staff and elected officials get together to consider Ranson’s concerns.
Commissioner Veronica Medina, noted “we had a committee already” when the agreement was amended.
Medina noted that the agreement was brought before both the council and BoCC for approval and that both entities approved the agreement the original committee drafted.
She suggested that if “any one of us” had problems with the language of the agreement, they should have stepped forward to address the issue before it was approved.
She asked, “If we already approved the document, what’s the problem? Did we not read it?”
Ultimately, it was decided that a joint committee, made up of town and county representatives, would get together to review Ranson’s concerns about the potential legal liabilities for the county under the current language of the agreement.
Other news
During the tourism board’s regular meeting on Jan. 14, Shane Prince was unanimously voted as the chair of the board, with Amy Johnson being unanimously approved as vice chair and Austin Marchand unanimously approved as second vice chair.
After being voted as the board chair, Prince reviewed the conflict of interests section of the intergovernmental agreement between the town and county.
“If a board member has a financial or personal conflict of interest with a vote, they must state their conflict at the beginning of the meeting in advance of the discussion and they must recuse themselves … both from the discussion and vote in the manner,” Prince said.
Prince also provided comments during his chair report, reminding the board that “we are merely an advisory board.”
He explained that, as an advisory board, “we don’t make a final decision,” and that is ultimately up to the BoCC and town council.
Prince also urged the tourism board that 2025 is “behind us” and that in 2026, “we need to get back to our core standards of understanding exactly what our torch is.”
He noted that, as an advisory board, the tourism board does not have a fiduciary responsibility with the budget.
“But I want us to all understand kind of the stance that this board is — we are here to make recommendations as experts within the field of tourism … but the executive director is the one that reports directly to the town manager,” he added.
>