A recent meeting with six cities applying for state revenues to fund tourism projects raised more questions than answers for members of the Colorado Economic Development Commission, several of the commissioners said.
The commission is set to decide this week which of six projects will receive state tourism incentives.
“I think some folks moved up and others moved down,” said commission member J.J. Ament. “The discussion and Q&A that occurred at the last meeting certainly changed my perspective on a number of the projects.”
Until the May 3 question-and-answer session — which followed a series of hearings — a 1,500-room Gaylord hotel in Aurora and Pueblo’s expanded convention center and sports arena appeared to be the front-runners for subsidies under the Regional Tourism Act. The legislation allows a portion of state sales taxes generated by projects that advance tourism to be used to help finance infrastructure.
Several commissioners said Glendale and Douglas County made stronger cases for the incentives than they had at previous meetings. Commissioners also questioned whether the Gaylord-Aurora project should receive the full amount it requested.
Glendale is seeking incentives for an outdoor riverwalk entertainment complex, and Douglas County for an archaeological museum and sports complex.
The other two projects: Estes Park’s proposal to redevelop and renovate Elkhorn Lodge and build a year-round adventure park that includes snow sports; and Montrose County’s 141 tourism and commercial projects.
Up to two projects a year can receive the incentives for up to 30 years. The incentives cannot exceed a combined $50 million annually. The commission can award incentives to up to six projects over the next three years.
On Wednesday, Ken Lund, Colorado’s economic development chief, will forward his recommendation on which of the projects should receive the incentives. The commission is expected to vote on the matter Friday.
Lund said he’s taking a hard look at which of the projects are “unique and extraordinary,” as required under the legislation passed in 2009.
“We’re certainly going through each of the statutory requirements,” Lund said. “We’re looking very carefully at the factors that would go into a project being unique and extraordinary.”
Lund also is weighing whether the proposed projects are good for the entire state or solely benefit the communities in which they’re located. Other factors he’s considering include economic impact, job-creation potential and the ability to draw tourists from outside Colorado.
“It’s also a very large investment from the state’s perspective, with a long commitment,” Lund said. “We want to make sure we’re really good stewards of the people’s resources.”
Several commission members have said they will wait to see Lund’s recommendation before deciding which projects receive the subsidies.
Commission chairman Dick Monfort said the Gaylord project fits the spirit of the tourism act. But he said he’s not sure the project should get the entire state subsidy it has requested.
Gaylord has asked for $5.1 million annually from the state for the next 30 years. Aurora also has agreed to provide up to $300 million in incentives for the project.
“I want Gaylord to come, but the subsidy (Aurora) is doing is clouding everybody up a little bit,” Monfort said.
A third-party analyst hired by the state says Gaylord is eligible for just $2.7 million a year. The company has said it cannot build its $824 million project without the full amount it requested.
“You either believe the third-party analyst or you don’t,” said commission member Wellington Webb. “And if you do, it automatically shifts away from some projects and puts some of them in a more favorable position.”
At the May 3 meeting, the commission grilled Pueblo about whether a parking garage and expanded convention center can really be considered extraordinary and unique — a consideration that may have pushed Douglas County into the running. Meanwhile, Montrose and Estes Park could be out of the running.
“Estes Park is an interesting project, but I’m concerned that there seem to be so many people in opposition to the proposal — that’s normally a bad sign when that happens,” Webb said. “Douglas County has a unique proposal, … but I still think there are questions about financing and how long-range this project would be.”
Several Estes Park residents spoke in opposition to the city’s proposal at one of the hearings. Douglas County’s proposal centers on an archaeological dig site where Pleistocene megafauna-like mammoths have been discovered.
Margaret Jackson: 303-954-1473 or mjackson@denverpost.com
