Boulder debate: To lure or not to lure tourists

BOULDER – The city of Boulder is in the unique tourism position of being a desti

nation, a gateway, a stop on a circuit and a side-trip all in one.

Being all those things means that a steady stream of visitors comes to the city

or passes through it year round. Many of Boulder’s residents, mostly business ow

ners and city officials concerned with revenues, are happy to see the throngs. O

thers are happy to see them only if the visitors promise not to stay.

“We don’t think of people who come to Boulder as ‘tourists,’´ said Stan Zemler,

president of the Boulder Chamber of Commerce. “To us, they’re visitors, and they

are more often from Louisville than they are from out of the state or from a fo

reign country.”

The Fall 1999 Downtown Boulder Survey confirms that half of the Pearl Street Mal

l users are Boulder residents. Seventeen percent are from other parts of Boulder

County and 33 percent are from other areas of Colorado or out-of-state.

Ron Secrist, city manager, said tourism has a substantial impact on the Boulder

economy based on sales tax revenue from tourism and the results of the annual f

all survey. “We are interested in keeping the number of visitors the same or gr

owing it some,” he said, citing the current convention center study taking place

. While the study is targeted at the business traveler, Secrist said that in Bou

lder’s changing economic environment, the city wants to stay open to any options

that help it maintain the existing sales-tax base. While the Boulder chamber in

itiated the convention-center study, Secrist asked city council members’ permiss

ion to take part in it, and they agreed.

While he’s open to investigating ways to keep Boulder’s economy diversified, cit

y councilman Spencer Havlick said he’s against spending any more public funds to

attract additional visitors to the city. “Boulder is a magnet anyway. Magazines

have rated it in the top 10 for the best places to live and in the top five of

the best outdoor places. The more people you bring to Boulder, the more people t

here are who want to stay, and Boulder has exceeded its carrying capacity.”

Havlick said 82 percent of the respondents to the Integrated Planning Process wa

nted to keep the population of Boulder about 100,000. Studies have shown that wh

en cities exceed 100,000 they experience a reduced quality of service at a highe

r cost, he said. Havlick thinks the city should spend its money to draw people

in the region to the businesses that already are here, like the Pearl Street Mal

l.

The tourism arm for Boulder is the Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB) housed a

t the chamber. Executive Director Shelly Helmrick reports to Zelmer, but the bud

get for the CVB comes from the city sales tax on accommodations and restaurants.

The 1999 budget was $573,000, and the 2000 budget is $626,000. The total tax on

a lodging room is 9.7 percent, which includes city, county and RTD taxes. The a

ccommodations portion is 5.5 percent, of which the CVB gets 0.5 percent. The res

taurant tax of 0.15 percent goes entirely to the CVB.

“Our budget is spent is several different areas including meetings marketing, vi

sitor services, public relations and advertising, fulfillment, international and

new markets, community and cultural programming and administration and operatio

ns,” Helmrick said. “In the area of advertising, each ad does have a specific me

thod of tracking attached.”

She said the CVB does very little advertising because it is so expensive and dif

ficult to generate results. The organization has been successful getting article

s about Boulder placed in magazines, such as Sunset, which published an article

about Boulder in its May 2000 issue. In addition, the CVB brings travel writers

to Boulder for tours.

Tourism benefits Boulder businesses because people buy lodging and food,

said Mary Ann Mahoney, public relations director for the Hotel Boulderado. “The

tax isn’t much, but when they (CVB) go out and partner, they reach groups that

come to Boulder.” Mahoney believes the CVB is doing a good job. “If they had mor

e money, they could advertise in more magazines, but advertising is difficult to

measure, expensive to do and track.”

Mahoney said she felt a difference in 1993 when the tourism office was g

one. She felt like the nightly tourism traffic dropped off. “What a relief to ha

ve the Colorado Tourism Office back. When we don’t have the Colorado message out

there, it’s harder to get the Boulder message out there,” Mahoney said.

She concurred with Havlick that Boulder draws people here just because it’s Boul

der. “It has a great profile — healthy and health-conscious people, wonderful

weather and a vibrant, high-tech community.” She said a friend from out-of-town

asked her if everyone here runs or bikes.

Charles Goeldner, professor of Tourism Management and Marketing in the Center fo

r Sustainable Tourism at the University of Colorado at Boulder, said tourism is

important because it diversifies a city’s economy. Boulder’s tourism is under-de

veloped compared to other cities of the same size and also compared to Denver, h

e said.

“Denver has a tourism infrastructure in place and most of it is new, he said. He

cited as examples Elitch’s Six Flags, Denver International Airport, the Denver

Center for Performing Arts, Ocean Journey and the Museum of Nature and Science.

Goeldner said a convention and conference center would help Boulder’s tourism an

d could be used for a cultural center as well as for large meetings.

Tourism in Boulder is different, Goeldner said, because of its culture, and beca

use it has a major state university. “CU is a powerful attraction,” he said. But

Boulder doesn’t have the things others cities have, and it hasn’t made a concen

trated effort to attract more visitors.

A convention center should do it, and to pay for it, he would increase a portion

of the taxes that go to the fund the CVB. “I wouldn’t increase taxes,” he said.

“I would just increase that portion of the existing tax, if I were running the

city.” He said he wouldn’t increase the accommodation tax because of what happen

ed in New York. “The city (New York) raised the accommodation tax to 21 percent

and lost its meeting and convention business. When it lowered the tax to 17 perc

ent, which is still high, it got some of the business back.”

on Facebook on LinkedIn