Ballot Issue 2A recently passed, increasing the Glenwood Springs streets tax. It passed with narrow margins, reflecting a contentious debate over the condition of our streets, city budgeting, and tax rates. However, it’s clear that the conversation must expand beyond these immediate issues to focus on a larger question: What kind of community do we want Glenwood Springs to be? How do we balance essential needs with the quality-of-life initiatives that make this such a special place to live?

Both supporters and opponents of 2A raised important points, but much of the debate was clouded by misinformation and missed opportunities for a more nuanced conversation.

Opponents of 2A inaccurately suggested that the street tax could be used to fund the South Bridge project. The ballot language clearly states that funds raised through this tax can only be used for “existing streets, alleys, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks,” excluding projects like South Bridge or the Hwy 82 interchange.

Opponents also claimed the city relies entirely on the street tax for repairs, ignoring the broader scope of funding already in place. The City invests approximately $1 million from the general fund each year to maintain streets, and our staff has been outstanding in securing additional grant funding to support street projects. Money has been taken from other funds when projects need  just a bit more funding to do it correctly or to take advantage of scale and mobilization costs. These efforts will continue regardless of the 2A outcome.

On the other side, proponents of 2A made claims that deserve closer examination as well. They claimed that “over half of the sales tax is paid by visitors.” While this may sound compelling, we don’t have actual data to support this statement. I do believe that we need to gather all types of data and dig deeper to understand the true costs and benefits of tourism on our local economy.

Proponents also said, “the only alternative to this sales tax is a property tax.” A property tax would never have been put before the voters. In reality, there are several ways to generate revenue for street maintenance, including taxes that would primarily be paid by tourists, such as an increased lodging tax or an attractions tax, which could generate millions annually. Currently, our tourist attractions are not paying any city sales tax on admissions, while every other business in the city is required to do so. An attractions tax would raise significant revenues for our critical needs and provide a fair and level playing field for all businesses.

Proponents also stated that they built a track record of securing approvals for which “there are no other available funds.” There are other funds. The City utilizes several sources to fund priorities, including the Acquisition and Improvement (A&I) fund.  Last year the City spent over $4 million on non-essential community projects and goals. Next year’s budget calls for spending $6 million on beautification and parks improvements.  The claim that “If a specific street wasn’t named in the 2016 ballot question, the city cannot spend any money from the A&I fund” isn’t quite accurate either. The ballot language from the 2016 A&I renewal only named five infrastructure projects. However, A&I funds have been regularly appropriated for items that are not in the ballot language. These were often critical projects that fulfilled important community goals, but there were few legal restrictions on redirecting those monies.

As we move forward, it’s important to remember that the conversation about taxes, budgeting, and community priorities don’t have to be divisive. In fact, there are many areas of common ground. Glenwood Springs is a community with strong values, and we have already demonstrated our ability to secure funding for important projects—over $90 million in state and federal grants over the past six years, thanks to the hard work of our city staff.

As a City Councilor for the past eight years, I believe we need to continue to focus on both the basics, like street maintenance, and on the things that make Glenwood Springs unique such as our parks, affordable housing, riverfront restoration, recreation center, and cultural programs. We are fortunate to live in a community that recognizes the value of investing in its future, and we must continue to strike a balance between maintaining our infrastructure and enhancing the quality of life for everyone who calls this place home.

I’m optimistic that we can have a more constructive and inclusive conversation moving forward. With the passing of 2A we will have more resources to address our streets, but that doesn’t mean other important projects should be forgotten. We need to continue prioritizing essential services while investing in the things that make Glenwood Springs a great place to live, work, and play.

It’s unfortunate that the debate over 2A became so mired in talking points that were not necessarily grounded in facts. Hopefully this won’t be the end of this conversation but mark a new beginning. Together we can have thoughtful, constructive discussions about our community’s future. Let’s take this opportunity to engage with each other, work toward solutions that benefit everyone, and continue to build a Glenwood Springs that future generations will be proud to call home.

Jonathan Godes is a Glenwood Springs city councillor. He was first elected to council in 2017.