Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tourism Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission debates MTAB bylaws after advisory board vote removes Chamber voting seat; commissioners split on next steps
Summary
The Moab Tourism Advisory Board’s recent vote to replace the Chamber of Commerce’s voting seat with a city representative drew several public speakers and a divided commission; commissioners instead approved a plan to expand the board to nine members to retain the Chamber seat.
A contentious agenda item from a June 10 Moab Tourism Advisory Board (MTAB) meeting returned to the county commission on June 17 after multiple public speakers and mixed advisory‑board recommendations. The issue: how to comply with HB 456 (2025), which requires municipal representation where a municipality generates more than half of transient room tax (TRT) revenue, and how to structure the MTAB’s voting membership.
At a recent MTAB meeting, members voted 5–2 to remove the Moab Area Chamber of Commerce as a voting member and give a voting seat to the City of Moab to comply with HB 456. The change prompted multiple public commenters at the commission meeting — chamber leaders and members of the hospitality community urged a different approach, saying the Chamber represents a broad swath of businesses that generate TRT revenue and that the change was rushed and poorly deliberated.
Speakers at the commission cited HB 456’s language and disputed whether the panel needed to remove a voting seat to give the city a vote; several told the commission the advisory board could instead expand membership or replace a different seat. Former MTAB members and Chamber representatives asked the commission to work with the county attorney to explore options that preserve a Chamber voting voice.
Commissioner discussion and outcome: Commissioners debated whether to accept the advisory‑board recommendation, send the issue back to MTAB for more deliberation, or change the county’s bylaws. After a substitute motion offered by Commissioner Hadler — to expand MTAB to nine voting members, thereby giving the City a seat while retaining the Chamber’s vote and adding a tourism‑related cultural representative — the commission approved the substitute motion by a 4–3 vote. One commissioner later described the MTAB meeting as interrupted by a technical failure that limited discussion; several commissioners and public speakers said the optics of the advisory board’s original vote were poor.
Why it matters: HB 456 changed statutory requirements for tourism advisory boards and municipal representation. MTAB membership decisions determine who advises county TRT spending and mitigation policy; the Chamber has been a long‑standing voice for local businesses, and removing its voting seat prompted concerns about representation and process.
What’s next: The commission approved a nine‑member structure and asked county and advisory board staff to formalize updated bylaws and ensure compliance with HB 456. Several commissioners asked that the MTAB maintain transparency and that the county attorney provide a clear analysis of statutory requirements for voting membership.
