Lake County tourism panel proposes small annual transfer to early childcare fund amid HB11‑17 concerns

Lake County tourism staff proposed on Feb. 20 that a portion of the accommodations tax revenue be routed each year to the county’s Early Care and Education (ECE) fund, a backing move intended to expand local child-care capacity without triggering an immediate ballot measure under state law.

The tourism panel’s director, Adam (last name not specified in transcript), told the Board of County Commissioners that the proposal would allocate 5 percent of actualized tourism-panel revenue when the panel’s annual haul is under $350,000, and 10 percent when it meets or exceeds $350,000. He said the allocation would be paid the following January and reviewed annually.

The plan grew from months of nonprofit interest after Colorado House Bill 11‑17 allowed communities to redirect lodging-tax money to other priorities, such as workforce housing or child care, if approved by voters. Adam said HB 11‑17 has prompted “credible conversations” by outside groups, and the proposed allocation was framed as a local compromise that would keep marketing capacity for tourism while providing predictable support to child-care providers.

Carly Spangler, executive director of Build a Generation, which operates the local childcare coalition, backed the idea and described how modest sums have large local effects. “That $5,000 check…is gonna allow [Brightstart Learning Center] to open up a whole new classroom and serve 14 new families in just a few months,” she said.

County staff and panel members discussed implementation details. Because the Lake County Early Care and Education Fund is an advisory fund hosted under the Lake County Community Fund (LCCF), staff advised using an allocation letter to LCCF or a memorandum of understanding with LCCF as the fiscal agent rather than attempting to contract with a non‑entity advisory board.

Commissioners and staff agreed to next steps: county staff will contact the Lake County Community Fund to confirm whether LCCF will serve as the contracting entity and will draft a letter or MOU reflecting the panel’s allocation approach. Tourism staff and nonprofit representatives asked that the language be simplified to a single threshold and percentage for clarity.

The board did not take a formal vote; commissioners directed staff to pursue the MOU/letter pathway and to return with formal language and confirmation from LCCF.

If approved and implemented, the transfer would be modest at current revenue levels: the tourism panel reported 2024 revenue below the $300,000–$350,000 thresholds discussed in the meeting, so actual payments would depend on 2025 collections and be paid the following January.

The discussion repeatedly referenced the risk that large diversions of tourism funding under HB 11‑17 could reduce the panel’s ability to market the county — a concern tied to statewide examples in which reduced destination marketing led to long-term revenue declines. Tourism staff emphasized the intention to align tourism marketing success with increased capacity for child care in the county.

Next steps recorded at the meeting included county staff contacting LCCF, drafting allocation language for BOCC review, and returning the proposal for approval after LCCF’s acceptance as a fiscal agent or an alternative contracting path was chosen.