BY KEVIN HOLSAPPLE
Member
Lodgers Tax Advisory Board

To the Los Alamos County Council,,

I appreciate receiving the County staff response to the concerns I outlined in my letter of September 30 regarding the multi-year tourism marketing agreement. I thank the staff for taking the time to respond to concerns.

However, after reviewing the staff response, I must point out where it fails to specifically address the concerns I raised regarding the structure and implementation of the agreement. My primary concerns centered on three key areas, and in each case, the response either missed the core of the issue or provided an illustrative example rather than contractual assurance.

1. LTAB Input and Review of the Final Agreement

My initial concern was that as an LTAB member, I had “very limited exposure or opportunity to provide input into the agreement or selection of the contractor,” and that the LTAB “has not reviewed the agreement nor had any opportunity to provide a recommendation to the Council for these expenditures.” I stated that this followed a pattern of bypassing the LTAB and encouraged the Council to refer the final agreement to the LTAB for consideration, enhancement, and recommendation.

The staff response affirmed my concerns.  Although there was a discussion about concerns to consider in formulating a Request for Proposal (RFP) at the LTAB meeting in May, it was general, and no formal action was taken.  An unresolved question I had at the time was whether a new contract was needed at all.

The staff response also confirmed that the September LTAB meeting was canceled.  Four of nine monthly meetings have been canceled in 2025.

The staff confirmed LTAB involvement in providing general input before the RFP was issued, which is appreciated. However, the response failed to address the central issue: why the RFP and the proposed agreement were not referred to the LTAB for formal review and recommendation prior to consideration by the Council.

Is there some reason that LTAB should not have the opportunity to advise the Council on this proposed expenditure of Lodger Tax funding? Isn’t that one of the reasons for having an LTAB?

2. Lack of a Clearly Defined Metric for Direct Visitor Expenditures

I noted that although the agreement requires tracking methods like geofencing and mobile location tracking, there is “no corresponding metric clearly defined in the agreement.” I argued that our metrics need to shift from simply measuring counts and clicks to demonstrating the economic contribution in terms of Visitor Spending (Direct Expenditures) as the fundamental indicator of economic benefits—a metric I believe is “more important than any of the metrics presented.”

The staff response agreed that visitor spending is a “critical indicator” of tourism’s impact and cited contract sections requiring the contractor to track and report on “visitor spending data,” quarterly reporting on “economic impact (lodging, dining, retail),” and year-over-year insights into “sector spending (lodging, dining, and retail).”

My issue is that the agreement does not identify specific, corresponding metrics or goals in this area. My request was for a clearly defined metric, not just a data reporting requirement. The current agreement provisions require delivery of data, but are not specific about a direct spending metric, a core economic benefit we seek to achieve.

Here is an example of what a specific metric would look like:

• Average direct expenditures by tourists and visitors to Los Alamos County
  • Segment tourists and visitors to understand expenditures by different kinds of visitors and tourists:
    • Visitors who visited LANL (likely business visitors)
    • Visitors who stayed in local hotels
    • Visitors who visited attractions, but did not stay at local hotels
    • etc.
  • It is possible that historic data may be available. This metric should be tracked to understand changes over time and to determine the extent to which marketing activities are driving changes.
• Percent of visitors to attractions that stay overnight at local hotels
  • Analysis could tell us how spending by these visitors differs from that by other kinds of visitors.

 This kind of information would allow for better prioritization of marketing resources and efforts to be focused on increasing direct visitor expenditures and the economic benefits to the community of promotional activities.

3. Reflecting the “Locals First” Philosophy in Work Requirements

I applauded DestinationiQ’s stated belief that “Tourism thrives when destinations put locals first, building stronger communities, authentic experiences, and long-term stability for visitors.” However, this is not clearly evident in the work required under the agreement. I think this is a serious shortcoming.

The staff response detailed a multi-day Immersion Trip planned for early Year 1, during which the contractor would try obtain a “firsthand understanding” and hold a “facilitated workshop” for community members to express their concerns and vision. The staff also included an anecdotal success story from Prowers County, Colorado, which really isn’t directly related to the provisions of the agreement.

This staff response describes a single, initial activity intended to gather input (immersion trip/workshop). It fails to specify how the core, ongoing work requirements and long-term deliverables within the body of the agreement are structured to enforce or measure the success of a “locals first” philosophy and ensure consistent local business engagement throughout the term of the agreement. The philosophy is acknowledged, but its reflection in the work requirements of the agreement is weak.  

To this same point, the RFP review committee did not include anyone other than County staff members with little apparent destination tourism marketing experience, which I have observed as an LTAB member.  Only one of the reviewers is knowledgeable about LTAB matters as far as I am aware.  Local business, general community member, and LTAB participation would have been helpful, but were excluded.  

I encourage the Council to consider these concerns and ensure that LTAB recommendations, robust direct visitor expenditure metrics, and mandatory community involvement are embedded in the agreement to align with our strategic goals.  I see no hurry to execute this agreement, and I continue to recommend that you refer the matter back to the LTAB for consideration and making a recommendation to Council.  I am away from Los Alamos and cannot attend the Council meeting on Oct. 7, but I ask you to record and consider this input as part of your business item.