A proposal to award state tourism incentives to the planned Gaylord hotel and conference center in Aurora was the subject of both criticism and validation at an April 23 public hearing at the Wells Fargo Center in Denver.
The nine-member board of the Colorado Economic Development Commission took testimony from about 50 people on all six projects vying for state funding, ahead of their May 18 decision that will finalize which city gets funds from the Regional Tourism Act.
Aurora agreed last year to offer up to $300 million worth of tax incentives to Gaylord, but the project is still contingent on incentives from the RTA. Only two of the six projects competing for money can receive funds of a combined $50 million per year.
Hoteliers, residents, business owners and architects were among those who talked about the Gaylord project — some of whom said the project would “cannibalize” the Denver hotel industry and consume valuable public funds. Meanwhile, others said the project would put people back to work and spur economic growth throughout the state.
“The RTA was not created by the state legislature to negatively impact existing businesses in the region,” said John Desmond, executive vice president of Urban Planning and Environment for the Downtown Denver Partnership.
Greg Leonard, general manager for the Grand Hyatt Denver, said the Gaylord project would cannibalize existing hotel business and contribute to a decline in the number of room stays for Denver-based hotels.
“The impact on 500-room hotels will be significant and damaging,” he said.
Other people who spoke against the project said they did so because they believe Gaylord Entertainment should be paying the entire bill for the project and not relying on public subsidies, and some also said they were disappointed with the lack of transparency surrounding the Gaylord project.
Denver-based attorney and former state lawmaker Joel Judd said he’s against the project because it would require the state to pay for sales tax revenues that would have otherwise gone to local school districts.
Attorneys for Aurora say the school district will neither be losing nor gaining money because the sales taxes that would have to be backfilled by the state wouldn’t be generated anyway if the Gaylord project did not go forward.
Those in favor of the project like Monica Pitt, General manager of Embassy Suites Denver International Airport, said the Gaylord hotel and conference center will be a boon to all hotels in the area because it will attract more visitors.
“I think we need to say, ‘Great for me, how can I capitalize on this opportunity,’” she said.
The hotel would attract people that would want to visit and spend money in other cities besides Aurora, said P.W. McCallum, executive director of the Grapevine Convention and Visitors Bureau.
“Today’s traveler is sophisticated, today’s guest is not going to stay in the four walls of a resort complex,” he said.
The project would also spur retail and housing development around DIA, said Tom Ashburn, an Aurora resident and retired employee of Xcel Energy.
“When we look around the airport today we see a lot of land and opportunity,” he said. “There hasn’t been much significant development around the airport since it opened. What better project than Gaylord to spur economic development in the region?”
Chris Dunn, a landscape architect, said the project would become the “catalyst for the long-envisioned aerotropolis adjacent to DIA.”
The total cost of the 1,500-room Western-themed hotel and conference center slated to create about 1,500 jobs is more than $800 million.
According to HVS Consulting & Valuation Services, the 1,500-room hotel is estimated to bring 1,500 jobs to Aurora and about $284 million in new revenues per year to Aurora, while Denver stands to earn about $61 million in revenues per year. Competing studies say the hotel could cost Denver up to $186 million in visitor spending and hotel revenue between 2016 and 2019.
The public hearing was the last of two held before the members of the Economic Development Commission make their final decision. At the first public hearing, only one person, an Aurora resident, spoke against the project.
The public hearing also drew criticism about Estes Park’s plan to use the state funds to revamp its Elkhorn Lodge and build a year-round adventure park. The money would also be used to develop the 40-acre mountainside next to Old Man Mountain into a ski resort that will offer hiking, mountain biking, horseback riding and zip lines in the summer.
Some people said the project wouldn’t be viable because of the snow pack levels in Estes Park.
“There’s simply not enough snow, in Estes Park and not enough water or weather to accommodate making snow,” said Estes Park resident Richard Johnson.
Others refuted Johnson’s statement and said there would be enough snow to support the ski resort.
Proponents of the project said the resort would be a boon for visitors, since it would provide them with a beginner-friendly ski park.
Jim Haugsness, county commissioner for Montrose County, which wants to create about 140 various tourist attractions and commercial projects, said the area is a “diamond in the rough waiting to be developed.”
All of the projects vying for state funding received public comment.
Reach reporter Sara Castellanos at 720-449-9036 or sara@aurorasentinel.com.