Three Things Happened at Tuesday's Council Meeting — And Why They Matter

Tuesday's council meeting covered a lot of ground. Some of it was routine. Three items were not. Below are our key takeaways. View our summary here and as always, if you have the time, watch the full council meeting here.

There's an Open Council Seat in Ward 1. Apply Now!

Council member Lori Reynolds resigned. The council accepted her resignation and begins taking applications immediately. Whoever is selected will serve a full two-year term — this is not a placeholder appointment. But this seat will not appear on the upcoming ballot either. It will be filled by a council vote, which means the council — not the general public — decides who fills this position.

We'll be direct: the council needs more voices that reflect Bisbee's values and hold the line on how public money gets spent. If you've ever sat in a meeting frustrated by what you were watching, this is your chance to do something about it instead.

If you live in Ward 1, please consider applying. Or ask someone you trust to apply. Letters of interest are due by June 9 and the council will hold interviews and select a replacement at a special session on June 16th. Find more information here.

The DMO Process Reset — But the Same Problems Remain.

Bisbee Forward filed a bid protest on the DMO selection process. On Tuesday, the council voted 6-1 to rescind the pending contract, reject all bids, and reissue a new RFP.

We'll take the win. But here's the problem: the revised RFP was dropped on council members' desks the same night they were asked to vote on it. No review. No discussion of how the relationship will actually function — no city liaison identified, no oversight structure, no advisory board, no performance benchmarks. Just: here's a new document, please approve sending it out tonight. And most on the council did.

We have been saying for months that the structure of this DMO contract matters as much as who wins it. A poorly designed contract with no accountability will fail regardless of who it is awarded to. The clock is ticking, we understand that — nine months without active destination marketing is a real cost. But speed without structure is how we ended up here in the first place.

We will be reviewing the new RFP in detail and will share our analysis publicly before applications close. Watch this space.

They Want to Use Bed Tax Money to Fund the Bikeways Project. That's a Problem.

This one requires some background.

Earlier this year, $140,576 from the bed tax fund was transferred to the Capital Improvements Fund, earmarked for a visitor center at 30 Main Street. That project is dead. A resolution on Tuesday's agenda, sponsored by council members Karen Schumacher and Mel Sowid, proposed returning that money to the bed tax fund where it belongs. Simple enough.

Instead, the rest of the council want to leave those funds in Capital Improvements and use it as a contingency cushion for the Bisbee Bikeways Project, bids for which recently came in significantly over budget (to the tune of close to $1 million, about 25% higher than planned).

We want to be clear about where we stand: Bisbee Forward supports the Bisbee Bikeways Project. It's a legitimate capital investment in Bisbee's future and the $4.5 million federal grant behind it — as the mayor rightly noted — is the kind of funding that doesn't come around twice. We do not want to see it lost over a gap that is solvable.

What we don't support is raiding the bed tax fund to solve it.

Bisbee's bed tax was approved by voters specifically to fund overnight destination marketing. The 2021 rate increase — which brought the rate to its current 5% — was passed with that explicit mandate. Under Arizona law, any bed tax increase imposed after 1990 is legally restricted to tourism promotion. That money is not a general emergency reserve. Using it for capital infrastructure, however worthy the project, violates both the letter of the law and the intent of the voters who approved it.

The city attorney suggested that Flagstaff and Gilbert both use bed tax funds for trails, so the bikeways project could qualify. That framing is misleading. Flagstaff's BBB tax has included recreation as one of five explicit voter-approved categories since 1988 — trails were never redirected tourism funds, they were always part of the mandate. Gilbert recently tried to route bed tax revenue toward parks and police infrastructure. That decision is now the subject of active litigation. Neither city is a usable precedent here.

There is a better answer, and the mayor himself put it on the table: a loan from the Queen Mine Tour fund, repaid over four years. The Queen Mine is a city-operated asset sitting on healthy reserves — its annual merchandise budget alone rivals Bisbee's entire bed tax fund. A structured, repayable loan solves the funding gap, keeps the bikeways grant alive, and doesn't create a precedent that the bed tax can be tapped whenever there's a capital shortfall.

The resolution to return the $140K to the bed tax fund failed Tuesday for lack of a motion. The money stays in Capital Improvements. This is not resolved.

What we're asking

Apply for the open council seat. Deadline is June 9th, special session June 16th.

Come to that June 16th meeting. It will cover both the council vacancy and — almost certainly — continued discussion of the DMO and bed tax. Public comment matters.

Share this post. The people most affected by these decisions are the ones least likely to have been in that room Tuesday night.