OCR Text |
Show lIEdlflttdDirnaill ,3&S9BBflBIIIIIHIHIfllllHEflllHflHMIlHj Ma Resort Cities Sales Tax: IHow do you spell relief? S The Chamber of Commerce Convention and Visitors Bureau will spend $61,000 in revenues generated by the Resort Cities Sales Tax advertising Park City this year, git isn't exactly clear, however, whether those funds were S intended for tourist promotion. K Funding the ChamberBureau seems important in a presort community, especially when the investment will help -summer tourism, as these funds will. It is curious, however, gthat the city should choose to fund the ChamberBureau in way that appears less than straightforward. S The Park City Council and staff along with the Cham-berBureau Cham-berBureau pushed the Resort Cities Sales Tax through the legislature in March 1983 with the help of Summit County's representative, Glen Brown. The measure allows Park City Sand certain other resort towns to levy as much as a one percent per-cent increase on top of the existing 5 percent sales tax. j It was widely held by the lobbyists that the extra funds :would help relieve property owners of the tax burden for S additional services required by the tourist population. gThose lobbyists differ, however, on their recollections as to Swhether the tax was intended to be used to attract more tourists. j The municipality then levied three quarters of the one percent available under the Resort Cities Sales Tax law on Kail retail sales under $2,500. This year the tax will bring in !$600,000 for the city. Of those funds $386,550 will go to property tax relief, another $88,450 has been earmarked for gthe transit system and $125,000 is being set aside for the jChamberBureau. S The ChamberBureau is receiving $100,000 more from the jcity this year than it did last, a figure large enough to raise eyebrows. This is, however, the first full year that the SResort Cities Sales Tax has been in place. The city and the ChamberBureau can argue, quite convincingly, that a share of that pie should go toward summer tourist promotion. The logic is this: By investing in tourist promotion the city will collect even more sales tax dollars providing more relief to property taxpayers. To say nothing of helping the business community as a whole. And while that rationale seems like sound fiscal policy, it also sounds a bit like the chicken and the egg: The Resort Sales Tax relieves local taxpayers of tourist burdens by bringing more tourists who bring even more tax dollars. More tourists, however, increase the demand on services. The ChamberBureau is not just another non-profit organization. In a resort town, it is to almost everyone's advantage that the city government and the visitors bureau work together. Here, that relationship has been described as a "partnership" by those involved. Since the Chamber of Commerce and the Visitors Bureau merged in January of 1982, the ChamberBureau and its relationship with the municipality have flourished. That success is due in part to the efforts by City Councilman Bob Wells, who is on the ChamberBureau board of directors, and former Councilwoman Tina Lewis who held a staff position at the ChamberBureau. And while those organizations work well together, it is important to remember the difference between the two. One is a public entity, the other is private. If our tax dollars are earmarked for private use, any private use, the city government should make sure those grant opportunities are out in the open. If it was the city's original intent that the Resort Cities Sales Tax would promote tourism, it should have been more clearly stated when the legislation was proposed. -CKS |