OCR Text |
Show r. i it n pEdntoirnatll ;(! iat a ? it Council continues abuse of Resort Cities Sales Tax f.-f. , The Park City Council is set to fund a portion of the I Chamber of CommerceConvention and Visitor's Bureau ? advertising campaign with funds from the Resort Cities Sales Tax, which was designed to relieve the burdens of tourism rather than promote it. S 3 By turning its back on the legislative intent of the bill, : the council has taken a stance that may be illegal, g? Park City has determined that it will levy 34 of the i possible one percent resort tax, boosting the sales tax j here to 6 12 percent .The resort tax alone is expected to -- bring $700,000 to the city in the upcoming fiscal year. , ."ring last month's city council budget session, the , rChamBerBureau asked for $157,000 of that money for such things as tourist promotion, economic development fand tourism marketing research. The council allocated ; $125,000. y Whether or not such a move is tested in the courts, ; Park City government is running the risk of alienating the I Utah State Legislature, which, so far, has been friendly to this town. A worst case, but plausible, scenario could see the legislature repeal the act which it passed in March 1983. According to Mayor Jack Green, the bill's principal .lobbyist, and Summit County Rep. Glen Brown, the bill's 'sponsor, the resort tax was pushed through the legislature because senators and representatives were convinced Park City property taxpayers should get relief from supporting services demanded by tourist populations. Resort Cities Sales Tax dollars were designed to fund a police force large enough to adequately patrol large influxes of visitors, to help taxpayers bear the burden of extended bus service to the resorts, and to help residents pay the high cost of street repairs in Park City, among other things. This, of course, is not to say that local government shouldn't fund tourism or the ChamberBureau. -r But the city council, could, with a minimum of effort fund it in a way that is beyond criticism. First, the council could make public its intent to fund private, non-profit groups from money not already earmarked for public works. Second, it should accept proposals from qualified applicants and fund those it finds most deserving. It may well be that the ChamberBureau would come away with the same amount of funding using the public grant method. But by shrugging off this grant process as a formality, the council signals the community that it plans to spend taxpayers' money any way it pleases. The Park City Council should set an example, by following the letter, as well as the spirit, of the law. With alternatives available, it is difficult to understand why the council is so actively ignoring the legislative intent of a bill designed to help taxpayers who are impacted by tourism. CKS |