In seeking public funding of a joint tourism initiative, the
chamber made a presentation to each of the three localities in the late fall of 2004 and spring of
2005. The presentation did a good job of
detailing the value of tourism for communities – largest industry in 15 states,
a clean industry that doesn’t generally burden infrastructure, reduces local tax burden through additional spending by non-residents.
In the 2005 presentation, it was estimated that a 1%
increase to lodging or occupancy taxes could generate approximately $200,000 per fiscal year to
market the two towns and county to tourists.
The chamber has repeatedly stated this initiative was sought by the local
lodging industry. It does make sense for
that special interest group to lobby for this initiative as it could be expected to have an immediate benefit for local hotels -- and possibly bed & breakfasts, temporary housing or motels -- by increasing occupancy rates (booked room nights).
It is notable that of the 32 lodging related businesses
listed in the 2006 telephone book; only 24 were actually physically located in Montgomery County or the towns. The 2006 chamber directory listed 26 members
in the lodging industry, but only 15 would be required to collect this new 1% tax. These numbers show that not everyone in the lodging industry supported the chamber's approach for a tourism initiative, while several others are located outside the taxing authority yet could also benefit.
Reasonable people know that collecting this tax isn't the same as contributing to the tourism initiative. The lodging industry may be the source of the potential funding, but it doesn't provide any more to the process than an accountant, dog-catcher or restaurant.
In the 2005 presentation, the chamber was seeking a
contractual agreement. The towns agreed
to the taxes, making them effective July 1, 2005. The county agreed to the taxes, and made them
effective July 1, 2006.
Disbursement of funds began in December 2005 – yet contracts
were not finalized until the spring of 2007.
That represents a nearly two-year time period for negotiating a contract. The previous year could have provided some preparation time, too.
This gap does not serve
as encouragement to hold one’s breath for any notable, community wide results.
To be fair, the
chamber was busy – moving from the centrally located NRV mall location, to a
site down below a hillside, ten miles away from the interstate, upgrading its
own technology, and going to training seminars to learn the tricks of the tourism
trade.
What was offered in return for said contract was: a detailed and comprehensive plan; a separate
Tourism Development account not tied to the chamber’s general funds;
semi-annual reporting; an oversight commission; and tourism growth and
increased tax revenue.
To review, as of December 2007: no detailed or comprehensive plan exists; a
separate Tourism Development account controlled by the chamber’s president and board, with possible input from the
Tourism Development Council (TDC); semi-annual reporting obtained only
through insistent, formal requests; and tourism growth is
something that cannot be measured locally, yet is lagging behind state
and national tourism industry norms.
At this point in time, it is not impolite or improper to ask for more
details, to seek more information, to expect more specifics. Customer expectations were defined when the concept was first floated and funded.
A spotlight of accountability needs to be kept on the chamber and its board,
and the elected officials who continue to authorize release of these public monies. ###
“If we don’t perform, we don’t continue to receive the
funding! Semi-annual reporting will ensure
satisfaction and answers to your and your constituent’s concerns.” ~ Shane Adams, President of the Montgomery
County Chamber of Commerce, Tourism in our Communities: The Bottom Line, June 2005.