Tourism spat needs to be resolved

There's no doubt the Whitefish Convention and Visitor Bureau has done good work to promote the resort town since it broke away from the Flathead Convention and Visitor Bureau in 1998.

By keeping its own pool of bed-tax dollars, Whitefish has been able to focus on all things Whitefish and it has paid off in the form of increased resort-tax collections and more than 100 promotional articles about Whitefish published nationwide each year. Whitefish's annual bed-tax collections also have increased considerably since 1998, another sign of success.

The Whitefish bureau's ability to sell Whitefish isn't what's being questioned these days, though. It's the bureau's membership requirements and criteria for being a board member that have come under fire, particularly from a group of hotel operators.

Several hotel operators are opposed to the membership fee of 1 percent of total gross receipts. They argue the fee makes Whitefish lodging properties, already under a heavier tax burden with the 2 percent Whitefish resort tax, less competitive than other Flathead hotels. For bigger hotels, the membership fee could amount to $60,000 or more a year.

The WCVB maintains that the customer pays the fee and not the property, and that research shows taxes and fees don't come into play when travelers are deciding where they'll stay.

Another concern surrounds the WCVB stipulation that membership be primarily limited to businesses within the Whitefish zoning district, which includes the city and a roughly 2-mile doughnut around Whitefish. Also criticized is a city stipulation that WCVB board members must live in the Whitefish zoning district. If the CEO of the biggest hotel in town lives outside the 2-mile zone, he or she can't serve on the board.

The Whitefish bureau operated as a committee of the Whitefish Chamber of Commerce until a year ago, when the City Council made it a volunteer committee of the city and appointed its board of directors. At that point the bureau embarked on an ambitious fundraising campaign.

WCVB OFFICIALS will present the coming year's budget at the Whitefish City Council meeting on Monday, and likely will address the recent controversy. Here's what we suggest:

. Talk about the entire budget, not just the public portion that includes bed-tax revenue. The council will vote on a $68,350 budget, Whitefish's share of bed-tax money, but the WCVB really has an approximately $100,000 budget and hopes to triple that amount through increased membership.

There's no obligation for convention and visitor bureaus to be held accountable to anyone other than their board for money raised through membership dues and other fundraisers. This is wrong. If public money is involved in any portion of the budget and the organization is a committee of the city, the entire budget should be made public.

. Change the membership requirements to be more inclusive. WCVB argues it is simply following city law set out when the council passed the original ordinance requiring the WCVB to advertise and promote Whitefish. If so, then the council needs to rethink the policy and its effects.

As it is, businesses not located within the Whitefish zoning jurisdiction that "offer a service or activity that is of typical or complementary interest to a visitor to Whitefish," may only become an associate member with fewer privileges. Businesses such as outfitters or guest ranches outside the Whitefish district have to have a primary office in Whitefish to become a full member.

. Change the membership fees. The 1 percent of total gross receipts requirement for lodging properties is excessive. WCVB argues that other resort towns use a similar method to raise millions. We wonder how many residents want their town to become the next Vail or Aspen and have it promoted on the same scale? Flat membership rates such as those charged by the Flathead CVB make more sense, as does FCVB's "one for all, all for one" membership philosophy that encourages teamwork.

. Change the criteria for serving on the WCVB board of directors. Here again, WCVB says it's the city that established the criteria. At issue is the stipulation that board members must live within the zoning district. Key members of the lodging industry in Whitefish need an opportunity to belong to the board, regardless of where they live. The City Council needs to broaden the base for prospective board members.

It's worrisome that a letter written to the Whitefish mayor last October outlining lodging concerns about WCVB was not discussed or acted on by the council. Though WCVB operates under the umbrella of the city, it does so largely autonomously. A little more oversight by the city could deter this kind of controversy that doesn't do anyone any good.