Loading...
Resort tax in Kalispell Public Comment from Bill HallAimee Brunckhorst From: Bill Hall <baffin13@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 10:34 AM To: Kalispell Meetings Public Comment Subject: EXTERNAL Attn: Ms. Sandy Carlson Attachments: Resort tax in Kalispell.docx; Lorraine Clarno Letter.docx [NOTICE: This message includes an attachment -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.] Hello Ms. Carlson: I have attached a letter to our Chamber of Commerce along with an article from the Daily Interlake concerning the possibility of a resort tax. Thank you kindly for reviewing both and giving a consideration to what I have written. I reside in your Ward 1 and therefore have sent it to you. Bill A. Hall Kalispell 1 By ADRIAN KNOWLER Daily Inter Lake I November 20, 2022 12:00 AM The Kalispell Chamber of Commerce is gathering input from the community aiming to create a plan for "intentional growth" in coming years, and among issues being examined are the benefits of a potential resort tax. As part of the study, the chamber is conducting a survey and hosted two round -table discussions this week moderated by Cathy Ritter of Better Destinations, a tourism consultancy. The information gathered will be compiled into a report, and Ritter will issue recommendations to the chamber based on her findings. The report is expected in mid -December. Ritter has previously worked with other tourism destinations, including Vail, Colorado, and the Lake Tahoe area. Although she has not yet issued any recommendations to the Kalispell chamber, during one of the moderated discussions Ritter said she has seen sales, resort and hotel taxes become a benefit for tourism destinations. As an example, Ritter cited Vail's "world class" healthcare system, which she said is only possible in the town, which has fewer than 5,000 residents because of the taxes levied on tourism -related industries. Under current state law, cities like Kalispell because of its population are not eligible for a local option tax on lodging, retail and restaurant sales. Neighboring Whitefish and Columbia Falls each do collect the 3% resort tax. Kalispell's only tourism -related tax on the books is a $2 per night flat fee on hotel stays, which was originally implemented in 2010. "We're not considered a gateway community but we are a destination, in our own right," said Lorraine Clarno, President of the Kalispell Chamber of Commerce. "We'd at least like the option to decide [at the city level.]" Clarno said that while the chamber does not yet have an official stance on implementing a resort tax the hope is that the study would provide them with more information on the topic. If the chamber did come out supporting such a tax, they would need to advocate at the state level for changing the requirements that allow cities to implement such a tax, and it would eventually need to be approved by a city-wide referendum. Clarno did say that if such a tax were added the chamber would want funds to be used in a way that benefited locals. "Those types of taxes can fund community assets that can be used year-round," said Clarno. "If we went that direction we'd be looking at capital investments that will draw tourists in, but be accessible for our community. In that way the tourists pay, but we get the benefit." As an example of such projects, Clarno mentioned a ski race timing system that Discover Kalispell funded at Blacktail Mountain. The mountain needed such a system to host race events, but now it is used by local teams as well. In commissioning the study, the chamber is looking to get community input as part of planning a broad long-term growth plan for Kalispell and the valley. Kalispell was recently identified as the nation's fastest -growing micropolitan city, defined as those with populations between 10,000 and 50,000. Along with population growth, Kalispell is seeing an increasing reliance on tourism, and a lengthening of the traditional tourism season, according to participants at one of the roundtable sessions. "We have experienced a tremendous amount of change and growth, and we anticipate it will continue even if it slows a bit in the near term," said Clarno. "We want to be driving intentional growth in a written plan for what we want Kalispell to be." The chamber is looking for a broad diversity of voices and opinions in the study. According to Clarno, they have received over 300 survey responses so far, with 30 participants in the roundtables. They have also conducted 20 interviews with "key stakeholders." AT THE first roundtable, held on Nov. 16, constituents with a variety of backgrounds were present, including in architecture, education, homeless advocacy, conservation, arts, historical preservation and government. Also on the agenda for discussion at the meeting were topics such as community values, what makes Kalispell and the Flathead Valley distinct as a tourist destination and place to live, and how the community wants the future of the region to look. Participants were asked to identify what they felt was distinctive about the area. Among the things listed were Glacier National Park, the area's history, the remoteness of Northwest Montana, the nearby Native American reservations, and Kalispell's role as the retail hub for the region. Residents expressed feelings of concern when it comes to the character of development that they are seeing in Kalispell. Architect Luke Rumage said he wanted to live in a community with more public transit and walkable and bikeable options for pedestrians, and felt that Kalispell's evolution into a "bedroom community" was a hindrance to healthy growth. "I've lived in places with 700 people and 7 million people," Rumage said. "The thing they had in common is that you can walk to work, the grocery store or the park, and take your dogs or kids outside safely." Participants also worried about housing shortages and preserving the historic character of Kalispell's downtown. Potter Sherry Wells described the approved eight -story parking garage slated for downtown Kalispell as "ridiculous," and wondered how it would conform to the city's adopted design guidelines. The chamber's survey is open to the public until Nov. 22, and can be found online at kalispellchamber.com Reporter Adrian Knowler can be reached at aknowler(a),dailyinterlake.coin or 758-4407. Kalispell Chamber of Commerce Attn: Ms. Lorraine Clarno 15 Depot Park Kalispell, MT 59901-4008 Via Email Dear Ms. Clarno: This is in response to earlier email communications between us dated November 23, 2022. I read, and now reference, an article by Adrian Knowler of The Daily Interlake posted on Google with a dateline of Nov 20, 2022 which discussed a "'Resort Tax" in Kalispell. I was able to read the article on Nov 21 and had plans to respond to your survey on Nov 23, but the survey link had been pulled down. After having read through the article, discussing the possibility of a "'resort tax", it was immediately apparent to me that I needed to respond to such a thought or plan. Yes, I am aware that any such tax in Kalispell would require an amendment of existing State statues and that is why I have copied several local and state legislators. While I will write further below about what I read in the article by Adrian Knowler, I want to be on the record, once again, as being totally opposed to any such resort tax in Kalispell. Kalispell is most certainly not a resort. Further, by passing such new legislation for larger towns/cities, it would appear to have the look and feel of being a partial general sales tax in disguise because it impacts all persons who live here or visit here. Additionally, it might very well open up a "Pandora's box" for our great State with an unknown number of our State's midsize cities being swept into this resort tax web because they might like to have one also. I oppose any such resort tax or any ensuing legislation because it is a TAX or financial burden on the residents of Kalispell, not just tourists who may wish to use our hospitality sector of retailers. Find another way in which to cause only our visitors to pay that tax. And, all of this to economically support members of the Chamber of Commerce while sweeping up residents of Kalispell in that mix, I think is just wrong. Again, please remember that this would impact any of our residents who chose to use our hospitality retailers, not just the tourist ""targets" pointed to your notion or in any ensuing plans or statues. Getting back to the Interlake article, it is quite clear to me that you, "'stakeholders", or members of the Chamber are "'teeing this up for the Kalispell City Council or for our State Legislature. I can conclude nothing else and while I would surmise that you, or perhaps your predecessor, wanted or wants to provide some benefit for chamber members and for that, I can place no blame. However, I am still very much opposed. However, the number of chamber members only amounts to slightly over 2.5% of our residents who might be forced to pay any such "resort tax". Where is the equity in that? What might be those benefits? You did not state any specific items in those quotes attributed to you; only the mention of - '1►veW be looking at capital investments that will draw tourists in". What are those capital investments that you reference and if they are designed to bring in tourists, why should all residents of Kalispell be a part of funding such a plan? Can't our great businesses compete on their own in the free market arena against other businesses in cities such as Whitefish and Columbia Falls for their share of the tourist trade? If not, why not? I say this because the Chamber has already authorized the expense to hire a consulting firm, because of numerous statements attributable to you and Ms. Ritter of Better Destinations, and because you consented to have a journalist present and be quoted at your last meeting on this subject. It seems doubtful that the Chamber would have employed such a firm as Better Destinations without some specific goal in mind, and without having previously discussed this with a few or many elected officials to obtain some level of initial support. It is largely unclear to me why Ms. Ritter would "'toss out" Vail, Colorado as being a case in point when Vail is nothing like Kalispell and Kalispell would never want to be a "Vail"' type example. I have been to Vail numerous times. Further, that she added a verbal "sweetener"' by use of her reference to health care being paid for by tourist industry taxes would seem to be "placing the cart before the horse" in that her "report"' had not yet been submitted. Also, I am unclear as to why you referenced — 'a ski race timing system that Discover Kalispell funded at Blacktail Mountain", when Blacktail Mountain is not in Kalispell. Yes, that is a very good ski hill, but it has private owners/operators who should be responsible for any such timing system. The percent of skiers using a ski timing system surely must be less that 1% of Kalispell's population. I see no reasonable or widespread benefit to our City of 27,000 persons. Why not a "pay -go" system instead? A resort tax is just that — another tax, a financial burden on the people and to suggest that it might help healthcare here or pay for timing/speed gates at Blacktail Mountain, not in Kalispell, is not the manner in which our City, or Chamber for that matter, should be spending its revenue or dues. We have other more pressing issues. Our City will have considerable increases in its revenue stream through added real estate taxes as new residential, commercial, office and industrial developments are built. Also and largely so, by the greatly increase values levied on existing real property by Flathead County appraisers. Planning for the responsible spending of those new revenues is a great responsibility that our City Council is burden with for its and our future. Montanans have never liked tax burdens — notice we have no sales tax and won't, I predict, because of not trusting governmental entities to permanently limit such a tax, making it for a specifically defined purpose, and then "'sun setting" any such legislation. Virtually every year since I have lived in Kalispell (22 years) there have been many mil - levy issues for schools and other needs that our residents are asked to support; or not. Sadly, some of those issues that are critical are voted down because the continual manner of selling of those mil -levies - "this will only cost you $28 a month on your real estate tax bill'; is a worn out phrase that has lost its appeal and selling power in the Valley because it has been used far too many times. Kalispell has other significant issues such as affordable housing and the condition of our roadways (traffic as well as surface conditions) — just to name a few. Please look at the mess on West Reserve, at 2 Mile Drive, at 3 Mile Drive and at what is happening with Stillwater Crossing Apartments potential traffic at 4 Mile and Stillwater. There is much to be done and I am confident that the Council is well aware of these plaguing and other issues. Taxing our current residents, just to get at tourist traffic or to increase tourist traffic to partly pay for new infrastructure is NOTthe way to approach any significant issue before us at present. Focus on current expenditures, the appropriateness of same, then plan for the new projects as new and increased real estate tax revenues come on line. Kalispell should focus on a managed growth plan within its financial means by causing all new developments to pay impact fees and development fees related to the traffic their new developments create. I don't think focusing on creating new or increased tourism is or should be a "front line" issue, or an issue at all, for our elected officials. Tourism, as I have seen in 22 years, comes here whether we like it or not. At present, many of us can no longer enjoy our great Glacier National Park due to huge demand and limited access. Visitation to that wonderful Park is now clearly limited, seemingly forever, for many of our permanent residents. We will have to deal with growth in terms of our infrastructure through proper planning by our local and state officials and not through additional taxes to satisfy specific needs for a limited number of our tourist related businesses. Our retail community will most certainly deal with any increased opportunity for goods and services when those needs arise in Kalispell. I respectfully urge the Chamber of Commerce to end this quest and for the Kalispell City Council to resist all efforts by any agency or persons to continue the pursuit of having Montana Statues changed to accommodate such a resort tax. I further urge our State Legislative representatives to resist a Resort Tax should it reach their chambers. I believe supporting such a tax would result in "'political peril" for any elected individual supporting it. No more new tax burdens on our good people herein Kalispell. I am very confident that young people with meager salaries and older persons on fixed incomes would not support a Resort Tax. Those two groups make up more than 50% of our Kalispell population in the latest demographics I was able to access. Respectfully, /s/ Bill A. Hall Kalispell, MT baffinl3@gmail.com CC: Councilwoman Sandy Carlson - publiccomment@kalispell.com Montana State Senator, Mark Blasdell - Mark. Blasdel(a)mtleg_aov Keith Regier - keith.regier(d)mtleg_aov Adrian Knowler - aknowler@dailyinterlake.com