Economic Development & Tourism Contracts

[twobits]

It is indeed sad that the local paper is part of the whole mess and cannot take a more neutral objective stance.

According to your perception of bias towards council, the editorial the other day on the EDTC was certainly a scathing slam. So much so that the editor has to print a clarification/retraction of facts in the paper the next day. Too funny.

[hoot]

“The PHA admitted it was perplexed when the city decided to put the three services up for bids without consulting hoteliers first. They also expressed they were surprised at the city‘s decision because they felt the chamber had been doing a good job.”

penticton herald.

It appears to me that the forming of any committee whose mandate is to represent, in part, the interests of the motel/hotel owners of Penticton should be assembled, with input from the hospitality industry…they are the stakeholders after all…………?

Whatever next from 171 Main Street. ? :200:

[-fluffy-]

It appears to me that the forming of any committee whose mandate is to represent, in part, the interests of the motel/hotel owners of Penticton should be assembled, with input from the hospitality industry…they are the stakeholders after all…………?

I was thinking about the same thing hoot, after letters in the Herald alluded to the idea that the "Hospitality Association" is formed only of hotel/motel owners and not even a majority of them. Restauranteurs and other service providers with significant stakes in the tourist industry are voiceless in an association that purports to represent their interests.

There was also mention that while the Chamber of Commerce claims to have been "blindsided" by the open tendering of this contract, the matter had in fact been under discussion at Chamber meetings for months prior to the tender being issued, and that the proposal they (the Chamber) offered was to continue sending the hotel/motel tax money collected to an advertising contractor in Vancouver, a strategy openly criticized by Chamber members and other tourism industry stakeholders as not the best way to spend the money.

The was the room tax money is spent seems to be at the center of this controversy. If the act governing the collection and use of said funds is specific in how it is to be spent, then whoever has their hands on the purse is obligated to operate within those limitations until such time as the act is ammended. An excerpt from the act that appeared in the Herald letters section this morning stated that the money collected must be spent on "tourism marketing", somewhat vague but clear in its intent nonetheless. If the PBDA was not cleaving to this regulation then perhaps the Hospitality Association does have a legitimate complaint but it is also highly possible that this is just a convenient club to swing in a petty power struggle fueled more byresentment and indignation than an honest concern for the state of our tourist industry.

[jasoncox]

It appears to me that the forming of any committee whose mandate is to represent, in part, the interests of the motel/hotel owners of Penticton should be assembled, with input from the hospitality industry…they are the stakeholders after all…………?

I was thinking about the same thing hoot, after letters in the Herald alluded to the idea that the "Hospitality Association" is formed only of hotel/motel owners and not even a majority of them. Restauranteurs and other service providers with significant stakes in the tourist industry are voiceless in an association that purports to represent their interests.

There was also mention that while the Chamber of Commerce claims to have been "blindsided" by the open tendering of this contract, the matter had in fact been under discussion at Chamber meetings for months prior to the tender being issued, and that the proposal they (the Chamber) offered was to continue sending the hotel/motel tax money collected to an advertising contractor in Vancouver, a strategy openly criticized by Chamber members and other tourism industry stakeholders as not the best way to spend the money.

The was the room tax money is spent seems to be at the center of this controversy. If the act governing the collection and use of said funds is specific in how it is to be spent, then whoever has their hands on the purse is obligated to operate within those limitations until such time as the act is ammended. An excerpt from the act that appeared in the Herald letters section this morning stated that the money collected must be spent on "tourism marketing", somewhat vague but clear in its intent nonetheless. If the PBDA was not cleaving to this regulation then perhaps the Hospitality Association does have a legitimate complaint but it is also highly possible that this is just a convenient club to swing in a petty power struggle fueled more byresentment and indignation than an honest concern for the state of our tourist industry.

Interesting thread. Just wanted to clarify a few things. The Chamber was not "blindsided" by the RFP process. The previous contract to administer the services for the city was for a five year term and of course the chamber was well aware when the termination of that contract was and that there would be a bidding process for the next contract. I was President of the Chamber in 2009 and 2011 and I can assure you we were well aware of the process.

Since 2005, when the Additional Hotel Room Tax was initiated, the administration of that fund was guided by an elected council of industry stakeholders that, by legislation, had to include a certain number of hotels (by size), events, restaurants, B&Bs and attractions. The council was made up of the entire hospitality industry and they decided for the past 6 years how that 2% tax money was spent. The Chamber did not overrule the decisions of the TourismAdvisory Council and always acted the recommendations of that industry.

When the city made the decision to award the contracts for the city services it assumed it had the authority to say where the 2% tax was administered. The hotel/motel industry obviously disagrees. Since it is the hotels and motels that must consent to collect the tax, they are expressing their displeasure with the city decision. I will not speak for the hospitality association, however, I will say that it isnt some small group as has been suggested. It is over 75% of the properties and rooms in this town that have agreed the PHA should control of the 2% tax rather than the PBDG.

This is not about myself or the Chamber having "sour grapes" over not winning the contracts. This is an industry led initiative. The hotels want some say into how the money is spent to market Penticton. As has been noted before in this thread, the city did not consult or include the hotels in the process.

The Chamber's position is that we simply want to see Penticton have a healthy tourist season in 2012 and beyond. We are dismayed on behalf of the portion of our membership who are in the hospitality industry that Penticton has lost momentum in tourism as a result of all of this and we would like to be part of the solution. We encourage city council to move forward and come up with a new plan that works for the community and we are here to support them in that process.

[-fluffy-]

Thanks for your input Jason. With all the voices chiming in over this issue, each putting their own spin on the facts, it's hard to get a clear picture. If I read you right, the dispensation of the room tax monies collected under the act is to be controlled by a council of stakeholders and the make-up of that council is regulated as to member content. That makes perfect sense, all sectors of the tourism industry should have representation in deciding where the money goes. Am I to understand then, that the PBDA was attempting to administer those funds outside the stipulations of the act and that this led to the dispute? I am wondering why it is that the Hospitality Association apparently would not support the PBDA?

[jasoncox]

Thanks for your input Jason. With all the voices chiming in over this issue, each putting their own spin on the facts, it's hard to get a clear picture. If I read you right, the dispensation of the room tax monies collected under the act is to be controlled by a council of stakeholders and the make-up of that council is regulated as to member content. That makes perfect sense, all sectors of the tourism industry should have representation in deciding where the money goes. Am I to understand then, that the PBDA was attempting to administer those funds outside the stipulations of the act and that this led to the dispute? I am wondering why it is that the Hospitality Association apparently would not support the PBDA?

Thanks fluffy... Under the Chamber and by legislation,The established Tourism Advisory Committee always had 5 of the 9 seats reserved for accommodators giving the people who collect the tax a majority on the board. That was not as onerous as it may sound. All sectors of the hospitality sector were represented and all viewpoints were respected and in fact necessary for effective direction.

The way I understand it, the PBDG offered hoteliers some representation on the advisory committees, however, only a few seats representing a minority position. Additionally, there was no communication of the plan that the PBDG made to the city. The former president of the PHA told me that immediately after the announcement of the contract was made, they requested the plan from the city manager and were told they could access it under a Freedom of Information request but that large portions would be blacked out. Subsequent to that meetings were held between the PHA and the PBDG trying to negotiate an agreeable board composition. Failing to agree the PHA held a vote and decided to administer the tax themselves. Upon being informed that they wouldn't have access to 80% of the tourism funding, the PBDG apparently folded.

I should mention by the way that the PHA is not just made up of accommodators, the membership is open to any hospitality related business and they have been around for a long time. They were instrumental in getting the 2% tax in the first place in 2005.

[-fluffy-]

I'm still not clear on the mechanics of the thing Jason. The act stipulates that the dispensing of funds collected be controlled by the "Tourism Advisory Board", and further stipulates the composition of that board with regards to representation from the various sectors of the local tourist industry, but who picks the actual members? Are they elected or appointed, and by whom?

[jasoncox]

I'm still not clear on the mechanics of the thing Jason. The act stipulates that the dispensing of funds collected be controlled by the "Tourism Advisory Board", and further stipulates the composition of that board with regards to representation from the various sectors of the local tourist industry, but who picks the actual members? Are they elected or appointed, and by whom?

When the contract was administered by the Chamber, the Tourism Advisory Council was elected annually by the members of the Penticton Hospitality Association and members of the Penticton and Wine Country Chamber. We haven't seen the PBDG plan but apparently they weren't proposing to follow the act.

[-fluffy-]

I haven't been able to locate a copy of the act online, do you know where one might view it? Does the act specify whose responsibility it is to elect the committee?

[Daniel Pontes]

Here is the Act


Hotel Room Tax Act
Hotel Room Tax Regulation for the City of Penticton

[includes amendments up to B.C. Reg. 116/2011, June 20, 2011]
Definition

1 In this regulation, "Act" means the Hotel Room Tax Act.
Applicability of tax

2 December 31, 2005 is the prescribed date after which section 3 of the Act applies in respect of accommodation purchased in the City of Penticton.
Prescribed rate of tax payable

3 The tax payable under section 3 (1) of the Act is 2% of the purchase price of accommodation purchased in the City of Penticton.

[am. B.C. Reg. 116/2011, s. 12.]
Prescribed purpose for expenditure of tax

4 The City of Penticton may spend the amount paid to it out of the revenue collected from the tax for tourism marketing.

[am. B.C. Reg. 116/2011, s. 12.]
Repeal

5 This regulation is repealed effective July 1, 2012.

[am. B.C. Regs. 267/2009; 116/2011, s. 13.]


Best Regards

[twobits]

I honestly have not paid that much attn to this and viewed it as a petty disagreement. Item 4 however is interesting.

4 The City of Penticton may spend the amount paid to it out of the revenue collected from the tax for tourism marketing

This would seem to imply the the city has the authority to spend the money on marketing as it see's fit. Perhaps Councillor Vasilakis was correct in being blind sided along the lines of taking the ball and bat home if the city didn't cave?? Any other opinions on this?

Edit-Was this line item repealed?

[Daniel Pontes]

.

[Daniel Pontes]

Edit-Was this line item repealed?

Well since the Act includes amendments up to June 2011 it's a safe bet no.

Item 4 was not repealed

"[includes amendments up to B.C. Reg. 116/2011, June 20, 2011]"

[-fluffy-]

PHA consulted numerous other municipality's and has adopted the best practices model. And let me be clear, the Hoteliers can kill it just as fast as they voted it in.

It was the PEDS that went out into left field and came up with some cockeyed structure that only a person from Pluto would agree to.

Can you elaborate on that please Daniel? It's been pretty obvious from the start that this issue centered on relations between the PHA and the PEDS, and control of the funds collected through the 2% hotel room tax. What do you see as the differences between the approaches employed by the two groups?

[livewire]

This new group has the CITY money now,sure, but......

Is there not an upcoming vote required by accommodators to continue to collect the HRT? (The big bucks)

Does it not require 51% of the 'rooms' to agree?

Of 'the majority' of accommodators that were in favour of this new group are you sure they hold 'the majority' of votes required to continue to collect the HRT?

Just some food for thought.