By Kristine Thomas
Silverton Mayor Stu Rasmussen and Silverton Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Stacy Palmer agree visitors play an important role in Silverton’s economy.
They vastly differ on how money should be spent to attract them to town.
At the July 1 Silverton City Council meeting, Palmer made a presentation on how the Silverton Visitor Center promotes tourism.
“We are frugal with the money you contribute to the visitor center and wish to continue our relationship with the city,” Palmer told the council.
Each year, the city council reviews an agreement for the center, which allocates $20,000 in Transient Occupancy Tax dollars (TOT) for visitor center operations. TOT represents the tax visitors pay when they stay at one of Silverton’s hotels, motels or bed and breakfast inns.
For 2012, the chamber reports it cost $46,834 to operate the center and visitor programs. Chamber fundraising supplies the $26,834 difference between costs and the TOT funding provided.
Before voting on the 2013-14 agreement between the City of Silverton and the Silverton Chamber of Commerce, Rasmussen said he believed it was a “slap in the face” to Silverton residents to fund the visitor center, especially after the council just raised fees on utility bills beginning in August. He implied the money for the visitor center could be used for general fund items such as sewer and water maintenance.
“We have gone through an arduous budget process and we have told the citizens we are about to charge them more for services,” he said.
“I am fundamentally opposed to government subsidizing private enterprise in this way. If private enterprise cannot support itself, then it is inappropriate for government to pick up the slack. And that’s my nickel’s worth.”
Several of the councilors responded prior to the 5-1 vote in favor of renewing the agreement, explaining to the mayor and audience that general fund dollars and TOT funds are separate and use of TOT funds restricted.
“These are not property taxes that we all pay, so there are no general fund dollars involved,” Councilor Ken Hector said after the meeting. “In fact, TOT funds are restricted by state statute for promoting tourism.”
Hector said he voted for the funding of the visitor center for three primary reasons.
“First, it is one of the best ways to promote the city of Silverton, including our businesses, which contributes to the economic vitality of the community, second, it is managed very effectively by the Silverton Chamber of Commerce, and finally, it does not involve general fund revenue.”
At the meeting, Councilor Laurie Carter praised the chamber and the visitor center for being “an agressive and dynamic promoter of Silverton.”
Councilor Jason Freilinger also voted in favor, saying he believes the chamber has done a fair job managing the center.
“I go into the center at least once a month and I would say that 90 percent of the time there have been out-of-town visitors in the center when I was there and the chamber staff did an excellent job of representing Silverton in a positive way,” he said after the meeting. “The city staff could not manage the facility on their own for that amount of money.”
Freilinger added the Silverton Chamber of Commerce does not have an unlimited “right” to these funds.
“I would be happy to entertain a bid from a qualified competing entity. Given that the chamber has done a good job managing the visitor center and no other organization has applied to managing the facility I am happy to grant the contract to the chamber,” he said.
Councilor Scott Walker voted in favor of renewing the contract, but added he believes that competitive bidding would assure that the city is getting the maximum benefit for the dollar spent.
During a July 11 interview with Our Town, Rasmussen said he may have misspoken when he said the $20,000 would be better used for infrastructure. He understands TOT funds cannot be used for anything other than promoting tourism, he said.
“It frustrates me to have a source of revenue and to not be able to use it for something I really need to,” Rasmussen said, adding he does not believe most people understand the different allocations and restriction of funds in a city budget.
That, however, does not change his opinion that there are an infinite number of things that could be funded to promote tourism instead of the visitor center, he said.
Every merchant in Silverton serves as a visitor center when they share where to go for food or to shop or to do something, Rasmussen said.
“I think we need to do a better job of encouraging people to come to town to visit,” he said. “We can take care of them really well when they are here. I don’t see that focus from the visitor center.”
Palmer is disappointed in the mayor’s remarks. She said it costs more than $20,000 to operate the center and that the chamber of commerce organizes fundraisers including a golf tournament and Ladies Night Out to make up the difference.
“I am disappointed a mayor in any community would be against supporting local businesses,” Palmer said. “I am also disappointed the mayor doesn’t recognize the value of assisting visitors brings to a small town’s economy. We are creating an environment where businesses can thrive.”
Services provided by the Silverton Visitors Center include greeting visitors, potential employers and residents in person, on the phone and through the web; providing material to visitors and people who are considering relocating to the area; providing information about businesses, events, tourist attractions and local groups; and maintaining a calendar of community events and a website.
Palmer gave as an example her July 9 meeting with a man from Eugene who plans to bring his car club to Silverton for three days. During their visit she will provide a history tour of the city and the murals for the group. In the meantime, she gave him materials to share, including maps and brochures on the city.
According to the state average, Palmer said, a person who stays overnight in a town spends $200 a day. The the car club could represent 30 people or $6,000 a day in revenue, she said.
What frustrates Palmer about the mayor’s comments is that the visitor center is instrumental in generating the revenue that supports it.
“We are a revenue retainer and source,” she said. “We help bring in the revenue and make sure it stays here. We are working hard to bring money into our community and we have a mayor who is not supporting that mission. He is confusing residents by not being straightforward where funds come for to fund the visitor venter and their purpose.”
Palmer said she is less concerned with the mayor’s no vote than with the fact he equated TOT funds and general fund dollars to the public.
“I am concerned citizens may believe that money used to fund the visitor center could have been used to lower the fees they are paying,” she said. “That’s not the case. TOT funds can only be used for tourism promotion or activities. They cannot be used for anything else.”
