Dumped

County accommodation providers say they were strung along by Shire Hall

An industry-led County organization says Shire Hall reneged on an arrangement where it would have managed a share of the Municipal Accommodation Tax (MAT). StayPEC worked with Shire Hall over several years in preparation for the County’s adoption of the new tax.

Provincial legislation says the revenue generated by the MAT must be shared with a destination marketing program—if one existed on the day the MAT was adopted. StayPEC says its organization fulfilled the criteria.

StayPEC says it worked with Shire Hall in good faith—only to learn last week that it had been cut out. Instead, the County will form its own organization—one that it can control.

Richard Barrett heads StayPEC, a Destination Management Organization (DMO) specifically created, governed, and managed to serve in the role as prescribed in the legislation. It consists of members from a cross-section of accommodation providers, including the Waring House, Huff Estates and Picton Harbour Inn. Prior to the adoption of the MAT, StayPEC collected a destination marketing fee (DMF) from its guests. It used these funds toward marketing the County—as prescribed by the legislation—as well as assisting worthy causes in this community, including the foodbank and hospital.

StayPEC believed it had a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Shire Hall to serve as the DMO. Barrett says Shire Hall had agreed to the term of the arrangement—one year—and to fund the interim months between the start of the MAT collection (when StayPEC would stop collecting a DMF from its guests on February 1) and when funds began to roll in.

Barrett first sensed something was wrong in March when he tried to collect the interim funding. Shire Hall stopped returning his calls. The same happened in June. It wasn’t until July that Barrett says the County’s CAO Marcia Wallace responded, telling him “they were working on it.”

In September, Barrett was called to Shire Hall. He reiterated that StayPEC was best placed to serve as the DMO with endorsements from business associations in Wellington and Bloomfield as well as the Prince Edward Winegrowers Association. Sensing things were getting squishy, he offered to make a presentation to Council—to present the merits of this partnership.

Barrett says the next thing he heard was on October 13, when he was told that Council would consider the matter the following day at a Committee of the Whole meeting. No StayPEC members were available to attend the meeting on short notice. There was no presentation on behalf of StayPEC. They learned of Council’s decision to form its own Destination Marketing and Management Organization (DMMO) from news accounts.
Shire Hall says there was no Memorandum of Understanding and that any such arrangement would have required Council’s direction and approval. Neither existed.

“While staff had meetings with StayPEC to understand what they might seek in an MOU—and these points were delivered to Council—ultimately Council decided to pursue the path of a DMO that will include representation from a diversity of tourism operators,” wrote Todd Davis, Director of Community Services, Programs and Initiatives.

Davis says he understands StayPEC’s frustration with the pace of decision-making, but that it was clear to all involved on the Steering Committee of the Destination Development Strategy—of which Barrett was served as a member—that various options would be presented to Council before any decision about a DMO was finalized.

Davis disputes Barrett’s contention they weren’t given sufficient notice of the October 14 meeting. He says StayPEC was advised in the September meeting that a report was coming to that meeting.

It was at that meeting Council approved the staff’s recommendation for the formation of a new municipal corporation to serve as the DMMO.

In his report to Council, Davis wrote that StayPEC was not recommended because the municipality would lose control over the share of the MAT dedicated to tourism marketing. Further, he wrote that StayPEC lacked the organizational infrastructure to do the job and that the municipality would assume the liability as the sole funder—without the levers to control how the money was spent.

The DMMO corporation will be controlled by Shire Hall. An advisory board of “broad industry stakeholders” representing tourism business, residents, and Council will offer input and counsel.

According to a consultant’s report, such a model will “lead with authority, social license and confidence.”

The industry-led StayPEC, meanwhile, has been left at the altar.

Papering over

Shire Hall hired a Vancouver-based consultant earlier this year to assess the feasibility of a Destination Marketing and Management Organization (DMMO) in Prince Edward County. (Mind the bevy of acronyms in this story.)

In its October 5 Draft Report, Twenty31 presented what it described as the business case for a DMMO in the County, complete with their analysis, industry best practices, comparable models and governance recommendations for just such an organization.

Informing its 25 pages, the report surveyed municipal staff and reviewed presentations and studies. Their research found that the County has reached “the tipping point of over-tourism,” that too many “low-yield” visitors clog County streets, making it hard to park and degrading the environment and local culture. No evidence was cited to support these claims.

It found that “too much tourism” had “significantly eroded local’s quality of life.” Again, without corroboration. The report found, too, that tourism operators, hotel industry, residents and local government frequently disagree about how to manage the challenges and seize the opportunities. We must take their word for that.

The report’s authors concluded that a brandnew municipal corporation, controlled by the municipality, was the ideal vehicle to serve as a DMMO. It would provide sufficient distance between Shire Hall and the DMMO, but enable it to control its activities.

Lacking a source, the report breathlessly claimed the “DMMO is quickly becoming the primary governance model” globally.

The report’s authors presented two case studies for comparison: Tofino, a town on Vancouver Island and Sonoma County in California. Both communities suffer from what Twenty31 describes as over-tourism.

It is not clear from the report that its authors visited Prince Edward County as part of the preparation of this report. Asked to clarify this point, Davis said, “Twenty31 is a Canadian-based consultancy that has operated in the region—including many visits to Prince Edward County on behalf of the RTO—for at least five years.”