The Woodland Chamber of Commerce continues to raise concerns about the city’s handling of lodging tax funds, saying recent actions may conflict with state law and could lead to the closure of the Woodland Visitor Center.
The Woodland City Council has debated how to distribute $50,000 in remaining lodging tax dollars since the issue first appeared before the council on Oct. 6. In a 4-3 vote, the council recommended splitting the funds evenly between two tourism-related organizations: Downtown Woodland Revitalization (DWR), which hosts community events such as Hot Summer Nights and Movies in the Park, and the Woodland Visitor Center, operated by the Woodland Chamber of Commerce.
The decision followed an earlier recommendation from the city’s Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) to allocate $40,000 to the Chamber and $10,000 to DWR. During an Oct. 22 meeting, LTAC voted 3-2 to support the council’s new recommendation, despite objections from committee chair and Councilor Carol Rounds. The city council will take a final vote on the distribution in a meeting before January.
Chamber President Neil Butler questioned the council’s decision to evenly divide the funds, telling The Reflector in a previous story that the organization cannot sustain operations under a reduced budget. The Chamber had requested $50,000 to maintain the Visitor Center and received $40,000 the prior year. Butler said a $25,000 allocation would not be sustainable.
The center costs about $90,000 a year to operate, with major support from county lodging taxes and other local revenue sources. Several council members, however, argued that Downtown Woodland Revitalization’s events generate more visible tourism activity and attract more visitors from outside the city.
In a letter submitted ahead of the City Council’s Nov. 3 meeting, the Chamber urged city officials to delay final action on the allocation of $50,000 in lodging tax funds until legal questions are answered. The letter, which was requested to be read publicly, was noted by Mayor Todd Dinehart but not discussed in detail during the meeting.
Dinehart said the city would not issue a formal response. He reasoned that providing legal advice or written opinions to outside organizations falls outside the city’s role.
“There will not be a communication or anything coming back from the city,” Dinehart said during the meeting. “It’s not the city’s position to spend money and hire outside legal counsel when we already have a city attorney.”
City Attorney Emily Guildner agreed, saying any questions about compliance or risk would be addressed internally.
“If the mayor or councilmembers have concerns about risk or liability, that’s really what we’re here for,” Guildner said.
In its letter, the Chamber questioned whether DWR’s planned uses for the funds — including downtown events, marketing, and potential lease payments for a city-owned building — qualify as “tourism promotion” under state law.
“The City and DWR face potential audit findings and repayment liability from the State Auditor’s Office,” the letter signed by Chamber President Neil stated. “Using lodging tax funds for lease payments on city-owned property could also be viewed as a gift of public funds.”
The Chamber requested that the city seek written clarification from the city attorney before releasing any funds, stating that proceeding without review could expose both the city and DWR to financial and legal risk.
The letter also stated that the city’s decision to approve an even split raised “serious compliance and legal concerns” under RCW 67.28.1817, which governs changes to lodging tax allocations. The Chamber argued that DWR’s application should have been amended to show how the increased amount from $10,000 to $25,000 would be used.
The organization also reiterated that the Visitor Center cannot remain open under a reduced budget.
“The Chamber cannot sustain the Visitor Center below a $40,000 allocation,” the letter said. “If funding remains at $25,000, the Chamber will close the Visitor Center effective January 1, 2026.”
The Chamber’s packet included 14 questions directed to the city attorney, covering topics such as legal definitions of tourism promotion, fiduciary duties of nonprofit boards, and whether lodging tax allocations for city-owned facilities could violate the state constitution’s prohibition on gifting public funds.
The Reflector reached out to the Woodland Chamber of Commerce for additional comment, but did not receive a response.
The City Council did not take action on lodging tax funding at the Nov. 3 meeting.
