Polson is wading into choppy waters for a second go-round at considering a resort tax for the city at the south end of Flathead Lake.

Seven years ago Polson voters overwhelmingly rejected a proposed 3 percent tax on “luxury” retail items, restaurant/bar food and drink and lodging. Proponents of the tax believe the initial vote was undertaken too hastily before the city had sufficient time to sell the community on the benefits of the tax.

This time city leaders are taking a more in-depth approach, with a committee poised to listen to residents’ concerns.

As a city that meets the state criteria as a destination resort, Polson is one of just a few Montana cities able to consider a local resort tax. Because the city is desperate for money to fix deteriorating streets and has few funding options, it behooves Polson leaders to guide its citizenry through the process in hopes that a solution will emerge.

One need only look at Whitefish to see how successful such a tax can be for a city impacted by tourism. Whitefish has spent $16 million on street reconstruction over the past 20 years using resort tax revenue, and has rebated $7.9 million for property tax relief to city residents. Fifteen park improvement projects have been completed in Whitefish using resort tax dollars as well.

Polson has a couple of extenuating circumstances, though, that its citizens must consider if the measure goes to a second vote.

The city is located on the Flathead Indian Reservation, and Confederated Salish and Kootenai tribal members would be exempt from the resort tax. Some business owners argue that exemption in and of itself will make tax collection an accounting nightmare. And beyond that, exempting tribal members has the potential of creating a rift between tribal and non-tribal members.

Polson proposes to impose the resort tax only from April to September, which would curtail revenue. Also, Lake County has a much smaller tourism economy than Flathead County. Tourists spent $688 million in Flathead and only $32 million in Lake County in 2014. A few small business owners claim the tax will hurt their bottom line because it could send shoppers to other communities without the tax. Whitefish battled that scenario, too.

Just because creating a resort tax — or any new tax for that matter — is a challenge doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be considered. Whitefish went through the same controversy, the same arguments and the same spats about what to tax before it passed a resort tax in 1995.

We commend Polson civic leaders for making sure the process is thoroughly vetted this time around. Polson voters deserve to see the big picture of a resort tax’s impact and implications before they make such an important decision.