An informal survey by the Queenstown Chamber of Commerce has shown overwhelming support for some form of localised visitor levy.
In a detailed business case earlier this year, the Queenstown Lakes District Council showed it would need at least $278 million from central government coffers over the next five years to pay for infrastructure.
Alternatively, it wants the power to raise revenue through a bed tax or other direct mechanism.
It warned without external funding, visitors could be put off coming to the resort as the infrastructure creaked under the weight of a tourism and population boom.
Of the 111 members who responded to the chamber survey, a landslide 94% agreed the council could not foot the infrastructure bill on its own.
And 81% wanted a local levy that targeted visitors only.
Chamber chief executive Ann Lockhart said such a levy would allow the resort to ''be in charge of its own destiny''.
''The number of residents and the ratings base are simply too small,'' she said.
''It's well known that in this district there are around 34 visitors for each resident compared to Auckland's 1:1 ratio.''
Tourism Minister Kelvin Davis has been approached for comment but did not respond before deadline.
Of those surveyed, 56% did not support further increases in the rates add-on paid by commercial property owners, while 71% did not want a broader levy that also targeted locals.
However, the survey does not provide a breakdown by sector, so it cannot identify how many accommodation providers support a bed tax.
There has been a small but vocal group opposed to a bed tax, which Queenstown Lakes District Mayor Jim Boult has been pushing central government for.
Chamber chairman Craig Douglas said the survey was ''about getting some principles around a visitor levy established, and what is quite clear here is any levy that's implemented needs to be quite specifically targeted at visitors''.
Tourism Industry Aotearoa chief executive Chris Roberts said the organisation agreed that paying for the major infrastructure investment needed in Queenstown could not fall entirely on its ratepayers.
However, a visitor levy was not the easy answer it might appear to be to those who responded to the chamber's survey.
''A local visitor levy would provide an ongoing income stream, not the immediate funding injection that Queenstown needs.
''It would require new legislation and is complex to design and implement.
''It would be a radical change to New Zealand's tax system to allow a local council to set and collect a tax. Even if the Government agreed to it today, it would likely take at least a couple of years to put it in place,'' Mr Roberts said.
TIA recently conducted its own survey of tourism businesses nationwide on the best funding options for infrastructure investment.
Of the Queenstown members who responded, 82% supported greater user pays, 78% an allocation of the GST collected from international visitors, and 58% a border tax. Only 18% of Queenstown respondents supported a levy on local visitor-related services.
TIA is calling on the Government to treat Queenstown as a special case and put together a bespoke support package for the district.
''It's time for the Government to open its chequebook and ensure Queenstown maintains its tourism reputation, to the benefit of all New Zealand.''
