Warren County committee advances 3-2 occupancy-tax resolution to full board

A Warren County Board of Supervisors committee voted 3-2 to advance a resolution that would allocate $250,000 a year from occupancy-tax revenue for 10 years — totaling $2,500,000 — toward a sewer or related infrastructure project in Johnsburg, sending the measure to the full board for final action.

The proposal prompted questions about precedent and fiscal safeguards. Heather (staff member) told the committee that the county’s local law governing occupancy-tax collections, Local Law 5 of 2018, limits use to activities that “must be for purposes of promoting tourism and tourism activities within Warren County” but does not otherwise restrict how the Board spends occupancy-tax revenue. “The Board of Supervisors has absolutely no restrictions on how they spend any occupancy tax revenue,” Heather said during the discussion.

Committee members debated whether the award should be treated as a unique, one-time exception or whether guardrails should be written into the resolution. Several supervisors warned that approving the funding now could create a precedent that other municipalities would cite when seeking occupancy-tax dollars. One supervisor suggested placing the award in reserve until matching grants materialize; staff cautioned the committee that there is not currently $2.5 million sitting in the occupancy-tax reserve and noted timing issues tied to annual payouts.

County staff provided figures during the discussion: roughly $1.5 million sits in a reserved fund, and about $2,000,000 in cash on hand was estimated (plus or minus $50,000), with the caveat that books for 2024 had not closed. Staff also noted that nearly $3,000,000 is typically paid out to municipalities in May for prior-year receivables, and using funds now would reduce the cash available when those payouts occur.

Committee members also discussed alternatives, including adjusting municipal supplements and temporary forfeiture of supplements by Johnsburg to make the math work. Supervisors referenced prior conversations and the long history of the project: one speaker said the project has been discussed for about 18 years.

Applicant Jim Williams said the applicant municipality has considered building a separate sewer system if county support is not available. “They would like to build a . . . separate technology system that they feel better serves their lodge,” Williams said, adding that the applicant had not formally moved forward on that option.

Legal staff advised caution about drafting conditional language into the resolution. Heather cautioned the committee that while the board may create resolutions with conditions, it is difficult to write a resolution that grants funds only if certain future contingencies are met; the board must decide to grant or deny the award.

Motion and vote: Supervisor Thomas moved to advance the resolution; Supervisor Runyon seconded. The committee voted to send the resolution to the full board with a roll-call result of three in favor and two opposed. Recorded votes were: Supervisor Runyon — yes; Supervisor Thomas — yes; Supervisor Molina — yes; Supervisor Patchett — no; Supervisor Cressido — no. The committee chair announced the measure will go to the full board for consideration.

The committee discussion distinguished between policy concerns and the formal committee action: several supervisors expressed reluctance about setting a precedent but said they would forward the item so the full Board could weigh the decision. The resolution, as presented in committee, specifies a 10-year term for the annual $250,000 allocation.