Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hotel Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners order rewrite of hotel-tax ordinance after residents demand transparency of tourism spending
Summary
Following multiple public comments alleging a lack of oversight at the county’s tourism agency, commissioners instructed the solicitor to draft an amended hotel-tax ordinance that would split administration, put the bulk of revenue in a joint account, and require a joint audit.
The Washington County Board of Commissioners voted to instruct the county solicitor to draft an amended hotel-tax ordinance after residents and local stakeholders pressed for greater transparency over how hotel-tax revenue is spent.
Attorney Sean Logue, Dr. Jeffrey Elias and other public commenters said the county’s current arrangement gives too much discretion to the Washington County Tourism Promotion Agency and lacks adequate oversight. "$3,000,000 is going out the door and we don't know where all the money is going to," Sean Logue told the board and requested a forensic audit of the tourism agency's spending over the past decade. Dr. Jeffrey Elias told commissioners that the original ordinance provided oversight and called the 2017 change that shifted most hotel-tax revenue to the tourism promotion agency "insufficient" for transparency and accountability (SEG 802–819; SEG 763–782).
The chief clerk read proposed provisions for the drafted ordinance: the county treasurer would receive a 4% administrative charge; 20% of hotel-tax receipts would be paid to the Washington County Tourism Agency for administration; and 76% would be deposited into a special joint account titled in the names of the Washington County Board of Commissioners and the Washington County Tourism Agency, requiring agreement between the two entities on how monies are spent. The clerk also read a provision requiring an annual audit by a certified public accounting firm jointly retained by the commissioners and the tourism agency and language directing pursuit of a sports/recreation/convention center (SEG 1218–1239).
At the reading, one commissioner said the proposal "went against the county code" and announced a 'no' vote, citing potential lawsuits; other commissioners recorded affirmative votes on the related motions. The board moved forward with instructing the solicitor to draft the ordinance language and to include the specified administrative percentages and joint-audit requirement in the drafting instructions.
The action instructs county counsel to prepare formal ordinance text that will be brought back to the board for consideration, public review and possible adoption in a future meeting. Commissioners and public commenters said the next steps should include clearer reporting on how prior revenue was spent and an audit trail for tourism spending.
The solicitor’s drafting instruction was approved for further work; a formal ordinance vote will be required to change the county code or enact the proposed distribution and oversight rules.
