Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tourism Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lyon County proposal would consolidate transient room tax ordinances; speaker says it does not create a new tax
Summary
An unidentified speaker at a Lyon County meeting proposed repealing Ordinances 4 60 and 4 60.1 and consolidating rules for the county's 3% transient room tax to fund the Lake Barkley tourism commission, saying "This is not imposing a new tax." No formal vote was recorded.
An unidentified speaker at a Lyon County meeting presented a draft ordinance to repeal Ordinances 4 60 and 4 60.1 and consolidate the county's rules on the 3% transient room tax, saying, "This is not imposing a new tax." The speaker said the change would place the county's longstanding tax code in a single ordinance so the rules are easier to find.
The proposal, described as a consolidation rather than a new levy, would direct revenue from the existing 3% transient room tax to support the Lake Barkley tourism commission. According to the speaker, Lyon County first implemented the tax in 1990 and the draft ordinance merges the original ordinance and a later amendment into one document to avoid multiple separate references dating back decades.
Jeff Lewis, a Worthington Subdivision resident on Rolling Mill Road, raised a separate concern during public comment, asking, "We've heard a rumor that it's gonna be straightened from when you go into the road, the first intersection that's straight on from the new 4 way stop sign. Is that true or have you heard anything about that?" Meeting participants offered brief responses but did not record a definitive answer or next step on the road question during this exchange.
Participants also discussed where the ordinance language appears online; one speaker referenced an ordinance notation that sounded like "6 20.18" and suggested material is available on the county website, but the session did not confirm a final consolidated ordinance number or post location. The county did not record a formal motion, mover, or vote on the proposed consolidation during the excerpted discussion.
The item was presented as an administrative clean-up—repealing two older ordinances and placing the county's transient room tax provisions into a single ordinance for clarity—rather than as a measure to increase taxes. No formal vote or adoption was recorded in the provided transcript segment.
