Fayette should impose hotel tax
Nobody likes to pay a new tax. But when only three of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties fail to impose a hotel room occupancy tax of up to 3 percent, and one of the missing is Fayette County, where officials trumpet tourism as a big and growing part of the economy, something’s not right. Seven years have passed since state law permitted counties to implement the tax. So the bigger question is, “Why haven’t the Fayette County commissioners done so?” By law, money raised from the proposed tax can only go to tourism-related efforts. In a county like Fayette, which pins so much economic hope on the tourism industry, it seems like the tax and its aims are a logical fit.
This issue was raised before the primary election at a candidate forum hosted by the Fayette Chamber of Commerce, which estimated that imposing the tax would bring in $550,000 in revenue. The county would keep 2 percent of what’s collected, with rest going to its designated tourism agency, currently the Laurel Highlands Visitor’s Bureau.
Each county would work with the LHVB to design its own program for spending the money, which could take the form of advertising and marketing campaigns, or a grant program to fund capital improvement projects for tourism-related businesses.
Fayette County Commissioner Joseph A. Hardy III, whose daughter now runs the Nemacolin Woodlands Resort and Spa that he founded, opposes the tax. At the aforementioned candidate forum, Hardy said that if the matter comes before the commissioners, he would not vote for it, meaning he would abstain from voting.
On this issue, that’s the same as voting “no.” We can understand Hardy’s recalcitrance to vote on imposing a 3 percent tax that, according to his spokesman Jeff Nobers, would have forced Nemacolin Woodlands alone to pay $580,000 last year. That’s more than the Chamber of Commerce’s estimate for the entire county.
Nobers says the tax would erase the resort’s competitive edge when it comes to acquiring the group bookings that dominate Nemacolin’s off-peak season of November to March. That’s a legitimate concern, but quite frankly, the 3 percent tax doesn’t appear to have put the skids on hotel occupancy elsewhere in the state.
The more salient and pertinent point raised by Nobers is a concern that taking a huge chunk of money from Nemacolin patrons and doling it out to competing hotels and eateries, in the form of capital improvement grants, amounts to robbing Peter to pay Paul. Granted, Nemacolin Woodlands is the 800-pound gorilla in Fayette’s hotel occupancy room. But that doesn’t mean it’s right to tax that resort and use the proceeds to help competing businesses.
Nobers says the resort has significantly less objection if the tax revenue is earmarked exclusively for regional tourism marketing and promotion, which would benefit all parties within the county, including Nemacolin.
Given that each county has the ability to write its own rules on how the money will be spent under the tourism umbrella, we think Hardy and the county are better served if he plays an active role instead of merely passing.
As an elected county commissioner, Hardy has a responsibility to make a “yes” or “no” call on the tough votes. He didn’t abstain when all three commissioners voted to raise county real estate taxes 60 percent three years ago, so why should he abstain when it comes to imposing a hotel tax?
Rather than abstain, we think Hardy should vote in favor of the hotel tax, then in his capacity as commissioner work to ensure that the money is used exclusively for tourism promotion and marketing. After all, the county has the ability to craft its own program regarding how that money is dispersed.
True leaders don’t abstain when the going gets tough. They vote their conscience and let the chips fall where they may. The current board, including Vincent A. Vicites and Angela M. Zimmerlink, should approve this hotel tax as soon as possible.
It is not something that should be pawned off on the next administration. The time to act is now.