There are several important factors at the root of some of the Occupancy Tax spending decisions that may help explain the mis-guided actions of the past.

  1. Unlike all other Tourism Development Authorities (TDA) in the state Currituck’s is the only one where there are no designated representatives from the local tourist industry. In most counties the tourism industry representatives have the majority for spending decisions by the TDA. So Currituck’s TDA has little direct experience with the industry as a whole and has to rely on county management for advice. The county manager’s primary responsibility is to balance the county budget as required by law.

  2. The Currituck Commissioner’s primary role is to oversee the management of the county’s general budget which covers a broad range of functions including education, public safety, parks and recreation, economic development, planning and zoning and land use regulation. The state’s balanced budget requirement means that if the county’s spending increases faster than the property values then the general property tax rate has to be increased. This occurred in 2012 when the tax rate had to be increased by 50% due to decline in beach property values. Several commissioners were not re-elected as a result. Thus there is a clear conflict of interest between their role as a TDA to increase tourism (that represents less than 10% of the voters in the county) and their role as a BoC to maintain a low tax rate while providing services to the community of the whole.

  3. Prior to 2005 when the legislature changed the purposes for which OT could be used Currituck placed all OT directly into the general fund and used a portion to cover public safety services in the beach tourist area. But even though the law change in 2004 explicitly removed these practices they continued for several years. Changing these practices would have required budget reductions in other areas or a property tax rate increase.

  4. Board of Commissioner (BoC) members all have other responsibilities in their lives. It is not meant to be a full time job. Newly elected BoC rarely ask tough questions as they learn the job and are heavily influenced when told that this is how it has always been done. The BoC members are not attorneys and have not tried to independently interpret the new law’s requirements for Tourism Related Expenses (TRE), that they be “designed to increase use of lodging (and other tax revenue generating facilities in the county)… by attracting tourists and business travelers (to the county).” They rely heavily on County management and their fellow BoC members.

CCA asked in its public records request for the evidence presented to the BoC that Sheriff and EMS OT charges were tourist attractions. There was none.

To better understand the OT decision making dynamic I’ve have excerpted from the County’s website the video clips of how the OT budget for Sheriff and EMS has been presented to the BoC that shows several important elements.

  1. The County Manager never mentions how these charges meet the TRE criteria of “designed to increase use of lodging, … by attracting tourists,…”

  2. The County Manager emphasizes that the budget numbers only cover the “seasonal” increases for coverage due to the influx of tourists, even though the public records show that he and his staff know that the amounts he is proposing cover the full year of costs.

  3. The BoC members do not question the TRE rationale , nor the amounts charged.

Here are the links to important video clips summarizing analyses and showing actual BoC meeting excerpts:

Tourist Season Sheriff and EMS

 Actual Public Safety Service Demand in Tourist Areas is Less Than Rest of County

Seasonal Tourist Variation Versus Full Year Coverage

County Manager Definition of TRE for the BoC 3 min 46 sec

Presentations and Discussions of the Proposed OT Budget

2015 06 01 TDA FY16 Budget presented                6 min 25 sec

2016 05 16 TDA TRE FY17 Budget presented           6 min 45 sec      

2017 05 15 TDA FY18 TRE Budget presented            4 min 53 sec

2018 06 04 TDA FY19 Budget presented                         8 min 41 sec

2019 05 20 TDA FY20 Budget Presented                   7 min 43 sec

TDA Budget Approval Meetings -  Lack of Discussion                     

2015 06 16 TDA FY16 Budget approved                    1 min 45 sec

2016 06 06 TDA FY17 Budget approved                    2 min 18 sec

2017 06 05 TDA FY18 Budget Approved               1 min 54 sec

2018 06 18 TDA FY19 budget approved                  2 min 28 sec

2019 06 03 TDA FY20 Budget approved                   3 min   2 sec

BoC & County Attorney interprets the law and discussion of key TRE budget amendments

Hanig Claim That Auditor Did Not Flag a Problem 1 min 9 sec

2017 06 05 White re Beach Nourishment           1 min   8 sec

2018 04 02 TDA Meeting on use of OT for Fire District and CCRC           14 min 53 sec

2018 04 16 Bob White - Counter argument to suit        9 min 7 sec

2018 06 18 Bob White - on budget process        2 min 14 sec

2018 06 18 Hanig, Ike and Beaumont on CCA         7 min 51 sec