As to the percentages: the county used to get a 2% tax, but the hoteliers lobbied us to raise it to 5%, to enable more robust marketing. At the time this was done, the Treasurer requested 10% of the enhanced revenue to administer the tax (it is paid monthly to the Treasurer) and for enforcement (for those who do not pay). In 2011, the BOC agreed to set aside the 10%, but since we now (for the first time) have a separate account for both revenue and expenses, it was found that 10% appears excessive. There is about $350,000 in the account, and $200,000 of that was allocated to this new national Pure Michigan partnership. There is $150,000 excess left over, and, if this is not spent (and there is no reason to believe that it will be) it will eventually revert to the CVBs in 2013, with a 10% reserve kept in the Treasurer’s office. The allocation that was voted on Feb. 15th could be termed an “early withdrawl” The money is not part of the General Fund and does not appear in our budget.

1. In my eight years on the BOC, number of minutes spent discussing county animal control = 0. This was evidently a responsibility that the BOC took on in more recent years. I was startled a few years ago to read about the county’s funding the new shelter. I didn’t follow the discussions or process that preceded that.

2. Many communities across the nation use hotel and other hospitality taxes to fund programs not related to tourism. I’ve often wondered why our local accommodations tax is only used for more promotion. Perhaps it has to do with Michigan’s constitutional limitations on taxation? I found the percentages stated in the article confusing. It had been my impression that the tax collected increased a couple of years ago and that the county was able to retain more of that revenue for other purposes. I note that the CVB is getting involved in additional programs, for example taking on part of the marketing of the airport shuttle that the AATA just launched. I’d like to see more discussion of this issue (use of the revenue) at some point.

3. You make reference to VEBA “pension funds”. Please clarify – does this body actually have anything to do with pensions? I thought it was only benefits, i.e. medical coverage for retirees.