AG 2003 11 17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- F DRAFT October 20, 2003 Page 260 · Level I grants are equivalent to a maximum of 45% of the revenues received from the local option i cent and t~ree local option ~ cent sales taxes generated at the project, less State ~ollection fees, plus up to 45% of the revenues from the 6% local occupancy tax generated by the project, less County collection fees, for a period not to exceed five full years of operation. · Level II grants are equivalent to a maximum of 90% of the revenues received from the local option I cent and three local option ~ cent sales taxes generated by the project, less State collection fees, plus up to 90% of the revenues from the 6% local occupancy tax generated by the project, less County collection fees, for a period not to exceed five full years of operation. · Under no circumstances will the incentive grant payments be tied to the local property taxe~ to be generated by th~ project and all property taxes to be paid by the new or expanding hotel/conference center development must be paid in full and kept current during the period that the H/CCDI incentive grant remains in e~fect · The developer (grant recipient} shill provide the County complete and accurate room occupancy tax, retail 'sales tax and local option sales tax payment informaDion, as well as monthly average daily rate and monthly average occupancy percentage. The County and Tourism Authority shall secure the confidentiality of that information in recognition of the proprietary nature of the data within the parameters authorized under state law. · Hotel/conference center developmentlincentive grant benefits may not be transferred or otherwise conveyed to another party without the specific consent of the Board of Commissioners. · All hotel/conference center developmen~ incentive grant benefits are designed to be linked ~irectly to local room t~x and local option sales tax revenues received by the County attributable directly, to the development of a specific project. Failure of the project to prpvide accurate revenue information, or to actually f~rward payment of collected occupancy ~ax and sales tax revenues to the appropriate agency shall void any responsibility of the County to pay incentives to the developer under th~ term~ of the H/CCDI incentive grant agreement. · This incentive grant shall apply only to the occupancy tax and to the first i cent and three ~ cent local option sales tax revenues. Revenue from any additional fmture local room tax or local option sales tax which may be adopted shall not be applicable for purposes of any hotel/conference center development incentive grant program. · The distribution of lncentive grant payments shall coincide with the receipt of quarterly sales tax revenues fro9 the State of North Carollna by the County. The t~ming of payments to theldeveloper shall be quarterly within 30 days of receipt of funds from the State and verification documentation of project reven~e performance by the dePeloper. Distribution of the portion of the grant related to the local occupancy tax shall follow the same timetable. · All hotel/conference center development incentive grants will be conveyed by an agreement between the developer and the County. The County will hold a hearing for the purpose of receiving public comment on the agreement before it is executed. (~-3) Resolution Increasin~ the Hotel OcCupancy Tax fr~m Five Percent to Six Percent Chairman F=eeman reported that he and Mr. Day recently visited the James B. Hunt Horse A~ena in Raleigh. He commented on the possibility of making improvements to the Cabarrus Arena and Evehts Center to create a similar facility in Cabarrus County. Commissioner Carruth made a motion to adopt the Resolution increasing the hotel occupancy tax from five percent to six percent effective January 1, 2004, contingent upon Mr. Day and the Conventio~ and Visitors Bureau (CVB) working Out a revised budget for the CVB, including f~nde for the operation of CVB, a sports marketing program, Events Center and cap~tal reserve. There was lengthy debate regardin~ the proposed lncrease in the hotel occupancy tax. Co~issioner Privette and Vice Chairman Suggs opposed ~he increase and cited concer~s about the need for an.increase in the occupancy tax and the lack of a proposal as to how the revenuelfrom the increased tax would be used. Commissioners Carruth and Carpenter supported the increase based ~pon the following: (1) Revenue of the increased ~hotel occupancy tax could be used to enhance tourism ~n Cabarrus County and to make improvements at the Arena that would otherwise b~ funded with property tax dollars; and (2) Hotel occupancy tax would be paid primarily by visitors to Cabarrus County. Commissioner Carpenter stated for. the record that the Convention and Visitors Bureau has done an excellent job in its efforts to increase tourism in Cabarrus County.