WILMINGTON — A question whether a local lodging tax applies to new guest cabins at Roberts Arena was settled Wednesday in short order in the affirmative.
Assistant Clinton County Prosecutor Andrew McCoy, who handles most questions of law that arise in the Clinton County Commissioners office, said there is wording in the local hotel tax code of regulations that “frankly I think is sort of vague and ambiguous that may need some cleaning up.”
Logan Bailey with the Clinton County Auditor’s Office said the code’s definitions of hotel and of lodging differ, and as a result her office looked to McCoy for counsel on what’s sometimes called a bed tax.
McCoy told county commissioners the lack of clarity in the Clinton County Hotel Lodging Excise Tax Code of Regulations probably is a result of “inartful drafting” in the writing of the code.
His suggestion that people could “blame the attorneys” drew loud laughter from those present. The particular tax code in question was no doubt approved by the Clinton County Prosecutor’s Office “way back” when the tax was started in order to fund the local convention and visitors bureau, McCoy added.
Clinton County Convention and Visitors Bureau (CCCVB) Executive Director Debbie Stamper was at the meeting. She said the newly built Roberts Arena cabins or cottages are comparable to the cabins rented at Cowan Lake State Park in Clinton County. The state park cabins have always paid the lodging tax during the 16 years she’s been with the CCCVB, said Stamper.
No one representing Roberts Arena or the new cottages attended the meeting. Stamper said the business there has been paying the lodging tax.
McCoy suggested, particularly if the business is in agreement, that some of the code’s language be cleaned up to “make it perfectly clear that this [Roberts Arena cottages] is encompassed in the regulations.”
The tax is included within the fees that are paid by guests to stay at hotels or lodging places in Clinton County.
In another matter, Clinton County Administrator Mary Ann Foland advised that one of the courthouse’s two boilers is not functioning.
Though it takes only one boiler at any given time to heat the courthouse, a second boiler is the backup when the other boiler doesn’t work right.
The cost to make the boiler that’s having problems become operable would probably be “quite expensive,” said Foland. One part that would have to get replaced costs $3,000, she said.
What makes a decision on how to proceed much more difficult is that this is the last winter for the courthouse’s boiler heating system. In 2016, as part of the extensive upgrades and renovations being made to three county-owned buildings, a new HVAC (Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning) system will be installed at the courthouse.
“We don’t want to put in a lot of unnecessary resources into something that’s going to be torn out,” said the county administrator. It’s “very possible” the working boiler will remain functional through the winter, Foland added.
The aim, she said, is to come up with a backup plan and alternatives in case the working boiler does go down, while also crossing their fingers that the one boiler makes it through one final winter.
Reach Gary Huffenberger at 937-556-5768 or on Twitter @GHuffenberger.
