Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The Bear Man's Suit Part II":
Mr. Alderman,
I'm not sure where to post this, but below please find a response to Matt Tate's letter to the editor found in the Pocahontas Times. At the behest of some of the owners at Snowshoe, Mr. DeBerry sent out the following response:
To the Editor;
I am writing at the request of several Snowshoe community home owners to share some information in response to Mr. Tate's recently published letter. In his letter, Mr. Tate raises questions over whether a Resort Area District would have the authority to take hotel occupancy taxes away from the County and therefore do the County great financial harm. While I understand and appreciate the impacts of such a concern, I can openly share that the short answer to Mr. Tate's question is very plainly, no.
As Mr. Tate points out, only counties or municipalities may collect occupancy tax. Also as Mr. Tate points out, resort area districts and municipal corporations are defined under different sections of WV State Code. In other words, while both municipalities and resort area districts are considered to be types of public corporations, not all public corporations are municipalities, and this holds true for Resort Area Districts; in that they are public corporations, but are not municipalities. While the term itself is not widely used every day, public corporations are not new to us. Boards of Education, Public Service Districts, Economic Development Authorities, and Community Enhancement Districts are all just a few examples of public corporations that exist throughout our state today. Similar to resort area districts, each of these public corporations have defined limits on how they generate funds to support operations; and a resort area district would have no more authority to take occupancy tax from the County than do any of these other examples.
Further supporting my point, the resort area district statute was developed quite intentionally with a 'do no harm' approach. We knew that we had to do something to help the Snowshoe community better deal with the impacts of hundreds of thousands of guests impacting our shared roads, transportation, public safety, and other community services at such intense levels. We also knew that our approach most certainly would fail if it negatively impacted the rest of the County. Occupancy tax was off-limits from the start. The statute provides no authority for resort area districts to 'claw back' occupancy tax, and as such this tax remains off-limits today and in the future.
Rumors can be harmful to good ideas because they groundlessly instill fear in place of facts and understanding, and the same is true here. There is no mischief whatsoever in the resort area district concept. If anyone has heard things that lead them to believe otherwise, I do hope that they will take the time to call or write me. I'm more than happy to present the truth.
Frank DeBerry
President
Snowshoe
This may be so I do not know.
ReplyDeleteBut f snowshoe can find a way to keep that money they will.
Laws can be changed when it comes to the tax code with enough money and political influance.
Ask your self why do they want this what is the reason. Its not to benefit the county or property owners I would bet.
The Road Runner...
It would most certainly benefit the property owners, which is why I support it. The mountain service fees that are paid by the property owners currently fund public safety, the fire department, the free shuttle service, and maintenance of all of the common areas. This responsibility currently rests soley on the back of the property owners within the resort. Our ability to charge a 2% service fee to guests that use all of these facilities and services, thus enhancing the funding, would most definitely benefit me as an owner.
ReplyDeleteWhat portion of this would harm the county, and what obligation do I have other than the same taxes that you pay to enhance the county? We would like to have the same services that you are afforded, and we came up with a way to do it without harming anybody else.
Nothing stopping snowshoe from increasing prices by 2 percent and using that money to cover these services. It would probably generate more money than the other.
DeleteI know snowshoe well as I have interacted with several of the CEOs over the years and their underlings.
It's all about them and money.
The Road Runner....
P.S. nice move getting honest Simmons to help out, that in its self speaks well for you.
i wonder what the cleaning ladies who stand up at top of the world and wait on a shuttle bus at 6.00am in a blinding snow with a minus 0 temp so they can go to work have to say about what fine people the management of that resort really are ........lets face it they run over anybody they can,and back up and run over them again,if need be .........when the record of almost 40 years of many different management teams has always been the same it is pretty hard to swallow that all they want is to be fair and just to all concerned ..........$7.25 per hour with a chance of hitting $9.00 which for many locals has to be a living wage,gee that does not instill faith and trust in me that the management cares about people .......as it turned out that resort was ginned up not to make money on skiers ,but to make money on sucking people into buying over priced real estate ....since the crash of 2008 that model does not work anymore ........i heard someone say the other day that the problem with american business is that it has come down to a business of the fine print ,and how they can screw you with that fine print ........so no i do not trust them or anything the management has to say on that mountain ..................
ReplyDeleteYou have to wonder if this has anything to do with the company that owns the shoe being in debt up to their eye brows.
ReplyDeleteThe Road Runner....
O by the way if you don't want to pay for the impact on the roads and other areas caused by skiers being there them simply close down that would solve the entire issue or insist the shoe gives you 2% more of the rental fee simple isn't it.
ReplyDeleteThe Road Runner.....
Public safety aka security is a cost of doing business so is the shuttle program and wear and tear on your private roads I notice there was mention of county and state road wear..
ReplyDeleteLooks to me someone is just looking for a excuse to add 2 % tax to pad their profits.
Probably because the homeowners are sick of paying it and pissed because the shoe has them buy their gonads and still squeezing.
If you want to make a case come on the commentator and answer a few questions.
Don't be surprised that someone might know the right questions to ask.
The Road Runner....
The Road Runner.....