Harford County Executive Bob Cassilly said he plans to veto legislation introduced last week that provides funding for Harford County’s tourism nonprofit, Visit Harford.
The bill, if passed, would clarify the language of a similar bill that Cassilly vetoed in January. The County Council overrode his veto in February, in a 5-2 vote.
The former bill stated that 25% of the revenue generated from the county’s hotel occupancy tax “shall be used for Visit Harford! Incorporated, the county’s destination marketing organization.”
Harford’s hotel occupancy tax is revenue that primarily comes from people who pay to stay at a hotel in the county. Visit Harford’s 25% cut allotted the nonprofit $625,000 per year from the county in return for tourism marketing services.
Cassilly withheld an installment of $215,000 to Visit Harford earlier this year until Visit Harford signed over its website to the county — essentially making Visit Harford a branch of the county government. Visit Harford disagreed and Cassilly terminated the contract in April.
Visit Harford launched a lawsuit against the county in June alleging breach of contract and tortious interference. In the suit Visit Harford alleged that Cassilly redirected a $50,000 state tourism grant from Visit Harford to the county government.
The tourism nonprofit has yet to be paid by the county and has been operating on minimal state funding since the contract termination.
“We are essentially running on fumes at this point,” said Jay Ellenby, board president of Visit Harford.
Ellenby noted that the lawsuit is “looking in the past” and that the introduced legislation is “looking to the future.”
The new legislation — sponsored by Councilman Aaron Penman of District B and co-sponsored by council members Jacob Bennett of District F and Jessica Boyle-Tsottles of District E — aims to maintain the county’s $625,000 annual funding for Visit Harford by specifying in the bill language to only allow payment to Visit Harford — not the “county’s destination marketing organization.”
Visit Harford believes that after Cassilly terminated the contract, the former legislation language allowed him to further exploit the title designation of “destination marketing organization” as a loophole to claim Visit Harford no longer held the title, allowing him to withhold funding.
The introduced legislation states that “25% of the balance of the hotel occupancy tax collected shall be paid over to Visit Harford!, Incorporated … between the 15th and 30th of each month.”
By eliminating the “destination marketing organization” part, the legislation, if passed, would not allow any loopholes and would legislate a secure, stable funding stream for Visit Harford, the sponsors believe.
“This bill is essential to the future of tourism in Harford County,” Ellenby said. “It provides our organization with much-needed financial stability, and in so doing allows our team to focus exclusively on marketing everything that makes Harford County the most beautiful and vibrant destination in Maryland.”
In a statement, Cassilly said the County Council has no legal authority to divert public funds to a private entity and that the legislation is “illegal.”
“This legislation is illegal and, if passed, it will be vetoed,” Cassilly said. “Tourism in most Maryland counties is handled by their respective destination marketing organization, designated as such by the county executive.”
Cassilly explained that tourism is now a function of the county’s Department of Economic Development — essentially stating that this department is the destination marketing organization, not Visit Harford.
“This approach allows us to minimize overhead costs and concentrate more funding on marketing,” Cassilly said. “We have already moved forward with direct outreach to assist local tourism-related businesses, and we are using the services of a professional tourism marketing firm with a record of success promoting tourism for the state of Maryland and Baltimore County.”
Since Visit Harford’s inception in 2014, the county and Visit Harford have agreed on an annual contract that obligated Visit Harford to provide tourism services to the county in return for compensation.
Visit Harford has generated $479 million in tourism spending that resulted in $61 million in tax revenue for the county in 2022, according to Ellenby.
Ellenby said studies show that every dollar invested in Visit Harford generates $15 in revenue for local priorities.
Len Foxwell, a spokesman for Visit Harford, said he believes that Cassilly does not have a plan to invest in tourism the way Visit Harford has.
“The Cassilly administration has no plan for investing in tourism nor have they committed financial or human resources to this priority,” Foxwell said. “But we are staying optimistic that the veto will be overridden by the council again because we have no reason to believe that the philosophical lines on this issue are different now than they were earlier in the year.”
A public hearing for the bill will be held Oct. 15 at 6:45 p.m. in the Harford County Council Chambers located at 212 S. Bond Street in Bel Air.