Dec 18, 2025 By Mike Jones 5 min read

The legality of a proposal by the Washington County commissioners to change how the hotel tax revenue is distributed to the county’s Tourism Promotion Agency is coming under scrutiny.

The commissioners are planning to vote during this morning’s regular meeting on a motion asking county solicitor Gary Sweat to draft a proposal to repeal the current ordinance that sends the lion’s share of the money to the tourism agency.

In its place, Commissioners Nick Sherman and Electra Janis have proposed a new disbursement model that would have the county commissioners and tourism agency overseeing a joint account that would require agreement on how to spend the money.

But funneling 75% of the funds to that joint account, along with using money to build a convention center and increasing the administrative fees sent to the treasurer, all appear to violate the Pennsylvania County Code that places rules on how the hotel tax revenue can be used.

In response, Washington County Chamber of Commerce and Tourism Promotion Agency President Jeff Kotula contacted county Treasurer Tom Flickinger this week, raising concerns about the legality of the proposed changes. The treasurer’s office collects the 5% hotel room tax revenue – which amounted to more than $2.2 million last year – and distributes 96% of that money to the tourism agency through the county controller’s office.

“As the Treasurer’s Office will ultimately implement the proposed ordinance and potentially be distributing the tax and collecting an administrative fee in violation of state statute, we suggested their office’s solicitor provide his thoughts on the legality of the ordinance,” Kotula said in a written statement about the situation. “I believe our solicitors will be speaking with each other to discuss the situation. We have always had a positive relationship with Treasurer Flickinger, and he has been steadfast in following state law.”

Flickinger said Wednesday he was not fully aware of the possible changes since no final vote on the proposal has been taken and an ordinance would need to be drafted and approved.

“All I can say is we are going to follow whatever the law is,” Flickinger said. “Currently, tourism is in compliance with all the statutes (and) on a monthly basis we request the proper amount of money to be disbursed to tourism.”

And the law is very specific on how that hotel tax revenue can be distributed. According to Pennsylvania County Code Title 16, Section 17507, the vast majority of the money must be distributed to the county’s designated “tourist promotion agency.” The commissioners are proposing setting up a joint account that they would have partial control over, which is not included in the state code for allowable uses.

“Sometimes I can be placed in the middle of the fight, but when it comes down to it, I can only follow the law,” Flickinger said. “That’s why it usually ends up with the lawyers for them to figure it out.”

In addition, the proposal calls for raising the treasurer’s administrative fee from 4% up to 5%, but the code also explicitly sets a cap on that at 4%.

“The administrative fee shall be established by the county but shall not exceed 4% of the taxes collected in any taxable year,” the code states.

While Flickinger had no position on increasing the administrative fee, he said he can understand why the commissioners would want more control over the hotel tax revenue. Flickinger said the tourism agency has complied with the laws requiring annual audits, but he still has questions about expenses.

“I can see why the commissioners want this control. We give them millions of dollars, but there’s no transparency,” Flickinger said. “They’re blind to why it’s spent or how it’s spent. I can understand their argument completely. I’m going to follow whatever the law tells me to do so, or code, or whatever I have to follow, I’ll follow.”

Sweat, who will be tasked with drafting the new ordinance if the commissioners direct him to do so at today’s voting meeting, said the biggest complaint from the county is the lack of information included in the audits. He said there are “sanctions” the county can use against the tourism agency, and that the state’s county code does include language about a “special account” to place the tax revenue money in.

“The statute absolutely refers to a special account, but it’s not defined,” Sweat said. “So the legal question is who gets to decide it? Is that purely an accounting definition or does it have more to do with administration and control? There’s lots of grey area, I’ll admit.”

Officials with the state Department of Community and Economic Development, which oversees the state’s hotel tax program, did not immediately respond to an email Wednesday seeking comment.

Kotula said he was surprised to learn that Sherman was pitching construction of a sports recreation and convention center using the hotel tax revenue since the tourism agency had already revealed similar plans in September for an events center through a private-public partnership. Kotula also questioned what would happen to other important promotional programs if the more than $2 million in funds were diverted just to that project rather than to attractions, such as the PONY League World Series, Washington County Agricultural Fair, Pennsylvania Trolley Museum, Covered Bridge Festival and Monongahela Aquatorium, among other events and locations.

“I cannot imagine a Washington County without supporting these events or others that make our county special,” Kotula said.

The commissioners are scheduled to meet at 10 a.m. today in the ground-floor public meeting room in the Crossroads Center building at 95 W. Beau St. in Washington.