‘STATE OF MISSISSIPPI JIM HOOD ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINIONS DIVISION August 18, 2017 Representative David Baria Mississippi House of Representatives 153 Main Street Bay St. Louis, MS 39520 Re: Request for Opinion Regarding Hancock County Tax Matters Dear Representative Bari Wr SH (aba be nel bivel yourkanibelieg? ab Bias A }Generalait i Iter ST ATI RS Background and Issues Presented Lee Your letter states: Pursuant to SB 3059 (2017 Regular Session) amending Chapter 924, Local and Private Laws of 2014, Hancock County is permitted to levy a tax in an amount not to exceed 2% of the gross proceeds of sales derived from rentals of hotels and motels. Since its inception in 1996, the law has always provided that “the proceeds of the tax shall not be considered by the county as general fund revenues and shall be dedicated to and used by the [Hancock County Tourism Bureau solely for the promotion of tourism and tourism-related activities in the county.” Further, such law has since its inception required that “the funds derived from the proceeds of the tax ... shall be expended by the Hancock County Tourism Bureau ... Since the law went into effect in 1996, the Board has received the proceeds of the tax and remitted them directly to the Bureau. I have been advised that the Hancock County Board of Supervisors has purportedly entered into an agreement (unsigned copy attached) with the Mississippi Gulf Coast Convention and Visitors Bureau (‘CVB"). The CVB is charged with “promotion of the Mississippi Gulf Coast as a premier 550 HIGH STREET POST OFFICE BOX 720 - JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI 35705-0220, "TELEPHONE (01) 9503600 -FACSAMLE (01) 3585025,Representative David Baria August 18, 2017 Page 2 convention, tourist, and visitor destination." Under the purported Agreement, Hancock County “endorses and supports the allocation of funding’ of the 2% tax "the avails of which 2% tax shall be remitted to the CVB.” This provision appears to be in direct conflict with the legislation cited above I write to request an opinion based on the facts stated above and the attached Agreement, More specifically, | ask whether under current law the Board of Supervisors of Hancock County has the authority to redirect the proceeds of the 2% tax dedicated by law to the Hancock County Tourism Bureau to the Mississippi Gulf Coast Convention and Visitors Bureau? By its terms, the attached Agreement becomes effective October 1, 2017. Therefore, | request that your opinion be provided on an expedited basis. Thank you in advance for your prompt reply. Response and Legal Analysis Your letter attached an unsigned copy of a purported agreement between Hancock County and the Mississippi Gulf Coast Regional Convention and Visitors Bureau ('CVB"),, According to your letter and the terms of the-unsigned document it would appear that the agreement has already been executed. This office does not by official opinion opine on the interpretation of contractual agreements: Likewise, we carneither validate nor invalidate past acts. To the extent that the purported agreement has been executed, our office cannot opine as to its meaning or the legal effects or legal obligations of the agreement Your letter asks us whether the Hancock County Board of Supervisors has authority to redirect the proceeds of a 2% tax that is levied under the authority of local and private legislation that was recently reenacted and amended by Senate Bill 3059 (2017 Regular Session)(‘SB 3059"). Our opinions are limited to questions of law regarding the proposed acts of the requesting entity. Here, Hancock County is not the requesting entity. However, we do note that Section 2(d) of SB 3059 expressly states: The proceeds of the tax... shall be... used by the bureau solely for the promotion of tourism and tourism-related activities in the county.” Section (3)(1) of SB 3059 further requires that ‘[tJhe funds derived from the proceeds of the tax authorized in Section 2 of, this act shall be expended by the Hancock County Tourism Bureau . . . created by this act.” spose equite iat he prosoue ofthe taxes be expended the Hancock County Tourism Bureau. | which modifies, supplants or amends the requirement that taxes under SB-3059 be» expended by the Hancock County Tourism Bureau. {580 HIGH STREET -POST OFFICE BOX 220- JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI 302050220 "TELESHONE (G01) 960.3680 FACSMALE eo) 3505025,Representative David Baria August 18, 2017 Page 3 We do note that House Bill 1716 (2013 Regular Session)("HB 1716") changed the designation of the Harrison County Tourism Commission to the CVB with the purpose of the CVB being expanded to promote tourism in “Harrison, Hancock and Jackson Counties.” Hancock County was given the right to appoint certain members to the board of the CVB. These appointments and the continued participation of Hancock County were made contingent on “comparable sources of funding" being enacted within a certain time frame. The unsigned agreement you attached seems, in some way, to attempt to reference this requirement in HB 1716. The agreement states: Hancock County will assess the 2% room tax authorized by Senate Bill 2911 and the avails of said 2% room tax must be remitted to the CVB as soon thereafter as allowed by law. Para 1.3(a)(4)(emphasis added). Senate Bill 2911 was the 2014 amendment to the same local and private as amended by SB 3059. In the "WHEREAS" sections of the agreement, the documents states that “Senate Bill 2911 provides a comparable funding mechanism” apparently in support of a conclusion that the tax meets the comparable funding requirement of HB 1716 which was the enabling legislation for the CVB. The unsigned agreement further makes reference to House Bill 1672 and states that “the sums expended by Hancock County to;hold and conduct any referendum authorized by House Bill 1672 shall be accepted by the CVB as adequate and comparable funding " We have been unable to*find any house bill numbered 1672 that relates to Hancock County and the CVB. There was a bill numbered 1672 in 2015 which passed and authorized Jackson County to levy a tax to be paid to the CVB upon the tax being approved by referendum. We were unable to find any law similar to the 2015 version of House Bill 1672 which authorized Hancock County to levy a tax and pay it to the CVB, and, thus, we are unclear as to the meaning of the references in the unsigned agreement to House Bill 1672. As noted above, we cannot construe and interpret the meaning of contracts which are often dependent on intent of the parties. However, we do note that the language of the agreement does reference payment being made ‘as soon thereafter as allowed by law.” We are not clear as to what this language means. This‘office, however, was unable to find any law that authorizes that the tax levied under the authority of the local and pri 30! We cannot say whether there has been some other local and private legislation passed that could authorize such a payment. Likewise, we offer no opinion as to whether the unsigned agreement purports to authorize such payment unless otherwise “allowed by law.” Because of the uncertainty as to the meaning of the contract, whether and in what form i Harrison County was authorized by HB 1716 to levy a tourism tax on hotel and motel room rentals, 180 HIGH STREET - POST OFFICE 6OX 220 JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI 96205-0220 TELEDHONE (2b 358-208 - FACSIMILE (60) 359:5025Representative David Baria August 18, 2017 Page 4 such agreement was actually executed and the uncertainty as to the potential existence of other private legislation on the subject,” we cannot offer a more definitive opinion in response to your letter. If this office can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, JIM HOOD, ATTORNEY GENERAL By: Ar Ricky G. Luke Assistant Attorney General i If such legislation exists, it would have to be interpreted in conjunction with, and with regard to any potential conflicts caused by SB 3059. SSO NICH STREET - POST OFFICE BOK 20 JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI 99205-0220, TELEPHONE (01) 3583860 -FACOMMLE (01) 28-5525,