Bob Cassilly vetoes tourism funding bill in Harford County
- County Executive Bob Cassilly vetoed a bill to direct $750,000 in hotel tax revenue to a non-government entity.
- The council's bill violates the County Charter and aims to bypass necessary regulations.
- Cassilly's decision reflects a commitment to governmental accountability and oversight of taxpayer funds.
In Harford County, Maryland, County Executive Bob Cassilly vetoed legislation for the second time that aimed to allocate $750,000 in hotel tax revenue to the nonprofit tourism marketing organization, Visit Harford. This bill was a response from the County Council to provide funds that were originally meant for tourism activities. Cassilly cited the County Charter and stated that the bill attempted to infringe upon the executive branch's authority regarding budget development and oversight of taxpayer funds. He emphasized that the bill's specific designation of Visit Harford as the recipient did not legitimize its legality, as it circumvented necessary bidding processes and regulations required for fiscal transparency. The hotel tax, enacted in January 2017, mandated that a portion of the revenue should support tourism efforts in the area. Previously, Visit Harford had operated as the county's tourism marketing agency since its establishment in 2014; however, Cassilly shifted these duties to the county's Department of Economic Development, which manages marketing services through contracts rather than relying on an external entity. The County Council, led by member Aaron Penman, expressed disappointment over the veto and plans to attempt an override. Penman defended the bill as an essential effort to revive and support tourism in Harford County, citing the reliability of Visit Harford as a community partner. Cassilly's veto message was met with criticism from council members who claimed it was misleading and detracted from the intended goal of enhancing tourism. In addition to the veto issues, Visit Harford filed a lawsuit in January 2024 against Cassilly for breach of contract and interference with its business operations—a move that indicated escalating tensions between the organization and the county administration. The lawsuit contests the failure to provide a third installment of funds and points out that the administration redirected tourism grants away from Visit Harford to the county’s economic department instead. These developments illustrate the ongoing struggle between the Harford County government under Cassilly and local tourism entities concerning funding and governance.