Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lodgers Tax 30 Day topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sponsor asks to roll HB 477 after concerns over fiscal note and framing of a 30‑day lodgers‑tax change
Summary
Representative Lundstrom asked the committee to roll House Bill 477, a bill addressing lodgers‑tax treatment for consecutive hotel stays longer than 30 days, citing problems with the fiscal analysis.
Representative Lundstrom asked the committee to roll House Bill 477 after raising concerns about how the bill and its fiscal impact were drafted and presented. Lundstrom said the measure (a committee substitute to an earlier 2020 change in law) was intended to restore a longstanding 30‑day lodgers‑tax treatment for extended hotel stays and noted the change affects a range of situations including legislators who live in hotels, evacuees and people placed in hotels by public programs.
Nut graf: The sponsor told the committee the fiscal impact report cited aggregate municipal lodgers‑tax receipts (total annual receipts by jurisdiction) rather than providing an estimate of revenue lost from consecutive stays of 30 days or more, which Lundstrom said is misleading and overstates the bill’s effect if readers interpret the total as the loss from 30‑day exemptions.
Key points
- Sponsor intent: Representative Lundstrom said the bill would reaffirm that lodgers tax is not charged for consecutive hotel stays longer than 30 days and said the committee substitute in 2020 inadvertently removed that language.
- Fiscal note concern: Lundstrom said the LFC/legislative fiscal documents showed total annual lodgers tax receipts by jurisdiction rather than an estimate of the limited subset of stays lasting 30 days or longer; she asked the committee to table or roll the bill and suggested taking the issue up in the interim for clearer analysis.
Action: At the sponsor’s request the committee agreed to roll the bill for further work and clarification.
Ending: Committee staff will revisit the bill and the fiscal analysis in the interim; sponsor emphasized the bill’s intent was not to provide a broad tax break but to reestablish a prior procedural treatment for long hotel stays.
