Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tourism Rooms Fee Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Conway sponsor seeks local option $2 nightly safety assessment to offset tourist‑driven public‑safety costs
Summary
Representative Paige outlined a local‑option measure that would let municipalities adopt up to $2 per‑night occupancy fees to defray police, fire, EMS and wastewater costs connected to transient tourism; proponents said it’s modest and local, opponents called it discriminatory and hard to enforce against short‑term rentals.
The committee heard a lengthy public hearing on House Bill 544, a local‑option proposal that would permit municipalities to adopt a per‑night occupancy assessment up to $2 to offset municipal public‑safety and infrastructure costs generated by transient visitors.
Representative Paige (Conway) said the town of Conway faces a large transient population on peak weekends and holiday periods that swells capacity needs for police, fire, EMS and wastewater. The bill would allow a town‑level voter referendum to create an occupancy assessment of up to $2 per night, with enacting legislation requiring revenues be dedicated to municipal costs tied to tourism and transient traffic. The bill would allow facilitators (hotels, inns, room operators) to retain up to 3% of collections to cover administrative costs and would exempt stays of 30 days or longer for purposes such as emergency housing.
Supporters included the New Hampshire Municipal Association and the New Hampshire Lodging & Restaurant Association (NHLA), which argued the fee would relieve property taxpayers and provide a modest, local tool for tourist destinations. NHMA framed the proposal as consistent with existing local revenue options, akin to meals & rooms collections, to cover tourism‑driven expenses.
Opponents — including individual innkeepers and the Lakes Region Bed & Breakfast Association — warned the charge would single out lodging businesses, penalize small operators, be difficult to enforce against short‑term rentals and online platforms, and could drive business away. The NHLA said short‑term rentals are not always captured by the current definition and urged clarity in definitions; it also raised concerns about the Federal Trade Commission’s “junk fee” rule and whether platforms might effectively force businesses to absorb the charge.
Several legislators asked technical questions about enforcement, whether the funds should be treated as general revenue or held in a restricted fund, potential revenue estimates and administration by municipal financial officers and the Department of Revenue Administration. Testimony also noted some town staff already scrape booking platforms to estimate short‑term rental activity, but that was characterized as inefficient.
Remote sign‑in and paper sheets were split; the committee heard both municipal leaders and lodging operators. The hearing closed without a committee decision.
Ending: Sponsor invited amendments to refine definitions (room facilitator, exemptions for municipalities, short‑term rental enforcement) and asked the committee to propose alternatives if members opposed this mechanism.
