Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Short Term Rentals Occupancy Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cayuga County legislators discuss updating short-term rental wording; no new tax proposed
Summary
Treasurer Dave Dempsey and legislators debated amending county occupancy-tax language to mirror state law for short-term rentals (under 30 days). Officials said the change clarifies existing practice and does not create a new tax; a separate opt-in/opt-out decision tied to the state's registry remains distinct and faces a December 28 deadline.
Cayuga County Treasurer Dave Dempsey told the legislature that he will seek amended local language to classify short-term rentals (STRs) consistent with state law, saying the change would clarify existing practice rather than impose any new levy.
Dempsey said the county has collected an occupancy tax since 1994 and that the draft change would “clear up the language” to reflect that short-term rentals are stays of less than 30 days. “This is not a new tax. There is no new tax,” he told colleagues during a Ways & Means discussion on the county’s proposed amendment.
Why it matters: County officials and residents have expressed confusion about which short-term rental transactions are subject to occupancy tax and how online platforms report or remit collections. The proposed wording change aims to align county wording with recent state statutory language and make enforcement and collection expectations clearer for hosts and platforms.
What legislators debated: Committee members and attendees repeatedly distinguished two separate issues: (1) amending the county’s occupancy-tax local law to define STRs and mirror state terminology, and (2) the state opt‑in/opt‑out decision that affects access to the state’s short‑term rental registry and audit/reporting mechanisms. Dempsey emphasized the local amendment is only editorial and would not alter how the county distributes revenue from the existing tax; he said distribution (the previously contested “95/5” split discussed at an earlier meeting) would not be reopened in this change.
Fred (legislator) supported the wording update, saying it “does clear up the language. It does mirror the state.” Melinda (legislator) and other members described the county as advanced on the registry work: “We have 90 plus percent of our registry done already,” a member noted during discussion, contrasting Cayuga County’s progress with that of some neighboring counties.
Timing and process: Committee members discussed timing options. Dempsey suggested setting a public hearing in October with a final vote in December so the change would be resolved before year-end budget activity. Legislators noted the separate opt-in/opt-out decision tied to the state registry carries a statutory deadline of Dec. 28; failure to act by that date would be consequential for whether the county retains access to the state registry.
Outstanding points and next steps: Several legislators asked that the amendment only address the definition/language and not revisit prior votes about revenue distribution. Some members wanted the county to wait until after budget season to avoid public confusion. Dempsey said he planned to return to the legislature with a revised draft and recommended timeline for a public hearing.
Ending: The legislature did not vote on the language change during the session; members instructed staff to prepare an amended local-law draft and scheduling for a public hearing in the coming months.
