Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lodging Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wells Select Board examines lodging and short-term-rental fee options; counsel cites 'reasonable relationship' test
Summary
At a Nov. 18 workshop town counsel reviewed court guidance (Eno v. Bar Harbor) and urged fees bear a reasonable relationship to administrative and public-safety costs; the board discussed occupancy assumptions, campground tax contributions, potential inspection staffing, and whether to fold STRs into lodging licensing.
The Town of Wells spent a significant portion of its Nov. 18 meeting on a workshop about lodging fees and the possible inclusion of short-term rentals (STRs) under a lodging-licensing regime.
Town counsel reviewed legal guidance — citing the Eno v. Bar Harbor decision and the broader Butler line of cases — that a municipal fee must bear a “reasonable relationship” to the cost of providing the regulated service. Counsel listed permissible fee factors that can be considered, including staff time, inspections, multiple compliance visits, public-safety and emergency-response costs, and third-party inspection expenses. Counsel told the board that a perfect one-to-one accounting is not required, but that documentation and defensible assumptions reduce legal risk.
Board members and staff debated several practical variables used to size fees: occupancy assumptions (the staff packet used an 80% occupancy factor for modeling), how to treat three-season cottage-type units and campground seasonal sites, and whether indirect municipal costs (periodic lifeguard coverage, seasonal staffing spikes, code-enforcement time) should be included. Staff and lodging representatives provided tax and assessment figures: one staffer reported campgrounds and seasonal sites accounted for about $1,360,000 in combined real-estate and personal-property tax at the current mill rate, and a combined assessed valuation figure near $224,000,000 was discussed.
The board discussed enforcement and inspection models. One proposal advanced moving inspection/enforcement responsibilities to a fire-department-based life-safety inspector to give inspections ‘teeth’ (authority to de-energize or close unsafe lodging). The loaded cost estimate for such a position (salary, benefits, vehicle) was cited at roughly $175,000; the board discussed phasing or budgeting options, including a three-quarter-year hire if voters approve funding in the next cycle.
Members also debated whether STRs (Airbnb and similar platforms) should be swept into the lodging-licensing rubric or addressed with a separate category and fee; counsel noted the lodging definition can be amended. Timing was discussed: staff suggested additional workshops, more data collection, and targeting ordinance and fee decisions to align with the January budget cycle and potential voter actions in the spring.
Next steps: staff will continue to quantify costs and occupancy assumptions, the lodging committee (and staff) will examine inspection models and enforcement authority, and the board scheduled further workshops to develop a draft ordinance and fee schedule for public review.
