Resident Daniel Galvin urges Saratoga County not to add occupancy tax on short-term rentals

Daniel Galvin, a Milton resident, told the Saratoga County Board of Supervisors at a March 11 public hearing that a proposed county occupancy tax and short-term rental registry would unfairly burden homeowners and could deter visitors. "Why is that any of your business? And why do you get a piece of it?" Galvin asked.

The hearing, convened under Resolution 53 of 2026, reviewed introductory local law number two (print number one of 2026), described in the notice as a proposal to establish Saratoga County's short-term rental unit registry and to impose the county's occupancy tax on short-term rental units. The clerk read the notice and said written comments were due by March 11, 2026 at 3:30 p.m.; copies of the proposed law are available from the clerk's office and online.

In his public comment, Galvin said his concern was cumulative taxation on homeowners. He argued New York already has a high overall tax burden — "the state of New York itself is the highest tax state in the country between 12 and 13%," he said — and that Saratoga County residents are being asked to pay yet another levy. He described steady increases in his property tax since he bought his home six years ago and questioned whether additional taxes on short-term rental income were appropriate for ordinary homeowners.

Galvin also noted regulatory and permit fees homeowners face and recounted that private utility work (he cited a recent Verizon fiber installation) disrupted his yard. He said the state already imposes a 4% tax on short-term rentals, and warned that an added county tax would increase prices for visitors and could push bookings to other jurisdictions or dates. "Most people that rent their homes aren't living on North Broadway in Saratoga Springs," he said, arguing that many hosts rely on modest supplemental income rather than operating large, high-revenue properties.

The board received no other oral comments and the clerk said no written comments had been submitted. The chair closed the public hearing after Galvin spoke.

The record from the hearing includes the clerk's reading of the notice (Resolution 53 of 2026) and Galvin's public comment opposing the proposal. The board did not take a vote or state a next scheduling step during the session recorded in the transcript.