Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lodging Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wells board strips child‑age requirement from lodging‑register proposal after industry concerns
Summary
After lodging operators warned that property‑management systems and privacy laws make reporting exact ages of children impractical, the Wells Select Board accepted an amendment removing ages, required registers or other readily verifiable formats, and set a six‑month retention period; board votes on the amended policy were approved and later the action was tabled for further review.
The Wells Select Board amended and provisionally advanced an ordinance change to lodging‑register requirements after local hotel and condo operators raised software, privacy and enforcement concerns.
"Why does the town need a child's exact age instead of the number of adults and minors?" asked Katie Kelly of Lafayette Ocean Park Resort, summarizing a key concern about the proposed rule. Multiple speakers said their reservation and property‑management systems do not produce a field for a child's exact age and warned of potential public‑records and Fourth Amendment implications if the town were to copy those registers.
In response, a town staff member proposed revised language requiring that lodging facilities "record names in the register or other readily available and verifiable format upon inspection" and to maintain that register or other information for six months from the date of departure. The board voted 4‑0 to accept the amendment and, after a separate motion to move the policy forward, recorded a 4‑0 vote. Later in the meeting the board voted 4‑0 to table the action for further refinement and to give staff time to codify clearer language and consider retention schedules and enforcement mechanics.
The change removes the explicit requirement to record each minor's exact age but preserves the town's ability to inspect occupant records in an accessible format. Town staff and board members said follow‑up work will include drafting clear definitions of what constitutes a "register," specifying retention periods consistent with records‑management schedules and clarifying enforcement procedures. The meeting record includes some inconsistent references to where in the agenda the final action appeared; town staff agreed to return with clarified language and placement on a future agenda.
Next steps: staff will revise ordinance language to codify the "readily available and verifiable format" option, confirm a records‑retention period with the town clerk, and return the item for a future action vote.
