HB 732 is a local act authorizing the governing authority of Glynn County, Georgia, to levy an excise tax of up to 7% on charges for hotel, motel, inn, lodge, tourist camp, tourist cabin, campground, and similar short-term accommodations. The bill is tied to the authority in O.C.G.A. 48-13-51 and is conditioned on the county’s adoption of Resolution #R-06-25, which sets the tax rate, identifies the projects or tourism product development purposes, and specifies how the revenue will be allocated.
The bill directs how the county must use the incremental revenue above a 5% tax rate. At least 50% of the amount collected above the 5% threshold must be spent on promoting tourism, conventions, and trade shows through the county’s designated destination marketing organization or another authorized tourism-fund administrator. The remainder of the excess revenue must be used for tourism product development. The act also repeals conflicting laws, making it the controlling local authorization for this tax if implemented.
Impact
HB 732 amends the legal authority for Glynn County by allowing it to impose a higher hotel-motel excise tax than the baseline 5% rate, up to a maximum of 7%, subject to local resolution and statutory conditions. It affects lodging providers and short-term accommodation businesses in the county, as well as visitors who pay the tax. The measure also creates a dedicated revenue framework for tourism promotion and tourism-related development, channeling the additional proceeds to specified local economic development purposes rather than general county spending.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It passed the House on the Local Calendar by a vote of 171-0 and the Senate on the Local Consent Calendar by a vote of 53-0, indicating unanimous approval in both chambers. The absence of committee transcript discussion suggests there was little recorded debate or opposition in the available materials.
Contention
No significant contention is reflected in the available record. The main policy choice embedded in the bill is the authorization of a higher lodging excise tax and the earmarking of the proceeds for tourism-related uses, but the unanimous votes indicate that legislators did not publicly divide over the measure. Any potential concerns would likely have centered on the tax burden for hotel and tourism businesses or on how the county would allocate the new revenue, but no specific objections are documented in the provided materials.