Nash/Rocky Mount District Occupancy Tax
House Bill 332 revises Nash County’s existing room occupancy tax structure and creates a new taxing district, Rocky Mount District R, for the portion of Rocky Mount located in Nash County. The bill keeps Nash County’s base 3% occupancy tax and authorizes an additional 2% occupancy tax, but redirects the proceeds from that additional tax away from the City of Rocky Mount and into the newly created Rocky Mount District R Tourism Development Authority. It also provides for the transfer of any collected but unremitted or unspent proceeds from the repealed 2% tax to the new authority.
The bill authorizes Rocky Mount District R to levy its own room occupancy tax of up to 3% on taxable lodging within the district. Like the county tax, the district tax must be administered under existing local occupancy tax procedures, and its proceeds must be used primarily for tourism promotion and related expenditures. The district is established as a body politic and corporate, with the Rocky Mount City Council serving as its governing body and the city’s officers serving in district roles. The bill also updates the general occupancy-tax statute to expressly include Rocky Mount District R among the local governments and districts covered by that law.
In practical terms, the bill changes how lodging-tax revenue is collected and distributed in Nash County and Rocky Mount. It preserves tourism funding for the county while shifting the city-related portion into a new district framework, and it requires tourism development authorities to be created, staffed, and report quarterly on receipts and expenditures. The bill also specifies that the new district tax cannot take effect until the prior 2% city tax is repealed, and it applies prospectively to lodging occupied on or after July 1, 2025.
The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history appears strongly favorable, with the bill passing second reading 105-1 and third reading 109-2. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate broader public arguments. The near-unanimous votes suggest broad support for the measure, likely because it is a local revenue and tourism-administration bill rather than a controversial statewide policy change.
The main points of potential contention are structural rather than ideological: the bill reallocates occupancy-tax revenue, creates a new district authority, and changes which local body controls tourism funds. Stakeholders most directly affected include Nash County, the City of Rocky Mount, the new Rocky Mount District R Tourism Development Authority, lodging businesses that collect the tax, and tourism-related interests that benefit from the spending. Any disagreement would likely center on local control, revenue distribution, and whether the new district arrangement better serves the taxed area than the prior city-based system.
The bill amends local act provisions governing Nash County’s occupancy tax and creates a new special taxing district, Rocky Mount District R, with authority to levy up to a 3% room occupancy tax. It also amends G.S. 160A-215(g) to add Rocky Mount District R to the list of jurisdictions covered by the general occupancy-tax statute. The measure changes the destination of certain occupancy-tax revenues, establishes new tourism development authorities, and sets reporting and administrative requirements for those bodies.
The voting record shows strong bipartisan or at least broad legislative support, with overwhelming approval on both second and third readings and only one or two dissenting votes. Because no committee transcript is available, there is no direct record of debate, but the final votes suggest the bill was viewed as a routine local government/tourism finance measure rather than a contentious policy proposal.
The likely points of contention involve how occupancy-tax revenue is divided between Nash County, the City of Rocky Mount, and the new Rocky Mount District R, as well as who controls spending decisions through the tourism development authorities. Lodging businesses may be affected by the tax structure, while local officials and tourism advocates may differ over whether the new district better targets benefits to the taxed area. The bill’s requirement that funds be used only for tourism-related purposes and, for the district, only for the direct benefit of the jurisdiction, reflects sensitivity to those local allocation concerns.