House Bill 143 authorizes the Town of Maysville to levy a local room occupancy tax of up to 6% on the gross receipts from rentals of accommodations already subject to state sales tax. The tax would be added on top of existing state and local sales taxes and would be administered under the general occupancy-tax procedures in state law, including the associated penalties and collection rules.
The bill requires the town to remit net proceeds quarterly to the Maysville Tourism Development Authority. That authority must use at least two-thirds of the revenue to promote travel and tourism, with the remainder reserved for tourism-related expenditures in the town, including eligible capital projects. The bill also establishes requirements for the authority’s membership, meeting procedures, reporting duties, and the role of the town finance officer.
HB143 would expand local taxing authority by adding Maysville to the list of municipalities authorized to impose an occupancy tax and by expressly incorporating Maysville into G.S. 160A-215(g). It would create a new local revenue stream dedicated to tourism promotion and tourism-related spending, while also setting the structure for a town Tourism Development Authority to receive and spend the funds. Because the bill amends state law, it would have the effect of making Maysville’s occupancy tax authority and administration part of the statewide statutory framework for local occupancy taxes.
The available record shows no committee transcript, recorded votes, or other debate, so there is no direct evidence of opposition or support in the materials provided. Based on the bill’s structure and purpose, it appears to be a routine local authorization measure intended to give Maysville a tourism funding tool. The absence of recorded controversy suggests the bill was likely treated as a standard local bill rather than a broadly contested policy change.
The main potential points of contention are the creation of a new local tax and the use of the revenue for tourism-related purposes rather than general municipal needs. Any concern would likely come from taxpayers, lodging businesses, or residents who may object to the added cost, while supporters would be local officials and tourism stakeholders who benefit from dedicated marketing and tourism infrastructure funding. The bill also specifies board composition requirements for the Tourism Development Authority, which could matter to local stakeholders interested in representation and control over how the funds are spent.