Extends the city of Olean's authority to impose a hotel and motel tax.
Summary
S06699 amends a 2024 chapter law that authorized the City of Olean to impose a hotel and motel tax. The bill does not create a new tax or change the tax rate; instead, it extends the sunset date for that local taxing authority from September 1, 2025 to September 1, 2027. In practical terms, it keeps Olean’s ability to levy the hotel and motel tax in place for two additional years.
Because the bill is a narrow amendment to the Tax Law chapter authorizing a specific city’s local occupancy tax, its legal effect is limited to Olean and the existing hotel/motel tax framework. The measure preserves a municipal revenue source that can be used for local purposes associated with tourism, lodging, or general city finances, depending on how the underlying authorization is structured. It does not appear to alter statewide tax policy or expand the authority to other municipalities.
Impact
The bill extends the expiration date of chapter 469 of the laws of 2024, thereby continuing the City of Olean’s statutory authority to impose a hotel and motel tax until September 1, 2027. This affects the city, lodging businesses, and visitors who pay the tax, while leaving the underlying tax authorization otherwise unchanged. The bill’s impact on state law is limited to revising the sunset provision for this local enabling act.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill was generally well received and not especially controversial. It passed the Senate committee unanimously, then cleared the Senate floor by a substantial margin and the Assembly by an even larger margin. The broad bipartisan support indicates general agreement that extending the city’s hotel and motel tax authority was acceptable and likely viewed as a routine local government measure.
Contention
There is little evidence of major contention in the available record, and no committee transcript is provided. Any disagreement appears limited to the floor votes, where a minority of senators and assembly members voted no. Possible concerns, though not documented in the materials, would typically center on local tax burdens, the continued use of a temporary tax, or whether the city should retain this revenue authority for another two years. However, the overall legislative record shows strong support and no clear organized opposition.