Defining Permissible expenditures for municipalities and counties
Summary
HB4801 amends West Virginia’s hotel occupancy tax law to expand and clarify how counties and municipalities may spend revenue from that tax. The bill keeps the existing requirement that at least 50% of net hotel tax revenue be used for conventions and tourism promotion, including support for convention and visitor’s bureaus, hotels, and related tourism activities. It also preserves the detailed rules governing how those funds may be allocated when a bureau is present, absent, or out of compliance, and it retains the misdemeanor penalty for officials who knowingly spend the money outside the statute’s authorized purposes.
The bill broadens the list of allowable uses for the remaining hotel tax revenue after the required tourism set-aside. In addition to existing uses such as convention facilities, parks, arts, historic sites, beautification, air service incentives, emergency medical services in certain counties, Hatfield-McCoy Recreation Area support, and limited economic development, HB4801 adds two new purposes: demolition of unsafe and unsanitary structures and planning for reuse or improvement of property owned by municipalities and county commissions. The bill is effective 90 days after passage, on June 10, 2026.
Impact
HB4801 directly amends §7-18-14 of the West Virginia Code, expanding the permissible expenditure list for hotel occupancy tax proceeds collected by municipalities and counties. Local governments gain additional statutory authority to use these revenues for blight removal and property planning, while the existing tourism-promotion allocation structure and compliance requirements for convention and visitor’s bureaus remain in place. The bill affects municipal and county governing bodies, convention and visitor’s bureaus, hotels receiving allocations, and officials responsible for approving expenditures under the hotel occupancy tax.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported. It passed the House 87-1 and the Senate 32-0, indicating strong bipartisan agreement and little recorded opposition. The caption and text suggest the measure was viewed as a practical update to local spending authority rather than a controversial policy shift.
Contention
There is little evidence of major contention in the available record, but the bill does raise the usual policy tension between preserving hotel tax revenue for tourism-related purposes and allowing broader local uses. Supporters likely favored the added flexibility to address unsafe structures and plan for underused property, while any concern would center on whether expanding eligible uses could dilute funds intended for tourism promotion and convention development. The statute’s criminal penalty for misuse and its detailed allocation rules suggest lawmakers remained attentive to limiting diversion of these revenues.