West Virginia House Bill HB5063

West Virginia 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/3/26
• Refer: 2/3/26
• Refer: 2/6/26
• Engrossed: 3/3/26
• Refer: 3/4/26
• Report Pass: 3/10/26
• Enrolled: 3/12/26
• Passed: 3/14/26

Caption

To permit the county commission to appoint a county commissioner to a convention and visitor’s bureau as a voting member

Summary

HB5063 amends West Virginia’s hotel occupancy tax law governing convention and visitors’ bureaus (CVBs). The bill keeps the existing reporting, audit, and eligibility framework for CVBs that receive hotel occupancy tax proceeds, including annual financial reporting, periodic independent audits, and minimum operational standards such as a marketing plan, office or visitor center, website, accreditation, and a full-time executive director. It also preserves the moratorium on authorizing new CVBs through June 30, 2026, after which new bureaus may qualify for hotel occupancy tax distributions if they meet the statutory requirements. The bill’s main substantive change is to expressly allow a county commission to appoint one county commissioner as a voting member of a county CVB board. For multi-county CVBs, each participating county commission may, at its discretion, have a voting-member seat on the board. The bill also clarifies that the presence or absence of a county commissioner member does not affect quorum calculations for business meetings, and it confirms that state and legislative auditors may still review CVB operations and finances for compliance.

Impact

HB5063 modifies §7-18-13a of the West Virginia Code, which governs annual reporting and eligibility for hotel occupancy tax proceeds for convention and visitors’ bureaus. It does not overhaul the hotel occupancy tax system, but it adds board-governance authority for county commissions and reinforces existing accountability requirements tied to public tax revenue. CVBs that fail to file required reports or audits remain ineligible for additional hotel occupancy tax appropriations until they comply.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial in the Legislature, passing the House 81-8 and the Senate 32-0. The vote pattern suggests general agreement with the bill’s governance and accountability provisions, especially the ability of county commissions to participate directly in CVB boards. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate organized opposition.

Contention

The only likely point of contention is the governance change allowing county commissioners to serve as voting members of CVB boards, which could raise questions about board independence, local control, and the role of elected officials in entities funded by hotel occupancy taxes. Another possible issue is the continued use of public tax revenue for CVBs, but the bill addresses that concern by retaining reporting, audit, and eligibility standards. The absence of recorded committee discussion suggests any disagreement was limited or resolved before final passage.