Endorsement: Measure L would raise tourism tax

While no financial panacea, it’s time TOT rate was brought in line with other counties|

Sonoma voters this Nov. 8 are facing decisions on multiple tax measures, but at least in Measure L locals should find some comfort – because it won’t be their pockets the County of Sonoma is reaching into.

Measure L is asking voters to consider raising the county Transient Occupancy Tax -– that’s the tax charged at hotels and other lodgings aimed at dinging tourists a little extra and using that revenue to offset the negative impacts of tourism. Currently the TOT stands at 9 percent; Measure L needs a simple majority to raise the rate to 12 percent.

We think county voters should approve Measure L for a variety of reasons – but largely because it’s revenue generated by the county’s most impactful economy: tourism. And its funds are intended to mitigate the stress such an industry places on our roads, facilities, emergency services and workforce housing needs. Alleviating those effects is certainly necessary and the tax puts nary a dent in local residents’ wallets.

Opponents of the measure argue that increasing the TOT by 33 percent, as Measure L would, gives tourists a bona fide reason to take their tourism dollars to less-taxing locales. “How much more of a financial strain can the County put on tourists before they begin to say, ‘Let’s go somewhere else’?” Timothy Hannan, president of the Sonoma County Taxpayers Association asks in his ballot argument against the measure. But it’s a specious argument – we imagine few travelers decide against a favored destination because the TOT is slightly higher than their second choice. Penny counting tourists aren’t the primary visitors to wine country. Besides, raising the TOT to 12 percent puts us right on par with Napa County, our closest point of comparison. Meanwhile, San Francisco is at 14 percent; Sacramento at 12; Marin’s still down at 10 percent.

The County hasn’t raised the TOT since 1992, when it went from 8 percent to 9 percent. This increase is long in coming.

That being said, even with an increase the Transient Occupancy Tax won’t accompany a revenue panacea to fully mitigate tourism’s impacts.

The TOT brought about $14.1 million to the County general fund last year. A 3 percent increase would add about $4 million to a general fund kitty of more than $423 million. It’s really just a drop of zin in the wine country bucket.

And, as they say on late-night TV– wait, there’s more. Or, according to the County, less.

In the Board of Supervisors’ set spending policy for the transient occupancy tax, only 25 percent of TOT revenue actually goes to the general fund for tourism-mitigating services such as road repair. The other 75 percent goes toward the county’s Advertising and Promotions Program. As a set of “information points” about the Measure L reads, three quarters of TOT revenue “is used to encourage tourism, agriculture and economic development in the County by supporting a series of promotional, community and cultural activities.” In other words, much of the Transient Occupancy Tax goes toward marketing to transient occupants.

So, really, Measure L’s estimated $4 million in added revenue would result in $1 million to address tourism’s negative effects. Still, it’s $1 million Sonoma County can’t afford to turn its back on. Additionally, the funds from the Promotions Program benefit multiple worthy nonprofits – many in the Sonoma Valley, including the Sonoma Valley Volunteer Firefighters ($3,000 last year), the Arts Guild of Sonoma ($1,500), Nuestra Voz ($1,500), Teen Services ($2,000), the Sonoma International Film Festival ($3,000), Friends In Sonoma Helping ($500), Valley of the Moon Vintage Festival ($3,000) and many others.

First District Supervisor Susan Gorin, who supports Measure L, has said a more even percentage than the current 25/75 split between infrastructure improvements and marketing is something the Board of Supervisors should consider – and we hope they do. Attracting tourists to the area isn’t a problem; fixing the roads is.

We recommend a Yes on Measure L

– Jason Walsh, editor

– John Burns, publisher

UPDATED: Please read and follow our commenting policy:
  • This is a family newspaper, please use a kind and respectful tone.
  • No profanity, hate speech or personal attacks. No off-topic remarks.
  • No disinformation about current events.
  • We will remove any comments — or commenters — that do not follow this commenting policy.