Lackluster support from residents and a need for more public outreach stopped San Luis Obispo County’s attempt to increase its transient occupancy tax in its tracks.
“You should be informed that vacation rental and hotel occupancy is currently trending downward,” Toni LeGras-Price of Beachside Rentals Inc. in Cayucos wrote to the Board of Supervisors on March 8. “The STR [short-term rental] owners we have communicated with are down year over year by approximately 30 percent, hoteliers have expressed similar numbers. … Now is perhaps the worst possible time to attempt to do this and could drive away visitors.”
Last January, the supervisors directed the county administrative office to identify new revenue sources to pay for their adopted goals and priorities. County staff appointed consultant company Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates to conduct a voter polling survey to gauge community sentiment on including a special tax to pay for the county’s fire services, and to raise the transient occupancy tax in the unincorporated areas with a tax on overnight recreational vehicle parks folded in.
If survey participants reacted positively to raising the transient occupancy tax from 9 to 12 percent, the supervisors could decide if they wanted to put the tax increase on the November ballot for constituents in unincorporated areas to vote on.
Richard Bernard, a partner with the consultant company, told supervisors at the March 12 meeting that it’s not feasible for the tax increase to be a ballot measure yet.
“I say this because the intensity of awareness of the need is quite low,” he said.
According to the consultant company’s survey data, 52 percent of the 593 participants from SLO County’s unincorporated areas said they would support the tax measure that needs a simple majority to succeed. Only 26 percent of reported supporters fell into the “definitely yes” category, while 21 percent opted for “probably yes.” Four percent of proponents said they were undecided but leaned in favor of the measure.
Forty-four percent of participants said they would reject the measure, with 31 percent definitively against it. Only 12 percent and 1 percent of rejectors opted for the “probably no” and “undecided, lean no” options, respectively.
While support for the tax measure inched forward to 54 percent after respondents received educational statements about the county’s need, the consultant company found that only slightly less than 6 in 10 people believed that the county requires more funds for services.
Fourth District Supervisor Jimmy Paulding said it was concerning that only a small percentage recognized a great need for more funding.
“This underscores the need for us to tell the story of the challenges facing the county,” he said at the meeting.
Many participants reacted favorably to the proposed measure when they learned that the increased tax—paid by visitors who stay in local lodgings—would help retain and attract sheriff’s deputies. Other statements that participants reacted favorably to included: accountability provisions that require transparency on how county funds are used; providing funding for county-run recreation programs for children and education initiatives for at-risk youth; and maintaining funding for local nonprofits that run shelters for the homeless.
Supervisors will discuss ramping up public outreach during the next board priorities discussion this fall. Officials anticipate outreach efforts to cost $100,000 from general fund contingencies. With more awareness about the county’s monetary needs, the supervisors said they hoped that the tax measure can appear on ballots in 2026.
Not everyone favored educational sessions for the community. County resident Gary Kirkland criticized supervisors for raising building fees and giving themselves raises amid SLO County requiring more money for services.
“Obviously, you’re not short on too much money or you couldn’t afford to do that,” he said. “It seems that this educational program you’re talking about … to me it sounds propagandish.” Δ
This article appears in Mar 14-24, 2024.