Transient Occupancy Tax is a charge added to the billing for lodging at a motel, hotel, bed and breakfast, or other temporary lodging facility. Currently, the lodging billing includes a charge of 9%, or $9 on a $100 room rate. This measure would increase the charge to 12%, or $12 on a $100 room rate.

Based on Transient Occupancy Tax revenues collected for the fiscal year ending June 2000, this proposed 3% rate increase will generate annually approximately $1,500,000 additional revenues. This revenue increase could fluctuate annually depending on the lodging occupancy, room rates, and/ or the number of lodging facilities available in the unincorporated areas of the County.

Through the annual budget process and public hearings required by State law, these increased revenues would be budgeted for general governmental expenditures. Historically, these revenues have been expended 75% for promoting tourism and regional parks in Sonoma County and 25% for County services such as public safety and law enforcement, health services, and public facilities.

In accordance with the Elections Code, the scope of this fiscal impact analysis has been limited to the measure's effect on revenues and expenditures. It does not address larger countywide fiscal issues such as the measure's effect on the overall County economy.

s/ Rod Dole, Sonoma County Auditor Controller

State law permits a county to levy a tax on guests occupying temporary lodging located in the unincorporated area of the county. This measure would increase the transient occupancy tax rate only as to lodging in the unincorporated area of Sonoma County. The measure would not change the transient occupancy tax rate for lodging located within incorporated cities.

Sonoma County's transient occupancy tax is assessed on persons occupying lodging for a period of thirty consecutive days or less. The tax applies to transients occupying various types of lodging, including hotels, motels, apartment houses, clubs, recreational vehicle parks, and campgrounds. The tax is collected by the lodging operator and remitted to the Sonoma County Tax Collector.

The transient occupancy tax is a general tax. Revenues from the transient occupancy tax rate increase may be used for general governmental purposes, without restriction.

The ordinance increasing the transient occupancy tax rate from nine to twelve percent will become effective only if approved by a majority of those voting on the measure.

Steven M. Woodside, County Counsel
By: s/ Steven S. Shupe, Deputy County Counsel

The Santa Rosa Press Democrat

• Hotel Measures go before voters

• Ballot Measures would raise hotel taxes

Tourism is a vital element to the sustainability of Sonoma County's economic vitality. Visitors to the area enjoy our vineyards, coastline and redwoods. They have also enjoyed well-maintained roads, beautiful parks and the protection of local emergency services.

In the past, the taxpayers of Sonoma County have had to foot much of the bill for government services that make visiting the area a pleasant experience. However, it is time that the visitors begin to pay their fair share to support these services.

The Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) is Sonoma County's best way to ensure visitors are assisting in the support of government services. The tax is administered when visitors stay at a lodging facility in Sonoma County.

Currently, Sonoma County has a 9% TOT tax rate, which has not changed in the last seven years. The current measure on the ballot would modestly increase the rate to 12%. In practical numbers, the increase would only mean an extra $1.50 on a $50 room. The increase would bring Sonoma County in line with rates of up to 12% in Napa County, and below San Francisco's 14%.

Sonoma County has significant resources used by visitors and residents alike, the most important being the need for new parks, roads, and the funds needed to maintain them. An increase in the TOT tax would provide additional funds to move on these priorities.

This is a modest increase, and by assessing a reasonable hotel tax for visitors to our area, we are able to keep down the tax rates for local residents.

s/ Mike Reilly, Sonoma County Supervisor
s/ Bill Carson, General Manager, Fountaingrove Inn
s/ Mike Cale Sonoma County Supervisor
s/ Cario Galazzo, General Manager, Inn at the Tides
s/ Charles E. Henning, VP/General Manager, Sonoma Club, Sonoma Mission Inn

All of us are gouged in ways in which we have no control. Soaring gasoline prices, cost of housing, checkout lines at supermarkets. Measure H gives the Board of Supervisors another way to raise taxes without asking for a 2/3 voter approval. In a year when Sonoma County enjoyed the largest tax surplus in recent memory, they justify it by saying "you don't have to pay the tax. Let the other guy pay his fair share." But the other guy is paying a fair share, given the proportional time a visitor spends in Sonoma County.

Lodging representatives who argue in favor of Measure H are employees of luxury hotels in Sonoma County. None are frontline employees or owners/operators of small businesses who regularly deal with guests one-on-one.

Those of us small business owners, who serve as unpaid tax collectors for Sonoma County, hear on a regular basis the displeasure from guests as they realize the impact taxation has on their room charges.

A No Vote on Measure H is a vote to put the brakes on rising taxes. Don't fall for the proponents' strategy that says, "let the other guy pay."

Remember: When you plan an overnight getaway within Sonoma County, book visiting family or friends at B&Bs or hotels, or use private campground facilities, you are the other guy.

s/ Rebecca Goehring, Co-owner, Huckleberry Springs Country Inn & Spa
s/ Lynn Crescione, Creekside Inn & Resort
s/ Raylene Wardman, Manager, Rio Villa Beach Resort, Inc.
s/ Simon Lowings, Owner, Fern Grove Cottages
s/ Camille LeGrand, Owner, Russian River Getaways

In a year when Sonoma County enjoyed the largest tax surplus in many years the Board of Supervisors has put this proposal on the ballot as a way to generate more unencumbered monies for the general fund.

We wonder why there is a need for a 33% increase to this revenue source? Traditionally, 75% of the TOT monies have gone back into promotion and marketing of Sonoma County. Yet in the past two years, the county's marketing program has been at a virtual standstill. Tourism-related businesses have had to form their own coalitions, create and pay for their own advertising opportunities. Still, from each guest we dutifully collect tax monies for the county and hope that the supervisors will fulfill their promise to put that money back into promotion.

Visitors to San Francisco pay 14% TOT. In unincorporated Napa County, guests pay 10.5% TOT. The beauty and diversity of Sonoma County makes the county a draw to people from all over the world. Instead of exploiting them for additional funds, isn't it better to offer them the world-class experience and hospitality of Sonoma County and a bargain to boot?

Let their final thoughts of Sonoma County be of the beauty of the land, the friendliness of the people, the fine cuisine and world-class wines - not the unanticipated tax bite they face as they settle their bill and start their journey home.

s/ Rebecca Goehring, Co-owner, Huckleberry Springs Country Inn & Spa
s/ Donald D. West, Co-owner, Rio Villa Beach Resort, Inc.
s/ Suzanne Greene, Co-owner, Huckleberry Springs Country Inn & Spa
s/ Rick Boen, Co-owner, Rio Villa Beach Resort, Inc.

Nor is the proposed tax rate unreasonable, but right in line with what many communities charge, which are competing with Sonoma County for visitor business. As the opposition notes, San Francisco charges 14%. San Francisco is not alone.

A visitor's tax is commonplace in California, and is anticipated by travelers. This is not a new tax. This is not a tax that will be imposed on all County lodging facilities. This is an increase from 9% to 12% only on those facilities situated in the County's unincorporated areas. This is a modest increase in a tax, the validity of which has long been accepted generally by the lodging industry.

The beauty and diversity of Sonoma County does indeed attract people from all over the world. The increased revenues from the proposed visitor tax will help preserve those virtuous qualities, not just for visitors, but for residents of Sonoma County as well.

s/ Bill Carson, General Manager, Fountaingrove Inn

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY SONOMA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12-11 OF THE SONOMA COUNTY CODE TO INCREASE THE TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX RATE FROM NINE (9) PERCENT TO TWELVE (12) PERCENT

The People of the County of Sonoma ordain as follows:

Section 1. AMENDMENT OF SONOMA COUNTY CODE SECTION I Section 12-11 of the Sonoma County Code is amended to read as follows:

For the privilege of occupancy at any lodging, each transient is subject to and shall pay a tax in the amount of twelve (12) percent of the rent charged by the operator. Said tax constitutes a debt owed by the transient to the county which is extinguished only by payment to the operator or to the county. The transient shall pay the tax to the operator of the hotel at the time the rent is paid. If the rent is paid in installments, a proportionate share of the tax shall be paid with each installment. The unpaid tax shall be due upon the transient's ceasing to occupy space at the lodging. If, for any reason, the tax due is not paid by the operator of the lodging, the tax administrator may require that such tax be paid directly to the tax administrator.

Section 2. NATURE OF TAX. If approved by a majority of the electorate on the measure, the ordinance will increase the transient occupancy tax rate from nine (9) percent to twelve (12) percent of rent charged. The transient occupancy tax is imposed upon transients for the privilege of occupying lodging located within unincorporated territory of Sonoma County. The tax increase would be collected by lodging operators, in the same manner as the current transient occupancy tax is collected. The collection of the tax from lodging operators would be administered by the Sonoma County Tax Collector as provided in Chapter 12, Article III of the Sonoma County Code.

Section 3. GENERAL TAX. The transient occupancy tax imposed by this ordinance is a general tax within the meaning of Government Code Sec. 53721 and Article XIII C, Sec. 1 (a) of the California Constitution. The revenue generated by this general tax is available for general governmental purposes. To that end, the Auditor-Controller is instructed to deposit the revenue from the tax into the County General Fund and to include his estimate of the revenue from this general tax, together with his estimates of other revenue sources, in the tabulation that he is annually required to prepare by Government Code Sec. 29060. The revenue from this general tax shall be available to the Board of Supervisors for annual appropriations in the County's budget for any lawful expenditure. Nothing in this ordinance nor in any other ordinance, advisory measure, resolution, or policy shall be construed as limiting, in any way, the amount or the objects of the appropriations and expenditures that can be made from the revenue of the tax nor be construed as a continuing appropriation.

Section 4. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder ordinance and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

Section 5. ELECTION. An election shall be held on November 7, 2000, on the issue of increasing the transient occupancy tax rate from nine (9) percent twelve (12) percent.

Section 6. EFFECTIVE AND OPERATIVE DATES. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by a majority of the electorate voting on the ordinance at the November 7, 2000, general election. The operative date of 1 shall be April 1, 2001,

Approved by resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma on the 25th day of July, 2000, by the following vote, for adoption by the electorate at the election of November 7, 2000:

SUPERVISORS:

CALE aye KERNS aye SMITH aye KELLEY no REILLY aye

AYES 4 NOES 1 ABSTAIN___ABSENT___

ATTEST:
s/ Eeve T. Lewis, County Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors