Lompoc council withholds consent for countywide wine improvement district after recusals leave no majority

The Lompoc City Council voted not to consent to inclusion in the proposed Santa Barbara County Wine Improvement District after two council members recused themselves, leaving the council without the three votes required under the county process.

The proposal, initiated by the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, would add a 1% assessment on direct-to-consumer retail sales at wine-tasting facilities. The funds would be collected for a five-year term and administered by the nonprofit Santa Barbara Vintners Association for marketing and promotion of county wine tasting facilities, according to the county’s management district plan cited by staff.

The council’s decision followed more than an hour of public comment almost entirely in favor of inclusion from local vintners and tasting-room operators. Supporters told the council the assessment would fund coordinated marketing the region currently lacks, increase visitation and local spending, and help Lompoc compete with better-funded wine regions. Philip Carpenter, general manager of the Santa Barbara County Vintners Association, told the council, “we really want you to be a part of this. We love Lompoc, we love promoting you.” Allison Laslett, chief executive officer of the Santa Barbara Vintners Association, said the association wants “the entire community to stand together as one.”

City staff explained the assessment would apply only to direct-to-consumer retail receipts at tasting facilities (including tasting-room sales, wine-club sales, event sales, food and merchandise) and would not apply to wholesale or out-of-state sales. The management district plan estimates roughly $1,650,000 in annual revenue if all county and city jurisdictions participate; the plan also allocates up to 20% for administration, 2% for assessment/collection costs and 5% for a contingency reserve.

Two council members, Council member Bridge and Council member Ball, publicly announced financial interests and recused themselves from the discussion and vote. That left three council members eligible to vote; the resolution required a majority of the full council (three votes) to consent. The motion to consent did not receive the required majority and therefore failed. The city attorney explained that because the council lacked the required majority the city’s formal position was to withhold consent.

Council members and members of the public debated several concerns: opponents warned that the assessment would be an additional cost imposed on local businesses; supporters argued the assessment is typically added to the consumer’s bill and would pay for marketing that benefits the entire wine region. Several speakers urged the council to treat the assessment as a five-year trial and evaluate results at renewal.

With the council not consenting, the county may still form the district to cover unincorporated areas and other jurisdictions that consent. City staff noted the county board adopted a resolution of intent to form the district on Dec. 17, 2024, and will consider final action at a February hearing.

What happens next: The council’s action is a refusal to allow the assessment to be applied within Lompoc’s municipal boundaries under the county’s current proposal. The city attorney told the council that the district’s renewal procedures at the five‑year mark are governed by the enabling statute and that the council could request language requiring city consent on renewal, but that a legal review would be required to confirm how that would operate in practice.

The council’s vote means Lompoc will not be included in the assessment if the county adopts the district unless the council later changes its position.