Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Municipal Finance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Carmel council discusses sales‑tax and transient‑occupancy tax measures; directs drafting and legal review

Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council · May 5, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Council reviewed draft ordinances to (1) increase the transactions and use tax by 0.375 percentage points (to 1.875%) and remove the sunset; and (2) add 2% to the transient occupancy tax (raising it from 10% to 12%). The council directed staff to submit the sales-tax draft to the state for review and asked the city attorney to work with two council members to finalize ballot language and 300‑word arguments for both measures.

The Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council spent substantial time on May 4 discussing two potential revenue measures to help address the city’s infrastructure needs: a 0.375 percentage‑point increase to the transactions and use tax (TUT) and a 2% increase to the transient occupancy tax (TOT).

City attorney Brian reviewed the draft TUT ballot question and legal steps required to place a general tax on the November 3, 2026 ballot, and noted that a council resolution requires four affirmative votes to proceed. He read draft ballot language that described raising the TUT rate by 0.375% to a total of 1.875% and removing the 20‑year sunset provision. Brian said the total 1.875% rate was illustrated in staff materials with a larger aggregate figure and that the 0.375 increment would generate roughly $1.9 million annually in the city’s staff estimate.

Council members asked whether other countywide agencies could “use up” the remaining tax increment; Brian said a countywide or special‑district measure could preclude the city from using that increment if passed first, prompting discussion of “use‑it‑or‑lose‑it” timing considerations. Several council members said they prefer to continue both measures in parallel through June so staff can refine language and obtain a state review; others emphasized the risk of ballot crowding and urged clear, parallel phrasing so voters can compare increments.

The council voted to authorize staff to submit the draft sales‑tax ordinance to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration for review and directed the city attorney to work with Council Members Delves and Bueter on final ballot question language and the 300‑word pro arguments, with the item to return for possible adoption at the June 2 council meeting. The council gave parallel direction on the TOT item and indicated the matter would be teed up for action in June if council chooses to move forward.