Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County poll shows narrow voter support for raising tourist tax; lodging operators largely oppose
Summary
A county poll of likely November voters showed 51% support for a proposed increase in the county transient occupancy tax when presented with arguments for and against; nearly 200 lodging stakeholders overwhelmingly said they were unlikely to support an increase, citing high operating costs and rural price sensitivity. Staff said an ordinance would need board action by June 16 to reach the Nov. 3 ballot.
County staff briefed the Board of Supervisors on research into a potential increase in the county transient occupancy tax (TOT) from the current 6% rate.
Jason Weibe of the County Administrative Office summarized a phone poll of 627 registered Kern County voters likely to participate in the November election that showed 51% support for a 6‑point TOT increase (to 12%) when given both pro and con arguments; the poll's margin of error was ±4 percentage points. Staff also surveyed approximately 800 lodging stakeholders (hotels, motels and short‑term rental operators) and received nearly 200 substantive responses; nearly all respondents said they were unlikely to support an increase even if dedicated to tourism or wildfire mitigation. Operators cited operating cost pressures — insurance, utilities, staffing, wildfire risk and low margins in rural properties — and said the timing felt poor given current inflation and higher gasoline prices that have already reduced bookings in some markets.
Staff noted that the county collects about $3.8–3.9 million a year in TOT currently; increasing the county rate to match Bakersfield’s 12% rate would, on staff estimates, yield roughly an additional $4 million annually based on current collections. Short‑term rentals contribute a substantial share of current TOT revenue. Weibe stressed this was an initial engagement and outreach step; he recommended more stakeholder conversations and said timeline deadlines require an ordinance adoption by the board no later than its June 16 meeting to place a measure on the November 3, 2026 ballot.
Board members expressed mixed views: some said timing is poor due to inflation and impacts on lodging operators; others said the county is structurally behind peer counties and that giving voters a choice could be appropriate. The board voted to receive and file the report and directed staff to continue outreach and prepare materials for future board consideration.
What happens next: staff will continue stakeholder engagement; if the board chooses to put a measure on the ballot it must adopt an ordinance by June 16 to meet registrar deadlines.
