OUR MONEY NOW!

O

n Tuesday, the Mono County Board of Supervisors opted not to approve a resolution that would lock in funds for housing from its Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) rate increase. Instead, the board voted 3-2 to table the resolution.

The ballot question (Measure K) to raise the tax from 12% to 15% did explicitly include affordable housing, but also included other services like emergency response, childcare, and county parks. Because it was passed as a general tax, the fund can be allocated at the Board’s discretion.

County Administrative Officer, Sandra Moberly, said the ballot question’s broad wording has raised public concerns about the intended use of the increased revenue.

The Town of Mammoth Lakes (TOML) passed a similar measure, also with a broad scope of potential allocations, in November, raising its TOT from 13% to 15%. However, Mammoth’s Council unanimously opted to allocate all additional funds from the TOT increase to its Housing Now! program on January 13.

Following suit, County staff presented a resolution which, if it were approved, would also direct all the new funds to housing for the next 10 years and expire December 31, 2034.

The Transient Occupancy Tax revenues would then be allocated as follows: 60% to the General Fund, 13.3% to Emergency Medical Services (EMS), 6.7% to Tourism, and 20% to housing from the 3% portion, according to the staff report.

*As explanation, 20% to housing equaling 3 out of the 15 percentage points. 

These funding allocations aren’t locked; the Board just tends to put funds towards certain things as it deems necessary, and those choices are typically consistent year-over-year. 

Throughout the discussion, Chair Lynda Salcido argued against the need for a formal resolution on the basis that current political commitments are sufficient as is, and she doesn’t question that housing will continue to be a priority for the Board. 

She voted not to table the resolution, but to get rid of it altogether.

“If people are concerned about it, they should talk to one of their board members,” she said. “They should talk to the [County Administrative Officer] and be assured it will continue to be honored.”

By not passing the resolution, she added, the Board also leaves an opportunity to use the funds as needed in the case of “financial devastation,” if they “don’t have any money to keep the lights on in the county.”

Vice Chair Jennifer Kreitz, also a “no” vote, questioned the necessity of the ten-year limitation in the resolution. She argued the time restriction might limit the board’s ability to leverage longer-term funding opportunities for housing projects, and cause them to consistently go back to amend it – rendering the overarching resolution useless.

“When you think about leveraging funding, are we hamstringing ourselves?” she asked.

Councilmember John Peters, on the other hand, supported tabling the resolution, hoping the language could be amended to ensure the funds specifically benefited unincorporated areas of the County. 

“I know there are some things that Mammoth Lakes Housing has invested in, but I think we should delineate that the funds stay in the unincorporated part of the county’s housing program,” he said.

Also in support of the unincorporated areas, Supervisor Rhonda Duggan wanted to require an annual review of the resolution via the budget adoption process. For context, the ballot measure to increase the rate was voted on by the entire county, including the Town, but the funds are only generated from lodging facilities in the unincorporated county.

County Counsel Chris Beck said the Board could decide whether or not to put these funds towards projects involving the Town as the projects come up, and Salcido questioned again why the resolution was needed in the first place.

Chair Pro-Tem Paul McFarland said the County needs to help provide clarity to people on how TOT funds are allocated and how housing programs will be funded, though “this [resolution] might not be the perfect vehicle for that.” He directed staff to create educational graphics and look for other “vehicles” to provide transparency. 

Because the resolution was tabled, the Board will consider it again at a later date.