After two years, untold tens of thousands of dollars spent, scores of meetings
with wineries, several press releases, a BID website, four proposals and a
rejection by the Board of Supervisors (BOS) staff, the Santa Barbara Vintners’ Board at the end of
October announced they were dropping the Wine Business Improvement District
(BID). How did the SB Vintners’ Board get it so wrong?
The answer seems simple – a lack of transparency and a failure to be inclusive.
The SB Vintners’ Board persuaded the Santa Maria, Santa Ynes and Santa Barbara
Tourism BIDS and others to fund a “feasibility study” for the Wine BID. The first
sign of trouble, which the SB Vintners’ Board ignored, was the Lompoc Tourism BIDs
refusal to contribute.
The second mistake was that the SB Vintners’ Board then selected CIVITAS to be
their consultant for the Wine BID. CIVITAS promotes the sale of their wine BID
services and was hardly an independent judge of feasibility, plus there was no
wine BID in California for guidance. They had a product to sell and salespersons
are not the most reliable source for an impartial and independent judgment.
The third and most important mistake was that there was no feasibility study. In
response to my request for a copy of the feasibility study the SB Vintners’ Executive
Director emailed me:
“The Santa Barbara Vintners does not have access to the information used to determine the
feasibility of the project. That information is confidential, and Civitas will not share that information with
anyone except for the County.”
Would a public feasibility study have made a difference? You bet. The purpose of
a feasibility study is to expose any problems or issues with a project before you
spend a lot of time, money and effort. A valid feasibility study by an independent
organization would have conducted interviews with the major stakeholders; wineries, consumers and elected officials. These interviews would have found
that more Santa Barbara wineries opposed than supported the Wine BID, that
some consumers who would be taxed for the Vintners’ marketing budget would
complain, that elected city officials like the Lompoc City Council would not opt
into the Wine BID if approved by the BOS and most importantly, that the Wine
BID had three major legal infirmities – using the consumer sales assessments to
pay for wholesale sales marketing, not requiring a vote for what was a sales tax
and failing to conform to the California Constitution.
The SB Vintners’ Board’s failure to obtain and publish an independent feasibility
study meant it was flying blind and it was not aware that the Wine BID had
serious issues. Once opposition surfaced, the SB Vintners’ Board made another fatal
decision, they did not reach out and include the critics, but instead referred to
them as a “minority,” “splinter group,” “out of touch” and “ignorant.”
Unfortunately, the result was predictable – a seriously flawed project imploded.
The light of transparency and inclusion can be harsh and unpleasant, but it would
have avoided this public fiasco.
You should look into getting the ITB designation. I know it’s in your signature, but the blue lettering stands out more.
Why is the signature not enough?
Perhaps provide some background information to know what the heck you’re talking about?
Appreciate the update!
in muni bond land some of the feasibility studies are really beyond crazy for a few public/private projects.
Here comes Larry in 5…4…3…2…1…
Choosing to spend my time:
-
Finishing up Harvest
-
Working my tasting room
-
Putting together lots of mini bottles for upcoming live zooms
-
Concentrating on staying positive about Santa Barbara County and all that we have to offer wine-wise, especially on this board (and this topic is best dealt with on a local level IMHO).
Cheers
Agree with this.
Just had to drag this back up because as of today, the Temecula Valley Winegrower’s Association has passed their very own Wine and Agriculture Historical District (BID) and project to take in about $1.2 Million per year to assist with marketing, etc for their region. They will be adding the same 1% levy on all DTC purchases that SBC was looking to do . . . and there are no lawsuits pending; there is no splinter association or group. They all understood that the ‘rising tide’ concept was more important than their individual issues.
And watch for other wine associations to move forward with this same concept in the coming year as everyone looks to increase their revenue to help grow and protect their wine region - and they all will potentially leave us behind and we will be left with ‘resting upon our laurels’ - and our hubris.
Cheers