February’s Hotel Tax was 4.5% Below Budget for Santa Barbara

City of Santa Barbara (Edhat)

Transient Occupancy Tax Results for the City of Santa Barbara – Month Ended February 29, 2024

The City of Santa Barbara collected $1.8 million in Transient Occupancy Taxes (TOT) for February 2024, the eighth month in the City’s fiscal year. Year to date, the City has collected $20.9 million in overall TOT, of which approximately $19.3 million came from hotels and $1.6 million from short-term rentals. Year to date, total TOT revenues are coming in 4.5% below budget.

The Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) is a Tax on “Transient” guests staying in any hotel, inn, motel, or other commercial lodging establishment for a period of less than 30 days.

The City’s adopted TOT budget for all funds is $33 million, of which $27.5 million is budgeted in the General Fund.

View the Transient Occupancy Tax Table. The City’s TOT tax rate is 12%, of which 10% goes to the City’s General Fund and the remaining 2% goes to the Creeks/Clean Water Fund.

Tax Results for the City of Santa Barbara (Courtesy)

What do you think?


0 Comments deleted by Administrator

Leave a Review or Comment


    • The Hotels bring in tourist who spend money on restaurants and shopping. How are new Hotels a negative. The reason the taxes are down is your Hotel occupancy is down. Perhaps if you cleaned up State Street . Less vagrants and crazies threatening tourist. A few Police walking State Street. Less smell of Urine. Less E bike riders racing up and down State you would have more tourism and less stores for lease. Open State Street to vehicles. Allow tour busses to come back which is fun for everyone. Parades. A trolley so the very young and seniors can transverse State from the Wharf to Victoria. Worry more about Tourism than non spending bike riding teens and your tax revenue will increase.

      • That’s about right. The liberal majority says one thing and votes another. You can’t have it both ways – ie, saying you want affordable housing, then voting in council members who simultaneously support more hotels and more homeless resources. Good luck with that!

  1. 😆😆😆😆😆
    But go ahead, City Council, push through a 250 room resort hotel that is ruining a lot of people’s lives financially and quite the opposite of beneficial to the community
    Spot on guys 😆👍
    Hope you enjoy spending the developers bribe money

      • Well, explain your position then. Here’s what I see: the City Council and majority of SB voters are blue as can be (other than Randy probably) constantly chirping about building affordable housing, which I think is a pipe dream btw. But yet blue voters (and Sac you must be one of them) are year after year voting for a council that apparently favors hotels and developers over housing for locals rather than tourists. Funny huh?

          • Well, I’d say we wouldn’t even have this issue if I were wrong. They, and you voted as you did, and here’s another hotel.

            Btw, by asking you what your position is you swung and missed, probably on purpose, because you don’t have a real political position, which is classic.

            • I didn’t vote for the SB City Council.

              Further, you never asked my political position. I simply commented that you were wrong, as you still are (about almost everything) about the liberal Council members position being incompatible with supporting affordable housing. If you still don’t know my position on housing, then you really haven’t been reading my comments the last few years. Not surprised though, as you never respond directly to them anyway.

Camino Cielo Prescribed Burn Scheduled This Week

Cathedral Oaks Road Detour