Okay, have fun making that argument in court. And please challenge passing along credit card fees while you’re at it.
What is your legal argument that allows business owners to charge their customers a business improvement district assessment under SHC 36600-36671?
Credit card fees benefit the customer by providing the convenience of paying by credit card. The customer doesn’t have to pay by credit card. It’s a charge the customer himself created by choosing to pay by credit card.
I honestly don’t care enough about this to get into a legal argument with you on this. I tried a few times to give some perspective on your arguments, but you don’t want to even consider any counter argument as having any potential merit, so I’m done.
Good luck.
As far as I know, wineries are not subject to price controls. Just raise your prices. No fees, no assessments, no added lines to the sales slip. Charge more per bottle on every bottle you sell.
That would certainly be allowed, and that’s what some wineries do with their BID fees. But many prefer to add it as a surcharge, as hotels do with similar fees, which is what Terri is disputing.
-Al
And how many wineries in Agricultural zoning are paying assessments when they are exempt, I wonder?
I have the sense that Terri is opposed to the implementation of BIDs in general, and that the use of surcharges by wineries to recoup costs is the way to challenge them. That might be a valid legal argument, but I don’t see how it gets rid of BIDs.
First, it sounds like a problem with how the wineries respond to the BID fees, not with the BID fees themselves. Or does the BID language improperly authorize wineries to pass the fee on?
Second, there are too many other ways to recoup costs without adding a BID surcharge. If wineries want to add a separate line item to the bill rather than increase the bottle price, I can think of a few that could be offsetting but not related to the BID.
- Hospitality fee
- Worker health insurance fee
- Gasoline surcharge
- Fire risk abatement fee
- Winery dog maintenance fee
- Weather gods appeasement fee
I’m being a bit goofy about a serious topic, but only to ask if there is a more comprehensive legal argument against the BIDs. Or is it a political issue that must be resolved at the ballot?
I am not opposed to BIDs in general. I am opposed to illegally assessing businesses in agricultural and residential zoning (exempt under SHC 36632), and consultants saying it’s OK to charge the customer under a law that doesn’t apply to BIDs.
If the BID laws were not being distorted as they are, the manner of formation would not be such a problem because the likelihood of a direct benefit to each business would be greater as the businesses within the district boundaries would be contiguous. As it is, when businesses are scattered throughout a county, and the exemption for agricultural and residential zoning is being ignored (in many places), small business has no relevance in the process.
California SB 478 which became effective 7/1/24, requires all fees to be included in the advertised price of something, other than certain government taxes and shipping fees.
Sure, you can raise the price but to charge the assessment as a line item, I haven’t seen the statutory authority to do that.
Looks like Flying Goat has taken it up a notch: California Winery Challenges Illegal Government Mandate
Adam Lee
ITB
3 Likes
@moderators merge with Wine BIDS (merged thread, everything concerning the BIDS program in California)
I went to the BIDS thread, and this was not included???
1 Like
Interesting angle. Thanks for the good news.
1 Like
We saw this similar 1% tax implemented in the Santa Cruz Mountains recently. So far I haven’t heard too much complaining about it, I think the real test will be time. Hopefully we see this money put to good use with a noticeable impact.
2 Likes
Rumor has it that 60 SBC wineries have not paid the tax and the County is reluctant to seek enforcement.
Where is Larry Schaeffer when you need him? At least he is an honest intellect, he is paying the tax and not charging his customers.
2 Likes
Thanks Steve the update.
Jeff Nelson
LIQUID FARM
founder / ceo
cell: (310) 948-4096
Please Visit Our Tasting Room - located in Los Olivos!
www.liquidfarm.com
I’m not a fan of wine BIDs, but I’m pretty sure Larry is not a trust fund kid, just a guy working hard to make a living.
FWIW, it’s really the Goldwater Institute behind the lawsuit.
-Al
The Goldwater Institute is “behind” the lawsuit because some of us locals asked for their help. Small vineyard owners and small winery owners do not have the financial resources to challenge the BOS. All the billionaire wineries-there are several in SBC- and the other large wineries are all backing the BID. There are very few non-profit foundations- like 4- that will represent small businesses pro bono. I struck out with the other 3. It took months and lots of emails and telephone calls to spark the Goldwater Institute’s interest.
2 Likes
I agree that small winery owners lack the financial resources for this type of thing. That’s the main reason I pointed out that there was a better funded organization pursuing the lawsuit.
As you know, very large wineries would benefit from marketing the region but have a much smaller fraction of their wines subject to the BID fee because it only applies to DTC sales in California.
-Al
I am sorry I misconstrued the word behind. I read it as denoting some outside influence as opposed to the reality which I explained. 
Steve Pepe
805-735-7867