Wine Improvement District reports strong PR placements, modest first‑year revenue and ongoing legal dispute

The Santa Barbara County Wine Improvement District presented its first annual report to the Board on Sept. 1, describing a year that combined national PR placements, targeted advertising tests and the launch of member communications and education programs.

Lisonbee Laslett, the district CEO, said the district retained a national PR agency and secured more than 200 articles in publications including Forbes and Bloomberg, and ran a targeted holiday advertising campaign to encourage Southern California visitation. "Our goal with this campaign was to encourage consumers in Southern California to get in the car and visit us," Laslett told the board. The district reported web traffic gains and a carryover from initial assessment receipts; staff projected a near‑$1.2M district budget and nearly $1.4M across all association activities in the coming year when festival revenues and other sources are included.

Several public commenters raised governance and legal questions: flying‑goat owner Kate Griffith identified herself as a plaintiff in litigation challenging the district’s assessment process and noted concerns about nonpayment by some wineries and alleged Brown Act and board transparency issues; Steve Pepe, another winery owner, urged the county not to use public resources to defend the district in litigation and said assessment collections were uneven. District leadership responded that collections are managed by the county’s contracted collector and that district funds and non‑bid association programs are tracked in separate accounting "classes." District staff said they are undertaking a formal financial audit at the county’s request.

Board requests: Supervisors asked the district to develop clearer outcome measures — including point‑of‑sale metrics being provided by Commerce7, geofencing to measure ad conversion and comparisons with other wine regions — and to coordinate messaging with local tourism partners. The board approved the district’s annual report and asked staff to return with proposed changes to increase Zoom/remote participation, improve collections and to provide an economic impact analysis of district activity across the county and cities.

Why it matters: The district’s county‑wide marketing is designed to raise tourism and support many small vintner businesses across multiple AVAs. Questions raised in public comment about collections, the pending lawsuit and governance will be part of subsequent oversight and audit work.