The San Benito County Tourism Advisory Committee on Aug. 27 voted to send a draft hotel incentive program to the Board of Supervisors, city jurisdictions and county planning and legal departments for review and feedback.

The committee, which is composed of county and city officials, endorsed a draft that targets both new hotel development and transformational renovation of existing properties and lowers certain thresholds — such as room-key minimums — to broaden eligibility for small operators.

Commissioner Pillsbury, representing the ad hoc that drafted the plan, said the proposal keeps “renovation tiers” so existing operators and entrepreneurs acquiring properties can qualify for incentives when they upgrade facilities. An ad hoc member who helped craft the draft said the program is designed so incentive payouts are sourced from incremental transient occupancy tax (TOT) revenue generated by new or upgraded lodging, not current operating funds.

Public comments supported the draft. Mary Joerne, representing San Juan Bautista, praised reduced room-key thresholds and said the change makes the program usable for the city’s small inventory. Business leader Peter Hernandez urged the committee to include cross-promotion with downtown businesses. The committee also discussed expanding the definition of “hotel” to include tiny‑house and cabin-village operators; members said they favored broad inclusion so long as projects meet the program’s thresholds.

A motion to send the draft to the Board of Supervisors and each city, and to involve county planning and legal departments for review, passed on a roll-call vote of 5–0. The chair recorded “yes” votes from Commissioner Kozmicki, Commissioner Zenger, Commissioner Stevens, Commissioner Jordan and Commissioner Pillsbury.

The draft as discussed contains a 10‑year sunset provision with mandatory periodic reviews (an annual performance review and a three‑year comprehensive evaluation was mentioned), and separate categories for new development and transformational renovation. Committee members emphasized the draft should remain flexible and be revisited periodically to adjust thresholds and amounts as market conditions and construction costs change.

Ending

Committee members unanimously agreed to forward the draft for jurisdictional and administrative review; no funding or final adoption occurred at the meeting.