Amador lodging industry pitches 2% tourism marketing assessment; supervisors pause adoption pending Jackson data

Visit Amador leaders and a coalition of lodging owners spent more than two hours Tuesday presenting and defending a proposal to create an Amador County Tourism Marketing District that would add a 2% pass-through assessment on lodging receipts to fund centralized marketing.

The Board of Supervisors did not vote on the district. County staff told the board they lack verified transient-occupancy-tax (TOT) data from the City of Jackson and cannot make the statutory finding required to adopt a resolution of intent without weighted-petition calculations that include Jackson’s contribution.

Kathleen Mahan, president of Visit Amador and a leader of the Amador Lodging Alliance, described the proposed structure and fiscal plan, saying the district would be “a 2% assessment pass through” and that the assessment would be collected by HDL on behalf of the county and passed to an owners’ association to fund marketing. Tracy Birkner, a lodging owner and co‑founder of the Amador Council of Tourism, said the group expects roughly 10% of revenues to cover administration, 10% to reserves, 3% for collections and the remainder for marketing. She told the board the district would “sunset in 5 years” so the program could be reassessed.

County staff and the district proponents repeatedly emphasized state law requires a weighted petition process: for the board to adopt a resolution the businesses that would be assessed must supply petitions that represent 50% or more of the weighted share of the proposed assessment. Greg (county staff) told supervisors, “you have to have... petitions and support from those businesses that will pay 50 percent or more of the proposed assessment,” and that Jackson’s data are needed to calculate each business’s weighted share.

The room heard more than a dozen public speakers. Supporters argued a stable marketing budget would increase midweek stays and raise overall TOT revenues that benefit the county and local employers. “By increasing visitation and increasing occupancy, it increases the TOT, which increases the general fund,” said Ally Ward, an innkeeper. Several lodging owners described existing, voluntary 2% assessments that they have paid for years and said similar districts have been re-approved elsewhere.

Opponents — including short-term-rental hosts, small proprietors and some residents — raised concerns about fairness, the district’s boundaries and legal exemptions. Therese Sweet, who identified herself as the owner of a 1‑bedroom short‑term rental in Plymouth, cited the Streets and Highways Code and argued the county must structure assessments “in whatever manner it determines corresponds with the distribution of benefits,” and asked that residentially zoned or agricultural‑zoned properties be excluded if the county finds they “conclusively presumed not to benefit.” Several speakers said small operators would be disproportionately affected or might see little benefit from centralized marketing.

Supervisors and staff clarified several technical points: the assessment would be charged in addition to existing TOT rates; petitions and subsequent notices would be mailed to all current TOT payers if the board adopts a resolution of intent; and the owners’ association created by the district would administer marketing programs and elect a board of directors (the proponents said lodging members would comprise a majority of seats).

Supervisor questions focused on governance, the weighted‑vote calculation and whether short‑term rentals would be included. Laura Waltz, lodging alliance administrator, said jurisdictions vary and that Santa Cruz County’s exclusion of certain short‑term rentals was an administrative decision rather than a legal requirement. Proponents repeatedly said the proposed bylaws and owner‑association rules would be developed if the district moves forward.

The board did not act. County counsel and staff said they need a confidentiality or nondisclosure agreement with Jackson to receive the city’s TOT payer data and complete the weighted calculations. The item will be re‑noticed and return to the board after the county receives and verifies Jackson’s data and the proponents supply required petition documentation.

Ending: Supervisors urged proponents to address outstanding documentation and return with the verified weighted totals. The discussion produced a lengthy public record and clarified the legal and procedural steps the county must follow before adopting any marketing district.