Board adopts revised tourism advisory bylaws, approves two budget adjustments and directs community plan workshops

The Trinity County Board of Supervisors on Wednesday adopted revised bylaws for the Tourism Development Advisory Board, approved two routine budget adjustments and directed staff to proceed with a set of community plan workshops to gather input on local vision statements and land‑use priorities.

At‑a‑glance: The board adopted revised bylaws for the tourism advisory body after staff recommended two changes: adding two county staff members to the advisory board and removing the board's authority to make final funding allocations for transient occupancy tax (TOT) proceeds, a role staff said created conflicts because advisory members include recipients of tourism funds. The change places allocation decisions with an ad hoc committee that will include staff and two board members and aims to reduce conflicts in the grant‑allocation process.

Why it matters: The change addresses two longstanding issues: (1) transparency and conflicts when advisory members have direct financial interest in TOT distributions, and (2) staff participation on advisory bodies so county revenue and permitting staff can advise the panel. Several members of the public urged the board to take a different approach, particularly vacation‑rental owners who cautioned against staff time being diverted to TBID work and urged voter approval for any TOT increase.

Public comment: Members of the public spoke against aspects of the TBID process and urged development of a registration program and clearer rules for short‑term rentals. Lisa Harper, who identified herself as an owner/manager of several vacation rentals, asked the county to build a registration database for short‑term rentals and to keep TOT receipts in the general fund until the county considers any rate change on the ballot. Ben Kellogg and other callers echoed concerns about staff time and transparency.

Budget adjustments and planning direction: The board approved two budget items on consent. The planning division requested a fiscal‑year 24/25 adjustment to reconcile expected S B 2 grant receipts, staffing and receivables; the board approved the adjustment after staff said turnover and lower project volume reduced anticipated revenue. The board also approved a $136,100 adjustment to clear a negative balance in a CDBG‑related fund, using contingency to eliminate the lingering deficit and reduce future interest costs on that account.

Community plan workshops: Planning staff and the planning commission recommended a consistent, narrow agenda for upcoming community plan meetings: (1) review and finalize community vision statements; (2) present the 2050 general plan land‑use map and changes within each community, with attention to village and unclassified zones; (3) ask communities what land uses they would like to promote; and (4) ask what types of development communities want to see (for example, whether mixed‑use or lower density is preferred). Staff recommended the community input be used to inform future zoning code updates, including any overlay zones or cannabis ordinance work, but recommended the county hold separate, focused discussions on cannabis regulations rather than folding detailed cannabis topics into the general community plan workshops.

Board votes and disposition: The board adopted the tourism advisory bylaw revisions and approved the budget adjustments; the board also gave staff direction to proceed with community plan workshops following the planning commission guidance.

Votes at a glance: - E2: Adopt revised bylaws for the Tourism Development Advisory Board — Motion approved 3–1 (Ayes: Supervisor Carpenter Harris; Supervisor Lewyler; Chair Goguen. No: Supervisor Brownfield). (Moved/seconded on the record.) - E3: Budget adjustment for Planning Department (fiscal year 24/25) — Motion approved 4–0 (Ayes: Carpenter Harris; Lewyler; Brownfield; Goguen). - E5: Budget adjustment for CDBG GRAMA (fiscal year 24/25) — Motion approved 4–0 (Ayes: Goguen; Lewyler; Brownfield; Carpenter Harris).

What board members said: Several supervisors noted the process should avoid conflicts of interest and preserve transparency. One supervisor who voted no on the TBID bylaw change said they wanted a different approach to funding allocations; another supervisor urged more public education and a county‑run registration system for short‑term rentals before moving to any TBID or TOT changes. Planning staff reiterated that community plan workshop prompts should be consistent across communities and that cannabis ordinance specifics are better addressed in a separate, focused process once broader zoning direction is clear.

Next steps: Staff will publicize community plan meeting dates on the 2050 general plan website and by the general‑plan email list, and will work with contractors to run consistent workshops in each community. The tourism advisory board will be reconstituted under the new bylaws and the board chair and staff will form the ad hoc committee to handle funding allocation recommendations.