Trinity County tourism board pauses consultant work as lodging owners remain split on TBID

The Trinity County Tourism Development Advisory Board voted to pause its paid engagement with Civitas Advisors and to continue local outreach after board members reported mixed responses from lodging business owners about a proposed Tourism Business Improvement District (TBID).

The pause, made unilaterally earlier by the board chair and approved by the advisory board, preserves remaining pre-paid consultant funds while staff and board members continue to collect weighted-owner feedback. Chair Gwen, Tourism Development Advisory Board, told the group the contractor "produced the rest of the documentation" requested by the ad hoc committee but that she had put the contract on hold to avoid spending funds while the board gathers more outreach responses.

Board members said support appears strongest among newer lodging owners while some larger, higher-weighted properties are opposed or nonresponsive. Leah Groves, advisory board member, said many lodging owners want to hear endorsements from other lodging operators before deciding. Ryan (last name not specified), another board member, told the board that "yeses are coming from, newer lodging owners" but that several of the top-weighted properties in his district were either firm no votes or had not replied.

Why it matters: the TBID would shift decisions about a portion of lodging assessments from county allocations to a nonprofit management entity governed by lodging owners. If enacted at the proposed levels discussed in meeting materials, board members estimated the district could generate roughly $200,000 a year for tourism promotion; the petition and management plan discuss a 3–5% assessment over a multiyear term. The pause delays any formal petition start while the advisory board seeks clearer, weighted-owner commitments.

Discussion points and open questions

Board members and members of the public raised specific questions about the draft management district plan and why certain statutory references and county-related language appear in the document. The draft plan excerpts discussed by board members include numbered sections cited in the materials as "36609," "36612," "36623," and "36624." Members asked why language repeatedly references a city or city council even though Trinity County has no city sponsoring the district, and whether the county would retain approval authority over a nonprofit's spending decisions.

Chair Gwen explained some of those law references are included in the management plan’s legal section and suggested staff or Civitas clarify whether the language is standard or specific to this draft. Board members asked staff to document the proposed money-flow process (how assessments would be collected by the county and transferred to the nonprofit), timing for transfers, and the county’s fee for processing collections; the draft materials referred to a possible 4% county processing fee versus a more typical 2%.

Public comment and county budget context

Several members of the public spoke. John Hammond criticized the petition form and said it should clearly state assessment rates on its front page so signers know they are approving a levy. An un-named resident raised concerns about coercion and alleged threats heard at earlier public meetings; that speaker also told the advisory board he had been warned by a supervisor that opposing the TBID could prompt support for a countywide transient occupancy tax (TOT) increase targeted away from tourism. Chair Gwen responded to those comments by describing recent county budget pressures and prior board discussion of potential revenue options. Gwen said county Chief Administrative Officer Tuthill had presented options and that the county is facing a roughly $3,000,000 budget gap for the coming year (down from a prior estimate near $6,000,000), noting the TOT was one of several tools the Board of Supervisors could consider if the TBID effort does not move forward.

Board decisions and next steps

The advisory board voted to pause the Civitas engagement and to continue outreach and ad hoc meetings. Board members agreed to keep collecting responses on a tracking document Civitas provided and to reconvene or reengage Civitas if owner responses indicate enough weighted support to move forward. The board asked staff to produce clearer documentation on the assessment collection process and timing, the county’s proposed processing fee, and to compare the draft plan language to other management plans (a SysQ plan was mentioned as a possible comparison).

A separate, procedural item to approve the meeting minutes from June 2 was moved and seconded; board members recorded abstentions from members not present for the prior meeting and noted the minutes would be reflected accordingly.

What remains unresolved

Board members did not approve or adopt the draft management district plan, articles of incorporation, or bylaws at this meeting; those documents are in the advisory board’s packet and will remain under review. The advisory board left Civitas paused to avoid spending remaining consultant funds until staff and board members can show stronger owner support or identify clarifications that could sway key, high-weight owners. The board agreed to circulate a tracking update within about 30 days and to reconvene sooner if a shift in weighted-owner responses suggests momentum.

Ending: The board adjourned after agreeing to ongoing ad hoc outreach and staff follow-up; no new votes to start the petition or finalize the management plan were taken at this meeting.