Advisory board advances draft plan for Trinity County tourism assessment district

The Trinity County Tourism Advisory Board discussed next steps to form a proposed lodging assessment district that would be governed by a nonprofit corporation, and reviewed a draft five‑year management district plan that proposes a 3% assessment on assessed lodging receipts, quarterly county collection, and an initial allocation (a “pie chart”) for administration, sales and marketing, destination attraction and reserves.

The consultant leading the project, Katie (Civitas consultant), outlined the timeline and petition process and said, “Once we get over that 50% threshold, we will submit those petitions to the county, have those petitions verified, and then we can move on to the hearing process.” That petition must be signed by lodging providers before the Board of Supervisors would consider formal formation, Katie said.

Why this matters: the advisory board and the consultant framed the district as a way to create a stable, nonprofit-managed funding source for local tourism promotion distinct from the county transient occupancy tax (TOT). The proposal is intended to keep assessment funds under the control of the district’s nonprofit manager rather than diverting them to general county funds.

Key points of discussion

- Legal mechanism and name: The consultant said the district will follow the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 (the ‘‘94 law) and that the choice of name (examples discussed: Tourism Development District, Tourism Improvement District, Tourism Business Improvement District) does not change the legal process. Katie said the group could change the district name before petitioning if stakeholders preferred.

- Governance and nonprofit formation: Civitas described a timeline to incorporate a nonprofit (articles of incorporation, EIN application, bylaws) and appoint an initial board of directors composed of lodging providers. Katie explained Civitas can file initial paperwork using a county or advisory‑board contact and later amend the filings once directors are appointed. The consultant also stated her firm would put its owner’s Social Security number on the EIN filing if needed to start the process, with a promise there would be no ongoing control by Civitas.

- Management district plan and budget: The draft plan proposes a 3% assessment (separate from TOT), collected by the county on a quarterly basis, with an initial five‑year term. The draft pie chart allocates funds across categories (administration, sales and marketing, destination attractions, reserves). Leah (advisory member) explained the administration allocation commonly covers rent, accounting, insurance, legal and other office costs as well as staff when needed. The draft also allows up to 1% additional assessment increases in a year (the plan notes no more than 1% per year), and board members discussed adding a policy that any increase must wait 12 months after initial collections and then provide 6 months’ notice before implementation.

- Outreach and petition strategy: Board members reported phone and in‑person outreach to lodging owners and discussed holding an informational webinar and district‑specific open houses. The consultant and board reiterated that petitions must reach a voting threshold (above 50% of assessed lodging, weighted by recent TOT/receipts) to bring the formation resolution to the Board of Supervisors.

- Voluntary agreements and non‑lodging participation: The board discussed voluntary agreements that allow businesses outside the assessed lodging boundary (or non‑lodging businesses) to opt in by contract with the nonprofit. Katie said such agreements typically mirror the district rate but can be negotiated case‑by‑case and are not required to be written into the management plan; the nonprofit board could adopt consistent terms or allow tailored contracts.

Public comment and concerns

Several public commenters raised concerns about timing, county involvement and cost to small businesses. One audience member, John (public commenter), argued the county’s initial funding to help form the district suggested a public‑private partnership and warned that prior efforts had created financial burdens on small businesses, saying, “If it’s voted in, you’re going to put us in the hole a hundred thousand dollars.” Board members and the consultant responded that the county’s contribution is a one‑time investment to support formation and that the nonprofit, once formed, controls the funds and reporting; the Board of Supervisors would not control district spending after formation.

Next steps

The advisory board asked the ad hoc committee and Civitas to continue drafting the articles of incorporation and bylaws and to circulate a revised management district plan that incorporates feedback on start date, assessment timing and the pie chart. Board members signaled preference to give lodging owners more time to prepare billing systems (several suggested a January 1 start rather than an August 1 start) and requested the draft include a clear 12‑month wait and 6‑month notice before any assessment increase.

Ending note: no formal advisory board votes were taken on formation or the management plan during this meeting; the board continued outreach and asked the consultant to prepare revised incorporation paperwork and plan language to reflect the feedback.