Trinity County advisory board advances TBID draft; lodging owners voice distrust and ask for more outreach

Trinity County advisory board members and county staff reviewed a draft management district plan for a proposed Tourism Business Improvement District and discussed outreach, timeline and funding mechanics as lodging owners and other public commenters raised longstanding distrust of how visitor taxes were handled in the past.

The board heard a timeline from a consultant recommending a mid‑June start to a petition drive, submission of petitions by July, a resolution of intention at a Board of Supervisors meeting in July, a public meeting in August, final public hearing in September and a proposed district effective date of Jan. 1, 2026. Katie, a consultant with Civitas, told the board the plan and service plan drafts remain open to changes before petitions begin.

The discussion focused on three issues that repeatedly surfaced during board remarks and public comment: (1) whether assessment funds could be diverted to county programs; (2) how much it will cost to collect the TBID assessment and who should collect it; and (3) whether enough lodging business owners have been contacted to justify moving to petition.

Katie said the law governing TBIDs and assessments requires that assessment dollars “must fund services and improvements that specifically benefit the lodging businesses that pay into the TBID,” and that those funds cannot be diverted to general government programs. "So that's mandated by Prop 26," she said, describing the legal constraint on use of assessment dollars.

But multiple lodging owners and commenters urged clearer, written explanations because historical disputes over Trinity County’s transient occupancy tax (TOT) have sown distrust. A public commenter who reviewed the draft appendix said the document’s list of "improvements" (parking, kiosks, restrooms, sidewalks, signage and similar infrastructure) appeared to some readers to allow the district to spend assessment money on broad infrastructure projects, and asked why advertising and marketing — the services most directly intended to drive “heads in beds” — were not made clearer in the improvement lists. The board and consultant responded that the appendix quotes statutory definitions of “improvement” and that the service plan itself identifies marketing and sales activity as the program to be funded.

Board members and commenters also debated collection mechanics and cost. The draft plan currently shows a 2% collection fee the county would retain for administering collections; county staff and some board members said that draft number may be too low to cover start‑up costs and the county’s recommendation could be 3–4% based on experience collecting TOT and introducing new assessments. One public commenter warned that when the county’s initial $30,000 consultant funding runs out (the board was told the contract funding would lapse in July or August), ongoing consultant support will cost roughly $6,000 per month, increasing the program’s short‑term fiscal needs.

Board members repeatedly urged more, targeted outreach to lodging owners before a petition drive. Several advisory members reported mixed results from their contact efforts: some small operators had not returned calls after mailed materials, others wanted more information, and several larger resorts expressed support. John Hodges, identified in the meeting as the owner of the Weaverville Victorian Inn, was noted as having raised concerns about specific statutory language in an appendix; the advisory board suggested an ad hoc review of the cited sections to produce clearer, section‑by‑section explanations for outreach.

The draft management district plan uses a percentage assessment formula so higher‑priced room nights pay more into the TBID and would, in theory, receive proportionally greater benefit; the consultant said a 3% assessment rate was the chosen approach in the draft service plan. The draft also separates proposed spending into four buckets (sales/marketing, events, signage/infrastructure, and administration), with flexibility written in that would allow limited reallocation (the draft includes a 15% in‑year flexibility figure the consultant said could be adjusted in the plan). The nonprofit board that would oversee the TBID — to be formed before petition — would be composed of assessed lodging providers, and that nonprofit would be legally required to implement the approved service plan.

On formal business the advisory board approved minutes from its May 19 meeting without recorded opposition. Dana Steinhauser moved to approve the minutes; the motion passed with all members present voting yes.

Among near‑term tasks, the consultant will draft articles of incorporation and bylaws for the nonprofit that would operate the TBID and said she would work with the ad hoc committee to present drafts at the next meeting. County staff urged the ad hoc committee to conduct one‑on‑one outreach and additional webinars or workshops to collect more email addresses and to test alternative budget distributions with lodging operators.

Several commenters said they want the ad hoc committee and staff to provide a concise, written history of how Trinity County’s TOT was handled in the past and exactly how the TBID structure would prevent diversion of assessment dollars to the county. The board agreed to continue outreach and to approach the next meeting prepared to make a go/no‑go determination based on whether there is sufficient support to proceed to petition.

The board set a tentative follow‑up meeting in mid‑June and asked staff to poll members for the best date; members noted the next meeting should aim to be the decision point to either begin the petition drive or stop the effort.

The advisory board did not adopt the management district plan at the meeting; the plan remains a draft pending further outreach and edits.