Trinity County advisory board advances plan to form nonprofit to run proposed tourism development district

Trinity County’s advisory board moved forward on plans to form a nonprofit corporation that would administer a proposed countywide Tourism Development District, approved a draft service plan and budget framework and appointed an ad hoc committee to help with stakeholder outreach.

Consultant Katie (Civitas) told the advisory board that the management-district plan and outreach materials must be ready before a petition drive begins, and that the county has approved a nondisclosure agreement allowing a third-party mailer to receive lodging-contact information. “We can either hold in person or virtual or both,” Katie said when outlining outreach options. “You can use me as a resource for that.”

Why it matters: The board must present exact district parameters — boundaries, assessment rate, the entity that will control the funds and the proposed board — when seeking signatures from lodging owners. Those specifics determine whether lodging businesses sign the petition that, if it represents more than 50% of weighted lodging revenue, would subject all district lodging to the assessment and trigger a public hearing where opponents may protest.

Key decisions and next steps

- Governance: Board members agreed to pursue formation of a new nonprofit corporation to serve as the owners’ association that would receive and administer district funds. Katie walked the board through a corporation-formation timeline that would start in April with drafting articles of incorporation and draft bylaws, appointing directors and holding an initial nonprofit board meeting in June, and submitting IRS tax-exempt paperwork (which Katie said typically takes five to ten months). The board discussed but did not adopt a final corporate name; the working district name is “Trinity County Tourism Development District.”

- Assessment rate and budget: The advisory group reaffirmed a starting assessment of 3% on short-term lodging (the service plan will follow TOT exemptions for eligible lodging). The plan allows the assessment to rise in future years to a maximum of 5%; the board agreed to language increasing flexibility so the rate may be raised by up to 1 percentage point in a given year (rather than only 0.5%). Katie presented a sample $200,000 annual budget with broad allocations: 50% sales and marketing; 24% destination/attraction development; 20% administration and advocacy; 4% contingency/reserve; and a 2% county collection fee. The draft plan also includes an annual 15% reallocation allowance across major categories.

- Outreach and data: The county has approved an NDA that will let the consultant or a contracted mailer receive a lodging contact list that should include business name and contact details but will not disclose weighted-vote calculations. Katie said those weighted-vote figures will be available only during the petition drive stage (under NDA) so staff can report back on progress toward the required 50% threshold.

- Formation timeline and petition process: The consultant said formation tasks can proceed concurrently with outreach: name reservation or filing with the California Secretary of State, drafting the management district plan, filing a Statement of Information and preparing IRS/state tax-exempt filings. The petition drive is expected to be run in June under the timeline presented; if the petition shows signatures representing a majority of weighted lodging, the county will mail required notices and hold a public hearing where protests may be filed.

- Governance composition and administration: Board members debated whether to place the owners’ association under an existing local nonprofit or to form a new corporation. Board members expressed concern about asking an existing nonprofit to prioritize district work, since many local nonprofits have limited staff and compliance issues. The advisory group favored creating a new nonprofit so the timeline can be controlled and the entity can recruit lodging owners (and other stakeholders) to serve on the board. The board discussed that the nonprofit (or a fiscal sponsor) could host a separate district board to manage day-to-day decisions; the exact division of authority will be written into the management district plan.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to appoint an advisory ad hoc committee (Leah Groves, Ryan Crockett and a third committee member): moved, seconded and approved by voice vote. The ad hoc committee will work with the consultant on outreach materials and the formation process.

- Motion to approve minutes from the prior meeting: moved, seconded and approved by voice vote.

What was discussed (more detail)

Board members pressed for clarity about who will carry out stakeholder outreach and when lodging owners will be contacted. Several members said they have already begun one-on-one conversations with lodging operators and that consistent, written materials (FAQs, sample emails and survey language) are necessary. Katie said she will draft outreach materials, sample emails and surveys and can attend one-on-one meetings or host open houses and webinars.

Members also raised operational questions about the nonprofit’s administration: whether the nonprofit would hire a paid staff person to run marketing and administration, or rely on volunteers. Several members said a paid professional historically improved outcomes in comparable efforts and noted that hiring would draw from the administrative or sales-and-marketing budget depending on the role’s responsibilities.

Public comment and protest process

A public commenter asked how the petition works and whether opponents can register a “no” on the petition; Katie answered that the petition is a yes-only signature from lodging owners. Opponents and other members of the public can register protests at the required public hearing after the petition threshold is reached and notices are mailed.

Next steps and future meetings

The group directed staff and the consultant to: (1) begin drafting the initial management-district plan and corporation-formation paperwork; (2) secure the lodging contact list under NDA; (3) prepare outreach materials and draft petition paperwork; and (4) convene the ad hoc committee (members agreed to serve). The board scheduled follow-up meetings and asked members to bring candidate board-member names and other input for the next meeting.

Ending

Advisors emphasized the need to move multiple tasks in parallel: legal filings, outreach and recruitment of potential board members. The committee appointed to help with outreach will meet before the next full board meeting to review draft materials and advise on outreach priorities.