Amador County holds public meeting on proposed tourism marketing district; board trims county grant to Visit Amador

Amador County supervisors heard more than three hours of testimony and a multi-stakeholder presentation on a proposed Amador County Tourism Marketing District (ACTMD), which would add a pass‑through assessment to short‑term lodging to fund marketing. The Board heard proponents say the district would provide stable, locally controlled funding for marketing to bring overnight visitors and increase transient occupancy tax (TOT) revenue, while opponents urged excluding residential short‑term rentals (STRs) and raised legal and land‑use concerns.

The ACTMD process was introduced by county staff as governed by Government Code section 54954.6; the board previously adopted a resolution of intent and the April 8 informational meeting began the statutorily required public‑notice stage. Visit Amador co‑founder Tracy Birkner and other organization leaders described recent marketing work — airport baggage‑carousel placements, bridal shows and trade‑show outreach — and said the district would help scale that work with a predictable revenue stream. Tracy Birkner and Nicole Shable outlined outreach done to lodging partners and the estimated marketing budget tied to an assessment projected to generate roughly $200,000 annually under current assumptions. The public hearing required by state law is scheduled for May 27, 2025, when the board could formally create the district if it chooses.

Proponents included lodging and attractions leaders who said the assessment is a pass‑through paid by visitors and would benefit restaurants, retail, wineries and other businesses that rely on visitors. Amanda (Amador Rail Explorers) and Jennifer Pritchard (Amador Brewing Company) described partnerships with Visit Amador and said cooperative marketing produced measurable leads and group bookings. Rebecca Collins, reading a statement from Hotel Sutter owner Karen Sage, said in‑market assessments commonly support promotion elsewhere in California and that guests rarely object when the fee is shown on receipts.

Opponents pressed legal and land‑use points and urged the board to exclude residential STRs from assessments. One commenter, who identified herself as a short‑term rental owner, argued STRs are residential uses under state law and relied on cited court decisions and sections of Streets and Highways code to argue they should be excluded; a county attorney responded in the meeting that the proposed assessment is a business assessment (not property‑based) and that a property exemption in state law applies to property assessments, not business assessments, though counsel said she had exchanged subsequent emails with an interested commenter to clarify specifics.

Board members asked detailed budget and implementation questions: who would collect the assessment, how smaller lodging operators and nonhotel hosts would be included, what exemptions (by number of rooms) might look like, and how to ensure short‑term rentals that do not remit TOT would be included. Visit Amador and advisory partners said petitions from lodging operators already represent about 75% of the assessment base required under the formation statutes; staff said notices had been mailed to lodging businesses with known contact information. ACRA (the Amador County Recreation Agency) and county staff described next steps and said the public hearing on May 27 will be the formal opportunity to approve district formation.

County funding request and board action: Separately during the meeting the Amador Council of Tourism (ACT / Visit Amador) presented a budget report and a request for county support for 2025–26. Board members debated several possible funding levels after a period of public comment that included voices both for and against the district. At a later agenda item the board approved a reduced allocation to Amador Council of Tourism of $81,500 (down from a prior county support level of about $101,500). The roll call vote recorded the following: Chairman Crew — no; Vice Chairman Brown — aye; Supervisor Epperson — aye; Supervisor Carnell — aye; Supervisor Onetto — aye. The board therefore approved that allocation 4–1.

Why it matters: The ACTMD would change how lodging is marketed and paid for in Amador County, shifting some marketing costs from the public general fund to a visitor‑paid assessment. Proponents say it is a mechanism to stabilize funding and increase TOT collections over time; opponents argue it treats residential properties as commercial and asked the board to limit territory or housing types included.

What’s next: The board will hold the statutorily required public hearing on May 27, 2025, at which time supervisors could vote to form the district. Any city participation in city limits would require city councils to approve separate contracts before city‑jurisdiction funds could be spent on city projects.