Mendocino County tourism commission approves recommending third‑party BID/TOT collection and expanded reporting

The Mendocino County Tourism Commission approved an updated draft annual report recommending that the county engage a third‑party tax-and-fee administrator to handle business improvement district (BID) assessments and transient‑occupancy‑tax (TOT) collection and reporting.

The change, adopted by voice vote, directs the commission’s language in the draft report to recommend that the County contract with HDL Companies or a comparable vendor to manage BID collections, expand reporting (for example by ZIP code or occupancy measures), and provide host‑compliance services for short‑term rentals. Commission members said the change is intended to deliver more detailed revenue and distribution data while reducing county staff administrative burden.

Commission Chair Ginn opened the meeting and asked for a motion to approve minutes from March 19; Board member Glidewell moved to approve the minutes and Board member Wagner seconded. Later in the meeting, commissioners debated and approved the revised recommendation to amend the draft annual report to include the third‑party option.

Members described the current county reporting as limited to countywide TOT totals and said the commission lacks finer-grain data such as average daily rate, occupancy, or ZIP‑code‑level receipts that would help marketing and resource-allocation decisions. A commission speaker said the county’s staffing and software changes have reduced the information available to the commission over time.

Commissioners discussed vendor options. The draft language shown at the meeting referred to HDL (variously referenced in discussion as HDL/HCL/HADL in the transcript); commissioners asked the recommendation be broadened to permit HDL Companies or another comparable third‑party (members mentioned Granicus as an alternative) to provide collections, reporting, and host‑compliance enforcement. The report’s proposed addition was described at the meeting as a revision to section 4, part b of the draft annual report.

Commissioners also discussed cost and allocation. Speakers said they did not yet have an estimate for vendor fees; one commissioner noted that any vendor fee could be reflected in the commission’s budget or passed through via the county contract at renewal. The commission did not set a dollar amount and did not adopt a funding plan; a member said the board would evaluate cost‑effectiveness when estimates are available.

The motion to approve the updated draft — adding the recommendation that the county consider contracting with HDL Companies or a comparable vendor for BID/TOT collection and host compliance — passed on a voice vote with no oppositions or abstentions recorded in the transcript. The commission directed staff to finalize the revised language so the report can be transmitted as amended.

The meeting also included routine roll call and the approval of minutes; no additional substantive public comment or outside testimony was recorded for this agenda item.