Plumas County Board advances renewal process for tourism marketing district after prolonged debate over petition counts

The Plumas County Board of Supervisors voted Oct. 21 to declare its intention to renew the Plumas County Tourism Marketing District (PCTMD), setting the renewal process in motion despite weeks of public questions about how weighted petition support was calculated.

The action followed a lengthy public and board discussion over whether the petitions submitted met the legal threshold that lodging providers representing a majority of the district's assessed revenue had petitioned for renewal. Carson Lambeth of Civitas, the district's consultant, told the board during the meeting that the petitions showed “over 54% support including Airbnb and over 59% without Airbnb,” and that he would provide the board a password-protected petition tracker showing weighted votes.

Why it matters: The district collects a dedicated assessment on participating lodging providers to fund countywide tourism marketing and related programs. If renewed, the district proposes moving from a five-year to a 10-year management plan and increasing the assessment from 2% to 3%, which proponents said would generate roughly an additional $100,000 annually for the district's marketing budget.

What the board debated: Supervisors and members of the public asked for transparency and documentation showing how the weighted totals were calculated. County staff and the tax collector explained that some tax returns used to compute weighted shares are confidential tax information; Civitas signed a non-disclosure agreement to receive that data and told the board it would provide an accessible tracker for the supervisors to review.

Board members also raised concerns about how Airbnb and other third-party remitters factor into the weighted vote. The tax collectornoted that Airbnb reports aggregated collections and does not disclose individual property owners unless compelled by subpoena, so counting Airbnb as a single entity in weighted tallies can be problematic. The county said previously collected data had been forwarded to Civitas for the weighted calculations.

Public comment and district response: Several lodging owners and tourism officials told the board they believed the district has begun to build momentum, citing increased website traffic and promotional activity. Josh Hart, a public commenter, urged the county to prioritize sustainable approaches to tourism and natural resource protection. Mimi Hall, a member of the district management committee, said the district would provide a public management plan and additional public hearings as required by state law.

Next steps and procedural notes: The boards vote on Oct. 21 adopted a resolution of intention, which does not finalize the assessment. The action authorizes staff to proceed with the public-notice period and schedule formal public hearings. At least one more publicly noticed hearing will be required before the assessment can be imposed; lodging owners within the proposed boundaries may file written protests during that process. The board also retains the option to adopt collection arrangements — including use of county billing or third-party collection — during later steps.

Provenance: Board discussion and Civitas remarks appear in the public transcript beginning at approximately 00:22:09 and continue through the items resumption later in the meeting (topic segments provided to the board by Civitas).