Citizen Portal

Trinity County supervisors delay tourism grants, schedule presentation from digital marketing agency

Trinity County Board of Supervisors · November 4, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Trinity County supervisors voted to delay awarding a $70,000 tourism set-aside and to schedule a presentation by 2 6 Digital, a tourism-focused digital agency, while the tourism ad hoc committee gathers more information from local applicant groups.

Trinity County supervisors voted to delay awarding any of a $70,000 tourism set-aside and to schedule a presentation by a digital marketing firm at the boards next meeting.

Supervisor Lutweiler, who presented the ad hoc committees review, said the panel received nine applications and used a combined-rating process but found the proposals often lacked the detail needed to make an informed funding decision. "We tried to have a good template, but the ways in which those questions were answered just didn't leave enough information to feel like we were making good informed decisions about how we use county funds," Lutweiler said (00:03:35).

The committee recommended inviting 2 6 Digital, a tourism-focused digital agency, to make a presentation at the next meeting and asked the ad hoc to hold one-on-one follow-ups with local applicant organizations. "The recommendation is, basically to put that digital agency on the agenda... and also for us to have that additional time to go back and work with the groups that we think we need more information from before we make our recommendations to the board," Lutweiler said (00:05:14). The motion to schedule the presentation and allow the ad hoc to gather more information passed by recorded vote.

Why it matters: the countys limited marketing funds must be prioritized for measurable impact, supervisors said. Several board members referenced a prior county-funded effort for a county-wide strategy that spent more than $100,000 and urged the county to avoid duplicating work. Supervisor Brownfield noted the agencys proposed timeline could push deliverables into the next quarter, potentially limiting near-term use of the funds (00:22:49).

Public commenters — many of them volunteers who run events and visitor services — urged the board to prioritize local organizations and warned that outside consultants sometimes produce little lasting value. Veronica Kelly Albees, a volunteer with the Trinity County Chamber of Commerce marketing committee, asked that if one applicant is allowed to present, all applicants be given the same opportunity (00:07:37). Susan Marie of the Highland Arts Center said visitor-center staffing and volunteerism are "the most tangible thing happening" and warned that cuts to traditional funding could deflate local volunteer efforts (00:15:12).

Committee and public viewpoints: committee members framed the question around maximizing return on limited funds and the possibility of securing matching funds. Drew Plavani, an ad hoc member, highlighted a potential Visit California matching-grant opportunity that could increase available funds and recommended a collaborative, content-driven approach (00:13:08). Several supervisors stressed that hearing a presentation from 2 6 Digital would be informational only, not a commitment to award funds.

Next steps: the board instructed staff and the ad hoc to schedule 2 6 Digital to present at the next meeting (the board indicated the ad hoc would bring recommendations on the 18th) and to continue targeted follow-ups with local applicants for more detailed materials. The board also asked that any existing strategy documents — including materials produced with prior county funding — be shared with the committee and compared to the agencys sample strategy before any contract decision.

Budget and metrics mentioned in discussion: the set-aside under review was $70,000; committee members referenced a prior county investment of more than $100,000 for a countywide strategy. The agency sample prompted the question "what are we going to get for $7,500?" as an example of wanting measurable deliverables; a public commenter said the county receives about $300,000 per year in DOT tax revenue and noted prior funding distributions had been small (00:11:12).

The boards motion carried by recorded vote; supervisors present voted to proceed with the single agency presentation and ad hoc follow-ups. The meeting then moved into closed session on labor and personnel matters.