MCTC advisory board debates 2% T‑bid, governance changes and county contract terms

The MCTC advisory board, the body that advises Mendocino County on the tourism assessment, opened an extended discussion of the annual bid report and next steps to support either a renewed one‑year assessment or a longer five‑year, 2% transient‑occupancy (T‑bid) measure.

"What we're trying to do with this report and beyond it ... is set ourselves up for getting the five‑year, 2% passed," Chair D said, framing the meeting’s goal as preparing the program to demonstrate the structure and accountability needed for a successful ballot or ordinance change.

Scott, who said he was recently brought on by the MCTC board to review the bid, marketing and governance, told the group he sees opportunities to streamline the ordinance and move operational details into MCTC bylaws so the organization can be more nimble. "This annual report traditionally has had a lot more and the ordinance itself actually has had a lot more detail and a lot more information than what is legally necessary," Scott said, noting that many provisions date from a time when the county provided funding.

Board members supported two concurrent tracks: (1) fix immediate structural and reporting problems in the current bid so a near‑term renewal is viable, and (2) continue work toward a five‑year, 2% T‑bid as the preferred long‑term path. The group repeatedly emphasized that improvements to reporting, governance and data transparency are prerequisites to building support for any T‑bid.

Participants raised operational and legal questions about moving governance elements out of the ordinance. Several speakers warned that shifting board seat definitions and appointment rules into bylaws could increase flexibility but might reduce the protection lodging owners historically had under the ordinance, and they asked staff to propose safeguards to preserve appropriate checks and balances.

The board also discussed Brown Act constraints on remote participation, noting that Mendocino County’s geographic breadth makes in‑person quorums difficult. Members asked staff to explore contract language that would preserve Brown Act principles while possibly removing the strict in‑person quorum hurdle for the MCTC contract—subject to county counsel review and the executive office’s comfort.

Financial matters featured prominently. A board member reported strong feedback to reduce the county administrative fee, allowed by the ordinance at up to 3%, to 1%—a common practice in other jurisdictions. "The ordinance says the county can charge up to 3% for the admin fee. We are paying 3% and I've been given pretty strong feedback that we should move that to 1%," the speaker said. Members agreed to include that recommendation in the annual report and to raise it with county staff and supervisors.

Ramon reported delays and gaps in assessment reporting that hamper planning. He said October–December collections were processed late (a payment mailed March 5 was deposited weeks later), and that the organization lacks consistent historical and zip‑code level receipts needed to target marketing effectively. Several participants recommended pursuing a third‑party collection system and improved online payment tools to speed remittances and deliver usable data.

On governance and elections, members discussed difficulties filling lodging seats under the existing large/medium/small property categories and noted county procedures that leave seats vacant for long periods when contests do not occur. Options discussed included returning more election authority to the lodging community while retaining county appointment oversight where needed, and adding bylaws protections to prevent multiple seats being filled by managers from the same owner.

The board agreed staff should prioritize producing a shorter, recommendation‑focused annual report (moving detailed history to an appendix) and prepare one or more redlined ordinance drafts. The group signaled support for engaging Civitas (transcript variants: "Civotas/CIVAS") under the existing budget to help draft redlines, while acknowledging the county’s contracting rules require the executive office and county counsel to review and approve any final product.

Members settled on near‑term scheduling: follow‑up board meetings were set for April 15 and April 29 to finalize recommended edits, with the goal of presenting to the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors in May or June to start the protest period. Staff clarified internal posting deadlines for board materials (final draft materials due by Friday the 10th for an April 15 posting) and said the contract and resolution timeline would be coordinated so any renewal or change could be effective before July 1 if the process proceeds smoothly.

Procedural items: the board approved the February 11 minutes by voice vote and later adopted a motion to adjourn. No formal roll‑call votes were recorded for either action.

Next steps assigned during the meeting included: staff and Scott drafting a shorter annual report emphasizing recommendations; preparing ordinance redlines (with chair/vice‑chair input); exploring third‑party collection and data‑reporting options; and individual outreach to supervisors before the public Board of Supervisors hearing.

The board adjourned after closing remarks and confirming the April follow‑up dates.