MENDOCINO CO., 7/23/26 — On Tuesday, the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors approved a $1,164,000 contract to Visit Mendocino County, the nonprofit that markets the county to travelers. That money comes from a 1% charge on rooms in the unincorporated parts of the county—lodging other than in Fort Bragg, Willits, Ukiah, and Point Arena, cities that collect their own taxes.
The county collects the money and then contracts it back — minus a $36,000 handling fee — to the tourism bureau to promote Mendocino County as a vacation destination. This June, a group emerged called the Inland Mendocino Tourism Council and asked for 25% of that money to advertise inland businesses and attractions.
Arguments ensued over what areas generated the most tourist dollars, whether Anderson Valley is inland or the coast, and more. And while Visit Mendocino County said that few inland lodging owners supported the carve-out to a different entity, it couldn’t be denied that many remain unhappy with coast-centric advertising.
Supervisors John Haschak and Madeline Cline, both representing inland districts, formed an ad hoc committee to study the issue. On Tuesday, that committee came back with its answer: no percentage would be awarded to a separate entity, but from now on, reports must break down actual expenditures and program accomplishments into two categories, Inland Mendocino County and Coastal Mendocino County.
The contract also puts Visit Mendocino County on the hook for a yearly contribution to the North Coast Tourism Council, “including the minimum $10,000 matching funds for the California Welcome Center” — the state-designated center at 200 S. School St. in Ukiah, where the Greater Ukiah Business and Tourism Alliance is the local partner.
It passed the full board on consent, unanimously, with no separate debate.
‘A step forward’
Supervisor John Haschak told the board he and Supervisor Cline had been meeting with the tourism commission, and that the changes came out of those talks.
“The issue came up because the inland hoteliers that we were talking to were not happy with the representation from the VMC,” Haschak said, “and so we think that this is a step forward.”
Cline said the two sides didn’t start out agreeing. “There wasn’t necessarily agreement at the onset, but I think we’re in a good place now,” she said, “and we’re going to continue the conversation and make sure that we’re getting the best results for our community.”
Later in the meeting, in her board report, Cline put the outcome more plainly. The ad hoc committee, she said, “did find a middle ground to keep the contract the same for this year with some tracking of how the funding will be spent as they transition away from advertising county as a whole to a more tailored approach of coastal and inland.”
Neither supervisor mentioned the carve-out proposal of 25% to the inland group, and no one on the board raised it.
Haschak had done that math publicly earlier this month. ZIP-code data obtained by The Voice showed inland lodging paid 17.4% of the $1.13 million collected in fiscal 2024-25. Told that figure, he said: “They’re asking for 25, which, I guess, if it turns out 17.4 is the consistent number, then we’d have to reassess that. Right?” (Haschak writes a monthly opinion column for The Voice.)
Who defines inland
The reporting requirement has a catch nobody mentioned Tuesday.
The clause makes Visit Mendocino County supply “a clearly stated definition of what areas of the County constitute Inland Mendocino County and Coastal Mendocino County.” The county doesn’t draw the line. The commission does — the same body whose inland-versus-coastal spending started the argument.
Where that line falls decides how big the inland share looks. The contract sets no deadline for the reports beyond “a reasonable amount of time.”
It also doesn’t say what the $10,000 matches — whose money, or how much. The contract leaves the total commitment to the North Coast Tourism Council up to Visit Mendocino County.
What else is in it
The contract requires an outside audit every year, filed with the county auditor-controller within six months of the close of the audit period. And it says the commission’s governing board is subject to the Brown Act.
The agreement runs through June 30, 2027. The one it replaces ran out June 30, and the county went three weeks without a signed contract.
Supervisors don’t meet in August. Their next meeting is Sept. 1.