CVB Marketing Committee Meeting

9 of the 11 committee members were present. Absent were Debi Knight and Ann Henry.

Holiday Celebration

Committee member Paul Wohlford made a presentation on the options for a holiday-oriented event to increase tourist visitors in December. A short discussion took place and a more through discussion was scheduled for the March meeting.

Brochure Rack Policy

President Dan Rowe advised the committee that he felt that the TDC Visitors’ Information Center Brochure Display Racks Policy of June 1995 needed to be updated. Rowe felt that the current policy might be overly restrictive and possibly should be revised to allow brochures for additional businesses/attractions such as attractions outside the taxing district(PCB only), vacation rentals by owners, and nanny services. Some members expressed concern that allowing brochures from outside PCB would end up helping Destin, while other members felt that promoting the entire area was important. Kirk Lancaster made the important point that PCB has a major price advantage over Destin.

PCB’s price advantage could be very useful this year due to the slowing economy and economic uncertainty. In addition, the fact that a large portion of our available accommodations have modern advantages that comparable accommodations to our west lack could be a successful marketing tool. We need to attempt to attract these tourists who are already used to visiting the Emerald Coast rather than just assuming that the Destin visitor will not come here. Continue reading “Notes and Comments from the 2/6/08 TDC/CVB Marketing Committee Meeting” →

The 2008 TDC/CVB Strategic Planning Process Begins

The Bay County TDC/CVB began its 5 year strategic planning process with a 6 hour workshop held at Edgewater Beach Resort on January 22nd. The workshop was moderated by Bob Allen, Chief Storytelling Officer, from Integrity Arts and Technology, Inc. (http://www.integrityarts.com) Approximately 33 round-table participants included local businesses and government representatives, CVB staff members, representatives from Y Partnership(the CVB’s advertising and public-relations agencies), and educators from both Gulf Coast Community College and Florida State University. All TDC/CVB board members were present with the exception of Rick Russell and Mike Nelson. There was no participant from Paradise Found Resorts in this important process which this writer believes is unfortunate.

Continue reading “The 2008 TDC/CVB Strategic Planning Process Begins” →

Notes from the TDC/CVB Board Meeting January 9th, 2008

7 of the 9 board members were present. Yonnie Patronis and Mike Nelson were absent.

Bed Tax Collection Update: Charlene Honnen, the Bay County Tourist Development Tax Specialist, updated the board. The November collections were up 3% from 2006; however, Chairman Phillips cautioned that all indications are that PCB tourism was relatively soft for 2007. Phillips mentioned that occupancy number might actually be down for the year since rates were higher due to higher rates being charged for the new upgraded accommodations.

Frank Brown Park Road: Mayor Oberst requested that the TDC consider committing approximately $34,000 to pay one-third of the cost to continue paving the road from the special event site to the new North Pier Park Dr. The bid is based on county staff completing the work. Oberst reported that the BCC agreed yesterday to pay one-third and the PCB Council was scheduled to consider the same tomorrow. Gary Walsingham inquired as to whether this type of expenditure was permissible using bed tax funds. Legal Counsel Sale responded that it was OK as long as the board made a finding that the expenditure would promote tourism in PCB. Since the TDC budget for 2007-08 does not have sufficient contingency funds, a motion was made that the board recommend to the BCC that the expenditure be approved contingent on sufficient additional funds being available after the audit currently taking place is completed. The motion passed 7-0.

Turtle Lighting Ordinance: Sale reported that staff has requested the Army Corps of Engineers move forward with the 2008 renourishment project based on the boards approval of a lighting ordinance at their last meeting. The USACE is currently awaiting comment from U.S. Fish & Wildlife. Sale cautioned the board that USF&W might revoke two major concessions (approval of non-turtle friendly safety lighting and a unusually long 5 year compliance period) since the board decided to include the grandfather provision previously rejected by USF&W.

Christmas Holiday Marketing: Chairman Phillips recommended that the CVB Marketing Committee consider opportunities for holiday-oriented activities that could increase December tourism. Possibilities discussed by the board included decorations on Front Beach Rd. similar to Lake Defuniak, sleigh rides, shopping programs, and New Year Eve fireworks.

Strategic Planning Program: Dan Rowe announced final details for the Strategic Planning Program later this month. Peter Yesawich will be speaking at Gulf Coast Community College on the 21st from 3:30 to 5:30 concerning trends in the tourism industry. This will be followed by the first workshop on the 22nd from 9:00 to 3:00 at the Edgewater Resort. The CVB has hired Bob Allen as an outside facilitator. Both sessions are open to the public.

Visitor Inquiries: Internet inquiries have been relatively flat recently and Rowe is working with Miles Media to retool the CVB’s internet marketing plans. Rowe is also considering reallocating staff due to a reduction in telephone inquiries.

Sporting Events Funding Policy: Rowe reported that Sports Marketing Director Richard Sanders was currently developing a Sporting Event Policy similar to the Special Events Policy. Compliance with the new policy will be required for any Sporting Event requesting CVB funding assistance.

College Spring Break Update: Rowe announced that the CVB’s co-op web site was running late but would be up by Monday. MTV is also running behind schedule in putting 2008 information on their site. Staff has been in contact with Campus Crusade For Life, which expects 2000-3000 volunteers to be here during college break doing community service. Their projects last year included trash cleanup and planting sea oats.

2007-08 Co-Op Advertising Update: Rowe reported that the December co-op ad fair was very successful. Agency is currently considering revisions for a few placements that the industry partners did not have an interest in.

For all posts on the TDC Meetings, click here.

TDC/CVB Indian Summer Festival Meeting – January 3, 2008

The Indian Summer Festival Committee met on January 3^rd, 2008 to discuss the CVB’s options for the 2008 festival. The festival is quite different from other special events receiving CVB financial support in that it is actually owned by the TDC/CVB. The committee is a subcommittee made up of 4 members of the CVB’s Marketing Committee (Kirk Lancaster-chairman, Jack Bishop, Ann Henry, and Joe Kennedy) all of whom were present. The subcommittee will make their recommendation to the Marketing Committee, which will then make their recommendation to the CVB Board.

The meeting was chaired by Lancaster in an open workshop fashion with extensive input from the audience. The audience included CVB Board Members Andy Phillips and Buddy Wilkes. The discussion included:

The history of the event that originally was operated by a local committee with the support of local charities. More recently the CVB operated it in-house for two years before hiring Sound Associates/Ron Johnson as festival promoter for the past few years. The CVB exercised it’s right to cancel the 2008 contract with Sound Associates.
The importance of the festival attracting non-residents, rather than just being a local draw, if the CVB continues to provide financial support. There was a clear consensus that the 2007 festival was mainly a local festival that attracted few out-of-area visitors. However, some expressed their belief that tourists rarely travel to any festivals today. Past successful tourist marketing efforts, including the Winn-Dixie program arranged by past president Bob Warren, were also discussed.
Who should run the festival? President Rowe advised the subcommittee that the CVB lacks sufficient staff to operate the festival in-house.
What the elements of the festival should be? This included the type of music and whether the festival should seek big-name performers or performers with a lower cost and a corresponding lower admission charge. Also discussed was the appropriate type of food vendors for the festival. Some voiced opinions that the festival had too many carnival-type vendors and not enough local restaurants, while others were of the belief that carnival-type food was an important element. The difficulty of local restaurants operating in a temporary location and the possibility of building permanent vendor facilities to alleviate these problems was also mentioned.
Whether there was enough support in the tourist industry to make the festival happen? Traditionally, the festival has relied on financial sponsorships from the tourist-oriented businesses; however, some past sponsors have expressed their disappointment over the value being received. The possibility of engaging the tourist industry in marketing discount packages that include lodging, tickets, and other elements was also suggested.
The date of the event and the importance of considering the dates of other festivals in the southeast. The event was originally held every 2^nd weekend of October. Recently it was held on Columbus Day weekend, but this past year it was moved to the following weekend to better fit the schedule of the festival promoter.
What type of control the CVB should retain over the festival’s elements, operation, and advertising?

Although no formal vote was taken, the consensus of the subcommittee was to turn the matter over to President Rowe to prepare a RFP for distribution to potential festival operators. Rowe plans to distribute a survey to local businesses, to speak with other CVBs, and to review prior RFPs to provide additional assistance. The sub-committee will consider Rowe’s draft RFP at their next meeting that has not yet been scheduled.

Panama City Beach TDC Meeting Notes – Sea Turtle Lighting Ordinance – cont.

Notes from the December 21, 2007 TDC Turtle Lighting Ordinance Workshop

The December 19th meeting reconvened with 8 board members present. Gary Walsingham was absent.

Board attorney Doug Sale advised the board he felt they had three possible courses of action. The first option was to approve draft ordinance 12.20-1 that is a refined version of his 2.18.2007 draft. 12.20-1 provides for some limited grandfathering of existing light sources for economic reasons regardless of whether they meet the public safety exceptions in the draft. However, Sale advised that U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service communicated to him that the limited grandfathering proposal included in this version is unacceptable. The second option was to approve draft ordinance 12.20-2 which is acceptable to the Service. 12.20-2 removes the limited grandfathering clause and instead provides for a extended compliance period until May 1, 2013. Sale advised that the third option was to do nothing.

Sale also reiterated that not recommending an ordinance acceptable to the Service would likely put further beach renourishment projects (including the scheduled 2008 program) in jeopardy. However, Sale explained that there is some uncertainty about whether the Service has the statutory authority to require a lighting ordinance as a condition of our beach renourishment.

Yanni Patronis expressed concern about whether passing a lighting ordinance for beachfront property would result in further revisions that include non-beachfront property that may be found to have an effect on the turtles. Sale responded that he did not feel this was the case because the Service would not be able to make a connection between non-beachfront lights and renourishment.

Mike Bennett asked why the board was not also considering including nest relocation in the ordinance. Lorna Patrick, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, advised that they no longer considered relocation an acceptable solution for lighting issues. Patronis explained that he felt that PCB was an excellent location for relocations since our tourist season coincides with the nesting season. Patrick stated that relocation would not be needed if ordinance 12.20-2 passed.

Marty McDaniel asked Patrick whether the Service will agree to look at other options(e.g. relocation), rather than non-beachfront lighting, in the event that regulation of beachfront lighting was found to not be enough to protect the turtles. Patrick advised that she could not speak for Service but expressed confidence that no further action would be required if 12.20-2 passed.

Gayle Oberst explained that she was worried about the costs of compliance for all beachfront property owners, not just commercial businesses.

Buddy Wilkes asked whether it was possible to increase the bed tax to help cost-share compliance costs with private property owners. Sale explained that this would be possible. CVB resident Dan Rowe also suggested that the proceeds of the current 3rd beach renourishment cent could also be used.

The floor was then opened up for public comment. Julian Bennett discussed other alternatives that could be explored instead of passing a lighting ordinance.

Julie Hilton expressed her belief that the proposed ordinances would not meet the goal of helping the turtles. She referenced Wednesday’s testimony of the wildlife and lighting experts whose appearance her company facilitated. She reported that the compliance cost of draft 12.20-1 for her four hotels would be $5 million which would be economically disastrous for her company. She did, however, express that she could agree with draft 12.20-2 or her own draft that she then distributed to the board.

Charles Hilton expressed that the 5 year compliance period in draft 12.20-1 could not be met for his properties since the problems were unfixable. He stated that rebuilding was the only option. Hilton also advised against the board passing an ordinance for appearance purposes that they did not expect to be enforced.

Betty Briard, a property owner in Aquavista, suggested that the board either postpone the issue for further study(especially due to the fact that new drafts were just distributed today) or decide to challenge the Service. She also expressed her opinion that the individual owners in Aquavista would likely ignore any ordinance that passed just like they ignore rules passed by their own property owner’s association. Briard also questioned how much the TDC was spending on this process of considering a lighting ordinance.

Doug Gilmore from the Driftwood Lodge and Osprey Motel discussed the nests that were located behind his properties this past season. He explained that he believed that 100% of the hatchlings successfully reached the water.

Diane Brown asked the board to ignore Wednesday’s assertions by Dr. Fletemeyer and lighting designer Robert Laughlin that the Service was relying on untruths. Brown disagreed with any assertion that the public would be disappointed with an ordinance being passed. In support, she referred to the 2002 West End Pilot Turtle Protection Ordinance which she claimed continues to be supported by the community at large. Brown also stated that it was her belief that the costs of compliance being quoted by some property owners were exaggerated. She also suggested that if the Board decides to allow compliance through May 2013 that they require property owners to submit a plan of compliance no later than May 2009. She also suggested that any discussion about the option of nest relocation be discontinued.

Lighting contractor Terry Selders explained that many older buildings on the beach could not possibly be retrofitted to comply with the proposed ordinances.

Robert Winston suggested that the Board not recommend a new lighting ordinance. He expressed concerns about public safety, especially involving our spring break visitors.

After the public comments, Gayle Oberst expressed her support of draft 12.20-1. Oberst made a motion providing that the board agrees to recommend that the Bay County Commission and the Panama City Beach City Council enact ordinances based on draft 12.20-1. The motion was seconded by Mike Nelson and passed by a vote of 5-2. Chairman Phillips departed prior to the vote
and the Patronis and Rick Russell cast the dissenting votes. Neither Patronis, nor Russell, made any comments concerning the motion.

Audience member Diana Brown then asked what the effect would be on the 2002 Pilot Ordinance. Attorney Sale directed the question to Bay County Attorney Terrell Arline who advised that that decision would be up to the County Commission.

Editorial by Bryan J. Durta:

It is my opinion that the Bay County Commission and the Panama City Beach City Council should reject the TDC’s recommendation and instead enact Turtle Protection Lighting Ordinances based on draft 12.20-2. This draft was prepared by TDC’s own attorney after considering both the needs of the community and the desires of the federal government.

Are the Hiltons, Julian Bennett, and their experts correct that the lighting ordinance desired by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would result in few additional turtles reaching maturity and that better alternatives exist? Probably, but is it really wise for Bay County to take on the state and federal government which fund the majority of our beach renourishment costs? And what will be the costs of this legal battle? Are the property owners who oppose a complying ordinance going to form a co-op to pay the county’s legal expenses? Will the national press brand us as a environmentally unfriendly community? If so, how will this effect tourism?

Does this community really want to put our beach renourishment project at risk based on financial concerns expressed by just a few property owners? More property owners expressed concern when cutting Spring Break funding was on that table than expressed concern over the lighting ordinance. And are these financial concerns being exaggerated? Phillip Griffits, Jr. of the Sugar Sands Beach Resort explained to the Board that his property spent $30,000 bringing his 70 beachfront rooms and public facilities in complying with the West End Pilot Ordinance. While he acknowledges that he is probably not in 100% compliance due to conflicting public safety laws, he believes that the Service considers him to be a model property that has sufficiently complied.

While every property is unique, I believe that further investigation is needed before accepting the assertion of Paradise Found Resorts that they would need to spend over 14 times more per room to comply than the Sugar Sands did. And what will be the financial loss to the community if the Service does succeed in preventing any future beach renourishment on Panama City Beach? We need to remember that the Service potentially has the ability to prevent any renourishment even if we have the financial means to pay for it ourselves. And are the concerns about public safety valid? Are turtle-friendly communities such as Rosemary Beach and Watercolor having crime and safety issues that are just not being reported in the media? And what about all of the new accommodations on Panama City Beach that have been built over the last 10 years in compliance with the turtle-friendly lighting requirements? Are they having more public safety problems than the older properties?

While I agree that government regulation is getting out of hand, it is just not wise for Bay County to take on the responsibility for fighting the federal government on this issue. It is in our best economic interest to follow the lead of vast majority of Florida’s beachfront counties and enact a turtle lighting ordinance that has the support of the federal government.

Panama City Beach TDC Meeting Notes – Sea Turtle Lighting Ordinance

Notes of the December 19, 2007 TDC Meeting by Bryan J Durta.

8 of the 9 board members were present with Gary Walsingham absent.

Chairman Andy Phillips announced the meeting schedule for 2008. The board will meet monthly on the 2nd Tuesday of each month with two exceptions. The regular January meeting will be on the 9th and the November meeting will be on the 12th. It was also announced that the Strategic Planning Retreat will be held on January 22nd. In addition, Peter Yesawich of Y Partnership will make a public presentation on January 21st concerning the state of the tourism industry and how Panama City Beach fits in.

Mexico Beach Community Development District: Tourism Director of Mexico Beach, Lynn Marshall, presented the 2007-08 Mexico Beach Community Development Council Budget and Program of Work to the TDC. The total budget is $150,300.00. TDC Office Manager Marcia Bush advised that it was her opinion that the budget met the statutory requirements. The board voted 8-0 to recommend that the BCC approve the contract with the CDD. The CDD is the Mexico Beach equivalent of the Panama City Beach Convention & Visitors Bureau.

FL DEP Beach Management Funding Assistance Grant Agreement: Lisa Ambruster of Sustainable Beaches LLC, recommended approval a grant agreement for the beach erosion control activities and the board approved the agreement 8-0. The DEP share of the $3,950,000 cost is $1,123,75 with the TDC being
responsible for the remaining $2,826,225.

Sea Turtle Lighting Ordinance Workshop:
Audience member Julian Bennett distributed a proposed motion to the board providing that the board make no restrictions on the number or length of public comments concerning the ordinance. The motion was made by Mayor Oberst and passed 8-0. Chairman Phillips then explained to the board and audience that the purpose of the workshop was to hear input from both sides to assist the board in making a recommendation to the City of Panama City Beach and the BCC.

The draft ordinance written by staff was then presented by Doug Sale, TDC Legal Counsel. Sale advised that the scope of the board’s work can be limited to the connection between the ongoing nourishment project and the Endangered Species Act. He explained that the board did not need to be concerned about whether or not the sea turtles actually deserved or needed additional protection. Sale also explained that the board was dealing with the 2006 pronouncement by U.S. Fish & Wildlife that they would not continue to provide positive consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers concerning our renourishment project with a ordinance. It is Sale’s opinion that the Corps would not continue to approve future projects without this positive consultation with USF&W.

Presentations by Janet Missi and Lorna Patrick of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service were then made. Missi advised that the Endangered Species Act was invoked if just one turtle was impacted and that the Service did not believe that the public safety concerns of the community were legitimate. Patrick advised that the Service finds the nest relocation option to be inconsistent with the Act. Patrick also explained that any post-1996 development south of the Coastal Control Line should already have met the Service’s turtle protection requirements assuming no deviation from the development orders approved by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection had been followed. Patrick also advised that the Service would allow the ordinance to ignore both interior lighting and properties north of the southernmost road. In response to a question from President Rowe, Patrick made it clear that the Service expected the TDC to follow their previous agreement to make their recommendation no later than December 31, 2007. In response to a question by Rick Russell concerning the proposed compliance date of May 2009, Patrick explained that a compliance period of 1-2 years would be acceptable while Russell’s suggestion of a 5-7 period would not.

Kennard Watson of St. Andrew Bay Resource Management (aka Bay County Turtle Watch) discussed his group’s monitoring program and the 2002 West End Pilot Turtle Protection Ordinance. Watson explained that he felt that the ordinance had been successful at reducing hatchling disorientation and suggested that the Board consider just extending the 2002 Ordinance to the entire beach.

Dr. Fletemeyer then discussed his 2006 lighting survey report prepared for the TDC. Julian Bennet assisted with his presentation. Although acknowledging that his study had problems, Fletemeyer defended his report that was rejected by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service mainly due to the methodology used. Fletemeyer also expressed his belief that the Service’s emphasis on beachfront lighting will not solve the issue since there were
many other impediments to hatchlings successfully reaching adulthood. For example, he explained that Frank Brown Park was the worst light polluter on the beach. The Doctor also expressed his belief that relocation of turtle nests would be just as effective as a lighting ordinance and a better choice for this area due to economic concerns. In response to a question from Marty McDaniel, Fletemeyer announced that he believed the positive effects from staff’s proposed ordinance would be zero or at least minor. In response to a question from Mayor Oberst, Fletemeyer explained that the Service’s position that a lighting ordinance would have no effect on public safety conflicted with the opinion’s of three public safety experts. Counsel Sale suggested again that the Board deal with the fit between the renourishment project and the Endangered Species Act. Sale also expressed his opinion that Fletemyer’s concerns would be better dealt with at the state or federal level.

After extensive comments from the public, Board Attorney Sale then made some suggestions to the board concerning the ordinance. First, he advised that the Service is likely to reject any grandfathering of existing properties. He suggested that Board instead exempt specific lighting fixtures that can be proven to have no greater effect on our renourished beach that it would have had on our pre-1998 unnourished beach. Sale explained that it was his opinion that even this limited grandfathering might be unacceptable to the Service. He recommended that relocation not be addressed since it would be very difficult to defend in any legal proceedings. Sale also recommended the board follow the TDC’s prior agreement to suggest approval of a lighting ordinance no later than December 31, 2007. Sale then distributed and explained a new proposed ordinance that he completed last night after discussion with the community and the Service.

The Board then voted to continue the meeting on Friday at 9AM after the members and community had the opportunity to study Sale’s new proposed
ordinance.

Panama City Beach TDC Meeting Notes

Notes from the CVB Marketing Committee Meeting December 12, 2007

Eight of the 11 members were present. Absent were Philip Griffitts, Jr., Russ Smith, and Paul Wohlford

Indian Summer Festival: President Dan Rowe advised the committee that the contract for the 2008 festival was cancelled as directed by the board. Rowe also reported that no response to the cancellation was received from Sound Associates. Committee Chairman Buddy Wilkes expressed disappointment that there had been no dialogue with the promoter since it was the committee’s intention to try to renegotiate the contract, not terminate relations with Sound Associates. A discussion about what to do for 2008 took place. Some members expressed concern about actual level of increased tourism from the event, while others feel that the event is important to the industry and should be continued. Rowe suggested that a subcommittee be formed to present a proposal at the next Marketing Committee meeting. A motion encompassing the President’s suggestion was made by Jack Bishop which passed 8-0. The Chairman then appointed three members to serve: Kirk Lancaster(chair), Joe Kennedy, and Jack Bishop. All three appointees had expressed an interest in continuing the event for 2008.

2008 Spring Break Co-Op: The President reported that the co-op raised 84,500 and that opportunities were available for additional participants. Rowe also reported that the MTV contract was executed the prior week, but that the village location was yet to be finalized. The television spots have already started to run and MTV has agreed to geo-target the banner advertising to areas east of the Mississippi River. The President also
reported that Splashfest has been cancelled. However, the East Bay Baptist Church spoke with him about the possibility of obtaining the previously approved Splashfest funding for an April 2008 concert. Rowe has requested that the promoter comply with the CVB special event policy concerning their request. Lancaster also advised the committee that he has organized group of 50 volunteer students who will be here picking up beach trash during college spring break. Lancaster is working with Breakaway of Atlanta on the program that will involve two or three colleges.

2008 Co-Op Ad Fair: Susie Bolton from Y Partnership reported that the agency was holding an ad fair that afternoon to present the co-op opportunities available to the industry. The agency will allow partners to
sign-up for next week. Concern was expressed by some members that this might not be enough time due to what they perceived to be insufficient notice and the holiday season. The Chairman suggested to the President that a 2nd Ad Fair be held if possible to deal with these issues. Although not in the agenda, a discussion about the winter visitor market segment also took place. Jack Bishop expressed his disappointment about the agency’s winter marketing program. Bishop explained that he believes that both the timing of the marketing effort and the locations targeted need improvement. Bill Spann stated his belief that this segment is one of our biggest growth opportunities.

TDC/CVB Strategic Planning Process: President Rowe appraised the committee about the upcoming Strategic Planning Process that will begin in January. The purpose is to develop a three to five year plan for the TDC/CVB. Rowe also reported that Peter Yesawich of Y Partnership will be speaking about the state of the travel industry the night before the first meeting.

President’s Report: Rowe also reported that he expected to develop additional internet resources to provide TDC/CVB information to the community and industry partners. He also plans to meet with Miles Media in January to discuss opportunities for the CVB to improve the destination’s internet marketing. The President also reminded the committee about the upcoming workshop on the turtle lighting ordinance scheduled for 9AM on December 19th. He believes the committee needs to be involved due to a requirement by US Fish & Wildlife that eco-tourism be included in our marketing mix.

Once again, thanks Bryan Durta for providing the meeting notes for Wednesday’s TDC meeting.

TDC Meeting Notes – Possible Bed Tax Increase

Notes from the TDC Bed Tax Committee Meeting on Wednesday 12/5/2007.

4 of the 7 committee members were present. Absent were Mike Nelson, Andy Phillips, and Russ Smith.

State of Panama City Beach: President Dan Rowe made a short presentation on the state of our tourism industry. This included the changing destination, the airport relocation, the changing customer base and other challenges facing the industry. He believes that both new and existing resources must be used to both retain and enhance occupancy and rate integrity during this dynamic time.

Tie-In between the Bed Tax Discussion and the Strategic Plan Framework: President Rowe discussed the Strategic Plan Retreat that is scheduled for January. The plan is designed to answer: 1. Where we want to go as a destination in the next 3-5 years? and 2. How do we get there?. Rowe suggested that the committee defer further discussion about a possible bed tax increase until the strategic plan was complete. He suggested that the committee instead concentrate on bed tax compliance and reporting in the near term. Rowe suggested that the board encourage the accommodations industry to work with Smith Travel Research so that more accurate rate and occupancy data would be available. He explained that Smith protects the confidentiality of all reported data and would only report composite data. The committee also discussed the problems with the current rate and occupancy data being compiled by the HAAS Center due to the small number of participating parties. The President advised that Smith could make a presentation to the industry about their services to help alleviate concerns about providing proprietary occupancy and rate data.

2005 Bed Tax Collectors Survey: Rowe suggested that the committee delay distributing the 2005 Bed Tax Collectors Survey at least until after the Strategic Plan Framework is complete. No objections were voiced to Rowe’s suggestion.

Meeting notes are courtesy of Bryan J. Durta. Thanks Bryan.

Panama City Beach TDC Meeting Notes from Tuesday's Meeting

Notes from the November 27, 2007 Combined Board Meeting of the Bay County TDC and the PCB CVB

Eight of the nine board members were present with Buddy Wilkes absent.

The board voted unanimously to approve the 9/30/07 financial statements.

2008 Spring Break Program Update: President Dan Rowe advised the board that commitments totaling $84,500 have been received from co-op participants. No lottery was required as the available packages exceeded those requested by local businesses. He also explained that additional co-op opportunities remain available, but that the CVB would not be actively marketing them. However, he encouraged the current participants and the Marketing Committee to seek additional participants. Rowe also reported that the agreement with MTV had not yet been signed, but that he expected it to be soon.

Sea Turtle Draft Lighting Ordinance Update: The President reported that the community workshop would probably take place during the 3rd week of December. [Subsequent to the meeting, the TDC announced that the community workshop has been scheduled for December 19th, 2007 at 9:00 AM at the PCB City Hall.] Rowe also reported that staff would be meeting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department to gauge their response to the draft ordinance.

FSU Flying High Circus Update: Rowe advised that everything was proceeding well with the circus scheduled for next summer. He also reported that a press conference was scheduled for December 5th concerning the event.

Indian Summer Festival Update: The President reported that staff had terminated the contract with Sound Associates as directed by the board. He also explained that he planned on discussing the 2008 festival with the Marketing Committee at their next meeting.

December Marketing Committee Meeting: President Rowe advised that the December Marketing Committee meeting has been rescheduled for December 12th at 9:00 AM.

Sports Marketing Activities Update: Director of Sports Marketing Richard Sanders made an extensive report to the board concerning his department’s current activities. He reported that future bookings are very strong, but advised that the board should be mindful about competing destinations that are engaging in expansion plans that may be attractive to event organizers. He also advised that planning for the facility expansion feasibility study was proceeding on schedule. He expected the study to commence after the holidays and that the report can be expected about 90 days after commencement. Chairman Phillips reported that Director Sanders will be inducted into the National Softball Association Hall of Fame at their 2008 annual meeting.

Strategic Plan Framework: The President reported that he is planning a board workshop during late January 2008. The purpose will be to develop a 3-5 year strategic plan for the CVB. He also advised that he expected to hire an outside facilitator to assist with the workshop.

CVB/TDC Media Policy: Rowe advised that he as in the process of developing a draft Media Policy in conjunction with the CVB’s agency, Y Partnership. The purpose of the policy will be to formally answer the question of how the CVB/TDC should speak as a body to the media.

President Rowe also reported that he would be meeting with Y Partnership on November 29th at their Orlando offices. He planned to meet with both their public relations department and their advertising department to better understand their work on the CVB’s account.

Rowe also reported that the search process for the current staff vacancies would begin within the next couple of weeks.

Meeting notes courtesy of Bryan J Durta. Thanks Bryan.

Wednesday TDC Meeting – Spring Break Marketing Update

Notes from Wednesday’s TDC meeting:

Artificial Reef
A presentation seeking financial assistance to sink a boat that is currently at the PC Marina was added to the agenda. The gentleman was seeking $40,000 to assist with the total $75,000 cost. There was some concern whether there were funds available in the current year budget; however, a motion passed 9-0 recommending that the CVB board approve the $40,000 expenditure.

Indian Summer Festival Contract
A motion made by Jack Bishop passed 8-0(with Joe Kennedy abstaining) recommending that the CVB board exercise its option to cancel the final year of the 3 year contract with Sound Associates/Ron Johnson to put on the Indiana Summer Festival. Some members felt that the CVB should not continue to fund events that have shown an inability to become self-sustaining. Some felt that the event is primarily a local event, rather than a tourist draw, and was therefore an inappropriate use of CVB funds. And finally some were of the belief that continuing the festival was important, but that Sound Associates did a poor job of putting on this years festival.

Special Events Policy
A motion passed 9-0 recommending that the CVB board reaffirm the “January
2003 Special Events Advertising Policy and Procedure” be followed for all future special event funding requests. Although this policy has never been revoked or modified, recent boards(including the current board and committee with the 2007-08 budget) have not followed it.

Update on The Klages Group Research
The committee briefly discussed the final draft of the Klages Group survey form which was included in the committee packet. Visitor inquiry data and mapping prepared by Klages was also distributed.

2008 Spring Break Co-Op
Barry Lott of Y Partnership updated the committee on the plans for Spring Break 2008. He explained that although the contract with MTV has not yet been finalized, the plan is to begin implementing the advertising elements by mid-November. Lott presented the agencies current co-op plans:

Hotel Partner Options
Premium $10,000 (only 4 available; includes featured coverage on the PCB Spring Break subsite and 1M impressions on the mtvU site, additional impressions available @ $7500 per 1M) Promotional $2500 (limited number available; includes extensive PCB Spring Break subsite coverage, but no coverage on the mtvU site) Unlimited $1000 (listing on the PCB Spring Break subsite and event calendar)

Non-Hotel Partner Options
Premium $5,000 (logo on mtvU site)
Unlimited $1000 (listing on PCB Spring Break subsite) Event $500 (listing on subsite event calendar)

Ann Henry expressed her concern that the co-op plan resulted in a disproportionate contribution from the Hotel Partners in comparison to the Non-Hotel Partners. Chairman Phillips was in the audience and responded that some changes will be made before being finalized.

Lott also advised the committee that an additional expense of $18-20,000 to design and operate the co-op web subsite will be required in addition to the $200,000 payment to MTV. The subsite will be required because Hotel logos can not appear on the mtvU site except in the form of banner advertising using the 10M impressions in the contract. Bill Spann stated that all required expenses should have been included in the budgeted amount of $200,000; however, Lott expressed his belief that the agency had previously advised the CVB that this additional expense would be required. Mr.
Phillips expressed his disappointment that the co-op now needs to reach $70,000 before reducing the CVB’s budgeted expense of $150,000.

Lott also informed the committee that MTV was currently negotiating the village location with two hotel properties. It was also announced that no non-hotel properties were being considered due to mtvU’s alcohol policy. An co-op registration meeting is scheduled for next Tuesday afternoon.

A motion was made by Bill Spann to request that the board revise the plan concerning co-op funds received in excess of $50,000. The board decided on October 9th that any co-op funds received in excess of the $50,000 budgeted amount would be used to reduce the CVB’s budgeted portion of $150,000. Mr.
Spann suggested that any excess funds could be used for additional Spring Break promotion instead. The motion was withdrawn before a vote was taken.

Jack Bishop also advised the committee that a competing co-op is being proposed to do additional marketing beyond the MTV program. Mr. Phillips expressed his opinion the industry is free to do additional marketing, but that the CVB should not get involved in any further Spring Break 2008 programs other than the current plan. Mr. Phillips also expressed his opinion that PCB has changed and that the CVB needs to get out of the Spring Break business. Russ Smith stated that he did not feel that multiple competing co-ops was a good idea.

A revised motion was made by Mr. Spann suggesting the board revise October 9th passed motion concerning the treatment of co-op funds exceeding $50,000.
The motion to suggest that the board revise the $50,000 number to $70,000 to account for the Spring Break internet subsite cost passed 7-1 with Kirk Lancaster casting the dissenting vote and Mr. Kennedy having departed early.
Prior to the vote, Mr. Smith suggested that the CVB revise its Spring Break plan to provide for $150,000 special event funding to an outside co-op which could take over the MTV program and add additional promotions. Mr. Phillips disagreed stating that the CVB needs to retain control that it would lose with an outside co-op managing the MTV program.

Meeting notes courtesy of Bryan J Durta. Thanks Bryan, for the thorough notes.