Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout02-23-2016 Minutes Tourism Board Work SessionPage 1 of 7    TOURISM BOARD February 23, 2016 Town Barn 6pm Special Work Session MINUTES Present: Vice Chairman Mary Catherine McKee, Kathleen Ferguson, Steven Burke, Kim Tesoro, Carolyn Twesten Absent: Chairman Erik Myers, Sean Garrett, Kate Carroll, Libbie Hough Staff: Shannan Campbell I. Call Meeting to Order Vice Chairman McKee opened the meeting at 6:06 p.m. and confirmed the presence of a quorum. II. Agenda Adoption No changes. Motion: Member Ferguson made a motion to adopt the agenda as it stands. Seconded by Member Twetson. Vote: Unanimous III. WORK SESSION TOPICS a. Review and Comment on final draft Grant Application Packets (10 minutes) Member Ferguson indicated that she and Mayor Tom Stevens had discussions regarding focuses for tourism and identified the following important strategies for tourism: make it easier for visitors to find venues (hiking trails, businesses, historic houses, everything), make it easier for the venues to draw visitors, increase the number of visitors, and to enhance the Hillsborough brand. She explained that these points align with the Town of Hillsborough strategy map. She said that she wants to be able to use the application to score against those four criteria. There was acknowledgement from the other Board members that questions on the application already answered or addressed these focuses/strategies for tourism. Member Ferguson said that she thought that the application could be simplified down further. There was consensus that the application packet is much improved but that perhaps could be further simplified before the grant cycle next year. Page 2 of 7    Member Burke shared a suggested statement of purpose to be on all grant documents and contracts/RFPs. He suggested the following language, “The Hillsborough Tourism Board offers grants and funding to organizations that increase tourism and that promote cultural, brand, and economic development.” He said could be further tightened to “provides funding” and remove the ‘grants’ part. Also, incomplete applications cannot be reviewed. Member Burke provided a couple of other suggested edits that were recorded by staff upon agreement by the other board members. Member Ferguson said that the Board needs to make sure to ask: does it meet the criteria and beyond, does it not quite meet the criteria, etc. She expressed concern that a project could be feasible but ineffective in terms of what we want to do as a Board. She said that while ‘competitive’ worked to score that really the scoring should be done on ‘criteria’. She also indicated that a 5 score should be the above and beyond best score. Member Burke suggested different words to associate with the scoring. They agreed change the word “highly competitive” to “exceeds criteria” and to make a 5 score an ‘above and beyond’. Scores 1-4 were adjusted accordingly. There was discussion about how to decide which applications to fund if several are ranked as score 5’s. The board decided to cross that bridge if and when they came to it during the scoring process. Ms. Campbell explained that there is some wiggle room for re-allocating grant funding from other budget items or ‘money pots’ in the unlikely event that all grant applications score at a 5. There was discussion about the description of scoring. The board decided on the following: 5 exceeds criteria, 4 meets all criteria, 3 meets some criteria, 2 poorly addresses criteria, and 1 is insufficient. There was discussion about whether or not to have applicants come to the scoring meeting in May to ‘defend’ their applications as they had done in the past. Member Ferguson said she thinks there needs to be a formal opportunity for the public to speak on behalf of a proposed application. Ms. Campbell explained that the Tourism Board had already discussed not having applicants come before the board to defend or speak on an application. She said that the board had expressed in the beginning of the grant re-write process that having a defense or presentation should not be needed if an application is strong and answers all of the application questions completely. The board members discussed whether or not it would be fair to have an optional opportunity for a presentation on a grant application. The pro’s and con’s to doing it this way were Page 3 of 7    discussed and the board ultimately decided to not have presentations and proceed with having applicants focus on just creating a strong grant application that would score well. Motion: Vice Chairman McKee made a motion to change the purpose statement to: The Hillsborough Tourism Board offers funding to organizations that increase tourism and that promote cultural, brand, and economic development. Member Ferguson seconded. Vote: Unanimous. The board decided to place in the grant requirements that grant presentations will not be accepted. Member Burke suggested a statement/question to be incorporated in the grant application that submitted grant applications will, in all cases, work to increase tourism and will promote cultural, brand, and economic development (and then give examples). There was agreement that in the grant project checklist, the language needs to be clear that a special event can only be funded for two fiscal/grant cycle years in a 10-year fiscal/grant cycle period (the years don’t have to be consecutive and each time the application needs to rank well to be awarded the funding). The bullet point needed to be rewritten for clarity and also have a definition for ‘special event’. There was agreement to move the third bullet point to the second bullet point and define the funding cycle for clarity. The Board decided to remove references to the Tourism Development Authority throughout since they were not participating in grant scoring or funds distribution. The Board decided to add Ms. Campbell’s contact information on all pages and increase the time to contact staff with questions and concerns before the deadline. Motion: Vice Chairman McKee went through the above changes again and moved to approve them. Member Ferguson seconded the motion. Vote: Unanimous. Motion: Member Ferguson moved to approve the changes to the grant scoring guide. Member Burke seconded. Vote: Unanimous. b. Review and Comment on draft Grant Project Final Evaluation Form (15 minutes) Motion: Member Ferguson moved to accept as amended. Member. Tesoro seconded. Vote: Unanimous c. Decide on formal open/close dates for grant application cycle (10 minutes) Page 4 of 7     Staff Recommendation: Open- Monday March 7th; Close- Friday April 22nd (7 weeks) Motion: Member Ferguson moved to approve the recommended cycle. Member Twetson seconded. Vote: Unanimous Vice Chair McKee suggested taking a few minutes for a water/restroom break. Motion: Member Ferguson moved to adjourn for 5 minutes. Member Burke seconded. Vote: Unanimous Vice Chair McKee resumed the meeting at 8:38 p.m. d. Review and Comment on draft methodology/rationale for offering Requests for Proposals (RFPs) for contracts (45 minutes)  Decide which organizations/projects to extend (RFPs)  List that would potentially meet rationale  Sample RFP as an example Member Burke said there is an enormous difference between a request for proposals and an application for a grant. He asked for clarity on that from staff. Member Ferguson explained that the Town has a strategy map and this board, the Tourism Board, as a town board, is expected to follow the strategy map. She said that this is what the Town Board wants to see and that the Tourism board should use the strategy map as the rationale for choosing RFPs. Ms. Campbell clarified that the Tourism Board was not a ‘town board’ per se, as some other advisory boards such as the Planning Board are, but that it operates as a local authority with oversight from the Town Board of Commissioners. She said that the Tourism Board was probably more than OK with using the guiding principles of the strategy map but that to this point there had been no presentation made or Tourism Board buy-in regarding using it. She explained that the Request for Proposals would be used as a tool for the Tourism Board to offer contracts in exchange for services to tourism partners/vendors similar to the way that the Tourism Board contracts with the Alliance for Historic Hillsborough to run the Visitor’s Center and provide Visitor Services. She showed the example of what an RFP would look like that explained that the Tourism Board could offer the opportunity for an organization to respond to the RFP, however the organization would always have the option to decline. She said that with grants the organizations are asking the Tourism Board for a certain amount of money to do X project, with an RFP the Tourism Board is asking the organization to provide X and then asking that organization how much it would cost to provide X. She said that there is more negotiation involved in the RFP/contracting process and that the request comes from the Tourism Board to the organization. Page 5 of 7    The Board discussed and made the following changes to the RFP Rationale: - Remove ‘would like to offer’ and ‘for contract services’ from the Background section - Change ‘fiscal years’ to ‘fiscal/grant cycle years’ in the first bullet point - Remove ‘TDA’ from all documents - Add ‘venue activities promoting tourism’ and indicate that a portion/percentage of salary can be built in for business hours/operations for basic employees. (ie. A contract may pay for someone to be in the building while it is open and/or giving tours during operating hours, but would not cover the full time Executive Director salary to run the operations of an organization.) - Set the minimum estimated RFP/contract amount to $1,000. Ms. Campbell captured specific edits to the wording regarding this section. There was Board discussion and agreement that the RFP and subsequent contract could be for ongoing expenses (whether projects or daily operations) but that the Tourism Board will not fund overhead expenses such as rent or organization administration salary. For staff time, the Tourism Board will fund the time that is spent on a specific activity that is funded by this board. There was agreement that the organization needs to be in good standing with the Town of Hillsborough in addition to the Tourism Board. The Board reviewed the previously grant funded projects spreadsheet that Staff had prepared for them. The spreadsheet contained all repeat funded projects and organizations, how much funding was requested, how much the Tourism Board had granted, and whether or not the grant project/event/program had generated any income for the organization from FY 2011 to present. The Board agreed that the Free Spirit Freedom Festival through the Hillsborough Arts Council, the Handmade Parade through the Hillsborough Arts Council, and the Sculpture Tour through the Arts Council are not eligible for a contract at this time. They indicated that since the events have not occurred on an annual basis for the last three fiscal/grant cycle years that they can apply for grant funding if they choose to put these events on. The Board discussed funding for maintenance and operations for the Occoneechee Speedway and Eno River Farmers Market. Ms. Campbell explained that the grant information for the Speedway group over the year was usually for maintenance and various speedway improvement projects. She explained that they would usually apply for the money for speedway upkeep together with special projects like restroom construction, etc. The Board deliberated that determined that RFP’s would not be issued to either organization under the current RFP standards. The Board indicated that if either organization wanted to apply for grants for various projects such as if the Speedway Group wanted to apply for a grant for their annual Car Show or if the Farmer’s Market wanted to expand part of its market offering in some way then they both could. The Board determined that the average amount of funding issued to the Orange Community Players was not substantial enough to issue an RFP for contracting to. They discussed having that organization continue to apply for grant funding for performances at this time if they so wished. Page 6 of 7    The Board indicated that they will be offering RFP’s each year and may decide next year to offer RFPs to more organizations, but for FY 2017 they decided to offer RFP’s to Burwell School (for free admission during general operating hours and tours), Orange County Historical Museum (for free admission during general operating hours), and to the Hillsborough Arts Council for the ‘Last Fridays’ event. Motion: Member Burke motioned to offer RFPs to Burwell School, Orange County Historical Museum, and the Hillsborough Arts Council for Last Fridays. Vice Chair McKee seconded. Vote: Unanimous Ms. Campbell explained that there was a graph on the back side of the grant funding analysis that was prepared. She said that she had prepared it as a breakdown of the total dollar amount of Food & Beverage tax that has come in over the years since FY 2011, how much the Alliance contract was for each year, how much administrative costs ran, how much grant funding/project funding was issued, and how much of the Tourism Board’s budget was set aside for the staff position. She said that she prepared the graph in response to some questions at the Public Comment session regarding a misinterpretation that the Food & Beverage Tax collection had decreased over the years. She said that the reality is that the Food & Beverage Tax collection has increased steadily since FY 2011 and that the Tourism Board has just broadened the types of things its spending that money on each year. e. Review and Comment on draft methodology/rationale for deciding on special projects/partnerships (40 minutes) The Board discussed adding language to the ‘background’ indicating that the board offers organizations the opportunity to request funding for special projects and funding for unexpected opportunities. The board also wanted to re-word the first bullet point requirement by removing all of the examples of various project types in parenthesis to clean it up. Also, removal of Tourism Development Authority from all funding documents for the Tourism Board. The board also discussed the use of the word ‘shall’ and exchanging that in all documents with ‘will’ and generally using less passive language. The board additionally indicated that a presentation would probably need to be made to request special project/partnership funding and that should be a requirement. Motion: Vice Chairman McKee motioned to approve the amendments, which Ms. Campbell noted. Member. Burke seconded. Vote: Unanimous f. Mission Statement Update (10-15 minutes) Member Tesoro suggested possibly tabling the Mission Statement and Vision Statement discussions for the regular Tourism Board meeting since it was getting late in the night. Page 7 of 7    Member Ferguson agreed and said that she would like to include the Town’s strategy map in the discussion if that could be provided. Ms. Campbell said that she would provide the board with a copy of the Town strategy map with the Mission/Vision Statement materials. g. Vision Statement Development (25-30 minutes) Motion: Member. Burke motioned to table items f. and g. until the next meeting. Member Ferguson seconded. Vote: Unanimous IV. Staff/Board Comments and Discussion Items - Reminder Regular Tourism Board Meeting- March 7th at 6:30pm Motion: Member Twetson moved to adjourn at 9:20pm. Member Ferguson seconded. Vote: Unanimous.