Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County administrator outlines tourism plan and proposes tourism development authority; board asks for public input
Summary
County administration presented a multi‑site tourism initiative — Main Street/Courthouse area, Gloucester Point gateway, and working waterfronts — and proposed a tourism development authority funded by lodging tax revenue; supervisors asked for time to review and community engagement before any formal action.
County Administrator Miss Steele on Aug. 5 presented a broad tourism initiative for Gloucester County that identified Main Street, Gloucester Point and the county’s working waterfronts as priority sites and proposed forming a tourism development authority to coordinate investments and pursue grants.
Steele said the administration view is to use existing natural and historic assets to grow visitor spending and help sustain local jobs. She noted that the county recently received a shoreline restoration grant and argued that coordinated investment could capture more visitor spending that now occurs in nearby localities. "Tourism is more than just an economic driver. It plays a foundational role in sustaining Virginia's workforce," she quoted the Secretary of Commerce and Trade as saying while urging the county to consider investments that can increase "heads and beds" — visitors who stay in local lodging.
Steele described specific opportunities including Main Street beautification and traffic calming near the historic courthouse circle, a Gloucester Point gateway and redevelopment of county‑owned waterfront property, and working‑waterfront initiatives (seafood markets, improved dock/wharf access and support for the watermen industry). She recommended public input and suggested exploring creation of a tourism financing/development authority, an enabling body that could receive lodging‑tax revenue and pursue targeted projects and grants.
Supervisors asked for additional financial detail and noted competing capital priorities such as utilities and schools. Board members repeatedly told Steele they wanted more time to discuss the concept with constituents; one supervisor emphasized the need to prioritize infrastructure fixes before expanding tourism investments. Staff provided summary numbers for current lodging‑tax revenues and the committed fund balance and said the tourism fund balance was roughly $573,000 estimated at the end of FY25, with a planned $250,000 commitment in FY26.
No board vote was taken to create a tourism authority or reallocate lodging revenues; the board asked staff to seek public input, coordinate with partner agencies and return with more detailed options, costs and proposed governance models if the board wishes to pursue a formal enabling ordinance or authority.
