Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tourism Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council adopts tourism event funding resolutions; members debate oversight and return on investment
Summary
The council approved four resolutions authorizing tourism event funding programs funded from the city’s bed tax allocation, while several council members sought more council review and clearer ROI metrics for funds that are currently approved administratively by the mayor after Tourism Development Commission recommendations.
The Scottsdale City Council adopted four resolutions setting event funding programs that use the city’s bed tax allocation for tourism development, following a staff presentation on program structure and metrics.
Staff presented four programs: the event venue fee funding program, the community event funding program, the matching event advertising fund, and the event development funding program. The city’s Tourism Development Commission (TDC) vets applications and makes funding recommendations. Staff explained that some contracts (venue-fee, community event, and matching advertising programs) are executed by the mayor after TDC recommendation to streamline the process; event development contracts go to council for approval.
Tourism staff reported that in the prior fiscal year the four programs funded 43 events and spent roughly $1.1 million from the portion of bed tax dollars described in the city’s financial policy; staff estimated $2.9 million available in the 9% tourism-development allocation for the coming year. Staff also outlined program elements: the venue fee reimbursement (up to $12,000) is linked to room-night thresholds (staff calculated 657 room nights to justify full reimbursement for the year described), the community event program can provide up to $30,000 for production/advertising, and the event development program provides one-time support (typically $30,000–$75,000) for new events with a three‑year runway before graduates to other programs.
Multiple council members asked about return on investment and oversight. Vice Mayor Jan DeBoskis and Councilmember Barry Graham asked how ROI is measured and why several hundred thousand dollars a year are not routed directly to council approval; staff said post‑event reports and contract deliverables are used to assess marketing value and hotel-room impact and that the mayor’s signature path was adopted a decade ago to expedite business‑facing transactions. Council members suggested routing some funding approvals through council consent or receiving more regular reporting on outcomes and fund balances.
After discussion, Councilmember Solange Whitehead moved adoption of the four resolutions (Nos. 13420, 13421, 13422 and 13423) implementing the programs; the motion was seconded and passed by recorded vote. Public comment included one speaker urging council to “listen to residents” when making decisions.
Council asked staff to provide clearer ROI reporting and to consider placing more items on the council consent calendar so elected members have additional oversight of some funding decisions.
