A city advisory committee on hotel-motel and partnership funding on Monday reviewed applications, debated scoring and documentation gaps, and voted to forward recommended award amounts to the City Council for final approval.

Committee members and staff spent the meeting reviewing individual applications, noting several missing documents and glitches in the online submission system that prevented some groups from filing separate applications. The committee debated how strictly to disqualify incomplete submissions and discussed a grading proposal that would pay 100% of an organization's request if its average score was 70 or higher, with scaled awards for lower scores.

During public comment, a representative identified in the transcript as Robert Eads, joined by Maggie Selvaraj, director of resource development, asked the committee to accept materials that the applicant said were included with their board-approved application but were not present in the meeting packet. Eads said the group had been authorized by its board to apply and asked the committee to “review for all agencies” and consider missing documents in good faith.

Committee members and staff described recurring problems with the application process: some agencies reported not receiving mandatory-training notices, the online form sometimes did not allow organizations to submit two separate applications, and scorers found inconsistencies between line-item budgets and narrative descriptions. Staff said purchasing and contract teams were working to address submission glitches and that the city posts pre-application notices in the newspaper and holds trainings; committees also receive a printed packet for scoring.

On allocations, the committee reviewed each applicant and proposed recommended amounts based on scores and whether requested expenses qualified under hotel-motel rules. Examples discussed during the meeting included:
- Border Olympics: requested $135,000; committee members debated reducing the request because some listed costs appeared duplicated and some line items did not clearly qualify. The group briefly discussed a $100,000 figure and ultimately entered $80,000 as a working recommendation to leave room for other awards.
- Boys & Girls Club: requested $20,000; committee members noted a missing minutes document but recommended maintaining $20,000 where possible given the club’s community role; the final recommended figure listed in the worksheet discussed was approximately $18,007.50 after adjustments and carryover calculations discussed by staff.
- Laredo Center for the Arts: requested amounts discussed included $24,500 and $70,000; staff noted that certain items in the request (for example, lease or payroll) do not automatically qualify under hotel-motel rules unless tied to tourism-promoting activity.
- Laredo Main Street (Jambusi event): committee members discussed reductions based on missing marketing plans and recommended $25,000 in the working spreadsheet while acknowledging the number could be adjusted later.
- Webb County Heritage Foundation: committee members questioned a large request (discussed figures included $90,000 and a $60,000 salary line in the organization’s budget) and proposed a substantially reduced recommended award (staff and members mentioned $30,000 as a possible recommendation, with some members suggesting lower amounts) because the packet lacked documentation tying salaries and attendance figures to hotel-night generation.
- WBCA and some historically high-scoring applicants: committee members said these applications had more complete supporting documentation and recommended higher awards (the WBCA recommendation discussed was $75,000).

Staff told the committee that reimbursements require supporting invoices and time sheets for payroll portions tied to qualifying activities; payroll may be reimbursable only as a portion that is demonstrably tied to a tourism-qualifying program. Staff also said they plan to post post-event reports online and continue requiring post-event documentation to support reimbursements.

After discussion, committee member Miss Myers moved to approve the committee’s recommended award amounts and send them to City Council; the motion passed. The committee did not take formal action to change the application rules at this meeting but several members asked that a future agenda include a discussion on whether to notify applicants when documents are missing and whether to change scoring weight or disqualification thresholds.

The committee chair and staff emphasized that the committee’s recommendations would be presented to City Council, which retains final authority over budget and awards. Several members urged clearer application instructions, more consistent notices of mandatory training, and better internal checks to prevent technical submission errors so applicants are not disadvantaged by clerical or system problems.