Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tourism Advertising topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners direct staff to renegotiate tourism ad contract; ask for one‑year term, deliverables
Summary
Facing questions about strategy, metrics and return on investment, the Santa Rosa County commission on July 21 instructed staff to seek a one‑year agreement with the tourism advertising agency instead of a multi‑year minimum and to cap the immediate agency engagement at a lower amount while requiring clearer reporting and deliverables.
The Santa Rosa County Board of County Commissioners on July 21 directed county staff to return to the tourism advertising vendor with a revised scope and term after a wide-ranging debate about strategy, measurable results and how tourist development tax funds should be used.
County staff briefed the board on the existing Tourism Development Tax (TDT) spending plan and the proposed contract under discussion with an agency that had previously been shortlisted by the Tourism Development Council. The current proposal on the table included multi‑year agency services; commissioners questioned the length, the size of the fee and the mix of advertising and promotional activities.
County staff summarized the statutory context for TDT spending: state law requires a portion of TDT receipts to be used for promotional and advertising activities that attract tourists. A staff member also noted other allowable program types and that capital investments or events can be counted toward promotion if one of the main purposes is to attract tourists.
Commissioners and public commenters debated the best use of the funds. Some commissioners urged a greater focus on sports tourism and facility‑driven strategies that capture overnight stays (which return TDT revenue) rather than broader media buys alone. Several commissioners and speakers suggested increasing in‑house digital capacity, using smaller local grants or partnerships, and exploring public‑private naming or sponsorship for facilities.
Public comment included concerns about whether the agency’s spend is getting desired repeat visitors and whether the county was textured enough in outreach to the whole county (not just the shore). "We need a comprehensive plan so that we understand what we're doing," said Tamara Fountain in public comment, urging coordination, sequencing and measurable goals.
Board direction and next steps: Staff summarized board preference and the board confirmed direction to return with a revised offer for the agency: a one‑year contract term (rather than a multi‑year minimum) and a reduced not‑to‑exceed amount for the advertised scope. The board also requested that the agency provide a menu of options and clear performance reporting for what it will deliver at several funding levels. County staff said they would ask the vendor for options (scenarios) and return the matter to the commission at the next regular meeting for a decision.
Clarifying details: staff said the specific statutory paragraph requires TDT promotion and advertising but allows flexibility within the categories so long as the activities have tourism attraction as a primary purpose. Staff and commissioners discussed current statutory minimums and percentages for the advertising portion of TDT collections.
Ending: Staff will ask the advertising firm to provide an a/b/c menu of options tied to specific deliverables and return with a revised scope and price for board consideration at the next meeting; the board also asked staff to report back with metrics for how current spending has performed.
