Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tourism Evaluation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee weighs independent evaluations to measure ATAX-funded events and sites
Summary
Committee discussed a proposal to fund independent, academic evaluations (about $18,000 per 10 sites historically) to assess return on investment for ATAX-funded events and facilities, with options to allocate ~$20,000/year to evaluate several sites and guidance for how to use results in funding decisions.
Committee members heard a proposal to use independent evaluations — for example, university students or academic teams — to assess the tourism impact and visitor experience of sites and events that receive ATAX (accommodation/visitor-tax) funding.
A presenter described a color-coded scorecard (green/yellow/red) that measures factors such as interpretive quality, hours, restroom/parking adequacy, retail experience and board/operational capacity. He said the original project evaluated 10 sites at a cost of about $18,000 and recommended budgeting roughly $20,000 per year to study four to five sites on a rotating basis so the committee could better understand which ATAX-funded activities deliver a measurable return.
Discussion focused on procurement, funding source and program timing. Committee members asked whether the College (USCB) would need an RFP or whether the county could use a local partner; staff said the amount likely falls under competitive-procurement thresholds but that details should be confirmed. Members also debated whether ATAX funds could pay for the evaluations or whether a general-fund allocation would be required. Several members said the evaluation results should be used to guide applicants and to inform committee recommendations to council rather than to bar applicants from applying.
Committee members asked staff to return with a recommendation on scope, cost, procurement approach and whether the county or ATAX should submit an application to state grant programs to support the reviews. The discussion was exploratory; no formal motion or vote was taken.
