Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tourism Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee backs month‑to‑month extension of GMCVB contract while staff refines sliding‑scale terms
Summary
Miami Beach staff recommended adjusting the GMCVB destination‑management agreement from a flat share to a sliding 8%–15% fee on the 2% resort tax, with a proposed $9 million cap and reduced incentives; the committee agreed to extend the current contract month‑to‑month and return the matter to the commission after more work on KPIs and caps.
Miami Beach dministration presented proposed changes to the city greement with the Greater Miami Convention & Visitors Bureau (GMCVB), recommending a five‑year term with a sliding revenue share that would range from 8% to 15% of the 2% resort tax rather than the current flat percentage. Steven David, speaking for the administration, said the sliding scale ties GMCVB pay to resort‑tax performance and proposed a $9,000,000 annual cap and a reduction of the existing $2,000,000 incentive to $1,000,000.
Why it matters: The resort tax underpins the city—udget and commissioners said they want incentives that reward verifiable GMCVB performance while protecting city revenue if resort‑tax receipts fall. Commissioner (Chair) raised concerns that an 8% floor transfers too much downside risk to the city and asked that staff explore a lower floor and a cap structure that would not blunt the GMCVB—ommissioning incentive.
Details presented: David told the committee that the current GMCVB arrangement yields roughly a $7,000,000 to $9,000,000 range in recent years from the combination of base and incentive payments. The administration sked the committee to consider a model in which a higher resort‑tax year would allow a larger GMCVB share (up to 15%), with the $9,000,000 cap limiting payouts in very strong years and the incentive lowered to $1,000,000 to contain long‑term exposure.
Questions and staff response: Commissioners asked how the sliding scale would treat a sharp revenue drop (for example, another pandemic year) and whether incentives could be tied to verifiable, contractually defined key performance indicators (bookings, room nights, media impressions). David said the proposal already links higher shares to meeting measurable metrics such as bookings and room nights and that staff would provide more detail on KPI thresholds to make the upside and downside mechanics transparent.
Committee action: Rather than adopt the revised terms immediately, the committee voted to return the item to the full commission with a favorable recommendation to extend the current agreement on a month‑to‑month basis through 12/31/2026 while staff finalizes KPI language, revisits the floor and cap structure, and refines incentive milestones. The motion passed without recorded roll‑call tallies on the record.
What comes next: Staff will provide a more detailed KPI matrix and revenue models for the commission to review before a final vote. The committee emphasized it wants a structure that both incentivizes GMCVB performance and limits the city's fiscal exposure.
