Loading...
TDC Minutes 08/21/2003 RAugust 21, 2003 COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE The Quality Inn & Suites Golf Resort 4100 Golden Gate Parkway 9:00 AM August 21, 2003 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Tourist Development Subcommittee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Members: Commissioner Tom Henning David Loving Gary Galleberg E. Glenn Tucker Collier County Staff: Jack Wert, Tourism Director; Ron Hovell, Coastal Projects Manager; John Dunnuck, Public Services Administrator Page 1 cL^ss cFlorida August 14, 2003 NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN OF A COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL SUB-COMMITTEE MEETING AT THE QUALITY INN & SUITES GOLF RESORT, 4100 GOLDEN GATE PKWY, NAPLES, FLORIDA AT 9:00 AM ON AUGUST 21, 2003. AGENDA 5. 6. 7. 8. Roll Call Additions to Agenda Old Business a. Tourist Developmem Tax Funding Policy for Category 'A' Projects New Business Audience Participation Committee Member Comments Schedule Next Meeting Adjournment ADDITIONALLY, THIS NOTICE ADVISED THAT, IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL SUB COMMITTEE, WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, HE WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND THAT FOR SUCH PURPOSE, HE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. Convention & Visitors Bureau 3050 N. Horseshoe Ddve if210, Naples, FL 34104 T (239) 403-2384 · F (239) 434-5066 E jackwert@colliergov, net· W www.classicflorida.com VISIT i-LO RIDA August 21, 2003 I. Attendance: -The meeting was called to order at 9:03 AM. Committee members: David Loving, Commissioner Tom Henning, Gary Galleberg, and E. Glenn tucker Collier County Staff: Jack Weft, Ron Hovell, John Dunnuck II. Additions to Agenda -There were no changes, additions, or deletions to the agenda. IlL Old Business A) Tourist Development Tax Funding Policy for Category "A" Projects -Mr. Galleberg stated that the CAC unanimously endorsed this policy. A copy of the policy, as well as an 8 page explanation of the policy and the choices that were made, were provided to subcommittee members. Mr. Galleberg discussed some of the fundamental decisions made in regards to the use of these funds. Category "A" funds are for beach re-nourishment. The eligibility standard for beaches was drawn broadly so that there is less restrictions on funding. Federal or state funds are desirable, but are a supplement to, not a basis for category "A" funding. Level of use was based on "high" and "low" uses. Under level of service, the idea is that a low use beach would have minimum level of service. Additionally beach access is considered important, but the first step is to ensure quality beaches. -Mr. Tucker stated that he was impressed with this policy. -Commissioner Herming was concerned about beach re-nourishment versus public access. He felt the emphasis should be placed on beach access. Commissioner Herming explained that he had hoped that this committee could make the same recommendation to the commissioners, but this item was not covered in the policy. -Mr. Tucker felt that there was a good compromise in the policy of beach access and beach maintenance. He also believed that the policy did a good job of Page 2 August 21, 2003 following the intent of the original beach maintenance referendum. Mr. Tucker added that rather than trying to modify the policy, they should find another funding source, since they did not have enough money to do both. Mr. Galleberg noted in regards to the referendum, that the emphasis was on re-nourishment, but he did not believe that the public would support re-nourishment of beaches that they did not have access to. -Mr. Galleberg pointed out that the intent and request for this policy was to cover how to use the category "A" funds, not whether or not beach access was important. Mr. Galleberg also stated that the policy was intended to re-nourish beaches only where there is access; access is divided by high and low use. -Mr. Hovell stated that staff's intent was to provide a formula that determined the percentage of funding that the tourist taxes would pay, without mandating how the difference would be made up. Mr. Hovell was concerned that the policy still left things to be considered on a case by case basis. He also felt that the GMP codes on beach re-nourishment should be addressed when considering funding. -John Dunnuck stated that he was concerned about the policy because it did not address acquisition or development for use from a funding standpoint and it did not fully consider who was making the decisions (a balance between the CAC and the TDC). When trying to prioritize the entire beach program, Mr. Galleberg felt that "it ought to flow through one committee". -Mr. Loving was concerned that this policy may take away the incentive to develop public access at certain beaches; for example, Hideaway Beach. Mr. Galleberg noted that the policy promoted the incentive to develop public access, since public access was necessary to be considered eligible. Commissioner Henning did not agree. -Commissioner Henning asked that they define "public" access. Mr. Tucker stated that he was fine with the definition that included parks, hotels, and streets. Mr. Galleberg felt that it was self defining. -Mr. Dunnuck stated that they would have to define beach "segment" as well. Mr. Galleberg explained that they can go back and designate the beaches specifically. Commissioner Henning asked if they established a measurable Page 3 August 21, 2003 distance between access points. Mr. Galleberg stated that they established V2 mile on both sides for high use. Mr. Tucker added that all the beaches connect to make one dynamic beach system, which makes this a very tough issue, and this policy was the best solution they could come up with. -Commissioner Henning asked if the subcommittee was interested in discussing funding sources for beach access. Mr. Tucker stated that he would discuss access from the general fund as well as from Category B, but he noted that this committee was not involved with the general fund. Mr. Tucker asked if they were collecting the maximum amount allowed under the TDC ordinance. Mr. Wert stated that the TDC was using 3 cents, but a 4th cent can be added with a super majority vote, however the 4th cent can not be used for beach access. Mr. Tucker suggested reallocating some of the other funding to the 4th cent, so that the other cents can be used for beach access. The committee decided that they would look into this further. Mr. Galleberg suggested leveraging their funding through bonding, if possible. Mr. Dunnuck noted that they would have to look into how much money was left in the 2nd pledge to leverage TDC funds. Mr. Dunnuck suggested looking at a legislative change; changing the definition for eligibility of TDC funding. Commissioner Henning wanted to consider the possibilities with the full committee while discussing this policy. Mr. Tucker stated that some consideration should be given the fact that they are unable to meet the public access goals in the comp plan. Commissioner Henning stated that they still needed to try. Mr. Tucker agreed. -Commissioner Henning asked, under 5C: about the maintenance and monitoring of a beach after it has been re-nourished. Mr. Galleberg stated that the intent was to view the entire project, including future maintenance; therefore 60% of the incremental cost includes the maintenance of the project. Mr. Galleberg agreed that this should be clarified. -Mr. Dunnuck was concerned about the definition of public access. Mr. Galleberg stated that there is a legitimate public access where one can get to the beach without trespassing on private property. Mr. Dunnuck asked who defined Page 4 August 21, 2003 the most appropriate access points. Mr. Galleberg stated that staff and the board would be determining the future access points. Commissioner Henning felt that they will also need to further clarify what public access points are. A ten-minute break was taken at 10:15 am. -Mr. Dunnuck asked if they would still consider looking at development projects. Mr. Galleberg stated that they will continue the historical practices on the existing facilities, and they would use the funding that has historically been used. Mr. Galleberg added that in "2005"-"2006" they are also hoping to consider public access on the historically re-nourished areas. He added that they will clarify this in the policy. The subcommittee recommendations for the proposed beach funding policy were: 1) Use of funds: -Commissioner Henning stated that he was concerned about trying to interpret what the voters may want. Mr. Galleberg explained that the ballot said tourist tax funds for beach re-nourishment and maintenance. -The committee agreed with this recommendation and made no changes. 2) Source of funds: -Mr. Wert felt that it should be clarified that they will always try for federal and state grants when possible. -The committee agreed with this recommendation and made no changes. 3) Eligibility: -The committee was concerned about the word "residence". The concern was that "residence" may be to broad an eligibility criteria for the area. Commissioner Henning and Mr. Loving were in favor of striking the word "residence". Mr. Dunnuck stated that they can bring a set of definitions along, when this policy is reviewed by the full committee. -The committee agreed to strike the word "residence" in 3B, with the intent to examine it further at the full committee meeting. -The committee agreed with this recommendation if the noted change was made. 4) Level of use: Page 5 August 21, 2003 -The committee wanted to make sure that a public shuttle system was considered high use. The committee agreed to add "or public shuttle drop-off point" to 4A. -The committee agreed with this recommendation if the noted change was made. 5) Level of service: -Under item 5A, Commissioner Henning asked that they clarify that minimum maintenance will include maintenance, monitoring, & testing. -The committee agreed with this recommendation and made no changes. 6) Additional uses: -The committee agreed with this recommendation and made no changes. Additional Comments on the policy: -Page 5 - last paragraph: Should Parks & Recreation items being running through CAC for approval. -Mr. Dunnuck explained that the original intent was that the CAC would prioritize the beach re-nourishment, while the TDC prioritized funding, and Parks & Recreation would establish the capital side. -Mr. Galleberg explained that his concern was it would be difficult for the CAC to put together a 10year plan without knowing the funding availability. -Mr. Wert suggested that the CAC and Parks & Recreation make their recommendations to that central point; therefore, overall, the 10year plan would be the responsibility of the TDC. -Commissioner Henning did not feel that this was a topic that should be discussed by the subcommittee. -The subcommittee agreed to recommend to the full TDC committee to task staff with looking at other possibilities of funding sources for public accessibility. IV. New Business -There was no new business to discuss. V. Audience Participation Page 6 August 21, 2003 -There were no public speakers. VI. Committee Member Comments -There were no additional committee member comments VII. Schedule Next Meeting -The subcommittee did not schedule their next meeting, but the full Tourist Development Council will meet on September 22, 2003 at 9am in the BCC Chambers. VIII. Adjournment -There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 11:23 AM. Collier County Tourist Development Council Chairman (Commissioner Henning) Page 7