Door County Tourism Zone Commission : Meeting Minutes

Home Page: Meeting Minutes

May 10, 2012 Door County Tourism Zone Executive Committee Minutes

DOOR COUNTY TOURISM ZONE
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING
Minutes of May 10, 2012, 10:00 a.m.
Village of Egg Harbor Offices, 7860 Highway 42

Committee Members Present by Roll Call: Bob Kufrin, Dave Holtz, Jeff Larson, Dick Skare, Bryan Nelson and Josh Van Lieshout.

DCVB Board Members Present by Roll Call: Jack Moneypenny, Bob Dickson, Jerry Zaug and Jennifer Laughlin

Also in Attendance: Kim Roberts/Administrative Assistant

Call to Order
Chair Bob Kufrin called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m.

Kufrin asked the DCVB board if they had anything to propose to the DCTZC Committee. Moneypenny said no, but that he wanted to reiterate their stance that the DCTZC approval of the tourism entity budget says nothing about the approval of the marketing plan.

Kufrin responded by saying that the DCTZC has a proposal. He noted that he had a new proposed draft focused on lines 21-23 on page 1 of the document, the rest of the document has not changed.

Kufrin added that the Commission reviews the marketing plan by reviewing what is submitted. He stressed the point of wanting to know what the money does and if the outcome is acceptable to the Commission. The Commission hires the DCVB and determines if the performance is acceptable. Kufrin said the Commission was not interested in engaging in the specifics of marketing plan, but stressed the focus on outcomes and how they compare to the County’s competition (stays increase and revenues increase). He notes that the indicators that he wants to see are indicators of activity vs. performance. He asked the DCVB board to consider submitting a marketing plan and/or performance measures, but stressed the agreement won’t be acceptable with no budget, marketing plan or performance measure component.

Kufrin said that the DCVB concern of the five (5) year outlook of whom the members will be uncontrollable because the DCTZC board is appointed by the municipalities. Effectively nobody that is sitting at the table currently could be sitting five years down the road. The DCTZC has no ability to influence the appointment of members to the DCVB board.

Kufrin felt that a reasonable compromise would be to have the DCTZC not approve the marketing plan. Instead, Kufrin wants the focus shifted to the outcomes that the marketing plan produces. Kufrin agreed to follow the DCVB board approved marketing plan, but add performance measures that the DCVB could be held to. Kufrin added that attending discussions of the marketing plan approval process could be thought of as micro-managing and could make for difficult deliberations. Critical questions couldn’t be separated from thoughtful discussions.

Dickson felt that the DCVB could work with the compromise and would need some time to get together to work on the performance measures. Kufrin said his desire was to come up with new performance measures beyond the current monthly reports submitted by the DCVB. He stressed again, from his perspective, the current reports reflect activity and the DCTZC wants to see outcomes. He didn’t feel five pages of performance measures (current monthly reports) would make sense to the Commission as performance measures. The measures would need to change as the environment for marketing changes. They would need to be tied to the marketing plan.

Dickson agreed that the measures would need to be linked to the marketing plan. Nelson added that perhaps the performance measures could be linked to a broader measure, market share. He felt that the ranking should increase or at least stay the same. Laughlin added that the market share component of the performance measures could give a good picture of how the County reflected statewide.

Kufrin asked the DCVB board to present what they want to be held to for performance measures. It could be up to a sub-committee or a full board to determine the measures. Zaug added what is proposed is similar to how their board measures Moneypenny’s performance, but noted that the activities of the DCVB don’t indicate results. The results are affected by more than the activities of the DCVB. He went on to say the activities are within the control of the DCVB, however the results were not. Dickson wanted to make sure outside, uncontrollable circumstance would be taken into account when holding the DCVB accountable to the performance measures. Nelson agreed that everyone would understand.

Kufrin replied by saying that it was understandable that there were going to be unforeseen situations that may arise. He added that the DCTZC didn’t want to define the marketing plan, but wanted to make sure the outcomes were worth the money spent. Kufrin said that it was up to the DCVB board to define the outcomes for the two sides to agree to. Laughlin reminded everyone that the goals set by the marketing plan were measured in the Year in Review report. Larson suggested four or five indicators to measure performance. Nelson suggested the creation of an ad-hoc committee to create the measureable goals, and then the created goals could be presented to both committees annually. Dickson said they need to go back to their board.

Moneypenny expressed his concern that the measurement of performance goals is difficult to do before the creation of the marketing plan.

Nelson reminded Moneypenny that the performance goals are not up to him to create. Moneypenny said they need to agree to the premise of goals and the actual goals coming later. His concern was with a new marketing director coming on, the strategy would be totally different and therefore the performance measures/goals would shift.

Dickson replied that it was just a foundation to get started. The actual performance goals would come once the marketing plan was established. He would like to offer goals as a premise and have the DCTZC approve them based on the general picture and agree to narrow the scope when the marketing plan is completed.

Dickson interjected that the DCTZC didn’t have the statutory authority to do that. Kufrin added that the performance measures would be a way to measure what is most important: The measurement of outcomes. He went on to say that, it was a challenge to use the marketing plan to gauge success. As it stands, the DCVB tells the DCTZC how they would like us to measure their performance. There is a need for a weighted system. Effectively, the DCTZC is telling the DCVB how they would like their performance measured.

Dickson said that they need to do an exercise of creating measures and throw them back to the DCTZC.

Van Lieshout said that lines 21-23 define the scope of what the DCTZC is trying to do; trying to increase overnight stays. The end goal is heads in beds. He asked the DCVB to keep in mind the question, “are we competitive?” Don’t want to evaluate the marketing plan, just the outcomes. Dickson responded that hopefully everything the DCVB does results in increased overnight stays. No matter what you do sometimes there are outside conditions that inhibit success such as gas prices,

Kufrin said everyone around the table lives here and knows what is going to impact the County. The fact that everyone is here keeps things grounded to the local economy. Skare asked Moneypenny how he measured success and how he was dealing with the challenges facing the County currently. Skare wanted to know what the big goals are that he is trying to accomplish. Not our job to know the activities of the DCVB, just the outcomes.

Kufrin asked if the increase in room tax revenues was the best measure of the benefit of the room tax to the local economy. If the tax revenue goes up but stays go down, were the goals achieved? The concern is if everyone raises their rates, revenue increases, but stays don’t increase. Jack replied that it was a huge concern. Moneypenny said his goal was to get people to the County after that it was up to the business owners. The increased room tax revenue is a difficult goal to measure because it is about finding a balance between occupancy and room rates. Is the DCVB drawing the right customer to pay the rates and stay? He doesn’t want to see rates dropped to increase stays. It is an art not a science.

Jack suggested a submission of the marketing plan, budget and performance measures to the DCTZC for review and then the DCTZC approves the budget and the performance measures. Take out the words and/or. The one sticking point is the approval of the marketing plan. Larson added that the marketing plan doesn’t have to be as extensive as the Strategic Conversation; it could just be a one page summary.

The meeting recommenced at 10:29 AM with Kufrin following up on Moneypenny’s suggestion by proposing the following changes to the yellow section on page one of the draft of the Entity Agreement:

Line 41 comma after budget and strike “and a”
Line 42 strike the “/or”
Line 43 strike “marketing plan and or”

Nelson felt he could now be able to go back to his town board and say the DCTZC agreed with the DCVB to review marketing plan and approve the budget and performance measures.

Kufrin asked if those representing the DCVB could take the changes to their board and recommend approving the Entity Agreement. He asked if there a tentative agreement so that it can go on the agenda for the next Commission meeting.

Dickson said yes, there is a tentative agreement and he will take it back to the DCVB board for approval.

Adjournment
The discussion adjourned at 10:32 AM.

Respectfully submitted,

Kim Roberts
Administrative Assistant

View all from: 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007