Door County Tourism Zone Commission : Meeting Minutes

Home Page: Meeting Minutes

November 20, 2008 Door County Tourism Zone Commission Meeting

DOOR COUNTY TOURISM ZONE COMMISSION
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 20, 2008
Sister Bay � Fire Station

ACTION ITEMS:
Tice moved and Boston seconded to approve the October 16 minutes as amended. Motion passed with Goss abstaining.

Nelson moved and Neddersen seconded to approve the Finance Committee October 28 minutes as amended. Motion to accept pending approval by the Finance Committee members.

Goss moved and Tice seconded to approve the minutes of November 6 as submitted. Motion passed unanimously.

Tice moved and Weddig seconded that the City of Sturgeon Bay must sign the original Intergovernmental Agreement as presented. Motion passed unanimously.

Nelson moved and Larson seconded to approve the TZC 2009 Budget as submitted. Motion passed unanimously.

Larson moved and Nelson seconded to amend the Entity Agreement draft to change the word �proceeding� to �succeeding� in line 6 and remove lines 7 and beginning of line 8 (�These excess funds�through the Tourism Entity�). Motion passed unanimously.

Tice moved and Goss seconded to approve a TZC credit card with a $2,500 limit. Motion passed unanimously.

Nelson moved and Boston seconded to implement electronic deposit of Kirkland�s paychecks after approval by Kufrin or Nelson of hours. Motion passed unanimously.

Goss moved and Boston seconded to approve a policy that an officer must authorize any expenditure by Kirkland above $200. Motion passed unanimously.

Nelson moved and Larson seconded to adopt the Electronic Communications Policy as drafted. Motion passed unanimously.

Goss moved and Tice seconded to approve the Kerber Rose reports and payables. Motion passed unanimously.

Committee Members Present by Roll Call: Robert Kufrin, Andy Coulson, Bill Weddig, Richard Briggs, Bryan Nelson, Sarah Sawyer, Chuck Tice, Craig Neddersen, Diane Jacobson, Jeff Larson, Mary Boston, Nancy Goss, Nora Zacek
Excused: Carol Stayton, Little Bit LeClair, and Dianne Lensert/Kerber Rose
Absent: Amy McClelland, Dick Skare
Also Present: For the City of Sturgeon Bay: Steve McNeil (Administrator) and Randy Nesbitt, Esq; for the DCVB: Jack Moneypenny, Jon Jarosh, Sally Everhardus; TZC Counsel William Vande Castle, Esq.; Administrative Assistant Kathy Kirkland
Audience: John Lowry

Call to Order
Chair Kufrin called the meeting to order at 9:03 a.m.

Approval of Agenda
Nelson moved to approve the Agenda as submitted; Tice seconded. All ayes.

Approval of Minutes of October 16
Tice noted a name is missing for seconding the agenda, pg 1, line 30. Nelson noted on pg 5, line 5, add �August revenues� to the $612,130. Tice moved to approve the minutes as amended; Boston seconded. All ayes with Goss abstaining.

Approval of Minutes of Finance Committee on October 28
Nelson spotted a typo pg 2, line 42 �father� should be �farther.� Nelson moved to approve the minutes as amended; Neddersen seconded. Tice asked if we need to approve Finance Committee minutes or just put them on file. Vande Castle said the Committee members should approve; Finance Committee members, all ayes.

Approval of Minutes of November 6
Goss moved approval, Tice seconded. All ayes.

Administrative Assistant Report
Kirkland reported 9 new permits issued since the last Commission meeting, 7 were from Town of Sturgeon Bay. There is continuing confusion on late fees and filing, reasons ranging from forgetting to thinking online filing had gone through when it hadn�t. Late fees are judged on a case-by-case basis; there doesn�t seem to be a single set of criteria for waiving a late fee. The submission feature on the website has been tweaked to be more obvious (e.g., for reviewing a submission). Kirkland developed a brochure to educate about ACH and online, but at this time, it�s not feasible to insist on ACH only; there�s an option to send a check, which takes Kerber Rose�s time to input and match with submissions. Weddig noted that there should be an e-mail; Kirkland said not every Permit Application contained an e-mail address, and Tice suggested the field be a must-fill. Kirkland will research missing e-mails and have Bay Lake change the submission notification.

Update on Status of New Member Communities
Kirkland noted that the Town of Sturgeon Bay (January 1, 2009, effective date) and Brussels (October 15, 2008, effective date) are fully signed up. Clay Banks just submitted a couple of days ago, with a November 19, 2008. Others have yet to send complete paperwork.

Consideration of Accepting the Members from the City of Sturgeon Bay
Kufrin stated he and Kirkland met with City officials to discuss final transition: City Administrator Steve McNeil, Mayor Tom Voegele, City Clerk Stephanie Reinhardt, Treasurer Valerie Clarizio, Alderman Tom Benzshawel, and Randy Nesbitt, City attorney. The City has 31 permitted locations, relatively low. The City uses the permit as a zoning tool; it doesn�t issue permits to anyone not properly zoned to engage in that activity. Kufrin reiterated to the City that the TZC is not in the zoning business; that remains a municipality issue. Zoning enforcement or compliance is not within the TZC�s purview. We collect room tax only. Kufrin anticipates a future community informational meeting with existing permit holders and communities in Southern Door who have signed on.

Kufrin got a series of calls yesterday about the City approving the Resolution with the Bylaws and approving the Intergovernmental Agreement (�Agreement�) with the exception of Section 22 on Severability. Vande Castle stated that the document approved by the City is not consistent with documents approved by other municipalities; the TZC can�t accept the Agreement in its present form. Vande Castle said that severability is a part of most contracts and he has never seen it become an issue, because it serves the purpose of keeping the rest of the contract intact in case of a challenge to one section of a contract.

Kufrin explained when he prepared the agenda this item was initially meant to discuss if a municipality approves the Resolution and passes an ordinance, but puts the effective date in the future, do they become a member when they sign or when the room tax begins to be collected? Sturgeon Bay�s date was going to be date future, yet there would be value in getting Sturgeon Bay at the table right away. Tice said he�s not sure how you can become a member if the ordinance has not yet gone into effect. Kufrin said the dilemma is if you approve an ordinance, each community has its own procedure, but you can have an ordinance go into effect with certain parts taking effect later. Tice felt this clouded the issue; you�re not a member until the ordinance/law takes effect. Nelson noted the precedent when Briggs came onboard, the Town of Sturgeon Bay ordinance is not yet in effect, so we seated him as a non-voting member. Kirkland asked about granting permits before an effective date; and was told by Vande Castle she should not, but she can take applications and then wait to assign a permit on the effective date.

All are in agreement that if the City of Sturgeon Bay wants to be onboard, they need to accept the Agreement as presented. Some towns attempted a change in the Agreement, and it was explained that State statute requires that they have to be identical. Kufrin said that an early draft (November 2006) of the Agreement did not have severability; some housekeeping items and severability were added in February 2007, and the Agreement then went out for adoption, and signed on April 12, 2007. Tice felt that all negotiations took place back in 2007; the City lost the ability to negotiate after that point.

Kufrin said the Agreement allows modifications to be made. Tice worked on doing just that last May with changes in bonding and other points, and the Bylaws were created at that time as well. All Zone members reapproved the new Agreement, which became effective July 17. The new version states that if you wanted to join, you had to approve the Agreement, the Bylaws, and the standard ordinance. While there could be future changes, that�s how it was drafted for now. If a municipality has a concern, it can come to the Commission and try to convince the members that change is needed; then it works through the process and majority prevails. However, a municipality alone cannot make changes for itself.

Nesbitt said the City has taken action on three separate occasions in the last five weeks, adopting the Community Marketing Fund from Moneypenny, and then enacting a new room tax consistent with the Commission (instead of the existing tax they have for 12 to 15 years). The latest action was the Resolution approving the Intergovernmental Agreement except for Section 22/Severability. Severability comes into play only when something in the Agreement has been proven illegal or unconstitutional. The majority in that City meeting were uncomfortable removing a portion of the Agreement and being bound by the remnants; for example, if a judge holds that giving 30% of collected funds to the municipalities to be illegal, the City and others would want to reevaluate with regard to future participation. As it stands now, severability allows the illegally adjudged section to be removed but the rest of the Agreement would continue; the City felt the worst-case scenario would be the TZC collecting taxes, but not giving money to municipalities. Further, if a challenge resulted that the DCVB were illegal as structured, that provision would be severed; the remaining functions would continue, but marketing funds would be lost.

Nesbitt said while the chances of it coming into play are remote, these boilerplate issues are often overlooked. Nesbitt felt that because it�s a regulatory ordinance, it probably will be challenged at some point. Most who are not in compliance will pay; however, someone may decide to take on the Zone and the ability to regulate room tax. He asked the Commission to consider the action of the City of Sturgeon Bay, effectively waiving the severance provision and recommending to other member municipalities to do away with severability as well. He asks for tolerance and flexibility. Nesbitt handed out the section on Severability to Commission members.
Tice said if it stays in and there�s a problem, we do have the right to amend the Agreement. Nobody would stay in if they lost their 30%, and Kufrin said that concern, money apportionment, is mandated by State statute. There may be other types of lawsuits; a larger lodging establishment was not giving occupancy information even though they were paying the tax. It almost went to court when they complied; however, if a judge had ruled that the TZC didn�t have the ability to collect that information, then the language in the Agreement could be stricken but the rest would be intact. We shouldn�t have to worry about being taken to court and having the entire Agreement thrown out, which is what happens without severability. Weddig agreed; we�re obligated with the DCVB, which has contracts and a budget a year out.

Goss said there�s protocol and precedent; the Agreement has already been signed by others. If there�s a challenge, it won�t happen immediately, and setting a precedent by allowing another member to come in without signing the entire Agreement would be wrong. She felt the City should sign the Agreement; if a problem arises, then we work on changing language to fix the problem.

Kufrin read relative parts of Section 20 of the Agreement. After the first five years, a municipality can withdraw without penalty by giving 6 months� notice and then �conveying 70% of room tax generated in the calendar year in which such notice is provided.� That addresses anyone dropping out early but assuring that money continues to flow for DCVB future. Also, the Agreement states that at any time a two-thirds majority the municipal members can amend the TZC Agreement, and the agreement can also be terminated by two-thirds of the members at any time. The Section goes on to say that any additional municipalities joining must adopt the current documents, policies, and procedures that are in effect at that time.

Weddig says if Section 20 is the binding rule, what�s the issue with severability? Vande Castle says you can�t look at severability as a stand-alone; it works within the context of the Agreement. In his experience, severability has allowed agreements to continue on an interim basis while amendments were done. If the tax collection process is ongoing, you can�t just stop the entire Agreement, and if a court ruled that a provision was illegal, it wouldn�t necessarily affect all municipalities. Severability says that you don�t enforce that contested part until you correct it or end the operation.

Nesbitt said the concern is of the unknown. What would they be left with if an important part of the Agreement is left out? Kufrin allowed that during the early months, the TZC and DCVB were still figuring out operations; as we�ve been operating, we�ve established policies and procedures so the unknown has pretty much gone away. We�re a relatively transparent organization. McNeil stated that the Council has also been transparent, and this issue wasn�t the result of closed-door discussions. An Alderman made a motion, and many people felt the clause equally affected all. The City is not seeking special treatment.

Nelson recognizes that the City has been through all the hoops to get here, but he hopes Nesbitt recognizes the context. We can�t accept anything other than our Agreement and, in that context, we can�t accept the agreement today. McNeil understands the position. The TZC has occupied much of his 42 days in his Administrator position in an attempt to get the Resolution signed. Kufrin said the motion last August provided time for the City to join through the end of the year. Nesbitt says there are a few nuances to fix on the ordinance because he was working from an older version, and since January 1, 2009, is the effective date, he feels those changes can be addressed easily before then. That�s one part of it, but the Agreement is consequential.

Tice moved that the City of Sturgeon Bay go back and sign the original Intergovernmental Agreement as presented, send the papers to this Commission, and get on board. We can address problems at the first of the year. Weddig seconded and said he�d like more explanation about severability; maybe we need to delve into it from a legal basis if there are questionable provisions, but he wouldn�t be ready to take it out without knowing legal ramifications. If the City of Sturgeon Bay gets onboard, we�ll put it on the January agenda and start working on it. Kufrin said we can amend if it�s imperative; however, amending Agreements takes time, which we don�t have. December 31 is the deadline.

Goss noted that just as there has been no backroom dealing with the City; likewise, there is no animosity from this body. It�s a legal and protocol issue. Kufrin called the question. All ayes except Briggs who voted nay. Nesbitt noted that the City has a Common Council next Tuesday, and we�ll see if they approve the Agreement. McNeil and Nesbitt left the meeting.

COMMUNITY MARKETING FUND
Moneypenny noted that the City needs to sign the Agreement because there are Community Marketing Fund (CMF) dollars at stake. The DCVB has a task force ready to explain the CMF to communities, but it�s premature until the City signs. Further, the Visitor�s Guide has a drop-dead date of November 26. Since nothing will happen on Thanksgiving weekend and the City�s next regular meeting is December 2, if the City ultimate says �no,� then on December 3, the DCVB Executive Committee has agreed to remove all non-Zone members. Any ad money will be returned and ads pulled. It�s a business decision; they have press deadlines but they can�t print a book with communities outside the Zone and can�t represent anyone outside the Zone as of January 1, 2009.

DCVB MARKETING REPORT
Jarosh pointed out that website visits over the last three months have decreased slightly. He�s been in touch with eBrains and discussed the reason. We went heavy with per inquiry leads in the fall of last year and spring of this year, harvesting new people and generating visits, but the contract didn�t ask for a per inquiry program this fall, so that may account for October drop. Next year, we�ll include the lead program again. Our web traffic was compared to other leisure destinations around the country; compared to Myrtle Beach and Hilton Head, our website had the least amount of drop from October 2007 to October 2008. Even though the trend is to drop, we saw the least. We need to constantly work on SEO, new information, and give people a reason to come back to the site. Next year�s plan addresses those issues. Kufrin said historically, June and July are peak and then it falls back. It doesn�t concern him. Neddersen noted that the Visitors Center traffic is lower every month as well. Jarosh said October was up over the previous years.

Jarosh stated that, as of November 1, the tracking company will start including images in their ad value equivalency. Kirkland asked if images now being counted will skew the numbers so that we have no comparison. Jarosh said 2009 will have to be the benchmark year. Moneypenny said it would be too expensive to do two reports: one with and one without pictures. However, if ad equivalency starts dropping, we�ll ask questions. Jarosh showed the November/December issue of Midwest Living and its 8�-page spread on Door County. He worked with the writer about a year ago. The ad equivalency value is in the $800,000 range. Weddig asked for a revival of the Go Guide; there are a lot of people who benefit from it, but he�s not sure why we have to do it for nothing.

Tice asked Moneypenny about the CMF. When the DCVB starts discussing with organizations what�s required, keep in mind that several communities without entities will be donating or appropriating their funds to a different organization, which also have to be included in the information meetings and kept involved; Moneypenny agreed. Sturgeon Bay approached Sevastopol for their share, so Sevastopol wants to know what it can expect from the CMF. Moneypenny said the Sturgeon Bay Visitor Center should be accountable directly to Sevastopol.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE TZC 2009 ANNUAL BUDGET
Neddersen presented the budget, the first budget that�s accurate with good history. The Finance Committee discussed in depth and had good analysis. The expenses are those we�ll incur; the only concern is that income remain constant. One item was the TZC�s assumption was that costs incurred by Kerber Rose in servicing collections would go down because of electronic filing, but that hasn�t been the case. Good administration and ACH filing will help, but because there are many small operators, it�ll remain expensive. The website is costing only $300 a year; it was budgeting for much more in 2008. Further, the budget isn�t showing a big reserve at this time.

Tice asked about legal fees shown quarterly; are they billed that way? Neddersen said it was just decided to allocate $1,500 every quarter as an estimate. He referred to the third page to the Cash Flow analysis; funds are rolling over into 2009, so we show good cash flow throughout the year.
Some legal expenses are a function of the Commission�s activities, Kufrin said. We�ve had communications send to Vande Castle such as the Entity Agreement. The numbers will fluctuate. Nelson pointed out the snapshot on the front page and then a cash flow that parallels what the DCVB has also shown, getting �skinny� around May. Tice said the cash flow problem is all the more reason we should consider a reserve account, as discussed previously.

Kufrin felt the largest monthly cost is Kerber Rose. It would decrease if more individuals use ACH. What incentives, even cash incentives, could we create? The traditional hotel/motel businesses are using ACH but the ones and twos are not. Tice said when the State instituted online filing, it gave everyone a year to get onboard and deducts $10 from the tax when a report is filed online. Kufrin and Neddersen had done the math against the Kerber Rose statistic, and the payback for offering incentives wasn�t worth it. There wasn�t much of a savings. Kufrin said we can come up with statistics and take another look after the first of the year.
Nelson moved to approve the TZC 2009 Budget as submitted; Larson seconded. All ayes.

Discussion on Amendment to the Tourism Entity Agreement
Moneypenny had requested a disbursement instead of reimbursement method, which required a change in the existing Entity Agreement. Kufrin worked up a draft, and Vande Castle had some suggestions. Kufrin will sit down with Moneypenny and discuss the draft further. Moneypenny took the comments to his Executive Committee; he has only one concern and two modifications: The first modification is on page 2 line 6 the word �proceeding� should be �succeeding,� just semantics over whether it�s past or future events. Kufrin noted that he had cut-and-pasted this from the Intergovernmental Agreement. The DCVB concern is line 7, �These excess funds can be used by the Commission�.� This replaced language that the TZC may suggest and now it says can. Moneypenny said hypothethically if there were $40,000 in the pot; should each municipality could come with a pet project, it would dwindle away. It�s the DCVB that�ll be spending; The TZC is a collection/disbursement agency, not an entity for spending. The DCVB will be transparent on their end. Moneypenny noted that years for now, there will be different players around the table; it�s a slippery slope to grant authority to spend money by the TZC. He suggests striking that line.

Vande Castle asked if it�s tempered by the fact that the DCVB has to spend it? No, Moneypenny says, it�s the Commission telling the DCVB; it�s a technicality that the DCVB spends it, not the Commission, but the way this draft is written, the TZC spending it is a mandate, and he doesn�t agree to that.

It was suggested that the community local marketing entity go to the DCVB first, and then Moneypenny would be the clearing house to decide appropriateness of bringing it to the TZC if it�s not a budget allocation. All felt the Entity language needs reworking. We�re all clear the intent is that any request for reserve funds goes to the DCVB. Bottom line: If we agree with Moneypenny�s argument, the simplest is to strike �these excess funds� lines 7 and 8. Tice said it was originally put in because people would be looking for funds to support local events. Now that we have the three-year CMF minimum, it�s in question whether we want to support local events. Weddig said we could strike it, but in uncertain economic times, he�d like to see a reserve fund built up as a cushion. Kufrin said the money�s not released unless the TZC authorizes it.

Larson moved to make changes to the draft of the Entity Agreement as noted by Moneypenny for changing the word �proceeding� to �succeeding� in line 6 and removing lines 7 and beginning of line 8 (�These excess funds�through the Tourism Entity�). Nelson seconded.

Kufrin noted he had cut and pasted it from the Agreement; doesn�t that put the Agreement out of sync? Vande Castle stated yes and that it can be corrected later. Tice and Goss asked if striking the sentence removes the chance that local events could be funded? Does it still leave a mechanism? Nelson said we discussed that we did not want local associations coming directly to the Commission to put pressure on the DCVB for funding. Tice said they can still go to Moneypenny, but if he�s not interested, it�s a dead issue. Moneypenny stated that local events/entities should question the municipality�s 30%, not the DCVB overall plan. What if the event is something that draws no room nights? How do you pick and choose? If it�s an event that can be targeted and have an impact on the whole of Door County, then he would look at it seriously. The DCVB is supposed to be image marketing for the Zone as a destination; he noted that the website does help with individual events regardless.

Nelson declared that we�re not marketing experts; we don�t want to get into that conversation other than to the DCVB plan and budget. Coulson said we approved the annual Marketing Plan and if we�re seeing everything being stonewalled, then when they bring in their next Plan, we will say we�d like to see flexibility. Ultimately, we approved the DCVB Budget and Plan. All ayes.

Vande Castle asked about the reserve fund. This is the first agreement that calls for an establishment for a reserve fund. Having a reserve fund is a good way to stabilize the budget, but from a taxpayer�s viewpoint, that would be challengeable. You�re collecting taxpayer dollars, holding onto them, and not spending them. He went through the Bylaws and statutes for precedents; is there a time limit on when they have to be spent? When we think about establishing a reserve, we have to give thought on how to deal with that. This is definitely an issue for taxpayer challenge.
Kufrin agreed there are still operational issues about a reserve fund. Vande Castle asked if we have the authority and if there are limitations on a reserve. Other groups he studied have restrictions, but this entity does not, just that the money has to be spent on tourism promotion and development; by statute. In practice, we must think about limitations so there�s no reason to challenge it. We need a resolution with a philosophical Mission Statement or limitations. Moneypenny agreed there should be a crisis reserve fund, determined by this Commission, pulled off each year to go into a pot, with any interest going back to marketing. When the next huge challenge hits this country, we can say, �Okay, we have $300,000 to fight the battle.� Is that what we need for a Mission statement? Vande Castle says yes; a resolution has to be constructed and presented carefully.

Consideration of Approving a Policy Regarding Business Credit Card
Tice had raised the issue of a business credit card and Finance discussed it. Kufrin noted the Finance Committee�s recommendation requesting that the TZC authorize a card with a specific limit of $2,500. Tice said after reading the minutes, he believes the credit card is a better route than a debit card. Tice moved to get the credit card; Goss seconded. The $2,500 limit seemed reasonable for everyday needs not covered by account we have at various establishments. Tice noted that if we find it�s inadequate, we can always change it. All ayes.

Consideration of Approving Payroll and Electronic Fund Transfers
For Kirkland�s paychecks, it was recommended by Finance that her hours be reviewed by the Chairperson or the Treasurer, and they would see if the hours matched the workload. Based on e-mailed authorization back to Kerber Rose, Kerber Rose would then release the electronic deposit to the bank. Nelson moved to implement; Boston seconded. All ayes.

Consideration of Approving a Policy Regarding Purchasing
Kufrin noted that on moderate purchases in the course of business, Kirkland is authorized to make them. The Finance Committee suggested policy that an amount more than $200 require prior approval by an officer. Goss moved to approve; Boston seconded. All ayes.

Consideration of Approving a Policy Regarding E-mails and Digital Records
Kirkland had discussed retention of e-mails with Vande Castle, and he recommended a resolution about dealing with electronic communication and retention of e-mails by members of the Commission. Nelson understands that it means he should create a TZC folder on his computer, then drag-and-drop all TZC communication from the past 18 months into it. Vande Castle said that everything should be saved and nothing deleted, which would include text messaging, anything electronic. Vande Castle said when someone mixes TZC business into private areas on a computer, if there�s a public records request, the requestor has access to all personal records as well. If the Commission members sign the TZC Electronic Communications Policy, then a request for records protects the individual�s private records. The files requested be transmitted on CD, etc., cleanly for the request. If the requestor states, �How do we know there�s not more?� you can say, �It is my policy based on the Board�s adoption that we keep it all separate,� and give them an affidavit that you�re following that. Goss asked about communications such as agendas. Vande Castle said that specific kind of communication does not need to be saved; however, if you do save it, save it in that designated file. But we�re required by law to save all communications. Vande Castle said that everything electronic�blogs, chats, text messaging�are hot buttons; the Attorney General�s office says �yes, save it� so it can be transmitted for disclosure.

Coulson noted that when we get new computers, that means everything should be either backed up or put on the new computer. Vande Castle agreed; he never leaves anything business-wise on his home computer; if he gets a transmission on his personal computer, he immediately e-mails it to his secretary for disbursement or retention. Tice asked about voice communication; Vande Castle said those are exempt unless they�re tape recorded. Voice communication is not public record; taping these meetings is public record.

Nelson moved to adopt the Electronic Communications Policy as drafted. Larson seconded. Kufrin stated that the acknowledgment on the last page was changed from �village� to �appointing authority.� The TZC doesn�t have the ability to remove someone who�s violating the rules; it�s up to the appointing authority (e.g., town, village). The TZC has to go to that authority to undertake disciplinary action. All ayes. Kufrin asked that everyone have signed copies in to Kirkland by next meeting.

Tice asked if a Commissioner creates a problem for the Commission and their municipality refuses to remove them, should we be looking at changing policy about removing a Commissioner? Nelson said the laws protect a municipality�s representation. It�s the village/town�s right to say, �We want him/her representing us.� Kufrin feels the same; we can go to the entity and say, �Here�s why we think they should be removed or reappointed,� but the entity makes the decision. Tice argued that if it�s a person�s attitude, that�s one thing, but if it�s something that jeopardizes the Commission, can�t we differentiate the reasons for the Commission�s ability to remove a person? Kufrin said we can look at that after the first of the year; do we, by statute, have that ability? Other than two at-large members, right now we do not.

Discussion on Occupancy Figures
Lensert communicated through Kufrin that, as of Tuesday, there�s an additional $8,000 for September, which makes the collections down 10.5% instead of the 12.8% on the report; submissions are still coming in. Goss moved to approve the Kerber Rose report and payables. Tice seconded. All ayes.

Meeting Location Schedule for 2009
Several Commissioners have stated that their municipalities have suitable meeting spots. Kufrin said it�s appropriate to get a schedule in place so we can book the venues. Do we still want to rotate among municipalities, or does it make sense to have a central location or standardize northern, southern, central locations? Neddersen noted that while it has been good to rotate so that local officials or permit holders can show up, hardly anyone has taken advantage of that. He felt in theory it�s a good idea to rotate; however, in practical terms, it�s difficult for Commissioners to attend, and an individual permit holder has to figure out where we are each month. Kufrin stated that since we have several new member municipalities, we should at least go to each end of the county, especially Southern Door. Discussion ensued. Kufrin said the new member municipalities are not required to appoint a member; they can be a participant without a Commissioner. Should we delay firming up a meeting plan for 2009 but count on Jacksonport for January, as per Little Bit? Agreed by consensus. Weddig reminded that next month�s meeting is in Fish Creek at the new Gibraltar Fire Station on County F.

The following dates were scheduled tentatively; this gives us a working plan so that venues availability can be checked by each Commission member:

January 15 � Jacksonport
February 19 � Ephraim Village Hall
March 19 � Sister Bay Fire Station
April 16 � Egg Harbor, Landmark
May 21 � possibly Sister Bay
June 18 � Sevastopol, pending completion
July 16 � Egg Harbor /Bertschinger Center
August 20 � Baileys Harbor
September 17 � Washington Island
October 15 � Southern Door - Nasewaupee?
November 19 � Southern� City of Sturgeon?
December 17 � Liberty Grove

Adjournment
Goss moved to adjourn; Zacek seconded. All ayes.

Respectfully submitted,

Kathy Kirkland
Administrative Assistant

View all from: 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007