The Greater Rock Hall Business Association was denied its request to operate and maintain Rockhallmd.com, a site owned by the town that promotes tourism and local business — and serves as the main portal for town government.
“We own that website…not the business association,” said Vice Mayor Brian Jones at Thursday’s council meeting. “We are here to serve all businesses, even businesses that are not involved in the business association. That domain is the town’s.”
Jones voiced strong support for the business association and said its members would have significant input in developing a new site.
The council then moved 4-0 to proceed with recommendations made by the town’s website committee last month to separate the business pages and the government pages into two domains, which will hopefully be developed and maintained by one vendor.
Among the website committee’s recommendations was to proceed with drafting bid requirements for a website provider to develop and host the two domains. Members of the website committee, including its chair, William Fielder, will advise the council on drafting the specifications for potential bidders.
The business association had also requested that the revenue from the two-percent local hotel tax go directly to them to operate the site, roughly $10,000 to $12,000 annually.
But this just gets you back to where the website committee started, Fielder said.
Fielder said giving control of the business portion of the website to the association would defeat the purpose of the website committee’s work, which focused on cutting costs and making the site more user friendly for town staff to update.
The town currently pays about $10,000 annually to Chesapeake Bay Internet Associates to operate the site.
“Some of the reasons that I even started this process at all…is because the cost was too high,” Fielder said. “I think if it were to be taken out of the town’s control and given to the Business Association, things will actually get worse.”
Fielder told the Spy on Thursday that paying the association to operate a site promoting member businesses “essentially” amounted to a taxpayer subsidy that doesn’t bring the current costs down.
But the association already gets a subsidy from the town to advertise and promote local businesses. Since 2010 the association has received a total of $30,000 in advertising subsidies. Council members have yet to indicate support for another subsidy in the fiscal 2015 budget.
Rock Hall’s decision to put the website out for bid follows Chestertown, which at the March 4 meeting voted to put the overhaul of its site out for competitive bid.
Chesapeake Bay Internet Associates is also the Internet provider for Chestertown, Galena and Kent County Government.
Maryann Ruehrmund says
Editor,
I urge the Town to contract with a resident of – or – business in – Kent County, only. There are several excellent designers and hosts among our neighbors. Thanks!
Gren Whitman says
Editor,
Proof again that knowledgeable citizens can produce top-notch proposals and recommendations.
Over several months, Rock Hall’s volunteer Website Committee developed a commendable document that will guide the town toward a new presence on the web.
(It’s my understanding that Chestertown folks are mining this report for good ideas.)
Keith Thompson says
Editor,
To quote the story…”Fielder told the Spy on Thursday that paying the association to operate a site promoting member businesses “essentially” amounted to a taxpayer subsidy that doesn’t bring the current costs down. But the association already gets a subsidy from the town to advertise and promote local businesses. Since 2010 the association has received a total of $30,000 in advertising subsidies. Council members have yet to indicate support for another subsidy in the fiscal 2015 budget.”
While a debate over how the town markets itself via its website and who does it is legitimate, I have a problem characterizing this as a subsidy. The fact is that the money generated by the hotel tax is designated to go into marketing the town, this is a legitimate expense in much the same way that the town paying a contractor to build a tennis court or a plumber to fix the pipes in Town Hall is a legitimate expense. Also, since marketing the town comes out of the hotel tax that is paid by tourists, the cost of marketing is not coming from Rock Hall’s taxpayers so the driving force should be on paying for the most effective form of marketing rather than on saving money. Keep in mind, the hotel tax is designated to pay for marketing the town so all of that money should be spent for that purpose. If the idea is to save taxpayer’s money, that leads me to think that some want part of the hotel tax to be a part of the town’s general fund which I would characterize as a misappropriation of funds.
Gren Whitman says
Editor,
No matter the source and no matter what it’s spent on, public money is public money and is thus properly subject to full public scrutiny coming and going.
That said, Rock Hall is permitted to contract with any bona-fide entity to “market” the town as long as there is (1) an RFP; (2) a time-bound contract; (3) full financial accountability; (4) public oversight; and (5) a process to evaluate the contract’s effectiveness.
Keith Thompson says
Editor,
In response to Gren Whitman…I’m not questioning the town’s ability to contract work out on their web domain under the guidelines cited. I do question the use of the term “subsidy” used by the head of the website committee to inaccurately characterize the funding from the town to the GRHBA to carry out the marketing requirements authorized by the town’s hotel tax. The point is that if the GRHBA is getting a subsidy from the town for work on marketing the town as claimed by Mr. Fielder, then by extension, the company that gets the contract to handle Rock Hall’s website is also getting a subsidy.
Corra Dickson says
Editor,
There are many people who mistakenly believe that spending a lot of money will result in a more effective website. Our committee’s research has proven otherwise. However, perhaps this article’s focus on the money aspect distracts from other equally valid concerns. The committee report indicates that accountability, responsibility, and legal issues need to be resolved as well. The committee thoroughly examined the concept of spinning off the government website but reached the conclusion that it was not the best solution for many reasons. The Rock Hall Government has made it available online (https://rockhallmd.com/gov) for anyone who wants to read it.
One of the commenters here implied that the money saved on the website will be used for non-tourism purposes. That is not mathematically possible. As the committee pointed out in the report, Rock Hall has $57,000 in tourism related expenses, including the trams, but the lodging taxes are projected to be $32,000.
I do not know about the previous years, but the 2014 budget includes a disbursement of $5,000 to the GRHBA, which is considered a tourism related expense. Perhaps they could devote some of this money towards improving the GRHBA website (currently at https://rockhallmd.com/busassoc/index.php). I think it would also be wonderful if the GRHBA or others could come up with additional tourism promotion activities besides the website. We need some “outside the box” ideas! Especially since cutting any unnecessary website expenses will make funds available in future years that could be used on other tourism/marketing development, assuming the trams can generate more revenue.
Another clarification: when the website RFP is released, local website designers will be eligible to bid. There will be a clear set of technical requirements that all bidders will have to meet in their proposals. We must not lose sight of the most important goal: to have a top-notch website that benefits all businesses in the town — and the local economy as a whole — by attracting visitors.
Cora Dickson
Keith Thompson says
Editor,
Corra Dickson writes…”one of the commenters here implied that the money saved on the website will be used for non-tourism purposes. That is not mathematically possible. As the committee pointed out in the report, Rock Hall has $57,000 in tourism related expenses, including the trams, but the lodging taxes are projected to be $32,000.”
If I’m the commentator referred to, that is not the implication I’m making. I’m simply saying that the $32,000 from the lodging tax must be spent on marketing the town because that is the condition attached for enacting the lodging tax. The lodging tax should be a separate fund and not be a part of the town’s general fund in order to ensure that the money is spent precisely for the reason it is allocated for and not spent elsewhere. Also, by keeping the lodging tax separate, you’re acknowledging that this is funding that is not generated by Rock Hall residents or property owners. If the town wants to allocate some of the general fund for marketing/tourism, it certainly can do so.
Cora Dickson says
Editor,
Thank you for the clarification. I agree; separating tourism income and expenses from the rest of the budget would be helpful. It may require an ordinance or other such formal procedure to change the budget structure. Even just having a separate category under the general fund would be an improvement.
Melinda Bookwalter says
Editor,
Thank you to the author for your comments and for posting the link to the report. Very impressive work and presentation by the committee.
Suzanne Einstein says
Dear Editor,
Firstly, I would like to commend William Fielder and his committee for their commitment and persistence to this project. As a volunteer myself, I can certainly appreciate the amount of time and energy that is needed in order to get a job done. Volunteer work often requires many hours of time that may otherwise be spent with family and friends, recreation, or personal and professional business. This is a choice that we make. Most of the time, the choice is a good one and well worth the sacrifice, but, yes, sometimes, as we all know too well, our efforts are criticized and scrutinized.
I was unfortunately, unable to attend the last town meeting when the decision was made on the website. If I am to assume that this article is a correct recording of the facts, then I would like to take this opportunity to simply set the record straight on a couple of issues that are mentioned here. I would also like to voice my disappointment for the way in which the Greater Rock Hall Business Association has been portrayed in this article.
The first is the assumption by both the Vice Mayor and the Website Committee that the town website is and/or would be only serving GRHBA members if the GRHBA managed it. This has not been the case with the current website nor would it be with a new one. The association has always supported all local business, regardless of membership.
Second, is the reference to so called “subsidies” given to the GRHBA. The County of Kent, the Town of Rock Hall and GRHBA have historically worked together to help promote its local businesses as well as market Rock Hall as a tourist destination. To that end, the county has allocated lodging tax dollars (that have been collected by visitors) and designated and distributed these funds solely for this purpose. The Rock Hall Comprehensive Plan, in fact, states that it is a priority of the Town to promote its local business community as well as tourism. This is also called economic development.
The town’s decision to give a percentage of these funds directly to the GRHBA was in order to allow them the opportunity to work directly with the Kent County Office of Tourism to advertise and market the town. This has worked in the past and has apparently not been a problem until now. Last year the GRHBA was asked, and agreed, to forgo these advertising $$$ in lieu of putting those $$$ towards the trams.
As an active member of the GRHBA I can tell you that the desire to manage (not control as was stated in the article) the visitor portion of the website (whether new or current) is simple. The lodging tax was asked for in order to “fund” it should that become necessary. We only want to preserve the town’s image as a first class waterfront destination and continue to provide our visitors and locals with the tools to easily locate the information and services that they are looking for. If that would make things “worse”, please explain to me how. Our current website has become a priceless marketing tool that has served us well and I just hope that we do not lose sight of its importance as we move forward with a new website.
I am the first one to stand up for change, however, I must say that as a “concerned citizen” myself, I am concerned about this desire for a “New Rock Hall Presence.” I kinda liked the old one better – and I’m not just talking about the website : )
Linda M. Kimble says
Editor,
Thank you Suzanne. Well said!