The meeting opened with routine approvals, including the minutes from the previous meeting and a report on the transient development tax (TDT) for June, which showed a slight decrease. More pressing was the council’s deliberation over a $775,000 grant request from the Lighthouse Foundation. The foundation’s past president, Rocky Johnson, advocated for the grant by highlighting the lighthouse’s historical significance and its growth in tours. “Thanks to you all…we have gone from maybe one tour a month to now…two or three tours a day,” Johnson noted, emphasizing the lighthouse’s role in the region’s aerospace history.

However, the grant proposal sparked debate. Vice Chair Tom Hermansen voiced concerns about the lighthouse’s location on restricted Air Force property, which he argued limited tourism potential. “I struggle with the fact that it is on restricted Air Force Space which limits the number of attendance which limits the tourism impact,” he stated. He suggested that while some funding could be justified, the foundation should seek additional sources of support rather than relying solely on council grants.

Additional concerns were raised about the potential impact of NASA launches on tourism. One member highlighted the security risks associated with tours, especially during increased restrictions for rocket launches. “I appreciate your comments but guess what we do not have control over NASA,” the member remarked, stressing the importance of vetting processes for visitors to mitigate security threats. Tours require advance registration, including personal details for vetting by the Space Force, which could deter some potential visitors.

Discussions also touched on the broader implications for local tourism. The council considered the potential for future tourism growth through collaborations with cruise operations and the need for an exclusive, high-end experience at the lighthouse to attract more visitors. One member suggested that even if only a small number of visitors were accommodated, significant revenue could be generated if each spent a substantial amount, emphasizing the potential economic impact of a market exclusivity approach.

Despite these discussions, some members expressed skepticism about the projected benefits. Concerns were raised about the realism of projected room nights and the consistency of funding evaluations for different projects. “We don’t systematically look at the validity of projects relative to room nights,” one member noted, pointing out disparities in support for various initiatives.

The debate culminated in a vote on whether to recommend the grant to the County Commission. While the majority supported the motion, three members opposed it, highlighting the divided opinions within the council.

Following the lighthouse grant debate, the council received updates on other initiatives. The beach committee reported progress on maintaining cleanliness along the beaches and roads, while the sports committee announced its next meeting. There was also a brief mention of a memorial service for a fallen Airman and the development of a new memorial park to honor First Responders, which is expected to be ready by April 23, 2025.

Attention then shifted to local events and attractions, with a member highlighting the economic opportunities provided by upcoming events at the zoo and the annual “jazu” event, encouraging early ticket purchases. The meeting concluded with a motion to adjourn, ending on a lighter note with a customary cookie for attendees.