Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-12-22 Bass Park Committee Minutes Visitor Facilities and Attractions Committee Visitor Facilities and Attractions Committee December 22, 1997 Minutes � �ommittee members present: M. Aube, P. Baldacci, G. Eckmann, J. Quirk, J. Rohman, D. Fichtner, J. Saxl. Staff present: E. Barrett, R. Heller, R. McKay. Committee members absent: . A. Hess, S. Pechinski, M. Sullivan. Meeting was called to order at 4:00 pni Mike Aube was elected chair of the group by acclamation. The minutes of the December 8th meeting were accepted. The meeting opened with a discussion of the Peat Marwick study. In that context, the following remarks were made: Donna Fichtner noted that Canadian possibilities were overlooked in the Peat Marwick study, and that otlier international possibilities should not be similarly overlooked in the committee's�vork. Peter Baldacci noted that the Peat Manvick study appeared struck that Maine had three facilities like Bass Park, that Peat Marwick may have misunderstood the market, much as Coopers Lybrand may have done in their study for a baseball stadium. Ed Barrett spoke about the lesson about limited discretionary income contained in the poor results of the Sesame Street engagement. He felt that we should do an economic impact study that differentiated • between shows/concerts and conventions/meetings. Peter Baldacci said that outdoor concerts were worth looking at. Mike Aube asked if we had infrastructure in place to support events. Jack Quirk said that assuming we understand our market, the question becomes ho��do we pay for the facilities to meet the market's needs. John Rohman said that we needed to define what we want first,to which Jack Quirk noted that�ve need a funding mechanism. John Rohman likened the committee's decision-making process to that of a business. Ed Barrett noted that the similarities end with the acerual of fina�icial benefits, given that some citizens never see direct benefits, even though they have to pay for initiatives. John Rohman noted tllat Bass Park and related facilities had reQional benefits that should be supported regionally. Mike Aube said that one of ttie implications of the Blue Ox discussions is that Bangor has a responsibility to provide economic development facilities, but that the issue is to find out how to do this, incorporating a regional concept and/or a local option tax, either hotel or general sales. Peter Baldacci spoke of the county's budget and its differential impacts on communities and mentioned that we might pursue something that had tangible revenue benefits to the county and its communities. . Need to be able to say there's something in it for rural communities. Perhaps a county-wide lodging tax� would work in this regard. Jane Sazl raised the issue of�rivate enterprise and the implications ofthe Bass will. Ecl I�arreit s�aa�� il!�t � • • sor�e constderation had been given to working with a hotel, but that private corporations will be�reticei�t io irivest sizably in a Bass Park. `' . Visitor Facilities and Attractions Committee December 22, 1997 Minutes/2 Donna Ficl�tner posted tlie group tt�at t}�ere is a proposal to study CVB's in the state, that a number of cities are fookiiig at startin; tlieir own C.B.'s, and that many commuiiities are looking toward conventioii � business as tl�e ans�ver to tlieir economic problems. She stated that tl�ere is a move to consolidate C.B.'s into two or three regional agencies. In talking aboi�t Itow itiiprovenYents could be funded,John Roliman said that it wi11 probably take a combination of sources to raise the capital necessary. ,Iack Quirk agreed, but felt that this �vas some time off in t}ie future. He also said tl�at tliere is a need for educatil�g the comtnunity as ti the importance of visitor facilities ancl other initiatives. Ed Barrett said tf�at Bangor survives because it has been successful in retaining a middle class, even in tl�e face of relatively higher tases. RaisinQ tl�e tax rate significal�tly to build a convention center would risk losing this middle class base. Tl�erefore, �ve need alternative revenue sources. Mike Aube said tt�at it was iinporta�it for Bangor to move ahead and develop its goals and objectives. We need to look at what tt�e revenue stream would be at a new facility. Donna Fichtner spoke about the large number of groups that will not use the Bass Park facility because they've used it and were disappointed, and spoke about EMHC's tl�oughts about building a facility of their own. Ed Barrett mentioned that the busi�less community's attitude seems to be that it is the city's responsibility to provide for visitor facility and related amenities , Jane Saxl said we should pu(I together a meeting of potentially interested parties to generate funding ideas • and commitme�its. Mike Aube said �ve sl�ould set fu�idiiig comiT�itment goals and define what the city will do upon reaching them. He then proposed an agenda for the ne:ct meeting(below). With respect to capit�( requirements at �ass Park, G�iy �ckmann said that we've been through a lot of the information and identified necessary•t}�ings to be done. Mike Aube posed the question about continuing to"band-aid" tl�e facility versus letting it go altogether. Ed Barrett said that every 4-5 years we tlirow about$1MM at Bass Park. John Rohman s�id �ve need to find out if the buildinc satisfies the needs of our market and if it can be retrofitted. Mike Aube asked if it could be redesigned, to whict� John Rohman responded that it could, but not to meet all needs. Nest meeting aQenda: 1. Report on missed opportunities at the CVB 2. Review of Bass Park eve�its 3. Identify potential fnancing resources 4. Identify major users of Bass Park facilities Next meeting date a�id time: • Monday, Janiiary 12th at 4PM � � . � " . . .. • ��