Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-01-12 Bass Park Committee Minutes Visitor Facilities and Attractions Committee Visitor Facilities and Attractions Committee � January 12, 1998 Minutes Committee members present: M. Aube, P. Baldacci;J. Rohman, D. Fichtner,A. Hess. i Staff present: E. Barrett, R. Heller, R. McKay. Committee members absent: S. Pecl�inski, M. Sullivan, G. Eckmann,J. Quirk, J. Saxl. Meeting was called to order at 4:00 pm. The minutes from the previous meeting were accepted with one revision. Peter Baldacci corrected the minutes' interpretation of what he had said about the Peat Marwick study. This change was made and the revised minutes are enclosed. Event data for calendars 1995-7 was distributed, as well as data pertaining to capital financing and historical general fund support. Mike Aube asked about the differences between event categories,which were clarified. John Rohman asked about the counting of days and events and how they�vere distinguished. He also noted the surprisingly high number of days and events. Ed Barrett spoke of the difficulty in figuring utilization rates and the balancing of events to maximize their number. Mike Aube said we need to come back to the data collection issue, and suggested that Mike Dyer, Ed Barrett and Ron Heller address this. John Rohman asked about compatible uses, such as during the basketball tournaments. Ed Barrett said that this had been tried in the past. A brief discussion followed about the general fund subsidy and support to Bass Park. Ron Heller and Ed Barrett discussed the way in whicl� funds are budgeted and flow to the complex,the pattern of debt issuance for capital improveinents and the stopgap pattern of repairs to the complex. � Donna Fichtner made a presentation about trends, passing our materials to illustrate the events both held and not held at the complex, as well as the economic impacts of these groups. She noted that each group had differeirt needs and that it was difficult to discern trends. She also noted that it takes a good deal mo�� to attract regional meetings than is otherwise apparent. Nevertheless,the CVB did manage to attract some 37 groups during the previous year. She also distributed a listing of the events planned for the coming year. She noted that things were looking very well for the next year or so. She also noted that the busiest time of year for conventions was April through June and September through November, and that when groups come in July, for example, hotel operators are generally unwilling to discount for them because they have no economic need. She further noted that the economic impact of the past year's convention activity amounted to about$12.4 million, up from $8.4 million, the difference being tlie Shriners' event,which was city-wide. Further;two or three such events per year would really make a difference. In terms of inquiries about events, she said that the CVB should ideally be contacted first because they know of all the options for each event. Mike Aube asked how the CVB typically goes about handling inquiries, and Donna responded that it varies with respect to the group, the person in charge of the event and the group's needs. She also mentioned that she works with CVB members first, and then goes to non-members. • She also mentioned that Portland has a CVB staffed by 22 people and that she is told by them that their economic impact was between$30 at�d $40 million annually. Bangor's resources, in terms of personnel, do not compare favorably, altliough our results compare really well. She also compared individual and ' � meeting travelers;noting that the former spend about half the amount of the latter. ' � .. ; .� - _ _ Visitor Facilities and Attractions Committee January 12, 1998 Minutes/2 In terms of lost opportunittes, there are a number of ways in which tl�is can be viewed. IN this regard, she mentioned the Portland CVB's calendar of events and said tl�at, while one might view these events as lost � to Bangor, tl�at is not necessarily the case. Some of the Portland events would not have worked in Bangor, and some will come to Bangor the ne:ct time around. She also mentioned events that take place at the University of Maine and noted that these could be viewed as lost to tl�e Civic Center, but that they nevertheless contributed to the local economy. Another issue discussed was the fact that some groups simply cannot be accommodated, even if you get them into the Civic Center. In such cases, there will inevitably be a negative experience. A hotel on site is one example. Peter Baldacci asked if an on-site hotel was essential, and Donna responded that that was becoming�nore important, but tllat the CVB l�as been able to work around this weakness. She also noted that Maine meeting plai»lers �vere different t}�an their out of state counterparts in that they expect more at no additional cost. John Rohman asked if we are losing significant numbers of events because we cannot offer all facilities under one roof. Doi�na respouded that in some cases it was a disincentive, particularly during this time of year. Sl�e also stated that the CVB works very liard to qualify prospects and will not pursue those groups that will not be happy in Bangor, and that they try to keep the business, at minimum, in Maine. She went on to mention that the CVB minimally needs one person to do tnarketing and one persott to provide service, because service is so itnportant. With regard to performing her work at the CVB, she said that the organization needed to take some risk Despite tlie need for a variety of things, the best use of her funds at tliis point is to put people form Bangor in contact with organizations. Ed Barrett said that Mike Dyer sliould participate in the neYt session to talk about non-convention events. � He also said that we really need to begin focusing and looking long term a�ld prioritizing what we�vant to do. Tlie question of functionality, wit}i respect to breakout rooms and different needs�vas discussed at some length. Catering capacity�vas also an issue that was discussed. Alan Hess asked about the I�orse racing track aiid its future. Ed Barrett told l�im about the cunent arrangements with Fred Nichols, and added tliat the operation's future was in doubt because of its questionable economic viability. Next meeting agenda: 1. Continued discussion about faciliri• limitations 2. Non-conference market dynamics 3. Utilization rates and potential 4. Poteiitial financing resources Next meeting date and time: Monday,January 26th at 4PM . � .' . �