Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05071991 - 2.4 a. y THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on May 7, 1991 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Fanden, Schroder, Torlakson NOES: Supervisors McPeak, Powers ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Concord Convention and Visitors Bureau The Board received the attached report dated May 7, 1991 from Phil Batchelor, County Administrator, relative to the proposed expansion of the Concord Convention and Visitors Bureau. Dale Adams, representing the Concord Convention Bureau, expressed concerns with the recommendations contained in the report, and requested that the matter be referred to the Board' s Internal Operations Committee to allow the Bureau to present a detailed proposal. Supervisor Robert Schroder advised that he had met with representatives of the Embassy Suites and the Convention Bureau and had discussed the feasibility of expanding the Convention Bureau to include the Embassy Suites in order to enhance the County' s transient occupancy tax (TOT) revenues. He noted that there are no other similar facilities in the unincorporated areas, and any expansion to other jurisdictions would not benefit the County. Mr. Schroder recommended that the matter be referred to either the Economic Development Committee or Internal Operations Committee to evaluate the marketing program presented by the Convention Bureau. Mr. Adams stated that while the Convention Bureau is not opposed to expanding to other jurisdictions, they feel the next logical step for expansion would be the Embassy Suites and then pursue further expansion to Walnut Creek. Supervisor Sunne McPeak moved approval of the County Administrator' s recommendations and referral to the Internal Operations Committee to look at how the County can assist the Convention Bureau in best expanding according to the principles contained in the County Administrator' s report. Supervisor Tom Powers seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: AYE: Supervisors McPeak, Powers NO: Supervisors Fanden, Schroder, Torlakson The motion failed to pass. Supervisor Tom Torlakson noted that he didn' t know enough about some of the details of the proposal to feel comfortable moving ahead at this time, and moved that the issue be referred to the Internal Operations Committee for further review. Supervisor Schroder seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the proposed expansion of the Concord Convention and Visitors Bureau is REFERRED to the Internal Operations Committee for further review. I hereby certify that this Is a true and correct Copy of an action taken end entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. cc: C. VanMarter,, CAO ATTESTED: !2cL 7. /99/ County Administrator PHIL BATCH n,Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator To: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �- Contra s.. FROM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator Costa n1 x.. . DATE: County May 7, 1991 99�OSTq COUN�`P SUBJECT: PROPOSED EXPANSION OF THE CONCORD CONVENTION AND VISITORS BUREAU SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1 . Accept report from County Administrator on the proposed expansion of the Concord Convention and Visitors Bureau, and approve the recommendations. 2 . Declare our support for expansion of the convention bureau with the first phase of expansion to include one or two additional jurisdictions . 3 . Decline contribution of Transient Occupancy Tax. (TOT) to the Concord Convention and Visitors Bureau for marketing of the Embassy Suites, but may be considered if the bureau is expanded to include at least one or two other jurisdictions . 4 . Declare County's willingness to consider and negotiate participation by the County for marketing services of the Contra Costa Centre, if the Concord Convention Visitors Bureau is expanded. 5 . Authorize the County Administrator to notify the Concord Convention and Visitors Bureau of . the County' s position and of the possibility that 1991-92 funding and contract for the . Bureau may have to be amended and reduced because of budgetary constraints . CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HER CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORR COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED O E MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON T DATE SHOWN. CC: CAO ATTESTED County Counsel PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF BOARDOF Concord Convention & Visitors Bureau SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMI RATOR M382 (10/88) BY UTY. C. BACKGROUND: The County is a partner with the City of Concord in the Concord Convention and Visitors Bureau (CCVB) through a contract that delineates how TOT from the Airport Sheraton is to be contributed to the funding of the organization. The existing contract contains a cap on the County' s obligation and ensures that the Sheraton facilities are marketed for convention business along with the hotels in Concord that are in the same vicinity. Although the County budget has been very tight in previous years, the County has continued financial participation in the CCVB because it is an economic investment in revenue generation to the General Fund from the use of the Sheraton that otherwise might go to Concord hotels. The CCVB is now considering expansion to include other jurisdictions and hotel facilities. The CCVB filed a Fictitious Business Statement last fall which states that the Bureau is, in fact, the Contra Costa Convention and Visitors Bureau (doing business as the Concord Convention and. Visitors Bureau) . The CCVB' s Board of Directors, at its meeting on April 25, 1991, voted to begin using the name "Contra Costa Convention and Visitors Bureau" exclusively (allowing for utilizing existing materials) . The purpose of this agenda item is to establish formal Board policy on the expansion of the CCVB and provide direction to the CAO and our appointed representative in the discussions with the City of Concord and the CCVB. In the past, the County Administrator' s Office has provided input to the preliminary discl.Lssions on expansion of the CCVB. One of the issues for expansion being discussed by the CCVB is what jurisdictions and/or facilities should be the first target for expansion. Some members of the CCVB Board of Directors have proposed increasing the County contribution to the CCVB by adding the Contra Costa Centre Embassy Suites (PH BART) and a portion of its `�'OT as the first step in expansion of the CCVB. This is not in the best interest of the County at this time because it would have Contra Costa paying for a larger share of the CCVB budget and services than we need to generate revenue for the General Fund. Further, when the PH BART Specific Plan was being developed, the City of Concord and its hotel business community objected to major convention facilities being included at the Contra Costa Centre. We acknowledged their concerns and did not include major convention facilities in the PH BART Specific Plan. The Embassy Suites and other approved hotels are intended to serve; the Contra Costa Centre businesses and residents and not be attractors of large out-of-area meetings. It was never intended that the Contra Costa Centre hotels would need additional marketing paid for by the County. On the other hand, expansion of the CCVB to include other surrounding jurisdictions and their facilities could be, a real benefit for the County since it would spread the costs of operating the Convention Bureau and would allow the Bureau to market to larger groups, thereby increasing the potential for revenue generation. If the CCVB were to expand to include one or two other cities neighboring the Contra Costa Centre, it might be appropriate to consider adding the Embassy Suites at that time.