Convention Center Task Force

March 2007 Meeting Summaries

March 1 u March 6 u March 8 u March 15 u March 21 u March 29

 

 

Business Demand Meeting with John Kaatz, CSL International

March 1, 2007

 

Clanzenetta “Mickee” Brown

Task Force Planner

cctf@jcci.org

 

In attendance:  Ron Barton (CCTF Steering Committee), Mickee Brown (JCCI), Skip Cramer (JCCI), Kelly Madden (Business Demand Chair), John Reyes (CVB), Nicole Trueblood (CVB), Ben Warner (JCCI)

 

Meeting Time: 10:00 a.m. EST

 

Discussion…

Should CSL begin the feasibility study sooner rather than later so that their data and analysis can be used to inform the CCTF subcommittees’ research and recommendation processes?

The information gathered during the first eight weeks of the feasibility will directly impact the Business Demand and Market Infrastructure Subcommittees. However, it is necessary for each of the subcommittees to meet as agreed to continue the exchange of ideas, secure information from other resources, and get community feedback. It is a possibility that the conclusions reached by CSL will differ from those reached by the subcommittees. Access to that information will insure that all information has been vetted in the effort to develop recommendations based on as much data as possible. As a result, the subcommittees will use the information provided by CSL to inform their recommendations.

 

What affect will the expedited feasibility study have on the CCTF meeting schedule?

The schedule will remain “as is”; however instead of presenting recommendations on March 29th, the Business Demand Subcommittee will update the CCTF on its work and the outcomes from the TAP Report and the GMA Destination Appeal Survey. Those in attendance reached consensus that the work of the Business Demand and Market Infrastructure Subcommittees are mutually inclusive and would benefit from commingling the groups. The subcommittee members from each group will be asked to participate in both sets of meetings (as time permits) scheduled for March and April.  Both subcommittees will also have access to the information provided by CSL and each group will be asked to present their recommendations (in tandem or separately) on April 26th. [Staff note: JCCI will assist both groups with communicating the discussions that occur in subcommittee.]

 

[Staff note: Originally, the March 29th meeting was also a point on the timeline for the CCTF to determine whether or not the task force should continue to meet based on the recommendation of the Business Demand subcommittee and the outcomes within the TAP and GMA reports. Because the feasibility study may offer some additional insights and the Business Demand Subcommittee will not offer recommendations until April, the CCTF may hold its decision, to end or continue working, for the April meeting.]

 

The meeting adjourned at 10:40 EST

 

 

Convention Center Task Force - Steering Committee

March 6, 2007

 

Skip Cramer

JCCI Facilitator

cctf@jcci.org

 

In attendance:  M.G. Orender (Steering Committee Chair), Charles Appleby (by phone), Kelly Madden (by phone), Phil Tufano (by phone), Mark Wood (by phone), John Reyes (CVB – Ex officio), Skip Cramer (JCCI), Nicole Trueblood (CVB). 

 

Meeting Time: 4:00 p.m. EST

 

Purpose: To seek Steering Committee approval to execute the CSL Feasibility Study contract.

 

Discussion: Task Force Chair M.G. Orender called the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m. with a quorum present.  Mr. Orender noted that we have received the TAP and GMA reports, as contracted.  A subsequent coordinating discussion was held on 1 March with feasibility study contractor John Kaatz of CSL with Business Demand Subcommittee chair Kelly Madden, committee ex officio members, and JCCI support staff.  From that discussion it was clear CSL’s work should be done in collaboration with both the Business Demand and Market Support & Infrastructure subcommittees.  For that reason, and to avoid inducing a significant delay in the task force’s overall schedule, the chair recommended execution of the contract now rather than the end of March, as originally planned. 

 

A motion to approve execution of the contract was made and seconded.  In discussion all present agreed this was the right course of action.  The motion approved, Chair Orender directed CVB President Reyes to take necessary action.

 

JCCI representative Skip Cramer provided a summary of the 1 March teleconference.  [The meeting summary of that teleconference is posted and available on the JCCI/CCTF website.]  It was emphasized that the feasibility study will inform and not direct the work of the subcommittees or the task force.  Operating in tandem with CSL will permit vetting of information while ensuring independent thought. 

 

In keeping with the policy of the task force of full disclosure, Chair Orender directed that the destination appeal study information be released to the public immediately following the Business Demand Subcommittee’s 8 March meeting.

 

The meeting adjourned at 4: 20 p.m. EST

 

 

Business Demand - Meeting Summary

March 8, 2007

 

Clanzenetta “Mickee” Brown

JCCI Planner

cctf@jcci.org

 

 

IN ATTENDANCE: Business Demand Subcommittee – Kelly Madden (Chair), Thomas Bonner, John Haley, Paul Mason, Madeline Scales-Taylor, Scott Stuckey, and Anne Urban Not attending: Jerry Mallot, Medardo Monzon, and Cleve Warren

Community participants – Michael Munz

Media – Rachel Witkowski (Jacksonville Business Journal)

Staff – Mickee Brown, Skip Cramer, Shirley Smith, Nicole Trueblood, John Reyes, and Larry Walter

 

 

MEETING TIME: 10:00 - 11:30 a.m. 

            

SPEAKERS:       Gerard Murphy, Gerard Murphy & Associates

Dr. George Fenich, Trends Analysis Projections LLC

 

TOPIC: Jacksonville’s Destination Appeal

 

PURPOSE: Receive and discuss information regarding Jacksonville’s attractiveness as convention site.

 

MEETING SUMMARY

[Staff note: The write-up below is a summary, not a verbatim transcript. Please read through the document to make sure the pertinent points were captured. If anything is missing or misstated, please advise staff.]   

 

After the welcome and participant self-introductions, Chair Kelly Madden provided background for why the task force was undertaking its work and the role of subcommittees in the process. Specifically, the Business Demand subcommittee is charged with answering two questions.

  • How appealing is Jacksonville as a destination?
  • What type of business can Jacksonville attract if the City’s convention center has more exhibit space?

 

Building a new or expanded convention center does not come with a guaranteed increase in demand; this subcommittee is charged with determining whether or not there is sufficient data to support additional investment. If not, the work of the task force will end.

 

The subcommittee was also provided with an update regarding the steering committee’s decision to authorize CSL to begin the feasibility study earlier than originally scheduled.

 

After a coordinating discussion March 1st with feasibility study contractor John Kaatz of CSL it was clear that CSL’s work should be done in collaboration with both the Business Demand and Market Support & Infrastructure subcommittees.  For that reason, and to avoid inducing a significant delay in the task force’s overall schedule, the chair recommended execution of the contract now rather than the end of March, as originally planned. 

 

Instead of offering recommendations at the end of March, the Business Demand subcommittee will offer summary findings and work with the Market & Infrastructure subcommittee to make a joint recommendation at the end of April. In the meantime CSL will feed information to both groups.

 

Review Process & Roles

JCCI Executive Director, Skip Cramer explained the role of JCCI as the process facilitator, record keeper, and liaison between the subcommittees and industry experts, including the CVB and the JEDC. The group also reviewed their information packets containing hard copies of both presentations. The group was reminded to use JCCI’s Forum Decorum as the rules for meeting participation.

 

Presentation summaries

Gerald Murphy: Survey of the appeal of Jacksonville as a meeting site and travel destination

·         A mail survey of 894 questionnaires was sent to two sample groups:

1) Prime Leads refer to Jacksonville's current meeting client base.  They are made up of a list of leads developed by the CVB that were seriously considering holding a meeting in Jacksonville. The sample Prime Leads include both gained leads (those who actually scheduled a meeting) and lost leads (those who selected an alternative destination). The prime leads therefore represent Jacksonville's current active customer base.

2) Prospects are a list of organizations developed from a database of national & regional associations GMA has on hand.  An equal number of questionnaires were sent to both groups. "Regional Prospects" as associations headquartered either in Florida or in states peripheral to Florida.  We defined "National Prospects" as associations headquartered in Illinois, Virginia, Washington DC, Maryland & New York.  These latter states are where a high proportion of large national associations are headquartered.

Of the questionnaires sent, 157 were completed and returned for an overall 17 percent response rate.

 

·         Overall the convention center is viewed as an adequate facility.

 

·         Compared to other cities in Florida, Jacksonville ranked highest in the following areas for destination appeal:

Logistical

Environmental

Recreational

Value

Clean and attractive

Parks and nature walks

Moderate food and hotels

Friendly residents

Golf

Good local transportation

 

Restaurants

Inexpensive to get to

 

Museums and historic sites

 

·         When compared to the three regional competitors, other strengths emerge: climate, beaches, and golf. Among the National Prospects Jacksonville is also ranked high for its low crime rate, uniqueness, museums/historic sites, and good sightseeing.

 

·         When compared to other Florida destinations Jacksonville is below average in terms of its popularity, uniqueness, and perception as a romantic destination. Together these indicate that Jacksonville is not a top-of-mind destination or a place that people plan to visit. For example, people want to visit Miami because of its image as a fun, sexy, glamorous beach community.

 

·         If a larger or more state-of-the-art convention center were built in Jacksonville it would have little affect on the decision to hold more meetings among those delegations of 900 or less. The statistical sample for delegations over 1,000 was very small, though there is some indication that this group might be more inclined to hold their meetings in Jacksonville if the convention was 2-3 times as larger.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

 

·         Meeting patterns among the respondents also indicate that conference hotels are used far more frequently than major convention centers, especially for Prime Leads (94 percent). This is also a trend among the Prospects at 87 percent. Fewer than 30 percent use major convention centers in both groups.  

 

·         In order, the most important factors being considered for groups interested in holding a meeting in Jacksonville are good conference hotels, choice of hotels, facility rental rates, room rates, airline service, convention center facility, popularity with delegates, variety of things to do, unique appeal of Jacksonville, climate, beaches, and golfing.

 

·         Among those groups holding a convention in Jacksonville within the past three years the following items contributed to the positive experience (in order of importance); friendly people, clean air, outstanding restaurants, proximity to the ocean, good local transportation, good parks/nature walks, local art/culture/history, shopping opportunities, local festivals, professional sports, and interesting architecture.

 

·         The reasons given for choosing a destination other than Jacksonville include; good headquarters hotel, superior convention center, wanted more space, greater variety of things to do, third party recommendation, wanted to try new destination, like to rotate meetings, and met special needs of the group. [Speaker Note: After "good headquarters hotel" (46 percent) the next most frequently chosen for selecting another destination was "greater variety of things to do" at (37 percent.

 

Other Speaker Notes: In overview, it can be said that the Prime Leads are more prone than the prospects to have meetings in Jacksonville.  The Prime Leads also evaluate Jacksonville more highly both as a convention site and vacation destination.  At the same time, Prospects have favorable attitudes and perceptions of Jacksonville and it can be said that Jacksonville has competitive strength among the prospect market, particularly the national prospects.  A key finding is that the National Prospects have a more favorable evaluation of Jacksonville than the Regional Prospects do.

 

Dr. George Fenich: TAP Report – Destination Attractiveness City Comparison/Destination Attractiveness Mathematical Market Metrics

 

 

Variables

Wt

Rank among 137 North American Cities

Rank among Competitive Set 1-20

Total Convention Hotel Rooms

.896

44

12

Total Hotel Rooms

.584

45

13

Total Public CC Exhibit SF

.555

92

18

Largest CC Exhibit SF

.453

82

17

Restaurants

.345

59

16

Quality of Restaurants

.272

35

9

Average Daily Rate

.258

86

8

Hotel Quality Rating

.227

44

13

Air Lift

.215

58

13

Per Diem Lodging

.199

37

2

Classical Music

.183

59

10

Diversity

.169

57

14

Transport Index

.158

48

11

Golf Courses

.155

51

9

Property Crime

.149

56

4

Climate

.138

70

13

Theatre

.133

64

10

Professional Sports

.064

36

8

Highways

.061

23

6

Violent Crime

.037

72

5

Average Rank

 

56

11

Adjusted Weighted Rank

 

52