Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVPCMinutes_2011_06_201 Promotions Committee Meeting Minutes – June 20, 2011 City Hall Present: Lynn Darnall, Victoria Blatchford, Rob Peterson, Amy Einspahr, Jerry Miller, Leah Brink, Zeno Wicks III, Anthony Sutton, Tom Jones, Tom Richter, Deb Garbers and Bridgit Burghardt. Chairperson Blatchford called the meeting to order at 12:18 p. Agenda additions: Wicks requested to give an update on Mom’s Weekend, item will be added as 6a. June 6 Minutes: Wicks motioned to approve, Jones seconded. Motion Carries. Financials: Wicks motioned to approve, Jones seconded. Discussion: Burghardt mentioned the third B tax has been going up. Motion Carries. Branding Update: Blatchford explained part of the hold-up regarding the ice cream coupon was the individual they were working with is no longer there. Garbers added we are working on the coupon and will have it done today. Blatchford mentioned at the July meeting we will have to discuss the brand contract, Koroglu is interested in continuing in the roll of brand manager. Blatchford will send out an updated timeline report. Convention Report: Burghardt reported the Men’s Division 1 & 2 State Softball Tournament has been moved to Brookings from Pierre due to flooding. Blatchford questioned what part we played in this? Burghardt explained we had worked with the local contact on previous tournaments. He called the office and we provided the requested information and got the tournament. We have a good working relationship with the local organizer. Garbers added we have a lot of positive items taking place. Wicks questioned if the positive items are getting into the paper? Blatchford mentioned Jonathan Burns with Friends of Baseball sent positive comments about Deb and Bridgit. Garbers mentioned the average for economic impact has gone up due to the increase in business. Garbers continued the incentives are working, other CVB Directors ask what we are doing. Jones questioned if everyone offers incentives? Blatchford added they do for State High School activities. Garbers explained they do, but not everyone can do what we can. It also depends on what you define as an incentive. Mom’s Weekend: Wicks reported he spoke with Provost Nichols and she is on board. He suggested having Heather Costello contact Burghardt regarding a good weekend in April. Wicks continued we need to figure out a way to have mom’s come, might need to visit with UPC about putting on a concert for the moms. Blatchford questioned what April looks like regarding events. Burghardt responded she would have to check, but traditionally Willie Mac basketball and Jackrabbit Rodeo are held in April. Third Year Funding Policy: Sutton questioned if the policy would affect anyone on campus? Questioned if the policy would apply to SDSU student funds? Blatchford responded she was thinking the policy would be overall. Peterson added Event/Quality of Life events are probably not going to be money makers, does that need to be a policy? 2 Question if we focus this towards tournaments? Blatchford mentioned she feels it’s bigger than just non-profits. Richter stated if the policy is limited to non-profits, that make sense, whenever you make a policy, there is a grey area. We want events that are attracting people. Richter continued that he feels the way it is worded is fine. Einspahr mentioned having a problem using city funds to help with fundraisers and questioned if that is an appropriate use of the funds. Blatchford questioned where do you draw the line if the event is bringing people from out of town and a fundraiser? Wicks questioned if it should be a three year model and then shift over to Garbers and Burghardt to do everything they can do to keep them happy. Wicks added fundraising is ok, but it can’t be the purpose of the application. Willie Mac will make money, but they provide more impact than we are donating to them. Accept non-profit applications but fundraising is not main goal. Blatchford mentioned fundraising is not our goal, feel it does not need to be stated in the policy. Wicks mentioned by having the option to submit a letter, it puts it back in a subjective place. Wicks added after three years the applicant better be coming in with numbers. Some events are not generating impact. Brink stated the main focus is economic impact, not profit vs. non-profit. Blatchford explained we look at historical information when they apply. Einspahr questioned if we are already doing this, why are we talking about a policy? Blatchford responded we are getting better overtime, adds framework around decisions for return on investment. Garbers mentioned this happened before with the CVB committee. Garbers continued have three years of funding, at the end of three years have a one on one review and the application gets moved into the media plan which consists of the calendar of events, facebook, newsletters, that sort of thing. Media plan value is anywhere from $100-$1,000. They receive funding for three years, the fourth year and beyond they are plugged into the media program. Jones mentioned the SDSU Rodeo, we talk about it every year and funding goes to Suttons. Wicks mentioned they are for profit. Sutton responded their goal is to make money, what is our goal? Garbers added every event is different. Einspahr mentioned we are charged by the city to do this, we are charged by the city to generate economic impact. Should we add to this end our primary goal is economic impact? Blatchford mentioned she liked Sutton suggestion. As far as return on investment, what is that number? What kind of return are we ok with? Wicks added last year generated x for return on investment, we are letting them know where we are at. Suggest not having this in the policy, but in a letter send out so they understand we have a policy. Garbers added you do not want to set a number. Blatchford questioned at what point do we make adjustments? Wicks stated after third year, shift to Garbers and Burghardt. Blatchford questioned if we put in place that after third year if CVB feels they are doing good things, they could come back for funding? Blatchford questioned if we are still talking about just non-profits? Feel it’s bigger than that. Wicks mentioned that if after the third year it shifts to Garbers and Burghardt, they need a revenue stream; they can’t take out of current transfer amount. Einspahr explained she understood that if on the fourth year, if this is something we should consider, it comes back to the committee, otherwise it gets put into the media plan. Replace the sentence about the letter with: After the third year, funding requests will be transferred to the CVB for review and the CVB will make recommendations to the Visitor Promotions Committee for potential funding alternatives. Wicks questioned if we need to add the word definitive for recommendations? Blatchford responded not sure if we need it. Einspahr suggested adding assistance after event funding in the first sentence of the first paragraph. Garbers suggested using the word support, Einspahr questioned if it should be subsidy? Garbers explained the public does not like the word subsidy. Sutton mentioned adding the word assistance in front is fine. Miller suggested taking out the word event and just calling it funding. Miller continued that he is ok with it 3 as long as we can bring the applications back. Miller questioned if we have a declining formula? Blatchford responded it depends on the return on investment. If the goal for the first year is $75 return on investment, we need to reduce the funding the second year to keep with the same return on investment. Still want to get the same return on investment, only fund at a lower level. Put it back on the organization to get return on investment. Einspahr mentioned there is a place to be vague and a place to be specific. We do not want to box ourselves in, leave it vague. We can set up a formula without putting it in the policy. Sutton stated we don’t need a policy of declining formula, have Garbers and Burghardt make recommendations. Blatchford suggested taking out the sentence regarding declining. Wicks suggested ending the 1st paragraph with based on information provided by applicant. We get caught in a trap that they ask for more than they need. Change the first paragraph to include based on calculations. Have the VPC mission, to this end, when making financial decisions events that generate the highest return on investment. Funding preference is given to those events that provide the highest return on investment. Remove the sentence about financial decisions. Burghardt will make changes to the policy and send the draft policy to the committee for review and revisions. Regarding SDSU, the purpose for those requests are to keep students in town. Sutton recommended keeping the funds different. Leadership in the groups change might have to look at a ten year average. As long as it keeps students in town and it’s good for campus, looking at the fund balance why would we say no? Einspahr mentioned the first paragraph states highest return on investment. Blatchford mentioned they won’t provide a high return as the goal is different. When reviewing SDSU applications, look at how the event will help keep students in town. Miller added SDSU student funds are exempt from this policy. Recommend adding SDSU funding requests are reviewed by different funding criteria as a separate paragraph at the end of the policy. Miller questioned if we need to send to the city attorney for review? Blatchford mentioned we set policies before that did not have to be sent to the attorney. Burghardt will send the revised policy to the city manager and ask if we need to send to the city attorney. Burghardt questioned if the policy is effective date passed or retroactive? Committee responded retroactive. Miller motioned to adjourn, Einspahr seconded. Meeting adjourned at 1:30p.