Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-06-05 Finance Com MinutesDUBLIN CITY COUNCIL Finance Committee of the Whole Monday, June 6, 2005 Minutes of Meeting Mr. Keenan, Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Council members present were Mr. Keenan, Mrs. Boring, Mr. Lecklider and Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher. Mr. McCash joined the meeting later. Staff members present were: Ms. Brautigam, Ms. Grigsby and Ms. Ott. DCVB representatives were Scott Dring, Executive Director; Craig Baldridge, Board President; and Clay Rose, Board Member. Mr. Keenan stated that the Committee met on March 14, and his matter was deferred. Much discussion took place regarding the funding request from the DCVB. A motion was approved to recommend to Council that the City agree to continue providing a grant in excess of the 25 percent of the hotellmotel revenues, in an amount to be determined after the Bureau completed lease negotiations with their landlord. This motion was subsequently approved by City Council. To date, the Bureau has worked on identifying options to meet their space needs and they are now reporting back to the Committee on their progress. Scott Drinq, DCVB Executive Director provided a handout to Council containing a PowerPoint presentation. The DCVB is a 501 c (6} organization and their mission is to put "heads in beds." Their five-year lease of the building at 9 S. High Street in Historic Dublin expires on October 30, 2005 and they are required to notify the landlord regarding renewal or cancellation of the lease by June 30, 2005. The City grant of $80,000 per year for five years expires on October 30, 2005. There are two components of the Bureau -the administrative function and the visitors function. At the present location, the second floor is devoted to administrative offices and consists of 1,850 square feet at a cost of $19.07/sq.ft., which includes CAM charges. CAM charges typically include trash removal, elevator service, etc. casts levied upon tenants by landlords. For the first floor visitor center of 1,800 square feet, the lease cast is $21.49/sq. ft. The visitors center has been an Historic Dublin anchor for five years and averages an annual draw of 5,500 visitors, 62 percent are out-of--town visitors and 38 percent are Dublin residents. The key tool to draw visitors to Historic Dublin and to Dublin in general are the I-270 information signs, northbound and southbound. There are certain requirements by ODOT to retain those signs. He noted that in follow-up to the March 14 meeting with the Committee and Council, the DCVB entered into negotiations with the landlord who is offering a four percent rent increase for the new lease. This would be a five-year lease, with an incremental increase each year and CAM charges increasing as well. The four percent is an average over the five-year lease renewal. The Board felt they needed to explore other options for lease space and retained a consultant, the Staubach Group who indicated that the Bureau should be able to locate a Class A or Class B building for the administrative offices with a Finance Committee June 6, 2005 Page 2 full service rate of $15-18 RSF -including operating expenses. They have identified 25 such available buildings in Dublin that would accommodate the needs for the Bureau's administrative offices. The Board has determined that there are three viable options for consideration: 1. Keep the administrative offices and visitor center at 9 S. High Street with the four percent rent increase. This would necessitate continued reliance on the City of Dublin for a subsidy as has been done in the past five years. 2. Relocate administrative offices and the visitor center out of Historic Dublin. 3. Construct a new visitor information center in Historic Dublin and relocate administrative offices out of the Historic District. Regarding option 3 -anew visitor information center: • It is envisioned as a stand alone facility, potentially a gazebo or hexagon style • Accessible to visitors seven days a week • Unstaffed, with Internet and phone access directly to the DCVB during office hours • A permanent fixture in Historic Dublin • Would include visitor and community wide information • Would allow retention of the I-270 visitor information signage which is important to draw visitors. The only requirement of the state is that the center be open seven days a week and that a public restroom be located nearby. • It would meet the needs of the visitors • There would be no elimination of parking • Could be combined with a park area • Upon completion of the visitor center, it would eliminate the need for lease subsidy from the City and reduce DCVB operating costs by nine percent, allowing for a greater focus of funds toward the mission of putting heads in beds • Would allow the flexibility to relocate the DCVB administrative offices He then shared with the Committee a photo of a visitor center located in Mansfield, which consists of 6 panels, an island type facility, with plenty of space for brochures. It is unstaffed, and a security system allows for automatic opening morning and night. It is 20 feet in diameter and 19 feet high, made of steel, with some electric, phone and Internet access, no restrooms, a security system with 7-day access and includes storage. The estimated project cast of this facility in Mansfield is $121,000. He next showed Council a slide depicting the city-awned land next to the current DCVB offices, which is a suitable location for such a structure. This land is City owned and is designated currently in the CIP for development of a plaza area in 2005. Another photo shows the outline of the Mansfield gazebo structure within the space, and another shows a visual of what the facility could look like in a park like setting at this location. Another photo is of the city-owned land at the northwest corner of Bridge and High and that is another option for location of a visitor center as well. There is precedent for this type of visitor center. They have been successful in other cities, such as Anchorage, Alaska. The center is unstaffed and they use volunteers in times of high traffic. It is in a park area and has been very successful far the Anchorage Finance Committee June 6, 2005 Page 3 Bureau. Another photo shows the visitor center in Seaside, Florida - it is quite small, but includes the visitor information, videos, monitors, and is heated and air conditioned. He summarized that in such a facility, the Bureau envisions they would maintain all visitor and community materials; handle custodial and internal appearance needs; and answer all questions via phone or the web site. Far the City of Dublin, the DCVB envisions the City would allocate a grant toward construction of the visitor center as well as internal start-up costs; and handle landscaping, utilities, insurance, building upkeep, etc., because it would in essence be a City building. He offered to respond to questions. Mr. Keenan invited questions from the Committee. Mrs. Boring congratulated the Bureau on looking at other options, adding that they are creative. In regard to the phone, is there a direct connection to a staff person during the day? Mr. Dring responded that a staff person would be available during regular office hours. Mrs. Boring asked if the space could comfortably accommodate a volunteer, if it were needed? Mr. Dring responded that this is envisioned as an unstaffed facility, but it could be designed to accommodate a volunteer. Mrs. Boring asked about the projected costs for those to be borne by the City, i.e., landscaping, insurance, maintenance, etc.? Mr. Dring responded that for the Mansfield facility, the landscaping was moderate, but the other construction costs amounted to about $120,000. Mrs. Boring asked about the ongoing maintenance costs. Mr. Dring responded that he cannot imagine this would be a large amount each month. Mr. Keenan added that a pocket park which is planned for this site would also require maintenance. The insurance costs for such a facility would be nominal. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked why it is being proposed that the City would pay for construction and ongoing costs for the visitors center? Mr. Dring responded that they viewed this as an alternative to continuation of a grant which would allow them to remain where they are. This would cost $121,000 and would not require future grant subsidies from the City. He does not believe it is feasible for the DCVB to fund the center which is estimated to cost $140,000. He had understood that the intent of the City Council on March 14 was that there would be some type of grantor ongoing financial support, and the Board then considered other options than requesting continuation of the existing grant of $80,000 which offsets the costs of the lease. At the current rate of rent and increases anticipated, the DCVB does not believe that there will ever be a time that they will not need some type of City financial support to stay in the facility at 9 S. High. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that she is quite surprised at the square footage cost for the rent and the anticipated increase. She agrees that this would be problematic long term for the organization. In terms of relocating administrative offices outside of Historic Finance Committee June 6, 2005 Page 4 Dublin, what is their assessment of the value of the administrative offices being in Historic Dublin versus another location. Mr. Dring responded that they believe the administrative offices can be located anywhere, although the visitors center needs to be in a high traffic, high profile area. Mr. Keenan asked him to expand on the alternatives identified far office space location. Mr. Dring stated that initially, the Staubach group tried to find a location to house bath the center and the administrative offices. There were not a lot of possibilities to house both. The 94 N. High Street has available space in two areas, but the access and parking for visitors is not the best and the space was quite expensive -around $17-19 per square foot. There were other options, including building a site, but for administrative offices there are many options far 2,500 square feet at a good cast. Currently, they are paying $19 and there is space available at $15-17. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked about volunteers anticipated for a visitors center and who would be responsible for recruiting and scheduling those volunteers. Mr. Dring responded that they have a staff member who currently oversees that function and they would likely divvy up that responsibility. The administrative staff person is now part-time, but perhaps that position would be made full-time. Currently, the visitor center manager handles phones as well, so the responsibilities for that would have to be determined as well. Mr. Keenan added that he could envision having volunteers at the center at peak times, but not routinely. Mrs. Boring stated that if they secured lower rent for the administrative office space, the monies saved could be directed toward maintenance costs for a visitors center versus having the City bear that expense. Mr. McCash asked for clarification from the Bureau -they are asking for funding for construction, but not for maintenance, correct? Mr. Dring responded that if it is constructed by the City and is a City building, they assume that the expenses would be covered by the City as is done for other City buildings - landscaping, utilities, etc. Mr. Lecklider asked of the 5,500 visitors on an annual basis, is there personal contact made -what do they receive? Mr. Dring responded that 62 percent are out of town visitors and are seeking directions, restaurants, and hotel information -things that could easily be satisfied with a kiosk, Internet or a phone call to the Bureau office. While there is a staff person currently who interacts with visitors, they would not want to reduce the level of customer service provided now with this type of center. If they need to contact someone or check the web, the phone and Internet service will allow for that within the kiosk. Mr. Lecklider stated that he would prefer personal contact with an individual versus a computer terminal routed to another location. He would want to assure that the visitor is provided with the local flavor in terms of experience at the center. There are many things to weigh in this discussion - whether to continue an annual subsidy, what benefit the Finance Committee June 6, 2005 Page 5 existing facility is to Historic Dublin and the needs of the DCVB staff. Personally, he has enjoyed the current location of the DCVB. The Bureau's research has suggested that the unmanned centers are effective. Have they been compared to the level of service that the Dublin community is known for and that which people have come to expect? Mr. Dring responded that for any business, personal service is important, but in looking at the number of 5,500 contacts per year, with 62 percent from out of town, this is not a huge number. The numbers are fairly flat and are not increasing much on an annual basis. In the big scope of things, it is important to weigh the priorities and options. Mr. Keenan stated that at the last meeting, Council charged the DCVB with working to become self sufficient versus continuation of a grant of $80,000 over the next five years. An unmanned center is likely not the first preference, but it is in keeping with the charge given to the Bureau previously. Mr. Lecklider responded that he does not intend this as criticism. The value of the center being located in Historic Dublin is the issue for him. How many internet hits does the web site receive annually? Mr. Dring responded that they average 250,000 per year. Mr. Lecklider commented that people must then be comfortable with the internet contact. Is this an effective means of interacting? Mr. Dring responded that the online reservation system for hotel booking has experienced a 5 to 10 percent increase each month, sa apparently this is an effective tool. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked the Board President to respond regarding the DCVB's interest in what they want to do as an organization. Craig Baldridge, DCVB Board President stated that they are trying to find ways to encourage more people to stay overnight at Dublin hotels. The major part of that focus will come from the administrative and sales organizations, bringing in bus tours, basketball tournaments, etc. Long term, they want to find more people to come to Dublin for meetings and events and do it by staying within the 25 percent share of hotel/motel tax revenues. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if he is saying that they can accomplish their mission and it is preferred that they accomplish it in a location with a lower cost. Mr. Baldridge responded that their desire is to reduce casts sa that they can stop asking the City far additional funding. In terms of a physical location, they don't have a preference for location of their administrative offices. Mrs. Boring stated that if Council wants the DCVB to stay in their present location, Council should say this. The DCVB has provided these options and they have indicated that they have no preference on location. Mr. Keenan stated that he is trying to clarify the question. The Bureau has provided some viable options. The next step is to determine if this land would work in terms of the concept presented. He does not know if it is possible. Can staff provide input? Finance Committee June 6, 2005 Page 6 Ms. Brautigam responded that this project would have to go through the City's processes, including the ARB. The gazebo concept is not likely to gain approval from the ARB. Because the Bureau wants the City to pay for construction, they would likely want the City to design the building and take it through the process. This is not something staff is geared up to do this year, but if Council wants to make this a priority, that can be done. From the staff point of view, the pocket park was envisioned as not having structures. This is a departure from what staff had envisioned as use for this pocket park. It is an area that staff wanted to keep as open green space. Mr. Keenan pointed out that it could accommodate both uses -pocket park and visitors center. Ms. Brautigam agreed, but added that the packet park would then be much smaller than what was envisioned. Mr. Keenan asked if there are other alternative locations in Historic Dublin. Ms. Brautigam responded that the City does have the right under the current lease with the Chamber of Commerce to use 25 percent of the City-owned Chamber building for City purposes. However, the Chamber would likely not welcome that, as they already feel cramped in that building. Mrs. Boring stated that she likes the concept of the visitor center, and a miniature house- like structure on that site would be attractive. The pocket park is not yet developed and the plan could be finished out with a visitor center. Ms. Brautigam responded that the pocket park is slated for design this summer and staff had started working on that until the Bureau approached the City on this concept. Another corollary is that $121,000 would not likely fund a building which could be approved by the ARB in the historical district. It would have to be "Dublinized" and would cast mare. Mr. Lecklider stated that Council has heard from the public about the preservation of greenspace across the street. In fact, he was surprised with the outcry about that parcel's development. If the parcel an the northwest corner is later developed, is that a location suitable for a visitors center? Obviously, that cannot happen in the near future, but maybe there is another interim solution far location of a visitors center. Mr. Keenan stated that all of these options are on the table. Maybe ashort-term solution is needed for 6-12 months. It is not clear at this time what will happen with the northwest corner. Ms. Brautigam stated that staff would be recommending to Council tonight that they direct staff to prepare an RFP for the development community as a whole so that many would have the opportunity to submit proposals. Perhaps the RFP could have as one of the criteria incorporation of a visitors center. Mr. Lecklider asked if the current lease has an option for extension on a short-term basis. Mr. Dring responded that they asked the landlord to propose his best deal and he responded with afive-year renewal. He would assume aone-year renewal would include an increase in the rent. Finance Committee June 6, 2005 Page 7 Mr. Keenan stated that most leases include a holdover provision, which would generally offer a holdover for a period of time at a certain premium. Perhaps that could be proposed to the landlord. Mr. Dring responded that this lease does not have such a provision. Mr. Baldridge commented that there was a premium, but he does not recall the details. Mr. Keenan stated that the lease does not expire far six months, so there is same time. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher pointed out that they are required under the lease to notify the landlord of their intentions by June 30, 2005. Mrs. Boring asked what the next step would be, assuming Council likes the idea of a separate visitors center but does not want to specify the location. Could staff work with the Bureau to identify and recommend a location? Mr. Keenan responded that this is reasonable. There are only a couple of sites which are viable, if the desire is to keep the visitors center in that general location of the community. Mr. McCash agreed - it makes sense to have the visitor center in this location, next to parking, restaurants, etc. It makes a nice gathering spot. But in terms of the City doing the design and taking it through the process, it will take a year plus. If the City would fund it, the DCVB could coordinate the design part, with the understanding that the City would ensure this would be on the ARB and P&Z agendas. Ms. Brautigam responded that staff would support that option, but the staff does not control the ARB or P&Z and the project will have to meet the ARB regulations, regardless of who designs it. Mr. McCash stated that he doesn't believe that would be a problem, as they would retain a design professional for this work. Mr. Lecklider commented that it is his opinion that it will not be easy to secure approval for a gazebo-type structure for this pocket park. ARB will likely want to see something internal to another structure, such as what might be constructed on the parcel at the northwest corner of Bridge and High. This is just the first hurdle, and to place agazebo-type structure on this parcel would likely meet some resistance. Mr. Keenan stated that the structure could be a scaled down replica of an existing house in Historic Dublin. Mr. McCash stated that it could be a scaled dawn version of something like the Dublin lamp shop. Mr. Lecklider asked if this could be done for the $121,000 figure suggested by the DCVB. Mr. Keenan stated that the City has spent $400,000 during the past five years for this rent and has nothing to show for that. This option should definitely be considered. Mr. McCash asked for clarification of the $121,000 and what it included. Mr. Dring responded that it covered the gazebo and parking lot for the Mansfield visitors center. Mr. Keenan suggested that the Finance Committee make a recommendation to Council at this time to explore this concept further. Finance Committee June 6, 2005 Page 8 Mr. Lecklider concurred. He cautioned that the cost of such a structure in Dublin's Historic District could be much greater than the $121,000 first discussed. Mr. McCash stated that it would definitely not cost $121,000 as it would have to fit in with the character of Historic Dublin. Mrs. Boring moved to direct staff to work with the DCVB to move forward with the design concept to locate a visitors center at the proposed location, and that Mr. Dring will report back to Council with an analysis of the savings anticipated, with a goal of leading to self sufficiency of the DCVB within the 25 percent hotel/motel tax revenue distribution from the City. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Baring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Mr. Keenan asked about the timeframe. Ms. Brautigam responded that the real work would need to be done by the DCVB to secure an architect. The City will obviously cooperate with them. Mr. Keenan asked that staff provide a progress report in August. The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m. Clerk of Council