Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/07/2005, C8 - CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL OF THE CITY'S PARTICIPATION AS A HOST CITY FOR THE ""TOUR OF CALIFORNIA""" - council MftgD j aGEnba Repom CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: Wendy George, ACAO Prepared By: Betsy Kiser, Principal Administrative Analyst SUBJECT: CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL OF THE CITY'S PARTICIPATION AS A HOST CITY FOR THE "TOUR OF CALIFORNIA" CAO RECONUAENDATION Conceptually approve the City's participation as a Host City for a new professional cycling event called the "Tour of California" to be held in February 2006. DISCUSSION On May 19, 2005, Mayor Dave Romero, Dave Garth and Lindsay Miller from the Chamber of Commerce, and City staff from Administration, Public Works and Parks and Recreation met with representatives from Medalist Sports to discuss the possibility of the City serving as a Host City for a new special event called the "Tour of California" (TOC). Due to the nature and complexity of the event, and the commitment of City resources should we agree to be a Host City, City Council approval is necessary before proceeding further with planning efforts. Tour of California—Event Details The Tour of California is a new world-class "Tour de France-style" professional cycling event proposed to take place in the state of California from February 19 - 26, 2006 (petitioned, pending final approval). It is an 8-day stage race, with rolling festival stops and starts in cities along the route. While the exact course of the tour has yet to be determined, preliminary plans have the event originating in San Francisco, traversing the Coast Highway and ending in Los Angeles. The event coordinators would like to finish one leg of the race and start another in the City of San Luis Obispo. The event organizers are still working out many of the details of the TOC, but during the meeting with staff, were able to provide some of the particulars. Obiective of the Tour of California The objective of the TOC is to provide a world-class sporting event that brings value to all involved partners, that has a positive impact to host communities and is based on a financially sound business model. Corporate, Government and Organizational Buy-in Prior to the meeting with City and Chamber officials, the following corporate, government and organization commitments had been secured: 1. The event is being coordinated by Medalist Sports, an event planning firm from Atlanta, Georgia, specializing in planning, promotion and management of multi-day, multi- jurisdiction sports and special events. Their history includes management of the Tour Y Conceptual Auaroval of Tour of CA Page 2 DuPont, Goodwill Games/Tumer Sports, Tour de Georgia and Bristol-Myers Squibb Tour of Hope, to name a few. 2. The event is being sponsored by Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG), one of the leading sports and entertainment presenters in the world. (See Attachment 1 for additional information on AEG). AEG has agreed to a 5-year sponsorship of the event at $7 million year. 3. The event has been sanctioned by Governor Schwarzenegger, with approvals from the California Highway Patrol and Caltrans. 4. ESPN2 has agreed to a national network TV package with 1-hour nightly coverage during the course of the event. 5. The event has been sanctioned by the USA Cycling and the UCI (International Cycling Union). Additional Race Information General 1. The event is an invitation only race. 2. Sixteen of the best professional teams (8 members/team = 128 riders) from 20+ countries will participate. 3. The event will provide the largest prize purse on the U.S. cycling calendar ($150,000) using an accumulation of time over 8 consecutive days of racing format. 4. The event will be "point-to-point" with rolling road closures. The organizers will provide all their own equipment (barricades, lighting, public address system, etc.) for their festival events. 5. An entourage of 450 individuals, plus staff, and over 1-50 cars and trucks will accompany the event. 4,000+ volunteers will assist with the event over the 8 days of cycling. City of San Luis.Obispo as a Host City Details of the TOC are still evolving and will continue to do so over the next eight months. Upon first review, it is proposed that the race will finish in the City on Thursday, February 23 and start again the next morning, February 24. Since the cyclists ride approximately 6 hours/day, the finish would occur mid-aftemoon (3:00-4:00 p.m.) Should the City become a Host City for the TOC, we would be responsible for the following costs or areas of support: 1. City services: Police, Public Works and Parks and Recreation staff, 300 volunteers, street sweeper, trash collection services. 2. Road closures in the immediate area of the finish and start location (one-block area) for approximately 12 hours for the finish line and 8 hours for the start line. Road closure equipment (cones, barriers, etc.).. 3. Overnight secure location (if appropriate) for team vehicles, equipment, etc. 4. Waiving of permit fees. 5. Possible use of City-owned auxiliary space, if in close proximity to finish line (i.e. location for press conference, race office). 6. Assistance with local/city relationships in terms of other TOC requirements (i.e. portable toilets, hotels, catering, etc.). 7. Costs associated with creating other events to support the TOC (optional). c� -a ConceptualApprovalof Tour of CA Page 3 Benefts to the City 1. Positive economic impact. The TOC will require 400 hotel rooms for the night of February 23`d with accompanying use of restaurants and stores. This is consistent with our on-going goal of increasing destination tourism in the off season and our Major City Goal of increasing sales tax and transient occupancy tax (TOT). Additionally, last year our hotels and motels experienced a decrease in business due to Mardi Gras, and the timing of this event is such that it would likely prevent that from happening this year. (See Attachment 2 -Impact Analysis of the 2004 Tour de Georgia) 2. Community goodwill. 3. Media exposure (i.e. ESPN2 broadcast, on-site media). 4. An event that promotes a healthy lifestyle and call to action. 5. An event that is free to the public. 6. Draw for travel and tourism promotions (bringing visitors to San Luis Obispo). Challenges to the City Because this is a new event for the City, it is difficult to predict exactly what the costs to the City will be, and that can be a concern during these difficult financial times. However, it is similar to the Olympic Torch Run that occurred in San Luis Obispo several years ago, and we were able to absorb those costs within our existing resources. Staff from the most impacted departments have reviewed the organizational requests and believe that the effect on City resources will not be significant, and that the benefits will outweigh the work effort and financial commitment involved. In discussions with the Police Department about the logistics of the TOC, the major concern was with the proposed date of the event. Under normal circumstances, an event of this sort would have a moderate but manageable impact on department resources. But the event is proposed for Thursday afternoon, February 23 and Friday morning, February 24, the beginning of Mardi Gras weekend. The demands of Mardi Gras weekend on Police Department staffing are extreme and the department is concerned about the availability of staff resources, overtime costs and the logistics of coordinating resources for both events. These challenges would be greatly exacerbated and virtually unmanageable should the Mardi Gras parade return to the community. However, the Police Department recognizes the long-term value of such an event to our community, and supports it conceptually. The concerns are not with the event itself, but with the timing coinciding with Mardi Gras weekend in 2006. Next Steps If the Council conceptually approves the City's participation as a Host City for the TOC, the next steps include: 1) further discussion with Medalist Sports; 2) evaluation of the final course options; 3) notification of final selection and role to be played; 4) receipt of the 2006 Local Organizing Committee (LOC) Planning Manual and Requirements (see Attachment 3 for LOC make-up; 5) development of a formal contract with the City; and 6) organizing the LOC planning workshops and symposium. C� - 3 Conceptual.Approval of.Tour of CA Page 4 CONCURRENCES The Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce participated in the initial meeting with event coordinators and enthusiastically supported the concept of the City as Host City and will be taking the event to their Board of Directors in mid-June for action. The Parks.and Recreation and Public Works Departments are supportive and feel they can support the event within existing resources. The Police Department supports the event conceptually, but expressed the concerns identified above. FISCAL IMPACT The fiscal impact is unknown at this time. In 2002, the City served as Host City for the Olympic Torch Run, an event that was managed very similarly to the TOC. All costs associated with that event were absorbed within existing resources. There may be overtime costs associated with Police resources. The City stands to benefit economically from the transient occupancy tax and sales tax collected during the two day event. (See Attachment 2.) ALTERNATIVES The Council could choose not to approve the City's participation as a.Host City. In that case, the event managers have indicated they will seek out another city on the central coast to serve as Host City. The City would not benefit from the media attention, potential positive economic impacts, community.goodwill, and tourism associated with the TOC. ATTACHMENTS 1. AEG Information 2. Impact analysis of the 2004 Tour de Georgia 3. Proposed make-up of the Local Organizing Committe G:\Kiser\CAR—Conceptual Approval of Tour of CA 52605 v2 ATTAENT 1 Ln o= Y� N cu CL o c � c — Q L -N " _j cu cm o� _ N c o .o W c �� 0-0 CD C 'o , .c 0Uo or- —_ o c _ c L (nJ ��^oJ N o�c c�U� 0a cc E c �CL ca -OMLL � ac w L Q o `.M _ o JNcnCQE 'v� ai f- •c CL 4_0Ucn � Zoc� NZ � 0)> � = � rnccr� ay--�CU E C � `-(D c �-a V Ys >Ad V 5 �U U,Uw - cC � C (D' N 4_0 � CD w E( cu D 'E � � ® N NV.-• C CU C;) CNC � ocu U � ccco viEcv >+ c � . N QW C2a c L CU o c � 0 U)U) ()< � � cn L,5 c JF� •roCL vc W o �Q 0 a) >,c �J — ao , � ._ i � — cu cnwWD C 0 CU cu 'ao- acic � (Do-Dm � N °)'- 0 3EU 'c ca (DA3: CU CD 0 o CU cn c> 0JxaioQ v)�� = c c= Q c . o c '�W �Q cu o �Z CDJc N -c0La? coca(D `nE � cu Z CU CD cn ch (D cu 0 0 I . OC cn NEL coL- �� � � O0 c� OLC 0CCU p) ' CCU C 0 CU E...► W Wcoc� 0ccvoo_ WWF z ¢ Q c�L 05 E Ecn QQU V O O • • o , pTANK2 Georgia ;I Cggnown5g Tech BswGD(qPgm GM e Impact Analysis of the 2004 Tour de Georgia Prepared for: Georgia Department of Economic Development Tourism Division. Prepared by: B. William Riall, Ph.D.- Robert Lann Ann O'Neill. -----ResearctTSerrices Economic Development Institute Georgia Institute of Technology May 2004 Copyright©2002 Georgia Tech Research Corporation Centennial Research Building Atlanta, Georgia 30332 cg-l� Impact Analysis of the 2004 Tour de Georgia Introduction The Tour de Georgia brought considerable resources into the state's economy in addition to the national publicity and the introduction of Georgia to many who probably knew very little about our state. The race covered many counties in its 653-mile route, (Primarily in the northern half of the state),with start and finish events in 10 separate communities, and sprints and"king of the mountain" (KOM)time trials at.20 additional sites. This analysis is organized similarly in that it estimates impacts for 1) start and finish sites; 2) sprint sites; 3)KOM sites;and 4)along the route. Following the impact analysis is an appendix summarizing the results of the surveys performed. Unfortunately,resources were inadequate to comprehensively assess the visitorship at each of these locations. Consequently,the results are divided into two categories. The first(Documented Impacts)uses visitor intercept data on separate days and five venues as the basis for estimates. The second(Speculative Impacts) applies the spending patterns from the five sites surveyed to crowd estimates supplied by local law enforcement and other local officials (for city venues, including starts, finishes, and sprints)and the Georgia State Patrol for crowds along the course and at the KOM's. The crowd estimates relating to the non-surveyed sites implicitly assume that there is no duplication of visitor counts. This is probably a reasonable assumption when applying spending patterns to distinct sites on different days (such as the start and finish sites at non-surveyed locales), but may not be reasonable when assuming,for example, that the 10,000 visitors at the Macon start are completely distinct-from the 15,000 visitors at the Macon finish and the 41,500 visitors estimated along the 83 miles of course in Macon. Also, it may be reasonable to assume the composition and spending patterns of visitors at non-surveyed start and finish sites are similar to those at sites surveyed,but may not be reasonable when applied to other visitors, such as those estimated along the route. The critical differences in these visitor populations would include, for example,the proportion who are overnight visitors versus those who are day-trippers; the proportion who are from the county versus from outside the county, and how many are from outside the state. C� � �1 CAWOUR -- An-additional-complication-is-that-though-the-surveyed-spending-levels-appear-- reasonable, there is no information(beyond where the survey was taken)about where this spending took place. There was no alternative but to use the sales and hotel tax rates of the survey site as the basis for estimating local revenues, even though the spending was spread over a wider area. This is probably not important for the total sales tax estimates, as there is great consistency in that rate across various locales. When the sales taxes are allocated to specific jurisdictions, however, (to cities, for example), the use of the distribution percentages at the survey site becomes less defensible and the results more uncertain. The hotel tax rates also differ significantly across geography leading to considerable uncertainty in their estimation as well. Results Documented Impacts.. The first results presented are from those five sites at which visitor intercept surveys were able to document the composition and spending patterns of the visitors. These five sites were Dahlonega, Alpharetta, Macon,Dalton, and Brasstown Bald. Each of these sites (except Macon)was either start or finish sites. Macon was both a start and a finish site and because there was no information that enabled researchers to distinguish whether there was duplication between the crowd estimates at the start and finish,respectively, only the higher crowd estimate at the finish (15,000)was considered"documented". Table 1 contains a summary of the results obtained at each of the five sites. Total expenditures by visitors include all those on which sales taxes apply. They include spending for lodging,restaurants,miscellaneous retail, and local transportation,which is composed primarily of vehicle rentals. The total sales tax receipts is allocated to the county and primary city governments (where"primary"is defined by where the start or finish was held),and other city governments within the county. These allocations were made based on the formulae used by the Georgia Department of Revenue to return sales taxes collected within the counties. The spending,though presented as occurring at specific sites,would be better interpreted as spending occurring from the visitors at those sites,which is probably mostly spread over the region surrounding the site. Allocations to the specific governments (county,primary city, and other cities)therefore overstate the C� � b impact-by. the-proportion-of.spending-occurring-in-the-regi on-but-outside-the-specific survey location. Table 2 contains the estimates of the state impact associated with the documented visitor profiles. These impacts are limited to those visitors from out-of-state, which assumes that any in-state visitors would have spent their money somewhere else in Georgia had the Tour de Georgia not occurred. This is a conservative assumption. The results in Table 2 show the economic output, employee compensation(wages plus benefits) and employment associated with the economic activity. The total impacts include the visitor spending and the multiplier effect resulting from the recirculation of the visitor expenditures within the Georgia economy. It is difficult to interpret the employment data,however,because the direct impacts are transitory. The Implan model used to estimate the multiplier effects defines employment as composed of both full-and part-time positions,but provides no insight into the split. The jobs produced by the visitor spending are undoubtedly composed primarily of part-year jobs, and probably reflect a high proportion of temporary and overtime employment of existing firms. The actual number of people receiving wages indirectly from the visitor expenditures is probably higher than stated herein,but have a short duration. Table 2 also contains estimates of the sales and individual income taxes accruing to the state treasury based on the economic impacts of the event. Sneculafive Impacts. The fust table(Table 3) in this section provides the impact estimates that have the greatest credibility. They are based on applying observations from specific sites to other similar sites. For example,the sites were divided into"urban' and"rural', (and the appropriate spending profiles and visitor composition were applied to them), and they are all either start or finish sites. All the caveats expressed in the preceding regarding the estimations of impacts at the start and finish sites also apply here, with the added uncertainty of not having actual observations of visitor composition and spending characteristics. Table 4 extends the visitor characteristics seen at the five surveyed start/finish sites to the sites where the sprints were held. The crowd estimates, based on assuming AWMEW 2 ---6,000-visitors-at each-site,—are provided-by-local-law-enforcement-and other-local-officials— and were not independently verified by EDI. Table 5 displays the results of the impact analysis of the KOM sites. The crowd estimates,based on assuming 9,000 visitors at each site, are provided by the Georgia State Patrol and were not independently verified by EDI. Table 6 provides the estimate of impacts from the visitors spread along the course. Mileage data for two jurisdictions enabled impacts to be developed separately for each. The impacts for the remainder of the course could not be allocated to specific jurisdictions from available data. Table 7 provides the state-level impacts that include both the documented and speculative impacts. AFACHMENT 2 IA m M r` O) w O CO CO i V O O r Cn C6d 11* . L w � 63 Eli ffl E/9 69 y or-- U-) � Q V w N , CA D d m R � E c ma En � EnE» � Cf) o � rnO V N O M N 07N co O co r t• N CC) r = 2 z N O O N CO O a�l (0 r O c Cn (3i in r` CO CD 00 CA O U) n M 7 O I, C6 Co U) r N O CD CD 00 V ~ Lo Cn' V fA fA ffl EA fA U ) E» to (a N O coOco co COO (m 00 CAp O N .O+ N. ti V. O f` O. w N 0 O) i7 O N co a0 '6 M CSO W r .O �I n Lo vco O) 0 co C0 L fA Efl C!LO Cfl Cfl C fA to Efl EA 0) N (DCD O CD E N e- N r.—cn LO M CO N G a N O FI C6 CNM Y O N ca c = T E ~ LL V) to 49 EH to ~ O � w A M CO f` O c0 _ m CO N r CO a) V O O d t+ C O O) O) C!0 O A r Off) O COO cocO O. {4 d 0 y w o mc� rn � y E d rYn « Mn EnE» � � —>, £ x R V 'O N v O •, � 3 13 Q- ® coo NCDLoN aU E x � rorP, c•) `-' m E m O LU rl O O) N N Cp 'E T T N L r CW) ,CD LO CO C '& 'a Y V E6% CH 69 V3! 6% W W W U )V 3 _ V O L 0 m c m w U m 0 C orz O CL N L 0 IL am` o L C Y a)CL O v LL � m �� - l MACHM y N �-- O CO O m r O N N O m r M 00 0) O OD a O r. 00 OD 1,. CD CV) O N co O m O O a V r 00 r N V r r CD r L t�+ 0 Vq v) 69 69 V). to 69 EA E9 Lo M M N r w V O m r M O r M O N. O N r 00 M M to Q V 0 O U _ M Q V r w � m 00 7 O O a 07 m O 01 nj r r C m R r N LO r T-: d lti c E m _ V tits MVA 69 9tAEA69lf3 c pts6» 6» E» t» t» tAtfltfl C C F. y O M r M I` O y t0 m M O M O m N O. V d O ti s m m O. m w y C M N O m M V N •O C r_ (�. 1� O N O N Y 0) N 3dcli0A � CD00m C fn 3VMOqL6 � � ' 0 O r r O Nr N O O r r r r r r r r r V V 6960 69 69 to 69 6f! 4) 69 6A 613- 613- to to 69 69 69 ry Lmmfl- mcoml- = 0) mmm0) 0) mm0) M O M M m 1,. O U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N W M N N 00 O CO O •• -ii N N. N N N N. N N CN Y m tD M O r. r O •O Y CD CD co w wcD tD tD O O r r O r N N M m O r r r r r r r r H N OT F- d V� 69 69 69 69 69 ffl Efl 69 6+9 E9 E9 V> 69 E9 69 3 P.- CD N r M CD 0V co to M L 1- r CO a O � 0) 'Q C i � O O O CD LO LO � r r r Z C ICaI O N M N Z AI Ld In to 00 tp 00 OD v t0= = r l0 y = ~ E d9 Efl 69). 61-iEA6410, ~ 69 69 69 69 6e3 69 to to cA N V l) co O LC M r c') C CD to to tD CD (D CO t0 co C C m O N M cq c% C- M M M M M M M co M O CO r C O 00 r Q C O O Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln M N r O N M N r r r r r r r r r N N M ti � r.- p- F 1• r- t` t• -_,--— U) .61 29 613. 69. 603. 64 to 69 fR 7 J V •' 69 ffl 69 69 E9 G9 69 69 69 (9 U) O Q CY7O. W CO f� r 1. N oD E d O CO CD CD CD CD CD CD CO m x V m O M N CD W Q tD O CD CO O CD CO CO O O• W is r Cf' r M N CO d x m m m m m m m m o . Y CO O N r y W l0 r r a rk r r r r r F (O CdCo m t` HI Cn L�. r E9 69 69 69 69 60 EA tl ca d EF3 d9 t$3. 69 69 69 69 69 69 CL v N c Q C� O y N C > y N C L . y coO CO o f sq. t°n C1 m r 3 ca U U t Q $ to ami v m W E � c m c 0 ~ � � d = V t U � C� V g U CD a a� — c ai c c t o y m 3 a 10) '3 Y m y ? c IS � U LL U D m o o m = L o � " ' Ioj- - ATTACHMENT 2 m c n n n n O CO r) 07 m N N fN0 cNo N O O O w V = m V N'. N V r V cl m d t 0110; 69 to 69 64 d9 fJ9 60, V) 640 EA 6A N9 U) aV c QC1CO 0 V C d O M m 6f) 69 69 69 64 (fl 6A 64 69 E C dd 64). u9 69. Q y co N N N N NN cn cn y ~ N O N N N N N N N N N V N .pcsi TZ C6 rl. N N y V fR 69 fig E9 E9 E9 N9 b9 69. y. V Efl Ef) m co co co co co 0 0 co co m CO V co O co co co co co co co O O "t CV) co co M M N). M Cl) M It .• w sf V a V a .d' N63/� y T O O ® O N N N N N N N N N -7 p pOj N N m H 0 F -n l{J fs 69) EA 6A 6c3 69 69 6H z 69 6fl 69 ' rn V) LO a V) m (mI � d N mmmm co n cn c m K n co co co co n n co, t0 O CDS LO 04 z O HI n n n lx6 C 1 S = Irl 6A 6A 6A 69 (9 fA 69 6n 6). ~ O) N c 69 64 69. a ad avaO O c+) vm o c O o 0 0 cc+) cr) mc� cococy) mm Q Y — nconn � LLon � occoocMn Lo. cnOOOOOOcn c � muio 4 NN CV N N N 'N N N N 00 O -- « J— --- – _y m p O-N-W -- - V r 69 69 fH 69- 69 69- 69 6031 6t9 > 7 ..! w $ C r+ ffl ffl EH O. c momommomm G O IL_ m m W m 0) Q0I. 0) 0) '�- d ^ O d RI N' N N N_ N N N N N x N W H O OD O O O O CU c0� 00 W WCL rl M C W '. O 7 F7 O O N m 6R 6f) 69 69 6A 69 69 f9 fA _ M N CL 7 b9 fA 69 N = a CL a0. coo q CC 0 V 'o '`m (D >` ,fin m 0 3 a V o m m e m P c a) in C y N co m o o r Z o _ o y E a " = m` m o c C c ` O 5 O .2c - t C. O C h o = V � D D D Z S F D V m LL Cg - 13 ATTACHMENT2 0 0 0 coo 0 0 c' op � rn l0 O N N" N CL r O r M co F p to t0. co CO H O CO CV' m C-- N :. 64 69 v3 v> O O in Cn m a. co 00 � W CL t)I i -Cn V O v coO R D W Cn N c m A v> vl� v3 bs � N m ti C 3 m d C > H V 41 O � D •. O 7 d T. C y >CL O E x (A CC 7 v Q V C ~ O C 0 0 m N. O O O N C w c a aw 0 p R �o N W W W N N C� I � ATTACHMEW -- -- -Appendix-!----- Tour Appendix: -Tour de Georgia Summary of Survey Findings Because the primary goal of the study was to determine the economic impact of the race on each community and the state as a whole, potential respondents who didn't represent impact attributable to the event were eliminated from the interviewing process. Criteria for elimination included: • Those who were attending the Tour de Georgia in their home county • Those who stated they would have made the trip anyway, even if the Tour de Georgia were not being held • Those who did not intend to view the race or participate in any of the surrounding events: Primary purpose of.trip: See the race 84.7°/ Business 40% Combined business/pleasure 2.2% Visit friends/relatives 2.1% Vacation/leisure 2.1% Visit Healthy GA.Expo 1.0% How did they hear about the Tour de Georgia? Cycling publication article 30.1% Word of mouth 28.2% Newspaper article 25.7% Website article 22.2% TV program 20.0% Website advertisement 13.2% TV advertisement 8.8% Newspaper advertisement 8.5% Radio program 8.2% Other magazine article 6.2% Magazine advertisement 5.5% Other sponsor promo 4.7% Radio advertisement 4.7% Other 14:4% Intention to Experience Race Events Experienced/ Did not experience/not intend to experience intend to experience 'Tour de GA Race 90% 10% Festival events 78% 22% Dodge exhibits 53% 47% Healthy GA Expo 55% 45% J Ai CHR =-------- ----Reason-Attracted-to-Healthy-GA-Expo--------- --- — -=-- Wanted healthy lifestyle info 59.4% Wanted cancer Info for self 15.1% Wanted cancer info for family/friends 16.5% Cancer survivor 6.5% Other 30.2% Would return to this event next time Agree/strongly agree 93.0% Neutral 5.3% Disagree/strongly disagree 1.7% "I like that an automobile manufacturer cares to do more than sell cars" Agree/strongly agree 81.5% Neutral 13.6% Disagree/strongly disagree 4,9% "Having visited Tour de Georgia, my opinion of Dodge has changed for the better." Agree/strongly agree 59.0% Neutral 32.0% Disagree/strongly disagree 8.9% "As a result of what I've seen today, I am more likely-to consider a Dodge for my next purchase" Agree/strongly agree 41.9% Neutral 31.4% Disagree/strongly disagree 26.7% When they plan to acquire their next new vehicle 1 month or less 2.8%. 2-3 months 2.8% 4-6 months 5.4% 7-12 months 11.8% Morethan12 months 45.2% Will not buy new 14.6% Don't know/refused 17.4% Cg " t �1 I�1�11M 6 -- Origin-of-Respondents-- -- ----- - - --- Local County resident 32% Other Georgia resident 37% Out of state resident 31% Visitor Origin(excludes local county residents) Northeast(CT,ME, MA, NH,NJ, NY, PA) 3.1% North Central(IL, IN,MI, OH, IA, MO,NB,ND) 5.4% South (DE, DC,FL, GA, MD, NC, SC,VA, WV,AL, KY, MS,TN, LA, OK, TX) 89.6% FL 7.1% GA 54.3% NC 6.9% SC 4.0% AL 4:0% TN 8.1% West(CO,NV,UT, CA, OR) 1.9% Average Travel P Size Adults 2.11 Children .38 Day trip versus Overnight Daytrippers 2% Overnight stay 57.8 6 Average Days Spent Attending Tour de GA Events includes day trippe 2.29 Average Nights Spent At Specific Race Site 92 Average Nights_Spent Elsewhere in GA 1.18 C�- 1 � ATROW2 Expenditures-(per-adult-per--dayl - - - -- Restaurants $26.66 Lodging $30.27 Transportation $16.76 Retail $21.19 Recreation/Entertainment $7.06 Age of Respondent <18 . 0.2% 18 to 24 8.0% 25 to 34 21.8% 35 to 4.4 X07b 45 to 54 55 to 6.4 12.4% 65+ 4.0% Mean 42.4 Household Income <$15,000 2..8% $15,000- $24,999 2.1% $25,000-$34,999 5.7% $35,000- $49,999 9.7% $50,000- $74,999 $75,000-$100,000 .24% More than$100,000 Refused 11:4% -- - - Mean - ---- $761 100--------- - -- - - Gender of Respondent Male 65.3% Female 34.7% V � •L o cu w O N . cn c Q C �+ CU 0 CL 0 .V a) c E a) a) =3 in i N �C z cc o a) CL �cu CU a) 0 0 moo C) F- Opi, cn � � > � Z ppE ONr San Luis Obispo County Bicycle Coalition ON PO Box 14860 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93406-4860 Adam Fukushima, Executive Director RECEIVED Phone: 805-541-3875 Email: adamf@slobiketane.org JUN O 7 2131353 June 6, 2005 §Lo CITY CLERK San Luis Obispo City Council 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Members of Council: I would like to address item C 8 on the consent agenda for the city council meeting on Tuesday, June 7,2005. The Bicycle Coalition encourages the city's participation as a possible host city in the Tour of California to be held in February of 2006. We believe that the event will have a positive economic impact on the city through hotel occupancy and the accompanying patronage of restaurants and stores. With the media coverage, attractive prize purse, and route, the event has all of the early signs of being as successful as the two-year old Tour de Georgia, which generated $70 million for Georgia last year alone. The Tour of California would also have residual and long-term benefits to the city. With the media coverage of our beautiful area, the city will raise its profile as an ecotourism and bicycling destination. Best regards, Adam Fukushima,Executive Director San Luis Obispo County Bicycle Coalition RED FILE MEETING AGENDA DATE7� ITEM # COUNCIL _,�cCDD DIR fCAO �,2!=1N DIR 2 ACAO EIRE CHIEF TTORNEY :?�'DW DIR LERK/ORIG ��DOLICE CHF I ❑ DPT HEADS SEC DIR ;,-e^UTIL DIR NR DIR