City looks to gauge interest in conference center

Some local hoteliers unaware of new concept

Monday, May 21, 2012

The conference center concept has changed yet again, after being altered several times in the past year alone.

Read additional details in our newspaper or e-Edition. Newspaper subscribers: Click on an e-Edition article and log in using your current account information at no extra charge. For e-edition help, e-mail circ@newstribune.com. Click here to purchase the full version of archived articles.

The most recent conference center proposal, detailed by Mayor Eric Struemph at a series of city town hall meetings, would feature roughly 20,000 square feet of exhibition space and roughly 10,000 square feet of additional meeting space. The mayor has proposed placing the facility next to an existing hotel and having it run through a “public-private partnership.” The concept is estimated to cost between $6 million and $8 million.

Before that concept was unveiled, the idea was to include a hotel with the conference center on whatever site the city chose, with the old Missouri State Penitentiary and the 200 block of West McCarty being the last two discussed. In 2010, Ehrhardt Hotels indicated to the city an interest to build a hotel adjacent to the proposed conference center on West McCarty Street and continued to express interest during discussion on using the MSP site.

But the latest plans involve only existing hotels, though City Administrator Nathan Nickolaus said the city cannot request proposals that deal with only existing hotels.

“Otherwise you’re limiting it only to local people,” Nickolaus said.

More like this story

JCLifer 1 year ago

PRIVATE INVESTOR only. No "public-private" partnership.

Sequoia 1 year ago

Why? If the city is going forward with this (hopefully based on some reliable data), is there a pragmatic reason it should be private only? Or is that just a philosphical preference? Public-private partnerships have a long history of effectiveness (contra those who set the terms of the debate as "public vs. private," the fact is that much of American growth is the result of public/private partnerships... see, e.g. railroads and telecommunications).

The question remains whether this is the right project for Jeff City. Maybe there is data to support it. I don't know. But there are no reasons to set arbitrary "private only" rules.

Let's do what works, according to the data. Let's not get too worried about whether a critic can call it "capitalist" or "socialist."

If there is a way to make it work, do it. If not, don't.

JCLifer 1 year ago

I'd sure like to see some data that a conference center is needed or would be used. The current conference space is pretty low usage right now, and the hotel occupancy rates are in the toilet.

20,000 square feet is pretty small- it doesn't sound big enough to do anything any more than what we already have.

My vote is that if we have to sink taxpayer's money into it, we need at least 100,000 square feet of multipurpose area, with dividers for smaller rooms. This should be used to benefit the community, not to benefit state government or local chamber members. State government will continue to use webinars for many of their meetings, or they like to get out of town to have a little variety and fun at the Lake Ozark, Branson, Springfield, or other places that have some things to do.

The space needs to be large enough for concerts and performers, such as country/rock bands, indoor car shows, gun shows, etc. It needs to be nice, but not pretentious.

Sequoia 1 year ago

That's a pretty good idea. Anything that can be booked similar to a city park shelter, and able to host a decent concert has my vote.

The data I've seen shows that the market for conference centers is tight. Conference centers were kind of a fad 20 years ago, and the economic downturn means fewer out-of-town conferences. Maybe there is some data to show how an innovative, flexible design can meet specific needs in J.C.

It would be nice to see some data about the market, though... rather than who voted for what and when. I don't want urban planning by democracy.

whatif 1 year ago

I think they meant "gouge". Who is behind this convention center idea besides those in the article. There must be some driving force for it to continuely be considered over and over and over and on it goes. Do these people not get the picture? Maybe they hope we will tire of it and ignore further gauging efforts so they can move in and do as they please. WATCH OUT PEOPLE!!!! They are up to something and I'm guessing it will be like the trash debacle.

whatif 1 year ago

I put out my trash out maybe once a month, prior to this deal I could buy 10 trash bags for $14.95 which would last me at least 6+ months, now it costs me $49+ every three/four months at a cost of 147.00/196.00 per year which before it only cost me less than $50.00 a year. I'm all for recycling. Even before the city offered it I took my recycables to recycling collection centers. I have never lived anywhere that charged so much and still offered recycling. I don't know about you, but for me this is a big deal. I even compost so I do my share and then some. But its costing me triple. There were a lot of other people in the same situation.

mmhh 1 year ago

Bags were not going to be an option. It cost too much and took too much time to have workers exit their trucks and hoist bags (some upwards of 30 punds) over their bodies and into the truck.

Our cost is still incredibly low when looking at national averages.

However, I'm sure it is incredibly frustrating for you to pay so much more. Thanks for always doing your part!

JCLifer 1 year ago

The debacle is requiring home trash service to small business owners who already have a dumpster. People need to have CHOICES, one-size-fits-all rarely does.

spelchek 1 year ago

Voting to fund our trash service via sales / property taxes is debacle. Forcing us to buy our service from one provider using government as muscle to enforce your participation isn't a debacle, it's a shame.

os2hank 1 year ago

I many times are the fools going to ask this question about the SAME THING?

MO4LIFE 1 year ago

THE PUBLIC DOES NOT WANT THIS MAYOR STRUEMPH! SO QUIT TRYING TO SHOVE IT DOWN OUR THROATS HOW MANY TRANSFORMATION OR ANY OTHER WAY YOU WANT TO WORD IT THE PEOPLE DON'T WANT IT. WE WANT SIDEWALKS FOR THE KIDS! WE WANT BETTER STREETS THINGS THAT MATTER TO THE PEOPLE THAT ELECTED YOU AND A CONFERENCE CENTER IS JUST NOT IT! BUILD A REC CENTER OF SOME SORT TO GET THE KIDS OUT OF THE STREETS BUT NOT A CONFERENCE CENTER THAT NO ONE BUT GOVERNMENT BUDDIES WILL BE ABLE TO USE!!!!!

JCLifer 1 year ago

The mayor doesn't listen to the voters, that is for sure.

John 1 year ago

Not "rude," just that it is shouting. Perhaps he intended to shout. Sounds as though he is pretty frustrated and is making that point by shouting.

tonto_goldberg 1 year ago

Shouting is rude - unless you are far away or speaking to a hearing impaired person. Would a hearing impairment - not hearing what he wants to hear - be the mayor's problem?

no1knows 1 year ago

MO4LIFE-thats exactly right. a Rec center would be great for this town..there is NOTHING for kids to do here. There are plenty of places that have convention areas, like Capital Plaza. This town needs something for the community, expecially the younger groups.....it could create some jobs as well.

MO4LIFE 1 year ago

IT would also cut down on the crime because the kids would be active and not just in the streets looking for anything legal or illegal that looks like fun!

Sequoia 1 year ago

A rec center? How would that be different than extra-curicculars that a kid can do after school? You really think that kids who are likely to get into crime will choose to go do activities at a rec center instead?

I've been in little cities where kids whine about "nothing to do." But the problem is that kids don't want to do what adults want them to do. Having a bunch of grown-ups all excited about positive activities at a rec center is a pretty sure way to get kids to ignore it.

Just as I'd like to see data about a conference center, I'd like to see data from other cities that shows a rec center cuts down on crime. I'd bet dollars to donuts it doesn't. A rec center sounds like a feel-good waste of money.

3DMom 1 year ago

h t t p://w w w.crpd.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=2832

h t t p://w w w.cyc-net.org/cyc-online/cycol-0500-mendler.html

h t t p s://w w w.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/171676.PDF

Sequoia 1 year ago

3D Mom: The reports you cite say that you need a comprehensive, mult-prong approach to reduce youth crime. It doesn't say that just building a rec center reduces crime. What really matters is your programs. I didn't see anything in the data to suggest that Jeff City couldn't use existing gyms and other facilities to execute these programs.

centerguy56 1 year ago

Sequoia:

Good comments! We do need more data! We also need people with ideas not just negative comments!

spelchek 1 year ago

Great! Let's put it in your neighborhood.

MO4LIFE 1 year ago

I would love it in my neighborhood! no problem with me spelchek

spelchek 1 year ago

Thank you.

JCLifer 1 year ago

How about using the Capital Mall for a conference center? I'll bet there is over 20,000 square feet not being used there. The parking is already done.

In this economy, you cannot be asking for taxpayers to pay more. We have lots of other things in this town that badly need attention over a conference center. Taxes are plenty high- time for the City Hall to cut back and make do with what they have.

locotony 1 year ago

Fact is we have had the Hotel and lodging tax for several years and that is the money which is going to be used to finance this conference center, not the "transformation" taxes that were defeated that would have expanded and added the hotel etc the conference center. I am ok with the that considering it is not a new tax that we are paying. Problem is that it is still to small. 20,000 sq ft is the same size as the exhibition building at the fairgrounds, as that building is 100x200 and even with another 10,000 sqft of meeting space is not much larger than the expandable meeting areas used at Capital Plaza and Truman Hotels right now for conferences. if they want to continue to pursue this they need to go to a 50,000 sqft center to make any type of additional impact beyond the meeting places that are already in place.

rodinman 1 year ago

After a 2010 Citizen Survey, a vote, and four town hall meetings and the mayor and city council still don't hear the people saying "NO."

rodinman 1 year ago

No, rather that just over 42% gave this a low priority status, while 26% were neutral. Just over 29% did agree that this is a priority or a high priority item.

JCLifer 1 year ago

They want private investors to build the convention center.

Don't worry, we can vote it down again and again until we get a mayor and a council who want to do the will of the people and not the will of the Chamber rich good ol boys.

JCLifer 1 year ago

Put it to a vote! I dare you!

JCLifer 1 year ago

Good Lord! I would never be elected mayor. I don't have proper breeding.

tonto_goldberg 1 year ago

I will pay your flilng fee and help you knock on doors. You can fake the "proper breeding".

spelchek 1 year ago

"But the lodging tax to fund a conference center was already passed." -- and according to today's NT, falling short. If we could only force those pesky hotels outside of city limits to chip in out of "fairness" to fund something they have no interest in.

Or login with:

OpenID