Orchestra Pit
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
MEMORANDUM DATE: October 9, 2012 TO: City Council Members FROM: Jennifer Bruno, Deputy Director RE: Resolution prioritizing optional elements to be included in the New Performing Arts Center project PURPOSE OF THIS BRIEFING Review Administration’s proposed prioritization of optional elements for the project to inform the City’s project team going forward Consider a resolution (tentatively on Oct 23rd) formally setting the prioritized list of optional elements for the project KEY ELEMENTS A. The Administration has provided a resolution for Council consideration that sets the order of prioritization for optional elements to be included in the new Performing Arts Center project. B. The Administration has provided their recommended prioritized list based on public feedback from various public workshops, meetings with stakeholders including various arts groups (see Appendix 1 of the Administration’s transmittal), recommendations from professional staff, as well as feedback from the RDA Board of Directors and Subcommittee. The Council may wish to review this list and decide whether or not it concurs with the prioritization proposed by the Administration or if the Council would like to re-prioritize (see list below). 1. Note: The Administration is continuing to conduct public workshops and solicit feedback via traveling workshops, social media, online tools and presentations to various stakeholders. Because all public workshops have not concluded, the Administration has indicated that they will report back to the Council if feedback from future public input alters the prioritization of optional elements. 2. The Administration indicates in order to meet the project’s established schedule it would be ideal to give direction to the architects as soon as possible so that all elements can be considered early in the design phase and can be factored into the project budget. The architects are heavily involved in the public workshops, and will continue to receive feedback as well. C. The Administration has divided their list between Tiers 1 and 2, with elements in Tier 1 being elements that logistically need to be built or at least partially designed along with the building now, and elements in Tier 2 being elements that can be phased in later as funds become available (either through the project contingency budget or through outside funding sources). The Administration indicates that 1 the placement of these elements in Tier 2 is not to indicate their secondary importance, but rather to recognize that alternate funding sources and varied timing could be pursued. 1. There is currently approximately $10 million slated in the project budget for “optional elements” items. 2. Additionally, the project budget currently has about $12 million contingencies (Design, Construction, Developer, etc), about 11% of the total project budget. While these funds are often used to cover unforeseen expenses, if other savings are realized before the end of construction, they could be applied towards adding other optional elements to the project (assuming they don’t need to be designed with the project initially). 3. The project team is handling the initial planning stage as if all elements are included in the initial planning phases of the project, so all will be conceptually designed and planned in the coming months. 4. Once the scope of the project is better defined, and the cost of the included elements is more concrete, the project architects will be able to tell the City how far down the list of prioritized optional elements the current budget will get (note that the architects may be able to combine some elements into a multi-purpose space – this idea was reinforced in the public workshops as a desirable outcome). This information will be shared with the Council by the end of the year. 5. The resolution included in the transmittal specifies that if anything on the prioritization list needs to change based on new information, the Administration must come back to the Council for re-prioritization. B. The following is the Administration’s list of prioritized optional elements, along with brief statements from the Administration as to the benefits of including the element in the project, and staff notes based on feedback heard in the recent public workshops: Tier 1 Administration Comments Staff notes from public feedback 1. Black Box Community use for small arts groups This emerged as a common theme Theater Requested as high priority by local arts from the Public Meetings held by the community project team – feedback was the desire Allows for increased audience for it to be multi-functional, and development opportunities interface with Regent Street May be designed into original theater building depending on design development 2. Rehearsal Requested by local arts community Space Could also be used by touring shows Would be incorporated into original theater development 2 3. Banquet Potential revenue generator for theater, Facilities/ helping enhance theater profitability Community use for businesses and Meeting Room organizations Would need to be incorporated into basic theater design 4. Roof Terrace Could produce revenue as a rental Emerged as a common theme from space, contributing to theater Public Workshop #1 profitability Nice green space amenity we don’t have in this part of downtown Could earn LEED points for building if combined with a green roof 5. Winter Could be a nice amenity and public Themes in Public Workshop #1 were Garden space – an indoor/outdoor plaza for this space to be dynamic and a Offers a great opportunity to have a walkway between Main and Regent, true multi use space and day and night with a high level of accessibility. The activity generator public desired this space to be as Contingent upon cooperation and active and inviting as possible. probably participation with office tower developer Significant amenity to the office tower development Tier 2 (note: all cost estimates for Tier 2 items were provided in 2010, and may not reflect current plans regarding scope or options. Cost estimates are provided for general reference only) 6. Mid-Block Reinforces Downtown master plan Public liked this idea as a way to Walkway Reinforces City walkability goals connect Regent Street parking. Connects parking on Regent street to Regent Street pocket park was key ($2.5m) other arts venues in the Downtown element. Cultural Core Using winter garden as mid-block Connects potential Regent street walkway was raised as a possibility. retail/other uses to activity and public transit on Main Street Creates connections to other arts venues 7. Regent Street Generated excitement from community Large focus of feedback in Public Improvements during public workshops Workshop #1 was on Regent Street Could be phased later as funds are Activation ($1.2m) available Important for Regent to have good lighting and signage in order for activation to work, as well as a sense of entry Potential to close to vehicular traffic on occasion 8. Regent Street Advances downtown vitality and Regent Street activation was a focus Retail economic development goals of UPAC Many comments centered on using Could be designed as part of the project regent to focus on small scale retail, ($3.75m – this but phased in when funds are available more intimate “backstage” hangout - contemplates music, street performers, food, drink, building 15,000 sf casual seating 3 of new retail space in the theater building itself) MATTERS AT ISSUE A. The Council may wish to ask the Administration if there are elements that are currently assumed to be in the project budget that might be eliminated in favor of funding one or more of these “optional elements.” The Council may wish to ask the Administration to come prepared with a cost comparison for a variety of theater elements. B. The “Tier 2” elements, while they are possible to be phased over time and funded from other sources, are not contemplated in the City’s 10 Year Capital Facilities Plan, and are not planned for in the RDA’s future budget planning for the Downtown. The Council may wish to ask that the Administration come up with a viable financing scenario to fund these elements if they are deemed critical to the success of the Performing Arts Center project (SAA, RDA funds, CIP funds, combination, etc). Note: The Administration indicates that the project team has been asked to find a way to fund all optional elements within the performing arts center project budget. If the project team can do this, alternate financing may not be needed (or not needed to the full extent of the element’s cost). BACKGROUND/PUBLIC PROCESS A. The Administration held numerous meetings with stakeholders in the development of the feasibility analysis for the performing arts center. B. Since beginning the design phase of the project, the project architects, along with the City’s Strategic Communications’ firm, have been conducting a variety of Public Workshops and public engagement efforts. Public workshop #1 included 100 attendees over 2 days – See Appendix 1 of the Administration’s transmittal for a summary of themes that emerged from those meetings as well as verbatim comments. Feedback from these meetings informed the Administration’s recommendation for prioritization of optional elements. C. The project team will continue to solicit public feedback and inform the project team, RDA Board, and RDA Board subcommittee of developments. D. The project team is working from the following list of 11 “criteria for success” for this project, which were developed with feedback from the RDA Board, County Staff and other stakeholders: 1. Create a state-of-the-art performing arts venue capable of attracting first-run touring Broadway productions. 2. Activate Main Street and Regent Street during both the day and evening hours with a rich programmatic mix of activities and uses. 4 3. Create an operationally self-supporting 2500 seat performing arts venue, mixed use and civic development that creates an exciting regional, downtown destination.