Loading...
Memo CBD Performing Arts Facility -- - ~ ,"' ",,- " . C IT Y o F HOP KIN S M E MORA N DUM DATE: ,August 13, 1993 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Jim Kerrigan, Director of Planning & Economic Devel. SUBJECT: CBD PERFORMING ARTS FACILITY - - - - ,- - - - - - - - - - -. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - I. PURPOSE: The purpose of this document and our discussion on August 17 is basically as follows: 1. Provide general background information on this project 2. Summarize the information prepared by Vedi and Associates' . 3. Provide possible alternative actions for the City Council to consider as relates to the project. II. BACKGROUND In the fall of 1991 Child's Play Theatre approached the city requesting assistance in finding them new space in order to retain their operation within the City of Hopkins. In January, 1992 a motion ~as passed endorsing the concept of an entertainment complex in downtown Hopkins which would inclUde Child's Play Theatre as a tenant. Since that time staff and the Council have met a number of times to discuss , this matter in greater detail. Over time, a variety of alternatives have been explored as relates to this issue. These include the following: 0 Undertaking improvements at Eisenhower in order to better meet the needs of Child's Play Theatre , 0 Constructing a free standing performing arts facility 0 Undertaking an entertainment complex project including . a performing art~ facility. .- <, '-~.,,./- .... Honorable Mayor and city Council Page 2 As a part of upgrading the Eisenhower facility, the -. following improvements appeared necessary: 0 Construction of additional parking area. 0 Air conditioning of the theater 0 Various stage improvements Even with these improvements Child's Play Theatre has stated they would still have concerns with remaining at Eisenhower because of conflicts with scheduling and other issues. They feel that they need better control ,of this space in order to make it a workable situation. A second alternative of a free standing performing arts facility was considered-after it appeared that the Suburban Chevrolet site might not become available. Although a I number of sites were discussed, the one which the staff identified as appearing most feasible was the property which is located directly east of th~ Rudy Luther body shop located at the corner of Mainstreet and Eighth Avenue. In December of 1992 a detailed report, which had been prepared by City staff and Art Space Inc.-concerning a free standing performing arts facility, was presented to the city . Council. Following a public hearing the Council decided in January, 1993 to not construct such a facility but rather directed staff to continue to work towards the possibility of building a performing arts facility in conjunction with an entertainment complex project on the Suburban Chevrolet property. Since January the following has been undertaken as relates to this project: 0 An option agreement has been executed with the owners of the Suburban Chevrolet property. This agreement requires that if the HRA wishes to purchase this site it must be completed by March 15, 1994. 0 Staff has been working with Copeland Mithun and legal counsel to prepare a development agreement for the theater/restaurant portion of the project. 0 Staff has been working with Child's Play Theatre in an effort to prepare a lease agreement for use of the performing arts facility. 0 Hired Vedi and Associates to undertake an analysis relating to size and cost considerations for . constructing a performing arts facility. ~. Honorable Mayor and City Council Page 3 ' . III. SUMMARY OF VEDI AND ASSOCIATES ANALYSIS Vedi and Associates was hired to explore the following as relates to the potential construction of a performing arts facility onthe'Suburban Chevrolet property. o Prepare various layout/design alternatives o Define costs for construction of such a facility o Refine size requirements and needs In conjunction with this effort, Mr. Vedi has utilized the services of Mr. Ralph Rapson, a local architect, who has expertise in designing performing arts facilities. Attached is a copy of the report as prepared by Mr. Vedi. Three site plan alternatives are detailed in the report: o Scheme G involves constructing the entire facility at grade leve,l. o Scheme H involves constructing the entire performing arts facility at grade on the northerly parcel with the theater and restaurant south of Mainstreet. 4It. 0 Scheme J involves constructing a portion of the facility above and below grade. This. alternative would allow for adding some additional community space to the building. ' In addition to these 3 design plans, Vedi has also provided in his report 6 other variations of these three design plans along with their construction costs. IV. SIZE MANAGEMENT. AND COST ALTERNATIVES o Size The size of the facility is specifically related to the intended use and tenant occupancy. The alternatives which are available based On previous discussions," and ' the analysis by Vedi and Associates, include the following: - An approximate 19,700 square foot performing arts facility which would accommodate the needs of Child's Play Theatre. . j--- -~ j. ~ Honorable Mayor and City Council Page 4 - An approximate 24,000 square foot performing arts . facility which could accommodate the needs of both Childfs Play Theatre and Minnetonka Dance Theater. - A structure to accommodate one or both of the above uses and also general public user space. 0 Management There are several management alternatives available which include the following: - Execute a master lease with Child's Play Theatre. Under this agreement they would manage and maintain the facility. They would be responsible for all operating costs associated with the facility. - City contracts with outside management agency. I Revenues generated from the use of this facility would be used to pay the additional cost of the management group. - Formation of a non-profit arts board or committee. This group could either be completely separate from the City or advisory to the City Council. . - Managed by City staff. This alternative may require the hiring of additional personnel. 0 Capital Cost .. F' " Finally, as relates toitfie capital cost of construction of the facility, the following alternatives are available: - Pay for ail .,6f'tbe. construction costs utilizing available tax.. increment funds or perhaps undertake a referendum. Under this alternative it would be assumed that if c.p.T.e. and Minnetonka Dance were major tenants they would provide up-front funding for s.ome ot,;:the interior improvements. -< - "City agrees'to provide funding for a portion of a facility utilizing TIF or by successfully undertaking a referendum. Under this scenario it .. would be assumed that Child f s. Play Theatre (if they were to be a tenant in .the facility), an Arts Board, other civic groups, or a combination of these groups would undertake a fund raising effort to s~cure the remaining funds necessary to build the facility ~ " - . --- " Honorable Mayor and city Council Page 5 ." V. ISSUES TO' CONS7DER Upon analyzing this project the following issues should be considered: o The public support for a facility ,of this type. .In January of this year the city Council held a public hearing on a freestanding performing arts facility. However, there has been no in-depth analysis as relates to community support. o The capital costs for constructing a facility of this type if the city were to fund the facility entirely. Such an expenditure would utilize a large amount of the available tax increment dollars in the downtown. This could affect the availability of funding for future projects in this area. As an alternative the City could consider undertaking a referendum for all or part of the cost. . o Market, interest in the use of such facility~ Art Space ," Inc. looked at this aspect on a preliminary basis as part of their earlier analysis. However, there has been no in depth study to determine alternative users for either the performing art space or any general .. pur~6~e space that might be constructed within the . fac111ty. o Long term maintenance and operation costs. Childrs Play Theatre has stated that if they executed a master lease with the city they would be willing to:-'assume the liability of paying all 'operating costs Of the facility.' This is ba~~~:on 'the assumptio~that operating costs will be'around $6 per square foot, with a maximum of approximately $124,000 (this total figure is based on C.P.T. r,?ceivi:pg$24,000 a year in' additional rental income'~rom MinnetonkaDanCe)~ If operating or maintenance costs exceeded this amount C.P.T. mayor may not have the.capability to absorb this ao.ditional CQst~ ,.} Also, it needs to be noted 'that if a master lease was not executed with C.P.T.C.,the task of ensuring there was sUfficiEmt income to pay for. all operating costs would be the responsibility of the managing entity. In either case, if the city 'owned the facility and there was a shortfall in revenues to pay ,operating costs, the City would need to provide'additional funds to make up this gap. ," ',. o Child' s Play Theatre -', has: stat~q that they need to be in . a new facility by the endof'1994.' If action is ...~ .,. J.... ~ Honorable Mayor and city council Page 6 undertaken which would prevent meeting this time .' schedule they may no longer be interested in being a -. part of this facility. ~ VI. ALTERNATIVES FOR CONSIDERATION What follows are possible alternatives which hopefully will stimulate discussion as to how the City Council may wish to proceed on this issue. 1. continue with previous/current process. This alternative is based on the following assumptions: ~ o ApproJ{,imate $j:ze_'::b;f "facility - Approximately 19,700 square ,.f.eet""with~,C'';'P'.T~ as primary tenant or approximately 24,000 square feet if M.D.T.S. were included. " ~- I 0 Approximate cost of facility - $ 2,471,000 to $2,791,000. AsSumes city pays all construction costs. C.P.T. and M.D.T.S. to contribute $450,000 towards construction costs. o Ownership of facility -c~ty o Management of facility-C~P.T. would be responsible ~ for day to day management, bookings, etc. M.D.T.S. would sublease from C.P.T. o '~":"'. :; , 0:-;' 'Operating costs ~-:_C~P;.T.~,,~-"responsible for all operating costs."" :If C.P.T. defatalt:scity may have exposure to operating costs if facility could not be re-Ieased. --:' ' ,..;' -- ~. .~ ....- ,. " :..;' ~~ . .'i ..~. ':.:,;, f~, .. -:;:: L.. \~$'_,- 2. contiri~e with prevtous/~tirrent ~rocess (same as above) with .modifTcations' maa.:e-,::to': lIlanagement: xesponsibili ties. This alternat;ive~, utilizes tne.':following assumptions: " ".0, :.:"'App;-oximatesize 9f~<,~acili~ - Same as Alt. #1 ~ .e-.~~..,., . ~~. l..~- ~~ ~ ',..:?~-fi'!"", :'~t-..i~;'-l~ ,~:..... J_ ,-~. ::':~o f'Approximate cost ,!:(),f',ffacility -: Same as Alt. #1. Assumes city pays all costs. C.P.T. and M.D.T.S. to contribute $450,000. . - -< . '.~ ~~ .:.. . - . - . - - ,t~" "'0 ownership of faci,11 ty ~ City - '""... ~ '. ".. - o Management of facility - City creates Arts Board or _.' similar entity'whi;P-h .then manages facility. Arts Board : would ,be resgonsibtE!' ~or.Aay:to day activities, :' . __ . bqokings" ;et'C. ':.C.)?,i'lT .<~,:ejnd~M. D. T. S. would lease facility from city through .Arts Board.. ~..-._._- .;; \i.:.- '" ~ ~ Honorable Mayor and City council Page 7 ~~' ~~_.-. '. 0 Operati11lJ: costs - CoPoTo and M.D.T.S. would contribute towards'operating costs as a part of a lease agreement. However, the Arts Board may need to book facility for other periods to insure all operating costs are met. City may have exposure to operating costs if CoP.T. or MoD.T.S. default, or if Arts Board is not successful in booking the facility to other users. ' '''P 3. City constructs multi-use facility for c01f..r-~.1nity use . including CoPoT. and M.O.ToS. This alternative utilizes the following ~assumptions:_. , . I U '.:'" r- o Approximate size of -facility - 33,000 to 48,000 square feet. This would provide ~9r~approxim~Fely 9,000 to 24,000 square feet ,of-gen:eral.c~mmunity space. ," i'/;f_-:-: : . ~I ~: o Approximate cost~$ 3,330,000 to $4,5~0,000. Assumes City pays all construction costs. C ~ r'.T . and MoD. T. S . to contribute $450,000 towards construction costs. o Ownership of facility - :City o Management.. of facility- - city creates Arts Board to oversee facility, :.hbokings', , etc. of entire building. . 0 Operating cost respbnsi~~llty - Sam~::as Alt. #2 ~ ' : :-:.~ .:::r..:. - 'i"f ,-.:', ." _ :",. :i_ ,.' 40 city adjusts previous/current process with modifications relating to City costpartit:-ipation ,'. design),), CU"!d-management. This alternative utilizes: j:be...::.followJ.ng apsumptions: ;:',': :.-: ~ ~~ ~i~~ .__ n, :} -:':" .J:; '. ;:~ ~? ~i:""'i _ ";) o city forms Arts Board which gathers information to determine arts ne~ds in community and provides assistance with-d-esi~nof ;;r~Gil.i-ty:~ Arts,Bj)ar-d, also responsible forfimtl~a.4S'in9:~ eefo.~sc' for, ~1S~ruct.:;~on of facility as well as.o:eV.erit1$tl''. man(\,geJq~nt ..)'cL:~~;il:-: .;, ; o Approximate size -,~f..."f.ac:ility :?:-tDeRe.n.ds -, sO!Il~what on _ recommendations of Arts Board. Based on Alternative #3 the facility may he in ~fig.c:,:tl~,,33~Q~ i',':,4_8"000 square feet.... .., .,,~; ::' : 8'; ; ;, -,. .,' .:;~~\~<,.,:L, o Approximate cost of facility ~. Again, depends on size of facility. using' ,Alte,rnati.ve; #3 ca..p,i~al:\ cost could range from approximately $3.3 million to $405 million. :::;. ~ ~~ : ";,c :. 1:.:,; .::';~ f~ .... ro.. ~ i -~. ..j o This alternati \7e;assumes ith'e~Ci=ty -only partially contributes tothe;:coat cjf ~the.,'f:acility with' Arts Board responsible for J:aisrimg ~hther f.tlnCl,s.~;:A~sUIl\es. C.P.T. . -' ' "F .' ... j::' t ,\....~ 1 . ,. r t' , ,- .. . . .- :.." ." ;~. 'co: '.... :. - :,; ," ;;" .':";:;- '. . . _ .~. ~_ ~'-." - .... -:..... .. .... /~ . Honorable Mayor ah.1,city Councl.l Page 8 and M.D.T.S. to contribute $450,000 towards ..~ construction costs. 0 ownership of facility ~ City or non-profit organization. 0 Management of facilityu"," Arts Board or other non-profit organization. 0 operating costs responsibility - Management group as identified. As in other alternatives the City may have exposure to pay some operating costs. 5. step baqk and,reassess sItuation or discontinue actions on undertaking P.A.F~; Qther, ~hart discontinuation of action altogether this altetnat1v~ assumes: I u 0 Through an Arts Board or other efforts the city assesses the needs and interests of the community regarding the arts and a possible community facility. 0 If it is decided tp p~9ceed, Arts Board undertakes fundraising efforts for facility. City mayor may not participate. e' 0 Assume~ t:.P.T. drM.D.T'~S"~ would be tenants of fas:tlity. ~.;.:. 0 Issues relating to cost af facility, ownership, martagemefit would need' to be addressed. JKOa093B .