Memo Performing Arts Facility
~
" ,., -\. ",
-- ,.
-' '"
;.
... C I T Y o F H 0 PK INS
M EM 0 RAND U M
DATE: August 31, 1993
TO; HO~ble Mayor and city Council
FROM: Ji ~igan, Director of Planning & Economic Devel.
~aUl T. Steinman, Community Pev. specialist
7~ Gary Morrison, Intern
..:.....,....-. . .
SUBJECT: ERFORMING ARTS FACILITY (PAF)
- - _. - - - - - - - - - "- - - - - .- - -. - - - - _. - _. _. - - - - -
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this document is as follows:
1. Provide general background information on this project.
2. Summarize.. the information prepared by Vedi and
Associates.
e. 3. Discuss information regarding formation of a Local Arts
Agency.
4. Summarize public comments received to date on the
proposed Performing Arts Facility.
5. Provide alternative actions for the City Council to
consider related 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 was 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
-~,--- , ~- ,-,,- -- -- --..- - '"';'-'.~--""
/J?:
j--'" ~""~
Honorable Mayor and city council
Page 2
0 Undertaking an entertainment complex project including
a performing arts facility. "~.
As a part of upgrading the Eisenhower f~cility, 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
number of sites were discussed, the one which the staff
,- identified as appearing most feasible was the property which
is located directly east of the 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
"iii of building a performing arts facility in conjunction with
an entertainment complex project on the Suburban Chevrolet
.iji property.
..- Since January the following has been undertaken as relates
j
li to this project:
"'
0 An option agreement has been executed with the owners
of the Suburban Chevrolet property. Thisagreement
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 PAF.
,
TiI _vli~!filt~:;J~t~7;2~(!Y:l'~t,t\" , ''.::~'~i1,'\''{'<,.;i:,~::\:,:V ",i~'W~~;!t'l;.i21~pml!l.'J.m!il~~.\lli!'"":'"'~
- - ~---.-;;.
i.;"'~ ,~
'...
Honorable Mayor and city Council
Page 3
. During the 8/17/93 meeting the Council revie~ed the
information prepared by Vedi & Associates. As a result of
this discussion the Council indicated that conceptually a
PAF was a good idea and that it would be willing to consider
providing significant financial assistance to such a
project. The Council requested that staff provide additional
information on the formation of an LAA, and that a public
hearing on the project be scheduled for, September 7, 1993.
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 on the Suburban Chevrolet property.
0 Prepare various layout/design alternatives
0 Define costs for construction of such a facility
0 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:
0 Scheme G involves constructing the entire facility at
grade level.
0 Scheme H involves constructing the entire performing
,arts facility at. grade on the northerly parcel with the
theater and restaurant south of Mainstreet.
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.
Since the meeting of August 17th, Mr. Vedi has submitted an
additional alternative which is attached to this report and
id,entified as "G condensed". This alternative would involve
construction of 12,000 sq. ft. finished above grade space,
and 12,000 sq. ft. finished below grade. This is probably
the most basic, and for "the size, the least expensive
. alternative which has been presented.
,-
.... ,~
Honorable Mayor and city Council
Page 4
IV. SIZE MANAGEMENT r 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.
- An approximate 24,000 square foot performing arts
facility which could accommodate the needs ,of both
Child's Play Theatre and Minnetonka Dance Theater.
- A structure to accommodate one or both of the
above uses and also other types of general public
uses.
- 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.
Revenues generated from the use of this facility
_ would be used to pay the additional cost of the
~! management group.
"*.1
- Formation of a non-profit arts agency. This group
could either be completely separate from the city
or advisory to the city Council. At least one full
time staff person would need to be assigned the
responsibilities associated with the arts agency.
- Managed by City staff. This alternative may
require the hiring of additional personnel.
o capital Cost
Finally, as relates to the capital cost of construction
of the facility, the following alternatives are
available: (The overall issue of fundraising is '.
addressed in section VII of this report) ,",
- Pay for all of the construction costs. Under this
alternative it would' be assumed that if CPT and
--
~),. <'4 Honorable Mayor and city council
Page 5
Minnetonka Dance were major tenants they would
. provide up-front funding for some of the interior
improvements.
- City agrees to provide funding for a portion of a
facility. Under this scenario it would be assumed
that ,Child'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 secure
the remaining funds necessary to build the
facility.
- Public funding for_the project could come from one
or all of the following sources:
1) Tax Increment or other economic
development funds.
2) Proceeds from a referendum. It is staffs
understanding that this alternative
probably does not have much support by
the city Council.
3) HRA Levy
. v. ISSUES TO CONSIDER
Upon analyzing this project the following. issues should be
considered:
0 The public support for afacilitv of this type. In
January of this year the City Council held a public
hearing ona free standing performing arts facility.
However, there has been no in-depth analysis related to
community support.
Public input received at the September 7th Council
meeting will help to provide information to the council
regarding the public perceptions of the Performing Arts
Facility project.
Staff met with the Hopkins Business & Civic Association
(HBCA) and Neighborhood Advisory Board (NAB) on
Tuesday, August 31, 1993, to discuss the project. Both
organizations took action on the project which involved
the following:
- HBCA -- The HBCA Board approved a motion on a
unanimous vote which essentially expressed
support for the concept of a multi-use PAF in
. the downtown area. Furthermore, the HBCA
approved a motion on a 5-2 vote which
supported significant financial participation
by the city for such a project. The motion
which was passed included a statement that
..- ,~
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Page 6
the City "provide up to $2 million for a $4 .
million multi-use facility".
- NAB -- The Neighborhood Advisory Board passed
a motion which states that the NAB "strongly
supports the concept of constructing a PAF in
Hopkins". An additional motion supported the
"financial involvement of the City in the
development of a .multi-tise PAF".
0 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. An alternative to reduce costs
directly from city economic development funds include
the following:
1) Referendum for all or a portion of the costs
2) Build a smaller "CPT only" facility with
future expansion capability. ~his future
expansion could be financed through
fundraising efforts.
3) Implement an annual HRA Levy. .
0 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. Also CPT has
discussed this project with a number of potential users
which have expressed an interest. Attached is an
example of potential users which have expressed an
interest in the facility, along with a possible usage
schedule. There has been however, no in depth study to
determine alternative users for either the performing
art space or any general purpose space that might be
constructed within the facility.
0 Long term maintenance and operation costs.
Child's Play Theatre has stated that if they executed ~
master lease with the city they would be willing to
assume the liability of paying all operating costs of
the facility, up to a maximum of $124,000 per year.
This is based on the assumption that operating costs
will be around $6 per square foot. The $124,000 figure
includes $24,000 a year in rental income from
Minnetonka Dance. $124,000 would appear to be
sufficient for an approximate 20,000 sq. ft. facility.
If operating or maintenance costs exceeded this amount .
CPT may not have the capability to absorb this
additional cost. .
_~~%"M~g;t~t!~;tt]:t~ttJ,}}f2:.~'",,"tE::~:;.;':~:':['.::.:k, ~~:'.;.::; '~::'ii;j;:~.~~*hiW;f;~"';:i '..,
i"'-.:'. ".
Honorable Mayor and City council
Page 7
. without MDTS, CPT could afford to pay operating costs
up to approximately $100,000 per year. This equates a
facility of approximately 16,666 sq. ft.
Also, it needs to be noted that if a master lease was
not executed with CPT, the task of ensuring there was
sufficient 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.
0 Child's Play Theatre has stated thatthev need to be in
a new facility by the end of 1994~
If action is undertaken which would prevent meeting
this time schedule they may no longer be interested in
being a part of this facility.
,
VI. Local Arts Agency (LAA)
There has been discussion about the possibility'of creating
an tAA to undertake a variety of activities related to
construction of a PAF. These are:
. 1) Fundraising
2) Project Management
3) Identifying & responding to arts needs within
the community
There are basically two options available for establishing a
LAA.
1. Private, non-profit arts board, independent of the
city.
Over 60% of all LAA's in the country are incorporated
as private not-for-profit organizations. The following
issues are to be considered when examining this type of
LAA:
> Board composed of private citizens
> Board elected by LAA's designated membership
> Board should obtain Federal Tax status 501
C3, in order to allow tax-exempt
contributions.
'. > Generally more successful at raising funds
compared to'a government related entity.
This approach is recommended by Art Space to be the
most effective means of accomplishing the general goals
and objectives of a LAA.
.- ,""....:~
Honorable Mayor and city Council
Page 8
2 . Public LAA, in the form of a commission. .
The commission is a very common form of LAA. The
following issues are relevant to the creation of an LAA
in the form of a commission:
> Could be established in a short time period.
Mayor/Council to appoint members.
> Created through an initiative of the
Mayor/council
> Commission may be advisory only.
> Commission can be established as a separate
municipal agency, with separate staffing and
funding appropriated by the city Council.
> Commission cannot be incorporated by the
state, nor can it achieve a 501 C3 status. .
> Although a commission may be easiest and
quickest to establish, it should be noted
. that they are generally not effective in
undertaking fundraising efforts. Many major
contributors have policies prohibiting giving .
' ,
donations to government entities.
There are several general points to keep inmitid when
analyzing the formation, of any type of LAA:
> LAA's,that are not community initiated, but are
. mandated by a local government, tend to be
ineffective, and eventually dissolve. Art Space
has strongly indicated that individuals will
contribute time and money to a private,
community-led organization significantly more than
to a public organization.
> Any LAA cannot reasonably be expected to manage the
day to day operations, activities, bookings, etc.
of , a PAF. An LAA made up entirely of volunteers
does not have the time or the expertise to manage a
major facility. It would be necessary for the LAA
to hire professional property management staff in
order to perform this function.
> An LAA may be very adept at gathering information in
order to determine the arts needs in the community,
organizing events to promote the arts, raising
limited funds, in addition ,to providing some
assistance in evaluating the appropriate .
size/design of a PAF.
,~\!;;'~lIit:,~Mi(1\:,;\i<<i*&~;i:;~::?~i:'~;i :,':',;;,':;;';:(*;\~~'~;<:t;":;C :':\\",;i't\,~~l~,,,;,~"",:;;;r"~,/.,;-,',,->,,",,,,-0 ",.,-.ry
-'
j....'.'.
Honorable Mayor and city Council
Page 9
. VII. Fundraising Issue
It may be very difficult, if not impossible, for an LAA
to raise a significant amount of funds within a
reasonable period of time. Art Space researched the
fundraising capabilities of CPT last fall and
determined that $350,000 was the ~ery maximum amount
which they would be able to raise'in a capital
campaign.
staff has met with both Art Space and Fundraising
Management Counsel, a professional arts fundraising
firm to discussfundraising potential for a project
such as this. The following is a summary of these
discussions:
1. There is substantial demand for the limited
money available for arts type funding at this
time. There are approximately 134 Capital
Campaigns being conducted at this time in the
Metro Area, with a total goal of about $600
million.
Art Space has 'specificallyinformed staff
that it is unreasonable to expect that ,an LAA
. could raise a substantial amount of funds
within a 3-5 year time frame, if at all, for
the type of project the city is
contemplating.
2. It is more difficult to raise money in a
capital campaign than say, to support
specific programming or services.
3. Art Space stated in their letter (attached)
that the amount of money raised is typically
more limited if the local arts agency is tied
to a government entity, rather than operating
as a private non-profit.
4. An LAA would likely need to hire full time
professional staff if they were to undertake
a substantial capital fundraisingeffort. Art
Space has informed staff that it is not
realistic to assign such a large
responsibility to a group of volunteers like
an LAA.
5. Contributors are more willing to agree to
provide donations to a long-term, broad,
. scoped LAA with a track record, rather than
those newly formed with a narrow focus, or
for the specific purpose offundraising. It
has also been indicated that donations are
more likely to be forthcoming for a
"multi-use" facility.
y^.~ _w.
Honorable Mayor and City council
page 10
--
6. Fundraising Management Counsel has
recommended that prior to implementing a .
fundraising effort, a feasibility study be
undertaken to determine the following:
- potential fundraising sources
- estimate amount of funds that could be
raised
-- - identify most effective approach to
address specific fundraising market
The cost of a study such as this is estimated
to be $20,000 - $30,000, and would ,take
- approximately 90 days to complete.
-
VIII. 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:
0 Approximate size of facility - Approximately 19,700
square feet with CPT as primary tenant. An alternative .
would be a somewhat larger facility of approximately
24,000 square feet with either 4,000 sq. ft. unfinished
which would accommodate only CPT as a primary tenant,
or all space finished which would include MDTS. This
building would allow for future expansion capabilities.
0 Approximate cost of facility - $ 2,564,000 to
$2,791,000. Assumes city pays all construction costs.
CPT and MDTS to contribute toward construction costs.
0 Ownership of facility - City
0 Management of facility -CPT would be responsible for
day to day management, bookings, etc. MDTS would
sublease from CPT.
-
0 Operating costs - CPT responsible for all operating
costs.
PROS OF ALT. 1 CONS OF ALT. 1
Can undertake project Require City commitment
in near future of $2 - $2.3 mill.
Could proceed on dual Limited use of facility .
track approach by general community
, - with creation of LAA and other users
as opposed to a
larger facility
.,i
.--- "," ','""~.",,.-.
~'~- 0>'4
Honorable Mayor and city council
Page 11
. PROS OF ALT. 1 (CONT. ) CONS. OF ALT. 1 ( CONT. )
Would be positive timing for Potential City exposure
the two proposed for operating costs
tenants - CPT/MDTS
2. continue with previous/current process ,(same as above) with
modifications to #1 related to management responsibilities.
This alternative utilizes the following assumptions:
0 Approximate size of facility - Same as Alt. #1
0 Approximate cost of facility - Same as Alt. #1.
Assumes City pays all costs. CPT and MDTS to
contribute $450,000.
0 Ownership of facility - city
0 Management of facility - City creates LAA or similar
entity which then manages facility. The LAA would be
responsible for day to day activities, bookings, etc.
CPT andMDTS wquld lease facility from City through the
LAA. This would likely require the LAA to hire some
professional staff. Art Space has indicated it would be
.' unreasonable to expect a group of volunteers to have
the time and expertise necessary to carry out this
responsibility.
0 Operating costs - CPT and MDTS would contribute towards
operating costs as a part of a lease agreement.
However, the LAA professional staff may need to book
facility for other periods to insure all operating
costs. are met.
'PROS OF ALT. 2 CONS OF ALT. 2
Could proceed on dual Would slow project down
track approach with if it were to wait
creation of LAA for creation of LAA.
LAA to hire full
time staff
Can undertake project Potential City exposure
in near future for operating costs
Would be positive timing Limited use of facility
for the two proposed by general community
tenants - CPT/MDTS and other paying
users of facility
. Require city commitment
of $2 - $2.3 mill.
Honorable Mayor and City council -II,~.,." ~._-~
Page 12
-..--
3. City constructs multi-use facility for community use
including CPT. and MDTS. This alternative utilizes the .
following assumptions:
0 Approximate size of facility - 33,000 to 48,000 square
feet. This would provide for approximately 9,000 to
24,000 square feet of general community space.
0 Approximate cost - $ 3,330,000 to $4,550,000. Assumes
City pays all construction costs. CPT and MDTS t.o
contribute $450,000 towards construction costs.
0 ownership of facility - City
0 Management of facility - city creates LAA. LAA hires
professional staff to oversee facility, bookings, etc.
of entire building. possible management by CPT for
performing arts portion of facility.
0 operating cost responsibility ... Same as Alt. #2
0 Would require aggressive marketing effort to' insure
facility was fully utilized and sufficient income was
generated to cover operating costs.
PROS OF ALT. 3 CONS OF ALT. 3
Can undertake project Require city commitment .
in near future of $2.9 - $4.1 mill.
Retain interest of Would have to proceed on
the two proposed dual track approach
tenants - CPT/MDTS with creation of LAA
Would not be required Potential City exposure
to rely on LAA for operating costs
to raise substantial
funds for facility
Provides a facility for
all types of community
functions, including
CPT/MDTS
4. city adjusts previous/current process with modifications
relating to City cost participation, design, and management.
This alternative utilizes the following assumptions:
0 city forms LAA which gathers information to determine
arts needs in community and provides assistance with .
design of facility. This would be a function of the
Board of Directors of the LAA. LAA and professional
staff also responsible forfundraising efforts for
construction of facility as well as eveptual
management.
-~
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Page 13
. 0 Approximate size of facility - Depends somewhat on
recommendations of LAA. The facility may be in range
of 19,700 - 48,000 square feet.
0 Approximate cost of facility - Again, depends on size
of facility. Capital cost could range from
approximately $2.4 million to $4.5 million.
0 This alternative assumes the City would probably only
partially contribute to the cost of a ,larger facility,
with the LAA responsible for raising other funds. Based
on staff discussions with consultants, this could take
3 - 5 years depending upon the amount to, be raised.
Assumes CPT and MDTS to contribute $450,000 toward
construction costs.
ownership of facility - City or non-profit
organization.
0 Management of facility - LAA professional staff,
management staff hired by City, or staff.from 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.
PROS
Does not require Would slow project down
City to pay'entire considerably due to
costs of project formation of LAA and
their fundraising
responsibilities
LAA exposure for LAA may not be able to
operating costs raise extensive
amount of funds
Help to build community Potential loss of
support for project interest from
through LAA CPT/MDTS due to
timing issues
5. step back and reassess situation or discontinue actions
undertaking PAF. other than discontinuation of action
altogether, this alternative assumes:
0 Through an LAA or other efforts the City assesses the
.- needs and interests of the community regarding the arts
- and a possible community facility.
0
<..._ 1
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Page 14
o Assumes CPT'or MOTS would be tenants of facility. ~
-
o Issues relating to cost of facility, ownership,
management would need to be addressed.
PROS OF ALT. 6 CONS OF ALT. 6
May not require City Potentially lose interest
financial commitment from both CPT/MDTS
for entire project
Allows for the formation May no longer have a PAF
of community based LAA project wj out the
which may have a better interest of CPTjMDTS
chance to raise funds and tenants
for a future PAF
VII. STAFF COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS
Based upon analysis and review of undertaking a PAF in downtown
Hopkins, staff has the following comments:
~\c
o A PAF would have a positive impact on the downtown
area. Such a facility would draw a number of people
into downtown who are not presently frequenting this ~
area. ,.,
o The recently adopted strategic Plan for EConomic
Development specifically identifies entertainment and
family types of businesses as uses that the City should
try to recruit into the downtown area.
o The city Council should consider proceeding with a
smaller scale multi-use PAF because of the interest of
the proposed major tenant, and the benefits such a
facility would bring to the community. If an LAA is
formed, that group could evaluate whether there is
additional user interest in the market area for a
larger type of facility, and if interest did exist
there would be the possibility of undertaking a fund
raising effort to construct additional space in the
future.
o CPT should be the responsible management group for a
smaller multi-use facility, at least for the first or
second year of operation, in order to save cost. If
expansion space is constructed at a future date, there
would be the possibility of terminating management
responsibilities with CPT, and having the LAA carry out
this function. This would have to be based on a
determination that the LAA has sufficient staff 411
capability to manage a facility of this type.
o Staff recommends that the city form a Task Force which
may participate in the following way:
'""-',
.--:"'\..
,~ ..~-~
Honorable Mayor and city council
Page 15
~
. - Determine arts needs in this area.
- Build community support for the arts.
- Determine if there is sufficient interest in
the community to form an LAA.
- Help organize the LAA.
- Assist City in design of
construction.
- SurveY/develop
facility.
Once the LAA has been established they may assume some
of the responsibilities of the Task Force at that time.
0 Undertake steps ,to refine the Master Lease with CPT for
management of the facility. This, appears to be the
appropriate option for the first phase of the facility.
Again, these responsibilities could be transferred to
the LAA once it has had sufficient time organize and
hire professional staff.
0 Secure current financial statements from both CPT and
MOTS. Art Space recommended we continue to monitor the
financial situation of CPT, in addition to examining
the financial statements of MDTS.
~ Based on the above items, staff would recommend that the Council
-' consider at this time undertaking a scaled back project as
detailed in alternative "G condensed". This would involve the
following:
0 Construction of the first phase ofa multi-use
facility with 12,000 square feet of finished space
at grade level and 12,000 square feet of finished
space in the lower level. This would result in an
initial facility cost of $2.564 million, to be
financed as follows:
0 $1,934,400 contribution by City
0 $350,000 contribution by CPT
0 $100,000 contribution by MDTS
0 $120,000 additional contribution from CPT to
finish lower level
0 $ 60,000 additional contribution from MDTS to
finish lower level
Pros Cons
.-.
- Can undertake project Require City commitment
in near future of $1.934 million
~..._.w _
Honorable Mayor and City council
Page 16
Pros ( cont. ) Cons ( cont. ) ~
-
Could proceed on dual Phase I would have
track approach with somewhat limited use
creation of LAA and of facility by
Task Force general community
and others, as
opposed to larger,
multi-use facility
Would be positive from Potential City exposure
a timing perspective for operating costs
for the two
proposed tenants -
CPT/MDTS
-- Would establish the Not quite as cost
foundation for the effective as
growth of the arts building larger
in the community facility all at
one time
VIII. ATTACHMENTS
0 Info. from Art space ....
0 Info. on potential users from CPT -
~
0 scheme "G condensed"
0 VedijRapson report
PA08253
.
..... _...........~;~,,~"""'-
P 02
... ..- . _-......_,ffn....~...lt.'~.:.~.~'t!.,.-", .'.01'.........
-...
,~A R T S P A C E
- .. ,- ..... ;.
~
I
,
i
I
,
I Making SPII"
I fal M(I~"'g Art
I
AUgust 26, 1993 I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Jim Kerrigan i
Director of Planning and d Econanlc Development ' ,
I
City of Hopkin I
1010 First Street South i
Hopkins, MN55141 i
l
I
Dear Jim: I
:
i
A$ a follow-up to our conversation last week, I would like to expound upon some.of my thoughts about I
,
the idea of the City of Hopkins starting an arts council to oversee the development of a cubural center. !
As I understand it the City of Hopkins is looking at options for facilitating this project that would r
i~ the level of community panicipation and allow,for a broader feeling of ownership and support. ~
In addnion I assume the overaR City staff time commitment is an issUe.' i
J'
. In essence there are two types of 18l1S councils' which we discussed as being wol'kable for this i
proposed project. One would be the Arts Commission model which involves a high degree of t
organizational leadership and ownership on the pan of the city. The second is the independent non r
profit Arts Council model. These two options have pro's and con's which are outlined below. '
~.
ARTS COMMISSION: !
!
The City could structure, an Arts Commission based on the model of the Minneapolis Arts Commission, ~:
where the commission Is composed of volumeers from around the community, but the paid staff and ,
,
, functions of the commission are City employees and City activities. This concept offers a high degree ~
of control by the City of the process and the course of the project's development. The staff would be ;
resoonsive to the commissioners, but r~nsibleto the City and their City supervisors. The other side ;:
of this is that the City WOUld be equally responsible for the staff and the success of the project. While I ;}
think the City might feel the need for this level of control, particularly if they choose to retain ownership ~\
of the property,llhlnl< In tho end tt is net the bast approach, I
Tho problem with the Arts CommissIon concept, as well as the concept of the City retaining ownership l
of the devel~ped fa~lity, is ~ ~ere are ,a number of foundati~ and gM.n~ organizati~ns w~ ~i11 not, ~ I
!
or cannot, gIVe to city commiSSIOns or government owned prajeds. The gIVIng community, which IS : I
highly interested in community involvement; sees government ownership as an inhibitor to the COOlmunity I
process. This is not just government ownership of the building,but government "ownership. of the I
commission as well. Given the high level of fundraising which is baing associated with this proposed : 1
project,'~ seems Inadvisable to select an organizational structure which might be suspect by the giving 1 I
!
community and make fundraising more difficutt. I
; ART~PACF
. : t'I\Ojf:Cl s. INC I
~ 400 rlMI i
,- I AvalU~ 10.1" !
SUITE SI8
IlIH~EAPOll1 i
I\IMM~OlA I
$S401
41lJlWl1 I
~
.
Paga 2
Mr. Jim Kerrigan
August 26, 1993
, ARTS COUNCIL
Under ihe Arts Council model we discussed forming an Independent non profit organization to lead the
devetopmem effort and own the building in the long-term. A good example of this locally is the Hennepin
Center for the Arts in Minneapolis. The Center for the Arts was developed whh support from both the
City of Minneapolis and Hennepin County, and was set-up as a non~prom to own.and operate the
facility. Under this model community volunteers would comprise the Board of Diredors of the non profrt
corporation. Staff members of the Council would be employed by, and responsible to the Board of
Directors, as with any non profit. Under this scenario, the City's role would be that of a lender in the
development. While this provides less City control than the Commission concept, it increases the
community participation and ownership substantially. In fact, this scenario does not decrease the cnys
level of control as much as might be thought. The City would still have the same level of control as any
lender, which is substantial.
The pIus to the concept is that it decreases the City's direct responslbilltyand increases the
anractiveness of the project to the giving community. As a sign of City commnmantand interest, you
...- migtn want to have City representation on the Board of Directors of Council. It is important to note that
this type of a Board of Directors would not be a working board. There would need to be paid staff to
execute the development of the project under the Board's supervision. The principle responsIbility of .
the Board would be fundraising for the project k; such it would be advisable to have a good number of
visible community people as members of the Board.
Altspace would definitely recommend that Hopkins pursue the development of a independent non profit
Ans Council over that of a City controlled Arts Commission. For the type of project being considered, a
community based counc~ will work much better.
As a final pointj I have reviewed the Issues presented by your Council Person. These are all very good
questions which need to addressed as we proceed with the develOpment process. I do not think that
you can find answers to many of the questions, but Instead you will answer them yourselves as you
decide more fully what you want this project to be, and how it will work best for the City of Hopkins.
I look forward to continuing to work with you on this wonderful project.
SOn ~ -,.-' - '. -,~ ..-'/
I car - ,__/' ._~".._.,,, ..'.-' /.._
/~----------- _- _- ../"::;.:~:~~t.~;-:~;:.~~~~:~~~i;::.::~"'- _,_
( '. - ,- ',.-.' ,...'"' - -
-. ./ /~:;;~(~<'
-"-Ih~~e .
DirectOr or Ad r~
.
-
.
--
From : VEDI ASSOC. Jan. 01. 1988 12:00 AM P02
. PROJECT FLOOR AREA SUKMARY
SCHEKE "G" (CONDENSED)
ABOVE GRADE (First Floor)
Performing Arts Facility
Theater (audience area) 500 seats+/-
Lobby -
stage
Public Rest Rooms
Scene Shop (Back portion of the stage)
Total Above Grade Area 12,000 sq. ~t.
BELOW GRADE (Loller Level)
Rehearsal
costume
Dressing Rooms (2)
Green Rooms
Administration
Common Areas
Total Below Grade Area 12,000 sq. ~t.
. TOTAL FLOOR AREA, SCHEME "G", 2",000 SQ. !''1'.
BUDGET COST ESTIMATE:
First Floor 12,000 sq. ft. @ $86/sq. ft. $1,032,000
Lower Level HVAC, floors and outside walls finished
12,000 sq. ft. @$45/sq. ft.. $ 540,000
Elevator $ 65,000
Performing Arts Facility finishes $ 350,000
,
Total Construct~on Coat $1,987,000
Soft Cost (10% of the Construction cost) $ 198,700
contingency (10% of the construction cost) $ 198,700
Total project Cost $2,38",400
Less CPTC contribution S 350.000
$2,034,400
Project Cost per sq. ft.: $99.35 sq. ft.
"
The south wall at first floor and lower level can be designed to
accomodate future horizontal expansion. .
. Ir~I..,
-,
Hopkins Performing Arts Center
. Mainstreet &. Eleventh Avenue
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343
Child's Play Theatre Company would operate in the facility up to 36 weeks per year. In an
effort to assertain the potential use of this facility by other local arts groups, we conducted a
survey to determine the interest in a 500 seat proscenium facility. The following lists groups
that expressed serious interest in using the Hopkins Performing Arts Center.
St. Paul Chamber Orchestra Gr.eater Twin Cities Youth Syphnonies Mixed
Blood Theatre Cross Current Dance Company
The Cricket Theatre " Zenon Dance Compan y
'Northern Sign Theatre Minnesota Dance Alliance
In the Heart of the Beast Puppet Theatre Metropolitan Boys Choir
Symphoknolls Music Ensemble S1. Paul Civic Symphony
The Minnesota Shakespeare Company Minnesota Chorale
Outlined below is a sample schedule of events that could take place in the first year of
programming at Hopkins Performing Arts Center.
Dates Event Sponsor
Septe mbe r/October Peter Pan Child's Play Theatre
October/November A Midsummer Night's Dream MN Shakespeare Co.
. November/December Beauty & The Beast Child's Play Theatre
December The Nutcreacker Ballet Minnetonka Dance Theatre
December Holiday Music Event The Symphoknolls Music Ensem~le
January Treasure Island Child's Play Theatre
February The Next Stage. Child's Play Theatre
February . Music Performance S1. Paul Chamber Orchestra
Marchi April The Prince & The Pauper Child's Play Theatre
April The Next Stage Child's Play Theatre
ApriVMay A Dance,Performance Zenon Dance Company
ApriVMay A Dance Performance Minnetonk,a Dance Tehatre
May Mainstreet Days Activities City of Hopkins
May/June You're A Good Man, Charlie Brown Child's Play Theatre
June Music or Dance Ensemble To Be Announced
June/July The Next Stage Child's Play Theatre
July Music in the Parks/Raspberry Fest City of Hopkins
July/August The Egypt Game Child's Play Theatre
, August/September A Theatre Production Mixed Blood or Cricket Theatre
.
~' "1:
4Il PROJECT FEATURES
SCHEME "G"
Scheme "G" is located south of Main street between 11th Avenue
South and 12th Avenue south, inclose proximity to existing
parking facility, and offers the following features:
o This scheme allows easy subdivision of the lot area for
performing Arts Facility (PAF) and copeland-Mithun (CM)
Development.
o In this scheme, PAF can be combined with CM,and also ,can be
totally separated. PAF and CM projects can share a common
lobby, which ,can be separated at any time as desired by PAF
and CM.Individual utilities and HVAC systems will be
required.
o PAF and CM have separate toilet facilities.
o The PAF is located at the west side of the lot, thus allowing
. 12th Avenue South to be used for unloading of buses.
. 0 PA.F and CMprojects have separate entries with separate
. marquees for clear identification, and are accessible from
Main street.
o A separate entrance, visible from Main street and 11th Avenue
South, is included in the design for the restaurant.
o This scheme includes five cinemas in the present layout and
space for four more in the future. '
o There is a service court for the delivery of restaurant
supplies and garbage disposal. Access to the service court
will be from the parking lot, as shown in Scheme "H", and not
from 11th Avenue South, as shown in Scheme "G".
o This scheme provides future expansion possibilities for PAF
at the southwest corner of the site.
o This scheme includes a 'space for a "civic plaza" at the
northeast corner of the south lot (at Main Street and 11th
Avenue South) and a similar plaza at the southeast corner of
the north lot. The north lot is also currently showing space
for a restaurant and a parking lot.
o Total floor area of scheme "G": 23,650 sq. ft.
.......
......
r~
Page 2 r ..
'-
(
PROJECT FEATURES ,~
~
SCHEME "B" FEATURES
0 This scheme provides for PAF and CM projects to be built
totally separate from each other. PAF to be located north of
the Main street and CM project at the south side of Main
street.
0 The two facilities may only be connected by a future skyway.
! This scheme allows space for a separate "civic plaza" for
0
each project at Main street and 11th Avenue.
0 Main entrances to both facilities are located off of their
respective civic plazas at Main street and 11th Avenue.
0 This scheme allows great flexibility for each project.
0 PAF project will occupy most of the north parcel. In this
scheme, the MDTS will be located at the lower level.
. Total floor area of Scheme "B": 24,150 sq. ft.
0
I" .
I
I'
i
I
f
.
Page 3 r~
_ _~lllf"i!ilili _~~
, .
. PROJECT FEATURES
SCHEME "JII FEATURES
0 This scheme allows easy subdivision of the lot area for
Performing Arts Facility (PAF) and Copeland-Mithun (CM)
Development ..
0 In this scheme, PAF can be combined with CMand also can be
totally separated. PAF and CM projects can share a common
lobby, which can be separated at any time as desired by PAF
andCM . Individual utilities and HVAC systems will be
required.
o' PAF and CMhave separate toilets.
0 The PAF is located at the west side of the site, thus
allowing 12th Avenue South ,to be used for unloading of buses.
0 PAF and CM projects have separate entries with separate
marquees for clear identification, and are accessible from
Main street.
.
0 A separate entrance, visible from Main street and 11th Avenue
. South, is designed for the restaurant.
0 There are six cinemas included in this scheme, with a
provision for three additional cinemas in the future.
0 The service court for the delivery of restaurant supplies and
garbage disposal with screen is accessible from the parking - .
lot.
0 This scheme provides future expansion possibilities for PAF
at the southwest corner of the site.
0 This scheme includes a space for a "civic plaza" at the
northeast corner of the south lot (at Main street and 11th
Avenue South) and a similar plaza at the southeast corner of
the north lot. The north lot is also currently showing space
for a restaurant and,a parking lot.
0 This scheme includes approximately 16,150 sq. ft. at first
floor and 16,150 sq. ft. area is shown for the lower level.
Approximately 7,050 sq. ft. of area at lower level will be
used for MDTS, PAF Rehearsal, green rooms and vertical
circulation. Remaining 9,100 sq. ft. of area is .available
for civic and community functions.
- 0 Total floor area of Scheme IIJ": 32,300 sq.
ft.
-.-.
Page 4 r~
~
--
PROJECT FLOOR AREA St1HHARY
, SCHEME "G" ~
ABOVE GRADB
Performing Arts Facility
Program Provided
Theater (audience area) 500 seats+/-.5,200......... .5,400 sq. ft.
Lobby..................... e.......... .1,500....... ...2.,800 sq. ft.
Stage.....~........................~.3,200~.....~..2/600 sq. ft.
Public Rest Rooms....................1,200.........1,100 sq. ft.
Scene Shop...........................1,300.........1,300 sq. ft.
Rehearsal............................l,200.........1,O00 sq. ft.
r Cost'UlIle. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 500. . . . .. . . . . ,. 550 sq. ft.
i Dressing Rooms (2).....................600...........700 sq. ft.
Green Room............................. .400.......... .300 sq. ft.
Administration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1,700. . . . . . . . .1,450 sq. ft.
^~""''''''.. 'Common Areas.........................l,200.........2,OOO sq. ft.
also 1/2 of common corridor
Total 18,000 sq ft 19,200 sq. ft. '
.
Program Provided .
'"'~".'" Xinnetonka Dance Theatre & School...4,000 sq. ft...4,450 sq. ft.
(includes circulation)
TOTAL FLOOR AREA SCHEME "G" 23,650 SQ. FT.
I
t
I
,
\
-- I
I
!
..-
.
Page 5 r~
-- . _.._~,- -_~"~;Jffi>l--
;i 'J.
. PROJECT FLOOR. AREA SUHKARY
SCHEME "R"
1U30VE GRADE
performinq Arts Facility
Program Provided
Theater (audience area) 500 seats+/-.5,200......... sq. ft.
Lobby. . ,. .. . . .'. . . .. . . . . . . .. . . .. '. . .. .. .. .1,500,_ . . . ,. . . . .. sq. ft.
stage. . . . . . . . . . . . ..'liJ . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . '. . -3, 200. . . . . . . . .. sq. ft.
Public Rest Rooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .1,200. . . . . . . . . sq. ft.
Scene Shop ,. . .. '. .. . . . . '. . . . . .. . .. . . .'. . .'. .1,3'00. . . .. . . . .. sq. ft.
Rehearsal. .. . . '. . '. . . . :... -.'. ., .,. . . . . ., . . . 1,20 O. -:. . .. :- . .. sq. ft.
Costume. . .. .. . . . . . . .., . .. . . . . . .. '. . . . . .. . :. . . . 500.. . . .. . .. sq. ft.
Dressing Rooms (2). . . . . ... . . . . . . . .. . . . .. 600.. . . ., . . . . . sq. ft.
Green ,Room. . . . ., . .. . . '.. . .. . .'. . .. . . . . . . ... . 40,0. '. . .. ... . . sq. ft..
Administration....... ~'.... <Ii...... .;. ..~.1,700.......... sq. ft.
Common Areas. .'. .,.'.,... .'............... .-1,2'00......... sq. ft.
also 1/2 of common corridor.
Total 18,000sq ft 19,700 sq. ft.
. ,BELOW GRAOE
. Program provided
Hinnetonka Dance Theatre & SchooL... 4,000 sq. ft...4,450 sq. ft.
(includes circulation)
TOTAL FLOOR. AkEA SCHEKE '''R'' 24,150 SQ. FT.
.
-
~
Page 6 rJ
------
'-
~..-.;,;
PROJECT FLOOR AREA SUMMARY
SCHEME flJfI -
ABOVE GRADE
Performinq Arts Facility
Program Provided
Theater (audience area) 500 seats+/-.S,200......... sq. ft.
Lobby. . . . .. .. . . . . . .. . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . \lJ'. .. .. 1 , 500.. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . sq. ft.
stage.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 3 I 2.00 .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. sq. ft.
, Public Rest Rooms................... .1,200.......... sq. ft.
Scene Shop..................................................... 1, 300 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. sq. ft.
Costume.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 500.. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. sq. ft.
[' Dressing Rooms ( 2) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. it .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 600 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . sq. ft.
I Common Areas..............................................]. ,200,. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. sq~ ft.
t
I also 1/2 of common corridor
Total Above Grade Floor Area........18,OOO sq.ft..16;lS0 sq. ft.
BELOW GRADE
Program Provided
i Hinnetonka Dance Theatre' School... 4,000 sq.ft...4,4S0 sq. ft.
. (includes circulation)
Rehearsal.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1 , 2 00 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. sq. ft.
Green Room.................................................... 400.. .. .. .... .. .. .. sq. ft. .
Administration.. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1, 700 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. sq. ft.
Total Below Grade Floor Area.........7,300.........7,OSO sq. ft.
<. (or (,.p-;r +- M 01""5)
TOTAL FLOOR, AREA SCHEME "Ju ..2 a ,-2 Q e- SQ. FT .
! 3~,.5 00
TOTAL FLOOR AREA AVAILABLE
FOR COMMUNITY FUNCTIONS 9,100 SQ. FT.
i
i
~.-
.
! r~
page 7 JIll
"......._~, ~._"""'...... ';I!I!i'IlE<m,,-IJ1IlI!lI'
; ,
. PROJECT BUDGET COST ESTIMATE
SCHEME "G"
performinqArts Facility. (Includinq HOTS andPAF Finishes)
0 site Improvements......... '. . . . . . . . . . . " . . . . .. . ..$. . . 100 , 000
0 General Work.".......................... .'..... $ 1,137,000
0 .Mechani cal. .. . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . ~ .. . ~ . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . $ . .. 230 , 000
0 Electrical~...................................$.,..~20,000
0 proj ect Management......... ... .. ." . . . .. . . . . . . . . $. . . .68,000
0 performinq Arts Pacility Finishes.............$...350,000
0 Hinnetonka Dance Theatre & School.............$...267,000
Total Construction cost..........................$ 2,272,000
Soft Cost: 10% of the Construction Cost........ .$. ...227,200
(Architectural/Engineering, special Inspections, Testing fees)
Construction contingency:
. 5% of the Construction cost.......................$...113,600
.....
~ Special Added Features (such as wall murals, etc.):
5% of the Construc~ion cost......................$...113,600
Total project cost...............................$.2,726,400
* In Scheme "G",all is entirely located on the first floor.
~
-
Page 8 r~
. .-
PROJECT BUDGET COST ESTIMATE ~
SCHEU "JI" -
performing Arts Faoility. (Including HOTS and PAF Finishes)
0 site Improvements.............................
0 C;~l1~~ClJL lVC)~lc......................... '. . . .. . . . .
0 Mechanical. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..
0 Electrical. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .
0 proj ect Management.............. '. . . . . . . . . . . .. .
0 performing Arts Facility Finishes.............
0 Hinnetonka Dance Theatre & School.............
at lower level
0 Elevator. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . $. . . .65 t 000
~~ Total Construction Cost..........................$ 2,455,000
_"u.m_ Soft Cost: 10% of the Construction Cost.........$...245,500
(Architectural/Engineering, Special Inspections, Testing fees)
Construction contingency:
5% of the Construction cost......................$...122,750 ~
t ..~; ,.,.
Special Added Features (such as wall murals, etc.):
5% of the Construction Cost......................$...122,750
\
Total project Cost....'..................".........$ 2,946,000
I
,
* In Scheme "H" Minnetonka Dance Theatre & School is at lower
level.
i
\
i
i
i
;
.
r:.4
~ 'l:^
Page 9 IIJ!!!J!m
-,- !.llillE."lI~_ ~,~~
'. .
. PROJECT BUDGET COST ESTIMATE
SCHEME tlJtI
Performing Arts Facility* (Including HOTS and PAF Finishes)
. .
0 S ~ te Improv~ment~................ _. . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 C;~l1E!~(lJL 'iV()~Jc............. '. . . . . '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 Mechanical. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. . . ._ . . '. . . . . . .-'. .
0 Electrical. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. . . . . . . . . '. . . .
0 Project Management'.......... .... .'.. .,...........
0 Performing Arts Facility Finishes.............
0 Minnetonka Dance Theatre & School......~......
0 Elevator. . . . . . . . . . . . . '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $. . . .65,000
Total Construction cost..........................$ 2,226,900,
Soft Cost: 10% of the Construction Cost.........$....222,690
(Architectural/Engineering, Special Inspections, Testing fees)
Construction Contingency:
. 5% of the Construction Cost......................$...111,345
Special Added Features: (such as wall murals, etc. )
5% .of the Construction Cost...................... .$.. .111,345
.
First Floor Project cost..........................$ 2,672,280
Finished Lower Level 9,100 SF ~ $60/SF..........$...546,000
for community functions
Soft Cost: 10% of the Construction Cost......... $. . . .54, 600
(Architectural/Engineering, Special Inspections, Testing fees)
.
Construction contingency:
5% of the Construction Cost.................... ..$... .27,300
Special Added Features: (such as wall murals; etc. )
5% of the Construction cost.......~..............$....27,300
Lower Level project COst......................~..$...655,200
~ Total project Cost First Floor and Lower Level...$ 3,327,480
-
* In Scheme "J" Minnetonka Dance Theatre & School,
Administration, Rehearsal Room and Green Rooms are at lower
level. Community functions at lower level.
Paae JO r~
. .~
'.
-
PROJECT BUDGET COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY -
The following is a summary of Building Program Groups A,B,C,D,
as required by the City of Hopkins, that appeared on Page 5 of
the July 28, 1993 VA Project Update Memo. However, the actual
floor areas in the fOllowing Building Program Groups differ from
the approximate floor areas indicated in VA's Project Update
Memo and also may differ from the project cost estimates of
Schemes "G", "H" and "J" as described in this report. Group D
is further subdivided into Sub-Groups D1 and 02.
A. A foot print of building with approximately 19,200 sq. ft. of
area above grade with 4,450 sq. ft. area for HOTS below
grade.
Performing Arts Facility Shell 19,200 SF @ $86/SF.....$l,655,000
Performing Arts Facility Finishes.....................$..350,OOO
Minnetonka Dance Theatre & School 4,450 SF @ $60/SF...$..267,OOO
Elevator. . . .. . . . . . . . .-. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . '. .. . . . .. . . .. . . . . .. . . $. . .65,000
Construction cost.....................................$2,337,000
. Soft Cost (10% of Construction cost) . . . . .. ... . . .. .... . $. .233,700
,-- Construction contingency (5% of constructioncost)....$..116,850 .
i :,i,~ Special Added Features (5% of Construction Cost)......$..116,850
Total project Cost....................................$2,S04,400
.
i - B. A building with approximately 16,150 sq. ft. foot print above
\ grade and 7,050 sq. ft. building below grade (4,450 sq. ft.
! HOTS and 2,600 sq. ft. rehearsal rooms).
i Performing Arts Facility Shell 16,150 SF @ $86/SF.....$l,388,900
Performing Arts Facility, Finishes..................... $..350,000
Minnetonka Dance Theatre & School 4,450 SF @ $60/SF...$..267,OOO
Rehearsal Rooms 2,600 SF @ $60/SF.....................$..156,OOO
Elevator. . . . . . .. . . . .. . .. . . . . . .. .. . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . .. .. .. . . . . . . .. . $.. . .. 65, 000
I Construction Cost.....................................$2,226,900
!
Soft Cost (10% of Construction cost) ..................$..222,690
Construction Contingency (5% of Construction Cost) ....$..111,345
i Special Added Features (5% of Construction Cost)......$..111,345
- Total project cost....................................$2,672,2S0
[ .
-
-
Page 11 r~
- - -- -
;:, ' ;'1"'.
.
. PROJECT BUDGET COST ESTIMATE SUMHARY - continued
C. A building with approximately 16,150 sq. ft. foot print above
grade and 16,150 sq. ft. area below grade. In this option,
there will bean approximately 9,100 sq. ft. area below grade
for various civic and community functions. '
Performing Arts Facility Shell 16,~50 SF @ $86/SF.....$~,388,900
Performing Arts Facility Finishes.................~'... $. .350,000
Minnetonka Dance Theatre & School 4,450 SF @ $60/SF...$..267,000
Rehearsal Rooms@ 2,600 spi @ $60/SF.... ~............. .$. .156,000
Lower Level 9,~00 SF @ $60/SF... .....,.................' .$. .546,000
Elevator. .'. . . . . . . . .,. . . . . . . . . ... . '~ . . . . .,. . . . . ~ . . . . . .' . . . . . $. . .65,000
Construction cost.....................................$2,727,900
Soft Cost (~O% of Construction cost).~................$..277,290
Construction Contingency (5% of Construction cost)....$..138,645
Special Added Features (5% of Construction Cost) ......$..138,645
Tota~ Project Cost....................................$3,327,480
.
.-'
..., D. A building with approximately 19,200 sq. ft. of foot print
area for PAF only above grade.
Performing Arts Facility .............................. $1, 655,,000
performing Arts Facility Finishes.....................$~.350,000
Construction cost..........~..........................$2,005,OOO
Soft Cost (~O% of Construction Cost)..................$..200,500
Construction contingency (5% of Construction Cost)....$..~00,250
Special Added Features (5% of Construction Cost)......$..~00,250'
Total Project Cost....................................$2,406,OOO
-
-
Page 12 ,.~
" '-
PROJECT BUDGET COST ESTIMATE SUHMARY - continued ~-
-
01. A Duilding with approximately 23,650 sq. ft. of foot print
area for PAP and HOTS above grade.
Performing Arts Facility Shell 19,200 SF @ $86jSF.....$1,655,000
Performing Arts Facility Finishes......................$..350,000
Minnetonka Dance Theatre & School 4,450 SF @ $60jSF...$..267,000
Construction Cost............., . . .. ~ ....... .. . . . .. .. . . . $2 ,272,000
Soft Cost (10% of Construction Cost)..................$..227,200
Construction Contingency (5% of Construction Cost)....$..113,600
Special Added Features (5% of Construction cost)......$..113,600
Total project cost....................................$2,726,400
02. A building with approximately 24,000 sq. ft. area for PAP
. and HOTS above grade and 24,000 sq. ft. area below grade for
various community functions.
..~~~ Performing Arts Facility Shell 19,550 SF @ $86jSF.....$1,681,300 .
Performing Arts Facility Finishes.....................$..350,000
Minnetonka Dance Theatre & School @ $60jSF............$..267,000
Elevator. . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . ,. .. .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . $. . .65,000
Construction cost...~.................................$2,363,300
- , Soft Cost (10% of Construction Cost}..................$..236,300
l Construction Contingency (5% of Construction cost)....$..118,165
Special Added Features (5% of construction Cost)......$..118,165
Total of First F1oor...~..............................$2,835,900
Finished Lower Level 24,000 SF @ $60jSF...............$1,440,000
Soft Cost (10% of Construction cost)..................$..144,000
Construction Contingency (5% of Construction Cost)....$...72,000
Special Added Features (5% of Construction Cost)......$...72,000
Total of Lower Level..................................$1,728,OOO
Total Project Cost of D2. First Floor and Lower Level $4,563,900
----
.
Page 13 rJ
, -
~1.~"~C"
~:toll cOll'f Jill'D
~,..~ O~..~ '
J$l!:tC:t?:I>~1) ..
. ~),'2.5 ,ooO/'iea"f:.
... &X'd ~intenance ~ ~5, 000
ot>e"f:.at:>.on . . . e" ~. ~'2., 000
. 0 sa),a~:>'. 0 000
:tnc),ude'" lJti),:>.t:>.e" ~ '2. '000
~ :tn"U"f:.~~~ sut>t>),ie" \ ~~'ooo
cu..tO .:>. '
o i,teyai:X:S
o .
~yy-x:o~. $S.3S
e 1'00t, .. 01 ect' 'C.b-e .
t 1?e"f:. sq:ua"f:. . 0. to t1>e t>"f:. "f:.o><i.....te),'i
ot>e"f:.atinq co" footaqe i" ~~~inC"f:.ea..e @at>t>
..q:ua"f:.e .. o..t "':>. a
:tf aaditiOna1- d. ot>e"f:.at:>.on ~aea ..t>ace a"f:.e . ,
o ~ainten&X'ce ~"f:.e foot of a $5 ooo/'iea"f:.
~~ .00 t>e"f:. .. . 13Uaqet' .
"f\l:nd ~
. tenance 'p'i
1\"C"f:.O'" 1>\a:>.n . nt"f:.o1-1-ed
q ote"f:.1l' '1-1. )>e co .
1,.0" .. .. . co..t "'.:>' 'pui1-d:>.nq
. ' 0. ~aintenance ~aintenance
. tiona1- a~. ",i'C.b- 1-0'" .
o 'tt>e ot>~"f:.~ 'C.b-e fac:>.),,:t~ ..'i..te,....
de..iqn:>." a )>ui1.a:>.n . .
. ~ate"f:.ia1." &X'
. .. . t1>i" "f:.et>o"f:."C.'
. co~s. )o1.i..1>ed,.n . l' 'C.b-e
1>\:tsCf.~OlJS . . nO. i..not e..t~ ~'2.6. ..t>ace" ~&~ ..t>ace'"
&X'd de~a. ..ut>t>1.'i 0 . eO. ut> to .
o 1?a"f:.1<inq "';:'l1;1iona1. 1('f~~~an )>e inC"f:.ea" . 1?"f:.o..ceni"'" ana
\lO~e"~"f:.' a"f:.1<inQ fac:>' . .. 'C.b-e' ..taqe,
e><:>...t,.nq t> a "f:.eqa"f:.a,.nq
. neede . 1< of
d...cU....ion,... auaitO"f:.:>''''''' to 'C.b-e 'pac
o 1>\o"f:..e ': ....ue.. in t1>e f '" 'C.b-e ..taqe
..1-ot>e :>. . . de"f:.ea ",0 .
~2' i" con":> cei1.inq. ....iq1' int>ut
o :I> b-e~~~:~",011' f1.00"f:. tOf aiff"",,,1\t q,:';.~;'oc;cb- i"
t1>" i1\"o 1- """,ent ~i01\ ~&X'aq""'~':."o 1. "edq",out>",,'
con..id,,",i.1'q ~~1- a con..t""":';fO"t 'O'i tb-" .,\1.1- cont",o1- t1>
o . 0. co..t con d"aicat"aa",C1>it"ct , i1\t>ut.
~c"""""nr:O~ ;'naq""' :~';;o~~" 1>iqb- d"":>'<,!1\
cot\s.tc:.~c ti.ot\ cos;t:.atl
co'[\6t",,"c .. - .
.
?aqe 1.&\
~
0 0 o ~ Or-! ' "
~ 0 0 o 0 o :> ,--~ II
(lj 0 0 CO 0 '<tr-!
Q) ~ ~ .- ~r-! ~ ~
~ 10 0 Q) '<t<i-l \0 ~
N C"'l 't$ N C"'lQ)
~ .-l .-l (lj .-l+J ~
Q) ~ fJ) 0
0.. {/)o {/)o {/)o .-l {/)o r-! .
~
0
0 0 r-! 0
0 0 Q) CO
.. 0 .a ..
r-! ... ... ...
(lj \0 \0 Q) t:"-
+J t:"- '" 0 t:"-
O ('II .. ,~ CO
8 ... .. ..
('II ('II fJ) ('II
(/)0 (/)0 (/)0
r-! 0 0 0 0 +J 0 0 0
-,--- (lj 0 0 0 0 -..-I CO 0 0
+J 0 '<t I \0 '<t' I ,:: CO '<t N
0 .. ... I .. .. I ~ ... .. ...
8 \0 0 I 10 0 I E .-l 0 10
I 10 N I ,... t' N I 0 N 10
.a 0 N I Q) N N I .0 0 N \0
~ ~ I 't$ ~ I 0 ...
00 N (lj N N
- {])o {/)o C! q)- {/)o . q)- q)- q)-
-
!? ..., ~
- .a - - . -
l-l 0 ~ 0 00 0
Q +J I 0 I 0 I 0 I I 0 I
~ ,:: I 0 I r-! I 0 I 0 I 0 I
l't; CJ I ... I Q) I .. I 0 I ... I
>t 8 , I 0 I .a I 0 I .-l I 0 I
80 - 00 I 0 I I 0 I . I 0 I
HUl ii= 8 I .-l I . I .-l I ~ I .-l I
~JlQ - 0 q)- - p:.. q)- q)-
- .'
---- ~~ ~ '-' . '-' 't$ '-'
.. 00 ,::
llSlH - .a - .-.. (lj -
~= c; ~ 0 0 0 0
- +J 0 I I 10 0 I I fJ) 0 .. I
-
Ul ... ~ 0 , I ~ 0 , I ,:: 0 , I
8Ul CD CJ ... I I ~ I I 0 ... I I
~~ ~ 0 I I "<t 0 I I -..-I 0 I I
10 I I 10 I I +J 10 I I e
tIC: J\:1 C"'l I I 't$ C"'l I I 0 C"'l I I
t.!JPc == q)- ,:: q)- ,:: q)-
:2;0 0 '-' (lj '-' ~ '-'
Hltl Ul <i-l
~= 0 0 Q) 0 0 0 0 0
Ul 0 0 't$ CO 0 ~ ~ 0 0
H 10 t' I (lj co t' I ..x: ~ t' \0
1Z40 Ul ~ ... I ~ .. ... I ~ ... ~ ..
re~ >t 0 \0 I CO \0 I 10 \0 '<t
~ 0 N I .-l N I . ~ N 10
~ N I Q) N I ~ .-l
0 I > I .
Q 0 C1.l
---- q)- q)- .a q)- q)- q)- q)- q)-
8 (lj 0
Ul ~ of( of( 10 of(
0 0 . 0 0 0
0 Q) 0 I I ~ 0 I I 0 I I +J
~ 't$ 0 I I. . 0 I I t' 0 I I fJ)
H (lj ... I I 00 ... I I ... I I 0
~ 0 I I 0 I I . 0 I I C)
Q) 0 I I 0 0 I I Q) 0 I I
+J .-l I I 0 .-l I I 't$ .-l I I ,::
-..-I Q) t' (lj 0
00 :> q)- q)- . ~ q)- -..-I
0 0'1 ..., +J
.a 0 0 r-l 0 0 0 0 0 0
+J (lj 0 0 ..... CO 0 Q) ~ 0 0 ~
.~-- fJ) 10 t' I CO ro- I > 0'1 t' \0 l-l
0 (lj ... ... I (lj ... .. I cd 0 ... ... ... +J
CJ Q) 0 \0 I Q) co \0 I Q).a 10 \0 '<t fJ)
~ 0 N I ~ .-l N I ~ (lj 0'1 N 10 ,::
+J (lj N I (lj N I cd .-l 0
<i-l I I . C)
0 . . .~
00 ~ q)- q)- ~ q)- q)- ~ . q)- q)- q)- Q)
. . .00 -'=
+J 00 0 0 tI.l 0 0 00 0 0 0 +J
fJ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 010 0'1 0 0 ,::
CJ 10 ~ .. Q) 10 .. ~ Q) O.-l .. ~ ~ -..-I
\0 10 t' ,::, .-l co ro- ,:: C"'l 0'1 t' \0 ''ge
+J . 0 \0 0 . co \0 0 '... \0 10 \0 '<t
fJ) C"'l 0 N Z "<t .-l N Z ~~ 0'1 N 10
,:: N ... N ... ... 't$
0 N N .-l ~
C) q)- q)- {/)o q)- {/)o q)- {/)o .-l
~-~~= CD CD CD 0
S 00 . Q) S C1.l . Q) S C1.l . Q) ,::
- CD: ~ 8 roO CD: ~ ~ 't$0 CD: ~ 8 't$0 H
,c:t.!J ~ 0 ro(lj .d= ~ 't$(lj ,c:1? ~ Cl 'O(lj
0: ~ ~ ~o.. 0: ~ ~o.. 0: :lE: ~o..
tQ 00 ~ 00 Ul 00 oj(
- '
.._-.-...
'.
... "
r:'''' ~
' PARKING
.' V E 0 I ASS 0 C I ATE S, INC. ENGINEERING
,.., RESTORATION . '"
'AI 1129 WASHINGTON AVE SO" MINN EAPOUS, MN, 55415 612/333-4670 ARCH 'T'CTU R' .
August 10, 1993
..- James D. Kerrigan
Director
Planning and Economic Development
.~ ci ty of Hopkins
1010 First street South
Hopkins, MN 55343
RE: proj ect Summary Report
Performing Arts Facility (PAF)
Downtown Hopkins, Minnesota
Comm. No. A70-793 (100)
Dear Mr. Kerrigan:
As per your authorization of July 6, 1993, Vedi Associates, Inc.
. (VA) and Ralph Rapson and Associates are pleased to submit this
report for the programming/concept design of the PAF in Downtown
Hopkins, Minnesota~
.' This project was developed with the representatives of Child's .
Play Theatre Company (CPTC) , Copeland-Mithun, Inc. (CM) and city
of Hopkins staff. The preliminary presentation of this project
was presented to the city Council on August 3, 1993.
preliminary design schemes "A" through "H" and "J" were reviewed
by the representatives involved. However, only the preferred
schemes "G", "H" and "J" were presented to the City Council.
On the following pages each scheme's features and budget
estimates for the probable construction costs are provided for
your review and comments. These cost estimates included in this
summary are not the final estimates and will change along with
the development of the project and the final selected scheme.
IMPC
.
- ___n_..___ ___ __ ___ ___ _ __m___... _
-- -- ....... ----------------...------
-- . - ---
,
-.
--
(!:)ffi Q
2 .
I-
Z ..
..
w )( ~
o ..
I- f ,::: ~
z () ~ .::.
~ ~ g H
~ ,~ ~ : i
~ ~ i J I
a:'8!
w ..
, . !z I ~
w ~ .,;
Cf)~~
z ;; -ll
_ ! 0
:::s::: .... II>
a. ~
o 'e
:I: ~
i
;.
~ I
[
~
~
~
.
=
~i
~,
ii~
,-,,,.-
f:_ ;
Q
:r:o: ~.
w
I- Ill-
Z ~
W :g 'g
() @' III ;,
I- 0 ~ ~
z C) oll :-
W C :5 : ~
:E~8.:~
~ ~ ~ #:
:<Cel! ~ 'i
.-= . '"
i I a: III a:
W '"
I- j .
Z 0 2
W I tf)-
(fJ~~
6 ~ "8
~ ... :::
a. <
0 'l5
:r: ~
I
I '
I
.
:
I
I
~) u
.
~
,~
i.i
;,J..~-
----n (f .
I I II
I .
I
.1 ~
_._- i
'. \.-'-
-- A .." r I :
---
:,,-t=a - ~~;. p='
H I I l' I '.1 I I ' ill wQ',..
; I ' ," I: I . . : d~
. . ~_' __ 1 . .ot .~
II ~r r II i I ; , I i ~ , ",'
) I ,I I:: ~ I j
mt1tHffi' III!!~ l
II I r i .~H+rtHi I J
J
%
, I I Ii! ! I I .
, .
..
-
- :
/= i .
, I
': '1 r
I
~~- 1
Q
~' . -, ffi ~ t
." ~ Ifi
I ~ 8 < ._
J). ra~8:;
~ "'.. :i
...: ; a.:C
--- Z _ ~ '..
~ ;;:~~Jj
~.~
a: ..
w ~
~ ! ~
ra () -
(J)~~
z a; ~
52 ~ ..
0.. <
o i
J:
J
.-.
~
-_.~
------ I
- -
r:-- I
I IJ I
i -- ------0 I
; L__~----. -.- f "
I ---!-t-- r
___L....t.__ 1 I :
i-I i i !
: I II ~
I ~.
: i I ~
:
i .. I
L----_ ------c__J
\
,
,
f.;...,: .......
~
i
.
J
,
"
.'
..
:-:;;;::"
-
--
;..
..-:
OUTLINE OF BASIC BUILDING KATERIALS
-
The following low maintenance building materials are being
considered in the preparation of programming/concept design of
the Performing Arts Facility:
SIDEWALKS
Concrete and limited use of brick pavers.
STRUCTURAL' SYSTEM
Concrete and steel frame.
BUILDING EXTERIOR
Brick, architectural pre-cast, aluminum, glass, architectural
metal.
LOBBY
Ceramic and quarry tile, carpet, architectural pre-cast, brick,
painted gypsum board.
FLOORS .
Concrete with sealer, ceramic tile, brick, hardwood, carpet.
,"";';;';;;;
WALLS
Painted gypsum board, carpet, wood, pre-cast, brick, acoustic
treatment, drapes, painted and unpainted masonry block
CEILING
Acoustic treatment, painted gypsum board, wood.
ROOF
Built-up roofing, membrane rOOfing, metal rOOfing.
.
page ~ r.4
.
-- ~j