My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
SR 06:079
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2006
>
SR 06:079
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/30/2006 2:58:04 PM
Creation date
3/30/2006 2:54:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
4/4/2006
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
SR 06:079
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
81
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />On June 6, 2005, Kurt Schindler and Ed Noland ofELS presented the Commission with a series <br />of cost saving alternatives: reductions in gallery area size, theatrical support area, exterior deck <br />scope, theater tech levels, and the height of the building would result in a savings of $456,000. <br />Elimination of the art gallery would save an additional $1.995 million; the small theater $4.850 <br />million; and the classrooms $898,000 (see Attachment 3). During the course of the meeting and <br />discussion, a number of Task Force members and arts community representatives encouraged <br />the Commission to construct the project as originally envisioned, since elimination of major <br />components of the building would negate its very purpose/essence. The small reduction in costs <br />(reduction of gallery size, etc.) were considered minor, and in the context of the overall budget <br />not significant savings. Greg Reznick, President of the Pleasanton Cultural Arts Foundation and <br />spearhead of the fundraising campaign, made a similar appeal and reaffirmed his organization's <br />intention to raise the balance of the funds necessary to complete the project as originally <br />envisioned. The Commission agreed, and voted unanimously to approve and recommend the <br />concept/schematic design as developed and presented by the Task Force and not reduce the <br />scope. <br /> <br />Pumose of Tonight's Workshop <br /> <br />The normal review process for these types of projects would have included presentations of the <br />conceptual/schematic design to various City commissions and committees, i.e. Parks and <br />Recreation Commission, Economic Development Committee, Planning Commission, etc., and <br />ultimately review and approval by the City Council. Given the high public interest in this <br />project and the significant shortfall in available construction funds, a joint workshop with the <br />Civic Arts Commission was suggested so that the Council and community could: <br /> <br />I. Become more familiar with the actual conceptuaVschematic design for the Firehouse Arts <br />Center as recommended by the Civic Arts Commission and Task Force; <br />2. Be updated with the latest cost estimates for the project; <br />3. Be apprised ofthe fundraising efforts that are now underway; <br />4. Become familiar with possible phasing and funding opportunities/constraints for the <br />project; <br />5. Review and explore possible alternatives for proceeding with the project, and indicate <br />preferences to staff and consultants. <br /> <br />CONCLUSION <br /> <br />The Civic Arts Commission and staff are highly supportive of the conceptual and schematic <br />design, and this workshop would provide an opportunity for the Council and community to <br />become familiar with the project. At the conclusion of the discussion, it is recommended that <br />the Council provide direction to staff regarding a phasing approach or reallocation of funds from <br />other capital projects prior to further review/input from appropriate City commissions. <br /> <br />SR 05:241 <br />Page 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.