SR 06:079 - Laserfiche WebLink

On June 6, 2005, Kurt Schindler and Ed Noland ofELS presented the Commission with a series of cost saving alternatives: reductions in gallery area size, theatrical support area, exterior deck scope, theater tech levels, and the height of the building would result in a savings of $456,000. Elimination of the art gallery would save an additional $1.995 million; the small theater $4.850 million; and the classrooms $898,000 (see Attachment 3). During the course of the meeting and discussion, a number of Task Force members and arts community representatives encouraged the Commission to construct the project as originally envisioned, since elimination of major components of the building would negate its very purpose/essence. The small reduction in costs (reduction of gallery size, etc.) were considered minor, and in the context of the overall budget not significant savings. Greg Reznick, President of the Pleasanton Cultural Arts Foundation and spearhead of the fundraising campaign, made a similar appeal and reaffirmed his organization's intention to raise the balance of the funds necessary to complete the project as originally envisioned. The Commission agreed, and voted unanimously to approve and recommend the concept/schematic design as developed and presented by the Task Force and not reduce the scope. Pumose of Tonight's Workshop The normal review process for these types of projects would have included presentations of the conceptual/schematic design to various City commissions and committees, i.e. Parks and Recreation Commission, Economic Development Committee, Planning Commission, etc., and ultimately review and approval by the City Council. Given the high public interest in this project and the significant shortfall in available construction funds, a joint workshop with the Civic Arts Commission was suggested so that the Council and community could: I. Become more familiar with the actual conceptuaVschematic design for the Firehouse Arts Center as recommended by the Civic Arts Commission and Task Force; 2. Be updated with the latest cost estimates for the project; 3. Be apprised ofthe fundraising efforts that are now underway; 4. Become familiar with possible phasing and funding opportunities/constraints for the project; 5. Review and explore possible alternatives for proceeding with the project, and indicate preferences to staff and consultants. CONCLUSION The Civic Arts Commission and staff are highly supportive of the conceptual and schematic design, and this workshop would provide an opportunity for the Council and community to become familiar with the project. At the conclusion of the discussion, it is recommended that the Council provide direction to staff regarding a phasing approach or reallocation of funds from other capital projects prior to further review/input from appropriate City commissions. SR 05:241 Page 7