My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN090605 (2)
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
CCMIN090605 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 10:56:42 AM
Creation date
11/17/2005 11:49:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
9/6/2005
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN090605 (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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 />Mayor Hosterman thanked Mr. Resnick for the report on the Foundation and was <br />pleased to see how far along it was towards the goals for the Arts Center. <br />Steve Brozosky indicated $6 million was allocated to get this project started and <br />was never intended to finance the whole project. It was estimated the whole project <br />would cost $8 million and the fund raising would cover the remainder. He believed the <br />challenge was how to phase the construction and programming of the facility. He was <br />excited about the professionalism of the members of the Foundation. It is unique to <br />have an organization with artistic abilities, business, and fundraising abilities. He <br />wanted discussion of phasing plans, how to get it through all the commission reviews, <br />the PUD the planning process, and finally the bidding and construction processes. He <br />felt a timeline could assist the Foundation in raising funds for specific milestones. He <br />asked if there were a way to determine what each program would cost. <br />Mr. Jorgensen requested the Council and Commission to provide input to staff, <br />take public testimony, and give direction on what programming to begin with. <br />Mr. Brozosky asked if the intent was for staff to come back with a phasing plan <br />and a timeline for drawing completion, bidding, public hearing schedule, etc. until <br />groundbreaking. <br />Nelson Fialho indicated there had been discussions with the architect and the <br />goal was to bring back strategic milestones that could match the phasing of building the <br />shell and determining what programmatic elements could be implemented sooner rather <br />than later. That allows staff to present everything from a timeline and financial <br />standpoint and then Council can prioritize what it wants to fund at the beginning. That <br />gives an opportunity for the Cultural Arts Council to do more refinement of its <br />fund raising plans. He believed that information could be available in the next couple of <br />months. <br />Cindy McGovern liked the design of the theater. She had some questions about <br />the financial slides and discrepancies between figures on two of the slides. <br />Mr. Schindler, the architect, responded that the contractor's costs (general <br />conditions, overhead and profit) are budgeted as 15% of the entire project. They took <br />out a portion of the costs for the completion of the building. At the end of the slide, they <br />added the shell cost back in. If one adds $4.8 million for the shell cost with $3.5 million, <br />that equals the total cost of $8.4 million. <br />Ms. McGovern said it looks like the shell could be built for $4.8 million with a <br />contingency of 10% included. From the overhead profit, they would make only <br />$250,000. She felt the numbers did not make sense. Her next question was about the <br />contingency, since she believed the city usually provided a 20%. <br />James Wolfe said contingencies vary from 5% to 12%. <br />Joint Workshop <br />City Council/Civic Arts Commission 2 09/06/05 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.