Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout81-85 RESOLUTION14.4 RESOLUTION NO. 81-85 SCANNED A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY (T.FRK TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES WITH MO1T, MOBLEY, McGOWAN & GRIFFIN, P.A., FOR THE PREPARATION OF A PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLAN FOR THE FAYETTEVILIF CENTER FOR THE ARTS. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYET EVILLE, ARKANSAS: That the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute a contract for architectural services with Mott, Mobley, McGowan & Griffin, P.A., for the preparation of a preliminary design plan for the Fayetteville Center for the Arts. A copy of the contract authorized for execution hereby is attached hereto marked Exhibit ""A"? and made a part hereof. �.�_ . PASSED AND APPROVED this 6th day of August y` ., y_, F!%Y.` it t• -- tr 1 ,� a.�f =111 mo ,.,. a i.• ATTEST , 1985. • Mott Mobley McGowan & Griffin, P.A.: Architects 302 North Sixth Street Fort Smith. Arkansas 72901 Telephone (501) 782-1051 August 6; 1985 Mr. James N. McCord City of Fayetteville P.O. Drawer F Fayetteville, AR 72702 Dear Mr. McCord: MICROFILMED Re: Preliminary Design Study Fayetteville Arts Center Fayetteville, Arkansas Enclosed are two revised copies of the this project which should replace those letter. Revisions have been made as we Sincerely, • MOTT MOBLEY McGOWAN &.GRIFFIN, P.A. John K. Mott, FAIA sw enc MM MG Owner -Architect Agreement for forwarded by our July 26, 1985 discussed by telephone today. THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS AIA Document 8727 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect for Special Services 1979 EDITION THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR USE WHEN OTHER 8 -SERIES DOCUMENTS ARE NOT APPROPRIATE THIS DOCUMENT HAS IMPORTANT LEGAL CONSEQUENCES; CONSULTATION WITH AN ATTORNEY 1S ENCOURAGED WITH RESPECT TO ITS COMPLETION OR MODIFICATION AGREEMENT made as of the Sixth Hundred and Eighty -Five day of August in the year of Nineteen BETWEEN the Owner: CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS and the Architect: MOTT MOBLEY McGOWAN & GRIFFIN, P.A. Fort:Smith, Arkansas An Arkansas.Corporation For the following Project: (Include detailed description of Project location and scope.) DESIGN STUDY Arts Center Fayetteville, Arkansas The Owner and the Architect agree as set forth below. Copyright 1972, 0 1979 by The American Institute of Architects, 1735 New York Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006. Repro- duction of the material herein or substantial quotation of its provisions without permission of the AIA violates the copyright laws of the United States and will be subject to legal prosecution. AIA DOCUMENT 8727 • SPECIAL SERVICES AGREEMENT • JUNE 1979 EDITION • AIA® • 01979 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVE., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 8727-1979 1 ARTICLE 1 ARCHITECT'S SERVICES (Here list (hose services lo be provided by the Architect under the Terms and Conditions of this Agreement. Note under each service listed the method and means of compensation to be used, 0 applicable, as provided in Article 10.) 1.1 Prepare a space utilization questionnaire to be distributed to potential users of the facility. 1.2 Tabulate data submitted by theArtsCenter Board gathered from question- naires and other sources. 1.3 Lead meetings to review the information submitted through the question- naires and draw out additional information from those attending through questions posed by the architect. 1.4 Prepare a preliminary written program detailing individual space require- ments, seating requirements, equipment requirements, etc. Submit a draft for review prior to finalizing the program which will be used throughout the remainder of the study. 1.5 In conjunction with the Arts Center Board review the total number of avail- able sites and select three for further study, one of which may include an existing structure proposed for reuse. 1.6 Prepare a study of each of the three sites. The study will be accomplished by the establishment of site criteria for an Arts Center, such as building constraints, land costs, access, suitability for purpose, traffic patterns, and parking. Each site will be rated according to the criteria. The end result will be a recommendation as to which site is most suitable for the Arts Center. The study will be supported by sketches illustrating various site considerations existing at each location. 1.7 Prepare design sketches sufficiently detailed to allow the preparation of cost estimates. Sketches will not be of such detail or graphic quality to be suitable for display. If an existing building is proposed for use through renovation and, following the site evaluation, appears to be worth further consideration the design sketches will be such that a comparison of a new structure versus renovation of the existing one can be made. Prepare construction cost estimates based on the information developed in the design sketches. 1.8 • Conduct an.eeonomic impact study to determine'.the potential benefits to the ::City- from •thet'projeci,including the impact. directly, related to the construe- :',:tion project.iteelfacility income projections, a projection about numbers of jobs directly orindirectly created.by the:Arts Center, the projected im- pact on businesses in the vicinity of the project, projections:as to in- creased hotel/motel/restaurant tax generated because of the building, and the impact on the City of Fayetteville in terms -of what makes the locale' more attractive to industry and others because of the presence of the Arts Center. 1.10 Prepare a report which will include the building design program, an outline of the site evaluation process and a recommendation of the most suitable site with supporting material, a cost breakdown, and an outline of the economic benefits which can be expected. AIA DOCUMENT 6727 • SPECIAL SERVICES AGREEMENT • IUNE 1979 EDITION • AIAe • ®1979 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS. 1735 NEW YORK AVE., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20306 8727 - 1979 2 TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER AND ARCHITECT ARTICLE 2 THE OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES 2.1 The Owner shall provide full information regarding requirements for the Project. (See 11. 1) 2.2 The Owner shall designate, when necessary, a rep- resentative authorized to act in the Owner's behalf with respect to the Project. The Owner or such authorized representative shall examine the documents submitted by the Architect and shall render decisions pertaining thereto promptly, to avoid unreasonable delay in the progress of the Architect's services. 2.3 The Owner shall furnish required information as ex- peditiously as necessary for the orderly progress of the.. Work, and the Architect shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness thereof. ARTICLE 3 DIRECT SALARY AND DIRECT PERSONNEL EXPENSE 3.1 Direct Salary Expense is defined as the direct salaries of all the Architect's personnel engaged on the Project, but does not include the cost of contributions and bene- fits related thereto, whether mandatory or customary, as described in Paragraph 3.2, and included in Direct Per- sonnel Expense. 3.2 Direct Personnel Expense is defined as the direct salaries of all the Architect's personnel engaged on the Project, and the portion of the cost of their mandatory and customary contributions and benefits related thereto, such as employment taxes and other statutory employee benefits, insurance, sick leave, holidays, vacations, pen- sions, and similar contributions and benefits. ARTICLE 4 (Deleted by REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES 11.2) 4.1 Reimbursable Expenses are in addition to the Archi- tect's compensation and include actual expenditures made by the Architect and the Architect's employees and consultants in the interest of the Project for the expenses listed in the following Subparagraphs: • .1 expense of transportation and living expenses in connection with out-of-town travel authorized by the Owner, .2 long distance communications, .3 fees paid for securing approvals of authorities hav- ing jurisdiction over the Project, .4 reproductions, .5 postage and handling of documents, .6 renderings and models requested by the Owner, .7 data processing. and photographic production techniques when used in connection with Addi- tional Services, .8 expense of overtime work requiring higher than regular rates, if authorized by the Owner. .ARTICLE 5 (Revised by 11.3) PAYMENTS TO THE ARCHITECT 5.1 Payments on account of the Architect's services, and for Reimbursable Expenses as defined in Article 4, shall be made monthly upon presentation of the -Architect's state- ment of services rendered or as otherwise provided in this Agreement. 5.2 An initial payment as set forth in Paragraph 10.1 is the minimum payment under this Agreement. 5.3 If the Project is suspended or abandoned in whole or in part for more than three months, the Architect shall be compensated for all services performed prior to re- ceipt of written notice from the Owner of such suspen- sion or abandonment, together with Reimbursable Ex- penses then due and all Termination Expenses as defined in Paragraph 8.4. If the Project is resumed after being suspended for more than three months, the Architect's compensation shall be equitably adjusted. . ARTICLE 6 (Deleted by 11.4) ARCHITECT'S ACCOUNTING RECORDS . 6.1 Records of Reimbursable Expenses and expenses pertaining to services performed on the basis of a Multiple of Direct Salary or Direct Personnel Expense shall be kept on the basis of generally accepted accounting principles and shall be available to the Owner or the Owner's authorized representative at mutually convenient times. ARTICLE 7 (Deleted by ARBITRATION 11.5) 7.1 All claims, disputes and other matters in question between the parties to this Agreement arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the breach thereof, shall be decided by arbitration in accordance with the Construc- tion Industry Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitra- tion Association then obtaining unless the parties mutu- ally agree otherwise. No arbitration arising out of or re- lating to this Agreement shall include, by consolidation, joinder or in any other manner, any additional person not a party to this Agreement except by written consent con- taining a specific reference to this Agreement and signed by the Architect, the Owner and any other person sought to be joined. Any consent to arbitration involving an additional person or persons shall not constitute consent to arbitration of any dispute not described therein or with any person •not named or described therein. This agree- ment to arbitrate and any agreement to arbitrate with an additional person or persons duly consented to by the parties to this Agreement shall be specifically enforceable under the prevailing arbitration law. 7.2 Notice of the demand for arbitration shall be filed in writing with the other party to this Agreement and with the American Arbitration Association. The demand shall be made within a reasonable time after the claim, dispute or other matter in question has arisen. In no event shall the demand for arbitration be made after the date when institution of legal or equitable proceedings based on such claim, dispute or other matter in question would be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. AIA DOCUMENT 8727 • SPECIAL SERVICES AGREEMENT • JUNE 1979 EDITION • AIA® • ©1979 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVE., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 B727 — 1979 3 • 7.3 The award rendered by the arbitrators shall be final, and judgment may be entered upon it in accordance with applicable law in any court having jurisdiction thereof. ARTICLE 8 TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT 8.1 This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon seven days' written notice should the other party fail substantially to perform in accordance with its terms through no fault of the party initiating the termination. . 6.2 This Agreement may be terminated by the Owner upon at least seven days' written notice to the Architect in the event that the Project is permanently abandoned. 8.3 In the event of termination not the fault of the Architect, the Architect shall be compensated for all ser- vices performed to the, termination date.-Wgether-with• ieia bErscafa ♦herdeererrimet+1 Ferr+rinetierteET- delia - d i np latnetro pbc 8 A. • 8.4 Termination Expenses are defined as Reimbursable (Deleted Expenses directly attributable to termination for which by 11.6) the Architect is not otherwise compensated, plus an amount computed as a percentage of the compensation earned to the time of termination, as follows: For Services provided on a Multiple of Direct Salary or Direct Personnel Expense basis, 20% of the total expenses incurred to the time of termination; • For Services provided on a Fixed Fee basis, 10% of the Fixed Fee earned to the time of termination. ARTICLE 9 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS' 9.1 Unless otherwise specified, this Agreement shall be governed by the law of the principal place of business of the Architect. 9.2 As between the parties to this Agreement: as to all acts or failures to act by either party to this Agreement, any applicable statute of limitations shall commence to run and any alleged cause of action shall be deemed to have accrued in any and all events not later than the date payment is due to the Architect pursuant to Article 5. 9.3 The Owner and the Architect, respectively, bind themselves, their partners, successors, assigns and legal representatives to the other party to this Agreement and to the partners, successors, assigns and legal. representa- tives of such other party with respect to all covenants of this Agreement. Neither the Owner nor the Architect shall assign, sublet or transfer any interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the other. 9.4 This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the Owner and the Architect and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or agreements, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by written instrument signed by both Owner and Architect. AIA DOCUMENT B727 • SPECIAL SERVICES AGREEMENT • JUNE 1979 EDITION • AIA® • 01979 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVE., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 6727 — 1979 4 • ARTICLE 10 ' BASIS OF COMPENSATION The Owner shall compensate the Architect for the services provided, in accordance with Article 5, Payments to the Archi- tect, and the other Terms and Conditions of this Agreement, as follows: 10.1 AN INITIAL PAYMENT of NONE dollars ($ NONE shall be made upon execution of this Agreement and credited to the Owner's account as follows: 10.2 COMPENSATION FOR THE ARCHITECT'S SERVICES, as described in Article puted as follows: (Here insert basis of compensation, including fixed amounts, multiples or percentages, and identity the cation apply, if necessary.) 1, Architect's Services, shall be com- services to which particular methods of compen- A total amount of Nine Thousand Six Hundred Dollars _(.$ 9,600.00) 10.3 FOR REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES, as described in Article 4, and any other items included in Article 11 as Reimburs- able Expenses, a multiple of ( ) times the amounts expended by the Architect, the Architect's employees and consultants in the interest of the Project. (Deleted by 11.4) 10.4 Payments due the Architect and unpaid under this Agreement shall bear interest from the date payment is due at the rate entered below, or in the absence thereof, at the legal rate prevailing at the principal place of business of the Architect: (Here Insert any rate o1 interest agreed upon.) 1o% (Usury laws and requirements under the Federal Truth in Lending Act, similar state and local consumer credit laws and other regulations at the Owner's and Architect's principal places of business, the location of the Project and elsewhere may affect the validity of this provision. Specific legal advice should be obtained with respect 10 deletion, modification or other requirements such as written disclosures or waivers.) AIA DOCUMENT B727 • SPECIAL SERVICES AGREEMENT • JUNE 1979 EDITION • MAO • ©1979 6727-1979 5 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVE., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 10.5 The Owner and the Architect agree in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of this Agreement that: 10.5.1 IF THE SCOPE of the Project or of the Architect's services is changed materially, the amounts of compensa- tion shall be equitably adjusted. 10.5.2 If TtIf SERVICES covered by this Agreement have not been completed within Six ( 6 ) months of the date hereof, through no fault of the Architect, the amounts of compensation, rates and multiples set forth herein shall be equitably adjusted. ARTICLE 11 OTHER CONDITIONS 11.1 The Owner will provide: 11.1.1 Provide a temporary work space for the architect's team in or near City Hall where work can be done during the site evaluation, design and cost estimating phase of work. It should be large enough to hold three drawing boards and to allow room for board members to congregate during the design process. 11.1.2 Furnish data already collected concerning building requirements. 11.1.3 Distribute the space utilization questionnaire prepared by the architect to potential building users and collect completed ques- tionnaires. 11.1.4 Select representatives of the various arts groups to meet with the architect and board for the purpose of providing additional infor- mation concerning building requirements. The meeting will be scheduled by the board. 11.1.5 Review the draft of the building program. Meet with the architect to make corrections and/or additions. 11.1.6 Assemble a list of available sites from which three will be select- ed by the board and architect for further evaluation. 11.1.7 Furnish information for site evaluation including land cost, plat and limited topographical data, and current usage of land surround- ing each site. 11.1.8 Based on the site evaluation study select the preferred site to be used for development of the building design and cost estimate. 11.1.9 Review design sketches throughout the design process. 11.1.10 Provide the following information for use in preparing the economic study: a. Available demographic data. b. 1982 business census. c. Hotel/motel/restaurant tax and sales statistics. d. Recent local wage and salary rates by business category. e. 1981-85 Yellow Pages for selected business categories, or business counts by four digit SIC code for 1981-85. f. Estimated attendance and income figures at recent local attractions, similar to those proposed for the facility. AIA DOCUMENT P727 • SPECIAL SERVICES AGREEMENT • SUN( 1919 (DITION • AIA• • 01979 TN( AMERICAN INSTITUT( 01 ARCIIIlECtS. 177S NEW YORK AVE_ N W N'ASIIINCTON, D.C. 20036 6727 — 1979 58 Li g• • Estimates of facility. h. Recent local activities. ., performance types, fees, and numbers in the new business attraction, retention, and loss Review of all material prior written report. 11.2 ARTICLE 4 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES Deleted in its entirety. 11.3 ARTICLE 5 PAYMENTS TO THE ARCHITECT Revise to read as follows: 115.1 to architect's preparation of Payment on account of the Architect's services shall be made in full upon completion of the Project. Payment is due within 30 days of receipt of invoice by the Owner." "5.2 If the Project extends for more than a two month period the Archi- tect shall be compensated at the end of the two month period on the basis of the percentage of work completed." 11.4 ARTICLE 6 ARCHITECT'S ACCOUNTING RECORDS Deleted in its entirety. 11.5 ARTICLE 7 ARBITRATION Deleted in its entirety. 11.6 ARTICLE 8 TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT Delete Paragraph 8.4 in its entirety. 11.7. PARAGRAPH 10.3 FOR REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES Deleted in its entirety. This Agreement entered into as of the day and year first written above. OWNER Ck062.47WVI�i�E, / ARCHITECT MOTT MOBLEY McGOWAN 6 GRIFFIN, P.A. Ott( _Aai- AIA DOCUMENT 1727 • SPECIAL SERVICES AGREEMENT • IUNE 1979 EDITION • AIA* • 01979 III( AMERICAN INSTITUTE Of ARCHITECTS. 173S NEW YORK AVE., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 21U16 8727 - 1979 6 CENTER FOR THE ARTS FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS DECEMBER 17, 1985 MM MG Mott Mobley McGowan & Griffin; P A frt t tit 302 North Sixth Street Fort SrmitF , Arketa's 7290111 Mott Mobley McGowan & Griffin, P.A.: Architects 302 North Sixth Street Fort Smith, Arkansas 72901 Telephone (501) 782-1051 December 17, 1985 Mr. Frank Sharp Chairman, Arts Center Board City of Fayetteville P.O. Drawer F Fayetteville, AR 72701 Re: Project No. 1329• Preliminary Design Study Fayetteville Arts Center Fayetteville, Arkansas Dear Frank: Attached hereto is the report which outlines our preliminary design study along with our recommendations. We have enjoyed our working relationship with you and the Arts Center Board. It's nice to work with a group that is so dedicated and hard working. We think The Center for the Arts is an exciting concept and the study indicates our belief in its potential. We're glad to have been a part in the initial work on a project which will have a meaningful part in Fayetteville's future. We appreciate the Board's confidence in us. Sincerely, MOTT MOBLEY McGOWAN & GRIFFIN, P.A. John K. Mott, FAIA dlh enc MM MG 1 1 1 1 1 1' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1. 1 1 INTRODUCTION On December 18, 1984, the Fayetteville Board of Directors appointed seven members to the Arts Center Board and commissioned the Board to make recommendations concerning: 1. Location of an Arts Center. 2. Financing the construction or renovation. 3. Allocating the use of an Arts Center to best serve the overall needs of the community. Following a series of meetings and conferences it was determined that the time had come to begin the design phase of an Arts Center for the City of Fayetteville. To proceed with such a facility the Arts Center Board decided that more information was needed relative to location, cost and usage. Mott Mobley McGowan & Griffin, P.A., Architects, have been engaged by the City of Fayetteville to develop a preliminary design study of the proposed Arts Center. The architects were charged with producing, through interaction with the Arts Center Board, a report consisting ofthe following: 4 1. Collection and tabulation of data concerning usage requirements, seating requirements, equipment requirements and requirements for studios, offices, ticketing, storage and the like. 2. A preliminary written program for fulfilling those requirements (either through renovation of existing structures or through new construction). 3. Sufficient sketches to make cost estimations and to define the project further. 4. A study of various proposed sites with respect to access, traffic patterns and suitability for meeting the requirements. 5. A study of the economic benefits which could accrue to the City as a result of implementation of the program. 6. An evaluation of each appropriate site and the potential costs involved in the development of a new center versus renovation of an existing structure. 1 .1 1 1 1, 1• 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PARTICIPANTS ARTS CENTER BOARD: Frank Sharp, Chairman Steve Adams Sarah Burnside Mary Margaret Durst Loris Stanton Billie Jo Starr Roger Widder ARCHITECTS: Mott Mobley McGowan & Griffin, P.A. Fort Smith, Arkansas John K. Mott, FAIA Larry L. McGowan, AIA H. Gordon Brooks, II, AIA ARCHITECT'S CONSULTANTS: Planners/Landscape Architects EDAW Associates Atlanta, Georgia Russell Kellogg, ASLA Theatre Design Dr. D. Andrew Gibbs Fayetteville, Arkansas Economics Business Research Group Tulsa, Oklahoma James M. Halpin Donald S. Cannon INDEX INTRODUCTION PARTICIPANTS I. SCOPE OF WORK II. DATA GATHERING III. PROGRAM IV. SPACE REQUIREMENTS V. STUDY OPTIONS VI. SITE IDENTIFICATION (STAND-ALONE FACILITY) VII. SITE EVALUATION (STAND-ALONE FACILITY) VIII. SITE RECOMMENDATION (STAND-ALONE FACILITY) IX. DESIGN STUDIES X. BUILDING COSTS XI. SITE IDENTIFICATION (SHARED FACILITY) XII. SITE REQUIREMENTS (SHARED FACILITY) XIII. SITE EVALUATION (SHARED FACILITY XIV. CONCLUSION XV. RECOMMENDATIONS XVI. ECONOMIC IMPACT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 FAYETTEVILLE CENTER FOR THE ARTS FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS Mott Mobley McGowan & Griffin - Architects - Fort Smith, Arkansas PRELIMINARY DESIGN STUDY REPORT December 17, 1985 I. SCOPE OF WORK 1 The scope of work consisted of six phases: 1. Data Gathering. A questionnaire was prepared and distributed to all potential users of the building. Following receipt of completed questionnaires a series of meetings was held in Fayetteville where architects, potential users, and Arts Center Board members discussed needs in greater depth. 2. Programming. Using the data gathered from users the archi- tects developed a recommended building program which consists of spaces and space requirements needed to fulfill the needs of the users. 3. Site Evaluation. During a week long work session in Fayetteville proposed sites were evaluated and one was proposed as the most suitable for the purpose. 4. Preliminary Design. Using the recommended site a preliminary building design was developed during the week long work session in order to provide sufficient information on which to base construction cost estimates. 5. Economic Study. The economic impact of a Center for the Arts, of the kind shown in the preliminary study and located where recommend- ed by the site evaulation, was studied and evaluated. 6. Report. The results of the study, including program, site evaluation, preliminary building design, cost estimate, economic impact study, and recommendations, are made part of this report. II. DATA GATHERING. Detailed questionnaires were prepared and distributed to all potential users identified by the Arts Center Board. Following an excellent response the data collected was compiled into useable form and served as the basis for a series of meetings involving architects, users and Arts Center Board members. PRELIMINARY DESIGN STUDY REPORT December 17, 1985 Page two Those attending included• ARTS CENTER BOARD: Frank Sharp Steve Adams Sarah Burnside Mary Margaret Durst Loris Stanton Billie Jo Starr Roger Widder USERS: ARCHITECTS: John K. Mott H. Gordon Brooks, II D. Andrew Gibbs Lowell Baker, UA Fine Arts Gallery Ed Bernstein, Artist Wendy Bernstein et al, Art Exposure for Children Richard Brothers, UA Opera Theatre Terry Brusstar, Arkansas Dance Ensemble James Bryant, Public School Bands Bill Burrow, Fayetteville High School Choir Larry Butler, Arkansas Union Performing Arts Program Lewis Clark, Public School Bands Pat Collier, Fayetteville High School Drama Neppie Conner, Artist Mike Davis, Gallery Owner Deloris Dillon, Fayetteville High School Orchestra Genie Gunn et al, Snapdragon Theatre Tim Gunter, Public School Bands Jack Groh, UA Choral Activities Eldon Janzen, UA Band Ann Kitrell, Arkansas Union Visual Arts Program David Malone, Fayetteville Community Concerts Cathy McNeeley, The Silk Purse Theatre Ensemble David McWethy, Assistant City Manager Larry Miller, Fayetteville Open Channel Cynthia Outlaw, Woodland Junior High Chorus Bob Ritachel, Northwest Arkansas Symphony Society Robert Ross, Artist Mary Schaller et al, Ozark Dulcimer Society Joyce Stafford, Fayetteville Community Theatre Anabelle Steelman, NW Arkansas School of Dance Kathy Thompson, Artist Carlton Woods, Music Festival of Arkansas The meetings consisted of detailed discussions about types and sizes of spaces needed, special requirements for the spaces, how various spaces should relate to each other, and operational requirements. Using this data the architects developed the written space program which follows. 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 PRELIMINARY DESIGN STUDY REPORT December 17, 1985 Page three III. PROGRAM. A. PERFORMING ARTS COMPLEX 1. Theatre/Concert Hall. The design goal is a multievent, all discipline facility that can accommodate a variety of uses and will serve all groups in the community. The facility is to provide ease of access to these groups with minimum setup time for each event. Provide seating for approximately 650 in an audience chamber with two levels of seating to: maximize acoustic environment; accommodate large and small audiences; reduce average viewing distance; improve sightlines; and provide greater architectural design potential. The stage shall be a proscenium type with orchestra pit and orchestra lift (hydraulic). The stage should be 60 feet wide by 40 feet deep which is sufficient to accommo- date a large orchestra with seated chorus and large con- cert band performances. The orchestra lift is used for: an orchestra pit below stage level, expanded portable seating at orchestra level, and to increase the size of the stage and to use as an apron for theatrical performances. In the design of the stage it must be recognized that it is to serve both concert and theatrical performances. This will require a provision for reducing the apparent width of the proscenium opening for theatrical use. It must also be recognized in providing suitable acoustic qualities within the space. The stage will require an orchestra shell with ceiling for use at certain times. The theatre should have lighting catwalks for hanging theatrical light fixtures, mounting and relamping audience light fixtures, simple adjustment of front lights, and for locating effects. Complete lighting system, equipment, and control system for theatrical lighting is essential. A 48 channel two -scene preset board with memory probably is adequate. Provide adequate lighting above the stage for orchestra and band use. In addition to establishing sufficient light levels it must be done in such a way as to avoid glare in the musicians' eyes. • PRELIMINARY DESIGN STUDY REPORT December 17, 1985 Page four A control booth for lights and sound as well as projection and follow spot equipment is required. The sound booth portion should be in the same acoustical environment as the audience. The lighting booth and projection booth portions should be acoustically isolated from the audience. Consider locating follow spots and special effects lighting equipment above the control booth. The projection booth generates some heat that must be vented away. Stage storage is in two separate rooms at stage level. One includes space for two concert grand pianos plus other percussion equipment and needs to be environmentally controlled (humidity). The other room is for storage of scenery and special equipment. All doors through which pianos are to be moved must be of sufficient width. Wing space for set movement on and off stage is required. Wings on either side should each be a minimum of 15 feet wide and 40 feet deep. Full fly rigging is required. Provide cyclorama and full set of drapes. Intercom connecting backstage (at stage manager's posi- tion), control booths, and back of house (house manager's station) is required. Also, a P.A. system from stage manager's station to dressing rooms/green room is required for cues. Television cablecast/recording of events in auditorium should be considered. Allow for three camera positions in audience and control from (lighting) control booth. Pro- vide coaxial cable and connections. Provide temporary storage for musicians' instrument cases, etc., during performances. This may be in the form of movable shelving in rehearsal spaces or elsewhere. 2. Studio Theatre A (Large Rehearsal Hall/Dance Studio). Serves as a rehearsal hall for performances to be mounted in the Theatre/Concert Hall and as a dance rehearsal studio. It doubles as a studio theatre or "black box" theatre suitable for housing an audience of approximately 150 in portable chairs. Size should be approximately 60 feet square. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1' 1 1 1 1 f 1 1 1 1 1 1 PRELIMINARY DESIGN STUDY•.REPORT December 17, 1985 £' Page five Accommodates rehearsal of full orchestra or concert band in a setting of similar size as the main stage. In order to function as a dance rehearsal and performance studio it will have a wooden floor suited to dance as well as other uses along with mirrors and ballet barres (two heights). For theatrical performances a full grid over the entire ceiling with cat -walks for easy adjustment of theatrical lighting is required. The lighting control should be similar to the main theatre control system for maximum training overlap. A portable stage and risers for seating will be needed as well as storage space for the stage, risers and chairs. A small control booth for control of sound and lighting will be needed. Will double for use by television control personnel. Provide for television cablecast/recording of events in this space. Allow for two camera positions with control from the lighting/sound control booth. Provide coaxial cable and connections. Provide for sound isolation to prevent sound from disturb- ing activities in other studios or in the theatre. 3. Studio Theatre B (Small Rehearsal Hall/Meeting. Room). Serves as a rehearsal hall for performances to be mounted in Studio Theatre A, as a meeting room, and as a small theatre for performances requiring very limited seating. Size should be approximately 40 feet square. For small theatrical performances a full grid over the entire ceiling with cat -walks for easy adjustment of theatrical lighting is required. The lighting control willbe similar to the main theatre and Studio Theatre A control systems. A portable stage and risers for seating will be needed as well as storage space for the stage, risers and chairs. Provide for sound isolation to prevent sound from disturb- ing activities in the other studio or the theatre. 4. Lobby. Adjacent to Theatre/Concert Hall, Studio Theatre A (Large Rehearsal Hall/Dance Studio), Studio Theatre B (Small Rehearsal Hall), Ticket Booth, Offices, Public Rest Rooms, Gallery, Gift Shop and Concessions Area. • PRELIMINARY DESIGN STUDY REPORT December 17, 1985 Page six If planning can accommodate the circulation properly the size may be slightly smaller than normally expected since the plan is to take advantage of the Gallery space for overflow during intermission as well as to allow patrons to view the collections in conjunction with attendance at performances. 5. Dressing Facilities. Dressing facilities for chorus as well as private dressing rooms should be provided. 48 stations for chorus (24 each in two rooms) is proposed along with two private dressing rooms and one guest dress- ing room with private toilet facilities. Provide mirrored make-up stations with appropriate lighting, and easily accessible costume racks for storage. Showers and toilets immediately accessible from dressing rooms. A full length mirror in each room is required. Dressing spaces should be easily accessible from the Green Room. Acoustical isolation from the stage and audience is mandatory. Pro- vide exhaust fans. 6. Rehearsal Spaces. There is a solid need for several different kinds and sizes of rehearsal spaces. In order to make these spaces as flexible and useable as possible they will each double as a studio theatre for medium and small theatrical and other performances. Each of the following rehearsal halls is listed and des- cribed previously in the program. They are: a. Large Rehearsal Hall (Studio Theatre A). For rehearsal of full orchestra, concert band, or other large group the performance of which will be in the Theatre/ Concert Hall. b. Small Rehearsal Hall (Studio Theatre 8). For rehearsal of small groups that will give their actual performance in Studio Theatre A or who may use this same space for their performances. Doubles as a meeting room. Additionally, there is a need for smaller ensemble group practice for both music and theatrical rehearsal and for individual practice rooms particularly for use by various music groups in preparation for performances or during competitions. Provide two Ensemble Rehearsal Rooms and four small Private Practice Rooms. Walls around all rehearsal halls must have sufficient acoustical value to prevent activities in one from disturbing the others. I 11' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1� 1 1 I. 1, 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I L I 1.] I I PRELIMINARY DESIGN STUDY`REPORT December 17, 1985 .'y' Page seven 7. Scene Shop. For scenery and set construction and for storage of the orchestra shell if one is required. Approximately 30' x 60' with part having the same height as the stage and the remainder having an intermediate floor for additional storage. Floor to be at same eleva- tion as stage floor and loading dock. Sound isolation from stage and audience in Theatre/Concert Hall and Studio Theatres is required, including installation of sound isolating doors. Space will be related to all three per- forming spaces. Needs plumbing, floor drain, and proper electrical power for tools. Adequate ventilation is required. Height of doors to stages to be of sufficient height for movement of scenery. 8. Electrical Equipment Storage. Space for lighting equip- ment storage and repair. Needs pipe racks for hanging instruments and deep shelf for other equipment. Repair of equipment (lights, dimmers, etc.) will take place on a counter with cabinets overhead and underneath. 9. Technical Director's (TD) Office. Office for TD in close proximity to shop, stage, and studio theatres/rehearsal halls. Include locked storage closet with shelves for equipment. (Microphones, light bulbs, etc.) 10. Costume Shop. Space primarily for construction of cos- tumes. Therefore, plenty of open floor space for tables with portable sewing machines and plenty of light. Washer and dryer are desirable. Available space caused by change of ceiling heights, if any, should be made available for storage. 11. Storage. Provide approximately 3,000 square feet of storage for scenery, properties and costumes. This space, or spaces, should be easily accessible from the Costume Shop and the Scene Shop. Total floor area may be reduced by 'stacking' of storage for costumes and properties. 12. Green Room. A multi -purpose room to function primarily as a lounge and a meeting room. Occasionally used for small receptions and a small kitchenette is required. Provide paging from stage manager. Must be able to hear stage via P.A. in this room since actors/musicians use this space waiting for cues. Walls will be used for photos, bill- boards, posters, and tackboard call board. It needs ready access to everything back stage to the theatres, but must be closeable from stage and shop. PRELIMINARY DESIGN STUDY REPORT December 17, 1985 Page eight 13. Loading Dock. Access to Shop and Storage. Covered type is preferred. Truck bed height. Dock opens immediately to an enclosed "holding area" for weather protection. Provide access for large trucks. 14. Exterior Trash Pick -Up. Provide suitable space for dumpsters, accessible by garbage/trash pick-up equipment, that is screened from view. 15. Exterior Performing Space/Court. Provide exterior per- forming space in court or small amphitheatre. B. VISUAL ARTS COMPLEX 1. Gallery. Gallery space for traveling as well as local exhibits is required. The exhibition space is actually one room, but it should be designed in such a way that it can be divided into separate areas through the use of movable partitions or lightweight structures. Some at- tempt to give spatial modulation is important. At least part of the gallery space should have high ceilings (i.e., 12' - 14'). Also, there should be a "room" feeling about it, not a corridor spatial sense. Lighting is important. Most artists design their work for electric light but daylighting, if properly controlled and treated, is also acceptable and desireable. Give proper consideration to acoustics. Walls should be fabric cover- ed or some other material that hides nail holes. Security is very important in this area. Work space is required in order to prepare exhibits for this gallery and for traveling exhibits which are designed and provided by this gallery (i.e., Ozark art and craft) as well. This is a work room with portable tables and general lighting. Loading dock access is required. An office is needed for the gallery coordinator/director. The retail space is for a gallery shop to sell prints, books, and art work on display in the gallery when approp- riate. Both it and the Gallery should be off the Lobby and the public entry. The Gallery functions as overflow space for the Lobby during performances. Receptions in the Gallery and Lobby will require a small kitchen. This could possibly be shared with Green Room but depends on layout. II PRELIMINARY DESIGN STUDY, REPORT December 17, 1985 Page nine 2. Teaching Studios. Two Teaching Studios are planned. One for "clean" art (like drawing) and one for "dirty" art (like pottery). The proportions of the rooms must be such that each can be divided into as many as three areas through the use of moveable storage units or other easily moved screening device. Each of the spaces within the larger rooms require water, sinks with plaster traps, good lighting and tack surfaces on the walls. Storage rooms for furniture and supplies are required for the Studios. 3. Photographic Laboratory. For use by directors of the Arts Center as well as for classes. A gang darkroom with several printing and developing stations is satisfactory. 4. Exterior Exhibition Space. A sculpture court is envision- ed for a permanent piece of public art. C. TELEVISION PRODUCTION 1. In order to allow television cablecasting/recording of events in the Theatre/Concert Hall and Studio Theatre A, provisions must be made for television production. Provisions for camera positions and television control locations within other control booths are called for in the listings for the Theatre/Concert Hall and Studio Theatre A. In order to produce or record programs from the building a number of production spaces are needed. These include a Control Room, Audio Recording Booth, two Editing Suites, and Storage for equipment. All of these rooms should be grouped together and can be located anyplace where access can be had to the performance spaces for, the purpose of setting up cameras. The Control Room does not need visual access to the either of the rooms where performances will be recorded. D. ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEX 1. Office. Provide for a Director, Assistant Director, and one Secretary. Should be close, if not adjacent to Lobby, for ease of locating by public and for control of build- ing. The ticket booth should be a part of this complex, done in such a way so it can be staffed as necessary by a secretary, perhaps done as an opening in wall between offices and Lobby. Tickets will be sold in advance as well as prior to performance. lii 11� PRELIMINARY DESIGN STUDY REPORT December 17, 1985 Page ten A Work Room for computer and copying machine is required. �! Storage for ticket racks, promotional materials, and general office materials is required. A private rest room for this area should be included for times when the rest of the building is not open to the public. 2. Resident users will share a large office space with sys- I tems furniture for maximum flexibility and with a central work space. 3. A Conference Room for meetings of various users and boards I will be located in this administrative area. IV. SPACE REQUIREMENTS. A. PERFORMING ARTS COMPLEX 1. Theatre/Concert Hall a. Audience Seating (650 @ 8 SF/seat) 5,200 SF b. Control Booths (60 x 15) 900 SF lighting control sound control follow spot/projection booth c. Orchestra Pit (60 x 20 - apron 60 x 10 avg) 720 SF d. Stage (60 x 40) 2,400 SF Wings (2 - 40 x 15) 1,200 SF e. Stage Storage piano, percussion, etc. 300 SF scenery, props, etc. 300 SF 2. Studio Theatre A (Large Rehearsal Hall) I a. Stage/Audience (+ 150) 3,600 SF b. Lighting/Sound Control 150 SF c. Storage 300 SF 3. Studio Theatre B (Small Rehearsal Hall) a. Stage/Audience 1,600 SF b. Lighting/Sound Control c. Storage I� 4. Lobby and Audience Amenities (restrooms, 1I box office, concessions) 1,000 SF I I 4 I I a. Large and Small Rehearsal Halls (see above) 'b. Ensemble Rehearsal (2 @ 15 x 20) 600 SF c. Private Practice (4 @ 8 x 10) 320 SF :,' 7. Scene Shop (30 x 60) 1,800 SF 8. Electrical Equipment Storage (9 x 15) 135 SF 9. Technical Director's Office 150 SF 10. Costume Shop 500 SF 11. Storage a. Scenery, properties, costumes 3,000 SF 1 b. General Storage (20 x 20) (NASS) 400 SF 12. Green Room w/Kitchenette 500 SF 13. Loading Dock 14. Exterior Trash Pick -Up 15. Exterior Performing Space/Court TOTALS FOR PERFORMING ART COMPLEX 27,385 SF PRELIMINARY DESIGN STUDY REPORT December 17, 1985 Page eleven P 5. Dressing Facilities including toilets a. Chorus (48 stations @ 40 SF) 2,000 SF b. Private (2 @ 8 x 10) 160 SF c. Guest w/Private Toilet 150 SF 6. Rehearsal Spaces I I B. VISUAL ARTS COMPLEX 1. Gallery (40 x 60 or equiv.) 2,400 SF a. Preparation/Storage (20 x 30) 600 SF b. Retail Shop (15 x 20) 300 SF c. Office (10 x 15) 150 SF d. Kitchenette 175 SF e. Dock 2. Teaching Studios (2 @ 20 x 90) 3,600 SF a. Storage (furniture, supplies, etc.) 600 SF 3. Photographic Laboratory (15 x 20) 300 SF 4. Exterior Exhibition Space TOTALS FOR VISUAL ARTS COMPLEX 8,125 SF PRELIMINARY DESIGN STUDY REPORT December 17, 1985 Page twelve C. TELEVISION PRODUCTION COMPLEX 1. Television Production a. Control Room (10 x 15) b. Audio Booth (8 x 10) c. Editing Suites (2 @ 6 x 8) d. Storage (15 x 20) TOTALS FOR TELEVISION PRODUCTION COMPLEX ADMINISTRATION COMPLEX 1. Offices a. Director b. Assistant Director c. Secretary/Reception d. Work Room e. Storage f. Restrooms/Janitor 2. Resident User Offices/Work Space 3. Conference Room (15 x 25) TOTALS FOR ADMINISTRATION COMPLEX TOTALS A. Performing Arts Complex 27,385 SF B. Visual Arts Complex 8,125 SF C. Television Production Complex 630 SF D. Administration Complex 1,895 SF Sub -total 38,035 SF E. Non -Assignable Space (circulation, restrooms, mechanical, construction, etc.) 11,410 SF Grand Total 49,445 SF PRELIMINARY DESIGN STUDY REPORT December 17, 1985 Page thirteen V. STUDY OPTIONS. At the beginning of the study it was recognized that the University of Arkansas was in the midst of developing a program for a performing arts center. Studies performed as part of this study and also done by the University indicate that there is a need in the community for both a large auditorium seating 1,200-1,500 and a mid -sized theatre seating approximately 600-700. Preliminary indications are that the University envisions the construc- tion of the large auditorium as Phase I of its project with the smaller facility being Phase II, to be constructed at some point in the future. The City's greatest need, as borne out by the program developed by this study, is for a theatre in the mid -sized range. It is apparent that neither the University nor the City, operating independently, has the financial ability to build both theatres in the foreseeable future. Common sense says that joint planning for the construction of complementary facilities is the answer. This joint planning, a philosophy which. the Arts Center Board adopted from the beginning of the study, can take a variety of forms. It can be•either in the form of a joint facility, or separate facilities built as part of a common complex, or in the form of joint and cooperative planning and scheduling with facilities in separate locations. For the purpose of this study the architects have decided to pursue two options on behalf of the City of Fayetteville. One, a stand-alone facility including the mid -sized theatre and, two, a facility on a shared site with the University of Arkansas. VI. SITE IDENTIFICATION (STAND ALONE FACILITY). Three distinct types of sites exist for construction of an arts center. A downtown site, a downtown site with an existing building suitable for conversion to an arts center, and a suburban site are all realistic sites for evaluation. After several meetings between Architect and Arts Center Board it was decided that an appropriate site representing each type of site should be selected and evaluated. It should be kept in mind that the evalua- tion comments generally apply to the type of site and not necessarily to the specific site used for the study. In other words, the conclu- sions reached will, in most cases, apply to any similar site in the same general location. PRELIMINARY DESIGN STUDY REPORT December 17, 1985 Page fourteen The sites selected by the Arts Center Board for evaluation as part of this study are listed below. They are identified as Site A through Site D on the sketches which are included herein. The downtown site selected for study was determined to be two distinct sites and both were included in the evaluation work. 1. Downtown - Site A: The south half of the block facing the south side of the Square and including the undeveloped 60' wide space on the Square just to the east of the Southside Development. Surrounded by East Avenue, Block Avenue and Rock Street. 2. Downtown - Site B: Across Rock Street from Site A it includes the area surrounded by Rock Street, East Avenue, Archibald Yell and Block Avenue. 3. Downtown with Existing Building(s) - Site C: The Ozark Theatre site on College Avenue and including the existing parking garage adjacent to it. 4. Suburban - Site D: A site in the Colt Square area which is the square surrounded by Colt Square Drive and Green Acres Road. VII. SITE EVALUATION (STAND-ALONE FACILITY). Two drawings have been prepared for each of the four sites except for Site D. One, labeled "Site Investigation", illustrates the site's major features both in a positive and negative sense when thought of in terms of development. The other, labeled "Opportunities & Con- straints", illustrates the site's potential for a building of this type and size through the presentation of opportunities and also shows how the site would have to be treated in order to accommodate such a build- ing. This drawing also shows the constraints, or negative features, that exist when such a building is located on the site. Following the drawings of each site is an outline of the positive and negative aspects which the study team believes to be most relevant to this project. r\�.1\ Site S�uAtiE El p I II N --1 Z z m 6$- t'\ 5 T R e E T St Hi SITE R is 1TT. _ w j •1 PRELIMINARY DESIGN STUDY„ REPORT December 17, 1985 Page seventeen ' 1. Downtown - Site A (South side of Square): Positive a• Good parking - more than 1,000 parking spaces are located within two blocks of the Square, even more if card operated lots can be I. opened in the evenings. b. Ease of access - both for pedestrian and vehicular traffic. c• Is on the University of Arkansas bus route. ' d. Close proximity to ancillary activities such as hotels, restaurants, shops, and the Continuing Education Center. ' e. Nice views from the site looking to the south. f. Provides a direct link to the Square which makes the site part of an already high activity level area• ' Negative - ' a. Sloping site - 24' drop from front to back may inhibit building plan. b. Difficult shape - the south half of the block alone is too small for the full building. Use of the presently undeveloped lot on the Square will be necessary. This situation will be improved if the ' lot at the corner of Mountain and East can be added to the site. c. Utility easement across site. ' d. Need to relocate existing parking lot to another site. e. High land cost. I F I i d au; ! I z° ' r El S L = sL ,' I Ill °9s}`— . `\` I Z" No I CN07 llwd NI \ ' W -nvM 9t4INIV.Lgll i-i0 N w y =a C —SbE! H � y O a • th _~a_ 1� L w __ W }� C�L r., 1r �'J ate : ' i z n J- 19 7 O Lb < - --!-_ ---- _i. --- I mc to m I/ v d 7 ' VPbS o1 .2V4 as is j� LL1 ID Zz 2 - lilt - 0 r K F AN0) 'I liii yLicC Z C I ' PRELIMINARY DESIGN STUDY REPORT December 17, 1985 ' Page twenty 2. Downtown - Site B (South of Rock): Positive a. Good within two blocks opened in the eve b. Ease parking - more than 1,000 parking spaces are located of the Square, even more if card operated lots can be pings. of access - both for pedestrians and vehicles. c. Is close to the University of Arkansas bus route. d. restaurants, Close shops, proximity and the to ancillary activities such as hotels, Continuing Education Center. e. Nice views from the site looking to the south. f. Is in an area that already has a moderate activity level. g. Site has sufficient land area for the building. h. Building on this site will extend the area of the downtown tcenter providing more opportunities for adjacent property. • Negative • a. Sloping site - 30' drop from front to back may inhibit or restrict the building plan. I. b. Lacks direct connection to the Square. No control over the current limited connection via the Southside development and/or the undeveloped lot. c. Limited vehicular circulation because of traffic pattern. d. Less attractive surroundings than the site closer to the Square. e. Will require relocation of the existing parking lot. FT I 185y19 -4 din oe) I ., n 11 I I I I I I Ii PRELIMINARY DESIGN STUDY-rREPORT December 17, 1985 Page twenty-three 3. Downtown With Existing Buildings - Site C (Ozark Theatre): Dne: r:..e a. Good parking - more than 1,000 parking spaces are located within the immediate vicinity. The city owned parking garage is directly opposite. b. Will help upgrade the appearance of this portion of College Avenue. c. Is close to the University of Arkansas bus route. d. Close proximity to ancillary activities such as hotels, restaurants, shops, and the Continuing Education Center. e. Ease of access for pedestrians. f. Has limited historic value. Provides, through renovation aspect, for conservation of materials. Negative a. Surrounding uses are less compatible than with other sites. The adjacent new jail will be a negative factor if only psycho- logical. S. Vehicular access is not good. Difficult to provide for drop-off of patrons. c. College Avenue is a pedestrian barrier. d. The total area within the existing buildings is less than that called for by the program and some of that area (i.e., in the present theatre basement) is not good from a plan standpoint. e. The configuration and area of the existing buildings will not allow for proper planning (i.e., stage support spaces will be far from the stage, other spaces will not relate well, vertical height in some spaces will be inadequate, two elevators will be required for handicapped access rather than one, etc.). f. Theatre requirements will not be met - only 600 seats can be provided, there is no space for stage wings, an extension of the building will be necessary to allow for an adequate size stage, the loading dock will be 15' below stage level, etc. Ii g. The original building facade no longer exists. J 1 a , cIE /cornMe�a��� n.iulf E � � r ' L l 1 fl't o. �dm `> t °�n {llfj + I .. � io N�c Z� �Jns lub ol r I \ Irut ha u Ir Yd o7N1 II r29�In.,oa IJ J LO K PRELIMINARY DESIGN STUDY REPORT December 17, 1985 Page twenty-six 4. Suburban - Site D (Colt Square) Positive a. Reasonable access from all areas of town - 3 miles from downtown. b. Easy site to build on. c. Has sufficient area for the building. d. Is easily acquireable. Negative a. No available parking. b. Surrounding uses are generally incompatible - no control on future uses of surrounding area. c. Poor views. Approach sitelines are not good. d. Will impact negatively on downtown by attracting business away from already established activities. e. Low existing activity level especially at night. f. Very limited adjacent ancillary activities. g. The size of this building will be out of scale with the surrounding buildings, both existing and planned. h. Land will be more costly because the need for parking will require additional land purchase plus the construction of. parking lots. Ii PRELIMINARY DESIGN STUDY REPORT December 17, 1985 Page twenty-seven VIII. SITE RECOMMENDATION (STAND-ALONE FACILITY). At the beginning of the study the initial feeling of the design team was that Site A (South Side of Square) was the best site because of its connection to the Square itself. However, as the study progressed the team came to realize: 1. As a buildable site it is less good than others unless the property at the corner of Mountain and East can be added to the site. 2. There seems to be some question about availability of the portion of the site facing the Square. 3. Even if the corner property is added to the package the cost of construction will be higher because of the configuration of the site. With the added corner the extra cost will be overcome because it is a better site. However, if only the vacant strip on the Square is available the extra cost will be higher and not justifiable. At the completion of the study Site B (South Side of Rock), which was initially thought to be slightly less favorable than Site A, was recommended as the best site for the project. The major difference between the two sites is that Site A has direct access to the Square. However, the drawbacks listed above are sufficient to neutralize this aspect and make Site B more favorable. It should be recognized that Site B is not the only good site on which such a building can be located. It was the only one presented to the team as being reasonably available at this time. Any other site with the same general relationship to the Square, with at least the same amount of land, and with similar access will very likely present the same good opportunities for location of the Fayetteville Center for the Arts. IX. DESIGN STUDIES. In order to provide a basis for developing a building cost estimate, and in order to insure that the building could be properly placed on the recommended site, limited design studies were developed. The study process included input and review on the part of the Arts Center Board. The culmination of these studies is reflected in the attached plans and elevations. This building, while designed for a specific site, is not unlike one that would be suitable for other sites insofar as area and volume are concerned. II ii J SI USE' is. dam'' p AAco Psi I II t . . 11 . b L UI 7 UI N I PRELIMINARY DESIGN STUDY REPORT December 17, 1985 Page thirty-three I IX. BUILDING COSTS. I The study team was charged with estimating costs for two facilities: 1 1. A new building which is represented by the design studies included herein to be located on Site B. 2. An existing structure renovated to serve as a new facility. While the existing Ozark Theatre is not recommended as the beat site it is used for the purpose of developing these costs to serve as a comparison. Additionally, the study team felt that if the cost of renovation was significantly lower than new construction this would obviously make Site C more attractive for development. The costs illustrated below include estimates for land acquisition, construction and site improvements, equipment, professional fees, and direct costs to the owner for surveys, testing, approvals, etc. Financing charges, etc., are not included. New Construction - Site B - Building as Illustrated I Direct Costs $ 13,000 Construction •I Excavation b Site Preparation $ 28,948 Site Development 6 Landscaping 68,500 Foundation 93,068 Structural Frame 530,894 Floor Structure 209,993 Balcony Construction 36,237 Roof Structure 189,443 Basement Walls 29,419 Exterior Wall 486,882 Roof Covering 58,493 Glazing 22,262 Interior Construction 616,995 Floor Covering 86,992 Ceiling 84,999 Elevator 31,196 Plumbing 197,141 Heating Ventilating & Air Conditioning 481,806 Electrical 389,453 Stage Equipment S Seating 640,000 $ 4,282,721 Land Aquisition 300,000 Professional Fees 256,963 Total Development Cost $ 4,852,684 I I 1 PRELIMINARY DESIGN STUDY REPORT December 17, 1985 Page thirty-four Renovation- Site C -Ozark Theatre/Garage ' Direct Costs , $ 9,000 Construction Office Building Demolition ij $ 2,650 ' Theatre Building Renovation 1,049,073 Garage Building Renovation 1,100,121 Stage Extension 241,316 Existing Roof Repair 24,500 ' Exterior Rehabilitation 134,815 New Construction Between Buildings 288,750 I. Stage Equipment, Seats, Furniture 575,000 $ 3,416,225 Land Aquisition 612,950 Professional Fees 239,135 Total Development Cost $ 4,268,310 ' In comparing the costs of the two developments (new vs renovation) it must be remembered that the new building will have a 650 seat theatre while the most that the renovated Ozark Theatre will hold is 600. The renovated facility, with additions, is smaller than the new building by some 2,500 square feet and will not allow for proper space location. ' Even though renovation can be accomplished for less than new construc- tion the study team does not consider thattthesavings realized justify the acceptance of a building which does not meet the program. ' XI. SITE IDENTIFICATION (SHARED FACILITY). ' Information developed during the study of sites for a stand-alone city facility led the study team to the conclusion that the best site for a city facility is in the downtown area in close proximity to the Square. ' Authorized informal meetings with the University's Performing Arts Center architects led to the conclusion that the University favors a site for its facility either on the campus or within walking distance of the campus. There appear to be four possible types of sites where a joint facility I. can be located, none of which fulfill both of these requirements. The four include a site on -campus, one between the campus and the Square, one on or very near to the Square, and one in a suburban location. 1 'Ti PRELIMINARY DESIGN STUDY REPORT December 17, 1985 Page thirty-five XII. SITE REQUIREMENTS (SHARED FACILITY). In order to evaluate shared facility sites for consideration a number of assumptions -had to be made concerning the facility itself.. The principal assumption was that the facility would include both the 1,200-1,500 seat auditorium (the University's Phase I) and the 650 seat theatre (the'City'8 major priority and Phase II of the University program).. Other assumptions concerning area of various spaces had to be made because the University's program was not specific in many instances. Based on the information available, plus the assumptions listed above, the study team determined that approximately 2 acres will be required for the building(s) plus an addition 0.5 acres for landscaping, approaches, entrances, etc. In addition to land for construction is the requirement for parking. The assumption is that some 850 parking spaces will be needed either in the form of .existing parking or newly constructed spaces. The land required for 850 parking spaces is approximately 6.8 acres assuming that the parking is all on grade. XIII. SITE EVALUATION (SHARED FACILITY). During the data gathering session a common statement made by users was that lack of parking and congested traffic conditions on the campus make the use of University facilities difficult and undesirable by citizens of the community. Unless major circulation and parking improvements are made part of the project these comments will continue to hold true for a new facility located on the campus. Investigation of the area between the campus and the Square shows that acquisition of sufficient property for this shared facility will be difficult. The limited existing parking in the area will require the construction of new parking facilities which will compound the problem. The 6.8 acres required for parking will add an excessive amount to the land purchase price and will also increase construction costs. In similar fashion it will be difficult to acquire sufficient land near the Square to construct a facility of this size. It would be possible to enlarge the stand-alone facility to include a theatre of 900-1,000 seats, but finding a 2.5 acre site for the total facility will be expensive. There is one positive aspect to a downtown site and that is the existence of sufficient parking during evening hours. PRELIMINARY DESIGN STUDY REPORT ? December 17, 1985 Page thirty-six In the opinion of the study team the only viable type of site which should be considered for a shared facility containing two theatres and having a requirement for 850 parking spaces is a suburban site on the outskirts of the city where the acquisition of approximately 10 acres will not be as difficult. Such a site exists in the area surrounding the City Lake. While not recommending that as a specific site, the study team feels it is typical of the type of site needed. XIV. CONCLUSION. The study team has considered all of the alternatives available (i.e., shared facility versus stand-alone facility, and downtown location versus suburban location) and recommends the following course of action for the City of Fayetteville. It appears that the disadvantages of sharing a site because of location outweigh the advantages of a shared facility. The location of a suitable site for such a facility will work to the disadvantage of both the University and the City of Fayetteville. Each facility needs to be accessible to its patrons and a site on the outskirts of town seems to fail in this regard. Additionally, many of the advantages of a shared facility may be diminished due to the problems of shared management of a building(s) owned by two separate governmental agencies. In the opinion of the study team the single ingredient that will insure the growth and improvement of the arts in Northwest Arkansas is cooper- ation. Sharing a single facility will not necessarily insure coopera- tion between two organizations. Neither will the location of two facilities in separate locations prevent close cooperation. Coopera- tion is the result of attitude, determination, and interest. We feel that the interests of the arts in Northwest Arkansas will be best served if the two facilities are located to serve their prime users and owners and that the governing bodies of the two begin the planning necessary to insure a joint cooperative effort when the facilities are in place. The study team feels that the University will reap a number of benefits from the location of the mid -sized theatre in a downtown location since it will be available to University groups on the same basis as other members of the community: 1. Will complement and support the Continuing Education Center. 2. Will be close to existing University bus routes. ' 3. Will provide a smaller theatre for University group use long before the University will be in a position to fund their Phase II. I PRELIMINARY DESIGN STUDY REPORT December 17, 1985 Page thirty-seven I 4. Will provide an opportunity for University people to work as II artists in their own right as citizens in the community sharing with other citizens. XV. RECOMMENDATIONS. I As a result of user input, assistance from the Arts Center Board, investigation on the part of the study team members, and research into all aspects of the proposed Fayetteville Center for the Arts, the study team makes the following recommendations: 1. Continue the already initiated cooperative effort with the 1 arts community at the University of Arkansas. 2. Begin immediate efforts to acquire the property surrounded by Rock Street, East Avenue, Archibald Yell, and Block Avenue (labeled Site B throughout this study). 3. Begin the selection of an architect for the project. 4. Determine the source(s) and amount of funding available. 5. Continue review of the program contained herein. If necessary funding requires cost reduction determine what portions of the program requirements can be reduced or eliminated. Include the architect in these deliberations. 6. Begin making plans to establish the position of Arts Center Director. Consider bringing this person on board during the planning stages. XVI. ECONOMIC IMPACT. ' A part of the charge to the study team called for a study of the econo- ' mic benefits which can accrue to the City of Fayetteville as a result of the implementation of the recommendations. The impact study per- formed by Business Research Group of Tulsa, Oklahoma, follows and is ' made part of this report. I I "If you can sell green toothpaste in this country, you can sell opera." Sarah Caldwell Page 38 III ABSTRACT Business Research Group was engaged by Mott, Mobley, McGowan and Griffin, P.A.: Architects to "study the economic benefits which could accrue to the City as a result of the implementation of the program" (Fayetteville Center for the Arts). This report describes the findings of the Business Research Group. The Fayetteville Center for the Arts is planned as a multi -use facility with studios for classes in the visual arts, dance, and theater, along with a gallery for exhibitions and to promote the sale of works by the many artists in the area. The opportunity for training and participation in these fields is highly valued by search teams of the type of industry Fayetteville wishes to encourage. Additionally, national, and regional workshops in all the arts will be made possible when a facility for handling such events is in place. The economic benefits of a Center for the Arts fall into four categories. First, quality of life considerations are becoming more and more important in the struggle to attract and hold high quality employers and employees. A Center for the Arts will be an important asset for Fayetteville in this struggle. Second, the direct impact of expenditures in the local economy -- construction spending ($2,000,000 plus), and annual operations ($70,000 plus). Third, the indirect impact of these dollars being spent in the Fayetteville economy -- an additional $2,200,000 from construction, and $230,000 per year from operations. Fourth, the Continuing Education Center, and the Square in general, will benefit from an aggressively managed and marketed Center for the Arts. Business Research Group is confident that the proposed Center for the Arts will have a strong, positive effect on the Fayetteville economy. This will be in addition to the positive impact on the cultural life in Fayetteville. III 'Ii Page 39'I it I ' INTRODUCTION I. Business Research Group (BRG) has been engaged by Mott, Mobley, McGowan, and Griffin, P.A.:Architects to " study the economic benefits which could accrue to the City as a result of the ' implementation of the program." The program, in this case, is the proposed Arts Center for Fayetteville, Arkansas. This study of • economic benefits is part of a larger feasibility study for the Center. There are many reasons to build an arts center; economic impact is only one. The potential economic effects of such a center in ' Fayetteville will occur in three ways: (1) the expenditures in the Fayetteville economy for the construction and operation of the center, including the indirect effects of such expenditures; (2) improvement in the quality of life in Fayetteville, and thus the I. improvement in Fayetteville's competitive position relative to other communities in the struggle for quality employers and employees; and (3) opportunities to increase the attractiveness of ' the Continuing Education Center for out of town groups. BRG has examined each of these effects. GENERAL COMMENTS Arts centers are widely accepted as important in the United States, but seldom are they built with their economic benefits as the primary consideration. Outside of very large cities such as New York and major tourist centers, facilities for live performances (i.e., music, theater, and dance) are usually operated as non-profit entities. Public policy in the form of tax and direct subsidies has long supported the arts at the national, state, and local levels. In addition to this form of "non -market" support, a large share of the audiences for the arts are willing to pay more than price of a ticket. Indeed, Baumol and Bowen found individual contributions to be the backbone of the support for the arts (Baumol and Bowen, 1966, page 307). ' The importance of private and government grants to the arts results from the fact that outside of major population and tourist centers, there are not enough people to "share" the initial expense of arts centers and of staging productions. As a result of the present system of subsidies, touring companies and multi -use facilities have evolved. Hanemann found that the system of ticket ' sales and private contributions both generates broader attendance of the arts, and results in greater revenues than would be the case with support from ticket sales alone (Hanemann, 1981, pages ' 344-345). 1 o �� Page 40 I This apparent broadpublic support I� pp of at least the idea of the performing arts indicates a need to consider more than just the direct and indirect expenditures for the construction and operation of the Center. Therefore, BRG also examined the more general and important impact such a facility has on the development of the Fayetteville economy. METHODOLOGY This report is based on both the analysis of available secondary material as well as primary data collection. BRG conducted an automated database search for relevant material, and contacted comparative arts centers in the Fayetteville region. John Mott of Mott, Mobley, McGowan, and Griffin, P.A.:Architects, Dr. Phillip Taylor of the Arkansas Bureau of Business and Economic Research, Scott Linbaugh of the City of Fayetteville, Donnie Dutton of the Center for Continuing Education, the Arts Center Board, and the Arkansas Employment Security Commission all provided valuable assistance in the form of local data, and estimates of revenues and costs associated with the proposed Center. BRG analyzed the above information and is solely responsible for the findings contained in this report. PRIMARY EXPENDITURES The Arta Center will generate direct expenditures in the Fayetteville economy in the form of the purchase of labor and materials for the construction and operation of the Center. These expenditures will have a positive impact on the Fayetteville economy in excess of the initial expenditures. The following analysis is based on estimates provided by John Mott, and by the Arts Center Board. Planning, constructing, and furnishing the Center, exclusive of land acquisition, is estimated to cost $4,552,721.00. Until bids are solicited and let, BRG can only make an estimate of what portion of this cost will be spent in Fayetteville. The final pattern of expenditures will be a function of several factors, including: 1. The general contractor hired, the skills and materials needed by that contractor, and whether or not those skills and materials are available in Fayetteville at the time. 2. The effect of other local projects on the demand for craftsmen and laborers. 'I 3. Whether or not the project can be financed locally, 1 o ^ Page 41 Some of the local expenditures will flow out of the Fayetteville economy to materials suppliers and others. It appears likely that from 02,000,000 to 02,250,000 will be spent directly in the Fayetteville economy if this project is built. The Center is estimated to have an earned and contributed income in the first year of operation of 0416,489.00. This amount is for both operations and debt service. The Center is projected to spend 065,610 on full and part-time employees, and another 07,000+ in local expenditures for services and supplies. The largest expenditure will be for debt service. The exact amount will depend on many variables, including the final cost of the Center, initial contributions to defray the principal amount, and the interest rate prevailing when the money is borrowed. Projected revenues and expenditures are discussed in more detail in Appendix A. BRG was requested to examine the adequacy of the projected budget. The operating budget projected by the Arts Center Board and the City of Fayetteville appears reasonable for a modest operation with the exception of the fact that there is no provision for non -janitorial maintenance (basis: Appendix B). BRG also believes that an opportunity exists for increasing the use of the Center for Continuing Education through coordination with the Arts Center. MULTIPLIER EFFECTS Indirect or multiplier effects arise from the fact that both individuals and businesses spend virtually all of their income. Consequently, one person's expense is another person's income. There has been various attempts nationwide to measure the "multiplier" effect for the performing arts. Drawing on those efforts, BRG used a national multiplier for the construction component of the Center (Bureau of Economic Analysis, 1984, page 73); for salaries and other operating expenditures, multipliers generated by the National Endowment for the Arts were adopted. Construction of the Center should create expenditures in the Fayetteville economy (and not to outside suppliers) of $4,400,000 to $5,000,000. Operation of the Center (not expenditures directly related to performances) will produce expenditures in the Fayetteville economy of at least 0230,000 and as much as $360,000 per year. One way of looking at this is as having the same or greater effect as attracting a capital intensive manufacturing firm employing ten or more average factory workers. More detail on this subject can be found in Appendix C. Page 42 oQ�, COSTS The Center will generate some minor, negative economic effects, such as: 1. Payments to visiting artists. 2. Slightly increased costs for public safety, utility useage, and other publicly provided services. 3. Decreased sales of some goods, to the extent that substitutes are provided through Center offerings. However, none of these are economically significant. OUT-OF-TOWN DOLLARS The vast majority of the Center's patronage, both audiences and performers, will be local in origin. This limits the fees that the Center can charge to most performing groups due to their limited budgets. However, the Continuing Education Center (CEC) does present a unique market opportunity for capturing non -local dollars. The CEC had twenty-six events with attendance in excess of 300 (roughly half the CEC's planned capacity) in 1984-1985 (Department of Conferences, 1985). The Center could increase its revenue, and the attractiveness of the CEC for groups, by providing entertainment specifically for groups attending CEC events. For the Center, this would be an opportunity to spread operating expenses and debt over a greater number of paid seats. For the the CEC, this provides a partial solution to the problem that any city the size of Fayetteville has in attracting conferences, seminars, and conventions; there is a limited number of things to do in the evenings. For the Fayetteville economy, increased use of the CEC would increase the multiplier effect of the Center even more. To the extent a concerted marketing program attracts non-resident groups, it can attract basic or "new" dollars. This would also have a positive effect on the lodging and restaurant business in Fayetteville. The Center and the CEC could have a symbiotic relationship with each other as well as with the Fayetteville economy. To increase the probability that this relationship will flourish, it would be helpful for the Center to be located close to the CEC, if possible, within walking distance. Such a location would also benefit the economic activity concentrated at the Fayetteville Square. I ■I I I i II II U I. It II I I I ■I I Page 43 n ■I GENERAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Economic development is'essentially an increase in the quantity and quality of employment opportunities in an economy. Economies grow because businesses are created by the local economy, expand, or stay in the local economy, or move into the local economy from elsewhere. Fayetteville, and virtually every other community, is engaged in a constant battle to keep and acquire jobs. The majority of job generation comes from within an economy. through the creation and expansion of smaller firms. For a city the size of Fayetteville, the attraction (or loss) of a business can have a significant impact (Birch, 1981). The considerations that enter into the decision to expand or move a company are many. For such a business, these can be building costs, available transportation, distance to markets, availabilty of skilled labor, and others. No two firms have exactly the same requirements. For an individual considering remaining in an area or moving into it, one of the many considerations is often an intangible called the "quality of life." This can be defined as many things including the availability of cultural and recreational activities. Quality of life is not the most important variable in economic development, but it looms as an increasingly important factor in attracting and keeping highly skilled employees so important to new and existing firms. For Fayetteville to draw on its many strengths, especially the University of Arkansas and the Ozark mountains, it is important to achieve and maintain a high quality of life. There is a tendency for people who patronize the performing arts ' to have above average educations, and in at least one study (Andreasen and Belk, 1980, page 116), to be described as "outdoorsy." Both of these characteristics suggests that the Arts ' Center will have a solidifying influence on the Fayetteville economy by attracting and retaining quality employers and employees. The literature also suggests that companies seeking new locations or deciding whether to expand or move elsewhere prefer areas that. provide relatively high levels of public services, and demonstrate aggressive positive attitudes toward local improvement (Birch, 1981). The Business Research Group is convinced that the most important effect of the Arts Center will ultimately be on the general growth of the Fayetteville economy. I Page 44 'Ii fI SUMMARY Business Research Group is of the definite opinion that the proposed Arts Center will have a strong, positive effect on the Fayetteville economy. This of course assumes that the base information and projections which were provided are accurate and reasonably current. The magnitude of this impact will increase if this project is financed by a local bank or banks. Business Research Group is unable to quantify the effect most important to the Fayetteville economy -- the enhancement of the general, overall attractiveness of the area to the type of employers and employees that Fayetteville needs to insure growth in its quantity and quality of employment opportunities. Furthermore, the Business Research Group cannot quantify the impact of the primary reason for the Arts Center -- the enhancement of Fayetteville's cultural life. I Ii II II I. Page 45 ' .SOURCES CONSULTED ' Andreasen, Alan R. and Russell W. Belk, "Predictors of Attendance at the Performing Arts." Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.7, No. 2, 112-120, September, 1980. IArkansas Employment Security Division, Research and Analysis Section, 1984 Arkansas Manufacturing Survey, Arkansas Employment Security Division, Little Rock, March, 1985. Baumol, William J. and William G. Bowen, Performing Arts- The Economic Dilemma, Twentieth Century Fund, Inc., New York, 1966. Birch, David L., Choosing A Place To Grow: Business Location Decisions In The 1970s,. MIT, Cambridge, January, 1981. Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, Survey of Current Business, 64:5, May, 1984. Cannon, Donald S., The Impact Of California State College On The Local Economy, Eastern Michigan University - Masters Thesis, 1970. City of Fayetteville, Department of Finance, "Hotel/Motel & Restaurant Tax Excess - Use for the Arts Center Fund and the Advertising and Promotion Fund," Memo: City of Fayetteville, June 24, 1985. City of Fayetteville, Department of Finance, "A Convention/Visitors Division Within the Chamber of Commerce," Memo:City of Fayetteville, June 24, 1985. Cwi, David, The Economic Impact of Six Cultural Institutions on the Economy of the Columbus SMSA, The Johns Hopkins University, Center for Metropolitan Planning and Research, Baltimore, 1980. ' Department of Conferences, Achievement In Public Service: List of Conferences Held, Fayetteville, 1985. Hanemann, Henry, "Nonprofit Enterprise In The Performing Arts," The Bell Journal of Economics, 341-361, Autumn, 1981. National Endowment for the Arts, Economic Impact of Arts and 'Cultural Institutions: Case Studies in Columbus, Minneapolis/St. Paul, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, Springfield, Report #15, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, D.C., January, 1981. o Lftl9 Page 46 Ii, N National Endowment for the Arts, Economic Impacts of Arts and �I Cultural Institutions: A Model for Assessment and a Case Study in Baltimore, Research Division Report #6, Nationsal Endowment for the Arts, Washington, D.C., November, 1977. N The Port Authority of New York, The Arts as an Industry: Their Economic Importance to the New York -New Jersey Metropolitan Region, Cultural Assistance Center, Inc., May, 1983. Trudeau, Richard C., "Citizens Get A High Return On Their Tax Investment," Parks & Recreation, 54-70, September, 1978. Public Technology, Inc., The Role of the Arts in Urban Economic Development, U.S. Department of Commerce, EDA, Washington, D.C., September, 1980. U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Social Indicators for Planning and Evaluation: Educational Attainment, School Enrollment - Fayetteville City, U.S. Department of Labor, Lawrence/Berkeley, 1982. II N ■!rn II II ■1 N N. oD n a Page 47 S fi Qualifications The Business Research Group is a Tulsa based consortium of experienced professionals with specialized economic research, planning, and development backgrounds. James M. Halpin and Donald S. Cannon, both Business Research Group Principals, are co-authors of this report. Together, they have over twenty years of direct, in-depth experience in business, and local -level economic research, planning, and development, in a variety of geographic localities across the nation. Mr. Halpin earned his Ph.D. in Economics at the University of Arkansas. He has been intimately involved in all levels of economic development with the City of Tulsa over the past five years, serving as the lead economic development specialist in numerous cultural and recreation oriented development projects. Mr. Cannon achieved Ph.D. candidate status in Urban and Regional Analysis at the University of Maryland. For the past four years, he has been a central figure in economic and market research in eastern Oklahoma. Prior to coming to Tulsa, Mr. Cannon was the chief urban economic development planner for the Economic Development Administration in Washington, D.C. Before that, he was a senior economic development planner for the cities of Milwaukee, and Charlotte, North Carolina. Io — Page 48 APPENDIX A Construction BRG made use of the following estimates based on the architects informed opinion: Expenditures by category: I. Materials: Local 8997,772 Non -Local 81,352,612 Total $2,350,384 II. Labor: Local 61,279,997 Non -Local 8395,376 Total 81,675,373 III. Pre -Construction Fees: Local 867,500 Non -Local $202,500 Total 8270,000 IV. Profits: Local 8145,390 Non -Local 8111.,574 Total 8256,964 TOTAL ESTIMATED LOCAL EXPENDITURES: 82,490,659 Operation The Center is estimated to have an earned and contributed income for the frat year of operation as follows: Income Source Amount • Earned Income Theater rental fees 820,000 Studio rental fees 85,000 Center sponsored classes 830,000 Concessions 517,270 Ticket sales $4,250 Receptions 81,200 Total 577,720 * Private Contributions 600 memberships 615,000 30 donations 020,000 Corporate sponsorships 85,000 Total $40,000 a Public Grants City of Fayetteville (a)0278,769 State Arts Council 620,000 Federal funding 0 Total 6298,769 a• TOTAL Operating Funds Available In 1st Year (Assumed to be Calendar Year 1987) 5416,489 ------------------- (a) Projected available funds for 1987, replaces 875,000 figure in trial budget. Does not include $1,187,065 estimated to be available from 1985 and 1986 hotel/restaurant tax collections. These funds are projected to be expended in the following manner: Salaries: Full -Time 545,000 Part -Time 620,610 Total $65,610 Other Local Expenses (b): Marketing 05,000 Expense Accounts $1,800 Printing 61,000 Total $7,800 -- - --------------- (b) Expenses such as office supplies and utilities are considered to flow out of the Fayetteville economy almost entirely. Page 50 Debt service will be the largest single annual expenditure by the Center for the term of its financing. The exact amount needed for debt service will vary according to a variety of factors: 1. The actual cost of the Center. 2. The amount the City can contribute initially. 3. Private or other public contributions to the construction of the Center. 4. The interest rate charged for the money borrowed, and other terms of the loan. Based on projected operating expenses, the Center should have the following amounts available for debt service for its first five years of operation: Available for Gross Operating Debt Year Receipts Expense Service ------ ---------- - ------ - - - --------- 1987 $416,489 $79,500 $336,989 1988 5430,934 584,270 $346,664 1989 S441,044 589,326 $351,718 1990 $452,122 $94,686 $357,436 1991 5469,176 $100,367 5368,809 By way of illustration, $350,000 per year will support the following amounts of debt for twenty years with twenty equal payments, at the indicated interest rates: Interest Rate 7% 8x 9x Debt Supported 63,707,905 63,436,351 83,194,991 Local financing will be necessary for this project to have a net positive direct effect on the Fayetteville economy. The availability of local financing is not in and of itself a reason i to proceed or not proceed with this project. Page 51, III I. APPENDIX B • CENTERS Ritz Community Bowles Memorial Lutcher ------------------------------------------------ ' Seating: 481 Eat. Annual ' Attendance, ALL Activities: 24,000 Community Population: 24,000 Market Area: Eat. Population 45,000 Annual Budget: TOTAL $38,000 ' Personnel/ Salaries $13,500 Budget Excludes: --- Association: City Other: 4th Yr -------------------- 1,700782 1,600 105,000 60,000 37,000 7,000 100,000 9 county 23,000 19,000 50 miles 1,500 75,000 25,000 300,000 $650,000 $155,000 $160,000 $200,000 $199,100 $84,000 $44,000 060,000 Deprec. Tour Prog. --- Programming --- School Dist City City & Found 25% attend. --- 1st Yr Prof. Acts out-of-town mainly Source: Telephone interviews 11-27-85, 12-2-85, and 12-3-85. ' Explanatory Notes - Centers: * Ritz Civic Center, Blytheville, AR. • Bartlesville Community Center, Bartlesville, OK. ' • Bowles Fine Arts Center, Iola, KS. * Memorial Auditorium, Pittsburg, KS. • Lutcher Theatre, Orange, TX. I _ __ li O Page 52 I APPENDIX C ' For the construction industry as a whole, this effect is thought to generate an additional 61,232 of spending for every S1,000 spent initially (Bureau of Economic Analysis, 1984, page 73). In the case of the Center, this should generate an additional 62.464 to 62.772 million dollars in the Fayetteville economy as a result of direct expenditures. However, this will be a one time effect, spread over many months. Several studies have analyzed the "multiplier effect" of the performing arts on local economies. A study of six cities in the United States (National Endowment for the Arts, 1981, Report#15) produced the following relationships: Primary Secondary Ratio --------------------- Full-Time Jobs 1.618 6.771 4.185 Local Expenditures (9100,000) 43.383 129.380 2.982 A study of Columbus, Ohio (Cwi, 1980, page 44) uncovered these ratios: Primary Secondary Ratio ' ------- --------- ----- Full -Time Jobs 1.23 5.74 4.67 ' Local Expenditures ($100,000) 3.511 10.540 2.95 For non-profit cultural institutions in New York and New Jersey, the effect was: Full -Time Primary Jobs: 11,850 Part -Time Primary Jobs: 10,210 Jobs Created: 30,000 Ratio: 1.7 I I o Lela Page 53 I i Nationally, the multiplier effect for the category "amusements" is 1.926 at producers price's (Bureau of Economic Analysis, 1984, page 77). A conservative estimate of the total impact of operating the Center for a year is the creation of the equivalent of eight to nine full-time jobs, and $200,000 in expenditures exclusive of debt service. Another way of looking at the job impact is that the salaries of Center employees are the equivalent of five full-time manufacturing jobs at current average wage rates (Arkansas Employment Security Division, 1985). The total job creation effect will be that of ten or more manufacturing jobs. The impact of the Center can also be measured in strictly dollar terms, as follows: • Construction Expenditures (one-time): Direct = 52.00 - 02.25 million Indirect = 52.46 - $2.77 million Total = $4.46 - 55.03 million (Multiplier = 2.232; Bureau of Economic Analysis) • Salaries (annual): Direct = 865,610 Indirect = $275,562 Total = 8341,172 (Multiplier = 5.20; Nat'l Endowment for the Arts) • Other Expenditures (annual): Direct = $7,800 Indirect = $23,.244 Total = 831,044 (Multiplier = 3.98; Nat'l Endowment for the Arts) D U L Page 54 D We are assuming for this analysis that "operations income" will be offset by debt service payments, and that local financing of the project will have a neutral effect. Financing options are numerous and the only serious negative effect would come from out-of-town financing, and no local bank even collecting servicing fees. Local arts groups will make use of this facility and they will �{ demand some additional goods and services. There is no reliable �r means to estimate this effect. Visiting artists will also probably be the source of a small impact on Fayetteville's economy. Local eating and drinking places, and hotels and motels t' will experience sales to those attending events equal to about one-half (50x) of total ticket sales (Baumol and Bowen, 1966). Ill D II 111 ii I ii Pa°P,55 jI I I I I I I l 1 I I I' I ORANGE CIVIC PLAZA ORANGE, TEXAS 77630 409/886-5535 Mr. Don Cannon Business Research Group Post Office Box 2655 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74101 Dear Mr. Cannon: Our Director of the Lutcher Theater, James Baudoin, asked me to write you and speak about our experiences with opening the theater in Orange. Lutcher Theater is a 1,500 -seat theater constructed H.J. Lutcher Stark Foundation as part of a downtown project in Orange during the late 1970s. Since the Theater in 1980, we have offered a regular schedule events at the theater, including concert stars such Bob Hope, Broadway hits including A CHORUS LINE and classical events such as SWAN LAKE presented by Hou performances by the Houston Symphony. by the Nelda C. and revitalization opening of Lutcher of professional as Liberace and EVITA, and ston Ballet and As President of the Higman Towing Company, I have the opportunity. to come in contact with members of the business community through- out the southeast Texas region. I can attest that the Lutcher Theater's existence in our community has been valuable to our community relations efforts and effective in assisting to attract new business to the area. The region has been supportive of Lutcher Theater, and communities similiar to Orange would do well to consider establishing enterprises of this type. Sincerely, 1 `Joe M. Powell Chairman, Lutcher Theater Advisory Board President, Higman Towing Company ' JMP/sv December 9, 1985 I I ' I O LA BANK & Trust Co. Iola, Kansas 66749 JAMES S. GILPIN, N, Executive Vice President d Cashier 316-365-3101 December 3, 1985 I. Don Cannon Business Research Group P.O. Box 2655 ' Tulsa, OK RE: Economic Impact of Thomas H. Bowlus Fine Arts Center on Iola Area Dear Don: Iola has benefited from the presence of the Bowlus Fine Arts Center since the early 60's. Equipped with auditorium (about 700); recital hall (about 150); instrumental, vocal, dance and individual practice rooms and offices, the. facility is a first class teaching/rehearsal/ ' performance building for our town of 7,000 persons - we know of no other asset like it in a town of comparable size in Kansas. It also is endowed; building maintenance.:and cultural attractions are partially subsidized••-. ' by a trust. We believe this unique community feature gives Iola a quality of life competitive advantage in retaining existing jobs and obtaining new jobs. ,We know that some of the 1,000 manufacturing jobs.that were created by new industry moving to Iola in the mid -seventies are attributable to our rich cultural fare and the "home-grown" theatre group, symphony ' orchestra and visual arts club for which the Bowlus has been a major catalyst. ' ,As a local "son" who used the Bowlus as a student and now enjoys it as a patron, there is no question that dollars invested in cultural facilities are well spent. They have paid big dividends in Iola. ' S cerely, ' J mes S. Gilp n xecutive Vice resident ,' [.1 I JSG:eh P.S. My economic development resume': Past President Iola Chamber of Commerce, Leadership Kansas Class of '79, Kansas Cavalry, Kansas Industry Council, present Chairman of Mid -America, Inc. of Parsons, Kansas. JSG I I I I. I I Ii I I i : I r • `'BARTLESVILLE' AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE P.O. Box 2366. 201 S.W. Keeler • Bartlesville, Oklahoma 74005 • Phone 918-336-8708 December 17, 1985 Mr. Don Cannon BRG Box 2655 Tulsa, OK 74101 Dear Mr. Cannon: In response to your request of the benefits of having our own community center, I offer the following observations. Bartlesville is a unique city in that we have over 200 organi- zations representing a variety of interests. A large number of these civic clubs, social clubs, professional societies and other organizations utilize the center constantly. As a result, several district and regional meetings are held periodically each year in our city. Those meetings, in turn, produce revenues for our area. In addition • to.the-large number of the.aforementio'ned clubs and organizations which utilize the facility,.Bartlesville also has • a symphony; theatre guild Land a ballet company 2"'These cultural societies are headquartered at the community;rcenter. Of course,,,. .their performances.bring's in .hundreds of people each year to -witness fine arts entertainment.Hr.,. rSince;the BartlesvilletCommunityl Center is such 'a beautiful •;.structure, 'many peopler:visit.- it throughout the year k'So;'I;ho,pe;you can seesthat we are proud of our center and :• believe,: without; aidoubtthat it helps our city economically' ;1n. various ways. ; ! ! - .. If Lean -be of any`.further help, please let me know, Sincerely, Sam F. Cartwright Executive Vice President SFC:ksm I. I. F•