Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/11/2016 Arts and Culture Commission Special Meeting Adopted 03/08/2016CITY OF GILROY MINUTES OF THE ARTS ROUNDTABLE MEETING OF THE ARTS AND CULTURE COMMISSION 9:00 A.M. February 11, 2016 ARTS ROUNDTABLE The Arts & Culture Commission held an Arts Roundtable discussion at the Interim Gilroy Center for the Arts with the joint sponsorship of the City of Gilroy, the Gilroy Arts Alliance, and the Gilroy Foundation. Over 40 invitations were issued and over 20 people attended. In August of 2015, the Gilroy City Council requested that a community meeting be convened to develop consensus on the Gilroy Center for the Arts project prior to the project being included in any updates to the Development Impact Fee program and Capital Improvement Budget. The Council also requested that the project be evaluated in a business plan for operations and maintenance prior to the actual construction. The Roundtable discussion focused on five scenarios representing various possibilities and outcomes for the Interim Gilroy Center for the Arts and the future Gilroy Arts and Cultural Center. The following findings were developed by the arts stakeholders present: • The Gilroy Center for the Arts should continue to be planned for the site acquired by the City at Monterey and 7th Street. The Center for the Arts need not wait for one brand new large facility. The Project can be built in phases on the current site. • The Gilroy Center for the Arts will be an asset for the benefit of the entire community and will positively contribute to the ongoing revitalization of downtown Gilroy. • The retrofitting of the existing Gilroy Center for the Arts in the near term is supported in order to increase occupancy, ensure long range stability, upgrade restrooms and remodel for greater efficiency and accommodate the increasing demand for arts programs, activities and special events. This retrofitted building would then be phased into the total Project. • Subject to more detailed design work, the Gilroy Center for the Arts should be planned and constructed to meet the same objectives agreed to in 2004: namely, to provide a large-scale, multi -purpose cultural arts facility that can host performing arts, exhibitions, special events, classroom instruction and rehearsals. • Initial phases of implementation of this vision should begin as soon as possible, even though it may take longer to assemble both public and private funds for the complete vision to be achieved. In reaching this consensus the arts stakeholders were mindful of the following: • The cost estimates used in 2002 ($12.3 million) are incomplete and out of date. City staff and the art stakeholders realize that to achieve the vision, the project will cost at least $20.0 million. The stakeholders would like to meet again to refine the vision and to prepare a sequencing plan which will be helpful in developing a better estimate for purposes of the Development Impact Fee. • A business plan must be prepared by the Gilroy Arts Alliance for operations and maintenance of the Gilroy. Center for the Arts prior to any retrofitting, upgrades or tenant improvements to ensure continuing sustainability. • The Development Impact Fee program alone cannot pay for the entire cost of the Gilroy Center for the Arts project. Other sources of revenue must be identified. As currently established, the impact fee program for Public Facilities requires that, in aggregate, approximately 2/3 can be financed by impact fees paid by new private residential and commercial development. And, further we recognize that the cash flow for the Arts Center is dependent on the pace of continued growth. • Because the Gilroy Center for the Arts is just one component of the Public Facilities program, Council must forecast future private development activity to estimate revenues, and balance many priorities for such funds. • With Council's concurrence, arts stakeholders meetings will be scheduled to continue work on the vision regarding the phasing and sequencing of improvements in order to more closely align them with the cash flow and the City's Capital Improvement Budget. The group agreed that the meeting's findings and outcomes would become part of a draft report to the Gilroy City Council which would be developed by City of Gilroy staff, refined by a representative group of the stakeholders and then circulated among the attendees prior to presentation to Council. Stakeholders present also expressed the desire to meet again prior to Council's setting of the impact fees to further refine the Arts community vision and consensus. The next regular meeting of the Arts & Culture Commission will be held on Tuesday, March 8, 2015 at 5:30 p.m. in City Council Chambers located at 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020. Susan Voss, Recreation Coordinator City of Gilroy Recreation Department 2 POSSIBLE SCENARIOS: 1. Money is the most important criterion. The permanent arts center should be affordable. Since development impact fee money can only be used for a portion of the costs, the fiscal burden borne by the existing community should be the minimal amount necessary to achieve a permanent arts center that is functional, but may be less than ideal. It should be located at a site that is convenient to the public, but cost is the key factor. The Civic Center site provides lower cost land and site preparation costs, and provides an opportunity to benefit from the $5.4 million available for Civic Center parking to support the Library. (New name: "Civic and Cultural Center") 2. Maximizing the potential of downtown is the critical criterion. If the Seventh/Monterey site can provide for a more impactful private project, then the Gilroy Center for the Arts should be prepared to move. The City's investment in the Seventh/Monterey site ($4.7 million) is an asset of the Arts Center Project and can be liquidated to help pay for a new Arts Center at the Civic Center site. The project scope should be "sized" to fit the site available at the Civic Center or another site yet to be determined. Acquiring that new site may increase the costs of the project, but that is the "price" of maximizing the potential for downtown revitalization. 3. We should not shortchange our vision for a permanent arts center that can distinguish Gilroy in the South County area and maximize the community benefit of a venue for performing and visual arts. Recognizing that the existing community will have to contribute at least half the cost, we need to be prepared to go to the voters, make the case, and get approval for a bond measure or new tax measure to support the arts. No half measures. If there is not support initially, we need to be prepared to go out a second time. The Center should be located at a prominent site that is not only convenient to the public, but where there is synergy with other public policy goals such as revitalizing the Downtown. Private donations should be sought in order to establish an endowment for operating funds or for enhancements to the Center that are clearly beyond the means of a public agency. 4. The Arts Center should be built and operated in a way to meet multiple objectives that may not be strictly "arts" related. For example, there is a need for large event space with a full commercial kitchen. The 2004 concept for the Arts Center included the potential for events and conferences, but realistically, art performances, set building, rehearsals, move -ins and move -outs, will limit the usability of the "event" space. Instead, we should build an "Arts and Events" Center that is designed to be fully functional for each use. This might provide an opportunity for private partnerships both for operation and construction of the events space. It might mean a smaller performance space than envisioned in 2004. 5. We should build on the success of the current interim Arts Center and lower our expectations to that which is financially feasible and likely to lead to improved space sooner. The new project should be limited to bringing the current building up to code for expanded occupancy and to building a modest addition with a goal of increasing the useable multipurpose space available for performances and events. This option would lower the required investment from the existing community, but may still need time for the City to set aside sufficient General Fund resources or to seek voter support for a new revenue source.