Item 7.B. - Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City

Transcription

May 10, 2011
ITEM#:
7.B.
RE:
BRIEFING AND BOARD DISCUSSION OF THE FINAL REPORT
REGARDING THE FEASIBILTY OF CONSTRUCTING A PERFORMING
ARTS CENTER SUITABLE FOR TOURING BROADWAY PERFORMANCES
PROJECT AREA: Central Business District
PREPARED BY:
D.J. Baxter
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The RDA has engaged the development team of Garfield, Traub,
Swisher and Hamilton Partners (GTS/HP) to evaluate the feasibility of constructing a state-ofthe-art performing arts center suitable for touring Broadway productions and selected local
performances. The GTS/HP team has completed the first phase of its work and is ready to make
a presentation to the Board, summarizing the conclusions and recommendations of the final
written report, which is attached.
FUNDING: In March 2010, the Board approved the expenditure of $741,000 for the
completion of the feasibility study. Since that time, the Board has approved an additional
$53,000 for an Economic Impact Analysis, and $30,000 for strategic communications work, and
$53,000 for the facilitation of a series of stakeholder workshops regarding the Cultural Core. No
additional funding is requested or needed at this time.
ALTERNATIVES: This is a briefing and discussion only. No Board action is required.
ANALYSIS AND ISSUES: The contract with GTS/HP approved in March includes a scope of
work that specifies the following services, the results of which will be addressed in the briefing
and are contained in the final report:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Market Study or Market Study Update
Community and Existing Arts Organizations Outreach
Economic Impact Analysis or Economic Impact Analysis Update (Optional)
Site Characterization Documents
Strategic Communications
Planning and Programming
Programmatic Budget
Project Schedule
Plan of Finance
The fixed fee paid to GTS included the procurement of all needed services to produce the final
report, with three exceptions:
1.
2.
3.
Economic Impact Analysis;
Hiring of a strategic communications firm; and
Securing environmental and soils reports on the property.
In separate actions, the Board approved funds for the hiring of a strategic communications team and
a consultant to conduct the economic impact analysis. The staff has used Arts District
Implementation funds to secure the environmental and soils reports for the property.
BACKGROUND: Mayor Becker has made the construction of a downtown Broadway-style theater
one of his highest priorities. He has asked the RDA to assist with the acquisition of property and
selection of a developer for the project, which will include a 2500-seat theater, as well as rehearsal
spaces and other ancillary facilities that will support the operation of the theater and various
performing arts functions.
In 2008, Bill Becker, who has had substantial experience with theater productions and operations
nationwide, organized a group of community leaders and representatives of arts organizations under
the banner of the Downtown Theater Action Group (TAG). This committee, under Bill’s leadership,
considered numerous possible sites and funding alternatives for the theater. In its final report, issued
July 18, 2008, the TAG identified six potential sites for consideration, and recommended particular
focus on four of those sites. TAG also recommended pursuit of two primary project funding sources:
New Markets Tax Credits and creation of a Community Development Area that would use sales tax
increment generated by the City Creek Center and surrounding blocks.
In March 2009, the RDA issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for developers to work with the
RDA and Salt Lake City to design and construct a 2500-seat theater and other commercial,
residential, or mixed-use buildings. Two development teams responded: one led by Garfield Traub
Swisher/Hamilton Partners (GTS/HP), and the other consisting of HINES Interests.
In October 2009, the RDA Board approved GTS/HP as the first-ranked developer, and approved a
six-month exclusive negotiations period during which staff was directed to negotiate a contract for
pre-development services. In March 2010, the Board approved a contract with GTS/HP for a fixed
fee of $741,000. This fee covered a broad scope of work, but specifically excluded strategic
communications and an economic impact analysis, based on the thinking that both of those
contractors were more appropriately hired directly by the RDA or Salt Lake City. Since that time,
the RDA Board has approved additional funds for the strategic communications and economic
impact work. The GTS/HP team has included all of the information gathered in its final report.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
Pre-development Strategic Analysis: Utah Performing Arts Center, 2011-05-03
2
Contents
1. executive Summary�� 1.01
2. COMMUNITY OUTREACH�� 2.01
3. PROJECT DELIVERY METHOD�� 3.01
4. Utah Performing Arts Center Private
Development Component�� 4.01
5. Market Study and Implementation Plan�� 5.01
A. AMS Appendices�� 5.49
6. Economic Impact Analysis�� 6.01
7. architectural/programming/
engineering��7.01
A.
B.
C.
D.
Site Analysis��7.03
Design Considerations��7.05
Facility Program��7.13
Engineer Summaries��7.25
Civil��7.25
Soils��7.29
Traffic��7.33
Structural��7.39
Mechanical��7.43
Electrical��7.47
E. Concept Design��7.53
F. Precedent Studies��7.63
8. Development Budget�� 8.01
9. Development Schedule�� 9.01
10. Plan of Finance�� 10.01
Introduction
In 1861, the Salt Lake Theatre opened, embodying the
integral role that arts have always played in the fabric
of Salt Lake City. Since then, Salt Lake City, dubbed the
“capital of the Intermountain West”, has traditionally
been a regional draw and center for culture and the arts
in the region.
This new theater will anchor the cultural core of downtown
arts venues for the next generation, providing a stateof-the-art venue option for local arts growth, attracting
touring Broadway productions sooner, and allowing for
extended runs and the expansion of the Broadway series
in the market. Other benefits include the ability to:
Outstanding cultural assets such as Ballet West, the
Utah Symphony and Utah Opera, the Mormon Tabernacle
Choir, the Ririe-Woodbury Dance Company, and the
Repertory Dance Theatre have established and defined
Salt Lake City’s excellence in the performing arts on a
national level. Home venues for these organizations,
including the Rose Wagner Theater, the historic Capitol
Theatre and Abravanel Hall have supported the rich
legacy of these cultural institutions.
• Activate and revitalize Main Street between First
South and Second South
In combination with other initiatives, including a planned
remodel of the Capitol Theatre, the proposed renovation
of the Utah Theatre, and the Ballet West Center, a
new performing arts center capable of attracting and
hosting first-run touring Broadway musical productions,
represents a logical progression and market maturation
that will expand the array of arts and entertainment
options for Salt Lake City residents and visitors.
Downtown Salt Lake City has seen a resurgence of
interest and investment in the central business district
in spite of the economic downturn that has stifled
growth elsewhere in the country. Projects such as 222
South Main and the new City Creek Center mixed-use
development reinforce the strong regional identity of the
Capital City in not just government, but also commerce,
culture and entertainment. The new theater will pave the
way for the planned Cultural Core district as a regional
attraction and economic development engine for Salt
Lake City.
• Leverage the economic impact of City Creek Center,
the Gateway, 222 South Main, and other recent
developments
• Create date availability for entertainment product
not currently in the market
• Introduce and attract new and broader audiences to
the downtown cultural core
• Enhance the Salt Lake City and Utah brands as a
place to visit, live, work and play
• Create educational opportunities and cultural
enrichment statewide
1.01
Background
A new performing arts center capable of attracting and
hosting first-run touring Broadway musical productions
has been planned for downtown Salt Lake City since
the early 1960s. All ten projects identified in the 1962
Second Century Plan authored by the Downtown Planning
Association are complete except for the envisioned
performing arts center. In 1988, a Regional Urban Design Assistance Team
study, sponsored by Salt Lake City, engaged citizens in
a community planning process. Facilitated by the AIA,
the study recognized arts as an important part of the
downtown cultural fabric. In 1990, Salt Lake County identified the need for
additional arts facilities and commissioned a study that
recommended a new larger theater to accommodate
touring Broadway be built within ten years.
In 2005, a feasibility study commissioned by the
Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (“RDA”), the
Downtown Alliance, and Salt Lake County identified the
need and potential for a touring Broadway theater. In 2007, a large performance venue to complement
existing arts facilities was listed as one of eight signature
projects in the Downtown Rising plan. In 2008, Salt Lake City and community leaders
announced 135 South Main Street on Block 70 as the
preferred location for construction of the new performing
arts center based on the Mayor’s Theater Action Group
report and recommendations.
In 2008, the County’s Cultural Facilities Master Plan,
authored by AMS Planning & Research, recognized:
“To fully capitalize on the market potential
for a region-serving cultural arts facility in
Salt Lake, a location at the center of the
three high-potential market areas would
be optimum. Downtown Salt Lake City
would be most accessible to the greatest
number of potential patrons in the region.”
Also in 2008, the RDA entered into agreements with
Property Reserve, Inc. and Suburban Land Reserve,
Inc. for the property to determine redevelopment use of
properties for a mixed-use project to include a touring
Broadway theater. Ultimately, the RDA entered into an
agreement with PRI and SLR to purchase the land for the
theater and mixed-use developments.
In 2009, the RDA published a Request for Qualifications
for Main Street Development Block 70, Plat “A” to identify
a qualified developer on the project to:
“…work in cooperation with the Agency and Salt
Lake City Corporation to design and construct
a 2,500-seat theater and other commercial,
residential
or
mixed-use
buildings.”
As part of an open, competitive public bid process,
RDA selected Garfield Traub Swisher Development
and its team to finalize an implementation plan for the
performing arts center. The team also includes:
•
•
•
•
•
Hamilton Partners
Okland Construction Company
VCBO Architecture
Moshe Safdie and Associates
AMS Planning & Research
An economic impact analysis (“EIA”) by AECOM Economics was also commissioned by the RDA. AECOM projects substantial economic impacts and other
intangible benefits from the development, as supported
by impact modeling and studies of similar developments
in other communities. On April 1, 2010, the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake
City (“RDA”) entered into a Pre-Development Services
Agreement (“Agreement”) with GTS and Hamilton
Partners to direct and oversee a strategic analysis and to
provide RDA with a pre-development strategic business
plan for the implementation of the Project. The results of
this plan comprise the following components:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Community Outreach
Market Study and Implementation Plan
Economic Impact Analysis
Site Characterization Documents
Strategic Communications
Conceptual Design
Development Budget
Development Schedule
Plan of Finance
1.03
executive summary
utah performing arts center
FACI L ITY P R O GRAM
The theater will be an urban infill redevelopment of
approximately 2.04 acres of the block bounded by Main
Street on the west, Regent Street on the east, 100 South
on the north, and 200 South on the south. The building
program is presented below:
Theater Building Program
• 148,000-sq. ft., 2,500-seat performing arts center
with support spaces
• Annex space on Regent Street with potential
use for retail, studio/black box, rehearsal space,
classrooms, offices and storage
• A mid-block walkway connecting Main Street and
Regent Street
Use of approximately 650 parking stalls in the Regent
Street parking garage
1.04
What are the key elements of a new, state-of-the-art
theater that can support large-scale, first-run touring
plays and musicals and provide a venue option for growth
of local arts groups?
1. Optimal seat count and comfort
2. Good sight-lines
3. Appropriate stage and proscenium dimensions
4. Full-complement of
(lighting, A/V, etc.)
performance
equipment
5. Ample backstage and support areas
6. Generous lobby and other public areas
7. Convenient stage-level loading
Development cost of approximately $100 million to $120
million depending on options
8. Sufficient nearby parking
Office Building Program
9. Proximate mixed-use amenities (e.g., restaurants,
retail, hotels)
• 450,000 sq.-ft., 20- to 25-story state-of-the-art,
iconic, office building, targeting at a minimum LEED®
certification for shell and core
• Scale and scope complementary to theater and
adjacent City Creek Center
• Parking, access, functionality and design integrated
with theater from foundation through the façade
garfield traub swisher development
may 3, 2011
to $150 million, representing a significant private
investment in downtown
C H A L L E N GE S W IT H EXI S TI N G VE N UE S
The new theater is expected to become the primary venue
for large-scale touring Broadway plays and musicals,
which are currently hosted in the Capitol Theatre and, to
a lesser extent, in Kingsbury Hall.
• Overall project design will appropriately bridge the
gap between City Creek and the rest of downtown
The capacities and calendar limitations of these facilities
are impediments to the full realization of Salt Lake City’s
potential to attract first-run touring Broadway and other
entertainment. • Office building will drive daytime pedestrian traffic
and provide theater audiences at night1
F a c i l i t y C a p a c i t i e s
• Development cost of approximately $100 million
1 Citing the Holland Center and the Orpheum Theatre
in Omaha’s central business district, AECOM notes in its
Economic Impact Analysis included as section 6 of this report,
“In many ways, performing arts are a symbiotic partner to office
uses. While office uses attract workers during weekdays, the
performing arts attract visitors during nights and weekends.
The beneficiaries of this arrangement are retailers and
restaurateurs who, at one location, can access both sets of
customers.”
Capitol Theatre and Kingsbury Hall, which currently
host touring productions, each have approximately
1,900 seats, fewer than optimal for touring Broadway
productions.2
2 Fewer than five of over 50 American cities that host
touring shows do so in theaters with fewer than 2,000 seats.
Except for San Francisco, which has a market that can support
multiple-week runs, all major first-run touring Broadway
markets have theaters with well over 2,000 seats. (Source:
Recommendations of the Downtown Theater Action Group, July
18, 2008)
In the Capitol Theatre, patron seating and sightlines, loadin, proscenium dimensions, backstage accommodations,
lobby, restrooms and concessions are among challenges
cited by renting companies.
Although viable as a stand-alone operation, there are
many advantages that recommend serious consideration
of management by the Salt Lake County Center for the
Arts (“CFA”)6 .
While backstage accommodations at Kingsbury Hall are
now reasonable following a 1995 renovation, limited
patron parking and other front-of-house limitations are
cited as concerns for building audiences by those that
rent Kingsbury Hall.3 Another issue cited is the lack of
nearby restaurants for pre- and post-show dining.
If managed by the CFA, the new theater could benefit
from the County’s existing staff, services, and efficiencies
in administration and “back office” support,7 not to
mention the CFA’s substantial expertise and local market
knowledge. Calendar Limitations
Due to resident companies’ control of dates during
the prime presentation season at the Capitol Theatre,
expansion of the Broadway series and show runs have
been limited, and touring opportunities have been
missed. Center for the Arts staff and others have also
cited lost opportunity from commercial promoters due to
unavailability of prime dates.4
At Kingsbury Hall, accessing dates can be a challenge
due to the University of Utah-tied schedule and policies
that protect musical productions being presented by the
Pioneer Theatre elsewhere on campus.5
The substantial cost savings associated with County
management results in a projected $2.4 million in
cumulative positive cash flow before debt service over
a five-year period.
Additionally, over the first five operating years, AMS
projects approximately $840,000 in preservation fee
income will be generated over and above the annual
repair and replacement needs of the new theater.8 Perhaps most importantly, in addition to the abovenoted efficiencies of a consolidated County operation,
management of the new theater by the County would
ensure that it is operated in coordination and cooperation,
rather than in competition, with existing County venues.9
B E N EFIT S O F A N E W T H EATER AMS Planning & Research was engaged to perform the
market analysis/implementation planning of the theater. AMS had previously performed the Cultural Facilities
Master Plan for Salt Lake County, and in that report,
recommended to the County that the downtown theater
plan be further developed before the County should
consider participating in the funding of the theater. Although it is unusual for a theater to generate earned
revenue sufficient to result in a break-even or better
operation before debt service, the AMS report, section
5 of this report, concludes that the new theater is viable
either as a stand-alone nonprofit operation or as
managed by a public operator with shared resources
(e.g. the Center for the Arts), assuming that net
operating income is not pledged to debt service. 6 One of two options studied by AMS as part of the Market
Study and Implementation Plan included as section 5 of this
report.
7 Source: AMS Market Study and Implementation Plan,
section 5 of this report.
4
Ibid.
8 Under current County policy for venues that contribute to
the preservation fee fund, the funds may be used for capital
improvements at any of the participating County venues,
regardless of the source of the fee income.
5
Ibid.
9
3 Source: AMS Market Study and Implementation Plan,
section 5 of this report.
Ibid.
1.05
executive summary
P o t e n t i a l U s e s o f F u n d s
Additional Benefits
Some potential uses of positive cash flow from operation
of the new theater are suggested below:
AECOM’s research of other similar developments in other
markets illustrates additional benefits that will accrue to
the City, County, region, and State in connection with the
development:
• Support operations at the new theater and other
venues
• Invest in enhanced programming at this and other
venues10
• Fund capital improvements at this and other venues
• Supplement budgeted advertising funds
• Contribute to new theater debt service
EC O N O MIC IM P ACT S
An economic impact analysis (“EIA”) has been performed
by AECOM Economics and included in section 6 of this
report. AECOM projects substantial economic impacts
and other intangible benefits from the development, as
supported by impact modeling and studies of similar
developments in other communities. A summary of the
AECOM findings is provided below:
1.06
• $9.4 million per year in total ongoing economic
output expansion from the theater alone.
• $14.8 million per year in recurring annual economic
impact including the office tower.
• 115 permanent jobs associated with the theater. 168 permanent jobs including the office tower.
• Over 1,671 jobs created during theater construction,
with a one-time expansion of the economy of $202
million.
may 3, 2011
• When the office tower is included, more than 4,000
construction jobs and a one-time impact of nearly
half a billion dollars are created.
• $1 million in annual incremental property tax
projected to be generated by the office tower
10 According to AMS, development of “risk capital” for new
programming at existing venues “should be considered, in
order to provide opportunities to explore under-represented
program areas such as family programming, jazz, comedy,
speakers, film and high-definition digital video content, as well
as a wide variety of touring non-Broadway popular acts.”
• Downtown revitalization
• Induced private investment
• Supports other private investment (e.g. City Creek
and the Gateway)
• Strengthened regional economic development
• Enhancement of the Utah and Salt Lake City
“brands”
• Increased visitation and net new touring companies
• More entertainment patronage and spending
retained in Utah
• More downtown activity,
restaurant and retail sales
parking
revenues,
• Sales and use taxes generated by visitor spending
• Property value stabilization and growth
VE N UE IM P ACT S
The new theater’s projected impact on existing venues is
included in the AMS Market Study and Implementation
Plan in section 5 of this report. New calendar availability
at impacted venues presents an opportunity for more
diverse/flexible programming within the market.
Replacement programming is suggested by case studies
included in the AMS Study.
Described in more detail in section 5 of this report, the
possibility of Salt Lake County management of the new
theater by the Center for the Arts (“CFA”) in cooperation
with other County venues is projected to generate positive
cash flow from the new theater that could be used to help
offset any losses in revenue in CFA venues during the
transition to the new operating environment.
For this and other reasons noted in section 5 and
elsewhere in this report, careful consideration should be
given to consolidated operation of County facilities with
the new theater. The new theater presents an opportunity for the seamless
transition of the bulk of large scale touring musicals and
plays from the Capitol Theatre into the new theater.
If the new theater comes on line, then proposed
improvements at the Capitol Theatre, including a
reduction in seat count in order to improve sightlines and
patron comfort, as well as expansion of and improvements
to the front of house, become a viable option. This would
allow this historic facility to develop an activity profile
unique to its configuration and differentiate it from other
area venues.
Further, the timely completion of the new theater
would provide an interim venue for touring and local
productions during any such potential renovation of the
Capitol Theatre.
IMAGI N E
Imagine Main Street bustling with even more life and
vitality, with City Creek to the north and Gallivan Center
to the south. Growth along Main Street will continue,
as envisioned over decades of city planning. Imagine
coordination among all downtown performance venues
to build audiences, maximize utilization and arts-related
activities in the Salt Lake City cultural core.
A vibrant arts and culture community defines the heart
and soul of Salt Lake City. Each local venue provides
a piece of a larger picture of the City’s cultural core,
each with a distinct purpose. All serve the community
with creative product to improve the quality of life for
residents and visitors.
Imagine visitors from near and far arriving for dinner
at City Creek or elsewhere in the vicinity of the theater,
dropping off a car, shopping, dining, attending a show,
and staying overnight at one of downtown’s many fine
hotels. A mid-block crosswalk between Regent Street and Main
Street connects the property with the existing Utah
Theater and a master planned connection to the Capitol
Theatre and the Salt Palace. A shared lobby between the
office tower and the theater unifies the new development
in a scope and scale that is complementary to City Creek. Theater patrons enjoy the experience of seeing and being
seen at the theater drop-off and lobby. The new office
building drives daytime pedestrian activity, retail and
restaurant patronage. At night, Main Street is alive with
activity driven by the theater and supporting businesses.
The new theater is well incorporated into the ecology of
other facilities and attractions. With the new theater
as the anchor of the cultural core, the entire downtown
realizes its full potential as a cultural district, with
benefits inuring as well to the region and the State. The opening of a new, larger theater that serves as both
a venue option for resident companies and the new
home of touring Broadway presents an opportunity for
the County’s planned renovation of the Capitol Theatre.
These changes would immeasurably improve patron
experience at this historic facility and provide greater
flexibility and options for new presentations at this and
other venues that increase the diversity of entertainment
options, create a greater regional draw and advance the
concept of a “cultural district” from which all venues and
arts groups benefit.
A performing arts center in downtown Salt Lake City is
moving from vision into reality. Now is the time. Salt
Lake City is the place.
pl a n o f f i n a n c e
The theater will be financed with a combination of private
and public sources. Those sources are projected to
include:
Private funds
• Naming Rights
• New Markets Tax Credits
Bond financing for the balance of the project costs
• Sales Tax Revenue Bonds
• Lease Revenue Bonds
The sources of funding for the theater are assumed to
include approximately 6% in private equity from investors
in New Markets Tax Credits (“NMTC”) sold in connection
with the theater, 9% from the sale of naming rights
opportunities at the theater, and 85% from other sources. 1.07
executive summary
Regardless of the instruments and credit used for the
bond financing, sources of funds for bond repayment
would have to be identified. Our team has reviewed with
the City potential funding sources for the project, and
will continue to support the City’s efforts in the coming
months to solidify the sources of up front funding and
bond repayment. TIME L I N E
Pre-development strategic plan May 2011
Theater design 12 months
Theater construction 24 months
Office tower design and construction11 36 months
S TRATEGIC VI S I O N
“Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men’s
blood.” – Daniel Burnham
1.08
Far from a stand-alone project, the Utah Performing Arts
Center should be considered a catalytic intervention for
the future development of North Main Street and beyond.
This project represents an opportunity to knit together
existing and new development to create an ecosystem
of public, private and civic uses extending to Gallivan
Plaza on the south, up and down North Main, linked to
City Creek Center, the historic Utah Theater, the Capitol
Theatre, and the Salt Palace Convention Center beyond.
This ecosystem will encompass a broad array and rich
mix of cultural, commercial and civic assets to create a
revitalized and dynamic heart of Salt Lake City.
These project elements would include:
• Utah Performing Arts Center – 2,500-Seat Theater
may 3, 2011
• Mixed-Use Retail and Office Tower – 440,000 square
feet
• Regent Street Garage – 10,000 square feet of retail
and 1,000-car parking facility
• Below-grade loading access to the new theater
• Regent Street Retail – 10,000 square feet of retail
• Regent “Festival” Street Improvements – covered
walkways and pedestrian amenities
• Mid-Block Walkway – secured, lighted walkway and
pedestrian amenities
• Deseret News Building – renovation to include
a potential gallery, downtown University of Utah
classroom, Center for the Arts offices, and support
space
• The Annex – 23,000 square-foot multi-use building
for Black Box Theater, rehearsal space, education
and banquet space to support the new theater
• Utah Theater Renovation – retail and theater use as
proposed film center
The Performing Arts Center and the Mixed–Use Retail and
Office tower should be designed to be phased due to the
timing of the market demand, but to be functionally and
aesthetically compatible. The Regent Street Garage and
the related Regent Street Retail and Street improvements
and the Mid-Block Walkway should be considered to be
included in the initial phase of development, as they
are critical to both the user experience and the overall
success of the development plan and City and Salt
Lake City Redevelopment Agency goals. The Annex and
the Repurposing of the Deseret News building could be
phased, but should be considered as part of the initial
developments as well.
N EXT S TE P S
• Execute land agreement with Property Reserve, Inc.
and Suburban Land Reserve, Inc.
• Finalize program options and phasing
• City Council approval
• Request Salt Lake County Center for the Arts to be
the building operator
• Negotiate operating agreement with the Salt Lake
County Center for the Arts
• Finalize funding
• Design and development
• Commence construction
11 While integrated in design with the theater, the theater
and office building can proceed independently.
Community Outreach
The pre-development planning efforts of our team have
been guided by the following commitments to arts
groups, patrons and other community stakeholders:
1. Build on the Salt Lake legacy of community arts and
culture.
2. Solicit stakeholder input and keep the arts
community and other stakeholders fully informed of
the theater planning.
3. Plan the governance and operation of the theater in
a manner that maximizes the benefits to the public
and the arts sector, including:
3.1.Generate funding for the City and County that
can help support existing arts organizations.
3.2.Program and operate the theater in coordination
with existing performance groups in order to:
3.2.1. Broaden the arts offerings in the
community,
3.2.2.Promote genre-variety in concurrent
programming, and
3.2.3.Create presentation opportunities by
freeing up calendar dates of existing
venues.
3.2.4.Encourage
cross-promotion
and
marketing programs that encourage
theater-goers to patronize multiple
venues and arts offerings.
3.3.Provide if possible for additional space for small
performance, rehearsal, classroom, and/or
storage space for resident arts groups.
3.4.Avoid impairing existing funding sources for
cultural activities or current private sources of
funding for existing organizations.
In early 2009, Mayor Becker began a series of
conversations with the arts community and other
downtown stakeholders to explore the cultural needs and
aspirations of Salt Lake City and what steps can be taken
to strengthen and promote the arts in the community. In February and March 2010, the new theater planning
team engaged in a series of one-on-one meetings with
key stakeholders and theater user groups to solicit input
on goals and concerns related to the new theater. In April and June 2010, the planning team hosted
two stakeholder conversations to introduce the new
theater planning team, the pre-development planning
process, and discuss the aspirations and expectations
of the community with respect to the theater. A third
stakeholder meeting was held in October 2010 to
present the preliminary findings of the pre-development
effort and solicit additional feedback.
In June and July 2010, the team held numerous facility
programming and planning meetings with key arts
groups expected to be potential users of the UPAC to
discuss technical requirements. These parties included
the Utah Symphony, Utah Opera, Ballet West, NewSpace
Entertainment, United Concerts, Jeffrey Berke Associates,
and the Salt Lake County Center for the Arts staff.
In addition to the parties noted in the preceding paragraph,
AMS Planning & Research interviewed Kingsbury Hall;
Pioneer Theatre Company; Living Festivals, City of Salt
Lake; and Red Butte Gardens to hear their thoughts and
understand their potential utilization of, and expectations
regarding the new facility.
AECOM Economics and GTS also interviewed a variety of
other organizations and individuals in the course of their
research into the economic impact of the new theater,
including Taubman Centers, Inc. (developer of the City
Creek Mall), City Creek Center Reserve, Inc., Hamilton
Partners, the Cities of Durham, NC and Madison, WI,
among others.
2.01
community outreach
P L A N N I N G C O MMITTEE S
MEETI N G S S UMMARY From January 2010 to date, 18 formal meetings of the
Theater Executive Committee have been held, in which
RDA and City staff and the development team address
budget, schedule, design, site acquisition approvals
and entitlements, legal documentation and related
issues, governance and operating models, and financial
planning.
3 Formal Stakeholder meetings
3 Formal Steering Committee meetings
11 One-on-one stakeholder interviews
• Ririe-Woodbury Dance Company
• Kingsbury Hall
• Pioneer Theatre Company
• University of Utah Fine Arts
• Ballet West
• Utah Symphony and Opera
• Jeffrey Berke Productions
• NewSpace Entertainment
• County Center for the Arts
• State of Utah Division of Arts and Museums
9 One-on-one interviews by AMS
5 Technical one-on-one interviews
5 Follow-up technical one-on-one interviews
• Ballet West
• Utah Symphony and Opera
• County Center for the Arts (3)
Additionally, an Intergovernmental Working Group
comprising the Theater Executive Committee, City arts
representatives, Salt Lake County and Center for the Arts
representatives, and State arts officials was formed. Nine
formal meetings, as well as many other conversations,
phone conferences and web presentations were held
to ensure that these important stakeholders were fully
informed and their input solicited. The AMS theater
operating models were developed with County input, and
have been reviewed by Center for Arts staff. The planning
team appreciates the County’s cooperation in this effort
to help ensure the reasonableness and accuracy of the
operating model assumptions.
2.02
Following is a summary of the meetings held by the GTS
planning team in connection with the planning of the
Utah Performing Arts Center:
18
9
6
4
11
may 3, 2011
4
2
8
8
Executive Committee meetings
Intergovernmental Work Group meetings
City Council Cultural Subcommittee meetings
Briefings of Mayor Becker
Presentations with Mayor Becker
• Chamber of Commerce Board
• Downtown Alliance
• Editorial Boards
• Utah Symphony and Opera Board
• Governor Herbert
• Mayor Corroon
• County Council (2)
• Update to RDA Board
• LDS Church (2)
Strategic Communications “Lead Team” meetings
AECOM Interviews
AECOM/AMS Executive Committee conference calls
Coordination meetings w/ RDA Director and staff
B R O A D ER G O A L S F O R T H E S A L T L AKE CITY CU L TURA L C O RE
In November 2010, Salt Lake City and County Councils
unanimously approved an interlocal agreement that will
dedicate an increment of sales tax revenue to promoting
and enhancing arts and cultural opportunities downtown.
In December 2010, the Redevelopment Agency of Salt
Lake City approved a series of cultural core planning
workshops to be led by AMS Planning & Research to
define shared goals among downtown arts groups and
other stakeholders.
G O I N G F O R W AR D
The new theater planning team will continue its outreach
to Salt Lake City and County arts groups, the State of
Utah, community business and religious leaders and
other stakeholders to achieve broad consensus as to the
new theater planning and its place in improving the arts
sector, community culture, and economy for arts groups,
patrons, businesses, and community residents.
Building on two years of dialogue with arts groups and
other stakeholders, the purpose of the upcoming cultural
core workshops is to develop and codify policies for the
use of the interlocal funds to strengthen and promote the
arts in Salt Lake City and the County. While the cultural core work is independent of the
planning process for the new theater, both efforts hold
promise for growth of arts groups and audiences, for
strengthened relations among arts groups, and for the
advance of arts and culture in the City, County, region
and State.
2.03
Project Delivery Method
Integrated Project Delivery provided by an experienced
and qualified team has proven to be the most effective,
highest quality, and, ultimately, the best value approach
to obtaining a successful outcome for high value
and complex projects. Project teams that include
the developer, contractor, architect, and engineers
from inception can provide accurate cost analysis,
troubleshoot potential problems, and incorporate the
most effective value-engineered systems from the
initial planning stages of the project when working in a
collaborative, developer-led process.
This approach allows for the use of Building Information
Modeling, a cutting-edge design and construction
technology, from the initial stages of design to assure
accurate cost estimating and integration of form,
envelope, structure, mechanical, electrical and control
systems in three dimensions prior to construction. This
capability also generates opportunities for design-build
of sub-systems and the componentization of larger subassemblies during construction.
The benefit to the owner is more accurate cost estimating,
better fit and finish, and smoother construction workflow
(fewer, if any, delays), as well as lower cost and reduced
change orders during construction. This is especially
true for difficult infill sites, renovations, and complex
structures.
Integrated Project Delivery facilitates a holistic approach
to sustainable and energy efficient design, as it allows
for early modeling and enhanced coordination of passive
and active heating and cooling systems with the building
form, orientation, envelope and structure.
This approach also allows for more customized and
proprietary specification of systems and fixtures as is
appropriate to a high-design and high-performance
facility. Integrated Project Delivery is particularly effective
in phased or mixed-use developments, and can result
in much faster project delivery and occupancy over
traditional public procurement approaches.
Developer-led turnkey project delivery is the best way
to deliver the proposed facilities. Developer, contractor,
and architect are contractually bound together to provide
the end product on a turnkey basis with open–book
guaranteed maximum price contracts. All sub-contractors
are selected on a transparent and accountable best-
value process, achieving all small-business and diversity
requirements.
The “turnkey” method described above has the following
additional advantages:
• Team selection can be qualifications-based vs. lowbid,1
• Maximum development team collaboration from the
outset
• Minimum contractual risk for the City due to turnkey
delivery documentation
• Maximum team member understanding of the
project requirements
• Most efficient facility design
• Building Information Modeling (BIM)
• Fastest construction start
• Earliest facility completion and opening
• Minimal RFIs and change orders
Given the financial assurances provided by single-source
turnkey delivery, the City can mitigate the risk inherent in
executing individual agreements for the financing, design
and construction that is typical to the traditional public
procurement process.
Under the turnkey delivery method, an experienced
team of architects, engineers and specialty consultants
would provide design and architectural services for
the development pursuant to a design agreement with
the developer or general contractor. The design and
construction team is managed and overseen by, and
1
An Analysis of Issues Pertaining to Qualifications-Based
Selection was conducted jointly by the University of Colorado
and Georgia Institute of Technology, and co-sponsored by
the American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) and
the American Public Works Association (APWA). The study
found that public agencies “achieve lower construction costs,
more efficient use of taxpayer dollars and higher construction
satisfaction when procuring design and engineering services
for such projects on a “qualifications” rather than a “lowest-bid”
basis.”
3.01
project delivery method
may 3, 2011
3.02
the City’s interests represented by, the developer. The
facilities would be delivered to the City pursuant to a
guaranteed maximum price contract. In addition to the mitigation of contractual risk due to the
turnkey nature of the approach, the process allows for
the opportunity to fast-track design and construction (i.e.,
funding can be achieved and construction can begin prior
to the completion of construction documents). The ability
to shorten the time from team award to groundbreaking
translates into substantial savings due to the avoidance
of unnecessary inflation on construction and associated
soft costs. Further, with interest rates sure to rise
substantially as the economy continues to recover, the
ability to close the financing of the theater at the earliest
possible date is a desirable goal.
This dynamic process of turnkey delivery involves active
and intensive collaboration between the developer, the
general contractor and the design team throughout
design and value-engineering, and the associated
thorough risk management analysis and builder
understanding of scope will ensure the highest quality
facilities, delivered on time and within budget.
The turnkey delivery method will ensure the highest
probability of on-time, on-budget delivery, especially for
a mixed-use, urban infill redevelopment project of this
complexity. In fact, every development using this turnkey
method in which GTS has had full responsibility from
project concept to completion has been delivered on
or ahead of schedule and within or substantially under
budget.
Utah Performing Arts Center
Private Development Component
In t r od u c t i on
Building upon the overwhelming acceptance in the
market of premier design, Hamilton Partners intends to
construct the next iconic commercial structure in Salt
Lake City. The performing arts center and the office
tower will seamlessly welcome companies and theater
participants to Main Street. The office tower at 111
South Main Street will complement and enhance the
scale and scope of the mixed-use project and will provide
pedestrian traffic to Main Street during the day as well as
provide audiences to the shows at night. Adjacency to the
City Creek development enables 111 South Main to share
in efficiencies with its surrounding urban environment
and to continue the high standards of excellence set for
the new downtown.
second major commitment to the skyline of downtown
Salt Lake City when it was selected to be on the UPAC team. In partnership with Garfield Traub Swisher, VCBO
Architecture, Moshe Safdie and Associates, and Okland
Construction, Hamilton Partners is once again bringing
the very best to Salt Lake City.
D e s i g n P r o f i l e
B a c k g r o u nd
Hamilton Partners is committed to the preservation
and enhancement of the business community in Utah
and feels this is best accomplished by providing worldclass commercial space in which to do business. The
office tower will be the visionary brainchild of Moshe
Safdie and VCBO Architecture, and will include elements
of functionality mixed with design excellence. Upon
completion, the building will be Salt Lake City’s premiere
location for business commerce.
Hamilton Partners, Inc. (“HP”) is the Midwest’s
preeminent commercial development company. Over the
past 40 years, the company has developed and continues
to own several of the Chicago area’s most prestigious
and financially successful commercial office, industrial
and retail shopping centers. HP believes that quality
and service distinguish properties. The firm’s portfolio is
proof that the highest quality properties achieve higher
rentals, attract and retain stronger credit tenants, and
experience higher occupancy. HP sets the standard of
reference for quality and is clearly the best operator of
Class A properties in the marketplace.
As a mixed use project, the intricacies of coordination and
collaboration are vital. Parking, access, functionality and
design must be integrated from the foundation through
the façade so that the project as a whole will capitalize
on the unique opportunity to bridge the gap between City
Creek and the rest of downtown. The project’s overall
size will create efficiencies in terms of pedestrian traffic,
tenant usage and vibrancy and vitality on Main Street. As an extension of the City Creek and Gallivan projects,
111 South Main will have access to public open space,
shopping, retail and residential opportunities within a
short walking distance.
In 2002, partner Bruce Bingham brought this vision to
Salt Lake City, initially acquiring the Lollin and Karrick
building and the site for the 222 South Main office
building on Main Street. Many other properties soon
became part of the Hamilton portfolio, including the
historic Boston and Newhouse Buildings, also on Main
Street, and the Broadway Center at State Street and 300
South Street. In 2007, HP broke ground on what will be
the city’s most exclusive new development, the 425,000
square foot, 22-story 222 South Main office building.
In 2008, HP announced the launching of a multifamily
development in Salt Lake City.
As with any project completed by Hamilton Partners, 111
South Main Street will be state-of-the-art and will provide
the latest in technology and safety enhancements.
Specific elements will be programmed during design
and development enabling quick response to current
understanding and best practices.
As part of a public selection process conducted by
the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City in 2009,
Hamilton Partners joined as a team member in its
The tower will rise between 20 and 25 stories above
Main Street, providing approximately 400,000 rentable
square feet. Meticulous attention to details and an
endless pursuit of perfection are the guiding principles.
The project cost estimates for 111 South Main Street
are between $100 Million and $150 Million, making this
project a significant investment in the downtown core.
4.01
executive summary
D e l i v e r y E x p e c t a t i on
Completion for the project is contingent upon a variety of
ancillary factors including municipality acceptance of the
overall mixed-use project, financial requirements for the
project, and the general economic environment. Each of
these items has the potential of impeding the process, so
the team is proceeding with great care and diligence to
mitigate the risks.
Though designed to be integrated as one overall project,
the property, including the office tower and the theater,
will be able to be completed in phases. Pre-leasing
and market conditions will determine the ideal time for
Hamilton Partners to construct the building. This phasing
process helps mitigate the timing risk for the overall
market since the timing for the theater and the timing for
the tower may not overlap.
hamilton partners
may 3, 2011
4.02
Market Study and Implementation
Plan
T a bl e o f Con t e n t s
Introduction..................................................................5.03
Local Input.................................................................... 5.21
Executive Summary.....................................................5.05
Case Studies................................................................ 5.07
Five Year Operating Projections..................................5.23
Tennessee Performing Arts Center, Nashville.... 5.07
Concept Model A..................................................5.23
Marcus Center for the Performing Arts,
Milwaukee.............................................................5.08
Concept Model B..................................................5.32
Bushnell Center for the Performing Arts,
Hartford.................................................................5.08
Durham Performing Arts Center..........................5.08
Product in Similar Regional Touring Markets.............5.09
Local Market Assessment........................................... 5.11
Demographic and Lifestyle Indicators................. 5.11
Data File Analysis................................................. 5.12
Market Area Definition......................................... 5.13
Market Penetration Analysis................................ 5.14
PRIZMNE (Geodemographic) Segmentation........ 5.15
Market Quality Analysis based on PRIZMNE........ 5.16
Other Facilities in the Marketplace............................. 5.19
Capitol Theatre..................................................... 5.19
Abravanel Hall....................................................... 5.19
Kingsbury Hall....................................................... 5.19
Simmons Pioneer Memorial Theatre..................5.20
Grand Theatre.......................................................5.20
The Depot..............................................................5.20
Red Butte Gardens...............................................5.20
Proposed Film and Media Arts Center................5.20
Peppermill Concert Hall.......................................5.20
Potential Utilization.............................................. 5.21
Impact on Existing Facilities........................................5.39
Impact from Model A............................................5.39
Impact from Model B............................................ 5.41
Potential for New Activity......................................5.42
Local Considerations............................................5.45
Conclusion.................................................................... 5.47
Appendix A ................................................................... 5.51
Appendix B . .................................................................5.77
Appendix C....................................................................5.79
5.01
Introduction
In April 2010, AMS Planning & Research was engaged
by Garfield Traub Development LLC to provide a market
analysis, operating recommendations and financial
projections for a proposed new Broadway1 theater in
downtown Salt Lake City. AMS completed a Cultural
Facilities Master Plan for Salt Lake County in late 2008,
and since that time City leadership has pursued the
notion of a downtown performing arts facility largely
focused on the presentation of touring Broadway.
Drawing on the prior work prepared by AMS and other
studies undertaken in Salt Lake City, AMS proposed
to investigate trade area demographics and the
competitive environment, understand the operating
finances and current activity profile of existing venues,
and gain insight into the Salt Lake City market area from
which the proposed theater might capture demand. In
subsequent steps, AMS agreed to contrast existing
activity with comparable markets, identify alternate
programming, ownership and operating models, assess
impact on existing venues and recommend a preferred
approach, and provide a financial pro-forma based on
the recommended model.
AMS interviewed potential users of a new facility,
researched comparable facilities in the United States
as well as patterns of touring Broadway and other
commercial product in other markets. We also prepared
a market analysis and inventory of existing facilities in
the market area. Based on this early research, AMS
prepared an early concept “strawman” for further testing. Discussions ensued as to the best operating model for
the new facility, and ultimately it was decided to compare
two possible models: 1) a new theater operated as part
of the Salt Lake County Center for the Arts operation, and
2) one operated by an independent not-for-profit entity.
1 The terms ‘Broadway’ or ‘Broadway-style’ theater are used
in this report to refer to a theater designed to accommodate
national touring Broadway shows.
These two models were then the basis of inquiry as to
how the new facility (UPAC) might impact existing facilities
in the marketplace: both the two large facilities operated
by the County (Abravanel Hall and Capitol Theatre) and
Kingsbury Hall, located at the University of Utah. Finally,
research was conducted in communities where a new
facility had recently been constructed, in order to learn
from those experiences and understand opportunities
for additional programming with newly available dates in
other facilities.
5.03
Executive Summary
While the presence of touring Broadway varies from
year to year based on product availability, Salt Lake City
has hosted between three and seven shows annually
in recent years with an average of six weeks annually. Frequently one of these shows is a “blockbuster,” which
runs for two or three weeks at a time. AMS studied four markets of comparable size (Hartford,
Connecticut; Milwaukee,
Wisconsin;
Nashville,
Tennessee; and Durham, North Carolina) in order to
understand the level of Broadway programming in each
of those facilities. Three of the four markets support
more Broadway product than is presently available in Salt
Lake (Nashville at 11 weeks, Milwaukee at 5 to 8 weeks,
Hartford at 8 to 10 weeks, and Durham at 11 weeks).
AMS also studied three markets of reasonable proximity
to Salt Lake, to understand the potential for routing
product into the market. The markets studied include
Portland (Oregon), Denver and Phoenix. Over the past
five seasons, more than fifty Broadway shows have
toured at least one of these other cities and not played
in Salt Lake City.
A secondary analysis of current Salt Lake audiences was
conducted to determine market potential for the new
facility. The current market is best penetrated in those
ZIP codes within a 20 mile radius along the Interstate
highways. A deeper lifestyle analysis of current patrons
was used to evaluate zip codes in the market area for
their “propensity” to contain patrons, and then mapped
against actual penetration to identify regions of market
potential. This analysis reveals that there is significant
propensity for cultural consumption in the ZIP codes
that have not yet been penetrated. The most significant
market potential exists due north of the proposed site
along the I-15 corridor within the 10- to 30-mile radius
of the proposed site for the new theater. There also
appears to be meaningful latent market demand within a
10- to 20-mile radius east of the proposed site as well as
15 to 25 miles south.
An inventory of existing facilities provided insight to the
technical limitations facing current Broadway shows in
both the Capitol Theatre and Kingsbury Hall. Due to
its historic nature, the Capitol Theatre has many of the
constraints that are a challenge to modern-era Broadway
productions – limited load-in at stage level, insufficient
backstage accommodations, a small proscenium
opening, limited pit area and too few dressing rooms. Front of house challenges include a small lobby with
no VIP area, insufficient restroom accommodation,
and general circulation challenges. Patron seating is
cramped and uncomfortable, even in the prime seat
locations. At the time of this report the County has
announced a plan to renovate the Capitol Theatre, a plan
which could reduce the seating capacity of the facility to
the point where Broadway would not consider use of the
facility. At Kingsbury Hall limited patron parking and other frontof-house limitations are cited as concerns for building
audiences by those that rent the facility. In both the
Capitol Theatre and Kingsbury Hall accessing dates can
be a challenge, and facility managers acknowledge that
it would be difficult for the Broadway series to expand or
to better capitalize on various touring opportunities due
to unavailability of prime dates.
AMS studied two separate possible operating models
for the new theater: one scenario considers it to be
operated as part of the Salt Lake County Center for
the Arts operation; and a second one contemplates
an independent nonprofit entity in the marketplace. The County-operated model is advantageous in that
the facility takes advantages of existing services and
efficiencies in administration and “back office” support. Additionally, the positive financial results stemming from
operation of the new facility help to offset the impact of
the new theater on operations of existing County facilities. Finally, the consolidated operation would ensure that
the facility is operated in coordination and cooperation,
rather than in competition, with existing County venues.
5.05
Case Studies
AMS researched the programming, operations and
financial performance of three Broadway-style theaters
considered comparable to the current vision in Salt Lake
City: the Bushnell in Hartford, Connecticut; the Marcus
Center in Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and the Tennessee
Performing Arts Center in Nashville, Tennessee. In
addition, AMS studied the new Durham Performing Arts
Center in North Carolina, to gather information from this
Center after its first full year of operation.
For each venue studied, AMS gathered various facility
characteristics (seating capacity by section, stage
size, proscenium dimensions, grid height, loading
configuration, etc.), market characteristics, the theater’s
history including any renovations, and current operations
including level of activity (Broadway and non-Broadway),
financial performance, staffing and governance model. Full reports on each venue can be found in Appendix A.
T e nn e ss e e P e r f o r m i n g A r t s C e n t e r , N a sh v i ll e
Andrew Jackson Hall is the largest of four facilities that
comprise the Tennessee Performing Arts Center (TPAC). It opened in 1980 and was renovated in 2002. TPAC is owned by the State of Tennessee (building & land)
and operated by a separate 501c3 corporation which
has a board of directors of 20 members. Members
are appointed by the TPAC Foundation, the Governor of
Tennessee, the Tennessee Arts Commission, and elected
by the Board. TPAC has a staff of 70 full-time and 250
part-time employees, as well as 175 volunteers.
Programming in Andrew Jackson Hall includes 10 to
12 weeks of independently presented Broadway, a
“TPAC Presents” series which includes variety, comedy,
concerts, and drama, and performances by two resident
companies: Nashville Ballet and Nashville Opera. Several
commercial concert promoters, including AEG, Messina
Group, Outback, and AC Entertainment book the hall for
events on an on-going basis.
In 2009, total expenses for the Tennessee Performing
Arts Center were $13.2 million, of which programming
consisted of $7.4 million and building operations
expense was $1.1 million. Ticket sales revenue of $6.7
million plus hall rent and other earned revenue of $3.9
million was complemented by $2.6 million in contributed
revenue.
M a r c u s C e n t e r f o r t h e P e r f o r m i n g
A r t s , M i lw a u k e e
Uihlein Hall is the 2,300-seat main performance venue of
the Marcus Center for the Performing Arts in Milwaukee. The facility, which opened in 1969, was renovated
in 1991. The Marcus Center is owned by Milwaukee
County and operated by a separate 501c3 corporation. It is governed by a board of directors of 24 members. Marcus Center has 37 full-time employees, 234 parttime employees and 225 volunteers.
Four to eight weeks of Broadway are co-presented with
Broadway Across America. Non-Broadway programming
is provided by resident companies including Milwaukee
Symphony Orchestra, Milwaukee Youth Symphony,
Market
Population
Venue
Capacity
Nashville
1.5 million
Andrew Jackson Hall
2,472
Milwaukee
1.7 million
Uihlein Hall
2,305
Hartford
1.3 million
Mortensen Hall
2,799
Durham
1.6 million
DPAC
2,712
Salt Lake
1.6 million
TBD
TBD
5.07
MARKET study and implementation plan
Florentine Opera Company, Milwaukee Ballet, and City
Ballet Theatre. Resident companies have the first pick
of dates and there is limited additional activity that takes
place in the facility beyond resident companies and
Broadway.
In 2009 total expenses for the Marcus Center were $8.2
million, of which programming consisted of $2.5 million
and building operations expense was $1.7 million. Ticket sales revenue of $1.9 million plus hall rent and
other earned revenue of $5.3 million was complemented
by $2.7 million in contributed revenue.
B u shn e ll C e n t e r f o r t h e
P e r f o r m i n g A r t s , H a r t f o r d
Mortensen Hall is a 2,800-seat historic theater built in
1930 and renovated in 2001. It is owned and operated
by a private 501 c3 corporation governed by a board of
directors of 35 members.
5.08
The Bushnell typically hosts seven weeks of Broadway
plus one blockbuster of one to three weeks. The
organization offers a season of other programming
which includes pop music, world music, comedy, family/
children’s events, and speakers. Local rentals include
the Hartford Symphony, other nonprofit renters and
commercial promoters.
AMS Planning & research corp.
may 3, 2011
In 2009, total operating expenses for the Bushnell were
$17.4 million, of which programming consisted of $10.8
million and building operations was $1.8 million. Ticket
sales revenue of $11.1 million was complemented by
$3.4 million in additional earned renvenue and $2.9
million in contributed revenue.
D u r h a m P e r f o r m i n g A r t s C e n t e r
The Durham Performing Arts Center opened in late
2008, and completed its first full season of programming
in the spring of 2010. It is owned by the City of Durham
and operated by the facilities management firm PFM,
in cooperation with the Nederlander Organization. A citizen’s advisory committee of five members appointed
by the City government has modest oversight powers.
The Durham Performing Arts Center (DPAC) typically
presents eight to nine weeks of Broadway per year,
including one blockbuster of two or more weeks. All
Broadway shows are subscribed, although blockbusters
may run for non-subscribed weeks after their first week. In addition to Broadway, PFM/Nederlander presents
concerts, comedy, and family shows. DPAC’s only
resident company is the American Dance Festival, which
is guaranteed the use of the venue for seven weeks each
year. DPAC officials stress that the venue’s programming
is still evolving. Final operating results for the 2009-2010 season were
not available as of this writing, however, the City of
Durham has released preliminary, unaudited financial
figures reflecting a net income figure of $2.9 million. According to the City, this represents overall attendance of
320,000 at 175 events. For the abbreviated 2008-2009
season (November-June), the Center reported operating
expenses of $7.4 million (including management fees),
and gross income of $7.9 million, $6.5 million of which
was from ticket sales.
Product in Similar Regional Touring
Markets
Given its geographic location, AMS studied the availability
of commercial and Broadway product in markets of
reasonable proximity to Salt Lake, to understand the
potential for routing product into the market. The markets
studied include Portland (Oregon), Denver and Phoenix:
Market
Population
Primary Broadway Venue
Portland
2.1 million
Keller Auditorium
Capacity
3,006
Denver
2.9 million
Buell Theatre
2,830
Phoenix
4.0 million
Gammage Auditorium
3,017
Salt Lake
1.6 million
Capitol Theatre
Kingsbury Hall
1,876
1,913
AMS reviewed five years of Broadway touring season
statistics (FY05 to FY09) as reported by the Broadway
League. Average statistics for that period show greater
Broadway activity in these markets than the current
number of Broadway weeks or performances in Salt
Lake:
Market
Weeks of Broadway
5.09
Total #
Performances
Total Gross Ticket
Sales
Paid Attendance
Portland, OR
9.5
95
$11,099,467
216,751
Denver
20
157
$17,392,698
300,023
15
120
$12,449,212
248,167
6
47
$3,782,382
61,712
Phoenix
Salt Lake
2
2
While overall population and demographics of these
markets vary, it is reasonable to assume that should
the market demand additional Broadway product, and
should an adequate venue be available, the shows would
be available to route through the Salt Lake market. A list
of titles for the 2004-05 through 2008-09 seasons in
each market can be found in Appendix B.
2 Per the local Broadway provider not all shows were
reported to the Broadway League.
may 3, 2011
5.10
AMS
also
studied
non-Broadway
commercial
presentations in each of these markets. Unlike the
level of Broadway activity, Salt Lake currently hosts a
comparable number of other commercial presentations
to the benchmark group each season.
2006-07
Performances
2007-08
Performances
2008-09
Performances
Portland, OR
4
4
4
Denver
11
10
20
Phoenix
16
48
29
Salt Lake
16
25
18
Market
Local Market Assessment
AMS prepared a profile of the Salt Lake City market
using proprietary segmentation models developed in
conjunction with Nielsen Claritas’ PRIZMNETM consumer
profile system.3 The information from this profile is useful
in quantifying the propensity of the market to attend
live performing arts events. Baseline data, including
income, education, employment characteristics and
lifestyle analysis is used to assess the potential of the
market to support arts and entertainment events. This
market analysis indicates the primary market for the
Utah Performing Arts Center has a propensity for cultural
product consumption.
Key demographic data for the primary market, as
compared to the state and nation, is summarized in the
tables below. A comprehensive demographic profile of
each ZIP code in the defined market area, with current
figures for population, households with children, specific
age cohorts, median income, education levels and other
variables can be found in Appendix C.
D e m o g r a ph i c a nd L i f e s t y l e
Ind i c a t o r s
When analyzing demographic data as it pertains to
arts participation, three demographic statistics are
generally regarded as particularly important indicators:
population, income, and education. A summary review
of demographic data and lifestyle indicators suggests
that the primary market offers a reasonable market
potential for arts participation. Median age is slightly
higher than elsewhere in the state but lower than in the
nation. Average household income and education levels
are slightly higher than within the state and the nation,
which are encouraging indicators for arts participation.
5.11
Summary of Key Demographics
Variable
2009 Estimated Population
2000 Population
Median Age
% General Y (9-23 yrs)
Salt Lake City Primary
Market
Utah
USA
1,035,579
2,741,007
304,141,549
943,383
2,233,169
281,421,906
31.9
29.5
36.7
22.2%
25.2%
20.9%
% Generation X (24-44 yrs)
29.4%
28.0%
27.5%
% Baby Boomers (45-65 yrs)
22.2%
19.9%
25.5%
% Mature (65+ yrs)
9.5%
9.0%
12.7%
$57,938
$56,324
$50,170
% over $75,000
Median Household Income
31.0%
29.9%
26.0%
% with College Degree
29.0%
26.3%
24.6%
Households with Children
42.7%
46.5%
35.9%
% Black
1.4%
1.1%
12.4%
% Asian
4.2%
2.6%
4.5%
Hispanic (all races)
16.0%
11.9%
15.2%
3 PRIZMNE is a consumer segmentation system that divides
each household into one of 66 profiles. These profiles are used
to determine the likelihood of hundreds of consumer behaviors
and attitudes, including arts participation.
In addition to examining demographic factors within the
marketplace, we also look at consumer behavior indices
developed by Simmons Research. These “lifestyle
attributes” measure the likelihood of a particular
behavior or attitude measured against the national
average. In regards to lifestyle attributes related to arts
participation, the consumer data indicate that household
lifestyle attributes related to arts participation in the
market area are slightly above the national average:
Region Specific Lifestyle Attributes
Salt lake metro area
Market Potential Indices (MPIs)
(National Average = 100)
Lifestyle Attribute
may 3, 2011
5.12
Primary Market
Belong to an Arts Association
107
Buy Classical Music
104
Go to Rock/Pop Concert
106
Go to Live Theater
108
Go to Museum
108
Go to Music/Dance Performance
106
Interested in The Arts
104
D a t a F i l e An a l y s i s
AMS assessed the location, penetration, and potential of
current audiences for potential users of the new facility.
The key research instrument for this assessment is an
analysis of patron data files obtained from a sampling
of local arts organizations.4 These files consisted of
both single-ticket and subscription ticket buyers. The
full data file analysis has been provided under separate
cover. Submitted lists totaled over 30,000 customer
addresses. Duplicate and erroneous addresses were
removed, leaving 28,280 unique addresses. These
unique addresses were used to determine current
market definition and penetration.
Following the compilation of samples, each address
was appended with a PRIZMNE consumer profile. This
consumer profile identifies segments of known buyer
households and helps determine the areas of greatest
potential within the defined market.
4 New Space Entertainment, Utah Symphony, Utah Opera,
and three current tenants of Kingsbury Hall: Odyssey Dance,
Jon Schmidt, Wise Guys. BalletWest declined to participate.
M a r k e t A r e a D e f i n i t i on
The aggregate patron files were mapped by ZIP Code
to allow AMS to define primary, secondary and tertiary
trade areas:
5.13
may 3, 2011
5.14
M a r k e t P e n e t r a t i on An a l y s i s
By comparing the number of current patrons with the
total number of households for each ZIP Code in the
market area, a market penetration index was computed
and mapped for the primary market, which includes
the ZIP Codes containing 80 – 90% of total audience
members:
The market penetration for cultural product is quite
similar to the overall market definition. In other words,
ZIP codes with a high concentration of ticket buyers also
have a high penetration index compared to the number
of households within the ZIP code. Therefore, cultural
organizations have been successful in penetrating the
immediate area, and, as noted below, there is additional
potential outside of the current penetrated area.
The market is best penetrated in those ZIP codes within
a 20 mile radius along the Interstate highways. Those
ZIP codes not along the Interstates are significantly less
penetrated.
P RI Z M N E ( G e od e m o g r a ph i c )
S e g m e n t a t i on
Using the PRIZMNE segmentation system, a detailed
analysis of the lifestyle segmentation for the combined
customer file was prepared. Nearly 40% of the patron
addresses fall into one of six segments, which indicates
that they are the most likely segments to be performing
arts ticket buyers in the primary market area. The
presence of those segments in the combined customer
file was placed alongside of the presence of those
segments in the primary market area to understand
segments of opportunity:
Primary Market
14%
4%
5%
2%
2%
3%
6%
5%
6%
6%
4%
4%
5%
6%
6%
9%
11%
8%
5%
% Composition
12%
10%
0%
Upward
Bound
(13)
Money &
Brains
(7)
American
Dreams
(29)
White
Kids &
Picket
Cul-de-sacs
Fences (34) sacs (18)
Money & Brains (6.07%)
The residents of Money & Brains seem to have it all: high
incomes, advanced degrees, and sophisticated tastes to
match their credentials. Many of these city dwellers are
married couples with few children who live in fashionable
homes on small, manicured lots.
American Dreams (5.99%)
American Dreams is a living example of how ethnically
diverse the nation has become: just under half the
residents are Hispanic, Asian, or African-American. In
these multilingual neighborhoods--one in ten speaks a
language other than English--middle-aged immigrants
and their children live in upper-middle-class comfort.
PRIZMNE Percent Composition Bar Chart
16%
to be kid-obsessed, with heavy purchases of computers,
action figures, dolls, board games, bicycles, and camping
equipment.
Winner’s
Circle
(6)
Boomtown
Singles
(35)
Upward Bound is by far the highest quality segment type
for performing arts buyers within the primary market,
making up 11% of all ticket buyers, compared to 5% of all
households within the primary market area. Therefore,
this consumer segment is over twice as likely to be a
ticket buyer compared to any other segment.
American Dreams makes up the third largest percentage
of performing arts ticket buyers at 5.99%. Interestingly,
the percentage of households within the primary market
is 9.4%. This discrepancy suggests that there could be
latent market demand within this consumer segment,
and a focus on programming for and marketing to this
segment type could yield a meaningful increase in
performing arts ticket buyers.
A brief description of each consumer type is below:
Upward Bound (11.34%)
More than any other segment, Upward Bound appears
to be the home of those legendary Soccer Moms and
Dads. In these small satellite cities, upscale families
boast dual incomes, college degrees, and new splitlevels and colonials. Residents of Upward Bound tend
White Picket Fences (5.68%)
Midpoint on the socioeconomic ladder, residents in
White Picket Fences look a lot like the stereotypical
American household of a generation ago: young, middleclass, and married with children. But the current version
is characterized by modest homes and ethnic diversity,
including a disproportionate number of Hispanics and
African-Americans.
Kids & Cul-de-Sacs (5.23%)
Upper-middle class, suburban, married couples with
children--that’s the skinny on Kids & Cul-de-Sacs, an
enviable lifestyle of large families in recently built
subdivisions. With a high rate of Hispanic and Asian
Americans, this segment is a refuge for college-educated,
white-collar professionals with administrative jobs and
upper-middle-class incomes. Their nexus of education,
affluence, and children translates into large outlays for
child-centered products and services.
Winner’s Circle (5.13%)
Among the wealthy suburban lifestyles, Winner’s Circle
is the youngest, a collection of mostly 35 to 54 year-old
couples with large families in new-money subdivisions.
Surrounding their homes are the signs of upscale living:
recreational parks, golf courses and upscale malls.
With a median income over $100,000, Winner’s Circle
residents are big spenders who like to travel, ski, go out
to eat, shop at clothing boutiques, and take in a show.
5.15
may 3, 2011
5.16
M a r k e t Q u a l i t y An a l y s i s b a s e d on P RI Z M N E
Based on the PRIZMNE profile of the patron data, each
ZIP code in the market area was evaluated for quality or
“propensity” to contain patrons. The resulting “Market
Quality Index” was mapped to illustrate theoretical
market potential for each buyer type throughout the
market area:
The most significant market potential exists due north of
the proposed site along the I-15 corridor within the 10- to
30-mile radius of the proposed site for the new theater. There is also meaningful latent market demand within a
10 to 20 mile radius east of the proposed site as well as
15 to 25 miles south. The potential map is consistent
with both the market definition map and the market
penetration maps in the sense that greatest potential for
audiences lies within the ZIP codes along the Interstates.
In comparing the penetration and potential maps, it is
important to note that there is very little potential in
the ZIP codes that have high penetration. For example,
while there is high penetration in ZIP codes within
a 5-mile radius immediately south of the proposed
location, there is limited further potential in this area. Therefore, marketing efforts in these ZIP codes should
be maintained, but further investment in these areas are
less likely to yield results compared to investment in high
potential ZIP codes.
5.17
Other Facilities in the Marketplace
The study included a review of other relevant facilities
currently in operation or planned for the market area. In
the 2008 Cultural Facilities Master Plan developed for
Salt Lake County, 139 arts and cultural facilities were
inventoried. Within that universe, AMS identified the
following facilities that could possibly impact the success
of a new Broadway-style theater in downtown Salt Lake
City:
With multiple users dependent on this facility for a
season of activity, it is difficult for the Broadway series
to expand, to capitalize on various touring opportunities,
or to consider shows of a longer run during the prime
presentation season. Others we spoke with, including
the Center for the Arts staff, cited lost opportunity from
commercial promoters due to unavailability of prime
dates.
C a p i t ol Th e a t r e
Management estimates 144 events hosting 142,500
patrons at the Capitol Theatre in 2009.
The Capitol Theatre is an historic (1913) proscenium
theater in downtown Salt Lake City that cites a seating
capacity of 1,876. Renovated in 1978, and containing
an original Wurlitzer organ, it is home to Ballet West,
Utah Opera, Children’s Dance Theatre, and is the primary
venue for the local Broadway series.
Due to its historic nature, the Capitol Theatre has many
of the constraints that are a challenge to modernera Broadway productions – limited load-in at stage
level, insufficient backstage accommodations, a small
proscenium opening (24’6” high x 43’4” wide), limited
pit area and too few dressing rooms. Front of house
challenges include a small lobby with no VIP area,
insufficient restroom accommodation, and general
circulation challenges. Patron seating is cramped and
uncomfortable, even in the prime seat locations. Local
groups cite similar concerns, although they also see the
ambiance and historic nature of the Capitol Theatre as
a great benefit. At the time of this report the County
is considering a renovation to the Capitol Theatre that
would reduce its seating capacity in order to improve
sightlines and patron comfort, in addition to front of
house expansion and improvements.5
The Opera is satisfied with the current capacity and
acoustics of the facility. Ballet West cites a usable
seating capacity of 1,600 at the Capitol Theatre due to
sightline issues.
5 Since this research study began Salt Lake County has
amended its plans and public statements in regard to reducing
the number of seats at The Capitol Theatre. Current plans
are to improve seating, but not remove seating. If and when
a larger venue enters the Salt Lake market, then the county
could elect to further improve the patron seating experience by
removing seats at the Capitol Theatre.
Ab r a v a n e l H a ll
Also located downtown, Abravanel Hall opened in 1979,
is home of the Utah Symphony Orchestra, and has a
seating capacity of 2,768. It has a permanent wood
concert shell, wood floor with hydraulic platforms and a
full complement of concert lighting and audio equipment. In addition to classical and popular concerts, it is used
for lectures and the occasional film presentation.
The Symphony is satisfied with the hall acoustics and
seating capacity of Abravanel Hall. The only drawback
is the limited technical infrastructure for the occasional
performances that require significant production support.
Management estimates 131 events hosting 168,000
patrons at Abravanel Hall in 2009.
K i n g sb u r y H a ll
Kingsbury Hall was constructed in 1930 on the campus
of the University of Utah. A 1995 renovation brought
improvements in the stage-house, backstage amenities,
patron amenities (restrooms), and front-of-house. Kingsbury Hall seats 1,913. Programming at Kingsbury
Hall includes sixteen to twenty presentations hosted by
the university (music, theater, dance, comedy), which
strives to identify performances that would not otherwise
be presented in the market. Additionally, Kingsbury Hall
hosts Broadway productions by New Space Entertainment
(NSE) as a secondary facility when the Capitol Theatre is
not available.
Hall management estimates a total of 170 performances
with over 200 use days annually.
5.19
Education and community outreach are key to the
mission of Kingsbury Hall. Its programs reach 18,000
local children in daytime programming. Kingsbury Hall
also puts professional companies in direct contact with
university students, either through workshops or actual
performances where students are part of the artistic
program.
While backstage accommodations are now reasonable,
limited patron parking and other front-of-house
limitations are cited as concerns for building audiences
by those that rent Kingsbury Hall. Additionally, accessing
dates can be a challenge due to the university-tied
schedule and policies that protect musical productions
being presented by the Pioneer Theatre elsewhere on
campus (see below).
S i m m ons P i on e e r M e m o r i a l Th e a t r e
5.20
This facility was constructed in 1962 on the University of
Utah campus, and is a replica of the Salt Lake Theatre.
The theater has two stages. The Lees Main Stage has 932
seats, and serves as the home of the Pioneer Theatre
Company, a non-profit, professional (LORT) resident
company. The Babcock Theatre has a capacity of 125
and is the primary performance venue for University
Department of Theatre productions.
The 2010-2011 season of the Pioneer Theatre Company
lists 143 performances of eight main stage productions,
including three musicals.
G r a nd Th e a t r e
may 3, 2011
A former high school auditorium, this 1,144 seat theater
is on the campus of Salt Lake Community College and
hosts a season of five community or semi-professional
productions annually – three musicals (14 performances
each), one straight play and a holiday “Messiah”
presentation (3 performances). The facility is available
for a performance rental for $1,500 for an 8-hour block
of time.
Th e D e po t
The Depot is a four-story, 1200 seat commercial concert
venue located at the old Union Pacific railroad depot in
downtown Salt Lake City. It has two-truck docks (with
dock levelers), fenced-in loading area serviced by a
freight elevator, a working stage area of 35’w X 20’d
X 42”h, and two dressing rooms in the basement with
private restrooms and showers.
Cited as embracing a “House of Blues” concept, the
facility hosts a half-dozen events each month and is
available for rentals and private parties.
R e d B u t t e G a r d e ns
Red Butte Gardens, a botanical garden on the University
of Utah campus, features an outdoor amphitheatre with
3,200 seats. A summer concert series includes between
16 and 21 headline concerts (Doobie Brothers, Sheryl
Crow, Willie Nelson, etc.) during the summer months. Ticket prices range from $50 to $75 and concerts are
general admission.
P r opos e d F i l m a nd M e d i a A r t s Center
At the time of this writing Salt Lake County has issued
a Request for Proposals for a feasibility study for a
proposed film and media arts center/facility in the Salt
Lake Cultural Core, one option for which is based upon
renovating the shuttered Utah Theatre on Main Street,
directly across the street from the site proposed for the
new Utah Performing Arts Center.
P e pp e r m i ll Con c e r t H a ll While not located in the direct market area, some that we
spoke with identified the increasing competition for artist
talent from the Peppermill Concert Hall at Wendover
Casino, 90 miles west of Salt Lake City. The facility offers
a robust season of popular acts, music and comedy at
competitive ticket prices. Peppermill includes Salt Lake
City in the contracted black-out area.
Local Input
P o t e n t i a l Us e b y L o c a l G r o u ps
AMS interviewed representatives of the following
organizations to hear their thoughts and understand
their potential utilization of this new facility:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Utah Symphony
Utah Opera
Ballet West
New Space Entertainment
Kingsbury Hall
Pioneer Theatre Company
Jeffrey Berke Associates
Salt Lake County Center for the Arts (operators of
the Capitol Theatre and Abravanel Hall)
• Living Festivals, City of Salt Lake
• Red Butte Gardens
S e a t C o u n t
The Opera, Ballet and others have asked for a flexible
theater, with a top capacity of 2,500 and with the ability
to reduce the seat count to 1,500. The Broadway
provider would like to have a theater of a 2,000-seat
minimum: 2,200 to 2,500 seats would be preferred. The independent promoter we spoke with preferred a
similar range of approximately 2,400 seats.
For those who are in favor of a new state-of-the-art
venue, the general consensus is that the new facility
must incorporate the items listed below:
Back of House
• New loading dock that can handle multi-truck loadins
• A full fly-house and front of house rigging to
accommodate large touring Broadway shows and
concert productions
• Wing space for scenery storage
• Backstage amenities to accommodate large casts;
chorus and pit orchestra
• Space for technical staff: stage crew; wardrobe;
make-up; wigs; laundry room
• Orchestra pit to accommodate 80 musicians for an
opera orchestra
• Catering kitchen
Front of House
•
•
•
•
•
Acoustical venue for opera (orchestra and vocals)
Large lobby
Adequate restrooms
Donor lounge / Other cultivation space
Large multi-purpose room designed to facilitate:
—— Breakfast, lunch or dinner meetings
—— Small industrial shows
—— Business meetings
P o t e n t i a l U t i l i z a t i on 6 Respondents were hesitant to commit to a pattern of
utilization of a potential new facility until certain specific
details were available (capacity, management structure,
access to dates, rental rates, etc.) In this initial round of
conversations, participants were asked to assume that
these details were resolved to their satisfaction. This
information was not used to forecast specific activity
but to add to data from comparable venues in building
a conceptual activity model. Key input from interested
users is provided below.
Utah Symphony & Opera
The Symphony initially indicated it would consider an
increase in their Pops series from five concerts a season
to ten concerts a season and would benefit from a
new venue that could accommodate greater technical
production capabilities (the series was recently reduced
from seven to five due to the economic recession). The
Symphony indicated that it would otherwise not use this
venue.
The Opera would consider doing “several productions” a
year in the new venue.
6 Of those that would consider using the new facility, all are
concerned that rental and other operating costs could be too
great to use the new venue. Currently, local performing arts
organizations are subsidized with favorable venue rates and
feel as if these could be in jeopardy with the advent of a new
facility. In addition, concern was expressed over any planned or
existing capital campaigns and how this project will affect their
ability to raise money. Some respondents expressed concern
about competition from additional product and the possibility of
programs being scheduled opposite signature events.
5.21
Ballet West
The Ballet was unable to project potential utilization of a
new facility due to concerns regarding the affordability of
renting the new venue. N e w S p a c e E n t e r t a i n m e n t
New Space Entertainment would envision the facility as
the new home for Broadway in the Salt Lake region. NSE would project additional titles or weeks in the market
as well as a significant increase in ticket sales and the
number of season subscribers due to the anticipated
larger hall capacity.
P i o n e e r T h e a t r e C o m p a n y
Pioneer Theatre Company would not consider using the
new facility and is concerned that increased Broadway
product would erode ticket sales from its audience.
may 3, 2011
5.22
Five Year Operating Projections
AMS developed two distinct financial models based on
differences in operating structure. Model A represents
the operating economics of the proposed venue with the
County as the operator, in a consolidated business with
other Center for the Arts venues. Model B considers
a stand-alone operation by a private not-for-profit
organization – one which would operate in competition
with Salt Lake County Center for the Arts. The models
represent the combined efforts of AMS Planning &
Research Corp. (industry expertise, comparable case
studies, benchmarks and current practice) and input
from potential users and Salt Lake County Center for the
Arts staff.
Activity Profile
Based on the research to date, AMS developed activity
profiles to be tested in both models. The assumptions
for the activity profile were derived from feedback and
understanding of local organizations’ presentation
patterns and their relative interest in using a new facility,
the comparative venues studied, and our experience
with other new Broadway-style theaters constructed
in the past decade. That said, they are not meant to
represent commitments of use by any Salt Lake-based
organization.
Con c e p t Mod e l A
AMS developed Model A based on the following activity
profile for a 2,500 seat theater (with the possible ability
to have smaller capacity when desired):
Broadway
10 weeks plus one three-week blockbuster every other year
Total: 80/104 performances; 100/135 venue days
Opera
One production over three weeks
Total: 5 performances; 23 venue days
Ballet
One storybook ballet
Holiday Productions
Holiday-specific program
Total: 25 performance; 29 venue days
Symphony
Four pops performances
Other Nonprofit
Commercial Promoters
Total
220/255 use days
163/187 performances
Model A assumes that the new theater would be operated
as a consolidated business with other Salt Lake County
Center for the Arts facilities, and is modeled using current
policies and assumptions regarding cost structure.
The key operating assumptions in model A are as follows:
• The facility is owned by the City or other public entity,
which is responsible for all “major” capital repair
• The facility operator is responsible for “annual repair
and replacement”
• The actual facility operator is to be determined,
but in this model the County is assumed to be the
operator, in conjunction with other County venues.
• The facility operator employs all personnel necessary
to operate
• The facility operator is not “at-risk” in presentations
― the facility is rented to other product providers
only.
5.23
S u m m a r y R e s u l t s
U t i l i z a t i o n & A t t e n d a n c e
In an effort to demonstrate the cumulative surplus for
the two models we explored, the base year reflected
represents the fifth year of operation.
AMS projects total attendance in the new facility in year
five to be 257,550 (221,550 in a non-blockbuster year):
Summary Pro Forma
Activity Type
Year 5
(In 000s)
Earned Revenues
Rental Income
Concessions
Preservation Fee
Ticketing Fee
Other Operating Revenue
Total Earned Revenues
$903
$98
$273
$1,639
$244
$3,158
Administration
135
104
156,000
Symphony
6
4
5,400
Opera
23
5
6,750
Ballet
14
9
12,150
Holiday
Production
29
25
33,750
Other
Nonprofit
28
20
13,5006
Commercial
20
20
30,000
255
187
257,550
7
Marketing
$93
Box Office
$391
E a r n e d R e v e n u e
Theater Operations
$422
Earned revenue comes from a combination of rental
charges, ticket surcharge fees, concessions, parking and
a per-ticket facility fee. Plant Operations
5.24
$239
Total
Attendance
Broadway
Total
Operating Expenses
#
Performances
# Use Days
$1,047
Other Expenses (includes annual
repair and replacement)
$273
Expense Contingency
$110
Total Operating Expenses
Operating Result
Cumulative Surplus
$2,575
$583
$2,424
In estimating rental rates AMS used a blended County
rate with a consistent discount for nonprofits and resident
companies, and averages from national benchmarks for
the commercial rates. Rental rates8 include estimated
charges for outside labor and equipment and are
projected as follows:
may 3, 2011
The new Broadway-style theater in Model A has earned
revenues of $3.16 million in the “blockbuster” years,
operating expenses of $2.58 million, and a surplus
of $583,000 (Years 1, 3 and 5 of the model are
“blockbuster” years. Non-blockbuster years produce
an operating surplus of $250,000 to $301,000.) The
cumulative surplus after five years of operation is $2.42
million, with no reliance on contributed revenue.
7 Attendance at 10 of the nonprofit events is not calculated,
as often these are non-ticketed events (e.g. graduations).
8 Base rate is rate assumed in Year 1 of operations.
Escalation in rental rates is assumed to be 3% in every other
year of operations.
Rental Rates
Rent
Chargebacks
Base Rate
Year 5
Commerical Rates
Performance
$4,500
$500
$5,000
$5,305
Second Performance (in a day)
$2,250
$500
$2,750
$2,917
Rehearsal/Tech/Load-in/Load-Out (with no
performances)
$2,250
$0
$2,250
$2,387
Dark Day
$1,125
$0
$1,125
$1,194
Performance
$2,250
$500
$2,750
$2,917
$1,125
$500
$1,625
$1,724
performances)
$1,125
$0
$1,125
$1,194
$563
$0
$563
$597
Non Profit Rates
Dark Day
Resident Company Rates
Performance
$1,500
$500
$2,000
$2,122
$750
$500
$1,250
$1,326
performances)
$750
$0
$750
$796
Dark Day
$375
$0
$375
$398
5.25
Based on the activity profile and rental fees above,
income from facility rental in year 5 is as follows:
Utilization Projections
Year 5
Use days
Rental Rate
Rental Charge
Broadway
Performance
78
$5,305
$413,751
26
$2,917
$75,854
performances)
55
$2,387
$131,286
2
$1,194
$2,387
Dark Day
Total Broadway
135
$623,279
Symphony Orchestra
Performance
4
$2,122
$8,487
0
$1,326
$0 Rehearsal/Tech/Load-in/Load-Out (with no
performances)
2
$796
$1,591
Dark Day
0
$398
$0 0
Total Symphony Orchestra
6
$10,079
Ballet
5.26
Performance
8
$2,122
$16,974
1
$1,326
$1,326
performances)
5
$796
$ 3 , 97 8
Dark Day
1
$398
$398
Total Ballet
14
$22,677
Holiday Production
Performance
20
$2,122
$42,436
5
$1,326
$6,631
performances)
5
$796
$3,978
Dark Day
4
$398
$1,591
Total Holiday Production
29
$54,636
may 3, 2011
Opera
Performance
5
$2,122
$10,609
0
$1,326
$0 13
$796
$10,344
5
$398
$1,989
performances)
Dark Day
Total Opera
23
$22,942
Other Non Profit Uses
Performance
10
$2,917
$29,175
0
$1,724
$0
Utilization Projections
Year 5
Use days
Rental Rate
Rental Charge
performances)
0
$1,194
$0 Dark Day
4
$597
$2,387
Total Non Profit Uses
14
Other Non Profit Uses • Non-ticketd
Performance
10
$2,917
$29,175
0
$1,724
performances)
0
$1,194
$0 4
$597
Dark Day
Total Non Profit Uses • Non-ticketed
14
$2,387
$31,562
Other Commercial Uses
Performance
20
$5,305
$106,090
0
$2,917
performances)
0
$2,387
$0 Dark Day
0
$1,194
$0 Total Commercial Uses
20
$106,090
Hall Use Days
255
$902,826
Total Events w/ Audiences
187
5.27
Concessions
Consistent with current practice in both Salt Lake and
nationally, patrons would pay a surcharge on box office
transactions on a per-ticket basis. In addition, a per
ticket facility fee would be assessed. While policies may
ultimately vary on the amount charged per ticket type
or face value amount, AMS used an average figure of
$6.00 per ticket for the surcharge and another $1.00
per ticket for the facility fee. This represents the average
assessment per ticket in current County facilities.
Due to the nature of the demographics of Salt Lake City,
AMS projects a transaction average which is lower than
the national benchmarks10:
Year 5
Tickets
Total Sales
Box Office Volume & Charges Revenues
Tickets
Sold
5.28
Preservation Fee
(in 000s)
Ticketing
Fee (in
000s)
Broadway
1,500
104
$166
$993
Symphony
Orchestra
1,350
4
$6
$34
Ballet
1,350
9
$13
$77
Holiday
Production
1,350
25
$36
$215
Opera
1,350
5
$7
$43
Other Non
Profit Uses
1,350
10
$14
$86
-
10
$0 $0
1,500
20
$32
$191
$273
$1,639
Nonticketed
Other
Commercial
Uses
Total
may 3, 2011
# of
Events
9 The facility fee and ticketing fee in year 5 reflect an
escalation from the base year (Year 1) of 3% in Years 3 and
5 (i.e. the facility fee used in this calculation is $1.06 and
ticketing fee is $6.37.
Food &
Beverage
257,550
$3.00
60%
Gross Sales
Contribution
Margin
Sales (in
000s)
Capture
Rate
Revenue from ticket surcharge and facility fees in year
five9 equals $1.912 million:
Retail Revenues - Concessions
Transaction
Average
T i c k e t S u r c h a r g e F e e s
$492
$492
20%
$98
10 It is assumed that limited alcohol will be purchased,
which lowers the average transaction. The national average is
typically projected to be approximately $4.00 per transaction.
Expenses
Total operating expenses (including contingency) for year
five are estimated at $2.58 million as illustrated below:
Expense Summary
Expense Summary
Year 5
(in 00s)
Year 5
(in 00s)
Building Operations
Administration
Compensation
$73
Compensation
Insurances & Bonding
$0 Utilities
HR & Payroll
$0 Insurance
Telephone (based on headcount)
$34
Information Services Support &
Website
$51
Postal & Mailing - General
$17
Printing & Copying, General
$11
Travel, Meetings, Mileage
$6
Memberships, Publications,
Subscriptions & Dues
$6
Office Supplies & Equipment
$37
Professional Development/
Recruitment
$2
Other
$2
Subtotal, Administration & Finance
$239
Marketing
Compensation
$65
Institutional Promotion
$28
Subtotal Marketing
$93
Box Office
Compensation
$188
Credit Card Fees
$180
Box Office Overhead
Box Office Systems License & Support
Subtotal Box Office
$0 $23
$391
Theater Operations
Compensation
Equipment Rentals
Repair & Maintenance - Tech.
Equipment
Subtotal Production Operation
$404
$1
$17
$422
Security
Cleaning & Maintenance
Subtotal Plant Operations
$98
$409
$0 $123
$417
$1,047
Other Expenses
Annual Repair & Replacement
(Capital Reserve Fund)
Other
Subtotal Other Expenses
Expense Contingency
$273
$0 $273
$2,465
$110
5.29
Staffing
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e E x p e n s e s
Based on the projected activity for Model A, our experience
from other facilities of this nature, and discussions with
Salt Lake County Center for the Arts on potential staffing
requirements in a consolidated operation with the new
theater, AMS projects the following staffing for the new
facility in Model A:
Non-salary administrative operating expenses typically
include insurance and bonding, payroll and other human
resource expenses, telephone and IT support, postage
and mailings, printing, office supplies, travel and
other professional development expenses. Again, in a
consolidated operation with the County, many of these
expenses are absorbed into existing overheads, and
accordingly, are not included in this projection.
FI N A N CE
Accounting Clerk
In year five of operation, non-salary administrative
expenses for Model A are calculated at $165,000:
S A L E S / MARKETI N G
Sales Manager Assistant
Box Office Supervisor (2)
Box Office Cashier (part time) (8)
General & Administration Expense summary
Year 5
(in 00s)
T H EATER O P ERATI O N S
Events Coordinator
Food and Beverage Manager
Technical Director (2)
Patron Services Assistant
EMT (part time)
5.30
HR & Payroll
B UI L D I N G O P ERATI O N S
Facility Operations Worker (2)
Using current salaries at County facilities, the staffing
expense is projected as follows11:
Administration
Year 5
Total Comp.
$0 $0 $0 $45
$20
$65
$73
Sales/
Marketing
$180
$45
$225
$253
Theater
Operations
$251
$108
$359
$404
Building
Operations
$60
$27
$87
$98
$536
$200
$736
$828
Total
11 Escalation is calculated at 3% annually from opening.
$0
$34
Website
$51
$17
$11
$6
$6
$37
Recruitment
$2
Other
$2
Subtotal Overhead
$0 Finance
may 3, 2011
Benefits
Base Salary
(SLC)
Compensation Table
$0 $165
N o n - P e r s o n n e l O p e r a t i n g E x p e n s e s
Other operating expenses that are not charged to the
renters include box office and marketing expenses and
some technical equipment and repairs. For year five of
operation those expenses are estimated at $249,000:
Non-Personnel Operating Expenses
Year 5
(in 00s)
Utilities
Insurance
Year 5
(in 00s)
Credit Card Fees
Box Office Overhead
Equipment Rentals
Equipment
Subtotal Non-Personnel Operating
Expenses
$28
$180
$409
$0 Security
$123
$417
$273
Other
Subtotal Building Operations
$0 $1,222
$0 $23
$1
$17
$249
B u i l d i n g O p e r a t i o n s E x p e n s e
Building operations expenses include those expenses
related to occupancy – utilities, building insurance,
maintenance, and annual capital improvements (a
reserve expense in the early years). At this level of
planning, building operations expense is estimated on
a square foot basis, using comparable facilities in the
region, published BOMA12 benchmark reports for the
market area, and benchmark information for performing
arts centers nationally as input measures to refine the
assumption.
The current estimated square footage of the facility by
the design professionals at this stage of planning is
148,000 gross square feet. Using this estimate as the
basis, the estimate for the Broadway-style theater in the
base year is as follows:
12 Building Owners and Managers Association International
In this model, the Annual Repair and Replacement Fund
is equal to the facility surcharge/preservation fee and,
if this theater were subject to current County policy, this
revenue would be available for use by this theater and all
other County facilities that contribute to this fund. Over
a five-year period, we estimate that $840,000 would be
generated by this preservation fee over and above the
projected annual repair and replacement needs of the
new theater. The County is “self-insured” and does not
carry any insurance costs in Model A.
E x p e n s e C o n t i n g e n c y
At this level of planning, AMS includes a 5% contingency
on expenses, exclusive of the Capital Reserve Fund, in
this case $110,000 in year five.
5.31
Con c e p t Mod e l B
Model B considers a stand-alone operation by a private
nonprofit organization – one which would operate in
competition with Salt Lake County Center for the Arts. AMS developed Model B based on the following activity
profile for a 2,500 seat theater (with the possible ability
to have a smaller capacity when desired):
Broadway
10 weeks plus one three-week blockbuster every other year
Total: 80/104 performances; 100/135 venue days
Opera
One production over three weeks
Ballet
One storybook ballet
Holiday Production
Holiday-specific programming
Total: 25 performance; 29 venue days
Symphony
Four pops performances
Other Nonprofit
Commercial Promoters
Total
233/268 use days
176/200 performances
5.32
Model B assumes that the new theater would be operated
by an independent, private not-for-profit operator, and is
modeled based on the comparative venues studied and
AMS’ experience with other new Broadway-style theaters
constructed in the past decade. The key operating
assumptions in Model B are as follows:
• The facility is owned by the City or other public entity,
which is responsible for all “major” capital repair
• The facility operator is responsible for “annual repair
and replacement”
may 3, 2011
• The actual facility operator is to be determined, but
in this model an independent, private not-for-profit
entity is assumed.
• The facility operator employs all personnel necessary
to operate
• The facility operator is not “at-risk” in presentations
– the facility is rented to other product providers
only.
S u m m a r y R e s u l t s
In an effort to demonstrate the cumulative surplus for
the two models we explored, the base year reflected
represents the fifth year of operation.
Summary Pro Forma
Year 5
(In 000s)
Earned Revenues
Rental Income
Concessions
Preservation Fee
Ticketing Fee
would be sufficient to cover deficits in non-blockbuster
years). The cumulative surplus after five years of
operation is $24,000.
U t i l i z a t i o n & A t t e n d a n c e
AMS projects total attendance in the new facility in year
5 to be 276,000 (240,000 in a non-blockbuster year):
$1,104
$105
$293
$1,757
Activity Type
# Use Days
#
Performances
Total
Attendance
Broadway
135
104
Symphony
6
4
Operating Expenses
Opera
23
5
6,750
Administration
$884
Ballet
14
9
12,150
Marketing
$136
Box Office
$572
Holiday
Production
29
25
33,750
Theater Operations
$507
Other
Nonprofit
35
27
22,95013
Commercial
26
26
39,000
Total
268
200
276,000
Other Operating Revenue
Total Earned Revenues
Plant Operations
Other Expenses (includes annual
repair and replacement)
Expense Contingency
Operating Result
$270
$3,529
$1,202
$88
$165
156,000
5,400
14
$3,554
$(25)
Support & Funding
Miscellaneous Income
$100
Total Funding
$100
Results After Funding
$75
Cumulative Surplus
$24
The new Broadway-style theater Model B has earned
revenues of $3.53 million in the “blockbuster” years,
miscellaneous income13 of $100,000 annually, and
operating expenses of $3.55 million, resulting in a
surplus of $75,000 (Years 1, 3 and 5 of the model are
“blockbuster” years. Non-blockbuster years produce an
operating deficit of ($182,000) to ($280,000). However,
we project that surplus funds from blockbuster years
13 Miscellaneous income is assumed to come from a variety
of potential sources including, but not limited to, sponsorships,
memberships and private fundraising.
14 Attendance at 10 of the nonprofit events is not calculated,
as often these are non-ticketed events (e.g. graduations).
5.33
E a r n e d R e v e n u e
Earned revenue comes from a combination of rental
charges, ticket surcharge fees, concessions, parking and
a per-ticket facility fee.
In estimating rental rates AMS used a blended rate
based on current County rates with a consistent discount
for nonprofits and resident companies, and averages
from national benchmarks for the commercial rates. Rental rates include estimated charges for outside labor
and equipment and include a mark-up over actual cost in
Model B. Rates are projected as follows15:
Rental Rates
Rent
Chargebacks
Base Rate
Year 5
Commerical Rates
5.34
Performance
$4,500
$500
$5,000
$5,305
$2,250
$500
$2,750
$2,917
performances)
$2,250
$0
$2,250
$2,387
Dark Day
$1,125
$0
$1,125
$1,194
Performance
$2,250
$500
$2,750
$2,917
$1,125
$500
$1,625
$1,724
performances)
$1,125
$0
$1,125
$1,194
$563
$0
$563
$597
$1,500
$500
$2,000
$2,122
$750
$500
$1,250
$1,326
performances)
$750
$0
$750
$796
Dark Day
$375
$0
$375
$398
Non Profit Rates
Dark Day
Resident Company Rates
may 3, 2011
Performance
Based on the activity profile and rental fees above,
income from facility rental in year 5 is as follows:
15 Base rate is rate assumed in Year 1 of operations.
Escalation in rental rates is assumed to be 3% in every other
year of operations.
T i c k e t S u r c h a r g e F e e s
Concessions
Consistent with current practice in both Salt Lake and
nationally, patrons would pay a surcharge on box office
transactions on a per-ticket basis. In addition, a per
ticket facility fee would be assessed. While policies may
ultimately vary on the amount charged per ticket type
or face value amount, AMS used an average figure of
$6.00 per ticket for the surcharge and another $1.00
per ticket for the facility fee. This represents the average
assessment per ticket in current County facilities.
Due to the nature of the demographics of Salt Lake City
AMS projects a transaction average which is lower than
the national benchmarks17:
Year 5
Tickets
Box Office Volume & Charges Revenues
Tickets
Sold
# of
Events
Preservation Fee
(in 000s)
Ticketing
Fee (in
000s)
Broadway
1,500
104
$166
$993
Symphony
Orchestra
1,350
4
$6
$34
Ballet
1,350
9
$13
$77
Holiday
Production
1,350
25
$36
$215
Opera
1,350
5
$7
$43
Other Non
Profit Uses
1,350
17
$14
$146
-
10
$0 $0
1,500
26
$41
$248
$273
$1,757
Nonticketed
Other
Commercial
Uses
Total
16 Facility fee and ticketing fee in year 5 reflect an increase
from the base year (Year 1) of 3% in Years 3 and 5 (i.e. the
facility fee used in this calculation is $1.06 and ticketing fee is
$6.37).
Food &
Beverage
276,000
$3.00
60%
Gross Sales
Contribution
Margin
Sales (in
000s)
Capture
Rate
Total Sales
Transaction
Average
Revenue from ticket surcharge and facility fees in year
five equals $2.05 million as follows16:
Retail Revenues - Concessions
$527
$527
20%
$105
5.35
17 It is assumed that limited alcohol will be purchased,
which lowers the average transaction. The national average is
typically projected to be approximately $4.00 per transaction.
Expenses
Total operating expenses (including contingency) for year
five are estimated at $3.55 million:
Utilities
Administration
Compensation
$511
Insurance
$409
$40
$90
Security
$123
HR & Payroll
$90
$417
$47
Subtotal Plant Operations
Website
$51
$17
$11
$6
$6
$52
Recruitment
$2
Other
$2
Subtotal, Administration & Finance
$884
Marketing
Compensation
$85
$51
Subtotal Marketing
$136
Box Office
Compensation
$305
Credit Card Fees
$193
Box Office Overhead
$17
$56
Subtotal Box Office
$572
Theater Operations
may 3, 2011
Year 5
(in 00s)
Year 5
(in 00s)
5.36
Expense Summary
Expense Summary
Compensation
Equipment Rentals
Equipment
Subtotal Production Operation
$489
$1
$17
$507
Building Operations
Compensation
$213
$1,202
Other Expenses
(Capital Reserve Fund)
Other
Subtotal Other Expenses
Expense Contingency
$88
$0 $88
$3,389
$165
Staffing
Based on the projected activity model, our experience
from other facilities of this nature and information
provided by Salt Lake County on current operating
structure of their venues, AMS projects the following
staffing for the new facility in Model B:
A D MI N I S TRATI O N
Director
Administrative Assistant
IT Staff
FI N A N CE
Financial Controller
Accounting Clerk (2)
S A L E S / MARKETI N G
Sales / Booking Manager
Box Office Supervisor (2)
Group Sales Coordinator
Box Office Cashier (part time) (8)
T H EATER O P ERATI O N S
Events Coordinator
Food and Beverage Manager
Master Electrician
Technical Director (2)
House Manager
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e E x p e n s e s
EMT
B UI L D I N G O P ERATI O N S
Building Manager
Assistant Building Manager
Security Coordinator
In year five of operation, non-salary administrative
expenses for Model B are calculated at $374,000:
Non-salary administrative operating expenses include
insurance and bonding, payroll and other human
resource expenses, telephone and IT support, postage
and mailings, printing, office supplies, travel, and other
professional development expenses.
General & Administration Expense summary
Using salary benchmarks as well as current salaries at
County facilities, the staffing expense is projected as
follows18:
$90
HR & Payroll
$90
$47
Website
$51
$17
$11
Administration
$210
$55
$265
$298
Finance
$150
$39
$189
$213
Sales/
Marketing
$300
$47
$347
$390
Recruitment
Subtotal Overhead
Benefits
Year 5
Total Comp.
Base Salary
(Private)
Compensation Table
Year 5
(in 00s)
Theater
Operations
$347
$87
$434
$489
Building
Operations
$150
$39
$189
$213
Total
$1,157
$267 $1,424 $1,602
18 Escalation is calculated at 3% annually from opening.
$6
$6
$52
$2
Other
$2
$374
5.37
N o n - P e r s o n n e l O p e r a t i n g E x p e n s e s
B u i l d i n g O p e r a t i o n s E x p e n s e
Other operating expenses that are not charged to the
renters include box office and marketing expenses and
some technical equipment and repairs. For year five of
operation those expenses are estimated at $335,000:
Building operations expenses include those expenses
related to occupancy – utilities, building insurance,
maintenance, and annual capital improvements (a
reserve expense in the early years). At this level of
planning, building operations expense is estimated on
a square foot basis, using comparable facilities in the
region, published BOMA19 benchmark reports for the
market area, and benchmark information for performing
arts centers nationally as input measures to refine the
assumption.
Year 5
(in 00s)
Credit Card Fees
$51
$193
Box Office Overhead
$17
$56
Equipment Rentals
Equipment
Subtotal Non-Personnel Operating
Expenses
$1
$17
$335
The current estimated square footage of the facility by
the design professionals at this stage of planning is
148,000 gross square feet. Using this estimate as the
basis, the estimate for the Broadway-style theater in the
base year is as follows:
bUILDING OPERATIONS EXPENSES
Year 5
(in 00s)
Utilities
Insurance
5.38
$409
$0 Security
$123
$417
$273
Other
Subtotal Building Operations
$0 $1,222
E x p e n s e C o n t i n g e n c y
may 3, 2011
At this level of planning, AMS includes a 5% contingency
on expenses, in this case $165,000 in year five.
19 Building Owners and Managers Association International
Impact on Existing Facilities
As a final step in the analysis, AMS studied the likely
impact on existing Salt Lake performance facilities of
both possible models. Impact was defined as loss of
revenue from re-located activity in similarly-sized halls: Abravanel Hall, the Capitol Theatre and Kingsbury Hall.
Impact occurs in four categories: foregone rent; ticketing
fees ($6 per ticket sold at County facilities / $3 at
Kingsbury); the Preservation/Facility fee ($1 per ticket
sold); and concessions.
I m p a c t f r o m Mod e l A
In Model A (County operated facility) a total of 73
performances and 50 other uses (load-in, dark day,
etc.) are assumed to relocate out of either Abravanel
Hall or the Capitol Theatre to the new facility (UPAC). An additional 29 performances and 8 other uses are
assumed to relocate from Kingsbury Hall:
rELOCATED FROM COUNTY FACILITIES
(aBRAVENEL HALL/CAPITOL THEATRE)
Projected
Activity
Performance
Projected
Activity
Other Uses
Broadway
48
29
Broadway
Symphony
4
2
Symphony
Opera
5
18
Other Not-forProfit
3
Commercial
Total
13
73
5.39
rELOCATED FROM kingsbury hall
50
In Model A, which assumes consolidated operation
with County facilities, if no adjustments are made to
programming, facilities, staffing or other activity, the
impact to existing facilities could be quantified as follows:
Other Uses
16
8
Opera
Other Not-forProfit
1
Performance
3
Commercial
10
Total
29
8
Model A: County Operated Facility: Year 1
Total Impact
# of
Events
Rent
Ticketing
Fees
$(167,000)
$(28,000)
$(10,000)
Facility Fee
Concessions
Total
Abravenel Hall
23
$(42,000)
$(246,000)
Capitol Theatre
100
$(163,000)
$(473,000)
$(79,000)
$(28,000)
$(743,000)
Kingsbury Hall
37
$(91,000)
$(118,000)
$(39,000)
$(14,000)
$(262,000)
UPAC
187
$851,000
$1,545,000
$258,000
$93,000
$2,747,000
As noted earlier in the report, the County has announced
a plan to renovate the Capitol Theatre. If this new
theater comes on line, then proposed improvements at
the Capitol Theatre, including a reduction in seat count
in order to improve sightlines and patron comfort, as
well as expansion of and improvements to the front of
house, become a viable option. This would allow this
historic facility to develop an activity profile unique to its
configuration and differentiate it from other area venues. This new business model eliminates the negative impact
of relocating Broadway from the Capitol Theatre to the
new facility, producing different results:
Model A: County Operated Facility, renovated capitol theatre: Year 1
5.40
Total Impact
# of
Events
Rent
Ticketing
Fees
Facility Fee
Concessions
Total
Abravenel Hall
23
$(42,000)
$(167,000)
$(28,000)
$(10,000)
$(246,000)
Capitol Theatre
23
$(10,000)
$(41,000)
$(7,000)
$(2,000)
$(59,000)
Kingsbury Hall
37
$(91,000)
$(118,000)
$(39,000)
$(14,000)
$(262,000)
UPAC
187
$851,000
$1,545,000
$258,000
$93,000
$2,747,000
Finally, as Model A accrues the benefit of operation of
the new facility back to the County as operator, the total
impact to the County20 could be quantified as follows:
Model A: total county impact: Year 1
Current Facilities
Year-One Impact on County Venues
may 3, 2011
UPAC: Results from Operations
Capital Reserve Excess
This does not take into consideration the impact on
Kingsbury Hall, which remains at ($262,000) in Model A.
20 Capital Reserve Excess is defined as income from the
ticket surcharge policy beyond projected capital repair &
replacement in Model B
Renovated Capitol
$(989,000)
$(305,000)
$669,000
$669,000
$180,000
$180,000
$(140,000)
$544,000
I m p a c t f r o m Mod e l B
As noted above, Model B operates in competition in the
marketplace and as such drives additional business
into the new facility. The relocation of activity in Model
B includes 75 performances and 50 other uses out
of Abravanel Hall and the Capitol Theatre, and 40
performances and 8 other uses out of Kingsbury Hall:
rELOCATED FROM COUNTY FACILITIES
(aBRAVENEL HALL/CAPITOL THEATRE)
Projected
Activity
Performance
Projected
Activity
Other Uses
Broadway
48
29
Symphony
4
2
Opera
5
18
Other Not-forProfit
3
Commercial
15
1
Total
75
50
Performance
Other Not-forProfit
10
Commercial
14
Total
40
Other Uses
8
In Model B, which assumes an independent operator
from other area facilities, if no adjustments are made
to programming, facilities, staffing or other activity, the
impact to existing facilities could be quantified as follows:
Projected
Activity
Performance
Broadway
Other Uses
16
5.41
8
Symphony
Opera
Model B: privately Operated Facility: Year 1
Total Impact
# of
Events
Rent
Ticketing
Fees
Facility Fee
Concessions
Total
Abravenel Hall
25
$(50,000)
$(185,000)
$(31,000)
$(11,000)
$(276,000)
Capitol Theatre
100
$(163,000)
$(473,000)
$(79,000)
$(28,000)
$(743,000)
Kingsbury Hall
48
$(121,000)
$(165,000)
$(55,000)
$(20,000)
$(361,000)
UPAC
200
$(1,040,000)
$1,656,000
$276,000
$99,000
$3,071,000
Again, should the County renovate the Capitol Theatre
and reduce its seating capacity, the negative impact
absent inclusion of Broadway relocation to the new
facility is mitigated:
Model B: privately Operated Facility: Year 1
Total Impact
# of
Events
Rent
Ticketing
Fees
$(50,000)
$(185,000)
Facility Fee
Concessions
$(31,000)
$(11,000)
Total
Abravenel Hall
25
$(276,000)
Capitol Theatre
100
$(10,000)
$(41,000)
$(7,000)
$(2,000)
$(59,000)
Kingsbury Hall
48
$(121,000)
$(165,000)
$(55,000)
$(20,000)
$(361,000)
UPAC
200
$(1,040,000)
$1,656,000
$276,000
$99,000
$3,071,000
Without the accrued positive benefit from the new hall to
offset losses total impact to the County in both scenarios
(existing vs. renovated Capitol Theater) is as follows:
Model b: total county impact: Year 1
Current Facilities
Year-One Impact on County Venues
Renovated Capitol
$(1,019,000)
$(335,000)
UPAC: Results from Operations
n/a
n/a
Capital Reserve Excess
n/a
n/a
$(1,019,000)
$(335,000)
P o t e n t i a l f o r N e w A c t i v i t y
5.42
Once impact was identified, AMS considered the
question of “replacement” activity for those venues
which could be affected by the construction of the new
Broadway-style theater: Abravanel Hall, the Capitol
Theatre, and Kingsbury Hall. Our earlier research into
comparable facilities was utilized to provide insight for
this analysis. Additional research was conducted to
understand replacement programming and impact on
existing venues in four other markets: Dayton, Ohio;
Austin, Texas; Nashville, Tennessee; and Richmond,
Virginia. In each of these four markets, a new, Broadway
and/or concert-friendly venue was recently added to the
existing complement of performance venues. Market
may 3, 2011
Austin
Dayton
Richmond
Nashville
Venues
Capacity
Bass Concert Hall (UT)
2,900
Hogg Auditorium (UT)
1,200
Long Center
2,300
Paramount Theatre
1,326
Victoria Theater
1,154
Schuster Center
2,300
Carpenter Theatre
1,800
Landmark Theatre
3,565
TPAC/Jackson Hall
2,472
Schermerhorn Center
1,765
Interviews were also conducted with staff at the Salt
Lake County Center for the Arts and at Kingsbury Hall
to understand their perceptions of how promoter
relationships might change with the advent of more
available dates.
Our models above include the following assumptions:
all Broadway activity in Salt Lake will shift to the new
venue; some non-Broadway activity (e.g., limited resident
company events and some existing commercial and
community activity) will shift to the new venue; the
balance of existing non-Broadway activity will remain in
its current location (e.g., ballet and opera at the Capitol,
symphony at Abravanel, and university programming at
Kingsbury).
Research into total activity in the Austin, Dayton, and
Nashville markets suggests that while the new facility
was built for a fairly specific purpose (Austin as a venue
for local performing arts groups; Dayton a new Broadway
facility; Nashville a new Symphony hall) the activity profile
post-opening has adapted to market forces. In Dayton
the advent of a new, Broadway-friendly venue did not
result in a wholesale move of Broadway programming. The smaller Victoria Theatre continues to house smaller
productions and those for which the market will not bear
the higher ticket prices in place at the Schuster Center. In considering activity at these venues, it can be observed
that most non-Broadway activity comes in the “variety”
category, which includes pop concerts, speakers,
comedy, and non-Equity touring theatre, among a great
many types of events:
Broadway
Dance/Ballet
Classical Music
Opera
Drama
Education/ Family
Variety
Film
The Schuster Center is also heavily used for symphony,
opera, and ballet programming, rendering it less
available than the Victoria. In Austin, the intention was
that the dominant presence of local arts organizations
in the new venue as well as a long-standing partnership
between the local Broadway presenter and University of
Texas Performing Arts, would keep Broadway activity in
place at UT’s Bass Hall. However due to market forces,
donor expectations and expanded educational vision for
the UT facilities, UTPA has begun sharing more Broadway
engagements with the Long Center with a divided
subscription series -- an arrangement still in the testing
stages. 8 weeks
4
4
0
6
0
26
0
Other UTPAC Venues
0
5
0
6
0
7
0
Paramont Theatre
2
0
0
10
12
69
274
Venue Activity by Market
Bass Hall
Austin
Dayton
Long Center
2 weeks
25
30
15
0
2
14
1
Market Total
10 weeks
31
39
15
22
14
116
275
Victoria Theater
6 weeks
15
1
0
1
46
14
28
Schuster Theater
6 weeks
5
44
10
6
0
29
0
12 weeks
20
45
10
7
46
43
28
Carpenter Theater
1 week
15
23
12
Landmark Theatre
3 weeks
3
0
Market Total
Richmond
Nashville
0
19
0
Market Total
4 weeks
18
23
12
0
5
39
0
TPAC/Jackson Hall
11 weeks
20
0
4
0
1
11
0
0
121
0
0
0
14
1
20
121
4
0
1
25
1
Schermerhorn Center
Market Total
11 weeks
Abravanel Hall
Salt Lake
20
5
Capitol Theatre
Kingsbury Hall
Market Total
49
6 weeks
2 weeks
8 weeks
24
24
21
45
31
49
21
2
1
15
50
14
26
1
15
102
14
5.43
may 3, 2011
5.44
It is this area which may offer the most potential for
venues in Salt Lake impacted by the construction of the
Broadway-style theatre. Informants note that variety
events are often booked on an “opportunistic” or ad-hoc
basis depending on artist availability and tour routing,
rather than being part of a subscribed season. Educational and family events also comprise a category
of use which may present opportunities for Abravanel,
Capitol, and Kingsbury management, though not of
the same volume as variety events or Broadway. Both
“variety” and educational or family events are and can
be presented under a number of models – as rentals by
non-profit or commercial producers or promoters (the
most common scenario among the studied Centers);
as presentations by the venue manager at risk (less
common, though some Centers had extensive slates of
non-Broadway programming); and as “co-presentations”
or some other hybrid form. Factors that drive the decision
of which model to utilize are varied and complex, and
include first and foremost the presence or absence of
non-profit or commercial presenters or promoters in the
market or on tour; the venue manager’s appetite for
risk; the willingness of other organizations to partner
with the venue; and the presence or absence of resident
companies which may offer similar programming. Respondents in other markets report that in many cases,
the negative impact of new venues on their level of
activity is less than anticipated. As described above, in
some cases the entire Broadway series has not moved
to new venues. Rental business, from commercial, nonprofit, or corporate clients, was cited as a significant
replacement source of use and revenue by managers of
some existing venues. Respondents used the additional
open dates and schedule flexibility created by the shift
of Broadway and other programming to newer venues
as an opportunity to cultivate relationships with existing
and would-be rental clients, enticing them back to
the hall, or to book for the first time. Discounts were
sometimes utilized, but in other cases the availability
of prime dates or those desired by clients was enough
to encourage rental activity. New and creative rental
niches have emerged at some halls, including: film and
television shoots; as rehearsal venues for large touring
shows who want the “feel” of a big hall; and corporate
and social events, particularly at halls which can offer
amenities such as flexible seating configurations and inhouse catering. Some respondents attract commercial
promoters by offering to provide the marketing for events
at their venue. Such a service creates a “seamless”
event and makes promoter’s “lives easier,” and the venue
manager’s knowledge of the local market and ability to
purchase advertising in bulk adds significant value.
Respondents report that it can be challenging to find new
programming for an older venue, particularly because
a glossy new space will have appeal to promoters that
an older venue often cannot match. Among the most
significant qualitative findings of our research into other
markets was the “advice” that the potential impact of a
new venue could be dramatically lessened by existing
venues “finding your voice,” or by firmly occupying a
programming or marketing niche. This was echoed by
respondents at several venues in multiple markets. Historic, smaller venues (e.g., the Paramount Theatre in
Austin and the Victoria Theatre in Dayton), have found
success by emphasizing their intimacy, charm, attractive
architecture, and warm, natural acoustics. Comedy,
concerts by independent, jazz, or off-beat artists; and
robust revival or art film series have been successful in
these venues and may work at the Capitol Theatre. High-quality concert halls (e.g., Bass Hall at the University
of Texas in Austin), have endeavored to occupy a “refined”
niche, with diverse performing arts programming such as
classical music, world music and dance, contemporary
music, and experimental work. Digital high-definition video content (e.g., Metropolitan
Opera, Royal National Theatre, and concert
performances) series have been established or are
emerging in several markets, and are perhaps the most
fertile new programming stream available. In the case of both historic venues and concert halls,
respondents report that opportunities exist to program
and market to an older demographic which wants
to consume performing arts – including pop music
– in a sophisticated, sit-down venue. (Respondents
differentiate between other pop venues which are
frequently standing-room and offer alcohol and food
consumption in the auditorium.)
L o c a l Cons i d e r a t i ons
AMS also interviewed staff at the Salt Lake County Center
for the Arts and at Kingsbury Hall to understand their
perceptions of how promoter relationships might change
with the advent of more available dates. In discussions
with Salt Lake County Center for the Arts and Kingsbury
Hall management, the following considerations were
mentioned:
• There is significant concern on the part of existing
venues that the volume of activity drawn by the
proposed new venue will create a vacuum in their
schedules, a vacuum which cannot be filled by
existing programming in the market. Although
respondents expressed interest in certain genres
of new programming, they cautioned that “nobody
has any money” to present such shows. County and
Kingsbury management report some reluctance to
engage in risk-taking, though neither have ruled it
out. New streams of contributed income may be
necessary to subsidize replacement programming,
or the venues must become risk-taking producers of
new programming. • Due to its higher level of use by resident companies,
the Capitol Theatre reports “turning away” more
potential business. At present, Kingsbury Hall staff
report being able to accommodate almost anyone
who wishes to use the space.21
• Respondents express hope that a variety of genres
can provide new programming in the event that
Broadway and other events move out, including:
contemporary adult pop concerts, film, jazz,
speakers, additional local productions of theatre
and dance, and performances of Cirque du Soleil
and Cirque Dreams. • Staff of Kingsbury Hall and Salt Lake County
report that family events can be challenging to
present in the Salt Lake market, where large
family sizes produce price resistance and/or child
care problems, and many residents abstain from
attending performances on Sundays.
21 As noted in Other Facilities in the Marketplace, the
university has policies that prevent musical productions being
presented when the Pioneer Theatre is presenting elsewhere
on campus.
• Respondents expressed cautious interest in
programming more fine performing artists (e.g.,
classical music, world music and dance, etc.), but
express concern that programming conflicts with
resident companies (e.g., the Utah Symphony) be
avoided.
• Becoming a tryout city for national Broadway tours
has been proposed as a potential source of new
programming. The Salt Lake market’s relative
isolation and strong appetite for musical theatre
may allow smaller, less-expensive venues such as
Kingsbury Hall and the Capitol Theatre to attract
shows that are preparing to go on the road and need
a sympathetic audience for preview performances.
• Both halls cite the popularity of summertime outdoor
concerts at Red Butte Gardens and elsewhere as
both a challenge and an opportunity. Although Salt
Lake audiences love outdoor events, a market may
exist for those who prefer an indoor, air conditioned
concert experience in the summer.
5.45
Conclusion
Based on research into comparable markets, product
availability and current market penetration AMS believes
that the Salt Lake market could successfully absorb
additional weeks of programming, including Broadway
activity, commercial programming and expansion by local
performing arts groups, in a new facility. Certain policies
and considerations will maximize the community benefit
of this new venue.
Comprehensive planning within the arts and
entertainment delivery “system” should take place in order
to achieve success – not only for touring Broadway but
for local arts organizations and facilities as well. Careful
consideration should be given to consolidated operation
of County facilities with the new theatre. The advantages
of this arrangement include substantial cost efficiencies,
the ability to allocate resources among the different
venues as needed, and coordinated programming to
the benefit of the community. Importantly, consolidated
management enables facility operators to manage the
combined calendar of all venues to maximum advantage
of the community.
As planning for the new facility progresses, existing
performance venues must better define their future
programming niche. Development of “risk capital” for
new programming should be considered, in order to
provide opportunities to explore under-represented
program areas such as family programming, jazz,
comedy, speakers, film and high-definition digital video
content, as well as a wide variety of touring non-Broadway
popular acts. Renovation and reduction of the seating capacity of
the Capitol Theatre would allow this historic facility to
develop an activity profile unique to its configuration and
differentiate it from other area venues. Other potential
arts initiatives such as the Utah Theatre renovation,
and the Ballet West Center should all be part of a
comprehensive system of venues that enable a wide
array of arts and entertainment options for Salt Lake
residents and visitors. 5.47
Market Study and Implementation
Plan Appendices
App e nd i x A : Case Study Reports�� 5.51
App e nd i x B : Broadway Product in Nearby Touring Markets�� 5.77
App e nd i x C :
Demographic Summary Report�� 5.79
5.49
may 3, 2011
5.50
appendix a
Appendix A
Tennessee Performing Arts Center
N a sh v i ll e , T e nn e ss e e
CE N TER O VERVIE W
Opened
1980
Renovated
Circa 2002
Ownership
State of Tennessee (building & land)
Operation
501c3 corporation
Governance
Board of Directors (20 members;
members are appointed by the
TPAC Foundation, the Governor of
Tennessee, the Tennessee Arts
Commission, and elected by the board
itself)
Gross Square
Footage
412,058
FACI L ITIE S
5.51
Venues
Capacity
Type
Typical Use
Andrew Jackson Hall
2,472 Proscenium theater
Broadway, opera, ballet,
concerts
James K. Polk Theater
Drama, concerts, dance
Andrew Johnson Theater
War Memorial Auditorium
(offsite)
264 Black box theater
1,661 Flat-floor, multi-purpose theater
Drama, rentals
Concerts, parties, rentals
B R O A D W AY VE N UE
Andrew Jackson Hall is TPAC’s venue for Broadway,
opera, ballet, and major concerts.
Total Seating Capacity
2,472
Proscenium Width
57’
Orchestra
986
Proscenium Height
Pit
107
Stage Width
131’
Loges (sides)
220
Stage Depth
53’
Tier (center)
790
Grid Height
Balcony
369
Obstructed Seats
Not Listed
Orchestra Seating
Configuration
Continental
Loading
36’
84’
2 enclosed docks (shared
between 3 venues & office
tower).
18º incline from street.
appendix a
MARKET
TPAC staff report that the center’s primary trade area is
a 90-mile radius around Nashville, thanks to the region’s
sprawling, dispersed geography. Subscribers are
reported to come from as far away as Memphis; Louisville,
Kentucky; and Huntsville, Alabama. All of these markets
have Broadway presenting series, but touring Broadway
visits only Atlanta before coming to Nashville.
TPAC counts overnight visitors as a negligible number
of patrons, due to the fact that most tourists, when in
Nashville, attend performing arts events at the Ryman
Auditorium, Grand Ole Opry, or other country or Christian
music venues. Population
1,536,617
5.52
Median
Household
Income
CollegeEducated
Adults age
25+
$50,543
25.42%
Market Potential Indices
Interested in
the Arts
96
Attend Live
Theater
91
Attend Music
or Dance
96
Attend Pop or
Rock
96
Source: U.S. Census. All figures based on 2007 CSA.
H I S T O RY
may 3, 2011
The Tennessee Performing Arts Center opened in 1980
in the James K. Polk Cultural Center, a state-owned
building also housing the Tennessee State Museum. An
18-story office tower with many state offices adjoins the
facility. The center’s construction was funded in part
through federal Bicentennial funds, partly by the state
of Tennessee, and partly by the TPAC Foundation, which
guaranteed a $5 million endowment. TPAC’s lobby was renovated circa 2002-2003, at a cost
of approximately $8 million, $5 million of which was
contributed by the state, with the balance contributed
by the center. The lobby serves as the general public
entrance for the entire building and the office tower next
door.
O P ERATI O N S
B R O A D W AY
TPAC is owned by the state of Tennessee and operated
under a state charter by the non-profit Tennessee
Performing Arts Center Management Corporation
(TPACMC). The state bears some facility-related
operating costs, including utilities and custodial services
in public spaces (lobbies, restrooms). Other facility costs
(auditorium cleaning, event security) and all operating
costs are borne by TPACMC. TPACMC pays no rent,
and keeps all earned and contributed revenues. A state grant program is available to help offset the cost
of major capital improvements, as state budgets allow. This program has yielded up to $300,000 per year when
available.
TPAC’s Broadway season is fully self-presented; there is
no agreement with Broadway Across America (BAA) or
other presenting organization, although TPAC partnered
with BAA until four years ago. The partnership with BAA ended when TPAC decided it could more effectively
present Broadway as an independent. TPAC is a member
of the Independent Presenters Network, which invests in
Broadway shows but does not block-book or negotiate
collectively. The main TPAC complex consists of three venues
named for Tennessee-born presidents (Jackson, Polk,
and Andrew Johnson). Located across the street is the
historic War Memorial Auditorium, which is also owned
by the state and operated by TPACMC. TPAC’s box office recently converted to Tessitura after
nearly 30 years as a Ticketmaster user. TPAC staff report
that this conversion has been costly and somewhat
bumpy, but believe that the switch will pay for itself in
increased flexibility and improved customer service and
relationship management. TPAC’s box office handles
all Broadway sales, all sales for Tennessee Repertory
Theatre, and single-ticket sales for Nashville Opera and
Nashville Ballet (which sell their own subscriptions), as
well as TPAC’s own presentations and events. Amenities for Jackson Hall audience members include
two permanent bars, one portable bar, and one “Jesus”
bar – wine and water only. The Jackson and Polk theaters
share a common concourse, where merchandise tables
for touring Broadway are set up, and where a small café
selling pre-packaged light fare is located. There is no
other restaurant, and no gift shop. There is no physical
premium seating section, though some Broadway shows
will designate a section of the house as “premium.”
Merchandise sales for touring Broadway and other
events pay a 10% commission to TPAC when the vendors
provide their own selling staffs; if TPAC must provide
sellers the commission can range up to 30%. TPAC does
not charge a separate fee for merchandise table set-up
or for phone lines or other amenities, though the costs of
these services are embedded in the fee package each
touring show pays (see below).
TPAC negotiates contracts for each show individually with
producers, with great variability in terms. A typical deal
includes:
• Guarantee against ticket sales, which can range
from $165,000 to $400,000, depending on the
show’s “sellability,” with a typical guarantee for a bigbudget musical of between $275,000 to $350,000. Shows which have been out on the road for several
seasons typically have lower guarantees, but there
are exceptions.
• Royalty payments, which are coupled to the
guarantee and are fairly standardized at 10%,
though anywhere from 8% to 11% is possible. Royalty amounts depend on the deals struck
between producers and the creative teams of the
show itself.
• Profit sharing of the “back end” after guarantees,
royalties, rent, and other expenses are settled. TPAC strives for a 60%-40% split, but typically ends
up with 70%-30%, with all splits favoring the show’s
producers.
Some larger shows (e.g., Wicked, Disney productions) are
considered a “four-wall” presentation, in which there is
no guarantee, producers pay a flat rental rate, and any
profit-sharing is minimal, in the range of 5% to 10%. When negotiating with producers, TPAC emphasizes that
with their knowledgeable, in-house marketing operation,
it is in the producers’ interest to incentive TPAC towards
higher sales, as they can increase the show’s marketing
reach without incurring additional costs.
In addition to these typical terms, producers of most
shows pay for their own union labor, catering, and other
direct costs, and TPAC imposes a fixed package of fees
designed to recover overhead costs. Like all other
components of the Broadway agreements, these fees
are negotiable. 5.53
appendix a
The schedule for Broadway presentations at TPAC varies greatly from year to year, but typically includes a
subscription series of six shows, each running one eightshow week, plus three or more off-subscription shows
running either as split-weeks (generally a five-show
weekend) or one week each. Occasionally a blockbuster
running up to three weeks may occupy one of the
subscription slots, with the first week subscribed. TPAC staff report that blockbuster shows must be subscribed
for at least a week to ensure the advance ticket sales the
show needs to run for multiple weeks. Broadway at TPAC is regarded as a budget driver, and TPAC staff report that
10 to 12 weeks of Broadway is regarded as the minimum
required to support other programming at the center,
though not every year includes this level of programming.
N O N - B R O A D W AY P R O GRAMMI N G
TPAC hosts two resident companies in Andrew Jackson
Hall: Nashville Ballet and Nashville Opera. Tennessee
Repertory Theatre is also in residence at the center
but utilizes other venues. TPAC also works with several
commercial concert promoters which rent Andrew
Jackson Hall, including AEG, Messina Group, Outback,
and AC Entertainment.
In addition to Broadway, resident company programming,
and rentals by commercial promoters, the center offers
the non-subscription “TPAC Presents” series of variety,
comedy, concerts, and drama. TPAC Presents is separate
from TPAC’s Broadway series. The schedule for TPAC Presents varies greatly, from two to 12 events per season,
booked on an opportunistic, as-available basis. TPAC Presents shows can include shows that might otherwise
appear under the Broadway season (subscribed or nonsubscribed), but are sold under “TPAC Presents” for the
sake of balance between the series.
In fiscal year 2009, facility utilization and attendance
broke down as follows:
may 3, 2011
5.54
Performance Days
Non-Performance
Use Days
Rehearsal Days
Tech Days
Dark Days
92
17
13
73
170
Genre
Presenter
Number
of
Events
Tickets
Sold
Comps
Total
Tickets
Distributed
Total
Attendance
(drop
count)
Total
Available
Seats
(capacity)
Center Presentations
Classical
Resident Company
Non-Profit Rental
Commercial Rental
Dance
Resident Company
Commercial Rental
Broadway
14
15,949
2,817
18,766
17,482
34,608
10,323
14,832
134,621
6,577
141,198
128,862
217,536
Non-Profit Rental
6
88
Resident Company
Non-Profit Rental
2
1,622
359
1,981
1,826
4,944
Commercial Rental
1
2,034
232
2,266
2,130
2,472
4
8,266
742
9,008
5,929
9,888
Opera
Resident Company
Non-Profit Rental
Commercial Rental
Theater
Resident Company
5.55
Non-Profit Rental
Commercial Rental
1
1,601
2,472
Education / Resident Company
Family
Non-Profit Rental
Commercial Rental
Variety
4
6,178
662
6,840
6,309
9,888
7
11,831
2,483
14,314
13,421
17,304
93
140,799
7,239
148,038
136,772
229,896
Resident Company
18
24,215
3,559
27,774
23,411
44,496
2
1,622
359
1,981
1,826
4,944
14
13,865
2,715
16,580
25,874
34,608
127
180,501
13,872
194,373
187,883
313,944
Resident Company
Non-Profit Rental
Commercial Rental
Film
Resident Company
Non-Profit Rental
Commercial Rental
TOTALS
Non-Profit Rental
Commercial Rental
TOTAL - ALL EVENTS
appendix a
B U D GET
Summary fiscal year 2009 financial data for TPAC appears below.
REVENUES
2009 $
$951,000
Endowment Draw & Interest
Programming: Center Public Presentations
Ticket Revenue
$507,000
$6,034,000
$167,000
Operations
Box Office Service Fees
$643,000
$522,000
Performance Hall Rental
$479,000
Recoverable Charges and Fees
5.56
$0
$715,000
Retail
$468,000
Other Earned Revenues
(Reconciliation)
$172,000
TOTAL EARNED REVENUES
$10,657,000
Development
$559,000
$63,000
$618,000
Communications / PR
$204,000
Programming
$748,000
Center Public Presentations
Advertising/Marketing
$121,000
Artist Fees
$322,000
Production Costs
$6,000
Broadway
Broadway General
Administration
$787,000
$769,000
Artist Fees
Production Costs
$3,739,000
$66,000
Center Education Presentations
Government Support
$719,000
Individual Contributions /
Memberships
$373,000
Foundation Support
$131,000
Artist Fees
Corporate Support (Philanthropy)
$102,000
Production Costs
Sponsorships
$194,000
In-Kind Gifts
$325,000
Special Events (gross)
$377,000
General Administration
$801,000
Other Contributed Revenue
$384,000
Front of House
$126,000
$2,604,000
Back of House
$827,000
Box Office
$529,000
Occupancy
$308,000
TOTAL CONTRIBUTED REVENUE
TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE
may 3, 2011
$860,000
Institutional Marketing
Ticket Surcharges (incl. Facility
Fees)
Ancillary Space Rental
Interest Expense
Ticket Revenue
Administration
2009 $
Finance
Broadway: Center Presentations
Ticket Revenue
EXPENSES
$13,261,000
Education General
Administration
Education Program Expense
$415,000
$15,000
$205,000
$18,000
$192,000
Operations
Retail
Other Expenses (Reconciliation)
$347,000
$0
Development
$384,000
Special Events
$208,000
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSE
$13,238,000
S TAFF
Department
Full-Time Part-Time
Administration
4
Finance
4
Information Services
4
Human Resources
1
Development
3
Marketing
5
Public Relations
2
Programming
1
Education
5
1
Stagehands
14
99
Box Office and Ticketing
2
Theater Operations
13
20
Front of House Staff / Ushers
2
115
Other Theater Operations
6
Building Operations
Custodial
Engineers / Maintenance
3
Security
5.57
Other Building Operations
3
19
70
256
Retail
TOTALS
Total Organization-Wide Salary/Wages Paid
Total Organization-Wide Personnel-Related Tax
Expense
Total Organization-Wide Benefit Expense
TOTAL WAGES, BENEFITS, AND TAXES
Total Number of Volunteers
Total Number of Volunteer Hours
175
4,022
may 3, 2011
5.58
appendix a
Marcus Center for the Performing
Arts
M i lw a u k e e , W i s c ons i n
CE N TER O VERVIE W
Opened
1969
Renovated
1991
Ownership
Milwaukee County (building & land)
Operation
501c3 corporation
Governance
Board of Directors (24 members)
Gross Square
Footage
218,000
FACI L ITIE S
Venues
Uihlein Hall
Capacity
Type
Typical Use
Broadway, symphony, opera, ballet
Todd Wehr Theater
496 Thrust theater
Drama, lectures, concerts, meetings
Vogel Hall
475 Proscenium theater
Meetings, film, drama, dance
Peck Pavilion
400 Open-air shed
Concerts, film, private events
Bradley Pavilion
700 Meeting room
Meetings, banquets, receptions, private events
Anello Atrium
800 Reception hall
Receptions, seminars
Green Room
100 Meeting room
Meetings, receptions, lectures, dinners
5.59
Uihlein Hall (pronounced “E-line”) is the Marcus Center’s
venue for Broadway, symphony, opera, and ballet.
Total Seating
Capacity
2,305
Orchestra
1,301
Proscenium Width
Proscenium Height
24.5’
Stage Width
122’
Stage Depth
60’
Boxes
120
Loge (center &
side)
676
Grid Height
Balcony
208
Loading
Obstructed Seats
Orchestra Seating
Configuration
24
Continental
61’
93.5’
2 docks
(shared between 3 venues)
appendix a
MARKET
Marcus Center staff report that the center’s primary
trade area is the Milwaukee metro region (Milwaukee,
Ozaukee, Washington, Waukesha, and Racine Counties). Fifty percent of audiences come from outside Milwaukee
County, and 15-20 percent come from outside the fivecounty metro area. Audiences also come from Kenosha
County, Madison (a 90 minute drive) and Chicagoland,
especially Lake County, Illinois.
Few overnight visitors are reported as patrons, except
for the “mega-musicals” (e.g., Wicked), in which case
audiences come from around Wisconsin, and even
Chicago when shows are no longer playing in that market. 5.60
Population
1,710,888
Median
Household
Income
$53,633
CollegeEducated
Adults age
25+
26.71%
Interested in
the Arts
104
Attend Live
Theater
110
Attend Music
or Dance
109
Attend Pop or
Rock
111
H I S T O RY
may 3, 2011
Construction of the Marcus Center began in June 1966
and was completed three years later, opening in 1969. The building was designed by Chicago architect Harry
Weese and cost a reported $12.7 million. Renovations
in the early 1990s repaired stonework, enlarged the
lobby, and added acoustic and backstage refinements. The facility was renamed in honor of a major gift from the
Marcus Corporation supporting the renovation.
O P ERATI O N S
Although the Marcus Center is owned by Milwaukee
County, all operating costs (e.g., utilities) are borne by
the operating corporation.
The Marcus Center’s box office uses several ticketing
platforms. Broadway shows are sold through
Ticketmaster’s ArtTix software, but resident companies
use Tessitura, and box office staff must toggle between
the two programs depending on what tickets a customer
is buying. Online sales through the Marcus Center
website are not in real time, as this is prohibited by
the Ticketmaster license agreement. Instead, online
buyers essentially submit an email order for tickets,
which are then filled by a box office staff member. Buyers can purchase real-time tickets for Marcus Center
shows through the Ticketmaster website, but will pay
substantially higher fees. Marcus Center staff find this
arrangement cumbersome and unsatisfactory, but do
not feel that they are in a position to change the ticketing
paradigm. Amenities for Uihlein Hall audience members include two
permanent bars and three portable bars. Merchandise
tables for touring Broadway are set up in the Center’s
lobby. Uihlein Hall’s box seats are considered “premium”
for Broadway shows, and are sold at a higher price point.
The Marcus Center negotiates a commission on
merchandise sales with vendors who work for each
touring Broadway production. The typical starting
point for merchandise commission is 20%, although
larger shows often negotiate a lower commission. Commission revenue is not shared with Broadway Across
America (see below). If Marcus Center staff are used
to sell merchandise (usually only the case for resident
companies), a 25% commission applies. Set-up fees
apply according to a standard schedule.
B R O A D W AY
Touring Broadway at the Marcus Center is presented
under a co-presentation agreement with Broadway
Across America (BAA). Each party works exclusively with
the other (i.e., no other venues in Milwaukee have an
agreement with BAA, and the Marcus Center does not
work with any other Broadway presenters). The partnership pays the productions’ expenses (e.g.,
producer fees, theater rent, marketing) and a guarantee
(sometimes plus a royalty – a deal such as “$175,000
plus 8% royalty” was described as one possible
variation), and any profit or loss after these expenses
is split between BAA and the Marcus Center according
to a percentage which varies for each show, running
from 65%-35% to 75%-25%. In all cases, BAA takes the
larger share of both risk and reward. The level of risk to
each party is related to the length of the run; longer runs
result in a lower percentage for the Marcus Center (75%25%, for instance, as opposed to 70%-30% for a short
run). The Marcus Center collects rent and reimbursable
costs on each show, in addition to its share of profits,
putting it in the position of both landlord and presenter. Some shows, particularly those produced by Disney,
may appear on a “self-presented” or “four-wall” basis,
in which case there is no guarantee paid to producers,
but minimal or no share of “back end” profits to BAA or
the Marcus Center. Center staff stress that there is no
“typical” deal, with terms varying from show to show and
even throughout a given tour. March Center staff report
much more variability in Broadway deal terms in recent
years.
The Marcus Center’s Broadway schedule has become
relatively standardized (over the past five to six years),
with a five-show subscription package. The total number
of weeks of Broadway can be as few as five or as many as
eight. Four shows with one-week runs are typical during
the season, plus one additional show which can run from
one to four weeks. In the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011
seasons, the schedule consisted of four one-week runs
and one summer blockbuster of four weeks. The first
week of a multi-week blockbuster is subscribed. As is
typical in the Broadway industry, eight-show weeks on a
Tuesday-Sunday schedule are the norm at the Marcus
Center. Center staff report that there is insufficient
business from tour groups and senior groups to justify
midweek matinees, thus all matinees are on weekends. Resident companies have first pick of dates at the hall;
however, the schedule has become codified to such a
degree that the blocks of dates are the same from year
to year.
The Marcus Center hosts several resident companies
in Uihlein Hall, including the Milwaukee Symphony
Orchestra, Milwaukee Youth Symphony, Florentine Opera
Company, Milwaukee Ballet, and City Ballet Theatre. The hall is also available for rent by local organizations. Marcus Center staff report that although little additional
activity takes place beyond resident companies and
Broadway, the Center is looking to become more
proactive in using dark days for events such as small
musical ensembles, comedy, and speakers, particularly
on nights following a daytime symphony rehearsal.
In fiscal year 2009, facility utilization and attendance
broke down as follows:
Performance Days
Non-Performance
Use Days
Rehearsal Days
Tech Days
Dark Days
179
5
46
62
73
5.61
appendix a
Genre
Presenter
Number
of
Events
Tickets
Sold
Total
Tickets
Distributed
Comps
Total
Attendance
(drop
count)
Total
Available
Seats
(capacity)
Classical
Resident Company
Non-Profit Rental
49
64,351
9,615
73,966
112,945
1
159
2
161
2,305
31
35,277
5,764
41,041
71,455
78
105,217
4,641
109,858
179,790
7
9,847
1,212
11,059
16,135
9
9,198
1,227
10,425
20,745
3
4,623
272
4,895
6,915
19
26,992
3,634
30,626
43,795
4
4,066
960
5,026
9,220
Commercial Rental
Dance
Resident Company
Non-Profit Rental
Commercial Rental
Broadway
Resident Company
Non-Profit Rental
Commercial Rental
Opera
Resident Company
Non-Profit Rental
Commercial Rental
5.62
Theater
Resident Company
Non-Profit Rental
Commercial Rental
Education / Resident Company
Family
Non-Profit Rental
Commercial Rental
Variety
Resident Company
Non-Profit Rental
Commercial Rental
Film
Resident Company
Non-Profit Rental
Commercial Rental
78
105,217
4,641
109,858
0
179,790
115
145,665
21,452
167,117
0
265,075
Non-Profit Rental
4
4,782
274
5,056
0
9,220
Commercial Rental
4
4,066
960
5,026
0
9,220
201
259,730
27,327
287,057
0
463,305
may 3, 2011
TOTALS
Resident Company
TOTAL - ALL EVENTS
B U D GET
Summary fiscal year 2009 financial data for the Marcus
Center appears below. Of note when considering the
Center’s finances are the following:
REVENUES
2009 $
$14,000
• The Center charges resident companies for a
wide variety of reimbursable expenses including
the hanging of banners and posters outside the
building (appearing below as “PR” revenue), internet
service, and copies and phone service for the United
Performing Art fund, which has offices in the Center.
Administration
• A portion of “Other Revenue” in the Broadway
Presentations category consists of “premium”
fees paid by subscribers, entitling them to perks
such as premium seating, parking, drinks, show
memorabilia, etc. The balance of this category of
revenue consists of fees collected on group sales
tickets to Broadway shows, which subsidize the
Marcus Center’s group sales office.
• Concessions are run by an outside vendor, with the
Marcus Center receiving a percentage of sales.
$126,000
$5,000
Playbill / Program Advertising
Revenue
$13,000
Communications / PR
$25,000
Ticket Revenue
$344,000
Other Revenue
$0
Programming: Center Public Productions
Ticket Revenue
$40,000
Other Revenue
$0
Ticket Revenue
$1,504,000
Other Revenue
$78,000
Ticket Revenue
$25,000
Operations
$365,000
Fees)
$580,000
Retail
(Reconciliation)
$1,137,000
$84,000
$1,713,000
$1,098,000
$9,000
$7,161,000
Development
Government Support
Memberships
Foundation Support
Sponsorships
In-Kind Gifts
$2,473,000
$43,000
$6,000
$0
$233,000
$0
$13,000
$2,769,000
$9,930,000
5.63
appendix a
S TAFF
EXPENSES
Administration
2009 $
$661,000
Finance
Interest Expense
Institutional Marketing
Playbill / Program Production
Expense
$205,000
$38,000
$201,000
$14,000
Programming
$162,000
$48,000
Artist Fees
$110,000
Production Costs
$132,000
Center Public Productions
5.64
$27,000
Artist Fees
$50,000
Production Costs
$16,000
Broadway
$369,000
$240,000
Artist Fees
$866,000
Production Costs
$350,000
Department
Full-Time Part-Time
Administration
7
4
Finance
2
0
Development
1
0
Marketing
4
0
0
8
Stagehands
4
133
5
13
0
45
3
5
6
3
Security
4
7
Human Resources
Public Relations
Programming
Education
Theater Operations
Building Operations
Custodial
Retail
0
3
Other
1
13
37
234
TOTALS
$19,000
$8,000
Artist Fees
$3,000
Production Costs
$51,000
Operations
$266,000
Front of House
$139,000
Back of House
$1,297,000
Box Office
may 3, 2011
Occupancy
Retail
$306,000
$3,255,551
Total Organization-Wide PersonnelRelated Tax Expense
$665,205
Total Organization-Wide Benefit
Expense
$375,574
TOTAL WAGES, BENEFITS, AND
TAXES
$4,296,330
$1,731,000
$806,000
$18,000
Development
$66,000
Special Events
$20,000
Total Organization-Wide Salary/
Wages Paid
$8,222,000
225
18,042
The Bushnell
(a.k.a. Bushnell Center for the Performing Arts, Bushnell
Memorial Hall)
H a r t f o r d , Conn e c t i c u t
CE N TER O VERVIE W
Opened
1930
Renovated
2001
Ownership
Operation
501c3 corporation
Governance
Board of Directors (35 members)
Gross Square
Footage
139,000
FACI L ITIE S
Venues
Mortensen Hall
Capacity
Type
Typical Use
Broadway, orchestra, comedy, speakers
Belding Theater
907 Proscenium theater
Orchestra, other concerts, comedy, drama, family
Autorino Great Hall
223 Multi-purpose room
Family, receptions, rentals
Seaverns Room
150 Multi-purpose room
Recitals, receptions, rentals
Bushnell Suite
Meeting room
40 (connects to Great
Hall & Belding)
Meetings, receptions, rentals
Hillyer Suite
Meeting room
25 (connects to
Mortensen)
Meetings, receptions, rentals
5.65
Mortensen Hall is the Bushnell’s venue for Broadway,
orchestra concerts, and major events.
2,799
Proscenium Width
47’
Orchestra
1,052
Proscenium Height
28’
77
Stage Width
95’
Mezzanine
988
Stage Depth
39’
Balcony
652
Grid Height
68’
Pit
Accessible/Companion
30
Obstructed Seats
Not Listed
Orchestra Seating
Configuration
Two-aisle
Loading
4 docks
appendix a
MARKET
Bushnell staff report that the center’s primary trade
area is a 50-mile radius around Hartford, with regular
attendance from those living in upper Fairfield County,
greater New Haven, eastern Connecticut, and Springfield,
Massachusetts.
The Bushnell counts very few overnight visitors as patrons,
apart from a very few from northern New England who
may attend blockbuster musicals in Hartford rather than
Boston or New York. Population
1,315,472
Median
Household
Income
$61,110
CollegeEducated
Adults age
25+
29.6%
Interested in
the Arts
106
Attend Live
Theater
113
Attend Music
or Dance
108
Attend Pop or
Rock
110
H I S T O RY
5.66
The Horace Bushnell Memorial Hall opened in 1930,
and included the art-deco auditorium presently known
as Mortensen Hall, the Seaverns Room, and offices,
within a Georgian Revival exterior. In 2001, a $45 million
renovation project was completed, including a 90,000
square-foot addition housing the Belding Theater, retail,
dining, and other amenities and support spaces. The
2001project also included some “refreshment” work on
the historic Mortensen hall, including seat reupholstering,
paint, and work on the hall’s historic ceiling mural. O P ERATI O N S
may 3, 2011
The Bushnell is owned and operated by the non-profit
Horace Bushnell Memorial Hall Corporation.
The Bushnell’s box office operates through a partnership
with Tickets.com, which licenses its ProVenue ticketing
platform to the Bushnell for walk-up and phone sales,
and through which the Bushnell’s online ticketing takes
place. A fee is collected from customers on each ticket
sold, a portion of which is passed to Tickets.com, and
a portion of which is retained by the Bushnell. The
Bushnell sells single tickets for all of its own events,
and for those of the Hartford Symphony Orchestra at the
venue. The HSO sells its own subscriptions. Bushnell
staff report that they are “looking at other options” with
regard to ticketing.
Amenities for Mortensen Hall audience members include
three large concessions stands on the main floor, one
small bar on the balcony level, and one small bar in
the Seaverns Room on the mezzanine level. Additional
food service is available at a café serving lite fare (some
prepared onsite, some offsite) on the main level adjacent
to the box office, and in a full-service restaurant seating
approximately 40 people located in the Horace Bushnell
Suite open only to annual donors of at least $500. Bushnell staff report that the restaurant can be fullybooked on Friday and Saturday evenings. The Bushnell no longer has a permanent gift shop (the
space was “repurposed” when analysis showed it was
not profitable), but branded items such as mugs, lapel
pins, and Christmas ornaments are sold at the box office
and customer service desk. Merchandise tables for
individual shows are set up in the lobby. The Bushnell
charges $10.50 for each 6-foot table with skirting
and two chairs. The Bushnell also collects a 20%
commission (exclusive of applicable 6% state sales tax)
on all merchandise sales when sellers provide their own
sales staff. When Bushnell staff sell merchandise, the
hall collects a 25% commission. B R O A D W AY
The Bushnell’s Broadway season is fully self-presented;
there is no agreement with Broadway Across America
(BAA) or other presenting organization. The Bushnell is a
member of the Independent Presenters Network, which
invests in Broadway shows but does not block-book or
negotiate collectively. The Bushnell negotiates contracts
for each show individually with producers, with great
variability in terms. A typical deal includes a guarantee,
royalty payments, and profit sharing on the “back end”
after deducting expenses and rent. Some larger shows
(e.g., Disney shows like Lion King) are considered “fourwall” rentals, in which there is no guarantee, producers
pay a flat rental rate, and profit-sharing is minimal. According to data provided by the Bushnell to AMS, the
terms for fiscal year 2009 Broadway deals included the
following.
• The Bushnell paid:
○○
○○
○○
“Show fees” of between $212,000 and over $2
million per show
Guarantees against ticket revenues of between
$190,000 and $375,000 per show
Royalties of 5% or 10% per show (Not every show includes a fee, and four-wall rentals do
not include a guarantee or royalty payments.) • The Bushnell charged:
○○
○○
A fixed fee which covers rent and overhead
expenses, and which varies from $75,000 to
$110,000. In some cases, the Bushnell received a
“presenter profit” of from $15,000 to over
$200,000. “Back end” revenue splits (after the guarantee has been
met and labor and other costs are paid by the production)
ranged from 80%-20% to 60%-40%. In all cases the
splits favored the show’s producers. The Bushnell participates in a consortium of performing
arts centers known as “5 Cent Productions,” which
invests in Broadway shows with the expectation of
priority booking when the shows eventually go on tour. At present, the consortium has invested in Elephant Eye
Productions, currently represented on Broadway by The
Addams Family. Because the consortium is relatively
new, terms for the run at each participating hall have
not yet been negotiated for Addams Family or other
consortium-backed shows.
The Bushnell’s typical Broadway subscription series
includes seven shows, each running one week. Eight
shows per week is the norm. In addition to the sevenshow subscription series, the Bushnell typically offers
one or more blockbuster shows each year on a nonsubscription basis, each running between one and three
weeks. Subscribers receive “first dibs” on tickets to the
non-subscription shows.
Very sporadically (twice in the memory of Bushnell staff),
the Bushnell acts as producer to mount a show sold
under its Broadway banner, usually when there is a hole
in the schedule. (One such production – Greater Tuna –
is reflected in the financial statements accompanying this
case study.) In these instances, the Bushnell licenses
a property, hires actors and other artists, produces or
acquires a physical production, assumes all risk, and
keeps all revenues. 5.67
appendix a
The Bushnell hosts one resident company, the Hartford
Symphony Orchestra, which currently presents most of its
concerts in the Belding Theater, with occasional events in
Mortensen Hall. The HSO formerly presented many of its
concerts in the Mortensen, but switched to the Belding
as a more appropriately-sized venue. Connecticut Opera
was formerly in residence at the Mortensen, but the
company closed in 2009. Hartford Ballet was another
former resident company, but shuttered in 1999. Facility utilization and attendance for fiscal year 2009
are broken down in the following tables. Please note:
Hartford Symphony Orchestra and Connecticut Opera
uses are categorized as “Non-Profit Rentals” rather than
“Resident Companies.”
In addition to Broadway, the HSO, and rentals by nonprofit organizations and commercial promoters, the
center offers a wide variety of other programming in
both the Mortensen and Belding venues, including pop
music, world music, comedy, family/childrens events,
and speakers. Subscriptions are available for the HSO
(sold by the symphony), but the Bushnell does not offer
subscriptions other events. Package deals are available
in which tickets are purchased for two or more shows at
a discount.
may 3, 2011
5.68
Performance Days
Non-Performance
Use Days
Rehearsal Days
Tech Days
Dark Days
92
17
13
73
170
Genre
Presenter
Number
of
Events
Tickets
Sold
Comps
Total
Tickets
Distributed
Total
Attendance
(drop
count)
Total
Available
Seats
(capacity)
Classical
Resident Company
Non-Profit Rental
11
1,113
0
1,113
14,751
30,800
100
173,259
3,561
176,820
166,929
280,000
2
1,190
1,190
3,226
5,600
Commercial Rental
Dance
Resident Company
Non-Profit Rental
Commercial Rental
Broadway
Resident Company
Non-Profit Rental
Commercial Rental
Opera
Resident Company
Non-Profit Rental
Commercial Rental
Theater
Resident Company
5.69
Non-Profit Rental
Commercial Rental
3
5,620
849
6,469
5,998
8,400
5
9,590
864
10,454
9,531
14,000
Resident Company
Education /
Family
Non-Profit Rental
Commercial Rental
Variety
Resident Company
Non-Profit Rental
11
3,409
3,409
16,670
30,800
Commercial Rental
11
14,262
14,262
17,079
30,800
2
3,860
3,860
4,949
5,600
108
188,469
5,274
193,743
182,458
302,400
0
0
0
0
0
0
Film
Resident Company
Non-Profit Rental
Commercial Rental
TOTALS
Resident Company
Non-Profit Rental
24
5,712
0
5,712
34,647
67,200
Commercial Rental
13
18,122
0
18,122
22,028
36,400
145
212,303
5,274
217,577
239,133
406,000
TOTAL - ALL EVENTS
appendix a
B U D GET
Summary fiscal year 2009 financial data for the Bushnell
appears below.
Administration
REVENUES
2009 $
$8,000
$928,000
Other Revenue
$563,000
Ticket Revenue
Broadway: Center Productions
Ticket Revenue
$377,000
Other Revenue
$0
Fees)
$764,000
$0
$427,000
$157,000
Retail
(Reconciliation)
$0
$165,000
$211,000
$14,542,000
Development
Government Support
$182,000
Memberships
$827,000
Foundation Support
$832,000
may 3, 2011
Sponsorships
$0
$800,000
Tax Revenue
$0
In-Kind Gifts
$0
Other Contributed Revenue
Playbill / Program Production
Expense
$675,000
$0
$508,000
$0
Programming
$271,000
$174,000
Artist Fees
$547,000
Production Costs
$767,000
Broadway
$0
Center Broadway Presentations
$0
Operations
$1,608,000
$10,213,000
Other Revenue
Ticket Revenue
Interest Expense
Communications / PR
Ticket Revenue
2009 $
Finance
$730,000
Playbill / Program Advertising
Revenue
5.70
EXPENSES
$274,000
$0
$2,914,000
$17,456,000
$1,208,000
Artist Fees
$5,841,000
Production Costs
$1,515,000
Center Broadway Productions
Artist Fees
Production Costs
$47,000
$21,000
$130,000
$0
Artist Fees
$0
Production Costs
$317,000
Operations
$166,000
Front of House
$201,000
Back of House
$197,000
Box Office
$679,000
Occupancy
Retail
$1,602,000
$33,000
$256,000
Development
Special Events
$667,000
$0
$17,429,000
S TAFF
Department
Full-Time Part-Time
Administration
3
Finance
5
2
Human Resources
2
Development
7
Marketing
4
4
Public Relations
Programming
5
Education
2
Theater Operations
Stagehands
231
5
11
4
33
2
Custodial
Custodial
Security
1
Retail
3
5.71
Other
TOTALS
276
48
700
39,500
may 3, 2011
5.72
appendix a
Durham Performing Arts Center
D u r h a m , N o r t h C a r ol i n a
CE N TER O VERVIE W
Opened
2008
Renovated
n/a
Ownership
City of Durham
Operation
PFM/Nederlander
Governance
Citizen oversight committee of 5
members
Gross Square
Footage
Approximately 110,000
FACI L ITIE S
Seating
Capacity
Type
Typical Use
2,712
Proscenium theater
Broadway, dance, concerts, speakers, comedy
5.73
Durham Performing Arts Center (DPAC) has one venue.
2,712
Proscenium Width
50’
Orchestra
1,391
Proscenium Height
31’
29
Stage Width
114’
Grand Tier
519
Stage Depth
55’
Front Balcony
460
Grid Height
70’
Pit
Rear Balcony
Obstructed Seats
Orchestra Seating Configuration
313
Not Listed
Two-aisle
Loading
2 loading
positions; space
for 3 trucks
appendix a
MARKET
PFM staff indicate that the primary market area for DPAC is an approximately one-hour drive time or 60-mile radius
from the center. This trade area embraces not only
Durham but also Raleigh, Cary, Greensboro, and Chapel
Hill. For the largest “blockbuster” shows, the trade area
can expand. During the development of DPAC, great concern was
voiced that the new center would adversely affect the
1,016-seat city-owned, non-profit managed Carolina
Theatre in downtown Durham. According to PFM officials, the two facilities coexist harmoniously in the
market, thanks to their significant difference in seating
capacities and consequent differences in programming. Population
1,566,263
Median
Household
Income
$54,765
CollegeEducated
Adults age
25+
Interested in
the Arts
36.76%
100
Attend Live
Theater
98
Attend Music
or Dance
101
Attend Pop or
Rock
106
5.74
H I S T O RY
DPAC opened in November 2008. AMS Planning & research corp.
may 3, 2011
The center was built and is owned by the City of Durham,
and operated by the venue management firm PFM (Professional Facilities Management), in partnership with
the Nederlander organization. PFM operates numerous
other regional performing arts centers, including facilities
in Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Illinois,
Florida, Maryland, and Colorado. In the case of Durham, the management company bears
all operating costs (e.g., payroll, show costs, utilities,
insurance) and regular maintenance, and the City pays
for capital improvements and major maintenance (e.g.,
roof replacement). The management company pays
itself a fee of $125,000 per year plus annual increases
and a fee for services performed at PFM’s head office
(e.g., programming, human resources), and may retain
60 percent of any profits the center produces. The
remaining 40 percent is paid to the City. The City is not
liable for any operating losses the center may incur. In
addition, the management company collects fees on
each ticket sold, 50 percent of which is paid directly
to the City, and 50 percent of which is revenue for the
center. A multiplicity of other funding arrangements
between City and operator were made during the center’s
development, including development funds of $75,000
paid by the operator to the City, in exchange for the first
$100,000 of the City’s profit sharing. The operating
agreement between the City and PFM/Nederlander runs
for five years, with an operator option to renew for an
additional five years. The center licenses a Ticketmaster platform for use in
its box office, and uses Ticketmaster’s online system. Phone customers may call either the center’s box office
or a Ticketmaster hotline, but management endeavors to
steer ticket buyers to the center’s box office in order to
provide better customer service.
DPAC was designed, according to PFM staff, with a large
lobby to facilitate pre-show and intermission concessions
purchases. In total, 14 points of purchase await patrons,
but the number open for any given event varies based
on attendance. There are no sit-down dining facilities
in DPAC. A VIP lounge is available for use by premium
seating patrons. Concessions services have been
outsourced to Centerplate, a company which provides
concessions at three other venues in the Raleigh/
Durham market, as well as around the U.S. DPAC does not have any permanent retail space; PFM staff state that “gift shops don’t make money,” due to a
lack of sufficient customer volume. As at many centers,
some touring events set up tables in the center’s lobby
to sell event merchandise. The center’s commission on
event merchandise sales varies by event, ranging from
10 to 30 percent.
DPAC offers extensive “VIP Seating” options. Patrons
can either join the “President’s Club” VIP program, or
lease one of several “Grand Suites.” The President’s Club is available at four levels of price
and amenities, ranging from $164 to $333 per ticket. Two or four 6-or 7-show season tickets are included,
depending on the package level, and every package
includes 20 percent off matinee prices. Seating for all
packages is located in the first ten rows of the center
orchestra section, or the first row of the “Grand Tier”
(first balcony level). All packages include VIP parking,
pre-show VIP lounge access and complimentary drink
tickets, first option to purchase tickets for non-Broadway
events, and a personal ticket concierge service. Higherlevel packages include ads in the Broadway program,
facility rental access, ticket-purchase access for other
PFM/Nederlander venues, invitations to cast parties and
other events, souvenir programs and posters, dinners
at local restaurants, and additional complimentary
Broadway tickets. Leasing a Grand Suite at DPAC brings the following
benefits: four or six seats for every event, VIP parking, wait
staff service for non-Broadway events, an advertisement
in the Broadway program, use of the venue for private
events, VIP lounge access, ticket-purchase access for
other PFM/Nederlander venues, invitations to cast
parties and other events, and souvenir programs and
posters. Grand Suites costs were not available as of this
writing.
B R O A D W AY
Touring Broadway at DPAC is booked centrally by PFM working in concert with the Nederlander organization,
which owns dozens of theatres around the world as
well as presenting touring Broadway in several markets. The buying power of Nederlander helps the venue “gain
access to product,” as PFM staff report.
Details on the Broadway presenting model were not
made available to AMS due to contractual obligations on
the part of PFM/Nederlander. Ticket revenue “splits,”
royalties, and other factors are described as “all over the
map,” with the deal for each show negotiated individually. The Broadway season at DPAC is advertised under the
banner of sponsor SunTrust Bank, as the “SunTrust
Broadway Series.” The season runs from fall (November
in 2010) to spring (May in 2011). The 2010-2011 season
includes seven Broadway productions running for a total
of 11 weeks. Five shows will run for one week each,
one for two weeks, and one for four weeks. PFM staff
report that this is a particularly “heavy” season; a typical
Broadway series might consist of eight to nine weeks,
usually six or seven shows, one of which is a multi-week
(usually two weeks) “blockbuster.” PFM staff stress that
given the center’s youth, the programming mix is still
evolving. N O N - B R O A D W AY P R O GRAMMI N G
In addition to Broadway, DPAC presents a variety of other
events. In the 2009-2010 season, non-Broadway DPAC programming amounted to around 50 events. Events
have included pop music (Tori Amos, Kenny Rogers, the
Moody Blues), comedians (Jamie Foxx, Lewis Black),
speakers (Anthony Bourdain), and variety events (David
Copperfield, A Prairie Home Companion). Center management describe DPAC as a for-profit
enterprise, and thus the center does not typically book
symphony, opera, or ballet events without sponsorship
or other subsidy. DPAC does not currently host any “resident” companies,
although a relationship with the American Dance
5.75
appendix a
Festival (ADF) is memorialized in the center’s operating
agreement. Previously housed at Duke University (a
contributor to the DPAC project), ADF is guaranteed
seven weeks at DPAC each year, for a rental amount of
$35,000.
DPAC is available for rental use by commercial and nonprofit entities, and management believes that rentals will
eventually account for 10 percent of the center’s usedays. As the owner of the center, the City of Durham is
guaranteed ten rental days per year, which are allocated
after DPAC’s programming is set, before other rental
users. Detailed facility utilization and attendance were not
available as of this writing.
B U D GET
Due to contractual obligations, PFM was unable to
provide detailed financial information for the most recent
fully-complete DPAC season.
Audited financial results for the abbreviated, opening
2008-2009 season (which began in November and
ended in June) are depicted in the table below.
REVENUE
Ticket Sales
$6,492,532
Service Charges
$529,075
Sponsorships
$237,340
Concessions
$219,548
Facility Fees1
$149,686
President's Club2
$135,351
Building Rental
$114,155
Rental Events
$39,132
Novelties
$32,503
Program Books
$10,338
Receptions
$875
Interest
$14,095
Total
5.76
$7,974,630
EXPENSE
Stage Show Costs
$5,682,866
General & Admin.
$1,287,499
Management Fee
3
Total
Profit / (Loss)
1
2
3
$401,706
$7,372,071
$602,559
Collected on all ticket sales.
VIP seating.
Paid to City as profit share (40% of profits).
S TAFF
may 3, 2011
A detailed staff breakdown was unavailable as of this
writing.
Appendix B
B r o a dw a y P r od u c t i n N e a r b y
To u r i n g M a r k e t s
As indicated below, other cities benefit from significant
touring product that does not currently play in Salt Lake
City. Following is the list of titles from the 2004-2005
through the 2008-2009 seasons in four markets:
S a l t L a k e C i t y
Phoenix
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
All of the above, plus:
• Jersey Boys
• Cats
• 700 Sundays
• Dora’s Pirate Adventure
• All Shook Up
• Chita Rivera: The Dancer’s Lie
• Doubt
• Evita
• Frost/Nixon
• Golda’s Balcony
• Happy Days • Legends
• Les Miserables
• Little Shop Of Horrors
• Matthew Bourne’s
• Swan Lake
• My Fair Lady
• Oliver!
• The Graduate
• The Wedding Singer
Ain’t Misbehavin’
Chitty Chitty Bang Bang
Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
Hairspray
High School Musical
Jesus Christ Superstar
Joseph And The Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat
Mamma Mia!
Menopause The Musical
Monty Python’s Spamalot
Movin’ Out
On Golden Pond
Peter Pan
The Phantom Of The Opera
The Producers
The Rat Pack
Riverdance
Stomp
Sweet Charity
The Drowsy Chaperone
Thoroughly Modern Millie
Wicked
Portland
• The Lion King
• A Chorus Line 08
• Altar Boyz
• Annie
• Avenue Q
• Camelot
• Chicago
• Grease
• Little Women
• Rent
• Spring Awakening
• Sweeney Todd
• The 25th Annual Putnam County
• Spelling Bee
• The Color Purple
• The Light In The Piazza
• Twelve Angry Men
Denver
• Big River
• Bombay Dreams
• Burn The Floor
• Cirque Dreams: Jungle Fantasy
• Dame Edna: Back With A Vengean
• Doctor Dolittle
• Edward Scissorhands
• Irving Berlin’s White Christmas
• On The Record
• Say Goodnight, Gracie
• The Boyfriend
5.77
may 3, 2011
5.78
appendix B
Appendix C
Demographic Summary Report
Analysis Geography 1:
Comparison Geography:
Salt Lake City Primary Market
Salt Lake City, UT CBSA
Salt Lake City Total Market
9/7/2010
AMS Planning & Research Corp.
Key Demographic Indicators
Primary
Market
1,035,579
CBSA
1,128,474
Total Market
2,049,899
159,307
15.4%
324,819
31.4%
141,739
13.7%
178,689
15.8%
356,364
31.6%
143,207
12.7%
327,000
16.0%
603,944
29.5%
246,632
12.0%
347,599
370,181
644,655
Median Household Income*
107,632
31.0%
$67,895
116,731
31.5%
$68,325
207,187
32.1%
$67,385
*half above, half below
Average Household Income (mean)
% 2004 Households Below Poverty
$85,207
5.7%
$84,190
5.5%
$82,208
5.7%
Educational Attainment
% Adults (25+) with Bachelors Degree or Higher
29.0%
27.4%
27.8%
Race/Ethnicity
% Population Hispanic (independent of race)
% Population Black/African American
% Population Asian/Pacific Islander
16.0%
1.4%
4.2%
15.7%
1.4%
4.0%
13.4%
1.2%
3.1%
Marital Status & Children
% Single
% Married
% Previously Married
28.1%
58.5%
13.4%
27.5%
59.7%
12.8%
27.6%
60.9%
11.5%
148,407
42.7%
165,360
44.7%
302,605
46.9%
Age Analysis:
# of Children, Ages 5-14
% Children, Ages 5-14
# of Adults, Ages 35-59
% Adults, Ages 35-59
# of Adults, Ages 60+
% Adults, Ages 60+
2009 Estimated Households
Income Analysis:
# of Households with Income > $75,000
% Households with Income > $75,000
# of Households with Children
% Households with Children
Travel Time to Work, 2009 Pop. 16+ Yrs.
% Less than 15 minutes/Work At Home
27.3%
25.3%
% 60+ Mins. Travel to Work
3.6%
4.5%
Average Commute Time (in minutes)
24.4
25.8
Data reflect resident population only. Transient populations (e.g., seasonal residents, students)
are not included. Data source: Claritas, U.S. Census, and updates.
30.8%
4.9%
24.8
5.79
appendix C
Population and Growth
Primary
Market
CBSA
Total Market
1,100,953
1,035,579
943,383
790,284
6.3%
1,226,825
1,128,474
968,858
768,075
8.7%
2,267,048
2,049,899
1,690,254
1,321,191
10.6%
HOUSEHOLDS
2014 Projection
2009 Estimate
2000 Census
1990 Census
Growth 1990 - 2000
371,831
347,599
312,580
260,470
20.0%
402,395
370,181
318,150
254,532
25.0%
712,772
644,655
532,228
415,607
28.1%
POPULATION GROWTH
Change In Population, 1990 - 2000, Est.
Change In Population, 2000 - 2009, Est.
Change In Population, 2009 - 2014, Proj.
Cumulative Change In Pop., 1990 - 2014
153,099
92,196
65,374
310,669
200,783
159,616
98,351
458,750
369,063
359,645
217,149
945,857
POPULATION
2014 Projection
2009 Estimate
2000 Census
1990 Census
Growth 2009 - 2014
5.80
9/7/2010
COMPARATIVE POPULATION GROWTH, 1990 - 2014
Primary Market
30%
26.1%
CBSA
Total Market
27.9%
% GROWTH
(PERIODS DIFFER)
25%
20%
21.3%
19.4%
16.5%
15%
10.6%
9.8%
10%
6.3%
8.7%
may 3, 2011
5%
0%
1990 - 2000 (Census)
2000 - 2009 (Est.)
2009 - 2014 (Proj.)
9/7/2010
Age
2009 EST. POPULATION BY AGE
Age 0 - 4
Age 5 - 9
Age 10 - 14
Age 15 - 17
Age 18 - 20
Age 21 - 24
Age 25 - 34
Age 35 - 44
Age 45 - 49
Age 50 - 54
Age 55 - 59
Age 60 - 64
Age 65 - 74
Age 75 - 84
Age 85 and over
Median Age
Average Age
Primary
Market
1,035,579
8.8%
8.0%
7.4%
4.3%
4.3%
6.3%
16.0%
13.3%
6.4%
6.2%
5.4%
4.2%
5.2%
3.0%
1.2%
CBSA
1,128,474
9.1%
8.2%
7.6%
4.4%
4.3%
6.1%
16.0%
13.6%
6.5%
6.2%
5.3%
4.0%
4.9%
2.7%
1.1%
Total Market
2,049,899
9.6%
8.2%
7.7%
4.6%
5.0%
7.4%
15.9%
12.9%
6.0%
5.7%
4.8%
3.7%
4.6%
2.6%
1.1%
31.91
33.99
31.43
33.36
29.63
32.35
% OF EST. 2009 TOTAL POPULATION,
CHILDREN BY AGE GROUP
35%
% OF TOTAL POP.
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
4.3%
4.4%
4.6%
7.4%
7.6%
7.7%
8.0%
8.2%
8.2%
8.8%
9.1%
9.6%
Primary Market
CBSA
Total Market
0%
Age 15 - 17
Age 10 - 14
Age 5 - 9
Age 0 - 4
5.81
appendix C
9/7/2010
Age
GENERATION X (24-44) BY AGE GROUP
45%
% OF TOTAL POP.
40%
35%
30%
13.3%
12.9%
13.6%
Age 35 - 44
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
15.9%
16.0%
16.0%
6.3%
6.1%
7.4%
4.3%
4.3%
5.0%
Primary Market
CBSA
Total Market
Age 25 - 34
Age 21 - 24
Age 18 - 20
5.82
ADULTS 35+
35%
30%
% OF TOTAL POP.
25%
3.0%
1.1%
2.7%
5.2%
4.9%
20%
4.2%
4.0%
15%
5.4%
5.3%
10%
may 3, 2011
1.2%
1.1%
2.6%
4.6%
Age 85 And Over
3.7%
Age 65 - 74
4.8%
Age 55 - 59
6.2%
6.2%
6.4%
6.5%
6.0%
Primary Market
CBSA
Total Market
5.7%
5%
0%
Age 75 - 84
Age 60 - 64
Age 50 - 54
Age 45 - 49
9/7/2010
Educational Attainment
Primary
Market
632,521
3.4%
9.2%
22.9%
28.0%
7.5%
19.5%
6.1%
2.2%
1.2%
2009 EST. POPULATION (25+) BY EDUCATION LEVEL
Less than 9th grade
Some High School, no diploma
High School Graduate (or GED)
Some College, no degree
Associates Degree
Bachelors Degree
Masters Degree
Professional School Degree
Doctorate Degree
CBSA
680,519
3.3%
9.2%
24.2%
28.2%
7.7%
18.6%
5.7%
2.0%
1.1%
Total Market
1,175,579
3.0%
8.3%
23.5%
29.4%
8.1%
19.2%
5.6%
1.8%
1.1%
% 2009 EST. ADULTS (25+) BY EDUCATION LEVEL
Doctorate Degree
5.83
Primary Market
CBSA
Professional School Degree
Total Market
Masters Degree
Bachelors Degree
Associates Degree
Some College, No Degree
High School Graduate (Or
Ged)
Less Than High School (0-11)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
% OF ADULTS (25+)
25%
30%
35%
appendix C
9/7/2010
Income
Primary
Market
347,599
8.0%
8.5%
10.3%
16.3%
21.9%
13.7%
13.7%
5.3%
1.6%
0.7%
2009 EST. HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME
Less than $15,000
$15,000 - $24,999
$25,000 - $34,999
$35,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $74,999
$75,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000 - $249,999
$250,000 - $499,999
$500,000 and more
2009 Est. Average HH Income
2009 Est. Median HH Income
2009 Est. Income Per Capita
$74,623
$57,938
$25,262
CBSA
370,181
7.7%
8.2%
9.8%
15.9%
22.8%
14.3%
14.0%
5.1%
1.5%
0.7%
$74,530
$59,205
$24,658
Total Market
644,655
7.5%
8.1%
9.9%
16.1%
22.9%
14.5%
14.0%
5.0%
1.4%
0.6%
$73,777
$59,232
$23,394
5.84
EST. 2009 HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Primary Market: Median = $57,940
CBSA: Median = $59,210
Total Market: Median = $59,230
25%
% of HOUSEHOLDS
20%
15%
10%
may 3, 2011
5%
0%
Less than
$15,000
$15,000 $24,999
$25,000 $34,999
$35,000 $49,999
$50,000 $74,999
$75,000 $99,999
$100,000 $149,999
$150,000+
9/7/2010
Race
2009 ESTIMATED POPULATION
White
Black
Asian & Pacific Islander
Other Races
Hispanic Origin (Independent Of Race)
Primary
Market
1,035,579
82.9%
1.4%
4.2%
11.4%
16.0%
CBSA
1,128,474
83.2%
1.4%
4.0%
11.4%
15.7%
Total Market
2,049,899
85.8%
1.2%
3.1%
9.9%
13.4%
165,752
45.9%
0.9%
53.2%
177,575
44.9%
0.9%
54.2%
274,528
44.5%
0.8%
54.7%
1,035,579
84.0%
165,752
67.7%
2.0%
0.5%
29.8%
1,128,474
84.3%
177,575
67.2%
2.1%
0.5%
30.2%
2,049,899
86.6%
274,528
66.3%
2.1%
0.5%
31.0%
2009 HISPANICS BY RACE
White Alone
Black
Other
2009 EST. POP. BY HISPANIC OR LATINO BY ORIGIN
Not Of Hispanic Origin
HISPANIC OR LATINO:
Mexican
Puerto Rican
Cuban
Other Hispanic
EST. 2009 RACE/ETHNICITY
White
Black
Primary Market
CBSA
Total Market
Asian/Pac. Isl.
Other
Hispanic*
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
% OF POPULATION
*Independent of Race
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
5.85
appendix C
9/7/2010
Marital Status & Household Composition
MARITAL STATUS PERSONS 15+
Single Male
Single Female
Married
Previously Married Male
Previously Married Female
Primary
Market
785,543
15.8%
12.3%
54.6%
5.0%
8.3%
CBSA
846,792
15.4%
12.0%
55.9%
4.9%
7.9%
Total Market
1,525,145
15.2%
12.4%
57.3%
4.3%
7.2%
HOUSEHOLDS WITH CHILDREN UNDER 18 (2009)
Total Households
% Households with Children
% Married Couple Family
347,599
148,407
42.7%
57.8%
370,181
165,161
44.6%
59.3%
644,655
301,514
46.8%
63.0%
347,599
33.0%
2.4%
6.8%
0.3%
0.1%
370,181
35.1%
2.5%
6.6%
0.3%
0.1%
644,655
37.9%
2.3%
6.4%
0.3%
0.1%
24.8%
1.6%
3.1%
13.5%
14.3%
24.2%
1.6%
2.9%
13.2%
13.4%
25.1%
1.5%
2.8%
11.4%
12.3%
HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE
with 1 or more People Age 18 or under:
Married Couple
Other Family-Male Head
Other Family-Female Head
Nonfamily-Male Head
Nonfamily-Female Head
with no People Age 18 or under:
Married Couple
Other Family-Male Head
Other Family-Female Head
Nonfamily-Male Head
Nonfamily-Female Head
5.86
HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION ANALYSIS
Primary Market
CBSA
Total Market
70%
% OF TOTAL
may 3, 2011
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Single Male
Single Female
Married Couple
Other Family-Male
Head
Other FamilyFemale Head
Family Households
9/7/2010
Property Values & Housing Stock
Primary
Market
242,638
0.59%
0.89%
0.92%
0.83%
1.06%
8.68%
23.16%
37.45%
11.84%
5.48%
9.11%
CBSA
264,840
0.66%
0.79%
0.83%
0.79%
1.06%
8.65%
22.23%
37.36%
12.67%
5.98%
8.99%
Total Market
469,569
0.70%
1.02%
0.97%
1.00%
1.54%
11.95%
23.36%
35.12%
11.81%
5.20%
7.34%
$237,059
$240,133
$226,959
1 Unit Attached
1 Unit Detached
2 Units
3 to 19 Units
20 to 49 Units
50 or More Units
Mobile Home Or Trailer
Boat, RV, Van, etc.
369,520
5.1%
64.8%
4.1%
14.5%
4.0%
4.5%
3.0%
0.1%
401,116
5.0%
66.9%
3.7%
13.2%
3.7%
4.3%
3.0%
0.1%
692,572
5.0%
68.9%
3.7%
12.5%
3.1%
3.3%
3.3%
0.1%
SINGLE/MULTIPLE UNIT RATIO
2.58
2.88
3.26
HOUSING UNITS BY YEAR BUILT
Built 1999 to present
Built 1995 to 1998
Built 1990 to 1994
Built 1980 to 1989
Built 1970 to 1979
Built 1960 to 1969
Built 1950 to 1959
Built 1940 to 1949
Built 1939 Or Earlier
369,520
15.3%
8.3%
6.1%
14.4%
21.0%
10.9%
10.3%
5.1%
8.6%
401,116
19.8%
9.5%
6.2%
13.9%
19.0%
9.5%
9.0%
4.7%
8.3%
692,572
23.4%
9.9%
6.6%
13.0%
17.9%
9.2%
8.5%
4.5%
7.0%
2009 EST. TENURE OF OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS
Owner Occupied
Renter Occupied
347,599
69.8%
30.2%
370,181
71.5%
28.5%
644,655
72.8%
27.2%
OWNER OCCUPIED PROPERTY VALUES
Less than $20,000
$20,000 - $39,999
$40,000 - $59,999
$60,000 - $79,999
$80,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000 - $199,999
$200,000 - $299,999
$300,000 - $399,999
$400,000 - $499,999
$500,000 +
2009 MEDIAN PROPERTY VALUE
YEAR ROUND UNITS IN STRUCTURE
5.87
appendix C
9/7/2010
No. of Vehicles & Travel Time To Work
2009 EST. HOUSEHOLDS BY NO. OF VEHICLES
No Vehicles
1 Vehicle
2 Vehicles
3 Vehicles
4 Vehicles
5 or More Vehicles
Primary
Market
347,599
5.9%
28.8%
41.6%
15.9%
5.4%
2.4%
CBSA
370,181
5.6%
27.6%
42.3%
16.3%
5.6%
2.5%
Total Market
644,655
4.9%
25.8%
42.8%
17.5%
6.2%
2.9%
2009 EST. POPULATION 16+ BY TRAVEL TIME TO WORK
Less Than 15 Minutes
15 to 29 Minutes
30 to 44 Minutes
45 to 59 Minutes
60 or More Minutes
493,761
27.3%
44.7%
19.9%
4.4%
3.6%
538,055
25.3%
42.9%
21.5%
5.7%
4.5%
953,513
30.8%
40.6%
18.1%
5.6%
4.9%
24.4
25.8
24.8
514,868
76.8%
12.8%
3.4%
1.9%
0.1%
0.4%
0.6%
4.1%
561,478
76.4%
13.4%
3.1%
1.9%
0.1%
0.4%
0.6%
4.2%
996,232
76.4%
13.6%
2.4%
2.2%
0.1%
0.4%
0.5%
4.3%
EST. AVERAGE TRAVEL TIME IN MINUTES
5.88
2009 EST. POPULATION 16+ BY TRANSPORTATION TO WORK
Drove Alone
Car Pooled
Public Transportation
Walked
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Other Means
Worked at Home
2009 ESTIMATED POPULATION (16+) BY DRIVE TIME TO WORK
Less Than 15 Minutes
30 To 44 Minutes
31%
Total Market
0%
10%
18%
43%
27%
Primary Market
45 To 59 Minutes
41%
25%
CBSA
may 3, 2011
15 To 29 Minutes
22%
45%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60+ Minutes
6%
6% 5%
20%
60%
% OF ADULT POP.
70%
80%
5%
4% 4%
90%
100%
9/7/2010
Occupation
Primary
Market
522,228
14.3%
19.8%
12.7%
31.2%
0.1%
9.3%
12.6%
2009 EST. POPULATION 16+ BY OCCUPATION
Executive and Managerial
Professional and Related Services
Service
Sales and Office
Farming / Fishing / Forestry
Construction / Extraction / Maintenance
Transportation and Material Moving
CBSA
569,457
14.1%
18.7%
13.0%
31.0%
0.1%
10.1%
12.9%
Total Market
1,006,457
14.0%
19.9%
13.0%
29.9%
0.2%
10.3%
12.7%
2009 % POPULATION 16+ BY OCCUPATION
Total Market
CBSA
Primary Market
5.89
Management, Business and
Financial Operations
Professional and Related
Services
Service
Sales and Office
Farming, Fishing and Forestry
Construction, Extraction and
Maintenance
Production, Transportation and
Material Moving
0%
5%
10%
15%
% 2009 POP. 16+
20%
25%
30%
35%
appendix C
summary of key demographics
Variable
Salt Lake City
Total Market
1,128,474
2,049,899
943,383
968,858
1,690,254
31.9
3 1.4
29.6
% Generation Y (9-23 yrs)
22.2%
22.4%
24.8%
% Generation X (24-44 yrs)
29.4%
29.7%
28.8%
% Baby Boomers (45-65 yrs)
22.2%
22.0%
20.3%
Median Age
% Mature (65+ yrs)
9.5%
8.7%
8.3%
$57,938
$59,205
$59,232
% over $75,000
31.0%
31.5%
32.1%
% with College Degree
29.0%
27.4%
27.8%
42.7%
44.6%
46.8%
1.4%
1.4%
1.2%
Median Household Income
% Black
% Asian
% Hispanic (all races)
may 3, 2011
Salt Lake City, UT
CBSA
1,035,579
2000 Population
5.90
Salt Lake City
Primary Market
4.2%
4.0%
3.1%
16.0%
15.7%
13.4%
Economic Impact Analysis Contents
Utah Performing Arts Center Economic Impact
Summary��4.05
I.
Introduction and Executive Summary��4.06
Introduction��4.07
Executive Summary of Findings and Conclusions��4.07
Summary of Quantitative Economic Impacts to
Salt Lake County��4.07
Key Findings from Literature Review and
Case Studies��4.10
II. Literature Review and Case Studies of
Similar Cultural Facilities in Urban Settings��4.15
Literature Review��4.15
Property Value Enhancements��4.15
Induced Private Investment��4.15
Economic Development Efforts��4.15
Revitalization of Downtown��4.16
Cultural and Social Benefits��4.16
Case Study 1: Overture Center, Madison WI��4.17
Conclusions from Case Study 1: Madison��4.19
Case Study 2: Omaha Performing Arts (OPA),
Omaha, NE��4.20
Index of Tables/Figures
Table 1: Summary of Economic Impacts for Utah
Performing Arts Center and Office Tower
(refers to total impacts, including multiplier
effect).............................................................4.09
Table 2: Overture Center Performance Spaces......... 4.17
Table 3: Overture Center Attendance, 2008-2010....4.18
Table 4: Omaha Performing Arts Attendance, 20082009...............................................................4.21
Table 5: Pittsburgh Cultural District Arts Venues.......4.23
Table 6: Distribution of Wicked Ticket Sales..............4.26
Table 7: Change in Final Demand in Salt Lake
County due to Project Construction..............4.31
Table 8: One-Time Economic Impacts of
Construction...................................................4.32
Table 9: Estimated Net New and Backfilled
Attendance.....................................................4.35
Table 11: Theater Visitor Spending...............................4.36
Production Person Days................................4.37
Table 13: Summary of Ongoing Theater Economic
Impacts...........................................................4.37
Conclusions from Case Study 2: Omaha��4.22
Table 14: Summary of All Economic Impacts on
Salt Lake County............................................4.38
Case Study 3: Pittsburgh Cultural District,
Pittsburgh, PA��4.23
Figure 1: Map of Downtown Madison..........................4.18
Conclusions from Case Study 3: Pittsburgh��4.25
Case Study 4: Durham Performing Arts Center,
Durham, NC��4.26
Conclusions from Case Study 4: Durham��4.28
III. Economic Impacts��4.29
Impact Methodology: The Concept of the Multiplier��4.29
Framework for Analysis��4.30
One-Time Impacts of Constructing the Project��4.31
Theater��4.31
Office Building��4.32
Ongoing Economic Impacts of Project Operations��4.33
Assumptions for Theater Operations��4.33
Assumptions for Induced Visitation as a result of
Theater Operations��4.34
Office Tower Operations��4.37
Summary of Economic Impacts�� 4.38
Summary of Fiscal Revenue Impacts�� 4.38
Figure 2: Map of Downtown Omaha.............................4.50
Figure 3: Map of the Pittsburgh Cultural Trust............4.24
6.01
G e n e r a l & L i m i t i n g Cond i t i ons
General Limiting Conditions
Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that
the data contained in this report are accurate as of the
date of this study; however, factors exist that are outside
the control of AECOM and that may affect the estimates
and/or projections noted herein. This study is based on
estimates, assumptions and other information developed
by AECOM from its independent research effort, general
knowledge of the industry, and information provided
by and consultations with the client and the client’s
representatives. No responsibility is assumed for
inaccuracies in reporting by the client, the client’s agent
and representatives, or any other data source used in
preparing or presenting this study.
This report is based on information that was current as
of December 2010 and AECOM has not undertaken any
update of its research effort since such date.
Because future events and circumstances, many of
which are not known as of the date of this study, may
affect the estimates contained therein, no warranty
or representation is made by AECOM that any of the
projected values or results contained in this study will
actually be achieved.
Possession of this study does not carry with it the right
of publication thereof or to use the name of “AECOM”
or “Economics Research Associates” in any manner
without first obtaining the prior written consent of
AECOM. No abstracting, excerpting or summarization
of this study may be made without first obtaining the
prior written consent of AECOM. Further, AECOM has
served solely in the capacity of consultant and has not
rendered any expert opinions. This report is not to be
used in conjunction with any public or private offering of
securities, debt, equity, or other similar purpose where
it may be relied upon to any degree by any person other
than the client, nor is any third party entitled to rely
upon this report, without first obtaining the prior written
consent of AECOM. This study may not be used for
purposes other than that for which it is prepared or for
which prior written consent has first been obtained from
AECOM. Any changes made to the study, or any use of
the study not specifically prescribed under agreement
between the parties or otherwise expressly approved by
AECOM, shall be at the sole risk of the party making such
changes or adopting such use.
This study is qualified in its entirety by, and should be
considered in light of, these limitations, conditions and
considerations.
6.03
Economic Impact Summary
Quantitative economic impact calculations from the
perspective of Salt Lake County include:
Harder to quantify mechanisms through which the City,
County and State will benefit from the project include:
• $9.4 million per year in total economic output
expansion on an ongoing basis as a result of the
new theater.
• There will certainly be significant visitor-attracting
synergies with other major developments downtown
including City Creek Center and The Gateway.
• $5.4 million per year in additional economic output
due to the office tower, for a total project economic
impact of $14.8 million annually.
• The investment of almost $200 million in private and
public money into the project will attract additional
private investment downtown.
• 168 permanent jobs created.
• Increased attractiveness of downtown will increase
property values, benefiting both private businesses
and local governments.
• Over 4,000 jobs created during construction, with
a one-time expansion of the economy of almost half
a billion dollars.
• Over $1,000,000 in annual incremental property
tax revenue will be generated by the office
component of the project, the majority of which will
flow to the schools (approximately 50%), and to the
City and County (approximately 22% each).
• The addition of a state-of-the-art cultural
performance facility will add to quality of life for Utah
residents and advance the branding and economic
development efforts of all levels of government,
from the City (“It’s The Place”) to the State (“Life
Elevated”).
6.05
I. Introduction and Executive
Summary
This section provides an introduction to AECOM’s report
and also summarizes key findings and conclusions. In t r od u c t i on
For many years, the City and County of Salt Lake have
been actively planning for the future of cultural facilities
in downtown Salt Lake. Downtown Rising is a vision
for downtown Salt Lake City that incorporates several
major projects, including the proposed 2,500-seat
theater, known as the Utah Performing Arts Center
(UPAC), which would be constructed on the site of the
old Newspaper Agency Corporation building on Block
70. In addition to providing a state-of-the-art venue
option for the growth of resident companies, the UPAC is anticipated to accommodate an expanded offering of
touring Broadway shows and other major productions to
the Utah community. The project on Block 70 would also
include a new private office building of approximately
450,000 square feet.
The Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency retained the
Economics Practice at AECOM to conduct an economic
impact study of the proposed UPAC and office tower
development on Block 70. The Economics Practice at
AECOM was formed by the purchase of the consulting
firm Economics Research Associates (ERA) by AECOM Technical Services, Inc. in 2007. AECOM’s charge has been to document both quantitative
and qualitative impacts of the project. This dual charge
recognizes that quantitative accounting of the net new
money flowing into the City and County directly associated
with the project is likely to undervalue the importance
of the project to the City, County, and State, even after
considering multiplier effects within the County’s
economy. Major investments in new cultural facilities
have been observed in other metropolitan areas to have
beneficial revitalization effects far beyond direct project
financial accounting, and a major goal of this study was
to capture evidence of these as well.
E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y o f F i nd i n g s a nd Con c l u s i ons
In terms of quantitative impacts, there will of course be
a dramatic expansion of economic activity during the
construction of the project. Thousands of jobs will be
created and construction-derived money will recirculate
throughout the City, County and State. Beyond the
approximately two-year construction period of the project,
there will be a sustained expansion of the economy
year after year, and many jobs associated with it. Using
multiplier analysis, the quantitative economic impacts
are best measured at the County level, as multipliers
cannot be calculated at the City level. As the area of
analysis gets larger, from City to County and then to the
State level, more and more of the sustained recirculation
of spending is captured. When looking at the benefits that are harder to quantify,
on the other hand, as the area of focus gets increasingly
tighter the benefits get more dramatic. At the City level,
much of the activity drawn into town is new to Salt Lake
City. And at the neighborhood level, a state-of-the-art new
cultural facility with year-round programming can have a
dramatic economic benefit to downtown revitalization
efforts. Notably, because Salt Lake City is the capital
of the State and the center of its regional economy,
enhancing the downtown also enhances the “brand” for
the entire State, and advances economic development
efforts; and thus, there are also significant benefits from
downtown revitalization at both the County and State
levels, even though these defy precise quantification.
S u m m a r y o f Q u a n t i t a t i v e E c o n o m i c
I m p a c t s t o S a l t L a k e C o u n t y
Economic impacts will be generated on an ongoing basis
from both the operations of the new Utah Performing
Arts Center, as well as from a new office tower downtown. There will also be significant economic impacts on a onetime basis as the buildings are constructed. Overview Economic Impact Methodology
In the field of regional economic analysis, industries
and the employment within them may be separated
conceptually into two types: those that form the base
to the local economy, and those that serve the residents
who live in the local area. Industries that are part of the
6.07
economic impact analysis
the economics practice of aecom
may 3, 2011
6.08
base to the economy have the power to create wealth
by drawing new money into the area, while industries
serving residents circulate money that is already in the
local economy.
The operations of the UPAC will be partially a residentserving business, enhancing entertainment, culture,
and quality of life for Salt Lake County residents and
recirculating their money within the local economy. But
the UPAC will also be partially a basic business in that
it draws revenues from outside the County and State
(e.g., as additional touring performing groups find dates
available within expanded Salt Lake venue offerings),
and as it makes expenditures within the County for goods
and services necessary to operate the theater. A performing arts theater also functions partially as a
business in the tourism industry (a basic industry) to
the extent that it draws patrons from other counties and
surrounding states that come to Salt Lake because of the
expanded cultural programming and spend money. The
initial spending from visitors has a multiplied effect on
expanding the local economy. For example, $100 spent
by a family from southern Idaho on a Salt Lake City hotel
room and $50 spent on a restaurant meal to extend
their shopping trip to City Creek Center in order to see
a show has a “direct impact” on the Salt Lake County
economy in that it is new money which would not have
been there without the additional performances; and
the family’s purchase of the meal, the room, and tickets
to the show supports jobs and spending by the theater,
hotel and restaurant, which expenditures generate local
tax revenue. But the impact of this new money does not
stop with the direct effect. There is an “indirect effect”
as the suppliers to the venue and businesses also
experience increased revenue, add staff to provide goods
and services, and pay additional taxes. Furthermore,
the employees in the businesses feeling the direct and
indirect expansion caused by new money flowing into
Salt Lake County have more money in their pockets as a
consequence, and they create “induced effects” as they
spend their pay checks on the full variety of goods and
services necessary to support their lifestyles.
Note that the tourism attraction function of the UPAC can also be larger than what is measured by incoming
patrons from out-of-state alone. The expanded offering
of Broadway shows and other major entertainment in the
UPAC can also cause additional Utah residents to stay
locally, rather than travel to New York, Las Vegas, San
Francisco or other destinations to experience these types
of shows and cultural programs.
Taken together, the indirect and induced economic
expansion is referred to as the “multiplier effect” over and
above the direct impact. Input-output models are used
to estimate the interrelationships between the various
sectors in the local economy, and to provide estimates
of “multipliers” which estimate the indirect and induced
effects created from direct impacts. For example, if the
multiplier for the hotel sector is 1.9, then approximately
$90 of indirect and induced economic activity will be
generated by the initial $100 expenditure to stay in the
hotel, for a total economic impact on Salt Lake County of
$190. For this analysis, AECOM has used the Regional
Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II), maintained by
the Bureau of Economic Analysis, US Department of
Commerce.
Quantification of Economic Impact – Ongoing Impacts
We have identified five mechanisms through which the
proposed project will have a net new direct impact on
Salt Lake County on an ongoing basis:
1. Operations of the new theater building (i.e., it is a
net new facility within the County).
2. Local spending to produce additional touring shows
(e.g., hiring local stagehands, and buying advertising
in local media).
3. Induced visitation and associated visitor spending
due to additional patrons coming from outside
the County and State to attend new theater
performances.
4. Induced visitation and associated spending due to
more touring acts/performing companies and their
cast and crew coming from outside the County, with
the vast majority from outside the State.
5. Operations of the new office building.
These impacts are summarized in Table 1 below for a
stabilized operating year, a few years in the future. In a
stabilized year, the ecosystem of arts groups and venues
in Salt Lake City will have found a new equilibrium
that not only accommodates a shift and expansion of
programming into the UPAC, but also allows for backfill
of the three existing theaters of similar size to attract
new programming. As shown, the UPAC is expected
to generate $9.4 million in economic impact annually
for Salt Lake County, which includes direct impacts in
addition to indirect and induced impacts resulting from
the multiplier effect. As shown, the theater operations
accounts for approximately half of the impact, while
production spending and the induced visitation from
theater performance attendees and touring companies
comprises the other half of the total impact. Note that the assumptions driving the quantitative
analysis are relatively conservative regarding capture of
new out-of-area patrons, and do not specifically seek to
quantify the retention effects of keeping Utahns closer to
home through offering better entertainment in Utah. At
the state level, AECOM’s best estimates are that perhaps
five percent of patronage may be from out-of-state based
on previous seasons of Broadway ticket sales. This does
not include a retention effect. It also does not include
likely changes in travel patterns stimulated by the new
City Creek Center project and other major enhancements
to downtown Salt Lake City. In coming years the out-ofstate effect could easily prove to be 10 percent, rather
than five, meaning State level benefits would be double
what AECOM is currently projecting.
The office tower is expected to generate $5.4 million
in output on an annual basis, all of which results from
the building operations. This number does not account
for any increased economic benefits from the inflow or
activities of office tenants. Total economic output gain
due to the project is approximately $14.8 million per year.
One-Time Impacts of Constructing the Project
We have also estimated the one-time construction
impacts of the project, which are very large. The
construction impacts are based upon the estimated
development cost for the theater and the office building. As shown in Table 1, the construction impacts on output
are estimated to be close to $202 million for the theater
and $289 million for the office tower, and will generate
over 4,000 annual jobs spread out over the construction
period. 6.09
Table 1: Summary of Economic Impacts for Utah Performing Arts Center and Office Tower (refers to
total impacts, including multiplier effect)
Output
Earnings
Employment
One-time Impacts
Theater Construction
$201,951,000
$55,129,000
1,671
Office Construction
$289,157,000
$78,935,000
2,392
Total One-time
$491,108,000
$134,064,000
4,063
Theater Operations
$4,619,000
$1,298,000
49
Touring Productions
$584,000
$165,000
11
Audience
$3,163,000
$832,000
41
Touring Cast & Crew
$1,057,000
$281,000
13
Subtotal Theater
$9,423,000
$2,576,000
115
Office Operations
$5,418,000
$859,000
53
$14,841,000
$3,435,000
168
Ongoing Impacts
Theater
Induced Visitation
Total On going
Fiscal Revenue Impacts
A portion of the total economic expansion due to the
project will flow through all levels of government in Utah. Additional personal income associated with the new jobs
will add income tax to the State, and the State portion of
the sales tax will also benefit from the additional spending
derived from the expanded incomes. The County too
will benefit from its portion of the sales tax, as well as
the Tourism Restaurant tax, and will collect a significant
portion of the Transient Room tax on additional hotel
stays stimulated by the project. The City shares in the
sales tax too. The single largest tax revenue impact is likely to be the
property tax, and because the project lies within a noncollection block of the City’s Redevelopment Agency,
the majority of the incremental property taxes will flow
to the schools (approximately 50%), and to the City and
County (approximately 22% each). Assuming office tower
valuation at roughly $80 million in hard construction
costs, the incremental property taxes will exceed
$1,000,000 per year on an ongoing basis.
6.10
K e y F i n d i n g s f r o m L i t e r a t u r e R e v i e w
a n d C a s e S t u d i e s
From the literature review and case study research,
AECOM has found the following:
may 3, 2011
Property Value Enhancements
It is logical that investments in both a cultural facility
and a major new private office tower will help to raise
the attractiveness, and thereby the property values, in
the immediate downtown neighborhood in Salt Lake City. Examples of this mechanism at work in the real world in
other cities include the following (more detailed citations
of sources are presented in the body of the report):
• The Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art
(Mass MoCA) increased residential property values
nearest to the museum site in rural North Adams
by 20 percent. The resulting increase in property
taxes, gave the town another $200,000 in addition
to the $11 million of induced investment for nearby
hotels and amenities. Thus, MASS MoCA helps
sustain community development by improving the
economic position of homeowners, improving tax
revenues for the community, as well as providing
a cultural amenity that helps to attract and retain
young and creative people, who continue to value
residential property in the city. Salt Lake City is in a
good position to experience a similar effect due to
the inclusion of significant residential development
in the adjacent City Creek project. The addition of a
cultural facility to the retail and hospitality offering
in City Creek can serve to enhance attractiveness to
young and creative people in a similar way.
• The Overture Center opened in 2002 in downtown
Madison, Wisconsin, and had a dramatic stimulus
effect on downtown. From 1998 to 2008, property
values in Madison’s Downtown area grew 176
percent, considerably higher than the 116 percent
increase experienced in the rest of Madison. This
increase was even more acute in the four blocks
immediately surrounding the Overture Center,
where property values grew from $75.6 million
to $372 million, or 392 percent. Again, Salt Lake
City is in a good position to capture similar effects
in the immediate neighborhood with the City Creek
development on the adjacent blocks.
• As property values in Downtown Madison grew from
1998-2008, property tax revenues increased as
well. In the Downtown area, property tax revenues
grew from $19 million to $37 million. In the blocks
immediately adjacent to the Overture Center,
revenues grew from two million to seven million.
• Using the case of Omaha, Nebraska, as a more
regional or city-wide example, the Holland Center
(opened 2005) and Orpheum Theatre (renovated
2002) have been tools for business attraction and
retention. Where other American downtowns have
experienced severe disinvestment and blight over the
past decades, Omaha’s downtown has experienced
incremental but sustained development with each
additional development providing momentum for
the next. Over the past two decades, two billion
dollars was invested in downtown Omaha. Salt
Lake appears to be well on track to exceed Omaha’s
sustained investment in its downtown, and stands
to reap comparable synergies with cultural facility
development.
Induced Private Investment
Property value impacts can be felt by existing real estate
as it becomes more desirable and its pricing gets bid up. A related mechanism is the inducement of additional
new investment in an area following the development
of a new cultural facility. Examples of this mechanism
uncovered by AECOM’s research include the following:
• Yerba Buena Center (“YBC”) was funded by the San
Francisco Redevelopment Agency, which invested
$200 million to build and support the “anchors”. Formerly a blighted industrial neighborhood
of 87-acres, south of Market Street is now a
thriving cultural hub including over 40 additional
organizations and galleries. Public spending has
encouraged billions of dollars of private investment
in other YBC projects. The area is also visited and
enjoyed by millions each year with positive impacts
for San Francisco as a whole. The Salt Lake City
neighborhood to the west of the UPAC site shares
many of the same anchors as San Francisco’s YBC;
the major convention center, multiple hotels, retail,
outdoor gathering spaces and other venues.
• In Madison, Wisconsin, development of a major new
performing arts center helped to stimulate private
residential development. From 1998 to 2008, the
aggregate value of condominiums in Downtown
Madison grew from $31 million to over $495
million. This increase in residential development
also diversified the property type composition of
Downtown Madison. In 1998, condominiums
comprised five percent of the aggregate property
value in Downtown; in 2008, condominiums
comprised 26 percent. Similar city-building effects
should be available in Salt Lake City where the new
residential being developed within the City Creek
project will be within an easy walking distance of the
UPAC. As the downtown renaissance in Salt Lake
City continues to grow, additional demand for new
development will generate even further value for
real estate within the Redevelopment Areas, expand
property tax increment, and enhance RDA programs. • The Avenue of the Arts, a mile-long section of South
Broad Street in Philadelphia, has been a major
catalyst for downtown revitalization. The project
was championed by city leaders, local cultural
institutions, and property owners. With 11 cultural
and educational institutions plus 3 individual
performance spaces, the project has stimulated
significant private sector investment. Total
investment in the project is approximately $650
million. The district’s cultural organizations, hotels,
restaurants, and retail businesses generate at least
$157 million in revenue annually and support 2,800
full-time and over 1,000 part-time jobs. In a similar
way, the UPAC will add incrementally to the cultural
vitality of downtown Salt Lake City, which generates
similar economic activity and benefits.
• In the 1990s, Seattle built two major arts facilities
downtown, a new building for the Seattle Art
Museum (1991) and Benaroya Hall (1998), a
performing arts complex primarily dedicated to the
Seattle Symphony. Seattle business leaders credit
these cultural institutions with a downtown revival
that includes several new retail complexes and a
40 percent increase in the number of people living
downtown. By building a state-of-the-art performance
space, Salt Lake City is adding wholesome nighttime
entertainment that enhances economic vitality of
downtown as well. Taken together, revitalization of
downtown can also lead to additional demand for
living downtown in Salt Lake City as it has in Seattle.
• Downtown living can also be attractive to “empty
nesters” and retirees, and housing demand from
this market segment could benefit Salt Lake City as
well. The Durham, North Carolina, Performing Arts
Center (DPAC) is considered a key asset for Durham
in attracting retirees. Durham topped the CNN
Money and Forbes list of 25 Best Places to Retire
this year, for its medical facilities, weather, housing
costs, and cultural amenities.
Economic Development Efforts
As economic development professionals know, the
“entire package” is important when trying to attract
employers to a region. Entertainment, arts and culture is
increasingly recognized as a critical piece of the package. Examples from the research include:
• Surveys of high-technology workers have shown
that in evaluating the attractiveness of a new job,
“community quality of life” was the second most
important factor—second to only salary and more
important than benefits, stock options, or company
stability. According to Professor Richard Florida of
Carnegie Mellon University, four factors determine
quality of place: lifestyle, environmental quality,
a vibrant music and arts scene, and natural and
outdoor amenities. Coupled with the retail and
hospitality offerings of The Gateway and City Creek
Center, a new performing arts center will elevate Salt
Lake City on the scale Richard Florida is referring to.
• The arts support more than 245,000 jobs throughout
the six states of New England, 3.5 percent of the
6.11
6.12
region’s total job base, and more than the area’s
software or medical technologies industries. The
arts industry exhibited a 14 percent growth over a
four-year period, much higher than New England’s
overall economic growth of 8 percent. Although
comparable regional arts impact studies have not
been done for Utah, it is reasonable to expect that
expansion of the non-profit arts sector in Utah will
have a jobs growth effect in proportion to what has
been experienced in other regions.
• In a recent study, the economic impacts of the
Holland Center and Orpheum Theatre in Omaha
were assessed within the context of the nonprofit
performing arts industry as a whole. Throughout
Omaha in 2007, performing arts spending
supported, either directly or indirectly, 2,087 jobs.
These jobs added $42 million in wages and salaries
to the local economy. Of the 2,087 total jobs
supported, industries with the most jobs supported
by the performing arts were food services (388 jobs)
and lodging (109 jobs). As with the example of
New England economic impacts above, the Omaha
experience implies Salt Lake City should benefit
from jobs and wages growth associated with growth
in the arts sector.
may 3, 2011
• A more qualitative point of view on the economic
impacts of specifically the Holland Center and
Orpheum Theatre arose in conversation with
stakeholders in Omaha. Key impacts included the
performing arts’ diversification of land uses in the
downtown area and as a tool for business attraction
and retention. Each investment in cultural facilities
in Salt Lake City incrementally makes the city more
interesting, a better place to work and play, and
more attractive as a location for businesses. • In Pittsburgh, the arts are seen as a tool for
leveraging economic development. On a regional
level, the creation of a desirable, culturally rich
Downtown area has increased the attractiveness
of Downtown Pittsburgh to young professionals. In
order to access this talented labor pool, businesses
choose a Downtown location rather than lower
rent locations available an hour or two outside of
Pittsburgh. Each addition to downtown Salt Lake
City is cumulative, and one goal is to develop the
type of vibrant urban environment Richard Florida
has identified as necessary to attract the “creative
class” of people who staff 21st century industries.
• Across Allegheny County, spending by the nonprofit
arts industry contributes directly to 2,338 jobs. When
indirect impacts are also included, spending by the
nonprofit arts industry contributes to 6,837 jobs.
Spending by the audiences to arts events, exclusive
of the cost of admission, contribute directly to 2,463
jobs. When indirect impacts are included, audience
spending contributes to 3,355 jobs. Combined, direct
and indirect spending by nonprofit arts organizations
and their audiences creates $154 million in resident
household income. This translates to $10 million in
local government revenue and $10 million in state
government revenue. Like Pittsburgh, Salt Lake City
is the economic center of its region, and provision
of high-profile arts and culture in the center has an
economic ripple effect that extends throughout the
County and beyond.
Restaurant Openings and Sales Volumes
Another logical impact mechanism is the capture of
restaurant and retail spending within the pedestrian
zone surrounding performance facilities that attract
patrons. There is distinct potential for theater-goers in
Salt Lake City to park once, and include a restaurant
meal in City Creek Center or in other freestanding
restaurants within a convenient walk of the UPAC before
or after their performance. Evening shows and weekend
matinees both serve to expand the hours restaurants
remain viable during the day.
• The Durham, North Carolina, Performing Arts Center
(DPAC) opened near the end of 2008. In 2009, five
new restaurants opened in the immediate downtown
environment near the theater. Bill Kalkhof, President
of Downtown Durham Inc., reports that previously
existing restaurants experience a “positive bump
on nights there are shows at the theater,” and says
the new restaurants opened due to the draw of the
theater, in spite of the recession.
• In a 2008 study of Downtown Madison, Wisconsin, it
was determined that visitors to the Overture Center
spent an estimated $10 million in the vicinity,
exclusive of admissions.
• As mentioned previously, both the Holland Center
and Orpheum Theatre are located at the periphery of
Omaha’s central business district, a key employment
center in the city. In many ways, the performing
arts are a symbiotic partner to office uses. While
office uses attract workers during weekdays, the
performing arts attract visitors during nights and
weekends. The beneficiaries of this arrangement
are retailers and restaurateurs who, at one location,
can access both sets of customers. The Old Market
District’s location, with its 30 restaurants, adjacent
to both cultural and commercial office space,
and success catering to both of these markets, is
an example of this. In Omaha, the success of the
Holland Center and Orpheum Theatre is seen more
in the strengthening of the retail and restaurant
market in Old Market, rather than the creation of
a new retail hub exclusively serving the performing
arts venues. Similarly, the development of a
commercial office building adjacent to the UPAC would provide a daytime activity generator that is
complementary to the pedestrian activity and retail
and restaurant demand generated by the UPAC on
nights and weekends.
• There is a significant difference between the
neighborhood stimulus impact of the arts in
Pittsburgh compared to Madison. While the
Overture Center in Madison seeks to contain, in one
building, the majority of performance space within
the City, the Pittsburgh Cultural District disperses
these spaces out across a 14-block area. Pittsburgh
clusters performance spaces to create a critical
mass in one general area, but spreads them out
across the area so retailers, restaurateurs, and
other private interests can more easily benefit from
the cultural energy and steady stream of patrons the
District attracts. • In Pittsburgh, on a neighborhood level, the
clustering of arts facilities has attracted tourists and
residents alike. Increased foot traffic combined with
streetscape improvements have allowed retailers
and restaurateurs to thrive. The addition of the UPAC to the current cultural facilities of the Capitol Theatre,
Abravanel Hall, the Rose Wagner Performing Arts
Center, the potential re-use of the Utah (Pantages)
Theatre and other amenities such as the Salt
Palace Convention Center will add to a critical mass
of amenities that will encourage the flourishing of
private commercial business, pedestrian activity,
and downtown living – suggesting the potential for
success as demonstrated in a similar arts district
concept in Pittsburgh.
Examples of Fiscal Revenue Impacts
There are tax revenues generated by the larger economic
activity associated with patron attendance at performing
arts, and from the visitor spending captured in their
immediate vicinities. Examples include the following:
• In the Omaha arts impact study, in addition to
positive job and wage impacts, the performing arts also
created significant State and local tax revenue impacts.
It is estimated that for 2007, the nonprofit performing
arts produced, directly and indirectly, $8.5 million in tax
collections at all levels of government. In similar fashion,
in Salt Lake City the development of a state-of-the-art
new theater will incrementally add to an arts community
that generates economic activity and fiscal revenues at
the City, County, and State levels.
• The Durham Convention and Visitors Bureau has
estimated the Durham Performing Arts Center (DPAC)
attracted over $27 million in direct visitor spending and
generated an overall impact (value added) to the Durham
economy of $24.3 million in FY 2009-10. The total local
tax revenues generated were approximately $1.1 million.
6.13
II. Literature Review and Case
Studies of Similar Cultural
Facilities in Urban Settings
This section presents a high level overview of the types
of findings AECOM gleaned from a literature review
and then a series of case studies in four relevant cities
with performing arts facilities. The best practices and
mechanisms of impact uncovered in these research
efforts then helped guide the quantitative estimation of
economic benefits presented in Section III.
L i t e r a t u r e R e v i e w
According to the recent Arts & Economic Prosperity III study completed by Americans for the Arts, the nonprofit
arts and culture industry generates $166.2 billion in
economic activity every year nationwide—$63.1 billion
in spending by organizations and an additional $103.1
billion in event-related spending by their audiences. The
impact of this activity supports 5.7 million U.S. jobs and
generates $29.6 billion in government revenue.1 These
benefits however, are not the only positive impacts
communities have felt as a result of investment in
cultural institutions, examples of which are below.
P r o p e r t y V a l u e E n h a n c e m e n t s
The Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art (Mass
MoCA) increased residential property values nearest to
the museum site in rural North Adams by 20 percent.
The resulting increase in property taxes, gave the town
another $200,000 in addition to the $11 million of
induced investment for nearby hotels and amenities.
Thus MASS MoCA helps sustain community development
by improving the economic position of homeowners,
improving tax revenues for the community, as well as
providing a cultural amenity that helps to attract and
retain young and creative people into the city, who
continue to value residential property in the city.2 The
implications are that a similar outcome in Salt Lake City
would enhance the residential demand for neighboring
areas such as the City Creek Center, would increase
property values, and would also generate additional
property tax revenue.
I n d u c e d P r i v a t e I n v e s t m e n t
In San Francisco, the Yerba Buena Center funded with
assistance from the City’s Redevelopment Agency,
which invested $200 million to build and support the
“anchors” in the project area. Formerly a blighted
industrial neighborhood of 87-acres, this area south of
Market Street is now a thriving cultural hub including
over 40 additional organizations and galleries. Public
spending has encouraged billions of dollars of private
investment in other YBC projects. The area is also visited
and enjoyed by millions each year with positive impacts
for San Francisco as a whole.3 Salt Lake City has also
invested in similar anchors to those found in YBC—e.g.,
the Salt Palace Convention Center and Abravanel Hall—
and stands to reap similar rewards.
E c o n o m i c D e v e l o p m e n t E f f o r t s
Surveys of high-technology workers have shown that in
evaluating the attractiveness of a new job “community
quality of life” was the second most important factor—
second to only salary and more important than benefits,
stock options, or company stability. According to Professor
Richard Florida of Carnegie Mellon University, four factors
determine quality of place: lifestyle, environmental
quality, a vibrant music and arts scene, and natural and
outdoor amenities.4 The arts support more than 245,000 jobs throughout the
six states of New England, 3.5 percent of the region’s total
job base, and more than the area’s software or medical
technologies industries. The arts industry exhibited a 14
percent growth over a four-year period, much higher than
New England’s overall economic growth of 8 percent.5 Although similar macro-economic statistics are not
available for the arts in Utah, it is reasonable to expect
that enhancing the arts “infrastructure” by building a
state-of-the-art venue will promote growth of employment
and economic impact of the arts community as it ripples
out through the State.
3
1
Americans for the Arts, Arts and Economic Prosperity III
2 Stephen Sheppard, Culture and Revitalization: The Effects
of Mass MoCA on its Community, 2006
San Francisco Redevelopment Agency
4
Richard Florida, Competing in the Age of Talent: Quality of
Place and the New Economy, 2000
5 The New England Council, The Creative Economy Initiative:
The Role of the Arts and Culture in New England’s Economic
Competitiveness, 2000
6.15
Revitalization of Downtown
The Avenue of the Arts, a mile-long section of South
Broad Street in Philadelphia has been a major catalyst
for downtown revitalization. The project was championed
by city leaders, local cultural institutions, and property
owners. With 11 cultural and educational institutions
plus 3 individual performance spaces, the project has
stimulated significant private-sector investment. Total
investment in the project is approximately $650 million.
The district’s cultural organizations, hotels, restaurants,
and retail businesses generate at least $157 million in
revenue annually and support 2,800 full-time and over
1,000 part-time jobs.6 The UPAC can be seen in a similar
fashion as an investment in the South Main corridor,
drawing people and generating activity further south from
Temple Square and City Creek Center, thereby enhancing
the restaurant and retail commercial environment.
In the 1990s, Seattle built two major arts facilities
downtown, a new building for the Seattle Art Museum
(1991) and Benaroya Hall (1998), a performing arts
complex primarily dedicated to the Seattle Symphony.
Seattle business leaders credit these cultural institutions
with a downtown revival that includes several new retail
complexes and a 40 percent increase in the number
of people living downtown.7 The UPAC can contribute
similarly.
Cultural and Social Benefits
The arts also have cultural and social benefits for
communities.8
Economic
Social
Wages paid to employees
Increase sense of collective Builds social capital
identity and efficacy
by getting people
involved, connecting
organizations to each
other and giving
participants experience
in organizing and
working with local
government and
nonprofits
Audience
Participation
People (esp. tourists/visitors) spend
money on attending the arts and on
local businesses. Further, local spending
by these arts venues and patronized
businesses has indirect multiplier effects
Builds community identity
and pride
6.16
may 3, 2011
Cultural
Direct
Involvement
Leads to positive
community norms, such as
diversity, tolerance and free
expression
Presence
Increases propensity of community
Improves community image
of Arts
members to participate in the arts
and status
Organizations
Increases attractiveness of area to
tourists, businesses, people (esp. high-skill
workers) and investments
People come together
who might not
otherwise come into
contact with each other
Promotes neighborhood
cultural diversity
Reduces neighborhood
crime and delinquency
Fosters a “creative milieu” that spurs
economic growth in creative industries.
Greater likelihood of revitalization
7
6
http://avenueofthearts.org/econ_summ.htm
J. Byrd, Culture and the Core, 1997.
8
Joshua Guetzkow, How the Arts Impact Communities,
2002
C a s e S t u d y 1 : O v e r t u r e C e n t e r ,
M a d i son W I
The Overture Center occupies 2.5 acres, a full city block,
in Madison, WI. The 380,000-square foot center includes
eight arts venues, four of which are performance spaces.
The largest performance space is Overture Hall with
seating for 2,251. The size and capacity of all of the
Overture Center’s performance spaces are outlined in
the Table 2 below.
Table 2: Overture Center Performance Spaces
Performance
Space
Seats
Stage Size
Amenities
Overture Hall
2,251
30’-45’ high x 52’-69’ wide
proscenium
13 dressing rooms, accommodating up to 80
people
Capitol Theatre
1,100
28’ high x 45’ wide procenium
people
The Playhouse
350
21’ high x 58’ wide
proscenium
people
Promenade Hall
250
55’ wide x 62’ long
1 dressing room, accommodating up to 3
people
Source: The Overture Center
6.17
The Overture Theatre has seven resident performing
arts groups, including three resident dance companies,
the Madison Opera, Madison Symphony Orchestra,
Wisconsin Chamber Orchestra, and the Children’s
Theatre of Madison.
The physical location of the Overture Center has been
the site of arts and cultural uses for nearly a century.
In 1928, a vaudeville theater opened on the current
site of the Overture Center. This theater was renovated
and expanded in the early 1980’s, creating the Madison
Civic Center, a space one-third the size of the Overture
Center. As the demand for arts space grew, competition
escalated for dates at the Civic Center. In order to provide
one central, flagship space for all of Madison’s diverse
arts groups, the Overture Center was built, opening its
doors in 2002.
While the desire to consolidate and centrally locate
Madison’s arts space contributed to the creation of the
Overture Center, the success of the nearby Monona
Convention Center was also key. Initially envisioned by
Frank Lloyd Wright in 1938, the Monona Center opened
in 1997 after facing decades of political and fiscal
challenges. In the words of one interviewee, the success
of the Monona Center signaled to developers that “the
potential in the area was real, it was happening, and
it was going to continue”. The Overture Center was an
outgrowth of this momentum, and has in turn contributed
to it.
The Overture Center is located in Downtown Madison, WI,
in close proximity to both the Wisconsin State Capital to
the east and the University of Wisconsin to the west, as
illustrated in Figure 1 below. In addition the State Capital,
and ancillary office uses, the Monona Convention Center
is also nearby.
Figure 1: Map of Downtown Madison
Source: Google; AECOM
6.18
In the 2009-2010, attendance at ticketed performances
at the Overture Center reached its highest level to date,
with 272,984 attendees (see Table 3 below). This
was a nine percent increase over the 2009 season. Attendance to Broadway shows doubled from 2008 to
2010, and attracted a third of all attendees to ticketed
performances in 2010.
Table 3: Overture Center Attendance, 2008-2010
may 3, 2011
Attendance by Ticketed
Performance
20082009
20092010
Touring Productions (NonBroadway)
79,642
61,993
Touring Productions
(Broadway)
46,435
106,080
Resident Companies
90,164
80,049
Pomoter Events
32,957
24,862
249,198
272,984
Total
Source: Overture Annual Report, 2008-2010
The 2009-2010 season was the first season in which
Broadway Across America began offering full weeks of
Broadway performances at the Overture, which allowed
the Overture Center to book higher-profile shows. In
the 2008-2009 season, Overture booked 31 Broadway
performances of six different shows, with the longest
running show being Avenue Q, with eight performances.
In the 2009-2010 season, Overture booked 64 Broadway
performances of five different shows, with the longest
running show being the Lion King, with 32 performances.
To date, two main fiscal impacts of the Overture Center
on the Madison community have been documented. The
first impact is increased property values and property tax
revenues from properties immediately adjacent to the
Overture Center, and the second impact is spending by
attendees to the Overture Center. Both of these impacts
are documented in a Community and Economic Impact
report by AMS Planning and Research, and summarized
below.
From 1998 to 2008, property values in Madison’s
Downtown area grew 176 percent, considerably higher
than the 116 percent increase experienced in the rest of
Madison. This increase was even more acute in the four
blocks immediately surrounding the Overture Center,
where property values grew from $75.6 million to $372
million, or 392 percent.
Residential development was a key driver of the growth
in Downtown property values. From 1998 to 2008, the
aggregate value of condominiums in Downtown Madison
grew from $31 million to over $495 million. This increase
in residential development also diversified property
type composition of Downtown Madison. In 1998,
condominiums comprised five percent of the aggregate
property value in Downtown; in 2008, condominiums
comprised 26 percent.
Qualitatively, new condo development in Madison is
perceived as especially desirable to affluent empty
nesters. Especially given the typically cold and snowy
winters in Wisconsin, older residents value living in a
neighborhood where long drives are less necessary and
cultural amenities are in close proximity to home.
As property values in Downtown Madison grew from
1998-2008, property tax revenues increased as well.
In the Downtown area, property tax revenues grew from
$19 million to $37 million. In the blocks immediately
adjacent to the Overture Center, revenues grew from two
million to seven million.
While it’s impossible to pinpoint what percentage
of property value increases are attributable to the
existence of the Overture Center, spending by attendees
to performances at the Overture Center is directly
attributable to the Center. Visitors to Overture spent an
estimated $10 million in Downtown Madison in 2008,
exclusive of admissions.
C o n c l u s i o n s f r o m C a s e S t u d y 1 : Madison
Center have allowed Madison to capture more, and
longer running, Broadway productions and other
higher-profile shows, a new state-of-the-art theater
in Salt Lake City can capture more first-run national
touring shows.
• The Madison experience suggests Salt Lake City
too could have property values increase as a result
of investment in performing arts facilities. Values
increased most dramatically in close proximity to the
theater in Madison, which bodes well for supporting
the other investments currently under way at City
Creek Center and other surrounding blocks in
downtown Salt Lake City.
Salt Lake City shares many of the same characteristics as
Madison, where in similar proximity such features exist
as the State Capital, a major state university campus, a
significant convention center, a supporting commercial
district of restaurants and retail businesses, and an
entire constellation of performing arts facilities.
• Demand for residential uses in proximity to downtown
arts facilities increased in Madison, suggesting the
same attraction power will be felt in Salt Lake City. In Madison, this included ownership condominium
units as well as rental opportunities.
• The synergies between the types of facilities and
economic activities in downtown Madison are
available to Salt Lake City as well.
• The Madison experience indicates that Salt Lake
City can expect increased visitor spending in
establishments within walking distance of the
theater.
• Much as enhanced facilities within the Overture
6.19
6.20
C a s e S t u d y 2 : O m a h a P e r f o r m i n g
A r t s ( O P A ) , O m a h a , N E
Omaha Performing Arts (OPA) manages the two primary
performing arts facilities in Downtown Omaha, the
Holland Center and Orpheum Theatre. Built in 1927 and
renovated most recently in 2002, the Orpheum Theatre
has seating for 2,600. Four blocks away, the 175,000
square foot Holland Center contains a concert hall with
seating for 1,998 and a 300-seat black box theater.
From the time the Orpheum Theatre was constructed in
1927 until the opening of the Holland Center in 2005,
Omaha had only one large performance space. The
Orpheum served as the primary resident theater in
Omaha, serving groups such as the Omaha Symphony
and Opera Omaha. The Orpheum was also heavily used
by community groups and it was the only available venue
for touring productions, such as Broadway shows.
OPA, a private non-profit, was established in 2000 to
take over all management and responsibility of the
Orpheum Theatre from the City of Omaha. OPA currently
leases both the Orpheum and Holland Center from the
City through a 50-year lease with a 50-year renewal
option. It currently manages both the Holland Center and
Orpheum Theatre, ensuring that the two venues operate
for their mutual benefit rather than as competitors. In
the event that the Salt Lake County Center for the Arts
becomes the operator of the UPAC, a similar opportunity
exists for programming of the UPAC in a complementary
rather than a competitive manner with existing County
venues.
By the mid 1990’s, the availability of dates for touring
productions was down to three weeks a year and the
Omaha Symphony needed a performance space with
better acoustics. Both of these needs were met by the
opening of the Holland Center in 2005. The creation
of acoustically-ideal space satisfied the needs of the
Omaha Symphony and the additional performance space
The Holland Center is located on the periphery of
Omaha’s Downtown, only four blocks away from its sister
theater, the Orpheum, as illustrated in Figure 2 below.
Both theaters benefit from nearby Freeway access and
the Old Market Arts and Entertainment District. Old
Market is known for its unique shops and boutiques, and
is home to approximately 30 restaurants.
Figure 2: Map of Downtown Omaha
may 3, 2011
allowed the Orpheum Theatre to accommodate touring
Broadway productions.
Table 4: Omaha Performing Arts Attendance, 2008-2009
Attraction
Total
attendance
Percent out of
state
Total
Attendance
Percent out of
state
Orpheum Theatre
178,469
14%
97,008
12%
Holland Center
118,976
9%
51,647
10%
Omaha Performing Arts
297,445
12%
148,655
11%
Source: Nebraska Division of Travel and Tourism
Downtown Omaha is a center for recreational uses, as
well. The Orpheum Theatre and Holland Center are also
located in close proximity to the Qwest Convention Center
and Arena, a riverfront park, and the site of a soon-to-becompleted 24,000-seat baseball stadium, intended to
play host to the College World Series.
In the 2009 season, attendance was higher at the
Orpheum Theatre than the Holland Center (see Table
4 above). Together, the two venues attracted nearly
300,000 visitors to Downtown Omaha over the course of
220 performances.
The Orpheum Theatre attracted a greater percentage of
attendees from out-of-state than the Holland Center. It is
important to note that Omaha’s location at the border of
Nebraska/Iowa border increases the likelihood of out-ofstate attendance. Similarly, Salt Lake City’s proximity to
the borders of Idaho, Wyoming, and Colorado increases
the likelihood of out-of-state attendance when compared
to other venues in markets more centrally located
geographically within a state. This potential for attracting
out-of-state patrons is further enhanced by the proximity
of the UPAC to City Creek Center, which is projected to
attract more than 11 million visitors annually, a large
percentage of which are projected to come from out-ofstate.
To date, the fiscal impacts of the Holland Center and
Orpheum Theatre have only been assessed within the
context of the nonprofit performing arts industry as a
whole.9 Throughout Omaha in 2007, performing arts
spending supported, either directly or indirectly, 2,087
jobs. These jobs added $42 million in wages and
salaries to the local economy. Of the 2,087 total jobs
supported, industries with the most jobs supported by
9
The Economic Impact of Nonprofit Performing Arts on the
City of Omaha. Goss & Associates. May 2007.
the performing arts were food services (388 jobs) and
lodging (109 jobs).
In addition to positive job and wage impacts, the
performing arts also created significant state and local
tax revenue impacts. It is estimated that for 2007,
the nonprofit performing arts produced, directly and
indirectly, $8.5 million in tax collections with $3.2 million
going to local governments and $5.3 million going to
state governments. Although a similar study has not
been performed on the arts sector in Salt Lake City, it
is reasonable to assume that comparable economic and
fiscal benefits are generated there as well.
A more qualitative point of view on the economic impacts
of specifically the Holland Center and Orpheum Theatre
arose in conversation with stakeholders in Omaha. Key
impacts included the performing arts’ diversification
of land uses in the Downtown area and as a tool for
business attraction and retention.
As mentioned previously, both the Holland Center
and Orpheum Theatre are located at the periphery of
Omaha’s central business district, a key employment
center in the city. In many ways, the performing arts
are a symbiotic partner to office uses. While office uses
attract workers during weekdays, the performing arts
attract visitors during nights and weekends. Similarly, the
development of a commercial office building adjacent to
the UPAC would provide a daytime activity generator that
is complementary to the pedestrian activity and retail
and restaurant demand generated by the UPAC on nights
and weekends. The beneficiaries of this arrangement
are retailers and restaurateurs who, at one location, can
access both sets of customers. The Old Market District’s
location adjacent to both cultural and commercial office
space, and success catering to both of these markets,
is an example of this. In Omaha, the success of the
Holland Center and Orpheum Theatre is seen more in
6.21
the strengthening of the retail and restaurant market in
Old Market, rather than the creation of a new retail hub
exclusively serving the performing arts venues.
On a more regional or city-wide level, the Holland Center
and Orpheum Theatre are tools for business attraction
and retention. Where other American downtowns have
experienced severe disinvestment and blight over the
past decades, Omaha’s downtown has experienced
incremental but sustained development with each
additional development providing momentum for the
next. Over the past two decades, two billion dollars was
invested in downtown Omaha. Insofar as the success
of the Orpheum Theatre and the construction of the
Holland Center benefited from this investment and
in turn contributed to the momentum, these venues
are important contributors to the current success of
Downtown. Omahans are proud of their Downtown and
they believe it offers existing and prospective companies
an asset not available in most other American cities.
C o n c l u s i o n s f r o m C a s e S t u d y 2 : Omaha
6.22
Although not a state capital like Madison, Omaha is
similar to Salt Lake City in that it is the major urban
center for its metropolitan area and region. And like Salt
Lake City, Omaha has continued to invest incrementally
in the downtown over the last couple of decades. the economics practice of aecom
may 3, 2011
• The Omaha experience suggests Salt Lake City can
enjoy similar synergies between major facilities
and economic activities in their downtowns, which
each include: a significant office concentration,
restaurants and retail, a significant convention
center, an arena, and multiple performing arts
venues.
• Prior to development of the Holland Center in Omaha,
the full potential of national touring productions
could not be realized due to the date conflicts and
restrictions between local arts groups and other
users, much as is the case in Salt Lake City today
with the Capitol Theater and Kingsbury Hall on the
University campus. The implication of the Omaha
experience for Salt Lake City is that when a new
theater opens, it allows each theater to specialize
to a greater degree, and allows the older facilities
to backfill freed up dates with more of the business
that is most appropriate for that venue. After a few
seasons of initial adjustment, the total number of
performances and total of tickets sold increases for
the combination of theaters.
• In Omaha the theaters are four blocks apart, a similar
proximity as Salt Lake City will have with the UPAC,
Abravanel Hall, and the Rose Wagner Performing
Arts Center. Salt Lake City should expect, as was the
case in Omaha, that the theaters will generate foot
traffic that will benefit existing restaurants, shops
and hotels within walking distance in the downtown.
• Omaha found that additional arts venues serve to
diversify the uses downtown. One benefit of this
is to extend the hours where streets are enlivened
with activity and demand for restaurants and
shops remains viable. Specifically, where office
uses support activity during week days and day
times, performing arts venues extend activities into
evenings and weekends.
• Serving as a regional center, much as Omaha does
for its region, Salt Lake City can similarly expect
additional arts development to serve as tools for
business attraction and retention.
C a s e S t u d y 3 : P i t t sb u r g h C u l t u r a l D i s t r i c t , P i t t sb u r g h , P A
The Pittsburgh Cultural District encompasses a fourteen
block area on the banks of the Allegheny River in
Downtown Pittsburgh. The Cultural District is the location
of 11 distinct arts venues, six of which are dedicated
to the performing arts. See Table 5 below for a more
detailed description of arts venues in the District.
Table 5: Pittsburgh Cultural District Arts Venues
Name
Venue Type
Seating Capacity
The Benedum Center
Performing Arts: Ballet, Dance, Opera, Musicals
2885
Heinz Hall
Performing Arts: Symphony
2800
The Byham Theater
Performing Arts: Various shows
1349
The O’Reilly Theater
Performing Arts: Plays
650
Cabaret at Theater Square
Performing Arts: Cabaret
235
The Harris Theater
Performing Arts: Films
200
Wood Street Galleries
Visual Arts
SPACE Visual Arts
707 & 709 Penn Galleries
Visual Arts
937 Liberty Gallery
Performing and Visual Arts Workspace
Future Tenant
Performing and Visual Arts Workspace
6.23
Source: Pittsburgh Cultural Trust
The Cultural District is overseen by the Pittsburgh Cultural
Trust. The Cultural Trust endeavors to improve both the
cultural assets and economic development opportunities
in Downtown Pittsburgh.
Over the past 25 years the Trust has accomplished this
mission through the construction or renovation of many
of the arts venues listed in Table 5 above. The Trust’s
goal is the creation of a vibrant District, not a collection
of closely proximate but standalone arts venues. To this
end, it has made significant streetscape improvements,
enforced strict design standards, and facilitated both
commercial and residential development projects.
On the banks of the Allegheny River, the Pittsburgh
Cultural District is bookended by the Point State Park (one
of the few urban State Parks in Pennsylvania) to the west
and the Davis Lawrence Convention Center to the east.
The facilities located in the Pittsburgh Cultural District
are illustrated in Figure 3 below. In total, the District
contains over 90 retail shops, 50 dining establishments,
seven theaters, eight public parks and art installations,
and a dozen art galleries.
Across the Allegheny River to the north, not included in
the map below, are additional cultural and recreational
facilities, including the Andy Warhol Museum and
stadiums for the Pittsburgh Steelers and Pittsburgh
Pirates.
6.24
Figure 3: Map of the Pittsburgh Cultural Trust
The Pittsburgh Cultural Trust estimates that the Cultural
District attracts approximately 1.3 to 1.4 million visitors
a year. This figure includes attendees to both free and
ticketed events, at both performing arts and visual arts
venues.
may 3, 2011
At the two largest venues managed by the Cultural Trust,
the Benedum Theatre and Bynam Hall, performances
over the course of the year are roughly divided in the
following way: one third are resident productions, one
third are touring productions, and one third are produced
by commercial renters. Of the touring productions,
approximately 15 weeks a year are devoted specifically
to touring Broadway productions. To date, the quantifiable impact of the performing arts
industry on Pittsburgh has only been assessed on an
industry-wide scale.10 Data is only available on a county
level, including both the visual and performing arts. Across
Alleghany County, spending by the nonprofit arts industry
contributes directly to 2,338 jobs. When indirect impacts
are also included, spending by the nonprofit arts industry
contributes to 6,837 jobs. Spending by the audiences
to arts events, exclusive of the cost of admission,
contribute directly to 2,463 jobs. When indirect impacts
are included, audience spending contributes to 3,355
10 Arts and Economic Prosperity III, 2007.
jobs. Combined, direct and indirect spending by nonprofit
arts organizations and their audiences creates $154
million in resident household income. This translates to
$10 million in local government revenue and $10 million
in State government revenue. Although a comparable
study of the economic impacts of the entire performing
arts community has not been done for Salt Lake City, it
is reasonable to expect that the arts will have a similar
beneficial economic and fiscal impact to what Pittsburgh
has experienced.
In Pittsburgh, the arts are not an end to themselves
but a tool for leveraging economic development. On
a neighborhood level, the clustering of arts facilities
has attracted tourists and residents alike. Increased
foot traffic combined with streetscape improvements
have allowed retailers and restaurateurs to thrive. On
a regional level, the creation of a desirable, culturally
rich Downtown area has increased the attractiveness of
Downtown Pittsburgh to young professionals. In order to
access this labor pool, businesses choose a Downtown
location rather than lower rent locations available an
hour or two outside of Pittsburgh.
Both Pittsburgh and Omaha recognize the arts as a tool
for business attraction and retention. In Omaha, the
Orpheum Theatre and Holland Center contribute to the
vitality of Downtown and an attractive, vibrant Downtown
is a key differentiator from other American cities. In
Pittsburgh, the arts attract a young, educated workforce
and businesses chose to locate near to them. In both
cases, the arts create a desirable business environment.
There are some important similarities and differences
between the economic impacts of the arts in Pittsburgh
compared to Madison and Omaha. Like Madison, there
is significant clustering of performance spaces. A key
difference is that while the Overture Center seeks to
contain, in one building, the majority of performance
space within the City, the Pittsburgh Cultural District
disperses these spaces out across a 14-block area.
Pittsburgh clusters performance spaces to create a
critical mass in one area, but spreads them out across
the area so retailers, restaurateurs, and other private
interests can more easily benefit from the cultural energy
and steady stream of patrons the District attracts. In Salt
Lake City, the addition of the UPAC to the current cultural
facilities of the Capitol Theatre, Abravanel Hall, the Rose
Wagner Performing Arts Center, the potential re-use of
the Utah (Pantages) Theatre and other amenities such
as the Salt Palace Convention Center, will add to a critical
mass of amenities that will encourage the flourishing of
private commercial business, pedestrian activity, and
downtown living – suggesting the potential for success
as demonstrated in a similar arts district concept in
Pittsburgh.
C o n c l u s i o n s f r o m C a s e S t u d y 3 : Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh provides a good example of public policy that
focuses on a larger whole, a cultural district, rather than
on each individual facility. The entire combination of
arts facilities is operated to maximize the benefits to the
larger downtown environment. • The offering of arts facilities and the pedestrian
restaurant and retail environment it supports works
synergistically with the Davis Lawrence Convention
Center in Pittsburgh, much as the pedestrian zone
near the Salt Palace Convention Center can benefit
from additional performing arts facilities that attract
more customers.
• The Pittsburgh experience with multiple performing
theaters indicates that touring Broadway productions
in Salt Lake City should be able to co-exist
harmoniously with resident company productions
given more date capacity derived from developing
another theater venue. In Pittsburgh roughly onethird of the capacity is devoted to each of: resident
productions, touring productions, and commercial
renters.
• Like Pittsburgh, Salt Lake City contains major
employers in the downtown area and prominent
universities in proximity. Pittsburgh has found that
the addition of a culturally rich offering helps attract
young professionals, and furthermore promotes
business attraction and retention. The implication
from this case study is that investment in Salt Lake
City arts can generate the same benefits.
6.25
C a s e S t u d y 4 : D u r h a m P e r f o r m i n g
A r t s C e n t e r , D u r h a m , N C
The City’s Durham Performing Arts Center (DPAC)
opened in November 2008 in the American Tobacco
District of downtown. The project was funded by the
City of Durham after nearly a decade of planning and
community outreach. Prior to this project, the City was
served by local facilities including the Carolina Theater,
a smaller facility, and Progress Energy Center for the
Performing Arts, located in Raleigh, none of which were
well-suited for touring Broadway productions. DPAC has received wide accolades including The Herald Sun
Reader’s Choice Award for Best Entertainment for 2010. DPAC has been listed four times in Pollstar magazine’s
semi-annual Top Theater Venues, and is currently ranked
#9 among US Theaters.
DPAC includes over 2,700 seats on three levels (1,400
on the orchestra floor, 600 in the Grand Tier, and 700 in
the Balcony) with no seats further than 135 feet from the
stage. DPAC is also adjacent to the Durham Bulls Athletic
Park (“DBAP”) and near major freeways including I-40,
I-540, and I-85. Public transportation stretches from
downtown Durham towards Duke University.
may 3, 2011
6.26
Having recently opened, DPAC has completed one partial
and one full year of operations, presenting more than
230 ticketed shows for over 400,000 guests. The theater
is co-managed by Nederlander, a theater and Broadway
production company out of New York and Professional
Facilities Management (“PFM”), a facilities management
group. The City of Durham receives 40 percent of theater
net operating income. Additionally, the City receives a
portion of the facility fee charged on each paid ticket,
approximately $1 per ticket sold, which produced
$320,000 in the first full year of operations.
In the first year of operations, from November 2008 to
July 2009, the theater earned over $400,000 of revenue
for the City from its 40% share of net operating income,
which exceeded expectations by more than four times.
Ticket sales in this period were nearly $6.5 million with
other revenues totaling nearly $1.5 million. Stage show
and general and administrative costs were approximately
$7 million. In the second year after opening, the theater produced
$1.2 million for the City from a net operating income of
$2.9 million. All funds paid to the City are part of the
DPAC Fund, which is for debt service and capital reserve.
Table 6: Distribution of Wicked Ticket Sales
Wake-Johnston
46%
Other NC Counties
18%
Durham County
13%
Orange-Chatham
11%
Other States
7%
Guilford, Forsyth, Davidson, Randolph
4%
Virginia
1%
South Carolina
0%
Source: DPAC 2009-2010 Season Recap Report
In the 2009-2010 season, attendance to DPAC was
approximately 320,000 for over 175 events, 61 of which
were sellouts. For its flagship SunTrust Broadway Series,
DPAC sold over 10,000 season tickets. DPAC presented
9 Broadway productions in 113 performances, including
the most popular, Wicked, which ran for 32 shows. Sales
distribution data from Wicked shows a wide reach of
patron participation. In the last season, DPAC also hosted
23 private events, accounting for 18,000 attendees.
In January of 2011, The Lion King just completed a
sold-out four-week premiere engagement at the DPAC. The engagement, which was heralded in the press as,
“a prime example of what musical theater can and
should be,” grossed over $5.4 million at the box office
and entertained more than 81,000 patrons during 32
performances at the DPAC. The publicity also said, “It is
estimated that The Lion King generated a $16.2 million
economic benefit to The Triangle from travel, hotels,
restaurants, parking and other businesses patronized
by both theatergoers and production staff. This figure
is based upon a Touring Broadway League report which
6.27
states that on average, Broadway tours contribute to the
local metropolitan area’s economy an economic impact
of three times the gross ticket sales.”
DPAC is the second large project the City of Durham has
completed with the goal of investing public money to
induce private investment in downtown. The first project,
the DBAP, eventually sparked private investment in the
American Tobacco Campus by Capital Broadcasting
Company, a locally-based owner of television and radio
stations and the owner of the Durham Bulls baseball
team. Capitol Broadcasting also purchased the naming
rights to the DPAC outdoor plaza. Similarly, the City expects that as the economy rebounds
and the theater continues to excel, surrounding parcels
that are now green space will be developed. The mayor’s
vision is to see downtown grow, becoming a premier
destination to live, play, and work. Recent developments,
including new restaurants and condos, are in part
the result of a vibrant nightlife generated by theater
productions.
Downtown Durham, Inc. (“DDI”) surveyed restaurants
after first year of operations, finding that local restaurants
have seen a “positive bump on nights there are shows at
the theater” according to Bill Kalkhof, DDI’s President. In
2009, five new restaurants opened in downtown, building
on the draw of the theater and continued revitalization in
downtown despite the recession.
The Durham Convention and Visitors Bureau has
estimated the DPAC attracted over $27 million in direct
visitor spending and generated an overall impact (value
added) to the Durham economy of $24.3 million in FY 2009-10. The total local tax revenues generated were
approximately $1.1 million.
Other theaters in the City of Durham have thus far not
been negatively impacted by DPAC. Attendance levels
show no decline, suggesting that the new offering has
been able to generate new patronage and not cannibalize
existing support, an important goal of the City, given that
the City is also the owner of the historic Carolina Theatre.
A percentage of DPAC naming rights revenue is shared
with local arts groups, including the Carolina Theatre. the economics practice of aecom
may 3, 2011
6.28
A recent CVB survey on DPAC suggests there is more
potential for audience growth. While approximately
74 percent of residents have heard of the center, only
14 percent have been to a show. As of the time of this
report, in neighboring Wake County, only 10 percent of
residents have heard of the facility, and half that have
attended a performance.
Although season ticket sales at Progress Energy Center
in Raleigh are down 40 percent from over two years ago,
it is unclear what percentage of this is due to the DPAC’s
new claim on market share and what can be attributed
to the sluggish economy and the quality of offerings
and venue conditions at the Progress Energy Center as
compared to the DPAC and its presentations. In any
event, the opening of additional dates in the Progress
Energy Center has allowed it to backfill with different
programming, providing a broader array of entertainment
options for the region’s patrons. The Broadway Series
South in Progress Energy Center has changed its focus
away from classic, touring Broadway for a more eclectic
line-up. So far, sales for one-night performances have
been strong.
DPAC is also considered to be a key asset for Durham
in attracting retirees. Durham topped the CNN Money
and Forbes list of 25 Best Places to Retire this year. The
ranking cited the climate, affordable homes, the golf
courses and parks, Durham Performing Arts Center, and
Duke University Medical Center and its senior learning
program as attractive qualities to retirees.11
Further, the Triangle Business Journal, in a recent article
on North Carolina’s ranking as third in the nation in
hospitality growth, cited the Durham Performing Arts
Center as a contributor to the growth of leisure and
hospitality jobs in North Carolina over the past five years.
C o n c l u s i o n s f r o m C a s e S t u d y 4 : Durham
The DPAC is the most recently opened new venue
among the case studies, and thus has the shortest track
record to analyze. On the other hand, there was no truly
comparable existing theater in Durham (the closest one
was 30 miles away in Raleigh), and thus, the impacts are
more observable.
• In the initial two years, the number of performances
and the number of tickets sold has increased
dramatically.
• Early indications are that the opening of the DPAC had an observable effect on attracting more visitor
spending to the downtown.
• The DPAC is also credited with stimulating the
opening of more restaurants to serve the additional
evening business. Salt Lake City should expect
the same, and given the development of a new
“restaurant row” aligned with Regent Street in
the new City Creek Center development just north
of the UPAC site, the synergies between evening
performances and the extension of the lunch
business into the evening dinner hour should work
well.
11 Sources: “Bull City visits up, spending down” Jan 05,
2011, Durham Herald-Sun; CNN Money Magazine, http://
money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/real_estate/1009/gallery.
best_places_retire.moneymag/index.html
III. Economic Impacts
Economic impacts will be generated on an ongoing basis
from both the operations of the new Utah Performing
Arts Center, as well as from a new office tower downtown. There will also be significant economic impacts once
in time as the buildings are constructed. This section
presents the analysis of both components of the project
and for both time frames.
I m p a c t M e t hodolo g y : Th e Con c e p t
o f t h e M u l t i pl i e r
In the field of regional economic analysis, industries
and the employment within them may be separated
conceptually into two types: those that form the base
to the local economy, and those that serve the residents
who live in the local area. Industries that are part of the
base to the economy have the power to create wealth
by drawing new money into the area, while industries
serving residents circulate money that is already in the
local economy.
The operations of the UPAC will be partially a resident
serving business, enhancing entertainment, culture,
and quality of life for Salt Lake County residents and
recirculating their money within the local economy. But
the UPAC will also be partially a basic business in that
it draws revenues from outside the County and State
(e.g., as additional touring performing groups find dates
available within expanded Salt Lake venue offerings),
and as it makes expenditures within the County for goods
and services necessary to operate the theater. A performing arts theater also functions partially as a
business in the tourism industry (a basic industry) to
the extent that it draws patrons from other counties and
surrounding states that come to Salt Lake because of the
expanded cultural programming and spend money. The
initial spending from visitors has a multiplied effect on
expanding the local economy. For example, $100 spent
by a family from southern Idaho on a Salt Lake City hotel
room and $50 spent on a restaurant meal to extend
their shopping trip to City Creek Center in order to see
a show has a “direct impact” on the Salt Lake County
economy in that it is new money which would not have
been there without the additional performances; and
the family’s purchase of the meal, the room, and tickets
to the show supports jobs and spending by the theater,
hotel and restaurant, which expenditures generate local
tax revenue. But the impact of this new money does not
stop with the direct effect. There is an “indirect effect”
as the suppliers to the venue and businesses also
experience increased revenue, add staff to provide goods
and services, and pay additional taxes. Furthermore,
the employees in the businesses feeling the direct and
indirect expansion caused by new money flowing into
Salt Lake County have more money in their pockets as a
consequence, and they create “induced effects” as they
spend their pay checks on the full variety of goods and
services necessary to support their lifestyles.
Note that the tourism attraction function of the UPAC can also be larger than what is measured by incoming
patrons from out-of-state alone. The expanded offering
of Broadway shows and other major entertainment in the
UPAC can also cause additional Utah residents to stay
locally, rather than travel to New York, Las Vegas, San
Francisco or other destinations to experience these types
of shows and cultural programs.
Taken together, the indirect and induced economic
expansion is referred to as the “multiplier effect” over and
above the direct impact. Input-output models are used
to estimate the interrelationships between the various
sectors in the local economy, and to provide estimates
of “multipliers” which estimate the indirect and induced
effects created from direct impacts. For example, if the
multiplier for the hotel sector is 1.9, then approximately
$90 of indirect and induced economic activity will be
generated by the initial $100 expenditure to stay in the
hotel, for a total economic impact on Salt Lake County of
$190. For this analysis, AECOM has used the Regional
Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II), maintained by
the Bureau of Economic Analysis, US Department of
Commerce.
The multiplier effect expands government revenues
as well. Most visitors to a cultural event pay parking,
admission, and sales taxes (and some pay hotel taxes),
and the businesses that directly serve them pay payroll
and other taxes. In addition, other sales and business
tax revenue is generated by the indirect and induced
economic activity that follows the direct impact. In the
long run, increasing downtown business volumes are
capitalized into higher rents, higher property values,
and higher property tax revenues. Higher property
values and property tax revenues can also occur through
6.29
such qualitative impacts as creating cultural district
identity, downtown vibrancy, and greater neighborhood
attractiveness.
F r a m e wo r k f o r An a l y s i s
An assessment of economic impacts requires first
establishing a framework for the analysis that defines
impacts:
1. For whom? Or in what geographic area?
2. And over what time period? Just impacts that occur
due to development, or those that continue to be
generated over time?
3. And compared to what?
1 . G e o g r a p h i c A r e a . The quantitative economic impact analysis below is
conducted primarily from the perspective of Salt Lake
County. Multipliers, including those generated by the
RIMS system, are not available for jurisdictions smaller
than the County level. 6.30
2 . T i m e F r a m e . Community economic impacts are analyzed in terms of
project build-out and a stabilized operating year, which
would be achieved two to three years after the opening of
each building typically. The one-time impacts generated
by construction activities are also estimated as if they
were built in the near future, and are expressed in
today’s dollars. 3 . T h e A l t e r n a t i v e D e v e l o p m e n t
S c e n a r i o . the economics practice of aecom
may 3, 2011
The analysis also must consider an alternative scenario
to compare with the proposed development program. • Alternative Use of the Site. The assumption is
that the subject site on Block 70 would remain
underutilized in its current state for the foreseeable
future if this development does not proceed
• UPAC. There are currently three theaters in the
size range of 1,900 to 2,800 seats in Salt Lake
City: Capitol Theatre (~1,900 seats), Kingsbury
Hall (~1,900 seats) and Abravanel Hall (~2,800
seats). A new UPAC facility with ~2,500 seats will
create a 38 percent expansion in the audience
seating capacity and a 33 percent increase in the
number of dates available for productions in this
size range within Salt Lake City. The alternative to
the proposed project assumes for the foreseeable
future that the live performance market remains
constrained within the date and size capacity of the
three existing theaters.
• Office Building. The site at the corner of S. Main
and 100 South, adjacent to the proposed UPAC, is
exceedingly good for a prime, Class A development. However, while the UPAC is a distinctly unique facility,
there are other alternatives to the office building that
could be developed as an adjunct to the UPAC. The
alternative assumption is that if the UPAC were not
developed, another office building would ultimately
be developed within a few-block radius to serve the
market; although development would occur some
years later. With the development of the UPAC,
the new office tower is assumed to be constructed
sooner, because the UPAC acts in conjunction with
other proximate amenities as a demand generator. Accordingly, the economic benefits associated
with the development of the office tower would be
realized by the Salt Lake community sooner than if
the UPAC were not developed.
O n e - T i m e I m p a c t s o f Cons t r u c t i n g
t h e P r oj e c t
Theater
Estimating the one-time economic impacts of developing
projects is one of the most straightforward uses of
the RIMS system. The change in final demand within
the County where the development is taking place is
essentially the gross development cost (less the cost of
land). The multipliers are then calibrated by BEA to take
into account the immediate leakage of some of those
costs to materials providers and other vendors who may
be located outside the County.
The project developer has been conducting a number of
studies for the project, including those that have led to a
current estimate of what development costs are likely to
be for the theater. The components in that estimate are
presented in Table 7. Table 7: Change in Final Demand in Salt Lake County due to Project Construction
Current Dollars
Theater Development Costs Relevant to RIMS II
1
Theater Base Construction Cost
$61,019,000
Additional Options
$9,862,000
Site Development Cost
$5,781,000
Pre Opening Expenses (includes pre-opening OSE)
$60,000
Subtotal Hard Costs
$77,262,000
Professional Fees, Permits, Testing and Inspections
$15,416,000
Pre Development Plan
$800,000
1% Public Art
$808,000
Total Soft Costs
$17,024,000
Change in Final Demand Due to Theater Development
$94,286,000
Office Tower Development Costs Relevant to RIMS II
Assumed Size of Buidling (square feet)
Hard and Soft Costs of Development ($/SF)
Change in Final Demand Due to Office Development
For example, costs of site acquisition are not included
Source: Garfield, Traub, Swisher and AECOM.
1
$450,000
$300
$135,000,000
6.31
Office Building
Less physical planning has been done to date for the
office tower, but that kind of construction is more
routine and conducive to a basic per-square-foot cost
estimating technique. For purposes of this economic
impact analysis, the office building is expected to be
approximately 450,000 square feet, and would cost
approximately $300 per square foot to develop in today’s
dollars, including both hard and soft costs.
In Table 8, the RIMS multipliers are applied to the
changes in final demand to estimate the impacts of each
building in the project. In spite of the immediate leakage
of some of the gross construction spending, the Salt
Lake County’s total output (which is analogous to “gross
domestic product” at the national level) expands by more
than a factor of 2. The employment multipliers are the
number of jobs created for each million dollars’ worth
of change in final demand. Combining both buildings,
the proposed project would create a one-time expansion
of almost half a billion dollars in the Salt Lake County
economy, and would generate over 4,000 jobs over the
construction period of the project.
Table 8: One-Time Economic Impacts of Construction
6.32
Change in
Final Demand
in Sale Lake
County
Change in Final Demand Due to Theater
Development
Personal
Earnings
Employment
$94,286,000
RIMS III Multipliers for the Construction
Industry
2.1419
0.5847
17.7216
$201,951,183
$55,129,024
1,671
2.1419
0.5847
17.7216
Tota Impacts Due to the Office
Development
$289,156,500
$78,934,500
2,392
Total Economic Impacts of Both Project
Components
$491,107,683
$134,063,524
4,063
Total Impacts Due to the Theater
Development
Change in Final Demand Due to Office
Development
$135,000,000
RIMS II Multipliers for the Construction
Industry
may 3, 2011
Total Output
Source: US Dept. of Commerce, BEA; and AECOM Analysis.
O n g o i n g E c ono m i c I m p a c t s o f
P r oj e c t O p e r a t i ons
Five mechanisms have been identified through which
the proposed project will have a net new direct impact
on Salt Lake County on an ongoing basis. Each will be
analyzed separately below.
1. Operations of the new theater building (i.e., it is a
net new facility within the County).
2. Local spending to produce additional touring shows
(e.g., hiring local stagehands, and buying advertising
in local media).
3. Induced visitation and associated visitor spending
due to additional patrons coming from outside
the County and State to attend new theater
performances.
4. Induced visitation and associated spending due to
more touring acts/performing companies and their
cast and crew coming from outside the County, with
the vast majority from outside the State.
5. Operations of the new office building (i.e., it is built
sooner that a building would otherwise be, and adds
physical capacity to the office market in Salt Lake
County).
A s s u m p t i o n s f o r T h e a t e r O p e r a t i o n s
Operating Budget of the UPAC
• The economic impacts of ongoing theater operations
are based on the first year operations budget as
estimated by AMS in the County-run operating
model.
• Total annual expenses are approximately $2.3
million, of which 76 percent is estimated to stay in
the County.
• Personnel expenditures total $736,000 with a total
of approximately 16 FTE direct employees.
• Applying the RIMS multipliers (using the bill of goods
approach for each operating expenditure category)
produces economic impacts from operations of:
○○
○○
○○
$4,619,000 in total output,
$1,298,000 in new personal earnings, and
49 new jobs in the County.
Additional Local Spending to Produce More Touring
Shows
• As will be seen in the analysis of historical usage
trends and the AMS projections for the new theater in
Table 12 below, an average annual increase of 17.5
use days of Broadway productions is anticipated. This is equivalent to approximately 2.5 additional
productions running one week each. • The cost of hiring local stagehands typically runs
between $50,000 to $60,000 per week-long run.
• Purchase of advertising in local media including
print, radio and TV typically costs $45,000 to
$50,000 for a week-long run.
• In Salt Lake City these costs are typically handled
by NewSpace Entertainment, who also will see
some additional internal cost increase for staff and
expenses associated with the additional productions.
• Applying the RIMS multipliers to this local spending
in Salt Lake County (using the final demand
multiplier approach for performing arts companies
and advertising and related services) produces
economic impacts from local production and
advertising spending of:
○○
○○
○○
$584,000 in total output,
$165,000 in new personal earnings, and
6.33
may 3, 2011
6.34
A s s u m p t i o n s f o r I n d u c e d V i s i t a t i o n a s
a r e s u l t o f T h e a t e r O p e r a t i o n s
The addition of a state-of-the-art new performance theater
will change and expand what may be thought of as an
ecosystem of arts groups and arts venues in Utah, and it
will take two or three years for the ecosystem to adapt to
the expansion and settle into a new equilibrium. When
the UPAC opens, the immediately observable effect will
be a relatively full calendar in the new theater composed
of touring Broadway shows, as well as locally produced
symphony, opera, ballet and other arts groups anxious
to perform in the new state-of-the-art facility. Because
these programs will have room to expand, due to greater
seating capacity and less competition for dates in the
UPAC, some of the audience to these performances will
be net new to the County and State. On the other hand,
much of this programming has taken place in the past in
one or more of the three similarly sized theaters in Salt
Lake City, and will be simply moved into the new theater.
Over the subsequent few years, however, the three
existing theaters will now have additional date capacity
and will “backfill” dates that were previously occupied by
groups moving into the UPAC with new programming from
a wide variety of arts groups. The experience in other
cities that have undergone this type of expansion in their
arts communities indicates that some will come from
local arts groups that are now able to grow and provide
more cultural content in Salt Lake City and attract
expanded audience support, and others will come from
national touring shows that have not been able to find
dates in the past. For example, interviews reveal that
some promoters of touring concerts have bypassed Salt
Lake City in the past due to lack of available dates in
suitably sized theaters. Indications from other cities and
their experiences in the past are that the utilization in
the existing theaters will likely climb back up, perhaps
equaling or exceeding previous levels, within a few
years after the introduction of the new theater in the
mix. Some of the programming may be experimental
in nature, appealing mostly to local patrons, but some
of the programming will also be of the same national
entertainment caliber with the out-of-town drawing
power of the Broadway shows and other programming
in the new UPAC. Assumptions regarding the expanded
patronage resulting from the changes in the Salt Lake
City arts ecosystem are as follows.
Expanded Patronage
• Looking well beyond the initial year of UPAC operations, an average of blockbuster and nonblockbuster years for AMS projections was used
for calculations to estimate a typical stabilized
operating year for attendance in the new UPAC after
a new equilibrium is reached (see the first column
in Table 9).
• Net new Broadway Shows audience to the Salt
Lake County area of 138,000 was based on AMS
projections as well as historic data available for
Broadway patronage (see second column of Table
9).
• Net new other patronage for other arts groups (i.e.,
Symphony, Opera, Ballet, Holiday, commercial, and
non-profit) was based on user interviews conducted
by AMS and AECOM’s projected utilization for those
categories in the proposed theater.
• Once a portion of the performances move from the
existing three theaters into the UPAC, there will be
the potential to “backfill” new performances into
the dates and seating left open in the existing three
theaters. While 100 percent of the utilization in the
existing three theaters may be rebuilt in a few years,
in order to be conservative, backfilled patronage
for performing arts that has the same economic
impact generating potential as Broadway shows was
estimated to be only one-third of the volume that
had been moved to the new theater (see Table 9).
• The bottom line of the analysis in Table 9 is that the
expansion of the theater offering from three venues
to four (a 38% expansion in seats available and a
33% expansion in the number of performance dates)
is estimated to attract approximately 123,000 new
patrons over a year.
Table 9: Estimated Net New and Backfilled Attendance
Project
attendance in
UPAC1
Broadway
Estimated % net
new Attendance
Estimated new net
attendance2
138,000
30%
41,377
Potential seating
for backfill in 3
existing theaters3
96,623
Non-Broadway
Symphony
5,400
100%
5,400
- Opera
6,750
20%
1,350
5,400
Ballet
12,150
20%
2,430
9,720
Holiday Production
33,750
20%
6,750
27,000
Other Non-Profit
13,500
20%
2,700
10,800
Commercial
30,000
20%
6,000
24,000
Subtotal Non-Broadway
101,550
24%
24,630
76,920
Subtotals
239,550
66,007
173,543
Backfill in 3 Existing Theaters at 1/3 of Seating Moved to UPAC
Total Net New & Backfilled Attendance
1
2
3
57,269
123,276
Average of estimated blockbuster and non-blockbuster years
Net new attendance is generated by larger seating capacity and additional programming in the new theater.
Patrons in seats in the existing 3 theaters will be moved to the UPAC, and while up to 100% of that capacity may be backfilled
with new programming, only 1/3 of that capacity is assumed to be backfilled with programs that have a similar economicimpact-generating value to SL County.
Source: AECOM, AMS, New Space Entertainment
Table 10: Patron Visitor Origin, 2008-9 Season
Ticket
Purchases
% Total
10.528
100%
Patrons from the State of Utah
9,964
95%
Patrons from Salt Lake County
5,356
51%
Patrons from Salt Lake City
3,066
29%
Total Broadway Season
Tickets Sold
Source: New Space Entertainment
• Based on the most recent historic data from New
Space Entertainment presented in Table 10,
the estimated origin of the audience has been
approximately half from within Salt Lake County,
and half from outside (51% of audience originating
inside vs. 49% from beyond the County and including
outside the State).
• Based upon this logic, it is estimated that
approximately half of the 123,276 new patrons
to theater based performances, or approximately
61,600, are from outside Salt Lake County.
6.35
• In addition, a 20 percent retention factor of inCounty residents was added to the total (i.e., 61,600
+ 12,300 for approximately 74,000 new patrons
attending performances from outside the County
and State). The retention factor assumes that a
percentage of market leakage (patrons traveling
to Las Vegas, New York or other markets to see
Broadway productions) will now stay in Salt Lake
County.
• Expenditures by patrons attending theater
productions were based on the Americans for the
Arts and Economic Prosperity III report and adjusted
for per capita incomes in Salt Lake County as
presented in Table 11.
• Roughly 74,000 new patrons downtown, spending
approximately $20 per capita creates a direct visitor
spending impact of $1.5 million per year.
• Applying the RIMS multipliers (using the final demand
multiplier approach for restaurant spending, ground
transportation and other expenditure categories)
produces economic impacts from patron visitor
spending of:
6.36
○○
○○
○○
Adjusted for
Salt Lake
County3
Non-resident
expenditures1
Meals
2
may 3, 2011
Transportion
$13.75
$12.72
$4.37
$4.04
Other
$3.45
$3.19
Total
$21.57
$19.96
$26,409
$24,440
Per Capital
Income
• The total number of person-production-days was
calculated based on AMS projections and historic
data available for Broadway productions in the Salt
Lake County market for 2008 and 2009 (see Table
12).
• The average length of stay for tour staff per
production is 8 days. • The average number of persons traveling with
productions to Salt Lake has historically been 65. We estimate an increase to 75 persons as a result
of the larger theater which will accommodate larger
productions.
• Back-fill cast and crew for other new productions
in existing facilities is estimated using the ratio
calculated from Table 13 of backfilled attendance
over the net new attendance (i.e., cast and crew count
is proportional to attendance at the productions).
• The product of this set of assumptions presented
in Table 16 is an estimate of 4,300 additional
production-person-days spent in Salt Lake County.
Table 11: Theater Visitor Spending
United States
Averages
New Touring Companies/Productions
Due to the larger date availability in the expanded
complex of four theaters, there will also be some
increase in the number of Broadway productions and
other performances that can take place during a typical
year. The additional touring companies and/or their
extended lengths of stay in Salt Lake County will have an
economic impact.
1
Non resident refers to visitors outside the county in which
the performance was held.
2
Expenditures made outside the performance venue only.
3
Adjusted by the ratio of US to SLC per capital incomes.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2009 American Community
Survey, Americans for the Arts Arts and Economic Prosperity
III Report, AECOM
• Hotel expenditures are negotiated by individual
touring companies and estimated at $79 per person
night.
• Per Diem expenditures for touring staff are estimated
at $45.
• Applying the RIMS multipliers (using the final
demand multiplier approach for hotel and restaurant
spending) produces economic impacts from
additional production staff spending of:
○○
○○
○○
Production Person Days
Broadway
Productions
Historic1 Projected2
Net New
Average Use days
100
117.5
17.5
Average number
of production
people
65
75
n/a
Touring company
person days
6,500
8,813
2,313
Backfilled
Production person
days3
2,006
Total production
person days
4,319
Estimated from New Space Entertainment 2008, 2009
season data
2
Average of AMS estimated blockbuster and non-blockbuster
years
3
Estimated using the ratio of (backfilled attendance)(new
new attendance).
Source: AECOM, AMS, New Space Entertainment
Note that the assumptions driving the quantitative
analysis are relatively conservative regarding capture of
new out-of-area patrons, and do not specifically seek to
quantify the retention effects of keeping Utahns closer to
home through offering better entertainment in Utah. At
the state level, AECOM’s best estimates are that perhaps
five percent of patronage may be from out-of-state based
on previous seasons of Broadway ticket sales (see Table
10 above). This does not include a retention effect. It
also does not include likely changes in travel patterns
stimulated by the new City Creek Center project and
other major enhancements to downtown Salt Lake
City. In coming years the out-of-state effect could easily
prove to be 10 percent, rather than five, meaning State
level benefits would be double what AECOM is currently
projecting.
1
When all four of the mechanisms for producing ongoing
impacts associated with the theater are combined, the
annual expansion of Salt Lake County output is over $9.4
million, as can be seen in Table 13.
Theater
Operations
Touring
Productions
$4,619,000 $1,298,000
$584,000
Employment
Earnings
Ongoing Theater
Impacts
Output
Table 13: Summary of Ongoing Theater Economic
Impacts
49
$165,000
11
$832,000
41
$281,000
13
$9,423,000 $2,576,000
115
Induced Visitation:
Audience
Touring Cast &
Crew
Ongoing Theater
$3,163,000
$1,057,000
Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis, RIMS II Multipliers,
AECOM
O f f i c e T o w e r O p e r a t i o n s
It is possible that the new office development may attract
one or more new tenants into the County, or even into
the State, who might not have been relocated otherwise. In order to maintain a more conservative approach to
this analysis, however, any economic benefits associated
with office tenants have not been included. The
economic impacts are driven merely off the operations
of the building itself, which is clearly a new addition to
the County economy.
• The total annual operating budget was estimated at
$3.6 million based on 450,000 square feet and $8
per square foot expenditures.
• An estimated 70 percent of total expenditures are
expected to stay in the County.
• Applying the RIMS multipliers (using the final
demand multiplier approach for office operations)
produces economic impacts from the office tower of:
○○
○○
○○
6.37
S u m m a r y o f E c ono m i c I m p a c t s
The quantitative economic benefits of the proposed
project from the perspective of Salt Lake County are
presented in Table 14. During the construction years,
the County economy will expand by almost $500 million
and over 4,000 jobs will be created. Once built out and
at stabilized occupancy, the project will generate ongoing
benefits of $14.8 million in economic output and support
168 new permanent jobs in the County.
Table 14: Summary of All Economic Impacts on Salt Lake County
Output
Earnings
Employment
One-time Impacts
Theater Construction
$201,951,000
$55,129,000
1,671
Office Construction
$289,157,000
$78,935,000
2,392
Total One-Time
$491,108,000
$134,064,000
4,063
Theater Operations
$4,619,000
$1,298,000
49
Touring Productions
$584,000
$165,000
11
Audience
$3,163,000
$832,000
41
Touring Cast & Crew
$1,057,000
$281,000
13
Subtotal Theater
$9,423,000
$2,576,000
115
Ongoing Impacts
Theater
6.38
Induced Visitation
Office Operations
Total Ongoing
$5,418,000
$859,000
53
$14,841,000
$3,435,000
168
Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis, RIMS II Multipliers, AECOM
may 3, 2011
S u m m a r y o f F i s c a l R e v e n u e I m p a c t s
A portion of the total economic expansion due to the
project will flow through all levels of government in Utah. Additional personal income associated with the new jobs
will add income tax to the State, and the State portion of
the sales tax will also benefit from the additional spending
derived from the expanded incomes. The County too
will benefit from its portion of the sales tax, as well as
the Tourism Restaurant tax, and will collect a significant
portion of the Transient Room tax on additional hotel
stays stimulated by the project. The City shares in the
sales tax too. The single largest tax revenue impact is likely to be the
property tax, and because the project lies within a noncollection block of the City’s Redevelopment Agency,
the majority of the incremental property taxes will flow
to the schools (approximately 50%), and to the City and
County (approximately 22% each). Assuming office tower
valuation at roughly $80 million in hard construction
costs, the incremental property taxes will exceed
$1,000,000 per year on an ongoing basis.
Architectural/Programming/
Engineering Executive Summary
This Study, requested by the Redevelopment Agency,
summarizes the use, size and amenities available to
downtown Salt Lake City regarding a new multi- mixed
use project. Economic development is a primary driver
of the project that will include a 2,500 seat Performing
Arts Center, a high-rise office Tower, and additional
retail opportunities, redevelopment of Main and Regent
Streets, and related spaces and parking for the new
750,000 +/- square foot development. The following
information is the design narrative relative to the study. The following sections discuss the total amount of square
footage, type of facilities to be within the square footage,
parking, and associated drives and delivery points. Rrevitalization of pedestrian amenities are discussed
and delineated in detail. b a c k g r o u nd
The new Utah Performing Arts Center (UPAC) is the focus
of the Redevelopment Agency’s Request for Proposal
titled ─ “Main Street Property Development: Block 70,
Plat “A” ─ issued March 15, 2009. The site for UPAC is
on the southwest corner of 1st South and Main Street
and extends southward towards the historic Tribune
Building. The property then jogs east to Regent Street
and continues south to Walker Terrace Parking Garage. The site totals 2.04 acres. This site that was chosen by a
previous study: “Theater Action Group” study. Several planning schemes have been tested on the site. Placing the facility with an emphasis at the northwest
corner was one option studied. There is not enough
room between Main Street and the Historic Brownstone
(Martine’s) for this scheme to work. The piece of the
property along Regent Street, behind Main Street stores,
again, is not large enough. In order for the Performing
Arts Center to run in the north south direction, in the
center of the property, additional property would have
to be acquired at the rear of the Tribune Building and
southward. We have concluded that the most logical
and best approach would be to place the Performing
Arts Center in an east/west direction, in the center of the
property ─ which is the largest section of the property. This scheme provides the main entry / lobby on Main
Street and the delivery / support area (deliveries)
would be accessible from Regent Street. After studying
numerous alternatives, it was concluded the best
solution to meet the stated program and adhere to the
site restrictions was a project that runs east west on the
property and with the main lobby fronting on Main Street. This scheme allows for deliveries and support access
from Regent Street (or east side of the project). If a rectangular piece of property to the north at the corner
is defined as the Tower site and the leg of the property
running south is deemed support or annex space, the
large rectangle piece through the center of the property
is 268’ long x 180’ wide. One of the major criteria for solving the design solution
for the new Performing Arts Center is how the semitractor trailers will be able to deliver props and goods
to the Center (stage). As several schemes were tested
with various alternatives it quickly became apparent that
Regent Street provided only limited solutions. Due to the
dimension of the project from east to west and since the
City requires that all delivery trucks be fully off the street
when parked, direct deliveries to the back of the stage
from the east was deemed unacceptable. We discovered
if deliveries occur directly to the stage from the east
either the amount of space for the lobby or the amount of
the space for the hall would be compromised. Therefore,
in the schemes enclosed we have shown a solution that
provides deliveries from the south side of stage. From
Regent Street delivery trucks can easily back into a
delivery area and then the delivery area, allowing the
deliveries to be adjacent to the stage.
The annex area is proposed to house support facilities
for the Performing Arts Center i.e. a Black Box theater,
experimental theatre, university classrooms or some sort
of adult education facility, and overall office and support
spaces for the arts. The amount of land available for the Tower footprint totals
approximately 18,000 square feet. This is a relatively
small plate and the development team would prefer a
larger floor plate to make the leasing opportunities more
flexible. One scheme to be considered would have the
office building cantilever over the Performing Arts Center
as it gets above the top of the Performing Arts Center
building structure.
7.01
executive summary
vcbo architecture
may 3, 2011
7.02
A shared lobby between UPAC and the Tower is
considered the best solution so that the primary corner
at the intersection can be left available for retail. This
solution would provide total visibility to and from the City
Creek Retail Development across the street. The following study includes site analysis, concept
drawings and detailed facility program. The enclosed
drawings and programmatic descriptions are a summary
of the discussions and research done throughout this
report. The following information is a summary of the
design issues that we believe are critical for the success
of the new Performing Arts Center. 7.03
Site
L o c a t i on
D own t own C u l t u r a l Co r e
The site is located in downtown Salt Lake City, Utah
on the southeast corner of the intersection at 100
South and Main Street. Site frontage runs east on 100
South for approximately 158’-0” and south on Main
Street for approximately 330’-0”. The middle portion
of the site spans between Main Street and Regent
Street (approximately 384’-0”). Topographically, the
site falls from north to south with a grade difference of
approximately 9’-0”. The site is approximately level in the
east and west direction.
Placed centrally downtown, the site is within a couple
blocks of Abravanel Hall, home to the Utah Symphony,
and Capitol Theatre, the home of the Utah Opera and
Ballet West. Additionally, the original Utah Theater is
located on Main Street directly across from the site. These venues plus Rose Wagner and other performance
halls make up the culture core of Downtown Salt Lake
City.
N e a r b y S u r r o u nd i n g s
A pivotal link between the new City Creek Development
and Gallivan Plaza, the property will also extend the
Main Street renewal to the south. Furthermore, the
new project will improve pedestrian access from City
Creek to Gallivan Plaza along Regent St. Included in
the schematic diagrams is a mid-block passage, linking
Regent Street garage to Main Street.
visitor experience
Visitors to the theater will experience much more than
a performance. Part of the experience will include the
process of arrival, dining, walking downtown and having
a dessert after the show. All of these activities formulate
a performance of its own which enhances the experience
of a play to the experience of an event.
site analysis
7.04
vcbo architecture
may 3, 2011
c ons t r a i n t s
A mid-block alley runs north/south behind all the Main
Street properties for service and deliveries. This alley
must remain open and accessible to support remaining,
existing buildings. The alley will need to turn east and
exit on to Regent St. bisecting the site in the east/west
direction. A second east/west alley to the north of
the property, behind Martine’s and the Deseret news
Building, must also be maintained.
Height restrictions have been designated for this site in
accordance with Salt Lake City Zoning. Buildings located
on the corner of blocks in the Downtown Central Business
District must exceed 100’-0” in height and be less than
375’-0”. Certain exceptions are delineated in the code
for exceeding the 375’-0” height requirement. Mid-block
buildings are limited to 100’-0” unless a conditional
use permit is granted. This report includes a mid-block
building less than 100’-0”, and a tower on the corner
over 375’-0”. If the tower in its final configuration is over
375’-0”, this portion of the project will need conditional
approval.
7.05
2 , 5 0 0 S e a t H a ll
As with any Performing Arts Center the seating area, or
“hall”, is very critical. With a “road-house” type facility
and some dance theatres, one or two balconies is typical. With opera and symphonies, the norm is three balconies. The height, width and length of the hall are very critical. All three dimensions must be proportionate to each
other. We are proposing the hall be approximately 110
feet from side to side and 110 feet from the front of the
stage to the back wall or last row of seats. 105 to 115
feet front-to-back is considered proper distance from
the stage - beyond that seating becomes compromised. Additionally, we propose that the height be approximately
55+/- feet from seats to ceiling and that the hall have
two balconies. The new UPAC is programmed around
2,500 seats. Approximately 3/5 or a minimum of half
of the seats should be on the main floor leaving the two
balconies and side loge’s to have the remainder of the
seats.
Seat size and row spacing are equally important criteria
in evaluating the experience of a performing arts hall. Recommended row spacing is 36” from back of chair
to back of chair. The recommended seat size is 22 to
24”. Both recommendations are based on a the goal
of creating wide, spacious and comfortable seating that
adds to the overall experience.
Acoustics
The hall itself will not be designed as a fully acoustic
hall for symphony performances. Amplified shows will
be the primary use. The acoustics should, however,
be designed well enough; that the hall could provide a
quality space for special performances of the opera and
ballet. The acoustic design should consider reflective
services, absorptive services and be flexible as well. In
other words, if it’s fully amplified curtains or soft areas
need to be available at critical locations and if it’s an
operatic or non-amplified, instrument performance some
absorptive surfaces will need to be retractable. design directives
Orchestra Pit
Deliveries
It is recommended that the new UPAC have a 2 part
Orchestra Pit. The Orchestra Pit will seat between
35 and 45 seats and the 2 elevators, or lifts, within
the Orchestra Pit should be able to rise and fall either
together or separately. When both Orchestra Pit floor
sections are at their lowest point, there should be direct
access to an adjoining room under the stage. This will
accommodate Broadway in the smaller configuration and
ballet and opera in the larger setup.
The delivery area is very critical for success of the
theatre operations. The quicker a traveling road show
can unload their trucks and set up the stage and the
quicker they can break down their sets and load up their
trucks to leave, the more successful the road show will
be. Additionally, the more efficient the load and unload
operations, the more road shows will commit to coming to
Salt Lake City. The delivery dock should be 4 feet higher
than the area where the trailers are parked. Trailers and
tractors in today’s traveling road shows require a total
of 54 feet from front bumper-to-rear of the trailer. It is
recommended that at least 3 delivery spots be available
so that 3 semi-tracker trailers can unload simultaneously. The actor/employee entrance should be located near the
delivery area at the rear of the building. A security office
should be positioned near the loading dock to screen the
staff, actors and visitors at the entrance and to receive
the deliveries. This provides one single point to provide
security for people and products coming into the building. Stag e
7.06
The stage has critical dimensions much like the house.
We recommend that the stage be a minimum of 50 feet,
front to back, and a minimum of 110 feet wide. We have
shown the stage at 120 feet wide allowing 10 feet on
the rigging side to be outside of the 110 dimension. The new Performing Arts Center will have a full fly loft
and involve many rows of rigging for props and lighting. The stage opening should be approximately 50 feet
wide and 40 to 50 feet tall. If the proscenium opening
is approximately 40 feet tall, the rigging will need to be
double that plus dimensions for the ropes and riggings
to travel. If the rigging is put in a lower room the overall
height of the stage can be reduced by 12 to 15 feet. The
enclosed concept scheme shows a stage fly loft that is
approximately 75 feet to the rigging. The roof structure
itself will need to be an additional 10 +/- feet above the
fly rigging.
C a t - W a l k s , R i g g i n g a n d F l y - l o f t
vcbo architecture
May 3, 2011
The work as discussed in the ‘Stage’ section needs to be
accessible with multiple levels of cat-walks. The loading
platform(s) for the weights should take place at both the
floor level and at a higher level. There should be at least
2 -perhaps even 3 or 4 - cat-walks between the stage
and the main rigging. Where possible, cat-walks should
be accessible by actual stairway and not ships ladders
or circular stairways. The fly rigging should be placed as
noted above. The rope-lock stations should be placed
at the floor level below the stage, and at least one upper
location.
Docks should be enclosed or covered to facilitate loading
in inclement weather.
L obb i e s
The main lobby that leads directly into the rear of the hall
should be the largest lobby and provide adequate space
for program intermissions. There are two approaches to
getting into the Performing Arts Center: 1. Raise the main lobby so you enter directly into the
seating one level above a street level lower lobby. The raised main lobby leaves a lower lobby at street
level where ticket office and public transactions
could occur. We recommend that if the scheme
involves a lower lobby at street level, the lobby,
during the day, be used as an art gallery or some
sort of public facility that can activate the street and
engage pedestrian traffic. 2. Sink the hall down so you enter directly into the
seating area from the main lobby at street level
(Main Street). This requires a below-grade delivery
area because the stage floor will be down 15 feet +/from the main entry. If the Performing Arts Center is
sunk below grade so that the main lobby is level with
Main Street, then the 2nd and 3rd floor lobbies are
above street level, with views out to Main Street. The
main lobby will need to be large enough to handle
the main floor patrons and some traffic from above
balconies during intermissions. During the week this
lobby could also be developed under the concept of a public space, art gallery, etc. Any street level lobby
will also need to provide for a box office and other
theatre functions. The upper 2 lobbies can be much
smaller but need to handle adjacent patrons during
intermissions. Please note that all the lobbies can be used for other
activities before, after, or in between shows. The various
size and shaped lobbies can provide a variety of rental
opportunities. Each lobby could house corporate
banquets, pre and post event functions and even
provide spaces for group activities in between scheduled
shows. Special reserved rooms adjacent to the lobby
should be considered and developed as the lobbies are
being designed. A “presidents” room, a “VIP” room or
a “supporters of the arts” room, are many names that
are used for these special VIP type spaces. The primary
donors and on-going supporters of the UPAC can gather
before functions, at intermissions and after functions
in these spaces. This space should have a kitchenette,
coat closet and a wet bar area. These rooms normally include nicer furnishings than most of the other public
spaces.
Finally, if additional retail along Main Street is included
in the design, the lobby spaces need to be carefully
integrated into the adjoining functions.
C o n c e s s i o n s The concession portion of the hall will need to be
considered in many facets. The lobby concessionaires
will offer drinks, food and souvenirs. Some of the lobby
spaces may need to be reserved and/or rented for
dinners and functions requiring catered food. Portable
concession stations or stands will need to be located in
all of the lobbies as well as one or two fixed locations. A central kitchen or prep area will need to be implemented
for food carts and various lobby spaces. The main
food prep area needs to be near the delivery docks. Consideration needs to be given as to how the product
is received and then distributed (corridors, stairs,
elevators, etc.), a key factor in the success of concession
operations. 7.07
design directives
R e s t r oo m s
7.08
Restrooms are always a critical part of the success of
any public performance hall. The restrooms should be
divided among the floors in proportion to the quantity
of seating. We recommend that the amount of toilet
fixtures be calculated in the following fashion: multiply
the required code amount of fixtures by two. Take that
final number and provide two-thirds for women and the
remaining one-third for men. Additional restrooms will
need to be provided in the staff, back of house and
dressing areas.
M a i n S t r e e t / r e g e n t s t r e e t
vcbo architecture
May 3, 2011
As stated earlier, one of the controlling objectives of this
new development is to activate and increase pedestrian
traffic on Main Street. The main lobby at street level is
ideal for this purpose. If the main lobby is raised, the
lower /entry lobby needs to contribute to the revitalization
of Main Street. It is preferred that the main lobby be very
transparent and visually open to Main Street. Main Street frontage could provide additional retail
adjacent to the main lobby. Any retail, however, will
reduce the size (width) of the main lobby area, so this
amenity must be carefully considered. Developing the
tower and UPAC jointly will help to implement the concept
of retail on Main.
Development along Regent Street may be of equal
importance to the revitalization of this area. Retail
shops along Regent Street will affect the function and
use of the stage back of house areas and the final
arrangement of the annex. Numerous opportunities for
further development along Regent Street can contribute
to the success of UPAC. Replacing the Regent Street
parking structure, street level shops at the annex, below
grade delivery area for the UPAC (which allows for more
retail at street level) will all provide more pedestrian
activity at street level.
Regent Street will be the access for delivery trucks and
the performance hall’s delivery docks will need to be
off of Regent Street. Regent Street will be the primary
access for all truck/support traffic.
M i d B lo c k A c c e ss
Tow e r
Increasing pedestrian traffic on Main Street can be
accommodated by providing easy direct access from the
large parking garage on Regent Street to Main Street. A mid block access point was considered in this concept
study phase, both at the north edge of the PAC facility,
and at the southern edge. After initial studies, the north
access point appeared too close to 1st South. A second
alternative with a walkway at the south edge of the UPAC was studied and appears to compromise deliveries and
other critical functions adjacent to the south end of the
development.
A proposed 20 to 30 story office Tower will be constructed
in conjunction with the Performing Arts Center. Actual
size and amount of square footage of the tower will be
determined as market demand studies are completed. The Tower has a limited footprint size on the corner of
1st South and Main Street. If the two projects (PAC and
Tower) are developed simultaneously, there are other
development options, such as shared lobbies, shared
retail operations, sharing phased construction, joint
utility/storage, and site development costs. Additionally,
exchanging air rights would allow a building such as the
new Tower to cantilever or extend over the PAC property
on upper floors. This configuration would add to the total
square footage developed and contribute to the success
of the entire project, providing more square footage
available and helping to make the project more viable. The final recommendation includes a mid-block
walkthrough from Main to Regent at a location truly near
“mid-block”. This location passes through the UPAC project near the center of the south leg of the property. With the walkway at or near this area and space for
deliveries and still adequate space south of the walk for
a black box/studio theater or other PAC related functions
could be located on upper floors or adjacent property if
available. It is recommended that as the annex area is
programmed, multiple floors above and over the walkway
and delivery area be considered. See the summary list
of additional non-program spaces that could be included
in the Annex area.
R e ta i l
Retail development will take place along Regent Street as
the PAC project and associated Annex area is developed. The Annex as described earlier will provide many
opportunities for numerous uses. The parking garage on
the east side of Regent Street can provide a considerable
amount of retail for destination shops or walking shops
as Regent Street is developed as a major connector
between the new City Creek Mall and the revitalized
Gallivan Center. One proposed scheme shows, in the
not-too-distant future, a Regent Street filled with shops
and restaurants for walking pedestrian traffic. The street
could be closed during lunch hour to create a similar
atmosphere to Maiden Lane in San Francisco, California.
Regardless of the development of Regent Street, it
should be noted that traffic will need to be accessible
from both the north end and the south end. Truck traffic
to the Performing Arts Center will need to be able drive
the entire length of Regent Street if there are surface
deliveries. Truck traffic could enter and leave Regent
Street from only one direction if the delivery area to the
PAC were located underneath a new parking garage.
The new Tower could also contribute greatly to additional
retail in the area, in addition to providing an excellent
pedestrian link between Main Street and City Creek
Center. The Tower will be an ideal anchor to the entire
project. It is believed that the corner of 100 South and
Main Streets would be a premium retail location and
would be an ideal transition property between shops
on Main Street, the Performing Arts Center, and the
retail development to the north. We have proposed in
the concept schemes that a joint entry lobby for the
Performing Arts Center and the office be located south
of the corner. This provides more of an open and inviting
lobby area for both buildings and thus preserves the
prime corner for retail.
a nn e x
As outlined previously, the portion of the site that extends
southward from the Performing Arts Center to the Walker
Terrace Parking Garage and is bound on the east by
Regent Street and west by the mid-block alley is an area
for additional square footage and building construction. This area could be used for university-style classrooms,
Black Box Theater, a research-type theatre, offices, etc. As noted, the planning requirements for this area could
permit a building height up to eight stories. More than
likely, the project would support a 2 or 3 story building. in this location. With the delivery area hidden from view
at ground level, the frontage on Regent Street could
accommodate retail with support facilities above. It is
our hope that this annex area would be ideal to generate
additional destination services, retail shops, and other
7.09
design directives
pedestrian-activity generating facilities. As Regent Street
is developed as a pedestrian mall between Gallivan Plaza
and City Creek Center, this new annex facility could be an
important part of that progression.
S U S TAI N A B I L ITY
A well designed building is not only functional and
beautiful, but is inherently sustainable. Buildings must
meet the needs of today while ensuring the building is
functional and effective over its lifetime. A number of key
design strategies are employed to ensure the success of
the facility. These include:
Designing and building enduring
facilities
• Assessing building materials and systems life-cycle
cost and energy use allows the design team and the
owner to make informed decisions about building
systems and operations impacts early in the project
design.
7.10
• Creating an adaptable and flexible building will
ensure the spaces meet the needs of the users
and can be easily adapted to reflect changes in
technology and user expectations.
Promoting healthy environments
• A healthy environment is defined in two ways. The first being the use of safe materials and the
second being provisions for daylight, ventilation and
integration of the natural environment.
• Access to daylight, adequate ventilation and a
connection to nature have been shown to improve
performance, health and wellbeing of building
occupants.
• Installing healthier building materials and systems
improves the health of the building users.
vcbo architecture
May 3, 2011
Reducing resource consumption
• Energy and water consumption reduction is a
primary concern for building owners as it will
impact the operational cost and environmental
impact during the life of the building. The resource
reduction strategies need to be addressed at the
design, construction and occupancy phases of the
building.
• Renewable energy systems should be considered
for integration into the building design for energy
generation and educational purposes. Renewable
energy systems are a wonderful technology that
should be used in the appropriate locations,
applications and scales.
• Verifying system performance
• A commissioning agent ensures that the building
systems are installed and functioning properly during
construction and helps train the maintenance staff
to ensure the building runs at optimal efficiency.
• The culmination of each of these sustainable
strategies will be intuitively understood by the
building users, as the building will provide a more
comfortable, healthy and functional environment. In
addition, Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County both
require a high level of LEED certification in their
facilities. As such, this facility will be LEED certified.
A c c e ss i b i l i t y
Accessibility for every person to every level is challenging
but imperative in a performing arts facility. Because
each floor has a top and bottom elevation that differ to
accommodate the slope of the seats, multiple ramps
and multiple stop elevators become integral parts of the
circulation design. Furthermore, special consideration
should be given to access to restrooms, concessions and
seating for those accompanying a disabled patron.
In 2011 a new accessibility standard is being releases
and should be fully considered in the final design.
F a c i l i t y I m a g e
The architectural statement that the facility will evoke
is critical in the relationship to the other facilities along
Main Street. Of primary importance is the exterior image
of both the Tower to the north and the new Performing
Arts Center to the south. The two facilities need to be
developed in a harmonious image. Additionally, even
though the Performing Arts Center and the Tower could
have their own distinctive look, it is important that they
relate.
En g i n e e r i n g Cons u l t a n t s
The following consultants comprise the design/
programming team. Their assistance in assembling this
report is greatly appreciated.
Architecture/Planning
Programming
Civil Engineering
Structural
HVAC (Mechanical/Plumbing)
Electrical
Lighting
Acoustical
VCBO Architecture
Fisher Dachs
Bush and Gudgell
Reaveley Engineers
Van Boerum & Frank
Associates
BNA Consulting
BNA Consulting
Jaffy/Holden Acoustical
Engineers
The following drawings are a summary of the
architectural/engineering studies. These drawings are a
graphic summary of the previous descriptions regarding
the approach, design parameters, and input from
various groups and individuals. The following material is
organized as follows:
Civil
Soils
Traffic
Structural
Mechanical
Electrical
7.11
7.13
 
 
 






 
 



















 
 
 









 




















fisher dachs associates • theatre planning & design
may 3, 2011
7.14
























































 

 







building program
































 
 



 
 


 
 





















7.15






















































 

 
 
 
 
 



 













 
 
 

 
 
 


 
 











 




may 3, 2011
7.16





























































building program






























 
 
 
 




7.17



 





































 



  
 


 
 







 


 






may 3, 2011



7.18









































building program

 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



 











 










7.19



















































 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 





may 3, 2011
7.20
 













building program







 
 
 
 
 


 



 
 









7.21












 















Acoustical Considerations for a
Multi-Purpose Hall
The following are a list of points to consider in accoustical
design of a Multi-purpose House with a concentration on
presenting traveling Broadway shows.
used to control the reverberation and sound reflections
for amplified Broadway, and stored away for Opera
productions.
H a ll
Und e r b a l c on y d e p t h
The design of an Opera House and a multi-use hall are
similar, both tend to have side boxes, two balconies,
an orchestra pit and need to be well isolated from exterior noise. However, there are a number of acoustic
differences that are primarily due to the need to project
unamplified opera voices and acoustic pit instruments
evenly to all the seats; while the Broadway House relies
on loudspeaker systems to send mixed sound from
microphones to the patrons with large speaker arrays
located around the hall. Many halls do both exceedingly
well. Bass Hall in Ft. Worth, Bass Hall in Austin, the Long
Center in Austin, The Schuster Center in Dayton, and the
River Center in Columbus, Georgia are a few.
A Broadway house can have low deep underbalconies,
with 10-12 rows underneath the overhang on the
orchestra and mezzanine levels. Sound is delivered
using powerful speakers to the patrons from the balcony
edge or mounted in the ceilings. For Opera, the natural
sound reach under the balconies is typically limited to
5 rows on the orchestra to 7 rows in the mezzanine.
So for hall that does both, the more restrictive opera
underbalcony is recommended. It actually improves the
acoustic experience for Broadway!
P i t d e s i g n
Orchestra pits for Opera need to be larger to hold the
65-90 musicians in opera. Broadway rarely exceeds 30.
Opera instruments are mainly unamplified and require
hard sound projecting surfaces on pit walls and floor,
while a Broadway pit has sound soaking materials on
most surfaces. Multiple pit lifts sized for small orchestra
and expandable for opera, and adjustable acoustic
drapes in the pit allow both programs to successfully
occur in the same hall.
Roo m Vol u m e
A Broadway House would have its ceiling as low as
feasible, and there might be permanent acoustic
absorption panels on the walls and ceilings to control
the reverberation and loudness of amplified sound. For
Opera, the ceiling might be 10 feet or so higher, and all
hard sound reflective wall and ceiling surfaces would be
used to reach a reverberation time of about 1.6 seconds.
Walls would be 2-3 layers of drywall, or plaster on block
for opera; while for Broadway, the walls might be single
layer drywall, and the ceiling composed of lighter weight
materials such as a single drywall layer. For a hall that
does both, the higher volume and heavier walls are
used, and adjustable acoustic banners or drapes are
W a ll sh a p i n g
Opera wall shaping is more complex to add sound
diffusion and projection of voices. In Broadway halls,
the walls can flare wide away from the proscenium as
there is no need for natural acoustic reinforcement from
the walls. To do both, use the opera hall shaping and
adjustable acoustic banners to cover walls to control
sound.
Fo r e s t a g e S h a p i n g
An Opera House puts restrictions on the forestage area
over the pit that a Broadway House does not. The ceiling
over the pit needs to be shaped in a way that projects the
opera voices out into the hall, while controlling the pits
orchestras’ sound patterns. This means flatter planes of
hard material with a shallow angle to the floor at about
40 feet off the stage. A Broadway house does not want or
need this. They need provisions for large speaker arrays
above and to the sides of the proscenium openings. A hall for both has the opera ceiling over the pit and space
for the Broadway speakers.
7.23
building program
B a c k g r o u nd N o i s e f r o m H VAC
An Opera house needs a quieter air system, lighting, and
piping than a Broadway House. Ducts are larger and the
units are more remote from the hall and stage. NC 15
noise criteria is used for opera, while a less restrictive
NC20 or 25 is used for Broadway houses. A Hall for both
uses the quieter systems, and Broadway benefits!
P r os c e n i u m O p e n i n g
Broadway prosceniums are 40-45 feet wide, while opera
may need 50 feet of width at the opening. Also they like
more height to the proscenium than does typical touring
Broadway.
F i n i sh e s i n t h e h a ll
jaffy/holden acoustical engineers
7.24
For Broadway, we can use heavily upholstered seats
with fabric on the back and thick foam cushions. For
Opera, the seats have a wood back and thinner padding.
Also, an Opera House has a concrete floor or wood floor
under the seats, while Broadway Houses may be totally
carpeted. A hall that does both uses the more restrictive
opera materials and uses the acoustic drapes/banners
to control loudness.
Civil Design Criteria
The project site is located in Salt Lake City and will be
subject to the zoning requirements and restriction of Salt
Lake City. All roadway improvements within the public
rights-of-way will be subject to review and approval by
the Salt Lake City Engineering Department. The water,
sanitary sewer, and storm water systems serving this site
are a part of Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department
and will be subject to their review and approval. E x i s t i n g U t i l i t y S y s t e m s
Water System
The project site is surrounded by several water mains
which traverse the public rights of way in Main Street,
100 South Street, and Regent Street. A 16 inch diameter
water main runs along the south side of 100 South Street. In Main Street there are two separate water mains, one
located west of the TRAX rails and one located east of the
TRAX rails. The line located east of the rails is a 16 inch
diameter cast iron main line which is utilized for service
connections and fire protection for all structures located
along the east side of Main Street. A six inch diameter water main also runs in Regent Street
between 100 South Street and 200 South Street. This
six inch diameter main in Regent Street connects to a 16
inch diameter cast iron main in 100 South Street and to
a six inch diameter water main in 200 South Street. Sanitary Sewer System
The site is served by several sanitary sewer mains which
in general drain from north to south. An 8 inch diameter
vitrified clay sanitary sewer main runs from north to
south in Main Street, located along the east side of the
street. All properties located along the east side of Main
Street are served by this sewer main. An 8 inch diameter
sanitary sewer main also runs from north to south in
Regent Street. All properties fronting on Regent Street
are served by this sewer main. Additionally, an 8 inch
diameter sanitary sewer main runs from west to east in
along the south side of 100 South Street. Storm Drain System
The existing storm drain system surrounding the project
site consists of an 18 inch diameter storm drain conduit
located in Main Street (west of TRAX rails). A catch
basin is located along the east side curb and gutter at
approximately 135 South Main Street which drains west
beneath the TRAX lines and connect into the 18 inch
diameter storm drain running south in 100 South Street. There are also two catch basins located along the west
side of Regent Street at each end of the driveway entry
to the loading docks of what was the Newspaper Agency
Corporation distribution center. These catch basins are
not connected to a piped storm drain system and actually
allow storm water to pass from north beneath the entry
then discharge into the gutter south of the entry. Both
catch basins are clogged with debris. There is also an existing catch basin located within the
alley way which is also clogged with debris. This catch
basin may drain south the existing storm drain conduit
in 200 South Street, which then drains west into the 18
inch diameter line in Main Street. The north portion of
the alley appears to drain poorly toward the west and
down the alley toward this catch basin. The remaining
portion of the alley drains south toward 200 South Street. P R O P O S E D UTI L ITY S Y S TEM S
W a t e r S y s t e m The existing 6 inch diameter main in Regent Street will
need to be upgraded to an 8 inch diameter main to meet
the requirements of the Unified Fire Authority and the
Utah Public Drinking Water Standards which require a
minimum 8 inch diameter water main be utilized when
serving a fire hydrant. The culinary water service and
the interior fire protection system for the Performing Art
Center may be connected to the either the existing 16
inch diameter water main in Main Street or the new 8
inch diameter water main in Regent Street. The culinary
water service and fire protection system for Tower
Structure, located on the southeast corner of Main Street
and 100 South Street, may be connected to either the
16 inch diameter water main in 100 South Street or the
16 inch diameter water main located on the east side of
Main Street.
7.25
bush and gudgell
may 3, 2011
7.26
ENGINEER SUMMARIES
The existing water service connections serving the
existing structures to be removed with the construction
of the Performing Art Center will need to be killed at the
water main in accordance with the requirements of Salt
Lake City Public Utilities Department. Killing of a water
service involves the removing of all Tee’s and tapping
sleeves (saddle) and replacing with a sleeve and section
of pipe. Sanitary Sewer System
Sanitary Sewer service for the Performing Art Center may
be connected to the 8 inch diameter sanitary sewer in
Regent Street or the 8 inch diameter sanitary sewer in
Main Street. The sanitary sewer main in Regent Street is
approximately 10 feet in depth, however the depth of the
sanitary sewer in Main Street is unknown due to the sealed
manholes located near the project site. The sanitary
sewer service connection will require the installation
of a grease interceptor on the food preparation lines
and a sampling manhole located prior to connection to
the sanitary sewer main. The existing sanitary sewer
services for the existing structures to be removed with
the construction of the Performing Art Center will need
to be killed in accordance with the requirements of Salt
lake City Public Utilities Department. Please note that although there are no sanitary sewer
capacity issues with the development of the Performing
Art Center, Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department
expects that the proposed Tower Building located on the
Southeast corner of Main Street and 100 South Street
could present a capacity problem depending on the
intensity of use. Salt Lake City Public Utilities may require
that the sanitary sewer flow from the Tower Building be
split and diverted into both the 8 inch diameter sanitary
sewer main located on the east side of Main Street and
the 8 inch diameter sanitary sewer main in 100 South
Street. The sanitary sewer service connection will require
the installation of a grease interceptor be installed on
food preparation lines and a sampling manhole located
prior to connection to the sanitary sewer main. Storm Drain System
Storm drainage from the project site may be connected
into the storm drain system in Main Street at the existing
catch basin located near the south line of the property. Salt Lake City Public Utilities requires that the storm
drainage from the site be detained to an equivalent
outfall rate of 0.2 cubic feet per second per acre of
development. Based on the Performing Art Center
project consisting of approximately 1.6 acres, all of which
will be roof area, the estimated storm water detention
volume required for the project will be 6,900 cubic feet. The Tower project, consisting of approximately 0.4 acres
all of which will be roof area, will require storm water
detention volume of 1,540 cubic feet. Since the building
structure will utilize the total project area, this storm
water storage will typically need to be provided for in a
watertight reservoir or vault constructed as part of the
building structure. Storm drainage from the north portion of the alley will
need to be routed east to Regent Street. Drainage in
this area currently drains west in the alley and then
south down the alley. This area will require re-grading
of the area and the installation of a new catch basin
and conduit which will route storm water into the curb in
Regent Street. The south portion of the alley will continue
to drain south toward 200 South Street. Where the alley
joins 200 South, an existing catch basin gathers the
storm water and discharges into the storm drain system
in 200 South Street. 7.27
Soils Report
I N TR O D UCTI O N
This interim report summarizes the results of our
geotechnical study performed for the northwest portion
of Block 70 (13 parcels). The locations of the site, on
an air photograph base, with respect to existing facilities
is presented on Figure 2, Site Plan. Locations of the
borings drilled in conjunction with this study are also
presented on Figure 2. Within this interim report, varying
components of our study are briefly described followed
by geotechnical discussions and recommendations
pertinent to the proposed ultimate design concept. Our
full final soils report, including logs of borings, summary of
laboratory test data, and more detailed discussions and
recommendations related to the subjects summarized
herein has been completed as part of the scope of work
of our development team.
In the following sections, a discussion of the proposed
development, as understood at this time; a summary
of our field program and laboratory testing program; a
discussion of the subsurface conditions encountered;
and discussions and recommendations pertaining
to primary geotechnical parameters necessary for
proceeding with proposed development schemes are
provided.
P R O P O S E D D EVE L O P ME N T
The location and layout of the proposed development
property is shown on the attached Figure 2.
At the present time, it is proposed to develop three
primary structures across the property:
1. The first will be an approximately 147,369 square
foot (2,500 seats) Broadway style theatre. It is
anticipated that the structure will include one and
possibly two below-grade levels and two to three
extended levels above grade. In addition, behind the
stage will be a storage vault for scenery, which could
extend 40 to 50 feet above grade.
The structure will be steel and/or reinforced
concrete frame construction with masonry/CMUtype interior and exterior perimeter walls. Structural
loads will be transmitted down through bearing
walls and columns to supporting foundations. Our
experiences with similar facilities indicate that the
majority of the bearing wall loads will be up to 16
to 18 kips per lineal foot. Columns could impose
loads of 300 to 500 kips. At-grade floor slab loads
will be light to moderate, generally not exceeding an
average uniform loading of 200 pounds per square
foot.
2. In the northwest corner of the overall site, an
approximately 450,000 square foot (20- to 25-story)
office tower with a retail base is being considered.
We anticipate that two below-grade parking levels
will be incorporated into the concept. A pedestrian
bridge from the structure to the existing and/or
proposed parking structures on the east side of
Regent Street is anticipated.
The structure will be of steel and/or reinforced
concrete construction. Construction type and
loading will be similar to the 222 office and the Utah
One-Wells Fargo buildings, for which we performed
detailed geotechnical studies.
3. The third building will be a three-story annex located
on the west side of Regent Street and south of the
east end of the theatre structure. The structure may
contain one below-grade level. This structure will
most likely be reinforced concrete construction with
masonry/CMU-type perimeter walls. Structural loads
will be transmitted down through bearing walls and
columns to supporting foundations. At this time, we
project that the maximum column and wall loads will
be on the order of 350 to 500 kips and 6 to 10 kips
per lineal foot, respectively.
It is our understanding that the concept for the proposed
buildings, as discussed above, could
change as overall development planning proceeds.
7.29
ENGINEER SUMMARIES
FIE L D P R O GRAM
The field program is nearly complete and has consisted
of the initiation of four exploration borings, three of which
are completed. Locations of the borings are shown on
Figure 2. Boring B-1, which was drilled in the northern
portion of the alleyway in the center portion of the site,
terminated at a depth of 11 feet because of nested
cobbles, possibly boulders, and large voids. Borings B-2
and B-3, which were drilled, logged, and sampled further
to the south in the alleyway, extended to depths ranging
from 89.5 and 54.5 feet, respectively. The subsurface
conditions encountered were logged and undisturbed
samples obtained for subsequent laboratory testing.
The fourth boring was initiated on the west side of the
study area in the sidewalk area and encountered an
approximately 12-foot deep vault, which we understand
has been used as storage. Attempts are being made to
obtain the key into the vault so that determination as to
how to proceed with the boring through the base of the
vault can be made.
L A B O RAT O RY TE S TI N G
7.30
To provide index parameters and data for preliminary
engineering analyses, a laboratory test program has
been completed on the available samples. The program
has included gradation, moisture and density, and
consolidation tests.
S U B S URFACE S O I L A N D GR O U N D W ATER C O N D ITI O N S
The subsurface conditions encountered can be divided
in three categories. Starting at the top and working down,
the categories include:
bush and gudgell
may 3, 2011
1. A surface layer of fills consisting predominantly of
clean sands and clean sandy gravels. The fills range
from very loose to predominantly medium dense to
dense and generally extend to depths of 15 feet. In
Borings B-2 and B-3, there are indications that the
fills extend deeper to as much as possibly 25 feet
as backfill associated with the second below-grade
level of the building located to the immediate west.
The fills will exhibit variable and, in some cases,
relatively poor engineering characteristics.
2. Underlying the fills and extending to depths of 46
and 51 feet, natural granular soils consisting of
dense to very dense mixtures of relatively clean
sands and gravels and at depth, silty find sands were
encountered. These natural soils exhibit very high
strength and low compressibility characteristics.
3. Beneath the natural granular soils and extending
to the depths penetrated, gray natural lacustrine
silty clays with some fine sands and occasional
seams and up to six-inch layers of silts and silty
fine sands were encountered. Laboratory tests
indicate that these clays are slightly to moderately
over-consolidated and, when loaded below the overconsolidation pressure, will exhibit moderately low
compressibility characteristics.
Groundwater has been measured at depths ranging from
46.0 to 48.7 feet. Groundwater levels will be periodically
monitored.
Although the general subsurface sequence is as
anticipated, the depth of potential fills was a surprise
and appears to be related to the fact that at least one
of the buildings in the northwest corner has two belowgrade levels. Our exploration borings, which were drilled
just to the immediate east of the projected below-grade
levels, encountered backfill associated with the belowgrade structure.
D I S CU S S I O N S A N D REC O MME N D ATI O N S
S u m m a r y o f F i n d i n g s
The natural granular soils encountered in conjunction with
this study exhibit high strength and low compressibility
characteristics and will provide excellent support for
conventional spread and continuous wall foundations
and mat foundations. At this time, unless there are
unanticipated subsurface configurations associated with
the building or unanticipated loading conditions, the
utilization of deep foundations, except in small isolated
specific locations, is not anticipated.
In the following sections, brief discussions pertaining to
groundwater, deep excavation, foundation systems, and
the geoseismic setting of the site are presented.
Groundwater
Groundwater has been encountered at depths ranging
from 45.5 to 48.7 feet and at the approximate interface
between the base of the natural granular soils and the
underlying lacustrine silty clays. Our experience indicates
that seasonal and longer-term groundwater fluctuations
on the order of two to three feet should occur, with
seasonal highs generally occurring during the late spring
and summer months.
Although not noted or encountered in the exploration
borings, it is anticipated that some seasonal laterally
and vertically “perched” groundwater conditions will be
present, especially within the lower portion of the natural
granular sequence. Flow rates from these “perched”
conditions in the past were encountered have been
relatively low.
Excavations
Available data indicates that under the present design
concept, the proposed Theatre may extend in areas
as much as one to two levels below grade, while the
proposed Office Tower will include two below-grade levels
of parking. The proposed Annex is presently proposed
to be established at-grade but could include one level
below grade.
Each below-grade level in this discussion is anticipated
to be 12 feet “deep”.
The most significant geotechnical conditions which will
affect excavations to the depths proposed will be fills
and below-grade basements. Going into this study, it
was anticipated that existing structures in the area of
proposed development would include one below-grade
level. We were quite surprised, along with others, that the
one structure contains two below-grade levels.
For excavations for one level below grade, sideslopes
through undisturbed natural granular soils can generally
be constructed at sideslopes of one-quarter horizontal to
one vertical. These slopes would, however, require some
wire mesh containment anchored top and bottom and
a thin coat of shotcrete to “contain” raveling during the
extended construction period.
Non-engineered fills encountered to depths of 10 to
12 feet would require significantly flatter sideslopes.
Considering limited lateral spacing; that is, buildings up
to property lines, bracing in the form of shallow anchors
with the surface being shotcreted should be considered.
In many cases, the outside perimeter walls associated
with the below-grade level of the existing structures, if
geometrically compatible with proposed construction,
have been left in place and have acted as retainage.
If two below-grade levels are desired, it must be
anticipated that the perimeter excavation slopes will be
soil nailed and covered with a wire mesh and possibly
shotcrete. This is the system that was utilized for the 222
Building with great success. Settlements of perimeter
structures in conjunction with excavation and bracing
were monitored with minimal movements recorded. It
should be noted that ultimately the shotcreted face of
the deep excavation was utilized as the “back form” for
the subgrade wall structures for the below-grade parking.
The final subgrade wall structures were also constructed
utilizing shotcrete techniques. The braced and underlying
soils are generally highly permeable and, therefore, only
a minimal perimeter subdrain system was utilized. Water
collected was discharged into the underlying natural
granular soils.
F O U N D ATI O N S
General
Subsurface conditions and projected loadings are such
that it is our opinion that the majority, if not all, of the
structural components of the three primary structures
can be supported upon conventional spread and
continuous wall foundations or mats. In some isolated
conditions, where there are unusually high uplift loads,
micropiles or similar system may be required to facilitate
uplift resistance.
C o n v e n t i o n a l S p r e a d a n d C o n t i n u o u s
W a l l F o u n d a t i o n s
For preliminary design, we recommend the following
parameters be utilized:
1. Conventional spread and continuous wall
foundations having a minimum recommended
depth of embedment of one and one-half feet and a
minimum width of two feet or one and one-half feet
– net bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square
foot may be utilized.
7.31
ENGINEER SUMMARIES
2. Footings having minimum plan dimensions of four
feet or greater and the minimum recommended
depths of embedment – net bearing pressure as
high as 8,000 to 10,000 pounds per square foot.
Small mat foundations may be utilized in the Theatre
building where numerous bearing walls columns or
other structural features are concentrated, thus making
the utilization of a mat more economical. The imposed
pressures by these mats will be variable, generally not
exceeding 1,500 or 2,000 pounds per square foot.
Natural subsurface granular soils will be more than
capable of supporting these loadings.
Depending upon the final loading and configuration, it is
anticipated that the foundations designed and installed
in accordance with the above recommendations and
supporting the projected loads would experience
settlements no greater than seven-eighths to one inch,
with the majority of the settlements being significantly
lower.
M a t F o u n d a t i o n s
7.32
All indications are the proposed 20- to 22-story office
building can be supported upon a continuous structural
mat. With two below-grade levels, the base of the mat
would be anticipated to be established at approximately
25 feet below grade. At this depth, the mat would be
underlain by approximately 20 feet of dense granular
soils underlain by lacustrine soils. Load relief due the
25-foot excavation would be on the order of 3,200
pounds per square foot. Average imposed base pressure
associated with 20- to 22-story office tower is projected
to be at or slightly below pressure relief of 3,200 pounds
per square foot. Settlements associated with this mat
foundation would be elastic and would essentially occur
during construction.
bush and gudgell
may 3, 2011
We just recently received the final settlement readings
for the 222 Building, which consists of two levels of
below-grade parking established upon a mat underlain
by about 15 feet of granular soils and lacustrine soils,
almost identical to the proposed office tower location.
The ultimate settlements under center to mat were
slightly over one inch with perimeter settlements being
no more than one-half to three-quarters of an inch.
GE O S EI S MIC S ETTI N G
Review of available literature indicates no active faults
pass through or immediately adjacent to the site.
The natural dense granular soils are not saturated and,
therefore, not susceptible to liquefaction during a major
seismic event.
For structural design, Site Class D - Stiff Soil Profile as
defined in Table 1613.5.2, Site Class Definitions, of the
International Building Code 2009 can be utilized.
Traffic
The following is a discussion of the proposed Performing
Arts Center and Office Building located on Regent Street
and 100 South. The following are included in the analysis:
2.8 people per vehicle. The proximity of the light rail will
reduce this accordingly, by an estimated 20 to 30% of
the trips to 720 to 630 vehicles.
• Trip Generation estimates based on the proposed
land uses and sizes
The office space will generate between 434 and 744 AM trips with 417 to 715 PM trips depending on the square
footage. Daily trips are expected between 3,083 and
5,285. Again, the light rail is expected to reduce those
trips by approximately 20%.
• Parking demand based on City Code
• Office Reduction due to proximity to the Light Rail
Line
• Shared Parking Analysis related to the surrounding
parking availability
• Truck Deliver Evaluation and the radii of Regent
Street for ingress and egress
The retail is likely support retail and therefore is not likely
to generate that much additional traffic as the trips are
not expected to be specifically on the road simply for the
retail. It is more likely this retail will support the office
building and surrounding buildings were the majority of
trips are likely walking trips.
• Pull out discussion on Main Street and what/how
removal of on-street parking is possible
However, if it is a unique destination retail then 20,000
sf of retail would generate 21 AM, 75 PM and 859 daily
trips based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual.
T r i p G e n e r a t i on
What this indicates is that the Office and Theatre are
complimentary uses since their peak times and parking
demand times are not concurrent, they do not create a
cumulative impact.
The proposed development consists of 122,000 sf live
theatre, with 2500 seats. The theatre performances are
planned for 7 PM and Saturday matinees. In this regard,
the traffic generated by the site will not typically be
during the peak time of commuter traffic and therefore
represent s a complimentary use for the downtown area.
Also planned is a 15-25 story office building with the first
floor being retail. Each floor is planned as a 20,000 sf
floor plate. Therefore the land uses include:
• 122,000 sf / 2500 seat live theatre
• 20,000 sf retail
• 280,000 to 480,000 sf of office space
Unfortunately, the only Live Theatre trip generation
information is from a single location in New York City.
Using this trip rate, 2500 seats generate 50 vehicles
trips. Therefore, we do not believe it is reflective of the
typical traffic expected for a Salt Lake City Theatre. It is
believed that the closest trip generation will come from
a Movie Theater with Matinee, ITE Land Use 444. This
land use indicates a Friday peak hour generator of 0.36
trips per seat. This would generate 900 trips which is
indicative of a full theatre with a typical occupancy of
Parking
As requested, the following analysis describes a shared
parking analysis for the proposed Performing Arts Center
and Office Building on the Eastern Main Street Block
from 100 South to 200 South in Salt Lake City, UT. The
methodology is taken from the City code as well as
shared parking analysis methodology.
As requested, the following is a range of parking
requirements depending of facility size. The following
land uses are what we had discussed:
• 15-25 story building with a 20,000 sf plate. The first
floor will be retail (20,000 sf) and the additional
floors would be office space (280,000 to 480,000
sf)
• A 2500 to 2800 seat Performing Arts Theater
7.33
ENGINEER SUMMARIES
C i t y P a r k i n g C o d e R e q u i r e s :
• 2 spaces per 1,000 for retail services (2*20) = 40
spaces
If we apply this then the need for retail parking goes away
as does the first 5,000 sf of office (6 spaces).
• 1.25 spaces per 1,000 sf of office above street level
– 14*20=280k to 24*20 – 480k meaning between
350 to 600 spaces
This then indicates that the parking for the retail / office
building is 275 spaces to 475 spaces. The Theater
area being 122,000 sf indicates 122 spaces would be
needed. This would be a total requirement of 397 to 597.
• 1 space per 4 seats so between 625 spaces
In downtown SLC, there are two other items to consider,
the D-1 Zoning and the Light Rail proximity. In
Table One gives the seating and areas for each proposed
land use types and the amount of parking to be provided
for them based on normal parking demand calculations.
ordinance 21A.44.040 in the D-1 district, the following
modifications to parking occur.
“No parking is required for the first 25,000 sf. One space
per 1,000 sf after the initial 25,000 sf is required.”
Parking Impact Analysis
Table One
7.34
Land Use
Area (sq. ft.)
Retail
Theater
Office
Seating
Parking Rate1
Requirement
20,000
None for 1st 25,000 sf
0 spaces
122,000
1 per 1,000 sf
122 spaces
280,000 to 480,000
Total Parking
Demand
None for 1st 5,000
1 per 1,000 sf
275 to 475 spaces
397 to 597 spaces
Source: Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code for Shared Parking. Specifically Table 21A.44-040 D-1 Zoning
Shared Parking is defined as:
Where multiple uses on one lot share the same off-street
parking facilities, reduced total demand for parking
spaces may result due to differences in parking demand
for each use during the course of the day.
bush and gudgell
may 3, 2011
Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code was provided by the
Salt Lake City Division of Building Services and Licensing.
Determining The Total Requirements For Shared Parking
Facilities: For each applicable general land use category,
calculate the number of spaces required for a use if it
were the only use (refer to the schedule of minimum offstreet parking requirements). Use those figures for each
land use to calculate the number of spaces required for
each time period for each use (6 time periods per use).
For each time period, add the number of spaces required
for all applicable land uses to obtain a grand total for
each of the six (6) time periods. Select the time period
with the highest total parking requirement and use that
total as the shared parking requirement.
Therefore if all space requirements occurred
simultaneously the demand would equate to the
maximum need of 397 to 597 spaces per the D-1 Zoning
Parking Code. However, if the demand does not occur
simultaneously shared parking evaluation can be used
to determine the maximum demand throughout the day
for weekend and weekday land use.
Table Two
Percentage of parking demand for weekday and weekend time periods
Weekday
Land Use
Mid - 7:00 am
7:00 am 6:00 pm
6:00 pm - mid
Mid - 7:00 am
7:00 am 6:00 pm
6:00 pm - mid
Office
5%
100%
5%
0%
5%
0%
Retail
0%
100%
80%
0%
100%
60%
Theater
5%
20%
100%
5%
50%
100%
Source: Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code for Shared Parking. Specifically Table 21A.44-60E
Table Three
Project parking demand for specific land use
Weekday
Land Use
Mid - 7:00 am
7:00 am 6:00 pm
6:00 pm - mid
Mid - 7:00 am
7:00 am 6:00 pm
6:00 pm - mid
Office
14/24
280/480
14/24
0
14/24
0
Retail
0
20
16
0
20
12
Theater
6
25
122
6
61
122
20/30
325/525
152/162
6
95/105
134
Totals
25 credit
300/500
Table Two shows the percentage of parking demand
during various time periods for each land use and Table
Three gives the amount of parking space required for each
land use during the respective time periods. Throughout
this assumption, the 25,000 sf initial credit of no parking
is maximized to minimize parking requirements.
It is shown in Table Three that the maximum amount
of parking space required based on the Salt Lake City
Shared Parking Code and D-1 Parking Zone is 300 to
500 spaces depending on the amount of Office Space
developed. This is during the 7:00 am and 6:00 pm during
any given week. This represents a 97-space reduction
from the original demand of simply the D-1 Parking Zone
and no shared parking analysis.
L i g h t R a i l
One other factor that may be considered is the proximity
to Light Rail. Field observation and applications to other
office building indicates that the location of the building
along Main Street and on the TRAX line will likely have a
high number of users for the Office Building and Theater.
7.35
A recent study completed for 222 North Main office
building identified that a 20% trip reduction is appropriate
for an office building on the TRAX line. Further, downtown
events such as the fine arts and Energy Solutions events
have many TRAX users. We would anticipate the Theater
to have a similar following. This may already be factored
into the D-1 Zoning reduction so before this is applied, a
discussion with the City about the further 20% reduction
is recommended. The closest station is just north of 100
South on Main Street.
Tr u c k D e l i v e r y
The touring Broadway shows are accompanied by large
semis that deliver the equipment for the show. Regent
Street is a small alleyway with a width of approximately
20 feet from lip to lip of curb. The truck circulation will be
from one of two directions, 200 South exiting north on
100 South or from 100 South exiting on 200 South. 100
South is a restricted roadway with a ramp underground to
City Creek Center, and therefore Regent Street is a rightin / right-out access point. The curb line on 100 South
is not well defined and blends in with the sidewalk and
crosswalk.
ENGINEER SUMMARIES
1 0 0 S o u t h R e g e n t S t r e e t
bush and gudgell
may 3, 2011
7.36
2 0 0 S o u t h R e g e n t S t r e e t
The best circulation for the trucks is to enter Regent
Street from 200 South from the west. The eastbound
left lane provides the most room for trucks to make this
maneuver. Then exit to the north, making a northbound
right turn onto 100 South and traveling to State Street
to return to the interstate. The truck will utilize more of
the roadway than simply three lanes but this is already
a common occurrence on Regent Street and other
downtown alleyways. Deseret News was previously
located on this roadway, and utilized truck docks and
these same roadways.
1 0 0 S o u t h - E a s t o f M a i n S t r e e t
D r o p - O f f A r e a
As with many events, there will be a natural tendency to
drop off and then park the vehicle, whether it’s a valet
service or simply a passenger drop-off. Typically the front
door is the location for the drop-off, i.e. Main Street near
100 South.
S t a n d A l o n e M e t e r s
1 0 0 S o u t h - E a s t o f M a i n S t r e e t
Main Street also accommodates the light rail with a
station on the north side of the Main Street / 100 South
intersection. Ideally, the drop off would be located on
100 South because there are two lanes and a parking
shoulder along the south side of 100 South. However,
if the front door is on Main Street, the default drop-off
will be along Main Street. There is already a delivery
area along this section of Main Street. If a drop-off area
is created, it would be along this frontage. Also, the two
stand-alone parking stalls should be eliminated. The
concern with a drop-off area on Main Street is that there
is not a high curb separating the Light Rail and travel
lanes. As this area becomes more congested from the
drop-off area, there is a possibility that vehicles will travel
wide and infringe on the Light Rail corridor.
7.37
Structural
I N TR O D UCTI O N
The Utah Performing Arts Center will be a state-of-the-art
performance facility with structural systems comprised
of materials, assemblies and geometries best suited to
accommodate the project’s specific acoustical needs. While acoustic performance is a primary priority for
this project, other priorities will be established and
incorporated within the design. Such priorities include:
Establishing an architectural statement reflecting the
artistic nature of the service the facility will provide.
Addressing the rigorous loading demands as predicated
by the applicable building codes, adjusted as prescribed
to account for the high occupancy of this facility.
Programmatically, the facility may be designed as
an ‘amplified’ performance center or an ‘acoustic’
performance center. The primary difference being that an
‘acoustic’ performance center will have far more rigorous
and deliberate treatment of assemblies to enable a
targeted range of acoustical performance. Such building
performance may become a priority should the nature of
primary performances within the performance area be
orchestral (non-amplified). An ‘amplified’ performance
center may not receive rigorous acoustical treatment,
but may incorporate reasonable and prudent measures
to enable enhanced acoustical performance as outlined
in the summary below.
D E S IG N CRITERIA
Governing Design Code:
IBC 2009
Occupancy Category:
III
Dead Load:
Weight of structure plus any permanent nonstructural feature, system or assembly.
Live Load:
80 psf typical + 20 psf partitions
100 psf at exit facilities & corridors
60 psf at fixed seating
Snow Load:
Flat Roof – 30psf
Importance Factor (Is) – 1.10
Snow Drift – per code
Wind Load:
Wind Speed (3 sec gust) – 90 mph
Exposure - C
Importance Factor (Iw) – 1.15
GCpi – +/-0.18
Seismic Load:
Short Period Response (Ss) – 1.71g
Long Period Response (S1) – 0.69g
Importance Factor (Ie) – 1.25
7.39
ENGINEER SUMMARIES
S UMMARY O F S TRUCTURE
The basic structure of the Utah Performing Arts Center
will be comprised of conventional, reinforced concrete,
reinforced masonry and structural steel. Conventional
foundation systems will be utilized with supplemental
deep foundations to address adjacency issues with
other structures. Lateral forces due to wind and seismic
loads will be supported by shear walls comprised of
reinforced masonry. Floor systems will be comprised of
wide flange beams with concrete on metal deck. Roof
systems will be comprised of concrete on metal deck
and will be supported primarily by open web joists. Special measures, assemblies and geometries will be
incorporated to enable targeted acoustical performance
objectives. Likewise, special structural systems to enable
a specific architectural objective will be incorporated.
Foundations
7.40
The foundations of the Utah Performing Arts Center
are anticipated to be conventional continuous spread
footings below walls and spot footings below columns
with mat foundations below major elements of the lateral
force resisting system (shear walls or braced frames). Allowable soil bearing capacities at a depth of 13 feet
(below street level) are anticipated to be approximately
8,000 psf based parameters developed for neighboring
projects in the recent past.
reaveley engineers + associates
may 3, 2011
Due to the adjacency of existing and/or future structures,
special treatment of foundations may be required to
shore-up foundations or to retain soils supporting such
structures. The most practical approach in this regard
may be to employ deep foundation elements which serve
the dual purpose of retaining soil and providing shoring
for vertical loads. Micro-piles or other such elements
installed in pairs as vertical and battered geometries are
deemed the most likely system to enable satisfactory
performance while falling within a reasonable
construction budget for such work.
W a l l s a n d C o l u m n s
Primary structural walls are to be comprised of reinforced
block or clay masonry. They may be constructed as infill
partitions within a steel framework or they may act as
the primary elements to support vertical loads and resist
the lateral loads outlined in the Design Criteria. These
walls are expected to be located at the interior and the
exterior of the building. For the walls running in the
east-west direction on the north and south sides of the
performance hall, a ‘cavity wall’ assembly will be utilized. For this, a double wall with dual lines of structure will
be incorporated with a 2” minimum air gap beginning at
grade and extending to the roof. This will provide a degree
of sound isolation for the hall that will discourage the
entrance low frequency rumble from mechanical or other
equipment into the performance hall. This approach is
anticipated regardless of the specific structural role of
the walls (load bearing vs. partition).
Exterior stage walls (Fly Loft) and other walls in the
performance hall extending above adjacent buildings
will require solid grouting and may require double walls,
with an air space of 1 to 2 feet to prevent infiltration of
exterior noise. Such walls may be comprised of lighter
weight gypsum board assemblies. Interior surfaces of
walls in the performance hall may require plaster or
drywall surface treatment to enable a targeted acoustic
performance objective.
Primary load bearing columns shall consist of wide flange
shapes. This will be dispersed in a regular geometry as
deemed amenable to the structural and architectural
objectives for the project. If structural steel becomes
the primary load bearing system at the north and south
walls of the performance hall, pairs of columns with a
minimum 2” gap from foundations to roof will be utilized
to enable the acoustic isolation barrier as previously
described.
F l o o r F r a m i n g a n d F l o o r D e c k
The floor deck of the performance and seating areas
as well as the floor decks for areas adjacent to the
perimeter of the facility shall be comprised of normal
weight concrete acting compositely with metal deck. This
system will in-turn act compositely with wide flange floor
beams spaced at regular intervals across the breadth of
the floor structure. This system shall be designed to resist
the loads as outlined in the Design Criteria and shall also
be designed to accommodate vibration performance as
deemed reasonable and prudent for floors of this nature
and function.
R o o f F r a m i n g a n d R o o f D e c k
Roof framing shall be comprised of long-span open web
steel joists in the transverse direction of the performance
area. Other smaller spans shall be comprised of open
web joists and joist girders along with wide flange beams. At the performance area, the roof joist will be designed
to accommodate catwalks, rigging loads, architectural
clouds, acoustical baffles and other equipment as
required to serve this space and its associated functions.
Roof deck shall be comprised of concrete acting
compositely with the metal deck which may act
compositely with the roof joists. For the ‘acoustic’
scenario, the concrete shall be normal weight with a
minimum of 6 inches of thickness above the deck flutes. For the ‘amplified’ scenario a lightweight concrete on
metal deck may be utilized with a minimum thickness
as predicated to enable the development of a standard/
rated assembly.
Fly Loft
Unusually heavy, irregularly spaced or undefined loads
are common for facilities of this nature, particularly at the
structure directly above the primary performance areas. For these areas, roof joists or joists framing the floor
structure of the fly loft itself are expected to be unusually
large/deep with reduced center to center spacing. This
will enable the suspension of equipment, props, scenery,
counterweights, lighting, sound systems and other such
items associated with performances. Such requirements
for loading can also extend outside of the fly loft footprint
toward the patron seating areas as far as 30 feet. For the
Utah Performing Arts Center, appropriate fly loft loading
shall be utilized and shall extend as required from the
stage and into the seating area, above the orchestra pit.
Balconies
Balcony areas can be problematic with respect to
acoustical performance in facilities of this nature as sound
becomes trapped within confined spaces. To address
this, a ‘sound transparent balcony’ may be utilized. For
this, seating risers may be comprised of expanded wire
mesh while soffits below may be comprised of sound
transparent grillage. Such an assembly is expected to
allow the transmission of sound through the balcony and
reduce negative effects of being sonically closed off.
Al t e r n a t i v e M a t e r i a ls f o r
Enh a n c e d A c o u s t i c s
Options for enabling enhanced acoustic performance
while also addressing potential budgetary constraints
include the following:
An alternative deck geometry utilizing an atypical deck
profile may enable the incorporation of significant
acoustical improvement without the need for placing
concrete on the roof deck. Acoustic batting may be laid
within deck flutes for enhanced sound performance
of standard roof decks while specialty roof decks (e.g.
Epicore Deck, Epic Metals Incorporated) provide deck
fluting geometries that enable the incorporating of
significant sound insulation.
Use a cast concrete wall system with insulated concrete
forms (ICF). This system provides superior sound and
insulation properties with an extruded polystyrene
form assembled in blocks which become a permanent
insulating feature for the wall. This eliminates the costly
process of removal and re-use of standard concrete forms
and provides superior thermal and acoustic performance
of the end product.
7.41
Mechanical
M e c h a n i c a l S y s t e m s O v e r v i e w
The building’s mechanical systems design shall be in
compliance with the current editions of the following
codes and design standards:
• Utah Uniform Building Standards Act (R156-56)
• Salt Lake City codes and standards
• Utah State Boiler and Pressure Vessel Compliance
Manual
• International Building Code
• International Mechanical Code
• International Plumbing Code
• International Fire Code
Site Elevation: 4,300 feet
HVAC Internal Loads:
Preliminary Lighting Loads
Stage
20 watts per ft2
Theater Seating
3.4 watts per ft2
Lobbies
3.3 watts per ft2
Conference Rooms
1.3 watts per ft2
Toilet Rooms
0.9 watts per ft2
Concessions
1.2 watts per ft2
Lounges
0.8 watts per ft2
Corridors
0.5 watts per ft2
Misc. Equipment
1.0 watts per ft2
Ventilation:
• International Energy Conservation Code
• Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED)
Recommendations contained in this report are based on
the 2009 editions of all applicable codes and standards.
Ventilation, thermal comfort, energy conservation and
sound control are primary design objectives associated
with the mechanical systems serving this project.
Obtaining optimum temperature and background sound
levels will be challenging and mandatory.
Outdoor Design Temperatures:
As required by ASHRAE 62.1 and IMC for the actual
Occupancy Categories.
People: Theater, Offices, Conference Rooms; seated
• 245 BTUH per person, sensible
• 105 BTUH per person, latent
Lobby, Concessions; standing
Summer
Winter
Design Temperatures, dry bulb 96°F
0°F
Stage, Dressing Room, Practice Studios; moderate
activity
Design Temperatures, wet bulb 62°F
-
Indoor Design Conditions:
Summer
Winter
Design Temperatures, dry bulb 75°F
72°F
Humidity
-
50% max
In addition to lighting, ventilation and people
loads; heat gains in all rooms should be based on
anticipated equipment to be used in each room
together with appropriate diversities. Refer to the
program requirements for each space for additional
internal loads.
Heating and cooling loads should be calculated according
to the methods in the latest edition of ASHRAE 90.1.
7.43
ENGINEER SUMMARIES
S u sta i n a b i l i t Y
The building must achieve a LEED Silver certification.
H e at i n g
The heating source shall be gas-fired hot water boilers
with variable volume circulation pumps utilized in the
building heating water loop. Water velocity in hydronic
water lines in and adjacent to the critical sound areas
shall be limited to 5 feet per second to limit noise. Boiler
type shall be evaluated and selected based on a life-cycle
analysis and the energy savings required by the LEED/
sustainability goals for the project.
Cool i n g
The cooling source will be 45°F chilled water supply
temperature and 55°F return temperature, utilizing
electric powered water chiller(s). The chiller type shall be
evaluated and selected based on a life-cycle analysis and
the energy savings required by the LEED/sustainability
goals for the project.
S o u nd a nd V i b r a t i on Con t r ol
van boerum & frank associates
may 3, 2011
7.44
Design Guidelines for HVAC-related Background Sound:
Acoustic Theater; House and Stage
NC 15
Offices, Conference Room
NC 30
Corridors, Lobby
NC 40
In order for many of the spaces to function as desired,
sound or vibration must be reduced and minimized at
the source(s) in the mechanical system. Duct and pipe
velocities should be kept extremely low in and adjacent
to the critical spaces. Air velocities at supply diffusers
and grilles in the critical spaces should not exceed 250
FPM, and with adjacent duct velocities not exceeding
350 FPM. Return air grille velocities should not exceed
375 FPM, with adjacent duct velocities not exceeding
450 FPM. Duct velocities at a distance greater than 20
feet from the supply and return diffusers and grilles may
be gradually increased to a maximum of 1,000 FPM. Ductwork, piping, and mechanical equipment must be
adequately supported with vibration isolators to prevent
transmission of vibration and sound into the critical
spaces.
Fan rooms must be located as far as possible from the
Theater and other performing areas in the building for
acoustical isolation of the machinery. Ventilation/cooling
serving the Theater and other performance spaces must
be draft-free. It may be necessary to use displacement
type floor diffusers in the Theater to meet the sound
guidelines and draft-free requirement. Sound traps/
attenuators may be necessary at the supply and return
openings for air handlers serving the critical sound areas.
H VAC S y s t e m s
Custom-built constant-volume and variable-volume air
handlers with multiple fan-array type supply fans may
be required to meet the sound requirements for the
facility. The air handlers should have 4-inch double
wall construction with 6 pound per cubic foot density
acoustical insulation. Each air handler should have preheat, heating and cooling coils, filters and 100% outside
air economizer capability.
Two air handlers are recommended to serve the Theater.
This will allow the space to be supplied by one air handler
under reduced occupancy conditions. As the upper
seating areas may need to be treated as independent
thermal zones from the lower seating areas, one air
handler should serve the lower seating area and a
separate air handler should serve the upper seating
areas. A dedicated air handler should serve the stage
area. The remainder of the building will be served by
multiple air handlers to accommodate similar functions
and occupancies.
The high ventilation loads may require freeze-protection
for the preheating coil in each air handler. A heat
exchanger should be used to generate propylene glycol
for pre-heating, using the building heating water.
A dedicated relief air path and fan system will be required
for each air handling system. The relief fans should be
located in an enclosed acoustical plenum of the same
type used for the air handlers.
Each HVAC systems shall be designed to meet the
specific program needs of each individual space relative
to its usage, occupancy loading, temperature and sound
criteria. Each space with different functions, different
occupancy, different exposure, or different usage
schedule should be furnished with individual room
temperature controls, Rooms with similar exposure,
occupancy, function and schedule may be zoned
together. Combined rooms should not exceed 1,000
square feet per zone.
A Computational Fluid Dynamic (CDF) model shall be
utilized to confirm and optimize the air distribution system
in the Theater. The design must minimize all drafts and
preclude stratification within rooms or short-circuiting
between supply and return outlets. Displacement-type
under seat diffusers should be used in the Theater.
Variable air volume (VAV) air handling systems should
be used, where practical, to minimize operating costs.
Systems shall be controlled by a direct digital control
(DDC) system and connected to the central Building
Management System.
S m o k e Con t r ol
A smoke control system shall be provided to serve the
means of egress from the assembly seating areas. The
system shall maintain the smoke level 6 feet above the
floor of the means of egress in accordance with Section
1028.6.2.1 of the IBC.
The building atrium shall be equipped with an emergency
smoke control system, in accordance with Section 404.5
of the IBC. The system shall maintain the smoke layer 6
feet above the highest path of egress.
Interior Exit Stairways will be provided with a
pressurization type smoke control system. The system
shall maintain a positive pressure within the exit stair
such that the egress path is maintained free of smoke.
In accordance with Section 410.3.7 of the IBC, a means
of emergency ventilation shall be provided for the stage.
All engineered smoke systems shall be designed to
comply with Section 909 of the IBC.
Plumbing
second to limit noise. Rain water and waste piping within
the building shall be cast iron to limit noise. Plastic waste
lines may be used for below grade pipes. A 1,000-gallon
grease interceptor is anticipated if a Café/Restaurant is
included. The Concessions may require separate grease
interceptor.
A gas-fired water heater shall heat domestic water to
133 degrees to serve fixtures such as showers, sinks,
and lavatories. A separate gas-fired water heater will
be necessary to boost domestic hot water to 140°F, if
a restaurant is planned. The water heater type shall be
evaluated and selected based on a life-cycle analysis and
the energy savings required by the LEED/sustainability
goals for the project.
Thermostatic mixing valves will be used to reduce
temperatures at showers and hand washing fixtures.
All food preparation sinks will have indirect drain lines
running to an approved waste receptor.
F i r e P r o t e c t i on
The building shall be protected with a wet-pipe sprinkler
and Class I standpipe systems. The system shall
be designed in accordance with NFPA 13, NFPA 14,
International Fire Code and FM Global.
The system shall be provided with backflow protection as
required by the authorities having jurisdiction. A detector
check valve and alarm valve shall meet the requirements
of the Utah State Fire Marshal Department. Control
valves, with tamper switches, shall be provided upstream
and down stream of the detector/alarm valve assembly.
The assembly shall feed multiple fire sprinkler risers. A fire department connection and water motor gong shall
be provided with the fire sprinkler system.
Refer to the Architectural narrative regarding the quantity
and distribution of restrooms and restroom fixtures. All
public hand washing facilities shall have tempered water
at a maximum 110°F. Sensor faucets and flush valves
will be used in public toilet rooms. Showers and sinks will
be stainless steel, Water Closets, Urinals and Lavatories
will be vitreous china.
A fire flow test and engineer’s water supply analysis is
required per Utah Administrative Code, R710-4-3.3.2.
The sprinkler and standpipe system shall be designed
with reduced water flow data as noted in the above
mentioned analysis.
Low flow fixtures shall be evaluated and selected
based on the water reduction required by the LEED/
sustainability goals for the project.
A 25-story Office Tower building may be built adjacent
to the Performing Arts Center. The Office Tower and the
Performing Arts Center may share a common lobby.
Other than the common lobby, the Office Tower will be an
independent building and will not share any mechanical
and plumbing systems with the Performing Arts Center.
Water velocity in culinary water lines in and adjacent
to the critical sound areas shall be limited to 5 feet per
O f f i c e Tow e r B u i ld i n g
7.45
van boerum & frank associates
may 3, 2011
7.46
ENGINEER SUMMARIES
Electrical
S i t e U t i l i t i e s
Cod e s
The electrical work will comply with the laws, ordinances,
and rules of the State of Utah, and local government. In
addition, the following codes are applicable:
New proposed facility will be designed within the range of
approximately 145,000 – 175,000 square foot, located
in downtown Salt Lake City Utah, corner of 100 South
and Main Street.
• NEC (National Electrical Code)
Power:
• NFC (National Fire Code)
• IFC (International Fire Code)
• IBC (International Building Code)
• ASHRAE 90.1 (Energy Code)
S t a nd a r ds
The applicable standards are as follows:
• State of Utah (DFCM) Standards
• UL (Underwriters Laboratories)
• ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials)
• ANSI (American National Standards Institute)
• NEMA (National Electrical Manufacturer’s
Association)
• IEEE (Institute
Engineers)
of Electrical
and Electronics
• EIA/TIA (Electronic Industries Association/
Telecommunications Industries Association)
• IESNA (Illuminating Engineering Society of North
America)
• LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design)
Utilize electrical service from Rocky Mountain Power in
the area. There are several buildings in the area that will
be affected by the new Performing Art Center. Currently,
the existing Prudential Building – which occupies the
area where the new PAC will be built, is fed with its own
high voltage pad mounted oil filled transformer located in
the alley in between Main Street and Regent Street. The
primary feed is from the High Voltage Switches in Station
#8 located South in the Alley via a manhole. Removal
of the Prudential Building transformer and associated
service from the high voltage switch will be required.
A new service transformer vault for the Performing Art
Center will be required. The vault should be located
along Regent Street allowing for truck access.. The
building transformer will be oil-filled, copper windings,
and harmonic distortion less than 5%. Primary voltage
12470 voltage, and secondary voltage 277/480 voltage,
3 phase, 4 wire, provided by Rocky Mountain Power.
Engineering will be required by Rocky Mountain Power for
a new copper 15 kV feed with copper tape shields and
EPR insulation and 100% copper neutral in ductbank to
the service transformer and high voltage switch.
The existing Rocky Mountain Power high voltage switch
vault Station 8 and high voltage transformer vault
Station 87 are located in the new construction footprint
and will need to be removed and relocated in a location
able to service existing buildings and provide service
continuation to existing electrical manholes in Regent
Street.
7.47
ENGINEER SUMMARIES
Communication:
Utilize communication manhole in the area, coordinate
with Qwest. Existing communication manholes exist on
Main Street and Regent Street. Extend (3) 4” conduits
to the building MDF. (One for copper, one for fiber, and
one for spare.) Bury the conduit a minimum of 36” with
caution marker tape twelve inches below ground level.
Conduit will be placed in a trench with a minimum 3”
bed of fine wash sand or pea gravel. Backfill will be fine
wash sand or pea gravel encased around the conduits a
minimum of twelve inches.
P ow e r D i s t r i b u t i on
Distribution of power within the building will be 277/480
volts, 3 phase, 4 wire. Provide K-rated step down dry type
transformers with copper windings for 120/208 voltage,
3 phase, 4 wire.
General fluorescent and metal halide lighting and large
mechanical equipment will be 277/480 voltage, 3 phase,
4 wire. Receptacles, small motors, theatrical lighting,
specialty lighting and miscellaneous equipment will be
120/208 voltage, 3 phase, 4 wire.
bna consulting
may 3, 2011
7.48
An electronic meter will be provided at the main electrical
service entrance to monitor volts, amps, kW hours, power
factor, etc.
Surge Protective Devices (SPD’s) will be provided at
the main electrical service entrance equipment and
any downstream equipment deemed sensitive. Line
Conditioning will be provided on selected panelboards
in the facility which are likely to serve microprocessor
based equipment and/or other electronic equipment
sensitive to voltage spikes.
Service Entrance equipment shall be circuit breaker
type. Future capacity and expandability are of prime
importance. Time-current system coordination and
coordinated ground fault protection will be studied to
insure minimum system outage due to malfunction.
Provide 20 percent spare capacity.
Distribution switchboards and appliance panelboards
shall be UL listed, with steel enclosure, with 16-gauge
minimum thickness, and dead-front construction.
Distribution boards shall be equipped with copper bus
bars, full-sized neutral bus, and ground bus. Provide 20
percent spare capacity.
Lighting and appliance panelboards shall be UL listed,
with steel enclosure. Panel front shall include hinged
door-in-door construction, with flush locks and keys, all
panels, keyed alike. Panels shall include interior index
card in a clear plastic holder, and engraved formica
label on the outside of the enclosure. Panels shall be
equipped with copper bus bars, full-sized neutral bus,
and ground bus. Lugs shall be copper rated (CU-AL lugs
are not acceptable). Circuit breakers shall be bolt-on
type, thermal magnetic trip. Panels shall have 20 percent
spare capacity.
Motor starters shall be rated for the type and size of
motor served. Manual type starters with thermal overload
shall be provided for single phase, fractional horsepower
motors. Line voltage multi-phase combination magnetic
starters with integral fused disconnect, with dual element
fuses and thermal overload protection in all phases shall
be provided for three phase motors.
Variable frequency controller shall be provided for
mechanical HVAC equipment, which requires adjustable
speed control. Variable frequency controllers shall be
of the pulse-width modulation type. All units shall be
tested after installation for voltage and current harmonic
distortion to ensure it is within acceptable limits. Provide
a manual bypass as part of controller and required filters.
Controls, indicators and keypad will be on the front panel
– door mounted. Each variable frequency controller unit
shall carry a three-year warranty for parts and labor.
R ac e way
Raceways shall be steel; EMT conduit (Electrical Metallic
Tubing) shall be used throughout for branch circuits and
feeders. Rigid Metal Conduit shall be used for service
entrance conductors. PVC Conduit shall be used under
slab and below grade with rigid elbows. Final conduit
connections to lighting fixtures shall be by means of
a flexible conduit whip, not exceeding 6 feet in length.
Conduit connections to vibrating equipment shall be
by means of flexible seal-tite conduit. Conduit fittings
shall be malleable steel. Aluminum conduit and conduit
fittings will not be acceptable. Minimum raceway size
shall be 3/4 inch. Galvanized Rigid Conduit (GRC) - Use
in all hazardous locations as required by the NEC.
Intermediate Metal Conduit (IMC) - Use for main and
subfeeders in all areas other than buried under floor or
below grade; branch circuits in masonry and concrete
walls with one side in contact with the earth.
Electrical Metallic Tubing (EMT) - Use for branch circuits
in dry walls and ceilings.
Rigid Plastic Conduit - Use for main feeders, subfeeders,
and branch circuits buried under floor or below grade.
C a bl e T r a y
Provide UL-listed cable tray, hot-dipped (after fabrication)
galvanized corrosion-resistant finish systems of
sizes, types and capacities indicated, and meeting all
requirements of NEMA VE-1. Grind all rough edges, drip
concentrations, etc, to smooth finish. Apply cold zinc
spray to all field cut surfaces.
Cond u c t o r s
All conductors shall be copper with THHN/THWN
insulation. Conductors used for branch circuits in areas
where the ambient conditions exceed 60 degrees C shall be provided with an insulation approved for that
temperature. All conductors to be sized per NEC with a
minimum size of #12. Conductors #8 and larger to be
stranded. Aluminum conductors are not acceptable.
Vol t a g e D r op
The voltage drop for feeders shall be limited to 2 percent.
The voltage drop for branch circuits shall be limited to 3
percent.
Wiring Devices
Wiring devices shall comply with NEMA standards
Pub. No. WD 1. Switches and receptacles shall be
specification grade, and rated at 20 amps and 120
volts AC. Receptacles shall be 3-wire grounding type. GFI (Ground fault circuit interrupter) type receptacles shall
be rated 20 amps, 120 volts AC, with solid-state ground
fault sensing and 5 milliamp trip level. Receptacles in
toilet rooms, wet areas, or within 6 feet of any sink shall
be GFI type. Receptacles on the building exterior shall be
GFI type. All coverplates shall be stainless steel with grey
receptacles, unless directed otherwise by the Architect.
Lighting
Lighting systems for the facility shall maximize energy
efficiency while providing adequate illumination for
performance of specified tasks. Lighting levels should
be in conformance with the Recommended Illuminance
Categories and Illuminance Values for Lighting Design,
7.49
ENGINEER SUMMARIES
Emergency power shall be provided and sized for life
safety including exit and egress lighting, telephone, data,
and fire alarm, and security as applicable.
Illumination Levels. Minimum maintained average foot
candle levels for typical spaces are listed below. Deviation
from these criteria may be required to accommodate
individual space needs.
The emergency power will be provided from a diesel
emergency generator. The generator will be located
outside of the building. The generator fuel capacity is 24
hours of emergency power at full load. The generator will
be capable of starting and assuming the emergency load
within 10 seconds of a power outage.
Lighting Illumination Levels as recommended by IESNA are as follows:
• Space Description Illumination
(footcandles)
Level
–
lux
• Lobby 250 – 300 lux (25 - 30 footcandles)
• Auditorium 100 – 200 lux (10 - 20 footcandles)
• Dressing Rooms 300 – 400 lux (30 - 40 footcandles)
• Rehearsal 400 – 500 lux (40 - 50 footcandles)
• Offices 500 lux (50 footcandles)
7.50
• Conference rooms 500 lux (50 footcandles)
• Corridors 100 - 150 lux (10 - 15 footcandles)
• Toilet rooms 200 lux (20 footcandles)
• Storage rooms 150 lux (15 footcandles)
• Communications room 250 - 300 lux (25 - 30
footcandles)
• Mechanical room 250 - 300 lux (25 - 30 footcandles)
The above levels apply generally to tasks in individual
spaces and are based on IES recommendations.
L i g h t i n g Con t r ol
bna consulting
may 3, 2011
E m e r g e n c y P ow e r
9th edition, IES Lighting Handbook. Total lighting load
for the facility should not exceed the calculated lighting
power budget as determined by ASHRAE standards.
Where applicable, task lighting systems should be
employed to minimize energy consumption.
Control of the lighting will be by an automatic lighting
control system for all common spaces of the interior and
exterior. Lighting in offices, conference rooms, storage,
etc will be controlled with a toggle switch in combination
with an occupancy sensors. Dimming will be provided
for all incandescent. Timing switches will be provided
in the Dressing Rooms. Lighting in toilet rooms will be
controlled solely by occupancy sensors.
Automatic transfer switch will be provided in the Main
Electrical Room and will be wired to automatically start
the generator upon loss of utility power. Emergency
feeder conductors and control wiring will be provided for
the emergency panels.
G r o u nd i n g
Grounding shall be provided for the entire raceway,
service entrance, enclosures and equipment system.
Grounding shall be provided in accordance with the NEC.
A separate grounding conductor shall be provided for all
feeders,
equipment circuits and branch circuit runs. Grounding
conductors shall be sized in accordance with the NEC.
F i r e Al a r m
The fire alarm system will be an addressable, class A loop type, and electrically supervised voice annunciation
system designed per current code.
Security
A raceway system shall be provided for security. Junction
boxes will be located at each exterior door and ¾ conduit
shall be run from the junction box to the main electrical
room. A 3/8 inch flexible conduit shall be extended from
each junction box and stubbed into the door frame.
Rough-in for exterior camera’s, interior camera’s at
entry’s, and card readers.
Clo c k s
Clocks will be provided in all required back of house
areas, ie; Rehearsal, Conference Rooms, Dressing
Rooms, Green Room, etc. Minimum size of clock will be
12” in diameter and 120V with battery.
T e l e c o m m u n i c a t i ons
A structured cabling system for voice and data shall be
provided within the building and will include both fiber
backbone cabling and horizontal copper distribution
cabling. Backbone cabling for voice and data will be
provided from the main level telecommunications room
to the telecommunications closets located within the
building so that no cable exceeds 250’ in length. All
cabling, both voice and data shall be Category 6.
En e r g y U t i l i z a t i on
The standard that governs the requirements for energy
utilization is ASHRAE 90.1. This standard outlines
the power density requirements for electrical lighting
systems as well as energy related to mechanical cooling
and heating.
As it applies to electrical lighting systems, ASHRAE 90.1
limits the power density that can be used for interior
lighting. There are two ways to calculate the energy
requirements: one is the space-by-space method, in
which the power density allowance is calculated for each
individual space within the building, and added to a total.
The second method is the building area method, in which
an average power density requirement must be met for
the entire building. For this type of building, the lighting
power density allowance is an average of 1.2 watts per
square foot over the entire building.
Designing to LEED standards will be incorporated into
the project
L i g h t n i n g P r o t e c t i on
A lightning protection risk analysis will be performed
per NFPA 780. If risk exceeds moderate risk a lightning
protection system will be provided.
7.51
7.53
Site Analysis
Numerous site studies and an in-depth site analysis have
led to a number of conclusions;
• The program will fit on the site.
• The theater best fits the site with the longitudinal
axis oriented in the east/west direction.
• The optimal location for the proposed Office Tower
Development is on the northwest corner of the site. The corner location allows for taller building height
limits and is not large enough for the theater.
• A pedestrian link south of the theater would help
activate Main Street by providing direct access
to the Regent St. Parking Garage. This is also a
requirement of the Downtown Central Business
District building zoning regulations.
• A mid-block crosswalk at Main St. connects the
theater property with the existing Utah Theater and
a master planned connection to the Convention
Center.
• A Regent St connector between the City Creek
development and Gallivan Plaza may help activate
retail locations on Regent St.
• An alley access can be maintained for the existing
buildings remaining on the south side of Block 70.
vcbo architecture
may 3, 2011
7.54
schematic design
7.55
Schematic Diagram 1
• Locating the lobby on Main St. utilizes the theater
as an activator of Main St during performances. Between performances, the lobby location allows for
secondary uses which help maintain activity on the
street.
• A shared lobby between the office tower and the
theater minimizes the area utilized by the lobby. This
allows for additional retail space at the street level,
most signifigantly, the corner piece of the tower
facing 100 South and Main St.
• The lobby terminates an interior galleria that links
Main St. to Regent St. providing theater and office
tower access from the Regen St. parking garage.
• Similarly, a pedestrian link south of the theater
further activates Main Street by providing direct
access to the Regent St. Parking Garage.
• The relationship between the stage and the
orchestra level lobby is fixed by the seating slope and
the relationship of the stage to the street required
for deliveries. This diagram indicates an elevated
lobby on Main St. with support functions located on
the Main St. Level. Stage supporting functions are
indicated at the street level surrounding the stage.
vcbo architecture
may 3, 2011
Entry Level
7.56
Basement Level
Orchestra Level
schematic design
Mezzanine Level
Balcony Level
7.57
Longitudinal Section
vcbo architecture
may 3, 2011
7.58
schematic design
7.59
Schematic Diagram 2
• Similarities to diagram 1 include a shared office/
theater lobby at the Main St. level and an interior
and exterior connection from Main St. to Regent St.
• This diagram indicates an orchestra level lobby on
Main St. As a result the stage and deliveries occur
one level below Regent St. requiring truck elevators
for delivery access and potentially, an under street
delivery area if the Regent St. Garage is re-built in
the future.
• A lowered stage level moves the stage supporting
functions down one level. This allows for retail along
Regent St. on the east of the fly loft and delivery
area.
• The building envelope is lowered creating more
window access on the south side of the tower and a
less pronounced fly loft near Regent St.
vcbo architecture
may 3, 2011
Orchestra Level
7.60
Basement Level
Entry Level
schematic design
Mezzanine Level
Balcony Level
7.61
Longitudinal Section
Other Facilities
A number of facilities were visited or studied in
preparation of this study including the Durham
Performing Arts Center, the Long Center and Bass Hall in
Austin, and Renaissance Square in Rochester, New York. Each performance space exhibited a variety of solutions
to challenges typical to multi-purpose halls including
deliveries, lobby spaces and circulation, and hall size. Considerations specific to the hall design include the
volume of the hall, number of balconies, acoustical
treatments, and stage design. Durham Performing Arts Center; top left
Bass Hall; bottom of both pages
The Long Center; below
7.63
vcbo architecture
may 3, 2011
7.64
PRECEDENCE STUDIES
7.65
Development of Cost Estimate
At the beginning of the conceptual design the cost model
was developed by reviewing historical costs from similar
theatrical and auditorium-type facilities. We specifically
reviewed three projects:
1. Durham Performing Art Center 2. Tempe Center for the Arts 3. BYU Idaho – Auditorium The cost model was continuously refined as the Utah
Performing Arts Center was defined and the program
developed further by VCBO Architecture. As floor plans
and building sections were developed, we generated a
thorough quantity take-off of the building and received
input from material suppliers and subcontractors on
unit prices. This process generated an extensive cost
estimate with line item detail to review the overall costs. At the completion of the cost estimate the developer,
architect, consultants, and contractor reviewed the cost
estimate.
A critical component of the theater is the acoustics,
sounds, and theatrical systems. Working closely with
Fischer Dachs Associates we discussed the details of the
various systems that would be required for this facility. Using the same three projects for historical costs, and
the input from Fischer Dachs Associates, we developed
an appropriate cost estimate for the required theatrical
systems for this facility. The estimate also includes costs that take into account a
limited staging and lay-down area, use of a tower crane,
coordination of footings and foundations, waterproofing
and dewatering and the coordination of the lobby/
common wall interface with the office building high-rise
also planned as part of this development.
8.01
budget
Draft - Preliminary Concept Budget (dollars in thousands)
*Includes demoliton, sitework, construction, FF&E, hard and soft costs and 3% contingency
SCHEME I
Theater (148,000 S.F.)
$85,500
Galleria
1,400
8% for Construction Cost Escalation
6,952
Pre-Opening Costs
750
1% for Public Art
900
Subtotal
$95,502
SCHEME II
Theater (148,000 S.F.)
$88,000
Dock and Ramp
500
Commercial Space at Regent Street (4,800 SF)
900
Galleria
1,400
8% for construction cost escalation
7,264
Pre-Opening Costs
1% for Public Art
Subtotal
750
1,000
$99,814
Additional Options/Phases:
8.02
Mid-Block Walkway
Black Box Theater (45’ x 45’ + Lobby and Support)
Roof Terrace (6,000 SF)
2,300
500
Additional Rehearsal & Support Space for Local Arts Groups (13,000 SF)
3,900
Banquet Facility (400 seat w/ kitchen)
2,600
Venue Impact Mitigation
3,000
Operating Reserve/Working Capital
2,000
Regent Street Retail (15,000 SF)
3,750
Regent Street Improvements
OKLAND CONSTRUCTION
may 3, 2011
$2,500
$1,200
Activity ID
Activity Name
Orig
Dur
Utah Performing
Per
Arts Center
1 1
2 3
4
5
6
7
8
Month
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
Project O
Overview / Milestones
A1080
Notice to Proceed
A1320
Building Commissioning
30
0
Building Commission
A1330
Clean Up
15
Clean Up
A1340
Substantial Completion
A1570
Punch List
A1590
Notice to Proceed
0
15
Substantial Com
Punch List
Final Completion
0
Final Complet
A1000
Schematic Design
62
A1020
Design Development
87
A1030
Construction Documents
85
A1050
Project Out for Subcontractor Bidding
16
A1060
Review & Approval of Subcontractor Bids
6
Review & Approval of Subcontractor Bids
A1070
Guaranteed Maximum Price
0
Guaranteed Maximum Price
Design
Schematic Design
Design Development
Construction Documents
Project Out for Subcontractor Bidding
Construction
Construc
Sitework
A1090
Demolition of Existing Buildings
30
A1100
Shoring of Existing Structures
40
A1110
Mass Excavation
20
A1350
Grade Site
10
A1360
Site Concrete
20
A1370
Paving
A1540
Landscape
Demolition of Existing Buildings
Shoring of Existing Structures
Mass Excavation
Grade Site
Site Concrete
Paving
8
Landscape
25
Structural
Structur
Entry Level
Le
Excavate Footings
A1120
Excavate Footings
10
A1130
Form & Pour Footings
15
A1140
Form & Pour Foundation Walls
20
A1150
Back fill Foundation
8
A1160
Under Slab MP & E
9
A1170
Slab on Grade
15
A1180
Masonry
40
A1190
Erect / Plumb / Weld Steel
6
A1200
Metal Decking
4
Metal Decking
A1210
Slab on Deck
5
Slab on Deck
Under Slab MP & E
Slab on Grade
Masonry
9.01
Orchestr Level
Orchestra
Excavate Footings
A1220
Excavate Footings
10
A1230
12
A1240
14
A1250
5
A1260
Under Slab MP & E
8
A1270
Slab on Grade
15
Slab on Grade
A1280
Masonry
35
Masonry
A1290
6
A1300
Metal Decking
5
Metal Decking
A1310
Slab on Deck
8
Slab on Deck
Under Slab MP & E
Mezzani Level
Mezzanine
Masonry
A1380
Masonry
30
A1390
10
A1400
Metal Decking
8
A1410
Slab on Deck
14
Slab on Deck
30
Masonry
Metal Decking
Balcony Level
A1420
Masonry
A1430
8
A1440
Metal Decking
6
Metal Decking
Exterior
Exterior Skin
Curtain Wall System
A1450
Curtain Wall System
55
A1490
Aluminum Storefront Window & Doors
20
A1460
Metal Wall Panels
35
Metal Wall Panels
A1480
Exterior Painting
10
Exterior Painting
A1470
Roofing System
27
Roofing System
A1660
Roof Garden
30
Roof Garden
Aluminum Storefront Window & Doo
Roofing
Architectural
Architec
Remaining Level of Effort
Actual Level of Effort
Actual Work
Remaining Work
Critical Remaining Work
PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION
SCHEDULE
Page 1 of 2
12-Nov-10
SCHEDULE
Activity ID
Activity Name
Orig
Dur
Entry Level
Le
1 1
2 3
4
5
6
7
8
Month
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
A1500
Overhead MP & E
20
Overhead MP & E
A1650
Decorative Stairs
20
Decorative Stairs
A1510
Metal Stud Framing
15
A1520
In Wall MP & E
15
A1530
Hang & Tape Drywall
20
A1620
Painting & Wall Coverings
15
A1550
Acoustical Ceiling Grid
A1580
Stage Equipment
10
A1560
Finish MP & E
20
A1630
Acoustical Ceiling Tile
A1600
Carpet & Floor Covering
Metal Stud Framing
In Wall MP & E
Hang & Tape Drywall
8
Stage Equipment
Finish MP & E
8
10
Orchestr Level
Orchestra
A1670
Overhead MP & E
20
Overhead MP & E
A1820
Decorative Stairs
20
Decorative Stairs
A1680
Metal Stud Framing
15
A1690
In Wall MP & E
15
A1700
Hang & Tape Drywall
20
A1790
15
A1710
Special Ceiling Systems
15
A1720
A1750
Stage Equipment
10
Stage Equipment
A1810
Finish Trim & Millwork
15
A1730
Finish MP & E
20
Finish MP & E
A1760
Sound Panels
15
Sound Panels
A1740
Stage Flooring
10
Stage Flooring
A1800
A1770
10
A1780
Seating
20
Metal Stud Framing
In Wall MP & E
Hang & Tape Drywall
8
8
Seating
Mezzani Level
Mezzanine
9.02
A1830
Overhead MP & E
20
Overhead MP & E
A1980
Decorative Stairs
20
Decorative Stairs
A1840
Metal Stud Framing
15
A1850
In Wall MP & E
15
A1860
Hang & Tape Drywall
20
A1950
15
A1870
15
A1880
A1910
Stage Equipment
10
Stage Equipment
A1970
15
A1890
Finish MP & E
20
Finish MP & E
A1920
Sound Panels
15
Sound Panels
A1900
Stage Flooring
10
Stage Flooring
A1960
A1930
10
A1940
Seating
20
Metal Stud Framing
In Wall MP & E
Hang & Tape Drywall
8
8
Carpet & Floor Coverin
Seating
okland construction
may 3, 2011
Balcony Level
A1990
Overhead MP & E
20
Overhead MP & E
A2140
Decorative Stairs
20
Decorative Stairs
A2000
Metal Stud Framing
15
A2010
In Wall MP & E
15
A2020
Hang & Tape Drywall
20
A2110
15
A2030
15
A2040
A2070
Stage Equipment
10
Stage Equipment
A2130
15
A2050
Finish MP & E
20
Finish MP & E
A2080
Sound Panels
15
Sound Panels
A2060
Stage Flooring
10
Stage Flooring
A2120
A2090
A2100
Metal Stud Framing
In Wall MP & E
Hang & Tape Drywall
8
8
10
Carpet & Floor Cove
Seating
24
Remaining Level of Effort
Actual Level of Effort
Actual Work
Remaining Work
Critical Remaining Work
PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION
SCHEDULE
Seating
Page 2 of 2
12-Nov-10
Plan of Finance
I N TR O D UCTI O N
The Utah Performing Arts Center is expected to produce
substantial economic benefits, as presented in the
Economic Impact Analysis, section 6 of this report. Although the potential benefits of this theater are tangible
and substantial, very few theaters produce significant
direct surplus funds after operating expenses. In fact,
most theaters depend in part on operating subsidies or
fundraising. However, although it is unusual for a theater to generate
earned revenue sufficient to result in a break-even or
better operation before debt service, depending on
the ultimate operating plan for the Utah Performing
Arts Center, the new theater is expected to break-even
or to produce positive cash flow before debt service of
approximately $2.4 million1 over a five-year period. in a manner that facilitates expeditious financial closing
and construction; efficient, high-quality construction; and
on-time, on budget delivery
1 0 . 2 O wn e r sh i p a nd F u nd i n g
S o u r c e s O v e r v i e w
While demonstrating the operational viability of the
theater, the financial projections will not be sufficient to
attract any significant amount of conventional, private
debt or equity financing for the theater2. Accordingly, the
theater owner is presumed to be a public entity, likely
one of the following:
•
•
•
•
•
Salt Lake City
Another municipal sponsor
An interlocal entity
The Municipal Building Authority3
A single-purpose nonprofit entity 4
1 0 . 1 O v e r a ll Go a ls o f P l a n o f
Finance
The team recommends the following goals of the plan of
finance:
10.01
(i) to maximize the amount of private capital in order to
mitigate the amount that has to be financed through the
issuance of municipal bonds,
(ii) to achieve high transaction credit quality in order to
achieve a low-cost, efficient financing,
(iii) to utilize tax-exempt financing to the extent possible
and advantageous to the City,
(iv) to encourage County and State financial participation
in the project, given the substantial benefits that will
accrue thereto as outlined in section 6, Economic Impact
Analysis, and (v) to procure development and construction services
1 Not including $840,000 of funds also projected to be
generated by the theater over a five-year period over and above
the projected annual repair and replacement needs of this
theater. We have not included this amount here, as, depending
on the final operating model implemented for the theater, this
amount may be utilized in whole or in part for capital needs of
other venues, as further explained in section 5, Market Study
and Implementation Plan.
2 With the exception of private equity that may be attracted
in connection with the offering of New Markets Tax Credits,
a Federal program for which the theater may be eligible, as
described later in this section.
3 The Municipal Building Authority is an entity that may be
used as nominal owner of the theater in the event of financing
through Lease Revenue Bonds, as described later in this
section.
4 In the event that New Markets Tax Credits are used as
part of the theater capital structure, a single-purpose nonprofit
entity may be required, at least during the seven-year tax credit
period during which private equity investors would have an
interest in the project.
plan of finance
Garfield Traub Development, LLC
may 3, 2011
10.02
The theater will be financed with a combination of private
and public sources. Those sources are projected to
include:
• Private funds
○○ Naming Rights
○○ New Markets Tax Credits
• Bond financing for the balance of the project costs
○○ Sales Tax Revenue Bonds
○○ Lease Revenue Bonds
In its initial exploration of naming rights potential for the
new theater, GTS interviewed Mr. HIll Carrow of Sports
& Properties, Inc., a national naming right specialist
that has successfully closed naming rights transactions
for the Durham Performing Arts Center and many other
venues.
Process
The sources of funding for the theater are assumed to
include approximately 6% in private equity from investors
in New Markets Tax Credits (“NMTC”) sold in connection
with the theater, 9% from the sale of naming rights
opportunities at the theater, and 85% from other sources. To measure the potential value of a naming rights
opportunity to a corporate sponsor, impressions
analysis, advertising value, and marketing/promotions
assessment are estimated. Other benefits which could
add value for a title sponsor typically include theater
tickets and parking passes, President’s Club access, and
other inducements. Section 10.3 includes a discussion of naming rights and
the NMTC program. For the purposes of the financial
plan included herein, bond financing is assumed for
the balance of the project costs not fundable through
NMTC equity or naming rights. The advantages and
disadvantages of each of these types of instruments are
described further in section 10.4.
Philanthropists have different motivations in part than
corporate sponsors for contributing to capital campaigns
for cultural venues, including support for the arts as a
mission and the desire to leave a legacy to a community. Impressions analysis, advertising and promotional value
are typically a less important factor to philanthropic
naming rights sponsor.
In addition to the above-noted sources, the capital plan
for the theater may include other sources, such as funding
from or financing by other public sector participants, and/
or proceeds from the sale of air rights over the theater or
development rights to the private developer of mixed-use
improvements related to the theater development.
Case Studies
1 0 . 3 P r i v a t e F u nds
Naming Rights
Naming rights and capital fundraising have been
a significant source of funding for many theaters,
performing arts centers and other entertainment and
sports venues across the country. There is a wide range
of fees, terms, and sponsor categories in theater naming
rights transactions tracked nationally.
GTS recently developed the Durham Performing Arts
Center (“DPAC”) in Durham, North Carolina, a comparable
facility to the proposed new theater in Salt Lake City. The 2,712-seat theater, which opened in December
2008 and was financed in January 2007, hosts touring
Broadway, popular music concerts, comedy acts, family
shows, a resident dance company, corporate rentals and
other special events.
The development team recommends, as part of the
next phase of theater planning, the commissioning of
a naming rights valuation study and the development
of a naming rights strategy. For preliminary purposes,
GTS believes a goal of approximately 8% - 10% of the
total theater costs is a reasonable naming rights goal. As previously noted, the financial models included in
this section assume 9% of the theater capital costs are
secured from naming rights.
GTS estimates a $7 million value for the first-term
naming rights and permanent naming rights as of the
date of the DPAC financing, representing more than
14% of the total development costs of the theater. This
only partially represents the potential DPAC naming
rights, because at the expiration of the first-term of the
contemporary naming rights, the City can negotiate new
naming rights agreements with the original sponsors or
with new sponsors. In addition to naming rights analysis that quantifies the
measurable benefits of naming rights opportunities that
may exist at a theater, another method to determine
potential is to look at actual naming rights transactions
for comparable facilities.
In Raleigh, North Carolina, Progress Energy Center for the
Performing Arts provides another naming rights example.
The largest performance hall at the Center is Raleigh
Memorial Auditorium, built in 1932 and most recently
renovated in 1990. A concert hall, opera theater, black
box theater and plaza fountain were all constructed in
2001 to complement the auditorium.
Known as the BTI Center for the Performing Arts from
1997 to 2005, in 2005, Progress Energy acquired the
Center naming rights for a gross amount of $7.5 million
over a 20-year term. In addition, $4.65 million in gross
naming rights funds were secured for the 2001 additions
to the Center. In total, these naming rights represent
more than $12 million in gross naming rights for the
Center (see Fig. 10-1).
fig. 10-1
pROGRESS ENERGY CENTER FOR THE PERFORMING
ARTS NAMING RIGHTS SUMMARY
Seating
Capacity
Annual
Amount
N/A
375
7,500 20 Yrs
1,700
N/A
2,000
Life
Fletcher
Opera
Theater
600
N/A
2,000
Life
Kennedy
Theater
200
N/A
400
Life
Lichtin
Plaza/
Fountain
N/A
N/A
250
4,800
375
12,150
Building
Title
Meymandi
Concert
Hall
Total
Total
Amount
Term
Life
Although naming rights figures net of commissions and
cost of benefits are not available, GTS conservatively
estimates that in 2001, including remaining payments
from BTI and future payments from Progress Energy, the
present value of the net naming rights to the Center was
at least $7 million.
Information on scores of other performing arts centers,
theaters, amphitheaters, concert halls, and sports venues
is available and instructive, and should be included in
any naming rights valuation study and strategic plan
undertaken in connection with the planned theater in
Salt Lake City.
I n d u s t r y C h a l l e n g e s a n d O u t l o o k
It should be noted that mid-2008 to mid-2010 were
exceptionally difficult years in the naming rights industry. The financial services sector, the largest industry sector
for naming rights, was affected dramatically by the credit
crisis and recession, which had a ripple effect across
numerous other industry sectors. The difficulty has been manifest in the decision-making
process at corporations for sponsorships in general and
naming rights in particular. It is harder and takes longer
to get a positive corporate decision. To wit: (i) Marketing directors are often reluctant due to the
current economic climate to “take a risk” in approving or
endorsing a naming rights deal. (ii) More corporate naming rights decisions are being
made now by committee rather than by individuals,
increasing the time and uncertainty of the process. (iii) Naming rights sales has always been a “numbers
game”, but now it typically requires many more proposals
and prospects before a deal can be landed.
Fortunately, the negative trends started to ease at the
end of 2010 and naming rights sponsorship trends have
been turning in a more positive direction. Naming rights
are starting to recover with the gradual recovery of the
economy.
10.03
plan of finance
New Markets Tax Credits
Block 70 falls within a U.S. census tract that, based on
poverty rate and median income, makes the theater
eligible for the use of New Markets Tax Credits (NMTC). The NMTC program permits tax credit investors to receive
a credit against Federal income taxes for making qualified
equity investments (QEI) in designated Community
Development Entities (CDEs). Substantially all of the QEI must in turn be used by the CDE to provide investments
in low-income communities.
In its initial exploration of the viability of NMTC, GTS
interviewed, among other parties, Mr. Chuck DePew
of National Development Council (“NDC”). NDC is a
national nonprofit 501(c)(3). NDC advises governments
in finance and has worked with both the Salt Lake City
Public Works Department and Salt Lake County in
successfully structuring and closing NMTC transactions
within the past several years.
10.04
According to NDC, typical NMTC investors include
companies with large tax liability, such as large
commercial banks, investment banks, and insurance
companies. In return for making a QEI, tax credits are
conveyed to the investor. The tax credits are used to
reduce the company’s tax liability. One dollar ($1) of tax
liability is offset by one dollar of tax credit. Garfield Traub Development, LLC
may 3, 2011
The credit provided to the investor totals 39% of the
cost of the investment and is claimed over a seven-year
credit allowance period. In each of the first three years,
the investor receives a credit equal to five percent of the
total amount paid for the stock or capital interest at the
time of purchase. For the final four years, the value of the
credit is six percent annually. Investors may not redeem
their investments in CDEs prior to the conclusion of the
seven-year period.5
5 Source: Community Development Financial Institutions
Fund, http://www.cdfifund.gov/what_we_do/programs_
id.asp?programid=5, retrieved December 6, 2010.
Tr a n s a c t i o n S t r u c t u r e
A nonprofit entity would act as the owner of the theater
during the seven-year NMTC period, when municipal
ownership is not allowed. The City would control and
appoint the board of the entity. The nonprofit entity
would be a Qualified Active Low Income Community
Business (“QALICB”).
Salt Lake City created such a nonprofit for the Sorenson
Unity Center, and Salt Lake County created such a
nonprofit for the Magna Library. Both governments have
closed on a NMTC transaction for a public facility.
A transaction of this size will likely include four CDE Partnerships. One of the participating CDEs would act
as the managing member. Each CDE would provide
one quarter of the total required NMTC allocation to the
QALICB.
The CDEs would secure an equity investment based on
the present value of the seven years of tax credits to
the NMTC investor. The investor (“IFE”) would invest the
equity into the four CDE Partnerships. The balance of the
project funds would be loaned to the IFE by the City in the
form of an interest-only “leverage loan”. The CDEs would make a loan to the QALICB equal to
the leverage loan proceeds plus the equity investment
amount, net of CDE transaction fees and costs. The
loan would be in the form of a Qualified Low Income
Community Investment (“QLICI”). The QLICI would retain
an amount for fees and reserves, applying the balance of
the funds to theater development costs.
Fig. 10-2 is a diagram of the proposed transaction
structure.
fig. 10.2 New Markets Tax Credits Transaction Diagram1
1
2
3
4
5
Figures provided by National Development Council based on assumed NMTC allocation of $45 million.
Sources of Funds for Leverage Loan include bond proceeds, naming rights, and potentially other sources.
Managing Member is lead CDE. Each of three CDEs provides $15 million in NMTC allocation.
City controls and appoints the board of nonprofit ownership entity (Theater Owner – QALICB).
Includes approximately $7 million in NMTC equity.
Funding Structure
Challenges
For illustrative purposes, an NMTC allocation of
approximately $45 million would be assembled to meet
the total transaction needs. NDC estimates that this
NMTC allocation would attract an equity investment of
approximately $12.3 million. As previously noted, a transaction of this size will require
four CDEs, increasing transaction complexity. Many
CDEs have an “allocation agreement” with the CDFI Fund
that requires more than just the minimum low-income
community requirements. Compliance must be ensured
with the “missions” and contractual requirements of
multiple CDEs.
After approximately $5.2 million in fees, costs, and
reserves of the LLC and the QALICB, the net amount
of equity available for development costs would
be approximately $7 million, or 6% of the project
development costs. The balance would be funded through the leverage loan
from the City to the project. The sources of funds for the
leverage loan may include naming rights, proceeds from
the sale of City bonds, and other sources.
In return for its equity investment in the project, the IFE would convey its tax credit allocations to the investor. The investor would take the benefit of the tax credits
over seven years. After the seven-year tax credit period,
ownership of the theater can be transferred to the City at
no or nominal cost.
These complex and expensive transactions include
multiple parties with multiple legal counsel, tax counsel,
accountants, and consultants. However, the net result
to the public is approximately 6% in private funding for
the project that would otherwise not exist, reducing the
funds needed from other sources for the theater costs. Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County can confirm the
estimates of available NMTC and net equity benefit by
virtue of their experiences with the Sorenson Center and
Magna Library projects.
Finally, it should be noted that the combining bond
proceeds with NMTC financing involves challenges
that will require intensive collaboration between the
finance and legal team, the CDEs and NMTC investors
to ensure compliance with bond offering regulations and
requirements.
10.05
plan of finance
1 0 . 4 B ond F i n a n c i n g
T r a n s a c t i o n C r e d i t C o n s i d e r a t i o n s
To determine the ultimate credit quality for the bonds
issued for the theater, a strong credit package should
be put forward to investors. Key factors that will be
considered by investors in analyzing credit quality of this
type of financing include, in the following order:
1. The quality of the pledged revenues
2. The strength of the contract, legal and security
structure; and
3. The rationale for the project;
4. The development, design and construction team;
T r a n s a c t i o n T a x C o n s i d e r a t i o n s
The most beneficial plan of finance for the City will be
one that is structured to allow for the maximum amount
of tax-exempt financing while maintaining the flexibility
desired by the City for the capital plan and operation of
the property.
10.06
Naming rights, sponsorships, exclusive arrangements
with private providers of entertainment, products, or
services, and private equity investment in the project
by tax credit investors present potential challenges to
achieving exemption from taxation on bond interest
payments.
may 3, 2011
Generally speaking, to be tax-exempt, bonds must fail at
least one of two tests: (1) the private business use test,
and (2) the private payment or security test.
An issue meets the private use test if more than ten
percent of the proceeds of the issue will be used (directly
or indirectly) by a private business. Private business
use includes long-term leases, management or service
contracts which do not fit within a tax safe harbor focused
on the term and extent to which gross revenues are
shared, and certain naming rights contracts deemed by
the IRS to convey elements of ownership to the sponsor.
Management of the facility by a nonprofit operator or a
public operator, the two models studied in this report,
lend themselves to (but do not ensure) failure of the
private use test. In the event of operation of the facility by
a commercial operator, structuring the arrangement as a
Qualified Management Agreement (“QMA”) as governed
by IRS Revenue Procedure 97-13 could still enable taxexempt financing, provided the private use and payment
tests are not met by other measures. A QMA has very specific rules dictated by the IRS as to
contract structure, including a term limit of 15 years,
and a restriction of management fees to a negotiated
fixed amount, with fee increases limited to an annual Consumer Price Index (“CPI”) adjustment and a one-time
“incentive bump” for achieving established performance
benchmarks.
A bond issue meets the private payment or security
test if the payment of more than ten percent of the debt
service of the issue is directly or indirectly (a) secured
by any interest in property used by a private business, or
(b) to be derived from payments from property used by a
private business. Debt service payments are expected to come
overwhelmingly from sources other than theater net
operating income. To the extent that theater revenue
derived from private payments are applied to theater
operating expenses or maintenance, such revenue will
not count against the 10% private payment limitation.
The focus need then only be applied to whether other
sources of bond repayment exceed the 10% test.
Strategies that will facilitate the use of tax-exempt
funding in the capital structure include:
• Identify and allocate private use costs to any
municipal equity contribution. The bond issuer is
permitted to allocate a portion of any private use
theater project costs to “municipal equity”;
• Identify and allocate private payments to theater
operation and maintenance expenses. The bond
issuer is also permitted to allocate a portion of any
private payments to operating and maintenance
expenses it pays; and
• Identify and allocate any remaining private payments
to taxable bonds and a portion to the tax-exempt
bonds issued to finance the theater, to the extent
that the present value of the private payments does
not exceed five or ten percent (to be determined by
bond counsel) of the present value of the tax-exempt
debt service.
As an example of a successful structuring of a tax-exempt
financing in spite of numerous private components and
participants, GTS and its team arranged a tax-exempt
financing for a planned concert hall in Santa Clara County. The project included facility management by House of
Blues Concerts, a commercial operator, under a QMA;
private contracts with concessionaires; private naming
rights and sponsorship funds; and representation by
a private broker in the sale of the naming rights. The
financial and legal team members were satisfied the
structure would fail the private use, payment and security
tests as intended.
The team will work closely with Salt Lake City and the
RDA, bond counsel, tax counsel, and financial advisor, the
selected bond underwriter and its underwriter’s counsel
to explore every opportunity to maximize tax-exempt
bond financing in order to achieve the lowest possible
cost of capital, provided that using tax-exempt bonds is
not determined to unreasonably limit the City’s flexibility
with respect to the use, occupancy and operation of the
facility.
Sales Tax Revenue Bonds
Pursuant to the Local Government Bonding Act, Title 11,
Chapter 14, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended
(the “Act”), Salt Lake City has the authority to issue Sales
Tax Revenue Bonds (“STRBs”) to finance all or a portion
of the cost of municipal developments such as the new
theater, including any contingencies and reserves, and
costs associated with the issuance and sale of the bonds.
In the event of an STRB financing, the City would pledge
to the payment of the STRBs all of the legally available
revenues from Local Sales and Use Taxes received by
the City pursuant to Title 59, Chapter 12, Part 2, Utah
Code Annotated 1953, as amended (currently levied and
collected pursuant to Chapter 3.04 of the Salt Lake City
Code). However, the City’s policy is to use sources other
than the Local Sales and Use Taxes for bond repayment. Such sources would have to be identified.
Sales Tax Revenue Bonds are an instrument with many
advantages, including the lowest interest cost other than
a General Obligation bond, low issuance costs, no debt
service reserve fund requirement, and no capitalized
interest requirement. As recommended by its financial advisor, the City’s
policy is to maintain a ratio of 3:1 of sales tax revenue to
outstanding STRB debt service. Falling below this level
could cause a downgrade in the excellent rating of the
City’s STRB debt by the bond rating agencies. Given the
recession of the past two years, sales tax revenue has
declined materially, constraining the amount of capacity
available to the City for additional STRB issuances while
still maintaining the 3:1 coverage ratio. Improving sales tax revenue as the economy continues
to recover could increase the STRB capacity to allow
for additional theater bonds by the time the theater is
financed. However, it is prudent to consider an alternative
financing instrument not constrained by capacity
limitations and which may provide other advantages not
available for STRB-financed projects. Lease Revenue
Bonds are one such instrument, described below.
Lease Revenue Bonds
Pursuant to the Local Building Authority Act, Title 17D,
Chapter 2, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended,
and the Act, Salt Lake City has the authority to use Lease
Revenue Bonds (“LRBs”) to finance all or a portion of
the cost of leasing a municipal development such as the
new theater, including any contingencies and reserves,
capitalized construction interest, and costs associated
with the issuance and sale of the LRBs.
In the event of such an LRB financing, the LRBs would
be issued by the Municipal Building Authority (“MBA”)
and secured by a pledge and assignment of the lease
agreement and the revenue that the MBA receives in
lease payments from the City, a mortgage interest in
the project, debt service reserve funds, and any other
security device with respect to the project required by the
MBA and the capital markets. Sources of funds for lease
payments would have to be identified. L e a s e R e v e n u e B o n d s P r o s a n d C o n s
One advantage of Lease Revenue Bond financing over
STRBs is no bond capacity limitation. Further, opting
for LRBs for the theater financing in lieu of STRBs would
“free up” the current STRB capacity for other capital
projects needs of the City.
LRBs do carry a higher interest cost than STRBs due to
the greater perceived market risk of LRB versus STRBs,
which rely on the historical and projected strength of the
City’s sales tax revenue stream. Instead, LRBs would
rely on the commitment of the City to make annually
appropriated lease payments over the term of the
financing. 10.07
plan of finance
Additionally, the project may not be perceived by
investors to be as “essential” to the City as other facility
types (e.g. government office), and there may be a
premium in interest cost exacted by the market for this
repayment risk perception. However, the theater should
be financeable with LRBs.
round lease the theater development site6 from the City
and would finance 100% of the theater development
costs (other than those costs funded through other
sources such as naming rights, NMTC, and possible
participation by other public entities) through the public
issuance of LRBs through the MBA.
Finally, with respect to transaction structure, LRBs carry
higher issuance costs than STRBs, require capitalized
construction interest because the Act does not allow for
lease payments to commence until facility opening, and
require a debt service reserve fund. Neither capitalized
interest nor a debt service reserve fund is required in an
STRB financing.
The terms of the ground lease would be negotiable with
the City, but typical for public financings of this type, the
ground lease term would, at a minimum, mirror the final
maturity of the bonds, plus an additional period of time
(usually at least ten years and subject to input from the
bond rating agencies) to allow for use of the land in the
event the lease agreement required restructuring or for
unforeseen future events. Upon full repayment of the
outstanding bonds, ownership of the Project will revert to
the City at no or nominal cost (no buyout required).
However, it is possible that even with an STRB financing,
the City may wish to capitalize construction interest so
that sources of bond repayment need not be called upon
until facility opening. Further it should be noted that debt
service reserves would be an asset of the City, would earn
interest that inures to the benefit of the City in offsetting
interest cost on the bonds, and would be applied to the
final year’s debt service payment.
10.08
L e a s e - P u r c h a s e F i n a n c i n g S t r u c t u r e
In many respects, a lease-purchase financing is similar
to a traditional bond financing. Money is borrowed from
an investor, or investors, and bond payments are made
to the investors until the obligation has been paid in
full. Lease payments made by the City to the MBA under
such agreements contain a principal component and an
interest component. The lease of the premises to the City
will provide the credit necessary to ensure the lowest
cost of capital other than a G.O. bond or STRB financing.
may 3, 2011
Under the lease-purchase financing approach, the MBA would own the facilities during the financing period, Permanent financing of all development and financing
costs would be secured prior to commencement of
construction, with provision for capitalized interest so
that the City’s lease payments need not commence until
occupancy.
The development team would construct the facilities for
the owner pursuant to turnkey delivery documentation
providing for a guaranteed maximum price and
completion date. On completion, the MBA would lease
the improvements to the nonprofit lessee.
6 The site for the northwest corner of Block 70, which would
be occupied by a private office building with street-level retail,
is expected to be conveyed in one of two ways.
(i) If this parcel is included in the sale to the City of the
balance of the property to be used for the theater and other
public improvements, the City would sell or lease its interest
in the private parcel to Hamilton Partners (“HP”) for the
development of the commercial improvements. In such event,
the proceeds of this transaction could be used to offset the
City’s contribution to the finance plan.
(ii) Alternatively, if the current property owner is willing to
“bank” the parcel intended for the private development until
such time as HP is prepared, based on market conditions, to
acquire the property for the private development, then the City
need only acquire the portions of the site it does not already
own for the public improvements, reducing the City’s initial
investment in the property.
The lease payments from the lessee to the MBA would
equal the debt service on the LRBs (no private party
arbitrage profit), and would be structured to commence
after occupancy. The lease payments would be “subject
to annual appropriation” by the City. The premises lease agreement between the Municipal
Building Authority and the nonprofit lessee would be
subject to automatic one-year renewals (in periods
matching the City’s ﬁscal year), without further action on
the part of the borrower or the City, through the period
ending with the ﬁnal maturity of the bonds. The lease
agreement would be subject to early termination upon
prior redemption of the bonds or payment in full. Upon
such event, ownership of the Project will revert to the City
at no, or nominal, cost (no buyout required).
Call options on the financing generally can be structured
to be available anytime after year 10 in the event that the
City wishes to acquire facility ownership prior to the full
term of the financing. This option could be exercised by
simply paying the remaining principal on the bonds plus
interest that has accrued on the bonds since the then
most recent interest payment.
D e v e l o p m e n t C o s t F i n a n c i n g
The costs of development planning, architectural,
engineering, and construction planning for a project
of this scope and type can equal approximately 15%
of the total cost in professional fees payable before
commencement of construction. In the event that the
City desires an interim financing mechanism for such
costs, alternatives may include bond anticipation notes
or a short-term bank construction line. The line or notes
would be repaid with proceeds from the financial closing
of the construction and permanent financing after the
guaranteed maximum price has been delivered to the
City and financial documentation completed.
F i n a n c i a l M o d e l s
Sales Tax Revenue Bond and Lease Revenue Bond
models are provided on the following pages. Lewis Young
has modeled the interest and principal payments to yield
a level fixed debt service to the City over either a 25-year
or 20-year financing term. The team can explore with the City and its financial
advisor other options if desired by the City. A longer term
would more closely match the financing to the useful
life of the building and would result in lower annual
payments. Another option in lieu of level debt service
would be annually increasing debt service, which would
reduce debt service in the early years of the project. Given the preliminary nature of the design, the range of
the development options, and uncertainty as to whether
the City will opt to finance pre-construction costs, we
have used $117.6 million as the project fund amount for
illustrative purposes. For a more detailed development
budget, please see section 8.
Interest rates for the models assume market conditions
as of May 3, 2011 plus an appropriate factor for
conservatism in the opinion of Lewis Young, RDA’s
financial advisor, as bond pricing and financial closing
may not take place for another year or more from the
date of this report, and historically low interest rates are
expected to rise.
See Fig. 10-3 for a summary of the 25-year term financial
models included. See Fig. 10-4 for a summary of the 20year term financial models included. Debt service ranges
from $8.5 million to $14.7 million per year depending on
the instrument used, the tax status of the bonds, and
the amount of “other sources” than bonds for the capital
plan. $8.5 million reflects a financing plan with tax-exempt
STRBs for 91% of the project costs over a 25-year term. At the other end of the spectrum, $14.7 million reflects
a financing plan with taxable LRBs for 85% of the project
costs over a 20-year period. Note that in addition to the basis point spread against
current market rates, also in the interest of conservatism,
the team has assumed that if NMTC are a component
of the project financing, that the bond financing would
be taxable rather than tax-exempt. If in fact tax-exempt
status may be achieved for all or a portion of the bond
financing in combination with NMTC, the cost of capital
and the debt service amount would be reduced.
As previously noted, if NMTC are used as part of the
project funding, the tax credit investors would exit the
transaction after the end of the 7-year NMTC period. If
in fact the participation of tax credit investors dictates
taxable bond financing at the outset of the financing term,
it is possible that once the tax credit investors exit the
transaction, the taxable bonds could be refinanced with
tax-exempt bonds. The team will explore this possibility
with the financing and legal team.
10.09
plan of finance
We note that there are several variations of the above
structure that may be used to meet the City’s objectives. Any structure would, of course, need to be reviewed and
approved by the City’s bond counsel. CONCLUSION
The benefits of performing arts centers and other
entertainment and public assembly venues are more
tangible and immediate than ever before. The economic
and cultural benefits clearly outweigh the amount of
public sponsorship in the form of capital funding for the
Project. However, sources of funds must be identified
and assembled, and the overall financing plan structured
to preserve the strong financial standing of the City. Our team has reviewed with the City potential funding
sources for the project. We will continue to support the
City’s efforts in the coming months to solidify the sources
of up front funding and bond repayment. These efforts
include requesting County financial participation in
the theater capital costs through the County’s Cultural
Facilities Master Plan funding process. This report
provides answers to the County that it needs for its
consideration of this funding request.
may 3, 2011
10.10
FIG. 10-3
25-YEAR TERM FINANCING MODELS
SALES TAX REVENUE BONDS
25-YEAR TERM
SALES TAX REVENUE BONDS (STRBs)
PROJECT FUND REQUIREMENT
LESS NAMING RIGHTS (9%)
Model I
Model II
Model III
TAXABLE - 85%
TAX-EXEMPT - 91%
TAX-EXEMPT - 100%
$117,600
$117,600
$117,600
10,600
10,600
- 7,000
- - $100,000
$107,000
$117,600
8.23%
6.14%
6.14%
LESS NEW MARKETS TAX CREDITS (6%)
NEEDED FROM OTHER SOURCES
TRUE INTEREST COST
PAR AMOUNT OF BONDS
100,085
102,665
112,890
CAPITALIZED INTEREST
- - - DEBT SERVICE RESERVE
- - - COSTS OF ISSUANCE
AGGREGATE DEBT SERVICE
219
225
240
237,839
211,240
232,275
9,514
8,450
9,291
AVERAGE ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE
LEASE-REVENUE BONDS
25-YEAR TERM
LEASE REVENUE BONDS (LRBs)
TRUE INTEREST COST
PAR AMOUNT OF BONDS
Model I
Model II
Model III
TAXABLE - 85%
TAX-EXEMPT - 91%
TAX-EXEMPT - 100%
$117,600
$117,600
$117,600
10,600
10,600
- 7,000
- - $100,000
$107,000
$117,600
8.79%
6.59%
6.59
137,540
136,165
149,725
22,973
17,210
18,924
DEBT SERVICE RESERVE
13,754
11,664
12,825
COSTS OF ISSUANCE
458
468
508
304,505
251,245
276,262
13,838
11,431
12,569
10.11
plan of finance
FIG. 10-4
20-YEAR TERM FINANCING MODELS
SALES TAX REVENUE BONDS
20-YEAR TERM
SALES TAX REVENUE BONDS (STRBs)
Model I
Model II
Model III
TAXABLE - 85%
TAX-EXEMPT - 91%
TAX-EXEMPT - 100%
$117,600
$117,600
$117,600
10,600
10,600
- 7,000
- - $100,000
$107,000
$117,600
7.83%
5.75%
5.75%
TRUE INTEREST COST
100,085
101,225
111,300
PAR AMOUNT OF BONDS
- - - DEBT SERVICE RESERVE
- - - COSTS OF ISSUANCE
LEASE-REVENUE BONDS
20-YEAR TERM
LEASE REVENUE BONDS (LRBs)
10.12
TRUE INTEREST COST
PAR AMOUNT OF BONDS
224
234
182,037
200,159
10,023
9,102
10,008
Model I
Model II
Model III
TAXABLE - 85%
TAX-EXEMPT - 91%
TAX-EXEMPT - 100%
$117,600
$117,600
$117,600
10,600
10,600
- 7,000
- - $100,000
$107,000
$117,600
8.42%
6.20%
6.20%
135,860
133,590
146,890
21,475
16,379
18,009
DEBT SERVICE RESERVE
13,586
12,769
14,040
COSTS OF ISSUANCE
may 3, 2011
219
200,469
457
466
506
250,343
212,496
233,651
14,663
12,515
13,761
UPAC - Model I, 25-year Taxable
$100,085,000
Taxable Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2012
Debt Service Schedule
Date
Principal
Coupon
Interest
Total P+I
Fiscal Total
04/01/2012
-
-
-
-
-
10/01/2012
-
-
3,889,695.43
3,889,695.43
-
04/01/2013
1,735,000.00
3.125%
3,889,695.43
5,624,695.43
9,514,390.86
10/01/2013
-
-
3,862,586.05
3,862,586.05
-
04/01/2014
1,790,000.00
3.425%
3,862,586.05
5,652,586.05
9,515,172.10
10/01/2014
-
-
3,831,932.30
3,831,932.30
-
04/01/2015
1,850,000.00
3.940%
3,831,932.30
5,681,932.30
9,513,864.60
10/01/2015
-
-
3,795,487.30
3,795,487.30
-
04/01/2016
1,920,000.00
4.516%
3,795,487.30
5,715,487.30
9,510,974.60
10/01/2016
-
-
3,752,133.70
3,752,133.70
-
04/01/2017
2,010,000.00
4.916%
3,752,133.70
5,762,133.70
9,514,267.40
10/01/2017
-
-
3,702,727.90
3,702,727.90
-
04/01/2018
2,110,000.00
5.750%
3,702,727.90
5,812,727.90
9,515,455.80
10/01/2018
-
-
3,642,065.40
3,642,065.40
-
04/01/2019
2,230,000.00
6.050%
3,642,065.40
5,872,065.40
9,514,130.80
10/01/2019
-
-
3,574,607.90
3,574,607.90
-
04/01/2020
2,365,000.00
6.481%
3,574,607.90
5,939,607.90
9,514,215.80
10/01/2020
-
-
3,497,970.08
3,497,970.08
-
04/01/2021
2,515,000.00
6.631%
3,497,970.08
6,012,970.08
9,510,940.16
10/01/2021
-
-
3,414,585.25
3,414,585.25
-
04/01/2022
2,685,000.00
6.831%
3,414,585.25
6,099,585.25
9,514,170.50
10/01/2022
-
-
3,322,879.08
3,322,879.08
-
04/01/2023
2,870,000.00
7.831%
3,322,879.08
6,192,879.08
9,515,758.16
10/01/2023
-
-
3,210,504.23
3,210,504.23
-
04/01/2024
3,090,000.00
7.831%
3,210,504.23
6,300,504.23
9,511,008.46
10/01/2024
-
-
3,089,515.28
3,089,515.28
-
04/01/2025
3,335,000.00
7.831%
3,089,515.28
6,424,515.28
9,514,030.56
10/01/2025
-
-
2,958,933.35
2,958,933.35
-
04/01/2026
3,595,000.00
7.831%
2,958,933.35
6,553,933.35
9,512,866.70
10/01/2026
-
-
2,818,171.13
2,818,171.13
-
04/01/2027
3,875,000.00
7.831%
2,818,171.13
6,693,171.13
9,511,342.26
10/01/2027
-
-
2,666,445.50
2,666,445.50
-
04/01/2028
4,180,000.00
8.490%
2,666,445.50
6,846,445.50
9,512,891.00
10/01/2028
-
-
2,489,004.50
2,489,004.50
-
04/01/2029
4,535,000.00
8.490%
2,489,004.50
7,024,004.50
9,513,009.00
10/01/2029
-
-
2,296,493.75
2,296,493.75
-
04/01/2030
4,920,000.00
8.490%
2,296,493.75
7,216,493.75
9,512,987.50
10/01/2030
-
-
2,087,639.75
2,087,639.75
-
10.13
plan of finance
$100,085,000
Date
Principal
04/01/2031
Coupon
5,340,000.00
10/01/2031 -
8.490%
-
Interest
Total P+I
2,087,639.75
7,427,639.75
1,860,956.75
1,860,956.75
Fiscal Total
9,515,279.50
-
04/01/2032
5,790,000.00
8.490%
1,860,956.75
7,650,956.75
9,511,913.50
10/01/2032
-
-
1,615,171.25
1,615,171.25
-
04/01/2033
6,285,000.00
8.650%
1,615,171.25
7,900,171.25
9,515,342.50
10/01/2033
-
-
1,343,345.00
1,343,345.00
-
04/01/2034
6,825,000.00
8.650%
1,343,345.00
8,168,345.00
9,511,690.00
10/01/2034
-
-
1,048,163.75
1,048,163.75
-
04/01/2035
7,420,000.00
8.650%
1,048,163.75
8,468,163.75
9,516,327.50
10/01/2035
-
-
727,248.75
727,248.75
-
04/01/2036
8,060,000.00
8.650%
727,248.75
8,787,248.75
9,514,497.50
10/01/2036
-
-
378,653.75
378,653.75
-
04/01/2037
8,755,000.00
8.650%
378,653.75
9,133,653.75
9,512,307.50
$100,085,000.00
-
$137,753,834.26
$237,838,834.26
-
Total
Yield Statistics
Bond Year Dollars
10.14
$1,660,635.00
Average Life
16.592 Years
Average Coupon
8.2952506%
Net Interest Cost (NIC)
8.3238784%
True Interest Cost (TIC)
8.2252335%
Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes
8.1694300%
All Inclusive Cost (AIC)
8.2510665%
IRS Form 8038
Net Interest Cost
8.2952506%
Weighted Average Maturity
16.592 Years
lewis young robertson & burnimgham, inc.
may 3, 2011
SLC UPAC Model I-25: 85% | SINGLE PURPOSE | 5/ 4/2011 | 12:21 PM
$100,085,000
Sources & Uses
Dated 04/01/2012 | Delivered 04/01/2012
Sources Of Funds
Par Amount of Bonds
Reoffering Premium
Planned Equity Contribution (Naming Rights)
Total Sources
$100,085,000.00
10,600,000.00
7,000,000.00
$117,685,000.00
Uses Of Funds
Total Underwriter's Discount (0.475%)
475,403.75
Costs of Issuance
218,850.00
Deposit to Project Construction Fund
Rounding Amount
Total Uses
116,990,338.09
408.16
$117,685,000.00
10.15
plan of finance
10.16
$100,085,000
Operation Of Project Construction Fund
Date
Principal
04/01/2012
Rate
Interest
Receipts
- 0.5000000%
-
0.14
Cash
Balance
Disbursements
-
0.14
05/01/2012
4,851,304.72 0.5000000%
48,695.27
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.13
06/01/2012
4,853,323.99 0.5000000%
46,676.00
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.12
07/01/2012
4,855,344.12 0.5000000%
44,655.88
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.12
08/01/2012
4,857,365.06 0.5000000%
42,634.93
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.11
09/01/2012
4,859,386.86 0.5000000%
40,613.13
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.10
10/01/2012
4,861,409.50 0.5000000%
38,590.49
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.09
11/01/2012
4,863,432.98 0.5000000%
36,567.01
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.08
12/01/2012
4,865,457.30 0.5000000%
34,542.69
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.07
01/01/2013
4,867,482.47 0.5000000%
32,517.52
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.06
02/01/2013
4,869,508.49 0.5000000%
30,491.52
4,900,000.01
4,900,000.00
0.07
03/01/2013
4,871,535.33 0.5000000%
28,464.66
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.06
04/01/2013
4,873,563.02 0.5000000%
26,436.97
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.05
05/01/2013
4,875,591.57 0.5000000%
24,408.43
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.05
06/01/2013
4,877,620.95 0.5000000%
22,379.05
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.05
07/01/2013
4,879,651.17 0.5000000%
20,348.82
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.04
08/01/2013
4,881,682.25 0.5000000%
18,317.75
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.04
09/01/2013
4,883,714.18 0.5000000%
16,285.83
4,900,000.01
4,900,000.00
0.05
10/01/2013
4,885,746.93 0.5000000%
14,253.06
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.04
11/01/2013
4,887,780.54 0.5000000%
12,219.45
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.03
12/01/2013
4,889,815.00 0.5000000%
10,184.99
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.02
01/01/2014
4,891,850.31 0.5000000%
8,149.69
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.02
02/01/2014
4,893,886.45 0.5000000%
6,113.54
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.01
03/01/2014
4,895,923.46 0.5000000%
4,076.54
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.01
4,897,961.30 0.5000000%
2,038.69
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
-
- $609,661.91
$117,600,000.00
$117,600,000.00
-
04/01/2014
Total
$116,990,337.95
Investment Parameters
may 3, 2011
Investment Model [PV, GIC, or Securities]
Default investment yield target
Cash Deposit
Cost of Investments Purchased with Bond Proceeds
GIC
Unrestricted
0.14
116,990,337.95
Total Cost of Investments
$116,990,338.09
Target Cost of Investments at bond yield
$108,304,785.48
Actual positive or (negative) arbitrage
(8,685,552.61)
Yield to Receipt
0.5000000%
Yield for Arbitrage Purposes
8.1694300%
UPAC - Model II, 25-year Tax-Exempt
$102,665,000
Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2012
Date
Principal
Coupon
Interest
Total P+I
Fiscal Total
04/01/2012
-
-
-
-
-
10/01/2012
-
-
3,243,492.50
3,243,492.50
-
04/01/2013
1,960,000.00
4.000%
3,243,492.50
5,203,492.50
8,446,985.00
10/01/2013
-
-
3,204,292.50
3,204,292.50
-
04/01/2014
2,040,000.00
4.000%
3,204,292.50
5,244,292.50
8,448,585.00
10/01/2014
-
-
3,163,492.50
3,163,492.50
-
04/01/2015
2,120,000.00
5.500%
3,163,492.50
5,283,492.50
8,446,985.00
10/01/2015
-
-
3,105,192.50
3,105,192.50
-
04/01/2016
2,240,000.00
3.500%
3,105,192.50
5,345,192.50
8,450,385.00
10/01/2016
-
-
3,065,992.50
3,065,992.50
-
04/01/2017
2,320,000.00
5.500%
3,065,992.50
5,385,992.50
8,451,985.00
10/01/2017
-
-
3,002,192.50
3,002,192.50
-
04/01/2018
2,445,000.00
6.500%
3,002,192.50
5,447,192.50
8,449,385.00
10/01/2018
-
-
2,922,730.00
2,922,730.00
-
04/01/2019
2,605,000.00
4.750%
2,922,730.00
5,527,730.00
8,450,460.00
10/01/2019
-
-
2,860,861.25
2,860,861.25
-
04/01/2020
2,730,000.00
5.500%
2,860,861.25
5,590,861.25
8,451,722.50
10/01/2020
-
-
2,785,786.25
2,785,786.25
-
04/01/2021
2,880,000.00
4.700%
2,785,786.25
5,665,786.25
8,451,572.50
10/01/2021
-
-
2,718,106.25
2,718,106.25
-
04/01/2022
3,015,000.00
6.500%
2,718,106.25
5,733,106.25
8,451,212.50
10/01/2022
-
-
2,620,118.75
2,620,118.75
-
04/01/2023
3,210,000.00
6.500%
2,620,118.75
5,830,118.75
8,450,237.50
10/01/2023
-
-
2,515,793.75
2,515,793.75
-
04/01/2024
3,420,000.00
6.500%
2,515,793.75
5,935,793.75
8,451,587.50
10/01/2024
-
-
2,404,643.75
2,404,643.75
-
04/01/2025
3,640,000.00
6.500%
2,404,643.75
6,044,643.75
8,449,287.50
10/01/2025
-
-
2,286,343.75
2,286,343.75
-
04/01/2026
3,875,000.00
6.500%
2,286,343.75
6,161,343.75
8,447,687.50
10/01/2026
-
-
2,160,406.25
2,160,406.25
-
04/01/2027
4,130,000.00
6.500%
2,160,406.25
6,290,406.25
8,450,812.50
10/01/2027
-
-
2,026,181.25
2,026,181.25
-
04/01/2028
4,395,000.00
6.750%
2,026,181.25
6,421,181.25
8,447,362.50
10/01/2028
-
-
1,877,850.00
1,877,850.00
-
04/01/2029
4,695,000.00
6.750%
1,877,850.00
6,572,850.00
8,450,700.00
10/01/2029
-
-
1,719,393.75
1,719,393.75
-
04/01/2030
5,010,000.00
6.750%
1,719,393.75
6,729,393.75
8,448,787.50
10.17
plan of finance
$102,665,000
Date
Principal
Coupon
10/01/2030
-
04/01/2031
5,350,000.00
10/01/2031 -
6.750%
-
04/01/2032
5,710,000.00
Interest
Total P+I
1,550,306.25
1,550,306.25
1,550,306.25
1,369,743.75
6.750%
1,369,743.75
Fiscal Total
-
6,900,306.25
1,369,743.75
7,079,743.75
8,450,612.50
8,449,487.50
10/01/2032
-
-
1,177,031.25
1,177,031.25
-
04/01/2033
6,095,000.00
6.750%
1,177,031.25
7,272,031.25
8,449,062.50
10/01/2033
-
-
971,325.00
971,325.00
-
04/01/2034
6,505,000.00
6.750%
971,325.00
7,476,325.00
8,447,650.00
10/01/2034
-
-
751,781.25
751,781.25
-
04/01/2035
6,945,000.00
6.750%
751,781.25
7,696,781.25
8,448,562.50
10/01/2035
-
-
517,387.50
517,387.50
-
04/01/2036
7,415,000.00
6.750%
517,387.50
7,932,387.50
8,449,775.00
10/01/2036
-
-
267,131.25
267,131.25
-
7,915,000.00
6.750%
267,131.25
8,182,131.25
8,449,262.50
$102,665,000.00
-
$108,575,152.50
$211,240,152.50
-
04/01/2037
Total
Yield Statistics
10.18
Bond Year Dollars
$1,646,485.00
Average Life
16.037 Years
Average Coupon
6.5943603%
6.3543488%
6.1401177%
6.0161727%
6.1623646%
IRS Form 8038
Net Interest Cost
6.1115421%
15.909 Years
may 3, 2011
SLC UPAC Model II-25: 91% | SINGLE PURPOSE | 5/ 4/2011 | 12:21 PM
$102,665,000
Sources & Uses
Dated 04/01/2012 | Delivered 04/01/2012
Sources Of Funds
Par Amount of Bonds
Reoffering Premium
Planned Equity Contribution (Naming Rights)
Total Sources
$102,665,000.00
4,439,411.95
10,600,000.00
$117,704,411.95
Uses Of Funds
487,658.75
Costs of Issuance
225,125.00
Rounding Amount
Total Uses
116,990,338.09
1,290.11
$117,704,411.95
10.19
plan of finance
10.20
$102,665,000
Date
Principal
04/01/2012
Rate
Interest
Receipts
- 0.5000000%
-
0.14
Cash
Balance
Disbursements
-
0.14
05/01/2012
4,851,304.72 0.5000000%
48,695.27
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.13
06/01/2012
4,853,323.99 0.5000000%
46,676.00
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.12
07/01/2012
4,855,344.12 0.5000000%
44,655.88
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.12
08/01/2012
4,857,365.06 0.5000000%
42,634.93
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.11
09/01/2012
4,859,386.86 0.5000000%
40,613.13
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.10
10/01/2012
4,861,409.50 0.5000000%
38,590.49
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.09
11/01/2012
4,863,432.98 0.5000000%
36,567.01
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.08
12/01/2012
4,865,457.30 0.5000000%
34,542.69
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.07
01/01/2013
4,867,482.47 0.5000000%
32,517.52
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.06
02/01/2013
4,869,508.49 0.5000000%
30,491.52
4,900,000.01
4,900,000.00
0.07
03/01/2013
4,871,535.33 0.5000000%
28,464.66
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.06
04/01/2013
4,873,563.02 0.5000000%
26,436.97
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.05
05/01/2013
4,875,591.57 0.5000000%
24,408.43
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.05
06/01/2013
4,877,620.95 0.5000000%
22,379.05
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.05
07/01/2013
4,879,651.17 0.5000000%
20,348.82
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.04
08/01/2013
4,881,682.25 0.5000000%
18,317.75
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.04
09/01/2013
4,883,714.18 0.5000000%
16,285.83
4,900,000.01
4,900,000.00
0.05
10/01/2013
4,885,746.93 0.5000000%
14,253.06
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.04
11/01/2013
4,887,780.54 0.5000000%
12,219.45
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.03
12/01/2013
4,889,815.00 0.5000000%
10,184.99
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.02
01/01/2014
4,891,850.31 0.5000000%
8,149.69
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.02
02/01/2014
4,893,886.45 0.5000000%
6,113.54
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.01
03/01/2014
4,895,923.46 0.5000000%
4,076.54
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.01
4,897,961.30 0.5000000%
2,038.69
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
-
- $609,661.91
$117,600,000.00
$117,600,000.00
-
04/01/2014
Total
$116,990,337.95
may 3, 2011
Cash Deposit
GIC
Unrestricted
0.14
116,990,337.95
$116,990,338.09
$110,623,123.44
(6,367,214.65)
Yield to Receipt
0.5000000%
6.0161727%
UPAC - Model III, 25-year Tax-Exempt
$112,890,000
Date
Principal
Coupon
Interest
Total P+I
Fiscal Total
04/01/2012
-
-
-
-
-
10/01/2012
-
-
3,566,502.50
3,566,502.50
-
04/01/2013
2,160,000.00
4.000%
3,566,502.50
5,726,502.50
9,293,005.00
10/01/2013
-
-
3,523,302.50
3,523,302.50
-
04/01/2014
2,245,000.00
4.000%
3,523,302.50
5,768,302.50
9,291,605.00
10/01/2014
-
-
3,478,402.50
3,478,402.50
-
04/01/2015
2,335,000.00
5.500%
3,478,402.50
5,813,402.50
9,291,805.00
10/01/2015
-
-
3,414,190.00
3,414,190.00
-
04/01/2016
2,460,000.00
3.500%
3,414,190.00
5,874,190.00
9,288,380.00
10/01/2016
-
-
3,371,140.00
3,371,140.00
-
04/01/2017
2,550,000.00
5.500%
3,371,140.00
5,921,140.00
9,292,280.00
10/01/2017
-
-
3,301,015.00
3,301,015.00
-
04/01/2018
2,690,000.00
6.500%
3,301,015.00
5,991,015.00
9,292,030.00
10/01/2018
-
-
3,213,590.00
3,213,590.00
-
04/01/2019
2,865,000.00
4.750%
3,213,590.00
6,078,590.00
9,292,180.00
10/01/2019
-
-
3,145,546.25
3,145,546.25
-
04/01/2020
3,000,000.00
5.500%
3,145,546.25
6,145,546.25
9,291,092.50
10/01/2020
-
-
3,063,046.25
3,063,046.25
-
04/01/2021
3,165,000.00
4.700%
3,063,046.25
6,228,046.25
9,291,092.50
10/01/2021
-
-
2,988,668.75
2,988,668.75
-
04/01/2022
3,315,000.00
6.500%
2,988,668.75
6,303,668.75
9,292,337.50
10/01/2022
-
-
2,880,931.25
2,880,931.25
-
04/01/2023
3,530,000.00
6.500%
2,880,931.25
6,410,931.25
9,291,862.50
10/01/2023
-
-
2,766,206.25
2,766,206.25
-
04/01/2024
3,760,000.00
6.500%
2,766,206.25
6,526,206.25
9,292,412.50
10/01/2024
-
-
2,644,006.25
2,644,006.25
-
04/01/2025
4,000,000.00
6.500%
2,644,006.25
6,644,006.25
9,288,012.50
10/01/2025
-
-
2,514,006.25
2,514,006.25
-
04/01/2026
4,260,000.00
6.500%
2,514,006.25
6,774,006.25
9,288,012.50
10/01/2026
-
-
2,375,556.25
2,375,556.25
-
04/01/2027
4,540,000.00
6.500%
2,375,556.25
6,915,556.25
9,291,112.50
10/01/2027
-
-
2,228,006.25
2,228,006.25
-
04/01/2028
4,835,000.00
6.750%
2,228,006.25
7,063,006.25
9,291,012.50
10/01/2028
-
-
2,064,825.00
2,064,825.00
-
04/01/2029
5,160,000.00
6.750%
2,064,825.00
7,224,825.00
9,289,650.00
10/01/2029
-
-
1,890,675.00
1,890,675.00
-
04/01/2030
5,510,000.00
6.750%
1,890,675.00
7,400,675.00
9,291,350.00
10.21
plan of finance
$112,890,000
Interest
Total P+I
10/01/2030
Date
Principal
-
Coupon
-
1,704,712.50
1,704,712.50
-
04/01/2031
5,880,000.00
6.750%
1,704,712.50
7,584,712.50
9,289,425.00
10/01/2031 -
10.22
-
1,506,262.50
1,506,262.50
Fiscal Total
-
04/01/2032
6,280,000.00
6.750%
1,506,262.50
7,786,262.50
9,292,525.00
10/01/2032
-
-
1,294,312.50
1,294,312.50
-
04/01/2033
6,700,000.00
6.750%
1,294,312.50
7,994,312.50
9,288,625.00
10/01/2033
-
-
1,068,187.50
1,068,187.50
-
04/01/2034
7,155,000.00
6.750%
1,068,187.50
8,223,187.50
9,291,375.00
10/01/2034
-
-
826,706.25
826,706.25
-
04/01/2035
7,635,000.00
6.750%
826,706.25
8,461,706.25
9,288,412.50
10/01/2035
-
-
569,025.00
569,025.00
-
04/01/2036
8,155,000.00
6.750%
569,025.00
8,724,025.00
9,293,050.00
10/01/2036
-
-
293,793.75
293,793.75
-
04/01/2037
8,705,000.00
6.750%
293,793.75
8,998,793.75
9,292,587.50
$112,890,000.00
-
$119,385,232.50
$232,275,232.50
-
Total
Yield Statistics
Bond Year Dollars
$1,810,405.00
Average Life
16.037 Years
Average Coupon
6.5943937%
6.3543747%
6.1401380%
6.0161968%
6.1617247%
may 3, 2011
IRS Form 8038
Net Interest Cost
6.1115743%
15.908 Years
SLC UPAC Model III-25:100 | SINGLE PURPOSE | 5/ 4/2011 | 12:22 PM
$112,890,000
Sources & Uses
Dated 04/01/2012 | Delivered 04/01/2012
Sources Of Funds
Par Amount of Bonds
Reoffering Premium
Total Sources
$112,890,000.00
4,881,542.50
$117,771,542.50
Uses Of Funds
Costs of Issuance
Rounding Amount
Total Uses
536,227.50
240,200.00
116,990,338.09
4,776.91
$117,771,542.50
10.23
plan of finance
10.24
$112,890,000
Date
Principal
04/01/2012
Rate
Interest
Receipts
- 0.5000000%
-
0.14
Cash
Balance
Disbursements
-
0.14
05/01/2012
4,851,304.72 0.5000000%
48,695.27
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.13
06/01/2012
4,853,323.99 0.5000000%
46,676.00
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.12
07/01/2012
4,855,344.12 0.5000000%
44,655.88
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.12
08/01/2012
4,857,365.06 0.5000000%
42,634.93
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.11
09/01/2012
4,859,386.86 0.5000000%
40,613.13
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.10
10/01/2012
4,861,409.50 0.5000000%
38,590.49
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.09
11/01/2012
4,863,432.98 0.5000000%
36,567.01
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.08
12/01/2012
4,865,457.30 0.5000000%
34,542.69
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.07
01/01/2013
4,867,482.47 0.5000000%
32,517.52
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.06
02/01/2013
4,869,508.49 0.5000000%
30,491.52
4,900,000.01
4,900,000.00
0.07
03/01/2013
4,871,535.33 0.5000000%
28,464.66
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.06
04/01/2013
4,873,563.02 0.5000000%
26,436.97
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.05
05/01/2013
4,875,591.57 0.5000000%
24,408.43
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.05
06/01/2013
4,877,620.95 0.5000000%
22,379.05
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.05
07/01/2013
4,879,651.17 0.5000000%
20,348.82
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.04
08/01/2013
4,881,682.25 0.5000000%
18,317.75
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.04
09/01/2013
4,883,714.18 0.5000000%
16,285.83
4,900,000.01
4,900,000.00
0.05
10/01/2013
4,885,746.93 0.5000000%
14,253.06
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.04
11/01/2013
4,887,780.54 0.5000000%
12,219.45
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.03
12/01/2013
4,889,815.00 0.5000000%
10,184.99
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.02
01/01/2014
4,891,850.31 0.5000000%
8,149.69
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.02
02/01/2014
4,893,886.45 0.5000000%
6,113.54
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.01
03/01/2014
4,895,923.46 0.5000000%
4,076.54
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.01
4,897,961.30 0.5000000%
2,038.69
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
-
- $609,661.91
$117,600,000.00
$117,600,000.00
-
04/01/2014
Total
$116,990,337.95
may 3, 2011
Cash Deposit
GIC
Unrestricted
0.14
116,990,337.95
$116,990,338.09
$110,623,096.99
(6,367,241.10)
Yield to Receipt
0.5000000%
6.0161968%
-
04/01/2013
10/01/2013
04/01/2014
10/01/2014
-
-
-
-
-
-
Coupon
-
2,705,000.00
-
04/01/2017
-
04/01/2024
10/01/2023
04/01/2023
-
4,300,000.00 8.331%
-
3,970,000.00 8.331%
-
10/01/2022
7.331%
-
-
3,700,000.00
10/01/2021
04/01/2022
7.131%
-
3,450,000.00
10/01/2020
3,225,000.00 6.981%
-
3,030,000.00 6.550%
-
2,850,000.00 6.250%
-
04/01/2021
04/01/2020
10/01/2019
04/01/2019
10/01/2018
04/01/2018
10/01/2017
5.416%
-
10/01/2016
5.016%
2,575,000.00
04/01/2016
-
-
10/01/2015
2,465,000.00 4.440%
-
10/01/2012
04/01/2015
-
Principal
04/01/2012
Date
Taxable Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2012
Net Debt Service Schedule
$137,540,000
-
4,904,753.85
4,904,753.85
5,070,124.20
5,070,124.20
5,205,747.70
5,205,747.70
5,328,757.45
5,328,757.45
5,441,326.08
5,441,326.08
5,540,558.58
5,540,558.58
5,629,621.08
5,629,621.08
5,702,872.48
5,702,872.48
5,767,453.48
5,767,453.48
5,822,176.48
5,822,176.48
5,822,176.48
5,822,176.48
5,822,176.48
5,822,176.48
Interest
(137,540.00)
(137,540.00)
(137,540.00)
(137,540.00)
5,070,124.20
9,040,124.20
4,904,753.85
9,204,753.85
-
(137,540.00)
(137,540.00)
(137,540.00)
8,778,757.45
5,205,747.70
(137,540.00)
5,328,757.45
8,905,747.70
-
(137,540.00)
8,666,326.08
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(137,540.00)
(137,540.00)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(5,822,176.48)
(5,822,176.48)
(5,822,176.48)
5,441,326.08
(137,540.00)
5,540,558.58
(5,822,176.48)
CIF
8,570,558.58
(137,540.00)
(137,540.00)
8,407,872.48
8,479,621.08
(137,540.00)
5,702,872.48
5,629,621.08
(137,540.00)
(137,540.00)
8,342,453.48
(137,540.00)
5,767,453.48
-
5,822,176.48
(68,770.00)
-
5,822,176.48
(137,540.00)
-
5,822,176.48
8,287,176.48
-
5,822,176.48
5,822,176.48
-
DSR
-
Total P+I
10.25
-
-
-
-
-
9,067,213.85
4,767,213.85
8,902,584.20
4,932,584.20
8,768,207.70
5,068,207.70
8,641,217.45
5,191,217.45
8,528,786.08
5,303,786.08
8,433,018.58
5,403,018.58
8,342,081.08
5,492,081.08
8,270,332.48
5,565,332.48
8,204,913.48
5,629,913.48
8,149,636.48
5,753,406.48
Net New D/S
-
-
-
-
-
-
13,834,427.70
-
13,835,168.40
-
13,836,415.40
-
13,832,434.90
-
13,832,572.16
-
13,836,037.16
-
13,834,162.16
-
13,835,664.96
-
13,834,826.96
-
13,903,042.96
Fiscal Total
-
12,925,000.00
591,318.75
591,318.75
1,133,227.50
1,133,227.50
1,629,615.00
1,629,615.00
2,084,370.00
2,084,370.00
2,501,152.50
2,501,152.50
2,876,709.75
2,876,709.75
3,221,251.50
3,221,251.50
- $210,265,520.14
9.150%
-
9.150%
-
9.150%
-
3,537,474.75
3,537,474.75
13,516,318.75
591,318.75
12,978,227.50
1,133,227.50
12,479,615.00
1,629,615.00
12,024,370.00
2,084,370.00
11,611,152.50
2,501,152.50
11,231,709.75
2,876,709.75
10,886,251.50
3,221,251.50
10,572,474.75
3,537,474.75
10,282,627.00
3,827,627.00
10,013,731.00
4,093,731.00
9,786,375.58
4,321,375.58
9,576,525.05
4,531,525.05
9,385,637.35
4,725,637.35
Total P+I
$347,805,520.14
$137,540,000.00
04/01/2037
Total
-
10/01/2036
-
-
10,850,000.00
04/01/2035
11,845,000.00
-
10/01/2034
10/01/2035
9,940,000.00
04/01/2034
04/01/2036
9.150%
-
10/01/2033
9.150%
-
9,110,000.00
10/01/2032
8,355,000.00 8.990%
-
7,665,000.00 8.990%
-
7,035,000.00 8.990%
-
3,827,627.00
6,455,000.00 8.990%
-
3,827,627.00
4,093,731.00
-
5,920,000.00 8.990%
-
4,093,731.00
-
4,321,375.58
-
4,321,375.58
-
-
5,465,000.00 8.331%
4,531,525.05
5,045,000.00 8.331%
4,725,637.35
4,531,525.05
-
-
4,660,000.00 8.331%
Interest
4,725,637.35
-
Coupon
-
Principal
04/01/2033
04/01/2032
10/01/2031
04/01/2031
10/01/2030
04/01/2030
10/01/2029
04/01/2029
10/01/2028
04/01/2028
10/01/2027
04/01/2027
10/01/2026
04/01/2026
10/01/2025
04/01/2025
10/01/2024
Date
$137,540,000
may 3, 2011
10.26
(20,012,070.00)
(13,891,540.00)
(137,540.00)
(137,540.00)
(137,540.00)
(137,540.00)
(137,540.00)
(137,540.00)
(137,540.00)
(137,540.00)
(137,540.00)
(137,540.00)
(137,540.00)
(137,540.00)
(137,540.00)
(137,540.00)
(137,540.00)
(137,540.00)
(137,540.00)
(137,540.00)
(137,540.00)
(137,540.00)
(137,540.00)
(137,540.00)
(137,540.00)
(137,540.00)
(137,540.00)
DSR
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(23,288,705.92)
CIF
$304,504,744.22
(375,221.25)
453,778.75
12,840,687.50
995,687.50
12,342,075.00
1,492,075.00
11,886,830.00
1,946,830.00
11,473,612.50
2,363,612.50
11,094,169.75
2,739,169.75
10,748,711.50
3,083,711.50
10,434,934.75
3,399,934.75
10,145,087.00
3,690,087.00
9,876,191.00
3,956,191.00
9,648,835.58
4,183,835.58
9,438,985.05
4,393,985.05
9,248,097.35
4,588,097.35
Net New D/S
-
-
78,557.50
-
13,836,375.00
-
13,834,150.00
-
13,833,660.00
-
13,837,225.00
-
13,833,339.50
-
13,832,423.00
-
13,834,869.50
-
13,835,174.00
-
13,832,382.00
-
13,832,671.16
-
13,832,970.10
-
13,836,194.70
Fiscal Total
plan of finance
$137,540,000
Sources & Uses
Dated 04/01/2012 | Delivered 04/01/2012
Sources Of Funds
Par Amount of Bonds
Naming Rights (9%)
New Markets Tax Credits (6%)
Total Sources
$137,540,000.00
10,600,000.00
7,000,000.00
$155,140,000.00
Uses Of Funds
962,780.00
Costs of Issuance
457,900.00
Deposit to Debt Service Reserve Fund (DSRF)
Deposit to Capitalized Interest (CIF) Fund
Rounding Amount
Total Uses
13,754,000.00
22,973,148.17
116,990,338.09
1,833.74
$155,140,000.00
10.27
plan of finance
10.28
$137,540,000
Date
Principal
04/01/2012
Rate
Interest
Receipts
- 0.5000000%
-
0.14
Cash
Balance
Disbursements
-
0.14
05/01/2012
4,851,304.72 0.5000000%
48,695.27
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.13
06/01/2012
4,853,323.99 0.5000000%
46,676.00
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.12
07/01/2012
4,855,344.12 0.5000000%
44,655.88
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.12
08/01/2012
4,857,365.06 0.5000000%
42,634.93
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.11
09/01/2012
4,859,386.86 0.5000000%
40,613.13
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.10
10/01/2012
4,861,409.50 0.5000000%
38,590.49
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.09
11/01/2012
4,863,432.98 0.5000000%
36,567.01
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.08
12/01/2012
4,865,457.30 0.5000000%
34,542.69
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.07
01/01/2013
4,867,482.47 0.5000000%
32,517.52
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.06
02/01/2013
4,869,508.49 0.5000000%
30,491.52
4,900,000.01
4,900,000.00
0.07
03/01/2013
4,871,535.33 0.5000000%
28,464.66
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.06
04/01/2013
4,873,563.02 0.5000000%
26,436.97
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.05
05/01/2013
4,875,591.57 0.5000000%
24,408.43
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.05
06/01/2013
4,877,620.95 0.5000000%
22,379.05
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.05
07/01/2013
4,879,651.17 0.5000000%
20,348.82
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.04
08/01/2013
4,881,682.25 0.5000000%
18,317.75
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.04
09/01/2013
4,883,714.18 0.5000000%
16,285.83
4,900,000.01
4,900,000.00
0.05
10/01/2013
4,885,746.93 0.5000000%
14,253.06
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.04
11/01/2013
4,887,780.54 0.5000000%
12,219.45
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.03
12/01/2013
4,889,815.00 0.5000000%
10,184.99
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.02
01/01/2014
4,891,850.31 0.5000000%
8,149.69
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.02
02/01/2014
4,893,886.45 0.5000000%
6,113.54
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.01
03/01/2014
4,895,923.46 0.5000000%
4,076.54
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.01
4,897,961.30 0.5000000%
2,038.69
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
-
- $609,661.91
$117,600,000.00
$117,600,000.00
-
04/01/2014
Total
$116,990,337.95
may 3, 2011
Cash Deposit
GIC
Unrestricted
0.14
116,990,337.95
$116,990,338.09
$107,737,015.08
(9,253,323.01)
Yield to Receipt
0.5000000%
8.7095665%
-
04/01/2013
10/01/2013
04/01/2014
10/01/2014
04/01/2024
10/01/2023
04/01/2023
10/01/2022
04/01/2022
10/01/2021
04/01/2021
10/01/2020
04/01/2020
10/01/2019
04/01/2019
10/01/2018
04/01/2018
10/01/2017
04/01/2017
10/01/2016
04/01/2016
10/01/2015
-
-
-
-
-
-
Coupon
-
4,715,000.00 6.500%
-
4,430,000.00 6.500%
-
4,160,000.00 6.500%
-
3,970,000.00 4.700%
-
3,765,000.00 5.500%
-
3,595,000.00 4.750%
-
3,375,000.00 6.500%
-
3,200,000.00 5.500%
-
3,090,000.00 3.500%
-
2,930,000.00 5.500%
-
10/01/2012
04/01/2015
-
Principal
04/01/2012
Date
Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2012
$136,165,000
-
3,472,200.00
3,472,200.00
3,616,175.00
3,616,175.00
3,751,375.00
3,751,375.00
3,844,670.00
3,844,670.00
3,948,207.50
3,948,207.50
4,033,588.75
4,033,588.75
4,143,276.25
4,143,276.25
4,231,276.25
4,231,276.25
4,285,351.25
4,285,351.25
4,365,926.25
4,365,926.25
4,365,926.25
4,365,926.25
4,365,926.25
4,365,926.25
Interest
-
-
(116,635.50)
(116,635.50)
(116,635.50)
(116,635.50)
(116,635.50)
(116,635.50)
(116,635.50)
(116,635.50)
(116,635.50)
(116,635.50)
(116,635.50)
(116,635.50)
(116,635.50)
(116,635.50)
(116,635.50)
7,431,276.25
4,143,276.25
7,518,276.25
4,033,588.75
7,628,588.75
3,948,207.50
7,713,207.50
3,844,670.00
7,814,670.00
3,751,375.00
7,911,375.00
3,616,175.00
8,046,175.00
3,472,200.00
8,187,200.00
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(116,635.50)
(116,635.50)
4,231,276.25
-
-
-
(4,365,926.25)
(4,365,926.25)
(4,365,926.25)
(4,365,926.25)
CIF
7,375,351.25
(116,635.50)
4,285,351.25
-
4,365,926.25
(58,317.75)
-
4,365,926.25
(116,635.50)
-
4,365,926.25
7,295,926.25
-
4,365,926.25
4,365,926.25
-
DSR
-
Total P+I
10.29
-
-
-
-
-
8,070,564.50
3,355,564.50
7,929,539.50
3,499,539.50
7,794,739.50
3,634,739.50
7,698,034.50
3,728,034.50
7,596,572.00
3,831,572.00
7,511,953.25
3,916,953.25
7,401,640.75
4,026,640.75
7,314,640.75
4,114,640.75
7,258,715.75
4,168,715.75
7,179,290.75
4,307,608.50
Net New D/S
-
-
-
-
-
-
11,426,129.00
-
11,429,079.00
-
11,429,479.00
-
11,426,069.00
-
11,428,144.00
-
11,428,906.50
-
11,428,281.50
-
11,429,281.50
-
11,427,431.50
-
11,486,899.25
Fiscal Total
-
-
Coupon
-
$136,165,000.00
368,718.75
368,718.75
714,150.00
714,150.00
1,037,643.75
1,037,643.75
1,340,718.75
1,340,718.75
1,624,556.25
1,624,556.25
1,890,506.25
1,890,506.25
2,139,581.25
2,139,581.25
2,372,962.50
2,372,962.50
2,591,662.50
2,591,662.50
2,796,525.00
2,796,525.00
2,981,775.00
2,981,775.00
3,155,650.00
3,155,650.00
3,318,962.50
3,318,962.50
Interest
- $149,514,622.50
10,925,000.00 6.750%
-
10,235,000.00 6.750%
-
9,585,000.00 6.750%
-
8,980,000.00 6.750%
-
8,410,000.00 6.750%
-
7,880,000.00 6.750%
-
7,380,000.00 6.750%
-
6,915,000.00 6.750%
-
6,480,000.00 6.750%
-
6,070,000.00 6.750%
-
5,700,000.00 6.500%
-
5,350,000.00 6.500%
-
5,025,000.00 6.500%
Principal
11,293,718.75
368,718.75
10,949,150.00
714,150.00
10,622,643.75
1,037,643.75
10,320,718.75
1,340,718.75
10,034,556.25
1,624,556.25
9,770,506.25
1,890,506.25
9,519,581.25
2,139,581.25
9,287,962.50
2,372,962.50
9,071,662.50
2,591,662.50
8,866,525.00
2,796,525.00
8,681,775.00
2,981,775.00
8,505,650.00
3,155,650.00
8,343,962.50
3,318,962.50
Total P+I
$285,679,622.50
Total
04/01/2037
10/01/2036
04/01/2036
10/01/2035
04/01/2035
10/01/2034
04/01/2034
10/01/2033
04/01/2033
10/01/2032
04/01/2032
10/01/2031
04/01/2031
10/01/2030
04/01/2030
10/01/2029
04/01/2029
10/01/2028
04/01/2028
10/01/2027
04/01/2027
10/01/2026
04/01/2026
10/01/2025
04/01/2025
10/01/2024
Date
$136,165,000
may 3, 2011
10.30
(16,970,465.25)
(11,780,185.50)
(116,635.50)
(116,635.50)
(116,635.50)
(116,635.50)
(116,635.50)
(116,635.50)
(116,635.50)
(116,635.50)
(116,635.50)
(116,635.50)
(116,635.50)
(116,635.50)
(116,635.50)
(116,635.50)
(116,635.50)
(116,635.50)
(116,635.50)
(116,635.50)
(116,635.50)
(116,635.50)
(116,635.50)
(116,635.50)
(116,635.50)
(116,635.50)
(116,635.50)
DSR
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(17,463,705.00)
CIF
$251,245,452.25
(486,466.75)
252,083.25
10,832,514.50
597,514.50
10,506,008.25
921,008.25
10,204,083.25
1,224,083.25
9,917,920.75
1,507,920.75
9,653,870.75
1,773,870.75
9,402,945.75
2,022,945.75
9,171,327.00
2,256,327.00
8,955,027.00
2,475,027.00
8,749,889.50
2,679,889.50
8,565,139.50
2,865,139.50
8,389,014.50
3,039,014.50
8,227,327.00
3,202,327.00
Net New D/S
-
-
(234,383.50)
-
11,430,029.00
-
11,427,016.50
-
11,428,166.50
-
11,425,841.50
-
11,427,741.50
-
11,425,891.50
-
11,427,654.00
-
11,430,054.00
-
11,429,779.00
-
11,430,279.00
-
11,428,029.00
-
11,429,654.00
Fiscal Total
plan of finance
$136,165,000
Sources & Uses
Dated 04/01/2012 | Delivered 04/01/2012
Sources Of Funds
Par Amount of Bonds
$136,165,000.00
Reoffering Premium
522,584.60
Naming Rights (9%)
10,600,000.00
Total Sources
$147,287,584.60
Uses Of Funds
953,155.00
Costs of Issuance
467,750.00
Rounding Amount
Total Uses
11,663,550.00
17,210,320.93
116,990,338.09
2,470.58
$147,287,584.60
10.31
plan of finance
10.32
$136,165,000
Date
Principal
04/01/2012
Rate
Interest
Receipts
- 0.5000000%
-
0.14
Cash
Balance
Disbursements
-
0.14
05/01/2012
4,851,304.72 0.5000000%
48,695.27
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.13
06/01/2012
4,853,323.99 0.5000000%
46,676.00
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.12
07/01/2012
4,855,344.12 0.5000000%
44,655.88
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.12
08/01/2012
4,857,365.06 0.5000000%
42,634.93
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.11
09/01/2012
4,859,386.86 0.5000000%
40,613.13
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.10
10/01/2012
4,861,409.50 0.5000000%
38,590.49
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.09
11/01/2012
4,863,432.98 0.5000000%
36,567.01
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.08
12/01/2012
4,865,457.30 0.5000000%
34,542.69
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.07
01/01/2013
4,867,482.47 0.5000000%
32,517.52
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.06
02/01/2013
4,869,508.49 0.5000000%
30,491.52
4,900,000.01
4,900,000.00
0.07
03/01/2013
4,871,535.33 0.5000000%
28,464.66
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.06
04/01/2013
4,873,563.02 0.5000000%
26,436.97
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.05
05/01/2013
4,875,591.57 0.5000000%
24,408.43
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.05
06/01/2013
4,877,620.95 0.5000000%
22,379.05
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.05
07/01/2013
4,879,651.17 0.5000000%
20,348.82
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.04
08/01/2013
4,881,682.25 0.5000000%
18,317.75
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.04
09/01/2013
4,883,714.18 0.5000000%
16,285.83
4,900,000.01
4,900,000.00
0.05
10/01/2013
4,885,746.93 0.5000000%
14,253.06
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.04
11/01/2013
4,887,780.54 0.5000000%
12,219.45
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.03
12/01/2013
4,889,815.00 0.5000000%
10,184.99
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.02
01/01/2014
4,891,850.31 0.5000000%
8,149.69
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.02
02/01/2014
4,893,886.45 0.5000000%
6,113.54
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.01
03/01/2014
4,895,923.46 0.5000000%
4,076.54
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.01
4,897,961.30 0.5000000%
2,038.69
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
-
- $609,661.91
$117,600,000.00
$117,600,000.00
-
04/01/2014
Total
$116,990,337.95
may 3, 2011
Cash Deposit
GIC
Unrestricted
0.14
116,990,337.95
$116,990,338.09
$110,076,055.93
(6,914,282.16)
Yield to Receipt
0.5000000%
6.5168804%
-
-
10/01/2013
04/01/2014
04/01/2024
10/01/2023
04/01/2023
10/01/2022
04/01/2022
10/01/2021
04/01/2021
10/01/2020
04/01/2020
10/01/2019
04/01/2019
10/01/2018
04/01/2018
10/01/2017
04/01/2017
10/01/2016
04/01/2016
10/01/2015
04/01/2015
10/01/2014
-
-
04/01/2013
-
5,185,000.00 6.500%
-
4,870,000.00 6.500%
-
4,575,000.00 6.500%
-
4,370,000.00 4.700%
-
4,140,000.00 5.500%
-
3,950,000.00 4.750%
-
3,710,000.00 6.500%
-
3,520,000.00 5.500%
-
3,400,000.00 3.500%
-
3,220,000.00 5.500%
-
-
-
-
10/01/2012
-
Coupon
-
Principal
04/01/2012
Date
$149,725,000
-
3,817,912.50
3,817,912.50
3,976,187.50
3,976,187.50
4,124,875.00
4,124,875.00
4,227,570.00
4,227,570.00
4,341,420.00
4,341,420.00
4,435,232.50
4,435,232.50
4,555,807.50
4,555,807.50
4,652,607.50
4,652,607.50
4,712,107.50
4,712,107.50
4,800,657.50
4,800,657.50
4,800,657.50
4,800,657.50
4,800,657.50
4,800,657.50
Interest
-
(128,252.15)
(128,252.15)
(128,252.15)
(128,252.15)
(128,252.15)
(128,252.15)
(128,252.15)
(128,252.15)
(128,252.15)
(128,252.15)
(128,252.15)
(128,252.15)
(128,252.15)
(128,252.15)
(128,252.15)
(128,252.15)
(128,252.15)
(128,252.15)
8,112,107.50
4,652,607.50
8,172,607.50
4,555,807.50
8,265,807.50
4,435,232.50
8,385,232.50
4,341,420.00
8,481,420.00
4,227,570.00
8,597,570.00
4,124,875.00
8,699,875.00
3,976,187.50
8,846,187.50
3,817,912.50
9,002,912.50
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(4,800,657.50)
4,712,107.50
-
4,800,657.50
(4,800,657.50)
(4,800,657.50)
(64,126.08)
-
4,800,657.50
(128,252.15)
-
4,800,657.50
(4,800,657.50)
-
4,800,657.50
-
4,800,657.50
CIF
8,020,657.50
-
DSR
-
Total P+I
10.33
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
12,565,870.70
-
12,568,245.70
-
12,568,635.70
-
12,566,335.70
-
12,563,960.70
-
12,565,110.70
-
12,568,710.70
-
12,567,710.70
-
12,628,936.77
Fiscal Total
8,874,660.35 12,564,320.70
3,689,660.35
8,717,935.35
3,847,935.35
8,571,622.85
3,996,622.85
8,469,317.85
4,099,317.85
8,353,167.85
4,213,167.85
8,256,980.35
4,306,980.35
8,137,555.35
4,427,555.35
8,044,355.35
4,524,355.35
7,983,855.35
4,583,855.35
7,892,405.35
4,736,531.42
Net New D/S
-
-
Coupon
-
$149,725,000.00
405,337.50
405,337.50
785,025.00
785,025.00
1,140,750.00
1,140,750.00
1,474,031.25
1,474,031.25
1,786,218.75
1,786,218.75
2,078,662.50
2,078,662.50
2,352,543.75
2,352,543.75
2,609,212.50
2,609,212.50
2,849,681.25
2,849,681.25
3,074,962.50
3,074,962.50
3,278,575.00
3,278,575.00
3,469,837.50
3,469,837.50
3,649,400.00
3,649,400.00
Interest
- $164,399,860.00
12,010,000.00 6.750%
-
11,250,000.00 6.750%
-
10,540,000.00 6.750%
-
9,875,000.00 6.750%
-
9,250,000.00 6.750%
-
8,665,000.00 6.750%
-
8,115,000.00 6.750%
-
7,605,000.00 6.750%
-
7,125,000.00 6.750%
-
6,675,000.00 6.750%
-
6,265,000.00 6.500%
-
5,885,000.00 6.500%
-
5,525,000.00 6.500%
Principal
SLC UPAC Model III-25: 10 | SINGLE PURPOSE | 5/ 4/2011 | 12:26 PM
Total
04/01/2037
10/01/2036
04/01/2036
10/01/2035
04/01/2035
10/01/2034
04/01/2034
10/01/2033
04/01/2033
10/01/2032
04/01/2032
10/01/2031
04/01/2031
10/01/2030
04/01/2030
10/01/2029
04/01/2029
10/01/2028
04/01/2028
10/01/2027
04/01/2027
10/01/2026
04/01/2026
10/01/2025
04/01/2025
10/01/2024
Date
$149,725,000
may 3, 2011
$314,124,860.00
12,415,337.50
405,337.50
12,035,025.00
785,025.00
11,680,750.00
1,140,750.00
11,349,031.25
1,474,031.25
11,036,218.75
1,786,218.75
10,743,662.50
2,078,662.50
10,467,543.75
2,352,543.75
10,214,212.50
2,609,212.50
9,974,681.25
2,849,681.25
9,749,962.50
3,074,962.50
9,543,575.00
3,278,575.00
9,354,837.50
3,469,837.50
9,174,400.00
3,649,400.00
Total P+I
10.34
(18,660,687.83)
(12,953,467.15)
(128,252.15)
(128,252.15)
(128,252.15)
(128,252.15)
(128,252.15)
(128,252.15)
(128,252.15)
(128,252.15)
(128,252.15)
(128,252.15)
(128,252.15)
(128,252.15)
(128,252.15)
(128,252.15)
(128,252.15)
(128,252.15)
(128,252.15)
(128,252.15)
(128,252.15)
(128,252.15)
(128,252.15)
(128,252.15)
(128,252.15)
(128,252.15)
(128,252.15)
DSR
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(19,202,630.00)
CIF
-
-
12,568,170.70
-
12,567,295.70
Fiscal Total
-
12,568,420.70
-
-
-
12,566,558.20
-
12,565,933.20
-
12,565,820.70
-
12,563,583.20
-
12,566,920.70
$276,261,542.17
(538,129.65)
277,085.35
11,906,772.85
656,772.85
-
(261,044.30)
-
12,563,545.70
-
11,552,497.85 12,564,995.70
1,012,497.85
11,220,779.10
1,345,779.10
10,907,966.60
1,657,966.60
10,615,410.35
1,950,410.35
10,339,291.60
2,224,291.60
10,085,960.35
2,480,960.35
9,846,429.10 12,567,858.20
2,721,429.10
9,621,710.35
2,946,710.35
9,415,322.85 12,565,645.70
3,150,322.85
9,226,585.35
3,341,585.35
9,046,147.85
3,521,147.85
Net New D/S
plan of finance
$149,725,000
Sources & Uses
Dated 04/01/2012 | Delivered 04/01/2012
Sources Of Funds
Par Amount of Bonds
Reoffering Premium
Total Sources
$149,725,000.00
574,394.10
$150,299,394.10
Uses Of Funds
Costs of Issuance
1,048,075.00
508,000.00
12,825,215.00
18,924,012.05
Rounding Amount
Total Uses
116,990,338.09
3,753.96
$150,299,394.10
10.35
plan of finance
10.36
$149,725,000
Date
Principal
04/01/2012
Rate
Interest
Receipts
- 0.5000000%
-
0.14
Cash
Balance
Disbursements
-
0.14
05/01/2012
4,851,304.72 0.5000000%
48,695.27
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.13
06/01/2012
4,853,323.99 0.5000000%
46,676.00
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.12
07/01/2012
4,855,344.12 0.5000000%
44,655.88
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.12
08/01/2012
4,857,365.06 0.5000000%
42,634.93
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.11
09/01/2012
4,859,386.86 0.5000000%
40,613.13
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.10
10/01/2012
4,861,409.50 0.5000000%
38,590.49
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.09
11/01/2012
4,863,432.98 0.5000000%
36,567.01
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.08
12/01/2012
4,865,457.30 0.5000000%
34,542.69
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.07
01/01/2013
4,867,482.47 0.5000000%
32,517.52
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.06
02/01/2013
4,869,508.49 0.5000000%
30,491.52
4,900,000.01
4,900,000.00
0.07
03/01/2013
4,871,535.33 0.5000000%
28,464.66
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.06
04/01/2013
4,873,563.02 0.5000000%
26,436.97
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.05
05/01/2013
4,875,591.57 0.5000000%
24,408.43
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.05
06/01/2013
4,877,620.95 0.5000000%
22,379.05
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.05
07/01/2013
4,879,651.17 0.5000000%
20,348.82
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.04
08/01/2013
4,881,682.25 0.5000000%
18,317.75
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.04
09/01/2013
4,883,714.18 0.5000000%
16,285.83
4,900,000.01
4,900,000.00
0.05
10/01/2013
4,885,746.93 0.5000000%
14,253.06
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.04
11/01/2013
4,887,780.54 0.5000000%
12,219.45
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.03
12/01/2013
4,889,815.00 0.5000000%
10,184.99
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.02
01/01/2014
4,891,850.31 0.5000000%
8,149.69
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.02
02/01/2014
4,893,886.45 0.5000000%
6,113.54
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.01
03/01/2014
4,895,923.46 0.5000000%
4,076.54
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.01
4,897,961.30 0.5000000%
2,038.69
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
-
- $609,661.91
$117,600,000.00
$117,600,000.00
-
04/01/2014
Total
$116,990,337.95
may 3, 2011
Cash Deposit
GIC
Unrestricted
0.14
116,990,337.95
$116,990,338.09
$110,076,082.14
(6,914,255.95)
Yield to Receipt
0.5000000%
6.5168563%
$100,085,000
Date
Principal
Coupon
Interest
Total P+I
Fiscal Total
04/01/2012
-
-
-
-
-
10/01/2012
-
-
3,628,542.43
3,628,542.43
-
04/01/2013
2,765,000.00
3.125%
3,628,542.43
6,393,542.43
10,022,084.86
10/01/2013
-
-
3,585,339.30
3,585,339.30
-
04/01/2014
2,855,000.00
3.425%
3,585,339.30
6,440,339.30
10,025,678.60
10/01/2014
-
-
3,536,447.43
3,536,447.43
-
04/01/2015
2,950,000.00
3.940%
3,536,447.43
6,486,447.43
10,022,894.86
10/01/2015
-
-
3,478,332.43
3,478,332.43
-
04/01/2016
3,065,000.00
4.516%
3,478,332.43
6,543,332.43
10,021,664.86
10/01/2016
-
-
3,409,124.73
3,409,124.73
-
04/01/2017
3,205,000.00
4.916%
3,409,124.73
6,614,124.73
10,023,249.46
10/01/2017
-
-
3,330,345.83
3,330,345.83
-
04/01/2018
3,365,000.00
5.750%
3,330,345.83
6,695,345.83
10,025,691.66
10/01/2018
-
-
3,233,602.08
3,233,602.08
-
04/01/2019
3,555,000.00
6.050%
3,233,602.08
6,788,602.08
10,022,204.16
10/01/2019
-
-
3,126,063.33
3,126,063.33
-
04/01/2020
3,770,000.00
6.481%
3,126,063.33
6,896,063.33
10,022,126.66
10/01/2020
-
-
3,003,896.48
3,003,896.48
-
04/01/2021
4,015,000.00
6.631%
3,003,896.48
7,018,896.48
10,022,792.96
10/01/2021
-
-
2,870,779.15
2,870,779.15
-
04/01/2022
4,280,000.00
6.831%
2,870,779.15
7,150,779.15
10,021,558.30
10/01/2022
-
-
2,724,595.75
2,724,595.75
-
04/01/2023
4,575,000.00
7.831%
2,724,595.75
7,299,595.75
10,024,191.50
10/01/2023
-
-
2,545,461.63
2,545,461.63
-
04/01/2024
4,935,000.00
7.831%
2,545,461.63
7,480,461.63
10,025,923.26
10/01/2024
-
-
2,352,231.70
2,352,231.70
-
04/01/2025
5,320,000.00
7.831%
2,352,231.70
7,672,231.70
10,024,463.40
10/01/2025
-
-
2,143,927.10
2,143,927.10
-
04/01/2026
5,735,000.00
7.831%
2,143,927.10
7,878,927.10
10,022,854.20
10/01/2026
-
-
1,919,373.18
1,919,373.18
-
04/01/2027
6,185,000.00
7.831%
1,919,373.18
8,104,373.18
10,023,746.36
10/01/2027
-
-
1,677,199.50
1,677,199.50
-
04/01/2028
6,670,000.00
8.490%
1,677,199.50
8,347,199.50
10,024,399.00
10/01/2028
-
-
1,394,058.00
1,394,058.00
-
04/01/2029
7,235,000.00
8.490%
1,394,058.00
8,629,058.00
10,023,116.00
10/01/2029
-
-
1,086,932.25
1,086,932.25
-
04/01/2030
7,850,000.00
8.490%
1,086,932.25
8,936,932.25
10,023,864.50
10.37
plan of finance
$100,085,000
Date
Principal
Coupon
Interest
Total P+I
Fiscal Total
10/01/2030
-
-
753,699.75
753,699.75
-
04/01/2031
8,515,000.00
8.490%
753,699.75
9,268,699.75
10,022,399.50
10/01/2031
-
-
392,238.00
392,238.00
-
04/01/2032
9,240,000.00
8.490%
392,238.00
9,632,238.00
10,024,476.00
$100,085,000.00
-
$100,384,380.10
$200,469,380.10
-
Total
Yield Statistics
Bond Year Dollars
$1,269,150.00
Average Life
12.681 Years
Average Coupon
7.9095757%
7.9470341%
7.8349159%
7.7721694%
7.8639570%
IRS Form 8038
may 3, 2011
10.38
Net Interest Cost
7.9095757%
12.681 Years
$100,085,000
Sources & Uses
Dated 04/01/2012 | Delivered 04/01/2012
Sources Of Funds
Par Amount of Bonds
Naming Rights (9%)
Total Sources
$100,085,000.00
10,600,000.00
7,000,000.00
$117,685,000.00
Uses Of Funds
475,403.75
Costs of Issuance
218,850.00
Rounding Amount
Total Uses
116,990,338.09
408.16
$117,685,000.00
10.39
plan of finance
10.40
$100,085,000
Date
Principal
04/01/2012
Rate
Interest
Receipts
- 0.5000000%
-
0.14
Cash
Balance
Disbursements
-
0.14
05/01/2012
4,851,304.72 0.5000000%
48,695.27
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.13
06/01/2012
4,853,323.99 0.5000000%
46,676.00
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.12
07/01/2012
4,855,344.12 0.5000000%
44,655.88
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.12
08/01/2012
4,857,365.06 0.5000000%
42,634.93
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.11
09/01/2012
4,859,386.86 0.5000000%
40,613.13
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.10
10/01/2012
4,861,409.50 0.5000000%
38,590.49
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.09
11/01/2012
4,863,432.98 0.5000000%
36,567.01
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.08
12/01/2012
4,865,457.30 0.5000000%
34,542.69
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.07
01/01/2013
4,867,482.47 0.5000000%
32,517.52
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.06
02/01/2013
4,869,508.49 0.5000000%
30,491.52
4,900,000.01
4,900,000.00
0.07
03/01/2013
4,871,535.33 0.5000000%
28,464.66
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.06
04/01/2013
4,873,563.02 0.5000000%
26,436.97
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.05
05/01/2013
4,875,591.57 0.5000000%
24,408.43
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.05
06/01/2013
4,877,620.95 0.5000000%
22,379.05
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.05
07/01/2013
4,879,651.17 0.5000000%
20,348.82
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.04
08/01/2013
4,881,682.25 0.5000000%
18,317.75
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.04
09/01/2013
4,883,714.18 0.5000000%
16,285.83
4,900,000.01
4,900,000.00
0.05
10/01/2013
4,885,746.93 0.5000000%
14,253.06
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.04
11/01/2013
4,887,780.54 0.5000000%
12,219.45
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.03
12/01/2013
4,889,815.00 0.5000000%
10,184.99
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.02
01/01/2014
4,891,850.31 0.5000000%
8,149.69
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.02
02/01/2014
4,893,886.45 0.5000000%
6,113.54
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.01
03/01/2014
4,895,923.46 0.5000000%
4,076.54
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.01
4,897,961.30 0.5000000%
2,038.69
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
-
- $609,661.91
$117,600,000.00
$117,600,000.00
-
04/01/2014
Total
$116,990,337.95
may 3, 2011
Cash Deposit
GIC
Unrestricted
0.14
116,990,337.95
$116,990,338.09
$108,725,847.52
(8,264,490.57)
Yield to Receipt
0.5000000%
7.7721694%
$101,225,000
UPAC - Model II, 20-yr Tax-Exempt
Date
Principal
Coupon
Interest
Total P+I
Fiscal Total
04/01/2012
-
-
-
-
-
10/01/2012
-
-
3,085,581.25
3,085,581.25
-
04/01/2013
2,930,000.00
4.000%
3,085,581.25
6,015,581.25
9,101,162.50
10/01/2013
-
-
3,026,981.25
3,026,981.25
-
04/01/2014
3,050,000.00
4.000%
3,026,981.25
6,076,981.25
9,103,962.50
10/01/2014
-
-
2,965,981.25
2,965,981.25
-
04/01/2015
3,170,000.00
5.500%
2,965,981.25
6,135,981.25
9,101,962.50
10/01/2015
-
-
2,878,806.25
2,878,806.25
-
04/01/2016
3,345,000.00
3.500%
2,878,806.25
6,223,806.25
9,102,612.50
10/01/2016
-
-
2,820,268.75
2,820,268.75
-
04/01/2017
3,460,000.00
5.500%
2,820,268.75
6,280,268.75
9,100,537.50
10/01/2017
-
-
2,725,118.75
2,725,118.75
-
04/01/2018
3,650,000.00
6.500%
2,725,118.75
6,375,118.75
9,100,237.50
10/01/2018
-
-
2,606,493.75
2,606,493.75
-
04/01/2019
3,890,000.00
4.750%
2,606,493.75
6,496,493.75
9,102,987.50
10/01/2019
-
-
2,514,106.25
2,514,106.25
-
04/01/2020
4,075,000.00
5.500%
2,514,106.25
6,589,106.25
9,103,212.50
10/01/2020
-
-
2,402,043.75
2,402,043.75
-
04/01/2021
4,300,000.00
4.700%
2,402,043.75
6,702,043.75
9,104,087.50
10/01/2021
-
-
2,300,993.75
2,300,993.75
-
04/01/2022
4,500,000.00
6.500%
2,300,993.75
6,800,993.75
9,101,987.50
10/01/2022
-
-
2,154,743.75
2,154,743.75
-
04/01/2023
4,795,000.00
6.500%
2,154,743.75
6,949,743.75
9,104,487.50
10/01/2023
-
-
1,998,906.25
1,998,906.25
-
04/01/2024
5,105,000.00
6.500%
1,998,906.25
7,103,906.25
9,102,812.50
10/01/2024
-
-
1,832,993.75
1,832,993.75
-
04/01/2025
5,435,000.00
6.500%
1,832,993.75
7,267,993.75
9,100,987.50
10/01/2025
-
-
1,656,356.25
1,656,356.25
-
04/01/2026
5,790,000.00
6.500%
1,656,356.25
7,446,356.25
9,102,712.50
10/01/2026
-
-
1,468,181.25
1,468,181.25
-
04/01/2027
6,165,000.00
6.500%
1,468,181.25
7,633,181.25
9,101,362.50
10/01/2027
-
-
1,267,818.75
1,267,818.75
-
04/01/2028
6,565,000.00
6.750%
1,267,818.75
7,832,818.75
9,100,637.50
10/01/2028
-
-
1,046,250.00
1,046,250.00
-
04/01/2029
7,010,000.00
6.750%
1,046,250.00
8,056,250.00
9,102,500.00
10/01/2029
-
-
809,662.50
809,662.50
-
04/01/2030
7,480,000.00
6.750%
809,662.50
8,289,662.50
9,099,325.00
10.41
plan of finance
$101,225,000
Date
Principal
Coupon
Interest
Total P+I
Fiscal Total
10/01/2030
-
-
557,212.50
557,212.50
-
04/01/2031
7,985,000.00
6.750%
557,212.50
8,542,212.50
9,099,425.00
10/01/2031
-
-
287,718.75
287,718.75
-
04/01/2032
8,525,000.00
6.750%
287,718.75
8,812,718.75
9,100,437.50
$100,085,000.00
-
$100,384,380.10
$200,469,380.10
-
Total
Yield Statistics
Bond Year Dollars
$1,253,910.00
Average Life
12.387 Years
Average Coupon
6.4448356%
6.0147649%
5.7473290%
5.4329023%
5.7727985%
IRS Form 8038
may 3, 2011
10.42
Net Interest Cost
5.6677466%
12.346 Years
$101,225,000
Sources & Uses
Dated 04/01/2012 | Delivered 04/01/2012
Sources Of Funds
Par Amount of Bonds
$101,225,000.00
Reoffering Premium
5,873,518.00
Naming Rights (9%)
10,600,000.00
Total Sources
$117,698,518.00
Uses Of Funds
480,818.75
Costs of Issuance
224,385.00
Rounding Amount
Total Uses
116,990,338.09
2,976.16
$117,698,518.00
10.43
plan of finance
10.44
$101,225,000
Date
Principal
04/01/2012
Rate
Interest
Receipts
- 0.5000000%
-
0.14
Cash
Balance
Disbursements
-
0.14
05/01/2012
4,851,304.72 0.5000000%
48,695.27
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.13
06/01/2012
4,853,323.99 0.5000000%
46,676.00
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.12
07/01/2012
4,855,344.12 0.5000000%
44,655.88
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.12
08/01/2012
4,857,365.06 0.5000000%
42,634.93
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.11
09/01/2012
4,859,386.86 0.5000000%
40,613.13
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.10
10/01/2012
4,861,409.50 0.5000000%
38,590.49
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.09
11/01/2012
4,863,432.98 0.5000000%
36,567.01
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.08
12/01/2012
4,865,457.30 0.5000000%
34,542.69
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.07
01/01/2013
4,867,482.47 0.5000000%
32,517.52
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.06
02/01/2013
4,869,508.49 0.5000000%
30,491.52
4,900,000.01
4,900,000.00
0.07
03/01/2013
4,871,535.33 0.5000000%
28,464.66
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.06
04/01/2013
4,873,563.02 0.5000000%
26,436.97
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.05
05/01/2013
4,875,591.57 0.5000000%
24,408.43
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.05
06/01/2013
4,877,620.95 0.5000000%
22,379.05
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.05
07/01/2013
4,879,651.17 0.5000000%
20,348.82
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.04
08/01/2013
4,881,682.25 0.5000000%
18,317.75
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.04
09/01/2013
4,883,714.18 0.5000000%
16,285.83
4,900,000.01
4,900,000.00
0.05
10/01/2013
4,885,746.93 0.5000000%
14,253.06
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.04
11/01/2013
4,887,780.54 0.5000000%
12,219.45
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.03
12/01/2013
4,889,815.00 0.5000000%
10,184.99
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.02
01/01/2014
4,891,850.31 0.5000000%
8,149.69
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.02
02/01/2014
4,893,886.45 0.5000000%
6,113.54
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.01
03/01/2014
4,895,923.46 0.5000000%
4,076.54
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.01
4,897,961.30 0.5000000%
2,038.69
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
-
- $609,661.91
$117,600,000.00
$117,600,000.00
-
04/01/2014
Total
$116,990,337.95
may 3, 2011
Cash Deposit
GIC
Unrestricted
0.14
116,990,337.95
$116,990,338.09
$111,266,624.38
(5,723,713.71)
Yield to Receipt
0.5000000%
5.4329023%
$111,300,000
Date
Principal
Coupon
Interest
Total P+I
Fiscal Total
04/01/2012
-
-
-
-
-
10/01/2012
-
-
3,392,718.75
3,392,718.75
-
04/01/2013
3,225,000.00
4.000%
3,392,718.75
6,617,718.75
10,010,437.50
10/01/2013
-
-
3,328,218.75
3,328,218.75
-
04/01/2014
3,350,000.00
4.000%
3,328,218.75
6,678,218.75
10,006,437.50
10/01/2014
-
-
3,261,218.75
3,261,218.75
-
04/01/2015
3,485,000.00
5.500%
3,261,218.75
6,746,218.75
10,007,437.50
10/01/2015
-
-
3,165,381.25
3,165,381.25
-
04/01/2016
3,680,000.00
3.500%
3,165,381.25
6,845,381.25
10,010,762.50
10/01/2016
-
-
3,100,981.25
3,100,981.25
-
04/01/2017
3,805,000.00
5.500%
3,100,981.25
6,905,981.25
10,006,962.50
10/01/2017
-
-
2,996,343.75
2,996,343.75
-
04/01/2018
4,015,000.00
6.500%
2,996,343.75
7,011,343.75
10,007,687.50
10/01/2018
-
-
2,865,856.25
2,865,856.25
-
04/01/2019
4,275,000.00
4.750%
2,865,856.25
7,140,856.25
10,006,712.50
10/01/2019
-
-
2,764,325.00
2,764,325.00
-
04/01/2020
4,480,000.00
5.500%
2,764,325.00
7,244,325.00
10,008,650.00
10/01/2020
-
-
2,641,125.00
2,641,125.00
-
04/01/2021
4,725,000.00
4.700%
2,641,125.00
7,366,125.00
10,007,250.00
10/01/2021
-
-
2,530,087.50
2,530,087.50
-
04/01/2022
4,950,000.00
6.500%
2,530,087.50
7,480,087.50
10,010,175.00
10/01/2022
-
-
2,369,212.50
2,369,212.50
-
04/01/2023
5,270,000.00
6.500%
2,369,212.50
7,639,212.50
10,008,425.00
10/01/2023
-
-
2,197,937.50
2,197,937.50
-
04/01/2024
5,610,000.00
6.500%
2,197,937.50
7,807,937.50
10,005,875.00
10/01/2024
-
-
2,015,612.50
2,015,612.50
-
04/01/2025
5,975,000.00
6.500%
2,015,612.50
7,990,612.50
10,006,225.00
10/01/2025
-
-
1,821,425.00
1,821,425.00
-
04/01/2026
6,365,000.00
6.500%
1,821,425.00
8,186,425.00
10,007,850.00
10/01/2026
-
-
1,614,562.50
1,614,562.50
-
04/01/2027
6,780,000.00
6.500%
1,614,562.50
8,394,562.50
10,009,125.00
10/01/2027
-
-
1,394,212.50
1,394,212.50
-
04/01/2028
7,220,000.00
6.750%
1,394,212.50
8,614,212.50
10,008,425.00
10/01/2028
-
-
1,150,537.50
1,150,537.50
-
04/01/2029
7,705,000.00
6.750%
1,150,537.50
8,855,537.50
10,006,075.00
10/01/2029
-
-
890,493.75
890,493.75
-
04/01/2030
8,225,000.00
6.750%
890,493.75
9,115,493.75
10,005,987.50
10.45
plan of finance
$111,300,000
Date
Principal
Coupon
Interest
Total P+I
Fiscal Total
10/01/2030
-
-
612,900.00
612,900.00
-
04/01/2031
8,785,000.00
6.750%
612,900.00
9,397,900.00
10,010,800.00
10/01/2031
-
-
316,406.25
316,406.25
-
04/01/2032
9,375,000.00
6.750%
316,406.25
9,691,406.25
10,007,812.50
$111,300,000.00
-
$88,859,112.50
$200,159,112.50
-
Total
Yield Statistics
Bond Year Dollars
$1,378,750.00
Average Life
12.388 Years
Average Coupon
6.4449039%
6.0148449%
5.7474059%
5.4329700%
5.7716017%
IRS Form 8038
may 3, 2011
10.46
Net Interest Cost
5.6678290%
12.346 Years
$111,300,000
Sources & Uses
Dated 04/01/2012 | Delivered 04/01/2012
Sources Of Funds
Par Amount of Bonds
Reoffering Premium
Total Sources
$111,300,000.00
6,458,114.10
$117,758,114.10
Uses Of Funds
Costs of Issuance
Rounding Amount
Total Uses
528,675.00
234,400.00
116,990,338.09
4,701.01
$117,758,114.10
10.47
plan of finance
10.48
$111,300,000
Date
Principal
04/01/2012
Rate
Interest
Receipts
- 0.5000000%
-
0.14
Cash
Balance
Disbursements
-
0.14
05/01/2012
4,851,304.72 0.5000000%
48,695.27
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.13
06/01/2012
4,853,323.99 0.5000000%
46,676.00
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.12
07/01/2012
4,855,344.12 0.5000000%
44,655.88
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.12
08/01/2012
4,857,365.06 0.5000000%
42,634.93
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.11
09/01/2012
4,859,386.86 0.5000000%
40,613.13
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.10
10/01/2012
4,861,409.50 0.5000000%
38,590.49
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.09
11/01/2012
4,863,432.98 0.5000000%
36,567.01
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.08
12/01/2012
4,865,457.30 0.5000000%
34,542.69
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.07
01/01/2013
4,867,482.47 0.5000000%
32,517.52
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.06
02/01/2013
4,869,508.49 0.5000000%
30,491.52
4,900,000.01
4,900,000.00
0.07
03/01/2013
4,871,535.33 0.5000000%
28,464.66
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.06
04/01/2013
4,873,563.02 0.5000000%
26,436.97
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.05
05/01/2013
4,875,591.57 0.5000000%
24,408.43
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.05
06/01/2013
4,877,620.95 0.5000000%
22,379.05
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.05
07/01/2013
4,879,651.17 0.5000000%
20,348.82
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.04
08/01/2013
4,881,682.25 0.5000000%
18,317.75
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.04
09/01/2013
4,883,714.18 0.5000000%
16,285.83
4,900,000.01
4,900,000.00
0.05
10/01/2013
4,885,746.93 0.5000000%
14,253.06
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.04
11/01/2013
4,887,780.54 0.5000000%
12,219.45
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.03
12/01/2013
4,889,815.00 0.5000000%
10,184.99
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.02
01/01/2014
4,891,850.31 0.5000000%
8,149.69
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.02
02/01/2014
4,893,886.45 0.5000000%
6,113.54
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.01
03/01/2014
4,895,923.46 0.5000000%
4,076.54
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.01
04/01/2014
4,897,961.30 0.5000000%
2,038.69
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
-
may 3, 2011
Cash Deposit
GIC
Unrestricted
0.14
116,990,337.95
$116,990,338.09
$111,266,549.30
(5,723,788.79)
Yield to Receipt
0.5000000%
5.4329700%
-
-
-
4,430,000.00
-
04/01/2017
-
04/01/2024
10/01/2023
04/01/2023
-
7,050,000.00 8.331%
-
6,505,000.00 8.331%
-
10/01/2022
7.331%
-
-
6,065,000.00
10/01/2021
04/01/2022
7.131%
-
5,660,000.00
10/01/2020
5,290,000.00 6.981%
-
4,965,000.00 6.550%
-
4,675,000.00 6.250%
-
04/01/2021
04/01/2020
10/01/2019
04/01/2019
10/01/2018
04/01/2018
10/01/2017
5.416%
-
5.016%
4,220,000.00
04/01/2016
10/01/2016
-
-
4,040,000.00 4.440%
10/01/2015
04/01/2015
10/01/2014
-
-
04/01/2014
-
-
-
04/01/2013
-
10/01/2012
-
Coupon
10/01/2013
-
Principal
04/01/2012
Date
$135,860,000
-
3,940,773.10
3,940,773.10
4,211,738.88
4,211,738.88
4,434,051.45
4,434,051.45
4,635,858.75
4,635,858.75
4,820,506.20
4,820,506.20
4,983,109.95
4,983,109.95
5,129,203.70
5,129,203.70
5,249,168.10
5,249,168.10
5,355,005.70
5,355,005.70
5,444,693.70
5,444,693.70
5,444,693.70
5,444,693.70
5,444,693.70
5,444,693.70
Interest
(135,860.00)
4,211,738.88
(135,860.00)
(135,860.00)
10,990,773.10
(135,860.00)
4,434,051.45
10,499,051.45
(135,860.00)
(135,860.00)
(135,860.00)
(135,860.00)
4,635,858.75
10,295,858.75
3,940,773.10
(135,860.00)
10,110,506.20
10,716,738.88
(135,860.00)
(135,860.00)
9,948,109.95
(135,860.00)
4,983,109.95
4,820,506.20
(135,860.00)
(135,860.00)
5,129,203.70
(135,860.00)
9,679,168.10
9,804,203.70
(135,860.00)
(135,860.00)
5,249,168.10
(135,860.00)
5,355,005.70
9,575,005.70
(67,930.00)
(135,860.00)
9,484,693.70
-
5,444,693.70
5,444,693.70
-
5,444,693.70
-
5,444,693.70
5,444,693.70
-
DSR
-
Total P+I
10.49
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(5,444,693.70)
(5,444,693.70)
(5,444,693.70)
(5,444,693.70)
CIF
-
-
-
-
-
10,854,913.10
3,804,913.10
10,580,878.88
4,075,878.88
10,363,191.45
4,298,191.45
10,159,998.75
4,499,998.75
9,974,646.20
4,684,646.20
9,812,249.95
4,847,249.95
9,668,343.70
4,993,343.70
9,543,308.10
5,113,308.10
9,439,145.70
5,219,145.70
9,348,833.70
5,376,763.70
Net New D/S
-
-
-
-
-
-
14,659,826.20
-
14,656,757.76
-
14,661,382.90
-
14,659,997.50
-
14,659,292.40
-
14,659,499.90
-
14,661,687.40
-
14,656,616.20
-
14,658,291.40
-
14,725,597.40
Fiscal Total
-
-
Coupon
-
$135,860,000.00
615,815.00
615,815.00
1,180,836.50
1,180,836.50
1,699,110.00
1,699,110.00
2,174,681.00
2,174,681.00
2,611,145.50
2,611,145.50
2,984,374.30
2,984,374.30
3,329,069.43
3,329,069.43
3,647,105.35
3,647,105.35
Interest
- $154,671,268.02
13,700,000.00 8.990%
-
12,570,000.00 8.990%
-
11,530,000.00 8.990%
-
10,580,000.00 8.990%
-
9,710,000.00 8.990%
-
8,960,000.00 8.331%
-
8,275,000.00 8.331%
-
7,635,000.00 8.331%
Principal
14,315,815.00
615,815.00
13,750,836.50
1,180,836.50
13,229,110.00
1,699,110.00
12,754,681.00
2,174,681.00
12,321,145.50
2,611,145.50
11,944,374.30
2,984,374.30
11,604,069.43
3,329,069.43
11,282,105.35
3,647,105.35
Total P+I
$290,531,268.02
Total
04/01/2032
10/01/2031
04/01/2031
10/01/2030
04/01/2030
10/01/2029
04/01/2029
10/01/2028
04/01/2028
10/01/2027
04/01/2027
10/01/2026
04/01/2026
10/01/2025
04/01/2025
10/01/2024
Date
$135,860,000
may 3, 2011
10.50
(18,409,030.00)
(13,721,860.00)
(135,860.00)
(135,860.00)
(135,860.00)
(135,860.00)
(135,860.00)
(135,860.00)
(135,860.00)
(135,860.00)
(135,860.00)
(135,860.00)
(135,860.00)
(135,860.00)
(135,860.00)
(135,860.00)
(135,860.00)
DSR
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(21,778,774.80)
CIF
$250,343,463.22
593,955.00
479,955.00
13,614,976.50
1,044,976.50
13,093,250.00
1,563,250.00
12,618,821.00
2,038,821.00
12,185,285.50
2,475,285.50
11,808,514.30
2,848,514.30
11,468,209.43
3,193,209.43
11,146,245.35
3,511,245.35
Net New D/S
-
-
1,073,910.00
-
14,659,953.00
-
14,656,500.00
-
14,657,642.00
-
14,660,571.00
-
14,657,028.60
-
14,661,418.86
-
14,657,490.70
Fiscal Total
plan of finance
$135,860,000
Sources & Uses
Dated 04/01/2012 | Delivered 04/01/2012
Sources Of Funds
Par Amount of Bonds
Naming Rights (9%)
Total Sources
$135,860,000.00
10,600,000.00
7,000,000.00
$153,460,000.00
Uses Of Funds
951,020.00
Costs of Issuance
456,500.00
Rounding Amount
Total Uses
13,586,000.00
21,474,692.51
116,990,338.09
1,449.40
$153,460,000.00
10.51
plan of finance
10.52
$135,860,000
Date
Principal
04/01/2012
Rate
Interest
Receipts
- 0.5000000%
-
0.14
Cash
Balance
Disbursements
-
0.14
05/01/2012
4,851,304.72 0.5000000%
48,695.27
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.13
06/01/2012
4,853,323.99 0.5000000%
46,676.00
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.12
07/01/2012
4,855,344.12 0.5000000%
44,655.88
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.12
08/01/2012
4,857,365.06 0.5000000%
42,634.93
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.11
09/01/2012
4,859,386.86 0.5000000%
40,613.13
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.10
10/01/2012
4,861,409.50 0.5000000%
38,590.49
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.09
11/01/2012
4,863,432.98 0.5000000%
36,567.01
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.08
12/01/2012
4,865,457.30 0.5000000%
34,542.69
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.07
01/01/2013
4,867,482.47 0.5000000%
32,517.52
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.06
02/01/2013
4,869,508.49 0.5000000%
30,491.52
4,900,000.01
4,900,000.00
0.07
03/01/2013
4,871,535.33 0.5000000%
28,464.66
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.06
04/01/2013
4,873,563.02 0.5000000%
26,436.97
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.05
05/01/2013
4,875,591.57 0.5000000%
24,408.43
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.05
06/01/2013
4,877,620.95 0.5000000%
22,379.05
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.05
07/01/2013
4,879,651.17 0.5000000%
20,348.82
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.04
08/01/2013
4,881,682.25 0.5000000%
18,317.75
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.04
09/01/2013
4,883,714.18 0.5000000%
16,285.83
4,900,000.01
4,900,000.00
0.05
10/01/2013
4,885,746.93 0.5000000%
14,253.06
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.04
11/01/2013
4,887,780.54 0.5000000%
12,219.45
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.03
12/01/2013
4,889,815.00 0.5000000%
10,184.99
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.02
01/01/2014
4,891,850.31 0.5000000%
8,149.69
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.02
02/01/2014
4,893,886.45 0.5000000%
6,113.54
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.01
03/01/2014
4,895,923.46 0.5000000%
4,076.54
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.01
4,897,961.30 0.5000000%
2,038.69
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
-
- $609,661.91
$117,600,000.00
$117,600,000.00
-
04/01/2014
Total
$116,990,337.95
may 3, 2011
Cash Deposit
GIC
Unrestricted
0.14
116,990,337.95
$116,990,338.09
$108,135,084.78
(8,855,253.31)
Yield to Receipt
0.5000000%
8.3303316%
-
-
04/01/2024
10/01/2023
04/01/2023
10/01/2022
04/01/2022
10/01/2021
04/01/2021
10/01/2020
04/01/2020
10/01/2019
04/01/2019
10/01/2018
04/01/2018
10/01/2017
04/01/2017
10/01/2016
04/01/2016
10/01/2015
04/01/2015
10/01/2014
-
-
04/01/2014
-
-
7,160,000.00 6.500%
-
6,720,000.00 6.500%
-
6,310,000.00 6.500%
-
6,030,000.00 4.700%
-
5,715,000.00 5.500%
-
5,455,000.00 4.750%
-
5,120,000.00 6.500%
-
4,855,000.00 5.500%
-
4,690,000.00 3.500%
-
4,445,000.00 5.500%
-
-
-
04/01/2013
-
10/01/2012
-
Coupon
10/01/2013
-
Principal
04/01/2012
Date
$133,590,000
-
2,804,000.00
2,804,000.00
3,022,400.00
3,022,400.00
3,227,475.00
3,227,475.00
3,369,180.00
3,369,180.00
3,526,342.50
3,526,342.50
3,655,898.75
3,655,898.75
3,822,298.75
3,822,298.75
3,955,811.25
3,955,811.25
4,037,886.25
4,037,886.25
4,160,123.75
4,160,123.75
4,160,123.75
4,160,123.75
4,160,123.75
4,160,123.75
Interest
(4,160,123.75)
-
-
4,160,123.75
(4,160,123.75)
-
(127,686.38)
(127,686.38)
(127,686.38)
(127,686.38)
(127,686.38)
(127,686.38)
(127,686.38)
(127,686.38)
(127,686.38)
(127,686.38)
(127,686.38)
(127,686.38)
(127,686.38)
(127,686.38)
(127,686.38)
(127,686.38)
(127,686.38)
(127,686.38)
4,037,886.25
8,727,886.25
3,955,811.25
8,810,811.25
3,822,298.75
8,942,298.75
3,655,898.75
9,110,898.75
3,526,342.50
9,241,342.50
3,369,180.00
9,399,180.00
3,227,475.00
9,537,475.00
3,022,400.00
9,742,400.00
2,804,000.00
9,964,000.00
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(63,843.19)
(127,686.38)
4,160,123.75
8,605,123.75
(4,160,123.75)
-
(4,160,123.75)
-
4,160,123.75
-
4,160,123.75
CIF
4,160,123.75
-
DSR
-
Total P+I
10.53
-
-
-
-
-
9,836,313.62
2,676,313.62
9,614,713.62
2,894,713.62
9,409,788.62
3,099,788.62
9,271,493.62
3,241,493.62
9,113,656.12
3,398,656.12
8,983,212.37
3,528,212.37
8,814,612.37
3,694,612.37
8,683,124.87
3,828,124.87
8,600,199.87
3,910,199.87
8,477,437.37
4,096,280.56
Net New D/S
-
-
-
-
-
-
12,512,627.24
-
12,509,427.24
-
12,509,577.24
-
12,512,987.24
-
12,512,312.24
-
12,511,424.74
-
12,509,224.74
-
12,511,249.74
-
12,510,399.74
-
12,573,717.93
Fiscal Total
-
-
Coupon
-
$133,590,000.00
403,650.00
403,650.00
781,818.75
781,818.75
1,136,025.00
1,136,025.00
1,467,787.50
1,467,787.50
1,778,625.00
1,778,625.00
2,059,587.50
2,059,587.50
2,323,487.50
2,323,487.50
2,571,300.00
2,571,300.00
Interest
- $112,847,890.00
11,960,000.00 6.750%
-
11,205,000.00 6.750%
-
10,495,000.00 6.750%
-
9,830,000.00 6.750%
-
9,210,000.00 6.750%
-
8,645,000.00 6.500%
-
8,120,000.00 6.500%
-
7,625,000.00 6.500%
Principal
12,363,650.00
403,650.00
11,986,818.75
781,818.75
11,631,025.00
1,136,025.00
11,297,787.50
1,467,787.50
10,988,625.00
1,778,625.00
10,704,587.50
2,059,587.50
10,443,487.50
2,323,487.50
10,196,300.00
2,571,300.00
Total P+I
$246,437,890.00
Total
04/01/2032
10/01/2031
04/01/2031
10/01/2030
04/01/2030
10/01/2029
04/01/2029
10/01/2028
04/01/2028
10/01/2027
04/01/2027
10/01/2026
04/01/2026
10/01/2025
04/01/2025
10/01/2024
Date
$133,590,000
may 3, 2011
10.54
(17,301,503.99)
(12,896,323.88)
(127,686.38)
(127,686.38)
(127,686.38)
(127,686.38)
(127,686.38)
(127,686.38)
(127,686.38)
(127,686.38)
(127,686.38)
(127,686.38)
(127,686.38)
(127,686.38)
(127,686.38)
(127,686.38)
(127,686.38)
DSR
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(16,640,495.00)
CIF
$212,495,891.01
(532,673.88)
275,963.62
11,859,132.37
654,132.37
11,503,338.62
1,008,338.62
11,170,101.12
1,340,101.12
10,860,938.62
1,650,938.62
10,576,901.12
1,931,901.12
10,315,801.12
2,195,801.12
10,068,613.62
2,443,613.62
Net New D/S
-
-
(256,710.26)
-
12,513,264.74
-
12,511,677.24
-
12,510,202.24
-
12,511,877.24
-
12,508,802.24
-
12,511,602.24
-
12,512,227.24
Fiscal Total
plan of finance
$133,590,000
Sources & Uses
Dated 04/01/2012 | Delivered 04/01/2012
Sources Of Funds
Par Amount of Bonds
$133,590,000.00
Reoffering Premium
3,351,088.55
Naming Rights (9%)
10,600,000.00
Total Sources
$147,541,088.55
Uses Of Funds
935,130.00
Costs of Issuance
465,750.00
Rounding Amount
Total Uses
12,768,637.50
16,378,513.00
116,990,338.09
2,719.96
$147,541,088.55
10.55
plan of finance
10.56
$133,590,000
Date
Principal
04/01/2012
Rate
Interest
Receipts
- 0.5000000%
-
0.14
Cash
Balance
Disbursements
-
0.14
05/01/2012
4,851,304.72 0.5000000%
48,695.27
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.13
06/01/2012
4,853,323.99 0.5000000%
46,676.00
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.12
07/01/2012
4,855,344.12 0.5000000%
44,655.88
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.12
08/01/2012
4,857,365.06 0.5000000%
42,634.93
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.11
09/01/2012
4,859,386.86 0.5000000%
40,613.13
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.10
10/01/2012
4,861,409.50 0.5000000%
38,590.49
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.09
11/01/2012
4,863,432.98 0.5000000%
36,567.01
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.08
12/01/2012
4,865,457.30 0.5000000%
34,542.69
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.07
01/01/2013
4,867,482.47 0.5000000%
32,517.52
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.06
02/01/2013
4,869,508.49 0.5000000%
30,491.52
4,900,000.01
4,900,000.00
0.07
03/01/2013
4,871,535.33 0.5000000%
28,464.66
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.06
04/01/2013
4,873,563.02 0.5000000%
26,436.97
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.05
05/01/2013
4,875,591.57 0.5000000%
24,408.43
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.05
06/01/2013
4,877,620.95 0.5000000%
22,379.05
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.05
07/01/2013
4,879,651.17 0.5000000%
20,348.82
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.04
08/01/2013
4,881,682.25 0.5000000%
18,317.75
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.04
09/01/2013
4,883,714.18 0.5000000%
16,285.83
4,900,000.01
4,900,000.00
0.05
10/01/2013
4,885,746.93 0.5000000%
14,253.06
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.04
11/01/2013
4,887,780.54 0.5000000%
12,219.45
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.03
12/01/2013
4,889,815.00 0.5000000%
10,184.99
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.02
01/01/2014
4,891,850.31 0.5000000%
8,149.69
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.02
02/01/2014
4,893,886.45 0.5000000%
6,113.54
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.01
03/01/2014
4,895,923.46 0.5000000%
4,076.54
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.01
4,897,961.30 0.5000000%
2,038.69
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
-
- $609,661.91
$117,600,000.00
$117,600,000.00
-
04/01/2014
Total
$116,990,337.95
may 3, 2011
Cash Deposit
GIC
Unrestricted
0.14
116,990,337.95
$116,990,338.09
$110,527,237.96
(6,463,100.13)
Yield to Receipt
0.5000000%
6.1036087%
-
10/01/2014
04/01/2024
10/01/2023
04/01/2023
10/01/2022
04/01/2022
10/01/2021
04/01/2021
10/01/2020
04/01/2020
10/01/2019
04/01/2019
10/01/2018
04/01/2018
10/01/2017
04/01/2017
10/01/2016
04/01/2016
10/01/2015
-
-
-
-
-
-
Coupon
-
7,870,000.00 6.500%
-
7,390,000.00 6.500%
-
6,940,000.00 6.500%
-
6,630,000.00 4.700%
-
6,280,000.00 5.500%
-
6,000,000.00 4.750%
-
5,630,000.00 6.500%
-
5,340,000.00 5.500%
-
5,155,000.00 3.500%
-
4,890,000.00 5.500%
-
04/01/2014
04/01/2015
-
04/01/2013
-
10/01/2012
10/01/2013
-
Principal
04/01/2012
Date
$146,890,000
-
3,083,068.75
3,083,068.75
3,323,243.75
3,323,243.75
3,548,793.75
3,548,793.75
3,704,598.75
3,704,598.75
3,877,298.75
3,877,298.75
4,019,798.75
4,019,798.75
4,202,773.75
4,202,773.75
4,349,623.75
4,349,623.75
4,439,836.25
4,439,836.25
4,574,311.25
4,574,311.25
4,574,311.25
4,574,311.25
4,574,311.25
4,574,311.25
Interest
-
(140,395.98)
(140,395.98)
(140,395.98)
(140,395.98)
(140,395.98)
(140,395.98)
(140,395.98)
(140,395.98)
(140,395.98)
(140,395.98)
(140,395.98)
(140,395.98)
(140,395.98)
(140,395.98)
(140,395.98)
9,689,623.75
4,202,773.75
9,832,773.75
4,019,798.75
10,019,798.75
3,877,298.75
10,157,298.75
3,704,598.75
10,334,598.75
3,548,793.75
10,488,793.75
3,323,243.75
10,713,243.75
3,083,068.75
10,953,068.75
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(140,395.98)
(140,395.98)
9,594,836.25
-
-
4,349,623.75
(140,395.98)
4,439,836.25
-
(70,197.99)
(140,395.98)
4,574,311.25
9,464,311.25
(4,574,311.25)
-
4,574,311.25
(4,574,311.25)
(4,574,311.25)
-
(4,574,311.25)
-
4,574,311.25
-
4,574,311.25
CIF
4,574,311.25
-
DSR
-
Total P+I
10.57
-
-
-
-
-
10,812,672.77
2,942,672.77
10,572,847.77
3,182,847.77
10,348,397.77
3,408,397.77
10,194,202.77
3,564,202.77
10,016,902.77
3,736,902.77
9,879,402.77
3,879,402.77
9,692,377.77
4,062,377.77
9,549,227.77
4,209,227.77
9,454,440.27
4,299,440.27
9,323,915.27
4,504,113.26
Net New D/S
-
-
-
-
-
-
13,755,345.54
-
13,755,695.54
-
13,756,795.54
-
13,758,405.54
-
13,753,805.54
-
13,758,805.54
-
13,754,755.54
-
13,758,455.54
-
13,753,880.54
-
13,828,028.53
Fiscal Total
-
-
Coupon
-
$146,890,000.00
443,812.50
443,812.50
859,612.50
859,612.50
1,249,087.50
1,249,087.50
1,613,925.00
1,613,925.00
1,955,643.75
1,955,643.75
2,264,718.75
2,264,718.75
2,554,781.25
2,554,781.25
2,827,293.75
2,827,293.75
Interest
- $124,081,690.00
13,150,000.00 6.750%
-
12,320,000.00 6.750%
-
11,540,000.00 6.750%
-
10,810,000.00 6.750%
-
10,125,000.00 6.750%
-
9,510,000.00 6.500%
-
8,925,000.00 6.500%
-
8,385,000.00 6.500%
Principal
Total
04/01/2032
10/01/2031
04/01/2031
10/01/2030
04/01/2030
10/01/2029
04/01/2029
10/01/2028
04/01/2028
10/01/2027
04/01/2027
10/01/2026
04/01/2026
10/01/2025
04/01/2025
10/01/2024
Date
$146,890,000
may 3, 2011
(14,179,993.48)
(19,023,654.79)
$270,971,690.00
(140,395.98)
(140,395.98)
(140,395.98)
(140,395.98)
(140,395.98)
(140,395.98)
(140,395.98)
(140,395.98)
(140,395.98)
(140,395.98)
(140,395.98)
(140,395.98)
(140,395.98)
(140,395.98)
(140,395.98)
DSR
13,593,812.50
443,812.50
13,179,612.50
859,612.50
12,789,087.50
1,249,087.50
12,423,925.00
1,613,925.00
12,080,643.75
1,955,643.75
11,774,718.75
2,264,718.75
11,479,781.25
2,554,781.25
11,212,293.75
2,827,293.75
Total P+I
10.58
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(18,297,245.00)
CIF
$233,650,790.21
(586,180.98)
303,416.52
13,039,216.52
719,216.52
12,648,691.52
1,108,691.52
12,283,529.02
1,473,529.02
11,940,247.77
1,815,247.77
11,634,322.77
2,124,322.77
11,339,385.27
2,414,385.27
11,071,897.77
2,686,897.77
Net New D/S
-
-
(282,764.46)
-
13,758,433.04
-
13,757,383.04
-
13,757,058.04
-
13,755,495.54
-
13,758,645.54
-
13,753,770.54
-
13,758,795.54
Fiscal Total
plan of finance
$146,890,000
Sources & Uses
Dated 04/01/2012 | Delivered 04/01/2012
Sources Of Funds
Par Amount of Bonds
Reoffering Premium
Total Sources
$146,890,000.00
3,684,988.80
$150,574,988.80
Uses Of Funds
Costs of Issuance
Rounding Amount
Total Uses
1,028,230.00
506,000.00
14,039,597.50
18,009,183.47
116,990,338.09
1,639.74
$150,574,988.80
10.59
plan of finance
10.60
$146,890,000
Date
Principal
04/01/2012
Rate
Interest
Receipts
- 0.5000000%
-
0.14
Cash
Balance
Disbursements
-
0.14
05/01/2012
4,851,304.72 0.5000000%
48,695.27
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.13
06/01/2012
4,853,323.99 0.5000000%
46,676.00
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.12
07/01/2012
4,855,344.12 0.5000000%
44,655.88
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.12
08/01/2012
4,857,365.06 0.5000000%
42,634.93
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.11
09/01/2012
4,859,386.86 0.5000000%
40,613.13
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.10
10/01/2012
4,861,409.50 0.5000000%
38,590.49
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.09
11/01/2012
4,863,432.98 0.5000000%
36,567.01
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.08
12/01/2012
4,865,457.30 0.5000000%
34,542.69
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.07
01/01/2013
4,867,482.47 0.5000000%
32,517.52
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.06
02/01/2013
4,869,508.49 0.5000000%
30,491.52
4,900,000.01
4,900,000.00
0.07
03/01/2013
4,871,535.33 0.5000000%
28,464.66
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.06
04/01/2013
4,873,563.02 0.5000000%
26,436.97
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.05
05/01/2013
4,875,591.57 0.5000000%
24,408.43
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.05
06/01/2013
4,877,620.95 0.5000000%
22,379.05
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.05
07/01/2013
4,879,651.17 0.5000000%
20,348.82
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.04
08/01/2013
4,881,682.25 0.5000000%
18,317.75
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.04
09/01/2013
4,883,714.18 0.5000000%
16,285.83
4,900,000.01
4,900,000.00
0.05
10/01/2013
4,885,746.93 0.5000000%
14,253.06
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.04
11/01/2013
4,887,780.54 0.5000000%
12,219.45
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.03
12/01/2013
4,889,815.00 0.5000000%
10,184.99
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.02
01/01/2014
4,891,850.31 0.5000000%
8,149.69
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.02
02/01/2014
4,893,886.45 0.5000000%
6,113.54
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
0.01
03/01/2014
4,895,923.46 0.5000000%
4,076.54
4,900,000.00
4,900,000.00
0.01
4,897,961.30 0.5000000%
2,038.69
4,899,999.99
4,900,000.00
-
- $609,661.91
$117,600,000.00
$117,600,000.00
-
04/01/2014
Total
$116,990,337.95
may 3, 2011
Cash Deposit
GIC
Unrestricted
0.14
116,990,337.95
$116,990,338.09
$110,527,252.49
(6,463,085.60)
Yield to Receipt
0.5000000%
6.1035954%

Item 7.B. - Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City

Transcription

Similar documents

F - Don Vaughan

Fitger`s Lake View Office

pierpont building

Former Regal Theater - Port of Greater Cincinnati Development

Captain Geech

traverse mountain Lehi, utah phone. 801.947.8300

to the article. - The FUND for Lake George

The Art of Ageing

Loyalist Township - County of Lennox and Addington

WE ARE THE PLACE TO CHILL AT THE LAKE