F u n d -R aisin g an d F u n d in g F easib ility Stu d y ... · F u n d -R aisin g an d F u n d...

Fund-Raising and Funding Feasibility Study Report

D R A F T

Community Arts Center, Pagosa Springs, Colorado

Prepared by

Arts Consulting Group, Inc.

December 2009

New York, Washington DC, Boston, Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle

Fund-Raising and Funding Feasibility Study

Community Arts Center, Pagosa Springs, Colorado

Introduction

The Pagosa Springs Arts Alliance (PSAA) retained the Arts Consulting Group (ACG) in October 2006 to conduct a study of the feasibility of developing a new performing arts facility in Pagosa Springs. The ACG consultant team completed the First Phase of its study, Needs Assessment and Facility Concept Recommendation, in April 2007. Phase Two, Financial Operating Estimates and Preliminary Project Capital Cost Estimates, was completed in October 2007. In August 2009, ACG began work on Phase Three, the Fund-raising and Funding Feasibility Study for the project. This report presents the results of Phase Three of the total Planning and Feasibility Study.

ACG’s Needs Assessment in Phase One included 1) a review of existing reports and studies, an inventory of spaces in Pagosa Springs used for performances, 2) interviews with local arts organizations that are potential users of new spaces, 3) interviews with other local leaders and stakeholders, and 4) audience market and demographic analysis. Discussions with the PSAA board helped guide consideration of the types and sizes of facilities needed in the community, seat count, configuration, support space requirements, location, and the quality of architecture, acoustics, and audience and performer accommodation.

Based on this research and analysis, ACG recommended a Community Arts Center with two options: a Base Building and Full-Function Facility. The Base Building includes a 550-seat proscenium theatre, with a full stagehouse (fly tower) and ample front-of-house and back-of-house spaces. The Full-Function Facility includes the 550-seat Theatre, in addition to a divisible Multi-Purpose Space suitable for performances, rehearsals, meetings, banquets, classes, and other purposes, as well as four classrooms.

For both options ACG team member Bill Allison (then of Jones & Philips Theatre Consultants) prepared a preliminary building Space List and Space Adjacency Diagram. Based on the Space List, guidance from PSAA and ACG, and independent research into local construction costs, ACG team member Donnell Consultants Incorporated (DCI) prepared preliminary order-of-magnitude project cost estimates for both options. DCI’s estimate for the Base Building cost was $43 million; the estimate for the Full-Function Facility was $64 million.

For the Funding and Fund-raising Feasibility Study, ACG prepared a Questionnaire to be used face-to-face, confidential interviews (please see Attachment I). ACG also prepared a Draft Case Statement presenting the work to date and the proposed funding goal options (please see Attachment II). ACG consulted with PSAA board members to develop a list of prospective leadership and major gift donors to a capital campaign for the proposed Community Arts Center. From this list approximately 30 individuals, organizations, and public agencies were selected for interviews. PSAA members contacted these individuals to determine their willingness and availability to participate in interviews, and scheduled interview dates and times. In early October 2009, ACG Vice President Willem Brans conducted 23 personal interviews in Pagosa Springs

Pagosa!Springs!Arts!Alliance! ! December!2009!Fund"raising!and!Funding!Feasibility!Study!Report!–!Draft!–!CONFIDENTIAL!

Arts!Consulting!Group page!2

and four telephone interviews in the following weeks. The results of these interviews form the basis for the current report.

A word about what a fund-raising feasibility study for a capital campaign is and is not. The purposes of ACG’s fund-raising and funding feasibility study are: 1) to inform prospective leadership and major gift donors about the project, the needs it addresses, its goals and purposes, and funding requirements, and 2) to seek information from interviewees about their attitudes, including possible objections, toward the project, its leadership, suggested locations, preliminary project cost estimates, financial operating assumptions, and fund-raising goals, and about their possible intent to provide financial support and serve in a volunteer leadership role.

A fund-raising feasibility study is not the occasion to solicit funds from those interviewed. While the ACG representative presents the positive rationales for a project seeking funding support, a fund-raising feasibility study is not an appropriate opportunity to advocate, much less argue, for a particular project to prospective donors. A proper fund-raising feasibility study is an objective presentation of the project and the gathering of new information.

~

The Arts Consulting Group expresses gratitude and appreciation to the Board of Directors of the Pagosa Springs Arts Alliance for their information, guidance, insights, and generous assistance throughout the study process. ACG would also like to thank all those who participated in the study interviews, and to those businesses and individuals who made financial and in-kind contributions to help make this study possible.

Study Participants

For the fund-raising feasibility study for the proposed Community Arts Center, ACG was able to interview an impressive cross-section of key potential stakeholders in the Pagosa Springs area. Interviewees included a mix of residents and second-home owners, long-time residents and recent arrivals, private individuals, business and civic leaders, artists, and government officials (categories overlap):

Role Number

Arts donor, supporter 12

Ticket buyer, subscriber 8

Business leader 7

Arts, cultural board member 6

Public official 5

Civic leader 4

Volunteer arts leader 3

Artist 2

Media 1



Nonprofit organization leader 1

The length of time that study participants have lived in Pagosa Springs ranges from life-long to less than ten years, with the majority having lived there, part-time or full-time, between 10 and 20 years or less:

Years Lived in Pagosa Springs

Native-born 2

More than 30 years 4

20-30 years 2

10-20 years 12

Less than 10 years 7

Nearly all the interviewees report being involved in one way or another with Pagosa Springs-area arts and civic organizations, either as members, attendees, supporters, or donors.

Member/Attend/Support/Serve

Pagosa Springs Arts Council 12

Pagosa Mountain Hospital 7

Music in the Mountains 5

United Way 5

Rotary 4

Creede Repertory Theatre 2

Music Boosters 2

Pagosa Springs Community Choir 1

Durango Arts Center 1

San Juan Historical Society and History Museum 1

Pagosa Springs Peacemakers Quilt 1

About half of the interviewees, principally the public officials but also several second-home owners and part-time residents, reported that they were not involved in local arts organizations.



Involvement in Local Arts Organizations

Board Member/Advisory Committee 6

Attend/Subscribe 12

Donor/Supporter 12

Not involved 15

(For the list of interviewees, please see the Appendix.)

Based on ACG’s experience of Pagosa Springs, study interviewees in general have lived in Pagosa Springs long enough to be sufficiently knowledgeable about the town and region to have an informed perspective of the local arts community, economy, and philanthropic climate.

Awareness of PSAA and Proposed Facility Project

The study interviewees were aware and knowledgeable to varying degrees of the PSAA, ACG’s study, and the proposed project. A majority of interviewees were aware of the Pagosa Springs Arts Alliance and are acquainted with one or more PSAA board members.

Knowledge of PSAA Board

Know whole Board 7

Know 3-6 members 11

Know 1-2 members 7

Don’t know any members 2

When asked what the general image and reputation of the Pagosa Springs Arts Alliance in the community, five (5) interviewees who responded to this question said it was positive, and seven (7) said it was negative. Most did not have detailed knowledge of the PSAA and expressed no definite opinion about how the organization is perceived.

Four (4) interviewees had heard ACG’s presentation about the proposed Community Arts Center in October 2007, but five (5) others said that they were only vaguely aware of PSAA or had only heard about the group when they were contacted for this study. Two (2) people said they thought others in the community were confused between the Pagosa Springs Arts Alliance and the Pagosa Springs Arts Council.

Several interviewees noted that there had been “infighting” between PSAA and other local arts groups, and indicated that this did not bode well for the proposed facility project. They encouraged PSAA to work more closely with other local arts groups and include them in the planning for new arts facilities.

Selected comments:

! “They are all are very solid people.”

! “They are very, very strong, very vocal.”



! “They are great people individually, very committed to what they’re doing.”

! “They are very high energy people.”

! “It’s a good group.”

! “The Board is struggling.”

! “There’s always been a lot of infighting. It’s not well-known.”

! “I’m constantly surprised by the arts energy, the people in the arts here.”

! “People don’t know the difference among PSAA, Music Boosters, Arts Council, Pretenders. Only the Arts Council has a consistent presence. It’s confusing to people.”

! “The biggest thing I hear is the arguments across the arts organizations. They would get a ton of support if they [PSAA and local arts groups] could get together.”

! “I wonder about the ability of the arts groups to work together. The PSAA board cannot exclude groups because of bad feelings.”

! “Organizations shouldn’t operate as islands, especially in the arts.”

! “They need to get the different arts groups together.”

Assessment of PSAA Fund-raising Capability

When asked how they would rate the PSAA Board of Directors in terms of fund raising strength and ability to influence others, two (2) judged it “excellent” or “good,” about a third judged the board to be “weak” or “average,” and about half the interviewees had no opinion.

PSAA Fundraising Capacity

Excellent 1

Good 1

Average 1

Weak 10

No Opinion 14

Several interviewees noted that two board members, Teddy Herzog and Kim Moore, had local fund-raising experience and are visible and well-respected for their work in community causes.

Selected comments:

! “They have good fund raisers. They kind of have a vision of what they want.”

! “They are not the people to raise the money.”

! “Not very good. There’s no huge driving force.”

! “They don’t have the kind of board to put skin in the game. They need to restructure the board.”

! “I didn’t see any heavyweight in there for fund raising.”

! “The group has limited fund-raising experience in Pagosa Springs.”



Overall Opinion of Proposed Project

When asked their overall opinion of the proposed community arts center project, before considering the preliminary project cost estimates, 18 out of 27, or two-thirds of the interviewees, agreed in principle with the idea of building new arts facilities in Pagosa Springs. However, the overwhelming majority doubted that an arts facility at the current project cost estimate could be realized in Pagosa Springs.

Many agreed that Pagosa Springs does not currently have viable space to hold large social events, meetings, and conferences. Among the reasons to consider building an arts center with meeting space would be that such activity could generate much-needed economic benefits. Local restaurants and the lodging community would benefit from having a nearby arts and entertainment venue, particularly if meeting space were incorporated into the design. An arts center could provide an additional attraction for visitors to the Springs. Classrooms were seen as a plus, given the heavily scheduling of the classroom spaces in the Community Center. New classrooms could be used both for educational purposes and as ancillary spaces, or breakout rooms, for conferences.

Several individuals observed that Pagosa Springs is an arts-oriented community. Many second-home owners who only spent part of their time in the Pagosa Springs area are attracted not only by its seclusion and natural beauty but also its arts activities. In order to continue to attract those part-time residents, who make up a critically important part of Pagosa’s economic base, in the future new community arts facilities could be an important motivation. The proposed center was also seen as helping the economy by attracting more tourists and visitors, particularly time-share condominium owners.

In all, the prime reasons people supported the concept of an arts center were that it would: 1) address the lack of suitable space for performances and meetings and 2) have positive economic effects. Nearly everyone cited economic development as the most urgent and important local priority.

On the negative side, many interviewees, even those who agreed with the concept, questioned whether there was truly a need for an arts center. The main reason for doubt, or opposition, was that the community has many greater needs and priorities at this time. There is the sense that the high school auditorium is relatively new and is acceptable or adequate for performances by local arts groups. There was concern that local not-for-profit groups have not proven they can fill the high school auditorium on a regular basis, and also that local groups would not be able to afford to rent the new facility, given that they currently pay little or no rent. Several interviewees observed that while part-time, second-home residents attend arts events, on the whole the local year-round population does not, and that even those living downtown would likely not attend events at a downtown arts center, either for lack of interest or because of the ticket cost.

When asked whether building an arts center was a community priority, interviewees were about evenly divided:

Community Priority

High 10

Moderate 8



Low 9

Several of those who questioned the need for a community arts center in Pagosa Springs noted that the community had far more pressing needs, some of which been difficult or impossible to fund. Frequently mentioned was that the Town had not been able to fund a new waste-water treatment plant, the lack of which might put the Town in non-compliance with environmental regulations, not to mention creating a health hazard. Several observed there was a great need to support education. At the time of ACG’s study interviews, Seeds of Learning, a not for profit child care and education center, was in danger of closing for lack of funds.

Some regarded additional recreation facilities, including a recreation center, parks, and trails higher priorities than a performing arts center. Rather than building an arts center, several observed that a community college or satellite extension school, perhaps in partnership with Ft. Lewis College in Durango, might encourage more Pagosa Springs students to stay in the local schools and thus might help to reverse the departure of whole families from the community, as employment and education opportunities in Pagosa Springs have disappeared during the recession. Finally, the need to repair local and county roads was seen by many, even supporters of an arts center, as the greatest and most urgent, although highly expensive, priority for Archuleta County.

If costs were set aside, a community arts center has support among many who see it as the key to the area’s future economic development. The center would build on the area’s tourism and second-home market and also benefit the community economically as a meeting and conference destination. But many others consider other basic priorities more urgent and important, question the need that local organizations have for new space, and believe it may be too costly to build and operate. Other specific concerns about a new community arts center are raised in later sections of this report.

Selected comments – Community need:

! “My gut feeling is it would happen it would be awesome. This is an arts-oriented community.”

! “It is an awesome idea on the whole.”

! “I’m involved with the arts, and we feel the need strongly.”

! “Pagosa Springs is the top place in Colorado. You can’t fight growth.”

! “The niche is there in the community. It would be a hook for the Springs. It makes sense to grow. The lodging community would get behind this. Despite the tourism base, there is not really a cultural base – just golfing, not theatre performances.”

! “Without cost consideration, it sounds reasonable.”

! “I would push the cultural-convention center concept.”

! “In terms of education uses, it would be great to have classrooms in the Arts Center for economic conferences.”

! “Is this a need or a luxury? My personal opinion is that there is no need. There are other venues for these performances. Music in the Mountains is not selling 550 tickets. High school productions are not selling out. The Folk Festival manages quite well with their current venue.”

! “New people want something to do in the evenings.”



! “I’m not a real big fan of an arts facility. If it had been done in 2006-07, it would have been more feasible. It’s tough now.”

! “To me personally, it would be great, but I don’t know how much you can convince people about it. There are other things that are more pressing. But I’m not opposed at all.”

Selected comments – Economic benefits:

! “Economically, it’s huge. There’s a need for a certain type of programming. People moving here want that kind of facility. The natives won’t go to it.”

! “It will help economic development, such as benefiting the restaurants. The economic impact could be huge. People will spend money downtown.”

! “It would help the economy through greater tourism. You would need a good business plan, and professional staff, and a good board. Bringing all the arts organizations together would be a benefit for the tourism economy, retiree community, and low income families. It would be a real benefit to the community.”

Selected comments – Community priorities:

! “The community is in sad condition, what with the water treatment plant and aging infrastructure.”

! “The priorities are: 1) roads, county-wide. 2) parks, open space, trails. No one names the arts as a priority.”

! “Personally for me this is a low priority. We need to create a waste-water treatment plant to handle growth. The roads need repair. It would benefit the community economically, but we need to handle growth. The Town cannot budget for it.”

! “I’m not highly enthusiastic about a new facility, coming just after the jump from the church to the high school.”

! “I definitely think the need is there. The cost is a detriment.”

! “I would love to see it happen in the long run. But there are so many not-for-profits in this community, so many times that you are asked.”

! “It’s probably not the highest community need. The community needs business and economic development. You could combine economic development with this. People that want to move here will look for something to do.”

! “It’s a good concept, and I do see the need. People do find shortcomings in Pagosa Springs. There is a need for event space; that is a viable thought. But, the not-for-profit groups can’t afford the space.”

! “Have any of the organizations in the high school had sellouts?”

! “That is a very aggressive plan for a community that can’t even get its roads paved.”

! “A community college would also be high on the list. Even a decent private school would compete in priorities. We have a limited source of private funding in this community.”

! “The first priority should be fixing the roads; second should be this project – or even the first. This should be at the top of the list. I think it could turn the local economy around.”



Base Building vs. Full Function Facility

Guided by the Pagosa Springs Arts Alliance during Phase One of the study, Needs Assessment and Facility Concept, in 2007, the ACG team prepared two versions of the proposed community arts center: 1) the Base Facility, which was the 550-seat auditorium alone, and 2) the Full-Function Facility, which included the Base Building plus a Multi-Purpose Room (divisible in two sections) and four Classrooms.

When asked about their preference (again, at this point, before considering the preliminary project cost estimates), a majority of interviewees considered it important to design the center with all the proposed spaces, rather than the 550-seat theatre alone. They considered the theatre the project’s main focus, with the Multi-Purpose Room as secondary and Classrooms as third in importance. Only a handful of people preferred the Base Facility by itself and dismissed the need for the Multi-Purpose Room and Classrooms. A few suggested cutting the Classrooms if project costs had to be reduced. Several people questioned the need for 550 seats, saying that the high school had rarely drawn an audience of that size and questioning the need for that number of seats in the future.

Among the suggestions made about the Center were to incorporate visual arts space and music recording capability. Two interviewees noted that Music in the Mountains may be interested in relocating to a downtown location in the future, not only because Boot Jack Ranch may not be available, but also for logistical reasons. Moreover, in the future MITM may want to present performances at other times of year besides summer.

A number of interviewees suggested that the performance facility could be designed so that it could accommodate both indoor and outdoor performances. Perhaps the back wall and/or side walls could be opened so that some audience members would be covered and others could enjoy performance in “lawn seating.” They suggested that Music in the Mountains and FolkWest might be interested in using a facility with such a flexible configuration.

A number of people suggested that to make the project cost feasible, construction could be phased, although most agreed that building it all at once reduces a project’s overall cost and makes raising funds for the entire project more likely to happen.

Selected comments – Performance Space:

! “The Full Function facility is preferable, long-term, over 15-25 years. You can make a case, money aside. There could easily be a need. This is an accurate portrayal of reality.”

! “The priorities are the performance hall. It’s a cultural center, not a community center.”

! “The community has a low threshold for single-use facilities.”

! “550 seats is way too many. Even in 20 years it would be too much for this community. You would rather want to turn away people.”

! “Nobody ever needed 550 seats. The high school has taken care of any large audiences – for only a few events.”

! “When you’re expressing need, the theatre by itself is enough.”

! “As many different uses as you can get out of it would be the best. There aren't a lot of places in town to hold meetings.”

Selected comments – Multi-Purpose Room:

! “A multi-purpose space would be best. It would help tourism.



! “You could use this space for exhibitions. They would need to work with the Arts Council for exhibitions.”

! “This space would drive public sentiment for it.”

! “It should not be a Holiday-Inn type room – a neutral space. It would help the lodging business. This is an ideal space.”

! “You might combine the performance space and multi-purpose room, or with the classrooms.”

! “You would never need space to feed 350 people. Good attendance at these [local banquet] events is 100.”

Classrooms / Meeting Rooms:

! “There is a need for these.”

! “The Community Center is heavily used. But classrooms could be reduced or eliminated if money is an issue.”

Outdoor Performance Capability:

! “Build an auditorium as an outdoor venue on Reservoir Hill; that would bring in real economic value. There is some demand, some justification for that.”

! “The outdoor, retractable sort of facility makes more sense to the community.”

! “Lawn seating would distract people [inside the hall].”

Phasing:

! “If they don’t build it all at once, it won’t get built. The full facility is more of a necessity. The community has grown to where it needs this.”

! “The Full Function makes sense, but you have to look at it in phases, if you can’t get the full nut.”

! “It’s better to build it all at once. The only difference is that it would cost 50 percent more for the whole thing – not a whole lot of difference. It would be hard either way.”

Suggested Center Locations

Downtown Pagosa Springs

If a Community Arts Center were to be built in Pagosa Springs, 16 of those interviewed, or more than half, prefer a downtown location. Seven consider it a low priority, and three had no opinion.

Among the reasons many interviewees favored a downtown location were that it would: (1) boost local businesses – restaurants, retail stores, and shops – bringing much-needed vitality and economic activity; (2) build on Pagosa Springs’ existing image as a tourist destination, in particular by drawing more visitors to the Springs and giving them an additional attraction in walking distance; (3) yield higher sales tax revenues, the Town’s only revenue source, through increased tourism and visitor traffic; (4) utilize available parking on Main Street and at the Community Center lot on Hot Springs Blvd.; (5) be a relatively short driving time from anywhere in the Pagosa Springs area; (6) perhaps help Music in the Mountains if they were to move to a downtown location in the future.

Selected Comments: Downtown Location:

! “It should be in the downtown core.”



! “I want to see downtown Pagosa Springs be a drawing center.”

! “It’s extremely important to be downtown. This is the core. The business community would support it; they’d be crazy not to.”

! “It has to be downtown, on Hot Springs Blvd. We need life in the center, downtown.”

! “Yes, a downtown location would be good for the Springs and for downtown.”

! “It’s very important for economic development.”

! “It is very important, crucially important. You have to have synergy – with tourists, river, hotels. You’ve got to have foot traffic.”

! “It is the only spot! If this was more centralized, you’d get more competitive businesses. We need business.”

! “It is critical. The Town has no firm identity except the Springs, which is not a public amenity and is not the soul of the community. We need to keep activity going in downtown, not just commercial activity.”

! “Of course one wants to see it on Hot Springs Blvd. For conferences you’d want to be downtown. Downtown economy needs boosting.”

! “It must be near City Hall. It must be nearby retail.”

! “From a tourist standpoint, Pagosa Springs has a real historic downtown, which is missing in Vail and other resorts. The heart of the community is one of their biggest assets. . . . It would be better than a resort location. It could become a real architectural gem, bring presence, viability to that. It could be on the outskirts, integrated into a future resort, but my preference is a downtown solution.”

! “Don’t put it in the hinterlands where it won’t have any economic benefit.”

! “A lot of commercial businesses are out west of town. The population is out there. But residents would come downtown in a heartbeat.”

Other Locations

A smaller number of interviewees either didn’t think a downtown location for a community arts center was important or favored another location. Chiefly mentioned were Pagosa Lakes west of downtown and the intersection of highways 160 and 84 east of town. The main reasons people gave for a location besides downtown was that driving times anywhere in the Pagosa Springs are relatively short. People noted that the population in Uptown is actually larger than that in the Town proper, and also that there are more restaurants and stores there than Downtown. In addition, some observed that the population living downtown might not be inclined to attend performances in a new community arts center anyway, and the demographics of Uptown more closely matches that of likely arts attenders.

Selected Comments: Other Locations

! “It would be great if it could be downtown, but it wouldn’t be a deal stopper to put it someplace else.”

! “Downtown is the best location, but Pagosa Lakes would be okay. Downtown at the Springs is possible, but it is not the only location.”



! “There’s no difference between Uptown and Downtown. It’s not a huge factor. Parking is the issue. You’d have the same benefit, but is it significant? Either way there are restaurants and bars.”

! “It wouldn’t make that much of a difference. What’s a three-minute drive out of town? The largest supporters of the arts are really not downtown residents. It could be within a radius of a few miles of downtown.”

! “You have a bigger base Uptown in the Pagosa Lakes area. That could be an influence.”

! “It would be important to the commercial sector, whether it’s downtown or further west.”

! “If there’s an outdoor facility, then it needs to be further out because of the noise and the neighbors.”

Specific Suggested Sites

Interviewees commented on several specific proposed sites if a community arts center were to be built.

1. Springs: The Springs Resort currently owns undeveloped land along the River, between the Springs and the Town Community Center. The site offers magnificent visibility and views, is located within walking distance of downtown and the Resort, and is close to ample parking. However, the commercial value of the land likely makes it financially unfeasible to utilize for a not-for-profit venue.

2. Reservoir Hill: A five-acre property directly across from the Community Center is owned by the County, which wants to sell it because a deed restriction prevents it from being used as the site of a new County jail. A private developer has offered to buy this land and preserve it as open space in exchange for greater density on a nearby site. One suggestion was for the County to sell the Reservoir Hill site to the Town, which could then use it for an arts center location. Several County officials indicated they would offer to propose holding this property off the market if there is a possibility of locating the proposed arts center on this site.

3. River location: There is privately-owned grazing land between the River and County Road 119 south of Apache Street could be made available. Long-term, the property is envisioned by the owners as a high-end residential townhouse development. An arts center, which would still be relatively close to the Springs and downtown, could be an attractive amenity in a stunningly beautiful site.

4. Pagosa Lodge: Located west of town on Highway 160 between Pinon Causeway and Pinon Lake, this property has recently been placed on the market. The facilities include three separate meeting/conference rooms totaling in aggregate about 3,700 sq. ft., plus several ancillary spaces. The Lodge building adjoins the townhouses of the Villas at Pagosa Lodge. The suggestion has been made to explore the possibility of the adaptive re-use of these lodging and meeting facilities for a variety of new uses, including the arts, education, and conferences. Some of the spaces could perhaps be converted into community college classrooms, possibly as a long-desired satellite of Ft. Lewis College in Durango. As currently configured, based on available knowledge, the Pagosa Lodge facilities would comprise only a small percentage of the space needs that would be addressed in the current Community Arts Center concept. Adapting the Pagosa Lodge to adequately accommodate performing arts events as desired by PSAA and documented by ACG would likely require major rebuilding and expansion. However, perhaps the Lodge facilities could be adapted to serve as an interim facility. Several people recommended



that the Pagosa Springs Arts Alliance join together with the Education Center, other arts organizations, and the County to study the feasibility of such adaptive reuse. Regional planning funds may be available to fund such a study effort.

Project Cost Estimates

Based on the Needs Assessment and the Facility Concept that the ACG team developed in 2007, ACG team member Donnell Consultants Inc., specialist arts facility cost consultants based in Tampa, provided highly preliminary, order-of-magnitude project cost estimates for the Base Facility at $43 million and the Full-Function Facility at $64 million. These estimates are based on an estimated square footage for both facilities, on a Space Relationship Diagram developed by Jones & Phillips, and on guidance for assumptions about the project quality level and technical capabilities provided by the Pagosa Springs Arts Alliance. ACG’s Theatre Planning Consultant team member, Jones & Philips, provided basic Space Relationship Diagrams for the Base Facility and the Full-Function facility. As it was premature to involve an architect at this early conceptual stage of the planning, the preliminary cost estimate did was not based on any architectural design concepts or renderings.

The range of reactions to the estimated project costs included acceptance and approval to regret, dismay, shock, and dismissal. A few interviewees did say that the preliminary cost estimates were realistic and reasonable based on the need for performing arts and meeting facilities in the community, on the facility concept descriptions, and on the necessary square footage.

Most interviewees jumped immediately from assessing the preliminary project cost estimate to whether such levels were achievable in Pagosa Springs. Several people pointed out that “If you can get to $40 million, you can get to $60 million.” Still, the overwhelming majority considered these dollar numbers to be way out of the realm of possibility for Pagosa Springs.

There was nearly unanimous agreement that the preliminary estimated project costs for the proposed Community Arts Center are unrealistically high and that such dollar goals are not achievable in a capital campaign in Pagosa Springs or the region, either now or in the foreseeable future.

Selected comments:

! “It is way out of reach. I don’t see that local funds are available. You are faced with a cost that is a huge number, whether $40 million or $60 million. Either would be a huge number in the current environment.”

! “I had no idea of the scope. I’m totally open-mouthed. We don’t deal in those kinds of numbers. It’s shocking, and I’m not one of the conservatives. But I look at it from a business perspective: You have to spend money to make money. You can always scale it down. It is overly ambitious, too expensive, too difficult to fund.”

! “I’m in support of it if it can support itself. It is not like the Recreation Center – it will have to have subsidies. It can’t be $60 million if it needs $20 million from the Town. If there’s a $40,000 loss every year then I don’t see it.”

! “A $40-60 million center is not going to happen in Pagosa Springs. In Vail or Aspen you might have the wealth and liquidity, but not here.”

! “Everything is struggling so hard right now. The major problem is funding.”

! “In this economy they are so out of reach right now. Everybody is so pressed.”



Financial Operating Estimates

Most of the interviewees who reviewed the proposed Community Arts Center’s financial operating estimates either considered them reasonable, didn’t know how to assess them, or had no opinion of their accuracy. Some doubted that local organizations could pay rental fees or could charge higher ticket prices, or admission fees at all. There were suggestions that given the time that has passed since the Phase One Needs Assessment, ACG should recheck the Arts Center’s proposed utilization, particularly the assumptions about conference and meeting use. Also worth rechecking was the possible use of the performance space by the Creede Repertory Theatre, Music in the Mountains, the FolkWest Festival, Elation Arts Center, as well as co-presentations by the Pagosa Center and Ft. Lewis College Theatre in Durango.

The Community Arts Center would be a not-for-profit organization. The goal would be to operate on a fiscally sound basis, but to break even financially would require an annual fund-raising campaign. (ACG has estimated the Center’s annual funding gap, after earned income, at $220,000 per year, which would be in addition to income from a permanent endowment fund.) The question of the ability of the community to raise operating support at this level year after year came up frequently. Several people observed that this funding need is far greater than the annual support needed for any local not-for-profit organization, including the United Way, and would present an ongoing and perhaps insurmountable challenge.

Selected Comments:

! “You have to have professionals; that’s the only way it would work.”

! “This is a reasonable number for staff. You have got to staff it with professionals.”

! “They are pretty realistic. The Town is learning the cost of operating the Community Center. “

! “Some attendance numbers are high.”

! “It presents a daunting challenge as an ongoing fund-raising commitment. There is a limited bucket for annual funds.”

! “People don’t pay much for a ticket – maybe $5.”

! “You would need to find a way to fund operations, but until then [prospect] won’t support it.”

Permanent Endowment

Interviewees generally praised the goal of providing a permanent endowment fund, income from which could help support the Center’s annual operations. Those familiar with arts organizations in other cities were especially in favor of an endowment fund, but they noted the challenge of raising such funds, even in the best of circumstances, and certainly also as part of an already large capital campaign.

Selected Comments:

! “Necessary. Without it you couldn’t operate.”

! “I’m a great believer in endowments.”

! “An endowment for the arts for this community would be incredible. Creating and funding it – I wouldn’t know where to start. But people give endowment all the time.”



! “This will be very challenging. You will need to find a benefactor. Perhaps you could have a challenge grant of $1.5 million. But no one here has ever tried to raise endowment.”

! “The Hospital doesn’t have an endowment or even an annual fund.”

! “Not in this economy. Everything is so shaded.”

! “It’s a wonderful idea, but we couldn’t even do it for the Houston Grand Opera. It’s highly unlikely it would happen in a community like Pagosa.”

Current Philanthropic and Fund-raising Climate

A large majority of interviewees consider the philanthropic spirit in Pagosa Springs weak, small-scale, inexperienced, and over-stressed. While most attributed this weakness to the current economic situation, they also view fund raising in Pagosa Springs as challenging in the best of times.

While at least one person thought fund raising in Pagosa Springs was “pretty good,” almost all who had any experience in local fund raising see it more negatively. They cited competition among a lot of causes for funding support. A very small group of donors are asked to give to everything. While it is widely known that several extremely wealthy individuals and families spend part of their time in the Pagosa Springs area, the perception is that they do not make large philanthropic contributions locally – although it was recognized that they have indeed made leadership gifts to such causes as the recent Hospital campaign. Fund-raising banquets in Pagosa Springs typically raise about $15,000 to $20,000. Music in the Mountains has consistently raised sponsorship funds from a group of individuals, although reportedly this year both MITM attendance and donations were down.

Recent Capital Campaigns

Many people with knowledge of recent local capital campaigns noted how challenging it was for them to reach even modest fund-raising goals.

Recent attempts to raise significant capital and operating funds have had to be scaled back. The United Way started an Angels program to create a group of $1,000 annual contributors but had to abandon the program this year for lack of participants. The Methodist Church had plans to raise $4 million to tear down and rebuild the church, but in the end raised only $1 million and decided to renovate the current building and make no change in their education space.

The most direct comparison to the proposed Arts Center capital goal cited was the recent Pagosa Springs Hospital Campaign. The fund-raising campaign for the Hospital’s first-year operating funds was widely cited as a very successful effort, garnering both top leadership giving and support from donors of $10,000 or more. Although the Hospital construction was funded by a bond issue, operating costs for the first year were raised from private contributions. With the goal of raising $1 million, Hospital campaign leaders approached four families to commit $125,000 each, which they did, creating a nucleus fund of $600,000. That was the springboard for additional giving by the Hospital board of directors and for the approach to a wider group of donors. Reportedly, no requests were made for less than $10,000. The response was so successful that the campaign ultimately went over the goal, reaching more than $1.1 million. In addition to the starting fund of leadership gifts, ten (1) donors made gifts of $20,000 or more and eight (8) made gifts of $10,000. According to campaign volunteer leaders and several donors themselves, for a number of donors their gift to the Hospital campaign was reportedly the largest in their lives. More tellingly, the nucleus fund commitments by the leadership donor group were among the largest gifts they had ever made to any campaign in Pagosa Springs.



Many people observed that the Hospital campaign was as successful as it was because the donors, most of them middle-aged or elderly, could be future patients, and that it was in their self-interest to support a hospital in Pagosa Springs rather than having to rely on medical facilities in Durango. There is agreement that a performing arts facility, even one that arguably would provide economic benefits for the community by attracting tourists and visitors, would not generate the same sense of urgency and importance as the Hospital.

Current Economic Situation

The current fund-raising climate in Pagosa Springs is bleak, given the state of both the local and the national economy. Business leaders who had made regular gifts to a wide range of causes have cut back in their giving, sometimes totally, saying it was a matter of survival. Some second-home owners report spending less time in their Pagosa Springs home and thus are less inclined to support local causes. In a fund-raising campaign for a new community arts project, many people would look first to a small group of very large donors, many of whom have in fact been generous supporters of selected Pagosa Springs project in the past. However, even some individuals and families who are known to have extremely high net worth report having been hit by the recession, either through a decline in their investment holdings or other changes in their business circumstances.

Most interviewees consider a capital campaign goal in the range of $40 million or more unreachable. They cited the current national and local economic conditions as the prime factor, as well as the reality that philanthropic giving at the level that would be required to reach such a goal is simply unprecedented in Pagosa Springs, or even in Durango. No doubt the recession has hit nearly everyone in the Pagosa Springs area very hard. Business are closing, some businesses and individuals have declared bankruptcy, and unemployment is high and rising. Some wage earners, young people, and entire families have moved away from Pagosa Springs because of lack of work and the ability to earn a living, thus reducing the local tax base and school enrollment. Housing prices, which steadily increased from the early 1990s until 2008, have declined precipitously, reportedly by more than 50 percent in some cases. There is some expectation, borne out by recent data, that Pagosa Springs may attract fewer second-home buyers in the near future, perhaps for years to come. Few people expect the recession to end soon. One official noted that the Pagosa Springs area lags behind the rest of the nation by six months or more during economic recoveries.

Nonetheless, a number people expressed optimism about Pagosa Springs’ long-term future. They believe the area will continue to attract baby-boomer generation retirees. These interviewees consider the planning and building of a community arts center an investment in the future of Pagosa Springs. Some were even optimistic about the possibility of raising substantial private funding, if not at the levels proposed.

Clearly, however, no one believes that a community arts center could be planned, designed, and built without the most generous leadership giving by a small handful of the area’s wealthiest residents or part-time residents. Everyone agrees that public funding resources – whether from the Town, County, State, or federal government – would be minimal or non-existent for this type of project.

Selected Comments – Fund-raising climate:

! “It’s pretty good.”

! “If it exists, it’s a well-kept secret. It’s almost non-existent.”

! “It’s not very good.”



! “It is a little weak. There are so many basic needs, a lot of competition, a lot of groups.”

! “It’s small. There are billionaires here, and millionaires, but they come here to disappear. Some people have never been seen.”

! “Don’t confuse Pagosa Springs with Park City.”

! “In our little community it’s fairly hard to raise money year after year.”

! “Very few people in Pagosa Springs have any idea about fund-raising. They’re very inexperienced.”

Challenges to a Major Capital Campaign

The greatest challenges to undertaking a major capital campaign for a new community arts center are (1) the proposed fund-raising goal, (2) the current economy, (3) lack of interest or opposition by the local political leadership, and (4) the perceived disunity in the local arts community.

The goal of raising $40 million or even $60 million was seen by nearly all as being out of reach. Such goals have never been considered for any previous cause in Pagosa Springs. The only hope for a campaign of this scale to succeed would be for one or more of those families known to be billionaires and millionaires who spend part of their time in the region to make a leadership gift.

There is also a sense that the current local political leadership would not support the development of an arts center. Some interviewees see particularly the Town and County leadership as trying to seize on any kind of short-term economic development project, whether attracting a big box retailer or encouraging the development of nearby planned communities, such as Wolf Creek. Many people lamented that the local political situation was highly polarized, divided between those who wanted to promote any kind of economic growth or quick fixes and those who advocate no new development. Several interviewees did envision a local planning and development process that could proceeds in a carefully considered way by taking a long-term perspective and building on the area’s history and existing strengths, but they were dubious this could ever be launched and achieved.

Lack of a united approach by the arts community was seen as another challenge to fund-raising success. Local groups were seen as operating purely independently, without collaborating or cooperating with one another. A number of interviewees lamented that they were aware of or had heard about “infighting” among the arts groups and between individual volunteer leaders. Many stated that the prerequisite for any fund-raising campaign was for arts community to come together behind a project concept, and then promote it in unified fashion to the Town’s political leadership and the area’s general population.

Selected Comments – Campaign Challenges:

! “One: Unity. Two: You’ve got to be able to justify the costs – show it won’t get a continuing subsidy.” !

! “Just raising the money. It is very hard for people here to have a sense of belonging. Fund raising here is not deep; it’s always the same names.”

! “Finding your key donors. The Hospital recognized people who gave early, like the Hospital challenge grant from four families. The challenge grant made it real serious, after the government revenue bond.”

! “People who gave $5,000 now give $100. In Pagosa Springs $500 is a large gift.”

! “The economy has bottomed out. It will be easier to move ahead in the future.”



! “The economy is an unpredictable factor. You would have to go outside of the region.”

! “Funding is going to have come from people from outside the community, or from organizations ho want to support the arts in this part of the country.”

! “The economy is the major challenge. It’s very tough right now. It’s the same thing in Telluride, people going out of business. If anything was introduced right now, it would not go over.”

! “Getting the public on the same wavelength. Create togetherness. Concentrate the effort on public relations.”

! “They’d have to be able to articulate what the vision and payback was going to be in the community, and they’d have to have all the arts organizations behind it.”

Other Capital Campaigns

Among those interviewed, 11 out of 23 who responded to the question had participated in the Hospital campaign. Eight (8) individuals reported they were donors to Music in the Mountains. The only other Capital Campaigns anyone was aware of were a campaign for the Pagosa Springs Rodeo and possibly another campaign for the Hospital.

Preliminary Fund-raising Goals

When asked whether a $43 million goal or a $67 million capital campaign goal was achievable, a majority of those responding about each amount thought it was not possible:

Goal: $43 million $67 million

Yes 3 2

Possibly 1 3

No 13 18

No opinion 3 4

# Responding 20 27

Several people were somewhat optimistic about the possibility of raising funds on this scale, saying that the wealth in Pagosa Springs is largely hidden, or that the town would bounce back from the recession as it had historically, or that the funding would have to come from second-home owners from outside the community.

The majority in each case, however, maintained that these funding goals are very unrealistic for Pagosa Springs. No one believes that local residents by themselves could ever fund any project at this scale, nor would they regard a new arts center as a community priority. They suggested that part-time residents come to Pagosa Springs for the cultural amenities, but they also want to get away from big-city campaigns. While there might be some individual donors who could give at the very highest levels, it would be hard to find donors in the six-figure range.

In a Town that recently voted down a new water-treatment plant for reasons of cost, where roads were in bad need of repair, where previous campaigns raised only a fraction of the proposed goals, both the $43 million and $67 million goals were thought to be unattainable. Corporate support in the County is non-existent. Some thought that only government funding or outside



foundation support could make the project, but others discounted the possibility of any government support at this time.

Is $43 million to be attainable?

! “At $40 million, my first sense is that it’s adequate, for 50,000-100,000 square feet.”

! “This amount is more doable.”

! “I don’t see it.”

Is $67 million to be attainable

! “It is not attainable in Pagosa. It will take money from the outside. I think it’s going to have to be from people who want a beautiful, rustic, outdoor experience, along with culture. The money is not in the community – we can’t even get our roads fixed. It will take people from outside who want a break.”

! $4-5 million – even that would be very hard to raise, unless you can find that angel out there.”

! “The money is here. There are people who live here who know these people.”

! “It must be hard to do in a recession. But historically it will bounce back.”

! “The money in Pagosa Springs is behind the scenes. That’s part of Pagosa Spring’s nature: it’s more of a low-key, humble place.”

! “I don’t see $66 million. You won’t get $1 million donations.”

! “The plan is awesome and your numbers are very big.”

! “The Hospital didn’t raise anywhere near that. People come here to get away from involvement.”

! “$60 million is a pretty steep price tag, and it will be perceived as a pretty steep price tag.”

! “I have sticker shock. The Town can’t build a waste-water treatment plant.”

! “It is kind of overwhelming for me. I thought $12 million was a big number for the Hospital. It is an awful lot of money for Pagosa Springs, which doesn’t think at that level.”

! “$10 million or $60 million – it doesn’t make a difference. It’s the same problem.”

! “It’s possible but it will be hard. I don’t know if it’s feasible. I don’t see how you’re going to do it. The problem is the $250,000, $100,000, $50,000 people.”

! “Both are unrealistic, impossible.”

! “The high donors won’t lead the way.”

Suggested Leadership Donors

In addition to the Draft Case Statement, the ACG representative showed interviewees a Gift Range Table, or “pyramid,” indicating the number of gifts at particular amounts theoretically needed to reach the proposed campaign goals. The top gifts would need to include those at $10 million to $12 million, $5 million, and $2.5 million, with a number at $1 million, $500,000, and so on.



The top-level gifts were seen as coming, if at all, from only one or two families in the area with net worth estimated in the multi-billion-dollar range, both of whom are part-time residents but who come on a regular basis. While their capability to give was seen as enormous, an extraordinary effort to involve and cultivate them for the project would be required. Even stimulating their interest in the local arts scene, much less securing an eight-figure gift, was seen as a major obstacle, given the habit of the wealthiest part-time residents to remain largely anonymous and behind the scenes in Pagosa Springs.

Beyond those considered to have the capacity to make leadership gifts, if inclined, most interviewees considered gifts at lower levels to be unlikely. There is only a tiny group of prospective donors in the Pagosa Springs area with the capacity to commit gifts of $1 million or more. One person familiar with the philanthropic community guessed there might be 10-to-15 possible donors at the $1 million level; another estimated there might be 20 possible donors at the $100,000 level. Prospective donors at amounts within that range are largely missing in Pagosa Springs.

Even if prospects with sufficient means to make gifts at these levels were available, a main obstacle is that no project in Pagosa’s history has ever required giving at this scale and the number of donors that would be necessary to reach the project goals.

Selected Comments:

! “Out of that whole list, $500,000 might be possible.”

! “You would have to find a family, people who would fund this out of interest in Pagosa Springs.”

! “There are people here capable of making gifts at this level. They’re going to want to hear it’s not oversize. I don’t know if you can get gifts at this level.”

! “I’m not sure about the top ones. They would have to be engaged in the arts.”

! “Four years ago I would have said yes in a heartbeat, but now I would have a concern. Still, I’m not pessimistic.”

! “I could see 20 people giving $100,000, but not 20 at $250,000. There would be a group giving at lower levels. There are not 15 people who could give $1 million.”

Campaign Volunteer Leadership

ACG asked interviewees with some fund-raising experience to identify the traits required for the leadership of a major capital fund-raising campaign, and then to identify possible candidates for that role. Among the attributes needed for the campaign leader were:

! Make a personal leadership gift;

! Wide connections throughout the community; know the right people to ask;

! Willing to ask others for money;

! Able to represent the project knowledgeably, articulately, and with passion;

! High energy; enthusiastic, tenacious, and “excited about selling ice to Eskimos.”

Suggested Leaders:

Among those most frequently mentioned as potential leaders for a campaign were:

! Lisa Scott



! J. R. Ford

! Janis Moomaw

! Jan Clinkenbeard

! JoAnn Laird

! Michelle Weissel,

! Maria Kolpin

! Bob Scott

! Bob Lindner

! Teddy Herzog

! Carolyn Wortowski

! Suzin Daniel

! Andy Donlan

! Janee Christians

! Jann Pitcher

Suggested Campaign Volunteer Leadership Teams:

! Lisa Scott and Bob Scott, J. R. Ford, or Tony Gilbert

! Ron and Maria Kolpin

! Al and Marty Bledsoe

Suggested Leadership Donors

Interviewees were asked to review a list of prospective leadership donors and identify those with the capability and possible interest and willingness to make a major commitment to a campaign, that is, in the range of $1 million or more. Among those most frequently mentioned as possible leadership prospects were:

! Mr. and Mrs. Sid R. Bass

! David and Carol Brown

! Terry Hershey

! Bob and Betty Lindner

! Michael and Kendall McTeigue

! Alan and Barbara Sackman

Others mentioned as potential supporters of the project were:

! James and Jane Fitzgerald

! Tony and Nancy Gilbert

! Bob and Carol Howard

! Jack and Katy Threet

Selected comment:



! “The list has people of great means or great hearts. What you look for is people of great means and great hearts.”

Willingness to Consider Personal or Business Financial Commitment

The crux of any funding and fund-raising feasibility study is the preliminary estimate of the financial commitments a selected group of prospective leadership and major gift donors might make to the project. Such an aggregate estimate is based on the indications provided in confidential interviews by individuals, their representatives, business and foundation executives, and public officials.

Regrettably, the Pagosa Springs feasibility study indicated only token amounts of financial support for the proposed Community Arts Center at this time. Asked about their willingness to support the project with personal or business funds, and the possible amount, among all interviewees, eight (8) indicated willingness, twelve (12) responded that they perhaps would, and seven (7) indicated they would not.

Two clear conclusions emerge:

! Currently, project organizers might expect to raise at most in the range of $50,000 in the short term, from a very small group of about five (5) to eight (8) individuals and businesses. Longer term, if a capital campaign were to be conducted, all self-identified suggested commitments would total in the range of $250,000.

! If the Pagosa Springs Arts Alliance could raise the amount of the short-term estimate, that could be sufficient to continue making the early steps in the exploratory planning process for a new community facility. However, it is clear that the center concept, scope, size, and project cost estimate would have to be substantially revised and scaled down.

Among the leadership prospects that others had suggested could be seven- or eight-figure donors, not one of the individuals, or their representatives, indicated any willingness to support the project financially. Their main reasons included: 1) lack of interest in the project, 2) questions about the high preliminary project cost estimate, 3) skepticism about the center’s ability to raise annual operating support on an ongoing basis, 4) the small amount of time they spent in the Pagosa Springs area, 5) other philanthropic commitments, 6) the community’s other more urgent priorities, and 7) their own current financial situation.

One of the key suggested leadership prospects indicated that the project would have to meet two major conditions before they would consider supporting it. The first was that the project would have to show it had raised between $10 million and $20 million. This prospect would not come in early as a leadership donor, and would only come into the campaign toward the end, and then only after other leadership donors had made substantial commitments. The second condition was that the Center would have to show how it would sustain its annual operations, specifically how it would address the annual funding need. They questioned whether an arts center in Pagosa Springs could raise the estimated $250,000 or more that would be required to support it year after year.

Another prospective leadership donor cited the fact that he spends very few days a year in the Pagosa Springs area every and does not attend arts events in town. Their current philanthropic commitments are to causes outside Pagosa Springs and do not focus on the arts.

Interviewees had suggested three other individuals as potential leadership donors to the project. However, all three of these families have moved out of the Pagosa Springs area in recent years. ACG include two of them in the interviewee list but neither responded to requests for telephone interviews, which was taken as indication of their lack of interest in the project, at least at this time.



A number of individuals did suggest that they might be willing to give, but at dollar amounts at far lower levels than seven or eight figures. One individual indicated he might be willing to commit up to $200,000 to the project, but only in the future, after completing other philanthropic commitments. He could, however, be approached for a smaller gift of front-end planning funds.

Executives at two Pagosa Springs businesses indicated a willingness to consider supporting the project. One executive was rather negative toward the arts center concept but said his business would likely support it at a scale of perhaps $25,000. The other executive was enthusiastic about the project and indicated willingness to support it but at an unspecified level.

Two individual donors indicated their overall support might be in the range of $3,000 to $5,000. ACG believes these two individuals, and several others who did not want to indicate a potential gift amount, could be approached for short-term funding assistance to continue the project’s exploratory planning process.

The State of Colorado, through the Region 9 office in Durango, could be a source of front-end planning funds. One public official knowledgeable about this process indicated that as a not-for-profit organization, PSAA could not apply directly for State funding (or for federal stimulus funds). However, Archuleta County could make such an application on PSAA’s behalf. The State is interested in promoting local amenities, particularly those that advance tourism, and planning for a community arts center in a tourist-based town like Pagosa Springs possibly could make it a funding recipient. Pagosa Springs, which has the third lowest median income in the state, is considered a a “depressed rural zone” by the State of Colorado. Archuleta County in the past reportedly has not sought state grants that could have been available; thus the area is considered “overdue” for funding assistance compared to other regions of Colorado.

The U.S. Department if Agriculture promotes Rural Development poor rural counties, in particular projects that promote economic development through tourism. It is unclear what USDA funding might be available to support an arts cultural planning initiative in the Pagosa Springs area. Region 9 officials may be able to provide assistance with federal grant applications.

Finally, one interviewee suggested that the Town could create a special cultural district whose tax revenues would be dedicated to a community arts center project. It is not known whether such a district would divert revenues needed to support basic Town operations and functions.

Foundation, Company Board Affiliations

Asked if they served on not-for-profit, foundation, or company boards of directors, various interviewees listed the following organizations: Pagosa Mountain Hospital, Music in the Mountains, Citizens Bank, the Rodeo, Pagosa Springs Education Center, United Way, Judicial Board, School Accountability Committee, Veterans Compensation Board, and a family foundation. A number of these relationships might be helpful if these individuals were to become involved in a capital campaign.

Campaign Timing

Although two interviewees thought a campaign should be started immediately, and one thought it should be launched in a year, ten (10) interviewees urged deferring any fund raising. Among the factors cited were: (1) the state of local economy, (2) absence of a leadership donor, and (3) other more basic community priorities that needed funding first.

! “Whenever you can get it going. With the economy as it is, who knows when a good time is?”



! “Yesterday! It wouldn't matter how much fund raising that was done unless you get the Town fathers behind you. Starting out by raising money might be risky if they opposed it. The first thing would be to woo the town fathers to get some kind of commitment that they would back a project like that. They just slam the door on any kind of project.”

! “I hope they can bring it forward in a year.”

! “Unless I know I had big bucks behind me I wouldn’t start. It is seen as a rich man’s endeavor. Not when Seeds of Learning is closing. I only see it if the workforce sees it as employment possibilities. You could get some planning going, but only if you have some major funding behind you before starting. If you had a commitment of land, then you could move forward. Certainly don’t start anything now.”

! “Until the recession shows some hopeful signs, there’s not going to be much of a positive response.”

! “I would defer it, you bet. People aren’t writing checks. Billionaires are not writing checks. You’re looking at a couple of years out.”

! “If the basics are in place, then go for it and do it well. But with the economy, I would wait, defer. The Region 9 economy is about 6 months behind the national economy.

! “It is not realistic to do anything until the economic climate improves. The stock market has to go up because otherwise people won’t have the resources or confidence to give. Wait a year until the market improves.”

! “This little community is on its heels. You can’t announce a goal of $40-60 million. Most people that can and do give are always asked to give more. But the profile of givers is small.”

! “I wouldn't start now. Everyone’s waiting to see if we go back in recession here. Now is not good. I really don’t know. It’s a dark time. I wouldn’t start now; it’ll only be dismissed. When times have been hard, the arts have found ways. Artists have made art even in basement spaces. There are ways the arts community can respond to this without a 5-star solution. Build the group’s credibility and strength first. This may be a time for them to be really innovative.”

! “They need to be able to articulate a vision, and realistic plan, how they’re going to do it, what it’s going to cost. . . . PSAA could have the grand goals like that, but they have to scale it back dramatically to get anything started.”

! “You need an economic impact study. It would be wise to teach each board member to understand it – elevator speech. Start building up support. Not emotional but factual. The boards of the arts organizations need to beefed up with business experience. They need a solid business plan. You would want to see an economic impact study documenting the impact on tourism, the net impact on the community.”



Summary Findings

1. The Pagosa Springs Arts Alliance is not well-known, does not represent the views of all the area’s arts organizations, and lacks strong fund-raising capabilities. Other arts and civic groups are not currently involved in the planning process. PSAA needs to reach out.

2. A community arts center is considered a laudable project but not the area’s highest priority. Jobs creation and retention, education investment, and infrastructure repair are higher priorities at the current time.

3. If a community arts were to be built, a central location Downtown is preferable because of its economic benefits for businesses there, but an Uptown location has similar benefits plus greater proximity to an arts center’s likely audience base.

4. Various sites, specifically on Reservoir Hill and at Pagosa Lodge, are potential community arts center locations and may be available.

5. The national economic recession has hit Pagosa Springs particularly hard and caused financial hardship to many individuals and businesses. Its effects will not end soon, but the community’s growth over the long term will continue.

6. As currently proposed, a new community arts center is too ambitious for Pagosa Springs. Preliminary project cost estimates for both the Base Facility and the Full-Function Facility are too high for the community.

7. The Center’s financial operating estimates are sound, but the possibility of raising the necessary annual funds to support operations would be an enormous and continuing challenge to the community’s limited number of arts donors, who are already stretched.

8. No prospective donors, or “angels,” are willing to make a pace-setting leadership financial commitment, or any commitments, to the project at this time.

9. Several smaller donors may be willing to assist in providing initial gifts and grants to enable the exploratory planning process to continue.

10. Launching a major capital campaign for a community arts center within the next two years is not recommended.



Summary Conclusions

1. Despite many other community needs, the case for a new arts facility in Pagosa Springs remains. The area needs a new venue to accommodate local amateur performances, touring musical and theatrical attractions, education activities, meetings, conferences, banquets, and many other types of events. A new arts center would build on the area’s tourism history and image and promote economic development by supporting local businesses and by helping to continue to attract tourists, visitors, and permanent and second-home residents.

2. Planning any new arts facility is an iterative process with many steps and adjustments over a number of years. The process of conceiving, planning, funding, designing, building, and successfully running a community arts center in Pagosa Springs is currently only at the very beginning. However, the planning and timetable for a proposed Pagosa Springs center is a long-term process, like that of most arts facility projects in the United States.

3. For a major community arts facility to succeed, the entire community must be united behind the project. The arts community, business community, local elected officials, relevant local government department heads, civic leaders, leaders of civic and economic development organizations, major donors, the state and congressional delegations, local media, and the general population – all must be in favor of the project, back it with enthusiasm, and make it a high, even the highest, community priority. Strong opposition from any of these groups can delay or kill a proposed arts facility project at any time. A united community is an essential prerequisite and continuing requirement for success.

4. The Pagosa Springs Arts Alliance is the right organization to lead the planning for a proposed new community arts center, but the organization’s leadership must be strengthened and membership must be enlarged and broadened, with wider representation from the rest of the arts community and by other community leaders.

5. The estimated project cost for the proposed community arts center must be substantially reduced. Consideration of a reduced scope and cost would strengthen the rationale for a new arts center and help encourage the support of community leaders, government officials, and donors for new performance facilities. This is bound to affect the size, scope, quality, and potential utilization of the project.

6. PSAA should maintain the center’s current utilization projections and financial operating estimates, which meet the center’s basic operating needs, and resist scaling them back at this very early stage. Operating estimates can be revised and updated over time.

7. Endorsement in principle of the community arts center concept by Town and County government elected and staff officials would strengthen the initial exploratory planning process.

8. The County’s Reservoir Hill site is a potentially an ideal location for a new community arts center. The Pagosa Lodge facilities could perhaps be adapted to serve as an interim facility.

9. Assistance from Town and County officials to help identify and apply for possible state and federal funding resources is crucial for continuing the facility planning process.

10. Every step and decision made in the planning process from here on is part of the preparation for a future capital campaign. Everything in the facility planning process will have fund-raising implications.



Recommendations and Next Steps

1. To expand the PSAA’s reach and representation in the community and augment the current board, form a new Community Arts Center Advisory Committee. PSAA and ACG should identify, involve, and recruit selected arts and community leaders who have expressed interest in the proposed community arts center and could be helpful in its planning. The Advisory Committee’s role and purpose is to serve as a leadership cabinet, advising PSAA on the arts center concept, rationale, planning, and strategy, and assisting in identification, involvement, cultivation, and solicitation of prospect leadership and major gift donors. Some of these individuals and business executives may be candidates for membership on the PSAA board of directors, either right away or in the future.

2. Approach new Advisory Committee members and other prospective donors for personal or business gifts and grants to help complete the funding of the ACG’s current and also to provide funding for the next stage of exploratory planning for a new arts facility.

3. Discuss with Archuleta County officials and Region 9 staff the possibility of the County applying to the State of Colorado for initial planning funding for a community arts center. Region 9 officials can advise on whether to declare an Enterprise Zone in Pagosa Springs to maximize tax advantages for giving to the project, and other funding strategies. Town and County officials, PSAA, and other citizen leaders, should involve the region’s state representatives for their endorsement, support, and assistance in this funding process as needed.

4. With Region 9 assistance, investigate the feasibility of applying for possible federal Rural Development funding support from the US Department of Agriculture. Town and County officials, as well as citizen leaders, should involve the state and region’s congressional delegation for their endorsement, support, and assistance as needed.

5. Request that Archuleta County Commissioners and planning staff place a “hold” on County-owned property on Reservoir Hill across from the Town Community Center. Ensure that this site would remain available as planning for a community arts center proceeds.

6. Meet with Town and County officials to begin to explore the suggestion that the Pagosa Lodge could be acquired and adapted for future arts and education uses. Investigate the possibility of securing state funding grants to support a preliminary feasibility study. Also begin discussions with the current (or new) owners of the Pagosa Lodge regarding their interest in participating in a public-private partnership.

7. To strengthen the case for a new community arts center, revise and reduce the proposed facility concept and scope. This could encompass flexible use of a single space that could be used both for performances and meetings. Classroom space would be additional and optional. In short, consider a more modest version of the Base Facility. If a revised or interim facility concept is considered, revise utilization projections and financial operating estimates as needed.

8. When PSAA and others in the community have agreed on a revised project concept, consider conducting an independent economic impact study of the project.

9. Re-engage ACG as lead consultant of a team that can continue to assist PSAA. ACG would propose to:

a. assist PSAA in forming an Arts Center Advisory Committee,



b. revise assumptions about the project concept and scope,

c. provide counsel in securing additional planning funds from private and public resources,

d. assist in preparing grant application and funding proposals to fund continued planning,

e. provide counsel on project site selection and negotiations,

f. update project cost estimates,

g. collaborate on conducting an independent economic impact study,

h. advise PSAA on efforts to develop an effective public information and message program about the community arts center,

i. provide counsel on the initial planning in anticipation an eventual capital funding and fund-raising campaign.

10. Visit selected performing arts facilities in smaller Western-states communities. Tours of existing facilities by individual PSAA board members or, better, in groups can help enable the PSAA to develop design and quality criteria, compare project scope and size, understand different approaches to audience and performer accommodation, develop programming ideas, and compare the planning process with other communities. ACG can help PSAA to develop a list of facilities to tour.



Arts Consulting Group, Inc.

Arts Consulting Group is the leading provider of hands-on interim management, executive search, fundraising & marketing consulting, program & facilities planning, and organizational development services for the arts and culture industry. The firm has offices in New York, Washington DC, Boston, Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle. ACG consultants are also located in other communities throughout North America to best serve the needs of our clients.

Willem Brans, Vice President

Willem Brans joined Arts Consulting Group in January 2006 as Vice President in its New York office. Mr. Brans has over 30 years’ experience in arts management, financial analysis, development and fund raising, strategic planning, marketing, consulting, teaching, and writing. He has served in senior management positions and as a consultant to numerous arts, cultural, education, social welfare, and environmental organizations internationally.



APPENDIX

Study Participants

Ross Aragon, Mayor

Dan Auperlee, Business leader

Dick Babillis, Civic leader

Rick Bellis, Public official

Al Bledsoe, Artist

Dan Burkhardt, Business leader

Jan Clinkenbeard, Arts leader

Suzin Daniel, Business leader

Scott Farnham, Board member

John Graves, Performer

J. R. Ford, Business leader

Laura Lewis, Public official

Stanley Levine, Civic leader

Bob and Betty Lindner, Area resident

Clifford Lucero, Public official

Bart Mitchell, Business leader

Janis Moomaw, Arts leader

Shari Pierce, Media

Jann Pitcher, Business leader

John Ranson, Public official

June Russell, Artist

Lisa Scott, Volunteer leader

Jack Threet, Area resident

Susan Ward, Area resident

Mark Weiler, Business leader

Michael Whiting, Not-for-profit organization leader

Bill Whittington, Business leader

F u n d -R aisin g an d F u n d in g F easib ility Stu d y ... · F u n d -R aisin g an d F u n d...

Documents

Transcript of F u n d -R aisin g an d F u n d in g F easib ility Stu d y ... · F u n d -R aisin g an d F u n d...