The City of Fayetteville and the University of Arkansas have partnered to support an expansion of the Walton Arts Center at its current location and to offer the use of UA sports facilities for Walton Arts Center concerts.
The proposal offers unique benefits that Mayor Lioneld Jordan says are not attainable anywhere else in Northwest Arkansas.
“It meets and exceeds the criteria set forth by the Board,” said Jordan in a statement, “and it provides even greater revenue opportunities with the addition of large indoor and outdoor venues for concerts at Bud Walton Arena and Reynolds Razorback Stadium – existing facilities no other proposal can match.”
The proposed 7.04 acres of expansion properties around the current campus, when combined with the Walton Arts Center’s existing facility and the UA-owned Nadine Baum Studios, comprise 11.58 acres.
The structures that make up the proposed site include the Walton Arts Center, its administrative offices, Nadine Baum Studios, and Grub’s Bar and Grille. The proposal also suggests acquisition of eight privately-owned residential properties.
We’ll have more on this soon, but for now, here’s the gist of the proposal:
- Expand at current location using 7 acres of city, UA, and privately-owned land
- Offer the use of Bud Walton Arena and Reynolds Razorback Stadium for WAC concerts
- Expanded site will accommodate a 2,200-seat theater and a 600-800 seat theater.
- Offer to construct a 600-800-seat theater though private donor funds as well as University contributions and the refinancing of existing Town Center bonds
- Offer to construct additional parking facilities – one on School Avenue and one on Spring/West which will add 1,140 parking spaces to the 298 spaces currently available in the existing surface parking
All of the proposals for the expansion of the Walton Arts Center are expected to be available on the Walton Arts Center website sometime tomorrow.
Download the full proposal (2MB PDF)
Wow! Nothing like bringing the WAC right up to my doorstep!
This plan is WAC.
(Been saving that one for two weeks)
Unbelievable…. I cannot believe our city feels that turning my house into a parking lot would be a good thing to do.
Mayor Lioneld Jordan needs to go!
I sure do like the idea of having big concerts at the stadiums.
I like the fact that the WAC is not moving up to Benton County.
Okay, what I am interpreting here is that the site to the south of Grubs would be used for construction of a theater, and that the Grub’s lot and the lot on School would be used for parking structures.
If there was a way to do these parking structures with storefronts of some kind, this could really transform downtown in a good way. Imagine a few more storefronts on School between KingFish and HighRoller. Imagine a new replacement for Grub’s fronting West.
Eventually, the muni lot can be garaged, with storefronts along Dickson and West Avenue.
If done right, this could really expand the enterainment district. It could double what is happening in downtown, and really get things rocking down there.
Petty, is there any way they can incorporate some usable mixed use space into these parking structures? If they don’t, they’re killing CityPlan 2025.
Maybe I misinterpreted it, and they plan a new 600 seat theater on the muni lot, and then will renovate and expand the current structure to accomodate 2500 seats. I want to see some pretty pictures.
Wheels turning… If the city constructs parking facilities on city-owned property, and adds some retail storefronts, the city could have a revenue stream from those spaces, and could coordinate with the economic development folks and the cultural folks to pursue and choose new businesses we’d all like to see come to the Dickson area.
Maybe even eventually the city could foster an arts collective downtown, with rent abatements and incentives for creative industries and artists, etc.
The potential synergies are exciting.
I like it…no, I love it!
Why don’t we tear down that big empty Legacy building that we just had to have? Include the Baptist church parking lot and structure as well. Leave the homes alone.
We don’t need more dead zones downtown. We already have enough with the church buildings. What we need are middle-class apartments and condos that provide customers for locally-owned businesses.
@Burgerboy…. Seeing how the city tried to make improvements with block street and fails be maintain costs within its yearly budgets; Do you really want to them, along with the administration from the WAC take on this project?
I will be completely disappointed with the city if they approve this land grab for the WAC, which privately owned and operated organization…
Burgerboy is right on!!! Except that he is talking about Bentonville’s future, not ours…… Let’s begin using OUR own property that the old WAC and parking lots are sitting on as the first step in getting more leverage to open the doors of the old WAC to more shows once the new WAC opens.
Let’s turn these lemons into some kicka## lemonade, instead of dreaming that we are holding roses (Petty).
That’s nice. See ya, WAC. Take good care of her, Benton County. We’ll be sure to wave on our way back from Macadoodles.
Great, so now I have to find a new place to live since I live in the 1.5Ac area the city wants to take. I hate to say it, but Fayetteville isn’t the same city I moved to over 10 years ago.
I want to see the whole proposal. Not just what was in the press release.
@burgerboy–Not a bad idea, but have you looked around at how much empty retail space is floating around Fayetteville? Even in supposedly “prime” locations. And the rents on Dickson Street have gotten so high, hardly anyone can afford to go in there anymore. (Not unless you bought your building at a “fire sale” 10+ years ago or before the real estate bubble)
Is this what Mr. Petty was crowing about? So basically, we’re going to GIVE them another 7 acres (some of which is privately owned now, where people live), BUILD them another theatre and BUILD them two more parking facilities (how much of the revenue from THOSE will go to the WAC and not to the City?) all on the public’s dime. And how DO we pay for it?
OK, Mr. Petty, your turn. Show us how this is going to pay for itself. You are always going on about how publicly funded things have to show their “return on investment” not just in vague terms but in actual dollars in the City coffers. No speculation, now. No ‘pie in the sky’ dreams. This is going to be a MAJOR investment in REAL DOLLARS of City funds (refinancing Town Center bonds is just the tip of the iceberg). Where’s the payback?
Sure the WAC has been instrumental in the revitalization of the area. There’s no denying that. But this is bordering on ridiculous. Giving away a big chunk of our already financially-strained City may not be the wisest move. I hope (hope, hope, hope) it really pays off. Big. For all our sakes.
Just my opinion. To which their own everyone has the right.
@Monroe:
The vacant retail space downtown is mainly around the square. High rents on Dickson are a prime reason why it makes sense to add retail/bar/restaurant storefronts into the proposal. More space opening up would either lower rents in the district, or it would make a pretty penny for the city.
CoachIT, the Walton Arts Center is not a privately owned organization. It’s a non-profit and as such doesn’t have an actual owner. Its board of directors represents city, university and yes, corporate interests.
burgerboy, we have a growing downtown arts collective–come check out Fayetteville Underground this Thursday. (That’s not to say that there isn’t demand and room for more than one…)
I like the proposed concept of an arts campus, but displacing residential property owners is a bad idea. To continue burgerboy’s train of thought, how about going vertical instead of horizontal and building parking garages with WAC offices and businesses at street level instead of just paving parking lots? Higher building density makes economic and environmental sense if the space has enough to offer.
um, those property owners will let the city buy their property. don’t like it, talk to your landlord. oh yeah, and there’s not really any vacant storefronts on the square anymore.
At first guarded glance this proposal looks very good but there needs to be a lot more detail to tell if it is viable. Keeping the new facility in the Dickson Street area is a major selling point for me. If the details turn out to make it the obvious best choice and it isn’t chosen then the next PAC operator can use the best of this plan.
Unless I’m just not looking in the right spots the Flyer has the only coverage about this story so far. Congrats on the scoop,guys!
Thanks Daniel. For those interested, you can now download the full 30 page proposal above.
Smells like crap.
I am completely and totally impressed by these plans. Bravo, city of Fayetteville. The funding is total, I believe and this project is one that can be phased in over a decade.
I can’t imagine a better plan than the ones that are in those documents.
If the WAC looks at these things and the city can assure them that we can pull it off and they STILL go north, then everybody in Fayetteville has the right to be angry.
Nothing in BenCo will ever compare to any of these proposals.
Petty was right. These plans are awesome!
So, this may end up looking great in the end but I feel like it’s going to make Dickson a general MESS until it is complete. And what is to happen to the character surrounding Dickons, the relics like Highroller Cyclery etc. This is a lot to cram in such a small area! It is going to really change the character of Dickson street..going to take some adjustment I’m not sure whether I’ll want to make or not..
Ok. I just read the whole proposal. It is impressive. And expensive. And I still can’t see where we’re going to get the money to pay for it. The City is proposing to contribute $33.4 million and the University is going to contribute….what? “Possibly” help with the cost of the “club” theatre? And the use of Bud Walton and Razorback Stadium for concerts? It’s a sure bet they won’t be out any money for the use of those facilities.
“All properties in the proposal would be considered for donation, with the exception of Bud Walton Arena and Donald W. Reynolds Razorback Stadium.”
So not only is the City proposing to build all these things for the WAC, then it’s going to donate them to the WAC when they are done? There goes your revenue stream for the City, burgerboy. No rents from those “liner buildings”. How are we going to pay for them with no extra revenue? It’s a safe bet we’re not going to get enough sales tax increase from just this project to offset the costs. And these costs also include things like utilities offsets (read cut-rate, if not free, water, gas and electricity) and also, please don’t forget that the WAC itself doesn’t collect any sales taxes on its sales of tickets and other things. (I may be wrong on that, I haven’t confirmed that one)
I may be wrong, and I hope I am, but it just doesn’t seem like this kind of proposed expenditure is wise at this time.
No money for raises or badly needed infrastructure upgrades, but the UA will help with this. Bad decision Dave, bad decision.
Let the WAC expand in Bentonville and the residents up there eat the waste of tax monies.
Comment deleted
I, for one, eagerly await the eminent domain courtroom fight and/or the bidding war that comes along for the last holdout property owner.
The City isn’t talking about buying 8 lots near the airport that have been vacant; those are serious-revenue-generating residential sites.
@Monroe – “It’s a safe bet we’re not going to get enough sales tax increase from just this project to offset the costs.”
Please explain how you came to this conclusion, and be sure to show your work.
Also, why are you limiting the scope of sales tax increase to “just this project?” Are you taking into account how many extra people this would draw to downtown Fayetteville businesses?
I’m not sure what to make of the idea that the city will give up potential revenue from rents in the liner buildings. Hopefully that isn’t seriously being considered.
The city has bent over and said thank you every time the WAC has asked them to. Why would you expect anything different if the WAC asked for the rent revenue of the liner buildings?
I don’t like some of the alternate layouts that use the existing WAC parking for facilities or parking garage. This is a prime location for festivals throughout the year including BBB, Springfest, Oktoberfest, etc. If we lose this, there is not large open type area anywhere close to Dickson to use for festivals and other events. As a side note, I also think it is about time to think about building a large permanent outdoor amphitheater that is not on the mall parking lot.
@Zapp–
Let’s look at the proposed expenditures from the City MINUS the A&P Bonds. That would equal $27.4 million. That’s land, parking structures, etc. as described in the proposal.
So that takes out the 1% HMR tax that goes to the A&P. The other 1% HMR goes to Parks. That leaves 3.25% sales tax, of which 1% goes to Washington County and .25% goes to bonds the City already has sold for other improvements.
So, based on the idea that 2% of all the sales tax collected can go to support this expenditure, just to stay where we are, the project would need to generate an ADDITIONAL $1,370,000,000 in sales activities to break even.
2% of $1,370,000,000 is $27.4 million. Spread over 20 years, that’s still an extra $68,500,000 a year in ADDITIONAL sales activity.
This does not account for the WAC collecting sales tax on its sales activity, which I don’t believe they do. Also, I don’t believe sales taxes are collected/paid on parking fees. Therefore, ALL sales tax increases must be borne by other, outside sales activity.
Looked at it this way; that’s an additional approximately $187,671 in sales activity EVERY DAY, EVERY YEAR for 20 years. Or an extra 1,880 people each spending an extra $100 a day, each day, every day for the next 20 years.
I just don’t see how we can support that, especially in the current financial situation the City faces.
But if there are other revenue sources available, by all means let’s look at them and make them work. Nothing has been said, so I’m basing my perspective on sales tax collections.
That’s a lot of money. And that’s all I’m saying.
Just my opinion. To which their own everyone has the right.
@Monroe – You got a few things wrong.
$4.2 million of the property that would be donated is already owned by the City.
The $7.5 million used to construct parking facilities would probably be paid for by bonds financed via parking revenue (and would probably also be used by the general public, not just WAC patrons).
The transportation improvements would be financed by $8 million in the transportation bond program (already bonded).
The improvements to access are already underway, paid for by federal, state, and transportation bond money, and include improvements to Garland, MLK/540 interchange, and the Wedington/540 interchange.
The University is probably going to share in the costs of building the 600-seat theatre (and I’m not sure what the breakdown is).
The A&P Commission, which you already mentioned, counts for $6 million.
That means there’s $1.2 million unaccounted for out of the $33.4 million we started with, and that’s what the appraised value is of the houses we are proposing to purchase south of the existing facility.
Mr. Petty,
Strange about the order of postings–hmmm.
Anyway, thanks for the response. I could probably agree with you on how the numbers are applied, if everything stays the way it is now. If, however as stated in the proposal, the City donates the land, parking facilities and other assets that are to be created with this proposal, those costs must still be paid.
I am disturbed by the number of times “probably” appears in your response. “Probably” paid for by bonds financed through parking revenue. “Probably” contribute some of the cost of the 600-seat theatre. Lots of iffy stuff in a multi-million dollar proposal that has a great deal of possibility of leaving the City holding the entire bag. I would think you and the rest of the committee could have gotten some more concrete commitments from the University.
Of course, the whole thing is subject to City Council approval. So while it is a proposal, it ain’t a done deal.
BTW, I will give props where due. I believe it is a great proposal and the best that was presented.
It just scares me the amount of money that is involved.
Just my opinion. To which their own everyone has the right.
A few comments seem to be getting stamped with the wrong time. Sorry about that. We’re working on it.
@Monroe – I appreciate your honest, detailed answer.
According to Petty, the only unknowns are the $7.5 million for parking structures and the $1.2 million to purchase real estate. One way or another, pay-parking revenues are going to be used to foot the bill for the parking structures.
The $1.2 million could be funded by a one-time millage increase to the City General Fund. For the upcoming millage election, the Fayetteville School district has estimated that a 2.75 mill increase will generate $51 million. If this is true, then a 0.1 mill increase would more than cover the $1.2 million needed. Even if the citizens would approve this, is legally possible to do it?
@Monroe – I only say probably because I haven’t had a chance yet to go over the proposal in super-detail with anyone in authority at City Hall. There are a few details that are different in the proposal from what I was shown a month ago, and I’m making an assumption when I say that the funding sources have “probably” remained the same since that first conversation.
My point is that the City either already has the cash on hand, or has the revenue source to accumulate the cash needed, to pay for almost all of the items listed in the proposal. It’s only the $1.2 million to buy the eight properties south of the existing facilities that is not accounted for. We may disagree on whether or not the cash/revenue streams we already have should be used for the WAC’s expansion, but it’s a clear fact that almost all of the funding the City referenced in the proposal is already in place.
@Zapp – 1 mil of property taxes generates about $1.1 million per year. The school’s proposed 2.75 mils only generates the $51 million over about 15 years.
@Petty:
I like the plan. I think it solves Dickson’s parking problems for the next 30 years.
I am intrested in what the realignment of School/Archibald Yell is proposed to be.
@Burgerboy – There haven’t been any schematics drawn up, but among those I’ve spoken with, we envision realigning the School/Archibald intersection so that School Ave becomes a more natural entrance to our downtown (natural as in second nature, not dirt road). School gives a straight shot to Dickson St from MLK, and it makes sense to transform it into a primary entrance to our entertainment district.
That said, we know that one entrance will not be able to handle all of the traffic we have now, or the traffic we expect if the expansion occurs here. We need to make multiple entrances/exits available to the public. That’s why the proposal references improvements to three 540 interchanges (MLK, Wedington, 112) and the improvements coming to Garland and Razorback/Maple. We want traffic before and after performances to disperse in all directions.
@Mpetty – Thanks for the clarification.
You’ll have to pardon my ignorance again, but is the city allowed to do a one-off millage increase to fund a project like this? It would make more sense for the city to generate revenue by retaining ownership of the retail spaces created, but I’m just wondering if this is even an option.
@Zapp – First, donation of facilities does not necessarily mean a transfer of ownership. The use of the facilities the WAC currently uses are donated by the City, but the City retains ownership.
To your question, the answer is yes. The City Council has five discretionary millage points to use. We are using 1.3 mils right now (I think I remembered that right), which is lower than every other city in Northwest Arkansas. However, we normally prefer millage increases to go to a vote of the people…
So the city can come up with money to do this, but we have to increase the millage for the school?