On Tuesday, for the second time, the Brentwood City Council punted a decision on its Vineyards at Marsh Creek Event Center and Amphitheater.
The council dissented away from three options presented by staff and moved forward with a fourth option which was presented by councilmember Pa’Tanisha Pierson who was assisted by ChatGPT in her concept design—with some modifications from the rest of the city council.
Staff was directed to come back by August/September with an update (see full list below)
The current Project description includes a 1,000-seat outdoor amphitheater, wedding venue, promenade, parking lot, sculpture garden, adventure themed playground, and future 10,000 square foot event center. Because of funding constraints, the project as currently envisioned would be constructed in two phases:
- Phase I would include construction of a 750-seat amphitheater, 250 vehicle parking lot, traffic signal and shaded promenade. The costs associated with Phase I are anticipated to be approximately $14,400,000. The current project budget is short approximately $5,707,721.
- Phase II would add approximately 250 seats to the amphitheater and a 10,000 square-foot event center facility. The costs associated with Phase II are anticipated to be approximately another $5,500,000. The current project budget in total would be short by $11,207,721.
The current cost estimate to complete Phase I of project is $14,400,000. Based on these figures, the remaining available funding in amount of approximately $8,700,000 is insufficient to proceed through the design-build contract. (Note – city is currently $5.7 million short for Phase 1 and phase 2 is unfunded at $5.5 million)
Staff has so far been unsuccessful in identifying potential grant opportunities and partnerships that would help fund the Project. The SEIR process is currently on hold pending the identification of potential alternatives to the original project.
- Option A (Original Project, Phase I): Phase I of the project would not move forward until additional funding sources are identified to cover the current estimate of $14,000,000. It should be considered that overall costs to deliver the Project is expected to increase by at least 6% each year.
- Option B (Reduced Amphitheater): Utilizing the entirety of the remaining $8,700,000 budget, reduce the project scope to 200-seat amphitheater, 122-vehicle parking lot, shaded promenade, restrooms and a mobile vending area (i.e. food trucks). This design would not be expected to generate substantial activity or significant off-setting revenues.
- Option C (Trailhead Park): Utilizing a portion of the remaining budget, design and construct a trail system, 62-vehicle parking lot, shaded promenade, restrooms and mobile vending area. This option would accommodate the potential for the original 750 to 1,000-seat amphitheater to be built at its original envisioned location in the future. This option is anticipated to cost between $3,500,000 – $4,000,000. With City Council direction, remaining Development Impact Fee funds could be repurposed to help fund other City infrastructure needs.
Tuesday’s Council Discussion
Councilmember Jovita Mendoza shared when the model homes at Trilogy opened the amphitheater was a promise and it was going to happen while all of Brentwood has been waiting. Mendoza shared she liked Option A, the original design, but would like to keep the stage in original location to ensure it’s not placed and forgotten about.
“I understand we don’t have it all funded right now, but if we wait for everything to get funded, nothing is going to get done. We do things in phases,” stated Mendoza who highlighted the senior center, soccer fields and other projects. “I don’t want to stop the breaks on it because we don’t have the money right now.”
Mendoza also shared she had dinner with 15 Trilogy residents who all said they wanted it.
Councilmember Pa’Tanisha Pierson questioned the “promise” and where the city made this promise or whether developers made the promise.
“This whole idea that we promised people doesn’t sit well with me,” said Pierson.
ChatGPT Drawings by Councilmember Pierson
Pierson also asked why did they have to select any of those three options presented to them and instead make their own, noting she came up with her own rendering and plan using ChatGPT–this was referred to as Option D.
Pierson then shared two photographs with one being a food truck park—a combination of A, B and C with 75 slots for parking along with seating for 200. This would keep the amphitheater in the same space.
“I don’t think new get rid of the idea of an amphitheater, I think its sexy,” said Pierson. She called Option B a waste if they did a smaller amphitheater and preferred a stage like at city park along with lighting and a food trucks. “It still provides and opportunity for bands and performing arts.”
Councilmember Tony Oerlemans wanted the large amphitheater and agreed with several callers that they needed to leave an opportunity for them to finish the large theater when they come up with the money in the future.
He also said Pierson’s drawings threw a wrench in his thinking for a whole new concept and thinking about how overused city park is and this could host other events. He said he was now liking “Option D” as long as they work their way to the large amphitheater.
Vice Mayor Susannah Meyer admitted she was looking at Option B and there was not enough benefit against the impact to neighbors given the noise and sound.
“I think we are cutting a huge amount of the benefit of the site if we don’t allow anything to happen at night,” stated Meyer. “I didn’t think I was going to want to hold off… but I am kind of leaning towards D or something similar.”
She wanted to see more opportunities and a break down and costs given the amount of money designated to this and did not want to “screw it up”. She didn’t believe they needed to do a 1,000 seat center.
Pierson clarified saying her option D would be in phases and to ensure they have things in place—break it into phases and could get done with Phase 1 and a future council could look at Phase 2 which is the larger amphitheater. She was not in favor of Option B.
“The end goal is not to give up on Option A altogether, it’s a later on project,” said Pierson.
The council also discussed other options for the facility including utilizing farmers markets during the week but advocated it needed lighting.
Marsh Creek Amphitheater includes (1) 250 parking spaces (2) mobile vending area (3) Barn + Entry Building (4) Pavilion (5) Amphitheater (6) Future Event Center
Meyer, however, wanted to ensure the amphitheater was located at the lowest level of the facility to ensure less impact on the neighbors.
Mayor Joel Bryant stated he agreed most of what was already said as well as had concerns over Option B along with the cost recovery concerns.
Bryant also reminded everyone that originally, when this was first presented the venue was going to be 2,000 seats. Which was quickly reduced to 1,000.
“We do have some real challenges if we have a big venue form maintenance, upkeep, cost recovery, you have all those things are significant. The full size was $400k per year to maintain with no source of revenue,” said Bryant noting Option B would not be used and the size was not usable.
Bryant stated he wanted to see an option of some sort of combination of what Pierson, Meyer and Oerlemans had stated and what it would look like.
“I thought I was going to have to settle for Option B but I just cannot bring myself to do it. Its not something that provides any community benefit and when we were first talking about this, it may be personally selfish, but I love performing arts. I love an opportunity to have our families and local talent with something large enough you can invite outside talent, I’d love to see all kinds of things. You can’t get one person in a leotard in Option B.”
Pierson also asked when it comes back they take into consideration disability and mobility issues with the distance and the design.
Meyer shared she believed they had brought it up in the past and they had thought about utilizing golf carts and/or other transportation options—she wanted more discussion on the accessibility issue.
Pierson motioned that they continue the conversation but before the motion was completed, they entered more conversation.
“I would like to bring this back as early as staff can finish,” said Pierson who wanted didn’t want it to come back next year or 2-years from now.
City Manager Tim Ogden shared next month they would have to come back with a contract amendment for the new design, noise study, traffic study. He said the work behind that is 2-3 months behind that which would be the quickest (August/September).
Oerlemans asked for clarification of which option they were moving forward with. It was stated Option B-modified. However, Pierson said she was looking at creating their own option. Meyer said this direction was closer to Option B.
The council then entered more discussion regarding number of parking spaces, location of stage, sound impacts and other tidbits around the facility—along with the budget.
“If we are going to go with Option B price wise, we are going to end up with a very small 200-seat amphitheater that is not going to get used,” said Oerlemans.
Mendoza said they would be spending $9 million.
After more back-and-forth debating Options B and C and the differences in cost, size and money, the council again debated Option D after members of the council believed they were discussing Option B.
“I am now frustrated, I don’t like any of them,” said Pierson. “Looking at this, I am definitely not okay with Option C. I don’t want a trailhead. I would prefer to see nothing for the next 25-years.”
Pierson also said she did not like Option B and was not sold on it but preferred a stage verses amphitheater to allow more people to use it and more seating but added they still needed to do the studies.
“I don’t have enough information here to make a decision,” said Pierson.
Pierson motioned that they continue the conversation. They wanted a future conversation after a portion of Option D has a stage with more community engagement such as tables and lighting (costs), studies on sound and light pollution. Wanted to know mitigation for ADA accommodations. She also wanted to know costs per each phase 1 and phase 2. Staff will also investigate the use of the Public Art Funds for the amphitheater purposes or amending the ordinance to allow it.
“I would like to bring this back as early as staff can finish,” said Pierson who wanted didn’t want it to come back next year or 2-years from now.
City Manager Tim Ogden shared next month they would have to come back with a contract amendment for the new design, noise study, traffic study. He said the work behind that is 2-3 months behind that which would be the quickest (August/September).
Oerlemans asked for clarification of which option they were moving forward with. It was stated Option B-modified. However, Pierson said she was looking at creating their own option. Meyer said this direction was closer to Option B.
The council then entered more discussion regarding number of parking spaces, location of stage, sound impacts and other tidbits around the facility—along with the budget.
“If we are going to go with Option B price wise, we are going to end up with a very small 200-seat amphitheater that is not going to get used,” said Oerlemans.
Mendoza said they would be spending $9 million.
After more back-and-forth debating Options B and C and the differences in cost, size and money, the council again debated Option D.
“I am now frustrated, I don’t like any of them,” said Pierson. “Looking at this, I am definitely not okay with Option C. I don’t want a trailhead. I would prefer to see nothing for the next 25-years.”
Pierson also said she did not like Option B and was not sold on it but preferred a stage verses amphitheater to allow more people to use it and more seating but added they still needed to do the studies.
“I don’t have enough information here to make a decision,” said Pierson.
The council again debated direction to staff for next steps while admitting this had been debated since 2004.
“I agree we need to move forward and get something done but I disagree with a 250 seat amphitheater at a cost of $9 million. Plan B with these changes isn’t going to change that number significantly for me,” explained Oerlemans. “Right now, this would be a no for me.”
Pierson then asked Oerlemans what he would support.
He replied, Option D with the modifications of C.
“I would rather lets build this amphitheater and we will figure out how to pay for it and we will work on that, or lets go back to looking at Food Truck Pavilion the seating areas for everybody maybe bringing everybody from city park up to there, maybe a farmers market and there is $5 million left over from the current budget that we can decide to use that towards a larger amphitheater or other places in the city in need of some things,” said Oerlemans.
Pierson interjected saying that was no different than what she showed in the pictures and what she had explained. She didn’t want a small amphitheater and that is why she drew an Option D.
“I would love to have a conversation with you guys about how we can do something totally different but moving towards something in the future about an amphitheater,” explained Pierson.
Pierson also hopes the Option D plan would be less than the proposed $9 million in budget.
A motion was made for a budget of $3.5 million to $4 million with Option D.
- Research available of existing Public Art Funds for Amphitheater/performing arts purpose or amend public art ordinance
- Work with consultant on development new concept within current available project budget for Option C ($3.5-$4 million)
- Stage in upper area in location that is sensitive to noise impacts
- Removal of wedding pavilion
- Lights to allow use of facility at night
- Area for food trucks to come and go
- Possibility of use by operations such as farmers market when not in use for performances
- Analysis of impacts of noise and light of sitting performance area at top of site
- seating for facility users
- evaluation of ADA considerations for both upper phase and lower phase
- Break down cost by phase and amenity (similar to Sand Creek Sports Complex)
- Preserving lower area for development of full amphitheater in the future as funds allow
- Removal of art pieces and repurposing of funds for performance arts
- Accept public comment in the course of next city council meeting at which this is considered
- Attempt to get parking to 150 spaces (dedicated/gravel).
- Council to reassess after evaluation this new concept.
Approved in 5-0 vote.
Documents
Previous Stories: