Download July 23, 2010 Jeff Wright and Ron Sevart Space

July 23, 2010
Jeff Wright and Ron Sevart
Space Needle Inc.
203 6th Ave. N.
Seattle, WA 98109-5005
Re: Fun Forest South RFP – Space Needle/Chihuly Proposal
Dear Jeff and Ron:
Once again, I want to thank you for the time and energy you’ve put into your proposal for
development of the 1.6 acre South Fun Forest property at Seattle Center.
We received your response to the RFP and had a chance to review it closely. In this
correspondence we are asking you for clarifications on how your proposal responds to some or
all of the criteria listed in the RFP.
As underlying questions, the RFP made it clear that “Proposers are expected to fully fund all
capital and operating costs of their Proposal. No City funding is available for redevelopment of
the site.” The RFP sought proposals that paid rent or were “revenue neutral Proposals which
provide measurable public benefits in lieu of rent, but do not result in net cost or expense for
Seattle Center or the City”. The RFP further stated, “For this RFP, “revenue neutral” means that
the Proposal will cover Proposal-related Seattle Center operating expense and will not have a
net negative budget impact”.
As a result, only those proposals that are able to document clearly and with supporting data how
they will be revenue neutral to Seattle Center, both in capital and ongoing maintenance and
operations costs, can be considered to have met the minimum requirement for responsiveness.
Additionally, a key element in our evaluation is the ability of proposers to demonstrate clearly
their organizational readiness to raise necessary capital financing, design, construct, and open
its project to the public by April, 2012 in time for the 50th Anniversary of the 1962 World’s Fair.
This was also stated in the RFP, “public use of the site…must resume no later than April, 2012”.
In your response to this letter please first clearly address these two issues by responding to the
questions we raise in the first section. If you are able to meet these criteria, then please
proceed to the additional list of questions specific to your individual proposal. You will see that
we ask a series of questions around the evaluation criteria. A number of these questions came
from the public, either through correspondence or at the Community Meeting on July 7, 2010.
We also heard interest at the Community Meeting in possible mixing and matching of multiple
proposals so some of our questions may explore those possibilities. Any additional information
or thoughts you can provide will be of great assistance to our ongoing evaluation.
Answers to these questions are due to Neal Erickson at Seattle Center, Room 109, 305
Harrison St., Seattle, WA 98109, no later than 5:00 p.m. Monday, August 9. We would prefer
email responses to [email protected]. If you deliver hard copy, please include an
electronic version as well. Any responses received later cannot be considered. The review
panel will work through August to review your responses and make a recommendation to
Seattle Center Director Robert Nellams.
Thank you for your commitment to Seattle Center.
Sincerely,
Bill Block, Chair
RFP Review Panel
INITIAL QUESTIONS FOR ALL PROPOSERS
A. Unless you believe that your proposal has already met this criterion, please provide
data to demonstrate that your project will be revenue neutral in construction and in
operation. If you are relying on projected new ancillary revenue to Seattle Center,
can you provide empirical data, such as your organization’s history in obtaining
funding, comparable sites or other market studies showing the amount of such
ancillary revenue that will be created? Please include all assumptions used in
revenue creation and data that supports these assumptions as achievable.
B. Unless you believe that your proposal has already met this criterion, please provide
information such as prior history, firm commitments or similar evidence to
demonstrate that your project will be able to raise necessary capital financing and
design, construct and open the project to the public by April, 2012, in time for the
50th Anniversary of the 1962 World’s Fair. If your proposal includes or relies on
phased implementation, please define the portion of your project that you realistically
see as completed to meet this deadline.
2
Questions for Space Needle LLC:
RFP Criteria:
Below is the evaluation criteria listed in the RFP. Please note that the additional
questions relate to specific criteria as identified.
A. Compatibility with and contribution to the Seattle Center vision, existing facilities, and
the unique mix of programs, attractions and open spaces at Seattle Center.
B. Compatibility with the Century 21 Master Plan.
C. The proposer’s ability to create and operate a high quality experience for patrons
D. Proposer’s financial condition
E. Proposed financial return to the City
F. Anticipated benefit to the public
G. Proposer’s initial and ongoing investment in the site and future services
H. The Proposal’s impact on future Seattle Center capital expenditures or increased net
operating costs
I. How the proposer expects to partner with Seattle Center to achieve the Seattle
Center vision
Criteria C, D, E, G, H: Financial information/Organization structure and capacity:
1. Your proposal states that Site C is essential to the financial sustainability of this
project, but identifies it as “independently operated from the Chihuly Exhibit.” What
are the effects on your proposal of phased implementation of your project, with Site
C becoming available in the 4th quarter of 2012?
Criteria A, F I: Adding to the unique mix of Seattle Center/Program
2. In your "marketing" description you suggest your annual attendance will be 400,000.
Are these net new visitors or are they people who would have otherwise come to
Seattle Center or the Space Needle? What data can you point to that supports this
number? Can you quantify who these users will be: local vs. tourist; reduced/free
admission vs. full payment; age and income demographic? How does this affect or
improve the current demographic make-up of visitors to Seattle Center?
3. What will your program include that will entice repeat visits from the local population
vs. one-time visits from tourists?
4. What will your program include that will allow low income, students and seniors to
attend? Would you consider participation in First Thursday or other regular free
opportunities?
5. A theme of Seattle Center has always been inclusiveness and a welcoming of
diverse participants. The public meeting demonstrated concern among certain
participants about the effect on this aspect of Seattle Center from an exhibit devoted
to a single person. How would you answer this concern?
6. What opportunities exist in the program for artists other than Chihuly to exhibit their
work and where would they be located? How often do you anticipate including other
artists and how would they be chosen?
3
7. Please provide more information about your proposed catering program and who the
intended clients are for this -- conventions, cruise ships, local residents? Do you
have any plans to make these facilities available to local non-profit groups for free or
reduced rent?
8. Please provide any additional data you may have on your partnership and
programming with Seattle Public Schools.
9. Your proposal includes two schedules. For the 2012 schedule, please outline a
strategy to meet the target opening if your construction start-up activities need to be
concurrent with the Fun Forest move-out during the month of September in 2011.
10. What effect would your proposal have on Tacoma’s Museum of Glass? Do you
foresee any conflicts or competition for either contributed or earned revenue with this
venue? How is your program and funding differentiated from this organization?
Criteria B, I: Compatibility with Century 21/Design:
10. How could you provide access to the art garden, both visually and physically for
Seattle Center visitors who do not pay your attendance fee? How visually
permeable is the site fencing and how can it create connections to the Seattle
Center campus rather than separate art garden and exhibit from the rest of Seattle
Center?
11. Given that you intend to retain the arcade pavilion, how does your design provide
visual access to Seattle Center landmarks such as Center House from the south and
the Pacific Science Center from the north?
12. While not specific to this RFP, have you considered any other sites in Seattle
Center? Do you believe that another redevelopment site, if available, would also fit
your program, and if so, what is that site?"
4