Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rose Center topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Westminster council moves forward on Rose Center RFP after district pitches purchase and Friends warn against RFP
Summary
After public comment and a Theater DNA presentation, council signaled consensus to proceed with a structured request-for-proposals (RFP) for the Westminster Rose Center; the Westminster School District proposed acquiring the facility and leasing days back to the city, while the current operator said it has saved the city significant operating costs.
The Westminster City Council agreed at a Feb. 11 study session to direct staff to continue drafting a request for proposals to identify an operator for the Rose Center, following a presentation by consultant Theater DNA and extended public comment.
Theater DNA presented the results of interviews with the mayor and council, distilled three key goals — preserve existing programming, increase usage across diverse groups, and create an operating model that covers utilities and maintenance — and outlined an aggressive RFP timeline: a draft to staff next month, 30 days for city review, a 45-day bidding window (including an on-site walkthrough), 21 days for interviews and ranking, and about 30 days to negotiate a contract.
Westminster School District representatives urged the council to consider a district-led acquisition. David Johnson, a district trustee, said the district could use proceeds from earlier property transactions to "bring $16,000,000 back from LA into this city" and return the Rose Center to public use, with the district giving the city use of the facility on specific days spelled out in a purchase agreement. Terry Tao, legal counsel for the district, cautioned that a direct transfer would require compliance with state surplus-land rules and Field Act upgrades and that engineering and ADA/fire modifications would need to be identified.
Friends of the Rose Center, the community nonprofit that has operated the theater, urged the council to preserve their role. Tim Nelson said Friends prepaid $5,000 per month for six months and have historically covered roughly $400,000 annually in operational costs, a figure he said saved the city more than $8,000,000 over the site's operational history. He also told the council that Friends already have funded theatrical lighting and sound equipment included in the city's proposed upgrades.
Not all public comment supported an RFP. Michael Verengia questioned spending another $30,000 on an RFP and warned of the risk of a "back-room" deal; Terry Raines delivered an extended, profanity-laced critique of the mayor and officials and demanded a long-term contract for the Friends instead of an RFP.
Council members asked consultants and staff detailed questions about capital costs (the staff report referenced an approximately $2.8 million upgrade package including a $1 million roof repair), who would pay for improvements, and how benchmarks to other venues informed Theater DNA's recommendations. Theater DNA said benchmarking showed event/ballroom programming lagged while theater utilization could be improved and that the RFP could be written to allow the school district or other parties to propose as operators.
Because the meeting was a study session, council did not take formal action but staff reported they had received sufficient direction to continue RFP work under the existing Theater DNA contract. Several council members voiced support for moving forward with the RFP as drafted and asked staff to return with the draft for formal review and release procedures.
The next procedural step described to council was staff review of the draft RFP, public posting and a 45-day response period with site walkthroughs, followed by interviews and a council award at a future meeting.
