Item 3: LGBTQIA+ Cultural Center Feasibility Study Final Report — original pdf

Backup

Austin LGBTQIA+ Cultural Center Feasibility Study Final Report June 2026 Acknowledgements Thank you to LGBTQIA+ Cultural Center Task Force members for dedicating your time to support this initiative. 1 Task Force Members  Awais Azhar  Juan Benitez  David Colligan  Laura Esparza  Mallory Hart  Travis Holler  Micah King  Kelle’ Martin  Mia Diya-Bernhard  Lesley Varghese  Brandon Wallerson  Syd Young Support  Shafina Khaki, City of Austin, Executive Liaison  Christine Maguire, City of Austin  Kit Johnson, City of Austin  KC Coyne, LGBTQ Quality of Life Commission  Ryan Sperling, City of Austin, Staff Liaison Hayat Brown Team  Mark Gilbert, Hayat Brown  Brian Carlson, McKinney York Architects  Laura Caicedo, Hayat Brown  Sarah Esserlieu Khalil, Hayat Brown 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary Background Data Gathering and Benchmarking Needs Assessment and Space Program Site Evaluation Criteria Site Evaluations Ownership and Management Structures Development and Acquisition Structures Funding Options Recommendations Appendices 3 13 22 38 50 53 67 72 81 89 96 Executive Summary 4 Executive Summary Background For nearly a decade, community advocates and the LGBTQIA+ Quality of Life Commission have worked to make an LGBTQIA+ Cultural Center a reality in Austin—one of the largest cities in the United States without a dedicated space of this kind. In August 2024, Austin City Council passed Resolution 20240814-022 directing the City Manager to launch a feasibility study to identify potential sites, funding strategies, and a development timeline for the center. To help shape this work, the LGBTQIA+ Quality of Life Commission recommended the creation of a 12-member Task Force to provide guidance, community input, and strategic direction throughout the study process. As part of the FY2025 budget process, the City of Austin appropriated $180,000 to support the feasibility study and subsequently selected the Hayat Brown Team to lead this effort in partnership with the LGBTQIA+ Cultural Center Task Force. Executive Summary Process The Hayat Brown Team embarked on a 12-month, Task Force-driven effort to refine facility needs and identify a path to project feasibility. Together, stakeholders reviewed benchmark facilities and case studies to understand commonalities, trends, and key features of similar cultural centers. They used these insights to inform a recommended space program, site evaluation criteria, and to define ownership, acquisition, and funding options. 5 Background Data Gathering and Benchmarking Needs Assessment and Space Programming Site Evaluation Criteria Site Evaluations Ownership and Management Structures Development and Acquisition Structures Funding Options Recommendations Executive Summary Space Program The Task Force recommended a space program for the future Center consisting of a core program and subordinate program components separated into priority B, C, and D spaces. 6 The Core Program highlights the essential features and functions of the future Cultural Center. It focuses on large, flexible spaces including a multi-purpose room and lobby, with administrative and building support services, requiring a minimum of approximately 4,000-7,500 net usable square feet. Executive Summary Space Program The B, C, and D priority spaces include other desirable spaces to be included as space and budgets permit. Priority B Spaces Highly desirable Priority C&D Spaces Nice to have, lower priority 7 • Drop-in/lounge space • Additional meeting rooms • Administrative offices • Kitchen/café • Food pantry • Gym • Clothing closet • Healthcare services/offices • Pharmacy • Exhibit space • Classrooms • Community retail • Coworking • Affordable housing Inclusion of Priority B spaces could increase net usable square footage by another 4,000 square feet. Space needs to accommodate Priority C&D spaces varies widely based on use and configuration and could increase space demand significantly. 8 Executive Summary Space Program Composite Space Program Diagram Core Program Priority B Spaces Priority C Spaces Priority D Spaces 9 Executive Summary Site Analyses • • • • • • • • The Task Force approved a 13-point weighted scoring matrix as Evaluation Criteria to assess the feasibility of potential sites and facilities to support a future Center. The space program and Evaluation Criteria were provided to City staff to select potentially viable sites in the municipal real estate portfolio. The City provided two sites: the Guadalupe Fire Station in Central Austin and the historic Municipal Building on W 8th Street in downtown. An additional non-profit site, the ASHwell Clinic on Red River Street, was assessed at the offering of the organization. All three sites were deemed viable, with the historic Municipal Building (1st floor only) scoring highest, though many Task Force members also indicated a preference for Guadalupe Fire Station. The Hayat Brown Team and Task Force reached out to other public partners, including Central Health, Travis County, and Austin ISD, to request potentially viable sites. Partners indicated support of the effort, but no facilities were identified for immediate consideration. The Hayat Brown Team also provided a sample of privately-owned sites as of December 2025. Findings indicate that most existing facilities would require at least $2-5 million budget for requisite renovations plus furniture, fixtures, and equipment (FF&E), in addition to acquisition costs, if any. If no-cost space is unavailable, privately listed sites suggest a minimum acquisition budget of at least $3-7 million, plus requisite renovation costs. 10 Executive Summary Ownership, Management, Acquisition, and Funding • While there are several possible ownership and management structures for the future Center, a non-profit (501c3) organization-run Center is likely the most viable and sustainable mechanism. In the absence of an existing organization taking ownership of the future Center, an existing organization should “incubate” a new organization through a fiscal sponsorship model. • • • A municipally-run Center is feasible but would require significant long-term City budgetary support and have more limited fundraising allowances, sponsorship opportunities, and autonomy. Centers around the nation operate in both owned and leased spaces, but ownership is preferred to maximize long-term stability and reduce real estate market pressures. Leasing is still viable, especially with key tenant protection provisions and agreements in place. Similar centers require diverse funding sources that depend on philanthropic donors, including individuals and corporate sponsors (healthcare, education, retail). Federal, state, and municipal support are also a common funding sources. Funding the future Center in Austin will similarly require multiple sources and robust, organized fundraising with a wide variety of entities (e.g. national non-profits, hospitals, banks, hotels, airlines, grocers, alcohol producers, telecom, philanthropists). 11 Executive Summary Challenges and Opportunities Capital Costs Operations & Maintenance Costs Operation and Management Challenges Opportunities All sites, whether privately or publicly owned, will require upfront capital for acquisition and/or renovation plus FF&E in the range of $2 to $5 million. If acquisition is required, another $3 to $7 million is anticipated. New construction would result in even higher costs. While cultural centers may generate some revenue from space rentals, events, and special programs, they require ongoing subsidies to cover their operational and programming expenses. Extensive support may be required, especially in the first two to three years of operations, until fundraising and philanthropic efforts can sustain more activities. There is currently no identified organization to operate a future Center. If no existing entity takes on this role, a new organization or subsidiary will need support and capacity- building to take on administrative, operational, and fundraising activities on behalf of the future center. The three initial site analyses show potential to deliver the core space program for reasonable upfront costs (no acquisition), but these sites are not necessarily available. If City-owned space is made available for the Center, there is potential to deliver the facility with a more modest renovation and FF&E budget. Fundraising for more extensive capital improvements could occur in future years. Partnership and funding opportunities include leveraging the City’s place- based enhancement program and/or Housing Development Assistance Program to help subsidize private mixed-use developments that may accommodate the LGBTQIA+ Cultural Center as part of a new construction or renovation project. There may be opportunities to work with existing non-profit and quasi- governmental entities to incubate a nascent non-profit organization. This assumes a location is identified and committed, the missions are aligned, and the organization meets IRS and accounting practices. Autonomy & Longevity Leasing a facility may offer a viable cultural center space, but ensuring public access and operational autonomy is a Task Force priority and a potential challenge that would require thoughtful negotiations and agreements. Purchasing (or ground leasing) an existing facility would ensure long-term business continuity in the face of potential real estate market value increases and redevelopment pressures. Recommendations Realizing the new LGBTQIA+ Cultural Center will require coordinated advocacy and capacity building. 12 Implementation Governance Funding Physical Space Identify City liaison Existing non-profit outreach Request planning funds Request City space Short Term Identify project champions Medium Term Establish a project plan City & commission collaboration Long Term Identify optimal management structure Craft staff and programming strategy Hire dedicated staff Develop business plan Develop marketing plan Identify capital improvement funds Identify long-term operating funds Request notice of City space availability Continue outreach to entities with space Recognize phased growth opportunities Assess growth potential and space needs Background 14 Background Path to feasibility study The City of Austin established the LGBTQ Quality of Life (LGBTQQL) Commission in June 2017 to give a voice in local government to underrepresented community members. The Commission launched a Quality of Life study in February 2019 to gather data and to identify needs in the community. The study found that the most prominent recommendation was to build a LGBTQIA+ Cultural Center. The LGBTQQL Commission met in 2022-2023 to begin planning the Center. Two townhall meetings were held in 2024 and 2025 to gather community feedback on amenities, services, and programming. In August 2024, City Council passed Resolution 20240814-022 directing the City Manager to conduct a feasibility study to determine potential properties that can host a center, considering accessibility, location, and capacity to meet community needs. To help shape this work, the LGBTQQL Commission recommended the creation of a 12-member Task Force in 2025 to provide guidance, community input, and strategic direction throughout the study process. Once the Task Force completes their work, they are to report back to the LGBTQQL Commission and City Council with findings and recommendations including potential sites, funding strategies, and a development timeline. The City of Austin appropriated $180,000 through the FY2025 budget process and later hired Hayat Brown, supported by McKinney York Architects, to conduct this feasibility study. The Task Force began meeting in July 2025, guiding the various components of the feasibility study with the Hayat Brown Team. Timeline to the Feasibility Study LGBTQ Quality of Life Commission 15 JUNE 2017 LGBTQIA+ Quality of Life Commission established and charged with advising the city on matters impacting the community AUGUST 2021 Quality of Life Study published with a report that strongly recommended the construction of a Cultural Center NOVEMBER 2023 Working Group formed with the task of coordinating, planning, and building the Cultural Center JULY 2024 Commission passed recommendation to Council to conduct a feasibility study for the LGBTQ+ Cultural Center, focusing on location, community needs, and economic impact MARCH 2025 Second town hall to gather community input on priorities for the LGBTQIA+ center and provide a status update on current progress FEBRUARY 2019 Quality of Life Study launched, aimed at gathering demographic data and performing an analysis to identify needs within the community 2022 Commission meeting to analyze the Quality of Life Study report and develop a strategic plan APRIL 2024 First town hall meeting to gather community input on amenities, services, and preferences AUGUST 2024 City Council passed resolution and appropriated funding to conduct a feasibility study on the development of a cultural center, focusing on potential sites, funding, and timeline. JUNE 2025 LGBTQIA+ Cultural Center Task Force established to guide the feasibility study, supporting the process over a 12-month period Nearly a decade of political organization, research, and advocacy resulted in the commissioning of this feasibility study to identify viable pathways toward realizing Austin’s first LGBTQIA+ Cultural Center. LGBTQ Quality of Life Commission 16 The City of Austin established the LGBTQ Quality of Life Commission in June 2017 to give a voice in local government to underrepresented community members. Mission Statement and Founding Principles Mission Build sustainable, scalable LGBTQ+ advocacy models from Austin’s innovation ecosystem. Approach Impact Community Initial Goals Trauma-informed, intersectional, and economically grounded strategies that acknowledge the inherent diversity within the LGBTQ+ community and reject a "one-size-fits-all" methodology. Reduce long-term social costs, grow social capital, and boost economic resilience. Empower LGBTQ+ voices and use evidence-based, rapid feedback improvements. • Prioritize most vulnerable groups • Launch targeted mental health and employment initiatives • Track and adapt programs through rapid feedback loops. 2021 LGBTQIA+ Quality of Life Study Cultural Center Recommendations Commissioned in 2019 and published in 2021, the LGBTQIA+ Quality of Life Study identified a new community center as critical to the community’s well-being. 17 • • • • Acknowledged necessity of an LGBTQIA+ Community Center for resources, support, advocacy, & cultural enrichment. Found need for more safe spaces in Austin. Emphasized need for spaces that support healthy social activities and support the needs of diverse subpopulations including seniors, persons in recovery, ethnic minorities, and all gender identities. One of just 7 key recommendations was “invest in the establishment of an LGBTQIA+ community center.” Town Halls – 2024 & 2025 Community Priorities for Future Cultural Center The LGBTQQL Commission received feedback from public events in 2024-25 related to a future center. 18 • • • • • Location Matters – Desire for transit-accessible, central or east-side site, guided by demographic data and anti- displacement goals. Comprehensive Facilities – Interest in multipurpose rooms, health clinic, gym, childcare, library, kitchen, laundry, and green space. Robust Services – Demand for health care (including HIV/STD testing and mental health), gender-affirming care, housing support, and job training. Culture & Community – Strong call for arts and cultural programming, youth and family activities, non-bar social events, and intergenerational engagement. Inclusive Values – Must be safe, welcoming, accessible beyond ADA standards, and rooted in queer culture with strong community ownership. Town Halls – 2024 & 2025 Community Priorities for Future Cultural Center The LGBTQQL Commission received feedback from public events in 2024-25 related to a future center. 19 • • • • • Arts & Culture- Art shows, theater, drag, dance, music; LGBTQIA+ artist markets and exhibitions. Community & Connection- Mixers, dinners, sober and intergenerational events; clothing swaps, community meals, gardens. Learning & Wellness- Workshops, skill clinics, library spaces, book clubs; yoga, grief groups, sexual health education, mental health support. Recreation & Advocacy- Inclusive sports leagues (volleyball), fitness events, board games; support for transgender and grief groups, political organizing. Impact- Safe, substance-free “third space” outside bar scene; hub for healthcare, housing, job support; cultural recognition and potential LGBTQIA+ district. Feasibility Study Timeline LGBTQIA+ Cultural Center Feasibility Study 20 The City of Austin hired the Hayat Brown Team in 2025 to support the LGBTQIA+ Cultural Center Feasibility Study. The Team gathered and incorporated feedback from the LGBTQIA+ Cultural Center Task Force from July 2025 to June 2026. This final report incorporates that feedback as described in more depth in the following slides. Project Kickoff Overview of Cultural Center Work-to-Date and Peer Cities Report Draft Space Programming and Task Force Survey Finalize Space Program and Evaluation Criteria Request for City Sites to Evaluate Assess Two City Sites and Identify Other Public and Private Opportunities Follow-up on City Site Conditions and Partnership Opportunities Review Transaction Structures, Agreement Terms, Funding Sources, and Organizational Structures Review and Finalize Report July 2025 September 2025 October 2025 November 2025 December 2025 February 2026 March 2026 April 2026 June 2026 Major Study Tasks • • Data gathering and benchmarking Needs assessment and space programming • • Site evaluation criteria and site analysis Funding and implementation strategy Task Force Guidance Guidance, Input, and Direction from LGBTQIA+ Cultural Center Task Force Activity Case Studies (Appendix) Benchmarking Analysis Task Force Guidance • • • Identification of preferred examples meriting thorough assessment of history, capital funding sources, O&M funding, and ownership/management structures Identification of programs and spaces relevant to an Austin LGBTQIA+ Cultural Center Identification of outdated features and burgeoning needs Needs Assessment & Space Program • Consensus that input and direction to date is sufficient to inform needs assessment • Confirmation of key space needs (i.e., social gatherings, community meeting spaces) • Votes on adjectives/descriptors to inform future building design and priority spaces and square footage allocations • Review and approval of final space program Evaluation Criteria • Review, input, and edits to site selection criteria and weighting methodology Site Analyses • Review of three evaluated sites, other public opportunities, and private market opportunities • Feedback on opportunities and challenges of each site Ownership & Management Structures Acquisition Structures Funding Options • Request to identify organizational structures that could support Center, including pros and cons of each option • Request to focus on leasing protections and clauses to safeguard Center interests and longevity • Guidance to prioritize speed to delivery • • • Feedback on viability of federal funding (304b program) from experienced Task Force members Feedback on desired role for the City of Austin Feedback on current conditions and issues attracting philanthropic support and donors 21 Venue or Method Task Force Meeting #1 Task Force Meeting #2 Task Force Meeting #2 Task Force Meeting #3 Space Prioritization Survey Shared document feedback Task Force Meeting #4 Survey, Document feedback Task Force Meeting #5 Task Force Meeting #5 Task Force Meeting #6 Task Force Meeting #5 Task Force Meeting #6 Task Force Meeting #6 Recommendations • Reviewed draft language and approved final language Final Report review & edits Finalization • Final meeting to discuss options with City staff and plan future efforts to realize the vision. Task Force Meeting #7 Data Gathering and Benchmarking Asset Map Key LGBTQIA+ serving health, wellness, counseling, and support service locations 23 2 3 1 5 6 4 7 8 9 Services are concentrated in central neighborhoods. # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Facility Services Out Youth Youth programming, counseling, support Vivent Health Healthcare, HIV care support, basic needs, navigation Kind Clinic (north) Health services, testing Kind Clinic (south) Health services, testing AshWell Clinic Health services Austin Sexual Health Clinic Health services, testing OutWellness Fitness, physical therapy Allgo Austin Iris Gardens Art, wellness, capacity building, & support services centered on queer people of color LGBT+ oriented senior affordable housing (opening 2027) Note: Asset Map does not include general public & non-profit support centers, food pantries, clothing closets, rent/utility/housing assistance locations, emergency shelters, neighborhood community centers, LGBTQ sport league practice/game locations, legal aid clinics, workforce training, mental health facilities, LGBT-friendly medical centers, counseling centers, virtual support/advocacy groups, LGBTQ-oriented bars, or other LGBTQ-owned establishments. 24 Benchmarking Analysis Peer Research The Team engaged in an extensive review of 42 facilities across the United States including some international facilities to benchmark this proposed facility against other peer cultural centers. Benchmarking data included the community's population size, physical attributes of the centers’ facilities, financial considerations, services, amenities, and other noteworthy elements of the centers where data was available. Key Findings: • • • • • Population: Austin is smaller than approximately two-thirds of the communities assessed. Ownership: Many peer centers own their buildings and have moved since first opening. Building: Facilities total a median of 13,000 square feet and are generally in older facilities that are freestanding. The median cost of these facilities was $3.9M for acquisition and renovation, funded predominantly through capital campaigns. Revenue and Funding: Median annual revenue is $2.3M, supported by philanthropy from individuals and corporations, as well as funding from government entities. Many centers struggle with funding and report having recently lost federal funding. Programs and services provide less than 10% of revenue. Expenses: Salaries comprise 40-80% of expenses where centers have full-time staff. Fundraising is another primary expense while the remaining expenses go towards programming and service delivery. Prior Findings LGBTQ Community Centers serve as vital anchors for local communities In October 2024, non-profit organization Centerlink published the LGBTQ Community Center Survey Report outlining findings from LGBTQ community and cultural centers across the United States. Highlights from that study informed the consultant team's data gathering and benchmarking and are identified on this and the next slide. 25 • Scope: 199 centers in 42 states, DC, and Puerto Rico; 66% have budgets over $250K. • Reach: Serve 58,700 people weekly (3M+ annually) and refer 14,800 weekly to other providers. • Communities Served: Many are low-income (64%), people of color (36%), transgender (29%), youth under 18 (26%), or rural residents (20%). • Programs: Social, recreational, arts, cultural, educational, and legal services (offered by 83–97% of centers). • Health & Wellness: 66% provide direct mental health, physical health, or anti-violence services; 95% when including referrals. • Language: Nearly half offer multilingual services, with Spanish and ASL most common. Source: 2024 LGBTQ Community Center Survey Report, Oct 2024 Prior Findings LGBTQ centers are vital hubs providing services, advocacy, and safe spaces amid rising needs and challenges Strengths and Gaps • Economic Impact: 3,100 paid staff and 11,600 volunteers contributed 421,000 hours in 2023. • Funding: Combined budgets exceed $366M; large centers rely more on government grants, small centers on individual contributions. • Facilities: 87% have dedicated physical space, averaging 35 open hours/week; most meet basic accessibility standards. • Advocacy: 92% engage in civic engagement; 34% prioritize transgender rights amid hostile legislative climates. 26 Challenges • Rising threats: 73% of centers report anti-LGBTQ harassment (online and offline). • Limited staffing and funding constrain programming, advocacy, and security. • Administrative burdens for grant applications/reporting. Opportunities • Increase investment in staff capacity, safety measures, and sustainable funding. • Expand multilingual and culturally competent services. • Strengthen advocacy and community partnerships to counter political attacks. Source: 2024 LGBTQ Community Center Survey Report, Oct 2024 Benchmarking Analysis Map of Assessed Peer Cultural Centers 27 Berkeley, CA San Francisco, CA San Jose, CA Los Angeles, CA Long Beach, CA Santa Ana, CA San Diego, CA International Toronto, Canada Montreal, Canada Sydney, Australia Melbourne, Australia Bold indicates a case study center. Case studies can be found in the appendices (Appendix 1). United States Boston, MA Kingston, NY New York, NY Allentown, PA Philadelphia, PA Baltimore, MD Washington, DC Raleigh, NC Orlando, FL Lake Worth Beach, FL Wilton Manors, FL Ferndale, MI Grand Rapids, MI Milwaukee, WI Chicago, IL Cleveland, OH Columbus, OH Dayton, OH Springfield, MO Dallas, TX Houston, TX San Antonio, TX Denver, CO Salt Lake City, UT Las Vegas, NV Seattle, WA Portland, OR Benchmarking Analysis Peer Cultural Centers As both a city and region, Austin ranks smaller than about two-thirds of the centers that were assessed, though 13 LGBTQ+ centers were in smaller metro areas. 28 Population s n o i l l i M 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 H O , n o t y a D Y N , n o t s g n K i O M , l d e i f g n i r p S A P , n w o t n e l l A C N , i h g e a R l A C , e s o J n a S I , W e e k u a w l i M I M , i s d p a R d n a r G T U , y t i C e k a L t l a S H O , l d n a e v e C l H O , s u b m u o C l A C , o t n e m a r c a S X T , n i t s u A R O , d n a l t r o P D M , e r o m i t l a B V N , s a g e V s a L X T , i o n o t n A n a S L F , o d n a l r O O C , r e v n e D A W , e l t t a e S A C , a n A a t n a S A C , i o g e D n a S I M , l e a d n r e F a d a n a C , l a e r t n o M A C A C , l y e e k r e B , i o c s c n a r F n a S A M , n o t s o B Metro Population City Population , … e n r u o b e M l a i l a r t s u A , y e n d y S C D A P L F , n o t g n h s a W i , i a h p e d a l l i h P , s r o n a M n o t l i W X T , s a l l a D X T , n o t s u o H … h t r o W e k a L a d a n a C , o t n o r o T L I , o g a c h C i A C , h c a e B g n o L A C , l s e e g n A s o L Y N , k r o Y w e N Benchmarking Analysis Peer Cultural Centers Facility Opening Dates 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Cluster of openings in 1970s-80s New surge in mid- 2010s 29 Key Takeaways • Broad spectrum of center opening dates between the 1970s and today. • Many facilities have relocated into new facilities since first opening. • Reports indicate most centers rent their facilities, but many of the peer centers in this study own their buildings through an affiliate non-profit LLC. Benchmarking Analysis Peer Cultural Centers Facility Size by Location ) s d n a s u o h T ( e g a t o o F e r a u q S 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Median: 13,000 SF I , W e e k u a w l i M C N , i h g e a R l X T , i o n o t n A n a S D M , e r o m i t l a B O M , l d e i f g n i r p S A C , a n A a t n a S T U , y t i C e k a L t l a S I M , i s d p a R d n a r G H O , n o t y a D a d a n a C , l a e r t n o M A C , l y e e k r e B R O , d n a l t r o P C D , n o t g n h s a W i Y N , n o t s g n K i A W , e l t t a e S A C , h c a e B g n o L a i l a r t s u A , y e n d y S , A M n o t s o B A C , e s o J n a S H O , s u b m u o C l A P , n w o t n e l l A A C , o t n e m a r c a S O C , r e v n e D L F L F , o d n a l r O , h c a e B h t r o W e k a L A C , i o g e D n a S H O , l d n a e v e C l V N , s a g e V s a L C R A A - X T , n i t s u A X T , s a l l a D I M , l e a d n r e F a d a n a C , o t n o r o T A P , i a h p e d a l l i h P Y N , k r o Y w e N L F , s r o n a M n o t l i W X T , n i t s u A C C A M - X T , n o t s u o H A C , i o c s c n a r F n a S X T , n i t s u A - r e v r a C a i l a r t s u A , e n r u o b e M l 30 Key Takeaways • Median size of 13,000 SF. • Mean size of 21,700 SF (due to Chicago outlier at 100K SF and Los Angeles outlier at 180k SF). • • Predominantly older buildings with ground floor access; many are freestanding facilities. Affiliated uses often located off-site and not necessarily proximate (youth shelter, senior supportive housing, etc.). L I , o g a c h C i A C , l s e e g n A s o L Benchmarking Analysis Amenities at Peer Cultural Centers Very Common Somewhat Common Less Common 31 Multipurpose Classrooms Clothing/Food Pantry On-site Pharmacy Meeting Rooms Wellness/Testing Center Full health clinic Library Training Space Theater Staff/Legal/Counseling offices Kitchen/Café Gym/Fitness Center Rentable Event Space Art Gallery Outdoor space Restrooms Lobby Cyber Center Rooftop Terrace Children’s Play Area Coworking Space Film Archives Memorial Space Benchmarking Analysis Programs at Peer Cultural Centers 32 Very Common Somewhat Common Less Common Peer Support Groups Vaccination events Sports/Fitness Classes Crisis Support/Counseling Men’s/Women’s/Trans-specific Programming Gender-affirming care services Youth Programs Book clubs Cooking classes Senior Programs Legal clinics Art classes/therapy Testing/Sexual Health Services Education/Training Immigrant resources Weekly social clubs Food & Clothing Assistance Tax clinic Pride Events Primary Care Services Vendor market events Benchmarking Analysis Facility Acquisition and Renovation Costs for Peer Cultural Centers (Total Size) 33 s n o i l l i M Total Acquisition & Renovation Costs $35 $30 $25 $20 $15 $10 $5 $0 Mean: $11.7M Median: $3.9M Key Takeaways • Acquisition & renovation costs range between $340K-$141M. • Median cost was $3.9M. • Mean cost was $11.7M. • Most facilities opened in existing structures with upgrade needs. • • Capital campaigns for both acquisition and renovation Often subsequent capital campaigns for phased expansions. • Many centers face funding issues, resulting in property loss or downsizing (Philadelphia, Salt Lake, Seattle, Milwaukee). Benchmarking Analysis Facility Acquisition and Renovation Costs for Peer Cultural Centers (Per Square Foot) 34 Acquisition & Renovation Cost Per Square Foot $900 $800 $700 $600 $500 $400 $300 $200 $100 $0 Median: $313 PSF Mean: $289 PSF Key Takeaways • Acquisition & renovation costs per square foot range between $11 and $783. • Median cost per square foot was $313. • Mean cost per square foot was $289. Benchmarking Analysis Annual Revenue for Select Peer Cultural Centers Annual Revenue Sources 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Contributions & Grants Program Services Investment Income Other Revenue Note: Melbourne, Australia, an outlier, earns 38% of its revenue from renting its many gallery, meeting, and coworking spaces. 35 Key Takeaways • Median annual revenue of ~$2.3M. • Mean annual revenue of over $4M. • Programs & Services income generally less than 10%, which includes space rentals. • Majority revenue from contributions and grants, including individuals, corporations, and government entities • Recent loss of federal grants for many centers. Benchmarking Analysis Annual Expenses for Select Peer Cultural Centers Annual Expense Sources 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Salaries & Compensation Other Expenses 36 Key Takeaways • Salaries comprise majority of expenses where centers have full-time staff (40-80%). • Other Expenses include: o Fundraising/development o Community services o Service delivery and programming o Marketing, printing, and materials o Events o Rent/facility expenses o Security 37 Benchmarking Analysis Common Funding Sources Grant Providers, Sponsors, and Donors Examples Federal Government Canada & Australia centers; HUD for shelter/housing programs; HHS for behavioral health services; project earmark (Rahm Emmanuel-Chicago). State Governments State of Pennsylvania, State of California. Local Governments Non-Profits & Foundations (incl. churches) Healthcare Providers & Universities Major Corporations (banks, casinos, hotels, airlines, grocers, alcohol producers, telecom) Individuals Franklin County, Ohio; Community College District (San Diego); Columbus Convention Center; City and County of Los Angeles; City of Sacramento; City of Chicago. United Way (Dallas, Houston, Milwaukee, Toronto), American Online Giving Foundation (San Diego, Boston, Raleigh); Dyson Foundation (Kingston); Mackenzie Scott (Long Beach); Monumental Sports/Entertainment Foundation (DC). Kaiser Permanente (San Diego), Beth Israel (Boston), MHS Health (Milwaukee); Aetna (Sacramento); Viiv Healthcare (Chicago); BlueCross (Dallas); USC, UCLA (Los Angeles); Gilead (several). Las Vegas Sands (Las Vegas); US Bank (San Diego); Wells Fargo, JetBlue, Ketel One, Whole Foods, Seminole Hard Rock (Wilton Manors); JP Morgan (Columbus); KeyBank (Cleveland); HEB (San Antonio, Houston); Tito’s, Sierra Nevada, Accenture, Deloitte, Ford (Sacramento); Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Jean Paul Gaultier (New York); American Airlines (Dallas); Chevron, Haliburton, Southwest Airlines (Houston). $19M from 1 individual in 2022 (San Diego); Michael Kors (New York); Anita Rosenstein-$6M+ (Los Angeles). Needs Assessment and Space Program Needs Assessment Defining Needs 39 Task Force Process Survey & Scenarios The Hayat Brown Team facilitated Task Force discussions across three meetings during Fall 2025 to identify and define desired building programs for the community. Task Force members reviewed and ranked programmatic functions from the Core Program and three potential program focuses: Healthcare, Community, and Service. Priority Categories Priority 1 Core Program Priority 2 Highly desired Priority 3 Beneficial but not essential Other Low priority and not essential Key Findings The Task Force determined that addressing gaps in social infrastructure through programming is the top priority. Future spaces must be highly flexible given uncertainties about resources, funding, and the political environment. Needs Assessment Assessing Space Needs by Focus Area 40 Healthcare Community Service Description Focus Area Funding Opportunities Spaces focused on serving the healthcare needs of the community. 340b federal program Spaces focused on socializing, gathering, and coming together. Space rentals, coworking memberships, etc. Spaces focused on services, support, and counseling to uplift the community. Federal and state grants for public health and low-income resident services. Higher Priority Healthcare clinic Large multipurpose space, library Offices, kitchen, small meeting room Medium Priority Medical offices, gymnasium, shower, and changing facilities outdoor space, flex office, kitchen, dedicated exhibit space, Food pantry, classrooms, drop-in space Lower Priority Pharmacy co-working space, lease/tenant space Clothing closet, off-site housing 41 Final Space Program Finalization Process The Task Force space prioritization survey helped rank the programmatic functions identified across the three proposed focus areas (healthcare, community, and service). • These functions were distilled from prior meetings and stakeholder input to ensure they reflect the needs and aspirations expressed throughout the process. The consultant team used survey results to prioritize functions of the center. • Survey results clarified which spaces are most critical to the center’s mission and how they should be weighted relative to one another. • Following the Task Force meetings, the team allocated square footage for each program based on code requirements and desired function. • The final space program was split into Core Spaces and Priority B, C, and D spaces. The final space program was based on results from a follow-up survey and collaborative refinement. • Typical square footages were assigned to each function based on program type and priority, allowing the consultant team to test how the spaces could be organized within each building option and to evaluate overall fit and feasibility. • Programmatic adjacencies were loosely determined to visualize the possible spatial relationships between programs. 42 Final Space Program Core and Priority B Spaces Space Lobby Administrative Offices (2) Restrooms (inclusive) Break Room Large Multi-Purpose Room SF 500 300 250 150 1200 Storage 150 Medium Multi-Purpose Room (classroom/conference room) 600 Core Spaces Details Sized and designed for events, drop-in space, exhibits, and, ideally, special events. To support organization staff and volunteers. Accommodates staff and visitors. To support organization staff and volunteers. Sized to allow partition into two group spaces and large enough combined for up to 80 people. In support of movable furniture in multi-purpose room(s). Space for peer support groups, counseling, or educational activities. Space Drop-in Space/Lounge Food Pantry Healthcare Outreach Area Additional Offices Library Kitchen/Café Additional Meeting Rooms Total 3,000 Priority B Spaces SF 300 500 600 150 ea 250-1500 650 500 ea Total 2,950-4,200+ Details Unprogrammed space to support community members. Social support for low-income LGBTQIA+ community members. Beneficial, but could take place in large multi-purpose room instead. In support of organizational growth. LGBTQIA+ oriented materials. Could be integrated with lobby or other spaces instead. In support of larger number of counseling and support groups. 43 Final Space Program Priority C and D Spaces Space Healthcare Offices Gym and Showers/Changing Separate Exhibit Space Outdoor Space Flex Office Space Clothing Closet Additional Classrooms Space Pharmacy Coworking Space Tenant/Rental Space Community Retail Off-Site Housing Priority C Spaces SF 150 ea 950 600 500+ 150 ea 750 600 Details To support clinic functions. In support of community well-being and socialization opportunities. To showcase queer Austin and queer history. Recreation and wellness. To support organizational growth and expanded activities. Social support for low-income LGBTQIA+ community members. To support organizational growth and expanded activities. Total 3,700+ SF 900 2500 2500 600 75k+ Other (Priority D) Spaces Details To expand healthcare to the community; leverages 340B federal funding program. Builds community and provides affordable workspace. Revenue generation opportunity. Revenue generation opportunity. Addresses housing affordability; not necessary co-located with cultural center. Total 81,500+ Final Space Program Core Program The Core Program focuses on flexible, multi-purpose spaces, supplemented by critical administrative and building service areas to ensure the space can serve wide variety of activities, functions, and user groups. 44 45 Final Space Program Core Program + Priority B Spaces Priority B spaces supplement the Core Program with additional social and support spaces, such as a kitchen/café, drop- in space or lounge, found pantry, and additional offices and meeting spaces. Core Program Priority B Spaces Final Space Program Core Program + Priority B + Priority C Spaces 46 Priority C spaces include fitness, health, exhibit, educational, and support areas. Core Program Priority B Spaces Priority C Spaces Final Space Program Core Program + Priority B + Priority C + Priority D Spaces 47 Priority D spaces include a pharmacy, community retail, rental space, coworking, and housing. Core Program Priority B Spaces Priority C Spaces Priority D Spaces Future Center Adjectives and Descriptors 48 • • Task Force members supported the following adjectives to describe the future center: • • • • Authentic Cheerful Considerate Energetic • Honest • • Innovative Lively In addition, the Task Force felt that additional descriptors could be used to describe the Center. Those include: Responsive Accessible Thought-provoking Genuine Truthful Sustainable • • • • • • • Warm Clean • Bright • Attentive • Courteous • Professional • Friendly • • Helpful • Welcoming 49 Final Space Program Takeaways • • • • The Task Force prioritized flexibility and multifunctionality for the new center in their affirmation of the Core Program. There was consensus that the Center could harness the creativity of its future supporters, members, and visitors, transforming a “blank palette” space into a well-programmed space for diverse user groups. Spaces were assigned typical square footages to allow for feasibility testing. Any future site or facility opportunity can use this program to examine viability. Early diagrams explored spatial relationships, adjacencies, and scale. Informed by multiple scenarios with different focal points (i.e., community-oriented, health-oriented, service-oriented), these diagrams offer a visual representation of different space types that allowed the Task Force to prioritize functions. Descriptive goals and themes clarified the Task Force’s vision and the future Center’s identity. The chosen adjectives and descriptors can be used to inform future architectural plans and characterize the center as a cultural hub. Site Evaluation Criteria 51 Site Evaluation Criteria Purpose While the Space Program can be used to assess the adequacy and viability of a given space to serve as the future Center, a variety of other factors beyond square footage and adjacencies need to be considered. Evaluation criteria provide objective metrics against which both quantitative and qualitative considerations can be assessed and scored. This can ensure a future site meets crucial community priorities while also allowing for the comparison and ranking of multiple sites by viability. The consultant team synthesized past feedback to develop a draft evaluation criteria matrix that was discussed in Task Force meetings and refined by members. The final matrix includes 13 key criteria with weighted values and descriptions to allow for the rating of any site. The Task Force supported threshold criteria (i.e., must accommodate the full Core Program) as well as critical considerations related to geography, accessibility, cost, building conditions, expandability, security, and both short- term and long-term viability. The resulting final evaluation criteria can serve as a tool throughout the process toward Center development to determine the relative appeal of any site beyond the size requirements identified in the Space Program. Final Site Evaluation Criteria 52 Core Program Accommodation •Site and/or facility can readily accommodate the core program General Accessibility •No barriers to ADA compliance and publicly accessible site/facility Availability Centrally Located Multi-Modal Access •Likelihood of site or facility availability to serve as a new cultural center based on use and ownership structure •Site or facility is located near the center of Austin or in the immediate surrounding area •Site and facility are comfortably and easily accessible by multiple modes, including cars, transit, bikes, and walking Priority B & C Space Accommodation •Site and/or facility can readily accommodate features from Priority B and C space list Expandability Building Quality •Site or facility can be expanded •Condition of the building(s) and renovation requirements Funding Potential •Relative funding potential of the location Cost Securability Tenure Autonomy •Estimated overall cost •Security implications of site and/or facility •Ownership structure allows for long-term use •Center's authority to make decisions without reliance on or direction from other strategic initiatives Site Evaluations Site Evaluations 54 The consultant team shared the final Space Program and Evaluation Criteria with City staff to refine the search process and help identify viable opportunities within the City’s real estate portfolio. After review, City staff identified two sites that best meet the criteria with consideration of size, location, and (potential) availability. The City provided a disclaimer that while the two sites might meet many of the evaluation criteria, neither site is necessarily available for an LGBTQIA+ cultural center, as there are other community stakeholders with interest in both sites. In addition to the two City sites, a non-profit organization, the ASHWell Clinic, reached out the LGBTQQL Commission and Task Force to advertise a potential opportunity at their newly purchased facility on Red River Street. The consultant team and Task Force also reached out to other public partners (Central Health, Travis County, Austin ISD) to inquire about potentially available sites and facilities. Private sites for sale or lease were also assessed in December 2025 to understand market options and facility costs (see Appendix 3). The site evaluation process found that many sites could work given the flexible and relatively small Core Program, but all scenarios require unidentified funding. Low-end acquisition costs range from $3-7M based on listed properties and renovation costs for any facility are estimated at no less than $2-5M. Evaluated Sites Guadalupe Fire Station 3002 Guadalupe St. (1935) 55 Both City-owned sites have been identified as ideal for creative and/or cultural uses in the future, but there are other partners and users interested in these facilities as well. Additionally, our team evaluated available space at the ASHWell Clinic, which was presented to the Task Force by the organization. Austin Municipal Building 124 W 8th St. (1908/1937) ASHWell Facility 3208 Red River St. (1985) City Facilities Overview 56 The table below summarizes facility conditions and maintenance needs at both City-owned sites. Facility Deferred Maintenance Hazardous Materials Annual Utilities Costs Renovation Budget Estimates Municipal Building (first level) • Facility Condition Index (FCI) of 25% is poor and approaching the critical stage. • Building has asbestos. • Building has a high lead concentrations in paints. • • • • • • • Electrical: $62,849 Gas: $2,125 Water: $4,944 Wastewater: $1,890 Drainage Fee: $4,606 Garbage/Recycling: $6,805 Total: $83,219 • Renovation costs (with FF&E included) range from $3.2 million to $4.8 million. • Estimate does NOT include exterior improvements or any utility/infrastructure upgrades, which, based on the facility condition index score of 25% indicated above, would result in potentially significant additional costs. Guadalupe Fire Station • Facility Condition Index (FCI) of 16%, is poor and suggests serious deficiencies and repairs that need to be addressed. • No known hazardous materials, but a full asbestos and lead paint survey will need to be completed if sold or leased. Costs above are for the entire 4-story building • Not available • Renovation costs (with FF&E included) range from $2.2 million to $3.3 million. • This estimate also does not include exterior improvements or any utility/infrastructure upgrades, and the FCI of 16% suggests potentially significant maintenance upgrade costs. • The FCI is calculated by (Total Deficiencies/Replacement Cost) x 100. • International Facility Management Association (IFMA) states that an FCI of 10-30% is poor and anything beyond 30% is critical to repair. 57 Austin Municipal Building City staff working across four floors of the Austin Municipal Building relocated to Town Lake Center in Spring 2026, effectively vacating the building*. The City has identified this building for creative/cultural uses in the future and has been the subject of many studies, including one in 2024 by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) that highlighted community interest in affordable workspace for creatives and potential the inclusion of some performance space. Future reuse is not yet determined, but repurposing will require substantial HVAC and life/safety improvements. The recommended LGBTQIA+ Center layout is estimated to occupy one full floor with a cost of $3.2-4.8M for renovations. While this includes fixtures, furniture, and equipment estimates (FF&E), it excludes exterior renovation costs and utility upgrade requirements. Based on the poor facility condition index rating (25%), these repairs and related costs could be significant. *Note that vacating the building does not necessarily mean the building is available for occupancy. The City may choose to pursue interior renovations throughout over the next few years before allowing for occupancy by new internal or external tenants. One floor of the Municipal Building (ground floor shown here) can accommodate over 10,000 square feet for a future Center, including all core spaces as well as numerous Priority B spaces. The layout accommodate s surplus administrative spaces. Austin Municipal Building, 124 W 8th St. 58 59 Guadalupe Fire Station The Guadalupe Fire Station is an historic early 1900s fire station, the second ever built in the city. It currently houses the Austin Fire Department’s Arson Unit. Current plans suggest the Arson Unit will relocate to facilities at Krieg Field, once current occupants relocate to the new Public Safety Campus near Barton Skyway. As of Spring 2026, City staff estimate that this process could take up to 5 years, meaning the facility may not be vacated until 2031. The recommended LGBTQIA+ Center layout is estimated to cost $2.2M-3.3M for interior renovations. While this includes fixtures, furniture, and equipment estimates (FF&E), it excludes exterior renovation costs and utility upgrade requirements, which, based on the poor facility condition index rating (16%), could be extensive. The recommended first floor layout includes a large multi-purpose room, administrative facilities, a lobby, lounge, and restrooms. Space Program Test Fit Guadalupe Fire Station, 3002 Guadalupe St. Potential 1st Floor Layout 60 The second floor could include two additional multi-purpose rooms and a kitchen with food pantry. Due to the building layout, an elevator would need to be added to meet accessibility requirements. Space Program Test Fit Guadalupe Fire Station, 3002 Guadalupe St. Potential 2nd Floor Layout 61 62 ASHwell Clinic Facility Colocation Opportunity ASHwell, a local sexual health and wellness services organization, recently acquired a 3- story office over podium facility on Red River Street near UT-Austin. ASHwell shared their lower-level renovation plans with the Task Force and consultant team for evaluation as a flagship LGBTQIA+ Cultural Center. ASHwell staff estimated a requirement of approximately $3M to realize these renovations. ASHwell Clinic Facility 3208 Red River St. Planned 1st Floor Layout 63 ASHwell has planned a 6,000 square foot community-oriented first floor renovation with the following amenities and program alignments: Core 900 square foot multi- purpose room, expandable with movable wall (does not quite meet the 1,200 SF requirement) Shared conference room Restrooms Lobby Peer-led group counseling space Priority B Drop-in space Food pantry Café Clothing closet Priority C Fitness center and showers Priority D None 64 Site Evaluations Scoring Results The sites were assessed according to the approved evaluation matrix. Site scored moderately favorably (57-64%), with the municipal building scoring highest (64%). Owner Building Potential Availability Date Initial Site Score Notes City of Austin* Downtown Municipal Building 2029- City of Austin* Guadalupe Fire Station 2031- ASHwell Community Center/Clinic 2027- 37 • Only need one of the three main floors, providing opportunity for co-location with other centers and/or creative uses. • Meets desired cultural/creative uses identified by the City. • • Site received higher score on location, access, and securability. Site received lower score on cost and potential expansion, given the building’s age and historic status. • Renovations will likely be required before new tenants can occupy the building. 33 33 • Arson unit relocating, freeing the building for other uses around 2031. • Meets desired cultural/creative uses identified by the City. Site received higher score on location and autonomy. • Site received lower score on cost, expansion potential, and building age. • • Despite lower score, many Task Force members prefer this site. Existing plan to provide community/cultural center spaces on the 1st floor. • • Community room technically smaller than 1200 sf requirement (900 sf) but • • scored as if it met criterion (movable wall might allow expansion). Site received higher score on location, building quality, and cost. Site received lower score on tenure and autonomy given the non-profit ownership and health services focus of the organization. The maximum possible score using the evaluation criteria is 58. *City facilities come with additional legal requirements (must maintain public access, can only be utilized for public purpose, etc.). 65 Other Potential Sites Assessing other potential public facilities The team and Task Force members reached out to public partners to discuss interest in potential sites that might be able to accommodate the final space program. Outreach and responses are indicated below. Entity Consultant-Identified Sites Partner Response Central Health • 1111 E Cesar Chavez Travis County • 5021 E Cesar Chavez • 2203 Post Road • 811 Springdale Road • • • 1111 E Cesar Chavez has been committed to Sendero (public health plan contractor), who, for regulatory reasons, cannot collocate with other entities. There may be potential to explore relocation/redevelopment in the longer-term horizon. Travis County indicated that the opportunity sites we identified are all currently occupied and staff are still actively reviewing the need for all facilities in consideration of hybrid work and future program and space needs. • While this was not a definitive “no”, staff have not yet updated their internal facility planning sufficiently to consider outside uses for existing facilities. AISD • Multiple closed or closing AISD campuses (8 campuses located within central Austin search area) Informed real estate administrator about interest in a LGBTQIA+ Cultural Center. • • Planning and engagement efforts for closed school properties will be ongoing through 2026. See Appendix 3 for more information. Other Potential Sites Assessing private opportunities In December 2025, the team also assessed available private facilities and land on the market with capacity to accommodate the space program. 66 Private Site Overview • • • Acquisition costs for an existing building ranged from $3- 7M in up front costs ($333-$556 per square foot). Acquisition costs for undeveloped land ranged from $950,000 to $2.5M in up front costs ($23-46 per square foot). Leasing a building was also explored with costs generally ranging from $20-40 per square foot per year (NNN). See Appendix 3 for more information. Ownership and Management Structures Ownership and Management Structures 68 An effective ownership and management structure is essential to the future Center’s success—both in its initial development and in sustaining long-term operations. The consultant team assessed a variety of ownership and management structures for operational efficiency and fundraising capacity to determine which would be best suited for the proposed LGBTQIA+ Cultural Center. Recommendation: In the absence of an existing organization prepared to take on this effort, the consultant team recommends a fiscal sponsorship model where an established nonprofit partner incubates the Center within its existing organizational framework. In this model, the sponsor assists initial fundraising efforts and provides administrative support, staffing, and governance oversight during the Center's formative development. This approach enables more rapid establishment of the Center and provides early stability with an existing board of directors, proven fundraising ability, and operational resources to support the facility development and initial programming. As the Center grows and an executive director is hired, sufficient funds are raised, and the physical location and initial programming is established, the Center can spin-off into its own independent 501(c)(3) and assume full responsibility for its long-term governance and management. If a community partner cannot be identified to serve as the initial fiscal sponsor, the secondary recommendation is to establish the Center as a standalone 501(c)(3). Ownership and Management Structures Summary Organizational Structure Viability Notes 69 Fiscal Sponsorship (under 501(c)(3)) 501(c)(3) Public Charity 501(c)(3) + For-Profit Subsidiary Municipal Department Model Local Government Corporation (LGC) 509(a)(3) Supporting Organization University-Affiliated Nonprofit Cooperative (Nonprofit or Hybrid) L3C (Low-Profit LLC) HIGH HIGH MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM LOW LOW LOW LOW Best near-term solution to “incubate” a new organization under a sponsor entity. Best longer-term solution. Works well if an existing entity willing to take on cultural center operations. Good very long-term solution, pairing non-profit with greater earned income and tax benefits, but mostly useful if substantial income generation. Traditional model in Austin, but barriers to philanthropy and legal restrictions reduce capacity for self sustainability. Local example includes Austin Rosewood CDC, providing some autonomy from City bureaucracy, but otherwise funded like a municipal department. Includes entities like “friends of” organizations but mostly focused on attracting funds for a separate entity. Would require sponsor institution and subject to its institutional policies and constraints. Assumes member-owned and member-run entity rather than service to the community at-large. Not tax-exempt and usually profit-focused. 70 Ownership and Management Structures Options Organizational Structure Description Pros Cons Fundraising Ability Tax Benefits to Donors Use for Cultural Center Fiscal Sponsorship (under 501(c)(3)) Operates under an existing nonprofit’s tax- exempt status. Fast startup, access to funding immediately. Limited autonomy, sponsor may charge fees. Excellent – uses sponsor’s eligibility. Donations are tax- deductible. Ideal for pilot or early- stage cultural projects and can spinoff to eventually become separate 501(c)(3). 501(c)(3) Public Charity Independent nonprofit governed by a board, focused on charitable/ educational mission. Strong eligibility for grants, donations, and public trust. Compliance, board oversight required. Excellent – grants, foundations, individual giving. Donations are tax- deductible for individuals and corporations. Great all-around model for arts centers, museums, and cultural programming. 501(c)(3) + For-Profit Subsidiary Municipal Department Model Nonprofit owns revenue-generating entity (e.g., café, events, retail). Cultural center operated directly by city department (i.e., ACME). Diversified income, sustainability. Legal/tax complexity. Strong – donations + earned income. Donations to nonprofit are tax-deductible. Best for cultural centers with event venues, retail, rentals, or other methods to generate revenue. Stable funding, public ownership. Limited fundraising flexibility, bureaucracy. Limited – mostly public funds. Donations typically not tax-deductible unless via affiliated nonprofit. Community cultural centers integrated with city services. 71 Ownership and Management Structures Options Organizational Structure Local Government Corporation (LGC) Description Pros Cons Fundraising Ability Nonprofit corporation created by a city/county to perform public functions. Access to public funding, strong government backing, reduced liability for city. Less independence; high political oversight; still considered governmental in nature. Strong – public funding + grants (if structured properly). Tax Benefits to Donors Use for Cultural Center Donations are not automatically tax- deductible and must be publicly disclosed (not ideal for all donors). Excellent for city- backed cultural centers and other projects that benefit the public but require operational independence. 509(a)(3) Supporting Organization Separate nonprofit that supports another 501(c)(3). Shared resources, reduced administration. Less independence (tied to another nonprofit); not ideal for a fully independent cultural center. Good – tied to parent organization. Donations are tax- deductible (same tax benefits as 501(c)(3)). University-Affiliated Nonprofit Operates under or in partnership with a university. Access to academic resources, grants, credibility. Institutional constraints. Strong – grants, donors, institutional support. Donations are tax- deductible. Cooperative (Nonprofit or Hybrid) Member-owned organization. Strong community ownership. Complex governance. Moderate. L3C (Low-Profit LLC) Hybrid LLC focused on mission + profit. Flexible, can attract impact investors. Not tax-exempt, limited grants. Limited. Usually not tax- deductible unless 501(c)(3). Donations NOT tax- deductible. Useful if partnering with an existing mission-aligned nonprofit. Used for museums, cultural research centers, and heritage archives. Examples include community-run cultural or artist spaces. Experimental or social enterprise cultural projects. Development and Acquisition Structures Development and Acquisition Structures Key tradeoffs for realizing the new LGBTQIA+ Cultural Center Each development and acquisition option presents strengths and challenges. The optimal scenario will depend heavily on preferences, priorities, and resources. 73 C O N S T R U C T I O N O C C U P A N C Y O W N E R S H I P New Build vs. Existing Freestanding vs. Mixed-Use Owned vs. Leased New construction + Modern, efficient spaces tailored to the use — High cost, extended timeline Existing construction + More affordable, shorter timeline — Potentially suboptimal layout and inefficient Freestanding + Maximum autonomy and security control for independent operation — Cost and funding Mixed-use + More cost effective, funding opportunities, multi-purpose destinations — Less control, shared management Owned + Greater control and autonomy — Requires higher upfront costs Leased + Cost effective — May face uncertainty without strong lease terms Development Processes and Timelines Primary Mechanisms The development process depends on the type of site available and selected. Publicly-owned, existing facilities will likely result in faster delivery while privately-owned sites will likely require additional time for negotiation and build- out. New construction will result in a substantially longer process before facility opening. 74 City of Austin Existing Facility Lease to LGBTQIA+ Center Non-Profit (likely low cost) Other Publicly Owned Existing Facility Lease to LGBTQ Center Non-Profit (likely low cost) Privately Owned Existing Facility Fundraising and (potential) public funding support for lease or site acquisition Privately Owned Vacant Site Fundraising and (potential) public funding support for site acquisition Non-Profit fundraising for renovation + permitting and construction Non-Profit fundraising for renovations + permitting and construction Lease or sale to LGBTQIA+ Center Non-Profit Sale to LGBTQ Center Non-Profit Ongoing non-profit fundraising for additional renovations and O&M Ongoing non-profit fundraising for additional renovations and O&M Non-Profit move-in Non-Profit move-in Non-Profit move-in Non-Profit move-in Non-Profit fundraising for renovations + permitting and construction Non-profit fundraising for new construction + permitting and construction Conceptual delivery process is subject to facility availability, facility condition, and funding. Ongoing non-profit fundraising for additional renovations and O&M Ongoing non-profit fundraising for ancillary projects and O&M Development Processes and Timelines Alternative Mechanisms In addition to the primary mechanisms, alternative paths may leverage outside funding sources and/or tax incentives to deliver the facility as part of a mixed-use development. In these scenarios, the timeline is largely dependent on whether the facility occupies existing space or new construction, with new construction options adding significantly more time for planning, permitting, financing, design, and construction. 75 Partner Space Description Funding Opportunities Timeframe Affordable Housing Developer* Ground floor space in housing development Commercial Developer** Independent space in new mixed-use development Developer allocates ground floor space in affordable housing development for the LGBTQIA+ Center. • Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) • City’s Rental/Ownership Housing Development Assistance (R/OHDA) Developer allocates space in mixed-use development for the LGBTQIA+ Center. • Place-based economic incentive program (tax abatement) 2030- 2029- * Affordable housing partnerships are currently being explored to deliver primary and satellite queer-focused community spaces by non-profit groups, such as Qwell Community Foundation. ** This could be a viable mechanism for mixed-use redevelopment of existing facilities as well, such as a repurposed former school facility. Owning vs. Leasing 76 Through the benchmarking analysis, the consultant team found that most centers rent their facilities, but many peer centers own their buildings through affiliate non-profit LLCs. Additionally, most facilities opened in existing, aging structures in need of renovation. Many centers started in these spaces and later relocated into new facilities. For the Center, owning or controlling the property under a ground lease allows for maximum site control including security and programmatic flexibility. It allows for permanence of place but requires more up-front capital as well as budgetary reserves to support long-term maintenance and capital improvements. This means greater fundraising demands to support site acquisition, facility upgrades, furnishings, and unanticipated owner expenses. Alternatively, leasing the property reduces up-front capital expenses to allow the Center additional time to grow its organizational and financial capacity. The downside, however, is less long-term certainty and site control. The following slides detail mechanisms to safeguard public interest under a leasing scenario, supporting long-term tenure and tenant protections. Space Leasing Structures and Agreement Terms Six major lease components to safeguard public interest and long-term tenure 77 Long Initial Term + Multiple Renewals Right of First Offer (ROFO) Right of First Refusal (ROFR) Memorandum of Lease SNDA (Subordination, Non-Disturbance, Attornment) Termination Protections Leasing Structures and Agreement Terms Additional Detail Lease Elements Summary How It Works Key Features Tenant Benefit Landlord Benefit A Strong Lease Includes 78 Long Initial Term + Multiple Renewals Provides a long base lease term and multiple renewal options with rent predictability. Right of First Offer (ROFO) Gives the current tenant the first chance to make an offer to lease (or sometimes buy) the property before the landlord offers it to other parties. Usually used for leasing. The base term is negotiated at the outset of the lease. At the end of the base term, the parties agree to extensions if the tenant chooses to exercise the option(s). 1. If the landlord decides to lease the property (or another space in the building), the landlord must notify the tenant before marketing it to others. 2. The tenant has a specific period of time to submit an offer. 3. The landlord can accept, negotiate, or reject the offer. 4. If an agreement cannot be reached, the landlord can offer the property to others. The base term is negotiated into the lease and can be longer to accommodate tenant needs (e.g., 15-20 years). Multiple renewal options (e.g., 3-5 extensions of 5 years each) can be utilized to ensure longevity. Ensures stability and longevity. Stable long-term income. Clearly defined rent for renewals with caps on annual increases and predefined escalation schedules. Business continuity is preserved. Enhanced tenant retention; eliminates vacancy. Lessee controlled extensions to ensure the tenant can remain in the building on the tenant's terms. The tenant gets the first opportunity to propose terms (not match someone else's). Opportunity to expand tenant's space. Keeps a reliable tenant in the building. A reasonable response time (eg. 30 days) with clear notice requirements. The landlord is not obligated to accept the tenant’s offer. Opportunity for control over adjacent units or future leases. May lead to faster leasing without marketing costs. Usually contains strict timelines for response. If landlord rejects a tenant's offer, the landlord cannot lease the space on materially better terms to another tenant without re- offering it to existing tenant. The right should trigger when the landlord decides to lease the space, not when they start marketing it. Leasing Structures and Agreement Terms Additional Detail Lease Elements Summary How It Works 1. The landlord receives an offer from a third party (another tenant or buyer). Key Features Tenant Benefit Landlord Benefit A Strong Lease Includes The tenant can match an outside offer before the deal is accepted. Opportunity to expand tenant's space. Keeps a reliable tenant in the building. A reasonable response time (ie. 30 days) 79 Right of First Refusal (ROFR) Gives the tenant the right to match an offer that the landlord receives from another party before the landlord can finalize that deal. Usually applied to selling the property. 2. The landlord must notify the existing tenant of the offer and its key terms. Applies to adjacent suites or expansion space, vacant units in the building, entire building purchase rights, or the renewal or additional lease space. 3. The tenant has a set time period to decide whether to match it. 4. The tenant can accept and match the offer or decline. 1. Instead of recording the full lease, the landlord and tenant sign a condensed version that includes only key facts about the lease. 2. The memorandum is then recorded with the local county recorder or clerk and becomes part of the public record tied to the property title. 3. Any future buyer, lender, or investor is deemed to have constructive notice of the tenant’s rights. The Memorandum of Lease is separate from the lease itself. Refers to full lease as the document that governs all rights and obligations. Memorandum of Lease A short, recordable document (separate from the lease itself) that summarizes the existence of a lease without disclosing all its terms. Ensures market competition for the space or property. Tenant steps into an already-negotiated deal, which ensures lease or purchase offer matches market conditions and is attractive to landlord. Opportunity for control over property regarding ownership or future leases. Full disclosure of all material deal terms. - Require that if the landlord signs a deal on materially different or better terms, the ROFR must be offered to the tenant again. - The right revives if the third-party transaction does not close. Protection against changing the deal slightly to avoid the ROFR (for example, bundling the space with other premises to defeat the ROFR). Clear rules if the landlord fails to notify the tenant. Protects against future buyers claiming ignorance if property is sold. Preferred over a lien as a good alternative to placing a legal claim against the property. Key elements include names of landlord and tenant, property description, lease start and end dates, and renewal options. Preserves tenant rights with new owner. Rent and concessions remain private. Broad reference clause incorporating all rights in the full lease. Includes essential lease terms only and omits sensitive provisions (e.g., rent, financial terms). Keeps financial terms private while still securing rights. Optional clauses include purchase options, rights of first refusal, rights of first offer, easements, and special use rights. Provides clarity for lenders and buyers regarding existing tenant rights. Recording obligation (landlord cannot refuse to allow recording). Facilitates financing and transactions Inclusion of key rights if critical (e.g., purchase option, exclusivity). Leasing Structures and Agreement Terms Additional Detail Lease Elements Summary How It Works Key Features Tenant Benefit Landlord Benefit A Strong Lease Includes 80 1. Subordination - the lease is subordinate to the lender’s mortgage (lender’s rights come first). 2. Non-Disturbance - If the lender forecloses, they agree not to terminate the lease. 3. Attornment - Tenant agrees to recognize the new owner/lender as the landlord after foreclosure. An SNDA is a common lease element among the tenant, landlord, and a landlord’s lender that governs what happens to the lease if the property is foreclosed or ownership changes. SNDA (Subordination, Non-Disturbance, Attornment) Termination is allowed only for specific, material breaches listed in the lease. Landlord must give tenant formal written notice before taking action. The tenant has a specific amount of time to fix issues if they arise ("cure period"). Termination Protections Ensures the tenant cannot be removed arbitrarily and is only at risk of termination under clearly defined and fair conditions. Triggered by foreclosure or sale after default. Often required by lenders in financed properties. Tenant does not lose their space if landlord defaults on their mortgage. Makes property more financeable. Include an explicit statement that the tenant will not be evicted or disturbed after foreclosure. Business continuity is preserved. Satisfies lender requirements. Automatic non-disturbance May be included in lease or executed separately. Protects investment in build-outs and location. Keeps tenants in place after foreclosure (stabilizes income stream). Avoid clauses requiring future lender approval Non-disturbance protection is not automatic and must be negotiated. Avoids forced relocation due to landlord financial issues. Provides the tenant sufficient time to fix problems. Well-defined procedures lower litigation risk. Defined causes for default with sufficient time to fix the problem before lease is terminated. Protects the tenant's up-front investment the tenant may have made. Provides clear steps for handling defaults. Prevents landlord from using termination as pressure. Encourages tenant retention by encouraging resolution instead of eviction. Clearly defined and specific “events of default” (e.g., nonpayment of rent, illegal use, abandonment, etc.) No Termination for Minor Breaches or Convenience - trivial violations should not justify eviction and prevents landlord from ending the lease without cause. Opportunity to Cure After Repeated Defaults - Limits landlord’s ability to terminate for repeated minor issues. Mandatory written notice with long cure periods to fix issues before default Explicit prohibition of termination without cause. Funding Options Funding Options In the benchmarking analysis, the consulting team noted that: 82 • Capital costs for LGBTQIA+ cultural centers have varied greatly, ranging from $340K to $141M with the median at $3.9M and the mean at $11.7M. Centers primarily use capital campaigns for acquisition, renovation, and phased facility expansions. • • Median annual revenue is approximately $2.3M and is primarily supported by grants from private individuals, corporations, and government entities with a notable recent loss of federal funding for many centers. Programs and services generate less than 10% of income on average of the centers studied. • Potential funding sources in Austin: While private philanthropy (including corporate sponsorships) presents the best opportunity to establish and sustain the future Center, additional funding from the City of Austin may be required to support initial capital costs in the form of a tax abatement or a general fund allocation. Federal funding opportunities through the 340b Drug Pricing Program may also provide a viable and stable funding source, provided the Center is co-located with a long- standing health clinic provider experienced with this program. At the time of this report, other federal and state funding is not available to support this type of center. Should that change, those opportunities could be explored for viability. 83 Funding Sources Summary The “high” and “medium” viability funding sources have the potential to contribute to the capital and/or operating budget of a future cultural center, while the “low” viability funds are less applicable. Funding Source Private/ Philanthropic Support Federal 340b Drug Pricing Program Local Tax Abatement City General Fund City Hotel Occupancy Tax (HOT) Funds City General Obligation (GO) Bonds Other Federal Funds (HUD/HHS) Public Facility Corporation (PFC) or Local Government Corporation (LGC) Bonds Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds City Certificates of Obligation (COs) State/Federal Historic Tax Credits Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ) Funds or Bonds Viability HIGH HIGH HIGH MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW Notes Standard funding source among benchmark facilities for both construction & operating funding. Includes individuals, corporations, hospitals, & universities. Lucrative funding source if facility includes a prominent clinic function. Potentially cost-neutral funding solution for developer providing space in a mixed-use development via the City’s Place Based Enhancement Program (PBEP). Common source for cultural centers in Austin, but challenging financial outlook. Potentially viable as one-time capital gap funding with Council support. Most viable if located in an historic facility with tourism-related functions. City debt capacity is constrained, but viable capital funding with voter approval. Subject to federal appropriations, political volatility, and for housing/health support programs (operations). Still reliant on City debt capacity, needs repayment revenue source (only works in mixed- use, mixed-income development). Must focus on low- and moderate-income residents. City debt capacity is constrained and questionable use of authorization. Reliant on developer-led, income-producing project. Facility must be physically located in TIRZ and included in Project & Financing Plan. Funding Sources 84 Funding Source Summary Use for Cultural Center Pros Cons Notes Private/ Philanthropic Support Federal 340b Drug Pricing Program Private donations can support both capital costs and operations. This includes funds from individuals, major corporations, hospitals, and universities. Can be used for operations or capital expenses. • Flexible funding tied to donor's wishes. • Relatively unreliable for ongoing funding. • Most common source among benchmark facilities. • Donors can restrict how fund are used. • Governance entity should be formed prior to receiving donation. • Operational budgets should be conservative in funding estimation. Federal program where drug manufacturers provide outpatient medications at significantly reduced prices to certain healthcare organizations that serve vulnerable populations—sometimes 20–50% less than standard prices. Non-profit captures revenue on discounted medications • that can sustain operations if a clinic is incorporated into the center. Provides viable funding source for a nonprofit entity. • Facility must be a “clinic-first” cultural center. • Not direct support for community center; indirectly subsidized as ancillary use. • Major funding source for several local organizations (Texas Health Action, Vivent Health, ASHwell). Local Tax Abatement Property and/or sales tax abatements through the Place Based Enhancement Program (PBEP), which utilizes Chapter 380 economic incentives authorization to provide tax breaks for affordable space and cultural preservation. Cultural Center would qualify under multiple categories of the PBEP. • Offsets developer costs for providing community benefit. City General Fund The City’s General Fund can support construction and/or operations of a cultural center with Council support and budget approval. Can be used for operations or capital expenses. • Flexible and stable funding source. • Must be part of income- generating mixed-use development to be viable. Private entity must voluntarily provide space. • • • Cost-neutral opportunity for developer to provide cultural center space with any subsidy offset by annual tax abatements. Ideal for new construction or major renovation project (i.e., repurposed school campus). • City budget is very constrained. • Operation funding subject to annual budget appropriations. • May be most viable as a one- time funding request for capital project gap funding requested through annual budget process. Funding Sources 85 Funding Source Summary Use for Cultural Center Pros Cons Notes Hotel Occupancy Tax (HOT) - Cultural Arts 15% of HOT can be used for cultural arts. The City of Austin Cultural Arts Funding Program supports cultural arts programs by contracting with arts organizations for specific services. Could fund cultural arts programming at the center, but not likely to fund capital expenses. • Annual budget projects nearly $16.2M for Cultural Arts Fund (FY26). • • Existing competitive process for these funds. Capital projects generally not funded. • Generally used to support the arts, artists, and artist programs rather than community centers. Hotel Occupancy Tax (HOT) - Historic Preservation 15% of HOT supports City of Austin historic facilities. Of that: - 70% is for City of Austin historic facilities - 15% is for the Historic Preservation Acquisition Fund, which supports potential future historic acquisitions or major preservation projects with tourism nexus. - 15% is for the Heritage Preservation Grant Program, which promotes tourism by supporting historic preservation projects and activities at historic properties. City recommended Rally Austin steward the Historic Preservation Acquisition • Fund. One identified change is to balance cultural space needs with tourism benefits. Funds may be available for the City to acquire a historic facility for a cultural space. Fund balance currently totals $13 million and is anticipated to increase (+ $1.7 - $3 million annually). • Funds must promote tourism and attract visitors. • • Utilizing funds for non- tourism purposes is to be determined and pending future funding allocation to Rally Austin. Rally Austin and City staff returning to Council after May 2026 with revisions to the fund's public outcomes (balancing cultural space needs with tourism) and will identify additional funding sources. GO Bonds City issues debt that is repaid from property taxes and other sources of revenue. Funds can be used to acquire and rehabilitate a structure for public use. • • Lower political risk (voter approval required). Can cover full capital costs. • City budget is very constrained. • Must be recommended by Bond Advisory Committee and approved by Council. • Funding subject to voter approval. • • Not part of ongoing 2026 bond election discussions and next opportunity may be 2028 or later. Competes with critical infrastructure projects. Funding Sources 86 Funding Source Summary Use for Cultural Center Pros Cons • Not for cultural center use, Notes Other Federal Funds Federal agencies, such as HUD and Health and Human Services (HHS), may provide grant funding to support operations. Can fund health services and shelter/housing services affiliated with the cultural center. Federal funds support operations without local dollars. • but rather affiliated program funding. Funding uncertainly with national political environment. • Unreliable in current environment and unlikely to support capital requirements. Public Facilities Corporation (PFC) or Local Government Corporation (LGC) Bonds A PFC or LGC can help the finance, acquire, construct, or renovate a public facility. City could use its PFC or create a LGC to develop a public cultural center facility. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Federal funds through Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to support low- and moderate-income residents, with a strong emphasis on housing stability, public services, and community infrastructure. Can fund acquisition, construction, and rehabilitation of community facilities. Certificates of Obligation (COs) City issues debt for qualifying public projects that is repaid from property taxes and other sources of revenue. Funds can be used to acquire and rehabilitate a structure for public use. • • • • • • Entity can issue tax- exempt bonds. Can support mixed- use and specialized facilities. Relatively flexible funding source Can support public and nonprofit facilities Faster than a general obligation bond and not subject to voter approval. Can cover full capital costs. • Need revenue source to • • repay bonds. Facility creates public debt like City bond projects. Primarily to deliver services to low- and moderate-income residents. • Heavy compliance burden • Project must be in City/County CDBG Comprehensive Plan. • High political risk (from voters and State). Requires facility be City- owned. Controversial because it bypasses voter approval for non-essential facility. • • • PFC likely only works if cultural center is component of mixed- use, mixed-income project. • No revenue source to repay LGC bonds. • • CDBG can be used if the project is framed as a community service hub, housing stability/anti- displacement resource, or health/workforce/social services facility. Legislature introduces bills to restrict use of COs every session and this type of use may be unauthorized in future years. Funding Sources 87 Funding Source Summary Use for Cultural Center Pros Cons Notes State and Federal Historic Tax Credits Performance-based incentives that offset the cost of rehabilitating historic buildings. Can be used for historic rehabilitation or adaptive reuse of a structure. Cannot be used for acquisition. Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ) Funds Captures incremental growth in property taxes within a defined area to fund public improvements and authorized projects. Can be used to acquire and improve a building for public benefit. • • Combined, projects in Texas can often receive ~45% of eligible rehab costs back in credits. Flexible funding source that can be combined with other financing mechanisms. • • • • Complex funding Strict design and facility constraints. Credits realized after project completion (bridge financing needed). Facility or project must be in the TIRZ Project and Financing Plan. • Must be located within a TIRZ with sufficient revenue or bonding capacity. • Usually sold to • investors/syndicators rather than used directly by cities/nonprofits. Federal tax credits are used for income-producing historic properties. • No obvious existing TIRZ where it is appropriate or financially feasible to amend the Project and Financing Plan. • No nexus of how the cultural center represents a critical infrastructural improvement. Future Considerations Pending Further Policy Development City Council has explicitly indicated interest in preserving public facilities for community benefit, including cultural spaces and community centers such as an LGBTQIA+ Cultural Center. 88 Austin City Council Resolution 20260326-045 • City Manager is directed to explore partnership opportunities with independent school districts to repurpose closed school campuses, to develop a land policy to preserve public sites for community- beneficial uses. • Entities listed include Capital Metro, Central Health, local school districts, institutions of higher education, and Travis County. • Uses listed include cultural spaces and community centers. • City Manager will report back to Council with an update on the policy, potential funding sources, and a list or priority properties and partnerships. Recommendations 90 Recommendations Creating Austin’s LGBTQIA+ Cultural Center This feasibility study has identified a range of critical considerations to develop the first LGBTQIA+ Cultural Center in Austin. The team assessed center across the United States and internationally to understand common components; codeveloped a space program and evaluation criteria with the Task Force; evaluated potential opportunity sites; and examined challenges and opportunities for ownership, management, development, acquisition, and funding of the facility. While this feasibility study provides a foundation for understanding opportunities to develop this project, progressing the LGBTQIA+ Cultural Center toward reality will now require decisive action by advocates and collaborators to organize, fundraise, and press forward. Key tasks, further described on the following slides, focus on implementation strategy, governance structure, and procuring both funding and space. Recommendations Summary Key Tasks 91 Implementation Governance Funding Space Identify City liaison Existing non-profit outreach Request planning funds Request City space Short Term Identify project champions Medium Term Establish a project plan City & commission collaboration Long Term Identify optimal management structure Craft staff and programming strategy Hire dedicated staff Develop business plan Develop marketing plan Identify capital improvement funds Identify long-term operating funds Request notice of City space availability Continue outreach to entities with space Recognize phased growth opportunities Assess growth potential and space needs Recommendation #1 Establish a diverse, informed, and empowered implementation committee to drive forward recommendations. 92 Implementation Key Activities Identify City of Austin liaison to steward ongoing efforts to realize facility. Identify project champions with the ability to support implementation activities, beginning with Task Force members (the Implementation Team). Establish a project plan to include roles and responsibilities of key parties, communication, and decision-making protocols. Work with LGBTQQL Commission to continue City collaboration and steward efforts to realize the new facility. Short term Medium Term Long Term Recommendation #2 Identify or form organization to govern the planning and management of a future LGBTQIA+ cultural center. 93 Governance Key Activities Conduct outreach to existing LGBTQIA+ related non-profits to assess their ability and willingness to expand their mission to include the development and operation of the Center. Identify an optimal ownership and management structure based on existing non-profit organizations’ capacity to lead or incubate a Center operator and execute legal or regulatory registration activities. Within newly identified or formed organization, establish initial Center programming and human resource strategy. Hire or identify dedicated staff (executive director). If following a fiscal sponsorship model, spin off the Center into its own independent 501(c)(3) and assume full responsibility for its long-term governance and management. Short term Medium Term Long Term Recommendation #3 Catalog and attract potential investors and supporters to fund site acquisition, capital improvements, and long-term operating expenses. 94 Funding Key Activities Request planning funds from the City, local non-profit organizations, or interested donors to support business and marketing plan development. Develop an operating budget and business plan to present to potential funders. Develop marketing plan and materials for the future center, including renderings of interior spaces and amenities as indicated by the Space Program. Identify and contact potential funders for capital costs, with a focus on securing commitments to cover estimated acquisition and renovation costs ($5-12M). Identify donors to support long-term operations, recognizing that similar centers rely critically on philanthropy (including corporate sponsors and individuals). Short term Medium Term Long Term Recommendation #4 Gain control of a physical space capable of accommodating the Space Program and aligning with site selection criteria. 95 Physical Space Key Activities Implementation Team to formalize interest in and request consideration to occupy an available City property, pending final governance structure. Consider colocation with other affinity groups as appropriate to bolster feasibility*. Request Task Force or LGBTQQL Commission notification regarding any future City site opportunities. Implementation Team to maintain connections with community partners and indicate ongoing interest in any potential AISD, Central Health, or Travis County site opportunities (Resolution 20260326-045). Recognize phased opportunities to occupy minimally renovated space to see the Center while finding ways to renovate or expand later after successful fundraising (capital campaigns, sponsorships, etc.). Assess programmatic space needs, location, and growth potential as Center services and operating structure stabilize, including satellite center opportunities. Short term Medium Term Long Term *Task Force & LGBTQQL Commission have been informed of other affinity groups seeking similar spaces (i.e., Black Embassy, Intergenerational Activity/Resource Center). Appendices Appendices Appendix 1 Detailed Case Studies Appendix 2 Site Evaluation Detail Appendix 3 Supplemental Site Considerations Appendix 4 Space Program Development Appendix 5 Site Evaluation Criteria Detail 98 123 126 132 143 97 98 Appendix 1 Detailed Case Studies Pride Center at Equality Park, Wilton Manors, FL Founded in 1993, the Pride Center at Equality Park has grown into one of South Florida’s most vibrant LGBTQ+ organizations. The Center offers a welcoming home where individuals, families, and allies can build community and find support. Its holistic approach blends social connection with critical services, including the nation’s first affordable supportive housing for LGBTQ+ seniors. Programs such as the acclaimed Active Aging initiative and Coffee & Conversation gatherings make the Center a model of inclusion, resilience, and celebration. Governance 501(c)(3) nonprofit Major Donors Alan Schubert (founder) Graves LGBT Cultural Fund AIDS Healthcare Foundation Construction Type Renovation Site Control Own Bldg. Constructed/Center Open 2009 (reno) Acquisition Cost Renovation Cost $4.75M $1M Campus Size 5.5 acres Facility Area 30,000sf Employees 40 Key Services 1. Health Initiatives 2. Support Groups 3. Advocacy and education 4. Active Aging Program 5. Supportive Housing Revenue 3% 13% 84% $2.7M Contributions & Grants Program Services Investment Income Other Revenue Expenses 46% 54% Salaries & Compensation Other Expenses $2.8M LGBT Community Center, New York, NY In the heart of the West Village, the LGBT Community Center has served New Yorkers since 1983, when it was founded during the height of the AIDS crisis. The Center is both a cultural anchor and a provider of essential health, wellness, and advocacy services. Its programs span generations, from youth drop-in and leadership initiatives to HIV counseling through Center CARE. With cultural events, support groups, and community outreach, the Center endures as a beacon of empowerment and solidarity. Governance 501(c)(3) nonprofit Major Donors Michael Kors Lance Le Pere Peter Speliopoulos Key Services 1. Mental Health Support 2. Youth Programs 3. Advocacy 4. Cultural Events Revenue 3% 9% 86% Contributions & Grants Program Services Investment Income Other Revenue $16.1M Construction Type Renovation Expenses Site Control Own Bldg. Constructed/Center Open 1983 (built) Acquisition Cost Renovation Cost $1.5M $9.2M Campus Size N/A Facility Area 27,000sf Employees 100+ 33% 67% Salaries & Compensation Other Expenses $18.6M LGBT Center of Raleigh, Raleigh, NC Since originally opening in 2010, the LGBT Center of Raleigh has become a vital hub for connection, education, and advocacy across the inclusive Triangle. The Center creates an environment where LGBTQ+ people and allies gather, learn, and find support. Its programming ranges from SAGE Raleigh, which enriches the lives of older adults, to the Youth Coffee House, one of the region’s longest-standing safe spaces for teens. Through partnerships and Queer Life strengthens the programming, community bonds and fosters resilience. Center Governance 501(c)(3) nonprofit Major Donors Cooper Tacia General Contracting Construction Type Renovation Site Control Own Bldg. Constructed/Center Open 2025 (reno) Key Services 1. Library 2. Youth and life initiatives 3. Trans inclusion groups 4. Helpline 5. Support groups Revenue 2%-4% 93% Contributions & Grants Program Services Investment Income Other Revenue Expenses $529K Acquisition Cost $970K 36% Campus Size N/A Facility Area 3,000sf Employees 7 64% Salaries & Compensation Other Expenses $463K The Center on Colfax, Denver, CO LGBTQ+ Emerging from early gay liberation efforts in 1976, the Center on Colfax has grown into community Colorado’s leading inclusive organization. The Center offers programs for youth, older adults, and people with disabilities, while also preserving history through the Colorado LGBTQ History Project. Its Rainbow Alley youth space and West of 50 Initiative its seniors intergenerational reach. As producer of Denver PrideFest, the Center remains a powerful force for visibility, empowerment, and celebration throughout the state. highlight for Governance 501(c)(3) nonprofit Major Donors Gill Foundation Arcus Foundation Denver Foundation Construction Type Renovation Site Control Rent Bldg. Constructed/Center Open 2010 Acquisition Cost Renovation Cost Unknown $4.9M Campus Size N/A Facility Area 15,000sf Employees 46 Key Services 1. Youth programs 2. Legal clinics 3. Elder services 4. Trans programming 5. Cultural events Revenue 2% 45% 53% Contributions & Grants Program Services Investment Income Other Revenue $3.8M Expenses 40% 60% Salaries & Compensation Other expenses $1.71M DC LGBTQ+ Community Center, Washington, DC Serving the nation’s capital since 1996, the DC LGBTQ+ Community Center provides resources, advocacy, and a welcoming space for people across the region. The Center’s work spans health and wellness programs, cultural activities, and peer support for diverse communities. Key services include HIV testing, counseling, and trans and nonbinary initiatives supporting individuals. With its expansion into a new hub in Shaw, the Center strengthens visibility and ensures LGBTQ+ voices remain central to the civic and cultural life of Washington. Governance 501(c)(3) nonprofit Major Donors Monumental Sports & Entertainment Foundation (MSEF) Key Services 1. Health & wellness 2. Arts & culture 3. Social peer support 4. Advocacy 5. Community building Revenue 6% 94% Contributions & Grants Other Revenue $1.23M Construction Type Renovation Expenses Site Control Rent Bldg. Constructed/Center Open 2025 Acquisition Cost Renovation Cost Unknown $2.5M Campus Size N/A Facility Area 6,671sf Employees 17 46% 54% Salaries & Compensation Other Expenses $928K The Center Orlando, Orlando, FL locations Established in 1978, the Center Orlando is among Florida’s longest-serving LGBTQ+ organizations, committed to improving the well- being of Central Florida’s diverse communities. It in both Orlando and operates Kissimmee, offering HIV and STI testing, counseling, and programs tailored to youth, families, and older adults. The Center also creates opportunities for visibility and celebration through events such as Orlando Come Out With Pride. With its broad reach, it continues to empower and affirm LGBTQ+ lives across the region. Governance 501(c)(3) nonprofit Major Donors Walmart Foundation Orange County Florida Health Construction Type Expansion Site Control Own Bldg. Constructed/Center Open 1999 Acquisition Cost Renovation Cost Unknown $0.5M Campus Size N/A Facility Area 7,000sf Employees 23 Key Services 1. Free HIV testing 2. Mental health 3. Support groups 4. Youth and senior programs 5. Food assistance Revenue 1%2% 16% 81% Contributions & Grants Program Services Investment Income Fundarising events $1.2M Expenses 48% 52% Salaries & Compensation Other expenses $928K LGBT Community Center Cleveland, Cleveland, OH Founded in 1975, the LGBT Community Center of Greater Cleveland is one of the nation’s oldest LGBTQ+ organizations and a cornerstone for equity in Northeast Ohio. Its state-of-the-art home on Detroit Avenue houses programs for youth, families, and older adults, along with health services, advocacy initiatives, and cultural events. Peer groups, HIV testing, and trans wellness programs highlight its diverse offerings. As host of Cleveland Pride celebrations, the Center remains a vibrant force for connection, resilience, and empowerment. Governance 501(c)(3) nonprofit Major Donors $4.9M anonymous donor for land and construction Construction Type New Built Site Control Own Bldg. Constructed/Center Open 2019 Acquisition Cost Renovation Cost $6.2M Campus Size N/A Facility Area 15,500sf Employees 37 Key Services 1. Youth Services 2. HIV prevention/testing 3. Seniors program 4. Trans + Wellness 5. Community events Revenue 10% 90% Contributions & Grants Program Services Investment Income $1.9M Expenses 39% 61% Salaries & Compensation Other expenses $2.5M Montrose Center, Houston, TX The Montrose Center stands as one of the largest LGBTQ+ community organizations in the United States, serving Greater Houston with a wide range of health, wellness, and cultural programs. Each year, more than 100,000 people access services from behavioral health care to advocacy and support for youth, seniors, and families. Highlights include the Hatch Youth the Law Harrington Senior Living initiative, Center, counseling and programs. By fostering resilience and visibility, the Montrose Center remains a powerful anchor for the Gulf Coast. comprehensive Key Services 1. Space rental 2. Counseling 3. Youth programming 4. HIV prevention 5. Revenue -1% 13% Governance 501(c)(3) nonprofit 86% Major Donors H-E-B United Way of Greater Houston Foundations (multiple) Contributions & Grants Program Services Investment Income Other Revenue $10.7M Construction Type Renovation Expenses Site Control Rent Bldg. Constructed/Center Open 1972 22% Acquisition Cost Renovation Cost 567K in annual rent Campus Size 162,000sf Facility Area 6,800sf Employees 102 78% Salaries & Compensation Other expenses $9.4M Pride Center, San Antonio, TX As South Texas’ leading LGBTQ+ hub, Pride Center San Antonio connects people to resources, advocacy, and community. Since 2009, it has advanced equity and wellness through programs serving youth, families, and individuals across the region. Services include case management, peer support, and culturally competent health care, along with initiatives for trans and nonbinary communities. With free mental strong partnerships, the Pride Center remains a vital source of empowerment and belonging. counseling health and Governance 501(c)(3) nonprofit Major Donors Planned Parenthood H-E-B Methodist, KSAT Construction Type Renovation Site Control Rent Bldg. Constructed/Center Open 2014/2017 Acquisition Cost Renovation Cost Unknown Campus Size N/A Facility Area 1,500sf Employees 10 Key Services 1. Youth programs 2. Mental health support 3. Legal aid 4. Elder services 5. Art Therapy Revenue 100% Contributions & Grants Program Services Investment Income $497K Expenses 43% 57% Salaries & Compensation Other Expenses $557K Compass Community Center, Lake Worth Beach, FL Key Services 1. HIV prevention/testing 2. Support groups 3. Youth programming 4. Education 5. Mental health support Revenue Compass Community Center is Florida’s largest LGBTQ+ organization, serving as a cultural and health hub for Palm Beach County since 1988. in downtown Lake Worth Beach, Located Compass reaches more than 30,000 people that span health annually with programs services, advocacy, and Its family support. initiatives include youth and trans programs, HIV prevention and care, and Palm Beach Pride, one of festivals. Compass continues to build visibility, strengthen resilience, and foster belonging across South Florida. largest LGBTQ+ the state’s Governance 501(c)(3) nonprofit Major Donors Ken Adams David Bohnett Foundation 14% 16% Contributions & Grants Program Services Investment Income Other Revenue $3.2M 70% 59% Construction Type Renovation Expenses Site Control P3 Bldg. Constructed/Center Open 1999/2009 Acquisition Cost Renovation Cost 0 (Donated) $1M 41% Campus Size N/A Facility Area 11,000sf Employees 31 Salaries & Compensation Other Expenses $3.1M The LGBTQ Center Long Beach, Long Beach, CA education, The LGBTQ Center Long Beach is a vibrant, community-driven nonprofit in Long Beach, California, dedicated to advancing equity for LGBTQ individuals through culturally responsive advocacy, and services. Established informally in 1977 and incorporated in 1980, it has evolved into a key community institution. Today, it supports over 10,000 people each year with a diverse array of offerings, legal support, mental health counseling, youth and senior programs, and cultural events. including health services, programming, Key Services 1. Health Services 2. Mental Health Counseling 3. Legal Services 4. Youth & Family Services 5. Older Adult Services Revenue 1% -6% Governance 501(c)(3) nonprofit Major Donors SoCal Gas Arts Council Long Beach Providence Healthcare Construction Type Renovation Site Control Own Bldg. Constructed/Center Open 1986 Acquisition Cost Renovation Cost Unknown Campus Size N/A Facility Area 8,600sf Employees 40 93% Contributions & Grants Program Services Investment Income Other Revenue Expenses $2.6M 37% 63% Salaries & Compensation Other Expenses $2.82M Q Center, Portland, OR in Portland is Oregon’s largest Q Center LGBTQ+ community organization, offering resources, advocacy, and connection across the region. Its welcoming space provides support groups, cultural events, and health initiatives for people of all ages and identities. Core programming trans and nonbinary networks, youth and senior services, and community for empowerment visibility, Q Center strengthens resilience, celebrates diversity, and builds belonging through inclusive programs and community-centered initiatives. education. As includes hub and a Governance 501(c)(3) nonprofit Major Donors Nike PGE Women’s Foundation of OR Construction Type Renovation Site Control Rent Bldg. Constructed/Center Open 2005 Acquisition Cost Renovation Cost $2.1M Unknown Campus Size N/A Facility Area 8,600sf Employees 11 Key Services 1. Community Space 2. Library 3. Advocacy 4. Information and Referrals 5. Revenue 1% 5% 94% Contributions & Grants Program Services Investment Income Other Revenue Expenses $423K 49% 51% Salaries & Compensation Other Expenses $480K San Francisco LGBT Center, San Francisco, CA offers The Center The SF LGBT Center, founded in 2002, is a cornerstone for San Francisco’s LGBTQ+ community, providing connection, resources, and advocacy in its landmark Market Street building. economic development programs, youth services, and mental health counseling, alongside arts and foster visibility and cultural events belonging. Following a major renovation in 2017, its state-of-the-art facility supports over 200 community partners each year, ensuring the Center remains a dynamic hub of empowerment, equity, and resilience in the Bay Area. that Governance 501(c)(3) nonprofit Major Donors Buck Mason Candle Therapy The Cavalier Construction Type Renovation Site Control Own Bldg. Constructed/Center Open 2005/2017 Acquisition Cost Renovation Cost Unknown $10M Campus Size N/A Facility Area 35,000sf Employees 58 Key Services 1. Cyber Center 2. Events Rental Space 3. Economic Dev. Support 4. Youth & Family Services 5. Older Adult Services Revenue 14% 86% $6.3M Contributions & Grants Program Services Investment Income Other Revenue Expenses 36% 1% 63% Salaries & Compensation Fundraising Fees Other Expenses $6.9M Center on Halsted, Chicago, IL Center on Halsted, opened in 2007 in a LEED- certified facility on Chicago’s North Side, is the Midwest’s largest LGBTQ+ community center. More than a gathering place, it offers programs that span health and wellness, youth services, senior engagement, and cultural enrichment. With counseling, HIV testing, job readiness initiatives, and community events, the Center reaches thousands each year. Supported by donors and partners, it remains a vital hub of for advocacy, empowerment, and visibility Chicago’s LGBTQ+ community. Governance 501(c)(3) nonprofit Major Donors Miriam Hoover Elizabeth Morse Charitable Trust Construction Type New built Site Control Own Bldg. Constructed/Center Open 2007 Acquisition Cost $20M Campus Size 175,000sf Facility Area 100,000sf Employees 400 Key Services 1. Health Services 2. Mental Health Counseling 3. Legal Services 4. Youth & Family Services 5. Older Adult Services Revenue 1% 6% 7% 86% $7.8M Contributions & Grants Program Services Investment Income Other Revenue Expenses 34% 0% 66% Salaries & Compensation Grants and smilar Other Expenses $7.8M Affirmations Community Center, Ferndale, MI Founded in 1989, Affirmations is Michigan’s largest LGBTQ+ hub, serving Southeast Michigan with connection, advocacy, and care. Its sustainably designed Ferndale facility offers affirming therapy, peer groups, youth programs, and health services, alongside cultural spaces including a cyber café, art gallery, and library. Welcoming more than 55,000 visitors each year, Affirmations civic engagement, and belonging, ensuring LGBTQ+ individuals and families find the resources, visibility, and support needed to thrive. resilience, fosters Governance 501(c)(3) nonprofit Major Donors Arcus Foundation DaimlerChrysler Ford Motor Company Construction Type New Built Site Control Own Bldg. Constructed/Center Open 2007 Key Services 1. Health Services 2. Mental Health Counseling 3. Legal Services 4. Youth & Family Services 5. Older Adult Services Revenue 2% 3% 36% 59% Contributions & Grants Program Services Investment Income Other Revenue Expenses $1.7M Acquisition Cost $15.3M 38% Campus Size N/A Facility Area 17,000sf Employees 29 62% $2.0M Salaries & Compensation Other Expenses LGBTQ Center of Southern Nevada, Las Vegas, NV The LGBTQ Center of Southern Nevada, known locally as The Center, has been a cornerstone of Las Vegas since 1993. Housed in the Robert L. Forbuss Building, the Center provides health and wellness services, youth and senior programming, cultural events, and advocacy for the region’s diverse LGBTQ+ community. With initiatives addressing mental health, HIV care, and trans support, alongside programs that foster visibility and connection, The Center remains a vital hub of empowerment, resilience, and community in Southern Nevada. Governance 501(c)(3) nonprofit Major Donors Goorjian Estate & Helmsley Trust Las Vegas Sands Robert L. Forbuss Construction Type Renovation Site Control Own Bldg. Constructed/Center Open 2013 Acquisition Cost Renovation Cost Unknown $4M Campus Size N/A Facility Area 16,000sf Employees 50 Key Services 1. Health Services 2. Mental Health Counseling 3. Legal Services 4. Youth & Family Services 5. Older Adult Services Revenue 0% 43% 57% Contributions & Grants Program Services Investment Income Other Revenue Expenses $14.6M 22% 1% 1% $10.9M 76% Salaries & Compensation Grants and similar Fundraising Fees Other Expenses Resource Center Community Center, Dallas, TX longest nation’s standing Founded in 1983, Resource Center is among the LGBTQ+ organizations and a leading HIV service provider in North Texas. The Center offers health and nutrition programs, counseling, youth and senior initiatives, and community education. Core services include HIV and STI testing, food assistance for people with HIV, and advocacy for trans health. With spaces that foster visibility and belonging, Resource Center continues to thousands each year empower and uplift through equity and care. Governance 501(c)(3) nonprofit Major Donors McDermott Foundation Weinberg Foundation Construction Type Renovation Site Control Own Bldg. Constructed/Center Open 2016/2023 Acquisition Cost Renovation Cost Unknown $8.7M Campus Size N/A Facility Area 20,000sf Employees 108 Key Services 1. Health Services 2. Mental Health Counseling 3. Legal Services 4. Youth & Family Services 5. Older Adult Services Revenue 1% 3% 40% 56% Contributions & Grants Program Services Investment Income Other Revenue $21.9M Expenses 37% 58% Salaries & Compensation Grants and similar Fundraising Fees Other Expenses 5% 0% $22.0M Los Angeles LGBT Center, Los Angeles, CA the world’s Founded in 1969, the Los Angeles LGBT Center is largest LGBTQ+ service organization, offering health care, housing, counseling, and advocacy. With nearly 800 staff, it serves tens of thousands each year across multiple campuses, including the Anita May intergenerational hub. Through Rosenstein community and programs innovative partnerships, the Center advances equity, fosters belonging, and strengthens visibility, resilience, and progressive change throughout Southern California. Governance 501(c)(3) nonprofit Major Donors California Community Foundation Conrad N. Hilton Foundation Construction Type New built Site Control Own Bldg. Constructed/Center Open 2019 Acquisition Cost Renovation Cost $141M Key Services 1. Youth & Senior Services 2. Policy & Advocacy 3. Transgender Services 4. Mental Health & Psychiatry 5. Legal Services Revenue 1%-2% 37% $162.4M 60% Contributions & Grants Program Services Investment Income Other Revenue Expenses 43% Campus Size 2 acres 57% Facility Area 180,000sf Employees(2024) ~800 Salaries & Compensation Grants and similar Fundraising Fees Other Expenses $162.3M Sacramento LGBT Community Center, Sacramento CA The Sacramento LGBT Community Center, founded in 1979, is a nonprofit dedicated to creating a safe, welcoming, and inclusive space for LGBTQ+ people in the Sacramento region. The Center provides vital support services, health and wellness programs, housing resources, peer groups, and advocacy efforts, like while also Sacramento Pride. Its mission is to uplift and empower identities and experiences, fostering equity and community connection across generations. individuals of all cultural events leading Governance 501(c)(3) nonprofit Major Donors California Endowment California Wellness Foundation Construction Type Renovation Site Control Own Bldg. Constructed/Center Open 2019 Acquisition Cost $4.35M Campus Size N/A Facility Area 11,250sf Employees 60 Key Services 1. Youth Support & Drop-In 2. Health and Wellness 3. Community Resources & 4. Transgender Services 5. Housing Services Revenue 1% 0% 15% 84% $6.3M Contributions & Grants Program Services Investment Income Other Revenue Expenses 46% 54% Salaries & Compensation Other Expenses $5.1M Mexican American Cultural Center, Austin, TX Key Services 1 Educational Programming 2 Cultural Celebrations 3 Artistic Exhibitions 4 Youth/Senior Programming 5 Events & Festivals to the preservation, Founded in 2007, the Emma S. Barrientos Mexican American Cultural Center (MACC) is dedicated creation, presentation, and promotion of the cultural arts of Mexican Americans and Latino culture. The MACC offers a wide range of programs, including wellness, education, culture, and the arts. The facility provides an outdoor plaza, theater, auditorium, classrooms, and a dance studio and provides spaces for groups and activities, as well as space for annual festivals and celebrations. The facility is currently closed due to Phase II construction, but a grand re- opening is planned for November of 2025. Governance City of Austin Office of Arts, Culture, Music, and Entertainment Parking Services & Goods Use of Property Major Donors City of Austin Construction Type Renovation Site Control Own Bldg. Constructed/Center Open Acquisition Cost 2007 2025 (reno) Ph 1 $16M Ph 2 $27M Campus Size 2.4 acres Facility Area 34,000sf Employees 11 F/T Personnel Contractuals Commidities Revenue 3% 20% Expenses 1%-1% 18% 77% $753,827 80% $2M Asian American Resource Center, Austin, TX is Founded in 2013, the Asian American Resource to create a space of Center’s mission belonging and healing for Asian American communities in Austin and beyond. This is accomplished through community collaborations and partnerships, providing space for community groups, organizing cultural, educational, and health/wellness programs; and curating art and historical exhibitions. The facility is scheduled to be updated in 2025 and 2026 to include a performance and improvements, as well as a infrastructure pavilion. accessibility area, Key Services 1 Cultural Celebration 2 Cultural & Artistic Programs 3 Wellness Programming 4 Community Space & Exhibits Revenue 2% Governance City of Austin Office of Arts, Culture, Music, and Entertainment Major Donors City of Austin Use of Property Services & Goods Other Revenue 98% $158,303 Construction Type Renovation Site Control Own Bldg. Constructed/Center Open Acquisition Cost 2013 2025 (reno) $5M voter approved. $17M (reno) Campus Size 15 acres Facility Area 16,000 sf Employees 11 F/T, 10 P/T Personnel Contractuals Commidities Expenses 3% 16% 81% $1.07M Carver Museum and Cultural Center, Austin, TX the preservation and exhibition of Through African American culture, history, and aesthetic expression, the George Washington Carver Museum, Cultural and Genealogy Center works to create a space where the global contributions of all Black people are celebrated. Founded in 1980, this facility houses a theater, commercial kitchen, classrooms, conference rooms, dance studio, and outdoor plaza. Future phases are anticipated to include 90,000 square feet of include new classroom improvements and space, gallery, and a 500-seat theater. Key Services 1 Cultural Celebration 2 Genealogical Research 3 Cultural & Artistic Programs 4 Museum & Education 5 Community Space Revenue 15% Governance City of Austin Office of Arts, Culture, Music, and Entertainment Major Donors City of Austin Recreation & Cultural Charges Rental Charges 85% $39,654 Expenses -1% 4% Construction Type Renovation Site Control Own 23% Bldg. Constructed/Center Open 2009 (reno) Acquisition Cost $7.5 M (reno, 2018 Bond) Campus Size 13.7 acres Facility Area 39,000 sf Employees 8 F/T 72% $1.49M Personnel Contractuals Commidities Center Location Date Opened Total SF Acquisition/Renovation Cost Amenities Summary Managing Entity Annual Revenue 1995 7900 (estimate based on one floor of a 3- story 23,800 sf office building) Likely de minimus- lease in ground floor office building. Wellness Center (HIV/STI testing), LGBTQ library (8.000+books), youth programs, arts, resources. Conference spaces for rent. Mutual aid closet. A 501(c)(3) nonprofit (formerly Gay City Health Project / Gay City) Sources of Revenue Summary Fundrasing: $261,826 Grants: $2,041,475 Annual Expenses Major Donors City population Programs: 92.8% of total General & Administration: 4% Fundraising & Development: remainder (~3.2%) City annual general fund budget $1.9 billion (2025) 2005 5000 (gross may be 6,500 sf) Estimated acquisition cost of up to $2.1M. 1973 Likely around 5000 sf Undetermined Offers Arts & Culture, Education & Training, Health & Wellness, and Advocacy programming. Features include monthly art exhibits, an extensive library collection, a Resource Wall, free public Wi-Fi, and rentable event space (e.g., meeting rooms, small theater). Includes food pantry. Offers sliding-scale mental health counseling, peer support groups, drop-in youth programs, therapy groups for seniors (50+), a clinical training program, community workshops, HIV services, and consultation & training services. $2.3M (2023) 423,063 (2023) $480,958 (2023) 816,600 83.3M(2024-25) Contributions: $397,167 Program Service: 2,102 nonprofit LGBTQ community center 4.61M (2024) Contributions: 3.7M, 80.7% Program Services: $445k, 9.7% $2.03M(2024) No specific major donors are listed in accessible sources. 655,000 124,321 (2020) $280.2M(2025) Seattle LGBTQ Center Seattle, WA Q Center Portland, OR Pacific Center Berkeley, CA SF LGBT Center San Francisco, CA DeFrank Community Center San Jose, CA The Center San Diego, CA LGBTQ Center OC Santa Ana, CA Pride Center at Equality Park Wilton Manors, FL 2002 35,000 sq ft Pacific Center for Human Growth, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. $6.5M (2024 Underwent a $6.5 million renovation starting in 2016; final cost estimated at $10 million, funded primarily through New Markets Tax Credits. Offers economic development services (housing, employment, small business), youth services (drop-in, mental health, housing), community programs (information, arts, volunteer), building rentals, Cyber Center, and partner- tenant spaces. Operates as a nonprofit (San Francisco Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Community Center). 1981 8843 Not Available Offers a free CyberCenter, library with LGBTQ+ materials, support groups, HIV testing, and art exhibits. Functions as a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization 1972 (deed indicates transfer in 1998) 15,490 Main building valued at $2.8M, presumably well below market. Financial report estimates $10M value. Acquisition cost unknown; renovations funded over time with federal and local grants. 6.5M Government grants: 3.6M Donations: 861k Foundation and corporate: 981K Fundraising events: 216K $282,064 (2024) Total grants, contributions: $269,684 Net rental income: $6,412 $223,036 (2024) $33.7M Gov grants (44%), Individual gifts (40%), foundation grants (13%), corporate grants (1%) 31.7M (78% programs and services, 14% management, 8% fundraising) 4180 Not Available Health linkage to care $2.11M (2023) San Diego LGBT Center (501c3) Contributions: $1.9M, 93.9% Program Services: $119K , 5.6% $1.93M (2023) Established as a volunteer organization in 1971, incorporated in 1975 as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit 1993 30,000 Schubert Building Renovation, $1 million, 2009 Free HIV/STI testing and prevention Mental health programs Youth & young adult groups (e.g., Elevate Program), Transgender services, Tobacco control, LGBTQ training, Immigration assistance, David Bohnett CyberCenter Building offering office, meeting and Program spaces Arets and cultural spaces Information and tech resources Health and wellness facilities Senior/ Active Aging Amenities Legal & Civic Engagement Resources Support & outreach tools Space Rental Operates under LGBTQ Center OC, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit Independent nonprofit organization 2.7M (2024) Contributions: 84.5%, $2.3M Program Services: 12.6%, $341,352 Investment Income: $69,455 2.82M (2024) Annual usage Program Details Hours Employees Rent vs. Own Other Notes Health services: over 3,000 clients served. Youth engagement: 202 total interactions (drop-ins + Discord). Mutual aid & support: serviced over 200 usage events and made 182 referrals. Community engagement events: nearly 400 engaged attendees at markets. Library and healthcare navigation: 161 checkouts and 214 assisted individuals. Not explicitly listed Serves over 3,000 people annually through programs, as stated on their website. The center hosts over 1,800 community events per year, provides a Cyber Center with 60+ hours/month of public access, and supports numerous programs. Monthly visits exceed 1,000 individuals to the Alameda location; usage from further afield via helpline is also significant. Tue–Sat - Tue: 1–6 pm; Wed–Fri: 10 am–6 pm; Sat: 9 am–5 pm Rent (assumption) Seattle also has a 4,411 sf community center as part of Pride Place, a LGBT+ Senior housing development. 11 58 Monday–Friday, 8:30 AM–5:00 PM Monday-Friday, 10 am - 7 pm Monday–Thursday 11 AM–5 PM, Friday & Saturday by appointment only, Monday 4-9PM Wednesday 6:15-9 PM Thursday: 6-9PM M-F 10-8, Sat 10-4 39 key staff, 90 total staff Appear to own main building, lease other spaces for specific uses Senior apartments off-site, youth supportive housing off- site as well as several other youth centers all owned by The Center. Monday–Friday, 10 a.m. – 6 p.m. Mon-Fri: 10AM-10PM Sat-Sun: 12PM-5PM wellness and health services, youth advocacy and engagement, community support and resources, Arts, history and advocacy. STI/HIV/Gender affirming care services in collaboration with independent pharmacy (pharmacy has space in the center). Monthly art exhibits Kendall Clawson Library Marsha P. Johnson Fund (support for Queer BIPOC) Multi-generational groups under pillars: Arts & Culture; Education & Training; Health & Wellness; Advocacy Includes sliding-scale therapy, LGBTQIA+ peer support groups, older adult groups ("Older & Out"), youth drop-in sessions, clinical training, grief therapy, HIV services, community outreach, and organizational training. Includes economic development, youth navigation and support, arts & culture, volunteer services, housing aid, and technology access. peer support groups, HIV testing, cyber access, library, arts exhibitions, and community resource services. housing services, crisis support, food pantry, training, mental/behavioral health, sexual wellness, and services directed to all L/G/B/T subgroups plus youth and families Core programming includes mental health, HIV/STI services, youth empowerment (Elevate), transgender services, tobacco control initiatives, LGBTQ training, immigration resources, and CyberCenter access Community and cultural engagement, hosts 60+ regularly meeting groups per month Active Aging, Cyber Center, Wellness & HIV Services, Cultural/Arts, Civic Engagement, Education, Support Networks. Coffee & Conversation (Tuesdays 10 AM–12 PM), daily senior fitness, etc. Center on Halsted Chicago, IL 2007 175000 Whole foods: 40,000 SF Parking SF: not available (100,000 SF is Center estimated size) $20M capital campaign for the site in 2002 (6.5M from State of Illinois, 1.25M from HUD, 350k from City);sale of the Whole Foods space for $28.1M part of development cost. 3-story facility with full-size gymnasium, multi-functional theater (Hoover- Leppen), rooftop garden, meeting rooms, resource & computer labs, kitchen; LEED-Silver sustainable features. Independent nonprofit $7.8M (2023) 7.81M(2023) Contributions:86.3%, $6.7M Program Services: 6.1%, $473,813 Investment Income: 2.9%, $222,248 2328 Not Available $2.27M (2023) Contributions: 100% $2.5M 568,271(2024) 2.2 Billion (2025) Pride Center of Maryland Baltimore, MD Founded in 1977 as the Gay Community Center of Baltimore; formally opened its first rented location in March 1978. Renamed Pride Center of Maryland in 2019 Offers over 30 programs and services, including youth development, mental health, violence prevention, support services, trauma-informed care, empowerment circles, fitness, cooking classes, wellness clinic, harm reduction, and more. Operates as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit serving LGBTQ+/same- gender-loving populations in Baltimore and Central Maryland. 1980 10,000 SF Not Available- likely de minimus based on ground floor office rental space $3.17M(2024) Contributions: 98.9% 2.97M(2024) 673,458 (2024) 2,721,308 (2024) Mon-Sun: 8AM-9PM 400 Own BAGLY Community Center Boston, MA Affirmations Community Center Ferndale, MI Grand Rapids Pride Center Grand Rapids, MI The GLO Center Springfield, MO LGBTQ Center of Southern Nevada Las Vegas, NV Founded: 1989 Relocated to current facility: 2007 17,000SF Raised a capital campaign of $5.3M in 2006 to move to the new facility LGBTQ+ youth–focused community center, health clinic (HIV/STI testing, healthcare navigation), programs in Youth Leadership, Health & Wellness, Stabilization & Success. Environmentally designed facility includes cyber center, art gallery, rooftop sky deck, library, event spaces, drop-in youth area, and support service rooms. 501(c)(3) nonprofit—youth-led, adult-supported. $1.7M (2023) 501(c)(3) nonprofit 1988 4792 Not Available $431,015 (2023) $1.98M (2023) Contributions and grants: $1M Program service Revenue: 606K Investment income: 38K other 49K $495K (2023) Contributions: ~$452K (>100%, due to how items net out), Program services/rental: ~$6.6K (≈1.5%) Investment income: ~$349 Other revenue: ~$17.98K a nonprofit under the name Grand Rapids Pride Center. Operates as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Also referred to in bylaws as “The Gay and Lesbian Community Center of the Ozarks, Inc.” $197,940 (2023) Contributions: 99.5% $161,460(2023) 1996 2060 Not Available Founded 1993, Moved to current facility in 2013 16,000SF $4M renovation Hosts numerous social and support groups (e.g., BIPOC, youth, recovery, trans & nonbinary teen, women’s, caregivers), plus programs such as the Health Equity Program and Therapy Assistance Program. Support Groups (youth, young adult, asexual & aromantic, men & nonbinary, LGBTQ+ seniors 50+, QTBIPOC, trans/nonbinary, women & nonbinary), Resource Navigation & Case Management, GLO Food Pantry, Library and community shop, Monthly vendors markets (GLO Market) supporting queer artists and entrepreneurs Offers the David Bohnett CyberCenter, LGBTQ lending library, sexual health clinic (HIV/syphilis testing, vaccinations), primary care, programming for specific groups (seniors, youth, trans, men, women), peer groups, inclusive social services. Childrens play area, cafe, library, 4000sf outdoor courtyard. $14.6M(2023) Contributions: $6.2M, 42.5% Program Services: $8.3M, 56.6%. $10.9M (2023) Las Vegas Sands gave 270k in 2025, giving over 100k in several prior years as well as part of an ongoing partnership. 641,903 (2024) $826,566,414 (FY 2024- 25) 200,000+ individuals served generally in 2023 No explicit annual usage numbers located, but programming is extensive and services are widely accessed. 501(c)(3) nonprofit Programs include youth services, mental health, empowerment circles (e.g., Transend, Silver Circle), harm reduction, wellness clinic, cooking classes, fitness, and cultural/educational programming. Health & Wellness, Stabilization & Success, Youth Leadership & Advocacy, Statewide youth group network (AGLY), BAGLY runs Youth Pride, Trans Youth Summit, and BAGLY Prom. Offers affirming mental health counseling, medical health support (including HIV/STI testing, vaccines), basic needs assistance, youth programs (Carl Rippberger Youth Empowerment), arts & culture, education, events/groups, and support services. Offers a wide range of social/support groups for various communities and runs health equity and therapy assistance programs. Programs include support groups by identity/age, resource navigation, food pantry, community shop, library, and monthly vendor markets promoting LGBTQIA+ artists/creatives. ACT III (seniors 50+), Identi-T* (trans/non-binary support), QVolution (youth 13-24), Vegas Mpowerment (men 18-35), ELLE (women 18-30), The F Word (feminism group). Offers peer- led recovery support (AA, NA), CyberCenter, lending library, clinics (sexual health). Monday-Thursday : 9AM-6PM Friday 10AM-6PM Mon and Fri: 2-6PM Tue: 2-5 PM Wed: 2-8 PM Thu: 2-7 PM Not mentioned 1 full time, several part time Rent Monday–Friday: 10 am–4 pm 3 Rent Monday, Thursday, Friday: 10 am–4 pm; Tuesday, Wednesday: 10 am–3 pm. Lobby: Monday–Friday 10 AM–7 PM; closed weekends. Health Clinic: Monday & Tuesday 9 AM–6 PM; Wednesday & Thursday 10 AM–7 PM; Friday & Saturday 7:30 AM–4:30 PM; closed Sundays. Wellness Clinic: Monday–Friday 9 AM–6 PM; closed weekends. ~815,000 997,368 (2024) 2.1 billion (2024) 1,400,000 2.2 Billion (2025) 316,184 (2024) $406.7M 12,500 unique contacts in 2024 11,788 (2024) Serves 20,000+ individuals annually across diverse backgrounds and identities. in-person attendance: > 35,000 adults and youth Regular Monthly groups: 60+ Broader outreach: 125,000-128,000 residents/visitors Not listed by name, but recent grants include ~$28K from the American Online Giving Foundation and ~$20K from the Macdonald-Peterson Foundation. 100k+ from Kaiser Permanente, several individuals, and legacy/charitable funds. Over 50k from community college district and US Bank. Single donor gave $19M in 2022. Key donors (individuals, organizations) at Lifetime, Premier, Platinum levels Sponsors: Wells Fargo, JetBlue, Whole Foods, Seminole Hard Rock, Ketel One, etc. Capital Campaign: A long list of individuals, businesses, and funds supporting Vision 2015 (aimed at transforming its 5.5- acre campus into a comprehensive LGBTQ+ community hub.) Miriam Hoover (pledged $1 million; Hoover-Leppen Theatre naming); Michael Leppen (significant gifts); City/Federal support including $1.25 million secured by Rep. Rahm Emanuel in FY2006 appropriations. Not individually named; notable grantmakers include BIDMC ($166,667), Boston Foundation ($100,000), American Online Giving Foundation ($73,070), among others. y ranging from $5–100/month—supports daily operations and core programs. Tiered sponsorship opportunities ranging from $250 (small businesses) to $15,000 (corporate level)includes visibility and acknowledgment benefits Based on 2019 Form 990 Schedule B: Wege Foundation: $90,000 Steelcase Inc: $10,000 Bell's Brewery: $15,000 Rumor's Nightclub: $10,000 DTE Energy Foundation: $5,000 Not individually named in public sources, but received a $37,850 program grant from Community Foundation of the Ozarks and a $63 general support gift from AmazonSmile Foundation. 19,190(2020 Census) $28.7M (2025) 200,117 (2024) $191M(2025) 170,596(2024) $103M(2023) Community Center serves thousands of youth annually; statewide network (AGLY) serves ~7,000 youth and programs see ~6,200 visits at the center. The center welcomes approximately 45,000 visitors annually for services like counseling, support groups, youth programs, vaccine clinics, and arts events The 2019 Form 990 notes that the Pride Festival had 6,500 participants, which is its main fundraiser and community engagement event. Not Available $4.71M (2024) Contributions $4.6M, 97% Program Services $77K $3.2M(2024) Capital campaigns in 2021 noted large gifts that brought the campaign over $2 million. $6.3 billion in FY25 Mon-Thu: 1-9PM As of June 2025, site was for sale, seeking a new space. Needs more than $3.5M in renovation/upkeep costs. Founded 1975 Current Building in 1996 25700 350000 purchase price in 1996 William Way LGBT Community Center Philadelphia, PA Resource Center Community Ctr. Dallas, TX Originally founded in 1983, Tax-exempt since 1984. Expanded into a new community center in 2016 20,000SF The building project was approximately $8.7 M LGBT Community Center New York, NY Hudson Valley LGBT Community Center Kingston, NY 1983 Aquired building in 2007, following fundraising and city grant support Founded in 2005; facility opened in 2007 27,000 Purchase in 1983 for $1.5M. $9.2M renovation in 2001 and again in 2015 6,720 sf Three-story building at Wall and John Streets Purchased around 2007, following fundraising efforts LGBT Center of Raleigh Raleigh, NC New location opening Summer 2025 in a 1949 property 3000 sf March 2025: The @lgbtcenterofraleigh is opening a new community center this summer thanks to a $300,000 donation from @coopertacia. Located on East Cabarrus Street in DTR, which is being designed by @gensler_design. Valued at about 970k. Features include: a 14,000-volume lending library, LGBTQ+ history archives (John J. Wilcox Jr. Library), public art & exhibition space, community meeting rooms, a new cyber center, peer counseling, senior services, education, arts & culture programs, recovery meetings, and the Arcila-Adams Trans Resource Center. CyberCenter, food pantry, health services (HIV/STI testing, wellness), mental health, primary care, LGBTQ+ senior housing initiatives, diverse program offerings including FaCES, youth empowerment, advocacy, and education Offers a range of services including mental health support, youth programs, advocacy, and cultural events Rotating art gallery, large event hall, conference room, library, film archive, meeting rooms Includes a library, large meeting space, gallery, youth programming, helpline, support groups, advocacy Operates as a nonprofit: Gay and Lesbian Community Center of Philadelphia, Inc., doing business as William Way LGBT Community Center . 18.8M (2021) Contribution and grants: 6.9M Program service: 11.6M Investment: 99K Other revenue: 196K 20.2M 501(c)(3) nonprofit 501(c)(3) nonprofit $16,134,512 (FY 2024) $572,428 (FY 2022) 501(c)(3) nonprofit Hudson Valley LGBTQ Community Center Inc Primarily from contributions, program services, rental income, and investment income Primarily contributions (~99.6%), with minor investment/rental/other income $18,680,795 (FY 2024) $641,972 (FY2022) Approximately 1,603,797 (2023 estimate) Over 50,000 visits per year reported. Capital campaigns in 2021 noted large gifts that brought the campaign over $2 million Michael Kors Lance Le Pere Peter Speliopoulos Robert Turner Novo Foundation Dyson Foundation David Bohnett Foundation 1,288,500 1.9 billion (FY 2024-25) Serves over 60,000 individuals per year through programs and services. Approximately 8.5 million (New York City) $112.4 B (2024) Serves over 58,700 people each week through various programs and services 23942 $59,847,749 (FY 2025) $528,973 (FY 2024) Primarily contributions (~100%), plus program service and other income (~20%) $463,784 (FY 2024) Community Catalyst Laughing Gull Foundation American Online Giving Foundation Local General Contractor ~470,000 (2023) $657M Not yet opened 501(c)(3) nonprofit LGBT Center of Raleigh, Inc. peer counseling, senior services, support groups, education, arts/culture, library/archives, trans resource center, vaccine pop-ups, twelve- step recovery meetings. Comprehensive offerings: Healthcare (primary, HIV/STI, mental health), FaCES for families/children, programs for seniors, youth (Youth First Texas), peer support, food pantry, housing, and more. Offers a wide range of programs including youth services, mental health support, and cultural events Provides well-being programs, support groups (Rainbow Lounge, men's group, Queer Kinship), advocacy, arts, and community education Offers LGBTQ support including youth and life initiatives, trans inclusion groups, resource networks Mon–Fri 9 AM–5 PM Mon-Sat: 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. Sun: 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. 100+ Tuesday–Saturday: 11 AM–7 PM; Sunday: 2 PM–4 PM; Monday: by appointment; other hours for special programs Main office hours: Mon 12 PM–7 PM; Tue–Fri 12 PM–4 PM; other programs by appointment 12 7 Own Own Rent Stonewall Columbus Community Center Columbus, OH Greater Dayton LGBT Center Dayton, OH Bradbury-Sullivan Community Center Allentown, PA Utah Pride Center Salt Lake City, UT Milwaukee LGBTQ Community Center Milwaukee, WI The LGBTQ Center Long Beach Long Beach, CA Los Angeles LGBT Center Los Angeles, CA Sacramento LGBT Community Center Sacramento, CA 2016 2005 2021 1986 2019 2018 12,000 sf public space (8,648 sf on first and third floor, omitting the 2nd floor board room) Renovation of 1957 & 1922 buildings via 4 years of fundraising of $3.8M. Ongoing fundraising may support expansions and new renovations. · Event space and full building rental options · Lobbies, gallery, multi-use space (up to 75 person capacity), board room, skill development room, rooftop terrace Stonewall Columbus (non-profit) 1.85M (2024) Founded 1976 4,850 sf (warehouse space) Unknown, likely very low (assessed at 51k). Primarily meeting space(s) Greater Dayton LGBT Center, Inc. (501c3) $93k (2019) 13,000 sf building (vacant and renovated) Building purchased for $340k, minimal reno required; support from Allentown Redevelopment Authority Meeting rooms, offices Bradbury Sullivan Center (501c3) $1.75M (2023) Corporate sponsorships (membership levels program) and grants: 535k (29%), earned revenue including annual Pride: 1.3M (70%), Other: 15k (1%) Fundraising (55k). gifts and grants (29k), program fees (6k), member dues (4k) Government (44%), Individual contributions (36%), corporate sponsors (15%), program income (5%) Total is 1.8M. Programs including Pride: 870k (48%), General/mgmt expenses: 898k (50%) Franklin County (presenting partner/sponsor), followed by Batelle, Columbus Convention Center, JP Morgan, Grange Insurance, etc. 933,000 $1.2 billion website said 9,000 annual visitors (plus connecting 35,000 people to local services), but 2024 snapshot clarified 808 in-person visits excluding events, and 1,173 community members serviced excluding events (5,626 if including events) Rotating art gallery, book clubs, pride events, dance classes, senior group club, family events, coming out group, on-site counseling services, recovery support, trans therapy group, health navigator M-F, 10-5, group activites during extended hours 60k (36k rent/utilities, 23k printing/publications) Financial, insurance, major corporations, churches 136,346 $229 million Unknown $2.0M (programs-57%, admin- 29%, fundraising-14%) 200k comes from State of Pennsylvania, over 500k from a single individual 127,000 $39 million 373 people served and 8,657 attendees at community events. Primarily M-F evenings, some Saturday events Tue-Fri, 10-6 4,787 sf (financial issues caused relocation from 19k sf building to tower floor) 1,350 per CoStar; may share space with colocated service providers (22.5k gba) Sold former building for $3M, current space valued at $1.5M. Standard office layout Utah Pride Center, Inc. (501c3) $3.2M (2022) 1.7M contributions/grants, 1.5M program revenue, $3.2M (1.3M salaries, 1.9M other) Pride festival has 59 sponsors of whom 12 are Fortune 500 companies. Names not listed presumably to avoid backlash. 218,000 $512 million ($2B total city budget) Unknown Unknown; likely minimal buildout Food pantry, gender-affirming clothing boutique, meeting spaces, plus, planned/ spaces for library, relaxation area, and indoor memorial garden Milwaukee LGBT Community Center (501c3) $899k (2023) Almost entirely from contributions/grants, including federal funding; ~$6k from program fees and rental income $1.2M (2023) - $806k payroll; $194k occupancy; $51k other expenses United Way, Leonard Litz LGBTQ Foundation, MHS Health Wisconsin, various corporate and health foundations ~570,000 (decline since 2020 census) $798M ($40k allocated from Milwaukee County to org for "outreach & sociatization") Approximately 6,000 annually 8,600 sf owned by the Center since 1985 Not available for original renovation and subsequent upgrades Cyber center, library, event spaces, office and clinic space (medical and behavioral) The LGBTQ Center Long Beach (501c3) $2.6M (2023) Almost entirely from grants & contributions, ~$50k from program services and rental income $2.9M (2023) - $1.8M payroll, $410k fees for service, $435k "Other" 2024 $2.3M Mackenzie Scott grant; smaller contributions from various health and private foundations, e.g. Kaiser Permanente ~467,000 (2020 census) Over 10,000 annually $752M; $1M dedicated in 2024 for LGBTQ Cultural District infrastructure initiative + support for Pride and annual Black & White Ball events 180k sf Anita May Rosenstein Campus (2 acres) $141M 100 beds for homeless youth; administrative offices; Phase 2 to include 124 units of housing. Los Angeles LGBT Center (501c3) $167M (2024) 2019 11,250 sf $4,350,000 Acquistion cost (750k acquisition grant from City) Numerous meeting rooms, space for health services, referrals, youth-specific lounge/meeting area Sacramento LGBT Community Center Organization (501c3) $6.26M (2023) ~$111M from program services; $32M from grants; $5.7M special events revenue, net; $15-16M contributions/in-kind 83.7% contributions (about 34% gov/foundation grants, 27% corporate/events, 20% capital contributions, 12% individual contributions), 15.6% program services $184M (2024): $172M program services, $12.5M support services Anita May Rosenstein $6.5M lead gift; various LA family endowments; recurring gifts from various corporate, institutional, and family foundations $3.8M (2023 est.) $8B Over 42,000 clients served per month $5.09M (2023). 29% of expenses related to housing. State, City, and County grants; major banks, telecom, healthcare, and university grants 535,798 848,000,000 Over 5,000 service visits and 2,508 support group attendees M-F, 4-8 pm plus scheduled events outside hours Center has had financial issues for a long time. Loss of sponsors resulting in 250k shortfall this year. Mon 12-6 pm; Tues - Thurs 10am - 6 pm; Fri 12 - 5pm; Closed Sat and Sun 5 Mon - Wed 10am-7pm; Thurs 10am - 9pm; Fri 10am - 7pm; Closed Sat & Sun Rent Own Appeals for individual contributions due to loss of federal funding; shares space with other service providers, unclear on how much is occupied. Staff reduced from 17 to 5 in 2025. Long history in its space. $1M dedicated in 2024 for LGBTQ Cultural District infrastructure initiative + support for Pride and annual Black & White Ball events Various (they operate a number of different centers, venues, and housing properties across LA) Nearly 800 Own Largest LGBTQ nonprofit and direct service provider in the world, according to the Center's website M-Th 10-8, Fri-Sun 10-6 30 Own- purchased new site in 2019 Separate off site facilities run by the Center include youth drop in center, youth shelter, youth transitional living, and a southside annex. Center noted concerns related to $1.2M in annual federal funds at risk. Yoga, AA, HIV support group, PFLAG meetings, game nights, trauma support, STI testing, youth support group Primarily social, support, and activity group activities, as well as health promotion and resource navigation, youth after school program Support groups, clothing drives, social clubs, game nights Transgender & gender non- conforming support program, older adult program, Project Q youth program, disability program, reservable space/group hosting, lending Youth & family services, health services, legal services, mental health counseling, intimate partner violence, older adult services Health services (medical & behavioral); housing for youth and seniors; cultural arts programming; advocacy, education & leadership development Peer support groups, referral services, basic needs support, education, training; heavy focus on homeless youth The Center on Colfax Denver, CO Originally founded in 1976; current location opened in 2010 15,000 SF (11,250 sf per assessor) Estimated $4.9M ($985k acquisition + renovation of former medical office) Event rooms, lounges, cyber center, rooftop patio, library, health services space Established in 2002, new facility opened in 2025 New planned location at 1827 Wiltberger St NW: 6,671 SF $2.5M Total $1.0M investment from Mayor’s Office for the new center’s buildout Offers over 20 free peer-support groups; mental health services, arts & culture programs, advocacy, wellness, trauma support, drop-in services, gallery $1.5M in fundraising DC LGBTQ+ Community Center Washington, DC The Gay Lesbian Bisexual & Transgender Community Center of Colorado 501(c)(3) nonprofit Metro DC Community Center Inc 501(c)(3) nonprofit $4.6 million (FY 2023) Grants, government funds, private donations, program fees $3.8 million (FY 2023) Gill Foundation, Arcus Foundation, Denver Foundation, others $1.23 millon (FY 2023) Contributions, rental income, program revenue $928,237 (2023) Monumental Sports & Entertainment Foundation (MSEF) ~713,000 (2023 est.) ~$1.7 billion (FY 2024) - ~525,000 PrideFest attendees Does not list direct contributions or line-item appropriations to The Center on Colfax $13.2B (FY2025) 702,250 (2024 est.) Youth programs, legal clinics, elder services, trans programming, cultural events Mon–Fri: 10am–8pm, Sat: 12pm–5pm, Sun: Closed Mon–Fri 12–6pm, Sat 11am–3pm Health & wellness, arts & culture, social peer support, advocacy and community building programs Expanded services: Therapeutic Spaces Lending Library Food Pantry Clothing Boutique Community Events Art and Cultural Programming HIV and STI testing room, therapy spaces, and a boutique offering professional attire for job interviews 46 17 HIV testing center, Library, large classroom, offices and meeting space. 501(c)(3) nonprofit ~$1.28M; $1.53 million (earlier year). LGBT+ Center Orlando, Inc. Largely contributions (~75–97%), program service revenue (~10–20%), with occasional fundraising and other income. ~$1.05 million (recent) in organizational expenses. 307,573 (2020). $708.5 M (FY2025) - direct allocation to the Center unknown 6,700 free HIV tets 10,000 accesiisng free group support 2,00 mental health councsleing appointments Wrap-around LGBTQ+ services: Free HIV testing, mental health, support groups, youth and senior programs, food assistance, and advocacy. Mon. - Fri., 9 a.m. to 8 p.m.; Sat. & Sun., 10 a.m. to 2 p.m Evenings & Weekends open for scheduled groups and meetings only 23 One of the oldest and largest LGBT centers in the U.S LGBTQ library, archive, preservation leader D.C. has one of the highest per-capita LGBTQ+ populations in the U.S. (~9.6–14.5%) Rent Rent Own operates in a historic building formerly housing an elementary school and high school 141 annual events booked, 43 hosted events, 6 classes. Initially planned to open in a different vacant building but $1.5M+ renovation estimates changed plans. The Center Orlando Orlando, FL Founded in 1978; In 1999, The Center purchased 942 and 946 N. Mills Avenue. 7,000 SF expansion in 2017; Construction linking two spaces along North Mills Avenue is underway, allowing The Center to expand to 15,000 SF ~$500,000 The renovations were partially made possible with a $200,000 grant from the city. The Center raised $25,000, supplementing a grant from the Contigo Fund and matched by AIDs Health Foundation for $50,000. LGBT Community Center Cleveland Cleveland, OH Founded 1975; The current facility, opened in June 2019 15,500 sq ft $4.9 M anonymous gift + $300K George Gund Foundation + $1 M Maltz Family Foundation match Two-story purpose-built facility in Gordon Square Arts District; LEED Silver intent; program & office space triple previous footprint Health clinic, library, art gallery, community kitchen, youth & elder programs, legal aid, mental health services 501(c)(3) nonprofit LGBT Community Center of Greater Cleveland $2,781,381 (FY23) Donations, grants, program fees $2,496,412 (FY23) KeyBank Foundation, Cleveland Foundation, George Gund Foundation, Maltz Family Foundation, and an anonymous $4.9 M capital gift 372,624 (2023 est.) $800M (FY2025) 22,000+ community members served ann Youth and Young Adult Services, Health Services (HIV prevention/testing), Seniors Program, Trans+ Wellness, Pride in the CLE, Community Events, Training and Education Mon–Fri 10am–8pm, Sat 10am–2pm 37 Own - custom built One of the nation's oldest LGBT+ centers, celebrating 50 years in 2025 Montrose Center (Community Center ONLY) Houston, TX Founded circa 1978 (exact date not public)- Community Center facility was built in 1972, acquired by endowment fund in 2007. 62,804 SF per HCAD (6,800 SF meeting space/community center - including small and mid-size conference rooms, and a 4,019 SF event hall) Montrose Center (Community Center + LGBTQ Affirming Senior Living Center) Houston, TX Broke ground in 2019; opened in 2021 162,000 SF all facilities Meeting & event space; small/mid-size conference rooms; event hall (4,019 sq ft); kitchenette with appliances; restrooms (including private, gender- neutral); Wi-Fi; ample seating/tables equality park 112 units: one- and two-bedroom independent-living apartments; social- services department managed by the Montrose Center; geriatric primary-care clinic provided by Legacy Community Health, a group dining area, business center, library, fitness center, dog park, and outdoor recreational spaces. 567,000 in annual rent through 2028, rented from Montrose Counseling Center Permanent Endowment, established in 1988 to support the Center. $26.5M In early September 2018, the Center received a letter of commitment for nine percent LIHTC worth an estimated $13.8 M in funding. This sum is separate from the more than $5 M raised from the community, the $5.1 M of TIRZ funds. $23M from grants, tax credits, and community donations $11,035,607 (FY2024) – Community Center Services program revenue not separately reported Government grants ($6.91M), contributions ($1.74M), United Way ($538K), special events ($548K), client fees ($844K), other income ($191K) – Community Center- specific portion not separated Approx. $19M total assets, $2.3M in grants (FY 2023) Grants, donations, program revenue $355,839 (FY2024) - (Community Center Services program) H-E-B (Title Sponsor), United Way of Greater Houston, multiple foundations and individual donors ~2.39 million (2024 estimate) ~$3.03 billion (FY2025) The center serves more than 100,000 people each year, across all programs and services 6,025 direct client served (2024) 38,550 visitors (2024) 55,218 imapecd by community center, education and outreach (2024) Space rental for LGBTQ- affirming organizations/events; supports broader services (counseling, youth, HIV prevention, etc.) but specific to space rental mentioned. 7 days/week during scheduled events Nation’s largest LGBTQ-affirming affordable senior living center; focus on youth and senior services 102 Rent ~2.39 million (2024 estimate) ~$3.03 billion (FY2025) Senior living, youth rapid rehousing, counseling, 24/7 sexual assault helpline, anti-violence, HIV testing and prevention, wellness and social groups Nation’s largest LGBTQ-affirming affordable senior living center; focus on youth and senior services Pride Center San Antonio, TX Founded 2011; Incorporated as nonprofit July 2012; opened admin office in June 2014; ; opened drop-in space in its current location in 2017 (Methodist Professional Building). 1,500 SFof space in the Methodist Professional Building The renovation is funded through a combination of proceeds from Giving Tuesday and additional fundraising efforts. Peer-to-peer support groups, youth mentorship program, legal clinics, cyber center, wellness activities (yoga, Zumba, Qigong), community meeting space 501(c)(3) nonprofit The Center – Pride Center San Antonio $497,000 (2024) Not explicitly broken out, but include contributions, grants, program income, and other nonprofit revenue streams. $557,000 (2024) Planned Parenthood, H-E-B, Methodist, KSAT 1,526,656 (est. 2024) $1.67 billion (FY 2025) Youth programs, mental health support, legal aid, elder services, art therapy, community events Mon–Fri 3pm–8pm, Sat 10am–2pm 10 Compass Community Center Lake Worth Beach, FL Founded 1988- building is 1999, renovated in 2009 ~11,000 or 14,000 SF Building and improvements recorded at $1.1M in 2024 financial statements. Building donated in 1999. Completed renovations in 2009 under a public-private partnership with the city 501(c)(3) nonprofit Compass, Inc. Youth programs, mental health services, HIV/STI testing, social support groups, community events $3,578,092 (FY ended June 30, 2024) $3,485,928 (FY ended June 30, 2024) 46% of funding in FY 2024 originated from federal, state, or local agencies (down from 62% in FY 2023). Grants receivable heavily concentrated from one primary source. Ken Adams and the David Bohnett Foundation 42,219 (2020) $46M (2024) More than 25,000 people utilize its 11,000 square foot facility, and more than 17,000 referrals are fielded by more than 12,000 volunteer hours graciously contributed by hundreds of community-centered individuals each year. HIV prevention/testing via in- house clinic, support groups, youth programming, education, mental health support, and digital access via cyber center. Monday–Thursday: 10:00 am – 8:30 pm; Friday: 10:00 am – 5:00 pm; Saturday: 2:00 pm – 6:00 pm 31 International Montreal LGBTQ Community Centre Montreal, QC, Canada 1988 Small suite operating within a church (<5,000 sf) NA Rentable spaces, open book library 1975 24,000 Purchased for community by the City of Toronto, cost not found. 2024 (in an 1865 town hall) 7,000 2021 (purpose built facilty) 64,000 1980 36,000 Renovation was $1.6M in USD with total project budget of about $2.1M. Most costs associated with remediation and building code upgrades. Land is valued around $1.9M. $32M in USD (City donated land and state government paid over 75% costs) Phase 1: $16M (2007).estimated $57M in renovations for facility expansion plan (Phase 2). $7.5M allocated from 2018 bond for upgrades. The 519 Toronto, ON, Canada Inner West Pride Centre Sydney,NSW, Australia Victorian Pride Centre St. Kilda, VIC, Australia Austin Community Centers Carver Museum and Cultural Center Austin, TX Mexican American Cultural Center Austin, TX Asian American Resource Center Austin, TX Rentable spaces, legal services, financial services, vaccines and health referrals, film events, teen workshops, youth action, support groups, tax clinic, trans assistance, reservable meeting spaces, security systems, counseling, event space, kitchens, accessible restrooms The 519, non-profit (registered charity) $6.5M grants (mostly public) + $5.1M in donations and fundraising= $11.6M 21% core City funding, 79% donors & funders. United Way, Law Foundation, and national/provincial/city major funders. Several banks providing $100k+/yr. $11.4M (half for staffing expenses, half for cost of services and materials) Federal, provincial, city gov; United Way; banks, pharmaceuticals, alcohol companies, etc. plus several hundreds of individual donors. 2.8 million $11B out of $17.1B annual budget 480,000 visitors Library, youth program, new arrival support, sexual violence support, room reservations, discussion groups Full spectrum of services offered on-site or off-site with partnerships M-W 2-6, T 2-8 M-F 8:30-9, S-S 9-5 Twenty10, non-profit org Unknown Unknown Council grants use of space by operator rent-free in lease agreement, including covering all O&M costs. Inner West Council of Sydney 5.6 million region (22,000 Newtown) $181M (Inner West Council) Less than 1 year old Youth programs, support groups, special events varied Many rental and meeting spaces/coworking, art gallery, offices Victorian Pride Centre non-profit 35% from rentals, 17.5% ctr mgmt, 17% community giving, 14% events, etc. Salaries, center management, and other admin (7.5% budget is security) Broad spectrum of State and local sponsors plus corporate and individual members 60,000 M-F 9-5, S 10-5, some Sundays Theater, commercial kitchen, outdoor plaza, conference room, classroom, dance studio. COA PARD $47,000 (2025) revenue outside of City's budget amount. City funded, facility has a $1.53 M annual budget $328,792 (2023). Total is $1.5M for staffing, programming, and operating expenses. Carver Museum ATX Foundation, various corporate sponsors ~989,252 $1.5B N/A $2.02M (2025) expenditures Unknown ~989,252 $1.5B ~100,000 annually Museum, library, exhibits, workshops, performances, festivals, online programming, camps. M, T, W, F, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.; Th 10 a.m. to 9 p.m., Saturday 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., Sunday Closed. Wellness, meeting place for activities and groups, education classes, annual festivals and celebrations M, T, W, F, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.; Th 10 a.m. to 9 p.m., Saturday 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., Sunday Closed. 8 full time staff City-owned 11 full time staff City-owned 882000. Total is $1.2M for staffing, programming, and operating expenses. Unknown ~989,252 $1.28B 38,882 (2024) Cultural celebration, senior programming, creative arts, rotating exhibits, educational programs, M, T, W, F, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.; Saturday 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., Sunday Closed. 11 full time staff; 10 part time staff City-owned 2007 34,000 Phase 1: $16M (2006 bond) Phase 2: $27M (adds 68,500 ft) Outdoor plaza, classrooms, north lawn, theater, auditorium, dance studio. COA PARD 2013 16,000 Ballroom, classrooms, meeting rooms, commercial kitchen, conference room, great lawn COA PARD $5 million from a voter-approved Austin bond package in 2006, along with a $750,000 investment from the U.S. Department of Commerce's Economic Development Administration. Project Costs (2019): $17M $7M allocated from 2018 bond for upgrades. 212000 (2025) in parking and rental space revenue. (2023) $1.05M, revenue generated outside of City's budget amount. City funded, facility has a $2.66 M annual budget. $31k in Center revenue and another $181k in parking revenue. City funded, facility has a $1.28M annual budget. Rent has operated from various leased office and walk-in spaces, including: - Woodlawn Theatre building (1910 Fredericksburg Road) - Methodist Professional B ildi (1303 M C ll h Operates in a city-owned building, via a public–private partnership One of the city's oldest LGBTQ+ centers, celebrating over a decade of service First city in Florida to declare itself an LGBTQ+ Sanctuary City staff of 2. As of August 2025, Montreal supporting a new french language community centre for a cost of $1.025M CAD from the City and borough budgets. Space was identified as surplus real estate and the local government issued an RFQ for a manager/operator. Ongoing community engagement to tailor events and programming. Many subtenants provide vital income stream to the centre. Phase 1a and 1b focus on building renovations and site improvements (1998). Phase 2 will grow facility by 90,000 sf (new gallery, classroom space, and 500-seat theater). Master Plan of facility 2017. Phase 2, construction began 2022, ending 2025, and includes music rehearsal spaces, galleries, offices, storage space, teaching kitchen, landscaping, and gathering spaces. Bidding and permitting in spring of 2025 and construction to follow from winter to summer 2026. Amenities to include performance area, accessible facilties, infrastructure to support, pavilion. Performing arts center on hold pending funding. 123 Appendix 2 Site Evaluation Detail Criterion Core Program Accommodation Description Site and/or facility can readily accommodate the core program. General Accessibility No barriers to ADA compliance and publicly accessible site/facility. Scoring Yes/No Constraining Factor 5- ADA compliant or able to be compliant, direct entry access. 3- ADA compliant or able to be compliant, welcoming secondary access. 1- ADA compliant or able to be compliant, some potential access issues. 0- Not ADA compliant or able to be compliant, access issues. Availability Likelihood of site or facility availability to serve as a new cultural center based on current use, future commitments, and ownership structure. Centrally Located Site or facility is located near the center of Austin or in the immediate surroundings. 5- Immediately available 4- Very likely available within 12 months 3- Likely available with stakeholder conversations, within 24 months 2- Potentially available pending relocation solutions, within 36 months 1- Unlikely available unless relocation solution found for which there is no current alternative, within 48 months 0- Very unlikely available within next 5 years 5- Located in downtown or Central East Austin (78701, 78702, 78705) 3- Located centrally (78703, 78704, 78741, 78721, 78723, 78751, 78752, 78754) 1- Located outside central areas (78742, 78744, 78745, 78724, 78753, 78757, 78731) 0- Located outside this area. Multi-Modal Access Site and facility are comfortably and easily accessible by multiple modes, including cars, transit, bikes, and walking. Priority B & C Space Accommodation Site and/or facility can readily accommodate features from Priority B and C space list. Expandability Site or facility can be expanded. Building Quality Condition of the building(s) and renovation requirements. Funding Potential & Cost Relative funding potential of the location. Cost Estimated overall cost Securability Security implications of site and/or facility. Tenure Ownership structure allows for long-term use. Autonomy Center's authority to make decisions without reliance on or direction from other strategic initiatives. 5- Location readily served with parking, nearby high frequency transit stops, sidewalks, and bike lanes. 4- Location is fairly well served with parking, relatively close transit stops, sidewalks, and bike lanes or low-traffic bike access options. 3- Location is multi-modal accessible but missing a key feature (on-site parking, sidewalk connectivity, reasonable bike access, transit routes). 2- Location can be accessed by multiple modes but missing more than one key feature. 1- Site has good access by one mode but relatively poor access by other modes. 0- Site is not multi-modal accessible for reasonable commuting. 5- Location can accommodate all Priority B and some Priority C spaces. 4- Location can accommodate most Priority B and some Priority C spaces. 3- Location can accommodate some Priority B and Priority C spaces. 2- Location can accommodate at least two Priority B spaces. 1- Location can accommodate more than the core program, but likely only one Priority B space. 0- Site accommodates only core program and no Priority B space. 3- Site has significant space (land or unprogrammed facility) to expand cultural center uses in the future. 1- Site has some additional space (land or unprogrammed facility) that could be used for future expansion, though some barriers may exist. 0- Site cannot accommodate future expansion. 5- Building is in good shape and can quickly be repurposed as a cultural center within a short timeframe. 4- Building is in good shape and can be repurposed as a cultural center for moderate timeframe. 3- Building is in good shape and can be repurposed as a cultural center but may need an extended timeframe. 2- Building is in fair shape and can be repurposed as a cultural center within a short to moderate timeframe. 1- Building is in fair shape and can be repurposed as a cultural center but may need an extended timeframe. 0- Building is in poor shape and can be repurposed as a cultural center but may need an extended timeframe. 5- Site has funding identified through a specific source (committed grant, philanthropy, public support). 3- Site has funding potential through multiple sources but no committed funds. 1- Site has an interested partner that could assist with funding. 0- No funding or partner support identified. 5- Low cost anticipated with acquiring and repurposing site for cultural center (<500k). 3- Moderate cost anticipated with acquiring and repurposing site for cultural center (500K-2M). 1- Relatively high cost anticipated with acquiring and repurposing the site for cultural center (2-5M). 0- Very high cost anticipated with acquiring and constructing a new cultural center (5M+). 5- Site has existing security features relevant for this cultural center (fence, cameras, lockable vestibule, exterior features). 3- Site can readily be secured as desired based on existing layout and design. 1- Site could have security features integrated but at high cost. 0- Site is difficult to effectively secure. 5- Location is available for fee simple (land and improvement)sale to project sponsor. 4- Location is available for fee simple (condo) sale to project sponsor. 3- Location is available for long-term unsubordinated ground lease (30+ years) to project sponsor. 2- Location is available for lease with conditions to ensure long-term interest (Right of First Refusal, Deed restrictions for community use, etc.) to project sponsor. 0- Location is owned by a third-party entity and anticipated to remain so. 5- Site provides independently accessible space for community center function and is organizationally distinct from other services. 3- Site is independently accessible but may share vesituble with other uses and rely on building controls. Org structure provides autonomy from other services and functions. 1- Site is embedded with other uses and organizational structure offers limited separation from ther uses and services. 0- Site is embedded with other uses and is not structurally separate from other functions and services. ASHWell Not Quite (large community room is 900sf but program requires 1200 sf) COA Muni Building COA Guadalupe Fire Station Yes Yes 1 3 5 4 3 1 5 3 5 3 0 3 3 5 5 3 1 4 0 3 5 3 1 2 5 4 3 0 4 0 3 3 3 0 33 3 37 5 33 125 Sample LGBTQIA+ Cultural Center Siting Criteria Criteria Detail Search Radius Indicated by map (west and south of 183, north of Ben White, east of MoPac) Property Type Availability Key Features • • Existing Building preferred (office, retail, warehouse, medical/clinic), class B and C OK. Empty land OK (prefer ~1 acre) with good access. Immediate or within next 24 months. Tenant lease may be considered. • • • • Prefer at least one large interior space to serve as multipurpose room on ground floor, ideally no less than 1,200 sf. Direct ground floor access and/or ADA compliant design and features. Dedicated parking preferred by not required. Prefer standalone building to facilitate security and access control. 126 Appendix 3 Supplemental Site Considerations Other Public Sites Opportunities for Exploration Central Health Headquarters Travis County Housing Services Travis County Post Road Building Travis County Former Precinct 1 Admin Building 127 1111 East Cesar Chavez Street 15,860 sf one-story facility • 0.92-acre site • Total Assessed Value of 9.1M (Land: $7M, • Building: $2.1M) Built in 1969 Approx. 55 parking spaces Deeded from the City of Austin to Central Health in 2004 New HQ at Hancock Center opening in Spring 2027 • • • • 5021 East Cesar Chavez Street 11,369 sf warehouse space • 1.05-acre site • Total Assessed Value of $4.65M (Land: • $4.1M, Building: 534k) Built in 1960 40+ parking spaces Travis County owned since 1985 Site used by field staff, potentially accommodated at flagship HHS facility on Airport Boulevard. • • • • 2203 Post Road • • • • • 15,605 sf on main floor 34,150 sf total building 1.98-acre site Zoned for public use Total assessed value of $12.3M (Land: 11.2M, Building: 1.1M) Built in 1957 80+ parking spaces Underutilized since the closure of the community center and relocation of the family court; likely only Deaf Services remains. • • • 811 Springdale Road • • • 6,324 sf one-story building 2.17-acre site Total assessed value of $5.1M (Land: 3.8M, Building: 1.3M) Built in 2000 Approx. 50 parking spaces Building designed to accommodate future second floor expansion New Precinct 1 Building built adjacent to replace functions Current or recent use by ACC Health Sciences Academy (Phlebotomy Program)- space at Highland? • • • • • Other Public Sites AISD School Closures 128 Austin Schools Closing 2026 Address District Prop ID Site Acreage Building SF Land Value Improvement Value Total Value Barrington Elementary Dawson Elementary 400 Cooper Dr. 3001 S 1st St. North Austin (4) South Austin (3) Oak Springs Elementary 3601 Webberville Rd. East Austin (3) 246673 309738 195979 4.00 9.68 1.84 62747 67720 $5,739,458 $50,599,320 $12,266,762 $11,375,427 63906 $5,208,255 $7,678,059 Winn Montessori 3500 Susquehanna Ln. Northeast Austin (1) 222816 10.00 73579 $8,711,340 $12,281,396 Widen Elementary Becker Elementary 6506 Nuckols Crossing Rd. Southeast Austin (2) 906 W Milton St. South Austin (9) Ridgetop Elementary Sunset Valley Elementary Martin Middle 5005 Caswell Ave. Central Austin (9) 3000 Jones Rd. 1601 Haskell St. Sunset Valley East Austin (3) Bedichek Middle 6800 Bill Hughes Rd. South Austin (2) International High (Includes Nelson Field) 7104 Berkman Dr. Northeast Austin (1) Brooke Elementary 410 Tillery St. East Austin (3) Metz Elementary 84 Robert T Martinez Jr St. East Austin (3) Sims Elementary 1203 Springdale Rd. East Austin (1) 296196 100138 220245 510140 188301 332386 228188 189868 189299 202863 10.23 2.93 4.79 11.45 9.92 28.01 58.25 5.40 5.22 7.95 80416 68401 41596 67606 125752 $891,064 $7,653,600 $6,263,820 $7,481,430 $12,963,450 $9,877,147 $7,949,367 $4,993,031 $8,443,048 $15,362,331 189915 $18,301,740 $22,319,219 NA 51168 $38,060,550 $12,937,320 $6,366,451 60396 $7,957,751 $7,407,937 50707 $13,845,110 $6,119,535 Notes: - Sites highlighted in pink are located within the geographic boundaries of the search area for an LGBTQIA+ Cultural Center. -Oak Springs Elementary may be retained, and Blackshear Elementary may close instead, pending AISD Board discussion and decisions. $18M $62M $13M $21M $11M $16M $11M $16M $28M $41M $19M $15M $20M Private Sites Opportunities for Exploration Initial assessment of available facilities and land indicates the need for $3-7M upfront for property acquisition. 2921 East 17th Street (Building B) 8231 Burnet Road 129 Asking: $2.5M ($333/sf) Two stories 7500 sf (3,523 on first floor) Owner: Wilson Capital For sale since 2022 Upstairs leased to Method Architecture • • • • • • ($19/sf NNN lease) • 2019 current least duration unknown, there since Asking: $3.95M ($403/sf) 9,084 sf (7,864 sf plus 2,200 sf warehouse) on • • 0.40 acre • • 21 surface parking spaces 1968 construction 1166 Airport Boulevard • • • • • • Asking: $4M ($500/sf) 5,993 sf on 0.65 acre 8 surface parking spaces Pawn & Jewelry moved out Oct 2025 Remaining lease (2k sf) up by 2028 1968 construction 5900 Airport Boulevard • • • • • Asking: $3M ($378/sf) 7,936 sf across 2 floors on 0.72 acre 30 surface parking spaces Foundation Communities selling 1976 construction, former bank 2909 I-35 • • • • • • • Asking: Undisclosed Two stories 14,632 sf 0.75-acre site 1974 construction with elevator 38 surface parking spaces Vacant upon sale 5225 N Lamar Blvd • • • • • • • Asking: $5.6M ($358/sf) – listing date June 2025 Two stories 15,656 sf 0.82-acre site 1984 construction 30 surface parking spaces 1st floor lease by Travis County Integral Care, lease end date unknown, may have relocated Private Sites Opportunities for Exploration Initial assessment of available facilities and land indicates the need for $3-7M upfront for property acquisition. 130 3601 Manor Road • • • • • • Asking: $5.5M ($406/sf) Single-story medical office 13,538 sf 1.43-acre site 1964 construction, 2011 reno 59 surface parking spaces 5426 Guadalupe Street Asking: Undisclosed • Two-story office building w/ attached • warehouse 15,510 sf 0.58-acre site 1981 construction 36 surface parking spaces Building leased through Nov 2028 • • • • • 4716 Bull Creek Road Price: $6.8M • 12,224 sf • 2.81-acre site • Former church • 1958 construction • 1400 West Oltorf (land) • • • $2M ($46/sf) 1-acre site CS Zoning 5722-5730 Manor Road (land) • • • $950,000 ($23/sf) 0.93-acre site LR-MU-V-CO-NP Zoning 2110 Thrasher Road (land) • • • $2.5M ($24/sf) 2.4-acre site SF-6 NP Zoning Private Sites Opportunities for Exploration Long-term leasing may also be an option. 908 Old Koenig Lane • • • • • • $12/sf NNN Lease term open 16,290 sf 1.99-acre site Former church Recently purchased by investor for $3.3M 131 Nearly all listings are above $20/sf/yr, with most around $40/sf/yr. The example above is a lower cost outlier. 132 Appendix 4 Space Program Development Core Program • • 100% Survey takers agreed with the Core Program. Change Requests to discuss: 133 Add a "dividing wall" to the multi-purpose room to allow for more flexibility Add "exhibit space" and "lounge" to description of lobby • • • Make breakroom smaller • • • • Add additional office to program Add a classroom to program Add a "Drop-in" space (Interpreted as café type environment for small meetings/remote work). Add a food pantry and include an exterior door for potential 24/7 access for donations • Program/Scheduling feedback to be addressed through staffing considerations and programs offered by the center: • • • 24/7 access in certain areas of the center Operations to address/acknowledge all groups and demographics including queer families Potential growth and expansion opportunities to support long-term sustainability Note: The Core Program should be the minimum necessary program to support the cultural center. Nice-to-have spaces should be allocated to Priority B or C list. 135 Healthcare Focused Program • Healthcare Focused Program Feedback: • • • The healthcare clinic was the most prioritized out of the list of healthcare focused programs. Most of the participants indicated that this space was highly desirable. The medical offices, gymnasium and shower and changing facility were seen as medium priorities with most participants indicating that it was beneficial but not essential The pharmacy was the least prioritized with most participants indicating that this program would not be needed at the cultural center Healthcare Focused Program 136 • Change requests to discuss for the Healthcare Focused Program: • Add “drop-in” space (Interpreted as café type environment for small meetings/remote work) • Add food pantry to program • Program/Scheduling feedback to address • The multi-purpose room could be used as a testing room to avoid having designated space only used for testing. • A healthcare-focused center should function more was a medical outreach center rather than a full clinical care site to ensure flexibility within planning • Counseling for queer mental health, testing, educating, and fertility support for LGBTQ couples should be prioritized 138 Community Focused Program • Community Focused Program Feedback: • • • • • The large multipurpose space was the most prioritized out of the list of community focused programs. Most of the participants want this space to be added to the core program. The library was seen as a high priority with most participants indicating that it is highly desirable. The outdoor space, flex office, kitchen, and dedicated exhibit space were seen as medium priorities with most participants indicating that it was either highly desirable or beneficial but not essential. The co-working space was seen as a lower priority. The lease/tenant space was the least prioritized. Most participants agree that it would be beneficial but not essential. Community Focused Program • Potential changes to the Community Focused Program: Lobby could also serve as an exhibit space • • Add classrooms to program • Add food pantry to program • Add “hang out” room or 3rd space to program 139 • Program/Scheduling feedback to address • • Revenue-generating opportunities beyond leasing office spaces. Think about including a rentable event space, offering co-working memberships, or creating an open-access program 24/7 access to certain areas of the center 141 Service Focused Program • Service Focused Program Feedback: • • • • • The offices were the most prioritized out of the list of service focused programs. Most participants indicated that this space was highly desirable or should be added to the core program. The kitchen and small meeting room were seen as high priorities with most participants indicating that highly desirable. The clothing closet and classrooms were seen as medium priorities with most participants indicating that they were beneficial but not necessary. The food pantry was seen as a low priority. Off-site housing was the least prioritized out of the list of service focused programs. Most participants indicated that this space was beneficial but not necessary. 143 Appendix 5 Site Evaluation Criteria Detail Evaluation Criteria • Evaluation Criteria Feedback: 144 Likelihood of availability Anticipated Date Available Building Quality Location Transit/Bike/ Pedestrian Accessibility Parking Availability Accessibility Program Accommodation Expandability Funding Potential Security Implication Proximity to Affiliated Services or Amenities Unique Opportunities Evaluation Criteria • Evaluation Criteria Feedback: 145 Likelihood of availability Anticipated Date Available Building Quality Location Transit/Bike/ Pedestrian Accessibility Parking Availability Accessibility Program Accommodation Expandability Funding Potential Security Implication Proximity to Affiliated Services or Amenities Unique Opportunities Evaluation Criteria 146 • Evaluation Criteria Feedback Summary: • Accessibility was the most prioritized criteria from the list • Majority of participants agreed with high support that the following should be included in the criterium: • • • • Likelihood of Availability Location Transit/Bike/Pedestrian Accessibility Accessibility • Majority of participants agreed with medium support that the following should be included in the criterium: • • • • • • Anticipated Date Available Building Quality Parking Availability Expandability Funding Potential Security Implication • • Approximately half of the participants showed low support for the following: • • Program Accommodation Proximity to Affiliated Service Unique Opportunities was the least prioritized criteria from the list Evaluation Criteria • Other Evaluation Criteria for Consideration (not included in survey): 147 • • • Public Access Guarantees: Conditions or legal agreements that ensure access to the public during standard business (or extended) hours. Availability of Space(s) to Outside/Partner Organizations: Designated shared spaces available at low- or no- cost to non-profit affiliates. Viability Period: Conditions or legal agreements that promote long-term use of the site or facility as an LGBTQIA+ Cultural Center based on site ownership, lease conditions, and other real estate levers that promote public access in future years (ROFR, reverter clause, riders/liens by public entities). Final Site Evaluation Criteria 148 Criteria Description Scoring Core Program Accommodation Site and/or facility can readily accommodate the core program. Yes/No Constraining Factor General Accessibility No barriers to ADA compliance and publicly accessible site/facility. Availability Likelihood of site or facility availability to serve as a new cultural center based on use and ownership structure. Centrally Located Site or facility is located near the center of Austin or in the immediate surroundings. Multi-Modal Access Site and facility are comfortably and easily accessible by multiple modes, including cars, transit, bikes, and walking. Priority B & C Space Accommodation Site and/or facility can readily accommodate features from Priority B and C space list. Expandability Site or facility can be expanded. 5- ADA compliant or able to be compliant, direct entry access. 3- ADA compliant or able to be compliant, welcoming secondary access. 1- ADA compliant or able to be compliant, some potential access issues. 0- Not ADA compliant or able to be compliant, access issues. 5- Immediately available 4- Very likely available within 12 months 3- Likely available with stakeholder conversations, within 24 months 2- Potentially available pending relocation solutions, within 36 months 1- Unlikely available unless relocation solution found for which there is no current alternative, within 48 months 0- Very unlikely available within next 5 years 5- Located in downtown or Central East Austin (78701, 78702, 78705) 3- Located centrally (78703, 78704, 78741, 78721, 78723, 78751, 78752, 78754) 1- Located outside central areas (78742, 78744, 78745, 78724, 78753, 78757, 78731) 0- Located outside this area. 5- Location readily served with parking, nearby high frequency transit stops, sidewalks, and bike lanes. 4- Location is fairly well served with parking, relatively close transit stops, sidewalks, and bike lanes or low-traffic bike access options. 3- Location is multi-modal accessible but missing a key feature (on-site parking, sidewalk connectivity, reasonable bike access, transit routes). 2- Location can be accessed by multiple modes but missing more than one key feature. 1- Site has good access by one mode but relatively poor access by other modes. 0- Site is not multi-modal accessible for reasonable commuting. 5- Location can accommodate all Priority B and some Priority C spaces. 4- Location can accommodate most Priority B and some Priority C spaces. 3- Location can accommodate some Priority B and Priority C spaces. 2- Location can accommodate at least two Priority B spaces. 1- Location can accommodate more than the core program, but likely only one Priority B space. 0- Site accommodates only core program and no Priority B space. 3- Site has significant space (land or unprogrammed facility) to expand cultural center uses in the future. 1- Site has some additional space (land or unprogrammed facility) that could be used for future expansion, though some barriers may exist. 0- Site cannot accommodate future expansion. Final Site Evaluation Criteria 149 Criteria Description Scoring Building Quality Condition of the building(s) and renovation requirements. Funding Potential Relative funding potential of the location. Cost Estimated overall cost Securability Security implications of site and/or facility. Tenure Ownership structure allows for long-term use. Autonomy Center's authority to make decisions without reliance on or direction from other strategic initiatives. 5- Building is in good shape and can quickly be repurposed as a cultural center within a short timeframe. 4- Building is in good shape and can be repurposed as a cultural center for moderate timeframe. 3- Building is in good shape and can be repurposed as a cultural center but may need an extended timeframe. 2- Building is in fair shape and can be repurposed as a cultural center within a short to moderate timeframe. 1- Building is in fair shape and can be repurposed as a cultural center but may need an extended timeframe. 0- Building is in poor shape and can be repurposed as a cultural center but may need an extended timeframe. 5- Site has funding identified through a specific source (committed grant, philanthropy, public support). 3- Site has funding potential through multiple sources but no committed funds. 1- Site has an interested partner that could assist with funding. 0- No funding or partner support identified. 5- Low cost anticipated with acquiring and repurposing site for cultural center (repurposing). 3- Moderate cost anticipated with acquiring and repurposing site for cultural center (repurposing). 1- Relatively high cost anticipated with acquiring and repurposing the site for cultural center (new construction or major repurposing). 5- Site has existing security features relevant for this cultural center (fence, cameras, lockable vestibule, exterior features). 3- Site can readily be secured as desired based on existing layout and design. 1- Site could have security features integrated but at high cost. 0- Site is difficult to effectively secure. 5- Location is available for fee simple (land and improvement)sale to project sponsor. 4- Location is available for fee simple (condo) sale to project sponsor. 3- Location is available for long-term unsubordinated ground lease (30+ years) to project sponsor. 2- Location is available for lease with conditions to ensure long-term interest (Right of First Refusal, Deed restrictions for community use, etc.) to project sponsor. 0- Location is owned by a third-party entity and anticipated to remain so. 5- Site provides independently accessible space for community center function and is organizationally distinct from other services. 3- Site is relatively independently accessible but may share a vestibule with other uses and rely on building coordination. Org structure provides autonomy from other services and functions. 1- Site is embedded with other uses, and organization chart offers limited separation from other uses and services. 0- Site is embedded with other uses and is not structurally separated from other functions.