The 50-year decision

Let the conversations begin. And to be sure, there will be and should be many of them.

The Sarasota-based firm of Karins Engineering recently released the long-awaited engineering report on the condition of the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall. The report is now in the hands of the city’s Purple Ribbon Committee, which will digest all 400 pages and its recommendations, and later make its own recommendations to the City Commission on the fate of the city’s iconic performing arts hall.

The Karins report recommends it will take $17 million in repairs and the upgrading of all facets of the 55-year-old facility to preserve and protect it for its current and continued use.

The bigger questions for the Purple Ribbon Committee and City Commission will be whether to make those fixes, how to finance them and whether to commit to the never-ending and sizable costs to keep operating the performing arts hall in the shadow of what many hope will be a new iconic performing arts hall. 

Or … what? 

Tear it down? Repurpose it? Sell it? 

You can be sure this will become one of the most debated and contentious issues in the city’s history. Much like the fixed-span Ringling Bridge. 

Many may recall that began in 1993 and lasted until April 2001. That’s when the First District Court of Appeal ruled the Florida Department of Transportation could begin construction. That battle — multiple lawsuits —pitted factions of Sarasota and barrier island citizens against each other and tore the fabric of the community.  

You already can envision a repeat when someone dares to suggest abandoning, tearing down or selling the Van Wezel.

But those visions come to mind when you read Karins Engineering’s 409-page report. 

On the plus side, among the Karins report’s conclusions were  “the team did not identify significant architectural or structural Florida Building Code Violations … The roof was observed to be in generally good condition and well maintained.” And the appraiser, Patricia Staebler, stated in her report “the building was found to be in good condition.”

Staebler’s appraisal concluded the depreciated market value of the Van Wezel to be $80,019,000. She said the replacement value is $97,584,000.

Nonetheless, the Karins report is rife with deficiencies in the hall. There are so many they bring to mind the debate you have with old cars: Is it throwing good money after bad to dump a couple thousand dollars into your old jalopy, not knowing what else will go haywire, or do you take on new debt and buy a new one? 

What’s more, reading the Karins report leaves you with the impression from the theater and audio-visual consultants that the Van Wezel is clearly a Class-B venue for today’s musical and theatrical productions — and wouldn’t be much more than that even with the $17 million in fixes.

Read the report (YourObserver.com/Opinion-Karins-Report). Several conclusions, observations and opinions are likely to emerge in your mind. 

Here’s one: When you think about what is required to keep that building operating — the people, their expertise; all of the mechanical requirements for HVAC; the maintenance of the thousands of parts; the upkeep inside and out; and on an on — you realize it is a gigantic task. 

You then appreciate the job that Mary Bensel, executive director of the Van Wezel, and her team perform. You get the sense it’s like constantly plugging leaks in a dam, while keeping the water flowing as it should. 

It’s a big, constant job. And the fact they have managed to keep the Van Wezel going for 55 years is something we all take for granted, but shouldn’t. Give them credit. 

But then … there are the issues.

With the stage, offices, HVAC, electrical, plumbing and fire protection. Bringing all that up to where they should be consumes most of the $17 million. 

And while the engineers say the roof can last another five to 10 years, the roof consultants cited 12 concerns to be addressed. The theater consultants were diplomatic in their assessment of the functionality of the acoustics and audio-visual features: “While the building is beloved, and many things from a technical acoustics and AV design perspective are functional, there are challenges that limit the use of the main performance space … Overall Assessment: Audio and video systems, including cable infrastructure, require replacement.”

They were critical of the continental seating (no aisles) and noted the difficulty of staging big touring shows. Both “Hamilton” and “The Lion King” played the Van Wezel, but they were difficult negotiations, with short runs and the need to balance the show’s minimum guaranteed revenue with ticket prices.

Once you digest all that is required to repair, preserve and protect the structure to continue operating in the short term and even after a new, modern performing arts center opens, say, seven to 10 years from now, you can easily find your mind leaning to this conclusion: The city government of Sarasota should not be in the performing arts hall business.

Is that really a function of government — managing and maintaining an $80 million building, and booking and managing year-round traveling entertainment productions to suit the varied interests of the region’s citizenry? 

Yes, the city has done that for 55 years. And over the past decade, Bensel has managed to reduce its annual subsidy on the city’s operating budget. The Van Wezel finished the four years from 2016 through 2019 with operating surpluses that ranged from $239,000 to $1.1 million. Its best operating years were 2021 ($1.3 million operating surplus) and 2022 ($3.4 million operating surplus), but it is expected to have losses totaling $3 million for 2023 through 2025.

Many will argue a performing arts hall is a public good and an amenity that enhances the quality of life — much like parks, Legacy Trails and football and baseball stadiums. But virtually all of them require subsidies — that is, taking the earnings of taxpayers and depriving them of that money to support “amenities” many may never use. 

Will that be the future and fate of the Van Wezel if there comes a day when there is a new performing arts hall next door? 

Indeed, the Karins report now triggers many questions the Purple Ribbon Committee and city commissioners soon will face.

• Should taxpayers fund the $17 million to repair, preserve and protect the Van Wezel for the next the five to 10 years (the likely time it would take for a new performing arts hall to be built)?
• What are the consequences if the city doesn’t “invest” the $17 million?
• How will that $17 million be funded?
• In the larger sense, should the Van Wezel be operated with the objective of making it a break-even/surplus-producing enterprise? Is that a strength of the city?
• Or, should it be structured, say, much like the Bay Park Conservancy, a not-for-profit corporation expected to stand on its own? 
• With a market value of $80 million, should it be sold to a private company or not-for-profit organization (after a new performing arts center is built), relieving taxpayers of any future obligations?

Based on the Karins report, it’s clear that even with the $17 million upgrades and repairs, the Van Wezel will still be what it is — a B-market venue with its B-level customer experience and an inability to attract top-flight productions.

We have our sympathies for the members of the Purple Ribbon Committee and city commissioners. The Karins report has brought to light the unwinnable dilemmas they will face.

Hopefully, they will keep in mind: This is a 50-year decision. It’s not just a matter of preserving a 55-year-old, inadequate  architectural icon.