HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20120228 DATE: 16 FEBRUARY 2012
TO: MAYOR IRELAND AND ASPEN CITY COUNCIL
THROUGH: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER RANDY READY
FROM: WHEELER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR GRAM SLATON
RE: WHEELER OPERA HOUSE PROGRAMS AND SUBSIDY INFORMATION —
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND PROGRAM UPDATE
MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 28, 2012
SUMMARY
The purpose of this document is to supplement the December 16, 2011, report to Council with updates
on programs, as well as to give thumbnail summaries of the Wheeler's individual programs and key
points for Council discussion and direction.
OVERVIEW
As detailed in the December 16 report, there are twelve programs managed by the Wheeler:
• Wheeler Programming (single and festival events) *
• Community Events *
• Wheeler Film Society A
• General Rentals A
• Aspen Music Festival Rentals #
• Aspen Show Tickets A
• Concessions *
• Public Amenity #
• Historic Property #
• Outreach and Liaison A
• Leases #
• Arts Grants #
Those programs marked with an asterisk ( *) Wheeler staff considers to be within its direct control, given
guidance by City Council, to execute. Those programs marked with a carat (A) Wheeler staff considers
to be more a community resource in fit and implementation. Those programs marked with a pound sign
( #) are programs that either exist due to Council direction, pre- existing contract, or as a City of Aspen
asset, and without Wheeler control to independently amend or otherwise creatively manage.
1
WHAT'S HEADING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION?
Wheeler board and staff feel that the following programs have served a unique purpose and performed
well, and would not recommend any significant change for them:
• Community Events
• Public Amenity
• Historic Property
• Outreach and Liaison
Wheeler board and staff feel that the following programs, some of which have been adversely impacted
by the recession and are now seeing marked improvement, also serve a unique purpose, have
performed well given past Council direction, and should be the focus of discussion with Council at this
time for better clarity and future direction:
• Wheeler Programming
• General Rentals
• Aspen Show Tickets
• Concessions
WHAT'S OF CONCERN REGARDING FINANCIAL IMPACT AND FUTURE CONSIDERATION?
Wheeler board and staff recognize distinct challenges with the following programs, as regards financial
efficiency, deployment of Wheeler resources, and ability to continue in their present direction:
• Wheeler Film Society
• Arts Grants
DISCUSSION
Community Events are the events at the Wheeler that are free and open to the public. They are popular
programs featured throughout the September —June year and allow the Wheeler to fulfill its role as a
public meeting place and community resource for educational, organizational, charitable, and
celebratory events. Some of these include the Aspen Center for Physics lectures, Food & Wine
volunteer orientation meetings, fundraisers for community groups, and free Winterskol shows.
Public Amenity refers to the Wheeler as a community information and access resource in downtown
Aspen, and includes providing public restrooms, providing artists with gallery space on the second floor;
a satellite ACRA information station, a meeting and waiting area out of weather, and more.
Historic Property refers to the Wheeler as one of Aspen's most - noteworthy historic structures that is
also a functioning building, in our case a state -of- the -art theatrical space that receives constant use for
local and national attractions. Both the outside and the inside of the historic structure must be vigilantly
maintained in order to keep the building in top form, including everything from exterior paint and
repointing to interior drapes and woodwork.
Outreach and Liaison refers to the Wheeler as the City of Aspen's de facto arts resource for many
members of the community, in a consulting and advisory role. This program also encompasses the
2
Wheelers role in fulfilling directives and initiatives for City Council, the City of Aspen, and the Wheeler's
Board of Directors.
With all four of these programs, the Wheeler at present does not receive revenue or financial
reimbursement; however, Wheeler staff and board feel strongly that all four programs fulfill a unique
and important role in maintaining and growing Aspen's arts and community vibrancy and should be
continued without significant change, other than the regular monitoring and adjustments expected
from responsible staff management.
Wheeler Programming encompasses events where the Wheeler takes on all or part of the financial risk
for the event, which is offset in most instances solely through ticket sales. Council's direction to staff in
2005 was to present significantly more live events, whether through sole bookings or in partnership with
other arts organizations as co- promotions. Council also directed staff to consider high - profile bookings
for important periods in the winter season, such as the Christmas -to- New - Year's week, President's
Weekend, and during spring break weeks. As festival opportunities presented themselves, Council was
supportive of the Wheeler producing such events, particularly the 7908 Aspen Songwriters Festival,
which grew out of the "Mining For Ideas" challenge in 2010. Also, during the recession, the Wheeler
was called on to step up its booking profile in order to keep Aspen competitive in attracting winter -
season guests.
The December 16 report discusses how the financial results for Wheeler Programming were strained by
the recession, from its earliest impact in late 2007 to midway through the 2011 year; however, the
second half of 2011 has indicated that patrons are responding to the kind of rich and varied
programming that the Wheeler has developed since 2005, especially for its MountainSummit and 7908
festivals.
Wheeler staff and board feel strongly that the event mix that the Wheeler provides through its
Wheeler Programming, including its three festivals, distinguishes Aspen from almost all other winter
destination resorts and should be maintained. Input from Council is requested regarding the future
direction it should pursue for its festivals, as well as what level of subsidy is appropriate for high -
profile performances with accessible ticket pricing that require a loss in order to occur in Aspen during
high - profile times of year.
General (Theatre) Rentals is the program of the Wheeler that allows outside entities to present events,
supported by a range of fees and service reimbursements paid by those entities, and with the Wheeler
at no financial risk for the outcome of the event. The Wheeler, as a small venue, doesn't have the
volume or scale to command higher rental rates, and the direction Wheeler staff has pursued since 2005
has been to have its rental program first and foremost be supportive of arts groups and presenters, and
not an economic driver for the Wheeler. The impact of the recession on the Wheeler's user groups has
regularly required a relaxation of rental terms in order to help ensure that the user group can continue
to provide programming. As with the Wheeler's programs, Rentals have seen a steady increase in
attendance and positive results since the second half of 2011 and the Wheeler can expect to better
collect 100% of its rental terms with users in 2012 and going forward. Still, the Wheeler needs to be
price sensitive relative to the ability of its user groups and selective about new fees or price increases.
Wheeler staff and board feel that the General Rentals program provides Aspen and Roaring Fork
Valley arts groups and other not - for - profits with a value- oriented presenting option that is attractively
3
priced and enables groups to present without undue financial risk. Input from Council is requested
regarding the future direction of rental rates relative to the subsidy required to support the program.
Aspen Show Tickets is the program that serves as a community box office for many venues and events in
the upper valley, with a larger sales volume for events outside of the Wheeler than for those that occur
at the venue. Wheeler expenses are partially offset through a number of cost - recovery lines, but the
intensive hands -on nature of the box office business means that the entirety of the program requires
subsidy. As with the rental program, there has been some relaxation of the terms for user groups
through the recession that now are fading away, and some price increases and new fees introduced in
2011 will better help get the program to a zero subsidy; however, Council should be aware that this
program is a primary feeder of funds for the Arts Grants program and these monies do not accrue to the
Wheeler to support general operations.
Steps have been taken to reduce operating expense by the elimination of two FTE Wheeler positions (one
that was solely assigned to the Aspen Show Tickets program, and one that was in the Front Of House
department) and replaced it with a new position that will split time between Aspen Show Tickets and
Front Of House. The positive financial impact of this change will not be measurable financially until late
2013, but is expected to reduce box office overhead by 10% or more.
Wheeler staff and board feel that the Aspen Show Tickets program provides Aspen and Roaring Fork
Valley arts groups and other not - for - profits with a value- oriented ticket services option that is
attractively priced and enables groups to present without undue financial risk. Input from Council is
requested regarding the future direction of box office rates relative to the subsidy required to support
the program, as well as whether some funds should be retained from this program to help offset
other Wheeler operating costs (discussed more fully under "Arts Grants. ")
Concessions is the program that represents all bar sales and the small amount of revenue captured by
artist merchandise royalties. Past direction from Council has been to offer an affordable drinking option
for Wheeler patrons, even to be considered as "the cheapest bar in town." As such it is extremely
successful, but the high operating costs of set -up and tear -down for a very short- duration window of
sales means that the program has required an operating subsidy.
Wheeler staff and board would be supportive of higher prices for bar items, in conjunction with a
continued effort to improve operating efficiencies, including credit card processing, staffing levels,
and any other measures that make good operational sense to help this program financially.
Wheeler Film Society represents the service- contract program between Jon Busch and Don Swales and
the Wheeler Opera House to supply film product to fill empty dates in the Wheeler calendar. This
relationship has existed since about 1990 without significant change. In that time, the advancement of
alternative media sources such as cable TV, movie - rental businesses such as Blockbuster and Netflix, and
on- demand internet streaming have reduced the audience for movie - screening attendance. Average
numbers for WFS bookings have declined to an average of about 47 patrons per screening, although
WFS saw a strong increase in January 2012 after being off the Wheeler calendar due to construction
through the second half of 2011. Still, at over $15 per attendee, the cost per patron to subsidize this
4
program brings its continued viability into question, particularly as the Wheeler has in 2012 begun an
active association with Aspen Film to self - promote film in some of its non -live booking slots with good
attendance and cost - control success. WFS is in the middle year of its three -year contract with the
Wheeler, with each year subject to renewal in June. The contract itself is subject to approval by City
Council at the start of its three -year term.
In light of the pursuit of reasonable subsidies for Wheeler programs, Wheeler staff and board
question whether continuance of the Wheeler Film Society's contract should extend beyond its 2012
commitment, and believe that self- or shared - promoting of film content or even dark nights may
prove more economically efficient and a better use of available Wheeler resources.
Arts Grants is the program whereby the Wheeler supports 100% of the City of Aspen's grants to arts not -
for- profits. This program was shifted 100% to the Wheeler from the City of Aspen's general fund in 1999
by City Council and effectively takes all available revenues collected from the General Rentals, Aspen
Show Tickets, Concessions, and Leases programs to create a pool of funds that, in combination with the
$100,000 legally permissible under the Real Estate Transfer Tax enabling legislation, funds up to
$400,000 in annual grants to support operations of not - for - profit arts groups extending from Aspen to
Glenwood Springs. Because this program absorbs so many revenue sources away from supporting
operations of the Wheeler, the bottom -line subsidy for the Wheeler is worse than it otherwise would be
by $250,000 - $300,000 annually. Over $2.8 million of Wheeler operating revenues have gone to arts
grants between 1999 and 2010, in addition to the $1.2 million funded by the 5100,000 annual amount
from the RETT through those twelve years.
Wheeler staff and board believe that in 1999, there may have been less concern by City Council about
Wheeler operating subsidies than there is currently, and that in Tight of recent direction from Council
to fully assess and report operating subsidies the considerable impact of the Arts Grants program
should be discussed.
Two programs were not noted with bullet points and are touched on here:
Leases indicates the program overseen by City Asset Management for the rental and revenue collection
from the two commercial spaces at the Wheeler. 100% of the rental income from these spaces goes to
support the City of Aspen's grants for arts not - for - profits. In light of both spaces recently becoming
fully remodeled and new leases operational as of December 2011, Wheeler staff and board feel that
there is no discussion or action required at this time for this program.
Aspen Music Festival Rentals is a program of the Wheeler that continues the contractual relationship
between the Aspen Music Festival and School (AMFS) and the Wheeler that was created for
implementation in 1984 for a period of fifty years. Its terms remain unchanged through 2034 and make
the Wheeler available exclusively for AMFS rehearsal and events from early June through late August
each summer. Wheeler staff and board accept this existing contractual relationship and suggest that
Council acknowledge the inflexibility of the contract and the operating subsidy that the Wheeler must
commit for its continuance.
5
The remainder of the December 16 document frames the programming philosophy of the past seven
seasons in context of the 2005 Genovese Vanderhoof Organizational Audit. It also discusses the
operating principles of the Wheeler, given existing financial conditions and restrictions, as well as an
overview of the operating structure of most performing arts facilities in the United States and the
Wheeler's role in that community.
QUESTIONS FOR CITY COUNCIL
1. The Wheeler has been maintaining Aspen's profile as one of the leading cultural
communities in the nation, even when maintaining that profile has meant unusual
subsidy levels for self - produced or self - promoted events, as well as significant financial
assistance to non - Wheeler entities engaged in producing other arts events that also
meet a high standard. To what extent shall the Wheeler continue to strategically invest
in arts events and entities that maintain this year -round profile for Aspen?
2. Since late 2005, Wheeler staff has fulfilled Council's directive to drive the calendar
more towards live events, to the point that there are now very few open nights in the
winter season calendar. • As well, the improvement of the national economy is now
allowing Aspen arts entities to re- emerge as viable co- presenters, with 2012 having the
greatest amount of co- presented events since 2007. What direction shall City Council
give Wheeler staff in terms of programming mix, to include self - presented and co-
presented events, as well as calendar fulfillment?
3. The Wheeler has long foregone active fundraising and other non - ticket funding
initiatives, in order to not compete unduly with Aspen's not - for - profit arts
organizations. This has limited the ultimate underwriting of the Wheeler's many
programs, especially its presenting program, to the Wheeler RETT; however, Wheeler
staff is now witnessing strong donor interest for certain programs such as its 7908
Festival. Shall the Wheeler begin to strategically solicit outside funding sources, such as
charitable donations, or sponsorships that do not directly compete with the fundraising
efforts of other local arts groups?
4. For many years, the direction from City Council has been to maintain programs at the
Wheeler, such as Community Events and the Wheeler Film Society screenings, which
require a significant amount of soft- and hard -cost subsidy. Shall programs that offer
no ability to reasonably recover their operating costs continue as part of the Wheeler's
programming profile?
5. Rental rates for users of the Wheeler have been maintained at a very conservative level
for many years, in order to attract and maintain for - profit and not - for - profit events at
the facility. Even with attendance and box -office receipts now rising, many users find
their cost of presenting at the venue challenging. Shall the rental structure and /or
rates for the Wheeler be adjusted in order to better limit the subsidy required to serve
as o publicly - available rental venue?
6
6. The Wheeler's concessions bar for many years has been intentionally determined to be
"the cheapest bar in Aspen." Steps are being taken to adjust the product mix and sales
strategy, but the affordability of the bar remains a central concern for Wheeler staff.
Shall the Concessions program of the Wheeler be adjusted to generate significantly
more revenue, even at the cost of affordability?
7. The Wheeler's Aspen Show Tickets box office operation is a major and affordable ticket
services resource for the Roaring Fork Valley's many event - producing entities;
however, the staffing investment is significant and even at current rates often
challenges users to make their events financially successful. Shall the Wheeler rates for
box office services be adjusted in order to reduce the subsidy required to serve as a
ticketing resource for Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley?
7
DATE: 17 FEBRUARY 2012
TO: MAYOR IRELAND AND ASPEN CITY COUNCIL
THROUGH: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER RANDY READY
FROM: WHEELER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR GRAM SLATON
RE: WHEELER OPERA HOUSE PROGRAMS AND SUBSIDY INFORMATION —
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 28, 2012
SUMMARY
The purpose of this document is to supplement the December 16, 2011, report to Council with financial
analysis that demonstrates the non - Wheeler sales and tax impact of representative one -off events and
festivals produced by the Wheeler.
DISCUSSION
Two spreadsheets are attached here for Council's review, in order to address the expressed question of
what kind of economic impact the Wheeler's self - produced activities have on additional sales and tax
revenue generation in Aspen. These spreadsheets use information and certain formulae previously used
by the Special Events /Parks department to measure the economic impact of its individual events;
however, the Wheeler's sheets also take into account the impact that having its talent in residency
additionally provides to Aspen's total bottom line.
These sheets do not take into account all of the one -off production activity that the Wheeler does in a
typical season, but rather serves as a sampler of events from the past two years. In this sampling, shows
that did very well for the Wheeler are included, but so are shows that performed with fair results and
even some that did poorly at the box office, so that Council can have a full representation of Wheeler
impacts. Some repeat shows are included, so that Council can see the cumulative effect of a repeat
artist. The red columns on the "Hotel Impacts" page separate out the Room Taxes that directly benefit
Aspen, as well as the full Room Taxes impact.
Audiences are divided into four types — Aspen, Roaring Fork Valley (Woody Creek /Snowmass to
Glenwood), Regional (all Colorado), and Out Of State. One out of six Regional attendees is assumed to
stay overnight in Aspen, with one in three of Out Of State attendees also staying overnight. This seems
a reasonable estimate to Wheeler staff, reviewing the zip code reports offered by the Aspen Show
Tickets box office.
Non -hotel spending is estimated at $25 /head for Aspen and Roaring Fork Valley attendees, and
$50 /head for Regional and Out Of State attendees. Wheeler artists are estimated at $75 /head, based
on feedback Wheeler staff receives from artists and retinue on their purchasing activity in Aspen during
their stay.
While these spreadsheets do not offer a deep- mining, multi - parsing assessment of the Wheeler's
economic impact, Wheeler staff feels that it offers a reasonable "small- ballpark" study of the kinds of
sales and tax impact its events have for Aspen's merchant and hospitality community, as well as in tax
revenue that the City and County collect.
This analysis is offered in place of securing an outside assessment firm to provide similar information;
however, Wheeler staff recognizes that Council's desire may be to retain such independent assessors
subsequent to the Wheeler's appearance before Council.
Ain* gip' e".111'
fira = , di p -
�
Wheeler Opera
House Program
and Subsidy
Information
16 December 2011
Gram Slaton,
Wheeler Executive Director
1
DATE: 16 DECEMBER 2011
TO: MAYOR IRELAND AND ASPEN CITY COUNCIL
THROUGH: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER RANDY READY
FROM: WHEELER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR GRAM SLATON
RE: WHEELER OPERA HOUSE PROGRAMS AND SUBSIDY INFORMATION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this document is to review the twelve separate, yet tightly interwoven, programs of the
Wheeler Opera House, as regards the nature of their activities and the amount of subsidy required to
support those activities. This document is meant to serve as the foundation for a discussion with City
Council as regards the Wheeler in the City's 2011 -2012 Top Ten Goals established in July of this year,
specifically stated as "Design operational guidelines for Wheeler Opera House around subsidy levels,
programming levels, community service, etc." Further, it is hoped that this document will be able to
stand for a number of years as a comprehensive historic guide to the programs and operational
practices of the Wheeler Opera House for City government officials as well as the general public.
Programs are reviewed in no particular order, and a comprehensive discussion of Wheeler Event
Programming, including global industry issues, unique Wheeler issues, operating impacts, and local
financial impacts follows the twelve program discussions as the second half of this document.
BACKGROUND
At the June 20, 2011, City Council work session, Wheeler Executive Director Gram Slaton presented for
Council's review a variety of data associated with the cost of self - promoted productions at the venue,
including single events ( "one- offs ") and festivals. Subsidy levels for one -offs and festivals were
discussed, and a request for further information was anticipated to be forthcoming from Council.
During Council's annual retreat in July 2011, a review of the Wheeler's programs and
present /anticipated subsidies was established as a 2011 -2012 City Council Top Ten goal to discuss and
set appropriate future subsidy levels for the Wheeler.
As further background, several recent historical documents have been reviewed and are referenced and
attached to this document in order to give the fullest possible dimension to the discussion that Wheeler
staff expects to enter into with City Council in the coming months.
2
INTRODUCTION
The Wheeler breaks its public programs down into three types:
• Wheeler programming (including single and festival events, and co- productions). These
are events where the Wheeler takes on all or part of the financial risk for the event,
which currently is recovered solely from ticket and pass sales.
• Community events. These are live and film events where no admission is charged to
attendees, and may be produced solely by the Wheeler or in partnership with an
outside entity. There currently are no avenues for cost recovery with community
events.
• Wheeler Film Society events. The Wheeler Film Society takes open nights in the Wheeler
calendar on a short- booking timeframe and typically features non - mainstream movies.
The Wheeler is at no financial risk, but heavily subsidizes the WFS program through a
limited schedule of cost recovery items.
Additionally, the Wheeler considers that it also features the following programs:
• General rentals. This includes live and film events, where the Wheeler is at no financial
risk for the success of the event, and Wheeler costs are recovered through a cafeteria
plan of services selected by the rentor through a usage contract.
• Aspen Music Festival rental. This rental is guided by a 50 -year contract that expires at
the end of summer 2034. While the Aspen Music Festival supplies almost all labor and
programming, there are Wheeler expenses that are recovered through a limited number
of expense- recovery lines.
• Aspen Show Tickets. This program represents the Wheeler's box office operation and
services both Wheeler- located events and events occurring offsite. More than half of
Aspen Show Tickets' sales are now related to offsite events. Wheeler costs are partially
offset through a number of expense- recovery lines, such as box office royalty, credit
card and ticketing reimbursement, staff hour assessment, etc.
• Concessions. The Wheeler's bar operation and percentage from artists' merchandise
sales are represented here.
• Public amenity. The Wheeler is a centrally - located public building that services visitors
and residents as a meeting usage place, including second -floor gallery, public rest
rooms, and ACRA satellite station. There are currently no avenues for cost recovery.
• Historic property. The Wheeler is regarded as one of Aspen's premier Victorian -era
buildings as well as a functioning historic theatre, and is expected to be properly
preserved and state -of- the -art. There are currently no avenues for cost recovery.
• Outreach and liaison. As Aspen's de facto arts resource as well as premier year -round
theatre facility, Wheeler staff is regularly engaged in a consulting and advisory role. This
program also reflects the Wheeler's participation in fulfilling directives and initiatives for
City Council, the City of Aspen, and the Wheeler's board of directors. There are
currently no avenues for cost recovery.
• Leases. The Wheeler has two first -floor commercial properties in its building. Rents
from these leases at present go entirely towards supporting the arts grants program.
• Arts grants. The Wheeler supports the Roaring Fork Valley's 501(c)(3) not - for - profit arts
community through a competitive grants process.
3
In consideration of all these programs, the Wheeler board of directors in 2009 reviewed its Mission
Statement and amended it to the following:
"The mission of the Wheeler Opera House is to monitor and ensure the preservation and viability of the
historic venue and its property through exceptional performance experiences for residents, guests and
performers, and to support the cultural assets of the Roaring Fork Valley."
[Previously, the Mission Statement had been established as "To preserve the historical and cultural
integrity of the Wheeler Opera House; to nurture artistic diversity; to provide educational opportunities;
to provide local accessibility to the arts; and to provide excellence in performance and production for
community members and visitors." Present Wheeler staff does not know the date that this Mission
Statement was established.]
The Wheeler board further reviewed the goals for the organization and stated them as followed, in no
particular order of importance:
The goals of the Wheeler Opera House are to provide appropriate facilities and resources in order to:
• Assist user groups in the successful presentation of rental and community events, series,
and festivals;
• Foster and advocate artistic expression within the Roaring Fork Valley community;
• Present world -class arts experiences to Aspen, through the production, co- production, or
creation of individual events, series, and festivals;
• Provide opportunities for educational experiences for students of all ages throughout the
Roaring Fork Valley;
• Provide a public gathering place for the use of area groups, residents, governments, and
guests;
• Preserve and enhance Aspen's reputation as a premiere resort destination with a
dedication to arts and humanities; and
• Ensure the long -term viability of the facility through responsible fiscal management.
Finally, it has been the expressed desire of Aspen City Council for many years to cover the underwriting
of potential and realized losses from programming and operations exclusively through use of Real Estate
Transfer Tax (RETT) revenues. The RETT was established in 1979 as a dedicated tax for a twenty -year
term that would support the expenses associated with renovating the Wheeler (completed in 1984) and
its cost of operations. A provision for up to $100,000 of RETT funds was included to annually support
Aspen's arts grants program. The Wheeler RETT was extended for a second twenty -year term, ending
December 31, 2019. Use of RETT funds to support event programming has been ongoing since the
reopening of the venue in 1984, and this was formalized by City Council in April 2008 when Wheeler
staff asked Council to approve Ordinance 11, Series of 2008, amending section 23.48.060 (c) of the
municipal code to clarify the definition of the term "maintenance of the Wheeler Opera House" as it
related to the Wheeler RETT and clarifying appropriate expenditures from said fund, which Council
unanimously approved (see Appendix F).
Because of the RETT, it was thought inappropriate for the Wheeler to solicit individual donations,
corporate donations, sponsorships, and other gifts that might otherwise go to support another Aspen -
based arts group. In fact, in 1999, Aspen City Council directed the Wheeler to be the sole provider of
arts grants funding for the City, making up any amount above the $100,000 allowed by the RETT from
4
operations. Thus, for twelve years now, the Wheeler has been the only source of funds for the City of
Aspen's not - for - profit arts grants program.
SUBSIDY METHODOLOGY
At the request of City Councilman Derek Johnson, in July 2011 departments of the City conducted an
exercise as the Pricing Committee, in which a City department's entire operating budget is divided
across that department's individual programs, including what is known in the entertainment industry as
"soft costs" (salaried personnel, utilities, maintenance, information technology, office materials and
personnel - related expenses, taxes, and much more). This is a much deeper analysis than the simple
show accounting that has been the Wheeler's standard practice since late 2005 (as demonstrated in
Appendix B), and allows for a total view of the cost of services that the Wheeler provides. The Pricing
Committee approach is brought to bear here, applied to all departmental programs of the Wheeler.
For our discussion purposes, only 2011 numbers are shown. Subsidy estimates for 2012 are given below
them, but the table is not represented here. The full Pricing Committee exercise tables, including 2012
projections, are included at the end of this document as Appendix A. Below each table is a brief
description of the costs that are folded into the operating expense figure, including direct program
expenses and proportionate relative soft costs.
Co
•
1
5
DISCUSSION BY INDIVIDUAL PROGRAM
WHEELER EVENT PROGRAMMING: 2005 —2011 BACKGROUND
The Wheeler has not been the subject of an annual goals review by City Council since 2005, so it may be
beneficial to recap the programming philosophy and practices that has been followed from that period
to the present.
The Wheeler has produced and presented attractions since its reopening in May 1984. While there have
been periodic cost analyses done since that time, comprehensive data assessments have been done as a
regular part of business since late 2005. Direct event costing has been conducted for all live and film
event programming, including Wheeler Presents events, community events, and festivals, as well as
non - Wheeler- investment commitments such as rental events, the Aspen Music Festival's Opera Theatre
season, and screenings by the Wheeler Film Society, based on direct expenses only and not including
advertising costs, if any, because of the difficulty in separating out amounts from combined ads.
[Festival costing is the sole exception to this.]
Assessing available files from mid -2005 and earlier, Wheeler staff has been able to discern that the
Wheeler's presenting history since 1984 has been one with an ongoing and significant cash subsidy. The
Wheeler's one pre -2008 experience in festival production, Beyond Bluegrass, was from all indications a
heavily- subsidized program that was featured for at least four seasons without any meaningful growth
in attendance figures or reduction of operating subsidy.
In early 2005, at the direction of City Council the Wheeler hired the firm of Genovese Vanderhoof &
Associates to conduct a comprehensive audit of the Wheeler's operations. The audit, presented to City
Council in July of that year, expressed sixteen recommendations for the City of Aspen to consider. Many
of these recommendations were operational or organizational in nature; however, three of them spoke
to a future direction for Wheeler presentations:
• The Wheeler Opera House, as a civic -owned facility, would best serve the community
and maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of the administrative staff by performing
the role of a civic theater: Providing a space for public assembly, for the broader Aspen
community's use, and not engaging in production competition with the community arts
presenters and producers.
• The primary mission of the WOH should be to serve the community as a cultural
ambassador and facility management service. The WOH should not be in the
presentation business but could encourage the use of the Theater by not - for - profit and
for - profit presenters and producers through co- production partnerships.
• To encourage diversity in programming, the Wheeler Opera House should establish a co-
production fund from its operating budget to use as a partnership investment in local
arts producers and presenters to book and /or produce presentations for the Wheeler.
Of the sixteen expressed goals, six were later tabled at City Council direction, including the first two
quoted above. While full consideration was given to them and their intent, it was felt that the Wheeler
should continue self - presenting, in order to bring in high - profile events that other entities would be
unable to financially consider as well as to fill dates in the calendar year that were less desirable, while
also being sensitive to working cooperatively with other Roaring Fork Valley presenters and
6
•
implementing co- productions whenever possible. This policy was implemented immediately by the new
Executive Director upon arrival in October 2005. The Wheeler's first co- promoted event occurred that
December (Dave Mason, with Mountain Groove Productions).
In 2006, the Wheeler presented 20 single events, with 14 of these being co- promoted with the Wheeler
Associates, Mountain Groove Productions, the Broadway Players, and others.
In 2007, the Wheeler presented 25 single events, with 17 of these being co- promoted. New co-
promoters included Aspen Film, Jazz Aspen Snowmass, and the Belly Up Aspen.
On or about November 1, 2007, the early effects of the national recession hit Aspen, starting with real
estate and discretionary spending items, such as show tickets. The event history from that point
forward in the year shows a steep drop in attendance, which for the Wheeler was most severely felt
with some of its holiday -week offerings.
In 2008, the Wheeler presented 20 single events, with 7 of these being co- promoted. With the effects
of the recession being immediately felt by many of the Wheeler's co- production partners, financial
uncertainty and fiscal conservancy outweighed the ability for these entities to continue co- promoting
with the Wheeler. The Wheeler's greatest single - program loss occurred at the end of 2008 with the
repeat performance by Bernadette Peters, an artist where the contractual agreement was secured prior
to the onset of the recession. 2008 also marked the Wheeler's first effort to produce a festival (The
Aspen Rooftop Comedy Festival) since the decline of Beyond Bluegrass three years earlier, and in
response to Aspen's loss of the HBO /U.S. Comedy Arts Festival in 2007.
In 2009, the Wheeler presented 22 single events, with five of these being co- promoted. These co-
promotions had far reduced risk profiles compared to 2006 and 2007. The Wheeler at this point was
looked to by the City of Aspen as one of its few departments with the available funds to expand its
programming profile and be used by the City as an attraction for tourism. Numbers for 2009 for single
events showed a small improvement over 2008; however, the anticipated recovery from the national
and global recessions did not materialize. The Wheeler also added a second festival (MountainSummit),
and the numbers for its Aspen Rooftop Comedy Festival improved year- over -year.
In 2010, the Wheeler presented 26 single events, with 5 of these being co- promoted. All but one of
these co- promotions was for a locally- created event; the high - profile co- promotions from earlier years
were effectively gone due to the continued effects of the recession. Numbers for 2010 for single events
continued to improve. At the direction of City Council, the Wheeler created a third festival (the 7908
Aspen Songwriters Festival). Numbers improved dramatically year- over -year for its MountainSummit
festival; however, the Aspen Rooftop Comedy Festival took a downward direction and was discontinued
after its June event. Finally, the Wheeler also began a relationship with the Aspen Music Festival, to
sponsor its "Live At The Met In HD" series, on terms similar to those given to the Wheeler Film Society.
While not a true co- promote, it was a creative deal structure that brought a new program, partner, and
audience to the Wheeler during the winter season, and continued the directive from the 2005 Genovese
Vanderhoof report.
For 2011, the Wheeler presented 22 single events, with four of these being co- promoted events. [The
Wheeler chose to adopt a fourth, Aspen Film's Randy Newman benefit performance, when issues forced
the date into a co- sponsorship.] The Wheeler also continued its "Live At The Met In HD" series with the
Aspen Music Festival, and added a winter film series in partnership with Mountainfilm In Telluride,
7
which co- produces the MountainSummit festival with the Wheeler. The Wheeler replaced the Aspen
Rooftop Comedy Festival with the new Aspen Laff Festival. Numbers dramatically improved for its
second 7908 Aspen Songwriters Festival, as well as for its third MountainSummit festival.
In sum, the results from the past six operating years indicate the following:
• Wheeler management continued to present events under its own name, while
remaining sensitive to the recommendations of the 2005 Genovese Vanderhoof
organizational audit about unduly competing with other arts groups and presenters.
• Before the recession, the Wheeler was able to attract a number of community entities
into co- promotion relationships, and the decline in co- promotion activity is directly
related to risk - appetites in the ensuing years.
• 2008, the first full year of the recession, was the worst presenting year for the Wheeler,
and numbers have steadily improved since that time (see Appendix A).
• Wheeler management is only willing to support event types and festivals that show
improving numbers; otherwise, such presenting activity is discontinued.
Additionally, and separate from the recommendations of the Genovese Vanderhoof report, the directive
received from City Council through the City Manager's office upon the new Executive Director's arrival in
late 2005 was to reverse the course of the Wheeler calendar, which was short on live -event activity and
disproportionately given over to the Wheeler Film Society for movies. While this was relatively easy to
accomplish during 2006 and 2007 with community partners, as the national and global recession raged
on it increasingly fell more on the Wheeler to take the full risk of such activity. Throughout most of
these six years, conversations with City Council expressed a desire to see the Wheeler, particularly
during the important winter holiday season, deliver a high - profile slate of show offerings with broadly
affordable ticket prices, even if it was guaranteed that such activity, even at sell -out, would result in a
substantial loss. In light of the unacceptable results for many of these high - profile artists since the onset
of the recession, the Wheeler for the 2011 winter holidays chose to book an eclectic mix of performers,
none of which approached the fee guarantees taken on over the past handful of years.
The nature of bookings is that the majority of artists secure dates with venues anywhere from three to
eighteen months ahead of the contracted engagement, so that the Wheeler (or any venue) is forced to
peer into the future and do its best to estimate an act's attractiveness, as well as what other factors may
or may not impact attendance. Certainly the state of the economic recovery was the most important of
these factors, and the Wheeler was more optimistic about a positive uptrend for the winter seasons of
2008 — 2009 and 2009 — 2010 than was perhaps warranted. Wheeler staff suspects also that, in large
part thanks to the cheap dollar, many of our winter guests since 2007 have been international in nature,
and that domestic guest traffic has been hampered significantly by the recession. International guests,
especially non - English- speakers, are less inclined to attend a sit -down theatre event, and guest ticketing
traffic is really driven by a domestic market.
However, even with these impacts, attendance numbers point to an improving picture in Wheeler
attendance, with the average subsidy per show dropping in each year since 2008 (see Appendix A). In
particular, the 2010 Christmas — New Year's week saw a marked improvement over 2009 (as well as
2009 over 2008), with its lowest overall loss since 2006, and the 2011 Christmas — New Year's week is
anticipated to continue this upward trajectory. This is greatly encouraging as the Wheeler continues to
redefine itself and establish new audiences for the venue.
8
PROGRAM DISCUSSION #1: WHEELER EVENT PROGRAMMING
Revenues
Current
Fees $ # Revenue
Ticket Revenue - Individual Events (24) $179,000
Ticket Revenue - Festivals (12 * 3) $100,000
Total Fees $279,000
Other Revenues (Gifts and Grants)
Total Revenues $279,000
Expenses
Current
$/# % Expense
GF Overhead $353,960 10.0% $35,400
IT Overhead $68,790 18.0% $12,380
Payroll $410,637 100.0% $410,640
Hours 11,731
Operating $784,910 100.0% $784,910
Capital Items $16,700
Total Cost $1,260,030
Subsidy
Current
Total $ ($981,030)
# Users (Patrons of Rental Events) 20,000
# Individual Events 60
Per User $ (49.05)
Per Event (16,351)
Recovery 22%
Cost /Hour $107
Capital Item Cost Useful Life Annual
Monitor System (at 40 %) $24,000 10 $2,400
Sound System Components (at 40 %) $8,000 5 $1,600
Sound Console (at 40 %) $32,000 10 $3,200
Light Board (at 40 %) $16,000 8 $2,000
Lighting Components (at 40 %) $16,000 8 $2,000
Digital Projector /HD -CAM Playback (at 40 %) $44,000 8 $5,500
$16,700
9
yam.
Based on the Pricing Committee exercise, the amount of subsidy for Event Programming for 2011 and
2012 is as follows:
• 2011 Event Programming (including single events, festivals, and co- promotions) —
$49.05 per user (actual attendee); $16,351 per event; cost recovery 22%
• 2012 Event Programming (including single events, festivals, and co- promotions) —
$37.87 per user (actual attendee); $12,808 per event; cost recovery 30%
Prior to the Pricing Committee exercise, Wheeler staff had already done its own analysis using a slightly
different and Tess detailed methodology in considering the performance of Wheeler programming over
the past six years (see Appendix A and B) that indicate the following:
• Wheeler event programming (based on a six -year average, 2006 - 2011) —
o Small events (artist fees $10,000 /under) — $15.16 simple subsidy; $43.06
full subsidy; full cost recovery 35.7%
o Medium events ($10,001 - $20,000) — $12.50 simple subsidy; $30.83 full subsidy;
full cost recovery 54.5%
o Large events (over $20,000) — $29.59 simple subsidy; 44.40 full subsidy; full cost
recovery 67.1%
o Festivals — $20.26 simple subsidy; $26.05 full subsidy; cost recovery 45.0%
Using these criteria, it would appear that as a producer /presenter of events, the Wheeler financially
performs best with medium -fee events, and festivals. This is because here the combination of direct -
cost expenses (artist fees, hotel rooms, flights, etc.) and Wheeler fixed expenses (staffing, utilities, etc.)
are most in balance; the subsidy rates are lowest and the recovery rates highest (for one -off events) or
steadily improving (for festivals). There is a clear preference by the community for ticket prices that are
below $50 as a maximum for such events, with scaling between $35 and $45 most easily digestible.
10
PROGRAM DISCUSSION #2: COMMUNITY EVENTS
Revenues
Current
Fees $ # Revenue
None - Events are free $0
Total Fees $0
Other Revenues
Total Revenues $0
Expenses
Current
$/# % Expense
GF Overhead $353,960 2.0% $7,080
IT Overhead $68,790 3.0% $2,060
Payroll $85,469 100.0% $85,470
Hours 2,538
Operating $66,948 100.0% $66,950
Capital Items $4,300
Total Cost $165,860
Subsidy
Current
Total $ ($165,860)
# Users (Patrons of Rental Events) 2,800
# Individual Events 14
Per User $ ($59.24)
Per Event (11,847)
Recovery 0%
Cost /Hour $65
Capital Item Cost Useful Life Annual
Monitor System (at 10 %) $6,000 10 $600
Sound System Components (at 10 %) $2,000 5 $400
Sound Console (at 10 %) $8,000 10 $800
Light Board (at 10 %) $4,000 8 $500
Lighting Components (at 10 %) $4,000 8 $500
Digital Projector /HD -CAM Playback (at 10 %) $11,000 8 $1,375
Public Areas Faux Painting (at 10 %) $1,000 8 $125
$4,300
Since at least the beginning of 2005, Wheeler management's direction from City Council is that the
Wheeler has been expected to produce and /or present a fair number of free events annually. This was
documented in the minutes of the February 2, 2005, meeting of the Wheeler Board of Directors, noted
as follows: "In light of recent questions from City Council, the Wheeler Board and interested community
members, [Wheeler Executive Director Nida] Tautvydas opened the discussion by explaining that the
'community series' is an informal title for free events presented by the Wheeler. This is the first year
11
there has been a budget for it, as it is paid for with ticket revenues from other Wheeler events." It was
further stated shortly after that time in the official Wheeler Mission Statement, Goals, and Artistic
Mission Statement (dated February 25, 2005), as "Wheeler Opera House Community Series: To provide
programs free of charge; to provide collaborative opportunities with local artists and arts organizations."
What is now simply collected under the program title of Community Events encompasses such varied
programming as the Aspen Center For Physics winter lecture series, certain Winterskol events,
screenings of films with a beneficial community nature, fundraisers for ad hoc charity groups, Aspen
Historical Society events, and many others. The crucial criteria for an event to be accepted as a
community event are that it needs to appeal to a broad and general Aspen audience, clearly have no
commercial benefit to the presenter or partner, and offer free admission to all audience members.
By its very nature, there are no avenues for cost recovery available for Community Events. This makes
Community Events a rather expensive program of the Wheeler when all soft costs are taken into
account, as shown below:
• 2011 Community events — $59.24 per user; $11,847 per event; cost recovery 0%
• 2012 Community events — $55.22 per user; $10,629 per event, cost recovery 0%
[The 2012 projection assumes 10% audience growth, and that the Wheeler will reduce its investment in
community events by producing fewer of them or lessening their costs, in particular for Winterskol.]
Community Events are typically not expensive in terms of direct, program - related costs. The real cost is
associated with the elements of staff time, systems usage, and building operating expenses (such as
heating and cooling), and clean -up.
Wheeler staff feels that the Community Events program is an important and vital part of being a public -
benefit venue, and continues the 2,500 -year tradition of having theatres serve as meeting places for
their communities. The "public forum," accessible -to -all quality of the Wheeler is one that is unique in
Aspen venues, for both presenter and audience member, and indirectly serves to expose new audiences
to the Wheeler that otherwise may never attend a Wheeler event. However, it is important to realize
the considerable expense associated with this program and make a determination as to whether it
should continue as is, or be modified to allow some form of cost recovery.
12
PROGRAM DISCUSSION #3: WHEELER FILM SOCIETY
Revenues
Current
Fees $ # Revenue
Per -Head Fee (2010 numbers) $0.50 3,500 $1,750
Set -Up Fee (Per Screening) $25 100 $2,500
Credit Card /Other Reimbursement $750
$0
Total Fees $5,000
Other Revenues
Total Revenues $5,000
Expenses
Current
$/# % Expense
GF Overhead $353,960 5.0% $17,700
IT Overhead $68,790 3.0% $2,060
Payroll $66,942 100.0% $66,940
Hours 3,598
Operating $16,509 100.0% $16,510
Capital Items $
Total Cost $103,210
Subsidy
Current
Total $ ($98,210)
# Users (Patrons of Rental Events) 6,400
# Individual Events 135
Per User $ ($15.35)
$
Per Event (727.48)
Recovery 5%
Cost /Hour $
Capital Item Cost Useful Life Annual
WFS is responsible for all capital expenses associated with this program
The Wheeler Film Society (WFS) operates as a City Council- approved service provider to fill dates in the
Wheeler calendar that otherwise would be dark. Operated by Aspen -based resident Jon Busch and his
Ohio -based partner Don Swales, WFS has in one form or another presented mostly non - mainstream
films at the Wheeler since the 1970s. Since 2007, WFS has worked under a three -year service contract,
with selection made after a Request For Proposal process; the existing contract is in its second year.
WFS has for at least six years been recognized as a program of the Wheeler that does not offer a
reasonable return. The 2005 Genovese Vanderhoof report stated, "Interested stakeholders should
13
realize that film presentation is less efficient in the Wheeler Opera House and therefore, will cost more
per attendee than in a purpose built cinema. However the decision of management or stakeholders to
present film, for historic reasons, the special ambiance, the desire to have visible activity in the theater,
and perhaps the lack of alternate screening venues should be made with the acknowledgement that this
is not an efficient place to exhibit films." The reality of the movie - exhibition industry's economics is that
it is driven more through concessions sales than ticket revenue (because the film distributor will claim
between 35% and 90% of ticket sales), with a majority of individual cinema screens sized between 90
and 250 seats. Thus, a single- screen and large - volume hall such as the Wheeler cannot hope to have its
fixed expenses, such as costs of utilities, staffing, clean -up, and account management, recovered
through any revenue stream associated with such a program, as it presently exists.
WFS has in recent years seen an average attendance that confirms this inefficiency: 47 per screening
for 2007, 51 for 2008, 43 for 2009, and 46 for 2010. Current cost recovery for the Wheeler is limited to
a $25 per- screening set -up fee, a $.50 per- ticket surcharge, and recovery of ticket stock and credit card
expenses. These same terms have been in place for a number of years, and it would be very difficult to
expand the Wheeler's ability to recover more revenue in the current service- provider relationship.
Thus, the subsidy levels for the WFS program read as follows:
• 2011 WFS events — $15.35 per user; $728.48 per event; cost recovery 5%
• 2012 WFS events — $15.82 per user; $749.78 per event; cost recovery 5%
As a footnote, Wheeler staff in 2011 ran its own winter film program in support of its MountainSummit
festival, and had an average attendance of 85 per screening over seven separate -title screenings. Thus,
Wheeler staff feels that if film exhibition is a program that is found desirable for continuation, there is
evidence that it may be more efficiently handled in- house, or at least that there are improvements that
can be made in the attendance and concomitant subsidy numbers.
rAti
14
PROGRAM DISCUSSION #4: GENERAL RENTALS
Revenues
Current
Fees $ # Revenue
Full Day Theatre Rental (For Profit) $475.00 20 $9,500
Full Day Theatre Rental (Not For Profit) $275.00 68 $18,700
Theatre Technicians (FP) $25.50 316 $8,058
Theatre Technicians (NFP) $24.00 1,200 $28,800
Custodial (FP) $70.00 20 $1,400
Custodial (NFP) $50.00 68 $3,400
Box Office % 5% n/a $20,850
Credit Card Fees 3.50% n/a $12,200
Ticket Printing (FP) $0.085 6,000 $405
Ticket Printing (NFP) $0.05 22,000 $1,217
Ticket Sellers (FP & NFP) $15.50 45 $698
Box Office Set Up Fee $25.00 5 $125
Total Fees $105,350
Other Revenues (Equipment Rental) $0
Total Revenues $105,350
Expenses
Current
$/# % Expense
GF Overhead (COA Bundle of Services) $353,960 10.0% $35,400
IT Overhead (COA Bundle of Services) $68,790 18.0% $12,380
Payroll $316,929 100.0% $316,930
Hours 9,485
Operating $57,676 100.0% $57,680
Capital Items $22,400
Total Cost $444,790
Subsidy
Current
Total $ ($339,440)
# Users (Patrons of Rental Events) 25,000
# Individual Events 88
Per User $ (PREDICATED ON 100% OF FEES COLLECTED) (13.58)
Per Event (PREDICATED ON 100% OF FEES COLLECTED) (3,857.27)
Recovery 24%
Cost /Hour $47
Capital Item Cost Useful Life Annual
MonitorSysterh (at 1/2) $30,000 10 $3,000
Sound System Components (at 1/2) $10,000 5 $2,000
Sound Console (at 1 /2) $40,000 10 $4,000
Light Board (at 1/2) $20,000 8 $2,500
Lighting Components (at 1/2) $20,000 8 $2,500
Digital Projector /HD -CAM Playback (at 1/2) $55,000 8 $6,875
Public Areas Faux Painting (at 1/2) $5,000 8 $625
Concessions POS System (at 1/2) $9,000 10 $900
$22,400
15
This program takes into account all rentals that all booked at the Wheeler through a standard Usage
Agreement contract with the City Council- approved usage rates in effect. General rentals may take
place anytime from September through early June.
Prior to 2006, the Wheeler's usage rate schedule was inverted; that is, the cost of the rental of the
facility was set high (roughly about $1,000 per rental day), but the cost of rental services, such as for
stagehand labor, was set at a rate that was far less than 50% of actual labor costs. Wheeler
management corrected this in 2006 with a usage rate schedule that reflected a fair cost for building
wear and tear and utilities usage, but increased the costs for labor to an amount roughly equivalent to
the simple hourly rate for full -time and part -time employees. These rates have not been meaningfully
increased since that time (incremental steps only).
Even with this charge /relationship correction, the effects of the national recession were felt almost
immediately by arts not - for - profits and drops in attendance for their rental events meant that they
often requested that the Wheeler reduce or eliminate rental line items in order to help them survive
their usage activity. Wheeler management made such reductions after reviewing this need with City
management and the Wheeler board of directors. This was meant to be a temporary measure,
particularly in the mid -2008 — late 2009 timeframe, but the failure for the local and national economies
to shake off the recession meant that this policy was often extended throughout 2011. Wheeler
management has informed rental clients that this policy is being discontinued, and that rentors will be
expected to pay rental costs in full from 2012 onward.
The subsidy levels for the General Rental program are as follows:
• 2011 General Rentals — $13.58 per user; $3,847.27 per event; cost recovery 24%
• 2012 General Rentals — $12.58 per user; $3,576.00 per event; cost recovery 26%
The subsidy level is driven up by the considerable cost of keeping the technical systems of the Wheeler
at a level considered state of the art. Fully one -half of the usage of this equipment is for General Rentals
events, many of which are by clients such as Aspen Film and the Aspen Institute that expect to have a
fully- outfitted venue to match their high technical standards. This creates something of a conundrum, in
that Aspen audiences also expect these same high standards, yet it is often beyond the capability of the
rental client to help meaningfully recoup the costs of such equipment.
16
PROGRAM DISCUSSION #5: ASPEN MUSIC FESTIVAL RENTAL
Revenues
Current
Fees $ # Revenue
Space Rental $66 70 $4,600
Tech Labor $10 84 $840
Reimburseables $1,900
Miscellaneous $1,350
Total Fees $8,690
Other Revenues
Total Revenues $8,690
Expenses
Current
$/# % Expense
GF Overhead $353,960 8.0% $28,320
IT Overhead $68,790 2.0% $1,380
Payroll $53,311 100.0% $53,310
Hours 1,685
Operating $18,448 100.0% $18,450
Capital Items $0
Total Cost $101,460
Subsidy
Current
Total $ ($92,770)
# Users (Patrons of Rental Events) 6,400
# Individual Events (rental days) 70
Per User $ ($14.50)
$
Per Event (1,325.29)
Recovery 9%
Cost /Hour $60
Capital Item Cost Useful Life Annual
None $0 0
This program covers the portion of the Wheeler's rental activity dedicated purely to the agreement with
the Aspen Music Festival and School (AMFS), which in the early 1980s helped close the funding gap for
the Wheeler's comprehensive renovation by contributing $250,000 towards the project. In exchange for
this gift, AMFS received a fifty -year agreement for exclusive use of the Wheeler during the ten weeks of
summer. The terms of the agreement are largely governed by changes in the Consumer Price Index,
which affect the discount given annually for space rental, so that over the years the amount of
reimbursement for rental and labor has steadily become reduced:
17
[Theatre Use Agreement, dated 26 January 1984, Section V, paragraph 1(b)] "MAA shall receive a
credit against the annual Theater -use charges in the amount of Twelve Thousand Five Hundred
Dollars ($12,500) per year for each year during the primary term or any renewal term of this
agreement .... And said credit shall be adjusted each year for any increase in the cost of living by use
of the formula set forth in Paragraph V(c)(i) below, using 1984 as the base year." Paragraph V (c)
states "Increases in Theater -use charges shall be limited to the lesser of: (i) The 1984 schedule as
attached hereto as adjusted for any increase in the cost of living as defined by CPI -W, US City Average
Wage Earners Clerical Workers, 1967 = 100, or comparable government compilation if CPI -W is
discontinued; or (ii) The comparable schedule of Theater -use charges for non - profit organizations."
The Wheeler enjoys an excellent relationship with AMFS, and its usage of the facility during the summer
does not engage the same amount of systems and staff usage as is incurred through the General Rentals
program. AMFS brings its own tech equipment (except for stage lighting), and box office and
management staff; Wheeler support is mostly limited to house management and building clean -up. Still,
the recovery ability of the Wheeler is small, and there are no avenues for change unless such change is
requested by AMFS. In other words, under the existing agreement, AMFS would have to ask us if we
would be willing to change the rates so that they could pay us more for their usage.
The agreement with AMFS is in place through the summer of 2034. The subsidy levels are:
• 2011 AMFS Rentals — $14.50 per user; $1,325.29 per event; cost recovery 9%
• 2012 AMFS Rentals — $14.96 per user; $1,367.71 per event; cost recovery 8%
18
PROGRAM DISCUSSION #6: ASPEN SHOW TICKETS
Revenues
Current
Fees $ # Revenue
Box Office @ 6% $55 880 $48,210
Credit Card Fees $20 880 $17,740
Ticket Sellers (FP & NFP) $30 80 $2,400
Box Office Set Up Fees $25 195 $4,875
Per -Order Processing Fees $4 7,800 $31,200
Total Fees $104,430
Other Revenues
Total Revenues $104,430
Expenses
Current
$/# % Expense
GF Overhead $353,960 8.0% $28,320
IT Overhead $68,790 25.0% $17,200
Payroll $126,681 100.0% $126,680
Hours 3,973
Operating $39,619 100.0% $39,620
Capital Items $13,000
Total Cost $224,820
Subsidy
Current
Total $ ($120,390)
# Users (Events) 881 in 2010 880
Per User $ ($137)
Recovery 46%
Cost /Hour $57
Capital
Useful
Capital Item Cost Life Annual
Ticketing System Software (initial) $80,000 10 $8,000
Ticketing System Upgrades $10,000 2 $5,000
Item 10 $0 0
$13,000
Aspen Show Tickets was the name given to the Wheeler box office operation when it was rebranded in
2008 at the prompting of the Aspen Santa Fe Ballet, which correctly observed that the box office was
servicing more outside sales than sales for activities occurring inside the Wheeler. The Wheeler
continues to attract clients seeking box office services for their events offsite to the Wheeler, and this
program is expected to continue growing in 2012 and future years. The Wheeler crossed $1 million in
sales for 2011 before the end of July, and anticipates that, even with a very limited availability for
19
Wheeler events to the end of the year, it will pass $1.8 million before December 31. Ticket processing
fees and royalty from ticket sales for clients are directly passed into the Arts Grants program.
In 2005, the Genovese Vanderhoof organizational audit made the following recommendation:
"Consideration should be given to the Wheeler Opera House administering a central box office for all the
Aspen arts activity. To be effective at this function, the facility will need to secure new ticketing software
that has both ATM and web capability, such as Tessitura or the Aspen Music Festival's new ticketing
system currently in development." While there was usage by outside groups, this portion of the Wheeler
profile grew very rapidly after 2005, particularly with the introduction of a new ticketing system that
used the same platform as the Aspen Music Festival and School, as recommended. This new system
ultimately proved not to move with the needs of the Wheeler's /Aspen Show Tickets' clients, and so was
replaced with a second system in mid -2010.
Sophisticated ticketing systems can be hugely expensive — they require an initial purchase, extensive set-
up and training costs, and monthly maintenance fees. This is one reason why arts patrons outside of the
Roaring Fork Valley who are regular ticket buyers are used to paying a per- ticket fee, a per -order fee,
and often a third fee mysteriously labeled as a "convenience fee." The Belly Up Aspen, on its website,
explains its service charges this way: In most situations, a service fee is always added to the price of the
ticket. We make every effort to keep this service charge as low as possible. This fee covers the overhead
charges involved in box office operations not limited to ticketing software fees, credit card fees, labor,
ticket stock, phone fees and more. Sometimes the service fees charged are directed to us by the
promoter, and sometimes includes fees all ticketing outlets are forced to charge for a show, such as
venue facility fees, parking fees, etc. Thank you for supporting our independent business and
understanding that this small fee helps to keep us in business."
Additional to the cost of hardware and software is the considerable staff expense of servicing venues
offsite. During the hectic summer season, Wheeler personnel frequently run between venues such as
Paepcke Auditorium, the District Theatre, and Theatre Aspen's tent. The box office fee schedule for
Aspen Show Tickets, which roughly parallels that for rental events at the Wheeler, does not adequately
provide for recovery of all the expense associated with such a labor- intensive program.
Wheeler staff has regularly reviewed the fees associated with its box office /Aspen Show Tickets
operation, but has understood (as with other programs of the Wheeler) that the direction from City
Council has been to keep Wheeler services as affordable as possible for all Aspen residents and guests.
In the case of Aspen Show Tickets, this has meant resisting per- ticket fees, and limiting the per -order fee
to $4 for phone and internet orders and free for walk -up purchases.
Part of the problem in factoring a solution to bridging the gap between expense and fair recovery is how
to treat surcharges associated with movie tickets. Assessing a per- ticket fee for a live show with an
average $35 ticket is significantly different from adding even $1 to the cost of a $12 movie ticket, and
we suspect would not go over well with the Aspen populace. Thus, caution is urged in the consideration
of per- ticket fees. [This would also be true with Aspen Institute tickets, which typically are at or around
$10 for Ideas Festival -type events.]
Similar caution is urged regarding increases in the individual lines for fees, as many of our user groups
have had difficulty navigating through the cost of presenting under present conditions (considering
show cost, venue rental, and other associated costs as well as Aspen Show Tickets expense). In Wheeler
staffs opinion, in order to remain competitive locally, any and all fee increases will need to be carefully
phased in.
20
The subsidy levels for Aspen Show Tickets, including events at the Wheeler and offsite, are:
• 2011 Aspen Show Tickets — $137 per user /event; cost recovery 46%
• 2012 Aspen Show Tickets — $121 per user /event; cost recovery 53%
A%
21
PROGRAM DISCUSSION #7: CONCESSIONS
Revenues
Current
Fees $ # Revenue
Sale of Goods (by budget) various $48,000
$0
Total Fees $48,000
Other Revenues
Total Revenues $48,000
Expenses
Current
$/# % Expense
GF Overhead $353,960 1.0% $3,540
IT Overhead $68,790 1.0% $690
Payroll $39,325 100.0% $39,320
Hours 2,766
Operating $47,692 100.0% $47,690
Capital Items $2,250
Total Cost $93,490
Subsidy
Current
Total $ ($45,490)
# Users
Per User $ #D1V /0!
Recovery 51%
Cost /Hour $34
Capital Item Cost Useful Life Annual
Concessions POS System $18,000 8 $2,250
Item 2 $0 0
$2,250
The Concessions program covers all Wheeler bar sales as well as the percentage that the Wheeler
retains on sales of artist merchandise at performances. It is considered as its own department, even
though activity for it occurs during Wheeler Event Programming, Wheeler Film Society screenings,
General Rentals, and AMFS Rentals. The artist merchandise percentage is directly passed into the Arts
Grants program.
Prices for concessions items have been kept very low for many years, with the understanding that the
Wheeler needed to offer the most affordable bar service in Aspen. Concessions sales are additionally
diluted by the relationship with events for Aspen arts not - for - profits that may retain a beer, wine, or
other sponsor, which then requires them to give away free product and stanch bar sales. While this can
be with a provider that the Wheeler regularly buys product from (such as for Bud Light) and receives
22
product in lieu of sales, this can also be with a specialty spirits provider, such as a vodka brand, where
the free product actually has no real future value and is eventually disposed of through a low -cost
"specialty drink" event, thereby reducing other, higher- margined sales.
Concessions activity cannot at present be measured per -user, as there is no direct correlation between
event attendance and actual bar interaction. In other words, 400 people at an event do not equal 400
trips to the concessions bar. The limited timeframe in which the concessions bar is open (typically
abbreviated to the time before the start of an event and at intermission, if an intermission is available)
means that much of the labor cost associated with the program is being dedicated to setting up for the
evening, and then tearing down after close, which is about 45 minutes total time. In a typical bar
situation, where this time is being prorated over the course of eight to ten hours, the cost is absorbable;
however, in a timeframe that is at the most two hours, it is highly impactful.
The other consideration is that the Wheeler concessions bar is expected to be open for all events,
including Wheeler Film Society movies that, as previously discussed, have an average draw of less than
50 people per screening. Steps have been taken and are continuing to be taken to make this service
more cost - efficient; however, it is a service that movie patrons expect to be provided if the film program
is to be ongoing. It may be possible to transition movie concessions staffing to volunteers who would
serve a limited menu of food and beverage choices, but this is in the discussion stage and has not yet
been raised with the existing Wheeler volunteer corps.
The Wheeler concessions bar serves a largely captive audience at intermissions (although there has
always been some attrition, whenever the availability presents itself, for some audience members to
instead frequent the commercial bar inside the Wheeler building), and Wheeler staff believes that it can
appreciatively increase its cost recovery through a repricing of its sales items, which is presently
underway. Wheeler staff would not recommend a reduction of product quality, which is a typical way of
boosting margins, because its clientele is used to being served a high - quality product, but Wheeler staff
is reducing the product mix to reflect its best performers, as well as recalibrating its volume of unit
served to make sure that all possible improvements can be effected. The Wheeler is also experimenting
with sharing its bar staff with box office as ticket sellers (and vice versa) in order to take better
advantage of human resources already scheduled for work during a show call.
The subsidy levels for Concessions are:
• 2011 Concessions — cost recovery 51%
• 2012 Concessions cost recovery 68%
The anticipated increase is derived through a combination of a more efficient operation, as noted above,
as well as higher- energy bar service as the Wheeler moves into 2012.
AN
23
PROGRAM DISCUSSION #8: PUBLIC AMENITY
Downtown Amenity
Revenues
Current
Fees $ # Revenue
None $0
Total Fees $0
Other Revenues
Total Revenues $0
Expenses
Current
$/# 90 Expense
GF Overhead $353,960 10.0% $35,400
!T Overhead $68,790 1.0% $690
Payroll $48,388 100.0% $48,390
Hours 1,664
Operating $43,793 100.0% $43,790
Capita! Items $11,780
Total Cost $140,050
Subsidy
Current
Total $ ($140,050)
# Users (figured as days per year) 360
Per User $ ($389)
Recovery 0%
Cost /Hour $84
Capital Item Cost Useful Life Annual
Carpet Replacement $50,000 10 $5,000
HVAC Upgrades /Chiller(s) $85,000 25 $3,400
Building Exterior Awnings $13,500 4 $3,375
$11,780
As the City's most visible and trafficked building, and located in the epicenter of the downtown core, the
Wheeler experiences a high level of visitors that are not associated with any of its other programs.
Because it is meant to be a welcome center for guests and residents alike, and for 360 days a year and a
minimum of ten hours per day, there are numerous soft costs that can be associated with this program.
The Wheeler's second -floor lobby has long been a place for public art, featuring Roaring Fork Valley
artists and photographers. In recent years, Wheeler management has stepped up its support of this
aspect of the program, inviting residents and guests to visit art displays during regular business hours.
24
As one of the two downtown sites for an ACRA Visitor Center, the Wheeler first -floor lobby is expected
to be open almost all days of the year, including those when the Aspen Show Tickets operation is closed
or experiencing limited hours. This requires heating and cooling, as well as additional cleaning,
particularly for the two public rest rooms located just off the lobby area.
During the winter, Wheeler staff must be vigilant to keep the sidewalks and entries clear of snow and
ice, and maintain the welcoming presence that should be expected of a public amenity. This extends
also to the awnings of the building, which are not historic in nature but do dress out the exterior of the
building appropriately and increase its desirability. Finally, night - lighting of the first -floor lobby interior
is done as efficiently as possible, but still retains a cost to keep the building noteworthy to passersby as
a guest center and gathering place.
At present, there are no avenues for cost recovery for the Wheeler's presence as a Public Amenity.
The subsidy levels for the Wheeler as a Public Amenity are:
• 2011 Public Amenity — $389 per user (days per year); cost recovery 0%
• 2012 Public Amenity — $399 per user (days per year); cost recovery 0%
25
PROGRAM DISCUSSION #9: HISTORIC PROPERTY
Historic Property
Revenues
Current
Fees $ # Revenue
None $
Total Fees $
Other Revenues
Total Revenues $
Expenses
Current
$/# % Expense
GF Overhead $353,960 12.0% $42,480
IT Overhead $68,790 10.0% $6,880
Payroll $66,586 100.0% $66,590
Hours 1,726
Operating $39,072 100.0% $39,070
Capital Items $17,420
Total Cost $172,440
Subsidy
Current
Total $ ($172,440)
# Users (figured as days per year) 360
Per User $ ($479)
Recovery 0%
Cost /Hour $100
Capital Item Cost Useful Life Annual
Faux Paintwork (touch -ups) $10,000 3 $3,333
Faux Paintwork (comprehensive) $30,000 15 $2,000
Roof Replacement $75,000 20 $3,750
Building Exterior Work $25,000 3 $8,333
$17,420
The Wheeler Opera House is on the State of Colorado and National Historic Registers, and is often cited
as the most - beloved structure in Aspen. It is also recognized as one of the most architecturally
significant historic American theatres, with a high degree of decorative arts, particularly its faux artwork
throughout the audience chamber. All of this comes with a cost, which is the price of maintaining the
building in a manner consistent with historic treasures, especially since so many of its original elements
(such as the peachblow sandstone) remain in place.
26
The Genovese Vanderhoof organizational audit recognized the cost associated with having a high -
volume, constant -use facility also be one of Aspen's most outstanding historic icons: "The Wheeler
Opera House as a historic restoration could function as either a museum and /or working theater.
Connected to the policy decision to operate the Wheeler Opera House as a working theater is a
realization that the facility is going to sustain more wear and tear, damage and require a higher level of
staff time and expense than a non - heritage facility." Anyone who has read the Wheeler's history knows
the costs associated with not keeping ahead of regular maintenance for a building of its age and
structural elements: Bringing the building back to a truly usable condition after World War II took three
efforts and nearly forty years, not to mention millions of dollars.
Historic preservation assures that the replacement and repair of elements of the Wheeler will require
significantly more staff time than would be required for a non - historic building. Thus, the cost of staff
time associated with the drafting of RFPs, consultations with architects and other construction
professionals, City staff, specialty vendors, and many others weighs heavily on the cost of this Wheeler
program. Compounding this is the effort required to make a 19` Century opera house a fully -
functioning theatre for the 21 Century, with much staff time going into how to make present needs
work around existing conditions without compromising the historic integrity of the interior or exterior.
At present, there are no avenues for cost recovery for the Wheeler's presence as an Historic Property.
The subsidy levels for the Wheeler as an Historic Property are:
• 2011 Historic Property — $479 per user (days per year); cost recovery 0%
• 2012 Historic Property — $491 per user (days per year); cost recovery 0%
27
PROGRAM DISCUSSION #10: OUTREACH AND LIAISON
Revenues
Current
Fees $ # Revenue
None $
Total Fees $0
Other Revenues
Total Revenues $
Expenses
Current
$�# % Expense
GF Overhead $353,960 30.0% $106,190
IT Overhead $68,790 15.0% $10,320
Payroll $96,322 100.0% $96,320
Hours 2,059
Operating $19,547 100.0% $19,550
Capital Items $
Total Cost $232,380
Subsidy
Current
Total $ ($232,380)
# Users (1 Bd, 1 CC, 12 groups) 14
# Days (10 Bd mtgs, 10 CC mtgs, 50 otr) 70
Per User $ (16,599)
Per Event (3,320)
Recovery 0%
Cost /Hour $113
Capital Item Cost Useful Life Annual
None $0 0
so
The Wheeler is arguably the most public- engaged department of the City of Aspen, not only regularly
entertaining and interacting with 56,000 event attendees per year but also by virtue of its role of
supporting the arts community. The Wheeler is also one of the few departments of the City of Aspen
that has its own City- appointed advisory board (the Wheeler board of directors), which engages
Wheeler management in meetings approximately ten months of the year and special meetings with City
Council, boards of other Aspen not - for - profits, and individuals as needed or desired. There can be
substantial time invested in the research and creation of memos and reports, particularly by the
Wheeler's Executive Director.
Wheeler management staff time is also regularly engaged in the planning of events, the majority of
which come to fruition either at the Wheeler or elsewhere in Aspen. This includes sitting on the Special
28
Events committee, participating in City initiatives such as the USA Pro Cycling Challenge, and taking
meetings with interested citizens with no previous experience in event production.
Figuring the user profile as consisting of one board, one City Council, and a minimum of twelve user
groups, for a total of fourteen users; and day - profile as consisting of ten board meetings, ten City
Council meetings, and a minimum of fifty other types of meetings per year, the subsidy levels for the
Wheeler's Outreach And Liaison program are as follows:
• 2011 Outreach — $16,599 per user; $3,320 per event /day; cost recovery 0%
• 2012 Outreach — $17,116 per user; $3,423 per event /day; cost recovery 0%
29
PROGRAM DISCUSSION #11: LEASES
Revenues
Current
Fees $ # Revenue
Space Rental $84,430
Overage (8% of gross sales vs rental) $0
Recovery of trash, utilities $5,570
Total Fees $90,000
Other Revenues
Total Revenues $90,000
Expenses
Current
$/# % Expense
GF Overhead $353,960 4.0% $14,160
IT Overhead $68,790 3.0% $2,060
Payroll $14,867 100.0% $14,870
Hours 354
Operating $15,103 100.0% $15,100
Capital Items $0
Total Cost $46,190
Subsidy
Current
Total $ $43,810
# Users 2
Per User $ $21,905
Recovery 195%
Cost /Hour $131
Capital Item Cost Useful Life Annual
None $0 0
$o
The Wheeler Opera House, since its inception in 1889, has featured at least two commercial spaces at
the first -floor location. Originally, these were men's and women's clothing stores, plus the Wheeler
Bank's retail and deposit storefront. Since 1984, these have been a restaurant establishment in the
larger of the two spaces, and a variety of retail businesses in the smaller plain -box space at the
northeast end of the building.
Since 1999, when the Wheeler was assigned to take on the full responsibility for the City's arts grants
program (see "Arts Grants," below), all revenue from the two lease spaces has been passed directly
through the Wheeler to be deployed for grant -award obligations; thus, the revenue has in no way been
absorbed into the operation to offset expenses directly associated with the Wheeler, such as repair and
maintenance, or staff time dedicated to processing payments and needs of the lease holders.
30
• 2011 Lease Spaces — $23,095 per user ($46,190 cost divided by 2 spaces); theoretical
cost recovery 166 %; actual cost recovery 0%
• 2012 Lease Spaces — $15,272 per user ($47,480 cost divided by 2 spaces); theoretical
cost recovery 357 %; actual cost recovery 0%
This program's subsidy calculation is different from those of any other Wheeler program, because at
first glance it would appear to be a revenue generator for the Wheeler. The subsidy expense is factored
from the total costs of carrying this program, and evenly divided between the two properties (which
may or may not be equitable, depending on how the future needs of both clients impacts staff time and
expense). If the program was allowed to keep its revenue, there would be a strong rate of return that
could then be used to offset other Wheeler program expenses, but as all lease revenue is presently
transferred immediately to support the Arts Grants program, there is in fact a zero cost recovery.
31
PROGRAM DISCUSSION #12: ARTS GRANTS
Revenues
Current
Fees $ # Revenue
$0
Total Fees $
Other Revenues
Total Revenues $
Expenses
Current
$/# % Expense
GF Overhead $353,960 0.0% $0
IT Overhead $68,790 1.0% $690
Payroll $1,392 100.0% $1,390
Hours 21
Operating $356,254 100.0% $356,250
Capital Items $
Total Cost $358,330
Subsidy
Current
Total $ ($358,330)
# Users (Grant recipients) 17
Per User $ ($21,078)
Recovery 0%
Cost /Hour $17,227
Capital Item Cost Useful Life Annual
None $0 0
$0
The Arts Grants program is a City- sponsored program that was shifted exclusively to the Wheeler in
1999 by City Council, in order to access Wheeler resources and relieve the City's general fund from
continuing to carry this annual expense. By its enabling language, the 1979 Wheeler Real Estate
Transfer Tax ordinance allows the Wheeler to deploy up to $100,000 of RETT funds annually for support
of the Roaring Fork Valley's not - for - profit arts groups. Additional monies from the Wheeler to support
this initiative must be made up through non -RETT operating revenues (see Appendix E — 2008
Ordinance, "Clarification of the definition of 'Maintenance of the Wheeler Opera House ') . There are
few revenue streams at the Wheeler that are considered "pure" and not touched by the RETT. Principle
among them is the rental revenue from the two lease spaces at first -floor level, but additional funding
comes from ticket processing fees, artists merchandise percentage, and other sources that are
considered relatively unimpacted.
The Arts Grants funds are released to Roaring Fork Valley arts not - for - profits through a competitive
grant process that takes place annually, with award amounts suggested to City Council at the time of
32
approval of the annual operating budget. Applications are assessed by a citizen committee, with a City
representative (typically the City Clerk) and the Wheeler Executive Director as voting members.
Since taking over the entirety of the Arts Grants program, total arts grants awards per year have been as
follows:
• $299,083 for 1999
• $277,500 for 2000
• $292,600 for 2001
• $400,144 for 2002, including an extra $100,000 for one -time requests
• $303,800 for 2003
• $315,800 for 2004
• $337,400 for 2005
• $342,000 for 2006
• $365,380 for 2007
• $385,100 for 2008
• $352,900 for 2009
• $344,990 for 2010
Going forward, one of the most important considerations for the Arts Grants program is that the leases
for the renovated first -floor lease spaces (effective January 1, 2012) will generate less revenue that can
be transferred to support this program. There is a percentage of sales provision in the lease for the
restaurant space that may eventually supply additional funds for this program, but that is dependent on
the success of the restaurant venture and crossing certain gross- revenue thresholds, and therefore
cannot at this time be considered as a reliable source for program funding. This will put an additional
burden on attaining certain revenue levels in other Wheeler program departments if the current level of
funding is to be continued, especially if these same departments are expected to better approach relief
from subsidy.
• 2011 Arts Grants — $21,078 per user (over 17 groups); cost recovery 0%
• 2012 Arts Grants — $21,082 per user (over 17 groups); cost recovery 0%
33
PART TWO: ADDITIONAL NOTES ON EVENT PROGRAMMING, SUMMARY, AND NEXT STEPS
The Wheeler compared to other venues: The Wheeler's Executive Director has since 1990 been a
member of a large community of arts venues and their operators, particularly in the densely -
concentrated Middle Atlantic and New England region, and within that group (and likely elsewhere) the
informal yet generally- accepted standard minimum qualifications for considering establishing a
successful theatre include having 1,200 sellable seats, located in an immediate population base of at
least twenty times its audience size. Such a theatre will support a handful of modest events managed
by a very small full -time staff, with a minimum of one of these dedicating a majority of his /her time to
fundraising, no matter if the venue is a free - standing 501(c)(3) not - for - profit entity or a department of
local, state, or federal government. [The smallest practical qualifications for a venue are more along the
lines of 1,500 — 1,600 seats within an immediate population base of at least thirty times its audience
size, and this still requires major and constant fundraising activity.]
This brings into focus the question of how exactly a small venue defines financial success. At the state -
owned Empire State Performing Arts Center ( "The Egg") in Albany, New York, where Wheeler Executive
Director Gram Slaton started his arts management career in 1990, and which features a 986 -seat large
stage and 444 -seat arena stage, a show was deemed by its board of directors to be financially successful
if the artist fee was covered by ticket sales. Covering the additional costs of presenting was deemed
icing on the cake, and in fact rarely if ever happened, even in the larger of the two venues.
At the quasi- state -owned (by virtue of the Pennsylvania State University system) Community Arts Center
(Williamsport, Pennsylvania), where Slaton spent twelve years as Executive Director, a performance was
not deemed financially successful in the 2,165 -seat hall unless all direct expenses were covered by ticket
sales and a healthy overage remained to offset some of the venue's additional day -to -day expenses.
However, at both venues the ultimate determination of whether programming was successful was the
overall health of the organization as evidenced by the bottom line of its monthly financial statements,
and whether the venue was at or above where it was scheduled to be by its annual operating budget.
This meant, in the case of both venues stated above, supplementing ticket and bar sales with alternate -
funding sources, including regular fundraising and benefit events, as well as a substantial infusion of
direct monetary support from the parent organization. This monetary support could run anywhere from
8% - 10% of the venue's total operating budget (as in the case of the Community Arts Center) to 40% -
50% (for the Empire Center). In both cases, there was an equal "soft investment" by the parent
organization in terms of operating support, including Comptroller, Human Resources, and Physical Plant
sharing (for the Community Arts Center), or a host of services, including utilities, provided under the
government umbrella of the Office of General Services (for the Empire Center).
However, in most cases it's fair to say that there are four legs to the stool that supports a performing
arts venue's event programming: Ticket sales, fundraising, sponsorships, and asset resources. Asset
resources can include everything from investment of excess funds to property management to
outsourcing staff services, and much more, depending on the unique assets of the venue involved. At
present, of these four legs the Wheeler has access only to ticket sales.
Fundraising, sponsorships, and asset resources can make up as much as two - thirds of a performing arts
center's annual operating budget. In Colorado, the hugely successful multi -stage Denver Center for the
Performing Arts (DCPA) derived fully 30% of its 2010 operating revenue from these sources for its
34
complex of performance venues.' For the historic Sheridan Opera House, a 235 -seat theatre in
Telluride, staff recognizes almost all revenue as fundraising, with 35% segregated as board and
individual donations. For the Vilar Center in Beaver Creek, whose 530 -seat capacity most closely
matches the Wheeler's, the development number is 60% (as a combination of fundraising and tax
support)? These non- ticket -sales initiatives allow such venues the financial latitude to produce and
present quality shows while offering ticket prices that are considered reasonable by their constituents.
Asset resources can be an extremely important revenue feeder for event programming support, taking
many forms. There are communities that have seen city government work with their leading arts
facilities to purchase real estate assets with excess funds, thereby providing reliable streams of income
to fill the gap between programming expenses and revenues: In the case of Cleveland, Ohio's Playhouse
Square, that has meant a major hotel and entire blocks of leasable properties in Cleveland's downtown.
Other communities such as Schenectady, New York (where Proctor's Theatre owns a majority share in a
power - generation plant) and Poughkeepsie, New York (where the Bardavon Opera House has presenting
contracts with venues larger than its own in neighboring towns) have similarly buttressed their
operations through owning or managing real property. In the case of the Wheeler, its commercial
spaces are used solely to generate monies to fund the City's arts grants program, and restrictions in the
use of RETT funds remove the ability of the Wheeler to invest in other real estate holdings. The
Wheeler's only other workable asset, its $28 million savings account, is limited in its income potential by
City of Aspen investment policy, at present generating between .6% - 1% per annum.
This only serves to further highlight the Wheeler Opera House's wholly unique situation. Unlike any
other not - for - profit theatre known, it conducts no fundraising nor actively seeks corporate sponsorships
to support its operations. (Note: According to the minutes of the June 6, 2002, Wheeler Board of
Directors retreat, there was direction established to "Create an organizational mechanism and /or vehicle
that can encourage private (or other) donations," but apparently nothing came of this.] Quite the
opposite, the Wheeler serves as the sole City resource for funding Aspen's arts not - for - profit groups,
annually contributing $350,000 through a competitive grant process that also utilizes 100% of the
monies derived from its lease spaces.
Thus, the typical practices of fundraising, sponsorships, and asset resources to offset the cost of
presenting desirable live entertainment are not only absent from the Wheeler's financial profile, what
resources the Wheeler does have are used to support programs that do not materially benefit the
Wheeler's operation. In the broader view of American theatre, this is antithetical: Intentionally, three
of the four resources accessed by performing arts centers across the nation for supporting event
programming are not available. This leaves the Real Estate Transfer Tax — by design — as the sole
resource for supporting all expenses of the Wheeler that cannot be recovered from ticket sales and fees.
The realities of event booking: There is an art to booking live entertainment, and even in the best of
times there are bookings that look great on paper but flop in practice. Factor in a four- years -and-
counting national recession and the odds of consistent success diminish rapidly. Yet, the alternative for
the Wheeler over the past few years would have been to have more nights that were either dark or
'Based on audited financials available through the DCPA website.
2
Information attained from Sheridan Opera House Executive Director Ronnie Palomar and Vilar Center Executive Director Kris
Sabel, June 2011.
35
turned over to the Wheeler Film Society, which would not have followed the directive given in 2005 to
fill the calendar with attractive live entertainment.
Certain performances can be assured money- makers. For example, all of the Wheeler's dates with the
Crystal Palace Revue have so far been financially rewarding for both parties. However, these are special
situations and cannot be run as a constant attraction — part of the reason for their success is that their
"specialness" is maintained by only producing them once or twice a year. The reverse of this is that
some performances are booked knowing full -well that even with a sell -out, scaling with affordable ticket
prices assures that a substantial loss will be incurred. These "loss leaders" are meant to provide the City
of Aspen with marquee attractions that can positively influence a decision to spend time in Aspen for
guests or part -time residents, as well as elevate the quality of life experience for full -time Aspenites. In
all cases, an understood part of the Wheeler's mission is to ensure that at least some of the audience
chamber's seating is affordable to all. Thus, the Wheeler Executive Director's job has been to try to
balance the shows that are reasonably assured of creating good income with those that bring great
names to Aspen but not great financial returns to the Wheeler Opera House.
A reality that the Wheeler grapples with is its physical restrictions. The Wheeler is a 503 -seat venue
with a tiny (28' x 28') stage footprint and practically no wing space, depth, or fly space, severely limiting
the kinds of events it can responsibly produce, which means it loses opportunities. Its primary
presentation media are live music, film /video, and spoken word (including lecture and stand -up
comedy). It is a difficult theatre for the production of dance or stage plays and musicals.
Another challenge for the Wheeler follows the old baseball maxim of "hit 'em where they ain't" —
finding those event types that are not featured by other entities in Aspen or the Roaring Fork Valley.
Through the past six years, the greatest challenge to the Wheeler has been from the Belly Up Aspen
club, but there also has to be careful consideration given to events promoted by Aspen Skiing Company,
the Town of Snowmass Village, Jazz Aspen Snowmass, and the new PAC3 venue in Carbondale. This has
led to the Wheeler following a twin -track of uncovering new names for Aspen (Brandi Carlile, The Wailin'
Jennys, Chuck Leavell) and shifting into non -music event types (stand -up comedy, documentary films,
the Live At The Met HD series, etc.), all of which requires time to become established and secure a
regular, recurring audience.
Unlike an outdoor venue, or even a modern indoor venue that is specifically built to adapt, the Wheeler
has the same number of seats available all the time. The 503 -seat house is of a size that often doesn't
reflect the expectation for audience attendance for an event. To program the venue only for shows that
are expected to sell to capacity means that there would be far fewer shows in the calendar, and only of
a certain kind and price. Thus, physical scalability is an issue that Wheeler staff constantly wrestles with
when considering bookings. Fewer than 200 persons in attendance may not create enough volume in
the space to make an event feel "successful," yet there are performers and event types (such as Tom
Rush and many Bluegrass shows) that may have an expected small draw and still serve a proven
constituency of the Aspen /Wheeler community while providing sufficient ticket revenue to meet a
simple break -even of covering all direct costs.
What is important for a booker at any venue to notice and act upon is a declining audience for an artist
or event type. By example, the first Bernadette Peters performance in December 2006 was a high -water
mark in the Wheeler's quarter- century of arts presenting (co- produced with The Wheeler Associates),
and pointed toward continued success in presenting Broadway artists as the centerpiece of the
Wheeler's holiday -week offerings. However, subsequent bookings (including a repeat performance by
Peters) did not support this finding and the Wheeler has discontinued pursuit of Broadway names for
36
•
now. This has also been the case for such past tried - and -true event types as Celtic, which was
tremendously successful fifteen to twenty years ago but no longer sufficiently attracts a following.
Festival production: In March 2007, shortly after its event was over, HBO announced that it would no
longer be producing the HBO /U.S. Comedy Arts Festival, which had been a cultural centerpiece of the
Aspen winter season for thirteen years. Shortly after that, concern was brought to City Council that the
void created by HBO's absence would be a blow to Aspen's prestige and entertainment profile, and that
effort should be made to replace it with a new entity. The response to this at the time from one City
Council member was, "I'm not worried. This is Aspen; something will come in to replace it."
However, no event did come forward to replace it, and it looked like Aspen would indeed lose its role in
comedy development with a media entity. The Wheeler, which had been working quietly in the
background, stepped forward in early 2008 with a new comedy festival that could also be used to
stimulate tourism at a time of year (late May /early June) that was underserved. This in brief is how the
Wheeler came to re -enter festival production, with the Aspen Rooftop Comedy Festival, produced in
partnership with Rooftop Comedy, a San Francisco -based internet provider of comedic content. The
Wheeler subsequently developed MountainSummit: Mountainfilm In Aspen in 2009 to create
destination product for the end of August, and The 7908 Aspen Songwriters Festival in 2010 in order to
fulfill City Council's desire to develop a singer /songwriter festival as part of its "Mining For Ideas"
initiative.
The positives of festival production include that there is a concentration of effort and resources that
allows the programming and marketing approach for one -offs to be applied to multiple performances at
a time. While the outward aspects of event production are by nature higher due to this concentration
(as many as four shows in a day, resulting in four times the artist /company costs), the "soft costs" of
staffing and building resources are working at their optimum efficiency. Advertising and publicity costs
are also far more efficient.
The negatives of new festival production mostly center on what can be a realistic admission price while
seeking to establish an audience willing to attend multiple events in a compacted timeframe. Single
tickets, day passes and full festival passes must be attractively priced with enough of a substantial
discount, particularly in the early years of a festival, to make the buyer commit to attending multiple
events. Incentives should be provided to convert a single- ticket buyer into either a day -pass buyer or a
full - festival buyer, once that buyer has experienced the festival and has an appetite Whetted for more.
These are the tools that a strong box office staff (and the Wheeler has one of the best) need to up -sell
buyers and accelerate the success rate of a festival, but they do mean that with every attendance
"success," there is a smaller per -unit return in box office receipts. The goal is always to get the festival
established and be able to slowly reduce the discounts associated with passes over time; however,
passes will always be the lifeblood of any festival.
Festivals also have an unquantifiable factor to them, which is how their uniqueness can be larger than
the sum of their parts. They have an allure for outside media that a venue or its single offerings can
never have, and this has already been proven with two of the Wheeler's festivals. The 7908 Aspen
Songwriters Festival attracted the producers of the new Velocity channel (part of the Discovery
Network) sufficiently that they sent a production team for the second 7908 (March /April 2011) and have
produced a collection of short pieces that are in regular rotation on the Discovery Channel at present.
There is now a deal in the works for a one -hour "Live From 7908" television special for 2012, which is an
incredibly meaningful step forward for a festival barely one year old. The brand -new Aspen Laff Festival
(which replaced the Aspen Rooftop Comedy Festival in 2011) received live broadcasting on the
37
Sirius /XM "Raw Dog" comedy channel throughout the festival, which is unheard -of coverage for an
untried and unknown festival, and discussions are currently underway with Fathom Entertainment
(which produces many pay - per -view series, including the Live At The Met In HD series) to co- produce
certain or all aspect of the 2012 Aspen Off Festival. Such media coverage typically has a long and lasting
ripple effect; while not necessarily immediately promoting Aspen as a destination, this coverage (which
is constantly rebroadcast either in whole or in small pieces for many months or longer) creates a
number of identity impressions that extend the Aspen brand into tens or hundreds of thousands of
households that are predisposed to enjoy what the Wheeler, and by extension Aspen, is offering.
FURTHER DISCUSSION, SUMMARY AND FINAL ASSESSMENT
Better Understanding The Wheeler RETT: First and foremost, it is vitally important to note that the
Wheeler is a self- sufficient entity that does not use any monies from the City of Aspen's general fund.
The 0.5% Wheeler Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) was originally passed in 1979 (effective January 1,
1980) to provide the financing for the comprehensive renovation of the facility done at that time. The
original RETT was intended to have a twenty -year life, expiring on December 31, 1999; however, the
public was asked to renew the RETT for an additional twenty -year term through a ballot issue, and the
extension was successfully passed (now expiring December 31, 2019).
It is important to note that, according to anecdotal information from Aspen realtors (including Wheeler
board member Richie Cohen), purchasers of real estate affected with the Wheeler RETT tax have rarely
if ever complained about having that small amount added to their property settlement. As Wheeler
board member and longtime president Ron Erickson has said, "The Wheeler RETT is a newcomer's entry
fee for being a resident of Aspen, and having the Wheeler as a community resource." For most Aspen
residents, the Wheeler RETT is a tax that is paid once or twice in a lifetime, and not an annual tax
obligation.
While periodically the proceeds from the RETT are used for renovation and remodeling projects of all
sizes at the Wheeler (the largest being the $2.8 million 2011 remodel of the basement and first floor
spaces), the bulk of the RETT monies used since the completion of payment of financing for the 1984
renovation have gone towards supporting maintenance and operations, whether it be the day -to -day
costs of the Wheeler or the programs that it presents. Even with such usage for all three allowable
expense categories — improvement projects, daily operations and programming, and $100,000 to
support arts grant?— the Wheeler has experienced well over a decade of RETT revenue in excess of
operating need, generating a savings account of about $28 million. Viewed in the totality of its
operation, the Wheeler fund has been and continues to be extremely healthy.
Festival Growth And Subsidy Reduction: Despite the considerable success that all of the Wheeler
festivals have achieved in quality and patron experience, these are substantial investments of Wheeler
funds that cannot generate sufficient monies to cover production expenses, particularly with revenue
limited primarily to affordable ticket and pass sales.
This means that growth and subsidy reductions for the festivals may need to come from three different
paths: Paid attendance increases, outside entity adoption, and offsetting impact to Aspen's retail and
hospitality industries. With all three festivals, the first focus is to increase paid attendance, and Wheeler
staff believes that this will naturally progress as the festivals establish themselves. Both
MountainSummit: Mountainfilm In Aspen and The 7908 Aspen Songwriters Festival saw tremendous
38
upswings in paid attendance between their inaugural and most recent years, cutting their simple
subsidies by two- thirds or better (see Appendix D). Wheeler staff expects the same first -to- second -year
growth for the Aspen Laff Festival in 2012. While growth may not continue to aggressively cut the
subsidy level in succeeding years, there should continue to be a steady upward trend; however, this
trend will eventually top out, particularly for a festival such as MountainSummit, which has a ceiling
ability to cover costs through ticket sales.
Outside entity adoption is a possibility for all of the Wheeler's three festivals. The risks with any
adoptive relationship are loss of creative control and corruption of original mission and integrity. For
example, many Aspenites have cited how the U.S. Comedy Arts Festival unfortunately morphed from
being for a locally -based audience in its initial years to an industry event after being adopted by HBO
that largely shut out the locals, particularly for its marquee -name events.
One of the most important facilitators for adoption is a strong relationship with a national media entity,
and the Wheeler already has this underway with Sirius XM and Fathom Entertainment for the Aspen Laff
Festival, and Discovery/Velocity and its affiliate cable networks for the 7908 festival. A growing media
presence also helps lower the cost of buying talent, since the trade -off for the artist is greater exposure
and the further likelihood of better paydays in their bookings. Wheeler staff believes that its media
relationships will only continue to expand and deepen; this is already evidenced through a growing
interest level in national media producers and their affiliates.
Another element to offset festival costs that the Wheeler would like to explore further is a marketing
partnership with the Aspen Skiing Company. With its "Snow Beats" festival no longer in consideration,
the Skico may be more interested in tying Wheeler- funded entertainment to selling Aspen as a ski -
holiday destination; the Wheeler's ready -made festivals for February (The Aspen Laff Festival) and
March (The 7908 Aspen Songwriters Festival) should fit nicely into Skico's marketing planning, and are
scheduled to not intrude on its own production calendar. The benefit to the Wheeler would be in
having a powerful national marketing partner that can be featuring the Wheeler's festivals all year long.
As for the 7908 festival, the Wheeler's relationship with John Oates as executive producer has already
netted strong returns in the national market. Through Oates, the 7908 festival now has ties with the
Americana Music Association (AMA), and may be part of a further development that AMA is working on
with Nissan as a national corporate sponsor, in producing a series of small festival events across .the
United States that all come under the umbrella of AMA. The hope is that this larger project will help
bring cash in as part of the corporate relationship with Nissan. Equally important, a band of local part-
time residents with strong ties to South Florida has taken a pronounced interest in the 7908 festival and
wish to create fundraising parties to support it and even are in the beginning stages of founding a
501(c)(3) charitable organization to provide a formal fundraising arm or even play a larger role in
ensuring the 7908 festival's future.
Councilman Torre has mentioned that the original idea for what became the 7908 festival was to have
Aspen serve as a tribal gathering place for singer- songwriters of all kinds, so that there would be music
in every venue, bar, and even door stoop during the time of the festival. Wheeler management has
developed a Colorado -based singer /songwriter talent search, which ultimately will result in satellite
activity in town during the festival at a minimum of three other locations. The start-up expense for such
a talent search /songwriting competition will be labor and cost intensive, but may generate enough of an
immediate impact to offset that expense through in -state tourist traffic. The Wheeler will establish
relationships with regional venues that would be participating partners in promoting this festival
39
element, and to a certain degree, the workload should taper off after the initial year if relationships with
a majority of the participating venues can be maintained.
The Ripple Effect - Subsidy Offset By Increased Aspen Revenue Generation: If one considers that the
Wheeler is the entertainment division of the City of Aspen, then the true measure of its success lies in its
ripple effect to tourism and spending in Aspen businesses, the logic being that if the Wheeler's programs
lose $1.00 for the Wheeler but make up for it in $1.50 in business for downtown, then the loss may be
sufficiently mitigated and offer real benefit to the town.
The Wheeler has anecdotal information on the impacts of some of its programming: We know that our
first 7908 festival drew visitors from Iowa, Indiana, and Florida who stayed for the entire length of the
festival; that Tom Shadyac, the director of / Am which was the centerpiece of the 2010 Mountainsummit
festival, spent $12,000 between his visit that August and a subsequent visit during the Christmas
holiday; and that our February concert by "Yes" frontman Jon Anderson drew several carloads of
patrons from Colorado Springs and Boulder.
Surprisingly, there are no measurements used by the U.S. Department of Commerce that organizations
like the Wheeler can use to assess their economic impact to their communities. Locally, the Aspen
Chamber Resort Association conducts monthly sales data, which cannot break down to measure the
kind of daily impact that would be required to better see the effect of Wheeler events on downtown's
business community. ACRA did at one time conduct daily sales reports, but has not now for several
years; they are considering going back to this kind of data collection to aid the Wheeler and others with
this kind of knowledge."
One source from existing research is a January 2006 study for the Nashville Chamber of Commerce that
seeked to understand the economic impact of the music industry on the overall economy of the city's
greater metro area. This is germane to the Wheeler and Aspen because both towns have economies
that are largely driven by entertainment in general and music in particular. The study stated "Studies of
the economic impacts of music and arts performances and exhibits throughout the country have found
that the spending of persons attending these events makes a significant contribution to the economic
impact of these industries. Frequently, the off -site spending of entertainment seeking tourists is the
largest economic component of the industry being studied. Nashville visitors bring new revenue into the
M(etropolitan) S(tatistical) A(rea) through their spending at music - related events and through spending
at nearby restaurants, hotels and retail outlets. The circulation of this spending throughout the Nashville
MSA increases the disposable income of residents and raises the level of local spending, thus, creating
more jobs, income and taxes.i' Similar findings were made in economic studies conducted about this
time by the State of Georgia and the cities of Seattle WA, Austin TX (both strong music /entertainment
cities), and Memphis TN. The study further found that for every $1 spent on entertainment, an
additional $2.16 was spent in the community. It may be fair to say that such an integer could be valued
higher in Aspen, with our concentration of residents and guests paying more premium prices for goods
3 According to Kyle Brown, Consumer Spending (Services), U.S. Department of Commerce
4 Conversation with Debbie Braun, Aspen Chamber Resort Association, July 7, 2011.
s "The Economic Impact of the Music Industry in the Nashville- Davidson - Murfreesboro MSA," College of Business
Administration, Belmont University, Patrick Raines, PhD and LaTanya Brown, PhD,
http: / /www.noshvillechamber.com /Libraries /Economic Development Studies /Music Industry Economic Impact_
Study.sflb.ashx
40
and services, especially if they are guests in- season. Using a conservative integer of 2.25 then, for most
of the Wheeler's one -off presentations and festivals, there is a greater generation of sales in the Aspen
community than there is loss from presenting at the Wheeler.
Wheeler staff has done an analysis of the latest iterations of its three distinct festivals through data
captured by the Aspen Show Tickets ticketing software, which reveals the following in terms of orders.
Please remember that an order can be for one ticket or for multiple tickets.
• For the March 2011 Aspen Laff Festival, Wheeler box office records show that there
were 310 orders total. Of these, 172 (55 %) were from an Aspen zip code address, 67
(22 %) were from additional Roaring Ford Valley towns, 25 (8 %) were from elsewhere in
Colorado, and the remainder (46, or 15 %) from the rest of the United States.
• For the March 2011 7908 Aspen Songwriters Festival, two weeks after the Aspen Laff
Festival, records show that there were 693 orders total. Of these, 316 (46 %) were from
an Aspen zip code address, 191 (28 %) were from additional Roaring Fork Valley towns,
88 (13 %) were from elsewhere in Colorado, and the remainder (98, or 13%) from the
rest of the United States.
• For the August 2011 MountainSummit: Mountainfilm In Aspen festival, records show
that there were 470 orders total. Of these, 267 (57 %) were from an Aspen zip code
address, 75 (16 %) were from additional Roaring Fork Valley towns, 32 (7 %) were from
elsewhere in Colorado, and the remainder (96, or 20 %) from the rest of the United
States.
The Wheeler is happy to share some of the responses it has received from downtown merchants:
• Keith Goode of Parallel 15 — "The Wheeler increases business. 1 enjoy the trade
opportunities. The Wheeler is a complete asset, primarily the festivals. 7908! Awesome!"
• Lisa Lemay of Aspen T -Shirt Co — "Of course, the Wheeler brings an array of different
people to town. It's not like Food & Wine but we always talk to people and a significant
percentage of them are in town for a show at The Wheeler."
• Jill Murphy of Misstvx — "7908 was a great festival for us! Whenever there is an event
where there are lines or people are waiting for a show to start we see an increase of
traffic and sales."
( 1(‘
col
41
NEXT STEPS
The October 29, 2005, Aspen Times Weekly featured a cover story on the Wheeler and its new Executive
Director. While the article itself was titled "What's Next For The Wheeler ? ", the cover featured a
picture of a man moving the Wheeler structure on a handcart with the caption "Where Do You Want
This Thing ?" That was an apt description then, and possibly is again. Where indeed do "we" want this
thing? Do we want the Wheeler to be an all- serving public asset that is as unique in the national
community as it is to the local one? Shall we maintain that profile while finding ways to introduce
"more legs of the stool," to help subsidize the Wheeler's matchless array of live and film performances?
It is time to identify programs, large and small, that should be reduced or eliminated in the face of
changing public tastes and attendant underwriting costs?
In keeping with the 2011 -2012 City Council goal for the Wheeler ( "Design operational guidelines for
Wheeler Opera House around subsidy levels, programming levels, community service, etc. "), Wheeler
staff and board would note and suggest for discussion the following:
• The Wheeler has been a "cultural ark" throughout the four -plus years of the national
recession in maintaining Aspen's profile as one of the leading cultural communities in
the nation, even when maintaining that profile has meant unusual subsidy levels for
self - produced or self - promoted events, as well as significant financial assistance to
non - Wheeler entities engaged in producing other arts events that also meet a high
standard. Recent trends indicate that these steep subsidies for Wheeler- produced
events are abating, even while certain Aspen arts entities continue to struggle. Shall
the Wheeler continue to strategically invest in arts events and entities that maintain
this year -round profile for Aspen?
• The Wheeler has long foregone active fundraising and other non - ticket, meaningful
funding initiatives, in order to not compete unduly with Aspen's not - for - profit arts
organizations. This has limited the ultimate underwriting of the Wheeler's many
programs, especially its presenting program, to the Wheeler RETT. Shall the Wheeler
begin to strategically solicit outside funding sources, such as charitable donations,
sponsorships, and independent underwriting organizations, in order to better support
and limit the amount of subsidy for its self - produced and self - presented events?
• For many years, the direction from City Council has been to maintain programs at the
Wheeler, such as Community Events and the Wheeler Film Society screenings, which
require a significant amount of soft- and hard -cost subsidy. Shall programs that offer
limited to no ability to reasonably recover their operating costs continue as part of the
Wheeler's programming profile?
• Rental rates for users of the Wheeler have been maintained at a very conservative level
for many years, in order to attract and maintain for - profit and not- for - profit events at
the facility. Even with these conservative rates, many users find their cost of
presenting at the venue challenging, while Wheeler staff recognizes that it is not
receiving a full recovery of its investment into these non - Wheeler- produced events.
Shall the rental structure and /or rates for the Wheeler be adjusted in order to better
limit the subsidy required to serve at a publicly - available rental venue?
42
• The Wheeler's concessions bar for many years has been intentionally determined to be
"the cheapest bar in Aspen," in order to serve the greatest amount of the event -going
public at an affordable rate. Steps are being taken to adjust the product mix and sales
strategy to better bridge the subsidy between soft- and hard -costs and available
revenue, but the affordability of the bar remains a central concern for Wheeler staff.
Shall the Concessions program of the Wheeler be adjusted to generate significantly
more revenue, even at the cost of affordability?
• The Wheeler's Aspen Show Tickets box office operation is a major and affordable
resource for the Roaring Fork Valley's many event - producing entities, servicing a larger
event -going public outside of the Wheeler then inside it; however, the human
resources investment is significant and by its nature does not allow the Wheeler to
recover all of its soft- and hand -cost investment in assisting in the smooth operation of
these events at the rates currently established, even as these same rates often
challenge users to make their events financially successful. Shall the Wheeler rates for
box office services be adjusted in order to better limit the subsidy required to serve as a
ticketing resource for Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley?
• Throughout the year, the Wheeler serves as a welcoming entity for many activities that
are outside of the scope of theatre -event production. Its status as one of Aspen's
oldest and most - cherished historic structures requires a significant amount of
investment in maintaining its historic exterior and interior elements, as well as being
available as a gallery, meeting space, and visitors center as much as 360 days per year.
What steps might be taken in order to better afford the significant investment of staff
and financial resources required to maintain the historic and public- amenity programs
of the Wheeler?
• The revenue generated from the Wheeler's two commercially- driven lease spaces is
the largest single source for maintaining the City's arts grants program, but revenue
from the leases after the 2011 remodel is likely to prove to not support this program at
the level that it did in the past. As well, 100% of these funds are transferred out to
support the arts grants program and no funds are presently retained by the Wheeler in
order to offset hard- and soft -costs associated with maintaining these lease spaces, let
alone supporting the operations or other programs of the Wheeler. What adjustment,
if any, should be adopted to allow the Wheeler to better benefit and /or reduce its
subsidy for its Lease and Arts Grants programs?
• The 2005 Genovese Vanderhoof organizational audit of the Wheeler suggested
reducing the Wheeler's profile to that of a rental hall only, with a small expense line
maintained for co- promoting a limited number of events with other arts entities;
however, City Council at that time felt that the Wheeler should aggressively pursue a
live events schedule after some years of reduced live activity and an overabundance of
Wheeler Film Society screenings. Since late 2005, Wheeler staff has fulfilled this
request, to the point that there are now very few dark nights in the calendar. As well,
the apparent abatement of the national recession is now allowing Aspen arts entities
to re- emerge as viable co- presenters, with the early months of 2012 promising the
43
greatest amount of co- presented events since 2007. What direction shall City Council
give Wheeler staff in terms of programming mix, to include self - presented and co-
presented events, as well as calendar fulfillment?
CONCLUSION
The Wheeler Opera House has been a powerful arts entity for the Aspen community since coming back
to life in the spring of 1984, with a great deal of its success tied to the financial support supplied by the
Wheeler Real Estate Transfer Tax. Ultimately, the Wheeler RETT funds are extremely limited in what
they can be used for, and with the possibility of using most of the savings account on an expansion
project that is on hold for at least the immediate future, a case can be made for harnessing these funds
for the producing of events that will continue to make Aspen America's stand -out mountain resort
destination. It is important to note that the Wheeler's savings account has, with the exception of the
2011 when it funded the 52.9 million basement /lease spaces remodel, seen at least six figures of funds
added to it annually throughout the last decade -plus, even during 2008, largely considered the most
impactful year of the national recession.
With that said, it continues to be the goal of Wheeler staff to find greater operating efficiencies for all of
its programming while not experiencing a concomitant drop in quality. Wheeler staff remains acutely
aware that it is using public tax dollars for every bit of spending associated with the facility, and that it is
obliged to expend all monies as intelligently as possible through both good times and bad. Ultimately,
Wheeler staff and board of directors feel that most of the Wheeler's twelve programs are solidly
worthy, if at times challenging to unlock and understand. Wheeler staff and board remain dedicated to
the idea of providing the greatest benefit to the community at the least reasonable cost, both as a cost
to those who are paying entities presenting or enjoying events at the Wheeler, or to the Wheeler itself
in terms of hard- and soft-cost expense.
May 2012 will mark the 28 anniversary of the Wheeler's reopening. In less than three' decades the
Wheeler has gone from being so strapped for cash that it could not afford its own productions, to being
a producing entity that helps to drive Aspen's world- renown cultural profile and even serves as one of
the largest (and in some years, the largest) single funder of the arts in all of Colorado. Still, change and
new direction can be refreshing, and discussion is always welcome and productive. We look forward to
working with City Council shortly on the future of this wholly unique venue.
44
45
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: Full Pricing Committee exercise sheets, including support sheets that demonstrate specific
staff and non -cash resource investment per program
APPENDIX B: Wheeler Presenting — One -Off Event History (Six Year Sequential History)
APPENDIX C: Wheeler Presenting — One -Off Event History (Divided By Fee Tiering)
APPENDIX D: Wheeler Festivals
APPENDIX E: Wheeler Opera House Organizational Audit, July 7, 2005, Genovese Vanderhoof &
Associates (Final Draft)
APPENDIX F: Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2008 ( "Definition Of Maintenance, Wheeler Opera House ")
46
47
ri
APPENDIX A:
FULL PRICING COMMITTEE EXERCISE SHEETS
48
APPENDIX B, C and D:
WHEELER PRESENTING ONE -OFF HISTORY
(SIX YEAR SEQUENTIAL and BY FEE TIERING)
And
WHEELER FESTIVALS
50
•
51
APPENDIX E:
WHEELER OPERA HOUSE ORGANIZATIONAL AUDIT
(July 7, 2005)
GENOVESE VANDERHOOF & ASSOCIATES
52
•
•
•
53
re mil
APPENDIX F:
ORDINANCE 11, SERIES OF 2008
( "DEFINITION OF MAINTENANCE, WHEELER OPERA HOUSE ")
54
•
a, w
U
+31 0 O 0 M ° ti O O N V na a m 0 0 0 V N N , n ti N A r M el CO
+/Y an t o in an. N � � � N ,..1 N p , .y H . ey N 6 O r: pi N
w in tn. x in to vi t
W III!III
woo 0 V1 O O 0 a O 0 9 p O
E BN...8 80,�a . 1:: , v gg � COn^ o. C ° p O � . LI at S *c � o } ca. ch
iu Cc ,� .v.). � an t N [/T V1 v., � • • w ' fi n n M ' O n N in Q M N O H V, N t o in v.,. al . O a y N V, vt to , OL In
O ,
a
c \* oe \* e - L7.; .---4 e e e o °� °e o 0 1
O O m et N O Cr) -, -.. O 01 O O o O O
U O c',..., of of 6 U1 > ; Ory ,/1 O O� O I O Oo O O
a 4t ac .4 '* , et
St
8 a 11 1 In
°. 0 in 0 N N. \ O m N 0 I' ; \ ~ O
N 1 m N N N C C O .41 in ,Y b y p p
1.-i U N m n m • Q/ v5
In v. V1 t
LLL
e
E eaeoee eeee eeeee
Lc n. r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,n o 0
V 'n of 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,p O O
dk
t „ 88 ° 000 ;e 0 o0 °O
L c , m V o o In Le 0 vi .
in an N Cl N Vl r j O an ,"t N
Nan in tet in NN
4 2 0800 �8 �, r��, 4 PA NOOM OO y ., � N p00000 u $
1n W O Ln co V a O N V N 7D . an N N O . R co b Nr O ` O1 C , v ^ v a ° o ° o o ° � l ° m N
V u1 Oi " 00 (.4 .-" m N 'y in •-- to O C X M M ey I N et 7 M N M 1.0. N, N, G M N Q N N ,D to to N
et V? N V? y in an y W to to � in in 4n. U ` N n Q 41. to in try try to in
W
La o ae ae °f
y c'_ °Tm° °� c c 6gv� c �oao o o ,? �vi�eoroao co �O
G ~ O N " ,-y R-4 0 . O� N
N u
882888�0 � ,°� � ko .. HHHH •
0
V in
W I W ti
a.+ ui N O W U. b
I Cr a G L c F..- o
d a o e et o N p`�
8O p C O W O Z 14- \ D. d.
d To is v Z u a G y Q W \ 1b 011
V a N N 0 O C Q$ a L.- 4
p w w u u v 2 3e to G c O b £ 4 E ;w.. ,4 E d , n v
° N ..... w w y C C v y N w w 0 al
v .+ O O to \ = N G a V O y G
i Z a a >. ` a u a a ,., a, K w a1 ' � _ ° a i izi Q v v .1-. ` c a w N . o p u m ti N a o o O w w w 0 o d m G O \ \" m p W a 7 L . c m 3 O `1 u v U O O a O ti O O a 7 p 0 O ' c w o_ LL 1- 1- u u m u 1- 1- 1- m r- O F it b o T O v in I 3i u c v, v, Z1 ' 4 4 u,
11
2011 2012
Revenues $105,350 $117,350
Expenses $444,790 $457,070
Per User (13.58) ($12.58)
Per Event (3,857.27) (3,576.00)
Rentals
$500,000 ($12.00)
$450,000 ($12.20)
$400,000 ($12.40)
$350,000 ($12.60)
($12.80)
$300,000
$250,000 • Revenues ($13.00)
($13.20)
$200,000 • Expenses
($13.40)
$150,000 ($13.60)
$100,000 ($13.80)
$50,000
$0
2011 2012
2011 2012
Per User ($13.58) ($12.58)
Subsidy Per User
iiv ($3,400.00)
($3,450.00)
($3,500.00)
($3,550.00)
($3,600.00)
($3,650.00)
($3,700.00)
($3,750.00)
($3,800.00)
($3,850.00)
($3,900.00)
2011 2012
Per Event ($3,857.27) ($3,576.00)
Subsidy Per Event
Milli
0 ° 0 0 0 0 ° 0 0 ° o R ° ry M rn cae e � x
U p1 0 01 O QI U N N M ''" C N as 01 co
CC
G °Q ° I
c01o�$
J Ifl n.
el/ �o ��
t.; ,r; o CO rsi K V! d `N �` y
O
v d r - - - rte: I
• j j O O O O
'F o 0
W U 0 0 O � W O O
O i; tO O
It NI lf3 I
M M 1.4 a - / N O
1 .
11±e I,
O O
U O O 1
I
'V4
I
o
1 11! $ , 11 _ p o p mUU
G+ O1 O y O 6 Q n e} n 0 O O M O N ^ H N { N b a` N. , y
e O e J
y , O O N
h M N
tj _ U r_I
. .
I .
O O n1 N. O 3 O O O O
at 01 Cr) b M 0, N O p 0 0 0 0
.n 4 ,n ° v $ r c e N e v co
ti h I ti w
tit
P1 1 7 : 11 1
• e
o
i a
ra
Y
N _ y U
M
z)
@ N
' > O z O O Q
y Q
V F c Q c Q
Ip C , ` • ....'-^ C 0 N
• N U R
CO 41
N O O
0 1 % 7 0 N O 0 v . Q Cr_ U
d v t N c 0 3 £ O O m. «' c b ° O
W cc z w a N ` t- z o a. y A v v Z o v v oo 0 , a
• a
N ] N Z O
.4 y , N N w W jp ›, `O \ a m N a ~a , N b J W p 0 0 C m C a_+
0 U U o w O o U. o o a. 0 0 7 0 = 0 c ` , v o a '
- o 0 0 0 0
O. u. i= N I- O F- 6 0 -. a z O U F- a i- at It a. a. er U u.e h H ti = ca
•
2011 2012
Revenues $279,000 $378,900
Expenses $1,260,030 $1,249,840
Presenting
$1,400,000 $0.00
$1,200,000 ($10.00) —
$1,000,000 ($20.00)
$800,000 ($30.00) —
■ Revenues
$600,000 ($40.00)
• Expenses
($50.00)
$400,000
($60.00) —
$200,000
$0
2011 2012
2011 2012
Per User ($49.05) ($37.87)
Subsidy Per User
so
($2,000)
($4,000)
($6,000)
($8,000)
($10,000)
($12,000)
($14,000)
($16,000)
($18,000)
2011 2012
Per Event ($16,351) ($12,808)
Subsidy Per Event
a m
4 c
A O O 0 000 C to
C -ul. v i i. tn. I^. h V N N N n 1 N H c H ,
5. C. t"' b y y -v., O N N
a w
I I
C1'
_ N
3 p p M Opt p N N ery p N •
4, 0000 viviini.io. V 2M "i M • O' O. V C M h `O N
C d W h N N K „ a N "'' ti
r >> J a O O p O
'6 R Es # 1 N �'i O O
, -..I
fol
0
0.
o m 01 0 w co d 4" u1 ri p
w h h N N
I I I ,
O • 000
1
() O O O
1
h
1
•
---fiL 1 .
II 1
s a
j N O O Lfl
ct ` h
_ —
- ■I tl � tl l L l - : 1 � � I J i [ a = - 2 ' ' 4i: .1!•x711 � I I 1
It i �+ � '.
.4-• o p o 0 Ln CO 0 0 0 0 CO
` N �i O 1 N
3
� 7
1
____ i
1 °i ° r \ ' a- m o 4 i . o ° 0. g . S ° °o
h O N M a0 ul 10 V O N CO R ti " "..1 c
'4").• VI. VI. N 4 v1. v1. h h h h
O
t
N
U
w
M I
1 c
y li
O
.x v
1 N v
G_ O •
` � c 1 p ��°
ti Q a O
b
O W I 44 O 4 a
U b C
y n a c , O 0 e N U c
Si W a' ° *al
ry O • ti C . 3
v Ou c c o E : w i Ii fl
w s. v � N d cu i ` • O T ` EL b W O IF U O a n Q
�' O ti cc C W L u O a V 9 h S � j Z O w a a O
E I a c c$ o v m S. 8. g m ;? g °� w o w c c== a
°i o c o o x ti a o a o o o 7t = Q. a c o o o o o O ° a
�i 2 w F. O w C7 a 2 0 u F- 1A 1- ai # a a K V v v1 v1 > O n
2011 2012
Revenues $0 $0
Expenses $165,860 $170,070
Community Events
$180,000
$160,000
$140,000
$120,000
$100,000
■ Revenues
$80,000 • Expenses
$60,000
$40,000
$20,000
$0
2011 2012
C 1 m
C A O O m - �
- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s 0 0 n ,,"I ° m o C .- 14 CO al to iA if? il} if? H N VI. Q . 11. V . el; � N en y x
QC W
_ 1
O
N O O O CV N N •
j • O O O C - a d pi ~ b H 1 D Q --i C M In • Q 01
Q, '" N V} L6. �!1 QJ X ,..1 N q.p ..4 O O O b H M ` K
0 0
0.
y i 1
O1 O D o o
a 0 0 0 ° 0 0 0 O
V O O O Q u1 M O O
1
w
Q,
vl
Q Ln 0) - N u1 pc
C. It ri O 1,, ^ Ln r ry
J "' "*
W
0 • 0 0 0 0 i
0
V) i n
4
0J CU = p 0 C p C O R O ION C N O 1+1 M N 01
0, I- Ln Ln O O O d IN 0 0 u1 O M O h1 u1 N* N C
Q, s -� N N t/? to
LC; x ry N 44 .y
ce 1 .4 O = Q b H l ` 11 C
_ I . 1 1 J I NM — 1
o
O * o* O O
.+ 7t; On O .. o ff° O O O O E
cu ,,; y ui "i o o y a
7 7 I ' O
V u a
CD
O N i
C A D O O
° ui rn 01 U1 I N
`^ • 1 N , an 11'1 ad Qc c 0 Cu
u
I
in
O
Q,
tn
C
Q,
x
c Q,
CU a
v
v �' W o
ao M
E . ID C O
CO L
CC ■r O W v
73
. U O a
M 0 O N w v, C ; O
N L d H C N in
a O C O O 7 W C
LL L .L Q, N j 0 01 01 07 �+ j 1 /) , r.+ L
0 O,
CU 3 Q, O. U LL C . IY V, W N O C V t/1 L H j j 2 f6 Q .�
r • a Cu aJ ar 4. .c 4 .1 r O .. a . .1 . u a n
W Q, W a, o •••• o x a o o a o n o Q, v Q, o R o
3 c a N U ti O 1- W k7 C 2 0 U I- N I- s= �x C Q cc U V U
2011 2012
Revenues $5,000 $5,000
Expenses $103,210 $106,220
Wheeler Film Society
$120,000
$100,000
$80,000
$60,000 • Revenues
• Expenses
$40,000
$20,000
$0
2011 2012
o O m * aF
w
al to
• Q 0 O p 0 u co N N CO b co N a
V n N ^ to n "1 I" ,..j` 01 N r N 0 M N
j ` "I 1-1 C. I ' H N V ` it
0 V? An. {f! x
C. W
= 0 0 0 O C: �p C o , n O n * 41
WC G! tD . -. is N d 00 M
a ti 0 w 0. A 4 v1 a '? t0 v1
O
0.
0
� _ a
o e. Y.
acs; v acs d
It ry :
1.4
v N V
a o
u o I 1
i 1 1 I. 1
1
II ,__ l 1
I
o, o 8 c o m c m a a cs !O�
oj S 0§ O a c i o o M O a � _ N NT
3
W I a R X kp
�•1 vj l
ij R N Q Q O N �' •V , VI.
ec .1". a W h v, . in V tn. ak
1.4 g o o 0 as 0 0
m c �' '1 � co
� o
u u
O - M l0 y O p
`^ � v oo vi t0 pi` N 1".
I
i
4
v E
on v
-o
a t
v)
>. H
E. of ai O
O 0 a, a O a E 11
O N > d d p Oi w v, N O O 1 N
o a o o o 0 o a o o a o O v v o a a o v
u re v) O 1- W 0; o, 2 0 u a , a,c v v u
2011 2012
Revenues $48,000 $65,000
Expenses $93,490 $95,770
Concessions
$120,000
$100,000
$80,000
$60,000 • Revenues
• Expenses
$40,000
$20,000
$0
2011 2012
✓ a,
en c y
.t o 0 0 0 0 o p p o s CO b so b
ea a
0 at A N N co a
U to to V! v1 N v! V1 V? +A u 01 .y* H M N L M M N N
5. o. 'A -tn. + n an u .�
a W 1 1 I I
M
v O, ° 0 o N. n
m , ° om m o o up v a N v. rn COO p a a n ° c M °e e,
Lei n a
c ,4 ‘.4. 0p 00 co K N r H V? O O 01 t " 4 N
CL in.
G
L
a
co 0
e o > 0 a. \ o 0
o v, ° > �00 0
v V •-, 0 • 0 0 0 0N 0 0
co
o �M .� 1
p 01 N O 0 n
L A p1 H 01 h H
at I C. " "
C ° ° l o 000
,G O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 O'
aR
I 11
a .
N
O O O t° O tej p
• O p O 0� O cz C N 0 .-4 41 R N^§ 41 N p 3
• t.0 .4. rn m o o t o y M M at p O M us kli
1 �
d
c * I v
''' It o v C e O O P p 3
1E W N O o v
3 7
u u
l0 O - 01 n M v 1 G O
H . /1 +R '.' D CO ‘. Co U �'
•
R
i+
N
LL a te .
u
VI 0
7 W
0 N co
a Oc
Q o ,N
N d N c" eS i
CO .I.., L ,o O N C p C E O O E
a. Cl 3 cc co 7 W 4' h 01 •E i+ U V1 l N N N O O
f6 C N J Gl L C > p v r`" H Cl b W O a w ti
C ▪ S N u L ca w Z ca 4, O O 0. M O N 0 L L U v1 C E
Ili a °1 e v) I- W 1 .6... f L 0 4 ° T o u F V F tt * a a a v ° v cu
2011 2012
Revenues $8,690 $8,690
Expenses $101,460 $104,430
AM FS
$120,000
$100,000
$80,000
$60,000 • Revenues
• Expenses
$40,000
$20,000
$0
2011 2012
•
a, a,
en 40
O a 0 0 ui o n N. ' c ° Qp o 0 0 °m c n N.
{ 00 lD O N O O O t0 q U tp dO co 01 .-1 Np 01 7,
V u j N -1 .1
co V? V} ^ iA r\ O? h M � N. t0 t O 0 Ni r N C
,-1 v? an in .� p, +n 'rA IA. V? u ... y
CC ILI v
a, O 'O •-... i
3 Ol O O O O O O C a0 00 M H a
C 00 '- .O d N n V '0' O O oO pq O L N tel N ,r 06 r» V1 NI - to i. N N N 0 cr N M a . O o, C1 ` rry to -0
CC �* v? A. am* 411. Q . w in. in. 1^ o co
2 �o
or a E
\ \ v
o O
„N 0 0
u o 0 0 0 0 p o 00 -, o o
0 a* I O N
O Ol 03 ,- -I w
0. 31: O O O o
00000 ", NI O 0)j O
CT Ql • -, N CO M N . M V
V? V? V}
iir_
N
I y
o, u
Q, `p 1 y
c o co o 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 I
I
1 / To
0
E
1 ' 1 1 1
.-- o o in v V?
in. N . N m N
VT V? V? V? V? c
O
OR m
m
iil
1
0 0 O M O '^ O O O N W c CO N o
3 N N O N 0 0 M N M C N t O N C a
0, V '• in a M u} V? R 0 x N M N M 1 N u .-1 ` CT IA
cc IA. V? w V1 t/? V? N �}
el
s CR 1.1
O O O in O �+ 0 0 j, N 0
ti ti j
3
u' u
o 0
x 0, O 1 0 ^1 ,
V} to O N O m N IA M W t O b �O V? V? 1.4 V? V? V? V4 h kO N M M
II
N -y
a, O c
i
4.. a, O N �O $
O LL Ln LL c 3 0,
z a ' E
tli c o LL •N I CO
Ln Cu CU
F lD OJ l O 0 CU 3 a b - +.. w
3 LL e a v 1 E a in
N N d L ..c . o �C' O c c O
a
j a x Y x w _ a + I 1 O O a ar O. d ° j u V, NS
.n v 0 v U 0 a o o W o o a o 0 0 o a, a, o f Ns ` cu
a co (../1= m a N•. 0 N-- a 2 0 c.) H v0 ti 4t 4 C c., N,.) V= ti
2011 2012
Revenues $104,430 $122,100
Expenses $211,820 $217,950
Aspen Show Tickets - Outside Events
$250,000 ($95)
($100)
$200,000
($105)
$150,000 ($110)
• Revenues
($115)
$100,000 • Expenses
($120)
$50,000 ($125)
$0
2011 2012
2011 2012
Per Event ($122) ($107)
Subsidy Per Event
•
i
m 01 I
a on
u t In o u L O O N 2 Y1 N �_ h
N N v m t N N O N
5 K �/► In N u I
O/ W
cc _ I 1 III 1;il •
e o n o -a O
N • o O O -0 ID O � �0 b N M O a o to al
of . M
4/..• H x O O� • 1 o- O a M ` V1.
CC O . W . •t . .co. 1//1 O In
a 1
. * ° o 0
u ,,, " o 0
N I • —. i
c. `^ rn o,
rn
W
to
e
o O
u o
•
III
•
•
III 1.
C 0 0 O
I P ! ; N L! M 3 M V} u . �.
CU
off \ -+
oe O O 1 "S a+ 7t C * 0 0 0 O N Q O O
2./ ` .-i h O O 1 N
Y
u u
1
M
It
LO m'O � v ° o ° ° o 0
1 1
i
N
a
Q)
A Q h
Ln dt
G
�
n E Q
0
'^ N a v v •
> > N O O CZ
W 9 > L CU O d N 3 • v N Q W
0.1 N y L. t t 0 T �' O C O
u C U ; in C w u 'O V1 y o, X o 12 v V C v O
o C '', W N O N O 4 b
3 v o o o 0 0 a n a o 3 :c a z u u ° v ° Z m v v •
a la. Z 1- O 1- o 11. a Z 0 u r vt
•
Revenues 2011 2012 $0 $0
Expenses $140,050 $143,600
Amenity
$160,000
$140,000
$120,000
$100,000
$80,000 • Revenues
■ Expenses
$60,000
$40,000
$20,000
$0
2011 2012
a
•
al oz
es fa c p o p O
V V O ? p p An. N U R N 01 CO m b � ,4) • a L N N 21 N
CU W
■
- 0 c I 1 oo on co M
C O 0 0 .0 CI rn CO CO tt a � ° o oM
• tn. v► a
0) K x Q n b M r ." O
y Y ry M me .. K ,
0
a
. ° G • , a° O•o o 0
u ti o 0 0
in
h
2 c r, N co O
O. 7# rn ri ai N• cij ill
I
CU 1
C
0
u o i
• i
K
ll
. ' i
1
C C 0 co 0 n N c 4 p 0 M 0 M N et
01 0 O O 0! V' 0p h O en R ` N 2 N. O c M O n M r: C .t,4 An X V K ' A H y" V ev e in. p G n N� n n ,
i
0r
�0 0 0 S M WI M 0 0 0 CU
4. 4t 1
O Lp N O O O O
yt Qt n b n N 0 0 0 0 0 0 fssi h N h 06 1p n 0 C O O ul ul tn. 112. c0 ti u w In
.
)
•
L3
A_ cn
I I I I I I I . a 0 cu
- C q -`
3 j , O
y O 0 .
W
i n Y Y O
CI 3 N h O O E
a
U 0 a E a, 3 3 o x
o N a, v a= 4. G G w 4. a v = t ° a u ` �' O O o CU 0, o
Lc. CC ` c O-3 -. v r p > ` a w, `o o 2 � a a CC G v� . , ■
C U o 0 4 . e 0 0 a o 0 Z 0 v a 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Cu
z cc z ti O i - O a 2 O u r w I- # a CC u ti ti cc m
2011 2012
Revenues $0 $0
Expenses $172,440 $176,880
Historic
$200,000
$180,000
$160,000
$140,000
$120,000
$100,000 • Revenues
$80,000 ■ Expenses
$60,000
$40,000
$20,000
$0
2011 2012
al no I
C co o c O O c C
U if). V? 14 t V M • M N c rej M CI
C . y 1...). N 0 M �1 �1
y X
c i W
. -j 1 1 I I
p o
O N N
0 C O^ O co V kC N (.D h1 0
1 • 4./). 14 c/'). 0 W a a l O' of o1 ul. ° O - „ a y n •.■ d. 0 .4
CC 0 11.1 a In '^
2
0 a
0 \ off°
0 j j o o . °
v °"i 0 0
a
L ! O N 1\
4.4 ti Oi o oS
I
CU
g
0 0 0
o*° I I
I
liMaNd
Jliki I '
.
o 0 v o a M ai N ` N M t M o ,-1 C v v
___1' I ! •
o o ° ° o
C C O vi O O
22 E' en O N n
rn N m h h c°
"' .n ,^ oo te o of C.1
c
1
d i
h I O
. 110
-, v
N E
1.1
1 ■
1
C cv H
v.
..3' °i
•.1 N N H
c c o 0 E m `a F
vi cu Cu
t a y> 0 ft H 0 co
cli
01 Et cz
al
N v p Oi 73 d m h O H a J W o .�..
m o •• •• a w O o C". o o o Q v ` v v o o v
O cc z ti O 4. H W C9 a z O v 1- in 1- 2 a 4 a u u 4.
2011 2012
Revenues $0 $0
Expenses $232,380 $239,620
Outreach /Liaison
$300,000
$250,000
$200,000
$150,000 • Revenues
• Expenses
$100,000
$50,000
$0
2011 2012
Cu o0
°, c a
t o o o CO o CO m o o c c n. 0 *
en N U ^ a O N to al an In a0
1 .4 Li j -v N an v1 a N i m O. 4 4" rr r,1 H o f U N N r N
y v* 1^ 4" x
a . W
4-
N po im O Q
3 p 1p C a M 0 _CO O n M 0 in tr) C WI
h O -in a j a1 y a cl 1/41:3 VT v-1 N u1 1.41. N C N N e.j � +1 "1 CO e'l k0 C C f +/> 'V i j p a W 11 in' y 1" 4 " a 4/1. M 'v1 Q
O -- j --
0.1 a `
0
0 0> o> j g o 0 0 0 E
v o# 0 ES Et ES Et a m o o o
vi
0. m 0) m o
° ` al `"-'- m a a 0
O. as vs Lr, N ' m vi Ln
v� "� y • o
m 1 c m
la co en
_ \ a. \ = Ki
°00000 co
u o 0 0 0 o V, M
CV ni
1
1
k I pa 1
1
1
1
a, p e
M C `D 2 n O c o , y Q N* a-i 3 0o
y 0 0^ O O n P y .y O co .-` p .-` i i+1 N N 0 M C N
o t/? h x N N 1 a V. V► ~ 1d Q
Vl W in h IA. II _1 I I 1 I I T 1
so
Y It .+ g O O O 0 * 0 0 CO
M 0 O a � J O
C al M , y h
t s m
3
i' U - r a`,
>
aJ
c) 0 ^ m 2 ko, M
tn. 4.41. rn W V M Uj V
t4) ti .y
h
rj d , ND N OJ N O O
E o °' —
E 10 a° c C p 13 E e 0 7
V aJ O Cl y QI in L OJ C
cs) 22 -- F^ `I O O
a1 Z N aJ L-c O �, Le, a O O O O- 3
N C aJ 4. CC ; O N ° Q U \ V, j z . 0 ,.. cm V, -,
1O v Q> v o o x a o a o p o v a� o O v v v
J CC Li vJ o z 1� O F- W L7 a x 0 v r of 1- =t a a: ( V
2011 2012
Revenues $76,733 $169,560
Expenses $46,190 $47,480
Leases (Commercial Spaces)
$180,000
$160,000
$140,000
$120,000
$100,000
• Revenues
$80,000 • Expenses
$60,000
$40,000
$ 20,000
$0
2011 2012
w
cu c ea no d@ a2 3e cl
+n v► .n .n o o p o
X 0 a
a w
.O O
LA G c o M N m 0 M n° no �. N
W C W in y in a` ` esi i-4
1 "
o.
0
eu a
0
o N j o 0 0 0
O '-i 0 0
u # # r
a■
N
a m .:1-
v
t
v
cn
c o a
a o 0 ■
u o 0
III I i
o 4, c
C
i a
'�/L N N frl
V eel
la 1 Q
a o
C a C * 0 0 0 O �''
c c O ti 0 O y
L
L ,
0 0 -
0 O N R I
* of r, m N N 0 0
t1r.. .
l
t
Z
Cu
.a 1
v
N
w Oi C a s E O ...
... w z > w o, as a+ _ N 6 `^ a a cU
C y a > w .c C `. �' co e a eo ea to
p
Ili 7
aa, y O L D' o X O o a a a o F o a d K U V U cu o
a ac u - i - O r W tp � a. ZOv�
2011 2012
Revenues $0 $0
Expenses $358,330 $358,390
Arts Grants
$400,000
$350,000
$300,000
$250,000
$200,000 ■ Revenues
• Expenses
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
$0
2011 2012
ggggggggggg 888 88 x88888888888888 88888 2 ,,,00000000000000 000000 ,V
N µ
a
I _
ggAgggggg�ggggg 88888 88888888 88888 88888
_` . . oo o
o oo m goo0°0000 0 oc �. >
g 22
E
'c
."° 0 000 0
MgPAheag °be 88888 '".°.°228N28»8$R:8 88888 ? PCAU° °8o08 °88 'T. _..
R 72
0 A
Ag . e . g . � , . 28W8888 8.2 2 8 8 8 8 8 8888 m m c0 h o 0 0 0 0 o N o 0
mamagggg � � 00aaa00Nra0000 ag "
n
a
0
gAgg4gggg8V844 gggga °888888888 88888 a ee ° rrm 0 08
°°$994 °9
5
a a
E
g
g ggggmm 884888888888222 8888.8 8. 008 000000 „
0r� 0000 5
mgg gggga mmmm - Noaa°a°aaaa -a°" 0a s
�o,
m 4A2A en up
o N .
I I I IIIIIII I j I I I
s
g ggg " gm ' g`mA ' „g� . g . .g, . .g. . ,g., . ,g m ' gg g " g °0as 88888 A8 0 N§8,>e89 8'00 - .
es�a �agga
aaa asaaa N - as a N a
f z
T ,
8848 agggag 4488 g ggma 88888 888888 88 . 88888 0 0 o ry 700000 0 O° 8
m
mgm � 44 ggaaa g�ggg mSaba ggg4 2 8a88$eassg$$$8. .8.8.8.88 m ". .'4 °OORQ §8 °R °V'71 IP 3
a g o0gi "ga Vi m m
1
3 u
E
gmg“gg Wgggg m��gg .888288202"88888 288888°,8°,.,8888 3 8°°°°° m � ° 8. o
°m °E Zi E
E
u E
Mm ggg gggv “ r sga 0822 8 8222 ,„9888 m � m m m c vm
v ° a
N o 5
o
a . mgag . . NgNggNN .Nmggg s g a mm888 v <�e m ” d<ee and > P
,�'ow
m °R
4.2
........... .....
NE $ A d N. §e € t 3 - ?6 g
N. �. "_ i ;= :: 1.2--.=—.= y "tea m "
c 1 o f f f f f- °' x° " a_ m u g f f f<< f f N i o ° m. ° p . E g l c f f ,� M i o m-
� o i
W a ¢ i c m `4 F m m F` i i a u n v�'i g 'ip P g n a m # m m r '~L` ,M.5. i>. , .t o f f a a d m f - m m r r. d u n u.
ry 0 88888888888888888888 0 8 8
o a o N 6 o 0 0 0 0 o N e o 0 0 0 0 o N o 2 0 0 0 0 0 o a
oN NtANNNN NNNNVNNN NNNNNN.N N
C N
N N
a
ae N o 0 88888So88888 8 p❑ 8888888
v O O O ❑
a o $ 6666666666 a c. o a d o 0 0 0 o N 66°66
N N N N N N N N 01 N N N N N N N N N 0 O
N N .i vi
N N
N N
. ' '
�� e . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
N OO 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 080000 . 0080 0000 O. N
O O ✓1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0
C O N M N Cr, N O p O1 01 0 M 1 4, 44 1 N 44 CO 1. N N N N N V N 44 n N N VV, N N 1.4
O 10 N 01 m N N 01
N N N N N N
t
a
C
J
0 a
.
o rl g g g . . . . . . . .
N 8888888888888,88888888888888 . • • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 . •
$` O •
'n 0 N m m u1 O O O (NO O N 0 0 0 0 oD 0 r-- V1 6 0 0 0 0 O
o N O 0 N L
N N 04 N N N V1. VY 00 VN N N m Vf VN N VN N N N O
''.1±' 1- ..-7 N M .4 0 m N
N N ann.
N N
S
n O
L
o —. N ' a ❑ O`p gN `m . 0 . 8 . 0 . 0 . 8 . 8 . 8800080 08800000 0❑8
.............. .. 800 8 N
a O O O O O
o N o e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o e 1� p o N N o N p o 0 0 o m
N N N o0 N N 0 N 0 0 0 Y1 N 40 O1
10 N N N N N N N n W
Z W O a 1 N y
N 11) N N . 1/ ) a N
N W. N N
N N N
al
at
O O O O p p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
.0 .4 X N O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 2 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 00 _
O. N N ,y O N o 0 0 0 0 0 N N o 0 0 O O O N N N» 0 0 0 2 0 a
N N N N 0 N N N N W N N N N N N N N
o m an m
o m a
N N N ni
N N N
O a
E
c
p p W
-_. n * _ – g . . N . _ _ - .8.8.2.8.8- 0_8._8.8.8.8.0.0.0.0 8 8 8 8 8 8 - 8 ❑ 8 0 . 8 . 8 . o . F
N 40 W N 1 N N V 8 O
8 Q a N N N N N N a ton V N V N N N N a
Oa R L
N N
"..7.4 00 40
N N N N N
a p
�° p p O
N y � j ry O O N N O 8 8 2 8 8 8 0 0 8 8 8 8 8 O E4 0 0 8 8 8 8 8 O O 0 O 8 M_ g
O 8 m M N N N N R W
M N N O N 0 V N m 8 N N V N N V N N t.,. N
Oa OO
N 4/ N V _ _ N m 4
N N N N N
N .-
et
y
C
O
U
a1
_ * . * . e , . * . * - e . * . * . * . . - 8 . 8 . 8 . 8 . 8 . 8 . 8 . 8 8
. . 8 . 888 - 88 .... 2 .
,,,mw `"..."'..o e .o ❑�0000000000moo2o 000008 m u
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 o a6 0 0 o N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 y
O O Q N V1 N N 8 8 0 8 n 8 r
g .N to N 2 2 N N 2 Vf'N 6 a
N 1 N V1 M e-1 01 .v1
N N N N N N u
v
-a
No V .. g . NNNNg. gg. ggg 8 . 8 . 1n . 0 . . . . 8 8 .
8e . _ . '
e v
p ✓ O
O 0 0 8 8 0 0 8 5 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 /4
o a p o e o 0 0 0 o ao 0 0 0 0 0 o N❑ o 0 0 0 n
N m N N N 01 N O O O N O N N N N 10 O N N m a N 01 01
C .1 N ' O1 O 1a W o N 00
a1 N N to .. N N N N N N N N 0
E E
u°
0
g . x . g ._ --g g X N g g • g g X o ggg ..PP gg gg . 88888888888888'88 88888 -8- 8 0 a a
N m $ $ N N 8 O ry N 2 N m a p p
N N OD N N N N a1 01 O O a1 a1 0 N m 1 NN T N 0 000n. 0 0. r1 N N N 0 0 0 8 0 00 $ N N . 40 m a+ CO m 1n o v a 1a 04 n a n o 1 ao ca ry m
4614 N of o1 .+ w ry o 10 10 0 0 o 0i . .+ a p
N N N N N N N N N N N ti w N 3 N .i N N N
W N N N
W C
a` 7
w
a
0 2 . 2 . 2 . 2 . 2 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 8 e8 88°0 �' '
]1 N aE N N N ry/4 m N N g 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0❑ O O O O O N O O O O O O O O u eV ZZ]] b 40 N 01 44 N N m N O a C. N 1. r N 2
V1 N N N N 4/) N N p
gy/) 1)i N N i3
C ,. N
N N N N V 1 N N N N N N N C
N N N
N
I'd n
Cc ' 2
z m
1-
m ❑ m $ ` m
TO N C d W N 5 ...%- d
a5 c a d 8, v 2 a a a . a u 0 a' ° v N' W u
N u E m u1 - E d v a « � z N c N m ✓1 c c m v v 1 ¢ v . . m
> c To v c c 0 A m a .8 a.0 v m n o ` m i 4 m c « T LL v , % __ 0. a, N
n a ` v v m a y t F `u a s n c n 0 ._ A a` .2 4 >= i 0 w 41 a a E `c v° c t N m c a. o_ .- ? a'-.. N . 0.
12v'182 r H
a–' a.. c , m ° W f= o aa
Y •f 0 1 y LL v f N a r r J v o m u o W - 4 o. .-.- o w v 21 n r J IV
uo1`mm"m( uv o �'nuu mm = LLan
Rentals (Gen) Presenting Com Events WFS
GF Overhead 10.00% 10.00% 2.00% 5.00%
1T Overhead 18.00% 18.00% 3.00% 3.00%
Concessions AMFS AST - Outside Amenity Historic Outreach /Liaison
1.00% 8.00% 8.00% 10.00% 12.00% 30.00%
1.00% 2.00% 25.00% 1.00% 10.00% 15.00%
Lease Sp Arts Grants
4.00% 0.00% 100.00%
3.00% 1.00% 100.00%
° o
,°n o .n 0
an
c al 0
N M M
0 V
t
Q pp
M 0 0 1 00 00
N .i u1 .
m.
N Cr a •
✓ a" V* N
T1 ar
P
fl 00 co IA lo
L N Ol
ro N N m
v N V!
7
0
0 0 0 CO 0
00 CO
N 10
V N r
O V1 VT
O N 000 l l
Y of C 0 W 2
' C 1-1 1--1 N 0 ,. w
CU ` < 1 *
E ��
w E
¢ i? � N � ~ 8
w m vi
C: e O
O O 0 0 o = 2
• V 00 „ -1 01 0 N
o N N N L
N V) V) V) 41,1 4 g
O Y N
d K 0 v- m
VI C 3 W a ~ 3
0 0 0 0 0. W < 0 e , (,..7 .' LL .* v m 1 CC 0 v 10 o O ro ,, '^ v e c e v m
00 ti o0 a O J .� . O c ¢ V
H N o V? 0 y 7 ., .1 E �
4" 0 Q 0 n 0 < O
C
0 0 O 0 P.
• o e o N
J o
00 A" 00 V?
a
u
U ! l
!
N c
0o a o o 1 .-. I
01) O a O l"1 i .m. V
✓? V' O: N W
C N
1 Z c
CP
N X
N ti 0 w o .. LL W a X
7 g
W N o'
C C ~ 2 N
W V} N i H j V LL
e o ry N e C
E G! ¢ g m 1^ a a "
u IX s r v* ¢
KC 0 0
7
o Q• -•C 4,m
m m o0 O o
C Ol O 00 Q i V • IN C N N M N
y H r N ,
1 ill VI 111
VI n m o
v
l7 9 c N v
N VT VT VT
il w
o!
GC
,y N
eY ,-1 rl N
j N 3 el) 0,
C C C C 43 CU
> a i x
z w w w
s:' '155 1 `1x1 i €1 3 €15;! €=1!# €5:55:5 € €!1!!!S 3 5 °1 == I1!`1ld5 €I ii1 €: 1 I 9;` €iiiii;l;i! € €S!£i €! a 4 q11 °xdl11li 1111 €11!1:11 i i g`itia :; :1151151! €d 5,
3:
11x8! 'aEx a 9idxaa6 $ = :11 :111 _aaxxax a p ' xaaxaaeaxaaaeaa `� q as =aa le : - g a lE ssla 1 § ` x112 _.axe +s E 2
d ' :11111dt£ 315x1 I SS : £1-1 =15 ,11'1.1- 1SEII* I. 5 . -55 1=111: 1 d IEEdd1d_d11s11115d51 1' S1didEld£11.c1Ai55id5 15
1 1 51I1 1 55dd5Ei51aS 1
5 1dd d: i d dd1dE1 i 3 .. :. :;'E :Eii' :'ifi!i 1 E5i!E' -!:_i? ° E 1 s..
S s- :d.E3xz :z_3ztn3_'...El E z d : d
,g -iVni -' j
- .. 4 . - - '' g x i s'_F g . ` S li L 1 1 c: x_ -:c 3 .nx i 1 g f S
- s$ d $ i.
i • .1 4A 4 M 9� f $ d i -1 5 1 1 .' :3111115S_a55511 . 11 11 1 ] } -5555555551151515151 5
`� °��� � � ° 511 L'� � �� LL � I . � � � a � � C � � } � 1111111 nxnxx nxxx xs
xnxxnnxxxx xnnn °
n3
`_ELLL "�E� EII `E`iE�LL6Lii��iLi EEC = iiiEEii iiii`'i ifi� ° _
iiiiiii�iiii`
° `1 I E ` EaLi i 1. ' EEEEEEEEEEEEE�E EE�EEEEEEEE� . p : !I pi x z 1 1 = 3 . �� t
1 -a .; : . 111
-.. £4 i 1 ` i 1 ( Min* i i ' I I I I � :x:isx.i- iidn -s iR i 5iillIKF!. HIM : ;
1 °i ii111E1111E£.Id1d d d1 AAF d£ E 1.1£1 �1511a i 51Ra£ 5611 1�o?II I€ E If Id3£ £IId3 I �:ii£ I�ii3£I,iilo-1 ;dIIN 1 1111' ;111=51 1=515 a t
e� -: 1543 i 'i�3 � E d S1 n'1d5� 1 S i a - 1 5 :: : : n nsnnnnxxxxxxs e °
31 d nnnxx s >ccc 1 .� R3 lznc d n9wR • aasRRan : R RR3• d9 99 °pn #. ■pa RR ° Rnnnn x
Ilq 5' i. - 9 j i a$ E m -. IA 1 !l '-. , AAA_ i {[ �[ r n � [`[ 3 E €a ads g� 1 .
!. 5 _ -. a I A "ai ii A i A i _ , ��� ig 5 ... ' ii � IiIHN i ��i i . - ,Iii 111 �� 5 - ������ �������� ILI
i , I�Ellliiii`iinii`i i . � ii`iii iiii`ii Ghiiiiiii gill iiiiiii`iiiiiiiii`ii iiif�iiiiiiiifiiii iiliii``iiiiiiiiiilil
1 ! EEII1 €LEES €EEEEEEN n .: EEEEE 5 ... 1 111111E €€ € € € €€ €n.uL EE I €€ u I... € € €MEEIB
f � ,....,. �� Et €1.€L € €€ €EEL �.
' i1 1g11 !� F • I : i €— - °s t € ! 5 d1� 1 I
la i'i ai !li! !. .: € a 1 .1 1 I _ i 4 i1 £1l!ld k il .1 i F6sl 1 1 .i I. it Ili :[ i •
•
Gram $106,995 33.0% $35,308
Heather $61,339 33.0% $20,242
Lauren $56,950 33.0% $18,794
Denise $42,952 33.0% $14,174
Gordon $62,691 40.0% $25,076
Brad $62,691 40.0% $25,076
Siz $47,237 33.0% $15,588
Maria $42,058 33.0% $13,879
Jeanne $48,600 33.0% $16,038
$184,176
x 3 years $552,528
- festivals $442,022
/ 68 total evts $6,500
•
ONE-OFF EVENT HISTORY - WHEELER OPERA HOUSE _ ---- '-
DMd46 By Fr History () Trap _ 11711) _ - - - APpor.
_ _ Grant, Add! Ttl Fn refit .
EH T6 - Gross ,Prambad TOTAL Tech r 1 1 CeAo Promo Ttl TOTAL GAIN OR S(nlote Staff Ayua%tl Sub&MYNnif Coal •
Event TYPO ANWCe I BXO Income REVENUE Labor EXDOnS0 51 Publicity Off. EXPENSES ILOSS) S bsidyNnet Eapervw Gr1 BY Program RICOVrY
Owls Mb TOY 141440 Few LOOK/ TIO 000 - -
OO4MBraflp/9 WOH 213_ 57.160 $0 $7,160 $179 $8479 W 53 000 . $149 $11.807 1$4,647) 1$21811,_ 56500 ($11,1 (}52.33 38.I%
S .,,. Co-Pro 200. $5430 $1,000 $6.430 $309 $858 6.045 $3.000 $288 $9,500 153.0701 ($2.651 $6500 (57.9581 ($16.20) 63,2%
Cross Canadian Rarer ' Co-Pr6., 341 $4.258_ 63 50 34.258 $471 51 $2.387 53.000 5217 $7158 1$2.902) ($15351 $8,500 _ (59570) ($47.851 403%
Raiboeo Earth/HMS Co-Pro . _ 229 $2.800. _5 $2.800 S879 51,467 s1.513 53000 5246 5 7106 ($4.305) (Se 511 $6,500 _ 39 ($27 31.2%
Second Car Touring Co WOM _ 339 56.735._50 $8,735 5167 55814 50 53.000 $198 $9,179 (14441 15,880) 36 (110,903) 347,131 20.8%
Damn Wnisht - _ Co-Pro 80 5540, $0 $640 5144 5819 50 $3000 $133 34,096 ($3.2581 (1 56.50 156944) (520.48) • 56.44
Michael Fran() Co -Pro 505 $12100 50 512.100 5172 $3.133 $6 53.000 $163 $12.884 117841 ($40.7011 58,500 49.166, (312795) 7.0%
8'wav Player. Go 8 41 e d Co-Pro 252 1 53.390. $3.390 5386 51 72 $2550 1,000 $144 $8.234 ($2.6441 15155) $6,500 ($7,284) (314.42) 52.4%
Ira Shore Go Pro _ 56 $1.400 - - $ $1.400 886 515 $380 53.000 3123 $3.802 ($22021 1111.25)� 36.500 (19,344) 153708) 26 .5'5
CM Haman W O H 193 $4 513, _ 50 $4,575 5297 $5.076 50 $3.000 $148 $8.522 153947) 1539.331 • -. $6,500 ($6702) (515.40) 13
ECwin McCai'Maia Shary W O H I ' 157. $4960: $ 31,050 54 289
57 $4, $[,_53000 $12O $784 153.798) 1$20 451 56600 ($15441) ($54.13) 30.5%
Jeff Dan,ela WOH1 226_ 54_050 SO $4,060 5392 $4.001. - SOS 53.000. 5150 $7.543 153483) (519.27) . _ 58,500 _ ($10,2981 0227) 282%
(be And Become (21 Co-Pro 381 $4,431 . 5173 $3.113 $t258 1515.461 __ 56500 0.90.11, I$4422) 268%
LYneMne W O H 215 56.725 . 50 $6.725 5281 56620 501 $3,000 5151 $10,052 1533271 53.30 46500 _ 02421 (313.76) 458%
John Steam Sos WOH 294 $8.720 $O $6.720 $314 56,007._ $0__$3.00 $176 36499 (51,779) (58,05) $6500 ($82791. ($2616) 44.8%
Tan R.th w Ora KD3 Co-Pro 238 53975, 50 W O H 225 $5.375 SO 55.375 $323 32,122_ SO _ 13.000 $161 55,606 l$2311 (51.00) 96500 (67311 ($2992) 444%
-- 594 $3.000, $203 36.743 ($2.7881 1510.'; 35600 39,2881 1$38.781 309%
Cathy $4.900 940 $256 5 $556 $ 19 44 _ 51
er Ewa 13lu e(2)l9 { � Co-P 175 53640 59 1.058, 533$7 $3.000 96 3,338 ($2.3581 1526.403 $5,500 310.1511 $
,132.'381 30,7%
star W (21 Co- 129, $940 $C 3, s0 $ 1 $
910 $523 $2 f0, 53.000. 596 $3.237 (3.2371 138. $6,500 I��). ( 9.8%
tyre n ,ca can Smaller W 0 H 258 51740, 36,040 $528 $2 SG 00 53.000 5108 $4.312 15$7,2721 1529 I $5.503_ 159.73 $54.541 _ 2,4%
& InTM OwaI OX 277 6.240 50 $6740 $ $9889 $03000, 5173 $ 184.7931 1 59500 1$141&293)_ 1154541E 359%
- xV15K $
w0H 277 78.230 • 55 $52 $69 1 5
60 1660 5 7516 15329)1 53.000 $173 $11,043 1543 144.]691 1517.E 56500 15112931. 440 771 36.8%
J1r__am11 E6w% WOH 150 53,150 = 50 $3,150 5255 52619 SOI 53000 5165 88.039 (828801 (518.261 565x1 159389) ($62581 25.1%
PM. MeV% 2W194 Sm4 b, Co-Pre 191 31.3e6 W 51]516 6766 5345 $2.531 $3000 5181 5682 364391 (528.47) $6500. (511939) 158251) 109%
) Miro At The Wheal Co-Pro 207 $5.721 $0 $ 721 5749 $254 51 83000 51 22 $5.308 $415 $2.01 $6500, 38065), , 1$294O) 418%
[Anton Sheik W 0 H 190 54200 50 34,200 $653 57,395 $0 13,000, $229 $11.277 157.0771 (537. - 76,500, 3135771 _1$71 • ' 238%
Pater Saoal WOO _ 238 $5 SO $5378 3110 $4655, 50_335p0p 1146 17.911 ($2.533) IS1),041 1500 _0,033), 1$371' 37,3%
EwN Suoorstala_ Co-Pro 257 571 50 17.110 $887 57.944 1$708), S o-� _ $218 $11,344 ($4.2341 ($164 $$30
1 5 310.734) ($41, 39.5%
line Creek Chtlatmtm _ W O H 314 X536, $0 34,536 $1.349 $4.859 55, 53.000 $278 59,466 ($495 315.: • 500 .- 1011.4501 _ - 4 284%
Chk. o CM Loons W O H 151 $ _ 50 11.341 $521 51.371 55 $3.000 5135 314.341 3.0011 118 1 1 18.5 14.501) _ t 3 12.4%
14.8%
Bar Sm4hs 8503 Book_ C -Pro 181 $1,340 SO 11.340 5521, 71 f0 _ $ 3.000 4
8169 44.311 /53.00 (515
CJaoH11 C )N W0H 219 $17,278 50 597.277 $301 59258 SO 53.000 $238 910.387 152.060) (3902 '- 500 =2 520%
Tom P sh Nals0 Ta0k9 5kr G W 0 H 144 53,275 50 97.277 5308 56312'_ 53000 5138 515.332 1 411.041! 7 -.500 99 �-� 49214
:'' ) 25.6%
Tan R n W O M 144 53275 90 $3276 5375. $21231 50 53.000 516 35664 1 $2.351) (517.761. 365001 (19.857) - •
o MMood. ..-_ W O II 130 53.306 $0 1.306 5375 54123 53.000 5186 6 52,803 34,3781 (531 561 .6001 ( 599 1 2 3 , 3%
John Oar 1, 4 E4 183 W 0 5 2227 54.104 56.433 580,537 5350 SO 39340( 50 53.000. 00 5160 512.850 (52.313) (310 41) - $8503 _ _ (9681 545%
Jots 069 Piaix113_ WOH 224 33512 56.433 $9.035 5350, $9726; 1 . 53.000 5)62 313.2 (53.315) 1514 BO) 7 8800 (3955 50318
Md.o M _Nall 8 Duo( Anger W O H 92 51525 50 11,525 533] 36131 $0 13.000 9129 59.594 ($6,000) 117 71) 56500 L 14 9.5%
WPA W 09 i 106 51.425 50 91,425 5267 1667 50 53000 5121 97254 ($5,8291 (95199), 500 512 " 31( le d 10.418
Ul WOH 307 $4 4751 50 34.476 5359 54,587 50 53.000_ 6188 58.131 ($16571 101181 1 5001 51 71 t] 57.9%
Crvat PoPme PIaw4 Ca-Pro o 512 280 90 512260 5147, 52.651 54.226 _ 53.000 22
51.010 111.034 518 1 1 1
Second City Nail ] !I Co. WOH 387 59628 - 30 19.828 5300 $6.945 50 53.050 9216 910,481 (56331 1132241 ' 3715021 ($73.84 15818
Pastor M792.r6507) Band W 0H 157 52.175 10 52,175 9367_ 93.677 60 53000 5193 97.237 11.062) (64171(, - 1$11 /,133)_ (977.23) 29.118
Farr Clark/Rodney Fa W 0 H 183. $5,810 1 55,810 $239 99.975 90 53.000 5179 513.443 117.633) (622.121.: 98 500 159.9951 15832 20_3%
Ba0OO W 0 H 1 58 52538 , 50 52,538 528 1 $3978 5122' 1 3 $2.564. S0 53.000 5152 12.324 9190 (892.161 56500, SO 53.000 5176 1.933 ($3.495) 6054. , 1
_ 500, _____19.3101. (917.52) 50
NixJev Oida 601 %666 WOH 354 53,976
- .024, - (114 15101 93) 21.2%
Oren Bb 5a W O M 142 _1.978 30 1.97 5657 36.426 50 53.000 5153 312230 (12981 52 02 55500 __j55 511.751 58.5%
C4n0al Palace Revue Co -Pro 472 , _3129 50 912,075 512.075 5171 57,754, $0, 53.000 5197 $11,122 5963 52.02 1.500, _ 155.5471 _
Pal Mustard ( 1511.77) 805%
p 1, 000 5213 1.732 (38,0421 (5104.16) 56500; 3125421 . 1521823) 53%
Legere of the arom600111 ac W 0 H l WOH 58 5590 33 $ 50 5 54 55 4 5890 1404 58 $413 _ 1.055. 1392 901 1.000) St O7 1.912 (58.4551 15195591. 56500 312955) 1192.55) 31%
Bock89o7Cemo Co-Pro 196 52148 10 52,146 5490 , - -
l $24, 51.175 1.000: 5107 54.196 (92.850) 1113521 1930' 0150) 1546581 190%
900166 K3, 04-059 174 51554 50 37554 5343 5777 50 93.000 5116 54,236 152682) 1515411, 96500_ 159.182)_ ($32_77) 14.5%
m
"I A rueenno W 0H 311 53536 50 1.5 50 1 SO 53000 573 1,073 6465 1150 56500, 1560351. (519.40) 37018
Crystal Pare Revue W 0 H_ ; 493 514375 SO 114,375 5206 1222. 50 53 000 51.402 912.832 11.543 53 , 56500 154.9`'7) _ 38 74 %
John Gaka 030) 0X __. 174 52.6 1 29 50 $2.628 5403_52917 SO 93000 5148 1,465 (1,840) (522 1500. (110340) (93942) 20,315 •
Maury O'Connell 0 139 53548 50 ,548 532 55.962 - __ . S0 93000 5215 59,522 (1,974) ($42.561 56500.
co (5)24741. (989.74)1 22.1%
Send CM Won 285 $6.636 90 95638 3269 _ 1660. 50 1.006 5227 99.956 (53.3201 (511.851.. 56500, 159.8201 1534 4611 40.318
Janws Hunter WON 233 92.128, 1 82.128 9350 $8.381, SO 1000 5376 511907 159.779) (541.971 96.500, 1516.279) - (9 11.616
The Wale) Jmnvs Co -Pro_ 236 55050 SO $5,550 5348 56.386, S0 53.000 5254 59.988 (54,938) 132092). 56500, 311438) (548.47) 30.6%
J58N, Oat - - 8228086)Mae - W0H 429 95733 30 95,733 5552 55.220 $0 53000 5154 18.928 (1.1931 (97 441 . 1,500, (596931' 1322801 37.2%
L ouden Wernvnghl III W O
_ X 115 51 781 1 f0 $1701 5238, 35.2_94, 50 , 53900 5110 1 .94
.643 1962) (59036) 58.500 - _1511.)___14211_ _951:___18 11.216
81608998 Total 11 5284.1811 i - 1 - - 13214443) (515.16) 186.606 13 (541.651_ 367%
-th orn )17th ToM/Tele&Foos 310 00 •520.00 . •
Porn Earl Men L7)°- . 497' 513.545' 50 513.545 5314 54.099 57,318_ ,3.000 9173 914,933 1513851 5186 - 96.500_ (1565) (911 77.3%
Cowboy Ja Cairo 509` 516940 1 918.940 5754 5]636 56.074 1,800 138 518.005 1935 (53.561 36.500, 11,276). ($16581; 71,718
Judy Colin 00-Pr8 • - 499 521010_ SO 521.010 9603 58607 510.329 5247 522.786 (51.776) 157891_- 1500 389201 1528.96), 52.718
Harr MacMarr 03-570 308 59955 50 1,955 9648 59.195 (56411 53.000 5173 512,375 (52.4201 5190 96.500 (18781 (51111)i 73.7%
UByameh Black 60458609 W oil 433 515.939 60 915 938 3330 S11.619 50 33.000 5167 515.118 122 137 03), 56.500 (99.193) 15240011 57216
8
Da B anner W 0 IC 363 512.320 SO 912.320 9359 511.502 50 53 000 9153 515013 (52.693) 193 47), 56.500 (575681, (51997), 66216
6166,. La J090. Co-Pro. 394 516 650 90 516560 5511 910.344 34200 53.000 9163 516.218 (51.368) 53.04, 56.530 (54977) (59 93)1 76116
Robed Earl Keen Co-Pro 501 918.635 50 918.835 5539 58105 55696 1000 5172 517,312 91.523 (51706), 56.500 (511 .903) 437 57) 50.6%
201111 Ruud( 02-5r0 317 912210 90 912.210 5303 916.154 (52043) 1.000 5205 917616 114091 111706), 1.500 1511,909) 1537571' 60.6%
Marc Cohn Co-Pro 469 518225 50 518.225 9588 57950 56.034 53000 3185 317.757 5468 5100 66500 (1.0321 (312861 75.1%
Jane Mon.( 22-170 271 57610 50 97.810 6518 910,111 (614721 53003 5151 512.307 34.497) 751859111 1500 1110.9971 (540581 41516
Wan Wad Dont r4( Me 0309 501 518.675 50 516,676 5634 518.404 50 53000 9235 522273 (1.588) 1571811 56.500. (510.098), (920 1611 84.9%
Ka155 Mattes Co-Pro 326 514 175 $0 514,175 5701 512.962 50 93.000_ 5213 516.676 (52.701) (50291 - 6$ 5 (59.201) 1528 22)1 60616
Roban Earl Keen 50-90 489 517995 50 317985 5559 $1 529 512.429 53000 1197 517.713 5282 50.58 , 56500 ($6218) 1312'2) 713%
6 in The Skv W 0 N 273 57283 SO 97,21 5252 510864 50 1000 5174 514,390 (57.1071 526.03) 38.500 1513.607) (54984) 34956
Brenner 501e081 W 01) 304 57.041 SO 97041 5382 512.041 50 53.000, 5171 115594 (1.553) 928 13) 1.500 (515.0531 (54952) 3 1916
1 Leahy 54-614 . 158 $4.130 50 $4,130 5 510.122 1333401 53000 5206 510,657 (98.5271 541.31)1 59500, (913,027) (582 45) 24118
Brenner Sera 95 W0N 304 56.636. 50 1636 _8412, 512489 50 53.000 _5173 916.075 (1.2371 53039)L 566.500 315,737)' 111771 30316
Brenner Senn 83 W 0 H 355 98.433, 50 1.433 7350. 512.053 50 53.000 3238 515,641 (97,208) 520.13) 36.500 31371311 (539 291' 93.1%
On Mont 01 Queen _ W 0 M • 361 313.125. SO 513,125 53,170 510.694 50 1 56
.000 5247 $15.110 (91 5) (1.50) I 55500; (9 .4951 _ (523 50) 60.7%
Best of Wh21'. So Fl4Yy_ W00 250 97035. 50 57035 5367_ 114.911 1. 1 1 000 9187 518.4 1511430) 64082156500 317,930) ($64 03) 211216
44be H0
Earl Keen Co-Pro 500 556620, 50 518820 0 610306 54581 91000, 5305 518.292 5528 9108 W 1500 ($972), (511&0)_759%
Jots Oats Proles 91 W O H _ 335 98.705, 56 433 515138 X300_ 510.590 50 53000 5200 914590 51.048 53 13 96500, (654521 _ 1516.] 7356
4 016e. 50-5r0 279 110,665, 50 510865 5735 510.669 SO 53.000 5219 514.623 193.9581 514 191 1`500, 310.4581 (17.19 505%
5,6 405414 _ 06 , 210 517.895_ 50 514355 92 516,406 90 1 5242 519,161 (1701 411 021 1500; (310.470), 330.11 584%
07and Carle: 0 H 503_ 57.895 50 12677 51)7 51665) 1 53000 5111 517,73 (5119906) IE10 86500_ 1518,000) 321 59618
ri
Cua P4130115 03 503 5 l0583 , SO 512311 52.183 33 53.391 50 1000 (5791) 51].7863 (1.5081 1510951 95) 1.500 1512 1329.871' 30.6%
Best of the Fest WO 0 N 9 432 - 310.863 so 510 863 5300 51)3 549 50 1009, 5199 517.048 ($8.156) 52 67 I 56500. 1152711 (51147)1 449%
Rabat Earl Keen 5a -1713 406 9176401_ 50 517640 5617 55.500 1705 1 5196 518.018 1178) (SO 811, , 1.500, If 2 . ( 146.5), 405 16
Tho 514 446 Porch 5 Brothers WON 299 56.500 EO 1.680 5375, 511171 50 1000 5161 514.707 (1.027) 1$22611 1500 (�12�5279 52TI '5
Standup mackdwm 51 W 0 H 396 95.250 10 SO 95250 5275 5)0.845 1,0001 5205 914.329 159.075) (530661, 56500 15.577) _
3 d 5 )07.009 52 W 0 350 58.910• SO 1.910 5385, 510.925 S0, 1 40
,00 _ 9223 514534 (57.624) (521.781 56500; (914,124) ( 535) , 329%
O 94 Of OUeen W0 8 279 310,238 50 510.238 3906 510.564 1 60 530 5202 514675 1340.37) (515.901 $6580 310.9871 (539201, 48.3%
Standup Smack)... 83 WON 0 9791 1.710, 60 55,710 1357 511 664 50 53000 5111 515241 (99.545) 2 1500, (515,031) (548.73)
Bu ace W 0 H 158 : 14.550_ SO 54 550 5287 310.427 50 53000 5181 513.895 11]651 (559.1 _56500_, ; 16.845) 00331 22.39
.
Brerldi Fl21 H W0H 466 512.320_ 50 512.320 5899 512640 50 13000 5209 516.947 ($4.627) (5 993 1 (1
,500 - _ (311,12 871
9
309 Fre WO 241 $5.195 50 1195 5475 516.653 SO 53.000 5201 520.329 1115,134) 112.80) 1500. ($21.834) (14)1 8.77), 19 4%
FNno Ka 6 2209 Bros WOH , 467, 515.344 50 515.344 5300 510.736 50 53000 $219 515.564 03
4: 5509 6109 _56.5, 1 1P31) 31203). 71.9%
LWrynN Black bamboo° W 0 H 488 _516415 50 318.415 5300 512.386 50 53.000 5266 515.954 5461 50.9 66500 156038), (512'30). 73.1% •
Punch Brothers WO 400 _512870 50 512.670 5323 511 615 90 93.000 5210 515.148 (52.4781 (56 38.500 • ;;,978 IiY1.4511 355%
KAON Mara _ W 0 H 303 _ 512,0001 50 512.030 5355 $13.873 30 53000 9215 517.443 34 753) 1615.69) 9 6 , 500 (511,263) (17,1 53.
Jan Andaman 50-0)0 .. 266, 911.15, SO 511.855 6299 316653 50 53000 5159 620.111 156.456) 1529.16) 56500 (514,9561 (861.67) 43,8%
Chuck Lea3Nl W O H 257 99.155 50 58,155 5250 510855 1 53,000 $199 914304 111491 (623.931 46.500 (912,&9. L - a 392%
43 Events 5001 18,142 7807. _ (6189.313) (112.501: $ 3489 10 ' 646%
Events With 7061 Trek For Over 520.000 _
Lvl I - �
e Lovett(2)
Bernadotte Peters Peters Co-Pro 993 x,310 50 17340 5802, 645395 515,116 53.000 5395 564,509 (1.103) (59.231 - , 1500 16,-- 15 Co-Pro 499 5728175 3.250 $0 573,250 91.724 573.828 131.372) 93.000 51913 579.093 (55.843) 1611711 50.500 t .<Sk n 1
Pal Meths. b BrW Morro 462 9, SO 528.175 - 5507 528.539 5287 53.030 1
5165 0698 (92.723) (55 891 _ 98,6 L.-_ 2231 mt0J 763%
John Pn 24-710 455 522250 50 $22.250 9410, 923016 50 53.600 9205 520.831 ($4.381) 16963) - 1,500 (610881 _ _91 612%
Mannheim Starrier 181 55.140 50 1140 }1.300 520.325 50 53000 9173 924.797 1519.657) 19108 SO) 58 500 '•157) 3144.E 16.45.
Ca6m 450 64.760_ 1 steno ",129 19.174 132.728) 1.000 9179 550.356 11036) (5)2.461 98,500 (912108) 326.90) 813%
Burt 8 08,0 M _ 00-9(3 206 1)',150 90 917160
3523 62691 (96,365) 31.000 5190 328.588 !79.1461 1345 76.500 85 035' ,$78.871 51.6%
Loa Edo _ _ 31 980617 ( 732231) (565.56) 98,500 73 78.89 42356
S
Coin M 010l )na89u5 $Ilr%9od W .7H 288 11.P0 SO 311,270 7373 11370 SO 316270 5573 556791 523 1 7 ( _ 33000 . 8000 191 519.988 11.6981 153 0.20) 1.500 316185 6'
-
5 5.04
M , 0) 0 6 543 03.. 5 0 9Uiket _ W O H 5 921,360 - 1 $4 _
1390 50 54109 _ 98 93000 5238 545,527 /54.1371 (98.22), 56500 1683
3 617 020 Hpkav CanOM C0 -Pro 732 327,460 SO 527150 ..3 1
1,547 527.&0, 90� _ `803 8 059 1 33 . 053 (1.59 __37.64).. 1500 512.0631 1e.521 44.
Joan Dates W 0 9 , 470 517,130 30 517130 3751 525.0901 40 003 5237 529.078 (511.9481 325921, . 56.600 18, ' _ 939' -
BernadeltoPOore W0H 347 411.906; SO 541.980 32028, 660.64 1
71 _ $0 OW 5237 $.311 1343.351) $x.93) 56 349: -i 0141.661 45_7%
Lem Comic Standing 1
nding W 0 H 310,_ 510.535 E0 510.535 53 622.192 50 1000' • 1 525.808 (515273) 1549.27). $6900 1521 910 ,,,, • 328%
m lke
Ja Jab War W08 395 SO 525.090 5325 - 622.30) 00 1900 5200 525.834 15744) (5183) . 98.500 7244) _(18.34 77,816
140 Tomlin 54-9r0 472, 541615. SO 541,615 5433 550.074 ' '.000 7188 953.705 (912090) 1525811 -500 - 131. ',' $39. -• 44.15.
L004 Eder W O H 187 58.695 50 1.895 3550, 529.248 50 53,00 5153 12.951 (924.056) (5128 641, - 96.500 1 - (5183.40) 22.5%
000.0 Tynan W09 134 55,170 50 1,170 5100 920021 50 __$9 5209 523,629 1518,4591 5137 761 98500 (9196... 17_2%
Jan Jet Walker WOM - 276 517,810 50 517.810 9245 536334. SO 53000. 5156 928,736 (510.928) (53959) , .500 217, 503.141 50.55.
W58. 299a690, Co-Pr6 1211 525.057_ 60 925.057 51,395 50 925,514 $3 5915 130,825 (65.7631 15 76) _ 56,600 (512266) _ (510.13) 61.156
RM Moreno r VII O X 150 .- 97813 50 57613 51,091 925.903 30 X35001 5158 530.152 1522.5391 1515026) 56.500 325.113801 (910358) 203%
- 1)1 Er Mts 501.40 9211 9863 430 . ' 1 16572 9451 _ 144811 919/500 ( (944.b1 61A,
. 0 0 0 0 0 0- 0 0 0 0
> IM MO) M 0 0) NM V M 0 O U M
O 4) O
0 e r O) 60 0) N (0
O N M (0 NV MV N M N N
C C
7 7
N
C) /3 0 a
N y 2 y
> 7 > 7
w y m y
.
C. E O -NM Nr 66 M (O (O W
M 4) 0 N N O
L4 T, N N N
M 0 h M M N
N N 4) M
h
OM
. '
^VN O . M . . 0 - W1 (
N N N O
O ,-.m - V a (O 4) ,
0 66N NM 6 664
0 O) O 0 O
Q 0 V N M0 0
6469 6M9
0) b4
@ O
00'0 O O O O 000 0
(0 h 666 0 0 66 6666
x N 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 00
QW () 6 M MM M 6 {MM 0)
Q 69 EA 69 tote O 69 (0111) (9 69
W N 4)
C comm . O . V . O N 004,-0
0 N N L'- N 0) O r 0 a N
N (0(�EA
'p 694,0 f9 69
0 .
1)
0
_. N V N . O) W. 0 10 00 (00 N
NNW) N 00 O M
66N NM 66 6646
O � V .- N (04)0- 0
h M 00 0 0)
0 0 04 69 WV V0-.. N N V 0)
J 696 69U4 640 41469E9
0
X
N N NM NM O M M
, N O O N
Z 646 n O O 0 4) N
W n y 604)0 NO 0, 0) 00‘
1 .1. ,-05d O 00 60 0) N
A y )- 60 M N O n 0 M V 0 (0
Om 69 (0(0 69V (0d(0
Q X 6469 `-
W
0- 0)
0000 O M O N- L• 0) r
o cdoicO 44 0 60 4) r
0 c0 a0 (O 4 (O 6 O N W 0) O
0 0 04 V N M V M N
6d67: _
> (9 (0V) 6969 V) O 0E96969.
O 69
Cr
4)0 ON 0 V0) 0 0 4)
M0
8 M 6 W V n < M r N
Z ..-NN N N M V
(0 r
M
Z
0
cL
Q
0
)
N
9 O O
(‚4c'104 O' N
N C C C Q 0 >
00 O. Q N N N O O O 76 T y y y
L ‹<.:( N 0 N
7 C C C f,',1 y
O
r E E E Li Li 0 >_ >>
..+ 6i- 6~ 10 y y
-
y C _ C C _ O O O O y
1 R M M (O . Li-L1_11.
6 > C ■ C C . .3 o a) >. >. >+
W
) 000 M CD N C N N N
CC LL 222 cow N C O O EEE
.. .. C C LL U 000
EEE a)a) y non
7 7 7 7 to N J i 0
' C C C 10 10 y 0 0 0
1 2 W W CO 0f 0) N ! C d'
C C C
5 7 7 7 t` < 0 0 0-
2 22 L - 0 - 1- aa
1
0.
15 gl
s g t .F
18 it
a o 11
.§:§ 13;
n$
a dr a <
= o w
3
m 888 888888 72 VD 8 8 '
3g " ti a2 z4f2a., 2
D u, tnn$a.
i$
t ,n �
i o 22 o MM o 000000 oo2 2 S
3"
1 1.-4 , ,E,
3
ry N N ^ N N, ^^ Q N 8
i
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o N g N � N o�
S° gg
ry 8
o n n ry ry g
il n E
4
a
s_ 2 m m m A a A M A d ■ m Al _ i i
z'¢ a
22 ' �° g253A�^2v2MSm5m
$ p 5
S° E
g < 2
b `,,,9 888 ry 72 ry M 88 71 '9 n
V
11me "'^.rg�$.^oFO mM . 8 . $Eu
eg :< �s
<a
12.4.4.4 12.. .4 a1
< �a � o
Z. S h i t§ 8 ry M S I §`i ri e° e "2 .. E e it
E r ti
M 4 E
; Ex
R T t 11 Z A A a. a S z . S S ' T e
N i u u 'S ?§ y q E q > > m Et 5 g:4 a w 9 8
a g a
A N
O O &
Q _ C 8 C S E vY %
-
N ° m m q o: p 2E E 1 p x
M LL - N } n N o 6
" u Novo v`.N E RR-_ oo N ilk°
2'1' Itil � dl it, ?; c Nm it A � A3 �c g;a
LIP
N CO .1 O N u'1 of M N O 01 O .1 M .D p r1 N
'D - co O CO a o1 N N 1D 00 N O 01 a) al O 10 10 03 O
c F T 10 N P N N 01 V 1O 10 111 1� P I� !o P or 01 N N
A X < .4 N 10 N N .
4 N ..-I r1 .-1 ri .i .i ... .i .ti .ti r N
..+ f0 .1 .1 .-I to M N N N N N N N N VI 4/1 VL Vf N H H CO
d 1- VT in 4/1 1/1
W Ei ER . 010000 N It CO f CO 0 et 1 ER 0. .4. a .O en 1 01 M O ER i ER o -, tD
Q ▪ C an An i 0. tan to N N an VT Vf N an V! N N V/ an h M
to
W
_ C
da
L u1 •
O O O O N O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O N
t
N m m m 4 00 .1 .1 m m .1 ri M ..-1 ."I .( O m N m O
00 41,
C
Z }
3 A
;I,
. CO N ID CO N u1 N N 00 N N V1 al ID 10 N N 00 u1 a
1
N N N + .1 I CI
N H ~
N N
d 3
3 a p { p } CO a t a 01 10 0 p p
N M I 01 N 01 01 N 0 O .1 a s e1 N a 01 10 4 of
R r1 ui fI N N N N "" .1 .i N N N .4' rl .-1' .4' N N VT > 00
1- *� VI NNH VT an +A NN NIM1 V) N V)
Al
N p p p S 8 p p S p O
O m a N O1 O O O M en fa. .0 u1 O M O 01 O o 10 00 .D 01 00
Ila C l0 00 N O O 01 u1 10 00 N N ID 00 N 10 N N ID M. M
f0 33 M 00 N 00 N N an N VT VT V1 1.1 V} an VT VT in h aA V1 IA
C C N VT VI. VS T VT
O 0 N
.m a
d w
ex on
p p p p O p
• CO o1 O N o1 M 00 O N N 01 O a CO C N N c 0 1 ID a O 0. CL
C C p a � VT 1.4 an V} VT 4.4 t N V) V1 N N in N in. N m in a al V1 in. in
N 0.
Q Vl
D 0 O O 0 N .1 .1 .1 .-1 .1 .1 .1 .1 r1 .--I e .4 . .1 .--I N
.7 C N N N N N
C
O p F
ID
x
ID M CO N 10 IO .1 O 10 10 Cr .1 00 ID N 00 M 0 01 of M 01
N 01 p 0 M N M 1D COO 1.001. Nulet 00 1001+003 .1 V m en
4 O.I.
B N
7 Q
o
1010100010 10 00 10 00 0- 0 0 (0 0 0 4 0 00 10 10
01 M o1 10 CO 01 N N 0. 0 ."1 N o1 0 . ID r1 M a N (10
a9 N N .1 N
0 0 .9 d
C .
d d
re Q
10 lD N O CO 10 01 .4 00 00 10 00 ) 0 0. CO
V1 a .-I N a .'1 m u l 00 N -Do m 01 t 00 N L O N O O m M
a! m 00 m .1 N m N .1 .1 .-I 1-1 00 N
> 9 M.
LL
00 011
Y
� � 4
.I
{.1 10 N LJl V' N CO 00 N ID D1 N 0 ID c0 V 00 00 00 et. 00
f0 uo 0 .1 ID 11 N N 04 N N N O M O 1D 00 ul 00 ID N N u1
Q. C and 00 .ti N 01 y M
y .-I .4 N N .1 .1 H .-1 .4 N
E Q
Q 0
0.0 Q
c
C 0,0 m O O 00 O ul ON 00 O ID N 010101 O N
0 0 01 01 01 00 10 0 10 ID ID N 01 N 00 o1 N
C 01 CO (0 l0 01 N N M d N a Q et a N V7 N N .1 co
CU co 0. N N Ni N
VI W
M Q
A.)
O
J
v
. °. c u u to,' > u y N 7 7` j 7 N W j 011 D N N
C cc O cc 03 to -0 f0 01 V a a _co C S a V C G m u a U U
LL u L G Q lL L 0 cu ai 0 LL li u_ -, LL N 0 2 L 0 LL 0 0 _
C « « «
'T3 f0 .1 N O m m CO
ri C 0 N O n a 0. nt w
CU ra
44 4-0 j .i j w o N O O
N
Q N L 0 O CL G a
N • 1.. 0) O ;IT p a c -1 .1 w m
•F 00 > ^l C ---1-1 Y O O 1-1 CO p O 0. O. o.
O N v 1 O
y Q N 1 O .-■ i _ .1 ; . > N ..1 N
N '
N 1 O _ a) N O . a O a9 E O O c y p �. O O O
7 �230 LL '; N Z .1 N Io L n �n p Cl ; v p O .
N O > CE M m N N Y O O N y K 09 Q m m m
m\ C W N E v H C L C C @ Q♦ f0 Y V f T N 0 fEI
d t/1 W LL C N 11 C u9 E O o m 10 m_ � _ p C 1n 1n .n To O To N! 2%1.2 `' d W O O a U U L 8 8, % A m
al J 110 . = O 07 'O ' C C U C W 00 Ol . LL O 0 0 0
a N . al CO 0 Cu 0 0 0 4 E .O Q Q > a a '� -1'''t w r c m A ffi tit t
t y � a g o ao c (0 cc -0 2Lar o cZ' "1 c SLL LL
3 LI LL. 0E-O ° ° 13 1- 1- m1- z0UJ4 Q2 1- z. a 0