The beginning of construction -- a process that would take 18 to 20 months -- is nearly two years away.
The building housing the Victory Theatre on Suffolk Street, in a 2010 photo.
HOLYOKE -- Disputes about progress and money are dominating discussions lately about the $28 million project to renovate the long-closed Victory Theatre.
Perhaps the biggest question is whether the curtain will ever rise again in the old vaudeville house where performers included the Marx Brothers and Bing Crosby.
The theater at 81-89 Suffolk St. opened in 1919 and closed in 1979.
Engineers have told the building's owner that the structure is sound, but the interior has sustained decades of water damage, chunks of plaster have deteriorated off ceilings and walls and rows of seats are battered.
Still, tours have revealed the building's beauty, from the marble floors and art deco trim to mahogany walls, murals and other touches.
The beginning of construction is nearly two years away and construction itself will take 18 to 20 months, blowing past the theater reopening that was heralded to be Dec. 30, 2012, said Donald T. Sanders, executive artistic director of the Massachusetts International Festival of the Arts (MIFA), the nonprofit group that owns the theater.
Sanders arguably has been unmatched in championing the renovation of the Victory Threatre. But even he said at a March 27 meeting of the City Council Finance Committee disputes surrounding the project are discouraging.
"It's a mess," Sanders said.
Rendering of what the Victory Theatre in Holyoke, which is undergoing a $28 million renovation, would look like. Rendering is by Durkee Brown Viveiros Werenfels Architects, of Providence, R.I.
The city sold the theater to MIFA in 2009 for $1,500. But a condition of the sale included a "reverter clause," a step that lets the city resume control of the property for a nominal fee June 30 if inadequate progress has been achieved.
Mayor Alex B. Morse said he is considering options that include extending the reverter, which would let MIFA continue, or exercising the reverter, which would have the city seize the property and find another developer.
Morse and other officials in his administration have clashed with Sanders and MIFA over the project.
Sanders explained the project has a complicated funding mechanism. Of the $28 million project cost, he said in a phone interview Monday, MIFA has commitments for nearly $20 million. That consists of $10 million in state and federal historical tax credits, $8 million in new market tax credits and the rest in cash donations, he said.
Tax credits generate funding like this: In return for providing money for projects in distressed, low-income-areas, investors get tax credits based on a percentage of their investment over a period of years.
The problem for Sanders and MIFA, and one which he said he realizes, is commitments of "tax credits" are a vague notion to many people. Some people are skeptical $28 million can be obtained to reopen a building dismissed for decades as just another boarded-up structure.
It's not unusual for such large arts-related projects to take longer than projected, Sanders said, as government agencies need to be convinced a project is worthy and other fund-raising needs to be pursued.
Still, said Sanders, "We are exactly in the place where we need to be."
Morse praised MIFA for the arts events it provides here and said he was committed to working with the organization to develop a plan to get the Victory Theatre renovated.
But, Morse said, "I have to do my due diligence and make sure a structure is in place to support the development of a (nearly) $30 million dollar project. I have no doubt we can find a structure that works, but collaboration and cooperation will be critical."
Others in Morse's administration were more blunt. During the March 27 meeting, Marcos A. Marrero, director of the city Office of Planning and Economic Development, said the mayor was concerned about MIFA's capacity to complete such a large project.
A week later, City Solicitor Heather G. Egan cautioned councilors against voting on an order that sought to give MIFA more time on the project by extending the reverter for a year.
"I would urge you not to adopt an order, because I believe it would send a mixed message to MIFA, that they can continue on this path of non-compliance and lack of progress," Egan wrote.
Nevertheless, the council voted 8-5 to give MIFA the extension, a vote Egan said was advisory because only the mayor can grant such an extension.
The criticism and questioning about MIFA's project capabilities prompted an admittedly angry Sanders to say during the Finance Committee meeting, "If we can't do it, then how come we're doing it?"
Sanders was so upset that he likened the pressures on MIFA to having to deal with "Adolf Hitler." Later he said he was referring to the situation and not any individual official.
Finance Committee Chairman Todd A. McGee said MIFA is making progress. The roof has been fixed and the theater's murals are being restored, he said.
Morse might be concerned about MIFA's project capacity, McGee said, "But what other options is he offering up?"
Part of the dispute involved a $125,000 state grant. In order to get the money, the state required that the city, not MIFA, be the one to which it was provided. The money would be used for a fund-raising plan and other planning, Marrero said.
Ward 5 Councilor Linda L. Vacon asked how the city can accept money for a project it doesn't own.
"Good question," Marrero said.
Sanders said MIFA would rather do without the state grant because the organization didn't feel comfortable working with the contractor chosen for the fund-raising and other planning.
Exercising the reverter to seize the Victory Theatre would seem to be a tough step. While the mayor has sole authority to extend the reverter, retaking the property would also require approval of the City Council, the majority of which voted to give MIFA more time.