EBrazosAg said:
WTAW this am :
https://wtaw.com/formal-pitch-to-the-college-station-city-council-to-participate-in-a-more-than-55-million-dollar-baseball-complex/
Land donation- I get that part. City probably shouldn't own it in the first place, but they do and I get it.
$15-20 million of a $55 million project ? That's a bridge too far imho.
The Southern Roots deal is:
- Initial Cost: 80 acres and $15m - $20m
- Recurring Cost: None
- Return: Weekday access to 9 ball fields (for free?)
The Veterans deal is:
- Initial Cost: $??m (I've heard between 20 and 35) plus the remaining open land at Veterans Park
- Recurring Cost: Maintenance
- Return: Ownership of 3 ball fields, including a championship field
I don't believe 3 fields will be enough for local ball, so I believe the Veterans deal will not solve the whole problem and we will be back discussing this again almost immediately. I also know that rectangular fields are in high demand, and practices for young kids go later than their typical bedtimes due to lack of fields, even after putting 2-3 teams per half-field. I think it makes sense to keep Veterans land available to expand for rectangular fields, rather than splitting the next set elsewhere.
I have no idea what it takes to maintain fields, but it is more than zero, and if someone else takes that on while we retain access it could work out for us well in the long run. But we have to mitigate the downside risks.
When you add all this together (the $$, the land, the maintenance and the lack of sufficiency), the cost for the 3 fields at Veterans is actually really high.
I like the Southern Roots deal but with a few adjustments. I think $1 leases or gifts of 80 acres in trade for free access undermine the fairness of the deal. We don't have a great record with promises and intent. Everything should be clearly documented, and it should provide mutual benefits for both sides. A good measuring stick for this is if we would provide this same exact deal for a second group wanting to do the same thing.
- The 80 acres should be under a long-term land-lease at a fair lease rate. This allows the city to regain the land in the case of default or reuse the land after the end of the arrangement. Or it should be sold at fair market value outright and just added to the tax rolls.
- The city (or clubs, or whoever) should pay for access at a fair rate. This allows the users to look elsewhere if fields aren't maintained well, helps the business offset the lease and maintenance, and doesn't unnaturally lock out competition.
- IF the city provides incentives, they should be in tax incentives, not cash, and should be subject to performance metrics.
- IF the developer insists on cash and the city is amenable, I feel an additional concession is necessary from Southern Roots in order to level the playing field, so to speak.