Baseball complex issues

"Big league dreams"
The park opened in May 2005 at a total construction cost of approximately $22 million. It was funded primarily
through two separate bond elections by the City of League City. Originally a $13 million bond was passed and then
a subsequent $5 million bond was issued to pay for cost overruns. An additional $4 million was then needed to
finalize the project due to project oversights (i.e. road into the park from I-45 and water retention pond
requirements). Facing these additional cost overruns, the city negotiated with BLD to cover a portion of the final $4
million. In return for the capital outlay, BLD was charged a lower annual lease fee and League City received a
smaller percentage of profits for a period of time. Unfortunately, these cost overruns have cast the park and project
in a negative light for the general public. Doug Frazior, the Economic Development Coordinator for League City,
commented that “financially it has been a success, but publicly it hasn’t.” Frazior further noted that the City
Manager, Mayor and some Council Members have been replaced or resigned since the project was completed, in
large part due to the backlash of public opinion associated with the cost overruns. The issue has been raised in each
local election since the project began. Another point of contention with the park has been the use of it by local
leagues. Prior to completion it was billed as another publicly-owned facility that the leagues could use, much like
the existing city-owned SportsPlex, a nearby facility featuring multi-use fields and three pavilions for organized
sports. Although local leagues can use BLDLC, it costs more than the SportsPlex and the leagues are not able to
operate and benefit from concession sales.

"Big League Dreams"
Two hotels are under construction directly across the freeway from BLDLC, and a third property has recently been
purchased by the group that owns La Quinta in Webster with the intent of constructing an additional hotel. While
each of these companies have taken into account the complete demographic footprint when determining the viability
of the hotels, it is highly likely that a substantial part of the equation and impetus to locate there is the demand
generated by BLDLC activities.
As discussed, BLD pays League City to maintain and operate the facility. BLD’s revenues are generated by renting
the facility to organizations that host tournaments, such as Nations Baseball and USSSA, and local leagues, at a rate
that BLD was unwilling to disclose. Moreover, BLD profits from entrance fees and the sale of food, drink, and
alcoholic beverages in the two Stadium Club restaurants, which is BLDLC’s largest revenue stream. The two
restaurants, which employ about 24 people, are open 365 days a year.
BLDLC hosts tournaments with several of the baseball associations.

Remember the comment to expect more hotels, my opinion this will happen so get ready

It is widely accepted that like any public park, publicly-owned youth sports complexes do not generate revenues
sufficient to offset the operating and maintenance costs associated with running the facilities. However, as is
discussed in the management section of this report, complexes focusing on tournament play can capitalize on
revenue sources that will go further in recouping those costs than a park simply used for local league play. The real
net gains from a tournament baseball complex of the type proposed by the City of Deer Park will come from the
influx of visitors. These visitors will increase the sale of goods and services, dine at local restaurants, and stay in
local hotel rooms. They bring outside money into Deer Park, and their impact is compounded by the hotel taxes that
are generated as a result of their stay.
Most public complexes will never realize positive cash flows when combining operating expenses and debt service.
A few private ones struggle to break even and do so primarily through the sell of concessions and alcohol. In the
case of the business model of Big League Dreams in League City, the organization has no debt service because the
park was paid for by the city.

Important issue to consider;

Most public complexes will never realize positive cash flows when combining operating expenses and debt service.

This above statement was taken from the presentation documents.

They are counting on tourists and tournaments. What if they do not get the number of tournaments they project? What effect will the cap and trade have on travel in drawing tournaments? What effect will the economy have on the profitability? Will the future of this complex be any different than the Battleground?

A lot of numbers and statics but remember the Murphy rule, what can go wrong most likely will go wrong, are you ready to roll the dice with your tax money?

Too many what if's for me.

Bill wrote:

Important issue to consider;
Most public complexes will never realize positive cash flows when combining operating expenses and debt service.
This above statement was taken from the presentation documents.
They are counting on tourists and tournaments. What if they do not get the number of tournaments they project? What effect will the cap and trade have on travel in drawing tournaments? What effect will the economy have on the profitability? Will the future of this complex be any different than the Battleground?
A lot of numbers and statics but remember the Murphy rule, what can go wrong most likely will go wrong, are you ready to roll the dice with your tax money?
Too many what if's for me.

Good info Bill. I see you must have got your copy of the study.

Excellent point made!

This is exactly the points I was making in the other thread, as well.

Great post, Bill.
Now, I just hope it opens a few eyes.

Correct, the City provides things to others for enjoyment, not to gain a profit. Like a library, do you think there would ever be a positive cash flow?

jim wrote:

Correct, the City provides things to others for enjoyment, not to gain a profit. Like a library, do you think there would ever be a positive cash flow?

The public libraries have always offered as only a service to the community. They have never been "sold" to the public as a revenue source. By the same token, they loan books... they are not a "Book Store". The small charges for some "services", such as copying, etc. are only meant to offset the cost of supplies, etc. and not meant to generate revenue.

This is in complete contrast to such projects, as the golf course, tournament baseball fields, etc., which ARE being "sold" to the taxpayer as a revenue generation stream (to maintain or reduce our tax rates?).

BIG DIFFERENCE... and no relevance.

When you get old, you don't want all this traffic in our City from all of the tournament at baseball
fields.

I don't want to have to take viagra to achieve an erection either....but if it will keep me from rolling off the bed...I'll learn to deal with it.

Look at BB complex Red Bluff, boy its really be used a bunch.

BAD wrote:

Look at BB complex Red Bluff, boy its really be used a bunch.

Where on Red Bluff, I'm not familiar with what you reference. Is it Deer Park?

The only baseball fields I have seen on Red Bluff are at Kipper Mease on your way to Clear Lake.

Well, there is no way for everyone to be pleased. I think these will be nice when they are built.

jim wrote:

Well, there is no way for everyone to be pleased. I think these will be nice when they are built.

I think it would be nicer for them to consider the matter in realistic terms. If they want to build a new ball park, then just say so... put a bond up for vote and let the voters decide.

If they are going to try to sell us on the idea that the city is going to benefit from all the revenue that it will generate, then they better be ready to take a lot of negative attitudes, when it doesn't happen.

The taxpayers were fooled with this type of nonsense about the golf course. So, since it worked that time, do they think they can just use that same tactic again? I don't think this will please most of the people, when it does not generate all those tourists flocking here to spend their money. It's another diversionary tactic that has no basis to support it... just like the golf course.

jim wrote:

Well, there is no way for everyone to be pleased. I think these will be nice when they are built.

Do you also think the golf course is nice? Before you answer that think about the money that it has cost the taxpayers for a select group to golf. Also consider how much it will cost the taxpayer in the future.

Certainly even the most liberal has some level of cost vs benefit, benefit for all citizens not just those who golf. My opinion is that cost has increased over the years due to the inability to function in a reasonable manner. How much of a loss is acceptable vs. what the land would bring in productive businesses. When you consider what could be vs. what it is the taxpayer is getting butchered on the deal.

Certainly the proposed sport complex has the same opportunity to follow the same path as the Battleground.

WOW! Now THERE'S a concept!!

Imagine... a business using the land, which would not only generate revenue from the tax base on the property, but also the personal property taxes that must be paid, not to mention the possibility of sales tax (if a retail operation), as well as the potential employment opportunities and other factors that deal with economic growth.

Now, we might consider the pro's and con's of a private business versus a city operated business. The city gains no property tax or personal property tax revenues of such use and only hope for it to be a profitable venture, in an attempt to generate revenues. If it does not meet its projections, then it COSTS the taxpayers more money, that could have been used for other city services (police/fire departments, water and sewage plant, maintaining current ballparks & playgrounds, Dow Park, Community Centers, etc.). If a business prospers, the city gets the windfall from their private efforts. It a business failed in their endeavors, the property is still OWNED by someone and the city STILL gets the benefit of the property tax revenues.

Now, which one REALLY makes the most sense and is in the best interest of the citizen taxpayers of Deer Park?

I saw the new sign at 13th and East Blvd. today and it says future site of the Deer Park Youth Baseball Complex. It's going to happen.

That sign has been up for a long time.

Weegi wrote:

I saw the new sign at 13th and East Blvd. today and it says future site of the Deer Park Youth Baseball Complex. It's going to happen.

Yes council I assume approved to erect signs with their names on them but rejected the cell phone ban signs for school zones, and to top it off one is just about hidden behind the tree.