"Roberts, like the Aces themselves, can never really be replaced in the hearts and minds of fans in Evansville. It was a special place. A place where you saw everyone you wanted to see and where you, in turn, were seen."
--- Kyle Keiderling, author of "Trophies and Tears"
Please send all questions and comments to JordanBaer1@gmail.com
Please send all questions and comments to JordanBaer1@gmail.com
As the town was turning around the Page 13 controversy, we found out, in a very quiet fashion, the direction our ECVB is going to take in regards to the ball fields project.
According to the Courier & Press, VPS Architecture will be conducting a study on this project as well as all projects pertinent to the ECVB attracting tourists...
I applaud this decision by Mr. Bob Warren of the ECVB and I am personally pulling and rooting for him to get these fields built in their correct location which is none other than Kleymeyer Park. Mr. Warren has already been gracious enough to meet with me once about this project, he's as open and friendly of a person as you could ever want, and I still believe he is the right person to lead the ECVB.
By now, I am hoping that Mr. Warren has had time to evaluate the 15 questions I have posed to him with regards to his ball fields project and its viability in Kleymeyer Park...
This decision, like the Roberts Stadium decision, is an easy one to make but it is also a big one to make. Both require crossing many political hurdles that others in this community simply aren't willing to cross. I remain committed to getting both of these projects complete and done right as I feel like both are essential to Evansville remaining a viable city in the 21st century.
I hope that the first place Mr. Warren sends VPS is to Kleymeyer Park. I ask that this architecture firm, which has done some tremendous work over the years, genuinely gives us a good faith effort to give us a full and complete report on how these fields could work on this plot of land.
I hope they reach out to Don Mattingly, the Otters, as well as Bob Walthers. I hope they study the idea of using the methane gas at Kleymeyer to reduce and diminish electrical costs for the ball fields. I also hope that they talk to the Dept. of Metropolitan Development who is seeking to connect Bosse Field and the Ford Center with urban development.
Mr. Warren and VPS Architecture. Let's build these fields at Kleymeyer Park!!!!
These past 48 hours, we've watched the Page 13 Controversy, or Page Rage (nice name for an indoor football team), play out in front of our entire city. According to the City-County Observer, between 5 and 7 members of our task force (me included) are now questioning this report (I'm only questioning Page 13 specifically). With all of these feathers flying in the air, let me be very clear about a few things...
1. Like I said yesterday, I have all the respect in the world for Mayor Lloyd Winnecke. I DO NOT in any way, shape, or form blame him for this error. Mayor Winnecke has always allowed me to speak my opinions to him and has always investigated all leads that I have sent him. I've seen the way the previous administration felt towards my efforts, Mayor Winnecke has proven that he is 180 degrees different from that.
I trust him, and his staff of Russ Lloyd Jr, Steve Schaeffer, and Denise Johnson to make the right decision once we have an accurate report for them to review (which we are 19/20ths of the way there). I am asking each and every one of you to put the blame on the proper people and that is with our task force director not our mayor.
2. I wouldn't be doing anyone in this town any favors, whether it be the mayor, the city, or those who support Roberts Stadium, by letting Page 13 stay in this report. Regardless of what your opinion may be, the truth still remains that this is a big decision for our city. Giving the mayor a report that claims that it is cheaper to build a new facility than to renovate Roberts Stadium is a good way for our entire city to make a mistake that they will have to live with for decades. Mayor Winnecke, the city of Evansville, and all of those who have been served by Roberts Stadium deserve to have a report that speaks the truth and gives them the correct data to make their decision with.
3. Page 13 is the ONLY page I am contesting in this report. I have no problem at all with the estimates that Mr. Bill Nix or Jeff Justice compiled for renovating Roberts Stadium (once again we have a former member of the Democratic Central Committee claiming that I am contesting their estimates). I called Mr. Bill Nix today and let him know personally that I stand behind his work. Page 13, which contains nothing but grossly inaccurate statements, is the only thing that needs to be removed.
4. I am NOT trying to play politics with my decisions in any way, shape, or form. There have been some who have felt that I am going in a political direction with my decision to contest Page 13. Like the page in question, this is completely inaccurate.
Although I have worked in both liberal and conservative politics in 4 different states ranging from Washington D.C to the state of Washington, I am in this 100% for Roberts Stadium. I am neither Republican nor Democrat, I am an Independent. My main and only goals are to keep Roberts Stadium solvent and to vastly improve the Bosse Field district.
So with all of that being said, I would like our task force director Larry Steenberg to make a decision on Page 13. I would like to know one way or the other if he backs the "conclusions" on this page or does he believe they are inaccurate. Basically, I want Mr. Steenberg to prove it or remove it.
Let's start with the first part of Page 13....
Roberts Stadium wasoriginally designed, and later renovated, for a specific use. Converting it toadifferent use will, in most cases, be more expensive than building an equivalent new facility. Several items lead to this conclusion.
The main floor must be raised to deal with the underground water. While necessary, this will add very little value to the end use of the project.
Raising the floor will require major modifications to the air handling system in the building. Again, this is necessary but will add very little value to the end use of the project.
Mr. Steenberg, do you believe in the above statements? Do you believe that the estimates to renovate Roberts Stadium into a mid-sized arena OR as an expo hall, which fall in the $4 million to $4.5 million range, are higher than the costs to demolish Roberts Stadium and construct a new mid-sized arena in its place?
Mr. Steenberg, I'm here to tell you that that notion is completely false. Let's take a look at some of the price tags on newly built 5,000 to 6,000 seat arenas....
I can go on and on with 5,000 to 6,000 seat arenas that dwarf the costs of renovating Roberts Stadium into a mid-sized arena for $4.5 million but it would seem to me that just about everyone in this town understands what I'm trying to say. And if they don't, try googling a $4 million, 5,000 to 6,000 seat arena and see what comes up. All you will get is RENOVATIONS!
Mr. Steenberg are you saying that we can demolish Roberts Stadium AND build a 5,000 to 6,000 seat mid-sized arena for under $5 million but we can't build a 10,000 seat arena downtown for under $125 million?
There was a consistent theme expressed in the public input that the end use for this property be “something for everyone”.
Wait a minute, there was a consistent theme with the public input? When was this discussed? What percent of those who came to the meetings or made statements said this?
The only poll that I can remember from the meetings was the one Task Force member Mr. Greg Stilwell took at the final meeting which was the first meeting after the public toured Roberts Stadium. In his poll, 28 people raised their hand that they toured Roberts Stadium the Saturday before. Of those 28 people, 25 said they came away with a favorable impression of Roberts Stadium. Of the 3 who didn't, one said he would be willing to support Roberts Stadium if a green space was built around it, one didn't state any further information, while ONLY ONE person said they believed that Roberts Stadium should be demolished regardless. Why didn't this make the report?
My statement since the beginning of this task force has always been, "Why can't we all win?" not "something for everyone." At the final task force meeting, only the green space subcommittee expressed this idea in their presentation. So why is their theme allowed to serve as a general conclusion for all of the group?
The financial viability of the projects identified in this report will depend more on their ongoing operating cost coupled with the organizational capacity available to manage them and promote their activities than on the initial investment. Getting estimates of operating costs and capabilities that are good enough to use will require more specificity and design work than is currently available. This statement makes no sense whatsoever. The difference between renovating Roberts Stadium at $4 million to $4.5 million and building a green space at $12 million to $14 million is $7.5 million to $10 million. We can basically build a green space in the back lot and most of our ball fields project with that additional money.
SMG estimates that it will cost $1.163 million a year to run Roberts. I assume this figure is from previous years of running Roberts which would cost a lot more due to the fact that the arena is currently twice the size it would be as a mid-sized arena. The Parks Dept estimated that it will cost $10,000 to $32,000 a year to maintain the green space.
For the sake of this argument, let's throw out the maintenance costs of the green space, the fact that a mid-sized arena might cost less to run, the fact that tenants at Roberts would pay most of the expenses, and the fact that Roberts generates revenue while a park does not.
If we throw out all of those objectives, it would still take 6.44 to 8.59 years for Roberts Stadium to catch the green space in costs. And again, this doesn't take into account one single dollar of revenue generated by Roberts Stadium nor does it account for the fact that a green space does not take in revenue. Mr. Steenberg, you're telling me that 6.44 to 8.59 years isn't a big gap in start up costs? You're telling me that the fact that Roberts Stadium generates revenue while a green space does not shouldn't be one of the first things a person should take into account when comparing the two ideas?
As you can see, the entire Page 13 is completely inaccurate from top to bottom. For this reason, I am asking for Mr. Steenberg to prove the following...
1. That demolishing Roberts Stadium and building a new arena is cheaper than the $4 million to $4.5 million to renovate Roberts Stadium.
2. That the vast majority of the members on the task force agreed to the above 3 "general conclusions."
3. That the theme "something for everyone" was a consistent theme in the ideas for all 3 groups, not just the green space group, and that all 3 subcommittees felt that this theme represents the vast majority of the ideas they worked with in their subcommittee.
4. That a vote, a show of hands, or a poll of any kind was taken to see how many members of the task force believed that maintenance costs and operating capacity should be given priority over start up costs.
Mr. Steenberg, our job on the task force was very simple: Get the facts and just the facts for Mayor Winnecke to base his decision on. Neither he, nor the city of Evansville and its residents, nor Roberts Stadium can afford to make a mistake on this project.
By now, most of the Evansville community is aware of the "Page 13" controversy. For those who would like to view this page and the entire report, you can do so by clicking on the link below...
Like I talked about yesterday, Page 13 is completely inaccurate from top to bottom and therefore must be omitted for this report to have any credibility. The basic inaccuracies are the following...
1. Never, and I mean never, were any of these "conclusions" agreed upon by the task force. This page is trying to put words into the task force's mouth.
2. The "conclusions" are inaccurate. Being the only member on the task force with a background in sports and arenas, I didn't expect the task force to understand the difference between a mid-sized arena and a premier arena nor did I expect them to understand the aspects of a mid-sized arena. It was my job to explain a mid-sized arena to the task force, the mayor, and our city in the report which is what I did.
However, it doesn't take an arenaologist to understand that you cannot build a new mid-sized arena for the $4 million to $4.5 million it is estimated to cost to repair Roberts Stadium, much less construct an arena and a new green space on the lot for an additional $1.75 million to $2 million.
Note: I went into more detail about these inaccuracies yesterday...
Basically, there are two points that sum up why this page should be omitted
1. It is inaccurate
2. It is not the official view of the task force
Given these basic truths, you would assume that our task force leaders would already have this page omitted. But in today's C&P, they decided to double down on their decision to put this blatantly inaccurate statement in our report...
"However, on Thursday, task force leader Larry Steenberg said Page 13 always had been a part of the original report, which was delivered to Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke on April 20."
This is a textbook example of a half-truth. Yes, that line was always in the report given to Mayor Winnecke on April 20th. But here's the problem, nothing in page 13 was ever presented to Larry either on, before, or after the day our task force presented our final findings.
The day our task force held its final meeting, each subcommittee gave Larry a report. The intent was for him to simply combine the three reports into a final report so that Mayor Winnecke could look at each of the proposals and weigh the positives and negatives of each proposal against the others.
Through my subcommittee leader, we were told that the final meeting was simply to produce our findings not "debate" them. That was how the meeting was handled and there was never any period of time during that meeting for which any of the members took a vote, a show of hands, or anything else on any of the statements produced in page 13.
Then, on April 1st when the report was due, Larry, and only Larry, requested an extension until April 20th. I, like many other task force members, did not understand this request as the only reason given to us was that the report needed to be more thorough. Well, if that was the case, why were none of the members outside of Larry and the three subcommittee leaders asked to clarify anything?
Apparently, during those three weeks, those four members of the task force went and put cost estimates with each idea. I have talked to Mr. Bill Nix about his findings, I find them to be 100% in good faith, and I stand behind the work Mr. Bill Nix and Jeff Justice did with their cost estimates.
However, after this three week period, Larry sent us an email on April 19th, the day before the report was supposedly given to Mayor Winnecke. In the email, Larry DIDN'T EVEN GIVE US THE REPORT. He told us to contact our subcommittee leaders. Since Mr. Jeff Justice was out of town, I tracked down Mr. Bill Nix who sent me the report on April 20th. That is the first time I saw Page 13.
Not only did I never receive the final report, which I guess was Larry's "original report," until the day it was turned into Mayor Winnecke, I also never had the opportunity to question any of the findings. This came as no surprise to me as I had previously emailed Larry about clarifying the competition constraint given to us and never got a full explanation outside of a rough guess by Larry himself.
So, this "original report" may have had Page 13 in it from the start (we'll never know), but this "original report" DOES NOT contain ONLY the original material given to Larry at our final meeting which was the last public session for findings to be presented and was the last time any of this was discussed as a group. Therefore, the statements on Page 13 were never discussed as a general conclusion in public or private among the task force general body, were never voted upon as a general conclusion, and were certainly never agreed upon as a final conclusion at any time.
"There's nothing really substantive, and it certainly was not added late," Steenberg said, of Page 13 in the report. "The page of the report in question has been made available to the entire subcommittee, and nobody has said a word about that page."
Nothing substantive? The page claims that it was a general conclusion from the task force that it would be cheaper to rebuild than to renovate. That is absurd and is completely inaccurate for repurposing Roberts as a mid-sized arena!
Wasn't added late? The task force got an email, not the report, the day before it was given to the mayor. If that's not late, what is late? By the time Larry decided to send the report out himself it had already been given to the mayor (supposedly). That's not too late?
Task force subcommittee leader Luke Yaeger agreed with Steenberg that Page 13 was not a late addition, nor were the costs associated designed to make one project seem stronger than the other.
"I think we were making some common assumptions and putting some ranges in there," Yaeger said. "But I don't think we were saying one project was more viable than the other."
These quotes shed an enormous amount of light on the situation...
1. The costs themselves may have not been designed to make one idea look stronger than the other. Like I said, I fully trust the work of Bill Nix and Jeff Justice. But I think that's the problem right there: The renovation to Roberts was a fraction of the price the green space proposal was. That should be allowed to speak for itself without an inaccurate page 13.
2. Who is "we" that made some common assumptions? It certainly wasn't me or the rest of the general members of the task force. Those assumptions were anything but common (or accurate) and the words of Luke Yeager and Larry Steenberg should not have been allowed to have been placed in the report that represents the entire task force.
3. And how does making the "common assumption" that it is cheaper to rebuild Roberts Stadium than to renovate it not push the public towards the green space side? Page 13 is basically nothing but green space talking points. In fact, when I originally read the report I thought it was part of their subcommittee report.
Steenberg also said the $14 million price tag for the large park idea only was a broad estimate.
"It's the only estimate we have now, and it will be refined as we proceed down the path of building a park," he said.
Why is Larry Steenberg trying to walk back the cost estimate for the green space? I never questioned that estimate. Larry needs to quit wasting time on trying to refine the cost estimate for the park and start answering questions about the inaccuracies of Page 13. He can start by trying to explain how he thinks a mid-sized arena can be built for less than $4.5 million.
Also, when was it ever decided that we would be proceeding down the path of building a park? Does Larry know even more about the situation than he's telling us? Why would we proceed down a path that is estimated to cost $12 million to $14 million?
Before today's C&P article, I was under the impression that Page 13 was a simple and honest mistake that needed to be removed because it was nothing more than an inaccuracy that didn't belong in the report. But after reading the quotes of Larry Steenberg and Luke Yeager who seem to have no problem with the blatant inaccuracies in Page 13, I have now changed my mind about how Page 13 got in this report.
Many people have suggested that it would be wise for me to go with the flow and not question things like this. But the truth is, I, as well as anyone else, would be doing a huge disservice to Mayor Winnecke, Roberts Stadium, and the city of Evansville by not taking a stand on issues like this one.
If I sit back and allow a select few members to put blatant inaccuracies in this report, it will look bad for Mayor Winnecke to have both an inaccurate report to base his decision on as well as a report that wasn't assembled honestly. I owe it to Mayor Winnecke, and the city of Evansville, to make sure that we do the right thing in renovating Roberts Stadium as a mid-sized arena.
The lost SMG jobs, the lost economic boost from the surrounding restaurants, Evansville's fiscal solvency, as well as Evansville's pride are all going to be affected by this decision. I want Mayor Winnecke to know the truth about Roberts Stadium. I want him to know the following...
1. Renovating Roberts Stadium brings back most, if not all, of the lost SMG jobs.
2. Renovating Roberts Stadium brings back the economic engine for the surrounding restaurants and retail.
3. Renovating Roberts Stadium is a small tiny fraction of the price of building a new mid-sized arena which was never an option to begin with.
4. Roberts Stadium helps, not hurts, the Ford Center with its mid-sized events. That is why both SMG and Venuworks would be interested in running the facility.
5. Roberts Stadium generates revenue, a green space does not.
6. Roberts Stadium is roughly 1/3rd the price of the green space proposal and roughly 1/2 the price of the green space proposal WITH A GREEN SPACE.
7. Roberts Stadium gives us events we don't already have, a green space provides something we already have.
8. Roberts Stadium has many intangible benefits to it such as a disaster relief area, a shuttle stop for the Ford Center, and an indoor Greenway Trail Hub.
9. All of the cities around us that are growing have both a premier and a mid-sized arena(s).
10. Renovating Roberts Stadium has been vastly more popular than a green space at all of the task force meetings.
Mayor Winnecke deserves to know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about Roberts Stadium as well as the idea of placing the ball fields project at Kleymeyer Park. With Page 13 in this report, Mayor Winnecke will not be given a report that gives him an accurate or correct interpretation of the Roberts Stadium situation.
Mayor Winnecke, please omit Page 13 from the report given to you. This page is misleading, inaccurate, and absurd. It's time for you to turn the page...
It was a big day today for this blog and the Save Roberts Stadium movement as I spoke with Shalah Sasse of Eyewitness News and Arek Sarkissian II of the Evansville Courier & Press. Of course, no media day is quite complete without a playing of the famous song from the NBC show Meet The Press that reminds me of the time when I worked in D.C....
Overall, I felt like this interview went pretty good. I was able to get the most important parts of our message out. I do wish that our local media would interview Hank Roberts' granddaughter Kristine Beard and his great-granddaughter Lisa Jean Beard who truly respect what Hank accomplished for both the Roberts family and the city of Evansville whether it be in the past, the present, or the future.
During the interview, I walked Eyewitness News through step by step of what it will take to renovate Roberts Stadium into a mid-sized arena. I also explained how a mid-sized arena can host BMX tours while a BMX only facility, for which there are already 2 in town, can not as all of the seats would be removed.
Like I said in the interview, this decision will most definitely affect Mayor Winnecke's career. I have no idea which side he thinks has more supporters but our task force sessions were always roughly 90-10 in favor of Roberts Stadium. Not to mention, neither I nor any candidate who sent poll workers to the area around Roberts Stadium could find anyone wanting to demolish this iconic structure. On the flip side, there are over 150 Save Roberts Stadium yards in the neighborhood that were bought and placed in the yards by Save Roberts Stadium supporter Sherman Stevens.
My message in this interview was very simple: I stand behind Roberts Stadium as a mid-sized arena and I'm asking Mayor Winnecke to as well.
Interview With The Courier & Press
I was glad to get a phone call from Mr. Sarkissian today as well. Yesterday, I reported my disapproval with the way the C&P reported the Roberts Stadium Task Force's report. I found it nothing short of professional for Mr. Sarkissian to give me a call today to make sure he had both sides of the story as well as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
It's pretty obvious what the goal of this report was- to make sure that this report speaks the truth about what our task force found. Currently, page 13 of this document doesn't accomplish this as it claims the following...
Some general conclusions arose out of the public input meetings and the subcommittee discussions.
Roberts Stadium was originally designed, and later renovated, for a specific use. Converting it to a different use will, in most cases, be more expensive than building an equivalent new facility. Several items lead to this conclusion.
The main floor must be raised to deal with the underground water. While necessary, this will add very little value to the end use of the project.
Raising the floor will require major modifications to the air handling system in the building. Again, this is necessary but will add very little value to the end use of the project.
There was a consistent theme expressed in the public input that the end use for this property be “something for everyone”.
The financial viability of the projects identified in this report will depend more on their ongoing operating cost coupled with the organizational capacity available to manage them and promote their activities than on the initial investment. Getting estimates of operating costs and capabilities that are good enough to use will require more specificity and design work than is currently available.
1. There was never any "general conclusions" regarding anything. Our subcommittees where divided up immediately after the public sessions were held. After that, we had one public task force meeting where we presented all of our findings. We never discussed any of the above statements as being something the entire group agreed upon, we never voted on any of the above statements, and we certainly never recommended any of these statements be placed in the report. To double check, I called two other task force members tonight who confirmed exactly what I'm saying.
2. Like I said yesterday, it's common sense that you cannot demolish Roberts Stadium and construct an entirely new facility for the $4 million to $4.5 million it is estimated to cost to renovate Roberts Stadium. A pole barn is about the only thing you can construct for that price. And this report says that this statement was a general conclusion among the group? That's absurd.
3. Since when did raising the floor and renovating the HVAC system total an arena? If you have a leaky basement is your house totaled if you change the piping? Raising the floor and renovating the HVAC system will indeed add value to Roberts Stadium as the facility will then be the proper size to host mid-sized events. Once more, this isn't rocket science.
4. I like how the green space subcommittee's "something for everyone" theme suddenly became the theme for our entire task force especially given that converting the entire lot into a green space is anything but "something for everyone." There's no doubt that we need to build "something for everyone," but that certainly doesn't mean we should strip the entire lot down to a green space.
5. Since when did maintenance costs take priority over start-up costs? The difference between a renovated Roberts Stadium and a green space is roughly $8 million to $9.5 million. That's basically an entire ECVB ball field complex.
Roberts Stadium, according to SMG's figures, would cost $1.163 million to run each year when fully booked. The vast majority of that is payroll and insurance that would be covered by the teams and events that rent the facility. Roberts Stadium's current maintenance budget is on track to be around $234,000.
But even if we used up $1.163 million a year, it would still take us 8 to 10 years to catch up to just the start up costs for the green space. And this report is claiming that those costs don't count? That's basically a decade of costs before one dime of revenue from Roberts Stadium is even considered. Like the other statements, this one is absurd.
6. This page was never agreed upon by the committee. In fact, Mr. Larry Steenberg only sent us an email telling us we had to chase down a subcommittee leader last Thursday. We never discussed the final report as a group and we certainly never had the time to object to this page being in this report. This begs the question Why was a page that is full of so many inaccuracies allowed to be placed into this report?
With all of that being said, the topic of page 13 was clearly the one and only goal out of this C&P article. But as usual, we were treated to some comments on the message board that make you want to shake your head in disbelief.
(From the C&P article above)
Conservative writes:
Tear it down and move on!! We do not need another 14 million dollar renovation to lure in more failed arena football, soccer, or D-League teams. The market simply will not support those types of teams. If we couldn't hold onto the Thunder (CBA), Triplets (AAA baseball), and Bluecats (arena football), why do you think this city will now support similar teams?
First of all, renovating Roberts DOES NOT cost $14 million (that is the green space's range). Rather, it is expected to cost $4 million to $4.5 million which is roughly 1/3rd the price of the green space.
Next, the Thunder failed because they were in a cash strapped league whose economic model was ahead of its time, the triplets left town because they couldn't get a new ballpark or renovations to Bosse Field, and the Bluecats failed because the rent was too high (they averaged at least 2,100 to 2,500 fans a game each year).
We have the opportunity to build a facility where our new indoor football team will not have to struggle like the Bluecats to be able to afford the rent. That facility is Roberts Stadium.
Huzuur writes:
I sure hope the mayor does the city a big favor and makes the decision to just tear the place down. We don't need it! We can't afford it! Get rid of it and do all of us a long term favor.
We don't need a facility for mid-sized events? Says who? Where will these teams go? Where will this lost revenue go?
We can't afford to renovate Roberts but we CAN afford to construct a green space that is 3 times the price of renovating Roberts AND it generates ZERO income? This equation doesn't make sense.
fratguy69 writes:
Jordan Baer is just some inexperienced kid with a loud voice and a self serving agenda. Note that every time he is mentioned in an article it describes him as having a sports management degree from UK. It doesn't say he has 15 years experience in sports management. Just because he has the degree doesn't mean he has the practical knowledge that he needs. Also if he really were trying to do what was best for the city and what is best for any venue (make a profitable venue) he would be in favor of selling naming right to a hypothetical renovated Robert's Stadium. But he is in fact against that because of the sentimental value of the Robert's name. Guess what I doubt that 90% of Evansville residents could even tell you who it was named for.
I've heard it all now. I've got a "fratguy" questioning my experience? Obviously, I'm not the one who wrote that line about where I went to college, that was the decision of the C&P, but yes I have worked in an arena before.
However, my experience is a moot point as both SMG AND Venuworks are interested in Roberts Stadium as well if the city agrees to coordinate our two facilities. Perhaps "fratguy" can question their experience level as well.
Lastly, when did I EVER say I was against selling naming rights? The only reason why I have not mentioned selling the naming rights to the arena is because it is basically worthless as the facility has already established its name as "Roberts Stadium" and yes Hank Roberts does deserve his name on this facility.
I have long been an advocate for selling naming rights to the gates...
Fratguy clearly spent very little time thinking out his post. But then again, would you expect anything different from those who support demolition?
As you see, we are battling the worst of the worst here in Evansville to pull this project off. The important thing to remember is that we must stick to our strategy and keep the pedal to the medal. If we let off the gas just one day, those who support demolition will take full advantage.
Today will hopefully be just the first of many days we discuss Roberts Stadium to the media!
You've got to give it to the Courier & Press. Whoever is calling the shots down there is going all out to make sure the status quo in Evansville remains in power. Whether it's shoving the Chamber of Commerce's interstate down your throat or using smoke and mirrors to get you to go along with demolishing legendary Roberts Stadium, a project they have long sought to accomplish since the Weinzapfel administration was in power, one thing we do know- this newspaper is now a joke. It might as well compete with Charmin Toilet Paper for market share.
I talked yesterday about the fact that we could basically renovate Roberts Stadium, construct a green space in the back lot, AND build the ball fields elsewhere for the price of constructing a whole entire green space on the 35 acre site. It would seem to me that common sense should start kicking in for most city leaders at this point. If you don't have $4 million to $4.5 million for a mid-sized arena that brings in revenue, how could you have $12 million to $14 million for a green space that fails to bring in revenue?
Given the fact that they were in a straight jacket, you would assume that even the C&P would come to grips with the reality that renovating Roberts Stadium is the proper step to make. But today, it appears that they are going to try a different route. What's the excuse this time? You won't believe the headline they cooked up...
"Task Force reports say remodeling Roberts Stadium more costly than building new"
That's right, the C&P is now claiming that it is cheaper for our city to demolish Roberts Stadium and build a new mid-sized arena on the lot than spending the $4 million to $4.5 million to renovate Roberts Stadium.
First of all, if you believe that you can demolish Roberts Stadium and construct a new 6,000 seat arena in its place, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE see me immediately. I have a hall pass to the Ford Center elevator, stock in Enron, and plenty of other cool things I would like to sell you. Obviously, anyone with a pulse and a brain knows that belief isn't true. Remember the quote from Portland?....
"Because the two arenas are differently sized - the Rose Garden at approximately 20,000 and the Coliseum being downsized to about 8,000 - they each fill a different economic niche. Portland doesn't have another arena of the Coliseum's size, so we'd eventually have to build a new one. And a from-the-ground-up arena would cost far, far more than this $30 million restoration - only $17 million of which is coming from city money anyway - not to mention all the carbon and embodied energy that would be lost if the Coliseum were torn down."
Portland, Oregon is spending $30 million to renovate their Memorial Coliseum as a mid-sized arena and even that is cheaper than building a new facility instead. Yet, somehow someway we can demolish Roberts for $200,000 to $1.25 million and then build a new arena in its footprint with the remaining $2.75 million to $4.3 million.
Secondly, when did building a brand new mid-sized arena become an option? And when has ANY of our city officials or even our city residents talked about building a brand new mid-sized arena to compliment the Ford Center? The answer is simple, it has never been an option.
I'm going to be honest, at this point I have lost ALL respect for the Courier & Press. It's now my strong opinion that they are either 1. Brain dead or 2. Intentionally trying to stir the public in the wrong direction with this article. I'll even go so far as to say that this article is flat out bush league.
With that being said, in the C&P's defense, there is a line in the report on page 13 that suggests that the incorrect belief that it is cheaper to construct a new mid-sized arena was a general consensus. Although it was written this way, this belief was NOT the general consensus of the task force. In fact, my subcommittee never discussed this idea, never voted on it, and never suggested it to the task force either. Honestly, page 13 of the report is slanted so sharply towards the green space side that I myself thought it was a part of their presentation and not as something written as a belief of the entire task force. It should be struck from the report as this is obviously a lie.
For this misconception, I place the blame SOLELY on Larry Steenberg. Mr. Steenberg NEVER asked us to approve of the final document. In fact, we never saw the final document until the day before it was released to the public. At that point, we only got to see it if we tracked down the leaders of our subcommittee (mine was out of town). This whole process from the day we walked in until the moment we walked out was handled in a very suspicious, fishy, and terrible way. I'm glad that we are out of this phase as I believe Mr. Steve Schaeffer, Mayor Russ Lloyd Jr., and Mayor Winnecke will handle this in the proper way. These are 3 of the best people I have ever met and I trust them to do the right thing.
At the same time, the C&P clearly knew the truth before they published this article. They knew that renovating Roberts Stadium was a fraction of the cost to construct a green space on the lot. They knew that renovating Roberts Stadium and building a green space on the lot was estimated to cost almost exactly HALF of the price to construct a full green space. They also knew, at least I hope, that you cannot demolish an arena and build a new one for $4 million to $4.5 million. Yet, they choose to ignore these facts once more. Will the C&P ever "get it?" I doubt it at this point.
Mayor Winnecke, when making your decision, I ask that you use the real financial logic that you have asked out of those who support Roberts Stadium since day 1. I ask that you realize that Roberts Stadium is cheaper than a full green space, it really is cheaper than building an entire new mid-sized arena that will never exist, and it certainly brings more revenue to the table than the green space plan which brings none. Those facts speak for themselves!
There's two things we need more of in this town- Common Sense & Roberts Stadium
2 For The Price Of One, Buy One Get One Free, Double Your Money Back Guarantee. You've heard all of the marketing lines before. Most of the time, getting two items instead of one item is as good as it gets... until now. You see, we've been told over and over that Roberts Stadium needs to be demolished in favor of a green space because it would cost too much to renovate. Not only is this a complete lie, it is actually the other way around.
With the release of our Task Force's report, we now know the following...
The Green Space Subcommittee estimated their green space to cost $12 million to $14 million
Our Subcommittee estimated a mid-sized arena at Roberts Stadium to cost $4 million to $4.5 million
Our Subcommittee estimated a green space taking up half of the existing parking spaces to cost $1.75 million to $2 million
Bob Warren of the ECVB estimated his ball fields plan would cost $8 million to $10 million to construct...
If we combine the renovations to Roberts Stadium with our green space and the ECVB ball fields plan (which would be built at Kleymeyer Park), we come up with a grand total of $13.75 million to $16. 5 million to construct.
We must also take into account the following pieces of information as well...
1. In the report, the green space subcommittee did not mention any costs for demolishing Roberts Stadium or its parking lot, just the costs needed to build "some sports areas, some green spaces, a few pavilions."
Therefore, the real costs of the green space should be at least an additional $200,000 to $1.25 million plus approximately double the price for our green space ($1.75 million to $2 million) before all other costs can be considered.
2. The green space subcommittee never mentioned how exactly they planned to connect their green space to the other parks and green spaces in the area. This would add to the costs.
3. The green space subcommittee never gave us an artists rendering or layout of how exactly they planned to construct their park, just a rough estimate per acre. The real green space constructed could cost even more if the public demands more than just the basic open areas and pavilions. Roberts Stadium's estimated costs have been gathered and totaled by identifying specific parts of the facility that would need to be renovated.
4. Constructing the ball fields at Kleymeyer would be cheaper. Although an extra layer of stone would need to be placed on the ground to reinforce the ball fields above the landfill, we wouldn't need to add the buffer zones, retention ponds, and other luxurious amenities that were included in the plan for the Roberts Stadium lot. Also, if we tap into the methane gas at Kleymeyer Park, we can use it to for electricity at the ball fields. This would make the maintenance on these fields much cheaper than if they were next to Wesselman Park.
Given the above four pieces of information, I would say that it's safe to say that we can construct the Roberts Stadium renovations, a green space in the back lot, AND the ball fields at Kleymeyer Park for either the same price or cheaper than the green space proposal.
Mayor Winnecke, how can anyone justify choosing one green space over a renovated mid-sized arena, a ball fields project, and a green space? What kind of financial logic would that be? How could we afford just the one project but not the other three who are basically the same cost when COMBINED?
Mayor Winnecke, the difference in the two sides is astronomical when it comes to job creation, urban development, and tourist recruitment among many other things. The green space subcommittee members love to pull the line "something for everyone." Is it just me or is three amenities for the price of one "something for everyone?"
Not only are the three projects about the same price as the proposed green space on the lot, they are also at least $1 million cheaper than just the one ball fields project at Wesselman Park that was proposed by Dunn.
The truth is, if our city is ever going to grow, we must spend our money wisely. That means choosing three items that are all better than the item competing against them when they are the same price. That also means utilizing existing assets when given the opportunity.
Lastly, Mayor Winnecke, I have already told you how you can sell Roberts Stadium to the public...
For those who follow this blog daily, you may recall the post I made back on January 25th about the estimate for mothballing Roberts Stadium being significantly overstated...
"Maintaining Roberts, which was mothballed on Sept. 18, has already rung up a tab of $73,332, as of Jan. 11, according to data provided by City Controller Russ Lloyd Jr."
While the C&P article this past Thursday had a different figure for the period of Sept 18th through January...
"As of April 9, the city spent $130,817 maintaining the facility since it closed in September with the opening of the Ford Center Downtown. Of that amount, $74,576 was spent from Sept. 18 through the end of last year, and $56,241 more was spent from Jan. 1 to April 9."
So how did we go from Sept 18th through January 11th costing $73,332 in January to Sept 18th through December 31st now costing $74,576 in this week's article?
Nonetheless, I will take the C&P at their word that the new figure is the correct one because no matter which figure is correct, both are well under the original estimate to mothball Roberts Stadium for a year.
Using the new figures, we can now calculate how much each day the city is spending on Roberts Stadium sitting idle...
Sept 18th through Dec 31st is 104 days
$74,576 divided by 104 days = $717.08 This is how much it cost last year to mothball Roberts each day
Jan 1st through April 9th is 100 days
$56,241 divided by 100 days = $562.41 This is how much it cost this year to mothball Roberts each day
So, we now know that the costs to mothball Roberts Stadium is dropping $154.67 a day.
As of right now, if we combine the two periods we get the following equation...
$130,817 divided by 204 days = $641.26 This is how much each day since Roberts has closed that the city has spent on the facility.
Now, let's figure out how much money mothballing Roberts Stadium is expected to cost for the entire year...
$641.26 times 365 days = $234,059.83 This is the current projection for how much Roberts Stadium will cost to mothball for an entire year.
Now that we have our current figure, let's address what we do know and don't know as of today...
What we don't know
1. We don't know how accurate this figure is. Did Dave Rector spread out his labor costs for his department equally or did he stack them all on Roberts Stadium? Why are we still paying over $17,000 in payroll for a facility that is closed?
2. We don't know when the city will make a decision. Therefore, the city may spend less or more than the $234,059.83 depending on when they make a decision.
3. We don't know what upgrades the city plans to make to Roberts Stadium while it's being mothballed. This will certainly play a role in Roberts' annual mothball estimate.
What we do know
1. The estimate to mothball Roberts Stadium is currently $65,940.17 under the estimate Rector said was "conservative" back in July...
"And until the next city administration decides what to do with Roberts Stadium, about $300,000 a year will be spent to keep it on life support.
And that, Rector said, is a conservative estimate.
"Let just say I was optimistic when you hear the number of $300,000," Rector said. "Any building needs constant upkeep. When it comes to Roberts, I think we're up for some serious challenges."
2. The current estimate to mothball Roberts is $265,940.17 under the estimate David Dunn gave us back in September of 2010...
"Roberts Stadium will be vacant by the end of 2011. If The Park plan is not approved, it will cost property taxpayers an estimated $500,000 a year to maintain that vacant property, or more than $1 million to tear it down.
In an August 22, 2010, column in this newspaper, Courier & Press Editor Mizell Stewart III wrote of the city of Corpus Christi, Texas, spending $800,000 in tax dollars to tear down its old stadium after it sat vacant for more than six years and fell into disrepair. The Park plan offers an opportunity to avoid that scenario here.''
3. According to the C&P, the $56,241 the city spent on Roberts this year is below the $94,000 the city set aside for the facility.
4. According to the C&P, the electric bill accounted for 42% of this year's operational costs. This electric bill is mostly the byproduct of the water pumps. In a mid-sized Roberts, THESE PUMPS WILL BE GONE!
5. In a mid-sized arena, the tenants will be responsible for the majority of their expenses on the days they are using the facility which will eliminate the vast majority of the expenses Roberts will incur as a mid-sized arena each year.
Once more, we are seeing that Roberts Stadium is NOT as bad as our city leaders have tried to project it to be. No, mothballing Roberts Stadium is not the long term goal of either side of this argument. However, it does prove that Roberts Stadium is perfectly capable of taking care of itself just like it has these past 55 1/2 years.
The figures are in and they are screaming SAVE ROBERTS STADIUM!
Today, our Roberts Stadium Task Force director Larry Steenberg turned over the final report composed by our three subcommittees over to Mayor Lloyd Winnecke. I would like to thank Task Force member Bill Nix for sending me the report as well as explaining what he saw and found with Roberts Stadium while he was doing his inspection.
Unfortunately, I still haven't figured out how to post attachments on here so I will just post the highlights from the report ( I expect this report to be on the C&P's website very soon but if it's not send me an email and I will send it to you). When the report is available online, I will go line by line over it as it provides an overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of renovating Roberts Stadium.
Inside the report, we have found out once more what I have been saying all along: renovating Roberts Stadium is cheaper than a green space.
To renovate Roberts Stadium as a mid-size arena, it will cost between $4 million and $4.5 million. If we add a green space to half of the parking lot, it will be an additional $1.75 million to $2 million.
To construct a green space on the lot, the report estimates that it will cost between $12 million and $14 million. This green space would also fail to fund connectors to the "Mental Health Park" as well as Vann Avenue Park.
So basically, Roberts Stadium itself is roughly 1/3rd the price of a green space and is still half the price of the green space WITH A GREEN SPACE. Not only would Roberts Stadium have a green space for an additional $1.75 mil to $2 million, it would also be in the back lot which is approximately the same size as the soon to be built green space on US 41 and is in a perfect position to connect Wesselman Woods to Mental Health Park (State Hospital Grounds).
Mayor Winnecke, I have all the respect and confidence in the world for you. I also believe you have an administration that is second to none. With members like Steve Schaefer, Denise Johnson, and Russ Lloyd Jr., there really is no reason to believe that you can't guide Roberts Stadium, the city of Evansville, as well as the other side of this argument through this situation.
Mayor Winnecke, you put me on this task force approximately four months ago. Over that time, as well as the 16 months before that, I have followed each and every lead to make sure that we have a plan put in front of you that is...
1. Multi-dimensional- We needed a plan for Roberts Stadium that is many things to many people not just a BMX facility, or an expo hall, or a facility for sports teams. Rather, this facility must be able to adapt to all of these areas as well as bring multiple intangible benefits to our community.
2. A Plan That Repects All Ideas- We needed a plan that tailors to BOTH of the Roberts Stadium and green space sides, not just one. We also need a plan that addresses the ideas of a natatorium and BMX facility as well.
3. Makes The Most Financial Sense- We needed a plan that not only makes good sense financially for out city and county taxpayers but for the area retailers as well. We needed a plan that receives minimal tax dollars while making a profit that pays back each and every one of these dollars. We also needed a plan that would bring in revenue from outside the city, put heads in beds, as well as fill up our restaurants and shops. Lastly, we needed a plan that brought back the lost SMG jobs from Roberts Stadium's closing.
4. Gives Evansville The Biggest Bang For Their Buck- We needed a plan that brought in new business and amenities to Evansville. We also needed a plan that would take full advantage of our existing assets all around town, not just on the east side. We also needed a plan that would be able to be co-branded and co-marketed with our facilities such as the Ford Center, Bosse Field, and our Centre.
5. Restores Pride In The River City- These past 50 years, it seems that Evansville has made mistake after mistake, and these mistakes have now turned into bad habits which are now seen as a way of life and the correct thing to do. We needed a plan that stopped our 50 year pall dead in its tracks. We needed a plan that helped the most while hurting the least. Lastly, we needed a plan that would make our local residents proud to live in Evansville.
Mayor Winnecke, I can look you straight in the eye and tell you that I believe that I have crafted the best damn plan a task force can design. I believe that if you are willing to take the proper steps and make the right decisions regarding Roberts Stadium, you will make a decision that will be the cornerstone of your administration from now until the end of time. Nobody remembers the mayors who made bad decisions. Everyone remembers the mayors who made good decisions like Benjamin Bosse, Hank Roberts, and Russ Lloyd Jr.
I also believe that I have squeezed every single idea, benefit, and advantage that has either been mentioned or been implied that is possible. There are well over 20 benefits to a mid-sized Roberts Stadium...
"I said this during the campaign, I want to make a good, data driven decision," Winnecke said. "I still think that, and I think it should be what's best for the city financially."
If that is truly your goal Mayor Winnecke, I don't know how you can't choose to renovate Roberts Stadium as a mid-sized arena. This plan...
1. Costs less than the green space plan
2. Brings in more visitors than the green space plan
3. Addresses more ideas from the public such as BMX events like the Dew Tour, expo events, a green space in the back lot, as well as a disaster relief area than the green space plan
4. Produces more quality and good paying jobs than the green space plan
5. Generates income to make itself self-sufficient unlike the green space plan
6. Can be co-marketed and co-branded with the Ford Center, the Centre, and Bosse Field unlike the green space plan
7. Produces more revenue for restaurants, hotels, and shops around Roberts Stadium than the green space plan
8. Gives us something new like an indoor Greenway trail hub, a disaster relief area, as well as a shuttle stop for the Ford Center while the green space plan gives us the same things we already have in our existing parks
9. Allows Roberts Stadium to connect to Wesselman Woods, Mental Health Park, as well as UE (I will be talking about this in a few posts) just like the green space plan while giving us much, much, much more tangible and intangible benefits than the green space plan
10. Has more opportunities to generate funds for renovations than the green space plan does.
I definitely hope that Mayor Winnecke sits down and really takes this decision seriously as it will affect both me and Roberts Stadium from now until the end of time. I also hope he takes the correct steps in...
1. Getting in touch with SMG and Venuworks
2. Getting in touch with the ECVB to make sure the seats can be transferred smoothly to their ball fields proposal which belongs in Kleymeyer Park
3. Sitting down with whoever crafted the winning proposal to make sure he truly understands all aspects of the idea
Mayor Winnecke, please take this report and read what it's telling you. It's telling you to SAVE ROBERTS STADIUM!!!
It now appears that those who believe that our city needs a new green space are going to get their wish. Thankfully, this wish is going to be granted on a lot that doesn't contain Roberts Stadium. Yesterday, the Courier & Press gave us a glimpse of what these new green spaces along US 41 will look like...
Photo Credit: Hafer Associates via CourierPress.com
Although there are many who disagree with investing in US 41's gateways, I am not one of them. I fully support this project. I'm glad to see that our city is investing in US 41, a road that is actually producing jobs, instead of the the I-164/I-69 corridor which is nothing but urban sprawl. From this project, I would like to see the city create an "Old US 41" gateway at the fork between new and old US 41 which is slightly south of the jail. From there, we can begin yet another urban renewal project with a tech-park inside the area...
I fully support the work Keep Evansville Beautiful is doing. I have been working with former director Ann Ennis on building a Joseph Copello Memorial at Garvin Park. They are doing a great job introducing Evansville to 21st century green development and urban planning.
With that being said, I am advocating for our city to treat Roberts Stadium like they are the green spaces on US 41, not to treat the green spaces on US 41 like Roberts Stadium has been treated. You see, the green spaces have gone a much different route than Roberts Stadium has gone. We did not see the following...
1. There was no task force assembled to study ALL of the ideas for the lot that previously held the old airport.
2. A mid-sized arena was not considered an alternative to the green space idea for the lot.
3. There was no city council person on a task force claiming that both a green space and arena should be considered equally for the lot as was the case with our task force.
4. There was no one claiming that the decision of what to do with the lot should be done without emotion and should contain financial logic.
5. In fact, there were no financial figures given to construct the lot outside of the sculpture that will be placed in another location (this sculpture is a good idea as it will give a lasting impression of Evansville). This sculpture, with a price tag of $176,000, is about the same price as fixing Roberts Stadium's roof and demolishing the precast seating areas above ground.
6. If you look at the dimensions of the old airport lot (use the ruler toolbar on the top left)...
You will see that they are almost EXACTLY the same size (roughly 2,800 ft perimeter). Yet, Tri-State Aero and Dunn's new hotel, which border the US 41 green space, are not being demolished to make room for the green space. This begs the question: Why can't Roberts Stadium and a green space co-exist as well?
7. There are no figures given for how many out-of-town residents that will come to Evansville just to tour this green space.
8. There are no sources of revenue for this green space.
9. There is no economic impact predicted to be felt by the nearby restaurants of this green space.
10. No one ever complained that this lot should be sold to the private sector.
Obviously, what we are witnessing is yet another example of our city acting one way on a project they support and then acting another way on a project they don't support. If our city leaders handled the Roberts Stadium situation like they are the green space project on US 41, we'd already have a mid-size arena hosting multiple events, creating revenue for the nearby restaurants, and generating more than enough income to take care of itself. Our Ford Center would have would be co-branded and co-marketed with Roberts Stadium and our Bosse Field district would be well on its way to getting a new lease on life with the ball fields project breaking ground at Kleymeyer Park.
We're seeing our city commit to improving Evansville with this green space project. We are watching them create a green space that is almost identical in size to Roberts Stadium's back lot. We are also watching them accomplish this by cutting through the red tape that normally accompanies this type of project.
Our city understands that Dunn Hospitality's hotel can co-exist with a green space yet are baffled at the thought that Roberts Stadium and a green space of the same size can do the exact same thing. Our city understands the intangible value that a green space will bring to the US 41 corridor yet refuses to acknowledge the financial benefits of a mid-sized Roberts Stadium much less the three intangible benefits it brings to the table.
We now have a green space on its way for our city. Now it's time that our government realized the benefits of a mid-size arena. It's about time we SAVED ROBERTS STADIUM!
First of all, renovating Roberts DOES NOT cost $14 million (that is the green space's range). Rather, it is expected to cost $4 million to $4.5 million which is roughly 1/3rd the price of the green space.
Next, the Thunder failed because they were in a cash strapped league whose economic model was ahead of its time, the triplets left town because they couldn't get a new ballpark or renovations to Bosse Field, and the Bluecats failed because the rent was too high (they averaged at least 2,100 to 2,500 fans a game each year).
We have the opportunity to build a facility where our new indoor football team will not have to struggle like the Bluecats to be able to afford the rent. That facility is Roberts Stadium.
Huzuur writes:
We don't need a facility for mid-sized events? Says who? Where will these teams go? Where will this lost revenue go?
We can't afford to renovate Roberts but we CAN afford to construct a green space that is 3 times the price of renovating Roberts AND it generates ZERO income? This equation doesn't make sense.
fratguy69 writes:
I've heard it all now. I've got a "fratguy" questioning my experience? Obviously, I'm not the one who wrote that line about where I went to college, that was the decision of the C&P, but yes I have worked in an arena before.
However, my experience is a moot point as both SMG AND Venuworks are interested in Roberts Stadium as well if the city agrees to coordinate our two facilities. Perhaps "fratguy" can question their experience level as well.
Lastly, when did I EVER say I was against selling naming rights? The only reason why I have not mentioned selling the naming rights to the arena is because it is basically worthless as the facility has already established its name as "Roberts Stadium" and yes Hank Roberts does deserve his name on this facility.
I have long been an advocate for selling naming rights to the gates...
http://saverobertsstadium.blogspot.com/2011/11/selling-secondary-naming-rights-can.html
Fratguy clearly spent very little time thinking out his post. But then again, would you expect anything different from those who support demolition?
As you see, we are battling the worst of the worst here in Evansville to pull this project off. The important thing to remember is that we must stick to our strategy and keep the pedal to the medal. If we let off the gas just one day, those who support demolition will take full advantage.
Today will hopefully be just the first of many days we discuss Roberts Stadium to the media!