 |
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 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.
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....
Hartman Arena
 |
| law-co.com |
Wichita,Kansas
Opened: 2009
Seating Capacity: 5,000
Costs: $18 million...
Grand Canyon University Arena
 |
| dannyzeliskopresents.com |
Phoenix, Arizona
Opened: 2011
Seating Capacity: 5,300
Costs: $40 million...
 |
| TowsonTigers.com |
Towson, Maryland
Opened: 2013
Seating Capacity: 5,200
Costs: $62 million...
 |
| Garco.com |
Spokane, Washington (Gonzaga Bulldogs)
Opened 2004
Seating Capacity: 6,000
Costs $25 million ($30.8 million in 2012 dollars)...
1stBank Center
 |
| heyreverb.com |
Broomfield, Colorado
Opened: 2006
Seating Capacity: 3,500–6,500
Costs: $45 million ($51.9 million in 2012 dollars)...
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.
Larry Steenberg, PROVE IT OR REMOVE IT!
 |
Do you think the city is worried that if Roberts was refurbished into a mid-sized Areana that the Icemen might want to move there once their currect Ford Center contract has expired?
ReplyDeleteI'm not so sure that they are worried about the Icemen specifically as they are doing pretty good and should do even better if they make the rumored leap to the ECHL. It would cost a lot of extra money to make Roberts compatible for ice hockey as the floor is not wide enough and the floor doesn't have the tools necessary for ice.
ReplyDeleteI would like to see the city make the bowl area a horse shoe because it would make the floor big enough for indoor football but I myself do not believe that the Icemen belong in Roberts or any other place than the Ford Center.
I think this whole mess is being caused by the city being scared of Roberts Stadium hurting the Ford Center. These are politicians who have no idea how areas work and thus they just think "well they're both arenas so surely that would be a problem."
Venuworks and Ford Center director Scott Schoenike put it best when he said "if anything the Ford Center would hurt Roberts Stadium." The city knows that their opinion is now wrong. SMG/Venuworks confirms that, the tenants interested in Roberts who would never be able to afford the Ford Center prove that, and the fact that those who support Roberts patronize the Ford Center proves that.
At this point, they are just trying to preserve their pride. Once they get past their egos, we should be able to draft a plan that makes sense for all parties involved.