In fairness, Fun For All is mostly privately funded. City donated the land but we raised most if not all of the money privately.

If the city charges for practice time that's a huge revenue source. The local demand for ballfields is incredible. There simply aren't enough fields in the area.

The complaint that building full size fields is a waste for 9-10 year old kids is just simply wrong. First they're going to have multiple posts for bases so the younger kids can use them even for games. At a minimum they'll have posts at 70 and 90 feet and since CS is a Little League town I'll guess 60 as well. Second that extra space lets you practice more efficiently with multiple stations. You can't really do that on a smaller field and HS kids can't use smaller fields at all.

A lot of bad information on this thread.

Brian Alg said:

---

It isn't too late. City council can still stop this if they want to.

Getting people talking about the city wasting $44 million dollars might affect the next election.

---

The city deciding not to build more ball fields for kids to play and practice on might also affect the next election.

If you don't think that there are a lot of people in favor of this, you are mistaken.

Brian Alg said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

If the city charges for practice time that's a huge revenue source.

---

My understanding is the city charges for field time and it is a vanishingly small revenue source (relative to the costs we are talking about). Appendix D of the new budget has a line "PARD - Rentals-Ball fields" that for FY 2021 was $110,639 and is estimated to drop to $79,530 for this year and is budgeted to drop to $60,000 next year. For some reason, Appendix D lists revenue from tournament fees as $0. They might be waving those fees. But I don't know. [Edit: presumably that is baseball, softball, and athletic fields including the ones at Veterans]

Unfortunately, since the city has not even attempted to justify moving forward with this park, its supporters here have been forced to speculate what might justify it. Unfortunately for them their speculation does not match the facts.

It is a boondoggle. Scrap it.

---

The declining revenue is perplexing because it fits nothing I know about baseball in this area. I'm probably better informed than most on this thread, I have a pretty good source on what field demand looks like. My question is what does the service of $44M in bonds look like annually and can the $60K or $100K or whatever in rental fees cover it? I don't know that answer and I'm not going to do the work to figure it out because that's not my job. I'm with you in wondering why no revenue from tournaments.

"It's a boondoggle, scrap it" sounds like someone that just doesn't want it to happen no matter what which seems to ignore the proper role of government. Government's job is to facilitate local business and use tax revenue to improve the quality of life and projects like this potentially fulfil both of those missions.

I spent several years with a son playing travel baseball and there is potentially a lot of money in this sport particularly if you do a project the right way. Years ago when the facility in Franklin first opened they were offering teams that entered their tournaments a chance to play at Olsen if they won a couple of games in pool play. Well they got so much response that they had to renege on that offer because the brackets were too large. AND they had to go get HS fields in Madisonville and Bryan and the Bombers field just to play the tournaments. Those were 16U and 18U tournaments so all HS fields.

In a time when government waste is at an all time high I'm just not going to agree that a project that will absolutely get a lot of local use AND bring in a substantial amount of tax revenue via hotels and restaurants should be scrapped. Want to scrap something? Stop building medians.

Brian Alg said:

---

How many simple little league fields could they build scattered around town for $44 million?

If this were about the kids, it would look very different.

---

I don't know if I agree with that. Small fields scattered around town sounds like a hassle on upkeep. Plus the city would miss out on tournament revenue having the fields scattered everywhere. Imagine the parking and traffic snarls.

turfman80 said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

Seeing complaints on this board reminds me of the Wellborn annexation. By the time people get upset the city has already moved. If you don't like the city building parks or growing through annexation then you need to be more proactive. Help elect anti-growth, anti-baseball field candidates. Stay on top of the issues. Fight city hall before they spend your tax dollars because now it's too late.

---

Too bad that strategy didnt work for saving the Bryan Muni golf course....

---

Yeah I still agree with shutting down that dump and buying Briarcrest. And have you driven by Big Shots? Wowzers that place is nice. What an improvement. Looking forward to the Legends Event Center, too. That thing will be epic.

Quote:

---

The old adage "You can't fight city hall" is true 99% of the time, citizens be damned. The ballpark complex will be approved. Always follow the money.

---

The only place that I see or hear a big push against the ballparks is on this thread. The reason that it was even considered in the first place is because a lot of people were contacting the City Council about building complex for Little League and tournaments. Not a few....a lot.
And this is not new, there have been people in the ear of the various forms of the City Council for years.
My son has been aged out of Little League for years and when he played T-Ball it was a huge discussion at the first coaches meeting.
He never played Select, but that group obviously has been pushing for it.

My kids won't use it, but I'm in favor of it.

Two of the main reasons that we chose to stay here were the public education schools and the quality of life.

This helps the latter for a lot of people.