barry liss on 
Kathy Tepsa on 
clhughes on 
Back in June, I wrote a post here on CW regarding the future status of Woodchucks baseball in Wausau.
The gist of that article was:
The team’s contract with the city expires after next season (2009), and unless the city agrees to pay for significant updates at the ballpark, the team might face a need to relocate. Bill for proposed updates reported in the WDH: $240,000. Question: Is it worth the money?
In today’s (11/17/08) WDH, the issue reappears. This time, the $240,000 upgrade is not mentioned at all. Instead there’s a three-times-larger $798,000 improvement project for the existing park (that can easily grow to $1 million), along with five multi-million-dollar proposals for new stadiums or an expansion of Athletic Park:
West Side Industrial Park: $2.8 million. So much for a neighborhood park!
North East Wausau: $2.9 million. Site not identified.
Athletic Park Expansion: $5.6 million. Buying 23 residences, plus three commercial properties.
Wausau Concrete: $3.7 million. Wouldn’t mind replacing that eyesore on the river!
Frank / MCDEVCO: $5.7 million. Location not identified.
So, the big questions become: Is the city willing / able to do any of these? Do we watch the Woodchucks move away as did our previous team? Do we miss another boat as we did with the 4-year college going to Point (something we’ve never recovered from)? Is there an economic impact study / document available?
The Park Dept. (!) is talking with the Woodchucks about all this … but what is our city government (i.e. our leaders) doing about it? What is the priority? Is there a public opinion / input component? There’s one year left in the contract.
My article in June was responded to by three people … none of them “official.”
Wonder how long this will plod along without any sense of vision or commitment?
Who cares?
Tom…I feel your pain. Last week I applauded publicly Steve Foley, FOR TALKING. He wanted to close pools, as a former lifeguard I naturally oppose closing of pools, as a human I understand that it might just make sense.
But more than anything, I applauded him publicly for talking. For putting together a thought, a position, and maybe even a direction, and voicing it to the public.
I know Steve has read Citizen Wausau, as he commented on something about a pizza 1000 years ago.
I think you are right to challenge the leaders of your city to come here, and answer substantive questions. At what point does it just become insulting to you as a taxpayer that they simply refuse?
We even have a civility clause, as seen above my comment here.
So Tom, what shall we do to bring the talking to CW?
In today’s WDH, the ballclub is reported to have stated their support for the notion of staying at Athletic Park and the city would just need to pursue the various upgrades. But, the Parks Chief says that’s a lot of money and one should consider the value of upgrades vs. a new park. They will meet in again in January to discuss further (don’t know why they need more than six weeks before meeting again). Anyway, it was good that the ballclub came out and stated a position.
It would be great to have city leaders talk to CW. Heck, it would be great to have them talk to WDH or electronic media for that matter. Can you spell “press conference” or “interview”? It doesn’t insult me that they are so insular. But it is disappointing … and it’s not the way I will act when I am elected mayor. Uh-oh, there, it’s out.
I think it is revisionist history to equate the loss of the minor league baseball team to the lack of a ‘good’ stadium. As I recall from talking to one of the local owners, the real reason the team left was that the offer to buy the team was so high that they could not turn it down. People from suburban Chicago wanted a team to move to Kane County and made an offer for the team that was a lot more than the team was worth if it stayed here. It had nothing to do with the ballpark. What did move because of the ballpark was the WIAA high school tournament, but it would be hard to justify the cost to improve the ballpark for that. Is it worth the money for the Woodchucks? I doubt it.
Thanks matthew,
I didn’t intend to tie the loss of the previous team to park issues. Just noting that we’ve lost a team before for whatever reason. However, this current issue is one where we can understand what might make the team stay or leave.
You say you doubt it would be worth the money to upgrade the park in order to keep the team. On what do you base that doubt? As far as I know, there isn’t an economic impact document to support a view either way. Have you seen one?
No, I just doubt it. I have no proof. It seems to me that the money that is generated by the Woodchucks is basically local money anyway. The sponsors are generally local organizations and the vast majority of the people are local people. If they didn’t spend their money on the Woodchucks they would spend it on something else locally. I go to only a couple of Woodchuck games every year, but I used to have season tickets to the Mets and the Timbers. Every year when they gave the tickets away the place was filled. When each person is obliged to actually buy a ticket the attendance drops way off. These sponsors would find additional ways to support the community. For example, supporting the concerts on the Square etc. if other funding dries up. Sure some money comes into the area but I don’t think it would be enough to offset the costs associated with improving/rebuilding the ball park. I’ve got no proof but I just don’t see where outside money is generated.
Various aspects that create a sense of place and enhance the quality of life have varying degrees of importance to different people. It isn’t always possible to establish accurate weights to the individual elements or how they contribute to an overall synergy. Here is something that caught my eye:
“If they didn’t spend their money on the Woodchucks they would spend it on something else locally.”
Couldn’t we say that about a lot of things? How about ArtsBlock performances? I mean, what happens to all the money that is exported out of the community when we pay a high-priced artist like BB King to come to town? Does it make us losers? I would argue that it does not.
We could probably throw a lot of things overboard by looking at individual items in total isolation and then ignoring the complexities that work together to establish a sense of place. Do enough of that stuff and some people will find it’s not worth coming or staying here. (That doesn’t just mean visitors, but also some unknown number of prospective and current residents.)
There is a reason that spectator sports facilities almost always involve significant public participation. In the case of the Woodchucks, we don’t have the red herring of lofty player salaries to throw into the mix — but some people still get hung up on the fact that it is a small business enterprise. While there are a lot of great philosophical discussions that people can have about that, at some point, people have to decide whether they want this experience to continue to be available or not.
Personally, I think the Woodchucks are a significant asset to our community. Making improvements to the 1936 facility beyond the piecemeal approach that has been employed up to this point should improve the long-term viability of their program and the gameday experience for fans. It is an important discussion to have.
Why, beer and brat sales alone are an economic stimulus package. But, seriously, this arguably falls into the quality of life and personality of your town category. The team adds to our variety, looks good in promotional literature and Web sites to attract new businesses and residents to the area. These effects are hard to measure, but I’d argue that communities that do a better job of offering this sort of variety, enjoy more dynamic growth than those that don’t.
Of course, I wrote this last comment without having read Jim’s just before it. So, sorry for the redundancy.
You guys may be right . . . but maybe not. In an ideal world where there is all the money you want, no tough decisions are to be made. But . . . with limited dollars you have to choose. Would you rather have the Woodchucks or neighborhood swimming pool, as an example? There are a lot of experiences I would like to have available. But they aren’t,and they won’t be,and the taxpayers shouldn’t have to provide them because I like them.
the B.B. King comparison is not relevant. He comes to toem, puts on his show, takes his money and leaves. Do the taxpayers subsidize that? On the other hand, expending city funds with ther notion that it will bring in revenue in the long run is a different story. My point is, and you can refute it if you want, is that bulk of the money exchanging hands concerning the Woodchucks originates in the area and stays in the area. The argument that building a new ballpark is a financial winner doesn’t seem to work The quality of life argument is pretty subjective. Based on the attendance for the Woodchucks, even assuming no one goes more than once a year, the people who view the games as important are in the minority. I think it will be a very hard sell to convince the taxpayers that even the smallest outlay is worth it because some people see it as a quality of life issue. Will there even be any money available to spend on “quality of life” expenditures considering the economic situation we are facing?
I think the BB King is a bit of misdirection.
Well … last time I’ll mention it: All of our fiscal comments are somewhat moot and baseless (pun intended) without the benefit of a factual economic impact report. What does the park and ballclub contribute to the local economy in employment, retail sales, taxes and licensing?
Beyond these numbers, what do we project that the community is gaining in marketing exposure, status and self-image vs what we stand to lose by having our more-than-70-year-old landmark ballpark fall into disrepair and oblivion in a nod to financial exigencies? What does that say about us as stewards of our culture and heritage and recreational infrastructure?
Last thing matthew: You seem to feel that the idea of money changing hands within the area is of little value and should not be supported by taxpayers. But, taxpayers support infrastructure improvements that make new commercial developments possible all the time. We pay for sewers, streets, curbs, sidewalks, street lights, fire hydrants, drainage ditches, and lots more so a new retail strip can go up (for a new check cashing store or Subway shop). Local business, local customers.
We put flower planters on downtown light poles (vintage-style lights by the way) and put up banners and holiday decorations and mow the grass and subsidize community events, etc. It all adds up. But loads of it pretty much only indirectly supports local commerce, rather than attracting outside money.
One thing is known: Attendance at the ballpark has set records time and again. It’s a success story. You want to protect things like that.
Tom -
I don’t downplay the exchange of dollars, but I think you cast doubt on your own argument. You say that fiscal comments are moot w/out an impact statement. Then you proceed to compare the expenditure with nothing but spending on necessities – sewers, streets, curbs sidewalk, etc – for commercial developments. Are these monies committed without a reasonable belief that the money will be returned to the taxpayers? I doubt it. My belief remains that the dollars that exchange hands are mostly dollars that would exchange hands anyway. People who go to the ballpark and spend money would spend their recreational dollars somewhere else around the area. I can’t prove that it would and you can’t prove that it wouldn’t. Taking a million dollars,or whatever, to keep the Woodchucks is never going to bring an additional million dollars into the area.
As to your other argument – the landmark ballpark. that’s a different question. If that’s the argument to make then the ballpark should be compared to other ‘historical’ facilities around town. The ballpark is certainly not as historic as the old part of Wausau high school or the old courthouse or other buildings that existed. At what point do you stop? Is the ballpark on any list of historical buildings? I don’t know. There are many buildings in Wausau that are older than the ballpark. Some people probably think money should be spent to preserve them.
Again I state that in the current economic situation decisions have to be made. Last year 63,179 people attended Woodchucks game. 25,500 used the neighborhood pools. Lots of people keep asking for more police on the streets. The jail situation is always in the headlines. Is subsidizing the Woodchucks more important that the pools, or the police or the jail? Or many other things people want?
I don’t think the argument works that it is a vital cultural opportunity to go to a ballgame. Last year only 63,179 went. And, if they didn’t get free tickets, that number would be much smaller. The question is how much money should the rest of us pay so that you and Jim can go to the ballgames?
Matthew, have you ever looked at the idea behind the ‘shop local’ movement? Your argument that because someone was going to spend the money anyways, that it doesn’t affect the local economy is way off. If a family decides that they want to go to a ball game instead of a movie; that does have an impact on the local economy. Whereas a lot of the money for the movie leaves the community right away, the funds spent on the ball game get reinvested back into the community by the woodchucks back as they spend their money locally. No the Woodchucks might not bring a million new dollars to the area, but they do continue to reinvest and re-circulate all their ticket revenue back into in the local economy, and they do pay 10% of their admission plus other expenses to the city.
Should not the city have some sort of obligation to reinvest that money into the ballpark to continue to keep it functional, and perhaps even improve it?
“and they do pay 10% of their admission plus other expenses to the city.” How much does that entail over the course of a year? Do the grounds crew expenses come out of it? To finance a one million dollar subsidy they would only have to sell 10 million dollars worth of tickets. Again, my main point. No one has addressed it. There is not an unlimited amount of money. Decisions have to be made. It’s simple. Is a new ballpark, or a remodeled one, more important to the cmmunity that neighborhood swimming pools? Or more police on the streets? Or a better jail system? Or any of the other things that people in the community want?
“Should not the city have some sort of obligation to reinvest that money into the ballpark to continue to keep it functional, and perhaps even improve it?” Okay, would you be willing to say that, after all the expenses associated with the ball park are subtracted, 100% of of the remaining amount be dedicated to keeping the ball park functional? But not one additional penny more? Further, I think that you oversimplify that all of the money acquired by the Woodchucks returns to the community. Who, for example, in the community makes the balls and bats and uniforms that are used every year? They, like many other things come from manufacturers and merchants outside of the community and the monies used to pay for them leaves the community.
Just stop and think: Revamped ballpark, better facility, increased interest and usage, a place not just for the Woodchucks but also for the school teams that already play there, and the possibility of additional events (tournaments). Buddy Holly played a concert there once, I’ve heard.
But matthew … consider your own words, “Taking a million dollars,or whatever, to keep the Woodchucks is never going to bring an additional million dollars into the area.”
You cite 63,000+ attendees. Yes, some got in for free. But how much do you think was spent on average for food and refreshments or team merchandise? Maybe $5 per head would be a very conservative estimate. I know I’ve spent much more on any given visit. But at $5 a head, that’s more than $300,000 in one season ($1 million in just three seasons!) … directly to area businesses. Now, let’s say that a chunk of that $300,000+ was spent on other recreational activities (possibly trips to see the Brewers or to a Dells water park, dinners at Applebee’s, UA Cinema, weekends in Minocqua, shopping at Best Buy, trips to Door County, etc.). How much of that $300,000+ actually LEFT the local area? You talk about new money coming in. I’m talking about money leaving.
A community must invest in its vitality, personality, recreational infrastructure, dynamism. It’s short-sighted to think otherwise. Dead communities are the ones that fail to invest in this way. I’ve seen way too many dead communities; don’t want to live in one.
Is a new ball park more important to the community than neighborhood swimming pools? An improved jail? More police on the streets? Or lots of other things? Are you suggesting we can have them all? If not why do you seem to put a new or remodeled ball park at the top of the list? If it’s not at the top, what is more important?
I just want to be the third Matt in this post. I like baseball. Never been to a Woodchucks game though.
I’m discussing the ballpark on its own merits, not vis-a-vis other needs or “lots of other things.” In no way have I put the ballpark at the top of any list. I think the riverfront’s development (beautification, reclamation, walkways, parks, river access, amenities, etc.) is hugely more important, with potentially far greater potential for attracting outside money (tourism, newcomers, businesses).
I know the ballpark issue doesn’t exist in a vacuum, but I expect only the city’s leadership knows the real budgetary context. I’m not big on jail improvement right now. I love having the neighborhood pools, but that’s just what they are … not attractions per se. I’d opt for the ballpark above both of those items. Remember, at least the ballpark has a private sector element … the investment the ballclub makes in the facility as well.
“I’m discussing the ballpark on its own merits, not vis-a-vis other needs or “lots of other things.” Unfortunately these discussions have to be in the context of other things. In an ideal world, everything has merit and deserves to be supported if someone wants it. My point originally was that there are limited dollars available and things need to be prioritized. The reality of it, I think, is that a great number of people would simply say don’t spend any money, just reduce the taxes. Much of the city’s leadership, based on their past performance, would adopt this position. Is improving the ball park or building a new one a good thing to do? Sure it is. Is it a necessary thing to do? That’s a much different question. To hear the city’s leaders speak is to hear that there is not enough money available to do what is necessary, much less to do ‘good things’.
I do find it interesting that you dismiss neighborhood pools as simply an attraction. I’m sure that there are many others who would argue that they contribute to the cultural attraction of the city, etc. that you find as a reason to impove the ball park. One person’s ‘culture’ is simply another person’s ‘attraction’. I’m also sure that there are people who would say they bought a home in a particular neighborhood because there was a pool nearby. Doesn’t that add to the economy of that neighborhood at least?
Absolutely, the neighborhood pools are nice and add to the city’s rich variety … but I personally place greater stock in the drawing and earning potential for the ballpark. I’d say the numbers probably back me up on that.
I said I loved the pools, but added that they were “not attractions” … not quite a dismissal, just a comparative value statement.
I don’t believe the community markets itself much on the strength of having those pools, but surely having that ball team is a marketable asset the city uses to attract people considering moving here and looking for recreational options. Just review the literature (top billing on the Wausau CVB’s Web site for attractions, and on the City of Wausau Web site’s list of attractions as “Historic Athletic Park”).
Well, I guess we’ll see if and when it comes to a vote. The problem with things like this are the value is subjective. You value the ball park and going to the ball games more than others do. Others, I’m sure, value other things and would like to see them funded. I’ll close with commenting that when this began you said it was fruitless to discuss the economic impact without hard data, yet you have referred many times since then to the imagined financial impact Woodchucks have. I guess your imaginings do not require hard financial impact studies. Once again I’ll ask why the taxpayers should be expecting to pay in excess to one million dollars because you and Tom like to go to the ball game? You’ve offered no other reason except your belief that the Woodchucks are good for the Wausau community.
Lacking any other hard data, I think the use of the season’s attendance number and a reasonable (conservative) per capita outlay for local goods and services gives us at least a … sorry … ballpark estimate … of potential financial impact. That’s a value conclusion that is more than subjective; it’s based on actual usage. And, actually, I’ve offered several sound reasons why the Woodchucks are good for the community. See posts #7 #15 #18 and #20 … all of them reference marketing value and tangible benefits. And you will recall that I stated a financial impact study would be very helpful to have. Contrary to what matthew has said a few times — i.e. that it’s just because I like to go to ballgames — the fact is, it’s much deeper than that. But, I think our back-and-forth has run its inevitable course. Let’s see how the city and the team play ball.
Here is an interesting perspective:
The city of Wausau is a landlord, the Woodchucks are a tenant. The Woodchucks approach the city complaining about the facility not being up to health code. Does the landlord not have an obligation to the tenant to provide a facility that is up to code?
The cost of bringing the facility up to code by remodeling the kitchens and bathrooms is approximately $240,000.
While debating the various options to bring the facility up to code, the landlord decides that before he spends the money he should make sure that it is inline with his long term plans for the facility. There is no point in remodeling something if it needs to be redone in a few years; you want to build something that will last for the next 50+ years. The landlord starts to draft a list of future needs and improvements while consulting with his tenant about what the tenant would like because the landlord is hoping that the tenant will continue to be a tenant and provide a source of income for a long time.
When they have finally created the list of future needs, the overall cost for remodeling the entire facility to meet the long-term needs of the tenant is $798,000; this number includes the remodeled bathrooms, kitchens, moving the field to accommodate bigger crowds, improved dugouts, grandstands, other seating areas, new scoreboard, and more. Some of the costs might be paid for by the tenant, but a lot of the costs would be paid for by the landlord.
Upon seeing this figure, the landlord decides he should shop around a bit, perhaps he can build a brand new facility for a comparable amount, and increase his income through increased rent. The landlord does not want to spend the initial $240,000 that it costs to make the initial improvement if he knows that in the long term, he will be building a new facility.
Upon seeing the final numbers for all the options that have been considered by the landlord; the local newspaper, being the best newspaper in the city decides to publish an article outlining the overall costs of the various options without detailing what is entailed within each. Instead of describing how the city got to the point where they are debating the spending of $240,000 initially, vs. $2-3 million for a new park, they decide to just report what the overall cost estimates for each option is since the landlord has not determined what their timeline for all the improvements would be if they decide to remodel, and the landlord might decided that he wants to do all the improvements at once instead of over a period of years to minimize the impact of all the work, and because some of the improvements might require that other improvements be done at the same time.
We are now at the current point of time, and the city is debating what they want to do.
If the city goes with the remodeling option, they have to make an initial expenditure of $240,000, and in the future they will probably spend more for more improvements to the park, but if they choose to not remodel and instead decide they want to build a new ballpark, then they have to start planning it pretty soon so that they can get a exemption for the current facility not being up to code, and the only way they can get the exemption is by showing good faith in improving the situation.