Bob Yancy said:

---

Sub4 said:

---

College Station Engineers

It has tie ins to both the railroad history of the town, and A&M as an engineering school. Also a little less on the nose than "Academics".

---

The Spirit of '02, the Cannon fired at football games, offers history, alliteration, and the double entendre of a Cannon, and a pitcher's arm.

I hold to the College Station Cannons :-)

But the Bombers is cool, too

Respectfully

Yancy '95

---

So help me if you use the Arsenal logo

Bombers plan for next summer.

Another part of this story was addressed during today's Bryan City Council meeting. I recommend watching it:

https://bryantx.new.swagit.com/videos/349102

IrishTex said:

---

Another part of this story was addressed during today's Bryan City Council meeting. I recommend watching it:

https://bryantx.new.swagit.com/videos/349102

---

Starts at 18:20

Thanks for sharing - that was definitely worth a listen.

Brian Alg said:

---

I am not criticizing lack of use. I am criticizing building something for no particular reason; with no attempt to figure out plausible costs and benefits of the project.

City leadership seems intent on building a white elephant.

I don't know what the terms of the Bombers deal will be. Bombers seem to be acting as though it has already been signed. But the taxpayers, who are the ones footing the bill, are still in the dark. But I suspect if there were 6 Bombers organizations waiting in the wings to strike a similar deal and occupy the park year round, it would still be a net loss for taxpayers.

It is hard to tell, though. Because the City of College Station is doing laughably little due diligence. Seriously, I show people with any familiarity with finance or accounting the cost estimates the city has and they laugh. I cannot overstate how embarrassed city leadership should feel for going forward with this. It is a joke.

---

I just hope that it is not a field of broken dreams: "Build it and no one will come"

I have never dived into any city budget (I have seen most episodes of Parks and Recreation). I cannot imagine any Parks department breaking even based solely on user fees and rentals. The taxpayers foot the bill.

When is it too much? Central Park in New York is nice. But would that be better used in the tax rolls? Hermann Park in Houston? Prime real estate.

Some city services serve the needs of the residents, but also attracts tourists. Who come and pay HOT tax and sales tax. Is it ever truly traceable, and if so, shows a break even point? Smarter people than me know the answer to that.

Mr.Short-termMemory said:

---

Brian Alg said:

---

Bryan kind of has an excuse. They have a ballfield and nothing better to do with it (assuming this agreement will cover maintenance and operations costs).

But for the life of me I cannot figure out what the hell College Station leadership is thinking spending millions of dollars get wrapped up in this mess. It makes no sense.

Best case anyone with the city has made is something like "We aren't building it for the Bombers, we are building it for no particular reason whatsoever. It just so happens that the Bombers are the only people who want to use it."

Bananas

---

Just like Bryan, College Station will have a ballfield and one tenant to start.

And I'll put money down that says the Bombers won't be the only people who want to use that field once built. It's easy to criticize the lack of use for something that doesn't exist yet.

---

Travis Park, now Travis Field, was used by the Bryan highschool and youth leagues, adult leagues and even A&M on occasion for 40 yrs or more. The city has gotten great value from that old stadium. The question is will College Station ever get any value from this place they are apparently building for the CS Cannons or whatever the new name will be.

Bryanisbest said:

---

Mr.Short-termMemory said:

---

Brian Alg said:

---

Bryan kind of has an excuse. They have a ballfield and nothing better to do with it (assuming this agreement will cover maintenance and operations costs).

But for the life of me I cannot figure out what the hell College Station leadership is thinking spending millions of dollars get wrapped up in this mess. It makes no sense.

Best case anyone with the city has made is something like "We aren't building it for the Bombers, we are building it for no particular reason whatsoever. It just so happens that the Bombers are the only people who want to use it."

Bananas

---

Just like Bryan, College Station will have a ballfield and one tenant to start.

And I'll put money down that says the Bombers won't be the only people who want to use that field once built. It's easy to criticize the lack of use for something that doesn't exist yet.

---

Travis Park, now Travis Field, was used by the Bryan highschool and youth leagues, adult leagues and even A&M on occasion for 40 yrs or more. The city has gotten great value from that old stadium. The question is will College Station ever get any value from this place they are apparently building for the CS Cannons or whatever the new name will be.

---

I agree on the value for Travis Field. And since Travis Field was, and is, so useful, and as our community has continued to grow, I think adding more opportunities is a good idea.

We won't know the true answer to the question of value until after it's built. Veterans Park as a whole, as it's been expanded, has been a huge success. The only thing missing the baseball opportunities there. And sand volleyball.

As to the dig that the the building is FOR the Bombers, I think you're revising history. New ballparks have been targeted by the City of CS for about 4 years, since before the Texas Independence Park plan. The fact that the City already has an agreement to use a city facility not yet created should be applauded, in my opinion.

24 minute mark starts to tell the story of what really happened

Travis Major Field has had numerous names. Travis Bryan (Sr) arranged to have the ball park built in the late 40's. He owned a controlling interest in a minor league pro baseball team named the Bryan Bombers, a name associated with the old Bryan Air Force Base, now the RELLIS CAMPUS. The baseball park was originally named Bomber Park. The cross street behind the outfield fence was and still is named Bomber Drive. The pro team was disbanded in the early 50's due to expenses exceeding income.

Travis Bryan (sr) allowed the Hispanic beer league baseball teams to use the baseball park for their league. One of their teams was named Jax Lulacs. Their only obligation was to make sure the facility was kept in good shape. The beer league named the field "Mr Travis's Field." Years later, the facility was conveyed by Mr Bryan to the city. It then began to be used for teenage Little League (Connie Mack) baseball for players Highschool age. It was then named Travis Park. Bryan's Stephen F Austin High School played their games there too for about 20 years. SFA won the Texas State Baseball Championship playing their home games there in 1957. A&M played at least one game there, an NCAA playoff game in about 1957 against the University of Arizona.

Somehow the name of the field got changed from Travis Park to Travis Field. Now the city is starting to call it Travis Major Field. The name that the facility went by for the longest period of time was Travis Park.

That old stadium has a glorious history beginning with Bomber Park. It has been a major source of recreation and family entertainment for a long long time. I hope the new CS team abandons the name Bombers because that name belongs to Bryan. I hope the new team that plays there will get back the old historic names, Bryan Bombers playing at Travis Park located on Bomber Drive in Bryan, Texas!

CS Mayor Nichols on WTAW discussing the new ballparks at Veterans Park.

Starts at 7:50 or so

Detective Jake Peralta said:

---

The fields, in my opinion, are needed regardless of whether the Bombers are a tenant and will be a good asset to the community.

---

Not trying to be combative or gotcha or anything. I am legit trying to figure out the steel man upside for cost/benefit analysis.

Do you think Bombers lease is likely to be the highest/best use for the championship field?

If not, what do you think is likely to be the highest/best use? Leasing to a different summer league style team like Bryan? Some other use?

If a different use, is the Championship field necessary (worth an extra $5 million)?

Obviously it depends on the terms of the lease. If similar to the last 18 years at Travis Field, it will be an utter disaster.

However, I think the city of CS will learn. If the lease is similar to the new one in Bryan, I think it will be a piece of the highest/ best use. If the Bombers are using the new ballfield the same timeframe as at Travis, they had 24 home games over 2 months. If the city of CS attracts tournaments on the open weekends, it's a good fit. Plus, the Bombers will only use it 2 months out of the year. That means you can try to attract tournaments and high school playoff games solely for 8-10 months.

The mistake Bryan made was giving the Bombers the exclusive use. CS won't make that mistake.

In Bryan's defense, when the Bombers came stole 19 years ago, Travis Field was not in use (IIRC). Why not let a baseball team use a field sitting dormant? The Bombers brought the field back to life. And helped trigger the renovation of the Little League fields next door, and then Midtown. The original agreement was fine 19 years ago, but wore out its welcome when Midtown sprung up and the Bombers weren't keeping up with nearby newness.

Mr.Short-termMemory said:

---

If the lease is similar to the new one in Bryan, I think it will be a piece of the highest/ best use. If the Bombers are using the new ballfield the same timeframe as at Travis, they had 24 home games over 2 months. If the city of CS attracts tournaments on the open weekends, it's a good fit. Plus, the Bombers will only use it 2 months out of the year. That means you can try to attract tournaments and high school playoff games solely for 8-10 months.

---

Thanks for this. I'd like to use it as part of my analysis for cost/benefit of the championship field.

For outside Bombers' season use, do you think Bombers' revenue from renting out Travis Major would be a good proxy? I would figure so since it was a similar kind of field in the same area. Not sure what could be a better comparable.

But if you or anyone else has a better idea for an estimate (or a different idea for the highest/best use), I am very interested.

Thank you for your input. That is super helpful. Regarding this:

Detective Jake Peralta said:

---

Personally, I'm okay with the city subsidizing an awesome place for kids in our community to play baseball 4-5 nights a week. But I understand not everyone will share that.

---

Is there a level of subsidizing that would be too much? Like, if taxpayers were subsidizing $300 per weekday a field was used would that be too expensive? $500? $1,000? $5,000?

I think community use should be included in the cost/benefit analysis. But to do that, there needs to be some reasonable value to use. If it cost taxpayers $5k per weekday that little leaguers used a field, I would imagine most everybody would say that would be too much. Is $300 too little?

Do you (or anybody else) have a suggestion for a reasonable value for that?

.

Quote:

---

But the main users will be kids in the community on travel ball and little league teams practicing and playing games. They will pay rental fees that cover upkeep, but if you're looking for cost-benefit from a pure business sense it probably won't be there.

Personally, I'm okay with the city subsidizing an awesome place for kids in our community to play baseball 4-5 nights a week. But I understand not everyone will share that.

---

I no longer have kids that age, but that's where I stand.

College Station is growing and if that growth is young families, that is a good thing. You have to have things that attracts young families if they are to stay here or move here.

Parks, recreation fields, art programs, etc...

IMO the rental fees and HOT will not come even close to the costs associated with the fields, Construction alone will be in the millions and plan on replacing the turf every 8-10 years. With so many area turf fields out there ( College Station ISD coming on line, Franklin, probably Bryan in the near future) , it will be difficult to charge high rates and be competitive. Residents just need to ask themselves if the benefit of having the fields in terms of recreation, overall benefit to the community, youth leagues, team practices, etc. is worth the cost.

turfman80 said:

---

IMO the rental fees and HOT will not come even close to the costs associated with the fields, Construction alone will be in the millions and plan on replacing the turf every 8-10 years. With so many area turf fields out there ( College Station ISD coming on line, Franklin, probably Bryan in the near future) , it will be difficult to charge high rates and be competitive. Residents just need to ask themselves if the benefit of having the fields in terms of recreation, overall benefit to the community, youth leagues, team practices, etc. is worth the cost.

---

I am ok with it for youth sports.

If they build it I'd like 3 regular fields instead of 2 with 1 fancy one for the Bombers.

amateur gene ecologist said:

---

turfman80 said:

---

IMO the rental fees and HOT will not come even close to the costs associated with the fields, Construction alone will be in the millions and plan on replacing the turf every 8-10 years. With so many area turf fields out there ( College Station ISD coming on line, Franklin, probably Bryan in the near future) , it will be difficult to charge high rates and be competitive. Residents just need to ask themselves if the benefit of having the fields in terms of recreation, overall benefit to the community, youth leagues, team practices, etc. is worth the cost.

---

username checks out

What's the cost to replace turf on a baseball field?

Ballpark figures, so to speak.

---

Right now it costs about $675,000 to re-turf a football field, all the areas inside a running track. Based on the larger average size of a college baseball field, that would translate to approx. $825,000 in todays dollar to replace an entire worn out baseball carpet. My best guesstimate.

turfman80 said:

---

amateur gene ecologist said:

---

turfman80 said:

---

IMO the rental fees and HOT will not come even close to the costs associated with the fields, Construction alone will be in the millions and plan on replacing the turf every 8-10 years. With so many area turf fields out there ( College Station ISD coming on line, Franklin, probably Bryan in the near future) , it will be difficult to charge high rates and be competitive. Residents just need to ask themselves if the benefit of having the fields in terms of recreation, overall benefit to the community, youth leagues, team practices, etc. is worth the cost.

---

username checks out

What's the cost to replace turf on a baseball field?

Ballpark figures, so to speak.

---

Right now it costs about $675,000 to re-turf a football field, all the areas inside a running track. Based on the larger average size of a college baseball field, that would translate to approx. $825,000 in todays dollar to replace an entire worn out baseball carpet. My best guesstimate.

---

~$800k gets you approx. 10 years of playable field, so that's 80k per year to have a turf field, without any other maintenance. A little over 6k a month. $200 per day.

So the facility needs to bring in $200 every day just to cover the cost of resurfacing the field.

Thanks for the info!