The Lucas County Commissioners contracted with Gateway Consulting Group of Cleveland to provide them with an action plan, not a list of options but an action plan, to address three important questions:

1. Should the County take steps to provide a renovated or new ballpark for the Triple A Toledo Mud Hens baseball team?
2. If the answer to the first question is “no” to renovation and “yes” to a new ballpark, then where should it be located?
3. How should a new ballpark be funded and financed?

Gateway Consulting Group addressed the assignment on four fronts. First, we did a background review of past efforts within the community to fund and build major capital improvement projects. We paid particular attention to a study conducted for the 1998 stadium campaign. That report prepared by the well-respected accounting firm KMPG Peat Marwick and noted architecture firm HOK Sport provided a comprehensive and current assessment of the Northwest Ohio sports market. The existence of this report gave us a baseline assessment of the area’s market strength, traffic and parking concerns, and prior site proposals. We considered the economic data as sufficiently current so as not to have to duplicate that effort in our work. This greatly helped to reduce the time and expense that our work would require and allowed us to concentrate on other aspects that our expertise could bring to bear on matters not addressed in this or other prior studies or projects.

Second, during a three month period, we met with over 120 members of the Northwest Ohio community leadership to determine if there was a consensus on whether to renovate the old stadium or build a new ballpark; if the consensus was for a new ballpark, then where to locate it; and what the community was willing to do to finance it. We met with leaders from organized labor, large and small business, banking, the media, and community action groups. In the political arena we met with leaders from the Congressional and state legislative delegations, all levels of Lucas County and City of Toledo governments, and suburban mayors.

Third, we sought assistance from Lucas County-based firms to examine some fundamental concerns. A consulting engineering firm examined eight potential locations to determine if they were suitable for constructing a ballpark. We also had a real estate company determine the potential acquisition cost for those sites that were controlled by multiple property owners.

Fourth, Gateway sought the general public’s input from a series of four public forums, television and radio call-in shows, and public appearances throughout Northwest Ohio.

Part of our role during the work on these four fronts was to collect data. While the data is instructive as to public sentiment, funding options and site preference, we also used our past experience and our best professional judgment in developing the recommendations in this Action Plan. Whether those ultimate recommendations are popular or unpopular, they are rendered based upon Gateway’s expertise and knowledge in handling prior major and minor league projects. That is the filter through which we have based our judgment as to the best plan for the community to accomplish its goals relative to the Mud Hens.

Following are Gateway Consulting Group’s recommendations developed in response to the questions that the Lucas County Commissioners have charged us to answer.

QUESTION 1: Should anything be done by the County to provide a new or renovated ballpark for the Toledo Mud Hens Triple A baseball team?
The answers to this two-part question are clearly “yes” to a new ballpark and “no” to renovating the current facility. Every person within the leadership community of Northwest Ohio with whom we met advocated action by both the County and the private sector to build a new facility for the Mud Hens. No one among the leadership community argued for the renovation of Ned Skeldon Stadium. Within the community leadership, there were two frequently cited reasons against renovation. First, the funds needed to bring 65 year old Ned Skeldon Stadium up to minimum acceptable standards would be better spent on financing a new facility. Second, the current facility has done little if anything to promote related economic benefit to the County and there is no evidence to suggest that renovation of the site would improve the potential for economic benefit.

The public also made it clear that a new ballpark was the preferred choice. During the public forums and media call-in shows, very few members of the general public stated that they wanted Ned Skeldon Stadium renovated. The overwhelming majority of the general public who expressed a view on this issue advocated for the building of a new ballpark. Based on this input plus our knowledge of the positive impact that a new ballpark has in both major league and minor league cities, we conclude that a new ballpark is the correct action for the Northwest Ohio community. It is also the better option for the future viability of the Mud Hens franchise.

QUESTION 2: If the answer to Question No. 1 is “Yes” to building a new ballpark, then where should that facility be built?
Among the community leadership of Northwest Ohio, the near unanimous choice for the location of a new ballpark was in the downtown Toledo Warehouse District. No one suggested that a new ballpark should be built at the Lucas County Recreation Center and there was little support among the leadership community for the Sports Arena area. The primary reasons given for the Warehouse District are that it is the best location for generating related economic development activity; if sited properly it could become a signature piece of architecture for Lucas County; and it could be a critical step in a long term effort to revitalize the core downtown.

In addition, we believe that a Warehouse District location will provide several other critical financial advantages to the region and the Mud Hens franchise. First, the team will attract more fans to a new facility and expand the fan base into newer segments of the community. This will have a positive impact on the financial well being of the region and the franchise. The corporate community is more willing to invest in and support a well-sited ballpark as it increases their opportunities for audience marketing and employment recruitment. A properly located ballpark will also increase the marketing opportunity for the naming rights. All of these potential new revenue sources are private, not public, dollars that are realizable only if the ballpark is sited in a location that is attractive to private financial investment. We also believe that there is greater potential for non-baseball events in a downtown site than at other “destination” sites.

The arguments against the current facility at the Recreation Center are that it is too far removed from the rest of the Northwest Ohio community to have any economic impact on the area and that it does nothing to promote economic development activity. The facility was also viewed as being too old and ill-designed for a massive renovation to provide any measurable improvement to the experience of watching a baseball game.

The Sports Arena site was considered too isolated from both the surrounding East Side neighborhood and from the core area of downtown to have much chance of providing any related economic development to either the East Side or to the downtown area generally. Many in the community leadership thought that the East Side is developing a strong reputation as a restaurant and entertainment area, and it is becoming increasingly attractive for in-city housing. A ballpark at the Sports Arena location may do more harm than good to the growth and development of the East Side’s potential for developing new and renovating older structures for housing.

Within the corporate community and among those individuals who may invest in a new ballpark, there was no interest in making a private financial commitment if a ballpark was built at either the Recreation Center or Sports Arena sites. We believe that the purchasing of suites in a new ballpark and the selling of the naming rights can generate seven million dollars of the cost from the private sector.

Both of these funding sources will be significantly enhanced by a Warehouse District location. These economic advantages offset the factor of no or low cost land at the Recreation Center or Sports Arena sites, neither of which will generate significant financial interest from the private sector.

Those members of the general public, who voiced an opinion about location, strongly supported a new ballpark in the Warehouse District. The general public’s reasons closely mirrored those of the community leadership. A vibrant and energetic downtown was a high priority among those who favored a Warehouse District ballpark. Proponents believe that a new ballpark can be a significant economic catalyst for the redevelopment of downtown. They also asserted that a new ballpark in downtown would do much to heighten public spirit in Northwest Ohio. The Warehouse District was the only area of the three under consideration that enjoyed strong support regardless of where the public gathering was held.

Based upon the work Gateway has conducted and our past experience with other sports projects, we recommend that a new downtown ballpark should be constructed on a site in the Warehouse District that is bounded by Huron, Monroe, St. Clair and Washington Streets. We believe this location provides the best opportunity for strengthening and growing the Mud Hens’ fan base. This location also offers the best opportunity for using a new ballpark as a catalyst for economic development and urban revitalization. Constructing a ballpark at this site would heighten related retail, commercial and residential opportunities in the central city.

If oriented with homeplate on the corner of Huron and Washington, this site would offer a panoramic view of the Toledo city skyline. A ballpark on this site would become a dramatic entry point into the Warehouse area and connect the central office business district to the Warehouse District.

The recommended site also has ample available parking. The lot at Ned Skeldon Stadium is 1/2 mile long and contains 1,400 spaces. Within 1/8th of a mile of the preferred site (approximately 2 blocks), there are 1,693 spaces. Within 1/4th of a mile of the recommended site (approximately 4 blocks) there are about 6,623 spaces. If you go out to 3/8ths of a mile, or approximately a 6 block walk, there are approximately 9,884 parking spaces. A ballpark at this Warehouse site would also be within a ten minute walk for most downtown workers in the central business core. It provides quick ingress and egress in four directions with easy access to I-75, I-280 and the Anthony Wayne Trail. The site would also maintain an historical baseball reference, as Swayne Field, the Mud Hens last urban ballpark, was located at the corner of Monroe and Detroit.

Along with recommending this site, we also recommend that the historical buildings that start on the corner of Washington and St. Clair and extend toward Monroe along St. Clair be preserved and incorporated into the ultimate design of the new ballpark. We also strongly recommend that the area on the northeast corner of Monroe and St. Clair (extending to the end of the property line of the historic buildings) directly across from the Seagate Convention Centre be preserved for future expansion of that facility. Finally, we recommend, except for the necessary demolition of the buildings on this site, that Lucas County and the City of Toledo propose a moratorium on the demolition of any building in the Warehouse District for the purpose of creating new parking. This ballpark, to serve as a catalyst for growth, has to be a complementary building to its neighborhood. It cannot do so if the neighborhood’s buildings are razed to create unnecessary parking.

QUESTION 3: If it is determined that a new or renovated ballpark is to be built, then how will it be funded and financed?
Among both the leadership community and the general public in Northwest Ohio, there was an expressed reluctance to have the public bear the entire cost of paying for a new ballpark. There was, however, strong support for the use of existing public funds for a ballpark if significant financial commitments were forthcoming from the private sector. We are convinced that Lucas County residents would like to see a new ballpark for the Mud Hens. It is equally clear they want the private sector to step forward and share the cost of such a project. It is readily apparent that for a new ballpark to be built it had to be done as a Public/Private Partnership. If such a Partnership can be formed to build a new ballpark, we recommend that the local public share come from using existing public funding sources.

Our work in Lucas County and our experience in numerous other cities strongly suggests that the public will agree to participate financially in a Public/Private Partnership aimed at constructing a new ballpark. We believe a new ballpark can be built for the Mud Hens if the Mud Hens and the private sector contribute about half of the total cost of development and construction; and if the public is reasonably assured that it will not have to subsidize the operation and maintenance of the new venue.

It should be noted that the proposed sales tax initiative in 1998 would have made almost the entire cost of a new ballpark, then estimated at $25.5 million, as a fully public commitment. With a Public/Private Partnership we believe that the local public money contributed to a new ballpark will be about $14 million; considerably less than that requested in the proposed sales tax plan. Consequently, we recommend that the Commissioners seek to develop a Public/Private Partnership to fund the proposed new Ballpark. This partnership should consist of the County and the Mud Hens in the lead roles; the State of Ohio and the corporate community in significant supporting roles; and various contributions from other public and private sector entities.