Arvest Ballpark Maintenance Costs Growing

Posted: November 25, 2012 at 2:40 a.m.

Renovation and maintenance at Arvest Ballpark will run over $100,000 for the first time since it opened, but that’s below projected costs.

By The Numbers

Ballpark Maintenance

Requested Arvest Ballpark capital maintenance items:

-Infield Turf: $40,000

-Concession Signs: $15,000

-Concession outlets: $1,500

-Parking lot restriping: $7,600

-Painting: $10,000

-Locker room floors: $14,500

-Store light fixtures: $3,500

-Suite renovation: $64,000

-Concrete repair: $10,000

Total: $168,100

Source: City of Springdale

At A Glance

Annual Costs

Yearly cost of Arvest Ballpark maintenance

-2008: $2,115

-2009: $1,798

-2010: $5,345

-2011: $86,104

-2012: $192,150*

*Cost in 2012 is an estimated maximum expense.

Source: City of Springdale

This story is only available from our archives.

Could turn it into a soccer stadium, but they built it on the wrong side of town.

Posted by: JailBird

November 25, 2012 at 6:46 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

See, who says socialism is a BAD THING??

Springdale and its Chamber of Commerce love socialism.

Posted by: cdawg

November 25, 2012 at 9:33 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

The costs associated with renovating the suites could be paid by the one that rented it for the season.

Posted by: Te

November 25, 2012 at 2:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Problem is many of them are not rented and raise the rent and 90% won't be rented.

Posted by: JailBird

November 25, 2012 at 2:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I'm sorry but why exactly do we have this team here if they can't pay for these things on their own? This was probably another one of those deals brought to us by the Old Farts Union.

I agree with Moneymyst. Turn it in to a soccer stadium.

Posted by: hmcbryanh03120946

November 25, 2012 at 4:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

It's here because someone sold the Brooklyn bridge to Little Mexico (Springdale).

Posted by: JailBird

November 25, 2012 at 4:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Selling socialism in Little Mexico is easy. The Chamber does it over and over, at least twice each year when the Chamber sells the Council of Little Mexico the idea that they and only they deserve $250,000 for promoting business in Little Mexico.

Then a second time when Chamber sells the Council of Little Mexico the idea that the Chamber should be the recipient of another $75,000 for Advertising and Promotion for Little Mexico.

Springdale-Little Mexico loves socialism more than you will ever know.

Posted by: cdawg

November 25, 2012 at 5:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Now, when it comes to actually supporting real business, like Sam's Wholesale, the Council and Chamber of Little Mexico don't care much for free enterprise. They like to deny regular capitalistic companies the right to do business.

Think Love's.

Posted by: cdawg

November 25, 2012 at 5:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Right on there, cdawg, but they did get McAnooooles, pay back maybe.

Posted by: JailBird

November 25, 2012 at 5:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Sell the stadium to a pro soccer francise and require a percentage income from the following years to go to the city. Maybe that will make the people that complain about Springdale so much shut up, but I doubt it. It's curious how so-called "Progressives" hate the Spanish speaking residents of Springdale so much that they use pejoratively toned names like "Little Mexico". As for others, I'm not suprised with the phishing for a fight. Typical.

Posted by: Tankersley101

November 25, 2012 at 8:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

How about getting the staff at the Chamber of Commerce to get out there and do the maintenance...they don't seem to be doing anything else

Posted by: Apbacker

November 25, 2012 at 8:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I always thought of "Little Mexico" as a loving toned name for Chickendale. Oh! stomp my foot, there I go again. Bad me, now I'm a chicken hater.

Posted by: JailBird

November 26, 2012 at 6:45 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

think how much wear and tear that stadium would have had if the city had actually built a road to it and more people used it? this might have been offset a little by the increased revenues some other business might have brought in. but since at least one of those proponents quoted in the story above demands a high price (not supported by the market) for much of the land around the stadium, restaurants and stores are going elsewhere (well that and a lack of decent road access for 4 years+)

Posted by: MartinBalsam

November 26, 2012 at 8:56 a.m. ( | suggest removal )