MCC HWAC Revenues and Costs Not Separated from Baseball Stadium’s

McHenry County College’s baseball stadium has gotten most of the attention of people interested in college expansion plans.

That has irritated those pushing the baseball stadium to no end, because they think the nursing program part of Health, Wellness and Athletic Complex is most important.

The MCC board majority would probably be surprised that, when they learn about it, most people agree.

“Why are they even talking about a baseball stadium?” is a typical reaction.

But, Economics Research Associates do not break out the revenue streams for the baseball stadium from those for the fitness center.

How strange.

As if ERA had been instructed not to do so.

My guess is that it’s because the baseball stadium will provide 36% (or something in that range) of the revenue, while its cost exceeds that.

For almost the entire debate prior to the city council vote, the public was led to believe that the baseball stadium would bring in 64% of the project revenues. That’s what the Northwest Herald reported MCC President Walt Packard said in early June, 2007.

But, he admitted to me that he misspoke in that interview.

64% is significantly more than what the expansion would cost.

Now the question is whether the baseball stadium will pay what it costs.

The first ERA report seemed to say the answer was “No.”

Revenue 36%.

Cost 38.5%.

I couldn’t find an updated answer in the 2nd ERA study.

One should be able to find that cost-benefit ratio.

It tells whether the taxpayers can expect to be forced to subsidize baseball promoter Pete Heitman’s and Mark Houser’s little game.

Now the question is whether the baseball stadium will pay what it costs.

I couldn’t find that answer in the ERA study.

One should be able to find that cost-benefit ratio.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.