New Vikings Stadium on Da Move Forward (Part 9).

[Shack]

Sounds as if some stadium talk is happening again. The Vikings lease for the Dome is up in 2012 so that leaves 2 seasons (only) left. I do not have the quote but I had heard today Ziggy has said something will happen by Feb. 2012 if a new stadium is not firmly on the build by then. Speculators say he will move the team or sell it and the new owners will most likely move the Vikings.

Pawlenty had some not so positive things to saw (he is in Washington again) about a recently submitted bill, but things are moving forward. I guess right now is the time to build a new one. With interest rates at major lows and construction companies & unions willing to negotiate good prices to get their work forces back to work. Sounded as if the Brooklyn Park location is a no go, but the possibility of the Metro Dome becoming a major player for the new stadium is an actuality.

Quote:

Legislators to unveil Vikings stadium legislation Monday

With adjournment looming and key elements still undecided, legislators will announce a push for a Vikings stadium.

By MIKE KASZUBA, Star Tribune

Last update: May 3, 2010 - 3:16 PM

After months of speculation, a proposal for a new Minnesota Vikings stadium will be unveiled Monday at the State Capitol just as legislators begin their final two weeks of work, still facing major decisions on the state's budget deficit.

In a note to lawmakers on Sunday, the likely chief House author confirmed that the much-discussed stadium drive would move forward despite opposition and a race against the clock before legislative adjournment on May 17. House Ways and Means Chairman Loren Solberg said the plan for the $800 million stadium would rely on "strictly user fees" for public funding.

"Nothing is set in stone. No deals have been made," Solberg said in a note to DFL and Republican legislators. "So you won't be blindsided, we are writing to let you know we intend to announce some options ... to start a discussion."

The note, signed by Solberg and Rep. Joe Hoppe, R-Chaska, said that no stadium funding plan would be presented to Gov. Tim Pawlenty until a "state budget solution is figured out." But Solberg told legislators that because of "low interest rates, a good bidding climate and a 40 percent unemployment rate in the [building] trades, now is a good time to talk about construction jobs."

Lawmakers began the session in February staring at a $1 billion deficit. While budget cuts and federal money should help short term, projections show that the state's deficit could swell to nearly $7 billion by 2013. Legislators have yet to agree on funding for health and human services and education, which make up about 70 percent of the state's budget.

Stadium supporters and others have identified a series of possible revenue streams, including a sports memorabilia tax, a new state lottery game and sales taxes in Minneapolis, where the team now plays. But all of those proposals, according to proponents, face resistance from legislators, the public or local businesses. The president of the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce recently said his group opposes a hotel and lodging tax under consideration as one revenue source.

Frustration among stadium proponents bubbled up last week when Sen. Tom Bakk, the Senate Taxes Committee chair and likely chief Senate author, said supporters also did not know whether top House and Senate leaders intended to fast-track the legislation. House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, the DFL-endorsed gubernatorial candidate, has remained vague about the stadium project. Solberg's announcement set off intense speculation over how far a stadium funding plan would go, and which route it might take in the House, where significant opposition is expected.

Rep. Gene Pelowski, DFL-Winona, who chairs a key House state and local government panel, said Sunday he is troubled by the prospect of stadium hearings at a time when legislators are cutting funding for the poor and he still has more than 400 proposed bills awaiting a committee hearing. Pelowski said that when Solberg talked to him last week about the Vikings proposal, Pelowski showed him pictures of groups representing people with disabilities.

"We're going to be cutting these individuals -- again -- and they have no billion-dollar owners, or million-dollar players," Pelowski said, referring to Vikings owner Zygi Wilf. "[solberg's] reaction was, 'I know, I know, I know.' And I go, 'You might know, Loren, [but] I have to represent these people, and they have no safety net.' "

Head count

Meanwhile, there were reports Sunday that Vikings lobbyists had begun informal head counts of key legislative panels to determine whether they had enough votes to pass a proposal out of a particular panel.

House Taxes Chair Ann Lenczewski, DFL-Bloomington, a key figure, said she was "disappointed" the stadium plan was moving forward despite the state's more pressing needs. "I'm going to fight it," she said.

A longtime opponent of public subsidies for sports facilities, Lenczewski criticized the fact that the announcement will be led by non-metro legislators -- Solberg, a DFLer, is from Grand Rapids -- and that many of the proposed funding sources would fall more heavily on metro residents. She said she fears that Vikings strategists may try an end-run around the House by passing the bill through the Senate and then inserting it into a House-Senate conference committee bill.

"It'll be an interesting final two weeks," she said.

Lenczewski and others also said that having the stadium drive led by outstate legislators in the House would mirror the controversial -- but ultimately successful -- strategy used by the Twins in 2006, when legislation that led to Target Field was approved.

But Hoppe said the momentum to help the Vikings is widespread among DFLers and Republicans. The team's lease at the aging Metrodome expires next year and the Vikings have said they will not extend it without a deal for a new stadium. The Vikings have offered to pay a third of the cost.

Hoppe said that even with only two weeks remaining, there is enough time to close a deal. "When your authors are Rep. Solberg and [sen.] Bakk, I think there's probably enough time," said Hoppe of the two powerhouse legislators. Rep. Paul Marquart, DFL-Dilworth, who chairs a House panel on property and local sales taxes, said he could see a stadium being approved -- provided the state first solves its budget dilemma.

"I do think the Legislature can think of more than one thing at a time," he said.

Mike Kaszuba •

Quote:

May 2, 2010 3:31 pm US/Central

Lawmakers To Propose Plan For New Vikings Stadium

ST. PAUL (WCCO) ―

A bipartisan group of at least four Minnesota lawmakers are set to present their plan to pay for a new stadium for the Minnesota Vikings.

The group led by Senate Taxes Chairman Tom Bakk put out a news release Sunday afternoon saying they would have a press conference at 9 a.m. Monday at the state Capitol.

A Senate spokesman says no details will be released until then.

Team officials have said they are hoping for some action on the issue this year, noting the Metrodome lease runs out after 2011.

WCCO's Pat Kessler reported last Wednesday that the final details for a Minnesota Vikings stadium were coming together.

Lawmakers told Kessler that the bill envisions a $791 million fixed-roof Vikings football facility, in the metro area, but will not be site-specific.

It would be paid for by a menu of options including, a sports-memorabilia tax, a hotel-lodging tax, a rental car tax and continuation of a tax that helped build the Minneapolis Convention Center.

The authors of the bill are Sen. Tom Bakk, DFL-Cook, Rep. Loren Solberg, DFL-Grand Rapids, Sen. Julie Rosen, R-Fairmont and Rep. Morrie Lanning, R-Moorhead. Other lawmakers and additional stadium supporters will be at the morning press conference.

[SkunkedAgain]

The thing that I don't understand is how they expect to pay this over 40 years. The Met opened in 1956. The Vikings played there from 1961-81. So they played for 20 years in a 25 year old stadium. Then they moved to the Dome, playing from 1982 until lets say 2012. That's 30 years and they are crying for a new stadium. How do they think they are going to pay off public bonds for 40 years when the team (or NFL) will be demanding a new stadium in another 20-30 years?

Did we not learn anything from the mortgage crisis with folks getting upside down in their loans? How is this any different? We will still owe money on a stadium that is "unusable" in 20-30 years.

Don't get me wrong, I am in favor of a new stadium and recognize that public tax dollars will be used some how, but 40 years seems idiotic and ridiculous!

[PierBridge]

I like this plan but IMO it's just to late for anything to pass this session.

[solbes]

I kinda like it too. It's a lot like how Phoenix pays for stadiums. I rented a car there once. The tax was astronomically high, close to 20%. I guess I'm part owner of the Cardinals football arena

[LMITOUT]

Wasn't the Dome financed partly by "entertainment" taxes through things such as hotel and car rentals?

If so, what is the expiration date on those taxes? Has the Dome been bought and paid for yet?

I like the proposal as it revolves around those who would use the stadium and/or have interest in the franchise. IMO the racino would have been better since it's completely voluntary (gambling), but this idea is OK too. I have a feeling that it won't get done this year though. It's just too late in the game and there are too many people on the fence to sway over. Not to mention, some of the critical people involved are running for governor or their seats in the legislature.

A few things that bother me about this idea is the 40 year agreement, which I think is a pipe dream, and the amount of contribution by the team. The amount they should kick in should be much higher than what was mentioned....maybe double.

[solbes]

Zigi was in for what, 264 mil? If the team value doubles, I agree he should be in for more than that. It would then be a break even move if he sold the day it was built. The investment in a new facility would generate substantially more annual revenue, so long term it could be huge for him. You want a new football stadium in an economic crisis, then you should put up some serious dough. Unfortunately that's not how it works.

[SkunkedAgain]

It's a popular term these days, so I'll toss it out there: clawback. There should be a clawback provision for public dollars if the team value and/or revenues increase beyond a certain point. It allows the team to gain a stronger foothold but not to reap a windfall in the face of public taxes.

[zepman]

It's a popular term these days, so I'll toss it out there: clawback. There should be a clawback provision for public dollars if the team value and/or revenues increase beyond a certain point. It allows the team to gain a stronger foothold but not to reap a windfall in the face of public taxes.

I like this idea. As for Zyggi, I think he's putting up the same percentage as other owners have in getting their new stadiums built. I can't confirm this but have heard (KFAN) Jerry Jones and the new Cowboys stadium as one example. I just don't get why they won't let the Racino open up and let those who CHOOSE to spend their $$$$ there do so.

[collegepaul]

The thing that I don't understand is how they expect to pay this over 40 years. The Met opened in 1956. The Vikings played there from 1961-81. So they played for 20 years in a 25 year old stadium. Then they moved to the Dome, playing from 1982 until lets say 2012. That's 30 years and they are crying for a new stadium. How do they think they are going to pay off public bonds for 40 years when the team (or NFL) will be demanding a new stadium in another 20-30 years?

Did we not learn anything from the mortgage crisis with folks getting upside down in their loans? How is this any different? We will still owe money on a stadium that is "unusable" in 20-30 years.

Don't get me wrong, I am in favor of a new stadium and recognize that public tax dollars will be used some how, but 40 years seems idiotic and ridiculous!

They're asking for the Vikings to sign a 40 year rental lease to be signed, not a 40 year mortgage/bonds.

[Shack]

Well round #1 was a loss, but:

Quote:

House Committee Defeats Vikings Stadium Bill

ST. PAUL, Minn. (WCCO) ―

A Minnesota House committee defeated the Vikings stadium bill Wednesday morning.

The State and Local Government Operations Reform, Technology and Elections committee voted 10-9 against the bill.

It's a severe blow for the bill, but the defeat does not mean that the stadium bill is dead. The bill is still alive in a Senate committee that was meeting Wednesday morning.

In the House committee hearing Wednesday morning, the Minnesota Vikings told lawmakers that the team is losing money. In the hearing, a lawmaker asked the Vikings to pay up to 75 percent of a $791 million stadium cost. The Vikings said they were willing to pay 30 percent.

A lawmaker also asked the Vikings if a new stadium could wait until next year. A Vikings spokesperson avoided answering that question.

A Minneapolis city official also testified at the hearing Wednesday, saying that the city is "very concerned" about using the Convention Center tax for a new stadium. The official said that the Vikings are a statewide, not a city asset, and if the team wants a new stadium, the state or a region should pay for it.

On Tuesday night, the bill was heard in the Local Government Division committee, and passed that committee.

The bill proposed to pay for a $791 million arena using city of Minneapolis money now going to pay off bonds on the city's convention center. It would also create a new lottery scratch-off game and calls for the team to put up a third of the cost, which includes a fixed roof.

The Vikings have said that they don't want a fixed roof and feel the team shouldn't have to pay for the cost of a fixed roof.

Sponsor Rep. Loren Solberg said Minneapolis is the focus but he is open to other sites if another city comes forward. The bill requires the Vikings to sign a 40-year lease, not a 30-year lease that is common in the NFL.

[Lip_Ripper Guy]

Originally Posted By: SkunkedAgain

It's a popular term these days, so I'll toss it out there: clawback. There should be a clawback provision for public dollars if the team value and/or revenues increase beyond a certain point. It allows the team to gain a stronger foothold but not to reap a windfall in the face of public taxes.

I like this idea. As for Zyggi, I think he's putting up the same percentage as other owners have in getting their new stadiums built. I can't confirm this but have heard (KFAN) Jerry Jones and the new Cowboys stadium as one example. I just don't get why they won't let the Racino open up and let those who CHOOSE to spend their $$$$ there do so.

Votes. Campaign contributions/under the table payoffs.

[zepman]

The Vikings are making a mistake in saying that they don't want to cover the 1/3 of the cost for the fixed roof stadium...or that a fixed roof stadium is not what they need or want. Obviously, this thing is going to need a roof on it to attract events like the final four, Superbowls, etc... Right now, beggers can't be choosers.

[Rick]

When it comes to NFL teams they CAN choose. If they don't get the best deal here they will get it elsewhere.

LA was with their Rams much like MN is with the Vikes now. They realized too late what they had and are now waiting to spend the money when/if an NFL team drops in their lap. They realize what they lost and want it back badly. They NOW know what a good investement it was for their city.

If the Vikings leave Minnesota the revenue loss will be big. Bigger than most people realize. Not to mention the removal of Minnesota's prestige in the eyes of the rest of the USA because they can't keep an NFL team.

Minnesota will not only lose football related business but tourism, convention and construction related business will be losers as well. An example would be the national coverage we got when John Madden went ice fishing here. It put Minnesota in the National Limelight.

Now is the time to build when labor and interest rates are cheap and the employment is needed.

[SkunkedAgain]

I agree with you Rick. IMO, the role of government is to spend money when times are tough to stimulate the economy, and to save money in boom times for the next recession. Unfortunately, like a bunch of school kids with a dollar, the public clamors for tax rebates in the good times and then there is nothing left during the bad.

That puts the legislature in a tough position right now, with no funds to spend and one of many projects that could help prime the pump.

[eyehunter]

IMO they just need to get it done and get it done fast. I think the only reason this last effort failed is because of Pawlenty, he says he doesn't want to raise any taxes for it, but it's just because he has bigger aspirations after he's done with his current gig as governer. He doesn't want the fact that he allowed higher tax rates on his resume when he's planning a bid for president. The sooner we get him out of office the sooner the vikings will get a new staduim IMO.

[CJH]

IMO they just need to get it done and get it done fast. I think the only reason this last effort failed is because of Pawlenty, he says he doesn't want to raise any taxes for it, but it's just because he has bigger aspirations after he's done with his current gig as governer. He doesn't want the fact that he allowed higher tax rates on his resume when he's planning a bid for president. The sooner we get him out of office the sooner the vikings will get a new staduim IMO.

A billion dollar deficit is a good reason, TPaw's got nothing to do with it. There are a ton of Dems who don't want this either.

The public should not be subsidizing an out of state Billionaire (or any for that matter). If Mpls wants to contribute and slap on a sales tax that they will collect, that's palatable. But there should not be any type of metro or state wide tax for a stadium.

Didn't they walk away from a deal in the northern metro?

[zepman]

The money is and has been available to finance this stadium. The ideas are there. The legislation and/or Governer simply won't agree to any of the terms to get it done. I just don't get it...user-fees, Racinos, the list is long and yet nothing ever seems to get done.

I agree with you Rick...now is the time to get this done. Minnesota teams have a long history of saying "thanks...but no thanks"...we're going somewhere else.

[LMITOUT]

Originally Posted By: eyehunter

IMO they just need to get it done and get it done fast. I think the only reason this last effort failed is because of Pawlenty, he says he doesn't want to raise any taxes for it, but it's just because he has bigger aspirations after he's done with his current gig as governer. He doesn't want the fact that he allowed higher tax rates on his resume when he's planning a bid for president. The sooner we get him out of office the sooner the vikings will get a new staduim IMO.

A billion dollar deficit is a good reason, TPaw's got nothing to do with it. There are a ton of Dems who don't want this either.

The public should not be subsidizing an out of state Billionaire (or any for that matter). If Mpls wants to contribute and slap on a sales tax that they will collect, that's palatable. But there should not be any type of metro or state wide tax for a stadium.

Didn't they walk away from a deal in the northern metro?

Spot on.

What the Vikings are doing with their "take the ball and go home" tactic is nothing more than extortion, and the rubes are falling for it hook, line, and sinker.

A privately funded stadium will create just as many jobs as a publicly funded one. If the Vikings truly want to be a part of the history of the state then they'll stop with the extortion and find a way to get it done. Their actions around this stadium issue do nothing but show that they are just another privately run business and don't really care if they are here or not. How should the fans feel about that? It's appalling, but at least the true colors are showing. If I were Zygi I'd be looking for a new PR guy as their current approach is a total failure.

[SkunkedAgain]

They have to fall for it. Public subsidies are national (and even international) problem that requires legislation from the top down to end it. If sports teams, real estate developers, and large businesses lose their ability nation-wide to play one government entity against another, then we all win. Unfortunately no legislators have the backbone to stop this kind of nonsense.

[zepman]

Extortion by the Wilfs is nothing compared to what's being done by the lobbyists who represent the "other" interests who are NOT backing this stadium. Now, that's appalling.

The folks in St. Paul aren't comming clean with the people of Minnesota on this issue and the Wilfs know it...the mud will hit the wall eventually and we will all see them for what they are...self-serving arseholes.

[harvey lee]

I would love to have a new stadium and keep the Vikes here but

The state is financially in poor shape and I do not see them passing a bill for another new one.

At least not this year. Pawlenty will do everything to stop it along with others.

If there are any extra dollars, I would have to believe there are other places that it could be better spent like our schools.

[FISHINGURU]

Screw Pawlenty and the horse he rode in on, that guy is out of here!!

[Shack]

LA was with their Rams much like MN is with the Vikes now. They realized too late what they had and are now waiting to spend the money when/if an NFL team drops in their lap. They realize what they lost and want it back badly. They NOW know what a good investment it was for their city.

This is exactly what will happen. Within two seasons everyone in MN who loves football will be in dierstraights with having no NFL team, and everyone who is currently in office or has a seat will be scrambling to save their hinds. Nobody will want to be in an elected position if we loose the Vike's. Then we will have to build a 2 billion dollar stadium just to get on the waiting list for a chance when the next state that finds its self in our current situation looses their team/franchise. Fact is, if we loose the Vikings, their is NOOOOO other franchise that will come here even if we put a new coat of paint on the Dome. IMO the Dome is not bad for watching football (the games I have been to over the years), but then again I have not sat in a current "new" stadium either.

It will be a shame the day the Vike's play their last game here in MN. The reality of that happening is closer than most may think. IMO for Mpls to take a stand and give only one option of "state wide" is very stupid. I was down in the cities this weekend and only blocks away from the new Target Field both Saturday & Sunday. These people who come for the main reason of "baseball" do not just sit in front of the gates prior to game and head straight for their cars minutes after the game ends. They fill the hotels & shopping areas prior to the game and then flood the bars and restaurants of Block E after the game. The money being spent and the subsequent taxes collected are crazy money, especially after a winning, streak breaker game . I will shed no tears for Mpls when the brunt of the funds for the new stadium are carved out of their budget. Short of a little markup of a couple jersey's & caps at the Local Cub Foods, Minneapolis and The Twins are the only ones reaping the benefits of this new stadium, minus other entities who show up at TF took make money and then spend money in downtown Mpls . If anyone has figured out how to go to a Twins game, actually spend no money other than the gas to get their and the tickets, let the Mayor of Mpls know. If Mpls does not want to partake in helping with the costs of the new stadium, for one move it out to an area that will, for two promote not spending any money in the area prior or after the game.

I do not know all the ins & outs of who is being more shady and who is being less shady with this stadium thing, but Ziggey (as far as I know) was no huge Vikings fan before purchasing our team. He purchased it as a business and not a public works. IMO he is within his limits to sell, use as a bargaining-chip, or move them if found more profitable. I know people say "well then he should be paying the entire bill for a new stadium". Well should he? Would we even want him if he could? God forbid Ziggy fell short on a couple payments. The franchise would come first (it can be sold easier than a hole in the ground with some bricks and a retractable roof could be). Then a bank in Japan would own it as well as the keys that are needed to open the gates when it goes into foreclosure. How many NFL owners own both the franchise and the venue? Jerry Jones is the only one I know of that comes close:

Quote:

The NFL is not holding Jones back from making money on his investment. He spent over $700 million for his stadium, with the city of Arlington taxpayers approving a bill to help with more costs. The NFL also gave the Cowboys roughly $150 million for the project.

Unfortunately when it comes to the pocket book, Ziggy ain't no J.J...

LIMT, you know the only way to get what you want in the business world and government world is to make idle (factual/feasible) threats.

If the Vike's do leave and the current mindset of the public and our MN politicians stays the same, I would say after about 4 years the topic of having no NFL team would start to wither and drop off. For me it would be about 2-3 years. Now drop the entire NFL, at least for me that would take much longer to get over.

[Scott K]

I agree with everything you said Shack! I think they should stage the taxes for the stadium as follows, tickets, and everything sold in the stadium is taxed at 15%,with Mlps getting the next largest tax burden, as they will be the ones benefiting from the new stadium revenues, Hennipen next in line, then the state of MN, for the last bit, as the state does actually benefit from the Vikes being here as well. If it gets broke down like that, I see no reason to pass the bill to build a new stadium. I would be ok with scratch offs and proceeds going to the new stadium as well.

[PierBridge]

Quote:

with Mlps getting the next largest tax burden

Whoa now!

Bought a new T-Shirt last week!...