January 31, 2012

Minnesota pushing e-pulltabs for Vikings; local governments still unsure of funding

For those of you who aren't sick to death of hearing the latest Minnesota Vikings non-plans, here's today's updates:

• The Minnesota state legislature has definitely settled on electronic pulltabs as the means of funding its share of stadium costs. The bill's main sponsor, Rep. Morrie Lanning, says the measure could raise $72 million a year, which would be more than enough to pay off the state's $300 million share; it's not clear whether anyone has looked at whether e-pulltabs would cannibalize other existing state gambling revenue, but hopefully somebody will before this thing is actually voted on.
• Ramsey County is working on yet another financing plan for its share of a stadium, after sales tax and food and beverage tax hikes were rejected by the state government. No hint yet what the new plan will be, but the legislature is willing to give them more time to think of something, especially since it's not like Minneapolis has figured out what it's doing, either. County commissioner Tony Bennett hopes to have a funding plan ready by next week, but it's always a bad idea to go holding your breath in these situations.

January 30, 2012

Vikings still mulling Arden Hills, add 4th Minneapolis site

Okay, the Great Minneapolis Vikings Stadium Site Search has officially jumped the shark in terms of ridiculous plot points: As if having four problematic stadium plans (five if you count Shakopee) on the table weren't crazy enough, now the Vikings say they're looking at yet another site in Minneapolis. This one, a few blocks away from the Metrodome, would allow the team to keep playing in its current home while a new one was built, rather than moving to the University of Minnesota's new stadium — something the Vikings owners don't want to do both because it doesn't have a roof and it doesn't allow beer sales, though that could change.

One possible reason for the Vikings to be opening this can of worms: Many NFL owners are apparently opposed to the team playing at TCF Bank Stadium, since they wouldn't be happy with either the reduced revenues the Vikings would be bringing in or the not-up-to-the-NFL's-lavish-standards facilities for visiting teams there. SB Nation has even speculated that this could push the Arden Hills site back onto the legislative radar after Gov. Mark Dayton called it "not viable." Is it time for someone to repropose Blaine yet?

January 27, 2012

Minneapolis council opposes Mondale's stadium vote end run; legislature turns toward e-pulltabs

The latest in the Minnesota Vikings stadium scrum:

• State stadium negotiator Ted Mondale thinks he can get around Minneapolis' voter-approved ban on using city money to fund a stadium without a referendum by instead having the city vote to direct the funds to stadium authority, and then that body would spend it on a stadium, so that "it really isn't the city spending that money." Pretty clever, eh? Except that apparently Mondale never asked the Minneapolis city council about his idea, and a majority of the council now opposes funding a Vikings stadium without a public vote, after councilmember Sandra Colvin Roy declared that doing so would thwart the "will of the people." (She even cited the Occupy movement as a reason that government shouldn't so easily dismiss voters' concerns.) Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak retorted, "We're not going to do a referendum in the city. We are going to have a referendum in a couple years when I stand for re-election." He might want to check with George Petak before saying that too loudly.
• It looks like whatever state bill emerges to fund a stadium will use electronic pulltabs in bars and restaurants as its funding mechanism — which should come as no surprise, given that that's pretty much the only option that doesn't involve either raising taxes or getting sued by Native American tribes. It's still early, though, and even if the state finds enough money for its share of a stadium, there's still the matter of the local government share (see above) that the Vikings are insisting on.

January 24, 2012

Dayton: Crappy Metrodome site is only viable Vikings option

As if the Minnesota Vikings' stadium hopes weren't already looking dismal, Gov. Mark Dayton's office issued a statement yesterday making them even dismaler:

Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton told Vikings owner Zygi Wilf on Monday that the team's new stadium will have to be at the Metrodome site if a stadium bill is to pass the Legislature this year, Dayton's spokeswoman said...

Dayton spokeswoman Katharine Tinucci said it's not that the Democratic governor necessarily prefers the Metrodome site. But he believes that the stadium must be at that site if the bill is to pass during the legislative session that convenes Tuesday.

Tinucci added: "I can't say this is the governor's favorite" site. Hey, hey, enough with the hard sell!

The bright side if you're the Vikings owners (or dark side if you're an opponent of spending hundreds of millions of dollars in public money on a Vikings stadium) is that Dayton is at least attempting to focus legislative attention on one site, unenthusiastic as he may be about it. We'll see if this tactic is enough for the legislature to actually act on it, or if they decide to punt the whole mess to 2013 in the hopes that the laws of mathematics have been revised by then.

January 23, 2012

Vikings stadium debate to be pushed to 2013?

In what should come as a surprise to no one, the pile of quarter-baked stadium plans issued for the Minnesota Vikings last week isn't doing much to resolve the state legislature's plans for whether to build a new home for the team. State stadium czar Ted Mondale said Friday that "time is not on our side right now" for getting a stadium bill voted on during this year's legislative session that starts tomorrow, and there's increasing talk of just kicking the whole debate back to 2013, when money will suddenly grow on trees.

Meanwhile, Dayton last week threw cold water on the idea of raising stadium funds via racinos, noting that the state's Indian tribes, which operate legal casinos, could sue to stop the installation of slot machines at Minnesota racetracks: "Passage of racino legislation to fund a new stadium is speculative. Even if it were to pass, several years of litigation in federal courts should be expected. Proceeds from racinos could not provide the assured revenue stream to back state-issued bonds until that litigation was resolved." The tribes apparently wouldn't sue over installing electronic pulltabs at bars and restaurants, but there's little political support for that plan at the moment.

The St. Paul Pioneer Press, meanwhile, has a long article today on all the ways in which a new Vikings stadium could be bad for St. Paul, including a new commercial district in Arden Hills diverting shoppers from St. Paul businesses, and subsidies for Minneapolis' Target Center (which could be rolled into a stadium bill) making it hard for St. Paul's Xcel Center to compete for acts. The article includes these words, which should be chilling for any city hoping to pay off an arena by booking lots of concerts:

"It used to be who could give a better rate. I think it's going to come to a point in the not-to-distant future where it will be, 'Who can pay an act more to come?'" St. Paul City Council President Kathy Lantry said.

None of which should be exactly a surprise, especially since Minnesota already tore down one arena because of competition from the Target Center. It's suddenly news now to the Pioneer Press, though, apparently because "St. Paul officials and business leaders" are now "fretting" over these issues. Just so long as there are politicians saying this, and it's not just the paper being truth vigilantes.

January 19, 2012

Dayton: Arden Hills "not viable," all Vikings sites have problems

Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton gave a talk yesterday about the passel of Vikings stadium plans issued last week, and the upshot was: You call these stadium plans?

"There's not yet a stadium proposal with a complete and sufficient financial plan," Dayton said. "No site's sponsor has adequately resolved the major unanswered questions in order to merit the approval to proceed."

And furthermore:

Dayton said he was disappointed that neither the Vikings nor Minneapolis or Ramsey County had come forward with workable finance, site and political plans. He called the proposal submitted by Minneapolis last week "meager."

"You can't make a decision until you have all the facts," Dayton said.

In particular, Dayton all but ruled out the Arden Hills site in Ramsey County that Vikings execs prefer, insisting that it's "not financially viable" and that "unless the Legislature is willing to change its insistence on a voter referendum before Ramsey County can impose any kind of tax increase, the only two feasible sites become the Metrodome and Linden Avenue, both in Minneapolis." But the Minneapolis sites have issues as well, not least that nobody's quite sure how to pay for them either.

Meanwhile, the chief stadium bill author in the Minnesota state house, Rep. Morrie Lanning, told the Minneapolis Star Tribune that while Dayton may have picked a front-running site, he has not: "I'm telling you, as stadium author, that's not where I'm at." At the same time, the rector of the Basilica of St. Mary, which is adjacent to the proposed Linden Avenue site, reiterated his opposition to the plan, saying he's concerned about both traffic issues and possible damage to the basilica from construction.

And as for the Metrodome, Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak's favored site? The Star Trib reports:

Dayton said the Metrodome location could work for a new stadium, but he was concerned that in 30 years, the site had never spurred any nearby economic development.

Ah, yes, let's blame the Metrodome site for that. Because everyone knows that all other stadiums have sparked huge development booms nearby.

January 13, 2012

Deadline for narrowing down Vikings stadium plans ends up narrowing nothing at all

Last night's deadline for Minnesota Vikings stadium plans, set by Gov. Mark Dayton in an attempt to give the state legislature a limited number of ideas to actually vote on, has come and gone, and the result is ... pretty much the same mishmosh that we had before this.

Ladies and gentlemen, your contenders for the New Home of the Purple and Gold:

• Ramsey County is sticking with its $1.1 billion Arden Hills plan, only with a new revenue source for $375 million in county money after its plan for a sales tax was killed last November: Instead, the county now plans on a whopping 3% food and beverage tax to raise the stadium cash. According to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, county officials "acknowledged" that this tax plan "appears to lack political support."
• Where Ramsey County dropped a 148-page tome on Dayton's desk, the city of Minneapolis issued a slim four-page proposal focused on a new $907 million stadium on the site of the Metrodome, but without ruling out alternate sites near the Target Center and the Basilica of St. Mary, despite the fact that ruling out sites was supposed to be the point of this whole exercise. The city's $313 million share would come from redirecting tax money that currently goes to pay off the city's convention center, a plan that was already proposed in December, and roundly attacked by the Minneapolis city council. The state legislature would also have to overturn a voter-approved referendum that prohibits the city from spending more than $10 million on sports stadiums.
• Shakopee has its own plan for a $920 million stadium funded by race track slot machines and a whole pile of other fees and taxes, as discussed yesterday.

Or if you want to see all that with less information and more pretty pictures, the Star Trib has got you covered.

This whole mess now gets kicked back to the state legislature, whose members told the Star Tribune that they don't plan on moving fast on a bill: Main stadium sponsor Sen. Julie Rosen said she may now slow down movement on a stadium bill "to make sure that we have all the figures right and everything's going forward," while House Speaker Kurt Zellers said it was "not my job" to try to drum up stadium votes. It looks like another long, long spring in St. Paul.

January 12, 2012

Shakopee enters Vikings stadium sweepstakes at last second

With Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton's deadline for Vikings stadium proposals coming up at 5 pm today, there was a surprise entrant yesterday: The previously unheard-from suburb of Shakopee, whose newly elected Mayor Brad Tabke presented Dayton with his own plans for a stadium that, he said, would be the cheapest to build, at a mere $920 million (compared to an estimated $925 million for a Minneapolis site and $1.1 billion for the pollutant-laden Arden Hills site).

"This is definitely not pie in the sky," Tabke told KARE-TV. "This is a really good option for the Vikings and for Minnesota, and it solves a lot of problems that currently exist with all of the other stadium locations."

As for how Tabke would pay for it, he's proposing an everything-but-the-kitchen-sink plan:

• $45 million in up-front payments from Shakopee.
• $29 million a year in revenues from slot machines that would be added to the existing horse track and casino at Canterbury Park, which is in Shakopee.
• $400 million from the Vikings and NFL.
• $16 million a year from a mix of a ticket surcharge, lottery scratch-off games, PSL sales, and naming rights money (which the Vikings, don't forget, are counting on to pay part of their share).

It all sounds more than a little jury-rigged, but no more so than the Minneapolis and Ramsey County plans, really. Also, the Vikings owners say they're not interested, but then, they said that about Minneapolis at one point as well.

Meanwhile, the real drama, such as it is, will come this afternoon, when Minneapolis officials choose from among three proposed sites for their entry, as Dayton is imposing a one-site-per-locality rule to try to winnow down the number of plans out there. Then everyone can get back down to the real debate about how on earth — and why — to raise more than $500 million in public money for a privately used NFL stadium.

January 09, 2012

News report: Ramsey County Vikings plan is toast

Twin Cities TV station KSTP is reporting that "sources" (not even "sources close to the deal," just "sources") tell it that "Governor Dayton and legislative leaders have told Vikings officials the Arden Hills site is 'unlikely to work'" for a new football stadium. If true — and it doesn't appear to be corroborated elsewhere — this would leave the three proposed Minneapolis sites as the team's only options. And those three will presumably be whittled down to one by this Thursday, Dayton's deadline for each local government to come up with one stadium plan and stick with it.

Meanwhile, KARE-TV reports that the Ramsey County petition drive to force a referendum on any stadium spending has kicked off, with a goal of 17,000 signatures. No word on how the petition-gathering is going, other than that opposition is "building."

All of which is just further evidence that last month's rumors of an imminent Vikings stadium agreement were severely off-base — as I Dislike Your Favorite Team notes in somewhat stronger language in the early front-runner for stadium news headline of the year.

January 06, 2012

Dayton tries the Vikings stadium deadline thing again

The push to build urgency for a Minnesota Vikings stadium continued yesterday, with Gov. Mark Dayton setting a January 12th deadline for Minneapolis and Ramsey County to submit final plans for their pitches.

This is, of course, not the first time Dayton has tried this gambit, as the St. Paul Pioneer Press notes:

The Democratic governor set a similar timeline last fall to have information submitted in preparation for a pre-Thanksgiving special session, but that plan fell apart in the face of opposition from Republican House Speaker Kurt Zellers.

Since then, Dayton said: "We're left back in this sort of semi-Twilight Zone where we know some of the facts but we don't know all of them, and some people are showing cards and some people are not showing cards. That's why, again, we've got to get all the cards face up on the table."

And if it turns out that nobody has anything better than a pair of threes? As they say in the stadium business, if at first you don't succeed, try, try, again and again and again and again...

January 05, 2012

Vikings owner declares 'closer than ever' to stadium deal yet again

Zygi Wilf has certainly hit the ground running in 2012 on the "talking a good stadium game" front. On Tuesday, the Minnesota Vikings owner told reporters after meeting with new state senate majority leader David Senjem: "We feel that a deal is going to be in the works shortly." Today, he tells never-met-a-stadium-plan-he-didn't-like Minneapolis Star-Tribune columnist Sid Hartman that "right now we are closer than ever on making a deal happen and we're working very hard to making sure that we get this done" and that "I'm sure details will unfold over the next several weeks and months." Wilf also proclaimed that the Vikings had "momentum" for a new stadium — oh, wait, that was actually five months ago.

There does seem to be some backing for a stadium bill in the legislature — Senjem in particular is an advocate of racinos (racinos!) — but the problem remains how on earth to pay the $1-billion-plus price tag: The Minneapolis city council wants nothing to do with their mayor's plan, Ramsey County officials have declared that "the cookie jar is empty," and the state legislature has been throwing ideas against the wall willy-nilly in the hopes one of them will stick.

Don't forget, the Vikings actually had a stadium bill last spring, but it fell apart when nobody actually stepped forward to supply the $600 million in tax money that would have been required. It's always possible that Senjem and Wilf have secretly concocted something that generates money out of thin air, but I'll believe it when I see it.

January 03, 2012

Vikings lease expires, changing nothing

The Minnesota Vikings wrapped up their season on Sunday, leading to various variations on headlines reading "Vikings' Metrodome lease expires." Except for Minneapolis Minnesota Public Radio, which went with the more nuanced: "As season ends, Vikings insist dome lease is over."

That "insist" is a reference to the clause in the Vikes' lease that extends their lease by a year if they're unable to play a complete season in the dome; given that the team wasn't able to complete the 2010 season at the Metrodome because its roof collapsed, some have argued that the team could be bound to the dome for another year, if their state landlords really wanted to enforce it.

In any case, the issue of when the lease expires is pretty much moot, given that 1) the Vikings are welcome to keep playing at the dome, and are in fact expected to for a few years, even if they get a new stadium deal, 1) they don't really have any immediate options to move to, and 2) they could have moved last year if they'd wanted, just by agreeing to pay the last year's rent on the Metrodome. Still, it's not going to stop the Vikings, or the local media, from trying to make the end of the lease into a reason for urgency in the Vikings' stadium push.

Speaking of which, there's been a flurry of news items on the team's progress in that regard — the big news, such as it is, looks to be that they're considering yet another Minneapolis stadium site — but mostly things stand about where they did before the holidays: In the understated words of the Minneapolis Star Tribune, "Major questions need to be answered, not the least of which is who would pay for it and where it would go." Which is exactly what could be said about my purchase of this.

December 27, 2011

Vikings close to stadium deal, also not close to stadium deal

The holiday actual-news doldrums continue, and sportswriters continue to fill it with delicious, speculative nougat:

It's Christmas, and it looks like Vikings fans are about to get a pretty big gift.

Peter King of Football Night In America reported earlier in the hour (I know this because I was standing right next to him) that the Vikings and Minnesota officials are close to a deal that would keep the team in the state it has called home since entering the league in 1961.

According to King, it's no longer a question of "if" but "when."

While I can't comment on where NBC Sports' Mike Florio was standing at the time, the rest of it appears to be premature at best, at least according to the Vikings themselves, whose press spokesperson Jeff Anderson tweeted yesterday: "While we continue to work hard on a stadium solution in Minnesota, there is no agreement imminent."

Reading between the lines, it's entirely possible that both reports are true: The Vikings are making progress in their talks with the state, but have a long way to go. And then, of course, there's the little matter of who you mean by "the state" and what you mean by an "agreement": The Vikings could easily be close to a deal with Gov. Mark Dayton, for example (or his negotiator Ted Mondale), but that doesn't guarantee that the legisature will back it — or if they do, that whatever local government will be handed the bill for the remainder of the stadium cost will agree, or be able, to supply that share.

So a more accurate headline would probably be "Vikings continuing stadium talks with state officials." But since that's pretty much the same headline that people in Minnesota have been reading for the past five years, you can see why King (and Florio) went with the snappier lede.

December 20, 2011

NFL establishes "G-4" stadium fund, there is much rejoicing

Just realized I never recapped last week's NFL owners meeting to formally re-establish the exhausted G-3 stadium fund, as previously pre-announced last summer. And so, without further ado:

• The new loan program — which actually will be called "G-4" — ups the maximum loan level from $150 million per team under the old plan to a maximum of $200 million under the new one. Only projects costing at least $400 million, and with a "private contribution" from the team of at least $200 million, will be eligible for the top loan level
• As under G-3, teams can repay the loan with club seat money they normally would have had to share with the league. They can now also use incremental regular ticket revenue, defined as the difference between ticket sales in the new stadium and average sales in the last three years of the old one.
• "The project must not involve any relocation of or change in an affected club's 'home territory.'" That's in keeping with the old G-3 plan's goal of aiding teams in building new stadiums in their existing hometowns (to avoid the kind of city-hopping that gave us the St. Louis Rams and Tennessee Titans). Still, it's worth noting that this means the Minnesota Vikings, for example, can access $200 million in G-4 loans for a new stadium in Minnesota, but not for one in, say, Los Angeles.

Teams looking to build new stadiums without paying for them themselves are, naturally, thrilled — since this is money that they wouldn't normally get to keep anyway, it's effectively a grant, not a loan. (Unless club seat and ticket sales come in below projections, in which case they're on the hook for the difference.) San Francisco 49ers owner Jed York tweeted that he was confident his team would be first to get a cut of the G-4 boodle, San Diego Chargers stadium czar Mark Fabiani called it "great news for the team and our fans," and Vikings stadium chieftain Lester Bagley called it "good news," though he quickly added the caveat that the Vikings still don't have a deal for the other $800 million it takes to build a stadium these days.

And that's the catch: Most of these teams were counting on NFL funds as part of their stadium deals already, so while the establishment of G-4 comes as a relief to them, it doesn't really do much to fill the funding holes that most of these teams (except for the 49ers) still have in their plans. And while it'd be nice if the teams used this free league cash to reduce their demands on taxpayers, it looks like most of them instead intend to use it to replace their own share of stadium costs.

For more on all this, the San Diego Union Tribune has helpfully posted a document containing a brief summary of NFL commissioner Roger Goodell's press conference and the actual G-4 document language. Highly recommended for anyone who finds discussion of "tranches" to be compelling reading.

December 09, 2011

Minneapolis council opposed to Rybak's Vikings plan

Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak's plan for financing a Minnesota Vikings stadium with tax money that currently goes to pay off the city's convention center may have gotten a good reception in the state capital, but unfortunately it turns out his own city council pretty much hates it. "I just think that's crazy," said councilmember Lisa Goodman, while her colleague Gary Schiff declared, "We can't take away the money needed to maintain the convention center in 20 years and start applying that to a new facility. Otherwise we just start cannibalizing our own city infrastructure."

Rybak also provided more details of his plan yesterday, which now goes like this:

• Take $20 million in receipts from sales, restaurant, and hotel taxes that is currently collected in excess of what's needed to pay off the convention center debt, and funnel between $4 million and $11 million a year towards a Vikings stadium (enough to pay off roughly $60-150 million in up-front construction cost).
• Take another $5 million a year and use it to pay off debt on the purchase of the Timberwolves' Target Center, which was originally privately built but taken off the Wolves' owners' hands in a much-criticized public bailout in 1995. Also, take a few million more and pay for $100 million in upgrades to the Target Center.

According to Minneapolis Public Radio, councilmembers "told Rybak that if Minneapolis has money to spend, it ought to go to schools, or police or some other basic service — not the Vikings." The Downtown Journal counted heads and found a majority of the council already opposed to Rybak's plan, with several additional members still undecided or unaccounted for — though it added that "perhaps some sweeteners could be thrown into the deal that might switch a council member or two." Not that we've seen anything like that before.

December 07, 2011

Minneapolis mayor backs Metrodome site for Vikings stadium

Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak, who last month proposed three different sites in his city for a Minnesota Vikings and suggested either a sales tax hike or a downtown casino to pay for them, has now revised his plan, telling a state senate committee hearing yesterday, "Our preferred site is the Metrodome," and saying that he would now use existing liquor, sales, and hotel taxes that are currently going to pay off the Minneapolis Convention Center.

Julie Rosen, the Vikings' leading stadium backer in the senate, afterwards declared that the Metrodome site is "getting to be a very viable option," saying it would cost about $200 million less than a stadium in suburban Arden Hills. And never mind the fact that the convention center taxes will still be needed to pay off the convention center through 2020, and that the notion that the convention center won't need upgrades after that point is "a wildly simplistic, absurd assumption," according to ... last February's version of R.T. Rybak.

State stadium negotiator Ted Mondale, meanwhile, took another step toward cementing his place in the We Make Move Threats So Team Owners Don't Have To Hall of Fame yesterday, declaring, "When you have a business that's either losing money or not making money, as sure as winter comes or the leaves fall, they will leave." The Vikings' estimated cash flow over the last decade, according to Forbes: $121 million in profit.

November 30, 2011

Vikings: We don't really care where, just give us a damn stadium

As promised, the Minnesota state legislature held the first of two "informational hearings" on a Vikings stadium last night, this one slated to focus on where to build this stadium that nobody's figured out how to pay for yet. The highlights, according to the recap in the St. Paul Pioneer Press:

• Vikings officials would still prefer an Arden Hills site, but will consider a Minneapolis site if that's what the legislature prefers.
• State officials want Minneapolis to narrow down its three proposed sites to one, state senator Geoff Michel telling Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak: "If you've got three, you've really got none."
• Senate Taxes Committee chair Julianne Ortman said that a Minneapolis plan to use existing hotel taxes to pay for a stadium puts it "back in the game."
• Ramsey County isn't going to put any money into an Arden Hills site, commissioner Tony Bennett declaring, "The cookie jar is empty."

All in all, it sounds like a mild momentum swing back toward Minneapolis, though still nobody has a clue where a stadium would go or how much it would cost, and the hotel-tax plan would require the state legislature to overturn a 1998 referendum that blocked Minneapolis from spending money on a stadium without a public vote. (Sound familiar?) As far as straws for the Vikings owners to grasp at following the collapse of their last plan, though, at least it gives the legislature something to talk about — and from the perspective of a team owner, it's always better to keep lawmakers talking about where to build a stadium than about whether to build one.

November 28, 2011

Vikings stadium plan: We keep taxes, eat them too

The Minnesota Vikings owners announced their latest stadium funding plan yesterday, and this time left nothing in the hands of nasty journalists, doing so via a series of newspaper ads laying out their proposal just as they wanted to. Which then had to be reported on by journalists so we could all read about it on the web, because what's a "newspaper"?

In any case, the Vikings are calling for what could be called the mother of all TIFs: funneling every last cent of tax money paid by anyone remotely associated with the team — whether it be income taxes paid by players or team employees or sales taxes on anything purchased by fans at the stadium — back to the team to pay off its stadium costs. The ad dubbed this the "purely purple financing package" and the "but-for" solution because "All the money would come from sources that would not exist 'but for' the Vikings being in Minnesota."

Except, of course, that this is tax money that the state collects currently, and much of which it would continue to collect even if the Vikings were to leave and fans had to spend their money on mine and cave tours or something. (The Minneapolis Star Tribune, to its credit biting the hand that feeds its print ad department, noted that "No mention is made in the advertisements, which ran in the Star Tribune and the Pioneer Press, of how the state would make up the revenue it would lose if it accepts the team's plan.") And that by "purely purple" the team doesn't actually mean "purely" in the sense of being pure: The state would still have to come up with another $400 million in non-Vikings-related tax money to make the stadium deal happen.

State-designated "let's go build a stadium!" guy Ted Mondale immediately endorsed the Vikings' plan, saying, "It could work," and "I think they have a legitimate argument." What matters, though, is what the state legislature thinks of the Vikings' argument, something we should find out tomorrow at the first of two scheduled "informational hearings" ... or actually, probably not until a week from tomorrow, since the first hearing is supposed to only focus on where to build a stadium, not how to pay for it. Because why worry about where to get a horse until you've picked out your cart?

November 23, 2011

Minnesota senate to rehash Vikings stadium funding ideas

The Minnesota state senate has scheduled "informational hearings" on a Vikings stadium for the next two Tuesdays, and yesterday released the agendas: In short, the first one will be about where to build a stadium, the second one about how to pay for one. (The hearings will include public testimony, but it's not clear where members of the public who don't want to build a stadium at all should testify.)

The closest thing to real news here is the list of funding schemes to be discussed at the December 6 hearing, which includes: arts and cultural funds, Minneapolis convention revenue, electronic pulltabs, racino gambling, a "Block E casino proposal," a sports memorabilia sales tax, an NFL income tax surcharge and ticket surcharges. Most of these have been discussed and rejected before, but we're clearly in the "throw stuff against the wall and see what sticks" phase of the stadium campaign, so it's always possible that some funding plan will emerge as politically workable. I wouldn't hold my breath or anything, but it's possible.

November 15, 2011

Vikings launch ad blitz to reanimate stadium effort

The Minnesota Vikings stadium campaign may be headed straight for a brick wall with nobody behind the wheel, but don't tell that to the Vikings: Team execs just launched a "six-figure" ad campaign to tell Minnesotans that a new $1.1 billion stadium would be "owned by the great state of Minnesota" and bring "over 7,000 jobs and $300 million in wages." No clue where those numbers are from, but, of course, campaign ads aren't subject to truth-in-advertising laws, so who cares?

In related news, the Ramsey County Board voted unanimously today to buy land in Arden Hills for a new Vikings stadium, so long as somebody else comes up with the $28.5 million price. As MinnPost blogger Brian Lambert quips: "In other news, I agreed to purchase a new Bentley. I get the keys when my neighbors pitch in to pay for it."

November 14, 2011

Dayton calls for Vikings stadium "negotiating team" (and maybe racinos)

Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton is at it again, with a Minneapolis Star Tribune op-ed yesterday in which he:

• Declared that a Vikings stadium is needed "at a time when more than 200,000 people are out of work in our state."
• Said that such a stadium whether in Arden Hills or Minneapolis, could be funded by "taxes on stadium items like tickets and souvenirs, and by adding electronic pulltabs to already existing charitable gambling."
• Blamed the state legislature for refusing to hold a special session until there was an actual funding plan, which Dayton says he would have had, but he canceled it because the legislature wouldn't hold a special session.
• Offered to get together with the legislature to appoint a "a site-neutral negotiating team, consisting of the Republican and DFL authors of the legislation; stadium, real estate and financing experts, and an experienced negotiator."

This last is a nice touch: You're going to leave the stadium funding negotiations in the hands of the legislators who are currently working with the Vikings to give the stadium deal they want? Isn't there a term for this?

In any event, it looks like racinos (racinos! racinos!) are going to be the likely last-ditch effort to drum up public funds for a Vikings stadium, now that sales tax hikes are off the table. A Minnesota TV station noticed that Aqueduct Racetrack is generating about $1.5 million a day for New York state since video slot machines were installed there, though it fails to notice that a good chunk of that money is thanks to the fact that the state's Off-Track Betting service recently closed, meaning gambling revenues are being moved around more than actually increased.

Whatever the source, it's going to need to come up with something like $50 million a year in revenues to pay off the public's share of a proposed new stadium — and maybe more than that, given that team owner Zygi Wilf said last week that he'd reduce his $400 million share (note: not actually all his money) if the stadium is in Minneapolis instead of Arden Hills. Somebody really needs a reminder on how this is supposed to work.

November 09, 2011

Dayton: Legislature needs to build a Vikings stadium, er, somehow

If there was any doubt that Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton was trying to position himself so that the state legislature takes the blame if the Vikings don't get a new stadium, it should have dissipated yesterday when Dayton blamed the state legislature for the Vikings not getting a new stadium:

An apparently frustrated Gov. Mark Dayton called on Republican legislative leaders Tuesday to stop "playing games" and propose their own plan for financing a new Vikings stadium.

"It's time for leaders of the Legislature to show some leadership to get this project approved," Dayton said at a Capitol news conference...

Dayton asked of the leaders, "What are you for? What are you willing to support?"

Without naming names, Dayton said of some legislators, "All they know is no."

Dayton had previously announced that he was canceling plans to issue his own stadium proposal this past Monday, after state house speaker Kurt Zellers came out against holding a special session this month to discuss a Vikings stadium. Instead, the governor spoke vaguely about some of the ideas being kicked around for funding, including electronic gambling pull-tabs in bars (he's in favor), Legacy arts funds ("a bad idea"), and memorabilia and ticket taxes (mentioned as options, not specifically endorsed). He also said, "I'm for maximizing the private team's contribution," but didn't indicate whether that would mean increasing the Vikings' contribution or whether he thought the current three-way city/state/team split was maximized enough.

State rep Phyllis Kahn, meanwhile, issued a proposal to finance a new stadium by selling stock in the team to fans, a la the Green Bay Packers. (The NFL no longer allows so-called "community ownership"; Kahn's plan would require the Vikings and state to get the league to change its rules.) Kahn, who proposed a similar plan for the Twins back in 2005, also said she's introducing a bill to install slot machines at airports — something she didn't particular endorse as a way to fund a stadium, but which is worth mentioning for her explanation of why it'd be a good thing:

"All gambling is a regressive tax on stupidity, but if you put the gambling in the airport, it would be a progressive tax on stupidity, because you have people with higher incomes at the airport," Kahn said. "Plus, 80 percent of the traffic at the airport is from out of state."

Now there's a campaign slogan: "TAX RICH IDIOTS." The 99% would approve — not to mention, presumably, non-stupid rich people.

November 01, 2011

Vikings stadium sales tax dead without referendum (i.e., dead)

This just in: Gov. Mark Dayton and Minnesota's top legislative leaders have declared that after meeting on Friday and today, they have determined that "there is not majority support in either body for an exemption from a voter referendum" for a Vikings stadium in either Arden Hills or Minneapolis.

Since a sales tax hike requires a voter referendum in Minnesota unless the legislature grants an exemption, this means the earliest any sales tax hike could be attempted would be November 2012 — and even then, it would almost certainly be defeated, if recent polls are any guide.

Said Gov. Mark Dayton in a statement:

"Last Friday's meeting was very significant in eliminating one proposed source of financing for a People's Stadium in either Ramsey County or Minneapolis, unless the Vikings are willing to endure the time delay and continuing uncertainty in obtaining voters' approval. Given this reality, we are now actively assessing and discussing with the team other financing options."

Those other financing options include ... hang on, there has to be something. Right, sports jersey taxes. And racinos! And, um, wait, wait, somebody's got to have a plan to raise money fast.

More realistically, since the stadium plan already had a $200 million-plus funding gap, this effectively sends all the players back to square one. The prediction here on what happens next: Vikings execs issue a statement that walks the line between disappointment and blowing a gasket and start dropping hints about moving to L.A. or San Antonio or Guadalajara; their state legislative backers come up with crazier and crazier funding schemes in hopes of something that'll stick; and maybe, just maybe, people start taking seriously ideas that don't involve building a brand-new $1 billion stadium.

One thing I'd say is unlikely: The Vikings hightailing it out of town before this whole mess comes back up again in the legislature. The team's friends in the state capitol may have empty pockets, but that's better than no friends who want to give you money at all — like in some other places I could name.

October 31, 2011

Vikings talks result in lotsa smoke, little fire

Sometimes it's hard for me to know when to post an item here about some bit of stadium news, and when it seems like it'd just be playing into the spin going on in the rest of the media. For example, how to deal with this weekend's spate of articles about how Minnesota Vikings stadium talks are ongoing but not accomplishing much yet?

How about we try wading through the sea of verbiage to pick out only anything that's actual news? Like:

• Using so called "Legacy Amendment" funds, from a statewide sales tax for arts and other projects passed in 2008, is still under consideration by Gov. Mark Dayton, according to the Minneapolis Star Tribune. Also, according to the St. Paul Pioneer Press, Dayton says he's "not for the Legacy funds." But also not against using them.
• Dayton still plans to call a special session of the state legislature for the week of November 21, according to Minneapolis Public Radio. According to the Associated Press, he hasn't decided on calling a special session yet, because "You can't ask people to make a decision when they don't have the facts."
• Dayton is okay with a stadium either in Arden Hills or Minneapolis, saying, "Any site, as long it's in Minnesota, remains my determination."
• The governor thinks that the only choices are large public subsidies for a stadium or the team moving elsewhere. "You can't say you're for the stadium but you're not for any reasonable means of financing it," he said. Those who are opposed to public funding, he charged, "want the Vikings to leave Minnesota and go somewhere else."

Add it all up, and you get ... okay, not a whole heck of a lot. Except that Gov. Dayton really really wants to be seen as supporting the Vikings stadium effort, but is going to leave it to the legislature to decide which unpopular tax scheme to hang their hat on. If I had to bet, I'd still put my money on "reply hazy, ask again later" as the likely outcome of this month's talks — though "later" could be as soon as the next regular legislative session in the spring.

October 27, 2011

No support on Minneapolis city council for Vikings sales tax

Remember Tuesday, when I said that having the Minnesota legislature overrule the Minneapolis city charter and approve a sales-tax hike to pay for Vikings stadium would be "controversial"? Apparently the term I was actually looking for was "outright hated by everyone on the city council that would have to approve it":

Despite an optimistic pitch by city leaders at the State Capitol this week, plans to fund a Vikings stadium in Minneapolis with a citywide sales tax have almost no vocal support from council members who would have to approve it.

Mayor R.T. Rybak said Monday he believes "there is enough support" on the council to pass a Minneapolis sales tax to pay for the stadium, but no council members except President Barb Johnson were willing to support the idea in interviews -- six were outright opposed. Several said they had not been consulted by the mayor or council president on the matter.

There are 13 members of the Minneapolis city council, which means that unless Rybak can pick up every single vote from the uncommitted members, his sales tax plan is in trouble. And, of course, a slim margin like that raises the likelihood of council members making all kinds of demands in return, as we've seen happen before.

With all this confusion in the air, my bet is still on nothing happening at a special session this month, the Vikings owners fuming a bit about the slow pace of stadium talks, then ultimately agreeing to extend their lease for another year while everybody tries to sort out all the competing plans and see if anything is workable. The alternative, after all, is taking one of the two not very appetizing Los Angeles stadium deals, which come with far more costs for the team owner — if that's Plan B, I'll be shocked if Zygi Wilf and company don't muster up the patience to wait for another grab at the brass ring in Minnesota.

October 25, 2011

Minneapolis mayor offers Vikings three stadium sites, sales tax hike to pay for it

Was it only last weekend that Minneapolis newspaper columnists were griping about how their city wasn't leaping into the Minnesota Vikings stadium race? Well, gripe no longer: Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak yesterday offered three, count 'em three, possible sites for a Vikings stadium in his city, and said he'd help pay for it with a citywide sales tax and possibly proceeds from a downtown casino.

In May, Minneapolis officials rolled out an $895 million plan to transform the Metrodome into a bigger facility. Rybak and Johnson said that's still their preferred option, but they also support the Farmers Market site favored by several business groups and the Xcel Energy site near the Basilica of St. Mary.

Vikings stadium chief Lester Bagley issued a stadium saying thanks but no thanks, the team is focused on the Arden Hills site in Ramsey County. What looks like is going on here is that Rybak is positioning himself to be ready to jump in should the Arden Hills plan fall apart, as it looks to have a fair chance of doing, given the questions about its price tag and possibility of a voter referendum to block it and just the general uncertainty of ever getting a stadium bill through the Minnesota legislature.

The problem, of course, is that Minneapolis is still barred from spending more than $10 million on a stadium by that long-ago referendum vote (so long ago that it predates this website) that installed a stadium spending cap in the city charter. Rybak could ask the state legislature to override his city charter and approve a sales tax hike anyway, but that would be a tougher sell than a straight stadium subsidy deal. There's also the possibility of going through Hennepin County, as the Twins did for their stadium, though at last report the county was still saying it couldn't afford to go in on a new Vikings home.

In any case, though, Vikings execs have to be absolutely thrilled to have a bidding war going on, even if the various bids aren't all that strong. Minneapolis may only be a fallback option for now, but that's one more option than they had yesterday.

October 24, 2011

Subsidy foes: Let's give Metrodome to Vikings for free!

Veteran stadium-subsidy foe Minnesota state senator John Marty jumped into the Vikings debate on Friday, joining with Republican Linda Runbeck (Marty is a Democrat) to propose handing over the Metrodome to the team instead of building a new one for $1 billion or so. Marty explains:

I joined with Rep. Linda Runbeck to offer a bipartisan alternative: give the Metrodome to the Vikings in exchange for a 25 year contract to play in Minnesota. This proposal does not require any public funding. No Ramsey County sales tax, no Ramsey County automobile tax, and no state taxes or "fees" or "other revenues." Taxpayers would be fully compensated for the value of the Metrodome through property taxes, from which the Vikings are currently exempted.

State stadium negotiator Ted Mondale fired back that the proposal is "ridiculous" and "not a solution." And on one level, he's right: For the Vikings owners to get control of their stadium but have to pay property taxes on it wouldn't really gain them anything, so they're not going to consider it a solution to their problem. (And, in fact, a Vikings spokesperson immediately denied any interest in the Marty-Runbeck deal.)

What it does do, though, is point up that Vikings execs' complaints about their lease at the Metrodome are beside the point: The reason they want a new stadium is to get the public subsidy that comes with it, not because a stadium itself is worth anything. Of course, we knew that already, but maybe there are some members of the state legislature for whom this will help deliver the message.

October 20, 2011

Minnesota mulls casino money, every other idea under sun for Vikings stadium

With Minnesota state legislators on the clock to come up with a Vikings stadium funding plan by mid-November, it was only a matter of time before somebody brought up casinos:

Gambling is an obvious source, said bill sponsor Rep. Morrie Lanning, R-Moorhead, and odds greaten that gambling might be part of the final proposal as stadium backers try to come up with the state's $300 million share of the $1.1 billion dollar stadium.

"Gaming certainly has to be one of the options that's considered, in fact, the original bill that we presented did have some gaming in it," Lanning said. "Those proceeds were earmarked to the facility, and gaming clearly is an option."

Everybody loves gambling money because it's not technically "taxes" (though it is state revenue that could be used for other purposes), which is why it's been proposed as a stadium funding source over and over again in Minnesota history — and rejected just as many times: Most recently last year, and dating back as far as 2004. (The most recent proposal was for slot machines at race tracks, or "racinos," which I mention because I like typing "racino" almost as much as Gail Collins likes writing about the time Mitt Romney drove to Canada with his dog strapped to the roof of the car.) No immediate word on how it will fly in the legislature this time, but it's one more idea to throw into the hopper.

Meanwhile, Gov. Mark Dayton says he'll issue his own stadium plan by November 7, which would give legislators two whole weeks to digest it before debating it at a special session Thanksgiving week. And NFL VP Eric Grubman threatened that if no stadium is built soon, it could mean "opening the door" to moving the team:

"We're worried about a stalemate, and a stalemate means there's no lease, or the lease is about to expire. There's no plan for a stadium, and there's an alternative plan in another city. That's a stalemate, and the alternative wouldn't include Minnesota. That's the way we look at it, [it's] a crisis."

There's an NFL exec in charge of pressuring cities for stadium money named "Eric Grubman"? Man, I think I'm going to like typing that even more than "racino."

October 18, 2011

Dayton to set Vikings stadium session, now needs only stadium plan

And it's on: Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton says he'll call a special session of the state legislature in November to discuss a Minnesota Vikings stadium, even if there's no stadium bill agreed on by then to vote on:

Dayton said he's counting on the deadline to "produce an outcome by at least Nov. 23 that will be either a vote up or a vote down...I see this as the best opportunity, perhaps the only opportunity, to get it resolved until at least 2013."

The debate over the stadium has "become a circular process where, without a deadline, without legislators knowing that they're going to have to vote by a certain date on a stadium plan, that we won't have a plan. Conversely, it's not appropriate or fair to ask them to vote on a plan without knowing what it is," the Democratic governor said at a news conference after briefing legislative leaders on the idea.

What the plan is, of course, still remains a moving target, with a report commissioned by Dayton warning that the Arden Hills site in Ramsey County would be more expensive than sponsors have claimed, and a couple of potential Minneapolis sites still in the mix, plus the longshot of a renovated Metrodome. The likeliest scenario looks to be, as ESPN's Kevin Seifert writes, "five intense weeks of negotiations followed by a pre-Thanksgiving 2011 vote" — or a failure to come up with a bill to vote on, in which case Dayton can at least say he tried.

Meanwhile, opponents of the Ramsey County stadium are busily launching their petition drive to force a public vote on the plan, which would presumably kill it, since voters in Ramsey County all hate the idea of a sales tax to help pay for it. Which could increase the chances of a Minneapolis stadium, except that there's no actual funding plan for one, the city is prohibited by an earlier referendum from spending more than $10 million on it, and the Hennepin County commission has said it doesn't have the money for one. This could be quite the interesting special session.

October 12, 2011

Ramsey County panel on Vikings vote: We are not the 99%

Last night, the Ramsey County Charter Commission held its long-awaited vote on a Minnesota Vikings stadium referendum, and voted 10-6 not to put a referendum on the November 2012 ballot. Their reason? Allowing a public vote would be undemocratic:

Chair Richard Sonterre said that for him, it wasn't a decision about taxes or a public-private partnership. It was a decision on the role of representative democracy. An appointed body like the charter commission, he said, shouldn't be challenging the authority of elected county leaders.

This, needless to say, clears a huge distraction for the Vikings stadium campaigners: Even if a referendum next fall might have been too late to block funding if it were approved in next spring's legislative session, the very term "public referendum" gives stadium planners hives, especially in a perennially taxpayer-funded-stadium-skeptical state like Minnesota. There's still the possibility of a petition drive to force a referendum, but for the charter commission to act would have been a much clearer path to a public vote.

Meanwhile, another potentially big distraction entered the picture last night, as the state-run Metropolitan Council regional planning agency issued a report on the Vikings' Arden Hills stadium proposal that warned toxic cleanup costs to the site could be more than expected, and using county sales taxes would "compromise the county's and the region's ability to finance other projects." The Minneapolis Star Tribune speculates that the negative report could "complicate" the possibility of a special legislative session this fall to vote on a Vikings stadium bill.

Still, a bad economic report is a speed bump, where a public vote could have been a roadblock. Ramsey County Commissioner and stadium backer Tony Bennett said after the commission vote and report release that overall "I think it's been a good night. I think it keeps us going." And while the Arden Hills stadium plan may not have had much momentum left to begin with, on balance, Bennett is probably right.

October 11, 2011

Could BC Place-style renovation work for Metrodome?

Apparently FoS commenters aren't the only ones looking at Vancouver's newly renovated BC Place and wondering why Minneapolis can't do something similar with the Metrodome for the Vikings:

In late September, the Vancouver, B.C.-based BC Pavilion Corp. unveiled its BC Place stadium, home of the British Columbia Lions football team. Before the taxpayer-funded renovation, the stadium was about the same age, size and style as the 29-year-old Metrodome.

The Canadian project was completed for $563 million — considered a relative bargain by today's standards and about half as much as it would cost to build a proposed Vikings stadium in Arden Hills.

Now, there are still a ton of unanswered questions about any Metrodome renovation, foremost among them: Would a half-billion-or-so price tag be reasonable (a Vikings spokesperson claimed renovation would cost $967.4 million, but then they're the ones trying to argue for a new stadium), and would the Vikings still chip in the same $350 million that it's committed to a new building? Still, that anyone is even talking about this gives the idea a teeny bit of traction, especially when you already have a leading state official making noise about rehabbing the Metrodome. Of course, depending on the financing and the lease, a renovation can still end up being a money pit for taxpayers — in any case, this is clearly something that bears watching.

October 05, 2011

NYTimes: Vikings stadium woes are Tea Party's fault

Long article in the New York Times today about the Minnesota Vikings stadium push by the man they insist on assigning stadium stories to, the inimitable Ken Belson. And as is par for the Belson, there's plenty of good information in there, but the main premise misses it by that much:

The country's most popular sport is colliding with the country's emergent political philosophy: smaller government and lower taxes.

"We have to ask whether this is really a good use of the money," said King Banaian, one of more than 30 Republicans to join Minnesota's House of Representatives this year and a professor who teaches sports economics at St. Cloud State University. "Should we be supporting a new stadium over higher education? It's simply not a priority. These deals are, by and large, giveaways to millionaires and billionaires."

That would be an interesting and dramatic point — if not for the fact that Minnesotans have always been opposed to public funding of new sports stadiums. Belson cites a May Minneapolis Star-Tribune poll that found that 62% of Minnesotans want the Vikings to keep playing in the Metrodome, and 74% are opposed to using public money for a new football stadium. Compare that with, to pick just one example, this poll from 2004 that found more than 60% of Minnesotans opposed to using tax money for a Twins stadium, and more than two-thirds against the Vikings getting a new stadium at all.

The Twins, of course, got their new stadium, but only after the state legislature allowed Hennepin County to raise sales taxes without a voter referendum, which would certainly would have been defeated.

So opposition to spending money on stadium over schools is less a sign of an "emergent political philosophy" (since when do small-govenment types like school funding, anyway?) than a longstanding distaste for stadium subsidies among Minnesotans. It's always possible that this represents an emergent political philosophy among Minnesota legislators, of course. But then, given that it took ten years for the Twins to get their stadium through the legislature, and even then did so only by ensuring no state money was used and by a two-vote margin, it's probably fair to say there's nothing really new there, either.

September 29, 2011

Vikings hammered at stadium forum

Ramsey County held the first of its two promised public hearings on the Minnesota Vikings stadium plan on Wednesday night, and according to Minneapolis Minnesota Public Radio it wasn't exactly a lovefest:

The Vikings say they don't want their stadium plan on a ballot, and the meeting offered a clue as to why: It was a two-and-a-half-hour marathon of almost unbroken objection to the team's plans to pay for the facility on the former Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant site along Interstate 35W...

"I'm a stay-at-home mom. I am married to a third grade teacher. He is in a public school system and is again having another state pay freeze," [said Cindi Aarsvold Nickel of Shoreview]. "I get tired of having the gun held to all of our heads saying that we need to do this for them or else they're going to leave. In school this would be called bullying, and it's not to be tolerated."...

Opponents of the plan including Steve Donatelle, who has run Donatelli's restaurant in White Bear Lake restaurant for 35 years, said they feared that stadium tax would drive business out of the county. Donatelle told commissioners he's having "a real hard time" telling his customers the prices on his menu are going to go up because of the proposed stadium tax.

And so on, though one person did testify that it'd be worth building a stadium to get the polluted site, which he lives across the street from, cleaned up.

As for what Ramsey County can actually do about a state-imposed stadium tax, that's less clear. The state legislature has to power to waive the requirement that county residents vote on a tax increase, as they did for the Twins; the county charter commission can force a vote to overturn any state action, but that likely wouldn't take place until after the stadium was approved and underway, which could get messy.

The hope of stadium opponents in the county, clearly, is that the legislature will decide to steer clear of the Ramsey County proposal and go for something that will generate less opposition: either something on the Metrodome site (or a renovation of the dome), or maybe a site near Target Field. Of course, nobody's really seen cost or funding estimates for those sites, so there's no telling what opposition would arise to them. We could still have a ways to go on this one.

September 26, 2011

Minneapolis Mayor: We paid for the Metrodome, we should get the sale money

Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak threw another wrench into the already wrench-laden Minnesota Vikings stadium plan by insisting that if the Metrodome is sold, the proceeds go to his city, not to fund a new stadium in suburban Ramsey County. "We hit the roof when we heard there was a plan to take proceeds from the Metrodome and use it to build a stadium in Arden Hills," Rybak declared last Wednesday. (Yes, sorry, just catching up a bit here.) That money, he said, "does not belong to someone trying to move a business out of our city. And we will fight it every step of the way."

Rybak apparently has a case: State law says that if the Metrodome is sold, Minneapolis and Hennepin County each get $5 million from the proceeds. The mayor, however, wants an additional $25 million on top of that, on the grounds that the rest of the sale money is supposed to repay stadium debt — which was paid out by the city. Vikings stadium exec Lester Bagley retorts that since the Metrodome is already paid off, the money could be used to pay debt on a new stadium elsewhere.

I'd say that the whole thing is likely to end up in court, except that most of it is probably political posturing: Rybak is no doubt hoping to use his leverage with the state stadium-sale law to push the already-teetering Ramsey County plan into the scrap heap, and get attention refocused on the possibility of a new or renovated stadium in Minneapolis. And while $35 million is kind of a drop in the bucket in the context of a $1.03 billion stadium project, drops can add up.

September 16, 2011

MN house leader: No state money for Vikings, how about Metrodome reno?

Minnesota state house speaker Kurt Zellers, who earlier this week dared say that he didn't think the Minnesota Vikings would leave the state without a new stadium, upped the ante yesterday, saying he would oppose all efforts to spend state tax money on a Vikings stadium:

"There is absolutely no way we're going to be able to go to the finance commissioner and say, 'would you write out a $300 million check to [Vikings owner] Zygi Wilf, and put in the little memo section 'roof for the new stadium,'" Zellers told the [Grand Forks] Herald. "It's not going to happen."

He said the team needs to tie financing for the proposed stadium to "the game, something that as a fan, you as a participant at the game, are willing to do. I'm not really sure what this is just yet."

That sounds like he's looking for ticket taxes or user fees, which has been suggested before and not gone very far, in part because there's no way it'll pay for a nearly $1 billion stadium without eating into the Vikings' profits. Unless Zellers would accept a TIF, which would be another story.

Zellers also broached the possibility of renovating the Metrodome, which he called a "pretty good facility." So far nobody else has shown much interest in that, but if all the financing plans for a new stadium keep being stuck with multi-hundred-million-dollar holes, you never know.

September 15, 2011

Vikings stadium to face cost overruns, after-the-fact public vote?

Apparently the state of Minnesota saved up all its Vikings stadium news for today, because there's a crazy flurry of activity in the mostly stalled campaign:

• Gov. Mark Dayton declared that cost overruns on the project could increase the Vikings' share of the costs from $400 million to $500 million, since overruns are currently slated to be paid by the team. Vikings stadium VP Lester Bagley responded that the Vikings' share is still "in negotiations," which sounds worryingly like "We're still hoping to figure out how to have somebody else pay for that." (Bagley did sound more amenable in talking to Minneapolis Public Radio, running down the state and county's proposed contributions, then adding, "What's left? Everything else. Who covers everything else? We do.")
• Ramsey County has scheduled two public hearings for Sept. 28 and Oct. 11 to discuss a proposed voter referendum on whether to use sales tax money for a Vikings stadium. The vote would be held next November, which could be after the state approves a stadium plan; opponents of the stadium deal say that even having a scheduled vote could affect the debate over the project, but we've seen how that's worked out before.
• Minnesota state house speaker Kurt Zellers, who opposes public stadium funding without a referendum, declared that he didn't think the Vikings would move immediately if a new stadium isn't approved: "After this much heritage and tradition, I don't think they would."

September 01, 2011

Vikes mull upping stadium offer in exchange for other concessions

More new developments on the Minnesota Vikings stadium front:

• Vikings stadium point man Lester Bagley said that team owners could be willing to put in more upfront money, but in exchange for other considerations such as control of stadium revenue: "It's possible that the ownership contribution could go up, but all things are connected. There's a couple of other open issues that are all part of the package and all part of the negotiation, like the operational control of the facility and things like that. Those are big issues to everybody."
• Gov. Mark Dayton may not be committed to a public referendum anymore, but state senate majority leader Amy Koch says she thinks a public vote should be required.
• The Ramsey County Charter Commission met last night and voted to put off any action until October, holding two public forums in the interim. Not that the charter commission necessarily has say over a stadium deal, depending on what the state legislature does, but it's hoping if nothing else to exert public pressure on the shape of any deal.

Add it all up and ... enh, everything will probably change again by tomorrow, anyway, so no use reading tea leaves until they've hatched.

August 31, 2011

Dayton: Never mind that Vikings referendum thing

And so much for that: One day after saying that he'd support a referendum for a Minnesota Vikings stadium because "people should have their own voice," Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton said he didn't actually mean it:

"I don't have a problem with [a referendum], but I'm not advocating it," Dayton said. "I want to get this stadium project done."

The governor's comments clarified remarks from Monday at the State Fair where he said he would support a referendum. Dayton said those comments were twisted.

"I'm not supporting it, per se. I'm not opposed to it. If they pass legislation and the Legislature goes along with it, I'll support it," he said of the referendum.

Dayton also said that a special session of the state legislature to discuss the Vikings stadium issue was possible for November, but didn't specify whether that meant he actually wanted one or if he'd just go along with it if the Legislature wanted it.

In other Vikings stadium news, the team now says it doesn't need the roof on its stadium to be retractable, which would cut the total construction cost from $1.06 billion to $1.03 billion. That still leaves a $200 million funding gap, but I guess every penny counts.

August 30, 2011

Vikings hint at move, governor hints at stadium referendum

With the likelihood of a special session of the Minnesota state legislature this year rapidly evaporating, the Minnesota Vikings yesterday launched a new round of non-threat threats to move the team:

"I am concerned," about the future, said Lester Bagley, the Vikings vice president of public affairs and stadium development. "There is growing concern within our ownership, there is no doubt, about where this is headed and the fact that every year, we get to the end of the session and there's a different reason why (it didn't get done)." ...

"But now we're down to the end of the lease, and if we don't get it done this fall, we get to February (and) we will be the only NFL team without a lease," Bagley said. "The only one. There's already been knocks on the door about, 'Hey, we want to talk to you guys when your lease is up.'"

This kind of magical thinking about the end of the lease is widespread — one local paper wrote today that the lease ending means that after the season, "team owner Zygi Wilf is free to pack the team's bags and head out of Minnesota" — but actually meaningless, given that if the Vikings had wanted to move before this year, they would have been free to just by paying rent on the final year of their Metrodome lease. Still, it's a good opportunity for Vikings execs to rattle the move threat saber, so that's exactly what they're doing.

The response, though, may not be what they wanted. Gov. Mark Dayton responded by telling fairgoers at the Minneapolis Star Tribune booth at the state fair — yes, you read that right — that he'd "be supportive" of Ramsey County holding a public referendum on a stadium deal, saying, "In a case like this, people should have their own voice. We should do it somewhat expeditiously, like this November, so we can get it decided one way or another because the clock is ticking."

The Vikings, of course, don't want a public vote, because they're fairly certain they'd lose. So it looks pretty bad for any kind of Minnesota stadium deal in the immediate future — unless, of course, Dayton was just rattling the referendum saber.

July 26, 2011

The NFL's new stadium fund explained (sort of)

With the NFL lockout finally over, the blogwaves are afire with talk of how the league's new collective bargaining agreement will affect various teams' stadium campaigns. We've already seen a report that the San Diego Chargers could get up to $150 million in NFL stadium funds, another that the San Francisco 49ers and Raiders could pool their stadium credits to get $300 million for a shared stadium, and still others that AEG's planned Los Angeles stadium could get a cut. (The Minnesota Vikings could also be in line for funds, though apparently they've already been counting that particular chicken before it hatched.)

So how much money is really available, and where is it coming from? The press reports are maddeningly incomplete and contradictory, but this is, to the best of my knowledge, what's going on:

• Back in olden times, the NFL had a program called "G-3," which allowed home teams to keep the visitors' share of club seat revenues to use to help pay off new stadium costs. Initially implemented to help convince NFL teams to remain in large markets — it was originally concocted, in fact, by New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft, who limited it to the top six media markets, of which he just happened to play in #6 — it was eventually expanded to the whole league. Then the program ran out, and the flow of funds stopped.
• The successor to G-3 — which, sadly, won't be called G-4 — instead takes a 1.5% cut off the top of NFL revenues, and allocates it to stadium projects. (Sources disagree over whether this comes entirely out of the players' share or the owners would contribute as well.) At $9 billion a year in total league revenues, that would imply $135 million a year in stadium credits — though apparently the math isn't nearly so simple, which may explain why this article says only $95 million. Still, that's a huge amount of money, enough over ten years pay off about $734 million in stadium bonds. (It's not $950 million in stadium bonds because payments ten years from now aren't worth the same as payments now.)
• That huge number notwithstanding, scuttlebutt is that only three teams will be allowed to tap the new stadium loan fund, with rumors putting a cap at $150 million per team. That'd mean that from among the 49ers, Raiders, Vikings, Chargers, any team moving to L.A., and maybe the Jacksonville Jaguars, at least a couple of teams would get left out in the cold. Unless the NFL expanded the program again, which it seemingly would have the money to do.

All in all, this is a good thing for both teams wanting to build stadiums and for taxpayers not wanting to put their own money into stadiums, as this is the NFL recognizing that — because of its weird status as a league where the vast majority of revenue comes from national TV contracts — if it wants to encourage teams to stay in big markets and avoid killing the Fox golden goose, it needs to subsidize stadiums with its own money. Of course, it also could end up helping grease the wheels for some otherwise stuck stadium projects that would still involve some taxpayer money — $150 million per stadium doesn't go all that far — so in that sense, not so good. But in the grand scheme of things, billionaires voting to spend some of their own billions on projects to increase their billions is nothing to sneeze at.

July 19, 2011

Vikings stadium dead again?

After a two-week government shutdown, the state of Minnesota finally has a budget deal, albeit one that mostly kicks the tough decisions into the future by closing the budget gap by borrowing from future revenues. Still, that means that the Vikings can finally stop waiting and get moving on that stadium bill that, we were promised, would be the next thing on the legislative agenda once the state's checkbook was back in operation.

Only now it turns out it won't be:

Sen. Julie Rosen, R-Fairmont, said that the stadium bill could be acted on during a special session later this year, perhaps in the fall. She said that she remains "strongly committed" to the bill, along with Gov. Mark Dayton and House sponsor Rep. Morrie Lanning, R-Moorhead.

"We will have a vote on [the stadium bill] and we'll work to get it passed," Rosen said. "But if I tried to get a vote on it right now, I'd be strung up."

Rep. Michael Nelson, one of Rosen's co-authors on the stadium bill, elaborated on why Rosen was worried about a lynch mob: "There's not a lot of support for cutting people off health care, cutting jobs, then turning around and authorizing bonding for a stadium."

Rosen's boundless optimism aside, the odds on a Vikings stadium bill passing this year are getting pretty long: There's no guarantee that Gov. Mark Dayton will even call another special session this fall, for one thing; for another, there's still a $231 million funding gap; for third, there's still the threat of a referendum campaign to force a public vote.

If I'm the Vikings owners, I start drawing up plans for a short-term lease extension at the Metrodome for beyond this year; it's not like a new stadium would be ready for 2012 anyway, so they're going to need to play somewhere. Just don't tell the voters or legislators — that'll take away one of your best meaningless deadlines.

July 06, 2011

St. Paul council to wag finger at Vikings sales tax

Man, it really must be a slow news week: The headlines out of Minnesota (where the state government remains shut down over a budget impasse) are that the St. Paul city council plans to vote for a non-binding resolution opposing a sales tax hike in Ramsey County to pay for a new Vikings stadium. That'd be the same St. Paul city council that's already excoriated the stadium bill, and which has no actual say over the sales tax hike. And did I mention that the resolution is non-binding?

The move appears to be an attempt to push for more statewide funding for the Vikings, so that less of a share comes from Ramsey County; which would be a fine idea, except that 1) most of the economic benefits (meager though they may be) would come from stealing economic activity from surrounding counties, so on a state level it's even less worth funding, and 2) it's state legislators voting on this, and as noted, they already can't agree on how to spend their own money. Which is why we're talking about county money in the first place, just as happened with the Twins.

Over on the defense side, meanwhile, county commissioner Tony Bennett explained his sponsorship of a Vikings tax bill thusly: "I don't want to vote for the sales tax either, but what other choice do we have?" Let me think ... how about don't vote for the sales tax? Yes, that would risk the Vikings turning to Plan B in Minneapolis, but given that Ramsey County looks like it'd be taking a loss on building a stadium, that's the kind of risk that the county might want to take.

And, of course, there's always the possibility that if you say no to the Vikings, they'll sweeten the pot from their end. The Minneapolis Star Tribune writes that "reports on the behind-closed-doors talks have indicated the cost of the stadium may have dropped as low as $800 million while the Vikings' contribution increased." That still may not be enough to fill the $231 million funding gap, let alone reduce Ramsey County taxpayers' costs, but at least it'd be something.

June 17, 2011

Gap grows $100m wider on Vikings stadium

Today is D-Day for the Minnesota Vikings stadium plan, the deadline set earlier this week by which a deal had to be consummated ... except that it really isn't. A stadium deal only needs to be in place today if the legislature wants to have time for hearings before a special session at the end of the month to pass a state budget, but all indications now are that Gov. Mark Dayton and the legislature are going to keep playing chicken over a government shutdown on June 30, which means there may be no special session, or at least not one until the last possible second. (Best headline goes to NBC Sports: "Vikings stadium plan won't meet meaningless deadline.")

It seems unlikely in the extreme that the roadblocks to a deal could get worked out by then anyway, given that the funding plan has more holes than it takes to fill the Albert Hall:

• First off, there the $131 million in road improvements that would be needed for a stadium in Arden Hills, which the state says it won't pay for, and the Vikings owners say should be paid for with sales tax kickbacks and other government funds.
• Second, the current plan calls for the state to fund part of its share of the stadium cost with taxes on sports memorabilia (which Minnesota's other pro sports teams hate) and an income tax surcharge on football players (which may well be unconstitutional). On top of that, the latest estimates are that the memorabilia tax would bring in only about half as much revenue as had originally been projected, blowing roughly another $100 million hole in the stadium budget.

What to do? ESPN's Kevin Seifert recommends scrapping making the stadium roof retractable, but that would only save $25 million, so it hardly seems worth it. Ditching the roof entirely would cut $206 million, but neither the team nor the state seems interested in that, it would violate the Vikings' agreement with Ramsey County, and the team would get to keep half of the savings regardless. (Though I suppose with everything still up for negotiation, the state could always demand all of the savings from eliminating a roof.) So instead we sit, and wait. Just like 42,000 Minnesota state workers.

June 15, 2011

Vikings stadium meeting agrees on need for more stadium meetings

So the Minnesota bigwigs met yesterday about a Vikings stadium as expected, and also as expected, nothing concrete came of it:

"We had a very productive and constructive meeting," [Gov. Mark] Dayton said, emerging after more than an hour behind closed doors. "The end of this week is essentially the deadline."

As the St. Paul Pioneer Press makes clear, though, there really isn't a deadline, because there's no sign of when a special legislative session might start. (Minnesota still doesn't have a state budget, if you're scoring at home.) In any case, it doesn't sound like much progress was made toward filling the project's $131 million budget gap, let alone the dispute over who would get naming-rights money from the stadium.

Of course, it's always possible that the state and the Vikings will hash something out by Friday, even if it's only a matter of each kicking in a few pennies themselves and kicking a bunch of the missing costs over to the county government or something. But my money is still on everybody punting until 2012. At least, if the ground isn't too hard.

June 14, 2011

Vikings seek sales-tax kickbacks to pay for stadium road work

The Minnesota Vikings released more details of their rumored TIF plan yesterday, and it turns out to be not just a TIF but a STIF:

The plan calls for redirecting $25 million in federal road funding to the project, and getting $21 million dollars in extra environmental cleanup funds.

"These are credits that we think are attainable," said Vikings vice president Lester Bagley, who rolled out the plan at a Capitol press briefing Monday afternoon.

But those credits alone won't close the gap. For the rest, the team wants Ramsey County or the state to borrow at least $61 million more, to be repaid with existing sales taxes and ticket taxes, as well as the additional revenue which will be generated by taxes on liquor, memorabilia and parking at the stadium itself over future years.

"These taxes are generated at a base level in 2011, and in 2015 in the new stadium, the revenues have raised," said Bagley. "The idea is to capture the incremental increase in these revenues and use them to pay off these transportation bonds."

That's sales tax increment financing, or a STIF. I know I've written before about why STIFs are even worse ideas than TIFs — oh, yes, here it is, about an old stadium proposal in ... why, it's Minnesota!

STIFs have never been used in Minnesota, and in those states where they have been used, they have a checkered past: as finance expert John Mikesell has written in the one substantial study of STIFs, sales taxes "are less suited for use in tax increment finance programs" than property taxes for several reasons, including the volatile nature of sales-tax receipts during lean economic times, and the difficulty in determining how much sales tax activity is "new" and how much is merely cannibalized from spending in nearby areas. (California repealed its STIF law in 1993 for precisely this reason.)

There's been no immediate reaction from state officials, but apparently they're meeting with Vikings execs right now behind closed doors to try to hash out an agreement. More news once there's a post-meeting announcement, or sooner than that if we can get any British tabloid journalists on the case.

June 13, 2011

AEG outs five NFL teams as L.A. relocation targets

AEG president Tim Leiweke, not content to be dropping arbitrary deadlines for his company's downtown Los Angeles stadium plan, let loose another media salvo on Thursday by declaring that his boss, Philip Anschutz (the "A" in "AEG"), was prepared to buy an NFL team to move it to L.A. — and then naming names about which teams he was considering:

"St. Louis, Jacksonville, not extensively, certainly Oakland, San Diego, Minnesota are still in the mix," Leiweke said listing the teams AEG has met with before adding: "We're not packing any [moving] vans right now."

Now, "met with" doesn't necessarily mean the current team owners are actually considering AEG's offer (or that there's a solid offer to consider). Still, it was enough to set off media mayhem in the listed cities. A San Diego Chargers blog declared that "The Hit List Is Out"; Oakland Raiders CEO Amy Trask issued a statement denying that her team was for sale; and Minnesota Vikings execs insisted that their only meetings with AEG were over possibly operating the new stadium they want built in Minnesota.

Meanwhile, though the St. Louis Rams probably aren't for sale, ESPN noted this would give their owner welcome leverage in his own stadium campaign. And that's the main upshot here: For Leiweke to come out with a statement like this is a win-win for all the bigwigs involved — AEG gets a carrot to dangle alongside its July 31 deadline stick, and the owners of all the rumored move targets get a threat to use against their own localities, plus plausible deniability against being blamed for threatening a move.

And as for us? We get to play the home version. (Currently leading: The Jacksonville Jaguars, by a sizeable margin over "nobody" and then the Raiders.)

June 08, 2011

Stadium talks at "stalemate," Vikings offer other people's money to fill gap

Things just look worser and worser for the all-but-dead Minnesota Vikings stadium campaign. In the latest news, state stadium czar Ted Mondale declared that "we're kind of in a stalemate" over stadium talks, with neither the state, Ramsey County, nor the Vikings willing to pay for $131 million in road work that would be needed on top of the $1.05 billion in construction costs.

Vikings execs did proffer a plan this week to pay for the new roads, but not with their money:

"We have laid out a transportation finance plan to pay for the roads for the Arden Hills site," said Lester Bagley, the team's vice president of public relations and stadium development. "It's a user-based finance proposal. The intent is to capture transportation revenues at the stadium or near the stadium."

Bagley declined to go into details but said part of the plan would raise money from taxes or fees on spending around the stadium that wouldn't have happened were it not for a stadium being there.

Dear lord, it's yet another TIF! Which went nowhere when then-governor Tim Pawlenty proposed it last year, so it's not something that should make anyone think a stadium deal is imminent. No one, that is, except for Mike Nelson. (And no, still not that Mike Nelson.)

June 07, 2011

Vikings stadium deal: When is a subsidy not a subsidy?

The Daily Norseman, the SBNation blog on the Minnesota Vikings, has a long post up today about the projected public cost of a Vikings stadium, and in particular whether it should be criticized as a "subsidy." After all, writes the author, if you've gone to a public school, or visited a public library, or ridden public transit, you've taken advantage of subsidies, so what's the harm in that?

Of course, there's an obvious difference between subsidizing something that's a pure public benefit like a library and a profit-making enterprise like a pro sports team — hence the book subtitle. So in an attempt to argue that the Vikings provide a public benefit beyond allowing fans to plunk down $100 to watch an NFL game, the Norseman goes on to discuss the taxes paid by the Vikings:

According to the Vikings organization, every year the Vikings contribute $18 million in state and local taxes. Not only does the team contribute to the tax base, but so does the stadium they use-the Metrodome has generated $304 million in tax revenue for the state of Minnesota since it opened. If Minnesota lost the Vikings, we would see a direct loss of millions in tax revenue that the team, and its stadium, brings the state.

Losing the Vikings means the tax base would also suffer indirectly from the loss of Minnesota jobs. Including all the staff, coaches, active players, and practice squad players, the Vikings organization employs approximately 200 people. Vikings' game days at the Metrodome, including staff, players, and coaches, support 2,800 full- and part-time jobs.

Spot the economic fallacy yet? Let's think this through: Say the Vikings skip town tomorrow for ... okay, Los Angeles doesn't actually have a stadium yet, and may not ever, so let's just put them on a barge floating down the Mississippi or something. The team and its employees stop paying taxes, sure enough. But they also stop selling tickets, and jerseys, and overpriced beers. What happens to that money?

Well, it goes back into the pockets of Vikings fans. If those are Vikings fans who live in North Dakota, then yes, they'll probably spend it on hunting for big game at the local comedy club or something. But for our suddenly NFL-bereft Minnesotans, they're likely as not going to spend it on something else: Going to the movies to fill their suddenly empty fall afternoons, buying big screen TVs to watch the Barge Vikings, drowning their sorrows in slightly less overpriced beer. And wherever they spend their money (unless they order their beer over the internet), the businesses they spend it at will be hiring people to make their sales, and will pay taxes on it.

There's even a potential benefit to having money spent this way: Unlike Vikings players, who may or may not live full-time in Minnesota (and even if they do is likely to spend a chunk of their money on things like vacation homes), the average convenience store beer salesperson is likely to spend almost all of their salary within the state. (Movies, because so much of the ticket price goes straight to Hollywood, is less of an obvious gain.) So a dollar spent on the Vikings doesn't necessarily equal a dollar spent on some other entertainment, in terms of impact on the local economy.

Those, in a nutshell, are the "substitution effect" and "leakage," the two biggest economic factors that stadium subsidy backers invariably overlook. It's absolutely fine to argue that subsidies to private enterprises are worthwhile if the payoff for local taxpayers is greater than what they'd be spending. The problem is, in virtually every stadium deal — including the proposed Vikings stadium — that's not the way the numbers work out.

June 02, 2011

Vikings stadium bill still undead

This really says all that needs to be said about the Minnesota Vikings stadium campaign:

Even as the state prepares for a possible government shutdown, lawmakers are still working on a potential Vikings stadium bill.

That said, there's been a mild flurry of Vikings news this week, so:

• An economic consultant told Ramsey County that it can afford its $350 million share of a Vikings stadium. That's how the Minneapolis Star Tribune headline put it, anyway; in actuality, all the consultant said was that raising sales taxes by 0.5% should be enough to pay off that much in stadium bonds. Whether the county can afford to raise sales taxes by that much — in other words, what the negative economic effects would be from such a hike — was outside the scope of the report.
• Readying the Ramsey County stadium site in Arden Hills would involve cleaning up acres of contaminated soil, and the cost is "unknown," according to the St. Paul Pioneer Press. However, if the cleanup cost goes up, the Army has agreed to sell the land for less.
• Arden Hills held a public meeting last night to hear citizen comments on the stadium plan, and "many who attended had concerns," according to KSTP-TV. (Video snippets from the meeting here.)

Plus, there's still that $200 million funding gap, plus the possibility of a petition campaign forcing a public vote. And the continuing NFL lockout, which can't be helping build enthusiasm for the project. Still, it's at least treading water, and as the Twins proved over a decade of their own stadium campaigning, that can be enough to get a bill passed eventually, if you're not picky about when "eventually" is.

May 24, 2011

Vikings stadium bill headed for special session (maybe)

The Minnesota state legislative session expired yesterday without holding hearings on a Vikings stadium bill or — what was the other thing? — oh, right, passing a budget. As a result, both items will need to wait for a special session in June, or as Minnesota House Speaker Kurt Zellers insisted on calling it, "overtime."

If history is any guide, whether the Vikings bill has a chance of getting anywhere in June likely depends on two things: Whether legislators have enough time after settling the budget squabble to address anything else, and whether somebody finds enough money laying around to fill the current $200 million gap. And even then, there's always that pesky referendum campaign waiting out there in the weeds.

Okay, three things.

May 19, 2011

Road cost recalculation trims Vikings stadium fund gap to $200m

Minnesota transportation commissioner Tom Sorel may not have been asked to come up with a cheaper Vikings stadium road plan, as he said Tuesday, but he came up with one anyway: Road upgrades will now cost $131 million, according to a report Sorel released yesterday, down from the earlier $175 million estimate, but up from the $80 million Vikings officials claimed they could be done for.

"It's progress and this makes it more manageable," Vikings stadium czar Lester Bagley told the Minneapolis Star Tribune yesterday. Still, no one has proposed any way to pay for even $131 million in road costs. Add in the fact that the Vikings say naming-rights money goes to pay off their share, and the state says it's theirs, and the funding gap is still at around $200 million or so. "We've got to find creative financing," Bagley told the Strib, shortly before practicing this over and over again.

But hey, all that can be worked out by the state legislature before it adjourns on Monday, right? After all, it's not like they have anything else they need to be working on.

May 18, 2011

Complete chaos breaks out in Vikings stadium fight

I step away from the Minnesota Vikings stadium wars for a couple of days, and already the plotlines have gone all to hell. I mean, sweeps month or no, who could have seen this coming?

• NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell pledged the league's financial support for a stadium at the Arden Hills ammo plant site in Ramsey County, but wouldn't say how much money the NFL would kick in, saying only he'd provide more details "in the next few days."
• Ramsey County commissioner Tony Bennett said he'd been "told that our people and MnDOT's people" will shortly come up with a plan for trimming the estimated $175 million in currently unfunded road costs for an Arden Hills stadium — at which point Minnesota transportation commissioner Tom Sorel promptly said that he had never been asked to come up with a cheaper plan.
• Primary Vikings stadium bill sponsor state senator Julie Rosen said she might introduce two bills, one for Arden Hills and one for Minneapolis. "I don't know right now," Rosen told the Pioneer Press yesterday. "Do you put two bills in, or do you just put one bill? I don't know. That's what we're trying to figure out."
• Local business leaders have hired Jac Sperling, a sports consultant who had a hand in getting stadium or arena deals passed in several other cities, to help spearhead their own efforts to choose a site to get behind.
• Um, this.

I have no idea what to expect next, but maybe Minnesota state officials can try this if they're running out of ideas.

May 16, 2011

Could Ramsey County residents force a Vikings stadium vote?

That get-out-of-vote-free card that some Minnesota state legislators want to hand to whatever county agrees to build a new Vikings stadium may not be worth as much as they'd hoped. The new group No Vikings Tax (self-described as "a project of several neighborhood activists and community organizers") say that they can use county and city charters in Ramsey County and Minneapolis to effectively overturn any no-vote legislation passed by the state:

Opponents say those charters allow them to collect enough voter signatures (about 10 percent of registered voters) to place a referendum on the next election ballot that would overturn any state measure that bans a referendum on the stadium. If successful, they then allow a public vote on any ordinances passed to fund the project.

"We could usurp their usurpation," said Chris David, head of the small group, which met to plot strategies to get the Vikings and their owners to pay the entire cost of a new stadium.

A referendum campaign would require about 25,000 signatures to get on the ballot in Ramsey County, or 8,500 in Minneapolis. If successful, even putting the referendum on the ballot would be enough to put a stadium bill on hold until a public vote is held.

In other Vikings stadium news, Gov. Mark Dayton became the latest elected official to say he isn't crazy about the Ramsey County financing plan, since it gives too much stadium revenue to the team, and puts the state on the hook for both $300 million in stadium costs and as much as $240 million in new roads — $300 million, declared Dayton, is "absolutely the limit" for the state's contribution.

Meanwhile, the St. Paul Pioneer Press reports that "nearby cities" are hoping that a Vikings stadium in Ramsey County could help spur other development ... though the only person saying this in the article, it turns out, is the VP of a local commercial real estate firm. Also, the "other development" is the rest of the Arden Hills ammo plant site, much of which is polluted, and "the remaining [cleanup] costs chased away a developer a few years ago," according to the Pioneer Press.

The Vikings would control development of the site, and have presented a plan for retail, restaurants, a movie theater, and parking — none of which really will benefit from a football stadium next door, because who's going to open a movie theater on the off chance that on ten Sundays a year, Vikings fans will decide they want to take in The Hangover Part VII after the game? It's always possible that the site is ripe for retail development, but if so, then there's no need to build a stadium there to jump-start it; and if not, then ... ballpark village, anyone?

May 13, 2011

Vikings plan gets hate from Ramsey County pols, new naming-rights funding gap

The hits just keep on coming for the Arden Hills Minnesota Vikings stadium plan:

"I am generally not supportive of spending $300 million at this time for a Vikings facility." —St. Paul City Council president Kathy Lantry

"It is important to a whole lot of people, but the Ramsey County proposal is a complicated one. I need to know those [sales tax] numbers. What are they asking the residents and the people shopping in St. Paul to pay? What are the benefits of the Arden Hills site to St. Paul?" —St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman

Of the county's 22 state representatives and senators, 18 responded to a Pioneer Press survey asking whether they supported the current county-Vikings proposal. ... Only one, freshman Sen. John Harrington, DFL-St. Paul, supported it, although Rep. Tim Mahoney, DFL-St. Paul, said he's "strongly considering it." Two lawmakers said they hadn't decided. Fourteen said they oppose it, with many responding via email with capital letters: "NO." —St. Paul Pioneer Press

Now, of course, there's no reason a Ramsey County Vikings bill can't get through the state legislature without the support of elected officials from Ramsey County or St. Paul (which is the county's largest city). Still, having seemingly every politician around hating on the bill isn't exactly a good start, especially when there's only a week and a half to get the thing passed. It's notable that the chair of the state house transportation committee, Rep. Michael Beard, told the Minneapolis Star Tribune that one option could be to send "some signals" to the Vikings this year and then pass a bill in 2012: "We have time to get [the details] teed up next year yet."

Speaking of the details, more are emerging with the release of the Ramsey County term sheet:

• As part of the deal, Ramsey County will buy the 430-acre Arden Hills site from the U.S. Army "on terms acceptable to the Parties," then turn around and sell 170 acres to the Vikings for a pro-rated price. Cost overruns on land acquisition similarly get split on a 170/430 basis.
• The Vikings pay cost overruns on the stadium itself, but they have a big out: "If the Team determines a retractable roof is not economically or otherwise feasible, the Team may decide to develop the Stadium with a fixed roof." The Vikings get to keep the first $41 million in cost savings from a cheaper project, splitting anything over that evenly with the county.
• The team will pay no rent, but will cover operating expenses, though the county will kick in $1.5 million a year toward those as well.
• "The County and Team shall jointly seek to exempt from sales taxes building materials purchased for the Stadium and related improvements." That's not a huge subsidy, but given past precedent it could amount to an extra $10 million or so from the state.
• "All revenues (net of generally applicable taxes, fees, etc.) derived from the operations of the Stadium and parking facilities including signage, naming rights, etc. shall belong to the Team." That's rather a big deal, given that the Rosen bill says that naming rights belong to the state; if the state balks at this provision, it could potentially an additional funding gap of $100 million or more.

Add in that estimated $175 million cost of new roads that no one's figured out how to pay for yet, and there are still a ton of questions to be resolved about this plan, and not a lot of time in which to resolve them. No wonder Beard is already looking ahead to a Plan B.

May 11, 2011

Me on radio re Vikings, 9:35 am CT

Just a note that I'll be on 830 WCCO in Minneapolis for 10-15 minutes this morning starting at 9:35 Central time, talking about the Minnesota Vikings stadium situation. Tune in online, or via one of those radio things if you're actually in the Twin Cities.

Ramsey County Vikings plan has a $175m hole

MinnPost has a good wrapup of the aftermath of the last two days' dueling Minnesota Vikings stadium plans, including media and politician response. The upshot:

• There's still a whopping big hole in Ramsey County's stadium budget, as the $1.05 billion stadium price tag apparently doesn't include an estimated $175 million in road improvements (and possibly as much as $240 million if the rest of the Arden Hills site is developed) that the state would have to pay for — on top of its $300 million contribution to the stadium itself. State senator Julie Rosen told the Associated Press that going over $300 million in state funds was a "non-starter," so it sounds like it's back to looking under sofa cushions if this deal has a hope of moving forward.
• Several Ramsey County legislators already hate the plan, with three of them — state reps Alice Hausman and Mindy Greiling and state senator and longtime stadium critic John Marty — issuing a joint statement declaring: "Ramsey County is facing massive and damaging cuts in human services. To choose to raise taxes for a Vikings stadium represents not only misplaced priorities, but a lack of sensitivity to human needs." (Greiling further told the AP: "The vast majority of Ramsey County legislators don't support it," said Rep. Mindy Greiling, DFL-Roseville. "They're smoking up the wrong pipe. The public is not for this if you poll them, and if they are they want it to be as cheap as possible.")
• The Star Tribune editorial board thinks the Minneapolis stadium deal would be a better one for the state legisature because it would cost the city government less than the suburban plan would cost Ramsey County. Which doesn't exactly make sense (the state legislature made it eminently clear in the Twins deal that it's only going to safeguard its own pocketbook, not those of local cities or counties), though it makes somewhat more when you read the disclosure note on the editorial: "(Disclosure: The Star Tribune owns property near the Metrodome site, and the value of that property is likely to be affected by the location decision.)"

May 10, 2011

Ramsey County and Vikings announce $1.05B retractable-roofed stadium plan

That didn't take long. Just 24 hours after Minneapolis announced its Vikings stadium plan, Ramsey County announced its own. This one would cost $1.05 billion, and have something Minneapolis doesn't have — the agreement of the Vikings:

The agreement calls for an $884 million stadium and an additional $173 million for on-site infrastructure, parking and environmental costs.

Ramsey County said the Vikings will commit $407 million to the project — 44 percent of the stadium costs and 39 percent of the overall costs. The county's share would be $350 million, to be financed by a half-cent sales tax increase.

Why the Vikings objected to paying $400 million for a Minneapolis stadium but are willing to put up $407 million for one in Arden Hills is a mystery, unless 1) they really, really don't want to have to play at the U of M stadium for three years; 2) they really, really want to play in the burbs where there's ample room for parking and tailgating; or 3) they were offended that Minneapolis came up with its plan without them, while Ramsey County said "please" and "thank you."

In any case, there's still one thing the Ramsey County plan hasn't got: actual money. To get that, the state legislature will have to approve both $300 million in state funding and a get-out-of-referendum-free card for Ramsey County, which otherwise would be required by law to hold a public vote to raise its sales tax. Both of those items are included in the Rosen bill; however, last we checked in the bill was getting extremely lukewarm reviews, and it has only until a week from next Monday to make it through committee and to a vote. (Though this latest announcement will likely light a fire under some legislators, especially those from Ramsey County who dig football and higher sales taxes.)

If nothing else, Zygi Wilf and his crew have pulled off an impressive come-from-behind drive: Just two months after it looked like a Vikings stadium bill was dead for this year, now the team owners have at least an outside shot of getting something passed, NFL lockout be damned; and if not, they still got a jump start on a city-vs-suburb bidding war to whip up in earnest for 2012. If they're thinking long-term &mdash and most sports owners worth their salt are able to do so when it comes to stadium deals — that's a win for the Wilfs, regardless of how things turn out in the legislature the next two weeks.

Minneapolis unveils $990 million Vikings-Wolves stadium-arena construction-renovation plan

And the Minneapolis plan for a Minnesota Vikings stadium is in. The highlights:

• An $895 million domed football stadium on the site of the Metrodome (and, according to Reuters, "incorporat[ing] parts of the existing Metrodome"), plus a $95 million renovation of the nearby Target Center.
• The state of Minnesota would contribute one-third, or $300 million, as a bill in the legislature has already proposed.
• The city would kick in $195 million (22%), to be collected from a ticket tax, parking fees, restaurant and liquor taxes, a new 0.15% city sales tax, and the extension of taxes currently being used to pay off the city's convention center.
• The Vikings would pay $400 million (40%) of the stadium cost.

Clearly this plan faces a ton of hurdles: The state bill has to be passed by the legislature before it goes home on Monday. The city money would need a voter referendum for approval. And did I mention that Vikings execs hate the idea?

Lester Bagley, a Vikings' vice president, said the Vikings appreciated the proposal but that a $400 million contribution was too much. He also noted that playing in the University of Minnesota's TCF Bank Stadium for three years while the new field was built would cost the Vikings $40 million in lost revenue.

"$440 million for the site does not work, and it's not something we can support," Bagley said. "Three parties need to negotiate a deal, and this does not accomplish that."

Still, it's got people talking about where to build a stadium, not whether to build one, and the Vikings owners have to be happy about that. If you're in the Twin Cities and want to join the conversation, veteran MinnPost stadium reporter Jay Weiner is interviewing Minnesota stadium czar Ted Mondale next Monday night; tickets are $15. Hey, if 60 million people show up, maybe they can use the proceeds to build a stadium!

May 09, 2011

Minneapolis set to announce Vikings stadium plan

Word on the street — if it's a street where the Minneapolis Star Tribune is sold — is that the city of Minneapolis is set to announce today a plan for a new Minnesota Vikings stadium on the site of the Metrodome. According to the paper, citing a "source with close knowledge of the plan":

The city plan, according to the source, would use sales taxes from the city's convention center for the project and also would provide money for renovation of Target Center, the home of the Minnesota Timberwolves in downtown Minneapolis. The proposal would also change the debt structure for Target Center.

No city property taxes would be used for the Vikings stadium, the source said.

Still, diverting sales taxes would almost certainly trigger a requirement for a public vote, under the 1997 law requiring a referendum on any stadium expenses more than $10 million. Not to mention that changes in sales taxes already require a public vote in Minnesota, though of course the state legislature is already talking about waiving that requirement, as it did previously for the Twins.

We should find out more once the press conference happens, which the Strib says will be by "mid-afternoon." Stay tuned.

May 06, 2011

Vikings stadium: The dome or the dump

Hennepin County, where Minneapolis is located, has pulled itself out of the running to be the home of a new Minnesota Vikings stadium, with county board chair Mike Opat writing to Gov. Mark Dayton, "In this time of severe cuts proposed to local governments and to the services we provide, it is too burdensome for Hennepin County to act as a local partner for the Vikings stadium."

That doesn't take Minneapolis entirely out of the picture, but it does seemingly knock out the site near Target Field that some business leaders were trying to push, since Minneapolis officials are focused on a stadium on the site of the Metrodome. But don't forget that Minneapolis voters passed a $10 million cap on city funding for any stadium way back in 1997; that would either have to be repealed (difficult) or gotten around (also difficult) to make any city-funded deal work. Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak seems to be in favor of the "wave your hands really fast and hope a solution emerges out of thin air" strategy: His spokesperson John Stiles told the Minneapolis Star Tribune that the there are "a lot of different ways you could get a local partner done. It wouldn't have to be just one. ... I don't know that the final resolution would include a three-way split." Not like there's a bill in the legislature that would require a three-way split or anything.

That seems to leave only Ramsey County, home of the Arden Hills ammo plant site. And, in fact, Ramsey County Commissioner Rafael Ortega told the St. Paul Pioneer Press yesterday that the county is "very, very close" to an agreement with the Vikings, though he didn't provide any details of what an agreement would look like.

Of course, that would still leave getting a bill through the state legislature, which adjourns two weeks from Monday. Not that that's impossible, just very, very improbable.

May 04, 2011

Ramsey County, Minneapolis spar to be Vikings stadium site, mum on money

The Minnesota Vikings stadium funding bill may remain stalled in the state legislature, but plenty of people are lining up to provide a new home for the Vikes, should the state decide to throw money at one. Well, two people. Or maybe one and a half:

• Ramsey County Commissioner Tony Bennett says his county is continuing to negotiate with the Vikings on building a stadium in Arden Hills: "We've made a lot of progress. We've talked over a lot of their concerns and our concerns, and we've reached agreement on a lot of those areas." What exactly they've agreed on, Bennett didn't so much say.
• The best site for a new stadium would be the Farmers Market site near Target Field in downtown Minneapolis, according to a study by ... a developer who owns land near there. As reported in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, which also owns land in the area.

Way more details on the site debates here thanks to MinnPost, though no talk of how any of this would actually be paid for.

April 26, 2011

MN Gov. Dayton: Vikings should pay 40-50% of stadium cost

Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton upped the ante on the Vikings stadium proposal yesterday, telling Minnesota Public Radio that the team owners should pay between 40% and 50% of stadium construction cost. That's up from the one-third share proposed in the all-but-comatose stadium bill, and way up from the one-third-not-counting-roof-costs that team owner Zygi Wilf said he was in for.

Now, there are lots of ways of counting shares — the Vikings could, for example, pay more cash up front but get more at the back end by getting a bigger cut of stadium revenues — but still, it looks like things are headed in a direction that is not going to make Wilf happy. State senator Julie Rosen, lead sponsor of the stadium bill, said she still has hopes of getting a bill passed this year, and that any final legislation "is going to change dramatically from what it is now." Maybe this is all part of the plan: Ask the Vikings for more cash and see if that gets any more legislators on board?

Of course, there'd still be plenty of public cash — about half a billion dollars of it — and Dayton spoke to that as well:

He said he disagreed with sports economists who say the economic impact of a sports stadium is negligible. As many as 8,000 people could be employed for three years building the stadium, he said.

So, half a billion dollars, to create 8,000 jobs — that's $62,500 per job. That would be almost semi-respectable, except that the jobs only last three years. The long-term full-time equivalent job creation is likely to be in the low thousands, which would put the job creation numbers in the more typical for stadiums $100,000-$250,000 per job range, or as economic development analysts call it, "despicable."

April 22, 2011

State share of Vikings stadium would mostly tax sports-jersey buyers

The Minnesota Department of Revenue put out its revenue estimates for the state's $300 million share of a Vikings stadium cost yesterday. The upshot: The vast majority of the state money (more than two-thirds) would come from a sports memorabilia tax, with a 5% income tax surcharge on Vikings player salaries a distant second; taxes on luxury suite rentals and satellite TV services would amount to not much more than rounding errors. Also, since all sports memorabilia would be subject to the tax surcharge, this means that this "user fee" would be hitting Twins and Wild fans even if they had no interest in football.

As for the local third of the stadium cost, which would likely come mostly from a countywide sales tax hike, that still has no takers. Hennepin County board chair Mike Opat — who, you may recall, helped lead the charge for a new Twins stadium — this week pretty much ruled out his county bidding to become the Vikings' new home on these terms, telling Minnesota Public Radio, "I think the odds are against it" and "It's hard to think that when there's a summons to come rescue the Vikings stadium effort, that we're going to leap to the front of the line."

With Minneapolis likely out of the running thanks to its voter-approved $10 million cap on city stadium funding, that would leave Ramsey County as the only remaining Vikings suitor. Assuming anyone believes that the Vikings bill has a snowball's chance of hell in making through the state legislature this year in the first place.

April 14, 2011

Dayton: Vikings deserve new stadium because the Rolling Stones are awesome!

So I wasn't even going to finish reading today's Sid Hartman interview with Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton about his Vikings stadium plans, because Dayton didn't say much new (sample snippet: "I think once they crunch the numbers, you know the cost of the different possible stadiums and locations, we'll have a better idea of which ones fit the economic picture or not"), and also, well, Sid Hartman. But then I got a load of Dayton's rationale for sinking $600 million in taxpayer money into a new stadium, and couldn't let it pass without comment:

"I certainly would hate to see the Los Angeles Vikings along with the Los Angeles Lakers. It would just be a travesty," he said. "It's also what makes us a big-league city. You and I can go back to when the Metrodome was built, that was controversial. [But] here you have had, for that public investment ... two World Series; one Super Bowl; all the athletics, college, high school and amateur; and rollerblading, Rolling Stone concerts and monster truck matches; and all the other uses of that major downtown facility. [It's] been a phenomenal economic return."

First off: If losing a single major-league sports team would cast the Twin Cities into minor-league status — they're one of the smaller metro areas to boast teams in all four major sports leagues — then presumably the local economy collapsed between 1993, when the North Stars left, to 2000, when the Wild arrived? Second, the last time the Rolling Stones played at the Metrodome was in 1997, and I don't think they're coming back. (And even if they did, it would be to the Target Center, where they played in 1999.) And third ... rollerblading?

Mostly, though, the point that Dayton misses (or, more likely, tries to evade) is that almost all those other things can still happen if the Vikings leave. The Metrodome, after all, isn't going anywhere (it needs a new roof, but will get one regardless of whether a new stadium is built), and is perfectly capable of hosting monster trucks and rollerblading even without a 10-day-a-year tenant in the fall to keep it company.

Dayton is right about one thing: The Metrodome was a good investment, but not because of the events that it drew, but rather because it was relatively cheap ($68 million) and because the state of Minnesota negotiated a lease with the Twins and Vikings where they actually paid enough in rent to pay off the public construction cost. No one thinks that, three decades later, the Vikings will agree to that again. But "Send money or we shoot these rollerbladers!" does have a certain ring to it.

April 11, 2011

Vikings stadium bill: Who pays what?

The long-awaited Minnesota Vikings stadium bill was introduced in the Minnesota state senate later Friday afternoon, only three months after lead sponsor Julie Rosen had initially promised it. The legislation would fund a $900 million roofed stadium with a remarkable mishmash of funding streams. Let's review:

• State of Minnesota, $300 million: The money would be cobbled together via what Rosen and her co-sponsors call "user fees," but which actually include a variety of taxes and other revenues, some of which wouldn't hit the Vikings or their ticket buyers at all: a tax on pro sports memorabilia, a Vikings-themed lottery, a new sales tax on satellite TV, and the kickback of property taxes to the stadium — that's right, a TIF. The three items that could be considered an actual hit on the Vikings: an income tax surcharge on players (which would actually hit players, obviously, but could effectively tax the Vikings if they have to overpay free agents to compensate), a new state tax on luxury boxes, and stadium naming rights proceeds. The Minneapolis Star Tribune notes drily that these are "all moves that may draw opposition from the team and the National Football League" — no kidding, given that luxury box and naming rights revenues, in particular, are generally considered by the league to belong to the team owners, even if the stadium itself and its boxes actually belong to the public, as would be the case in Minnesota.
• "Local partner," $300 million: This would be some Minnesota city or county, though none has volunteered thus far to come up with this kind of money. The lucky winner would be allowed to raise sales taxes by 0.5%, raise taxes on hotels, alcohol, food, and beverages by 3%, and charge an admission tax of up to $1 to per ticket — another item that would hit the Vikings in the pocketbook — all without going to a public referendum, as is usually required for local tax increases.
• Vikings owners, $300 million: The Wilfs would actually be required to put in $1 for every $2 of public money, meaning if the price tag went up, they'd have to pay one-third of the cost overruns as well. That's about $70 million more than the team owners said last year that they'd be willing to pay. Also, the Vikings would be required to open their books to a new state stadium authority, and give up those naming rights.

Quote of the day on all this is from co-sponsor Sen. John Harrington, who insisted: "It's very simple. This is a jobs bill. It's between $700 and $900 million in jobs." Except, of course, that a typical stadium project generates about one full-time equivalent job for every $250,000 in expense, while a decent job-creation program costs more like $25,000 per job or less. So a more accurate assessment would have been "it's $90 million in jobs, at a cost of $600 million in taxpayer dollars" — but somehow that probably wouldn't have the same rhetorical impact.

April 05, 2011

Vikings stadium bill will include get-out-of-referendum free clause

And here we go again, again: Minnesota state rep Morrie Lanning and state senator Julie Rosen, authors of the Vikings stadium bill they swear they finally will really introduce later this week, say that it will include a provision to exempt local governments from the requirement to hold a referendum on any sales tax hikes used to help fund a stadium. You know, just like the Twins got for their stadium five years ago.

The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that "there were signs Monday that the referendum issue was leaving legislators conflicted," especially those legislators who voted for the Twins' referendum exemption but didn't realize they'd be setting a precedent. Right now it sounds like a no-referendum pledge would face an uphill battle — if a county that is desperate to raise its own sales taxes for the sake of a billionaire sports team owner can even be found — but these things have been known to change once the lobbyists get ahold of them.

The one thing that's clear: If a referendum were held, the Vikings would likely go down to massive defeat. Of course, for some elected officials that's a sign not that there's something wrong with the stadium deal, but that there's something wrong with democracy: "I don't believe in government by referendum. It lets elected officials off the hook for making judgments about these things," said Hennepin County Commissioner Peter McLaughlin, while Minneapolis City Council President Barb Johnson worried that a referendum requirement "would really sabotage the effort to build a stadium in this time of economic turmoil."

April 04, 2011

New Vikings stadium plan earns multiple thumbs down

Last week's Minnesota Vikings stadium trial balloon turns out to be going over like a lead zeppelin, with elected officials lining up to say how much they hate the bill, even before it's been officially introduced. Taking a tour of the press coverage:

Hennepin County Commissioner Peter McLaughlin called the bill "badly timed, badly designed and I hope it comes to a bad end. I wouldn't even start talking to the Vikings until they bring half a billion dollars to the table." —Minneapolis Star Tribune

House speaker Kurt Zellers (R): "I hate to sound like a broken record, but until they have a site, until they have a plan, until they have a partner, it's awfully hard for us and the Vikings to get to that point.'" —ESPN.com

Meanwhile, Senate minority leader Tom Bakk (DFL), who was a sponsor of the Vikings' failed 2009 stadium bill, suggested political motives by the two Republicans who have authored the newest version: "If they were serious about a stadium bill, they would have introduced it back in January or February. To wait until the middle of all the budget cut bills is just a political gimmick." —ESPN.com

[Now that] the Vikings are coming off a 6-10 season, it seems that the Vikings stadium finance plan is maybe the only thing that will have bi-partisan agreement. Unfortunately for the Vikings, it seems to be borderline unanimous that they are crazy to be asking for money right now. —I Dislike Your Favorite Team

Plus, video from KSTP TV of Minnesota elected officials talking about how awful the stadium plan is! This has got to be the most pre-release hatred we've seen for anything since ... I dunno, "St. Anger"?

March 31, 2011

Today's latest Vikings stadium funding trial balloon

Oh, look, there's another Minnesota Vikings stadium funding proposal. This one, reported last night by KSTP-TV and attributed to a "bill has been in the works for nearly three months," includes:

• $250-300 million in state funding, to come from a sports memorabilia tax, a Vikings lottery game, a luxury box sales tax, and a surcharge on player incomes.
• One-third of the total stadium cost, about $300 million, from the Vikings.
• The remainder would come from either counties or cities that would "bid" on getting to be the stadium site in exchange for a 0.5% sales-tax hike to go into stadium construction.

That's not all that much different from prior plans, and as ESPN's Kevin Seifert notes, it could just be an intentionally leaked trial balloon. A real, honest-to-goodness stadium bill is supposedly going to be introduced in the next week or so, but then, we've heard that before.

March 22, 2011

Wilf: Lockout-schmockout, Vikings are still getting a stadium

Minnesota Vikings owner Zygi Wilf has a long history of expressing confidence that a stadium bill will soon be passed, even as year after year, none have come close to making it through the state legislature. Still, this is pretty impressive, even for Zyg:

Q. Could the timing [of the NFL lockout] impact the drive to get a new stadium and getting NFL money or however that would work?

A. "I don't feel so. We're working very hard with everybody in Minnesota on the hill to get the stadium thing worked through. We realize that it's an important asset to the community and that it's to everyone's interest to making sure that we get a stadium that would serve just not football but for all the other events that Metrodome served proudly for the last 30 years. We're working hard to get that done and I'm optimistic that it will get done."

Note that even before the lockout, there was effectively no movement in the legislature on a stadium bill, and that's not going to be helped now that the only football news is about the owners' and players' lawyers sniping at each other. But I guess when you're a sports team owner, stadium-grubbing stops for nothing, except maybe the occasional bridge collapse.

March 15, 2011

Vikings stadium plans going nowhere fast

More developments from Minnesota, where the Vikings stadium push seems to be stuck firmly in neutral:

• The Timberwolves' "global solution" plan isn't getting a warm welcome at the state legislature, where even backers of a Vikings stadium bill were cool to the idea of tacking on an arena renovation and other goodies as well. State senator Julie Rosen, whose Vikings stadium bill is now two months overdue, said that the T-Wolves' plan was "perhaps a good vehicle" for the NBA team's own need, but "it gets pretty heavy, doesn't it? It does get a little over complicated. You have to be cognizant [that] there are a lot of needs out there, but I think we're focused really on a [Vikings] stadium."
• With the long-expected NFL lockout now underway, enthusiasm for a Vikings stadium bill is likely to sink even lower, if possible. According to Minnesota Public Radio, the only silver lining might be that "Deputy Senate Majority Leader Geoff Michel, R-Edina, said today there wasn't much progress on the stadium to slow down at this point." Michel told MPR, "We have had zero caucus discussion on the NFL, on a lockout, on the Vikings, on the Metrodome."
• The U.S. General Services Administration says it will hold off on auctioning off an abandoned munitions plant in Arden Hills that has been discussed as a possible Vikings stadium site, but only until June. If anyone thinks the Minnesota state legislature is going to pass a stadium bill by June, in the middle of an NFL lockout ... well, I've got an abandoned munitions plant to sell you.

March 14, 2011

Timberwolves "solution": Add NBA arena renovations to Vikings stadium plan

There's a new player in the Minnesota Vikings stadium battle, and it's an unexpected one: the Minnesota Timberwolves. According to a document entitled "Global Solution" that was published by Minneapolis Public Radio late Friday, the Wolves owners are proposing a new regional stadium authority that would build a new football stadium for the Vikings, a new minor-league stadium for the St. Paul Saints, and renovate the NBA team's Target Center. Total price tag: a mere $1,173,000,000. And that's without a roof on the Vikings stadium.

Since the Wolves only envision the teams chipping in one-quarter of the resulting $100-million-a-year cost, that leaves $74 million a year to come from what's listed as "Public Funding Source (TBD)." Timberwolves vice president Ted Johnson told MPR that among the taxpayer funding streams being considered are a 0.2% sales tax hike in the metro area, tobacco settlement funds that would otherwise go into the general treasury, revenue from a downtown casino, and a Vikings-themed lottery game. Johnson said the funding details were dropped from the final document because "we got too far ahead of ourselves" and "we didn't feel like everybody had time to line up behind it."

Add it all up, and we have a plan that costs nearly half a billion dollars more than the old plan, that has a warmed-over list of old ideas for ways to pay for it, and that didn't even specifically mention those ideas even in a non-public document because the Wolves don't have any support for them. Now that's headline news.

In other Vikings stadium news, the Associated Press reports that people in Minnesota would love a new Vikings stadium, so long as they're not the ones paying for it. Which, funny enough, is exactly the same way the Vikings owners feel about it.

March 01, 2011

Where's the Vikings stadium bill?

The Minnesota Vikings stadium plan is surging ahead in the newspapers, but less so in the legislature: Minnesota House Taxes Committee chair Greg Davids is complaining that two months into the legislative session, there's still no bill: "There should have been a bill the opening day of session. I don't understand the timing issue — why we're waiting. ... They need to get on with it, and get things moving."

Things aren't much further along in the state senate, where Sen. Julie Rosen had promised to have a stadium bill introduced in late January, but now says any legislation could still be several weeks away. (The Minneapolis Star Tribune doesn't seem to have bothered calling Rosen for comment for its story on Davids' frustration.) Presumably the holdup is figuring out exactly how to pay the estimated $700 million public cost, which no one has quite figured out how to do yet amid a $5 billion state budget deficit. On that front, Davids also said he would be opposed to any statewide or regional sales tax to fund a stadium; not clear on where he'd stand on a county sales tax.

Meanwhile, the Vikings at least got some love from the all-powerful Arden Hills city council, which voted 4-0 last night to explore a stadium plan on its abandoned munitions plant site. Of course, given that it'd likely be Ramsey County that'd have to pay for the thing, and the county commission is already on board, this doesn't really add much. Still, Vikings owner Zygi Wilf has to figure he can use all the friends he can get right now.

February 25, 2011

Metrodome roof repair cost: $25m

The Minneapolis Metrodome roof repair is expected to cost $25 million, according to the St. Paul Pioneer Press:

The paradox of spending millions to fix the aging Dome as campaigns grow for a new stadium is the result of the Vikings still having a year left on their Metrodome lease — and no new stadium could be built for several years.

This afternoon, the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission, which owns the Dome, will likely award New York-based Birdair Inc. a contract to remove the existing roof and install a new one in time — officials hope — for the Vikings preseason.

It's not exactly a "paradox": The Vikings want a new stadium, but they don't have one yet (and won't for several years, since it not only has to be approved but, you know, built), so they have to fix the old one first. And anyway, the roof repair will be covered by insurance, except for a $25,000 deductible.

Bill Lester, director of the state sports commission, says he hopes the repairs will be done by the start of preseason, assuming "we don't get a tsunami or something else that delays the work." I knew global warming was getting bad, but this is ridiculous...

February 22, 2011

Mondale floats Vikes stadium on newspaper land

As David Brauer of MinnPost puts it, "Whoa, Nellie — get ready for the mother of all journalistic conflicts of interest!" Minnesota state stadium chief Ted Mondale has found another possible Vikings stadium site, and, well, take it away, Minneapolis Star Tribune:

The head of the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission on Tuesday said there's a fifth option for a Vikings stadium — the Star Tribune land next to the Metrodome.

It's an option that has been around for a while, but Ted Mondale's comments to reporters at a commercial real estate forum in Bloomington was the first public confirmation in the latest round of new stadium chatter.

The idea would be to buy the Star Tribune land, knock down the buildings and leave the Metrodome standing to have two facilities and not lose revenue, Mondale said.

"I think it's definitely a potential option that the Vikings or the public would buy that site," he said.

Gotta love that "Vikings or the public" — you know, somebody. No firm word on how much buying the site would run, though the Star Trib reports that the Vikings offered $45 million for at least part of the land in 2007 before backing off.

Brauer notes that the paper doesn't really need all its downtown property, after the massive downsizing that jettisoned much of the editorial staff a few years back, leading to the journalistic vacuum and reporting labor glut that helped create MinnPost. All we need now is for MinnPost to move into the vacated Metrodome once the Vikes leave, and the circle will be complete...

February 19, 2011

Ramsey County considering Vikings sales tax

Ramsey County officials are apparently exploring a half-cent sales tax hike as a funding mechanism for a Minnesota Vikings stadium, asking at least three state legislators if they'd support such a plan. "[They said], 'How'd you feel about a sales tax [increase]?', and I said, 'Not real good,'" state representative Carol McFarlane told the Minneapolis Star Tribune, before adding, "I'm being open-minded."

State representative Nora Slawik, meanwhile, said no specific sales tax figures were proposed, but said, "There are ways to structure it that I would be open to. In this economy, it's really important to look at any project that would bring in a lot of jobs, and I think the Vikings stadium has the potential to do that."

Okay, since you opened the door, Rep. Slawik, let's discuss the job impact of a half-cent sales tax increase. Back in 2006, the Kansas City Star noted that a 3/8 of a percent sales-tax hike would have the effect of taking $25 a year out of the pockets of county residents. If that holds true for Minnesota and scales proportionately — it's the weekend and I'm on a borrowed dodgy WiFi connection, so I don't have any way of easily checking at the moment — that means a half-cent sales tax hike would depress the economy of 500,000-person Ramsey County by about $16.5 million a year.

Not that I think taxes should never be raise, or even that sales taxes should never be raised (though they're both regressive and a bad thing to raise at a time when people still need all the encouragement they can to spend money). But in evaluating the economic effects of a project, you need to look at both the pros and the cons. One hopes that the Minnesota state legislature is smart enough to know this.

February 16, 2011

Ramsey legislators call Vikings stadium non-plan "foolhardy"

Ramsey County doesn't even have a Minnesota Vikings stadium plan yet, and already people are lining up to oppose it: 11 state legislators from Ramsey County issued a letter calling a stadium "foolhardy," and the head of the St. Paul Republican Party demanded that any stadium plan be put to a voter referendum.

This plan probably isn't going anywhere, but as a stalking horse to drum up legislative support for a Minneapolis stadium &mdash or at least to turn the debate from "Should the public subsidize a stadium?" to "Where should we build it?" — it'll still do nicely.

February 11, 2011

Vikings to talk Arden Hills, lottery money

Today's news out of Minnesota, where Vikings stadium plans continue to creep forwards, or maybe sideways:

• The Ramsey County Commission is expected to vote next week to officially open talks with the Vikings about a stadium at the Arden Hills ammo plant site. Now all they need is a financing plan, a way to convince two neighboring counties to kick in, and the agreement of the Vikings that that's where they want to play. Mere details.
• Vikings stadium kingpin Lester Bagley has suggested using football-themed lottery proceeds to help pay for a stadium. Problem 1: That money is currently going to existing state projects. Problem 2: After paying for prizes and overhead, the take from the Vikings lottery would only amount to a couple of million dollars a year. So far no response from state officials that I can tell.
• Sid Hartman was right after all: The Metrodome roof will need to be replaced, at a cost of $19 million (to be covered by insurance). The trick now is getting it ready by the start of exhibition football — yeah, right — in August; to that end, the stadium commission is expected to pick a contractor by February 25.

February 02, 2011

How much is a Vikings stadium worth?

My MPR appearance has concluded; you can listen to my recorded archive of the whole show here. It was an enlightening hour of conversation, with not just myself and Minnesota state stadium czar Ted Mondale, but also the incomparable Judith Grant Long, compiler of the world's best database on stadium costs and subsidies and author of the hopefully soon-to-be-released book "Full Count" on the same subject.

Mondale, in particular, was far more cautious about his promises of getting a Vikings deal done than I've heard him in the past, repeatedly stressing that Gov. Mark Dayton would only do a deal if it generated "public benefits." He also, of course, cycled through the main pro-stadium arguments, saying that a new stadium was needed to keep the Vikings in town (while later backtracking and saying that move threats were not "helpful to the cause"), asserting that keeping the Vikings would have economic benefits (Mondale claimed $18-20 million in annual benefits to the city of Minneapolis, though he didn't cite a source), saying it's important for the team to remain "economically competitive," and so on.

One of his most telling statements, I thought, came about five minutes into he segment, when the MPR host asked why the Vikings owners shouldn't just build a stadium themselves, given all the windfall profits they'd earn. Mondale's response:

"I don't think it's economically viable to think that the Vikings are going to pay for the entire new stadium. Because I don't think it fits within the value of what they are going to get back."

Read that again: The Vikings wouldn't build a new stadium with their own cash because they'd lose money on the deal. It's confirmation, in other words, that most new stadiums don't actually make money; they're actually big money losers, which can only allow teams to turn a profit if there's a public subsidy.

The big questions, then, is whether there are enough public benefits, in increased tax revenues, job creation, and just the feel-good-ness of having a pro team to root for, to make a subsidy worth it. Or rather, to better state the question: What level of subsidy can be justified in terms of real tangible public benefits?

Here's where Long gave us an intriguing glimpse at the findings of her new book:

"My prescription on [stadium] deals is that the average deal in the U.S. over the last 25 years has been a 75/25: public 75, private 25. And my best deal is actually a flipflop: 25 public, and 75 private. And my rationale actually tries to gather up some of the things that Mr. Mondale has suggested, which I believe are true — there is some benefit associated with having a stadium. And so how do we try to figure out what the correct formula is?

"My 25 percent tries to bring in the urban redevelopment component, the civic image/civic pride, the idea that having a sports team is an amenity — by the way, it doesn't even crack the top ten of important amenities for people looking for jobs, but it is in the top fifteen. So there are some benefits, but let's try to keep the benefits proportional in the deal."

I haven't seen Long's latest research yet, but from what I've found myself, that certainly sounds like in the right ballpark: Teams get about three-quarters of the benefits of a new stadium, whereas the public gets (at best) one-quarter. The question I then asked on the air: What happens if, with a price tag of nearly $1 billion, a 25/75 split turns out to be too rich for the blood of the Vikings and the taxpayers?

Mondale replied that it's entirely possible that a new stadium deal can't be made to work. It'll be very interesting to see if he says the same thing when push comes to shove in the state legislature later this spring.

Minnesota Public Radio, today, 9 am Central

Quick programming note: I'll be appearing on Minnesota Public Radio today in the 9 to 10 am hour (Central time &mdash that's 10 to 11 Eastern), discussing the Minnesota Vikings stadium situation. Ted Mondale, the state official appointed to lead the push to build a new stadium, will be another guest, so expect fireworks, or at least some heated debate.

Those of you who actually live in Minnesota and listen to old-fashioned radios, I assume you know what channel to turn to. For everyone else, you can listen online here.

January 28, 2011

Mondale checks out ammo plant as Vikings stadium site

The polluted ammo plant site in Arden Hills is in the news again as a prospective Minnesota Vikings stadium site, with Minnesota stadium chief Ted Mondale meeting with local officials yesterday. The site still comes with no ideas for how to pay for the thing, and as history has shown, until that happens it's best not to get too worked up about where exactly the building will go.

Still, the occasion provided a golden opportunity for local pols to mouth off about what a wonderful economic catalyst a football stadium would be. Per the Minneapolis Star Tribune:

[Ramsey County commissioners Tony] Bennett and [Rafael] Ortega, chair of the County Board's facilities committee, say putting a stadium on the site would kick-start development on an eyesore of a property that doesn't contribute to tax rolls. They say that there's plenty of room for other development, such as hotels and shops, and that with a few nearby road upgrades, the site would be easily accessible.

Hands up, all you hotel and shop owners who are dying to locate near a football stadium that's open ten days a year and dark the other 355. As a St. Louis restaurateur told me a couple of years back: "I am a five-minute walk from the stadium, and I am closed on Sunday. The games start at noon, so there's a very short window beforehand, and a lot of people tailgate. After the game, people tend to move on and go home, and the few people left are primarily intoxicated, loud people, which is not a prime business model."

January 24, 2011

Economist: No economic benefit to stadiums, but they're so purty!

Yet another economist points out that the academic literature on stadium subsidies concurs that economic benefits are a load of hooey:

"Economists — except for those who have a vested interest — pretty much cannot really find a benefit/cost analysis to support a publicly financed stadium, to the state or the government interest that pays for it," said [Joe] Friedrich, a St. Cloud resident and professor emeritus of economics at St. John's University and the College of St. Benedict (he retired 18 months ago).

"On the standpoint of strictly economic costs to the state, I literally can't find a study that comes up with a positive return."

Friedrich does acknowledge that "there are things in life that are not really easily translated into dollars and cents," and says that the Minnesota Vikings "do contribute to the spirit of the state." Yet he notes that you can put a dollar value on that as well if you try hard enough, by resorting to "environmental economics," which can figure out how much citizens are willing to pay for a certain non-monetary benefit (such as cleaner air or water). And while he didn't put a dollar amount on this, economist Bruce Johnson of Kentucky's Centre College did a few years back, and came up with a figure of between $23 and $48 million dollars, which needless to say is a heck of a lot less than the Vikings are asking for.

January 21, 2011

MN stadium chief: Metrodome roof fix could take six months

When new Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton selected former state senator Ted Mondale (son of that other Mondale) to head up the state's stadium commission last week, it was widely seen as good news for the Vikings' stadium push. And Mondale did nothing to dispel that impression when he was sworn in yesterday, immediately declared that he intends to get a stadium built, and oh, by the way, the Metrodome roof might not be ready for the 2011 preseason.

"I can't tell you whether it will or it won't [be ready]," Mondale told reporters. "There's a couple of factors involved."

Read further, and you'll see that Mondale actually said that if the roof has to be replaced, it could take up to six months, which would mean the Metrodome would barely be ready in time for exhibition games next August. If the Vikings open at home, that is. And if there even are any exhibition games.

Still, Mondale took the opportunity to publicly raise the threat that the Vikings might be homeless to start what the St. Paul Pioneer Press insisted on calling "their final season in the Metrodome." (Really, Pioneer Press? You think either a new stadium will get built in 18 months, or the team will move out of town?) For good measure, Mondale added: "The NFL cannot bring 60,000 people into an arena with the threat of death and mayhem. The roof cannot come down during a game. So the interest of the commission and NFL and Vikings are all aligned — public safety has to be the top priority."

If you're Zygi Wilf, the image of "death and mayhem" being the alternative to a new stadium has to be music to your ears. Even if the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission has long been carrying water for Minnesota's pro sports teams, albeit not always that effectively. Right now, the only thing that matters is the tenor of stadium talks when they start in the state legislature in the next few weeks — and "the old stadium is broken, we can't make it go" is way better background music than "how are we going to pay for this thing again"?

January 13, 2011

Vikings: We'll pay one-third of roofless stadium cost, not a dime more

Minnesota Vikings stadium point person Lester Bagley declared yesterday that the team is willing to pay one-third of the cost of a new outdoor stadium, but if the state wants to add a roof, it's on its own dime. Which is exactly the same thing Bagley said last spring, but it made headlines nonetheless. (Some, admittedly, less positive than others.)

The next step appears to be the introduction of a bill in the state senate, where Republican Julie Rosen says she'll have legislation ready to go by mid-February. "It's not going to be a clean mechanism like it was with the Twins," Rosen told the Associated Press. "It's going to be a cobbling together of many sources." Not that she said what those sources would be — what do you want, spoilers?

In any case, with a roofless stadium estimated to cost $700 million, and a roof adding at least a couple hundred million more, it looks like the state would be looking at spending at least $700 million just to make the Vikings more profitable. Rosen, though, thinks it's worth it: "You have to ask yourself what would the Legislature be doing if, say, Target was threatening to move out of state? It demands a response."

As I Dislike Your Favorite Team responds:

Here's something I bet the State Legislature would say--"Hey, Target, before we create a tax just so you can build something, can we get a look at your books? Because we were under the impression that you are a multi-billion dollar operation." And again, let's talk about false equivalences--Target employs 10,000 people in Minnesota, it has been here since 1902 and is a Fortune 500 company. None of those things describe the Vikings. Target is ably run, too. Oh, and when Target needed a new $260 million headquarters, they built it.

Actually, Target does have two things in common with sports teams: Most of their jobs are poorly paid, and they've asked for subsidy deals that haven't worked out too well. Here's something I hope the state legislature will say: If we don't spend that $700 million on the Vikings, how many jobs can we create by doing something else with the money?

December 27, 2010

Vikings say they're not moving to college stadium for next non-season

ESPN's Chris Mortensen, citing "sources," reported this morning that "the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission is assessing the viability of playing the 2011 season outdoors at TCF Bank Stadium at the University of Minnesota." (Presumably Mortensen meant the Minnesota Vikings playing there, as nobody would pay to watch the sports commission play anything.) Vikings owner Zygi Wilf will supposedly make a final determination of where to play the 2011 season in February.

Sports commission officials immediately denied the report. And ESPN's Kevin Seifert points out that TCF Bank Stadium would require major upgrades, and the university might not agree to the deal in any case, especially given that the stadium currently doesn't sell alcohol.

The biggest reason for skepticism, of course, is that there probably isn't going to be a 2011 NFL season. On the bright side, that might make the University of Minnesota more amenable to being the Vikings' landlords for the year.

December 21, 2010

MN gov-elect Dayton: It's Vikings stadium time!

The Minnesota Vikings successfully survived playing outdoors last night — in snow, even — and no one was "catstrophically injured" by falling down on the frozen turf. (They also got creamed, but who's counting?)

The more important game, meanwhile, was being played in Gov.-elect Mark Dayton's office, where he met with NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and Vikes owners Zygi and Mark Wilf and emerged to declare that he's in favor of building a new stadium, so long as state general fund dollars aren't used to do it. "I really believe 2011 is the final opportunity for all of us to put forward a proposal," Dayton told the Minneapolis Star Tribune."I think the writing's on the wall. We need to get it done in this session."

"No general fund money" is the kind of rhetorical game governors love to play, because it simultaneously 1) makes them seem like protectors of the public purse, 2) doesn't commit them to doing anything, and 3) allows them to spend pretty much whatever they want with tax money, so long as they extract it before it hits the general fund. (The last governor just loved coming up with these.) Veteran stadium journalist Jay Weiner notes at MinnPost.com that Dayton is already thinking of ways to fund a stadium that wouldn't count against his pledge:

The governor-elect told reporters a few others things, some curious:

* "User fees" could be in the mix. That would be, among other things, ticket taxes and taxes on sports memorabilia and, maybe, hotel-motel, car rental "voluntary" taxes. These are revenue streams oft-mentioned in past Minnesota stadium plans.

But, when sharp pencil is put to paper, these slices never seem to add up to a full finance plan. Other forms of publicly generated dollars enter the package.

We await a plan that adds up.

Meanwhile, Sid Hartman, the official newspaper columnist mouthpiece of Minnesota sports owners, reports that before last night's game Zygi Wilf said he doesn't want a domed stadium, not even one with a retractable roof: "Football should be played outdoors, and for the Vikings in the past, the weather has given the Vikings a big advantage." Whether Wilf would really turn up his nose at a dome, or was just reiterating that he doesn't want to have to be the one to pay for it, Hartman didn't immediately make clear.

December 16, 2010

MN state senator pitches Vikings stadium deal just like the last one

And in other "Quick, let's use all this Metrodome roof brouhaha to get in the paper!" news:

Sen. Julie Rosen, a Republican from Fairmont, said she planned to introduce a bill in late January to build a new Vikings stadium with public subsidies.

Rosen, a vocal advocate for a new stadium, said on Wednesday that the proposal "might be very similar" to a plan that stalled in the Legislature last spring. That proposal, which was criticized at the time for being hastily assembled, relied in part on diverting sales tax money now being used for the Minneapolis Convention Center once the convention center's debt was repaid.

Umm, yeah. The proposal from last spring wasn't actually criticized for being "hastily assembled" so much as for being something that everybody hated, and didn't raise enough money for a new stadium anyway. Though the Minnesota state legislature has gone all-Republican this election (they finally finished counting the votes), it doesn't seem likely that the city of Minneapolis is suddenly going to get all excited about dedicating its convention center tax streams to the cause. But, hey, you've gotta start somewhere, especially when you're trying to get a stadium through a legislature that's already facing a $6 billion budget hole.

Meanwhile, as for that Metrodome roof, it's now on hold over safety concerns after a fourth roof panel fell down last night. And the Vikings' planned home for next Monday's game, the University of Minnesota's TCF Bank Stadium, doesn't have field warmers to melt snow. Or beer taps to sell beer. And now the opposing Chicago Bears might file a protest over concerns that, according to Bears safety Chris Harris' Tweet: "Players have concerns of traction n the impact of falling on surface that could be as hard as asphalt. What if ur head hits it." What, indeed?

December 15, 2010

Vikings announce move (across town, for one game)

With next Monday's Minnesota Vikings game definitely moved to the University of Minnesota's stadium (and the call out for volunteer snow shovelers to make the place playable), the speculation about what the Metrodome roof deflation means for the Vikings' stadium plans has begun to die down a little. Not a lot. But a little.

The Nation's Dave Zirin has a good rundown of some of the latest scare stories, including Forbes' Kurt Badenhausen writing, "If [Vikings owner Zygi] Wilf can't get public funding for a new stadium after Sunday's collapse, Minneapolis can kiss the NFL goodbye" and a Minneapolis Star Tribune online poll that found 66% of respondents agreed with the statement: "Yes, this is more proof that the Dome is a lousy facility. Case closed." (Excellent fine print below the poll results: "Instant polls are intended as entertainment. They are not considered to be true measurements of public opinion.") Then there's Sports Illustrated writer Steve Rushin, who's writing the dome's eulogy now to beat the Christmas rush.

The Star Tribune previously reported that the roof was in okay shape according to an inspection earlier this year, though it was recommended that it be replaced in the next five years. Estimated cost: $12-15 million. Estimated cost of a new stadium: $791 million. Journalists willing to make your team's case for a new stadium for you: Priceless.

December 13, 2010

Metrodome roof collapse: The Monday morning quarterbacking

As expected, yesterday's blizzard-related deflation of the Metrodome roof has unleashed a flood of predictions that the Vikings will now either get a new stadium or move out of Minnesota entirely:

• It only took a matter of hours before Fanhouse declared the Vikings dead in Minnesota, calling it "an awful, and potentially tragic, reason for seeing the Vikings go after 50 years." Writes columnist David Steele: "The building named for political icon Hubert H. Humphrey has been called a lot of things during its 28-year-long life. But the one thing everybody agrees it can be called today is 'unsafe.'"
• SFGate says the roof collapse makes it "even more obvious that the Vikings need a new stadium," calling the Metrodome "a pretty bland place."
• The Associated Press writes that "the Minnesota Vikings' long push for a new stadium has been stuck in neutral for more than a decade, but scary images of the Metrodome's wrecked roof might accelerate the process." The AP cites Minnesota stadium commission chief Roy Terwilliger as saying that "obviously it can't help but call attention to the fact that the facility is 28 years old," while New York Giants owner John Mara chimes in that it "bolsters their argument why they need a new stadium. For this to happen nowadays is pretty incredible."

Okay, not all that incredible, really, given that the Metrodome roof has deflated three times previously, as did the BC Place roof in Vancouver a few years back. It's the disadvantage of an inflatable roof, the advantage being that it's way cheaper to build — not to mention way cheaper to fix when it breaks. (Metrodome staffers say they hope the roof can be repaired in time for next Monday night's Vikings game.) And MinnPost.com notes that there are lots of stadiums more than 28 years old, and "last time I checked, the Red Sox weren't threatening to move to the City of Industry." (MinnPost also gets in a dig at the Vikings' owner, accompanying its link to helicopter footage of the accident with "If you look closely, I believe you can see Zygi Wilf with a box cutter rappelling down the north side.")

Probably the most sensible, if not exactly coherent, reaction came from former state senate majority leader Dean Johnson, who told the St. Paul Pioneer Press:

"I think it gives pause to look at the situation," Johnson said. "Most of the legislators who are there [now] were not there 28 years ago [when the Metrodome was built]. Anything that is 28 years old begins to have some maintenance issues." ...

"Having said that, there is no legislator in his or her right mind that's going to propose a new stadium from general fund money."

The bottom line, Johnson said, "is that it does provide an eye opener for a stadium that's close to 30 years old and a roof that is in need of repair today. It's a Monday-morning, coffee-cup, water-cooler discussion point that legislators will say, 'Oh, here's another thing on our agenda.'"

In other words: The Vikings don't need a stadium today any more than they did on Saturday, and the Minnesota legislature isn't any more eager to throw money at the team. But if you want to get people's attention, having a stadium with a giant hole in the roof, no matter how fixable, is an excellent starting point.

December 12, 2010

Snow deflates Metrodome roof

In case you missed it, the roof of the Metrodome collapsed last night, under the weight of more than a foot of snow. Stadium workers usually wash snow off the roof with hot water during storms, but were forced to stop the process yesterday due to high winds.

This isn't actually as serious as it might sound: The roof is an air-inflated Teflon bubble, and has actually deflated on three other occasions and been quickly repaired. "Quickly" might not be enough to save tomorrow night's Vikings game, though, which was already rescheduled from today thanks to the heavy snow. The NFL says it will make a decision on where to play the game "ASAP."

Meanwhile, one can only guess how this will play into the Vikings' new-stadium push. The Minneapolis Star Tribune notes: "Vikings officials, who have long made it known they desire a new stadium and have been attempting to get one, declined to make any statements, referring questions to the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission."

December 10, 2010

No real news on Vikings, Raiders, L.A. stadiums; Blue Bombers, maybe a little

At the end of a busy week, you don't mind if I jam together items about four different football teams in two different leagues into one post, do you? Surely you don't, so let's get on with it:

• Now Tim Leiweke of AEG says he's not going to wait until after the lockout to start on an L.A. stadium, promising: "I spend most of every waking hour on the NFL. I'm going to tell you this; we're going to give this our best shot in the next two to three months." Apparently this solely refers to an "agreement with the city and the NFL," but not actual stadium designs, or funding plans. Which leaves... the shape of the negotiating table?
• Amy Trask, who's in charge of getting a new stadium for the Oakland Raiders, says, "There will be a new stadium for the Raiders, it's on the horizon and it's very exciting." (What else is she going to say?) She also says she's "tenacious," "tough," "my hope is that I'm fair," and "it's not my job to be lovable." She left out "vague," but that's kind of in the job description.
• The price of the new Winnipeg Blue Bombers stadium has now risen from $160 million to $190 million. The team would now be responsible for putting in $70 million of the cost, which would cut into the new revenues that were supposed to be the point of building this thing, but them's the breaks. (It's also notable that now that the team will continue to be owned by a community non-profit instead of a for-profit developer, it's considered okay to ask for a bigger team contribution.) A final plan is expected next week.
• The Washington Post considers the likelihood of the Vikings moving out of Minnesota, and concludes: We dunno.

And there we go. Now, if FoS readers can help out by devoting the comments section to discussion of World Cup soccer as usual, we'll have a perfect hash of an item. Have a great weekend!

December 06, 2010

Vikings stadium site search includes ammo plant

The rebooted Minnesota Vikings stadium campaign may not have a funding plan, but it is narrowing in on sites: three in Minneapolis, according to team execs, and one in the suburbs. And that one in the burbs is a doozy: a former army munitions site in Arden Hills that would bring together three counties to help finance the project.

That could be tricky, however. The St. Paul Pioneer Press reports that representatives of the three counties "haven't met for two months as they struggle to come up with a financing plan and wait as Minnesota's new political landscape is mapped and the governor's race is settled." And none of the three counties sound like they want to go first in terms of committing money to the project: Washington County Commissioner Dennis Hegberg said, "We're not all that anxious to throw in sales-tax dollars," and suggested that a stadium could get funding from the entire metro area, which is pretty unlikely given that it'd mean Minneapolis officials approving tax money to help the Vikings move out of town.

Oh, and did I mention that this is also a Superfund site?

December 01, 2010

Vikings exec: We've been "approached" by L.A.

When the Minnesota Vikings' stadium campaign fizzled in the state legislature in May, team execs promised that they'd be back for another round in 2011. In a live web chat yesterday, Vikes stadium czar Lester Bagley made good on that promise in spades, kicking off the stadium campaign season a month early by dropping a mention of everybody's favorite stadium bogeyman, Los Angeles:

"We have been approached by two different groups in Los Angeles - the Ed Roski group and more recently by former Timberwolves CEO Tim Leiweke and AEG," Bagley wrote in response to a question. "In 2009 when the NFL had an owners' meeting in southern California, Mr. Wilf and Vikings management toured LA Live to try to get ideas on building a similar sports/entertainment district in Minnesota.

"Clearly, the Vikings stadium issue is being followed nationally and it's no secret that we're down to the last year on our lease. We've told those groups that we are focused on resolving the issue in Minnesota. We feel solid momentum and feel we're well-positioned with the new legislature and governor. Instead of spending energy speculating on other markets, let's keep the focus on building a world-class facility for the community and the State of Minnesota."

(Note the bit about not "spending energy speculating on other markets" while simultaneously mentioning the interest from L.A. and the expiring lease. Nice paralipsis, Lester!)

As for how the team would pay for a new stadium, Bagley didn't provide any details. The Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal reports that "lottery games, a surcharge on NFL merchandise and various hospitality-related taxes" are all options, but none of those are likely to generate enough revenue; a "racino" (slot machines at race tracks) would do it, but we've been down that road before. Bagley added that the team is "doing due diligence" on four sites, three of them in Minneapolis, and expects to present a site and funding plan to lawmakers by the end of January.

Bagley's statements seem designed to stir up anxiety among local fans and legislators, and they certainly have accomplished that already with the media: NBC Sports closed its article by asserting, "Either way, something needs to happen soon. The Vikings' lease at the Metrodome expires after the 2011 season." (Never mind that an L.A. stadium couldn't be ready by 2012 any more than a Minnesota one.) For Bagley and friends, no doubt the urgency is also over the looming NFL lockout — currently set to begin in March — which will make it all but impossible to go and ask for public stadium funding until the players are back on the field. A clock is ticking, but it's not the one the Vikings want you to think about.

November 23, 2010

Star Tribune drums up phony Vikings deadline

Minnesota maybe-governor-elect Mark Dayton said yesterday that he's discussed a new Vikings stadium with legislative leaders, though he said, "We talked about the stadium bill in general. We didn't get to any specific agreements or deals."

This was enough, though, to make for headlines in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, not to mention one whopper of a paragraph:

Dayton's comments were some of his strongest on a new Vikings stadium, an issue that is likely to again face legislators starting in January. The team, which has played at the Metrodome in downtown Minneapolis since the early 1980s, has said it will not renew its lease there when it expires at the end of next season.

I'm sure team officials did say that, but be serious: Even if a new stadium were approved tomorrow, there's no way it would be ready for 2012. So the Vikings are going to need to play somewhere then, and it's likely to be at the Metrodome — it's sure not going to be L.A.

There comes a point where responsible journalists need to call bullshit on obviously misleading statements. Or at least to point out that the lease standoff is really over how much rent the Vikings will pay, not a hard-and-fast deadline.

November 01, 2010

Goodell: Niners stadium funds must come from players' hides

Echoing what San Francisco 49ers officials said two weeks ago, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell this weekend all but said that there will be no new stadium in Santa Clara until a new labor agreement is reached:

"It's the CBA. That's what (investors) are concerned about," Goodell said on the eve of the 49ers' game against the Broncos at Wembley Stadium. "They want to make sure that the CBA is something that will allow them to finance a stadium. And that's challenging in this environment." ...

"And then you add the economy on top of that, it's a difficult environment to get a stadium built," Goodell said. ...

"I think (new stadiums) are great for the fans, but the financing no longer comes from the public sector," he said. "A lot of these stadiums are being moved to privately run facilities. And that's fine. It's a transition. But that transition is changing the economics for the owners."

And why exactly would the NFL commissioner be publicly pooh-poohing a stadium plan that the 49ers have been working feverishly on for years? Because the intended audience isn't the city of Santa Clara, which already signed off on $444 million in stadium subsidies back in June, so doesn't need any more convincing. Rather, it's the players union, which is being served notice that owners are planning to cry poverty, despite record profits, by claiming that if owners are going to be asked to build privately financed stadiums, players will have to kick back some of their salaries to make it happen. (And no, I'm not sure how Goodell got away with calling a stadium getting $444 million in taxpayer money "privately financed" — but at the risk of blaming the messenger, that's modern journalism for you.)

In other words, Goodell's statement is a bargaining tactic, so there's no reason to believe the 49ers stadium plan is any more (or less) endangered than it was a few months ago, although that was pretty endangered to begin with. The real upshot seems to be that there will be no action on a new 49ers stadium — and possibly other stadiums, including one for the Minnesota Vikings and whatever may or may not get built in L.A., until the league has finished using the stadium issue as a bludgeon with which to smack around the union at the negotiating table. So depending on how long the anticipated 2011 lockout goes on, we could be in for a long hiatus.

September 20, 2010

Minnesota gov candidate: Wooooooooooo Vikings stadium!

Minnesota gubernatorial candidate Tom Horner has gone from touting a long-failed plan to fund a Vikings football stadium with slot machines at race tracks (racinos!) to a more politically promising exercise: Standing outside Vikings games surrounded by fans and declaring his love for the team and its new stadium plans.

"This is another issue where it really comes down to leadership," said Horner as a large crowd of fans streamed by him heading into the Metrodome for the Vikings first home game of the season. "We can save the Vikings, we can build a new stadium.

"We can do it in a way that says to all taxpayers, we'll be fair," he added. "If you don't want to pay for a Vikings stadium, my plan says you don't have to do it. We'll protect education, we’ll protect health care, we'll protect infrastructure." ...

"If you want a Vikings stadium, I need your vote on November 2," Horner yelled to the fans. "And the last message -- Skol Vikings!" The crowd gathered around him roared its approval.

At least one fan remained skeptical, holding a sign reading "No Welfare for Billionaires — Fund Social Services Not Stadiums" and noting that Horner's former public-relations firm has contracts with the Vikings to push for a new stadium. Horner insists that if he becomes governor, the fact that he'd be getting lobbied by his former business partner wouldn't play into his stadium decision at all. Which, to be fair, is probably true, since it's hard to picture Horner being influenced more than he is already.

August 26, 2010

Minnesota gov candidates all want Vikings stadium, hedge on how to pay for it

The Minnesota Vikings' flagging stadium campaign got a boost yesterday, when all three Minnesota gubernatorial candidates declared their support for state aid in building a new Vikes stadium. As for what that state aid would look like, though, they were pretty vague:

• Independence Party candidate Tom Horner wants to add slot machines at racetracks to pay the state's share, notwithstanding the repeated failure of such a plan in the state legislature. Horner also says the Vikings should pay 40% percent of the stadium cost, and let the state get revenue from non-NFL events.
• Republican Tom Emmer says he wants a Vikings stadium, but doesn't want to use general fund money to pay for one. Emmer mentioned using tax money currently going to the Minneapolis convention center once that debt is paid off — yet another plan that went down in flames last legislative session — but didn't actually say whether he endorsed it.
• DFL candidate Mark Dayton says, "I'd work with all entities to put together a deal."

Either way, the state still faces that $6 billion deficit, and the NFL is still looking at a likely lockout in 2011, so the Vikings have to be looking at an uphill battle to get a stadium passed next year. Still, stranger things have happened.

May 19, 2010

Vikings on stadium bill: Wait till next year!

With the Minnesota legislative session having rolled to a close on Sunday night, the Vikings have thrown in the towel on getting a stadium bill this year — something their lobbyists could have told them weeks ago, but whatever.

Not to be deterred, the Vikings owners promptly set their sights on 2011:

The Vikings organization is extremely disappointed that the Governor and State Legislature did not move the stadium issue forward this year. While we greatly respect the challenges and priorities faced by the State of Minnesota, resolution of this issue has now been pushed to the final year of the lease. This lack of action will only increase the costs of the project for everyone, plus we missed the opportunity to put thousands of Minnesotans back to work.

Added the team press statement: "This solution must be finalized in the 2011 Session." Or, you know, else.

That's going to be tricky, though, what with the state facing an expected $6 billion deficit next budget season. Not to mention that the NFL will likely be preparing to lock out its players for the 2011 season, which is never a good way to get fans clamoring to throw stadium money your way.

May 07, 2010

Vikings stadium bill is pining for the fjords

Things just really aren't going that well for the Minnesota Vikings' brand-spanking-new stadium bill. Proposed by four state legislators on Monday, immediately attacked by the governor the same day, and then gutted of its biggest revenue sources in committee the following evening, the bill has since been hit with even more indignities:

• On Wednesday morning, the Minnesota House State and Local Government Operations Reform, Technology and Elections committee voted down the revised bill that was approved by another house committee just hours before, rejecting the bill on a 10-9 vote.
• Later that day, the Senate State and Local Government Committee approved the bill, but stripped out its last two remaining funding streams: Minneapolis city taxes and a state sports lottery game. With only one-third of the stadium costs still assigned to the Vikings owners, the additional nearly half-billion-dollars would apparently have to be raised by selling personal seat licenses.

Let's be blunt: That ain't gonna happen, not given the troubles that even bigger-market teams have had selling PSLs. And that's even if the Vikings went for it, which they won't — if they wanted to fund a stadium by charging their fans, they would have done it by now without waiting on the state legislature. But even if they could pull it off, that would mean less revenue for them, which would defeat the whole purpose of this exercise.

The Associated Press described this week's events as "setbacks," which is a bit like saying that Lynn Redgrave has taken a turn for the worse. Stadium supporters are now trying to muster a last-ditch defense of the bill with a campaign to "like" their Facebook page. This can't end well.

May 05, 2010

One-day-old Vikings stadium funding plan is axed

That was even faster than I expected: A Minnesota state house committee late last night removed the provisions for memorabilia, hotel, and rental car taxes from a Vikings stadium bill, after those same provisions were just introduced with much fanfare the day before. That leaves the bill with only Plan B: Using Minneapolis city taxes currently designated to paying off debt on the city's convention center, once those bills are paid off in 2020, to build a new stadium on the site of the Metrodome.

The Minneapolis Star Tribune called this an "initial victory," but it's hard to see how: Minneapolis city officials aren't even in support of this plan, and since the money wouldn't begin to flow for another decade, a workaround would need to be devised to figure out how to bridge the financing gap until then. And then there's that little matter of the Minneapolis law that requires a public referendum on any use of more than $10 million in public money on a stadium. From the sound of things, the only reason the convention-center money came to a vote was because the committee had to wrap up its business by midnight — and as they've shown in the past, the Minnesota legislature likes bills that only require other people's money.

Meanwhile, St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman chimed in on the Vikings issue yesterday, saying if Minneapolis gets a football stadium, he wants a new hockey practice rink and St. Paul Saints stadium for his city. This increasingly doesn't sound like something that's going to get resolved in the two weeks remaining before the legislature goes on break.

May 04, 2010

MN chamber, Vikings gripe about new stadium bill

More on yesterday's last-ditch Minnesota Vikings stadium funding proposal:

• It is "both an option play and a Hail Mary pass." (Thanks, St. Paul Pioneer Press writers addicted to forced sports metaphors!)
• The Minnesota Chamber of Commerce opposed the memorabilia, rental car, and hotel taxes that would be used to fund the new stadium, instead calling on the team to find a "local partner" — though the chamber didn't say how this local government would pay for a stadium without raising taxes.
• The bill's backers say that even though the Vikings play only 10 home games each season, a stadium could host 200 events a year. (I was about to make a Bon Jovi joke, but even they mostly play arenas, so I honestly have no idea who'd fill the other 190 days a year. Monster trucks?)
• The Vikings are already griping about both the 40-year lease that would be required, and the fact that they'd be asked to put up a whole third of the construction costs. Vikings stadium chief Lester Bagley said the team would be willing to chip in one-third the cost of an open-air stadium (which would be $210 million), but didn't want to pay for a roof: "We're not saying the roof isn't important, but the roof doesn't benefit the Vikings. It benefits the state and the community."
• Two hearings on the bill are set for tomorrow, with six more lined up before the bill can be voted on.

Meanwhile, also noted in passing in the Pioneer Press article: "The St. Paul Saints are looking for a new home." Et tu, Mike?

This site written and maintained by Neil deMause. Copyright © Neil deMause, all rights reserved.

Powered by Movable Type 3.2.