Transcripts

text | pdf |

---

GARY EICHTEN: Thank you, Karen. Six minutes now past 12 o'clock. And welcome back to Midday on Minnesota Public Radio. I'm Gary Eichten. As you've heard by now, the broad details of a plan have been worked out to build the Minnesota Twins a new baseball stadium, presumably in downtown Minneapolis. Immediate reaction to the plan has ranged from high praise to outright rejection.

Today, we're going to spend the hour taking a closer look at that proposal to try to get a better idea of just some of the details contained in that broader agreement. Joining us here in the studio is Minnesota Public Radio reporter Bill Wehrum, who's been covering this issue for some time now.

Also joining us to help sort through some of the financial aspects of this deal is former state senator Gene Merriam. Senator Merriam was the long-time chair of the senate finance committee, one of the legislature's leading experts on public finance. He is now a vice president and chief financial officer for ECM Publishers, and he's also an adjunct associate at the University of Minnesota's Humphrey Institute.

During the hour, we're also going to be talking with several of the key players in the stadium's story, and later on, we'll invite you to join our conversation, get your specific questions answered as well. But first of all, I thought we would start with Mr. Wharram. Bill, glad you could come by today. Now, do we know, based on what we've heard so far, what kind of stadium are we talking about? Is it going to be an open-air stadium, a retractable dome, another dome? What are they talking about?

BILL WEHRUM: Well, they're a ways away from actually figuring out precisely what the design will be. But almost all the talk is about some kind of retractable roof stadium, something that would provide the joys of watching baseball outdoors on the finest days of summer, but protect Minnesotans from the elements, especially in April and October, when it may not be so nice to be sitting out there in the bleachers.

GARY EICHTEN: In the broadest of terms, what's in this agreement?

BILL WEHRUM: Well, a lot of money. We're talking about 300 to $350 million to construct a stadium of this type. The Twins, of course, yesterday came out with at least their end of the deal, which includes a $82.5 million in cash that they would put up. Presumably, they would actually have to go to a bank and finance that amount.

It also includes what they consider a contribution from the team of $25 million that would come from, what they call, the upfront revenues, that would come from a new stadium, things like naming rights and any advance from a concessions contract, that sort of thing. There's already a little bit of dispute over whether that's actually team money or, if the public builds a stadium, whether that's part of the public contribution to the stadium.

And then they've also thrown in this most unique and perhaps, ultimately, controversial piece of their contribution, the 49% ownership in the Minnesota Twins, which the Pohlad family would donate that ownership share to the public. At this point, it looks like it would go to the state or some entity of the state. The state could either hang on to it as it might some other stock that it holds, or it could sell it off to the public and try to raise some money that would go then towards what's left to pay for the stadium, which we're now looking at $200 some million above that.

And plus, what a lot of times gets overlooked in this or added in differently sometimes, is what it will cost just to clear the ground for the stadium, some $50 million, which, I think, the governor and some other state officials who are working on this expect whatever city that, ultimately, gets the stadium, they expect the city to pay for those site preparation costs.

GARY EICHTEN: What happens to the agreement now?

BILL WEHRUM: Well, a number of things. It goes off in a number of different directions. First, the state legislature. This is the package they've been waiting for, at least part of the package. The lawmakers now know what the Twins are willing to put up. What hasn't been agreed upon, apparently, by anybody is how the state would finance its $200 million plus piece of this pie.

A lot talk about what that includes. The most specific talk is about what it won't include. The governor's office and Ann Rest, the author in the house of this bill, and some others are saying it will not include money from state income taxes, from state sales taxes, or state property taxes.

They say they would prefer it come from some kind of discretionary tax, like a cigarette tax, a liquor tax, perhaps a gambling tax. But there's far from any kind of consensus on where that money will come from. The other, and what a lot of people are speculating, the trickiest part of getting this deal to go through is Major League Baseball itself.

This would be a unique arrangement in baseball, and owners would have to sign off on it. Now, I guess Jerry Bell says the way that they plan to do this is present this to the commissioner's ownership committee. They will fuss around with the details for a while, come up with a recommendation to go to full owners. And I guess 3/4 of the team owners would have to sign off on it to become reality. And as of yet, there's no timetable for when they might consider that.

GARY EICHTEN: Senator Merriam, you've at least had a chance to look over some of the basic numbers here. Do they add up?

GENE MERRIAM: Well, as far as I can tell, they add up. It's real sketchy in the details so far. And I think the way to frame the question, in my mind-- and I think it's going to be a fairly tough question for the legislature to grapple with, and I don't think you'll see the Twins framing the question because it looks too much like an ultimatum.

But there's no doubt in my mind that if we don't do something to have substantial public involvement in the building of a new stadium, we will not have Major League Baseball in Minnesota for a long time to come. I think that's the way to frame the question, and then to decide how much is that worth.

And I don't know whether-- as Bill characterized it, as donating 49% of the ownership to public ownership or selling it. But I think the way to look at it is that we're being asked as the public to come up with the lion's share of the stadium costs, some 200 to 250 million. And in exchange for that, we will get a 49% ownership of the team itself. I think that's the simple feature.

But I think it gets more complicated when you start talking about, what does it mean in ownership? Because I think we'll be more like a limited partner, which has some beneficial aspects, rather than a co-partner with the Twins in the deal. But I think the question that the legislature is going to have to face is, what's it worth to keep the Twins and professional baseball in Minnesota or Big League professional baseball?

BILL WEHRUM: I think that's right. I just want to say, I use the donation terminology because that's, in fact, technically, what the Pohlads apparently will be doing. And they, at least at this point, expect to be able to deduct that as a charitable contribution along the line. So, from a tax angle at least, that's technically, they were saying yesterday, what this is.

GARY EICHTEN: Well, joining us on the line now is Bob Pohlad of the Pohlad family. Good afternoon, Bob.

BOB POHLAND: Good afternoon.

GARY EICHTEN: Why have you folks decided to offer Minnesota 49% share of the team?

BOB POHLAND: We made the contribution or we are willing to make the contribution, principally, because the total package that ultimately goes to the legislature has to be one that the public and the legislature don't feel as though they're being asked to foot the whole bill. So that was the importance of the package just broadly explained.

Specifically about the ownership piece. From the beginning, when we have been dealing with Mr. Savelkoul and Mr. Anderson, one of their objectives was, to use the cliche, they wanted to take the wheels off of the franchise. This does that. This assures that the State of Minnesota, the people of Minnesota will never have to face this issue again, ever, and that the Minnesota Twins will stay in Minnesota.

GARY EICHTEN: How would that work? You don't actually sign a lease agreement, do you? Isn't it a question that the state would have first right to buy the team if you would decide to move it and sell it-- or sell it and move it? I should say.

BOB POHLAND: First off, we would sign a lease. They're talking a 30-year lease-type thing. But that really, in our minds, is not as significant as the ownership piece. We do donate the ownership. And as I think as Senator Merriam said just a minute or so ago, the state or whatever body is part of the state ends up holding that investment would have the choice, the flexibility to hold on to it, or to sell it to the public, or to sell it to a group of private investors.

But the other piece of this that I think is very important in the whole ownership thing is that, if my family decides to sell the remaining 51% that they own, which, by the way, we have no plans to do so now, we would be obligated to sell it to the state or to that same body. The state would, in turn, then have a mechanism to turn back around and resell it to anybody they wanted, as long as that ultimate buyer was suitable to Major League Baseball.

So the combination of the 49% and the obligation, should we ever decide to sell, is what assures that the team will remain in Minnesota. It's also significant that within that whole obligation to sell to the state, when we decide that, any appreciation that the state might be able to derive from reselling the 51% or the 100% of the club would, by and large, accrue to the state.

GARY EICHTEN: Critics suggest that if the stadium idea is such a good idea, why not just build it yourself, or why don't private interests join with you and build the stadium?

BOB POHLAND: The private financing thing is a question that has come up very, very often. And the only way that we really come at that is that we do not believe that the private financing of these kinds of endeavors can be done. We hear often that San Francisco is doing it, and they do propose to do that. That deal is not done. That deal is not all privately financed. Things like the land and the infrastructure are being donated. And we have yet to see that really turn into a reality.

Furthermore, we have experienced here in this community, in the Twin Cities with the outcome, with the Target Center. And we can't find a way to convince ourselves that we wouldn't be just stepping into a Target Center issue on a larger scale, that the state would then ultimately have to resolve, probably at a more expensive cost.

GARY EICHTEN: Would the Twins be interested in a scaled down, more Spartan version than the $350 million retractable dome stadium that we hear about?

BOB POHLAND: The whole issue of stadium design is still early on in the process. The $350 million refers to an open-air stadium with a fully retractable roof. A big piece of that cost is the roof. The roof cost is somewhere between 75 and $100 million. And we, like everybody else, I think, have to take a very, very hard look at whether or not that single component is worth it.

We have talked before about such a large percentage, close to 40%, of our fan base coming from outside the Metropolitan area and the need to give them some guarantees, that when they make the effort to come to a game, there will be a game. But you do have to balance that off. And I would tell you that, within our minds, while we believe, at this point, that a roof is necessary, we're still looking at that same thing.

GARY EICHTEN: Is there any assurance that this new stadium, whatever final design it takes, will be, in fact, adequate for the next 30 to 40 years and provide the baseball team with enough revenue to remain competitive with the big market teams?

BOB POHLAND: There's certainly no guarantee on anything like that. But what we take comfort in is a couple of things. First off, you see a wholesale evolution across Major League Baseball of communities and teams building new stadiums. And what's interesting about it is they all seem to be building stadiums that are not really moving forward, but are really going back to the roots of baseball, the more traditional, outdoor-oriented baseball. So you see that all across the league.

The second point is that these other cities and teams that have new stadiums have entered into long-term leases, 30-year leases, by and large, that don't have nearly the same outs and exit strategies that some of the early releases did. So you don't have the opportunity in our minds in the future way down the road for this kind of wholesale change to occur again.

GARY EICHTEN: A couple of other quick questions for you, Bob. Ticket prices. Could, in fact, regular people get in to watch the baseball games at this new stadium?

BOB POHLAND: Absolutely. I think that, right now, the Twins have one of the lowest average ticket prices in the League. And with the new stadium, that's likely to increase, there's no question about that. But the reason it's going to increase is not primarily because of increased ticket prices. It will be because we have a greater percentage of quality seats that you can charge a higher price than we currently have in the Metrodome. But we are committed, and have been all along this process, to making sure that we remain what we are today, the most affordable form of professional athletic entertainment there is available in the Twin Cities.

GARY EICHTEN: Senator Merriam, you have a question?

GENE MERRIAM: Yeah. Bob, if I could ask you a question on how the public ownership would be structured. The recurring phenomenon seems to be with the recent history of professional sports franchises, is frequent operating losses combined with significant long-term appreciation. Who bears the risk of the operating losses, as well as the benefits of the appreciation in the ownership arrangement as it's being structured or being proposed here to be structured?

BOB POHLAND: Yeah, as it's structured right now-- you, I think, explained earlier that the 49% ownership held by the state would be treated as a limited partner, and therefore, with limited liabilities. The operating losses going forward are the responsibility not of the public, but of our side of the partnership, the Pohlad side of the partnership.

As far as the appreciation, as I explained a minute or so ago, if we were to sell our 51%, we have to sell it to the state. Any appreciation in realized franchise value that the state would benefit from goes primarily to the state. By and large, it goes to the state. Not 100%. And the amount that doesn't has not been negotiated yet. But I see it as being, relatively speaking, quite small.

GARY EICHTEN: Senator John Marty, among others, has suggested that the public needs to call the Twins bluff. Don't build the stadium, and you'll stay anyway. Is that true?

BOB POHLAND: Senator Marty, he wants to fight about everything. I would tell you that, all the way through this process with Henry Savelkoul and Maury Anderson, what has been very encouraging to see is that the process has worked constructively. Reasonable people have been involved. Senator Marty, I have a great deal of respect for him, but he's making a judgment on a plan that is incomplete.

And the announcement yesterday put another piece of the puzzle in. But there's still two or three pieces that are very important to the puzzle before anybody can really make a legitimate, informed, reasonable decision about it. So I prefer to wait and see how the puzzle comes together, and then inform people, educate them, and let them make their decision.

GARY EICHTEN: But you probably would have to leave if we didn't get the new stadium?

BOB POHLAND: We need a decision out of the 97 legislature. Should the people decide that-- and I think this is the basic question facing the folks in Minnesota. I think we have a lot of good baseball fans here. I think that, by and large, people recognize some importance that comes back to the community. Nobody may be able to put a number on it as to what baseball and the other sports do. So I think they like it.

When they see the whole puzzle together, they've got to make an informed decision. Is it worth it to us? And that's the point we hope to get the people to. And if, at that point, they say, we do love baseball, but we don't love it that much, and therefore, we're not willing to make the investment, if the people have spoken and that's their decision, then, certainly, at that point, we have to do something else.

And, at that point, it becomes a totally different thing. Everybody wants to make that into a threat. We don't see it as a threat, because the easy decision for us right now is to do that, is to sell to an outside buyer. But we've been committed to keep it here. And the interesting part of the plan that we announced yesterday is, before we agreed to the proposal that was announced, we had the ability to sell this asset, the Minnesota Twins, to anybody we wanted outside the Twin Cities or within the Twin Cities.

Outside the Twin Cities, we could realize a very significant profit on our investment. But we have chosen not to do that. We hope it never comes to that. But we haven't made that decision now. If the people of Minnesota speak and they say, no, we're not willing to do it, then that is, once again, an opportunity that we'd have to consider.

GARY EICHTEN: Thanks for joining us. Appreciate it.

BOB POHLAND: You're welcome.

GARY EICHTEN: Bob Pohlad, joining us as we talk today about the agreement that was announced yesterday on the way to build a new stadium for the Minnesota Twins. Joining us here in the studio to help us sort through the details of that plan, Minnesota Public Radio's Bill Wehrum and former state senator and former-- well, I guess he still is a finance whiz, Gene Merriam. We'd also like you to join our conversation. If you've got a specific question about the details of this stadium agreement, give us a call. Our Twin City area number 227-600, outside the Twin Cities, 1-800-242-2828.

Of course, there's the question of where the state is supposed to come up with the 200 to $225 million in upfront money for this stadium. And joining us now from the floor of the Minnesota House is Ann Rest. She is the chair of the Minnesota House Local Government and Metropolitan Affairs Committee. She's going to be the house sponsor of the stadium bill. Representative Rest, thanks for joining us.

ANN REST: Thanks for having me.

GARY EICHTEN: What's being talked about here? Have you settled on a list of ways to raise the money yet?

ANN REST: Well, I think we've settled on what we're not going to do. We're not going to use property taxes. We're not going to use general sales tax revenues. And we're going to avoid using just overall general fund revenues. I think that there's a great deal of commitment to that. And further, I think we are looking at the description of the stream of revenues as being those voluntary taxes, the discretionary taxes, the things that people choose to do, rather than what would be general obligations on--

GARY EICHTEN: Smoking, drinking, that kind of thing?

ANN REST: Cigarette taxes. Tobacco taxes. Liquor taxes, certainly. Hospitality taxes of other kinds. Rental car taxes. And certainly, the user taxes with regard to the stadium itself, the taxes on tickets.

GARY EICHTEN: Now, part of this deal calls for the state to get $25 million in revenues from the new stadium itself, also some profits from the team. Do you anticipate factoring that money into the equation, or are you going to treat that as-- well, I don't to call it funny money, but money that hasn't actually materialized. So if it comes in fine, you got a little windfall, but you're not going to bank on that.

ANN REST: Well, certainly, the most important contribution from the Pohlad family is the cash contribution, the 82.5 million. That is a very significant part of the dollars. I think the project revenues, the 25 million, there's some legitimate discussion about whether that is the Pohlad's contribution or whether that is part of the public participation.

I think I look to the arguments of, but for the cash contribution from the Pohlad's, the up front project revenues wouldn't be there at all. So I think there's at least a legitimate argument that those dollars are part of the Pohlad's investment in this project. The evaluation of the ownership interest, I still think, needs to be worked out more and understood more, the way in which the public is going to be involved as a limited partner.

GARY EICHTEN: OK, thanks a lot, Representative Rest. I appreciate you joining us.

ANN REST: Sure.

GARY EICHTEN: Ann Rest, who is the chair of the Minnesota House Local Government and Metropolitan Affairs Committee, she is going to be the sponsor of the stadium legislation in the Minnesota House. Bill Lester is the executive director of the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission, and he joins us now. Bill, are you going to be out of a job if this stadium gets built, or will you folks just take over here, or what?

BILL LESTER: My wife and kids certainly hope not, Gary. How are you doing?

GARY EICHTEN: I'm just fine.

BILL LESTER: Good.

GARY EICHTEN: What happens to the Metrodome if this new stadium is built?

BILL LESTER: The Metrodome then becomes a football-only facility and remains the home of the Minnesota Vikings and the University of Minnesota Gophers. And both of those teams are locked into leases that carry through the football season in 2011. There is an aspect of the dome, though, that gets a little lost in the discussion. And there is a need for significant improvements to the Metrodome, regardless of whether the Twins stay here or not.

And the Twins, even if this is approved by the legislature, would not be playing baseball there, until the 2001 baseball season. So it's a multi-purpose facility through 2001. Following that, there's going to have to be some real significant improvements to the stadium, such as the expansion of concourses and adding of restrooms, especially for women. Moving the press box. There are some projects we've talked about in our preliminary planning. So the stadium has a long and, we hope, continue to be successful life, even after the Twins leave.

GARY EICHTEN: Do you have enough money in your coffers to pay for all the improvements?

BILL LESTER: Let me give you a quick thumbnail sketch. There's about $36 million in debt left on the Metrodome. We have $22 million monies on-hand. It costs about 5 to $6 million a year to operate the facility. We also have the Bloomington Land, which it will be sold sometime in the future. And that money can be applied to the debt on the Metrodome.

So we will be able to take care of the debt on the Metrodome. There is not sufficient funds, however, to do the upwards of 50 to $75 million in improvements that have to be made to the stadium. That is an important part of this. And given the Vikings request for improvements to the stadium and improvements in their lease, as well as the Gophers, we still are going to face some issues there of trying to allocate the resources to take care of the needs of this stadium.

GARY EICHTEN: So that would be over and above the 350 million plus or minus that we're talking about for this new baseball stadium?

BILL LESTER: Yeah, but it's important to know that that number is not tied to a specific theme. I hear a lot of stations and in the media talking about the cost of it. And that really hasn't been determined yet. And also, as representative Rest alluded, you have the private participation, a big chunk of which is Pohlad, but there's also private participation of monies that are going to be generated by that stadium.

The Metrodome has been successful because many of these revenue streams stay here. And under the deal proposed yesterday, a lot of the revenue streams would stay with the facility. So there's going to be a huge private participation that's going to get that number down from $350 million or whatever it's cost. So you're right. The improvements to the Metrodome have not been included in that yet. But that's going to definitely have to be part of the discussion.

GARY EICHTEN: What's your sense, Bill? Is there enough corporate money specifically to go around to keep all the suites at the Metrodome full, suites at this new stadium full? They got the Target Center. They're talking about putting a hockey team into the Civic Center. Is there enough money in the community for that?

BILL LESTER: That question has been asked, and there's always the thought that if we saturate it. But I'm of the school that, if you provide value, if you put a good value out there, that this economy in the Twin Cities is strong enough to support expanding that market. Now, you have to give good value. By that, I mean, they have to be quality suites and quality product that you're selling. But there is a great diversified corporate base here, and they need entertainment opportunities. And so, therefore, if you provide a good value, I think that there's room for expansion.

I mean, absent market studies, your question can't be answered. It remains to be seen if you're going to be able to do that with as many suites. And I think we calculated there could be anywhere from 300 to 350 suites available in this marketplace. That's a lot to sell, and it would be a significant investment if a company wanted to buy a suite in each facility.

But even when the North Stars were here, I remember talking to a number of corporate executives, and if they bought eight tickets to the North Stars and the North Stars had a rotten season, then they wouldn't renew six of those eight. I mean, you make a judgment and you're competing with other potential outlets for entertainment. But I think if you present it right, you can compete.

GARY EICHTEN: Senator Merriam has a question before we let you go.

GENE MERRIAM: Hi, Bill.

BILL LESTER: Hey, Gene. How are you doing?

GENE MERRIAM: Good. A couple of questions that involve the stadium, and the Vikings, and the Twins. You talked about the fact that the Vikings and the Gophers's football is locked in until 2011. Why aren't the Twins? And the second question is, if the legislature decides to build a new stadium for the Twins, how do we know we're not talking about a new one for the Vikings next year or the year after?

BILL LESTER: That's a good question, both parts. The first question, in the original Metrodome deal, Calvin Griffith negotiated that. And he negotiated an escape clause. The Vikings, who wanted the dome very badly, even more so than the Twins, instead took getting the rights to suite revenues. And they never sought an escape clause. In the lease terms that were reached at that time, Calvin Griffith had the right to escape every three years if he showed net operating losses, or if his attendance levels were below the American League average.

When we redid the lease in 1989, we got a 10-year window instead of a three-year window, during which they could not invoke the escape clause. And we tightened up the escape clause, but it remained in the lease. And if they have net operating losses for the years 95, 96, and 97, or if they draw less than 80% of the American League average, then they can, in fact, invoke the escape clause. The Vikings and the Gophers have no such escape clause in their leases.

GARY EICHTEN: And why wouldn't we need a new stadium for the Vikings soon?

BILL LESTER: Well, the Vikings, interestingly enough, there are two different industries. Two baseball has a limited antitrust exemption. And so there are a couple of other strings on the bow that you have to keep a baseball team in a community. But as we've seen in football, those teams have been moving rather quickly.

And there's no guarantee that you won't have them yelling for it. But at least to date, the Vikings have said that, with some improvements here and some expanded revenue streams, that the Metrodome meets their vision of what they need to have to be successful. So there's no guarantees that they won't.

And as we see around the country, you see other communities doing fiscally totally irresponsible proposals in order to attract teams, or once they lose teams, to get teams back. We just think we can come up with a socially responsible way to take care of the Twins thing with this proposal, which people have the opportunity to vote up or down, and also to keep the Vikings viable and competitive in this market.

GARY EICHTEN: Thanks, Bill.

BILL LESTER: Yeah, you bet, Gary. See you later.

GARY EICHTEN: Bill Lester, who is the executive director of the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission, that's the agency that operates the Metrodome. We're talking today about that new agreement that was announced yesterday, the broad outline of a plan to build a new baseball stadium for the Minnesota Twins.

Bill Wehrum, a Minnesota Public Radio reporter who's covering this story, is with us today. Former Senator Gene Merriam, financial whiz, is with us to help sort through some of the financial details of that agreement. We've got a number of callers on the line with some specific questions. We're also going to be talking with Minneapolis Mayor Sharon Sayles Belton in a couple of minutes. But let's get a couple of callers on here who've called in with some questions about this deal. Russ, your question.

AUDIENCE: Yeah. Thanks for taking my call. I guess my concern, I'm not sure whether I like the idea of public funding for a stadium or not. But my concern is, is there an escape clause for the Twins to leave the state at some point? I understand that we have a--

GARY EICHTEN: I mean, if the agreement is signed, you mean, to build a new stadium?

AUDIENCE: I understand we have more or less a right of first refusal, that when they decide to sell, the State of Minnesota can buy it. But what good does that do us if, and it might be 30 years out from now, they've moved to another stadium or another site in another state? I guess my concern is, if we're going to publicly subsidize it, how do we capture that and preserve that permanently?

GARY EICHTEN: OK.

AUDIENCE: I'm not sure if I've heard that issue addressed yet.

GARY EICHTEN: Bill.

BILL WEHRUM: Well, I think the short answer is we just don't know yet. They aren't that far along in negotiating the deal that all the lawyers are going to have to go through. Most leases do have some kind of escape clause in them. They have had in the past. So I would anticipate that there will probably be something in there.

After all, the point of keeping the Twins here, and especially if you're a public owner, isn't to drive this asset into the ground. And at some point, baseball becomes wildly unpopular around here. I don't even think the public owners would want to hold on to it here. So I imagine that there will be some kind of escape clause, as there have been in the past.

GARY EICHTEN: Kathy is on the line from Alexandria. Your question please.

AUDIENCE: Hi. Good afternoon. In all the discussion I've been hearing, I'm wondering if the idea of retrofitting the existing Metrodome with a retractable roof has been discussed.

GARY EICHTEN: OK.

BILL WEHRUM: Oh, all kinds of ideas for the Metrodome have been discussed. In fact, last year, in the early discussions about whether the Twins actually need a new stadium, they talked about retrofitting it for seating to see if they can create a more comfortable seating for baseball in there. And all the reports that came back from the architects that they've had looking at these various options have come back negative. They've determined that there really is no way to make the Metrodome financially feasible for baseball?

GENE MERRIAM: Yeah, I think there's two problems with that. The first that Bill talked about, is it's cost prohibitive. The second thing is that what you've got is a baseball-- I'm sorry, a football stadium that we're playing baseball in. And I think that presents an obstacle you can't overcome.

GARY EICHTEN: Jamie, your question.

AUDIENCE: Yes. Since we're talking about architecture and the facility the team will be playing in, I just think it's important that although the Metrodome is not designed for baseball, I believe Bob Pohlad mentioned that other teams around the league are designing parks that go back to the roots of baseball.

And where I think that's very nice, I also think that it's important that if the public is putting in the funding that we're going to be, that we really design something we can be proud of and something that doesn't look like it came from the turn of the century and something that fits in with the Twin City's architectural scene that has been on the cutting-edge for years. And I think that the public needs to have a very definite say in where the design of the stadium goes.

The second question I have is, I'm the son of a truck driver from Southeastern Minnesota. And we've talked about this on numerous occasions. And I'm just curious where a family that privately owns a business feels that they can come to the public and ask for funding, whereas someone like my father, who owns a trucking company, he's out there, he's making it on his own. Why is it that the Pohlad family can come to the state, but yet my father can't? And I'll hang up and listen to the answer.

GARY EICHTEN: Senator Merriam, I'll send those two to you. First of all, based on your experience at the legislature, do you think the legislators would be inclined to go for a more Spartan design, save some money, or would they want to go spend the extra buck for a real fancy facility?

GENE MERRIAM: Well, I think given the amount of public investment we're looking at, the legislature and whatever public bodies involved is going to want to make sure that we maximize our investment. So it's a constant balancing. If you look at how much money we spent on the new history center, we could have done that one a lot cheaper than that.

But because of the type of facility it was, we spent more architecturally in the design of that type of facility. To what extent the public will want to do that with a baseball stadium? I don't know, but I think the caller raises a good point about architecture and making sure it fits in, particularly when you put it in your downtown.

GARY EICHTEN: Philosophically, why should the public get involved in this baseball situation when it wouldn't get involved in Jamie's father's trucking company?

GENE MERRIAM: Well, two reactions to that. And bear in mind, I'm not a proponent nor an opponent of this deal, yet. I am genuinely undecided. And I did, in fact, oppose both the Northwest deal and the Target Center deal, because I didn't think the economics were right and that they made sense.

However, if your position is that government ought not be involved in professional sports or any other private endeavor, obviously, you're not going to support this deal. And I think that's a defensible position. I think, to a certain extent, that's where John Marty is coming from. That's a fairly consistent position that John has articulated.

The other point is, the interesting thing is we subsidize private enterprise in numerous ways at all levels of government. I think that we do too much of it, quite frankly. And if Jamie's father's trucking company hasn't participated, that wouldn't be unusual. But I would guarantee that there have been trucking companies that have benefited from public subsidies, through economic development grants, through tax increment financing, all kinds of ways that the government at the city, state, and other local levels subsidize private businesses.

GARY EICHTEN: Now, Bill, presumably, the stadium is going to be built in downtown Minneapolis. Are there any other sites that are even being talked about?

BILL WEHRUM: Well, early on there was talk about perhaps building it by the Mall of America in Bloomington. I talked to Bloomington officials a few weeks ago. They said they have no interest in that. There was talk about on the riverfront here in Saint Paul and, again, talking to folks in the mayor's office. They aren't interested.

The only obvious sites out there at this point are in Minneapolis. And, of course, the Minneapolis City Council last month narrowed down four potential sites to two potential sites. I spoke to Minneapolis Mayor Sharon Sayles Belton just a little while ago, just before we went on the air about what the next steps are.

SHARON SAYLES BELTON: First of all, the city council and I, as mayor of the City of Minneapolis, did identify two preferred sites. Both of them are in the eastern side of the central business district. I believe that the riverfront site is probably the strongest site in my view, and I understand that that's a site that the Minnesota Twins are looking at very, very carefully. It's an opportunity to build the stadium into the central riverfront, into the plans for the creation of the Mill Ruins Park.

And it is a part of a grander scheme on the part of several people to bring tourists and visitors to the mighty Mississippi. So I'm excited about that. I do think it's especially helpful that we have some information from the Twins organization about how much of their own personal resources they're willing to put on the table so that we can have some serious discussion about building a new ball stadium on the riverfront.

BILL WEHRUM: Are you happy with what they've put on the table?

SHARON SAYLES BELTON: I think it's an excellent first start. I think it's important for the Minnesota legislature to take a careful look at these numbers, and to start asking some questions amongst themselves about how they bring closure to the total cost of this project, which I understand now to be $345 million.

BILL WEHRUM: Well, first start suggests that maybe they ought to offer more. Is that what you're saying?

SHARON SAYLES BELTON: Again, I always believe that anytime somebody opens up a negotiations that are this serious, that this is a starting point.

BILL WEHRUM: Well, how willing is the city to get involved in this? The site preparation costs are estimated at about $50 million, a little more, I think. Governor Carlson and others assume that whatever city gets a new stadium will foot the bill for those costs. Is Minneapolis ready to do that?

SHARON SAYLES BELTON: What Minneapolis is going to do is to get together and take a careful look at the proposal that has been put on the table by the Minnesota Twins. We will be in conversation with members of the legislature to get a better understanding about how they see themselves partnering with the Minnesota Twins in this endeavor.

And we will also do some more careful and some more thorough analysis of the two sites that have been identified in the City of Minneapolis so that we might better understand what the costs are associated with the sites and the infrastructure. The resources of the City of Minneapolis are limited, but, as I said, we will start some discussions post-haste to get a better understanding about how this deal might be able to come together.

BILL WEHRUM: Well, I don't hear you coming to the table with $50 million or any money to speak of at this point.

SHARON SAYLES BELTON: I think it's too early for us to be able to specify whether or not there are some resources that we have available. I think because the bulk of the gap will be closed by resources associated or authorized by the Minnesota legislature, we want to first be in a conversation with them. John Moyer, who is the finance director for the City of Minneapolis, will have, as one of his primary assignments, the evaluation of this proposal by the Twins, and as well, will monitor the discussions of the legislature so that we might understand what amount of money, if any, might be expected to be made available by the local units of government.

GARY EICHTEN: Lots of unanswered questions yet, it sounds like, Bill.

BILL WEHRUM: Yes. At this point, a lot, both in the City of Minneapolis and up at the state legislature.

GARY EICHTEN: Shelly Regan is president of the Greater Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce, and she joins us now. Good afternoon.

SHELLY REGAN: Good afternoon, Gary. How are you?

GARY EICHTEN: Just fine. One of these questions that we were talking about with Bill Lester about a little while earlier that I wanted to put to you, what's your sense? Is there enough money in this area to support all these corporate suites that they're talking about, the luxury suites?

SHELLY REGAN: Well, Gary, at this point, I'm not sure that I have a good handle on that. I think that's, certainly, where the greater Minneapolis chamber has been on this particular issue is probably at about the 36,000-foot level, wanting to make sure that when the proposal was developed and as it was being developed, that, for us, some important criteria were going to be met.

And we've seen some important steps in that in the proposal that was announced yesterday regarding the private sector participation, and the long-term lease commitment, and the revenues that would be used to cover the operating expenses. I have to admit that within our circle of discussions at the chamber, we haven't gotten down to some of those specific issues that I think are probably going to be a part of the discussions a little bit further down the road.

GARY EICHTEN: Philosophically, from what you've heard of your members, are they generally supportive of the idea and just concerned about some of the specifics of the financing, philosophically, or are they generally opposed to it?

SHARON SAYLES BELTON: Well, I think, philosophically, the organization, because of its mission of regional economic development, felt that very much this needed to be a part of what we reviewed and took a serious look at whether or not we could put the organization's resources behind, and came to the conclusion that Major League sports is an important amenity that really does contribute to the regions and, in fact, the state's quality of life. And that it's a competitiveness issue for us.

So that's what got us into this. And I know we're going to be using a lot of sports metaphors in the next couple of months. But that's what got us into this ball game to begin with. And from now on, I think we need to take a look at, at least for our organization, is this going to be appropriate and good public policy that comes out of this? And I think I probably am voicing some of the things that you have heard from others as you've been rolling out this story. And I think we're off to a good beginning. I think there's some very positive dialogue that's been begun by the Pohlad family.

GARY EICHTEN: Since the business community would be at least, presumably, some of the immediate beneficiaries of increased economic activity and so on, do you think Minneapolis businesses would be willing to pony up some extra money to help the state meet its obligations here?

SHELLY REGAN: Well, I think that what we're looking for when we talked about one of our criteria, that we indicated needed to be a part of the proposal, was private sector participation, and that we saw that as being connected, obviously, to the Twins's ownership. But we also left room for the idea that there could be, through some pretty creative and innovative ways, room for other private sector entities to contribute.

Now, we didn't have anything in particular in mind when we said that, but this community has, obviously, been the recipient of a great deal of generosity from the corporate community. And we suspect that there will be some discussion and some opportunity for there to be other private sector participation taking place. But what that will look like, I think will only be probably more obvious to us in the days and weeks ahead.

GARY EICHTEN: Thanks, Shelly. I appreciate you joining us.

SHELLY REGAN: Absolutely, Gary. Take care.

GARY EICHTEN: Shelly Regan president of the Greater Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce. Senator Merriam, one of the arguments that's been brought up, well, even before the agreement was announced yesterday, this has been going on now, this discussion for several weeks, months, even, one of the arguments was that the legislature or the public in general shouldn't even be talking about the stadium issue, until we get some other things squared away in society that we take care of kids, for example, make sure that they're all adequately clothed, and fed, and educated, and so on, and that we really have our priorities all goofed up here, publicly.

GENE MERRIAM: Well, that's certainly an argument we're going to continue to hear. The counter arguments will be that professional baseball, if you start from the premise like I do, that without doing something for a stadium involving public subsidy of a stadium to a significant degree, that, in a very short time, we will not have Major League Baseball in Minnesota.

Then you have to factor in what type of an economic benefit is there associated with Major League Baseball? I think you have to careful how you look at that analysis, because oftentimes, the effect is misstated. People start adding up all the expenditures for the hot dogs, and the parking, and everything else as if those expenditures wouldn't be occurring were it not for baseball. And what should have, to a great extent, is some displacement.

But I think it would also be folly to ignore the fact that there isn't some economic benefit to the estate, in additional revenue provided, into the localities, the vigor of the downtown areas, if we're going to have a downtown stadium. Those type of things have to be factored in as well, as well as just the general benefit to the common weal by having Major League professional sports.

We all felt awfully good about ourselves. In fact, I thought it was overdone to how good we felt about ourselves in October of 87 and October of 91, when the Twins won the World Series. What is that worth to us? Certainly, it has a value. And it gets very hard to argue and to weigh those type of expenditures versus expenditures for education and all the other basics that the government is expected to provide. So it's a very difficult thing to sort out.

GARY EICHTEN: We're just about out of time. But one last question for you before you go based on your legislative experience up there. With the high powered lobbyists that the supporters of the stadium have working for them, there is a strong suspicion that this is already a done deal, that what we're seeing is a charade. That it's all set. The state will come through with the money. The legislators have been lined up. Is that true?

GENE MERRIAM: No. I think that, realistically, the proposal is starting where they have to make up ground. I think that the way it was handled for the last eight months, you couldn't have designed it to create bigger hurdles. I don't think it's been a very good public relations job for the last eight months. I think that the legislature is starting with the position that it's not likely going to do it, and it's going to have to be sold. It might happen, but it's sure not a done deal.

GARY EICHTEN: Thanks, senator. I appreciate you coming by today.

GENE MERRIAM: Thank you. My pleasure, Gary.

GARY EICHTEN: Former State Senator Gene Merriam, joining us today to talk about the details of the stadium proposal. Also, Bill Wehrum. Thanks, Bill, for coming by.

BILL WEHRUM: Always a pleasure.

GARY EICHTEN: Bill has been following this story for quite a long while and has quite a long while to go yet, it looks like. I'd like to thank all of you for tuning in today. We'll be rebroadcasting this program at 9:00 tonight here on Minnesota Public Radio. Thanks for those of you who called in or tried to call in with your questions. Sorry we couldn't get to more. It's a complicated subject. Programming on Minnesota Public Radio is supported by the Pillsbury Company Foundation. Caring for the community by giving kids a loving lift.