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. Well, it's just about time for a decision at the Minnesota legislature.

After months and months of discussion, Minnesota legislators will soon have to decide whether to build a new stadium for the Minnesota Twins or risk losing the Twins to another city. At the heart of that decision, of course, is how you might pay for a new stadium.

Public opinion polls have consistently found Minnesotans are adamantly opposed to using public money to pay for a new stadium. So a wide variety of other funding schemes have been proposed, ranging from raising the cigarette tax to building a glitzy new casino next to the Mall of America.

Today, members of the Minnesota House and Senate Tax Committees are holding hearings on those various plans. Minnesota Public Radio reporter Bill Wareham has been sitting in on this morning's session and joins us now to share with us this hour some of the proposals that were floated. Good afternoon Bill.

BILL WAREHAM: Good afternoon Gary. Yeah, just about everything is on the table at this point, which is probably one of the more unusual things about today's hearings up there. We've heard, I think, all the hearings that we're going to-- or all the proposals that we're going to hear about in the next hour have been talked about in one way, shape, or form over the course of the legislative session.

What's different about today is you have the House and Senate Tax Committees meeting in a rare joint session to talk about this stuff and go over every proposal that's come up. And you've got 10% of the legislature right there in one room. So that's important.

And too, as you alluded to, they're just running out of time on this. So they've got to decide at this point what's viable and what they can get done in the next three weeks of the legislative session.

GARY EICHTEN: Give us an overview, which what are we going to hear about this hour?

BILL WAREHAM: Well, we're going to hear about a couple of different gambling proposals that came up one for a slot machines, video slot machines out at Canterbury Park. Another for establishing a state run casino near the Mall of America.

A couple of other things that came up-- a cheaper alternative, a couple of cheaper alternatives, I think came up this morning. One presented by Ed Oliver, Senator from Deephaven. We're going to talk about some more unusual ideas than the ones that have gotten the most talk.

One to buy a team instead of a stadium, preferably the Twins. But set aside some money to buy a team. And another one, to buy Twins tickets so that they can invoke the buyout clause in their lease. So we have better part of an hour of testimony here from the various people. So should we just head on into it?

GARY EICHTEN: Let's blast off here.

BILL WAREHAM: Well, let's just take off in the way they went. There's no more arbitrary than anything else an agenda set by the chairs of the tax committees De Long in the house and Doug Johnson in the Senate. They came up with this list.

So that's the order we're going to go into today. We're going to hear first from Senator Dick Day, a Republican from Owatonna and a colleague of his, another Republican in the House, Mark Holston, who their proposal is to put 1,500 slots at Canterbury Park racetrack, 50 blackjack tables out there.

Money from this gambling activity would go to the environmental trust fund as required under the Constitution for lottery games. They would also set aside some money for non-reservation Indians who don't currently profit from casino games on the various reservations around the state.

And then important for the stadium, of course, they would get $38 million a year for a sports infrastructure fund. That would raise enough money to pay off the bonds he would need for the proposed stadium for the Twins.

The biggest question is whether this is an expansion of gambling. That's what the lawmakers are going to be dealing with as they consider these gambling proposals. And what the implications of that are if in fact, it is an expansion of gambling. And that's where we'll pick up the debate with Senator Dick Day of Owatonna.

DICK DAY: We all know the people that have been in Minnesota have watched a bingo parlor go to a huge hotel, a magnificent complex with thousands of slot machines and Liza Minnelli singing at night and championship fights and whatever.

They can expand all 17 of the casinos on any given night. Tonight, there could be a semi backed up to any 17 of the casinos and unload 100 more slot machines. We know it's progressed from 7,000 to 9,000 to 13,000. We're up to about 18,000 now. It's expanding absolutely every day.

And with lottery, if somebody says expanding, I mean, you can go to probably a SuperAmerica or a Quick Trip or whatever tomorrow that will then have maybe a selling lottery tickets also that we didn't have. And I'm sure that that's expanding also.

SPEAKER: If there are any restrictions, I guess I'd like to know.

SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman.

SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman, if we can find the--

DICK DAY: Senator-- let's see now. Who was-- Senator Renwick-- I think Senator Renwick was.

SPEAKER: Mr Chair, my question also had to do with this definition of no expansion of gambling. And Senator Day, it would seem if it really wasn't, then there would not be increases in the gross receipts statewide. And I guess, what is your projection on how this will influence statewide gambling receipts?

SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman? Senator Runbeck.

SPEAKER: If we could get quick questions, quick answers.

DICK DAY: Quick as I can be. I talk quick anyway. Gosh, this is-- if you think about it, if you come to the Shakopee area and you go to Mystic Lake, if there's a Canterbury Park, you would go there. Do we think-- I think I'm going to have to use what Pat [? Royce ?] said is that we are probably going to nick-- and I use the word nick-- the Mystic Laken the Prairie Island. There's no doubt about it. There will be-- pardon.

SPEAKER: Who's Pat [? Royce? ?]

DICK DAY: I don't know. But anyway, I guess what I'm trying to say is when we're talking about expansion of gambling, I personally believe this could even help Mystic Lake. I think people will come to the Shakopee area and it's 2 miles away, and maybe we'll go one place in the morning and one place in the afternoon or drop their kids off at Valley Fair.

As far as expanding and I got to get-- in my community, expanding gambling is when you can go down two miles from your home and do this. But if you have to get in your car in the city of Owatonna tonight and go to a slot machine place and want to pull the slot machines or play blackjack, you have to do that.

That's a voluntary thing. Nobody is saying that. And yet the proceeds off of that would have some farmer driving his tractor at harvest time listening to the Twins and enjoying it or some shut in a nursing home. And it didn't ever cost them anything. It's a voluntary thing that people do when they get in their car and go to a casino.

SPEAKER: Senator Berg and then representative Anderson.

SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman, when you talk about an expansion of gambling, you could probably look at this as an extension, but there are no restrictions on the amount of machines that the Native Americans can have at their facilities.

The only restriction is on the amount on the number of casinos. And if they're going to establish new casinos, they have to come in to the compact committee and get authorization. And if you don't know who Patrick [? Royce ?] is, he's a poor man Sid Hartman.

[LAUGHTER]

SPEAKER: There was Irv Anderson.

IRV ANDERSON: Mr Chairman, I have a question. The expansion of gambling is not a sound argument against your bill, and here we are trying to raise a good sum of money to not only build a new ballpark, but also perhaps other activities within the state of Minnesota.

Why should we locate it at Canterbury? Isn't that undue competition to the Indian community? Why aren't we looking at the possibility of putting in a Mall of America or perhaps downtown Minneapolis?

SPEAKER: Senator Day, quick answer. I hate to rush people, but we've got a lot of other authors that want to be heard.

DICK DAY: First off, there's already gambling at Canterbury Park. So we feel that that's one thing that's already there. Number 2, it's very close to where the other one is. So if somebody gets in their car from any place in the state, they've got a two mile, they can go left or right on Highway 42 and go to one or the other. It's in a close proximity.

And I will not-- representative Olson and myself are not going to knock anybody else's proposals. Whatever people decide in this legislature, we're going to be happy with it. And if we don't get anything, we're happy too. We're trying to make our case.

But I never wanted to propose, and I've been told many times, why don't you put it on a riverboat? Why don't you have it in downtown Minneapolis or St Paul? I personally believe in my own heart that, that really would be expanding gambling, because I'm thinking it's so close to the multiple people. Here people have to drive across the river. They have to make a conscious effort that I'm going to some place this evening.

SPEAKER: There's [INAUDIBLE], short answer.

SPEAKER: Short answer, Mr. Chair, members. This is not-- all of a sudden, people aren't going to open the paper and say, hey, they're opening a casino. Let's go gamble. People are already gambling. That's not going to generate any new gamblers.

The gamblers who are out there, we're just giving them, as the consumer another choice and a facility to go to. And to Senator Price's comment, why aren't we giving it to someplace else? Folks, this is why it's here. It's to make sure that the $400 to $500 million that would be tax dollars to build the stadium wouldn't come from education.

That wouldn't come from property tax relief for someplace else. We're trying to create a situation that doesn't cost the taxpayer $1, but yet build a facility or possibly build a facility that doesn't cost education or the taxpayers anything.

SPEAKER: I hear constant complaints from people that the payouts from the current casinos in Minnesota are very, very bad. And if a state casino has better payouts, I'll guarantee there will be more people coming.

SPEAKER: Senator Belanger.

SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman, short comment. The city of Bloomington is adamantly opposed to a casino next to the Mall of America.

SPEAKER: OK. Are we ready to move on? Any closing comments?

SPEAKER: No. We appreciate being heard. And madam Chair and my good friend, the tax chair, we'd like the opportunity to give our little speech. We gave our little speech. And whatever happens from here on, we're going to be happy and we'll live with it all.

SPEAKER: OK. Thank you very much. In my mind, the overriding issue that our two tax committees have to deal with. Now, this bill is presented as a way to fund a stadium. And I think the biggest concern I have, and I think that we have to get to the bottom of today is with the current player salary structure, is there a way that we can make a good business decision to fund a stadium or the other proposals?

I don't think that we can look at the stadium in a vacuum. We have to look at the Vikings situation. We have to look at the proposed National Hockey League facility in Saint Paul, and we have to look at the Minnesota Gopher football proposals, or we really aren't doing the taxpayers of the state justice. And I think we have to keep that in mind.

GARY EICHTEN: And that's Senate Tax Chair Doug Johnson, a DFLer from Cook, Minnesota, who has a lot of concerns about the whole stadium issue at this point. And he hinted there. He wants some questions answered by Major League Baseball.

And I think he's going to get a chance to have that done at this evening's session. Begins at 4 o'clock when I'm told acting baseball commissioner Bud Selig will be on hand to answer lawmakers' questions. So that's going to be an interesting session this afternoon, as they hear from the commissioner and from anybody in the public who wants to testify.

SPEAKER: Presumably, Selig would talk about A, with the Twins, leave town if they don't get the stadium. And B, address this issue that Senator Johnson raised about the long-term future for Major League Baseball.

That's exactly right. One of the biggest concerns I hear up at the Capitol right now is, what happens if the state builds the stadium for the Twins? How are we going to be sure that salaries won't escalate another 800% over 10 years?

And if that happens, will the Twins then say, hey, we're a small market team with big market competitors out there? We're going to need more money to stay competitive in Major League Baseball. And that's, like I say, one of the larger concerns I hear at the Capitol right now.

SPEAKER: So slot machines at Canterbury Park, what other proposals do they hear about today?

GARY EICHTEN: Well, next up was a bill offered by Minneapolis DFLer Phyllis Kahn and Senate DFLer Ellen Anderson of Saint Paul. This is a bill that people may recall hearing about a few weeks ago. It was actually defeated-- an amendment of this sort was defeated in a state government finance bill about two weeks ago, I believe. And this would have the state invest in a baseball team rather than a stadium. Here's Ellen Anderson.

ELLEN ANDERSON: This bill is a real different approach than all the other bills that you have on the agenda today, because our bill is not a bill to pay for a stadium. And I think what it does, Senate file 1323 is in your packet.

And what it does is provide a mechanism for public ownership of the Twins team. And the reason why we believe this is such an important alternative is that I think that all the legislators here have been presented with a false choice.

We are being told we only have two options. One is we have to somehow build a state of the art, brand new fancy baseball stadium for Carl Pohlad and the Twins or the Twins leave Minnesota. I don't believe those are the only two choices-- there are other options. And our bill presents another alternative, and we'd like you to give that serious consideration.

As you know from all the contacts you've had from your constituents, what most Minnesotans want is two things. They want the Twins to stay here, but they are also opposed to the idea of using any state dollars to pay for a very expensive stadium for someone who happens to be one of the wealthiest people in the United States.

So our solution instead is very simple. It's only a two-page bill. What we would do is appropriate $100 million and authorize the commissioner of finance to make a purchase of the team, and then offer shares to the public for broad-based private community ownership. So we would not end up having the state of Minnesota owning and running the majority of this team.

The rest of the bill, just briefly, I'll tell you what it does and then let representative Kahn fill in some more details. Essentially, what we would do is appoint a task force of legislators and get advice from the best and the brightest and the most expertise that we could about what would be the appropriate model of community ownership.

And that's in section 2 of the bill. And so those details would be worked out by this task force. And section 3 of the bill does make it clear that we could not use any public funds to build a new stadium, unless and until there is public ownership of the team. That's the bill. And I know you'll have a lot of questions. I'll let representative Kahn finish explaining.

PHILLIPS COHEN: Madam Chairman, I'd like to point out the handout that we've just sent out. The first one is an opinion piece by one of our advising economists, David Morris, who is here when we finish, to give a few comments or to answer questions on the economics of it.

The next part in the piece is a letter from the Department of Finance pointing out the credibility of the third part of the piece, which is financial world, which is the publication financial world, which is the major review of state government finances.

The article in Financial World makes the point that we are trying to make, which is that the good economics is not in purchasing the stadium or not in putting public funding in support of the stadium, but the franchise.

The franchise values is what has soared. And if you turn to the last page of the handout, on page 61 which talks about the appreciation-- price appreciation of franchises over the years, and that goes actually from before the depression through present times.

And there's a bracketed paragraph towards the bottom of the first column of the page, which points out that if you're looking at professional sports franchises as a portfolio, the group had a median annualized price appreciation of 11.7%.

That's 65% better than the price performance of the stock market, as measured by the Standard and Poor's index 500 over the same period. So the bill as written, and I've dealt with several amendments in this bill as we've worked on it in the house, the bill as written appropriates $100 million for acquisition of a controlling share of the Twins.

There's another version, which could just allow the commissioner of finance and the governor to access the budget reserve for that fund should that prove useful in the course of the-- in the intersession before we get to the next legislative session.

So we could do it without a penny of appropriation-- just allowing the access of the budget Reserve. We've also said that the State Board of Investment should be involved in the analysis of this investment.

I will point out now that the budget reserve, which we have not touched in the last-- ever since we've established it, in fact. And if you look at the the projections of what the budget reserve is used for and how it's invested, it's currently invested in entities that pay a maximum of 5%. I think it's often sometimes end cash, paying 3.5%.

And an investment in using the budget reserve for this purpose would be a far better state investment than what is currently done. But what we've proposed to do is we've proposed to only-- not to do it, but to give the ability to do it.

GARY EICHTEN: State representative Phillips Cohen of Minneapolis. She and Ellen Anderson proposed using state money to buy the Twins rather than the stadium.

SPEAKER: A lot of skepticism on that plan was first presented not, I guess, against the intellectual merits of it, but no indication that the state could possibly buy a team, that nobody would sell the state a team.

GARY EICHTEN: Well, that's the biggest obstacle right there is there doesn't appear to be a willing buyer out there, and certainly not at the price they're talking about here, $100 million. Right now, the estimates a team like the Twins would go on the market at about $150 million.

So I think for anybody to take the state seriously, number 1, they'd have to up the ante quite a bit to get in the market. But number 2, the league doesn't want to get involved with public ownership of this type, and neither do the Twins. They're not willing to sell at this point to anybody and certainly not the state. So that seems to be the biggest obstacle to that plan.

It was defeated once in a House committee a couple of weeks ago, but it did get a hearing today, and it get a chance to be amended to the bill in the tax committee and presumably on the floor.

SPEAKER: Next proposal that the committee's heard this morning.

GARY EICHTEN: Ed Oliver, a Republican from Deephaven believes it's necessary to have an alternative to the $400 million plus stadium project if for no other reason than to have a bargaining chip when dealing with Carl Pohlad, whom he considers one of the shrewdest dealmakers in the state.

So what he's put on the table is a proposal for a $240 million ballpark. $80 million would come from the Sports Facilities Commission, another 80 from private investors, and $80 million from the Twins.

Among the other things Mr. Oliver wants to do here is to pressure the business community to come forward to buy bonds-- that would be the $80 million in private investment like they did when they put together the Mets Stadium deal decades ago. And when they built orchestra hall. Here we'll begin Oliver's presentation with where he explains how he arrived at his $240 million figure.

ED OLIVER: I'm told that you can build the Denver stadium, Coors Field, in Minneapolis for a little over $200 million. So why do we have to spend $420 million? The other reason why it's 80 million.

The Minnesota Twins, in making their first announcement about what they would propose-- this is not Minnesota Wins, this is Minnesota Twins, said in their press release, the Pohlad contribution-- the total Pohlad contribution toward the new ballpark includes the following. Cash contribution. The pohlads will invest $82.5 million in cash in the new ballpark.

SPEAKER: What was the date of that?

ED OLIVER: They didn't put a date on it. Yes, they did here. January 8th, 1997. Now, Mr. Pohlad later said--

SPEAKER: I think that changed a little bit.

ED OLIVER: Mr. Pohlad later said that he really intended that to be a loan to the state of Minnesota and to be paid back. My reason for bringing it up is that it appears that Mr. Pohlad has the wherewithal, based upon this, to put up 80 million as an investment into the new stadium if he wished.

On the bottom of that page, the public sector investment, which was just referred to, the state, would issue $80 million in general obligation bonds. The bond principal and interest would be paid from the revenue generated by the sales tax on memberships of sports and health clubs, athletic clubs, and country clubs.

Now there is a little affinity here between these kind of athletic organizations and baseball parks. And so I thought that was a good way to go. The annual amount that's available is between $10 and $11 million. What that will do is pay these $80 million worth of bonds down in 10 and little over 10 years.

Page 3, Twin stadium revenues. Now here's a book, another one put out by the Twins called the Analysis of Statement Options-- I'm sorry, by the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission. And in it they say, in their analysis, revenue generation.

According to the Twins, the new baseball only stadium would generate sufficient stadium revenues to meet the Twins needs for the foreseeable future. Now, under this plan, the way it works, here's what the Twins would have to work with.

All the gate receipts, private suites, concession and food services, club seats, radio and television, in-stadium advertising and signage, stadium amenities such as clubs, licensing opportunities, parking, and revenue from other events.

That seems to me they would run the park under this scenario because they are renting it from the owners, which is the partnership. And so they have the right to charge what they wish and to do what they wish within the stadium.

Now, I'd like to point out that this book was prepared by the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission. They've been instrumental in this. And I question their judgment. And the reason that I do is this is the same commission that voted to implode the Met Center Hockey facility just about 2 and 1/2 years ago voted to do it.

And now we're running around. Senator Johnson just said we're looking for $50 or $150 million for a hockey arena. In my bill, the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission is designed to go away and have a new commission. And we should have a report at the legislature by September 1st of this year.

Going further. The general partner, again, who will oversee this partnership, its revenues are rent from the Minnesota Twins. This is a tenant and a renter and a company deal. They get a ticket tax and they get naming rights.

Now they have to have income because they are the owner of the facility. And for long term, capital improvements, this is their flow of funds to do improvements and to maintain the stadium. The stadium operating expenses are totally borne by the Minnesota Twins.

As a tenant, as a renter, that's generally the way it works in an office building or any other arrangement of that type. The terms under this agreement, the Twins would sign a 20-year lease-- a real estate lease for the stadium.

So it's just like a business transaction where a building owner rents a building to a company. Also, the Twins would enter into a 20-year into an agreement to use the stadium for all season and postseason games for 20 years. The last page, again, is simply the membership taxes on country clubs, sports and health clubs and athletic clubs which funds this proposal.

I did have as an additional handout the editorial in yesterday's Pioneer Press, which talks about gambling and the stadium. We've heard a proposal about 1,500 slot machines at Canterbury. I think we're going to hear another one about 2,000 to 3,000 slot machines in a state owned casino proposed for Bloomington.

Two days ago, the newspaper reported that Marge Anderson and other Indian tribe leaders had met with the governor to talk about what was going on. Now I respect Marge Anderson and other tribal leaders for what they have done with their casino revenue to benefit their people who have gotten very bad shake over lots and lots of years.

I took it from that report that she'd been sort of pressured into saying, well, gee, we could pitch in, I guess. But we'd have to have some new revenues ourselves. And those new revenues are craps tables and Kenow or roulette. This isn't fair, colleagues, to bring the tribes in and put pressure on them.

I think if we open up gambling in any of these ways, we've opened up Pandoras Box and we're going to see some really real problems. Next point. Yes, I'm getting close to finishing. Thank you, Senator Johnson.

There is no roof on this stadium. Hopefully, it would be built in Minneapolis. And the idea to use the Metrodome as an alternative facility for either early spring or late fall games or rainouts is a real possibility.

And it's sort of an intriguing idea because that roof, all it does is take this proposed. It keeps the rain off, but doesn't keep the cold out. So back to why business should be involved in building this stadium.

I think that our companies and their CEOs and their directors who are guardians of their shareholders' money should be aware that we as legislators are guardians of taxpayers' money. And so if this is such a good thing, they should participate. And I believe that they would.

SPEAKER: Senator Ed Oliver from Deephaven and his proposal for financing new Twins ballpark. Gary, he hinted there a little bit at how he's not interested in expanding gambling in the state. A lot of his colleagues feel the same way.

And our next proposal here is a gambling proposal. It's the one that representative Bob Milbert of South Saint Paul came up with. It's very similar to the de Holstein proposal for slots at Canterbury Park.

Instead of doing that, though, Mr. Milbert would like to put a state run casino out next to the Mall of America on the Met Center Property. And he says he wants to do this to have the state get more direct benefit from casino gambling than it currently does.

BOB MILBERT: I am not here to in any way, shape, or form criticize tribal gaming. All I'm saying is that in other states, they are deriving a public benefit from it-- a direct public benefit. In Minnesota, we are not. I am just making the public policy case and totally agree with your point.

SPEAKER: Mr. Milbert, keep going.

BOB MILBERT: The Minnesota state lottery is currently ranked 25th in the country in terms of the amount of money that it raises for public purpose. And I think we all know that Minnesota is ranked at the top of the states in terms of per capita gaming.

We are a gaming state. Our lottery is 25th. I am proposing one and only one facility. I know you're going to hear the arguments about the camel's nose under the tent, but the citizens of Minnesota said in 1988 that we could have a state lottery.

They didn't say tie both your hands behind your back. They said that we could have a lottery. They didn't say that we only could do scratch off and pull tab. When we established the lottery, I was on the committee that did the drafting of the language.

At that time, it was felt that the scratch offs would be adequate to raise the amount of money that was needed in a competitive marketplace for public purpose. I would submit to you that marketplace has changed dramatically.

The people who negotiated that first compact never would have foreseen what has happened here in Minnesota. And as I said, we're 25th. If we were to build one facility based upon the estimates of revenue of between 150 and $200 million a year, which is very liberal, we would go from 25th to 16th.

You can find in the packet a list of the states that have lotteries and show what their net income is for public purpose. To get back to what Senator Price said, if we were to do this with one single site, we'd be able to deal with the sports infrastructure needs and we'd be able to return a lot of money to both the trust fund and the general fund that could be used for public purpose.

Getting back to the constitutional Amendment in 1982, the Horse Racing Amendment passed statewide with 64% of the vote and 88. The lottery passed with 59% of the vote. In my district, it was 71% of the vote.

In the OTB Amendment in 1994, failed statewide by 66,520 votes in large part because people didn't find it on the ballot. Why should we do one state run facility? Well, I tell you what? It's already happening in other parts of the country and the world.

If we want to remain competitive and have four Major League sports in this town, it's pretty clear to me, based upon what I'm hearing from the public, they don't want us to use general fund money. And I guess the choice for these two committees is whether or not we're willing to deal with the issue of the expansion of gambling and whether or not we want to remain competitive and have four Major League sports in Minnesota.

At the Mall of America's counterpart in the West, Edmonton Mall in Edmonton, Canada, they now have a casino at the airport in Amsterdam, they now have a casino. There's a public casino in Quebec. This is going to happen throughout the world in order for, I guess, people to deal with the competitive pressures in the marketplace.

Now, my conclusions here, I'll finish it up in just a second here. The revenues from this state funded or state owned casino would easily fill the revenue gap that's in representative RES bill. It would also provide money for a lot of other public projects that we can debate forever.

Minnesota has one of the largest-- in terms of tribal casinos, Minnesota is ranked at the top nationally in numbers of casinos. And I really do think that there should be greater public benefit from gaming.

And finally, to those who would criticize this as an expansion of gambling, I would say, where were the critics when the tribes went from no slot machines to, by some estimates, 18,000 slot machines? I didn't hear anybody criticizing that expansion of gambling. In fact, I don't recall hearing one person raising that issue publicly. Where were the critics--

SPEAKER: I think some of the clergy raised that issue.

BOB MILBERT: Pardon me, I stand corrected, Madam Chair. Where were the critics or where are the critics when Highway 169 is backed up for miles around Mille Lacs Lake in preventing tourists who don't want to go to the Casino try to get through that bottleneck?

Where are the critics when Highway 48 in Hinckley on any given summer Sunday evening is impassable? I didn't hear anybody complaining about the expansion of gaming. And finally, where were the people who wanted to criticize the expansion of gaming when a little bingo parlor in Prior Lake called Little 6 has now become the largest Casino between Atlantic City and Las vegas?

I didn't hear anybody raising the issue about expanding gambling when all of this was going on. So I believe that the state of Minnesota, through the lottery, that there is a public purpose for running our lottery. I believe that the legislature out of very seriously consider allowing the lottery to become competitive in what has become a very complex marketplace.

SPEAKER: That's representative Bob Milbert of South Saint Paul explaining his proposal to put a state-run casino out near the Mall of America on the Met Center Property talking this morning to the House and Senate Tax Committees.

GARY EICHTEN: This is Midday coming to you on Minnesota Public Radio. We're listening to some excerpts from this morning's presentations. This afternoon, the committees will be hearing more public testimony, possibly including testimony from the acting commissioner of baseball, Bud Selig. Minnesota Public Radio reporter Bill Wareham sat in on this morning's session and is here directing us through this morning's testimony-- the highlights and lowlights, as it were.

BILL WAREHAM: Well, the next-- I don't know which it is, but it is state Representative Steve Sviggum the GOP Minority Leader from Kenyon who's not fond of getting involved in any public way in a Twin stadium. What he'd prefer to do was sell the dome to the Minnesota Twins and the Minnesota Vikings for $1.

STEVE SVIGGUM: Very simply, the proposal does this. I believe allows the Twins and the Vikings the opportunity to compete in the market and to keep their facilities, their teams here in Minnesota. You all like-- we love the Minnesota Twins.

When I travel at night, when I go to cook Minnesota to have breakfast with Mr. Johnson, I listen to the Twins on the way home. My grandma listens to-- my mother, excuse me, listens to the Twins all the time. But the fact of the matter is, folks, that it ought to compete in the market.

My bill simply does this-- takes the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission and abolishes it. We're not going to get government involved in professional sports. We have no place being involved in professional sports. Abolish the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission. Take their assets, sell them. Those are public assets.

They have a reserve of someplace in the neighborhood. And numbers may even be a little bit mixed now because this has been some time at $23 million, they have a land that Metropolitan Sports Facilities out of the Metropolitan Center by the airport, is supposed to be the most lucrative piece of land that next to an airport in this entire country.

I believe it's been estimated to be worth about $28 million. Take those two assets, pay off the debt at the Metrodome, then sell the Metrodome to the current occupants-- the Twins and the Vikings, for $1. Give them the Metrodome for $1.

Allow them to control their own destiny in relationship to running that Metrodome facility, and also for maybe expanding and building a new facility using the Metrodome as a backup. I would tell you that the numbers I've worked through, although somewhat soft, would probably allow the Twins to build a new facility in the neighborhood of the open air, outdoor parks that have been built in Baltimore or Cleveland something in the $240, $250 million category.

Certainly, not in the category of a $470 or 80, 90 million retractable roof facility. We would then sell, as I say, sell the Metrodome to the Twins for $1. They could probably use the Metrodome as a backup facility on very, very cold or windy or rainy days and nights when they couldn't play outside.

They would have joint ownership with the Minnesota Vikings. Basically, the numbers that have been given to me is that a new facility would probably generate in someplace in the neighborhood of $40 million of gross revenue for the Twins organization. About 15 million of that is supposed to be potentially net revenue.

If you would take that $15 million of net revenue, probably mesh them with a couple of the user taxes that are in the [? RES ?] McElroy bill, not all the user taxes that are in the [? RES ?] McElroy bill, but maybe a few of those.

It seems to me that we have a debt service that you'd be able to pay off in the neighborhood of $20 million a year, which would be the debt service on a new facility of $250 million that seems to work out financially.

Members, I understand, it's a simple solution. I understand that there's one that comes from a philosophy that government ought not be involved in professional sports, but that is the philosophy that I do have.

And I don't think that we should obligate citizen taxpayers to any future potential obligations financial in the state of Minnesota, nor do I also tell you we ought to be involved in gaming or enhance gaming in this state. Having said that, that's my proposal.

GARY EICHTEN: And that's state Representative Steve Sviggum of Kenyon making his proposal to the committee this morning. Sell the Metrodome to the Twins and Vikings for $1.

SPEAKER: Much enthusiasm so far for that plan.

GARY EICHTEN: Not much at all. I think that's not going to make it onto the final bill if we do have a final bill in the last three weeks of the session here.

SPEAKER: Another proposal.

GARY EICHTEN: Representative Todd van Dalen of Plymouth wants to buy tickets to the Twins games-- enough Twins tickets to keep them from invoking their escape clause on the Metrodome lease. And that, of course, is what makes it the threat possible that they could leave the state after this season. Representative Todd van Dalen.

TODD VAN DALEN: It's been contended that the only way to keep the Twins from leaving Minnesota is to build a publicly funded stadium. I think the polls have shown the public wants the Twins to stay in Minnesota. They've also shown that public doesn't really care for building a publicly funded stadium.

It's not true, I believe, that the only way to keep them here is by building a stadium. The Twins are under contract to play in Minnesota through the year 2011 and their current Metrodome lease. The Twins may legally escape that lease only by giving notice after the end of the 1997 baseball season, and only if certain conditions are not met by the end of the 1997 baseball season.

If they give that notice, they may then leave after the 1998 baseball season. This proposal would simply seek to ensure that those conditions that would allow them to exercise the escape clause are not met, and that the Twins will stay in Minnesota for the next 14 years under that current Metrodome lease.

This is a proposal does that by-- accomplishes that by authorizing the Sports Facilities Commission to purchase a sufficient number of Twins tickets to meet the test in their lease, and also to infuse enough net operating revenue to the Twins organization to meet that condition.

The lease escape clause contains two conditions, either of which Met would allow the Twins to exercise that escape. The first of those is that the Twins must have sold at least 80% of the American League average of tickets over the last three years cumulatively.

They are somewhat short of that. At this point, we would need to purchase, it has been estimated approximately 800,000 tickets. And that estimate can be sharpened as we go forward. 800,000 tickets to hit that 80% mark.

The other test being that operating revenues would require us to infuse approximately the estimate has been by the Sports Facilities Commission, about $20.7 million to meet that test so that they cannot exercise the escape clause.

There is precedent for performing such a ticket buyout to avoid an escape clause. In 1984, a similar buyout was done to seek to avoid the exercise of the escape clause at that time, and that buyout led to Carl Pohlad's current ownership of the team.

The proposal also includes a distribution of all of the money from all the excess money that Senator Day would have going to an infrastructure fund. After the tickets are bought in the first year, all of the money thereafter would be distributed as aid to cities through the current [? HACCP ?] program.

So there would be something in this for the entire state of Minnesota. The city of Bloomington, for example, after the first year, would receive about $448,000. And now this is all based on the estimate of approximately $24 million being available per year from the slots proposal.

That is the estimate, I believe, that Senator Day used the estimate that some house researchers have come up with. You can take issue with that. It'd be a matter of degree, though. In any event, the cities would receive aid.

Bloomington, as I said, about 448,000. International Falls, about 65,000 a year. East Grand Forks, 56,000. New Hope, 113,000 a year after the first year after we purchased the tickets. That element of the proposal also allows us to give some additional assistance to the Cities of Saint Paul and Minneapolis to aid in their quest to attract and retain an NHL Hockey League team.

Now the city of St Paul has been putting in Yeoman's work to try to get a team back here. But I think we would be well serving the state of Minnesota to have both of our big cities here, Minneapolis and Saint Paul, in the hunt for a team.

And this proposal would give an additional $2.5 million a year through this distribution of aid to city of Saint Paul, and 3.6 million a year to the city of Minneapolis through that same distribution mechanism to attract and retain an NHL team.

That 3.6 million, I will note, by the way, to the city of Minneapolis is more than the obligation-- the [? TIF ?] obligation on the Target Center. And that has been noted as the most serious stumbling block to attracting NHL hockey back to the Target Center.

Now several things I would like to address that have been said about this proposal then that are addressed in handouts that are included in your packet. First of all, it's been noted that-- actually, it's been contended by certain representatives of the Twins organization that this buyout would be illegal.

Well, you have a memo that it would be illegal tortious interference with contract, to use the legal jargon. There's a memo in your packet to address that, that concludes that we would likely be covered by legislative immunity if we enacted this proposal, and so would the sports Facilities Commission as to any tort claims that might be brought forward.

GARY EICHTEN: Representative Todd van Dalen of Plymouth on his plan to buy tickets for the Twins this season to keep them from invoking their escape clause and removing the threat that they might move the team.

SPEAKER: And one more proposal before we run out of time.

GARY EICHTEN: That's right. Roseville Senator John Marty on a plan to take money from a new stadium from these new revenue streams to have it pay for itself. Representative John Marty.

JOHN MARTY: This is the only proposal out there that can say it's not using a penny from taxpayers. It's not using a penny gambling dollars. It's not asking Pohlads to contribute $87 million or $50 million or even $15 million.

This one is funded strictly by new stadium revenues generated from the new stadium. Calls for $450 million in bond sales, 50 million of which would be a debt reserve. That still leaves a generous $400 million available for retractable roof stadium.

I'm not arguing that we'd have to be that extravagant, but that's the ballpark of a lot of talk around here. Camden Yards in $95 was built for $230 million. The new retractable roof stadium for the Arizona Diamondbacks is being finished next year for 338 million. I figured 400 million can build you a very nice stadium.

The bonds to pay for the $450 million bond sales over 30 years would be $38 million in annual payments. And the source of revenue would be the net revenue generated because of a new stadium. Using the numbers from David Willey, the Sports Facilities Commission consultant on this.

The current revenues of the Twins, which are about 41 million, inflation adjusted to the year 2001 when the stadium would open would be about $48 million. Mr. [? Welling's ?] projections for the year 2001 in the new stadium are $99 million. Simple subtraction gives you $51 million net stadium revenue a year.

This plan would take place if they can sign a 30-year lease, and then it would take that new $51 million in net revenue to pay off the 38 million a year in debt service. Additional money would be available for maintenance, and anything over that would be returned to the Twins.

This does keep the taxpayers out. I am more towards representative Sviggum's line and Senator Anderson's line about where the public should be in terms of this. I think the public has spoken very clearly. They don't want the public to be subsidizing Major League sports. They love the sports.

And while this proposal will not generate as much money for the Pohlads as they would like, it still does give them a sizable increase above the rate of inflation. It does so without any contribution from them up front. It does so without requiring them to give 49% ownership to the state.

In return for that, the Twins will get to play baseball and state of the art retractable roof stadium designed specifically for baseball. They get to keep all of their current revenues, inflationary increases, plus any other new revenues that are generated above what's required to pay off the bonds.

And I think we all know and it's been hinted at a number of times that Major League Baseball expenses are rising far, far faster than inflation. And unless Major League Baseball can get its financial house in order, they're going to have trouble, not just the Twins, but every team.

If they get their financial house in order, the owners are going to thrive. If they fail to do so, they're not going to make it. And I don't know why the taxpayers of Minnesota should have to bail them out.

SPEAKER: And that's Senator John Marty of Roseville DFLer, and one of the main opponents of a public subsidy for a new Twin stadium. Gary, that's it for this hour. We did not hear this hour from Representative Anne Rast or Senator Jerry Janaszak who are carrying the main Twins' proposal for building a ballpark.

They did speak this morning, but we didn't have time to prepare that material. Basically, what they want is to pay for it with a combination of user fees, sports memorabilia tax, tax on player surcharges, and perhaps some of this gambling money. They're undecided on a funding source.

And that's part of what they wanted to do today, was to hear about some of these other funding sources and get a sense for whether their colleagues would go for that. This evening at 4 o'clock, public testimony, including testimony, perhaps from Bud Selig, the acting commissioner of baseball.

GARY EICHTEN: And theoretically, when will the committee's vote?

SPEAKER: Committee's may vote next week. The legislative leaders want to get this to the floor of both chambers in about two weeks.

GARY EICHTEN: Thank you, Bill. Minnesota Public Radio reporter Bill Wereham who is monitoring the stadium issue as it moves through the Minnesota legislature. Well, that does it for our Midday program today. I'd like to Thank you for joining us.

Reminder that programming on Minnesota Public Radio is supported by Glenwood, Inglewood water-- clean, fresh, pure, and plenty of it. Home and office delivery available 374-2253. Tomorrow on Midday, we're going to hear from the great Shakespearean actor Derek Jacobi. That's coming up tomorrow on MIDDAY.