Ballpark Talk Part 2: A Reasonable Solution

by spycake on Feb 16, 2006 5:10 PM EST

Rather than a bully pulpit for extreme pro- or anti-stadium opinions (you can read the Star Tribune opinion page for those!), I hope this will be a series for reasoned discussion of the new Twins ballpark.

As I pointed out in Part 1, the mass of the public isn't opposed outright to funding a new ballpark, but they haven't been fully convinced by the Twins offers thus far, including the Hennepin County plan. Something has to change to get this done, especially in an election year. Most folks would assume I'm suggesting an increased Twins/MLB contribution, and while that would be helpful, it's not bloody likely. I contend that one relatively minor change would make the current plan much more palatable to the public, and it would also make the Twins appear more community-conscious and the politicians appear to be good negotiators.

The change? Protected naming rights.

Notice how I didn't just say "naming rights," I said PROTECTED naming rights. Meaning that Carl and the Twins could still name it whatever they pleased, but they couldn't sell the name. As Sid Hartman has been known to shout on the radio, "Pohlad wouldn't own the stadium! The public would own it!" So if the public indeed owns the building, and is only leasing it to the Twins for 81 dates a year, it's only fair that the public should have some control over this proposed community monument. The name will be the most visible part of the stadium for most folks. I wouldn't be opposed to taking full naming rights for the public, but frankly, I don't want to leave any more decisions in the hands of politicians! Plus, if Carl wants to name the stadium for his dearly departed wife and big Twins fan Eloise, or another name connected with the Twins franchise, I think the Twins would be less likely to ever leave the stadium. Their ties to it would be more than financial, which would mean extra security for the public's investment.

Of course, the Twins will claim that selling the naming rights is another revenue source that they need from the new ballpark. It has been estimated that a corporate name sponsor could bring in an additional $2 million per year in revenue. But compared to the new-found club seat and luxury box revenues, not to mention increased attendance, bigger media contracts, and skyrocketing franchise value, this naming rights money is a relative drop in the bucket. And simply put, the name will be the most visible and sacred element of this stadium in the public's eye. Protecting the name would bring much-needed goodwill to a project that's been sorely lacking, exceeding any revenue potential the name may have.

Some might also suggest that the public sell the naming rights and apply the money toward the cost of the project. This is an option too, and could be of vital importance in covering the estimated $30 million increase in project costs since last year. Either way, this compromise would be the closest thing to public negotiation that has ever taken place in the decade-long stadium debate. The most frustrating thing about this whole affair is that the Twins attitude has always been "take it or leave it" and our elected officials have just simply left it. The public needs something positive to get behind this plan. Naming rights, or just protected naming rights, as a product of negotiation, would be a remarkable step in that direction.

Next time, in part 3, I'll discuss some of my "wilder" stadium ideas and solicit the same from all of you!

0 recs | Comment 39 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Naming

One of the big items that the Twins do want to keep. It's not only the naming rights, but assorted advertising that is also associated with the naming rights that can drive that number way beyond the $2-5 million a year committment from a business. If the city controls it, the stadium gets named. If the Twins control it, they will market the name with the stadium, the team and other venues.

There's also the issues of parking, concessions and the ilk.

I still think the sore point of the public is that we are paying how much so, let's say, Juan Castro or Mike Cuddyer will make $3 million a year instead of $1 million. WHile Wally the Beerman still has to climb how many stairs and still make the same profit on a higher priced suds.

by twintown on Feb 16, 2006 5:24 PM EST 0 recs

I don't quite understand

I don't quite see the "assorted advertising" that would generate revenue "way beyond" just selling the name. Have you heard any examples of this? Like I said, I don't even care if the Twins control the name, just not sell it. There's nothing to say they couldn't market "Twins Field" or "Puckett Park" -- wait, never mind that one -- the same as they'd market "3M Field". In fact, they might even be able to market it better since the stadium name would be logically tied in with the franchise. A lot of the new stadiums, people have no idea what they're called. Something unique and non-corporate could benefit this park.

by spycake on Feb 17, 2006 11:00 AM EST up 0 recs

Call me naive...

...but I don't really see the naming rights as the issue that the public is mostly hung up on nor as any kind of compromise that will sway any more than an insignificant number of citizens' oppinions.

Contributing revenue from the sale of naming rights toward the project makes a lot of sense to me. The Twins would probably claim that this is, in a sense, already the case since their pledge of $120 million (is that the right number?) is based on the projection that they'll be getting that revenue or else their pledge would be lower.

But I suppose I shouldn't presume to know too much about what might sway the oppinion of those on the fence, since I'm not one of them. I'm solidly in the "we should do it" camp.

My thinking is this:
There definitely are benefits to having a new stadium to revitalize (or further-vitalize) that part of town. There definitely are benefits to keeping the team in town. "But are these benefits worth the 100's of millions in public funds?" is a very good question. And I don't think it can be absolutely and definitively answered since these benefits are diverse and, in many ways, very difficult to quantify. Possibly the benefits are more than worth the cost - possibly less. I see it as roughly a wash. But then these factors tip the scale for me in favor of building the stadium and ensuring the team stays in town:

- With cost/benefit being roughly a wash, most people (myself, certainly) would rather have a team than not
- If they leave, eventually the public will increasingly want to bring MLB back to town which will cost us much more
- I can't really think of anyone who doesn't think going to Twins games wouldn't be MUCH better in a better stadium - even some I know who oppose a new park still like to complain about the dome

by adam on Feb 16, 2006 6:22 PM EST 0 recs

Response

"I can't really think of anyone who doesn't think going to Twins games wouldn't be MUCH better in a better stadium"

It will also be much more expensive, and many people (myself included) will not be able to attend as much as we do at the Dome. For those people, what's the incentive at all in building a new park?

The "anti-stadium" people and the undecided majority have serious reservations that this project will forge any civic pride, much less economic benefits. And since you can never prove or disprove the economics of it, you might as well focus on the element we can control. Not selling the naming rights to the highest bidder will go a long ways to market this as a community institution.

by spycake on Feb 17, 2006 11:07 AM EST up 0 recs

Point taken

Your point about more expensive tickets is a good one. Then this issue becomes deciding whether you prefer the availability of cheap tickets in a dumpy dome or more expensive tickets in a nicer venue. That comes down to personal preference I guess, and I wouldn't fault either preference.

However, if they get a new stadium, I think it would be a bad idea for the team to make the tickets MUCH more expensive - early on at any rate because of the reason you just said. I feel like a nice new stadium with a pleasant ballpark feel an just a modest ticket price increase would go a long way toward boosting attendance. If they raise the prices too much I think that would take a big hit on attendance. I'm hoping the team sees it this way.

But regardless, expensive tickets in a new stadium is definitely better than not having a team if that's the alternative.

As to the civic pride issue - yeah, I would much rather attend a game at Killebrew Stadium than Best Buy Stadium or something. Still, I doubt this makes a very big difference in a lot of people's minds as to whether they support the overall proposal. Maybe, as you suggested, it could be the grease that gives a little momentum that carries it through to passage.

But I do expect the bill will come up at the legislature this session and have no doubt many politicians will be trying to grease it in various ways. Whether it actually passes is way up in the air at this point.

by adam on Feb 17, 2006 1:45 PM EST up 0 recs

I think you're selling people's perception short

"I would much rather attend a game at Killebrew Stadium than Best Buy Stadium or something. Still, I doubt this makes a very big difference in a lot of people's minds as to whether they support the overall proposal."

Before anyone can even decide whether to attend the new park, the decision whether to fund and build "Killebrew Field" or "corporate-sponsor-to-be-determined stadium" could make a huge difference, just in perception of the project.

This adds a new wrinkle to my amendment -- the stadium should actually be named in advance of approval. It would greatly fuel the idea that it's a public works project.

by spycake on Feb 17, 2006 2:58 PM EST up 0 recs

WOW - Naming Rights?

WOW, naming rights...I'm sure glad you can up with idea! I'm sure it's a done deal now! Where do I sign up for season tickets in the new stadium?

Dean Johnson and Steve Swiggum are probably calling you right now. Has Sid set up an interview yet? Is Carl going to buy you lunch and thank you for saving the Twins? Is Tim Pawlenty working on a your proclamation?

I hear that Jon Stewart in interested in your Part 3 for a segment on The Daily Show.

Good Luck!

by TwinsKid on Feb 16, 2006 11:54 PM EST 0 recs

Do you have a better idea?

I'd love to hear your ideas about getting the stadium bill passed. My idea doesn't directly involve any cash, could be offered as a compromise by either side (or both), and would mark the first real progress on the Hennepin County bill and arguably on the stadium effort as a whole.

I don't see the current plan moving at all. I see some empty platitudes from select government officials, I see NOTHING coming from the Twins, and I see a lot of people just praying that one side or the other comes to their senses.

I think my plan is a lot more realistic than prayer, at this point.

by spycake on Feb 17, 2006 11:33 AM EST up 0 recs

Carl's $30 million

Why would Carl agree to give up naming rights and take $30 million out of his pocket? Especially when he has other options available?

I¡¦ll remind everyone that last year the Twins and Hennepin County negotiated a good faith agreement in the form of the current Stadium Plan. This plan was so acceptable that the Hennepin County commissioners approved the plan.

Key points of the ¡§plan:¡¨

f{ Twins will contribute $125 million and they will be responsible for any construction cost overruns.

f{ Twins have also agreed to contribute over $500,000 dollars a year toward capital improvements for the stadium.

f{ The county will contribute over $300 million for construction and for land acquisition and infrastructure costs.

f{ The Twins get to keep naming rights, seat license fees, concession contracts and advertising.

All the legislature had to do was approve a bill that would allow Hennepin County to collect an extra 0.15% in sales tax.

The result of the legislature failing to act is the construction costs have increase by an estimated $30 million. The Twins nor the County caused this financial gap. It is a direct result of the failed legislature.

The Twins have other options available that won¡¦t cost them $30 million.

Option 1: MLB can buy the Twins from Carl and contract the team. Why would this be done? The current MLB player¡¦s agreement allows the owners to contract teams. All the owners need do is notify the players of any decision to cut teams effective for 2007 no later than July 1, 2006. Carl gets cashed out and MLB solves a problem.

Option 2: Carl sells the team to a buyer ¡V probably out of town. Don¡¦t expect a local buyer without a new stadium. Just like option 1, Carl gets cashed out and probably gets more money than by contraction.

I suppose that one might say that Carl should forgo the $30 million for the good of the community. Perhaps he will, who knows.

I do know how these things work, Carl won¡¦t give up the $30 million unless he gets something HE values as part of the ¡§compromise.¡¨ Also, he won¡¦t give it up until he knows that all other issues are settled. The $30 million has to be the only remaining obstacle to getting a favorable vote out of the legislature.

I don¡¦t expect any Twins official to threaten contraction or selling the team. They will be quite until the legislature has spoken (or remains silent). I expect the Twins will simply make an announcement that they are pleased with the legislative vote or announce their plan to exit the market.

So you asked about my idea. I have shared this before ¡V lobby the heck out of your elected politicians. It is the bottom of the ninth with two out.

Its time to stand up and shout!

by TwinsKid on Feb 17, 2006 3:55 PM EST up 0 recs

Response

"This plan was so acceptable that the Hennepin County commissioners approved the plan"

They narrowly voted 4 to 3 to approve the plan. There is doubt whether it could be approved again.

And why did you highlight the Twins yearly $600,000 for capital improvements? Why not mention the county's continuing responsibility of $1.4 million per year for capital improvement? And what about their $2 million per year for youth activities and amateur sports (compared to $250,000 yearly from the Twins)?

"Carl won't give up the $30 million unless he gets something HE values as part of the compromise."

He would finally get the STADIUM. Isn't that what he ultimately wants? My fear is if he holds tightly to every last revenue source and his firm $125 million commitment, he's really inhibiting progress. That's great for business, but terrible if this is indeed supposed to be a public-works project. And as much as we all love to sit and blame the legislature, I think the stadium effort could use a POSITIVE shot in the arm for once.

Twins president Dave St. Peter told City Pages the new stadium would increase Twins revenues by $40 million annually. By their own numbers (which are probably conservative), Carl's contribution will be paid off in 4 years, with or without the naming rights. And if we factor in the increased franchise value, Carl's $125 million might be erased before opening day in the new stadium.

Of course, if he wants to play hardball with the future of the Twins for an extra million or two a year, that's his prerogative. But I think the impetus is still on the Twins to convince the legislators and their constituents of this proposal, NOT the other way around. (Although I would be pleased if public officials would initiate this open negotiation)

I understand you're pro-stadium, and that's fine, but you have to be realistic: something further needs to be done to push it through this year.

by spycake on Feb 18, 2006 2:27 PM EST up 0 recs

RE; (Your) Response

Spycake, I believe your point is not to debate the Hennepin County approved plan but to get a stadium built. In this I support you.

But before I get to my points...Correct me if I'm wrong, I believe a passed vote is a passed vote. If more people vote for it than against it then it passes - meaning Hennepin County did approved last year's Stadium Plan. The margin of passage means nothing.

Continuing, with all due respect, I think that you are not seeing the proverbial forest for the trees. One can wish for things all day long. You may wish that Carl give up $30 million but it is just that - a wish.

At this point we have to deal with reality. Neither you nor I have any sway with Carl. We can't give away Carl's $30 million.

However, as a voter we are able (albeit small) to influence our elected officials. It is our right and responsibility do so. We do that by lobbing with calls, letters and emails.

Getting back to Carl's $30 million - here is a question. Let's say Carl called a news conference for today and he gave up the $30 million as you suggest, is the stadium assured of getting built? Of course not!

The legislature, City of Minneapolis and Hennepin County probably have many other issues concerning the stadium plan that go beyond the $30 million, right? You have a great job identifing many of the possible issues.

I think there are a series of question our elected officials need to answer. Here are some of those questions - perhaps you can add a few of your own...

* Are the Minnesota Twins an asset to the state and community?

I believe so.

* If the Twins were to leave would it negatively impact the state and community?

I believe so but I can't prove it.

* Does Carl have any options to dump the team if there is no stadium?

I believe so, either through contraction or a sale.

* If this "plan" fails how many more times is Carl willing to try again?

I don't know but Carl could dump the team so I have to assume this is the last chance. In fact the Twins said so last year. I suppose I could pray that this is not the last chance.

* How likely it is that Carl would dump the team?

If MLB wants to eliminate teams this year is their opportunity. Plus Reggie Jackson is interested in the team - so if Reggie wants it then I must assume someone else would want the team.

Surely you agree that good faith negotiations can only take place when all involved parties want to reach agreement. If the legislature is indeed willing to keep the Twins here then, and only then, is it time to negotiate.

People reading this who are in sales know that you don't spend time negotiating with someone until you know they want to buy. The same is true here; I doubt the Twins will begin negotiating until the legislature shows signs of wanting a stadium built.

You, I and all concerned baseball fans can impact the process. We need to influence the legislature to understand that the Twins are important to Minnesota. Important because of the cumulative impact of economics, national image, quality of life and so forth.

Skycake, I believe our differences on this topic are that you believe there is something the Twins must do to move this forward. On the other hand, I believe that our politicians must first decide they want to keep the Twins here before meaningful negotiations can take place. Further, I believe that we are the key to pushing the politicians.

I have a proposal for you - I'll support your naming rights suggestion if you promise to write your elected officials and encourage all readers to do the same.

How about it - do we have a deal?

Good Luck!

Key dates:

March 1 -- Minnesota legislative session convenes
May 22 -- The constitutional deadline for the legislative session to end

by TwinsKid on Feb 18, 2006 4:37 PM EST up 0 recs

I get your point

I didn't mean to split hairs with you about the Hennepin County commissioners' vote, just clarify that it's never been as cut-and-dried as you made it out to be. If the stadium plan was such a slam dunk, it would have passed by now. The fact is the plan, although better than past plans (not saying much), still leans greatly toward Pohlad and not the public, and Pohlad has done nothing in his ten-year stadium quest to earn the public's trust.

I appreciate the sentiment that you want to petition legislators, but that still doesn't address the perceived weaknesses of the plan. If the pro-stadium minority like you speaks louder, the anti-stadium minority like Nick Coleman or John Marty will speak louder too. And the undecided majority of citizens and legislators will still be left unconvinced.

I too am petitioning my legislators, but not recommending simple acceptance of the plan. I want my legislator to give the plan a fair hearing and urge the Twins to negotiate if it's necessary to win approval.

by spycake on Feb 19, 2006 12:42 AM EST up 0 recs

My idea

....Have Carl pay 60% of the cost as in current prevailing stadium trends instead of trying to stick us with a plan from the fat flush 90s.

by MNPundit on Mar 4, 2006 4:36 AM EST up 0 recs

I'll give you credit.

For coming up with something within the current framework which could conceivably move the ball.

For those already in favor or already opposed - which I acknowledge is not your target audience - it won't matter. The "fors" want the stadium regardless; the "againsts" will be opposed no matter what.

My concern is the "antis" would argue it's "A drop in the bucket from the cheap bazillionaire" and demagouge it even more.

by BD57 on Feb 17, 2006 9:21 AM EST 0 recs

I agree

Essentially, though, this stadium bill reminds me of a Woody Allen quote:

"A relationship, I think, is like a shark. You know? It has to constantly move forward or it dies. And I think what we got on our hands is a dead shark."

I think the stadium drive is a dead shark. The Hennepin County plan hasn't moved at all. You have to do SOMETHING to help it pass, to at least grease the political climate to help it pass in an election year. And since the financials are set in stone as far as the Twins are concerned, the naming rights is the smallest aspect of the plan that carries the largest symbolic weight. I think it's a great place to start.

by spycake on Feb 17, 2006 11:14 AM EST up 0 recs

Just wondering

Is it a sure thing the stadium will be built in Mpls if it is built? Is there any rumbling from St. Paul that they're going to try and keep the Twins here, or am I just having Norm Coleman flashbacks? Any chance Hennepin and Ramsey could find a way to mutually benefit/fund the thing?

I really have no idea, but I was just thinking of that old logo of the two Twins players shaking hands over the river. Almost makes you think some co-operation and a deal is possible.

Does anybody have a good link to a relatively comprehensive survey of the different plans out there?

by dwight zinfandel on Feb 17, 2006 11:46 AM EST 0 recs

St. Paul

I don't think there's been a serious St. Paul ballpark proposal since 2002. I think the tax base there is smaller, so it would need a much higher sales tax than Hennepin County is proposing and/or involve state money, which is pretty much out of the equation.

The best link I can provide is this timeline from the City Pages:

http://citypages.com/databank/26/1275/article13266.asp?page=3

by spycake on Feb 17, 2006 3:06 PM EST up 0 recs

Does Someone Else Want the Team

Is Clark Griffith still a viable guy?

Would he find a way to use the ugh Metrodome?

by twintown on Feb 18, 2006 9:03 PM EST 0 recs

Clark Griffith

Interesting point -- Clark Griffith (son of Calvin, grandson of the original Clark) actually led a group of investors attempting to buy the team back in '96 or '97, but Pohlad turned him down because he wasn't sure of his funding sources. Carl really has yet to put the team up for sale or seriously consider bidders for it (not counting the Don Beaver scheme), which is a shame because a stadium might pass much easier with a transfer of ownership. To think he'd rather eliminate the team than give them over to someone with a better shot at a stadium seems odd. Of course, we can only hope that contraction was just a misguided stadium ploy too.

by spycake on Feb 19, 2006 12:17 AM EST up 0 recs

Why Stick this to Hennepin County Taxpayers?

If you really want to get a plan, then widen the effect of the tax. I live in Minneapolis. The voters expressed their opinion about public funding for a stadium in Minneapolis. It was a clear and resounding NO! Minneapolis voters do vote for tax increases for both schools and the central library.

That's why Hennepin County became the focus of this. So Hennepin County comes up with a plan, but they want to exempt the plan from the statutory requirement of voter approval for sales tax increase. Things like wastewater treatment plants, fire stations, and public swimming pools are subject for voter approval. So why is it that the Twins should be exempt?

I'll be glad to support a plan that does this:

Excempt Minneapolis from the sales tax increase. We already voted it down.
Replace the Minneapolis sales tax increase with a sales tax increase in Dakota County (where Governor Pawlenty lives), Kandiyohi County (where Majority Leader Dean Johnson lives), and Goodhue County (where Speaker Sviggum lives).

I will happy to write a letter to my state senator and representative to approve such a bill.

Ok, Governor, Speaker Sviggum and Majority Leader Johnson - step up to the plate and save the Twins - but take some responsibility and raise taxes where you live to do this. Don't raise MY taxes to do this.

by lloydletta on Feb 24, 2006 7:02 PM EST 0 recs

Um, no

That would make absolutly no sense whatsoever since Minneapolis residents would derive the most gain.

by AdamOnFirst on Feb 26, 2006 12:57 PM EST up 0 recs

perfect example

of why the Twins will disappear in the not too distant future - everyone wants someone else to bear the burden.

by BD57 on Feb 26, 2006 3:44 PM EST up 0 recs

RE: Why Stick this to Hennepin County Taxpayers?

lloydletta you asked, "Why Stick this to Hennepin County Taxpayers?" as if the tax burden of on an extra .0015 of one cent is excessive. Come on here buddy, isn't the extra sales tax of 0.15% (3 cents on $20) in Hennepin County really no big deal?

I want you know that I do respect your opinion but on the issue of voting on the tax I take exception. You write as if it is common practice for the public to vote on tax increases.

Let's get real here. When was the last time you participated in a vote to determine the amount of income or sales taxes you pay?

The answer for me and I suspect most of us is NEVER.

We are all asked to pay for things (at least from our personal perspective) that we consider to be wasteful, non-productive, not needed and so forth and so on... and nobody asks any of us to vote on paying for it.

We are told that this, that or the other thing is for the public good and if you don't like it vote out the people who voted raised taxes. We have the same opportunity here.

We can debate if the Twins are an asset to the state and community. We can discuss if their leaving would cause a negative impact to Minneapolis, Hennepin County and the state. We can wonder if Carl will contract the team. We can muse over the likelihood of Carl selling the team.

But don't throw out the red hearing on voting on income or sales taxes because that is rarely (if ever) done.

Good Luck!

by TwinsKid on Feb 26, 2006 4:41 PM EST up 0 recs

Voting on taxes

Not that I agree with his position, but lloydletta did point out a good example -- the new Minneapolis Central Library was approved by voter referendum in 2000. And plenty of school referendums have been passed involving property tax increases. In fact, since the sales tax referendum requirement took effect in 1992, I believe, the only project to get legislature approval to bypass it (as the Twins and Vikings are trying to do) was the Xcel Energy Center. Stadium proponents will say the X was a good investment, but stadium opponents will question why the only projects that need to skip referendums are sports stadiums.

To further play devil's advocate, although I really couldn't care less about the tax, it will kinda penalize me more than others because I make a concerted effort to buy local here in Minneapolis, as opposed to shopping in the suburbs etc. I think the plan would have been much more fair if it included some state money, but of course the governor and legislature were opposed to that idea.

by spycake on Feb 27, 2006 8:08 PM EST up 0 recs

RE: Voting on taxes

I must say that I stand somewhat corrected but I must point out that the reference in my post was to income and sales taxes - not bonding referendums.

I stand corrected with regard to the sales tax. The state statute covering the ability for local governments to raise the sales taxes requires a referendum. However, the same set of laws defines a process in which a sales tax can be imposed by a local government without a referendum. It looks like a local government entity can do what ever it decides is best. BTW - I was amazed at how many cities, towns and counties have had or still have localized sales taxes.

Schools are required by statute to have a bonding referendum for building and major capital improvements. In addition, a school district must have a referendum if they want to exceed the taxing authority authorized by the legislature.

On a local level it is a bit murky (I'm not an attorney). It appears that a local referendum on buildings is required if the spending is over and above the property tax revenues. Example, if a city can put up a building and make payments for it within the existing budget (funded primarily by property taxes) a referendum is not required. However, if they need extra revenue to make the payments then a referendum is required.

So, other than local school district having a clear statutory requirement for referendums the other local governmental entities seem to be able to do what they want.

Note: Twins Spring Training baseball will be televised this Thursday.

Good Luck!

by TwinsKid on Feb 27, 2006 11:55 PM EST up 0 recs

Yeah

Most anywhere you go, the state tax is higher than our 6.5%. In Chicago it is like 9$...

That and this are two BIG money sources we are not tapping:

As I have mentioned before, we are one of the very few cities in teh country that doesn't collect lucretive taxes on rental cars and hotel rooms. Why not let visitors discreatly pay for a big chunk of it?

by AdamOnFirst on Feb 28, 2006 1:34 AM EST up 0 recs

Excuse me...

...we don't collect taxes on rental cars and hotel rooms? Although I don't stay in Minneapolis, I believe they have a room tax approaching 10%. Many of the suburban cities have 3-5% taxes (Burnsville is 3% which is very low).

What other businesses besides hotels have a special tax paid by there customers...in addition to the 6.5% sales tax (9.2% on liquor)? And although the State will tell you that the "room tax" goes for the benefit of expanding tourism...that isn't true. Yes, cities will give the local chambers and convention bureaus a taste, but all the dollars go into the City's general fund with a stipend coming out for these various tourism related uses. The room tax exists in Minnesota, it is one of the most unfair taxes placed on one specific business type. However, the customers who pay the tax don't vote so they can get away with it.

by roger on Feb 28, 2006 8:22 AM EST up 0 recs

Minneapolis Room Tax...

...is 6.5%, for a total tax of 13% (6.5% sales tax + 6.5% room tax). I knew Bloomington was 7%, thought Minneapolis was higher...it isn't.

by roger on Feb 28, 2006 2:59 PM EST up 0 recs

Interesting

I will cnsult my source on this. It seems likely or possible that other cities have a higher taxing rate.

by AdamOnFirst on Mar 1, 2006 1:23 AM EST up 0 recs

Tax

You don't have to, many are higher including Bloomington right here. My comment was in response to your statement that the City "did not have a tax" on rental cars or hotels. That comment was wrong...the City does have a 6.5% tax on rooms.

I have spent the past 35 years in this industry and over 10 years working to get the State of Wisconsin to change their unfair law. It was partially accomplished about 15 years ago when they passed a law requiring that 70% of all new room tax laws go to benefit tourism. Shortly thereafter, a Southern Wisconsin City used the tax to build a downtown parking lot...I guess that could be considered tourism. We have a property in a City just north of Milwaukee. That City collects nearly $250,000 annually from this tax and considers itself generous when they give $25,000 to the local chamber/convention bureau...the balance stays in their general fund.

Finally, the concept that a room tax should be used to pay for a stadium is absurd. The revenue raised by hotels from the Twins is minimal for most downtown hotels and none for the majority of hotels in Hennepin County. Why should business people and tourists coming to the Cities pay for a stadium that we will enjoy? I imagine you can say "because they don't vote here." That however, doesn't make it right!

by roger on Mar 1, 2006 9:06 AM EST up 0 recs

Revenue

It wouldn't be the only way to make money, but it seems to me to be a valuable source of some mony that we are failing to tap nearly as effectivly as many other areas.

I also find it very difficult to believe that the tax would raises such a low amount more money. Even a tax of a couple bucks per night and a half penny per mile would raises an enormous amount...

by AdamOnFirst on Mar 1, 2006 5:05 PM EST up 0 recs

You don't understand...

...the effect that a couple more bucks per room would place on Minneapolis hotels competing with other hotels outside the City, like the Bloomington strip. Yes, the room tax raises a substantial amount of money...but it is relative and small when compared to the amount needed to fund a construction project of this type.

It is easy to say, hey lets add a couple bucks to a specific tax...especially when you don't have to make a business work with that tax added to your rates. Finally, the stadium proposal will be developed and owned by Hennepin County. Room taxes and the revenue derived from them are City taxes...not County.

by roger on Mar 1, 2006 6:21 PM EST up 0 recs

Additionally

In addition to Roger's comments, I'm just a bit leery of "tapping" sales taxes too much. As minor as the proposed ballpark tax increase may seem, these kind of taxes (and similar "user fee" increases), as a percentage of income, hit the poorest among us the hardest.

Obviously I know you're not necessarily advocating huge tax reform, but with the state government freezing taxes and removing funding for schools, health care, higher education, and even stadiums, more of this tax burden gets shifted to lower-income people in the form of sales taxes and fees. (Not trying to start a fiscal flame war here, just pointing out that maybe the state government shouldn't rule out at least partial contributions toward schools, stadiums, etc.)

by spycake on Feb 28, 2006 2:21 PM EST up 0 recs

Pay for what you use

Let's just eliminate taxes period and charge people more for what they use. Make Twins tickets $30 to $150. That takes care of the problem. The additional revenue can be used by the team to pay for a loan from Pohlad and Co. compounded oevr the next 30 years.

Seriously, I would go and get a $350 million loan and build the stadium myself. But Uncle Carl would have to pay me rent in the neighborhood of $40-50 million a year to play there, give me a share of reveneues from concessions and advertising, and he would have to clean up his own suite at the end of the day.

by twintown on Feb 26, 2006 2:52 PM EST 0 recs

Gladly,

Many of us would gladly go with the pay for what we use theory...let me see, Police and Fire services could be paid totally out of a charge for each call. Put a toll on every road to cover the amortized cost of its construction, maintenance and related services...thats easy as they are already using the technology on I-394.

Sidewalks...well that would get a little cumbersome but we are already required to built it and keep snow off...I suppose it could give every resident a job as they would be needed to man their own toll both to collect the charge for each person walking on their sidewalk. I can live with that. However, I suspect the stadium opponents would have lots of things they would want government to do, just not a stadium...after all the Twin Cities doesn't have to have professional baseball. I guess thats reasonable, your taxes should go to what I want!!!

by roger on Feb 26, 2006 3:33 PM EST up 0 recs