GUEST VIEW: Gambling on a new Vikings stadium
Posted By Admin on December 3, 2011
As I visit with people throughout the district, the issue I’m
asked about most is the Vikings stadium.
While it may be “politically smart” to avoid this issue, I
believe the right thing to do is address it in a straightforward
manner. Several ideas have been mentioned, but very little about
the facts and figures.
Vikings ownership, Gov. Dayton and members of the Legislature
are considering a publicly owned, multipurpose, year-round stadium.
The cost of a new stadium varies by location, but would be about $1
billion. The funding formula for this site would include private
investments from Vikings ownership and the National Football
League, along with local and state contributions. Additionally, the
Minnesota Vikings would sign a 30-year lease to play at the new
facility and pay for any construction cost overruns. There is no
current consensus on a local and state financing package, but this
contribution would be in the form of debt service over a 30-year
period, with the annual amount varying depending on local partner
involvement. Identifying the financially and economically
responsible source for such payments is the center of our current
discussion.
The Minnesota Vikings are an asset to our state, but any plan or
proposal to keep them here must make financial sense. I remain
firmly opposed to using state General Fund dollars to fund the
stadium. It is unacceptable to use funds designed for education,
nursing homes, veterans, health care and roads on a Vikings
stadium. Additionally, I oppose using any portion of the Legacy
Amendment funds. However, this doesn’t mean we should do nothing.
In fact, there are many reasons why we should act, and each course
of action should be viewed through a pro-growth and pro-jobs
lens.
In 2010, the Minnesota Vikings players and staff paid $11.5
million in income taxes to the state of Minnesota. This number
increased to $21 million when taxes from visiting NFL teams and
stadium-generated sales taxes were included. These numbers don’t
include indirect sales and income taxes generated from restaurants,
bars, hotels and businesses throughout the entire state.
The new stadium would provide Minnesota with a venue to compete
to host events such as the Super Bowl, the Final Four and other
large-scale entertainment events, in addition to high school,
college and amateur sporting events, trade shows and concerts.
These events can provide a significant boost in economic activity
and direct spending within our state. For example, one study
indicates that Super Bowl XL in 2006, held in Detroit, a market
comparable in size to the Twin Cities, generated $274 million.
Additionally, more than 22 percent of the approximately 52,000
Vikings season ticket owners live outside the state of Minnesota,
and the economic activity they generate is noteworthy. Most
importantly, new stadium construction would generate thousands of
short- and long-term jobs at a time when our economy is struggling
and the construction trade is facing an unemployment rate of nearly
20 percent.
The intangible benefits such as community spirit, civic pride
and quality of life are also important, but the economic impact is
most significant. Each decision made along the way to final
legislation should be made with the interests of taxpayers in mind.
To this point, the only option presented to fund the state’s
portion of the stadium that I find feasible is through gaming
revenue.
We are not at a point of knowing with certainty what each of the
gaming options looks like, whether it’s Vikings-sponsored lottery
games, electronic pull tabs, Racino or a new state-owned gambling
facility. However, it’s my belief that raising money through a
voluntary, non-tax, non-General Fund revenue source such as gaming
would not only fund the public contribution to a stadium, but also
be used to address a more important issue: payback of the more than
$2 billion the state has borrowed from public schools since
2008.
Stadium talk is difficult, emotional and at times frustrating.
Rather than ignoring the problem or simply saying “no” to option
after option, I wanted to share straightforward, honest
conversation in which we consider the facts. Ultimately, my
decision will be based on financial and economic considerations and
the feedback I gather from the people who sent me to St. Paul.
I look forward to discussing this and many other issues with you
in the days and weeks ahead.
Comments