(00:00:00) Well, thank you Alan and good morning everyone. We're broadcasting live from the auditorium of the State Office Building this morning the hearing by the house tax committee scheduled to get underway in just a matter of seconds. Most of the committee members who filed in chairman. Harry sieben is here and I think we'll be underway in a matter of minutes the tax Committee, of course schedule to take its final action this morning on the stadium by the time this meeting ends at around 10 o'clock or so. It has before it representative Ray Pharisees Bill to repeal the 2% on sale liquor tax in the seven-county Twin Cities area that tax is needed both to guarantee that the principal and interest payments on the stadium construction bonds can be met and to subsidize the costs of operating the downtown Minneapolis dome stadium the tax repeal Bill did pass the Minnesota Senate in early February the debate over the liquor tax has really turned into a debate over the stadium itself. And in addition to the repeal measure the tax committee members will have before them this morning several other proposals in the form of It is to some of those proposals that Governor cui announced his position today and John briefly. What what is that Bob? There are a lot of things still untied Loose Ends Here according to the governor's statement after reading the statement. The governor said in a written release. He's not available for comment that the sports commission should not be bound by a December first decision. That was last December 1st, when they decided on Minneapolis dome stadium, he says the commission should be empowered by Statute by law to weigh all new developments and consider alternatives as new information becomes available. He said that the liquor tax should be used only for debt service charges. The governor said that the 2% metropolitan area liquor tax should not be used to subsidize in the operating (00:01:46) expenses. He also (00:01:48) says if a dome is located in Minneapolis and additional tax is necessary to back bonds that a minneapolis-based tax should be used he put out there are now three options available under that. Category that would be a Minneapolis business property tax a Minneapolis hotel-motel tax and a 2% Minneapolis liquor tax. The governor says quote. I understand that a 2% tax on liquor sold in Minneapolis will be proposed and I find that tax acceptable unquote. That's a 2% Minneapolis liquor tax. We also said that the NFL a provision National Football League provision that if 90% of seats are sold out 72 hours in advance. You can have somebody by contract a private entity by the remaining tickets that should be by contract according to the NFL that should be set up in advance the governor supports that and he says the public should be protected from any responsibility for failure to construct the stadium within the authorized bonding limits. He does not say what he would do if the president acts of the the Senate passed to person liquor tax were to come up before him or the repealed that Still that's still a matter of conjecture what he might do right. Now. What they Senate repeal if the Senate repeal came to the house one before him. Well, there will be certainly efforts made this morning John to have more than just the liquor tax repeal. Go before the Full House in before the Senate and the governor as well. As you mentioned there. There will be a proposal by representative Al patent Chief author of the present Stadium law to drop the tax and all communities except Minneapolis wants the stadium is built. They'll be an effort by representative. Very pleasant from Bloomington and some other Suburban lawmakers proposing that the legislature reverse the stadium commission's decision to build in Minneapolis at the stadium be located instead in Bloomington. And there may be some other proposals to the chairman of the tax committee. Harry sieben dfl her from Hastings is called the meeting to order and let's go to Chairman see but now for his for his comments. (00:03:57) Tuesday, we're going to just take a few administrative things first Tuesday. We're going to have a hearing on three or four (00:04:03) bills. Well chairman subin is just announcing the committee schedule for the coming week, which is his practice here so that members and and members of the committee and the public know just exactly what is coming up the The developments here are very hard to predict representative Pharisee is said that he's optimistic that the liquor tax repeal bill will pass in some form. It's also fairly good likelihood in the view of some people that the the committee will decide to go ahead and approve the specific Bloomington location for the stadium. The theory behind that being of course that the Bloomington stadium is the one that can pay for itself fully terms of operating costs because of the revenue that's available from the parking lot out there Minneapolis stadium is estimated to fall about a million three hundred thousand dollars short approximately in operating expenses each year. And that's what the two percent liquor tax will be needed for to help meet those expenses representative Al patent. Who's not a member of the tax committee is going to try Save the existing plan by offering his proposal to let the tax be simply on the liquor by the drink sales in the City of Minneapolis. I would generate about the amount of Revenue needed to meet the operating debt and operating deficit rather and then representative patents Bill also provides that if the revenue from the liquor tax in the City of Minneapolis Falls below the amount needed for I think a year then the liquor tax would once again revert to the entire seven-county metropolitan area represented a Pharisee. I think we'll very strongly oppose that provision would be interesting to see just exactly how the committee votes and their particular on that particular measure. Still talking a little bit here about some of the upcoming meetings of the both the full committee and the two divisions. This is one of the committee's that one of two committees in the Minnesota house that has an odd number of members. It has 31 members on it it and the rules committee both have an odd number of members with the vfl side having a one-vote margin on those two committees that that was a accommodation that was made at the beginning of the session when the evenly divided dfl and independent Republican caucus has worked out an agreement for sharing power during this legislative session all the other committees in the house have an exact equal number of Democrats and Republicans. And then the tax committee also has these two divisions which deal with one deals with income tax and the other deals with basically sales tax the Republicans have a margin on that. No chairman sebin is bringing up the matter that we're all here for and let's listen to Harry (00:07:07) season. They could testify today and I told them no except at the request of a Committee Member. We had completed our public testimony and I apologize to members of the public that did not have the chance to testify. We did and I did that for reasons. We've discussed as a committee if what if some Committee Member feels that somebody has been deprived of that opportunity will give it to them secondly. Governor cui has made a statement on the stadium on March 16th 1979. And I have a letter in front of me from the governor that I think we have copies of it. I just walked in so I didn't talk to anybody about this, but why don't we distribute it? And mr. Algren. Did you intend to make a statement on behalf of the governor? Okay. Well, why don't we have it distributed and why don't you read it. You want to ask what answer questions about the governor's needs to the governor who will be (00:08:13) reading the letter that the governor has written the committee members and answering any questions they have about the governor's position Steve Olga. He's taking a couple of minutes to get his papers organized. There's a page Distributing members of the committee. And here's the letter to the discussion concerning the stadium issue. I have met with legislators Advocates of various Alternatives and other groups, as you know, I have refrained from any elaborate statements on the issue, but I have now reached several conclusions and I believe it is proper that I share them with the legislature and the public. I also hope that the legislators will find my comments helpful during their deliberations. In order to resolve this issue. I believe we should support the following steps. Number one rather than be bound by its December 1 decision. The Metropolitan sports facilities commission should be empowered by Statute to weigh all new developments and consider various Alternatives as new information becomes available. Number two provide that the Metropolitan liquor tax be used only for debt service charges. It should not be used to subsidize operating expenses furthermore. If a domed stadium is located in Minneapolis and additional tax Authority is necessary to back the bonds. A minneapolis-based tax should be used three options have been discussed in Minneapolis business property tax and Minneapolis hotel-motel tax and a 2% Minneapolis liquor tax. I Now understand that a 2% liquor that a 2% tax on liquor sold in Minneapolis will be proposed. I find that tax acceptable. Number three meet the NFL TV blackout provision by by requiring that any time 90% or more of the tickets are sold at least 72 hours before game time. The remaining tickets shall be purchased by a private entity pursuant to a contract entered into with the commission for protect the public from any responsibility for a failure to construct the stadium within the authorized bonding limits. Thank you for the opportunity to present my thoughts for you and your (00:10:27) community. I take it that the governor is in favor of a stadium and is in favor of public tax money being used to build a stadium is that correct? (00:10:39) The governor is in favor of a stadium being built. That's correct. And he understands that by the previous decision of the legislature that there will be some public tax money used as backup for the (00:10:51) bonds. My question is is a governor favorite public tax money to be used to build a stadium. (00:11:05) In terms of response. I would say that teehee. He would favor the you he would see that there's a need for that youth. That's (00:11:14) correct. All right, any questions of the governor's office? Mr. Anderson, this is representative herb Anderson lady caucus leader. I Now understand the 2% Glitter Factory will be proposed. I find that tax acceptable. Is the governor then saying that you would prefer the two percent liquor tax on any apis as compared to the other three options? Mr. Chairman representative (00:11:53) Anderson. I do not believe that is what he's saying. He is saying that he does find that one acceptable. He understands that something like that will be proposed. I know of no reason why he would find them not acceptable (00:12:17) then I laughter laughter in reference to the first. I wonder if the governor would also find acceptable in Minneapolis property taxes. (00:12:29) Mr. Chairman representative Anderson. I don't know what his feelings would (00:12:34) be on there. Mr. Pharisee with (00:12:40) German. I noticed the governor is talking about a 2% liquor tax for the City of Minneapolis. The Proposal that is presently in law calls for a 2% liquor tax throughout the metropolitan area has he translated the dollars real the 2% liquor tax for the City of Minneapolis do the job or as was being discussed at the previous meeting wouldn't it become necessary that that tax in a sense be at a higher figure. Mr. Chairman representative Pharisee, I believe is the governor's understanding that the proposal by the City of Minneapolis or what may be considered a Minneapolis proposal would allow a 2% liquor tax or more to continue after the stadium was constructed or more or more open and I would like to continue if I could on that. I do not think that the governor is of a position that the Metropolitan 2% tax should automatically be dropped but that once the stadium is constructed a Minneapolis tax. Will then Carry On from there on because of the question regarding the operating subsidy. I think that it's the governor's position that the key issue here has been whether or not this liquor tax should be used for operating expenses and that there always was a consensus that the 2% liquor tax would be on for the sake of selling those bonds and so he is not saying that he would support abolition of that 2% Metropolitan liquor tax altogether (00:14:22) Mr. Peter was next. This is Jim Peter from st. Cloud what I assume to be the governor's opening up again of the (00:14:33) site selection if (00:14:34) Minneapolis site is not acceptable and yet you are talking about having only minneapolis-based taxes if (00:14:43) that is opened up again is the governor acceptable (00:14:45) to striking where he has (00:14:48) Minneapolis and inserting in lieu thereof, wherever that other site maybe mr. Chairman representative Taylor the governor's feeling on the Minneapolis. I think would be representative of what is feeling would be in another case. That is that if the if the decision were opened up again as indicated in paragraph number one and a site selection where children somewhere else and there was a necessity to cover the operating expenses that the area that benefits from that should be responsible for those operating expenses as would be (00:15:20) consistent with the Minneapolis (00:15:25) I would like to continue by saying and I'm of the impression that the way people have been testifying that if a stadium were located somewhere else they and it were not domed that it would not be necessary to have anything additional for operating expenses, but I don't know if (00:15:39) that's okay. He says specifically that number two that the bills at the Metropolitan liquor tax should be used for the debt service charges if we're going to go into (00:16:01) operating expenses, and we need a taxi saying (00:16:04) those proposals that have been tossed around are acceptable. I don't think we have to read anything else into it than that, but I think that's what mr. Auburn has said. (00:16:16) That was Chuck Holberg from Burnsville a new (00:16:20) first term. I are representative Jewel Jacobs from Coon Rapids. Minneapolis many of us on the committee do not feel that 2% is going to be enough if we have a 2% tax in the metropolitan area narrow it down from one community in Minneapolis that perhaps 5% Would you say that the governor would support that high percentage in taxes on the liquor? Mr. Chairman and represented? I'm sorry. I don't want to Jacobs representative Jacobs. The figures that we have seen have indicated (00:17:15) that if the 2% tax were to apply to the City of Minneapolis after the stadium was constructed in the teams were operating that it would bring an approximately 1.2 million dollars a year. That is one of the projections of what the operating deficit would be the first year and the suggestion has been that that operating deficit will decline. So if it's going to bring in 1.2 million and we're operating at a deficit of 1.2 million, it may roughly cover the very first year and likely would do a better job of covering from then (00:17:48) on. In the statement number one by removing that December 1st deadline. It's obvious that that in doing that the interpretation would be to support the Bloomington site. I guess my question would be. What would his plans be then to finance the Bloomington site? I assumed it would not be the tax in Minneapolis. Mr. (00:18:22) Chairman representative Jacobs, that's correct. And that he definitely would feel it would be inequitable to have Minneapolis support a stadium were constructed in Bloomington. However, I think your interpretation of the first Clause of number one may be a little bit off. I don't think he's really saying that he's supporting a consideration of Bloomington what he's saying is that the commission should have some flexibility because the way the statute is worded right now with the 90% black out. We've got a problem on our hands and looked there's nothing that's going to be done and the stadium probably will not be constructed and if the bill goes through representative varices bill goes through the commission is not empowered to do anything. So the issue becomes should the commission be empowered to do something at a later date or should they be empowered to do something now and his feeling is if you're going to empower them to do something later well might as well Empower them to do something now so that it doesn't totally (00:19:18) die. In the event that we were to adopt that provision number one given the commission the variability of going wherever supposing that the Bloomington site were to be picked. What would the governor recommended that time as a backup text? (00:19:37) Mr. Chairman representative Jacobs? I do not know that he would have a specific recommendation and I am not certain that there would need to be one. The reason that I'm stating. That is the way the statute was originally worded. They talked in terms of the possibility of building a nun domed multi-purpose stadium in Bloomington. And if they would have built the undertow multi-purpose stadium in Bloomington, I think the testimony has been that they would not need an operating subsidy if there would be a need for an operating subsidy. I imagine that the legislature in its wisdom may come up with one. There are two that we have discussed that have not been taken anywhere that I would throw out on the table. One of them is the dedication of the sales tax the sales tax raised from the from the sale of the tickets for the Vikings and for the twins plus the sales tax probably in the concessions would raise a sum of approximately 1.2 million dollars a year. Now if this if the team's leave we don't gain that sales tax right now. We're Net sales tax into the general fund. It is never been on the table that I know of in considered. Another option that has been thrown out just briefly to some individuals and hasn't been developed is that the TV fans are not being tapped. We're putting a 10% tax and the tickets but we're not considering is the fact that a lot of people would rather watch these games and TV and they don't have an Institutional way right now to contribute and it would be very easy to either put the screws to him if you wanted to between now and a deadline or if you don't want to put the screws to him just provide an opportunity for the the TV fans to really make a solid contribution and it would depend upon what your operating subsidy or your operating needs were and I don't think they're projected is being as high in Bloomington as they would be in Minneapolis. (00:21:29) Cyril mr. Chairman and Jacobs that I think we might call attention to the difference between the two sites of many apples revenue from parking facilities isn't (00:21:43) available to downtown Minneapolis. (00:21:46) And I think when we consider the two (00:21:48) that is a dollar (00:21:51) factor in the equation that sure the sports commission would be considering in other words that there is a partial answer to your question. That was my (00:22:04) Searles Bob Searles from Orono an independent Republican chairman of the (00:22:08) division of income taxes, by the way funds out of the as he indicated out of the general fund. You know, I assume that that's what would be his position but I just would like to reiterate what representative Hall works that and that is that we just take this at face value and that we get on with the amendments in the bill that is before us and if you need any Enlightenment representative Jim has a be glad to tell you how to vote. (00:22:34) And is that it who's Kathy blasts from Bloomington independent Republican first to remember (00:22:44) well, mr. Aldrin. We appreciate very much your coming and we appreciate the governor taking the stand on this important issue. Thank you very much. He has had his hand up for about an hour representative Pharisee. If you think it's important for a Committee Member to take the podium, I guess you can seriously at this time. Mr. Chairman. I'd like to move that Senate file 20 be recommended the past and I'd like to make this a very brief statement about this. (00:23:35) I think the chairman should be commended for the way. This committee has at least listen to people who have had points of view to bring to the committee. We have been criticized by some by not moving ahead and just taking care of this thing and moving it out. I think that what you have shown to the people of the state has been that we are interested in hearing both sides on an issue and you have given both sides and opportunity to speak. I think another thing is come very much delight by the reason of our having taken the time and that has been the plight of the Twins and mr. Chairman members of the committee. I think it speaks all the more for are enacting this bill. I was at the sports facility commission the other day. And again, I heard the members of that commission and their executive director make certain comments about the financial condition of the twins. And if I recall the terms were they did not believe that the twins could afford to play in any new stadium. Another time. It was said he that they did not believe that the twins could play in any Stadium. What I'm concerned, (00:24:59) I think that was maybe said with tongue-in-cheek, but maybe not. The thing that I'm noticing is that we're talking about waiting to hear what some outside person or group may do. And I'm starting to get very nervous about what we are doing here. We're talking about building a dome (00:25:21) stadium. I like to create a little analogy here. It seems to me it's like building an apartment building. And we're now trying to get some of the tenants. And we like to get them on to Lisa's. And all of a sudden it appears that one of the tenants made the analogy maybe may (00:25:45) turn out to be nothing but a mistress (00:25:47) being kept by Believe It or Not An Angel. And I start to get a little bit nervous about (00:25:57) this. That we are asking (00:26:02) that somebody sign a lease that we know can't afford to play there and that we are going to be dependent upon the whim the fancy the likes the desires of some other person or group that is not committed for a 30-year period of time. There are no guarantors being asked for and the idea that we should pursue this with that kind of an arrangement just doesn't make (00:26:29) sense. (00:26:31) I'm just thinking back about the analogy and I suppose it puts me in bed with the pro decency group, (00:26:36) but bad. (00:26:39) I really think that that alone gives us reason to say the facility that's being discussed about should not come to be (00:26:48) And I again want to just say I (00:26:50) don't think anybody should have that kind of a situation foisted on them and say that make a remark or make a suggestion that it's really the twins risk. It's really not the twins risk. It's our risk because in the event they don't make it somebody has to pick up the expense that is lost by they're not being able to perform mr. Chairman with that. I understand there's a number of amendments. I'd be happy to start discussing those maybe the author's would like (00:27:19) starting promoting those and we can start moving with the bill. Okay. All right. Just put some sort of body knows what's going on here now. Mr. Pharisee has moved that his bill be recommended to pass. Did you move the Senate file? Okay that sound file whatever. It is be recommended to pass. Mr. Anderson is requested a roll call vote so that when we get to vote on that motion, there will be a roll call vote. Okay. Now you see me do two things before we go any further. I did schedule a representative patents bill for hearing this morning, and I'm not inviting discussion but L is the original author of this Stadium physician and his head more or as much input into it as anybody else in the legislature and I don't even know if he's here but I do want to give them a chance if he does. He's not a member of the committee and I just want to give you a chance to see what you want to see if you if there's anything you want to do. (00:28:20) This is representative can help animals. (00:28:24) Save as a chairman members of committee be very short. (00:28:28) You got the last date with it race made in got to the (00:28:31) problems that they're having to negotiate the contracts with the twins. I believe you see when the safeguards and the existing law working very well in the protection of people stay in Minnesota. That's why we put those are (00:28:42) safeguards in the law. So that nothing can happen to the in so people had to commit themselves to long-term financing a business operation rather than let the people hang with it. So what you see in mr. Pharisee is a good bill working today a number of members will be offered this morning. Mr. Chairman members of the committee. I have read the amendments to the represent Pharisees Bill and it appears at this time that I'm agreement with some of the members (00:29:08) that would be forthcoming with (00:29:09) that and I've talked to represent a Pharisee in that regard and we've had in length of discussions on it. And I think that we see eye to eye on most of the issues if we can put together a piece of legislation today. The follows the basic concept of trying to do something and say the stadium and not kill it and represents represented Pharisees the author that particular piece of legislation. I will wholeheartedly endorse that legislation. I know the hazards we have the Senate author, but nevertheless I feel that maybe that individual can be dealt with when the time comes but I believe it's incumbent upon the least the house to put together piece of legislation. If in fact you want to compromise (00:29:49) the issue and say the stadium and try and (00:29:53) get something wrong and today. If not, then represent a Pharisee should shoot his bill out as (00:29:57) is and let the governor sign it I guess but I'd be the committee if they wish to compromise. We have the opportunity this morning with represented Pharisees bill and I will support if the if in fact we do say the stadium. Thank you Jim any questions for me to go. Well, I just have one your bill is also before us. Are you asking the committee then to act on the Pharisee Bill rather than on your bill? (00:30:18) I've been in all fairness. Mr. Chairman, I would Support efforts to amend represent Pharisees Bill represent a Pharisee and I have talked about that and if it is successful, I would support that if not, then feel his bill was down in committee and will take up my bill and (00:30:36) move forward from there. Okay. Well at the author's requestion, we won't consider that house file that L patents carrying at least until later in the hearing and give you another opportunity older would (00:30:47) shift the tax simply to the City of Minneapolis once the stadiums built and I think we're going to begin some discussion of all these amendments here again is Chairman Harry (00:30:56) sieben, I think mr. Brecker is here. At least we invited him and I just want to ask him what's new (00:31:06) Dan brettler is the chairman of the sports facilities commission, and he conducted the meeting on Wednesday that Until we carried at which time the discussion of the twins lease was underway and commission decided to go ahead and and pursue negotiations with the twins. Here's a Dan Rutger like what I could report it is that nothing's really new. I think the 1977 law has been on the books for twenty two and a half months. I think the commission has done a very serious job and implementing that that law commission has felt that you wrote a very good law made it filled with a lot of safeguards. And so there's nothing new. It's very consistent. The commission hasn't changed we've stayed with it. We followed the restrictions and the requirements that you've had. They simply mandate that if we can't get Lisa's that there is no Stadium. I think if I were to say anything to the commission is that you can rest assured that it's anything to this committee. You can rest assured that the commission on its own will follow your lies you have it and that there will not be a stadium unless it's in full Accord to whatever you mandated and so I'm really reporting that nothing's new. We're following it exactly the way you had it. If we don't get Lisa's with the teams that conform with it and and meet the requirements. We won't have a stadium the commission will take that action independently. You can rest assured of that. We're not going to give away the farm I said that before and so I would like to just say that we're happy to respond to anything you do. Any changes you make will try to implement them you leave us with the existing bill will do the best we can with that. (00:33:13) Remember, if you have questions, first of all, we appreciate the businesslike attitude that you and the commissioner of Taken towards the issue and most of us think that you have done an excellent job within the legislative mandate that you've had. We appreciate what you've done in the service. You've given to the state and their duties. What if you don't have laces at some point you're going to decide that you can't do it when it what is that deadline or date? (00:33:40) We haven't fixed the deadline on that. I think that would be governed by the other restriction of the law. And that is that there cannot be any construction unless it's within the bonding limits. So I think that'll take care of itself via the inflation and by the constraints on the spending limits are (00:33:58) testimonial few weeks ago for mr. Posh that the inflationary cost. They had $100,000 a week to the cost of the stadium when in time if that spiral continues at that level when in time does it prohibit building a Stadium (00:34:17) from the way we it appears we would have to be under construction shortly after July 1st right around July (00:34:23) 1st, when then would you have to have the (00:34:25) leases in order to sell the bonds and hit the time sequence? I think we need the leases by April. Camp April 15th unless there were some prizes that the estimates came in less than we presently expect but frankly, I don't contemplate that. I think we're on target. I think the budget is tight. I think we can make it within that budget. But an erosion of time will by itself make it impossible to go ahead with the stadium. If we don't have Lisa's also the mood of the stadium representative Pharisee was there yesterday of the stadium commission is clearly that if we don't have Lisa's with both teams, I think the commission would just terminate it. We don't have that deadline established but the mood as I perceived it is that Two three four weeks guys you're on or off and we're just not going to continue to deal with (00:35:22) you. I'm talking about the the teams. If that occurs, if for example in two weeks the commission decided you just aren't going to do it what happens to the liquor tax under a present law (00:35:38) the liquor tax. I think continues it really have to have a review that from legal counsel, but I would I would think it continues until you get a Did you terminate it because there is no bond and there is no upper limit set. So you'd have to cut it (00:35:56) off. I I would think that if you have to make that (00:36:00) decision you August 1980 is that's right. It was three years of start with so to be August 1980. It stops (00:36:06) automatically what happened to the money from the tax, if you decide not to do (00:36:10) anything, there's been no provision as to as to disposition (00:36:15) in any event, if the legislature does not act this year on legislation and the commission decides on its own that you can't go ahead either because the releases or the leases aren't signed or whatever that would probably all occur. Well before we're out of session on May 21st to take it. Yes. What we hear about cost overruns and we've had some recent experience on the prison in Minnesota. And I know that you're not going to promise us anything and chisel it in stone. But in your best judgment will the stadium be built without cost overruns without and I know you have a lot of experience in construction and I have some Reliance on your opinions and your judgment. Will it be built for the kind of money that you're talking about? (00:37:06) Yes, if it is built it will be built within budget without any cost (00:37:10) overruns (00:37:12) if there is a potential for that. It will not be built. The commission has just taken a position on that that if it were ten cents over there's not going to be a stadium. I think the strongest position for that is that we are not Advocates of a stadium. We're not coming here asking you to save the bill. We're not asking you to invent something. We're not trying to invent on our own so we're very Dependent independent from the standpoint so much so that some people are uncomfortable with it. You know, the teams would like to have better deals. I'm sure I'm sure the proponents of both sites are all the sites would like to had us move without the type of dependence that we exercise but we are not proponents of a stadium. We are just implementing the legislation as it exists. And so if const would indicate that they're going to run over he wouldn't do anything to try to convince ourselves or others that they fall within limit. We just (00:38:22) stopped you're closer to this issue than anyone else in the room. Probably do you think in your opinion? Will you have leases in the next few weeks or do you think you won't have leases? (00:38:33) I have a regarded as a high probability, but I couldn't be sure that. Simply because yeah, we if we don't get them we're not going to have a stadium. We're not going to from our standpoint try to talk them into it. We're not running to Honolulu. We're not running to Orlando trying to talk somebody into a lease. Well, there's no what we think you're going to have when you do and my answer is that strong probability that we will (00:38:58) have mr. Pleasant and this is very pleasant from Bloomington yet. your it makes a comparison of the Bloomington and Minneapolis of covered Stadium various characteristics uniqueness as well as both public and private cost but it gives a range there of the Public funds new stadium construction site Improvement when the Minneapolis site you give a range 51.2 7 million 255 white 1/2 million. Evaluating whether or not the Minneapolis dome stadium is financially feasible and within law you take the lower number fifty one point two seven and you subtract from it. What you say is available from the 55 million (00:40:14) authorized by law, (00:40:16) which is fifty one point two seven net result is 170,000 in access point for 74 million in excess of that low number and therefore by law you qualify that have I missed anything. (00:40:38) I don't know the exact figures, but I think I'm following you and I don't think it missed it. (00:40:43) I guess mr. Brett Kirk and considering your statement which you just now sit. There will be no overrun. And yet this document here amazingly take the low number in a Range to commute to come up with a margin of four hundred and seventy thousand dollars out of 55 million. I won't say that it's improper to do that. But I would say that never have I seen it done before when you have a range that you take the very minimum value common procedure. I would say at least that you take an average of the two. Whether or not you are within the ballpark the average between those numbers is fifty three point one three five million to subtract. What is available? You have a deficit of 1.3 95 million dollars to elect me to come in. (00:41:54) I don't have the exact numbers in front. But our construction management Consultants have told us that it will fall within their budgets and there is no bids left. There is no are no contracts let the law does not permit it and on unless it falls within the funds available. There will be no bond sold and there will be no Stadium if those figures it just simply that that clear there will not be any (00:42:28) And I recognize what you're saying that if it comes out over that and I don't know how you're going to get all those bits in at the same time, but that's a management problem that you have. But this was the information which the commission made a decision and that's what I'm questioning. How could the commission take the very lowest very minimum amount of value for a project of this nature and say that it's acceptable. (00:43:03) I didn't and I don't have that in front of me. I can assure you that we had all the confidence that they will come in and on April 15th. If it's not there under under the allowance in the budget, then there is no Stadium minutes. That's (00:43:24) it. Of November the 22nd at the commission hearing the kicks and presented a position that position basically was that they would not play in the dome stadium. Unless two things occurred. Someone would guarantee that they would not lose money in the first five years or someone would buy out. The organization has that position changed? Not that I am aware of. We're going to do is kind of arbitrary, but I think we'll take another five minutes of questions of mr. Brecker if the committee members want to use that much time and we'll go on to something else. So mr. Pleasant by the document, which you have submitted which I am still looking at the income from the kicks is figured in as Revenue. Without tax subsidy is one figure and with it is a different figure. I submit to you that it kind of burns up that point four. Seven Leah (00:44:55) what .47 (00:44:56) lie that's the indicated excess which allowed you to consider the Minneapolis. Don't (00:45:05) I think we're talking about a revenue figure and a capital expenditure figure two different (00:45:10) items. Come on of Revenue, which will be able to support that. (00:45:17) Yeah from night and family Revenue standpoint, which I interpret your question being directed as we have we've made the Judgment that that the new facility would be one of the most attractive soccer playing fields in the country and that we have strong confidence that we could attract the kicks as a tenant for that facility (00:45:41) one more statement indicating the revenue loss from the kicks barking 15,000 concessions a hundred and fifty-four thousand admission tax a hundred ninety four thousand and rent 375 378,000 including the tax subsidy that indicates a loss of Revenue a subsidy. That is what we're two million dollars. (00:46:13) I don't have that figure. I don't know. I'll have to assume that you have them right there. And if you want to make that statement, I don't have (00:46:20) that to be fair to other committee members if there's time left out of the five minutes and we'll come back. Mr. Hobart. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rucker in (00:46:32) view of the fact that appears to be settled at the twins can't play in the dome stadium downtown and and there is at least some question that they can't play in the continue to play at some renovated stadium and at the Met will any purpose to be served in your opinion. If we were to adopt Governor Kris Qui suggestion here that we give you additional time to put something together. Are we doing anything productive if we were to do that today? I would rather not comment on that but here's the thing is (00:47:12) I'm not sure he'll follow the Law whatever we say the lawyers. So if we change it, I'm sure mr. Becker will follow it. (00:47:17) That's a point I wanted to make is (00:47:19) that we're happy to do whatever you wish (00:47:24) last question by Chuck Holberg from Burnsville listening to live tax Committee hearing in the Minnesota house on the stadium issue (00:47:34) still want to phrase it because I might get a more specific answer (00:47:38) reading from the governor's letter. He (00:47:40) is point number one. Is that rather than be bound by his December first decision. Metropolitan sports facilities commission should be empowered by Statute to weigh all new developments and consider various Alternatives as new information becomes available. (00:47:55) Yes, I would have two questions number one you speaking as the chairman and as an individual want to be Powered by Statute to Way new developments and number two (00:48:05) the was a 4-3 vote (00:48:07) clearly. You were the final vote in favor of the current (00:48:10) plan. Have you seen (00:48:11) anything developed in the last several weeks months since your decision that would lead you to believe that there would be any benefit from doing this. (00:48:21) Well one is that (00:48:23) we've said we're not (00:48:24) going to attempt to Lobby (00:48:27) or to make recommendations for Change and let the this is a legislative process if we were directed to do that if I had some time for Preparation, we'd be happy to bring in any observations. I just don't think I could contribute anything significant by responding to that. I really mean that I'm not trying to duck anything. I want to stay in the same position of being willing to do whatever the legislature has and as far as anything new happening in the last couple weeks really nothing has it's just been Moving along in fact, we've operated with the legislature with your process here as if it weren't going on just as we had to do when the Supreme Court was reviewing a case against it and if we didn't do that the 22 and a half months that we've already spent would be five or six years if we stopped at every juncture. So we've just operated underneath the law and very happy to do whatever the legislation let's sit your wishes us to (00:49:31) do we've used up the time that chairman arbitrarily set for questions of mr. Brecker. The committee wants to continue with that. It'll take a motion by the committee members. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Becker. Okay. Are you going to make an amendment? Mr. Peter if I called you? All right. We'll just a minute then. We have a number of amendments they're here and just let me see if any of them are going to be withdrawn. I have two amendments offered by Schreiber one Amendment offered by peeler and Schreiber one by Onan Pleasant Peterson and Fritz of offered five. Is that the three of them? Is that correct? Okay, so we have a we have that. I'm aware of nine amendments. Now. My question is does anybody want to withdraw any of those amendments and not have them considered? Okay. Mr. Pardon me. Hey, does somebody have a procedural question of the chair? Mr. Qualms (00:50:54) is their amendments that relate to the same subject matter or the same section of the proposed (00:51:01) legislation. I haven't looked at them. I don't know. I just looked at the author of can we sort of screw some of them have good authorship and some have been a doctor (00:51:09) chef? (00:51:30) crawling authors of amendments Okay, mr. Pleasant number of amendments have been in the folder for a week or more there. Are we going to carry those in sequence in which they were submitted? We're going to hear them in the sequence that the amendment authors have asked me to call on them. One of those authors of amendments were used to listing that type of procedure now. I know what I'm going to do already. (00:52:08) So do I. (00:52:09) Mr. Kyle I would like to make a motion. Go ahead. Is it a motion to amend or is it a procedural motion? So motion to of men? Mr. Anand kind of in line with the procedural my Amendment had dealt as a have dealt with Ray Pharisees presentation to the committee and had originally been put in the file about a week after his initial introduction of the bill. And so I was merely following that procedure. I thought it may be a case of taking those amendments in order as received. I did not know that we had to go and ask the chairman to get approval. Those amendments be heard and I believe my amendment was the first one. I'm merely asking the question to clarify the bill as it was presented my very first I don't know who's first and who's was second and it's ordinarily you don't have to this is a complicated issue and I'm not trying to be unfair to anyone representative peeler was the first person that asked me. To call on him to amend the bill and if the committee doesn't want to do it that way I don't care I can take if the committee wants me to take try to figure out who had their amendment in the file first whether it was three weeks ago or one week ago. (00:53:27) I'll try to do that. But what I intend to do is call on the first person that asked me and that was (00:53:31) peeler so mr. Searles, but peeler is one that deals with the entire gamut and I think that the procedures that we would get into by going by section by section on it would probably allow for those duplicative or like motion amendments and I would move at this time. Mr. Chairman the amendment really feel shine. Remember there are going to hear Schreiber Amendment. There's no name on it. So I think you're dealing with the one with the revisers number. Rs.20 a - 11. Is this correct? It has been distributed of committee was resumed in Fairly (00:54:18) complicated complex Amendment deals with black out of deals with with the taxes and you listen to representative peeler give the description the explanation of the amendment and finally after one hour after the Committee hearing has begun. We're going to be we're going to be getting some feel perhaps of what the sentiments of the committee are on this very complicated Sports Stadium issue representative peeler from st. (00:54:46) Cloud. Portions of what has been referred to earlier all someone in the governor's context but also more specifically and that that has been referred to as the patent bosal determine if it enters into major areas one of which is the section by section analysis subdivision to rights to the 90% ticket sales which allows for some flexibility in terms of the length of the individuals who can purchase those remaining tickets right. Now the commission cannot (00:55:26) do anything (00:55:27) but stick with the original decision of the house that (00:55:31) is that not that ninety percent acceptance by the (00:55:36) major broadcasting corporation's and (00:55:38) belief is the only way that (00:55:41) we can and the commission can pursue and lifting of the blackout what this allows for is the Of a private enterpreneur or Corporation to purchase the remaining 10% of those tickets. It simply gives them the language to allow that to happen for each year up to a maximum of 2 million dollars. The sections use subdivision 2 on page to relate specifically to the 2% liquor tax seven-county metropolitan area relates to an April 1st 1981 deadline date. Section 3 sub division 3 of the bill itself allows for this provision as it's imposed deposited in the general funds the state. subdivision for section 4 and Page 4 Relate specifically to a retail on sale in the metro in the Minneapolis area. And actually if this would then allow this issue is dealt with the terms of the relation of the operating expenses of that. Section 5 is sets up. The Supreme Court is being final decision-maker constitutionality questions attained in the the issues and presented in sections one through four of this amendment. Jeff section number six of the build is simply delighted and eat deletes and denotes rather the seven-county metropolitan area section 7 and 8 are 1 is in the neck mandate. The other is a repeal of section for 73.5 68 representing Shriver. (00:57:32) Here are many of the provisions included in representative Al patent separate bill, which he decided not to take up. We'll see what happens with this. Here's representative Bill Shriver from Brooklyn Center expenses are lack of revenues the part of the commission and and secondly the supplemental tax, (00:57:56) which is in subdivision for and Page boy. (00:57:59) Sense, there'll be a later amendment that will be offered by myself, which will allow the commission to reconsider. Its (00:58:06) its decision to cite a dome (00:58:10) facility in Minneapolis. We felt it proper that that rather than simply say attacks in the City of Minneapolis in the event that the the stadium is located in Bloomington or anywhere else that supplemental tax should be imposed upon that City. So you'll note on line 24 of subdivision foreign page for it says City or cities rather than simply saying the City of Minneapolis (00:58:36) as did the original patent proposal are there questions of amendments Pharisee or statements about Ask that particular. Mr. Jacobs take a good look at one of the last sections of the bill in particular section 7 which I don't know if that was mentioned but that is repealing the 90% provision. And what you're sort of left with is the possibility that they may be able to negotiate with somebody to for up to two million dollars to you know, the by out the tickets it would seem to me they'd have that option that somebody could go in and buy two million dollars worth of tickets anytime without the necessity of having the section. But if I'm reading the right section numbers of 473 .5 68 was your Amendment to the original Law. So I just point that out to you the other aspects of it. Mr. Chairman. I guess it's he creates this nicety and that is that we're moving at least the operating tax on to the community that has the facility and while that might be a more preferable way to go. It still has problems in the fact that it is using taxation to run the place. Which is sort of why I've brought the bill in here in the first place. So I would ask that you would defeat you now. Mr. Anderson died terminal seems to me somebody said that it was necessary to raise 1.2 million to operate the sports facility. Once the liquor tax had been taken off seven-county metropolitan area (01:00:32) and if there were not leases Consummated by a certain date this prevent this amendment as I understand it will allow the commission to relocate (01:00:44) day. And if it by (01:00:45) chance does (01:00:46) not do that. Then my question is if they by chance (01:00:53) relocated in Bloomington how much money with this (01:00:56) amendment generate on the liquor tax within the city boom? Mr. Anderson, if you'll note (01:01:04) it does not say a specific amount of tax, but rather an amount sufficient to cover any operating deficits now, it's assumed that if that if the team's cannot sign a lease in a dome stadium in Minneapolis, they certainly can't afford to sign a lease for a dome stadium in Bloomington. So that means that we can forget about a dome stadium and we know that the operating expenses in a dome facility are more expensive than in a open multi-purpose facility. So We're also assuming that the cost for a multi-purpose facility in Bloomington are higher than what it originally man projected and I think represent a pleasant had an amendment which would project that in the event that there are some operating deficits in a Bloomington or an open facility. They would certainly not be as great as they would be an adult facility in Minneapolis. So I think the language the way it is with accommodate anything other than a going (01:01:59) facility. A lot of people that have questions one of the things we get paid for here is tried to understand issues quickly and voting on them. So let's try to have the questions brief the statements brief grasp the guts of the the significance of these amendments and vote out of mr. Casually chairman. I kind of grappling with one of the intestine cancer early for Minneapolis was only partially right which is unusual. The 90% black out as I understand you're right that repealer is in there. But one of the conditions of I understand why this fits within the bill before the bonds can be sold if that's the section deals with an agreement has to be entered into with the commission. two maybe someone can explain the agreement a little better than I but it's one of the conditions prior to the sale of the bonds. So that the 90% black optic is is affecting repealed but it's being substituted for this portion of this this part of the bill substituting for it, but it's also a condition for the sale of the bonds. And if I'm understanding this correctly the two million dollars, which seems like a rather substantial sum is being allocated to purchase. Any tickets between the ninety percent and the total cell? So that that in fact would be guaranteed maybe someone can explain it better or not, but it's not like we're just excluding that we're substituting this provision president have the length of a lengthy explanation and discussion about the meaning of the words. Why don't we just direct people's attention to it and they can read it themselves and it will take a lot of time German one of the problems is that when you read it doesn't make any sense. Mostly sometimes it's good to say it. First of all (01:04:29) to do with the stadium itself, but is merely a means of providing. (01:04:36) That kind of that kind of (01:04:37) support on the one supporting Revenue. The (01:04:39) twins are in the looking for an angel which doesn't seem like a very businesslike proposition thirdly the this (01:04:48) 90% Eames goal that we're looking (01:04:51) for now (01:04:52) of trying to obtain someone to buy up the tickets when they can't meet (01:04:57) the purposes of the of the original act. I think that the mr. (01:05:01) Chairman members of the committee that these (01:05:04) original pure The Originals with the present site with in Bloomington is self effectuating. It is fiscally responsible. I don't think (01:05:14) that this this lineup of (01:05:15) Angels as proposed by this bill (01:05:19) is going to be something that is very (01:05:21) acceptable. I think we're going to look upon (01:05:25) this as another government monstrosity like several others in the (01:05:29) state that that many of us will come to regret it and election day. (01:05:35) It's representative Bill Peterson from Bloomington and independent (01:05:38) Republican. Of the authors of the amendment that they want answered rather than a public statement. Now, let's just take those questions. Then we'll get kind of a grasp of what it does. So everybody understands it and if everybody wants to make a statement on it will take brief statements and then we'll vote on it. Okay, mr. Pleasant. As far as section one. How long a time is it necessary to make a commitment by these individuals are organization? It isn't written in law (01:06:21) German risk pleasure. You're absolutely right. And if I had my druthers blackout provision wouldn't be in (01:06:28) the in law at all. But (01:06:30) that was the the wisdom of the last legislative session. It's it's still an unworkable situation whether you have the stadium in Bloomington or whether you have the stadium in Minneapolis. So what we're trying to say here is that we assume that the stadium is for at least for football games is going to be sold out during the early years, but the concern is what happens after the the love iane with the new facility begins to expire, you know, 5, 10 15 years down the line. So what we would foresee happening is that two million dollars would be set aside by some company or groups of companies that would be used for acquiring tickets in the event that (01:07:11) There was going to be a (01:07:12) blackout ninety to a hundred percent range at some time in the future. (01:07:17) That's as far as mr. Guttenberg Rutgers is concerned if he gets a contract from an organization or a number of organization for two years or five years he can proceed is that correct? This (01:07:35) chair Miss Pleasant e is the intent of this is to be tied to a dollar amount of rather than on during a specific time frame so that it would be two million dollars on an open-ended (01:07:47) basis. Replenish periodically to maintain that don't you think no not not (01:07:57) replenished. But we're two million dollars could be set aside and drawn upon at the appropriate times until that two million dollars was expended. So it's a (01:08:07) one-time $2,000,000 situation. That's correct. How long do you anticipate necessary to before it would be depleted? (01:08:16) I think that's next to impossible to project. Mr. (01:08:20) Pleasant must assume that a 5% you halfway between ninety and a hundred percent. (01:08:26) How long all right. Mr. Chairman this Pleasant. Like I said, originally I think you can assume that the the stadium is going to be totally sold out at least during those first five years of operation. (01:08:35) Okay. Mr. Chairman have done only represent Shriver does not have an answer to that. I'd like to make an amendment to the amendment. I would like to. Strike the body of his Amendment and insert the one on my Amendment which starts out at the upper left-hand corner is rs.20 8-5. Are you drinking everything? Everything is separate his name you can cure the response (01:09:14) we have here is a parliamentary tactic play (01:09:16) representative Pleasant to (01:09:18) substitute his one of his amendments for the amendment by mr. Peeler and mr. Shriver that have been under (01:09:23) discussion also apply in committee the extent that they are applicable to a committee meeting and an amendment to an amendment if it does that is proper, but yours is a substitute. Motion it would like to same subject matter. I suppose it's relevant. It's germane which doesn't apply in committee. Well, I don't know if nobody objects. I'll let you do it. I just don't be inexperienced in the it's probably just strikes me as an amendment to an amendment that strikes everything in a certain mood there of is not proper but an amendment to a bill does that we do that frequently, but I don't think that that's Gastly, you know, something about these kinds of things. I would suggest mr. Chairman that if you are you have an amendment that completely strikes amendment being offered. It's really another amendment and it should be taken in some other order if it's an amendment which mr. Cyril, what do you think afraid you'd ask (01:10:40) Speaker of the House? (01:10:41) Cyril it would be a substitution rather than why don't we consider that when we get to it really is that proper to have a substitution motion? Well, I know I'm going to call and representative a nesic (01:11:03) fashion and not get ourselves into a bunch of (01:11:06) parliamentary confusion. I think we had to take peelers (01:11:09) Amendment voted up or down and then go on to the other team (01:11:12) everybody is not quite ready to vote on Peters and Trevor's Amendment. No. I'm sure you'd like to pick up another load. Question, mr. And mrs. Jacobs, perhaps it would be better that the state that would be not less than 2 million or pick up for the guarantee of 30 years long before like the box if you want to make an island Joel, why don't you just make it that's good. (01:12:55) I would suggest that (01:12:57) his wife put an amendment to the amendment that are what maybe just a simple put in five or whatever. It would be the easiest way to strike on page 2 of the amendment line 7 strike two million and insert in lieu thereof five million. Fairly easy to understand concept 3 million dollars, mr. Schreiber. And if you're going to allow televised games, even though the stadium is partially filled it means that the parking revenues good out and it means that the concession revenues go down and then these the stadium commission has a difficult time meeting their operating expenses because they're fixed for each game, whether they have 90% at capacity or 90% or a hundred percent. So if it hurts their financial capabilities to deal with their expenses, that's why I don't like the concept in the first one how to increase it from 2 million dollars to five million dollars is just I guess going to make it that much worse in my opinion in terms of trying to find a companies or that will commit the that was kinds of dollars and it's also going to Against the revenues for the state and commission all those in favor indicate by saying aye opposed nay the opinion the motion field anymore amendments to the amendment. Then the field is one which would have (01:14:56) required companies to make five million dollars available for purchasing tickets. Here is a representative Steve Novak. (01:15:04) My question is if this amendment passes will he remain as Chief author and vote for his bill? Mr. Pharisee? German I've learned in my days in the legislature that I take what I get and I certainly contend that I will continue to move this bill whatever. It's Form that comes out of you. But I still don't like the amendment and I would ask that you want it done. So it's a lot easier to carry more paper Giver. I don't like to be rude to anyone where I deprive anyone of the right to speak but let's vote on this pretty quick. Mr. Pleasant. How many members of the committee? I'm going to ask you to vote against this particular Amendment because there is a solution to the whole stadium problem accept it back in 1976. The twins said that they would not sign it 30-year lease tool open Urban Affairs committee. There are a number of amendments before you with my name on it, which will resolve the issue. There's another amendment that's going to be submitted which makes absolutely no tax dollars necessary to provide facilities and Bloomington. If this committee chooses not to move in that direction and that's your decision. I want to indicate to you that I will take it to the floor and try to get the Bloomington site of mended on it there. As of March the 15th the Bloomington Hospitality Association in Bloomington has agreed to a room tax to generate a 4 million dollar subsidy for the stadium purposes. That four million dollars in addition to what is possible to raise by the commission. (01:17:22) Has not require any tax (01:17:23) money. And that's what the people of Minnesota have said that they wanted by every poll has been conducted. Every poll has been conducted his said that they want to Stadium in Bloomington. Mr. Schreiber misinterpreted the 45 million dollars. It is possible to have a covered pasilla tea in Bloomington for that amount of money. There is other private money available in Bloomington, but he's not going to come out until government quits drinking with the bill. All the class representative very pleasant from Bloomington. They came to feel for the defeated this Motion in the acceptance (01:18:09) of the Bloomington Side now the Roll (01:18:11) Call. laughs Brinkman No. No, no back. No healer. Yes. No. No. They're being 17 opposed 11 and favor. The motion is not adopted next Amendment. (01:19:37) And so we have a fairly clear indication of the committee sentiment on this issue. Now the members having voted 17 211 against the motion by representative peeler, which included many of the provisions of the AL patent bill that would have shifted the tax to the city where the stadium was located once it is built representative. Blatz is making a comment. (01:20:01) Are you planning a vote on the bill? I'm with that decision. And you know, there's a members made on the floor. They are That's Not Unusual. Mr. Egan German. I just like to note to the committee that we do have an important hearing schedule at 10 o'clock this morning for our committee and I have we have people that you'll age education. That's our time slot to let's go there. Vigorous early whether we are in effect going to close at 10 o'clock because of other commitments very move, right along here Divine. Mr. Anand. Why don't you very briefly and concisely give us the guts of your Amendment. Okay, the deals with 222 purpose of this amendment is to continue the application of the Metropolitan liquor tax exactly is provided to the 1977 Stadium law that is through mid 1980s and therefore only as needed but it forbids the use of any tax proceeds to subsidize Stadium operating tax the second part of the amendment also gives the commission the authority to amend or alter is Stadium proposal if necessary to allow the project to go forward within the limits established what that means. It can consider alternative proposals the issue involved regarding the taxes. Is this shell the proceeds of the taxes be used to subsidize Stadium operation or shall they be available only to back up the stadium bonds to make them stable? This amendment provides that the tax is necessary to sell the box is the security in other words cut the taxes should not be used to substitute subsidized the stadium operations if private interests want to provide difference necessary to allow a stadium to be built. We don't or whatever or where it should be then private interest you can but just tell you that doesn't have any questions on the amendment. If not, we're going to proceed to vote on it. The robot has been requested all those and No, no. No, no, no, no. No. Yes. Yes. No. girls yes, no adopted the next amendment is Okay. I have a five (01:24:28) amendments. There are a total of ten amendments. I believe all together and now we're going to get to the Amendments by representative Pleasant which would essentially put the stadium in Bloomington. Let's go to representative Pleasant will be describing the first of his (01:24:44) series of amendments. Mr. Chairman members of the committee first section Alters the site location to Bloomington Bloomington by specifying the many Metropolitan Sports area. The second part says that the commission can reconsider the decision that made on December the first That's the essence of that part. apparently I like count (01:25:59) sorry to say maybe about half the committee building a table lists amendment by representative Pleasant which would 16 and favor carries, very very interesting (01:26:11) Pleasant next Amendment all withdrawal the other members and we'll see you on the floor. Okay. Well I do. So the first that we do the (01:26:20) committee implication of that is very clear that the motion to table the First Amendment putting the stadium in Bloomington was (01:26:27) table. And representative (01:26:31) Pleasant will be bringing this series of amendments up on the floor. Once the bill gets their representative Bill Schreiber. Now (01:26:39) as far as a - 9 I think All right. Mr. Chairman members (01:26:52) all this does is it eliminates the final determination on the part of the commission? So on page one at the strikes the word final then on page 2 I want to make one correction are we should say April 12th on line 28 instead of April 10th. And the purpose of that is at the we don't want to add any additional expense in the metropolitan Council normally meets on Thursday. So this should be a part of their normal schedule rather than having them call a special meeting. It says that the council must have determined that the commission has executed the agreements required by paragraphs A and B. And these are the require are the agreements with the league and with the teams as preconditions of the issuance of the bonds. And that if by that time these agreements have not been (01:27:39) signed then the commission shall submitted altered or amended determination on design and location in a new proposal to bond for and construct a remodel Sports facility our facilities, (01:27:50) and then the Anytime thereafter (01:27:52) me May alter (01:27:53) that that decision then it also selects from representative Pleasants amendment in increase in dollar amounts for the (01:28:01) uncovered multi-purpose, which would be an increase in 42 million dollars to forty five million dollars. (01:28:07) It increases the football soccer plus remodeled Matt's been 37 5 to 45 million and (01:28:13) increases from 25 million to 35 million and remodeled management is true. Martin doesn't do anything with the packs. We tried to do that before. Mr. Pharisee. You're paler Schreiber. Your amendments are relating only then to those proposals that were submitted for the Bloomington sites at correcting does nothing for the dome stadium site. Is that correct? Well, it's assumed that if contracts cannot be signed by the 10th of April that we might as well forget about it don't facility and we're simply looking at an open-air multi-purpose or a football soccer stadium with a remodeled map and this increases the dollar amounts to correspond with what represented pleasance findings were so that they could look at other Alternatives, but it'd be something other than a don't facility. Mr. Peterson chairman and CEO of the time restraints and the action taken previously and move the latest on all those in favor indicate by saying aye opposed. Nay. That's tough one cares of the opinion of vision been requested all those in favor. Please raise your hand. It's motion to table. Please raise your hand if you're in favor of the motion to table this amendment. Anybody have any other amendments that have been just have to be in there? It doesn't affect his business about to little communities that are happen hands of clerk of the amendment. Although it does not have the amendment section that section 6 of some other Amendment we had to go this tells us that this is effective in those seven County (01:30:17) tax committee is obviously doing is simply passing up a decision on all of these amendments and (01:30:24) it's going to (01:30:25) suspect move the bill onto the floor where these matters will will come up again and (01:30:30) I suppose that the (01:30:33) Full House will then have an opportunity to vote on the Bloomington site in the various options that have been (01:30:38) I presented (01:30:40) this technical amendment is been adopted without any (01:30:43) difficulty. This is the vote on a bill now. Not Burke will call the roll and she can find it. Yes, yes. Yes. Yes, no, yes. No. Yes. No. Yes. rocking bird no Yes. Yes. (01:32:08) The motion carried although I'm not absolutely certain of the final vote. I believe it was approximately 15 to 13 15 to 12 something in that (01:32:22) in that area. So the bill by representative (01:32:25) Pharisee will now be going to the (01:32:29) house floor presumably all of these yours announcement carries any further business meetings adjourned the (01:32:39) vote was in fact 15 to 12 (01:32:41) in favor of Representative rape rape Pharisees Bill (01:32:45) repealing the 2% backup liquor tax on the on the downtown this on the on the stadium the surprising developments were that all of the Motions 222 and here is representative of a Pharisee now chatting with some of the reporters nearby. We've been told by house counsel that any local bill has to have That little language on it. It didn't get picked up in the Senate and (01:33:13) it's a constitutional requirement (01:33:15) that you have to have that designation of the counties within which it would have any effect simply as a procedural thing. It has no it has no substance of a (01:33:23) chain. Yes. That's correct. How much did the clock play today? (01:33:28) What fact an awful lot? I think (01:33:30) because it started the Motions to (01:33:32) table. Obviously that took a lot of the amendments away from the committee. I'm sure we'll (01:33:38) see them on the house floor. Yes, there were for instance. Mr. Crawls that a funeral I know that so he was one of my supporters. So he was when both that I was counting on and I guess the others I really don't know necessarily how they were going to vote. Mr. Jairus still hadn't told me that he would be for or against the bill. So it was it'll be another good fight on the house floor. I'm sure so you're going to continue to represent. Let's go to you will try to get (01:34:07) raped. Okay, John Fine, John is going to go and try to find Ray Pleasant whose amendments to have the stadium put in Bloomington were tabled by this committee the tax Committee America obviously not wanting to take a position on that question. Probably feeling that anything that they did would be would be subject to further Amendment and further debate on the floor. Anyway, just rather save themselves the agony of that and I think John is ready now with the representative for a pleasant the form that it is and it is in right now. There will be no liquor tax and the net result is the only facility that the state of commission will have is the existing Mets stadium in Bloomington. Maybe if that occurs, then we can look at a remodeled (01:34:56) met as the final ultimate solution. Do you expect a marathon debate on this on the floor with all the Amendments that were put off (01:35:06) it's debatable whether that will happen or not. It can be resolved very quickly as I try to do here. If it is a matter of sight and possibly could move it in that manner if that is accepted then they'll be a lot of amendments amendments and discussion. But if that doesn't happen right away, then I see no point in going further will just accept the repeal of the tax as it is (01:35:34) present time. The (01:35:35) stadium that we have at the present time is on solid foundation and I guess it's hard to move and one point chairman see been looked at the clock. It was 12 minutes till 10:00 and they had a lot of business to get out of (01:35:48) the way and they got it technically all out of the way and less than a quarter of an hour's we asked. Really Pharisee suppose you had another half hour suppose. It was supposed to meeting started at 8:00 instead of 8:30. You had another 30 minutes or so what might have happened? (01:36:01) I don't think it would basically be changed. I think basically everybody knew where they were coming from. I think the real concern was whether or not the bill could get out of committee and that was of course important but I guess in retrospect. What are the bill got out of committee or not? I see the stadium situation is downtown as an impossible situation. You have a 90% blackout which is still law the NFL meant they did not change that I see no reason why to think that the twins will be able to come up with sufficient funds if I recall correctly. It was stated earlier that if they had 1.4 million people that still be a million dollars short. So I think the people of Minnesota in good shape as far as (01:36:45) taxes are concerning merrily table. (01:36:53) That is true. But I guess as far as myself personally, I think the real solution to the situation is open football soccer stadium next to the president met upgrade the Met for baseball and allow the football team to play there. The kicks would have the options of playing in whichever facilitate. They desire to they prefer grass situation. As you know for their players are used to playing on grass and I think that's important. But if that had happened I would hope that the facilities commission would adjust the rent by whichever facility team to respective teams played in thank you very much representative. Right Pleasant. (01:37:33) Mr. Rowe. Can we talk to you for a couple of seconds day Row the head of the Minnesota AFL-CIO your reaction to today's developments. Well this particular point, we're satisfied with the development and we'll go back to the to the floor will have to go to a conference committee. I think what it what's been happening. Been happening. Is that all the concentration? Go ahead. Excuse me. Go ahead. I think that's where we're not where we're pleased with it. Chairman saving what happened today as far as the the big element seems to have been the clock the clock the minutes ticking away towards 10 o'clock with other committee meetings coming right behind go is a problem. We all understood the issues and we know what they were issue like the stadium we could go on talking is Dave knows we could go on talking about this thing for months and we have been talking about it for months. So everybody knew what was going on. We were concerned about the clock at just we had to have some arbitrary time at which we had a vote and we set it and we voted so that's not unusual around here. What do you see the bottom line is being on this. Well, I guess the bottom line is that the committee decided to repeal the liquor tax. I don't think it's necessarily a blow against Minneapolis cider a blow against the stadium but it was a blow against that type of financing of the stadium. How about a prediction on what is going to happen in the Full House? They'll be a subject of much debate. That's not a prediction any prediction on the outcome. I don't I don't have any idea. It's almost guaranteed. Well, I would guess that a bill will pass that deals with the liquor tax in restricts it repeals it and it will go to conference committee because now there is an amendment even though it's a technical and a minor in one. It's not going to go straight to the governor's desk because there is an amendment on it and the Senate file so regardless of what happens it's going to either the Senate is going to have to accept the house Amendment or it's going to go to conference committee. The most likely thing is that we go to conference committee and delay all this discussion for another month or so. Thank you very much chairman heresy, but no Hastings back to you (01:39:40) Bob. All right, John. Thank you. The two key votes today in the house tax committee. Number one that the tax repeal Bill Bessette onto the floor on a 1512 roll call vote earlier in the morning the committee rejected the proposal that would have shifted the tax from the seven-county metro area to the City of Minneapolis. Once the stadium is built the vote on that Amendment 17 211 against it. So now the next area of debate for the stadium will of course be the house floor. Theoretically the bill could be up I suppose in about a couple of weeks exactly when the author representative heresy will decide to bring it up. Of course. We don't know at this point that concludes our live coverage of this meeting of the house tax committee speaking live, of course from the State Office Building Auditorium in the Capitol complex the technical directors for this broadcast where Lynn Cruz and Linda Marie along with John murli, this is Bob. A reporting and you're tuned to Minnesota Public Radio a listener-supported service.