(00:00:02) Thank you, Michael Barone and good afternoon. Everyone live from st. Paul Minnesota Public Radio presents live coverage of the floor debate in the Minnesota house on a bill to repeal the sports Stadium Liquor tax Live Events coverage on these stations is made possible with the financial assistance of the Minneapolis Star the stadium liquor tax repeal measure is sponsored by st. Paul dfl representative re Pharisee it repeals the 2% backup tax levied on liquor sold by the drink in the seven-county metropolitan area the debate began about 20 minutes ago in a unusual fashion Representative Bob Vanessa, kolding a PA microphone up to a tape recorder. (00:00:41) That's a 1965 World Series that you're listening to the 65 season that the ones in an open world series (00:00:55) two strike two to out one on 540 Yankees last of the night Rollins will be moving as its. (00:01:02) radian to the Killebrew (00:01:05) kilometers ready There's the pitch a drive deep (00:01:10) laughs that was done in an unknown Stadium. I don't know that I've ever heard of Bill introduced that way before mr. Speaker. This is a little different bill. I think (00:01:42) and in that fashion representative Ray Ferris, he began his presentation asking the members of the Minnesota house to repeal the stadium liquor tax as the state senate did about the second or so week of February. The proceeds of the liquor tax are to be used in two ways first to ensure that the principal and interest payments can be made on the 55 million dollars in stadium construction bonds, which of course have to be sold at the stadium is to be built and the second way the tax will be used as to actually subsidize part of the cost of operating the stadium that of course is what has led to the effort to repeal the tax with repeal supporters saying that public money should not be used to subsidize profitable professional sports Industries the 78 Stadium, Lon. Does allow liquor tax revenue to be used to subsidize the stadium a dome stadium that is and opponents of the repeal argue that the legislature should not be changing its position from year to year. They also cite some of the economic advantages primarily to the City of Minneapolis that would result from construction of the stadium at this moment representative Lee Greenfield a dfl are from the City of Minneapolis is a addressing the house floor in support of the liquor tax repeal pointing out that it is not an issue separating Minneapolis. And st. Paul that there are people in the City of Minneapolis who do not want the stadium Bill. Let's go to the floor and representative Lee Greenfield. (00:03:07) These kinds of things don't exactly help neighborhoods or increase the chances that people will redevelop them. If you look at the final environmental impact statement that the state did with this area. They say very clearly that a critical parking area designation. Only May mitigate not eliminate the problem. They point to Cedar Riverside the other neighborhood which is already a critical designated critical parking area. It doesn't work there and they point out the some good reasons. It's not cost effective to keep enough patrolman on the streets to tag all the cause and enough cause the hall them enough Wiggins to hold them. All off just doesn't work. It doesn't work and Cedar Riverside. It won't work in Elliot Park. The traffic impact on the streets were talking about is immense just briefly on a Sunday for a Vikings game and 425 a street like 11th Avenue, which has two lanes of moving traffic would go from its present hundred and ten cause to a thousand and thirty. On an evening when it's for Twins game. They go from its present 320 cars per hour the 550 this kind of increase in traffic is not going to help redevelop these neighborhoods May. Well make it impossible is another serious problem Elliot Park is also the home of the major Hospital complex. In Minneapolis, including the Hennepin County Medical Center and its major emergency medical facilities by the states estimates at least 88 emergency runs per year would be delayed because of traffic to the sports Stadium. This is all Elliot Park is also a neighborhood that includes has a large number of seniors in subsidized senior units and nursing homes. Wonderful service were providing for them. The state also final environmental impact statement also points out. They will be increased the air pollution form of carbon monoxide. I can't give you the details on Cedar Riverside the city has barely started that study. And they've stopped for now. If you look at citizen input when people when the city came back to Elliot park with his proposal of how to mitigate these problems the citizens meeting voted 47 to 1 against accepting this proposal. The 57th district dfl has always opposed to downtown site year in and year out in the recent Ward conventions dfl what conventions in Minneapolis the second the ninth ward voted against the downtown dome stadium and in the sixth War the alderman running was asked her position. She opposed to downtown site. That is the ward which it would go. She was very handily endorsed. The urge you on behalf of all the citizens of the state, but especially on behalf of the people most closely affected to support Senate file 20, the passed this bill out and this bad proposal and then let's come back and work out a solution that can work for all of Minnesota and that will keep the teams in Minnesota without a downtown dome stadium. Thank you (00:06:24) that was representative Lee Green Field from Minneapolis. One of the things that we're going to be seeing here on the floor of the house. This afternoon is an effort to save the stadium in the form of at least one or two amendments. The first of these now being offered is by representative Bill Schreiber and independent republican from Brooklyn Center his Ammendment as he's going to be explaining in just a moment would left the stadium commission continue to negotiate terms for the leases with the team's until the 25th of April and if the leases can't be negotiated by then the amendment would allow the commission to rethink its decision in other words to build the stadium in Bloomington if it's so Tired now here's representative (00:07:03) Schreiber. A good job of outlining his position on this particular piece of legislation. He has glossed over some issues. Number one if we are to issue revenue bonds there needs to be some type of backup. Some of you have been involved with legislation that's going through the local and urban Affairs committee that allows communities to issue industrial revenue bonds for housing purposes. And those of you are that are in that committee. And for those of you who aren't It should be pointed out that with those home loan mortgages. There is a need for a backup and we think of mortgages as being a rather sound secure piece of Paper and yet, they are not they need to be backed up in some means. So in the case of one Community where they were proposing issue 45 million dollars in industrial revenue bonds for housing. They had a backup in there of some six million dollars to assure that that in the event of any default there would be money there. Now what we're talking about with the Pharisee bill is that we're going to eliminate any backup which can effects means that we're going to eliminate any stadium and I'm not convinced that that is in the best interest of the state of Minnesota nor am I convinced that the legislature wants to spend the remainder of this session debating the stadium issue. It's the purpose of this amendment to strike a compromise which will allow the stadium commission to proceed will eliminate the two percent off sale liquor tax throughout their on sale liquor tax throughout the metropolitan area and hopefully we'll get something constructed in a reasonable length of time. I just like to run you through the the amendment so that you have a full understanding of what's included in it. On page 1 of the amendment notice on line 9 we strike the word final now this relates to the Stadium's commission decision on December 1st, 1978, which they made and that was viewed as a final determination. So we eliminate that that word final we simply say that they made a determination as of December 1st. Then we go over to page two. At the bottom of the page, you'll see new language, which says that if by April 25th 1979 that the Metropolitan Council has not determined that the commission has executed the contracts or agreements required by paragraphs A and B, which would be the contracts were with the team. Then the commission may amend or alter its determination on design and location. And and proceed with something other than the decision that they made on December first. going over to page 3 On lines 21 22 23, we say that the 2% tax in the metropolitan area will go off July 1st 1979 and we say that it shall not be levied thereafter. So it isn't any blinking light provision the tax goes off and the metropolitan area on July 1st 1979. going over to page 3 I think the significant issue here is that Online 23 where the languages the new language is subdivision for this relates to the blinking provision that's in the current law. So it would blink based upon subdivision for not based upon the the 2% tax that is presently in effect. And I we would retain the same language. We're at any time that the that the reserve fund equal three years Bond payments that the tax would go off. On page 5 is the new supplemental tax. on lines 7 and 8 it places a 2% on retail on sales of intoxicating Liquor on line 10 located within the city or cities which the sports facility our facilities are located and onlines 1213 upon the hotel motel and room services. So what we have is a two percent tax on hotel motels and on on sale liquor in the community where the new sports facility is located and if we do not specify one Community or another if the decision goes at at be placed in Bloomington rather than Minneapolis than the 2% tax would be placed in Bloomington. Mr. Speaker. I'd like to make one addition. There was mr. Shriver 110 Mission and that is on and I think they have this at the desk already on page 9 we should be deleting lines 27 and 28. So after line 19 on Page Six I'd like it to read page 9 delete lines 27 and 28. Are you talking about painting (00:12:30) of the portions of the amendment offered here by representative Bill Schreiber are supported by Governor Qui Dominic. We announced his position on the stadium issued just the very morning that the house tax committee took a vote on the issue and many members of the tax committee and I had a chance to digest the governor's position. So it'll be interesting to see just exactly how the vote goes on this particular Amendment see how much support the governor has been able to get for his point of view in the Minnesota house. Back to Bill Schreiber (00:13:02) that explains the amendment and we'd be happy to answer any questions. Is there any discussion mr. (00:13:08) Pleasant? Very pleasant from Bloomington who has a long supported a specific Bloomington site. (00:13:18) I'm not only going to address myself to the Schreiber Amendment, but I'm going to address myself to the bill as a whole. I have found that in my discussion with various Representatives on the issue. That perhaps much as representative. Thirsty has said this bill is became symbolic in one way or another. I have found that in discussion with each of you. That there is an overwhelming opinion amongst you. That the site should be at the Bloomington site. And yet I find and talking amongst you. That it is difficult to combine the issues on this particular bill. And as I pulled individually among you about half of you, I found that about 90% of you are in favor of the Bloomington site. In recognizing that and the difficulty of separating the issues. Today I decided not to amend Senate filed 20 as I have been working on for some time. And instead I will indicate to you that within the local and urban Affairs committee. There are two house files. House while 611 which is by represented Doug Carlson and house while 10:57 by representative William Crandall. In coming to grips with today I decided that the best. Procedure as far as the body was concerned. Is to let Senate file 20 addressed the two percent liquor tax as a policy for the state of Minnesota. It is my intention to next Monday in the local Urban Affairs committee to schedule house files 611 and house wild 10:57 in which to address those issues of site location and tax policy. And as for those reasons that I'm going to ask you the members of the House. Could not adopt the Schreiber Amendment. Do not adopt any Amendment which addresses issues other than the tax policy. Because I think that is the issue which representative Pharisee and all. In his efforts have made his point to bring before you. but even as we talk about the stadium I think that we in the legislature should look back to where we came from. over the years Unfortunately in the ten years that I have been in the legislature not a city council in political life. There's always been a dome stadium in my background first. It was on Third Avenue in Minneapolis, and now in Industry Square. It has always been my philosophy. That if indeed we want to build a stadium. Then we should do it for the least dollars to fulfill that function. And that still is my position. two years ago the legislature in his wisdom Decided not to address the issue but in stood they decided to establish a metropolitan Sports facility Commission. And into them they gave two charges. Want to select a site in other is to select a design. Now that decision is popular with some and his pop is not popular with others. And that's an individual decision which we address. But nevertheless we as a governing body of the state of Minnesota. We who are making that decision. We are making an impact upon a community. Which represent in Greenfield mentioned? And I believe and he can correct me if I'm wrong. There's something like 6,000 people in one Community think it's Elliot Park and something like 7,000 other minnesotans. In Cedar Riverside thirteen thousand minnesotans, which we as decision makers in the past have decided that we're going to impose the will our will upon them and their neighborhood. And I think that we as the elected representatives of people in the state should be cognizant of what we are doing to people their lives and if you will their palaces that is their homes. and therefore I'm going to be supportive of Senate file 20. in his present condition I would recommend all of you to vote against amendments to Senate file 20 so we can address that particular issue with represent which representative Pharisee has brought before us. I disagree with the comments that are made that if this tax is repealed, then it is impossible to build a stadium. That's true, but it's not true. It is true that we have to have some kind of a tax to backed the bonds. But nobody has said that it has to be this particular tax. And I think that as we discussed that particular issue in local and urban Affairs and perhaps in the tax committee. We can address that issue and come to that decision is what is the best policy? But representative Pharisee has brought to us this particular issue yet. I find that in the hearings and listening to every poll that has been conducted that people in Minnesota are behind representative Pharisee and what he is trying to do. And with those comments, you can stand Ray and with those comments. I'm going to suggest that each amendment that is proposed here today, and I only see two on the table that they be rejected. And again, I mentioned to you as a public announcement that house file 611 and house while 10:57 will be coming up in local and urban Affairs committee next Monday, and I'm synchronizing this activity in the Senate so that they'll be in step with this also. Thank you. (00:20:56) Representative Ray Pleasant the chairman of the local and urban Affairs committee. (00:21:01) I threw the amendment yield to a question. Mr. Schreiber, this is a very important issue to me. As I understand you're (00:21:20) homered. (00:21:21) It's basically in two parts. You would allow the commission under this amendment to reconsider its site. And secondly you would. Repeal the Metropolitan liquor tax effect of this summer, July 179 and replace it with a combination of attacks on basically the Minneapolis interests. Is that a fair statement? That's absolutely right. But we do not in the bill say the Minneapolis interest if should the site as a result of the April 25th cutoff date should it happen be Bloomington that the the tax would be imposed in Bloomington not Minneapolis, wherever the facility is located is where the tax would be imposed. I understand that if the site is other than Minneapolis we'd be talking about a tax on those interest in Minneapolis. Do you? Are these Bonds in Practical effect marketable, when we change the tax in this fashion? Have you got any input from the Metropolitan Council as to whether or not we can really sell these bonds if we were to adopt your system. Mr. Hall Burgett as of July 1st of this year, they would be approximately five million dollars and in the bond Reserve fund that would have been generated by the 2% tax on the metropolitan area with the tax going off. It means that there is a sufficient amount in there for at least one year's payment on the bonds and it's the opinion of the investment bankers that have reviewed this that the 2% tax is imposed here would provide a sufficient number of amount of Revenue to back up the the the bonds and provide the additional fund there and if it of course did get up as high as three years reserved than the tax would go off. mister mister Pleasant Well, mr. Speaker, mr. Hallberg and others. In talking with the sports facility commission and it is always been stated in previous hearings. The amount of dollars that are necessary in the reserve Fun by rule of thumb is 3 to 1 as far as annual Debt Service. For a 55 million dollar projects an annual Debt Service is close to four million dollars. I think it's a little bit slightly less never 4 million dollars. And as my understanding from those comments than that three times that amount is necessary to be in that sinking fund and that would not exist. If it's cut off at the particular date, in fact, the information that I have from the revenue department, which was obtained Friday. There's only a little over three million dollars in that particular fun at the present time because of the expense that the stadium commission has had since its Inception. So I guess that my only comment to that is that From all previous discussion that we have had on the amount of bonding that is necessary. It is always been the rule of thumb of 323 times the annual Debt Service and I asked you for consideration of that comment when you make your decision. Mr. Caspar Lee first (00:24:53) Jim Casserly from Minneapolis (00:24:56) just make a couple points to try to maybe provide some perspective on where we're at today. And who do that. I guess I would like to take some issue with representative Pleasant and his intention to start holding committee hearings next Monday on this particular proposal. I wouldn't want to call it a dereliction of Duty because that might be too kind but I would suggest that if this is the most important issue we have before that committee. I guess we don't have much to do we've got tax increment financing. We've got the problems with the housing Redevelopment authorities. We've got some Waste Management problems. We might have to deal with this year. We've got all the problems with local AIDS and disparities. We've got numerous local bills a number of which are in subcommittees now, we only have two divisions to work with We have a possible problems with Park management development including Hennepin County bills and possibly some State bills along with some Regional ones and I would suggest to you we have seven weeks left of session. I don't know how many of you have been listening to Stadium bills, but I suspect it's probably close to a hundred of you have been hearing this for some time and I'm probably jaundiced because I've been hearing it for seven years. But if you think you're going to learn something new and committee starting next Monday, I sure hope I will because I'm going to be a bit surprised by surprised if I do. I would suggest that we really have got three choices and I'm sorry the Bloomington amendments on the floor because it would make them a bit clearer. And so now when we have to listen to him next Monday since I've already got my speech prepared, I'd hate to let you pass up my speech about the Bloomington Amendment. So I'll just make a little reference to it anyway, but it does seem clear to me that we have three choices one is that we can abolish the 2% tax as the spill suggest and if we abolish the tax, then we do not build a stadium. It's just simply that clear the issue will be back before the legislature next year probably because a team either will leave the state or will threaten to leave the state and will sign a one-year contract and say they're leaving after that does not solve the problems with the University of Minnesota Stadium. Which is 50 years old and so we're going to have the problem back before us there's just no getting away from it. We thought we got away from it a couple years ago when we chickened out and and creativity Stadium commission to make the decision that apparently we didn't have the guts to make. Mr. Casserly. Are you speaking on the Schreiber Amendment? Yes, because I'm getting to the second option. I see actually that's the third option. I'm laying a foundation to but that is the one of the three choices we have the first choice is to Eliminate the 2% tax think that we're done with it and then have it come back. The second choice is to mandate a specific Stadium at a specific site disregarding the work of the commission. And I would suggest that if the stadium is in Bloomington and I would presume that's the point of starting the hearings next Monday. And if it's uncovered the twins have indicated, they will not sign 30 or contracts. This is according to Don pause and according to Cal Griffith. The Vikings have said many times. They will not sign 30 or contracts unless the stadium is covered. And I would suggest to you again the issue we back before the legislature next year because we're not going to resolve it and that committee. If the site is not in Minneapolis, it does not take care again out some of the problems with the University of Minnesota Stadium, which I do suggest you will be handled by the construction of the stadium. The third option is the one which we're suggesting right now, which is the Schreiber Amendment. This permits the commission the stadium commission to build the stadium. It abolishes the 2% 7 County tax on July 179 and keeps it in Minneapolis. Plus it adds a 2% hotel-motel tax for Minneapolis only. If the stadium cannot be built this permits the commission to consider other Alternatives it lets them try to solve the problem and not bring it back before the legislature again. And I for one am so sick of this issue and I suggest that my friend from Bloomington chairman of our local Urban Affairs committee has got to be equally sick of it by this time. It had think he even hinted to me once that he was not very excited about serving on the local nervin Affairs committee last year because it was going to spend another disproportionate share of time. I'll let him address that particular question, but it's true. We have spent unquestionably a disproportionate amount of time over the last three years working on the stadium question and I would suggest to you that if we could pass the Schreiber Amendment put it on the bill and pass this bill, at least we would go a long way towards correcting problems that we have in allowing the stadium commission to proceed as it has done by law and I would suggest that's what we should do today. (00:30:24) Putting a plus dfl representative James Castle eight. (00:30:27) Mr. Speaker. I wonder (00:30:29) this is rake MP (00:30:31) what clarify a matter for me if I understand his amendment is to treiber. Okay speaker, mr. Speaker and representative Shriver if I understand your Amendment on page five lines 15 to 25 the legislature would delegate to the Metropolitan Council. A nun elected body the discretion when to impose this tax, and I wonder if you had explained to me the rationale for that certainly. Mr. Cappy the language which says that in the event the anticipated revenues dude are not sufficient that the the 2% tax could be increased to something more than 2% It's my understanding that the that the two percent would be a sufficient amount of tax in the City of Minneapolis. Whether it be for a domed stadium or a nun dome stadium and that the the amount of money generated would increase in the pot and and you would have the backup that you need in the event that there were a dome stadium in the in the city of Bloomington. The 2% tax would not be sufficient. So it may take 3% or 4% or something like that in the event that it's a nun dome stadium in Bloomington or a remodeled facility then again, the 2% tax would be sufficient. It's simply to allow some discretion there depending upon the type of facility that is built in the type of facility that the teams are willing to sign 30-year contract to play in mr. Greenfield. Thank you. Mr. Speaker members I Rise to strongly oppose the shrine Schreiber Amendment. If I thought rationality was going to be the procedure of the City of Minneapolis on this issue. I would say nobody had by that. Nobody could possibly want a 2% lick attacks on the city and open-ended tax on hotel motel. In exchange for a dome stadium that'll wreck a couple of its neighborhoods. But like mr. Pleasant while not in public office though. I am on my third downtown dome stadium. And I truly believe if we pass this amendment it will rise again, no matter how impossible no matter how financially absurd for some reason there is a group of people in Minneapolis who will do almost anything apparently to build the white elephant downtown. No matter how many neighborhoods may be mowed down in the way. That's all this bill will do is put it off and we're going to have more funny proposals from Minneapolis or at least the downtown Council to put a dome stadium in there. This will give them the financing. It does nothing to solve the problem. I urge you to vote it down. Let's consider a Bloomington bill that will be coming our way and do something (00:33:30) irrational. Mr. Halbrook. The Greenfield is a dfl are from Minneapolis and represents. The neighborhood's affected by the proposed Downtown Minneapolis Stadium. Once again, Charles whole bird from Burnsville. (00:33:46) Mr. Schreiber under subdivision for there's some language that makes me nervous aligned 10 where you're replacing the Metro liquor tax with attacks to be assessed against a city or cities. And then you qualify it and say that it'll wherever the sports facility is located. Seems to me that would be impossible for the sports facility to be located in more than one city. Do you want to comment on that? Certainly, mr. Represent of Hallberg. Some have a suggested suggested that perhaps what you need is a new facility in the proximity of the University of Minnesota. That would be a football soccer stadium and that you simply remodel the meant for baseball which means you would have facilities in Two Cities. So this would allow the tax to go on both Bloomington and Minneapolis in the event that that was decision. Mr. Peterson. (00:34:49) Bill Peterson from Bloomington (00:34:51) German members of the body. I think that what we're looking at here the proposed amendment is essentially something which would be a default. And a non-recognition by this body of what the people of the state are telling us. I've done polling in my district. I'm sure that many of you have as well. The downtown Dome facility is not something that the people of my city or of yours. I would of your districts are something that is not something that they want. The I would suggest that a vote in favor of this amendment is would be really a default from what the people of the state are telling us as Representatives. Looking at looking at it from several matters. First of all, it's clear that from the Senate side that they feeling about Senate file 20 is that it should pass in its present form. If it if it returns to the senate in an amended form. I think it's pretty clear that it will die die a death over in that body furthermore the particular division the particular subdivision, which seems to leave open the question of location. I think is so much window dressing we have heard from the Representatives of the sports facilities commission again and again very piously that no Stadium will be built no dome stadium will be built in the City of Minneapolis if it exceeds that 55 million. well, since that time we've seen the whole air conditioning question be pretty much put on the back shelf, bye-bye that body it would seem that the sports facilities commission has said that this great covered facility is going to be built partly in order to provide coverage from the rain and the middle of summer, but I asked you How many people are going to be wanting to come in to a domed covered facility in the middle of the summer time? Not very many. And it seems as though the sports facilities commission has acknowledged this particular fact because they have they realize that they cannot provide air conditioning within the 55 million. However, they realize also that they must provide. Electrical hookups necessary to take to take care of air conditioning. So I think it's pretty clear. that the sports facilities commission has basically come up with a proposal that they wish to have as a fait accompli. And we now see air conditioning knocked off as a some expense apparently to be born later. I'm wondering if the if the seating and the turf is also going to be deferred until some later time as when it can fit within the 55 million dollar figure. Mr. Chairman, I think that this is a matter the people of all our districts have spoken clearly about what their decision is. I think a vote for the Shriver Amendment would be defaulting on what the people of our districts and of the state have been telling us and I would urge a no vote on the Schreiber Amendment and I would ask for a roll call on the matter (00:38:52) and you're listening to a live debate from the floor of the Minnesota house on a bill to repeal the 2% backup Stadium Liquor tax right now. The members of the House are debating an amendment by representative Bill Schreiber that would do two things that would let the sports facilities commission reconsider the decision to build in Minneapolis. If the leases are not signed by the 25th of April and the Schreiber Amendment would end the seven-county Metropolitan Area Wide 2% liquor tax on the first of July replacing it with a 2% liquor tax in the city where the stadium is located. It would also allow a hotel Motel tax in that City now once again back to the floor and some questions for representative Schreiber on his (00:39:34) Amendment. The stadium commission may change the design the design along with the location and this could create a total new situation on what they might want to do with the design. Is that not correct? This is representative Swanson. The amendment says that Stadium commission cannot reconsider its December first decision until after the 25th of April 1979 and I think the the purpose for that date is to allow a decision to culminate and and make it in a Time certain and and if the teams have not signed by that date, then we're telling the commission to go ahead and and look at other options. Now we say that there can be a change in design because obviously if the team is can't sign an agreement for 55 million dollars in a dome stadium in Minneapolis. It has to be pared down or scale down and perhaps even at a different location. Mr. Speaker represent Schreiber. However, the stadium commission already has a number of designs to choose from and this will allow them to reach a change and alter or create an entirely new design for a stadium. That mr. Swanson, that's correct. But there if you go to page one, it says that they will make a final determination on December 1st 1978 and that's what they did and now in order for them to to in any way reconsider that decision we have to change the statutes. Mr. Speaker represent Swanson Schreiber on page 5 you talk about where the taxes are going to be. And once again, it was mentioned before lines 10 and 11 that use both City or cities in regarding a major sports facilities. Now, we don't spell that out. Would you say the State Fairgrounds could be a major sports area. No, it's not included in. The definitions of the bill says Schreiber would you say the Civic Center could be a major sports facility. Nope, the the stadium commission does not operate the Civic Center nor does it operate the fairgrounds? Well, mr. Speaker and members along with the Met Center and a lot of others this amendment to the bill is not clear that the taxes could be imposed on areas that have these other are areas that are considered major sports facilities. And this is just another sleight of hand for the downtown Minneapolis Chamber in order to try to ease over and get the kind of volt. They want we had this happen before the commission members have not changed the same members who voted for Downtown Minneapolis. Are there the commission membership has not changed and so, you know, we all received a mandate from our people last November. And that mandate told us they didn't want to be taxed. They didn't want to spend money. The KSTP poll which came out March 12 shows that 50% of the people in the state of Minnesota does not want the tax. That's why I know Bloomington amendments are on here right now. And that's why we need to defeat this amendment and I urge you to feed of it. (00:43:13) That was a rich field dfl representative James Swanson (00:43:17) driver. Yes, I have found the reference that I was looking for and I distributed a copy of the existing statutes. If you look in the first page of that for 73.5 51 and their definition section subdivision 8 Sports facility or sports facilities means any real or personal property comprising a stadium or stadiums suitable for University or major league professional baseball or for University or major league professional football and soccer or for both together with the adjacent parking facilities. It does not include anything else. Other than that. On the amendment, mr. McDonald (00:43:55) JJ McDonald from (00:43:56) Watertown Pharisee would yield for a question? Mr. Pharisee old? Yes, mr. Pharisee. First of all, just to preface my remarks or my question to you the people in my district Carver County District 36 a have been paying this 2% liquor tax now for two years. And so that's a considerable investment at this point on their part of No Doubt several thousands of dollars. If we were to at this point vote to on your bill without the Schreiber Amendment, could you tell me what would the taxpayers those who drink liquor in my district? What would they receive at this point from their investment if anything? a clear mind (00:44:45) that comment by the chief author of The Bill say Paul dfl representative gray, Pharisee. (00:44:52) Mr. McDonald, mr. Speaker. If my bill is passed I'm not making any representation as to what a liquor dealer might do. I do not speak for them. And I only know that a some of them at least signed some kind of a pledge type thing that for a six-month period of time should this bill be passed that they whoever was on the list was agreeing to drop their drinks. Was it a nickel a drink or something like that? I'm sure it isn't going to be a Groundswell of people racing out to take advantage of that but I don't kid anybody by saying that they're going to receive some horrendous relief other than knowing really that they have not participated via tax on their their occupation of having a drink or two. You're taxing their I use the word, right? And obviously it's a that's a maybe a strong too strong a word but they're privileged you're taxing their privileged to have a drink and saying to them that they must support a sports facility. Maybe many of them do agree with this, but I think basically that's where I'm coming from philosophically on mr. Speaker. Mr. Pharisee. Isn't it true that at this point if we repeal the tax altogether that those monies that were paid in by those citizens in my district essentially are lost are down the Rat Hole Mr. Speaker. I was speaker. I might just say not down the Rat Hole as to them if you want to use that term but there's not gonna be any refund. I don't know if anybody's been saving their, you know, their bar slips, but what will happen to the funds is one of two things maybe both certainly the funds are there to help pay off the bonds for the facility that the sports facility commission is presently running and that's the one out in blind Bloomington. I am advised that there's enough money in there now to make sure that there will never have to be any any problem with that in a sense will have paid for itself. I do know that some other amendments or at least one is being offered suggested to be offered today that would allow communities that have expended funds in response to the request of the sports facility. Mission to do certain things would have an opportunity to present their case and hopefully be reimbursed for those dollars that they're out of pocket so indirectly those some of those tax the tax payers and some of you are people who have telephone bill telephone lines or things like that will be receiving some kind of relief under that theory mr. Speaker. Mr. Pharisee in your hearings on your bill at any time. Did you hear testimony that the Metropolitan sports facilities commission were missing their duties or derelict in their duties or did not perform to the 1977 law to the best of their ability. Mr. Pharisee, mr. Speaker. Mr. McDonald, I guess in all fairness. They have tried to do a pretty reasonable job. I do however get somewhat Disturbed as to how the final selection actually occurred based on what I've only read in the media and that is that somebody changed their vote that morning out of fear and not out of a basis of fact now that's obviously hearsay. And I don't know if that actually happened. That's the only thing that seems to crept up and my eluding also to their continuing to pursue the lease with the twins when they have this financial knowledge now after their capabilities of meeting the lease requirements that I guess philosophically I would differ with them as to what they're doing. I guess as a business person, I I'd really be very leery of entering any kind of an agreement with somebody I had found was financially problem. Thank you. Mr. Speaker and members. Our remarks are merely related to the geographical discrimination. Issue from my district 2 percent liquor tax applied to the county of Carver and did not apply to those counties that were nearby such as right County and McLeod and their grew up over the last two years a resentment on the part of most citizens that the law was discriminatory geographically. It seems to me this amendment. I'm interested in it. It's the first time I've seen it today. It seems to me that the amendment does redress their complaints in that it puts the tax where it belongs and that incorporated city that wants the the stadium and essentially most of the people in my district who are in close proximity to this area and a goodly number of them attend games at the met at the present facility in Bloomington and the majority of the my suggest liked that location for that reason geographically, it was compatible for our district, but it seems to me the Schreiber Amendment relieves that discrimination that other outside districts outlying districts had as well. And so I think it removes for me the problem in my district relation to the tax. However, it doesn't address the problem that mr. Greenfield talks about and that's in his district that the people don't want the stadium. Now. I have some relatives living in your district and I visited with him just over the weekend and it's true that many of them are not sure what the impact will be upon their neighborhoods. And I think you have addressed yourself to a legitimate concern. I think however that if that be the case, they did not communicate well to their local elected officials. That is the City of Minneapolis. And it seems to me that if they have a legitimate problem there. It should be redressed by the officials at the City of Minneapolis. And I'd like to ask mr. Greenfield question if he detailed. Could you tell me approximately how many what the plurality is in the city council of Minneapolis for or against the downtown site? Well, the last time I believe a vote was taken it was probably something like 11 to 2. Although I've since talked to one of the 11 to 2 for the proposed site the alderman who's in that Ward who voted for it under a great deal of pressure about who would control the development around that stadium has since said she will now oppose it in other one of the aldermen my Alderman the second what Alderman is said at who voted for it has said at her and Dawson convention that if she knew then what she knows now, she would have voted against it then and she will vote against any future considerations. Another Minneapolis Alderman in the ninth ward was not endorsed by his convention in this was one of the issues considered and another candidate was endorsed against him. So perhaps a look at the city council, then does not really reflect what the mood of the people Minneapolis has. Mr. Speaker then mr. Greenville is a true over the majority would still hold. For the downtown site. I have no way of knowing at this point. Well, thank you. Mr. Speaker. I think that's officially answers my questions. Thank you. I have Dean Pleasant ho Berg and Hallberg still to go. Mr. Dean. Mr. (00:52:35) Speaker, this is Bill Dean a republican from Minneapolis (00:52:39) and a like a nightmare come true and we keep it on the amendment. I don't think mr. Speaker that it's possible to separate the issue of Of the location or the issue of whether or not there's going to be a stadium at all from the amendment because the amendment really offers it seems to me the only viable option if you want a stadium at all. If you don't want to Stadium you think that was the Mandate that the people gave you November not to build a stadium then vote against the amendment and vote for the bill. But if you want to save the possibility that we could continue to have not only major league Athletics in this area. But an all-around kind of facility that could be used by the University of Minnesota. That could be used by the public for other kinds of events. If you want to do something that retains the Twin Cities in that small group of cities. Or areas generally referred to as Major League areas, then you should vote for this amendment. I'm frankly a little surprised that representative Pharisee isn't supporting this amendment. He started out in his debate telling you that he doesn't want to kill a stadium. That's not what he's trying to do, and he doesn't have an anti Minneapolis bias. And so we're giving him the option don't kill the stadium. Get the tax office Saint Paul out of the area that representative Pharisee represents. We heard representative Swanson say that he got a mandate from the people to quit taxing. Your vote for this amendment and mr. Swanson and you'll be able to take that mandate back. You can exercise that mandate with a vote for this amendment because there won't be any tax on Bloomington unless of course you get what you really want a Bloomington location in which case the tax will go on Bloomington. That's what this amendment does. You know back in 1976 a joint legislative commission to study Stadium options was set up both members of the House and Senate. That was one way that the 1975 legislature passed the buck because it didn't want to make a decision on location. And that group came back and recommended a Minneapolis location. Why did it recommend a Minneapolis location after most of the members publicly prior to the formation of the commission opposed to Minneapolis location? Because when you study all the detail you look at all of the arguments and your way everything. Minneapolis emerges is the most financially viable the most economically sound location. primarily for four or five good reasons one the golfers can play there. If you don't build a Minneapolis location, you've got the problem of two or three stadiums to maintain and operate and Remodel and keep going over the next 30 or or so years. If you build it Minneapolis, you only have to look at one Stadium to operate one that the golfers and the other professional teams as well can play in if you build it in Bloomington, you're still going to have the metric be Memorial Stadium problem to worry about and representative Pharisee knows that the University of Minnesota is coming back again this time asking for over a million dollars. in state support of Intercollegiate Athletics How many more millions are they going to ask for when Memorial Stadium finally gives out? Minneapolis offers a central location that's Central to the entire metro area. If you look at a population distribution map of the whole metro area and look at the center of population you come up with a location very near the proposed stadium location. Remember, it's just it's not just those that live in the suburbs that want to enjoy sports the elderly who live in the cities of Minneapolis and st. Paul and who can get to an event on an empty seabus. They have a right to enjoy sports too and they can't get their now unless they own an automobile. There are 48 thousand parking spaces in Minneapolis. Now so you wouldn't have to build more parking that's within a 20-minute walk of the proposed location. What we're really talking about on the amendment is allowing that the possibility for a stadium to be built and if you vote down this amendment and you vote up this bill what you're really doing is shutting the door to any Stadium. And you can go back in 1981 and explain to your Vote or 1980 and explain to your voters. If Minneapolis should become a cold Omaha why you voted to kill any Stadium? If you vote for the bill and against this amendment. Well, let's put it this way. If since we're speaking on the amendment if you vote for this if you vote down this amendment. You're going to have this issue right back here again in 1970 1980. It'll either be I'm trying to trying to do something to save the twins in the Vikings or trying to do something to bring a new team into the area because the teams have leases to play in the present facility only one more year. And unless unless this amendment goes on and the Pharisee bill is not passed. We aren't going to have any long-term contracts. Well, I've spoken long enough. Mr. Speaker. I do urge that you take a good hard. Look at what you're going to do here. You can either be a builder and a Statesman or you can be a reactionary to what appears to be public pressure which in the final analysis. I'm sure we'll all find out isn't the kind of pressure that wants to kill Sports in this area but wants to maintain a reasonable level of professional Major League Sports for our metropolitan area. Thank you (01:00:01) Minneapolis GOP representative Bill Dean speaker. Now here again is Ray (01:00:06) Pharisee and I'll be brief. I do compliment. Mr. Schreiber and the other is for putting something together. I do not support the amendment and I think there's a couple reasons. I'd like to just say and very quickly the taxes on whom Who's the tax on its the person going to the hotel going to the motel and that certainly let's assume either Minneapolis are Bloomington. That isn't whoever obviously their people aren't going to be going to them. I hope with maybe some occasion to me happen, but not with any great regularity. So it's going to be tax on your persons and granted people from out of the state will be the ones who will be paying that tax. And when we talk about the liquor tax, I guess it is helped that it's moving it down at least two that one community and you don't have to buy a drink in their Locale and maybe that one isn't so offensive but it still is it's the patron that pays the tax. It is not either Minneapolis or Bloomington. Representative Dean mentions the University of Minnesota. We rejected their even being able to consider the site of the University of Minnesota and the 1977. That's that was kind of incredible could even consider that as being one of the places that they might do something. It's voted down make much sense. I guess I can only say this that it is an alternative. It is something that you're going to have to consider. I've noticed the clock is ticking away and I appreciate others may want to say something but it seems to me we understand what the principle is that mr. Schreiber's suggesting to us. I think it's pretty clear. I don't think there's any Frills or fancy stuff that anybody can understand and pretty basic situation. Let's vote it up or down and move on. Mr. Swanson moves to amend the amendment. It's just wants (01:02:13) his dear fellow Jim Swanson again from (01:02:15) Richfield Schreiber. When I asked you a question before and you gave me a definition where the sports facility was, I was able to see also that cities means the cities of Minneapolis blooming just a minute. Mr. Swanson. I think the clerk should report the amendment and you ought to ask for a motion speaker. I Swanson moves to Amanda Schreiber amendment to Senate file 20 as follows page five. spine pain after the word located insert only. page five line 11 delete our and insert is age 6 line one after located insert only Page 6 line to delete our and insert is everyone have the amendment to the amendment. Mr. Swanson speaker. I move the amendment that just wants to moves the amendment. It's just want some mr. Speaker. Mr. Schreiber. Did you want to Mr. Speaker? I consider this to be a friendly Amendment and would certainly accept the amendment. Yes, sir. You want to incorporate his part of yours perhaps. Mr. Swanson would like to have a vote to it's up to him. I was kind of doing we would debate if you would accept it. Why we'll just is that a real Joker? Yes it is. Okay, I accept it as part of my men. All right and will be part of the Schreiber amendment that is there further discussion on the try (01:04:09) versus what amounts to a fairly technical Amendment would simply require that the tax be levied only within the one city in which the stadium is located if in fact this bill speaker of the house by the way, of course is Rod Cyril who has been in the chair throughout this entire meeting. We are listening to a live debate from the floor of the Minnesota House of a bill to repeal the stadium liquor tax and at this point An amendment by Bill Schreiber that would allow a couple of options to save the (01:04:40) stadium was really Pleasant something to back up the 2% liquor tax which ends July the 1st 1979 as I perceive it. Well, mr. Speaker and members of the body. Looking at the sports facility Commission report itself. There's never been any indication that it is necessary that if facility built in Bloomington, it is necessary to have any backup behind that. Now I can't exactly understand why. That represented Schreiber want to impose upon Bloomington. that additional tax Unless he's saying that. You want to get rid of the liquor tax completely in all together? And if that's what you want represented Schreiber and as we indicated before we have a disagreement as how much money should be there. Then I think that again this is a type of thing that we can work out and in committee and come up with a solution. I don't think we have enough facts here on the floor it which we're going to be able to resolve our differences as how much is going to be necessary in that kitty. I'm not for sure that what you're proposing here is a backup. Is adequate as far as the bond counsel in case a particular organization is removed from the Twin City area. And that is what the two percent liquor tax was involved. It's not just a matter of the subsidy 1.3 million dollars, which was indicated in the coverage facility. The bond counsel was interested in knowing whether or not Mr. Schreiber, I can't talk to you and Tony both. I'm not for sure that the bond counsel. Would agree that this particular tax that you're proposing to Levy here. Would be adequate that saith the twins or the Vikings left the area for whatever the reasons were be bankruptcy. Otherwise whether that would be adequate funds. in order to satisfy their needs So, mr. Speaker and members of body again, I urge you to reject this particular Amendment and let us work it out and committee as what is the proper procedure? Mr. Shriver to speaker representative Pleasant. I can only launch estimate a bill. Schreiber represent Pleasant, I can only say that I have been given assurances that with this language that a sophisticated ficient amount of Revenue would be generated to back up the bonds and make them saleable at the terms as specified in the existing law. Mr. Hobart. On the amendment on the amendment, mr. Speaker members of the House. I Rise to support the Schreiber Amendment and I'll very quickly tell you why. To this point the debate that has taken place on the floor has taken place principally between the representatives of the seven-county metropolitan area. Those of us from outstate Minnesota have enjoyed the luxury of being able to sit back and rather objectively enjoy the discussion. Thinking that the resolution to the problem would be arrived at between those members of the House who represent this seven-county metropolitan area. I support the Schreiber Amendment because I feel that it's a reasonable compromise to a rather thorny problem. I'm convinced that if in fact Senate file 20 is passed here today. That the issues will remain before us for a number of months to come and that in nineteen hundred and eighty. We will again be facing exactly the same problem. I have no strong personal feelings as to the location or the site of the domed stadium. I do however agree with a method by which that decision was reached. The establishment of a metropolitan Sports commission the study of the problem and the final arrival of a decision. Those of us who are from outstate, Minnesota may have a different view than those representatives of the metropolitan area. In the recent weeks when it I have met with my constituents back home the question invariably arises. What are you going to do about the stadium? And I honestly reply I don't know. The consensus of opinion amongst those whom I talked to in my district. Is that it is something that should be decided shortly. And to get on with the business of the legislature. I relate to the people of the house that my constituents firmly believe. That we are beginning to spend a disproportionate amount of time. And this legislative session resolving the stadium issue? Mr. Speaker members of the house. I urge your support of the Schreiber Amendment so that we may get on with the additional business of the house that faces Us in this session. (01:10:58) That was first term GOP representative Duane Holberg from Moorhead. And now Chuck Hallberg from Burnsville. Also a first term independent (01:11:07) Republican Representatives KJ McDonald and Holberg were eloquent in their comments. I'll be brief. I know under this amendment can sit back to as could representative Holberg because my people won't be taxed to build a sports facility. I think that we ought to remember that. That the surveys that we've seen have not necessarily been in opposition to a metropolitan Sports facility the surveys I've seen have been opposition to the underlying Metropolitan tax. That's what the people don't want. In my area. I think they want the stadium, but I can confess they just don't want to pay for it. I think I'm going to support mr. Schreiber's Amendment simply because He the people of his City the teams and that are related to this problem all seem to be saying we're willing to pay for it. And we're not going to make everybody else throw in. I guess I can support the stadium on that basis. Mr. Caspar Lee (01:12:24) Joon Casserly from Minneapolis. Once again (01:12:26) speaker. I was just going to inquire of the chairman of tax Committee of just a serious question here, but I seem to be here at the I think he was afraid of would you like to defer that to the next bill? It's such a good question. I'll ask it in kind of a rhetorical manner, but then I suspect I know what the answer would be. I was simply going to ask him how much time we have devoted in tax or how much time he will set aside and tax committee to hear Stadium issues again, because it's very clear that if we don't put this amendment on and if we vote doesn't make much difference at that point, I guess if we vote the bill up or down but if we start hearings and local Urban affairs Obviously the bills going to have to go back to tax committee. And I'm just wondering how much time we got in tax committee over the next seven weeks to start hearing the stadium issue and without him being here since I asked him already before I asked him the question I will give you his answer and he said he couldn't imagine us having too much time to spend on stadiums again and we might just kind of ponder this as we go along someone suggested to me that if the legislature doesn't want to spend a summer in this Dome facility that maybe we ought to get on with the vote. Mr. Rice. (01:13:40) This is James Raisa dfl are from (01:13:42) Minneapolis speaker members of the House. After years of support of the stadium, I still have that but I rise in opposition to the Schreiber Amendment. Previous speaker said as long as mr. Schreiber cities are willing to assume the burden. He thought he'd vote for it. That is not Mister Schreiber City. This is an open-ended tax. Placed only on the community where the were the stadium would would go. It goes far beyond just paying for operating and maintenance expenses. I refer you to page five at the bottom of the page where it says or payment of principal or interest on any bonds issue. Told you I've been supportive of the stadium. I think that we came through with a good bill with equal Vigor all opposed the repeal amendment of mr. Pharisee. And chide him for talking about a Statewide facility and somehow thinking that it's more right to place all of that burden and addition to whatever police burdens and traffic burdens and other things that will come to our city and would cost us money that somehow attacks on the people for the stadium is there. We presently have in Minneapolis and I think that there are only three other cities st. Paul Rochester and Duluth which are up at the at a sales tax on motels of over 4% where it's 7 in Minneapolis and your if the stadium site would be there now. We're at 9% I don't know what that does to us as a as a convention town. I don't think that the members of the tax committee who voted out onto the floor know exactly what that means in terms of its economic consequences. I see this I see no need for this amendment. Being Advanced I suppose by buy some and in Minneapolis, but there's been no hearing where those from Minneapolis who might descent could come forward and that isn't good public policy. I disagree rather strongly with representative Greenfield on on parts of it. But I've seen it changed markedly if we defeat the Schreiber Amendment and then defeat the Pharisee Bill we would have done what Equity demanded in terms of this facility, which is probably Statewide and its application. Seems to me in terms of the of the taxing that if you take some kind of a survey on on use of that facility that it would be no greater that it would be no greater in the City of Minneapolis and it would be in Bloomington or for that matter Golden Valley or st. Louis Park or in Brooklyn Center Brooklyn (01:17:12) Park where (01:17:13) representative Schreiber comes from so I say that we should defeat the Schreiber Amendment. There have been many things that have changed on the stadium. I've gone to members of the of the tax committee saw the reshuffling of the the liquor tax and didn't like it. I think that this amendment was which mr. Shriver has is not the product of the legislative process in any way not offered in committee. Not discussed not with its implications. I'll speak once on this bill. Now. I ask you to vote down the Shriver Amendment and then to vote down the Pharisee Bill, mr. (01:18:05) Rothenberg. Elliot Rothenberg and independent republican from st. Louis Park. (01:18:11) This is my first singer twist Date would you hold it closer to your mouth Elliot? Thank you. Thank you. I certainly want people to hear what I'm saying. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. This is my first exposure to the stadium debate, but there's a consideration mr. Chairman, which I hope that you and the other members of this body will keep in mind when were discussing this as all the members other members of this body. I too have heard a great deal of comment from persons in my district both Pros Stadium against the stadium with various variations in between but there's something else where the people seem to be United and that's in regard to the Integrity of our own legislative processes. We have set up a process several years ago, hopefully for determining and finally determining the question of where the stadium was going to be built. How is going to be built in all of these questions. Unfortunately now, there are few people who seem now to feel that the process reach the correct solution, but I think mr. Chairman members The body if we're going to respect the manner in which our body does things over the past several years the money that's been spent the time that's been spent the effort and all the other things relating to the entire legislative process. I think we're going to have to give a great deal of consideration of what effect this is going to have on the Integrity of our procedures if we turn down the Schreiber Amendment and reopen the same process for several other years ad infinitum into considering the issue. I don't think we can forget and a very serious matter it is mr. Chairman and members of the body that the whole political process in the state. The country is in disreputable. I think one of the reasons it isn't distribute is that the people think that the legislature is not abiding by procedures. It itself is setting up to solve problems. I hope mr. Chairman and members of the body will consider this matter into signing on your final vote. Thank you. Mr. Peterson on the amendment. (01:20:17) Once again Bill Peterson from Bloomington. Mr. Chairman (01:20:22) members of the committee heard several matters, which have been mentioned and I would like to go into them in that have been discussed over this the course of discussing this amendment. First of all, I would like to touch on what representative Hallberg mentioned as to polling and polling results. Not only on the 2% liquor but also on the location of a stadium itself and I would point to the poll which was conducted by KSTP which indicated that the location that was overwhelmingly preferred by 67% was the Bloomington location as compared with a 25 percent favoring the Minneapolis location. I think as a representative pleasant as well gone into the key. One of the key factors that we ought to be considering is that the Bloomington site has something that no other site has and that is it is self. It pays for itself on the amendment. That is just mr. German. This this is in response to several matters, which have been raised. And so I think that it is it is a rebuttals on those particular points. We're important. The I would like to just merely point out that the the parking facility at the stadium pays for a million and a quarter as compared with less than a million for the actual rental of the three teams that are at the present Stadium present Sports facility. Thirdly. I think it's important to remember and to keep in mind. That we aren't going to if we go with the Schreiber Amendment, we will not be washing our hands of the matter is some Representatives seem anxious to do they will be back again. We've already had a deferral on the air conditioning expenses. Who do you suppose is going to pay for that? Where do you suppose the demand is going to come I suggest that it'll be coming back here to the legislature and will be facing the same nightmare all over again. And finally the matter that seems to have held Sway With a number of people and that is are we going to will a vote against the Schreiber Amendment and for Senate file 20 serve to kill professional League Sports at in Minnesota. I think that that that that particular claim is not well taken I think that the You have in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. We have proven over and over again that we have a major league audience. I think that it is clear that we that that will attract the major league teams to that and I think that that we have that within our own area and I would urge you that a vote of red on the Schreiber Amendment. Mr. Lighting (01:23:28) Gary lighting independent republican from (01:23:30) Stillwater members of the house. It is on the amendment. Mr. Chairman. I would hope Well, I guess mr. Chairman. I'm a little bit disappointed that you know, here's an amendment which I think attempts to deal with the entire question. What is very disturbing is that this is one of three Alternatives and we're being asked to defeat the first alternative but we don't know what the other two are and I think that mr. Chairman in order to prepare ourselves to vote down the Shriver amendments, which I think clearly is perhaps the best approach the members out to have the benefit of knowing what the other two proposals are. Mr. Chairman the first proposal that was referred to by representative Pleasant simply designates the site is Bloomington. It doesn't repeal the financing and it doesn't deal with financing and it but it seems to me the argument for defeating. The Schreiber amendment is that we ought to get our licks in and repeal the 2% tax, but that's the first alternative all it is is Shifting and designated a site. There's nothing dealing with the financing. Mr. Chairman. I've attempted to determine what the second alternative is and perhaps either mr. Swanson or mr. Pleasant could tell us what the other house file number is that we can understand the complex question of exactly how the building is going to be financed Mr. Speaker. I guess I would ask either mr. Pleasant or mr. Swanson the indicate the second proposal that we ought to wait for in in order to defeat the Schreiber Amendment. Mr. Pleasant, do you want to answer the inquiry if he would repeated? I'm sorry. I was busy in the back of the room. Mr. Chairman, mr. Pleasant if I can summarize your remarks is it mr. Shriver has one alternative to the current law you arguments were that we had to defeat this amendment to repeal the 2% tax and the next week. The committee is going to review some other Alternatives you then argue that the people want the tax repealed and that's the reason for defeating the Schreiber Amendment and adapting the Pharisee bill. I have a copy of the first bill that you said would be heard in your committee contains the 2% liquor tax and all it does is designate Bloomington is the site and I have been attempting to find out what the second measure did in whether or not that's been introduced in how that's going to be financed and whether or not the second proposal will in fact repeal the 2% tax and then the financing that will be involved. Well, mr. Chairman representative lytic you give me the privilege of telling you what the whole tax committee would do. And that's good except I don't have that Authority but one proposal has been to go to a wholesale liquor tax representing Crandall has the the possibility of going to a 1% sales tax. So there are other Alternatives other than the tax on the bar owner. So I cannot really tell you what the ultimate tax is going to be but you know, this is not the only tax as possible in order to provide backing up to those particular bonds, I guess as far as the general population is concerned any tax is valid as long as it's not a property taxes backing it up, but I saw represented Pavlik good back there. Maybe he's got some more suggestions that he want to suggest also. Mr. Pavlik, (01:26:59) this is grape a black independent republican from st. (01:27:01) Paul that when we are on the calendar or on one tends. The chair is referred to as the speaker. It is only when we were in the committee of the whole that I am the chairman. Mr. Pavlik, mr. Speaker. My apologies. No, it's all right. I just want the body to know what the rules are but we've been on this for so long I get lost myself. Mr. Speaker, right? Mr. Schreiber. I was less than satisfied with your answer to mr. Hallberg regarding or cities in reading that subdivision for in total and getting to lie 19 where the all operating maintenance expenses. The tax shall be imposed at a level. Is that a geographic level a dollar amount? I'm just fearful of the whole thing being interpreted by some legal eagle further down the road to reinsert my constituents under that text. Representative Pavlik, it certainly is not a geographic level that would be a percentage level and you know, it's certainly the author's intent and the others as well that this not be imposed throughout the metropolitan area. And I think we very specifically said that on page 2 of the amendment. The tax shall not be levied or collected after July 1st 1979 and that relates to the 2% tax in the metropolitan area. There being no further discussion. Is there oh, yes. It's just right. I'll yield to represent a patent. He hasn't had I'm sorry. I don't know sir. Mr. Patton. (01:28:40) This is Al patent the chief house author the 1977 Stadium law, which the liquor tax is is a part and which is being debated here on the floor (01:28:51) today guard to what's happened in the past and the controversy that has developed over the stadium issue represent Holberg did outline quite well and so did represent lady Community guards to what's been going on. Yes. It was a compromise proposal put the fourth year two years ago in which we tried to resolve the controversy is here. We're missing here today what we witness back two years ago a steady flow of information from all individuals that would like to have is Stadium within their various communities. That is why bill is passed by the Night by the legislature two years ago to set up a commission that she can at least look at the facts honestly and present the people state of Minnesota solution to a very controversial problem with in the Minnesota Legislature. Apparently we chose to bring it back before us again in this regard. The speaker's suggested many times here today. We ought to be speaking to the amendment. I like therefore to ask represent a Pharisee several questions represent a Pharisee yield to a couple questions. He says he will represent Pharisee you would stand in your opening remarks. That was your purpose to adjust the liquor tax only now if we passed your bill with no Amendment what happens to the stadium proposal and state of, Minnesota? What happens to it? There's no Stadium. Thank you members and Pharisee represent first yield to the several more questions represent Pharisee if this bill passes out of here today without any Amendment and it goes over to the Senate and they call for conference committee. What is your intention in that conference committee? Mr. Pharisee hold the position of the house. Represent, mr. Speaker. I represent a Pharisee there has been several rumors floating around here today or in the last couple weeks that there's a possibility of putting together a stadium proposal within that conference committee. Is that a possibility? Not that I've been part of you. Thank you representative, Pharisee. Mr. Speaker members of the house. I think that we as members of the legislature are have before us today the question are we going to build a state in the state of Minnesota or are we going to kill a stadium state of Minnesota represent Pharisee has already admitted that his bill passes without any amendments. We have effectively killed the stadium state of Minnesota. If that is our desire then I guess we should pass his proposal. If it is not then I believe we ought to dress very seriously the Schreiber Amendment because it will put before us. A stadium in the state of Minnesota as well. It would allow the commission another opportunity to make a site selection which does address some of the issues in regard to the Bloomington site and for members of the outstate Minnesota. So I say that yes, we did address the issue two years ago. We did it very effectively. However is that those people were trying to mediate the problem back then that brought us the problem again today and I feel that at least we ought to be honest with ourselves and say to the people state of Minnesota. We made a decision if we have to patch it up to make it work then let's patch it up. I hope that everyone supports the Schreiber amendment. Is there any further discussion? If not, the clerk will take the role on the Schreiber Amendment (01:32:02) and now they're pressing the red buttons in the green buttons on the amendment by representative Bill Schreiber the amendment that would give the sports facilities commission until the 25th of this month to make it decision rather to decide whether or not it's possible to sign a lease agreements with the teams and then it would allow the commission to reverse the decision to build in the City of Minneapolis. The amendment also would put the change the liquor tax from the seven-county metro area to 2% on the city in which the stadium is built. We're going to get the announcement of the Roll Call vote now in just a matter of seconds. The machine is running and here comes the (01:32:39) vote. 17 days the amendment is not (01:32:43) adopted. 72 to 59 the amendment by representative Schreiber does not go on the bill and now we are having another amendment by representative Schreiber. (01:32:57) Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw that Amendment Mrs. Khan moves to amend. (01:33:05) and Amendment Now by representative Phyllis Kahn a dfl or from Minneapolis (01:33:11) man Senate file 20 as follows page 9 After line 23 insert Section 3 has this been distributed mrs. Khan. It has speaker. I guess it's being distributed right now. Maybe the clerk may be the clerk. It's not that long. Maybe the clerk could read it or should we wait the minute while someone people get it. Well, the clerk is short let the clerk read it while it's being distributed page 9 after line 23 insert Section 3 within 60 days of the repeal of Minnesota statutes 1978 section for 73.5 91 all license on sell liquor establishments and you nipple liquor stores located within the metropolitan area shall reduce the price and the amount of at least two percent on our retail on sales of intoxicating liquor and fermented Malt Beverages. This action shall be reported to the commissioner of Revenue with and as part of the establishments report of state sales and use taxes violation of this section is a misdemeanor. We number remaining sections accordingly the lady from Hennepin mrs. Khan. (01:34:35) Now Phyllis Kahn will explain the purpose of the amendment. (01:34:38) Do you wish to move your amendment? I move adoption of the amendment convos the amendment. Mrs. Khan. Yes, mr. Speaker members of the body. We've heard a lot of talk about this very onerous tax upon the people of Minnesota particularly in the seven-county metropolitan area. I've never found it a very onerous tax Mabley because I don't do an awful lot of drinking in on sale liquor establishments. However, I'm not very excited about a 4.5 million dollar gift as the chief author explains to me. It would be to the bar owners and liquor establishments of the seven-county metropolitan area. So if we're really interested in tax relief vote for this amendment and you'll make sure that the tax relief is indeed passed on to the consumers who have been paying this tax. (01:35:33) Mr. Paris and the amendment by representative Kahn would simply require the bar owners to roll back the price of their drinks representative Pharisee responding to it now (01:35:44) fortunately, you haven't said it very well. First of all, the municipal liquor stores aren't collecting a 2% tax right now. So that's wrong in the amendment and second of all, it's 2% of what just read the amendment for them. I assume we all would like to see the prices go down the nickel or whatever it is. It's they've been raised but read the amendment and you can see it doesn't work. All they have to do is They can move their prices and they say well now I'm reducing the 2% because I was going to raise my price. Anyhow, it's a it's a spiral type thing that you're never going to be able to figure out what it is. I'm not going to carry their water for him representative Kahn and carry my beer or anything else for him as a matter of fact either but I it just doesn't work and I'd ask you to vote down the amendment any further discussion. Mrs. Khan. Well, mr. Speaker. Yes, I believe it certainly does work or you're saying that what they're going to do to avoid. This is just a jack their prices up and then Jack their prices down again necessity necessitating to reprinting of the of the menus. I think that that would be such a such a slap in the face of the public that I think that they would hardly dare to do it. So I'd like to call for a roll call vote on this teen hands. Yes. I see 15 hands. There will be a roll call. Mr. Albrecht. (01:37:13) This is Ray Albrecht from the rural area, Brownton, Minnesota. Yes, she (01:37:22) will you stayed here all. All dealers are supposed to drop this much have they all put the text have they all raised their price some probably absorbed the price before what would you do in a case like that? Some dealers May some PR some places may have absorbed this price out of their profit. And the are you going to make them go back to sense or whatever it is. This is gone. It shouldn't it should make it. It shouldn't make any difference if they've if they've absorbed it then they can just take it off in the same manner there. They're still not paying that tax. They're not paying that tax to the to the commissioner of Revenue. So they just then keep it keep it to themselves. Thank you. Mr. Ewald speaker would muskaan yield to (01:38:20) question. And this is Doug (01:38:21) Ewald. The amendment that I have for some reason doesn't seem to read write and I think on about the fifth line that begins with the word on if you'd like to just strike that word on. And then go ahead that just that's the language directly from the current statute. It just refers to aren't on sales, which is the only thing that the tax is on. They might like mr. Speaker also to suggest that you consider representative Kahn striking the words and and Municipal liquor stores. I don't think it would change the meaning of your of your Amendment Are you suggesting a change? Mr. Ewald? Yes, mr. Speaker. I am I'm suggesting them as friendly amendments because there's something that just doesn't read right in the amendment to me. I asked does the clerk understand the change in the amendment? It's mr. This is Con. I think all you need to do is to add a what is it a lie - between on and sales and then I think that that does it the language is taken directly from the current statute. So if there's no one there that's paying the tax. So this is we take the language from the current statute as to all these people have been charged the tax. So these are then the people who want to assume have been paying it. So we require them to then reduce their prices to compensate for the fact that they're no longer prank paying for the price and I gather that if on the fifth line between on and sales one adds a - which I believe that kind of Correction can probably be done without an Mr. Ewald, mr. Speaker representative Kahn the - really adds a lot to the amendment. I really like that. Forget it any for mr. McClaren. Mr. Speaker will representative Kahn yield. She says yes, Miss speaker representative Kahn. There's two kinds of Municipal liquor stores. There is on sale Municipal liquor stores and off sale Municipal liquor stores. Are we reducing the prices in both of them and are both of them paying the collecting the tax now? We're reducing the price from exactly the People by taking the by taking the license precisely the language precisely from the statute were reducing the tax from everyone that's been paying it. Mr. Macaron. Is it mr. Vaughn Asik? Mr. Speaker. Let me just read what the current law says about. The 2% liquor tax says the council shall impose a tax effective August 1st, 1977 supplemental to the general sales tax imposed in Chapter 2 97 a in the amount of 2% re 2% of what in the amount of two percent on all retail on sales of intoxicating liquor and fermented Malt Beverages when sold at licensed on sell liquor establishments and Municipal liquor stores would located within the metropolitan area. Seems the amendment would be in order. No further discussion. Kirk will take the role on the amendment. Has everyone voted who wishes to vote role call vote on the amendment by (01:42:06) Phyllis Kahn that would require the bar owners to repeal or actually to turn back reduce the price of their drinks by 2% It looks like it's going to be defeated but not necessarily by a huge margin. Sometimes hard to tell those hundred and thirty four red and green lights up there on the board. Oh my goodness. It is a tie (01:42:27) vote. They're being 65 in favor and 65 against the motion fails. (01:42:37) Well that shows you what happens on tie votes amendments lose and now we have another amendment This Time by representative Linda bergling from Minneapolis and it is my understanding from a little bit of homework ahead of time this afternoon that this amendment will let the City of Minneapolis recover the costs that it has already put into the proposal it put forward for the downtown Stadium. Let's hear what representative Bergman has to say the burglar Mr. (01:43:08) Speaker. I would move adoption of the amendment. This Bergland moves the adoption of the amendment representative from Hennepin. Mr. Speaker and members of the House what this amendment? will those communities that have incurred costs in making submissions to the Metropolitan sports facilities committee commission and to Minneapolis for the cost that they have incurred in preparing the stadium site and The reason I'm offering the amendment is because I think that if we are going to remove the tax if we are not going to sell the bonds if we are not going to build a stadium then those communities that have participated in good faith under the law that was passed by the legislature should not be penalized. Minneapolis has entered into a contract with the Metropolitan Sports facility commission. They have done the work that was required to them on by the contract under the law that we passed and it is only right and fitting that we if we are not going to build a stadium that we end up where we began with everybody equal a clean slate as if the legislature had not authorized a stadium to be built in the first place. I would urge the adoption of the amendment any discussion Mr. Speaker. I would ask for roll call vote 15 hands. 1 2 3 4 15 hands (01:44:44) the house rules require that and an author can ask for a roll call vote on an amendment, but 15 people have to agree to that in the Senate there. Isn't that garment? This is a lan highness independent Republican for (01:44:58) Plymouth. Do you propose to give back to the people who are being charged extra on their water bills and electric bills telephone bills that portion of their bill that is has been charged to them will be charged to them so that these facilities could be moved. The intention is to reimburse utility companies, so that that does not go on rates of the customers. Thank you. Any further discussion, mr. Rostov, mr. Speaker (01:45:32) Thomas took off from St. Paul. (01:45:35) I represent Bergland I can understand your desire to help the City of Minneapolis. But could you tell me what we're going to give to the industry Square Development Corporation? And who are they? Mr. Burgum we're going to be giving to the industry Square development commission the costs of the land so that Minneapolis does not have to relocate facilities. So that Minneapolis does not have to pay the relocation costs to the juvenile center Mr. Speaker. We are claiming that land owned by who it was owned by the first place. Nobody in this house has a better desire than to keep the Hennepin County Juvenile Center in Hennepin County, since you're moving at the Ramsey County and alternative homes is now moving to my district, but I have some trouble in identifying just exactly how much money would go to Industry Square Development Corporation, and I wish you could give me that dollar figure. Urban under Berglund and representative hasta I do not have have exact cost broken down in this amendment. I have approximately what the total cost has been to the City of Minneapolis in fulfilling its obligation under the law and I could give you that figure but I don't have it all broken down by utilities and every individual portion of it any further discussion sure Hallberg. Mr. Speaker representative Berglund I recall in the tax committee testimony by mr. Place that would lead me to believe that there wasn't enough money collected to be able to satisfy all of the these types of claims. What are we going to do? If these claims exceed the amount that we've collected perhaps there ought to be some type of savings clause in here that so that the state doesn't have to kick in some additional money Beyond which that which has been collected to date represent a burglar Mr. Speaker. I would be Perfectly willing to accept that type of language. My understanding is that the cost is around three and a half million and the revenues that have been collected are over five and a half million. Mr. Campy Just a point of inquiry (01:47:57) for a company from West st. (01:47:58) Paul. This is defeated representative burglar. And I assume that the City of Minneapolis can present a claim to the legislature for some out-of-pocket cost but I think representative hasta made a good point because I'd like to know who the money is going to some of these interests supposedly were owned by some large corporations in Downtown Minneapolis. And I wonder the fairness of giving a blank check to everyone who may have incurred costs. And I think maybe the more appropriate way to go would be by the way of a claim Any further discussion? Mr. Pharisee Mr. Speaker, I guess I can see where represent a burglar is coming from but I think she's gone. Well beyond what would be a normal situation? For instance? If you look on the second page, I guess it's yeah down near the bottom. It says unless there is clear and convincing evidence to the contrary and that refers that all of the figures submitted by the minute City of Minneapolis are going to be accepted on their face. Now that to me in dealing with anybody. I wouldn't ask that of anybody that they have to accept somebody else's figures and the burden is on them by clear and convincing evidence to establish it the other way around. Well, I think she's you know, I sympathize and feel that there should be a reimbursement to some extent but this language to my mind is going well beyond and giving them a situation saying we have incurred it. It's up to you to prove that we didn't. And I don't think anybody would ask that of another party to any kind of a transaction. I'd ask that you defeat the amendment if she'd like to draft one that does talk something more towards a more reasonable approach of how somebody's going to handle the situation. Maybe we could work on it. Miss Bergland, mr. Speaker and represent a Pharisee. Would you accept the amendment if I took that sentence out of the amendment? Mr. Speaker. I'm still trying to read through what some of the lines are I guess that would be a help but some of the other Provisions in here that I'm not I don't know what we're talking about because they didn't get dressed for instance reimbursing some site commission, which now has a piece of property do they still have the piece of property or who's got the piece of property we can sell at a profit do we make it do we make out on this thing now is that there's a sports facility given a chance now to go out and sell this thing and make a profit and who's got title to the piece of property or reimbursing them for This burglar. I'm not sure whether that is if the land has been turned over. I know that the document indicating that the land has been made available has been turned over to the stadium commission, but whether the property itself has been turned over. I'm not sure but if it would if it would help you in terms of in terms of dealing with this amendment we can take that sentence out that reads the Commission in determining the amount of reimbursement to a city public or private utility or the industry Square Development Corporation shall rely primarily on the figures provided by such entity and shall accept such figures as accurate unless there is clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. We can just delete that sentence. As I say, mr. Speaker represent a burgling that helps, but I don't think anybody excuse me. If you want to make that Amendment right now, I would like to adjust the amendment then to him. I'm that deleted. I just a clerk had the amendment. It's on the second page. Do you want the perk to reread the amendment? Okay, it's kind of a long. I was just deleting that sentence on the on the second page 1 2 3 4. Fourth line from the bottom. Okay, I believe the clerk has the amendment. Yes, and you were you just want to delete that from your amendments my man. Okay, and again after speaker if I could ask the representative, I think somebody else is already asked it. the business about the utilities that's over in the first page again all amounts expended in order to relocate publicly owned utilities and public streets necessary for the commission to comply with etcetera is it your contention that the City of Minneapolis is liable for those costs now or who's who's responsible for them mr. represent a Pharisee the City of Minneapolis is responsible for some of those costs are responsible for the cost of the water because that is Minneapolis owned utility so part of it they would be liable for and part of it those utility companies that are not owned by the city would be liable for mr. speaker represent a Bergland what I want to say is that in listening to the discussions that have been going on some of these costs were going to be paid for by the city whether we put a stadium there or not for instance on that sewer line that's in there if I recall correctly it's part of your separation of storm and regular sewerage and that's at least with mr. schwarzkopf's it's is it my understanding that we got the tape running and all this that you're tension is that we're only going to reimburse him for that portion that is necessitated for this even though it and that any portion that indoors to the benefit of the City of Minneapolis. Obviously is is there a baby that right? Could you restate the question? I'm having trouble following. Okay what I'm trying to get down the very simplistic if any of the moving of the utilities does have a benefit to the City of Minneapolis, whether there's a stadium there or not. Is it a fair statement to say that they don't get reimbursed for it and that they would not be Reimbursed unless it was being done to facilitate a stadium which would not be built there. So if there was some utility that they wanted to move anyway, then they would not be reimbursed for that. That would be a normal a normal City activity. Okay, one other one other answer to your question. I have gotten an answer about who owns the property the property is owned at this moment by the City of Minneapolis has the property was acquired by City Venture in order to make it available to the City of Minneapolis so that they could comply with the commission's request that the city donate the land. So it's owned by the city not the commission. Well Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the City of Minneapolis would first then try to sell the property before they make a claim or if in fact if they're making the claim that they transfer at least the property the sports facility commission so it can sell it maybe that will help balance balance all the figures on mr. Rostov. Mr. Speaker, I was in Bergen yield of question represent a burglar and I'm trying to make some sense out of the first page and I deal specifically with that language on line one line 7 where it says other state agency and making an informed decision on matters relating to a location or Sports facility. Does that mean we reimburse the Metro Council and any other group that sat in on this whole long scenario? No, I believe that language is to reimburse cities for the cost that they may have incurred in going through the pollution control agency to get the environmental impact statement that was done for both Bloomington and Minneapolis. And I think the idea is to reimburse them for that cost as well as information. They may have had to make available to the commission itself. Mr. Speaker. I've seen Bergen I agree with you on the first part of that whole long sentence, but I guess the last part some what troubles me and it just you know, it really is two different portions. I guess I'm concerned that we're now going to reimbursed every state agency that participated in this. No, we are reimbursing cities which submitted applications for the location of a sports facility. We are reimbursing them for the cost. They've incurred in making their in making their submission to the commission and we are reimbursing them for the cost that they have incurred. For making information available to other state agencies in the relationship to making the decision. So that's what we're reimbursing. We're not reimbursing the Met council at all. Mr. Speaker. If you follow that stuff, if you follow that language and you quit a little abruptly there in order to assist the commission or other state agency. in making an informed decision So I guess that my question goes back to that part of the language where I originally started. Any further discussion, mr. Hallberg? Mr. Speaker, you know this amendment just is not viable without some type of savings Clause representative Berglund at least in my judgment. I'm not going to speak to the merits of the amendment, but I think we've got to have some language in here to give this thing a chance. I have some suggested simple language. You want me to shoot? Be my guest. Well, I'm suggesting that we insert some language in certain points, which I've marked that would say to the extent that funds are available. And then at the end of the the total Amendment, we would say something to the effect that in the event that funds are not sufficient. The Metropolitan sports facilities commission shall be empowered to determine the nature extent and value of claims submitted and said determination shall be conclusive. I can conceive of they're just not being enough money here to satisfy all these claims and I think the commission is going to be in a quandary as to what to do about it. It's Bergland sounds like the like the concept of what you're suggesting would be acceptable to me. I think it would be helpful. If you could indicate to the clerk exactly what you're proposing. (01:58:47) This is a live debate from the floor of the Minnesota house on a bill to repeal the two percent Stadium Liquor tax and amendment by representative Bill Schreiber from Brooklyn Center Brooklyn Park. I get my Brooklyn's mixed up here late this afternoon Was Defeated on a vote of 72 59 that Amendment would have allowed the sports facilities commission to allow another to pick another site if least in agreements were not made by the 25th of this month and also would have shifted the seven-county on sale liquor tax just to the city where the stadium was to be built as we say that Amendment went down another amendment that was offered by representative Phyllis Kahn that would have required the on sale liquor dealers to cut their prices by 2% Was Defeated on a tie vote 65 265. And right now the house is debating an amendment by representative Linda Bergen from Minneapolis, which would essentially allow the sports facilities commission to reimburse the That have incurred costs in preparing the stadium site that is of course the City of Minneapolis. The amendment was put on here fairly late in the day. Obviously members have not had a great deal of time to think about it and they're spending quite a bit of time discussing some possible changes to it. I think that representative Jim Swanson from Richfield is commenting on the floor right now (02:00:12) raise and get sugar daddies to bail out the things and I think the star and tribune can go to their backers and and pay for these debts. If they're there. I think there's a breach of Promise here if they haven't presented their land free and clear and I think we just plain out a vote it down. Is the clerk ready, too? (02:00:41) The chief clerk in Burdick is conferring with the couple of his assistants at the front desk trying to incorporate into this amendment some of the language changes which have been proposed. Mrs. Long (02:00:56) Mr. Chairman we (02:00:58) belong (02:01:00) so I think some of you know, I have some problems with the Minneapolis dome stadium site. But I also think that under the law passed by this legislature. The City of Minneapolis in good faith has incurred a number of expenses. You're going to see a lawsuit. If you don't adopt an amendment it can either be settled now or it can be settled in the courts. If we talk about breach of Promise. Let's talk about it from the point of view of what we the legislature have done to the city. I think it works both ways and it works much more strongly in that direction. Thank you. We have before us an amended Amendment that's going to take some listening on your part if you want to get the amendment. I'm going to ask the clerk to explain it. Really we should have this written and I would suggest those of you when you have amendments if you can. Is to put some kind of line numbers in there so that we can be they can be referred. (02:02:04) Now Chief Clerk and Burdick will read the proposed changes to the Bergland Amendment (02:02:10) if adding the following language. And six or seven places in the amendment on page one in one place. I believe it's the beginning very beginning of the second sentence to the extent funds are available. Then the same language is being added one, two, three, four five different places at the beginning of the various sentences on page 2 of the amendment. At the very end of the amendment and here I might need some help. Additional language is added as follows in the event. That funds are not sufficient. The Minnesota sports facility commission shall be empowered to determine the nature affect and validity of claims submitted. And said determination shall be conclusive. Mr. Speaker that this would be a nature extent and validity. Now. Do you want to accept that I will accept that Amendment? Mr. Speaker. This Bergen is accepting that as a part of her amendment. Is there any discussion Mr. Speaker. We're who's talking? Mr. Knickerbocker. (02:03:40) This is the house. I our caucus leader Gerry Knickerbocker Amendment. (02:03:46) So I would (02:03:47) just ask the question of Representative Hallberg does the ER Amendment (02:03:52) also take into consideration. The fact that there are some outstanding bonds that were issued to acquire land and so forth and that it qualifies it only to the extent of funds would be available wouldn't have to get involved in any kind of legal questions with the total amount of outstanding bonds. Yes. I'm just putting a savings clause in Mr. Speaker. Mr. Knickerbocker. (02:04:18) Well, the time is almost 5 o'clock. According to my watch you listening to a live debate from Lee floor of the Minnesota house on a bill to repeal the two percent Stadium Liquor tax. The house has become bogged down in some technical language changes to an amendment by representative Linda bourbon that would let the City of Minneapolis recover the costs that are incurred in preparing the stadium (02:04:42) site. Would it be your understanding because of the fact that the Metropolitan Sports commission is a is a at least a quasi-state agency that if representative Hall Berg's Amendment were not adopted that then there would be potentially Financial Obligations on the part of the state and if his Amendment were not adopted with some sort of a cap or qualifier, then we would put ourselves in a position of placing a state agency in the position of having to come up with some money which in turn they would have to come to the legislature for if there were not sufficient funds to be available. And I guess that's a long way around asking the question that if representative Hall Berg's Amendment doesn't go on the bill don't we have a situation where we've set up an appropriation on the part of the state and then at this bill would have to then be re-referred to Appropriations. Oh, mr. Knickerbocker. Let me explain that Miss Bergen is accepting. Mr. Hall Berg's Amendment as part of her own amendment. I understand that mr. Speaker, but the members may not. Okay. Well then you are you want to divide it? No, I don't want to divide it. Mr. Mr. Chairman. I would like represent a Bergland to to respond that if we don't perhaps a vote for this amendment putting a lid on on the financial obligations because we're dealing with a metropolitan Sports commission, which is a state agency. Haven't we obligated or would not we obligate the state terms of an appropriation and I think we would and I just want to know if that's your understanding as well representative, Bergland. Mr. Speaker in representing Knickerbocker that was not the intent of the amendment those who feel that they should have their expenses reimbursed feel very feel. Very sure that there is enough money to cover those expenses. Now, I think that if this whole amendment is not adopted that the kind of situation that you described might occur. I mean there are going to be lawsuits because these contracts have been entered into in good faith. So I think you know, I don't I had no problem accepting the amendment because it was never the intent of offering the amendment that those costs would be more than there is to reimburse them. Mr. Costa Rica. Mr. Chairman was a dime. This is Brooklyn Eli Miss Brooklyn yield to a question. What if the stadium does if this bill passes without the amendment are with Amendment on it? What if the City of Minneapolis still gets the stadium are we now going to be paying the the City of Minneapolis for all of the the work that they're incurring to have the stadium put in there the city of Bloomington now, we're going to be paying them for submitting a bid for a new stadium and I don't think when they submitted the bid they think they wanted the stadium when they submitted the bid. I don't think that they really expected the state to come back and pay him for for submitting this bid. It's Bergland. Mr. Speaker and represent cast or it's I think that everybody who participated in the process participated in good faith with the understanding that there was legislation authorizing the commission to make a Sadie Stadium site selection. If this legislation passes in the form that it is now before us which it looks like it's very likely going to I would not be offering this amendment. If I did not think this bill was going to pass pretty much in the form. It is before us right. Now, there will be no stadium in Minneapolis and chances are there will not be a stadium anywhere else either unless you know the year after next or the year after next the legislature decides to reconsider what it did this year as it seems to be doing every every year since the subject came up, but that land that is in Downtown Minneapolis has been prepared for a stadium but Is no way that a stadium can be built without selling these bonds and there's no way that these bonds can be sold without having a backup for the bun. Let's just draw right? Mr. Chairman members of the house. I guess. I'm ready not ready to accept that that conclusion. I think what word would your by your Amendment were peeing Bloomington and all these other cities that submitted in good faith a proposal for a new stadium. Now, we're going to be paying for the land and everything else and I think that your amendment is really out of order. I think of Minneapolis wants money back. I think they should submit it through the claim through the the state. any further discussion Hearing none. The clerk will take the role on the Berglund (02:09:39) Amendment. And the Berglund amendment is clearing clearly not going on there and more than a dozen or so green lights on the board. The Berglund Amendment would provide the City of Minneapolis to be reimbursed for the cost that has incurred in preparing the stadium site. The clerk will closing will be closing. The role will have the announcement from the speaker in just a second (02:10:05) now. They're being 29 eyes and 91 days. The amendment is not adopted. (02:10:14) You've been listening to live coverage of debate on the Minnesota house floor on a bill by representative very Pharisee to repeal the 2% Stadium Liquor tax. The house is now debating a number of amendments that would make some changes in the in the bill the major amendment that was considered earlier and defeated was by representative Bill Schreiber that Amendment would have let the sports commission choose another site for the stadium presumably Bloomington if lease agreements were not signed by the 25th of this month. It also shift the on sale liquor tax from the seven-county metropolitan area to the city where the stadium was to be built All Things Considered is next and we'll be returning from time to time throughout all things considered with updated reports on what's Happening Here on the house floor. We should remind you that live events coverage over Minnesota Public Radio is made possible. The financial assistance of the Minneapolis Star and this is Minnesota Public Radio a listener-supported service.