Getting the commission liquor tax Authority. It's receiving. There are some amendments or there is an amendment 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker members of the house pursuant to rule 110. I'd like to call up Senate file 20. I don't know. If is it necessary this first time I've ever done this under 110. Is it necessary for me to make a motion or what's the proper procedure sounds like the they want to bring you in with the Stars and Stripes Forever or something? I don't know. I'm told that you can be comfortable and something. Mr. Pharisee to handle it from here. Good afternoon sports fans. It's not coming over very well as to that's the 1965 World Series that you're listening to or the 65 season that the funds in an open world series. Last of the night Rollins will be moving as it's free and 22 Killebrew Killebrew is ready. There's a pitch that was done in a nun dome stadium. Mr. Speaker. This is a little different bill. I think gentleman from Ramsey. I understand there was an amendment if we could discuss the bill for a few moments and we'll be taking it and I understand there may be some others. Mr. Speaker members of the house. First of all, I'd like to say a few words concerning the process. I'd like to thank representative sieben and the members of the tax committee for the patients that they exhibited in respect to this particular legislation. But I think that the important thing that should be borne in Mind by people is that the tax committee did give persons an opportunity to come in and testify there were people from throughout the state pro and con who wish to discuss this particular issue and that committee heard them all. Let's talk about what this bill is not. This is not a bill that is against the City of Minneapolis. Historically, I should point out that the bill was drafted last October the time when the site. Was not known. the bill simply removes the liquor tax I'd like you to know that I'd be on this floor no matter what type of attacks we were talking about as far as financing that particular project with the possible exception of the admissions tax. The user tax that is in the law. We leave that tax alone and do not disturb it. I may be in the minority as to the reason for carrying the bill. I've heard people come to me and say they were against a dome. I've had persons come to me and say they're against the location. There are some who have come and said they do not like the fact that baseball and football are to be in the same facility. There are many reasons. But the one that motivated me was the fact that a tax any type of attacks was being used to promote this type of an activity. Now many of you will reflect and say well in our local community we have had a bond issue or we've got some kind of industrial bonds or something of this nature where we've gone out and built something for our community generally in the nature of a business concern. And what's the difference? Why should you be all concerned about this because you each of you will reflect back on what your local communities are doing. You'll find that in most instances. They're talking about a revenue Bond. A bond that does not go on the local taxpayers as of course. This one does not the property tax. A bond that is geared so that the rents from the business are going to be sufficient. to pay off the obligation our problem here is that that's not the case. The the tenants let's talk about the tenants. I'm not anti sport. I have this past fall. I attended the number of Viking games. Enjoy watching the Gophers. And I'm not out here to say that perhaps different facilities shouldn't be in order. But I think when we start talking about using tax dollars to construct such a facility I get a little nervous. And the fact is that the bond people have found that this is a risky Venture it is because of the risk that's involved that we are finding that they have insisted that some type of call it back up tax should be available to the bondholders. They know their judgment and these are shrewd business persons. They look at the situation and say it's a bit speculative. Let's talk about what our situation is now in looking at the law as it passed in 1977. The sports facility commission was given an option to do many things in this bill is not a criticism of the sports facility commission. I think they've done their job. They've done it to according to the guidelines. We set forth and on December first they came down with a site. Now we find that we are going to be dealing with a dome facility which has in the law a provision that allows them not only to have the backup tax but to use a tax to help run the facility for so long as it is needed. Already, it is acknowledged that the liquor tax must be utilized at least two lane teen 83 under one version and 1987 under another already. They are using it just to make the the numbers work according to the best situation. But a few other things have happened. The Minnesota kicks have advised all who would listen that they will not play in the facility. And the Minnesota kicks were counted on to bring in about a hundred and twenty eight thousand dollars worth of Revenue. My question is where does that come from? And we've heard the Minnesota Twins. I wish you could have been in the committee to hear mr. Pause the executive secretary of the Minnesota sports facility Commission. He said that the Minnesota Twins could not afford to play in any new facility any They have had an opportunity Sports facility commission to look at the books. We are being asked to allow as I read the papers now the Minnesota Twins to sign a 30-year agreement so that a facility can be built. And we're going to count on their revenue to make sure that the place operates. I think we have heard stories that certain television contracts are out there that they come to their help. That certain businesses may be agreeing to buy season tickets to help the twins. But none of those persons or entities are talking about signing a 30 year guarantee. There is no 30-year guarantee from any outside persons. So we are going to have a tenant in a facility who the people looking at. The financial situation have deemed to be unable to afford to be there. I think it's a plain business sense type thing that all of you can understand that it just doesn't work. some people and I think representative Greenfield would be talking to you a little bit more about it are concerned about this because of where it's going to be simply because of the neighborhoods around there. I think it certainly is going to have an impact on the new situation the situation of those people and I think it's important that you keep that in mind. I'll be at the bill doesn't really address that. The legislation simple and people say well, okay what happens? We pass it. Now what? Well, I wanted to let you know that I have been trying to find Alternatives all during the last several months to what could happen. I've continually argued that I believe that if a facility is to be built and I don't care where that the sylheti might be built that it should be something that is coming out of the private sector. That the person in Stillwater when going over to the local establishment for an evening out is not asked to pay a little something to help build a dome stadium. That the person down in Hastings and there are he or she is out for an evening are not being asked to help pay for a dome stadium. I've been asking that the private sector be the ones that play the role to the point where I have and I have to say this the governor contacted me. He was concerned about this we have discussed this issue. He was looking for Alternatives I even met with mr. Cowls. Which is quite an experience still get a kick out of their paper the classic of course was and I think some of the stuff you've been reading really you should keep in mind there is a I think the reporters are trying to do a good job, but some of the editorial comments and one or two sports writers or feature writers, I think have been sort of throwing things out a perspective. I think the classic was when they had the picture of some of us looking at the site over there and the caption underneath the letters had only one legislator was there and in the picture there were three of us. I think that's starting to tell lets people are having a very difficult time in really telling it like it is As far as Alternatives, I understand that there are bills progressing in mr. Pleasants committee understand the Senate is doing some other things. I don't know that this should be the vehicle for any alternatives that I understand. There's an amendment here, I guess which you'll have an opportunity to look at that. But I think this is one that people are it's sort of a symbolic thing people are concerned about what is happening at the zoo. People are concerned about what is happening at the prison people are concerned about what might be happening the poor st. Paul with the people mover. I got I think the classic was when Senator Garrity said he wouldn't take the People Mover away from from st. Paul. He'd give it to us. I thought that was a pretty pretty tough statement as to what he might be doing to our local community. People are concerned about what we're doing and I think that the liquor tax is simply a symbol. Obviously the liquor purveyor persons that own the bars aren't really paying any tax. As a matter of fact, they may be making a couple of cents off of this thing each drink because they're simply the ones through whom the money is going. And I don't think we should get all excited and you know nervous about that situation. But I do believe that it is your taxpayer. My taxpayer who has found this as a symbol the polls indicate that they do not want this to proceed as it is. I'd ask your support in regards to this legislation and at this time mr. Speaker. I'd like to yield to representative Greenfield. Mr. Greenfield is the speaker members. Thank you. I'd like to very strongly point out that this is not an issue of Minneapolis or st. Paul versus Minneapolis as most of you know, I represent part of Minneapolis. In fact the very part the proposed downtown dome stadium would go in And while I have strong philosophic agreement with representative Pharisee, I do not think it is appropriate to use public tax money for a profit making Sports Stadium. At least. It's a very low priority on the kinds of things that I think government should be involved in and the things that I believe we are responsible for doing I have even greater problems with the proposed downtown Stadium because of the district I represent and I would like to take a little time and I hope you'll listen to why the people closest to that site very strongly object to the downtown Stadium. the problems that the two closest neighborhood