Transcripts

text | pdf |

---

LORNA: The Minnesota House is expected to vote soon on a ballpark financing plan first proposed by Governor Jesse Ventura's administration. The plan relies on an investment fund created by the team, other private partners, and possibly a local government to repay stadium construction costs over 30 years.

Supporters say the package removes all new state taxes, fees, or other surcharges that were found in previous plans, but opponents worry state assistance has simply been replaced with local taxes. Minnesota Public Radio's Michael Khoo has been following the debate and joins us now from the capital. Michael, this particular plan seems to have picked up a lot of steam since it was unveiled earlier this month. How has it been received in the house?

MICHAEL KHOO: Lorna, I think most observers would expect that this plan is going to pass, which would be a major accomplishment in the ongoing ballpark debate. The House has always been considered the more skeptical body when it comes to ballpark legislation. And so for this plan to find traction here, I think, is a significant shift, which comes for two reasons, I think.

One is that the mood has changed for many lawmakers and perhaps for the public at large. Also, after Major League Baseball threatened the Twins with elimination earlier this year, the so-called contraction debate had created a new sense of urgency.

But I think a more important reason is that the new plan, which is called the [? Sawson ?] plan after Peter [? Sawson, ?] an assistant finance commissioner in the Ventura administration who drafted the proposal, I think the new plan has had a big impact too.

LORNA: That plan has been adopted by House lawmakers and has formed the blueprint for the bill that they're currently debating. What makes the Sorensen plan more attractive?

MICHAEL KHOO: Well, in the Sorensen plan, the state uses its borrowing power to raise about $330 million at low interest rates to build the ballpark. Now, the Twins, meanwhile, along with other private partners and most likely a local government partner as well would contribute half that amount into a gift fund.

That fund is then expected to earn tax-free returns at a rate higher than the interest on the bonds, which would allow the fund to retire that debt at the end of about 30 years. The spread, in fact, is also expected to pay more than half of the interest on the bonds. The remainder of that interest would then come from annual contributions.

But the bill starts to hit some controversy at the next point, where local cities have the option of raising bar, restaurant, or lodging taxes to help pay-- excuse me-- to help the team make those contributions. And opponents say that that's just simply a backdoor way to push tax dollars into the ballpark.

LORNA: But any local taxes would require a referendum wouldn't it?

MICHAEL KHOO: At this point, yes, that's right. But opponents are also concerned about that. They say that the referendum is currently set for June 4, and that's a little too early to adequately inform local taxpayers about all the issues.

They also say that would fall right at the beginning of the summer when many people, many voters in particular, will be out of town, or kids will just have gotten out of school. People may be going on summer vacation up to the cabin or what have you. And they simply won't be paying attention to a referendum at an off point in the election cycle. But supporters of the proposal say that it's imperative they move as quickly as possible to take advantage of the low interest rate environment we're currently in.

LORNA: Now, the House Bill is substantially different from the one passed earlier this month by the Senate. What are the prospects for reconciling the two plans?

MICHAEL KHOO: The Senate plan relies on what is essentially a long list of new taxes, surcharges, users fees, et cetera to fund the ballpark. Although keep in mind that plan was passed before the [? Sawson ?] plan was introduced and the lead author in the Senate has since then embraced this new proposal.

So it's likely a compromise could be reached fairly quickly in conference committee. From then, it would on its way to the governor's desk. And since the plan originated in Ventura's administration, I think, ballpark supporters would say that they're pretty optimistic. They're about as close as ever to getting a ballpark bill passed.

LORNA: But that's not likely to be the end of the road, is it? What would happen then?

MICHAEL KHOO: Well, there'll still be plenty of loose ends to tie up, so to speak. The team is still searching for new owners. You'd have Minneapolis, Saint Paul, perhaps one or two of the metro suburbs likely to start competing to be the host site for the ballpark. And, of course, finding the team's owners and a host site are crucial to getting the financing in place.

There's also the issue of the referendum that we mentioned. And already we have folks who say that who are vowing to vigorously oppose the public subsidies and the local taxes that the referendums. And as most people who've been watching this know, referendums have been defeated twice already, once in Minneapolis in 1997, again, in Saint Paul just in 1999. So it'll be a tough fight.

LORNA: All right. Thanks, Michael.

MICHAEL KHOO: Thank you.

LORNA: Minnesota Public Radio's Michael Khoo reporting from the Capitol.