I do not claim to be a stadium financing expert, but I see two problems with the Snyder proposal: 1)Why would Pohlad sell to a local ownership group for $150 million when he can get $250 million from the baseball owners? I cannot see Carl leaving $100 million on the table; 2)A 2 million attendance assumption is high given the numerous entertainment options available in the Twin Cities unless the Twins are playing extraordinary baseball.
Bill Dooley Ward 13 Kenny -----Original Message----- From: Mark Snyder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 3:30 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Mpls] Twins ballpark funding proposal [In the interest of full disclosure, I am a baseball fan, namely a Twins fan. I've attended a few dozen Twins games over the years at the Metrodome and agree with those who say the Metrodome is a lousy place to watch a baseball game.] A few have asked for an actual proposal for funding a ballpark for the Twins. Since the governor stated in Saturday's Star Tribune that a ticket surcharge is something he would consider, I've put something together based around that. If I recall correctly from the report put out by New Ballpark, Inc., they advocated for construction of a more basic ballpark than some of the other proposals have discussed - with a much lower pricetag of $150 million. So here's my suggestion: the State would issue 30-year, no-interest bonds for $150 million to an ownership group that buys the Twins from Carl Pohlad. These bonds could then be paid back at a price of $5 million annually, raised from ticket surcharges. Assuming an annual attendance of 2 million fans, the surcharge would be in the neighborhood of $2.50 per ticket. If desired, the new owners could use a "progressive" surcharge in order to keep general admission tickets as cheap as possible. To ensure timely repayment, the loan could be structured so that if ticket surcharges fall short in any year, the team owners must make up the difference. If ticket surcharges exceed the repayment, the team would have the option of paying ahead on their loan or using that money for maintenance and upgrades at the ballpark - but cannot pocket those revenues. If the ownership group wants more bells and whistles on their ballpark than $150 million can provide, they are responsible for raising the rest, either out of their own pockets or through corporate sponsorships. The ownership would also be responsible for any cost overruns. Once the loan is paid off, then the team owners and state legislators at that time can negotiate for the surcharge to expire, be used to raise capital for additional ballpark improvements or maybe start some kind of endowment for sponsoring youth sports in Minnesota. How does that sound to you, Mr. Griffith? Anybody else see any big problems with such a proposal? I see it as meeting several criteria - only the owners and Twins fans attending games actually pay anything. By using a bond issue, the State doesn't really commit any operating revenue and taxpayers are protected in the event the team were to fold or relocate because the loan would still have to be paid back. Mark Snyder Ward 1/Windom Park [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
