Rep. Sondra Erickson (R)

District 17A

Rick, I am listening to the CD your parents sent as I answer this email. Thanks for writing to me about the Twins stadium. I believe that excellent debate is going on today in committee to hear all the concerns. Then, the committee will decide on the best approach. By next week, we will probably vote on a package for a stadium for the Twins. You probably will know the details before I do but I can support a bill that does not take tax dollars. Sondy

Received March 7 - Rep. Erickson is a family friend, and I sent her a slightly modified version of the letter above which also wished her happy birthday.

Rep. Mark Gleason (DFL)

District 63B

Lowell -

Thank you for your e-mail. Are you a constituent of mine? Do you live in my district? What's your home address?

- Mark Gleason

Received March 7

Rep. Connie Bernardy (DFL)

District 48B

Thanks for your comments.

Connie

Received March 7

Rep. Torrey Westrom (R)

District 13A

Lowell,

I would not mind trusting the voters on this issue. If you can't pass something in a democracy by voting on it, then we should not be ramming it through. Torrey

Received March 7

Rep. Gary Kubly (DFL)

District 15B

I don't know why anyone who has read this bill would oppose it. It actually provides a positive cash flow for the state. It's the best one we've seen and I think it should pass. Thanks for your note. Rep. Kubly

Received March 7

Rep. Karen Clark (DFL)

District 61A

Thanks for writing. Please give me your address so I know if you are my constituent or who I should refer you to. Karen

Received March 7 - You may think this might be an automated response, but it bears no resemblance to any of the others I received. I think she typed it herself.

Rep. Jim Davnie (DFL)

District 62A

Dear Lowell,

Thank you for contacting me. I will be brief, for both of our's sakes!

You present a difficult point. It appears currently that no stadium bill will make it to the House floor without a referendum provision. While this does not make the team happy--it is easier to persuade 201 legislators than 500,000 citizens, it may be the only way to get a vote on the floor.

Many of the taxes proposed to fund a stadium are not site specific. In other words they raise the question of whether someone simply going for a drink in a certain area of downtown Minneapolis for instead should have to pay a tax for a stadium that they are not attending. Additionally the proposals often take revenue streams that should be used for operations and maintenance of the stadium, as well as deferring its cost, and give those monies to the team. These would be revenues from naming rights, advertising, seat licenses, concessions, etc. It may be fair to ask the voters if those funds should go to the team or should be retained in the public domain.

This is a difficult issue. Ultimately I think the responsibility for the success or failure of this issue lies squarely with the team. The Twins so broke faith with the public in past years with different proposals that were not what they claimed to be that there is a high level of distrust and resentment built-up. The teams latest proposal that they apparently should put up nothing for the stadium but instead borrow from the state further sets things back.

I appreciate your taking the time to contact me,

Representative Jim Davnie

Received March 8

Rep. Scott Wasiluk (DFL)

District 55B

Lowell,

Thank you for contacting me on the Twins stadium. I agree that we need to keep our Twins playing in Minnesota. I appreciate you taking the time to express your ideas and I will keep your thoughts in mind.

Scott

Received March 8

Rep. Al Juhnke (DFL)

District 15A

As a member of the stadium task force, I agree with everything you say!

Received March 8

Rep. Rich Stanek (R)

District 33B

Dear Lowell,

Thank you for contacting me regarding the financing of a new stadium for the Minnesota Twins. I am supportive of our professional sports teams and will work hard to keep them playing in Minnesota. I appreciate hearing from you and learning about your interest and concerns on this issue.

As your State Representative, my priorities always have been and will continue to be reducing the tax burden on working families, education funding for our children and fixing our roads and bridges. I want to make sure that the basic needs of the people are addressed first. The current budgetary shortfall must be addressed and is the top priority this legislative session. Rest assured that when these issues have been addressed, professional sports will receive fair and careful consideration by the legislature.

In order to assess the potential for a new ballpark for the Minnesota Twins and a football stadium for the Minnesota Vikings and Gophers, a Stadiums Task Force was established to thoroughly explore this matter. The Stadiums Task Force recommended that both a baseball and a football stadium be built. The tradition of professional sports is an integral part of life in Minnesota. Although our top priority this session will be balancing the budget, it is very possible a stadium bill paid for with user fees or some kind of casino gambling will be considered by the Legislature. Whether or not we include a referendum to let the citizens of the state express their opinion has not yet been determined. The task force's findings are available on the internet at www.house.leg.state.mn.us/taskforces/stadium.htm.

Once again, thank you for sharing with me your thoughts regarding this matter. I will keep them in mind as the stadium bills make their way through the legislature.

Sincerely,

Rich Stanek

Received March 15

Rep. Wes Skoglund (DFL)

District 62B

Dated April 1

Rep. Leslie Schumacher (DFL)

District 17B

Lowell,

I appreciate knowing that you support keeping the Twins. I too am a Twins fan and have attended some of the home games this year. I still cherish my memorabilia from the Twin's 1987 and 1991 winning years. I am a co-author on hf2587 which is a Twins public ownership bill. One of the biggest obstacle we are facing is the current ownership. Our leadership in the legislature has put in a lot of time and effort to negotiate an acceptable proposal that private owner Carl Pohlad would agree to.

A bill did pass off the house and senate floor based on early negotiations with the owner only to have Mr. Pohlad change his mind and back out of the deal.

Based on the comments I have heard from citizens in and around our area, I am convinced that the opposition and cynical attitude about this stadium plan not only stems from Carl Pohlad's ownership and manipulation of this process, but also the enormous salaries of the players and past strike.

This has been a very difficult issue to resolve. The fact is that a stadium can be built with or without the help of the legislature. Private funds have built other stadiums throughout the country and the situation is no different in Minnesota. We have 15 Fortune 500 companies alone in our state and Carl Pohlad himself is worth close to $3 billion.

These facts certainly make it a difficult task to try and convince the public that Carl Pohlad needs our help.

I do not want the Twins to leave Minnesota. The high quality of life in Minnesota is due to many things and I believe the Minnesota Twins adds to that value.

Thank you again for sharing your position on this issue.

Leslie Schumacher

Received May 18

Sen. Bob Lessard (I)

District 3

Rick, Senator Lessard is up north at this time, but I will make sure he reads your email. Just know that the Senator supports the Twins and keeping them here. I find it so interesting tho, that it would benefit the current baseball Commissioner if "they" decide to eliminate the Twins...talk about your conflict of interest!

Thanks for your comments and email.

Received November 7 from Susan Deleo, assistant to Sen. Lessard

Sen. William Belanger (R)

District 41

Rick

Why don't you do some research and find out which legislators were in support of the Twins and stop preaching to the choir.

Bill Belanger

Received November 7 - For the record, Senator Belanger's name has been absent from the coverage of this issue, but his support is appreciated.

Sen. Sandy Pappas (DFL)

District 65

Dear Mr. Prescott,

Thank you for your e-mail expressing your support for state involvement in financing the construction of a new stadium for the Minnesota Twins.

The varied proposals that have come before the legislature have generated much conversation and controversy. Discussion revolves around central arguments such as the fact that taxpayer subsidies for sports stadiums don’t show direct financial benefits, however, there are the indirect, somewhat intangible benefits such as enhanced community pride and a potential increase in tourism dollars, etc.

I have supported the state providing sports teams with the same or similar financial support that we would provide to any other Minnesota business that we value. I also support allowing a team to generate income through ticket sale surcharges and naming rights. Beyond that, we really have to balance the request from a sports team for taxpayer money with requests from our Higher Education entities, our public schools, our cities and counties, and, of course, the desire of many taxpayers for decreased taxes.

That’s why there is no simple “yes” or “no” regarding this issue. I guess my response is “it depends,” considering the diversity of demands for state funding and the multiplicity of proposals for a new stadium.

I encourage you to contact your senator and representative as well.

Warm Regards,

Sandy Pappas
State Senator

Received November 7

Sen. Jane Krentz (DFL)

District 51

Dear Rick,

I know you are a strong supporter of the Twins, and I certainly share your hope that the events of yesterday don't eliminate the Twins. I do not have time to attend any sporting events these days, but I attended the last games of the last two World Series that the Twins won, and celebrated with the crowds in the streets of downtown Minneapolis, so I am not anxious to see them leave.

However, even since then, the economics of baseball have continued to deteriorate. This contraction proposal seems particularly ludicrous, as it will cost each team roughly $18 million to buy out the two, and then each will have a whopping $2 million more in income in the future, based on what I have been reading. To the Carl Pohlads of the world, $2 million is chump change.... I don't have the answer. I don't think anyone does, or they would have delivered it by now. Selig should be sued for conflict of interest, as the Twins' demise would clearly benefit his interest in Milwaukee.

With the events of September 11th, I do not sense an improved climate in the legislature to fund a stadium. I wish there were private interests who could come to the plate, but again, until major league baseball does some internal housekeeping...not fooling around with schemes like contraction, it is probably not a great investment for private investors either...though I have to admit, Mr. Pohlad certainly made a handsome profit on his initial investment. That's the disturbing part of all of this. It isn't about baseball anymore, it's about money. I am sorry I can't be more positive about the possibilities. I am more dismayed today by the defeat of so many school district referenda, my own district included. Minnesotans seem to have shifted to valuing tax reductions more than education, and rebates more than sports. I may have to go home and watch "Field of Dreams" ...

Cordially,

Jane Krentz
Senator District 51

Received November 7

Sen. Ann Rest (DFL)

District 46

Dear Mr. Ware,

Thanks for your letter. I want the Twins to stay in Minnesota. I see the stadium as a separate issue. As you may know, I authored the stadium bill in 1997 that was so thoroughly rejected by the public and by the legislature. Following that defeat, I told my constituents that I would not vote for taxpayer funding for professional sports facilities. MLB has to fix its financial structures; eliminating teams should not be the first action that they take. The threat should be to eliminate their anti-trust exemption.

Sincerely,

Ann Rest

Received November 7 - The reference to Mr. Ware is probably a bad automatic parsing of my email address.

Gov. Jesse Ventura (I)

State of Minnesota

Thank you for contacting the Office of Governor Jesse Ventura. We appreciate hearing from citizens about a variety of topics. In choosing the "miscellaneous" category, we assume that your comment does not fit under any of our pre-selected topic areas.

Because of the volume of correspondence we receive, we are not able to respond to all emails. However, if you have provided your opinion on a particular topic, we want to assure you that each and every opinion we receive is valued and we will include that information in our database.

Thank you for writing to our office.

Automated response received November 7

Sen. Charles Wiger (DFL)

District 55

Dear Rick~

I appreciate your recent letter in regard to the professional baseball situation in Minnesota.

As a Minnesotan and a sports fan, it is with profound sadness that I’ve accepted the Minnesota Twins’ sudden position on the brink of being contracted by Major League Baseball. For more than four decades, the team has been viewed and followed in person and via TV and radio by countless residents of this state who see sports as a passion and a source of state pride.

Like many, I cried tears of joy on those Sunday nights in 1987 and 1991 when the Twins became World Champions. And like many, I am profoundly saddened by the thought that all of that could be taken away from us by billionaire owners trying to gain leverage with millionaire players.

There’s been plenty of talk about public bailouts and stadiums and other potential legislation, and there will certainly be more of such talk in the future. But on-field and attendance success of the most recent – and maybe the final – Twins team proved that Minnesotans love baseball and love to root for their team.

If all of that is taken away by Major League Baseball, it will be one of the true tragedies in our state’s history.

Sincerely,

Chuck Wiger
State Senator

Received November 7

Sen. Dick Day (R)

District 28, Minority Leader

I wanted to take this opportunity to thank you for your past input on the Twins/Stadium issue. I appreciate hearing your views.

I understand your frustration and anger in regards to the possible contraction of the Minnesota Twins from Major League Baseball. The stadium issue has been a major focus as to whether the Twins will remain in Minnesota or not. The legislature has battled on this topic for the past five years, without reaching a firm decision.

I have authored two pieces of legislation that would have allowed a Twins stadium to be built without using taxpayer money. In 1997, I introduced a bill that would have allowed Canterbury Park to have slot machines. The revenue from the slots would have went to build a new ball park. Last session, I authored legislation that would have allowed Minnesota to have a state-owned casino. Money raised from this casino would have went for transportation and one-time projects such as a new stadium. Unfortunately, both of these bills failed.

I have always been an avid fan of the Minnesota Twins. I have repeatedly tried to find innovative ways of building a new stadium without using tax dollars and will continue to do so should the Twins remain a part of Major League Baseball.

Again, thank you for sharing your concerns with me. If I can be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact my office.

Sincerely,

Dick Day
Senate Republican Leader

Received November 8

Sen. Don Betzold (DFL)

District 48

Two Senate committees approved a baseball stadium bill last session, but opposition from the Governor and the House Republicans killed the bill.

Even so, a new stadium doesn't solve the problem. Major League Baseball owners (unlike NFL owners) refuse to adopt revenue sharing or salary caps, so that only the rich teams (like the Yankees) or teams willing to incur huge debt (like the Diamondbacks) can be competitive. And if Mr. Pohlad says that he'll take $250 million to fold the team he bought for $38 million, even though other franchises are in worse shape, who can stop him?

There isn't anything the Legislature can do at the moment. Only the Governor can a special session, and it doesn't look like he would do so.

Received November 13

Sen. Dean Johnson (DFL)

District 15

November 14, 2001

Dear Concerned Citizen:

Every indication suggests that Major League Baseball is approaching dark times and locally it involves the elimination of the Minnesota Twins franchise. I believe, as most Minnesotans do, that we want our baseball team to remain in Minnesota and continue on it’s recent success, but we are unwilling to spend large amounts of taxpayer money to build ballparks and arenas.

With that sentiment in mind, during the last legislative session I authored a ballpark bill that would have kept the Twins financially competitive while minimizing the amount of public dollars used. Some questioned why I would take a political risk on a controversial subject. My answer was simple: As legislators, it is our job to have meaningful public policy debates on difficult issues and one should not shy away from challenges. The bill made it through four Senate committees and was awaiting a vote on the Senate floor. Its progress was the same in the House. The most recent version of the bill contained the following highlights:

Aballpark would not be built until there was a complete overhaul of the MLB financial system including revenue sharing. The players and owners would have to settle a bargaining agreement and teams would be limited to payrolls ranging from $40 to $80 million dollars, making them more competitive. During the construction there could be no players strike, no owner lockout, and all cost overruns would be paid by the owners of the Twins.

A publicly-owned, $300 million dollar, 42,000 seat, roof ready ballpark would be built and the Twins would sign a 30 year lease. Theowners would contribute $150 million dollars toward construction. A $100 million dollar loan for 20 years with 3% interest would be provided by the state.

This guarantees that 83% of the ballpark would be built by private dollars (in comparison, the Excel Energy Center was built with 17% private dollars).

The other $50 million would come from the sale of bonds, a sales tax exemption on building materials, and tax exemption zone for operating costs.

The Twins would generate revenue from signs, concessions and parking.

The local municipality where the stadium would be built would have authority to sell naming rights and the money would be put toward operating costs.

Minnesota would collect increased tax revenue from the Twins players as well as all visiting baseball team players. Over the 30 year lease, tax revenue generated from players is estimated to be over $191 million into the general fund.

If the team were to be sold in the future, community ownership could be pursued.

NO TAXES WOULD BE RAISED OR LEVIED.

I felt this proposal was a fair compromise. Ultimately, the bill stalled at the end of the session as we as legislators had more pressing budgetary issues to address. In retrospect, it is unfortunate we did not have the time to conclude this important debate. What is more unfortunate is that the legislature may not have the opportunity to finish the debate when we convene in January.

I believe the citizens of Minnesota have spoken clearly: Major League Baseball and the Minnesota Twins add to our quality of life in this state in many ways. One marketing study indicated that over 800,000 people attend, watch, or listen to Twins games. However, we are unwilling to pay the entire bill for a new stadium in order to make private business owners more wealthy. This is the precise reason I authored a bill that sought compromise and cooperation from all parties involved to keep Major League Baseball and the Twins in Minnesota.

Thank you for sharing your views on the stadium issue. I appreciated hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Dean Elton Johnson
State Senator, District 15
Willmar

Received November 14

Sen. Sheila Kiscaden (R)

District 30

Dear Rick,

Having the Twins ball team eliminated by the Major League Baseball owners will be a big loss to the State. Minnesotans will lose a ball club that we have come to cherish over the last 41 years.

As I am sure you are aware, during the 2001 regular session, SF 1857, a bill for the construction of a Major league professional baseball stadium, passed through all the necessary committees and made it to the Senate floor. The Senate was ready to act on the bill, but the failure of the House to act on the issue, and the pressing budget floor debates, contributed to the bill being tabled until next session.

Just within the last week, House Speaker Steve Sviggum and Senate Majority Leader Roger Moe sent a letter to Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig requesting that team owners delay consideration of a buyout plan that would put the Minnesota Twins out of business. The letter points out that an 18-member baseball task force -- jointly appointed by Sviggum, Moe and Gov. Jesse Ventura -- is supposed to make recommendations to lawmakers before the next session of the Legislature convenes in January.

The task force will study a number of issues, including the possibility of finding private funding for a new Twins stadium. Ventura, Moe and Sviggum made their appointments to the latest baseball task force on November 8th, 2001.

Attorney General Mike Hatch has indicated that he will seek a court injunction to prohibit the contraction of the league. Congress id being urged by Senator Wellstone to revoke Major League Baseball’s anti-trust exemption. Despite these efforts, recent events indicate that Minnesota has probably run out of time and options to save the Minnesota Twins.

Why is this happening?

What I have read and heard lead me to conclude that there are powerful economic advantages for Major League Baseball. With contraction, the need for revenue sharing among the teams is decreased: the large market/large profit teams will not have to revenue share with the small market/low profit teams like the Twins. In addition, contracting the number of teams creates a better bargaining position for the team owners with the Baseball Players association...fewer teams, means fewer job openings, means better leverage in contract negotiations for team owners....which means more profits for the owners. Many argue that contraction is a short-sighted and poor solution to baseball’s problems.

From the accounts that I have read, it appears that the decision about team contraction has in fact been made...and was kept quiet. That has stolen the time that would be available to work out an alternative to eliminating the team. This appears to be intentional.

The Twins had the second lowest team revenue in all of baseball last year, the proposal to build them a new stadium with public funds was strongly opposed by Minnesotans, and so the Major League Baseball owners have decided the Twins is a prime candidate for contraction.

While the Twins have a dedicated public following, their profits are low by comparison to other teams. The Twins will be sorely missed, but it does not appear that there is much that can be done. The Twins are a privately owned sports entertainment enterprise. The owner is free to sell it...and it appears the Pohlads want to take the buy-out. In some ways this is similar to all the small movie theaters that were bought out and/or closed by larger movie theaters. A entertainment business goes out of business and is missed by its customers/fans, but they have no way to stop the sale...especially if they do not know the sale is even pending.

Obviously, losing the Minnesota Twins is a much greater loss to the State of Minnesota. It is evident that committed baseball fans are trying to find a last-minute alternative to the loss of the team. Perhaps the combination of public and political efforts will be successful.

Sincerely,

Senator Sheila Kiscaden
District 30

Received November 16

Sen. Myron Orfield (DFL)

District 60

Dear Mr. Prescott:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding your support for the Minnesota Twins and a new stadium.

When it comes to keeping the Twins, I think that most Minnesotans have the right attitude. Public opinion polls indicate an overwhelming desire to keep baseball in Minnesota. With the future of baseball in Minnesota in limo, now is the right time to listen carefully to citizens’ opinions. My consideration of this issue will reflect the feedback I hear from the constituents who elected me. Ultimately, the will of the public should be carried out.

In the past, my constituents have indicated that they do not support using public funds to build professional sports stadiums. There does, however, appear to be more support for the stadium proposal which was put forth during the latest legislative session than there has been for any previous plan as well as support for other plans which have been developed in recent months. Therefore I am listening closely to the views of my constituents regarding these proposed stadium plans and I will take their views into consideration if the legislature has an opportunity to vote on any of these proposals in the upcoming session.

Thanks again for taking the time to contact me regarding this issue, please feel free to contact me again in the future. I always appreciate hearing from my constituents and take their input into serious consideration.

Sincerely,

Senator Myron Orfield

Received November 29

Sen. Jane Ranum (DFL)

District 63

Dear Rick:

Thank you for letting me know your views about public funding for a new stadium. I appreciate hearing from you.

As you know, there have been several attempts in recent years to build a new stadium using tax dollars. Each of these attempts has failed. In 1997, which was the last time the full Senate voted on this issue, I voted against the stadium proposal. At that time I believed the proposal was not fiscally sound. In fact, I am convinced that our hard fiscal questions in 1997 are responsible for the current proposals with more of the emphasis focused on private financing. Nevertheless, even though I am a sports fan who was fortunate enough to attend the final game of the 1991 World Series, I still have very serious concerns about current proposals. The recent revelations about the financial relationship between Bud Selig and Carl Pohlad just reinforced my skepticism about the real intent behind the threat of contraction. It underscored my already strong conviction that until National Baseball League gets its own financial act together, our local efforts would just subsidize a business which is not set up to break even.

According to Senate Counsel and Research, a nonpartisan office, costs to the state for the stadium proposal that is currently in the Senate include the following:

One-time cost of providing $100 million 3% loan for 20 years: $43 million

One-time cash contribution to the construction of the stadium: $40 million

One-time cost of $9 million sales tax forgiveness on construction: $9 million

Costof sales tax forgiveness zone (on tickets, food, parking): $5 million/year, or $100 million over the 20 year loan repayment period

These costs add up to $192 million. Under this Senate bill, the loan term is 20 years, but if the term of the loan were lengthened, these costs would go up substantially, because the interest would be extended over a longer period of time, and the ongoing sales tax forgiveness zone would be extended to the longer life of the loan.

The bill also requires local, in-kind costs to the city where the stadium is built, which are estimated at about $50 million. This local cost is the up-front cost of providing land, adjacent parking, and the forgiveness of any local sales tax. The current Senate proposal contains an additional requirement that all $50 million in local costs come from the host city, and no county contribution is permitted. Two Minneapolis senators who have expressed support for public funding for a stadium voted against this stadium proposal in the Senate Finance Committee last spring because supporters of a stadium in Minneapolis are proposing a $10 million contribution from the city and a $40 million contribution form Hennepin County. And as you may be aware, any expenditure in excess of $10 million for a stadium in Minneapolis requires voter approval.

As the recent city election debate revealed, our city is facing serious budget challenges. Those budget concerns were dramatically intensified with the Governor's recent proposal to cut almost $15 million in local government aid (LGA) to Minneapolis in 2002. That proposed cut is about 13% of Minneapolis' LGA. Since LGA constitutes about 37% of our city's operating budget, if enacted, that cut could force steep decreases in basic service like police, fire, and street maintenance unless property taxes were raised considerably. Because the outgoing council already made cuts of $5 million in late December, the Governor’s cut will have an even larger impact on an already-decreased budget.

In these times of economic recession with schools closing and deep cuts in education, increasing unemployment, homelessness, lack of affordable health care, new threats of terrorism, and a state budget deficit of $1.8 billion, I am not persuaded that diverting scarce public resources into a sports facility, whose tenant does not run a fiscally sound business, is a sound fiinancial decision.

Thank you for letting me know your position. I appreciate your concern.

Sincerely,

Jane Ranum
State Senator

Received January 22

Sen. Linda Berglin (DFL)

District 61

Dated February 2, 1998 (though I think she meant 2002)

Sen. Dean Johnson (DFL)

District 15

Dear constituents:

Thank you for contacting me in regard to the proposed building of a ballpark for the Minnesota Twins. As you may know, I am the chief author of a bill by which the Minnesota Twins would build a new ballpark in the Twin Cities and thereby ensure their future in our state. That bill passed off the floor of the Senate on Wednesday, March 13th on a bipartisan vote of 37 to 30 with all members of the Minnesota Senate voting.

In my time as a member of the State Legislature, I cannot remember any other issue that has generated so much debate in the media, at the Capitol and among the people of Minnesota. In order to seek a solution to the situation we face, I stood with many of my Senate colleagues and listened to the recommendations of the tripartisan stadium task forces that met in November and December.

Over the course of this debate, I’ve gotten three clear messages from many constituents: 1) professional sports are a valuable part of life in Minnesota, so we should try to prevent the Minnesota Twins and Minnesota Vikings from being contracted or leaving the state; 2) the state should not invest General Fund tax dollars in new sports facilities; and 3) if stadiums are to be built, the people who use them and the people who benefit from them should bear the majority of the cost.

Our challenge was to find a way to satisfy all three of those distinct opinions. While the bill we passed is not perfect, I feel it is a good step in the right direction. Let me be perfectly clear: the money that would be used for a new ballpark would be generated from users of the facility and DO NOT COMPETE with dollars that fund education, transportation, or state needs. The funds would not exist if a ballpark is not built.

The legislation we approved requires the Twins’ owners to pay half the cost of a $330 million open-air ballpark and cover any cost overruns in the construction process. The rest of the ballpark’s cost, and funds for a future football stadium for the Vikings and Gophers, would be covered by a stadium fund. The money in the stadium fund would come from several sources paid by those that use the facility or benefit from it economically. If you do not go to the ballpark, you would not pay for it.

One of the cornerstone funding sources is a 13% tax on sports memorabilia (team clothing and other team merchandise) sold in the Twin Cities metro area. Other funding sources include proceeds from the sale of the Metrodome, a ticket surcharge, a tax on food and drinks sold at the new ballpark, naming rights at the new facility, a tax on rental cars and a contribution from the community in which the facility will be located. The legislation also provides funds for affordable housing in the stadium’s host community.

The bill we passed does not designate a site for the ballpark, leaving it up to Minneapolis, St. Paul, and other metro area communities to bring forward a site proposal and get their voters to approve a referendum if they want to be the home of the Twins.

On March 25, the House of Representatives voted 80-52 on a different version of a ballpark bill. The bill, which was suggested by the administration, calls for the Minnesota Twins to give a one time gift of $165 million to the state. It would be put into a fund that earns interest. The state would issue $330 million in bonds to build a ballpark and require the Twins to sign a thirty year lease. The Twins would also pay approximately $10 million a year to fund the interest on the bonds. By taking advantage of favorable interest rates, the bonds would be paid at the end of the thirty years. The Legislature now faces the task of working out the differences between the House and Senate bills.

If all goes as I hope it will, the result will be a new ballpark funded by the people who use it and benefit from it. That’s important to many from our state who like to attend sports events, and for the countless Minnesotans who follow the Twins, Vikings and Gophers on TV and radio.

As always, I appreciate the input I’ve received from so many of you regarding this and other issues. Feel free to contact me anytime if there are other questions I can answer for you.

Sincerely,

Dean Elton Johnson

Received April 3