|
ECM editorial: Workable solution is needed to keep the Vikings here
|
|
|
Business and political leaders must get involved with providing a new stadium for the Minnesota Vikings, or they will consider leaving the state.
The Vikings are dead serious over the need for more revenues which they say can only come from building a new football stadium preferably on the Metrodome site where all the infrastructure and light rail are in place.
Lester Bagley, the club’s vice president of Public Affairs, told the ECM Editorial Board the Vikings do not intend to sign a new lease at the Metrodome after the 2011 season.
The recent action by the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission demanding either the Vikings sign a two-year extension or be charged rent for the next two seasons stunned the team and poisoned that relationship.
There are signs the leadership, particularly Gov. Tim Pawlenty, is paying more attention to the Vikings’ request for a new stadium. The state’s business leaders need to step up and begin serious talks about finding a way to finance a new stadium with the Vikings.
The Vikings rank last in revenues among NFL teams. NFL owners say they are tired of subsidizing small market teams like the Vikings to whom they gave $18 million in shared revenue this year. The NFL’s fund to help build stadiums is empty, although it’s possible owners will provide some funds if a deal is reached.
Unlike some NFL teams, the Vikings get nothing on parking revenues and 15 cents of every dollar on concessions.
The team led by quarterback Brett Favre, has never been more popular and television ratings of games with the Green Bay Packers are off the charts.
The roadblock is cost of building a new stadium, figured to be $750 million without a roof and another $200 million with a roof. (The Vikings favor a roof, but won’t pay extra for one.)
Vikings owner Zygi Wilf, says the Vikings will pay a third, $220 million, meaning the state or some other host will have to pay $440 million for a stadium without a roof and $640 million with a roof.
Who will be the host for the needed public money? The state has revenue troubles with a $1.2 billion budget deficit this year and next and facing a possible $5 billion one in the 2011-12 biennium. There are higher priorities for the money than building a stadium for the Vikings, particularly in an election year, say the critics.
St. Paul, Minneapolis and Hennepin County cannot be the taxing host, and the Vikings backed away from an Anoka County proposal to them.
Bagley said that the Vikings generate $20 million per year in sales and income taxes that would be lost if the team left.
At the same time a study shows that if the state were to subsidize the stadium at $610 million for a stadium with a roof, the cost for 30-year bonds at seven percent would be a little over $51 million a year and without a roof, $39.3 million. Without a roof, an interest rate of five percent for 30-year bonds would be $28.3 million a year.
The bottom line is the state would lose a projected $20 million if the Vikings were to leave. Under one scenario, the state would have to pay $28.3 million or $3.3 million more per year (considering the taxes paid by the Vikings) to build the stadium and keep the team.
The promise of 13,400 construction and sub-contractor jobs plus keeping the team at a reasonable cost through some revenue-raising measure needs to be discussed by the state’s leadership this next legislative session.
On Dec. 17, the stadium commission will unveil a new stadium plan for the dome site. This could be the trigger for that discussion to determine the future stay of a franchise the public wants to keep in Minnesota.
This editorial is a product of the ECM Editorial Board. The Caledonia Argus is part of ECM Publishers Inc.
|
