Questions to Guide Deliberations of the Stadiums Task Force

[The Stadiums Task Force adopted these Questions as modified at the November 29, 2001 meeting.]

1(a). Is there a serious economic problem posed to the Minnesota Twins and/or the Minnesota Vikings by the configuration of the Metrodome which could be significantly resolved by either a renovation of the Metrodome or construction of new facilities?

1(b). If there is such a problem, and that problem is solved with new facilities, are there other systemic problems in professional sports which would make the new facilities a poor investment risk?

1(c). Can a lease provide a reliable tie between a facility and a professional sports organization?

2(a). If such a challenge exists, should the State government play a significant role in financing such facilities?

* Do direct tax revenues contribute significantly?
* Do indirect tax revenues contribute significantly?
* Do intangible business climate enhancements contribute significantly?
* Do intangible "quality of life" enhancements contribute significantly?
* Could the construction of facilities start quickly enough to improve the current economic climate?
* Would such an investment be better placed in some other economic stimulus activity?
* Can these considerations outweigh demands for other spending or for allowing families to keep more of their own tax money?

2(b). Can the teams demonstrate that they have a positive economic impact on the state's economy which would justify a major state investment in such facilities? Can you prove it with facts on:

* State and City taxes collected from the teams;
* State and City Taxes collected from team-related spending;
* Attraction of new business, conventions, or talent;
* Revenues from related potential events (post-season play, Super Bowl, All-Star Games, football bowl or play-off games); or,
* other financial factors?

2(c). Can the teams demonstrate that they deliver intangible, "quality of life" or "quality of economy" benefits to Minnesota, which could justify a major state investment in such facilities? Are there roles for these facilities and teams as:

* anchors for development;
* engines for community support activities;
* tools for national and international recognition;
* forces for crime prevention;
* providers of enhanced entertainment options
* enhancers of a sense of community; or,
* other considerations?

3(a). If we decide that a serious problem exists that could be significantly resolved by new facilities, and if we decide that other systemic problems in professional sports would not make these facilities a bad investment, and if we decide that the state should play a significant role in building these facilities because they are justified by tangible and intangible financial and "quality of life" issues on the basis of hard evidence, how shall we judge legislative options for state participation?

3(b). Does the proposal meet the guidelines established by the Governor to gain his support?

3(c). Does the legislative proposal make fairly certain guarantees that adequate revenues will be produced so that no other subsidies will be needed?

3(d). Does the proposal have the support of the professional team, the league, and the players' unions?

3(e). Does the proposal raise significant opposition from a significant number of citizens, such as those opposed to an expansion of facility subsidies, an expansion of gaming, or alternative uses of dollars?

3(f). Is the proposal pragmatic? Because the funding would come in the form of a bonding bill, can the proposal secure the support of 40 out of 67 Senators and 80 out of 134 Representatives?