The Gang of Seven stuck together Tuesday night, adding the Vikings stadium proposal to the Minneapolis City Council’s legislative agenda and fending off two amendments offered by stadium opponents.
That was the tough part of last night’s two-hour public hearing at City Hall, where bigwigs and just plain folks shared their stadium thoughts with council members.
After successfully approving the stadium proposal 7 to 6, the Gang of Seven coalition did fall apart, though, on a motion asking the Charter Commission to review the stadium financing outlined in the bill to determine if a public referendum is required.
Council Member Kevin Reich, a stadium supporter, changed sides and voted with stadium opponents to seek the commission’s opinion.
There were few new arguments on either side of the debate, but there were several new voices heard in the standing-room-only council chambers.
“I know firsthand how badly we need to put people back to work in the design and construction business,” said architect Dennis Meyer, who voiced support for the jobs created by construction and operation of the stadium.
Job creation was a strong element in the arguments supporting the stadium, but Meyer also had another reason to support the plan -- and a sense of humor.
“If we lose the Vikings, I would be forced to become a Green Bay Packer fan,” said Meyer. “That would be sad.”
Opponents sounded off on two main topics.
They wanted an opportunity to vote on Mayor R.T. Rybak’s stadium proposal, as allowed by the City Charter, and they thought the $150 million the city will contribute to the nearly $1 billion stadium would best be spent on other things.
“In my entire life, I have only earned approximately, in 41 years of teaching, what one star football player gets in one game,” said Charley Underwood, who added, that in his opinion, the city cannot afford to spend money on a stadium.
Council members asked Kevin Carpenter, the city’s financial director, just how much the city would pay for the stadium from the state hospitality sales taxes that would fund the city’s contribution to the project.
Carpenter said the total would be $675 million over the 25 years of payments out of the estimated $2.1 billion in collected tax revenue.
In 1986, Minnesota imposed sales taxes in Minneapolis to fund the Convention Center debt through 2020 at a rate of 2.625 percent on lodging, a 3 percent downtown liquor tax and a 0.5 percent general sales tax. Those taxes generate about $50 million a year.
Council President Barb Johnson reminded everyone in the room that public money traditionally has been spent to support the arts, education and medical care. In her view, spending money on the stadium constitutes economic development.
“We are an important city. We are the economic engine of this region,” said Johnson, who added that the stadium will attract visitors, just as the arts and other tax-supported activities do.
“When our core cities succeed, the entire state benefits,” said John Griffith, the Target Corp. executive who has worked to bring the stadium to Minneapolis. “The stadium is a major selling point when we bring new employers to the state,” he added.
Council Member Gary Schiff, a stadium opponent, agrees that the stadium is an asset but disagrees with the funding plan.
“The stadium is a statewide asset and should be funded statewide,” said Schiff, adding, “I think we can do better.”
Stadium opponents frequently voiced frustration — and sometimes anger — over language in one version of the stadium bill that specifically bypasses the City Charter requirement that citizens be allowed to vote on an expenditure on a sports facility of more than $10 million.
“I am very sad to be here today,” said Ann Berget, who told council members that her “sense of trust” has been damaged because the charter amendment approved by voters in 1997 gave citizens a voice that is being silenced.
City Attorney Susan Segal has advised council members that the charter amendment does not apply and a referendum is unnecessary because the city is not in control of the funds.
“The charter piece is at the core of my concerns,” said Council Member Robert Lilligren, who opposes the stadium proposal. “They [citizens] voted, and they were very clear.”
Opponents of the stadium repeatedly said that public funding for a billionaire team owner ran against their sense of values. Supporters, meanwhile, countered that the jobs created make the investment an asset.
“To me, this is not helping billionaires,” said Joy Anderson, who works as a banquet server in downtown Minneapolis. She recalled how her income dropped when the Metrodome dome roof collapsed, sending the Vikings to TCF Field. “This is about jobs and helping our fellow workers retain jobs,” she said.
Several stadium supporters spoke about the stadium jobs as a goal for students and said that professional sports give youngsters the opportunity to dream of the possibilities of a big career.
But even those points were disputed by stadium opponents.
“I can’t look on the world of football as a model for young people,” said opponent Janet Nye, who also reminded council members of the charter amendment. “We deserve a vote. It’s the law,” she said.
The council’s resolution of stadium support will be subject to a final vote Friday during the council’s regular meeting.
Two Cities blog, which covers Minneapolis and St. Paul City Halls, is made possible in part by grants from The Saint Paul Foundation and the Carolyn Foundation.