http://www.vikings.com Posted May 27, 2011
Vikings VP of Public Affairs Lester Bagley and/or Vikings Assistant Director of Public Affairs Jeff Anderson are here to answer questions regarding the team’s new stadium efforts. This is a great way for fans and supporters to stay involved and informed in the discussion. This week, Jeff will answer your questions. If you have additional stadium questions, find him on Twitter – @andersonj.
To submit a question for this new feature, email your question to me atwobschallm@vikings.nfl.net. Be sure to put STADIUM QUESTION in the subject line of the email so we know your inquiry is stadium-related. If you submitted a question this week but it’s not included below, we’ll try and get to your question next week. Feel free to submit it again this week to ensure we receive it.
Click here to view past Q&A’s.
Q: What is the latest on the stadium bill now that the legislative session has ended? – Tom, Eden Prairie, MN
A: Thanks, Tom. We believe the Vikings stadium issue is still very much in play. Governor Dayton and legislative leaders, as well as business and labor leaders, want to find a solution to the long-standing issue. While it’s not our call in terms of a special session agenda and timing, we continue to work hard with State leaders on the Ramsey County plan and the transportation finance piece, and we believe that as the budget comes into focus, stadium discussions will emerge.
Q: I really want to see the Vikings play outdoors again like the old days but without a roof like Green Bay, Chicago, Pittsburgh, etc. Why do we need a roof here? Why can’t we save money and go without one? – Jeff, Minneapolis, MN
A: Thanks for the question, Jeff. State leaders have been clear that a new football stadium must have a roof so the facility can host year-round events outside of Vikings games. The Ramsey County-Vikings agreement calls for a retractable roof, which we believe provides the best solution for the State, the team and our fans. Fans can enjoy football in the fall weather but can have protection from the winter elements later in the season. With a retractable roof, we will also have the ability to bring Major League Soccer to the Twin Cities since those games are played in open air, as well as other major national events.
Q: The Ramsey County agreement has the Vikings taking all the revenues from the other events? That doesn’t seem like a fair deal for the County or the State. – Chad, Minneapolis, MN
A: Thanks, Chad. We recently covered this question in a blog with Mike Wobschall, so I will use the answer from that post.
One of the criticisms of new stadiums around the country is that it’s not just the public covering a portion of debt service, but also covering a significant portion of operating expenses that could range from $14-18 million annually. That criticism does not apply with the Ramsey County-Vikings agreement. Similar to the Minnesota Twins-Hennepin County arrangement, the current partnership between Ramsey County and the Vikings calls for the team to operate the retractable-roof stadium, pay over 90% of the operating expenses, and receive the revenues from the year-round events to help offset those operating costs. While some believe the Vikings stand to gain more revenue from this arrangement, the reality is that the annual operating expenses ($14-18 million) of the facility are far greater than projected revenues from other events.
Q: Has the NFL announced what it will kick in toward a new stadium? – Chris, Mankato, MN
A: This is a good question, Chris, and one that we need to be very clear on answering. The League’s financial support toward a new stadium in Minnesota has already been factored into the Vikings $407 million commitment. It is not in addition to the team’s investment, but part of it. The NFL is the only professional sport that offers team’s finance support- not cash, but finance support – to help teams put together private financing for new stadiums. It is also subject to League approval and an ownership vote.
Q: Have any decisions been made on how to pay for the off-site road improvements? – Catherine, Bloomington, MN
A: Thanks, Catherine. We continue to work with the Minnesota Department of Transportation and legislative leaders on how to fund the additional off-site road costs. We were pleased to see the original estimates of $175-240 million come down to $131 million, and we appreciate Ramsey County, MnDOT and others for working hard on those numbers. We are working with finance consultants and State officials to identify creative finance solutions on transportation costs.
