 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
| A good question: |
| Considering citizen-taxpayers
want “public” stadium funding minimized,
why are the Twins being asked to build their new ballpark
on a site that offers “little if any” parking
revenues for stadium funding and no development rights
for "private" stadium funding? |
| |
| Another good question: |
| Citizens have
clearly said "user fees" are an acceptable
way to help “privately” fund stadium projects,
why has Hennepin County come up with a funding method
that does not permit the use of any revenue streams
related to the new ballpark for ballpark funding? |
|
| |
| |
| |
|
 |
 |
|
|
 |
| Our proposal
is based on two assumptions: |
| The
Twins & Vikings both need new retractable-roof
stadiums and the U of Minnesota needs an open-air
stadium on campus |
| Private
funding for all three stadiums should be maximized
and public funding minimized |
|
|
|
While
we state the construction cost savings associated
with building side-by-side,
retractable-roof stadiums for the Twins & Vikings will save over $100
million in our proposal,
the cost savings will actually exceed $200 million for the following reasons: |
| • Shared retractable-roof (over
$50 million in cost savings) |
| • Shared heating & cooling systems |
| • Shared land & infrastructure (should save
over $50 million) |
| • Shared site prep, excavation, and foundation
work |
| • Numerous shared systems and amenities |
| • Larger and more economic purchasing volumes |
| • No need for extra stadium lengths for retractable-roof "parking" |
| • Architectural, engineering, speciality design
services, and bid process savings should exceed
$15 million |
|
|
 |
| “Gap
funding ” which is a public investment in appreciating
team franchises and “ split legislation ” which
protects the best interests of team owners and the general
public are two new business methods we have patents pending
on, along with our cost saving design ideas. |
| The conditions
of “gap funding” and the time “split
legislation” give owners to study ways to reduce
construction costs and maximize private funding, should
keep the team owners' "gap funding" requests
(over and above land, infrastructure, and tax relief) to
a bare minimum. |
| The “ sports
mall ” between the stadiums, will most likely
be publicly owned, along with the land the TwinDomes complex
sits on. By capturing before and after game spending by
fans, and non-game day spending by the complex's other
patrons in its dining, retail, and other entertainment
establishments, the “sports mall” will fund
the maintenance and operating expenses for the entire complex
. The present value of M&O expenses over 30 years should
exceed $150 million. |
| This arrangement
frees up naming rights and seat license revenues for private
stadium funding and it will increase the NFL’s G-3
stadium contribution. |
|
| |
| If you
need more information, please download and read our TwinDomes
stadia proposal. |
|
|
