(Ballpark Renderings -- Page 2)

The Twins' preliminary plans call for a 42,000-seat baseball-only ballpark with a retractable roof similar to the one currently used at Safeco Field, where the field and bleachers are covered but not enclosed. With a cost between $430 million and $450 million, the new ballpark would introduce the joys of outdoor MLB baseball played on real grass to Twin Citians -- a site not seen in Minneapolis-St. Paul since 1981 with the closing of Metropolitan Stadium.

Because both Minneapolis and St. Paul are fighting for a downtown ballpark, the drawing presented by the Twins and HOK SPort+ are agnostic as to their settings, although the drawings assume a Minneapolis location in the city's Rapid Park site on the edge of downtown and a St. Paul location next to Xcel Energy Center, also designed by HOK Sport+. It is Xcel Energy Center, the home of the NHL's Minnesota Wild, that was cited as an inspiration for the new Twins' ballpark -- not necessary in terms of design (although the use of abundant glass is a design point both for Xcel and the ballpark), but in terms of customer service.

"Just like Xcel Energy Center is a hockey fan's dream, this ballpark will be a baseball fan's dream," Twins President Dave St. Peter said.

Insiders say there are really only three sites under serious consideration despite noises made by some suburbs (i.e., Eden Prairie and Burnsville) to propose ballpark sites. In Minneapolis, the leading site is the Rapid Park parcel located northwest of Target Center, while St. Paul is offering up two sites: one directly across West Seventh Street from Xcel Energy Center (which may not be a large enough parcel for a ballpark unless you start relocating existing businesses and nonprofits) and the Gillette Company site in Lowertown, next to the St. Paul Farmers' Market. Because both St. Paul sites will require business relocations, building demolitions and new parking facilities, the infrastructure costs are considered to be much higher in St. Paul than in Minneapolis.

Both downtowns feature a number of buildings and skyscrapers employing a light-colored limestone exterior, so it's logical that exterior of the ballpark also feature the same natural limestone exterior. The ballpark would also feature a two restaurants occupying 15,000 square feet, a Twins Hall of Fame, 12,000 square feet for retail space, 10,000 square feet for a conference center, private suites, a club level and interactive zones for kids. The interior concourses -- where many fans will undoubtedly huddle up on a cold April night -- will be heated, wider than normal (40 feet wide, to be exact) and feature 34 concession stands and 215 points of sale. The current plan calls for 60 private suites, 12 party suites, 4,000 club seats, a 200-seat picnic area and 100-seat field-level party suite. Only 12,000 of the seats would be in the ballpark's upper deck, a move designed to create a more intimate atmosphere. This will certainly be an urban ballpark, with the Twins calling for 800 spaces at the ballpark for premium-ticket customers and proximity to 13,000 parking spaces and transit for 3,000 fans -- a plan that would seem to benefit the Minneapolis site, as there are many larger parking ramps within a short distance of the proposed ballpark site.

While the Twins did not unveil any funding specifics, there was general discussion of a ticket sales tax and possibly a bar and restaurant sales tax in the host city or county. (This was the original funding mechanism for the Metrodome.)

In what is more potentially significant news, the Twins announced that owner Carl Pohlad was giving up efforts to sell the team and will instead focus on developing the new ballpark. This is not a surprise: some potential buyers have complained privately that Pohlad was never serious about selling the team and refused to set any firm guidelines for a sale. However, Twins officials told the committee that they are not interested in making a front-end financial contribution to the new ballpark and would instead prefer to make a contribution over time. For instance, most financial assumptions of building the new ballpark assumed a Twins contribution of $120 million. Instead of paying that money upfront in a lump sum, the Twins would prefer to include it as part of their yearly rent or see some other entity -- like the city hosting the ballpark -- front the money. There is some precedent for this kind of plan, as it's very similar to how the Minnesota Wild was treated when setting up its financial contributions to Xcel Energy Center.

Precedent or not, this is a proposal the Twins should not have made: people distrust Carl Pohlad's financial maneuverings (thanks mainly to his own actions, most notably when he said he could "contribute" money to a new ballpark when he was instead proposing a loan that would be repaid with interest). In addition, there are some bad feelings at the Minnesota Legislature and the DFL Party over the way the Xcel Energy Center lease was constructed; many feel it was a sweetheart deal for the team that has financially hamstrung St. Paul's finances over the next decade. In their defense, the Twins say such an arrangement would help them out in terms of revenue-sharing rules set up by MLB: if the Twins have higher yearly expenditures for things like rent, they would then qualify for more funds under revenue sharing. The Twins need to keep the ballpark financing as simple as possible if they want to maintain support for a ballpark, and if revenue sharing is indeed a huge deal for the team, they need to make this the main message in their proposal -- despite the fact there might be a few MLB owners already against revenue sharing (i.e., George Steinbrenner) who would more than likely raise a fuss.

Speaking of support: the Twins are also arguing against any public referendums regarding the ballpark. At first glance, this seems unpatriotic: people who are paying for the ballpark should have a voice in the project, right? But when you put some thought into it -- a trait certainly not exemplified by the Pioneer Press's Joe Soucheray -- a referendum may end up being unworkable. No matter where the ballpark is located, local taxpayers will not be on the hook for the majority of the ballpark costs. County governments will need to be involved in some manner, albeit to a greater degree in Minneapolis. Should the referendum go before every taxpayer in Hennepin County regarding a new downtown Minneapolis ballpark, even there are no direct cash outlays or tax raises to fund a ballpark? Of course not. Similarly, since state money will undoubtedly be used in some manner to fund the ballpark, should there be a statewide referendum? Of course not. There certainly should be a referendum of those affected if property taxes are raised or new taxes enacted to pay for a ballpark, but holding a general referendum on the merits of the project is not a good idea.

Posted January 7, 2004