[In these minutes: Stadium Survey Discussion]

STUDENT SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE (SSCC) MINUTES

DECEMBER 19, 2003

[These minutes reflect discussion and debate at a committee of the University of Minnesota Senate or Twin Cities Campus Assembly; none of the comments, conclusions, or actions reported in these minutes represent the views of, nor are they binding on, the Senate or Assembly, the Administration, or the Board of Regents.]

PRESENT: Dan Weiske, (chair), Joshua Colburn, Levi Kary, Scott LeBlanc, Charles Stech, Jeremy Steil, Adam VanWagner, Dan Weiske.

REGRETS: Sean Bell, Derek Brunsberg, Jeff Dahl, James Kanten, Ryan Osero,

GUESTS: Lynn Holleran, Brian Swanson.

1. STADIUM SURVEY DISCUSSION

Lynn Holleran, from the Chief of Staff’s Office, distributed the stadium feasibility study to the committee, noting that the study is just the first step in the process and no decisions have been made yet. The issue, however, does need to be addressed at this time.

In May 2002, a joint-use task force was formed to look at a shared stadium for the University and the Minnesota Vikings. In November 2002, the Vikings determined that an on-campus stadium would not meet their needs, and the University agreed. In August 2003, the Vikings and Minnesota Twins both announced their intentions to leave the Metrodome. With their departure, the only tenant would be the University, but it could not afford upkeep on the Metrodome. Therefore, a study was started to gather information on what is in the best interest of the University.

Brian Swanson stated that the University needs to consider where the Gophers will play in the long-term. If they remained at the Metrodome, it would cost $7-10 million per year without the Vikings. If the Gophers do not stay at the Metrodome, there are two options. First is an on-campus, Gophers-only stadium. The second is to continue to share a stadium with the Vikings, which might mean playing in venue, described as an entertainment complex, farther from campus than the Metrodome.

From the joint-use stadium study, the University decided what was appropriate for its need is a 50,000 seat, open air stadium that is close to, or on, campus at roughly the same height as other sports complexes. With the smaller stadium size, it would also be possible to reclaim lost parking through construction of new surface lots, rather than ramps. Surface lots would keep construction costs low and allow parking rates to stay the same.

Brain Swanson said that the proposed stadium would be an adaptable structure so that it can be used as much as possible. Most of the seating would be benches, but it would also have club seats, 35 regular suites, and a few larger suites. An event plaza would also be constructed outside, about the size of Northrop Mall, that would allow Oak Street to be closed on game days.

He said that the cost for a joint-use stadium would have been $598 million. For an on-campus stadium, the cost would be $180 million ($160 million for construction, labor, and materials; $20 million for soft costs of inflation and contingencies). Other construction costs include the cost for buying extra building sites, clean up of the ground, moving ground, and redistricting of transportation and utilities. The grand total would be $222 million.

Q: From the diagram, the stadium will be horseshoe-shaped. Why will the bowl not be complete?

A: The design allows for expansion of the bowl, by filling the missing section, if extra capacity is needed in the future. Some institutions use part of the stadium for athletics’ administration, but this is not needed here because of the Bierman Building.

Brian Swanson then said that the marching band would also be housed in the new stadium, with a separate entrance to its facilities.

Q: Will the stadium covering be Astroturf?

A: An artificial grass, called Astroplay, will be installed which will allow more groups to use the field, such as soccer. The surface will be easy to maintain and can even be snowplowed in the winter for use.

Lynn Holleran then stated that another reason for the feasibility study was to use it as a tool to secure funding. Six different funding streams are being proposed: private sources, legal settlement monies from the railroads for soil clean-up, stadium revenues estimated to be $3.5 million more per year than at the Metrodome, parking revenue, students, and state funds that would not be in competition with academics but might be offered if the Vikings and Twins also receive financial support.

Q: What was the cost for the study?

A: The feasibility study cost $45,000, which was paid from private funds and was much lower than expected because of good deals from companies that participated in the study.

Q: Would bonds be required for the stadium?

A: If the University incurs debt, 30 year bonds would be issued, but they could be paid back faster if more revenue is generated.

Q: What is the anticipated life of the stadium?

A: The structure would be built to last at least 100 years, and is flexible enough to adapt to changing needs.

Q: What assumptions were made when calculating the revenue stream from the stadium?

A: The only revenue counted was game day revenues from parking and ticket sales, including a one-time ticket increase of 10-12 percent.. The stadium could also generate other revenue through other uses, but that was not assumed in the planning since other events would likely be booked in facilities operated by the Twins or Vikings because of less hassle than dealing with University regulations. Student tickets prices would remain the same, with an increase solely for inflation.

Q: What would be the cost to start playing on-campus in 2008 and not in the Metrodome for the last three years of the contract?

A: The University would not have any penalties for leaving the Metrodome early, and the Vikings hope that the Legislature could negate all the contracts for the building if new complexes are built.

Q: Is there still a possibility for funding from Denny Sanford?

A: He is no longer a potential donor, but the University is pursuing many other options.

Q: Are there any costs not included in the plan?

A: One cost, not anticipated at the beginning, might be closing in the East side of the stadium at some point. In the current plan, it would remain open to the elements, and would be shutdown when not in use. If it is enclosed in the future, a connection to the campus steam pipe would be needed to provide heat.

Q: Is the site deemed hazardous?

A: There is a hazardous material at the site, kreasote, which was also found under Mariucci Arena. Clean-up was started by the former company, but not finished. Most material could be treated on site before removal.

Q: Does the site have an aquifer problem?

A: This would have been an issue with a joint-use stadium, but with the smaller size of the Gophers-only stadium, the structure will not enter the water table.

Q: What will the University do if the bids received are more than the anticipated construction price?

A: The University does not anticipate an overbid with the use of a construction manager and a hybrid of the design-build and design-bid-build models.

Q: Is the style, as seen in the plans, finalized?

A: No. The study just shows one idea, and enough to get a cost.

Q: Will coordinate campus students pay for the stadium?

A: No.

Lynn Holleran said that many students want tangible details, such as ticket sales and cost, but there is also value to intangibles. A University Relations study reports that over 50 percent of outside people contact the University through athletics.

Brian Swanson said that there is an advantage to getting football back on campus since it allows for an open house of the entire campus six times per year. Planning would be done to schedule other events before and after a game so that people take in more of campus than just athletics. An on-campus stadium would also be a connection for older donors who might not have been on campus in the past 20 years.

Q: What is the community reaction to the proposal?

A: The community is very supportive of the new proposal, and many concerns from the joint-use stadium are no longer an issue.

Brian Swanson said that the next step is to look into funding options and talk with students and their needs.

Lynn Holleran then stated that another consideration for the venue is recreational sports. Which could also use the facility, but it might require additional funding. There is also a Governor’s Steering Committee looking at the issue of stadiums for all three teams. The University did its own study so that it does not let someone else decide what is best for campus.

With no further business, Dan Weiske thanked all members for attending and adjourned the meeting.

Becky Hippert
University Senate