Ellerbe Becket

A sketch of the proposed downtown Minneapolis stadium.

It's expected that final legislation authorizing a new $1.2 billion Vikings stadium in Arden Hills will exempt the project from a state law that requires the Metropolitan Council to review major projects of "metropolitan significance."

The 1975 law says that the council "shall review all matters of metropolitan significance" in order to "promote the orderly and economic development, public and private, of the metropolitan region."
 
In plainer terms, the statute aims to protect taxpayers from big projects that would impose unnecessary new infrastructure costs. It's meant to deter the shifting of large shopping areas, office complexes, stadiums or other big enterprises from one part of the metro to another, and then charging the public for new roads, sewers and transit service that wouldn't have been needed without the shift.

Contrast to the Dome
On several occasions past legislatures have granted exemptions, but never when the contrast between competing locations has been so sharp as between the Arden Hills site and the site of the current Metrodome.

Moving the Vikings from the Dome to Arden Hills, as the Vikings and Ramsey County propose, would cost the state between $175 million and $240 million for roadway expansion, according to MnDOT, as well as and an undisclosed amount for wastewater and other utilities that already exist at the Dome location.

The value of transit also affects the equation. The Arden Hills site has none. But two light rail lines pass alongside the Dome site and also provide connection to commuter rail. It seems especially ironic that Ramsey County would invest more than $67 million in the $957 million Central Corridor LRT project and then promote a major stadium complex that's not on the line.

Reasons for review
That the county and team expect to seek an exemption from Met Council review raises suspicions that the project may not pass council scrutiny.

The law states that Council Chair Susan Haigh could decide to review the stadium if she thought it might:

• Have a negative impact on metro systems (transportation, wastewater, etc.).

• Threaten another publicly owned facility (the Metrodome site, for example).

• Or significantly harm another metro city.

The law says that a review must be completed within 12 months, during which time construction could be suspended. While a metro significance review cannot technically stop a project, it can produce a delay that's intended as a deterrent to a project that doesn't appear to stack up. It can also recommend changes in a project that could affect its cost and benefit.

Governor has doubts
Gov. Mark Dayton said last week that the project might be good for the Vikings but might not fulfill his "peoples' stadium" criteria. "I could see why that would be appealing to the Vikings," he said. "I don't know why Ramsey County agreed to it."

Met Council Chair Haigh, asked last week whether she would invoke a metropolitan significance review if given the chance, said she'd rather not tip her hand. "We've not seen specific legislation, so it would premature to comment on what we would do," she said.

Last January, in response to a hypothetical Vikings stadium question, Haigh said: "My sense is that wherever a new stadium might be located, it should maximize the current transportation investment because that's the way it can be most cost effective."

Steve Elkins, chair of the Met Council's transportation committee, said that, aside from "metropolitan significance," there are other decisions that the council and its advisory committees might be required to make, especially if federal transportation funds are involved. The council is the state's official "agent" for federal transportation money spent in the metro region.

Target Field in opposite, not similar
Only four times in 30 years have regional projects come under "metro significance" reviews: The Renaissance Festival in Lakeville (1981), the Mall of America in Bloomington (1985), Target Center in Minneapolis (1987) and the Black Dog Amphitheater in Burnsville (2000). Exempted projects included the Metrodome, Xcel Energy Center, Canterbury Park, Target Field and TCF Bank Stadium.

The Target Field example is especially prescient to the Vikings case not because the ballpark is so similar to the Vikings proposal but because it is so different.

Perhaps Target Field's greatest innovation was its use of existing infrastructure. The Twins were interested in capitalizing on public investments already made in roadways, parking ramps, a bike trail, a bus station and rail transit. In contrast, the Vikings want the public to pay extra for roads that wouldn't need to be expanded but for the stadium project. Plus, there's a competing proposal — the Metrodome site — that requires no extra state transportation money.