I was wondering if there was consideration to modifying HB3606 to make it more attractive financially to those Senators that are sitting on the fence, such as Bev Clarno and Kate Brown. This would of course be an alternative if it looked like it wasn't going to get out of committee in the bill's present state. The idea is to (a) reduce the amount of the funding from $150m to something like $100m and (b) vary the bond payments so that higher payments would be made toward the end of the term, when average salaries are undoubtedly much higher. The goal being to show these senators that by approving the bill, the State actually gets significant net revenue because the taxes on the players and executives would be higher than the bond payment. I believe the amount of local funding for the stadium would still be comparable to our competitors in Washington and NoVa.

Hey Mr. Ed,
Good suggestion/idea. There is the feeling that amendments to the bill might occur once in the Senate rules committee. What form those amendments take is uncertain at this time.

Both of these are outstanding and I will pass them along.

Good suggestions like this normally mean that there is more to add. I hope that you would consider registering in our forums so that we can more good things at this level.

Thanks,
Maury Brown
Information Director
Oregon Stadium Campaign

"PLAY BALL!"

Mr Ed,

Hey we need every person we can with this campaign. We are a lively bunch of misfits. I think anyone passionate about either politics and/or baseball fits in well. While I lean more toward the political side, it makes up for all the baseball junkies on the board. lol

David English
Graduate Student, Marylhurst University

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Ed:
I was wondering if there was consideration to modifying HB3606 to make it more attractive financially to those Senators that are sitting on the fence, such as Bev Clarno and Kate Brown. This would of course be an alternative if it looked like it wasn't going to get out of committee in the bill's present state. The idea is to (a) reduce the amount of the funding from $150m to something like $100m and (b) vary the bond payments so that higher payments would be made toward the end of the term, when average salaries are undoubtedly much higher. The goal being to show these senators that by approving the bill, the State actually gets significant net revenue because the taxes on the players and executives would be higher than the bond payment. I believe the amount of local funding for the stadium would still be comparable to our competitors in Washington and NoVa.

---

I like your first idea a lot in principle, but I would be nervous about bringing the bond level down too much because it might hurt the chances for PDX vs. DC/NoVa. It sounds like there is good chance that there will be an amendment concerning where the excess proceeds would go, since this wasn't clearly stated in the original bill. With that in mind, let me offer a twist to Mr. Ed's idea:

1. Set the bond level at $100 million.
2. Have the owner front the difference.
3. The first $50 million AFTER the bonds are paid off in full are returned to the owner (interest free, or perhaps with a nominal interest rate), thus giving the owner even more incentive to not be a cheapskate.
4. After the owner has been paid back, future tax revenue goes into the state's general fund (as with any other payroll taxes).

The second idea is interesting as well (graduated payments), but I'm not even sure if this is necessary in terms of an amendment... it does, however, speak to a clarification that might be needed in terms of having the owner cover any shortfalls (what is a shortfall? Is it when the semiannual interest cannot be paid (as most bonds work)? Is it when principal + interest cannot be paid? Is the principal fixed, or step, or are there no principal payments necessary until the bond is due?

TCL

I get the impression that a lot of the challenge in the Senate is dealing with perception. Joe Schmoe senator doesn't want to get burned at the stake by his constituents by spending time on this boondoggle baseball bill when we can't fund schools. If there's a way for that senator to be able to say that, yeah I supported the baseball bill not because Portland gets baseball or the metro area gets all the construction jobs, but the bill also adds $5m (or whatever) per year to the General Fund for the first five years (or whatever) that we wouldn't otherwise have. This may be the umbrella that senator needs to vote yes.