Municipal League of King County

Takes no position on

King County Proposition 1 - Stadium Facilities Tax

1995 Primary Election Ballot

Summary
Proposition No. 1 calls for a special sales tax within King County of one-tenth of one-percent over 20 years to support up to $240.8 million worth of bonds for a retractable roof baseball stadium with natural turf; $70 million in bonds for Kingdome ceiling repairs; and $100 million in bonds for miscellaneous Kingdome capital improvements--provided that the Seattle Mariners sign a legally enforceable contract to play at least 20 seasons in the new stadium.

The Metropolitan King County Council ordinance creating the ballot proposal sets out various conditions designed to protect the County's interests against cost overruns; to limit the spending authority of a new Public Facilities District (PFD) that will operate the stadium; to ratify the Mariners' commitment to contribute $45 million toward stadium construction; and to share profits with the County.

The tax is estimated to cost $7.50 per person annually.

Arguments For
Proponents argue that absent progress on a new stadium, it is almost certain that the Mariners will leave Seattle. On the other hand, construction of a new baseball stadium will produce market conditions that will ensure the continued presence of the Mariners in Seattle and provide other benefits, as well. Retaining a viable Mariners team in Seattle will boost the regional economy. Baseball today provides 1,805 jobs and total economic activity annually of $115.5 million, according to an economic-impact study done for the Mariners. State and local governments will also benefit from higher tax revenues.

The presence of a major-league franchise adds to the quality of life that makes Seattle a special place. It brings national exposure and tourism, benefits many businesses in the area, and provides a venue to bring the community together. The colorful Pioneer Square district relies significantly on baseball activity for economic support. The stadium would include a natural grass field and a retractable "canopy" that would be open to the skies in good weather. Also planned are various amenities, such as a child-care play area, group picnic space, increased seating for people with disabilities, and a quality restaurant with a view of the field.

Marketing studies by the Mariners show that a new stadium here could attract as many or more fans as other major-league ballparks, including those in Denver, Baltimore, and Cleveland, where new facilities have tripled baseball attendance. The Mariners believe a new stadium here would produce average attendance of 36,000 per game, up 17,500 from this season's average.

The new baseball stadium represents a public-private partnership that includes a high level of private support. The Mariners would contribute $45 million toward the total construction cost of $250 to $300 million. They have also agreed to share operating profits and any capital gains from the future sale of the team to a new owner. The team is supported by local business people who have formed the Baseball Club of Seattle and have already invested over $165 million into attempts to keep a major league baseball team in Seattle.

Proponents note that sufficient safeguards are in place. Under the terms of a King County resolution, sales-tax revenues collected under the new, higher tax (which would be 8.3 percent, up from the current 8.2 percent) cannot exceed $240.8 million. Taxpayers would not be liable, county officials say, for any cost overruns.

Moreover, a positive vote is only the first step in a multi-step process toward developing a new stadium. The tax hike will not take effect until satisfactory specifics regarding the site, stadium design and management, and other terms are negotiated between the County, the Mariners, and a newly formed public facilities commission, and until a final lease agreement is signed. This means that pre-development costs would likely be borne by the Mariners.

In addition to helping finance a new Mariners stadium, revenue from the proposed sales-tax increase would be used to retire the roof-repair debt at the existing Kingdome of $70 million. Regardless of whether the tax increase passes, King County will have to retire the roof debt, possibly cutting such services as law enforcement to make up the difference.

A good deal of the $100 million earmarked in the sales-tax measure for Kingdome enhancements represents deferred capital spending for repairs and improvements that will be needed regardless of the building's future uses. Even without football and baseball, the Kingdome would continue as an important center for other kinds of entertainment, trade shows, and miscellaneous public events.

Finally, the cost to taxpayers is modest--only $7.50 per capita.

Arguments Against
Opponents argue that taxpayers should not subsidize wealthy owners and players in a private enterprise, particularly one that has lost hundreds of millions of dollars through 19 losing seasons. This is particularly true when the problems inherent in major league baseball as a whole--such as high salaries, erratic revenue, strikes, etc.--remain unsolved, and cannot be solved locally by building a new stadium.

We already have a functioning baseball stadium, albeit not the newest nor the best, but more than good enough to accommodate those who want to watch baseball. Local rainfall records show the costly "retractable" canopy sought for the new stadium is not necessary. Baltimore, for instance, has built an excellent open-air stadium for $131 million, while the Mariners want to spend more than twice that, in part because of roof expenses.

Furthermore, there are public needs of greater urgency and importance everywhere one looks. Critics say it is self-indulgent to spend millions on a new building without first meeting primary obligations such as education and health care.

Even with the advertised amenities, it is not realistic to expect that attendance in a new stadium could average 36,000 per game, which is the Mariners stated attendance goal, given that the team currently averages less than 19,000 per game. Nor is it likely that the team would achieve its break-even goal of about 30,000 attendees per game. Uncertainties about the financial stability of the Mariners is compounded since state and county legislators have so far displayed at best lukewarm support for baseball.

Despite the terms of the pact between the Mariners and King County that are intended to perpetuate the team's presence here, there is no way to truly guarantee that the Mariners will remain in Seattle if large losses continue. Nor is there any way to guarantee that the project won't run over budget or to oblige anyone other than the County to step in to complete a half-finished stadium. Critics foresee a worst-case scenario in which the region could wind up with not one, but two costly but empty stadiums.

Critics also say it is not appropriate that voters are being asked to raise taxes for a new stadium without knowing where it will be built; what it will look like; and how it will be administered. Site selection to date amounts mostly to speculation about possible use of publicly owned land north or south of the Kingdome, which is already being considered for other purposes. Even though the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) restricts the county's ability to determine a final site, the bottom line is that voters lack sufficient information to make a good decision. Similarly, there are no firm details on how the property is to be managed, and voters lack other important specifics about the project that are in part the result of a fast-paced, short planning process.

The rising expenses of admissions, parking, concessions, and other items already are driving the price of major-league baseball beyond the means of many families. The new smaller Mariners stadium will have a reduced number of less-expensive general-admission seating, which will be subsidized by more luxury suites. Hence, the overall outlook is for both higher taxes and overall higher ticket prices.

Proponents say one cannot have a "major league city" without a major league ballclub and that most communities would be eager to vote for a stadium subsidy. Yet stadium measures have been defeated three times each in San Francisco and Miami and rejected by voters in Santa Clara County, San Jose, and Oklahoma City.

Recommendation: NONE

Analysis
The Municipal League has compiled key arguments for and against the stadium facilities tax measure. We do not make a recommendation as to how we believe King County citizens should vote.

The League finds that there are equally compelling "good government" issues on both sides of the measure. The measure failed to command sufficient consensus among Board members to warrant a yes or no recommendation. The League concludes that voters should make their decisions on the measure based on their own personal priorities for how public funds should be expended for capital projects.