Milwaukee Area Legislators Propose Miller Park User Fees

[TwinsBrewersWorldSeries]

Looks like this could happen as early as 2010. Per the article, Miller Park's sales tax was expected to end in 2014. My question would be, doesn't the stadium district have a fund for continuous upgrades to the stadium so that costs can be split between the Brewers and the stadium district? In a economic depressed era, it makes sense to charge a user fee rather than raise (or extend) new taxes on the general public, but i'm wondering if this could become some sort of permanent fix to allow for continuous improvements to the stadium (curtains anyone?)

 

http://www.journaltimes.com/articles/2009/08/05/local_news/doc4a7a21a6ab282188755968.txt

 

Lehman pitches user fees to pay Miller Park debt

By Journal Times staff

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 7:20 PM CDT

MADISON - A Racine-area lawmaker is making his pitch for an alternative way to pay off the Miller Park construction debt.

Sen. John Lehman, D-Racine wants to charge user fees on tickets and parking to offset the sales tax, assessed to Racine County and four other southeastern Wisconsin counties, to pay for the Milwaukee ballpark's debt.

 

Lehman suggests tacking $1 on to the price of tickets and $1 per car and $3 per bus to park at the stadium. Lehman made the request in a letter to Racine County's two representatives to the Southeast Wisconsin Professional Baseball Park District board - Doug Stansil and Robert Henzl.

"The economic slowdown has, predictably, led to falling sales tax collection in the communities required to help pay for the stadium," Lehman said in his letter. "As a consequence the five-county stadium sales tax would need to continue beyond the projected 2014 termination date in the absence of any additional revenues."

 

Recent sales tax data from the state Department of Revenue showed the 0.1 percent stadium district sales tax collections in Racine, Milwaukee, Waukesha, Washington and Ozaukee counties in July 2009 were down nearly 14 percent compared to July 2008, according to Lehman. Year-to-date sales tax collections are approximately $1 million below projections, Lehman said in a release.

User fees could generate $3 million annually to help retire the stadium debt, according to estimates Lehman requested from the Legislative Fiscal Bureau. The stadium district could enact these surcharges under its current authority, according to the fiscal bureau.

[jeffy]

It is a lousy 0.1%, who cares if it has to continue beyond 2014. The amount of angst fronm some in the area over this tiny sales tax increment has always amazed me.

[owbc]

I don't think people realize that the current proposed sales tax increase is 500-1000% bigger than the stadium tax. You would think they would, but I'm starting to realize that many people can't do basic logic/math. In addition, there are people who absolutely oppose all tax increases no matter what and another group that hates baseball/sports and has always opposed the stadium.

[dlk9s]

It is a lousy 0.1%, who cares if it has to continue beyond 2014. The amount of angst fronm some in the area over this tiny sales tax increment has always amazed me.

I know. I remember when people were wetting their pants over it before the stadium was built. If someone were to spend $100,000 in a year, they'd pay a grand total of $100 in extra sales tax. OH NOES!

[twobrewers]

Highly unlikely.

 

It's way to easy to continue the status quo. Brewer fans would oppose an additional tax on game tickets and parking - thus losing votes. There isn't much a vocal minority that would push for the "user fee" instead of the sales tax.

[bani1717]

Just another reason not to park in the parking lots for games, with the obvious exception of tailgating events.

 

However, while it is a higher tax, it's hard for me to argue with charging the people who actually use it. I guess I'd rather see an increase in the sales tax on the tickets (a proportional increase that depends on the value of the ticket) than a flat $1 tax on all tickets though. If ticket prices rise this year AND they charge an extra $1 per ticket, it may not seem like much but that's a 40% increase on prices for the Terrace Ticket Treat. I wonder if the Uecker seats would then cost $2 if a $1 per ticket fee was leveled?

[ClubLevel]

I know when the Bradley Center started charging a $1/ticket facility fee several years back, the Bucks covered it for season ticket holders the first year or two. In the unlikely event this happens, it's possible the Brewers might take care of us season seatholders in a similar way.

[AJAY]

I don't know why the stadium always gets extra attention whenever tax revenues are below projections. The government pays for so many other things through tax revenues too. Shouldn't there be user fees for all those things as well?

 

I can't help but wonder whether those Racine legislators are just playing politics to please their local constituents who originally opposed being taxed for the ballpark. I am not crazy about taxing just the Brewers fans while knowing that all other users of government funded projects don't have to pay user fees as well . . . unless I am missing something.

[Invader3K]

"When you charge more for something, you generally sell less of it."

 

People just won't park in the parking lot anymore, or they'll go to less Brewers games. I hate extra fees and "hidden costs". As someone who already invests a good deal in Brewers tickets, and doesn't even live in the Milwaukee area, I hate this idea.

[homer]

The difference, Ajay, is that it is a tax funded building for a private for profit enterprise.

[jeffy]

The difference, Ajay, is that it is a tax funded building for a private for profit enterprise.

Philosophically I am opposed to taxpayer support of sports (and other businesses, as well). However, the unfortunate reality is that since everyone else does it, Milwaukee is stuck with doing this or there would be no team or it would be a perpetually non-competitive team.

 

It is ridiculous that this is the system, but it is. If every team had to pay for their facility and say it averaged $40 million per year to cover the cost, this could simply mean that player payrolls woud have to be lower. Instead of the 25 guys on the typical major league roster earning an average of, say, $3 million per year they'd somehow have to make do with $1.5 million.

[homer]

Jeffy,

I'm not going to get into the whole tax debate. All I did was respond to Ajay's suggestion that if other government services are not fee based then why should this one be. I pointed out the difference between the two.....that's all.

[joepepsi]

I would think every legislator outside of the 4 county area will oppose this. It's a tax increase for their constituents who, haven't paid a dime for Miller Park's construction.

[Godspeed]

Seriously, what's the big deal about the stadium surtax being left on indefinitely? Divert the money to somewhere else once the stadium debt is paid off to redistribute the burden on the budget. I will never understand how upset some people get over the fact that they have to pony up an extra penny in tax per $10 purchased. Is it that noticeable?

[Invader3K]

No, for some people it's just the principal of the thing.

 

I think they should leave the tax on and put it towards replacing the Bradley Center (ie. building a new facility for the Bucks). Of course, I don't live in the five county area...but I wouldn't care that much a bout that extra few cents on purchases.

[fondybrewfan]

Seems like these guys are just complaining just for the sake of complaining. There are a lot of other proposed tax increased that are far more than .1% so whats the big deal. It could be argued that more people are benefitting from this measly tax than they are from the increase in property taxes and the proposed tax increase for mass transit.

 

Yes the Brewers have benefitted from public financing but the public has also benefitted greatly from the tax as well. Not only because of the improved team which is at least partially due to the stadium but also increased jobs, community pride, among other things

[whizkid]

The government pays for so many other things through tax revenues too. Shouldn't there be user fees for all those things as well?

 

There are: state parks, zoo, domes, museum, airport, some boat launches, boat mooring. Lots. The opposition to the tax is based on the principle of the thing and it's easy for those not in the 5 county area to talk(not you Ajay). I do think any user fee should be a percentage of the ticket price though.

[Brewtacular]

If someone were to spend $100,000 in a year, they'd pay a grand total of $100 in extra sales tax.

$100 needed for a a stunningly inadequate educational system as opposed supplementing a desired entertainment option.

I love the crew but I prefer my taxes support other things than the business of sports.

[Tbadder]

I hate the idea of user fees. If my taxes go to someone in Green Bay for improvement of anything, but lets say for apples to apples comparison, improve Lambeau Field it doesn't matter to me that I would never use Lambeau or that I completely dislike pro football. My tax is a benefit to people in Green Bay. They are from Wisconsin. Wisconsin is my state and I'm loyal to it and all its people. If it benefits them, it benefits me even if I never set foot in the county.

[sgtcluels]

Seriously, what's the big deal about the stadium surtax being left on indefinitely? Divert the money to somewhere else once the stadium debt is paid off to redistribute the burden on the budget. I will never understand how upset some people get over the fact that they have to pony up an extra penny in tax per $10 purchased. Is it that noticeable?

That's not the point though. As stated above, it's publically financed building for a for profit industry. Yes it probably has a positive tax influence by bringing in more sales then not having the stadium but the tax was levied with a sunset of 2014, and as a dirty liberal hippie I want to ensure that the tax actually sunsets. I'm all for increased temporary taxation to help fund some projects, but it has to be just that.. temporary.

 

With my season ticket holder hat on, it's really going to stink to have to pay 384 more dollars next year on tickets alone, plus parking. A Dollar seems fairly high per ticket, if it could be reduced to something more reasonable, it wouldn't bother me as much. Perhaps a percentage of the sale with a max cap of 1 dollar. That way the % spent on a 5 dollar burnies isn't the same as a 75 dollar field level ticket.

[Invader3K]

It's not like the state doesn't already collect sales tax on all this stuff to begin with, either.

[RockCoCougars]

Maybe we should go back to the idea that people had in 1996, and just sell Racine to Illinois to pay off the stadium....

[jeffy]

$100 needed for a a stunningly inadequate educational system

 

I think the bigger problem is a large percentage of stunningly inadequate parents, a problem that will not be fixed by raising teacher salaries or throwing money at schools in other ways. Though, I am all for raises, since my wife is a teacher http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

 

I'd like to see the user fee concept applied to higher education. Let the UW system students, who are the primary benficiaries of the massive amount of tax revenue directed there, pay the full cost of their own educations (via loans, allowing them to pay this cost over the rest of their lives, would be fine).

 

Anyway, this whole thing from Lehman is probably just fodder for the masses, designed to bolster the guy's reelection campaign in Racine, where many will ever get over their outrage over the 0.1% and will vote for whoever demonstrates the most hate of the Brewers/Miller Park/0.1%.

 

I understand principles, but give me a break, we are talking about probably $20-50 per year for the average person/family...is there really nothing more significant in terms of government taxing/spending that people can find to be outraged over.

[whizkid]

Where do you live Jeffy?

 

I'd like to see the user fee concept applied to higher education. Let the UW system students, who are the primary benficiaries of the massive amount of tax revenue directed there, pay the full cost of their own educations (via loans, allowing them to pay this cost over the rest of their lives, would be fine).

 

You're getting way off topic but user fees don't generally cover the full cost. They don't for the zoo, museum, parks or whatever, there's also taxpayer funding. That's the way the UW system is now.

 

Edit: I'd rather see Beloit sold to Illinois

[jeffy]

user fees don't generally cover the full cost. They don't for the zoo, museum, parks or whatever, there's also taxpayer funding.

 

yes, and I assume there has also been taxpayer funding related to the Packers and Bucks...but it is only the Brewers and Miller Park that seem to generate the level of outrage that they do.

 

I live in Waukesha County