by T.W. Budig
ECM Capitol reporter

House Tax Committee Chairwoman Ann Lenczewski, DFL-Bloomington, foresees the legislation facing hurdles.

And she's not about to lend a helping hand.

"I don't support it," said Lenczewski of Mall of America (MOA) expansion tax legislation.

The House Tax Committee today (April 22) spent more than five hours grinding through Rep. Michael Nelson, DFL-Brooklyn Park, MOA legislation.

Rep. Michael Nelson, DFL-Brooklyn P:ark, second from left, listens during the extensive testimony on his bill.

"To me it's all about jobs," said Nelson of his bill, which filled the committee room with red-shirted union officials and members appearing in support.

Critical to future of MOA

Passage of the legislation is critical to the future of the $2.1 billion, 5.6 million square foot expansion of mixed-use space proposed north of the existing mall, argue MOA officials.

"It's not about charging for parking," said MOA legal representative William Griffith, testifying before the tax committee.

"It's about getting the (private) investment," said Griffith, arguing that the tax provision in the bill - one being a fiscal disparities exemption critics argue will have some cities helping to pay for the mall expansion through loss of disparity dollars - will leverage private investment covering 83 percent of the project cost.

"We're here to build on an asset, expand that asset that's been good to the State of Minnesota," said Griffith.

But not all of the House Tax Committee members were as glowing.

Rep. Sandy Wollschlager, DFL-Cannon Falls, spoke of walking through downtowns in her House district and seeing vacant stores.

Sure, you can blame it on Wal-Mart, she said. "But you can blame it on the Mall of America," said Wollschlager.

Rep. Paul Marquart, DFL-Dilworth, questioned MOA officials about proposed bonding included in the expansion financing.

Part of bonding package

Tony Armlin, a consultant for the mall, explained that about $200 million in revenue bonding backed by the state is part of the financing package.

A variety of funding mechanisms would pay debt service on the bonds - the revenue stream will be sufficient, he opined.

But Lenczewski viewed the bonding as an example counter to the claims of supporters that the state will have no financial involvement.

"There absolutely is involvement," she said.

Debate also occurred on the 8,000 additional parking spaces proposed for the south side of the mall.

The mall, explained Griffith, is absolutely opposed to requiring visitors to pay for parking as a means of raising revenue for expansion.

House Tax Committee Chairwoman Ann Lenczewski, DFL-Bloomington, enjoys a lighter moment during a five-hour tax committee hearing on Tuesday (April 22) on Mall of America legislation. Lenczewski opposes the bill.

MOA officials noted that the parking facility will actually be owned the City of Bloomington, not mall owners.

But Marquart opined though the mall may not own the parking facility, it's the greatest beneficiary of it. "It is part of private enterprise in my mind," he said.

Nelson's bill diverts the fiscal disparities attributable to the expansion of the mall to help pay for the parking ramp.

City-wide lodging tax

In order to get this, the City of Bloomington must impose a city-wide lodging tax as high as one percent.

Additionally, Bloomington would be authorized to impose a sales tax, admissions and recreation tax, and food and beverage tax within two MOA tax districts.

It would be a safe deal for the taxpayers, Lenczewski argued, if the MOA had proposed a less robust expansion.

MOA saw otherwise.

"I would say,