Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SATURDAY, February 12, 1994 TAG: 9402120070
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: A-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: GREG SCHNEIDER STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: RICHMOND LENGTH: Medium
Disney executives clearly were unhappy with the action of the Finance Committee, and implied that such a requirement could scuttle the $650 million Disney's America history park.
In the House of Delegates, meanwhile, a committee was meeting Friday night to discuss making Disney underwrite $43 million in road improvements near the park. The state would repay the company's investment gradually.
"We're confident that . . . when all the acts are played, we'll have a partnership we can live with," said Mark Pacala, general manager of Disney's America.
Pacala told the Senate committee that Disney could not live with either a $1 "head tax" or with the idea of giving the state money every year. The Senate committee wants the payment to cover half the yearly interest on borrowing more than $140 million to improve roads near the park. Estimated yearly interest payments are $11 million.
If Virginia had required an admissions tax before Disney settled on where to build the park, Pacala said, the project would have gone elsewhere.
Virginia "would not have met our criteria," Pacala said. "We have never gone to a state with an admission tax. . . . We are deeply concerned because it would set a precedent far beyond Virginia for us."
Disney's revulsion at the head tax led the senators to offer the second option of a corporate donation. That didn't satisfy Pacala, who insisted that Disney already is covering the state's investment by generating an estimated $47 million in annual tax revenues. Besides, Pacala said, the roads in question are public and should be paid for with public money.
Several senators questioned Pacala's reference to the arrangement as a "public-private partnership." Sen. Joseph Gartlan Jr., D-Fairfax County, said that a partnership means sharing profits and management decisions, something Disney is not doing.
"The word partnership is [meant] more metaphorically than it is legally," Pacala said.
"That's precisely the point," Gartlan snapped. "It's more like marketing, a warm and fuzzy notion that we're all in this together. But we're not."
It was some of the harshest rhetoric Disney has faced from the state legislature. Committee Chairman Hunter Andrews, D-Hampton, tried to reassure Pacala that the senators were just looking out for their constituents and that the process has a long way to go.
"Don't get too carried away," Andrews cautioned. "This is Act I, you know. We, too, look forward to working with you to the . . . responsible resolution of this matter."
The staff of Gov. George Allen, who increasingly is staking the prestige of his administration on signing Disney, chose to emphasize Andrews' words over the committee's actions.
"I think it's good. It means there's a tremendous amount of support for bringing the Disney project here," said Jay Timmons, Allen's chief of staff. "It's just a matter of settling on what route to get them here."
That route could be long and winding. The House committee was discussing further proposals, including decreasing the state's share from $140 million to $80 million. Disney would finance another $43 million in road improvements, but that would be paid back by the state for as long as the park stays in business, up to 20 years.
Keywords:
GENERAL ASSEMBLY 1994
by CNB