COMMISSIONERS DISAGREE OVER PROCEDURE TO ANNEX THE PORT

SCOTT CITY -- The Cape Girardeau and Scott County presiding commissioners have different views on whether annexation of the port authority by Scott City would first require approval by the county commissions.

They also differ about whether Scott City should be allowed to even attempt the annexation.

Officials in Scott City have discussed the possibility of annexing at least a part of the port authority, where Casino Magic, a riverboat gaming company, has an option to lease about 25 acres.

By annexing the part of the port where Casino Magic wants to develop a floating casino, the local option vote on whether to allow riverboat gambling could come only in the city rather than require approval of all Scott County voters.

Last November, county voters rejected gambling, while voters in Scott City precincts supported the measure.

Cape County Presiding Commissioner Gene Huckstep said he has serious reservations about having a gambling boat at the port and fears it will limit the port's potential to attract other types of industry. Huckstep also opposes annexation of the port authority by any city, be it Scott City or Cape Girardeau.

"We would just be handing them (Scott City) a huge sum of money on a platter," said Huckstep. "I have been opposed to annexation of the port by Scott City and the city of Cape Girardeau.

"I am not anti-Scott City, it is anti-annexation by any party. That is a separate entity down there on its own."

But Scott County Presiding Commissioner Durward Dover disagreed. "I have no problem with annexation," he said.

Huckstep said he has met with two of Cape County's port commissioners, Mysie Keen and Ray Buhs, to discuss possible annexation by Scott City.

"I did caution them about going too far without consulting the county commission, because they can't do it legally without my permission," Huckstep said. "I have gotten some legal opinions which make it clear that they could not allow the port to be annexed into any city without the permission of the two county commissions."

Again Dover disagreed. "I just don't think we would have any say in the annexation issue if the port and Scott City want to do it," he said.

Dover said he has not talked with Casino Magic officials since the November election, but has no objections if Scott City wants to submit the issue to its voters.

"Scott City is talking about going for it, and I have no problem at all with them doing it," he said. "It would be up to the people to go or not to go. We would not be involved in any way.

"The county would get a minimal benefit from it through the sales tax and property tax. I am told by people who have looked into it a little deeper that we could expect $30,000 to $40,000 a year in the two categories."

During the campaign last fall, officials of Casino Magic projected additional tax revenue for Scott County of $2 million, most of which would go to Scott City if the election were confined to that city.

Huckstep said Cape County would likely take legal action to prevent annexation of the port by Scott City.

The Southeast Missouri Regional Port Authority is jointly owned by Cape and Scott Counties and has land in both counties. The proposed site of the gambling vote is in Scott County.

The port is governed by a nine-member board of commissioners, appointed by the county commission.

Huckstep contends that the only way he would consider supporting riverboat gambling at the port is if most of the tax revenue generated from the boat went to the port authority for its development, rather than to a city or county government.

"I have a big hangup if the port were annexed by Scott City and they got all the fees," said Huckstep. "If they waived all fees back to the port authority, I might take a look at it."

Huckstep said he would, however, be willing to let the city or county recover from gaming tax revenues its costs related to the boat, such as costs from additional infrastructure and police protection.

"If this is the only method to get casino gambling in there and Scott City will get all the fees, I'm opposed to it," he said. "I could only support it if they can prove it is an outright necessity for development of the port.

"I don't agree that a casino gambling boat marries up to industrial development at the port. It may scare off more development than it helps attract. I think it will create some traffic problems and other problems that some industries don't want."

Huckstep said he has been concerned about having a gambling boat at the port and has seen nothing yet to change his mind.

"I have not seen any good, justifiable reason why casino gambling belongs in that port," said Huckstep.

Dan Overbey, executive director of the port authority, said he has not talked recently with officials of Casino Magic and is uncertain of their plans.

"I do know Scott City is talking about going for it, but I don't have any information on the status of it," said Overbey.

Dover said it is possible that riverboat gambling could be submitted again to voters on a countywide basis.

Last fall, the county commission voted to place it on the ballot, but Dover said the commission would likely want petitions from citizens requesting that it be placed on the ballot a second time.

"There was a considerable interest on each side and we felt like people should be given an opportunity to say yes or no," he said. "A majority said no. If it goes again, I think it would need to be requested with a petition."

Doug Whitehead, Missouri project coordinator for Casino Magic, said Tuesday that the proposed development with the port authority has been "real quiet," and nothing definite is planned.

The company's option to lease expires at the end of April, though several port commissioners have indicated the option could be extended if needed.