Proposal reduces public notice of state construction projects

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- Tucked in the middle of more wide-ranging and contentious recommendations to revamp state government is a suggestion to change the way government entities provide public notice of their construction projects.

The proposal, endorsed last week by Gov. Matt Blunt's Government Review Commission, would quadruple the cost threshold required for a construction project to be publicly advertised. It also would delete an existing requirement that the project be advertised in the state's largest newspapers.

The commission, charged with finding ways to save the state money, concluded that the state's current advertising requirements are adding to the cost of government construction.

But a media lobbyist says commissioners forgot an important benefit: the public's ability to know what their government is doing.

At issue is a law last updated in 1995 that requires state construction projects costing at least $25,000 to be advertised in a newspaper in the county where the project is located. The law also requires they be advertised in two newspapers in the state that have a daily circulation of at least 50,000.

Just three newspapers meet that second threshold -- the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, The Kansas City Star and the Springfield News-Leader.

The result of the law is that Missouri State University in Springfield must publish a bid notice for a construction project in its hometown newspaper and in St. Louis and Kansas City. The same would hold true for any project planned in any small town.

Fred Marty, the associate vice president for administrative services at Missouri State University, contends the public advertising requirements merely add costs to projects without resulting in lower bids. That's because most bidders for construction projects are local.

While testifying before the Government Review Commission in July, Marty said the university received 48 bids on 20 advertised construction projects during the past year -- just five of which were generated from $55,000 worth of advertising in Kansas City and St. Louis. But none of those five bidders ultimately were the lowest.

Marty's suggestion to drop the urban advertising requirement and raise the project threshold to $100,000 was adopted by commissioners Thursday night by a voice vote with no audible opposition.

Among those voting for the proposal was commission member Gary Rust, chairman of the media company Rust Communications, which owns numerous newspapers in Missouri and elsewhere. Rust, who also served as a Republican legislator in the 1970s, said the proposal deserves debate by current legislators.

"If there's any extra expense with no benefit, I'd eliminate that expense in my business," Rust said. "I'd expect anyone would want that expense eliminated."

Another media member on the commission -- Dalton Wright, owner and president of the Lebanon Daily Record -- said he did not vote on the proposal. Wright acknowledged conflicting emotions -- lost money for newspapers and less information for the public balanced by cost savings for taxpayers.

The Missouri Press Association plans to fight the proposal in the Legislature, said Doug Crews, the group's executive director.

He said just 10 states have construction advertising thresholds greater than $90,000 whereas 35 states have thresholds below $50,000. A few states require all construction projects to be advertised in newspapers -- no matter the cost.

A $100,000 threshold appears excessively high, Crews said, and creates "the opportunity for sweetheart deals" for companies favored by certain public officials.

But Crews also contends that those trying to save taxpayer money by relaxing the advertising requirements are forgetting a less tangible benefit of the expense.

"Public notices aren't just about getting more bidders," Crews said. "It's also about advising the public about what projects are out there and how their tax dollars are being spent."

That poses an interesting question to Missouri taxpayers: Do they want their government to spend more of their money so that they better know how that money is being spent?

Blunt's government review commissioners have suggested that the answer is "no." But their answer is only a recommendation. The final answer remains to be seen.

---

EDITOR'S NOTE: Capitol Correspondent David A. Lieb covers Missouri government and politics for The Associated Press.