REP. KASTEN SPARS WITH STADIUM ISSUE

JEFFERSON CITY - Like many outstate legislators, Rep. Mary Kasten is struggling with a decision on whether to budget state funds to help construct a new stadium-convention center expansion in St. Louis.

On one hand, the Cape Girardeau Republican has seen data suggesting that an expansion of the center would generate tax revenue and jobs for the entire state. But on the other, Kasten said she realizes the state is in a serious financial crunch this year, forcing it to cut back on many services that the $5 million could be used for.

Last year, when the issue surfaced for the first time in the General Assembly, Kasten voted against providing funding for the stadium-convention center expansion.

The state would pay half the costs of bonds to construct the project from general revenue, while St. Louis city and county would provide the other half.

The House Appropriations Committee for General Administration removed the stadium funding from the budget two weeks ago, but last week the full budget committee of the House decided to put it back in. A showdown likely will occur on the floor later this week or early next week when representatives begin debate of the 12 bills that make up the state's $9 billion budget.

Kasten, on a voice vote, said she voted against putting the stadium funding back into the budget last week, but a majority supported returning it to the budget. When it came time to vote House Bill 5 out of committee, with the stadium funding included, 14 voted yes, 7 no, and four voted "present." Kasten was among the four.

Explaining her vote, Kasten said: "That means I could see some value in both sides. It would be an economic boon for that area and certainly the state of Missouri, but I also felt like there was a shortage of money in the state. I had a hard time bringing myself to vote for it."

She said, "The issue can be argued two ways, but I felt with the crunch we are seeing in state funds, I could not enthusiastically vote for it."

Further complicating Kasten's decision is that the General Assembly made a commitment last year to the project. That same legislation last year also provided funding for some convention and stadium improvements in Kansas City, and some of those improvements are already under way.

The same appropriations committee that voted to remove St. Louis from the bill also approved $2 million for the Bartle Hall Convention Center and $2 million for the Truman Sports Complex in Kansas City.

An effort will be made when HB-5 hits the floor to remove the St. Louis funding from the bill. Kasten said she is undecided how she will vote.

"I will have to face that when I get to it," she said. "The commitment is there already, unfortunately, and I would love to vote for something to get a postponement or more responsibility for the city and county to assume costs or more private investment."

Kasten said she could not predict at this point what the outcome of a House vote would be, but suggested it might be close. "I will say the outstate people are not enthused about it," she said.

Among those supporting the funding are House Speaker Bob Griffin and Gov. John Ashcroft.

Proponents of the funding point out that the maximum the state would ever pay in any year toward the project would be $12 million, while Missouri would receive new taxes of at least $17 million per year in 1995 dollars. The convention center-stadium expansion would provide 4,300 construction jobs and 6,400 permanent jobs.

Supporters also point out that the expansion would make the Cervantes Convention Center the seventh largest in the nation and would enable the state to attract many major events that would result in additional economic impact on the state and additional tax revenue.

Opponents of the funding disagree with spending taxpayers' money to fund a project in St. Louis. They contend economic projections are not sound and do not take into account major downturns in the economy that could occur, and that the state's share and length of commitment has continued to grow since the project was first discussed.

Two Southeast Missouri lawmakers said Monday they will vote against the funding if given the opportunity. Two others said they will continue to support it.

Rep. David Schwab, R-Jackson, called the stadium expenditure a waste of state tax dollars. "I don't plan on supporting it," he said. "I feel we have a lot more important priorities in state government than to get involved in financing that stadium project."

Rep. Larry Thomason, D-Kennett, was more reserved in his opposition. But he expressed irritation that the state's share of the cost seems to be escalating and that the amount lawmakers committed to earlier is much more than they were told at the time.

"A lot of misinformation was being bantered around when it was passed," said Thomason. "Under the current economic conditions of the state, my people would not support it, and I could not support it if they don't.

"I'm not saying St. Louis doesn't need it," he said. "They need it to be competitive for conventions and to be a world-class city, but this is just not the time to spend state funds to build something like that. You can't ask departments to cut back on programs that affect people's lives and then, at the same time, allocate funds to build sports stadiums in St. Louis."

Rep. Ollie Amick, D-Scott City, and Rep. Dennis Ziegenhorn, D-Sikeston, said they believe the information is clear that such an investment of state tax dollars would bring a major economic benefit to the entire state.

"I voted for it last year and, as of right now, I will vote for it again," said Amick. "With the information we have right now, I will probably vote for it."

Amick also said the funding would provide more than just a football stadium that might help attract an NFL franchise, but a convention center expansion.

"I could care less if they have a football team in St. Louis," Amick said. "But I think we've made a commitment to the project, and the figures I have seen bear out the fact that it would be good not only for the city of St. Louis but for the entire state."

Ziegenhorn said he has no hesitation to vote for the bill. He said making this kind of investment to get the kind of return that is projected is something the state should do every opportunity it has.

"It's an economic boon to St. Louis and the entire state," he said. "It just makes sense to be for it."

Schwab and Thomason said that when the funding was first discussed the possibility of having to pay on the bonds for as long as 30 years was not brought up. Thomason said the $5 million figure could grow to as much as $13 million over 30 years.

"The increased funding is what bothers me," said Schwab. "If we made a commitment, it was not to this extent."

Thomason said he would rather use the $5 million to promote economic development statewide and not just in the St. Louis area.

"If these were times when we had a lot of discretionary funds, I could be very much for it," he said. "But times just aren't that way right now. It could be a great thing, but there are a lot of great things we could be doing now if we had funds for it."