LEGAL WRANGLING THREATENS RIVER CAMPUS PLANS

Last week, the Southeast Missouri State University Board of Regents signed contracts related to the development of the River Campus project, even though all the funding isn't in place..

The $37 million redevelopment of the former St. Vincent's Seminary is to be funded through $16.55 million already allocated from the state, $10 million being sought in donations and $8.9 million from a city hotel and motel tax. The university plans to sell bonds through a state agency and retire them with the city tax revenue.

Southeast President Ken Dobbins makes a good case for why the regents needed to act before all the money is available. For example, the university wants to position itself to move quickly as soon as all the funding questions are answered. And the university's regents thought it was prudent to indicate to potential providers of architectural and engineering services that the River Campus project is still a top priority.

Anyone who isn't intimately familiar with delays in the River Campus project might view these contracts as disregard on the university's part of the still-to-be-settled lawsuit that has held up the city's portion of the project's funding for nearly two years.

In November 1998, city voters approved an increase in the hotel/motel tax and extension of the restaurant tax but did not approve the accompanying bond issue. Prior to the election, River Campus supporters said both measures needed approval.

The thinking at the time was either both measures would fail or the tax would fail but the bonds would pass and, without tax revenue, there would be no need for bonds. The outcome of the election took nearly everyone by surprise. The university looked for another option and found one. The project was back on track.

However, a lawsuit by developer Jim Drury questioned the legality of the setup. Revenue raised by the tax is being held in escrow. Madison County Circuit Judge Robert Stillwell is expected to rule on the case by mid-September. However, whichever side loses plans to appeal.

Dobbins said the signed contracts are needed to keep the firms involved in the project on board. However, there is an agreement that all deals are off if all the money isn't in place within 90 days.

In the most optimistic circumstances, meeting that deadline falls within the realm of possibility. However, that would require an appeals court to act on the case quickly with a ruling in Southeast's favor and no further appeal by either side. As Southeast officials should know, courts move at no one's pace but their own.