Nixon administration says it could take action on Rams stadium without legislative input
• By Alex Stuckey
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_3ab09064-9d43-58c1-a499-d5b10e0ebd60.html
JEFFERSON CITY • Gov. Jay Nixon could issue bonds for a new St. Louis Rams stadium without approval by the Legislature, members of his administration asserted Tuesday.
At a state House budget hearing, Doug Nelson, Office of Administration commissioner, said a law passed more than 20 years ago allows the Nixon administration to act to issue such bonds. The law states that Missouri or any agency or department of the state can enter into a contract, agreement or lease with, for example, the city and/or county.
"This is not an indication of what we're going to do," Nelson said. "This is an indication that we believe we have that authority."
Sen. Ryan Silvey, R-Kansas City, requested Attorney General Chris Koster's legal opinion Tuesday regarding if the law provides Nixon this authority without approval of the Legislature or Missouri voters.
Rams owner Stan Kroenke is reported to be working on a plan to build an 80,000-seat NFL stadium and 6,000-seat performance venue in the Los Angeles area. Rams management has since said they will stay in St. Louis next season. The original lease was set to expire in 2025.
This month, a two-member team appointed by Nixon revealed plans for a 64,000-seat, open-air stadium on the Mississippi River, just north of downtown St. Louis, in an effort to keep the St. Louis Rams in the city. The new stadium would cost nearly $1 billion, with as much as $405 million paid for by taxpayers.
The Legislature, so far, has not responded kindly to the notion of Nixon making a decision without them.
Rep. Jay Barnes, R-Jefferson, warned of litigation if the governor takes this step without running it through the Legislature.
"If the Nixon administration chooses to bind taxpayers for ... new debt without a vote of the people and their representatives in the General Assembly, those bonds should have an asterisk to say 'subject to litigation,' " he said Tuesday.
Scott Holste, Nixon's spokesman, did not say if the governor would take this avenue for issuing the bonds.
Senate Majority Leader Ron Richard disagreed with the idea that the executive branch could unilaterally extend the bonds.
"After reviewing it, I believe they need legislative authority to agree to that," said Richard, R-Joplin. "I don't believe they can do it on their own. I believe we should be part of that discussion and that approval process," he said.
That being said, he doubted that the overwhelmingly Republican Legislature would agree to take on more debt for a sports stadium.
"The sense of it is, right now, it's meeting on deaf ears," Richard said.
Richard said he wasn't sure how he would vote on a bond extension because many details remain hazy.
"It depends on what the owners are putting in," Richard said. "I've talked to Dave Peacock about it. I'm not sure (extending the bonds is) even what they're trying to do."
If Nixon goes ahead on his own, legislators would still hold sway over appropriations bills needed for the annual debt service payments on the bonds. And they might balk at paying the tab, Richard said, a move that could put the state's credit rating in jeopardy if the state were to default on the bonds.
House Speaker John Diehl, R-Town and Country, previously has said that public money to fund the new stadium would be "a pretty hard sell." He had no further comments Tuesday.
Democrats agreed that, practically speaking, the Legislature must be consulted.
"Issuing additional bonds without approval from voters or from the General Assembly is just not a realistic option," said Rep. Stephen Webber, D-Columbia and a member of the House Budget Committee.
"You cannot use a now-24-year-old bonding authority to add another $250-plus million that the state is obligated to pay off," Webber said. "It would be incredibly damaging for the state's bond rating, it would be incredibly damaging for the General Assembly's relationship with the entire St. Louis area. I think they would have a very difficult time passing an appropriations bill to pay off that bonding."
On Monday, senators had a similar reaction. After Nelson explained the situation to the Senate Appropriations Committee, Sen. Rob Schaaf, R-St. Joseph, filed a bill that would require legislative approval to extend any existing bonds for an additional obligation amount over $50 million.
"This is between the Legislature and the governor," Schaaf said. "For the governor to think he could put us in debt ...without the action of the Legislature is outrageous."
The bill is Senate Bill 319.
Virginia Young and David Hunn of the Post-Dispatch contributed to this report.
is a good idea or bad idea?
