ShareThis Page
Penguins

Tax dollars keep Pens off thin ice

| Sunday, Sept. 9, 2007

Taxpayers already have paid $19.7 million for a new hockey arena that wasn't supposed to cost them a dime.

In March, Gov. Ed Rendell and local politicians said revenue from slots would cover the public's expenses to build a new Uptown arena for the Pittsburgh Penguins. Slots money also would repay a multi-million dollar state loan the city-county Sports & Exhibition Authority needed to prepare the site.

But the so-called loan has turned into a grant -- a $19.7 million gift to the Sports & Exhibition Authority courtesy of state taxpayers.

A spokesman for Rendell said the $290 million arena project will be financed exactly the way officials said it would be in March -- with a $290 million bond issue to finance construction -- to be repaid by the Pens and with revenues from casino gambling

"However, the site had to be acquired prior to the completion of negotiations with the Penguins and demolition of the old arena, and site preparation for the new one had to proceed, so the Commonwealth stepped in to help," said Rendell's press spokesman Chuck Ardo.

Public records show Rendell signed off on a $9.2 million grant to the sports authority Oct. 16, 2006, months before officials were sure the Penguins would stay in Pittsburgh.

The ink was barely dry on the agreement to keep them in town with a new arena when the Rendell administration approved another $10.5 million in taxpayer largess, record show.

Frank Gamrat of Allegheny Institute for Public Policy said that raises questions about state priorities.

"Every dollar of tax money spent on the Pens can't be spent on other needs like roads and bridges," he said.

"It always seems that this administration is not completely forthcoming with the details behind transactions," said state Rep. Mike Turzai, R-McCandless. "The citizens deserve full disclosure. With this administration it never seems to matter what pot of taxpayer dollars is used."

SEA executive director Mary Conturo said such grants are the state's mechanism for financing projects such as the preliminary work on the arena.

To date, the authority has spent $15.8 million. Authority records show the state grants largely went to buy land, remove asbestos and relocate former landowners.

The SEA received the grant without putting up a dime, even though that's a requirement for funding from the Redevelopment Assistance Capital budget, commonly known as R-CAP. The guidelines require the grant recipient to come with an equal amount of money.

Instead of dollars, the SEA offered the land around the Mellon Arena as its "match." A recent appraisal valued the arena parking lots alone at about $50 million.

With the latest round of spending, the full price tag for the new arena should come to at least $306 million if the facility comes within the $290 construction budget.

The deal calls for the state and the team owners to split any construction overruns up to $20 million. Rendell has said the state could tap the R-CAP fund to cover such costs.

The state finances R-CAP grants by issuing 20-year bonds. The legislature sets the debt limit on the bonds and the governor doles out the cash.

Legislators vie for R-CAP grants in a multi-billion dollar wish list known as the Capital Budget bill.

In 2002 the capital budget bill included three line items totalling $135 million for a new arena in Pittsburgh. An administration spokeswoman said Rendell tapped the 5-year-old bill for authority to release the $19.7 million.

While supporters tout R-CAP as an engine for economic development, critics call it political pork.

Rendell handed out more than a half billion dollars in R-CAP grants last year when he was running for re-election. In the first six months of 2007, he disbursed $63 million.

The $10.5 million arena grant was the largest one released the first half of 2007.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me