The St. Louis Convention & Visitors Commission (CVC) just released its proposal (estimated price tag: $124 million, with the St. Louis Rams football team paying $64 million) on how it will transform the Edward Jones Dome into a “first-tier” stadium. If it fails to reach an agreement with the St. Louis Rams, the Rams will have the option to break their lease with the city and relocate.

For those who may be wondering what exactly “first-tier” means, the Edward Jones Dome must be in the top 25 percent of all NFL facilities regarding some established criteria, such as: Fan amenities (box suites, club seats, lounges, etc.), technical areas (scoreboards, lighting, sound, etc.), and revenue-generating facilities (shops and concession stands). Considering that stadiums qualifying as top-tier include the newly-built Cowboys Stadium (price tag: $1.2 billion, with the Dallas Cowboys football team paying $875 million) and MetLife Stadium (price tag: $1.6 billion), the Edward Jones Dome has a long way to go to qualify. In fact, according to Patrick Rishe of Webster University, the cost of upgrading the Dome to “first-tier” status would be, at a minimum, $200 million-300 million (the cost of construction for the Edward Jones Dome was $280,000,000 in 1992 dollars). That is significantly more than the estimated $124 million in the CVC’s proposal.

Thus, officials for Saint Louis City, Saint Louis County, and Missouri have a decision on whether to pay up or face the prospect of the Rams leaving Saint Louis. I would urge the city, county, and state to forgo the use of any public money for upgrades to the Dome for several reasons. The first reason is on principle; the Rams are privately-owned and yet want public money for one of their facilities. If the Rams want a first-tier stadium, they should make a first-tier investment (and put a first-rate team on the field).

Second, even if city, county, and state officials wanted to pay for the upgrades, where are they going to get the money? The state is not exactly awash in cash, and the situation in the county is not much better. Both Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon and the state legislature have ruled out tax increases to help close the budget gap and I highly doubt they will go back on that in order to keep the Rams in Saint Louis. The city, county, and state could issue bonds (the state, at least, has a great credit rating), but they are still paying off ($12 million for the state and $6 million each for the city and county every year until 2021) the bonds issued to build the Edward Jones Dome. Does it make sense for the city, county, and/or state to go further into debt to keep the Rams in Saint Louis for another 10 years? Besides, when Kansas City and Jackson County helped fund renovations to Arrowhead Stadium, Jackson County struggled to keep up with the debt payments. Why put Saint Louis City and/or Saint Louis County in that kind of risky position?

Finally, even if the city, state, and/or county had the money, the use of public funds for sports stadiums does not generate much economic activity. According to a St. Louis Federal Reserve publication, the weight of economic evidence shows that the taxpayers do not get much of a return on their investment. In fact, the Federal Reserve study referred to another study:

Baade found that of the 30 metro areas where the stadium or arena was built or refurbished in the previous 10 years, only three areas showed a significant relationship between the presence of a stadium and real per-capita personal income growth. And in all three cases—St. Louis, San Francisco/Oakland and Washington, D.C.—the relationship was negative.

Considering these reasons, what justification can officials for the city, county, and/or state give for further expenditures on behalf of the Edward Jones Dome?

The Kansas City Police Department recently completed a study of the city’s red light camera program, detailed in the Kansas City Star. The study’s focus? Whether red light cameras have improved safety on Kansas City streets since they were installed in January 2009. The conclusion? No.

Since January 2009, accidents increased at 11 of 17 monitored intersections, and fatal crashes increased at 13 of those locations. Kansas City is not the first to see this happen with its red light camera program. The Star interviewed University of Illinois at Chicago Assistant Professor Rajiv Shah, who studied a red light camera program in Chicago:

“I’d say [Kansas City’s results are] very consistent with what cities across America have found . . . There’s really not a hard connection between reducing accidents and red-light cameras.”

The results of this study should have red light camera proponents reevaluating their positions. As we have pointed out before, red light cameras have many problems: they invade privacy and create a constitutionally suspect presumption of guilt. They are also prone to mistake. Brenda Talent, executive director of the Show-Me Institute, was fined for a violation she did not commit in Kansas City last year, and 1,000 lucky drivers were falsely accused of running red lights in Arnold, Mo., just two weeks ago.

Not surprisingly, American Traffic Solutions, the company that runs the program, publicly criticized the police department’s findings. ATS identified weather patterns, impaired drivers, and cell phone usage as the cause for increased wrecks. In other words, ATS identified anything but the red light cameras, which the company receives $1.6 million a year to operate, as the culprit for the increased crashes.

Despite the police study, it is likely that camera proponents will not rest. The Star editorial focused on a study by city engineers that found a decrease in total violations at monitored intersections. The Star praised the decrease in violations and declared that “red light cameras are working in Kansas City.” Fewer people running red lights, maybe; but if more accidents are occurring at monitored intersections, it is a stretch to conclude that red light cameras improve safety just because total violations have dropped.

Much to the dismay of proponents like the Star, the police study just confirmed what we already knew. Red light cameras are not about public safety, they are about generating revenue through traffic enforcement. The program has been very lucrative in Kansas City. The police study reports that officers have written nearly 200,000 tickets at $100 per ticket — adding $20 million to the city coffers.

The St. Louis Land Reutilization Authority (LRA) met today to consider offers to purchase vacant property. The LRA, part of Saint Louis City government, is the largest owner of vacant property in the city.

Our research showed in 2011 that the LRA had a track record of frequently rejecting offers to buy city property, often for no discernible reason. The agency would cite “lack of aldermanic input” when rejecting offers, or plans for “future development” that would fail to materialize.

I have written here about improvements to the LRA’s practices that were made in the wake of the publication of our research and the resulting media attention.

This month’s meeting went pretty well – most offers to purchase property were accepted or countered (meaning the LRA asked for a higher purchase price or change in contingencies). However, I still cannot help but think that Saint Louis City aldermen still have outsize influence over whether the agency accepts or rejects offers to purchase property.

An offer from Transformation Christian Church and World Outreach Center to purchase four properties illustrates this well.  LRA staff members recommended that the church’s offer be rejected. However, former Alderwoman Irene Smith (ward 1) spoke on behalf of the church during the meeting and managed to sway the commission. It seemed that the decision of whether to sell the property hinged on whether the area alderman was supportive of the sale.

Smith, speaking to the commission, noted that the church had spoken with Alderman Sam Moore, saying that after “swapping” some property with him, he had agreed to provide a letter supporting the sale of LRA property to the church.

But LRA Chairman Mark Wells initially would not recommend moving to sell the property, saying that “Based on the information we got from Alderman Moore, I think more discussion is needed.”

Smith responded: “We’re taken aback by that. We sat down with Alderman Moore.”

Ultimately, the commission moved to counter the church’s offer instead of rejecting it. And I am glad — the church has a history of purchasing, maintaining, and rebuilding LRA property.

But, I wonder: If the church has a track record of being a strong community resource and has the funds to buy the vacant city property, why does it matter what the alderman thinks? The LRA does not have to consider the input of an area alderman. The agency’s authority was established under state law, and the LRA law does not suggest that the agency consider the input of any political officials. Saint Louis government has implemented this practice by choice.

You can download the LRA’s meeting agenda (with a few of my notes) here.

It is fine if certain members of the Dellwood Board of Aldermen do not want to have the Show-Me Institute write an op-ed praising the city, but they are going to some rather extreme lengths to avoid it.

Several members of the Dellwood Board of Aldermen have intentionally skipped board meetings over the last few months in order to deny a quorum. If the board had a quorum, it would almost certainly vote to disband the Dellwood Police Department and contract out police services to the St. Louis County Police Department. Smaller cities contracting with larger entities to perform certain services is one of the best examples I can give to improve efficiency while maintaining a large degree of municipal independence. I view it as a win-win situation for the people of Dellwood. Apparently, half of the board views it as a threat to speeding ticket revenues, so they are going to an extreme, undemocratic tactic to prevent a measure that will save money and improve public safety at the same time. The absent members of the Dellwood Board of Aldermen are harming their citizens, and behaving embarrassingly while they are at it.

Generally speaking, the county police provide better overall services than very small municipal departments. (But, yes, there are some dedicated, talented officers within small departments.) Just as important, it costs cities less to contract with the county than to operate their own department. If you want to read more about why contracts like this are a good idea, check out this op-ed I wrote when Jennings did it last year.

Jackson County is considering forcing new pawnbrokers and short-term loan shops in unincorporated areas to locate at least 2,500 feet from each other. That is almost half a mile, and is rather considerable. Just imagine if gas stations were forced to locate half a mile from each other. Can anyone say “higher prices at the pump”? Who knows what will happen to these businesses and their customers if the legislation passes.

And why 2,500 feet? Who came up with that number? This article sites the possibility of crime and lower property values around clusters of these businesses, but half a mile seems a little excessive. I would hardly call it a cluster if the businesses located just one block from each other, but even one block is an arbitrary number.

As you may recall from the mantra “location, location, location,” the location of a business can drastically affect profitability. The proposed legislation may make it impossible for more than one loan shop to take advantage of a good location. Since when is that reasonable? Businesses locate in a particular area for a reason – and unfortunately for the affected businesses, the reason they locate to a particular area may be the county’s legislation dictating the available options.

Additionally, why is the government singling out pawnbrokers and short-term loan shops? What next? The proximity of ATMs? When will the regulations stop?

For more Show-Me Institute payday loan material, check out this and this, as well as this awesome video.

According to an article in the Kansas City Star, Platte County is engaged in a difficult debate regarding budget cuts. Officials have proposed cuts to many departments, including the sheriff’s department. In response and opposition, the sheriff said:

“The golf course fleet is better maintained than the sheriff’s department’s fleet,” Sheriff Richard Anderson said.

This brings to mind a very easy move for the county to make that will (1) bring new revenue into the county (the sale price); (2) reduce future expenditures; (3) expand the county property tax base (placing the property on the tax rolls); and (4) remove the county from doing things government is not intended to do. Privatize the golf course.

Golf courses make up one of the least important government programs. I say this as a golfer. I do not think governments should own golf courses, but at least some just own the land and contract out the operations of the course to private companies. Can someone say “comparative advantage”? But Platte County does not appear to even do that. The county appears to own and operate the entire course as a division of county government. (I base that on my reading of the 2011 budget, pages 221-224.) That is insane.

The Mackinac Center and the Reason Foundation both have conducted great work involving government golf courses.  This should be a fairly easy choice for Platte County. Shed the golf course to raise money to improve your sheriff’s fleet. Platte County should sell off its golf course to private operators, and if that is not possible (due to legal restrictions on selling parkland or some other such issue), contract out the management of it.  

And I now will resist the temptation to end this post with an overly cute golf reference, such as “Privatization would be a real Birdie for Platte County!”

Successful cultures arise from a dynamic process that balances a healthy respect for the past with an optimistic regard for the future. In this sense, progress may be understood as successive series of creative destruction and new growth. Among the many benefits of growth is an expansion of the tax base. In this world, an excessive pining for the past and the preservation of its symbols stymies growth and our future prosperity. Today, Saint Louis is confronted with this very issue. Some preservationists are attempting to block the construction of a new medical facility in Saint Louis. Their reason: to preserve the decrepit symbol of a bygone era at the expense of the city and its taxpayers.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch recently reported the St. Louis Preservation Board’s denial of a demolition permit to Saint Louis University (SLU) to raze the vacant Pevely Dairy headquarters building at the corner of Chouteau Ave. and South Grand Blvd. (you probably recall the Pevely smokestack). SLU officials intend to build a surgical center at the site, but now claim that the historic building may scuttle their plans if the building is not leveled and removed.

Before moving on to more pressing matters, perhaps a brief review of the tax implications is in order. Saint Louis public records indicate that the two parcels in question (1001 South Grand Blvd. and 3626 Chouteau Ave.) generate approximately $93,000 in annual property tax revenues for the city. See here and here. The future tax status of the properties, however, is uncertain (I called SLU’s controller, Gregory Haney, but he declined to express his opinion or share his knowledge on the subject). If the properties fall under SLU’s non-profit status, then SLU may be tax-exempt (similar to SLU’s 200 North Grand property). On the other hand, if property ownership vests in a for-profit entity, similar to Tenet Health System’s ownership of property underlying Saint Louis University Hospital, then taxes will likely be assessed and collected.

In either case, the city still stands to gain revenues if the surgical center is developed. This would arise from earnings taxes on new jobs created at the facility (although we have advocated for the elimination of the earnings tax and for alternative payments in lieu of taxes from tax-exempt non-profits, this blog post deals with the facts and law as they currently exist). For the sake of example, at 1 percent on taxable earnings, 124 jobs at $75,000 annual salary generates $93,000 in revenues, which compensates for the loss of property tax revenues under the tax-exempt scenario, but provides additional incremental revenues to the city under the alternative scenario. In either case, both the economy and the tax base are increased, which is a good thing.

While the tax implications are interesting, perhaps the more fundamental question is why are preservationists so insistent on saving the aging Pevely headquarters building? The history of progress is replete with tear-downs and rebuilds. Progress necessarily implies creative destruction, replacing old with new. Sometimes you have to let go of the past if you are to embrace the future. The past is but a distant memory. Happiness, prosperity, and success are forward-looking concepts that reside, if at all, in the future. Saint Louis, embrace the future, not the past. The Preservation Board should reconsider its decision.

It is not our intention to be the Inspector Javert to the Jean Valjean of Winghaven, constantly chasing Paul McKee’s proposals around to criticize them like the fanatical French cop pursued the reformed Valjean. Nonetheless, bad proposals for Saint Louis keep coming from Paul McKee, and if it falls to us to keep saying “stop,” then so be it. (Thanks to johncombest.com for the link, and to Victor Hugo for the references.)

The latest proposal is to transfer the bottle district TIF (tax increment financing) from the original developers to the control of Mr. McKee and his entities. To be clear, McKee and his groups were not involved in the original TIF proposal, so we cannot pin all of this on him. However, unlike tax credits, the TIF law was not drafted with the intention of TIF being transferable. I do not think it is right for one stalled TIF proposal to just be assigned to someone else – and I do not care who that someone else is. (Note: I am not saying transfering the TIF is illegal, just improper.) At least some people in city government seem to be aware of this issue:

[Saint Louis Development Corporation Executive Director Rodney] Crim wouldn’t specify what, exactly, the city objects to. But he suggested officials have concerns about using TIF for one project to help fund another.

“My focus is on what can and cannot be done with the Bottle District TIF,” he said. “We just have some more talking to do.”

I think it is especially wrong to continue to subsidize property that at this very moment is being made more valuable because of major public improvements. Here is one description of the property:

Located just north of the Edward Jones Dome (home of the Rams) along Interstate-70, the site is one of the most desirable development locations left available Downtown. Once the new Mississippi Bridge is complete,  its location next to the bridge will make the site even more visible and accessible than it already is.

Former longtime New York Sen. George Washington Plunkitt would have fully understood developers seeing their opportunities and taking them, but even he would never have asked for the new land to be subsidized on top of it. If this land at the base of a major new bridge has to be subsidized, I guess we are at the point where we just admit everything gets a tax subsidy, unless, of course, you are just a small entrepreneur without political connections.

Right now, if you are a St. Louis Cardinals baseball fan, you are probably in a state of shock, anger, or melancholic resignation. El Hombre has decided to leave Cardinal Nation behind for the riches of the Golden Coast. Yes, Albert will sign with the Angels. The deal reportedly is above the Cardinals’ latest offer (allegedly 10 years and up to $220 million) and from every indication, an unforgettable era in Saint Louis baseball is over.

Just how rich does this make Albert? Well, one local sportscaster estimated today that if Albert bats five times each game next year for the Angels, he will be raking in a cool $30,000 each time he steps into the batter’s box. Not bad, huh?

But if it makes you feel any better, it may not be all win-win for our legendary No. 5. Consider income taxes. Missouri’s top personal income tax rate is 6 percent, which kicks in at $9,000 (he would have also paid an additional 1 percent earnings tax [click on policy study and scroll down to page 46] in Saint Louis). In comparison, California’s top rate is 10.3 percent for incomes above $1 million (of course it might not STAY that way). I am not the only one to notice the possible influence that income tax rates could have had on Albert’s decision (this was regarding the offer from the Miami Marlins).

However, at the margins, how much of a difference would these tax rates have made on Albert’s decision? First, consider that Albert will only have to pay this 10.3 percent top rate for games played in California. He will play a good chunk of his games in states with NO personal income taxes (Washington and Texas). Now, I am not an economist and there are other factors involved here, but just doing some back-of-the-envelope calculations for the home games, I found that Albert would pay slightly more than $4.6 million more in taxes over the life of his contract in Anaheim than Saint Louis. Considering the supposed $30 million to $40 million difference in value of the contracts, would the tax factor make that much of a difference? It is certainly possible (even though Albert did decide to leave). If the Angels had offered him the same amount as the Cardinals, the tax difference would cost Albert approximately $3.7 million.

Who is to say if the difference would matter, especially for a single individual who has to weigh many factors in his decision to move. However, if you are a business, that tax difference could influence a decision between paying taxes or hiring a couple of new employees. Just some things to ponder while Albert packs his bags.

Last month, I attended a tax increment financing (TIF) commission meeting in Saint Charles. Last Wednesday night, I planned to testify before the Saint Louis County TIF commission meeting in Shrewsbury, until it was abruptly cancelled on short notice. Both meetings involved TIF applications for retail centers (among other things) in Saint Charles and Shrewsbury. Both are terrible ideas. Both have the support of cities seeking (understandably) their narrow self-interest over the interest of the county or region. The respective county executives oppose the two plans, although I must be clear that I know Saint Charles County Executive Steve Ehlmann opposes the Saint Charles plan and I believe Saint Louis County Executive Charlie Dooley opposes the Shrewsbury plan (based on history, which I will detail more in-depth later).

Ehlmann gave an excellent talk at the TIF hearing last month. Here is his stated opposition to the TIF:

However, he said a city tax-increment financing subsidy would be “bad public policy” because it would channel into the project some of the new property tax revenue generated that would otherwise go to the St. Charles School District and other governments.

“If the city can do a TIF to make others pay for what is their responsibility, when are we going to start using city money for schools?” Ehlmann said.

Ehlmann and his predecessor, Joe Ortwerth, have been leaders in calling out the fact that these TIFs do not do anything for our economy. They inefficiently redirect activity based on who is giving out the most tax dollars. Saint Charles County has put its money where its mouth is regarding TIF, and actively fought prior TIFs in court, although the rulings have always favored the cities. It is great to see Ehlmann is still fighting that fight against these abuses.

Charlie Dooley has also been leading the fight against these TIFs in Saint Louis County. He has not made a statement directly on the Shrewsbury TIF, so I do not know exactly how he feels about it. But based on his opposition to the last Walmart TIF in Bridgeton, and the comments of the county reps on the current TIF commission, I think he likely is opposed to this one as well. (Someone should feel free to correct me if I am wrong.) Dooley made public comments about the Bridgeton TIF between the TIF commission process and the city council decision. I think that is perfectly appropriate, and I hope he leads the opposition should the Shrewsbury City Council attempt to override the decision of the county TIF commission.

One of the most important legislative changes we need in Missouri is eliminating the ability of cities to override TIF commissions. Cities can approve a TIF even if the commission defeats it. That is an atrocious law that empowers small groups to abuse the tax system at the expense of many other people and entities (such as school districts). Both county executives – Ehlmann and Dooley – deserve great credit for thinking about their whole county (and region) first, and opposing these types of tax abuses.

A Missouri House committee heard testimony Wednesday from the soon-to-be former director of the Missouri Department of Economic Development (DED), David Kerr.

Kerr’s testimony follows testimony from Moberly officials on Tuesday. A key point of Kerr’s testimony was that it would be a poor use of time and effort for the DED to double check the claims that every business makes when seeking incentives. Kerr said that if every business seeking incentives is treated as a criminal, fewer businesses will come to Missouri. I think that if a background check would deter a CEO with a history of passing bad checks from applying for tax credits, it might be appropriate.

There are two broad issues that legislators and the general public should consider in light of Mamtek. The first is that government officials (and others) mistakenly believe that with the right subsidy package and safeguards, they can eliminate all or nearly all of the risk associated with using public dollars to subsidize a private business. Any business can fail, due to its own negligence, or due to factors beyond its control. Public financing for a project cannot guarantee success, though it may prop up a business that otherwise would not be profitable without taxpayer money. Furthermore, as we may see in Moberly, no matter how many safeguards are used, the result may be that taxpayers are left holding the bag.

The second issue that may be at the heart of the Mamtek debacle is the fact that people and businesses will strive to get the largest benefit for the least amount of effort. That behavior has been seen in Missouri with gaming the requirements of the Missouri Quality Jobs tax credits and the general tendency of companies trying to access as many subsidy programs with a single project. It also has happened in China, where shoddy construction work on a high-speed train may have resulted in at least 39 deaths, along with corruption charges and the misuse of public funds.

As an outside observer, I don’t know whether any of those involved (Mamtek, the DED, current and former top state officials, etc.) deliberately misled anyone. There are ongoing criminal and civil investigations that may determine that.

However, the testimony that the House committee has heard so far sounds bleak, particularly the state’s investigation of the Mamtek company. The Columbia Daily Tribune posted the House committee information packet on Mamtek, and portions of it are riveting.

For example, one point of contention is whether Mamtek ever had an operating plant in China, as the company claimed in its project summary. The company wrote:

As of December 2009, Mamtek had moved from development into manufacturing and sales. We have completed both an 18-ton pilot production line and a full-scale, fully-functional [sic] 60 ton line (metric tons per annum). Each step and detail in the manufacturing and operational processes have been verified independently by the international patent firm Perkins Cole (page 27 of the House committee packet).

And then, Michael Wise, the patent attorney of Perkins Cole, a company closely affiliated with Mamtek, allegedly told the Moberly Economic Development Corporation that he had seen the plant himself, and that it had been operational for several years (page 43).

But yet, in April 2010, attorney Edward Li, a Chinese trade consultant for the Missouri Department of Agriculture, wrote to state officials to say that construction of a plant in China began in 2008, but was never completed (page 5).

Greg Havener, at the DED, wrote in an email with the subject “RE: BUILD PROJECT RUSH”  that he couldn’t find much information about Mamtek. “There is little on Google, oh well it will be a ’thin report,’ “ he wrote (page 41). That email was sent on June 3, 2010, days before state incentives for Mamtek were approved.

Oh well, indeed. It is my prediction that while the future of Mamtek is uncertain, and while the financial future of the city of Moberly and its 13,000 residents is uncertain, the future of the DED is not.

In the private sector, if a business makes a $40 million mistake, it suffers dire consequences. For many businesses, that kind of mistake can result in bankruptcy. If no substantive reform is implemented at the DED, its operations will continue as usual. In the past, that has meant tax credits awarded to voided projects, inflated job and investment numbers, and vast amounts of taxpayer dollars going to incredibly inefficient programs.

I hope this episode will lead to major changes at the DED. If a more thorough investigation on each development package leads to fewer development handouts, that is a good thing.

I want to keep our loyal readers informed on the latest developments regarding the Saint Louis County park budget issue. David Stokes, a Show-Me Institute policy analyst, gave a great rundown about Saint Louis County officials considering closing some county parks because of budget problems. Apparently, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon is offering assistance to the county in managing some parks:

Nixon said that he had offered assistance to [Saint Louis County Executive Charlie] Dooley. In particular, the governor mentioned Lone Elk Park, which is adjacent to Castlewood State Park. Nixon said such a state-county operation there would save money.

Lone Elk Park is adjacent to Castlewood State Park and a previous article states that the county was considering transferring Lone Elk Park to the Missouri Department of Conservation. The governor claims that a shared management operation would save money. I haven’t seen any data to support this claim, but IF it is true, then the idea can be viewed as having some merit.

However, it seems odd that in this article, the topic of privatization was barely mentioned, except in this brief statement:

[Saint Louis County Chief Operating Officer Garry] Earls initially said that some of the parks, including Lone Elk, could be sold. However, Dooley dismissed that possibility at a special budget meeting Tuesday night.

Prudence would suggest that the county not dismiss privatization (or ANY potential solution) out of hand. Shouldn’t the county consider privatization as a possible course of action before sharing park management with the state? If there ARE obstacles to privatization, what are they? The only obstacle I could find is in this piece of information from the Southeast Missourian:

Officials said deed restrictions and covenants would prohibit the sale of most of the parks to private individuals.

However, Lone Elk Park does NOT have a deed restriction on its sale so the above restriction would not be applicable. Are there any other reasons the county would not consider privatization of Lone Elk Park?

As David mentioned in his post, the Reason Foundation has done a good analysis of park privatization, and the conservancy model of non-profit, public-private partnerships operating a park has been tried successfully in Tower Grove Park. County officials have not given a reason why following the Tower Grove example would be a bad idea, and unless there is a deterioration of Tower Grove’s situation, shouldn’t Saint Louis County investigate privatization of Lone Elk Park if a private operator can be found to manage it?