Mayor Bart Peterson warned Wednesday that shortchanging his stadium proposal would kill it, while another financing plan pushed debate on a new Downtown sports venue to center stage at the Statehouse.

Peterson said the city must have $46 million annually for 30 years to pay off bonds that would finance the stadium project. The retractable-roofed stadium would become the new home of the Indianapolis Colts.

"We've tried to level with the legislators in saying this is what we need," the mayor said at a City Hall news conference. "We don't need a penny more. But we can't live with a penny less."

At the Statehouse, lawmakers were still settling into their routines after Tuesday's opening day. But already, lines are being drawn, and it seems increasingly likely that the stadium debate, like so many legislative scuffles in the past, will stretch until the session's waning hours in April.

For the mayor and other stadium advocates, the good news is there will be a debate. On the other hand, the issue is now largely out of the mayor's hands.

Two area House Republicans have unveiled competing stadium financing packages that would generate millions through the installation of 2,500 slot machines at each of the state's two horse tracks. The proposals suggest there is support for the stadium but little desire among majority Republicans for a casino in Downtown Indianapolis.

"That would change the character of our Downtown," said Rep. Michael Murphy, R-Indianapolis.

Murphy is the second lawmaker to offer a slots plan since legislators returned to Indianapolis for the 2005 session. During an interview on a Statehouse elevator Wednesday, Murphy stressed the differences between his plan and the one previously unveiled by fellow Republican Rep. Luke Messer, of Shelbyville.

Both would put slot machines at Hoosier Park in Anderson and Indiana Downs in Shelbyville, and spend 12 percent to 13 percent of the receipts on the state's horse racing industry.

But Murphy's bill would guarantee Indianapolis $48 million annually, enough to pay off the bonds and cover a $48 million payment to terminate the Colts' current RCA Dome lease.

Murphy said the remaining money -- estimated at more than $120 million a year -- would go to the Indiana Economic Development Corp. for local projects and job-building efforts. He called it an "economic development bill that happens to include gambling."

Messer's bill would target $30 million to Indianapolis. His measure also would set aside 7 percent of gross revenues for the tracks' home counties. Up to $100 million annually would go into the state's cash-strapped general fund.

The mayor praised Messer for entering the debate but said, "$30 million won't get it done. . . . It might as well be zero."

Messer said his bill was just starting a debate that would last for months. But "in the current budget climate, $46 million is a very hard number to get to."

Comments from other lawmakers underscored the treachery of navigating the
Statehouse. Peterson, a Democrat, is counting on support from Republicans who control the House and the Senate and, starting next week, the governor's office.

Gov.-elect Mitch Daniels could not be reached for comment but has expressed support for a new stadium and concern about expanding gambling. Legislators from outside Central Indiana, meanwhile, are eager to ensure their regions benefit along with the Indianapolis area. They promised to take a skeptical look at any Colts funding plan.

"The question is: Does this sell statewide?" Rep. Ralph Ayres, a Republican from Chesterton in the state's northwest corner, said with a smile. "And I don't know the answer to that."

"Is there a plan to help other parts of the state as well?" asked Sen. Sue
Landske, R-Cedar Lake, also from that same area.

For now, the question seems to be how a new Colts stadium should be funded, not whether one should be built.

The debate is popping up two weeks after the mayor proposed building a $500 million stadium with gambling revenues.

Murphy and Messer, the lawmakers with slot machine bills, have adopted the basic framework of Peterson's proposal, while veering on the details.

Both said they were focusing on slot machines and not similar devices known as pull-tab machines, which Peterson had suggested. Both lawmakers said slot machines, which are now on Indiana's riverboat casinos, produce more revenue. Moreover, Hoosiers might be fooled into thinking pull-tabs are a less serious form of gambling.

Supporters say the slot machines would boost the state's sagging horse racing industry. The bills would end the annual state subsidy to the industry but allow it to raise millions from new gamblers.

Michael Brown, a spokesman for the Indiana horse racing industry, said the business understood the $27 million annual subsidy needs to go away at some point. Slots, he said, would allow the tracks to compete more effectively and protect the thousands of jobs related to them.

"This would allow the industry -- to use a hackneyed phrase -- to stand on its own four feet," Brown said.

If either plan were passed, the number of slot machines in Indiana would jump to 23,000 from about 18,000, an increase of nearly 28 percent. Peterson said he didn't have a problem with the change. He also didn't take a position on where the slot machines should be based, though the city has considered putting them in a facility downtown.

The two lawmakers who have introduced bills said that would be a problem. Murphy is worried about hurting Indianapolis' thriving Downtown, while Messer said he has sensed substantial opposition from lawmakers. Messer said putting the slot machines at the tracks also would underscore the metro-area benefit the Colts provide.

"This is a regional problem that needs a regional solution," he said.

Call Star reporter Matthew Tully at (317) 444-6033.