“A lot of things are getting confused”

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect debate and action at the May 12 Springfield City Council meeting.

The only revenue Springfield city government might forfeit to help pay for the proposed BOS Center expansion and new hotel next door would be the city’s share of hotel taxes on room rates at the site and part of the expected increase in city sales taxes.

Those were guarantees that Sangamon County Board Chair Andy Van Meter made in recent interviews with Illinois Times about the effects of pending state legislation in which Van Meter has been intimately involved. And he said the Springfield City Council would have to vote to agree with those diversions of revenue before the changes could take place.

Van Meter’s assurances referred to the Springfield project tucked inside a “megaprojects” bill – a bill also containing plans for a new Chicago Bears stadium – that passed the Illinois House on April 22 and may be considered by the Senate before the General Assembly’s scheduled adjournment later this month.

His comments contradicted statements from several City Council members amid those members’ complaints about a lack of clarity in the bill and the city’s potential loss of control over downtown development.

“A lot of things are getting confused,” Van Meter said. “I think the city misunderstands the city’s role in this project. The city is only being asked to do the things that it would do with any developer who came to town.”

Van Meter, a Springfield Republican, acknowledged that some sections of House Bill 910 may be misleading when it comes to the impact on the capital city. Those sections, he said, likely will be clarified before the legislation is passed by both chambers and sent to Gov. JB Pritzker for his signature.

The skeptical council members, during hours of city council debate in recent weeks, said they feared the measure would hand more development power to the Republican-controlled county government. The alderpersons failed to be dissuaded by Mayor Misty Buscher, who disagreed with their interpretations.

The bill would create a five-member board that would own the future 200- to 300-room hotel and BOS Center expansion, oversee the expansion and finance the $200 million project with state and local tax dollars generated in the heart of downtown’s 62701 ZIP code and repay the borrowing.

Under the legislation, three of the board members would be selected by the Sangamon County Board, one would be selected by the City Council and the remaining member would be chosen by the Springfield Metropolitan Exposition and Auditorium Authority that owns and operates the 47-year-old BOS Center.

Several City Council members who are critics of the plan say they support the proposed BOS Center expansion – a doubling of space that is designed to retain and lure more conventions and entertainment to the capital city – but they want a majority of the members to be appointed by the council. They said the current plan would march the Democratic-leaning city ever closer to a metropolitan government in which even more city and county functions are combined.

Ward 3 Ald. Roy Williams Jr., the leading critic, said at the May 5 council meeting that county officials back the bill because it’s “designed to weaken us” and “they have plans for things beyond that two-block radius.” What Williams alleges isn’t true, according to Van Meter.

Williams suggested that Buscher’s desire to help Republicans took precedence over her loyalties to the city. “She’s giving away the farm,” he said in April.

Buscher denied the allegations, saying the success of the proposed legislation depends on various governmental bodies working together to pool resources.

Buscher and Van Meter said the proposed Capital Area Tourism Authority Board wouldn’t have taxing authority. However, Ward 6 Ald. Jennifer Notariano, another frequent critic of the mayor, said the proposal would create an unelected board and “give our authority away to another municipal authority.”

One of the mayor’s allies, Ward 10 Ald. Ralph Hanauer, dismissed the criticisms as conspiracy theories. Hanauer, a Republican on the officially nonpartisan council, said council members should be thanking Pritzker, a Democrat, state Sen. Doris Turner, D-Springfield, who is the key sponsor, and state Rep. Michael Coffey, R-Springfield, chair of the SMEAA board, for supporting a plan that could help rejuvenate the downtown.

The legislation doesn’t spell out all the details and does refer to “all of the tax receipts generated from local sales taxes” in the area to be governed by the new CATA Board.

Coffey referred questions from Illinois Times about the legislation’s wording to Turner, who didn’t respond to several requests for comment and clarification.

 But according to Van Meter, the legislation, once passed and signed into law, would depend on written agreements approved by the County Board, City Council and SMEAA Board that would set aside the following revenues over a 30-year period to come up with potentially $14 million a year to pay off bonds:

* The state’s share of the sales tax in the 62701 ZIP code.

* The state’s share of hotel taxes paid in the 62701 ZIP code.

* All payments on the hotel lease paid by the operator of the hotel. These payments would be the largest contributions to repay the bonds.

* The county’s share of current sales taxes from the 62701 ZIP code.

* All proceeds from a new countywide hotel tax authorized by state legislation passed in 2024, up to a maximum of 3% of the room rate.

* An annual, still-to-be-determined contribution from SMEAA.

* The city of Springfield’s share of hotel taxes generated by the new hotel.

* The incremental increase in the county’s and city’s share of 62701 sales taxes attributed to economic activity spurred by the project, based on a percentage to be estimated by consultants.

Van Meter said it is possible but “highly unlikely” that the slice of 62701 city sales tax revenue he described will be needed.

“In contrast to the contributions asked from the county, the city will not be asked to pledge anything from its current revenue streams,” Van Meter said. He noted that another major contribution of the county would be the county-owned land on which the new hotel and BOS Center expansion would sit. That land, on the west side of Ninth Street, is currently used as a county-operated parking lot.

Van Meter added, “The request for the city hotel tax generated by the new hotel is the typical request that any developer proposing a new flagship hotel would ask of any city in any community.”

The people and organizations that purchase the bonds to be used in the project’s financing – and not taxpayers or taxing bodies – will be at risk if the project fails, Van Meter said. So if the hotel is built and later fails, bondholders could seize the hotel, he said.

When told of the limited contribution from the city envisioned by county officials, Williams at first said he didn’t believe it and then said he wanted to see the details in writing.

“I might not be totally right,” Williams said. “I want to know the fiscal impact on the city of Springfield. … I want all of this broken down publicly.”

Williams called for a special meeting May 12 to push for City Council passage of his previously unsuccessful resolution calling for three of the five future CATA Board members to represent the city. The special meeting, which took place before the regular May 12 council meeting, lasted nearly two-and-a-half hours and included extensive public comments.

Former mayor Jim Langfelder and former Ward 7 alderperson Joe McMenamin both spoke, questioning the county’s involvement in the proposal.

Ultimately, the City Council voted 6-4 to support the proposed expansion of the BOS Center. But at the beginning of the special meeting, Hanauer proposed an amendment that removed almost all of the language from Williams’ resolution, other than the first paragraph supporting the proposed Statehouse legislation. The amendment struck references calling for the city to have more participation in the board overseeing the project.

Ward 8 Ald. Erin Conley, who voted for the amendment that ultimately was approved, said the city “wasn’t losing control of downtown” and noted the potential for this to be a transformational project.

“I think the message has been heard that we as a city want to be engaged, we want to be involved, and we want to be part of the process,” she said.

Ward 2 Ald. Shawn Gregory, whose ward encompasses part of the downtown, saw Buscher veto an ordinance the council passed April 21 that called for a study to potentially expand the BOS Center expansion project to fund the east side’s “History Across the Tracks” historical sites.

Gregory previously voted for Williams’ resolution and said that if an increase in the hotel tax is a part of the financing, it’s important to note that almost all of the hotels in the county are in Springfield.

Van Meter said he supports the current proposed makeup of the CATA Board.

“The county entered into this process with the understanding that for all the county is being asked to do, that the county would have the major responsibility for the project,” he said. “But we want to proceed collaboratively, and we welcome the city and SMEAA as partners.”

The Dallas-based consulting group hired by the county for $400,000 to guide the project, Garfield Public/Private LLC, has received “letters of interest” from the corporate officers of Marriott International, Hilton and Hyatt to operate the new hotel, Van Meter said.

“Government has no business operating the hotel,” he said.

If the legislation passes and the city and county agree to terms of their commitments in the next six to eight months, Van Meter said construction of the BOS Center expansion and hotel could begin in spring 2027 and be finished by mid-2029.