Groundbreaking for the $67 million Scheels Sports Park at Legacy Pointe, originally expected in July, now could take place in September after action Aug. 29 by impatient Springfield City Council members.
“I’m tired of excuses and the changes and the ‘this-and-that,’” Ward 3 Ald. Roy Williams said before the council decided to place three ordinances dealing with the sports complex on the Sept. 5 meeting agenda.
The measures would dissolve the South Central Business District and create a new one with a maximum 23-year lifespan that coincides with other economic incentives in the city’s agreement with the complex’s developer.
The identical lifespans are needed to satisfy banks and related institutions that Springfield-based Legacy Pointe Development is working with to arrange private financing for the project, according to Ryan McCrady, president and chief executive officer of the nonprofit Springfield Sangamon Growth Alliance.
The business district imposes an additional 1% sales tax on purchases at Scheels and other businesses there for use by the city. A development agreement first approved by the council in 2021, and then amended in April, funnels more than 70% of the city’s portion of sales taxes in the business district, above a base of $1.48 million annually, to the sports complex project.
If the council approves the three ordinances on Sept. 5, groundbreaking is expected later that month, and construction is likely to be completed so the complex still can open by late 2025, McCrady told Illinois Times. He has acted as a spokesperson for Legacy Pointe Development.
The business district originally was created in 2008, meaning it would expire in 2031 rather than the 2046 cutoff desired by financial institutions, McCrady said.
The development agreement always called for the 23-year lifespan of the business district to match the term for sales tax and hotel-motel tax subsidies that would pay half of the complex’s construction costs over a 23-year period – totaling up to $33.5 million.
The developers must spend money first for construction to be reimbursed 50 cents on the dollar.
Ward 9 Ald. Jim Donelan said it’s unclear why the City Council wasn’t called upon earlier to create a new business district during the administration of former Mayor Jim Langfelder, who left office in the spring after being defeated by current Mayor Misty Buscher.
Donelan said he wants to focus on the future benefits of the complex. “I like to look forward,” he said.
But Williams said the delay is the fault of the developer. “This is not on the city,” he said.
Donelan told Williams at the Aug. 29 meeting: “I share your frustration. … We just want something to happen. This better be it. Let’s get earth moving and get this underway.”
McCrady said the developer made clear to city officials – both during Langfelder’s administration and to the Buscher administration – that the potential term of the business district needed to be extended to satisfy lending institutions.
“We don’t know why the city did not do that sooner,” McCrady said.
He noted that the business district is “a tool to help spur development” and won’t benefit the sports complex alone. He said the additional 1% sales tax collected in the district goes to fund improvements in roads, sewers and other infrastructure within the district.
City officials said city government and taxpayers won’t be responsible financially if the complex never opens or fails later. The complex for baseball, soccer, basketball and volleyball, among other sports, would be one of the largest of its kind in the country. It’s expected to create a huge boost in tourism related to competitive youth sports.
Proposals for a youth sports complex in various parts of Springfield have been considered since the mid-1990s. The Scheels complex would be north of the Scheels sporting goods store on the city’s south side, on the west side of MacArthur Boulevard and north of the Interstate 72 interchange.
The complex would feature multiple fields for baseball, soccer, football, lacrosse and rugby, as well as a 27,000-square-foot specialty turf area with a concert stage and more than 25,000 square feet of buildings for support and administration.
There also would be a 150,000-square-foot air-supported structure, billed as the largest permanent inflated building of its type in the world. It would contain six indoor basketball courts or 12 volleyball courts and an artificial turf field, all of which could be used year-round.
Some council members have said they are concerned the financial and recreational benefits of the 95-acre, privately owned complex wouldn’t be shared by all areas of the city.
Scott Dahl, director of the Springfield Convention and Visitors Bureau, said the sports complex would attract about 250,000 visitors to Springfield each year from across the country and would increase visitors to the city overall by 10% to 15% after the first year of operation.
This article appears in Renovation revelations.
WHO pays the bonds if the developer goes broke?
Rumor has it the city will be signing the bonds??!!!
IS this just another bank bailout like Enos Park? I wonder if anyone remembers all the big speeches made by some of the aldermen and all the backslapping of approval? Why do they continue to vote for something when they don’t know the written details ??
Yes, the public wants this, but not at this ridiculous price..
It’s already costing $35 million more than it should!
Sportsplex is just like any other park, swimming pool, ice rink, or ball fieldit never makes a dime and has to be 100% owned by the government.
This is why we have a park district.
Buy the land (some say from the bank) or turn it over to Park Distinct or reuse the Beagan golf course; they still hire the same operator to run the sportsplex.
This deal was toast when Ryan McCrady got ahold of it. “We dont know why the city did not do that sooner,” McCrady said.
Funny that he never mentioned this before! ! The land should be bought at market price not bailout price, jointly with the Park District, then hired an outside operator
@Paul Barker you are spot on. Why is Ryan McCrady speaking for the developers? Why is this just now being brought to the public when the developers have presented a few times to the city council and never said anything about the extension. That would have been an appropriate time. Rather they use Alderman Donelan, who by the way has dealt with these developers since this development started, to blame others. Obviously the business district discussion is just now coming up because the developers should have moved on this complex a year ago but decided to hold off and now the rates have gone from 4% to 7% and the cost to build is up. These developers are nowhere to be found. I hope this gets built but these developers being awol does not look good for the development.
What a pompous and absurd comment from Ward 9’s Jim Donelan that Scheels would never be here without this unneeded shopping center that was developed with taxpayer money instead of private money as all others in Springfield have,
There was at the time, as there is today, plenty of space in existing shopping centers for addition and expansion.
Besides being in direct violation of a written agreement with the Springfield Park District not to be in the recreation business,
A good question to the aldermen and women would be: At last night’s council meeting, the budget director admitted the city has “limited liability” on bonds sold for the Sportsplex if it gets off the ground.
Aldermen and women have said the city has no liability.
What happens 3-5 years down the road or anytime in the 23-year life of the bond if the developer declares bankruptcy?
Does the city become “full liability” to repay all the bonds?
No one wants to answer that question.
Wouldn’t the city’s bonding power be better used to build an industrial park to try for real private jobs instead of loss-leader kids’ baseball teams? and leave this sportsplex to the Springfield Park District?