At least it was for me. I’m still getting up to speed on everything but going to the county board meeting was great, it’s always a different experience, but good. It was standing room only, in fact I had to sit in the overflow room. You'll find out why later. But first, we're starting with the city council meeting.

Let's jump in.

First thing on the agenda was a roughly 15 minute executive session under 2(c)11, probable litigation. That citation is the "tag" under which they met. Public bodies can't just decide, "Hey, we want to meet privately real quick," they have to give the record, and us as the public, a reason. That reason was 2(c)11 under the Illinois Open Meetings Act (OMA).

All that means is there's a person or entity that's probably going to sue the city, for a reason that couldn't be discussed openly, so they met in closed session to discuss it, then came back out and made a motion to move forward. We'll likely find out more about this later, but for now, if you've been paying attention, you'll just have to use your imagination.

Next was an update on the ShotSpotter ordinance. The city withdrew it. Mayor Buscher said the city is working with ShotSpotter directly to update the contract, so they've effectively put a pin in this, and it'll come back as a new ordinance later.

If you want to hear the exchange, it's a good one, especially considering the more recent public comments that sounded like criticism of the contract, its cost, and the return on investment. So I'd personally say good job, Springfield: one, good job to the people who spoke up, and two, good job to city council for listening. Also good job to Alderman Gregory for posing some good points and looking at this more holistically. I'd imagine that had something to do with the ordinance getting withdrawn for now. I wrote about this before, read about it here.

Then on to public comments. 

Nothing much to note here except the landlord registry that's currently in the works. Tony Nudo, president of the Springfield Area Landlord Association (yes, you read that right)…

(IYKYK) made public comments and had some good perspective worth taking in. But what I really want to highlight is Alderman Williams speaking up and mentioning that whatever policy comes out of this, the city, its residents, and SALA's members will come up with the language together.

It won't be one sided, it'll be a collaborative effort between the tenants of Springfield and SALA to build what's actually needed.

I love when collaboration happens like this. It might be a little prickly, people might have their own motives, but moments like these are what make our system work, flawed as it is. Honestly, this and the ShotSpotter withdrawal both prove that point. I'd highly suggest watching that interaction, it was insightful, made me cry one little thug tear.

There was also a good back and forth between a public commenter and Alderman Gregory about the SPD transparency page. Not much else to say here, except if you didn't know, we do have a transparency page for our police department. Watch it here.

The last public speaker was hilarious. I don't know why, but that guy just cracks me up, and it's not just me, he got a couple of council members laughing too. Check it out for yourself.

Remember that overflow room I mentioned up top? This is why. We're going to spend a lot of time here, because Springfield, contrary to what we might think or see day to day, is actually trying to better the city, downtown, and the economy as a whole.

Before I get into the tax and the renovation, it helps to know how we got here.

The Backstory

Springfield, as a capital city, used to have a genuinely vibrant downtown. Regular government activity, state jobs based downtown (county board member Tim Krell took a walk down memory lane on this, listen here), and the businesses that grew up to support all those visitors, it all added up to a pretty booming downtown. But as state jobs moved out and headed north, and businesses left the area, things have only gotten worse.

It's not just office workers and shoppers either. Organizations that used to fill up our convention center are starting to leave for better accommodations. Most recently, the Illinois FFA State Convention, which said it's leaving for the Peoria Civic Center after 20 years here, because they've "outgrown" the BOS Center. And it's not just FFA, it's 17 other groups too, according to Representative Mike Coffey, When conventions, and the dollars that come with them, start leaving Springfield for closer competitors, you better believe the writing's on the wall: adapt or die.

So here's the plan, at the 30,000 foot level. With the transportation hub already in motion, the county wants to give the BOS Center an updated feel through a full renovation, somewhere around $60 million. To help pay back the bonds needed to raise that capital, the county is looking at a 3% lodging tax. There's also a headquarters hotel in the mix, which adds some complexity we'll get to.

First things first, the renderings are below, and they're genuinely sick. I work downtown and live about a mile and a half west of it, and I'll admit I'd love something like this closer to home, especially once I found out it'd be for public use too.

How the tax actually works

Here's how the money side works. First, this tax isn't aimed at local residents, unless you're booking a hotel room. Second, from what I gathered, current hotels aren't exactly fans. Third, the actual mechanism: a 3% tax gets added onto existing hotel fees, and that revenue goes to pay back the investors who buy the bonds. This is all pretty standard practice for financing projects like this.

The hotel problem

Where it gets a little hairy is the headquarters hotel. The BOS Center renovation on its own is easier to pass and get moving. The hotel piece is trickier, for reasons I couldn't fully pin down in the meeting, though part of it seems connected to the fallout from the Chicago Bears stadium situation.

Why it’s hairy…

Picture this: we spend $60 million renovating the BOS Center, its state of the art, modern and up to date, then attendees walk out the door and past a vacant Wyndham (52 years old), walk over 2 homeless people, and end up staying at the Abraham Lincoln next door, which, while nice, is 41 years old. Or you could stay at the Crown, which is 29 years old and across town. There are other options, but the point is the same:

the overall experience gets devalued if we can't also land the headquarters hotel alongside the BOS Center renovation.

That question came up in the meeting too, board members wanted some guarantee that if we went through with the renovation, we'd also get the hotel, which right now is on hold.

Existing hotels aren’t exactly thrilled about a new one either. Their pushback, more or less: you build a new hotel and you're stealing our business, which means you're taxing our customers to help pay for your building, and we get nothing out of it? Yeah right, go fly a kite.

Except it's not that simple. A 300 room headquarters hotel attached to a new and modern convention center would pull in a lot of business, sure, but it won't be able to sleep everyone who shows up. The overflow spills to the Abraham Lincoln, spills to the Crowne, and honestly spills out into the whole community.

One presenter gave the example of Irving, Texas, where visitor spending went from about $30 a day before a similar project to around $300 a day after the project completion. That's one story, but there were plenty of others told in the meeting, real examples of why this basically has to happen, not just to stay relevant, but to actually revitalize downtown and propel our economy forward.

Before the next point, if this is valuable…

Will the tax ever go away

Investors need to know they'll get paid back. How do they get paid back? When the asset performs. How does the asset perform? When it's well kept and continually improved for better user experience. How does it get improved continually? 

M - O - N - E - Y

Where does that come from? Taxes.

So which is it, build now and hope there's enough revenue for maintenance later, or fold the maintenance cost into the bonds from day one, since the county will own and operate this building for good (yes, the county will own the building)?

Turns out that's basically the exact question county administrator Brian McFadden and the county's development partner, Steve Galbreth, walked through in the meeting. The short version: when the county borrows the money for this project, it's not just borrowing enough to build the expansion. It's borrowing a bit extra up front and setting that aside in a dedicated maintenance fund, basically a savings account earmarked for future repairs, instead of coming back to borrow again every time the carpet wears out or the furniture needs replacing.

Galbreth said the industry standard is that convention center interiors (carpet, furniture, soft finishes) need refreshing roughly every 8 years, and bigger stuff, "case goods," furniture and fixtures, around every 10.

This isn't purely good planning either, it's basically required. The bonds will get rated by S&P or Moody's, and rating agencies want proof that the asset backing the bonds, the BOS Center, will actually be kept up over the life of the debt.

A well maintained building protects the revenue stream that pays the bonds off.

McFadden and Galbreth actually drew a pretty good contrast here, and it ties right back to that vacant Wyndham. Privately owned hotels usually get built with a mix of construction loans, mezzanine debt, and investor equity, all of it expensive and all of it expecting a payoff.

Once the hotel stabilizes, usually a few years in, the original owners cash out and sell to someone else, and the new owner often hasn't budgeted for upkeep since they just spent everything buying the property. So the building gets patched instead of maintained, gets sold again a few years later, and the cycle repeats, with less invested in upkeep each time. Galbreth pointed to that as essentially the story of Springfield's downtown hotels, with the Wyndham being the visible end result. (also…landlord registry. Funny how this was all discussed in two different buildings, on the same night, in the same city.) 

That's part of why the county wouldn't add a real sunset clause. This tax isn't only paying off construction debt, it's also funding an ongoing maintenance obligation for as long as the county owns and operates the building. That's the tension board members were pushing on. Supporters frame no sunset as responsible stewardship, keeping the asset in good shape forever. Skeptics frame it as an open ended commitment with no built in point for taxpayers or visitors to revisit it. Honestly, both things are true at once, and that's probably the fairest way to think about it.

The vote

So what actually happened. The board voted 20 to 5 to approve the 3% hotel tax. Before that vote, someone tried to add a real sunset clause, something that would let the tax expire someday. The bond lawyers said that would scare off investors and could kill the whole project, so it got swapped for a softer version: the county can lower the tax rate later if it wants, but can't eliminate it once the bonds are sold.

That change passed on a quick voice vote, not the roll call. Then came the real vote, the 20 to 5, which locked in the actual 3% tax.

For what it's worth, I think the whole thing, the tax, the renovation, the hotel, all of it, is necessary. And I'm apparently not the only one.

What's next

Not sure yet what's next, but once it starts, we're looking at roughly a year of design work and another two years of construction. Keep your eyes peeled.

That's all for this one, there was a lot. You can watch the full meeting here.

If this was useful, like, share, and as always, join the club.