Opus/BKD "Industrial Development" Needs Review by Attorney General's Office

The recent emergency bill passed by the Springfield City Council permitting 910 Springfield LLC (Opus) to develop an office building and determine the parking rights in the facility JQ Hammons agreed to purchase is an affront to the citizens of Springfield and should not be tolerated. Furthermore, the subsequent determination to issue tax abatement revenue bonds under the auspices of RSMo Chapter 100 statutes should be reviewed by the state Attorney General's Office for possible violation of the intent of the statutes.

The first point I'd like to make is I am not against development. What I am against is the manner in which our City Council deems something so important as to declare it an "emergency", and (for all intents and purposes) deny any public dialogue to take place. This is exactly what the council did in the matter of a proposed Opus development.

What a sham! Give me a break, will ya? Ok, fine.
Tell me this: How the heck does an accounting firm's (BKD's) future office building warrant "emergency" status on the council's agenda and preclude any public discussion, whatsoever?

Is this for real?

On top of that, the council determines this whole mess should be given yet another tax break! So what does the council do? It decides to classify this project as an "industrial development" which, in turn, qualifies it for tax abatement revenue bonds issued by the city under the RSMo Chapter 100 statute.

The statute provides the tax abatement revenue bonds may be issued for the purpose of industrial development, but there are some loosely interpretted guidelines for their issuance. The council may have crossed the line on this one and I think they did. Their line of reasoning is the office building is an industrial development by virtue of their (also questionable) belief regarding BKD being an "office industry".

Even if the deal is legal, (which I'm not certain it is and I advocate an independent review by the state Attorney General's office) I'm 100 percent opposed to this development being given a tax abatement. This city is experiencing financial problems, in part, due to their misguided belief in tax abatements as incentives for businesses to stay in, or relocate to, Springfield.

If businesses don't want to make their base of operations in Springfield without these tax incentives, so be it. Sayonara! Cya later, bub! Our city needs the tax revenue! If we provide these business with tax abatements do you know what they become? They become a tax burden and a liability.

I'm not talking about liability for the revenue bonds, either. I'm talking about the future revenue it's going to require to maintain the city's infrastructure in order to keep these businesses happy and keep them here. (Not to mention the blackmail tactic of hitting the city up for future abatements; using the threat of leaving as coercion.) If council members don't see this proposed development as a future expenditure for the city, then they are fiscal fools and every stinking one of them should be voted out of office next April.

Please write to the state Attorney General's office if you agree with this opinion and request a review of the legality of our city council's actions regarding the issuance of these tax abatement revenue bonds.