Convention center tax proposal in the works for April

Springfield city leaders are considering an April ballot measure to fund a new downtown convention and events center.

The measure, which has not yet come before Springfield City Council, would likely be similar to a proposed 3% lodging tax that failed in November, though a few key differences are anticipated, according to City Manager David Cameron.

In the failed ballot measure, the additional tax assessment on hotel, motel and short-term rental accommodations in the city was proposed as permanent and would have resulted in mostly guests to Springfield paying part of the cost of a convention facility and events center. 

Among the differences for a new tax proposal are a sunset for the tax and a hard cap of construction costs for the center at $175 million – Cameron said the total project cost may be closer to $205 million with other expenses, like property acquisition, included.

Cameron made his remarks during a listening session Jan. 6, held to review results of a citywide survey that was conducted to get residents’ feedback on why the funding measure failed the first time and what the city would need to do to get a new measure passed now.

In an interview after the session, Cameron said he intends to present to council a summary of feedback from the survey and listening sessions, and he said he is hopeful a new ballot measure will be approved in time for the April election. The deadline to file ballot measures is Jan. 27.

Cameron told the audience that vacant land on the east side of the city-owned Springfield Expo Center is part of the site envisioned for the potential downtown center. The facility would also incorporate land on either side and north of the lot, namely the existing Expo Center, which would be renovated and expanded, and the Jordan Valley Car Park, which is owned by Georgia-based Atrium Hospitality LP. The site in total is about 7 acres, and Cameron said it could be built not only outward, but upward, to accommodate the center and possibly an attached hotel.

Cameron indicated some property across St. Louis Street from the site may also be acquired to include in the plans. Springfield Business Journal reached out to Atrium for comment but did not hear back from the company by press time.

Cameron presented a slide at the listening session showing a basic site plan. He said it did not make sense to him to pay roughly $250,000 for design documents to develop a conceptual design of the proposed center, though when pressed by an audience member who said voters need an idea what the new center will look like, he acknowledged the importance of providing one.

The city survey completed by upwards of 1,200 respondents in December showed that lack of information – including a failure of city officials to reveal the site of the proposed center – was a factor for many who said they voted against the tax to fund the center.

“I can say – that’s the spot,” Cameron said in an interview after the presentation, referencing the Expo Center and its nearby grassy lot.

During his remarks, he acknowledged that the city did not do a good job telling the story of the convention center.

A 2025 report by consultant Hunden Strategic Partners Inc. – the fourth conducted by the agency for the city since 2011, according to past SBJ reporting – recommended a downtown convention center but does not describe the site; however, it does contain a photo of the grass lot beside the Expo Center marked “potential development area.”

“We didn’t tell a story – pretty simple,” Cameron said. “But at the same time, looking at it, I’m not surprised by the feedback because when I did my onboarding going around the community while this project was gaining momentum, I was out in the community listening, so it’s not a shock to hear.”

Cameron had a slide with the phrase, “You’re not listening.” This, he said, was the key takeaway he heard from residents – that the city does not listen to their concerns.

“I learned another thing – that for Springfield to move forward, government in my capacity’s got to get more out into these environments and listen more to make sure that we’re gaining momentum,” he said. “People want information that we’re actually making progress in the issues that matter to them every day – it’s not just a convention and events center.”

Among the issues city residents feel are going unheard, he said, are stormwater management, noise, crime, animal control and homelessness.

Live feedback
The question-and-answer and comment session after the presentation included strong opinions from supporters and opponents of a convention center.

Rachel Aden, whose LinkedIn profile describes her as senior account manager at Arrowhead Conferences and Events Inc., said she has planned national conferences for 18 years and books some 200,000 room nights per year.

“I work with groups that would love to come to Springfield, but we do not have the infrastructure,” she said. “We don’t have a convention center package. Groups have to book in competing cities like Tulsa and Little Rock and northern Kentucky and Lexington and Wichita,” she said. “I think it’s got to be a communication error, because this thing is a no-brainer.”

She said she regularly books a 1,500-member conference that travels to a city for a week each year.

“They come in; they’re spending money in the restaurants and the shops and buying gas and all of that, and the economic impact is huge,” she said. “The way that this was proposed to be funded doesn’t cost anything for us as residents – the tourists are paying for it.”

She said that adding a few percentage points onto the lodging tax would not deter business.

David Atkisson, Springfield office leader at J.E. Dunn Construction Co., also spoke in favor of the center, including the allocation of $30 million in Spring Forward SGF sales tax funds for use as a one-to-one match for a possible state allocation, currently being withheld by Gov. Mike Kehoe.

“I don’t want to see Jefferson City and all the other places who are investing in their community and their convention centers to get all of the things while we stand by and say, ‘I don’t know if we should be spending that much money on that,’” he said. “Because they are.”

He added, “Best I can tell, cities that are growing and thriving are doing this already, and we’re behind. They’ve set forth the model; we just need to wake up and get on board with it so that we can be the best Springfield we can be.”

Wes Pratt, representing the Multicultural Business Association, also spoke, noting that his organization’s members are concerned about whether economic development opportunities would be extended to underrepresented businesses.

“There’s a perception that exists that when it comes to those businesses, including women-owned businesses, that there’s a lack of responsiveness of the city,” he said.

He added that his association would like these businesses to participate in the benefits of projects like the convention center.

“That was nowhere articulated,” he said.

Linda Simkins, a city resident who closely monitors local government, asked Cameron to clarify the financing plans, not for the convention and events center, but for a connected 400-room hotel that would be operated by a recognized brand. The Hunden report stated the connected hotel, at an estimated cost of $209 million, would be essential for the center to succeed.

“Can you confirm again that there’s no public financing going to be in the hotel part?” Simkins asked.

“Yes, I can confirm that,” Cameron replied.

He said that while a public-private partnership is envisioned for the hotel, the public component is the convention and event center itself. He added that tax incentives like community improvement districts or transportation development districts could be used by private developers to help fund a project.

Survey results
The survey, which had 1,229 respondents, asked, “What changes or conditions would make you more likely to support a revised convention and events center?” Respondents could select up to three.

The most common response, at 18%, was a desire for a clear explanation of community benefits, with 17% wanting more transparency and public input and 15% wanting assurances that visitor taxes and not local taxes would fund the project.

Taken together, these responses – half of those received – highlight a theme of the survey: that many voters felt they would need more information in order to vote for a lodging tax.

Another 15% of respondents called for stronger downtown revitalization impact from the project.

Other responses, all under 10%, suggested changes to the project itself, including a sunset provision for the tax and partnerships with other entities (6% each) and more youth sports or family-friendly features and a smaller or more affordable project (5% each).

Some 13% of respondents answered “none of these” to the options provided for factors that would make them support a renewed measure.

The desire for more information tracks with comments by Cameron that a short timeline leading into the vote made the measure difficult to effectively promote.

“There was a lot to rush to meet that deadline,” he said of the tax in an interview last month with Springfield Business Journal. “That’s not the way you would normally run a ballot measure.”

The state legislature included $30 million in state funding in the 2026 budget and required a one-to-one match from the city, but then Kehoe’s June 30 move to restrict the funds – a step short of a veto – added urgency to the city’s need to establish a funding stack for the facility.

In the survey, 44% said they would be more likely to support a tax with a sunset, while 50% said there would be no change and 6% said they would be less likely.

Announcing a specific proposed location and releasing conceptual renderings would make roughly half of respondents more likely to support the project.

The cost of the project, pegged at $175 million in past SBJ reporting, was not cited as the major factor in the outcome of the vote, with 57% unlikely to change their vote for a less expensive center and 12% less likely to support it with a reduced cost. Some 31% did say they would be more likely to support a less expensive center.

Economic factors were highly prized among respondents. Some 51% ranked job creation and local business growth as very important, with 48% giving top importance to tax generation to support community needs. Just over 44% of respondents said keeping visitor spending in Springfield was very important, and 47% said revitalizing downtown and surrounding areas was a top priority. Although it’s a convention center project, the option of attracting regional conferences and tourism was deemed very important by only 43% of respondents.

Half of respondents labeled funding through tourism taxes, as is the case with the measure being considered for the April ballot, as very important in the survey.

Loss of business
Mark Hecquet, president and CEO of Visit Springfield, Missouri, said convention business is waning in the city.

“Unfortunately, the quality of the Expo Center is not competitive, so we’re just losing to other cities, and we just find that the business that we have is leaving, unfortunately,” he said. “We hope to change that.”

Hecquet said the project was never an either-or project, focusing on the center at the expense of other community needs.

“It was an ‘and’ project – it was to help general revenue, transportation, so we could really help with all those community issues through this project,” he said. “I think that was a real lesson that was missed.”