Council, Citizens’ Advisory Board hold planning workshop

Springfield City Council and its Citizens’ Advisory Board began working toward a shared understanding of their goals in a joint workshop yesterday at the airport.

The CAB is the council-appointed body that makes recommendations on the use of a half-cent, 10-year portion of the Spring Forward SGF sales tax, which funds initiatives in keeping with the city’s comprehensive plan, according to past Springfield Business Journal reporting. The CAB has three pillars for its investment strategy: capital improvement projects, community and neighborhood initiatives, and parks projects.

Objectives of the meeting, according to facilitator Lauren Palmer, a consultant with Independence-based EverStrive Solutions LLC, was to explore investment scenarios and identify top desired projects based on council criteria. The workshop also sought to align the CAB’s work with council priorities on housing.

City officials were not able to respond to a request for the price of the consulting work by publication time, but for a slightly longer goal-setting workshop conducted by Palmer with City Council alone in September 2025, the not-to-exceed value of EverStrive’s contract was set at $13,475.

Palmer outlined revenue estimates for the half-cent portion of the tax at $31.5 million for its first and current year, ending June 30; $32.4 million for fiscal 2027, beginning in July; and $33.1 in fiscal 2028.

In this first year, CAB recommended putting the entirety of anticipated tax proceeds, $30 million, toward a proposed downtown convention and events center, a project City Council is seeking to fund with a second attempt at a hotel/motel room tax that failed with voters in November 2025. The eight-member CAB was unanimous in approving this recommendation in a vote on July 30, 2025.

Deputy City Manager Collin Quigley described three scenarios – put together by city staff – for the use of funding, and council and CAB members discussed the pros and cons of each. He indicated not every project would fit neatly into a single category.

A majority of participants preferred a transformational spending scenario, geared toward catalytic projects within any of the three pillars, over the other two options: a balanced focus that aims for even investment among categories or a livability and parks focus that prioritizes parks and neighborhoods. They indicated their preference with a sticker placed on one of three large flip sheets taped to the wall

Catalytic projects were defined as those capable of driving tourism, talent attraction and economic development.

“This approach advances the convention and event center foundation and can stack toward future transformative opportunities,” the exercise prompt explained.

The transformational approach would go big early with transformational projects, according to its description in the exercise. For fiscal 2027, that would mean putting $16.2 million toward transformational capital projects, similar to the convention center, with $11 million toward parks and trails and $5.2 million toward community and neighborhood projects, with a similar breakdown in fiscal 2028.

The approximate split over a decade, as outlined by Palmer, would have half of the funds going toward large transformational projects, with 33% toward parks and trails and 17% toward neighborhoods.

CAB member Rusty Worley said it was helpful to envision an ideal mix for expenditures at the end of the 10-year period, while recognizing the mix may change from year to year.

“Some transformational things may be front-loaded, and then some neighborhood things in later years,” he said.

Participants also wrote down and anonymously submitted their “makers and breakers” – one project each for projects they absolutely want to see and one each for projects they do not want to fund.

The most popular “maker” project was redevelopment around Lake Springfield, with three participants choosing that initiative as a project they definitely want to fund. Specific details were not offered during the full-group session. Other makers were housing and neighborhood projects as recommended in the Forward SGF comprehensive plan, strategic planning to achieve shove-readiness for projects, the proposed convention center, the Springfield Art Museum, the Jefferson Avenue Footbridge plaza and housing nonprofit Restore SGF.

“Breakers” were less specific, with no project names listed; rather, participants listed characteristics of projects they did not want to fund.

These included projects with no measurable impact and transformational projects without a plan for operation and maintenance. Projects that don’t leverage grant money or private donations or that lack planning or community involvement were also listed.

Additionally, at least one participant said they did not wish to fund homeless initiatives, housing, deferred maintenance or projects that would solely help private developers.

Small group discussions yielded consensus around funding of housing, with participants prioritizing Restore SGF for downpayment assistance and other programs. Participants also agreed that council needs to develop a housing plan and find a way to prioritize housing recommendations from the Forward SGF comprehensive plan.

The discussion yielded concerns in other areas, including the idea of prioritizing Restore SGF over other possible recipients of funds and the lack of a grand strategy from council.

In closing remarks at the end of a three-hour session, CAB Chair Erin Danastasio characterized the conversation as helpful. She recommended that the groups get together at least twice per year moving forward.