Springfield City Council votes 7-2 to approve reimbursements for proposed Buc-ee's store
Editor's note: This story has been updated to reflect ranges of possible incentives if approved.
Despite several dozen protesters picketing the move before the meeting, City Council approved the first phase of incentives to Buc-ee's — while city leaders insisted the city is "not giving money" to the gas station and travel center.
Announced two weeks ago, Buc-ee's intention to build a 53,000-square-foot travel center with more than 100 gas pumps was met with great fanfare and excitement for fans of the Texas chain.
But that excitement was soon marred by concerns over the environmental impact of a gas station that size and whether city incentives for the project were warranted — culminating in opinion pieces submitted to the News-Leader and a 50-person protest outside city hall.
More: Buc-ee's travel center headed to Springfield, council debates incentive
But before passing the first set of Buc-ee's incentives, council members made clear no taxpayer money would go to the chain. In fact, they argued the opposite was true.
"We actually in essence get to use Buc-ee's money to put the (public) infrastructure in," said city manager Jason Gage at the Monday meeting.
To build the travel center on the corner of I-44 and Mulroy Road, Buc-ee's will need to build public infrastructure like interstate improvements, the roadway up to the property and utilities.
Instead of asking for upfront compensation from the city for these public improvements, Buc-ee's is asking for $4.1 million to be reimbursed to them over a 20-year period — but only from revenue raised through the public improvements.
"There's been a lot of talk about if we're going to spend city tax dollars on this project, why not spend it on another? Well, these dollars that are being spent are only generated if this project comes to fruition," said Economic Director Sarah Kerner.
More: Council debates whether Springfield acupuncturists should be able to work from home
At a later date, Buc-ee's will ask for another round of incentives through a special sales tax that will only include goods purchased at the store, excluding gas sales. That is estimated to cost at least $4.5 million, but could be up to $5.1. If both incentives are passed, the city will reimburse $9.2 million over a 20-year period.
At the last city council meeting, a Buc-ee's representative said the project would not be able to go forward unless the city pays them back on these public investments. In this meeting, he noted that it will be Buc-ee’s who pays for the improvements upfront and their development that will create the taxes that will reimburse them.
“It's unfortunate that the argument used is actually diametrically opposite. Buc-ee’s is the one that is funding the project. We are just asking for reimbursement because it is a public infrastructure that does benefit us, but it benefits everyone else as well,” said Buc-ee's Director of Real Estate Stan Beard.'
Council passes first phase of Buc-ee's incentives with two in opposition
A majority of the council agreed — passing the first phase of incentives in a 7-2 vote.
"We need to continue to grow," Mayor Ken McClure said of the Buc-ee's development. "If we ever lose that initiative to become better, we ultimately lose our spirit and we ultimately lose our community. I'm proud to vote for this matter this evening."
Councilwoman Heather Hardinger said it is a “misconception” the city would pay out-of-pocket for any of the incentives.
“It's not like this is $9.1 million we have sitting in a bank somewhere that we could have used on other projects. This is specifically for this development to increase the potential for new development in this area,” Hardinger said.
Councilpersons Mike Schilling and Angela Romine did not buy that argument — saying the incentive would put taxpayers' money in Buc-ee’s pocket.
“I believe that we probably should do some more discussion about the ramifications of this and the use of tax money to subsidize a development that's worthy in design as opposed to using the tax money for some other projects in the city that are needed,” said Schilling.
He also said he was skeptical that the project would not go forward without the city incentive.
“Why can the company not stand on its own feet for this?” Schilling asked.
Romine said she was “not opposed” to the Buc-ee’s development but opposed to “using taxpayer dollars.”
“We need to look for other incentives to motivate businesses to move here to Springfield besides giving taxpayer money away. Because ultimately, we're short on some funds in some areas,” Romine said.
She added that the city council should not use these incentives to pick winners or losers and the success of Buc-ee’s should be based “on merit.”
Councilman Craig Hosmer, who has often been skeptical of tax abatements and other business incentives, said he does not think these incentives have that effect.
“I think there are a lot of legitimate reasons that people have criticized this project. But I think those criticisms are wrong with these circumstances,” Hosmer said. “You know, I think when we look at what the city does for abatement by giving people incentives to build their development, I think that is picking winners and losers…but this proposal makes some sense. You’re using dollars you generate on premises to reimburse public — not private — expenditures.”
More: Is this Springfield, Missouri, or 'Parks and Rec?' Debate over new flag creates stir online
'Dam Up Buc-ee's' group protests
The campaign against the incentive package was led by “Dam Up Buc-ee’s,” a group of organizers opposed to the project for its environmental impact and alleged use of taxpayer funds.
An hour before the Monday city council meeting, a group of approximately 50 protesters gathered in front of City Hall — carrying signs and shouting “the people can’t drink gasoline!”
Carrying her two young children, Coco Barbosa called Buc-ee’s a “side-show circus” and “just a Beaver Walmart.”
“I think it’s atrocious to do this when the city should be funding better things such as helping our homeless residents. And I’m really worried it could contaminate the water we all drink,” Barbosa said.
One protester told the News-Leader Buc-ee’s would have an “awful impact” on the environment and possibly contaminate the Fulbright watershed it would sit atop.
The protest was led by leaders of the Springfield branch of the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL). On the national organization’s website, it states socialism can only be achieved through the “revolutionary overturn” of capitalism and the state.
But Springfield PSL organizer Seth Goodwin told the News-Leader that wasn’t their goal in organizing the protest against the Buc-ee’s development.
“Anybody who is a Marxist is going to say that the entire system itself is an exploitative system. And that is true, but that doesn't mean that a lot of us have political power or agency over that at this point. So I wouldn't want to say that all businesses (in Springfield) are doing things with poor intention. In fact, I wouldn't say that.”
Goodwin told the News-Leader he identifies as a “Marxist-Leninist” and a “capital-C Communist.”
According to him, Buc-ee’s offers nothing to Springfield but an “antiquated roadside attraction.”
“People get tired in Springfield of these pet projects that tax money goes into with no real payoff to social infrastructure,” Goodwin said of the money the city will reimburse to Buc-ee’s.
Group targets environmental impact
But the protesters’ main contention is the possible environmental impacts of a 100-pump gas station being built on top of the Fulbright watershed, a drinking water source for Springfield.
“(Buc-ee’s) creates the unnecessary potential for irreparable damage to Fulbright Spring and watershed," reads a talking point on the Dam up Buc-ee's website. "Damage to groundwater resulting from contaminated runoff or leaks could be catastrophic. Even small spills at the pump are dangerous as their effect is cumulative. Because of the location's topography, any runoff or spill would allow contaminants to spread over long distances.
“The Buc-ees proposal has the most significant potential for negative impacts on the immediate and downstream environments. The extensive amount of impervious surface and associated runoff, in conjunction with the high volume of vehicular traffic, will deposit high levels of sediment, toxic chemicals, heavy metals and other pollutants into our waterways and drinking water. Due to the extent of this environmental impact, it is critical that the city conducts, and makes publicly available on their website, an environmental impact study to assess these risks.”
Goodwin also pointed to the long-term impacts of fossil fuel usage for global climate change — doubting the long-term viability of a business based on selling fossil fuels.
“Fossil fuels are a finite resource. The scientific fact of the matter is that they are being phased out. It is inevitable. How is Buc-ee's going to weather the storm? This is a 20-year investment. This doesn't seem like a very sound idea to invest in something that is contingent on an industry that is inevitably going to die,” Goodwin told the News-Leader.
Later during the meeting, city leaders argued Buc-ee’s would not have a negative environmental impact on Springfield.
Beard said Buc-ee’s has never had a “reportable spill” and a city engineering consultant said the chance of negative environmental impacts to Springfield were “very insignificant.”
“The pumps are actually tipped back towards the south detention pond. All of that water is routed through to storm sewer systems. They go through hydrodynamic separators to basically separate all the potential hydrocarbons that you would have out of a spill,” said engineer John Chamberlain at the meeting.
On the concern about stormwater detention, Chamberlain said the development could actually increase the city’s capacity.
“We're decreasing the stormwater runoff from about 99 cubic feet per second down to 31. So it's about a 70 percent decrease in stormwater volume that would be leaving the site as to what you would have in the same storm today,” he said.
After the incentives were passed, Dam up Buc-ee’s wrote on Twitter that the “fight is far from over.”
“Disappointingly, but not surprisingly, City Council yet again sided with Big Business over the interests of their constituents…” they wrote.
“The fight is NOT over, however. We intend to continue what we started and fight for the interests of the working and underserved people of Springfield, regardless of whether City Council has any intentions to or not. To continue this fight, we will need the continued support of the people of Springfield now more than ever.”
The Dam Up Buc-ee's campaign was organized by PSL Springfield, DSA Ozarks, the Socialist Rifle Association Springfield, Food Not Bombs Springfield, Sierra Club Springfield, and the Think Green Club at Drury University.
At a later date, the city council will vote whether to approve the special tax within Buc-ee’s store, which will account for at least $4.4 million of reimbursements. The city will reimburse Buc-ee’s up to $9.2 million between the two rounds of incentives.
That's because, according to Kerner, the estimated reimbursement from the special sales tax is $4.5 million, but is capped at $5.1 million. The total reimbursed between the two phases will be between $8.6 million and $9.2 million.
This article originally appeared on Springfield News-Leader: Buc-ee's project reimbursements OK'd by Springfield City Council
