Jefferson City Council members on Monday will face a decision not for the faint of heart.
Council members will decide the future of a conference center - an issue that has been before the community for decades and, in its present incarnation, since since the fall of 2012.
Although economic development, financing and other complexities abound, council members must be fair to the process and involved parties, and choose what is best for the city they represent.
The two proposals advanced last November and now before the council are:
• A proposal from the Jefferson City-based Farmer Development Co. includes a 61,000-square-foot conference center to be located within the Capital Mall, owned by the developer, with a 127-room hotel attached. The largest single room would be 40,000 square feet. The conference center cost is estimated at $14 million; the hotel would be just under $14 million.
• A proposal from the Hannibal-based Ehrhardt Hospitality Group includes a nearly 45,000-square-foot conference center in the 300 block of West McCarty Street in the downtown area, with an attached 150-room hotel. The largest single room would be 30,000 square feet, with an additional 2,000 square feet of breakout space within the hotel. The cost of the conference center is $13.8 million and the hotel would cost $15 million.
Financing packages for both proposals include lodging tax revenues, tax incentives and potential subsidies from the city's general fund.
We believe council members have two viable options: Reject both proposals or advance one proposal to pre-development negotiations.
City officials, consultants and developers have analyzed, discussed and debated a range of concerns, including location, the size of the facilities, parking and public-private funding sources. During the protracted conversation, some of the parties have withdrawn or appear to have lost interest.
The process has consumed and continues to require time, energy and money - both for the developers and city officials.
Perpetuating it for the sake of political expediency, popularity or procrastination is unacceptable.
Council members must act. They must evaluate what is a deal-breaker, what is viable and what is negotiable.
Selecting one of the two proposals for pre-development negotiations preserves the option for the city to back out if negotiations fail. But, each new investment of time, resources and energy also makes eventual dissolution more difficult.
Council members must not only be honest with themselves, they must be candid with each other. If they are committed to good-faith negotiations on a viable proposal, advance it. If not, reject both.