Temperatures are rising again in Ferguson over the reintroduction of a $1.8 billion technology hub and data center proposal that council members rejected four months ago.
The council deadlocked 3-3 in May, with one abstention, leaving the tax abatement package without enough votes for approval. But last month, Councilman Nick Kasoff proposed legislation to revive tax incentives for the project at the former Emerson campus and introduced the new measure with Councilwoman LaMika Covington.
During the Sept. 9 Ferguson City Council meeting, which served as the first reading of the updated proposal, insults were flung, accusations of betrayal were hurled and threats of recall were more than insinuated.
“It was a contentious meeting,” said longtime resident Mildred Clines. “The majority of the residents were angry about this bill they’re trying to push through again. We’ve had the vote and now they’re bringing it back. It seems like they’re just ignoring us.”
New Ferguson resident Brenda Hayes agreed.
“People were angry, pissed off and really upset with the mayor and the entire council,” Hayes said. “It just baffles me that we’re revisiting this after we already turned it down.”
The new plan is largely like the previous one, with tax incentives for redeveloping the 217-acre former Emerson Electric campus. The project, publicly described as a $1.8 billion investment, would include data centers along with energy, advanced manufacturing, office and research uses. Next Revolution Technologies, headed by attorney Jim Onder, owns the site.
The proposal also would allow Ferguson to issue up to $22 billion in industrial revenue bonds over the life of the project — up to $1 billion for real estate and improvements and $21 billion for equipment. The $22 billion is not the project’s price tag but allows for potential equipment purchases and replacements over decades. The bonds would not be repaid with city tax revenue.
The developer and future tenants generally would receive 75% property tax abatements for specified periods while making payments in lieu of some taxes.
Supporters say the incentives could transform a largely vacant corporate campus into a major development producing jobs and revenue for a city struggling financially. Critics question whether the tax breaks are too generous and the protections for residents strong enough.
Next Revolution must invest at least $175 million by the end of 2029 and meet minimum employment requirements to retain the abatements. City documents project hundreds of construction jobs and more than 350 permanent jobs, but those figures are projections, not contractual requirements.
The new proposal also requires an initial $700,000 payment to Ferguson to mitigate community impacts and fund emergency services, followed by $700,000 annually beginning in 2028 while any part of the project receives a tax exemption. The developer also has committed $7.5 million over 10 years to the nonprofit Ferguson Neighborhood Improvement Program.
All this, Ferguson Advocates for Civic Transparency leader Henry Iwenofu insists, is nonsensical.
“The city is only getting $700,000 — which is much less than what it needs — while a private organization that city council members are affiliated with gets $7.5 million,” Iwenofu said. “That makes no sense!”
Environmental protections remain another point of contention.
Hayes, who lives near the proposed development, said the bill “lacks protective measures for residents and the community.”
“There’s nothing in black and white that states what those protective measures are,” Hayes said.
The agreement does spell out several protections. It creates a $250,000 environmental mitigation fund that could be used for air quality, noise and heat monitoring and requires water-conserving cooling technology for new data center operations with high cooling demands. It also requires compliance with city noise regulations.
Edgar Martin, a 16-year Ferguson resident, said he’s not “anti-tech” but is against a tax-supported proposal that he believes lacks sufficient accountability and transparency.
“I don’t see caps on water usage; I don’t see a third party that annually reviews important things,” Martin said.
The agreement requires water-conserving technology but does not set a numerical cap on water consumption or require the annual independent review Martin described.
“I’m not anti-technology; I’m just practical,” Martin said.
The case for reviving the project emerged during an Aug. 11 council meeting, when Kasoff opposed putting a quarter-cent fire department sales tax increase before voters, arguing that Ferguson needed economic development rather than higher taxes.
Councilman David Williams argued that redevelopment of the Emerson campus offered sustainable revenue and an opportunity to negotiate environmental protections and community benefits. After the tax proposal failed 3-4, Williams urged the council to reopen negotiations over the Emerson development.
After the Sept. 9 council meeting, some residents began pushing a door-to-door recall effort aimed at Kasoff, Covington and Williams.
Chris Sudlik has been among those canvassing neighborhoods to gauge residents’ feelings about the proposal.
“We knocked on about 2,000 doors and in all of that, we only found two people who supported the data center,” Sudlik said.
That doesn’t mean all Ferguson residents are against the proposal, Kasoff said.
“To be clear, there are a lot of people in this city who support this development. I hear from them every day,” Kasoff told KSDK. “They don’t come to council meetings because they’re afraid of the angry, screaming mob.”
The recall effort is being led largely by FACT, a grassroots coalition of Ferguson residents. Clines said organizers are seeking about 600 signatures.
No decision was made Sept. 9. The Ferguson City Council is scheduled to meet again Sept. 22, when the agreement could return for a second reading and final vote.
Sylvester Brown Jr. is the Deaconess Foundation Community Advocacy Fellow.