Bill filed by Lebanon legislator would curb zoning referendum process in Springfield 

Jeff Knight: Legislation in response to requests from unnamed business groups and developers. 

Matt Morrow: Chamber supportive of reining in local rezoning referendums. 

Curtis Jared: Favors rezoning reform legislation but did not approach Lebanon lawmaker. 

• 
• 
• 

Last edited 12:53 p.m., Jan. 22, 2026 [Editor's note: Added another source.]

A bill filed this month in the Missouri House of Representatives seeks to limit the ability of some state residents to challenge zoning changes through a petition and vote process. 

That bill, House Bill 2847, was sponsored by a Republican legislator from outside of the Queen City: Rep. Jeff Knight of Lebanon. However, it appears from the language the legislation applies only to Springfield. 

Specifically, the measure seeks to revise Section 89.060 of Missouri statutes by prohibiting certain cities based on population size from allowing zoning changes to be addressed through referendums, initiatives or a vote of residents. A currently existing challenge method would remain intact, under which property owners representing at least 30% of affected land may file a formal protest that triggers a requirement for a two-thirds vote by a city’s legislative body.  

The legislation applies only to home-rule cities partially located in counties with populations between 260,000 and 300,000. While Springfield is a home-rule city run by its own charter, it is unclear whether the population guidelines laid out in the bill would apply to Greene County. The U.S. Census Bureau estimates Greene County’s population at 307,942 as of mid-2024, though the most recent decennial census in 2020 placed the county’s population below 300,000. 

Rep. Knight’s home city of Lebanon does not appear to fall under the bill’s purview, as Laclede County’s population was roughly 36,000, according to the 2020 census. 

In a Jan. 22 interview with Springfield Business Journal, Knight said he filed the legislation in response to requests from organized business groups and some developers in Springfield, but he declined to name them. 

“My understanding has been that a couple housing developments had been reversed through this process,” he said. 

Knight said he has been pro-business and pro-development since arriving in Jefferson City, where he’s in his ninth year of service. 

“With the sensitivity of the subject, this would have been hard for someone who lives right in Springfield,” he said, referring to his filing of the legislation. “We live in a world where people are concerned about reelection and worried about their political future. I don’t worry about my political future.” 

Springfield officials react 
Springfield Area Chamber of Commerce President Matt Morrow said the organization is generally supportive of measures that would rein in challenges to government-approved zoning measures. While he noted public feedback is essential in the process, he said the final say should not be set in ballot measures. 

"It's our view that the elected officials – in this case Springfield City Council – should be the final word on zoning cases," he said.  

Regarding the legislation itself, he added, "There may be other or better ways to approach it, too." 

When asked whether the Springfield chamber had a hand in prompting the legislation, Morrow neither confirmed or denied involvement, but said, “We’re (in Jefferson City) every single week. We don’t get to file bills; legislators do that.” 

Meanwhile, the action by an out-of-town representative has led to pointed questions for local government officials. 

Springfield Mayor Jeff Schrag said he has long heard conversations among business leaders about the need for reform of the zoning referendum in the Queen City. 

“It doesn’t surprise me that it has come up in this manner as a way of the state fixing it, but the city’s not part of the initiative,” he said. 

The referendum process is codified in the city charter, Schrag said, and the only way to change it locally would be through charter reform – a process that requires a citywide vote. But Springfield is subject to state law, and the legislative action could make that charter provision unenforceable, he said. 

Asked if he favored the measure, Schrag said he would have to study the issue. 

“We have a really low barrier to entry for a zoning referendum, and that can cause issues,” he said. 

Specifically, the number of valid signatures on a referendum petition is 10% of the people who voted in the last general election, setting up a situation like a current petition to overturn Springfield City Council action to declare eminent domain on a downtown seasonal attraction, the Hotel of Terror. Only 7% of registered voters participated in the November election, according to past SBJ reporting, and that meant the target number of valid signatures for a ballot measure to overturn council action was 1,499. Roughly 2,400 were collected in the effort, according to Sterling Mathis, co-owner of the Hotel of Terror. While the referendum is not over a zoning issue, the action sheds light on some residents’ desire for voter input on development. 

Mathis said he doesn’t believe the city had no role in getting Rep. Knight to put forth the legislation. When he was asked that specific question, he gave a brief answer that conveyed his skepticism: “Hahahahaha.” 

But then he elaborated. 

“I find it very hard to believe,” he said. “They have lost several properties to this process. Several people have done what I’m doing, and they’ve saved their properties.” 

The referendum petition process was used locally in 2022, when Springfield voters rejected a rezoning measure that would have cleared the way for a mixed-use development in Galloway Village adjacent to Sequiota Park, according to past reporting.  

The petition process also was raised in an effort to challenge the Chimney Rock subdivision in the Galloway Village neighborhood. Springfield City Council gave approval to the dedication of public streets and easements for the project in September.  

Prior to the vote, a Galloway Village resident filed a referendum petition that was rejected in March by City Clerk Anita Cotter, who noted administrative decisions are not subject to referendum. A follow-up lawsuit was paused as council considered the measure, according to past reporting.  

Asked if he was surprised by the response his legislation had received, Knight said yes. 

“There have been some Greene County folks who have not necessarily thanked me for their increase in emails,” he said. 

But Knight called it “simply a progress and growth bill.” He said he found it interesting that the same people who voted in City Council members who pass zoning ordinances are the ones who circle petitions against development. 

Developer view 
Curtis Jared, president and CEO of development firm Jared Commercial & Management LLC, said he was not among those who approached Knight about the legislation. However, he said he is in favor of it, and he is glad someone is doing something about the problem of the referendum process. 

“It prevents people from moving the goal posts,” he said. “That’s the thing; when you’re looking to develop – buying land, hiring engineers and architects, doing surveying and geotech and environmental – you’re spending all this money based off the information that’s in front of you for the best and highest use. That’s what it should be zoned for.” 

But the reality is that people don’t like change, Jared said. 

He gave the example of the Hy-Vee store that opened in 2022 on East Sunshine Street. 

“There was a lot of gloom and doom, but it’s a very successful Hy-Vee,” he said. “Probably a lot of the ones that were opposed to it are the ones shopping there. I see that time and time again.” 

Neighbors of proposed developments can become what Jared calls Monday-morning developers, with alternate ideas for the land they don’t own. 

“Really, it’s not your money, and you don’t know what you’re talking about half the time,” he said. “The economics of it don’t pencil, and then what you’re creating by having these referendums is reverse condemnation, preventing someone from developing their own property. That’s essentially taking.” 

Representatives weigh in 
District 132 Missouri Rep. Jeremy Dean said he thinks it’s odd that Rep. Knight, who represents Lebanon, is carrying the bill that applies only to Springfield. 

“It shows that representatives from Springfield did not have any interest on either side of the aisle in shutting down voices of voters. Someone had to reach out,” he said. 

Dean said the legislation probably anticipates future action at the northwest intersection of Sunshine Street and National Avenue, where University Heights neighborhood residents and developer BK&M LLC have been in a pitched dispute about what can be built on the corner. 

“That’s something a lot of individuals have their eyes on,” Dean said. 

Some other lawmakers in Jefferson City have shown a willingness to limit the reach of voters in shaping laws that govern them. In July 2025, Gov. Mike Kehoe overturned Proposition A, passed by 58% voters the previous November to require certain businesses to pay sick leave to workers, among other provisions. A voter-approved measure to guarantee abortion access has also faced challenges. 

Reached by text message, District 136 Rep. Stephanie Hein said she also backs the referendum process. 

“I firmly believe that local control is a critical component of responsive governance,” she said. “Springfield’s citizen referendum is an important part of local control, and I oppose state-level efforts to impact that right.” 

For District 135 Rep. Betsy Fogle, it comes down to a matter of power. 

“When I was sworn in as a state representative, I made a commitment to never use my platform to increase my own power or diminish the power of the people I serve,” she said via text message. “House Bill 2487 limits the ability of Springfield residents to have a say in the legislative process, and it tells those who worked hard to have their voices heard that their efforts don’t matter. As it stands, I will not be supporting House Bill 2487.” 

State Rep. Melanie Stinnett, R-Springfield, said she intends to listen to local stakeholders about their views on the zoning process.

"Springfield’s future should be shaped by the people who live, work and invest here," she said. "When major decisions are being made about growth and development, Springfield citizens deserve a real voice in the process. We have to ensure Springfield remains a place where businesses can confidently invest, create jobs and grow. That means clear rules, a fair and transparent zoning process, and the stability that employers and families need to plan for the long term."

SBJ reached out to District 134 Rep. Alex Riley, a Republican who has been tapped to serve as the speaker of the House in 2027. Riley did not respond to a request for comment by press time. 

As for Knight, he said his bill was early in the lawmaking process. 

“The attention this has drawn from those people that don’t understand how the process works is premature,” he said, noting the bill has not been through committee review or floor debate. 

“Right now, it’s a piece of paper,” he said. 

Resident support 
Schrag said Springfield’s referendum process is undeniably hard on developers; however, he said he does not see the city’s residents supporting the loss of their referendum process. 

“If citizens aren’t supportive of it, I don’t think it will go anywhere,” he said. 

Schrag repeated his assertion that the city was not behind the initiative, though he acknowledged that some may not believe that. 

“I would probably think that, too, if I wasn’t the mayor,” he said. “I get it, but it’s just not true. I can say that with a straight face.” 

Schrag acknowledged, however, that the city has argued in court in the past that its zoning referendum process is unconstitutional. The case concerned the development of the Walmart Neighborhood Market on Grand Street and Campbell Avenue. 

“The city has held this position in court that it was probably unconstitutional,” he said.  

In that July 2013 ruling, visiting Vernon County Judge Gerald McBeth ruled in Greene County Circuit Court that the city’s referendum power was in conflict with state law established in Chapter 89 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri, according to a news release from the city of Springfield. At the time, Mayor Bob Stephens told local media that the city had suspected its charter language might be in conflict with state law. 

When reached for comment Jan. 20, City Manager David Cameron said he had not yet read the bill, which was filed Jan. 7.  

“Where it originated from, why someone else is pushing it, I don’t know,” he said. “I’ve never spoken to Rep. Knight.” 

Cameron said City Council was transparent in adopting its legislative priorities, and those are the priorities the city sticks to. 

“This was not driven by the mayor or council or anything we adopted,” he said. “From our perspective, we’re always going to push for local control. What this is trying to accomplish, I don’t know.” 

Cameron said the city’s charter needs some updates. 

“Every position in the city is still referred to as a ‘he,’” he said as an example. 

A change in the zoning referendum process may also need to be reviewed, he said, but any changes would require a ballot measure to be voted on by residents of the city.