Chamber executive admits to lobbying for anti-referendum bill

Jeff Knight: Legislation has served to get a conversation started.

Matt Morrow: Legal clarity around the referendum process would benefit all parties.

• 
• 

Missouri legislation introduced last month that aims to curb the city’s zoning referendum process had a hazy origin, but at the Feb. 2 Springfield City Council meeting, a Springfield Area Chamber of Commerce official shouldered some responsibility for it.

House Bill 2847 would impact only the Queen City by disallowing voter referendums for zoning changes. The state legislation targets home-rule cities partially located in counties with populations of 260,000-300,000 – a description that matches only Springfield.

The measure was filed by Rep. Jeff Knight, R-Lebanon, whose district does not include Springfield.

In past Springfield Business Journal reporting, Morrow neither confirmed nor denied the chamber’s involvement in the legislation, saying only that the chamber is in Jefferson City weekly.

“We don’t get to file bills; legislators do that,” he said at the time.

Knight told SBJ only that organizations and developers in Springfield had approached him, but he declined to name them.

Morrow’s appearance before council acknowledged the chamber’s role in prompting the legislation.

In his remarks during the public comment period of the council meeting, Morrow said the city needs investment.

“People have to choose to put their capital at risk here instead of somewhere else, and that choice depends heavily on certainty,” he said.

Morrow said the use of ballot referendums to overturn or threaten to overturn zoning cases is largely unique to Springfield.

“Every voice in the process matters, and every voice must be protected – but zoning referenda go beyond protecting voices. They remove zoning authority from elected representatives, and they introduce a new higher level of uncertainty and unpredictability that discourages investment,” he said.

That’s probably why most Missouri cities don’t allow zoning cases to be overturned in this way, he said, calling Springfield the exception in Missouri and not the rule.

Despite Morrow’s assertion, a review of the city codes of St. Louis and Kansas City, the state’s largest cities, show that zoning referendums are permitted. In St. Louis, the number of petition signatures must exceed 2% of registered voters, while in Kansas City, the number of petition signatures required equates to 10% of the number participating in the most recent mayoral vote.

Morrow said Springfield has by far the lowest signature threshold among Missouri cities. City code verified signatures numbering at least 10% of those who voted in the previous election for a referendum petition.

“The chamber has long believed that greater clarity here would benefit everyone and that complex zoning decisions are best made by elected officials after hearing all voices and reviewing all facts rather than citywide ballot language that cannot possibly capture the nuance of complex zoning cases,” he said.

Morrow enumerated places in the zoning process where public input is heard, from neighborhood meetings to hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, with the ability to file protest petitions to require supermajority council votes.

“Having a voice doesn’t always mean having the final say or having the final authority,” he said.

Morrow said the city and chamber are longstanding partners, which means mutual support and accountability, but neither needs permission to advocate for its constituents. He added that the city has argued the chamber’s position on referendums in court in the past based on the belief that the zoning referendum charter provision is inconsistent with state law and the state constitution.

Councilmember’s concerns
Councilmember Brandon Jenson outlined a litany of concerns about the chamber’s actions in using legislation to curb referendums, hitting hard on the fact that an outside legislator was solicited to file the House bill and on the lack of communication with a council Morrow referred to as a partner. He said he first heard about the legislation through news media.

Jenson thanked Morrow for clarifying that the bill was filed at the request of the chamber.

Jenson said he has attended multiple chamber meetings over the past several years regarding the development of regional legislative priorities, and the emphasis has always been on keeping decisions local.

“I know that we have differing opinions on this section of the charter, but at the end of the day, the charter is the collective voice of 75 years of Springfieldians,” Jenson said. “And so I don’t take it lightly whenever there’s legislation filed that seeks to undercut that, rather than trying to facility a conversation here locally.”

Morrow said he remains committed to cooperation, but he added that he believes it’s OK to get legal clarity about how the referendum relates to state law.

Jenson was critical of the move of the chamber pushing for a bill to be filed in the statehouse to take the question away from local residents.

“In my opinion, a transparent and consistent response – what one would expect from a century-long partner like the chamber – would have been to actively call for a charter amendment and/or to support a resolution in the judicial system,” Jenson said.

He added that the failure to even provide a notice to the city of the legislation being filed caught city officials unaware.

“The filing of this bill has impacted the credibility of the chamber of commerce in some folks’ view,” he said. “It’s also causing reputational harm to the city. There have been a lot of folks that believe that the city is somehow connected to this. I don’t know how many questions City Manager [David] Cameron has had to field about when the city knew about this, how we had communicated about it.”

Jenson pointed to existing distrust of the government.

“The filing of this type of bill in the political climate that we’re facing, with the potential ballot issues that we have coming up – it’s shot this city in the foot; it’s shot the chamber in the foot,” Jenson said. “And I don’t understand why a partner would do this and then not own the mistake whenever they make it.”

Withdrawal suggested
Morrow said that he inquired if Rep. Knight would be open to pulling the bill to allow a more collaborative discussion at the local level, but it’s unclear whether he is willing to do that. He added that Springfield is not the only city asking for help on the issue.

Knight told SBJ in an interview that he has not been asked to withdraw the legislation, but he doesn’t think doing so would be a good idea.

“Personally, I don’t know that withdrawing the bill right now is the answer,” he said.

The reach of House Bill 2847 is limited to Springfield alone – but not by name. Instead, the legislation impacts home-rule cities partially located in counties of 260,000-300,000 people, and Springfield is the only municipality that matches that description.

Knight said he wasn’t aware of the Springfield delegation being bypassed, but he acknowledged that the issue would be something of a hot potato for Springfield lawmakers.

“I’m not trying to blow Springfield up, but if you are a political person inside that Springfield area, you probably understand that it could,” he said. “If you want to further your political career or you’re up for reelection, you’ve got to step lightly.”

Being outside of Springfield gives Knight more maneuverability on the issue.

“Me being outside of Springfield but familiar with Springfield, it was approached to me,” he said. “I said, ‘I’m guessing you talked to Springfield folks and no one wanted to touch it?’ ‘Pretty much.’”

But Knight said he talked to members of the Springfield delegation to say he wasn’t trying to step on anyone’s toes.

“You have to do something to get the conversation going,” he said. “We’ve done that.”

Other areas of the state are watching to see what happens with the legislation, Knight said, although he reiterated a point he made in a January interview with SBJ: Right now, the legislation is no more than a piece of paper.

“I tell everyone, everyone needs to stay calm; they need to have conversations and talk about that threshold, talk about people who have the ability to overturn development,” he said. “They also have the ability to change their council.”

Knight said people are elected to go into council positions and make decisions, and that’s a process that should not be easily overturned.

“When you make it easy to change what they decide on, that’s a vicious circle that kind of limits growth,” he said.

Another solution
During the council meeting discussion, Jenson said the threshold for referendums is rather low, being based on the number of voters in the last municipal election rather than the number of registered voters.

“A much better solution to this issue, rather than legislation at the state level that seeks to preempt a section of our charter that’s existed for at least 50 years, is to be a partner in helping to drive voter turnout,” Jenson said.

Councilmember Craig Hosmer, who was in the state legislature for 12 years, said he would have been offended if someone bypassed local representatives to find someone to affect longstanding and seldom-used public policy in the city.

“It’s legislation telling the city of Springfield you can no longer do a referendum of zoning changes,” he said.

Councilmember Callie Carroll spoke up to point out that the chamber website lists priorities, and one supports improving the existing initiative petition system.

“That is something that has been there,” she said.