Council declines to name housing as a priority in proposed tax ordinance

Springfield City Council held a public hearing on a plan to seek replacement of a three-quarter-cent city sales tax at its meeting last night and received input from a dozen community members who implored them to include housing in the ballot language.

Instead of adding the word “housing” to the measure, council stuck with language recommended by its Citizens’ Commission on Community Investment. The CCCI was charged with coming up with a plan for whether and how to replace a three-quarter-cent tax that has been used to support the city's Police and Fire Pension Fund.

A vote on the tax will be held Aug. 5.

The present tax, which provides some $45 million in annual funding, was first passed in 2009 and sunsets on March 31, 2025.

The CCCI recommendation being considered by council was that voters be asked in the Nov. 5 general election to pass a new three-quarter-cent tax, with one-quarter of a cent to continue to go toward the pension fund – now 91% actuarially funded – along with other safety initiatives, including police officer and firefighter pay. The other two-quarters of a cent would fund projects that are consistent with the city’s Forward SGF comprehensive plan, to include capital improvements, community and neighborhood initiatives, and park projects.

The one-quarter-cent tax would never sunset, and the other two-quarters would be assessed for a decade.

Speakers who asked for housing to be included in the funding plan were members of Springfield Tenants Unite, a tenants’ rights organization that frequently advocates for housing initiatives in front of council, and other housing advocates.

Among the other community members asking for housing to be included in the measure were Aaron Schekorra, executive director of The GLO Center, an LGBTQ+ advocacy organization; Michelle Garand, vice president for affordable housing and homeless prevention for Community Partnership of the Ozarks Inc.; David DeRossett, a sociologist and a leader of the Springfield-Ozarks Chapter of Missouri Jobs with Justice; Isabelle Jimenez Walker, commissioner on the city’s Public Housing Authority Board; and Katie Anderson, executive director of the Housing Authority of Springfield.

Councilmember Brandon Jenson offered a compromise in the form of an amendment.

Though the speakers were united in asking for housing to be included in ballot language, Jenson’s amendment suggestion would not have changed the ballot language. Rather, it would have offered definitional clarity in the accompanying ordinance and clearly outlined the eligibility of housing and code enforcement activities.

The change would have clarified the measure for the citizens oversight group to be formed to oversee fund expenditures, and it also would guide future councils in making allocation decisions, Jenson said.

Jenson pointed out that housing and enhanced code enforcement are both eligible activities for funding under the ballot language as it is written.

“I do think it’s important to note that this amendment offers definitional clarity only and does not make any modifications to the ballot language itself or to the list of evaluation criteria, out of respect for the work that the Citizens’ Commission on Community Investment did and the official report and set of recommendations that they provided to us,” Jenson said.

The amendment would have added this sentence: “For the purposes of this tax, the term ‘community and neighborhood initiatives’ shall be construed to include but not be limited to housing and code enforcement.”

The amendment was seconded by Councilmember Monica Horton. It failed by a 5-4 vote, with Jenson, Horton, Craig Hosmer and Heather Hardinger voting in favor.

Prior to the vote, Hosmer expressed his strong support of the amendment.

“When you look at the chronic problems Springfield has, whether it is the majority of people renting in this city, high poverty rates – one of the highest poverty rates in the state of Missouri, higher than the national average – high utility costs for poor people, chronic crime, neighborhoods that are deteriorating, housing should be and I think is a priority with this council,” Hosmer said. “I think the problem has been we haven’t had the resources to do what we all know needs to be done.”

Part of the answer is inspection of rental properties, Hosmer said.

“When we look at the poor neighborhoods in this city, we have high instances of fires, we have high instances of crime and we have low homeownership,” he said. “We talk about quality of place. Good neighborhoods, good housing stock, people living in housing that is habitable and safe, that is quality of place.”

Hosmer said he has been on council for 12 years, and in that time, council has done a lot of talking about housing.

“If we want to deal with these chronic problems, this is what we have to do: We have to put our money where our priorities are,” he said.

Mayor Pro Tem Matthew Simpson spoke against the inclusion of a direct reference to housing in the ordinance, instead deferring to the language provided by unanimous consensus of the CCCI. He said Forward SGF is a document that reflects community priorities, and it includes housing.

“I think it was very wise of the Citizens’ Commission – I think that’s reflected in the unanimous consensus – to reference Forward SGF as the guiding point for the citizen recommendations on what projects and investments that we should put money in with this half-cent moving forward,” Simpson said.

In their arguments prior to the vote for including housing in the measure, members of STUN reiterated that securing votes from the roughly 60% of the community that rents instead of owns housing will be important.

“If tenants like me and like my neighbors are going to vote for this tax, we really need to see a specific, direct commitment that at least some of the funds will go to housing issues specifically,” said Alice Barber, a leader of the organization.

She added, “We are a city of renters; we are a city of poor and working-class people. And we, the poor and working-class renters in Springfield, will be the ones paying the tax. So, it’s up to you to show us that it’s worth it.”