Council member, mayor pressed for explanation on behind-the-scenes biz tax bill compromise 

At the Sept. 8 meeting of Springfield City Council, Mayor Jeff Schrag and Councilmember Craig Hosmer surprised their fellow members by reaching an accord on an issue that previously had them sparring. 

During yesterday’s weekly council luncheon, Councilmember Monica Horton wanted to know how that behind-the-scenes pact came about. Horton said that there was a lesson to be learned from how Hosmer and Schrag came to an accord. 

“I think that last meeting, we were trying to get down to the nitty-gritty of how did we come to a compromise on that?” she said. “For me, this particular item provides a key opportunity to really discuss the teachable moments.” 

At the Sept. 8 meeting, Hosmer introduced a substitute council bill jointly crafted and sponsored by him and Schrag. It replaced one introduced by Schrag on Aug. 25 that would have suspended enforcement on a key piece of legislation by Hosmer – adopted June 23 – to require a business to pay its personal property taxes, assessed on tangible assets like equipment and furniture, as a condition for the city granting its occupational license.  

In short, Schrag’s Aug. 25 bill would have suspended enforcement of the recently added section of city code and referred the matter to the council’s Plans & Policies Committee for review. 

There were fireworks at the Aug. 25 meeting, with Hosmer challenging the mayor on what Hosmer perceived to be Schrag’s failure to provide substantive arguments for his bill, and with Schrag insisting that bills should be vetted by committees to avoid unintended consequences. 

The pair’s jointly authored substitute council bill lit a powder keg again with Councilmember Derek Lee laying into Hosmer for criticizing his colleagues when Hosmer declared that his bills are sent to committee to die. Lee called for a retraction and an acknowledgment that the allegation was inappropriate. Hosmer declined to provide either. 

At yesterday’s council luncheon, Horton said she would like Hosmer and Schrag to offer an explanation at the Sept. 22 council meeting. 

“To the extent that on Monday that that can be teased out – we know what your position is; we are not sure what the mayor’s position is,” she said to Hosmer. “I mean, my goodness, compromise is such a dirty word, right? So, what is the teachable moment? We need to know what that is so we can build upon that and use that as a strength.” 

Schrag said he would not be present at the next meeting, and Horton pressed him to designate someone to speak on his behalf. 

“Inquiring minds want to know,” she said. 

Hosmer said that before they crafted the compromise bill, he and Schrag met with county officeholders. 

“We didn’t know any of that,” Horton said. 

Hosmer said the issue came down to a misunderstanding of the process for business owners to get proof of their tax payment and of the licensing process. It’s something that other Missouri cities do, he said. 

“I don’t think it was any big compromise; it was just basically an understanding of what the process was and how it worked and how it was going to be implemented – and how we could educate businesses to go ahead and better understand what their obligations are for the personal property tax,” Hosmer said. 

Horton said she was curious about the process that led the mayor to let go of suspension of enforcement. 

Schrag said for him it was the notion that the city manager is empowered to issue a business license if there are unintended consequences. 

“So, there’s a pressure relief valve,” he said. 

He added that the two got both city and county staff together to talk things through. 

“And it didn’t need to go to committee,” Horton said. 

Although Horton abstained from voting on the original bill in June because the matter had not been vetted by council committees, she argued at the Aug. 25 meeting that there are many ways for legislation to be vetted – not just through the committee process that Schrag was insistent upon. 

If the compromise bill passes at the Sept. 22 meeting, enforcement of the tax payment requirement for licensure will continue, but the matter will be forwarded to the committee for review. Schrag noted the committee will still have an opportunity to suggest changes that could be made, if necessary. 

The bulk of the lunch meeting was devoted to a review of a summary report from council’s Sept. 5 council-led strategic priorities workshop, which is slated to be the subject of future reporting in Springfield Business Journal.