YOUR BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Springfield, MO
YOUR BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Springfield, MO
In response to proposed state legislation aimed at eliminating the right of Springfield residents to use zoning referendums, Springfield City Council passed a resolution upholding the principle of local control at its Feb. 9 meeting.
The resolution was in response to House Bill 2847, filed by Rep. Jeff Knight, R-Lebanon. If passed, the legislation would disallow referendums for zoning changes, but only in home-rule cities located within counties that have populations of 260,000-300,000 – a description that matches only Springfield.
Springfield Area Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Matt Morrow addressed council at its previous meeting Feb. 2 to explain that he had requested legislative action to provide clarity on the constitutionality of Springfield’s referendum process.
Morrow and the chamber came under some criticism for the tactic of approaching a lawmaker whose district does not include Springfield to achieve their legislative aims, and Councilmember Brandon Jenson vowed to bring a resolution opposing the House bill.
At the Feb. 9 meeting, Jenson was joined by two cosponsors. One, Councilmember Craig Hosmer, is a frequent critic of the Springfield chamber and business interests influencing city policy and spoke out against the state legislation on Feb. 2. The other was an unexpected ally: Mayor Jeff Schrag, a business leader who ran for office on the campaign goal of efficiency in government.
Schrag explained his decision to cosponsor the bill.
“I came to this bill as a cosponsor because I felt like a conversation was being had that was very important to the future of the city in which the city of Springfield was not a participant,” he said.
Although the city was not involved in the filing of the bill, Schrag said he favors community discussion on whether referendum reform is needed.
Another unexpected supporter of the council resolution was Morrow, who said the chamber supports it in its entirety.
“We agree with all six sections of the resolution and look forward to a productive dialogue,” Morrow said in an interview with Springfield Business Journal after the meeting, which he did not attend.
The council bill includes the following actions:
• Council reaffirms the city’s commitment to local control.
• Council urges the Missouri General Assembly to continue its tradition of supporting communities empowered to govern themselves in accordance with local needs and values.
• Council reaffirms that Springfield residents should determine any charter changes.
• The city clerk is directed to transmit a copy of the resolution to each member of the southwest Missouri delegation of the Missouri General Assembly upon passage.
• Council initiates a community discussion on the role of local referendum in implementing its comprehensive plan.
• The resolution goes into effect immediately upon adoption.
Sponsor support
Jenson said he was pleased to be joined in drafting the resolution by Schrag, and together they arrived at what he considered optimal legislation.
He noted the resolution does not mention House Bill 2847 specifically, and he would have liked to include that.
“It sends a clear message to our delegation of state legislators that we value the importance of local control and believe that conversations need to be held locally, even – and especially – when there are differing opinions,” he said.
He said the mayor’s touch on the resolution language minimizes potential acrimony from the legislature for taking a stand.
“Every day that HB 2847 remains before the General Assembly, it creates further harm to the city and the chamber,” Jenson said. “It threatens our community support for some major initiatives over the next six months that’s going to require goodwill between voters and the city, including some priorities that the chamber has been an advocate for.”
Jenson said he had also received critiques from the business community for making this a conversation right now and distracting from things the city is trying to do.
“I would remind everyone that it wasn’t I who asked the state legislature to file a bill and force this conversation to happen,” he said. “The chamber took a public action that has ignited a firestorm of community conversation to which this body is having to respond as representatives of the city and its charter.”
Jenson said he had also heard a critique that the conversation should not have happened in a public meeting.
“As a public servant, I don’t believe that it serves the highest interest to engage in back-door conversations, especially on issues of accountability,” he said.
House Bill 2847 was introduced and given its first reading Jan. 7, according to the Missouri legislative website, with a second reading held the next day. After that, it has sat idle, with no hearing scheduled.
In comments to the media on Feb. 11, Morrow said he appreciated the fact that the bill was introduced, but he added that he does not expect the bill to go anywhere.
In an interview with SBJ Feb. 3, Knight said he does not think withdrawing the bill at the present time was a good idea, and he added that living outside of Springfield gives him maneuverability on the referendum issue.
Morrow said at the time that he had inquired of Knight about his openness to pulling the bill, but he stopped short of making that request.
Opposing vote
The resolution passed by a 7-1 vote, with one member, Councilmember Abe McGull, absent.
Councilmember Derek Lee cast the lone vote of opposition, though he said he does not support the House bill.
Lee said his “no” vote was based on his belief that the two sides of the referendum issue are well established.
“The developers are going to want to have more certainty, and the neighborhood leaders and our voters are going to want to keep it,” he said, referring to the right of zoning referendum. “I don’t see any scenario where our voters are going to vote away their ability to vote.”
Lee predicted an attempt at public dialogue would wind up merely as bickering.
Schrag offered a word of caution against unfriendly verbal sparring.
“I hope we can all agree to disagree in an agreeable manner, and that we can take the higher road and assume the best from everyone else,” Schrag said.
Jenson also pointed out some troubling discourse and communication about the House bill.
“You can disagree with any one of our actions or priorities, and we certainly have disagreement with each other at some points, but I hope that we demonstrate a way to engage in that disagreement where you’re not name-calling or cutting each other down, understanding that we all want to make our city better, even if we have a different understanding or different ways of achieving that outcome,” Jenson said.
Schrag said some aspects of city code regarding zoning referendums need to be discussed. One is the number of petition signatures required – 10% of the number of voters participating in the most recent previous election. Another issue, he said, is the city charter’s list of issues for which referendums are not permitted.
Council position
Morrow hosted members of the press at a Feb. 11 media roundtable, a regular event of the chamber.
House Bill 2847 was the main topic he addressed in a presentation followed by a question-and-answer session.
Morrow pointed out two instances when Missouri courts had identified conflicts between Springfield’s city charter and state zoning law.
In the 1993 case Childress v. Anderson, a trial court found that the initiative petition process cannot be used to place a rezoning on a ballot, and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed its decision.
In 2014’s Myers v. City of Springfield, a trial court found that the referendum process to put zoning changes on a city-wide ballot was in conflict with state law, and the city agreed with its position.
A chamber fact sheet distributed to the media states that Springfield’s charter language provides two mechanisms for appealing zoning decisions – protest petitions and low-threshold referendum petitions – and these have resulted in recurring litigation and ongoing uncertainty.
Morrow noted the city has argued in multiple court proceedings that its own charter provision on zoning referendums conflicts with Missouri state zoning statutes and is therefore unconstitutional.
“The city’s position is consistent with the chamber’s long-held position, and the courts have generally agreed,” the fact sheet states.
Morrow said it was important to understand the core issue behind the chamber’s concerns.
“Naturally, there are a lot of disagreements in our community around this,” he said. “Some are interested in kind of trying to create a bogeyman or accuse people of different things or whatever else, and that’s interesting food-fight stuff, but I think there’s something a lot more important here, and that is what does the law say, what’s our history, what’s our background and what is the impact of disregarding prior court decisions?”
Morrow said the chamber believes it has strong support for its opinion on the zoning referendum issue, though he recognizes not everyone shares that opinion.
Morrow urged the media to help the community understand the issue and the case law attached to it.
“Part of what we’re trying to do on this is to be a voice,” he said. “We’re also not throwing food, so if the main focus of the coverage is play-by-play on a food fight and you’re the one entity not throwing food, you’re not going to do real well on that coverage, right?”
Protecting the charter
In his remarks at the Feb. 9 council meeting, Hosmer emphasized that Springfield is a home-rule city, governed by a charter that has been in effect for 70 years, and the state legislation removes the ability of Springfieldians to engage in debate.
“We’ve taken an oath of office to say we will support the charter and we will defend the charter,” he said. “The citizens of Springfield aren’t going to be part of that debate, because it’s going to be happening in Jefferson City.”
He added that the referendum process has been used only once. In that instance, a council decision was overturned.
“That is democracy,” he said. “It may not be pretty; it may not be the way you want it to work, but that’s the way we established the charter in the 1950s, and it’s worked very well.”
Hosmer added that he served on the state legislature for a dozen years.
“For a representative in Lebanon to be dealing with an issue that affects Springfield is unusual at best,” he said.
He said the chamber was turned down by the local delegation, including both representatives and senators, regardless of party.
“They go to a representative in Laclede County, and they get them to basically change our charter without a vote of the people,” Hosmer said. “That’s not right.”
Hosmer added that the chamber believes it runs the city.
“The power of the referendum is the one thing that people still retain in the charter that gives them the power to change things that we do that they think are wrong,” he said.
Carroll said she supported the council resolution, but she said the city’s relationships with partners like the chamber can improve.
“The hatred for the chamber is not helping our city in a healthy way at all,” she said. “In order for Springfield to be a successful city, we have to have a strong city, a strong chamber, and strong neighborhoods as well as business community.”
Councilmember Bruce Adib-Yazdi criticized the strategy used to move the state legislation forward.
“The tactic that has been used – using a termed-out representative to carry a bill that affects our local city charter – is just bad policy,” he said.
He added that the conversation called for in the resolution needs to include a full coalition of community leaders.
“If we’re going to have that conversation, it needs to be a full-on open discussion with the entire stakeholder group,” he said.
A trio of brothers own Southway Storage LLC, which opened Oct. 7 and has 289 units to serve customers in Ozark, Nixa, Springfield and elsewhere in southwest Missouri.
