Springfield Business Journal_2021-06-07

two years after residents in the area spoke out against the development plan due to traffic and stormwater concerns, and its size and aesthetic. City Attorney Rhonda Lewsader said neighborhood residents were outspoken critics of the plan during the planning and zoning process, and Jenkins made some ad- justments to the development in response before it was approved by council. After council approved the rezoning request, residents, including members of the Galloway Village Neighbor- hood Association, filed a ref- erendum petition. Lewsader said by collecting enough signatures from the public, ordinances can be moved to a public ballot for a vote. “The referendum is some- thing set out in the city’s charter, and it’s a fairly common provi- sion in a city charter,” Lewsader said. “It gives the public the right to have a process where they can try to repeal ordinances a city passes.” On Oct. 9, 2020, the city clerk’s office re- ceived a referendum petition with 1,718 sig- natures asking council to repeal the rezoning approval. At the Dec. 14, 2020, meeting, council members voted 7-2 not to repeal it, with councilpersons Mike Schilling and Craig Hosmer voting for a repeal. The decision not to repeal led council to let the public vote on the matter at the Aug. 3 election. After that decision, the developer filed suit against council and the city to get an in- junction to remove the issue from the public ballot on the basis that the refer- endum procedure conflicted with state policy, Lewsader said. The county judge ruled in favor of the developer, finding the city’s referen- dum process does conflict with state law. Lewsader said the city is aware of the conflict, as well as another conflict within the city charter. The referendum process and the similar initiative process, which allows residents to propose ordinances, conflict with portions of the state and city charters. “The city has had concerns since the mid- 1990s that the referendum process and the initiative process, relating to rezoning, con- flicts with the rezoning procedure and with state law. There have been a couple of cases that have gone forward on those issues,” she said. The referendum procedure can be used for any ordinance other than emergency ordinances, levying of taxes or issuance of special tax bills, Lewsader said. The con- flict comes specifically with the city and state charters on rezoning issues. State law requires a public notice and pub- lic comment period before a property is re- zoned. However, rezoning ordinances go into effect immediately once approved. “If you put it to a public vote, and the public repeals it, you’re actually rezoning the property back to what it was before,” Lewsader said. “So that’s a rezoning without the public hearing and notice that is required by state law.” A similar conflict exists within the city charter. The charter requires rezoning issues to go before the Planning and Zoning Com- mission for approval. If the public vote repealed the council’s action, it would remove that step. Removing the issue likely would require a change to the city charter, adding rezoning or- dinances to the list of issues that cannot go under the referendum procedure. Lewsader said the city pre- viously tried to fix the conflict in 1994, but voters rejected the change. To revise it now, coun- cil members could call for the change, but it would ultimately be decided by a public vote. Members of the Galloway Village Neigh- borhood Association declined to be inter- viewed on the issue, but officials provided a statement that admonishes the city for allowing the conflict to remain within the city charter. To address the conflict, the GVNA does not want the referendum procedure to be removed from rezoning issues. Instead, they recommend rezoning ordinances take effect 30 days after passage instead of immediately, to allow time for the process to take place should it go to a public bal- lot. “GVNA remains firm in the opinion that the laws of the state of Missouri and the city char- ter afford citizens the right to a ref- erendum vote on rezoning decisions of City Council,” neighborhood of- ficials said in the statement. The GVNA filed an appeal of the Greene County ruling on May 26 with the Missouri Court of Appeals Southern District and re- quested an expedited hearing. If the state court decides against the origi- nal ruling, the rezoning issue can return to the ballot. However, the court rejected the association’s request for an expedited hear- ing, and Lewsader said it is unlikely the pro- cess will be completed in time for the August ballot. The outcome of the appeal also could be appealed by either party, potentially taking the issue to the Missouri Supreme Court. As for the development, Lewsader said progress will be delayed until the appeals process is complete. The city will not issue building permits on the project while the case is under appeal. In a recent SBJ poll, 63% of 2,248 respon- dents said they supported the Galloway Vil- lage project. Rhonda Lewsader : Removing conflict in city charter requires public vote. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 1 SUPPORTING SPONSORS PRESENTED BY SURVEY POWERED BY: VENUE SPONSOR July 14 Forum 1: Business Confidence Index Aug. 4 Forum 2: Workforce Aug. 25 Forum 3: Demographics Sept. 15 Forum 4: Market Development Oct. 6 Forum 5: Capital Oct. 27 Forum 6: Decision-makers’ Outlook MARK YOUR CALENDAR BUY TICKETS NOW S B J . n e t /G r o w t h S u r v e y THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY HAS SPOKEN TO REVEAL THE NEXT ECONOMIC DATA TO G U I D E U S THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. GVNA remains firm in the opinion that the laws of the state of Missouri and the city charter afford citizens the right to a referendum vote .” —Galloway Village Neighborhood Association SPRINGFIELD BUSINESS JOURNAL · 2 1 JUNE 7-13, 2021 FROM THE COVER Galloway: Project held up by appeals process Continued from page 1