Rejecting amendments, council authorizes deer hunting; one of two East Cherry bills passes

With two members absent, Springfield City Council voted 5-2 Monday evening to authorize bowhunting of deer within city limits under certain conditions. Three amendments proposed by Councilwoman Cindy Rushefsky — who expressed concerns about whether the bill had adequate restrictions to ensure the public's safety — failed to gain the number of votes necessary.

The ordinance, as passed, allows bowhunting on units of private property at least two acres in size with the consent of the property owner (or owners; adjacent landowners can combine to meet the two-acre requirement).

The first amendment would have required property owners to provide written notice to their neighbors before each hunt, so that, as Rushefsky put it, the neighbors "could provide any precautionary steps that they want to take to protect themselves and their property." Her second amendment would have instituted a 35-yard no-hunting buffer zone around roads and parks (the bill already included a 450-foot buffer around church or school property lines and outdoor playgrounds).

"My primary concern, again, is to prevent any accidents or accidental injuries outside the scope of this hunt," Rushefsky said.

Councilman Craig Fishel — the primary force pushing for a hunt — indicated he would not support any changes to the current bill, saying the written notice requirement was overly specific.

"The last time we had an urban deer hunt — it was a one-time event — we put so many hoops to jump through that basically it was a failure," Fishel said. "We have followed the recommendations of the Missouri Department of Conservation."

Fishel has said that many Zone 4 constituents have contacted him regarding damage done by deer. The Missouri Department of Conservation has said that the deer population in portions of south Springfield is four times larger than desirable and supports allowing hunting.

Four of the seven council members present voted in favor of Rushefsky's first two amendments, but five votes — a majority of the full council — were needed for passage. Rushefsky then proposed another variation of the first amendment, but it also failed. Council members Fishel, Bob Stephens and Jerry Compton voted against all the amendments.

When it came time to vote on the original bill, council members Jeff Seifried and Jan Fisk — who had voted for the amendments — joined with Fishel, Stephens and Compton to approve it. Rushefsky and Councilman Craig Hosmer voted in opposition; Mike Carroll and Doug Burlison were the two council members absent.

"I'm a little concerned about the safety precautions, the safety measures being excluded from this particular ordinance," Seifried said. "I guess we'll give it a try, and if we have a negative result unfortunately, or we see no result, it's our prerogative to bring this back up."

In other business, council voted 5-2 — Rushefsky and Hosmer in opposition — to approve the redevelopment plan for a portion of East Cherry Street in the Rountree neighborhood, which includes designating several properties as blighted — a designation that allows the developer to save on property taxes for 10 years. RKJ Properties plans to build a 24-unit apartment complex.

Hosmer reiterated his belief that the city applies the blighted designation too easily — saying "it's bad public policy" — to the detriment of the services funded by property taxes and other developments built without the designation. Compton, however, noted that the designation is allowed under current city policy, and cited the increase in the assessed value of previous developments built on blighted properties as an explanation of why he believes the designation is favorable to the city in the long run (after the 10-year abatement, property owners pay taxes on the full assessed value).

The vote count flipped — only Stephens and Seifried in favor — when it came time to vote on a related bill that would have reduced the required front-yard setback for the development from 25 to 15 feet. Compton said that would be closer to the street then adjacent properties, making the development "out of character."

Rountree residents had vocally opposed both bills as they moved through the Planning and Zoning Commission and council process.