Ferguson residents have launched a two-pronged campaign to challenge the City Council’s approval of Project Butterfly, submitting more than 1,400 signatures seeking a public vote on the controversial development while pursuing a separate petition to recall a council member who supported it.
The citizen-led group Ferguson Advocates for Civic Transparency (FACT) filed 1,401 signatures Oct. 22, exceeding the roughly 1,054 required under a charter provision calling for signatures from 10% of registered voters.
The recall effort targets Councilwoman LaMika Covington, whose Ward 3 includes the former Emerson Electric campus. Organizers began the recall campaign before the Sept. 22 council vote and started collecting referendum signatures two days after the project was approved.
The signatures were sent to the St. Louis County Board of Elections for verification. Ferguson’s city clerk must determine whether the referendum petition meets the charter’s requirements within 20 days of filing, putting the deadline around Nov. 11.
Five months after a previous proposal deadlocked 3-3 with one abstention, council members Nick Kasoff, Covington, Mike Palmer and David Williams voted in favor of revised legislation, Bill No. 7349, introduced by Kasoff with Covington.
The project, proposed by developer Jim Onder of SSL Investments LLC, calls for transforming the 217-acre former Emerson Electric campus at 8000 West Florissant Avenue into a technology and business hub.
Supporters say the development will generate significant revenue and economic investment for Ferguson. Opponents cite concerns about power and water consumption, higher utility bills, environmental risks and substantial tax breaks for the developer.
The approved ordinance authorizes up to $22 billion in industrial revenue bonds, including financing for real estate improvements and equipment. That figure represents the maximum financing authorization, not a guaranteed investment or debt backed by Ferguson taxpayers.
The agreement also establishes a minimum capital investment of $175 million by Dec. 31, 2029.
But residents seeking to challenge the agreement face more than a signature requirement.
Through Missouri’s Sunshine Law, FACT obtained a memorandum from the law firm Lewis Rice sent to City Manager Dave Musgrave. The memorandum argues that Bill No. 7349 “falls outside of Ferguson’s referendum power on two independent City Charter grounds, because it relates to a tax levy and because it is administrative.”
The law firm maintains that the petition could be declared legally insufficient regardless of how many signatures residents collect.
Musgrave did not return a request for comment.
Lady J Huston, FACT’s secretary and media and communications director, shared a competing legal opinion from attorney James C. Robinson.
“After reviewing the Ferguson legal counsel opinion, the Ferguson Charter, and the language of Bill 7349 itself, I conclude that substantial legal grounds exist to challenge the opinion’s conclusions,” Robinson wrote.
Ferguson’s charter allows residents to challenge certain City Council decisions by collecting signatures and demanding a public vote. But it excludes some ordinances involving taxes, city spending and administrative matters.
Another provision says filing a referendum petition puts the challenged ordinance on hold while the petition is reviewed. Whether that applies to Project Butterfly remains disputed because the city maintains the ordinance cannot be challenged through a referendum.
Residents can seek council review and ultimately court review if their petition is rejected.
If the petition is upheld and the council declines to repeal the ordinance, the charter calls for the issue to go before voters.
During the first door-to-door petition drive, FACT member Christopher Sudlik made clear that organizers were also looking beyond the referendum.
“Make sure we remove them from office,” Sudlik shouted.
Another member, Ferguson resident Richard Buthod, said he hopes the petition will force the city to undo what he considers a damaging decision.
Residents, he said, should be able to “hold a vote of the people” to decide whether to approve the project.
Ferguson’s charter requires recall signatures from 15% of registered voters eligible to vote for the council member at the last election for that office.
The city has seen a successful recall before. In February 2023, voters removed Ward 2 Councilwoman J. Toni Burrow by a margin of roughly 70% to 30%.
Buthod, a white resident who has lived in majority-Black Ferguson for four years, believes race is central to the dispute.
“I’m not the face people expect to see when it comes to the city of Ferguson,” Buthod said.
Buthod said most of the people who signed the petitions were Black residents. He believes the city’s handling of the petition reflects a broader racial divide.
He compared the dispute to Ferguson’s history of racial tensions.
“To treat this petition so dismissively … it’s the same racist, political force being used against the citizens of Ferguson … again.”
Sylvester Brown Jr. is the Deaconess Foundation Community Advocacy Fellow.