SIGNING OUT FOR NOW

This is the last article regarding Farm Road 170, dated May 18. "....Although Farm Road 170 will be considered in the future, it will be considered with other county roads, not exclusively."

Many many thanks to the countless hours of activism of concerned neighbors and property owners with a big shout-out to Dr. and Mrs. Neblett and Sara Ray. Their dedication and expertise was priceless in this decision. Our neighborhood/area of Farm Road 170 must remember Greene County Presiding Commissioner Jim Viebrock kept his word and support his efforts going forward.

http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2011105190338

Until we have the opportunity to commune again, .....

PEACE, OUT!

It's TIME to FOCUS again........

Winter is past, those of us with basements have dried out the remnants of last weeks flooding, and now the Parks Department is wanting a sales tax increase to help pay for the land DONATION in the flood plain property of the 60/65 development.

This tax issue is COMPLICATED. The Parks Department petitioned the Greene County Commission for a 2/8 cent tax increase, pushing the total over and beyond what is already PERMANENT to the maximum allowed by Missouri State statute 1/2 [one-half] cent.

Based on past performance, this would generate 20 millionish in revenue. The additional 1/8 tax increase request to be on the August ballot will bring the total to 3/8 cent tax increase to provide storm-water funding in the flood plain property of 60/65. One doesn't need a calculator to determine the 900-acre 'gift' in the flood plain is going to be costly to the residents of Greene County/Springfield.

The two issues [totally separate] have now been tied together because of actions of the previous Greene County administration.

The first VOTE will be Monday by the Greene County Commission when they will decide to place [or not] the parks/storm-water issue on the August ballot. The writer of this blog is against any tax increase at this time. Most property owners received notice of property tax increase. Energy costs are up [especially painful for us whom decided to live outside Springfield when gas was below a buck and propane was .49 cents a gallon] and our property values have declined impacting personal overall net worth.

The second VOTE our community needs to be aware of and involved in is the Greene County Planning Board meeting on May 17. Please plan to attend the meeting.

Contact information for the Greene County Commissioners is:

JViebrock@greenecountymo.org
HBengsch@greenecountymo.org
RBentley@greenecountymo.org

Please contact the GCC immediately with your recommendation/thoughts on the Monday vote.

We Like Dialogue

This question was recently submitted from a Farm Road 170 property owner:

Why wouldn't it be of best interest to everybody to have a major connection from the newly built 65 3 lane to the 60/65 development?

As Sara Ray is whom I Google with regards to property development, the following is her response:

Summary: Question is not whether they should be able to access 65. The question is the financial viability of the project, as zoned in 2009, and the potential negative impact to MANY private property owners as a result of that zoning classification.
1. A major connection from 65 to the 60/65 proposed development is just one issue. MODOT has granted a "conditional approval" for that event to occur (via a new interchange THEY will not pay for). One condition is connection to the county road system. It is now a debatable issue where and how that is to occur. And the city mandated in PD 330 a connection to FR 164.

ANY connection to the county road system has negative impact to many residential property owners. The vast majority of the area north of 60 and east of 65 has developed, over the years, in low density residential.

It is important to understand MODOT made that a requirement because of the very close proximity in distance to the Battlefield/65 interchange and the 60/65 interchange. It is there preference the distance for on/off traffic at those points be greater than this "potential" developer driven interchange provides. In the past they have set 2 miles as their minimum....preference being 5 miles.

2. With an understanding of current demand in the marketplace, challenges of financing, and the very huge upfront cost of the required infrastructure expense to this "proposed" development with the very HIGH density rezoning they requested, the big picture question is the viability of the development. Let's not forget this has been going on for 20 years....through good times.

I imagine the majority of us feel the property owner of the 500 acres should have the right to market their property to a developer. The rub comes with the lack of access and the environmental concerns of it draining to the James River when you attempt to go for the very high density (higher profit) scenario.

How Do YOU Interpret This Cartoon from the Community Free Press?

Please respond to this post by making a COMMENT at the bottom of this post.
UPDATE
During the last City Council meeting the vote on PD 330 (amendment to allow for a city park and changes to wording in the previous document) was tabled.
City, county and park department staff were to meet to discuss the situation, however, the snow situation may have pushed it lower on the list.
Some of us have continued to email/call council members and the County Presiding Commissioner, as well as the County Administrator.
Those actions should continue.
The Mayor has requested the PD 330 Amendment remain tabled and not be voted on at the Feb 7 meeting.
The Greene County planning commission has yet to resolve the issue on the designation of a road.

2011 Meetings Scheduled for Monday, January 10 and Tuesday January 11

Monday, January 10, 6:30pm, corner of Chestnut and Boonville (City Hall), Council Chambers the City Council will conduct a public hearing on PD 330 Amendment. Sources suggest our efforts [emails, phone calls, letters] have gotten attention. Keep up the heat! There has been a great deal of communication with members of City Council relative to the amendment.

Tuesday, 7:00pm, corner of Central and Boonville (Historical Court House), Room 212 the Greene County Commission will conduct a Listening Session......a desire by our new Presiding Comm. to address the concerns of his constituents. (See Press Release front page of the GC website]. http://www.greenecountymo.org/


It is important we show our support and voice our concerns at the Tues. night meeting. As county residents, we now have the opportunity to be heard. Mother Nature may be uncooperative but most of us living in the county have 4-wheel drive vehicles and don't let snow stop us.

P.S. Tuesday, January 11, 7:30 am to 9 a.m. Q&A Breakfast with Jim Viebrock - sponsored by the Springfield Business Journal Editor Eric Olson. $15 per person [includes Breakfast]. Go to sbj.net for reservations.

NIMBY

I was a guest at a birthday brunch today. Guest #2 is a representative of a law firm whom is the current legal advisor to Greene County, hired by the Presiding Commissioner. Guest #3 is a property owner whom was unaware of other property owners efforts.

I was explaining to Guest #3 current information. Guest #2 became upset/angry/agitated over my remark 'most' property owners are pleased Mr. Viebrock won the election. The remark made by Guest #2 which caught my attention was this: [and I am paraphrasing]: You know what NIMBY is? It stands for not in my back yard. You property owners better get over this and stop complaining as this is all about the greater good for the community.

HUH? Did #2 just really say that?

I could interpret a lot into this [based on the remainder of the exchange which I won't repeat]. However, I have a sense of urgency for all property owners to forward the copy of the letter being emailed to you, to be emailed to City Council as soon as possible.

The letter follows. It is to be emailed to citycouncil@springfieldmo.gov. You may edit or add to the letter as you desire. Please type your name at the bottom of the letter along with your email address. Forward this letter to your local friends/family/co-workers and ask for their support.

THE LETTER


City Council Members:

An issue approaching your consideration is an Amendment to PD 330.

The original rezoning plan was approved in July of 2009 with multiple statements of record the “developer” would pay for the infrastructure and ANY further improvement of the property would receive public notice and further review by the Council.

We request your review of the minutes of that meeting relative to the intent of the motion by Mr. Stephens, prior to the final vote.

As we review the PD 330 Amendment document, we find multiple discrepancies.

The questions we pose to Council:

1. Is it your intent, with last year's comments, to proceed with further approval of this proposed development with no guarantee the “developer” will pay for the infrastructure improvements?
2. Is it your intent, with last year's comments, and the change to the original document (proposed by Mr. Stephens and passed) to proceed without further approval by Council on ANY further improvement to the property, as opposed to “administrative review?”
3. Is it your intent to allow further consideration to this proposed development, accepting the negative impact to many property owners from a disclosure standpoint, without further investigation relative to market demand and environmental concerns?

We, respectfully, ask for answers to these questions and encourage your thorough review of all of the documents.

Sincerely,

Concerned Citizens

JUST WHEN WE THOUGHT IT WAS OK TO TAKE A BREAK.....

..... we learn the Snake is still slithering waiting to strike when defense is down.

60-65 developer seeks change

A proposal scheduled to go before the city planning and zoning commission next month appears to remove the developer's obligation to pay for road connections related to the 60-65 Partnership project.

The city council approved the 500-acre development plan in 2009 after project owners assured the city -- and later Greene County -- that road costs would be the developer's to bear.

But a proposed amendment to Planned Development 330 -- a major housing and retail project straddling U.S. 65 -- strikes the developer's requirement to pay for the roads.

Geoff Butler, planner and spokesman for the 60-65 Partnership, said the change allows some flexibility in paying for the future roadwork.

"It opens the possibility for someone else to do it on their own," Butler said. "What happens if Obama gives the city or the county a whole bunch of stimulus money? We don't want to prevent someone from stepping up and paying for it."

The way PD 330 is currently written precludes anyone but the developer from paying for road improvements, he said.

Infrastructure includes a new interchange in the center of the development on U.S. 65, and connections to city and county roads on the project's west, north and east sides.

Those road links have proved controversial, with city and county residents vocally opposing future four-lane arterial links through their properties.

Butler estimated the road infrastructure would cost about $64 million.

City planner Mike MacPherson said he was aware of the proposed amendments to PD 330.

"I don't know why they chose to remove that," he said, referring to the developer's payment obligation.

"It's pretty obvious to me we (the city) aren't going to be able to fund an interchange. That $64 million infusion for road work has to come from somebody and the city doesn't have the opportunity to do it."

Mayor Jim O'Neal said he spoke with Butler on Tuesday and considers the language amendment "pretty innocent."

"The way it's worded could preclude us from using any kind of economic development tools we have in our toolbox," O'Neal said.

"If we get to the point where that development is heating up and money is ready to flow into that project, we need to be able to use the tools we have available to us.

"I don't see this as anything other than housekeeping," he added. "I know we're not going to pay for it unless manna drops from Heaven."

Other proposals
There are other amendment changes that planning and zoning officials will be asked to consider.

- One eliminates a controversial road connection east to Highway J.

Instead of identifying a route in PD 330, Butler said project backers will let government entities -- most likely Greene County officials -- decide where and how to make that east-side connection in the future.

- Engineers will try to design the U.S. 65 interchange so that Gasconade Bridge to the north wouldn't have to be removed.

But if state highway officials decide the bridge must be torn down, the city would get an engineering report substantiating why the project was necessary.

- Another amendment provides for donation of floodplain land along the James River for future use as a park.

Butler said the land would be given to The Springfield-Greene County Parks Department, which is considering it for an archery center and a river access that links to Lake Springfield.