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.

OTO Technical Planning Committee Meeting Wed., Nov. 17

REMAIN ON POINT! We've been focused on the OTO Subcommittee. It is now time to redirect our community attention to the upcoming OTO Technical Planning Committee Meeting, Wednesday, November 17, 1:30 to 3:30 p.m., Plaster Student Union, Room 317, Missouri State University.

The agenda for the meeting may be found here: http://www.ozarkstransportation.org/Committees/Technical/Agendas/2010/AgendaNov10.pdf

Presiding Commissioner Elect Viebrock has said publically under his watch the road extensions are dead. HOWEVER... we have to remain 'ON POINT' and cannot rest until after January 1, 2011.

Please attend if your schedule allows!

OTO Major Thoroughfare Plan Subcommittee Meeting

Ozarks Transportation Organization (OTO)
Major Thoroughfare Plan Subcommittee
November 8, 2010, 1:30 p.m.
Brentwood Library
2214 Brentwood Boulevard, Springfield, MO

Agenda

I. Call to Order
II. Audience Proposal for Changes to the existing Major Thoroughfare Plan. The audienceis requested to limit any comments to those pertaining specifically to the existing plan and requested changes to that plan.
III. Review Requested Changes to the Major Thoroughfare Plan. OTO staff requested member jurisdictions to submit proposed changes to the Major Thoroughfare Plan for the Subcommittee’s Review.
IV. Next Steps and Process
V. Next Meeting Date


This meeting is open to the public; however, the meeting is designed to review proposed changes to the Major Thoroughfare Plan. If a member of the public wishes to propose a change to the plan, we encourage the comments. The Subcommittee will be reviewing the proposed changes in order to create a working draft. A final draft will be made available for public comment as part of Long Range Plan public meetings that will be held in the early part of the 2011 calendar year as well as at
meetings of the Technical Planning Committee, and Board of Directors.




Si usted necesita la ayuda de un traductor del idioma español, por favor comuníquese con la Sharon Davis al teléfono (417) 836-5442, cuando menos 48 horas antes de la junta.

Persons who require special accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act or persons who require interpreter services (free of charge) should contact Sharon Davis at (417) 836-5442 at least 24 hours ahead of the meeting.

If you need relay services please call the following numbers: 711 - Nationwide relay service; 1-800-735-2966 - Missouri TTY service; 1-800-735-0135 - Missouri voice carry-over service.

OTO fully complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes and regulations in all programs and activities. For more information or to obtain a Title VI Complaint Form, see www.ozarkstransportation.org or call (417) 836-5442.

Change Blew In Yesterday

Congratulations Mr. Viebrock on a well-managed campaign and victory!

Property owners now have an ally in our local battle, however, it is important we stay informed and on-point as the war declared on our community is not resolved.

Thank you for voting - stay tuned.

TUESDAY NOVEMBER 2 - VERY IMPORTANT ELECTION

Two issues on the ballot influencing our property values are:

#1. YES on Amendment #3, which is a NO to transfer tax on the sale of real estate.

#2. Presiding Commissioner: Incumbent David Coonrod or Challenger Jim Viebrock

Which candidate attended and spoke at our last property owner meeting? Viebrock.

Which candidate is 'conflicted' and declined the invitation? David Coonrod

Viebrock is endorsed by this blog as having the best interest of the property owners of Farm Road 170.

Memo from OTO - Next Meeting Monday Nov. 8 at 1 p.m.

Good Afternoon,

Ozarks Transportation Organization has scheduled a Technical Planning Committee Meeting on Monday, November 8th at 1:00 P.M. at the Brentwood-Springfield/Greene County Public Library located at 2214 Brentwood Boulevard, Springfield, MO to further discuss the Journey 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan Updates and Major Thoroughfare Plan concerning Republic/Farm Road 170 issues . Once an agenda has been created I will forward you this information and it will also be posted on our website www.ozarkstransportation.org. The Brentwood Library advised of additional parking at the Cox Pain Center across the street from the library.

Thank you,

Sharon Davis
Office Coordinator
Ozarks Transportation Organization
Phone 417.836.5442
Fax 417.862.6013
sdavis@ozarkstransportation.org

www.OzarksTransportation.org
www.OzarksCommute.com

Meeting Attendees - Thank you for Not Snoring Out Loud

First things first: We [meeting organizers] learned an important lesson today: Review your speakers outline and put your speaker on a time restraint. Kudo's to the property owners whom stayed to the end and stayed awake.

As a community, a thank you to Duffy Mooney, Assistant Administrator, Greene County Highway Dept.Duffy played to a tough crowd and his professionalism is appreciated.

At the end of the almost THREE HOUR MEETING what did I learn? Even if the Greene County Planning and Zoning Board decides to put the 60/65 development out to pasture, it is within the power of the Presiding Commissioner [that would be Mr. Coonrod] to over ride the decision and send the 170,172,164, J-Highway property owners a big fat raspberry.


What's the best back-up plan? ELECT JIM VIEBROCK PRESIDING COMMISSIONER on NOVEMBER 2! Mr. Viebrock will 'indefinetely table' this action.

IMPORTANT COMMUNITY MEETING SATURDAY AT 1PM

SATURDAY 1 PM River of Life Church [site of initial meeting last February]

Jim Viebrock and Duffy Mooney representing the Greene County Highway Department are the guest speakers. David Coonrod, Presiding Greene County Commissioner, was invited to participate but 'declined' because of a conflict.

Listen In and Call In - Your Opportunity to Speak on KWTO 560AM Wednesday, October 13, 8 AM

Brian Calfano hosts Pat Platter [attorney]this Wednesday, October 13, at 8 a.m. Interested property owners PLEASE listen and CALL IN to voice your opinion regarding the 60/65 Development/Farm Road 170/Farm Road 164 expansion plans.

On October 7, Mr. Platter [via the Sunshine Law] requested any/all traffic studies the county or MODOT has relative to this issue. A copy of OTO's 'increase in population' projections has also been requested. Hopefully, Mr. Platter will have this information prior to Wednesday's broadcast.

When calling KWTO's broadcast, callers are asked for their first name, town they live in, and age [the town/age helps KWTO sell advertising based on demographics].

TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS EVENT! KWTO is running lots of promotional spots highlighting the show.

Subcommittee Push Road Question Back to Greene County

The details of a proposed road that cuts through residential areas southeast of Springfield aren't scheduled to be finalized for at least a few months.

Greene County commissioners asked a subcommittee of the Ozarks Transportation Organization to decide whether the area needed a road and where it should be.

But subcommittee members sent it back to the county, saying it's more appropriate for the county to decide where the road should be.

Asked about whether the road is needed, "The answer is probably yes," Chairman Pat Lloyd said.

The next step is a Nov. 8 meeting to look more broadly at the Major Thoroughfare Plan, including other places that could need a road. One proposal is to extend Republic Road past Glenstone Avenue to Highway J, but residents of the area have protested that plan.

About 35 people showed up to the subcommittee meeting, but it didn't accept public comment.

The southeast road was proposed in response to the 60/65 development, a 300-acre, multi-use development proposed at the intersection of the highways it's named after.

But planners say the roads will probably be over capacity in the next 20 years even if the development doesn't happen.

The subcommittee was asked to decide what changes need to be made to the Major Thoroughfare Plan -- the topic of the November meeting -- whether the southeast road is needed, and the most appropriate place for that road
The details of a proposed road that cuts through residential areas southeast of Springfield aren't scheduled to be finalized for at least a few months.

http://www.news-leader.com/article/20101007/NEWS01/10070348/Subcommittee+pushes+road+question+back+to+Greene+County

THE NEXT OTO MEETING WEDNESDAY OCTOBER 6 at 8 A.M.

OTO has posted the agenda for the next meeting of the Major Thoroughfare Plan Subcommittee at http://www.ozarkstransportation.org/Documents/MTPSubcommittee10062010.pdf

The meeting will be held at the Alumni Center, 300 S. Jefferson. Bring your favorite cup of coffee and be there!

Have Plans for Thursday, September 30, 5:30 PM?

Brush your teeth, comb your hair, wash your hands and come on over to a special reception for Jim Viebrock, Republican Candidate for Presiding Commissioner!

OTO MEETING WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 15 1:30 P.M.

Besides paying your quarterly taxes, make sure this meeting is on your calendar.

As OTO is allowing public comment and moved the meeting to a larger facility, the OTO members are taking our concerns [and the concerns of our Farm Road 164 neighbors] seriously.

Meeting is 1:30p.m. , Wednesday, Plaster Student Union Room 317 {Missouri State Campus].

Our topic is to be discussed at the beginning of the meeting.

Public comment - 5 [five]minute limit, is prior to the agenda item which is listed at 15 minutes.

This meeting is during the majority's normal work hours. If you are retired, a stay at home parent/partner, please please please find a way to attend the meeting.

One HOT POTATO: OTO Panel Punts 60-65 Road Link Controversy

News-Leader Headline August 12, 2010 "OTO Panel Punts Road Controversy"

[link to article at top of page]

The final determination by the group [with two of the eight members failing to attend] was to refer it back to the much larger OTO Tech. Committee to be discussed during their September 15th meeting. "....We're being asked by one or two government jurisdictions to make decisions they chose not to make for themselves," said panel member Roger Howard.

The current OTO Major Thoroughfare Plan does NOT include road links east of the James River south of FR 164 and north of Hwy 60.

Does the OTO feel obligated to answer the questions posed to them by the city and county or enter into a thorough evaluation of the overall plan [which might take two years according to Tim Conklin (OTO Director).]

One of the most interesting statements by Wes Johnson, the News-Leader reporter and author of the article: "After the meeting, Frank Miller, MODOT's rep. on the OTO panel, confirmed that a short road linking the development and FR 164 to the north would satisy MODOT's requirement for a connection."

It is my understanding MODOT attempted to receive a retraction the following day and the only clarification given was a statement added to the online article "......MODOT has not endorsed any of the proposed alignments, leaving that for local officials to decide." Wes did not back down on his comment.

It is important for all to understand, the connection to Battlefield Rd. (via FR 164) was mandated in PD 330 (rezoning docs) by the city under "required improvements."

We appreciate the participation from our neighbors on 164 and 166.

Is ANOTHER (designated) connection needed at any time less than 20 years from now?

Thanks to all of you that attended this meeting, with special thanks to Bobbie Louderbaugh. Her little sign generated another round of emails back and forth, relative to a letter attorney Pat Platter had sent to the county prior to the last Planning Board meeting.

This issue is one HOT POTATO because of the passion, time and effort from all of you.

The issue will ultimately be determined by the County Commission. We are in the process of a heated race for Presiding Commissioner of that body. Do we need to invite both candidates in for a discussion of our concerns? Another gathering at the River of Life Church, maybe?? Please let me know via email if you feel that would be beneficial - farmroad170@gmail.com - OR - contact either Sara Ray or Lou or Pam Neblett.

Don't hesitate to contact our east side

Commissioner, Roseanne Bentley.

Jim Viebrock Candidate for Presiding Commissioner

David Coonrod, Presiding Commissioner