Council eyes west site for PIC

City Council will decide March 6 whether to endorse a site in northwest Springfield for a second Partnership Industrial Center.

The item is on the council agenda as a resolution, and both Mayor Lee Gannaway and Mayor Pro Tem Gary Gibson said they expect the measure to pass. If approved, the measure will also declare the city's intent to annex any necessary parcels and participate in infrastructure improvements for a second park.

Greg Williams, vice president of economic development for the Springfield Area Chamber of Commerce, and one of the effort's leaders, has said that the first Partnership Industrial Center is about 85 percent full. He and chamber president Jim Anderson have said the time is now to secure more land for a second park.

The four partners in the second industrial park project the chamber, the Springfield Business and Development Corporation, the city and City Utilities met with consultant Gene Norber, who recommended the northwest site, which is near the Springfield-Branson Regional Airport, over the northeast site previously considered.

The northeast site is near the first partnership park and has been favored by the CU board, which voted to endorse that site months ago, said Sharon Faulkner, Board of Public Utilities chairwoman.

"It's my feeling that we should continue the momentum that is ongoing in that area with the first park, keeping industrial development in that area," Faulkner said.

Gannaway said he opposes the partnership park in general but plans to vote for the west site.

"I don't agree with government competing with private enterprise in the manufacturing sector, but I think if we can get it into a good location that would be preferable to having it somewhere it doesn't need to go," Gannaway said.

Norber's report indicated that development costs for both sites would be comparable. Karl Plumpe, CU's senior manager for economic development, said the costs per acre are similar for both sites. The west site is about 355 acres; the east is about 373 acres.

Williams estimated an average purchase price of $12,000 per acre for the east site, and west site average of $10,000 or $11,000 per acre. The SBDC will purchase and own the land for the second park. CU, the chamber and the SBDC, which previously endorsed the east site, will meet by March 23 to consider endorsing the west site, group officials said.

Site No. 3?

Gibson speculated that a resolution could come before council March 20 indicating council's intent to participate in a third partnership park on the east site that was originally proposed as the second park. Norber recommended that the east site be purchased by one of the partners for development as a third park in the future.

At the Feb. 25 meeting, CU general manager Robert Roundtree said he anticipated the utility would be asked to purchase the east site.

"It would not be prudent for us to buy or acquire that land on speculation. I don't think it would be a prudent move unless there were some kind of assurance that we will be able to develop it as a third park," Faulkner said.

Gannaway said council should not proceed with a vote to make the east site a third park.

"I think it would be a terrible thing to do to the neighbors putting those people in turmoil for years thinking is there going to be an industrial park next to my property?' I think it would be a nightmare of a thing, and I don't think we ought to obligate some council down the line because of action this council takes," Gannaway said.

Gibson said the council would probably wait a week or two before introducing the idea of announcing council's support of a third site.

"At some point a second resolution will come forward announcing the northeast as a future site," Gibson said.

Gannaway said he would not support such a measure.

Getting going with park No. 2

Both Faulkner and Gibson said that, for now, plans should proceed with the second park, and a third site should remain in the background.

"It's important that we not muddy the waters with talk of a third park and just get busy on the second park," Faulkner said.

Gibson said the pending council action represented a compromise among the four parties.

"The purpose of this resolution is to show that the city will lead this effort for a park on the northwest site," Gibson said.

Concerns linger about the west side site: CU would like to see the east side continue in industrial development and has proceeded with the idea that a second park would be in the vicinity of the first, Plumpe said.

Faulkner raised concerns about rail access at the west site, which may not be as immediately available as at the east site.

Jack Stack, who serves as treasurer of the SBDC's board of directors, is concerned about being able to sell the west site to potential tenants. At the Feb. 25 meeting he said he didn't "want us to get stuck not selling this site."

Both Williams and Plumpe said that if the second park is developed and maintained in the manner of the first, industrial users will be interested in it.

"If we develop it in the same fashion as the first Partnership Industrial Center, it will be successful," Williams said.