Extension poses challenge for industrial park

by Karen E. Culp

SBJ Staff

Extending the Urban Service Area to include a new partnership industrial park could prove to be the project's biggest stumbling block.

City Council and the Greene County Commission have to approve the extension of the service area to include a proposed second partnership industrial center in east Springfield near Mulroy Road by a two-thirds majority. Council will take up the question of whether to extend the area Nov. 22 when it will consider a resolution to initiate the Urban Service Area amendment process.

It will then consider amending the area Jan. 24, 2000, after the necessary parties review and make comments on the extension.

The Watershed Committee of the Ozarks, Springfield Planning and Zoning Commission and Greene County Planning and Zoning Board will make comments on the extension.

The Greene County Commission is scheduled to take action on the amendment Jan. 4, 2000.

About two-thirds of the proposed park site is outside the service area. The service area was put into place earlier this year as a means of containing the city's development to preserve the environment, most notably the drinking water supply, surrounding the city.

The council will also consider a resolution of intent to participate in infrastructure improvements for the park Nov. 22.

Mary Lilly Smith, who presented council with an outline of the steps to be taken during the park's development, said in her report "the amendment to the urban service area is the most important part of the City Council's decisions regarding the industrial park development."

The report goes on to say that if the area is extended, then sanitary sewer service can be extended to the new park. If the Urban Service Area boundary is not changed, the project cannot go forward since sanitary sewer will not be extended outside the Urban Service Area boundary, the report states.

Council members have expressed concerns over extending the Urban Service Area boundary.

"If we do it ... then we would have little or no opportunity to deny the same type of thing to some private developer who would ask for an amendment for his development," said Mayor Lee Gannaway.

Councilwoman Teri Hacker said she, too, was concerned about the precedent this would set.

"If we're doing this on behalf of a public project, then I'm worried about setting a bad example for the private developers," Hacker said.

The city staff recommends using a pump station, "so that sanitary sewer is limited to this development," meaning that no other development could be accommodated by the sewage pump station, Smith said.

Concerns about the location of the new park remain, though council members say they are not interested in "taking on any more condemnation procedures," said Councilman Gary Gibson. Greene County Presiding Commissioner Dave Coonrod raised the question of an alternative site for the park at council's Nov. 2 luncheon meeting.

He suggested a west-side site, owned by Springfield Underground and the Griesemer family, should be reexamined as a potential industrial park site. The site is now used for the Route 66 Music Festival once a year in the summer.

"I think we ought to take another look at that other site. We ought to make another attempt to acquire that property. Putting it on the west side of town would bring some balance to the east side industrial development," Coonrod said.

Though the county could condemn the west Griesemer property for use by the partnership for an industrial park, Coonrod said it is unlikely, adding that he was not planning to suggest the county do so.

Coonrod said the west site was a much better one than the site on the east side of town because it is inside the boundaries for the Urban Service Area.

"To amend the Urban Service Area now, when it's no more than 2 months old, accomplishes nothing. The previous urban service area boundary served us for 15 years," Coonrod said.

Coonrod further stated that amending the service area boundary to include the proposed park "puts us in a weak position to enforce the Urban Service Area concept."

Gibson said if the west property could be acquired "from a willing seller, then we might look at it, but the only condemning will have to come from the county at this point, if they are interested."

Louis Griesemer, president of Springfield Underground, said the west side property is not for sale now.

The company tried to extend its mining operation to that property, but could not get approval from Greene County to do so, Griesemer said. He added that the property is still ideal for an industrial use, but that selling it to the partners in the industrial park would be selling it to a competitor.

Springfield Underground is now developing an industrial and office park above its underground operation on the east side of town.

"I'm not inclined to sell this property to the city of Springfield so they can compete against me for industrial tenants," Griesemer said.

Springfield Underground's long-term plan is to develop the west side property as industrial property, he added.

Gannaway said he was unsure whether more industrial jobs are now needed in the Springfield area.

"Is there really a big emergency to try to make this new place where we would bring in more employees? I think what we're hearing from employers in the community is that they don't need any more competition. It's virtually impossible to find workers now