YOUR BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Springfield, MO
If all goes as planned, Springfield may become the first city in Missouri to have a qualified local program for land disturbance permits, the Springfield City Council learned at its July 12 meeting.
Ron Petering, the city’s assistant director of environmental services, said the designation would allow contractors to avoid what they see as a duplication of efforts between city and state land disturbance permits. With the local program in place, a city permit alone would eliminate the requirement for a state permit.
A land disturbance permit is necessary for all sites excavating an acre or more of land, or for smaller sites that are part of a larger development project, according to the city’s website. Fees range from $546 for sites of 1-5 acres to $728 for sites over 20 acres.
The Missouri Department of Natural Resources requires its own land disturbance permits that range from $500 for 1-5 acres to $5,000 for over 500 acres disturbed, according to its website. Petering informed council of the efforts to pursue the qualified local program designation in his introduction of a bill that would eliminate the requirement for a security deposit by contractors when applying for a land disturbance permit.
The security requirement is replaced in the proposed bill by an alternative security mechanism similar to the city’s handling of other property-related nuisances, Petering said. The city can address erosion issues as a public nuisance and then take abatement action and seek reimbursement for expenses incurred.
Petering told council enforcement occurs when management practices at a construction site allow mud to get on streets or tracked into streams, or at the end of construction when a site is ready to open but doesn’t have its ground cover restored yet. Contractors would have to correct the problem before being allowed to move forward.
Who advised city officials?
Councilperson Craig Hosmer raised concern about the origin of the measure to eliminate the security deposit. He asked Petering if the change was recommended and initiated by staff or by an outside entity. Petering replied that the recommendation was an internal one, but added, “The review was probably based on feedback from outside.”
Petering said that advice came from a technical committee that included representatives from local design firms, the Springfield Contractors Association and the Springfield Area Chamber of Commerce’s Growth & Development Advisory Council.
Hosmer took issue with the fact that the committee is part of the chamber, an organization that advocates for the interests of business.
“And they’re making the recommendation that we change the security things to make it easier for businesses to do their projects,” he said.
Hosmer’s concern was that only commercial stakeholders had the ear of city officials.
“My frustration at least is that sometimes we only go to groups that are the development groups,” he said. “We don’t go to neighborhood groups, we don’t go to environmental groups, we don’t get a good cross section of the community, and I think that’s fundamentally unfair to this community to not get the good broad section of what our public policy is going to be.”
Reached after the meeting, chamber President Matt Morrow expressed surprise that the chamber’s advisory council came under criticism from Hosmer. According to Morrow, the group is a sounding board that serves a useful advisory function.
When the city staff has policies they’re considering, the Growth & Development Advisory Council can tell them if those policies will impact businesses in any unanticipated ways.
“In many cases, there is input that I think more often than not leads to win-win outcomes and process improvements,” Morrow said. “I’ve never heard anyone on City Council suggest that city staff should avoid engaging with people who are affected by the policies they’re considering. My experience is they do engage with everybody who might plausibly be affected.”
Hosmer said that merely by looking at the written bill, he would not have known that the chamber’s council had been involved in the process. When asked if he would want to receive a record of public input, Hosmer said, “If there’s an interest group that’s gotten first-hand knowledge, then yes.”
Springfield City Manager Jason Gage asked if Hosmer would want to see that information for every item put in front of the council for which there is public engagement.
“If there’s a change in public policy that’s recommended and staff has gotten input and made changes at the recommendation of a different entity, then yes, I think we should see that,” Hosmer said, adding this should be the case for all council action, not just that related to the building community.
Councilmember Richard Ollis disagreed with Hosmer.
“I think we’re going to slow this thing down to an absolute crawl, and frankly, I’ll just tell you we have been criticized as a community for being difficult to deal with,” Ollis said. “I think this is a step in the right direction.”
The measure is scheduled for a vote at the July 26 meeting.
Other action items
Stock said the improvements would not prohibit any activities currently planned in the area, like the Lone Pine Bike Park or other trail systems.
Action will be taken at the July 26 meeting.