Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council holds public hearing on Second and Vine 3‑53 redevelopment plan; developer Joshua Hartley expected at next meeting

5764133 · September 3, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A public hearing satisfied a statutory requirement for a Chapter 353 redevelopment designation for Second and Vine Street; city staff said the property owner and title holder Colossians 3:17 Title Holder LLC (Joshua Hartley) has been engaged and documents including a Blake study and draft development plan were attached to the ordinance.

The Booneville City Council opened and closed a public hearing on Sept. 2 to consider a Chapter 353 redevelopment designation and related development agreement for a tract at Second and Vine Street. City staff said the hearing satisfies a statutory notice requirement and that the draft development plan and an economic study (referred to as a Blake study) were attached to the ordinance being introduced.

City staff told the council that the title holder for the property is Colossians 3 17 Title Holder LLC and that the owner, Joshua Hartley, has participated in the process since December and reviewed the work products. The city administrator said affected taxing entities received certified and regular mail notice and that the hearing materials were published in the newspaper and included the general redevelopment plan.

The ordinance was introduced as a first reading (bill 2025‑021) designating the tract as a blighted area under Chapter 353 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri and providing a development plan and development agreement. City staff said Mark Grimm, the city’s economic development attorney, and the property owner would be at the next meeting to answer council questions. No public comments were recorded during the hearing.

The hearing satisfied statutory public‑notice requirements; the council did not take final action on the redevelopment designation at the Sept. 2 meeting, and the ordinance will return for further consideration with legal counsel present.