The Springfield Economic Development Agency on Nov. 24 approved its consent calendar and received a detailed update on the Glenwood master plan, with staff asking for direction to move from land‑use approvals to infrastructure delivery.

“All of this is captured in the refinement plan,” said Allie Camp, economic development manager, introducing the presentation and asking the board for guidance on next steps. Camp reviewed the project principles — connecting the community to the river, meeting the Glenwood Refinement Plan vision, and producing property‑tax growth — and described the role of a preliminary master plan in entitling phasing and infrastructure.

Camp told the board the Glenwood Urban Renewal Area has a maximum indebtedness of $32,860,000 and that the agency has used roughly half of that capacity to date. She said staff estimated borrowing capacity at about $7,500,000 based on FY25 numbers and that the agency has identified an additional $3,000,000 from funds associated with Representative Lively that can be redirected to Glenwood. Camp said SITA (the master‑planning/development consultants named in the presentation) is funding elements of the work through tax‑increment financing.

The presentation reviewed past steps: selection of developers and consultants in 2022–2023, acquisition and assembly of roughly 12–13 acres, an annexation completed in May that consolidated land under single jurisdiction, demolition of vacant buildings in November 2024, and a residential relocation plan carried out in 2024 that moved eight families from the site. Camp noted zoning and land‑use code amendments were submitted in 2025 and that the land‑use items are scheduled for second reading at council on Dec. 1.

Board discussion focused on how to make the plan implementable after land‑use approvals. Camp said the preliminary master plan will include a phasing plan that identifies the infrastructure a phase requires (stormwater, wastewater, roadway, sidewalks) and that some infrastructure can be staged or delivered in parts depending on technical feasibility and resource availability. She asked whether the board was comfortable moving the project into the infrastructure and predevelopment workstream and whether the agency should use some of its land as compensation where partner right‑of‑way would be affected.

“I’m comfortable giving staff direction that that compensation could come in the form of land,” Board Member Van Gordon said, supporting flexibility in negotiating partner compensation. Board Member Moe cautioned that the broader Glenwood refinement plan contains restrictions that have deterred private‑sector investment in the corridor and said the agency should consider the larger context when framing changes.

Camp told the board she expected the preliminary master plan submittal to return to the agency for approval and that the post‑land‑use work would likely include memoranda of understanding with project partners and procurement of consultants for engineering, design, and project management. She summarized board feedback as support for discussing land swaps, proceeding with infrastructure considerations, and exploring ways the agency’s investments could further site infrastructure.

Board Member Moe added that existing sewer infrastructure — a major sewer line installed years earlier along Franklin Boulevard — is available to serve Glenwood, and noted the Glenwood Water District has funds available to address its aging system. The board raised sequence and minimum‑viable infrastructure questions; Camp said those sequencing decisions are central to the phasing work now being drafted.

The presentation closed with Camp asking staff to return with details on phase sizing, partner compensation options, procurement steps, and draft MOUs. The board indicated consensus to proceed with the described next steps. The meeting adjourned shortly after the discussion.

What’s next: the land‑use items tied to the Glenwood plan are scheduled for a council second reading Dec. 1; the agency will prepare a preliminary master plan application, pursue partner MOUs and procurements, and bring infrastructure phasing options back to the board for formal direction.