HomeMy Public PortalAbout1996 - Comprehensive Plan UpdateCOMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
Prepared for:
City of Jefferson, Missouri
Prepared by:
Landform Urban Planning Services
St. Louis, Missouri
Contributing Consultants
PGAV – Urban Consulting
St. Louis, Missouri
(Plan Consultation & Recreation Facilities Component)
And
Techniciplan, Inc.
St. Louis, Missouri
March, 1996
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Purpose of Planning and Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
PART 1: COMMUNITY ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
CHAPTER 1: ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS . . . . . . . 7
Employment and Income Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Trends in Retail Sales And Consumer Spending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Demographic Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
CHAPTER 2: LAND USE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Existing Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Undeveloped Land by Current City Zoning
and Estimated Future Land Use Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 48
CHAPTER 3: UTILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Water Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Water Supply Development Support Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Sanitary Sewer System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Stormwater Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
CHAPTER 4: DEVELOPMENT FACTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Cole County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Callaway County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
CHAPTER 5: RECREATION FACILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ·. . 87
How Recreation is Perceived-A U.S. and Jefferson City Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Perceived Benefits of Local Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
U.S. Trends in Outdoor Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Jefferson City -Activities and Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Determination of Recreational Demands & Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Recreation Patterns in Jefferson City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Current Facility Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
CHAPTER 6: SUB-AREA ANALYSES . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
High/Chestnut Street Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
East McCarty Street Area ....................................... .
D owntown Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CHAPTER 7: SOLID WASTE ISSUES •••••••• 0 • 0 •••••••••• 0 •••••• 0 ••••• 0
Introductio n ............................................... .
Recent Hi story . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Current Status in Jefferson City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Future Co nsiderat io ns ......................................... .
PART II: GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .................................. .
CHAPTER 8 : GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ................................ .
Introduction ............................................... .
Overall Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Land Use ................................................. .
Transportation and Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Utilities .................................................. .
Parks and Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Other Public Facilities ......................................... .
Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PART III: DEVEWPMENT PLAN .................................... .
CHAPTER 9: LAND USE AND MAJOR STREET PLAN ...................... .
Introduction ............................................... .
Land Use ................................ , ................ .
Implications on Zoning ........................... , ............ .
Major Streets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CHAPTER 10: SUB -AREA PLANS .................................... .
High/Chestnut Street Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
East McCarty Street Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Downtown Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CHAPTER 11: PARKS AND RECREATION PLAN .......................... .
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Future Facility Requirements ..................................... .
Capital Projects for Recreation Facility Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary ................................................. .
CHAPTER 12: IMPLEMENTATION .................................... .
Introduction ............................................... .
Plan Adoption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Zoning and Subdivision Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Annexation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sewer Extension/Connection Policy ................................. .
Redevelopment Tools . •. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Major Capital Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Comprehensive Plan Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ii
133
139
149
149
149
151
15 2
153
155
155
155
156
160
164
166
167
168
169
171
171
171
181
184
191
191
195
199
203
203
204 .j
213 . l
214
215
215
216
217
221
223
224
229
229
I
._1
INTRODUCTION
This document represents the outcome of a comprehensive planning program update initiated
by the City of Jefferson in 1992. The last full Comprehensive Plan update for Jefferson City was
completed in 1969. Supplemental updates were completed in 1978 and 1986.
This Comprehensive Plan contains considerable information on the City and the region, with
regard to physical and socioeconomic characteristics, and future development recommendations. This
document consists of three parts which, together, make up the CompreMnsive Plan. They are:
PaTti: Community Anlllyris;
Pan II: Goals tuUl Objectives; tuUl
Pa11111: Development Plan.
The findings of the Community Analysis phase was important in assessing future growth
potential of the community and its ability to support such growth. The Goals and Objectives were
developed to serve as a guide in preparing the Development Plan and to serve as a guide to future
decisions concerning community development. The Development Plan is intended to be a policy
document which sets forth the general arrangement of future land uses, major streets, and parks and
open space, within and beyond the current City limits.
Pur,pose of Planning and Zonin&
Before explaining the purpose of planning and zoning, it is important to distinguish the basic
differences between the two subjects. In very general terms, planning can be defined as a scheme for
making, doing or arranging something. A comprehensive plan, in essence, sets the framework for
future development. It is based on a assessment of existing conditions and establishment of goals and
objectives for the community's future. It is a "policy" document that recommends how the future
community physical make-up should be. It is normally "comprehensive" in scope, whereby land use,
major streets, utilities, parks and open space, etc. are integrated into a unified scheme.
Zoning is the "legal" tool the city uses to regulate land use. The city is afforded this
regulatory authority per Chapter 89 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri (R.S.Mo.). Specifically, a
zoning ordinance regulates items relating to the use of land, height and size of buildings, size of lots,
1
size of yards (building setbacks), and parking. It establishes definitions, standards, and procedures
for the city's governing body to review and approve specific land developments.
Zoning regulations should be based on a sound and rational plan for the community. In fact,
R.S.Mo., Section 89.040, states that such regulations shall be made in accordance with a
comprehensive plan. Furthermore, case law reveals that land development control regulations cannot
be arbitrary and capricious. For these reasons, it is imperative that a community carefully consider
its development goals, objectives, and policies, and document them in a comprehensive plan. If done
properly, the plan will provide a strong foundation for the city's zoning authority. Figure 1 provides
a summary of the key features of a comprehensive plan and a zoning code.
The control of the use of land, through zoning, is essential to avoid/mitigate incompatible land
uses, traffic congestion, environmental degradation and other negative community impacts, which are
more likely to occur without development control. Also a reasonable, but relatively stringent, control
is important to encouraging private development. The reason is that an individual or business,
investing money into a residential or commercial property, can proceed with confidence in what the
future holds for the city's land use pattern and, JnOre particularly, their immediate surroundings.
Planning Process
Preparing a comprehensive plan is a structured process and, in order for it to have community
support, it is essential to have citizen input. Figure 2 illustrates the basic planning process employed
by the City of Jefferson. Citizen input was solicited, via a public workshop, early in the community
analysis phase. This input was used in formulating tile goals and objectives for the plan. During the
plan formulation stage, several concept plans were prepared, along with a preliminary statement of
goals and objectives. The attendees at the first workshop, and the community at large, were invited
again to review and comment on these plan proposals, prior to preparing a pre-final plan for public
hearing purposes. While a public hearing on the comprehensive plan is required by law (for purposes
of public input), it was the intent of the Jefferson City planning process to involve the public at
several stages prior to such hearing.
2
Figure I
SUMMARY OF PLANNING AND ZONING
1. Serves as a guide for decisions concerning
the community's physical development.
2 . Takes a comprehensive approach to a wide
range of community development issues
(e.g., land use, major streets, parks &
open space, etc.).
3. Documents community development goals
and objectives .
4. Recommends location and intensity of land
uses, major street improvements, parks and
open space, etc.
5 . Provides a rational basis for administering
the zoning code and other development
regulations.
Tlie. pCan is a "POLICY" d'ocume.nt
1. Is the legal tool for achieving community
development goals & objectives estab li s h ed
through the planning process .
2. Regulates specific items r e lativ e to land
developm e nt:
a. use of land
b . height and size of buildings
c. size of lots
d. yards and other open spaces
e. buffers between incompatable land uses
f. parking
3. Establishes definitions , standards and
procedures for reviewing and approving
land development.
Tlie zonin9 cocle is
a "LEGAL" d'ocume.nt
Figure 2
COMMUNITY PLANNING PROCESS
• Collection and evaluation of pertinent information about the
community and its surroundi~gs, (e.g., land use, major streets,
utilities, etc.)
• To be used for identifying trends, constraints and opportunities
regarding future development.
0
'
• Defined by community residents, elected officials and staff.
• Typically address problems, opportunities, needs and values as
they affect planning for future development and neighborhood
preservation. ·
•
•
0
0
0
~
Based upon background information and stated goals and
objectives.
Formulate interrelated plan elements such as land use,
major streets, utilities, etc.
0
0
'
• Hold public hearing on the plan.
• Revise/refine the plan, if deemed appropriate.
• Community legislative body officially adopts the plan as a
policy guide for community development.
• Refinement of zoning and subdivision codes and
adoption of other regulatory controls as necessary.
• Establishment of policy and programs (e.g., capital
improvements program) designed to achieve plan proposals.
4
~·············
-t'-1
~ z <
0 ~ ....
t'-1 In ~ .... .,... ;... = ~ ~
Q .,...
z ~ < > z ..:a
0 ~ .... E-E-< < ::E ~ .... ..:a ~ < 0 .,... ~ ~ ~
~ < -
PART 1: COMMUNITY ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan Update
5
" ·.\
CHAPTER!
ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS
Emplovment and Income Trends
Introduction
Place of residence data for jobholders working in Cole County in 1980 indicate that the labor
market area (LMA) for Jefferson City includes both Callaway and Osage Counties, Missouri. In
1980, almost 3,000 residents of Callaway County worked in Cole County. These 3,000 workers
represented 14.1 percent of the total labor force living in Callaway County at that time.
In the case of Osage County, 1, 750 workers residing in that county held jobs located in Cole
County. Those 1,750 residents represented 28.9 percent of the total labor force living in Osage
County in 1980. At the same time, more than 1,100 residents of Cole County commuted to jobs
located in Callaway and Osage Counties.
By way of contrast, only 923 residents of Boone County commuted to jobs located in Cole
County. Moreover, only 413 residents of Cole County commuted to work locations in Boone County.
The above flows of workers between Cole, Callaway and Osage Counties warrant their
inclusion in this analysis of recent employment and income trends within the Jefferson City LMA.
Although 1990 data on place of work versus place of residence was not available at the time of this
writing, it was estimated that the number of non-residents working in Cole County in 1990 was
substantially greater than the 8,446 tabulated by the Department of Labor during 1980. It is estimated
that the comparable 1990 number will be in the range of 10,500 to 11,000, which is confirmed by the
analysis of Cole County payrolls presented later in this Chapter.
Based on employment and income totals, Cole and Osage Counties represent the two
extremes. Approximately midway between these two extremes, Callaway County•s 1990 employment
equalled just 30 percent of the total jobs located in Cole County. In contrast, Callaway•s 11,829
wage and salary jobs dwarfed the 2,014 jobs in Osage County by a factor of almost six to one.
7
Trends in Cole County
Between 1985 and 1990, wage and salary employment located in Cole County grew at an
annual 3.0 percent rate. As a result, total employment rose from 33,800 to 39,213-a gain of more
than 1,000 jobs annually.
Four employment sectors generated 4 of every 5 new jobs added in the period. Table 1
summarizes the separate contributions of these sectors.
Table 1
Major Sources of Job Gains (1985 -1990)
Cole County, Missouri 1
Employment Sector Jobs Added
Services 1,977
State Government 1,451
Wholesale Trade 561
Manufacturing 483
Subtotal 4,472
All Other Sectors 941
Total 5,413
Percent of
Total Gain
36.5
26.8
10.4
8.9
82.6
17.4
100.0.
During this period of employment gains, annual earnings from wage and salaried employment
grew from $548.1 million in 1985 to $786.4 million in 1990 (see Table 2). However, these two
figures are not truly comparable, since a dollar earned. in 1990 had less purchasing power than a
dollar earned in 1985. These figures have therefore been inflation adjusted using the 1982 value of
a dollar as the base. The adjusted figures of $490.5 million in 1985 and $605.5 million in 1990
reflect a compound growth rate averaging 4.29 percent per year throughout the last half of the 1980's.
Wage and salary income comprises most, but not all, money income received by individuals.
Other income sources, such as interest and dividends~ make up the remainder. In Cole County, these
other sources grew about as rapidly as did earnings from wages and salaries-4.30 percent a year
compounded (see Table 2).
1 Source: Missouri Division of Employment Security (MODES); and economist N. Bradley Susman.
8
.I
.. )
Since jobs added during the 1985-1990 period absorbed a significant portion of the aggregate
income growth, the rate of income growth per individual job would necessarily be lower than the
growth rate in aggregate income. And, indeed, it was, averaging only 1.25 percent a year on an
inflation-adjusted basis (see Table 2).
Money income per individual resident of Cole County grew at an annual rate that was
appreciably faster than the growth rate of money income per job -3.63 versus 1.25 percent,
respectively. The reason for this difference in growth rates stemmed from an increase in the number
of Cole County jobs per 100 residents-54.9 versus 61.7 jobs per 100 residents in 1985 and 1990,
respectively. Accompanying this increase was a rise in the proportion of the resident population at
work or looking for work. According to the Missouri Division of Employment Security, this
proportion rose from 52.5 percent in 1985 to 56.1 percent in 1990.
Table2
Income Growth Rates (1985 -1990)
Cole County, Missouri 2
Thousands of Dollars
Income Category 1985 1990
Total Wage and Salary Income 3
-Current Dollars $ 548,100 $ 786,400
-Inflation -Adjusted 490,500 605,500
Total Money Income 4
-Current Dollars 655,921 941,048
-Intlation -Adjusted 587,049 724,607
Inflation -Adjusted Income
-Wages & Salaries per Job 14.5 15.4
-Total Income per Job 17.4 18.5
-Total Income per Resident 9.5 11.4
Annual
Growth Rate
1985-1990
7.49%
4.29
7.49
4.30
1.25
1.25
3.63
By way of comparison, the 1990 Census recorded aggregate money income (in 1989 dollars)
of $834,426,000. In contrast, estimates derived from the relationship between wage and salary
2 Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, US Dept. of Commerce; MODES; and economist N. Bradley
Susman. ·
3 Place of Work Basis.
4 Place of Residence Basis.
9
earnings, and total money income, indicat~ aggregate money income of Cole County residents in
1989 was $941,048,000. On a per household basis, average money income was only $36,174
according to the 1990 Census, but was $40,796 when derived from the earnings/total income
relationship. Under-reporting of income by Census respondents has been widely acknowledged for
many years.
The figures for total money income, in Table 2, exclude wages and salaries earned in Cole
County by non-residents. Estimates prepared by the Bureau of Economic Analysis indicate the
percentage of wage and salary income earned in Cole County by non-residents of the County stood
at 23.9 percent in 1980.
By 1985, this non-resident share of earnings had risen to 26.8 percent. It subsequently rose
further, to 27.4 percent in 1990. However, as will be discussed in the section on retail sales and
consumer spending, a substantial portion of non-resident income earned in Cole County is recycled
through Cole County retailers. In terms of 1990 commuter flows, the 27.4 percent of Cole County
payrolls paid to non-residents translates into an estimated i0,744 non-resident workers in that year.
Trends in Callaway County
Between 1985 and 1990, wage and salary employment located in this county grew at an annual
rate of 3.51 percent. During this period, overall employment rose from 9,956 to 11 ,829 -an average
gain of 375 jobs annually.
This employment growth took place despite substantial reductions in construction jobs
occasioned by the completion of work on Union Electric's Callaway power generating plant. Again,
just four employment sectors accounted for 90 percent of the jobs added during the period. Table 3
summarizes the separate contributions of these sectors.
During this period of employment gains, annual earnings from wage and salaried employment
grew from $170 million in 1985 to $229 million in 1990 (see Table 4). As noted earlier, these two
figures are not truly comparable, since a dollar earned in 1990 bad less purchasing power than a
dollar earned in 1985. These figures have, therefore, been inflation-adjusted using the 1982 value of
a dollar as the base. The adjusted figures of$152 million in 1985 and $176.2 million in 1990 reflect
a compound growth rate averaging 3.01 percent per year throughout the last half of the 1980's.
Sources of income other than wages and salaries, such as interest, dividends and rent,
increased in Callaway County at an inflation-adjusted annual rate of 2.59 percent. These non-job
related sources of income thus experienced a growth rate slightly below that of wage and salary 1
earnings (see Table 4).
10
Table 3
Major Sources of Job Gains (1985 -1990)
, Callaway County, Missouri 5
Employment Sector Jobs Added
Services 705
State Government 438
Transportation & Utilities 324
Retail Trade 255
Subtotal 1,722
All Other Sectors 151
Total 1,873
Percent of
Total Gain
37.6
23.4
17.3
13.6
91.9
8.1
100.0
Jobs added during the 1985-1990 period absorbed a significant portion of the overall growth
in income. For that r~on, the rate of inoome growth per individual job (both new and existing)
would necessarily be lower than the growth rate in aggregate income. As a matter of fact, the
elimination of high paying construction jobs at the Union Electric Callaway facility actually caused
this growth rate to tum moderately negative -a decline averaging 0.50 percent annually (see
Table 4).
Despite the negative growth in income per job, money income per individual resident of
Callaway County continued to rise by 2.50 percent annually. This rise stemmed from the increase
in the number of Callaway County jobs per 100 residents-31.3 versus 36.1 jobs per 100 residents
in 1985 and 1990, respectively. Accompanying this increase was a rise in the proportion of the
resident population at work or looking for work. According to the Missouri Division of Employment
Security, this proportion rose from 41.5 percent in 1985 to 49.9 percent in 1990.
By way of comparison, the 1990 Census recorded aggregate money income (in 1989 dollars)
of $353,575,000. In contrast, estimates derived from the relationship between wage and salary
earnings, total money income, indicated aggregate money income of Callaway County residents in
1989 was $436,565,000. On a per household basis, average money income was only $30,528
a~cording to the 1990 Census, but was $37,693 when derived from the earnings/total income
relationship. Under-reporting of income by Census respondents has been widely acknowledged for
many years.
5 Source: MODES and economist N. Bradley Susman.
11
Table 4
Income Growth Rates (1985 -1990)
Callaway County, Missouri 6
Thousands of Dollars
Income Category 1985 1990
Total Wage and Salary Income 7
-Current Dollars $ 170,000 $ 229,000
-Inflation -Adjusted 152,000 176,300
Total Money Income 8
-Current Dollars 324,087 936,565
-Inflation -Adjusted 290,058 336,155
Inflation -Adjusted Income
-Wages & Salaries per Job 15.0 14.9
-Total Income per Job 29.1 28.4
-Total Income per Resident 9.1 10.2
Annual
Growth Rate
1985-1990
6.13
3.01
6.14
2.99
(0.15)
(0.50)
2.50
The above figures for total money income exclude wages and salaries earned in Callaway
County by non-residents. Estimates prepared by the Bureau of Economic Analysis indicate the
percentage of wage and salary income earned in Callaway County by non-residents of the County
stood at 11.0 percent in 1980.
By 1985, this non-resident share of Callaway County earnings was more than offset by
resident earnings in other counties. By 1990, the offset was such that resident earnings outside
Callaway County represented 14.5 percent of total earnings by workers residing in Callaway County.
If the 1980 pattern of commuter flows also prevailed in 1990, then some 3,750 residents of Callaway
County held jobs in Cole County in the latter year.
Most of these "outside" earnings probably originated in Cole County. However, as will be
discussed in the section on retail sales and consumer spending, a substantial portion of non-resident
income earned in Cole County is recycled through Cole County retailers.
6 Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, US Dept. of Commerce: MODES; and economist N. Bradley
Susman.
1 Place of Work Basis.
8 Place of Residence Basis.
12
r' Trends in Osage County
.r
I'
I
. J
J
Between 1985 and 1990, wage and salary employment located in this county added only 9
jobs. The manufacturing sector and government both contracted. This contraction resulted in a loss
of 33 jobs. Modest gains in retail trade and in finance, insurance and real estate offset that loss. The
gain of only 9 jobs over the five year period illustrates the stagnant nature of economic activity in
Osage County during the last half of the 1980's.
Wage and salary trends offer further evidence of stagnation. On an inflation-adjusted basis,
· · total wage and salary payrolls in Osage County declined at an annual rate of 1.86 percent (see
Table 5).
Aggregate money income, bolstered somewhat by government transfer payments, also
declined. However, the annual rate was only 1.65 percent throughout this period.
In terms of money income per individual job, another decline, this time 1. 70 percent annually,
was another reflection of locally stagnant economic conditions. With virtually no employment growth,
the ratio of jobs per 100 residents in Osage County increased by only 0'.2 percent-from 16.6 jobs
per 100 residents in 1985 to only 16.8 jobs in 1990. Consequently, the trend in inflation-adjusted
money income per individual resident, as well as per individual job, was also negative.
By way of comparison, the 1990 Census recorded aggregate household money income (in
1989 dollars) of$118,471,000. In contrast, estimates derived from the relationship between wage and
salary earnings, and total money income, indicated aggregate money income of Osage County
residents in 1989 was $122,960,000. On a per household basis, average money income was only
$27,797 according to the 1990 Census, but was $28,850 when derived from the earnings/total income
relationship. Again, under-reporting of income by Census respondents has been widely acknowledged
for many years.
The figures shown in Table 5 for total money income include wages and salaries earned in
other counties by Osage County residents. Estimates prepared by the Bureau of Economic Analysis
indicate the percentage of wage and salary income earned outside Osage County by its residents stood
at 60.4 percent in 1980 .
13
Table 6
Trends In Retail Sales, 1982 -1987 ($000)
Cole County and Jefferson City LMA 12
Type of Retailer
Lumber/ Food Auto Gas
Year & Area GAF 13 Hardware Stores Dealers Stations
1982: LMA(2) $98,239 $26,835 $ 84,459 $95,906 $ 36,919
Cole County 69,452 12,977 58,234 73,356 17,792
% ofLMA 70.7% 48.4% 68.9% 16.5% 48.2%
1987: LMA 14 $135,707 $45,443 $113,727 $156,184 $ 67,124
Cole County 112,386 24,782 75,501 116,877 34,768
% ofLMA 82.8% 54.5% 66.4% 74.8% 51.8%
12 Source: Census of Retail Trade, 1982 and 1987; and economist N. Bradley Susman.
13 General Merchandise, Apparel, Furniture and Home Furnishings Stores.
14 Labor Market Area: Cole, Callaway and Osage Counties.
16
J !_·J
Restau'ts Misc.
&Bars Stores Total
$ 35,238 $ 87,756 $465,352
23,679 85,735 341,225
67.2% 97.7% 73.3%
$51,713 $204,649 $774,547
38,112 191,815 594,241
73.7% .93/7% 76.7%
.. r'
In addition to traditional shoppers' good merchandise, food ~tores, as well as restaurants and
bars in Cole County also attract a certain amount of non-resident patronage. It was estimated that
shoppers from Callaway and Osage Counties bought $6.6 million of merchandise in Cole County food
stores during 1982. This figure rose to an estimated $7.6 million in 1987. These same shopper
groups spent an estimated $3.0 million in Cole County restaurants and bars during 1982. By 1987,
such patronage had climbed to an estimated $6.7 million.
To fully appreciate such non-resident patronage, Table 7 distributes retail sales in selected
stores among the several type of patrons. The figures in Table 7 reveal the reasonably steady
patronage from Callaway and Osage County households, as well as the dramatic increase in patronage
by residents of other counties and from non-household sectors within the greater Jefferson City trade
area.
Table 7
Source and Amount of Patronage
for Selected Retail Stores (1982 and 1987)
Cole County, Missouri 15
Source &. Amount of PatroiUU!e ~.,_,..,..,..'"
Cole Co.
Callaway&.
~eCounty Year & Type of Store Households Households Other Patrons
1987
-GAF Stores $69,220 $25,465 $ 17,701
-Miscellaneous Retail 56,055 26,674 109,086
-Food Stores 65,009 7,592 2,900
-Restaurants & Bars 28,837 6,724 2,551
Total $219,121 $66,455 $132,238
% ofTotal 52.4% 16.0% 31.6%
1982
-GAF Stores $ 49,710 $ 16,162 $ 13,670
-Miscellaneous Retail 40,256 16,281 19,108
-Food Stores 46,686 6,598 4,950
-Restaurants & Bars 19,709 1,999 1,971
Total $156,361 $ 41,040 $ 39,699
% ofTotal 65.9% 17.3% 16.7%
15 Source: Census of Retail Trade, 1982 and 1987; and economist N. Bradley Susman.
17
Total
$112,386
191,815
75,501
38,112
$417,814
100%
$79,542
75,645
58,234
23,679
$237,100
100%
Trends in .Jefferson City
Retail sales in the City of Jefferson represented 96.9 percent of all retail sales in Cole County
during 1982. The comparable percentage for 1987 was 97 .2. percent. Clearly, then, no major retail
shopping areas were in unincorporated Cole County as of 1987.
Among the seven major retail sectors, three had 1982 shares of countywide sales that fell
below the City's overall share of countywide retail sales. These sectors included lumber and hardware
stores, with 89.9 percent of countywide sales, and gasoline service stations, with just 77.8 percent of
service station sales countywide (see Table 8). Motor vehicle dealers also had a share slightly lower
than the City's overall share of all retail sales.
In 1987, these three sectors had shares of countywide sales that were still below the City's
overall share of countywide retail sales. However, they had been now joined by the City's food store
group, whose share of countywide food store sales slipped below the City's overall share of all retail
sales.
Other retail sectors in the City registered a reduced ·share of countywide sales between 1982
1.
and 1987. However, their 1987 shares remained higher than the City's overall share of all retail sales ~
countywide. Sectors falling into this category of declining shares included the GAF group and
restaurants and bars. These two sectors are among those which attract substantial non-resident
p~tronage and thus sales taxes from consumers living outside the City. Should the trend in declining
shares for these sectors continue, the City may want to consider options for sustaining the viability
of retailers in these two sectors.
Despite the declines registered by certain sectors, the City's overall share of countywide retail
sales rose between 1982 and 1987. This was largely due to the dramatic increase in sales by
miscellaneous retail stores within the City. This also is a sector which attracts significant non-resident
patronage. The City's share of countywide sales by miscellaneous retail sales approached 100 percent
in 1987. Such a share was all the more important because this sector alone accounted for 46 percent
of the total gain in Cole County retail sales between 1982 and 1987.
Based on taxable sales data for Cole County in 1991, countywide retail sales totaled almost
$718 million for that year. Comparable data from the City of Jefferson will allow an examination of
the trend in retail sales between 1987 and 1991. However, this economic census data will not be
available until the mid-1990's.
18
Table 8
City Shares or County
Retail Sales (1982 and 1987)
Cole County and Jefferson City, Missouri 16
Retail Sales ($000)
Retail Sector Cole County Jefferson City
1982
-GAF 17 $79,542 $79,195
-Lumber/Hardware 12,977 11,672
-Food Stores 58,234 56,528
-Motor Vehicle Dealers 73,356 70,300
-Gasoline Stations 17,792 13,838
-Restaurants & Bars 18 23,679 25,002
-Drug & Other Misc. Stores 75,645 74,228
Total $341,225 $316,925
1987
-GAFt7 $112,386 $110,343
-Lumber/Hardware 24,782 21,695
-Food Stores 75,501 71,607
-Motor Vehicle Dealers 116,877 112,847
-Gasoline Stations 34,768 32,251
-Restaurants & Bars 38,112 37,857
-Drug & Other Misc. Stores 191,815 191,141
Total $594,241 $577,741
Pemo&raphic Trends
Introduction
City as a
%of County
99.6
89.9
97.1
95.8
77.8
105.6
98.1
96.9
98.2
87.5
94.8
96.6
92.8
99.3
99.6
97.2
The focus of this analysis, unlike the examination of trends in employment, income and retail
sales, is restricted to the population living in just two townships. These townships encompass the
16 Source: Census of Retail Trade, 1982 and 1987; and economist N. Bradley Susman.
17 General Merchandise, Apparel, Furniture and Home Furnishings Stores.
18 Jefferson City sales exceeded those of Cole County due to City establishments in Callaway County.
19
corporate limits of Jefferson City and the adjacent development in unincorporated areas of Callaway -~
and Cole Counties. This area encompasses the Jefferson City "planning area."
Summit Township in Callaway County contains three population groups. These groups differ
from one another with regard to their place of residence. One group resides in Jefferson City, another
in Holts Summit, and the third in unincorporated areas of Summit Township.
Jefferson Township in Cole County contains two population groups -those living in the City
of Jefferson and those residing elsewhere in the Township. Throughout the following pages,
comparisons will be drawn between attributes that characterize one group and those which characterize
another.
Population and Households
Summit Township:
Population gains between 1980 and 1990 in Summit Township totalled only 205 (see Table 9).
However, this total masks the fact that the town of Holts Summit lost population, while gains occurred
both in the Jefferson City portion and the unincorporated areas of the Township. .The Jefferson City
gain was due to the consolidation of Cedar City into the corporate limits of Jefferson City in 1989.
Related to population changes, Summit Township added 123 households during the 1980-1990
decade. Again, however, these additions were not uniformly distributed. Holts Summit actually lost
80 households, whereas the area in Jefferson City added more than a hundred households, again
associated with the Cedar City consolidation. Unincorporated areas of the township added almost
100 households during the 1980's.
Jefferson Township:
On the Cole County side of the river, 1980-1990 population changes of greater magnitude
occurred in Jefferson Township. This township added 4,938 residents during the decade (see
Table 10). Jefferson City gained 1,581 of these residents, while unincorporated areas of the township
added more than twice that number.
Household additions between 1980 and 1990 included 1,529 in the City and 1,094 new
households in unincorporated areas of the Township. Thus, the City gained only slightly more
residents than it did households. In contrast, the unincorporated areas adjacent to the City attracted
fewer, but larger households, during the 1980-1990 period.
20
Table 9
Population and Household Changes (1980 -1990)
in Summit Township
Callaway County, Missouri 19
Location
Jefferson Holts Unincorp.
Year City Summit Area
Number of Persons:
1990 319 2,279 3,627
1980 25 2,526 3,469
1980-1990 294 (247) 158
Change
Number of Households:
1990 115 804 1,182
1980 10 884 1,084
1980-1990 105 (80) 98
Change
Table 10
Population and Household Changes (1980 -1990)
in Jefferson Township
Cole County, Missouri 20
Location
Jefferson Unincorporated
Year City Area
Number of Persons:
1990 35,175 12,875
1980 33,594 9,518
1980-90 Change 1,581 3,357
Number of Households:
1990 14,160 4,092
1980 12,631 2,998
1980-90 Change 1,529 1,084
Summit
Twp.
Total
6,225
6,020
205
2,101
1,978
123
Jefferson
Twp.
Total
48,050
43,112
4,938
18,252
15,629
2,623
19 Source: Census of Population, 1980 and 1990; and economist N. Bradley Susman.
3J Source: Census of Population, 1980 and 1990; and economist N. Bradley Susman.
21
The tendency for the population 65 years old and older to become more prominent is, with
some exceptions, generally true in Jefferson City and its environs. Exceptions exist among the
populations residing in the unincorporated area of Summit Township and the portion of Jefferson City
within that township.
The portion of Jefferson City in Jefferson Township had the largest concentration of senior
citizens in 1980-4,406 persons representing 13.1 percent of the total population (see Table 11).
This percentage had increased to 15.6 percent by 1990. However, relative to their 1980 values, the
percentage of senior citizens in unincorporated areas grew by the same proportion as did the
percentage living in the City. These unincorporated areas simply had a much smaller share of persons
65 years old and older both in 1980 and 1990. Moreover, only 6.5 percent of the population gain in
these areas consisted of senior citizens. In contrast, 70 percent of Jefferson City's gain was in age
groups 65 years old and older.
Table 11
Number and Percent of Total Population 65 Years or Older
by I..Gcation (1980 and 1990)
Jefferson City, Missouri and Environs 21
I.AK:ation
Jefferson Holts Unincorporated
Year City Summit Area
Summit Township
1990 36 (11.3%) 168 \1.3%) 166 (4.6%)
1980 5 (20.0%) 147 (5.8%) 187 (5.4%)
1980-90 Change 22 31 (-8.7%) 21 (1.5%) (21) (-0.8%)
efferson Township
1990 5,512 (15.6%) 566 (4.4%)
1980 4,406 (13.1 %) 349 (3.7%)
1980-90 Change 22 1,106 (2.5%) 217 (0.7%)
Household Composition
Total
370 (5.9%)
339 (5.6%)
31 (0.3%)
6,078 (12.6%)
4,755 (10.5%)
1,323 (2.1 %)
Three very significant changes occurred during the 1980's. First, there was a substantial increase
in non-family households, both nationally and throughout the Jefferson City area. A "non-family"
21 Source: Census of Population, 1980 and 1990; and economist N. Bradley Susman.
22 Change in the ratio of population 65 years and older to total population.
22
r household is a housing unit occupied by a single person or two or more unrelated persons living
together. Of the 2,746 households added in both Summit and Jefferson Townships during the 1980's,
almost half (1,267 or 46.1 percent) were non-family households (see Table 12).
Year
1990
1980
1980-90
Change
%Change
Table 12
Trends in Household Composition (1980 -1990)
Jefferson and Summit Townships 23
Household Type Family Households Married Couples
Non-Married With Without
Family Family Couples Other Children Children
13,858 6,495 11,519 2,339 5,657 5,862
12,379 5,228 10,636 1,743 5,623 5,013
1,479 1,267 883 596 34 849
11.9% 24.2% 8.3% 34.2% 0.6% 16.9%
One
Person
Households
5,780
4,579
1,201
26.2%
Family households also changed during the decade. Families without both husband and wife
present increased more rapidly than did the family that included a married couple. Households
without both husband and wife present accounted for 40.3 percent of the 1,479 family households
added in both townships during the 1980's.
The other significant change in family households relates to the presence of children in the
. household. Consistent with the national trend, married couples without children outnumbered those
with children for the first time in 1990.
Each of the above changes contributed to the declining size of the average household in
Jefferson City and its immediate environs. In conjunction with the growth in non-family households,
growth in the number of senior citizens also resulted in an increase in one person households during
the decade.
In view of the above changes, the average number of persons per household living in the
vicinity of Jefferson CitY dropped from 2.59 in 1980 to 2.51 in 1990. This decline was led by
households in Jefferson City itself. From an already low 2.39 persons per household in 1980, average
household size in the City dropped to 2.28 persons in 1990. By way of comparison, the national
average household size, in 1990, was 2.63. Larger households in 1990 could still be found in
23 Source: Census of Population, 1980 and 1990; and economist N. Bradley Susman.
23
unincorporated areas-3.15 and 3.07 persons per household in unincorporated parts of Jefferson and
Summit Townships, respectively.
Household Income Trends:
As reported by the Census, average household income in Jefferson City increased in both
nominal and real terms. In current (nominal) dollars, the increase amounted to a 78 percent gain -
$20,278 versus $36,093 in 1979 and 1989, respectively (see Table 13).
Table 13
Trends in Nominal and Real Household Income (1979 -1989)
Jefferson City, Missouri and Environs 24
Location
Elsewhere In
Jefferson Jefferson Summit Overall
Year City Township Township Average
Nominal Dollars
1989 $36,093 $37,682 $33,997 $36,208
1979 20,278 26,917 21,700 21,567
%Change 78.0% 40.0% 56.7% 67.9%
Constant Dollars
1989 $28,717 $29,957 $27,028 $28,801
1979 25,814 34,265 27,623 27,455
%Change 11.2% (12.6%) (2.1%) 4.9%
When measured in terms of dollars with equal purchasing power, the increase was a more
modest 11.2 percent. Average household income in constant 1982 dollars rose from $25,814 in 1979
to $28,777 ten years later. In this regard, Jefferson City households benefitted to a greater extent than
did households throughout the nation. The national average household income in 1989, expressed in
1982 dollars, was $26,969.
Households living outside the City in Jefferson Township did not fare as well. On a constant
dollar basis, average household incomes dropped 12.6 percent between 1979 and 1989. Whereas the
average in 1979 was 33 percent higher than that of households residing in Jefferson City, by 1989 the
average for households living outside the City was only 4.1 percent above the Citywide average.
24 Source: Census of Population, 1980 and 1990; and economist N. Bradley Susman.
24
In contrast, households living in Summit Township outside the City of Jefferson, including
Holts Summit, recorded a more stable level of income. In this instance, the average household
income (in constant dollars) declined only 2.2 percent between 1979 and 1989. At the same time,
household income experienced gains that failed to keep pace with those in the City even though Cedar
City households are included in Jefferson City in the 1990 Census. In 1979, Summit Township
households (outside Jefferson City) enjoyed an average income (in constant dollars) that was 7 percent
above the Citywide average. By 1989, Jefferson City households had average incomes which were
6.2 percent above those in Summit Township.
Projections
Introduction
Projections have been developed for employment, population, households, income and retail
sales in the Jefferson City area. These projections are keyed to the years 2000 and 2010. Given these
future horizons, certain assumptions have been used to assist in preparing the projections. Underlying
all the· projections is the assumption that global war, economic depression or natural catastrophe will
not be part of the future. Other assumptions, relevant to one variable such as employment or
population, rather than all variables, are made explicit in the text that follows.
The objective of these projections is to provide an "order of magnitude" estimate of how much
the planning area will likely grow. Requirements for future land development can be roughly
computed along with the requirements for public infrastructure and services.
Employment Prgjections
Wage and salary jobs located in Cole County have shown vigorous growth. Between 1985
and 1990, the addition of 5,413 jobs represented an annual growth rate of 3.02 percent. Over a
longer time span, from 1978 to·1990, the annual growth rate for wage and salary employment was
still a respectable 2.14 percent.
Although viewed as an area dominated by state government, this perception of the Jefferson
City economy will be less true in the future than it is today. Government jobs in 1990 represented
a slightly smaller share of total jobs in Cole County than was true in 1978-42.3 versus 42.8 percent,
respectively.
In Cole County, government jobs have increased rapidly since 1985. Between 1985 and 1990,
the growth rate in the public sector of employment averaged 2.60 percent annually. Even over the
25
twelve year period, 1978 -1990, the comparable rate was 2.03 percent. Statewide, jobs in state
government have been projected to grow much more slowly between now and the year 2000 than in
the recent past. The Missouri Division of Employment Security has projected an annual growth rate
of just 0.93 percent. Relative to statewide jobs in state government -exclusive of jobs in state
hospitals and schools -Cole County's share has been reasonably stable at 35-36 percent of the total.
Accepting Employment Security's projection for the year 2000 of 46,234 statewide jobs in state
government, Cole County's 35-36 percent share would represent 16,180 to 16,645 jobs. In essence,
this projection allows for no growth in government employment in Cole County since 1990 levels
would also prevail in the year 2000.
The prospect of zero growth in government jobs in Cole County during the 1990's is not
supportable by recent trends; therefore, it is likely that some growth will occur in the future. This
growth is likely to be less than the 0.93 percent annual rate projected statewide, however. At the
same time, Cole County's future growth rate in government jobs is unlikely to fall below 0.5 percent
annually.
Turning to private sector employment, Cole County employers increased employment at a
~.22 percent rate between 1978 and 1990. As was true of government growth, the private sector grew
at a more rapid annual rate (3.33 percent) between 1985 and 1990. The parallel between step-ups in
the rate of government and private sector growth suggest some degree of functional linkage between
the two.
While it is beyond the scope of this analysis to estimate the multiplier effect of growth in state
government, slower growth in government employment can be expected to restrain somewhat future
gains in private sector employment. For that reason, the future growth rate in Cole County's private
sector cannot be expected to exceed its long term rate of 2.22 percent annually. On the other hand,
if growth in government employment falls to 0.5 percent annually in Cole County, the growth rate
for private sector employment might drop to 1.5 percent annually.
Given these differences in projected growth rates, average annual gains in total wage and
salary employment in Cole County could range from about 450 to 715 during the 1990's and from
510 to 870 during the first decade of the next century (see Table 14). These ranges can be compared
to actual annual gains which averaged 735 jobs between 1978 and 1990. The average of the
projections in Table 14 equals average annual job gains of 583 during the 1990's and 690 thereafter.
26
Population Projections
Cole County:
Population projections for Cole County have been derived from two basic relationships. The
first such relationship is between employment in Cole County and the County's resident labor force.
The second is the relationship between resident labor force and total resident population.
Between 1978 and 1990, the resident labor force in Cole County varied from 89 to 95 percent
of total wage and salary empl(!yment. The higher percentages pertained to recessionary years, years
when unemployment was relatively high and new job generation rather low. Assuming future
economic conditions limit unemployment to 3. 6 -3. 8 percent of the resident labor force, this labor
force should equal 91 percent of total wage and salary employment in the future.
Table 14
Recent and Projected Wage and Salary Employment (1990 -2010)
Cole County, Missouri 25
Year
1990
(Actual) 2000 2010
Low Projection: 26
Sector: Public 16,581 17,430 18,320
Private 22,632 26,265 30,480
Total 39,213 43,695 48,800
Moderate Projection: 27
Sector: Public 16,581 18,190 19,950
Private 22,632 28,190 35,110
Total 39,213 46,380 55,060
Unlike the relationship just discussed, the relationship of population to resident labor force
exhibits a distinct downward trend. In 1978, there were 2.02 persons living in Cole County for every
:zs Source: Missouri Division of Employment Security, and economist N. Bradley Susman.
:z.s Based on public sector annual growth rate of 0.5 percent and private sector annual growth rate of 1.5
percent
'ZI Based on public sector annual growth rate of 0.93 percent and private sector annual growth rate of
2.22 percent.
27
person in the resident labor force. This ratio steadily declined throughout the 1980's. By 1990, it
stood at only 1. 78 resident population to resident labor force.
The rate of annual change in this ratio has been approximat~ly 1.0 percent. Projected in the
. future on that basis, the ratio will decline to 1.61 in 2000 and 1.46 in 2010. The direction of change
in this ratio assumes that the Jefferson City area is unlikely to become either a major retirement center
or a mecca for large family households in the future.
Applying these relationships, projections of resident labor force and population were computed
(see Table 15). The projections of 68,000 residents in the year 2000 and 73,000 by 2010 conform
closely to the Scenario "Z" (no net migration projection) developed by the State of Missouri's Office
of Administration. Published in May of 1988, Scenario "Z" came closest to the actual census count
of 1990 population in Cole County. This scenario envisions no dramatic increase in senior citizens
in the future. Persons 65 years old and older represented 12.2 percent of the 1990 population.
Scenario Z projects this percentage to rise only to 12.9 percent by the year 2010. It basically
assumes that out-migration by seniors will be offset by in-migration of younger adults to fill jobs
vacated by those retiring.
Table IS
Recent and Projected Resident Labor Force and Population (1990 -2010)
Cole County, Missouri
Year
1990
(Actual) 2000 2010
Low Projection:
Labor Force 28 35,689 39,800 44,410
Population 29 63,579 64,100 64,800
Moderate Projection:
Labor Force28 35,689 42,205 50,105
Population 29 63,579 68,000 73,200
S~te Population Projection 30 63,579 68,837 73,689
28 Based on 91 percent of projected total county labor force (see Table 14) rounded to nearest 100.
29 Based on ratio of population to resident labor force of 1.61 for the year 2000 and 1.46 for the
year 2010. Projections rounded to nearest 100.
30 Source: Projections of the Population of Missouri Counties by Ages and Sex: 1985 to 2010,
Missouri Office of Administration, May 1988. Scenario •z• (zero migration) shown in this table.
28
.I
-.-,~
{ , __ _
I
I •. _s
"")·
!f
...J
J
.J
. 1
Jefferson City Planning Area:
For purposes of estimating future population for Jefferson City and its environs, recent trends
in the ratio of Township to County populations were projected into the future. Holts Summit was
excluded from these projections in order to more accurately reflect the potential population within the
planning area of two miles from the Jefferson City limits. The ratios were then applied to the Cole
County population projections (from Table 15) and the Callaway County population projections (based
on scenario "Z" projections prepared by the State of Missouri).
The low projection for the Jefferson City area reflects the steady decline in the ratio of
population to resident labor force in Cole County (see Table 16). The moderate projection reflects
the same decline in this ratio, but assumes a greater increase in Cole County employment growth over
the projection horizon. Both the low and moderate projections assume that the recent trends in the
ratios of township to county population will continue -a slight downward trend for Jefferson
Township and a slight upward trend for Summit Township.
The resulting projections indicate a population range of 52,800 to 55,800 for the Jefferson
City planning area by the year 2000. By the year 2010, the population is estimated to be in the range
of 53,600 to 59,900.
Household Projections
The approach taken to develop household projections involves establishing a relationship
between households and the segment of the population most closely related to household formation.
This population segment incudes persons between 25 and 64 years of age. In 1980, there were 729
households residing in Cole County for every 1,000 persons in that age range. By 1990, this ratio
had declined to 688 households per 1,000 residents.
The reason for the decline relates to differences in household formation rates between the
populations living in Jefferson City and that residing elsewhere in Cole County. Household formation
rates are lower outside the City. This is primarily due to the fact that far fewer persons 25 -64 years
old who live outside the City live alone. For example, in 1990, only 3.2 percent of this population
segment living outside the City were living alone. In contrast, 16.3 percent of City residents in that
age range were single person households.
29
Table 18
Recent and Projected Household Income and Retail Sales (1990-2010)
in Constant Dollars
Cole County, Missouri 36
Year
1990
Item (Actual) 2000
Household Inc. ($000) $834,425 $1,146,075
Per Household ($) 36,174 46,305
Retail Sales ($000) 37 675,718 928,092
NOTE: Expressed in 1989 Dollars
Table 19 ·.
Recent and Projected Retail Sales (1990 -2010)
in Constant Dollars
Cole County and Jefferson City, Missouri 36
Year
1990
Location (Actual) 2000
Cole County $675,718 $928,092
Jefferson City 655,446 890,968
City Share of County Total 97.0% 96.0%
NOTE: Expressed in 1989 Dollars
3a Source: Economist N. Bradley Susman.
2010
$1,530,775
59,225
1,239,620
2010
$1,239,620
1,177,639
95.0%
31 Based on earlier findings that Cole County households spend 39 -40 percent of income on
retail goods and services; and that retail sales in Cole County are roughly twice as great as resident
expenditures for retail goods and services.
32
~I
Conclusions
Over the past decade, Jefferson City has experienced considerable growth in employment,
aggregate household income and retail sales. This positive economic growth has contributed to
physical growth, both within the City and adjacent unincorporated area.
The City has continued its dominance of retail trade in the region. The fact that retail sales
within the City are approximately double that of the retail spending by its resident population
underscores the importance of non-resident sales. Non-resident shoppers contribute about half of the
City's sales tax revenue.
There has been a considerable amount of development (principally residential) occurring in
adjacent unincorporated territory. This raises two key issues pertaining to the City -municipal
finances and development control. Non-residents who work in the City contribute to road and
infrastructure requirements and also benefit from basic municipal services, i.e., police and fire
protection. On the other side of the coin, these same non-resident workers (and shoppers) are
important to business enterprises who depend on this non-resident labor pool and source of consumer
spending income. These establishments,· including state government, are the beneficiaries of the
commuters. Notwithstanding the contribution of sales tax paid by non-residents, cost sharing in the
provision of municipal services could be made up by funds from benefitted employers -perhaps by
imposing an employee "head tax" or some other equitable charge.
Development control issues relate to development standards and provision of street networks,
infrastructure support systems (i.e., water and sewer), and public services. Neither Cole or Callaway
County have adopted zoning regulations. While there is informal cooperation between the City and
Cole County regarding development, there is no adequate legal means to control land use location and
intensities in unincorporated portions of the planning area. Also, while Cole County has subdivision
regulations, Callaway County lacks such development standards which can lead to inferior streets and
other elements of infrastructure. Over the long term, deterioration adversely affects the quality of
development and leads to higher maintenance costs. If such conditions are prevalent when developed
areas are annexed to the City, then these excessive costs become a burden on the municipal budget.
Of course, annexing territory prior to development helps to avoid these problems. However,
Missouri statutes inherently limit the ability to successfully annex undeveloped territory. Another
means to control external development has been provided by Missouri legislation passed and signed
by the Governor in 1992. It enables certain cities, including Jefferson City, .to enact legislation
governing zoning, planning, subdivisions and building within unincorporated areas extending up to
two miles from the City's corporate limits. However, this extraterritorial jurisdiction is subject to
33
approval by a majority of the county commission. As the planning program for Jefferson City ~
proceeds, this new development control option should be further explored along with examining
annexation options.
In terms of planning for physical·growth of the Jefferson City area, it can be expected that a
slow down in the recent rate of growth will occur in the future. The projections contained in this
Chapter are based on certain sets of assumptions which result in a realistic range of future outcomes
in terms of the area's economy and population. The low projections are possible, but would be
unlikely. The Comprehensive Plan should accommodate the moderate projections with some excess
growth capacity built in to ensure development flexibility and to have land use policy in place to deal
with unanticipated growth.
The extent of future annexation will affect how much of the future development will actually
be incorporated within the City limits. Because of the dynamics of the City's municipal boundaries,
it is important to plan for development regardless of the location of the current City limits.
34
" ~·
CHAPTER2
LAND USE
Existine Land Use
. The existing land use pattern, to a large extent, sets the stage for planning future development.
In order for the Comprehensive Plan to be effective, careful consideration should be given to the
existing use of land as well as to the suitability of undeveloped property for particular uses.
Beginning in the summer of 1992, a land use survey was initiated for the area within the City
of Jefferson and most of the area within two miles of the City. This survey was completed in March,
1993. For purposes of this analysis, "1992" is the reference year for the land use survey. The results
of this survey are presented quantitatively in Table 20 and graphically on Plate 1.
In order to measure development trends, comparisons of 1992 and 1977land use data were
made. Table 21 presents the land use inventory data for 1992 and 1977. Also, this table displays the
average annual absorption (in terms of acres of land) for most of the land use categories. Because
of differences in land use inventory techniques between the 1992 and 1977 surveys, valid comparisons
could not be made for every land use category. For instance, a comparison of public/semi-public land
was not made. This was because the 1977 land use survey accounted for all land owned by
public/semi-public entities, regardless of whether or not the land was developed. The 1992 land use
survey counted only the develqped portion of public/semi-public land. If a comparison was made
between the two years, it would imply that there was a loss of hundreds of acres of public/semi-public
land between 1977 and 1992. Of course, this was not the case. The rationale for the 1992 land use
survey methodology was to provide a more realistic measure of the City's actual physical
development.
In 1992, the total incorporated area of Jefferson City amounted to nearly 17,780 acres, of
which approximately 9,300 acres (52 percent) were developed. In 1977, the City encompassed
approximately 15,260 acres, of which 6,400 acres (42 percent) were developed. The number of
developed acres in 1977 was actually less due to overcounting of public/semi-public land uses.
Excluding public/semi-public and transportation, communications, and utilities (TCU) land uses,
Jefferson City's total developed area increased by nearly 2,400 acres (or 46 percent) in 15 years
(adjusted to exclude land that was developed in 1977 and subsequently annexed). This equates to 159
acres of land absorbed by new development each year within the 1992 City limits, not counting the
land use categories previously noted.
35
Table 20
Land Use, 1992
Jefferson City Planning Area 38
Jeft'erson City Unincorporated Area
Percent or Percent or
Percent or Developed Percent or Developed
Land Use Category Acres Total Area Area Acres Total Area Area Total Acres
Single Family Residential 3,449 19.4 .37.1 2,065 4.8 36.5 5,514
ifwo Family Residential 163 0.9 1.8 12 0.0 0.2 175
Multi-Family Residential 293 1.6 3.1 62 0.1 1.1 3SS
Mobile Home Residential 24 0.1 0.3 122 0.3 2.2 146
Subtotal 3,929 22.1 42.2 2,260 5.2 40.0 6,189
Commercial 757 4.3 8.1 75 0.2 1.3 832
Industrial 612 3.4 6.6 144 0.3 2.5 156
Public/Semi-Public 515 3.2 6.2 32 0.1 0.6 608
Public/Semi-Public (Government) 328 1.8 3.5 270 0.6 4.8 591
Subtotal 903 5.1 9.7 302 0.7 5.3 1,205
Parks & Recreation 542 3.1 5.8 860 2.0 15.2 1,402
Transportation/Communications/Utilities 438 2.5 4.7 194 0.4 3.4 632
Street & Highway Right of Ways 2,127 12.0 22.9 1,820 4.2 32.2 3,947
jrotal Developed Area 9,307 51.3 100.0 5,655 13.1 100.0 14,962
Undeveloped/ Agricultural/Water 8,472 47.7 37,429 86.9 45,901
TOTAL AREA 17,779 100.0 43,084 100.0 60,863
38 Based on land use survey initiated in June, 1992 and completed in March, 1993
J
1-_,
Table 21
Annualized Land Absorption By Land Use Type (1977 -1992)
Jefferson City Planning Area
Jefferson City Unincorporated Area
Avg. Avg.
Annual Annual
Absorp. Absorp.
Land Use Category 1977 Acres 1992 Acres 39 (Acres) 1977 Acres 40 1992 Acres (Acres)
Single Family Residential 2,116 3,277 77 722 2,065 90
Two Family Residential 41 93 163 5 2 12 1
Multi-Family Residential 41 168 293 8 47 62 I
Mobile Home Residential 42
~ubtotal 2,377 3,733 90 771 2,139 91
Commercial 43 44 391 750 24 27 75 3
Industrial 45 334 539 14 46 144 7
Public/Semi-Public 46
Public/Semi-Public (Gov'nt) 46
Parks & Recreation 47 464 542 5 752 860 7
Transportation/Communications/Utilities 48
Street & Highway Right of Ways 1,627 2,021 26 1,350 1,820 31
Total Developed Area 49 5,193 7,584 159 2,946 5,038 139
See footnotes on the following page
37
Total Avg.
Annual Absorp.
(Acres)
167
5
9
182
27
20
12
58
299
FOOTNOTES FOR TABLE 21, ANNUALIZED LAND ABSORPTION BY LAND USE TYPE:
39 Except as noted herein, 1992 land use acreage is reduced by a factor of S% to account for development
that existed in 1977 and was subsequently annexed into the City.
40 Except as noted herein, 1977 land use acreage is reduced by a factor of S% to account for development
that existed in 1977 and was subsequently annexed into the City.
41 1992 acreage in City and 1977 acreage in unincorporated area is not reduced because no two family
or multi-family residential development, which existed in 1977, was annexed.
,·
42 Not included in this analysis because land occupied by mobile homes in 1977 was categorized as
"commercial" land use in the 1977 land use survey.
43 1992 commercial acreage in the City is reduced by 7 acres to account for commercially-developed land
in Cedar City, which existed in 1977.
44 1977 commercial acreage in the unincorporated area is reduced by a factor of 80% to exclude mobile
home land uses which were categorized as commercial in the 1977 land use survey.
45 1992 industrial acreage in the City is reduced by 73 acres to account for the Modine manufacturing
facility (25 acres), the ABB plant (46 acres), and 2 acres of industrial land use in Cedar City, which existed
in 1977 and was subsequendy annexed into the City. 1977 industrial acreage in the unincorporated area is
nd~bytheame~owl ·
46 Not included in this analysis because the method of quantifying public/semi-public land uses in the 1977 ~
land use survey accounted for all land owned by public/semi-public entities, regardless of whether or not the
land was developed. The 1992 land use survey counted only developed public/semi-public land.
47 1977 parks and recreation acreage in the City is increased by 140 acres to account for the Country Club
golf course, which was categorized as public/semi-public in the 1977 land use survey. The 1977 parks and
recreation acreage in the unincorporated area is estimated to be approximately 752 acres, which includes Binder
Park and all of the Cowty Fairgrounds and Park.
48 Not included in this analysis because the 1977 land use survey quantified railroads only. Other
transportation, communications, and utility uses existing in 1977 were categorized as public/semi-public in the
1977 land use survey.
49 Excludes mobile home, public/semi-public, and transportation/communication/utility land uses.
38
~ While the incorporated portion of the Jefferson City planning area experienced considerable
growth in the 15 year period, so did the unincorporated portion. Between 1977 and 1992, the amount
of land absorbed by new development was nearly 2,100 acres, a 71 percent increase. Again, this
excludes public/semi-public and TCU land uses. Land absorption for the unincorporated area
averaged 139 acres per year, excluding the land use categories previously noted.
However, the It density It of development was somewhat lower in the unincorporated area than
the development in Jefferson City. A considerable amount of the residential development in the
unincorporated area was devoted to "large lot" subdivisions (i.e., lots greater than 2 acres). Hence,
the population density associated with new development, on average, was less in the unincorporated
area than in the City in 1992. The Census data confirms this, whereby between 1980 and 1990 the
number of households increased by only 29 percent in the unincorporated portions of the planning
area. In the 15 year period between 1977 and 1992 the acreage of residential development increased
by nearly 180 percent within the unincorporated area.
The above narrative described the overall development trends within the Jefferson City planning
area. The following text provides a closer look at each land use category.
Residential
The largest portion of developed land within the City, and unincorporated area as well, is
devoted to residential uses (nearly 6,200 acres for the total planning area). In the City, 3,929 acres
(42 percent) of the developed area is residential. The majority of residential acreage in the City
(about 3,450 acres or 88 percent) is in the single-family category (typically one dwelling on a lot or
parcel). These proportions are similar in the unincorporated portion of the planning area. Over 40
percent {2,260 acres) of the developed land is residential, and, of this amount, 2,065 acres (91
percent) is single-family.
Residential uses also accounted for the largest portion of new growth between 1977 and 1992
(see Table 21). In Jefferson City, 57 percent of the average annual land absorption was associated
with residential development (mostly single-family). The proportion of residential to total growth in
unincorporated territory was even greater; at 65 percent. This larger percentage of residential growth
in the unincorporated area is due mostly to the large-lot single-family developments mentioned
previously.
The other residential land use categories are two family, multi-family, and mobile homes.
These residential uses occupy substantially fewer acres than the single-family uses, but the densities
~ are higher (i.e., as expressed in dwelling units per acre). The majority of multi-family acreage, in
41
both the City and unincorporated area, is associated with apartment complexes or "planned unit ~
developments." Similarly, most of the mobile home acreage is in mobile home parks, though some
mobile home groupings in the unincorporated area fall far short of contemporary mobile home
development standards.
Aside from the apartment complexes and planned unit developments, the other two family and
multi-family land uses are scattered throughout the older portions of the City. This appears to be,
at least in part, a reflection of zoning practices that were intended to implement past planning
proposals to eventually convert certain areas to higher density residential. In reality, the full transition
from say, single family to multi-family, never took place. The same is true when existing residential
areas are "pre-zoned" as commercial.
These situations make it particularly difficult to plan for these older neighborhoods. What
should the planning policy be? Continue the transition; halt or reverse the transition; hold until larger,
unified redevelopment proposals can be implemented; or something else? Typically, single family
dwellings still dominate these neighborhoods, but unfortunately, the single family home is the most
sensitive of all types of land use.
In terms of geographic distribution, residential growth has predominantly occurred in western
portions of the planning area. Much of this western growth has occurred outside the City limits in
single family subdivisions. This growth trend has particular significance in terms of transportation
and utilities. The existing major street system serving this area is an extension of the "hub and spoke"
network emanating from the central portion of Jefferson City. The further west one gets, it becomes
increasingly difficult to travel north/south due to lack of sufficient north/south collector and arterial
streets. If growth continues, then the number of vehicle trips will increase as well. The dispersion
of this development, combined with severe topographic constraints, will make transportation network
improvements difficult and expensive.
The westward expansion will impact public utilities as well, particularly sanitary sewer (see
Chapter 3, "Utilities"). The Jefferson City Sanitary Sewer District expands far beyond the western
City limits and the planning area boundary~ The provision of sanitary sewers to the west (and other
portions of the planning area) can be used as a growth management tool. This can be an intentional
policy or it may become a necessity, if the capacity of interceptors and pump stat~ons cannot keep
pace with growth. Keep in mind that increased development outside the City (particularly on the Cole
County side) impacts the sewage collection system inside the City as well, since all sanitary sewerage
is eventually pumped across the Missouri River to the City's wastewater treatment plant.
42
In summary, residential land use constitutes one of the more significant planning issues because
of its impact on the urban infrastructure (i.e., streets, utilities, etc.) and on public services (i.e., police
protection, schools, etc.). The proportions of residential to total development is not unusual for the
real estate market dynamics of a "freestanding" urban area such as the Jefferson City area. However,
its distribution is inefficient from a land use management viewpoint. In planning for the future,
residential land uses will constitute the largest quantity of land use, in terms of acreage.
Commercial
Commercial development takes up just over 830 acres within the planning area, three-quarters
of which is located within Jefferson City. Jefferson City's majority share of commercial land uses
is consistent with the fact that the City is the retail center of the region (see Chapter 1). Table 21
shows that, within Jefferson City, commercial acreage grew by an average of 24 acres per year
between 1977 and 1992. This rate of growth was significantly larger than in the unincorporated area
during the same period. While the population increase in the unincorporated area has been greater
than within the City, the population "density" is higher in the City. Thus, commercial development
tends to locate in trade areas containing higher population density with its corresponding "income
density."
The largest concentration of commercial development is downtown, Missouri Boulevard,
Highway 54 and the Capital Mall area. An emerging commercial node is located at Eastland Drive
and Highway 50/63. Other commercial uses are scattered throughout the City, typically along arterial
or major collecto~ streets.
Outside Jefferson City, the largest concentration of commercial uses is along Business 50 West.
This commercial corridor lacks traffic access control (i.e., curbing and curb cuts), and contains
several business properties that are vacant and dilapidated. It appears that the extension of the
Highway 50 freeway to the west has negatively impacted the commercial viability of this corridor.
Commercial land uses typically generate more traffic than other land uses. Also, commercial
enterprises (particularly retail) are drawn to major traffic arteries in order to attract the attention of
the traveling public. This market tendency often leads to land use policies that essentially support the
idea that if the property fronts onto a major arterial street, then it should be commercial. However,
the end result is often excessive curb cuts, increased traffic volumes, and more significantly, excessive
traffic turning movements.
The Missouri Boulevard corridor reflects this type of development policy. Hundreds of curb
cuts and traffic turning movements present many potential traffic hazards. Reducing the number of
43
curb cuts, turning movement controls (i.e., curbed center islands), and synchronized signalization ~
would greatly reduce the land use/traffic conflicts. However, retrofitting this existing situation would
be costly and require the cooperation of property owners, the City and the State Highway Department.
Requiring or encouraging cross-access agreements between adjacent parcels and future proposed
development/redevelopment will help reduce the number of necessary access points.
For the most part, Missouri Boulevard reflects older development techniques. However, there
are several examples of good access control to/from commercial developments in the City. This
includes the recently developed Wal-Mart supercenter located at the intersection of Missouri and
Stadium Boulevards. Access is controlled via traffic signals on both Missouri Boulevard and Stadium
Boulevard. ~ile it would have been preferable for the out-parcels to have internal access only, it
was impractical because of topographic conditions. If the site was flatter, this could have been
accomplished.
The Capital Mall area and the Eastland Drive/Highway So-63 commercial development institute
better site development designs as well. Access to many of the commercial establishments is via
internal drives or secondary streets. These developments have adequate site size and depth which
enabled better control of access, internal circulation, and provision of adequate off-street parking.
In summary, existing "strip II commercial development will continue to present traffic hazards,
though there are opportunities to mitigate some of the problems. Future commercial development
should be encouraged to be designed in a unified scheme to limit access points with internally accessed
out-parcels. In-fill or redevelopment of smaller commercial parcels along arterial streets should be
encouraged to negotiate cross-access agreements with adjacent property owners whenever possible.
Additionally, the City may want to consider instituting "Motor Vehicle Oriented Business" regulations
in its zoning code. This increasingly popular regulatory technique requires minimum separation of
certain commercial uses that typically generate a large number of traffic turning movements (i.e., fast
food restaurants, gas stations, and convenience stores).
Industrial
Over 610 acres of industrial land use exist within Jefferson City (an increase of over 200 acres
in fifteen years). As with commercial development, Jefferson City is the industrial center of the
region. This can be attributed to the availability of utilities, the transportation network, and the
proximity of the labor force. Only 144 acres of industrially developed land exists in the unincorporat-
ed area, of which approximately 30 acres are associated with a quarry located off of West Edgewood
Drive.
44
Some of the notable industrial development that has occurred since the late 1970's include
construction of a new Chesebrough Ponds facility at South Country Club Drive and Scruggs Station
Road; the Maytag facility on Fairgrounds Road; the Johnson Controls facility located on West Main
Street; and the new "spec" warehouse facility developed by the Jefferson City Industrial Development
Authority. Other than the area around South Country Club Drive and Fairgrounds Road, there are
no "industrial park" settings in the Jefferson City area. However, the County is in the process of
developing an industrial park, known as Algoa Industrial Park, east of the City and the Moreau River
on Highway 50/63.
One of the most significant obstacles to developing an industrial park in the City is severe
topography on the Cole County side of the Missouri River. On the Callaway County side of the river,
there is plenty of level ground that is serviceable with sanitary sewer and water. However, this area
is within the 100-year floodplain. The lOQ-year floodplain limitation can be overcome, as evidenced
by the development of the City's largest industrial facility, ABB Power T&D Company, which
manufactures underground distribution transformers. When built, this facility was elevated above the
100-year frequency flood elevation, but proved to be insufficient during the flood of 1993.
In conjunction with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the City is examining the cost/benefit
of constructing a levee to protect against a 100-year frequency flood. One alternative includes a levee
which would protect a portion of north Jefferson City area as well.
Industrial development is a "chicken and egg" dilemma. If a community does not have suitable
sites for industrial prospects, then the chances of being selected for a new facility decrease. On the
other hand, can a community afford the speculative investment of developing "industrial ready" sites?
For reasons described above, Jefferson City will continue to have a greater challenge than many other
communities its size to fulfill its industrial development objectives, particularly for larger
developments.
Public and Semi-Public
Public and semi-public land uses include properties developed for schools, churches, cemeteries,
public offices, hospitals, etc. They are uses that are often allowed in residential districts, but are
subject to "conditional use" approval procedures. As far as the proportion of public and semi-public
land uses in a typical city are concerned, Jefferson City is unique. Over one-third of the 900 public
and semi-public land use acreage is associated with State facilities.
While some of the previous land use surveys graphically distinguished State facilities separate f:' from other public and semi-public uses, the quantitative data did not. Also, previous land use surveys
45
accounted for all land owned by public or semi-public entities, regardless of whether or not the land ~
was developed. The 1992 land use survey counted only developed public and semi-public land, which
provides a more realistic indicator of urbanization. For these reasons, a comparison to 1977 could
not be made.
It is important to land use analysis/planning to segregate State facilities because they are often
significantly different in character than other public uses. Many of the State facilities resemble
commercial office uses. In reality, the State leases a considerable amount of office space. These
facilities employ many individuals and generate vehicle trips similar to private office buildings.
Hence, it is important that most, if not all, State office functions be located in commercial centers
with good access. For the most part, State office facilities have been located in this manner. Also,
the boom in State office construction over the past decade has been somewhat disbursed outside of
downtown into other commercial areas of Jefferson City. This has served to disburse their traffic
generation impact, thus mitigating additional traffic congestion and parking requirements in the
downtown area.
The State government is exempt from local codes and regulations. Because of the State's
sovereignty and its influence on the Jefferson City economy, the potential exists for conflict between
the State and local planning policy. Fortunately the current development pattern of State facilities
reflects a cooperative spirit between the City and the State. It will be imperative that communication
and cooperation continues, in order to maintain the integrity of the updated Comprehensive Plan for
Jefferson City.
In terms of future development demands on the part of the State, it is anticipated that it will
slow considerably, compared to the last decade. The research conducted in preparing Chapter 1
revealed a relatively small growth rate in State government. However, there is one significant
development proposal contemplated by the State. This proposal involves consolidating Department
of Revenue operations into a new facility. If this proposal advances further, the Comprehensive Plan
Update needs to take this into account.
Another significant public land use in Jefferson City is Lincoln University. Located in the
central part of the City, it is "land locked" on three sides by other development. The University is
compact and intensely developed. Expansion opportunities exist to the south on property owned by
the University. Also, the University owns considerable acreage further south, at the end of Green
Meadow Drive. A portion of this property is currently being ~ed as a research facility. This site
has poor access, requiring travel through a low density single family neighborhood to get to it. Any
intensive development of this property would need alternative access, perhaps from State Route B.
46
(' Parks and Recreation
Within the corporate limits of Jefferson City, there are approximately 540 acres of park land,
including public and private golf courses. In the unincorporated portion of the planning area, there
is 860 acres of park land. Most of this land is associated with Binder Park (644 acres), and Joseph
Miller Park (66 acres), which are owned by Jefferson City, except for Binder Lake. The lake is
under the control of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources.
Outdoor recreation is the only land use, other than agriculture, that is readily suitable to
floodplain environments. While most of the park acreage is outside the floodplain, the City has done
a commendable job in redeveloping a portion of the Ohio Street/Kansas Street area into park land
(Washington Park). Also, park land can co-exist with other land use activities, such as storm
retention facilities and utility rights-of-way. McKay Park is a good example of the synergy of park
land and a storm water retention facility.
Another outdoor recreation activity that has recently become available to the Jefferson City area
is the KA TY Trail, located on abandoned railroad right-of-way north of the Missouri River. The only
disadvantage of this trail is that most City residents must drive to it.
In 1991, the City prepared a "Greenway System" plan which proposes a network of
pedestrian/bicycle trails throughout the City. Such systems have proved to be a major outdoor
recreation amenity in other cities such as Eugene, Oregon and Denver, Colorado.
Specific details on the supply and demand for parks and open space are addressed in Chapter 5,
"Recreation Facilities." Elements of the Greenway System Plan, the Deborah Cooper Riverfront
Plan, and the findings contained in Chapter S will be considered for inclusion in the Comprehensive
Plan Update.
Other Land Uses
The remainder of the City is either undeveloped or occupied by streets, railroad lines, highways,
the airport, and other various utility/communication facilities (i.e., detention basins, electrical
substations, water storage tanks, communication towers, etc.). The amount of undeveloped land
remaining within the corporate limits amounts to nearly 8,500 acres. The following narrative
examines how this vacant land is currently zoned and thus, what land development options are
currently allowable within the corporate limits.
47
Undeveloped Land by Current City Zoning
and Estimated Future Land Use Reouirements
Table 22 provides a quantitative breakdown of vacant land by its assigned zoning classification
in 1991. Plate 2 displays the larger portions of contiguous undeveloped land by its corresponding
zoning district classification. Not all of the 8,472 acres of undeveloped land in Jefferson City is
included in Table 22. The figures have been adjusted to account for the following assump-
tions/conditions:
1. Excludes common ground typically associated with residential developments and
which is usually held in perpetuity for common ground or "open space."
2. In the Cole County portion of the City, all 100-year floodplain areas are excluded.
In the Callaway County portion of the City, two-thirds of the 1 00-year floodplain is
excluded.
3. Individual lots, less than one-half acre in size, are not included.
4. Acreage in public or semi-public ownership, State ownership, country club
ownership, and known quarry reserves are excluded.
5. After excluding the above acreage, the remainder is reduced by one-third to account
for land which may present other limitations to development (i.e., severe topography
or high cost to service with public utilities), or land owners unwilling to sell or
develop their property within the planning horizon of twenty years·.
Based on the above assumptions and excluding "RU" and "RC" acreage, there are approximately
3,420 acres of "developable" land within Jefferson City. The vast majority of this land is on the Cole
County side of the Missouri River.
Table 23 provides an estimate of future land use requirements. It is based on the relationship
between the amount of developed land (as recorded in 1992) and the 1990 population within the
planning area. In order to estimate future land use requirements, the ratios between the various
existing land use categories and population were computed. These ratios were then applied to future
population estimates (from Chapter 1). The end results are "order of magnitude" estimates of future
acreage required for the various land uses. These figures are not intended to be absolute, but rather
provide a starting point to plan for future growth.
48
.r'
• J
Table 22
Undeveloped Land by Current City Zoning
Jefferson City, Missouri 50
Adjusted Acres of Undeveloped Land in
Jefferson City 51
Cole Callaway
Zoning District County County Total
RU Rural 0 651 651
RC Conservation 65 139 204
RS-1 Single Family (15,000 SF lots) 633 0 633
RS-2 Single Family (10,000 SF lots) 1,216 0 1,216
RS-3 Single Family ( 8,000 SF lots) 232 0 232
RS-4 Single Family ( 6,000 SF lots) 28 11 39
Subtotal Single Family Residential 2,109 11 2,120
RD Two Family (3,000 SF/dwelling) 40 0 40
RA-1 Multi-Family (2,500 SF/dwelling) 206 0 206
RA-2 Multi-Family (1,500 SF/dwelling) 167 0 167
Subtotal Residential 2,522 11 2,533
C-0 Office 8 0 8
C-1 Neighborhood 37 0 37
C-2 General 145 6 151
C-3 Central 0 7 7
C-4 Planned 78 0 78
Subtotal Commercial 268 13 281
M-1 Light 120 105 225
M-2 Heavy 67 0 67
M-3 Planned 66 0 66
Subtotal Industrial 253 105 358
PUD 247 0 247
TOTAL RS-1 THROUGH PUD 3,290 129 3,419
so Based on a comparison of the City Zoning Atlas, dated 6/24/91, to the 1992 land use swvey.
51 Except for "RC" and "RU" acreage, figures do not include all undeveloped land (see narrative).
51
Table23
&timated Future Land Use Requirements
Jefferson City Planning Area
Future Acres Rqd.
Short Tenn 52
1992 AcresPerlOO Total
Land Use CateKory Acreaae 54 Persons 55 Acreaae
Single Family Residential 5,514 10.60 5,917
irwo Family Residential 175 0.34 188
Multi-Family Residential 355 0.68 381
Mobile Home Residential 146 0.28 157
'subtotal 6,190 11.90 6,643
Commercial 832 1.60 893
Industrial 756 1.45 811
Public/Semi-Public 608 1.17 652
Public/Semi-Public (Gov'nt) 597 1.15 641
Subtotal 1,205 2.32 1,293
Parks & Recreation 1,402 2.70 1,505
Transportation/Communications/Utilities 632 1.22 678
Street & Highway Right of Ways 3,947 7.59 4,236
Total Developed Area 14,964 28.78 16,059
52 Based on moderate population projection of 55,800 for the year 2000 (see Table 16).
53 Based on moderate population projection of 59,900 for the year 2010 (see irable 16).
54 Total acres for the Jefferson City Planning Area, including unincorporated area.
To Be
Absorbed
403
13
26
11
453
61
55
44
44
88
103
46
289
1,095
Future Acres Rqd.
Long Tenn 53
Total To Be
Acreage Absorbed
6,352 838
202 27
409 54
168 22
7,131 941
958 126
871 115
700 92
688 91
1,388 183
1,615 213
728 96
4,547 600
17,2.39 2,275
ss Based on 1990 population ofJetierson City, Jefferson Twp., Summit Twp. (excluding Holts Summit).
52
'.I
Based on these ratios, it is estimated that the developed area of the total planning area could
increase from nearly 15,000 acres in 1992 to approximately 16,000 acres by the year 2000. By the
year 2010, the total developed area could increase by an additional 1,180 acres. Nearly 37 percent
of this new development will likely be lower-density single family residential.
The following narrative examines the amount of developable land by its current zoning
category and the estimate of future acreage requirements for different land use types.
Residential Districts
Of the estimated developable land within the City, over 2,500 acres (74 percent) is zoned
residential. The majority of this acreage is zoned "RS-1" or "RS-2"; the lower density single family
districts. Only 11 percent (271 acres) of the single family zoned acreage is "RS-3" or "RS-4" zoned
land. Assuming there is demand for more affordable single family subdivisions, there may be
insufficient "RS-4" zoned land, which accounts for only 39 acres. "RS-4" zoning generally would
allow smaller homes·on small lots (6,000 square feet), thus enabling the cost of land and infrastructure
development to be allocated to more units.
If the rate of single family development within the City over the past 15 years were to
continue, the estimated available acreage would be absorbed in just under 28 years (2, 120 acresn7
acres per year). If all future single family development within the planning area were to take place
inside the City limits, the available acreage that is zoned single family would be absorbed in about
13 years (using the rate of growth over the past 15 years for the total planning area-167 acres per
year).
As explained in Chapter 1, the rate of growth in the economy and population is not expected
to be as high as the last decade. With a tempered future growth rate, the depletion of land zoned
single family would take longer than indicated above. Based on the estimates contained in Table 23,
it is apparent that there is considerably more land zoned single family within the City than necessary
to meet the projected growth demand for the entire planning area. This assumes similar proportions
of single family residential densities that existed in 1992. However, it is likely that in the future,
there will be a disproportionate share of low-density single family residential development. Hence,
over the long term (by the year 2010), there will likely be more than 838 acres developed into single
family uses, as calculated in Table 23.
Available "RD" zoned land within the City amounts to 40 acres. This acreage would be
absorbed in only 8 years if the past rate of two family residential development were to continue in the r' future. However, it would take nearly 27 years to absorb this land using the more moderate
53
projections mentioned above. This assumes that all future two family residential development in the
planning area would take place inside the City.
There is an estimated 373 acres of multi-family zoned ("RA-1" and "RA-2 '') land potentially
available for development. However, practically all of this available land zoned multi-family is
located in the remote reaches of the Wears Creek watershed (south of Highway 50 and east of South
Country Club Drive/Fairgrounds Road). This land was part of annexation that took place in 1985.
Currently, this area of the City is inaccessible, though the proposed extensions of Wildwood Drive
to the south and Edgewood Drive to the west would provide access.
The amount of multi-~amily zoned land far exceeds the estimate future requirements for this
land use. This is true even if one assumes that the growth rate, during the last 15 years, continues.
It would take over 41 years to absorb this available land under this scenario.
The updated Comprehensive Plan and the City's zoning code should take a more realistic view
of future multi-family development requirements. The place to·start is to consider alternative future
land uses for the area of the Wears Creek watershed mentioned above.
Commercial Districts
It is estimated that there are nearly 280 acres potentially available for commercial
development, half of which is zoned "C-2." It would appear that this amount of commercially-zoned
land is sufficient to satisfy future development demand, at least for the next ten years .. Based on the
commercial land absorption rate over the past 15 years within the City, it would take about 11 years
to develop the estimated 280 acres available. However, given the more moderate estimates contained
in Table 23, only 126 acres would be needed for commercial development by the year 2010 for the
entire planning area.
In aggregate, there is plenty of commercially-zoned land. However, much of the available
commercial land is fraught with development constraints and/or less than desirable locations.
Notwithstanding smaller sites that have good commercial potential, many of the larger commercial
tracts have various limitations. The following briefly describes the larger contiguous (10 acres or
more) commercially zoned acreage that is potentially available for development.
"C-1 n Acreage: There is only one large area of contiguous vacant property zoned "C-1 ".
Approximately 12 acres of "C-1" zoned property is located off of Missouri Boulevard
(Highway 50 outer road), between Learfield Communications Corporation and the new State
offices at the southwest comer of Missouri Boulevard and Howerton Court. The largest
54
I .
' .. j
portion of this tract is accessible from Howerton Court. Given the nature of development on
each side of the site, it would appear that its greatest potential is office use. Topography will
be a constraint to any commercial development on this site.
"C-2 "Acreage: There are four areas in the City with vacant contiguous properties zoned "C-
2." The largest tract is about 27 acres in size and is located on Missouri Boulevard (Highway
50 outer road) on the east side of Wildwood Drive. Not all of this property is readily usable
since it drops off into a ravine that is a tributary to Wears Creek. This site has good visibility
from Highway 50. Based on recent development in the vicinity, it would appear that this site
would be more desirable for office development.
On the west side of Wildwood Drive is a tract nearly 19 acres in size. A portion of this site
was part of a quarry that is no longer active. This site has similar potential as the site across
Wildwood Drive.
A little further to the east on Missouri Boulevard are approximately 20 contiguous acres of
land zoned "C-2". This includes currently undeveloped land owned by the new Toyota/Honda
dealership. About 12 acres are in a single tract adjacent to the· dealership on the west side.
While this site has good visibility and access, much of it will be difficult to develop because
of topographic constraints.
The properties fronting the south side of Missouri Boulevard between West Stadium
Boulevard and Heisinger Road are fully developed. However, behind these properties are
nearly 26 contiguous acres of "C-2" zoned land. This acreage does not have visibility from
Missouri Boulevard, which is a limiting factor in its development potential. However, there
is frontage onto West Stadium Boulevard. The new Wal-Mart Supercenter is located on the
west side of Stadium Boulevard, which may improve the desirability of this "C-2" site.
On the north side of St. Mary's Boulevard, between its intersection with Missouri Boulevard
and Heisinger Road, are approximately 18 contiguous acres of "C-2" zoned property. While
this land has visibility from Highway 50, it has severe topographic constraints and is not
easily accessible. Any commercial potential would likely be non-retail.
The remaining larger area of "C-2" zoned land is located off of Christy Drive, south of Ellis
Drive. There is only about 200 feet of frontage. Most of the 19 acres is behind the bowling
alley and the factory outlet store on either side. Visibility and topographic constraints limit
the development potential of this site.
55
"C-4" Acreage: There are three larger contiguous properties that are currently undeveloped
and zoned "C-4" Planned Commercial. The largest tract is about 25 acres, located off
American A venue, east of Wildwood Drive. The American Legion has a post located on
American Avenue. Also, two other small office buildings have been recently built on
properties fronting American Avenue. This site is planned for office type development.
Though this site does not offer high visibility, it provides an attractive setting for future office
development.
The two other larger "C-4" zoned tracts are located on East McCarty Street, east of Eastland
Drive. On the south side of East McCarty Street is nearly 16 contiguous acres of "C-4"
zoned land. However, seven acres are in the floodplain, netting only about nine acres of
usable ground. In this case, the floodplain could -serve as a buffer between future
development on this site and the single family neighborhood to the south. The other "C-4"
site is about nine acres and is located across East McCarty Street. It is comprised of two
tracts, one of which is partially occupied by Midwest Block and Brick, an industrial type land
use. The other tract is penetrated by three single family dwellings fronting Landwehr Lane.
The elevation of this site rises significantly from East McCarty Street toward Old St. Louis
Road, making it difficult to utilize the entire site for commercial uses. Also, the single family
uses fronting Landwehr Lane may present incompatible land uses depending on the type of
commercial development.
The type of commercial development recently built on Boggs Creek Road to the east appears
to be unobtrusive and relatively compatible with the nearby residential areas. Development
of the above mentioned properties into these types of commercial uses would have the least
amount of incompatibility, if any.
In summary, there are opportunities for commercial development in Jefferson City. However,
there are not as many opportunities as the available commercially-zoned acreage would suggest.
Topographic constraints, accessibility problems, and the lack of larger "prime" acreage significantly
limits commercial development potential. It will be prudent for the Comprehensive Plan Update to
identify some new commercial areas that will be compatible with surrounding land uses and meet the
potential future commercial development demand.
Industrial Districts
Estimating future industrial acreage requirements is imprecise at best. Table 23 indicates a
requirement of 115 acres the year 2010, based on the population ratio technique. However, the
population ratio technique (or any other estimating technique) is not very reliable for estimating future
56
.,
J
I
•• J
industrial acreage requirements. One industrial development project could absorb most, if not more
than, the projected requirement. And, depending on the nature of such an industrial development,
it may or may not have a significant "ripple" effect on the local economy. Notwithstanding the
unpredictability of industrial land use requirements, the following text examines the currently available
industrial acreage in Jefferson City.
In general there are four areas in Jefferson City with larger tracts available for industrial
development. The obvious location of industrially-zoned acreage is the Callaway County side of the
Missouri River. There are hundreds of acres of industrially-zoned land in this area. However, the
vast majority of it is located in the 1 oo-year floodplain. Taking this into account, Table 22 indicates
only 105 acres of vacant "M-1" zoned land being realistically developable (one-third of the total).
On the Cole County side of the river, there are three areas containing larger available
industrial sites. The first area is located along Rock Hill Road (Highway 179) just north of Truman
Boulevard. On the east side of Rock Hill Road are approximately 34 acres of relatively flat "M-1"
zoned land available. The tract is accessible via Hoover Drive. This is one of the better industrial
sites in Jefferson City.
On the west side of Rock Hill Road are approximately 32 acres of "M-1" zoned land that are
currently undeveloped. This area is accessible via Railton Road. Topography will be a limiting factor
in developing this area for industrial use. Just east of this tract is the Chesebrough Ponds
manufacturing site, which has approximately 19 acres remaining that is undeveloped. However, steep
slopes will inhibit expansion on this site.
Further north on Highway 179, just beyond Boonville Road are several tracts of "M-2" and
"M-3" zoned property. In total, there are about 37 acres available. Approximately 11 acres is zoned
"M-3" (fronting Highway 179) and the remainder is zoned "M-2." The "M-2" acreage is adjacent
to the Missouri Pacific Railroad. The topography is gently rolling and will inhibit larger industrial
buildings.
In the western reaches of Jefferson City, there are approximately 58 acres of undeveloped "M-
1" zoned land. Off Maytag Drive, there are a total of 44 acres of undeveloped "M-1" land, of which
26 acres are available in a single tract. The remaining 18 acres are available for the expansion of the
Maytag facility and the new "spec" industrial building developed by the Jefferson City IDA. On the
north side of Fairgrounds ·Road, across from the Maytag facility, is a nine-acre tract that is available
for industrial use. Adjacent to this tract is the new Chesebrough Ponds facility which still has about
four acres available for future expansion. The available industrial sites described here are perhaps
the best industrial sites in Jefferson City.
57
In summary, other large, potentially suitable industrial sites within the City limits on the Cole
County side of the river are non-existent. Building a levee on the Callaway County side of the river
may enhance the industrial development prospects there. However, the feasibility of building such
a levee is unknown at this point. The only other option for expanding industrial development
opportunities are finding sites outside the current City limits. One such area is the Algoa Industrial
Park, mentioned earlier in this Chapter.
PUD District
There are nearly 250 undeveloped acres zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD). This is
a special district category in that ~~mixed-use" developments are permitted based on a City approved
site development plan. In Jefferson City, this district has been used for the development of mixed-
density residential developments (i.e., single family and multi-family built in a unified development
scheme). A limited amount of commercial.development is sometimes permitted in such developments.
The remaining undeveloped PUD acreage is associated with previously approved projects
which are not yet complete. This acreage will supply, in part, the future demand for residential
construction and, to a lesser extent, commercial development.
Sum man
Estimating future land use requirements is an essential element of planning for future growth.
This analysis examined past land absorption trends and estimated future land use requirements based
on the relationship of population to quantities of the various land use categories. Projecting the land
absorption trends over the last 15 years into the future yields considerably more urban development
requirements than the population ratio technique yields. However, the population ratio technique
reflects a more moderate growth projection as described in Chapter 1.
Of course, the actual future requirements for a particular land use may be more or less than
that shown in Table 23. The intent of this analysis is to put future development requirements into
perspective. While it is important to incorporate flexibility into the plan (i.e., propose more area for
potential development than required), it is equally important to maintain an appropriate scale for plan.
If done properly, planning for the provision of public infrastructure and public services will be more
realistic and cost effective.
58
Introduction
CHAYI'ER3
UTILITIES
Water Systems
The Jefferson City planning area is principally served by six (6) separate water systems
including a City owned and operated system serving the north Jefferson City area. Callaway County
Public Water Supply District No. 1 serves the ABB plant located in north Jefferson City and is also
interconnected to the City-owned system to supplement water demand, if needed. On the Cole County
side of the Missouri River, roughly two-thirds of the City's current land area is served by the Capital
City Water Company. Outlying areas are served by Public Water Supply Districts No. 1 and No.2
(Cole County).
United Water Missouri
United Water Missouri is franchised through the Missouri Public Service Commission to serve
a portion of the current corporate area of the City of Jefferson (approximately the corporate area
which existed prior to the 1967 annexation). United Water Missouri uses the Missouri River as a
source of supply. Raw water is pumped from the river to the main treatment facility, which has a
rated capacity of 6.5 million gallons per day. Storage consists of two (2) clearwell reservoirs located
at the treatment plant site having a combined capacity of 2.35 million gallons.
Three (3) booster pumping stations are located within the distribution network (Washington
Park, Southwest and Bald Hill) to provide adequate pressures throughout the system. The water
distribution system consists primarily of pipes ranging from 6 inches to 20 inches in diameter. Pipes
smaller than 6 inches are found only in isolated areas and are not a part of the primary network.
United Water Missouri currently serves approximately 10,000 customers including 8,400
residential, 1,465 commercial/industrial and 125 other public and private fire protection users. The
system is interconnected to Water District No. 2 at two meter points for additional reliability and
storage capacity. Additionally, United Water Missouri operates and maintains four (4) water supply
wells for Water District No.2 under a contractual agreement.
59
Public Water Supply District No. 1 (Cole Countv)
Public Water Supply District No.1 of Cole County serves an area generally west of Highway
179 to the Jefferson Township line immediately west of Binder Lake and from the Missouri River on
the north to the Moreau River on the south. The district encompasses the western "growth zone" of
the Jefferson City planning area.
Water supply is provided by a series of five (5) deep wells having a combined capacity of
2,890 gallons per minute (over 4.1 mUlion gallons per day). Water storage consists of two (2), one
million gallon elevated tanks and a 100,000 gallon elevated tank. The distribution system is
interconnected with both the United Water Missouri system and the Water Supply District No. 2
system for emergency purposes. Pipe sizes range from 4 inches to 12 inches in diameter.
Public Water Supply District No. 1 currently serves approximately 3,400 customers of which
2,900 (85 percent) are residential users. The district added approximately 90 new customers during
the past year, which is about half of that experienced for several years from the mid to late 1980's.
Public Water Supply District No. 2 fCole Coung)
Public Water Supply District No.2 of Cole County serves approximately a 65-square mile area
including portions to the southern, southwestern and eastern portions of the Jefferson City corporate
area. Water supply is obtained from four (4) deep wells having a combined capacity of2,050 gallons
per minute (nearly 3 million gallons per day). Water storage is provided in four (4) elevated tanks
having a combined capacity of 2.45 million gallons. Three (3) of the storage tanks are located near
the north boundary of the District in close proximity to the United Water Missouri service area, and
one (1) 250,000 gallon elevated tank is located to the south near the community ofBrazito. The entire
distribution system is served by gravity through pipes ranging from 2 inches to 16 inches in diameter.
The system is interconnected with the Public Water Supply District No. 1 system for emergency
purposes, and also with the United Water Missouri system at two (2) meter locations.
Public Water Supply District No.2 serves approximately 3,600 customers of which 90 percent
are residential connections. The district has averaged approximately 90 new customers over the past
three (3) years.
North .Jefferson City Water System
The north Jefferson City area is supplied water from two (2) wells having a combined
production capacity of 430 gallons per minute (about 620,000 gallons per day). Water from both l .
60
wells is chlorinated before entering the distribution system. Storage is provided by one 50,000 gallon
elevated tank. The distribution system consists of a total of approximately 6.5 miles of pipe ranging
in diameter from 2 inches to 10 inches. Of this total, 1.25 miles of 6 inch PVC pipe serves the
Jefferson City Memorial Airport area.
The north Jefferson City water system serves a total of 33 residential customers and 9 large
commercial/industrial customers. Service connection pipe sizes range from 5/8 inch to 3/4 inch for
residential customers to 1 inch or larger for commercial/industrial users. Total water pumped from
both wells during calendar year 1994 amounted to 8.74 million gallons.
Based on hydrant flow tests taken by the City of Jefferson, before the 1993 flood and the 1994
interconnection with Callaway Water District No. 1, several locations within the north Jefferson City
service area recorded significantly low pressures and available fire flows. During these tests, the
north Jefferson City well system in this area limited flows to 625 gallons per minute plus consumption
for a two-hour duration. The interconnection with Callaway Water District No. 1 would improve
hydrant flows, if the District water line was placed in service. However, the City prefers not to
introduce non-chlorinated District water supply into the City system. An additional hydrant test
should be conducted to determine the current suitability of fire hydrant water supply with the lower,
post flood consumption rates. If the Callaway Water District No. 1 supply is considered necessary
for sufficient tire protection, operational provisions should be taken to assure successful blending of
water supplies.
Water Supply Development Supoort Capacity
Introduction
For purposes of estimating development support capacity, potential population that can be
served by the existing water supply/distribution systems is computed below. For an area the size of
the Jefferson City planning area, this is a reasonable method of developing an "order-of-magnitude"
estimate of system capacity.
In considering supply and storage requirements for the planning area, one must take into
account average maximum daily consumption, potential required fire fighting consumption, and supply
interruption due to power outages. Thus, the following formula is used to estimate system capacity:
61
(Maximum Supply Capacity + Storage) -(Supply lnterrupiWn + rue Fighting Demand) +
Average Maximum Daily Consumption = POPULATION SUPPORT CAPACITY
WHERE:
Maximum Supply Capacity is the total maximum capacity of all wells or treatment plants (gallons
per day).
Storage equals the total ground or elevated storage within the system (gallons).
Supply Interruption is the quantity of water lost due to the largest treatment component or well
being out of service (gallons).
Fue Fighting Demand is an established rate of flow expressed in gallons per minute (gpm) over a
specific duration (hours). Varies based on the size and composition of the community. For
purposes of this computation, a fire demand of 2,500 gallons per minute over 1! ten (10) hour
period will be used for all systems, which amounts to a total of 1,500,00 gallons (2,500 gpm x 60
minutes x 10 hours).
Avemge Maximum JJaily Consumption typically amounts to 1.6 to 1.8 times the average daily per
capita demand. Using an average consumption rate of 125 gallons per capita per day x 1.8, the
average maximum daily consumption amounts to 22S gallons per capita per day.
Approximate populations that could be supported by the water supply systems in the Jefferson
City area are computed as follows:
United Water Missouri
At the present time, high service pumping capability, with one (1) pump out of service,
exceeds the rated capacity of the treatment plant. In addition, two (2) separate electrical feeders
currently serve the plant site. Using the current plant capacity and clearwell storage results in the
following population support capacity:
(6.500.000 gallons+ 2.350.000 gallons)-0.500.000 gallons)
225 gaUons per person
= 7.350. 000 gallons = 32,670 persons (SilJ 33,000 persons)
225 gallons per person
Public Water Supply District No. 1
The largest well has a rated capacity of 710 gallons -per minute, and if out of service would
produce a reduction of 1,022,400 gallons per day of a total supply capacity of 4,161,600 gallons per
day. Incorporating available storage, fire fighting demand and average maximum daily consumption,
the Cole County Public Water Supply District No. 1 could support the following population:
62
(4.161.600 gallons + 2.100.000 gallons) -0.022.400 gallons + 1.500.000 gallons)
225 gallons per person
= 6.261.600 gallons-2.522.400 gallons
225 gallons per person
= 3.379.200 gallons = 16,620 persons (say 17,000 persons)
225 gallons per person
Public Water Supply District No. 2
Water supply is currently obtained from four (4) wells having a combined capacity of 2,050
gallons per minute or 2,952,000 gallons per day. This supply could be interrupted by the largest well
out of service. This well, located in Brazito, has a capacity of 800 gallons per minute, or 1,152,000
gallons per day. This assumed loss, combined with fire fighting demand and maximum average daily
consumption would result in the following population support capacity:
{2,952.000 gaUons + 2.450.000 gallons) -£1.152.000 gaUons + 1.500.000 gal/pns)
225 gaUons per person
= 5,402. 000 gallons -2. 652. 000 gaUons
225 gaUons per person
= 2. 750.000 gallons = 12,220 persons (say 12,000 persons)
225 gaUons per person
North .Jefferson City Water System
The present water system serving the north Jefferson City area supplies water to
approximately 120 persons. Before the 1993 flood, available water supply in this area limited fire
flows to 625 gallons per minute plus consumption for a two (2) hour duration, and 524 gallons per
minute plus consumption for a three (3) hour duration. Because of inadequate fire fighting
capabilities, maximum support population can not realistically be computed. If utilized, the
interconnection to Callaway County Water District No. 1 will improve fire flows, and increase the
reliability of the overall system.
Summary and Conclusions
The Jefferson City planning area is currently served by several water supply entities that, in
recent years, have upgraded and expanded their respective systems to meet and in most cases, exceed
~ current demands. The total of the above computations yields a current population support capacity
63
of approximately 62,000 persons, not including the north Jefferson City Water System or the Callaway
County Public Water Supply District No 1. This equates to 111 percent of the "moderate" projection
of population for the Jefferson City planning area for the year 2000 (population of 55,800; see
Table 16, Chapter 1). By the year 2010, the current total system capacity would represent 104
percent of the projected population for the planning area (population of59,900 ).
The computed population support capacities are conservative in that they reduce water supply
capacities by the largest capacity component of the system being out of service concurrent with tire
fighting demand and maximum average daily consumption. However, the capacities calculated for
the Cole County Public Water Supply Districts 1 and 2 include service areas outside the Jefferson City
planning area. This implies that a potential shortfall in supply versus demand could develop if
population grows as projected.
Thus, water supply/distribution upgrades will be necessary in order to supply future growth
demands. This will be particularly important in isolated problem areas in order to provide adequate
fire protection. Furthermore, future commercial/industrial development in the north Jefferson City
area will require implementation of the proposed water supply/distribution improvements.
Regarding the residential water service in the north Jefferson City area, the aftermath of the
1993 flood presents a dilemma. At current water usage and user rates, the system's annual operating
expenses and revenues are nearly the same at approximately $7,000. However, the prospects of a
levee in north Jefferson City may lead to increased water usage and the system's net revenue.
Sanitan Sewer System
Introduction
The Jefferson City Regional Sewer District encompasses a total of approximately 64 square
miles, the majority of which is south of the Missouri River in Cole County. Fifty-seven (57) percent
of the district lies outside of the present corporate limits of the City, primarily including an area to
the southwest along Rock Ridge Road and a larger area to the west extending to St. Martins. Much
of the current service area to the west includes portions of the Grays Creek watershed, which was
served by the former Cole County Regional Sewer District (CCRSD). CCRSD has since been
combined into the Jefferson City Regional Sewer District.·
In addition to the above service area, the "effective" service area is soon to become even
larger. Though the boundaries of the sewer district will not be expanded, the City entered into an ~
64
~
\..
agreement with Holts Summit to accept their wastewater flows. The City of Holts Summit is
preparing to construct a lengthy force main along Route AC which will convey wastewater from Holts
Summit to a Jefferson City sewer line located on the northwest side of the Highway 54/Route AC
interchange.
A number of comprehensive studies have been undertaken in recent years, including a
Wastewater Facilities Master Plan prepared by CH 2M Hill in 1986, and a study conducted by Black
& Veatch Consulting Engineers regarding treatment plant improvements and odor control. Findings
from these evaluations of the major wastewater system components and the adequacy to support
continued development within the planning area are summarized below:
Wastewater Treatment
The Jefferson City Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP), located north of the Missouri River
and south of the airport, was originally designed in the late 1960•s as a "primary" treatment facility.
Initial construction consisted of the headworks, with a Parshall flume and comminutors, two (2)
aerated grit chambers, and two (2) primary clarifiers. A high water pumping station was also
constructed at this time for use when the Missouri River stage becomes high enough to hamper plant
operations. Sludge handling facilities included a gravity thickener, centrifuges, and a sludge
incinerator.
During the late 197o•s, the primary portion of the plant was expanded and "secondary"
treatment facilities were added, including two (2) additional primary clarifiers, a settled sewage pump
station, two (2) plastic media/high-rate trickling filters, two (2) secondary clarifiers, and chlorination
facilities. Vacuum filters were also added at this time for sludge dewatering. The plant has
undergone several changes since the secondary treatment expansion, including:
• A mechanically cleaned bar screen was added upstream of the Parshall flume.
• Comminutors have been removed and replaced with manually cleaned bar screens.
• The incinerator was removed from service, with land application becoming the primary
method for sludge disposal.
• The gravity thickener was rehabilitated, including mechanism replacement.
• A flume was constructed on the effluent line for flow measurement.
65
• An emergency diesel generator was added for stand-by power.
• All underground storage tanks were removed and replaced with above ground tanks.
• A SCADA/telemetry system was installed which will allow for greater process control
throughout plant and pump station processes.
• Covers were built over the headworks structures and an odor scrubber was installed.
Improvements to the Water Pollution Control Plant currently under further study and
consideration include:
• Replacement of trickling filter media and repair of tower walls.
• Implementation of a large scale odor control project.
• Development of a new sludge dewatering system.
• Additional secondary treatment and clarification units.
• Expansion of the plant laboratory and administration building.
Numerous low-cost operational approaches are being taken to increase plant capacity. After
evaluating the effectiveness of these approaches, the scope of any capital projects will be more clearly
defined.
Treatment Plant Capacity
A complete capacity analysis of all component units of the wastewater treatment facility was
conducted for the 1986 Wastewater Facilities Master Plan with values ranging from 7.1 million
gallons per day (mgd) for the secondary clarifiers to 53.6 mgd for the aeration tanks. The primary
clarifiers had a rated capacity of 11.3 mgd under average conditions with all units in service and the
trickling filters were rated at 23.9 mgd with no recycle.
Using a peak flow of 18.1 mgd, which is the capacity of the settled sewage pump station with
one of the largest pumps out of service, a hydraulic profile analysis through the plant was performed
during the 1986 study. The results of this evaluation concluded that the existing plant was capable
of handling this flow; however, the secondary clarifier weir was nearly submerged and the outlets of ~
66
the aerated grit chambers were submerged at this flow, although no structures were overtopped. The
hydraulic capacity of the wastewater treatment facility can be assumed to be 18.1 mgd, although
improvements made since 1986 could affect the prior analysis.
Historical Wastewater Flows
Average flows to the wastewater treatment plant during calendar year 1992 amounted to 7.2
million gallons per day, which is approximately fifteen (15) percent higher than flows recorded during
a previous five-year period from 1980 through 1984 (see Table 24). This increase is due in part to
continued growth in the area over the past several years, plus additional flows from a sizable area
formerly served by the Cole County Regional Sewer District.
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Annual Avg.
Table 24
Historical Flows to the Water Pollution Control Plant
(1980-84 & 1992)
Jefferson City, Missouri 56
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
3.4 4.1 5.7 5.6 7.8
4.4 5.7 6.0 6.0 10.4
5.9 5.2 6.1 7.3 8.7
-5.7 5.6 9.2 9.2
5.8 7.2 6.0 8.4 7.1
4.3 7.2 6.8 5.9 8.3
4.4 7.3 4.9 5.2 7.4
4.5 6.1 7.3 6.2 6.7
3.7 5.4 6.9 4.2 7.5
3.8 5.3 8.2 4.7 8.6
6.0 5.5 5.0 6.0 7.8
4.1 5.0 9.1 6.7 8.6
4.6 5.8 6.5 6.3 8.2
FIVE YEAR ANNUAL AVERAGE (1980-84): 6.3
1992
6.1
8.0
7.1
7.3
6.1
6.2
8.1
7.4
8.1
6.6
7.5
7.5
7.2
S6 Source: Department of Public Works, City of Jefferson, Missouri. Flows expressed in millions of
gallons per day (mgd).
67
. .
Collection System
During the preparation of the 1986 Wastewater Facilities Master Plan, the Jefferson City
wastewater collection system consisted of approximately 1,060,000 lineal feet of pipe ranging in size
from 8 inches to 48 inches in diameter.
The system at that time was contained in nineteen (19) watershed basins covering a total of
27 square miles. For purposes of evaluating future flows during the 1986 study, seven (7) additional
basins were added to the other tributary basins. These additional basins were principally to the east,
south and southwest areas of the primary study area.
The projected peak domestic sanitary flow from the twenty-six (26) basins, plus the flows
from the former Cole County Regional Sewer District, was estimated to be 8.67 mgd for the year
2005. Peaking factors used in the 1986 study varied from 1.6 to 3.5 times the average flow
depending on the characteristics of each study basin. In addition to estimating the future peak sanitary
flow based on population and employment projections within each tributary basin, the 1986 study also
addressed other contributing design flows, such as groundwater infiltration, Missouri River inflow and
rainfall-dependent infiltration/inflow. Based on a combination of flow monitoring tests and computer
models, the total projected design flow to the treatment plant was computed to be 50.2 mgd (including
the peak sanitary flow and all infiltration and inflow).
One of the underlying factors used to compute sanitary flows was population. While the
jurisdiction of the sanitary district and the jurisdictions used in the demographic analysis in Chapter 1
are different, an attempt is made here to compare projections (see Table 25). The projections
contained in Chapter 2, cover all territory within Jefferson Township and Summit Township, but
exclude Holts Summit. The sanitary district does not include portions of southern Jefferson
Township, nor does it include the portions of Summit Township outside of the north Jefferson City
area. However, with the consolidation with the CCRSD, the Sanitary District now extends beyond
the western boundary of Jefferson Township and includes the communities of St. Martins and Elston.
With these differences understood, it is reasonable to assume that the vast majority of
population in the Jefferson City region is contained within either of the territories described.
However, Table 25 reveals significant discrepancies, of which only a relatively small.portion could
be due to the differences in boundaries. While one can dispute projections, it remains inexplicable
as to why the 1985 population estimates, contained in the 1986 Wastewater Study, are off by over
10,000 persons when compared to the 1990 Census figures for the demographic study area, used in
Chapter 2. Furthermore, the same 1985 estimates fall short of the 1980 Census figures for the
demographic study area by approximately 5,000 persons .
68
Based on available documentation, it is uncertain if the estimated average daily sanitary flows
from the CCRSD, used in the 1986 study, represented 1985 or projected conditions. Regardless, it
appears that the 1986 study underestimated population within the former CCRSD area. If true, tbe
projected flows to the Jefferson City Water Pollution Control Plant could be off by as much as
800,000 gallons per day, by the year 2000.
The 1986 Wastewater Facilities Master Plan recommended several improvements to reduce
infiltration that would lower the peak design flow to the plant to 33.4 mgd for the year 2005. The
plan also recommended several system capacity improvements required to operate the collection
system without surcharge during peak flow conditions. Several such improvements and changes have
been made to the collection system in recent years, including:
• Flow was diverted from Westview Heights into Basin 10 in the southwest portion of the
service area.
• Flow was added from Cole County Regional Sewer District to Basin 12 in the northwest
portion of the service area.
• Flow was removed from the Amador and Terra Bella Pump Stations in Basin 13 and
diverted to the former CCRSD area.
• The Scholastic Pump Station was constructed in the east portion of the service area, which
resulted in a minor increase in flow in Basin 16.
• A 24-inch pipe. in Basin 14 was replaced with a 30-inch pipe.
• The Greenberry (Moreau) Pump Station was upgraded in Basin 4 at the southern boundary
of the service area.
• All manholes in Basin 15 were rehabilitated to reduce flows in the receiving Basin 14.
• Smoke testing, identification and correction of illegal connections, manhole and line
repairs and manhole grouting was accomplished in Basins 4 and 12.
Isolated surcharge problems exist in several basins to the southwest and west of the downtown
Jefferson City area. The City has an ongoing flow monitoring program to identify potential problem
areas and to prioritize future capital improvements.
69
Summary and Conclusions
The existing Jefferson City wastewater collection system and treatment components
adequately serve the present area of service under most normal, dry weather conditions. Projected
peak design flows, however, identified in the 1986 Wastewater Facilities Master Plan, substantially
exceeds the capacity of the plant and isolated sections of the collection system. These projections may
be underestimated due to the addition of the CCRSD area and the future acceptance of the flows from
Holts Summit.
Many trunk sewer deficiencies identified in the 1986 study are located in the southwestern and
western portions of the service area which are likely to receive additional flows from new
development in these areas. It will be necessary for the City to continue to upgrade the deficient links
in the collection system in order to adequately serve existing and probable future development.
The treatment plant poses the most significant constraint on future development. As such,
improvements to the wastewater treatment facility should also be programmed in accordance with
studies currently underway to increase the operating capacity of major system components.
The expansion of the sewer district to include the former CCRSD area and the proposed
connecting of the Turkey Creek trunk sewer (to serve Holts Summit), raises serious policy questions
regarding the planning for future growth. The expansive collection system of pipes (panicularly the
Grays Creek trunk sewer) opens up vast territory for potential sanitary sewer hookups . Other than
mitigating existing groundwater contamination caused by the former or existing septic systems in the
CCRSD area, the expanded sanitary sewer collection system may result in unintentional inefficiencies.
As mentioned earlier, fifty-seven (57) percent of the Jefferson City Regional Sanitary Sewer District
is outside the current corporate limits of Jefferson City. However, there is more potentially
developable land within the current City limits to accommodate projected growth for the entire
planning area, as revealed in Chapter 3, "Land Use ." Therefore, this expanded sanitary sewer
collection system affords a significant potential for additional "leap frog" development to occur.
Given the changes in the coverage of the sanitary sewer district, it would be appropriate to
initiate a comprehensive update to the 1986 Wastewater Facilities Master Plan. In the interim, the
sewer district staff is revising its sewer extension policy, with the objective of discouraging leap frog
development. Furthermore, the District's decision to conduct a cost analysis of expanding the
treatment plant should provide meaningful direction.
70
Table 25
Comparison of Population Projections
(Comprehensive Plan Update vs. 1986 Wastewater Facilities Master Plan)
Jefferson City, Missouri
Year
1980 1985 1990
Source (actual) (estimate) (actual) 2000
U. S. Census 57 46,606 -51,946 --
Comprehensive Plan Update: 58
Low Projection ---52,800
Moderate Projection ---55,800
1986 Wastewater Facilities Master Plan:
Within 26 Watershed Basins -35,695 ----
CCRSD Area -5 875 59 --'
Subtotal -41,570 ---
2005 2010
----
-53,600
-59,900
39,836 -
5,875(3) -
45,711 --
57 Census figures are the combined total population of Jefferson Township, in Cole County, and Summit Township, in Callaway County minus the
population of Holts Summit.
58 From Table 16.
59 Not expressly stated in the 1986 Wastewater Facilities Master Plan. This figure is based upon a back-calculation using an average daily sanitary
flow of 470,000 gallons and a per-capita contribution of 80 gallons per day, as stated in the 1986 Master Plan. It is not clear if this sanitary flow
figure is a projection or if it represents a 1985 estimate.
71
Stormwater Drainage
Introduction
In many communities, managing stormwater runoff has historically taken a second position
to sanitary sewer utilities. Left unmanaged, new development in the upstream portions of a watershed
cr~tes additional stormwater runoff, causing flooding problems in areas near the watershed discharge
point. In the Jefferson City area, storm drainage management is particularly challenging. This is
because runoff coefficients are high, due to the hilly terrain and soils of low permeability.
Jefferson City has recognized the storm drainage problems associated with its urban
development for at least 30 years. This is evident from the City commissioning Homer and Shifrin
to conduct a storm drainage study in 1963. While the resultant study contained a number of valid
recommendations, little was accomplished in terms of implementing a comprehensive storm drainage
management program. In 1986, the City hired Black & Veatch to develop a stormwater management
plan. The key findings, recommendations and subsequent actions by the City are summarized below.
· Stormwater Management Plan
The 1986 Stormwater Management Plan identified several key problems associated with the
City's storm drainage system:
• Lack of funds for needed storm drainage improvements.
• Many portions of the storm drainage system do not have sufficient capacity to handle a
1 o-~ear storm.
• Severe deterioration of corrugated metal pipe in some areas.
The Stormwater Management Plan also made the following recommendations:
• Create a stormwater utility to operate and maintain stormwater facilities. The utility
should be funded with user fees.
• Spending of nearly $4 million (1986 dollars) on various stormwater facilities located in
eight (8) watersheds.
• Acquisition of maintenance equipment.
72
• A stormwater management ordinance was drafted as part of the planning study. This
Ordinance was adopted by the City Council in January 1986.
Stormwater Facility Improvements
While a stormwater utility has yet to be established, the City has invested a considerable
amount of money in stormwater improvements. In 1987, Jefferson City voters passed a 5-year, 1/2
cent capital improvements sales tax which generated approximately $3 million for storm drainage
improvements. Also, some of the other funds generated by this tax, which were earmarked for street
and bridge work, remedied some storm drainage problems as well.
In 1992, the Jefferson City voters again approved a 5-year, 1/2 cent capital improvements
sales tax. Not including storm drainage improvements associated with programmed street and bridge
improvements, there is $1.65 million budgeted in this revenue source for storm drainage improve-
ments.
While these investments by the City in storm drainage infrastructure are crucial to stormwater
management, controlling stormwater runoff from private property is· an important component as well.
Adoption of the stormwater management ordinance in 1986, affords the City some regulatory control.
However, it may be appropriate for the City to re-examine the effectiveness of this ordinance, for
reasons described below:
Stormwater Management Ordinance
The stormwater management ordinance is relatively vague in its attempt to assure that
stormwater runoff from new development does not adversely impact downstream or upstream
properties. Specifically, the standards are vague, although reference is made to the "Storm Drainage
Design Manual," which is an administrative tool. It is also apparent that the ordinance gives the
Director of Public Works unlimited administrative latitude in determining acceptable storm drainage
facilities for particular development. It's advisable that at least fundamental design standards be
incorporated in the ordinance (i.e., design year storm for which storm drainage facilities design shall
be based upon). Detailed design standards should remain in the Design Manual.
Another apparent weakness in the ordinance is that on-site stormwater detention is an optional
means for controlling stormwater runoff. A developer may elect to improve downstream drainage
facilities to accommodate additional runoff caused by such a development. However, with land
development occurring on an incremental basis, it becomes nearly impossible to accurately assess the
downstream storm drainage infrastructure requirements. Additionally, the City cannot impose on any
73
one particular development greater infrastructure requirements to accommodate future developments,
without just compensation.
This is why many communities have opted for requiring on-site stormwater detention. This
assures that stormwater runoff from a particular site is no more than predevelopment conditions (based
on specific storm intensity and duration). This approach is reasonable and fair in that stormwater
runoff is the responsibility of individual developments, instead of the community at large. A
drawback to this approach is that maintenance of private stormwater control facilities may be deferred,
making them less effective. To avoid this situation, a municipality could require that public
maintenance easements be dedicated for maintenance access. Of course, this would require additional
funding.
Summary and Conclusions
The City has undertaken a considerable amount of remedial action since 1987 to accommodate
stormwater runoff. However, the City is ·still playing "catch-up" in its attempt to provide adequate
storm drainage facilities for development which bas occurred in the past several decades. No one
particular development has caused the storm drainage problems. Rather, it's the aggregate of urban
development, without an adequate stormwater management program, which overtaxes portions of the ~
system.
The City should be commended for taking actions to implement portions of the 1986
Stormwater Management Plan and adopting a stormwater management ordinance. However, while
the City continues to play catch-up on existing storm drainage problems, it should consider
strengthening it stormwater ordinance. In areas where area-wide detention facilities are not provided
or planned (such as provided by Sunset Lake), the City should consider making on-site deten-
tion/retention a requirement for future development. Additionally, the City could strengthen its
requirements for erosion control in the stormwater ordinance.
In addition to making stormwater ordinance modifications, the City should consider expanding
upon the 1986 Stormwater Management Plan to examine, in more detail, the various watershed basins.
These detailed studies can benefit from the Comprehensive Plan Update, which should provide
direction with respect to proposed land uses. However, in order to conduct these detailed studies, it
will be necessary to obtain detailed topographic maps (i.e., 1" = 100' scale maps with two-foot
contour intervals). Though costly, these maps can serve other uses such as a base for developing a
geographic information system (GIS), and other engineering and planning applications.
74
r'.
Another consideration for stormwater management relates to the quality of storm water runoff.
Under the revised federal Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) now requires
compliance with specific stormwater control regulations for construction projects involving more than
five-acres of grading. The same is required of a variety of industries listed in the Act. Also the EPA
has explored promulgating regulations for certain commercial uses, such as gas stations, but has yet
to do so. While it is beyond the scope of the Comprehensive Plan Update, the City needs to evaluate
what impact, if any, the Act may have on City-owned stormwater control facilities.
75
" \
CHAPrER4
DEVELOPMENT FACTORS
Introduction .
There are a number of factors that have influenced the pattern of urbanization within the
Jefferson City planning area. These same influences will affect future development as well. For
example, economic and population trends fueled demand for various types of land development,
particularly residential and commercial land uses. Other factors affecting the existing and future land
use patterns include transportation systems (principally highways and streets), availability of public
utilities, and physiographic conditions.
Plate 3 graphically portrays some of the factors that will influence future development options.
There are two key physiographic features, floodplain and steep slopes, which have already greatly
influenced development patterns. Comparing Plate 1 to Plate 3, "Existing Land Use," one can readily
see the relationship of the two physiographic features and the current pattern of development. Plate 3
also displays proposals ·contained in the City's Thoroughfare Plan, prepared in 1988. Also, key
elements of the preliminary Airport Layout Plan (ALP) are shown.
The following narrative summarizes how these factors constrain or provide opportunities for
future development. For purposes of this discussion, the planning area is divided by the two counties
in which it is comprised.
Cole County
By far the majority of existing development in the Jefferson City planning area is located south
of the Missouri River in Cole County. Avoidance of floodplain and steep slopes is quite apparent in
the existing development pattern. There are, however, portions of the older area of the City that are
within the 1 00-year floodplain. Another section of the City, with portions of development in the
floodplain, is located in the Grays Creek watershed near its confluence with the Missouri River.
Much of the downtown area that is within the floodplain has been redeveloped into parking lots for
State government employees.
77
During severe flood conditions, these parking areas become useless, causing inconveniences.
However, use of floodplains for surface parking is more appropriate than the previous land uses,
which were subjected to significant property damage repeatedly.
Existing development within the 100-year floodplain occurred. prior to the establishment of
a floodplain regulation program administered by a federal agency now named the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA). The City of Jefferson participates in this program and has established
floodplain development regulations in compliance with federal requirements. In essence, development
in a floodplain is prohibited, unless it is elevated above the floodplain and/or meets certain flood
protection construction standards. However, with regard to planning future development within the
Cole County side of the Missouri River, the floodplain sho~ld be avoided, except for agricultural
crops and limited recreation facilities.
Steep slopes are prevalent within the west-central, southwest, and northwest areas of the Cole
County side of the planning area. Further west, the occurrence of steep slopes dissipates significantly.
Hence, it is not surprising to observe that most of the development in the unincorporated portion of
the planning area has occurred in the west. Also, the western area contains large areas of contiguous
undeveloped land with slopes less than 20 percent and is within or near the current gravity sewer
service area.
The Thoroughfare Plan proposals, if implemented, will create development opportunities
adjacent to the City. If implemented, the western portions of the Wears Creek watershed will likely
become the predominant growth zone of the planning area. The most significant thoroughfare
proposals are the extension of Highway 179, from Highway 50 south to Route C, and the extension
of Edgewood Drive, west to Country Club Drive. It is proposed that Edgewood Drive be eventually
built to arterial street standards. Also proposed, is the extension of Wildwood Drive which will
become a north/south arterial. Hence, the area generally bounded by Missouri Boulevard, Highway
179 extension, Rock Ridge Road, and Country Club Drive will be well served by an arterial road
network. An interconnecting system of collector streets will be necessary, such as the proposed
extension of American Avenue.
Another significant highway improvement proposal is the construction of a grade-separated
interchange at Highway 50/63 and Eastland Drive. This will improve highway access in the eastern
section of Jefferson City, which has experienced considerable development over the last two decades.
There remains several larger pockets of undeveloped land in this vicinity, for which access will be
further improved with the construction of two proposed collector streets; Nelson Drive and
Morningside Drive.
78
A drawback associated with the proposed interchange is that it improves truck access as well.
Eastland Drive provides the most direct access route from Highway 50/63 to the commercial and
industrial enterprises located on East McCarty Street. However, Eastland Drive serves as a major
collector street for a principally single family residential area. Current truck traffic on Eastland Drive
has been a concern of area residents and the new interchange may encourage additional truck traffic.
There is no simple solution to this issue. However, one option to explore would be improving the
intersection of Highway 50/63 and City View Drive and requiring trucks, in excess of a certain gross
vehicle weight, to use this intersection as the access route to/from East McCarty Street.
Callaway County
The Callaway County side of the planning area presents development constraints of a much
greater magnitude than the Cole County side. The most significant constraint is the 1 00-year
floodplain associated with the Missouri River. The "Great Flood of 1993" exceeded the 100-year
floodplain elevation and, at the time of this writing, the extent of property damage had not been
determined. The greatest impact of the 1993 flood appeared to be in the former Cedar City area, now
part of Jefferson City. It was questionable if the homes and businesses could be repaired or whether
or not they should be replaced. Note: FEMA requirements prohibit repair/replacement of a structure
damaged beyond 50 percent of its appraised value unless it is built in accordance with FEMA
standards (i.e., elevated above the 100-year event flood elevation).
As mentioned earlier in this Chapter, development in a floodplain should be avoided. Even
if FEMA standards are met, it remains questionable if developing in a floodplain is prudent. Of
course, the Missouri River flats provide a more suitable terrain for the Airport and larger industrial
facilities than the more rugged terrain which is common elsewhere in the planning area.
Unlike any other flood in recent history, the 1993 flood has clouded the future development
prospects for the north Jefferson City area. From a practical standpoint, marketability of property
for development in this area will be stifled until protection can be provided by an adequate levee
(minimum 100-year event flood protection). For sake of comparison, the Earth City and Riverport
industrial/commercial parks near St. Louis are protected by a 500-year flood event levee. These areas
survived the 1993 flood. However, the Chesterfield Valley area, also near St. Louis,~ protected
by a 100-year flood event levee. Unfortunately, this older levee failed in the 1993 flood and hundreds
of businesses were severely damaged.
81
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has initiated a flood protection ·planning study for the
north Jefferson City area. According to a Corps representative, this study will take nearly two years
to complete. Building a larger levee will be one of the options studied. If the levee option were to
be selected, it would take a minimum of six years to be built, according to the Corps of Engineers. m
Just north of the floodplain is a dramatic rise in ground elevation and then very rugged terrain.
Plate 3 illustrates the magnitude of slopes greater than 20 percent in the northern portions of the
planning area. One can readily see that the development patterns in this upland area has closely
followed the narrow ridge lines. This combination of rugged terrain and lack of public sanitary sewer
collection systems bas led to predominantly very low density residential development. It is probable
that future development in this area will be similar with large portions of the hillsides remaining in
its natural state. Actual bomesites will be relatively small while the remaining area of the lots left
undisturbed.
Impact of the New Missouri River Bridge
In 1992, a second bridge was completed, greatly improving the Highway 54/63 river crossing.
This improved river crossing, and other highway improvements just south of the bridge terminus, will
ease traffic flow to/from Cole County and Callaway County. Additionally, the segment of Highway
54 between Holts Summit and Fulton is being upgraded to a controlled access highway. Thus,
Jefferson City will be linked to Interstate 70 via a divided, access controlled highway. The bridge
and highway improvements will likely result in the following:
• Improved safety and reduced travel time to/from Jefferson City and other portions of the
State, particularly the east/northeast areas. This will enhance business travel associated
with State government activities and commerce travel in general.·
• Reduction or elimination of traffic congestion on the bridge crossing, particularly that
which bas historically been attributable to "through traffic" to/from the Lake of the
Ozarks.
• Improved conditions for commuter traffic to/from the north and Jefferson City
employment centers.
60 According to an article in the News Tribune, June 30, 1993.
82
The third item, described above, raises a significant question regarding the plan for the
Jefferson City area. Will the improved access stimulate urban development north of Jefferson City?
For reasons associated with the development constraints described earlier, the potential for
growth within the northern portion of the planning area will be limited. However, the improved river
crossing could lead to increased development pressure north of the delineated planning area, including
Holts Summit and beyond. Furthermore, commuting to/from Columbia and Jefferson City becomes
less of a chore. Other factors, such as relatively inexpensive land and the lack of zoning and
subdivision regulations in Callaway County may serve to stimulate growth north of the Jefferson City
planning area.
However, there are several factors that will temper development pressure in southern portions
of Callaway County as a result of the improved River crossing:
• The availability of less expensive land and lack of zoning and subdivision regulations
existed prior to the bridge improvements. If one concludes that the situation in Callaway
County is more conducive to building affordable housing, the market for such housing
would likely have responded (more than it already has), even without the improved river
crossing.
• Except for the areas that can be readily connected to the planned Turkey Creek
interceptor (see Chapter 3), the lack of public sanitary sewer severely limits the density
of development. Standards and permitting procedures for "packaged" or lagoon-type
sewage treatment systems have become more restrictive, making it less feasible to build
at higher densities.
• The residential market demand will likely continue to be higher within the Cole County
side of the planning area. Even though housing prices, on average, may tend to be higher
on the Cole County side, people generally prefer to locate as close to their work place as
possible. Also, the Cole County side has a more comprehensive array of commercial
services and schools are more conveniently available.
• There is a considerable amount of developable land on the Cole County side of the river
that can be readily serviced by water and sanitary sewer. Furthermore, planned
thoroughfare improvements will open up even more territory for potential development.
There is substantially more developable land, serviceable by utilities, on the Cole County
side than required to meet the projected demand for the entire planning area.
83
Summary and Conclusions
Physiographic conditions have had the greatest influence on the pattern of urbanization, within
the Jefferson City planning area. While real estate economics has contributed to "leap frog" growth
into unincorporated areas, it has followed the path of least resistance in terms of physiographic
constraints.
. As development occurs over the planning horizon, it will be greatly influenced by the factors
described and illustrated in this Chapter. The proposals contained in the Thoroughfare Plan have
particular significance for future growth options. If implemented, the area within the upper reaches
of the Wears Creek watershed may become the prime development zone of the planning area.
If sanitary sewer service is extended into the western portions of the sanitary district
(e.g., west of Country Club Drive and the Capital Mall area), it will create additional development
opportunities. However, extension of the current collection system may serve to scatter urban
development even further, unless the revised sewer extension policy (mentioned in Chapter 3) is
effective in limiting new connections.
From an urban planning viewpoint, "leap frog" development leads to inefficiencies in the
provision of public infrastructure and services. Such inefficiencies result in additional costs.
Furthermore, dispersion of urban development contributes to natural resource depletion and
environmental degradation, by the simple fact that more petroleum-fueled vehicle miles are traveled
for work, shopping, etc. Several examples of public cost inefficiencies associated with urban sprawl
includes:
• More miles are traveled by public safety vehicles, relative to the population served. Also,
police protection and fire safety coverage may become diminished, by increased response
times to the more remote development locations.
• More school buses are required and additional miles must be traveled to transport
students.
• More lineal feet of water and sewer utilities are required, relative to the population
served. A specific example in the Jefferson City area is the expansion of the sanitary
sewer collection system. Groundwater contamination, within the watershed of Binder
Lake, was a significant factor leading to the formation of the Cole County Regional Sewer
District (CCRSD). The feasibility of the CCRSD was nebulous from the start, and
eventually it was annexed into the Jefferson City Regional Sewer District (JCRSD). The 1
84
JCRSD installed the Grays Creek trunk sewer to pick up the flows from the former
CCRSD collection system. Divide the cost of this trunk sewer by the approximate 6,000
persons served and the cost inefficiency becomes quite evident.
As revealed in Chapter 2, "Land Use,'' there is already more potentially developable land
within the current City limits to support projected growth requirements for the entire planning area.
It would be wise to foster future growth within and adjacent to the City.
85
CHAPTERS
RECREATION FACll.JTIES
Introduction
An important component of the Comprehensive Plan Update is planning for the recreation
needs of its citizens. In order to develop a recreation plan component, several important pieces of
information must be gathered and analyzed. This information includes data elements such as:
• An inventory of all the recreation facilities which are available in the area being studied.
This inventory must include those facilities provided by public, semi-public, and private
entities.
• Information regarding the demand for participation in the various recreation activities on
the part of the residents of the area for which the plan is being developed. This data
element usually involves attempting to determine the level to which the resident population
participates in a particular recreation activity in any given year.
• The existing and projected population for the area being studied.
• An evaluation of the existing recreation facilities which exist in the area with respect to
their quality, current level of use, service area, and segment of the resident population
being served.
• Review of previous plans and studies relating to recreation facilities and/or activities
which have been done for the community.
• Review of the most recent Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP)
for the state in which the community is located.
• Review of key national studies regarding recent trends in the attitudes and preferences of
the American public for recreation facilities and activities.
This chapter of the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Jefferson City represents the results
~ of each of the data elements outlined above which were compiled in preparing the recreation plan
87
component. The work conducted for each of the data elements is briefly outlined in this introduction
and then the results are discussed in greater detail in the subsequent sections of this chapter.
Inventory of Recreation Facilities
One of the first data elements of the recreation planning process for Jefferson City involved
getting the best data possible to create an inventory of recreation facilities both in and outside the
corporate limits of Jefferson City. An inventory survey form was created and sent to entities in the
area so that they themselves could describe the quantity and types of facilities which they owned or
for which they were responsible. The inventory survey form was based on the most recent formats
which were used in the Missouri and the Dlinois SCORP programs.
Using a computer data base program, the survey data was tabulated in order to create an
inventory of facilities for the entire Jefferson City area. The facilities were categorized according to
ownership (public, semi-public and private) and also grouped according to their location (either in or
outside the city corporate limits). After the initial results were tabulated and checked, data for known
facilities, which was missing in the original survey responses, was gathered. In addition, data from
the original survey responses which seemed questionable were checked and modified as necessary.
In addition, all existing major recreation facilities within the City and the Study Area were plotted on
the Study Area base map which was developed for the Comprehensive Plan program (see Plate 4).
Resident Demand Survey
In order to develop an accurate picture of current demand for recreation facilities and activities
in the City and the Study Area identified for the comprehensive planning program, a stratified,
random sample telephone survey of City and Study Area residents was conducted. A survey sample
of 405 households was contacted inside the City limits and an additional sample of 211 households
was contacted outside the City limits but within the Study Area. The survey was directed primarily
at gaining two types of information. First, the survey was designed to determine the current level of
participation in various recreation activities by the City and Study Area residents. Secondly, the
survey was intended to gather some basic data about the attitudes of the City and Study Area residents
with respect to how they felt about the quality and availability of recreation facilities, how important
they felt the availability of facilities were (particularly compared to other municipal services), and
their perceptions of the cost of participating in activities where fees were involved.
88
r' The survey was conducted by Attitude Research Corporation (ARC) who also designed the
survey instrument (questionnaire) with input from the City and the consulting team assisting the City
with preparation of the Comprehensive Plan. It was important to stratify the survey sample for several
reasons. First, it was important to know if there were differences in patterns of recreation activity
participation by residents of the City versus residents outside the City within the Study Area.
Secondly, it was also necessary to know these patterns in order to determine what facilities might have
to be constructed if the City were to annex any of the areas involved. Also, it was believed that by
stratifying the sample some indication might be provided of the extent to which City recreation
facilities were being utilized by non-residents.
Population
In order to conduct the demands and facilities needs analysis, it was necessary to determine
the most current population for the City and the Study Area and to have an estimate of the future
population. The basis for the current population was the data provided by the 1990 Census of
Population. Projections of future population use the "moderate" population projection for the planning
area, as presented in Chapter 1. The current and projected population data was used to extrapolate
the demand survey sample data regarding the participation in recreation activities to the City and
Study Area levels.
Evaluation of Existing Facilities
A general in-field review was conducted of all the principal recreation facilities operated by
the City of Jefferson City, and certain key facilities operated by other public, semi-public, and/or
private entities. This review was intended to provide an initial impression of the extent, usage, and
quality of the facilities. A more detailed analysis of the City facilities will be conducted in conjunction
with the second phase of the recreation plan component of the Comprehensive Plan. This phase will
involve the development of specific recommendations and plan concepts for existing and proposed City
recreation facilities.
Review of Recent Plans and Studies
In recent years Jefferson City has conducted several other studies related to recreation
facilities in the City. These include:
• The Master Plan for Deborah Cooper Rivelfront Park on Adrian Island -This study was
prepared for the Housing Authority of the City of Jefferson and the Deborah Cooper
Foundation by Booker Associates, Inc. in August of 1990. This study provides a plan for
91
the recommended development of Adrian Island along the river at the foot of the State ~
Capitol grounds as a riverfront park.
• Proposal for Development of the City of Jefferson Greenway System -This report was
prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation Greenway Advisory Committee in
October of 1991. This document provides a plan for the development of a multi-purpose
trail system throughout the City.
• The Jefferson City Golf Survey -The survey and the accompanying report that was
completed by Flatt Golf Services in August of 1993. This work was commissioned by
the Parks and Recreation Commission in an attempt to determine if it was feasible to
expand the City's existing golf course facilities.
Each of these reports was reviewed to determine what recommendations or conclusions were
reached and what kinds of recreation facilities were involved. Notations regarding the pertinent data
in each were made for potential future reference and incorporation into the recreation plan component.
In addition to these plans and reports, other existing data about the individual parks and recreation
facilities owned by the City were reviewed. This included the Park and Recreation Department's
Parks and Facilities Guide, seasonal program guides, and data gathered in conversations with the
staff. Other data which, in some instances, was provided by the respondents to the inventory survey
was also reviewed.
Review of Missouri SCORP
The most recent version (1990) of the Missouri Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation
Plan (SCORP) was reviewed in several respects. Since the approach and methodology being used to
develop the recreation plan component of the Comprehensive Plan is based on that of a typical
SCORP, the inventory survey form and the demand survey questionnaire used in the most recent
Missouri SCORP was reviewed for potential adaptability to the Jefferson City project. Other
components of the SCORP were reviewed for potential applicability including the various standards
used in determining the statewide need for facilities such as:
• The carrying capacity standards for each type of recreation activity facility (i.e. ball
diamonds, swimming pools, basketball courts, etc.);
• The recreation activity participation rates per capita; and
92
• The inventory of facilities in the State's data base for Cole County and the surrounding
counties.
Some of this material proved to be useful in developing the facility inventory survey form and
the demand survey form. The inventory of facilities was compared against the inventory data which
had already been collected for the City and the Study Area and was found to be incomplete. Thus,
the information from this data base was not used in developing the recreation plan component.
In addition to reviewing the Missouri SCORP, the Dlinois SCORP was also reviewed for the
possibility of providing further useful direction. In fact, the Dlinois program proved to be far more
insightful and provided a number of more detailed standards and examples which were deemed to be
useful to the Jefferson City project. In particular, the inventory survey form used a much more
comprehensive and yet straightforward approach to gathering the inventory of facilities information.
Thus, its format and approach was used heavily in developing the Jefferson City survey for the
inventory of facilities.
Review of National Data Ra:ardinz Recreation Activities
In developing a community plan for recreation facilities it is always beneficial to compare the
community's facilities, activity participation patterns, and facility usage to national data. Two of the
most extensive studies on the recreation preferences and patterns of the American public were used
in this effort for Jefferson City. Each of these publications will be discussed in the following sections
of this chapter. One of these studies is the Report and Recommendations to the President of the
United States. This report was prepared by the President's (Reagan) Commission on Americans
Outdoors and was published initially in December of 1986. The other study is the result of a
nationwide survey conducted by the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA). The report
which resulted is entitled 7he Benefits of Local Recreation and Park Services: A Nationwide Study
of the Perceptions of the American Public. The work was performed by Pennsylvania State University
and the report was published in 1992.
Key data from each of these reports is cited in order for the City and its residents to have a
fuller understanding of how recreation is perceived nationally. In addition, where possible certain of
the findings at the national level are compared with the results of the recreation demand survey
conducted for this project. However, it should be noted that the premise of the demand survey and
those of these national studies are not completely parallel. For example, the NRPA survey focused
on the public's perceived benefit of recreation activities and facilities. While the City's demand
survey addressed this subject with a more limited set of questions at the end of the survey. The report
of the President's Commission focused exclusively on outdoor recreation activities. The survey of
93
the City and Study Area attempted to gain data with respect to activities which are conducted both
outdoors and indoors.
How Recreation is Perceived-A U.S. and .Jefferson City Comparison
In developing a recreation plan for Jefferson City, it is useful to look at the attitudes and
behavior of American citizens, as a whole, as it relates to their recreational preferences and to
compare the published data with that being compiled for the City. While not all of the data from the
two most recent national studies discussed below will have a direct correlation to like data from the
Jefferson City survey, related findings from the work conducted for the City will be noted. In
addition, a subsequent section of this chapter will discuss data from the Jefferson City survey
research. As noted previously, a study sponsored by the NRP A was published in 1992 to address the
issue. 61 This study, like others, found that most Americans feel they have less time available for
recreation and leisure than they had five years ago. The trend of this feeling has been on the increase
over the last 25 years and has increased more ~apidly in the last 10 years. This trend has been
validated by the majority of demographic studies and surveys which have been done on this subject
in recent years. More importantly, this pattern of responses has persisted in spite of the high value
which most Americans attribute to leisure time. Compared to five years ago, 47% of the NRP A
sample said that today they had less time for recreation and leisure while only 22% reported more
time. The remaining 31% said the amount of recreation and leisure time had stayed the same.
Although the survey of residents of the Jefferson City Study Area did not ask a similar
question, we can make some generalizations about the perceptions of leisure time patterns of the
Jefferson City area residents. The survey indicated that the r~idents have differing amounts of leisure
time and varied leisure interests. However, Nearly 59% of the respondents said they had one to
three hours of leisure or recreation time on an average weekday. Approximately 22% said they had
seven or more hours. Not unexpectedly, respondents had much more leisure time on an average
weekend day. More than one--half (51.6%) said they had seven or more hours of leisure time on an
average weekend day. These responses are not unusual for residents of a community which is not part
of a major metropolitan area. If the residents of metropolitan St. Louis or Kansas City were asked
a similar question, the amounts of leisure or recreation time would be significantly lower. For
example, similar surveys conducted in the St. Louis area in recent years derived responses which
indicated the typically more hurried lifestyles of a large metropolitan area.
61 The Benefits of Local Recreation and Park Services: A Nationwide Study of the Perceptions of the
American Public; Godbey, Graefe, and James-Pennsylvania State University, 1992.
94
~-
r' Evidence of hurried lifestyles nationally was demonstrated by the NRP A survey by the fact
that 35% of respondents, when asked how they felt about their time, said that they always felt rushed.
Only 18% reported never feeling rushed, while 48% sometimes felt rushed. In spite of the fact that
large percentages of the population felt rushed and don't have as much time for recreation and leisure
as they would like, their leisure time is important to them. When U.S. citizens were asked whether
work or leisure was more important to them, only 35% of the population said work. The largest
percentage 38%, said work and leisure were equally important while 26% said leisure was more
important. In the Jefferson City Study Area people also believe that recreation facilities are important.
Sixty-four percent (64%) felt that they were as important as other City services. Only 10% felt they
were less important.
Slightly more than one out of five Americans reported taking up a new recreation activity
during the last twelve months. The majority of these new activities could be characterized as sport
and exercise. The likelihood of taking up a new leisure activity was statistically related to age,
residence type, marital status, education level, income level, race, and political affiliation. This trend
is consistent with the national trend toward greater awareness of health issues and the role which
exercise plays in improving health. Slightly more than seven out of ten respondents reported there
was a park or playground within walking distance of their home.
The NRP A study found that 75% of all respondents used parks and playgrounds; 51% using
them occasionally and 24% using them frequently. When rural residents (who, by definition, have
no local government) are excluded, 76% of the sample used such parks and playgrounds. An
interesting finding relating to the use of park and recreation facilities by rural residents was uncovered
in compiling the Jefferson City data. In instances where a larger city acts as a "hub" for a rural area,
the rural residents tend to make significant use of the park and recreation facilities in the hub City.
This is particularly true for certain activities such as baseball, softball, basketball, tennis, and certain
other activities. The hub city and semi-public and private groups within the hub city often build
facilities to meet the demand, which is often not from the city's own residents. As will be indicated .
later in this chapter, this seems to be true in Jefferson City. For example, the demand for softball
and baseball from residents of Jefferson City would suggest that there are more facilities for these
activities than residents demand requires. However, if the residents of the portions of the Study Area
outside the City limits are factored in, the excess capacity of facilities to support these activities
becomes a deficiency.
Age also plays a part in this picture. The resident population of Jefferson City tends to be
older overall and the younger age groups are growing more slowly. In the non-City portion of the
study area, the population tends to be younger overall and the younger age segments are growing at
a greater rate. In addition, the activities like those mentioned above tend to be the most popular with
95
children and young adults. In the NRPA study, those persons over 55 years of age were more likely ~
to report not using parks at all, a sizeable minority of older respondents did report either occasional
or frequent park use. Those between the ages of 65-7 4 were more 1 ikel y to use local parks
"frequently" than any other age group. Thus, retirement appears to play a large role in frequency of
park use. It is interesting to note that other national studies have found that preferences for recreation
activities are developed earlier in life and that age is not necessarily a factor in determining what
activities are engaged in by older adults.
Perceived Benefits of Local Parks
Level of Benefits From Local Parks
The National Recreation and Park Association study set out to measure the benefits received
from local parks at the individual, household and community level. "By benefit we mean anything
good that happens because public parks are there. To what degree do you personally benefit from
local parks. "62 Next, they were asked about benefits to other members of the household and finally
the community as a whole.
The NRP A study indicated that In terms of perceiving benefits for other members of the
"household", there were significant relationships with age, gender, income, education level, marital
status and the number of people in the residence. Some of this information will be portrayed in the
following tables. As shown in Table 26, perceptions of "community" level benefits was statistically
related to age and gender.
Table 27 indicates the perception of the respondents in the NRP A study sample regarding the
possible types of benefits of park and recreation facilities. The concept of deriving economic benefits
to the residents or to the city from park and recreation facilities were mentioned less than any other
type, with less than 5% of the responses at any benefit level citing them. This would seem to indicate
that attempts to convince the public of the economic benefits of local park and recreation services may
be misguided, since such a tiny base of the public currently recognizes such benefits. The largest
benefit categories are individual ~d social, relating to people rather than to economic or
environmental considerations. Also, at the individual and household levels personal benefits were
perceived to be greater than those at the community level. Social benefits scored high at all
respondent levels (individual, household, and community).
62 Ibid
96
This data indicates that individuals go to local parks and playgrounds both for recreation and
as recreation. That is, one may realize a benefit because they go there to exercise or one may view
the simple act of going there as a benefit in and of itself.
Age
15-20
21-35
36-55
56-65
66-75
76-95
Gender
Female
Male
Personal
Individual 35.5
Household 36.5
Conununity 20.4
t9 Ibid
64 1bid
Table 26
Respondent Age and Gender Characteristics
by Extent of Perceived Benefits
to the Community from Local Park Areas
(Nationwide Survey)63
Extent of Benefits to the Community
(Percent Response)
Not at AU Somewhat
8 43
5 35
4 33
10 29
7 23
6 36
6 30
s 37
Table 27
Benefits of Park & Recreation Facilities
by Type by Respondent Category
(Nationwide Survey)64
A Great Deal
49
60
63
51
70
58
64
58
Perceived Benefit (Percent Response)
Environmental Social Economic
20.1 23.5 3.2
12.6 27.4 3.1
12.5 36.9 4.8
97
Facility
17.7
20.4
25.4
To further understand the extent to which people's perceptions of benefits from public parks ~
are tied to their direct use of these parks, the statistical relationships between these variables were
examined in the NRPA study. The extent of benefits received at all three levels (individual,
household and community) were examined in relation to both personal and household use of parks.
At the personal benefit level, the extent of benefit received was strongly linked to the extent of both
personal and household use. At the community level, on the other hand, the majority of respondents
perceived a great deal of benefits from parks regardless of how much they personally used them. In
the Jefferson City Study Area the vast majority of respondents (88.6%) said parks and recreation
facilities and programs were extremely (25.3%) or (63.3%) very important to the quality of life in
their area.
Monetary Value of Local Recreation Services
Americans nationwide believe that what is spent of their tax dollar ($45/person annual average
-1992 dollars) on their local recreation services is well worth the money. Over three-fourths believed
that their own local services were worth $45/year. Only 16% thought they were worth $25/year or
less. More than 20% thought they were worth $60-$150. These results indicate that many Americans
would be willing to pay more for addi~ional services and since they generally are not opposed to
paying user fees, local government would likely be supported in any well planned expansion.
As Table 28 indicates, a high degree of benefit to the community was perceived regardless
of education or income level. Over 60% of respondents felt that their community as a whole receives
a great deal of benefit from their local parks. This perception of benefit was strong regardless of how
often the respondent personally used the facilities themselves.
The NRP A study also evaluated the extent of the survey respondents perceived level of benefit
to household members. Table 29 shows the results of the responses. As the table indicates, women
are more likely to perceive that parks benefit their household a great deal (36%) than men (25%).
This may be due to the fact that families with children perceive a greater household benefit and female
heads of households are more likely to have children than their male counterparts. Some other factors
such as level of education or income, suggest that these demographic characteristics are less of a
consideration in terms of the importance of benefits. Responses in all levels of education and income
indicated that there was somewhat of~ benefit or a great deal of benefit to household members. Not
surprisingly, households with children 19 years old and younger felt that there was somewhat or a
great deal of benefit.
Citizens generally believe that parks offer a great deal of benefit at the community level.
Table 30 indicates that belief holds true regardless of their type of residence or the size of their
community.
98
Table 28
Respondent Education and Income Characteristics
by Extent of Perceived Benefits
to the Community from Local Park Areas
(Nationwide Survey)65
Extent of Benefits to the Conununity
(Percent Response)
Not at AU Somewhat A Great Deal
Level of Education
High School or less 8 34 58
Some college to college grad 4 33 63
More than 4 years of college 2 31 68
Income
Less than $20,000 9 31 60
$20,000 to $60,000 4 33 62
More than $60,000 4 37 59
U.S. Trends in Outdoor Recreation
Another study conducted at the national level reveals some notable trends in a report by the
President's Commission on Americans Outdoors. 66 This document provides a comprehensive analysis
of the outdoor recreational needs of the nation in the coming years. In 1985, President Reagan
appointed a blue ribbon commission to review the future needs of the American people with respect
to their desires and demands for outdoor recreation activities. The President's Commission on
Americans Outdoors, its staff, and senior advisors sought to find out "what outdoor recreation means
to the American people, and recommend ways to make sure our governments, our communities, and
our actions as individuals reflect the values we attach to it. We seek the establishment of enduring
processes -private and public -to meet our outdoor recreation needs today and in the future. "67
65 Ibid
66 Report and Recommendations to the President of the United States, President's Commission on
Americans Outdoors, December 1986.
67 1bid
99
Table 29
Respondent Demographic Characteristics
by Extent of Perceived Household
Benefits from Local Park Areas
(Nationwide Survey)68
Extent of Benefits to Household Members
(Percent Response)
Not at AU Somewhat A Great Deal
Age
15-20 31 59 10
21-35 16 51 33
36-SS 16 45 39
56-65 33 45 22
66-75 31 40 29
76-95 45 38 17
Gender
Female 19 45 36
Male 23 52 25
Level of Education
High school or less 28 46 27
Some college to college grad 17 49 35
More than 4 years of college 12 54 34
Income
Less than $20,000 28 39 33
$20,000 to $60,000 18 so 32
More than $60,000 18 52 30
Marital Status
Single/Divorced/Widowed 26 so 24
Married 18 47 35
Size of Household
Single person 45 36 19
Two people 28 49 23
Three to four people 16 49 35
Five or more people 14 46 40
Age of ChDdren in Household
12 and Under 10 43 47
13-19 21 54 25
Both 12 and Under and 13-19 14 48 38
No Children Under Age 20 29 49 23
61 The Benefits of Local Recreation and Park Services: A Nationwide Study of the Perceptions of the
American Public; Godbey, Graefe, and James -Pennsylvania State University, 1992.
100
Table 30
Respondent Residence Characteristics
by Extent of Perceived Benefits
to the Community from Local Park Areas
(Nationwide Survey)69
Extent of Benefits to the Community
(Percent Response)
Not at AU Somewhat A Great Deal
Type of Residence
Single family home 6 33 61
Town House/ Condominium s 41 55
Apartment 3 27 70
Mobile home 15 33 52
Other 4 38 58
Size of Community
Rural area/village under 11 31 59
10,000
Town of 10,000 to 50,000 3 35 61
City of 50,000 to 100,000 2 36 62
Metropolitan area (over 2 34 64
100,000)
The President's Commission completed its work in 1988 and the results were published in
1989. The report offers some insight to various aspects of recreation activity patterns and demands
of the American population which cities, counties and states shoul.d consider in planning for the future.
Some of the highlights of the report are outlined below.
• Health is the primary reason that American adults say they engage in outdoor recreation,
including stress relief as a means of improving health. Therefore, recreation facilities and
programs (both outdoor and indoor) should promote wellness. As our lifestyles have
become more physically and mentally demanding and stressful, there will be a continued
emphasis on doing things which promote our physical and mental well-being.
Recreational activities will continue to play a major part in the national wellness effort.
• In terms of summer activities and participation, the fastest growing activities include
canoeing, bicycling, attending outdoor cultural events, camping, sailing, hik-
69 1bid
101
ing/backpacking and walking for pleasure. These activities show a trend toward more
physically demanding activities. A predominant number of these activities take place on
linear corridors such as roads, rivers, sidewalks, trails, greenways, etc.
• High on the demand list in the lower midwest region are activities such as swimming,
fishing, picnicking, running/jogging, softball/baseball, tennis, and basketball. The ARC
telephone survey revealed that in the Jefferson City study area the most popular forms of
recreation were picnicking, fishing, walking or hiking, outdoor swimming and golf. The
least popular were sailing and hunting for waterfowl.
• Overall participation in outdoor recreation activities continues to grow but the rate has
leveled off significantly in recent years to a rate that is now about three to four percent
annually. This is likely due to the decrease in the rate of population growth as a whole
and to the aging of our population.
• The elderly segment of our population continues to grow and is expected to constitute
between 18 and 24% of total population by 2030. By the year 2000, the median age will
be 36. The recreation behavior of the population which was begun before age 40 tends
to continue. Therefore, current estimates of elderly leisure patterns depend on the
activities which were begun before retirement. Thus, the next two generations of the
population will be high users of outdoor recreation facilities in their later years. Also,
because less than one out of four Americans waits until age 65 to retire and, because life
expectancy is longer, leisure time for older adults is increasing.
• The age group which tends to establish the recreation demands for the future is the 25-34
age group. In 1980, this group was up 45% as a proportion of the total population since
the 1970's and represented the "baby boom" individuals which had reached this age
bracket by 1980. However, between 1980 and 1990, this group leveled substantially in
its rate of growth. This age group will continue to set the recreation demand trends for
the future but is not likely to grow substantially as a segment of the population. In
addition, this group has established a trend of having fewer children and having them
toward the later years of the age group. Therefore, they will play a role in establishing
the recreation facility demand for the younger segments of the population.
• There is a desperate need for information in most cities and counties to plan for recreation
facilities. Many communities have never conducted surveys of their residents to
determine what user demands/needs are for recreational facilities. Those communities
who have surveyed their residents in the past have, in many cases, not repeated the
102
process. Without this data, facilities might be constructed or improved and then may not
be fully utilized due to changing activity trends. The President's Commission report
implies that defining community recreation needs should be based more on resident
desires than applying "standards" (i.e., 1 softball diamond per 3000 population).
Therefore, Jefferson City is attempting to fulfill its needs for this critical data and is
attempting to tailor its planning for parks and recreation facilities to the needs of its citizens. The
demand survey conducted in accord with this recreation planning program was designed to gather the
kinds of information identified by the President's Commission. In addition, by stratifying the demand
survey sample between the City and the Comprehensive Plan Study Area, the City is also seeking to
develop better information about how the use of City facilities are impacted by non-residents .
.Jefferson City -Activities and Attitudes
The previous sections have principally examined the trends in recreation for the U.S. as a
whole. While recreation demand and attitudes do vary somewhat across the country, there are more
similarities than differences. However, as noted in the introduction to this chapter, a random sample
telephone survey was conducted in order to plan for the specific needs of Jefferson City,. This
survey, conducted by Attitude Research Corporation (ARC), involved phone interviews with 405
households residing in Jefferson City as well as 211 households in the unincorporated areas. The
Jefferson City Department of Parks and Recreation was not identified as the sponsor of the study.
Respondents were questioned as to their attitudes about recreation and about the frequency that they
engaged in various recreation activities. The individual respondents were asked not only about their
own recreational use patterns, but also about the use patterns of other household members as well as
the ages of household members who engaged in those varied activities.
Over two-thirds (67 .2%) of the survey area respondents said they used City-owned parks and
recreation facilities at least 1 time during an average month. Nearly one-third used City-owned
facilities once or twice per month. Another 17.5% used City-owned facilities 3 to 5 times per month
and an additional 18.3% used them 6 times or more per month. Only about one-third of the area
respondents said they never used park and recreation facilities.
With regard to the fees charged for use of City-owned facilities and programs, 91.2% of the
respondents in the survey stated that fees were about right (41.6%) or had no opinion (45.1 %). One
and one-half percent (1.5%) of the respondents said the fees were too low and only 7.3% stated that
they were too high.
103
When asked to compare the importance of park and recreation programs and facilities to other ~
City services, nearly 7 out·of 10 respondents (69.9%) said parks and recreation services were either
more important (16.1%) or equal in importance (64.3%) to other City services. Only 10.7% said they
were less important and 8.9% expressed no opinion.
When asked to compare the quality of city-owned recreational facilities to those that are semi-
public or private, 14.4% of area respondents said the city-owned facilities were better, 55.5% said
about the same, 9.6% said worse, with 20.5% not knowing.
Respondents primary sources for information about city park and recreation programs and
facilities were the newspaper (43.5%), word of mouth (26.0%), and the city's park and recreation
guide (13.0%). Other sources were radio (5.2%) and local TV (2.4%).
More than one-third (35.6%) said that Jefferson City owned a community or recreation center.
Just over one-fourth (26.7%) said it did not own such a center, with 38.1% not knowing. When
asked how often during an average month they used the city's center for passive forms of recreation,
3.1% said once, 1.6% said twice, 3.1% said three times or more, with 92.2% either not using the
center at all or not knowing that a center was in existence.
In comparison to the more than two-thirds (67 .2%) of the respondents who said they used park
and recreation facilities, only slightly more than one-fourth (27 .3%) said they used a semi-public
facility like the YMCA for recreational programs or activities. It is important to note that this factor
is taken into account when this and other data from the survey was used to evaluate the demand for
facilities to be expanded or constructed by the City. In conducting the survey, data was compiled with
respect to the locations/facilities where household members were engaging in each recreation activity
about which they were questioned. Some activities, such as tennis and swimming for example, are
likely to be conducted at semi-private or private facilities by a certain percentage of the population
whether or not the City (or another public entity) had such facilities available.
Most (92.0%) respondents reported having no problems gaining access to public recreation
facilities in Jefferson City. Among those saying they did have problems, the most frequent type of
problem reported was the inability to secure playing time at golf courses. As will be demonstrated
later in this chapter where the need for City facilities is discussed, this coincides with the findings of
the Flatt survey for golf facilities which was conducted in the summer of 1993. This-also is
concurrent with national data which has shown a rapid rise in the popularity of golf particularly in
the last 10 to 15 years. In a correlating question, most (88.5%) respondents reported that the types
of recreational facilities they desired were available in their area. Among those wishing for additional
facilities, the most common responses were golf courses, bike trails and racquetball courts. While ~
104
f' these responses would appear to place the City's parks and recreation facilities and programs in a very
favorable light, they must be taken in context with the data provided by other elements of the survey.
As noted above, understanding the response to these later two questions from the survey
requires comparison to the results of responses to other survey questions so that the results are not
misinterpreted. An obvious assumption would be to conclude that these responses indicate no
additional need for recreation facilities. In fact, other data from the survey indicated that the actual
and latent demand for facilities is not being met for some of the most popular activities. Correlation
of the participation demand survey data with commonly accepted standards for the carrying capacity
for the various types of recreation facilities (associated with particular recreation activities) clearly
indicates that there are facility needs in Jefferson City. Data presented later in this chapter supports
this position.
Based on the application of proper carrying capacity standards, simple observation of the way
facilities are being used, records kept by the Parks and Recreation Department, and conversations with
Department staff, it is clear that many existing facilities are over-utilized and some facilities which
are being used are not properly sized to meet the regulation facility sizes for particular activities.
Also the City is attempting to meet the demand for certain facilities by cross-use of facilities (for
example, using playtields not intended and designed for baseball, softball, or soccer to fulfill the
demand for practice fields). In some instances, the City has obtained use of facilities owned by other
public or semi-public entities in order to fulflll the demand.
Facilities which have too much use increase maintenance costs and negatively impacts the
activity experience for the users. A facility which does not meet regulation size can also negatively
impact the activity experience and in some instances can create unsafe conditions. This indicates that
the Department is using creativity and program scheduling to maximize the efficient use of facilities,
which is an indication of good management. However, in some instances, the lack of proper facilities
is forcing this "creativity" and causing over-utilization of existing facilities.
The proper interpretation of the results of the responses to these questions is that the Parks
and Recreation Department is doing a remarkably good job of attempting to meet the demand for
recreation facilities with the City's existing facility inventory and those which they can arrange to use
that are owned by other entities. It also appears that the Department provides the right facilities and
associated programs to support the most popular recreation activities; and thus, residents are finding
that the kinds of activities which they want to participate in can be found at City facilities. The
responses do not indicate that additional facilities are not needed or that existing facilities should not
be improved and upgraded.
105
Determination of Recreational Demands & Needs
The following analysis of recreational demand in the Jefferson City planning rea is based, in
part, on guidelines established by State and U.S. recreation planning processes. Included are
guidelines for "carrying capacity~~, such as the number of people that can use a softball diamond at
one time, and "turnover", the number of games that can be played/day on a lighted softball diamond.
Some of the guidelines were adjusted to reflect unique circumstances in Jefferson City. Before
looking at these guidelines, the following section discusses how recreation standards based on
population have been applied in the past.
Recreation Standards
Since the 1930's there have been standards set by various advisory bodies dealing with
recreation. These standards did not deal with such issues as "carrying capacity" (how many square
feet of pool was needed per swimmer) but rather made recommendations as to what was the
appropriate size of a pool per 1000 residents. Table 31 provides a typical list of recreational facility
standards. The usefulness of these standards based on population was that a City which had not yet
measured resident demand for services could use this national standard as a guide in creating facilities.
Their shortfall is that local conditions vary based on such criteria as climate or per capita income.
For example, the demand for swimming in indoor pools in Minneapolis would be greater than in
Phoenix.
Determination of Demand
The method of determining the demand for a particular activity is straight forward. Survey
respondents were asked how many times in the past year someone in their household engaged in a
particular activity (baseball, fishing, etc.). The demand survey results compiled by ARC were used
as the basis and the numbers from the survey sample were then extrapolated to represent the entire
population of Jefferson City.
From those results an estimate can be derived of the number of times or "activity occasions"
that residents engage in specific recreation activities. (See the example below):
Person A plays baseball this many times/year 3
Person B plays baseball this many times/year 56
Person C plays baseball this many times/year 0
Number of Activity Occasions of Baseball 59
106
Activity
Outdoor Play
Picnicking
Baseball
Softball
Volleyball
Basketball
Handball or Racquetball
Tennis
Swimming
Football
Soccer
Ice Skating
Golf
Trails
Table 31
Recreational Facility Standards 70
Facility Standard
Tot Lots .25 -.SO acres/500 pop.
Playgrounds .SO acres/1,000 pop.
Playfields 1 acre/1,000 pop.
Tables 8 tables/1,000 pop.
Shelters 5,000 sq. ft. each park of 10 acres or more
Diamond 115,000 pop.
Lighted Diamond 1/10,000 pop.
Diamond 1/2,500 pop.
Lighted Diamond 1/10,000 pop.
Court 113,000 pop.
Court 111 ,000 pop.
Court 115,000 pop.
Outdoor Court 6/1,000 pop.
Lighted Outdoor Court 1/5,000 pop.
Indoor Court 1/50,000 pop.
Outdoor Pool 1,200 sq. ft./1,000 pop. (25 meter lanes)
Outdoor Wading/Play Pool 1 located at each outdoor pool
Indoor Pool 1 pool/25,000 pop. (25 meter lanes)
Beach NA
Field 1/5,000 pop.
Lighted Field 1110,000 pop.
Field 1/5,000 pop.
Lighted Field 1110,000 pop.
Outdoor Rink (Artificial-Light-1 rink/10,000 pop.
ed)
Outdoor Rink (Natural Ice) NA
Indoor Rink 1 rink/50,000 pop.
Course (9 or 18 Holes) • 7 holes/1,000 pop.
9 holes/15,000 pop .
Nature . 4 mi./1,000 pop.
Equestrian .2 mi./1,000 pop.
Walking .25 mi./1,000 pop.
Bicycle .S mi./1,000 pop.
;o Source: National Recreation and Park Association, Missouri Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor
Recreation Plan.
107
This method was used to determine the number of activity occasions which represents, "total ~-
demand" for a given activity. Residents were also asked whether these activities occurred at public,
private or semi-private facilities. If there were 100 activity occasions of baseball and 72% of those
occasions occurred at public facilities, that equals a demand of72 baseball occasions at public baseball
facilities. This demand was then compared with the capacity of the City's own recreation facilities
to determine the need, if any, for additional facilities.
Population Prgjections
As noted in the introduction to this chapter, among the key data elements used to develop a
recreation plan are the most recent population data available for the area being studied, as well as
projections of future population. The manner in which the population data is mathematically used in
developing the park and recreation facilities needs analysis is discussed in detail in the preceding
sections of this chapter. Therefore, the methodology for using the information will not be discussed
again here. This section focuses on how the population data was used in more general terms and
notes how it will be used in later stages of development of a recreation plan for the City.
The data regarding the current population were used to analyze the current need· for park and
recreation facilities based on per capita demand information from another source (usually a demand
survey such as the one conducted in the Jefferson City area). Once the demand for various types of
recreation facilities is determined based on the current population, this information can be compared
with the current inventory of facilities. This comparison will then yield information indicating
whether there is an excess or a shortage of facilities for supporting recreation activities of a particular
type.
The data regarding the projected future populati~n were used to analyze the future need for
park and recreation facilities based on whatever time frame into upcoming years has been established
for the plan. The same methodology discussed above is then used to determine what the facility needs
will be if the projected population scenario comes to pass in later years.
This chapter has focused on the current needs and supply of facilities. In order to determine
the future need for park and recreation facilities, it will be necessary to establish goals and objectives
with the City's parks and recreation department staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission. It
is also important to have a sense of the directions which the City wants to pursue with respect to
annexation. If some parts of the Study Area are annexed in favor of others, the potential population
growth scenarios may be different. Therefore, the facility needs may be different as well. In light
of this need for further input, there has been no attempt at this time to apply the projected population
data to the demand data and calculate a resultant facility needs scenario. Nonetheless, population
108
"' projections have been made for the comprehensive planning program. These projections are briefly
outlined below for the benefit of the reader of this chapter and as a prelude to the narrat-ive, contained
in Part lll of this document, describing the recreation plan.
r' ..
The basis used in determining the existing needs data was the 1990 Census of Population for
Jefferson City and the census tracts comprising the Study Area. Projections of future population,
presented in Chapter 1, were based on physical and subjective evaluation of the planning area's
historical growth patterns. This resulted in the development of a "moderate .. population projection
which reflects the results of these evaluations. For the purposes of making land use and recreation
facilities planning decisions, this moderate growth scenario will be used in developing the Plan. The
current and projected population for the City and the Study Area are outlined in Table 32.
The table depicts the data for the Study Area, the City, and the unincorporated portion of the
Study Area and segregates the population according to the two age groups for which the demand
survey data was gathered. Projected population is shown for the years 2000 and 2010. The table
demonstrates that the unincorporated area is projected to grow almost 19% in population between
1990 and 2000. In this same time frame the City is expected to grow by only 2%. By 2010 the
unincorporated area is expected to grow 39% from its 1990 population, while the City's population
would only increase by approximately 4% in this same period.
1990
Population
Study Area 71 51,996
Jefferson City 35,481
Unincorporated
Study Area 16,515
Table 32
Population Projections
Jefferson City vs. Unincorporated Area
1990
Persons <18 2000 'IJ Change
Yrs. Old Population From 1990
24.1" 55,800 7.3%
21.6% 36,200 2.0%
29.4% 19,600 18.6%
2010 %Change
Population From 1990
59,900 15.2%
36,900 3.9%
23,000 39.3%
This difference in growth rate is important in at least two respects. First, in the case of any
future annexation and since the population growth is almost entirely in the unincorporated portions
of the Study Area, new facility construction may. need to occur outside the City • s current corporate
limits in the area which is annexed. Secondly, the unincorporated portions of the Study Area have
a different type of household makeup which has important implications for recreation planning.
Specifically, these households have a higher proportion of persons under the age of 18 (29.4%)
71 Study area population figures from Table 16 (Moderate Projection).
109
compared to households within the City limits (21.6% ). This higher percentage of school age children
in the unincorporated area would indicate that future facility capital improvement programs which
would be made in any annexed area should place a strong emphasis on facilities which serve families
with children 18 and younger. Based on the demand survey data, facilities to support families and
children would include things such as ice rinks, picnic tables and shelters, playground equipment,
softball and baseball diamonds, and soccer fields.
Determining Capacity of City Public Facilities
While identifying the total demand of residents for a specific activity is straight forward,
identifying the capacity of a facility is more involved. Issues that need to be considered include the
number of persons that can use a facility at one time, rate of "tumoveru per day (i.e., how many
baseball games can be played per day on a field), the number of days in a typical season for baseball,
and so forth. With this information one can identify the capacity or occasions that can be serviced
at a facility during the normal activity season.
Recreation Patterns in .Jefferson City
·~·.·. '-·:)
The Recreation Demand Survey conducted by Attitude Research Corporation contains a wealth ~
of information about the recreation activity participation and attitudes of Jefferson City and Study Area
residents. The summary reports and detailed survey cross-tabulations contain nearly 1000 pages of
information which resulted from the stratified random sample telephone survey of 605 City and Study
Area households. For the City Parks and Recreation Department Staff, these documents will prove
to be very useful in many respects. However, for the purposes of developing a recreation plan for
Jefferson City, only certain data from the survey was used in developing the needs analysis. Thus,
this chapter discusses and highlights only a small part of the information which is available from this
effort. Due to the size of the documents which comprise the survey results, it is not anticipated that
the City will print copies of this material for distribution. These documents will be available in the
Parks and Recreation Department offices for anyone who wishes to review them. In addition to the
citation of some of the survey data in the preceding sections of this chapter, the following section
discusses the key findings in the process of determining the recreation demand, facility inventory, and
facilities needs analysis which utilized some of the demand survey and facilities inventory data.
Recreation Participation and Aee
Recreation requires leisure time and since youth (18 years and younger) have more leisure
time than adults, it would seem logical that youths would use recreation proportionately more. In this
110
instance what would seem logical does not prevail. The Jefferson City Recreation Demand Survey
indicated that, of the activities under study here, adults and youth use facilities fairly equally, relative
to their numbers. Adults, who comprised 76% of the population, were the participants in these
activities approximately 66% of the time. Adults were the majority of the users for most of the
individual activities. In fact, the only activities where youths were the major users were on
playgrounds, ice skating, and using picnic tables and shelters.
Facility Use
Jefferson City area residents use a variety of recreation facilities, both City-owned and those
that are not. The residents not only have differing preferences in the type of recreation they enjoy,
but they also have differing preferences in terms of whether they prefer public, semi-private or private
facilities. For example, in Jefferson City the vast majority of softball play (80%) or use of
playground equipment (95%) is at public recreation facilities (measured in time spent). Activities that
are not typically done at public facilities include indoor walking or jogging ( 49% ), weight training
(37%) and indoor swimming (45%).
Another issue that comes into play in determining facility use and capacity is the multi-use
character of some facilities. For example, an outdoor playtield can be used for soccer, or softball if
soccer or softball fields are being used to capacity. This is discussed further in the Multi-Use
Facilities section later in this chapter.
Current Facility Needs
Residents of Jefferson City and the Study Area have recreation activity needs that can be met
through a variety of facilities. The purpose of the Recreation Plan is to determine how those needs
can be met. Part of this process involved looking at the demand by City residents alone compared
with the City-owned facilities that were designed to satisfy that demand.
The needs of the planning area, as a whole, were also stu~lied. For purposes of analysis, the
planning area was studied as one entity so that data could be viewed and evaluated and a needs
analysis made based on a comparison to the incorporated area. The purpose of this treatment was to
estimate the needs for Jefferson City should a portion or all of the unincorporated planning area be
annexed into the City at a future date. Whether or not any future incorporation was to take place is
beyond the scope of this chapter, however, it is useful to know the recreational needs to determine
what facilities might have to be constructed if the city were to annex significant portions of the
unincorporated Study Area.
111
In order to review and analyze the recreation activity demand and facility needs of the City
and the Study Area, the data contained in detailed working tables used to calculate these factors was
summarized into two more simplified tables. Tables 33 and 34 depict various key data elements from
the needs analysis calculation methodology. For each type of recreation facility (which is associated
with a particular recreation activity) the tables show the following data:
• Total Activity Occasion Demand to be met at Public Facilities;
• The Number of Existing Facilities;
• Total Activity Occasion Capacity of Existing Facilities;
• The Unmet Demand (indicated by parentheses) or Excess Capacity Expressed in Activity
Occasions; and
• The Unmet Demand (indicated by parentheses) or Excess Capacity Expressed in Number
of Facilities.
Table 33 depicts this information for the Jefferson City Study Area and Table 34 shows this
information for only the City portion of the Study Area. It needs to be mentioned that certain
assumptions must be made in order to assign numbers to the items listed above. For example, the
"instant capacity" of an ice rink (the number of people that can skate at one time) is subjective but,
for purposes of analysis a standard must be assigned. In some cases, math calculations are made
which may conflict with programmatic needs in the real world.
Two important factors should be noted about Tables 33 and 34. In Table 33, the inventory
basis (the existing facilities shown in the column entitled •Number) for the total Study Area includes
facilities of all types (e.g. public, semi-public and private). Therefore not all of these facilities are
available at an affordable charge to the general public. In this same table, the basis for the demand,
shown in the column entitled "Total Activity Occasions of Demand for Facilities," represents the total
number of activity occasions for each recreation activity derived from the demand survey. Thus, the
last column on the right, entitled •Excess Capacity or (Unmet Demand) in Number of Facilities, "
indicates the need for recreation facilities in the Study Area without regard for the provider entity.
Table 34 represents the data for Jefferson City only and uses a different basis for the demand
and inventory data which derives the needs analysis. In this table, only those facilities which are
owned by the City are shown in the inventory basis (the existing facilities shown in the column
entitled ,Number). The data in the column entitled, "Total Activity Occasions of Demand for Public
Facilities,, shows only that portion of the total demand which needs to be met at publicly owned
facilities. Therefore, the data indicated in the far right column, entitled ,Excess Capacity or (Unmet
Demand in Number of Facilities," reflects only the need for recreation facilities necessary to support
City resident demand.
112
Facility
Playgrounds
Playfields
Picnic Tables
Picnic Shelters
Baseball/Softball
Diamonds
Volleyball Courts
Basketball Courts
Handball/
Racquetball Courts
Tennis Courts
Swimming Pools
Football Fields
Soccer Fields
Ice Skating Rinks
Golf Courses
Nature Trails
(in miles)
Multi-Purpose
Trails
(in miles)
Table 33
Recreation Facilities Needs Analysis
Jefferson City Study Area
Existing Facilities
Total Activity
Occasions of Capacity in Excess Capacity or
Demand for Activity (Unmet Demand) in
Facilities Nmnber Occasions Activity Occasions
386,399 28 462,000 75,601
311,487 22 946,000 634,513
238,224 291 279,360 41,136
157,920 11 105,600 (52,320)
539,700 26 564,440 24,740
113,846 20 230,400 116,554
173,040 31 305,400 132,360
99,456 16 99,360 (96)
123,480 39 193,320 69,840
561,845 8 614,640 52,795
59,220 8 33,660 (25,560)
63,252 19 79,200 15,948
116,424 1 270,000 153,576
397,824 2 172,800 (225,024)
272,664 14 Miles 248,864 (23,800)
189,504 9 Miles 108,000 (81,540)
(cycling only)
Excess Capacity or
(Unmet Demand)
in No. of
Facilities
5
18
43
(6)
0
8
11 72
0
13
oTJ
(3)'4
4
1
(2.6)
(1.3)
(7)
72 There exists an excess of basketball courts but the restrictions involving the use of many of the
existing basketball facilities makes them unusable much of the time for public play. See Basketball Courts
later in this section.
TJ Swimming pool size varies gready. The data displayed in this table makes no distinction between the
demand for outdoor versus indoor facilities. See Swimming Pools later in this section.
74 Football is often played on multi-purpose practice fields. See Multi-Use Facilities.
113
Table 34
Recreation Facility Needs Analysis
Jefferson City, Missouri
Existing Facilities
Total Activity
Occasions of Capacity in Excess Capacity or
Demand for Activity (Unmet Demand) in
Facility Facilities Nmnber Occasions Activity Occa5ions
Playgrounds 214,709 12 198,000 (16,709)
Playfields!Practice 163,755 1 43,000 (120,755)
Fields
Picnic Tables 155,232 111 106,560 (48,672
Picnic Shelters 102,144 s 96,000 (6,144)
Baseball/Softball 258,419 12 245,280 23,777
Diamonds
Volleyball Courts 41,463 1 9,600 31,863
Basketball Courts 66,679 5 30,000 (36,679)
Handball/ 29,474 4 23,040 (6,434)
Racquetball Courts
Tennis Courts 66,407 11 59,400 (7,007)
Swimming Pools 118,445 2 320,000 201,555
Football Fields 24,570 0 0 (24,570)
Soccer Fields 25,805 2 11,880 (13,925)
Ice Skating Rinks 68,040 1 78,000 10,000
Golf Courses 185,808 1 86,400 (99,408)
Nature Trails 153,292 0 Miles 177,760 24,468
(in miles)
Multi-Purpose 119,448 3.2 Miles 38,400 81,048
Trails
(in miles)
15 See Basketball Courts, later in this section.
76 See Swimming Pools, later in this section.
77 See Multi-Use Facilities, later in this section.
114
Excess Capacity or
(Unmet Demand)
in No. of
Facilities
(1)
(3)
(SO)
0
1
3
(6)75
(1)
(2)
076
(6)77
(2)
0
(1)
1
(5)
~
\ The following narrative provides an analysis of the needs of both City residents and residents
of the Study Area. Specific recreation activities and their associated facilities are grouped in this
discussion according to the type of facility where a given activity takes place.
Mention should also be made of the manner in which the facility need is expressed in the
tables. The unmet demand (shortage) or excess capacity for facility need is expressed in the tables
and noted in the following discussion in terms of the number of facilities. This number is based on
the activity occasions carrying capacity of the type of facility required for the particular activity
involved. In some cases, this yields numbers of facilities which are shown in figures with decimal
extensions. Thus, the tables or the discussion may show a need for 2.6 golf courses.
Obviously, the City or other entities can't practically build two 18-hole golf courses one of
which has an additional number of holes which are the equivalent of six-tenths of a course. In
developing the actual recreation facilities plan for the City, decisions will have to be made about what
facilities to build or expand. These partial facility needs have not been rounded upward at this time
in order that they may provide indicators at later planning stages. For example, in our golf course
scenario the data suggests that there is a need for at least two golf courses to be built to serve the
demand indicated in the Study Area. The additional .6 facility need might be satisfied by building
an additional nine holes at one new facility. Therefore, these figures representing partial facility needs
have been retained without rounding up or down so that later decisions regarding the construction of
facilities can take these partial needs into account.
In reviewing the data presented in Tables 33 and 34, further notation should be made about
the use of this data in developing the Parks and Recreation Plan for the City. The mathematical
calculations used to develop the need analysis results in output which is only as good as the data which
is input and is influenced by the assumptions which are made and current usage patterns of existing
facilities. Some of the factors which affect the data output are discussed below.
The City staff had some difficulty in receiving quality data from respondents to the recreation
facility inventory. Some of the data had to be rechecked and in some instances, had to be re-
inventoried by City staff. An attempt to cross-check the inventory data with that which had been
compiled in the 1990 Missouri SCORP proved to be useless, since gross errors were found to exist
in the data which had been supplied by the State from this work. In addition, in some cases certain
judgments had to be made as to how certain facilities were classified.
Certain biases and judgments are also inherent in the data which evolved from the demand
survey. In spite of attempts to ensure that the structure of the questions regarding recreation activity
participation patterns would evolve unbiased and accurate data, it is likely that some error exists in
115
the data resulting from the different ways in which the respondents might have estimated the ~
recreation activity patterns for themselves and their families.
In light of these comments it is important to understand that the needs for recreation facilities
presented in Tables 33 and 34 should not be taken too literally. It is certain that these tables present
a more accurate reflection of the potential needs of the residents of the City and the Study Area than
would be derived using more abbreviated methods based on generalized and generic "community" data
compiled by others. On the other hand, the actual parks and recreation facilities which are ultimately
recommended in the Parks and Recreation Plan may differ in some instances from the more
mathematically-derived evaluation of potential facilities need which is discussed in the subsequent
pages of this chapter.
Sin1le-Purpose Facilities
The Jefferson City Study Area, as a whole, generally has the ability to meet the identified
demand for recreation facilities. Since this part of the discussion of facility needs will focus on
single-purpose facilities, it is important to first define what this term means. Some recreation facilities
have the capability to support oiily one type of recreation activity. Single-purpose facilities include,
tennis courts, playgrounds, picnic tables and shelters, handball/racquetball courts, swimming pools,
ice rinks, golf courses and nature trails.
For example, ice skating facilities are normally-single purpose facilities since ice skating is
done at ice rinks, and ice rinks would not be used for other activities besides ice skating (although
some outdoor ice skating rinks are converted for use as roller skating rinks in the summer). In
contrast, football, for example, will be discussed under the Multi-Use Facility section. This is
because football play can occur on fields which are also used for other activities such as soccer. This
is particularly the case in Jefferson City where football and soccer activities are conducted on the same
field in many instances. The physical constraints of the topography within much of the area bounded
by the City limits makes it difficult to find land suitable for conducting the activities.
Table 33 shows that there is an unmet demand or shortage for 6 picnic shelters, 2.6 golf
courses and 1.3 miles of nature/interpretive trails. Conversely, the area has a surplus of facilities
including playgrounds, playfields, and tennis courts. As noted above, bear in mind the inventory basis
depicted in this table includes existing facilities in the Study Area owned by all types of providers
(public, semi-public, and private). Therefore, not all of the facilities may be available to the general
public and those which are may not be available at an affordable charge.
116
Table 34 outlines the unmet demand and excess capacity for City-owned facilities. Please note
that the activity occasion demand figures on this table represent the demand of City residents only.
Also, the inventory basis for this table represents only those facilities which are owned by the City.
Since many City facilities do not have a method of controlling access, these facilities are being used
by residents and non-residents alike. In effect, taxes collected from City residents are being used to
"subsidize", or pay for facilities used by non-residents. At the same time, some facilities such as
softball diamonds generate fees through organized league play which partially recover maintenance
and program operating expenses.
Table 34 demonstrates a need for 2 additional tennis courts. However, based on input from
the City Department of Parks and Recreation staff, the shortage occurs primarily on weekends, so a
recommendation for construction of additional courts is not being made at this time.
Analysis of City-owned facilities reveals that the City is in need of 1 additional playground
and 50 picnic tables. Of course, picnic table demand could be met by construction of additional
shelters and the associated tables (8 tables per shelter). The City is in need of 1 more racquetball
court and the equivalent of 1.2 golf courses. Demand for golf is described in more detail under its
own section later in this chapter.
(' Multi-Use Facilities
" '
The Jefferson City Study Area is fortunate in that it has facilities ~hich are multiple use, and
therefore, can be used interchangeably for certain activities (if, in some instances, regulation facility
sizes or field layouts can be ignored). For example, the unmet demand for youth baseball can be met
on softball fields, if activity occasion demand for softball compared against the carrying capacity of
the inventory of existing softball facilities shows that there is excess capacity for these facilities.
In fact, Jefferson City uses these facilities interchangeably. Also, the City is using playfields
owned by other entities to provide space for practice softball and baseball games for its youth baseball
program. The City needs 25 playfield/practice fields to meet this demand, therefore, the number of
playfields needed as displayed on these tables is misleading.
Another such example is the ability to satisfy unmet demand for soccer fields at surplus
playfields. Obviously, each situation where use of facilities for multiple activities is concerned must
be evaluated more specifically than the calculation methodology used herein would suggest. When
it is time to devise an actual plan for the expansion/addition of existing facilities in the later stages
of this planning program, a variety of factors will have to be considered. For example, whether or
117
not there is really an excess of facilities to support a particular activity is related to many factors ~
including the size of the facilities under consideration and where they are located.
The analysis of football activity for the Study Area reveals a special situation. This analysis
concluded that the area was in need of additional football fields, however, it is believed that some of
this need may be artificial. The way in which the household respondent answered this question was
probably more dependent than that for many other activities on what they interpreted to be playing
football. Because football play can occur on practice fields, or even on vacant lots, the activity
occasions of demand for this activity may be somewhat overstated.
Based on the data compiled in the needs analysis, for some activities the Study Area has a
surplus of facilities. The recreation facilities associated with particular activities which have surplus
facilities includes playgrounds, picnic tables and tennis courts, among others. The area is in need of
picnic shelters, indoor pool space, golf courses and nature trails. Golf and nature· trails will be
discussed further under separate golf course needs and trails sections which follow later in this
document.
The City of Jefferson, in general, has more unmet demand for facilities relative to the study
area. Note that for purposes of reviewing unmet demand at the City level, we are concerned with
demand for public facilities. As relates to the Study Area, no determination has been made as to ~
whether or not demand for public fac~ities should be met by the City as opposed to Cole County or
Callaway County or some other public entity. Some further evaluation of this issue can be made once
the City's potential annexation interests are determined. Also, unmet demand for 6 football fields can
be partially met on surplus playfields. Again, certain kinds of play such as "touch" football doesn't
require a formal field. As Table 34 indicates, the City is also in need of a playground, picnic tables,
racquetball and tennis courts and soccer· fields.
Swimming Pools
The Study Area and the City have a surplus of outdoor pool space based on the needs
analysis. Most of this capacity can be met by the large public pools owned by the City, but there are
also several private pools in the area. One of these pools is an indoor facility owned by the YMCA
(the City does not own an indoor pool). Based on the survey data, standards applied in the demand
calculation process, and the heavy usage of this facility, a need for additional indoor pool space for
Jefferson City residents is derived. However, only about half of the activity occasions for swimming
in general occur at public facilities and the rest of the demand is fulfilled at semi-public or private
facilities. Thus, where swimming is concerned, only about half of the overall demand by City
residents needs to be met by the City. This has been traditionally true for swimming as a recreation
118
~ activity and has been supported by other recreation demand surveys which have been done in the
Midwest over the years.
In this instance the survey data and demand calculations are suggesting that there is demand
for indoor swimming facilities which is not being met and which should be met by the City.
However, this demand would only support about half of the carrying capacity of one indoor pool.
Therefore, it is not feasible to build such a facility at this time. This is particularly true given the
apparent excess capacity of outdoor pools within the Study Area and the City. With a combination
of actual population growth and annexation, it might be feasible for the City at some point in the
future to justify the construction of an indoor pool. Although, the City must be mindful of the
typically higher cost of construction, operation, and maintenance of such a facility (compared to
outdoor pools) and would need to recognize the likely need to charge larger fees for its use by
residents and non-residents alike.
Basketball Courts
Analysis of basketbail demand in the Study Area indicates there is a surplus of courts.
However, most of these courts are located in public schools at the elementary and secondary level.
These facilities are often unavailable for use by adults and furthermore may be undesirable for adult
use because they may not be regulation size.
In reviewing City-owned facilities, there appears to be an unmet demand for courts.
However, it is difficult to determine what constituted "public" demand for facilities because the survey
questions defined public facilities as those owned by City, County, or State government. Survey
respondents may not have interpreted play at schools as public use based on this definition. On the
other hand, there may be significant unmet demand because many basketball courts are located in
school gymnasiums. These gymnasiums are usually multi-purpose facilities with other activities (such
as volleyball), which consume some of their use and thus may diminish their ability to provide activity
occasions capacity for basketball.
The Jefferson City Study Area has approximately 9 miles of multi-purpose trails for use by
cyclists and walkers. It is difficult to determine the capacity of activity occasions for a multi-use path
because the number of people who can safely utilize one mile of trail varies greatly depending on the
specific activity. For example, cyclists require much more room to move than walkers or joggers.
Therefore, an activity occasion for cycling requires much more space than an activity occasion for
walking. Even though in our survey there were approximately 2 occasions of walking for every 1
119
occasion of cycling, cyclists still require more trail miles than walkers. Because of this dynamic, it
is best to build multi-use paths sufficient to meet cycling demand by itself. In this scenario, there will
automatically be enough path to meet the demand of walkers, assuming that the path is wide enough
to handle 2 lanes of cyclists and 2 lanes of walkers simultaneously.
Based on this analysis, the study area needs an additional 7 miles of multi-use paths. In
Jefferson City there are 5 miles of public multi-use paths, including City owned miles and mileage
that is part of the KATY Trail within the City limits. Jefferson City is in need of 5 more miles of
multi-use trails. However, if one considers that 1.8 of the 5 miles of existing path belongs to the
KA TY Trail which is inaccessible to the majority of Jefferson City residents except by car (most
residents must transport their bicycles by car across the Highway 54 bridge to access the trail) a case
could be made that more than 5 miles is needed. This additional need could be met by implementing
recommendations of the Greenway Plan which is discussed later in this section.
Golf Course Needs
Some residents cited overcrowded golf facilities as being a problem. A study of golf needs
in the Jefferson City area was conducted by Flatt Golf Services in 1993. The preliminary findings
of this Study indicated that any new public golf course or any new golf holes should possess certain
characteristics. For example, the course should be attractive to all levels of golfers and provide for
4-5 sets of tees on each hole. It should be 4800-6800 yards and should have a fully automatic
irrigation system. Course difficulty should be moderate and teeing areas should vary to offer
challenges to all level of players. It should include a clubhouse with a snack bar/dining area and have
small meeting rooms for tournaments or special events. The City is ·considering several options in
dealing with golf demand. Those include developing a new 18-hole course within Binder Park and/or
acquiring property adjacent to the existing course to build a par 3, nine-hole course. Given the high
demand for golf in the overall Study Area, it is likely that at some time in the future private investors
may also build an additional course if land is available. 78
A successful new municipal public golf course in Jefferson City will need to optimize revenue
opportunities and this will necessitate it being operated differently than most of the existing public golf
courses in the area. The most evident differences ~ould be that typical annual green fees,
membership fees or discount passes should not be offered, daily green fees will need to be higher and
private riding golf carts will not be permitted. Aggressive, professional management will operate the
golf pro shop, driving range and concessions as profit centers and fee structures will be evaluated and
'78 Golf Feasibility Smdy for the City of Jefferson, Missouri-Flatt Golf Services, August 1993.
120
f' modified frequently to insure the revenue flow necessary to sustain the operation, maintenance and
debt payments. 79
Other Park and Recreation Facility Needs
In 1991, the Jefferson City Department of Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee
recommended development of a greenway network. A "greenway" is land that typically runs along
a linear corridor such as a creek, a river or floodplain, a ridge top, or abandoned rail right-of-way.
Ideally, a greenway plan creates a system of such corridors in a coordinated fashion so that, to the
extent possible, residents of a community are within easy access to a greenway and can enjoy its
recreational benefits such as walking or cycling. In addition, a greenway can provide a buffering
effect between land uses and aid in ensuring that open space is provided throughout the community.
In order to implement the greenway system envisioned, the Committee determined that the goals of
the program should include:
• identifying how such a network can benefit the community;
• i~corporating greenway planning into other planning functions; and
• completing a demonstration project.
The Committee report suggested that the greenway network should link and provide access
to city parks, schools, the riverfront, the Capitol, the Moreau River, the KATY Trail and places
where people work. The committee recommended that the city should proceed with a pilot project
in Washington Park to be constructed between Dunklin and Ohio Street. It also recommended
completion of a greenway from the Missouri River through Washington Park to Fairgrounds Road.
If the Greenway Plan is viewed in the light of the needs analysis for trail facilities, the
demand and resulting needs data would suggest that an extensive greenway network is not necessary
to fulfill the demand either in the Study Area or the City. However, if the KA TY Trail is taken out
of consideration in the inventory or its heavy non-resident use is taken into consideration, a greenway
system such as that envisioned by the Committee continues to be a valid concept. In addition, it should
also be noted that the facility needs analysis does not take into account the significant enhancement
such a system would provide for the City's parks facilities. In developing the recreation plan, the
Greenway System Plan will need to be considered along with the need for other facilities which are
required to fulfill unmet demand for other activities.
19 1bid
121
An important element of the Jefferson City Comprehensive Plan process has to do with the
development plan for Adrian Island. This plan was completed in 1990 and is known as the Master
Plan for the Deborah Cooper Riverfront Park on Adrian Island. The major design elements
incorporated into the final master plan include:
• two pedestrian overpasses to the island;
• a river' s-edge pedestrian promenade with various activity nodes;
• recreation open space;
• a grass amphitheater;
• a dredged harbor and excursion boat mooring;
• a visitor concession building; and
• a nature/bicycle trail.
Review of the Plan docu~ent suggests that a significant amount of the recommended
development on the island would be subject to flooding. In recreation planning it has often been a
planning tenet that flood plain areas have ideal development potential for park and recreation facilities.
This tenet has been based on the notion that if the facilities developed are not of a major nature
involving buildings or other extensive facilities that occasional flooding would be "acceptable". As
can be seen from the list above, the Adrian Island plan contains some costly and significant
improvements (estimated to cost $7-8 million), some of which are necessary simply to provide access ~
to the island.
As a result of the floods of 1993 throughout the midwest but particularly in Missouri, the
advisability of development of any kind in a flood plain is being re-thought. In addition, city Parks
and Recreation operations are typically strapped for operating, maintenance, and new facility
development monies. Jefferson City's situation is not an exception to this condition. In many parts
of the State (particularly in the St. Louis area), expenditures for cleaning up and repairing park and
recreation facilities which were located in the Mississippi and Missouri floodplains amounted to
millions of dollars. In light of these factors, it may be prudent for the City to review the Adrian
Island plan to determine if the development program continues to be valid in its current form (or if
development is desirable at all). This _review should be carried out before the recreation plan is
finalized so that a determination can be made as to what extent park and recreation use of the island
is appropriate, and more importantly, whether or not facilities can be developed which will serve any
of the recreation facility needs of the community.
122