HomeMy Public PortalAbout2004 - Capital Area Partnership for Planned Growth 4 ...
Capital Area Partnership for Planned Growth
North st Hwy. 54
1111
ifiling.1 S
Southwesta„,„
re WA"1 I ____.„
do
*.c:16,, South 8 East . 50
CAPITAL AREA PARTNERSHIP FOR
PLANNED GROWTH
FINAL REPORT
October 8, 2004
9
I. INTRODUCTION
In the aftermath of the April 2003 annexation campaign, opponents and proponents of
that annexation proposal met to establish common ground. The purpose was not just to heal the
divisions created during the campaign, but also to develop a vision and plan for the future of the
entire Capital Area. As a result of a meeting on the day after the April election, the Capital Area
Partnership for Planned Growth(CAPPG) was formed.
The CAPPG consists of 14 residents of the Capital Area representing homeowners, city
and county businesses, city and county government, real estate development, and community
investment as follows:
Mike Bates Bill Emersen Tom Piper
Michael Berry Ken Ferguson Ed Rackers
Gordon Butler Bob Jones Chuck Weber
Juanita Donahue John Kuebler Chris Yarnell
Marc Ellinger Dick Otke
The CAPPG began its extensive set of meetings in May, 2003, operating under the
following mission statement:
"To create a dynamic vision for business enrichment, community advancement and
cooperative growth in and around the greater Jefferson City area."
This mission was to be achieved through the following processes:
• Inventory the valuable public resources in and around the greater Jefferson City area;
• Evaluate, compare and contrast the unmet needs, desires and resources of businesses
and residents in:
- the City of Jefferson, and
- the unincorporated population clusters in the area;
• Identify Jefferson City area growth trends and patterns from 1972-2022; and
Page 2of 19
II'
C
Z
• Compile optional business and community expansion strategies including voluntary and
voter-approved annexation, city and county zoning, municipal and county ordinances,
and others.
The Partnership then divided into three distinct sub-committees to focus in more detail on
specific issues implicit in the mission statement. Those subcommittees were as follows:
• Voluntary Annexation Subcommittee,
• Coordination of Services Subcommittee, and
• Neighborhood Needs Assessment Subcommittee.
Each subcommittee was given a specific mission with the overriding consideration to be:
"How can the Capital Area grow in the future?" The following report incorporates the
observations and actions of these subcommittees. The final segment of this report is a set of
recommendations and conclusions on behalf of the Partnership as a whole. The universal goal of
di these conclusions and recommendation is to foster cooperative growth in the Capital Area.
J
Page 3of 19
it
•
d
II. OBSERVATIONS
A. Voluntary Annexation Subcommittee
1. Scope
This subcommittee studied the considerations impacting decisions to voluntarily annex land
into the City of Jefferson. It concluded that most viable opportunities for voluntary annexation
involve the following:
• Tracts of land being considered for commercial or residential development;
• Existing commercial properties owned by a single entity; and
• Individual residences located on acreages.
Other land uses generally do not represent good prospects for voluntary annexation for
several reasons. For instance, the owner of agricultural land being held for agricultural purposes
typically stands little to gain from city services. Fully-developed residential subdivisions are also
not good candidates because of the difficulty in gaining consent from a large number of
individual owners. Moreover, the specific topic of developed subdivisions is addressed by the
subcommittee studying neighborhood needs. This subcommittee's decision to focus on larger
tracts of land having few owners does not discount the importance of good faith efforts at getting
consent from the residents of a subdivision before proceeding with voter-approved annexation.
In fact, it is strongly encouraged.
2. Major considerations impacting voluntary annexation decisions
A number of individuals in the business of commercial and residential development
expressed concern about two things: the complexity of the City's construction permitting and
approval process, and the prospect of onerous storm water management and funding.
43
JI
Page 4of 19
Historically, developers have found the process of permitting and approval by Cole
County to be more streamlined than in Jefferson City. They have found:
• The County's system involves fewer different individuals in the process;
• The County's standards are more consistently applied;
• The County's approval process is more easily understood, particularly by people who
do not often go through the permitting process; and
• The County's planning and building fees are also somewhat lower than the City's.
These considerations weigh heavily against a property owner requesting annexation in
advance of planned development of unimproved land.
Storm water management raises the prospect of requiring substantial investment in
retention and mitigation measures during the process of constructing improvements. This
consideration is particularly significant on projects having a high ratio of impervious surface to
undisturbed ground, and those located in high-runoff areas. The City's storm water plan has not
yet reached a stage where funding mechanisms are ready to be put in place. Thus, the potential
future cost of participating in a storm water utility is uncertain. These two related considerations
weigh against a property owner requesting annexation for property which either has been
developed or is planned for development.
One consideration weighing in favor of developing land within the City is expanded
coverage by the City's police and fire departments. Businesses wanting to locate near the City,
but which were ineligible for annexation because their properties were not contiguous, had
requested and were granted assurance that the City would provide fire and police protection as a
condition of locating facilities in the area. Businesses contemplating new construction in the area
have approached the City about annexation, such as St. Mary's Hospital which has successfully
Page Sof 19
i
worked with the City to voluntarily annex approximately 108 acres located on Highway 179.
4 Wal-Mart, which contemplates locating east of the City, has also indicated a desire to be annexed
if its current plans continue to move forward.
Sewer service is a compelling consideration weighing in favor of voluntary annexation.
The City operates most of the public sewer service surrounding Jefferson City. As a condition of
connecting to the City's sewer system, City ordinances require a contiguous landowner to
petition to voluntarily annex. While the CAPPG, as a whole, does not take a position with
respect to the validity or appropriateness of the City's policy regarding the sewer system it
operates; individual members do have varying opinion on this issue. Ever more stringent water
quality regulations imposed by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources and the United
States Environmental Protection Agency, discourage operating most types of private sewer
systems in areas already served by public systems such as the one offered by the City.
1 A cluster of lesser considerations are tax related. Property taxes are higher in the City
than the County. Also, sales in the City are subject to a higher sales tax rate than that imposed in
the County. These differences were not considered in evaluating whether to annex properties of
the sort being here considered.
Members of the subcommittee shared anecdotes about the inefficiency of duplicating
governmental authority and services and also electrical service within and immediately around
Jefferson City. So long as land owners having property adjoining Jefferson City have the ability
to "pick and choose" among jurisdictions for various services, such as electrical utilities. some
will choose services provided by or available in the County over those in the City. Removing the
regulatory distinction between the two and regionalizing fundamental services like sewer, will
remove many of the significant impediments to voluntary annexation. It is hoped that the greater
Page 6of 19
It
1
I.
efficiency to be gained by eliminating duplicative government will also be an incentive for
4
businesses and residents to encourage municipal growth.
B. Coordination of Services Subcommittee
The Coordination of Services Subcommittee conducted separate meetings with the two
primary utility providers in the Capital Area: AmerenUE and Three Rivers Electric. Other
meetings were also conducted with law enforcement officials and fire protection providers for
the City of Jefferson and Cole County.
This subcommittee has found a number of areas in which coordination of services would
be beneficial to taxpayers and consumers by improving efficiency and responsiveness. Continued
meetings between City and County representatives will work to resolve issues that may arise and
facilitate coordination and consolidation of services in the Capital Area. The recommendations
incorporate the findings of this subcommittee.
C. Neighborhood Needs Assessment Subcommittee
The Neighborhood Needs Assessment Subcommittee designed two major sequential
efforts as their primary techniques for gathering the information to be evaluated. The first was a
general survey of residents in and around Jefferson City, to be followed by a series of feedback
neighborhood and community meetings to evaluate, clarify and detail the findings.
On January 13, 2004, the Neighborhood Needs Assessment Survey was distributed in
21,000 Jefferson City News-Tribune newspapers throughout the greater Jefferson City area.
After two months of reminders and collection, a total of 1,034 responses were received.
In the second effort, four neighborhood and community meetings were held from
November 2003 to April 2004 in order to provide a personal opportunity for people to express
11
Page 7of 19
their opinions and reactions to the surveys, area growth and speculations about the future growth
4 of the Capital Area.
A previous report was issued, by the subcommittee, extensively detailing the results of
the survey and meetings; copies of that report are available upon request. The following
provides details as to the background of the report, the survey that gathered broad input, and the
community meetings that examined the results and provided insight into the community's
preferences.
1. Survey Description
The survey results were summarized into six separate reports. Each of these (except the
Overall Report) included a survey report (a 2-page tabulation of responses), and a detailed listing
of written comments (grouped by service, priority, growth and tax topics). The reports are listed
as follows:
- Overall (all 1,034 responses),
- Jefferson City (city respondents only),
-Northwest Area (north of Hwy. 50 and west of Hwy. 54),
- Southwest Area (south of Hwy. 50 and west of Hwy. 54),
- South & East Area (east of Hwy. 54), and
- Outside Jefferson City area(Brazito, Holts Summit and others).
The results from the first page of the Survey provided a net "satisfied" or "needed"
conclusion for various services. The second page of the Survey Report reflected the priorities
expressed for"issues" and "growth."
11
J
Page 8of 19
2. Survey Analysis of Services with Community Meeting Reactions
4Initially, the Survey was analyzed to see how people felt about Services. Responses were
checked by those "satisfied" or"needed" as shown below:
NEED
CATEGORY SATISFIED NEEDED WEIGHT
Other 33 63 65.6%
Sidewalks 570 389 40.6%
Planning 509 345 40.4%
Zoning 541 329 37.8%
Streets Maintenance 632 341 35.0%
Stormwater Drainage 625 326 34.3%
Street Lights 662 304 31.5%
Traffic Signals 657 297 31.1%
Animal Control 671 281 29.5%
Curb and Guttering 691 266 27.8%
Weed Control 655 249 27.5%
Parks&Recreation 700 248 26.2%
Construction Inspection 631 215 25.4%
Public Transportation 715 230 24.3%
Sewer 765 207 21.3%
Emergency Sirens 749 196 20.7%
Law Enforcement 822 165 16.7%
Business Inspections 592 112 15.9%
al Snow Removal 834 144 14.7%
Fire Hydrants 824 126 13.3%
Trash Service 877 110 11.1%
First Responders 795 57 6.7%
Fire Protection 921 63 6.4%
Transportation and land use issues were serious concerns of a large percentage of the area
residents. On the other hand, public safety and refuse removal are highly regarded in the Capital
City area since they are at the bottom of the list. The "Other" service is a mixture of many issues
and is not statistically significant.
The first neighborhood meeting was held on November 2, 2003, in the Capitol Hills
subdivision with much discussion about speeding cars, loud sound systems and lack of
streetlights in this area next to the City.
al
.11
Page 9of 19
The community meeting for the Northwest Area was held on April 15, 2004, at Solid
4 Rock Family Church where participants discussed their concerns. Many concluded that County
officials should expand their agreement with the City to improve animal control.
The community meeting for the Southwest Area was held on April 22, 2004, at First
Assembly of God Church gymnasium with many concerns raised. Many concluded that
annexation should the issue, but that better community input and planning was needed with a
"Need to be proactive, not reactive." Discussion also focused on street lights as a priority issue
in certain neighborhoods.
The community meeting for the South and East Area was held on April 29, 2004, at
Lewis and Clark Middle School, 8th Grade Commons. After considerable discussion, many
concluded that planning and zoning were very significant issues. Others believed that much
could be learned from excellent examples accomplished in other cities.
410 3. Survey Analysis of Growth and Funding Reactions
Initially, the second page of the Survey was analyzed to see how people felt about
"growth" and "finding". Respondents ranked the items in the list of"local issue priorities" and
the list of"kinds of growth." Economic development and street repair were the highest priorities
for the total survey.
The respondents overall preferred general and capital improvement sale/use taxes and
user fees far above all other types of taxes to pay for new or expanded services.
Community meetings and written comments generally supported these conclusions
throughout the various areas, with minor differences.
3
Page l0of 19
III. RECOMMENDATIONS
Throughout the course of the subcommittees' work and discussions between the
Partnership and various entities, it was clear that economic development was universally viewed
as the most important issue facing the Capital Area. This does not mean simply new business
imagery and ideas, but also involves the actual bringing of new jobs, new plants and new
buildings to the Capital Area. Accordingly, the following recommendations illustrate how the
Capital Area should seek to maximize its existing resources to bring in new businesses while
maintaining and protecting existing businesses, and assure that area growth has the enthusiastic
and visionary participation of all area residents.
Boiled down to their base, these recommendations reflect the need for a shift in attitude
and willingness to find ways to make our community grow. That shift must be from "finding"
reasons NOT to make changes to a commitment to do "WHATEVER IT TAKES" to make our
di community better for everyone. Simply put, we cannot continue with "business as usual" if we
wish to see our community grow and thrive. With this in mind, we make the following
recommendations to the local governments in the Capital Area:
A. Create Business Friendly Climate within Local Governments.
The most important growth issue is ensuring that local governments, through their staffs,
foster a pro-business growth environment. The City of Jefferson and Cole County should both
ensure that their staffs are motivated to remove impediments to maintaining and expanding
existing businesses, as well as encouraging growth through new businesses. Ultimately, if
government staff does its job properly, growth will be fostered; unfortunately, this does not
always occur. Thus where issues may arise that have the effect of restraining growth, elected
all officials should be the ultimate arbiters, making such decisions only after careful study and
Page l lof 19
significant public comment. With respect to growth and development issues, the City of
Jefferson and Cole County should focus on "guidance", rather than "restrictions", unless
substantial causes exist to mandate restrictions on development.
B. Consolidation of Services.
The existing patchwork of different regulatory jurisdictions exercising authority within
the greater Jefferson City area should be integrated to help stimulate voluntary annexation,
encourage overall economic activity in the area, and improve operational efficiencies. There are
a number of services offered by public entities which frequently overlap and occasionally
conflict with each other. Consolidation and regionalization among such public entities is crucial
to successful future development.
Within the Capital Area, all local governmental entities having any authority for
regulating land use or providing essential services should participate in plans to consolidate as
much as possible. A single authority over activities like the construction permitting process,
sewer systems, storm water mitigation, business inspection, law enforcement and fire protection
would be the goal. There would be a more cost-effective and progressive means of operating
local government by taking the following steps:
1. The construction permitting process should be handled by a single entity
rather than having the City and the County each using a separate staff to
provide the same service.
2. Public Works resources of the City of Jefferson and Cole County should
be consolidated to achieve savings for taxpayers through reduction in
staff, efficiencies in operations, and more responsive improvements. This
Page 12of 19
consolidation should include the City Street and County Road and Bridge
Departments to provide the most efficient use of valuable resources.
3. Fire protection and law enforcement services should be more closely
coordinated to achieve efficiencies and improve and expand the public
services coverage and responsiveness across the Capital Area.
4. Review existing state laws to determine the legality of establishing a
"metropolitan area" and providing services jointly or on a consolidated
basis within it. To the extent changes in the law are necessary to enable
progress in this fashion, the City and County should pursue passage of
such legislation.
C. Establish a Land Use Plan.
A comprehensive joint plan for growth and development in the Capital Area is a
4 necessity to insure planned growth across our community. The City and County should jointly
identify and designate the geographic area in which the most concentrated hon-agricultural
economic activity exists and is likely to develop within the greater Jefferson City area. Such plan
must be continually monitored and updated to reflect actual growth patterns in and around the
Capital Area.
The City should also develop a plan reflecting the proposed use of land adjacent to the
city limits. This would allow individuals who may be considering voluntary annexation to know,
in advance, what the authorized land use of their property would be if annexation were pursued.
The City should set up an appeal process for these designations prior to the land being annexed
into the City.
Page 13of 19
Similarly, the County should update its Master Plan to correspond with the City Land
Use Plan allowing County residents to take a lead in the uses in unincorporated areas of the
County.
D. Develop a Regional Storm Water Plan.
Storm water remediation is a key impediment to business expansion within the city limits
and is a growing issue in the area surrounding Jefferson City. The Capital Area is bounded by a
finite number of water courses into which all storm water must flow. Growth, most of which
creates new hard surfaces, will continue to compound the storm water runoff problem across this
area. A regional storm water utility would serve to control the storm water problem, encourage
growth in areas appropriate for storm water control, offer recreation options through retention
pools, and provide other storm water control features.
E. Encourage Voluntary Annexation by City of Jefferson.
A "brick-by-brick" approach is the ideal way for the City of Jefferson to grow.
Voluntary annexation, in a controlled environment with proper organization and planning, will
ensure growth of the City in a manner that is beneficial to the entire Capital Area. Involuntary
annexation should only be utilized as a course of last resort to either bring in key parcels of land
with existing or current development or for other similarly exigent reasons. Involuntary
annexation should be of the most limited size as is possible to achieve the important goals.
Priority areas for such encouragement include the Highway 179 corridor, the Highway 50 area
east of Jefferson City, and the Edgewood Drive area. Jefferson City should work with other
bordering local governments to encourage planned growth.
J
Page 14of 19
F. Obtain Public Input before Making Decisions.
All of the above noted recommendations are contingent upon public impact being
assessed, public comment being elicited, and consensus being obtained. While it is impossible to
secure unanimous support for most economic or growth issues, public opinion should be
assessed and incorporated prior to any plan being proposed. Input should design the plan; not the
plan designed before input.
G. Improve Responsiveness of Specific Services.
For each of the specific services addressed below, the cost considerations must be
addressed at the time the services are planned. While the great majority of respondents to the
survey indicated a preference for sales taxes and user fees, it is important for all residents to have
input on the funding mechanism for the desired services. Ultimately, if no funding is provided
and mutually agreed upon, then the services cannot reasonably be expected to be provided by
4110 local governments.
1. Sidewalks should continue to be a priority in the City for both repair and replacement of
existing pavement, as well as establishment of new walkways, particularly on Missouri
Boulevard, around schools and at major shopping areas; developers of housing areas
around Jefferson City should be encouraged to include sidewalks in their developments.
2. Animal control in areas around Jefferson City should be improved by augmenting the
current city/county agreement to provide greater coverage or regionalizing the service.
3. Street light plans should be developed (complete with locations and costs) for trafficways
and subdivisions adjacent to the City.
4. Emergency siren effectiveness and locations should be reassessed in the perimeter around
Jefferson City to maximize early notification for storms and such.
J
Page 15of 19
5. Traffic patrol needs to be improved in neighborhoods near the City, particularly in high
concentrations of rental property, to reduce speeding and excessive noise.
6. A street repair hotline should be established for the reporting and fixing of potholes,
street degradation, and other street maintenance concerns to keep City and County
officials well-informed of citizen concerns and to prioritize maintenance schedules.
7. Existing taxes for community services should rely more on general and capital
improvement sales/use taxes and user fees to cover the costs of expanded services.
H. Negotiate Annexation of the Highway 179 Corridor.
The Highway 179 Corridor (from Highway 50 to Route B) is a crucial area of the
economic growth of the Capital Area and of the City of Jefferson. This corridor will present
significant development opportunities (such as St. Mary's Hospital) and increased traffic flow.
The Highway 179 and Highway 54 interchange will be one of the most valuable intersections in
di the Capital Area. This area is critical to the future of Jefferson City and to the planned growth
across the Capital Area. Thus the City should immediately begin discussions with affected
landowners in order to annex significant parts of the Highway 179 Corridor. The corridor itself
has few residences that immediately adjoin Highway 179 and expansion could be achieved with
limited costs to the City of Jefferson. However, discussions should also be expedited with
residents of the adjacent subdivisions, within the Highway 179 loop, to determine what specific
services are needed in residential areas considered for annexation in order to afford the residents
with services comparable to similar areas located within the boundaries of Jefferson City.
I. Motivate Utility Providers to Reach Agreements.
The major utility providers within the Capital Area have not reached cooperative
territorial agreements for local service. This lack of agreement has resulted in a disruption of
3
Page 16of 19
t
growth and is a significant impediment to economic development and related growth. Statutory
limitations act to retard negotiations on such territorial agreements. The City (as well as the
County) should more enthusiastically work to achieve these territorial agreements. If parties are
recalcitrant in reaching such agreements, then local governments should encourage the General
Assembly to repeal the statutes which impede the interest of one utility to negotiate with the
other major provider.
J. Other Annexations Should be Smaller and Carefully Planned
At certain times the City must pursue involuntary annexation. However, the City should
seek to annex small areas and insure that careful input from the residents of such areas are
solicited and acted upon prior to initiating such an annexation. If any significant annexation is
suggested by the City Council, an in-depth process to communicate with residents, both in the
affected area proposed to be annexed and within the City, must take precedence. Only after such
a process and after a set of joint recommendations, endorsed by both city and representatives of
the proposed annexation residents, should the City proceed to develop a plan of intent and start
the annexation process.
.11
Page 17of 19
IV. CONCLUSIONS
It is the opinion of the Capital Area Partnership for Planned Growth that the findings,
conclusions and recommendations in this report enrich existing business, encourage new
businesses to come to the Capital Area, and allow planned growth to benefit all affected
residents.
Although the initial mission of this Partnership has been accomplished, we stand
individually and collectively ready to assist in the implementation of the various aspects of this
effort. We know that funding must be found, priorities must be set, and more agreements forged
in order to accomplish much of this; yet, through this and other reports, we are confident that
cooperative neighborly growth and improvements are a viable and achievable vision for our
future.
•
S
Page 18of 19
For these reasons, on this 8th day of October, 2004, we unanimously endorse and
distribute the recommendations in this report:
4
A , / •
uizA, c8x
ar llin Ii-r, Chair ifike Bates
\\\ .‘ ‘
ft
L.a. '/
Michael Berry ordon Bur G�?G` � �(/
i .ta Donahue Bill Emerson
Sa1u... .IL 16/i.,._ :,
en Ferguson Bob Jon:.'
II
1 i�/_/
:. . Kueb -r r he ttie
fliA .e.,Igt2 acrAntia_
Tom 'iper Ed Rackers
% it A S� a Lod
. .c Weber s Yarne
3
Page 19 of 19