HomeMy Public PortalAbout1996 - Annexation Plan 7 CF JEFFEIR
�.
All
1996,ANNEX TION=PLAN I
:CITY ,OF JEFFERSON;. MISSOURI
i
I
RESOLUTION
-� RS 96-12
i .
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF JEFFERSON, MISSOURI, ACCEPTING AND
ADOPTING AN ANNEXATION PLAN AS PART OF THE CITY'S OFFICIAL 1996
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Jefferson is responsible for establishing overall
j and active policies to guide City,development; and
�+ WHEREAS, a plan for incorporating additional land into the City is reasonable and
necessary for guiding the physical growth, development, and prosperity of
the City of Jefferson; and
r-,
WHEREAS, the -Planning and Zoning Commission adopted the Jefferson City
Annexation Plan, 1996 as part of the Official 1996 Comprehensive Plan
Update, after review and after holding a public hearing as required by law:
t_.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
JEFFERSON, MISSOURI, that the Jefferson City Annexation Plan, 1996, A Technical
Report, containing an Executive Summary;
Recommendations; Annexation Priority Map;
Statistical Summary; Revenue and Cost Summary; Evaluation of Annexation Potential;
Tabulated Annexation Evaluation; Descriptions and Evaluations for Thirteen Areas; and the
Annexation Study Area Map,Jefferson City, 1996, showing potential annexation areas
and suggested priority areas; is hereby adopted as part of the Official 1996 Comprehensive
Plan Update for the City of Jefferson, Missouri.
1
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and
directed to endorse the acceptance of said Jefferson City Annexation Plan, 1996, as
part of the Official 1996 Comprehensive Plan Update for the City of Jefferson, Missouri,
and to certify the approval of said Jefferson City Annexation Plan,, 1996 under the seal
of the City of Jefferson.
Adopted this,-�Rh-Iday of b e ce, �e r , 1996.
Duane E. Schreimann, Mayor
�i
ST: APP"ED FORM:
t Phyllis Powell, City Clerk B. Allen r, City Co nse or
F",
�r
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF JEFFERSON, MISSOURI
- ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING AN ANNEXATION PLAN
AS PART OF THE CITY'S OFFICIAL 1996 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
R WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission is responsible for the update and adoption of
the Comprehensive Plan for guiding the physical growth and development of the City
of Jefferson;
WHEREAS, a plan for incorporating additional land into the City is reasonable and necessary for
guiding the physical growth, development, and prosperity of the City of Jefferson;
WHEREAS, a Jefferson City Annexation Plan, 1996 has been prepared by D. R. Preston,
i Consultant, for inclusion in the City's Comprehensive Plan;
, f
WHEREAS, the Planriing-and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on November 7, 1996, on
the adoption of the Jefferson City Annexation Plan, 1996, as part of the City's
Comprehensive Plan;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF JEFFERSON,MISSOURI, that the Jefferson City Annexation Plan, 1996,A
I Technical Report, containing descriptive matter and maps relating to Annexation Priorities;
j Statistical Summaries;Revenue and Cost Summaries; Evaluation of Annexation Potential; Tabulated
Annexation Evaluation;Descriptions and Evaluations for Thirteen Areas; and the Annexation Study
Area Map,Jefferson City, 19969 showing potential annexation areas and'suggested priority areas;
is hereby adopted as part of the official 1996 Comprehensive Plan Update for the City of Jefferson,
Missouri
Adopted this'-4 -day of 1996.
Gary W. Duffy, Chairman
ATTEST:
F
Karen J. Ke y, Secretary
I !
l_ I
t
C
JEFFERSON CITY
ANNEXATION PLAN
I
1996
r�
`s I
� 4
li
A TECHNICAL REPORT
for
THE CITY OF JEFFERSON, MISSOURI
BY
D. R. PRESTON, CONSULTANT
I
r-,
DECEMBER, 1996
I '
I_
D. R. Preston, Consultant
816 South Summit Drive
Holts Summit, MO 65043
573-896-4537
i +
Fill
December 3, 1996
Mayor and City Council
City of Jefferson, Missouri
RE: Annexation Study
Dear Elected Officials:
I am pleased to submit the "Jefferson City Annexation Plan, 1996". In
j this report potential annexation areas, reasonable and necessary to the
t ' City's growth and prosperity, are identified and prioritized.
I �
The thirteen selected study areas surround the City and vary in size
j from less than 20 acres to over 2,400 acres. The study involved field
su,rveys, cost and revenue analyses, and the use of evaluation criteria:
Areas which were prioritized are:
PRIORITY ONE
1 --Area One (Ventura)
--Area Eight (Frog Hollow)
r-; --Area Twelve (Algoa)
PRIORITY TWO
i --Area Five (Rainbow)
--Area Six (Big Horn)
PRIORITY THREE
--Area Two (Rt 179)
�i PRIORITY FOUR
--Area Seven (Westview)
Fi,
Fi
-`1
The estimated population and size of the three Priority One areas are
3,356 and 7.2 square miles. The combined figures for all prioritized areas
are: estimated.population, 7,088;-and size, nine square miles.
r
! How many areas the City chooses to annex is a decision of the City
Council. The content of the annexation report and advice from the City
Administrator and Department Directors will assist,the Council in the
decision making process.
Respectfully submitted,
D. R. Preston, Consultant
li
Ir
r1
1'
r�
r-}
1 ,
n
't f
r -
j CITY COUNCIL
Duane Schreimann, Mayor
Ward 1: Charles W. Jackson Ward 3: Carl Jaynes
-, John D. Landwehr, Chairman Randy Kammercffener
J Annexation Committee Jerry J. Green(past member)
Ward 2: James Haake Ward 4: Rick Nilges
Steve Nelson Carolyn McDowell
Mary Hayes Bertel(past member)
Laura Moeller(past member)
Ward 5: Bill Byrd
Larry Vincent
,r-
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
li
Gary Duffy, Chairman
Mike Berendzen Ken Kuster
Don Connor David Nunn
I David Hagen John Parker
Karen Keeney Lois Pohl
Larry Kolb Bob Pratt
c
! CITY STAFF PARTICIPANTS
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
Richard Mays, City Administrator William Lockwood,Director
LAW DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
( � Allen Gamer, City Counselor Marty Brose,P.E., Director
Donna White,Associate City Counselor John L Kramer,P.E.,R.L.S.,Engineering Division Director
Tom Wallace, Wastewater Division Director
FIRE DEPARTMENT
DEPARTMENT OF
j Robert Renick, Fire Chief PLANNING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT
POLICE DEPARTMENT Keith A. DeVault.Director
Tyler Brewer,Police Chief Janice O.McMillan,Senior Planner
'
i
f
� t
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION / EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................ 1
Recommendations................................................................................. 3
Annexation Priority Map.............. 4
3 Statistical Summary of Priority Areas...................................................
13
f Revenue and Cost Summary for All Areas............................................ 15
AreasNot Prioritized............................................................................. 16
-Evaluating Annexation Potentials......................................................... 16
Tabulated Annexation Evaluation......................................................... 18
Adoption................................................................................................ 19
ThinkAbout It........................................................................................ 20
CHAPTER ONE, Proposed Mail Ridge Annexation, Area One................................ 21
I !
Estimated Revenue..................:
EstimatedCosts................................................................................. 27
Evaluating Annexation Potential.................................................... 28
CHAPTER TWO, Descriptions and Evaluations, Areas Two through Thirteen...... 32
j Area Two (Route-179)
Area Th ree(Schumate Chapel)................................................... 37
Area Four(Scott Station).............................................................. 42
Area Five(Rainbow,East)............................................................. 46
Area Fi ve-A(Rainbow,West)....................................................... 51
AreaSix (BigHom)......................................................................... 56
Area Seven (Westview)............................................................... 61
Area Eight (Frog Hollow)............................................................... 69
AreaNine (RouteCC)................................................................... 88
} Area Ten Seven Hills/Wilmor
Area Eleven (SchottRoad)........................................................... 99
l ' -
Area, Twelve (AlgoaRoad)........................................................... 102
Area Thirteen (Riveria/RtAC).................................................... 111,
l �
CHAPTER THREE, Revenue and Cost Comparisons
- SpecifiedCosts................................................................................... 116
FFunds for General Government........................................................ 118
Revenue and CostSummary........................................................... 120
Synopsis....................'. ............---......................................
........... 121
AreaOne(Ventura)......................................................................... 123
�! Area Two (Route179).....................................................................124
i Area Three (Schumate Chapel)...................................................125
Area Four (ScottStation)............................................................... 126
` Area Five (Rainbow)
......... 127
AreaFive-A (Gateway).................................................................. 128
AreaSix (Big Horn)......................................................................... 129
Area Seven (Westview)................................................................. 130
s
I Area Eight (Frog Hollow)............................................................... 131
AreaNine (RouteCC).................................................................... 132
t Area Ten (Seven Hills/Wilmor)
....................................... 133
ri
Area Eleven (SchottRoad)........................................................... 134
i 4 Area Twelve (AI oaRoad
)............................................................135
Area Thirteen (Riveria/RtAC).............................. . .................... 136
APPENDIX.............................................................................................13 7
-- BIBLIOGRAPHY..................................................................................... 139
COMPANIONREPORTS........................................................................ 139
l `
1
f
i S
INDEX TO TABLES
Tables pace
PROPOSED MALL RIDGE ANNEXATION (AREA ONE)
1 Dwelling Units 24
2 Land Uses 24
3 Projections 25
4 Estimated Revenues 26
I AREA TWO - (ROUTE 179)
1 Dwelling Units 33
2 Projections 33
3 Land Uses 34
4 Estimated Revenues 35
I�1
AREA THREE - (SCHUMATE CHAPEL)
1 Dwelling Units 37
2 Projections 38
3 Land Uses 38
4 Estimated Revenues 39
AREA FOUR - (SCOTT STATION)
1 Dwelling Units 42
2 Projections 42
3 Land.Uses 43
4 Estimated Revenues 44
AREA FIVE - (RAINBOW-EAST)
' 1 Dwelling Units 46
2 Projections 47
3 Land Uses 47
4 Estimated Revenues 48
AREA FIVE-A - (RAINBOW-WEST)
1 Dwelling Units 51
2 Projections 52
3 Land Uses 52
4 Estimated Revenues 54
AREA SIX - (BIG HORN)
! j 1 Dwelling Units 56
2 Projections 57
r , 3 Land Uses 57
4 Estimated Revenues 59
'L 4
r--
I
INDEX (continued)
Tables Pade
AREA SEVEN - (WESTVIEW)
1 Dwelling Units 61
- 2 Projections 62
3 Land Uses 63
4 Estimated Revenues 65
AREA EIGHT- (FROG HOLLOW)
_ 1 East Sector, Dwelling Units 73
2 East Sector, Projections 74
3 East Sector, Land Uses' 74
4 Central Sector, Dwelling Units 76
5 Central Sector, Projections 77
6 Central Sector, Land Uses 78
7 West Sector, Dwelling Units 80
8 West Sector, Projections 81
9 West Sector, Land Uses 81
10 Consolidated Projections 83
11 Consolidated Land Uses 83
12 Estimated Revenue 84
AREA NINE- (ROUTECC)
1 Dwelling Units 88
2 Projections 89
3 Land Uses S9
4 Estimated Revenues 90
AREA TEN- (SEVEN HILLS%WILMOR)
1 Dwelling Units 93
2 Projections 94
3 Land Uses 94
_ 4 Estimated Revenues 96
AREA ELEVEN - (SCHOTT)
1 Land Uses 99
2 Estimated Revenues 100
AREA TWELVE- (ALGOA)
1 Dwelling Units 103
2 Projections 104
3 Land Uses 104
4 Estimated Revenues 107
AREA THIRTEEN- (RIVERIA/Rt AC)
1 Dwelling Units 111
2 Projections 112
3 Land Uses 112
4 Estimated Revenues 113
F),
U
r ,
V
l
_ - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
i' THE JEFFERSON CITY ANNEXATION ANALYSIS
The purpose of this study is to identify areas which, if annexed, would best con-
tribute to the continued well being of Jefferson,City and its citizens. In this report
potential annexation areas, reasonable and necessary,to the City's.growth and pros-
perity, are identified and prioritized. Thirteen areas were selected for study and eval-
uation; one of these areas-was divided into two sub-areas. All.areas, except one
sub-area, have a boundary common to the current city limits. The selected study areas
surround the City and vary in size from less than 20 acres to over 2,400 acres. Each
area has individual characteristics and specific attributes.
Area One, the Ventura Area in the northwest part of the City, was the first
selected for study. An Area One draft report was prepared and reviewed by City staff,
for content,and completeness. Work did not commence on subsequent areas until
j after the Area One review was finished.
The first step in., all study areas was to conduct a visual field survey., The base
for the field surveys were 1980 aerial photo-maps superimposed with current street, lot
h
a S and other land lines. By using the dated photos.it was possible to identify and quantify
the urban growth which has occurred over the past 15 years in each study area. In
the course-of the field surveys, land uses were identified, types and conditions of local
streets noted, and specific facilities., such as street lights and fire hydrants were located
on the photo .maps. Current land use and lot size information was obtained from the
.d
field surveys. Land use quantities were measured and tabulated. This information.
was used in formulating zoning recommendations and in making buildout estimates.,
r
Current population estimates were made. These were based on existing dwell-
ing unit counts and a 2.72_persons per dwelling unit factor. Comparison of current
] and past dwelling counts facilitated making growth projections. In most instances
dwelling unit and population projections were made by the.straight line method. -Pro-
F);
Pro-
F__;
a
k,.
jections were valuable in calculating future revenues. Current and projected revenue
estimates were made for each area. Revenue sources considered were property tax,
sales tax, gross receipts tax, gasoline tax, user fees, and fines/permits. Revenues
were projected in five year increments to the year 2005. The City's current budget was
an important source document in the revenue estimating phase. Basic descriptions of
revenue estimating procedure are found in the Area One Appendix. t
The adopted_city budget was also an important tool in arriving at costs the City
can anticipate incurring if particular areas are annexed. Other cost data was obtained i
from City department directors. A revenue-cost comparison sheet is included for each
potential annexation area: In the comparisons.it was assumed that all areas are
annexed on December 31, 1-998. Two different cost comparisons are included; one for
the first three years following annexation, the other for the year,2005. The first three
years (1999, 2000, 2001) have higher initial costs and lower revenues than do ensu-
ing years. No property tax will be collected until after an area has been in the City for
at least a year. No fuel tax will be realized until the year 2000 official census counts for
all jurisdictions have been transmitted to the State. By'the year 2005 certain initial
costs (installation of street lights, payment of the fire district fees, etc.) will have been ' ,I
. i
concluded, and the City will be deriving all anticipated revenue from the area.
Anticipated costs are divided into the following two categories:
-- specified costs which included such items as street maintenance,
police patrol, fire hydrants and fire district fees, and ;i
-- funds which may be available for other general governmental
functions. LJ
In calculating estimated revenues and expenditures an effort was made to keep reve-
nues conservative and to make,expenditures slightly on the high side. As an example,
Cole County has determined its cost for maintaining one mile of paved county roads is
$3,100. Street maintenance estimates in this study are based on a $3,500 per mile
cost.
In addition to customary street maintenance Jefferson City annually carries out
capital improvement projects throughout the City. To obtain realistic figures some J�
capital project costs are included. A misleading figure would be obtained if such pro-
2 +
I �
jects were excluded from the study. The included capital costs are an indication of
area need. Completion of all capital projects does not preclude the need for addi-
tional work in the future.
Please know:
1. ,,The quality of the majority of the streets in the prioritized annexation areas
favorably equate to a "typical Jefferson City street'.
r 2. The residents of an annexed area are not guaranteed perfect streets; the
City's obligation is limited to providing similar street maintenance and equal
access to improvement programs.
3. The City is under no obligation to undertake any capital project referred to in
this report; it is obligated only to those projects included in Plans of Intent.
One goal of the.annexatibn study itlo keep all new expenditures as low as
possible. With regard to fire suppression the'highest priorities are directed to-areas
within the service radius of existing stations or where a fire service agreement already
exists (Area Twelve).
Economic feasibility is not the only annexation consideration. Criteria found in
the Mayor's Annexation Committee Report of 1981 and other sources are used in eval-
uating the annexation.potential of each area. A Tabulated Annexation Evaluation was
- prepared which allows_ a summary comparison of all areas (see pages 16 through 18
for additional information).
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Revenue/Cost Comparison and the.Tabulated Annexation Evaluation were
the two major factors used in formulating the following recommendations:
PRIORITY ONE
j AREA ONE (Ventura)
t AREA EIGHT (Frog Hollow)
AREA TWELVE (Algoa Road)
3
II �.
� ��-WW1• � �'-'1 ;�t���\�
• Vii'-� --
Il (i51u�j!(ian■migil� .i l� •�
. liil Jihii:i(.IIL(J.lil �
.I; ,� ., f� lil liilliif aril Iiil �`
-illi!!lililililillliiii711 iillililiilui liill7lilil li(j
� liiilliiiiijililiuilliiilGliiiiii■iiiiiu ii�iiliiiliillifiii!liiii , ` -"���
flifillfii(ui(liiliili(iif IiiillGillili iij(il(liil •�
ifiillGl!liillilll�lli
{j�llli Ilil(I■illiilli!(I�lll(iiilil i■ii illlil til++j `-t
,L ,- rr— r,= r i L, L:,:=••-:I. Ol!tlilt(ii �n■IIIVIII■
=I`ialli{I:i -`iIIIGlIIQjiliJllG ll�l IG�I` fflilii�IliiJi]:I'IGIIGII LIiiG(((all�6111111liii itIf1i II
\ =iill:il�ilj�i I- i�i(�IIJGIjI�i ia51J'
r J('mii all 5i1iijl'riffii'v�ili
Ilil(til�l>i I [� Qij�lJ ll1�111ii I►
jlhJj
l.fj �
. f'hIf�if{l
�lool°i 11
IM _ _ ' ! !f o Ilgl(ffifii��j i{i111i IIF I!!
li151jj�liliiliii
'�� ,1'.•.. �1,7iilc
•
JiI�jIIG�IEiIJi(
• • • II IIII'lllllllll
,
•
• . • S\\\
i
PRIORITY TWO
AREA FIVE (Rainbow, East)'
AREA SIX (Big Horn)
PRIORITY .THREE
AREA TWO (Route 179)
PRIORITY FOUR
AREA SEVEN (Westview)
i '
How many areas the City chooses to annex is a decision of the City Council.
The content of this report and.advice from the City Administrator and Department.
'Directors will assist1he Council in the decision making•process. To obtain maximum
1 benefit from motor fuel tax the City should annex as much as is feasible on or prior to
December 31, 1999. To obtain maximum benefit from property taxes the effective
r-•t
i dates of annexation should be December 31.
F7
PRIORITY ONE
It is recommended Jefferson City proceed with the annexation of these three
areas at the earliest possible date.
The importance of these areas to the orderly growth and development of the
r City are:2
1. AREA ONE (Ventura)
Annexation would eliminate the sometimes costly and the potentially
dangerous confusion which exists.because of the irrational corporate
1 boundaries.
2. AREA.EIGHT (Frog Hollow)
It-is important this area become a part of Jefferson City because:
' Area Five-A is not included in this recommendation.
2 Only the most compelling reasons are presented. Other positive reasons can be found in the
"Tabulated Annexation Evaluation" on page 18.
5
�r
a. It is in the Wears Creek watershed. This means sanitary sew- '
age generated in the area can be collected by a gravity system.
Two major sanitary sewer mains exist in the area. Stormwater deci-
sions made in Area Eight are becoming more and more critical to
the City. Long term control solutions to the City's storm and flood
water problems are essential.
,
b. Part of West Edgewood Drive, a major arterial street, is in this area �-
as is the proposed Route 179 Corridor. Long range plans call for }
the southerly extension of Wildwood Drive which would place a
good arterial street connection between Rockridge Road and
Missouri Boulevard. The possible northerly extension of Rolling
Hills Road along the area's eastern perimeter is shown in the
Comprehensive Plan.
!)
c. Area Eight's annexation would facilitate the implementation of the
City's 1996 Comprehensive Plan Update.
d. The Frog Hollow area is situated in the City's historical and current
growth path. It is an area with significant urban development i
potential. -
3. AREA TWELVE (Algoa)
The Algoa Area, with two major industrial employers, offers the best 'i
industrial development sites in the Jefferson City area. Relatively level
land not subject to flooding is available for an industrial park. This land
is next to a railroad and close to U.S. 50-63, a divided, four-lane facility.
The area has good and improving roads, highways and utilities.
Jefferson City, Cole County and the Jefferson City Area Chamber of ; }
Commerce are working cooperatively to promote the industrial develop-
ment park. The City's 1981 Annexation Committee in its investigations
found that over eighty-five percent of the Missouri Division of Com-
_-,
E
6
,
a ,
merce and Industrial Development's prospects preferred to be located
within the corporate limits of a city.
Statistical summary information on the Priority One Areas is shown in the
following tabulations:
FIRST THREE YEARS, 1999 - 2000 - 2001
Available for
1995 Three Year Specified General Gov't
AREA Population Revenues Costs Costs
1 372 89,030 54,780 34,250
8 1,262 739,380 707,230 32,150
12 1-7223 376.480 355.160 21.320
�.
TOTALS: 3,356 1,204,890 1,117,170 87,720
YEAR 2005, COSTS AND REVENUES
Available for
- Size Annual Specified General Gov't
AREA (Acres) Revenues Costs Costs
� I -
`- ° 1 38 42,990 13,160 29,830
8 2,188 330,270 237,880 92,390
12 2,427 1:83,710 113,340 70.370
TOTALS: 4,6534 556,970 364,380 192,590
3 Includes reformatory population of 1,613.
4 7.27 sq. mi.
�I
7
There are currently 27 square miles in the City' The addition of 7.27 square {
miles would be a 27 percent increase. By comparison, in 1966 there were slightly
over ten square miles within the city limits. ,Six major annexations in 1967 and 1968
i
added 9.25 square miles for a percentage increase of nearly 92 percent.
PRIORITY TWO
1 .
It is recommended the City proceed with the annexation of these two areas with
deliberate speed but not with the immediacy of the Priority One areas. It is further rec-
ommended that Areas Five and Six be combined into one annexation area.
The annexation of the Five/Six Area (Rainbow / Big Horn) is reasonable and i
necessary for the following reasons:
1. The combined Five/Six Area is in the service radius of Fire Station Five. They
public water system (one relatively small addition needed) is capable of
providing fire flows needed for urban fire suppression. i
2. There are densely settled subdivisions in the combined area where urban
growth has spilled over into the area. New major residential subdivisions
have recently been platted and are currently under development.
3. There are 358 acres of vacant5 developable land in the Five/Six Area. All
has urban development potential and is not restricted by flood plains or
steep slopes.
y
4. The inclusion of this developing area within the corporate limits would help 1
carry out the City's Comprehensive Plan. Li
5. There would be a beneficial effect to the City and the area by extending City
zoning, building codes, health codes, police and fire protection to the �-
area.
6.' More than one platted city street extends into the Five/Six Area.
5 Includes"Vacant", "farmland"and "woodland".
8
(� 7. After annexation streeti.loops would exist which would facilitate patrol and
maintenance functions: The area could be served without leaving the City.
8. Most of the streets are in fair to good condition. 'The major exception'is a
segment of-Big Horn Drive. Much of this poor condition street will be"re-
placed with the construction-of the Big Horn/U.S. 50 interchange. The state
plans to let bids for the interchange project in'the fall of 1996.
9. The developed parts of the Five/Six Area are connected to the Jefferson City
sanitary sewer system. Extension of the system into the undeveloped
portions, when needed, should present no particular problems.
Statistical summary information for the Five/Six Area is shown in the follow-
ing tabulations:
FIRST THREE YEARS, 1999 - 2000 - 2001
- Available for
1995 Three Year Specified General Gov't
AREA Population Revenues Costs Costs
5 392 180,290 164,800 15,490
6 337 211.030 196.140 14:890
t
TOTALS: 729 391,320 360,940 30,380
n
I i YEAR 2005, COSTS AND REVENUES
Available for
Size SpecifiedGeneral Gov't
` AREA (Acres) Revenue Costs Costs
{� 5 191 78,050 38,360 39,690
`_. 6 369 93,990 66,640 27.350
f I TOTALS: 5596 -172,040 105,000 67,040
6 .87 sq. mi.
L 9
i
a
r
The City may wish to shift the Area Five boundary west to include additional
farmland. If it is decided to annex the Five/Six Area and not-Area Seven, then Area
Six's southern boundary should be moved to include the first tier of lots south of Old
Lohman Road. The Cole County Regional Fire-Station which provides protection to
Area Seven is located in Area Six. The location of this station with respect to a new
city limits line needs to be given careful consideration.
{
PRIORITY THREE
There are positive reasons for annexing the Priority Three Area (Area Two-Rt
179) but they are not as compelling as are the reasons for Priorities One and Two.
The reasons for recommending the annexation of this area are: ,�
1. It contains densely settled subdivisions where new homes are currently r -
under construction.
2. There would be a beneficial effect to the City and the area by extending
city zoning, building codes, health codes, police and fire protection to
the area. 1,
3. After annexation the area could be served without leaving the City.
4. A public water system capable of providing flows needed for urban fire ; ti
suppression is available.
5. Area Two is continuing to develop with urban characteristics.
Growth is not restricted by steep slopes or flood plains. -
' j
6. Area Two is slightly more distant from Fire Station Three than desirable, - "I
however, the minimum congestion route (Industrial and Rt 179) Li
compensates for this.
7. All of Area Two is connected to the Jefferson City sanitary sewer
�t
system with one exception. Sewage from the homes on the westerly
most street is handled by a private package treatment plant.
1 �
10
i S '
' 8. Almost all the streets in Area,Two are in good condition; there are no
evident storm drainage problems.
- Statistical summary information for the Priority Three Area is shown in the
following tabulations.
FIRST THREE YEARS. 1999 - 2000 - 2001
Available for
1995 Three Year Specified General Gov't
AREA Population Revenues Costs Costs
2 201 74,740 74,030 710
I ,
YEAR 2005, COSTS AND REVENUES
? Available for
Size Specified General Gov't
AREA Acres Revenue Costs Costs
2 75 35,570'' 13,230 22,340
PRIORITY FOUR
The reasons for recommending the annexation of the Priority Four Area (Area
Seven - Westview) are:
1. It contains densely settled subdivisions where new homes are-
currently
under construction.
f 2. There would be a beneficial effect to the City and the area by extending
city zoning, building codes, health codes, police and fire protection to the
area.
3. After annexation the area could be served without leaving the City.
11
l '
4. A public water system capable of providing flows needed for urban fire
suppression is available. }'
5. Area Seven is continuing to develop with urban characteristics. Growth is
not restricted by steep slopes or flood plains.
6. Three-fourths of Area Seven is within the service radius of Station Five.
The westerly one-fourth of Seven exceeds the desirable distance. �—
7. All of Area Seven is connected to the Jefferson City sanitary,sewer system;
there are no operational problems. �-
B. The condition of paved streets in Area Seven range from good to poor with
iJ
the vast majority being in the good to fair category. Certain stormwater
drainage problems do exist in Area Seven.
9. Costs and revenues will eventually equalize. Costs will, however, exceed
revenues for the first several years following annexation even with very j
small amounts being allocated to capital projects. '
i )
Statistical summary information for Priority Area Four is shown in the follow-
ing tabulations.
_First Three YEARS. .1999 - 2000 . - . 2001
i
Available LI
1995 Three Year Specified General Gov't
AREA Population Revenues Costs Costs ti
7 2,802 643,860 755,080 (111,220)
YEAR 2005. COSTS AND REVENUES
Available
Size Specified General Gov't1
AREA (Acres Revenue Costs Costs
7 4717 328,720 248,660 80,060
7 .74 sq. mi.
12 E
STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF PRIORITY AREAS
The Priority One Area (Areas 1+8+12) contains 7.27 square miles and'has an
estimated population,of 3,356. The sub-totals for the Priority One Area plus the Priority
6
Two Area (Areas 5+6) are: size, 8.1 square-miles; population 4,085.. Additional sta-
tistical summary information for Priority Areas One through Four are in the following
tabulation. .
FIRST THREE YEARS. 1999 - 2000 - 2001
Available for
Area 1995 Three Year Specified General Gov't
PRIORITY Numbers Population Revenues Costs Costs
One 1 + 8 + 12 3,356 1,204,890 1,117,170 - 87,720
Two 5+6 729 391.320 360.940 30.380
SUB TOTAL 4,085 1,596,210 1,478,110 118, 100
Three 2 201 74.740 74.03 710
SUB TOTAL 4,286 1,670,950 1,552,140 118,810
Four 7 2.802 643.860 755.080 111220
- TOTAL: 7,088 2,314,810 2,307,220 7,590
4
13
7
YEAR 2005, COSTS AND REVENUE
Available for -Area Size Specified General Gov't
PRIORITY Numbers (Acres) Revenues Costs Costs
i
One 1 + 8 + 12 4,653 556,970 364,380 192,590 L-
Two 5 +6 559 172,040- 105.000 67.040 -
SUB TOTAL 5,2128 729,010 469,380 259,630
a
Three 2 75 35.570 13.230 22.340
SUB TOTAL 5,2879 764,580 482,610 281,970
Four 7 471 328.720 248.660 80.060
TOTAL: 5,75810 1,093,30 731,270 362,030
A summary of the estimated revenues and costs for all study areas is on the fol-
lowing page. Information for these summaries was derived from the individual area
descriptions and from Chapter Three "Revenue and Cost Comparison". J
i
8 8.1 sq. mi.
9 8.2 sq.mi.
10 9.O sq.mi. �-
14 k
REVENUE.* AND COST SUMMARY
Three Years, 1999-2000-2001
Available for
1995 Specified General Gov't
- Area 'Population Revenues Costs Costs
1 372 89,,030 54,780 34,250
.2 201 74,740 74,030 710
3 193 36,850 30,430 6,420
^, 4 130 33,750 38,970 (5,220)
5 .392 180,290 164,800 15,490
_ 5-A 1,072 443,200 416,270 26,930
6 337 ' 211,030 196,140 14,890
7 2,802 643,860 755,080 (111,220)
8 1,262 739;380 707,230 32,150
9 721 262,030 384,790 (122,760)
10 248 115,390 165,550 (50,160)
,11 152 .29,240 37,650 (8,410)
12 1,722 376,480 355,160 21,320
13 182 52.570 56.040 (3,470)
Totals: 9,786 3,287,840 3,436,920 (149,080)
One Year, 2005
Available for
Specified General Gov't
Area Revenues Costs Costs
1 42,990 13,160- - 29,830
2 - 35,570 13,230 22,340
- 3 18,490 7,280 11,210
4 15,670 8,180 7,490
5 78,050 38,360 39,690
5-A 213,310 147,040 66,270
6 93,990- '66,640- .27,350
7 328,720 248,660 80,060
8 . 330,270 237,880 92,390
9 126,110 109,930 16,180
10 51,690 36,200 15,490
- 11 13,450 9,240 4,210
- 12 183,710 113,340 _ 70,370
13 26.440 11,110 15.330
y�
Totals: 1,558,460 1,060,250 498,210
15
AREAS NOT , PRIORITIZED
Almost all areas studied should eventually become.a part of Jefferson City. Pri-
orities were given to those currently having the best mix of positive annexation attrib-
utes. As conditions change certain non-priority areas will become strong candidates
for annexation. When, for example, a new fire station is constructed, that station's total
service radius should be re-examined for annexation.potential. a
1
EVALUATING ANNEXATION POTENTIALS, I
The annexation section of the City's Comprehensive Plan Update 1996 states
that the economic feasibility to annex is not the only consideration. Other annexation
factors also have to be evaluated. In some instances these additional factors can out- Lj
weigh the financial considerations.
Criteria found in four different sources were used to evaluate annexation poten-
tial. The sources were: (1) the statute governing involuntary annexation, (2) the Con-
sideration and Policies sections of the Mayor's Annexation Committee Report of
j+ 's
1981, (3) the Comprehensive Plan Update and (4) the Missouri Municipal League's
Technical Bulletin on annexation.
Statutory factors have to do with specific requirements such as having contigu-
ous boundaries and the City having the ability to provide services to the annexed
areas. The 1981 Mayor's Report recommended 12 different criteria to be considered
by Jefferson City when any form of annexation is contemplated. It should be noted that
in 1990 a second Mayor's Subcommittee made a report on future annexations. This
Subcommittee stated in its report that "the Subcommittee found .... The Recommend- i
ed Jefferson City Annexation Policy.and the Annexation Considerations contained in
the 1981 Report are still valid." The 1990 Subcommittee did not recommend any addi-
tional policies or considerations.
16 - 1
The Municipal League's Technical Bulletin contains a section on the reason-
ableness and the necessity of annexation(s). This section, among other things,
;t includes a synopsis of tests of reasonableness which courts have applied to annexa- `
tions. Included are factors which were considered in one Supreme Court and 10
Appeals Court decisions.
The "Tabulated Annexation Evaluation" is on the next page. In this tabulation
twenty separate evaluation criteria from the above sources were listed on the left side
of the tabulation. The areas, by number identification; were placed at the top of the
page. When an area's characteristics were found to be in full compliance with a partic-
ular criterion, factor, or consideration, it is so indicated.�in,the tabulation by the letter
"Y". If it does not comply the letter "N" is placed in the tabulation space. Designations
for "partial compliance;" "no change" and "not applicable" are'also used. Footnotes
are used when clarification and/or emphasis is needed.,
The first criterion in the tabulation is, "Annexation is financially feasible". Two
L
cost comparisons were made for each area; one for the,first three years after,annexa-
tion and the second for a single year. When estimated,revenues exceeded costs in
both the three year and one year comparison the "Y" affirmative designation is shown
5 in the tabulation. In those instances where costs exceeded revenues in the three year
comparison-but not in the one year, a "P" for partial compliance is used.
' The tabulation illustrates how the differing study areas comply/don't comply with
the criteria. Having this information on one page facilitates area comparisons.
17
4
1
TABULATED AREAS `~
ANNEXATION d
EVALUATION V—
Y= Yes,positive,or complies
P = Partial Compliance
+ = No change or not applicable
N = Negative 1 2 3 4 5 5a 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Annexation is financially feasible(1) Y Y Y P I Y Y Y P Y p P P Y P
Meets contiguity requirement Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y y
Can
provide service in 3 ears
p Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Annexation could eliminate confusion Y + Y + + + + + + + + Y + + -
Would make City boundaries more regular Y + + + + + + + + N + Y N N
Area is now served by City sewer Y P Y Y Y Y P Y P P N Y (2) Y
Treatment plant can handle sewage Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y + Y (2) Y
City street extends into area Y N N Y Y N Y N Y N Y N N N
Is needed for extension of arterial street N I N N' N N N N N (3) N N N N N j
Street loop is created for patrol and
maintenance P N N N Y Y N Y Y N N N Y N
Can be served without leaving city Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y -Y
Is in service radius of City fire station Y P P Y Y P Y P. P N Y Y P N
A public water system capable of urban
fire suppression is available Y Y N P P P Y I Y P P P N P P
Has urban development potential Y Y y Y I Y Y Y Y y Y Y Y (4) Y
Growth not restricted by slopes or flood Y Y Y Y Y y y I y p Y I Y Y P P
plains
Has developed or is developing with urban
characteristics y y Y y y 1, Y ly y y Y Y P Y
Densely settled subdivisions are in the Y Y Y Y Y Y P Y Y Y Y Y N Y
area
Past urban growth has spilled over into Y Y Y y yy y y y 1• Y Y P y
area
Substantial portion is platted for town lots Y . Y Y Y Y Y N y N y y y N Y
Would help carry out Comprehensive Plan P P LP P P P Y P (5) p p p y .p
DRP Aug '96
(1) p = positive funds in one year cost comparison;negative funds for three year comparison
(2) City operates independent treatment facilities for three entities.
(3) West Edgewood exists in area. Rt. 179,Wildwood and Rolling Hills are proposed.
(4) Has significant industrial development potential. -f
1!
(5) Critical to stormwater,transportation,land use,and parks and recreation plan elements.
18
- `w
An early draft contained the following criteria statements:
"There would be a beneficial effect to the City and/or the area by extending City:
-- zoning
-- building codes
-- health codes
r -- police protection
t
-- fire protection
h
In the author's opinion a "Y", affirmative response,-would have to be.given for
everyone of these factors for every area. To include them would only complicate the
tabulation. They were, therefore, deleted from this revision.
ADOPTION
This annexation plan is a part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. It should be'
adopted in the same manner as was the Comprehensive Plan Update 1996
R
f
A
19
14
THINK ABOUT IT
Seventy percent 11 of Cole County's population resided in Jefferson City in
1950, 1960 and 1970. By 1990 this had dropped to 55.8 percent. One way Jefferson
City could have retained its 70 percent position would have been to annex an addi-
tional 9,010 persons between 1970 and 1990.
In the 1980 decade Cole County's population outside of Jefferson City
increased by 19.5 percent; the inside of Jefferson City increase was 4.2 percent.12 g
If Jefferson City had never-annexed: y
-- The city limits would be Atchison Street .
-- A city as small as the original town could not possible provide the
municipal services and
P facilities currently enjoyed by citizens residing
both in and out of the present city.
The 1989 average household income for households in most of the potential
annexation areas was $2,030 higher than was the average for households inside the h`
corporate limits.13
Citizens over 65 years of age accounted for 15.6% of Jefferson City's popula-
tion in 1990; this percent figure is increasing. The figure for Jefferson township outside
of Jefferson City is 4.2% over 65; this percent figure is decreasing.12
Jefferson City properties account for two-thirds of Cole County's total assessed
valuation.14 Two-thirds of the property tax revenue going to County Road and Bridge j I
comes from properties inside the City. The revenue needed to clear snow from in front
of a County resident's property comes Road and Bridge.
11 69.%to 70.1%, U.S.Census, 1950, 1960, 1970.
12 1990 Census, Cole County and Jefferson City.
13 From 1990 Census income data for households in Jefferson Township outside of Jefferson City and
for households in Jefferson City. I.
14 1995-96 City of Jefferson Budget and Cole County Assessor's Office. 1
1
20
CHAPTER ONE
PROPOSED MALL RIDGE
- - 'ANNEXATION
(AREA ONE)
A Description
The proposed Mall Ridge annexation area is nearly surrounded by the north-
western boundaries of Jefferson City. The thirty-eight acre area and the City currently
share 4,589 feet of common boundary. Only 272 feet of the area's perimeter is not
-� contiguous with the corporate limits. The area's west boundary is a'section line. The
first 272 feet of the north boundary is a quarter section line. From here the boundary
t` follows a ravine, southeasterly, to,another land line. It-then loops two-thirds of-the way
1 ,
around a lake and, thence, to Ventura Avenue along a lot line. After crossing Ventura
the line bisects an apartment house, then turns south, where after cutting through a
parking lot, it crosses Terra Bella Drive. Heading west the boundary then places two
in-city apartments on county maintained Terra Bella before it loops around a county
lot, heads north and, again, places Terra Bella under city jurisdiction. The irregular
boundaries were brought about over a period-of years when some property owners
petitioned for voluntary annexation while other preferred that their properties remain in
the county.
- Ventura Avenue is a collector street in the northwest sector of the City. It feeds
traffic from the multi-family Mall Ridge area-into West Truman Boulevard near Capitol
Mall. Access to the proposed annexation area is by the extension of Ventura Avenue
from the.City into the county. The balance of the area's street system consists of two-
cul-de-sac streets. Each are about a block in length from Ventura. One extends to the
east, the other extends to the west. Additionally, because of irrational 'boundaries,
{ there is a three hundred (300) foot segment of county maintained street (Terra Bella
Drive) that does not connect to any part of the county road system., County crews and
equipment must travel a considerable distance through Jefferson City to maintain or
'Y
remove snow from all the county streets in the proposed area.
Development in the Mall Ridge area is not restricted by flood plains and is ham-
.21
J
pered only to a minor degree by steep slopes. There is a private lake near the area's
eastern boundary. Part of the lake is currently in the City,,however, the larger portion,
2.22 acres, and the dam are in the county. This private lake is owned by the owners of
the numerous properties which surround the lake. Most of these surrounding proper-
ties are currently in the City.
All land in the proposed area with the exception of the lake is platted into 54
building lots. All but 17 lots are currently occupied by duplexes or multi-family dwell-
ings. The most common types of structures in the area are two story four-plexes and l
six-plexes. Statistical information on dwelling units and existing land uses can be
found in Tables One and Two. v
The area is served by all utilities including municipal sanitary sewer.
An annexation Plan of Intent was prepared for this area in 1989. The map on
the following page was-taken from that Plan of Intent. It delineates-the area'
s peri-
meter and adjacent zoning. Since 1989 Ventura Avenue has been extended into the `~o
northerly 21 acres and the entire area has been platted. Since all of the area has `
developed with duplexes and multi-family dwellings the zoning proposed for this
northerly,area should be, RA-2, Multi-Family Dwelling.
9 io
22
CURRENT CITY LIMIT8
■...rasa.... J�■t�....ra■...■�.tr■......■to..�■�t■a(■r■r■■ar■ra■■•■■�■■a■�
manse
:•::i'::ir:•!:i tai�/.. Il .
�' is '.� :• �::.: •
■• •�l,�i�,•.: :•�::;?J�'!_--fes.
as't
Qc s
•�' ..•t,��:'fie. ;:r'....t..:.,'�• 2 o
,: + • KENT tt
to
OW
- t;±i:��•' :•j: .�i•':�•..•I•:. ••:r,ti.;�A•:'!':j•`:.d'rt.l,�.• sti��:�r�'..�� • �QO -
t. .;,.:PROPOSED '.:••:�� ' •: r ..1
l a !:•1 j: ;s;>..{., .!;•• :r::•:�i• �.i:•:•: •i j.� :.t:.l•r'i~:t.r,•,`
o to
t.. :N•.;• . f.
Z P.•.:,.•:::;.�:• ;. (,i. i' .:
�- /•,: .:.. :'/.• j;,�i,.�.':�.:�,i,�r:i:�i.•:•;•.; • .t'" .!':itil•fi �'»•:i::::t•:f�:.:1
�_ tl::: •:'{i ••� ,i,��•::•;•'•�'•' • t' •.! i. tt.::.t j •r �t,a
:
6'....� . .: .;;:{..:•f. ti:�5 ;.•:.5.
.,.
r is,%'•• �f s, ,fi3
y . . •/' . ,�,.., A . ,:�i•:t1• •. Y:, •.•:�•• {�::•.• •1.10'
F-�.•..••r• :(:: -ll:y..,,�; •.fit;•� ; •'ca
\i•:• i:;.(•a•:.i:.i•t'i..t,t.•,,,,.•!«;•,•r;.
'� �...�:;•t:f: '•,•• •:r:!..:` :�i�,•:�:} �;:�!•'.::•t'•f�•�''�i `•'•o%ti'�•i'1:� �•ti jl��r::►j}■ of K.
�"' ::'. '\• :Zo:•� :ii: .:f.:.i„it��.•�=�.,�~i;+�.S'••� (%�;.i+:'•�Y ij:.iti,"• wn
M.
Q �iG•. ::r,�. •.ta. .ti�: ;�ii�: to �: :'. .K;:.' �.,.::�. •4 ``-- •
V■ :•:::, ::: '•:t: :�•'ai'.... !:. t' s :'' r, ail:. p.l
JPA
Q ZI. •'+` GFIT DRSVE-�/�r.:�,.•' r :r.L:
�` t PROPOSED RA-2-4"r
\% V ....'�: .'fill• :. ::::�•: o� moi.;':•.;%, (
w
s • ;Z W
:,. li.I36
rxr a•I rl•I �:iyi. •jay; sR�'I . ar ■■N'f ri air
,moi _ r I fr:l?:. ti:;�:d� { •,. ur rlu ifl t
le
TERRA BELLJI•DRfV�',�' t9w 38
�� `` Iz .•�;� /
is y .f:3G
::..:� ti
C� �hrr .lorur f .�';.��� 1 f � w( ••` 'Pt ��
uw divo4
oo' no 04-
.Y/ aea ' arl m( not
rlr , ty G� • ..
,ur
\ p N ••i Ol
r.• 1 A 13 M a• . '
t• p
} •��^ '• 2a, DEL RAY AVENUE wN.N ' tt10t `
ti
of
r«: ...
• - t: v
tt rlr i. rr rr ru ?.�
tf i4 N t N t •i.
^••(r a •.itanorrcaa V
an _ -
-� � ■ai.co l
PROPOSED ZONING MAP
l Ja
_ Existing City Limits ........... C- 4
� d
Proposed .City Limits "`�� �+- 4 31
Zoning District Boundary . �' ~» ~ 42`0 s�
.02. tit
Area Proposed to be annexed and be:
SS Zoned RS-2, Single Family s '`
Zoned RA-2, Multi-Family
il4 M•p /.•
23
TABLE ONE
INCREASE IN DWELLING UNITS
in the
PROPOSED MALL RIDGE ANNEXATION AREA
---------------------------------------------- -
Residential TvaeNumerical -
1980. 1995 Increase
Multi-Family[1]
Structures 3 B
38 S5 1
Units 16 168 152
Vacant Land
Platted lots 20 17 -3
Unplatted tract 1[2] 0 -
1
Additional Parcels
Lake 1
1 0
------------------------
[1] Includes duplexes, condominiums and structures/units under construction.
[
2121-73 ac tract. "
i
TABLE TWO
EXISTING LAND USES' IN ACRES - 1,995
------------------------------------------------
Multi-family[i] 20.09
Streets 3.85
Lake 222
Vacant Lots 10.63
Total Acres 36.74
-----------------------
I1] Includes duplexes, condominiums -
and structures under construction. i
i
24 =-
qJ
w` ESTIMATED REVENUE
-; for- the
MALL. RIDGE, ANNEXATION AREA
Annual municipal revenue which may be forthcoming from the Mall Ridge
Annexation is divided into seven categories. These estimated revenue categories are:
1
(1) property tax, (2) sales tax, (3) motor vehicle sales tax, (4) gross receipts tax, (5)
gasoline tax, (6) user fees, and (7) petmits/fines. Only new revenues are considered.
The revenue projections are based strictly on the area growth' and development
1 trends which are shown in Table Three. Revenue estimates are provided in Table
Four for 1995, 2000 and 2005 time periods. No attempt was made to factor in tax
rate changes and/or inflationary trends. Estimated revenues and expenditures.are
maintained in constant dollars and are rounded to the nearest ten dollars.
TABLE THREE
DWELLING UNIT and POPULATION PROJECTIONS
in the
t
MALL RIDGE ANNEXATION AREA
------------------
1995 2000 2005
1
Dwelling Unit 163 212 234
F, Population 372 483 534
-- The dwelling unit projections are straight line projections based on the fifteen
(15) year development rate between 1980 and 1,995. The number of units in 1980
was obtained from 1980 photo assessment maps. The 1995 count was derived from
field survey and assessment information. The 1995 count includes units under
con-struction. The population figures were calculated by multiplying Jefferson City's 2.28
persons per household (1990 Census) times the number of dwelling units.
25
There are seventeen (17),vacant platted lots remaining in the area. Buildout,
based on the past fifteen (15) year trend, will occur in 2002 or 2003. There are no vac- h
ant, unplatted tracts in the area.
TABLE FOUR
- E
ESTIMATED REVENUE
for the
MALL RIDGE ANNEXATION AREA
-------------------------------------------------- I �
Cateaory 1995 2000 2005
Property Tax 11,390 14,480 15,880
Sales Tax 4,130 5,400 5,970
Motor Vehicle Sales Tax 3,590 4,660 5,150
Gross Receipts Tax 15,560 .20,360 22,480 1 b
Gasoline Tax 0 12,730 12,730
User Fees (13,490) (17,670) (1'9,500)
Permits/Fines 1.860 2.420 2.670 -
Total 23,040 42,990 45,380
Appendix A is a synopsis of how current estimates were derived. N �'
26
i�
I -
' ESTIMATED COSTS
for the
MALL RIDGE ANNEXATION AREA
�l The addition of less than 38 acres-to the City's current 17,780 acres will not
necessitate the hiring of additional.personnel nor making major equipment purchases.
While this is deemed to be true for this.particular annexation it will not necessarily be
the case for other recommended annexations. �The City cannot continuously incre-
mentally increase its size, regardless of how small each increase might be, without
eventually adding both personnel and equipment.
There is approximately one-half mile of public street in the area. Slightly over a
quarter of a mile of the streets are less than two years old; none of the-streets are more
than twenty (20) years old. All the streets are concrete, have curb and gutter, and are
in good condition. No major repairs or reconstruction will.be required. An additional
r
two hundred (200) feet of street and,a cul-de-sac-will be constructed prior to buildout.
This small section of new street (the completion of Struemph Court) will be completed
I at the developer's expense.
1 There would be a one time capital cost of $6,000 for the installation of four street
lights. After all lights are installed the yearly utility cost is estimated to be $1,510. In
addition $1,740 will be needed annually for street maintenance and snow removal.
The one time cost for installing two new fire hydrants is estimated to be $4,400.
The maximum.fee payments the City might have to make to the Region West Fire Pro-
tection District over a five-year period, if the statutory schedule is followed, would be
approximately $13,590. The district would be responsible for providing area fire pro-
tection for three of the five years.
Area One's share.-of added police patrol costs is calculated to be $5,780. This
annual cost is based on-assumed annexations totaling 4,500 persons.
Additional Area One cost information can be found in Chapter Three "Revenue
and Cost Comparison".
27
EVALUATING ANNEXATION POTENTIAL
The Annexation section of the City's Comprehensive Plan Update 1996 states
that the economic feasibility to annex is not the only consideration. Other annexation
factors also have to be evaluated. In some instances these additional factors can out-
weigh the financial considerations.
Criteria found in four different sources were used to evaluate annexation poten-
tial. The sources were: (1) the statute governing involuntary annexation, (2) the Con-
siderations and Policies sections of the Mayor's Annexation Committee Report of
1981, (3) the Comprehensive Plan Update, and (4) the Missouri Municipal League's
Technical Bulletin on annexation. �.
Statutory factors have to do with specific requirements such as having contigu-
ous boundaries and the City having the ability to provide services to the annexed
areas. The 1981 Mayor's Report recommended 12 different
criteria to be considered
by Jefferson City when any form of annexation is contemplated. It should be noted that
' i
in 1990 a second Mayor's Subcommittee made a report on future annexations. This
Subcommittee stated in its report that "the Subcommittee found ... The Recommended
Jefferson City Annexation Policy and the Annexation Considerations contained in the ( t
1981 Report are still valid." The 1990 Subcommittee did not recommend any addi-
tional policies or considerations.
The Municipal League's Technical Bulletin contains a section on the reason-
ableness and the necessity of annexation(s). This section, among other things;
includes a synopsis of tests of reasonableness which courts have applied to annexa-
tions. Included are factors which were considered in one Supreme Court and 10
Appeals Court decisions.
� I
Considerable duplication can be found in these criteria sources. In the follow- 1
ing assessment a criterion was used only one time even if it was included in more than
one source. �I
J I
28
AN ASSESSMENT OF THE ANNEXATION POTENTIAL
OF THE MALL RIDGE AREA
1. Factors from the Mayor's Annexation Committee Report:
a. The present as well as future income to the City will be greater,than or equal
to the cost of providing services.
b. The area is contiguous to the City and exhibits potential for urban develop-
ment.
t,-
c. The area being considered displays potential problems with dual responsibil-
ities in providing services.
d. The area being considered for annexation can be adequately,served by the
City within the statutory time period.
e. The area is currently being served by Jefferson City sewer-and otherwise
lends itself to annexation.
2. Factors form the Municipal League Technical Bulletin:
a. Past growth has caused the City to spill over into the proposed area.
b. There will be a beneficial effect of uniform application and enforcement of
municipal zoning,g, building and health codes in 'the proposed area.
c. There will be a beneficial effect of extending police protection to the annexed
area.
, 1
d. A substantial portion'of the area is platted and held for sale as town lots.
e. The annexation would make the City's boundaries more regular.
f. The present City treatment plant can handle.sewage from the proposed-area.
g. The City is in a sound financial position.
Some of the above factors have been re-written for clarity and continuity, however, the
meaning and content have not.been altered. ,Only positive and relevant factors have
been included. For-example, factors relating to such things.as the City's need for good
industrial sites or for the continuation of arterial streets are not listed.
�J
t-
29
3. Other Factors Favoring Annexation:
a. Numerous entities will benefit from-the elimination of confusing and irrational
corporate boundaries. These entities include:
- County Public Works Department;'currently men and.equipment must _
travel through the City to maintain and remove snow from the proposed
area, confusion exists as to where to lift and put down and lift the snow il
blade.
- City Public Works Department; same confusions and inefficiencies-as
County Public Works.
- Sheriff's Department; currently has to drive through the City to patrol the
area, confusion exists as to lines of jurisdiction.
- Police Department; currently the shortest route to some City addresses
is to drive into the county and then back into the City; confusion exists as
to lines of jurisdiction.
Fire Department/Fire District; same as 'Sh r'iff
e s and Police Departments,
at one point the corporate limit divides an apartment building in half.
- State Revenue Department; confusion as to who pays city tax on vehicle
purchases.
' i
- County Clerk; voter registration.
- County Assessor; property assessment.
- Private Utility Companies; confusion as-to who pays gross.receipts tax.
- City Finance Department;-confusion as to who pays the higher sanitary
sewer surcharge. ry I
- City Code Enforcement; confusion as to which properties,are subject to
building codes, fire codes, weed control. and health codes. 1
t
With all the above mentioned confusions there comes governmental y
inefficiencies and frustrated citizens. -�
b. There will be a beneficial effect of extending City fire protection to the area.
c. A City street extends into the area with little or no line of demarcation. This
street is the.only vehicular access into the northerly part of the proposed a
annexation area.
30
y�
,J
r ,
d. The area has developed and is rapidly continuing to develop with urban
characteristics.
e. Many of the properties in the proposed area are currently owned by Jefferson
City residents.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
1
In it's 1990 Report the Subcommittee on Future Annexations of the Mayor's Long
Range Planning Committee recommended that this area be annexed.
ri
31
Cj
CHAPTER - TWO
DESCRIPTIONS AND EVALUATIONS -
AREAS TWO THROUGH THIRTEEN
PROPOSED ; ANNEXATION AREA TWO
A Description
u Proposed Area Two is located north of the existing City in Cole County. It
includes the Rio Vista Heights and Briar Village subdivisions in'which there are a
number of vacant residential lots. The area is triangular in shape with the north
boundary being the main line of the railroad. The south line is State Route 179 and
1
the proposed western boundary is the west line of Briar Village Subdivision. - A rail-
road junction and industrial uses are located in the easterly apex of the triangle. Land
to the south of Route 179 is currently within the corporate limits,.
Access to proposed Area Two is via the state highway. The street.system.within
Rio Vista Heights consists of a circular loop with two short cul-de-sacs. .Briar Village is
served by a single cul-de-sac street. All utilities.are available. The water system has
the capacity needed for urban fire suppression. Rio Vista Heights is connected to the
r Jefferson City sanitary sewer system. Briar Village is served by a.private package
treatment plant. There are no evident storm drainage problems.
Within Area Two there are currently 74 single family dwellings., In the:past 15,
years the number of dwelling units has.increased by 21. The area's estimated-popula-
tion is 201. Additional statistical information, including population-projections, .is
included in Tables One and Two.
r
32
AREA TWO TABLE ONE I
Increase in Dwelling Units
DWELLING UNITS:
NUMERICAL
TYPE 1980 1995 INCREASE
Single Family 53 74 21 `
L � f
AREA TWO -. TABLE TWO
Dwelling Unit and Population Projections -
1995 2000 2005
Dwelling Units 74 81 gg �
Population[11] 201 220 239
I1].Based on average population of 2.72 persons per dwelling unit in Jefferson
Township outside Jefferson City(1990 census). y
Area Two contains 75.1 acres. The area, except for the industrial land, has 1
been platted;, there are no farm or woodland'areas. The development of the area has
not been adversely affected by flood plains or steep slopes. Most of the best lots have
already been developed. Many of the remaining vacant lots have size, shape or slope
problems.
33
ri
I �
AREA TWO - TABLE THREE
Existing Land Uses - 1995-96
Acres
Residential
r 'l Single Family 35.6
Vacant platted lots 9.1
Streets 6.8
Industrial 12.0
Railroad 11.6
Farm and woodland 0
TOTAL: 75.1
Recommended zoning is:
-- The two subdivisions: RS-2
~; -- Industrial area: M-2, M-3
Buildout is estimated to occur between 2006 and 2008.
4
A
34
{
ESTIMATED REVENUE - AREA TWO.
The estimated revenues for Area Two are shown in Table Four and were
obtained by the same methods and calculations used for Area One, Mall Ridge.
AREA TWO - TABLE FOUR i
.Estimated Revenue
a
CATEGORY 1995 2000 2005
Property Tax 18,300 19,840 21,350
Sales Tax 2,110 2,310 2,510
Motor Vehicle Sales Tax 1,950 2,130 2,3.10 -
Gross Receipts Tax 7,940 8,690 9,440 „1
Gasoline Tax -- 5,810 5,810
User Fees (5,920) (6,480) (7,040)
Permits /Fines 1,010 1,100 . 1,190
TOTAL: 25,390 33,400 35,570 -�
A4
Total revenue to be generated from 1995 through 2005 inclusive is estimated to
be $332,540.
ESTIMATED COSTS - AREA TWO
There is .9 mile of paved, local street in Area Two. ' AII'the subdivision streets
are paved and most are in good condition. No capital improvement work (curb and r_
gutter, resurfacing) is needed nor should any be needed in the next five years. There
would be a one time capital cost of $18,000 for the installation of twelve (12) street I t
lights. After all lights are installed the yearly utility cost is estimated to be $2,690. In �}
addition $3,150 will be needed for street maintenance and snow removal. `
The one time cost for installing three (3) new fire hydrants is estimated to be
35
t
I �
,1,600. The maximum fee payments the City might have to make to the Region West
Fire Protection District over a five year period, if the statutory schedule is followed,.
Auld be approximately $17,1.00. The district would be responsible for providing area
fire protection for three of the five years.
Area Two's share of added police patrol costs is calculated to be $5,182. 'This
inual cost is based on assumed annexations totaling 4,500 persons.
Additional Area Two cost information can be found in Chapter Three "Revenue
and Cost Comparison".
EVALUATING THE ANNEXATION POTENTIAL
OF
AREA TWO
i Economic feasibility is not the only,annexation consideration. Criteria found in
*he "Mayor's Annexation Committee Report of 1981", the 1996 Comprehensive Plan
!)pdate, and in the Missouri Municipal League's 1993 "Technical Bulletin on Annexa-
tion" were also used in evaluating the annexation potential of Area Two. Criteria from
nese and other sources were listed on the left side of the "Tabulated Annexation Eval-
uation" found on page 18. When-an area's characteristics were found to be in full
.ompliance with a particular criterion, factor, or consideration it is so indicated in the
tabulation by the letter "Y". If it,does not comply the letter "N" is placed in the tabula-
oin space. Designations for "partial compliance," "no change' and "not applicable"
are also noted. Footnotes are .used when clarification.and/or emphasis is-,,needed.
ice_{
}
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
The 1981 Mayor's Committee on Annexation recommended that Rio Vista
Heights be annexed. -
36
F
ti
AREA" THREE "- ' TABLE TWO
Dwelling Unit and Population Projections
1995 2000 2005
Dwelling Units 71 77 83
Population[l] 193 209 226
I1 Based on average population of 2.72 persons per dwelling unit in 1p
Jefferson Township outside Jefferson City(1990 census).
i
Area Three contains 124.1 acres. Almost half the area is farmland. This agri-
cultural land has urban development potential. Its future urban development is not
adversely affected by flood plains or steep slopes. The area has..public street access
and utilities are accessible. Table Three lists additional existing land uses. ,
AREA THREE - . TABLE THREE
Existing Land Use -" 1995-96
Acres '
Residential
Single Family 5.9 ?
Mobile Homes 49.0
Streets 2.3
Soccer Field 9.2
'Railroad 1.7 a
Farmland :56.0
� I
'TOTAL: 124.1
Acres in public street use is relatively low because the mobile home access is -;
via private roads and because of the comparatively large number of acres devoted to
38 -,
' I
-f
J soccer fields and farmland. Land has previously been sold off the one 50 acre farm for
home sites and-a city,sewage-lift station. This tract has'good-street access, moderate
slopes and drains toward the lift station.
v The mobile home park has a private water system. A small diameter public
T ,water district line is available along Schumate Chapel Road. -Neither system has the
capacity needed for urban fire suppression.
-I Recommended zoning is:
-- Soccer Fields and Mobile Home Park; RS-2 with appropriate use permit.
-- Balance of area: RS-2 and/or RS-3.
This area will not experience total buildout until after 2020.
ESTIMATED REVENUE - AREA THREE
The estimated.revenues for Area Three are shown in Table Four. They were
_i obtained by the same methods and calculations used for Area One, Mall Ridge.
' AREA THREE - TABLE FOUR
~� Estimated Revenue
CATEGORY 1995 2000 2005
Property Tax 4,300 4,600 5,020
Sales Tax 2;030 2;200 2,380
Motor Vehicle Sales Tax 1,870- 2,030 2,190
-� Gross.Receipts Tax 7,620 8,260 8,900
Gasoline Tax 0 5,510 5,510
User Fees (5,680) ,(6,160) (6,640)
Permits /Fines 970 1.050 -1.130
TOTAL: 11,110 17,490- 18,490
39
I
Total. revenue to be generated from 1995 through 2005 inclusive is, estimated to
be $159,330.
ESTIMATED COSTS, - AREA THREE
There is .3 mile of paved, local street in Area Three. The one street (Schumate
Chapel Road) is paved and is in good condition. No resurfacing work is needed nor
1
should any be needed in the next five years. ' There would be a one time capital cost of T
$7,500 for the installation of five (5) street lights. After all lights are installed the yearly
utility cost is estimated to be $840., In addition $1,050 will be needed for street main-
tenance and snow removal. Needed fire hydrants in Area Three cannot be installed
because available water lines,are too small. The maximum fee payments the City �-
might have to make to the Region West Fire Protection District over a five year period,
if the statutory schedule is followed, would be approximately $3,980. The district -
would be responsible for providing area fire protection for three of the five years. -
Area Three's share of added police patrol costs is calculated to be $2,921. This -
annual cost is based on assumed annexations totaling 4,500 persons.
Additional Area Three cost information can be found in Chapter Three
"Revenue and Cost Comparison".
EVALUATING THE ANNEXATION POTENTIAL
OF-
AREA THREE i
Economic feasibility is not the only annexation consideration. Criteria found in
the "Mayor's Annexation Committee Report of 1981", the 1996 Comprehensive Plan j
Update, and the Missouri Municipal League's 1993 "Technical Bulletin on Annexa- l^
40 �—
�I
r;
tion" were used in evaluating the annexation potential of Area Three. Criteria from
these and other sources were listed on the left side of the "Tabulated Annexation Eval-
uation" found on page 18. When Area Three's characteristics were found to be in full
compliance with a particular criterion, factor, or consideration, it is so indicated in the
tabulation by the letter "Y". If it does not comply the letter "N" is placed in the tabulation
- space. Designations for "partial compliance," "no change" and "not:applicable' are
also used. Footnotes are used when clarification and/or emphasis is needed. ..
A number of entities would benefit from the elimination of the irrational city limits
line which divides the Schumate Chapel Mobile Home Park. The city limits divides at.
least five mobile homes resulting in confusion in fire suppression, voter registration,
code enforcement, and taxation to name a few.
jl
_- OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
' I
_ The Report of the Subcommittee of the 1990 Mayor's Long Range Planning
Committee recommended the balance of the'Schumate Chapel Mobile Home Park be
annexed.
II
I
II
41
L
PROPOSED ANNEXATIONAREA FOUR
A Description
Proposed Area Four is located north of the existing northwestern city limits lines.
It is situated to the west of Area Three. The principal public street in the area is Scott I
Station Road. This street begins within the City, and extends through Area Four. The
densely settled portions of this area are the west side of Scott Station Road and, on _
the east side, the Rock Beacon subdivision. The north and south Rock Beacon roads
within the subdivision are in a y-shaped pattern. They provide access to the 40 platted I
lots and two former lagoon sites.
There are 48 single family dwellings in Area Four. In the last 15 years the
number of dwelling units has increased by only one. ' The area's estimated population
is 130. Additional statistical information, including population projections, is included
in Tables One and Two.
AREA FOUR - TABLES ONE AND TWO ILI
Table One - Increase in Dwelling Units !�
NUMERICAL
TYPE 1980 1995 INCREASE _-
Single Family 47 48 1
Table Two - Dwelling Unit and Population Projections
1995 2000 .2005 1 I
Dwelling Units 48 48 49
PopulationP 1 130 130 133
1
Based on average population of 2.72 persons per dwelling unit Jefferson Township
outside Jefferson City(1990 census).
� I
Li
42
� f
1 I
Area Four contains slightly over 70 acres. More than half the area is woodland
which has development potential. Its development is not adversely affected by flood
plains. Portions of this rurai'land may not support intense urban development
because of steep slopes. Public right-of-way and utilities are accessible. =Table Three
lists additional existing land uses.
' f
AREA FOUR - TABLE THREE
Existing Land Use - 1995-96
Acres
Residential
j Single Family 19.7
Vacant Lots 1.5
Streets 5.6
Cemetery 5.0
Woodland and
former lagoon sites 38.5
TOTAL: 70.3
Long View Cemetery, owned and maintained by Jefferson City, is in this pro-
posed area. Rock Beacon is an older subdivision with attractive, well-maintained, sin-
gle-family dwellings. While very few vacant lots remain, the old lagoon sites have
.I
-j good public right-of-way access and may have development potential. The largest
woodland tract is located east of Rock Beacon. The Rock Beacon roads provide public
access to this undeveloped acreage.
There are four inch water lines in the,subdivision. These are fed by a'three inch
line from Scott Station'Road and a six inch line from the rear. Water District Ohe'plans
to replace the three inch line with an eight inch line in the near future.
(i Recommended zoning-is RS-2.
The area will not experience total buildout until sometime after 2020.
43
r
L
ESTIMATED REVENUE - AREA FOUR L
The estimated revenues for Area Four are shown in Table Four and were
obtained by the same methods and calculations used for-Area One, Mall Ridge.
AREA FOUR - TABLE FOUR L
Estimated Revenue
CATEGORY 1995 2000 2005
Property Tax 7,140 7,140 7,280 L
Sales Tax 1,370 1,370 1,400
Motor Vehicle Sales Tax 1,260 1,260 1,290
Gross Receipts Tax 5,150 5,,150 5,250 -
1
Gasoline Tax 0 3,700 3,700 L_I
User Fees (3,840) (3,840) (3,910)
Permits/Fines 650 650 660
TOTAL: 11,730 15,430 15,670
Total revenue to be generated from 1995 through 2005 inclusive.is estimated to
be $146,690. j
ESTIMATED COSTS - AREA FOUR
` ' f
There is .75 mile of paved, ,local street in Area Four. All the subdivision streets
in the subdivision are paved and in good condition. No capital improvement work ?
(curb and gutter; resurfacing) is need nor should any be needed in the next five years.
There would be a one time capital cost of $10,500 for the installation of seven (7)
street lights. After all lights are installed the yearly utility cost is estimated to be $1,512. �-
1j
44
In addition $2,291 will be needed for street maintenance and snow removal.
The one time cost for installing two (2) new fire hydrants is estimated to be
$4,400. The maximum fee payments the City might have to make to the Region West
Fire Protection District over a five year period, if the statutory schedule is followed,
would be approximately $6,555. The district would be responsible for providing area
fire protection for three of the five years'.
Area Four's share of added police patrol costs is calculated to be $2,830. This
annual cost is based on assumed annexations totaling 4,500 persons.
Additional Area Four cost information can be found in Chapter Three "Revenue
-� and Cost Comparison".
j EVALUATING THE ANNEXATION POTENTIAL
Of
AREA FOUR
The economic feasibility to annex is not the only consideration. Criteria found in
j the" Mayor's Annexation Committee Report of 1981", the 1996 Comprehensiv&Plan
Update, and the Missouri Municipal League's 1993 "Technical Bulletin on Annexa-
tion" were used in evaluating the annexation potential of"Area Four. Criteria from
these and other sources were listed on the left side of the "Tabulated Annexation Eval-
uation" found on page 18. If Area,Four characteristics were found to be in full com-
pliance with a particular criterion, factor, or consideration, it is so indicated in the tabu-
lation by the letter "Y". If it does not comply the letter "N" is placed in the tabulation
space. Designations for "partial compliance," "no change" and "not applicable" are
also used. Footnotes are used when clarification,and/or emphasis is needed.
45
PROPOSED ANNEXATION AREA FIVE
A Description
Proposed Area Five is located northwest of the present City. The southern
boundary is the south line of U.S. 50 West. The westerly line is 200 feet (more or less)
west of Henwick Lane and Arden Drive. The northern boundary is a westerly exten-
sion from the northwest corner of the current City. There are a number of residential
subdivisions in the area including the recently platted Charleston Place.
Rainbow Drive, the area's principal street, begins in the City. Its southern termi-
nus is the north frontage road of U.S. 50 West. From this point it proceeds north and
west through Area 5 to Route T which is west of Binder Lake.
There are 144 dwelling units in Area Five. All are single family dwellings except
for one triplex and four duplexes. In the past 15 years the number of dwellings has
increased by 50 units. The area's estimated population is 392. Additional statistical
information, including population projections, is included in Tables One and Two.
' I
AREA FIVE - TABLE ONE
Increase in Dwelling Units
Dwelling Unit:
NUMERICAL
TYPE 1980 1995 INCREASE
Single Family 94 133 39
Two & Three Family 0 11 11
Total 94 144 50
46
I
AREA FIVE - TABLE TWO
Dwelling Units and Population ProjectionS
1995 2000 2005
li
Dwelling Units 1.44 157 170
_i
Population 111 392 427 462
[11 Based on average population of 2.72 persons per dwelling unit in
Jefferson Township outside Jefferson City (1990 census).
17,
Area Five contains 190.7 acres. Seventy acres are farmland which has urban
development potential. There are no flood plains, steep slopes or other features which
would restrict or limit development. This agricultural land has public street access and
utilities are accessible. Table Three lists additional existing land uses. The commer-
cial establishments and the public utilities are clustered in two areas. A convenience
store, a car wash and Water District One are located on the north side of Rainbow
Drive across from Rainbow Circle. The second commercial area is immediately west
of the current city limits on the north side of U.S. 50 West.
AREA FIVE - TABLE THREE
Existing Land Uses - 1995-96
Acres
Residential
Single Family, 49.4
2 and 3 Family 1.7
Vacant Platted Lots 19.1
- Streets 34.8111
Private Park .8
.Church 3.2
Commercial 8.3
Public Utilities S.2
Farm and Woodland 70.2
Total: 190.7 acres
11116.7 acres in U.S.50 ROW
{ 47
f
I
Recommended zoning is:
L
-- Rainbow Drive commercial area: C-1.
-- U.S. 50 West commercial area: C-2 or M-3.
-- Duplex area on Golden Court: RD
-- Balance of area: RS-2 and RS-3.
The area will not experience buildout until after 2020.
ESTIMATED REVENUE - AREA FIVE
The estimated revenues for Area Five are shown ,in Table Four and were
obtained by the same methods and calculations used for Area One, Mall Ridge..
L
AREA, FIVE - TABLE FOUR
Estimated Revenue
U
Category 1995 2000 2005
i�
Property Tax 20,900 22,600 24,300
Sales Tax 27,950 28,320 28,690 ,'
Motor Vehicle Sales Tax 3,780, 4,120 4,500
Gross Receipts Tax 18,500 19,800 21,200 �r
Gasoline Tax 0 11,250 11,250
User Fees (12,000) (13,100) (14,200)
Permits /Fines 1.960 2.140 2.310
Totals: 61,090 75,130 78,050
Total revenue to be generated from 1995 through 2005 inclusive is estimated to j
be $758,930. I i
U
48
iV
, u
~i
ESTIMATED COSTS FOR AREA FIVE
There are 2.5 miles of paved local street in Area Five. All the subdivision
streets are paved and in good condition: No capital improvement work (curb and gut-
ter, resurfacing) is,need nor should any be needed in the next five years. There
would be a one time capital cost of $22,500 for the installation of fifteen (15) street
lights. After all lights are installed the annual utility cost is estimated to be $3,360. In
1 �
addition $8,700 will be needed each year for street maintenance and.snow removal.
The one time cost for installing eight (8) new fire hydrants is estimated
Y to be
$17,600. District water lines in the south commercial area (on U.S. 50) are too small
for fire suppression. To.extend-an eight inch main into this commercial area would
= cost approximately $10,000. The maximum fee payments the City might have to make
to the Region West Fire Protection District over a five year period, if the statutory
schedule is followed; would be approximately $24,800. The district would be respon-
sible for providing area fire protection for three of the five years.
Area Five's share of added police patrol costs is calculated to be $21,100. This
annual cost is based on assumed annexations totaling 4,500 persons.
Additional Area Five cost information can be found in Chapter Three "Revenue
+ and Cost Comparison".
EVALUATING THE ANNEXATION POTENTIAL
OF
AREA FIVE
Economic feasibility is not the only annexation consideration. Criteria found in
the Mayor's Annexation Committee Report of'1981, the 1996 Comprehensive Plan
Update, and the Missouri Municipal League's 1993 "Technical Bulletin" on annexation
i� were used in evaluating the annexation potential of Area Five. Criteria from these and
other sources were listed on the left side of the "Tabulated Annexation Evaluation"
r 49
Ij
found on page 18. When Area Five characteristics were found to be in full compliance ;,
with a particular criterion, factor, or consideration, it is so indicated in the tabulation by
the letter "Y". If it does not comply the letter "N" is placed in the tabulation space. Des-
ignations for "partial compliance," "no change" and "not applicable" are also used.
Footnotes are used when clarification and/or emphasis is needed.
l
' I
II
u
r
1 ,
J
iJ
I �
i �
1
50
t
PROPOSED ANNEXATION AREA FIVE-A
A Description
Proposed Area Five-A is located adjacent to and west of Area Five. Since it
does not touch the corporate limits it can only be annexed if combined with Area Five.
iIf Area Five and Five-A are combined the contiguity requirement will not be a problem.
The southern boundary of proposed Area Five-A,is the southerly line of U.S. 50
west to the U.S. 50 / Business 50 interchange. From the interchange it continues west-
ward along the south line of Business 50. Area Five-A's northern boundary is 400' +
north of and parallel to Rainbow Drive. The west line is 200' ± west of Gateway Drive.
I� Rainbow Hills, Bridgehampton and Gateway West are three major, densely set-
tled subdivisions in the area.
Within Area,Five-A there are 370 single family dwellings, two duplexes and five
four-plexes for a total of 394 dwelling units. In the last 15 years the number of dwelling
units has increased.by 119. The area's estimated population is 1,072. Additional sta-
tistical information, including population projections, is included .in Tables One and
�.1 Two.
Ij
AREA FIVE-A - TABLE ONE
Increase in Dwelling Units
DWELLING UNITS:
NUMERICAL
r TYPE 1980 1995 INCREASE
Single Family- 275 370 95
Duplex 0 4 4
�j Four-plex 0 20 20
( Total 275 395 119
i 51
i
L
AREA FIVE-A - TABLE TWO
Dwelling Unit and Population Projections -
1995 2000 2005
Dwelling Units 394 434 474
Population Ill] 1,072 1,180 1,290
[1l Based on average population of 2.72 persons per dwelling unit in
Jefferson Township outside Jefferson City(1 990 census).
Area Five-A contains 362.5 acres'. In addition to the 25.5 acres in vacant platted
lots (74 lots) there are 55.7 acres in vacant tracts and farmland. The vacant tracts /
farmland have urban development potential. There are no'floodplains or steep slopes
which would restrict or limit development. The vacant properties have public street
access and utilities. Commercial uses are located on the north side of the U.S. 50 !J
West outer roadway (Country Club Drive) and along Business U.S. 50. There is no
waterline along Country Club Drive and Business U.S.50 between Arden Drive and
Apache Trail. Table Three lists additional existing land uses.
' 1i
AREA FIVE-A - TABLE THREE
Existing Land Use - 1995-96
Acres
Residential L
Single Family 159.1
Multi Family 4.9
Residential Care 1.5
Local Streets 38.0 -1
Highways 36.4
Church 10.0
Commercial 31.4
Vacant Lots 25.5
Vacant Tracts /Farmland 55.7
TOTAL: 362.5
52
S�
Nearly 15 acres are devoted,to the Business 50 and U.S..50 West interchange.
U.S. 50 West is a four lane divided highway with outer roadways. Business 50 is two
lanes and serves the Apache Flats strip commercial area. Other principal streets in the
area are Rainbow Drive and Hunters Run which is a north-south connector between
the north outer roadway (Country Club Drive) and Rainbow Drive. Almost all of Area
- Five-A's intense building activity is currently along the Hunter's Run corridor.
Recommended zoning is:
! I ,
1. For the commercial areas along Country Club Drive and Business 50.
-- From Area Five-A's proposed west
-- boundary to 600 ft±west of Hunters Run: C-2
-- From 600 ft± west of Hunters Run to
Area Five-A's proposed east boundary: C-1 and C-O
2. For the multi family area on Kensington Park: RA-1
3. Balance of the area: RS-2
(Consideration could be given to RS-3 for part of the
vacant tract [20.88ac] situated adjacent to Area Five.)
This area should experience total buildout between 2015 and 2020.
Fi
53
t
ESTIMATED REVENUE - AREA FIVE-A L
The estimated revenues for Area Five-A are shown in Table Four. They were
obtained by the same methods and calculations used for Area One, Mail Ridge.
i '
Li
AREA FIVE-A - TABLE FOUR
Estimated Revenue
CATEGORY 1995 2000 2005
r
Property Tax 86,210 93,750 101,380 R
Sales Tax 35,200 38,440 41,670
Motor Vehicle Sales Tax 11,290 12,330 13,370
Gross Receipts Tax 47,640 52,020 56,390
Gasoline Tax 0 31,140 31,140
- f
User Fees (32,450) (35,440) (38,420)
Permits /Fines 6.570 7.170 7.780
Li
TOTAL: 154,460 199,410 213,310 } !
Total revenue to be generated from 1995 through 2005 inclusive is estimated to
be $2,006,670.
I �
� 1
ESTIMATED COSTS - AREA FIVE-A Li
,l
There are 5.2 miles of paved, local streets in Area Five-A (highways excluded).
All the subdivision streets are paved, have curb and gutter and are in fair to good con-
dition. No capital improvement work (curb and gutter, resurfacing) is needed but some
resurfacing work should be needed in the next four to six_years. There would be a one
time capital cost of$52,500 for the installation of thirty-five (35) street lights. After all
lights are installed the yearly utility cost is estimated to be $6,883. In addition $18,200
54 f
will be needed for street maintenance and snow removal.
The one time cost for installing sixteen (16) new fire hydrants is estimated to be
$35,200. The maximum fee payments the City might have to make to the Region West
Fire Protection District over a five year period, if the statutory schedule is followed,
would be approximately $84,550. The district would be responsible for providing area
fire protection for three of the five-years.
Area Five-A's share of added police patrol costs is calculated to be $29,095.
This annual cost is based on assumed annexations totaling 4,500 persons.
Additional Area Five-A cost information can be found in Chapter Three
"Revenue and Cost Comparison".
EVALUATING THE ANNEXATION POTENTIAL
OF
AREA FIVE-A
Economic,feasibility is not the only annexation consideration. Criteria found in
the Mayor's Annexation Committee Report of 1981, the 1996 Comprehensive Plan
Update, and the Missouri Municipal League's 1993 "Technical Bulletin" on annexation
were used in evaluating the annexation potential of Area Five-A. Criteria from these
and other sources were listed on the left side of the "Tabulated Annexation Evaluation"
found on page 18. When the characteristics of Area Five-A were found to be in full
r compliance with a particular criterion, factor, or consideration, it is so indicated in the
tabulation by the letter "Y". If it does not comply the letter "N" is placed in the tabulation
space. Designations for "partial compliance," "no change" and "not applicable" are
also used. Footnotes are used when clarification and/or emphasis is needed.
I 1
l
I
55
I
PROPOSED ANNEXATION AREA SIX
A Description IT
Proposed Area Six is located directly west of the current City. Its proposed
north boundary is U.S. 50 West. This area's south boundary would be the south line of
Lohman Road /Old Lohman Road where, for the most part, it would be coterminous
with the current corporate limits. This is not the case in the extreme southwest portion
of Area Six. There the south boundary would be 135' ± south of Lohman Road. The
proposed western line is 200' + .west:of and parallel to Big Horn Drive.
U.S. 50 West / Horner Drive, Lohman Road /Old Lohman Road, and Big Horn
Drive are the major streets in Area Six. Almost all the remaining local streets are
found in two subdivisions, Charm Villa and Meadows By The Club. Charm Villa, a
multi-use subdivision, is located in the southwest corner of proposed Area Six. The
Meadows By The Club is situated in the northeast corner of this proposed area. Two-
thirds of this large lot, single family/two family subdivision is,currently in the City. All Li
the current residential development in Area Six is occurring in these two subdivisions.
Within Area Six there is a total of 124 dwelling units. In the last 15 years the
l
number of dwelling units has increased by 66. The area's estimated population is ,J
337. Additional statistical information, including population projections, is included in
Tables One and Two.
AREA SIX - TABLE ONE
Increase in Dwelling Units
DWELLING UNITS: -
NUMERICAL
TYPE 19801, 1995 INCREASE
Single Family 24 45 21
Duplex 16 42 26 Li
Multi Family 18 37 19
Total: 58 124 66
, 1
1 .
56
ii
AREA SIX - TABLE TWO
Dwelling Unit and Population 'Projections
1995. 2000 2005
Dwelling Units 124 157 190
Population 0] ' 337 427 517
Based on average population of 2.72 persons per dwelling unit in�
- - Jefferson Township outside Jefferson City(1990 census).
Area Six contains 368 acres. Seventy percent (258.1 ac) is farm and woodland.
This area has been slow to develop even though there are no barriers to development.
The area has no flood plains and all the land is relatively level and accessible.
AREA SIX - TABLE THREE
Existing Land Use - 1995-96
Acres
Residential
Single Family 18.7
Two Family 7.9
Multi Family 3.5
Lake 4.4
Local Streets 16.5
Highways 13.6
Fire Station .2
Church 1.5
Commercial 17.8
(�( -Quarry 15.0
Vacant Lots 10.8
4 Vacant Tracts/-Farmland 258.1
-� TOTAL: 368.0
as ,
r' 57
In the fall of 1996 the Missouri Department of Highways and Transportation
plans to let bids for the U.S. 50 West / Big Horn Drive interchange. The westward
extension of Horner Drive (the U.S. 50 outer roadway) will be included in this project.
This major improvement should help spur growth in Area Six. When the precise inter-
change boundaries are known Area Six boundaries should be revised so they encom-
pass not only the entire interchange but also acreage adjacent to that interchange.
The most intense residential building has occurred and is continuing to occur
on fifteen (15) to twenty (20) acres in the Charm Villa subdivision. In the past fifteen I
years over seventy-five percent of residential growth in Area Six has been in this
locale.
Recommended zoning is:
-- Adjacent to Horner Drive and its proposed
extension, around the future interchange
and the Menu Maker area on Big Horn Drive: C-2 and/or M-3
-- The existing Big Horn / Lohman Road
commercial area: C-1 with day care permit
LJ
-- Buffer zones adjacent to the above mentioned
commercial areas (where feasible): CO and/or RA-2
-- Residential areas of Charm Villa subdivision: RD and RA-2
-- The Meadows By The Club: RS-1
-- Balance of the area: RS-2 and RS-3
i
This area will not experience total buildout until after 2020.
ESTIMATED REVENUE - AREA SIX 'moi
The estimated revenues for Area Six are shown in Table Four. They were
obtained by the same methods and calculations used for Area One, Mall Ridge.
� i
58
LJ
AREA SIX - TABLE FOUR
Estimated Revenue
CATEGORY 1995 2000 2005
Property Tax 22,380 24,850 26,410
1 Sales Tax 30,040 33,040 36,350
Motor Vehicle Sales Tax 3,730 4,480 5,340
Gross Receipts Tax 18,450 22,140 25,900
T Gasoline Tax 0 11,270 11,270
User Fees (10,390) (12,470) (14,590)
Permits /Fines 2.360 2.830 3.310
TOTAL: 66,500 86,140 93,990
Total revenue to be generated from 1995 through 2005 inclusive is estimated to
- be $891,190.
ESTIMATED COSTS - AREA SIX
There is 1.8 miles of paved, local streets and .6 mile of public gravel road in
Area Six (excludes U.S. 50 West). All the subdivision streets are paved, have curb
and gutter and are in good condition. No capital improvement work is needed on sub- ,
division streets nor should any be needed in the next five (5) years. Lohman Road is
- in only fair condition. A segment of Big Horn Drive is in very poor condition. Much of
this poor condition street will be replaced with the construction.of the Big Horn / U.S.
50 interchange., There would be a one time capital cost of $30,000 for the installation
of twenty (20) street lights. After all lights are installed the yearly utility cost is esti-
_ , mated to be $4,032. In addition $6,890 will be needed for street maintenance and
snow removal.
There would-be a one time capital cost for installing thirteen (13) new fire
59
L
hydrants of $28,600. The maximum fee payments the City might have to make to the L
Region West Fire Protection District over a five year period, if the statutory schedule is -
followed, would be approximately $27,300. The district would be responsible for pro-
viding area fire protection for three of the five years.
Area Six's share of added police patrol costs is calculated to be $10,531. This
annual cost is based on assumed annexations totaling 4,500 persons.
Additional Area Six cost information can be found in Chapter Three "Revenue
and Cost Comparison".
Li
EVALUATING THE ANNEXATION POTENTIAL
of
AREA SIX
Economic feasibility is not the only annexation consideration. Criteria found in
the Mayor's Annexation Committee Report of 1981, the 1996 Comprehensive Plan
Update, and the Missouri Municipal League's 1993 "Technical Bulletin" on annexa-
tion were used in evaluating the annexation potential of Area Six. Criteria from these
and other sources were listed on the left side of the "Tabulated Annexation Evaluation"
found on page 18. When Area Six-characteristics were found to be in full compliance LI
with a particular criterion, factor, or consideration,-it is so indicated in the tabulation by '
1
the letter "Y". If it does not comply the letter "N" is placed in the tabulation space. Des-
ignations for "partial compliance," "no change" and "not applicable" are also used.
Footnotes are used .when clarification and/or emphasis is needed.
�J�J
60
PROPOSED ANNEXATION AREA SEVEN
- A Description
Proposed Area-Seven is located southwest of the current City; across Lohman
Road to the south of Area.Six. It is west of Modine Manufacturing and the Capital City
Industrial Park.- These industrial areas are both in the Jefferson City-corporate limits.
The proposed west line of Area Seven is approximately one and one half miles west of
the industrial park. The southern boundary is about one mile south of and generally
parallel to Lohman Road.
If Area Seven is to be annexed and Area Six is riot, then Area Seven's north
boundary should be moved north to include the first-tier of lots on the north side of
Lohman Road/Old Lohman Road. The principal street on the east side of Area Seven
is South Country Club Drive. Important streets within the area are a north-south
collector, Westview Drive, and two east-west collectors,' Bagnall Drive and Scruggs
- Station Road.
-Within Area Seven there is a.total of 1,030 dwelling units. In the last 15 years
the number of dwelling units has increased by 610. The area's estimated population
is 2,802. Additional statistical information, including population projections, is
included in Tables One and Two.
AREA SEVEN - TABLE ONE
Increase in Dwelling Units
_I DWELLING UNITS:
NUMERICAL
TYPE 1980 1995 INCREASE
1� Single Family 404 851 447
f ' Duplex 0 14 14
Multi Family- 16 165 149.
Total 420 1,030 610
61
AREA SEVEN - TABLE TWO
Dwelling Unit and Population Projections
1995 2000 .2005 -
Dwelling Units 1,030' 1,233 1,436
Population [1] 2,802 3,353 31,906
I1 Based on average population of 2.72 persons per dwelling unit in
Jefferson Township outside Jefferson City(1990 census).
Intensive residential building began in Area Seven over 25 years ago. The
availability of district water and level land-permitted the platting and development of
the small lot (60' x 11 0' subdivisions. The hilly terrain in Jefferson City virtually
� I
dictates that larger lot sizes be used within the corporate limits.
Initially Area Seven subdivisions used lagoons for sewage treatment. These
lagoons have since been replaced by the Grays Creek collection system. Sewage is
now treated at the City's main plant in north Jefferson City. t�
I �
The rapid pace of building evident in the 1980s has diminished somewhat in
the 1990s. Small homes were initially constructed to satisfy the "starter home" market. --I
In later years duplexes and apartments have been added. Most of the apartments are
in four unit structures which, for the most part, are located around Chaddsford Drive
and Collier Court. In the last decade larger lot,.single family, subdivisions have been Ll
introduced into the area. These subdivisions, which feature larger residences than
those initially constructed, are located in the southern part of the area.
Water District One provides service to this area. The only_line size problem is in
the southeasterly sector of Area Seven. Here, a four inch line on South Country Club
Drive feeds an eight inch line on Westport Drive. The district plans to supplement the
four inch line with a ten inch line. Part of this ten inch line is already installed and the
pipe for the rest of the project has been purchased and is at the job site. I }
62 1
�I
I In the 1980s there were some stormwater drainage problems in Area Seven.
Since then Cole County has replaced undersized structures and made other
improvements. The County received one stormwater complaint from the area in 1993.
Appropriate reconstruction was undertaken to remedy that particular situation. The
County has received no stormwater drainage complaints since then.* The City Public
Works partial evaluation'of the older parts of Area Seven's storm water system is:
1. Ineffective, old style inlets are used."
2. Inlets are placed only at the low points.
` 3. Inlets are poorly spaced.
4. There are no inlets at many intersectons.
AREA SEVEN - TABLE THREE
Existina Land Use - -1995-96
Acres
Residential
Single Family 195.9
Two Family 2.2
Multi Family 14.5
Local Streets 67.0
Commercial -.4
_ Vacant Lots 19.2
Vacant Tracts/ Farmland 172.7
TOTAL: 471.5
Undeveloped land (vacant.lots, vacant tracts, woodland, farmland) accounts for
191.9 acres or forty percent of all land in Area Seven.
SOURCE: Cole County Director of Public Works. March, 1996.
63
i�
Recommended zoning is:
-- The multi-family areas around Collier Court and Chaddsford Drive: RA-2
-- Excepting the Chaddsford Drive area, all land south of Scruggs
Station Road and the northwesterly 120 ± acres (Kauffman
subdivisions): RS-2
-- Balance of the area: RS-3
i ,
This area should experience buildout sometime between 2015 and 2020.
i ,
� 1
v
I i
Lj
1
' i 1
U
f
64
ESTIMATED REVENUE - - AREA SEVEN
The estimated revenues for Area Seven are shown in Table Four. They were
obtained by the same methods and calculations used for Area One, Mall Ridge.
AREA SEVEN - TABLE FOUR
Estimated Revenue
-- CATEGORY 1995 2000 '2005
Property Tax 110,350 120,280 131,100
Sales Tax 29,400 32,050 34,930
Motor Vehicle Sales Tax 27,100 29,540 32,200
Gross Receipts Tax 110,500 120,440 131,280
Gasoline Tax 0 80,560 80,560
- User Fees (82,300) (89,710) (97,780)
Permits /Fines 14.000 15.260 16.630
TOTAL: 209,050 308,420 328,720
Growth over the next ten years is anticipated to be less than that of the past ten.
Because of this and in order to keep revenue projections on the conservative side the
_ 2000 and 2005 estimates were figured at one half of the straight line rate.
_ Total revenue to be generated from 1995 through 2005 inclusive is estimated to
be $2,909,260.
ESTIMATED COSTS - AREA SEVEN
There are 8.7 miles of paved; local,street in Area Seven. All the subdivision
streets are paved. The condition of streets range from good to poor with the vast
Fi 65
majority being in the good to fair category.
1 tY 9 � 9 .,Correction of stormwater drainage
problems could cost several million dollars. The annexation process by itself does not,
however, necessitate any capital.improvement action unless the City specifically ?
includes it in a Plan.of Intent. There would be a one time capital-cost of $120,000 for
the installation of eighty (80) street lights. After all lights are installed the yearly utility
cost is estimated to be $15,960. In addition $33,300 will be needed for street
maintenance and snow removal.
The one time cost for installing sixty (60) new fire hydrants is estimated to be I~
$132,000. The maximum fee payments the City might have to make to the Region
West Fire Protection District over a five year period, if the statutory schedule is
followed, would be approximately $102,810. The district would be responsible for �=
providing area fire protection for three of the five years. J
Area Seven's share of added police patrol costs is calculated to be $62,956.
This annual cost is based on assumed annexations totaling 4,500 persons.
Additional Area Seven cost information can be found in Chapter Three '
"Revenue and Cost Comparison".
1 (
EVALUATING THE ANNEXATION POTENTIAL ins
of
AREA -SEVEN Li
Economic feasibility is not the only annexation consideration. Criteria found in 1
the Mayor's Annexation Committee Report of 1981, the 1996 Comprehensive Plan
Update, and the Missouri Municipal League's"1993 "Technica[ Bulletin" on annexation
were used in evaluating the annexation potential of Area Seven. Criteria from these
and other sources were listed on the left side of the "Tabulated Annexation Evaluation"
found on page 18. When Area Seven characteristics were found to be in full
compliance with a particular criterion, factor, or consideration, it is so indicated in the
66 I
, f
tabulation by the letter "Y". If it does not comply the letter "N" is placed in the tabulation-
space. Designations for"partial compliance," "no change" and "not applicable" are
also used. Footnotes are used when clarification and/or emphasis is needed.
P
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
The following are Area Seven boundary alternatives the City may wish to
pursue:
First Alternate
If it is decided to pursue the annexation of Area Seven, but not Area Six,
consideration could be given to moving Area Seven's northern boundary to the
first section line north of Lohman Road. As a result of such a change the revised
area would then include the Charm Villa subdivision,the Northview/Perkins Street
- area, the Convenience Store and other properties in the revised area. This
would bring about an increase in population (180±) and revenue ($25,000±
annual). The boundary change could also trigger a property owner petition for the
reconstruction of Northview and Perkins Drives. These are currently gravel roads
in 60 foot public rights-of-way. Under current guidelines the City's share of this
reconstruction would be approximately $120,000. Be advised that:
the owners may not petition for the improvement, and
if proper petitions are received the City's obligation is to
review them (1) equally with similar street improvement
petitions which may have been received and (2) in light
of funds budgeted citywide for such local street recon-
struction.
The City's cost for providing a chip and seal (modified polymer) surfacing for these
4
two streets is estimated to be $950. This dust free coating should be reapplied
every two to three years.
ti
--. 67
Second Alternate
Exclude from Area Seven land which is generally west of the Range Line and
Northway Drive and southwest of South Brooks Drive. This would reduce:
(1) the land area of Area Seven by 45 to 50 percent,
(2) the population and revenue by about 40 percent, and
(3) the miles of street by 32 percent.
L
The above described exclusion would:
(1) eliminate that part of the area which is more than two miles from the nearest
municipal fire station, and
(2) remove the major drainageway from proposed Area Seven.
IJ
If this alternate is chosen the new west-southwest area boundary would be less
straightforward than that of the original, larger Area Seven.
L
i
i�
I�
i
� I
U
� I
1
68
i
PROPOSED ANNEXATION AREA EIGHT
A Description
I Area Eight, while being southwest of the current City, is located some distance
to the east of Area Seven. The existing corporate limits are the east, north and west
boundaries of proposed Area Eight. A line 200' + south and generally parallel to
Rockridge Road is, for the most part1, the area's southern boundary.
The two major land developments in Area Eight are the Fainwood and the
Neuzler's Early American/Capital,Savings Subdivision (hereinafter referred to as the
Capital Savings area). Fainwood, a large lot single family development is in the north-
eastern sector of this proposed annexation area. In prior'years Fainwood residents
have expressed interest in being annexed. The Capital Savings area in the southeast
sector has more moderately sized, but still spacious, lots. In this area the predominate
use.is single family..There is, however, a day care center and a number of multifamily
-� structures in the southerly part of the development. Other concentrations of residential
use in Area Eight are along Frog Hollow Road and Rockridge Road to the east of the
-Frog Hollow intersection. A new', single family subdivision', Rock Ridge Estates, is
- being developed on the north side of Rockridge Road. It is .3 miles east of the Frog
i
Hollow intersection and immediately to the west of Cedar Valley Drive.
A_ Other significant land uses and landmarks in Area Eight include the
"quarry/asphalt and concrete plants-in the northeast and both the Jaycee Cole County
Fairgrounds and-the'Couhty Park in the west. The City is currently pursuing the acqui-
sition of park land in the eastern part of Area Eight. The Parks and Recreation Depart-
ment's long range plan, in addition to acquiring this eastern area park, is to obtain land
for trail usage along Wears Creek. Additionally, the Department would like to acquire
one or more ,neighborhood park sites in this developing area.
Area Eight includes all that part of the Wears Creek watershed not currently
The proposed alignment of State Route 179 is the boundary after it crosses State Route C.
69
r
L
within the corporate limits. All the area, with two small exceptions2, will drain by grav-
ity into the existing City. This is significant because (1)'all sewage generated in the
area can flow by gravity into the City's collection system, and (2) as the area develops
added stormwater runoff will be added to the volume currently being carried through
the City by the main branch of Wears Creek.
Two major sanitary sewer lines have been in place in Area Eight for a number '
of years. The north-south trunk is west of and runs generally parallel to Area Eight's
eastern boundary (the current city limits). The eastern part of Area Eight, except for the 'J
i
land south of Rockridge Road, drains naturally toward this trunk. The north-south trunk
serves the Capital Savings area plus numerous properties in the City. The rest of Area
Eight, with one minor exception, slopes to north-northeast toward the City's east-west
trunk. The east-west trunk follows Wears Creek to its headwaters past County Park
Lake. Much of this line is just inside of the City's southern corporate limits. It serves
the Capital City Industrial Park, the Fairgrounds and other properties both inside and
outside the corporate limits. Sewage disposal in Area Eight is via these trunk lines;
individual, on site treatment (in some instances adequacy of treatment may be -
i
questioned); and private company lagoon treatment. Both of Area Eight's major subdi-
visions are connected to the municipal trunk lines. _
Good stormwater management practices must be followed in the yet undevel-
oped part of this watershed if downstream damage is to be avoided. It is not too early
for the City to be giving serious consideration (developing plans, securing easements
and options, etc.) to the development of upper watershed detention basins.
Principal existing streets in the area include: L
1) A portion of the nearly completed West Edgewood extension. This
east-west arterial is located near the City's southern limits; the westerly por-
tion is now in the City, the easterly section is not.
2) Rockridge Road, formerly State Route C, is another major east-west street. It
2 One is in the extreme southwest,west of County Park Road.The other is south of Rockridge Road in QJ
the extreme southeast.
70 -�
is 1 to 1.5 miles south of West Edgewood Drive.
3) County Park Road, a north-south road that connects Rockridge Road with
Fairgrounds Road.
4) Frog Hollow Road is a twisting, hilly road in the east/east-central part of the
area. It runs to the southwest from West Edgewood to connect this new arter-
ial with Rockridge Road.
The existing streets provide a number of looped routes which are beneficial to
patrol and snow, removal functions. These will be enhanced as new arterial streets are
constructed in the area.
Major streets planned for Area Eight include:
1) State Route 179, when extended to the south, will go through the easterly
part of Area Eight. Lack of-funds is delaying this planned extension. The
City and County are currently exploring financial alternates with the Mis-
souri Department of Highways and Transportation.
2) Long range plans call for the southerly extension of Wildwood Drive. When
A accomplished this will put into place a good arterial street connection be-
tween Rockridge Road and both West Edgewood and Missouri Boulevard.
3) The possible northerly extension of Rolling Hills Road as shown in-.the City's
1996 Comprehensive Plan Update.
Commercial zoning should not be proposed at future arterial intersections until after
needed right-of-way has been acquired.
Area Eight is situated in the City's historical-and current growth path. The City's
Comprehensive Plan states [p. 207] in its discussions of the area west of Stadium
Boulevard and south of U.S. 50:
71
"While part of this area is presently outside of the city limits, it is an area which k
presents some of the greatest development potential. Sanitary sewer is avail-
able and new street and highway improvements are scheduled for this area.
The City should actively pursue annexation of the portion of this area not pre-
sently within the city limits ..." j
s
On page 225 the Plan states:
"Annexation provides the City with the most effective means for the implemen-
tation of the Comprehensive Plan."
The inclusion of Area Eight within the corporate limits would facilitate plan implemen-
tation in the areas of transportation, land use, stormwater drainage, and parks and
recreation.
?
Additional analysis and description is provided on Area Eight by sectors.
These sectors are: ?
-- Eight East Sector; from the-current City west to include the'proposed exten-
sion of State Route 179. j
-- Eight Central Sector; from the proposed extension of Route 179 to the pro- 1r l
posed extension of Wildwood Drive. =`
1
-- Eight West,Sector; the balance of the area. �
More definitive descriptions can be given by using the sector approach. Also, pro- f
posed zoning can be more clearly presented and understood by using the sector
method. i
• � I
72
A Description
of the
Eight East Sector
-' The Eight East Sector is the easterly portion of Area Eight. Its northern and
eastern boundaries are the corporate limits. Land currently in Cole County and tra-
versed by the West Edgewood extension is a part of this area. This sector's western
;— and southern boundaries are the proposed alignment of State Route 179. Areas of
residential .development include the Fainwood subdivision and the Capital Savings
area and the mixed, single family / multifamily usage prevalent along Rockridge Road.
Other area features include:
-- the-quarry/asphalt and concrete plants,
-- a potential park site,
-- a major north-south sanitary trunk sewer line, and
- -- the future extensions of Route 179 and Rolling Hills Road.
Within the Eight East Sector there is a total of 229 dwelling units. In the last 15
, r
years the number of dwelling units has increased by 176. The area's estimated popu-
.lation is 623. Additional statistical information, including population projections, is
_ included in Tables One and Two.-
EIGHT EAST SECTOR - TABLE ONE
Increase in Dwelling Units
DWELLING UNITS:
-' NUMERICAL
TYPE 1980 1995 INCREASE
Single Family 43 154 111
Duplex 4 12 8
Multi Family 6 63 57
TOTAL: 53 229 '176
(mak
1
l [ .
73
r
EIGHT EAST SECTOR - TABLE TWO
Dwelling Unit and Population Projections
1995 2000 2005
L
Dwelling Units 229 288 347
j
Population [1] 623 783 937
�1] Based on average population of 2.72 persons per dwelling units in �Li
Jefferson Township outside Jefferson City(1990 census).
This sector contains 669.0 acres. Almost all the area drains toward the north-
I
south trunk sewer line. The'exception is the area south of Rockridge Road which
I �
drains toward the Renns Lake pump station. �-
EIGHT EAST SECTOR - TABLE THREE
Existing Land Use - 1995-96 F-)
Acres
Residential'
Single Family 69:0
Two Family 2.3
Multi Family 6.8
Local Streets 34.5 , (�
Highways 7.0
Fire Station .4 '
Misc. 9.9
Quarry/Asphalt &
-Concrete Plants 32.1 -
Vacant Lots 38.9
Vacant Tracts/Farmland 468.1
TOTAL: 669.0
' i
The Misc.category includes day care, .3 ac; lagoons, .9 ac; retreat,5.6 ac;
and mixed use,3.1 ac(small mobile home park,auto repair and vehicle storage).
74 r !
Z�
f
Right-of-way for proposed Route 179 is not included in the tabulation. The
seven (7) acres of highway right-of-way is Route C.
The undeveloped farm, woodland and vacant lots are seventy-five percent
(75%) of the total area. All this area is suitable for urban development except the 30
ac. ± which is located in a designated flood plain. This flood plain is along Wears
Creek in the north part of the Eight East Sector. There are slopes of more than twenty
percent (20%) in the area. With careful planning these steep slopes will present no
serious obstacles to urban development.
Fire Station Three would provide protection to the northern part of this section.
Responses to fire calls in the southerly part would be from Station Four.
Recommended zoning is:
-- quarry/asphalt and concrete plants: M-3
—; -- Fainwood area from the quarry to the Wear Creek floodplain: RS-1
-- Wears Creek floodplain: RC
-- duplex and multifamily areas on Rockridge, Fox Bar,
Rolling Hills and Lexington streets (no single lot
"spot zones" to be created): RA-2
-- daycare at Rolling Hills and Rockridge Roads RA-2
with use permit
-- balance of area RS-2
This area will not experience total buildout until after 2020.
s �
75
�
i
r
A Description
of the
Eight Central Sector
i
The Eight Central Sector is located south of the present city, west of the East
Sector and east of the West Sector. Its boundaries are: eastern, the proposed align-
ment of Route 179; southern, a line 200' —+ .south of and parallel to Rockridge Road;
.western, the Frog Hollow/Rockridge intersection and part of the proposed alignment of
Wildwood Drive; and northern, the current city limits line.
Almost all of Eight Central slopes north-northeast from Rockridge Road toward c�
Wears Creek and the City's east-west sanitary sewer trunk line. There are steep slope -
areas which will require careful planning. With such planning attractive residential
development can occur throughout most of this sector. One exception would be in
the northerly portion of the area where 45 to 50 acres of designated flood plain are j
found in the Wears Creek f loodway/f loodway fringe.
Within this sector there is-a total of 218 dwelling units. In the last 15 years the
number of dwelling units has increased by 35. The area's estimated population is
593. Additional statistical information, including population projections, is included in
Tables Four and Five. 1t
�R
� I
EIGHT CENTRAL SECTOR - TABLE .FOUR
Li
Increase in Dwelling Units _ 7
DWELLING UNITS:
NUMERICAL
TYPE 1980 1995 INCREASE U
Single Family 183 218 35
i `
76
f
EIGHT CENTRAL SECTOR - TABLE FIVE
Dwelling Unit and Population Projections
1995 2000 2005
Dwelling Units 218 230 242
Population [il 593 '626 658
M Based on average population of 2.72 persons per,dwelling unit in
1
Jefferson Township outside Jefferson City 0 990census).
This sector contains 1,019.2 acres. Vacant lots, vacant tracts and farm/wood-
land total 763.6 acres which is seventy-five percent (75%) of the entire.sector. All this
land has urban development potential except for the floodplain/steep slope.areas.
Irregularly shaped properties and landlocked ,parcels (coupled with-steep slopes) will
preclude optimum development of land in one quarter section. This is primarily,due to
land division practices which:occurred prior to the adoption of the Cole County Subdi-
vision Regulations.
Viewed over the long term urbanization has been slow. There are indications
that this is changing; almost all of the residential growth of the past fifteen years has
occurred in the last two to three years. The most active subdivision is-Rock Ridge
Estates. This single family residential development is on the north side of Rockridge
�F Road .3 mile east of the Frog Hollow intersection. Rock'Ridge Estates plus the older
Take subdivision to the northeast, are connected to a sewage lagoon. This treatment
facility is operated by a private utility company.
77
,F
f-
EIGHT CENTRAL SECTOR - TABLE SIX
Existing Land Use - 1995-96 -
1
Acres `
Residential, Single Family 201.6
Lake 4.8
Local Streets 33.2
Commercial 13.5
Lagoon 2.5
i
Vacant Tracts 10.7
Vacant Lots 17.5
Farm/Woodland 735.4
TOTAL: 1,019.2
There are'no retail outlets in the Central Sector. The existing commercial uses
are predominately contractor's storage buildings and yards. Some of this heavy com-
mercial usage could be classified as light industrial. One relatively small contractor's
area is at the end,of'Rademan Lane. A second, and much larger commercialfindustrial
area, is near the end of Valley High Road where a trucking service, a drywall contrac-
tor and a landscape contractor have their separate storage buildings and/or outdoor
yards.
7,
Rademan Lane and Valley High Road have the following common characteristics:
� l
1) both are good quality gravel roads, �ri 1
2) both have a length in excess of a quarter mile,
(Valley High Road length is in excess of a half mile)
3) neither has an outlet,
4) in either case it would be difficult (but not impossible) `
to create an outlet for these lengthy dead end roads,
5) both have narrow rights-of-way,
6) as noted earlier, both have commercial/industrial uses
at or near their terminus,
r tC
i
78
7) in each situation -
a)for trucks to reach the contractor premises they must be
driven on gravel roads past single family residences, and
b) the contractor areas are adjacent to and/or across a gravel
road from single family dwellings.
J, The Eight Central Sector has, by far,: more gravel roads than any other area or,
sub-area. There are 7,950 linear feet (1.5 miles) of gravel road in this sector. The
total length of gravel roads, in all previously inventoried areas and sub-areas is 1,500
feet.
Recommended zoning is:
-- All of the Eight Central Sector with two exceptions: . RS-2
-- Exception One,
' the Wears Creek designated floodplain: . RC
-- Exception Two, -
the contractor's area at the end of Valley High Road: M-3
The M-3, Planned Industrial Area, should,not exceed twenty (20) acres. Its
- shape should be as regular as possible which means it will have to include four to six
_! existing.residences.,,These residences would become non-conforming uses. The dis-
trict should be large enough.to provide buffer zones inside the perimeter of the
Planned Industrial District.. Slopes too steep for commercial/industrial use will be a
factor controlling the ultimate size of the district. Development of a workable plan will
call for the cooperative efforts of .owners within the proposed district, adjacent land
owners.and the City. If this area is annexed and zoned M-3 there should be no expan-
sion of the existing businesses without an approved plan for the entire district. Even
with an approved plan only modest expansions should be allowed until improved
street access is assured. Both an upgraded roadway surface and,elimination�of the
dead end, no outlet characteristic needs to be addressed.
This area will not experience total buildout .until after 2020. -
< 1 -
79
I
A Description
of the
Eight West Sector !
The Eight West Sector is located south of the current corporate limits between
I
the Frog Hollow/ Rockridge Road intersection and the Capital City Industrial Park. A
line 200' ± south of and parallel to Rockridge Road forms the area's southern bound-
ary between Frog Hollow Road and County Park Road. The alignment of the planned
extension of Wildwood Drive is a part of this sector's eastern boundary. This arterial
street, when extended, will connect Rockridge Road with West Edgewood and MisLJ
-
souri Boulevard. The Jay Cee Cole County Fairgrounds and the Cole County Park are
located in the western part of this sector.
There are no officially designated flood plains in this area. Nonetheless some F
fringe areas near Wears Creek are subject to flooding. Gentle to moderate,slopes are LJ
found throughout the area; steep slope areas are small and scattered. Most of this
West Sector slopes to the north-northeast from Rockridge Road toward Wears Creek �1
and the"City's east-west sanitary sewer trunk line.
Within this sector there is a total of 17 dwelling units. In the fast 15 years the
number of dwelling units has increased by 4. The area's estimated population is 46.
Additional statistical information, including population projections, is included in
Tables Seven and Eight. ,J
EIGHT WEST SECTOR - TABLE SEVEN U
Increase in Dwelling Units �
DWELLING UNITS:
NUMERICAL
TYPE 1980 1995 INCREASE t 'g
Single Family 13 17 4
� I
80
r
i
EIGHT WEST SECTOR - -TABLE EIGHT
Dwelling Unit and Population Projections
t 1995 2000 2005
Dwelling Units 17 18 20
Population M 46 49 54
t �
�1 Based on average population of 2.72 persons per dwelling unit
4 in Jefferson Township outside Jefferson City(1 990 census).
The West Sector contains 500.3 acres. The predominant land use is the 336.9
acres in the farm/woodland category. This undeveloped land accounts for 68 percent
of this sector's total land usage. There are no subdivisions of consequence in the
area. This sub-area has been slow in developing even though there are no barriers
to development. Because of its location in the City's growth path and its physical
attributes, increases in urban development can be expected to occur in the near future.
EIGHT WEST SECTOR - TABLE NINE
r Existing Land Use - 1995-96
Acres
•y Single Family Res. 15.6
Commercial 1.3
Local Streets 20.2
County Park 76.5
Fairgrounds 38.6
Vacant Lots 11.2
Farm /Woodland 336.9
TOTAL: 500.3
81
1
The sector is within a two mile service radius of Fire Station Five. Fairgrounds
Road, County Park Road and Rockridge Road provide quick access into the area.
The only commercial enterprise in the area is a successful heating business. It
is located on the north side of Rockridge Road midway between Frog Hollow and
County Park Roads. {
Recommended zoning is:
-- the above mentioned heating business: C-2
(unless City desires to:
(a) make it a non-conforming use, or 7"
(b) make it C-1 with a use permit)
-- buffer strip not less than 200 feet wide on all sides of
the above cited C-2 area: RA-2
-- balance of the area: RS-3
L:
This area will not experience buildout until after'2020. I
9 �
iJ
� I
14
82 -
I
'-J
` AREA EIGHT
POPULATION and LAND USE - SUMMARY
The statistical information complied for the three sectors has been consolidated
in the following tables:
I
AREA EIGHT - CONSOLIDATED TABLE TEN
A ,
Dwelling Unit and Population Projections
1995, 2000 2005
^ Dwelling Units 464 536 609
A Population[11] 1,262 1,409 1,649
[1l Based on average population of 2.72 persons per dwelling unit in
Jefferson Township outside Jefferson City(1 990 census).
AREA EIGHT - CONSOLIDATED TABLE ELEVEN
'Existing' Land Use - 1995-96
_ Acres
Residential
Single Family 286.2
Two-Family 2.3
Multi-Family 6.8
Commercial 14.8
Quarry/Asphalt &
Concrete Plants 32.1
Lake 4.8
r- Local Streets 87.9
Highways 7.0
1
83
Fire Station .4
Lagoon 2.8
Misc. 9.6
County Park 76.5
Fairgrounds 38.6
Vacant Lots 67.6
Vacant Tracts/
Farm/Woodland 1.551.1
TOTAL: 2,188.5
ESTIMATED REVENUE - AREA EIGHT
The estimated revenues for Area Eight are shown in Table Twelve. They were
obtained by the same methods and calculations used for Area One, Mall Ridge.
AREA EIGHT - TABLE TWELVE
Estimated Revenue
CATEGORY 1995 2000 2005
Property Tax 84,360 :98,720 113,330
Sales Tax '91,740 96,820 103,460
Motor Vehicle Sales Tax 17,650 20,730 23,880
Gross Receipts Tax 59,30068,920 78,710
Gasoline Tax 0 34,130 34,130
User Fees 20,130 25,270 (32,820) '
Permits /Fines 7.200 8.280 9.580
TOTAL: 240,120 302,330 330,270
I�
84
i�
n
Total revenue to be generated from 1995 through'2005 inclusive is estimated to
'be $3,120,900,
P
'ESTIMATED COSTS - AREA EIGHT
�t -
f There are-11.6 miles of paved local street in Area Eight. In the.Eight East Sec-
for all the streets'in the two major subdivisions are paved with curb and gutter. All are
in good condition except for inferior portions of Tanglewood, Briarwood and.Kenwood
Drives in Fainwood Addition. Cole County has not accepted these,poor quality streets_
or maintenance. For cost calculations it is assumed that the City will not maintain
streets not currently maintained by the County. There would be no municipal cost with
1 respect to these streets until after the abutting owners and/or developer upgrades the
streets to a standard acceptable to the City. In the Eight Central Sector the subdivision
streets are in good condition. No reconstruction or resurfacing ofthese streets should
be needed for at least five years. There are however nearly 8,000 feet of gravel road
in this sector. Estimated annual costs for gravel road seal coating and dust suppres-
sion is $6,600. There are no subdivisions in the West Sector; the principal streets are
-� in good condition.
There Would be a one time,capital cost of $133,500 for the installation of eighty-
nine (89) streetlights. After all lights are installed the yearly utility cost is-estimated to
be $17,1.36., In addition $40,366 will be needed for street maintenance and snow
removal.
j The one time cost for installing fifty-two (52) new,fire hydrants is estimated to be
$144,400. No future hydrants were located on lines of'four inches or less. Six and
eight inch lines are common throughout the area. The principai'major road exceptions
are;
(1) the western two-thirds of Frog Hollow Road has four inch existing with the
mid-range Ian being to upgrade to six inch and/or eight inch
9 P 9 p9 9 ,
85
i
EVALUATING THE ANNEXATION POTENTIAL
OF
AREA NINE
Economic feasibility is not the only annexation consideration. Criteria found in
the Mayor's Annexation Committee Report of, 1981, the 1996-Comprehensive Plan
Update, and the Missouri _Municipal League's 1993 "Technical Bulletin" on annexation ,I
were used in'evaluating the annexation potential of,Area Nine. Criteria from;these
and other sources were listed on the "Tabulated Annexation Evaluation" found on
page 18. When Area,Nine characteristics were-found to be-in full,compliance with a
particular criterion, factor, or consideration, it is so indicated in the tabulation by the let-
ter "Y". If it does not comply the letter "N" is placed in the tabulation space. Designa-
tions for "partial compliance," "no change" and "not applicable" are also used. Foot-
notes are used when clarification, and/or emphasis is needed.
LJ
u
i
i
92
t
PROPOSED ANNEXATION AREA TEN
r ' A Description
Proposed Area Ten is adjacent to and-,South of the present city. Its northern
boundary is the southerly line of Seven Hills Road. The southerly boundary of this
proposed annexation area follows the centerline of the Moreau River except where the
proposed line cuts across the narrow part of a long, looping oxbow. .The west end of
y this south boundary-begins at the city limits. It then proceeds northeasterly along the
river's centerline to the first section line east of Bald Hill Road.
All of Area'1.0 is outside the City's Sanitary Sewer Service area. Natural drain-
age is toward the Moreau River. The area's newest and largest subdivision, Sleepy
Hollow Estates, has its own treatment facility. Residences elsewhere in-the area have
on-site treatment. Eighty new homes have.been constructed in Sleepy Hollow in
recent years. A number of new homes are being constructed in this subdivision at the
4-' current time. Streets/utilities have been installed for an additional 30+lots. The con-
struction.activity in Sleepy Hollow has more than doubled the number of homes that
existed in all of Area Ten in 1980. Verylittle new construction has taken place outside
this subdivision in the last 15 years.
Within Area Ten there is a total of 91- dwelling units. In the last fifteen years the
4 number of dwelling units has increased by 50. The area's estimated population is
248. Additional statistical information, including population projections, is included in
Tables One and Two. The population projections are based on a ten percent per dec-
ade increase.
i
AREA TEN , - -TABLE ONE
Increase in Dwelling Units
DWELLING UNITS:
NUMERICAL
TYPE 1980 1995 INCREASE
Single Family -41 91 50
93
AREA TEN - TABLE TWO
Dwelling Unit and Population Projections
1995 2000 2005
Dwelling Units 91 96 100
Population 111 248 261 272
1 Based on average population of 2.72 persons per dwelling unit in
i
Jefferson township outside Jefferson City(1990 census)
i
Area Ten contains 348.4 acres. Of this amount 194.2 acres (56 percent of total)
is undeveloped (vacant lots and tracts, woodland/farm). Ten to fifteen acres of this
undeveloped land is subject to Moreau River flooding. Severe slopes are also com-
mon where the land rises from the river bottoms. In the upland areas slopes are mod-
erate to severe. Most of the best ridge line building sites are already occupied. Care-
ful platting will be required to obtain the optimal utilization of the remaining vacant
land.
AREA TEN - TABLE THREE
Existing Land Use - 1995-96 i
Acres
Residential
Single Family 122.9 1
Moreau River 10.8
Recreational Homes 5.0
Local Streets 13.5
Commercial 1.2
Sewage Treatment .8
Vacant Lots and Tracts 42.7
Woodland/Farm 151.5
TOTAL. 348.4
94
r
The area has urban development potential even though it'has some terrain
problems and is outside the Jefferson City Sanitary Sewer Service Area. On its north-
ern boundary is a good arterial street which provides ready access to other parts of the
City. Other than the previously stated terrain constraints, access to utilities and streets
should not present problems.
Recommended zoning,is:
-- Moreau River floodplain: RC
` -- Balance of area: RS-2
i
This area will not experience total buildout until after 2020_ .
1
\.J
95
ESTIMATED REVENUE - AREA TEN
The estimated revenues for Area Ten are shown in Table Four. They were _
obtained by the same methods and calculations used for Area One, Mall Ridge. Pro-
jections are based on a growth rate of ten percent per decade.
AREA TEN - TABLE FOUR
Estimated Revenue
CATEGORY 1995 2000 2005 -J
�.T
Property Tax 19,500 20,480 21,450
Sales Tax 3,000 3,150 3,310
Motor Vehicle Sales Tax 2,390 2,510 2,640
Gross Receipts Tax 14,960 15,710 16,500
Gasoline Tax 0 6,530 6.530
User Fees 0 0 0
Permits /Fines 1.140 1.200 1.260
TOTAL: 41,190 49,580 51,690 _-
Total revenue to be generated from 1995 through 2005 inclusive is esti- -
mated to be $512,670.
� I
96
�r
f
�I ESTIMATED COSTS - AREA TEN
There are 3.8 miles of paved, public street in Area Ten. All streets in Sleepy
Hollow Estates are paved, have curb and gutter and are in good condition. The 500'
of Glovers Ford Road, located in Area Ten, will need an overlay ($5,000). An esti-
mated $2,310 will be needed to seal coat all gravel roads. There will be a one time
capital cost of $40,500 for the installation of twenty-seven (27) street lights. After all
lights are installed the yearly utility cost is estimated to be $4,700. In addition $13,300
will be needed for street maintenance and snow removal.
The one time cost of installing nine (9) new fire hydrants is estimated to be
$19,800. The maximum fee payments the City might have to make to the Cole County
Fire Protection District over a five year period, if the statutory schedule is followed,
would be approximately $17,985. The district would be responsible for providing area
fire protection for three of the five years.
Area Ten 's share of added police patrol costs is calculated to be $10,920. This
annual cost is based on assumed annexations totaling 4,500 persons.
Additional Area Ten cost information can be found in Chapter Three "Revenue
—� and Cost Comparison".
s ,y
5
EVALUATING THE ANNEXATION POTENTIAL
OF
J
AREA TEN
�I
Economic feasibility is not the only annexation consideration. Criteria found in
the Mayor's Annexation Committee Report of 1981, the 1996 Comprehensive Plan
Update, and the Missouri Municipal League's 1993 "Technical Bulletin" on annexation
� ; 97
I
t
were used in evaluating the annexation potential of Area Ten. Criteria from these and
other sources were listed on the left side of the "Tabulated Annexation Evaluation"
found on page 18. When Area Ten characteristics were found to be in full com-
pliance with a particular criterion, factor, or consideration, it is so indicated in the tabu-
lation by the letter "Y". If it does not comply the letter "N" is placed in the tabulation
space. Designations for "partial compliance," "no change" and "not applicable" are
also used. Footnotes are used when clarification and/or emphasis is needed.
i
7
L
a
1
,J
98 �,
PROPOSED ANNEXATION AREA ELEVEN
A Description
Proposed Area Eleven is located near the southeast corner of the City. Its
boundaries are the city limits, the west line of Section 21,, and the easterly extension of
the south city limits to this west section line. This small area is a six sided finger-like
protrusion extending a quarter mile into the corporate area. It has an approximate
.4 width of 400 feet. This unusual configuration was brought about by the voluntary
annexation of Schott Hill Woods, a subdivision located to the south and to'the west of
Area Eleven.
a-} Within Area Eleven there is a total of 56 dwelling units. Fifty-four are mobile
.� homes. There has been no increase in dwelling units in the last 15 years. The area's
estimated population is 152.
Area Eleven contains 15.1 acres. There are no vacant tracts or lots in this area.
The predominate land-,use is the mobile home park. This mobile home park differs
"from the typical mobile home park in that its principal roadway is a public rather than a
private street. Area Eleven is connected to the Jefferson City sanitary sewer system.
AREA ELEVEN - TABLE ONE
Existing Land Use - 1995-96
Acres
Residential
Single Family 3.5
Mobile Home Park 6.4
Local Streets 1.6
Water District .7
Commercial 2.9
Total: 15.1
r
99
Recommended zoning is:
-- Commercial area near U.S. 50/Schott Road: C-2
-- Mobile home park: RS-2
[with application for use permit]
-- Balance of Area: RS-2
I
c
ESTIMATED REVENUE - AREA ELEVEN
i
The estimated revenues for Area Eleven are shown in Table Two. They were
obtained by the same methods and calculations used for Area One, Mall Ridge.
AREA ELEVEN - TABLE TWO -
4�,
Estimated Revenue
CATEGORY 1995 2000 2005 —�
Property Tax 3,070 3,070 3,070
Sales Tax 2,400 2,400 2,400
Motor Vehicle Sales Tax 1,570 1,570 1,570
Gross Receipts Tax 6,210 6,210 6,210
Gasoline Tax 0 4,020 4,020
User Fees (4,780) (4,780) (4,780)
Permits /Fines 960 960 960
TOTAL: 9,430 13,450 13,450
Total revenue to be generated from 1995 through 2005 inclusive is estimated tobe $127,850.
� I
Ys
100 j
r,
a
ESTIMATED COSTS AREA ELEVEN
_ There is .3 mile of paved, public street in Area Eleven. No capital improvement
-� work (curb and gutter, resurfacing) is needed nor should any be needed in the next
five years. There'would be a one time capital cost of $6,000 for the installation of four
street lights. After all,lights are installed the yearly utility cost is estimated to be $840.
In addition $1,050 will be needed for street maintenance and snow removal.
The one time cost for installing four,new fire hydrants is estimated to be $8,800.
The maximum fee payments the City might have to make to the Cole County Fire Pro-
tection District over a five year period, if the statutory schedule is followed, would be
approximately $2,300. The district would be responsible for providing area fire protec-
tion for three of the five years.
i�
Area Eleven's share of added police patrol costs is calculated to be $4,310.
This annual cost is based on assumed annexations totaling 4,500 persons.
Additional Area Eleven cost information can be found in Chapter Three
"Revenue and Cost Comparison".
EVALUATING THE ANNEXATION POTENTIAL
OF
AREA ELEVEN
Economic feasibility is not the only annexation consideration. Evaluation cri-
teria from a number of sources.were listed on the left side of the "Tabulated Annexa-
tion Evaluation" found .on page 18. When,Area Eleven characteristics were found to
be in full compliance with a particular criterion,,factor, or consideration, it is so indi-
cated in the-tabulation by the letter "Y". If it does:not comply the letter "N" is placed in
the tabulation space. Designations for "partial compliance," "no change" and "not
applicable" are also used. Footnotes are used when clarification and/or emphasis is
needed.
101
+f
PROPOSED ANNEXATION AREA TWELVE + .
A Description
Proposed Area Twelve, also known as the Algoa Area, is located east of Jeffer-
son City. Its general boundaries are: on the north, the centerline of the Missouri River;
on the east, a land line more-or-less perpendicular to the Missouri River and imme-
diately east of the Algoa Reformatory structures; on the south, the Missouri Pacific
Railroad, the Algoa Spur Connection and U.S. 50-63; and on the west, the eastern 4
corporate limits of Jefferson City. State law requires that to be annexed an area must
be contiguous to the existing city limits and at least fifteen percent (15%) of the peri-
meter.of the area must be coterminous with the city's boundaries. Area Twelve, as
described above, meets both requirements with the amount coterminous being from `
16.5 to 17.0 percent . _
The Algoa Area offers the best industrial development sites in the Jefferson City
area. Two major industrial employers are currently located in the Algoa Industrial Site
Park on Algoa Road. They are Scholastic, Inc. and the Command Web Offset Compa-
ny, Inc. The industrial park offers relatively level land which is not in a flood plain but
is close to a railroad. This is a rare combination of attributes for Jefferson City. Desir-
ability of the industrial park is further enhanced by:
1. Substantial improvements which have been made by Cole County Water
District Three.
2. Fire protection by the Taos-Wardsville Volunteer Fire Department plus an j
agreement for fire protection services from Jefferson City.
3. Sewage treatment agreements with Jefferson City. 1i
4. Good and improving roads and highways. U.S. 50-63 - a 'divided four lane
facility, is located less than a mile south of the industrial park. Best access
from the industrial area to the highway is via Algoa Road and the Algoa Spur
Connection. Cole County has made major improvements to Algoa Road �-
along the north side of the Algoa Industrial Park Site. The Missouri Depart-
ment of Highways and Transportation plans to let bids in the fall of 1996 for
both a diamond interchange at the Algoa Spur and U.S. 50-63 and for major d
improvements to the Algoa Spur.
102
During the 1996 construction season Cole County proposes to:
-- pave all of North Shamrock (Algoa Road to U.S. 50-63) and
-- construct a new street in the industrial park (bid process has
started).
In the spring of 1997 the county plans to reconstruct/upgrade Algoa Road from North
Shamrock to the city limits.
l4
In future years the industrial park may expand to the east of the Command Web
A site and south of the railroad. If this happens and annexation is desired, it could be
f
accomplished using the voluntary annexation procedures.
Jefferson City, Cole County and the Jefferson City Area Chamber of Commerce
are working cooperatively to promote.-industrial development at the Algoa industrial
' park.
Within Area Twelve there is a total of 40 dwelling units. In the last,15 years the
number of dwellingunits has increased b 1
y 3. The Algoa Reformatoryhas an inmate
.population of 1,613 (June, 1996). - The estimated residential population is 109. This
4
gives a current total population of 1,722. Additional statistical information, including
population projections,-is included in Tables One,and'Two.
AREA TWELVE - TABLE ONE
Increase in Dwelling Units
�J DWELLING UNITS:
NUMERICAL
TYPE 1980 1995 INCREASE
Single Family 27 34 7
I_ Duplex 0 2 2
Multi Family 0 4 4
Total: 27 40 13
103
t
AREA TWELVE - TABLE TWO
Dwelling Unit and Population Projections
1995 2000 2005
Residential Population['] 109 114 120 -
Inmate Population 1.613 1.613 1.613
Total Population: 1,722 1,727 1,733
Total dwelling Units 40 - 42 44
['l Based on average population of 2.72 persons per dwelling unit
in Jefferson Township outside Jefferson City(1990 census).
S
Area Twelve contains 2,427.1 acres. Most residences in this area are located _
near the City along Algoa Road and on Moreau View Drive. Two new residential sub-
divisions are under development on Algoa road. One is partially,in the City and some
lot lines of the other are coterminous with the corporate limits.
a
AREA TWELVE - TABLE THREE
Existing Land Use - 1995-96
Acres
Residential 106.6 n
Local Streets 35.3 _
Highways 118.3 -
Railroad 66.9
Rivers 276.6
State of Missouri 412.9
Industrial 144.5
Land Fill 269.7
Vacant Tracts T
Industrial 147.3
Other 71.1
Vacant Lots 56.9 '
Woodland / Farm 721.0
TOTAL: 2,427.1
104
I
ii
The Moreau River joins with the Missouri River in Area Twelve. The Moreau
River- accounts for only 30.1 acres of the river total of�276.6 acres., State of Missouri
properties include the Algoa Reformatory, the National Guard, the Highway Patrol and
the Conservation Commission. The land fill figure in Table Three does,not include
j y optioned land. The highway figure does include the land which will be needed for the
new interchange.
Twenty-five percent of Area Twelve, nearly 610 acres, is located in designated
flood plains. These are the flood-plains of the Missouri River, Moreau .River, and Ris-
ing Creek. Because of their locations the flood plains present no particular threat to
residential development, state facilities, the land fill, nor to the industrial park.. Area
Twelve has a few, relatively small, steep slope areas.
The Jefferson City sanitary sewer system serves the residences on the west
side of Algoa Road.. This relatively small service area extends from the-corporate limits
j to part of the Wakota Woods subdivision. The Algoa Road entrance,to this subdivision
is approximately one half mile from the corporate limits. The residences on Moreau
View-Drive have individual private treatment.
There are two major-public sewage treatment facilities in Area Twelve. One is
located on the National Guard property and the other is near the reformatory. The
I National Guard lagoons currently serve the National Guard complex and the Com-
- Mand Web Offset Company. Lagoon operation is by the Jefferson City Department of
y Public Works. The Department of Public Works is also operating;three package treat-
ment plants for Scholastic, Inc. These package plants are located on the Scholastic,
Inc. property in the industrial park.-
An
arkaAn engineering analysis was made at the City's request to determine alterna-
tive ways to provide future sewer service to the industrial park. The analysis suggests
- the existing Algoa aerated lagoons could be used as the treatment facility for the
I industrial park as it expands. The study states these lagoons currently have significant
-- excess,capacity. After reformatory needs are met 1.1 million' gallons per day capacity
would remain for industrial.and/or other uses. The City has contacted the Missouri
This figure is currently being double checked by city and state officials.
- 105
Department of Corrections regarding such use of the lagoons. The estimated cost for
extending gravity mains-(18" to 24") through the industrial park and to the lagoons plus �-
a lift station and 10" force main is estimated to cost $849,0.00.2 Alternate costs for dif-
fering scenarios are also presented in the report.
Recommended zoning is: T
-- All floodplains: RC
-- Areas near the City which are connected to the city's
sanitary sewer system or which could be connected
by extending gravity mains. Also the Moreau View
Drive Area: RS-2
-- The industrial.park plus the National Guard and Algoa
Reformatory properties (except not floodplain acres): M-1
Landfill properties; Zoning Ordinance text changes would
be required in either instance: M-1
or RU
with permit application
L_
-- Balance of the area:, RU
Section 35-2, D, 2 of the Zoning Ordinance states -- --
"The comprehensive plan included careful estimates of the land area requirements for the various
land uses such as commercial,.residential, industrial,transportation,and public uses. These urban uses j
should be directed into that land area where they may be most efficiently served by public services and 4
facilities such as sewers,water, schools, parks and the like. Remaining lands should be reserved for rural _
uses. Consequently the regulations include a Rural District for non-urban land.uses."
The Rural District allows, as a permissive use, a single family dwelling on a minimum
of one acre. Agricultural-and other uses are also permitted.
The Algoa Area will not experience total buildout until after 2020.
2 Varies depending on the scenario selected. Scenarios are presented in "Jefferson City Planning ILI
Phase Report, Waste water Service to Algoa Industrial Site", Burns and McDonnell, Engineers-Architects-
Consultants. July, 1995.
106
ESTIMATED REVENUE - AREA TWELVE
The estimated revenues for Area Twelve are show in Table Four. They were
obtained by the same methods and calculations used for Area One, Mall Ridge. Reve-
nue increases due to industrial expansion and development are nearly impossible to
predict. A growth rate of ten percent per decade was used in the following table.
r AREA TWELVE - TABLE FOUR
,
Estimated Revenue
i
CATEGORY 1995 2000 2005
Property Tax 61,860 64,950 68,050
Sales Tax 1,640 1,720 1,800
-J
Motor Vehicle Sales Tax 2,050 2,150 2,250
Gross Receipts Tax 60,720 63,760 66,790
� i
Gasoline Tax 0 45,430 45,430
User Fees31,600
( ) (1,680) (1,760)
Permits / Fines 1.050 1.100 1.150
- TOTAL: 125,720 .177,430 183,710
Total revenue to be generated from 1995 through 2005 inclusive is estimated to
be $1,679,150.
3 Assumes industrial rates would not change following annexation.
107
ESTIMATED,COSTS - AREA TWELVE
There are 4.9 miles of public street in the area. The area's only subdivision
1 -
street is paved and is in good condition. Included in Cole County's 1996 road
improvement schedule are: (1) the construction of a new street in the industrial park
and (2) paving and improving all of North Shamrock Road. In 1997 Cole County
plans to improve Algoa Road from Shamrock to the city limits. This upgraded section 1
of Algoa Road will, upon completion, be identical to the recently improved Algoa Road, L
Shamrock to Algoa Spur. The state is letting a contract this fall to construct a new )
Algoa Spur Connection. The only local streets which may need improvement are Rob-
inson Road and Moreau View Drive. These two streets have a total length of six-tenths
mile.
There would be a one time capital cost of $70,500 for the installation of forty-
seven (47) street lights. After all.lights are installed the yearly utility cost is estimated to
be $8,400. In addition $17,150 will be needed for street maintenance and snow
removal.
The one time cost for installing thirteen (13) new fire hydrants is estimated to be
$28,600. Moreau View Drive is served by a two inch line; no hydrants were proposed
for this area. There is a four inch line along Algoa Road from the city limits to the elec-
tric substation. A six inch line is to be added when Cole County upgrades this section
of Algoa Road in the 1997 construction season. Hydrants were proposed along this
part of Algoa Road. The maximum fee payments the City might have to make to the
Cole County Fire Protection District over a five year period, if the statutory schedule is
followed, would be approximately $4,230. The district would be responsible for pro-
viding fire protection north of the Moreau River for three of the five years. The Moreau `-
River is the district's southern boundary. 1-
Area Twelve's share of added police patrol costs is calculated to be $45,780.
The Algoa inmate population (1,613) was not included in the calculation. The calcu-
lated figure was, however, adjusted upward because of the institutional / industrial -
nature of this area. The annual police patrol cost is based on assumed annexations
totaling 4,500 persons.
108 -
Earlier in this report it was explained that if a.particular cost was one already
being incurred by the City, or one which the City would incur even if the area was not
annexed, or if a city-wide benefit was obtained from'the expenditure, then the expendi-
ture was not considered as an annexation cost. As previously noted the City is
responsible for treating the wastewater of both industries. The engineering analysis
pointed out that if the reformatory lagoons are used at a future date to handle the
wastewater of an expanded industrial park, a cost of $849,0004 would be incurred.
The rural zoning recommended for the area would mandate residential lot sizes suffi-
ciently large to accommodate on-site treatment. Use of on-site treatment for new resi-
dences would not require municipal expenditures for sewer lines, pumping station, or
additional treatment facilities.
This.,report assumes that if the City is going to make expenditures for industrial
wastewater treatment such expenditures will be made whether or not Area Twelve is
annexed. Sewage collection and treatment costs are not included in this section nor
j are they included in the Revenue-Cost Comparison Chapter.
Additional Area Twelve cost information can be found in Chapter Three
"Revenue and Cost Comparisons".
' i
EVALUATING THE ANNEXATION POTENTIAL
of
_f AREA TWELVE
Economic feasibility is not the only annexation consideration. Criteria found in
the Mayor's Annexation Committee Report of 1981, the 1996 Comprehensive Plan
j Update, and the Missouri Municipal League's 1993 "Technical Bulletin" on annexation
f.
were used in evaluating the annexation potential of Area Twelve. Criteria from these
and other sources were listed on-the left side of the "Tabulated Annexation Evaluation"
1i
4 Varies depending on the selected scenario.
109
found on page 18. When Area Twelve characteristics were found to be in full com-
pliance with a particular criterion, factor, or consideration, it is so indicated in the tabu-
lation by the letter "Y". If it does not comply the letter "N" is placed in the tabulation
space. Designations for "partial compliance," "no change" and "not applicable" are
also used. Footnotes are used when clarification and/or emphasis is needed.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
The Mayor's 1981 Annexation Committee discovered that over eighty-five per-
cent (85%) of the Missouri Division of Commerce and Industrial Development's pros-
pects preferred to be located within the corporate limits of a city.
I
110
a
PROPOSED ANNEXATION AREA THIRTEEN
A Description
� I
Proposed Area Thirteen-is located north of the current city limits. it is in Calla-
way County, north of the Missouri River, and is bisected by U.S.'54. The land south of
the highway rises nearly vertically above the flood plain. To the north the high ground
commands the same excellent view of the Capital City but does not have the dramatic,
limestone bluffs of the southern portion.
Within Area Thirteen there is a total of 67 dwelling units. In the last 15 years the
number of dwelling units has increased by 51. The area's estimated population is
182. Additional statistical information, including population projections, is included in
4 .
Tables One and Two.
AREA THIRTEEN - TABLE ONE
Increase in Dwelling Units
DWELLING UNIT:
-, NUMERICAL
TYPE
. j
1980 1995 INCREASE
Single Family 16 28 12
Duplex 0 4 4
Multi Family 0 35 35
4
Total: 16 67 51
, I
111
L
AREA THIRTEEN - TABLE TWO _
Dwelling Unit and Population Projections
1995 2000 2005
Dwelling Units 67 84 101
Population 111 182 228 275
[1l Based on average population of 2.72 persons -
p per dwelling unit.
Area Thirteen contains 243.8 acres. The principal developments in this area
-are the Riveria Heights subdivision south of U.S. 54 and;the Cinnamon Ridge multi-
family complex to the north. Riveria Heights is a single family dwelling subdivision
where many fine homes have commanding views of the river and the City. Access to
these homes is via steep, narrow drives which are not publicly maintained. Approx-
imately half the dwellings are connected to the Jefferson City sanitary sewer system.
The rest have individual on-site treatment. Water is supplied by Callaway County Pub-
lic Water District One; predominate line size is four inches. As with most subdivisions,
the choice lots have homes on them. There are over thirty vacant lots remaining in the
subdivision.
AREA THIRTEEN - TABLE THREE
i
Existing Land Use - 1995-96
Acres
Residential
Single Family 48.7
Two Family 1.7
Multi Family 18.3
Lagoon 2.3
Local Public Streets 11.8
Other Drives[2] 9.8
Highways 61.9
Vacant Lots 53.6
Vacant Tracts /Woodland 35.7
TOTAL: 243.8 -
[2l Streets, roads or drives which are not
maintained by a public entity. -
I
112
_a
Access to the Cinnamon Ridge-area-is from Old Route AC which in prior years
was U.S. 54. Several of the multi-family structures and both duplexes front onto the
old highway. Access to the remaining multi-family units is by a private, concrete drive.
The area is served by the Jefferson City sanitary sewer system. There is a six inch
public water district line on .the north side of Old Route AC. A four inch line extends
, i
into the multi-family area. A little-over one-half of the Cinnamon Ridge property.has
been developed.
Recommended zoning is:
-- South of U.S. 54: RS-2
-- North of U.S. 54: RA-2
At the current rate of development buildout of the multi-family area should occur
between 2000 and 2005. Buildout in the single family section may not occur until
sometime after 2020.
ESTIMATED REVENUE - AREA THIRTEEN
The estimated revenues for Area Thirteen are shown in Table Four. They were
obtained by the same methods and calculations used for Area One, Mall Ridge.
if
AREA THIRTEEN - TABLE FOUR
Estimated Revenue
CATEGORY 1995 2000 2005
Property Tax 7,310 9,140 10,050
Sales Tax 1,910 2,390 2,630
Motor Vehicle Sales Tax 1,760 2,200 2,420
Gross Receipts Tax 7,190 8,990 9,890
Gasoline Tax 0 6,030 6,030
User Fees (4,240) (5,300) ((5,830)
i Permits /Fines 910 1.140 1.250
II
TOTAL: 14,840 24,590 26,440
113
Total revenue to be generated from 1995 through 2005 inclusive is estimated to _
be $210,870.
ESTIMATED COSTS - AREA THIRTEEN
In Area Thirteen there is .75 mile of paved, local street which is publicly main-
tained. This is Old Route AC. It is concrete with lip curb and is in fair condition. In
addition there are 1.9 miles of other roads and drives. Only the'length of Old Route AC
was used in determining maintenance and lighting costs. The total length of all streets a
and drives, including private drives, was used in calculating patrol costs.
There would be a one time capital cost of $10,500 for the installation of seven
street lights. The estimated yearly utility cost for all lights is $1,510. In addition,
$2,625 will be needed each year for street maintenance and snow removal.
The onetime cost for installing five new fire hydrants is estimated to be $11,000.
Hydrants were proposed only on the six inch line. The maximum payments the City
might have to make to the Holts Summit Fire Protection District over a five year period,
if the statutory period is followed, would be approximately $7,620.The district would be
responsible for providing fire protection services-to the area for three of the five years.
Area Thirteen's share of added police patrol costs is calculated to be $4,980.
This annual cost is based on assumed annexations totaling 4,500 persons.
Additional Area Thirteen cost information can be found in Chapter Three
"Revenue and Cost Comparisons".
L
i
1
114
EVALUATING THE ANNEXATION POTENTIAL
OF
AREA THIRTEEN,
Economic feasibility is not the only annexation consideration. Criteria found in
the Mayor's Annexation Committee Report of 1981, the 1996 Comprehensive Plan
Update, and the Missouri Municipal League's 1993 "Technical Bulletin" on annexation
were used in evaluating the annexation potential of Area Thirteen. Criteria from these
and other sources were listed on the left side of the "Tabulated Annexation Evaluation"
found on page-18. . When Area Thirteen.characteristics were found to be in full com-
pliance with a particular criterion, factor, or consideration, it is so indicated in.the tabu-
lation by the letter 'Y`. - If it does not comply the letter "N" is placed in the tabulation
space. Designations,for "partial compliance',","no change" .and "not applicable" are
also used. Footnotes are used when clarification and/or emphasis is needed.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
-�1
Area Thirteen is not, at this time, among the highest annexation priorities. Over
the past fifteen to twenty years property owners.in Riveria Heights have, on several
occasions, requested voluntary annexation. Another such request could be forthcom-
ing. For the City, voluntary annexation is relatively simple. The.process also allows
for open discussions.and understandings between the City and property owners, both
prior to and following the annexation. With regard to such a voluntary- request the fol-
lowing is suggested:
(1) property owners meet with City officials prior to petition submission. The
-; meeting(s) purpose. would be to explore possible alternative means of
improving roadways and to determine the specific municipal service
needs of the area, and
(2) keep the area as small and compact as is possible.
i
i
,115
i
CHAPTER THREE
REVENUE-COST - COMPARISONS
AREAS ONE THROUGH THIRTEEN
A revenue-cost comparison is provided for each potential annexation area. In
each case it is assumed all areas are annexed on December 31, 1998. Two different
revenue-cost comparisons are provided. The first is for'the three years following
annexation:° The first°three years (1999, 2000; 2001) will have higher initial costs and
lower revenues than will ensuing years. No property tax will be collected until after an
area has been in the City for a year; no fuel tax will be realized until the year 2000 offi-
cial census counts for all jurisdictions have been transmitted to the State. While three
years correspond with the length,of the Plan'of'lntent commitments it is not to be con-
strued that all items listed in this study are to be included in the individual future Plans
i
of Intent.
The second revenue-cost comparison is for a single year; the year 2005. By
this time the initial costs (installation of street lights,'payment of the fire.district fees,
etc.) will have been concluded. By 2005 the City will also be deriving all anticipated
revenue from the area.
In each area comparison consideration is given to specifically listed govern-
mental functions and general governmental functions. The following section contains
brief descriptions on how the costs for specificfunctions were derived and allocated to
areas are in the next section.
SPECIFIED COSTS _.
In the cost comparisons the first specifically listed municipal function is police -1
patrol. There are four police patrol zones in Jefferson City. With a current population
estimate of 36,000 an "average" patrol zone would service 9,000 persons. If the City �J
decides to annex 4,500 people this would equate to half a zone. The annual
116 f
� i
personnel/operations cost of adding an-entire new zone'is estimated to be $295;000.1
'Estimated patrol costs are distributed to the.potential areas so that if'4,500 persons are
annexed then approximately $155,0002 would be designated-for police patrol fun-
ctions. Both miles of street and the, population of an area were used in the weighted
!, allocation.formula.
The police and street capital,equipment category is also'based on annexations
totaling 4,500 persons. Allocations to this category are.,based solely on population
and would provide $150,000 for the-capital purchase of'two patrol cars ($25,000 ea)
and two dump trucks ($50,000 ea),. In the year 2005 section funds are provided for
replacement vehicles.
The street maintenance and snow removal category is-based,on.an annual
street care cost of $3,500 per mile.3 This per mile figure does not include lighting,
resurfacing, seal coating, dust suppression, street reconstruction nor capital equip-
ment costs. -All these costs are-separately considered.. .The following unit costs are
r, used for street improvements:
-street reconstruction;with curb and gutter, $1404in. ft:;
--� -resurfacing, $104in. ft.;
-chip and seal (modified,polymer), $.93/lin.-ft.; and
-dust inhibitor [2 applications per season], $.38/lin."ft.
_- The average streetlight installation cost was factored at $1.;500 each. The per
light utility charge used .throughout all areas is,$14 a month. Fire.hydrant installation is
figured at an average of $2,200 per hydrant. The hydrants and lights are spaced in
( accordance with current city policy. ;
Fees to,fire districts were calculated for each potential annexation area. The
calculations were based on the statutory.formula and the assessed.valuation,of the
I 1 Consultant estimate based on mid-range costs for one sergeant,one records clerk,three officers,thirty-
five percent fringe benefit, and$17,000 for operational-costs. Cost for new and replacement vehicles are
included.in arseparate category.
2 One half of$295,000(estimated costs of,an entire zone) plus a five percent contingency factor.
3 An analysis conducted by the Cole Count.Department of Public Works determined the cost of maintain-
ing one mile of paved street.in Cole County is$3,100. Actual 1995 maintenance costs were used in the
county study. Source:Cole County Director of Public Works;April, 1996.
117
particular area. The revenue-cost comparisons assume that the first two payments will _.
be made in 2000 and 2001.
There is a cost allocation for growth which recognizes that when new streets are
constructed there will be increases in patrol, street lighting, snow removal and other
associated costs. Specific allocations were based on an examination of each area. If,
for example, there is not sufficient space in an area for expanding streets then no
growth cost allowance is included (Area Two). The growth allowance is small if there
are a substantial number of vacant lots on recently paved subdivision streets (Area
Five).
FUNDS FOR GENERAL GOVERNMENT
In addition to the above specified costs there will be other City costs associated
with annexations. This report classifies these other costs as general governmental
costs and provides the following hypothetical examples. The Fire Chief may seethe
need for an additional Fire Safety Inspector. Expanding the City into growth areas may
well require additional inspectors both for Code Enforcement and Public Works. Pub-
lic Works may also foresee a need to expand the Handi Wheels and Central Main-
tenance operations. An additional Animal Control Officer and vehicle may be needed.
The addition of personnel and associated operational costs could necessitate the
addition of a finance clerk. Precise needs cannot be assessed without knowing cur-
rent workloads and the amount of annexation that will occur. It is, none-the-less, -
important to realize that as the City's work responsibilities increase it will be necessary
to increase the size of the City's work force.
Other governmental costs would also include capital projects. Capital projects,
to name a few, could include street construction and reconstruction, park land devel-
opment, and the construction of storm water detention facilities.
'118
COMPARISON SUMMARY
The revenue-cost comparisons for Areas One through Thirteen are shown in the
following tabular summary. The remainder of this chapter is:
1 �
i
- Synopsis tabulations with significant figures taken
from larger tables, and
- More detailed revenue-cost comparisons for each
area and sub-area.
I
i '
119
REVENUE AND COST SUMMARY
Three_ Years, 1999-2000-2001 Available for
1995 Specified General Gov't
Area Population Revenues Costs Costs
1 372 89,030 54,780 34,250
2 201 74,740 74,030 710
3 193 36,850 30,430 6,420
4 130 33,750 38,970 (5,220)
5 392 180,290 164,800 15,490
5-A 1,072 443,200 416,270 26,930
6 337 211,030 196,140 14,890
7 2,802 643,860 755,080 (111,220) --
8 1,262 739,380 707,230 32,150
9 721 262,030 384,790 (122,760) --
10 248 115,390 165,550 (50,160)
11 152 29,240 37,650 (8,410)
12 1,722 376,480 355,160 21,320
13 182 52.570 56.040 (3,470)
Totals: 9,786 3,287,840 3,436,920 (149,080)
One Year, 2005 Available for
Specified General Gov't
Area Revenues Costs Costs i
1 42,990 13,160 29,830 -�
2 35,570 13,230 22,340
3 18,490 7,280 11,210
4 15,670 8,180 7,490
5 78,050 38,360 39,690
5-A 213,310 147,040 66,270
6 93,990 66,640 27,350
7 328,270 237,880 92,390
8 330,090 54,560 173,530
9 126,110 109,930 16,180
10 51,690 36,200 15,490
11 13,450 9,240 4,210
12 183,710 113,340 70,370
13 26.440 11.110 15.330
Totals: 1,558,460 1,060.250 498,210
120
F
SYNOPSIS
Selected significant figures from the preceding summary tables have been
placed in synopsis form. Area Eight has the highest three year revenues and costs
r
and the highest one year revenue. At-the low end of,the revenue/cost scale are Areas
Three, Four and Eleven.
Three Year Synopsis (1999-2000-2001)
1 thru 13 - - - - Area Ranges - - - -
Total HIGH LOW
Revenues 3,287,840 739,060 29,240
Specified Costs 3,436,920 755,080 30,430
Available for
General Gov't (149,080) 34,250 (122,760)
4 One Year Synopsis (2005)
1 thru 13 -- -- Area Ranges --- -
Total HIGH LOW
Revenues 1,558,460 330,090 13,450
Specified Costs 1,060,250 237,880 7,280
Available for
! General Gov't 498,210 173,530 4,210
The,tabulations show a great disparity between the different areas. They also
reveal that after initial costs have been satisfied (three year-period) and after full poten-
tial revenues are being realized (Year 2005) there is a great,difference in the fund
_ amounts available for general government:
I
($49,690)4 versus- $498,210. .
4 ($149,080),the three year total available for general government, is divided by three to obtain a com-
parable one year figure = ($49,690).
121
j -
The importance of timing of annexations cannot be over emphasized. The tabu-
lations would contain numerous and larger negative dollar figures if the annexations
were made: '
- at the first of a,calendar,year rather than at,the last, and
- after 2000,rather than prior to the census year.
Motor Fuel Tax revenues are distributed to local governments based on the lat-
est official federal census counts. If no special federal census is undertaken, the offi-
cial count of the census year is used for the entire decade (2000-2010). If all priori-
tized areas5 are annexed immediately after, rather than prior to the census year, the
City would receive two million dollars less in revenues from the annexed lands (over
10 years, assumes no Special Census).
1 "
Li
i'
5 Prioritized Areas are Areas One,Two, Five, Six, Seven, Eight and Twelve.
I !
-122 ,
E
- AREA ONE REVE.NUES:-' and COSTS
[Principal Street-Ventura. 1995 Pop. Est. -372. Local streets-.5 mi]
A: First Three Years, 1999 - 2000 - 2001
j
1999 - 2000 - 2001 COSTS Capital & Fees Operations -
Police patrol 17,330
Police and street equipment 12,200
Streets"
Maint. & snow removal, 5,220
Lights, yearly cost (1 yr) 1,510-
Lights,
,510Lights, install 6,000
Fire hydrants, install 4,400
Fire district fees (2 yrs) 8,110
Totals: 30;710 24,070 54,780
Three Year Revenues
i999 15,780
2000 30,260
2001 42,990
Total:
I
89,030
Available for General Govt 3 Years 34,250
+. i
l
B: Year 2005 Costs. and Revenues
Year ,2005 Costs cost - 1 Year
Police patrol
5,780
4,130,
I } Equipment '
Streets
7 Maint. & snow removal 1,740
Lights, yearly cost 1,510
Total:
-- 13,160
�- Revenue. Year 2005 42,990
Available for General Gov't 1 Year 29,830
123
i
L
AREA TWO REVENUES and -COSTS
[Principal Street-Rt 179. 1995 Pop. Est.- 201. Local Street-.9 mi] l_
i
A. First Three Years, 1999 - 2000 - 2001
1999 - 2000 - 2001 COSTS Capital & Fees Operations
Police patrol 15,550
Police and street equipment 6,633
Streets
Maint. & snow removal 9,450
Lights, yearly costs (1 yr) 2,690 j
Lights, install 18,000 —
Capital Improv. 3,000
Fire hydrants, install 6,600
Fire district fees 12,110
Totals: 46,340 27,690 74,030
Three Year Revenues -
1999
13,750
2000 27,590
2001 33,400
Total: 74,740 V
' - I
Available for General Gov't 3 Years 5,710
B. Year 2005 Costs and Revenues
Year 2005 Costs cost - 1 Year
Police patrol 5'180
Equipment 2210
Streets '
Maint. & snow removal 3;150
Lights, yearly cost 2 690
Total: .13,230
Revenue, Year 2005 35,570
Available for General Gov't 1 Year 22,340 �-
I
124
�,J
AREA THREE REVENUES and COSTS
[Principal Street- Schumate Chapel. 1995 Pop. Est.- 193. Local Street-.3 mi]
A. First Three Years, 1999 - 2000 - 2001
1999 -_2000 - 2001 COSTS Capital & Fees_ Operations
Police patrol 8,760
Police and street equipment 6,330
Streets
Maint. & snow removal 3,150
Lights, .yearly costs (1 yr) 840
Lights,•install 7,500
Fire district fees 2,820
Allowance for growth 1..030
- Totals: 16,650 13;780 '30,430
- Three 'Year Revenues
1999 7,380
2000 11,980
2001 17,490
Total: 36,850
r Available for"General Gov't. 3 Years 6,420
B. Year 2005 -Costs and Revenues
Year 2005 Costs Cost - 1 Year
Police patrol 2,920
Equipment 2,120
�. Streets
Maint.-& snow removal 1,050
Lights, yearly cost 840
Allowance for growth 350
Total:
7,280
-Revenue. Year 2005 18,490
Available for General Gov't. 1 Year 111-210
-- 125
AREA FOUR REVENUES and COSTS
[Principal Street-Scott Station. 1995 Pop. Est. 130. Local Streets.-.75 mi]
A. First Three Years, 1999 - 2000 - 2001
1999 - 2000 - 2001 COSTS Capital & Fees Operations '
Police patrol 8,490
Police and street equipment 2,260
Streets
Maint. & snow removal 6,880
Lights, yearly cost (1 yr) 1.,510
Lights, install 10,500
Fire hydrants, install 4,400 a
Fire district fees 4,640
Allowance,for growth 290
Totals: 21,800 17,170 38,970
Three Year Revenues
1999 6,590
2000 11,730 _
2001 15,430
Total: 33,750
Available for General Gov't. 3 Years (5,220)
B. Year 2005 Costs and Revenues
Year 2005 Costs Cost - 1 Year
Police patrol 2,830
Equipment 1,430
Streets
Maint. & snow removal 2,290
Lights, yearly cost 1,510
Allowance for growth 120
Total: 8,180
i
Revenue. Year 2005 1.5,670
Available for General Gov't. 1 Year 7,490 j
_ I~
126
AREA , FIVE REVENUES and COSTS
-- [Principal Street- Rainbow. 1995 Pop. Est..392., Local Streets-2.5 mi]
A. First Three Years, 1999 - 2000 - 2001
- 1999 - 2000 - 2001 COSTS Capital & Fees- Operations _
Police patrol 63,300
Police and street equipment 12,658
Streets
Maint. & snow removal 25,150
Lights, yearly cost (1 yr) 3,360-
Lights, install 22,500
Fire hydrants, install 17,600
Fire district fees 17,558
Allowance for growth 2.680
Totals: 70,316 94,490 164,800
Three Year Revenues
1999 41,280
a
-2000 63,880
2001 75.130
Total: 180,290
Available for General Gov't. 3 Years 15,490
i
B. Year 2005 Costs and Revenues
Year 2005 Costs Cost - 1 Year,
Police patrol 21,100
Equipment 4,310
Streets
Maint. & snow removal 8,700
Lights, yearly cost 3,360
Allowance for growth 890
Total: 38,360
Revenue, Year 2005 78,050
Available for General,Gov't. 1 Year 39,690
(- 127
AREA FIVE - A REVENUES and COSTS -
[Principal Street- Gateway. 1995 Pop. Est. 1,072. Local Streets-5.2 mi]
A. First Three Years, 1999 - 2000 - 2001
1999 - 2000 - 2001 COSTS Capital & Fees Operations -
Police patrol 87,286
Police and street equipment 35,160
Streets -
Maint. & snow removal 54,600
Lights, yearly cost (1 yr) 6,888
Lights, install 52,500
Capital Improv. 79,200
Fire hydrants, install 35,200
Fire district fees 59,826
Allowance for growth 5.610
Totals: 261,890 154,380 416,270
Three Year Revenues
1999 75,520
2000 168,270
2001 199.410
Total: 443,200
Available for General Gov't. 3 Years 26,930
B. Year 2005 Costs and Revenues -
Year 2005 Costs Cost - 1 Year
Police patrol 29,000
Equipment 11,790
Streets
Maint. & snow removal 18,200
Lights, yearly cost 6,880
Capital Improv. 79,200
Allowance for growth 1,870
Total: 147,040 !_
Revenue. Year 2005 213,310
Available for General Gov't. 1 Year 66,265 -
128
AREA SIX REVENUES and COSTS
[Principal Street- Big.Hom. 1995 Pop. Est. 33T Local"Streets- 1.8 mi]
A. First Three Years, 1999 ::,2000 - 2001
1999 - 2000 - 2001 COSTS Capital & Fees Operations
Police patrol 46,890
Police 'and street equipment 20,050
Streets
Maint. & snow removal 18,790
Lights, yearly cost (1 yr) 4,030
Lights, install 30,000
Capital Improv. 24,000
Fire hydrants, install 28,600
Fire district fees 19,330
Allowance for growth 4,446
Totals: 121,980 74,160 196,140
Three Year Revenues
'1999 50,020
2000, 74,870
2001 86.140
Total: 211,030
Available for General Gov't 3 Years 14,890
B. Year 2005 Costs and Revenues
Year 2005 Costs Cost - 1 Year
Police patrol 10,530
Equipment 3,710
Streets
Maint. & snow removal 6,890
Lights, .yearly cost 4,030
Capital Improv. 40,000
�r Allowance for growth
1,480
l Total:
66,640
Revenue, Year 2005
93,990-
Available
3,990Available for General Gov't 1 Year 27,350
'129
t
AREA SEVEN REVENUES and COSTS
[Principal Street- Westview. 1995 Pop. Est.2,802. Local Streets-8.7 mi] '—
i
A. First Three Years, 1999. - 2000 - 2001
1999 - 2000 - 2001 COSTS Capital & Fees Operations '
Police patrol 173,570
Police and street equipment 82,900
Streets L
Maint. & snow removal 90,830
Lights, yearly cost (1 yr) 15,960
Lights, install 120,000
Capital Improv. 50,000
Fire hydrants, install 132,000
Fire district fees 72,960
Allowance for growth 16.860
Totals: 457,860 297,220 755,080
,I
Three Year Revenues
1999 07,580
2000 227,860
2001 308.420
Total: 643,860
Available for General Gov't, 3 Years (111,220)
B. Year '2005 Costs and Revenues
Year 2005 CostsCost - 1 Year
Police patrol 62,960
Equipment , 30,820
Streets
Maint. & snow removal 33,300
Lights, yearly cost 15,960
Capital .Improv. 100,000
Cost allowance for growth 5.621
Total: 248,660
i
Revenue. Year 2005 328,720
Available for General Gov't. 1 Year 80,060
130 J�
AREA EIGHT, REVENUES and ' COSTS
[Principal Street- Frog Hollow. 1995 Pop. Est. '1,262. Local Streets- 11'.6 mi]
A. First Three Years, 1,999 - 2000 - 2001
1999 - 2000 - 2001 COSTS Capital & Fees Operations
Police patrol . 171,250
Police and street equipment 43,390
Streets
Maint. & snow removal 121,100
Lights, yearly cost (1 yr) 17,140
Lights, install 133,500
Seal coat, dust suppression 19,800
Fire hydrants, install 144,400
Fire district fees 50,100
- Allowance for growth 6,550
Totals: . 371,390 335,840 707,230
Three Year Revenues
1999 169,175
2000 267,880
2001 302,330
Total: 739,380
r ,
Available for General Gov't. 3 Years (32,150)
B. Year 2005. Costs and Revenues
Year 2005 Costs Cost - 1 Year
Police patrol 57,080
Equipment 13,880
Streets
Maint. & snow removal 40,370
Lights, yearly cost 17,140
Seal coat & dust suppression 6,600
Capital Improv. 100,000
Allowance for growth 2,810
Total: 237,880
Revenue, Year 2005 330,270
` Available for General Gov't 1 Year 92,390
: J
131
AREA NINE REVENUES and COSTS
[Principal Street - Route CC. 1995 Pop. Est. 721. Local Street - 4.2 mi]
A. First Three Years, 1999 - 2000 - 2001
1999 - 2000 - 2001 COSTS Capital & Fees Operations
Police patrol 82,470
Police and street equipment 24,030 ;
Streets
Maint. & snow removal 44,400
Lights, yearly cost (1 yr) 8,740
Lights, install 75,000
Capital Improv. 50,000
Fire hydrants, install 68,200
Fire district fees 27,470
Allowance for growth 4.480
Totals: 244,700 140,090 384,790
Three Year Revenues
1999 44,100 —
2000 97,160
2001 120.770
Total: 262,030
Available for General Gov't. 3 Years (122,760)
B. Year 2005 Costs and Revenues
Year 2005 Costs Cost '- 1 Year
Police patrol 27,490
Equipment 7,200
Streets
Maint. & snow removal 14,700
Lights, yearly cost 8,740
Capital Improv. 50,000
Allowance for growth 1,800
Total: 109,930
Revenue, Year 2005
126,110
Available for General Gov't. 1 Year 16,180
t
j�
132
AREA ' TEN REVENUES and COSTS
[Principal Street - Seven Hills/Wilmor. 1995 Pop. Est. 248. Local Streets - 3.8 mi]
A. First 'Three Years, 1999 - 2000 2001
1999 - 2000 - 2001 COSTS Capital & Fees Operations
Police Patrol 32,770
Police and,street equipment 8,270
Streets
Maint. & snow removal 39,990
Lights, yearly cost (1 yr) 4,700
Lights, install 40,500
Capital Improv. - 7,310 -
' Fire hydrants, install 19,800
-- Fire district fees 10,610
-Allowance for growth 1.600
Totals: 86,490 79,060 165,550
Three Year Revenues
1999 22,570
_ 2000 43,050
N 2001 49.770
Total: 115,390
-- Available for Gen. Gov't, 3 Years k50,160)
B. Year 2005 Costs and Revenues
Year 2005 Costs Cost - 1 Year
Police Patrol 10,920
Equipment 4,950
Streets
Maint. & snow removal 13,330
Lights, yearly cost (1 yr) 4,700
Capital Improv. 1,500
Allowance for growth 800
x Total: 36,200
I ,I
Revenue, Year 2005 51,690
Available for Gen. Gov't. 1 Year 15,490
133
y
AREA ELEVEN REVENUES and COSTS
[Principal Street - Schott Road. 1995 Pop. Est. 152. Local Streets - .3 mi]
A. First Three Years, 1999 - 2000 - 2001
1999 - 2000 - 2001 COSTS Capital & Fees Operations
Police Patrol 12,930
r,
Police and street equipment 5,070
Streets
Maint & snow removal 3,150
Lights, yearly cost (1 yr) 840
Lights, install 6,000
Fire hydrants, install 8,800 !
Fire district fees 1.360
Totals: 20,730 16,920 37,650
Three Year Revenues
1999 6,360
2000 9,430
2001 13.450 - 1
Total: 29,240
1 ,
Available for Gen. Gov't. 3 Years ( 8,410 )
B. Year 2005 Costs and Revenues "±
Year 2005 Costs Cost - 1 Year
Police Patrol 4,310
Equipment 3,040
Streets L
Maint. & snow removal 1,050
Lights, yearly cost (1 yr) 840
Total: 9,240 �.
Revenue. Year 2005 13,450
Available for Gen. Gov't. 1 Year 4,210
I �
qi
134 i
AREA TWELVE REVENUES and COSTS
[Principal Street - Algoa Road. 1995 Pop. Est. 1,722. Local Streets - 4.9mi]
A. First Three Years, 1999 - 2000 - 2001
1999 - 2000 - 2001 COSTS Caaital & Fees Operations
Police Patrol 86,540
Police and street equipment 57,340
Streets
Maint. & snow removal 51,450
Lights, yearly cost (1 yr) 8,400
Lights, install 70,500
Capital improv. 50,000
Fire hydrants, install 28,600
Fire district fees 4,230
Totals 208,770 146,390 355,160
Three Year Revenues
,- 1999 67,050
2000 132,000
2001 177.430
Total: 376,480
J
Available for Gen. Gov't. 3 Years 21,320
B. Year 2005 Costs and Revenues
Year 2005 Costs Cost - 1 Year
Police Patrol 28,850
Equipment 18,940
Streets
Maint. & snow removal 17,150
Lights, yearly cost (1 yr) 8,400
Capital improv. 40.000
s Total: 113,340
l �
Revenue. Year 2005 183,710
t '
Available for Gen. Gov't. 1 Year 70,370
- 135
AREA THIRTEEN REVENUES and COSTS
[Principal Street - Riveria/Rt AC. 1995 Pop.Est. 182. Local Streets - .75mil
A. First Three Years, 1999 2000 - 2001
1999 - 2000 -2001 COSTS Capital & Fees Operations.
Police Patrol 14,940
Police and street equipment 6,060
Streets
Maint & snow removal 7,860
Lights, yearly cost (1 yr) 1,510 y
Lights, install 10,500-
Fire
0,500-Fire hydrants, install 11,000
Fire district fees 4.170 ?
Totals 31,730 24,310 56,040
Three Year Revenues
1999 9,420
2000 18,560
2001 24,590
Total: 52,570
Available for Gen. Gov't. 3 Years 3;470 j
B. Year 2005 Costs and Revenues
Year 2005 Costs. Cost - 1 Year
Police Patrol 4,980 J
'Equipment 2,000
Streets
Maint. & snow removal 2,620
Lights, yearly cost (1 yr) 1-.510 i
Total: 11,110
Revenue, Year 2005 26,440
Available for Gen. Gov't. 1 Year 15,330
. N
'1.36
APPENDIX
Methods Used In Making
Area One (Mail Ridge) Revenue Estimates `---
1. Property Tax
The most current records of the Cole County Assessor were used to obtain
total assessed value of real property in the Mall Ridge area. Sampling
techniques were used. Total personal property valuation was determined to be
30 percent of the real property value total. Total annual city revenue was cal-
culated by taking the tax rate of .76 times the combined total or real and personal
property tax values.
2. Sales Tax i
There are no retail outlets in the area nor are any contemplated. There will,
therefore, be no new revenue from retail stores. Residents of the area will, how !!
ever, pay sales tax on utilities after annexation. The annual utilities amount for
each household (average) which would be subject to-the 1.5 cent sales tax is
estimated to be $1,700. The number of households in the area is 162. The
calculation is $1,700 x 162 x .015 = $4,130.
3. Motor Vehicle Sales Tax
The amount of revenue budgeted for FY 95-96 for this category was
$350,000 for the total City. Based on a 12995 Jefferson City estimated popula-
tion of 36,250 the per capita revenue calculates to be $9.65. The Mall Ridge -.
Area estimated revenue from this source was calculated to be $9.65 times the
i
estimated population of 372 or $3,590. Non-residents do not pay city sales tax �.
when purchasing motor vehicles. Once they reside within the corporate limits
their vehicle purchases become subject to the tax.
4. Gross Receipts Tax on Utilities -s
The estimated revenue is based on an average household total annual util-
ity bill (sewer and water excluded) of $1,700 and rates of 5.65% for gas and elec-
tric, 7.0% for telephone and 5.0% for cable T.V. The number of households y
(current) is 162 which would yield an estimated revenue of $15,560.
137
5. Gasoline Tax
The amount of gasoline tax in the City receives is based on its latest census
population. Increases in this revenue-category probably would not be forth com-
ing until after the year 2000 Census results are made official. The 1995-96
budgeted amount of $918,000 gives a current per capita figure of $25.10. It is
! believed that the two.cent increase in the state gasoline tax will increase the per
capita total to $26.35 (5% increase). This times'the estimated 2000 population
yields an annual revenue of $12,730. This would not increase by 2005 since the
Census population would continue to be used.throughout the decade:
f
6. Cigarette Tax
There are no outlets in the area where cigarettes are sold and none are
anticipated. There will be no new revenue from .this source. In.subsequent
report tabulations, if no revenues are anticipated from cigarette tax, this category
_ will not be included in the tabulation.
_ .7. Road and Bridge Tax
This is a consultant contract category. The county does not release any part
1�! .
of these funds to the City as the result of annexation. This revenue category will
not be included .in tabulations.
8. User Fees
'71f The anticipated loss in revenue in this category is based on reduction in the
park and recreation participation:fee�and the, non-resident sewer use fee
surcharge. It was estimated that one third of the households paid $10.00 annu-
ally in participation fees and each of the 162 households paid a monthly non-
r
—� resident.sewer fee of $6.66 per month.or $6.66 x;1.2 mo x 162 households-=
$12,947 decrease in sewer fees plus $540 park fee reduction fora total loss of
- revenue of $13,490.
9. Permits/Fines
The 1995 estimated figure of $1,860 was derived from per capita calcula-
tions and adjusted FY 95-96 citywide revenue figures for permits, licenses, and
fines. The figures were adjusted to reflect that no liquor or business licenses will
be issued in the area, the annexation will not increase parking fines nor cause
any appreciable increase in traffic fines or court costs.
138
1�
BIBLIOGRAPHY
The "Annexation" section, Comgrehensive Plan Update Jefferson City, 1996
Landform Urban Planning Services.
L
The "Considerations" and "Annexation Policy" section of The Mayor's Commit-
tee on Annexation Report, Jefferson City, June, 1981.
The "Report of the Subcommittee on Future Annexations", Mayor's Committee
i
for Long Range Planning Final Report, Jefferson City, 1990.
The "Reasonableness and Necessity" section of Annexation Laws in Missouri, a
Technical Bulletin of the Missouri Municipal League and the Missouri Municipal Attor-
ney's Association, July, 1993.
COMPANION REPORTS y
Procedures and Responsibilities for a Jefferson City Initiated Annexation, 1995,
D. R. Preston, Consultant. -I
! j
1, ]
Fire Protection Districts and Potential Jefferson City Annexations, 1995, D. R.
Preston, Consultant.
139
i
ANNEXATION
1 STUDY AREAS
JEFFERSON CITY
1996
T
PRIORIT FOUR
WESTVIEW, HEIOHT
D.R.P.
AUGUST 1096