[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6183373,"mediaKeyId","5097448-9ab7b4c3faaccb8e59f8f9abf7037f1d","parentId",5097448,"title","Committee seeks clarity on records retention, stakeholder lists and public access to plan materials","audioSeconds",258,"startMs",424000,"endMs",682000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5097448-9ab7b4c3faaccb8e59f8f9abf7037f1d&start=424&end=682","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5097448-9ab7b4c3faaccb8e59f8f9abf7037f1d/thumbnail_424000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6183373/Jefferson-County/Missouri/Committee-seeks-clarity-on-records-retention-stakeholder-lists-and-public-access-to-plan-materials","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6183373-9c600ed822cff590e78ab8c8540c4ac9/orig.mp4?Expires=1773575821&Signature=F2EuYrwDJW97DU3ByIYylGKWfdf50Ub1-I77NNdHnGV8vCysLxvSigHUwMAp5KV38shFov8keOWLZAHJMm8R5I94XgWhZ3VQ9qVs2btqAUdcKmfjZHQN7RqhhVTPr-vp7dcMdvHLqVKS20uSHiQK~IJI7gwHQlAb33A2OMZ~YrWjUjoW0~N-fQmFF67AL7c~D0EohcsnM8dl3o66C482-bfzn6IMxlVQYIF3jxQmyD5ykHtC8~0to63-Xz0moRNTj15-ytjFXgIp0ZmCPxEzNufVkvNWx8D0d-dVpZwajia3mYWY2m4R6smWaMBXNjxSzotJOTYEjdunV7sof1wOIw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","MO / Jefferson County","date","2025-06-25T00:00:00Z","article","Committee members asked staff to clarify how long engagement materials — including stakeholder lists, interview notes and survey responses — will be retained and whether those records will be readily available to the public in the future.

Planning staff said the department maintains an archive that includes engagement memos, survey responses and interview records and that they generally keep those materials beyond minimum statutory requirements to preserve institutional memory for future five-year reviews of the master plan. A county staff member noted that records-retention timeframes are governed by state law and county charter and advised the committee to consult the county counselor for the precise statutory retention schedule.

Why it matters: The committee said retained records help future decision-makers understand who was asked and why certain plan language or map decisions were made. Members flagged an interest in ensuring that future councils can review who participated in the outreach as a matter of public record.

Direct statements from the meeting included staff assurances that engagement records are public records and can be produced upon request under the sunshine/open-records process; staff cautioned that public records requests should be specific and that some requests may require staff time or fees for large data productions. Staff also said they intend to keep a complete internal archive of materials for historical reference through the lifetime of the plan.

Staff next steps: Staff told the committee it will
- retain engagement materials in its archive beyond statutorily required minimums, and
- consult county counsel to confirm exact statutory retention timeframes and to draft an appropriate retention note (or appendix reference) for the plan that explains where records will be held and how the public can request them.

Committee members asked that the appendix or plan note make clear that the records are public and that staff will assist requesters with refining a records request to avoid unnecessary fees.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Jefferson County Council Master Plan Ad Hoc Committee - June 25, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Committee members pressed staff about how long stakeholder and engagement records will be retained, whether those records will be publicly accessible, and how retention aligns with statutory requirements. Staff said the county keeps an archive beyond statutory minimums and recommended consulting county counsel for exact retention timelines.","taxTitle","Jefferson County, Missouri","taxId",13662,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6183378,"Committee narrows where farming will be emphasized in draft master plan",305,1304000,1609000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5097448-9ab7b4c3faaccb8e59f8f9abf7037f1d&start=1304&end=1609","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5097448-9ab7b4c3faaccb8e59f8f9abf7037f1d/thumbnail_1304000.jpg","/articles/6183378/Jefferson-County/Missouri/Committee-narrows-where-farming-will-be-emphasized-in-draft-master-plan","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6183378-6818c6de9b3395fa255a9244b2caf983/orig.mp4?Expires=1773575821&Signature=a-PIYHrHMc0Sfe~nrz26HIcYNA0dYCtFc93OBvLOvtvWqwmvsRtqF7GOrjluHgqCTHhb3gfByT6Cg8n0ZYWLngWEaMnd3q0ixP-PYhBPbQlZh1eOrqoHpk4A4C3slltGwXBSIRkusPiXiBoxix2EeStBeguZ2rw3kmdQQV8OfLzHXXoc3u4shUaxwmTvVs2ovia9HEkzoCtg4cupCExTovclmSuHkV8hN~bAeaZW5ZTKOkVZahnHdVSKgBXKdccZZEYnXNMKcrl~dnY4lyi9JaFvYgDzLXU05oNSAl44i5v9J8L7OoRC8lI6xEsMiRz-ntCLk5XOI6-VwQys5kODmQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Jefferson County ad hoc master plan committee directed staff to add \"farming\" alongside \"agriculture\" throughout the draft master plan and negotiated how the draft should treat farming in urban, suburban and rural growth areas.

The committee discussed multiple options and landed on a compromise approach: farming will be added to land-use text and the glossary; the plan will not encourage farming as a primary land use in urban areas, but staff were asked to reflect farming more prominently in rural areas and to treat farming as allowed (and in some suburban locations explicitly noted) with appropriate site-suitability and implementation caveats.

Why it matters: How the master plan characterizes agriculture and farming affects future policy direction, public expectations and how staff and the council will approach implementing land-use and zoning changes during the UDO rewrite. Several members said they want to avoid encouraging uses in denser neighborhoods that could create conflicts (for example, small-lot livestock operations), while still supporting existing agricultural activity and larger farms.

Key points from debate:
- Committee members asked staff to add \"agriculture/farming\" everywhere the plan uses the word agriculture so the two terms are interchangeable in the document.
- Multiple council members urged that farming remain permitted countywide but not presented as a \"primary\" encouraged use in urban areas where smaller lots and denser development raise potential conflicts.
- A compromise favored labeling farming primary in rural planning areas and secondary (or conditional) in urban areas; some members requested making it primary in certain suburban locations where large lots and current land use patterns make farming appropriate.
- Staff said these land-use labels are guidance and would not by themselves create new permitting rules — regulatory changes require separate UDO work and future legislative action.

Staff will update the land-use matrix and map notation (for example, the black-dot legend in the draft) to reflect the committee's direction and circulate a revised draft for committee review.","After lengthy debate, the committee directed staff to include \"farming\" alongside \"agriculture\" in the draft plan glossary and to treat farming as an explicitly considered use across growth areas, with more limited encouragement in urban areas and stronger recognition in rural and some suburban areas.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6183383,"Ad hoc master plan committee votes to amend growth map after debate",92,2654000,2746000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5097448-9ab7b4c3faaccb8e59f8f9abf7037f1d&start=2654&end=2746","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5097448-9ab7b4c3faaccb8e59f8f9abf7037f1d/thumbnail_2654000.jpg","/articles/6183383/Jefferson-County/Missouri/Ad-hoc-master-plan-committee-votes-to-amend-growth-map-after-debate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6183383-dce8d67dad26fd3c61152498e3ef9349/orig.mp4?Expires=1773575821&Signature=H7TJ1986ooRYsBuEaNUrY9-zvuhWivGeoTiDpgG~u7OBI3ZyQbsa8kyP6oMWB-HkPiSiDvgRBRbj0Vi2UnkN0hshK67bgaPU-qJhZRlHg~xxHDuHuwXciu0QrrywzyhNQTSQxxSpUDgSbshlwOABhlEAaUDgFwjWqqY5yypj3QavczsVdedx6Axvkvf9RNgALmi3M~HDySfb0rBJdZVonRSGqdQorH3IWTQhjY76K0eNezEl7EXwW3Nj-PJRX0KSZbhF14SP2DIX515YdQdeg6eoF7~1tuYGyYM3A~L8FyU8g10DI0GwGbr90Sc4H07iUaDjoxeAUEiTNi0Pa3hnHg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The ad hoc Jefferson County master plan committee voted to amend Exhibit B of the draft growth map after a prolonged discussion about where suburban growth, agricultural uses and commercial nodes should be shown.

The committee's motion to change the map carried after a voice vote in which one member was recorded in opposition. Committee members said the change reflects recent infrastructure investment and development interest in the area and aims to align the commercial-framework map with the amended land-use map.

Why it matters: The Exhibit B land-use map is a central implemention tool for the county's master plan; amending it affects which locations are identified for suburban expansion, commercial activity and future infrastructure priorities. Committee members repeatedly stressed that map notations are guidance — not zoning law — but agreed changes should be consistent across maps and the implementation matrix.

Most of the debate focused on one corridor and an area labeled \"H,\" which staff said was expanded to reflect existing and planned infrastructure and strong development interest. Some committee members argued changes would better match where roads and utilities are likely to be available; other members flagged concerns that map changes could create hurdles for existing businesses or landowners seeking to expand.

Committee and staff agreed to make complementary edits to the commercial-framework map so land-use labels and commercial-permissibility categories align with the amended growth map. Staff also said they would update map graphics (for example, the color palette) to improve readability, including a request to use color-blind–friendly colors on utility maps.

The committee did not adopt any new zoning or regulatory text at the meeting. Members and staff emphasized that any regulatory changes would require later legislative action and separate public hearings.

Votes at a glance: The committee held a voice vote on whether to amend Exhibit B. The meeting record notes one member voted \"no;\" the motion carried. The transcript does not contain a roll-call list of yes votes.","Jefferson County's ad hoc master plan committee voted to amend Exhibit B of the draft growth map after extended discussion about suburban, rural and commercial designations. The committee directed staff to change mapping and related commercial-framework labels before the public hearing.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee seeks clarity on records retention, stakeholder lists and public access to plan materials

Committee narrows where farming will be emphasized in draft master plan

Ad hoc master plan committee votes to amend growth map after debate