Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
03/10/2023 - Planning and Zoning Commission - AGENDA - Work Session
* Work session times are approximate and are subject to change without notice. David Katz, Chair Hybrid Meeting Julie Stackhouse, Vice Chair Zoom Webinar Michelle Haefele Adam Sass Ted Shepard Samantha Stenger York Planning and Zoning Hearing will be held on Thursday, March 23, 2023 in City Hall Chambers or online. Regular Work Session March 10, 2023 Virtual Meeting Noon – 3:15 p.m. Planning and Zoning Commission Work Session Agenda Participation for this remote Planning and Zoning Commission work session will be available online or by phone. Commission members and staff may be present in-person but interested members of the public and applicant teams are strongly encouraged to participate via Zoom. No public comment is accepted during work sessions. Public Attendance (Online): Individuals who wish to attend the Planning and Zoning work session via remote public participation can do so through Zoom at https://fcgov.zoom.us/j/97348069501. Individuals participating in the Zoom session should also watch the meeting through that site. The meeting will be available to join beginning at 11:45 a.m. on March 10, 2023. Attendees should try to sign in prior to 12:00 p.m. if possible. In order to attend: Use a laptop, computer, or internet-enabled smartphone. (Using earphones with a microphone will greatly improve your audio). You need to have access to the internet. Keep yourself on muted status. If you have any technical difficulties during the work session, please email kclaypool@fcgov.com. Public Attendance (Phone): If you do not have access to the internet, you can call into the work session via phone. Please dial: 1-253-215-8782 or 1-346-248-7799, with Webinar ID: 973 4806 9501. (Continued on next page) Packet pg. 1 City of Fort Collins Page 2 TOPICS: PROJECTED TIMES: Consent: 1. January 25, 2023 Hearing Draft Minutes 2. CNG Shop Expansion MA (Schumann) 3. Thompson Thrift Annexation & Zoning (Keith/Axmacher) 12:00 – 12:35 Discussion: 4. North College Mobile Home Park Rezoning (Mounce) 5. Ziegler/Corbett ODP Major Amendment (Mounce) 12:35 – 2:00 Policy and Legislation: • East Mulberry Plan Progress (Keith) 2:00 – 2:30 Commission Topics: • APA Planning Officials Training Series Part 9 • Upcoming Hearing Calendar (Sizemore) • Commission Updates (Sizemore) • Public Engagement Updates (Myler) • Transportation Board Liaison Update (Owen) 2:30 – 3:15 The meeting will be available beginning at 11:45 a.m. Please call in to the meeting prior to 12:00 p.m., if possible. Once you join the meeting: keep yourself on muted status. If you have any technical difficulties during the meeting, please email kclaypool@fcgov.com. The March 23 Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting will be held with both remote and in-person participation options. Information on remotely participating in the March 23 Planning and Zoning regular meeting is contained in the agenda for the March 23 meeting available at https://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/planning- zoning.php. Members of the public wishing to submit documents, visual presentations, or written comments for the Commission to consider regarding any item on the agenda must be emailed to smanno@fcgov.com at least 24 hours prior to the March 23 meeting. Packet pg. 2 East Mulberry Plan & Potential Annexation Approach UpdateMarch 10, 2023Planning & Zoning Work SessionMegan Keith | Shawna Van Zee | Ryan Mounce | Nathan RandallE MULBERRY PLAN UPDATEPacket pg. 3 2Plan Area and Annexation Boundaries Cooper SloughVine Dr.Mulberry St.Link Ln.Lemay Ave.Timberline Rd.Prospect Rd.Timberline Rd.MosaicBloomCloverleafClydesdale ParkSunflowerKingfisher Point Natural AreaCollins AireTimbervineDry CreekRoselawn CemeteryAndersonvilleNueva VidaCountryside EstatesPleasant AcresThe VillasBoxelder EstatesWaterglenTrailheadBoxelder CreekE MULBERRY PLAN UPDATEPacket pg. 4 3Timeline of EventsMayJulySeptemberAprilJuneAugustAugust 1:Council Finance Committee Session2022April 26: Council Work SessionApril 15: P&Z Update focused on Annexation Lenses & PhasingMarch 8: Council Work SessionMarchOctoberNovemberOctober 20: Council Finance Committee SessionDecember 13:Council Work SessionPlan Update Paused, request for more analysisDecemberE MULBERRY PLAN UPDATEPacket pg. 5 2002 East Mulberry Plan42002 East Mulberry Corridor Plan• Jointly adopted by Fort Collins and Larimer County • Primary plan objective was to implement the 1997 City Plan for the East Mulberry Corridor. Also addressed key issues such as: • Provision and maintenance of public facilities and services• Annexation • Costs of improvements• Redevelopment• Streetscape Design • Plan acknowledges that continued growth and change may impact quality of life in the area• Community members shared concerns about traffic congestion, safety, and infrastructure declineE MULBERRY PLAN UPDATEPacket pg. 6 • Respond to changed conditions after 20 years• Creation of the enclave and eligibility for annexation occurred after the 2002 Plan was adopted (E. Mulberry Enclave was created in 2018, became eligible for annexation in 2021)• Align with the 2019 City Plan update and other comprehensive plan documents• Major new and planned developments that may be catalysts for other development in this area (Bloom and Peakview) • The plan area still has substantial portions of undeveloped land or areas that are likely to redevelop in the future East Mulberry Plan Update5Why Update? Why Now?E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATEPacket pg. 7 Policy Around Subarea PlansRole of Subarea Plans• Provide geography-specific implementation strategies of broader city policies and goals• Offer context-sensitive implementation and funding strategies that are more actionable and responsive to the specific needs of that area• Land use guidance in subarea plans supersedes the City Plan Structure Plan6Recent Project Submittals Reviewed by P&Z within the East Mulberry Subarea Plan area include:• Mosaic• Timbervine• Bloom• PeakviewE MULBERRY PLAN UPDATEPacket pg. 8 How might the updated plan differ from the 2002 plan?Plan Evolution7Upon adoption, how would P&Z Commissioners use the updated plan?• Plan will document a new potential model for annexation (annexation thresholds)• Plan goals have evolved and now target priorities and localized needs • Policies will provide tailored recommendations for each character area• Plan will provide land use/zoning guidance for future development or redevelopment within the plan boundary• Policy framework to help guide the future of the East Mulberry areaGoals for the Updated Plan: Graphically rich with streamlined textAn easy-to-use resource/guide for all Provide flexible solutionsE MULBERRY PLAN UPDATEPacket pg. 9 Potential Annexation ApproachE MULBERRY PLAN UPDATEPacket pg. 10 Key Takeaways • Council wants to move slowly and deliberately • Lessons learned from Southwest Enclave annexation• Requests for additional analysis (costs, opportunities, tradeoffs)• Landed on a strategy around thresholds for annexation (aka tipping points)9Direction from CouncilE MULBERRY PLAN UPDATEPacket pg. 11 Annexation thresholds are a set of conditions that would determine when annexation would occur.• Follows a natural progression for annexing and offers flexibility in the size, location, and time when annexation occurs. • May help ensure the City can adequately serve annexed areas.Examples of Thresholds • Maintain logical boundaries to avoid a patchwork• Proactive Resource Protection (e.g., Cooper Slough)• Redevelopment risk (e.g., mobile home parks) • External Funding (e.g., I-25 Interchange or Mulberry Frontage)10Examples of ThresholdsE MULBERRY PLAN UPDATEPacket pg. 12 11Reaching some thresholds may take a significant amount of time. • Some areas are more likely to experience the conditions that contribute to thresholds than others.• Voluntary annexation will continue under threshold approach.•When a threshold for an area is reached, groupings of properties would be considered forannexation.Threshold and annexation consideration5+ yearsThreshold and annexation consideration10+ years15+ yearsThreshold and annexation considerationE MULBERRY PLAN UPDATEPacket pg. 13 12Long-Term Management of Annexation ThresholdsMonitoring annexation thresholds and recognition of when a threshold has been reached will likely be a shared responsibility between staff and decision-makers to determine whether official annexation action is warranted and what geographic boundaries should apply.Some Potential Monitoring Strategies:•Threshold Monitoring Reports –Select a consistent timeframe (e.g., every 2 years) to compile information on the enclave related to individual annexations, upcoming capital or master planning projects, redevelopment activity, and more, to determine if any potential thresholds have been reached. •Individual Annexations –When individual sites request annexation, staff is responsible for drafting a staff report and agenda materials for the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. These documents should include specific discussion on whether the annexation contributes to a threshold.How do P&Z Commissioners envision their role in determining when a threshold has been reached? E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATEPacket pg. 14 Review of Recent ActivitiesE MULBERRY PLAN UPDATEPacket pg. 15 Community Advisory GroupFebruary Super Issues MeetingCommunity Q&A SessionsLatest Events14Recent Public Engagement:2,200+ Mailed Postcards200+ In-Person Business Visits60+ Virtual Q&A Session Participants300+ Newsletter Subscribers300+ Website Visitors150+ Thresholds Video ViewsE MULBERRY PLAN UPDATEPacket pg. 16 East Mulberry Plan – Where are we headed?E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATEPacket pg. 17 16Future Touchpoints with P&ZFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustDraft Plan AvailableCity Council First ReadingCity Council Second ReadingReview Period*Plan Development*Boards, commissions, neighborhood groups, community membersMarch 10 P&Z April 14 P&Z May 12 P&Z June 9 P&ZPlan Refresher and UpdateLand Use Framework Plan ReviewDraft Document Policy ReviewDraft Plan Review/UpdatesE MULBERRY PLAN UPDATEPacket pg. 18 E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATEPacket pg. 19 1 Community Development & Neighborhood Services Planning & Development Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.221.6376 970.224.6111- fax MEMORANDUM Date: July 21, 2022 To: Mayor Arndt and City Councilmembers Through: Kelly DiMartino, City Manager Tyler Marr, Interim Deputy City Manager Caryn Champine, Director of Planning, Development, and Transportation Paul Sizemore, Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services From: Megan Keith, Senior City Planner Rebecca Everette, Planning Manager Re: Southwest Enclave Annexation Lessons Learned Memorandum __________________________________________________________________ Executive Summary This memo has been prepared in response to the April 26th, 2022, City Council work session. During this work session, councilmembers requested a memorandum focusing on lessons learned during the Southwest Enclave Annexation process as context for the ongoing East Mulberry Corridor Plan and potential annexation. Specifically, councilmembers requested an evaluation of the planned phasing/timing of the Southwest Enclave Annexation, its impact on residents and businesses, the projected versus actual costs and revenue, and a discussion of capital projects that have been completed within the Southwest Enclave annexation area. The purpose of this memo is to 1) provide analysis of the public facilities and services that transferred to the City upon annexation of the Enclave and 2) provide interpretation and key learnings for consideration of the Growth Management Area and the East Mulberry Subarea. Sections covered in this memo with corresponding page numbers are shown below. Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 1 1.Background on the Southwest Enclave ................................................................................................ 3 2.Southwest Enclave Annexation Commitments and Implementation Progress ..................................... 6 3.Financial Impact of Annexation within the Southwest Enclave ........................................................... 14 4.Annexation Impacts to Residents and Business Owners ................................................................... 16 5.Lessons Learned and Considerations from the Southwest Enclave Annexation ............................... 17 E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - ATT 1 Packet pg. 20 2 A more thorough planning effort would involve a formal inventory of infrastructure needs, review of land use patterns, and analysis of transportation needs. Budget offer 27.10 in the 2023 -2024 budget cycle proposes an assessment of the South College Corridor should the Council wish to resource such an effort. The lessons learned derived from the Southwest Enclave Annexation process are provided in Section 5 of this memo. A high-level summary of the lessons learned are summarized below: • Sequence of Planning Efforts: Initiate the planning process before or concurrently to annexation to allow for proactive engagement and development of a shared vision for the area. • Communication & Setting Expectations for Community Members: Utilize knowledge gained during Southwest Enclave Annexation to clearly set expectations for residents and businesses impacted by annexation. • Delay in Implementation of Infrastructure: o Consider alternative prioritization and alternative funding sources for capital improvements in public infrastructure. o Examine ways to address areas of greater deficiency in street maintenance transportation improvements sooner through different prioritization cr iteria. o Develop metrics or triggers that need to be met prior to annexation. o Consider commitment to specific timelines for service conversion simultaneously to annexation • Revenue and Expense: Ensure phased and/or incremental approaches to funding City services in enclave areas is aligned with availability of funding. E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - ATT 1 Packet pg. 21 3 1. Background on the Southwest Enclave A. Formation of the Southwest Enclave In November 2001, the annexation of Coyote Ridge Natural Area formed the Southwest Enclave, an area of unincorporated Larimer County surrounded by City limits. Roughly bounded by Harmony Road on the north, Trilby Road on the south, Taft Hill Road on the west and extending a quarter mile east of College Avenue, the enclave is approximately 2.75 square miles in size. Annexed in phases over a period of eight years between 2006 and 2013, the area represents the largest enclave annexation in City history. In comparison, the East Mulberry enclave is approximately 3.89 square miles in size. Figure 1 shows the Southwest Enclave boundaries within the context of Fort Collins. Colorado statutes permit municipalities to annex enclaves after a period of three years. While most annexation of property into Fort Collins is voluntary on the part of property owners in conjunction with planned development, enclave annexations are generally involuntary and initiated by a municipality, as was the case for the Southwest Enclave. The Southwest Enclave has been included within Fort Collins’ Growth Management Area (GMA) boundary since the GMA was formalized in 1980. The City and Larimer County jointly adopt GMA boundaries through an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) managing growth. Both the IGA and City Plan include policy language affirming the City’s intent to annex enclaves within the GMA as they become eligible. Following City staff evaluation and analysis at the outset of the annexation process, staff recommended that properties fronting South College Avenue should be annexed as expeditiously as possible. Reasons included that the non- residential properties would have a more favorable cost-benefit ratio to the City, allow the creation of an important gateway into Fort Collins, and generate revenues to fund additional costs to future annexation areas. Staff also recommended that budget constraints and the high cost to provide City services to residential portions of the Southwest Enclave necessitated postponing annexation of those areas. Materials from the May 24, 2005, Council Work Session Item stated that to fulfill the City’s obligation to Larimer County to annex properties within the GMA, annexation should be completed no later than 2015. These factors contributed to the phased annexation plan. Figure 1: Southwest Enclave Context E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - ATT 1 Packet pg. 22 4 Large enclave annexations incur various financial costs to the City to provide additional services, infrastructure, and maintenance, while new sources of revenue are generated from property and sales taxes, as well as various user fees. As the Southwest Enclave is primarily residential in character with fewer sales tax receipts, general fund revenues were anticipated to be lower than general fund expenses within the annexation area, especially in the years immediately following annexation. Additional revenue is generated from user fees (e.g., building permits, monthly stormwater fee); however, this revenue supports dedicated programs and infrastructure master plans, often on a broader community-wide basis. Table 1 highlights the largest expenses and funding sources for the initial enclave annexation. Table 1: Largest Expenses and Funding Sources for Initial Enclave Annexation Expense Estimated Cost Primary Funding Source Police $1.7 million (annual) General Fund Electric Service Transfer Fee $2.9 million (over 10 years) Utility Reserves Street Maintenance $142,000 (annual) General Fund In addition to these expenses, the City also began to incorporate capital improvement project planning within the annexation area. Capital improvement projects are funded from a variety of sources but also represent an additional opportunity cost, given that their implementation is often limited by available financial resources. Although the last phase of the Southwest Enclave annexation occurred in late 2013, the transition of certain utility services, fees, and the enforcement of various City codes and standards continues to phase-in or was only recently fully initiated, particularly for the latter phases of the annexation. The staggered nature of certain service transitions and enforcement was a deliberate decision , both as a mitigation measure to address certain stakeholder concerns and a practical reality to slowly enhance City capacity and resources to serve an expanded footprint and population. E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - ATT 1 Packet pg. 23 5 B. Annexation Timeline & Milestones A detailed map of the Southwest Enclave with annexation phases and dates is provided as Attachment A of this memo. The timeline shown in Figure 2 below depicts the succession of events related to annexation and implementation. Figure 2: Southwest Enclave Annexation Timeline Implementation Notes: • Electric utility service conversion completed for Phases 1, 2 and 3 and portions of Phase 4. Majority of electric line undergrounding complete with the exception of smaller areas in Phase 3/4. • The phase-in of Stormwater Utility Fees occurred over a five-year period after each phase was annexed, increasing from 20% to 100%. All phases of annexation are now collecting full fees. • Nonconforming sign enforcement was phased-in over a seven-year period after each phase was annexed. As new sign permits are submitted, properties are required to redesign their signs to conform with City standards. Phases 2 and 4 feature primarily residential areas where sign code enforcement is less applicable. C. Enclave Characteristics The Southwest Enclave is approximately 2.75 square miles in size, and with the exception of a linear strip of commercial properties paralleling South College Avenue, the area is primarily residential and more rural in character. At the time of annexation, the enclave featured 1,080 housing units, 108 businesses and an estimated population of 3,127. Residential unit densities are much lower than t he overall community, featuring predominantly larger estate or agricultural lots and a greater share of properties with horses and other farm animals. The enclave area also features several important natural features and multiple natural areas, including Fossil Creek and Hazaleus Natural Area. The South College Avenue corridor contains a collection of commercial and light industrial properties, many of which were constructed to County standards in the 1960s and 1970s. These properties lack many qualities and infrastructure that would be required by current City development standards, such as sidewalks and street trees, on-site stormwater facilities, or established buffers from nearby natural features. Redevelopment of these properties, when it occurs, provides an opportunity to bring the properties up to current standards. The South College Avenue frontage also features several large and prominent vacant properties that may develop in the future. E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - ATT 1 Packet pg. 24 6 The 2009 South College Corridor Plan, initiated after the enclave annexation, also identifies the corner of South College Avenue and Carpenter Road as an important gateway to the community with special urban design standards to be implemented in the case of future (re)development at the corner. 2. Southwest Enclave Annexation Commitments and Implementation Progress As previously referenced, the Southwest Enclave annexation spanned a period of multiple years. During this period and spanning into present day, various investments and capital projects for public infrastructure have been completed or planned within the Southwest Enclave. The table below captures provision of services within the Southwest Enclave before and after annexation. Attachment B includes a table titled “Impact to SW Enclave Property Owners,” which was provided originally as an attachment to the February 22, 2005, Council Work Session Item. This document shows impact to property owners prior to and after annexation categorized by service or fee. Some of the information shown in Attachment B is captured in Table 2 below. Services that have remained the same before and after annexation are not discussed in depth in subsequent sections of this memo. Table 2: Provision of Services Before and After Annexation Provider Before Annexation Provider After Annexation Topics Discussed this memo: Street Improvement, Design, and Maintenance Larimer County Road and Bridge/private City of Fort Collins/private Electric Utility PVREA/Xcel Energy City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility Larimer County City of Fort Collins Trails, Parks, and Natural Areas (no existing County parks) City of Fort Collins Other Topics not covered by this memo*: Planning, Engineering & Building Larimer County City of Fort Collins Non-Conforming Permanent Signs Nuisances/Code Enforcement Larimer County Larimer County City of Fort Collins (zoning) City of Fort Collins (Neighborhood Services) Water Fort Collins/Loveland District Same Sewer South Fort Collins Sanitation District or septic Same Law Enforcement Larimer County Sheriff City of Fort Collins Schools Poudre School District Same Fire Poudre Fire Authority Same Transit Transfort Same *Topics not covered have either remained largely the same before and after annexation or, provision of additional information on these topics did not contribute to lessons learned presented in this memo. E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - ATT 1 Packet pg. 25 7 A. Street Improvement, Design, and Maintenance Commitment upon Initiation of Annexation • A February 22, 2005, City Council Work Session Item stated that “virtually all of the local streets within the Southwest Enclave did not meet the recently adopted Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) relative to the street cross-section and level of roadway engineering”. • Guidance for the maintenance and improvement/acceptance of infrastructure from subdivisions annexed from Larimer County to the City of Fort Collins comes from LCUASS, Appendix G. Appendix G states that roads and streets built to City standards after 1989 would be accepted for full maintenance if they had been maintained and not allowed to deteriorate. Appendix G also states that roads and streets not built to City standards would receive only minor maintenance (grading of gravels, pothole patching of asphalt) to keep streets from being “unsafe”. If at such time the City determines that minor maintenance is no longer adequate to protect public safety , improvements must be done voluntarily by the adjacent property owners, or City Council may impose improvements through the adoption of a Special Improvement District (SID). Adjacent property owners are able to form an SID on a voluntary basis as well. o One such example of an existing improvement district within the Southwest Enclave is the Skyview South General Improvement District (GID). This GID was created by Larimer County in 1997 but annexed into the City during Phase 3 of the annexation process in 2009. The Skyview GID serves to maintain streets within the GID sustainably into the future. o Appendix G of the LCUASS provides comprehensive details about street maintenance and improvement and is included for reference as Attachment C of this memo. • Supplemental guidance materials developed during the run up to the Southwest Annexation efforts established that the City would assume the level of maintenance service that the subdivision had received from the County. Prior to 1994, the County had a program to accept residential roads in subdivisions for maintenance. County maintenance consisted of pothole patching, cracksealing and chipseals. The City of Fort Collins assumed this level of maintenance and classifies these roads as “Limited Maintenance”. o Within the County, subdivision plats generally state: “Maintenance of all road and common areas with (subdivision name), shall be the responsibility of all property owners within this unit development. Failure to adequately maintain these roads shall result in a lien upon the lots affected.” o For subdivisions where Larimer County accepted road maintenance responsibility, they provided pothole patching, crackseal and chipseal, but did not overlay or rebuild roads. In the Southwest Enclave, this same level of County maintenance was taken over by the City within these subdivisions and is termed “Limited Maintenance.” Gravel roads would be graded two to three times a year. o Maintenance beyond the aforementioned items would fall to local Homeowner’s Associations (HOA) until roads are brought to City standards. The policy of the Streets Maintenance Program (SMP) toward annexed areas is: o Determine their county maintenance status, o Evaluate the condition of the roads, o Determine if a homeowner’s group or HOA exists that can be approached to inform them of City maintenance plans and see if they wish to work toward full acceptance and to detail their options. E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - ATT 1 Packet pg. 26 8 • Annexed subdivisions are able to achieve full acceptance for road maintenance by going through a review process to determine the necessary upgrades to comply with City standards. o Typically, the cost to bring roads to a full acceptance level include curb, gutter, and sidewalks, addressing stormwater detention and water quality, and upgrading the pavement structure. This is often cost prohibitive to the property owners and they often decline this path. If there is no HOA, or if the full maintenance efforts are not embraced, SMP proceeds with a limited maintenance effort to patch, crackseal and chipseal the roads. As noted, property owners can pursue formation of an SID to fund repairs or also consider mechanisms such as the formation of an Urban Renewal Authority to fund infrastructure improvements. Activity Post-Annexation – Street Maintenance The following tables summarize subdivision road maintenance status by annexation phase. Additional narrative regarding maintenance history and information is provided as Attachment D to this document. Figure 3 depicts the Southwest Enclave Annexation phases with subdivision names referenced in the subsequent descriptions. Figure 3: Southwest Enclave Annexation Phases with Subdivision Names E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - ATT 1 Packet pg. 27 9 PHASE 1: East side of College Avenue frontage from Trilby north past Saturn to the north boundary of South 13 Subdivision including the frontage roads, Smokey , and Bueno. PHASE ONE Subdivision / Area Prior County Maintenance Current City Maintenance Notes Kel Mar Strip No No Kel Mar Strip 2nd No No / Partial Limited maintenance on Skyway & Saturn Drives performed in 2016 to 2018 South 13 No No / Partial Limited maintenance Smokey Street performed in 2016 PHASE 2: Fairway Estates Subdivision, east of the Fairway Estates business lots fronting US 287 and South of Harmony Road. PHASE TWO Subdivision / Area Prior County Maintenance Current City Maintenance Notes Fairway Estates (Business Lots) No No / Partial Limited maintenance Palmer Drive & Fairway Lane Access drives performed in 2020 Fairway Estates (West of Mail Creek) Yes Yes Accepted for limited maintenance. Limited maintenance performed in 2020 Fairway Estates (Third Filing) Yes Yes Accepted for limited maintenance. Limited maintenance performed in 2020 Pitner Estates No No Condition of some streets pose safety concerns for emergency access PHASE 3: Consists of a large section of county platted lands from Harmony Road west of the BNSF rail line traversing southwest to Trilby Road at Shields Street; the Skyview subdivision butting up to the business frontages of US 287 that had been annexed in the 1980s ; the Fossil Creek Meadows subdivision north and south of Fossil Creek Parkway and east of US 287; and two small subdivisions (Lynn Acres and Trilby Heights) north and south of Trilby east of US 287. PHASE THREE Subdivision / Area Prior County Maintenance Current City Maintenance Notes Brookwood Estates Yes Yes Accepted for limited maintenance, limited maintenance performed 2016 Applewood Estates Yes Yes Accepted for limited maintenance, limited maintenance performed in 2012 Scenic Knolls Yes Yes Accepted for limited maintenance, limited maintenance performed in 2012 Fossil Crest Yes Yes City maintenance of Fossil Crest Drive yet to be performed Skyview South No Yes City maintaining snow/bus routes. General Improvement District (GID) established to upgrade roads; accepted by City for limited maintenance. Limited E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - ATT 1 Packet pg. 28 10 maintenance performed in 2013, 2014, and 2019 Skyview North Yes Yes Accepted for limited maintenance, limited maintenance performed in 2015 Fossil Creek Meadows Yes Yes Accepted for limited maintenance. Special assessment collected to perform one-time overlay maintenance, performed in 2018 Lynn Acres Yes Yes Mix of gravel/paved roads. Lynn Dr and Kyle Ave accepted for limited maintenance. Limited maintenance performed in 2019 Trilby Heights Yes Yes Accepted for limited maintenance. Limited maintenance performed 2022 PHASE 4: Subdivisions in Phase 4 of the Southwest Enclave annexation consist of areas west of Shields and north of Trilby Road. These subdivisions have no paved surfaces, and the City has been maintaining these roads by grading the gravel on a regular basis. PHASE FOUR Phase Four local subdivision streets contain no paved roads or surfaces. City is performing periodic grading. Activity Post-Annexation – Transportation Infrastructure • No sidewalk improvements have been performed in the Southwest Enclave area through the Pedestrian Needs Assessment project. • 2011: Intersection Improvements at Shields and Trilby o Improvements occurred prior to complete annexation o Funded by Larimer County Regional Road Impact Fee under an existing Larimer County contract • Improvements in 2022 and Onward: o College and Trilby Intersection Improvements: This project will reconstruct the College Avenue and Trilby Road intersection to improve safety for current and future traffic levels. Construction includes a widening of Trilby as it approaches College Avenue, dual left turn lanes from College onto Trilby, and right turn lanes for all directions of travel. The cost of this project is currently estimated at $16.5M. The majority of this (about $10M) is being funded through grants. General Fund, CCIP, and TCEF comprise of most of the City contributions. Reconstruction of the College/Trilby intersection is expected to begin in late 2022 and continue through 2023. o Trilby Sidewalk Gap Connections Project: Engineering, Natural Areas, Park Planning, and FCMoves is collaborating to construct missing gap connections of sidewalks along the southern side of Trilby Road between College Avenue and Shields Street to provide a continuous pedestrian corridor as well as connections to the existing and future regional trail system. The sidewalk project is separate from the intersection improvements and may be constructed simultaneously or E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - ATT 1 Packet pg. 29 11 completed once the intersection improvements have been finalized. This project is in the planning phase. Construction may begin in 2024 or 2025. o Southwest Fort Collins Needs Assessment: Budget offer 27.10 was recently submitted to fund an analysis of infrastructure, land use, and transportation needs within the Southwest Enclave Annexation area. This request is motivated by a need to understand how to fully bring remaining infrastructure built under County standards to City standards. Analysis would include an inventory of infrastructure needs, review of existing land use patterns with a 15-minute city analysis, as well as improvement recommendations to build upon existing programs and plans. B. Electric Utility Commitment upon Initiation of Annexation • In 2005, it was estimated that 1,000 customers would be transferred from Poudre Valley Rural Electric Association (PVREA) to Fort Collins Electric Utility (FCU) within the Southwest Enclave. 100 customers would be transferred from Xcel to FCU. • There is a state law that requires municipal utilities t o pay PVREA a service rights fee of 25% of each existing customer’s monthly bill for a period of 10 years from the date of service transfer. • There is no provision in the City code to waive or defer the electric transfer fee, therefore fees are passed on to the City’s electric customers. o Enclave residents voiced strong opposition to absorbing electric transfer fees. o The City committed to using reserve funds to cover all except 5% of mandated service rights fees. o The remaining 20% of the fee would be covered with utility reserve funds, estimated to cost approximately $2.3 million over the 10-year period. • A City Council Work Session Item dated June 27, 2006, documents that Light and Power had no plans to underground electric utilities in the Southwest Enclave, but as a response to resident comments, this area would now be included in plans for undergrounding at no cost to property owners. • Consideration and timing of this undergrounding will be considered with other priorities throughout the City’s system. Activity Post-Annexation • Annexation Phases 1 through 3 have been converted from PVREA to City Light and Power. • Portions of Annexation Phase 4 have been converted to City Light and Power, however, there are some remaining portions that have not yet been converted from PVREA to City Light and Power. This includes the parcels south of Fossil Creek. • Although all of Phase 3 has been converted to City Light and Power, there are a few small portions of Phase 3 (specifically Kyle Avenue and Lynn Drive) that are still overhead lines. These are planned to be converted to an underground system by the end of 2023. The portions of Phase 4 that have been converted to City Light and Power include the parcels north of Fossil Creek. The lines in this location have been undergrounded. E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - ATT 1 Packet pg. 30 12 C. Stormwater Utility Commitment upon Initiation of Annexation • All residents and properties within the Southwest Enclave became stormwater customers immediately upon annexation. Prior to annexation, Southwest Enclave residents and businesses did not pay utility fees for stormwater. • The City’s monthly stormwater utility fees are determined based on size of parcel and amount of impervious surfaces present. In 2005, using an “average” lot size of 8,300 square feet, residential property owners would expect a stormwater fee of $14.36 a month. Commercial property owners were expected to pay a fee of approximately $134 a month given greater building coverage and larger paved areas. • Residents and business owners within the Southwest Enclave requested that stormwater utility fees be phased in over a five-year period. This was applied by charging 20% of the total fee the first year, 40% the next, 60% the third year, and upwards until 100% total fee is collected. This allowed residents and business owners to factor this new cost into their budget. The gradual increase replicated the experience of other City residents who had gradual increases in stormwater fees over the years. Activity Post-Annexation • As described above, Stormwater Utility Fees have been phased in over a five-year period after each phase was annexed, increasing from 20% to 100%. All phases of annexation are now collecting full fees. The following projects were completed following annexation within the Southwest Enclave: • Fossil Ridge Drive Rundown Repair • Mail Creek Stream Rehabilitation Project • Stone Creek Master Plan Study • Smith Creek & Taft Hill Road Culver Repairs • Aaron Drive Stormwater Improvements • Fossil Creak Meadows Stormwater Improvement in three phases • Stormwater pipe rehabilitations at numerous locations • Stormwater improvements associated with development projects D. Trails, Parks, and Natural Areas Commitment upon Initiation of Annexation • Prior to initiating annexation, the City made significant investments in Fossil Creek Park , just east of the Southwest Enclave Annexation Area. • No additional parks were proposed in the Southwest Enclave. • Should new residential development occur following annexation, parkland fees assessed against this development would provide funding for neighborhood parkland acquisition and development. • It was stated in a Fort Collins City Council AIS dated October 3, 2006, that given the significant existing residential development within the Southwest Enclave, no parkland fees could be collected upon annexation. Any new neighborhood parks would be financed through new residential development fees. Activity Post-Annexation • Although there have been expansions to the trail network within the Southwest Enclave, trail investments were not linked with annexation. E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - ATT 1 Packet pg. 31 13 • Post-annexation, a 1.7-mile stretch of the Fossil Creek Trail was completed in 2018. This final section of multiuse trail completed the east-west connection extending from College Avenue to Shields and continuing to the Cathy Fromme Prairie. • Other regionally significant trails in the Southwest Enclave area include the Long View Trail connecting Fort Collins and Loveland. The Long View Trail was also opened in 2018 post- annexation. • There are no City of Fort Collins neighborhood parks located within Southwest Enclave boundaries. However, there are multiple natural areas partially located in the phased annexation areas. This includes portions of the Hazaleus Natural Area, the Colina Mariposa Natural Area, the Coyote Ridge Natural Area, and Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area. • Like trails within the Southwest Enclave area, the acquisition of natural areas was not influenced by annexation but driven by existing regional priorities. E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - ATT 1 Packet pg. 32 14 3. Financial Impact of Annexation within the Southwest Enclave Early in the Southwest Enclave Annexation evaluation process, City staff prepared a Costs and Revenues Matrix displaying immediate costs and revenues of annexation by service area, as well as costs and revenues 15 years after annexation. This attachment, as it was provided to Council on May 24, 2005, is included as Attachment E. Commitment and Status upon Initiation of Annexation Sales and Use Tax Sales tax is collected on applicable goods sold within Larimer County and in Fort Collins City Limits. Much of the Southwest Enclave is comprised of residential neighborhoods and a small portion of commercial properties along the South College frontage. Table 3: Sales and Use Tax Sales and Use Tax Larimer County Sales Tax Pre-Annexation (2005) City of Fort Collins Sales Tax Post- Annexation 0.8% 3.8% (0.8% County + 3% City sales tax) Larimer County Use Tax Pre-Annexation (2005) City of Fort Collins Use Tax Post-Annexation (applicable to commercial) 3.7% (motor vehicles and building materials) 6.0% (use tax on motor vehicles, building materials, and other tangible goods) Redevelopment Opportunity • One-third of the annexation area is comprised of open space that will remain in an undeveloped condition in perpetuity. • City staff projected that 62-acres of commercial property were likely to redevelop on South College in the future. However, this was stated with the caveat that small, narrow parcels with multiple owners may have to be consolidated to allow redevelopment at higher intensities. • As stated in the February 22, 2005, City Council Work Session AIS, long-term projected revenue was tied to fees collected at the time of building permit issuance (fees for Plan Review and Inspection, Street Oversizing, Capital Expansion, Storm Drainage Basin Expansion and Parkland acquisition). Activity Post-Annexation Table 4 below displays sales tax and use tax collected in Fort Collins Tax Districts 6, 16, 17, and 33 from the period of 2015 through present day, as recorded upon time of collection on May 10, 2022. • Tax districts 16 and 17 include some portion of the enclave area, but the large retailers in that area were developed on land that was already a part of the City at the time of the enclave annexation and therefore their development cannot be attributed to annexation. • The top five remitters in tax districts 16 and 17 account for approximately 55% and 80%, respectively, of the total sales tax collections for those districts. The tax revenue from those remitters has been excluded from the totals for those districts, thereby providing a more accurate estimate of the amount the Southwest Enclave area contributed to total City collections. • Projections for new development and redevelopment in this area at the time of the annexation analysis in 2006 were likely more aggressive than what has been developed since. It is difficult to E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - ATT 1 Packet pg. 33 15 determine from these data alone what has been the effect of annexation and what can be attributed to other factors, such as general economic conditions . • Development timelines are unpredictable, and projects can require years of lead time before construction, when use tax is collected. Multiple development projects are currently in various stages of review and may translate to additional revenue in the coming years. Table 4: Southwest Enclave Annexation Historical Lookback SALES TAX TAX DISTRICT 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 APR YTD 6 389,300 435,127 445,292 465,327 475,968 480,461 579,287 171,621 16 2,038,043 1,999,584 1,995,442 2,099,174 2,077,329 2,022,656 2,356,940 801,870 17 460,349 480,559 492,622 509,786 525,367 514,860 558,456 178,743 33 1,470,501 1,773,516 2,120,187 2,185,843 2,290,662 2,598,503 2,858,839 889,634 CITY TOTAL 104,763,753 109,314,750 112,122,090 116,309,609 119,703,205 115,662,995 138,032,430 50,034,409 SW ANX % of CITY 1 4.2%4.3%4.5%4.5%4.5%4.9%4.6%4.1% USE TAX TAX DISTRICT 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 APR YTD 6 2,671 5,112 1,916 3,702 5,364 4,109 16,114 6,135 16 55,645 31,348 31,124 65,516 30,948 25,711 31,387 13,097 17 39,792 30,650 32,553 10,134 12,104 13,063 18,525 4,766 33 13,003 65,768 8,387 17,306 14,757 3,384 1,792 10,204 CITY TOTAL 29,235,940 26,903,382 23,639,357 22,451,010 22,241,262 20,018,571 21,003,628 7,517,049 SW ANX % of CITY 0.4%0.5%0.3%0.4%0.3%0.2%0.3%0.5% S&U TAX COMBINED TAX DISTRICT 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 APR YTD 6 391,971 440,239 447,208 469,029 481,332 484,570 595,401 177,756 16 2,093,688 2,030,932 2,026,566 2,164,690 2,108,277 2,048,367 2,388,327 814,967 17 500,141 511,209 525,175 519,920 537,471 527,923 576,981 183,509 33 1,483,504 1,839,284 2,128,574 2,203,149 2,305,419 2,601,887 2,860,631 899,838 CITY TOTAL 133,999,693 136,218,132 135,761,447 138,760,619 141,944,467 135,681,566 159,036,058 57,551,458 SW ANX % of CITY 1 3.3%3.5%3.8%3.9%3.8%4.2%4.0%3.6% 1 - The percentage of total that the Southwest Annexation tax districts of 6, 16, 17, and 33 are of the City's total sales and use tax collections less the top five remitters in tax district 16 and 17 that were part of the City prior to annexation. E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - ATT 1 Packet pg. 34 16 4. Annexation Impacts to Residents and Business Owners As referenced in other sections of this memo, the involuntary Southwest Enclave Annexation was contentious amongst residents and business owners. After City Council affirmed its intent to annex the Southwest Enclave during a work session in 2005, many people living and working in the area continually expressed concerns about the effects of annexation. City Council directed staff to dedicate additional time to engage with residents, property, and business owners to better address their concerns. From January through May 2006, a number of outreach efforts took place, including twelve neighborhood meetings, each focused on a specific area; invitations extended in the form of a letter from the City Manager sent to property owners and tenants alike. Participants were asked to suggest how the City might ease the transition from County to City. A summary of these mitigation measures and the resolution of each is shown in Table 5. The complete summary of mitigation measures suggested by citizens is included as Attachment F. Staff evaluated the mitigation suggestions, and the following were proposed: Table 5: Proposed Mitigation Measures and Solutions Proposed Mitigation Resolution Use reserve funds to cover all except 5% of the 25% mandated service rights fee for current Poudre Valley Rural Electric Authority (PVREA) customers. Ordinance No. 137, Section 5, on October 3, 2006, codified that upon annexation, the service rights fee for all existing PVREA services shall be 5% of the total of all charges for electric power service. Underground electric utilities at no cost to property owners. Not codified Phase in monthly stormwater utility fees over a five-year period, charging 20% of the total fee the first year, then 40, 60, 80 and 100% respectively. Ordinance No. 137 Section 6 presents a table for calculating a stormwater utility fee with the aforementioned multiplication factors in the five- year period post-annexation. Allow barbed wire fences and electrically charged fences used for livestock and pasture management in UE and RUL zones. Codified in Land Use Code Section 3.8.11(B)(1). Change the amortization period from 5 years to 7 years for nonconforming permanent signs located on properties annexed into the City. Ordinance No. 139 amended Land Use Code Section 3.8.7(A)(3)(c) as stated above on October 3, 2006. Change the licensing requirements for businesses that qualify as secondhand dealers/flea markets, so the owner of the flea market is the licensed secondhand dealer rather than the individual booth operators. Ordinance No. 142 amended Article XI of the Code to add a new definition of flea market and amend the definition of secondhand dealer. This ordinance also amended the Code text regarding license requirements. Specify and define recordkeeping requirements for flea market operators so as not to put an undue burden on individual booth operators, while still addressing and satisfying the intent of Ordinance No. 142 amended text pertaining to flea market owner and operator requirements to document all persons renting a booth in the flea E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - ATT 1 Packet pg. 35 17 the record requirements of identification of stolen property. market. This list must be kept on the premises for inspection by the City during business hours. Exempt animal shelters and bird rescue and education centers from restrictions on the possession and feeding of wild animals. Ordinance No. 143 amended section 4-73 of the City Code to state that limitation on the possession and feeding of wild and exotic animals shall not apply to the Humane Society. Pursue actions to address specific concerns regarding road funding and neighborhood road connections. Not codified. See above for summary of street maintenance and transportation improvements post-annexation. 5. Lessons Learned and Considerations from the Southwest Enclave Annexation Sequence of Planning Efforts As described within this memo, the Southwest Enclave annexed in four phases over a period of multiple years. The first phase, Phase 1, was formulated to capture the South College frontage area. The rationale for this phase taking place immediately was that it was the most urban in character and because it formed the southernmost entrance to the City. Concurrent to Phase 1 annexation, the South College Corridor Plan was initiated to develop a long-term vision for this area (kicked off in 2007; adopted by City Council in 2009). Due to this sequencing, the majority of the visioning work for South College occurred after it was annexed. Although this did not necessarily hinder the planning effort, sequencing these events differently may have increased buy-in from residents and business owners. If businesses and residents had the ability to co-create and understand the proposed vision for South College frontage before or during annexation, it may have reduced some concerns or confusion that could have been resolved through the corridor planning process. • Key Takeaway for East Mulberry Enclave and GMA: Considering the impacts of potential annexation and initiating the planning process before or concurrently to annexation may ease concerns of residents and businesses and allow for proactive engagement. Communications & Setting Expectations for Community Members Although a significant community engagement and outreach effort occurred throughout the annexation process, the complicated nature of the Southwest Enclave Annexation led to ongoing confusion about impacts to properties and businesses. The June 27, 2006, Council Work Session Item states that as meetings occurred and residents expressed concerns, it was evident that the City’s codes were being misinterpreted or misunderstood. This prompted the City to produce and distribute a document titled “Frequently Heard Concerns Addressed by Current Code Provisions or Practices” (included as Attachment G). Many of the concerns were related to street maintenance and the perception that residential streets would need to be upgraded immediately upon annexation with curb and gutter versus the maintenance procedures previously described. One factor that could have contributed to these misconceptions was that perhaps the communications or materials distributed to residents and businesses did not sufficiently assuage concerns in advance. • Key Takeaway for East Mulberry Enclave and GMA: Despite substantial outreach efforts over an extended period, the Southwest Enclave Annexation offers an opportunity to examine communication strategies and timing for property owners and community members alike. In considering lessons learned for the East Mulberry Enclave, there is an opportunity to better understand the impacts to residents and businesses and formulate a communication strategy that can address those at the outset. Proactively communicating impacts and how the City plans to E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - ATT 1 Packet pg. 36 18 address them may help prevent unanswered concerns that lead to misinterpretation of policies or codes. o Consider ways to reframe communications that do not solely address ‘impacts’ but also communicate potential benefits businesses and residents may experience upon annexation. o To address future concerns, the City may consider proactive and ongoing communication surrounding street maintenance status and responsibilities for property owners on roads that are not built to LCUASS standards. For example, subdivisions with substandard roadways may have limited ongoing maintenance until they eventually need to be reconstructed to LCUASS standards. There may be additional implications for people purchasing properties in areas where this applies. o This proactive notification and communication will allow residents, neighborhoods, or HOA’s to organize and work with the City to develop improvement visions and financing options. Consider designating a department or specific personnel to work with neighborhood organizations or property owners in this capacity. o A maintenance disclosure or some other type of notification could be tied to the title of properties so that when a sale occurs, new owners are aware of street maintenance status and other potential future costs. Delay in Implementation of Infrastructure The final phase of annexation, Phase 4, concluded in 2013. However, portions of Phases 3 and 4 have yet to be converted to City Light and Power nearly a decade later. Although the City did not make commitments related to conversion timeline, it has been difficult to fund infrastructure improvements within enclaves and other annexed areas without associated development. Projected funding for many infrastructure projects is tied to fees collected at the time of building permit issuance. However, due to the primarily residential nature of the Southwest Enclave and the factors limiting larger redevelopment along South College (e.g., infrastructure costs, site constraints, the need for parcel assemblage), the re has not been significant redevelopment activity. It is the City’s current practice to convert newly annexed properties to City Light and Power at the time of development if facilities exist in the area. Due to the lack of existing facilities and because there were no large development projects to fund improvements, infrastructure in the Southwest Enclave has taken longer to progress. Projects in the Southwest Enclave were prioritized based on pragmatic factors such as safety needs, response to development plans, and improving access to parks and schools. Economic development an d catalysts for private investment were not necessarily at the forefront of prioritization criteria. City staff are in the process of compiling a 10-year Transportation Capital Improvement Program (TCIP) list of projects that would cover the top transportation capital requirements across the City for the next ten years and beyond. Criteria such as safety, transportation mobility, congestion reduction, and multimodal optimization would be a focus, and priority for newly annexed areas could be added to the criteria and project scoring methodology. • Key Takeaways for East Mulberry Enclave and GMA: Council and staff could consider alternative prioritization schemes for capital improvements that are not entirely dependent on development. In some cases, regional infrastructure may be needed to address underlying conditions in addition to development improvements (e.g., stormwater drainage, sidewalk connections). E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - ATT 1 Packet pg. 37 19 o Catalytic projects or other strategic investments could be prioritized in newly annexed areas to signal City presence and commitment. This could assist in communicating confidence that then spurs private investment and development. o Alternative financing, such as utilizing the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) to help finance a capital project over time with tax revenue, can be useful for large- scale transportation capital projects along arterial roadways. In local neighborhoods, a Special Improvement District (SID) can augment the Street Maintenance Program in bringing up local roadways to City standards. o Developing metrics or triggers that need to be met prior to annexation. For example, ensuring the presence of existing electric infrastructure to facilitate conversion to City Light and Power. o Commitment to specific timelines for service conversion/transition could be considered simultaneously to annexation. Particularly if no existing City infrastructure is in close proximity to facilitate a connection, the duration of time needed to establish City services should be taken into consideration. Revenue and Expense Considerations While an annexation of existing businesses will increase the tax receipts for the City, growth projections need to consider the amount of additional revenue expected from new businesses and the anticipated timing of such increases. Additionally, there is the potential for leakage of tax revenues if some of the existing sales base is lost to other jurisdictions. Capital expansion fees play a large part in funding the services to be provided in the annexed area (police, fire, general governmental). The timing of potential developments needs to be accurately and conservatively estimated. There is likely to be a mismatch of when some services need to be provided and when funds to support those services are likely to be generated. Police services are a primary area that will need to be provided early in the annexation process. Provisions for covering these timing mismatches need to be addressed via alternative funding options. A newly annexed enclave will be competing for the available resources and funding with the already existing needs in the City of Fort Collins. Coordinated planning, timing and prioritization with these existing needs will be necessary to meet expectations, objectives, and commitments to all parties. • Key Takeaways for East Mulberry Enclave and GMA: o Providing the full suite of City services to an enclave area will require significant resources. The timing and availability of funding may not match the required level of services needed. The potential annexation area needs to be part of the City- wide planning, prioritization and budgeting process, including the efforts to increase and diversify funding sources. Phased and/or incremental approaches will serve to reduce risks and allow for prudent financial commitments. E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - ATT 1 Packet pg. 38 Attachment 2 Memo Attachments E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - ATT 2 Packet pg. 39 S mok m E Skyway Dr h Ln Vinson St o o dland Way E Saturn Dr Mcgraw Dr rasburg Truxtun Dr Vivian St outman Pkwy Bear Creek Dr Uranus St W Skyway Dr H D Deer Cre M Dr Sea Wolf Ct n Cherylen P Dr ment Ct Picard LnBordeaux Dr Bentley Pl a exa Ct te Quaki Aspe Dr Ashford Ct Towhee St l au s Ct Pitner Dr Gary Dr e Blossom Ln lia C W Saturn Dr T O t Johns Ln lia Dr lview Ct W Fairway Ln Oa Prairie St Sain haels Blue Mountain Dr H G l Dunne Dr Fromme Prairie Way As hford Ln Midway Dr d reek Ct Pavilion Ln Fairway Ln Marig d Fossil Blvd O Fossil Creek Dr Dr Ro lling Gate Rd M c w ew B Scenic Dr pplewhite Ct Brixton Rd Silvergat La Eda Ln n Ln Forrestal Dr Reeve me Richard Dr W Harmony Rd E Trilby RdW Trilby RdW Trilby Rd E Harm R d Phase 4 2014 Phase 4 2014 Phase 2 2008 Phase 1 2006 Phase 3 2010 Phase 3 2010 Phase 3 2010 Wild Flower Skyview South Trilby Heights Ader Estates Scenic Knolls Skyview Lynn Acres Applewood Estates Brookwood Estates Mountain Valley Acres Fossil Crest Fossil Creek Meadows Midway Southwest Enclave Annexation Sequence of Four Phases Printed: February 18, 2014 Growth Management Area Proposed GMA Adjustment City Limits Parcels Annexation Phase 1 - 2006 (Complete) 2 - 2008 (Complete) 3 - 2010 (Complete) 4 - 2014 0 0.25 0.50.125 Miles 1:24,000Scale © ATTACHMENT 2A Packet pg. 40 ATTACHMENT 2B Packet pg. 41 ATTACHMENT 2B Packet pg. 42 Appendix G – Policy and Standards for Maintenance and Improvement of Annexed Infrastructure (City of Fort Collins only) Appendix G Policy and Standards for Maintenance and Improvement of Annexed Infrastructure (City of Fort Collins only) Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards – Repealed and Reenacted April 1, 2007 Page G-1 Adopted by Larimer County, City of Loveland, City of Fort Collins ATTACHMENT 2C Packet pg. 43 Page G-2 Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards – Repealed and Reenacted January 17, 2007 Adopted by Larimer County, City of Loveland, City of Fort Collins ATTACHMENT 2C Packet pg. 44 Appendix G – Policy and Standards for Maintenance and Improvement of Annexed Infrastructure (City of Fort Collins only) APPENDIX “G” POLICY & STANDARDS for MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT of ANNEXED INFRASTRUCTURE (CITY OF FORT COLLINS ONLY) G.01 City of Fort Collins Policy GM-3.1 “Annexation Policy” of the City Plan Principles and Policies, includes the following general statement for the handling of existing infrastructure constructed in Larimer County and subsequently annexed into the City: Infrastructure standards. Developed land, or areas seeking voluntary annexation, must have their infrastructure improved (e.g., streets, utilities and storm drainage systems) to City standards, or must have a mechanism (e.g. a special improvement district, capital improvements program or other type project) in place to upgrade such services and facilities to City standards before the City will assume full responsibility for future maintenance. This statement requires further clarification for application to infrastructure already meeting City standards as well as infrastructure that does not meet City standards. Therefore, this Appendix is established in order to (1) set the level of maintenance that the City will initially provide on annexed infrastructure and (2) present criteria for determining what improvements have to be done to upgrade the infrastructure to meet City Standards before the City assumes full responsibility for maintenance. G.02 MAINTENANCE CRITERIA G.02.01 INITIAL MAINTENANCE G.02.01.01 STREETS BUILT TO CITY STANDARDS - In August 1989 the Larimer County Commissioners adopted “Urban Area Road Standards” (County Urban Standards) for streets built in the urban growth areas of the cities of Loveland and Fort Collins. These standards were modeled after, and equal to or better than, the City of Fort Collins street standards in effect at that time. Streets developed in the County that were designed and constructed to those standards would be considered “meeting current City standards.” As long as those streets have been maintained and not Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards – Repealed and Reenacted April 1, 2007 Page G-1 Adopted by Larimer County, City of Loveland, City of Fort Collins ATTACHMENT 2C Packet pg. 45 allowed to deteriorate, the City would take on “full responsibility for future maintenance” to the level that all City streets built to City standards have been maintained. If the streets had not been maintained properly and repairs were necessary, the City would only provide minor maintenance to a level to keep the streets from becoming unsafe. With the improvements in a deteriorated state, the property owners adjacent to these streets would be required to rehabilitate the streets to meet acceptable maintenance standards of the City, at their expense, prior to the City taking on full responsibility for maintenance. G.02.01.02 STREETS NOT BUILT TO CITY STANDARDS - All other streets and roads that have been annexed into the City and not constructed to County Urban Standard nor to City standards, shall be handled in the following way: (a) The City shall provide only minor maintenance to the pavement surfaces to keep them from becoming unsafe. Minor maintenance may consist of periodic grading of gravel surfaces and filling potholes in asphalt surfaces. In addition the City will maintain all culverts and storm drainage pipes that pass under an annexed street. (b) The property owners adjacent to annexed county streets will be responsible for maintenance of curb and gutter and/or borrow ditches and culverts that cross under driveways. G.02.01.03 UTILITIES are generally owned by the City or by publicly regulated utility companies and/or districts. The City or the utility companies/districts shall maintain all utility lines and facilities owned by them. Private utility systems shall be the responsibility of the utility owners and not the City. G.02.01.04 STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEMS - The level of maintenance of storm drainage facilities dedicated to the public, to be assumed by the City, shall be determined by the City. The property owners must first have a study made (at their expense) of the existing drainage system, including everything that contributes runoff to the system, how it functions, and how it conforms or fails to conform to City standards. The study must be performed by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado. The study results must then be submitted to the City for evaluation. The City will evaluate the system for its adequacy as a functioning system and determine whether it meets city standards. If the system functions adequately, meets City standards and is located in the public right-of-way or located on land owned by the City, the City Page G-2 Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards – Repealed and Reenacted January 17, 2007 Adopted by Larimer County, City of Loveland, City of Fort Collins ATTACHMENT 2C Packet pg. 46 Appendix G – Policy and Standards for Maintenance and Improvement of Annexed Infrastructure (City of Fort Collins only) will may accept certain responsibilities for maintenance. If the system does not function or has certain non-functioning parts or does not meet City standards, the City shall evaluate the seriousness of the deficiencies for the health, safety or welfare of the public and take appropriate action. Non-functioning components that cause damage only to the property owners adjoining the system, will be the full responsibility of those property owners to correct or improve as they deem necessary. If the system deficiencies do cause damage to the public other than the adjoining property owners, the City shall take action to the degree necessary to inform the property owners of the problem, indicating their responsibility to correct the problems. G.02.02 FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTENANCE When infrastructure meets or has been upgraded to an acceptable level to meet City standards for the City to accept “full responsibility for maintenance,” the City shall maintain such infrastructure to the same level that maintenance is performed on all other public infrastructure in the City. G.03 IMPROVEMENTS TO CITY STANDARDS CRITERIA At such time that the City determines that minor maintenance is no longer adequate to protect public safety, the annexed infrastructure must be upgraded to City standards at no expense to the City. Improvements may be done voluntarily by the adjacent property owners, or the City Council may impose the improvements through the adoption of a Special Improvement District (SID). The SID is still an option available to the property owners on a voluntary basis. The required improvements will be determined by the City specifically for each subdivision depending upon the existing problems that need to be corrected and constraints that may prevent certain improvements from being built. Required improvements to meet City standards at the expense of the property owners may include, but not be limited to, the following: G.03.01 STREETS (a) Improve all streets to standard widths (b) Pavement (upgraded to 20 year design life) (c) Curb and gutter required (if borrow ditches must remain, other measures may be considered to allow runoff to the ditch, such as using a concrete edge to protect the pavement and borrow ditch) (d) Sidewalk - detached from the curb or roadway surface (e) Bridges and box culverts - Upgrade for HS20 design loading and 50 year design life (f) Retaining walls - Not allowed in the public right-of-way (g) Grades - Must meet minimum and maximum criteria (h) Street lights - must be paid for by the property owners and installed Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards – Repealed and Reenacted April 1, 2007 Page G-3 Adopted by Larimer County, City of Loveland, City of Fort Collins ATTACHMENT 2C Packet pg. 47 by the City (i) Borrow ditches and driveway culverts - If necessary to remain, must be maintained by the adjacent property owners G.03.02 UTILITIES (a) Water lines (1) City or district owned lines, no improvements required (2) Private lines will need to be upgraded to City or District standards for City or district acceptance (b) Sewer lines (1) City or district owned lines, no improvements required (2) Private lines will need to be upgraded to City or District standards for City or district acceptance (3) In areas with no existing sewers (septic systems), sewer lines must be installed in the streets prior to upgrading the street. (c) Manholes and valve boxes - Adjust to grade of finished street surface (d) Other utilities - Upgrade to acceptable standards of the utility prior to paving G.03.03 STORM DRAINAGE (a) The drainage system must be upgraded to a functioning system (b) Borrow ditches - Remove and replace with concrete curb and gutter ( if borrow ditches must remain, the minimum thalweg slope is 2% or if <2%, ditch must be paved with a concrete valley pan to prevent standing water) (c) Borrow ditch side slopes - Must be 4:1 or flatter (d) Driveway culverts - Replace with acceptable City standard pipe (e) Borrow ditches and driveway culverts - If necessary to remain, must be maintained by the adjacent property owners (f) Detention Ponds - Must be certified by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado that it functions in accordance with City standards (g) Culverts under the streets - Corrugated metal, plastic or other material culverts must be resized and replaced with Reinforce Concrete Pipe that meets City standards. (h) Inlets - May need to be replaced or remodeled if they are undersized or do not meet City standards G.03.04 OTHER IMPROVEMENTS (a) Other improvements unique to the location - The City shall be the determining authority on what must be done with unique circumstances not covered in the above criteria. G.04 ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR STREETS Page G-4 Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards – Repealed and Reenacted January 17, 2007 Adopted by Larimer County, City of Loveland, City of Fort Collins ATTACHMENT 2C Packet pg. 48 Appendix G – Policy and Standards for Maintenance and Improvement of Annexed Infrastructure (City of Fort Collins only) These Criteria shall apply to all annexed streets, including arterial and collector streets, which have been developed in the County. Since arterial and collector streets generally carry more traffic for the public at large than for adjacent properties, they may be maintained by the City to a higher standard until such time as upgrades are constructed. The adjoining property owners shall then be responsible only for the cost to upgrade the equivalent of their local street frontage. Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards – Repealed and Reenacted April 1, 2007 Page G-5 Adopted by Larimer County, City of Loveland, City of Fort Collins ATTACHMENT 2C Packet pg. 49 Attachment C – City of Fort Collins Street Maintenance Program (SMP) in the Southwest Enclave Annexation This email is an effort to detail the improvements that the City of Fort Collins, Street Maintenance Program (SMP) has undertaken in areas that were annexed to the City starting in 2010 and continuing through 2014 and known as the Southwest Annexation. The Southwest Annexation (SWA) was an effort to bring enclaved county developed subdivision into the City of Fort Collins. This effort was started in 2006 with community outreach and council actions with the first of four phases of these SWA staring in 2010 and proceeding through four phases as shown on the map attached. A general description of the Annexation phases and road maintenance work done in these phases is listed below. Guidance for the maintenance of these Larimer County annexed subdivisions is from the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, Appendix G: This appendix states that any subdivision when annexed from Larimer County to the City of Fort Collins, the City will assume the level of maintenance service that this subdivision had received from the County. Within the County, subdivisions plat all state: Maintenance of all road and common areas with (subdivision name), shall be the responsibility of all property owners within this unit development. Failure to adequately maintain these roads shall result in a lien upon the lots affected. Subdivision developed within Larimer County, up and until 1990, were allowed to petition the County to take over the maintenance of their roads within the subdivision, if the roads were brought up to a set standard by the owners. Larimer County maintains a list of subdivisions that had been accepted for maintenance. It was based on this list that the City of Fort Collins determined any annexations that would receive the county level of maintenance. Larimer County, in accepted subdivisions for road maintenance, would provide, pothole patching, crackseal efforts and chipseals, but would not overlay or rebuild roads. This level of maintenance has been taken over by the City within these subdivisions and is termed “Limited Maintenance” within the City of Fort Collins road maintenance network. There is a process to allow annexed subdivision to achieve full acceptance for full road maintenance. This requires that a subdivision goes through a review process to determine what upgrades are necessary to bring their systems to City of Fort Collins standards. Classically this effort is significant and only a few subdivisions have been able to meet these requirements, none of which are in the SWA areas. The policy of the SMP toward annexed areas is first to determine their County maintenance status, second to evaluate the condition of the roads, third to determine if a homeowners group exist that can be approached to inform them of City maintenance plans and see if they wish to work toward full acceptance and to detail their options. Classically the cost to bring roads to a full acceptance level include curb, gutter and sidewalks, dealing with stormwater detention and water quality requirements and upgrading the pavement structure is cost prohibitive to the owner pool and they decline this path. If there is no HOA, group to work with or if the full maintenance efforts are not embraced, SMP proceeds with a limited maintenance effort to patch, crackseal and chipseal the roads. PHASE 1: Consisted of the east side of College Avenue frontage from Trilby north past Saturn to the north boundary of South 13 Subdivision including the frontage roads, Smokey and Bueno. ATTACHMENT 2D Packet pg. 50 Kel Mar Strip: This County subdivision was a business frontage strip only one lot deep fronting the east side US 287 from Trilby north to Skyway. A service road that is not dedicated ROW was deeded to serve as an access road to these lots. This road was never accepted for maintenance by the County and is not accepted by the City. Both Skyway and Saturn provide access to City subdivisions and thus have full maintenance. Kel Mar Strip 2nd: This County subdivision was a business frontage strip only one lot deep that fronts the east side US 287 from Skyway to Saturn. A road that is dedicated ROW was deeded to serve as an access road to these lots. This road was never accepted for maintenance by the County and is not accepted by the City. Both Skyway and Saturn provide access to City subdivisions and thus have full maintenance. South 13 Subdivision: This was a county subdivision on the east side of US 287 and annexed to the City in 2010. The roads in this subdivision include Smokey, Bueno and the frontage road. All are dedicated ROW but were never accepted for maintenance by the County and is not accepted by the City. Smokey Street traveling east from US 287 provides access to City subdivisions and thus is being maintained as a Limited Maintenance road in 2016. PHASE 2: Consists of the Fairway Estates Subdivision east of the Fairway Estates business Lots fronting US 287 and South of Harmony Road. FAIRWAY ESTATES SUBIVISION: (Business Lots of Phase 1) The east frontage service road attached to the business lots were developed in the County in the 1960 and annexed to the city in the 1980s. This road was never accepted for maintenance by the County and is not accepted by the City. Both Palmer Dr. and Fairway Lane through this area provide access to City Annexed subdivisions and thus have been accepted for Limited Maintenance. FAIRWAY ESTATES SUBIVISION: (Estate Lots of Phase 1 east of the business lots and west of Mail Creek) Both Palmer Dr. and Fairway Lane through this area were overlaid by the owners and accepted for maintenance by the County and thus were accepted for limited maintenance by the City. The county performed a Chipseal on these roads in 2005 and the City followed this with patchwork, crackseal and a slurryseal cap in 2020. FAIRWAY ESTATES SUBIVISION, Third Filing: (Estate Lots of east of Mail Creek) All roads within this platted area were accepted for maintenance by the County and thus were accepted for limited maintenance by the City. The county performed a Chipseal on these roads in 2005 and the City followed this with patchwork, crackseal and a slurryseal cap in 2020. The county performed a Chipseal on these roads in 2005 and the City followed this with patchwork, crackseal and a slurryseal cap in 2020. PITNER ESTATES SUBDIVISION: This subdivision plated a section of Stover traveling north from Harmony between JFK Parkway and Boardwalk Drive. The road is dedicated ROW, but this road was never accepted for maintenance by the County and is not accepted by the City and has not been maintained by the owners. PHASE3: Consist of a large section of County platted lands from Harmony Road west of the BNSF rail line traversing SW to Trilby Road at Shields Street. Phase 3 then traveled to the east side of the rail line to take in the Skyview subdivision butting up to the business frontages of US 287 that had been ATTACHMENT 2D Packet pg. 51 annexed in the 1980s. Phase 3 also included the Fossil Creek Meadows subdivision north and south of Fossil Creek Parkway and east of US 287, and two small subdivision (Lynn Acres and Trilby Heights) north and south of Trilby east of US 287. BROOKWOOD ESTATES: This subdivision plated Crest Road traveling south from Harmony just west of JFK the BNSF rail line. The road is dedicated ROW in the county and City residential lots were platted along the west side with the Coventry Subdivision. Crest Road was improved with the Coventry development to City standards along the city frontage.The County portion, annexed with Phase 3 was accepted for maintenance by the County and patched and chipsealed by the City in 2015 to its southern terminus. APPLEWOOD ESTATES: This is a sprawling, estate lot subdivision developed in the County in the 70s and 80s.Roads in this area are rural with barrow ditches and large lots with surface ditch irrigation. The Applewood Estates subdivision, annexed with Phase 3 was accepted for maintenance by the County and received a double chipseal by the City in 2012. Significant patching efforts were necessary in 2020 to deal with soft areas of road because of surface irrigation. SENICE KNOLLS: This is a sprawling, estate lot subdivision developed in the County in the 70s and 80s.Roads in this area are rural with barrow ditches and large lots with surface ditch irrigation. The Scenic Knolls subdivision, annexed with Phase 3 was accepted for maintenance by the County and received a double chipseal by the City in 2012. FOSSIL CREST: This subdivision plated a section of Fossil Crest Drive traveling north from Trilby at the top of the hill west of the BNSF rail line. The road is dedicated ROW, and this road was accepted for maintenance by the County but has yet to receive maintenance by the City. SKYVIEW SOUTH: This is a subdivision on either side of Constellation Drive going north from Trilby Road to Skyway Drive and includes a number of looping roads and cul-de-sacs that were originally built in the 60s and 70s as a County subdivision. These roads were never accepted for maintenance by the County, but the county had developed this area as a general improvement district call the Skyview South GID#15. Both Constellation Dr. and Skyway Drive serve as emergency routes for snow clearing and bus routes for school. As such these roads received full maintenance from the City to maintain safe, passible conditions, in 2013 and 2014, respectively. Through efforts by SMP to coordinate with the HOA representative of the Skyview South GID#15, fund from the district have been used to upgrade their roads with overlays so that they have been accepted for Limited Maintenance between 2014 and 2019. SKYVIEW NORTH: This is a subdivision on either side of Venus Avenue going north from Skyway Drive to Crestridge Street and east of the BNSF. The subdivision includes a number of looping roads that butt up to the business lots fronting US 287. This subdivision was originally built in the 70s and 80s as a County subdivision. These roads were accepted for maintenance by the County, the City performed patchwork, crackseal and a chipseal in 2015. FOSSIL CREEK MEADOWS: All roads within this platted were built in the 70s and were accepted for maintenance by the County and thus were accepted for limited maintenance by the City. The county performed a Chipseal on these roads in 1990s, but these roads were approaching the ATTACHMENT 2D Packet pg. 52 end of their functional life. SMP staff reached out to work with representatives of the HOA to determine the best situation as further chipseals would have limited return. Through a number of meetings with the HOA members it was determined that the HOA would have a special assessment of approximately $2,000 per household to leverage the chipseal monies from the City to allow for a two-inch overlay of all roads which was completed in 2018 and 2019. This effort would provide an estimated 20-additional years of service but would not change the status of these roads from Limited Maintenance. As such the next anticipated treatment would be patch, crackseal and chipseal in the distant future. LYNN ACRES: This subdivision is a mix of paved and unpaved roads originally platted in the County in 60s and built in the 70s. Of the roads, only Lynn Drive and Kyle Avenue are paved and were accepted for maintenance by the County, the City performed patchwork, crackseal and a chipseals in 2019. TRILBY HEIGHTS: This subdivision is a mix of paved and unpaved roads originally platted in the County and built in the 70s. The roads through this area had curb, gutter and sidewalks constructed by the owners to deal with drainage so as to be accepted for maintenance by the County in the 1980s, thus the roads were accepted for limited maintenance by the City. The City is currently performing patchwork and chipseals 2022. PHASE 4: Subdivision in Phase 4 of the SWA consist of areas west of Shields and north of Trilby Road. These subdivisions have no paved surfaces, and the City has been maintaining these roads by grading the gravels on a regular basis. ATTACHMENT 2D Packet pg. 53 ATTACHMENT 2EPacket pg. 54 ATTACHMENT 2EPacket pg. 55 ATTACHMENT 2EPacket pg. 56 ATTACHMENT 2EPacket pg. 57 ATTACHMENT 2EPacket pg. 58 ATTACHMENT 2EPacket pg. 59 ATTACHMENT 2EPacket pg. 60 ATTACHMENT 2EPacket pg. 61 ATTACHMENT 2EPacket pg. 62 ATTACHMENT 2F Packet pg. 63 ATTACHMENT 2F Packet pg. 64 ATTACHMENT 2G Packet pg. 65 ATTACHMENT 2G Packet pg. 66 East Mulberry Potential Annexation Lenses & Phasing April 26, 2022 City Council Work Session Tr avis Storin / Sylvia Tatman-Burruss / David Lenz ATTACHMENT 2 E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - ATT 3 Packet pg. 67 East Mulberry Map 2 E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - ATT 3 Packet pg. 68 3Agenda 1.Review timeline 2.Update on engagement 3.Annexation Lenses & Phasing E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - ATT 3 Packet pg. 69 4Timeline/Work Plan Update March 8th Review Goals and Big Ideas for East Mulberry Plan Review Annexation Scenario Framework April 26th Review financial assumptions Review Draft Potential Annexation Phasing Scenarios Winter Review Draft of the East Mulberry Plan Discuss final potential annexation scenarios Summer Consider refined financial assumptions, timeline and scenarios for potential annexation New Ti meline (2022): E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - ATT 3 Packet pg. 70 Advisory Group Meeting Key Takeaways and Perspectives Support for annexation in hopes of eventually benefitting from increased resources and attention toward transportation, policing, stormwater, and other topics Concerns and surprise that annexation was in question Desire for greater connectivity, continuity, and safety for different modes of transportation. Preference to start with Mulberry Corridor and the I-25 Gateway. 5 E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - ATT 3 Packet pg. 71 Annexation Lenses & Phasing E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - ATT 3 Packet pg. 72 Safety I-25 and East Mulberry consistently noted as an area where business success is partially impeded by safety issues not adequately addressed by current law enforcement efforts actively requested to be annexed early to mitigate law enforcement deficiencies Aesthetics/Transportation Aesthetic improvements along the East Mulberry frontage Hwy is dangerous to access by all transportation modes Stormwater Improvements The service-area/Industrial park southwest of the old airport and directly east of Home Depot and Walmart is severely affected by stormwater infrastructure deficiencies and flooding related to Dry Creek Housing and Transit Mechanisms for affordable housing preservation can be utilized in these neighborhoods Investments in transportation mobility on key corridors (e.g., Summit View) Priorities by Subareas E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - ATT 3 Packet pg. 73 Phasing Based on precedent from previous annexations, a phased approach is recommended. Allows for allocation of resources over time Allows time for revenue generation ahead of other phases Allows for better community engagement ahead of each phase E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - ATT 3 Packet pg. 74 9PhasingLenses Phasing Lenses Each lens focuses on one priority area. Other priority areas are still present but might be delayed or resourced differently. Emphasizes fiscal impact to City of annexation, including existing priorities, risks, and timing Fiscal Health for City Emphasizes environmental buffers, flood mitigation Environmental & Hazard Protection Emphasizes economic development and vitality in the area Economic Opportunity Emphasizes connectivity, utilities, and other social priorities Residential Enhancement The Gateway Community Emphasizes improvements and reinvestment potential for the Mulberry Corridor, including the highway and frontage roads E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - ATT 3 Packet pg. 75 Fiscal Impact Model 10 Annexation Area Jobs Households Persons Served Revenues Expenses Net Fiscal Impacts Operating: Ø Governmental Ø Property Tax Ø Sales/Use Tax Ø Fees/Permits/Charges for Services Ø Utilities Ø Rate/fee revenue Capital: Ø Governmental Ø CEF Ø TCEF Ø Utilities: Ø PIFs Operating: Ø Governmental Ø Full suite of governmental services Ø Utilities Ø L&P, Stormwater and Broadband Capital: Ø Governmental Ø Specific identified projects (Parks) Ø Utilities: Ø L&P –connectivity including acquisition costs from existing providers (PVREA/Xcel) Ø Broadband -Buildout Ø Stormwater –specific identified projects Operating: Ø Governmental Ø Annual Net Fiscal Impacts Ø Total Net Fiscal Impacts Ø Utilities Ø Annual Net Fiscal Impacts Ø Total Net Fiscal Impacts Capital: Ø Governmental Ø Total Net Fiscal Impacts Ø Utilities Ø Total Net Fiscal Impacts E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - ATT 3 Packet pg. 76 11FinancialAnalysisFramework Separate analysis is provided for Governmental and Utilities Expenses and revenues are calculated within the subarea designations Constant $ assumed (no rate, revenue or cost inflation) 20-year timeframe Summarized into 5-yr increments: Immediate, Short Term, Medium Term and Long Term Depending on assumptions around timing of sub-area annexations, additional capital (and continuing operating costs) will be incurred past the 20-year horizon that is presented E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - ATT 3 Packet pg. 77 Economically-Focused Phasing Option Prioritize the annexation of properties with potential for new industrial and service commercial uses Phasing Assumptions Prioritizes the annexation of undeveloped industrial land Prioritizes stormwater improvements to benefit subareas 1, 4, and 5 to create potential for new or renewed development. Considerations Maximizes potential for new business attraction through undeveloped land at the I- 25/Mulberry interchange and at the airpark Prioritizes support opportunities for existing businesses from city programs and through improvements to support existing areas Economic Opportunity E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - ATT 3 Packet pg. 78 13Scenario1 (Economic Opportunity): Governmental Fiscal Impacts Operating: Quicker ramp up of services in established areas leads to quicker expense build-up (police, streets/traffic, other) Revenues build up from existing residents & businesses Large negative margin Capital: Includes investments in new parks keyed to resident increases over time Revenue increases delayed with later residential development timeframe Revenue $73 Expense $162 Margin ($89) Totals - 20 yrs. ($M) Revenue $38 Expense $16 Margin $22 Totals - 20 yrs. ($M) E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - ATT 3 Packet pg. 79 14Scenario1 (Economic Opportunity): Utilities Fiscal Impacts Operating: Assumes current rate structure applied to all customers Assumes similar operating cost structure to current averages Capital: Front loads capital investment by bringing L&P & broadband infrastructure through the E Mulberry corridor Allows City to collect PIFs for new development Acquisition costs (loss of revenues or stranded investments) to be recouped through rate adjustments Revenue $110 Expense $94 Margin $16 Totals - 20 yrs. ($M) Revenue $9 Expense $138 Margin ($129) Totals - 20 yrs. ($M) E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - ATT 3 Packet pg. 80 Socially/Residential-Focused Scenario Prioritizes the annexation of existing residential neighborhoods and improving their quality of services and infrastructure. Phasing Assumptions Prioritizes annexation from the south Subarea 2) and north (Subarea 5) with Subarea 3 annexation to improve access. Prioritizes utilities’ investments to existing and new residential areas Considerations Addresses the interests and concerns of the largest number of potential residents Could trigger the need for additional investments in stormwater and road improvements. May choose to address inequities in service levels and quality of infrastructure Residential Enhancement E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - ATT 3 Packet pg. 81 16Scenario2 (Residential Enhancement): Governmental Fiscal Impacts Revenue $62 Expense $111 Margin ($49) Totals - 20 yrs. ($M) Revenue $60 Expense $16 Margin $44 Totals - 20 yrs. ($M) Operating: Slower ramp up of services in established areas leads to slower expense build-up police, streets/traffic, other) Revenues build up slower from existing residents & businesses Relatively smaller negative margin Capital: Accelerated new residential development provides highest level of capital revenue from subarea 5 E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - ATT 3 Packet pg. 82 17Scenario2 (Residential Enhancement): Utilities Fiscal Impacts Operating Similar annual operating margins as in Scenario 1 Capital Assumes moderate upfront investment for acquisition of existing electrical infrastructure Assumes little new development in existing residential areas Assumes large investment in L&P and broadband internet in last phase (subareas 1 and 4) Development PIFs increase with earlier residential buildout Revenue $111 Expense $92 Margin $18 Totals -20 yrs. ($M) Revenue $10 Expense $138 Margin ($128) Totals - 20 yrs. ($M) E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - ATT 3 Packet pg. 83 Prioritize the annexation of areas that need improvements to address environmental and hazard concerns. Phasing Assumptions Prioritize annexation of Subareas 1, 2, and 4 to address stormwater issues Assumes faster business development activity in Subareas 1 and 4. Considerations Addresses hazard concerns and liabilities Greater upfront investment and doesn’t maximize potential for new residential development to support improvement costs Environment & Hazard Protection E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - ATT 3 Packet pg. 84 19Scenario3 (Environment & Hazard Protection): Governmental Fiscal Impacts Capital Similar to Scenario 1, quicker ramp up of services in established areas leads to quicker expense build-up (police, streets/traffic, other) Revenues build up from existing residents & businesses Large negative margin Capital Accelerated park development Similar development profile to Scenario 1 provides delayed revenue increase Revenue $76 Expense $164 Margin ($89) Totals - 20 yrs.($M) Revenue $42 Expense $16 Margin $26 Totals - 20 yrs. ($M) E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - ATT 3 Packet pg. 85 20Scenario3 (Environmental & Hazard Protection): Utilities Fiscal Impacts Operating Highest total operating margins from bringing on existing business customers early Capital Assumes significant upfront investment in infrastructure to get new L&P and broadband service out to businesses within the I-25 gateway area New development revenues spurred by these upfront investments Revenue $120 Expense $102 Margin $19 Totals - 20 yrs.($M) Revenue $11 Expense $138 Margin ($128) Totals - 20 yrs. ($M) E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - ATT 3 Packet pg. 86 Prioritize the annexation of property/subareas that will generate revenues for capital and/or on-going improvements in near term Phasing Assumptions Prioritize annexation of Subarea 3 and 1 to maximize utility service and tax revenue Light and Power (along with Broadband) built on schedule that maximizes leverage with other potential service extensions Considerations increases property tax and sales tax growth indirect from new residents) Increases opportunity to recoup capital expenditures City fiscal constraints may contribute to longer timeframes in addressing interests and concerns of area residents Fiscal Health for City E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - ATT 3 Packet pg. 87 22Scenario4 (Fiscal Health for City): Governmental Fiscal Impacts Revenue $52 Expense $100 Margin ($48) Totals - 20 yrs. ($M) Revenue $30 Expense $16 Margin $14 Totals - 20 yrs. ($M) Operating: Lowest level expense levels, with slower ramp up of services in established areas, leads to slower expense build-up (police, streets/traffic, other). Revenues build up slower from existing residents & businesses Relatively smaller negative margin (similar to Scenario 2) Capital: Lowest level of capital revenue from extended development timeframes E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - ATT 3 Packet pg. 88 23Scenario4 (Fiscal Health for City): Utilities Fiscal Impacts Revenue $70 Expense $61 Margin $9 Totals -20 yrs. ($M) Revenue $7 Expense $138 Margin ($131) Totals - 20 yrs. ($M) Operating Lowest total operating margin from bringing on customers slowly Capital Initial Infrastructure focused along the E Mulberry corridor Similar capital profile to Scenario 2 E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - ATT 3 Packet pg. 89 Phasing Assumptions Prioritizes annexation of Subarea 3 and focus on central portion of Subarea 1 Considerations Could lead to improvements along major city gateway due to L&P & Broadband investments upfront Provides more control over the Mulberry Street in the short term, including sign code and other Land Use Code standards Is likely to stimulate commercial infill and redevelopment of underutilized sites Addresses health and safety concerns in the Subareas 1 and 3. Could require some upfront stormwater investment May address some of area resident concerns over time, especially related to multi-modal access along E Mulberry Improved residential neighborhood access to the E Mulberry travel corridor is delayed Gatew ay Community E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - ATT 3 Packet pg. 90 25Scenario5 (Gateway Community): Governmental Fiscal Impacts Revenue $44 Expense $16 Margin $28 Totals - 20 yrs. ($M) Revenue $64 Expense $126 Margin ($63) Totals - 20 yrs.($M) Operating: Average operating revenue, expense and margin compared to the oth4 scenarios Residential areas delayed with the focus on E. Mulberry business corridor Capital: Average level of capital revenue from extended residential development timeframes E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - ATT 3 Packet pg. 91 26Scenario5 (Gateway Community): Utilities Fiscal Impacts Utilities Operating Assumptions Includes operating costs of infrastructure after takeover from PVREA to Light & Power Cost recovery through rate adjustments within the area Utilities Capital Assumptions Assumes moderate upfront investment in electrical infrastructure and moves that to the second phase of annexation Assumes new development attraction due to upfront electrical infrastructure investments Revenue $10 Expense $138 Margin ($129) Totals - 20 yrs. ($M) Revenue $92 Expense $79 Margin $13 Totals -20 yrs. ($M) E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - ATT 3 Packet pg. 92 27ScenarioComparison: Governmental Fiscal Impacts Operating Margin ($M) Immediate Short Term Medium Term Long Term To tal –20 Yrs. Scenario 1 –Economic Opportunity ($13)($20)($23)($32)($89) Scenario 2 –Residential Enhancement ($4)($10)($11)($24)($49) Scenario 3 –Env. & Hazard Protection ($12)($20)($24)($32)($89) Scenario 4 –Fiscal Health for City ($4)($7)($10)($27)($48) Scenario 5 –Gateway Community ($4)($7)($21)($31)($63) Capital Margin ($M) Immediate Short Term Medium Term Long Term To tal –20 Yrs. Scenario 1 –Economic Opportunity $3 ($0)$8 $11 $22 Scenario 2 –Residential Enhancement $3 $15 $15 $12 $44 Scenario 3 –Env. & Hazard Protection ($3)$1 $9 $19 $26 Scenario 4 –Fiscal Health for City $1 ($3)$6 $10 $14 Scenario 5 –Gateway Community $1 ($3)$17 $13 $28 E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - ATT 3 Packet pg. 93 28ScenarioComparison: Utilities Fiscal Impacts Operating Margin ($M) Immediate Short Term Medium Term Long Term To tal –20 Yrs. Scenario 1 –Economic Opportunity $1 $3 $5 $7 $16 Scenario 2 –Residential Enhancement $1 $3 $5 $8 $18 Scenario 3 –Env. & Hazard Protection $1 $4 $6 $8 $19 Scenario 4 –Fiscal Health for City $0 $1 $3 $6 $9 Scenario 5 –Gateway Community $0 $1 $4 $8 $13 Capital Margin ($M) Immediate Short Term Medium Term Long Term To tal –20 Yrs. Scenario 1 –Economic Opportunity ($68)($42)$2 ($22)($129) Scenario 2 –Residential Enhancement ($36)($15)$2 ($80)($128) Scenario 3 –Env. & Hazard Protection ($94)($ 18)$3 ($19)($128) Scenario 4 –Fiscal Health for City ($29)($43)$2 ($61)($131) Scenario 5 –Gateway Community ($29)($43)($42)($16)($129) E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - ATT 3 Packet pg. 94 29QuestionsforCouncil 1.What aspects of each scenario would Council like to prioritize to further refine toward a potential future annexation scenario? 2.What questions remain for Council regarding potential annexation phasing? E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - ATT 3 Packet pg. 95 E MULBERRY PLAN UPDATE - ATT 3 Packet pg. 96 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT UPDATE Community Development & Neighborhood Services Planning & Development Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.221.6376 970.224.6111- fax MEMORANDUM Date March 10th, 2023 To From Re Chair Katz and Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission Em Myler, Neighborhood Development Liaison March 2023 Public Engagement Update The purpose of this memo is to provide the Commission a monthly review of staff efforts to engage the public in Development Review as well as preview upcoming work of interest. February Public Engagement by the Numbers • Neighborhood meetings – 1 1. Suniga & 9th Street Multifamily – February 8th • Online engagement 1. Fcgov.com– 3,480 (Down about 25%) 2. OurCity.com – 138 (Down about 18%) 3. This Week in Development Review – 7,901 (Down about 1%) Staff Update • Land Use Code Engagement 1. Cross-departmental engagement team 2. Defining objectives, levels of participation, strategies 3. Activating community partners • Neighborhood Meeting Participation Data analysis initial findings: 1. Virtual participation is still slightly more popular than in-person 2. Average participation increased after March 2020 3. The number of letters mailed does not seem to correlate with the number of participants 4. The number of staff members at a meeting does not always make sense based on the number of participants 5. Next step: predicting participation levels based on historic trends • Noticing Policies 1. Collaboration between Development Review and Historic Preservation 2. Improving the yellow signs 3. Additional information in Neighborhood Meeting mailings • Professional Development 1. International Association for Public Participation certification 2. Liberating Structures facilitation techniques course Packet pg. 97