Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 04/26/2022 - EAST MULBERRY POTENTIAL ANNEXATION LENSES AND SCENDATE: STAFF: April 26, 2022 Sylvia Tatman-Burruss, Sr. Project Manager Travis Storin, Chief Financial Officer WORK SESSION ITEM City Council SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION East Mulberry Potential Annexation Lenses and Scenario Review. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to provide Council with an overview of the potential annexation phasing lenses, assumptions, and corresponding financial modeling. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 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? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION PROJECT OUTCOMES The “Project” is generally defined in two interrelated parts: the East Mulberry Plan and the Annexation Phasing Analysis. The current 2002 Area Plan for the East Mulberry is in need of updating to al ign with current area conditions, development standards, and recently -adopted plans for Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins. The major deliverables of the entire project are: • An assessment of existing infrastructure conditions and recommended futu re City infrastructure investments and programs, consistent with the East Mulberry Plan; • A revenue and cost estimate associated with potential future annexation and infrastructure and operational needs, including potential annexation phasing options by subarea; • Update to the East Mulberry Plan (previously known as the East Mulberry Corridor Plan) that captures the community’s desired vision for the next 20-30 years, consistent with City Plan and current Larimer County regulations • Analysis for short-, mid- and long-term implementation strategies upon potential annexation. A thorough Annexation Assessment will provide a balanced understanding of the benefits and tradeoffs of implementing the East Mulberry Plan vision, should the area come into the City’s juris diction. It will also include several scenarios for how the potential annexation could be phased over time to address the additional costs of providing City services. EXISTING AGREEMENTS AND BENEFITS OF ANALYSIS Annexation of land has been a tool used by t he City of Fort Collins since the 1800s. Fort Collins grew primarily to the south by annexation of “greenfields” (or former farmland) through sale and development proposals. The East Mulberry area grew somewhat independently on the outskirts of town beginn ing in the 1940s. Inexpensive land that was prone to flooding formed the basis of industrial development in the area. The area continued to urbanize through the decades and is now surrounded by Fort Collins City Limits. April 26, 2022 Page 2 Intergovernmental Agreement and the Growth Management Area Generally, the City of Fort Collins services urbanized areas in ways set out by the City’s Strategic Plan and the City’s Comprehensive Plan, known as City Plan. These policies guide urban development and set urban provision standards of service. In the early 2000s, elected officials and staff from City of Fort Collins and Larimer County set out to define an urban growth boundary (the “Growth Management Area” or “GMA”) that would delineate areas for urban and rural development. The Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) outlines situations where annexation of a given parcel will occur upon receipt of a development proposal and areas where an enclave is created through annexation. Continued Analysis of Annexation Scenario Planning While Council may decide to hold off on annexation of the East Mulberry enclave, there may still benefits to continue to model assumptions and analyze potential outcomes to phased annexation: • A well-designed model can be updated in the future to reflect current cond itions and assumptions • The model could be used as one tool to understand the opportunities, benefits and drawbacks of updating the Intergovernmental Agreement between City of Fort Collins and Larimer County ANNEXATION PHASING SCENARIOS In this section, phasing scenarios are articulated through text and visuals to depict the priorities, assumptions, potential “benefits” or “drawbacks” to each scenario based on previously stated priorities by Council, community members, and City staff. For each of the follow ing scenarios, the analysis presented reflects a twenty -year timeframe and assumes annexation of all areas within the enclave. Depending on the timing of when a particular sub-area is annexed into the City, additional operating costs and capital will fall outside the twenty-year timeframe presented. For each Scenario, four breakouts are provided (Governmental Operating and Capital; Utilities Operating and Capital). The twenty-year timeframe is grouped into four 5-year periods (Immediate, Short Term, Medium Term and Long Term). These scenarios are theoretical and assume annexation within given periods of time. These scenarios can be adjusted by changing the underlying assumptions to produce different results. None of these scenarios are meant to be “staff recommendations” and are instead a starting point for conversation and analysis. 1. Economic Opportunity - Emphasizes economic development and vitality in the area 2. Residential Enhancement - Emphasizes connectivity, utilities, and other social priorities 3. Environment & Hazard Protection - Emphasizes environmental buffers, flood mitigation 4. Fiscal Health for City - Emphasizes fiscal impact to City of annexation, including existing priorities, risks, and timing 5. The Gateway Community - Emphasizes improvements and reinvestment potential for the Mulberry Corridor, including the highway and frontage roads ATTACHMENT 1 SERVES AS THE VISUAL GUIDE TO EACH SCENARIO INCLUDING MAPS AND FISCAL IMPACT VISUALS. 1. Scenario 1 - Economic Opportunity (Refer to Attachment 1 for corresponding map) This scenario prioritizes the annexation of properties with potential for new industrial and service commercial uses to be added to the city through annexation of existing businesses or creating opportunities for new businesse s to locate in the city. April 26, 2022 Page 3 Phasing Assumptions • Prioritizes the annexation of Subareas 3, 4, and 1 first. This is meant to maximize development potential on undeveloped industrial land concentrated in the eastern portion of Subarea 4. Also prioritizes annexa tion of existing businesses in subarea 4 and Subarea 3. • 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/industrial park area • Prioritizes support opportunities for existing businesses from city programs and through improvements to support existing areas Fiscal Impacts: Scenario 1 - Economic Opportunity (refer to bar charts in Attachment 1) 2. Scenario 2 - Residential Preservation and Enhancement (Refer to Attachment 1 for corresponding map) Prioritizes the annexation of existing residential neighborhoods to the south and those areas to the nort h, which may be developed within the first phase of annexation. Resource allocation focuses on improving their quality of services within the first phase, and later on infrastructure improvements in electricity service and broadband internet. Phasing Assumptions • Prioritizes annexation of residential neighborhoods to the south (Subarea 2) and north (Subarea 5) with the short-term annexation of Subarea 3, which would allow for electricity and broadband internet infrastructure to be brought through the E Mulberry corridor. • Prioritizes stormwater improvements in Subareas 2 to address existing stormwater issues • Prioritizes stormwater improvements to benefit subareas 1, 4, and 5 to create potential for new or renewed development. 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 Fiscal Impacts: Scenario 2 - Residential Enhancement (refer to bar charts in Attachment 1) 3. Scenario 3 - Environment & Hazard Protection (Refer to Attachment 1 for corresponding map) Prioritize the annexation of areas that need improvements to address environmental and hazard concerns. These include natural resources such as the Cooper Slough (Subarea 1), part of the Poudre River watershed (Subarea 2), and Dry Creek stormwater issues (Subarea 4) Phasing Assumptions • Prioritizes annexation of Subareas 1, 2, and 4 to address stor mwater 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 Fiscal Impacts: Scenario 3 - Environment & Hazard Protection (refer to bar charts in Attachment 1) April 26, 2022 Page 4 4. Scenario 4 - Fiscal Health for City (Refer to Attachment 1 for corresponding map) Prioritize the annexation of property/subareas with development pla ns and vacant properties with expected development potential and areas that will generate revenues for capital and/or on -going improvements in the near term. Phasing Assumptions • Prioritize annexation of Subarea 3 and 1 to maximize utility service and tax r evenue • 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 Impacts: Scenario 4 - Fiscal Health of City (refer to bar charts in Attachment 1) 5. Scenario 5 - Gateway Community (Refer to Attachment 1 for corresponding map) Prioritize safety, aesthetic improvements, and reinvestment potential for the Mulberry Corridor including the highway and frontage roads through direct investment and through partnership with the Colorado Departm ent of Transportation (CDOT). Phasing Assumptions • Prioritizes annexation of Subarea 3 immediately • Prioritizes investments in the central portion of Subarea 1 as part of the Gateway area to the community. 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 East Mulberry travel corridor is delayed Fiscal Impacts: Scenario 5 - Gateway Community (refer to bar charts in Attachment 1) The section below provides a high-level financial comparison of the five modeled scenarios. For each scenario, the total Operating Margin and Capital Margin is presented for each 5-year period and in total for the twenty-year evaluation timeframe. Scenario Comparisons - Governmental Fiscal Impacts (refer to bar charts in Attachment 1) Scenario Comparisons - Utilities Fiscal Impacts (refer to bar charts in Attachment 1) April 26, 2022 Page 5 TIMELINE AND WORK PLAN The original project timeline envisioned the review of the draft plan occurring ahead of the annexation scenario discussion to make sure the future goals and vision for the East Mulberry area were aligned with Council goals and priorities. The proposed, updated timeline prioritizes annexation scenario planning and discussion ahead of draft plan review to allow Councilmembers to understand the decision-making framework and timeline to inform the plan-making process. Updated Timeline for 2022: • March 8: Reviewed Goals and Big Ideas for East Mulberry Plan and Reviewed Annexation Scenario Framework • April 26 Work Session: Review Draft Annexation Phasing Scenarios • Summer: Consider the refined financial assumptions presented on April 26 and discuss refined timeline and scenarios for annexation • Fall/Winter: Review Draft of the East Mulberry Plan and discuss final annexation scenarios This timeline reflects a pivot to include more framing and context for annexation decision-making ahead of the East Mulberry Plan draft review. This framing and context will include exploration of financial assumptions based on things such as capital expenditures, future development potential and timing in th e potential annexation phasing conversation. Community Advisory Group Members (area residents and business-owners): • Jesse Eastman, Jeffrey McClure, Mike Brown, Tom Larson, Amy Young, Bill DeMoss, Stan McGarvey, Erika Ashauer, Carol Cochran, Cynthia Freeman, Louis Abrams, Craig McKee, Dave Marvin, and Wayne Hunter ATTACHMENTS 1. Scenario Maps and Fiscal Impact Charts (PDF) 2. Powerpoint Presentation (PDF) ATTACHMENT 1: This attachment corresponds to the text in the AIS East Mulberry Scenario Maps and Fiscal Impact Charts Scenario 1 - Economic Opportunity ATTACHMENT 1 Fiscal Impacts: Scenario 1 – Economic Opportunity Scenario 2 - Residential Preservation and Enhancement Fiscal Impacts: Scenario 2 – Residential Enhancement Scenario 3 - Environment & Hazard Protection Fiscal Impacts: Scenario 3 – Environment & Hazard Protection (refer to bar charts in Attachment 2) Scenario 4 - Fiscal Health for City Fiscal Impacts: Scenario 4 – Fiscal Health of City (refer to bar charts in Attachment 2) Scenario 5 - Gateway Community Fiscal Impacts: Scenario 5 – Gateway Community Scenario Comparisons - Governmental Fiscal Impacts Scenario Comparisons – Utilities Fiscal Impacts East Mulberry Potential Annexation Lenses & Phasing April 26, 2022 City Council Work Session Tr avis Storin / Sylvia Tatman-Burruss / David Lenz ATTACHMENT 2 East Mulberry Map 2 3Agenda 1.Review timeline 2.Update on engagement 3.Annexation Lenses & Phasing 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): 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 Annexation Lenses & Phasing 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 W almart 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 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 9Phasing Lenses 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 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 11Financial Analysis Framework •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 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 13Scenario 1 (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) 14Scenario 1 (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) 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 16Scenario 2 (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 17Scenario 2 (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) •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 19Scenario 3 (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) 20Scenario 3 (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) •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 22Scenario 4 (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 23Scenario 4 (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 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 25Scenario 5 (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 26Scenario 5 (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) 27Scenario Comparison: 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 $28 28Scenario Comparison: Utilities Fiscal Impacts Operating Margin ($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) 29Questions for Council 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?