HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 06/27/2006 - ANNEXATION OF THE SOUTHWEST ENCLAVE AREA DATE: June 27, 2006 WORK SESSION ITEM
STAFF: Tess Heffernan FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Annexation of the Southwest Enclave Area.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does Council support the proposed mitigation measures described within this summary?
2. Does Council support the recommended approach of implementing the annexation in
phases?
BACKGROUND
During a work session in November 2005, Council affirmed its intent to annex the Southwest
Enclave Area. However,Council also noted many of the people living and working in the Area have
concerns about the effects of the Annexation, and additional input from citizens could help them
make decisions as to how to mitigate impacts. As a result,Council directed staff to spend additional
time working with Enclave residents, property owners and business owners in order to better hear
citizens' issues, exchange ideas and answer questions.
From January through May 2006 a number of outreach efforts took place, including:
• Meetings with board members of Citizens Against Forced Annexation(CAFA).
• Twelve neighborhood meetings, each targeted at a specific area; invitations extended in the
form of a letter from the City Manager sent to property owners and tenants alike.
• Development of user-friendly "FAQs" containing answers to the most commonly asked
questions; mailed along with invitations to the neighborhood meetings and posted on the
intemet.
• Dedicated City web site - http://www.fcizov.com/swa - with a variety of information
including maps, information on fees and taxes, and meeting minutes and related follow up
from each neighborhood meeting.
The meetings were generally well-attended and ranged from simple exchanges of information to
highly charged discussions. Questions were asked and answered and participants were asked to
suggest how the City might ease the transition from County to City. Council received a complete
set of minutes from all 12 neighborhood meetings under separate cover on June 1, 2006.
June 27, 2006 Page 2
What We Heard: Mitigation Measures Suggested by Citizens
• Do not annex.
• Don't pass on the 25 % electric service transfer fee when we did not ask to be annexed in
the first place; the lower City electric rate should be a benefit.
• Allow REA customers to stay with REA if they wish.
• Utility poles and lines should be paid for by the City.
• Underground the utility lines.
• Do not require every operator within a building to obtain a secondhand dealer license.
• Change the code to address the type of merchandise sold by flea markets; current
requirements will put some people out of business.
• We want to be more appreciated, rather than viewed as something that needs to be cleaned
up; view us as an asset.
• If South College is truly the gateway to the city we should receive landscaping,lighting,etc.,
from the City.
• Allow gun shops to obtain a permit to discharge firearms.
• Allow discharge of small caliber firearms for protecting livestock and pets from wildlife.
• City should share the cost of repairing local streets that are failing.
• Perform a detailed survey of each neighborhood to determine if curb and gutter will be
needed on each street.
• Inform each neighborhood about the exact financial impacts to rebuild their streets in the
future.
• Do not require curb and gutter so that our rural feel remains.
• Curb and gutter, if required, should be paid for by stormwater funds.
• Show new zoning parcel-by-parcel prior to annexation.
• Tailor storm drainage fees to acreages.
• Regarding stormwater, either don't charge established neighborhoods for new development
or lessen the cost.
June 27, 2006 Page 3
• Ensure, in writing, that there will be no connection between Fossil Creek Drive and Crest
Road.
• Change the City/County IGA boundaries to exclude rural areas.
• Inform each neighborhood about exact costs.
• Grandfather allowed horses into perpetuity, not just for current owners.
• Council should respond to the legislative initiative and hold a vote of citizens.
• Allow new electric fences or the ability to move electric fences in pastures; should also
apply to future landowners.
• Allow barbed wire for livestock management.
• Provide a forum for discussion with Council besides the formal work session and meeting
settings; would like a panel discussion.
As the meetings unfolded and people expressed their concerns, it became evident some of the
existing City codes were misunderstood. For example, people assumed they would have to install
curb, gutter and streetlights and the City would force them to pay for these items. Attachment 1
summarizes the most frequently heard concerns that are already addressed within the current code
and/or practice.
Staff evaluated the mitigation suggestions and developed a list of measures which,if implemented,
will ease the transition from County to City for residents, property and business owners. This
summary explains those mitigation measures, as well as other recommendations related to the
annexation process in general.
OVERVIEW OF RECOMMENDATIONS
• A variety of mitigation measures can be enacted to ensure that residents, property and
business owners have,at minimum,few negative impacts and,at best,realize some benefits
from the Annexation. Details on these items follow this overview.
• A South College Corridor Plan will be developed in 2007. Staff will work with property and
business owners to develop a long term vision and plan for this area. This could include
plans for an Urban Renewal Authority should property owners wish to employ this tool.
• Police Services needs will be designated as a priority for General Fund revenues generated
from the area.
• The entire Enclave would be annexed in 2006,with the implementation occurring in phases.
Properties along the South College Corridor would be the first phase implemented,and three
successive phases would follow as criteria are met. Implementation of the remaining phases
would occur over no longer than 10 years.
June 27, 2006 Page 4
• Other requested/voluntary annexations could also occur during this time frame.
RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES
1. Use reserve funds to cover all except 5% of the 25% mandated service rights fee for
current Poudre Valley Rural Electric Authority (PVREA) customers.
State law mandates that the Citya an additional 25% of each customer's monthly fee to
P Y Y
PVREA for a period of 10 years. In the past, the City has chosen to pass this fee along to
customers. Enclave residents have voiced strong opposition to this practice,and many small
business owners have expressed concern that it will not only harm their business but, in
some cases, the 25% coupled with the City's demand rate could cause them to go out of
business. By reducing the fee to 5%,PVREA customers in the Southwest Enclave will pay
the same or less for City electric service than they do currently under PVREA. These
calculations take the value of the PVREA"rebate"into account as well; even factoring this
in, PVREA customers will pay the same or less with the City. Xcel users, who are not
impacted by the service rights fee, will see a 35-40%reduction in rates under City service.
The remaining 20%fee would be covered using Utility reserve funds,costing approximately
$2.3 million over 10 years. (Absorbing the entire 25%fee would cost$2.9 million over 10
years.) As of December 31, 2005, Light and Power fund reserves totaled $48 million, $8
million of which is non-cash, such as accounts receivable and inventory supplies.
This measure would apply only to the Southwest Enclave Area. Any future requests of this
nature will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
2. Underground electric utilities at no cost to property owners.
At the onset of this discussion, Light and Power had no plans to underground the electric
utilities in the Enclave. This area will now be included in plans for undergrounding and
considered along with other priorities throughout the system.
3. 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.
Enclave residents do not currently pay utility fees for stormwater. By phasing in the new
stormwater fees, residents and property owners will be able to factor the cost into their
budgets. This replicates the experience of other City residents, who have seen gradual
increases in stormwater fees as rates have changed over the years.
Once all property owners reach 100%, the total fee collected for stormwater is estimated at
$24,100 per month.
4. Allow barbed wire fences and electrically charged fences used for livestock and pasture
management in UE and RUL zones.
Current regulations in the Land Use Code have not accounted for the types of agricultural
uses found in the new Rural Lands zone district. Additionally,new technologies allow safe
June 27, 2006 Page 5
and practical electrically charged fences that were not possible in the past. This Code
change will apply city-wide and allow electrically charged fences as long as they do not
exceed a maximum amperage, are used within permanent fencing, and contain signs
identifying them as being electrically charged if located along any public right of way.
5. Change the amortization period from 5 years to 7 years for nonconforming permanent
signs located on properties annexed into the city.
�► P P ty
The Citybegan working with Larimer Count about 10 ears ago on a project to amend the
g g Y Y g P J
County sign code so the County's regulations would conform to the City's regulations, at
least for the properties in the urban growth area. However,the County placed the project on
hold until last year when consistent sign regulations were finally adopted. Had the code
been amended 10 years ago, the number of potentially nonconforming signs that could be
annexed would be substantially less and the economic impact to county property owners
might not be as great.
Replacement or remodeling of nonconforming signs that are currently in the county can cost
thousands of dollars and business owners have noted this additional cost is especially
burdensome when added to other potential costs they might be subjected to. Staff is
recommending this Code revision apply city-wide and include future annexations. Other
regulations that pertain to nonconforming permanent signs will remain. Additionally, it is
recommended no changes be made to the provision that requires"temporary"signs such as
portable signs, vehicle-mounted signs, banners, and flashing or animated signs to be
removed within 60 days of the date of annexation.
6. Change the licensing requirements for businesses that qualify as second hand
dealers/flea markets so the owner of the flea market is the licensed second hand dealer
rather than the individual booth operators.
The majority of booth operators rent a small space from the property owner or dealer, in
some cases a small cubicle, and primarily sell goods that do not fall under the definition of
second hand articles, subject to the licensing and record keeping requirements of the City
Ordinance. Booth operators have expressed concern that the current licensing requirement
could put them out of business, especially in those cases where one booth owner sells
merchandise from several locations.
A code change would exempt individual booth operators from the license requirements and
background checks; however, shop owners would still be required to obtain a license, pay
the requisite fee and comply with the reporting and record keeping requirements of the
Ordinance and state law. An additional provision requires the licensee to keep an up-to-date
P 4 P P
list identifying the name, date of birth and address of each person renting a booth at the
business.
June 27, 2006 Page 6
7. Specify and define record keeping 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 the record requirements of identification of stolen property.
Current regulations addressing the sale of second hand property are in many ways intended
to prevent people from trafficking in stolen property, and detailed information on the
original seller is required on many items. Recommended code changes could differentiate
items acquired by a second hand dealer at the premises from those obtained at garage sales
or similar events.
8. Exempt animal shelters and bird rescue and education centers from restrictions on the
possession and feeding of wild animals.
Current code prohibits the possession and feeding of wild animals. This change would allow
the Latimer County Humane Society (located in the Enclave) and other such entities to
continue their services.
9. Pursue actions to address specific concerns regarding road funding and neighborhood
road connections.
Some local roads in the area are deteriorating and, in the South College commercial area,
some are failing. Business and property owners want them repaired. Work will need to be
done to determine if adjacent property owners are willing to pursue a Special Improvement
District to fund the street repairs. Staff can work with property owners to customize the
design of the streets. In the future, property owners could also consider whether or not to
form an Urban Renewal Authority to help fund infrastructure improvements.
At the June 6th Council meeting, Councilmember Kastein inquired about the Street
Oversizing Program and the impact of the Southwest Annexation. Attachment 2 discusses
City policies specific to this issue in more detail.
Additionally, two neighborhoods have asked for assurance about specific streets.
Applewood Estates property owners do not want Fossil Creek Drive and Crest Road
connected, and Fairway Estates property owners want Palmer Drive to remain blocked to
through traffic, as it is currently. A similar situation arose during the 2003 South Taft Hill
Road 7th Annexation,where area residents expressed concern about connecting two existing
dead-end sections of Moore Lane. In response, Council affirmed within the Annexation
Resolution that the City had no present intention of making the street connection. Staff
suggests similar language be included within the Southwest Annexation Resolution
expressing the City's intention not to require the Fossil Creek Drive/Crest Road and Palm
Drive connections.
ANNEXATION TIMELINE
The City/County Intergovernmental Agreement states the City will pursue the annexation of
enclaves within the Growth Management Area as they become eligible for annexation. The question
presented to the Council is whether to annex the entire Enclave immediately or over time. As the
annexation of properties within the Enclave occurs, the City is committed to providing Enclave
June 27, 2006 Page 7
residents and property owners within the Enclave with the same high standard of service provided
all city residents.
Primarily,because the resources needed to serve the entire Enclave are limited at this point in time,
staff believes it would be in the best interests of the City if the annexation of the Enclave were to
take effect over a period of several years. This recommendation is reinforced by the fact that certain
"outlying"portions of the Enclave,especially those adjacent to or near the City's natural areas, are
still more rural in character than other portions of the Enclave, such as the South College frontage
areas. Staff believes the annexation of the South College frontage area should take effect
immediately not only because that portion of the Enclave is the most urban in its character,but also
because:
1. It forms the southernmost entrance to the City, which makes it imperative the City begin to
apply its land use standards, including design standards, to the area in order to create an
attractive gateway to the City and to promote the economic development of the City.
2. It generates significantly more tax revenues than the rest of the Enclave because
development in the area is primarily commercial, which means that the revenues from the
area will make it more feasible for the City to fund and provide critical services to the area,
such as police services.
3. It generally has a higher crime rate than the rest of the Enclave, which makes the provision
of urban level law enforcement services in the area more time sensitive than in the rest of
the Enclave.
4. It requires fewer city-funded amenities such as recreational and cultural facilities because
of its non-residential nature.
After the annexation of the South College frontage area has taken effect,City staff will monitor land
use development and other changes in the remaining portion of the Enclave, as well as the City's
ability to serve those areas. When the City can better afford to provide services to other areas of the
Enclave and when electric utilities can be logically and sequentially extended to those areas, staff
will recommend that the annexation of the rest of the enclave be finalized.
Under this approach, the Annexation Resolution and Ordinance will describe the entire Enclave.
However, because state law provides that annexations do not take effect until the annexation map
is recorded with the County Clerk and Recorder, the annexation will be implemented in phases by
recording sections of the annexation map over a period of years. The Annexation Ordinance will
authorize and direct the City Manager to immediately record only that portion of the Enclave that
consists of the South College frontage areas. It would further authorize and direct the City Manager
to bring back as many as three additional portions of the Enclave, separately described on
subsequent maps, for Council consideration at such time, not to exceed ten years, as the City
Manager believes those additional portions of the Enclave should be annexed, taking into
consideration the factors mentioned above.
June 27, 2006 Page 8
FINANCIAL IMPACT
There currently are 1080 housing units, 108 businesses and an estimated population of 3,127
residents in the Enclave. Revenue sources are primarily various fees(e.g.,Street Oversizing,Capital
Expansion,Building Permits, Storm Drainage Basic Expansion) and taxes (e.g.,Property, Electric,
Sales). Provided below are two 15-year scenarios: low growth,and a second scenario that assumes
moderate infill and redevelopment, including one large retail development.
Projected revenues (all funds/sources) General Fund revenues
Year 1 $ 1,886,819 Year 1 $ 877,562
Year 15 $ 1,919,576 low growth Year 15 $ 903,842 low growth
$ 2,381,583 moderate growth $ 1,365,844 moderate growth
Funding needs for City services in the Enclave area vary. Some services,such as Golf,Electric and
Stormwater, are directly funded by user fees. Other General Fund departments, such as Code
Compliance, plan to position staff to be able to serve the additional customers using existing
resources;no additional funds will be required in the short term. Other services,such as the Library
or Lincoln Center, are already used by many Enclave residents and do not trigger additional
expenditures.
The largest General Fund impact by far is the monies needed for additional Police Services
employees. In the short term, staff can be reassigned to extend coverage to the South College/Phase
1 area. However, additional funds will be needed to maintain police staffing at appropriate levels
and the City Manager has made this a priority.
The following are additional General Fund costs for the entire enclave area:
Police $ 1,668,000
Arterial Streets* 101,000
Collector Streets 31,000
Local Streets 10,000
Year 1 Total $ 1,810,000
* To be improved per Transportation Master Plan regardless of annexation
NEXT STEPS
Should Council wish to move forward, a number of successive actions will occur in the coming
months:
• July 18, 2006 Council Resolution Initiating Annexation of the Enclave
• July 20, 2006 Planning and Zoning Board public hearing
• September 5, 2006 City Council First Reading of Annexation Ordinance
• September 19, 2006 City Council Second Reading of Annexation Ordinance
Residents,property and business owners will be informed of the Planning and Zoning Board action
via the media to ensure public notice requirements are fulfilled. Additionally, staff is planning to
June 27, 2006 Page 9
mail a letter to every resident and business owner to inform those impacted about Council's decision
and upcoming opportunities for public input. Finally, plans are underway to form a "transition
committee" of City, County and Enclave representatives as outlined in the new House Bill 1159.
The City is not required to take this step due to the Bill's effective date; however we believe the
transition committee is one more tool that will help with communications with residents.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Concerns addressed by current code provisions or practices.
2. Street Oversizing Issues in the Southwest Enclave Area.
3. Map of Phase 1.
4. Map of entire City showing Enclave Area.
5. Powerpoint presentation.
ATTACHMENT
Attachment 1
• Frequently Heard Concerns Addressed by Current Code Provisions or Practices
Concern Current Code or Practice
The City will install storm sewers The stormwater master plan does not identify the
in our residential neighborhoods. need for storm sewers in this area. Runoff would be
as it exists today, in borrow ditches and under streets
in culverts.
We will not be able to keep our The City and County codes regulating livestock and
horses and livestock in the City. horses are basically the same and residents will see
no changes in areas zoned for this type of use. City
zoning for this area is being designed to reflect
current uses, e.g. agricultural areas will be zoned
RUL, etc. (Related code changes amending types of
fencing are being proposed.)
The City will make property The City will cover all costs for electric poles and
owners pay for electric poles and lines.
lines.
• Residential streets will have to be City and County street standards in this area are
upgraded to include curb and identical. Local streets may not be required to meet
gutter. all of the current design width elements such as
sidewalks, curb/gutter, etc. at such time they are
rebuilt. City staff members have a long-standing
practice of collaborating with property and business
owners to design street renovations.
Unfortunately, many local streets in the annexation
area do not meet the existing design and construction
standards. The City will provide a basic level of
maintenance to existing non-compliant streets, such
as pothole repair, sealing and grading. Any needed
maintenance beyond this level falls to Homeowners
Associations or adjacent property/business owners
until such time that the roads are brought up to City
standards.
When a street that is not Neither the City nor Larimer County will fund local
maintained by the City"fails"the street reconstruction when the roads are structurally
City will force property owners to failing. A Special Improvement District(SID) is
ay for having it fixed. formed by the property owners,who vote to
determine if/when they want an SID. This is true of
. both the City and the County; whether or not the
area is annexed makes no difference. Once the street
is brought up to standards it becomes part of the City
system and the City maintains it from that point out.
The City will install streetlights Streetlights are not required and will not be imposed
on residential streets. by the City. However, if residents wish to have
streetlights they may pay for them and the City will
install them.
City codes will override HOA covenants,which are generally more strict or
Homeowners Association (HOA) restrictive than City codes,will still apply and be
covenants. enforced by the HOA. In those instances where the
City code is more restrictive than the covenant
provisions, the Code must be followed and will be
enforced by the City.
Secondhand dealers will need to Receipts are only needed for use tax items, e.g. a
get receipts for every item table intended to be used to display merchandise.
purchased at a garage sale. Receipts are not needed for items that will be resold
at a flea market.
• The City will redevelop South The City does not develop property and will not do
College and drive small so. The South College Corridor Plan, scheduled to
businesses out. begin in 2007,will involve business and property
owners in planning the fixture of the corridor.
Building owners will be expected There are no requirements for a new lease if the
to come up to City codes if a new tenant has the same type of use, e.g. changing from
lease tenant inhabits the space. one type of retail to another type of retail. A change
The City will determine when the of use and building expansions do trigger upgrade
upgrading will be done. requirements in many instances, and this is also true
for County properties. The building code
requirements are virtually the same for the City and
the County.
Permit costs increase for changes The City and County permit fees are almost
to your business identical. In some cases they are less expensive in
the City.
The City will force property Septic systems will continue to be regulated by the
owners to get rid of their septic County Department of Health and there will be no
systems. difference in the regulations. Annexing this area
does not cause a change to those rules and it will still
be governed by the County.
ATTACHMENT
• Attachment 2
Street Oversizing Issues in the Southwest Enclave Area
City policy requires new development to pay their fair share of the street network needed
to handle added traffic they create. All projects impacting traffic pay a Transportation
Impact Fee (Street Oversizing Fee) when they receive a City of Fort Collins building
permit.
The Street Oversizing fee is based on the cost of arterial and collector street
improvements needed by development throughout the Growth Management Area
(GMA). Specific improvements are identified in the Master Street Plan. The fee is
assessed according to the trip generation expected with a specific new development. Fees
are collected at the time building permits are issued. The assumption is that areas outside
the City,but within the GMA,will annex and develop in the City in accordance with the
Inter-governmental Agreement (IGA). Street improvements are constructed through the
Street Oversizing Program.
The southwest enclave area is currently included in the City's GMA and the City's
Master Street Plan. If the City elects not to annex the enclave and revises the GMA,
Street Oversizing Fees will need to be adjusted to reflect this decision. This would be an
adjustment to the fee similar to the recalculations done when the GMA was expanded to
• include the Fossil Creek Reservoir area. Preliminary calculations indicate a reduction in
the Street Oversizing fee from $2,319 per dwelling unit to about $2,100 per dwelling unit
if the southwest is excluded from the GMA. This would also shift the burden of
providing the necessary street infrastructure onto Larimer County. A rough estimate of
$28 million in street construction costs are needed in the southwest area assuming the
City's plan.
The Street Oversizing Program collects fees from new city developments and allocates
these funds for construction of the"oversized"portion of collector and arterial streets.
Rather than assigning the use of fees to site specific developments, the City considers the
benefits of, and therefore the use of, street oversizing to be community-wide. Fees
collected to date from city development for improvements in the southwest area are
approximately $2.2 million. However, because the fees are not tied to any particular area
of benefit, no refund of fees will be necessary if the southwest area is excluded.
A total of$881,000 in Street Oversizing Program improvements have already been made
in the southwest area. This expenditure was for the reconstruction of Fossil Creek Drive
to collector street standards from College Avenue to Mail Creek. When the Huntington
Hills development, a project in the City, constructed a bridge over Mail Creek to connect
Fossil Creek Boulevard, the existing portion of the roadway was in poor shape and did
not have bike lanes or sidewalks. Structurally, it would not have lasted long and was
missing critical pedestrian facilities near the elementary school. Because the connection
• placed new development traffic on an existing County roadway and it was identified as a
collector street in the City Street Master Plan with future development potential, the
• Street Oversizing Program funded the improvements. Excluding the southwest area from
the City's GMA would remove a critical source of funding and make connectivity to
existing County roadways related to circulation needs of City development more difficult.
MB/pb
•
•
ATTACHMENT
Attachment 3
•
Phase 1 Boundary
T
ARPlewro d 0,.:,!,,,.,_ Uss
� F
z O
p Z
m
'SIVOKEY ST w
_.... D
z ' K K DUNNE DR j
z C >
K
a s W SATURN DR E SATURN DR K
o i? DUNRAVEN DR
Z A �
d
C0 BRiN >
� Q !
i iPY p CHARRINGTONCT
IT
W SKYWAY DR S. .. U ESKYWAY DR
K w
m ¢
m <
J
/ONCr < >
0
eO Cr a z
• S°N Y
°Ow
CHERYLEN ST w
a'
. . . _ . ._ w
Y
- GALAXY WAY ¢
00
K >
C D G
Z 3 A
� "i m o VIVIAN ST
a m
T = J
w " lj Z
F _¢
Z y
0
`W TRILBY RD E TRILBY RC
CARY DR
YUMA CT QO
RICK DR
aP
C IDAUA DR PITNER DR
Mq/r°R v
FIAGLERRD _
1104 �Cr HUDSON CT
Legend N
QPhaset Parcels 0 400 800 1,600 A
AIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIFeet
Existing City Limits
•
ATTACHMENT 4
• Attachment
CITY OF FORT COLLINS N
Southwest Enclave A
E DOUOLAS RD ttaarvry ROaO sa DOUGLa
21 i
OUNTY ROAD ti /'/C�h O'P/..RICHARD -AAI Ro OJNT IQAD 52
p 9F W �B xrRYCW9 RD R0
O T �
N
2 WWI LO PILL •, q, s
w couxr ao so y unrr Roao so
? � — a � MOLxrMrv+nsrgo
PG V ; ro rr Roan ea
o LAPOR EAVE 1 m F</ •r.a _.._.._V ♦..1
[YNq
MULBERRY -! •E MULBERRY ST
O 1
OSPELT M ±;
1
PG _ 1
• sG 1� _
� ` W ORPKE RD
-yz �.� 1 �xoas=.00rHR FHORse oorx Ro •`
1 m
G9 z
y9�MONYR w '^ EHARMONYR EcOuxlrRW03
I � �
'' —^ i rcarvreRh
w (••�•. C Eccynry aao3
-••—• 1, z
vRD o
1
� � o: �• � ARPENTER E COUNTY ROAp 3p TaiE kGNWA:?82
O �
U
E COUNTY ROgp 30
F
penE_]nd Limits SW Enclave
0 0.5 1 2
N34alitreMz mmmlc===N�Mlles
•
ATTACHMENT 5
R.
Southwest Enclave Annexation
June 27, 2006
m
Direction Sought
W:n
t. Does Council support the proposed
mitigation measures described within this
Summary?
2, Does Council support the recommended
approach of implementing the annexation in
phases?
City Council - November 2005
■Affirmed intent to annex
■ Noted citizen's concerns about effects of the
annexation
i ■ Directed staff to conduct additional oureach
i .get more input about how to mitigate impacts
.better hear citizens'issues
� 1
.exchange ideas and answer questions
1
,January-May 2006 Outreach
`N ■ Meetings with Citizens Against Forced
` Annexation(CAFA)Board
R;
4; ■ 12 neighborhood meetings
Invitations via letter to property owners and
tenants
Included TAQs"with answers to most commonly
`•j' asked questions
■ Dedicated City web site:fcoov.com/swa
■ Meeting minutes,related follow up posted
following each meeting
i3i'rs
"q What we heard: mitigation measures
;4 suggested by citizens 1A, _.w�
+iyj4Im. . Do not annex
■ Hold a vote of citizens re:annex or not
it • Don't pass on 25%electric transfer fee;lower
City rate should be a benefit
t • Allow REA customers to slay with REA
■ Utility poles and lines paid for by the City
■ Underground utility lines
-'_? ■ Don't require secondhand dealer license for
booth operators
m Change reporting for flea markets;current
requirements will put some out of business
ks
What we heard (cont.)
tiCUk+tllkMfe3
m View South College as an asset
■ Provide landscaping,lighting on South College;
enhance the gateway
•Allow discharge of small caliber firearms for
protecting livestock and pets from wildlife
• City help pay repair of failing local streets
. Survey each street to determine if curb and gutter
will be needed
■ Do not require curb and gutter so that rural feel
remains
a Curb and gutter should be paid for by stormwater
funds
2
;What we heard (coot.)
■ Tell neighborhoods exact cost to rebuild streets
{' . Tailor storm drainage fees to acreages
. Don't charge or charge less storrnwater fee for
�! existing neighborhoods
. Ensure no connection between Fossil Creek Dr
_- and Crest Rd;Palmer Dr to remain closed
■ Change IGA boundaries to exclude rural areas
. Grandfather allowed horses into perpetuity
.Allow new electric fences or ability to move fences
in paslums
■Allow barbed wire for livestock management
. Provide discussion forum with Council
General Recommendations
:-•1!� .Attachment 1:frequently heard concems already
�yi addressed within current code and/or practice
_y ■ Enact variety of mitigation measures
'i . Develop South College Corridor plan in 2007,create
long tern vision for area
.could include Urban Renewal Authority;property
owners'decision
■ Designate Police Services staffing needs as priority
. Implement annexation in phases over 10 year
period
s
Proposed mitigation measures
Applies only to southwest enclave:
'1. Use reserve funds to cover all except 5%of
c the 25%mandated service rights fee for
;E ! PVREA customers
•E!2 Result:PVREA customers pay same or less for
City electric service
'M . Cost to reserve:$2.3M over 10 years
c`` . Excel users:35-40%reduction in rates(SRF
does not apply)
2. Underground electric utilities at no cost to
property owners
3
Proposed mitigation measures
Cominued
.WWB'.44'IfiF.
3- Phase in monthly stormwater utility fees over 5
years
Applies city wide:
4. Allow barbed wire fences and electrically
charged fences used for livestock and pasture
management in UE,RUL zones
5. Change the amortization period from 5 years
to 7 years for nonconforming permanent signs
r
Proposed mitigation measures
.6. Change flea market licensing requirements so
M only owners,not individual booth operators,
are required to be licensed as second hand
dealers
7. Specify flea market record keeping
s requirements re:identification of stolen
property to avoid an undue burden on
individual booth operators
Proposed mitigation measures
Continued
8. Exempt animal shelters and bird rescue and
education centers from restrictions on the
possession and feeding of wild animals
9- Pursue actions to address specific concerns
regarding road funding and neighborhood road
connections
SIDS,URA,specific road connections
4
Annexation Timeline
if
■ Based on commitment of providing the same
high standard of service provided all city
4F residents
■ Recommendation:annex South College
frontage area immediately("Phase 1")and
xs:x. remaining areas within 10 years
■ Future phases implemented as resources
available
Plwu t BounEary
1+J
i * S
R,e
2 " d .eyk?"5'
a
t
3i
Financial Impact
ru�auuua
Projected revenues-all funds/sources
• Year 1 $ 1,886,819
z Year 15 $ 1,919,576 tow growth
$ 2,381,583 moderate growth
General Fund revenues:
w Year 1 $ 877,562
• Year 15 $ 903,842 low growth
$ 1,365,844 moderate growth
5
Financial Impact(cont.)
Additional General Fund costs
Police $1,668,000
Arterial Streets" 101,000
a Collector Streets 31,000
Local Streets 10,000
Year 1 Total $1,810,000
Next Steps
■July 18,2006
.City Council resolution initiating annexation
■July 20,2006
. Planning and Zoning Board public hearing
■September 5, 2006
.City Council first reading of annexation ordinance
■September 19, 2006
. City Council second reading of annexation
ordinance
j;
Next Steps(cont.)
rcation of Residents,Property Owners
usiness Owners
ect mail letter-Council's decision and
ortunities for public input
dia notice-Planning and Zoning Board
lic headngmation of"transition committee"of City and
unty staff and enclave representatives
6
rw.
pproach
Sought
uncil support the proposed
measures described within this
?uncil support the recommended
of implementing the annexation in
7