Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Mail Packet - 4/12/2022 - City Council And Larimer County Commissioners Joint Meeting Agenda - April 13, 2022 City Manager’s Office City Hall 300 LaPorte Ave. PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6505 970.224.6107 - fax fcgov.com AGENDA Date & Time: April 13, 2022, 5:30PM – 7:30PM To: Fort Collins City Council and Larimer County Board of County Commissioners Where: 222 Laporte Ave, Colorado Room (Hybrid Virtual and In-Person Meeting) Who: Facilitator: Josie Plaut, Institute for the Built Environment With City and County support staff attending in-person and virtually Re: City Council and County Commissioner Joint Meeting Agenda - April 13, 2022 Zoom Link for virtual participation: You are invited to a Zoom webinar. When: Apr 13, 2022 05:30-7:30 PM Mountain Time (US and Canada) Topic: City Council/Larimer County Joint Meeting Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://fcgov.zoom.us/j/99396055615 Or One tap mobile : US: +17209289299,,99396055615# or +13462487799,,99396055615# Or Telephone: Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 720 928 9299 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 646 558 8656 or +1 312 626 6799 Webinar ID: 993 9605 5615 International numbers available: https://fcgov.zoom.us/u/adZMCeaAdb Agenda for Joint Meeting with City Council and County Commissioners: April 13th Regional Air Quality • Presentation from City and County staff providing high level overview and context; packet with additional information provided in advance (5-min) • Group Discussion and Feedback (30 min): o Is there support for City and County staff to explore ways (e.g., formal agreements) to share resources related to air quality efforts (e.g., monitoring, inspections and compliance)? o Is there support for the City and County staff to work with other Larimer County municipalities, community groups and experts to form a regional “Air Quality Monitoring Advisory Committee”? • Closing comments (round robin, 15 min) o 1-2 minutes per person • Wrap-up and Next Steps (5 min) East Mulberry Potential Annexation • Presentation from City and County staff providing high level overview and context; packet with additional information provided in advance (5-min) • Group Discussion and Feedback (30 min): o What are your primary concerns about annexation? o What are the benefits/drawbacks of more formally including East Mulberry residents and businesses as part of the Fort Collins community? • Closing comments (round robin, 15min) o 1-2 minutes per person • Wrap-up and Next Steps (5min) Packet: Distributed April 6th • Regional Air Quality o Slide Deck for April 13th o Background Information • East Mulberry Project Annexation o Slide deck presentation for April 13th items o Copy of the most recent Intergovernmental Agreement o Southwest Enclave Annexation Staff Report, 2006 o East Mulberry Advisory Group Meeting Notes – from April 1st Meeting Regional Air Quality Collaboration 04-13-2022 Cassie Archuleta Lea Schneider Chris Manley City of Fort Collins, Air Quality Program Manager Larimer County, Environmental Healthy Planner Larimer County, Director of Env Services 2Questions •Is there support for City and County staff to explore ways (e.g., formal agreements) to share resources related to air quality efforts (e.g., monitoring, inspections and compliance)? •Is there support for the City and County staff to work with other Larimer County municipalities, community groups and regional experts to form a regional “Air Quality Monitoring Advisory Committee”? Air Quality Monitoring Why are we looking into increased air quality monitoring? ●Increasing awareness of the poor air quality in our area as ozone nonattainment worsens. ●The trends in population, traffic, and development in our area are impacting air quality. ●Lack of data available countywide can cause a false sense of safety in areas outside of Fort Collins. ●We have a need to better communicate public health impacts of air quality. Air Quality Monitoring –Regionial Gaps EPA's Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool (Version 2020) City/Town Ozone Monitor Fort Collins Loveland Greeley Berthoud Wellington Current Collaboration 5 •Improved Air Quality •Advance Regionalism Council Priorities •CSU/EPA “Smoke-Ready” Communities grant Particulate Monitoring •Grant application submitted: $500K towards regional air toxics monitoring and messaging Air Toxics Larimer County Low-Cost Particulate Monitoring Sensors Regulatory Monitoring 6 Fort Collins -CSU Shed on Mason Ave (ozone) and interior •Regulatory monitoring outside of Fort Collins Monitoring Needs •City of Fort Collins applied for and received $108K for new regulatory equipment •Relocate older Fort Collins equipment and site •County contributes to operation and maintenance labor and costs for new site Collaboration Opportunities Regional Oil and Gas Operations Active Wells: •Larimer County: 263 •City Growth Management Area: 17 •City of Fort Collins: 10 7 Fort Collins Well (producing, injecting, shut-in or abandoned) City Limits Source: http://cogcc.state.co. us/maps.html#/gisonl ine (1/4/2021) •Fence-line monitoring •Infrared camera Equipment/Monitoring Needs •Record keeping (e.g., operator registration) •Inspections and compliance (e.g., leak detection) •Complaint response (e.g., odor measurements) Collaboration Opportunities 8How Do We Collaborate More Effectively? •Cost-sharing and leveraging of resources •Community engagement •Prioritized regional monitoring needs Objectives/Needs •Intergovernmental Agreement for use of shared resources •Formation of a regional Air Quality Monitoring Advisory Committee •Development of a regional Air Quality Monitoring Plan Proposed •Engagement of additional communities •Details of resource sharing agreements •2022 (and 2023/2024?) budget contributions •Initial funding and staff resources for facilitation of Committee TBD Community Voices and Priorities Local and State Government Air Quality Monitoring Expertise Trusting Relationships and Solutions 9Questions •Is there support for City and County staff to explore ways (e.g., formal agreements) to share resources related to air quality efforts (e.g., monitoring, inspections and compliance)? •Is there support for the City and County staff to work with other Larimer County municipalities, community groups and regional experts to form a regional “Air Quality Monitoring Advisory Committee”? 1 JOINT CITY OF FORT COLLINS/LARIMER COUNTY MEETING TOPIC: REGIONAL AIR QUALITY APRIL 13, 2022 Staff: Cassie Archuleta, City of Fort Collins Air Quality Program Manager Lea Schneider, Larimer County, Environmental Health Planner Chris Manley, Larimer County, Director of Environmental Health Services SUMMARY The purpose of this discussion item is to provide an overview of collaborative opportunities to support regional air quality efforts. Larimer County, and the City of Fort Collins as the largest municipality in the County, face challenges related to population growth and the associated air quality concerns that come with transportation demand, and other residential, commercial and industrial pollution sources. Included here is a summary of current collaboration efforts, and a summary of needs related to sharing resources and prioritizing efforts. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Air pollution is a complex issue with many contributing factors, and pollution does not follow jurisdictional boundaries. Local government programs related to pollution sources focus on what we can influence regionally, and what we can control more locally. Some key motivations for local air quality efforts include: • Larimer lies within an ozone non-attainment area, meaning ground-level ozone concentrations often exceed federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) health risk-based exposure limits; • Breathing polluted air can have inequitable outcomes, as those most susceptible to health problems include children and older populations, and those with pre-existing heart or lung conditions; • The Northern Front Range faces challenges related to population growth and the associated air quality concerns that come with transportation demand, and other residential, commercial and industrial pollution sources; • Regional and near-source impacts from industrial operations (e.g., oil and gas development) contribute to health concerns; • Climate change has been demonstrated to contribute to increased air quality risks, such as increased emissions from wildfires and more high heat days that can contribute to ozone formation and particulate pollution. AIR QUALITY MONITORING Increasingly, there is regional and local interest in enhanced air quality monitoring in order to better understand what is in our air, how we can reduce emissions, and how we can protect ourselves. Measured data are also used to forecast future air quality impacts, such as ozone alert days, and to determine compliance with Federal and State standards. Attachment 1 includes a map of air quality monitoring efforts in Fort Collins and a table listing pollutants monitored in the City and County. While the monitoring system may appear comprehensive, regulatory monitoring for ozone and particulate matter is mainly in Fort Collins and not regional. Additionally, there are no continuous measurements of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) or Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) in the County. CURRENT COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS Larimer County Department of Health and Environment (LCDHE) staff have been participating in ongoing discussions with representatives from the City of Fort Collins, the County’s Environmental Science Advisory Board, Colorado State University, Boulder County, Weld County, and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment to develop a strategy for enhancing air quality monitoring efforts. Additionally, in 2022, Fort Collins City Council adopted funding ($135K) for increased regional monitoring efforts, to support local partnerships, and grant opportunities. 2 Collaborative efforts in initial stages of implementation include: • Both the City and County have been participating as pilot communities for a grant awarded to CSU, which includes a monitoring and messaging partnership with outdoor field staff at the City to support research related to a concept called “smoke-ready” communities, and includes installation of additional low-cost particulate monitoring sensors in and near City limits; • City and County staff collaborated with the Colorado Department of Health and Environment (CDPHE), CSU and several community organizations to prepare and submit an EPA monitoring grant application (submitted March 25, 2022) targeting air toxics in underserved communities in northern Colorado (~$500K over 3-years). HOW CAN RESOURCES BE SHARED REGIONALLY? Ongoing, coordinated regional efforts are necessary to leverage cost-sharing opportunities and better represent air quality regionally. Attachment 2 is a City of Fort Collins memo describing monitoring interests and opportunities, and Attachment 3 provides a similar Larimer County memo. Common air quality monitoring opportunities and interests include, but are not limited to: • Consistent Messaging - o Currently, there are several different websites and information sources related to air quality health alerts and data. The City and County are interested in providing consistent air quality messaging through a collaborative website and dashboard. • Increasing Available Data - o The City of Fort Collins has been notified that the EPA intends to fund equipment to supply a new regulatory monitoring site in Eastern Fort Collins (awarded $108K). A collaborative opportunity might include potential for the County to provide ongoing operational support for monitoring within City limits, and for the City to support initial capital costs for monitoring outside of City limits. o LCDHE has discussed the addition of regulatory monitoring sites in the southern portion of Larimer County to fill a gap in monitoring data between the Fort Collins and Boulder Reservoir. • Shared Equipment to Support Leak Detection - o A collaborative opportunity to purchase an infrared camera and certify staff to address community concerns related to oil and gas development and make routine compliance inspections more effective. Currently, the City of Fort Collins has an air quality monitoring fund which includes funds for the development of updated data websites ($135K in 2022), and Larimer County is considering additional investments in air quality monitoring. Also, both City and County staff are actively seeking additional grant opportunities. In order to better leverage shared resourced opportunities, City and County staff are interested in exploring formal agreements to jointly support air quality monitoring and environmental compliance related needs. One potential avenue is a new Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) specifically related to air quality resources. HOW SHOULD REGIONAL NEEDS BE PRIORITIZED? To inform longer term community driven objectives and regional priorities, City and County staff have engaged in preliminary conversations regarding the formation of a regional community advisory committee. If formed, this committee could advise on current monitoring strategies, seek additional funding sources, and inform the development of a long-term regional monitoring plan. 3 City and County staff are seeking input on considerations to form this committee, and support to jointly allocate City and County resources towards Committee facilitation and development of a monitoring plan. NEXT STEPS Staff is seeking Council and Commission feedback on strategies to share resources and determine regional priorities. Specifically: •Is there support for City and County staff to explore ways (e.g., formal agreements) to share resources related to air quality efforts (e.g., monitoring, inspections and compliance)? •Is there support for the City and County staff to work with other Larimer County municipalities, community groups and regional experts to form a regional “Air Quality Monitoring Advisory Committee”? If supported, City and County staff can further develop the strategies mentioned above into a plan, including estimated costs and timelines for Council and Commissioner consideration. ATTACHMENT 1: Regional Air Quality Monitoring Map and Table ATTACHMENT 2: City of Fort Collins Memo, Air Quality Monitoring, November 1, 2021 ATTACHMENT 3: Larimer County Memo, Summary of Air Monitoring Strategies, January 10, 2022 ATTACHMENT 1 Air Quality Monitoring Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Site Name Agency Responsible Parameter(s) Monitored Implications Regulatory Monitoring Fort Collins – CSU – S. Mason CPDHE Ozone and Meteorology (e.g., wind speed and wind direction) Long term ozone measurements (>20 years). Used to determine trends and compliance with regulatory standards. Currently out of compliance for ozone. Fort Collins - West CDPHE Ozone Long term ozone measurements (16 years). Used to determine trends and compliance with regulatory standards. Currently out of compliance for ozone. Fort Collins – CSU – Facilities (on Edison) CDPHE PM10 (coarse particles) and PM2.5 (fine particles) Long term particulate matter measurements (> 20 years). Used to determine trends and compliance with regulatory standards. Currently in compliance for particulate matter. Larimer County – Rocky Mountain National Park National Park Service Ozone Long term ozone measurements (>20 years). Only monitoring outside of Fort Collins in Larimer County used to determine compliance with regulatory standards. Non-Regulatory Monitoring Fort Collins – Gardens on Spring Creek City of Fort Collins Ozone, PM2.5, and meteorology. Exhibit site, paired with and ozone garden out signs for outreach. Fort Collins – Discovery Center City of Fort Collins PM2.5 and visibility camera Camera image updates show visibility impairment looking towards the foothills, and particulate sensor measures smoke impacts. Fort Collins – Soapstone NA City of Fort Collins PM2.5 and visibility camera Camera image updates show visibility impairment north of City limits, and particulate sensor measures smoke impacts. Community Based Monitoring Various Locations (~30 locations in Fort Collins, and ~10 more in broader Larimer County) Privately Owned PM2.5 These types of monitors are easily deployed, low-cost, and can help determine the spatial extent of smoke events. Attachment 1 1 Environmental Services 222 Laporte Ave Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6600 970.224.6177 - fax fcgov.com MEMORANDUM DATE: November 1, 2021 TO: Mayor and Councilmembers THRU: Kelly DiMartino, Interim City Manager Kyle Stannert, Deputy City Manager Jacqueline Kozak-Thiel, Chief Sustainability Officer Lindsay Ex, Environmental Services Director FROM: Cassie Archuleta, Air Quality Program Manager SUBJECT: Air Quality Monitoring – Current Offers and Additional Considerations The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to a Council request during the October 19, 2021 regular meeting to provide information for local and regional air quality monitoring regarding current budget recommendations and additional opportunities. BOTTOM LINE Increasingly, there is regional and local interest in enhanced air quality monitoring in order to better understand what is in our air, how we can reduce emissions, and how we can protect our health and environment. The 2022 Budget, which will be considered for first reading on November 2, 2021, includes air quality and action enhancements. Provided here is more information regarding (1) the existing air quality monitoring program, (2) current enhancement recommendations ($250K), and (3) additional options for air quality monitoring investments including increased regulatory monitoring, fenceline monitoring, and a regional air toxics study ($75-683K). BACKGROUND Air pollution is a complex issue with many contributing factors, and pollution does not follow jurisdictional boundaries. Pollution sources that affect outdoor air quality include those related to human activities, such as operating gas and diesel vehicles, fossil fuel-fired power generation and other residential, commercial and industrial activities. Pollution sources can also be naturally occurring, from sources such as wildfires and windblown dust. In Fort Collins and the Northern Front Range, air quality challenges are related to rapid population growth, “Serious” ozone nonattainment status, air toxics from oil and gas development and other industrial sources, and increased frequency and severity of wildfires. While federal and state agencies have a critical regulatory role in maintaining clean air, action at the City level plays a vital role in promoting actions that can lead to protecting and improving air quality. In the City organization, air quality planning is coordinated through the Air Quality Program (Offer 48.3: Air Quality), which is a division of the Environmental Services Department in the Sustainability Services Area. In 2019, the City updated an Air Quality Plan which includes policies DocuSign Envelope ID: 038E6C36-89EA-431C-8788-66F176F55161 2 and strategies to protect public health and the environment through improvement in outdoor and indoor air quality (fcgov.com/airquality/plans-policies). Policy ENV 4.7 in the Air Quality Plan, “Monitoring and Reporting”, includes strategies to monitor, characterize, track and report ambient air pollutant concentrations to increase awareness of air quality issues, better identify opportunities to reduce emissions, forecast future air quality impacts such as ozone alert days, and determine compliance with Federal and State standards. CURRENT MONITORING EFFORTS Air quality monitoring data, real-time visibility camera images and air quality alerts are available through fcgov.com/aqdata, as described below: Criteria Pollutants Federal air quality standards require monitoring of “criteria pollutants”, or pollutants with defined health-based limits. In Fort Collins, criteria pollutants monitored include ozone and particulate matter. While the State has primary responsibility of regulatory monitoring, the City works with the State to track and report air pollution data and provide recommendations for updates to State monitoring plans. Gardens on Spring Creek Ozone Bench In 2018, a new ozone monitoring and education exhibit was installed as a feature at the Gardens on Spring Creek. This site includes real time displays of ozone, particulates, and weather information such as precipitation, temperature and relative humidity. Visibility Monitoring Visual qualities of the atmosphere are some of the most obvious indicators of air quality, with haze episodes sometimes known as “brown clouds.” A visibility camera system was added in 2016, which provides images showing the real-time visible impacts of smoke or haze at several sites throughout the City. Particulate Sensor Network The City operates four low-cost particle sensors located throughout the community, and there are several in the City that are privately owned. These types of sensors provide valuable access to real-time particulate concentrations, which can be variable depending on the time and location. ENHANCEMENT OFFERS Enhancement offers were previously described in a September 30, 2021 Council memo regarding “Councilmember requests from the September 14 and 28 Work Sessions on the 2022 Budget.” In summary, the recommended budget allocates $250,000 in additional funding for monitoring in 2022, including the following air quality monitoring enhancements: Offer 48.13 - Local and Regional Air Quality Monitoring - Improved AQ Priority & Regionalism ($35K) This offer would focus on expansion of the City’s particle sensor network and include a regional collaborative effort to improve real-time data displays. These types of dense particle sensor networks have been growing rapidly across the nation as a means to increase accessibility to highly localized information about particle pollution, especially during wildfire impacts. DocuSign Envelope ID: 038E6C36-89EA-431C-8788-66F176F55161 3 Offer 48.15: Air Quality Monitoring Fund ($100K) Monitoring technology has advanced in recent years, and more and more local jurisdictions are engaging in large scale and complex monitoring studies and projects. As currently proposed, this offer would establish a “seed” fund to enhance air quality monitoring. Initial efforts would include additional community engagement to better define objectives for enhanced monitoring, with a goal of aligning interests with regional partners and research institutions to determine what the City could best do independently, and what might be best implemented in alignment with regional partners. Regional partners, including Larimer County, the Colorado Department of Health and Environmental, and Colorado State University, have all signaled initial interest in collaborating to prioritize opportunities and seek additional funding where necessary. Offer 48.16: Education and Outreach ($115K) Enhanced education and outreach will indirectly support monitoring as it is an important aspect to ensure that the data is used to promote air quality awareness and opportunities for emissions reductions. Having dedicated resources will also support engagement of community members and increased coordination with local businesses and the Poudre School District. ADDITIONAL MONITORING OPTIONS Based on discussion at the BFO public hearing on October 19, staff has committed to exploring additional funding opportunities outside of the City’s budgeting process to further build upon monitoring efforts. If Council is interested in further investments via the 2022 Budget, options include further increasing funding and/or earmarking to support specific monitoring enhancement options. To date, the following additional monitoring enhancement opportunities have been identified for potential consideration: Regulatory Monitoring: ($150K/one-time + $40k/year) While the City currently has two regulatory ozone monitors, and one regulatory particulate monitor, a 2017 evaluation of the regulatory network conducted by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) recommended additional regulatory pollutants (e.g., oxides of nitrogen) be monitored, and that one of the City’s ozone monitors be relocated to better represent population exposure. In support of this: • In 2020 and 2021, the City collaborated with the Colorado Department of Health and Environment (CDPHE) to temporarily locate two additional ozone monitors in Fort Collins. These data will be used to evaluate potential locations for additional regulatory monitoring. • The City has also worked with CDPHE to scope costs to procure monitoring equipment for a full site that includes ozone, oxides of nitrogen and meteorological parameters (~$150K/one- time). • If funded, the State would support annual audits of the site and the City would need to support ongoing operation and maintenance costs (~$40k/year). Oil and Gas Site Fenceline Monitoring: ($75k/year) Undetected or unaddressed gas leaks (called fugitive emissions) can be of concern for any industrial process. Specifically, air quality impacts related to oil and gas development are often cited by community members as one of the highest priority concerns. Fenceline monitoring, or monitoring at a property edge, can be used to better detect leaks in real time. Related to this: • City staff are currently drafting updated regulatory requirements for oil and gas operations in Fort Collins, to be considered at a March 2022 work session. DocuSign Envelope ID: 038E6C36-89EA-431C-8788-66F176F55161 4 • The draft proposal of required Best Management Practices (BMPs) is expected to include ongoing requirement for leak detection, including continuous air quality monitoring. • If adopted, these new requirements would likely not apply to existing wells but would apply for new wells or changes to existing wells. • For existing wells, the City has explored an option in collaboration with Colorado State University (CSU) that would include continuous detection of leaks, paired with off-line analysis of specific compounds related to oil and gas development (total cost of ~$75K/year includes sampling, analysis and reporting). Regional Air Toxics Monitoring Study ($418/one-time) Transported, regional impacts from large scale oil and gas development east of Fort Collins has been demonstrated through monitoring and modeling studies to be one of the major contributing sources to local ozone formation (along with transportation and other combustion sources). Additionally, there is public concern about specific compounds related to oil and gas, including methane (a greenhouse gas), other components of natural gas (e.g., propane and butane), air toxics (e.g., benzene) and other pollutants. Related to this: • Staff has worked with CDPHE, Larimer County and CSU to develop a proposal that would better characterize the regional distribution of these types of pollutants using several sites with a combination of continuous monitoring, and canister samples (418K for a 2-year study, including analysis and report). • Some pollutants would be available in real-time (e.g., total volatile organic compounds), and other parameters (e.g., benzene) would be analyzed off-line in a laboratory. • This study could be used to inform the future location of a single, more complex and comprehensive monitoring site that includes real-time reporting of additional pollutants (similar to current monitoring in Boulder, Longmont and Broomfield). NEXT STEPS Enhanced monitoring, community engagement and regional collaboration are critical to taking informed action to improve our air quality. The City is participating in a local, regional and state dialogue in support of further innovation and collaboration in air quality monitoring, and exploring new grant opportunities for air quality monitoring that are coming available through programs like the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). Additionally, City and County staff are exploring potential to form a regional community advisory group specifically related to air quality monitoring. Air quality related offers, as recommended or augmented, would be leveraged to support local and regional monitoring priorities as identified by Council and/or through additional regional and community collaboration and engagement. For any air quality monitoring priorities that remain unfunded in 2022, staff would commit to developing additional enhancement offers for 2023-2024 budget considerations. DocuSign Envelope ID: 038E6C36-89EA-431C-8788-66F176F55161 Date: January 10, 2022 To: Board of County Commissioners Re: Summary of Air Monitoring Strategies At the request of the Board of County Commissioners during the work session on November 4, 2021 Larimer County Department of Health and Environment (LCDHE) staff have prepared a summary of air monitoring strategies. The purpose of this document is to provide a summary of air quality monitoring options to aid future decision making and provide direction for air monitoring in Larimer County. This list is not intended to provide every available option, but a general overview of strategies that are realistic and have been successful in other parts of our region. 1. Near Source or Perimeter Monitoring at Oil & Gas Facilities Near Source (or fenceline) monitoring at oil & gas facilities can be used to monitor and provide data on emissions directly related to oil & gas development (or another source of interest), and detect fugitive emissions from leaks or process changes. This type of monitoring can be in a number of different forms and a wide range of options. For the purpose of providing an overview, the Outpost Canary style monitors, a technology used in other parts of our region and in the Suncor Commerce City North Denver monitoring project is considered here. As of May 2021, new oil and gas developments also use this method to comply with the Air Quality Control Commission Regulation 7 mandated perimeter monitoring during pre-production and post-production phases of development. In Larimer County, O&G facilities constructed or recompleted after September 15, 2021, also must provide a version of this type of monitoring for a minimum of three years per Section 11.3.3.b.2 of the Larimer County Land Use Code. Benefits: Near Source monitoring is capable of providing detailed information related to a specific site or area. The sensors included in the monitors are capable of monitoring for primary pollutants; carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, and particulate matter, as well as a wide variety of other pollutants and can be customized for a specific purpose. Attachment 3 1 Siting monitor(s) in close proximity to an oil & gas facility would provide information about impacts from the facility related to the criteria pollutants and may identify conditions caused by a release or leak. The monitors are able to be deployed and moved easily, allowing a set of monitors to serve multiple purposes and be used in a wider range of geographical areas. Canister samplers with triggered collection events can be added and canisters analyzed for additional data, i.e., total VOCs can be monitored continuously and if detected above a pre-set threshold, a canister sample collected and analyzed for specific VOCs in an off-site lab. This provides additional data and doesn’t significantly increase the cost of the monitor. Challenges: Sites for monitors would need to be identified and secured in close proximity to oil & gas facilities if they are the focus of this monitoring, while accounting for factors that may contribute to inaccurate data (other nearby sources, transportation influences, wind, etc). These monitors could not be used to enforce a regulatory requirement and could only be used to provide additional information to COGCC or APCD for further investigation. Mobile sensors are not maintenance free and would require data analysis, interpretation, and calibration by a 3rd party to conduct near-source evaluations/spot check emissions; these cannot be run by LCDHE. Use of perimeter monitors for roughly 200 O&G development sites in Larimer County does not seem feasible, but it may be possible on a smaller scale for developments that frequently generate complaints or concerns. Larimer County also does not have a significant (currently 2) number of O&G sites in the pre-production or drilling phase which are the phases identified as having significant emissions according to supported research. Sensor lifespan on this type of equipment can be short at 2-4 years, so implementing this type of equipment would best be paired with a specific study or area of interest rather than long term general monitoring. 2. Boulder AIR or Continuous Monitoring Boulder AIR is a company that has provided monitoring sites in areas with concerns over oil & gas production in our region including Boulder County, the City of Broomfield, and the Town of Erie. The sites are very sophisticated and include robust monitoring equipment that continuously evaluate a suite of pollutants and produce real time data. Boulder County used data from the sites in developing their oil & gas regulations and in providing data to the COGCC to support increases in statewide regulatory requirements. Attachment 3 2 Benefits: These sites provide sophisticated, research grade continuous monitoring. These monitors have the ability to distinguish sources of VOCs between originating from oil & gas facilities, transportation or other sources and to provide that data in real time via a website. Properly sited, these monitors could provide information on emissions from oil & gas sites, determine when or if those emissions are at levels that may impact nearby communities and ‘fingerprint’ VOC emissions to determine if impacts are coming from oil & gas or other sources such as transportation. Challenges: The sites are expensive to operate and have to be located in areas with access to power and adequate space (each site is approximately the size of a small construction trailer). Since Larimer County does not have large numbers of oil & gas sites active in the pre-production or drilling phase, a site located near existing facilities may not provide data that is significant in regard to emissions. Data could be shared with CDPHE/AQCD and the COGCC, but not used by Larimer County in compliance or regulatory actions. Since the continuous monitoring is focused on researching oil & gas emissions, modifications or additional equipment may be necessary to provide more information about air quality in general. It would also be necessary to enhance BoulderAIR’s real-time data public website with additional public health messaging to provide measures the public can take to protect themselves, contribute to better air quality, or notify authorities. 3. Increased Regulatory Monitoring in Partnership with CDPHE-AQCD Larimer County currently maintains regulatory air quality monitoring sites as part of our contract with CDPHE’s Air Pollution Control Division (APCD). The AQCD evaluates attainment with the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). These include two sites monitoring for ozone (west Fort Collins and on CSU’s campus), one for particulate matter (on CSU campus), one for carbon monoxide (CSU campus) and meteorology (CSU campus). With Larimer County’s ozone nonattainment status worsening each year, additional local regulatory monitoring in collaboration with APCD could supplement gaps in the monitoring network and aid in ozone modeling used to create the state’s air quality implementation plan through stricter air quality regulations. In addition to new sites to monitor for NAAQS, the County could also partner and contract with other agencies to add enhanced monitoring that includes ozone precursors for oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and VOCs. Data from the collocated monitoring equipment could be used for ozone modeling by the Regional Air Quality Council (RAQC) and APCD, and in investigating ozone precursor sources impacting Larimer County. Attachment 3 3 Benefits: Data from these monitors supports statewide efforts for policy change in order to comply with EPA NAAQS and could further evaluate the causes of ozone levels through enhanced monitoring for precursors. This data may also be used for local and statewide ozone modeling. The data also increases opportunities for collaborating regionally to decrease transported pollution through stakeholder groups on policy, such as impacts from the two primary sources of oil and gas operations and transportation. APCD reports hourly data readings for their regulatory monitors on their website: https://www.colorado.gov/airquality/report.aspx In addition, a partnership with a third party could also provide real-time data on NOx and VOCs through a public interface to inform the community when we are experiencing poor air quality (ex: smoke, ozone, etc) and what areas of the county. This data could be used to increase awareness of our air quality and provide better outreach and messaging to influence behavior and make better decisions for ourselves and the community as a whole, especially when safety measures/restrictions may be needed for outdoor activity for schools, recreation, or work. Challenges: Additional monitoring sites need to be identified in areas where they provide a good picture of air quality in Larimer County, but would be dependent on access and the ability to provide power and connectivity to the equipment. CDPHE must meet EPA requirements for siting the monitors and the parameters for setup. 4. Baseline Monitoring for Area Source Pollutants Short-term (1-2 years) baseline monitoring for area source pollutants (ozone, oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter, greenhouse gases, VOCs, air toxics.) throughout the county could be used to research and identify the sources of pollutants that primarily impact Larimer County including population growth, development, oil and gas, transportation, wildfires, etc. Short-term monitoring county-wide will assist in determining areas to focus on for permanent more sophisticated monitoring as well as possible local improvements through land use, other policy development, public outreach and behavior changes. The collected data would serve to provide a broader picture of air quality in Larimer County through research partners. The data results could be reported at a requested frequency through the research partner after they analyze and interpret the data for general understanding. This is similar to Weld County’s Ramboll Consultant’s air monitoring system that generates quarterly reports rather than real- time data. The quarterly reports are then posted on a website for the public. Attachment 3 4 Benefits: Several areas in Larimer County, particularly in and around Fort Collins have had monitoring equipment in place for some time, and a number of small studies on air quality issues have been made but a baseline picture of overall air quality in the county has not been completed. Baseline monitoring would be useful in being able to identify trends, learn more about influences from sources outside of our region, and provide general information to our community. There are a number of municipal, academic, and community organizations in our region that are interested in obtaining more information about air quality and could be partners in developing a county-wide plan, assist with obtaining grants, and provide expertise in how a baseline monitoring strategy could be implemented. Challenges: Baseline data would be useful to get a general picture of air quality in Larimer County, but would not be capable of determining what the primary cause of the pollutants are unless more sophisticated or near source monitors were also included. Baseline monitoring serves to gain an overall picture of air quality and identify trends based on seasonality or meteorology for areas of future study, but would be less useful in providing real time data on specific sources of pollutants. The data would not lead to any immediate enforcement or regulatory action against specific sources of pollution. 5. Leak Detection & Infrared Camera Enhanced leak detection would serve to identify sources of hydrocarbon emissions from oil & gas facilities and other sources to allow Larimer County to respond to complaints with equipment capable of visually identifying leaks. Leaks are most efficiently detected using an infrared (IR) camera and it is the technology most commonly used by regulatory agencies as well as oil and gas operators in Colorado. Purchasing an infrared (IR) camera also provides options for county-wide monitoring of uncontrolled hydrocarbon releases from O&G (O&G) facilities that include harmful volatile organic compounds (VOCs) like benzene and climate changing greenhouse gases like methane. Benefits: Leak detection is an important way to identify and reduce emissions from oil & gas facilities. In Boulder County, a voluntary leak detection program identified leaks during 43% of inspections Attachment 3 5 over a 5 year period. Most (90%) of leaks identified were able to be repaired by the operator within 3 days. The equipment used to perform leak detection inspections can also be used to complete inspections of facilities in response to complaints. IR camera inspections are currently completed by the Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) in cooperation with LCDHE staff, while these have been effective in identifying leaks, the ability to respond quickly, or investigate a site at varying times of day or weather conditions are limited. Challenges: The current Oil & Gas Regulations within the Larimer County Land Use Code do not require leak detection inspections of existing facilities, so inspections would be on a voluntary basis. Operators would need to agree to schedule and participate in the inspection with Larimer County staff. In Boulder County, the voluntary program was successful in completing 200 facility visits on average per year. Since leaks represent lost product and can present safety concerns, there is benefit to the operator to identify and repair leaks above and beyond the potential impacts to air quality. Leak detection inspections would have minimal impact on newer facilities due to equipment improvements & stricter permitting requirements for these sites. The primary benefit would be in identifying issues at legacy facilities using older equipment and subject to less stringent regulation during initial construction. Since the Larimer County Oil & Gas Regulations do not include provisions for enforcement or penalties for facilities existing prior to September 15, 2021, leaks identified during voluntary inspections would need to be repaired by the operator voluntarily. Persistent unrepaired leaks could be forwarded to APCD for enforcement and compliance follow-up. The Regional Air Quality Council (RAQC) owns an IR camera that they make available for local governments or other agencies with certified staff on a weekly basis. The drawback of renting equipment would be needing to schedule inspections around time periods the camera could be obtained from the RAQC. This would also make investigating complaints more difficult and result in response time similar to contacting AQCD to bring their equipment to investigate. Next Steps The summary of options listed here are not intended to be an exhaustive list, but realistic options that have had success in other areas or are currently being investigated in our area. Ultimately, a partnership between Larimer County and others interested in obtaining more information about our air quality is the best option as it allows the pooling of resources and leverages expertise that the county acting alone would not be able to provide. Attachment 3 6 One strategy not listed specifically would be developing one or more of these options into a regional plan with other partners and assisting with staff support and/or funding. LCDHE staff have been participating in ongoing discussions with representatives from the City of Fort Collins, the County’s Environmental Science Advisory Board, Colorado State University, Boulder County, Weld County, and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment to promote a regional approach to enhancing air quality monitoring efforts. Attached is a summary table of the options described above along with the benefit it provides and cost estimates. Further work would need to be done to develop each of these strategies into a working plan and to fine tune the cost estimates based on current equipment costs. Attachment 3 7 Joint City Council & County Commissioner Meeting April 13, 2022 East Mulberry Project Travis Storin & Sylvia Tatman-Burruss 2Agenda •Presentation from City and County staff providing high level overview and context; packet with additional information will be provided in advance (5-min) •Group Discussion and Feedback (30 min) •Closing comments (round robin, 15min) o 1-2 minutes per person •Wrap -up and Next Steps (5min) 3Questions what opportunities and concerns do Councilmembers and Commissioners see with the strategic, phased annexation? How do we integrate this area into Fort Collins while respecting its strengths and value? East Mulberry Map 4 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 6Timeline/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 Annexation Phasing Scenarios Winter Review Draft of the East Mulberry Plan Discuss final annexation scenarios Summer Consider refined financial assumptions, timeline and scenarios for annexation Project Timeline (2022): Intergovernmental Agreement & Annexation 8Intergovernmental Agreement and State Law •The City and County entered into the IGA on June 24, 2008 •The IGA addresses annexation among other development issues within the Growth Management Area (GMA) •IGA Section 7.A.states that, “It is the City’s intent to annex properties within the GMA as expeditiously as possible consistent with the terms of this Agreement.” •IGA Section 7.D. states, “The City agrees to pursue involuntary annexation of any parcel that becomes eligible for involuntary annexation.” •State Law governs the process of annexation but does not require the City to annex the enclave. That process is set forth within the IGA Annexation Lenses & Phasing 11Phasing Lenses Phasing Lenses Each lens focuses on one priority area. Other priority areas are still present but might be delayed or resourced differently. Emphasizes environmental buffers, flood mitigation Emphasizes connectivity, utilities, and other social priorities Emphasizes economic development and vitality in the area Emphasizes fiscal impact to City of annexation, including existing priorities, risks, and timing Fiscal Health for City Environmental & Hazard Protection Economic Opportunity Residential Enhancement The Gateway Community Emphasizes improvements and reinvestment potential for the Mulberry Corridor, including the highway and frontage roads 6/22/2021 Landmark Web Official Records Search https://records.larimer.org/LandmarkWeb/search/index?theme=.blue&section=searchCriteriaInstrumentNumber&quickSearchSelection=#1/6 6/22/2021 Landmark Web Official Records Search https://records.larimer.org/LandmarkWeb/search/index?theme=.blue&section=searchCriteriaInstrumentNumber&quickSearchSelection=#2/6 6/22/2021 Landmark Web Official Records Search https://records.larimer.org/LandmarkWeb/search/index?theme=.blue&section=searchCriteriaInstrumentNumber&quickSearchSelection=#3/6 6/22/2021 Landmark Web Official Records Search https://records.larimer.org/LandmarkWeb/search/index?theme=.blue&section=searchCriteriaInstrumentNumber&quickSearchSelection=#4/6 6/22/2021 Landmark Web Official Records Search https://records.larimer.org/LandmarkWeb/search/index?theme=.blue&section=searchCriteriaInstrumentNumber&quickSearchSelection=#5/6 6/22/2021 Landmark Web Official Records Search https://records.larimer.org/LandmarkWeb/search/index?theme=.blue&section=searchCriteriaInstrumentNumber&quickSearchSelection=#6/6 1 EAST MULBERRY ADVISORY GROUP: ANNEXATION LENSES & PHASING Date: April 1, 2022 Location: Zoom (virtual) Participants: Sylvia Tatman-Burruss (City of Fort Collins), Shawna Van Zee (City of Fort Collins), Mike Brown, Amy Young, Erika, Josie Plaut (IBE), Susan Hsin (IBE) ACTION ITEMS • Share recording of this meeting with other Advisory Group members. • Share recording of Council’s most recent meeting to Advisory Group members. • Joint City Council and County Commissioners meeting on April 13th • City Council work session focused on annexation April 26th • Complete draft of East Mulberry Plan – City will reach out in the coming months. • Notify Advisory Group when the Council’s vote will take place in an updated newsletter. KEY TAKAWAYS & 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 and group members expressed concerns about Council leadership, vision, and potentially damaging County relationship if the City chooses to back down from annexation. • Desire for greater connectivity, continuity, and safety for different modes of transportation. • Preference to start with Mulberry Corridor and the I-25 Gateway. KEY MESSAGES FROM ADVISORY GROUP MEMBERS • The financial implications and concerns should not get in the way for the betterment of the community. • It is short-term thinking to hesitate making improvements to this area. Feels like a short-sighted perspective to think that investing in this area won’t be worth it. I would like to see the council be more optimistic in this effort. • It would be challenging to employ a phased approach for the improvements. It seems like the area should either be annexed or not annexed. If we don’t annex, then the City does not need to worry about having a plan and can stop spending so many hours and resources to wait on decisions. • Lack of vision by the City. Does the City want a cohesive feel on this side of town? At this point it does not seem like they are convinced it is worth investing in East Mulberry. Objective/Topic Notes 2 Introductory Remarks + Meeting Kick-off Brief overview of the agenda and conversation about the focus on the difference between the Annexation Plan and the East Mulberry Plan. The meeting was recorded via Zoom. Community Workshops Update • Council asked staff to focus more on annexation phasing and options • The East Mulberry Plan, while related, is on hold for a couple months. • Council work session on April 26th will hopefully provide some clarity on options for next steps in the process. • The East Mulberry Plan can and does exist without annexation, but annexation would provide greater accountability and resources focused on implementation. • Annexation is part of the longstanding agreements between the City and the County, though it is not a given. Staff and consultants are working to develop information and context to help inform Council’s decision-making process Annexation Overview Difference between Annexation Plan and East Mulberry Plan Annexation Plan • There is an intergovernmental agreement that defines when an area becomes an enclave, it will be annexed into the City and the City will become the service provider in the area for policing, zoning, building codes, stormwater infrastructure, and transportation. Because this would be the largest enclave annexation in Fort Collins history, Council is taking a careful, analytical approach to the process. East Mulberry Plan • Existing plan from 2002 that addresses development in the area. It works as a guiding document on whether this area will be jointly adopted by the city or not. Recent efforts have focused on updating the 2002 plan. The plan will be more robustly implemented if the area is annexed than if it is not. Questions/Comments from the Group • We were under the impression that the annexation was going to happen, and it was just a matter of time until it was finalized. Is that still the case? At this point, Council is asking for more information to make a more informed decision about moving forward. • Is the City waiting for more information or is there something else going on behind the scenes? The starting point was the agreement, but ultimately the decision is up to Council, and they can choose whether to follow through with annexation. This area is very large and therefore considerations are potentially different from past annexations. • What are the repercussions if Council decides to not annex this area? 3 This is something that the staff is still trying to understand as well. Staff hopes to gain better clarity at the April 26th Work Session. • What happens to the East Mulberry Plan that we have been working on over the past many months? Staff did not anticipate the Council direction at the last Work Session. Staff understands that Council wants to take a slow, careful approach to the topic. However, Council wants to make sure that all the community engagement work that has already been done is still accounted for moving forward. The annexation plan and East Mulberry Plan are related, but not directly tied together. If Council does not decide to proceed with annexation at this point, the East Mulberry Plan can still be adopted. If the plan is adopted without annexation, it is likely that it will serve as more of a guiding document, rather than a typical area plan. • What was the purpose of updating the 2002 Plan? Many City policies have changed since 2002, so the City wanted to reevaluate the original plan in alignment with the current needs of the community and changes the Fort Collins has experienced since 2002. This gives the City an opportunity to take more community feedback into consideration as well. • What factors influence what City Council is looking for in deciding on annexation? It’s a matter of having enough resources, the timeline of when to start projects, and how to handle existing issues with roads and infrastructure. They are looking for staff to outline these concerns with more clarity to help make their choices more obvious. • Has there been discussion about the increasing development and population increase in this area? Genuine concern about public safety due to the anticipation of many people moving to this area. Because the policies of the City have changed to accommodate multimodal transportation, the City, as an urban service provider, requires this for new development. The requirements for the county, which has more rural foundation, are much different. The requirements and services from the City and the County do not exactly line up, so the issue at hand is to figure out a solution that will be a common ground for the differences between the two jurisdictions. The objective of today’s conversation is to be able to better understand and articulate the community’s responses around potential annexation by understanding different perspectives from the community. We are trying to identify what the community perceives as the benefits and drawbacks of annexation. Suggestion to watch the recorded Council session to better understand the shift in direction / the Council’s questions around 4 annexation. It’s important to note that Council works and decides on issues and that City staff’s role is to provide information and guidance to Council, but they are not one and the same. • Pedestrian, bike, and resident safety in this area is why an advisory group member decided to join. The Mosaic Neighborhood, for example, has great roads and infrastructure, but outside of the neighborhood, that is no longer the case. No private builders and developers are going to deal with the City’s infrastructural and connectivity issues. Planning and resources from the City can begin with annexation, but even if that is the case, it is very unlikely that any major changes would happen in the next 5 years. It is a long process. Phasing Overview The group moved into an annexation activity after being introduced to the annexation subarea map (which is a little different from the East Mulberry Plan Subarea Map). The group reviewed a summary of concerns and opportunities by subarea. There are no hard boundaries for the subareas on this map, but it is divided up in a way to help us make sense of the area. Why are we talking about phasing for annexation? • Allows for the City to build up resources over time, rather than all at once. • Allows time for revenue generation ahead of other phases. • Allows for better community engagement ahead of each phase. Often, annexation areas are much smaller than what is to be the case for East Mulberry, so the phasing plan helps annexation be more feasible. Phasing lenses Each lens focuses on one priority area. Other priority areas are still present but might be delayed or resourced differently. The idea is to spark conversation, rather than expect that the city will take on any one of these lenses specifically. The options generally represent a time that would start in couple of years and last 10 or more years. 5 1. Fiscal Health for City  emphasizes fiscal impact to City of annexation, including priorities, budges, risks, and timing. • Prioritizing revenue for the city through primarily through city sales and some property taxes. • Annexes commercial areas first with residential areas coming later. • Allows financial resources to be built up most quickly to help offset additional costs (e.g., policing, capital improvements, etc.) 2. Environmental & Hazard Protection  Emphasizes annexation areas that need improvements to address environmental and natural hazard concerns (e.g., flooding). • Recognizes that floods are a major concern in this area. • Prioritizing subareas 1, 2, 4, which include Cooper Slough, Dry Creek, and the Poudre River Trails. • Might be a while until stormwater infrastructure improvements are made, but this lens would get it on the list as a priority. 3. Economic Opportunity  Prioritizes the annexation of properties with potential for new industrial and commercial development that would generate income for the local economy. • Effort to identify which areas will maximize business potential while meeting the multimodal requirements. 4. Residential Enhancement  Emphasizes connectivity, utilities, and other social priorities. • Focuses on residential / resident priorities. • Prioritizes annexation of subareas 2, 3, and 5, which have existing residential neighborhoods • Conversation around affordable housing in this area. 5. The Gateway Community  Emphasizes functional and aesthetic improvements along the Mulberry corridor. • Aesthetic and functional improvements in partnership with CDOT. • Prioritizes Subarea 3 and central portion of Subarea 1 Sylvia clarified that staff would present financial numbers to council on April 26th. These lenses are meant to help inform council’s thinking about an annexation approach based on different priorities. Questions from the Advisory Group • Have any numbers for cost and benefit been put together yet? What is the bare minimum for cost and funding? Seems like there is a huge gap in this presentation about this. Round numbers will be presented from the financial analyst in the next council meeting on April 26th. We currently have a general idea, but it is up to Council to decide what to do including looking 6 annexation from staffing, services, maintenance, and capital perspectives. Phasing Lenses Conversation QUESTION FOR THE GROUP Which area would you suggest annexing first and why? If you had to rank them, or put them in an order, which order would you choose? Why? • Focusing on the Gateway Lens should be prioritized to address the issues of public safety and transportation. If this was the starting point, there is potential that the improvements would spill over into the other Subareas. • The Gateway seems to be the most palatable choice because it would have the greatest positive impact on the most people and the whole town of Fort Collins, versus improvements to other subareas would only be a help to the people who interact with those areas more exclusively. • Even though this would be the most beneficial lens to take on, it is equally probably the most difficult subarea to address. • There are many overlapping issues characteristic to this area (i.e., stormwater infrastructure/flooding, traffic safety issues), that might make this phasing plan not the most pragmatic solution. It would be difficult to compartmentalize the improvements to one specific subarea. • To clarify, the Gateway Lens is not just a notion for beautification. • Policing by the interstate is needed. Is there any data to provide to City Council that addressing this area would be a crime reduction effort, which would reduce the urgent need for police services? The data is available in call volumes to the area. It shows that police are needed in this area, which could help the case for the Gateway area being pushed forward. • It seems Council is struggling with the justifying the cost to cover policing, but that cost isn’t supported by the current revenue/budget, making it a barrier for the city to annex this area. • Being short in resources doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be doing anything. What would you most like council and staff to understand about your thoughts on annexation? • The financial implications and concerns should not get in the way for the betterment of the community. • It is short-term thinking to hesitate making improvements to this area. Feels like a short-sided perspective to think that investing in this area won’t be worth it. Would like to see the City be more optimistic in this effort. • It would be challenging to employ a phasing approach for the improvements that need to be done in this area. It seems like it should either be annexed or not annexed, which might make this whole plan less confusing to our benefit. If we don’t annex this, the 7 City does not need to worry about having a plan, which is currently something that the City is expending so many hours and resources to wait on decisions. • Lack of vision by the City. Does the City want a cohesive feel on this side of town? At this point it does not seem like they are convinced it is worth to invest in. Closing Remarks + Next Steps The civic process only works because of the engagement from the community. Our commitment is to continue facilitating opportunities that will elevate the voices in the community. This is far more than just a financial decision, but rather a whole city decision. Despite the interesting turn in the road for all of us in this process, all the progress made today is helpful for the City to gain clarity for this complex decision. The Council work session on April 26th is focused on the Annexation Plan, which will include the lenses we discussed today, accompanied by the round financial numbers. There is currently no deadline for council to decide by. The work session on the 26th will not lead to any decisions, but the hope is to get enough done to create guiding direction that will lead to a decision. Regarding the East Mulberry Plan, it has the most impact is when single properties and new development occurs. New developments will be subject to the plan guidance whether the annexation happens or not. At the very least, the impact will happen, but at a smaller scale (developers, builders, private businesses) with the creation of this plan document. Josie thanked everyone for their time and encouraged the group to keep learning, keep staying involved, and to watch and participate in the council work sessions and hearings accordingly.