Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution - 2015-R0306 - Annexation and Growth Policy Report - 9/10/2015Resolution No. 2015-RO306 Item No. 7.14 September 10, 2015 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK THAT the City Council hereby adopts the Annexation and Growth Policy Report as presented to the Council by the Annexation and Growth Advisory Committee for the City of Lubbock. Said Annexation and Growth Policy Report is attached hereto and incorporated in this resolution as if fully set forth herein and shall be included in the minutes of the City Council. Passed by the City Council on September 10, 2015 GLEN C. R BERTSON, MAYOR ATTEST: Reb cca Garza, City Secret APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: /`� Andrew Paxton, Planning and Zoning Director APPROVED AS TO FORM: tk 4d-A Justin D j ruit , As tstant City Attorney ccdocs/RES. Adoption — Annexation and Growth Policy Report August 31, 2015 114TH ST 130TH STFM 1585 82ND ST 66TH ST 50TH ST 34TH ST 19TH STSH 114 4TH STFM 2255 ERSKINE ST URSULINE ST KENT ST FM 1294 FM 1730SLIDE RDQUAKER AVEINDIANA AVEUNIVERSITY AVEAVE QAVE AMLK BLVDGUAVA AVEFRANKFORD AVEMILWAUKEE AVEUPLAND AVEINLER AVEALCOVE AVEUS 84 LOOP 289FM 179LOOP 289LOOP 289 US 84 FM 2641 US 62/82US 62/82 SH 11498TH ST ± 0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles City of Lubbock Annexation History by Decade Annexation by Decade 1900s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s GIS & Data Services03/15 As required by SECTION 1. Chapter 2051, SUBCHAPTER D. GEOSPATIAL DATA PRODUCTS of the Government Code, the City of Lubbo ck hereby provides notice that the data on this map was created by the City of Lubbock. Any data that appears to represent property boundaries is for in formational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries. LubbockCity of ANNEXATION AND GROWTH POLICYREPORT August, 2015 Terry Holeman – Committee Member, Chair Greg Garrison – Committee Member George McMahan – Committee Member Maurice Stanley – Committee Member Trey Strong – Committee Member Latrelle Joy – Lubbock City Council Member, Liaison Bill Howerton – Assistant City Manager Andrew Paxton – Planning Department, Director Wood Franklin – Public Works Department, Director Cheryl Brock – Budget Department, Director 114TH ST 130TH STFM 1585 82ND ST 66TH ST 50TH ST 34TH ST 19TH STSH 114 4TH STFM 2255 ERSKINE ST URSULINE ST KENT STFM 1294 FM 1730SLIDE RDQUAKER AVEINDIANA AVEUNIVERSITY AVEAVE QAVE AMLK BLVDGUAVA AVEFRANKFORD AVEMILWAUKEE AVEUPLAND AVEINLER AVEALCOVE AVEUS 84 LOOP 289FM 179LOOP 289LOOP 289 US 84 FM 2641 US 62/82US 62/82 SH 11498TH ST ± 0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles City of LubbockAnnexation History by Decade Annexation by Decade 190 0s 192 0s 193 0s 194 0s 195 0s 197 0s 198 0s 199 0s 200 0s 201 0s GIS & Data Services03/15 As required by SECTION 1. Chapter 2051, SUBCHAPTER D. GEOSPATIAL DATA PRODUCTS of the Government Code, the City of Lubbock hereby provides notice that the data on this map was created by the C ity of Lubbock. Any data that appears to represent property bounda ries is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries. In late 2014, the City Council of Lubbock, Texas initiated the Annexation and Growth Advisory Committee and entrusted it with the responsibility to research topics that provide for an in-depth discussion on the City of Lubbock’s annexation and growth policies. This Annexation and Growth Policy Report represents the Committee’s findings and recommendations on Lubbock’s annexation policy. This document is de - signed to help guide the Council’s approach to current annexation issues, and to assist in establishing a policy foundation on which future City leaders can base their annexation and growth decisions. This Report examines the City of Lubbock’s annexation history, the City’s current annexation issues, and potential areas for annexation in the future. In response to the Committee’s review of Texas annexation statutes and the City of Lubbock’s annexation and growth, the Committee recommends that the following items become an integral part of the City’s annexation policies and procedures: 1. The City of Lubbock should maintain a long-range, generalized annexation planning map for antici- pated expansion of the corporate limits and orderly extension of municipal facilities and services, which could occur through both voluntary and involuntary annexations. 2. The City should continue to monitor opportunities to annex “exempted” territory that is not covered by the three-year advance annexation plan requirements of the Texas Local Government Code. 3. The City of Lubbock should exercise protective annexation measures to promote uniform development. 4. The City of Lubbock should comply with the extensive State law governing the process of annexa- tion in order to avoid any major negative legal impact on any annexation that is not correctly carried out. 5. The City of Lubbock should prohibit the provision of municipal services outside the incorporated areas of the city except in emergencies or when allowed by State law. 6. The City should apply fiscal impact analysis techniques to assess the estimated costs of providing municipal services and weigh these costs against the anticipated revenues of each proposed annexation. 7. The City should be prepared to consider annexation of areas with less-than-favorable fiscal impact implications if unique health, safety, environmental, general welfare, or other factors are significant enough to override financial considerations. 8. When permitted under state law and under City Code, developers and/or landowners that are re- questing annexation must bear the routine and normally required costs of public service facilities. 9. The City of Lubbock should maintain its positive working relationships with Lubbock County, other municipalities, the Lubbock Metropolitan Planning Organization, and other public and private ser- vice providers, regardless of whether the City is in an active annexation planning mode. 10. The City should continue to monitor studies and actions by the Texas Legislature, including poten- tial new or revised statutes that would impact municipal annexation authority and capabilities. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 114TH ST 130TH STFM 1585 82ND ST 66TH ST 50TH ST 34TH ST 19TH STSH 114 4TH STFM 2255 ERSKINE ST URSULINE ST KENT STFM 1294 FM 1730SLIDE RDQUAKER AVEINDIANA AVEUNIVERSITY AVEAVE QAVE AMLK BLVDGUAVA AVEFRANKFORD AVEMILWAUKEE AVEUPLAND AVEINLER AVEALCOVE AVEUS 84 LOOP 289FM 179LOOP 289LOOP 289 US 84 FM 2641 US 62/82US 62/82 SH 11498TH ST ± 0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles City of LubbockAnnexation History by Decade Annexation by Decade 190 0s 192 0s 193 0s 194 0s 195 0s 197 0s 198 0s 199 0s 200 0s 201 0s GIS & Data Services03/15 As required by SECTION 1. Chapter 2051, SUBCHAPTER D. GEOSPATIAL DATA PRODUCTS of the Government Code, the City of Lubbock hereby provides notice that the data on this map was created by the C ity of Lubbock. Any data that appears to represent property bounda ries is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries. Additionally, because Texas annexation law is complex and ever-changing, the Committee suggests that the following guidelines be considered when dealing with any annexation project. For every annexation issue, the Committee suggests that the City Council be: - Careful to follow the proper annexation procedure; - Aware of all development initiatives within the ETJ; - Cautious about litigating a neighboring municipality over annexed land; - Amenable to utilizing interlocal agreements; and - Considerate of the opinions of annexed property owners. This report also includes an in-depth study on the fiscal impacts of growth on municipalities and a report on impact fees. The Committee intends that the City Council use these reports to supplement the policy and guideline recommendations for any annexation issue that the City may face. Annexation and Growth Advisory Committee – 2015 Terry Holeman – Chair Greg Garrison George McMahan Maurice Stanley Trey Strong 114TH ST 130TH STFM 1585 82ND ST 66TH ST 50TH ST 34TH ST 19TH STSH 114 4TH STFM 2255 ERSKINE ST URSULINE ST KENT STFM 1294 FM 1730SLIDE RDQUAKER AVEINDIANA AVEUNIVERSITY AVEAVE QAVE AMLK BLVDGUAVA AVEFRANKFORD AVEMILWAUKEE AVEUPLAND AVEINLER AVEALCOVE AVEUS 84 LOOP 289FM 179LOOP 289LOOP 289 US 84 FM 2641 US 62/82US 62/82 SH 11498TH ST ± 0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles City of LubbockAnnexation History by Decade Annexation by Decade 190 0s 192 0s 193 0s 194 0s 195 0s 197 0s 198 0s 199 0s 200 0s 201 0s GIS & Data Services03/15 As required by SECTION 1. Chapter 2051, SUBCHAPTER D. GEOSPATIAL DATA PRODUCTS of the Government Code, the City of Lubbock hereby provides notice that the data on this map was created by the C ity of Lubbock. Any data that appears to represent property bounda ries is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Municipal Annexation In Texas - Annexation Overview - Former Annexation Legislation Municipal Annexation Act - Current Annexation Requirements: Restructuring of the Act Annexation Plan Service Plan - Annexation Process Issues Impacting Annexation - Ordinances and Taxes - Voting Rights - Zoning - Nonconforming Uses - Subdivision Regulation - Incentive Agreements Annexation in Lubbock - Lubbock’s Annexation History - Previous Annexation Practices - Recent Annexation Activity - Current Annexation Practices - Anticipated Annexation Initiatives 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 5 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 10 Anticipated Issues With Future Annexation Projects - Orderly Development - Street and Existing City Facilities Maintenance - Thoroughfare Paving - TxDOT Lubbock Outer Route - Water Supply and Conservation - Fire Stations - Police Department - Parks and Playa Lakes - School Districts - Fiscal Impacts - Development Incentives Lubbock’s Annexation Policies and Practices Proposed Changes and Considerations - Proposed Changes to Lubbock’s Annexation Policy - Policy Implementation Considerations Conclusion Appendices - A: Resolution - Annexation and Growth Advisory Committee - B: City of Lubbock ETJ Map - C: Resolution – Annexation Not Intended for Any Area Requiring Annexation Plan - D: Supplemental Study – Fiscal Impact of “Mythical Mile” D1: “Mythical Mile” Scenario 1 D2: “Mythical Mile” Scenario 2 D3: “Mythical Mile” Scenario 3 D4: “Mythical Mile” Scenario 4 - E: Supplemental Study – Impact Fees - F: Annexation and Growth Policy Report - Bulleted Summary 15 15 15 15 15 16 17 17 17 17 18 18 19 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 30 31 32 33 34 36 114TH ST 130TH STFM 1585 82ND ST 66TH ST 50TH ST 34TH ST 19TH STSH 114 4TH STFM 2255 ERSKINE ST URSULINE ST KENT STFM 1294 FM 1730SLIDE RDQUAKER AVEINDIANA AVEUNIVERSITY AVEAVE QAVE AMLK BLVDGUAVA AVEFRANKFORD AVEMILWAUKEE AVEUPLAND AVEINLER AVEALCOVE AVEUS 84 LOOP 289FM 179LOOP 289LOOP 289 US 84 FM 2641 US 62/82US 62/82 SH 11498TH ST ± 0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles City of LubbockAnnexation History by Decade Annexation by Decade 190 0s 192 0s 193 0s 194 0s 195 0s 197 0s 198 0s 199 0s 200 0s 201 0s GIS & Data Services03/15 As required by SECTION 1. Chapter 2051, SUBCHAPTER D. GEOSPATIAL DATA PRODUCTS of the Government Code, the City of Lubbock hereby provides notice that the data on this map was created by the C ity of Lubbock. Any data that appears to represent property bounda ries is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries. 114TH ST 130TH STFM 1585 82ND ST 66TH ST 50TH ST 34TH ST 19TH STSH 114 4TH STFM 2255 ERSKINE ST URSULINE ST KENT STFM 1294 FM 1730SLIDE RDQUAKER AVEINDIANA AVEUNIVERSITY AVEAVE QAVE AMLK BLVDGUAVA AVEFRANKFORD AVEMILWAUKEE AVEUPLAND AVEINLER AVEALCOVE AVEUS 84 LOOP 289FM 179LOOP 289LOOP 289 US 84 FM 2641 US 62/82US 62/82 SH 11498TH ST ± 0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles City of LubbockAnnexation History by Decade Annexation by Decade 190 0s 192 0s 193 0s 194 0s 195 0s 197 0s 198 0s 199 0s 200 0s 201 0s GIS & Data Services03/15 As required by SECTION 1. Chapter 2051, SUBCHAPTER D. GEOSPATIAL DATA PRODUCTS of the Government Code, the City of Lubbock hereby provides notice that the data on this map was created by the C ity of Lubbock. Any data that appears to represent property bounda ries is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries. INTRODUCTION In late 2014, increased annexation activity in the City of Lubbock brought to light the necessity for a com- prehensive report on the real and perceived effects of annexation. The Lubbock City Council organized an Annexation and Growth Advisory Committee to examine the City of Lubbock’s annexation policies and prac- tices. As cities grow, the demand for basic governmental services increases (see Appendix A). In response to growth, municipalities often expand and annex (absorb) adjacent territory to regulate development and increase tax revenue. Annexation can be a complex process involving competing land use issues by a variety of parties. Some of the most common issues that arise during the annexation process are: - Whether there is jurisdiction or authority to annex the territory; - Whether the statutory procedure has been followed; - The existence and location of extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ); - Providing governmental services through a service plan for the annexed areas; and, - The imposition of taxes and other fees on the annexed property. These issues were discussed by the Committee and this report is a summary of the Committee’s discussion on how the City of Lubbock’s annexation practices have dealt with these issues in the past, how they are be- ing addressed now, and how they are going to be confronted in the future. This report provides the Commit- tee’s proposed changes to the City of Lubbock’s annexation practices in order to help establish a set of an- nexation policies and procedures that will guide the City of Lubbock’s annexation activity for years to come. 1LubbockCity of 114TH ST 130TH STFM 1585 82ND ST 66TH ST 50TH ST 34TH ST 19TH STSH 114 4TH STFM 2255 ERSKINE ST URSULINE ST KENT ST FM 1294 FM 1730SLIDE RDQUAKER AVEINDIANA AVEUNIVERSITY AVEAVE QAVE AMLK BLVDGUAVA AVEFRANKFORD AVEMILWAUKEE AVEUPLAND AVEINLER AVEALCOVE AVEUS 84 LOOP 289FM 179LOOP 289LOOP 289 US 84 FM 2641 US 62/82US 62/82 SH 11498TH ST ± 0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles City of LubbockAnnexation History by Decade Annexation by Decade 190 0s 192 0s 193 0s 194 0s 195 0s 197 0s 198 0s 199 0s 200 0s 201 0s GIS & Data Services03/15 As required by SECTION 1. Chapter 2051, SUBCHAPTER D. GEOSPATIAL DATA PRODUCTS of the Government Code, the City of Lubbock hereby provides notice that the data on this map was created by the City of Lubbock. Any data that appears to represent property boundaries is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries. MUNICIPAL ANNEXATION IN TEXAS1 Annexation Overview Texas cities are some of the fastest growing in the United States. The broad power of Texas home-rule cities to annex has permitted cities in Texas to share the benefits of growth in the surrounding areas. According to many national authorities, this annexation power is the primary difference between the flourishing cities of Texas and the declining urban areas in other parts of the nation. The importance of annexation authority in Texas is reinforced by a review of the most basic elements of municipal finance and intergovernmental relations: LubbockCity of (a) Cities (city taxpayers) pay for a wide array of ser- vices and facilities that benefit entire regions and the entire state. Cities are centers of employment, transportation, health care, entertainment and merchandising used by non-city residents through- out the region. This means that cities must support public safety services and a physical infrastructure sufficient to serve a daily influx of visitors from throughout the metropolitan region. (b) In Texas, there is very little state aid to munici- palities as compared to other states. Texas, how- ever, has allowed cities to annex. Cities have used that annexation authority to bring adjacent areas into the city and into the system through which cities finance the services and facilities that benefit the region and state. (c) To erode or eliminate municipal annexation au- thority without considering the issues of municipal revenue and intergovernmental relations would cripple cities and city taxpayers. If annexation au- thority were to be eliminated, Texas would become the only state in the nation that denies both state financial assistance and annexation authority to its cities. (d) Annexation is often seen as a method by which land uses in the city are protected from adjoining inconsistent land uses and development patterns in the extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ). On the date of annexation, those inconsistent land uses and developments may be “grandfathered” for a period of time, but future development must conform to municipal land use regulations and comprehensive plans, thus preventing the expansion of repugnant or inappropriate land uses. (e) Annexation of territory expands the munici- pal tax base. This is often seen as desirable since it is not unusual that many residents in a city’s ETJ receive similar services as do those in the city limits-and often without paying for those services. Consequently, municipal property taxpayers subsi- dize services and infrastructure that benefit those residents just across the city limits line. 2 This Report borrows heavily from the following sources: “Annexation and Disannexation” – Presented by: Nichols, Jackson, Dillard, Hagar & Smith, LLP at the Land Use Law Conference; “Texas Annexation Battles – A Few Practical Les- sons Learned the Hard Way” – Presented by: Jerry Drake, Jr. at the 21st Annual Suing and Defending Governmental Entities Course, July 16-17, 2009; “Annexation and the ETJ: Expanding and Defending Municipal Annexations” – Presented by: Terrence Welch at the 2011 Land Use Planning Conference, March 31, 2011; “Municipal Annexation in Texas – Is It Really That Complicated?” – By: Scott Huston, March 2012; and, “Annexation in Texas” – By: Brown & Hofmeister, LLP for the North Central Texas Council of Governments. All of these papers are available on the Texas Municipal League’s website located at www.tml.org. 1 The ability to annex is a powerful development tool made available to Texas cities. When yielded correctly, a city can forge for itself orderly development and increased tax revenue. Former Annexation Legislation Texas has never been a stranger to the annexation process, as on July 4, 1845, a constitutional convention of popularly elected Texas delegates assembled in Austin and passed an ordinance to accept annexation into the United States. The Republic of Texas may have ceased to exist, but annexation controversies were not destined to disappear from the Lone Star landscape at any time in the immediate future. In August 1912, the voters of Texas passed the home-rule amendment to the Texas Constitution. This amendment gave cities with populations in excess of 5,000 the ability to adopt a home-rule charter granting them the full power of self-government, including the authority to unilaterally annex property. As originally established, a home-rule city was able to annex land contiguous to its own city limits whenever city officials deemed such an annexation was war- ranted, without state interference or supervision and without the inhabitants’ approval. Cities were prohibited from annexing other cities, and when the inevitable territorial disputes arose, cities negotiated agreements between them- selves or initiated litigation to resolve their differences. 3LubbockCity of 114TH ST 130TH STFM 1585 82ND ST 66TH ST 50TH ST 34TH ST 19TH STSH 114 4TH STFM 2255 ERSKINE ST URSULINE ST KENT STFM 1294 FM 1730SLIDE RDQUAKER AVEINDIANA AVEUNIVERSITY AVEAVE QAVE AMLK BLVDGUAVA AVEFRANKFORD AVEMILWAUKEE AVEUPLAND AVEINLER AVEALCOVE AVEUS 84 LOOP 289FM 179LOOP 289LOOP 289 US 84 FM 2641 US 62/82US 62/82 SH 11498TH ST ± 0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles City of LubbockAnnexation History by Decade Annexation by Decade 190 0s 192 0s 193 0s 194 0s 195 0s 197 0s 198 0s 199 0s 200 0s 201 0s GIS & Data Services03/15 As required by SECTION 1. Chapter 2051, SUBCHAPTER D. GEOSPATIAL DATA PRODUCTS of the Government Code, the City of Lubbock hereby provides notice that the data on this map was created by the C ity of Lubbock. Any data that appears to represent property bounda ries is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries. MUNICIPAL ANNEXATION IN TEXAS Municipal Annexation Act In 1963, the Texas legislature enacted the Municipal An- nexation Act (“Act” – now codified in Chapter 43 of the Texas Local Government Code) which limited Texas cit- ies’ powers over surrounding unincorporated areas. Prior to the adoption of the Act, a municipality could annex territory up to the city limits of another municipality. The Courts followed the “first in time – first in right” rule that the first to commence annexation or incorporation pro- ceedings was entitled to complete the proceedings and relate the entire action back to the date of commence - ment. As a result, annexation contests occurred between municipalities. As a part of a solution to municipal an- nexation competitions, the Act created the concept of extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ). ETJ is an imaginary area not a part of any other city or its ETJ, which is contiguous to the corporate limits of any city. A city’s ETJ extends a distance ranging from one-half (½) mile to five (5) miles from the city limit boundary, based on the city’s popu- lation. For example, the City of Lubbock’s ETJ extends five miles out from its city limits and sometimes abuts or encompasses the smaller ETJs of surrounding cities (See Appendix B). A city may only annex territory within its ETJ. Any attempt to annex territory within the ETJ of another city without that city’s consent is void. Although the creation of the ETJ was intended to eliminate dis- putes because of the statutory formula to determine ETJ, municipalities continue to litigate: (1) whose ETJ is it; (2) whether a city relinquished its ETJ by agreement or by prior action; and, (3) whether a City failed to timely bring an action to challenge the annexation or whether the annexation has been validated by the legislature. In the absence of apportionment under Texas law, cities are faced with the “first in time - first in right” rule to annex territory in overlapping ETJ. The first city to initiate an- nexation process acquires jurisdiction to the exclusion of all others. The “first in time” rule also applies when more than one city has statutory authority to annex the same territory. The Texas Supreme Court requires a court challenge be brought within two (2) years after the adoption of the annexation ordinance, or consent by the municipality is presumed. Thus successful invasion into and annexation of another municipality’s ETJ can result even though by statute a municipality may not annex territory within the ETJ of another municipality if timely suit is not brought. In the 1980s, the legislature prohibited strip annexa- tions of less than 1,000 feet (the previous standard was 500 feet) and required that the construction of capital improvements necessary for providing services to newly annexed areas begin within 2 ½ years and that it also be substantially complete within 4 ½ years. The legislature also required that cities provide full municipal services to annexed areas within 4 ½ years – the term “full mu- nicipal services” was defined to include “services provid- ed by the annexing municipality within its full-purpose boundaries.” Municipal annexation is a process by which a municipality expands its boundaries into adjacent areas not already incorporated into the municipality. This has been a common response of cities to urbanization in neighboring areas. It may be done because the neighboring urban areas seek municipal services or because a city seeks control over its suburbs or neighboring unincorporated areas. Current Annexation Requirements: Restructuring the Act The 1999 legislative session culminated in a complex, often difficult to understand reconstruction of the Texas Mu- nicipal Annexation Act and Chapter 43 of the Texas Local Government Code with the passing of S.B. 89. Under the Bill, there are two basic annexation procedural schemes, each of which is based either on the inclusion or exclusion of an area in a city’s annexation plan: - Annexation of area that is exempt from the annexation plan requirement; and - Annexation after December 31, 2002 of area included in an annexation plan. City officials initially must determine whether an area they wish to annex falls under one of the exemptions from the annexation plan requirement. If an area is exempt, the city must follow the procedures set forth in the Code’s Chapter 43, Subchapter C-I, “Annexation Procedure for Areas Exempted from Municipal Annexation Plan.” These procedures are virtually identical to those that previously existed, with the exception that certain notice requirements are more stringent. If an area is not exempt, the city must place it in an annexation plan and wait three years to annex the area under the procedures established by Chapter 43, Subchapter C, “Annexation Procedure for Areas Annexed Under Municipal Annexation Plan.” 4LubbockCity of 114TH ST 130TH STFM 1585 82ND ST 66TH ST 50TH ST 34TH ST 19TH STSH 114 4TH STFM 2255 ERSKINE ST URSULINE ST KENT STFM 1294 FM 1730SLIDE RDQUAKER AVEINDIANA AVEUNIVERSITY AVEAVE QAVE AMLK BLVDGUAVA AVEFRANKFORD AVEMILWAUKEE AVEUPLAND AVEINLER AVEALCOVE AVEUS 84 LOOP 289FM 179LOOP 289LOOP 289 US 84 FM 2641 US 62/82US 62/82 SH 11498TH ST ± 0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles City of LubbockAnnexation History by Decade Annexation by Decade 190 0s 192 0s 193 0s 194 0s 195 0s 197 0s 198 0s 199 0s 200 0s 201 0s GIS & Data Services03/15 As required by SECTION 1. Chapter 2051, SUBCHAPTER D. GEOSPATIAL DATA PRODUCTS of the Government Code, the City of Lubbock hereby provides notice that the data on this map was created by the C ity of Lubbock. Any data that appears to represent property bounda ries is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries. MUNICIPAL ANNEXATION IN TEXAS Annexation Plan The plan must identify annexations that will occur beginning three years after the date the plan is adopted. However, certain types of areas are exempt from the plan requirement. For example, if an area “contains fewer than 100 separate tracts of land on which one or more residential dwellings are located on each tract,” the area is not required to be placed in an annexation plan. Also, if the land is annexed by petition of area land- owners or voters, the area is not required to be in a plan. While Chapter 43 of the Texas Local Government Code allows residents of general law municipalities to petition or hold an election to re- quest to be annexed, the Code does not provide for any such procedure for home rule municipalities. Thus, many cities will have a one-page plan stating that they do not intend to annex any area for which an annexation plan is required (See Appendix C). If land is required to be in a plan, nothing prohibits a city from amending the plan to include new areas, but the city may not annex such areas until three years have passed from the time the area was included in the plan. If an area is removed from the plan within 18 months of being placed in the plan, the area cannot be placed back in the plan for one year. Similarly, if an area is removed from the plan after 18 months of being placed in the plan, the area cannot be placed back in the plan for two years. If an area remains in the plan, its annexation must be completed 31 days after the three-year holding period, or the city must wait five more years to annex the area. In addition, before the 90th day after the city adopts or amends an annexation plan, the city is required to give written notice to: - Each property owner in the affected area, as indicated by the appraisal records furnished by the appraisal district for each county in which the affected area is located; - Each public entity, or private entity that provides services in the area proposed for annexation; and - Each railroad company that serves the municipality and is on the city’s tax roll if the company’s right-of-way is in the area proposed for annexation. Service Plan The Bill required that every city in Texas adopt an annexation service plan. A service plan provides the timeline a city will pursue to provide the extension of services to the territory to be annexed. The plan must include a program under which the municipality will provide full municipal services to the annexed territory no later than four and Annexation Process To begin the annexation process, a city council must direct its planning department or other appropriate city department to prepare a service plan that provides for the specific munici- pal services that will be provided to the area to be annexed. Before a city may institute annexation proceed- ings, the city council must give notice of, and conduct, two public hearings at which persons interested in the annexation are given an opportunity to be heard. The city council must call the first public hearing on the pro- posed annexation and cause a copy of the notice of the hearing to be published. The notice of each hearing must be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and the area proposed for annexation at least once on or after the 20th day but before the 10th day before the date of each hearing. The newspaper should execute a notarized affidavit stating that the hearing notice was published. The city also must give written notice to any school district in the area at this time. This procedure is 5LubbockCity of 114TH ST 130TH STFM 1585 82ND ST 66TH ST 50TH ST 34TH ST 19TH STSH 114 4TH STFM 2255 ERSKINE ST URSULINE ST KENT STFM 1294 FM 1730SLIDE RDQUAKER AVEINDIANA AVEUNIVERSITY AVEAVE QAVE AMLK BLVDGUAVA AVEFRANKFORD AVEMILWAUKEE AVEUPLAND AVEINLER AVEALCOVE AVEUS 84 LOOP 289FM 179LOOP 289LOOP 289 US 84 FM 2641 US 62/82US 62/82 SH 11498TH ST ± 0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles City of LubbockAnnexation History by Decade Annexation by Decade 190 0s 192 0s 193 0s 194 0s 195 0s 197 0s 198 0s 199 0s 200 0s 201 0s GIS & Data Services03/15 As required by SECTION 1. Chapter 2051, SUBCHAPTER D. GEOSPATIAL DATA PRODUCTS of the Government Code, the City of Lubbock hereby provides notice that the data on this map was created by the C ity of Lubbock. Any data that appears to represent property bounda ries is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries. MUNICIPAL ANNEXATION IN TEXAS one-half (4 ½) years after the effective date of the annexation. The plan must also include a program for the city to commence construction within two and one-half (2 ½) years and complete construction of any capital improve- ments necessary for providing municipal services adequate to serve the area within four and one-half (4 ½) years after the annexation. The capital improvements, however, are not required to be completed within four and one-half (4 ½) years for the development projects in the annexed territory if the annexation was initiated by petition or request of the landowners who have so agreed. At a minimum, the plan must provide police protection, fire protection, solid waste collection, water maintenance, wastewater facilities, roads, parks, and other publicly owned facilities within the annexed territory within sixty (60) days after the effective date of the ordinance. The service plan is a contractual obli- gation of the municipality but may be amended through negotiation at a public hearing except services may not be deleted from the plan. The plan may also be amended or repealed after its adoption if the governing body determines upon public hearings that changed conditions or subsequent occurrences make the plan unworkable or obsolete. The amended plan must provide comparable or better services than originally adopted. The plan is valid for ten (10) years and may be renewed at the discretion of the City. The service plan may be enforced by a resident by applying for a writ of mandamus which, if granted, requires the City to pay the applicant’s attorney fees and costs; and must provide the municipality with the option of disannexing the area within thirty (30) days. The only remedy for failure to provide services, however, is disannexation. repeated for the second hearing. All persons attending the hearings must be given an opportunity to express their views regarding the proposed annexation and the service plan. The hearings must be con- ducted on or after the 40th day and before the 20th day before the date of the institution of the proceedings. The date of the “institution of pro- ceedings” is the date the annexation ordinance is introduced on first read- ing. If a city requires only one reading, the proceedings are instituted and completed at the same time. In addi- tion, the annexation of an area must be completed within 90 days after the date the city council institutes the an- nexation proceedings or the proceed- ings are void. If the annexation is exempt by virtue of the “100-tracts” exemption, written notice must be sent before the 30th day before the date of the first hear- ing to each property owner in the area to be annexed, and each public entity, or private entity that provides services in the area. All annexations require written notice to each rail- road company with right-of-way on the area proposed for annexation. In addition, the city must post notice of the hearings on the city’s website, if the city has a website. If a written protest is filed by more than ten percent (10%) of the adult residents of the area proposed for an- nexation within 10 days after publica- tion of the notice, at least one of the public hearings must be held in the area proposed for annexation if a suit- able site is reasonably available. Finally, the city council, acting at a meeting that is separate from the two required hearings, adopts an ordinance annexing the tract and approving the service plan for the tract. When the annexation ordinance is passed, a copy of the service plan is attached to the ordinance, and the plan becomes a contractual obliga- tion of the city. 114TH ST 130TH STFM 1585 82ND ST 66TH ST 50TH ST34TH ST19TH STSH 114 4TH STFM 2255 ERSKINE ST URSULINE STKENT STFM 1294 FM 1730SLIDE RDQUAKER AVEINDIANA AVEUNIVERSITY AVEAVE QAVE AMLK BLVDGUAVA AVEFRANKFORD AVEMILWAUKEE AVEUPLAND AVEINLER AVEALCOVE AVEUS 84 LOOP 289FM 179LOOP 289LOOP 289US 84 FM 2641US 62/82US 62/82 SH 11498TH ST ± 0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles City of LubbockAnnexation History by Decade Annexation by Decade1900s1920s1930s1940s1950s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s GIS & Data Services03/15 As required by SECTION 1. Chapter 2051, SUBCH APTER D. GEOSPATIAL DATA PRODUCTS of the Government Code, the City of Lubbock hereby provides notice that the data on this map was created by the City of Lubbock. Any data that appears to represent property boundaries is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries. ISSUES IMPACTING ANNEXATION 6LubbockCity of Although the annexation process has been carefully outlined within Texas statutes, there are many areas in which the act of annexation may create some confusion for city leaders and residents. A few of the more common issues that are associated with annexation projects are listed below. Ordinances and Taxes When a municipality extends its boundaries, the new territory immediately becomes subject to municipal ju- risdiction and all ordinances are applicable to the newly annexed property. When land is annexed, the public streets and alleys in the annexed property become the public streets and alleys of the annexing municipality. The new inhabitants are subject to the same taxation burden, including obligations of bonds approved before annexation; and entitled to the same privileges, protec- tion and advantages already provided within the an- nexing municipality. A municipality, however, may not impose property taxes on property annexed by munici- pality after January 1 unless the annexed territory was located in another municipality of like kind on January 1, in which case each municipality imposes property tax on the property located within its boundaries on the date the appraisal review board for the appraisal district ap- proves the appraisal roll. Thus, although the inhabitants and landowners are subject to taxation for all munici- pal indebtedness existing at the time of annexation, property taxation may not be imposed until January 1 immediately following such annexation, unless such territory was located in another municipality of like kind. If property is annexed into a city’s corporate limits after January 1, that property cannot be taxed for that year. Voting Rights Until a recent decision in Shelby County v. Holder (2013 WL 3184629), annexation of inhabited land by a munici- pality constituted a change in voting practices or proce- dures and required pre-clearance of the Attorney Gen- eral of the United States under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Even the annexation of vacant land had to be pre-cleared before the new residents could vote in the territory annexed. However, the decision in Shelby County negated this requirement for pre-clearance. Zoning Municipalities do not have zoning authority outside of their territorial limits or within their ETJ. Control or regulation of the development within the area to be annexed, however, is important not only to the municipality, but also the land- owners and residents. As a result, landowners will often negotiate with municipalities regarding zoning concur- rently within the annexation process. Most comprehensive zoning ordinances provide for a zoning classification or temporary zoning classification for property annexed into the municipality. Since the Zoning Enabling Act does not permit municipalities to zone property within their ETJ or outside City limits or to do so concurrently with annexa- tion proceedings, most comprehensive zoning ordinances pre-classify such territory by applying a particular zoning classification or temporary zoning classification to annexed property. Nonconforming Uses Notwithstanding the zoning regulations and other ordi- nances of the annexing municipality, the annexation of a territory may result in nonconforming uses and structures. Depending on the regulations of the annexing municipal- ity, nonconforming structures and nonconforming uses will be allowed to continue until such uses or structures are abandoned, destroyed, or terminated by appropri- ate regulation. Nonconforming uses and structures are protected subsequent to annexation and may continue to exist thereafter until abandonment. The municipality’s zoning regulations may legally restrict the right of the landowner to extend or enlarge a nonconforming use or structure. Determination of whether a nonconforming use or nonconforming structure prior to annexation entitles a landowner to a vested right to use the entire property for a nonconforming use or to occupy a nonconforming structure following annexation is dependent on the facts of each case and the applicable zoning regulations. Subdivision Regulation A municipality may extend subdivision regulations to its ETJ and enforce such ordinances. Municipal subdivision regulations are not automatically extended to the ETJ, and so they must be extended by ordinance. A viola- tion of such ordinance outside the corporate limits of the municipality within the ETJ does not constitute a criminal violation but the municipality has the right to institute an action in the district court to enjoin the vio- lation of any provision of such ordinance within the ETJ. In addition, a plat for an area in a municipality’s ETJ must be approved by both the municipality and the county - with the more stringent regulations controlling. Incentive Agreements In lieu of a tax abatement or similar agreement between a municipality and potential businesses looking to open or relocate within the municipality’s ETJ, the municipal- ity or landowners may agree not to annex territory. A City may enter into an agreement not to annex business property in a designated industrial district for a period up to fifteen (15) years. The City receives the benefit of having business located near the City with the resulting employment while the business is not burdened by ad valorem taxation. The contract may be renewed or ex- tended for successive periods not to exceed fifteen years each. If any owner of land in the designated district is offered an opportunity to renew or extend the contract, then all other owners of land within the area must be offered the same opportunity. The City is permitted to provide fire-fighting services to areas within the indus- trial district that is subject to the agreement. The statute also provides other protection to the City and to the business during the period in which the property may not be annexed, in that a political subdivision may not be created within the industrial district unless the City gives written consent by ordinance or resolution. 7LubbockCity of 114TH ST 130TH STFM 1585 82ND ST 66TH ST 50TH ST 34TH ST 19TH STSH 114 4TH STFM 2255 ERSKINE ST URSULINE ST KENT STFM 1294 FM 1730SLIDE RDQUAKER AVEINDIANA AVEUNIVERSITY AVEAVE QAVE AMLK BLVDGUAVA AVEFRANKFORD AVEMILWAUKEE AVEUPLAND AVEINLER AVEALCOVE AVEUS 84 LOOP 289FM 179LOOP 289LOOP 289 US 84 FM 2641 US 62/82US 62/82 SH 11498TH ST ± 0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles City of LubbockAnnexation History by Decade Annexation by Decade 190 0s 192 0s 193 0s 194 0s 195 0s 197 0s 198 0s 199 0s 200 0s 201 0s GIS & Data Services03/15 As required by SECTION 1. Chapter 2051, SUBCHAPTER D. GEOSPATIAL DATA PRODUCTS of the Government Code, the City of Lubbock hereby provides notice that the data on this map was created by the C ity of Lubbock. Any data that appears to represent property bounda ries is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries. ISSUES IMPACTING ANNEXATION 114TH ST 130TH STFM 1585 82ND ST 66TH ST 50TH ST 34TH ST 19TH STSH 114 4TH STFM 2255 ERSKINE ST URSULINE STKENT STFM 1294 FM 1730SLIDE RDQUAKER AVEINDIANA AVEUNIVERSITY AVEAVE QAVE AMLK BLVDGUAVA AVEFRANKFORD AVEMILWAUKEE AVEUPLAND AVEINLER AVEALCOVE AVEUS 84 LOOP 289FM 179LOOP 289LOOP 289US 84 FM 2641 US 62/82US 62/82 SH 11498TH ST ± 0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles City of LubbockAnnexation History by Decade Annexation by Decade 1900s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s GIS & Data Services03/15 As required by SECTION 1. Chapter 2051, SUBCH APTER D. GEOSPATIAL DATA PRODUCTS of the Government Code, the City of Lubbock hereby provides notice that the data on this map was created by the City of Lubbock. Any data that appears to represent property boundaries is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries. ANNEXATION IN LUBBOCK 8LubbockCity of Lubbock’s Annexation History From the time of its incorporation in 1909, the City of Lubbock has actively utilized its annexation power. By the 1940s, the City had annexed enough land to more than double its original land area. In the ‘50s, Lubbock’s population grew from around 70,000 to almost 125,000. The City’s annexation activity during the same decade was also significant, due in large part to the anticipated construction of Loop 289. By 1959, the City’s boundar- 114TH ST 130TH STFM 1585 82ND ST 66TH ST 50TH ST 34TH ST 19TH STSH 114 4TH STFM 2255 ERSKINE ST URSULINE ST KENT ST FM 1294 FM 1730SLIDE RDQUAKER AVEINDIANA AVEUNIVERSITY AVEAVE QAVE AMLK BLVDGUAVA AVEFRANKFORD AVEMILWAUKEE AVEUPLAND AVEINLER AVEALCOVE AVEUS 84 LOOP 289FM 179LOOP 289LOOP 289 US 84 FM 2641 US 62/82US 62/82 SH 11498TH ST ± 0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles City of LubbockAnnexation History by Decade Annexation by Decade 1900s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s GIS & Data Services03/15 As required by SECTION 1. Chapter 2051, SUBCHAPTER D. GEOSPATIAL DATA PRODUCTS of the Government Code, the City of Lubbock hereby provides notice that the data on this map was created by the City of Lubbock.Any data that appears to represent property boundaries is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries. ies had been expanded to include nearly four times the amount of land than what was present at the start of the decade. Annexation after the ‘50s has not been as aggressive in Lubbock. Most annexation initiatives have been focused on incorporating land in southwest Lub- bock for residential and commercial development. Previous Annexation Practices Lubbock’s aggressive annexation initiatives in the ‘50s were partly rooted in the City’s desire to provide orderly development as it was experiencing significant popula- tion growth. Four major annexations in the late 1950s were motivated by the final determination by Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) of the location for the proposed Loop 289. The objective, at that time, was to establish City oversight (City construction and development codes) roughly one mile outside of the future loop. Lubbock’s existing grid-like street layout is due, in part, to the forethought of planners in the ‘50s who, in their annexation plans, considered the most ef- fective way in which City services could be provided to City residents. Additionally, in the 1990s and 2000s, the availability of undeveloped land immediately surround- ing the City of Lubbock has allowed for several success- ful annexations as developers have expanded Lubbock’s housing and retail options into the south and west parts of the City. Recent Annexation Activity The vast majority of the City of Lubbock’s annexation projects since the 1980s have been focused on the un- developed land adjacent to the city limits in the south- west quadrant of the City. Undeveloped land to the west and southwest of Lubbock has been annexed to provide retail and residential services for Lubbock’s growing population. Of the most recent annexation initiatives, nearly all have concerned land in the southwest quarter of the City. Current Annexation Practices All of The City of Lubbock’s recent annexation initiatives are subject to the City’s existing annexation policies which are as follows: 1. Lubbock shall exercise protective annexation mea- sures to preclude strips and pockets of urban blight adjacent to the city. Such annexation will avoid enclo- sure of unincorporated pockets. 2. Extension of municipal facilities outside the city shall be prohibited except in emergencies or when annexa- tion can be completed within 90 days. 9LubbockCity of 114TH ST 130TH STFM 1585 82ND ST 66TH ST 50TH ST 34TH ST 19TH STSH 114 4TH STFM 2255 ERSKINE ST URSULINE STKENT STFM 1294 FM 1730SLIDE RDQUAKER AVEINDIANA AVEUNIVERSITY AVEAVE QAVE AMLK BLVDGUAVA AVEFRANKFORD AVEMILWAUKEE AVEUPLAND AVEINLER AVEALCOVE AVEUS 84 LOOP 289FM 179LOOP 289LOOP 289US 84 FM 2641 US 62/82US 62/82 SH 11498TH ST ± 0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles City of LubbockAnnexation History by Decade Annexation by Decade 1900s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s GIS & Data Services03/15 As required by SECTION 1. Chapter 2051, SUBCH APTER D. GEOSPATIAL DATA PRODUCTS of the Government Code, the City of Lubbock hereby provides notice that the data on this map was created by the City of Lubbock. Any data that appears to represent property boundaries is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries. ANNEXATION IN LUBBOCK 3. Developers and/or landowners that are requesting annexation must bear the major costs of public service facilities when existing land within the corporate limits can support anticipated growth for a 10-15 year period. 4. Location and amounts of land to be annexed must provide maximum efficiencies of municipal services such as police, fire protection, water, sewer, street maintenance, and solid waste collections. Dispropor- tionate costs to tax revenues shall be discouraged. 5. Prior to public hearings on annexation, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall forward an opinion to the City Council, in the form of an Annexation Survey, stating the impact of the annexation on long range growth patterns and rate of growth. However, there are other factors underlying Lubbock’s recent annexation activity, most of which have dealt with small tracts of land in the southwest quarter of the City’s ETJ. Lubbock’s current annexation activity seems to be in response to the growing number of residents in the southwest portion of the City. Additionally, most recent annexations have been relatively small tracts of land in comparison to the large tracts annexed through the ‘90s. The committee drafting this report was called to exam- ine the underlying issues driving the City’s recent an- nexation initiatives and identify annexation policy and practice areas that can be corrected or promoted as the City of Lubbock moves forward. Lubbock’s practice of annexing small tracts of land in response to population growth, are two areas that this committee addresses in its future annexation policy. 10LubbockCity of Anticipated Annexation Initiatives Rather than break the city down into indiscriminate quadrants, the committee has identified specific areas to recommend for annexation based on the conditions of each (see attached map). Of these areas, the committee recommends a multiple step process beginning with a city-driven, or involuntary, annexation of much of the recommended area. The second step, for some areas, would be an Annexation Plan in order to facilitate the growing areas of the community and maintain a more uniform city limit boundary. 114TH ST 130TH STFM 1585 82ND ST 66TH ST 50TH ST 34TH ST 19TH STSH 114 4TH STFM 2255 ERSKINE ST URSULINE STKENT STFM 1294 FM 1730SLIDE RDQUAKER AVEINDIANA AVEUNIVERSITY AVEAVE QAVE AMLK BLVDGUAVA AVEFRANKFORD AVEMILWAUKEE AVEUPLAND AVEINLER AVEALCOVE AVEUS 84 LOOP 289FM 179LOOP 289LOOP 289US 84 FM 2641 US 62/82US 62/82 SH 11498TH ST ± 0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles City of LubbockAnnexation History by Decade Annexation by Decade 1900s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s GIS & Data Services03/15 As required by SECTION 1. Chapter 2051, SUBCHAPTER D. GEOSPATIAL DATA PRODUCTS of the Government Code, the City of Lubbo ck hereby provides notice that the data on this map was created by the City of Lubbock. Any data that appears to represent property boundaries is for in formational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries. ANNEXATION IN LUBBOCK In order to maintain a positive development environment, any annexation along a thoroughfare or expressway should include a buffer area on the opposing side of the street. This will allow for the City Code of Ordinances to be equally enforced along both sides of the street. 11LubbockCity of Area A: This area is east of Highway 87 and south of 82nd Street. The recommendation for annexation in this area is simply to stay ahead of current development trends. The area is not a rapid growth area but it has seen a notable interest for industrial development. The interest in the area has outgrown the current city limits, although the development itself is consistent with the type of development adjacent inside the city limits. Even though there may be resistance from existing owners or developers, this annexation would help to promote development along the proposed future Interstate 27 corridor heading south. Area B: This area is southeast of the current city limits, east of University Avenue to Highway 87, and south to 146th Street. This densely developed area should be considered under an Annexation Plan in order to protect the Highway 87 (proposed I-27 Extension) corridor. This area will continue to be a major entrance corridor for the City of Lubbock and annexation of the area would pro- actively ensure an acceptable standard of development through annexation, zoning, and building permitting. 114TH ST 130TH STFM 1585 82ND ST 66TH ST 50TH ST 34TH ST 19TH STSH 114 4TH STFM 2255 ERSKINE ST URSULINE STKENT STFM 1294 FM 1730SLIDE RDQUAKER AVEINDIANA AVEUNIVERSITY AVEAVE QAVE AMLK BLVDGUAVA AVEFRANKFORD AVEMILWAUKEE AVEUPLAND AVEINLER AVEALCOVE AVEUS 84 LOOP 289FM 179LOOP 289LOOP 289US 84 FM 2641 US 62/82US 62/82 SH 11498TH ST ± 0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles City of LubbockAnnexation History by Decade Annexation by Decade 1900s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s GIS & Data Services03/15 As required by SECTION 1. Chapter 2051, SUBCHAPTER D. GEOSPATIAL DATA PRODUCTS of the Government Code, the City of Lubbo ck hereby provides notice that the data on this map was created by the City of Lubbock. Any data that appears to represent property boundaries is for in formational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries. ANNEXATION IN LUBBOCK 12LubbockCity of Area C: This area is south of the current city limits be- tween University Avenue and Milwaukee Avenue, up to 146th Street (CR 7500). It is recommended that this area be a priority for annexation and should be annexed by involuntary annexation where possible. This area con- tains multiple neighborhoods that would not be eligible through an involuntary annexation due to certain re- quirements of the state statute. It is recommended that these neighborhoods be considered with an Annexa- tion Plan in order to maintain uniformity of the city limit boundaries. Area D: This area is south of 130th Street and west of Milwaukee Avenue to Alcove Avenue. This area is recom- mended to be an involuntary annexation where appli- cable. This undeveloped area abuts one largely devel- oped neighborhood east of Milwaukee. If a buffer area is needed around this thoroughfare, which may include a portion of the neighborhood, then this area may be required to be included in an Annexation Plan. 114TH ST 130TH STFM 1585 82ND ST 66TH ST 50TH ST 34TH ST 19TH STSH 114 4TH STFM 2255 ERSKINE ST URSULINE STKENT STFM 1294 FM 1730SLIDE RDQUAKER AVEINDIANA AVEUNIVERSITY AVEAVE QAVE AMLK BLVDGUAVA AVEFRANKFORD AVEMILWAUKEE AVEUPLAND AVEINLER AVEALCOVE AVEUS 84 LOOP 289FM 179LOOP 289LOOP 289US 84 FM 2641 US 62/82US 62/82 SH 11498TH ST ± 0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles City of LubbockAnnexation History by Decade Annexation by Decade 1900s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s GIS & Data Services03/15 As required by SECTION 1. Chapter 2051, SUBCHAPTER D. GEOSPATIAL DATA PRODUCTS of the Government Code, the City of Lubbo ck hereby provides notice that the data on this map was created by the City of Lubbock. Any data that appears to represent property boundaries is for in formational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries. ANNEXATION IN LUBBOCK 13LubbockCity of Area E: This area is between 34th Street and Marsha Sharp Freeway, Upland Avenue and Alcove Avenue. This area is recommended to be annexed by involuntary an- nexation where applicable. Area F: This area is generally located in the northwest side of town, which is north of 4th Street and west of Frankford Avenue. This area has multiple smaller subdivi- sions existing and would be complicated for any large scale annexation. In general, this area should be consid- ered for petition annexations until a time when the pace of growth and interest increases in the area. At that time, an Annexation Plan may be the most viable option for annexation in the area. 114TH ST 130TH STFM 1585 82ND ST 66TH ST 50TH ST 34TH ST 19TH STSH 114 4TH STFM 2255 ERSKINE ST URSULINE STKENT STFM 1294 FM 1730SLIDE RDQUAKER AVEINDIANA AVEUNIVERSITY AVEAVE QAVE AMLK BLVDGUAVA AVEFRANKFORD AVEMILWAUKEE AVEUPLAND AVEINLER AVEALCOVE AVEUS 84 LOOP 289FM 179LOOP 289LOOP 289US 84 FM 2641 US 62/82US 62/82 SH 11498TH ST ± 0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles City of LubbockAnnexation History by Decade Annexation by Decade 1900s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s GIS & Data Services03/15 As required by SECTION 1. Chapter 2051, SUBCHAPTER D. GEOSPATIAL DATA PRODUCTS of the Government Code, the City of Lubbo ck hereby provides notice that the data on this map was created by the City of Lubbock. Any data that appears to represent property boundaries is for in formational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries. ANNEXATION IN LUBBOCK 14LubbockCity of Area G: This area is the In-fill area between north Indi- ana Avenue and North Slide Road extending northerly to Kent Street. This area includes several homes and businesses but may meet the requirements for an invol- untary annexation, or this may be a part of an Annexa- tion Plan. Additionally, the Northwest Water Reclamation Plant will be located within this area, and so the City should make this area a primary annexation project. Area H: This area includes the airport and the area west of Interstate 27. This area should be considered as an involuntary annexation. This will help to continue to improve the Interstate 27 corridor north of Lubbock. The airport may also be annexed under Section 43.102 of the Local Government Code, specific to a municipally owned airport. 114TH ST 130TH STFM 1585 82ND ST 66TH ST 50TH ST 34TH ST 19TH STSH 114 4TH STFM 2255 ERSKINE ST URSULINE STKENT STFM 1294 FM 1730SLIDE RDQUAKER AVEINDIANA AVEUNIVERSITY AVEAVE QAVE AMLK BLVDGUAVA AVEFRANKFORD AVEMILWAUKEE AVEUPLAND AVEINLER AVEALCOVE AVEUS 84 LOOP 289FM 179LOOP 289LOOP 289US 84 FM 2641 US 62/82US 62/82 SH 11498TH ST ± 0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles City of LubbockAnnexation History by Decade Annexation by Decade 1900s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s GIS & Data Services03/15 As required by SECTION 1. Chapter 2051, SUBCHAPTER D. GEOSPATIAL DATA PRODUCTS of the Government Code, the City of Lubbo ck hereby provides notice that the data on this map was created by the City of Lubbock. Any data that appears to represent property boundaries is for in formational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries. ANNEXATION IN LUBBOCK 114TH ST 130TH STFM 1585 82ND ST 66TH ST 50TH ST34TH ST19TH STSH 114 4TH STFM 2255 ERSKINE ST URSULINE STKENT STFM 1294 FM 1730SLIDE RDQUAKER AVEINDIANA AVEUNIVERSITY AVEAVE QAVE AMLK BLVDGUAVA AVEFRANKFORD AVEMILWAUKEE AVEUPLAND AVEINLER AVEALCOVE AVEUS 84LOOP 289FM 179LOOP 289LOOP 289US 84 FM 2641US 62/82US 62/82 SH 11498TH ST± 0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles City of LubbockAnnexation History by Decade Annexation by Decade1900s1920s1930s1940s1950s1970s1980s1990s2000s 2010s GIS & Data Services03/15 As required by SECTION 1. Chapter 2051, SUBCH APTER D. GEOSPATIAL DATA PRODUCTS of the Government Code, the City of Lubbock hereby provides notice that the data on this map was created by the City of Lubbock. Any data that appears to represent property boundaries is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries. ANTICIPATED ISSUES WITH FUTURE ANNEXATION PROJECTS 15LubbockCity of Orderly Development The City of Lubbock cannot function properly without adequate transportation, utilities, communications, waste treatment, parks, schools, fire stations, and other hard and soft services. Orderly development of land focuses on timing, location, and density of development and the overall pattern of land use. Contiguous develop- ment and compact development allows for the efficient and economical extension of services to maximize ben- efit from City expenditures. Compact development will reduce the cost per household of public services such as road maintenance, code enforcement, police and fire protection, and mail delivery. The committee has expressed the desire to keep jurisdictional boundaries as “square” and easy to follow which will help to reduce confusion in jurisdictional boundaries for police, fire, and other emergency services. Street and Existing City Facilities Maintenance The Committee strongly agreed that the Street Main- tenance Program is an important asset to the city and recommends that it be funded appropriately without incurring any additional debt. To date, paving main- tenance has been financed and the Committee urges Council to find a way to cash-fund all street mainte - nance. This recommendation was echoed with regards to future building maintenance as well. Thoroughfare Paving In 2004, the City Council authorized allocation of a por- tion of utility franchise fees to go towards the Gateway Fund. This fund was established to provide a source of construction funding for street projects designed to spur development, growth, and redevelopment within the city. To travelers in southwest Lubbock, those Gateway projects are most visible as the construction of Indiana Avenue, Quaker Avenue, Frankford Avenue, Milwaukee Avenue, and 98th Street. On the north and west, the Gateway Fund also provided for the acceleration of Marsha Sharp Freeway, the West Loop 289 expansions, the building of North Slide Road and Erskine Street, as well as Lubbock Business Park Boulevard. East Ers- kine Street just inside East Loop 289 is currently under design as a Gateway project. City staff has reported the Gateway fund is fully committed over the next 10 years. Moving forward, the City must balance costs for new thoroughfare expansion vs. rehabilitation of existing thoroughfares within the City. While new thoroughfare paving may be ultimately required in some areas of new growth, the City should weigh the benefits of construct- ing full-width 7-lane concrete thoroughfares. The City may find better long-term cost benefit by only con- structing 5- or even 3-lane sections that will serve the public’s needs for quite some time. However, the City’s standard procedure should be to dedicate or acquire 7-lane right of way for any new development. TxDOT Lubbock Outer Route Project The Texas Department of Transportation has determined a preferred location for its Lubbock Outer Route Project. FM 1585 between US 87 and US 62-82 will be the first phase of the Outer Route Project. At this time, some of that first phase area is already in the City limits and the City would have the ability to regulate land uses along the Route. Moving to the west, the public will benefit if the City can control more of the land uses along the corridor through zoning. For portions of the Route extending far to the west and then far to the northwest, it is unlikely the City will be in a position to annex along the Route in any foreseeable future because TxDOT will likely construct the road too far beyond the city limits. Water Supply and Conservation Supply - Prior City Administrations, along with city staff, have done an admirable job of securing future water resources and supplies for the City of Lubbock. The Director of Public Works along with the Director of Water Utilities provided a report to the Committee which summarized what is stated in the City of Lubbock’s 2013 Strategic Water Supply Plan. The report provided that the City of Lubbock has a strategic water supply plan that will provide the City with adequate water sup- plies for future decades. The strategic plan accounts for expected population growth and models scenarios for both conservation of water and increased consumption. Lubbock citizens have become more water conscious due to the recent drought and have done well to con- serve the current water supplies. Consequently, the need for new infrastructure required to bring additional City of Lubbock water to the Lub- bock citizens may be delayed. The Committee was told that staff does not anticipate the need for any new water supplies within the next ten years at the current population growth rate. There are planned expansions of current water supplies in the near future. This includes the expansion of the Roberts County Well Field and the Lake Alan Henry Water Supply. As Lubbock continues to grow, water consumption is anticipated to increase at a similar rate. Whether the population expands within the current city limits or in newly annexed areas, the impact to Lubbock’s water supply and distribution system will be the same. Conservation - Water conservation is a growing concern within the City of Lubbock as well as across the state. As noted above, the City has taken an active role in 16LubbockCity of 114TH ST 130TH STFM 1585 82ND ST 66TH ST 50TH ST34TH ST19TH STSH 114 4TH STFM 2255 ERSKINE ST URSULINE STKENT STFM 1294 FM 1730SLIDE RDQUAKER AVEINDIANA AVEUNIVERSITY AVEAVE QAVE AMLK BLVDGUAVA AVEFRANKFORD AVEMILWAUKEE AVEUPLAND AVEINLER AVEALCOVE AVEUS 84LOOP 289FM 179LOOP 289LOOP 289US 84 FM 2641US 62/82US 62/82 SH 11498TH ST± 0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles City of LubbockAnnexation History by Decade Annexation by Decade1900s1920s1930s1940s1950s1970s1980s1990s2000s2010s GIS & Data Services03/15 As required by SECTION 1. Chapter 2051, SUBCH APTER D. GEOSPATIAL DATA PRODUCTS of the Government Code, the City of Lubbock hereby provides notice that the data on this map was created by the City of Lubbock. Any data that appears to represent property boundaries is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries. ANTICIPATED ISSUES WITH FUTURE ANNEXATION PROJECTS securing water resources and should also take an active conservation advocatory and regulatory role to protect those water resources. Recommendations - One method to conserve water, related to growth and development, would be to pass a specific smart-scape or water wise landscaping ordi- nance. The Committee encourages City staff to continue to work with the Developers Council to determine best water conservation and landscaping practices for all new development which would effectively curtail water consumption as well as maintain viability in the mar- ketplace. It may be preferred to develop a landscape ordinance to ensure all new development is landscaped in a water-wise manner. Other regulations or ordi- nances requiring the use of “low-flow” water fixtures in new construction may well aid in ensuring water-wise development across the board. The City could encour- age the use of water wells for landscaping and possibly streamline the approval process for new irrigation wells as much as possible. While irrigation wells tap into the same overall Ogallala Aquifer that supplies our drinking water, the public saves in the long-run by not paying for the treatment and delivery of water which is not being consumed by humans. Currently, the City of Lubbock obtains none of its drinking water from any groundwa- ter source, so the local irrigation wells should not have any measurable impact to the supply fields located over 60 miles away. Fire Stations As growth has continued into undeveloped areas, fire protection has become a major concern. As new struc- tures, especially homes, are built farther away from existing fire stations the City’s Insurance Services Of- fice Fire Suppression Rating Schedule (ISO Rating) may be impacted. This rating can affect insurance rates city wide. The committee recommends that the creation of a fire station master plan is necessary for future planning. The fire station master plan should be a component of an overall updated Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Fire Department personnel visited with the Committee to offer their insight on fire suppression. The ideal response time desired by the fire department is four minutes or less, requiring the City and developers to have consis- tent communication in order to ensure that acceptable levels of fire services are maintained as development occurs in a given area. Once a new fire station is con- structed, perpetual annual operations costs, including the staff, upkeep, and equipment, should be considered. A fire service master plan could help staff predict where, and more importantly when, to construct new fire sta- tions. Police Department The City currently staffs the Police Department at an approximate level of 2 officers per every 1,115 citizens. The City Council’s stated goal is 2 per 1000. As expansion to the population occurs, personnel must be added. One officer per approximately every 200 homes would be re - quired to staff at the desired 2:1000 for newly developed areas. As the City grows in any direction either by infill or expansion, the increased population and/or geography will drive the need for more officers. Parks and Playa Lakes Other than two parks in Vintage Township, there are currently no dedicated public open spaces south of 98th Street. However, there is a process in place by which the City can take ownership of a public park around a playa lake with the onus remaining on the developer to construct the park to City standards. The developer then must rely on a positive City Council vote to accept the playa/park for ownership and maintenance after the 17LubbockCity of 114TH ST 130TH STFM 1585 82ND ST 66TH ST 50TH ST34TH ST19TH STSH 114 4TH STFM 2255 ERSKINE ST URSULINE STKENT STFM 1294 FM 1730SLIDE RDQUAKER AVEINDIANA AVEUNIVERSITY AVEAVE QAVE AMLK BLVDGUAVA AVEFRANKFORD AVEMILWAUKEE AVEUPLAND AVEINLER AVEALCOVE AVEUS 84LOOP 289FM 179LOOP 289LOOP 289US 84 FM 2641US 62/82US 62/82 SH 11498TH ST± 0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles City of LubbockAnnexation History by Decade Annexation by Decade1900s1920s1930s1940s1950s1970s1980s1990s2000s2010s GIS & Data Services03/15 As required by SECTION 1. Chapter 2051, SUBCH APTER D. GEOSPATIAL DATA PRODUCTS of the Government Code, the City of Lubbock hereby provides notice that the data on this map was created by the City of Lubbock. Any data that appears to represent property boundaries is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries. ANTICIPATED ISSUES WITH FUTURE ANNEXATION PROJECTS improvements have been constructed. Conversely, the City must have the performance measures and funding in place to ensure the park meets acceptable standards as usable open space. As growth continues beyond our current borders, the City and developers should work together to find ways to provide well-maintained and sustainable public open space, particularly around the playa lakes. School Districts The current City limits encompass primarily the Lub- bock, Lubbock Cooper, and Frenship Independent School Districts. Small pockets of the Idalou, New Deal, and Roosevelt Independent School Districts are situ- ated on the north and east side of the City. As Lubbock has continued to expand, much of the south and west areas are situated within the Lubbock Cooper and Fren- ship Independent School District boundaries. In effect, Lubbock has become a three school district city. As such, careful consideration should be given to all school districts within the area when considering growth. Fiscal Impacts The Committee examined the fiscal impact to the City of recent annexations. The committee has developed a fiscal model of what became known as the “mythical mile”. This is a theoretical square mile of development where a 20-year time frame is calculated for the ultimate build-out of the development. For this exercise, it is important to remember this could be one geographi- cal square mile or, more broadly, one equivalent square mile of growth anywhere within the city. This includes all expected land uses within the square mile. The model is dynamic and all parameters can be adjusted for any de - sired development scenario. For an in-depth synopsis of the “mythical mile” and four sample fiscal reports, refer to Appendix D. Development Incentives At the local and state level there are several tools to create incentives to steer development or redevelop- ment into a certain area within a city. It was advised that, where an incentive program is appropriate, the City Council consider a program for certain areas within the inner core of the city. Incentive options the committee discussed are as follows: Waiving of Fees for development in existing areas: If development fees are waived for some areas of the city, that shortage in revenue would need to be made up elsewhere. Furthermore, development fees do not necessarily account for an appreciable percentage of the cost of development. Therefore, waiving of develop- ment fees may not be in the best interest of the city as a whole. TIFs – A Tax Increment Finance District provides a source of revenue to be dedicated to improving an area which is being re-developed. Currently, there are a few TIFs op- erating within the City. While a TIF is a good mechanism for funneling the incremental revenue within a desig- nated district, it may not necessarily “incentivize” devel- opment in that area unless TIF monies can be advanced ahead of the development to upgrade infrastructure. The tax load on the property still increases when the new project is built. 18LubbockCity of 114TH ST 130TH STFM 1585 82ND ST 66TH ST 50TH ST34TH ST19TH STSH 114 4TH STFM 2255 ERSKINE ST URSULINE STKENT STFM 1294 FM 1730SLIDE RDQUAKER AVEINDIANA AVEUNIVERSITY AVEAVE QAVE AMLK BLVDGUAVA AVEFRANKFORD AVEMILWAUKEE AVEUPLAND AVEINLER AVEALCOVE AVEUS 84LOOP 289FM 179LOOP 289LOOP 289US 84 FM 2641US 62/82US 62/82 SH 11498TH ST± 0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles City of LubbockAnnexation History by Decade Annexation by Decade1900s1920s1930s1940s1950s1970s1980s1990s2000s2010s GIS & Data Services03/15 As required by SECTION 1. Chapter 2051, SUBCH APTER D. GEOSPATIAL DATA PRODUCTS of the Government Code, the City of Lubbock hereby provides notice that the data on this map was created by the City of Lubbock. Any data that appears to represent property boundaries is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries. ANTICIPATED ISSUES WITH FUTURE ANNEXATION PROJECTS PIDs – Public Improvement District is an option available to allow a developer to provide publicly owned ameni- ties within his development for the benefit of those property owners. PIDs have recently been opposed by residents within some developments and they do cre- ate an accounting burden for city staff. A PID may not necessarily be viewed as anything that would encourage development in a given area, but a PID remains an op- tion for a developer to pursue for amenities. Tax Abatements – The City of Lubbock is not alone in its use of tax abatements. Abatements are currently imple- mented in Waco, El Paso, Bryan, Dallas, Fort Worth and San Antonio. Other programs may also exist elsewhere in the state. Abatements would need to be studied fur- ther to determine viability within a given area. Impact Fees – Generally, an impact fee can only be as- sessed against new development to cover costs of new or expanded capital improvements directly attributable to that development or service area. For example, an impact fee could cover roadways, or major water treat- ment facilities, or other items directly attributable to a service area. A full report of impact fees, along with a list of Texas cities which have implemented some form of impact fees in response to growth, is provided in Appen- dix E. 114TH ST 130TH STFM 1585 82ND ST 66TH ST 50TH ST34TH ST19TH STSH 114 4TH STFM 2255 ERSKINE ST URSULINE STKENT STFM 1294 FM 1730SLIDE RDQUAKER AVEINDIANA AVEUNIVERSITY AVEAVE QAVE AMLK BLVDGUAVA AVEFRANKFORD AVEMILWAUKEE AVEUPLAND AVEINLER AVEALCOVE AVEUS 84LOOP 289FM 179LOOP 289LOOP 289US 84FM 2641US 62/82US 62/82 SH 11498TH ST± 0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles City of LubbockAnnexation History by Decade Annexation by Decade1900s1920s1930s1940s1950s1970s1980s1990s2000s2010s GIS & Data Services03/15 As required by SECTION 1. Chapter 2051, SUBCHAPTER D. GEOSPATIAL DATA PRODUCTS of the Government Code, the City of Lubbock hereby provides notice that the data on this map w as created by the City of Lubbock. Any data that appears to represent property boundari es is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of prope rty boundaries. LUBBOCK’S ANNEXATION POLICIES & PRACTICES PROPOSED CHANGES & CONSIDERATIONS 19LubbockCity of Proposed Changes to Lubbock’s Annexation Policy Based on the Committee’s review of the City’s past an- nexation practices and current and long-term develop- ment issues and trends and considering the input of City leaders, staff, and residents, the following Annexation Policies are recommended to guide future annexation activity by the City. 1. The City of Lubbock should maintain a long-range, generalized annexation planning map for anticipated expansion of the corporate limits and orderly exten- sion of municipal facilities and services, which could occur through both voluntary and involuntary annexa- tions. The map is intended to only provide general guidance since annexation phasing priorities will shift over time depending on development activity and infrastructure and service conditions. 2. The City should continue to monitor opportunities to annex “exempted” territory that is not covered by the three-year advance annexation plan requirements of the Texas Local Government Code. 3. The City of Lubbock should exercise protective an- nexation measures to preclude strips and pockets of urban blight adjacent to the city. Such annexation will avoid enclosure of unincorporated pockets. 4. The City of Lubbock should comply with the extensive State law governing the process of annexation in order to avoid any major negative legal impact on any an- nexation that is not correctly carried out. 5. The City of Lubbock should prohibit the provision of municipal services outside the incorporated areas of the city except in emergencies or when allowed by State law. 6. The City should apply fiscal impact analysis tech- niques to assess the estimated costs of providing municipal services and weigh these costs against the anticipated revenues of each proposed annexation. The fiscal impact of annexations should be assessed on a multi-year time frame. Location and amounts of land to be annexed should provide efficient use of mu- nicipal services such as police, fire protection, water, sewer, street maintenance, and solid waste collections. Disproportionate costs to tax revenues shall be dis- couraged. 7. The City should be prepared to consider annexation of areas with less-than-favorable fiscal impact implica- tions if unique health, safety, environmental, general welfare, or other factors are significant enough to over- ride financial considerations. 8. When permitted under state law and under City Code, developers and/or landowners that are requesting an- nexation must bear the routine and normally required costs of public service facilities. 9. The City of Lubbock should maintain its positive work- ing relationships with Lubbock County, other munici- palities, the Lubbock Metropolitan Planning Organiza- tion, and other public and private service providers, regardless of whether the City is in an active annexa- tion planning mode. 10. The City should continue to monitor studies and actions by the Texas Legislature, including potential new or revised statutes that would impact municipal annexation authority and capabilities. Policy Implementation Considerations Because Texas annexation law is complex and confusing, the Committee also provides the following guidelines that should be considered when dealing with any an- nexation project or annexation litigation. 1. Follow the proper annexation procedure. There are two types of annexation errors - procedural and sub- stantive. Procedural errors are voidable; substantive errors are void. Some errors are clearly procedural, some annexation errors are clearly substantive, but many an- nexation errors have never been classified by the courts. The line dividing void and voidable errors is often blurry. Once the annexation error has been classified, the proper procedure follows. If a city fails to follow annexa- tion procedures, the annexation ordinance is merely voidable and only the State of Texas can file suit by quo warranto proceedings. This is the exclusive remedy. A neighboring municipality has no standing to challenge the annexation. If your city has been sued by a neigh- boring city for a procedural annexation error, file a plea to the jurisdiction. The claim should be dismissed. If the annexation error is substantive, a declaratory judgment action is proper. It can be filed by a neighboring city. It is well-settled that a collateral attack can be made where the challenged annexation is void. 2. Be aware of development initiatives within the ETJ. It would be prudent for the City to require its Engineer- ing, Planning or GIS department to obtain mapping and ordinance information on a regular basis in order to be up-to-date on the City’s natural expansion. 3. Be cautious about litigating a neighboring munici- pality over annexed land. Do not file suit unless the City (i) is willing to spend significant sums of money on legal costs in the next few budget years; (ii) can withstand adverse publicity on multiple occasions; and, (iii) is (by court order) willing to hand over the annexed property (and its ad valorem taxes and economic development potential) to the neighboring city. The City must be well- prepared for annexation litigation. 20LubbockCity of 114TH ST 130TH STFM 1585 82ND ST 66TH ST 50TH ST34TH ST19TH STSH 114 4TH STFM 2255 ERSKINE ST URSULINE STKENT STFM 1294FM 1730SLIDE RDQUAKER AVEINDIANA AVEUNIVERSITY AVEAVE QAVE AMLK BLVDGUAVA AVEFRANKFORD AVEMILWAUKEE AVEUPLAND AVEINLER AVEALCOVE AVEUS 84LOOP 289FM 179LOOP 289LOOP 289US 84 FM 2641US 62/82US 62/82 SH 11498TH ST±0 1 2 3 40.5 MilesCity of LubbockAnnexation History by Decade Annexation by Decade1900s1920s1930s1940s1950s1970s1980s1990s2000s2010s GIS & Data Services03/15 As required by SECTION 1. Chapter 2051, SUBCHAPTER D. GEOSPATIAL DATA PRODUCTS of the Government Code, the City of Lubbock hereby provides notice that the data on this map was created by the C ity of Lubbock. Any data that appears to represent property boundaries is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries. LUBBOCK’S ANNEXATION POLICIES & PRACTICES PROPOSED CHANGES & CONSIDERATIONS 4. Utilize Interlocal agreements. The City should enter into interlocal boundary agreements with neighboring municipalities before an annexation dispute begins. This proactive, single step could save the City thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of dollars in legal fees to resolve a boundary dispute in the courts. It is a good practice to schedule periodic meetings with neighbor- ing municipalities to discuss annexation plans. When discussing the apportionment of ETJ with an adjacent municipalities, the City should strive to analyze annexa- tion from a “delivery of services” standpoint rather than by sheer land area considerations. 5. Consider the opinions of annexed property owners. Never underestimate the resolve of rural landowners and property owners with a differing philosophical view of municipal benefits. Many times, annexation seems “unconstitutional”, “un-American”, and “downright unfair” to those who are experiencing annexation for the first time. The City should review its property owner lists well in advance of its decision to initiate annexation, espe- cially under an Annexation Plan. Even in exempt annexa- tions under Section 43.052(h)(I) [100 tract exemption], the chances of encountering an “anti-city” property owner are high. Most rural residents are interested in im- proving water service and tying into sanitary sewer lines. However, the details of how, when, and who pays must be known and explained to avoid major opposition at the annexation hearings. Be open and honest about the City’s level of participation in utility extensions. A series of informational meetings conducted by staff in the areas affected can aid in the process; however in most cases, expect the Council meetings to be well-attended and the speakers to be passionate. 114TH ST 130TH STFM 1585 82ND ST 66TH ST 50TH ST34TH ST19TH STSH 114 4TH STFM 2255 ERSKINE ST URSULINE STKENT STFM 1294 FM 1730SLIDE RDQUAKER AVEINDIANA AVEUNIVERSITY AVEAVE QAVE AMLK BLVDGUAVA AVEFRANKFORD AVEMILWAUKEE AVEUPLAND AVEINLER AVEALCOVE AVEUS 84LOOP 289FM 179LOOP 289LOOP 289US 84FM 2641US 62/82US 62/82 SH 11498TH ST± 0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles City of LubbockAnnexation History by Decade Annexation by Decade1900s1920s1930s1940s1950s1970s1980s1990s2000s2010s GIS & Data Services03/15 As required by SECTION 1. Chapter 2051, SUBCHAPTER D. GEOSPATIAL DATA PRODUCTS of the Government Code, the City of Lubbock hereby provides notice that the data on this map w as created by the City of Lubbock. Any data that appears to represent property boundari es is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of prope rty boundaries. CONCLUSION 21LubbockCity of First and foremost, continued growth and development is important to Lubbock. Lubbock is and will continue to be a regional hub for the South Plains. Orderly devel- opment is essential and has played a major role in the development of Lubbock. This has provided a moderate and consistent growth pattern for decades. As the City and region grow, the need for City services will grow, requiring the City to develop and move forward accord- ingly. Once the City gets behind the development curve with regards to annexation, it is difficult to catch up and get ahead of development. Currently, the City is play- ing catch up; development is leading the annexation request rather than the City staying ahead of develop- ment. Annexation and growth often go hand in hand. Each is presented with the same questions and concerns. How- ever, without proper planning and forward thinking, orderly growth and development becomes challenging. Annexation, with regards to growth and development, should be viewed as a precursor. By annexing areas ahead of development, the City may enforce its codes and regulations more effectively, therefore generating orderly development inside the City. Conservation of resources and efficient use of City services are also im- perative and result from forward thinking policies. These policies, codes, and regulations play a significant role in how a city is developed. All of these factors should be reviewed at regular inter- vals, possibly leading to Comprehensive Plan updates. Topics such as water wise landscaping, development densities (both maximum and minimums), parks, open space, transportation, fire station locations, and land use arrangement all play a role in the future of this City. The committee hopes this report and any resulting updates to City policies and codes will continue to guide future decision makers for years to come. 114TH ST 130TH STFM 1585 82ND ST 66TH ST 50TH ST34TH ST19TH STSH 114 4TH STFM 2255 ERSKINE ST URSULINE STKENT STFM 1294 FM 1730SLIDE RDQUAKER AVEINDIANA AVEUNIVERSITY AVEAVE QAVE AMLK BLVDGUAVA AVEFRANKFORD AVEMILWAUKEE AVEUPLAND AVEINLER AVEALCOVE AVEUS 84 LOOP 289FM 179LOOP 289LOOP 289US 84 FM 2641 US 62/82US 62/82 SH 11498TH ST ± 0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles City of LubbockAnnexation History by Decade Annexation by Decade1900s1920s1930s1940s 195 0s 197 0s 198 0s 199 0s 200 0s 201 0s GIS & Data Services03/15 As required by SECTION 1. Chapter 2051, SUBCHAPTER D. GEOSPATIAL DATA PRODUCTS of the Government Code, the City of Lubbock hereby provides notice that the data on this map was created by the C ity of Lubbock. Any data that appears to represent property bounda ries is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries. APPENDICES 22LubbockCity of 114TH ST 130TH STFM 1585 82ND ST 66TH ST 50TH ST34TH ST19TH STSH 114 4TH STFM 2255 ERSKINE ST URSULINE STKENT STFM 1294 FM 1730SLIDE RDQUAKER AVEINDIANA AVEUNIVERSITY AVEAVE QAVE AMLK BLVDGUAVA AVEFRANKFORD AVEMILWAUKEE AVEUPLAND AVEINLER AVEALCOVE AVEUS 84LOOP 289FM 179LOOP 289LOOP 289US 84FM 2641US 62/82US 62/82 SH 11498TH ST± 0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles City of LubbockAnnexation History by Decade Annexation by Decade1900s1920s1930s1940s1950s1970s1980s1990s2000s2010s GIS & Data Services03/15 As required by SECTION 1. Chapter 2051, SUBCHAPTER D. GEOSPATIAL DATA PRODUCTS of the Government Code, the City of Lubbock hereby provides notice that the data on this map w as created by the City of Lubbock. Any data that appears to represent property boundari es is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of prope rty boundaries. APPENDIX A RESOLUTION - ANNEXATION AND GROWTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 23LubbockCity of 114TH ST 130TH STFM 1585 82ND ST 66TH ST 50TH ST34TH ST19TH STSH 114 4TH STFM 2255 ERSKINE ST URSULINE STKENT STFM 1294FM 1730SLIDE RDQUAKER AVEINDIANA AVEUNIVERSITY AVEAVE QAVE AMLK BLVDGUAVA AVEFRANKFORD AVEMILWAUKEE AVEUPLAND AVEINLER AVEALCOVE AVEUS 84LOOP 289FM 179LOOP 289LOOP 289US 84 FM 2641US 62/82US 62/82 SH 11498TH ST±0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles City of LubbockAnnexation History by Decade Annexation by Decade1900s1920s1930s1940s1950s1970s1980s1990s2000s2010s GIS & Data Services03/15 As required by SECTION 1. Chapter 2051, SUBCHAPTER D. GEOSPATIAL DATA PRODUCTS of the Government Code, the City of Lubbock hereby provides notice that the data on this map was created by the C ity of Lubbock. Any data that appears to represent property boundaries is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries. 24LubbockCity of APPENDIX A RESOLUTION - ANNEXATION AND GROWTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE 114TH ST 130TH STFM 1585 82ND ST 66TH ST 50TH ST34TH ST19TH STSH 114 4TH STFM 2255 ERSKINE ST URSULINE STKENT STFM 1294 FM 1730SLIDE RDQUAKER AVEINDIANA AVEUNIVERSITY AVEAVE QAVE AMLK BLVDGUAVA AVEFRANKFORD AVEMILWAUKEE AVEUPLAND AVEINLER AVEALCOVE AVEUS 84LOOP 289FM 179LOOP 289LOOP 289US 84FM 2641US 62/82US 62/82 SH 11498TH ST± 0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles City of LubbockAnnexation History by Decade Annexation by Decade1900s1920s1930s1940s1950s1970s1980s1990s2000s2010s GIS & Data Services03/15 As required by SECTION 1. Chapter 2051, SUBCHAPTER D. GEOSPATIAL DATA PRODUCTS of the Government Code, the City of Lubbock hereby provides notice that the data on this map w as created by the City of Lubbock. Any data that appears to represent property boundari es is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of prope rty boundaries. APPENDIX B CITY OF LUBBOCK ETJ MAP 25LubbockCity of As required by SECTION 1. Chapter 2051, SUBCHAPTER D. GEOSPATIAL DATA PRODUCTS of the Government Code, the City of Lubbock hereby provides notice that the data on this map was created by the City of Lubbock. Any data that appears to represent property boundaries is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries.TEXASCity of LubbockGIS & Data Services1625 13th StreetLubbock, TX 79457(806) 775-3311Lubbock and Surrounding Town's ETJs 5000 600 1700E FM 2641 3400 440016007900900580087003300340052007300N I-2713000 14600 1900 9800 410095006500570025004900400 5400 11400 E F M40 8200 11800 7000 3800 6600 E F M835 2200 10200 8600 12600 16200 10300650073008100890097001050011300121001290013400 14200 15000 15800 16600 1110017800 19400 210 00 50TH ST ERSKINE ST MLK BLVD34TH ST QUAKER AVEAVE PALCOVE AVEUS 87FRANKFORDAVEFM179GUAVA AVEINDIANAAVESLIDE RDUPLAND AVEF M 1585 146TH ST 19TH ST 98TH ST OLIVE AVERESEARCH BLVDMILWAUKEE AVEFIDDLEWOOD AVEUNIVERSITY AVEWOOD AVE4THST BLUEFIELD ST 114TH ST 82ND ST UTAH ST STONEHILL ST KENT ST 66TH ST URSULINE ST F M 1294 KEUKA ST EMERSON ST WOODR OW R D ZEELAND AVENECTARINEVERBENAEVERGREENMANGOVETCHEBONYMIMOSAWINTERBERRYHAWTHORNE H W Y 84 MacALESTER TOMBROCK FRANKLIN NAZ ARE TH ALASKA 178TH S T 194TH ST 210TH STHARTLAND AVECR 6900 CR 6500 CR 2500CR 6800 CR 2000CR 2300CR 1500CR1800CR1400CR 2600CR2100CR 1900CR 1600CR 7400 CR 7500 CR 6700 CR 7200 CR 2700CR 1300CR 1700CR 2900CR 2200CR 2800CR 6600 CR 6200 CR 7300 CR 7100 CR 5800 CR 6100 CR 6300 CR 7000 CR 6400 CR 5900 CR 6000 CR 5700 CR 7600 CR 1200CR 3000CR 3100CR 3200CR 3300CR 3400CR 3500CR 3600CR 3700CR 3800CR 5600 CR 5500 CR 54 00 CR 53 00 CR 77 00 CR 7800 CR 7900CR 1100ASH AV98TH ST 98TH ST 98TH ST 98TH ST 98TH ST 19TH ST 19TH ST 19TH ST 19TH ST 19TH ST IDALOU RD114TH ST LOOP 289 GUAVA AVBLUEFIELD ST 66TH ST MLK BVASH AVUNIVERSITY AVUNIVERSITY AVUNIVERSITY AVOLIVE AVUNIVERSITY AVUNIVERSITY AVPEACH AVL O O P 289MILWAUKEE AVMILWAUKEE AVMILWAUKEE AVMILWAUKEE AVMILWAUKEE AVMILWAUKEE AVM ARSH A SHARP FW YS P U R 3 2 7 SPUR 327 ASH AVERSKINE ST 4TH ST LOOP 289L O O P 28 9LO O P 28926TH ST FRANKFORD AVFRANKFORD AVFRANKFORD AVWOOD AV19TH ST LOOP 28 9KENT ST SLIDE RDBLUEFIELD ST KENT ST KENT ST SLIDE RDSLIDE RDSLIDE RDSLIDE RDSLIDE RDSLIDE RDLOOP 289UTAH ST AVE PLOOP 289ALCOVE AVALCOVE AVAVEADRINDIANA AVINDIANA AVMLK BVMLK BVMLK BVMLK BVMLK BVMLK BVLOOP 289 BUDDY HOLLY AVINLER AVINLER AVDREW ST RESEARCH BVRESEARCH BVLOOP 289 IDALOU RDI H 27 IN34TH ST 34TH ST 34TH ST GUAVA AVAVE PAVE PALCOVE AVALCOVE AVALCOVE AVFRANKFORD AVFRANKFORD AVFRANKFORD AVFRANKFORD AVI H 27 INASH AVERSKINE ST LOOP 289 OLIVE AVQUAKER AVQUAKER AVQUAKER AVQUAKER AVQUAKER AVQUAKER AVINDIANA AVAVE NAVE PAVE QI H 27 INI H 27I H 27 INTEXAS AVQUAKER AVQUAKER AVINDIANA AVINDIANA AVASH AVHWY 87OLIVE AVUPLAND AVUPLAND AVUPLAND AVUPLAND AVUPLAND AVUNIVERSITY AVREGIS ST REGIS ST AVE QAVE QL O O P 289 LOOP 289KENT ST KENT ST AVE Q DRURSULINE ST CLOVIS RD CLOVIS RD CLOVIS RD 50TH ST 50TH ST 50TH ST 50TH ST 50TH ST ERSKINE ST A V E Q S O U T H D R LOOP 2 89 S O U T H E A S T D R 66TH ST 66TH ST I H 27 INI H 27 INURSULINE ST URSULINE ST S O U T H E A S T D R S O U T H E A ST D R INSURANCEST 66TH STGUAVA AVGUAVA AVGUAVA AVGUAVA AVGUAVA AVMUNICIPAL DRM U N I C IP A L D R M U N I C IP A L D R 82ND ST 82ND ST 82ND ST 82ND ST 82ND ST 82ND ST 82ND ST MARSHA SHARP FWY (US 62/82)MARSHA SHARP FWY (US 62/82) 19TH ST MLK BV66TH ST 4TH ST 4TH ST 4TH ST 4TH ST 4TH ST 34TH ST 34TH ST 34TH ST ERSKINE ST 130TH ST 130TH ST PARKWAY DR BROADWAY BROADWAY ERSKINE ST ERSKINE ST STONEHILL ST 66TH ST 50TH ST 130TH ST 130TH ST 130TH ST OLIVE AV19TH ST SLATON RD SLATON RD BROADWAY KEUKA ST AVE PAVE PBLUEFIELD ST GUAVA AVCESAR ECHAVEZ DR M ARSH A SH A R P FW Y M A R SH A SH A R P FW Y 114TH ST 114TH ST 114TH ST 114TH STTEXAS TECH PKWY66TH ST KEUKA ST SLIDE AVREGIS ST FIDDLEWOOD AVNew Deal Reese Center Shallowater Wolfforth Idalou Buffalo Springs Ransom Canyon Slaton . 0 1 2 30.5 Miles Lubbock and Surrounding Town's ETJs Lubbock ETJ Lubbock ETJ 1963 Idalou ETJ New Deal ETJ Ransom Canyon ETJ Ransom Canyon ETJ Agreement Shallowater ETJ Shallowater ETJ 1963 Shallowater Annexation Agreement Shallowater ETJ Overlap Slaton ETJ Wolfforth ETJ Roads/Streets Parks Lakes City Limits County Boundary GIS & DATA SERVICES DEPARTMENT TEXAS As required by SECTION 1. Chapter 2051, SUBCHAPTER D. GEOSPATIAL DATA PRODUCTS of the Government Code, the City of Lubbock hereby provides notice that the data on this map was created by the City of Lubbock. Any data that appears to represent property boundaries is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries. City of Lubbock GIS & Data Services 1625 13th St Lubbock, TX 79457 (806) 775-3311Hale CountyLubbock County 114TH ST 130TH STFM 1585 82ND ST 66TH ST 50TH ST34TH ST19TH STSH 114 4TH STFM 2255 ERSKINE ST URSULINE STKENT STFM 1294 FM 1730SLIDE RDQUAKER AVEINDIANA AVEUNIVERSITY AVEAVE QAVE AMLK BLVDGUAVA AVEFRANKFORD AVEMILWAUKEE AVEUPLAND AVEINLER AVEALCOVE AVEUS 84LOOP 289FM 179LOOP 289LOOP 289US 84FM 2641US 62/82US 62/82 SH 11498TH ST± 0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles City of LubbockAnnexation History by Decade Annexation by Decade1900s1920s1930s1940s1950s1970s1980s1990s2000s2010s GIS & Data Services03/15 As required by SECTION 1. Chapter 2051, SUBCHAPTER D. GEOSPATIAL DATA PRODUCTS of the Government Code, the City of Lubbock hereby provides notice that the data on this map w as created by the City of Lubbock. Any data that appears to represent property boundari es is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of prope rty boundaries. 26LubbockCity of APPENDIX C RESOLUTION - ANNEXATION NOT INTENDED FOR ANY AREA REQUIRING ANNEXATION PLAN 114TH ST 130TH STFM 1585 82ND ST 66TH ST 50TH ST34TH ST19TH STSH 114 4TH STFM 2255 ERSKINE ST URSULINE STKENT STFM 1294 FM 1730SLIDE RDQUAKER AVEINDIANA AVEUNIVERSITY AVEAVE QAVE AMLK BLVDGUAVA AVEFRANKFORD AVEMILWAUKEE AVEUPLAND AVEINLER AVEALCOVE AVEUS 84LOOP 289FM 179LOOP 289LOOP 289US 84FM 2641US 62/82US 62/82 SH 11498TH ST± 0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles City of LubbockAnnexation History by Decade Annexation by Decade1900s1920s1930s1940s1950s1970s1980s1990s2000s2010s GIS & Data Services03/15 As required by SECTION 1. Chapter 2051, SUBCHAPTER D. GEOSPATIAL DATA PRODUCTS of the Government Code, the City of Lubbock hereby provides notice that the data on this map w as created by the City of Lubbock. Any data that appears to represent property boundari es is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of prope rty boundaries. APPENDIX D SUPPLEMENTAL STUDY - FISCAL IMPACT OF “MYTHICAL MILE” 27LubbockCity of During recent annexations, the question has often been raised about the fiscal impact to the City. At first glance, one would hope that growth, like in any business, would be beneficial and enhance the overall financial status of the city. However, to date, no detailed analysis had been performed outlining growth impacts to the City of Lubbock. When looking at growth, every square mile has its own peculiarities which make it difficult to devise an across-the-board look at fiscal impacts throughout the city. However, the committee has developed a fiscal model of what became known as the “mythical mile”. This is a theoretical square mile of development where a 20-year time frame is calculated for the ultimate build-out of the development. For this exercise, it is important to remember this could be one geo- graphical square mile or, more broadly, one equivalent square mile of growth anywhere within the city. This includes all expected land uses within the square mile. The model is dynamic and all parameters can be adjusted for any de- sired development scenario. Land absorption, revenue, inflation, and expenses were addressed as follows: LAND ABSORPTION Land Use Land Area Revenue Years built 1. T-fare ROW 27 acres no N/A 2. Playa Lake 50 acres no N/A 3. Church 30 acres no N/A 4. School 15 acres no N/A 5. Commercial 50 acres yes 6-15 6. Garden Office 28 acres yes 6-15 7. Multi-Family 40 acres yes 6-15 8. Single-Family 400 acres yes 1-20 Total Area 640 acres TAX VALUE/REVENUE Currently property taxes account for approximately 30% of the city general fund. Sales tax revenue (roughly 39%) is volatile and may not necessarily increase at the same rate as the growth within a given mile. Sales tax will follow regional economic trends more than local population growth since sales tax is generated largely from a regional customer base rather than just those “new” customers within specific growing areas. Those new residents may likely had already been contributing to the city sales tax base and are simply moving their purchase dollars within the City. Other components of the general fund were excluded from the revenue side of the analysis as well. So, only property taxes (including taxes on commercial inventory) were included since those are directly tied to growth and therefore can be directly tied to the additional city services resulting from that growth. 1. Commercial – A random sampling of eleven commercial sites was taken. Property and inventory values and assessments were obtained from the Lubbock Central Appraisal District and the low and high values were excluded to obtain an average property tax revenue of $1,169,380 per acre of land area. 2. Garden Office – A random sampling of eight office sites was taken. Property and inventory values and assesments were obtained from the Lubbock Central Appraisal District and the low and high values were excluded to obtain an average property tax revenue of $1,333,433 per acre of land area. 3. Multi-Family – A random sampling of nine multi-family sites was taken. Property tax values and assessments were obtained from the Lubbock Central Appraisal District and the low and high values were excluded to obtain an average property tax revenue of $1,240,274 per acre of land area. 28LubbockCity of 114TH ST 130TH STFM 1585 82ND ST 66TH ST 50TH ST34TH ST19TH STSH 114 4TH STFM 2255 ERSKINE ST URSULINE STKENT STFM 1294FM 1730SLIDE RDQUAKER AVEINDIANA AVEUNIVERSITY AVEAVE QAVE AMLK BLVDGUAVA AVEFRANKFORD AVEMILWAUKEE AVEUPLAND AVEINLER AVEALCOVE AVEUS 84LOOP 289FM 179LOOP 289LOOP 289US 84 FM 2641US 62/82US 62/82 SH 11498TH ST±0 1 2 3 40.5 MilesCity of LubbockAnnexation History by Decade Annexation by Decade1900s1920s1930s1940s1950s1970s1980s1990s2000s2010s GIS & Data Services03/15 As required by SECTION 1. Chapter 2051, SUBCHAPTER D. GEOSPATIAL DATA PRODUCTS of the Government Code, the City of Lubbock hereby provides notice that the data on this map was created by the C ity of Lubbock. Any data that appears to represent property boundaries is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries. APPENDIX D SUPPLEMENTAL STUDY - FISCAL IMPACT OF “MYTHICAL MILE” 4. Single-Family – A sampling of existing neighborhoods in varying price ranges was taken and partitioned into seven categories. Then, using a listing of single-family permits from 2012-2014 provided by the City of Lubbock and reported in the recent Lubbock Land Company annual market study, and then equating that to the price ranges listed, approximate percentages of absorption of the various categories were derived. Of the listed permits obtained, those which appeared erroneous or were considered to be remodels were excluded from the calculations below. Market Yield LCAD Value Absorption a. Low Entry 6.37 lots/acre $126,900 11% b. Entry level 4.89 lots/acre $154,800 22% c. Entry-Mid Level 4.23 lots/acre $182,800 24% d. Mid-Level 3.62 lots/acre $296,500 24% e. Mid-High Level 2.87 lots/acre $443,500 12% f. High Level 2.22 lots/acre $713,200 5% g. Top End 2.20 lots/acre $1,225,200 1% Therefore Weighted Average is: Yield LCAD Value 4.2 lots/acre $272,000 INFLATION AND PROPERTY VALUE APPRECIATION Since the model reports the fiscal behavior of the mythical mile over an extended period of time (40 years), a 2.0% an- nual appreciation factor was applied to the property values. Similarly, a 2.0% annual inflation factor was applied to the predicted expenses. ANTICIPATED EXPENSES TO THE CITY RESULTING FROM GROWTH As growth occurs over time within our mythical mile, dif- ferent components of city services must be expanded in different fashions. Each of the following components of city services was included in the model as described be - low. Inflation factors were included as described above. 1. General Administrative Services – Looking at cur- rent operating budgets and service area, the estimat- ed annual operating cost for General Administrative Services is $30,307 per square mile. As our mythical mile grows, an annual prorated cost was factored in as our mile develops. Once 100% of the revenue- producing properties are developed, the full $30,307 cost is included. 2. Animal Services – Looking at current operating budgets and service area, the estimated annual op- erating cost for Animal Services is $16,163 per square mile. As our mythical mile grows, an annual prorated cost was factored in as our mile develops. Once 100% of the revenue-producing properties are developed, the full $16,163 cost is included. 3. Code Enforcement – Looking at current operat- ing budgets and service area, the estimated annual operating cost for Code Enforcement is $14,495 per square mile. As our mile grows, an annual prorated cost is factored in as our mile develops. Once 100% of the revenue-producing properties are developed, the full $14,495 cost is included. 4. Environmental Health – Looking at current operat- ing budgets and service area, the estimated annual operating cost for Environmental Health is $5,183 per square mile. As our mile grows, an annual prorated cost is factored in as our mile develops. Once 100% of the revenue-producing properties are developed, the full $5,183 cost is included. 5. Police – Currently, Lubbock maintains a ratio of 2 officers per 1,115 citizens. However the stated goal for the city has been a ratio of 2 officers per 1,000 citizens. At an average population of 2.5 people per household, the desired ratio is equated to one police officer per every 200 households. Therefore, the ex- pense for one police officer is added to the model for every 200 residential lots being added. 6. Fire Station – Based on a 4-minute response time, one fire station covers approximately 4.5 square miles 29LubbockCity of 114TH ST 130TH STFM 1585 82ND ST 66TH ST 50TH ST34TH ST19TH STSH 114 4TH STFM 2255 ERSKINE ST URSULINE STKENT STFM 1294FM 1730SLIDE RDQUAKER AVEINDIANA AVEUNIVERSITY AVEAVE QAVE AMLK BLVDGUAVA AVEFRANKFORD AVEMILWAUKEE AVEUPLAND AVEINLER AVEALCOVE AVEUS 84LOOP 289FM 179LOOP 289LOOP 289US 84 FM 2641US 62/82US 62/82 SH 11498TH ST±0 1 2 3 40.5 MilesCity of LubbockAnnexation History by Decade Annexation by Decade1900s1920s1930s1940s1950s1970s1980s1990s2000s2010s GIS & Data Services03/15 As required by SECTION 1. Chapter 2051, SUBCHAPTER D. GEOSPATIAL DATA PRODUCTS of the Government Code, the City of Lubbock hereby provides notice that the data on this map was created by the C ity of Lubbock. Any data that appears to represent property boundaries is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries. APPENDIX D SUPPLEMENTAL STUDY - FISCAL IMPACT OF “MYTHICAL MILE” of service area. Therefore, our mile would need to support 22% of the cost of a new fire station. Histori- cally, some percentage of development has occurred in a given area before construction of a fire station at a location best suited for that area. For example, a pro rata share (22%) of a $6 million fire station can be added into the model midway through the residen- tial growth cycle of our mile. Once the fire station is constructed, then the pro-rated annual operating cost of that station is added in. 7. Solid Waste – Solid Waste collection and opera- tions is paid for by the rate-payers. However, as our mile grows, the need for an additional solid waste truck is addressed. One new route (truck) is needed for each 1000 single-family lots. Therefore a prorated cost for a new truck was added into the model. The model shows a purchase of one truck when 500 homes have been completed, and then a pro-rated cost for a second garbage truck when 1,000 homes have been completed. 8. Street Maintenance – Currently, street maintenance is not funded directly out of the general fund. However, moving forward, it has been expressed that street main- tenance should be cash-funded. The model includes funding for street maintenance on 3-, 6-, 10-, 17-, 20-, 23-, 30-, 33-, and 36-year cycles as recommended by the City Director of Public Works. The costs are established in a matrix listing total areas of paving and anticipated maintenance treatments based on the age of the pav- ing through the growth of our mile. 9. Park Construction and Maintenance – The model presumes a developer would wish to develop his playa lake as a city park and convey that tract to the city. This is the most onerous of all the park development op- tions on both the City and the developer. Under current Code requirements for playa lake development as a park, the developer is required to install turf, irrigation, and drainage improvements. The city would customar- ily install the playground equipment at a current cost of approximately $250,000. When the park is developed, the one-time cost for the installation of the playscape is included and park maintenance at $2,300 per acre begins at that point. For this exercise, it is presumed that half of the playa/park area is maintained and the remain- ing half would be occupied as lake or unusable area and not require high-level maintenance. 10. Thoroughfare Paving – Seven-lane concrete pav- ing was included in the model. This includes half of the paving width along all four sides of our mile plus sidewalks, street lights, traffic lights (prorated), and engineering fees. The model indicates constructing the thoroughfares in the fifteenth year of the growth of the mile with a twenty year payout on a bond issued at 5% interest. Of all the expense items, thor- oughfare paving has the greatest financial impact. While the model can show the revenue will support 7-lane thoroughfare paving under various buildout scenarios, the city may wish to investigate the viability of a less-expensive 5-lane section. A traffic study may very well find that a 5-lane thoroughfare would suf- ficiently handle traffic for a very long time. Also, the model does account for federal funds should those be obtained. 11. Water, Wastewater, and Storm Water – Each of these components are funded by the rate payers and not out of the general revenue fund. Therefore, they are not included as expenses in this model. FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY The model can be adjusted in many different ways. For example, one could accelerate the way in which some of the high-expense items are applied, thereby creating a deficit through some period of the 40-year term. A larger land area allocated to non-revenue generating uses such as playas, schools and churches may create a deficit. Conversely, reduction to 5-lane thoroughfare paving or gaining federal funds for those projects will demonstrate a significant positive impact to the bottom line. Year Status Land Use Land Area Unit Value Assessed City Tax General Animal Code Environ.Police Fire New Fire Solid Street Park Park T-Fare (lanes) (weighted res)Value 0.005224 Admin Services Enforce Health Ratio 2:1000 Annual Station Waste Maint.Const Per Ac 7 Lanes Cumulative 200 per Sta.10 First Truck 4 2,300 10 Year built Annual Cumulative Net Cumulative Annual (1,333,333) 500 Lots Total 0%Fed Match Square Mile 640 Ac Revenue Revenue Gain/(loss)Expense Expense (30,307) (16,163) (14,495) (5,183) (140,847) (573,040) (1,593,457) (300,000) Varies (250,000) (57,500) (12,964,931) Amount Financed T-Fare 27 - - 20 (1/2 lake)20 Financed (years) Playa 50 - - 5%Pro Rated 5%Rate Year Year Church 30 - - (127,863)2nd Truck (1,040,340) Annual Payment Start Done School 15 - - 1000 Lots 6 15 Commercial 50 1,169,380 58,469,008 305,442 (2,925) (1,560) (1,399) (500) (204,000) 6 15 Garden Office 28 1,333,433 37,336,137 195,044 (1,638) (874) (784) (280) 6 15 Multi-Family 40 1,240,274 49,610,969 259,168 (2,340) (1,248) (1,119) (400) 1 20 Single-Family 400 272,000 456,960,000 2,387,159 (23,403) (12,481) (11,193) (4,002) Inflation 2.0%Non-Res App.3,146,813 2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0% 2.0%Res Apprec. 1 4%Total year 1 22,848,000 119,358 119,358 116,804 (2,554) (2,554) (1,170) (624) (560) (200) - - - - - - - - 2 8%Total year 2 46,609,920 243,490 362,848 355,084 (7,764) (5,210) (2,387) (1,273) (1,142) (408) - - - - - - - - 3 12%Total year 3 71,313,178 372,540 735,388 573,116 (162,273) (154,508) (3,652) (1,948) (1,747) (625) (146,537) - - - - - - - 4 15%Total year 4 96,985,922 506,654 1,242,043 576,038 (666,004) (503,732) (4,967) (2,649) (2,376) (849) (149,468) - - - (17,101) (265,302) (61,019) - 5 19%Total year 5 123,657,050 645,984 1,888,027 823,603 (1,064,424) (398,420) (6,333) (3,377) (3,029) (1,083) (304,914) - - - (17,443) - (62,240) - 6 25%Total year 6 167,411,343 874,557 2,762,584 956,064 (1,806,520) (742,096) (8,514) (4,541) (4,072) (1,456) (311,012) - - (331,224) (17,792) - (63,485) - 7 32%Total year 7 212,866,345 1,112,014 3,874,598 1,626,267 (2,248,330) (441,810) (10,779) (5,749) (5,156) (1,843) (317,233) - - - (36,296) - (64,754) - 8 38%Total year 8 260,072,583 1,358,619 5,233,217 2,367,787 (2,865,430) (617,100) (13,132) (7,003) (6,281) (2,246) (485,366) - - - (37,022) - (66,049) - 9 44%Total year 9 309,081,924 1,614,644 6,847,861 3,348,231 (3,499,630) (634,200) (15,575) (8,306) (7,449) (2,664) (495,073) - - - (37,763) - (67,370) - 10 50%Total year 10 359,947,609 1,880,366 8,728,227 2,555,496 (6,172,731) (2,673,101) (18,110) (9,658) (8,662) (3,097) (673,299) (684,836) (127,863) - (38,518) - (68,718) (1,040,340) 11 56%Total year 11 412,724,289 2,156,072 10,884,299 1,896,270 (8,988,029) (2,815,298) (20,740) (11,061) (9,920) (3,547) (686,765) (698,533) (127,863) - (146,438) - (70,092) (1,040,340) 12 62%Total year 12 467,468,057 2,442,053 13,326,352 1,103,627 (12,222,725) (3,234,695) (23,468) (12,516) (11,224) (4,014) (875,626) (712,504) (127,863) (206,281) (149,367) - (71,494) (1,040,340) 13 68%Total year 13 524,236,486 2,738,611 16,064,963 771,470 (15,293,494) (3,070,769) (26,297) (14,024) (12,577) (4,497) (893,138) (726,754) (127,863) - (152,354) - (72,924) (1,040,340) 14 75%Total year 14 583,088,665 3,046,055 19,111,019 703,451 (18,407,567) (3,114,074) (29,230) (15,588) (13,980) (4,999) (911,001) (741,289) (127,863) - (155,401) - (74,382) (1,040,340) 15 81%Total year 15 644,085,236 3,364,701 22,475,720 723,959 (21,751,761) (3,344,193) (32,269) (17,209) (15,434) (5,519) (1,115,065) (756,115) (127,863) - (158,509) - (75,870) (1,040,340) 16 85%Total year 16 687,717,341 3,592,635 26,068,355 925,444 (25,142,911) (3,391,151) (34,490) (18,394) (16,496) (5,898) (1,137,367) (771,237) (127,863) - (161,679) - (77,387) (1,040,340) 17 88%Total year 17 732,837,095 3,828,341 29,896,696 1,121,317 (28,775,379) (3,632,468) (36,786) (19,618) (17,594) (6,291) (1,353,466) (786,662) (127,863) - (164,913) - (78,935) (1,040,340) 18 92%Total year 18 779,486,553 4,072,038 33,968,734 1,384,944 (32,583,790) (3,808,411) (39,160) (20,884) (18,730) (6,697) (1,380,536) (802,395) (127,863) - (291,292) - (80,514) (1,040,340) 19 96%Total year 19 827,708,854 4,323,951 38,292,685 1,844,033 (36,448,652) (3,864,862) (41,615) (22,193) (19,904) (7,117) (1,408,146) (818,443) (127,863) - (297,118) - (82,124) (1,040,340) 20 100%Total year 20 877,548,253 4,584,312 42,876,997 2,300,642 (40,576,356) (4,127,703) (44,152) (23,546) (21,117) (7,551) (1,641,496) (834,812) (127,863) - (303,060) - (83,767) (1,040,340) 21 100%Total year 21 895,099,218 4,675,998 47,552,995 2,765,800 (44,787,195) (4,210,839) (45,035) (24,017) (21,539) (7,702) (1,674,326) (851,508) (127,863) - (333,068) - (85,442) (1,040,340) 22 100%Total year 22 913,001,203 4,769,518 52,322,514 3,263,626 (49,058,887) (4,271,692) (45,935) (24,498) (21,970) (7,856) (1,707,813) (868,538) (127,863) - (339,729) - (87,151) (1,040,340) 23 100%Total year 23 931,261,227 4,864,909 57,187,422 3,794,773 (53,392,649) (4,333,762) (46,854) (24,987) (22,409) (8,013) (1,741,969) (885,909) (127,863) - (346,524) - (88,894) (1,040,340) 24 100%Total year 24 949,886,451 4,962,207 62,149,629 4,359,907 (57,789,722) (4,397,073) (47,791) (25,487) (22,858) (8,173) (1,776,809) (903,627) (127,863) - (353,454) - (90,672) (1,040,340) 25 100%Total year 25 968,884,180 5,061,451 67,211,080 4,959,707 (62,251,373) (4,461,651) (48,747) (25,997) (23,315) (8,337) (1,812,345) (921,700) (127,863) - (360,523) - (92,485) (1,040,340) 26 100%Total year 26 988,261,864 5,162,680 72,373,760 5,594,868 (66,778,893) (4,527,520) (49,722) (26,517) (23,781) (8,503) (1,848,592) (940,134) (127,863) - (367,734) - (94,335) (1,040,340) 27 100%Total year 27 1,008,027,101 5,265,934 77,639,694 6,293,062 (71,346,631) (4,567,739) (50,716) (27,047) (24,257) (8,673) (1,885,563) (958,936) (127,863) - (348,121) - (96,222) (1,040,340) 28 100%Total year 28 1,028,187,643 5,371,252 83,010,946 7,028,585 (75,982,361) (4,635,729) (51,731) (27,588) (24,742) (8,847) (1,923,275) (978,115) (127,863) - (355,084) - (98,146) (1,040,340) 29 100%Total year 29 1,048,751,396 5,478,677 88,489,623 7,802,182 (80,687,441) (4,705,080) (52,765) (28,140) (25,237) (9,024) (1,961,740) (997,677) (127,863) - (362,185) - (100,109) (1,040,340) 30 100%Total year 30 1,069,726,424 5,588,251 94,077,874 9,782,818 (84,295,056) (3,607,615) (53,821) (28,703) (25,741) (9,204) (2,000,975) (1,017,631) - - (369,429) - (102,111) - 31 100%Total year 31 1,091,120,952 5,700,016 99,777,890 11,803,067 (87,974,823) (3,679,767) (54,897) (29,277) (26,256) (9,388) (2,040,994) (1,037,983) - - (376,818) - (104,153) - 32 100%Total year 32 1,112,943,371 5,814,016 105,591,906 13,863,721 (91,728,186) (3,753,363) (55,995) (29,862) (26,781) (9,576) (2,081,814) (1,058,743) - - (384,354) - (106,236) - 33 100%Total year 33 1,135,202,239 5,930,296 111,522,203 15,965,587 (95,556,615) (3,828,430) (57,115) (30,460) (27,317) (9,768) (2,123,451) (1,079,918) - - (392,041) - (108,361) - 34 100%Total year 34 1,157,906,284 6,048,902 117,571,105 18,078,515 (99,492,590) (3,935,975) (58,257) (31,069) (27,863) (9,963) (2,165,920) (1,101,516) - - (430,859) - (110,528) - 35 100%Total year 35 1,181,064,409 6,169,880 123,740,985 20,233,700 (103,507,285) (4,014,695) (59,422) (31,690) (28,421) (10,162) (2,209,238) (1,123,547) - - (439,476) - (112,739) - 36 100%Total year 36 1,204,685,697 6,293,278 130,034,264 22,431,990 (107,602,274) (4,094,989) (60,611) (32,324) (28,989) (10,366) (2,253,423) (1,146,018) - - (448,265) - (114,994) - 37 100%Total year 37 1,228,779,411 6,419,144 136,453,407 24,641,372 (111,812,035) (4,209,761) (61,823) (32,970) (29,569) (10,573) (2,298,491) (1,168,938) - - (490,103) - (117,294) - 38 100%Total year 38 1,253,355,000 6,547,527 143,000,934 27,077,835 (115,923,099) (4,111,064) (63,059) (33,630) (30,160) (10,784) (2,344,461) (1,192,317) - - (317,013) - (119,639) - 39 100%Total year 39 1,278,422,100 6,678,477 149,679,411 29,563,027 (120,116,384) (4,193,285) (64,321) (34,302) (30,763) (11,000) (2,391,350) (1,216,163) - - (323,353) - (122,032) - 40 100%Total year 40 1,303,990,542 6,812,047 156,491,457 32,097,922 (124,393,535) (4,277,151) (65,607) (34,988) (31,379) (11,220) (2,439,177) (1,240,486) - - (329,821) - (124,473) - Land Absorption SCENARIO 1 - 2% appreciation and inflation, Ideal 2/1000 police officer ratio, Fire Station at 10 years, Park at 4 years, Full 7-Lane T-Fare with no federal matching dollars SCENARIO 1 Revenue Expenses 114TH ST 130TH STFM 1585 82ND ST 66TH ST 50TH ST 34TH ST 19TH STSH 114 4TH STFM 2255 ERSKINE ST URSULINE ST KENT ST FM 1294 FM 1730SLIDE RDQUAKER AVEINDIANA AVEUNIVERSITY AVEAVE QAVE AMLK BLVDGUAVA AVEFRANKFORD AVEMILWAUKEE AVEUPLAND AVEINLER AVEALCOVE AVEUS 84 LOOP 289FM 179LOOP 289LOOP 289US 84FM 2641 US 62/82US 62/82 SH 11498TH ST ± 0 1 2 3 40.5 Mil es City of LubbockAnnexation History by Decade Annexation by Decade 1900s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s GIS & Data Services03/15 As required by SECTION 1. Chapter 2051, SUBCHAPTER D. GEOSPATIAL DATA PRODUCTS of the Governmen t Cod e, the Ci ty of Lubbock hereby provides notice that the data on this map was created by the City of Lubbock. Any data that appears to represent property bounda ries is for informational p urposes and may n ot have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purpo ses. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries. APPENDIX D1 “MYTHICAL MILE” SCENARIO 1 30LubbockCity of Year Status Land Use Land Area Unit Value Assessed City Tax General Animal Code Environ.Police Fire New Fire Solid Street Park Park T-Fare (lanes) (weighted res)Value 0.005224 Admin Services Enforce Health Ratio 2:1000 Annual Station Waste Maint.Const Per Ac 7 Lanes Cumulative 200 per Sta.7 First Truck 5 2,300 20 Year built Annual Cumulative Net Cumulative Annual (1,333,333) 500 Lots Total 80%Fed Match Square Mile 640 Ac Revenue Revenue Gain/(loss)Expense Expense (30,307) (16,163) (14,495) (5,183) (140,847) (573,040) (1,501,550) (300,000) Varies (250,000) (57,500) (3,160,836) Amount Financed T-Fare 27 - - 10 (1/2 lake)20 Financed (years) Playa 50 - - 5%Pro Rated 5%Rate Year Year Church 30 - - (194,458)2nd Truck (253,634) Annual Payment Start Done School 15 - - 1000 Lots 6 15 Commercial 50 1,169,380 58,469,008 305,442 (2,925) (1,560) (1,399) (500) (204,000) 6 15 Garden Office 28 1,333,433 37,336,137 195,044 (1,638) (874) (784) (280) 6 15 Multi-Family 40 1,240,274 49,610,969 259,168 (2,340) (1,248) (1,119) (400) 1 20 Single-Family 400 272,000 456,960,000 2,387,159 (23,403) (12,481) (11,193) (4,002) Inflation 2.0%Non-Res App.3,146,813 2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0% 2.0%Res Apprec. 1 4%Total year 1 22,848,000 119,358 119,358 116,804 (2,554) (2,554) (1,170) (624) (560) (200) - - - - - - - - 2 8%Total year 2 46,609,920 243,490 362,848 355,084 (7,764) (5,210) (2,387) (1,273) (1,142) (408) - - - - - - - - 3 12%Total year 3 71,313,178 372,540 735,388 573,116 (162,273) (154,508) (3,652) (1,948) (1,747) (625) (146,537) - - - - - - - 4 15%Total year 4 96,985,922 506,654 1,242,043 902,360 (339,683) (177,410) (4,967) (2,649) (2,376) (849) (149,468) - - - (17,101) - - - 5 19%Total year 5 123,657,050 645,984 1,888,027 879,316 (1,008,711) (669,028) (6,333) (3,377) (3,029) (1,083) (304,914) - - - (17,443) (270,608) (62,240) - 6 25%Total year 6 167,411,343 874,557 2,762,584 1,011,777 (1,750,807) (742,096) (8,514) (4,541) (4,072) (1,456) (311,012) - - (331,224) (17,792) - (63,485) - 7 32%Total year 7 212,866,345 1,112,014 3,874,598 842,186 (3,032,411) (1,281,605) (10,779) (5,749) (5,156) (1,843) (317,233) (645,337) (194,458) - (36,296) - (64,754) - 8 38%Total year 8 260,072,583 1,358,619 5,233,217 731,005 (4,502,212) (1,469,801) (13,132) (7,003) (6,281) (2,246) (485,366) (658,243) (194,458) - (37,022) - (66,049) - 9 44%Total year 9 309,081,924 1,614,644 6,847,861 845,583 (6,002,278) (1,500,066) (15,575) (8,306) (7,449) (2,664) (495,073) (671,408) (194,458) - (37,763) - (67,370) - 10 50%Total year 10 359,947,609 1,880,366 8,728,227 1,026,594 (7,701,633) (1,699,356) (18,110) (9,658) (8,662) (3,097) (673,299) (684,836) (194,458) - (38,518) - (68,718) - 11 56%Total year 11 412,724,289 2,156,072 10,884,299 1,341,112 (9,543,187) (1,841,553) (20,740) (11,061) (9,920) (3,547) (686,765) (698,533) (194,458) - (146,438) - (70,092) - 12 62%Total year 12 467,468,057 2,442,053 13,326,352 1,522,215 (11,804,137) (2,260,950) (23,468) (12,516) (11,224) (4,014) (875,626) (712,504) (194,458) (206,281) (149,367) - (71,494) - 13 68%Total year 13 524,236,486 2,738,611 16,064,963 2,163,803 (13,901,161) (2,097,024) (26,297) (14,024) (12,577) (4,497) (893,138) (726,754) (194,458) - (152,354) - (72,924) - 14 75%Total year 14 583,088,665 3,046,055 19,111,019 3,069,529 (16,041,489) (2,140,328) (29,230) (15,588) (13,980) (4,999) (911,001) (741,289) (194,458) - (155,401) - (74,382) - 15 81%Total year 15 644,085,236 3,364,701 22,475,720 4,063,782 (18,411,938) (2,370,448) (32,269) (17,209) (15,434) (5,519) (1,115,065) (756,115) (194,458) - (158,509) - (75,870) - 16 85%Total year 16 687,717,341 3,592,635 26,068,355 5,239,012 (20,829,343) (2,417,405) (34,490) (18,394) (16,496) (5,898) (1,137,367) (771,237) (194,458) - (161,679) - (77,387) - 17 88%Total year 17 732,837,095 3,828,341 29,896,696 6,603,088 (23,293,608) (2,464,265) (36,786) (19,618) (17,594) (6,291) (1,353,466) (786,662) - - (164,913) - (78,935) - 18 92%Total year 18 779,486,553 4,072,038 33,968,734 8,034,918 (25,933,816) (2,640,208) (39,160) (20,884) (18,730) (6,697) (1,380,536) (802,395) - - (291,292) - (80,514) - 19 96%Total year 19 827,708,854 4,323,951 38,292,685 9,662,209 (28,630,476) (2,696,660) (41,615) (22,193) (19,904) (7,117) (1,408,146) (818,443) - - (297,118) - (82,124) - 20 100%Total year 20 877,548,253 4,584,312 42,876,997 11,033,387 (31,843,610) (3,213,134) (44,152) (23,546) (21,117) (7,551) (1,641,496) (834,812) - - (303,060) - (83,767) (253,634) 21 100%Total year 21 895,099,218 4,675,998 47,552,995 12,413,115 (35,139,881) (3,296,270) (45,035) (24,017) (21,539) (7,702) (1,674,326) (851,508) - - (333,068) - (85,442) (253,634) 22 100%Total year 22 913,001,203 4,769,518 52,322,514 13,825,510 (38,497,004) (3,357,123) (45,935) (24,498) (21,970) (7,856) (1,707,813) (868,538) - - (339,729) - (87,151) (253,634) 23 100%Total year 23 931,261,227 4,864,909 57,187,422 15,271,225 (41,916,197) (3,419,193) (46,854) (24,987) (22,409) (8,013) (1,741,969) (885,909) - - (346,524) - (88,894) (253,634) 24 100%Total year 24 949,886,451 4,962,207 62,149,629 16,750,928 (45,398,701) (3,482,504) (47,791) (25,487) (22,858) (8,173) (1,776,809) (903,627) - - (353,454) - (90,672) (253,634) 25 100%Total year 25 968,884,180 5,061,451 67,211,080 18,265,297 (48,945,783) (3,547,082) (48,747) (25,997) (23,315) (8,337) (1,812,345) (921,700) - - (360,523) - (92,485) (253,634) 26 100%Total year 26 988,261,864 5,162,680 72,373,760 19,815,027 (52,558,733) (3,612,951) (49,722) (26,517) (23,781) (8,503) (1,848,592) (940,134) - - (367,734) - (94,335) (253,634) 27 100%Total year 27 1,008,027,101 5,265,934 77,639,694 21,427,791 (56,211,903) (3,653,170) (50,716) (27,047) (24,257) (8,673) (1,885,563) (958,936) - - (348,121) - (96,222) (253,634) 28 100%Total year 28 1,028,187,643 5,371,252 83,010,946 23,077,883 (59,933,063) (3,721,160) (51,731) (27,588) (24,742) (8,847) (1,923,275) (978,115) - - (355,084) - (98,146) (253,634) 29 100%Total year 29 1,048,751,396 5,478,677 88,489,623 24,766,049 (63,723,574) (3,790,511) (52,765) (28,140) (25,237) (9,024) (1,961,740) (997,677) - - (362,185) - (100,109) (253,634) 30 100%Total year 30 1,069,726,424 5,588,251 94,077,874 26,493,051 (67,584,823) (3,861,249) (53,821) (28,703) (25,741) (9,204) (2,000,975) (1,017,631) - - (369,429) - (102,111) (253,634) 31 100%Total year 31 1,091,120,952 5,700,016 99,777,890 28,259,666 (71,518,224) (3,933,401) (54,897) (29,277) (26,256) (9,388) (2,040,994) (1,037,983) - - (376,818) - (104,153) (253,634) 32 100%Total year 32 1,112,943,371 5,814,016 105,591,906 30,066,686 (75,525,220) (4,006,996) (55,995) (29,862) (26,781) (9,576) (2,081,814) (1,058,743) - - (384,354) - (106,236) (253,634) 33 100%Total year 33 1,135,202,239 5,930,296 111,522,203 31,914,919 (79,607,283) (4,082,063) (57,115) (30,460) (27,317) (9,768) (2,123,451) (1,079,918) - - (392,041) - (108,361) (253,634) 34 100%Total year 34 1,157,906,284 6,048,902 117,571,105 33,774,213 (83,796,892) (4,189,609) (58,257) (31,069) (27,863) (9,963) (2,165,920) (1,101,516) - - (430,859) - (110,528) (253,634) 35 100%Total year 35 1,181,064,409 6,169,880 123,740,985 35,675,765 (88,065,220) (4,268,328) (59,422) (31,690) (28,421) (10,162) (2,209,238) (1,123,547) - - (439,476) - (112,739) (253,634) 36 100%Total year 36 1,204,685,697 6,293,278 130,034,264 37,620,421 (92,413,843) (4,348,622) (60,611) (32,324) (28,989) (10,366) (2,253,423) (1,146,018) - - (448,265) - (114,994) (253,634) 37 100%Total year 37 1,228,779,411 6,419,144 136,453,407 39,576,170 (96,877,237) (4,463,395) (61,823) (32,970) (29,569) (10,573) (2,298,491) (1,168,938) - - (490,103) - (117,294) (253,634) 38 100%Total year 38 1,253,355,000 6,547,527 143,000,934 41,758,999 (101,241,935) (4,364,698) (63,059) (33,630) (30,160) (10,784) (2,344,461) (1,192,317) - - (317,013) - (119,639) (253,634) 39 100%Total year 39 1,278,422,100 6,678,477 149,679,411 43,990,557 (105,688,854) (4,446,919) (64,321) (34,302) (30,763) (11,000) (2,391,350) (1,216,163) - - (323,353) - (122,032) (253,634) 40 100%Total year 40 1,303,990,542 6,812,047 156,491,457 46,525,452 (109,966,005) (4,277,151) (65,607) (34,988) (31,379) (11,220) (2,439,177) (1,240,486) - - (329,821) - (124,473) - Land Absorption SCENARIO 2 - 2% appreciation and inflation, Ideal 2/1000 police officer ratio, Fire Station at 7 years, Park at 5 years, Full 7-Lane T-Fare with 80% federal matching dollars SCENARIO 2 Revenue Expenses 114TH ST 130TH STFM 1585 82ND ST 66TH ST 50TH ST 34TH ST 19TH STSH 114 4TH STFM 2255 ERSKINE ST URSULINE ST KENT ST FM 1294 FM 1730SLIDE RDQUAKER AVEINDIANA AVEUNIVERSITY AVEAVE QAVE AMLK BLVDGUAVA AVEFRANKFORD AVEMILWAUKEE AVEUPLAND AVEINLER AVEALCOVE AVEUS 84 LOOP 289FM 179LOOP 289LOOP 289US 84FM 2641 US 62/82US 62/82 SH 11498TH ST ± 0 1 2 3 40.5 Mil es City of LubbockAnnexation History by Decade Annexation by Decade 1900s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s GIS & Data Services03/15 As required by SECTION 1. Chapter 2051, SUBCHAPTER D. GEOSPATIAL DATA PRODUCTS of the Governmen t Cod e, the Ci ty of Lubbock hereby provides notice that the data on this map was created by the City of Lubbock. Any data that appears to represent property bounda ries is for informational p urposes and may n ot have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purpo ses. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries. APPENDIX D2 “MYTHICAL MILE” SCENARIO 2 31LubbockCity of Year Status Land Use Land Area Unit Value Assessed City Tax General Animal Code Environ.Police Fire New Fire Solid Street Park Park T-Fare (lanes) (weighted res)Value 0.005224 Admin Services Enforce Health Ratio 1:500 Annual Station Waste Maint.Const Per Ac 5 Lanes Cumulative 200 per Sta.8 First Truck 5 2,300 10 Year built Annual Cumulative Net Cumulative Annual (1,333,333) 500 Lots Total 0%Fed Match Square Mile 640 Ac Revenue Revenue Gain/(loss)Expense Expense (30,307) (16,163) (14,495) (5,183) (140,847) (573,040) (1,531,581) (300,000) Varies (250,000) (57,500) (10,179,053) Amount Financed T-Fare 27 - - 20 (1/2 lake)20 Financed (years) Playa 50 - - 5%Pro Rated 5%Rate Year Year Church 30 - - (122,898)2nd Truck (816,794) Annual Payment Start Done School 15 - - 1000 Lots 6 15 Commercial 50 1,169,380 58,469,008 305,442 (2,925) (1,560) (1,399) (500) (204,000) 6 15 Garden Office 28 1,333,433 37,336,137 195,044 (1,638) (874) (784) (280) 6 15 Multi-Family 40 1,240,274 49,610,969 259,168 (2,340) (1,248) (1,119) (400) 1 20 Single-Family 400 272,000 456,960,000 2,387,159 (23,403) (12,481) (11,193) (4,002) Inflation 2.0%Non-Res App.3,146,813 2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0% 2.0%Res Apprec. 1 4%Total year 1 22,848,000 119,358 119,358 116,804 (2,554) (2,554) (1,170) (624) (560) (200) - - - - - - - - 2 8%Total year 2 46,609,920 243,490 362,848 355,084 (7,764) (5,210) (2,387) (1,273) (1,142) (408) - - - - - - - - 3 12%Total year 3 71,313,178 372,540 735,388 573,116 (162,273) (154,508) (3,652) (1,948) (1,747) (625) (146,537) - - - - - - - 4 15%Total year 4 96,985,922 506,654 1,242,043 902,360 (339,683) (177,410) (4,967) (2,649) (2,376) (849) (149,468) - - - (17,101) - - - 5 19%Total year 5 123,657,050 645,984 1,888,027 879,316 (1,008,711) (669,028) (6,333) (3,377) (3,029) (1,083) (304,914) - - - (17,443) (270,608) (62,240) - 6 25%Total year 6 167,411,343 874,557 2,762,584 1,011,777 (1,750,807) (742,096) (8,514) (4,541) (4,072) (1,456) (311,012) - - (331,224) (17,792) - (63,485) - 7 32%Total year 7 212,866,345 1,112,014 3,874,598 1,681,981 (2,192,617) (441,810) (10,779) (5,749) (5,156) (1,843) (317,233) - - - (36,296) - (64,754) - 8 38%Total year 8 260,072,583 1,358,619 5,233,217 1,642,359 (3,590,858) (1,398,241) (13,132) (7,003) (6,281) (2,246) (485,366) (658,243) (122,898) - (37,022) - (66,049) - 9 44%Total year 9 309,081,924 1,614,644 6,847,861 1,828,497 (5,019,364) (1,428,506) (15,575) (8,306) (7,449) (2,664) (495,073) (671,408) (122,898) - (37,763) - (67,370) - 10 50%Total year 10 359,947,609 1,880,366 8,728,227 1,264,273 (7,463,954) (2,444,590) (18,110) (9,658) (8,662) (3,097) (673,299) (684,836) (122,898) - (38,518) - (68,718) (816,794) 11 56%Total year 11 412,724,289 2,156,072 10,884,299 833,558 (10,050,741) (2,586,787) (20,740) (11,061) (9,920) (3,547) (686,765) (698,533) (122,898) - (146,438) - (70,092) (816,794) 12 62%Total year 12 467,468,057 2,442,053 13,326,352 269,427 (13,056,925) (3,006,184) (23,468) (12,516) (11,224) (4,014) (875,626) (712,504) (122,898) (206,281) (149,367) - (71,494) (816,794) 13 68%Total year 13 524,236,486 2,738,611 16,064,963 165,780 (15,899,183) (2,842,258) (26,297) (14,024) (12,577) (4,497) (893,138) (726,754) (122,898) - (152,354) - (72,924) (816,794) 14 75%Total year 14 583,088,665 3,046,055 19,111,019 326,273 (18,784,746) (2,885,562) (29,230) (15,588) (13,980) (4,999) (911,001) (741,289) (122,898) - (155,401) - (74,382) (816,794) 15 81%Total year 15 644,085,236 3,364,701 22,475,720 575,292 (21,900,428) (3,115,682) (32,269) (17,209) (15,434) (5,519) (1,115,065) (756,115) (122,898) - (158,509) - (75,870) (816,794) 16 85%Total year 16 687,717,341 3,592,635 26,068,355 1,005,288 (25,063,067) (3,162,639) (34,490) (18,394) (16,496) (5,898) (1,137,367) (771,237) (122,898) - (161,679) - (77,387) (816,794) 17 88%Total year 17 732,837,095 3,828,341 29,896,696 1,429,672 (28,467,024) (3,403,957) (36,786) (19,618) (17,594) (6,291) (1,353,466) (786,662) (122,898) - (164,913) - (78,935) (816,794) 18 92%Total year 18 779,486,553 4,072,038 33,968,734 1,921,810 (32,046,924) (3,579,899) (39,160) (20,884) (18,730) (6,697) (1,380,536) (802,395) (122,898) - (291,292) - (80,514) (816,794) 19 96%Total year 19 827,708,854 4,323,951 38,292,685 2,609,410 (35,683,275) (3,636,351) (41,615) (22,193) (19,904) (7,117) (1,408,146) (818,443) (122,898) - (297,118) - (82,124) (816,794) 20 100%Total year 20 877,548,253 4,584,312 42,876,997 3,294,530 (39,582,467) (3,899,192) (44,152) (23,546) (21,117) (7,551) (1,641,496) (834,812) (122,898) - (303,060) - (83,767) (816,794) 21 100%Total year 21 895,099,218 4,675,998 47,552,995 3,988,200 (43,564,796) (3,982,328) (45,035) (24,017) (21,539) (7,702) (1,674,326) (851,508) (122,898) - (333,068) - (85,442) (816,794) 22 100%Total year 22 913,001,203 4,769,518 52,322,514 4,714,537 (47,607,977) (4,043,181) (45,935) (24,498) (21,970) (7,856) (1,707,813) (868,538) (122,898) - (339,729) - (87,151) (816,794) 23 100%Total year 23 931,261,227 4,864,909 57,187,422 5,474,195 (51,713,228) (4,105,251) (46,854) (24,987) (22,409) (8,013) (1,741,969) (885,909) (122,898) - (346,524) - (88,894) (816,794) 24 100%Total year 24 949,886,451 4,962,207 62,149,629 6,267,839 (55,881,790) (4,168,562) (47,791) (25,487) (22,858) (8,173) (1,776,809) (903,627) (122,898) - (353,454) - (90,672) (816,794) 25 100%Total year 25 968,884,180 5,061,451 67,211,080 7,096,151 (60,114,929) (4,233,139) (48,747) (25,997) (23,315) (8,337) (1,812,345) (921,700) (122,898) - (360,523) - (92,485) (816,794) 26 100%Total year 26 988,261,864 5,162,680 72,373,760 7,959,823 (64,413,938) (4,299,008) (49,722) (26,517) (23,781) (8,503) (1,848,592) (940,134) (122,898) - (367,734) - (94,335) (816,794) 27 100%Total year 27 1,008,027,101 5,265,934 77,639,694 8,886,528 (68,753,165) (4,339,228) (50,716) (27,047) (24,257) (8,673) (1,885,563) (958,936) (122,898) - (348,121) - (96,222) (816,794) 28 100%Total year 28 1,028,187,643 5,371,252 83,010,946 9,973,460 (73,037,486) (4,284,320) (51,731) (27,588) (24,742) (8,847) (1,923,275) (978,115) - - (355,084) - (98,146) (816,794) 29 100%Total year 29 1,048,751,396 5,478,677 88,489,623 11,098,467 (77,391,156) (4,353,671) (52,765) (28,140) (25,237) (9,024) (1,961,740) (997,677) - - (362,185) - (100,109) (816,794) 30 100%Total year 30 1,069,726,424 5,588,251 94,077,874 13,079,103 (80,998,771) (3,607,615) (53,821) (28,703) (25,741) (9,204) (2,000,975) (1,017,631) - - (369,429) - (102,111) - 31 100%Total year 31 1,091,120,952 5,700,016 99,777,890 15,099,351 (84,678,539) (3,679,767) (54,897) (29,277) (26,256) (9,388) (2,040,994) (1,037,983) - - (376,818) - (104,153) - 32 100%Total year 32 1,112,943,371 5,814,016 105,591,906 17,160,005 (88,431,901) (3,753,363) (55,995) (29,862) (26,781) (9,576) (2,081,814) (1,058,743) - - (384,354) - (106,236) - 33 100%Total year 33 1,135,202,239 5,930,296 111,522,203 19,261,872 (92,260,331) (3,828,430) (57,115) (30,460) (27,317) (9,768) (2,123,451) (1,079,918) - - (392,041) - (108,361) - 34 100%Total year 34 1,157,906,284 6,048,902 117,571,105 21,374,799 (96,196,306) (3,935,975) (58,257) (31,069) (27,863) (9,963) (2,165,920) (1,101,516) - - (430,859) - (110,528) - 35 100%Total year 35 1,181,064,409 6,169,880 123,740,985 23,529,985 (100,211,001) (4,014,695) (59,422) (31,690) (28,421) (10,162) (2,209,238) (1,123,547) - - (439,476) - (112,739) - 36 100%Total year 36 1,204,685,697 6,293,278 130,034,264 25,728,274 (104,305,989) (4,094,989) (60,611) (32,324) (28,989) (10,366) (2,253,423) (1,146,018) - - (448,265) - (114,994) - 37 100%Total year 37 1,228,779,411 6,419,144 136,453,407 27,937,657 (108,515,750) (4,209,761) (61,823) (32,970) (29,569) (10,573) (2,298,491) (1,168,938) - - (490,103) - (117,294) - 38 100%Total year 38 1,253,355,000 6,547,527 143,000,934 30,374,119 (112,626,814) (4,111,064) (63,059) (33,630) (30,160) (10,784) (2,344,461) (1,192,317) - - (317,013) - (119,639) - 39 100%Total year 39 1,278,422,100 6,678,477 149,679,411 32,859,311 (116,820,100) (4,193,285) (64,321) (34,302) (30,763) (11,000) (2,391,350) (1,216,163) - - (323,353) - (122,032) - 40 100%Total year 40 1,303,990,542 6,812,047 156,491,457 35,394,206 (121,097,251) (4,277,151) (65,607) (34,988) (31,379) (11,220) (2,439,177) (1,240,486) - - (329,821) - (124,473) - Land Absorption SCENARIO 3 - 2% appreciation and inflation, Ideal 2/1000 police officer ratio, Fire Station at 8 years, Park at 5 years, 5-Lane T-Fare with no federal matching dollars SCENARIO 3 Revenue Expenses 114TH ST 130TH STFM 1585 82ND ST 66TH ST 50TH ST 34TH ST 19TH STSH 114 4TH STFM 2255 ERSKINE ST URSULINE ST KENT ST FM 1294 FM 1730SLIDE RDQUAKER AVEINDIANA AVEUNIVERSITY AVEAVE QAVE AMLK BLVDGUAVA AVEFRANKFORD AVEMILWAUKEE AVEUPLAND AVEINLER AVEALCOVE AVEUS 84 LOOP 289FM 179LOOP 289LOOP 289US 84FM 2641 US 62/82US 62/82 SH 11498TH ST ± 0 1 2 3 40.5 Mil es City of LubbockAnnexation History by Decade Annexation by Decade 1900s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s GIS & Data Services03/15 As required by SECTION 1. Chapter 2051, SUBCHAPTER D. GEOSPATIAL DATA PRODUCTS of the Governmen t Cod e, the Ci ty of Lubbock hereby provides notice that the data on this map was created by the City of Lubbock. Any data that appears to represent property bounda ries is for informational p urposes and may n ot have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purpo ses. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries. APPENDIX D3 “MYTHICAL MILE” SCENARIO 3 32LubbockCity of Year Status Land Use Land Area Unit Value Assessed City Tax General Animal Code Environ.Police Fire New Fire Solid Street Park Park T-Fare (lanes) (weighted res)Value 0.005224 Admin Services Enforce Health Ratio 2:1115 Annual Station Waste Maint.Const Per Ac 5 Lanes Cumulative 223 per Sta.3 First Truck 5 2,300 10 Year built Annual Cumulative Net Cumulative Annual (1,333,333) 500 Lots Total 0%Fed Match Square Mile 640 Ac Revenue Revenue Gain/(loss)Expense Expense (30,307) (16,163) (14,495) (5,183) (140,847) (573,040) (1,387,200) (300,000) Varies (250,000) (115,000) (10,179,053) Amount Financed T-Fare 27 - - 20 (1/2 lake)20 Financed (years) Playa 100 - - 5%Pro Rated 5%Rate Year Year Church 30 - - (111,313)2nd Truck (816,794) Annual Payment Start Done School 15 - - 1000 Lots 6 15 Commercial 50 1,169,380 58,469,008 305,442 (3,238) (1,727) (1,549) (554) (141,000) 6 15 Garden Office 28 1,333,433 37,336,137 195,044 (1,813) (967) (867) (310) 6 15 Multi-Family 40 1,240,274 49,610,969 259,168 (2,590) (1,381) (1,239) (443) 1 20 Single-Family 350 272,000 399,840,000 2,088,764 (22,665) (12,088) (10,841) (3,876) Inflation 2.0%Non-Res App.2,848,418 2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0% 2.0%Res Apprec. 1 4%Total year 1 19,992,000 104,438 104,438 101,965 (2,473) (2,473) (1,133) (604) (542) (194) - - - - - - - - 2 7%Total year 2 40,783,680 213,054 317,492 309,973 (7,519) (5,046) (2,312) (1,233) (1,106) (395) - - - - - - - - 3 11%Total year 3 62,399,030 325,973 643,465 (79,279)(722,743) (715,224) (3,537) (1,886) (1,692) (605) - (596,191) (111,313) - - - - - 4 15%Total year 4 84,862,681 443,323 1,086,787 (531,402)(1,618,189) (895,446) (4,811) (2,565) (2,301) (823) (149,468) (608,115) (111,313) - (16,051) - - - 5 19%Total year 5 108,199,919 565,236 1,652,024 (1,275,059)(2,927,083) (1,308,893) (6,133) (3,271) (2,934) (1,049) (152,457) (620,277) (111,313) - (16,372) (270,608) (124,480) - 6 25%Total year 6 148,491,815 775,721 2,427,745 (1,560,735)(3,988,480) (1,061,397) (8,351) (4,454) (3,994) (1,428) (155,506) (632,683) (111,313) - (16,699) - (126,969) - 7 31%Total year 7 190,352,106 994,399 3,422,144 (2,164,896)(5,587,041) (1,598,561) (10,655) (5,682) (5,096) (1,822) (317,233) (645,337) (111,313) (337,849) (34,066) - (129,509) - 8 37%Total year 8 233,827,413 1,221,514 4,643,659 (2,231,839)(6,875,498) (1,288,457) (13,048) (6,958) (6,240) (2,231) (323,577) (658,243) (111,313) - (34,748) - (132,099) - 9 44%Total year 9 278,965,591 1,457,316 6,100,975 (2,091,375)(8,192,350) (1,316,852) (15,532) (8,283) (7,428) (2,656) (330,049) (671,408) (111,313) - (35,443) - (134,741) - 10 50%Total year 10 325,815,765 1,702,062 7,803,037 (2,720,345)(10,523,381) (2,331,031) (18,110) (9,658) (8,662) (3,097) (504,975) (684,836) (111,313) - (36,152) - (137,436) (816,794) 11 56%Total year 11 374,428,360 1,956,014 9,759,050 (3,229,035)(12,988,086) (2,464,705) (20,785) (11,085) (9,941) (3,555) (515,074) (698,533) (111,313) - (137,442) - (140,184) (816,794) 12 63%Total year 12 424,855,132 2,219,443 11,978,494 (3,510,178)(15,488,672) (2,500,586) (23,560) (12,565) (11,268) (4,029) (525,376) (712,504) (111,313) - (140,190) - (142,988) (816,794) 13 69%Total year 13 477,149,204 2,492,627 14,471,121 (3,733,466)(18,204,587) (2,715,915) (26,437) (14,099) (12,645) (4,521) (714,511) (726,754) (111,313) - (142,994) - (145,848) (816,794) 14 75%Total year 14 531,365,097 2,775,851 17,246,972 (3,857,577)(21,104,549) (2,899,962) (29,421) (15,690) (14,071) (5,032) (728,801) (741,289) (111,313) (142,934) (145,854) - (148,765) (816,794) 15 81%Total year 15 587,558,766 3,069,407 20,316,379 (3,587,242)(23,903,621) (2,799,072) (32,513) (17,339) (15,550) (5,560) (743,377) (756,115) (111,313) - (148,771) - (151,740) (816,794) 16 85%Total year 16 626,216,541 3,271,355 23,587,734 (3,345,267)(26,933,002) (3,029,381) (34,688) (18,499) (16,591) (5,932) (947,806) (771,237) (111,313) - (151,747) - (154,775) (816,794) 17 89%Total year 17 666,185,604 3,480,154 27,067,888 (2,939,916)(30,007,804) (3,074,802) (36,938) (19,699) (17,667) (6,317) (966,762) (786,662) (111,313) - (154,782) - (157,870) (816,794) 18 93%Total year 18 707,502,942 3,695,995 30,763,883 (2,480,640)(33,244,523) (3,236,719) (39,263) (20,939) (18,779) (6,715) (986,097) (802,395) (111,313) - (273,397) - (161,028) (816,794) 19 96%Total year 19 750,206,500 3,919,079 34,682,962 (2,049,150)(36,732,112) (3,487,588) (41,667) (22,221) (19,929) (7,126) (1,206,983) (818,443) (111,313) - (278,865) - (164,248) (816,794) 20 100%Total year 20 794,335,199 4,149,607 38,832,569 (1,441,924)(40,274,493) (3,542,381) (44,152) (23,546) (21,117) (7,551) (1,231,122) (834,812) (111,313) - (284,442) - (167,533) (816,794) 21 100%Total year 21 810,221,903 4,232,599 43,065,168 (826,466)(43,891,635) (3,617,142) (45,035) (24,017) (21,539) (7,702) (1,255,745) (851,508) (111,313) - (312,606) - (170,884) (816,794) 22 100%Total year 22 826,426,341 4,317,251 47,382,420 (180,138)(47,562,557) (3,670,922) (45,935) (24,498) (21,970) (7,856) (1,280,860) (868,538) (111,313) - (318,858) - (174,302) (816,794) 23 100%Total year 23 842,954,868 4,403,596 51,786,016 608,992 (51,177,023) (3,614,466) (46,854) (24,987) (22,409) (8,013) (1,306,477) (885,909) - - (325,235) - (177,788) (816,794) 24 100%Total year 24 859,813,965 4,491,668 56,277,684 1,430,241 (54,847,443) (3,670,420) (47,791) (25,487) (22,858) (8,173) (1,332,606) (903,627) - - (331,740) - (181,343) (816,794) 25 100%Total year 25 877,010,245 4,581,502 60,859,186 2,284,250 (58,574,935) (3,727,492) (48,747) (25,997) (23,315) (8,337) (1,359,259) (921,700) - - (338,375) - (184,970) (816,794) 26 100%Total year 26 894,550,449 4,673,132 65,532,317 3,171,675 (62,360,642) (3,785,706) (49,722) (26,517) (23,781) (8,503) (1,386,444) (940,134) - - (345,142) - (188,670) (816,794) 27 100%Total year 27 912,441,458 4,766,594 70,298,911 4,118,496 (66,180,416) (3,819,774) (50,716) (27,047) (24,257) (8,673) (1,414,173) (958,936) - - (326,735) - (192,443) (816,794) 28 100%Total year 28 930,690,288 4,861,926 75,160,837 5,100,588 (70,060,249) (3,879,834) (51,731) (27,588) (24,742) (8,847) (1,442,456) (978,115) - - (333,270) - (196,292) (816,794) 29 100%Total year 29 949,304,093 4,959,165 80,120,002 6,118,658 (74,001,344) (3,941,094) (52,765) (28,140) (25,237) (9,024) (1,471,305) (997,677) - - (339,935) - (200,218) (816,794) 30 100%Total year 30 968,290,175 5,058,348 85,178,350 7,990,219 (77,188,131) (3,186,787) (53,821) (28,703) (25,741) (9,204) (1,500,731) (1,017,631) - - (346,734) - (204,222) - 31 100%Total year 31 987,655,979 5,159,515 90,337,865 9,899,211 (80,438,653) (3,250,523) (54,897) (29,277) (26,256) (9,388) (1,530,746) (1,037,983) - - (353,668) - (208,307) - 32 100%Total year 32 1,007,409,098 5,262,705 95,600,570 11,846,383 (83,754,187) (3,315,533) (55,995) (29,862) (26,781) (9,576) (1,561,361) (1,058,743) - - (360,742) - (212,473) - 33 100%Total year 33 1,027,557,280 5,367,959 100,968,529 13,832,499 (87,136,030) (3,381,844) (57,115) (30,460) (27,317) (9,768) (1,592,588) (1,079,918) - - (367,957) - (216,722) - 34 100%Total year 34 1,048,108,426 5,475,318 106,443,847 15,829,263 (90,614,585) (3,478,554) (58,257) (31,069) (27,863) (9,963) (1,624,440) (1,101,516) - - (404,389) - (221,057) - 35 100%Total year 35 1,069,070,594 5,584,825 112,028,672 17,865,962 (94,162,710) (3,548,126) (59,422) (31,690) (28,421) (10,162) (1,656,929) (1,123,547) - - (412,477) - (225,478) - 36 100%Total year 36 1,090,452,006 5,696,521 117,725,193 19,943,395 (97,781,798) (3,619,088) (60,611) (32,324) (28,989) (10,366) (1,690,067) (1,146,018) - - (420,727) - (229,987) - 37 100%Total year 37 1,112,261,046 5,810,452 123,535,645 22,031,524 (101,504,121) (3,722,323) (61,823) (32,970) (29,569) (10,573) (1,723,868) (1,168,938) - - (459,995) - (234,587) - 38 100%Total year 38 1,134,506,267 5,926,661 129,462,306 24,333,072 (105,129,234) (3,625,113) (63,059) (33,630) (30,160) (10,784) (1,758,346) (1,192,317) - - (297,538) - (239,279) - 39 100%Total year 39 1,157,196,393 6,045,194 135,507,500 26,680,650 (108,826,850) (3,697,615) (64,321) (34,302) (30,763) (11,000) (1,793,513) (1,216,163) - - (303,489) - (244,064) - 40 100%Total year 40 1,180,340,320 6,166,098 141,673,598 29,075,181 (112,598,417) (3,771,568) (65,607) (34,988) (31,379) (11,220) (1,829,383) (1,240,486) - - (309,559) - (248,946) - Land Absorption SCENARIO 4 - 2% appreciation and inflation, current 2/1115 police officer ratio, Fire Station at 3 years, 100-Acre Playa and Park at 5 years, 5-Lane T-Fare with no federal matching dollars SCENARIO 4 Revenue Expenses 114TH ST 130TH STFM 1585 82ND ST 66TH ST 50TH ST 34TH ST 19TH STSH 114 4TH STFM 2255 ERSKINE ST URSULINE ST KENT ST FM 1294 FM 1730SLIDE RDQUAKER AVEINDIANA AVEUNIVERSITY AVEAVE QAVE AMLK BLVDGUAVA AVEFRANKFORD AVEMILWAUKEE AVEUPLAND AVEINLER AVEALCOVE AVEUS 84 LOOP 289FM 179LOOP 289LOOP 289US 84FM 2641 US 62/82US 62/82 SH 11498TH ST ± 0 1 2 3 40.5 Mil es City of LubbockAnnexation History by Decade Annexation by Decade 1900s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s GIS & Data Services03/15 As required by SECTION 1. Chapter 2051, SUBCHAPTER D. GEOSPATIAL DATA PRODUCTS of the Governmen t Cod e, the Ci ty of Lubbock hereby provides notice that the data on this map was created by the City of Lubbock. Any data that appears to represent property bounda ries is for informational p urposes and may n ot have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purpo ses. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries. APPENDIX D4 “MYTHICAL MILE” SCENARIO 4 33LubbockCity of 114TH ST 130TH STFM 1585 82ND ST 66TH ST 50TH ST34TH ST19TH STSH 114 4TH STFM 2255 ERSKINE ST URSULINE STKENT STFM 1294 FM 1730SLIDE RDQUAKER AVEINDIANA AVEUNIVERSITY AVEAVE QAVE AMLK BLVDGUAVA AVEFRANKFORD AVEMILWAUKEE AVEUPLAND AVEINLER AVEALCOVE AVEUS 84LOOP 289FM 179LOOP 289LOOP 289US 84FM 2641US 62/82US 62/82 SH 11498TH ST± 0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles City of LubbockAnnexation History by Decade Annexation by Decade1900s1920s1930s1940s1950s1970s1980s1990s2000s2010s GIS & Data Services03/15 As required by SECTION 1. Chapter 2051, SUBCHAPTER D. GEOSPATIAL DATA PRODUCTS of the Government Code, the City of Lubbock hereby provides notice that the data on this map w as created by the City of Lubbock. Any data that appears to represent property boundari es is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of prope rty boundaries. APPENDIX E SUPPLEMENTAL STUDY - IMPACT FEES 34LubbockCity of IN GENERAL: The City Attorney researched impact fees in some of the other cities across the state. Local Government Code Chapter 395 provides the language regulating impact fees. In a very simplified way to state it, an impact fee can only be assessed against new development to cover costs of new or expanded capital improvements directly attributable to that development or service area. For example, an impact fee could cover roadways, or major water treatment facilities, or other items directly attributable to a service area. Texas cities which have implemented some form of impact fees are listed below. Of particular note is the growth rate each of these communities is reporting. The Committee did not contact the cities listed to confirm, but the Commit- tee does believe their growth rates (averaging nearly 7.5% over 3 years) may likely be the common thread for their decisions to implement these types of fees. Lubbock may consider the ramifications of establishing impact fees for the following types of capital improve - ments: Water or Sewer: Treatment facilities which have a clearly defined service area may be considered. How- ever, if say, an expansion to one of the water supply lines entering the city were required, it may be difficult to al- locate or justify that type of capital expense to a specific service area. Roadways: For Lubbock, our thoroughfare system is an interwoven grid. While some prorated portion of a thoroughfare may be directly attributable to a specific service area, the full-width paving is usually only re - quired to serve a much larger traveling population not necessarily tied to the specific service area. Care would need to be taken to justify how much of the roadway is actually attributable to a given service area. Drainage Facilities: All new development within the City and the ETJ is required to be designed to accom- modate post-development run off from the entire watershed. The onus is on the developer to provide an adequate network of streets and other surface drainage improvements to accommodate the flow from a given water shed (service area). So, it is unlikely there would be any new capital improvements constructed by the City for drainage relief in newly developed areas. Conversely, capital drainage improvements have in fact been con- structed in established areas primarily as flood relief. Since impact fees can only be applied to new develop- ment, the revenue may be very limited to recoup any expenses for the capital drainage improvements already underway. EXPENDITURES NOT ELIGIBLE: The statute limits impact fees to cover capital improvements and facility expan- sions. As defined in State statues, “capital improvements” are limited to water, wastewater, drainage, and roadway facilities. “Facility expansion” is limited to expansion of a facility which serves the same function as an otherwise necessary “capital improvement”. Therefore, impact fees may not be used for items such as fire stations, parks, ad- ditional police personnel, or other such expenses. BENEFITS: In cases of specific large capital improve- ments, the establishment of impact fees can provide a revenue source to reduce the financial burden on either the tax payers or rate payers outside of the service area. For example, if an area of the city is growing and there is the need for a new water tower to support that growth, then that expense gets allocated directly to the home- buyers or other end users in that defined area. 35LubbockCity of 114TH ST 130TH STFM 1585 82ND ST 66TH ST 50TH ST34TH ST19TH STSH 114 4TH STFM 2255 ERSKINE ST URSULINE STKENT STFM 1294FM 1730SLIDE RDQUAKER AVEINDIANA AVEUNIVERSITY AVEAVE QAVE AMLK BLVDGUAVA AVEFRANKFORD AVEMILWAUKEE AVEUPLAND AVEINLER AVEALCOVE AVEUS 84LOOP 289FM 179LOOP 289LOOP 289US 84 FM 2641US 62/82US 62/82 SH 11498TH ST±0 1 2 3 40.5 MilesCity of LubbockAnnexation History by Decade Annexation by Decade1900s1920s1930s1940s1950s1970s1980s1990s2000s2010s GIS & Data Services03/15 As required by SECTION 1. Chapter 2051, SUBCHAPTER D. GEOSPATIAL DATA PRODUCTS of the Government Code, the City of Lubbock hereby provides notice that the data on this map was created by the C ity of Lubbock. Any data that appears to represent property boundaries is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries. APPENDIX E SUPPLEMENTAL STUDY - IMPACT FEES DISADVANTAGES: The types of items eligible for fund- ing from impact fees is very limited. The establishment of impact fees is lengthy and very involved process. A Capital Improvements Plan specifically prepared for the impact fee program must be prepared along with an adoption by the city of Land Use Assumptions within the service area. An advisory committee must be appointed to review the CIP pe - riodically, and a number of public hearings are required for the adoption of the ordinance. It is likely impact fees would create a significant additional burden on city accounting staff. Quite simply, it would create a layer of bureaucracy the City may not find desirable for the possible benefit. TEXAS CITIES CURRENTLY IMPOSING IMPACT FEES: U.S. Census Bureau Population: City Percent Change 2010-2013 Allen 9.2% Arlington 3.9% Austin 9.2% Baytown 4.7% Bryan 3.3% Burleson 11.0% College Station 6.4% Colleyville 7.4% Denton 7.8% El Paso 3.9% Flower Mound 6.1% Fort Worth 6.8% Fredricksburg 2.8% Frisco 16.8% Hurst 3.0% Lockhart 3.2% Mansfield 8.0% Mckinney 13.4% Mesquite 2.8% New Braunfels 9.6% Pearland 11.3% Round Rock 9.8% San Antonio 6.1% San Marcos 20.5% Southlake 6.2% Taylor 6.2% Watauga 2.9% Waxahachie 6.7% Wylie 7.7% 114TH ST 130TH STFM 1585 82ND ST 66TH ST 50TH ST34TH ST19TH STSH 114 4TH STFM 2255 ERSKINE ST URSULINE STKENT STFM 1294 FM 1730SLIDE RDQUAKER AVEINDIANA AVEUNIVERSITY AVEAVE QAVE AMLK BLVDGUAVA AVEFRANKFORD AVEMILWAUKEE AVEUPLAND AVEINLER AVEALCOVE AVEUS 84LOOP 289FM 179LOOP 289LOOP 289US 84FM 2641US 62/82US 62/82 SH 11498TH ST± 0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles City of LubbockAnnexation History by Decade Annexation by Decade1900s1920s1930s1940s1950s1970s1980s1990s2000s2010s GIS & Data Services03/15 As required by SECTION 1. Chapter 2051, SUBCHAPTER D. GEOSPATIAL DATA PRODUCTS of the Government Code, the City of Lubbock hereby provides notice that the data on this map w as created by the City of Lubbock. Any data that appears to represent property boundari es is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of prope rty boundaries. APPENDIX F ANNEXATION AND GROWTH POLICY REPORT BULLETED SUMMARY 36LubbockCity of 1. Annexation History a. 1912 - Home Rule Amendment to Texas Constitution provided for self-governance of cities exceeding 5000 population b. 1963 – Municipal Annexation Act limited cities’ powers of annexation c. 1980 – Further restrictions and elimination of “strip” annexations less than 1000’ wide d. 1999 – Senate Bill 89 restructured the Annexation Act – further restricted cities’ abilities and established the requirement for an Annexation Plan under some circumstances 2. Types of Annexation a. Petition Annexation – Request submitted by land owners and city must conduct three public hearings on the matter b. Involuntary – Exempt from Annexation Plan if there are fewer than 100 dwellings on fewer than 100 separate tracts of land within the area to be annexed. Three public hearings are required c. Involuntary – Annexation Plan Required for areas exceeding 100 dwellings on 100 tracts. 3. Issues to Consider a. Ordinances and Taxes – City ordinances become immediately effective. Property taxes take effect January 1 of the following year. b. Voting Rights – Voting rights within newly annexed areas are no longer required to be pre-cleared by the Attorney General of the United States c. Zoning – All land annexed in Lubbock defaults to “transitional” zoning. Existing uses are deemed as legal non-conforming (“grandfathered”) d. Subdivision regulations become immediately effective. e. Incentive Agreements – City and land owners within industrial districts can enter into an agreement for a period of up to 15 years. The agreement can stipulate no annexation 4. Lubbock Annexation History a. 1909 - Lubbock incorporated b. 1940’s – Population growth from 70,000 to 125,000 c. 1950’s – Annexations done in advance of the final Loop 289 configuration d. 1970’s – Area south and north of the city were brought in e. 1980’s – Airport area plus panhandle extending to Reese Air Force Base f. 1990’s – Approximately 12 square miles south and west g. 2000’s – Mostly to the south plus a few areas to the north 5. Recommended Annexations a. Area A – East of Highway 87 and south of 82nd St. – Will help promote industrial development b. Area B – East of University Ave. to Highway 87 and south of 146th St. – Will help ensure standard development c. Area C – South University Ave. and South Milwaukee Ave. from the city limits to 146th St. – Will help provide consistent residential development d. Area D – South of 130th St. and west of Milwaukee Ave. to Alcove Ave. – Will include largely undeveloped property e. Area E – In between 34th St., Marsha sharp Freeway, Upland Ave., and Alcove Ave. – Will likely be annexed through an involuntary process f. Area F – North of 4th St. and west of Frankford Ave. – Will include several small residential neighborhoods 37LubbockCity of 114TH ST 130TH STFM 1585 82ND ST 66TH ST 50TH ST34TH ST19TH STSH 114 4TH STFM 2255 ERSKINE ST URSULINE STKENT STFM 1294FM 1730SLIDE RDQUAKER AVEINDIANA AVEUNIVERSITY AVEAVE QAVE AMLK BLVDGUAVA AVEFRANKFORD AVEMILWAUKEE AVEUPLAND AVEINLER AVEALCOVE AVEUS 84LOOP 289FM 179LOOP 289LOOP 289US 84 FM 2641US 62/82US 62/82 SH 11498TH ST±0 1 2 3 40.5 MilesCity of LubbockAnnexation History by Decade Annexation by Decade1900s1920s1930s1940s1950s1970s1980s1990s2000s2010s GIS & Data Services03/15 As required by SECTION 1. Chapter 2051, SUBCHAPTER D. GEOSPATIAL DATA PRODUCTS of the Government Code, the City of Lubbock hereby provides notice that the data on this map was created by the C ity of Lubbock. Any data that appears to represent property boundaries is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries. APPENDIX F ANNEXATION AND GROWTH POLICY REPORT: BULLETED SUMMARY g. Area G – In between north Indiana Ave. and north Slide Rd. to Kent St. – Will include the North West Water Reclamation Plant h. Area H – Includes the Airport and I-27 corridor – Will help to protect the north entry of Lubbock 6. Considerations for future annexations a. Orderly development – Keep annexation boundaries easy to identify and encourage continued “full service” infrastructure for residents b. Maintenance of infrastructure – move towards cash-funding maintenance c. Thoroughfare Paving – As growth continues, exercise good strategic planning for expansion to the thoroughfare system. d. Outer Route – To the greatest extent practical, incorporate land on each side of the proposed outer route so as to ensure proper land uses along that corridor. e. Water Supply – City’s Strategic Water Plan addresses growth and future capital projects necessary to maintain adequate supply and delivery. Encourage continued conservation f. Fire Coverage – continue to work between developers and city to ensure timely expansion to the fire department g. Police Department – As the city grows both geographically and population-wise, police department will need to expand personal and equipment h. Parks – Public park development in newly annexed areas has not occurred. Developers and the City’s Parks Department should work to find an economically viable way to continue development of public open space necessary for recreation and drainage. i. School districts – The city limits currently include three large school districts plus three smaller ones. j. Development Incentives – i. TIFs – best used as a tool for funneling “new” tax revenue back into an area being redeveloped ii. PIDs – provides a public means for funding of amenities within a development iii. Tax Abatements – Implemented elsewhere in the State iv. Impact Fees – Limited to Capital Improvements including water, wastewater, roadways and drainage. 1. Benefit – May provide funding for capital improvements directly related to a given development without burdening the overall tax base 2. Disadvantages – Very bureaucratically cumbersome 7. Proposed Annexation Policies for the City of Lubbock a. Maintain long-range generalized plan for growth and annexation b. Annex exempted areas (less than 100 homes) c. Avoid pockets or strips of unincorporated areas d. Ensure all annexations are following all statutory requirements e. Continue to prohibit extension of public facilities beyond corporate limits f. Prepare fiscal analyses for annexations as they are contemplated g. Be prepared to annex in areas where fiscal impact may not be immediately favorable h. Require Developers to bear the routine cost for development for petition annexations i. Maintain good working relationships with Lubbock County, other incorporated communities in the area, and the MPO j. Stay abreast of latest legislative actions related to annexation and any other growth topics