bubble to view comments.
Loading Glossary… Page Saulsbury May 15 2026 at 9:55AM on page 9
This is a map that I made, we should update it to reflect to "present" city boundaries and annexations.
Logan Simpson
Document Review Portal
×
Warning message
The installed version of the browser you are using is outdated and no longer supported by Konveio. Please upgrade your browser to the latest release.AnnexCOS
Add comment
in reply to Alexander's comment
Page Saulsbury May 15 2026 at 9:54AM on page 10
Comment
Additionally, defining county rural residential can offer context to urban definitions. Where rural residential would be parcels that are 2.5 acres or more?
Page Saulsbury May 15 2026 at 9:49AM on page 8
Comment
This map will be updated.
Nancy Henjum May 12 2026 at 5:00PM on page 28
Suggested Revision
1. The "non-binding" framing of evaluation criteria undercuts the document's purpose
Chapter 3 (pp. 3-5 to 3-6) repeatedly emphasizes that:
"annexation petitions may be considered even when full alignment with all AnnexCOS goals, policies, or criteria is not demonstrated"
evaluation criteria "are not intended to function as mandatory thresholds or minimum standards"
"A lack of full consistency with individual policies does not, by itself, preclude consideration of an annexation petition"
Concern: Taken together, these statements give Council essentially unlimited discretion to approve annexations regardless of policy fit. If that's the intent, the document risks functioning as decorative rather than directive.
Suggested edits:
1. Identify a subset of policies as threshold requirements (e.g., water supply compliance under 12.4.305, contiguity, fiscal neutrality) versus aspirational goals (e.g., affordable housing benefit).
2. Add language requiring that when Council approves an annexation that does not meet specific AnnexCOS criteria, the approving ordinance must include written findings explaining the deviation and why approval serves the public interest.
3. Consider language such as: "Annexation petitions that do not demonstrate consistency with the policies in Chapter 2 carry a presumption against approval, which may be overcome only by specific written findings of countervailing public benefit."
Chapter 3 (pp. 3-5 to 3-6) repeatedly emphasizes that:
"annexation petitions may be considered even when full alignment with all AnnexCOS goals, policies, or criteria is not demonstrated"
evaluation criteria "are not intended to function as mandatory thresholds or minimum standards"
"A lack of full consistency with individual policies does not, by itself, preclude consideration of an annexation petition"
Concern: Taken together, these statements give Council essentially unlimited discretion to approve annexations regardless of policy fit. If that's the intent, the document risks functioning as decorative rather than directive.
Suggested edits:
1. Identify a subset of policies as threshold requirements (e.g., water supply compliance under 12.4.305, contiguity, fiscal neutrality) versus aspirational goals (e.g., affordable housing benefit).
2. Add language requiring that when Council approves an annexation that does not meet specific AnnexCOS criteria, the approving ordinance must include written findings explaining the deviation and why approval serves the public interest.
3. Consider language such as: "Annexation petitions that do not demonstrate consistency with the policies in Chapter 2 carry a presumption against approval, which may be overcome only by specific written findings of countervailing public benefit."
Nancy Henjum May 12 2026 at 4:56PM on page 32
Suggested Revision
Appendix A references the 2018 amendment to the 1988 Banning Lewis Ranch Annexation Agreement. Given that BLR represents the largest annexation in city history and has had significant fiscal and infrastructure consequences, it would be valuable for the document to explicitly capture the lessons learned.
Suggested edits:
Add a brief subsection (perhaps in Appendix B) summarizing what AnnexCOS does differently as a result of BLR experience, e.g., on fiscal analysis depth, infrastructure timing, or annexation agreement standards.
Suggested edits:
Add a brief subsection (perhaps in Appendix B) summarizing what AnnexCOS does differently as a result of BLR experience, e.g., on fiscal analysis depth, infrastructure timing, or annexation agreement standards.
Nancy Henjum May 12 2026 at 4:55PM on page 32
Suggested Revision
Appendix A references the 2018 amendment to the 1988 Banning Lewis Ranch Annexation Agreement. Given that BLR represents the largest annexation in city history and has had significant fiscal and infrastructure consequences, it would be valuable for the document to explicitly capture the lessons learned.
Suggested edits:
Add a brief subsection (perhaps in Appendix B) summarizing what AnnexCOS does differently as a result of BLR experience, e.g., on fiscal analysis depth, infrastructure timing, or annexation agreement standards.
Suggested edits:
Add a brief subsection (perhaps in Appendix B) summarizing what AnnexCOS does differently as a result of BLR experience, e.g., on fiscal analysis depth, infrastructure timing, or annexation agreement standards.
Nancy Henjum May 12 2026 at 4:53PM on page 20
Suggested Revision
ANX 4-2 ensures annexations pay for new facility costs, but says nothing about the fact that annexed areas eventually compete with existing neighborhoods for ongoing maintenance dollars. Older parts of the city already face deferred maintenance.
Suggested edit:
Add a policy element requiring fiscal analysis to model the lifecycle maintenance impact of annexed infrastructure on the City's overall capital backlog.
Suggested edit:
Add a policy element requiring fiscal analysis to model the lifecycle maintenance impact of annexed infrastructure on the City's overall capital backlog.
Nancy Henjum May 12 2026 at 4:50PM on page 20
Question
ANX 4-1 calls for "rigorous fiscal impact analysis," ANX 4-2 says growth will "pay its own way," and ANX 4-5 requires alignment of service demand and revenues. But the document does not specify:
Who performs the fiscal analysis (City staff? Annexor's consultant? Independent third party?)
What methodology is required? (TischlerBise is acknowledged as a consultant.) Is their methodology being adopted as standard?
What threshold triggers denial or modification? Is "neutral" sufficient, or is positive fiscal impact required?
How long-term the analysis horizon is (10 years? 20? Buildout?)
Whether and how the analysis is made public before Council action.
Suggested edits:
Specify in Chapter 3 that fiscal impact analyses must use a standardized methodology adopted by Council, cover a minimum horizon of 20 years, account for both operating and capital costs across all service departments, and be published with the petition materials at least 30 days before Planning Commission review.
Clarify that "pay its own way" means net-positive or net-neutral on a present-value basis, not merely "some revenue offsets some costs."
Address one-time vs. ongoing revenue sources sales tax from initial construction is different from sustained ongoing tax base.
Questions for staff:
Will the standardized fiscal model required by ANX 4-4 be adopted before AnnexCOS is finalized, or after? If after, is AnnexCOS approving a process whose key analytical tool doesn't yet exist?
Will fiscal impact analyses be funded by petitioners (per ANX 4-4) but conducted by City-selected analysts? Conflict-of-interest concerns warrant attention.
Who performs the fiscal analysis (City staff? Annexor's consultant? Independent third party?)
What methodology is required? (TischlerBise is acknowledged as a consultant.) Is their methodology being adopted as standard?
What threshold triggers denial or modification? Is "neutral" sufficient, or is positive fiscal impact required?
How long-term the analysis horizon is (10 years? 20? Buildout?)
Whether and how the analysis is made public before Council action.
Suggested edits:
Specify in Chapter 3 that fiscal impact analyses must use a standardized methodology adopted by Council, cover a minimum horizon of 20 years, account for both operating and capital costs across all service departments, and be published with the petition materials at least 30 days before Planning Commission review.
Clarify that "pay its own way" means net-positive or net-neutral on a present-value basis, not merely "some revenue offsets some costs."
Address one-time vs. ongoing revenue sources sales tax from initial construction is different from sustained ongoing tax base.
Questions for staff:
Will the standardized fiscal model required by ANX 4-4 be adopted before AnnexCOS is finalized, or after? If after, is AnnexCOS approving a process whose key analytical tool doesn't yet exist?
Will fiscal impact analyses be funded by petitioners (per ANX 4-4) but conducted by City-selected analysts? Conflict-of-interest concerns warrant attention.
Nancy Henjum May 12 2026 at 4:46PM on page 28
Comment
Chapter 3 (pp. 3-5 to 3-6) repeatedly emphasizes that:
"annexation petitions may be considered even when full alignment with all AnnexCOS goals, policies, or criteria is not demonstrated"
evaluation criteria "are not intended to function as mandatory thresholds or minimum standards"
"A lack of full consistency with individual policies does not, by itself, preclude consideration of an annexation petition"
Concern: Taken together, these statements give Council essentially unlimited discretion to approve annexations regardless of policy fit. If that's the intent, the document risks functioning as decorative rather than directive.
Suggested edits:
1. Identify a subset of policies as threshold requirements (e.g., water supply compliance under 12.4.305, contiguity, fiscal neutrality) versus aspirational goals (e.g., affordable housing benefit).
2. Add language requiring that when Council approves an annexation that does not meet specific AnnexCOS criteria, the approving ordinance must include written findings explaining the deviation and why approval serves the public interest.
3. Consider language such as: "Annexation petitions that do not demonstrate consistency with the policies in Chapter 2 carry a presumption against approval, which may be overcome only by specific written findings of countervailing public benefit."
"annexation petitions may be considered even when full alignment with all AnnexCOS goals, policies, or criteria is not demonstrated"
evaluation criteria "are not intended to function as mandatory thresholds or minimum standards"
"A lack of full consistency with individual policies does not, by itself, preclude consideration of an annexation petition"
Concern: Taken together, these statements give Council essentially unlimited discretion to approve annexations regardless of policy fit. If that's the intent, the document risks functioning as decorative rather than directive.
Suggested edits:
1. Identify a subset of policies as threshold requirements (e.g., water supply compliance under 12.4.305, contiguity, fiscal neutrality) versus aspirational goals (e.g., affordable housing benefit).
2. Add language requiring that when Council approves an annexation that does not meet specific AnnexCOS criteria, the approving ordinance must include written findings explaining the deviation and why approval serves the public interest.
3. Consider language such as: "Annexation petitions that do not demonstrate consistency with the policies in Chapter 2 carry a presumption against approval, which may be overcome only by specific written findings of countervailing public benefit."
Page Saulsbury May 7 2026 at 4:26PM on page 48
Comment
This color can be confusing for the reader
Andrea May 6 2026 at 9:38AM on page 44
Suggested Revision
globally on each of this & the following maps - do we want to cut the 'score #' since the criteria moved away from a point system for review?
Andrea May 6 2026 at 8:46AM on page 8
Suggested Revision
is this "white" - as an area of interest? hard to tell. i understand white is neutral, but a bit harder to read vs other non-interest areas.
Andrea May 6 2026 at 8:43AM on page 3
Technical Edit
Tom's of council - Kenneth Casey took his spot. Ken replaced **Richard Engel **
Darren Horstmeier May 5 2026 at 11:42AM on page 43
Comment
Various military installations are actively participating in the Readiness and Environmental Protection Integration (REPI) program. Would not expect that REPI areas of interest, extending out from certain installations, would qualify as an exclusion factor. However, consider noting REPI AOIs as a suitability criteria factor in one of the seven categories, if possible.
Darren Horstmeier May 5 2026 at 11:30AM on page 44
Technical Edit
Add Peterson SFB label and boundary of the military installation to maps on Pages C-6 through C-16.
Darren Horstmeier May 5 2026 at 11:24AM on page 44
Technical Edit
Pages C-6 through C-16 Category Maps: Schriever AFB label – revise to Schriever SFB.
Meggan Herington Apr 30 2026 at 11:54AM on page 29
Suggested Revision
more of a question - doesn't State Statute say that the 3-mile plan needs updated every year. seems like updating the map every year would be better and in compliance
Meggan Herington Apr 30 2026 at 11:40AM on page 25
Comment
what are the key considerations to be examined? I recommend just deleting this
Meggan Herington Apr 30 2026 at 11:40AM on page 25
Comment
what type of response?
Meggan Herington Apr 30 2026 at 11:37AM on page 21
Comment
Just a comment for the future - i continue to question the need and intent of the existing IGA. A regional IGA is probably not realistic. The IGA is referenced numerous times in this study and there hasn't been a discussion of need or want related to the IGA. Please know there will need to be more conversation about this and i'm not sure its a good idea
Meggan Herington Apr 30 2026 at 11:34AM on page 20
Comment
i agree there should be criteria for standardization of the fiscal impact. When will that be done. That should be part of the big picture annexation plan.
Meggan Herington Apr 30 2026 at 11:24AM on page 17
Comment
how is this defined. what is an irregular or fragmented boundary and why the need to minimize this? for me, this is hard to follow. i get the policy, but the explanation isn't clear.
Meggan Herington Apr 30 2026 at 11:23AM on page 17
Suggested Revision
do zone summaries still exist? what zones?
Cody Humphrey Apr 27 2026 at 4:25PM on page 8
Suggested Revision
Bradley Rd. has been annexed and is not showing up on this map.
Ann Apr 27 2026 at 4:19PM on page 44
Suggested Revision
the north half of this enclave has been annexed
Ben Kaiser Apr 24 2026 at 9:20AM on page 16
Question
Can we update this language to be more precise, stating the City will evaluate compatibility with and support for the plans listed. Maybe more discussion in the appendix could be good for this too.
Ben Kaiser Apr 24 2026 at 9:12AM on page 20
Question
Should this goal include a policy specifically related to evaluating O&M impacts to the City (Staffing, workloads, etc)? Thinking this would be beneficial especially= for groups like Transportation and Stormwater.
Ben Kaiser Apr 24 2026 at 9:09AM on page 25
Question
Would it be an issue to include more precise language stating the annexation approvals should include phasing expectations tied to infrastructure capacity or development impacts?
The thought behind that is to ensure new or upgraded infrastructure is being provided by annexations prior to burdening existing infrastructure.
The thought behind that is to ensure new or upgraded infrastructure is being provided by annexations prior to burdening existing infrastructure.
Ben Kaiser Apr 24 2026 at 9:04AM on page 26
Suggested Revision
I think a statement in this section noting that references to existing COS plans, and how the new annexation will support them, should be included as a favorable addition.
Page Apr 23 2026 at 3:11PM on page 53
Comment
should this read Colorado Springs Urban Development
Page Apr 23 2026 at 3:08PM on page 49
Comment
adding Schriever's boundary would be consistent with "Military Installations"
Page Apr 23 2026 at 3:07PM on page 49
Comment
add Peterson AFB
Page Apr 23 2026 at 3:06PM on page 49
Suggested Revision
Should this read greater than 1.0 mile ...
Page Apr 23 2026 at 3:05PM on page 49
Suggested Revision
remove the color because it is too close to the outside 1.) buffer and is not represented on this map
Jill Gaebler Apr 20 2026 at 3:52PM on page 32
Comment
Contiguity is likely the key legal requirement, but it shouldn't be the most important overall requirement for annexation.
Meggan Herington Apr 20 2026 at 3:00PM on page 11
Comment
Is this working? there is mention of this numerous times. I'd heard that it may not be needed or not be implemented the way it is intended. A discussion to be had at some point. Decision on if that is before adoption of the plan or after.
Meggan Herington Apr 20 2026 at 2:57PM on page 8
Question
would be interested in understanding the development of this map or if this map was recently re-evaluated. The AoPI area includes projects such as Flying Horse East and Flying Horse North. Neither of which, to my understanding, are being annexed. Flying Horse North is development in unincorporated County now. How will this map be considered in areas currently being developed.
Jill Gaebler Apr 20 2026 at 10:42AM on page 26
Comment
There should be a specific rubric that analyzes annexations based on plans to implement diverse housing and mixed-use developments, where daily needs, work, services, and civic life exist in a reasonable proximity to each other. This builds resilient communities that the city should incentivize.
Johnny 1 Apr 20 2026 at 7:37AM on page 18
Suggested Revision
Suggest change to "existing levels of infrastructure (such as utilities, etc.)
utilities are a form of infrastructure.
utilities are a form of infrastructure.
Johnny 1 Apr 20 2026 at 7:34AM on page 18
Suggested Revision
Suggest changing "any to "all"
Johnny Malpica Apr 17 2026 at 2:25PM on page 13
Suggested Revision
and include
Ryan Tefertiller Apr 17 2026 at 1:29PM on page 16
Question
do we really have data on CSU response times?
Ryan Tefertiller Apr 17 2026 at 1:18PM on page 6
Technical Edit
Does PlanCOS really establish "Implementation Initiatives" as a formal term/concept? I see in PlanCOS where there is discussion of developing annexation policies, but the term "Implementation Initiatives" (with upper case I's) is not used. Maybe this should be lower case.
Johnny Malpica Apr 17 2026 at 1:06PM on page 12
Suggested Revision
replace '.' with ':' or '-'
Johnny Malpica Apr 17 2026 at 1:06PM on page 12
Suggested Revision
replace '.' with ':' or '-'
Johnny Malpica Apr 17 2026 at 1:05PM on page 12
Suggested Revision
Suggest rewriting to "Two community events engaged the public through educational and interactive activities, provided both in-person and online.
Johnny Malpica Apr 17 2026 at 12:59PM on page 11
Suggested Revision
Chapter 7 is the UDC. Chapter 12 is Utilities. Should read "City Code of Colorado Springs (Chapter 7 and Chapter 12)."
Johnny Malpica Apr 17 2026 at 12:50PM on page 11
an agreement
Johnny Malpica Apr 17 2026 at 12:28PM on page 10
Comment
Perhaps should say an expansion of to the jurisdiction's total land area. This is incredibly broad.
Johnny Malpica Apr 17 2026 at 12:26PM on page 6
Comment
Something in this first paragraph should state that the plan guides annexations.
View all
Comments
View all Cancel