Forward Fate: What the City Was Doing, and Why It Mattered (2020–2021)

Scope Note
This article reflects the public record of the City of Fate’s comprehensive planning process from November 2020 through October 2021, based solely on the Ledger entries and the official planning documents adopted during that period. It explains what occurred and what it meant at the time, using only information available then.

Where the City Was

By late 2020, Fate was no longer a small town planning for modest growth. City staff stated that the population had increased from roughly 600 residents in 2000 to about 19,000 by 2020. That pace of growth placed pressure on roads, utilities, parks, and public services. City leadership described the moment as an opportunity to step back and decide how future growth would be handled before development patterns became harder to change.

The City had an existing comprehensive plan adopted in 2015. Staff and consultants stated that rapid growth, new development pressures along Interstate 30, and changing infrastructure needs made a full update appropriate.

What Was Being Considered

Residents and officials were being asked to engage with a long-range policy question: how should Fate grow over the next 20 years, and what principles should guide decisions along the way.

The comprehensive plan was repeatedly described as a policy document, not a zoning ordinance. Its purpose was to guide City Council, boards, commissions, and staff when evaluating development proposals, infrastructure investments, and future code updates.

What Was Happening

The process formally began with a public open house in November 2020. City staff and consultants outlined a year-long effort involving public meetings, advisory committee work, fiscal analysis, and design exercises.

Throughout 2021, the City held workshops, summits, committee meetings, and joint work sessions involving the City Council, Planning and Zoning Commission, and the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC). Each stage built on the previous one, moving from information gathering to scenario analysis and eventually toward adoption.

What Was Presented

The Planning Framework

Consultants from Halff & Associates described the comprehensive plan as a guiding framework for land use, infrastructure, transportation, housing, economic development, and fiscal responsibility. They emphasized that the plan would influence future zoning updates and capital improvement planning but would not itself rezone property.

A shift away from traditional land-use categories toward a character-based “place type” approach was presented. Place types ranged from rural to suburban to urban contexts, with different expectations for development intensity, form, and supporting infrastructure.

Fiscal Analysis and Development Patterns

Urban3 and Strong Towns were introduced as contributors to the fiscal analysis. Presenters described methods for comparing development patterns based on value per acre and long-term infrastructure costs.

Speakers stated that some development patterns produce more tax value per acre than others, while still requiring similar infrastructure obligations. The analysis was presented as a way to help the City understand long-term financial impacts, not as a guarantee of outcomes.

Multiple presenters described the risk of what they called an “illusion of wealth,” where early growth appears financially positive but creates long-term maintenance obligations.

Growth Scenarios

Two primary scenarios were presented for discussion:

• A “current trends” scenario reflecting existing suburban development patterns.
• A more compact, mixed-use scenario referred to as “Fate Forward,” emphasizing higher productivity per acre and reduced infrastructure expansion.

A hybrid preferred scenario was later introduced. Staff and consultants stated it combined elements of both approaches and reflected public input, existing entitlements, and fiscal considerations.

The scenarios were repeatedly described as analytical tools, not final decisions.

Public Engagement and Advisory Role

City staff emphasized public engagement throughout the process. Engagement included open houses, surveys, workshops, design studio activities, and online participation.

The CPAC was created to provide guidance and feedback but not to make binding decisions. Committee members asked questions about fiscal assumptions, zoning implications, rural preservation, housing diversity, and implementation.

Public comments were limited but included concerns from property owners about land use designations and development uncertainty.

What It Meant in Practical Terms

At the time, no immediate changes to zoning, taxes, or development approvals were enacted simply by holding these meetings. However, City staff stated that adoption of the comprehensive plan would affect how future decisions were evaluated.

Practically, this meant:

• Development proposals would be reviewed for consistency with the adopted plan.
• Future zoning and code updates would be expected to align with the plan’s place types and value statements.
• Capital improvement planning for roads, utilities, parks, and facilities would be guided by the plan’s priorities.
• Fiscal considerations, including long-term maintenance costs, would be formally integrated into project evaluation through tools such as a fiscal checklist.

Questions That Naturally Arose

As the process unfolded, several practical questions emerged:

• How much flexibility would staff and council have as market conditions changed?
• How would existing neighborhoods and rural areas be protected or transitioned?
• Would mixed-use and higher-density development be supported outside the downtown core?
• How would infrastructure capacity and costs be managed as growth continued?
• How would the plan translate into actual zoning and development rules?

Staff and consultants stated that many of these questions would be addressed in subsequent implementation steps, including updates to the Unified Development Ordinance.

Closing

By October 2021, City staff stated that the comprehensive plan had been adopted and the focus shifted to implementation. The planning effort, as recorded at the time, was presented as a structured attempt to understand growth pressures, evaluate long-term costs, and establish a shared framework for future decisions.

The record shows a city attempting to pause amid rapid change, gather information, and set guiding principles—without yet knowing exactly how every future decision would unfold.