Dan DeGeest's Council Review

Hello friends,

The Ames City Council review for July 26, 2016.  The agenda included:

• 32. 2015/16 ASSET draw-down pertaining to Emergency Residence Project.
  
  In order for the Emergency Residence Project to receive ASSET funding, they are required to submit data on clients they serve. Previously, Council had asked for information on how many clients were from Ames as the ASSET contract requires. There was concern by Council that we were providing services to homeless people who did not list Ames as their last known residence. In June, the City compared funding requests with the County, and found several instances where ERP requested funding from both entities for the same client for an undefined time period. City staff isn’t comfortable allocating the remaining $28K from fiscal year ‘15/’16 until it can be verified that the City and County aren’t paying for duplicate services. Staff recommend holding the funding over to the next fiscal year so ERP can clarify the bills in question.
  
  On Saturday I got a phone call.  It was my wife, she was calling from Food at First, a free food pantry, where she volunteers to glean and distribute food.  She had just spoken to a man in the parking lot of the church where the pantry is located.  His car would not start, he had spent the previous night in the hospital, and his family was currently staying at a local women’s shelter.  He was living in the car because the ERP had no family housing available and as an amputee they were unable to take him and his wheelchair.  It was nearly 100 degrees outside with a heat index much higher - it was an untenable and real situation.
  
  One of our friends, a mechanic, went and looked at the car – lost cause - no way he could get it running without major work. So they loaded the man and his wheelchair in our van and she drove him to the ERP where she implored them to take him in - “it’s what Vic Moss would do” she told them.
  
  They agreed.  There was no discussion of why he was homeless or what his last address had been.  They did what they do – provided shelter and a meal despite the lack of wheelchair accessibility of their aging two-story – they scraped by with what they had.  The man had dinner with the other men, went to his make-shift bed as he could not reach the actual sleeping rooms on the second floor, and sometime during the night began having trouble breathing and had to be transported to the emergency room.
  
  Imagine how this story might have played out had he remained in his stalled car in the FAF parking lot on one of the hottest days of the year.  I predict quite tragically.
  
  The City Council is concerned that the ERP is billing to shelter homeless people that are not Ames residents.  This led to an inquiry by City Staff and subsequently resulted in some billing discrepancies, despite Vic Moss reiterating that ERP has been billing the exact same way since the day they opened.  Staff went on to recommend carrying forward but delay payment of the remainder of their allocated ASSET funds for the current fiscal year until it could all be sorted out.
  
  Clearly, good record keeping is important but do we really want to put this additional administrative burden on service providers to ration out funds based on residence – especially for a homeless shelter when lack of residence is the issue?  Or should services like the ERP be allowed to do the best they can, for anyone in need that shows up, with the money they have available?  Do we leave a one legged man, in a broken down car, in 110 degree weather, in the parking lot of food pantry, while we shelter his family just because he didn’t previously live in Ames?
  
  I believe we need to increase ASSET funding for services like the ERP, not find ways to increase their administrative overhead or reduce services.  The City of Ames currently has millions of dollars sitting idle in the fund that supports ASSET.  Every year they haggle over a percentage point difference in funding increases.  I think Council should put its energy into finding ways to put that money to work for those in need.  How about they start with helping the ERP with capital improvements like ADA accessibility and securing more transitional housing for homeless families.
  
  Motion to Carry forward but delay pay-down passed 5-1 (Beatty-Hansen No)
   
• 33. Staff Report on 2700 Block of Lincoln Way pertaining to reduction of parking spaces for hotel uses. 
  
  A developer is proposing to redevelop the 2700 block of Lincoln Way into a mix of apartments, retail space, and hotel space. At the last council meeting, Council directed staff to report back on parking restrictions which would affect the developer’s ability to bring in a national chain hotel. Staff report that there are two issues related to parking for this proposed project. First, if a bar or restaurant is attached to a hotel, they are typically required to have parking. Option 1 is to waive this requirement. Second, hotels are required to have one parking space per room, option 2 would reduce the parking requirement for the hotel by 50%. 
  Parking is a complex issue. Easy access to infinite parking contributes to a car-focused culture of transportation, which is not the case in other cities and countries. On the flip side, permanent residents in the Campustown area feel the pinch of parking when residential streets are congested and used for semi-permanent parking. Even if Council reduces the parking requirement, it may be that the hotel chain will need to contract for more parking with a neighboring facility (business, church, etc.).
  If Council chooses not to change any parking standards, the project will proceed with the original plan for a smaller boutique hotel.
  
  This item was pulled from the agenda at the applicant's request as they were not ready to proceed at this time.  It will be addressed later on a future agenda.
   
• 34. Hearing on rezoning, with Master Plan, of 5571 Grant Avenue (Rose Prairie) from Agricultural (A) to Suburban Residential Low Density (FS-RL), Suburban Residential Medium Density (FSRM), and Convenience General Service (CGS). Plus Addendum to Pre-Annexation Agreement 
  
  Rose Prairie, LLC, the owner of the property at 5571 Grant Ave., is requesting a rezone of the property from agricultural to a mix of medium and low density residential, and a convenience store node. This parcel is 170 acres, and the developer is proposing 80% single family, 14% multi-family, and 6% commercial use. In addition, 5 acres would be used for a park. The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4-2 to approve the project, and staff recommends approval. The original development agreement for this area limited the units to 292. The proposed master plan (and amended development agreement) shows around 740 units. Because the development is part of the Ada Hayden watershed, it is protected by a conservation easement which regulates environmental impacts such as storm water run-off.

  In 2010, when this parcel was annexed, it was determined the site could accommodate 292 dwelling units but zoning was never completed or anything built.  The current owner is now requesting a blended zoning designation that would support up to 746 dwelling units as well as some commercial and the City Council finds itself evenly split as to which size is more appropriate.

  It’s quite a quandary.  On the one hand we have leapfrogged development and brought out expensive City services like sewer and water.  It would make sense to develop at higher density and maximize that investment.  Higher density could support a greater range of lot sizes, home styles, and prices opening up this area up to many more potential buyers.  We hear repeatedly about a housing shortage – building more houses is a simple solution to that problem.

  On the other hand it is right next to Ada Hayden, a prized and fiercely protected nature and park area – an important resource and backup water supply for the City.  Higher density spoils the view, eats up green space, and increases traffic, noise, and light pollution.  The increased impermeable surface area threatens the watershed and requires immense water runoff mitigation engineering not without risks.  A gas station and its underground tanks exacerbate the risks.  Not to mention, none of these houses fall in the Ames School District.

  After lengthy discussion a motion to accept the rezoning with Master Plan failed 3-3 (Gartin, Nelson, Orazem YES  -- Corrieri, Betcher, Beatty-Hansen NO).

  Looks like it’s back to the drawing board.

Thanks for reading,

Dan DeGeest>>