Dan DeGeest's Council Review

Hello Friends,

Well it was another long night at City Council clocking in at just shy for 4.25 hours.   At that length it is hard to stay awake let alone allow for complete and thoughtful deliberation of each and every agenda item.  In the last review I had questioned the moving of certain agenda items to the end of the meeting in order to allow Councilman Orazem to be present for the vote.  I looked into this and found that it is legal and under the Mayor’s discretion.  All of those items went on to pass.

In general, as these meetings drag on, you can see the fatigue set in and items at the end of a long meeting are often quite rushed – everyone wants to go home, everyone is tired, everyone is hungry – late agenda items generally pass unanimously without a lot of discussion.

Last night’s meeting was front loaded with some big items including the East Industrial Annexation and a Zoning Text Amendment that would allow for supervised transitional housing in low-density residential.  Discussion on those two items alone lasted close to two hours.

Please read below for some highlights and as always you can replay the video on the City’s Website here.

Thanks for reading.

Dan DeGeest>> 
 

The Ames City Council review for August 23, 2016.  The agenda included:
 

• 8. Resolution approving Federal Aviation Administration Grant for 2015/16 Airport Improvements Program (Terminal Building Site - Phase 2 Utilities).
  The airport terminal improvements were funded with $600K in federal dollars. This agenda item involves submitting for the final $150K from the FAA.  
• 9. Resolution approving 2016/17 Agreement with Ames Economic Development Commission. 
  The City gives $150K annually to the Ames Economic Development Commission, $60K for the shared Business Development Coordinator position and $90K for business recruitment and marketing services.  The contract for economic development services to be provided by the AEDC is included in this agenda item. Interestingly, the first priority for the Business Development Coordinator, according to the contract, is to focus on the development of small and/or start-up businesses.  Annually, the City Council is provided with a report of economic development activity from the prior year, available for viewing at AEDC Annual Report. 
  What do we get for our $150K investment in the AEDC?  Should they held accountable to report the use of these dollars with the same scrutiny the City gives to the various social service providers that have to try a lot harder to get City funding?  The report above gives a very nice narrative overview of what they focused on over the last year (East Industrial Area, Airport), but you won't find the names of the prospective companies they are recruiting or a detailed financial breakdown of how the $90K is actually spent for recruitment and marketing.  I would be very interested in more details.  Resolution passing 2015/2106 Agreement with AEDC passed 6-0.
• 24. East Industrial Annexation.
  The City is considering annexing just shy of 1350 acres east of Hwy 35 along Lincoln Way to both the north and south. 1083 acres are represented by property owners that consent of the annexation, while the other property owners do not consent of annexation. (To annex a property, a city needs 80% of the property owners to consent, which is achieved in this case.) 11 individual property owners (and spouses) consented to annexation, 11 were non-consenting.
  Considerations for any annexation include the zoning of land once it is brought into the city (in this case agricultural), police and fire protection for the area, property tax changes, and sewer/water services for the area. In this case, water service had been provided to the area by Central Iowa Water Assoc., and current CIWA customers are allowed to stay with their current provider, but for any future developments, property owners would be obligated to secure buyouts from the rural water district.
  As always this remains controversial.  Two residents spoke against it and two development leaders from the the aforementioned AEDC spoke in favor.  Unfortunately for the former, by this meeting the East Industrial Annexation was basically a done deal.  As one community member poignantly pointed out "I'm kinda glad there are no opposing landowners here to waste their time speaking before you".
  
  We heard a lot of the same complaints - lack of public input, a utility rate increase to pay for it without customers fully understanding what they were funding, and no concrete deals in place for occupancy that prove it will be successful.   On the other side we heard a lot of the same justifications from the AEDC and City Council - Ames isn't "on the map" for industrial development, if we don't develop it then someone else will and we can't trust them to do a good job, we'll lose our water buyout contracts, and we need this revenue because we are too reliant on State and Federal funding that could dry up at anytime.
  
  This is a huge chunk of land (10-12 times larger than most recent annexations) and we are paying millions of dollars to provide water, sewer, fire, and other City services.  We are being promised big things - major industrial players moving in, blue and white collar jobs being created, and big revenue gains.  Before the vote Councilman Gartin exalted "this is an absolutely wonderful project and a great day for Ames".  I hope it comes to fruition and I hope it is done without the City dealing out huge additional tax or other incentives or finding itself dealing with an environmentally unfriendly factory that fouls up our air or contaminates the water we are so fond of bragging about.  Unfortunately at this time there are no details on any prospective deals or tenants.
  Motion approving the Annexation of the East Industrial area passed 5-1 (Beatty-Hansen NO)
  
• 25. Supervised Transitional Homes. 
  After review by Planning and Zoning, the recommendation to council is to approve allowing supervised group living (with a max of 8 residents per property) in all residential zoning districts across the city.  Staff recommends a separation between these transitional living units, and also recommends an initial inspection, but not an inspection schedule as regular as the rental code would require. The alternatives for Council include proceeding via administrative zoning, special use permits, or establishing a new zoning permitting process.
  Issues to consider with this proposal include potential increase in parking demand, noise, and whether or not to inspect the units regularly to ensure safety for residents. (This would require new inspection code criteria, or to duplicate rental code as applicable.)
  Currently, supervised transitional housing is only allowed in medium and high density zoning but service providers, for both efficacy and financial reasons, wish to be able to use smaller single family homes for these services.   In the currently allowed areas in Ames there are 170 properties which match this need, none of which are for sale.  As a result, a request was made to allow this use in low density zones, like Residential Low-Density (RL), where many more properties would match and be available.  It was interesting to watch this discussion because it almost immediately took a turn that focused on inspections, oversight, and other regulations that the City does not bother with for the exact same use cases in higher density zones.  There was a concern voiced that this might take away and affordable property from the market but that's a bit silly to me when you consider that up to 8 people who really need living assistance could be served.  Surely there are some challenges to this, yes there is potential for problems like parking or poor supervision, but I feel confident that our strong neighborhoods will prevent this and actually provide a setting that gives the people that need these services the best chance for success.
  Motion to proceed with the text amendment including a friendly amendment to limit occupancy based on number of bedrooms passed 6-0
• 26. Resolution approving Preliminary Plat for Aspen Business Park, 3rd Addition (516 S. 17th Street).
  In December of 2015, Council approved a rezone of this site from HOC (highway oriented commercial) to RH (residential high density), which included a contract rezone limiting the development to 525 beds and stipulating public infrastructure investments. Now the developer is back w/ a preliminary plat. Planning and Zoning voted 4-0 to recommend, with one abstention.
  Passed 6-0
• 27. Staff Report on complaint about property located at 4004 Phoenix Street.
  Council has heard several complaints about the condition of a property located at 4004 Phoenix, starting in 2007(!). Eventually the house was placed on the market, but the “short sale” has not proceeded. Options for Council include waiting for the bank’s short sale, initiate litigation, or pursue a ‘dangerous building’ designation.
  This house is two blocks from my own and one of my close friends lives next door to it.  I know first hand what a wreck it is.  Nothing has been done to this house for over 10 years, it is vacant (unless you count the raccoons), rotting, and really is a mess.   However, it was the neighbor living on the other side that brought the complaint to the City and I applaud her for sitting through the first 2 hours of the meeting for her chance to be heard.
  
  The city will take no action at this time to hopefully allow the sale of the property to complete.  If no sale is completed or the new owner does not present a plan to renovate or remove the house the City will take action to declare this a dangerous building and work towards demolition.
  
  In addition Councilwoman Betcher requested that Staff dig up some old work that was done 10 or more years ago on a Minimum Standards ordinance to see if something like that could be revisited that would give the City more enforceable options for dealing with a situation like this in the future.
• 30. Staff Report on capital funding for Human Services agencies
  This item was not included in Councilwoman Beatty-Hansen's preview but I feel it is worth noting.  In a previous review I suggested that the City should do more with its Local Option Sale Tax (LOST) fund for human service providers.  This proposed program would do just that, creating a capital improvement funding program that would help these agencies pay for projects that do not fit in the current ASSET funding model.  The LOST fund is projected to have an unreserved balance of $1,633,215 after paying for other budgeted items and maintaining a required minimum balance or nearly $1 million.  There was fairly supportive conversation and Council directed staff to include this in the next budgeting guidelines process for further consideration.
• 35. Hearing on proposed contract for sale of City-owned property at 1125 Maxwell Avenue in connection with Community Development Block Grant Neighborhood Sustainability Program.
  The city is selling this property to Habitat for Humanity for $5000. Monies collected in this way (as with 306 Wellons Dr.) go back into the CDBG fund balance for future use.
  Passed 6-0
• 36. Hearing on proposed contract for sale of City-owned property at 306 Wellons Drive in connection with Community Development Block Grant Neighborhood Sustainability Program.
  The city is selling this property to Habitat for Humanity for $30,000.
  Passed 6-0

Others can subscribe at
Follow Council News on
View council on line live at

Any corrections or additions to this email will be posted at the Council Preview Blog.