Dan DeGeest's Council Review

Five Hours.  This is becoming the standard not the exception for City Council meetings.  It's inefficient and by the end becomes ineffective.  It discourages attendance and participation.  Two members of the public waited over four hours for their chance to give input on agenda item #40 pertaining to traffic signal at 13th & Kellogg - so long that Councilman Orazem, acting as Mayor pro tem, felt compelled to say "God Bless you" for sticking it out.  So what could be done?  I have a few thoughts.

1. Eliminate or limit the long staff presentations before each item.  All that information is in the agenda packet that comes out the Friday before the meeting.  I read it, the City Council members should be reading it, and citizens that attend to discuss particular issues read it.  I really don't see the need for a 30-45 minute presentation that reiterates what is stated in the action form.  It is like going to a presentation where the presenter reads, verbatim, what is on their PowerPoint slides - in fact, it is literally this at times.  Items could start immediately with Council discussion and public input, Staff could expand on items and add clarification as needed.
2. It is usually pretty clear which items will generate a lot of discussion and public input - put these at the top of the agenda.  Limit the speakers to 2-5 minutes.  Put a time limit on Council comments and have a prescribed order so that one Council member can't dominate the discussion.
3. In lieu of any of the above, have coffee available for the citizens, press, and staff in the audience not just for the City Council members.

See below for a review (in red) of some of the issues discussed.

Thanks for reading,

Dan DeGeest>>

The AAMPO followed by the Ames City Council review for October 11, 2016.  The agenda included:

• 31. Hearing on rezoning, with Revised Master Plan, of 5571 Grant Avenue, now known as Hyde Avenue, (Rose Prairie) from Agricultural (A) to Suburban Residential Low Density (FS-RL), Suburban Residential Medium Density (FS-RM), and Convenience General Service (CGS). See Ordinance and Addendum to Pre-Annexation Agreement.
  This developer is back with another revision of their site plan for the Rose Prairie subdivision. They are proposing the following zoning: a 10 acre commercial node, 15 acre FS-RM site (medium density), and the remaining 145 acre site FS-RL (low density). In April, Council voted to deny a rezoning request showing 746 dwelling units…the developer has reduced that number on the master plan to 620 units. Planning and Zoning recommended approval with a 4-2 vote, and staff also recommend approval.
  Note that North is to the left on map below.
  
  This project has been the subject of many lengthy discussions at previous meetings but garnered very little discussion this time around.  I guess the developer finally hit the magic number of dwelling units, 620.  From the start the number of units has been the sticking point on this  project.  I have to admit I've gone back and forth on this one, but in the end, why do we fear density?  It could drive down the prices of the housing, offering more opportunity for a larger range of buyers.  Wouldn't it be cool if you were a "workforce" buyer (one developer's description of home buyers making $35K-$50K a year) and you had purchasing options next to Ada Hayden park just like those who can pay $350K or more for a home?  Higher density slows sprawl and it maximizes the large capital investments made to bring water, electricity, and other services to the site.  If our engineers and staff assure us that water runoff and other concerns can be dealt with then what are the arguments for big, expensive, sprawling lots with homes that only the very well off can afford?
  Motion to rezone passed: 6-0
• 32. Hearing on Amendment to Master Plan for 2617 Bobcat Drive.
  Most of the Ringgenberg Subdivision has been completed (off Oakwood Dr.), but now the developer is asking for amendments to the master plan which would allow them to construct an additional 13 single-family attached houses. This development would have its frontage on Bobcat Drive, which is a private road (not built to City specifications). This is typically not allowed. Also, to meet the open space requirement, the developer is proposing the use of an off-site common space. Planning and Zoning voted 6-0 to recommend approval, and staff recommend approval too.
  This was a bit of an unusual request but in the end this is a fairly thoughtful project being completed in an infill area - again, reducing the need to sprawl further outside the City limits.  Originally higher in density and consisting of three story buildings, the developer took City and neighborhood feedback and scaled back the overall number of units and also redesigned using only two story structures.  Staff assured that flooding and other water retention concerns, raised at the last meeting during a discussion of completing the shared use path in this area, would not be impacted by this redevelopment.  As always, bonus points for Ames School District.
  Motion Approving Amendment Passed 6-0
• 33. Hearing on rezoning, with Master Plan, of 3115, 3119, 3301, 3325, 3409, and 3413 South Duff Avenue from Highway-Oriented Commercial (HOC) and Agricultural (A) to Residential High Density (RH) and Highway-Oriented Commercial (HOC) [Continued from September 27, 2016]. Council recently amended the Land Use Policy Plan to allow for high-density residential zoning on these properties. Now the developer is back asking for the actual rezoning of the properties. Staff recommend approval, but only with a contract in place that will ensure the developer cooperates and shares costs for storm water, transportation, and other required improvements.  
   
  There was a lot of discussion on this project.  There are traffic and storm water management concerns.  This item was delayed from the last meeting to allow more time to complete the contract for cost sharing.  It was this cost sharing, not the traffic and water concerns that ended up being the bulk of the discussion.  Why? Well, because somebody has to pay to widen the road and update/expand the storm sewers.  In standard projects like this there are "onsite" and "offsite" costs with the developer paying the former and the City the latter.  In this case though the City is seeking to share potential offsite costs, such as moving existing utility poles in order to widen Duff.  Work that may or may not need to be done depending on final designs which don't exist yet. In fact everything in this discussion was based on best estimates since there is just not enough documentation or design at this time to get more accurate numbers.
  A motion by Councilwomen Beatty-Hansen to share the costs 50/50 failed to get second.  Motion to split 25% developer and 75% City passed 5-1 (Beatty-Hansen NO).
• 37. Resolution approving Preliminary Plat for 5871 Ontario Street. 
  The developer of the Birch Meadows subdivision at 5871 Ontario St. is looking for approval of their preliminary plat. They plan to build 74 single-family homes over the 33.5 acre site, with three outlots for open space.  As part of the subdivision, the developer will build six streets, four of which are continuations of existing streets. (Kansas, Missouri, Maryland, and Tennessee Streets) The developer is asking Council to waive their obligation to extend Ontario. Staff recommend approval of the preliminary plat, but maintaining the requirement to extend Ontario St. 
  
  Ames School District - check. Motion approving preliminary plat passed 6-0.
• 39. Resolution approving final tax abatement for 2311 Chamberlain Street (The Edge).
  Gilbane, developer of The Edge at 2311 Chamberlin is asking for final approval of their project, thus beginning the URA tax abatement. Staff typically do not bring such requests to Council outside of the annual approval cycle in February.  The developer is asking for approval earlier than usual so they can work on securing long-term financing yet this fall. Staff feel that the project has met the URA criteria. Council will have to decide if approving this request outside of our normal schedule will set any precedents we may later regret.
  Motion approving passed 6-0
• 40. Staff Report on 13th Street and Kellogg Avenue Traffic Signal Request .
  During hospital renovations, a temporary stoplight was installed at 13th and Kellogg. Now that renovations are over, the city has heard requests to keep that stoplight and crosswalk installed. There is an additional crosswalk about 200 feet to the west, halfway between Kellogg and Burnett Avenues, near the fire station. To better understand the dynamics of traffic in the area, staff is recommending a study. The study would need to wait until next summer, so no final decision will be made for some time yet.
  
  Two residents of the neighborhood stuck it out to give input on this issue.  In their view the traffic light, always meant to be temporary, has improved traffic flow and street crossing in the area. They want to retain it even though traffic is no longer being diverted this way from Mary Greeley construction - the City wants to remove it.  Long term the City traffic engineer would like to do a study to see if permanent signals at this intersection is warranted but feels this should be done over 5 years without a light in place.  He even suggested a larger study should be done to see how this whole corridor could be improved - it is possible lights at other intersections would be more effective than this one.  But in the end he could not say the study would be greatly impacted if the temporary signal was left in place.
  Motion to leave signal and commence a study passed 6-0.
• 41. Resolution awarding 2015/16 Airport Improvements (Terminal Building) to Jensen Buildings LTD of Des Moines, Iowa, in the amount of $1,973,900 (for base bid with no alternates).
  The airport is back on the agenda after a Sept. 13th decision by council directed staff to explore the possibility of bringing cost estimates down. Staff report some cost savings in furniture and technology equipment, but contingency funds are down to $31K for any project overruns. (The City’s design engineer recommends a 5% contingency figure, which would be closer to $98K.) If the project does run over budget (and over the contingency), who pays? (City, AEDC, ISU, or all three?)
  The City is in over it's head on this one.  I've discussed it before and it continues to go over budget.  The current situation finds us with 10 out of 10 bids coming in over the estimated budget and going with the lowest bid still leaves the City $117K short.  What to do?  Ask the private sector for more money?  No, they have already done all they can.  Ask ISU for more money?  Nope, they've already gone the extra mile (kicking in $250K for the last over budget dilemma) and they have a crashed plane to fix (something nobody seemed to want to talk about).  So that leaves the burden on the City.  Some costs came in lower on furniture and technology so the $117K can be covered but that leaves just $31K in the contingency fund for potential change orders.  $31K on a now over $3M dollar project - 1%!  What do you think the chances are of estimates being off by 1% or some unforeseen circumstance costing more than $31K on a project of this size?  Given it's track record I'd say pretty likely.
  But several Council members subscribe to the "we are too far in to turn back" philosopy.  They are probably right, redesigns now would cost more than $31K, and their previous votes got us here.
  Sure the City needs a decent airport.  But did we need a Cadillac when a reliable Toyota would do?
  Motion awarding contract to Jensen Buildings LTD passed 4-2 (Beatty-Hansen and Betcher NO).
• 42. Ames Airport Fixed Base Operator Management Contract.
  City staff have negotiated with North Iowa Air Service to assume the FBO role for the expanded airport beginning April 1, 2017. Early estimates provided by the University figured that the City could receive up to $150K annually from a new FBO with an expanded airport, but these numbers were a little optimistic, with the City planning to receive between $50K and $65K annually for the next five years from North Iowa Air Service.
  Good news, we found another FBO to run the airport after the first choice backed out.
  Motion awarding contract passed 6-0
• 43. Motion directing City Attorney to draft amendment to Funding Agreement with Iowa State University for Public Improvements at Ames Municipal Airport.
  Staff have made a slight change to the funding agreement between the City and ISU regarding the airport. As before, ISU still agrees to pay any shortfall between debt issued to finance the airport expansion and revenue to the City from the new FBO. The change in this funding agreement relates to timing, as the airport expansion has taken longer than initial estimates. Under the amended agreement, ISU's first payment will occur on 9/30/18 instead of the originally proposed 9/30/16.
  Bad news, the FBO contract is behind schedule - we won't see the increased revenue for couple more years but we can't really charge ISU for that lost revenue either since it's not their fault the FBO negotiations fell apart.  What to do?  Hire an accountant because I could not follow the explanation.  The contract will be rewritten to 18 years instead of 20, things will happen, and eventually, somehow the bonds issued to fund this project will be paid off.  If you want a more detailed financial explanation please email your Council representative or the City Manager.
  Motion approving passed 6-0.