Dan DeGeest's Council Review

Hello Friends,

It has been a few weeks since the last review and a lot has happened, most notably a national election.  Like all elections, some were pleased with the outcome and some were disappointed but I have never seen those feelings as extreme and amplified as they are this time around.  Personally, I took it as a wake up call - a chance to double down on my efforts at the local level.  I have always felt that locally is where we have the best chance to really make a difference, to truly impact each others lives, and to realize the world we believe can and should exist globally.  Now is not the time to give up - it is time to roll up sleeves and work even harder.
Thanks for reading,

Dan DeGeest>>

The review of the Ames City Council meeting for November 15, 2016  The agenda included:

• 23. Motion approving purchase of excess energy from customer generation using Fixed Cost approach and directing staff to draft revisions to Appendix H of Municipal Code - Net Metering.
  This item addresses how customers who install solar arrays get reimbursed for excess power they produce. EUORAB has recommended going to a fixed cost model which would change the amount customers are paid for excess energy from around 11 cents per kWh to around 4 cents per kWh. There are many things to consider. Changes made to this rate may affect the willingness of individuals to pursue future solar installations, and certainly would affect the payback schedule on such an investment. Also, as energy storage technology rapidly evolves, we may find increasing value in solar and wind energy. The City is committed to renewable forms of energy, so this is a topic we will likely revisit many times as we continue to see changes in technology and the energy market.
  There was a lot discussion on this topic after a fairly lengthy presentation by Donald Kom, Director of Electric Services.  The basic issue is pretty simple, how much should the City pay residents for excess electricity they produce?  The current rate is 11 cents per kWh - the same amount it costs a electric customer to purchase that energy.  The problem with this model is that the City could have purchased that same power at a much lower rate on the open market had it not been produced by the solar customer.  Because of this, rates are slightly higher for all customers who effectively fund a subsidy for the excess producers.  In other words, we all pay a few extra cents each month to support those customers who have taken the expense and risk to add solar on their home or business.  The overall dollar amounts are pretty small, but the concern is that as solar adoption grows, this subsidy cost will also increase.
  One solution would be to require producers to also have some sort of storage facility (Tesla wall is one example) so that rather than the City paying for the excess power the customer would simply store and use it later.  This sort of storage is emerging but not a viable option now.  Therefore, EUORAB is recommending a fixed cost model that would not be subject to market rates and suggested 4 cents per kWh.  The council's concerns with this recommendation is that it would negatively impact solar adoption.  One thing is clear, our future energy production model is changing and Ames needs to be ready to adapt, we have a long history of being innovative in the energy field and there is more at stake than money.
  In the end a motion was made by Nelson to direct staff to pursue a fixed cost model but with a rate a few cents higher in the 6-8 cent range.  Motion passed 5-1 (Corrieri NO).
• 24. Staff report on request from MICA for $50,000 for dental clinic operations.
  MICA has asked the City for $50k in additional funding for their 2016/2017 operations. MICA’s explanation for the need for increased funding is an increase in visits for basic services. As dental staff retention improves, repeat visits grow for basic preventative services, which don’t bring in as much funding as more complicated procedures. It is likely that MICA’s Dental Clinic will ask for more ongoing funding through the City’s ASSET process as well. They have made similar asks to United Way of Story County and Story County, receiving $35k from each. Mary Greeley has also contributed $15k.
  Here is a tough reality - in a nation where all citizens don't have access to affordable health care and insurance, charities and non-profits have to scrape and fight for money to provide the needed services.  MICA is one such group, providing dental care for low-income patients at the Story County Dental Clinic.  While the City already supports MICA through the ASSET process, certain insurance and other changes since the last ASSET allocations has left MICA with a large funding shortfall.  Council was a bit concerned about approving this extra $50K, as usual they worried that if they do it for one group they will be flooded with more requests.  That's a reasonable concern, but every grant is a case-by-case situation and saying yes once does not mean you can't say no later.
  Motion to approve the $50K (coming from the local option sales tax fund, which has a balance of  $1,633,215) passed 6-0.
• 25. Hearing on Urban Revitalization Area for 2700, 2702, 2718, and 2728 Lincoln Way; 112 and 114 South Hyland Avenue; and 115 South Sheldon Avenue. See the resolution, ordinance,  development agreement and  sale of right-of-way.
  The developer River Caddis is back, with a request to approve the Urban Revit Area for their apartment/commercial/hotel building on the 2700 block of Lincoln Way. Their new proposal includes some requested tweaks, like a 13’ sidewalk along Lincoln Way and increased sound mitigation efforts on the building's amenity deck.
  This was a mostly procedural item for issues that have been discussed extensively at previous meetings.  These changes will facilitate moving forward on the very large mixed-use hotel/retail/residential project on the 2700 block of Lincoln Way.
  Passed 5-1 (Betcher NO)
• 26. Hearing on amendment to Campustown Urban Revitalization Area.
  If council approves item 25, it is only a matter of form to remove their prior Campustown Urban Revit designation.
  Passed 6-0.
• 27. Hearing on Major Site Development Plans for 2036, 2041, 2105, 2121, and 2135 Cottonwood Road and 3201 University Boulevard.
  This item includes approval of several Major Site Development Plans and a landscaping plan for several properties on Cottonwood Rd. The proposed Site Plans detail 12-unit apartment buildings at each location, and city staff and Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval.
  Again, procedural.  These sites have been discussed extensively in previous meetings.  Work can now go forward on these residential units near the ISU Research Park. This project will also produce the first section of what will hopefully become a continuous bike trail to the High Trestle Trail in Slater.  While the placement of the trail on the property could be better, something is better than nothing and I hope the developer takes the care to build it 10 feet wide and with concrete understanding that it will be part of a community wide amenity and also greatly increase the value of the housing they are building adjacent to it.
  Passed 6-0
• 30. Resolution approving Plat of Survey and accepting Consent to Annex Agreement for 3615 Zumwalt Station Road.
  This item addresses a 60’ boundary line adjustment at 3615 Zumwalt Station Rd. Both property owners consent to the adjustment. 
  Approval of this item allows to adjacent land owners to peacefully resolve a land boundary issue without needing to go to court.  Both parties approve of the resolution and City action just allows the property line changes to be officially recorded and updated.  There were some legal questions from Gartin but after testimony from the lawyer representing the party involved he seemed satisfied.
  Motion passed 6-0.
• 31. Staff update on Landscape Ordinance concept provisions (postponed from October 25, 2016, meeting).
  In August, Council got an update on staff’s work to create a new system of landscaping requirements. At that time, staff had developed a point-based approach to landscaping, requiring developers to meet minimum point totals in several categories. (Categories included soil quality, environmental design, screening, groundcover, planting design, and additional features.) Staff are asking Council for guidance on whether to continue with the point-based concept, tweak the point requirements, or go a different route.  
  Staff put a LOT of work into this and produced a plan that would have greatly improved the diversity and quality of landscaping associated with new developments in Ames.  But they got pushback that it was too hard to meet the requirements or too expensive so more rounds of edits were done to try to address those concerns.  In the end they just could not quite get consensus and City Council recommended scrapping the plan.  The path forward was not totally clear but everyone does seem to agree the current ordinance does not work well.
• 32. Planning Department Work Plan discussion.
  The last time Council set priorities for additional Planning and Housing projects was 13 months ago. Item #32 lists 12 committed and future projects, but Council has 25 additional items they have referred to planning staff, and now need to prioritize these remaining projects. 
  This item was tabled for a future meeting - we were all on our way home by 9PM :)