HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Regular Meeting of the Ames City Council 11/23/2010MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL
AMES, IOWA NOVEMBER 23, 2010
The regular meeting of the Ames City Council was called to order by Mayor Campbell at 7:00 p.m. on
November 23, 2010, in the City Council Chambers in City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue. Present from the Ames
City Council were Davis, Goodman, Larson, Mahayni, Orazem, and Wacha. Ex officio Member England
was also present.
CONSENT AGENDA: Council Member Wacha asked that Items No. 8 (Agreement for Greenbriar Park
golf cart path) and No. 10 (Engineering Services Contract with Snyder & Associates, Inc., for 2010/11
CyRide Route Pavement Improvements) be pulled for separate discussion.
Moved by Davis, seconded by Wacha, to approve the following items on the Consent Agenda:
1.Motion approving payment of claims
2.Motion approving minutes of Regular Meeting of November 9, 2010
3.Motion setting January 25, 2011, and February 22 , 2011, at 6:30 p.m. as Conference Board meeting
dates
4.Motion approving Report of Change Orders for November 1-15, 2010
5.Motion approving certification of civil service applicants
6.Motion approving renewal of the following beer permits, wine permits, and liquor licenses:
a.Class E Liquor, C Beer, & B Wine – Hy-Vee Wine & Spirits, 3615 Lincoln Way
b.Class C Beer & B Wine – Kum & Go #216, 203 Welch Avenue
c.Class C Beer & B Wine – Kum & Go #214, 111 Duff Avenue
d.Class C Beer & B Wine – Kum & Go #113, 2801 E. 13th Street
e.Class C Beer & B Wine – Kum & Go #215, 4506 Lincoln Way
f.Class E Liquor, C Beer & B Wine – AJ’s Market, 129 Welch Avenue, Suite 101
g.Class C Liquor & Outdoor Service – Cazador Mexican Restaurant, 3605 Lincoln Way
7.Motion directing City Attorney to draft ordinance pertaining to parking regulations on North 4th Street
from North Riverside Avenue to North Maple Avenue
8.RESOLUTION NO. 10-532 approving Engineering Services Contract with Alfred Benesch & Co. of
Ames, Iowa, for 2010/11 Concrete Pavement Improvements in an amount not to exceed $112,900
9.RESOLUTION NO. 10-534 approving extension of the Master Developer Agreement with Lane4
Property Group for the Campustown Redevelopment Project.
10.RESOLUTION NO. 10-535 approving set hours on Saturdays from November 20 through December
25 for parking enforcement waiver for Main Street Cultural District holiday activities
11.RESOLUTION NO. 10-536 approving Change Order to Engineering Services Agreement with FOX
Engineering for Water Treatment Plant pre-design services
12.RESOLUTION NO. 10-537 approving Change Order No. 3 for Well Rehabilitation Services Agreement
with Northway Well and Pump for repairs to Well No. 7
13.RESOLUTION NO. 10-538 authorizing continuation of outside consulting services with Hall &
Associates pertaining to NPDES appeal
14.RESOLUTION NO. 10-539 accepting final completion of WPC Facility Clarifier Painting Project
15.RESOLUTION NO. 10-540 approving Plat of Survey for property located at 212 and 217 High Street
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolutions declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby made
a portion of these minutes.
AGREEMENT FOR GREENBRIAR GOLF CART PATH: Council Member Wacha stated that
a map was not included with the Council Action Form, and he wondered if there would be an increase
or a decrease in the length of City trail that the golf carts would be using. He noted that a map had been
placed around the dais showing that it had been decreased quite a bit.
Moved by Wacha, seconded by Davis, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 10-531 approving acceptance of
the agreement from the owners of Coldwater Golf Links for the Greenbriar Park golf cart path.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby made
a portion of these minutes.
ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTACT WITH SNYDER & ASSOCIATES, INC, FOR 2010/11
CYRIDE ROUTE PAVEMENT IMPROVEMENTS: Council Member Wacha asked how the cost got
factored into the choice of because there was a bid from WHKS that scored higher at a lower cost, but
was not selected. Municipal Engineer Tracy Warner stated that staff consistently makes a conscious
effort to work with multiple consultants as each has certain strengths. Schedules are submitted as are
names of key personnel; the ability to complete the project and personnel with experience on similar past
projects are considered. The selected consultants had certain strengths that set them apart; e.g., they are
strong with land acquisition, transportation, looking at rehabilitation, and reconstruction methods.
Moved by Wacha, seconded by Mahayni, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 10-533 approving the
Engineering Services Contract with Snyder & Associates, Inc., of Ankeny, Iowa, for the 2010/11 CyRide
Route Pavement Improvements in an amount not to exceed $120,950.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby made
a portion of these minutes.
PUBLIC FORUM: Roy Cakerice, 2911 Duff Avenue, Ames, stated that he had made seven appearances
since Fall of 2007 in an attempt to get the City Council to approve Carr Pool being open half time during
the summer. He noted that the subsidy for Carr Pool is only one-half of one percent of the entire City
budget. Mr. Cakerice advised that he had received $11,000 in pledges to use towards the operation of
Carr Pool on a half-time basis during the summer. He asked for a definite answer as to whether Council
would be supportive of that. If the City Council is supportive, Mr. Cakerice said that he would cash the
checks and continue to collect the pledges. If the answer is no, he will return the checks. If the City
Council is not supportive of keeping Carr Pool open half-time during the summer, Mr. Cakerice asked
that the City still not demolish the Pool for at least two more years to see how the new Aquatic Center
works out.
Richard Deyo, 505 Eighth Street, #2, Ames, advised that approximately a week ago he thought it would
be a nice thing for him to open the doors for people going into City Hall. One of the persons entering
City Hall called the Police Department. The police officer asked Mr. Deyo to stop doing that and told
him that a person had complained. Mr. Deyo then sought the advice of an attorney, who stated that the
only thing that could happen to him would be to be charged with loitering. He continued to open the
door for people going into City Hall for several days, but on the following Monday, another person
called the police. Mr. Deyo doesn’t believe that he did anything wrong by opening the door for persons
entering City Hall, and he doesn’t understand why people are calling the police.
Dan Culhane, 1601 Golden Aspen Drive, Suite 110, Ames, spoke as the Director of the Ames Economic
Development Commission (AEDC) in support of the proposed annexation moratorium between the
Cities of Ames and Nevada. He stated that the AEDC Board of Directors endorsed the proposed
Dupont-Danisco cellulasic ethanol production facility, which may locate on the land that Nevada hopes
to annex. In addition, the AEDC Board of Directors strongly encouraged the City of Ames to initiate
the process of annexation east to the proposed moratorium line along Lincoln Way to capture the
property that borders the Union Pacific railroad tracks. The Board believes that this would position the
Ames community well for future economic development opportunities.
2
5-DAY CLASS C LIQUOR LICENSE FOR CHRISTIANI’S EVENTS: Moved by Goodman,
seconded by Mahayni, to approve a new 5-Day (December 11 - December 16, 2010) Class C Liquor
License for Christiani’s Events at ISU Alumni Center, 420 Beach Avenue.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
5-DAY CLASS C LIQUOR LICENSE FOR OLDE MAIN BREWING CO.: Moved by Davis,
seconded by Mahayni, to approve a new 5-Day (December 11 - December 16, 2010) Class C Liquor
License for Olde Main Brewing Co., at CPMI Event Center, 2321 North Loop Drive.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS FOR 3957 DEER RUN LANE:
Director of Planning and Housing Steve Osguthorpe recalled that on August 10, 2010, the City Council
referred back to staff a request from Charles and Jacquelyn Olson for a waiver of subdivision regulations
for land located at 3957 Deer Run Lane. The applicants wanted to divide their land into four lots;
however the area is located within the Natural Area of the Urban Fringe Plan, which prevents
subdivisions for new non-farm residential development. The City Council had directed staff to come up
with options to allow subdividing the land while still preserving the Natural Area around it. After
analyzing the request, staff does not believe that the land could be divided into four lots without a
negative impact on the existing tree canopy and without disturbing the steep slopes adjacent to Squaw
Creek In addition, staff found that development within the northern flat area of the land in question could
not be accomplished because it is too small to accommodate a house, septic drain field, and buffer from
the existing natural tree canopy.
According to Mr. Osguthorpe, the only option would be to allow one additional building site. To
accomplish that option, the land would need to be divided in such a way that a new building site would
lie within the large front yard of the existing home. It is not known at this time if the septic drain field
of the existing house is located in the front yard or where the drain field for the new house would be
located. Staff believes that allowing the creation of one additional lot should protect the Natural Area
provided that an adequate buildable site is identified on a subdivision plat located within the existing
developed area.
Charles Olson, 3853 Deer Run Lane, Ames, advised that the area in question is approximately one acre
of flat land. Most of the nearby homes in existence are built on similar lots. There are a few trees on the
edge. There is a very steep ravine between the existing house, and there would be a septic field placed
in the front of the lot. Mr. Olson stated that the owners are now requesting the creation of only one
additional lot.
Council Member Larson asked to know what the problem is with the Olsons locating the house where
they are desiring it. Mr. Osguthorpe advised that it is the policy of the City’s Fringe Plan and Land Use
Policy Plan to have a buffer between residential development and wooded areas. Also, the study
conducted for development around Onion Creek recommended that the buffer be 200'. Mr. Larson
indicated that he preferred where the Olsons are proposing to locate the house over the location being
recommended by staff. Mr. Osguthorpe reiterated that it is unknown where the septic field would be
located.
Moved by Larson, seconded by Davis, to direct staff to work with the applicant to prepare a draft
subdivision plat that includes one additional lot and specifically shows the location for the house as
proposed by the applicant; and bring it back to Council for its consideration.
3
Council Member Wacha said that he believes Plans adopted by the City should be followed, but pointed
out that the exact distance for the buffer between development and the Natural Areas has not been
definitely set; 200' was only suggested as part of the Onion Creek Study.
Council Member Larson said he did not believe staff had done what the Council had asked, which was
to come back with available options. Council Member Goodman disagreed, stating that staff was asked
to come back with options which would still preserve the Natural Area, and he believed that is what they
had done. He pointed out that after review, City staff determined that the location of the house, as
proposed by the owner, would hinder the Natural Area. Mr. Osguthorpe clarified that staff did not feel
that the site could accommodate the house and yard without somewhat impacting the Natural Area.
Council Member Mahayni advised that he would vote against the motion because it would not allow
staff to find the best location for the house.
Vote on Motion: 4-2. Voting aye: Davis, Larson, Orazem, Wacha. Voting nay: Goodman, Mahayni.
Motion declared carried.
LAND USE POLICY PLAN FUTURE LAND MAP AMENDMENT FOR 712 SOUTH 16TH STREET:
Director Osguthorpe recalled that the City Council had directed staff, on August 24, 2010, to process
an amendment after a land use designation change from Highway-Oriented Commercial (HOC) to High-
Density Residential (RH) had been requested in writing by Randall Corporation.
Director Osguthorpe advised that when a lot is divided by a zone boundary line, the entire lot is to be
construed to be within the more restrictive zone for purposes of complying with the requirements. He
recalled that the northern 3.26 acres of Parcel N was previously changed from HOC to RH back in
August 2003. Since that time, the parcel has been split by the RH zone to the north, and the HOC zone
to the south. Since Parcel N is split by HOC and RH zones, and since RH is the more restrictive zone,
the requirements for the RH zone apply for all of it. Therefore, the RH zoning standards for uses,
setbacks, and all other development standards would apply to the 6.22 acres of HOC land as well as the
13.26 acres of RH land. The only portion of the properties where the HOC zone standards would apply
is the 1.31 acres of land south of Parcel N and north of the highway.
According to Mr. Osguthorpe, in reviewing the proposal, staff had examined applicable goals and
policies of the LUPP, and based on that analysis, found no inconsistencies. He noted that the subject
property is in a prime location as an infill site for high-density residential development and future access
to the extension of Grand Avenue. It was noted, however, that based upon the traffic study, there are
no impacts associated with this proposal that would trigger the need for the Grand Avenue extension at
this time. Mr. Osguthorpe emphasized that the extension of Grand Avenue is not a consideration with
this application.
Moved by Mahayni, seconded by Davis, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 10-541 to approve an amendment
to the LUPP Future Land Use Map to change the land use designation of the properties at 712 South 16th
Street from Highway-Oriented Commercial to High-Density Residential.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby made
a portion of these minutes.
DOWNTOWN FACADE GRANT FOR 132 AND 134 MAIN STREET: Planner Jeff Benson
reported that Main Street 134 WR, LLC, had applied for a Facade Grant to improve the front facade of
the building addressed as 132-134 Main Street. He reported that the building had been occupied by
4
Whiskey River bar and grill, which is currently closed; however, discussions with a prospective tenant
to reopen that business are underway. The building’s owner is requesting two $15,000 grants and two
$1,000 grants for architectural fees for renovating the entire front facades of both buildings. According
to Mr. Benson, the terms and conditions of the City’s grant program do not forbid that from occurring.
It was his opinion that both grants should be approved simultaneously to achieve the most impact. He
also noted that one historical review stated that 132 - 134 Main Street could be considered as two
buildings.
Mr. Benson gave the history of the building and described the proposed front facade improvements. The
improvements are estimated to cost $66,998 for 132 Main and $37,667 for 134 Main. He addressed the
issue of the transoms. The proposal is to retain or replace the solid transoms and use them for signs. The
Downtown Design Guidelines allow signs in the transom areas, but encourage installing new glass
transoms when the opportunity arises. The applicant is not proposing to install glass transoms due to
the initial cost and the cost of heating.
According to Planner Benson, the City has tried for quite some time to get the owner of 132 - 134 Main
to repair structural and other serious building deficiencies. The Inspection Division approved a plan for
making the repairs and the first phase was completed, which made basic repairs to the front facade of
the building. Phase 2, which is to repair structural and other serious deficiencies on the south facade,
was to be completed by July 1, 2009. Phase 3, repairing serious interior deficiencies, was to be
completed by October 1, 2009. Neither Phase 2 nor Phase 3 have been completed, and staff is
recommending that if the grants are approved, stipulations be placed that no funds be disbursed until the
repairs are completed.
Council Member Larson asked what buildings had received more than one grant. Mr. Benson recalled
that Café Diem and Chocolaterie Stam/Lazy M buildings had received multiple grants. Council Member
Goodman said that he would only be comfortable approving two grants if it were considered two
buildings or if it were in two phases.
It was also asked by Mr. Larson if Whiskey River will use all of the building for its operation. The
owner of the building Russ McCullough, 321 Stanton, Ames, said that the tenant will use all of the first
floor with plans to expand to the second floor in the future. The west side space will be used as a bar,
and the east side will function as a grill. Two separate entrances will be maintained. Mr. McCullough
addressed the transom issue. He noted that glass transoms, which he personally believes are not
aesthetically pleasing, are cost-prohibitive initially and are not energy-efficient. They would cost in
excess of $6,000 to replace with commercial glass. Mr. McCullough also noted that the transom panels
in the building have not been glass since at least the 1960s. Mr. Goodman noted when the program
changed from a low-cost loan to a grant, there were additional standards, and one of those pertained to
glass transoms. Council Member Larson noted the extra benefit that the City would get if stipulations
were placed on the grant such that the structural improvements would have to be completed before any
grant monies would be disbursed.
Moved by Goodman, seconded by Mahayni, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 10-542 approving the request
for a Downtown Facade Grant in the amount of $15,000 for 132 Main Street, $15,000 for 134 Main
Street, and $2,000 for professional design fees with the following conditions:
1.Phase 2 work and Phase 3 work will be completed before any payments are made to the owner
under either of the grants.
5
2.Glass transoms will be included on both facades, with final details submitted for staff approval
prior to installation.
Council Member Wacha noted that glass transoms were not included as a standard due to their beauty;
it was due to their historical significance.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby made
a portion of these minutes.
Moved by Larson, seconded by Goodman, to give staff the latitude to work with the owner and the
architect to come up with a system that gives the feel of the glass transom look.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
SECTION 8 PROGRAM REVIEW: Housing Coordinator Vanessa Baker-Latimer reminded the
Mayor and Council members that, on April 27, 2010, they received a staff report on the financial status
of the City’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. The main subject of that report was that the
administrative allowance provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
is not adequate to fully fund administration of the Program. Options provided to Council included
identifying a permanent additional funding source for administration of the program, or discontinuing
City administration, which would allow HUD to assign another public housing administrator to manage
the Program in Ames. Based on the report, Council directed staff to conduct a further review and report
back to Council on the possibility of providing a level of service for the Section 8 Program that could
be administered within the funding provided by HUD. Council also asked that staff report on comparable
programs in Iowa.
Ms. Baker-Latimer reported that over the past seven months, staff had researched options for providing
Section 8 administration at a level of service that could be funded within the administrative budget
allocated by HUD, while at the same time meeting the program compliance requirements set by the
contract with HUD. This research included talking with housing authorities with similar-sized Section
8 Programs, meeting with area housing authorities within close proximately to Ames about how they
administer their Programs, and meeting with HUD staff to review the City’s current program
administration and discuss ways that the day-to-day program administration could be reduced or
modified.
Regarding service levels, according to Ms. Baker-Latimer, it has been difficult to equate service
reductions to a specific financial savings because procedures/services had only been reduced versus
eliminated. She emphasized that the level of compliance still needs to be maintained. The conclusions
from the service level research were revealed by Ms. Baker-Latimer. The mandatory requirements, such
as processing annual and interim recertifications, conducting inspections, compliance with mandatory
lease-up rates, and submittal of monthly and quarterly reports, cannot be reduced. Making changes in
program administration, such as closing the waiting list and only accepting applications for a limited
time period when there is not a sufficient number on the list to fill turn-over slots, when there has been
only two temporary part-time staff members, is not sustainable since the City would not meet HUD’s
mandatory lease-up requirements (95%). In addition, City staff may not remain “temporary” employees
without benefits on a permanent basis. Ms. Baker-Latimer noted that the City’s current lease-up rate is
65%. Assistant City Manager Bob Kindred pointed out that the administrative funding could be scaled
back if the City is found to be in non-compliance.
6
Ms. Baker-Latimer advised that Iowa Housing Authorities (HAs) of similar size were contacted to
review their staffing in comparison with the City’s to help gauge resources needed to implement the
same HUD requirements. Most of those Housing Authorities (HA’s) are operated by non-city agencies,
and in many cases had lower staffing levels. Although similarly sized, administering the program in
college towns like Ames requires a greater workload due to its local market conditions, i.e., higher
turnover, especially during the July/August time period. Further, the City’s “pay equity” pay plan leads
to higher salary levels than are paid in other HA’s with similar numbers of vouchers that serve smaller
communities or regional areas.
Council Member Davis had asked if staff had looked at moving to contracted employees without
benefits. Mr. Kindred said the former City Attorney had indicated that that was not an option. City
Attorney Doug Marek stated to do that would be contrary to state law. The City could, however, contract
with another entity for services.
City Manager Schainker said the issue was whether the City could operate the Program on its federal
administrative allocation of $138,000. Ms. Baker-Latimer said that it could not. Mr. Kindred reported
that it was difficult to gauge a dollar figure because many of the tasks are having to be picked up by the
Housing Coordinator, who gets pulled off of other programs. She elaborated that, due to difficulty in
meeting all the Section 8 administrative requirements within the funding levels provided by HUD, there
is competition for staff and resources for the administration of other programs in the Housing Division.
Even with service adjustments and using temporary staff, the City has not been able maintain the lease-
up rate required by HUD. This situation puts the City at risk for program non-compliance.
Ms. Baker-Latimer reiterated that the level of administrative funding provided by HUD for Section 8
is not adequate to cover the cost of administering the program for the City of Ames as a stand alone
Housing Authority. HUD has allowed Section 8 HA’s to accumulate and maintain an administrative
fund balance; however, it is expected that the City’s Section 8 administrative fund balance will be
exhausted in the upcoming fiscal year, and alternative (local) funding will be required if the City plans
to continue administering the Program. The City’s current adopted budget for FY 2010/11 anticipates
expenses to exceed revenues provided by HUD to administer the program by approximately $151,000
for both this fiscal year and next. Also, given the trend in funding for administration over the past
several years, it is expected that the funding shortfall will increase each year if the City continues to
administer the Section 8 Program.
It was stated by Ms. Baker-Latimer that HUD would select the new HA, and it would be that
jurisdiction’s decision whether or not to set up an office in Ames or conduct the administration by
correspondence. She stated that it has been concluded that there will continue to be a shortfall between
the amount of funds received by the City from HUD and the cost to hire the adequate number of staff
to administer the program in full compliance with the program regulations. Ms. Baker-Latimer advised
that currently the Program is not in compliance regarding the lease-up percentage requirements. The
lease-up percentage requirement is 95% of the contract allocation of Vouchers (218 out of 229
Vouchers), and the City is currently at 65% lease-up (149 out of 229 Vouchers). This is a major
compliance area that is reviewed by HUD.
Ms. Baker-Latimer advised that, since June 2010, the Housing Division has been staffed by an
equivalent of 2.25 FTEs, including the Housing Coordinator and one half of a full-time support staff
person, augmented by two part-time temporary employees. The Division has attempted to address
current funding shortfalls by reducing levels of service in areas that do not conflict with HUD guidelines
7
(e.g., closing the waiting list); however, most of the slack has been picked up by the Housing
Coordinator regularly working extended hours.
According to Ms. Baker-Latimer, the service level and financial analyses both indicate that it is not
possible to (1) reduce the service level to administer this Program and remain in compliance with HUD
requirements or (2) remain within the financial allocation provided by HUD for program administration.
Four possible options for continued operation of the mandated Section 8 Program in Ames were
explained by Ms. Baker-Latimer, as follows:
1.Return Section 8 Program Administration to HUD for reassignment to another agency. Under this
option, the City would relinquish the Annual Contributions Contract back to HUD for them to
designate another program administrator for the City of Ames. HUD would select the Housing
Agency and then contact that HA to determine its interest in administering the Program for the
Ames jurisdiction. HUD has stated that they would identify another Housing Authority to
administer the Program and would retain the allocated vouchers in the “Ames jurisdiction.” The
Housing Authority selected by HUD would have sole discretion on how the Program would be
administered based on their HA’s program guidelines and priorities. This option would result in
the City Council no longer being able to establish more stringent program eligibility guidelines in
the Ames community than those required by HUD (e.g., background checks and giving local
eligibility preference to Ames residents, the elderly, and families).
2.Subcontract with another Public Housing Agency to administer Section 8. Under this option, the
City would contract with a neighboring HA to administer the Ames Program in accordance with
policies established by the City of Ames. This alternative was attempted in 2000, when the City
Council approved contracting out program administration to another area Public Housing Agency.
However, due to problems inherent with subcontracting a grant program, the contract was
terminated by mutual agreement after two months. Staff has spoken with two other housing
directors in the area: Central Iowa Regional Housing Authority in Grimes and Marshalltown
Housing Authority. Both stated that they would not be interested in being a subcontractor to the
City of Ames. This is due both to differences in administration and to complications of staffing
two separate boards.
3.Create a local, non-profit entity to administer Section 8. Under this option, the City would create
a separate legal entity under Chapter 28E of the Code of Iowa between the City of Ames and a new
Ames Housing Authority to administer the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. Similar
arrangements of this type have been implemented by Mason City and Des Moines in past years.
Under Iowa Code Section 403A.5, this new Housing Authority would be governed by a board of
commissioners appointed by the Mayor. The administration and policy-making for that agency
would be exercised by the commissioners, and not by the City Council. Under this option, the City
of Ames would still be liable for any financial shortfalls generated by this entity. In addition, there
is no indication that this entity would be able to operate the Section 8 Program at a lower cost than
the City.
4.Have the City of Ames continue to administer Section 8. This would require the City to use local
tax dollars to cover the administrative funding gap so sufficient staff to operate the program could
be hired. The magnitude of the annual financial shortfall will make it very challenging to cover
each year. Given the relatively small number of vouchers for which the City is responsible, it is
no longer possible for the City to administer this Program as efficiently as larger housing
8
authorities. Long-term funding to locally subsidize this Program would need to come from
increased property taxes, from the existing pool of human services funding, from an expanded pool
of human services funding (which would reduce the availability of local option sales tax funds for
other “community betterment” projects), or, in the short-term, from the existing balance in the
Housing Assistance Fund.
Council Member Orazem asked who sets the number of vouchers. Ms. Baker-Latimer advised that the
number of vouchers is determined by the number originally applied for by the HA. In addition, some
come into the HA when HUD asks that the vouchers be absorbed from another jurisdiction.
Also at the inquiry of Mr. Orazem, Ms. Baker-Latimer replied that the other Section 8 Voucher projects
existing in Ames are Keystone, Eastwood, Stonehaven, Roy Key, and Regency. They are totally separate
entities over which the City has no jurisdiction.
Council Member Larson asked if the Program would be financially feasible if the City requested fewer
vouchers. He reasoned that fewer staff would be needed to administer the Program. City Manager
Schainker noted that it is very difficult to determine what that threshold is; HUD lowers its allocation
when the number of vouchers is lowered. He noted that it had become apparent that housing authorities
with small numbers of vouchers, such as Ames’, cannot continue to operate as efficiently as those with
a greater number of vouchers over which administrative costs can be spread.
Council Member Wacha noted that Council needs to determine if local control was worth potentially
$150,000 in tax payer monies. He wanted to know what Ames is doing that HUD wouldn’t do by
default and if that additional service was worth it for the citizens of Ames. Ms. Baker-Latimer replied
that HUD requires background checks, but do not regulate how those are done; the level of background
investigation is up to the discretion of the Housing Authority. She also stated that local preferences as
to whom qualifies for the Program, i.e., elderly, disabled, families with children, have been set by the
City of Ames. Council Member Larson asked if the City could work with another HA to require the
same preferences as currently exist. Ms. Baker-Latimer noted that the City could ask that entity to do
that, but it would be under no obligation to honor that request.
Council Member Goodman believes that, in order to make the best decision, the City Council needs to
have a listing of the most-likely housing authorities that might absorb the City’s vouchers with a listing
of their preferences and screening procedures. He did not feel that the Council could move forward on
this issue until that is known.
Council Member Larson asked if a decision needed to be made at this meeting. City Manager Schainker
stated that a decision did not need to be made at this meeting; however, a final decision must be made
by February when the City’s budget for 2011-12 needs to be finalized. Assistant City Manager Kindred
said that there is a point where the City needs to decide to either relinquish the Program administration
or to provide an adequate number of staff to administer it. He noted that operating all of these programs
has actually required approximately 184 hours of staff time per week, which equates to 4.6 full-time
employees (FTEs). Even if Section 8 Program administration is relinquished to HUD, staffing will still
be needed to administer the City’s annual CDBG allocation, as well as affordable housing initiatives,
flood recovery initiatives, and other priorities identified over time by the City Council.
Discussion ensued on variations of Option 3, which was to create a local, non-profit entity to administer
the Program. Believing that maintaining local control over the Section 8 Program is important, Council
Member Larson asked if any of the ASSET agencies could assume administrative duties for the Program.
9
He also suggested looking at some of the City’s ASSET monies going towards local administration of
the Program. Assistant City Manager Sheila Lundt stated that a Request for Proposals could be issued
or a meeting could be held with some of the agencies to see if it were possible for them to assume
administration of the Program. She did not believe that any of the agencies would be able to handle
administering the Program on its own, but could possibly form a consortium with the City. Mayor
Campbell noted that it would depend on whether ASSET monies would be increased to accommodate
for Program.
Council Member Mahayni noted that the City is delivering a service to the community. What has been
happening is that the responsibility for social services, such as Section 8, has been pushed from the
federal government to local governments. If the City is interested in providing that type of service, then
it needs to come up with the funding. He feels the optimal solution might be to lower the level of service
some and maintain local control.
Council Member Goodman asked if the City could get the Program administration back if it relinquished
its vouchers. Ms. Baker-Latimer said it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to get the vouchers
back. Mr. Goodman asked if there is any HA in the surrounding communities able to have a short-term
subcontract to administer Ames’ vouchers; that way the City could try it to see how it performed.
Council Member Larson suggested that the Council approve a combination of Options 2 and 3: create
a non-profit entity and subcontract the Program to it.
Mr. Goodman asked to have the following questions answered prior to making a decision: (1) What
entities are most likely to absorb the City’s vouchers? (2) Are there any non-profit agencies that would
be interested in administering the Program? (3) Are there any Housing Authorities that would be willing
to subcontract for the Program?
City Manager Schainker added that it would be beneficial to also learn what policies the other possible
entities already have in place. He said he did not believe that a decision will be made by budget
discussions in February, and the Council will have to make decisions on the level of staffing and how
to fund the subsidy that will be necessary for next year.
Council Member Larson said that he would like the non-profit agencies to be asked not only to determine
if there is interest in taking over administration of the Program, but that ASSET agencies be surveyed
to determine how important it is to their operations to have a locally administered Section 8 Program.
Mayor Campbell urged the City Council members to attend the Joint Funders’ meeting, which will be
held in January, to discuss this issue.
Moved by Goodman, seconded by Mahayni, to direct staff to get the following information as soon as
possible: What HAs are most likely to be assigned the City’s vouchers; what are their priorities and
notable procedures, e.g., background checks, etc.; are any HAs interested in subcontracting with the City;
have any non-profits ever done this in a similar scale; meet with ASSET some time soon to ask about
the potential of setting up a non-profit to administer the Program in Ames and also to determine how
important it is to ASSET agencies for Ames to have local control over the Section 8 Program.
Council Member Wacha urged that the information come back to Council in time for a decision to be
made prior to finalizing next year’s budget. Assistant City Manager Lundt said that she would send an
email to the Chairperson of ASSET to try to set a meeting time.
10
Finance Director Duane Pitcher said that if the City continues to administer the Program for next fiscal
year, a local subsidy will be needed. City Manager Schainker said that the City Council would need to
provide direction to staff as to the funding source; he assumed that Council would not direct staff to raise
taxes for one year.
Council Member Larson agreed that the staffing issue needs to be resolved. Assistant City Manager
Kindred pointed out that it takes months to recruit the right staff and train them; that would not be the
best solution if the Program administration is going to be short-term.
Housing Coordinator Baker-Latimer noted that she has to finalize the flood buy-out, and it might not be
possible to get all the questions answered by the next Council meeting, which is December 14. The City
Council concurred that the flood buy-out needs to be done; to get the Section 8 questions addressed by
January was acceptable.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
The meeting recessed at 9:40 p.m. and reconvened at 9:45 p.m.
AMENDMENT TO CAMPUSTOWN URBAN REVITALIZATION PLAN TO ALLOW FOR FIRE
SPRINKLER RETROFITTING: Planner Jeff Benson stated that three years ago, the City Council adopted
an ordinance to require that certain types of existing buildings install fire sprinkler systems. To help
offset the cost of the sprinkler systems and the increased property taxes from increased value, the
Council has allowed tax abatement.
It was reported by Mr. Benson that the ten-story residential building at 111 Lynn Avenue is subject to
this City requirement and a fire sprinkler system is being installed. The property owner would like to
apply for tax abatement. Several Greek houses (“dormitories”) have received tax abatement for property
improvements that included fire sprinkler systems. The City Council approved these abatements during
the annual consideration of tax abatement applications because the Greek houses were all within the
existing East University Urban Revitalization Area. Property improvements that include installing fire
sprinkler systems qualify for tax abatement in the East University Urban Revitalization Area; however,
111 Lynn Avenue is within the Campustown Urban Revitalization Area, where property improvements
that include installing fire sprinkler systems do not currently qualify for tax abatement. Mr. Benson
noted that the map showing the location of the building in question that was attached to the Council
Action Form was incorrect. It is actually located within the Campustown Urban Revitalization Area,
not the East University Impacted Urban Revitalization Area.
According to Mr. Benson, the City Council is now being asked to begin the process to revise the
Campustown Urban Revitalization Plan to add property improvements that include installing fire
sprinkler systems. There is an existing Campustown Criteria Matrix; the amendment would add the
criteria as described in the “Urban Revitalization Sprinkler Retrofitting Criteria.” If these criteria were
added to the Campustown Urban Revitalization Plan, to become eligible for tax abatement, the owners
of 111 Lynn would only need to show that they have completed improvements that include the required
fire sprinkler system. They would then be included in the annual review and approval by the Council
in February 2011. The tax abatements approved through these processes would apply to the value of any
and all improvements, not just sprinkler systems, if the added value is at least 5% of the value before the
improvements. Abatement is available over three, five, or ten years. It is not known at this time if this
project will increase the value of 111 Lynn by at least 5%. According to Mr. Benson, staff is not aware
11
of any other existing buildings within the Campustown URA for which the City’s Fire Code will require
fire sprinkler systems.
Moved by Davis, seconded by Wacha, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 10-543 setting the date of public
hearing for December 14, 2010, to amend the plan for the Campustown Urban Revitalization Area to
qualify fire sprinkler retrofit improvements for tax abatement.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby made
a portion of these minutes.
Moved by Wacha, seconded by Davis, to waive the mailing of hearing notice to occupants in the
Campustown Urban Revitalization Area.
Planner Benson advised that notices for hearings on Urban Revitalization Plans are usually mailed to
all occupants within the Urban Revitalization Area, but state law allows the City Council to waive this
part of the notice requirement “for good cause.” The proposed addition
of fire sprinkler criteria to the Plan for which only one building is likely to qualify will not affect the
hundreds of apartment residents in the Campustown Urban Revitalization Area.
Council Member Goodman said that he was not comfortable not notifying all the occupants. Council
Member Larson said that he was more concerned that all property owners be notified. Mr. Benson said
all property owners within 200' of the building in question will be notified.
Vote on Motion: 5-1. Voting aye: Davis, Larson, Mahayni, Orazem, Wacha. Voting nay: Goodman.
Motion declared carried.
Moved by Davis, seconded by Wacha, to direct staff to prepare the Amendment to the Plan.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
STORM SEWER FEE STRUCTURE DISCUSSION: Operations Manager Corey Mellies advised
that, since its inception, the City’s Storm Sewer Utility has generated revenue based on a uniform flat
monthly fee per utility account. In response to a citizen request, the City Council directed City staff to
develop alternatives for billing based on impervious area. At a November 17, 2009, workshop, the
Council considered four alternatives that reflected this new billing philosophy. At that meeting the
Council directed staff to explore two additional alternatives for consideration. The City Council was
subsequently presented with those six alternatives at a September 21, 2010, workshop. Staff was then
directed to bring back those alternatives for a final decision. The original six alternatives, as well as one
additional alternative and examples of the various rates with a 15% revenue increase, were presented.
Mr. Mellies advised that the money collected for and paid into the Storm Sewer Fund is expended for
the purpose of constructing, operating, repairing, and maintaining all facilities useful to the proper
control, management, collection, drainage, and disposition of storm water in the City. He said that, at
present, the City charges a flat fee per utility account for storm water. This charge is currently $3.00.
There are approximately 24,780 utility accounts in the City. This generates approximately $74,340 a
month in revenue for storm water improvements, or $892,080 annually. There are currently 18,276
residential utility accounts in the City, which account for 74% of the total utility accounts.
Operations Manager Mellies described the steps taken to perform the Impervious/Pervious Analysis.
Using the GIS, the percentage of imperviousness per classification was determined, as follows: (1)
Residential: 46.9%; Commercial: 32.9%; Industrial: 7.1%; Tax Exempt: 13%, and Agriculture: 0.1%.
12
He noted that Iowa State University was not included in the calculations since it has its own storm sewer
system.
According to Mr. Mellies, City staff had researched how other cities bill for impervious area, and it was
found that many use the Estimated Residential Unit (ERU) process. GIS is used to estimate the average
impervious area on residential lots, and that number is then used to divide the impervious area of all
properties to give each property an ERU value. In Ames, an average residential parcel has 3,050 square
feet of impervious area. After analyzing the data, staff recommended that one ERU would equal 4,000
square feet. That formula was then used for the analyses.
Mr. Mellies reported that staff had to make two assumptions to analyze an ERU system for billing: (1)
The minimum ERU would be equal to one. (2) For the purpose of billing, the calculated ERU would be
rounded to the nearest half-ERU. It was also assumed that the Assessor codes would be used when
looking at residential versus other classifications and that mixed-use development was residential since
utility accounts are 99% of the accounts in the mixed-use parcels.
The seven alternatives developed by City staff were explained by Mr. Mellies:
1.Leave existing flat fee in place
2.Billing per parcel ERUs
3.Billing Residential at one ERU per utility account and all others on ERUs
4.Billing a minimum of one ERU per utility account on all parcels. Only use ERUs for properties
with more ERUs than utility accounts.
5.Billing per parcel ERUs with a minimum per utility account
6.Billing per ERU with flat fee for four categories
7.Billing per ERU with a service charge
Council Member Goodman asked about phasing the change over time. He felt that would be a good way
to move to a new system. Mr. Mellies said that it depends on which alternative the Council pursues;
some would give that flexibility. City Manager Schainker said that the bottom line is that 15% more
revenue must be received the first year. He noted that he is somewhat concerned about using the figure
of 15% because a study has not been done. Mr. Schainker said that it is very evident that the Storm
Sewer Fund must be built up. He recommended that the Council focus first on what structure should
be used.
Council Member Wacha believed the purpose of this discussion was to alleviate the inequity between
residential and non-residential. He had performed an analysis of the various options, which showed that
Options 3, 4, and 6 actually exacerbate the situation. Mr. Wacha suggested that those three alternatives
be omitted as possibilities. The Council members concurred. According to Mr. Wacha, eliminating the
possibility of status quo (Option 1) narrowed the options down to 2, 5, and 7.
Mr. Mellies clarified that once the Council chooses an option, phasing would be simple, but to phase
a flat fee to an ERU system would be more difficult.
Moved by Wacha, seconded by Larson, to approve Alternative 5: billing per parcel based on ERUs with
a minimum per utility account to include a 15% increase the first year and phase in the difference over
a five-year period.
13
Council Member Mahayni asked why five years was being suggested. He noted that the City will be
facing major expenses in the next two or three years and with a five-year period, revenues would be
delayed.
Council Member Orazem said that he felt total impervious surfaces had not been accurately measured.
With the option on the table, businesses would be made to pay for a disproportionate share of the
impervious surfaces that are roads and sidewalks. Council Member Mahayni disagreed, stating that
residential properties have been subsidizing commercial, and the motion is to allow that to continue for
five more years.
Vote on Motion: 4-2. Voting aye: Davis, Goodman, Larson, Wacha. Voting nay: Mahayni, Orazem.
Motion declared carried.
UPDATE ON STATUS OF RAILROAD QUIET ZONES: Traffic Engineer Damion Pregitzer
reviewed the steps undertaken by staff since 2005 to establish Railroad Quiet Zones, which are
designated corridors of track where routine sounding of train horns is prohibited after the City installs
appropriate safety measures. On November 15, 2010, staff submitted the Notice of Establishment to the
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) designating December 6, 2010, as the date the Quiet Zone will
take effect. This notification was sent to the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and gave them 21 days to
notify their engineers of the date on which they are to cease the routine sounding of horns. Mr. Pregitzer
noted that the train engineers may sound their horns after the Quiet Zone is in place, but only for
emergency reasons.
According to Mr. Pregitzer, following December 6, 2010, if a citizen of Ames observes a violation of
the Quiet Zone, they should report the date, time, and location that they witnessed the train blowing its
horns. This report should be sent to the City’s Public Works Department for staff to process the
complaint with the FRA to resolve the issue.
Mr. Pregitzer pointed out that the benefit of the creation of Railroad Quiet Zones is not only in the
reduction of noise levels that the public experiences on a daily basis, but more importantly, in the
addition of safety measures at these mainline crossings.
ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO FENCE REGULATIONS:
Moved by Mahayni, seconded by Davis, to pass on second reading an ordinance making a zoning text
amendment pertaining to fence regulations.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
ORDINANCE EXTENDING INDUSTRIAL TAX EXEMPTION AVAILABILITY TO 2020:
Moved by Goodman, seconded by Davis, to pass on third reading and adopt ORDINANCE NO. 4050
extending Industrial Tax Exemption availability to 2020.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Ordinance declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby made
a portion of these minutes.
ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER 32, “MECHANICAL CODE,” OF THE MUNICIPAL
CODE: Moved by Goodman, seconded by Davis, to pass on third reading and adopt ORDINANCE NO.
4051 repealing Chapter 32, “Mechanical Code,” of the Municipal Code.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Ordinance declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby made
a portion of these minutes.
14
CITY COUNCIL BUDGET GUIDELINES: Finance Director Duane Pitcher, Budget Officer Carol
Collings, and City Manager Steve Schainker highlighted City budget issues that will be of concern
during the next fiscal year.
Fund Balances. Fiscal Year (FY) 2009/10 ended $550,000 more than budgeted. Mr. Schainker gave
examples of possible uses for the additional revenue.
Furman Aquatics Center. In its initial year of operation, net revenue exceeded expectations. In order to
maintain that strong revenue base, it is likely that additional features will need to be added in the next
few years. The City Council may want to consider a policy that includes reserving any net revenue
generated at the Furman Center to help fund new features at a later date; that is the same approach
followed in regards to improvements at the Municipal Airport.
Fire and Police Retirement/IPERS. City has received notification from the Municipal Fire and Police
Retirement System of Iowa (MFPRSI) that the City contribution rate will increase from 19.90% to
24.76% for a total increase of $325,000 from the FY 2010/11 Adopted Budget. Also, the State
Legislature passed an additional increase to the Iowa Public Employees’ Retirement System (IPERS)
to raise the combined contribution rate from 11.45% to 13.45% if FY 2011/12. The City’s contribution
rate will increase from 6.96% to 8.07% in FY 2011/12, which equates to approximately $204,000.
Health Insurance. Recent favorable claims experience in the self-funded plan will allow the City to stay
within the health insurance cost included in the Adopted Budget. For FY 2011/12, health insurance rates
are budgeted to increase approximately 5%.
Rollback and Valuation. For FY 2011/12, 48.5299% of assessed residential value will be taxed, up from
46.9094% in FY 2010/11. That change will result in a 1.9% increase in taxable valuation or $428,000
more tax revenue.
Local Option Sales Tax Revenues. For the current year, Local Option Sales Tax receipts are expected
to be 1.65% higher than the Adopted Budget. That amount is similar to the FY 2009/10 revenue, but
still well under the FY 2008/09 Actuals. It is predicted that Local Option Sales Tax Revenue for FY
2011/12 will increase approximately 3.7% from the 2010/11 Adopted Budget.
ASSET Human Services Funding. Assistant City Manager Lundt gave the history of past year’s funding
by the City, as follows: 2008/09, 5% increase ($44,637); 2009/10, 5.4% ($50,955); and 2010/11, 9.3%
($92,176). During those three years, the City has had a 21% increase in ASSET allocations ($187,768).
The City is picking up the increase; its portion of the funding has grown dramatically versus what the
other funders are contributing. It was noted that an increase of 13% was approved for FY 2010/11;
however, only 9.3% was spent.
Ms. Lundt reviewed the priorities set by the City Council. She noted that mental health funding is still
an issue. There are serious issues that are being worked on that will require funding by all of the ASSET
funders. It is possible that a request for funding mental health services will come in after the ASSET
process is complete.
Council Member Larson cautioned about the City increasing its allocation so ASSET so much more than
the other funders and then having to fund other services, e.g., Section 8.
15
Moved by Mahayni, seconded by Wacha, to increase ASSET funding by 3% for FY 2011/12 ($32,370).
Council Member Goodman believes that the inequity among funders needs to be addressed; perhaps a
meeting needs to be held. However, he believes that 3% is too low based on the need; if a message
needs to be sent to the other funders, it needs to be sent, but the need remains.
According to Ms. Lundt, current ASSET agency requests total a 9.4% increase or an additional
$101,536.
Vote on Motion: 5-1. Voting aye: Davis, Larson, Mahayni, Orazem, Wacha. Voting nay: Goodman.
Motion declared carried.
COTA Funding. Ms. Lundt advised that the City increased its funding for COTA over the past three
years as follows: 2008/09, 4%; 2009/10, 10%; and 2010/11, 6%. That has equated to $22,393 in
additional funding. She advised that whatever is allocated to COTA gets spent.
Moved by Mahayni, seconded by Wacha, to increase COTA funding by 3% for FY 2011/12.
Vote on Motion: 5-1. Voting aye: Davis, Larson, Mahayni, Orazem, Wacha. Voting nay: Goodman.
Motion declared carried.
Utility Rates. The Water, Sanitary Sewer, Storm Water, and Electric utilities will all require rate
increases within five years to support increased operating costs and capital improvement plans. Large-
scale capital plan improvements will require multiple rate increases. Reduced demand for service due
to the recession and success of conservation efforts has resulted in reduced revenue for the utilities. In
the current year, the City will be asked to review new rate structures for the Electric and Storm Water
utilities. The City will be conducting a cost of service and rate study for Electric. During the Town
Budget meeting, several citizens requested improvements to the storm water system, and those
improvements will require increases in the Storm Water Utility fee. That would mean an increase in the
rate at the same time a new structure is put in place.
Resource Recovery. The Resource Recovery Plant continues to have positive improvements in efficiency
and the overall financial situation. No rate increases are currently planned.
Road Conditions. Weather conditions over the past two years have taken a major toll on the City’s
roadways. Residential streets in particular have required more temporary patching and could fall to an
even lower service level if the rate of permanent repair is not accelerated. Funding of street-related
projects will need to increase significantly; that will result in increased property taxes.
CyRide. There is a slight risk that the Intermodal Facility will not break even, and a determination on
how to cover any operating deficit will be needed.
New Services/Additional Positions: During Council workshops and at the Town Budget Meeting, there
had been discussion by the Council on new service levels, which would require additional positions, as
follows:
Customer Service Specialist: Would serve as a type of ombudsman to assist customers in accessing
and utilizing various City services. It would be within the City Manager’s Office.
16
Council Member Orazem expressed his desire to create this position to assist with new business
start-ups. Council Member Mahayni said that one person cannot be knowledgeable about all
processes; there will be a wide variety of questions and issues. Council Member Goodman advised
that he was in favor of the goal, but was not sure if adding this position was the solution. Council
Member Mahayni said if there is an issue, staff should deal with that issue. To zero on just one
service, rather than the total of the services, is not the solution.
Council Member Larson pointed out that the City gets its economic development funding from 1% of
the Hotel Motel Fund. He believes that a portion of the City Manager’s salary should not be paid from
that account.
Rental Housing Inspector: Would be a second full-time position to provide more timely inspections
and decisions related to the enforcement of the newly revised Rental Housing Code. This was
requested by the Property Maintenance Appeals Board.
Sustainability Coordinator: Would be a full-time employee that would lead community-wide
sustainability efforts. This service is currently provided under contract with Iowa State University.
Council Member Davis suggested that the current sharing arrangement with Iowa State University
be analyzed before the position is made full-time.
Major Projects Under Consideration. City Manager Schainker listed several projects not currently
included in the Capital Improvement Plan that would require large amounts of City funding.
The meeting recessed at 11:45 p.m. and reconvened at 11:50 p.m.
Section 8 Housing. No further discussion ensued.
Building Permit and Development Fees. For many years, fee revenue from Building Permits was
generally matched in expenses, and the budgeting property tax impact of the cost of building inspections
was minimal. The slowdown in building activity has negatively impacted permit revenue to the point
where expenditures exceed costs with the difference funded with property taxes. Moderate increases
in Permit and development fees might be necessary to reduce the property tax funding requirement for
the building inspections activity. A recent survey of building fees indicated that Ames would still have
competitive inspection fee rates with a moderate increase.
Paperless City Council Meetings. Staff believes it is a good time to consider going paperless with the
City Council meeting information. One solution would be to provide Council members with iPads,
which appear to be more economical in the long run than laptop computers. If the Council members are
willing to commit to use them, printed packets would be discontinued.
The Mayor and City Council unanimously concurred to direct staff to explore the use of iPads for City
Council meeting information.
Other Funding Requests. City Manager Schainker asked for Council direction on what to include in the
budget for outside agency requests. Mr. Schainker recommended that the same level of funding be
included for the ones that are currently being funded. The City Council members concurred.
17
City Council Input. Council Member Orazem said he would like to revisit the issue of what the City
does for new start-up businesses or expansions, specifically if it would require a new position or if there
is some way to meet the particular need with existing staffing. He feels strongly that it is absolutely
needed. City Manager Schainker said that it cannot be done with existing staff to the level that would
do it justice.
Moved by Orazem, seconded by Goodman, to direct staff to provide information to the Council on what
can be done to improve the City’s treatment of new businesses or business expansions so that they will
feel that they have one person to interact with from the start to the end of the project; to determine
whether it would require additional staffing or if it can be done in the context of existing staffing, and
the associated costs.
Vote on Motion: 4-1-1. Voting aye: Davis, Goodman, Orazem, Wacha. Voting nay: Mahayni. Not
voting: Larson. Motion declared carried.
Moved by Goodman directing staff to include $100,000 for focusing on achieving additional job
creation in the community.
Council Member Larson noted that he had not voted on Mr. Orazem’s motion because of the lateness
of the hour and because he felt it was getting into items that need to be discussed during the budget
hearings in February. He stated that he possibly could support Mr. Goodman’s motion if it were framed
in the context of the Hotel/Motel Tax and what is provided from that source.
Motion withdrawn.
COUNCIL COMMENTS: Moved by Goodman, seconded by Larson, to refer to staff for feedback
pertaining to Ev Cherrington’s letter regarding Wal-Mart shopping carts being left across from the
bowling alley.
Council Member Wacha advised that he had, as a member of the Transit Board, talked about the issue
with Transit Director Sheri Kyras. She said that there is really not a good solution; Wal-Mart and Target
do not want to be responsible to have to go across the street as it creates liability for their employees.
Council Member Larson stated that if the City “has to enact an ordinance to force Wal-Mart and Target
to pick up their carts,” he would vote for it.
According to Assistant City Manager Lundt, Ms. Kyras has talked to both Wal-Mart and Target
representatives.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Moved by Goodman, seconded by Larson, to direct staff to provide a memo from staff pertaining to the
vacant Cyclone Truck Stop, specifically if there is anything that can be done to take care of that problem.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Council Member Larson expressed that he was unhappy with the proceedings of two weeks ago
pertaining to the Rental Housing Code. He is concerned that the City Council did not learn until right
before the meeting about the existence of a 1907 Plumbing Ordinance that became the basic discussion
over two and one-half hours. In addition, he learned today that there had been a handout that included
18
a history of ordinances, etc., that the City Council did not receive. Mr. Larson said he wasn’t sure if all
the options had been laid out for the Council.
Moved by Larson, seconded by Davis, to direct that the preparation of the Ordinance by the City
Attorney pertaining to the Rental Code be delayed and to refer the issue back to the City Manager and
staff specifically to bring in an expert on the Uniform Plumbing Code concerning the applicability of
different dates that relate to the Code that was adopted in the early 1990s and some of the specific issues
related to trapping and other technical issues, and explore additional alternatives.
Council Member Wacha asked for clarification as to whether Mr. Larson was mainly concerned about
getting more information about the dates, not necessarily changing the Ordinance that was recently
passed. Mr. Larson said, at this point, he wanted to make sure that the Ordinance was not being drafted;
it has not been passed yet. He again referenced the Council learning at the meeting about the 1907
Plumbing Ordinance, which was significant new information, and said the item should have been pulled
from the Agenda and placed on a subsequent meeting. Mr. Larson said he wants to know what was
lawful prior to the adoption of the Uniform Plumbing Code.
Council Member Goodman said he was not totally in favor of anything that stops the progress. Mr.
Larson said it would be delaying the Ordinance until the Council has an opportunity to hear from a
Uniform Plumbing Code expert who actually helped write it. He suggested that the meeting be a
workshop session so the Appeals Board, inspectors, and Council discuss it. Council Member Wacha
said he would support the motion, but hoped that Council can avoid rehashing the entire discussion.
Council Member Orazem said he specifically wants to know what “lawfully installed plumbing” means.
Council Member Larson clarified that he is hoping that the Council members will find out information
that would cause them to rethink and come up with a motion that would lead to a different ordinance.
If that is not the case, there is an ordinance ready to be drafted by the City Attorney.
Vote on Motion: 5-1. Voting aye: Davis, Goodman, Larson, Orazem, Wacha. Voting nay: Mahayni.
Motion declared carried.
CLOSED SESSION: Moved by Goodman, seconded by Davis, to hold a Closed Session as provided by
Section 20.17(3) and Section 21.5c, Code of Iowa, to discuss collective bargaining strategy.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
The meeting was convened back in Regular Session at 12:39 AM on November 24, 2010.
ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Davis to adjourn the meeting at 12:40 a.m. on November 24, 2010.
______________________________________________________________________
Diane R. Voss, City Clerk Ann H. Campbell, Mayor
19