Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Regular Meeting of the Ames Housing Governing Board and Special Meeting Ames Conference Board 08/16/2005MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE AMES HOUSING GOVERNING BOARD, SPECIAL MEETING OF THE AMES CONFERENCE BOARD, AND SPECIAL MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL AMES, IOWA AUGUST 16, 2005 REGULAR MEETING OF THE AMES HOUSING GOVERNING BOARD The regular meeting of the Ames Housing Governing Board was called to order by Chairperson Tedesco at 6:15 p.m. on August 16, 2005, with the following members present: Cross, Goodhue, Horness, Mahayni, and Vegge. Tony Borich, ex officio member, was also present. Council Members Goodman and Wirth were absent. AMENDMENT TO CITY’S ADMINISTRATIVE PLAN FOR SECTION 8 RENTAL SUBSIDY PROGRAMS: Housing Coordinator Vanessa Baker Latimer explained that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was requiring that all Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) amend their Administrative Plans to implement the use of the Enterprise Income Verification/Upfront Income Verification (EIV/UIV) System and to include the PHA procedures to be followed by PHA staff in the policy. She said that HUD had developed a model policy and procedure. Additionally, PHA Executive Directors are required to submit a written certification along with a resolution, which verifies that the City’s PHA has amended the appropriate policy to include the use of EIV/UIV. Staff will include the policy as an appendix to the current Administrative Plan. Moved by Goodhue, seconded by Cross, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 05-348 approving an amendment to the City’s Administrative Plan in connection with the administration of the Section 8 Rental Subsidy Programs with the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously and hereby made a portion of these minutes. ADJOURNMENT: 6:17 p.m. SPECIAL AMES CONFERENCE BOARD MEETING The special meeting of the Ames Conference Board was called to order by Chairperson Ted Tedesco at 6:30 p.m. on August 16, 2005. Present from the Ames City Council were Cross, Goodhue, Goodman, Mahayni, and Vegge. Ex officio Member Borich was also present. Council Member Wirth was absent. Story County Board of Supervisors present were Clinton, Halliburton, and Toms. Representing the Ames School Board were Acker and Johnston. Gilbert and United School Districts were not represented. Chairperson Tedesco pointed out that Richard Horn had prepared a memo outlining the estimates of terminal leave pay due him; said memo was distributed to the Conference Board at this meeting. Mr. Tedesco briefed the Board on the discussion he and City Manager Steve Schainker had on this date with the Iowa Department of Revenue pertaining to the appointment of a new City Assessor. He also advised that Ann Campbell had resigned as the School Board’s representative to the Examining Board, and on August 22, it is anticipated that the School Board will appoint Judie Hoffman to serve as their representative. The Examining Board will meet on Friday, August 19, at 10 AM, in Conference Room 233. PRESENTATION BY COUNTY ASSESSOR ON COMBINING CITY AND COUNTY ASSESSOR OFFICES: Story County Assessor Wayne Schwickerath presented information on the possibility of consolidating the offices of the Ames City Assessor and Story County Assessor. He gave the history of County-wide services and his personal qualifications, appraisal designations, and professional accomplishments. Mr. Schwickerath presented background on the Iowa Assessors’ position and requirements. The history of Iowa Assessment Jurisdictions indicated that in 1963, there were 21 City Assessors in Iowa; in 2005, there are eight (8). Mr. Schwickerath cited opportunities that he believed now exist to consolidate the City and County Assessor Offices. Regarding concerns with consolidation, Mr. Schwickerath did not feel that there would be a decrease in assessment accuracy. He advised that both the Ames and Nevada Offices would be maintained. Although the Ames City Board of Review would no longer exist, Ames would not lose representation; a newly created Conference Board would be expected to increase its membership to five members, with the two new members being residents of Ames. If there were a vacancy on the Story County Board of Review, Mr. Schwickerath said that he would recommend that the new appointment be a resident of Ames. According to Mr. Schwickerath, there is no way to determine at this time with current information if a tax increase for the residents of Ames and Story County would result. Council Member Cross raised the concern that the Conference Board approved the purchase of new software for the Ames office during the last budget process and now the County Assessor is recommending consolidating the offices. Mr. Schwickerath advised that the software used in the Ames office had some shortcomings and had not been approved by the state of Iowa. Council Member Goodhue asked if the County Attorney’s office would be adequately staffed so as to assume the support of the appeals process for both jurisdictions. Mr. Schwickerath indicated that the County Attorney’s Office could provide that support; if unique circumstances arose, extra assistance from persons with appropriate areas of expertise would be retained. Mr. Schwickerath advised that there were no term limits for the members of the County Board of Review. Given that information, Council Member Cross pointed out that there was no guarantee that Ames would have any representatives on the Board of Review. Council Member Cross asked when the cost analysis showing the estimated $200,000 in savings would be provided. He also asked if the projected savings would be a one-time savings or an annual savings. Mr. Schwickerath said the $200,000 would be initial savings; however, after the transition, operations should run more smoothly and savings would be realized. He was not anticipating that any of the existing personnel would be let go. According to Mr. Schwickerath, there are two positions – one in the City Assessor’s Office and one in the County Assessor’s Office – which would not be filled if the offices were consolidated. Mr. Schwickerath said that he would need to collaborate with the Ames office staff to calculate the costs. He felt that due to the processes already in place, a smooth transition should result, and within three to five years, there should be considerable cost savings. Mr. Schwickerath believes that one supervisor would best handle all the administration issues and provide consistency. Council Member Mahayni stated that he was interested in differentiating between short- and long-range types of benefits and costs. He said that the other dimension that the Conference Board needs to think about is that it is not only the costs that are involved, but how the citizenry would be impacted – what would be the out-of-pocket costs for the citizens of Ames in terms of such an endeavor. Council Member Cross pointed out that not only is there no assurance that Ames citizens would have representation on the Board of Review, there is no guarantee that an office would remain in Ames. Mr. Schwickerath explained that there was a lot of computer infrastructure in place between the two offices. Story County supplies a T1-line to download the data; that is already in place. Council Member Vegge asked who would employ the staff of the Ames office. Mr. Schwickerath advised that those staff members would be employees of Story County; there would be differences in fringe benefit plans, and that would have to be worked out. Mr. Vegge also asked why Mr. Schwickerath was advocating to merge the offices. Mr. Schwickerath stated that the office would run more smoothly if one administration would handle all the classification issues, operation issues, and the organization’s structure and management. Council Member Goodman asked to know the valuation split. Mr. Schwickerath advised that the taxable valuation for Story County (excluding Ames) is approximately $980 million, and it is $1.8 billion in Ames. (It is $2.7 billion total for all of Story County.) He pointed out that there was quite a variation of properties within Story County; Ames has a large concentration of residential and commercial. Mr. Goodman pointed out that none of the discussion had revolved around the possibility of having the primary location for the office to be Ames. It made sense to Mr. Goodman that, if the City Assessor position was going to be eliminated, perhaps the primary location of operations should be in Ames, which has the greatest valuations. Mr. Schwickerath said that that was an option. 2 Council Member Cross pointed out that there was a significant disparity in the amount of property valuations in Ames versus Story County. Although Ames wants to be a team player, it would have the least amount of control over the way the office would operate if the offices were merged. He further said that Mr. Schwickerath had been citing what he thought were the advantages of combining the offices, yet reported that the measure of assessment uniformity for Story County had been 9.5 to 11 for the last five years and Ames was 7 to 8. He said that if he understood that measure correctly, it meant that Ames’ assessments are closer to market than Story County’s; that is a measurement of accuracy of valuations. Mr. Schwickerath commented that Story County had a lot more diversified market than Ames; there are 14 other cities and several subdivisions scattered throughout the County, and this makes it very difficult to set values. Mr. Schwickerath was also asked to comment on his statement that one of the opportunities would be a combined database, but there was already a T1-line that exists between the offices to share data. Mr. Schwickerath said that the County uses a different appraisal package than the City. He explained the different databases being used and stated that the Department of Revenue was concerned about the different software packages being used by cities. Board Member Johnston asked if there could be collaboration between the offices without consolidation. Mr. Schwickerath said that it would solve the problem of different computer programs, but believed that consolidation would be best because they would operate under one supervisor. Ms. Johnston asked to know why the quality of assessments declined in other jurisdictions that merged – did it happen because they were averaging over a larger geographic region or did the quality of assessments in the city actually decline. She asked to have that information included in the analysis. Council Member Cross pointed out that there would be direct savings/costs associated with merging, but there would also be differences in valuations, which impact the generation of taxes. This could have a greater financial impact than what benefit would be derived from merging the offices. Mr. Schwickerath said that that would be very difficult to analyze. He said that the more sales that are available, better assessments would result; averages on those measurements can be misleading and should not be used. Council Member Mahayni said the point was not size per se, but the amount of sales; if you don’t have any sales, it would be very difficult to set a value. The issue was that the quality of the data between what Ames has and what Story County has is very much dependent on the level of sales. Ames has a lot more sales and that is how it is reflected in the ratios. In terms of the analysis, those ratios must be looked at over time in terms of both the City and the County and then an estimation of the impact made. According to the report made by Mr. Horn, as a result of that differential between the County and the City, taxes would increase. Council Member Cross asked if the measurements were done by class of property. Mr. Schwickerath indicated that they are done by class. Mr. Cross asked to have ratings by class of property for Ames and for Story County included in the analysis. Council Member Goodman pointed out that the Conference Board had asked for concrete numbers at their last meeting, so this effort should run concurrently with that effort. He clarified that 13 cities had abolished their City Assessor positions; they want to know if, and what, savings had occurred since the consolidations. Council Member Goodhue elaborated that Mr. Horn indicated there had been several studies done in the past 40 years, but none of the studies ever showed real savings. Mr. Goodhue’s interest was in finding hard data to indicate if there were any savings incurred, and furthermore, if there would be savings if Ames and Story County Assessor’s offices merged. Mr. Cross reiterated that there would be tax implications as well as the costs of running the offices. Moved by Vegge, seconded by Johnston, to direct City staff to work with both the City and County Assessor’s offices to come up with a cost analysis concerning the merger of the two offices. Said areas of analysis would be: 1. Savings (in other cities and make projections for initial and ongoing savings for Ames) 2. Impact of accuracy and its further impact on generating revenue for entities 3. Revenue generation 4. Customer service 5. Median assessment to sales ratio 6. Coefficient of dispersion 7. Regression index over time 3 Vote on Motion: 3-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: 7:44 p.m. SPECIAL MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL The special meeting of the Ames City Council was called to order by Mayor Ted Tedesco at 7:49 p.m. on August 16, 2005, in the City Council Chambers in City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue. Present from the Ames City Council were Cross, Goodhue, Goodman, Mahayni, and Vegge. Also present was Ex officio Member Borich. Council Member Wirth was absent. RESIGNATION OF CITY ATTORNEY: Moved by Cross, seconded by Goodhue, to accept the letter of resignation from City Attorney John Klaus. Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. Moved by Cross, seconded by Vegge, to approve the appointment of Council Members Goodhue, Goodman, and Mahayni to an Employee Search Committee. Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. APPOINTMENT TO EXAMINING BOARD: Moved by Goodhue, seconded by Mahayni, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 05-349 approving the appointment of Susan Hoshor to fill a vacancy on the Examining Board. Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby made a portion of these minutes. CDBG ANNUAL ACTION PLAN/REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUBDIVISION: Regarding the proposed affordable housing subdivision, City Manager Steve Schainker explained that City staff was directed to make specified revisions to the RFP and to meet with identified developers. The revisions to the RFP were made, and he and Vanessa Baker Latimer met with local developers Erb Hunziker, Bob Shirk, Chuck Winkleblack, Kurt Friedrich, Matt Randall, and Bob Friedrich, Jr., to discuss their objections to the requirements reflected in the Request for Proposals (RFP). As more specifics were presented, the list of concerns from the developers grew. Mr. Schainker advised that the developers expressed a desire to reduce the square footage requirements of the homes to 1,000 square feet or less and eliminate the requirement for an attached garage to the side of each home. This was contradictory to what the neighbors of the proposed development had requested of the City. The developers also voiced their concerns for presenting any private financial information, which they believed should not be shared with the public. If this requirement were revised, the City Council and School Board would need to be willing to inject approximately $1,600,000 of incentives into the affordable housing project without any indication of the total amount that is needed by the developer to complete the project. Mr. Schainker elaborated that both development groups were hesitant to provide all of the cost data that was requested in the RFP. If the City were to develop that type of information would require an upfront expenditure for engineering services in the absence of any guarantee that a developer would be selected. The developers also expressed serious concerns about their ability to meet the aggressive schedule to satisfy HUD’s requirement to spend the majority of grant funds this fiscal year. According to Mr. Schainker, both development groups decided that they were no longer interested in pursuing this project at this time under the current minimum standards and timeframes. He outlined three options: 1. If the School Board approved the attached RFP, the City could proceed with the distribution of the RFP in the hopes that some other developer would step forward to submit a proposal. 2. If the School Board voted to approve the RFP, the City could move ahead with the development of the subdivision on its own. 4 3. The City could abandon the affordable housing subdivision project for 2005/06 and establish an acquisition/reuse project for this year. Ms. Baker Latimer explained that the City must reach a certain expenditure level by May 1, 2006, and performance expectations as a new entitlement city cannot be underestimated. She indicated that if Option 3 were chosen, there would be a downtime of 30 days due to notification requirements of changing the Action Plan. Ms. Baker Latimer indicated that the acquisition/reuse project would expand upon a project identified for 2004/05; HUD funds would be used to purchase/rehabilitate single-family residential properties (vacant or existing) for resale to eligible low-income first-time homebuyers. She also indicated that the City, if approving the acquisition/reuse project, still would have environmental concerns, would have to find appropriate locations, would have to find property that is vacant, and if the house was built prior to 1978, would have additional issues. Also Ms. Baker Latimer advised that, if the City Council desired, the proposed affordable housing subdivision could be considered for future years’ allocations. The environmental process could continue and be completed if and when a similar project in the same location were again initiated. Mr. Schainker stated that he had not had discussions with the Ames School District about revisiting the partnership possibility in a year. He pointed out that, at this time, there were timeliness and philosophical concerns over the affordable housing subdivision in question. Moved by Cross, seconded by Goodhue, to direct staff to abandon the affordable housing subdivision project for 2005/06 and establish an acquisition/reuse project for this year. Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. Council Member Goodhue asked that information on the acquisition/reuse project being proposed be provided to the City Council prior to September 27. Moved by Goodhue, seconded by Cross, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 05-350 setting the date of public hearing for September 27, 2005, to amend the 2005/06 Annual Action Plan. Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby made a portion of these minutes. URBAN FRINGE PLAN: Planning and Housing Director Matt Flynn introduced Planner Jeff Benson, who had worked on this Plan for several years. Mr. Flynn then gave the history behind the decision to create a shared land use plan among four entities: Ames, Boone County, Story County, and Gilbert. He reviewed the actions taken to date towards the implementation of the Plan. This meeting was to serve as an opportunity for the Ames City Council to discuss the Plan in detail. The steps to be taken next were described by Mr. Flynn. Mr. Flynn summarized eight issues that formerly had been identified concerning the Land Use Map and presented staff’s suggested resolutions. Mayor Tedesco pointed out an error in the Future Land Use Map, particularly to the area designated as No. 4: on the key, No. 4 was designated as Highway-Oriented Commercial; it should be Agricultural/Long-Term Industrial Reserve. According to Mr. Flynn, Boone County has hired a consultant to assist with their County-wide Comprehensive Plan Update, and that process will take approximately 12 to 18 months. Mr. Flynn indicated that the City could adopt the Urban Fringe Plan and reserve decisions conflicting with Boone County until completion of Boone’s Comprehensive Plan. He said that another option would be to adopt interim policies that would allow some limited development in conflicting land areas. Council Member Goodhue expressed his desire to come up with interim policies and not be delayed an additional 18 months until Boone County finalized its Comprehensive Plan Update. Council Member Goodman suggested that the City Council move the Plan forward, get a response from Boone, and then compromise. Mr. Benson advised that staff’s next step would be to negotiate with the staff members from the other three entities and come up with a revised draft that would reflect all input received from constituencies of the four groups. That draft would then be reviewed again by the four entities. 5 Council Member Cross pointed out that the parcel of ground containing the proposed Bird Haven Subdivision was inaccurately designated as on the Map as “Farming and Agricultural Production,” which is defined as “highly valuable farmland.” Council Member Vegge said that it was his understanding that the “two-mile fringe” around any city was intended to promote orderly development within that fringe so as the city grows, unforeseen problems do not present themselves. He felt Ames should decide how it wants the area around its boundaries to develop in an orderly fashion and then coordinate with the other entities; Ames should not pre-suppose what the other entities want. Mr. Flynn told the Council that Gilbert and Story County had solicited input and made some minor revisions. He felt confident that the next draft of the Plan could be presented to the entities within the next two to three months. Council Member Goodman asked for the definition of “Natural Areas.” Mr. Benson said that it was on Page 34. Mr. Goodman suggested that the terminology for the map and the text in the document be consistent, i.e., in the text, Area No. 7 is referred to as “Natural Resource,” however, on the map, it is called “Natural Areas.” Mr. Flynn summarized the remaining eight Plan issues. Concerning the Ames/Gilbert Agricultural Area, it was noted that the land where Gilbert plans to build a new school is located in the southeast corner of 190th and Hyde Avenue, in an area identified as “Priority Transitional Residential.” The City of Gilbert had requested this designation on the map. Mr. Flynn said that he did not believe Gilbert was planning to provide urban services to the site of that future school. The Mayor pointed out that that land is situated very near Ada Hayden Heritage Park. Council Member Cross expressed concerns about residential development in the northern two-mile fringe of Ames. He did not want to force the development to go southeast and southwest to protect a one-mile strip of land. Council Member Goodman said a goal should be to provide efficient services; some entities will not be in agreement with what Ames decides. Moved by Goodman, seconded by Cross, to amend Land Use Issue No. 1 to make it “Rural Transitional Residential.” Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. Upon being asked by Council Member Vegge, Mr. Flynn responded that a Comprehensive Land Use Plan generally has a 20-year lifetime; however, it should be reviewed every year and updated every five to seven years. He said that the Urban Fringe Plan is intended to be a 20-year plan, but will require greater scrutiny than the LUPP. Regarding Land Use Issue 3, “Rural Residential,” Mr. Flynn pointed out four clusters of very-low-density development that currently exist. He said public input had indicated that there was not enough land designated for that purpose. This land would be located within the two-mile fringe of Ames, but the City would not be in a position to provide services to that location throughout the life of this Plan. Mr. Benson explained that land was added to the existing areas to accommodate approximately a five acre/year absorption, which is the historical absorption rate for that type of development. He clarified that the undeveloped portion of those four parcels combined would allow for 45 acres of large-lot development over 20 years. Mr. Flynn described Land Use Issue 4, “Rural Enterprise.” He stated that there was no land shown on the map for that designation and questioned whether the City Council wanted that classification listed. Mr. Benson indicated that the designation was listed in an earlier version of Story County’s Land Use Plan, but their current Zoning Ordinance does not contain that designation. Mr. Flynn recommended that the Land Use Map designate the location of the railroad. He said that Ames staff should talk to Story County about this designation, and if they agree that it is not necessary to be included, it can be removed. 6 A lengthy discussion ensued over Land Use Issue 5: “Priority Transitional Residential,” which relates to residential development on the fringe. Mr. Benson described this designation as having new standards and new development styles. In the “Rural Transitional Residential,” there is a requirement for one-half acre minimum lot size with rural-type services. In the “Priority Transitional Residential,” there is a requirement for minimum density of 3.75 units/net acre and more extensive infrastructure. Some of the infrastructure may not be required until the City grows. It is not clear at this point who would pay for the infrastructure. No decision was made on this Issue at this time; it will need to come back for further discussion. Council Member Goodhue asked that University-affiliated and government lands be designated on the Future Land Use Map. Mr. Benson pointed out that it was not designated on the draft in question because staff was not showing existing use; they were attempting to show future use. Council Member Goodhue asked that staff review Land Use Issue 6 with the Director of the Economic Development Commission. He pointed out that there are no lots remaining within the City limits for small commercial/light industrial use; the Ames Community Development Park is fully built-out. Mr. Flynn recommended that “Regional Commercial” (Land Use Issue 9) be eliminated because no land with this designation was shown on the map. Mr. Flynn briefly reviewed the Policies section of the draft Plan. Moved by Vegge, seconded by Goodman, to direct that the last sentence in Policy 1.2.1 be deleted, i.e., “When evaluating need, each jurisdiction shall consider the availability of housing within Ames and Gilbert where infrastructure capacity and housing choice already exists.”. Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. Moved by Cross, seconded by Goodhue, to direct that the first sentence under Policy 1.4.1 read, “Ensure that street, bike path, and sidewalk configurations provide for adequate and efficient connectivity to provide for effective long-term access to and through all properties planned for development.”. Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. Moved by Goodman, seconded by Vegge, to direct staff to come up with different verbiage for Policy 2.1.6. Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. Moved by Mahayni, seconded by Goodhue, to direct that the word “inappropriate” be changed to “new” in the first sentence of Policy 2.3.2. Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. Regarding jurisdictional influence, Mr. Benson referred to the table on Page 51 and explained how the approval process would change if this Plan were approved. Mayor Tedesco pointed out that a conflict occurred at Section 4.3.3, which states that negotiations of intergovernmental agreements would occur; however, the staff report indicates that all costs would be assigned to developers. He suggested that the policy be as contained in the Plan, where negotiations would result. Mr. Benson explained that it was not the intent of the staff report to contradict a policy in the Plan. Council Member Goodman suggested that Policy 4.3 be removed, which would then allow entities to dictate funding the cost of improvements for their own developments. COMMENTS: Moved by Goodhue, seconded by Vegge, to refer to staff the request of the Ames Patriotic Council to use the City Auditorium for this year’s annual Veterans Day Memorial Program on November 11. Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: 10:40 p.m. ___________________________________ ____________________________________ 7 Diane R. Voss, City Clerk Ted Tedesco, Mayor 8