HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Regular Meeting of the Ames City Council 09/27/2005MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL
AMES, IOWA SEPTEMBER 27, 2005
The Ames City Council met in regular session at 7:00 p.m. on the 27th day of September, 2005, in
the City Council Chambers in City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue, pursuant to law with Mayor Tedesco
presiding and the following Council members present: Cross, Goodhue, Goodman, Mahayni, Vegge,
and Wirth. Tony Borich, ex officio member, was also present.
PROCLAMATION FOR “PUBLIC POWER WEEK”: Mayor Tedesco proclaimed October 2 -
9, 2005, as “Public Power Week.” Accepting the Proclamation on behalf of the City of Ames
Electric Services Department were Merlin Hove, Steve Wilson, Mike Brown, Jamie Beyer, Bob
Cadwallader, and Lyndon Cook.
CONSENT AGENDA: Moved by Goodhue, seconded by Cross, to approve the following items
on the Consent Agenda:
1. Motion approving payment of claims
2. Motion approving minutes of the regular meeting of September 13, 2005
3. Motion approving renewal of the following beer permits and liquor licenses:
a. Class B Beer - Ames Happy Joe’s, 551 S. Duff Avenue
b. Class C Liquor - Bali Satay House, 2424 Lincoln Way
c. Class C Liquor & Outdoor Service Privilege - Brewer’s, 2704 Stange Road
d. Class C Beer - Doc’s Stop #5, 2720 E. 13th Street
e. Class C Liquor - La Fuente Mexican Restaurant, 217 S. Duff Avenue
f. Class C Liquor - Wallaby’s Grille, Ltd., 3720 Lincoln Way
4. Motion to set the following City Council meeting dates:
a. January 17, 2006, at 5:15 p.m. for CIP Worksession
b. February 3, 2006, at 2:00 p.m. for Budget Overview
c. February 7, 8, 9, and 14, 2006, at 5:15 p.m. for Budget Hearings/Wrap-Up
d. March 7, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. for Public Hearing on Budget
5. Motion approving new Class C Beer Permit for B. G. Inc., 326 Lincoln Way
6. Motion approving new Class C Beer Permit for Elmquist/Decker’s B. P., 821 Lincoln Way
7. Motion delaying award of contract for Installation of Communication Hardware for the Wide-
Area Network (WAN) project until October 11, 2005 (tabled from 9/13/05)
8. RESOLUTION NO. 05-397 approving and adopting Supplement No. 2005-4 to the Ames
Municipal Code
9. RESOLUTION NO. 05-398 approving appointment of Voting Delegates for the National
League of Cities Congress of Cities
10. RESOLUTION NO. 05-399 approving appointment of Kori Heuss to fill vacancy on Planning
and Zoning Commission
11. RESOLUTION NO. 05-400 authorizing a temporary staffing increase for Water Pollution
Control Plant
12. RESOLUTION NO. 05-401 approving Engineering Services Agreement with HWS Consulting
Group for the South Duff Avenue Improvement Project in the amount of $45,000
13. RESOLUTION NO. 05-402 approving Intergovernmental Agreements with Collins and Story
County for affordable housing projects pertaining to the Ames/Story County Partnership
14. FACES Celebration on October 1, 2005:
a. Motion approving blanket vending permit and waiver of fee
b. Motion approving blanket temporary obstruction permit for Central Business District
sidewalks
c. RESOLUTION NO. 05-403 approving the closure of portions of Fifth Street, Clark Avenue
and the East City Hall parking lot
d. RESOLUTION NO. 05-404 approving contracts for entertainers
e. RESOLUTION NO. 05-405 approving the transfer of the budgeted $1,500 in Hotel/Motel
Tax Fund to the FACES account in the General Fund for payment of various fees
f. RESOLUTION NO. 05-406 approving waiver of the cost of electricity and water associated
with event
g. RESOLUTION NO. 05-407 approving request for suspension of parking enforcement in
Central Business District
15. RESOLUTION NO. 05-408 authorizing matching funds for Airport Master Plan update
16. RESOLUTION NO. 05-409 awarding contract for Lagoon Cleaning at Water Pollution Control
Plant to Nutri-Ject Systems of Hudson, Iowa, in the amount of $62,250
17. RESOLUTION NO. 05-410 approving issuance of purchase order to North American Energy
Services in an amount not to exceed $60,000 for follow-up work on Unit #8 Turbine Generator
18. RESOLUTION NO. 05-411 approving contract and bond from Wesco Distribution, Inc., to
furnish Arresters for Ames Substation project
19. RESOLUTION NO. 05-412 approving contract and bond from Valmont/Newmark of Tulsa,
OK, to furnish Steel Transmission Towers for Ames Substation project
20. RESOLUTION NO. 05-413 approving Major Final Plat for Somerset Subdivision, 20th
Addition
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolutions declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and
hereby made a portion of these minutes.
PUBLIC FORUM: No one spoke during this time.
DEVELOPMENT OF PLANNED REGIONAL COMMERCIAL AREA EAST OF I-35 AND
NORTH AND SOUTH OF EAST 13TH STREET (tabled from 9/13/05): Mayor Tedesco
explained that the rezoning request was withdrawn by Wolford Development Co. on September
23, 2005; this item is now moot.
Moved by Goodhue, seconded by Vegge, to direct City staff to renegotiate the Zoning
Agreement in conjunction with the resubmittal of the rezoning request.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion carried unanimously.
HEARING ON REZONING OF PROPERTY AT 198 AND 199 WILDER AVENUE: Planner
Dominic Roberge explained the request of Hunziker Land Development Co., LLC, to rezone
approximately 8.14 acres addressed as 198 and 199 Wilder Avenue from “A” (Agricultural) and
“RH” (Residential High Density) to “CVCN” (Convenience Commercial Node). He advised
that staff was recommending approval of the rezoning request; however, if approved, they
would need to undertake a land use study of the “HOC” (Highway-Oriented Commercial)
District to the west of 198 and 199 Wilder Avenue along the Lincoln Way corridor. Matt
Flynn, Director of Planning and Housing, explained that the “HOC” District will be adjacent
to the new “CVCN” and could create a commercial corridor. That commercial corridor could
eventually fill to the east and connect the existing commercial areas on the north and south
2
sides of Lincoln Way, which would go against the City’s policy (that much of the future
community-scale commercial be associated with nodes). Also, the “CVCN” is intended to be
surrounded by residential neighborhoods, not part of a commercial corridor. Mr. Flynn advised
that the Planning and Zoning Commission had unanimously recommended approval of this
request.
Council Member Cross asked if the staff recommendation included direction from the City
Council to the Planning staff to study the commercial area to the west and recommend possible
changes to the Land Use Policy Plan (LUPP). Mr. Flynn said that was correct, but he
emphasized that this would not be a high priority. Planning staff would like to look at a one-
mile section between Dakota and County Line Road.
Council Member Wirth asked what uses were planned for this area. Mr. Flynn indicated that
he was not sure, but the developer could answer that question. He said permitted uses would
include such establishments as small grocery stores, convenience stores, drug stores, specialty
retail, and offices; uses that provide daily living requirements and amenities in a readily
identifiable and accessible area would be allowed.
Mayor Tedesco opened the public hearing.
Chuck Winkleblack, Hunziker & Associates, 105 South 16th Street, Ames, stated that the
developers do not have a particular business in mind for the area at this time. He said that this
is part of the plat for Sunset Ridge, which had been worked on for over two years. They have
been waiting for the Commercial Convenience Node ordinance to be worked through; they will
now begin marketing the site. The intention is for the development to be more retail.
There being no one else wishing to speak, the Mayor closed the hearing.
Moved by Goodhue, seconded by Cross, to pass on first reading an ordinance rezoning property
at 198 and 199 Wilder Avenue from “A” (Agricultural) and “RH” (Residential High Density)
to “CVCN” (Convenience Commercial Node).
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
HEARING ON URBAN REVITALIZATION AREA (URA) FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED
AT 4509 AND 4512 TWAIN CIRCLE: City Manager Steve Schainker advised that the applicant
had indicated that the site was underutilized in its present condition, and staff concurred.
Council Member Goodman pointed out that there were a couple buildings on this site; however,
the lots are mainly grass, and the requested abatement would cover the entire area. He asked
if abatement was always going to be granted for any undeveloped property. Mr. Goodman
pointed out that every similar tract could be called “underutilized” and qualify under the urban
revitalization criteria. Mr. Schainker indicated that each request would be handled on a case-
by-case basis; whether to name it as an urban revitalization area would be the decision of the
City Council. Even if the project meets the matrix, the City Council could deny the request,
but vacant lots are considered underutilized.
Mr. Flynn advised that the land in question is a farmstead in an area zoned for Residential
High-Density development, and the house is so dilapidated that the City Assessor has placed
its value
3
at zero. He reminded the Council that when they reviewed the concept of an URA for this area,
they wanted the developer to apply brick to all four sides. The developer has done that.
The hearing was opened by the Mayor. No one asked to speak, and he closed same.
Moved by Vegge, seconded by Goodhue, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 05-414 approving the
URA Plan.
Roll Call Vote: 5-1. Voting aye: Cross, Goodhue, Mahayni, Vegge, Wirth. Voting nay:
Goodman. Resolution declared adopted, signed by the Mayor, and hereby made a copy of these
minutes.
Moved by Goodhue, seconded by Mahayni, to pass on first reading an ordinance establishing
the 4509 and 4512 Twain Circle Urban Revitalization Area.
Roll Call Vote: 5-1. Voting aye: Cross, Goodhue, Mahayni, Vegge, Wirth. Voting nay:
Goodman. Motion declared carried.
HEARING ON AMENDMENT TO 2005-06 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT (CDBG) ANNUAL ACTION PLAN: Mayor Tedesco advised that he had received
a letter at his home from Youth & Shelter Services, Inc., copies of which were placed around
the dais. The Mayor pointed out that the senders of the letter did not follow the proper
procedure for commenting, as published in the Notice. He stated that the letter expressed
disappointment that the City was proposing to appropriate only the $31,000 that was carried
over from 2004/05 to assist non-profit agencies with minor maintenance updates to their shelter
facilities. The sender urged the City to consider appropriating additional CDBG funds to that
area and continue it beyond 2005/06.
Ms. Baker Latimer advised that the City began taking applications in June; however, no
projects were complete, so the funds rolled-over to the current fiscal year. To date, four
applications have been received. Staff anticipated that there were six organizations that would
be eligible for those funds, and according to Ms. Baker Latimer, if the four agencies that have
applied receive the maximum $5,000 forgivable grant, she will open it back up for the other
agencies to apply to spend the remaining $11,000.
Vanessa Baker Latimer reminded the Council that since it was determined that the project of
developing an affordable housing subdivision in partnership with the Ames School District
would take longer to develop, an alternative Action Plan was developed for 2005/06. On
August 23, 2005, the City Council approved amended projects and the budget, as follows:
Deposit Assistance Program ($31,252), Minor Repair Assistance Program for Non-Profits
($31,000), Homebuyer Assistance Program ($207,600), 2004/05 Program Administration
($29,743), Acquisition/Reuse Program ($552,786), and 2005/06 Program Administration
($112,546). In looking at the City Council’s goals, 70% of the CDBG funds were to be spent
on housing. Ms. Baker Latimer pointed out that the approval included a recommendation that
the City not acquire properties that were currently occupied, but only acquire properties that
would initially need minor repair improvements for the City’s reuse.
Council Member Vegge asked how the Acquisition/Reuse program worked. Ms. Baker Latimer
advised that, in the initial round, staff would search for properties that are for sale. Buying
occupied homes would displace individuals and fall under another program that would be
4
administered differently. She said that rentals would be targeted and converted back into
single-family homes. CDBG funds would be utilized for minor repairs, if needed. Those
homes will be made available to first-time homebuyers, either through the Down-Payment and
Closing Cost Assistance Program or to one of the local non-profit organizations. Mr. Vegge
asked if the program was administered on a “break-even” basis. Ms. Baker Latimer said that
past practice had been to sell the home at a reduced cost, but if there is an eligible homebuyer,
the home may be sold at the appraised value. If there is indication that CDBG funds will be
reduced in the future, Ms. Baker Latimer said that the City would like to use the money from
the sales to build back up the program fund. Council Member Cross summarized that it was
then, in essence, a revolving loan fund where the City buys a property, sells it, and then uses
those funds to buy another property.
Council Member Wirth asked for the criteria of the Minor Repair program. Ms. Baker Latimer
advised that $5,000 was the maximum amount allowed; anything over $5,000 in CDBG funds
kicks in a lot more requirements, such as lead paint and abatement issues. Under $5,000, only
clearance testing and safe work practices are mandatory.
Ms. Wirth asked what assurance the City had that the quantity of homes would be available to
spend the funds. Ms. Baker Latimer stated that there are approximately 300 homes on the
market, with over 100 being priced under $120,000. Because the City rolled-over CDBG funds
from last fiscal year, the entire allocation was budgeted; however, as long as the expenditure
threshold is reached by May 2006, some of the funds could be reallocated to other programs.
If the Acquisition/Reuse program proves successful, the funds could be used for that purpose
or they could be reallocated. Ms. Baker Latimer pointed out that the City Council directed that
at least 70% of the funds be used for housing. Council Member Wirth asked if it would be
possible to reallocate funds after the $31,000 for non-profits was expended, if there is still a
strong need in that area. Ms. Baker Latimer said the reallocation of funds would be at the
Council’s discretion.
The Council was told that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) had
relaxed some requirements for victims of Hurricane Katrina. Waivers will be received for use
by evacuees coming to Ames. Ms. Baker Latimer will provide a report to Council on the
waivers in the near future.
Ms. Baker Latimer stated that the 2005/06 Action Plan was made available for public comment
from August 26, 2005 thru September 26, 2005. One comment, that was sent to the Mayor’s
home, as referenced above, was received.
Mayor Tedesco pointed out that Ms. Baker Latimer is very good at educating homebuyers as
to the responsibilities of ownership and ensuring that their finances are in order. According to
Ms. Baker Latimer, there are public meetings set up to educate the public as to the opportunities
for housing assistance. Ms. Baker Latimer explained what efforts had been or will be made by
staff to meet the goals of the 2005/06 CDBG Annual Action Plan.
The Mayor opened the public hearing. There was no one wishing to speak, and the hearing was
closed.
Moved by Cross, seconded by Goodman, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 05-415 approving
5
submittal of the Amended Plan to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and
hereby made a portion of these minutes.
HEARING ON 2004/05 CDBG CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE AND
EVALUATION REPORT (CAPER): The public hearing was opened and closed by Mayor
Tedesco after no one came forward to speak.
Moved by Cross, seconded by Goodhue, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 05-416 approving
submittal of the CAPER to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and
hereby made a portion of these minutes.
HEARING ON STANGE ROAD 161/69kV SUBSTATION CONSTRUCTION: The Mayor
opened the hearing. No one wished to speak, and the Mayor closed the hearing.
Moved by Goodhue, seconded by Wirth, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 05-417 approving final
plans and specifications and awarding to L. E. Myers Co., of Marshalltown, Iowa, in the
amount of $1,102,534.76.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and
hereby made a portion of these minutes.
HEARING ON ROOF REPLACEMENT AT WATER TREATMENT PLANT AND WATER
POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT: Mayor Tedesco brought the City Council members’ attention
to a memo that had been placed around the dais from Assistant City Manager Sheila Lundt,
which changed the Manager’s Recommended Action. It was now being recommended that the
City Council reject all bids.
Tom Neumann, Director of Water and Pollution Control, advised that staff received information
yesterday afternoon from one of the three bidders that raised questions regarding the City’s
analysis of the bids. There are issues relating to the rock ballast and pavers in comparison of
the 15- and 20-year warranties. Due to different interpretations of the specifications, staff felt
it was in the best interest of the City to reject all bids and re-bid the project; revised plans and
specifications could be approved by the Council at the first meeting in October with award of
contract at the second meeting in October. In the meantime, staff wants to revise the
specifications so that all bidders have a better understanding of what is being bid.
Council Member Cross asked Mr. Neumann to explain the confusion. Mr. Neumann advised
that the 20-year warranty was an add-on; different manufacturers provide different warranty
periods. One of the manufacturers has an additional ballast requirement in order to provide a
20-year warranty – a different size ballast and a requirement of where that ballast is to be
placed. It also requires a heavier paver in lieu of the standard “walking block.” Another
manufacturer did not have those criteria in order to provide a 20-year warranty. The two lowest
bidders have proposed to provide materials from two different manufacturers; therefore, trying
to compare the two manufacturers and the warranty requirements has been difficult.
Mr. Neumann continued by advising that specifications were written based on a 15-year
warranty requirement, and staff added an alternate bid for a 20-year warranty. Staff did not
6
have information from the manufacturer on what the differential was for the 20-year warranty
until yesterday afternoon. As staff reviewed that information, some assumptions made when
first comparing the bids were no longer valid as they were required in order to obtain a 20-year
warranty. Staff then realized that they were not comparing comparable installations, and for that
reason, it is believed that it would be best to change the specifications, clarify the requirements,
and re-bid the project.
Council Member Goodhue asked if staff were going to require a 15- or a 20-year warranty if
the project is re-bid. Mr. Neumann said that they will ask for both, but the specifications will
clearly describe what is required for the 15-year and what is required for the 20-year warranty.
Staff would then decide what is in the City’s best interest.
Mr. Neumann stated that staff is not sure exactly what was included in one of the bids; they
only received clarification yesterday that the ballast was included, but there were no indications
that the pavers were included for the 20-year warranty product. Council Member Cross asked
why that can’t be clarified. Mr. Neumann said that it was more of a legal question as to what
staff should or should not do in terms of maintaining fairness of the bid process.
Assistant City Attorney Judy Parks advised that it was possible for a bidder to clarify a bid after
the fact, specifically, if they are asked questions. However, in this case, staff was trying to
compare bids while getting increasingly more information that led them to believe that they
were not making an “apples-to-apples” comparison. Staff did not realize that there was a
difference in materials until they received the information yesterday. The best course of action,
per Ms. Parks, is to reject all bids so that all information can be provided upfront rather than
after-the-fact. Council Member Vegge said it was also a credibility issue.
Mayor Tedesco opened the public hearing.
Mark Hanson, 2803 Thompson Drive, Ames, spoke on behalf of Central States Roofing, one
of the bidders in this process.. He said that the misunderstanding was created by a lack of
knowledge of the specifications issued. Once the lack of knowledge was recognized, it was
evident that Central States Roofing was the low bidder. The confusion came as it related to
ballast replacement on a 15- versus 20-year specification. Mr. Hanson advised that the
confusion occurred because the specifications were written around the Carlisle specification,
which is how Central States Roofing bid the project. After the original specifications were
issued, an approved equal was accepted from another manufacturer; that manufacturer has
different, and possibly inferior, requirements. The confusion occurred because the approved
equal was not really an equal. The specifications referenced Carlisle Manufacturing, Carlisle
materials, Carlisle installation requirements, and Carlisle warranty requirements, which
according to Mr. Hanson, was what Central States bid.
Mr. Hanson advised that Central States’ bid was low on bid day by approximately $3,000.
There was a request on the bid form for unit pricing, and staff made a calculation on what
needed to be replaced for ballast, multiplied that by unit pricing, and arrived at an amount that
they felt was the additional cost that the City would incur if Central States were awarded the
contract. The clarification that Central States began making Friday afternoon and finished
making on Monday afternoon was that the City would not incur any additional expense because
the specification that was issued under the Carlisle brand name would require Central States
7
to replace ballast to meet the 20-year specification. Because the 20-year specification would
require Central States to make the replacement, Central States included that cost in its price
submitted on bid day. It was Mr. Hanson’s opinion that had staff known that, they would have
realized that the 20-year specification that was issued under the Carlisle name required the
bidder to do that and that cost was included in Central States’ bid. During the analysis between
the bids of Academy Roofing and Central States Roofing, staff would have seen that Central
States’ bid was a whole bid for a completed project, and the City would not incur additional
coss. Secondly, Mr. Hanson said that Central States’ bid met the specifications, and the City
had shown intent to issue a contract. He believes that the City had a misunderstanding of the
specifications and felt that Central States’ bid was not whole, meaning the City would incur
additional expense. City staff estimated what that expense would be and added it on to the bid
submitted by Central States Roofing.
Council Member Vegge asked if there would be any additional ballast costs to the City if
Central States’ bid were accepted. Mr. Hanson stated that the only additional ballast costs
would be if, for some reason not known today, the City decided to replace additional ballast that
was not intended in the specifications to be replaced, was not necessary under the industry
standard to be replaced, or necessary to be replaced to meet the 20-year specification. All the
rock required to meet the specification is included in Central States’ bid. Mr. Hanson pointed
out that the City’s specification stated that the rock was to be reused; some rock needs to be
replaced, and there was a specific direction as to what would be done with the rock that was
salvaged.
No one else wished to speak, and the hearing was closed.
Council Member Goodman said he felt that the City had the responsibility to figure out which
bid was the lowest bid and award the contract. He believed the staff, in conjunction with the
Carlisle Company, can determine the lowest bidder. Mr. Goodman strongly encouraged staff
to do that.
Assistant Attorney Parks advised the Council that they had the option to award the contract or
reject the bids. To attempt to get all information to evaluate the bids would be very difficult at
this juncture; however, more information is coming to light all the time, which indicates that
the submitted bids were not complete. She said that the City Council does have the right to gain
additional information about the bids; however, it would be the cleanest to re-bid the project.
Council Member Vegge felt that it would be unethical to re-bid the project since the bid
amounts are now known. Council Member Goodman concurred that the competitors would
know each other’s bid amount; that would be unfair, and he is not comfortable doing that.
Moved by Cross, seconded by Goodman, to table to October 11, 2005, and direct staff to further
clarify the bids.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
HEARING ON REZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED BETWEEN DAWES DRIVE AND
U. S. HIGHWAY 69 (CALHOUN PARK) FROM “A” (AGRICULTURAL) AND “S-GA”
(GOVERNMENT-AIRPORT): The public hearing was opened by Mayor Tedesco. He
closed same after no one asked to speak.
8
Moved by Mahayni, seconded by Cross, to pass on first reading an ordinance rezoning property
located between Dawes Drive and U. S. Highway 69 (Calhoun Park) from “A” (Agricultural)
and “S-GA” (Government-Airport).
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
PRESENTATION ON PROPOSALS TO CREATE “ONE COMMUNITY COMMISSION”
AND “STUDENT AFFAIRS COMMISSION”: Assistant City Manager Bob Kindred; Tahira
Hira, Assistant to ISU President Geoffroy; Angela Groh, President of the Government of
Student Body (GSB); Tony Borich, City Council Ex Officio Member, and Christopher Deal,
Vice-President of the GSB.
Ms. Tahira Hira summarized the recommendations made by the “One Community”
Implementation Committee. That Committee was chartered by the Mayor, President Geoffroy,
and the GSB President in February 2005 and charged to develop a plan to implement
recommendations from the Post-VEISHEA Commission and Task Force. The two main ideas
were to develop and support a “One Community” team and to ask the ISU administration to
encourage students to become responsible members of the campus and Ames community.
Mr. Kindred gave a chronological review of actions leading up to the recommendation of the
creation of a “One Community” Commission. He said that the charge for the “One
Community” Commission would come from three groups: City of Ames, Iowa State University,
and the Government of the Student Body. In summary, Mr. Kindred stated that the
recommended action from the “One Community” Implementation Committee is that the
Council approve the concept and work together with ISU and GSB to agree on what the charter
should be and move forward.
Ms. Groh described the role of a Student Affairs Commission. She advised that the concept
was that the Commission would be created by the City Council and would follow the more
traditional commission type in that it would directly affect policy. According to Ms. Groh, the
creation of this Commission would be a very symbolic measure in showing that the City really
supports and recognizes the importance of student involvement within City policy. One of the
main roles of the Student Affairs Commission would be to advise the City Council; any issue
that came before City Council that would uniquely or directly affect students could be referred
to this Commission. The membership of this Commission would consist of individuals
appointed by the Mayor and approved by the City Council. The potential structure would
include students and community members, with the majority comprised of students designated
from clubs and organizations on campus that have a vested interest in policy-making and at-
large students who would represent any aspect of students. Including community members on
this Commission is a change to what was discussed with some Council members earlier in the
year.
According to Ms. Groh, the creation of this Commission would create a sustainable and normal
avenue for gaining student input on any issues that directly affect them. The lack of
sustainability has been a problem in the past. The Commission would be charged to advise the
Council on student-city issues and work independently to resolve conflicts and achieve
consensus. Ms. Groh said that they hoped to have access to City staff support. Staff from the
office of GSB has indicated a willingness to provide that support through current assistants who
9
work in the office.
Ms. Groh reiterated that this Commission would enable students to participate effectively in the
development of city policy and facilitate a productive dialog and collaboration among students
and key city/student-issue constituencies. Mayor Tedesco pointed out that the Student Affairs
Commission would be strictly an advisory group.
Mr. Borich advised that they had discovered that the University of California at Davis has a
similarly structured commission to what they are proposing. It has been successful in discussing
issues before they go to the Council level. He also just found out that East Lansing (Michigan)
has had a commission in place since 1997, and it is comprised wholly of students.
Chris Deal said that he believes the creation of this Commission is a great way to further
implement the “One Community” idea.
Mr. Borich pointed out that they are presenting a rough proposal, and it is up to the City
Council as to which direction they want to take. As far as flexibility to the Commission’s
structure, Mr. Borich said that they would be open to a high school student being a member of
the Student Affairs Commission; issues do not just pertain to University students.
Council Member Goodman would like to see the Commission open to all members of the
community; it could be comprised of an equal number of those with student interests and those
with non-student interests. Mr. Borich indicated that they could look at that; however, the
similar commissions found throughout the country were found to be comprised mainly of
students. He felt that the Commission should be a mechanism for students to communicate their
thoughts.
A lengthy discussion ensued as to why the GSB could not create a Student Commission on its
own. Ms. Groh reiterated that, with a City-sanctioned commission, it would ensure
sustainability. Council Member Wirth felt that the appropriate structure for the Commission
would be under the GSB. She asked why this particular group would be picked out to form a
separate commission. Ms. Wirth did not feel that sustainability was the issue, as the City
Council could disband the Commission if it felt that it were no longer effective.
Mr. Borich said that he was a strong supporter of forming a Student Affairs Commission,
especially after reading of the successes that Davis, California, and East Lansing, Michigan,
had realized from similar Commissions. The creation of such a Commission would provide a
specific forum for dialog between the City Council and students. Council Member Mahayni
suggested that the GSB get documentation from Davis, California, and East Lansing, Michigan,
to ascertain what issues they have had before them.
Council Member Mahayni asked what was meant by “student issues;” he hoped that those
would not center around drinking laws. The types of student issues to be discussed by the
Student Affairs Commission needed to be defined and the stakeholders be determined. Mr.
Mahayni emphasized that the City Council is the body that directs staff, and if the Commission
is formed, they would not have access to staff. He said that the mission of the Commission
needs to be defined, and that will determine its sustainability.
10
Ms. Groh interjected that part of the reason that the VEISHEA Task Force recommended the
creation of this Commission was because dialog was not happening in a sustainable method.
They were here tonight to emphasize its importance and the fact that it needs to continue for
many years. If the discussions do not occur, they feel that occurrences similar to the VEISHEA
disturbances would continue. Ms. Groh felt strongly that the individuals involved in an
officially sanctioned (by the City Council) Commission would have more credibility and put
more time and effort into representing the entire City of Ames. She feels that specific issues can
be identified that directly affect students or the businesses that interrelate with students, and a
mission could be declared. It is the opinion of Ms. Groh that there would not be as much
support from the Chamber of Commerce, businesses, landlords, etc., if this were not a City-
sanctioned commission.
Council Member Mahayni pointed out that creating a Student Affairs Commission was not
going to prevent future riots; that is not the issue. The issue, in Mr. Mahayni’s opinion, is
having dialog. It is important to include neighborhood associations as an integral part of this
group. He also suggested that the Campustown business community should be included more
than the Chamber of Commerce. The stakeholders should be identified and be involved.
Council Member Goodman recommended that a workshop or a round-table discussion be held
between City Council and GSB.
Moved by Goodhue, seconded by Mahayni, to direct staff to work with GSB to come up with
a date for a round-table discussion.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Discussion ensued on the purpose of the “One Community” Commission and the difference
between it and the proposed “Student Affairs” Commission. Ms. Hira felt that multiple-interest
groups need to work together to form one community. She said they are only asking whether
the City Council is supportive of the concept. Council Member Cross indicated that he liked
the concept, but felt that it went beyond “One Community,” and perhaps its title should so
indicate. Some of the “One Community” implementation items are long-term projects.
According to Mr. Kindred, it was intended for the “One Community” Commission to have its
own separate charge – not be a City or University commission. City Council or City staff
members could serve on the Commission.
Ms. Hira said that they had more work to do, as she did not believe that this Commission was
intended to be only City/University. It was intended for the overall community, i.e., multiple
interest groups, to improve working relationships with each other.
Moved by Wirth, seconded by Mahayni, to direct the representatives to provide more details
as to the structure of the “One Community” Commission.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT GRANT PRESENTATION BY EASTWOOD
VILLAGE: The Mayor stated that this presentation was being postponed until October 11, 2005,
at the request of representatives of Eastwood Village.
11
OUTDOOR SERVICES PRIVILEGE FOR CY’S ROOST, 121 WELCH AVENUE (tabled
from 9/13/05): Andrew White, 3315 - 146th Circle, Urbandale, Iowa, spoke as president of Welch
Avenue Taverns, Inc., and as the liquor-license holder at Cy’s Roost. Mr. White said that he
did not learn of the violations (minors on premises) issued on August 8 until September 13; the
manager did not inform him, and that manager is no longer a manager.
Mr. White stated that all employees of his establishments receive training through the Ames
Police Department. He advised that he owns five bars in Ames and gave a summary of the
violations issued at those bars since 2002. Mr. White told the Council what actions had been
taken since the citations were issued at Cy’s Roost.
Police Chief Jaeger said that he did not have the number of Cy’s Roost employees who had
attended training through the Police Department. Chief Jaeger recommended that Mr. White
meet with the Night-Shift Lieutenant (Brennan) to discuss the Police Department’s
expectations.
Council Member Goodhue acknowledged that Mr. White had given an explanation of the
situation that had occurred on August 8, apologized to the City Council, and provided a copy
of their training manual. There had not been any occurrences since August 8, and there had not
been many violations at any of the other four establishments owned by Mr. White.
Moved by Goodhue, seconded by Vegge, to grant a six-month Outdoor Service Privilege for
Cy’s Roost, with the following stipulations: (1) that all appropriate employees receive training
on October 13, 2005, from the Police Department; (2) that Mr. White meet with the Night-Shift
Lieutenant (Brennan); and, (3) that changes/repairs be made to the fence surrounding the
outdoor service area in accordance with the Police Department.
Council Member Goodman asked to know the number of violations typically received before
City Council takes action. Assistant City Attorney Parks explained that the City Attorney, years
ago, arbitrarily arrived at the number 12 to use as a guideline; it was never approved by the City
Council.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
NEWLINK GENETICS: Dr. Charles Link, President of NewLink Genetics, which was founded
in Ames in 1999, advised that NewLink Genetics Corporation is a biopharmaceutical company
developing novel drugs and functional genomics solutions with a primary focus on cancer. Dr.
Link gave an overview of their company. He stated that they need an additional 20,000 to
30,000 square feet of office and research space.
David Maahs,1601 Golden Aspen Drive, Ames, speaking as the Director of the Economic
Development Commission, said that this proposal fits in with the community’s goal of
advancing the bio-economy vision.
David Carter, Director of the Ames Research Park, distributed a site plan for the Phase 3
Development of the Research Park. He also gave an update, at the request of Council Member
Goodman, on the Biologics Company. Mr. Carter explained that NewLink Genetics has raised
a great deal of funds on their own. He feels that the business is well-run and successful.
12
Moved by Cross, seconded by Goodhue, to support a $200,000 forgivable loan and direct staff
to draft a Forgivable Loan Agreement.
Vote on Motion: 5-0-1. Voting aye: Cross, Goodhue, Mahayni, Vegge, Wirth. Voting nay:
None. Abstaining: Goodman. Motion declared carried.
Moved by Cross, seconded by Goodhue, to approve the concept of providing Urban
Revitalization Tax abatement.
Vote on Motion: 5-0-1. Voting aye: Cross, Goodhue, Mahayni, Vegge, Wirth. Voting nay:
None. Abstaining: Goodman. Motion declared carried.
Moved by Cross, seconded by Goodhue, to authorize the Mayor to sign a High-Quality Jobs
Program application on behalf of NewLink Genetics.
Vote on Motion: 5-0-1. Voting aye: Cross, Goodhue, Mahayni, Vegge, Wirth. Voting nay:
None. Abstaining: Goodman. Motion declared carried.
DISCUSSION OF PARKING REGULATIONS ON BURNETT AVENUE (tabled from
9/13/05): Mr. Schainker explained that only about 50% of the adjacent property owners had
responded to staff’s contact. Public Works Director John Joiner explained that initial contacts
were made by phone, with only about 50% response rate. He stated that they are now
contacting the adjacent property owners in person. Mr. Joiner advised that staff will continue
to gather input from the affected residents and work with Meeker Elementary School to
develop an amicable solution. A report will then be made to the City Council at a
later date.
The meeting recessed at 10:00 p.m. and reconvened at 10:05 p.m.
REPORT ON COMBINING CITY AND COUNTY ASSESSORS’ OFFICES: Mr. Schainker
explained that it was staff’s opinion that the consolidation of the City Assessor’s Office with
the County Assessor’s Office should be considered only if the following benefits were realized:
better service to Ames property owners, more accurate assessments for Ames property owners,
more equitable assessments among Ames property owners, less cost to the Ames property
owners, and the same or better representation of City interests on governing and appeals boards.
There was no evidence that improvements would be made to costs, accuracy, equity, or
representation for Ames citizens. After analysis, City staff concluded that there was not a
compelling reason to change the City Assessor structure and recommended that the position be
filled.
Discussion ensued about the accuracy of assessments under both scenarios.
Moved by Wirth, seconded by Mahayni, to retain a separate City Assessor’s Office, direct staff
to move forward to fill the position, and direct staff to notify the Iowa Department of Revenue,
Board of Supervisors, Examining Board, Conference Board, City Assessor’s Office, and the
County Assessor’s Office.
Vote on Motion: 5-1. Voting aye: Cross, Goodhue, Mahayni, Vegge, Wirth. Voting nay: Good
man. Motion declared carried.
UPDATE ON CITY ATTORNEY RECRUITMENT STRATEGY: Moved by Cross, seconded
by Wirth, to approve the recruitment strategy outlined by City staff.
13
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Moved by Cross, seconded by Wirth, to approve the Job Description.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
AGREEMENT FOR JAIL HOUSING OF CITY ARRESTEES: Police Chief Loras Jaeger gave
the highlights of the Agreement between the City of Ames and Story County to Compensate
Story County for Jail Housing of City Arrestees. Also present were Commander Jim Robinson
and Chuck Cychosz, Support Services Manager.
Chief Jaeger advised that it is in the City’s long-term interest to ensure the safety of arrestees.
This requires extensive monitoring of prisoners, and the long-term alternative appears to be a
costly upgrading of the City’s detention facilities and the hiring of additional staff to supervise
prisoners in the holding facility.
Moved by Goodhue, seconded by Mahayni, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 05-418 approving
the agreement with Story County for jail housing of City arrestees.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and
hereby made a portion of these minutes.
ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING PARKING REGULATIONS ON DALTON STREET AND
DALTON CIRCLE: Moved by Goodman, seconded by Wirth, to pass on first reading an
ordinance establishing parking regulations on Dalton Street and Dalton Circle.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5.501(2)(e)(iii) PERTAINING TO DANGEROUS
BUILDINGS: Moved by Goodhue, seconded by Wirth, to pass on third reading and adopt
ORDINANCE NO. 3852 amending Section 5.501(2)(e)(iii) pertaining to dangerous buildings.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Ordinance declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and
hereby made a portion of these minutes.
COMMENTS: Moved by Wirth, seconded by Goodhue, to refer to staff the petition from residents
of Northcrest Retirement Community regarding a rough Union Pacific railroad crossing at
Ridgewood and 20th Street, letter from Hunziker Youth Sports Complex requesting an extension
of the deadline to complete their operational plan, and letter from Tom Hill, Vice-President for
Student Affairs at ISU, requesting funding to sustain the Black Cultural Center.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Moved by Goodhue, to direct staff to analyze, by May 2006, annexing land north of Ames city
limits to 190th Street from Grand to George Washington Carver and further west if staff desires.
This would address several of the Council’s goals: low-impact development, Ada Hayden
Watershed project, urban fringe, and large-lot development. Mr. Goodhue felt it is important
for the City of Ames to have control of that land, especially due to the watershed.
Council Goodman asked where this project would fall as far as the priorities already directed
to the Planning staff. Mr. Goodhue felt that it would be part of the first four priorities, but no
higher than the governmental lands issue. Mr. Goodman indicated that he was not comfortable
14
with the day of May 1, 2006, just in case the governmental lands project would not be finished.
Vote on Motion: 5-1. Voting aye: Cross, Goodhue, Mahayni, Vegge, Wirth. Voting nay:
Goodman. Motion declared carried.
Moved by Cross, seconded by Vegge, to direct staff to review the appropriateness of future land
use designations in the Land Use Policy Plan for properties located adjacent to West Lincoln
Way between the west city limits and County Line Road and that staff report back at one of the
Council’s October meetings on the status of current priorities assigned to Planning & Housing
staff and how this request impacts their work effort.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT: 10:50 p.m.
___________________________________ ____________________________________
Diane R. Voss, City Clerk Ted Tedesco, Mayor
15