HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Regular Meeting of the Ames City Council 11/25/2003MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL
AMES, IOWA NOVEMBER 25, 2003
The Ames City Council met in regular session at 7:00 p.m. on the 25th day of November, 2003, in
the City Council Chambers in City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue, pursuant to law with Mayor Ted
Tedesco presiding and the following Council members present: Cross, Goodhue, Hoffman, Mahayni,
and Vegge. Council Member Wirth was absent. Nate Johnston, ex officio member, was also absent.
CONSENT AGENDA: Council Member Vegge requested to pull Item #2, approval of the minutes
of the Special Meeting of November 17, 2003, and the Regular Meeting of November 18, 2003.
Council Member Cross requested to pull Item #5 pertaining to the approval of the Affirmative
Action Annual Analysis.
Moved by Goodhue, seconded by Mahayni, to approve the following items on the Consent
Agenda:
1. Motion approving payment of claims
2. Motion approving renewal of the following beer permits and liquor licenses:
a. Class C Liquor - Aunt Maude’s, 543-547 Main Street
b. Class C Liquor and Outdoor Service Area - The Café, 2616 Northridge Parkway
c. Class C Liquor and Outdoor Service Area - Cazador Mexican Restaurant, 127 Dotson Drive
d. Class B Liquor - Country Inn & Suites, 2605 SE 16th Street
e. Class C Liquor - Minsky's of Ames, 3605 Lincoln Way
f. Class C Liquor and Outdoor Service Area - O'Malley & McGee's Mexican Café, 716 South
Duff Avenue
3. Motion approving certification of civil service applicants
4. RESOLUTION NO. 03-446 accepting completion of the 2002/03 Collector Street
Rehabilitation Program
7. RESOLUTION NO. 03-447 accepting completion of the 2002/03 Storm Sewer Intake
Rehabilitation Project
8. RESOLUTION NO. 03-448 accepting completion of the 2003/04 CyRide Route Reconstruction
(Bloomington Road) Project
9. RESOLUTION NO. 03-449 accepting completion of the 2002/03 Neighborhood Curb
Replacement Program
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Resolutions declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and
hereby made a portion of these minutes.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 17, 2003, AND
REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 18, 2003: Moved by Vegge, seconded by Mahayni, to
amend the minutes under Alan Munson’s testimony to state, “Mr. Munson asked the attendees
in the Council Chambers who knew of this issue three weeks ago and one hand went up. He
then asked the same question of the Council and no hands went up.”
Vote on Motion: 3-2. Voting aye: Goodhue, Mahayni, Vegge. Voting nay: Cross, Hoffman.
Motion declared carried.
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ANNUAL ANALYSIS: Council Member Cross said that as he
reviewed the report, he felt that the City has consistently tried different ways to diversify the
employee base, but he felt that it was important for the Council to understand what was being
done and ask staff to consider new ways to bring out results. After looking through the results,
he was not seeing a trend towards material improvement in hiring and promotion. He would like
staff to come back to Council with a presentation on current strategies relative to accomplishing
the goals of the City’s Affirmative Action Plan and making suggested changes to those
strategies.
Moved by Cross, seconded by Mahayni, to refer back to the Human Resources staff to review
the current affirmative action strategies and make recommendations at a future Council meeting,
after the new Human Resources Director has had a chance to review the Analysis, for strategies
to improve the affirmative action efforts.
Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Council Member Hoffman felt that it would be appropriate to approve the current Analysis and
then get a report on strategies after the new Human Resources Director has reviewed same.
Moved by Cross, seconded by Goodhue, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 03-445 approving the
Affirmative Action Annual Analysis.
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these minutes.
PUBLIC FORUM: Matt Randall, 420 S. 16th Street, Ames, Iowa, complained that he had presented
a letter to the City Council requesting that an item be placed on this meeting’s agenda regarding
a plat that Randall Corporation had submitted to City staff approximately 45 days ago. He said
that the City and the developers had been dealing with this issue for approximately two and one-
half to three years. This item was not put on tonight’s agenda, and he believes that is because
the approval of the concept for the Grand Avenue Extension is on tonight’s agenda. Mr. Randall
said he feels that staff is hoping to get the concept approved tonight to extend Grand Avenue to
South 16th Street. The developers would then come in at a future meeting with a plat not showing
a street running through their property, and the City would state that the plan for Grand Avenue
was already approved. He said that the developers hoped that these issues would be discussed
simultaneously. The concept for Grand Avenue Extension affects their property a great deal,
and Mr. Randall is very disappointed that all issues are not on the agenda.
Mayor Tedesco explained that he had called Matt Randall last week and asked him if December
1, 2003, was an important date regarding their plat. The Mayor pointed out that the City Council
had referred the item in question to an upcoming agenda. He stated that the item pertaining to
Grand Avenue Extension on the agenda tonight is simply approval of a concept; it is not
approval of the project. Mr. Randall agreed that he had told the Mayor that December 1st was
not an important date; he had said January 1st was an important date. He said the reason that
January 1st is such an important date is that if their plat approval is not completed by that date,
the developers have to continue to pay property taxes in excess of $100,000 on what is
essentially agricultural land. Mr. Randall said that he asked that their item be placed on the
agenda for a specific date, and he doesn’t believe that their request is being taken seriously. He
stated that he feels there is intent by City staff to divert their issue from coming to the Council.
REQUEST FOR REVISION TO PARKING PROHIBITIONS IN CENTRAL BUSINESS
DISTRICT LOTS X, Y, AND Z: Moved by Hoffman, seconded by Vegge, to direct the City
Attorney to prepare an ordinance revision to prohibit parking in the Central Business District
Lots X, Y, and Z starting at 3 AM.
Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
2
REQUEST FOR DONATION TO REIMAN GARDENS: Teresa McLaughlin, Director of
Reiman Gardens, explained that she called the City and was told that the electricity cost would
be a little over $1,000 for the roughly 50,000 lights outside and more inside the buildings for the
holiday display at Reiman Gardens. She advised that it costs approximately $10,000 to install
and remove the lights. Ms. Laughlin pointed out that this display brings many people to Ames.
She advised that she did talk to Julie Weeks, Director of the Convention & Visitors Bureau,
about this issue, and Ms. Weeks suggested that Ms. McLaughlin forward the letter to the City.
Ms. McLaughlin said that she is not sure if this request will be recurring; however, the Gardens
are especially financially stressed this year. The Gardens have received a gift of $5,000 from
Wells Fargo to help defray the costs. Ms. McLaughlin advised that Wells Fargo is also paying
for other events associated with the weekend of festivities at the Gardens.
Council Member Mahayni feels that Reiman Gardens is part of the entryway to the City, and as
long as this is not going to happen every year, he supports granting the request.
Moved by Mahayni, seconded by Vegge, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 03-450 approving the
request for a one-time donation of $1,066, to be paid from Hotel/Motel Tax proceeds, to Reiman
Gardens to help pay the cost of holiday lighting.
Vote on Motion: 4-1. Voting aye: Goodhue, Hoffman, Mahayni, Vegge. Voting nay: Cross.
Resolution declared adopted, signed by the Mayor, and hereby made a part of these minutes.
CONCEPT FOR GRAND AVENUE EXTENSION: Steve Schainker assured the Randall
Corporation that there is no other strategy involved in this issue, but said that staff could ask the
City Council not to take action tonight; they could wait until the next meeting when Council
discusses the plat in question.
Public Works Director Paul Wiegand explained that the Master Transportation Plan calls for
development of a project to extend Grand Avenue south from Lincoln Way. The purpose of the
Grand Avenue Extension project is primarily to provide an alternate north/south travel corridor
that will divert traffic from the most-congested sections of Lincoln Way and South Duff Avenue.
Mr. Wiegand said that the Transportation Plan indicates that it is likely that 8,500 vehicles/day
would use the facility down to South Fifth Street and 2,000 vehicles/day would use it from South
5th Street to South 16th Street. He explained the different phases of the proposed project, which
would total $11,324,000. Mayor Tedesco advised that, based on previous direction from the
City Council, staff has been in contact with the area Congressional Delegation to request 80%
funding for this project. Mr. Wiegand stated that if the project moves forward, the construction
of the initial phase would not likely take place until 2006 at the earliest.
Mr. Wiegand explained that at one time, there was discussion that the Grand Avenue Extension
could be designated as U. S. Highway #69, replacing Lincoln Way and South Duff Avenue with
the Federal Highway designation. That thought was put forth as a way for the Iowa DOT to
participate in the cost of the project. This potential arrangement would bring about significant
problems since Lincoln Way and South Duff would have to be transferred to the City in order
for the U. S. 69 designation to go to the new location. The City and the DOT would have to
negotiate the work elements that would have to be addressed on the roadway before a transfer
could occur. The cost to rehabilitate the roadway would be significant and it is unlikely that the
DOT would be willing to meet the City’s requirements to upgrade the street before the transfer
is made.
3
Scott Randall, 420 S. 17th Street, Ames, commended the City on its attempt to take some traffic
off of Lincoln Way. His concern is how that is going to be done and who is going to bear that
cost. He is not pleased that the City is proposing to “dump” that traffic on South 16th Street, right
through the middle of the Randall’s property, bisecting their new golf course, and essentially
holding them hostage on access to their property. Mr. Randall asked the Council to note that the
Study was modified on Page 3 to include S. 5th Street to S.16th Street. He respectfully requested
that the Council not approve the second phase of this project. Mr. Randall agrees with the first
phase of the project, but he cannot support the project from S. 5th Street to S. 16th Street.
Mr. Randall pointed out that Table 2 on Page 10 of the Study, which describes the recommended
lanes and right-of-way requirements, indicates that rights-of-way located on Grand Avenue from
S. 5th to 800' north of S. 16th and from 800' north of S. 16th to S. 16th Street are reserved. He
advised that he owns this property, and there have been no reservations of rights-of-way. Mr.
Randall said he owns about a half-mile of frontage on S. 16th Street currently. They would like
to be able to access their ground and develop it. He feels that they have been held hostage due
to the concept for the Grand Avenue Extension. Mr. Randall believes that the City has another
alternative: the right-of-way of the old railroad tracks, which is a bike path right now. He said
that they tried to accommodate the City when they built the golf course, but the City was
unreasonable on the terms of the negotiations. Mr. Randall stated that the City expects them to
“give” the City five to ten acres of prime ground right through the middle of their golf course
and then the City expects them to pay for the road and the improvements through assessments,
which he believes will be millions of dollars.
Matt Randall corrected an earlier comment made by Scott Randall pertaining to the number of
acres; it is four acres, not five to ten. He wanted the City Council to look at the way City staff
is proposing to fund the extension of Grand Avenue. Matt Randall believes that the northern
portion from where it stops now to S. 5th Street will be funded by federal and city funding. He
asked why that couldn’t happen for the entire project. Matt Randall proposed that, if it is
important to have private entities pay for this, HyVee be assessed since 8,500 more vehicles
will be traveling by their business. He pointed out that this project was proposed by the City,
not initiated by the developer, and he hopes that the City Council will step forward and take
ownership of the proposed project. He doesn’t want it to deter the Randall Corporation from
developing their property on S. 16th Street.
Council Member Cross asked for clarification on what the Council was being asked to approve
at this meeting. He believes that they are being asked to approve the conceptual plan for
extending Grand from Lincoln Way south of S. 5th and then S. 5th over to Duff. Paul Wiegand
said that staff was basically asking for authorization to continue to proceed with the northern
project from Lincoln Way to S. 5th and then S. 5th to S. Duff. Mr. Cross pointed out that the
southerly part of the project, because it is so far in the future, will not enter into the City’s
Capital Improvements Plan for a while. Mr. Schainker said it was his understanding that the
Randalls may want to develop the southern segment. The issue is that the Randalls do not want
to dedicate a segment of their property for right-of-way when they subdivide the land. Mr.
Wiegand explained that under the City’s subdivision requirements, the developer would be
responsible for the construction of two lanes of the roadway and the City would pay for any
further lanes. Mr. Schainker pointed out that the southern segment is the issue; because the
Randalls want to develop that land, it may come first. He said if it is handled like other
subdivisions, the developer would dedicate the public road to the City, and the City would pay
for the oversizing of it; it is not a matter of special assessment. Mr. Wiegand elaborated that, in
4
accordance with the subdivision policy, if a developer subdivides where the Transportation Plan
or other plans of the City provide for improvements, then it is the developer’s responsibility to
dedicate the land, build the minimum improvements, and then the City covers the oversizing;
this includes streets, bike paths, sanitary sewers, water mains, etc.
Council Member Cross asked if the City did consider running the street down the old railroad
right-of-way. Mr. Wiegand explained that the intent was to divert traffic from Lincoln Way and
South Duff, and the farther we get over to Elwood Drive versus South Duff, the less effective
it is going to be as a traffic diverter. That is the reason it was moved farther to the east versus
using the 100' old railroad right-of-way.
Pertaining to the question of the rights-of-way being reserved, Mr. Wiegand further advised that
as part of the Special Use Permit that was granted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment for the
golf course ( the golf course being in the floodway) and because of the Master Transportation
Plan, the design of the golf course had to allocate the right-of-way space. The City has not
purchased it, however, it was a stipulation placed on approval of the Special Use Permit.
Council Member Goodhue asked to know the time line of Phases 1 and 2. Mr. Wiegand advised
that it was in the Capital Improvements Plan for 2006/07. He said that after the conceptual study
is approved, funding sources would be identified, further design and right-of-way acquisition
would be done, and construction would be likely in 2006. Mr. Goodhue pointed out that Phase
3 is in the second five years; the entire project would stretch over a ten-year time frame.
Moved by Goodhue, seconded by Cross, to table this item until December 16, 2003.
Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
PRESENTATION OF HEALTH INSURANCE TEAM REPORT: Assistant City Manager Bob
Kindred introduced city employees Keith Abraham, Chuck Cychosz, and Jon-Scott Johnson,
who are members of the Health Insurance Team. He said two members not present tonight were
Lynn Brennan from the Public Works Department and Kathy Keller, a former employee of the
Parks & Recreation Department. This Team’s charter was to develop and recommend options
to keep health care fund cost increases at ten percent or lower each year. These options were to
include a strategic long-term plan, short-term action steps, and recommendations for developing
employee support.
Jon-Scott Johnson explained that medical claims have risen 123% over seven years, and monthly
health insurance premiums have increased by 80% over four years. The Team has made a
recommendation to raise insurance rates effective January 1, 2004, by 12%. Mr. Johnson also
gave prescription cost totals, which are estimated at over $800,000 for FY 2003/04, with a cost-
per-claim of approximately $69. The ten-year forecast indicates that by FY 2012/13, the cost
of health insurance premiums will be $2,582/family and nearly $1,000/single.
Mr. Kindred said it was important to note that approximately two-thirds of the City’s employees
are organized by labor unions. Iowa Code Chapter 400 mandates that organized city employees’
salaries and benefits must be compared to “comparable cities.” He said that most comparable
cities pay 100% of the premium for their employees. Those cities have attempted year after year
through arbitration and other means to get some employee contribution, but the standard to
which Ames is compared under the Code is very difficult to stack up to and get greater employee
contribution. If the City is unable to reach a voluntary agreement with the union, Chapter 400
5
again provides that we move on to mediation, fact finding, and ultimately final binding
arbitration.
Keith Abraham explained the process that the Team went through to address the problem of
health care fund increases.
Chuck Cychosz advised that the overall solution arrived at by the Team was to substantially
increase employee involvement in health care decision-making through incentives for cost-
effective treatments (generic and over-the-counter medications), increased disease management,
incentives for healthy lifestyles, and continued coverage of catastrophic events. He reviewed
specific pharmacy and medical recommendations. Recommendations to be considered long-
term were identified as providing incentives if employees can cut the rate of increase down
under ten percent; a “cafeteria plan,” which is a selection of benefit options; dental/vision plans;
administrative cooperation with the health-care providers used most often; and, that the
committee continue to meet.
HEARING ON VACATING EASEMENTS IN KINYON-CLARK SUBDIVISION, 1ST
ADDITION: Mayor Tedesco opened the public hearing. No one wished to speak, and the hearing
was closed.
Moved by Goodhue, seconded by Cross, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 03-451 approving
vacating easements and approving the Final Major Plat for Kinyon-Clark Subdivision, 1ST
Addition.
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these minutes.
HEARING ON REZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 917 SOUTH 16TH STREET
FROM “RH” (RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY) TO “RM” (RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM
DENSITY) [TABLED FROM 9/09/03]: Mayor Tedesco explained that the developers, the Randall
Corporation, had requested that this item be pulled from this agenda.
HEARING ON MAJOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 3820 - 3904 MARIGOLD
DRIVE: The hearing was opened by the Mayor and closed after no one wished to speak.
Moved by Goodhue, seconded by Cross, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 03-452 approving the
Major Site Development Plan for construction of the South Fork Townhomes at 3820 -3904
Marigold Drive.
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these minutes.
HEARING ON ELECTRIC POWER TRANSFORMER: The Mayor opened the public hearing.
The hearing was closed after no one wished to speak.
Moved by Cross, seconded by Vegge, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 03-453 approving final
plans and specifications and awarding a contract to Waukesha Electric Systems, Inc., of
Waukesha, Wisconsin, in the amount of $313,528.71.
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these minutes.
6
HEARING ON ELECTRIC 15-kV OUTDOOR METALCLAD SWITCHGEAR AND 69-kV
CONTROL PANEL: The public hearing was opened by Mayor Tedesco. No one wished to
s p e a k ,
and he closed same.
Moved by Cross, seconded by Hoffman, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 03-454 approving final
plans and specifications and awarding a contract to Pedersen Power Products of Omaha,
Nebraska, in the amount of $287,294.25.
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these minutes.
ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING PARKING REGULATIONS ON BRISTOL DRIVE, EATON
AVENUE, AND NORTHRIDGE LANE: Moved by Goodhue, seconded by Hoffman,
to pass on first reading an ordinance establishing parking regulations on Bristol Drive, Eaton
Avenue, and Northridge Lane.
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Moved by Goodhue, seconded by Mahayni, to suspend the rules necessary for the adoption of
an ordinance.
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Moved by Goodhue, seconded by Cross, to pass on second and third readings and adopt
ORDINANCE NO. 3748 establishing parking regulations on Bristol Drive, Eaton Avenue, and
Northridge Lane.
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Ordinance declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these minutes.
ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE “NO PARKING ORDINANCE” ON MARYLAND
STREET FROM CALIFORNIA AVENUE WESTWARD: Moved by Hoffman, seconded by
Goodhue, to pass on second reading an ordinance extending the no-parking regulation on
Maryland Street from California Avenue westward.
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Moved by Goodhue, seconded by Hoffman, to suspend the rules necessary for the adoption of
an ordinance.
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Moved by Goodhue, seconded by Vegge, to pass on second and third readings and adopt
ORDINANCE NO. 3749 extending the no parking regulation on Maryland Street from
California Avenue westward.
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Ordinance declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these minutes.
ORDINANCE REVISING PARKING REGULATIONS ON DICKINSON AVENUE: Moved
by Goodhue, seconded by Vegge, to pass on third reading and adopt ORDINANCE NO. 3747
revising parking regulations on Dickinson Avenue.
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Ordinance declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these minutes.
7
REVIEW OF ASSET GUIDELINES: Mayor Tedesco recognized Rob Wiese, Kevin Mungons,
and Jim Pearson, volunteers serving on the Analysis of Social Services Evaluation Team
(ASSET). Sheila Lundt, Assistant City Manager, said that the fourth volunteer Catherine
Guthrie-Scanes, is out of town, but has had input into what they will be discussing at this
meeting. Ms. Lundt reviewed the priorities for funding previously set by the City Council: (1)
special emphasis given to low- and moderate-income families; (2) meeting basic needs, (3) crisis
intervention, (4) respite care, (5) prevention, and (6) information and referral. She reminded the
Council that in 2003/04, there was one agency that ceased to be funded on July 1, 2003, and has
since gone out of business. Currently, the City has $783,362 under contract with organizations
for FY 2003/04; that is out of a total ASSET allocation of approximately $2.9 million. The
largest single funder in the process is the County. Story County fulfills the requirements from
the state on mental health and brain injury and mental disability funding.
Ms. Lundt said the ASSET volunteers will need some direction about the amount of funds the
City of Ames will make available to ASSET. There will be a Joint Funders meeting on
December 11, 2003. The hearings with the individual agencies will be conducted in January,
the panel will meet in January, and the final recommendation will be coming to City Council by
the end of January.
According to Ms. Lundt, the volunteers have been making visits to their agencies. They are
seeing continued cuts or at least level funding, at best, from the state in a number of programs
that the City also is involved in funding. ASSET is being asked for larger increases to try to
make up some of those cuts. There has been a fewer number of newer expanded service requests
this year; however, the ASSET volunteers feel that where there is an expansion or when there
is a request for increased funds, there needs to be a very firm explanation of what that is going
to do for the people of Story County.
Mayor Tedesco asked firstly, if there was any appreciable way that results could be measured;
secondly, if the City’s funds were being used for Ames or Story County residents, and not in
other counties, since we deal with a number of multi-county agencies; and thirdly, should
audited statements be required from the agencies to track funding. Rob Wiese believes that
audited statements are a must; currently, all agencies are required to provide those if their budget
is over $50,000. Ms. Lundt said that within six months of the close of the agency’s year, an audit
must be received by ASSET. The audits are reviewed by Ms. Lundt on behalf of the City, and
if questions arise, she reviews them with Finance Director Duane Pitcher and/or Assistant
Finance Director Sue Rybolt.
Ms. Lundt wanted it brought to the Council’s attention that with some of the state and federal
budget cuts, ASSET is seeing new organizations applying for funding. These new organizations
are not approved to be in the process now (for 2004/05), but they may try to get in the process
for 2005/06. Concerning the subject of audits, Ms. Lundt said the ASSET volunteers would like
to recommend that any new organizations that would come into ASSET be required to provide
their most-recent audit. That audit can be reviewed prior to ASSET contracting with the
organization to make sure that they are operating under sound financial practices.
Council Member Cross asked if there were any supporting statistics to determine which priority
should be rated as the top priority. He asked why ASSET was recommending that the City
Council keep the same priorities. Ms. Lundt explained that outcome measures are being
8
received from the organizations. Some of these measures are going to be very thorough, and
others are going to be lacking in information. The ASSET volunteers believe that the outcome
measures will give a clear indication of what services are actually being supplied. Mr. Cross
said he felt that the outcomes would measure what has been done; he thought the priorities
should be set based on what they believe the need to be; this would not necessarily match up
with outcomes.
Council Member Hoffman asked if there appeared to be a match between the priorities set by
Council and the requests. Mr. Wiese pointed out that the fifth and sixth priorities are prevention
and information/referral, but there are a lot of requests that have come in to fund education-type
positions or community-awareness positions, and those are the most likely requests to not get
full funding.
If an overlap of services is determined, Mr. Cross asked if there was a way to combine,
eliminate, or merge the services. Mr. Wiese said that there is concern about overlap with some
of the agencies. He said that that is a real concern with the two new agencies who have asked
to join; they already have agencies that provide those services. Mr. Mungons said that if
agencies provide the same type of services, it is time for those agencies to look at merging.
Ms. Lundt said that the volunteers have been very cognizant that if ASSET is paying for
overhead, are they only doing that once; if agencies are collaborating on a program, is overhead
being paid to both agencies.
Mr. Wiese advised that if agencies will not provide the information that ASSET is requesting,
that agency usually receives a low priority as far as funding from the City’s volunteers. Mr.
Pearson advised that there has been a big push by ASSET for agencies to improve on providing
outcomes this year. Training has been provided on what is expected; some agencies had
difficulty understanding the meaning of outcomes. Mr. Pearson said there has also been
increased efforts to educate the agencies on providing better information to document whether
they were supplying services to Story County. Ms. Lundt believes that the City’s ASSET
volunteers are prepared to make the tough decisions as to which agencies get funded; they will
stick to the guidelines.
Ms. Lundt requested that the City Council give a small increase in funding, if possible, to assist
with some of the increases that the agencies have had; she suggested 2 to 3%. Ms. Hoffman
asked what percentage of increase had been asked for by the agencies. Ms. Lundt said that it
ranged from 3% up to 10% or more. Mr. Goodhue asked what the other funders were going to
do. In speaking with the County representative, Ms. Lundt indicated that Story County will be
looking at a five percent decrease in funding.
Mayor Tedesco pointed out that the City’s department heads had been asked to cut their budgets,
and it would seem to him that a fair preliminary assessment would be to fund ASSET at the same
level as last year. Mr. Wiese concurred. He said that if ASSET’s priorities were applied to the
City, basic needs, through police and fire protection and Section 8 Housing, are being provided.
He felt that recommending level funding for next year would be understandable since the City
is having to cut back in their own organization. Mayor Tedesco expressed his dismay that there
were 10% increases being requested for salaries of Executive Directors and that funds were
going to overhead and not to programs. Mr. Wiese pointed out that many of the requests for
large increases in funding are not accompanied by any increase in services. Mr. Mungons said
9
that there is a huge difference between the lowest-paid Executive Director and the highest-paid
Executive Director among the agencies. Mayor Tedesco suggested that many of these agencies
could look at sharing administrations to make their operations more efficient.
Council Member Hoffman pointed out that the City is predicting an increase in Local Option
Sales Tax Revenues of 5.26%. In light of that, she feels that an increase of 3% could be
allocated to ASSET.
Council Member Cross believes that this is an awkward way to operate. He asked if there would
be a way to not increase the ASSET’s allocation at this point, but decide on any possible
increase after the entire City budget was in front of the Council. Ms. Lundt said the Council
could leave the funding at the same level as last year, have the ASSET volunteers make their
best decisions as to what amount to fund each agency, and bring their recommendations back
to Council. She said that Council could also recommend a slight increase and trust their
volunteers to make sure that if the funds are not justified, they won’t be spent.
Council Member Mahayni said that it is a fact that many human service agencies are
experiencing big shortages in funds. He pointed out that the state cuts the agency, the state cuts
cities, and then cities cut human service agencies again.
Council Member Hoffman indicated that the ASSET volunteers are concentrating on buying
direct services, and that’s the direction the City Council wants them to follow. She also is
appreciative of the fact that all of the funds may not be allocated if the guidelines are not met.
Council Member Cross said he is still concerned that there is a duplication of services; they are
identifying some, but there may be more. He believes that if you restrict resources, it causes
people to learn how to operate more efficiently; that type of innovative thinking is encouraged
more so if funding is not continually increased.
Moved by Hoffman, seconded by Mahayni, to recommend a 3% increase in ASSET funding for
FY 2004/05.
Vote on Motion: 3-2. Voting aye: Goodhue, Hoffman, Mahayni. Voting nay: Cross, Vegge.
Motion declared carried.
CITY COUNCIL BUDGET GUIDELINES: Mayor Tedesco introduced Duane Pitcher, Finance
Director, and Carol Collings, Budget Officer.
Mr. Pitcher described the general economic conditions. He reviewed some of the major budget
issues that the City will be facing for the 2004/05 Fiscal Year (FY), which include State-Shared
Revenues and Replacement Taxes, Health Insurance, Fire and Police Retirement, Interest
Earnings, Local Option Sales Tax, Debt Service, Residential Roll-Back, and Cy-Ride. No utility
rate increases for FY 04/05 are anticipated. The Resource Recovery Plant continues to have
positive improvements in efficiency and its overall financial situation. Staff is now proposing
that the City consider lowering the per capita rate charged to member communities, which will
lower the property tax subsidy and the tax requirement for the City.
Also, Mr. Pitcher advised that if the Recreation/Aquatics Center referendum vote passes, staff
estimates that the Debt Service Levy will increase by $1.05 and the General Levy by $0.44.
Depending on the outcome of that vote, the rest of the CIP may need to be adjusted based on the
10
ability to meet Council budget guidelines.
The City of Ames recently became a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement
city, and Mr. Pitcher advised that, beginning in FY 04/05, the City will receive an allocation in
the amount of $588,000. These funds will provide the City the opportunity to implement a wide
variety of community and economic development activities directed toward neighborhood
revitalization, economic development, and improved community facilities and services. Mr.
Pitcher stated that the overall use of the $588,000 is limited to 20% maximum for administration,
70% minimum to meet national program objectives, and 15% maximum for public services. He
said that the use of the administrative funds may be used to reduce expenses currently charged
to the General Fund. Staff will present a detailed overview of the program in a City Council
workshop in January 2004. The Council will need to provide direction for program expenditures
by Spring 2004.
Mr. Pitcher stated that with CyRide’s fare-free system for students, local support and total
ridership have increased significantly. Other transit systems have responded to the state
assistance problem by reducing service, causing a lower ridership total for many systems in the
state; the net result is that CyRide is receiving a larger portion of a shrinking pool of money. The
Council was advised that Transit Director Bob Bourne will review Federal Transit Assistance
during the budget hearings.
One of the areas identified for improvement in the annual review by the Government Finance
Officers’ Association was the inclusion of budget-related policies in the budget document.
These policies should cover areas such as debt, fund balances, capital improvements and other
areas where the City Council provides policy direction. Mr. Pitcher stated that the City will
begin to include these policies in the budget document and will bring the policies forward for
City Council approval along with the rest of the budget.
The Council was reminded by Mr. Pitcher that one of their goals was to review all programs and
services provided by the City. The initial focus of the review is on the General Fund (property-
tax-supported) programs and services. The Council had been presented a report that provided
detailed cost information on the specific services provided and General Fund subsidy. Mr.
Pitcher reminded the Council that City staff took the first step in this process by providing charts
summarizing property tax supported services and subsidy levels during the FY 03/04 budget
process. They have now collected cost information for specific services and provided a detailed
report to the Council. Mr. Schainker explained that in most cases, the cost information includes
both the fixed and variable costs associated with providing the service. If a service is reduced
or eliminated, the cost reduction is not likely to be equal to the total cost of the service.
Moved by Goodhue, seconded by Vegge, to keep the funding at the same level as 2003/04 for
The Commission on The Arts (COTA), which is $91,451.
Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Council Member Goodhue said he believes that City Council needs to look at increasing fees
for all services. Council Member Cross thinks that one fee that needs to be reviewed is the
Encroachment Permit fee. He pointed out that this is a one-time fee that is for an ongoing
encroachment. Council Member Vegge indicated that he prefers to establish a method to
prioritize programs and services.
11
COMMENTS: Moved by Goodhue, seconded by Mahayni, to refer to staff the letters from
Vantage Enterprises and Sexton Real Estate.
Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT: 9:45 p.m.
_________________________________ _____________________________________
Diane Voss, City Clerk Ted Tedesco, Mayor
12