HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Special Meeting of the Ames City Council 11/17/1992MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL
AMES, IOWA NOVEMBER 17, 1992
The Ames City Council met in special session at 6:30 p.m., November 17, 1992, in the City Council
Chambers in the City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue, pursuant to law with Mayor Curtis presiding and the
following Council Members present: Hertz, Campbell, Wirth, and Parks. Council Members Brown
and Hoffman arrived late.
RELEASE OF REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE: Moved by Campbell, seconded by Hoffman, to
adopt RESOLUTION NO. 92-399 approving release of real estate rehabilitation mortgages for
property located at 216 South Kellogg Avenue.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and
hereby made a portion of these minutes.
CY-RIDE BUS ROUTE COSTS: City Manager Steve Schainker provided background
information on Cy-Ride bus route costs, saying in the current fiscal year, the transit levy utilized
to finance the operations of Cy-Ride generates approximately $428,963 or about 51¢
per $1,000 AV. He said the community received many social and environmental
benefits from the existence of Cy-Ride, but there were also hidden costs involved in
the operation of the system. As a neighborhood system, Cy-Ride doesn't run
primarily on arterial roads that are built to handle heavy buses, and the City has
borne the cost of reconstructing existing residential streets damaged by the buses as
well as the costs of oversizing new streets designated as Cy-Ride bus routes.
Mr. Schainker said over the past eight years, the costs of these capital improvement projects
have averaged $260,000 a year. He cited three recent events which will make it difficult for the
City to continue to assume sole responsibility for these costs:
1. In the past, many of the initial routes that were reconstructed by the City were eligible for
a federally-funded program (FAUS), and the City was required only to provide a 25
percent local match for reconstruction projects. Now that the FAUS-eligible routes are
completed, the City will have to pay 100% of the costs of future reconstruction projects.
2. Considerable expansion of residential subdivisions on the outskirts of town over the past
few years will result in substantially increased costs for oversizing roads to accommodate
large buses.
3. Due to the amount of damage to existing residential streets which were not constructed to
handle the loading caused by Cy-Ride buses and the limited amount of funds available for
reconstruction projects, the City has fallen behind in its effort to keep pace with street
repair needs. An estimated $500,000 is needed annually to keep pace with the amount of
deterioration that is occurring on Cy-Ride bus routes.
Mr. Schainker said given the difficult budgetary situation the City faces during the next two
years, it was important to understand the costs involved in maintaining the current arrangement
for financing Cy-Ride route reconstruction. He said Staff had developed a twenty-year plan for
Cy-Ride bus routes, and noted it was the first time routes would be developed in accordance with
the City's land use plan, zoning ordinance, and street system plan.
Mr. Schainker said he felt the City Council and the Transit Board must consider one or a
combination of the following funding alternatives before the final budget decisions are made in
February:
1. The City can continue to assume all the costs associated with maintaining the current and
proposed Cy-Ride bus routes through G.O. bonds. It was estimated that by the end of the next
five years, the costs of financing the Cy-Ride route improvements in this manner would cost
citizens an additional 45¢ per $1,000 AV, in addition to the current 51¢ contribution for Cy-Ride
operations.
2. The City Council and the Transit Board could decide to finance these road improvements
through an increase in the transit levy, although the current tax freeze legislation prohibits
this option for at least the next two years. This option would provide a "pay as you go"
financing source; funds would not have to be borrowed and no interest would have to be
paid. Citizens would be able to identify the true costs of the transit system.
3. The status quo could be changed and the three funding partners could agree to help pay for
the construction and reconstruction of Cy-Ride routes. Under this alternative, the annual
cost to the City would be approximately $167,000.
Mr. Schainker said the current financial climate called for a change in service philosophy, and
the number of people affected should be taken into account when considering reduced service
level routes. He said a new policy might be considered whereby the developers are responsible
for paying the costs for oversizing routes that are extended to their properties.
Mr. Schainker said they must look at individual segments of routes when analyzing the
productivity of a route. Whenever possible, routes should be established on arterials already
designed to handle the loading, in hopes of prolonging the life of residential streets and thereby
avoiding a major capital expenditure for reconstruction projects.
Council Member Hertz expressed concern that doing so would result in a disproportionate
number of apartment dwellings being served vs. single family homes.
There was discussion of how relocating existing routes by one or two blocks may not be as
convenient for some riders, but would still provide service to needed areas.
Bob Bourne, Cy-Ride Director, reviewed the proposed 20-year plan map prepared by Staff,
noting Council Members had received a copy. He pointed out existing and proposed high
density routes which would require a high level of service. He said mini buses could be used
to serve lower density, single-family areas which required a lower level of service.
There was discussion about funding option #3. Council Member Parks expressed concern that
asking developers to make an investment in the streets would dictate where future bus routes
would be located.
Mr. Bourne displayed maps showing the following six different alternatives regarding reduced
service levels:
1) No change/retaining same service level
2) Routes only on arterials
3) Routes only on arterials and to a few major generators
4) No Eisenhower/No Buchanan, No 30th/Northwestern (With Bloomington)
5) No Eisenhower, No Buchanan, No Bloomington
6) No Eisenhower, No Buchanan, (With Bloomington)
Mr. Schainker pointed out that regardless of the level of service decided upon, the City still had
a substantial financial obligation ahead in that it would cost approximately $4.7 million just to
rebuild the streets to City standards.
Council Member Parks said while he felt they could not continue to maintain the status quo, he
felt having the routes only on arterials was too drastic a reduction, because it impacted an
estimated 2700 riders per day. He said if they didn't keep up interest in Cy-Ride, the integrity
of the system would be destroyed.
Transit Board Member Nancy Richardson said she felt the 20 year plan was a good cooperative
effort. She said the Transit Agency was not going to be able to maintain the current level of
service from an operational standpoint, and the Board would like Council's input regarding
service levels. She said all of the service level alternatives discussed tonight would result in
increased operational costs, with the exception the No Eisenhower, No Buchanan, No
Bloomington alternative.
There was discussion regarding whether the proposed bus routes would dictate where
development was going to take place, and the question of promoting infrastructure to control
development.
Council Members discussed the three funding options presented this evening. Council Member
Brown said she felt funding option #3, cost-sharing with the other two funding agencies,
deserved some exploration.
Transit Board Member Troy Schulte said that choice would be unpopular with students, who
would feel that if they were going to be contributing equal share for the road-use fund, they
would want only the service that reaches where the bulk of the students are. He said students
would pressure for service level alternative #3, routes only on arterials and a few major
generators.
Ms. Richardson said the University was also paying additional costs to reconstruct roads inside
its boundaries, and noted the funding options presented this evening only looked at spreading
the cost for City streets outside of campus.
Council Member Parks said if they began changing the funding mechanism of a tripartite
agreement that had been in place for a number of years, the system was in jeopardy. He said he
would prefer funding option #2, increasing the transit levy.
There was discussion on the high percentage of student ridership and the question of student
riders paying for the costs of service to residential areas of Ames.
Council Member Hoffman said the Council really had to make a long-term and short-term
decision. She said although her first choice for the short term decision would be to explore
talking to the other two groups, she doubted the University would be able to come up with much
money for this year.
Ms. Richardson said the Transit Board had intended this to be one of several discussions that
would result in a long-term policy that could be agreed to between the agencies. She said the
short-term decision was a different issue.
Mayor Curtis said it appeared the only alternative available for the short-term decision was
funding option #1, for the City to continue to assume all costs. He said the past policies have
already locked them into a 20-year cost of $4.7 million, and they were now looking at marginal
costs. He said they needed to consider the policies needed to handle that incremental cost.
Council Member Parks said he agreed that funding option #1 was the only option available at
the present time. He said long-term, he'd like to negotiate option #3, and explore the transit levy
option. He said he would prefer service level alternative #3, keeping incremental costs minimal
by limiting routes to arterials and a few major generators.
Council Member Hertz said at some point, they might want to consider whether the system was
worth the cost. Council Member Parks said they had to take into consideration what would
happen to the urban center in terms of traffic, parking, etc. if the system were not in place.
Council Member Hertz said asking the other two members of the tripartite to assess that as well
would provide a real feel for how valuable the system was to all three parties.
Mayor Curtis said they should consider a long-term policy which said that any future routes
would only be arterial roads or ones that had been developed properly. He said they also needed
to be looking at ways of funding the $4.7 million reconstruction costs. He said it would be very
difficult to change funding policy at this juncture. Finally, he said, they needed to look at ways
in which to change the system to minimize the future operational costs.
City Manager Schainker asked whether Council Members would consider the transit levy
increase as a funding option, if it were available. Council Members expressed preference for
an increase in the levy as opposed to general obligation bonds, due to the debt service involved
in the latter.
MUNICIPAL BUILDING (PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING) LOCATED AT 420 KELLOGG:
Mr. Schainker noted the Council had discussed the future of the public safety building during
their October goal-setting session with Tim Shields. He said it was time to decide whether
Council wished to direct Staff to demolish or retain the building. He said if they decided to
retain the building, they needed to consider whether to distribute an RFP to developers for re-use
of the building, thereby allowing all interested parties to submit a proposal for development. He
said finally, they needed to decide whether to set a public hearing date to designate the building
as an historical landmark. He said landmark designation would have an effect on what was
included in an RFP for re-development, as it would impact what could be done with the exterior
of the building in terms of remodeling and renovation.
Council Member Parks asked whether a building designated as a landmark could be demolished.
Mr. Schainker said it could be demolished under very strict conditions.
There was discussion regarding whether the decision on landmark designation should be made
prior to distribution of RFPs, and whether such a designation might affect the interest of
prospective developers.
Brian O'Connell, Director of Planning and Housing, said the landmark designation would be
similar to a district being designated an historic district. He said the restrictions imposed would
be overlayed upon base zoning requirements, and would deal with the exterior architecture of
the building. He said if Council decided upon landmark designation, the matter would then be
referred to the Historic Preservation Commission, which would establish architectural design
criteria. He said a developer would have to adhere to those design criteria.
There was discussion regarding whether landmark designation would prevent future demolition
of the building. Mr. O'Connell said the landmark ordinance at present allows demolition to
occur after a process of hearings in which the applicant must prove economic hardship in
adhering to the design criteria.
Council Members Brown and Campbell expressed concern that landmark designation might
deter developers.
Council Member Parks said he felt the landmark designation might lower the options for
redevelopment by proving too restrictive. He said they needed to consider how to maximize the
economic return to the City.
Mayor Curtis said that concern could be included in the RFP for redevelopment of the building.
Mr. O'Connell reviewed a proposed chronology of events involved in the disposition process.
He said they anticipated being able to send out RFPs by the end of February.
Motion by Hoffman, Seconded by Wirth, to approve retention of the Public Safety Building.
Vote on Motion: 5-1-0. Voting Aye: Hoffman, Wirth, Hertz, Brown, and Campbell.
Abstaining: Parks. Voting Nay: None. Motion carried.
Motion by Parks, Seconded by Brown, to approve instructing Staff to start preparation of an RFP
as opposed to dealing with one particular interested party. Vote on motion: 6-0. Motion
declared carried unanimously.
Motion by Hertz, Seconded by Campbell, to approve setting November 24, 1992 as the date of
a public hearing on landmark designation. Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried
unanimously.
COMMENTS: Council Member Hoffman said she wished to thank Sergeant Craig Reid and Public
Relations Officer Pam Vokolek for their work on the travel safety packets for students.
Council Member Hoffman noted there were currently four separate activities scheduled to take
place in Ames on VEISHEA weekend. She expressed concern that the City may not be able to
adequately service all of those activities.
Council Member Parks said there would be significant conflicts with activities regardless of
which weekend was chosen as VEISHEA weekend. He said the multiple activities may work
to create a more manageable environment.
Mayor Curtis said they would not want to give a message to the convention planning personnel
and other organizations that the City didn't feel they could handle these activities just because
they happened to occur simultaneously with other activities.
Council Member Hoffman said she would like to have all the activities here, but not necessarily
on the same weekend.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
_____________________________________ _____________________________________
Sandra L. Ryan, City Clerk Larry R. Curtis, Mayor