Our Agency

Call to order 1:00 p.m.

Present
Dennis Plautz, Board Chairperson* Jim Halverson, Board Vice Chairperson* Mari Bunney* Chris McKee* Mackenzie O’Hair*

Others Present
Matt Rasmussen, Administrator, City Development Board
Betty Hessing, Administrative Assistant, City Development Board
Emily Willits, Iowa Department of Justice
Vicky Clinkscales, IT Department, IEDA
Frank Smith, Attorney, City of Altoona
John Shaw, Community Development Director, City of Altoona
Chad Quick, Economic Development Director, City of Altoona
Natalie Jacobson, Planner, City of Altoona
Chris Schuling, Property Owner, Altoona Annexation*
Eric Jensen, Community Development Director, City of Ankeny*
Jake Heil, Planner, City of Ankeny*
Bob Kramme, Mayor, City of Alleman
Logan Carpenter, Public Works Director, City of Alleman
Shari Buehler, City Clerk, City of Alleman
Clint Sloss, Project Manager, Hubbell Realty Company
Dave Harmon, Guest
Cameron Wright, Skinner Law Office PC, Representing City of Runnells
Lori Pickart, City Clerk, City of Robins*
Adam West, West Family Holdings*
Jason Wattonville, Productive Resources*
Lynn Dippold, Dippold Farms, Inc. & Dippold Farms of Iowa, LLC*
Bill Kimberley, Hope Kimberley, LLC*
Arash Razizadeh, Hope K. Farms, LLC*
Casey Schafbuch, Partner & COO, ATI Group*
Bob Rice, Director, Polk County Public Works Department*
Christopher Higgins, The Des Moines Register*
Amy Plymat, Guest* Tyrone Avant, Guest*
Ryan Long, Guest*
Craig Hildreth, Guest*
Erin Kokemiller, Guest*
Irene Simonsen, Guest*
Derek S., Guest*
Lori Judge, IDOT*
Nathan Aronson, IDOT*
Brendan Beeter, Legislative Services Agency, State of Iowa*
319-393-0588*
515-298-3433*
515-669-9643*
515-650-4225*
*Participated via Teams Webinar

Introduction by Chairperson Dennis Plautz
Roll Call by Matt Rasmussen, Board Administrator
All Board Members were present via Teams Webinar.

Request for amendments to agenda
Motion by
Jim Halverson
Motion
I move to approve the agenda as presented.
Second
Mari Bunney
Roll Call
All ayes. Motion approved.

Consideration of November 9, 2022 Business Meeting Minutes
Motion by
Jim Halverson
Motion
I move the Business meeting minutes of November 9, 2022 be approved as printed and distributed.
Second
Mari Bunney
Roll Call
All ayes. Motion approved.

Old Business
NC22-37 Altoona
Matt Rasmussen stated we did receive a “Motion to Proceed with Filing of Annexation Records” from Frank Smith, the Attorney representing the City of Altoona. We also received a “Resistance to Motion to Proceed with Filing of Annexation Records” from Christopher and Christy Schuling. Mr. Schuling was the person who filed the appeal. This morning, we received a “Supplement to Motion to Proceed with Filing of Annexation Records and Reply to Schuling Resistance”. Ultimately before the Board is the “Motion to Proceed with Filing of Annexation Records”. There is a question as to whether or not we should file before or after that 31 days is up in which we are required to file an annexation after the Board approves it. Chairperson Plautz stated the additional “Motion to Proceed with Filing of Annexation” filed by Frank Smith was submitted in the last hour and Matt Rasmussen stated that was correct. Chairperson Plautz asked Emily Willits for her guidance on this matter. Emily Willits replied that Chapter 368 is not necessarily the clearest Chapter in the Iowa Code, but we do have a provision in 368.20(2) that both Mr. Smith and Mr. Schuling addressed in their filings. It says, “Upon proper filing and expiration of time for appeal, the incorporation, discontinuance, or boundary adjustment is complete. However, if an appeal to any of the proceedings is pending, completion does not occur until the appeal is decided”. The Schulings have filed an appeal that is now pending in the Polk County District Court and so my best reading of this statutory provision is that completion should not occur until that appeal is decided. I do think that having received written submittals from both parties, the Board should hear from them as well. Chairperson Plautz asked if the Schulings were present, but they were not. Chairperson Plautz asked if Mr. Smith was present and he was. Chairperson Plautz asked if he would like to make comments regarding this. Frank Smith stated that he agreed with Ms. Willits that the annexation is not complete until the appeal is completed, but I respectfully suggest that that is not necessarily the controlling factor in determining whether you can proceed with the filing. I filed a “Motion to Proceed” on December 6, 2022; the Schulings filed a “Resistance” on December 12, 2022, and I did file a “Reply to their Resistance” this morning, on December 14, 2022. Mr. Smith asked Ms. Hessing to display on the screen his motion and his supplement. In summary, the basis for proceeding are as follows: (1) Filing is not prohibited when an appeal is pending under the Iowa Code. (2) The Schulings urge there is some crisis here and that is not of their making—the crisis is the City of Altoona has received an application to proceed with rezoning the property—a concept plan and so forth—and have tentatively set a rezoning request for public hearing for December 20, 2022, pending the outcome here and it involves a development which is a part of the annexation territory, and the development will be worth north of $80,000,000—so it’s not an insubstantial matter. The Board was alerted at the public hearing that there was a pressing interest in proceeding with development of this territory. Altoona does not historically annex unless it has the fiscal and physical capability of providing services and development is relatively imminent. (3) There is precedence for the Board to do this. That precedence relates back to two cases involving the City of Dubuque back in 2004—both of which went to the Iowa Supreme Court—where Asbury opposed annexation territory by Dubuque. Asbury appeared and it was a very contentious hearing for the Board members who were on back then. After the hearing, the Board decided to approve the annexation. Subsequently, Asbury appealed to the District Court, just as the Schulings have done here. The Board proceeded, in that case, with filing a record of the proceedings and the Dubuque County Recorder, the Assessor and the Auditor took action that they were required to pursuant to that and then Asbury, after Dubuque began to exercise jurisdiction, filed an action alleging Dubuque was in Contempt of Court. Asbury got a favorable ruling on the appeal—in other words, the District Court Judge said, “Board, you were wrong, you should not have approved Dubuque’s annexation . . . notwithstanding that . . . it went up on appeal again. After the District Court ruling, Dubuque continued to provide services, collect taxes and do all the things that it was authorized to do by virtue of the filing for the annexation territory. Asbury filed an action for contempt against Dubuque and the District Court found Dubuque in contempt for exercising jurisdiction when the Board’s ruling had been overturned. On appeal, the Iowa Supreme Court said “contraire”—there is no violation of the Court’s Order—there was nothing raised in terms of a problem with the filings that had been made—and until the appeals were finalized, the annexation was incomplete anyway. The point of it is—you did this before. I was involved in the Dubuque case and I have been involved in a couple other older ones—where the Board has proceeded with filing. Going back to my motion—briefly the background of this case is it was a voluntary proceeding filed August 31, 2022, determined to be complete and properly filed by the Board at its September 14, 2022 meeting. A public hearing was held October 17, 2022 and there were no objections from anyone—County, MPO, any other city—Bondurant being the adjoining community—with the exception of the Schulings—who essentially objected that they did not want to be a part of this—you can take us out—you are not required to include us—was the essence of their argument. The Board carefully considered all of the presentations that were made at the public hearing and unanimously determined on October 17, 2022, that the annexation should be approved. It filed its Findings of Fact and Written Decision on October 18, 2022. Schulings appealed to the District Court, essentially petitioning for judicial review, on November 14, 2022, claiming several things and those are identified at paragraph 8 on page 2 and subparts a, b & c on page 3. The Schulings argued first that the Board could not approve the annexation under 368.17, which is absolutely incorrect. 368.17 applies only to involuntary proceedings. It is not controlling and it does not apply to a voluntary 80/20 consenting/non-consenting annexation. Second, they argued that Board Member Halverson falsely stated that the Board has the discretion to exempt the Schuling property from the annexation. He went on to say that Mr. Halverson’s misleading statement is believed to have improperly influenced the decisions of the other board members. First off, Vice Chairman Halverson’s statement was completely accurate and a correct reflection of the law. The Schulings cite to 368.18 as saying that Mr. Halverson was wrong, but again, that section of the Iowa Code deals with an involuntary annexation, where a committee is formed and the committee does have discretion to make some adjustments in annexations. This Board does not have that authority. Under Administrative Rules, it can make adjustments if the applicant makes a request to essentially downsize the annexation. There is no authority in the Statute or the Administrative Rules for the Board to otherwise make an amendment. Mr. Halverson’s statement was accurate and spot-on and for that reason could not have improperly influenced anyone. The Schulings also assert that Altoona was not required to include them in the annexation proceedings, which is correct. It was not required, but the Statute says that “they may” and Altoona does have the authority to include them to create more uniform boundaries and that is in the statute and has been for twenty-five years or so. The reason being that uniform boundaries make the extension of public services, which cost all of us taxpayers money, more cost effectively and efficiently extended. All one has to do is look at the annexation territory map to see that the triangular part of the property owned by the Schulings on the easterly edge—inclusion of that definitely helps square-up these boundaries. We informed the Board at the public hearing that there was a development that was imminent and that is why Altoona requested a waiver initially of the 31-day wait period because they wanted to get this matter before the Board as soon as reasonably possible.

On page 4, paragraphs 10, 11 & 12, I set out the operative provisions of the Iowa Administrative Code and the Iowa Code. Note that the first revision that Ms. Willits read or identified as, is that an annexation is completed when the Board has filed and recorded copies of the applicable proceedings under 368.20. 368.20 talks about upon proper filing and expiration of the time for appeal. The annexation is complete—however an appeal is pending—completion does not occur until the appeal is decided. That does not mean it precludes you from filing. The Iowa Administrative Code 263—7.8 says, “Upon the expiration of the time for appeal, the Board shall file with the Secretary of State and the County Recorder for each county containing a portion of the city or territory involved, copies of the Board’s proceedings . . .”. That section of the Administrative Code does not say upon expiration of the time for appeal and resolution of the appeal, just upon expiration of the time for appeal. There is only three things that the Schulings can complain about under the Iowa Administrative Code and under Chapter 368.22 to overturn the Board’s October 18th decision. First, they can contest the regularity of the proceedings; they can claim that the decision was arbitrary and unreasonable and without supporting evidence and they can claim that the Board did not have jurisdiction to decide and determine the request. Clearly, the Board had jurisdiction. There is no question about the record before this Board regarding the evidence supporting the annexation. It is substantial, by any measure, that a District Court or reviewing Appellate Court would consider and certainly was unanimously accepted by this Board as being substantial enough to result in approval of the annexation. Their challenge is really limited to “no due consideration was given to the wishes of the residents”—meaning the Schulings—that the annexation is barred by 368.17, which only applies to involuntary annexations and that Mr. Halverson falsely informed the Board about the status of the law and that the Board members were unduly influenced by Mr. Halverson’s alleged false statement and that the 80/20 doesn’t require that they be included. Their position on appeal to the District Court—meaning no disrespect to them—they are entitled to assert their rights, but frankly, there is no merit to it. The chances that they are going to prevail on appeal are essentially nil. Emily Willits asked Mr. Smith to conclude his presentation because of our lengthy agenda. In consideration of Ms. Willits comments, Mr. Smith stated he wanted to make his record and then proceeded to the supplement that he filed. There are a couple ways to look at this—if you do not proceed and file, then you are essentially giving them an injunction. The standards for determining whether an injunction should be granted by a District Court Judge include: (1) Are they likely to suffer some irreparable injury if an injunction is not granted? That is not going to be the case here. (2) Will they succeed on the appeal? That is why I was going into that—the chances are not good at all. (3) Will they suffer greater harm than the public interest that will be served? No. (4) Is the greater public interest served by granting an injunction? No. Technically, they are not asking for an injunction, but the effect of this is to enjoin proceeding with this project. Mr. Smith stated his supplement summarizes more clearly the issues that I think this Board needs to consider and why I believe the Board has the authority and should grant the motion and proceed with the filing. First, as I mentioned earlier, it is not prohibited under the Iowa Code or the Administrative Code. Second, there is some complaint about a crisis—there is no crisis—it is not improper to call to the Board’s attention the matter at issue and the reasons why it is encouraged and requested that it proceed with the filing and there is a substantial public interest in economic development. Lastly, and most importantly, the Board has done this before, with the advice of a former Assistant Attorney General that advised the Board. In the Dubuque case, the Board went ahead and filed after Dubuque prevailed, notwithstanding the fact that Asbury had appealed; notwithstanding the fact that Asbury prevailed on the initial appeal, but lost in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court determined that the Board had made the proper decision at the end of the day, notwithstanding the fact that Asbury sued Dubuque for contempt of court for doing what had been done and authorized. Notwithstanding the fact that the Supreme Court said Dubuque was not in contempt—there is nothing wrong with proceeding with the filing. The worst that happens at the end of the day—not only is it filed—but the appeal is determined to be adverse—the actions of the auditor, the recorder, the assessor and the treasurer are simply unwound. That is the consequence. The upside here is a significant development—estimated to have a taxable value of about $80,000,000—is going into one of these properties and this isn’t the only property. So, in balancing the equities here—and an administrative proceeding is an equity—in considering what the Administrative Code says—in considering the prior precedent of this Board and actions it has taken—it is Altoona’s request that the Board proceed with filing the documents. It does not mean the annexation is complete—the appeal period has expired—the Administrative Code says you shall file—I do not think you have any leeway in that regard. It does not say maybe you can—maybe you cannot. An appeal is not even addressed directly there. Thank you for your patience with me and on behalf of Altoona, we request your favorable consideration of the motion. Chairperson Plautz thanked Mr. Smith. Matt Rasmussen stated that Mr. Schuling is on-line now. While waiting for Mr. Schuling to get connected, Chairperson Plautz asked if both our counsel and Mr. Smith both say the annexation would not be, in their opinion, complete until the exhaustion of the appeal, but we have the authority to still file. Is that accurate? Frank Smith stated that is what he said. Emily Willits replied that is Mr. Smith’s position. Chairperson Plautz stated that he thought Emily Willits agreed with that early on. Emily Willits stated that 368.7(3), which talks about voluntary annexations within the territory of an urbanized area, says “Annexation is completed when the Board has filed and recorded copies of applicable portions of the proceedings, as required by Section 368”. I do think it is the Board’s action that causes the annexation to be completed. Chairperson Plautz stated that if that were to be the case, and for some reason it had to be walked back and a project is started, who assumes liability? Is that inherent upon the project itself or the City? That is one thing I was wondering as we went through this discussion. Emily Willits replied that in her view, the developer would probably bear that risk. Ms. Willits asked Frank Smith if his position is that the Board should go ahead and file, but completion still does not occur even if the Board does file? Frank Smith replied that it would not officially be complete until the appeal is exhaustive. You can make the filings to the auditor, the assessor and the recorder, and they can do what they are going to do—this has occurred before. Emily Willits asked how this development can move forward if the completion still has not occurred. Frank Smith stated that is not the issue before the Board. The developer can make his own assessments of what he wants to do under the circumstances and can certainly, as a part of that, assess whether there is any merit to this appeal or not and what the chances of success are. Again, it is my view that the chances of success are essentially nil. One could even argue, the appearance is it is being leveraged—that is, the issues are a potential loss of this to carve them out of the annexation territory—they say that in their resistance. While the resolution is easy—take us out of this annexation—we know the Board cannot do that. The record is set—nor could Altoona do it at this point—the record is set. The relief that they are requesting—being excluded—is not an option here. Emily Willits replied that completion has not occurred because the territory is not annexed yet. Frank Smith stated that to the extent there is a filing, then there is a procedure for the assessor, auditor and recorder to go in and do their thing. Emily Willits told Chairperson Plautz that completion occurs when the Board sends it to the Recorder and Secretary of State. Frank Smith stated that completion occurs once the appeals are resolved. The Iowa Administrative Code says, “You shall file after the appeal period has expired”. It does not say if there is an appeal pending, you shall not file. The appeal period expired on November 17th or 18th.

Jim Halverson stated he is taking a more pragmatic approach to this. Let us say hypothetically that if we were to not take action to file today and allow the appeal to exhaust itself, would at the conclusion of that, would a new thirty-day window start for another party to file an appeal? I am kind of buying into the idea of just simply filing, allow the appeal to exhaust itself and allow both of those timelines to run concurrently. Based on the way this application and the associated development has been characterized, I think it would provide an undue burden if the application were not filed, the courts would proceed with the appeal and at the conclusion of that appeal, and if a new thirty-day window were open, simply because we have not filed. Could it extend this process even longer if we do not file today? Emily Willits replied that she understood Jim’s question of if sending it over to the Secretary of State’s Office triggers another Judicial Review opportunity. Ms. Willits did not think it would. She has always felt that issuance of this Order is the agency’s action and that could be appealed. I am not sure that has ever come up before in the case law. Ms. Willits said since it is in the Polk County District Courts now, it will take a while to get through the Polk County District Courts. It does not necessarily move as quickly as parties might like. Jim Halverson thanked Ms. Willits. Chairperson Plautz asked what the downside is to filing. This is Frank Smith. As Ms. Willits said, there is no liability to the Board. The worst thing that happens is it gets undone and taxes and assessments get readjusted. The upside is it allows this development and others to proceed. I would not be here making this argument if I felt that there were substantial merits to the appeal here. Any reasonable developer is going to look at this and say there is not much of an opportunity at all that they are going to prevail with their appeal. There is no exposure to the Board. Chris Schuling joined the meeting at this point. Emily Willits agreed and stated she does feel confident in her ability to defend the Board’s decision on the annexation regarding the appeal. Chairperson Plautz asked if the financial liability, in the case he described, would still be on the developer and Ms. Willits agreed. Mr. Smith replied if there is any liability. Mr. Smith said he has not researched it, but that may well be the case. Chairperson Plautz asked if anyone else was on the phone and Matt Rasmussen stated Mr. Schuling was connected. Mr. Schuling stated it is against State law to continue until my appeal is finished and we are only listening to Frank’s opinion that I have no chance for the appeal to win. I believe I do and I think Emily Willits will agree that this is contrary to State law that you proceed until my appeal is finished. Frank Smith asked Chairperson Plautz if he could respond to Mr. Schuling and Chairperson Plautz said he could. Frank Smith stated that is certainly not correct. The Dubuque cases show that you can proceed and file. You did proceed and file—I believe Mike Smith was the Assistant Attorney General then—that was when the appeal was pending. Even a contempt action was asserted and it was not sustained against Dubuque. So, the notion that you cannot, is simply not correct and not in accord with your precedence. Emily Willits stated that she started out by saying the Iowa Code is ambiguous and it is somewhat ambiguous. There are instances where the Board has proceeded and filed in the past. I think there is an alternative reading of the Iowa Code too. In my mind there is a question of whether 368.20 only applies in an election context, so with respect to Mr. Schuling, I do not agree that it would be clearly contrary to State law because I think the law is unclear. Chairperson Plautz wanted to hear thoughts and comments from the Board. Jim Halverson stated that relying on our legal counsel, he does not think there is any consequence in proceeding with simply filing. Again, the appeal will exhaust itself and really nothing will be final until that appeal is exhausted. So again, I see no real consequence to the proceeding if we simply authorize the filing. Chairperson Plautz thanked Jim Halverson and asked for thoughts from other Board members. Chairperson Plautz stated that he agreed with Jim Halverson and asked if Matt Rasmussen or Emily Willits had anything further to add and they did not. Mari Bunney agreed with Jim Halverson and Dennis Plautz and thought we should move forward with filing and go with the precedence the Board has set in the past. Chairperson Plautz asked if Mr. Schuling had any additional comments and he stated he did not—other than what he had presented in his “Resistance to the Motion”. He stated he will probably pursue whatever is next in order to eliminate him from the annexation. I understand that it is a violation of State law and I understand you have counsel there to talk about that. Chairperson Plautz asked if there was anyone else who would like to make a comment, but no one had comments. Chairperson Plautz asked for a motion.
Motion by
Jim Halverson
Motion
Regarding Case #NC22-37, Altoona, I would move to authorize the submission or the filing of the annexation decision and to approve Mr. Smith’s Motion to Proceed.
Second
Mari Bunney
Roll Call
All ayes. Motion approved.

New Business

UA22-43 Ankeny
Matt Rasmussen reported that the City of Ankeny is seeking approval of a 100% voluntary annexation of a single parcel of land adjacent to the eastern boundary of the corporate limits—east of SE Four Mile and 3/4 of a mile north of SE Corporate Woods Drive. The annexation territory consists of 32.40 acres of land that includes the County road right-of-way to the centerline of the adjacent road. The land is currently zoned Low Density Residential under Polk County zoning regulations and is currently being utilized for agricultural purposes. The Ankeny Plan 2040 Future Land Use Map, notes that the land was identified as being located within the City's planning boundary and suitable for Airport Business Park uses and Open Space. If annexed, the property will initially be zoned R-1, One-Family Residence District, as it is standard procedure and rezoning will likely need to take place to align with the Future Land Use Map.

With the exception of Fire and EMS, the City of Ankeny does not currently provide municipal services to the proposed annexation area; however, the City does have the immediate fiscal and physical capability of extending substantial municipal services to the annexation territory. Municipal services would include Sanitary Sewer, Water, Law Enforcement, Fire and EMS, Public Works, Library, Parks & Recreation. This annexation is not subject to a moratorium agreement. Matt Rasmussen reported that this annexation appears to be complete and properly filed. Eric Jensen, Community Development Director with the City of Ankeny, was present to answer questions of the Board.
Motion by
Jim Halverson
Motion
I move the Board finds UA22-43 as complete and properly filed and in the public interest and that it be approved.
Second
Mackenzie O’Hair
Roll Call
All ayes. Motion approved.

NC22-44 Altoona
Matt Rasmussen reported Altoona seeks approval of the voluntary annexation of a tract of land adjacent to the City on its southeasterly boundary consisting of 276.255 acres, including 8.242 acres of Polk County road right-of-way. This annexation also consists of 19.375 acres of non-consenting property owners in order to make the city's boundaries more uniform and to avoid the creation of islands. The proposed annexation territory is currently classified agricultural transition district, low density residential and medium density residential under Polk County zoning. That zoning reflects the proximity to urban areas and development potential to urban densities. Altoona's 2014 Comprehensive Plan, 2018 Northwest Amendment and the 2022 Comprehensive Plan Amendment, as amended, anticipates the annexation territory to be zoned and developed as park space, low density residential, high density residential and mixed use. Altoona has a need for developable residential land and Altoona has planned for this annexation.

Altoona presently provides municipal services to the city-owned sports complex, but not to the remainder of the annexation territory (other than fire and EMS to a portion of the territory), but Altoona has the immediate fiscal and physical capability of extending substantial municipal services to the annexation territory as it develops. Substantial municipal services include Wastewater; Water; Law Enforcement; Fire and EMS; Public Works; Building, Zoning, Engineering, Planning and Related Services; Library, Parks & Recreation; and Fiscal. Matt Rasmussen reported that there are no 28E urban services agreements or annexation moratorium agreements that would be breached by virtue of this annexation and the filing appears to be complete and properly filed. Representing the City of Altoona were Frank Smith, Attorney, 4215 Hubbell Avenue, Des Moines; John Shaw, Community Development Director; Chad Quick, Economic Development Director; and Natalie Jacobson, Planner. Mr. Smith stated that since this was filed, an additional voluntary application has been received from a previously non-consenting property owner of 1.136 acres and that will be submitted and made a part of the record and secondly, if there was a mathematical error it was probably on me and we will get that corrected in the record as well. No questions were asked.
Motion by
Jim Halverson
Motion
I move the Board finds NC22-44 as complete and properly filed and that a date for a public hearing be scheduled.
Second
Mari Bunney
Roll Call
All ayes. Motion approved. A public hearing was scheduled for January 11, 2023, at 1:30 p.m.

UA22-45 Robins
Matt Rasmussen reported this is a 100% voluntary annexation proposed for the City of Robins consisting of 10.01 acres. The property contains one residential structure and two accessory structures. The owners of the proposed annexation are requesting voluntary annexation to the City of Robins and they would like to split their property to allow an additional residential structure. The existing residential structure is serviced by Linn County REC for electricity; a septic system and a well. Robins’ water and sewer utilities exist directly south of the property and will service any additional structures. Matt Rasmussen reported that the property is not subject to any Moratorium Agreements and the filing appears to be complete and properly filed. No questions were asked.
Motion by
Chris McKee
Motion
I move the Board finds UA22-45 as complete and properly filed and in the public interest and that is be approved.
Second
Mackenzie O’Hair
Roll Call
All ayes. Motion approved.

NC22-46 Alleman
Matt Rasmussen stated this is an 80/20 annexation request for the City of Alleman consisting of a total of 1,683.16 acres. Over 80% of the property owners desire to be annexed into the City of Alleman, with the desire that much of the property will continue to be farmed and the property owners desire to annex into the City of Alleman to provide a southern border for the City of Alleman and prevent further encroachment of development by the City of Ankeny. Property owners can enjoy the services provided by the City of Alleman. The City of Alleman desires to be developed as an "agrihood" with larger lots for residential properties and less dense commercial development than is currently occurring in the City of Ankeny, as identified in the City of Alleman's Comprehensive Plan for Development. The 16.5% of non-consenting landowners should be annexed to provide a more uniform boundary along NW 126th Avenue between Alleman and Ankeny. There is at least one property included to avoid the creation of an island. The property is not currently subject to a moratorium agreement and there are county-owned rights-of-way included and proper notices were done. Matt Rasmussen reported to the Board that the packet appears to be complete and properly filed. Matt Rasmussen noted that when we received the initial filing from Alleman, there were a couple things that he noted to the City that they now provided. You will notice that you received a supplement today from the City of Alleman and it was placed in the Board packet. Matt Rasmussen explained that an application for annexation should be signed by all owners of record, contain a legal and a map. In an instance where an owner is not a natural person, but is an LLC or Corporation, it should indicate that the person who is signing is authorized to do so on behalf of that entity. There were a handful of applications that were for an LLC or Corporation that did not have that type of documentation provided. That was made available to us today via that supplement.

Chairperson Plautz asked if anyone from the City was present and Bob Kramme, Mayor of Alleman, was present to explain further and answer questions. Chairperson Plautz stated that at today’s meeting, we are looking at whether the filing is complete and properly filed and if so, then a date for a public hearing will be scheduled. No questions were asked of Mayor Kramme.
Motion by
Jim Halverson
Motion
I move the Board finds NC22-46 as complete and properly filed and that a date for a public hearing be scheduled.
Second
Mackenzie O’Hair
Roll Call
All ayes. Motion approved. A public hearing was scheduled for January 11, 2023, at 2:30 p.m.

Staff Reports
Matt Rasmussen stated that as of today, we have not received any new annexation petitions for next month. Emily Willits had nothing to report.

Future Meeting/ Public Hearing
January 11, 2023 at 1:00 p.m., City Development Board Business Meeting at IEDA, 1963 Bell Ave., Suite 200, Helmick Conference Room, Des Moines or via Teams Webinar; January 11, 2023 at 1:30 p.m., Altoona (NC22-44) Public Hearing at IEDA, 1963 Bell Ave., Suite 200, Helmick Conference Room, Des Moines or via Teams Webinar; January 11, 2023 at 2:30 p.m., Alleman (NC22-46) Public Hearing at IEDA, 1963 Bell Ave., Suite 200, Helmick Conference Room, Des Moines or via Teams Webinar.

Adjourn
2:06 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Betty Hessing, Administrative Assistant