Official State of Iowa Website Here is how you know

Our Agency

City Development Board - October 12, 2022

State of Iowa
City Development Board
Meeting Minutes of October 12, 2022
Iowa Economic Development Authority
1963 Bell Avenue, Suite 200, Helmick Conference Room
Des Moines, Iowa

Call to order 1:01 p.m.

Present

Jim Halverson, Board Vice Chairperson Mari Bunney* Mackenzie O’Hair*

Absent
Dennis Plautz, Board Chairperson Chris McKee

Others Present
att Rasmussen, Administrator, City Development Board
Betty Hessing, Administrative Assistant, City Development Board
Emily Willits, Iowa Department of Justice
Amy Beattie, Brick Gentry PC, Representing City of Polk City
Travis Thornburgh, Snyder & Associates on behalf of Polk City
Chad Sands, City Administrator, City of Elkhart
Jenna Sabroske, City Attorney, City of Humboldt
Cole Bockelmann, City of Humboldt*
Cameron Wright, Skinner Law Office PC, Representing City of Runnells
Erin Kokemiller, Research Analyst, Senate Republican Staff
Lori Judge, IDOT*
Anthony Volz, IDOT*
Nathan Aronson, IDOT*
Brendan Beeter, Legislative Services Agency, State of Iowa*
Jennifer Backer, Director, Mitchell County Economic Development Commission*
Donita Wright*
Irene Simonsen*
Jill Simonsen*
Steven Keever*
Turri Colglazier, City Administrator, City of Missouri Valley*
Vicky Clinkscales, IT Department, IEDA

*Participated via Teams Webinar

Introduction by Vice Chairperson Jim Halverson

Roll Call by Matt Rasmussen, Board Administrator
A quorum was established.

Request for amendments to agenda
Motion by
Mari Bunney
Motion
I move to approve the agenda as presented.
Second
Mackenzie O’Hair
Roll Call
All ayes. Motion approved.

Consideration of September 14, 2022 Business Meeting Minutes
Motion by
Mari Bunney
Motion
I move the Business meeting minutes of September 14, 2022 be approved as printed and distributed.
Second
Mackenzie O’Hair
Roll Call
All ayes. Motion approved.

Old Business
D22-01 Hepburn
Matt Rasmussen reported that on March 9, 2022, the Board approved a discontinuance of the town of Hepburn. Iowa Code Section 368.21 directs the Board to publish notice that it will receive and adjudicate claims against the discontinued city for six months and to cause necessary taxes to be levied against the property in the discontinued city to pay the claims allowed. This process has been completed. We did publish notice twice in a local newspaper, the second of which was on March 22, 2022. The six-month period expired on September 23, 2022. We received no claims against the city and we are prepared to forward the remaining funds to the Page County Treasurer. No questions were asked.
Motion by
Mari Bunney
Motion
I move the City Development Board find that the claim adjudication process for Hepburn, which was previously discontinued by this Board, is now complete and under Iowa Code Section 368.21, having all claims against the former city fully adjudicated, direct staff to forward all remaining funds from the former city to the Page County Treasurer and to close this case.
Second
Mackenzie O’Hair
Roll Call
All ayes. Motion approved.

New Business
NC22-38 Runnells
Matt Rasmussen reported this is a request for an 80/20 annexation for the City of Runnells and the total acreage is 94.343 and the non-consenting acres is 1.568 which is 1.66%. In accordance with the City's plan for growth and development and to better serve its present and future citizens, this annexation will add much needed commercial development land into the City of Runnells. In accordance with its civic pride, the City also intends to annex the elementary school that serves its citizens. The City of Runnells’ 2014 Comp Plan future land use map anticipates the annexation territory to be developed as commercial and low-density residential. The City currently provides sewer services to some of the properties located within the annexation territory and has a sewer main extension within the annexation territory. The City of Runnells has no existing moratorium agreements. There is county owned right-of-way in the annexation territory and notice was sent to the County Attorney pursuant to Iowa Code §368.5. The reason for inclusion of the non-consenting is to create more uniform boundaries.
Matt Rasmussen stated the annexation petition appears to be complete and properly filed. Cameron Wright, City Attorney for the City of Runnells, was present to answer questions. No questions were asked.
Motion by
Mackenzie O’Hair
Motion
I move the Board finds NC22-38 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 November 9, 2022 at 1:30 p.m.

UA22-39 Humboldt
Matt Rasmussen reported this is a 100% voluntary annexation for the City of Humboldt and is within the urbanized area of Dakota City. It is approximately 80 acres. The annexation territory consists of two Humboldt County Tax Parcels which are owned by the Humboldt County Development Association (HCDA). The property is currently being leased by HCDA for agricultural purposes. Following annexation, the annexation territory is expected to be used for new industrial development, as part of the Three Rivers Industrial Park. The City of Humboldt currently does not provide services to the territory. Following annexation, the City anticipates providing water and sewer services to the territory to accommodate industrial development. The City will install stormwater detention basins along with additional stormwater infrastructure. The City will also construct and maintain paved roads in the annexation territory. Additional ongoing services will include police, fire and garbage services. Electrical service is anticipated to be provided by MidAmerican or Cornbelt Power, depending on the building location. The annexation area is not subject to any existing moratorium agreement. The annexation territory does include county road right-of-way and it was properly noticed. Matt Rasmussen reported that this packet appears to be complete and properly filed. Jenna Sabroske, Attorney with Ahlers & Cooney PC, 100 Court Avenue, Suite 600, Des Moines, Iowa, was present. Ms. Sabroske represented the City of Humboldt and was present to explain further and answer questions. No questions were asked.
Motion by
Mackenzie O’Hair
Motion
I move the Board finds UA22-39 as complete and properly filed and in the public interest and that it be approved.
Second
Mari Bunney
Roll Call
All ayes. Motion approved.

UA22-40 Polk City
Matt Rasmussen stated this is a 100% voluntary annexation for the City of Polk City. They seek approval of annexation of a tract of land adjacent to the City on its southeasterly boundary consisting of 110.78 acres, including public land and right-of-way of 27.5 acres. Exclusive of the public lands and rights-of-ways, the annexation consists of 83.28 acres that are owned by the property owners who consent to the annexation. The proposed annexation is within the urban area of Ankeny. Matt Rasmussen explained that after the IDOT was noticed on this, they contacted the City Development Board the City of Polk City, requesting that the entire right-of-way be included in this annexation. If you look at the map, the dark gray portion is the additional right-of-way that was not originally included in the petition. The IDOT has an all or none request of cities when they are annexing State-owned right-of-way. Again, originally it only included the half of the State-owned right-of-way and the request by the IDOT is that the City annex the entire road right-of-way at that point. It is questionable if that is permissible at this point and Mr. Rasmussen deferred to Emily Willits. Emily Willits stated that Lori Judge, with the IDOT, may want an opportunity to weigh-in. Matt and Betty and I had a meeting with Lori Judge and others from the IDOT awhile ago and we talked about this. The Iowa Code says for secondary roads, an annexation will automatically include land up to the centerline of a road. IDOT State-owned roads are not secondary roads; they are primary roads. So, the IDOT has a preference for cities to take all or none of the road. It is probably easier to figure out who needs to maintain it. We do have a rule that allows an amendment of an application and we have used that in some recent annexations—it is Administrative Rule 263—7.6(368). It says, “After a request for approval of an application for voluntary annexation has been filed with the board, it may not be amended to include additional territory.” Ms. Willits stated that you cannot add territory, but you can amend to take away territory, so that is the dilemma with our rules. Here you have State-owned property where the State is asking for it to be annexed; it is not a situation where a landowner is not going to know this is happening. Emily Willits asked others to weigh-in on this. Lori Judge from the IDOT stated it is the IDOT’s preference that when a city annexes, that they take the entire State-owned right-of-way—annexing to centerlines cause issues. Jim Halverson stated that the reason an area can be taken away, but not added to, is more of a public notice issue so that all are aware. Emily Willits stated that even if you remove territory, the Board needs to provide notice, so if there is an amendment of an application to remove territory, the Board needs to mail notice to all owners of land included in the application, each city with a boundary within two miles, Board of Supervisors, public utilities, etc., so there is another notice period. Jim Halverson asked the City representative to weigh-in on this. Amy Beattie with Brick Gentry PC, 6701 Westown Parkway, West Des Moines. I represent the City of Polk City. We also have the City Engineer here—Travis Thornburgh with Snyder & Associates—to answer any questions that I cannot answer concerning the property. This obviously is one of those unusual areas in the State because it is near Saylorville where we have County property, State property and Federal property. We were notified about ten days ago that the State was requesting that we take the remainder of the road. I had a conversation with them again yesterday and they said their preference is for the City to take the entire right-of-way. They did say that if you didn’t think that it could be added now, you could go ahead and approve the annexation as it was originally proposed, but with the understanding that we would come around immediately and go through an annexation with that particular piece of property, which we hope we don’t have to do, but if we need to, we sure will. Jim Halverson asked if this annexation had an immediate need to be done today. Travis Thornburgh, City Engineer with Snyder & Associates, 2727 SW Snyder Blvd., Ankeny, Iowa, stated the City of Polk City has approved a preliminary plat for the property immediately north of what is labeled Parcel 1 in the application packet. We have been contacted by the owner of Parcel 6 and he has intentions of possibly this winter, submitting the first steps in the development process. We do not have anything pending at this point in time. Jim Halverson asked if we do not take action today and request that you reinitiate the process so it is inclusive of all the IDOT right-of-way, would that become a burden to the City? Amy Beattie replied that it is not a burden, but it would take us several months to go through that process again. If we would have to go through the process again, we would prefer that you go ahead and make the decision on everything but that additional property that is requesting to be annexed by the State and then we will begin immediately to do an annexation that would include that right-of-way. Jim Halverson thanked Ms. Beattie. Matt Rasmussen stated that we have never seen an annexation of just right-of-way. I am not sure what the process would be for such an annexation. Emily Willits stated that the rule she was reading, says you can amend an application to remove territory, but you cannot add territory. It is an Administrative Rule, not a Statute and the Board can grant waivers from its own rules. The problem there is, it is a waiver process and it is to be initiated upon a petition, so again, you are looking at another process. A petition would be a request. Amy Beattie asked if it made a difference that we served the IDOT with notice—it is just that at their request, they asked that additional property be added. So, it is not like someone was not given notice. Matt Rasmussen stated that in a situation when State-owned right-of-way would be included, that the notice would be to the Attorney General and obviously, Ms. Willits is a representative of the Attorney General. Emily Willits stated she would be comfortable with your Administrative Rule for an amendment of a petition, but that still would mean delaying this for a month so that Betty Hessing can get the notices out again, to make sure nobody objects to adding this additional sliver. Amy Beattie replied she would prefer that too, so we do not have to go back through all the city processes. If it is just a matter of you shifting your decision to next month and new notices going out from the City Development Board, I think we would be okay with that. Emily Willits stated that because we would be waiving our Administrative Rule, we may ask if we could consider it as a petition for a waiver of our rule and follow that process at the same meeting. Amy Beattie stated that would be perfectly fine. Jim Halverson stated that would be his preference—if we could go through a less labor-intensive process. Matt Rasmussen asked if they could ask for a waiver at today’s meeting and Emily Willits thought they could. Emily Willits stated they could do by E-mail after today’s meeting. Jim Halverson asked if we would table this item and Ms. Willits stated that is correct. Mackenzie O’Hair asked if we could add this to Monday’s meeting. Emily Willits stated that according to our rules, the Board does need to send out notices of the proposed amendment by mail. If we table this until next month’s meeting, that will give us time to send notices. Amy Beattie asked Emily Willits to let her know what she needs in order to request that waiver. No other comments or questions were asked. Jim Halverson asked for a motion to table UA22-40.
Motion by
Mackenzie O’Hair
Motion
I move the Board table UA22-40 until the November City Development Board meeting.
Second
Mari Bunney
Roll Call
All ayes. Motion approved.

UA22-41 Elkhart
Matt Rasmussen reported this is a 100% voluntary annexation petition for the City of Elkhart consisting of 4.94 acres. Peak Development is in the process of expanding the Industrial Park in the City of Elkhart and this property is adjacent to the Industrial Park and is currently in the county. The property is adjacent to the city limits and is currently vacant land. The proposed land use would be light industrial. The plan is to build a flex-space building as part of the Industrial Park. The Park is directly to the west and north of the property. Directly to the west of the property are existing flex space buildings which would be the design and style of the proposed use of the annexed property. Directly to the north is an existing industrial use, which is a concrete plant.
Services to the territory would include city water, sewer and storm utilities. MidAmerican Energy would provide electrical and gas service and Huxley Communications would provide internet. City utilities are adjacent to the territory and would not create a need of extending utilities a great distance. The territory requested to be annexed by Peak Development into Elkhart is not subject to any moratorium agreements. The proposed annexation includes County road right-of-way which was properly noticed. Matt Rasmussen stated the packet does appear to be complete and properly filed. Chad Sands, City Administrator for the City of Elkhart, was present to answer questions.
Motion by
Mackenzie O’Hair
Motion
I move the Board finds UA22-41 as complete and properly filed and in the public interest and that it be approved.
Second
Mari Bunney
Roll Call
All ayes. Motion approved.

Staff Reports
Matt Rasmussen stated that at this point, we have one annexation to bring to the Board in November. As a reminder to the Board, we have three public hearings on Monday, October 17th, scheduled at 11:30 a.m., 12:30 p.m. and 1:30 p.m. Emily Willits gave an update on the three Sageville annexations the Board approved a couple months ago. The City of Dubuque filed an appeal of those decisions. We agreed to consolidate those three appeals into one case instead of three. We are working on getting a scheduling conference with the District Court for Dubuque County. Emily Willits will keep the Board updated.

Future Meeting/ Public Hearing
November 9, 2022, 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. November 9, 2022, at 1:30 p.m., Runnells (NC22-38) Public Hearing at IEDA, 1963 Bell Ave., Suite 200, Helmick Conference Room, Des Moines or via Teams Webinar.

Adjourn
1:38 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,
Betty Hessing, Administrative Assistant

;