Lauris Olson for  Story County Supervisor

The Democratic Party's nominee for the 4-year seat

   League of Women Voters of Ames & Story County  

411 Guide Questions & Answers

What are the county’s greatest infrastructure needs? Are there sufficient funds to address these needs, and if not, how would you prioritize the needs and why?
     Some of Story County’s rural roads and many of its rural bridges are in need of significant repair. The same is true across Iowa. These are the county’s most pressing infrastructure issue.
     Culverts need to be replaced, unpaved roads with high traffic counts are requiring frequent grading and gravel reapplications. Increasingly heavy traffic patterns on some unpaved roads have led to citizen calls for paving and safety upgrades.
     Meanwhile, wooden beams on bridges 100-years-old are rotting and the concrete pilings of bridges built in the 1950s are eroding. Weight limits are posted on some bridges, other bridges are closed to traffic completely.
     Two years ago, the county engineer estimated that we would need about $22 million just to take care of all of the road repairs and construction on the county’s list. That amount hasn’t dropped much.
     In the county’s Five-Year Secondary Roads and Structures Plan that the county engineer recently filed with the Iowa Department of Transportation, total road “needs” are $20.6 million. But the amount the county plans is spending on roads this fiscal year is $2.1 million, only 10 percent of what is needed.
    The cost to fix all the bridges and culverts currently known to need repair is $5.4 million, while projects the engineer wants to do but have not reached “need” status yet account for another $3.5 million. This fiscal year, the county can afford to spend just over $1 million.
     It costs on average $350,000 to replace a bridge on an unpaved county road. Culverts can range from under $100,000 to over $200,000.
     The board of supervisors have a long-term plan that I believe is a good one given the limited resources. Their goal is to make repairs worth at least 5 percent of the total cost of all the waiting bridge and culvert projects.
    Here are the factors I would consider when assessing road and bridge repair priorities.

1. Public safety. Safety is always the top concern, but an unsafe road or bridge may not be placed near the top of the list for repair. Instead, closing it may be the more practical short-term option.
2. Purpose. Agriculture dominates the unincorporated areas which means moving heavy equipment and semi truck-trailers. They are slow-moving and burn a lot of fuel –which can decrease the safety factor, cost money and lower productivity.
3. Traffic count. The more use, the more the public is inconvenienced. Plus the more likely road or bridge conditions could cause an accident to occur.
4. Cost/source of funding.  Some road classifications qualify for partial or matching funds from the federal and state governments. Sometimes a county project can save money by timing the work to coincide with adjacent or nearby projects.
5. Anticipated changes to purpose or traffic count. Is the road in an area where large-scale development is occurring?
6. Alternative and duplicating routes. The road may be near another road in better condition that accesses the same areas.

   There are a lot of factors that go into selection of which roads and bridges get fixed “first.”
     For example, next fiscal year, which starts in July, the county is going to spend $3.22 million on roads but only $420,000 to replace one bridge – the 190th St. Bridge in Franklin Township. The bulk of the 2017 expenditures - $2 million will be used to pave Grant Avenue between 190th Avenue and the Gilbert city limits. Since the road is within the Ames Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, the county won’t get any state or federal to help cover the costs.
     Four years ago, this project was barely on the county’s radar prior. But in 2013 the new Gilbert High School opened. The school is on the north end of the Grant Avenue in Ames– Gretten Street in Gilbert corridor.
     Paving the road moved to a top priority because of:

• An anticipated increase in the traffic count once new housing developments along 190th were under construction,
• Some project costs could be saved if the county paved its portion at the same time Ames was paving the portion of Grant Avenue within its city limits and
  
• Safety (teen drivers were using the road to get from north Ames to the high school, sometimes exceeding the posted speed limit).

 Ames continues to grow rapidly. Is the Urban Fringe Plan (an agreement between Ames, Gilbert and Story County) working as intended to manage growth within two miles of Ames city limits? If not, what changes are needed?
     Is it working “as intended to manage growth?”
     “No” if the supposition included in the question is that the plan’s function is to dictate precisely and irrevocably where certain types of growth will occur.
     “Sometimes” if the frequency with which it is has been amended is added. Each change dilutes the predictability and significance of the plan.
      But if viewed in context of its origination as a planning and procedures document subject to amendment (revision), my answer is “Yes, but not always effectively, depending on who you are and what features of the plan you value most.”
       I reported on the urban fringe plan from the first meetings of Ames and Story County planning departments’ staff in 2003 or 2004 to its approval in 2006 and through the first 6 years of implementation.
      In 2006, the emphasis was on uniform zoning (use) designations and subdivision approval procedures related to residential housing. Other priorities were establishing areas of transitional zoning between high-density urban and very low-density rural development, the preservation of some prime agricultural land and the protection of woodland and environmentally sensitive areas.
     Expectations for the plan varied then, as they do now:

• Developers wanted to know what types of projects were allowed to put where and “the rules” for getting projects approved.
• Landowners in the urban fringe areas hoped the specific designations for current and future land use would assign predictable uses of their land and the areas surrounding them.
• Some in the public hoped it would prevent urban-type sprawl and encourage greater use of infill development.
• Ames officials hoped new subdivision and commercial growth would focus on lands to its southwest.

     Also, future industrial growth in Ames was targeted for east of I-35 on East 13th Street/ 220th . There were a few vague references to Gilbert annexing land south of its city limits for small scale commercial and specialized industrial. And there was no indication that Nevada was interested in annexing land to its west for industry.
      But growth in and just outside Ames’ fringe areas has occurred much quicker than the time frames anticipated in urban fringe plan.
      For example, even as the plan was being adopted, local developers were saying that land was not available to the southwest. Reasons given were Iowa State University and some private owners’ unwillingness to sell parcels they owned and private landowners who were willing to sell setting their price per acre too high. Agricultural landowners to the northwest, however, were willing to sell at prices the developers were willing to pay.
      So Ames city councils have voted several times to amend the urban fringe plan as the first step into annexing proposed northwest housing developments. Story County supervisors have followed along, as annexation occurs by Ames’ choice, not the county’s. That is state law.  
     Any recommendation from the Story County Planning & Zoning Commission and approval from the Story County Board of Supervisors called for in the urban fringe plan is an opportunity for the county to provide input and voice concerns, not a preemptive veto of any annexation request that might be approved some day by the city.
     A Story County Board of Supervisors’ “no” vote on a request to amend the urban fringe plan only carries lasting impact if annexation is not anticipated.
        I don’t like how often the urban fringe plan is being changed. But I do believe for the time being, we will need to continue to amend it as residential subdivision projects that meet all of the plans’ requirements are proposed.
      I believe we have little choice right now if we want to provide homes for a diverse population. And while we need more housing countywide, we likely can’t make progress there until transportation is also addressed.
       Bu when it comes to economic development, I believe we should amend the urban fringe plan sparingly, with the amendments encompassing enough land to cover the anticipated need for no more than the next 10 years as community planning experts recommend that land use plans be reevaluated every 5 to 10 years, depending on the rate of growth in the area.
      Which is why I watched with concern April 5 as the board of supervisors supported changes to the urban fringe map
for the unincorporated areas east of Ames around Lincoln Highway.
      That day, the board of supervisors switched 3.5 square miles of urban fringe land from agricultural and long-term industrial reserve to planned industrial. The change readied the 2,240 acres for actual rezoning to planned industrial.
      The request for changes came from the Ames Economic Development Commission, not a specific company or developer.
      The board of supervisors also placed another 3.75 square miles of agricultural land in the same area into the agricultural/long-term industrial reserve classification. This served notice to potential buyers that these additional 2,280 acres are currently used for agricultural with any future development limited to industrial projects.
       The Ames and Gilbert city councils had already approved the urban fringe plan changes.
        It was noted at the board of supervisors meeting that both the Ames Planning and Zoning Commission and the Story County Planning Commission recommended their respective elected officials deny the request. They said the changes to the urban fringe plan were “overreaching” and premature, especially since land in the same area already carried the industrial indicators.
         I agree. Especially since the urban fringe plan already had 300 acres in the area set aside for planned industrial. For comparison, Lincolnway Energy sits on just over 64 acres. Assigning another 2,280 acres to planned industrial now serves notice that we could end up hosting 40 more facilities the size of Lincolnway Energy in that area. The new industrial reserve area could yield 35 more facilities. 

       The amount of growth that would have to occur in these new industrial designation areas would be phenomenal for the county’s budget (see my response to the 4th question) but likely a nightmare for those who live in the county around the industrial area (see my response to the 3rd question).
     Regardless of people’s expectations on what the Ames Urban Fringe Plan should or must do, every one needs to keep in mind that it was designed to be amended. As a result of the frequent amendments, I believe that of all the original expectations the various stakeholders had, only the ones related to uniform application, approval and zoning requirements are still being fully met. I’d gladly entertain creation of something new to replace it, but I think this is the best we are going to be able to create as long as the state’s two-mile fringe law exists and we want growth in and near Ames.
     The Ames Urban Fringe Plan will continue to create controversy, whether it is never amended again or amended monthly for the next four years. The AEDC’s request has just called attention to what may await us down the road.

The County is in the process of adopting a new strategic plan, From Cornerstone to Capstone comprehensive plan, or C2C. What are the plan’s strengths? Are there any omissions? If so, how would you address them?
     The plan and attachments fill about 100 pages, so it is impractical to address all the strengths and possible omissions of the individual elements, goals and strategies here.
     The Cornerstone to Capstone plan is an excellent example of how government planning is improved when citizens are given ample opportunities to provide input, collaborate and contribute.
     (I need to note that I participated in the early stages of this three-year endeavor. I declined an invitation to participate in the C2C task force that started meeting in March 2015.)
    People who participated came from all parts of the county and represented a variety of interests, which I believe will result in wide-spread citizen acceptance and endorsement.
     The values and goals are worded clearly, making it easy for county decision makers to use them to evaluate proposals put before them. For the most part, the plan is focused on elements that directly impact citizens. The plan recognizes the county’s rural atmosphere and strong agricultural presence. The strategies suggested are practical and useful. The 20-year time frame accommodates major projects currently underway while facilitating the change to new perspectives and priorities.
     The C2C plan creates some new land use designations and a new countywide planning map called the Future Land Use Map, similar to the Ames Urban Fringe Plan.
     Overall, I am excited about using the plan to help guide some of my decisions if I am elected.
     I am pleased that the plan addresses transportation but it only looks at infrastructure, which is appropriate for a community planning document. One of my goals as a supervisor is to expand transportation options countywide as inadequate transportation for some impacts the county vitality for everyone.
     Another of my goals is to increase and diversify housing. My beliefs align with all three of the C2C housing goals  - “safe, attractive and affordable housing to meet existing and future” demand; housing types and densities that reinforce “the rural character;” and housing constructed for “residents’ needs.”
   I am slightly wary that the plan places so much emphasis on economic development, stating in the introduction that the plan is to “Provide predictability and consistency over time which encourages investment.” This emphasis is restated in the Economic Prosperity chapter, “While this Chapter focuses on economic development topics, it is important to recognize that the entire C2C Plan can be considered as an economic development tool.”
     I view the C2C plan as a quality of life tool, of which economic development is only one part.
     The C2C plan also presents potentially conflicting situations. For example, the C2C’s Land Use Goal 8 says, “Ensure that land use transitions are gradual or designed to reduce potential incompatibilities among land uses.” Yet the board of supervisors’ recently supported amending the Ames Urban Fringe Plan so that future industrial projects can co-exist with agricultural homesteads and residential acreages in a more than 2,000 acres tract.
     Residents living near the two existing industrial projects in that area said the plants “already were not good neighbors” and expressed fears that conditions would continue to worsen for them. These residents will want significant input on the design of future industrial sites plans and I believe we should make sure it happens. 

Is the county’s current budget meeting all the needs of Story County? What changes would you make?
     The current budget is not meeting all the needs of Story County residents.
     There are $20 million dollars worth of bridge and road repairs on the county’s “to do” list. (See the first question.)
     Human service agencies that receive county funding through the ASSET process point to the continuing demand for their services, even though the county has increased it’s allocation to ASSET from about $500,000 five years ago to almost $1 million next year.

     For example, services like in-home and congregate site meals and outreach visits for aging community members, especially those living in rural areas, need to expand. Food pantries and free meal programs are seeing increased numbers. Programs serving at-risk and low income youth are growing more rapidly than their funding. And at a recent board of supervisors meeting, the director of the agency that operates the Story County Dental Clinic noted that unless the communities where most of the patients live “contribute at a reasonable level,” the clinic may close.
     Transportation needs for low-income families and people with disabilities are not being met. People who rely on public transportation, especially in the outlying areas, say they are still experiencing trip delays. Many of these trips are to meet basic or medical needs. Others are unable to acquire jobs paying living wages due to unreliable transportation.
     The county, however, is quite solvent right now. For example:

• (Updated 5.23.16) The county has about $13.5 million in cash reserves after transferring another $1million to cover an additional request from our mental health region. The reserves are money that has been set aside to manage cash flows between property tax collections in March and September or designated for particular programs. Right now, the county expects to spend $40 million in FY2017. Property taxes will pay for $23.6 million of that.  
• (Updated 5.23.16) The expected $14.4 million remaining in reserves for the county as of June 30, 2017 is about 25% of the yearly budget.
• Most county staff and some elected officials, including the supervisors, will receive a 2.5 percent raise in FY 2017. Some elected officials will receive more.
• (Updated 5.23.16) The supervisors in February finalized a contract with Iowa State University to create a multi-use trail, a 35-acres native plants and grasses park and a storm water management system at the ISU Research Park in Ames. The county’s conservation department will manage the park. The cost will be $3.4 million, with the first $1.2 million to be spent in FY 2017, and the remainder over the next two years. The supervisors plan* to “borrow” the $3.4 million by adding the park to the county’s urban renewal/tax incremental revenue program funded by the wind turbine farms in Northeast Story County and pay the bond debt off over time. The contract allows Story County to return the land to ISU at any time for $1.* On May 10, Supervisor Rick Sanders noted that they have initiated the process but have not yet voted to use this funding method.

     But most of the various property tax levies applicable to the county are near or at their state-mandated maximums. The current board's budgeting philosophy theory expects any additional tax revenues to come from increased valuations on existing structures and the value of newly built or renovated structures.

     I believe we need to look at increasing the general property tax levy above the usual state-mandated maximums.

     State law does allow counties to increase their basic general services or rural county services levies. The reasons given in Section 331.426 of Iowa Code include “continuance of a program which provides substantial benefit to county residents” and “an unusual need for a new program which will provide substantial benefit, if the county establishes the need and amount of necessary increased cost.”
     Another section, 331.425, allows counties to increase a levy via a special election. The election must be held on the first Tuesday in March. Approval is based on the simple majority of the number of votes cast in the election.
     If elected to the board of supervisors, I would propose the following short-term changes to my fellow supervisors:

• Ask the compensation board, which sets the salaries of elected officials, to freeze the salaries. While the amount of savings would be minimal, it would send a positive message to the county. Divert any savings to the ASSET process.
• Put a two-year moratorium on adding projects into the county’s wind turbine TIF/Urban Renewal District.
• Reduce the maximum amount of wind turbine revenues diverted from the general levy into the TIF program. I would propose going from 50% to 40% for four years. Use the money to increase ASSET funding.
• Ask members of the county’s five unions for smaller incremental increases when their contracts are up for negotiation in 2018.
• Re-evaluate the county’s Capital Improvements Plan to identify projects that can be delayed or reduced in scope/scale.
• Hold a levy special election with a maximum of 10 ¢ per $1,000 of valuation dedicated to transportation and a maximum of 15¢ per $1,000 of valuation used to accelerate the roads and bridges repair schedule.  The special levy would have a stated number of years and then expire, also known as a sundown clause. There would be a cost to stage the special election, but I believe the county would save money in the long run.
• 
  

Long-term, the answer is to increase the property tax base responsibly and apply the additional revenues to programs and projects which directly benefit the county’s citizens.

If the Iowa Utilities Board and other regulatory agencies grant final approval to Dakota Access for the Bakken pipeline and it is constructed through Story County, what will you as a supervisor be able to do to ensure clean water and soil?
      To my knowledge, the Story County Board of Supervisors does not currently have any legislative authority to prevent construction of the pipeline in the county, which is surest way to ensure clean water and soil, at least as related to the Bakken Pipeline.
      There has been discussion among the opposing groups about initiating legal challenges, preferably before significant work is done in Iowa. Several areas for potential litigation are being considered, one focused on whether the IUB, an appointed commission with only three-members, can authorize the use of eminent domain for a private for-profit company not providing a significant public service directly benefitting Iowans.
     I believe this is a legitimate issue that needs to be fully addressed by the courts.
     However, I do not believe Story County should partner with private entities to become a plaintiff in such litigation. Nor do I believe that Story County should rush to initiate any similar action by itself, even if our county attorney’s office or outside counsel would determine that Story County has “standing”, a legally protectable interest that has been or will be directly harmed and that harm can be addressed or remedied by court action.
     I do believe that it is appropriate for the Story County Board of Supervisors to file a “friend of the court” brief should another party decide to sue on this particular issue, so I would ask my fellow supervisors to hold a public discussion and vote about filing such a brief. If at least one of the other supervisors vote “yes,” I would also ask my fellow supervisors to invite local elected officials in other Bakken pipeline affected counties to do the same.
     The action above is theoretical. Below, are my plans absent any third-party legal action.
 

Before construction begins in the county, I will:

• Speak to supervisors in counties currently experiencing construction to determine how the installation is going.
• Maintain contact with groups monitoring the pipeline permitting and construction process.
• Urge my fellow supervisors to officially communicate via letter or resolution any concerns to the Iowa Utilities Board the Department of Natural Resource and other oversight agencies and ask that construction be delayed in Story County until the appropriate agency requires verified correction of any problems.
• Urge my fellow supervisors to consider legal strategies with other Iowa counties to halt construction in Iowa until verified correction of any problems.

During construction in the county, I plan on working with the other two supervisors, if they are interested, or by myself if they are not, to:

• Continue communication with groups monitoring the pipeline permitting and construction process.
• Track paperwork filing deadlines and verify that Dakota Access is adhering to all promised/required schedules and documentation.
• Enforce deadlines for paperwork to be filed with Story County and demand strict compliance with all conditions and contractual terms. (Requires board action.)
• Request that the county staff person (likely the county engineer) responsible for communicating with the contract engineer doing direct, daily field oversight give frequent updates during board meetings. (Requires board action.)
• Obtain and read copies of any incident or safety reports that Dakota Access files with the utilities board.
• Contact property owners as work is being done on their property to determine if they have any concerns about the construction.
• Urge my fellow supervisors to officially communicate via letter or resolution our concerns about any of the above to the Iowa Utilities Board, the Department of Natural Resource and other oversight agencies and request that construction be stopped in Story County until the problems are rectified.
• Urge my fellow supervisors to consider legal strategies to halt construction in Story County if identified problems are not rectified.

 

After the pipeline is built, I will

• Introduce an increase in the budget of the county’s environmental health budget so that department can regularly collect and analyze soil and water samples along the pipeline’s route in Story County.
• Urge my fellow supervisors to officially communicate via letter or resolution our concerns about any problems or possible problems to the Iowa Utilities Board, the Department of Natural Resource and other oversight agencies and, if leakage is occurring, request that the flow through Story County be halted immediately until the problems are repaired and assurance can be given that the problem won’t reoccur.
• Continue to encourage feedback and input from a variety of outside groups and resources.
• Continue to obtain and read copies of any incident or safety reports that Dakota Access files with the utilities board.
• Continue to contact property owners to determine if they have any concerns about the pipeline operation.Type your paragraph here.