The Jefferson city council meeting Oct. 9 again drew about 30 persons, many of them to share their opinions of the workforce housing project proposed by Kading Construction and supported by Greene County Development Corporation.
The regular council meeting two weeks earlier had a report on the Kading project on the agenda. At this meeting, seeing many of the same persons although the project was not listed on the agenda, mayor Matt Gordon began with a reminder of the 3-5 minute limit for open forum comments.
Sue Bose, a candidate for Jefferson city council, spoke first. She said she and her husband had lived in Perry near a Kading project. She reported a frightening incident in which one of her neighbors was threatened with a machete by a resident of the project. She also noted that there are no playgrounds or parks near the proposed Jefferson project and that adults would have a difficult time accessing a grocery store because of its location near a busy street.
Nikki Uebel added to concerns she had shared previously about the supply and demand of rental housing units. She noted that according to census figures from 2000 and 2021, the population in Jefferson declined by 462 residents while the number of housing units increased by 148. With Rowland Construction now building 36 new units, she said, “Jefferson can take quite a lot of growth and still have housing for them.”
Sheila Goodwin reported things she had found on Google reviews of Kading projects, saying comments included calling Kading Properties “money hungry crooks” and “true slum lords,” and that the buildings were “very poorly built.”
She expressed suspicion of the project and the people who might live there. “What I can’t understand is what’s in it for those who are pushing it?” she said. “We have a culture in Jefferson that has evolved since the 1800s and we like our culture. It seems there’s always a few that say your culture’s wrong, and this is what we want to do for it because we know what’s best.
“I think we can all agree that we need some additional housing, like the conversion of the middle school, the Head Park buildings that are going up. I’m all for that.
“But this is going to wind up being something Jefferson does not want. We have to this day a relatively safe environment. We have crimes that we have to deal with, but our kids can still walk the streets. I’d like to keep it that way,” Goodwin said.
Nathan Nelson told the council he lived in a Kading project in Indianola for a time and he agreed with many of the comments he was hearing. “It won’t attract the kinda people that’s gonna contribute to this town,” he said.
Margaret Saddoris had also spoken at the previous meeting. She said she had a petition against the project signed by 114 persons online and another 107 on paper. “What is it going to take for the city to see the majority of people who live and work here don’t want it?” she said.
She noted that Jefferson’s planning and zoning board has not looked at the project.
She questioned Greene County Development Corporation’s gift of the property to Kading, providing the costs other businesses recently paid for lots in the West Business Park that ranged from $$12,065 to $27,500 per acre. According to Saddoris, the value of the land GCDC is giving to Kading for the project is $367,000.
The cost of extending needed utilities to the site is estimated at $1.3 million, but figuring a cost overrun similar to what’s happening with the wastewater treatment plant project, that cost could be as much as $1.7 million she estimated.
She used $10 million as an estimate of the assessed value of the Kading project once it’s completed, and extended that to estimate the value of the 10-year property tax abatement the city is offering to be $2 million.
Saddoris also said she doubts the work of council member Harry Ahrenholtz in figuring the potential cost compared to revenue from water/sewer fees, road use tax and other income streams. Ahrenholtz calculated the project to financially viable for the city.
Mayor Gordon interrupted her after nine minutes and she moved to a closing statement.
“There are decisions that totally transform a community either for the better or the worse. In this case, our community will never be the same,” she said.
“Trying to model our community like Perry, Storm Lake or Denison, as stated by GCDC, is not what the majority of our community want. We do not have a packing plant, and the influx of people would impact our police force, our schools, our hospital and our infrastructure.
“Please consider holding off any future development. Our current housing project of Rowland should be enough for the current time.”
GCDC board president Sid Jones also spoke during the open forum, after Goodwin. He thanked Uebel and Saddoris for the time spent researching, but said he wanted to add clarity to the discussion.
Jones explained that the property GCDC plans to give Kading is part of land accumulated starting in 1991. Development of the property, referred to as the East Business Park, has been difficult due to limited access to it. A road was platted 15 years ago, but the cost was too much for GDCD to handle.
He said that putting in a road from W. Gallup Rd to the edge of the Kading property would open up four other undeveloped lots. AAI/Spalding is very interested in two of those lots for a possible expansion, but only if there’s an access road.
As of this month, GCDC has successfully sold every lot in the West Business Park. The only property not sold was given to the city for the new dog park, as it was less suitable for business development.
Jones noted that the city council first approved a 10-year property tax abatement as an incentive for development in July 2019, and that similar incentives are used by many rural towns. “Land never developed, projects never built, never produce revenue to the city,” he said.
He said he knew of the petition Saddoris is circulating, and that it states lower figures of jobs available than GCDC is using. He said GCDC has surveyed the county’s 10 largest employers in the last week and their needs support the need for housing. “You have to look to the future. Housing doesn’t happen overnight. We have to plan ahead,” he said.
“Change is difficult,” Jones concluded, “but by airing our concerns and listening to each other, we can hopefully help the city council and Kading Properties come to the correct decision for our community. We have a once in a generation decision to make.”
Most of those attending the meeting left at the close of the open forum.
In other business, the council referred back to the city’s water/sewer committee a proposed ordinance changing the way the city charges for installation of water services larger than 1 inch in diameter.
The council had approved the first reading of the ordinance at the Sept. 27 meeting. This was to have been the second reading. Council member Darren Jackson questioned whether the new charge would discourage commercial development. The city will pay for installation of water service up to a 5/8-inch pipe, but the new ordinance would require the customer to pay the entire cost of installing a larger pipe. Jackson suggested it would be more fair if the city continued to pay that the cost of the smaller pipe and require the new customer to pay the difference between the two rather than the entire cost.
The council also sent back to committee a change in the ordinance naming what materials can be used for fencing. Ahrenholtz said there were corrugated fencing materials that had not been considered.
The council approved the first reading of ordinances pertaining to zero lot line zoning and front yard setbacks for infill lots.
The council approved the preliminary and final plats for Rowland’s Water Tower Plat 2.
The council approved the purchase of a new police vehicle. Jefferson police captain Jason Kroeger explained the department usually gets a new vehicle every two years, but supply chain issues delayed the delivery of a vehicle that should have arrived in July to next month.
He said the department is switching from Dodge Chargers to Ford Explorers because Chargers are no longer being made for law enforcement use. The Explorers are larger and cost more. Base cost is $43,034. The upfit and computer/camera equipment bring the total cost to about $70,000.
The department is now using a 2018 and a 2021 Charger for patrol. A 2019 Charger ran into mechanical issues that would have cost more to repair than the vehicle was worth. That leaves the department short one vehicle.
City administrator Scott Peterson explained that a car would be in the budget for next year. The one already ordered was in last year’s budget. Funds are available now for the second vehicle.
The council also approved payments to Jensen Builders, Ltd of $445,001.85 for airport hangar work; to Shank Constructors Inc of $541,133.21 for the wastewater treatment plant project; and to Tallgrass Land Stewardship Co for $7,172.50 for city hall entrance improvements.
