Debt capacity, chickens in town land council with more homework

Greenfield city council members held two in-depth conversations during their Tuesday, April 8 meeting and voted to proceed in some way on both topics.

The council reviewed debt capacity they have in relation to needed capital improvements, like the pool rebuilding and another phase of sewer lining work, as well as mulled the idea of allowing chickens in town.

Debt capacity

During their March 25 meeting, the council received a report from members of the Greenfeild Municipal Pool Advisory Committee, which recommended that the city move forward with a bond referendum that would set in motion the design and eventual building of a new pool that would replace the aging one the community has.

The advisory committee had done extensive studying, talking to experts in the field and looking at other communities in the same situation, which helped them arrive at their conclusion.

City Clerk Laura Benton said the city has approximately $7 million in debt capacity, which is based upon interest of valuations. Her recommendation is to never go above 80% of the debt capacity because of contingencies. About $2.2 million has been spoken for by a second phase of a sewer lining project the city intends to do. The city is using disaster money after the tornado to line some sewers, so a new estimate will be needed. The city was “already late” on phase 2 of sewer lining and also has a third phase drawn out. A color-coded map in the city council chambers shows the phases.

“At some point, the engineers recommend we do all the sewer lining. That was in 2017, so I don’t know what their timeline was,” Benton said. Council member Brian Fox said there wasn’t a timeline, but it was more of a rating system for the lines contrasting what was of most urgent and less urgent and that the council should be cautious.

Council member Rita Eble asked what it would hurt for planners to draft referendum language and put one to a vote to see what the community actually wants.

“I’m thinking we put it to a vote in November, then if we get more yeses we move forward with the bonding. There’s going to have to be publications and education so that people know what is actually going to be done, then let the community decide,” Eble said, adding misinformation can spread quickly if planners aren’t diligent in educating voters.

“They’re going to have to be informed sooner or later,” Fox said.

Benton said that when you have a referendum, you usually are required to include a “not more than” dollar amount.

Pool advisory committee member Renee Schwartz said fundraising will be very important. If fundraising is wildly successful, the bonding responsibility for the city could be much less than what is being spoken of now.

“Just because you have this referendum, and say it passes, if we raise $4 million, that’s only $1 million for the city. That’s really our goal, to do as much funding as possible so that the burden on the city is not very much,” Schwartz said.

Benton said the dollar amount to bond for isn’t a first step in preparing for an election, so there is still time for leaders to figure that aspect out.

Schwartz said the original timeline the advisory committee drafted showed writing referendum language as a June or July project, so efforts are still on pace with that. This could be done in tandem with fundraising efforts to see how successful those are.

Benton and Greenfield Chamber Main Street Executive Director Stacie Eshelman both said that from prior experiences in Guthrie Center and Corning, respectively, it can be difficult to convince voters to pass a referendum for projects such as a pool.

Benton followed that up closely by saying the pool is an important “quality of life” item for the community to have.

Advisory committee member Jacque Eblen said that when the current pool was built during World War II, the community fought for it in tandem with the hospital, which opened in 1950. It took planners a second try for the pool because of a mistake in publication, but it still happened.

Chickens in town

Greenfield resident Zach Tromp sought permission at the March 11 meeting to have a small number of chickens at his residence for egg production. The council decided they would do research on the matter.

Council member Jonathan Christensen moved last week for the council to start work on drafting an ordinance that they can propose and possibly move forward with later.

Eble did research, and after looking at other ordinances from where chickens are allowed in a city, it can become quite expensive to have chickens. Des Moines residents she spoke with said that while they’re allowed to have chickens, there are numerous requirements in place for setbacks and fences.

Council member Rod McMorran took a wide, informal poll of people in town on the matter. While there were more people who said yes than he anticipated, most were against allowing chickens in town. Some were quite emphatic with their no.

Tromp said he observed people reacting on social media to the idea and realizes people will be for or against the idea. He said he’s still pulling hard for the idea and appreciated the council considering it.

Some mentioned that 4-Hers could benefit from having chickens in town as projects. They wondered what it would look like if inspections could be required of a residence before chickens are allowed.

Fox said he would not want to live near someone with chickens.