Council not funding Agnew project

Creston City Council explained funding for Agnew Lofts was no longer on the table as area business owners spoke against the concept Tuesday night.

Gabe Carroll, a member of the Uptown Revitalization - Growth for Everyone group working to refurbish the North Maple Street building, asked the city at the Aug. 20 meeting for a $350,000 loan to fulfill the requirements made by Pinnacle Bank to receive a $550,000 loan for the project.

The overall $900,000 would be accompanied by various other donations and grants so 110 and 112 N. Maple Street could be converted into apartment living as Agnew Lofts. Carroll originally said he’d come back to the council Sept. 3 with more information. Because of that, numerous business owners in the area came to speak against the loan.

Creston real estate agent Retta Ripperger said that amount of money could go toward numerous other projects in the town.

“Compared to the price Gabe was asking for, we have at 315 W. Adams a Chinese restaurant that already has 10 rooms that are rentable and the price for the building is $335,000 asking price,” Ripperger said. “That’s in good condition, it’s not falling down, it doesn’t need demo. It’s ready to go.”

Following Ripperger, councilmember Jocelyn Blazek jumped in to share the council was no longer considering any funding for the Agnew Loft project. However, people continued to come up and speak against it.

“Giving somebody money to redo a building, that’s not going to help the downtown,” landlord Russ Wood said. “The places I take over, I pay 100% for. The houses, the buildings, everything else. It’s all done from my money, so I won’t ask for anything.”

Wood said he understands the city helping with storefronts and the outside of buildings, but all interior work should be paid for by the owner. “You’ve got the backing of almost all the landlords to fix up the exteriors of the houses,” he said. “The inside, let that go to the landlords, but the outsides, that’s what people are paying taxes on. If the place looks bad on the outside, that’s where help can be given to.”

While no one else spoke during public forum, the topic was brought up again during the public hearing for Amendment Number One to the Creston Urban Renewal Plan. Real estate broker Ruth Bolinger said while she understands the council is no longer working with Agnew Lofts, she is confused as to why the they are still referenced in the amendment under 1A.

“Everybody’s supporting regeneration and regrowth and renewal in our uptown area and the community surrounding it,” Bolinger said. “I think what I’m concerned about is, you had the opportunity to strike 1A from your plan and it didn’t happen. It clearly states and identifies Agnew Lofts in there.”

Bolinger also expressed concern that Amendment Number One was being voted on now, when the council voted on Amendment No. 2 at a previous meeting. However, these amendments are for two separate plans and not related to each other.

Lawyer and business owner Loretta Harvey also spoke at the public hearing, citing numerous concerns regarding the amendment to the Creston Urban Renewal Plan.

“Has anyone clarified the difference between Amendment Number One and Amendment Number Two?” Harvey asked. She went on to question Agnew Lofts and URGE and their transparency.

Harvey also made mention to conflicts of interest with Agnew Lofts and the council, despite no vote taking place regarding the building. Addam Wall, part owner of Agnew Lofts LLC, is also part owner of Maple Street Apartments II LLC, for which councilmember Kiki Scarberry is the property manager.

“If she’s currently managing the apartments for Maple Street Apartments II, will she be managing them for Agnew Lofts LLC?” Harvey asked “Does this create a conflict of interest for her? And one of her agents, Gabbi, is married to Martin Graham. Should Kiki or Martin be involved in council discussions or any of the votes concerning Agnew Lofts LLC?”

As the public hearing closed, Blazek and Scarberry asked to address the concerns mentioned.

“The issue relating to Amendment No. 1 versus Amendment No. 2... Amendment Number One is for the Urban Renewal Plan, Amendment Number Two is for the Urban Revitalization Plan,” Blazek said. “They are two different plans, they have nothing to do with each other. "

Blazek also addressed Agnew Lofts still being mentioned in the amendment, despite the council no longer being involved.

“The reason that 1A is still listed in here is because that is what was listed in here when we started the whole process to have the public hearing and that’s how it was presented when we set the public hearing,” Blazek said. “At our last meeting, I think it was pretty clear that the council had a lot of opposition and concerns regarding the Agnew Lofts project and they voluntarily withdrew their request.”

She explained she understood the concern with it still being in the amendment and was not opposed to letting the adoption of the amendment die until it could be changed.

Scarberry spoke regarding the conflict of interest in her vote. “In September of last year, I stated in a council meeting that I abstained from voting on LMI funds for Agnew Lofts, so the implication that I have somehow been hiding that is not true,” Scarberry said.

The council let the amendment die for the night. In order to bring it back, another public hearing will have to be set.

In other council news...

A public hearing was set for Sept. 17 regarding the raising of garbage collection rates in the city. Councilmember Josh Thompson explained the need for a rate increase.

“We have been historically taking all the trash up to Metro Park East. The plan was to increase our fees by over $30 a ton,” Thompson said. “In order to mitigate costs to taxpayers, we reached out and found another provider, which is out in Loess Hills. That was an increase in $12 a ton over what we are currently paying.”

In order to even the cost increase out, the city would need to increase the rate a minimum of $1.79. However, this would not cover the upcoming years and would lead to more increases sooner. Thompson said he favored a $3 increase per person, which councilmember Rich Madison agreed.

“I’m the last one you’ll ever hear advocating for increases, but as I study it, it’s really what we’ve got to do. Either that or make two increases,” Madison said. “We’re going to end up there eventually anyway.”