Council approves KCL Engineering development agreement after debate over funding source
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Council approved a development agreement with KCL Engineering to repair structural roofing elements but debated whether the $75,000 should come from the regulatory compliance fund or the property improvement fund; the council voted to proceed after staff said the work qualified as regulatory compliance due to historic-compatibility and structural elements.
The West Des Moines City Council approved a development agreement with KCL Engineering but not before a focused exchange over which municipal fund should pay the $75,000 cost.
Councilman Trevillian objected to using the regulatory compliance fund (RCF) for roofing work, saying the RCF is intended for items such as sprinklers or grease interceptors and that a roof is a property improvement. "Regulatory compliance fund is supposed to be for, sprinkler systems, grease interceptors... A roof is a property improvement," he said.
Ryan Moffitt, the city's community and economic development director, replied that the project includes a barrel-vault structural roof system and involves more than a simple membrane replacement: "This does consist more than just of the roof membrane itself... it's structurally part of the building... that's why the subcommittee felt it met the qualifications for the regulatory compliance fund." Moffitt said the subcommittee competitively scored and recommended the project for RCF eligibility.
Despite Trevillian's concern about whether using $75,000 from the RCF might prevent other code-mandated work from receiving funding, the council moved and unanimously approved the development agreement so KCL Engineering can proceed with work that staff characterized as necessary to preserve the structure's historic compatibility.
What happens next: The development agreement was formalized so work can commence; staff said they would provide the requested subcommittee scoring documentation to Councilman Trevillian.
Context: Council members emphasized the difference between resurfacing a roof membrane (which Trevillian described as a property improvement) and structural or historically compatible replacements that, per staff, can fall under RCF criteria. Trevillian asked staff to share the specific program language the subcommittee relied on for the decision.