HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - February 28, 2023, Regular Meeting of the Ames City CouncilAMENDED
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS – CITY HALL
February 28, 2023
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: The Mayor and City Council welcome comments from the public
during discussion. If you wish to speak, please complete an orange card and hand it to the City
Clerk. When your name is called, please step to the microphone, state your name for the record,
and limit the time used to present your remarks in order that others may be given the opportunity
to speak. The normal process on any particular agenda item is that the motion is placed on the
floor, input is received from the audience, the Council is given an opportunity to comment on the
issue or respond to the audience concerns, and the vote is taken. On ordinances, there is time
provided for public input at the time of the first reading.
CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 p.m.
RECOGNITION:
1. Recognition of Fitch Family Aquatic Center Donors
CONSENT AGENDA: All items listed under the Consent Agenda will be enacted by one motion.
There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a request is made prior to the time the
Council members vote on the motion.
1. Motion approving payment of claims
2. Motion approving Minutes of Regular Meeting on February 14, 2023, and Special City
Council Meetings on February 3, February 7, February 8 and February 9, 2023
3. Motion approving Change Orders for period February 1-15, 2023
4. Motion approving Civil Service candidates
5. Motion approving the renewal of the following Beer Permits, Wine Permits, and Liquor
Licenses
a. Class C Liquor License with Outdoor Service and Sunday Sales – BN’C Fieldhouse, 206
Welch Ave
b. Class C Liquor License with Outdoor Service and Sunday Sales – Coldwater Golf Links,
1400 South Grand Avenue, Pending Dramshop Review
c. Class E Liquor License with Class B Wine Permit, Class C Beer Permit (Carryout Beer)
and Sunday Sales – Kum & Go #113, 2801 East 13th Street
d. Class E Liquor License with Class B Wine Permit, Class C Beer Permit (Carryout Beer)
and Sunday Sales – Kum & Go #227, 2108 Isaac Newton Drive
e. Class F Liquor License with Outdoor Service and Sunday Sales – Elks Lodge, 533
Douglas, Pending Dramshop Review
f. Special Class C Liquor License – Homewood Golf Course, 401 East 20th Street
g. Special Class C Liquor License – The Spice Thai Cuisine, 402 Main Street
2
h. Class E Liquor License with Class B Wine Permit, Class C Beer Permit (Carryout Beer),
and Sunday Sales – Casey’s General Store #2905, 3612 Stange Road
i. Class E Liquor License with Class B Wine Permit, Class C Beer (Carryout Beer), and
Sunday Sales – Sam’s Club #6468, 305 Airport Road
6. Resolution approving request to carryover unspent funding from the StoryComm Project Fund
to the Capital Budget Line Item
7. Resolution partially rescinding Resolution No. 23-064 to correct date of public hearing to
March 28, 2023, for 2023 CyRide HVAC Improvements Project
8. Unify Phone System for the City
a. Resolution waiving the purchasing policies and procedures for competitive bidding
requirements and award single source procurement
b. Resolution authorizing staff to enter into an agreement to upgrade the City’s phone
system to ATOS-SSP Version 10 with Black Box Network Services, Maple Grove,
Minnesota, in the amount not to exceed $63,905.60
9. Purchase of MAPSG Virtualization Environment
a. Resolution waiving the Purchasing Policies and Procedures for competitive bidding
requirements and award a single source procurement
b. Resolution awarding contract to IP Pathways LLC, Urbandale, IA, for the purchase of
MAPSG virtualization environment in the amount not to exceed $136,221.10
10. Baker Subdivision
a. Resolution rescinding Resolution No. 23-047
b. Resolution setting March 14, 2023, as date of public hearing for the sale of Lot 8 to
Habitat for Humanity of Central Iowa
11. Resolution approving preliminary plans and specifications for Power Plant Lobby and
Restroom Renovations setting March 29, 2023 as bid due date, and April 11, 2023 as date of
public hearing
12. Resolution approving final plans and specifications and awarding contract to GE Grid
Solutions, Charleroi, PA in the amount of $474,915 to furnish 69kV SF6 Circuit Breakers
13. Resolution approving the professional services agreement for 2022/23 CyRide Pavement
Improvement (Lincoln Way)
14. Resolution approving Change Order No. 1 to TEI Construction Services, of Duncan, South
Carolina, in the amount of $95,000
15. Resolution approving Change Order No. 1 to hth companies, inc., of Union, Missouri, in the
amount of $245,000 $95,000
16. Resolution approving contract and bond for 2022/23 Seal Coat Street Pavement
Improvements (Murray Drive – Northwestern Avenue to Grand Avenue)
17. Resolution approving completion of public improvements for Compass Subdivision and
releasing letter of credit in full
18. 2021/22 Asphalt Street Pavement Improvements (Opal Dr., Opal Cir., Harcourt Dr.,
Turquoise Cir., and Top-O-Hollow Rd.)
a. Resolution approving Change Order No. 1, the Balancing Change Order, reducing the
contract in the amount of $129,856.34
3
b. Resolution accepting project completion by Manatt’s, Inc. of Ames, Iowa in the amount
of $2,003,523.68
PUBLIC FORUM: This is a time set aside for comments from the public on topics of City
business other than those listed on this agenda. Please understand that the Council will not take
any action on your comments at this meeting due to requirements of the Open Meetings Law, but
may do so at a future meeting. The Mayor and City Council welcome comments from the public;
however, at no time is it appropriate to use profane, obscene, or slanderous language. The Mayor
may limit each speaker to three minutes.
PLANNING AND HOUSING:
19. Resolution approving selection of a Partner Developer in connection with Low-Income
Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Proposals for multi-family housing Development in the Baker
Subdivision (321 State Avenue)
20. Staff report regarding Landscape Accents within building setback
21. Staff report regarding Setbacks for Vehicle Charging Stations
ADMINISTRATION:
22. Discussion of additional questions for the Resident Satisfaction Survey
HEARINGS:
23. Hearing of a Rezoning for a Master Plan Amendment at 798 N 500th Avenue (North Sunset
Ridge)
a. Resolution approving the amended Master Plan
24. Hearing on Zoning Text Amendment for Front Yard Parking and Driveway Standard
a. First passage of ordinance (Continued from January 24, 2023)
25. Hearing on Zoning Text Amendment on Lot Standards Related to Minimum Floor Area Ratios
a. First passage of ordinance
26. Hearing of a Minor Amendment to Ames Plan 2040 for a portion of the parcel located at 325
Billy Sunday Road
a. Resolution approving the Amendment to the Ames Plan 2040 Future Land Use Map
27. Hearing to Rezone a portion of the parcel located at 325 Billy Sunday Road from S-GA to
HOC
a. First passage of ordinance
28. Hearing on 2021/22 Shared Use Path System Expansion - Ioway Creek
a. Motion accepting Report of Bids
b. Resolution approving final plans and specifications and awarding contract to Caliber
Concrete, LLC of Adair, Iowa, in the amount of $967,665.92, contingent upon receipt of
Iowa DOT concurrence
29. Hearing on 2022/23 Ames Plan 2040 Water Utility Infrastructure
a. Motion accepting Report of Bids
b. Resolution approving final plans and specifications and awarding contract base bid and
add alternate to Thorpe Contracting, LLC of Adel, Iowa, in the amount of $705,672.00
4
30. Hearing on 2022/23 Pavement Restoration - Slurry Seal Program
a. Motion accepting Report of Bids
b. Resolution approving final plans and specifications and awarding contract to Fort Dodge
Asphalt Company of Fort Dodge, IA, in the amount of $210,646.60
31. Hearing on 2022/23 Shared Use Path Maintenance
a. Motion accepting Report of Bids
b. Resolution approving final plans and specifications and awarding contract to Mid Iowa
Enterprises, of Story City, IA in the amount of $109,046.00
ORDINANCES:
32. First reading of ordinance revising 28.309 of the Ames Municipal Code to amend the
Industrial Pretreatment Local Limits
33. Second passage of ordinance relating to RAGBRAI events on July 24-26, 2023
34. Third passage and adoption of ORDINANCE NO. 4490 of rezoning Planned Unit
Development (PUD) with Master Plan for 3216 Tripp Street – Baker Subdivision, Lot 27 from
Residential Low Density (RL) to Residential Medium Density (RM) with PUD Overlay and
Master Plan
DISPOSITION OF COMMUNICATIONS TO COUNCIL:
COUNCIL COMMENTS:
ADJOURNMENT:
Please note that this agenda may be changed up to 24 hours before the meeting time as
provided by Section 21.4(2), Code of Iowa.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL
AMES, IOWA FEBRUARY 14, 2023
The Regular Meeting of the Ames City Council was called to order by Mayor John Haila at 5:16
p.m. on the 14th day of February 2023, in the City Council Chambers in City Hall, 515 Clark
Avenue, pursuant to law. Present were Council Members Gloria Betcher, Bronwyn Beatty-Hansen,
Amber Corrieri, Tim Gartin, Rachel Junck, and Anita Rollins.
FY 2023/24 BUDGET WRAP-UP
Council Budget Presentations:
Public Art (PAC): Assistant City Manager Brian Phillips noted the Public Art component of
the budget contains two separate programs, including the Public Art Commission (PAC). The
Commission sponsors a variety of annual programs as well as one-time opportunities. For the
upcoming year, staff proposed the Commission receive $46,000. Mr. Phillips noted the budget
goes to finance the Ames Annual Outdoor Sculpture Exhibition, the Art in the Parks program,
and the Neighborhood Art Program. He reminded the City Council that this is the amount of
funding PAC has received for past several years, noting that no funding increases were being
requested.
Arts Funding (COTA): Assistant City Manager Phillips noted that the Commission on the
Arts (COTA) sponsors performing arts activities in the community. The City Council
authorized COTA to allocate $229,458 for the next fiscal year. This is a $12,988 (6%) increase
from the budgeted amount for the current FY 2022/23 fiscal year. A total of 19 agencies
submitted applications for funding this year, which is two more than the prior year. COTA
has recommended allocating $220,950 directly to agencies for FY 2023/24 annual grants and
reserving $8,508 for spring and fall special project grants. Mr. Phillips explained that the
special project grants are small grants designed for unique funding opportunities that come up
throughout the year that COTA can award to help agencies put on new creative activities. He
noted that COTA Chair, Nancy Gebhart, was present at the meeting for questions.
Human Services (ASSET): Assistant City Manager Deb Schildroth recognized the ASSET
volunteers, including Jenny Schill and Becky Harker, who were present at the meeting. Ms.
Schildroth announced that going into the ASSET process, there was a total of $5,007,069 from
all four ASSET funders, which was an increase of $207,825 or approximately a 4.3% increase. Of
this total, $4,824,030 was allocated to services, $181,650 was recommended for a Request for
Proposals (RFP) for Emergency Shelter services, and $1,389 is unallocated (all Story County
funds). The City Council had approved a 6% increase, resulting in available funds of $1,832,930
for FY 2023/24.
Notable service changes were reviewed by Ms. Schildroth. She noted that All Aboard for Kids
provides out of school programming during the summer to individuals on the autism spectrum.
This programming addresses a critical educational gap for kids needing a structured
environment while providing a respite opportunity for families and caregivers. All Aboard for
Kids’ request across all funders increased by 160% ($19,093) for a total of $30,906. Reasons
2
for the increase included sustaining a competitive hourly wage with competing summer
employment opportunities and offering a new service called Full STEAM Ahead. This service
falls under the ASSET category of Supported Employment for Developmentally Disabled in
that it provides training and support to youth ages 14-18 to develop the necessary soft skills
for competitive employment. The ASSET volunteers recommended City funding in the
amount of $11,239 (150% increase), as both services fall within the City’s mental health
priority.
National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) requested funds from the City for the first time
for their Family and Consumer Education service. This service provides monthly
programming in the community on topics about mental illness across all age groups. While
the request to the City was a modest amount, $1,200, the ASSET volunteers recommended
fully funding it as it meets the City’s priority for mental health services.
The Community Academy (TCA) was a new agency in the ASSET process for FY 2023/24.
TCA provides summer and out-of-school programming through nature-based and community
projects for youth aged 4-18. These collaborations with peers, mentors, and community
leaders help youth become engaged and invested in each other and their community. ASSET
funding would help offset the sliding fee scale for low - to moderate-income families. TCA
requested a total of $105,000 from all four ASSET funders. The request to the City was
$40,000, or approximately 38% of the total ASSET request. The ASSET volunteers
recommended a total of $17,972, of which the City’s share is $5,000. The rationale for the
recommendation is to integrate TCA into the ASSET process since it meets the priority
identified by the City Council for youth development and summer enrichment.
Assistant City Manager Schildroth moved on to the health panel to point out a few items of
interest. Primary Health Care (PHC) has operated a dental clinic in Ames/Story County since
2021 with the goal to provide well-rounded care by bridging medical, behavioral health, and
dental care. PHC served an unduplicated count of 1,500 Story County residents in FY 2021/22
and project serving 2,000 in FY 2022/23. PHC reported during their agency hearing that 75%
of their patient caseload is covered by Medicaid, and since they are a designated federally
qualified health center, their Medicaid reimbursement rates are enhanced. PHC requested a
total of $207,350 from ASSET Funders and this is less than 1% of their total budgeted
revenue. Because of PHC’s ability to access other funding sources, the volunteers are
recommending $145,136, a 23% decrease, across the City, County, and United Way. The
City’s portion is $80,000, a 16% decrease.
Under the Financial Stability Panel, which is the largest panel in the ASSET process in terms
of number of services and funding, Assistant City Manager Schildroth highlighted two
daycare facilities: Ames Community Preschool Center (ACPC) and University Community
Childcare (UCC). Both agencies are currently working with Housing Coordinator Vanessa
Baker-Latimer on plans to access federal CARES Act funds. ACPC plans to use these funds to
remodel space for the expansion of infant care. This project will result in a dedicated room for
infant care and help address the waiting list that ACPC has for this level of care. UCC has a waiting
list of approximately 127 children of all ages, and, like many other organizations and businesses,
they continue encountering difficulty attracting and retaining staff. A portion of their increased ask
3
supports increased wages to help fill seven staff vacancies.
Historically, the Red Cross has been funded through the City for Disaster Services. In their FY
2023/24 budget submittal, funds were not requested from the City, but subsequently requested a
substantial increase from United Way. City and United Way staff spoke with Red Cross
representatives who indicated that they have to follow a special internal process to request local
funding. By requesting funds only from United Way, the Red Cross thought that ASSET would
determine how that funding would be allocated by the other ASSET funders. The Red Cross
followed up by saying that because they carry a federal charter and have an agreement in place
with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), they will provide services regardless
of local funding. The ASSET volunteers recommended zero funding for FY 2023/24.
The Bridge Home (TBH) submitted a total budget request to ASSET for $429,059, reflecting
a $183,375 increase (75%) over the current year’s fun ding levels. TBH’s budget included a
request for a new service, Supportive Housing, the discontinuance of Transitional Living
services by the end of this fiscal year, and requests for Rapid Rehousing. The City portion of
the total request is $187,099, a 30% increase, and the volunteers are recommended a total
allocation of $188,216. The City’s portion would be $117,851 for a 18.5% decrease over the
current allocation. Assistant City Manager Schildroth spoke to the justification for those
changes, noting emergency shelter as a priority housing service for the City, County, and
United Way. There are continued concerns around TBH’s provision of Emergency Shelter
and it not meeting the community need. Therefore, in addition to the funding allocation
recommendations, the volunteers also recommended that ASSET Funders engage in an RFP
process for Emergency Shelter services and reserve a total of $181,650. During the RFP
process, ASSET staff will continue meeting regularly with TBH to ensure continuity of
services. Within the amount reserved for the RFP, the City’s portion is $66,258.
Council Member Gartin shared his feelings that over the last year there has been a disconnect
between the City and the Bridge Home in terms of the direction of Transitional Housing, and
asked for suggestions on what other conversations need to take place t o bridge that gap.
Assistant City Manager Schildroth explained the process ASSET staff and volunteers had
gone through over the last year to ensure the proper use of funding, noting that monthly
meetings had a tremendous benefit and value in creating a sha red vision. Council Member
Betcher shared her perspective, stating it is her belief that the expectations have been
maintained but the direction of the Bridge Home has changed in order to address the needs of
the community. Further discussion continued about the topic and Volunteer Becky Harker
shared that the volunteers have done their due diligence with public dollars through a data -
driven process centered on the priorities set by the City Council.
Outside Funding Requests: Assistant City Manager Phillips stated that Outside Funding
Requests are those requests that do not fit within the ASSET or COTA process. There are a
variety of agencies that historically request funding from the City through this process, and
all those agencies have requested funds again for FY 2023/24. The City Council authorized a
total of $294,319 for the operational and parking requests, an increase of 6%, which are
funded through the Local Option Sales Tax Fund. The City received ten applications, with a
request from the Ames Economic Development Commission (AEDC) for the Workforce
4
Development Program, which is traditionally funded from the Hotel/Motel Tax Fund because
it related to economic development. Thus, that request is not considered against the $294,319
that the City Council authorized.
Two new requests for Outside Funding were received from the American Legion Riders and
Home Allies. Additionally, Ames Main Street again requested funds for parking waivers for
metered parking during special events in the Downtown area. T he City Council has had a
policy for the last several years that the Parking Fund must be reimbursed for the lost revenue,
which is done through the Outside Funding process. Assistant City Manager Phillips
announced that it is the recommendation of staff to allocate the funding as listed in the requests
summary provided to the City Council on February 3, 2023.
Mr. Phillips explained that there were a number of agencies that did not request an increase,
thus those agencies are recommended to receive the full request. Most of the other agencies
are recommended to receive around a 5% funding increase, with American Legion Riders
recommended to receive financing for its entire request. The only agency recommended not
to receive funds through this process was Home Allies. Assistant City Manager Phillips
explained that the request from Home Allies was to supplement funding the City Council had
already authorized for the same project, and since it is a one-time activity, staff did not believe
that it fit with the intent of the funding. He reviewed the next steps should the City Council
approve the funding as recommended, noting that the contracts would be presented at a later
date for approval.
Council Member Beatty-Hansen asked if the parking waivers requested by Ames Main Street
could be funded through the remaining balance in the Hotel/Motel Tax dollars rather than Local
Option Sales Tax dollars. City Manager Schainker noted the pros and cons of the option,
explaining the importance of making a permanent change versus one time funding. Discussion
ensued with Assistant City Manager Phillips responding to an inquiry from Council Member
Gartin regarding the unintended consequences of the action by noting that the use of the dollars
for parking waivers aligns with the intent of the Hotel/Motel Tax fund as it related to economic
development type activities.
Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Betcher, to use Hotel/Motel Tax dollars in the amount
of $5,489.00 to fund the Outside Funding Request from Ames Main Street for Parking
Waivers.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Betcher, to fund the Home Allies request for Outside
Funding from the Local Option Sales Tax fund in the amount of $5,489.00, with the remaining
$4,511.00 paid through the FY 2023/24 City Council Contingency fund.
Council Member Beatty-Hansen provided her justification for the motion. Robust discussion
followed regarding the viability of this motion and the terms of the contract with Home Allies.
Assistant City Manager Phillips explained that the contract with Home Allies could obligate the
length of time the dollars would remain if not spent and constrain reimbursement to be upon
completion of the project, so the money would not be considered a donation to the project.
5
Vote on Motion: 5-1. Voting Aye: Beatty-Hansen, Betcher, Gartin, Junck, Rollins. Voting Nay:
Corrieri. Motion declared carried.
Other Requests: As no other requests were identified, Mayor Haila moved on to the Public Input.
Public Input on Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) and Budget: Mayor Haila opened the
Public Input.
Jodi Stumbo, 225 S. Kellogg Ave, Ames, spoke on behalf of the Bridge Home. She
acknowledged the discussion that was had around the ASSET recommendations and provided
additional information regarding the operations of the Bridge Home. She emphasized that
emergency shelter is the top priority of the agency to aid in finding a solution to the never -
ending cycle of homelessness.
Richard Deyo, 505-8th Street, #2, Ames, shared his experience with the Emergency Residence
Project. Mayor Haila reminded Mr. Deyo that this time was dedicated to input on the CIP or
Budget items and Mr. Deyo concluded his comments.
Mayor Haila closed the Public Input when no one else came forward to speak.
Final Council Decisions:
Amendments to 2023-2028 CIP: Moved by Corrieri, seconded by Betcher, to approve the
2023-2028 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP).
Council Member Gartin inquired about the timeframe for accommodating projects that may
be affected by actions proposed by the State Legislature. Director Goodenow discussed two
different options, with Mayor Haila noting that it is a statutory requirement to hold two Public
Hearings before approval, assuring Council Member Gartin that adequate input would be
gathered from the public and stakeholders.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Amendments to FY 2022/23 Adjusted Budget: Moved by Gartin, seconded by Junck, to
approve the Adjusted Budget for FY 2022/23.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Amendments to proposed FY 2023/24 Budget: Mayor Haila acknowledged the motions made
by Council Member Beatty-Hansen in regards to the requests for Outside Funding and
reviewed all other recommendations presented by Assistant City Manager Phillips and
Schildroth.
Council Member Gartin noted that the City Council heard a passionate plea from Jodi Stumbo
of the Bridge Home during Public Input and asked if any members had interest in taking action
on the funding request from the Bridge Home. Hearing no action, Mayor Haila concluded the
review of the recommendations.
6
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Corrieri, to approve the amendments to proposed FY 2023/24
Budget.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Betcher, to approve the proposed budget for FY
2023/24, as amended.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CONSENT AGENDA: Council Member Junck requested to pull Item No. 19, resolution
approving preliminary plans and specifications for 2022/23 Asphalt Pavement Improvements
(Oakwood Road) and setting March 8, 2023, as bid due date and March 14, 2023, as date of public
hearing.
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Betcher, to approve the consent agenda less Item No. 19.
1. Motion approving payment of claims
2. Motion approving Minutes of Regular City Council Meeting held January 24, 2023; and
Special City Council Meetings on January 17, January 28, and January 31, 2023
3. Motion approving Civil Service candidates
4. Motion approving Change Orders for period for January 16-31, 2023
5. Motion approving ownership update for Class E Retail Alcohol License – Hy-Vee Fast and
Fresh #2, 636 Lincoln Way
6. Motion approving ownership update for Class C Retail Alcohol License – Hy-Vee Market
Grille, 640 Lincoln Way Market Grille Area
7. Motion approving ownership update for Class C Retail Alcohol License – Hy-Vee #1
Clubroom, 3800 West Lincoln Way Clubroom Area
8. Motion approving ownership update for Class E Retail Alcohol License – Hy-Vee Food Store
#1, 3800 W Lincoln Way
9. Motion approving ownership update for Class E Retail Alcohol License – Hy-Vee Food &
Drugstore #2, 640 Lincoln Way
10. Motion approving the renewal of the following Beer Permits, Wine Permits, and Liquor
Licenses
a. Class E Liquor License with Class B Wine Permit, Class C Beer Permit (Carryout Beer),
and Sunday Sales – Wal-Mart Supercenter 4256, 534 South Duff Avenue
b. Class C Liquor License with Outdoor Service and Sunday Sales – Buffalo Wild Wings,
400 South Duff Avenue
c. Class C Liquor License with Outdoor Service and Sunday Sales – Noir, LLC, 405 Kellogg
11. RESOLUTION NO. 23-054 appointing a City Representative to the Central Iowa Regional
Housing Authority (CIRHA) Board of Commissioners
12. RESOLUTION NO. 23-055 approving Memorandum of Understanding with Iowa State
University to provide mutual backup emergency operations facilities
13. RESOLUTION NO. 23-056 accepting completion of Arts Capital Grant with Story Theater
Company and authorizing payment in the amount of $4,289
7
14. RESOLUTION NO. 23-057 waiving formal bidding requirements and accepting American
Pulverizer Company as single source supplier, and awarding contract in the amount of
$116,969 to rebuild the secondary shredder rotor at Resource Recovery
15. RESOLUTION NO. 23-058 approving partial completion of public improvements and
reducing security for Kingsbury 5th Addition
16. RESOLUTION NO. 23-059 approving completion of sidewalk construction for 2810 & 2824
Wakefield Circle and releasing cash security in full
17. RESOLUTION NO. 22-060 approving final project completion and approve the release of
retainage in the amount of $25,018.84 to Stein Heating & Cooling Inc., of Webster City, Iowa
for the CyRide 2022 HVAC Project Closeout
18. RESOLUTION NO. 22-061 approving preliminary plans and specifications for 2021/22
Accessibility Enhancement Program project and setting March 8, 2023, as bid due date and
March 14, 2023, as date of public hearing
19. RESOLUTION NO. 22-062 approving preliminary plans and specifications for 2022/23
Asphalt Pavement Improvements (Oakwood Road) and setting March 8, 2023, as bid due date
and March 14, 2023, as date of public hearing
20. RESOLUTION NO. 23-063 approving preliminary plans and specifications for 2022/23
Concrete Pavement Improvements (Brookridge Ave., Ridgewood Ave., Lee St., 9th St., Park
Way & Alley) and setting March 8, 2023, as bid due date and March 14, 2023, as date of
public hearing
21. RESOLUTION NO. 23-064 approving plans and specifications for 2023 CyRide HVAC
Improvements Project setting March 15, 2023, as bid due date and March 21, 2023, as date of
public hearing
22. RESOLUTION NO. 23-065 approving preliminary plans and specifications for Refuse
Derived Fuel (RDF) Storage Bin Repair setting April 5, 2023, as bid due date and April 18,
2023, as date of public hearing
23. RESOLUTION NO. 23-066 approving contract and bond for 2022/23 Downtown Street
Pavement Improvement Program
24. RESOLUTION NO. 23-067 approving contract and bond for 2022/23 Fire Station #3
Concrete Replacement
25. RESOLUTION NO. 23-068 accepting the 2019/20 Concrete Pavement Improvements (E 3rd
St., E 2nd St., Des Moines Ave, Center Ave, Douglas Ave, and 5th St.) as completed by
Manatt’s Inc. of Ames, Iowa
26. RESOLUTION NO. 23-069 accepting the Water Pollution Control Facility Methane Engine
Generator Replacement Project as completed by The Waldinger Corporation
27. RESOLUTION NO. 23-070 approving grant agreements for the 2022/23 Intelligent
Transportation System (ITS) Program (Phase 3)
28. RESOLUTION NO. 23-071 awarding contract for Ash Pond Cell Maintenance Services to
Wulfekuhle Injection & Pumping of Peosta, Iowa, in the amount not to exceed $103,300
(inclusive of Iowa sales tax)
29. RESOLUTION NO. 23-072 awarding contract for installation of fiber, security, and sound
equipment for the Steven L. Schainker Plaza to Communication Innovators of Pleasant Hill,
8
Iowa in the amount of $51,696 for the base bid components plus Bid Alternate #1 and Bid
Alternate #2
30. RESOLUTION NO. 23-073 awarding contract for the Water Treatment Plant High Service
Pump Variable Frequency Drive Project to Electric Pump of Des Moines, Iowa for the base
bid only in the amount of $59,395
31. RESOLUTION NO. 23-074 approving Change Order No. 1 to Integrated Global Services in
the amount of $151,000 for Boiler Tube Spray Coating and Related Services and Supplies
Contract
32. North Dayton Industrial Subdivision
a. RESOLUTION NO. 23-075 approving the Final Plat for the North Dayton Industrial
Subdivision, First Addition
b. RESOLUTION NO. 23-076 accepting financial security for public improvements
33. RESOLUTION NO. 23-077 approving proposed Plat of Survey for 4100 Dawes Drive and
accept Dedication of Right of Way
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motions/Resolutions declared carried/adopted unanimously, signed by the
Mayor, and hereby made a portion of these Minutes.
2022/23 ASPHALT PAVEMENT IMPROVEMENTS (OAKWOOD ROAD): Director of
Public Works John Joiner responded to a request from Council Member Junck to explain how Bike
and Pedestrian safety would be incorporated into the project. The project is planned to begin on
the west end of Timberland Road, continuing easterly to the roundabout at University Boulevard.
Center turn lanes will be incorporated for the major roads and entrances along the project, as well
as curb and gutter and stormwater improvements. City staff held a public meeting to gather input
on the project, in which staff gathered comments regarding bike and pedestrian improvements in
the project area. Those comments have been considered in the project design along with enhanced
crossings at Cedar Lane, Woodview Drive, and White Oak Drive. Additionally, Rapid Flashing
Beacons are planned for Green Hills Drive. Shared Use Path improvements are also planned from
Wessex Drive to University Boulevard, with safety improvements at Cedar Lane.
Council Member Beatty-Hansen asked if widening the road and lowering the speed limit were
conflicting actions. Director Joiner explained that both actions were targeted toward safety, with
the middle turn lane being for safety in intersection operation and lowering the speed limit being
for the safety of the corridor. He noted one other improvement gathered from public input was
lighting in the corridor. After consulting with staff in the Electric Services Department and at
Alliant Energy, it was determined that streetlights would be added to the project.
Mayor Haila inquired about the grade of the road. Director Joiner stated that the improvements are
considered a reconstruction project so the grade of the road will change, with an expected variation
of nine to twelve inches. He also noted that the sumac and scrub trees on the south side of Oakwood
Road will be removed to improve sight distance to the west.
9
Moved by Junck, seconded by Betcher, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 23-062 approving
preliminary plans and specifications for 2022/23 Asphalt Pavement Improvements (Oakwood
Road) and setting March 8, 2023, as bid due date and March 14, 2023, as date of public hearing.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared carried unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
PUBLIC FORUM: Mayor Haila opened the Public Forum.
Richard Deyo, 505-8th Street, #2, Ames, shared his experience with the United States Postal
Service.
Mayor Haila closed the Public Forum when no one else came forward to speak.
2021/22 CONCRETE STREET PAVEMENT IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT: Public Works
Director John Joiner noted this project is for the reconstruction of Stange Road (Blankenburg Drive
to 24th Street) and 24th Street (Stange Road to Railroad crossing). As the project design was
progressing, changes were identified based on a traffic analysis of Stange Road and 24th Street. It
was shown that the existing right turn lane of George Washington Carver onto Stange Road did
not have sufficient storage length, and the design of this right turn lane includes the adjacent Shared
Use Path. Additionally, the results from the initial analysis conducted by HR Green showed that
the 24th Street storm sewer system was undersized and lacking intakes. This finding required a
redesign of the corridor for spacing and locating new intakes. Further changes that happened in
during the design process included sidewalk improvements along the east side of Stange Road and
the placement of CyRide bus stop pads in the project.
In identifying these design changes, the consultant relayed to City staff that savings were available
in the design budget and the additional work would be covered without increasing the total contract
amount. The consultant proceeded with the additional work after this discussion, yet staff later
received an invoice from HR Green for this additional design work in the amount of $79,677.87.
City staff reviewed HR Green’s request compared to the original agreement and then met with HR
Green to discuss this additional design effort. There were several areas where staff believed
additional design expenses were not the responsibility of the City, due to the work being included
within the original agreement. After this discussion, HR Green ultimately agreed to reduce the
amount to $56,015.37. This would bring HR Green’s total fee for the design of Stange Road and
24th Street to $289,415.37.
Council Member Beatty-Hansen inquired about the addition of the sidewalk, wondering about the
width. Director Joiner clarified that the width on west side of Stange Road is Shared Use Path
width, thus the path on the east would be sidewalk width. Discussion continued as to the feasibility
of altering the design of the project to include Shared Use Path on the east side of Stange Road.
10
Mayor Haila shared his concern that staff did not receive an estimated fee proposal for the
additional work under the pretense that there were cost savings in other areas. Director Joiner
provided points of clarification, noting that the plan is complete, and the designs have been turned
over to City staff, resulting in a risk on the side of the contractor. Council Member Rollins asked
how the contractor responded when questioned as to why the terms of the contract were not
adhered to. Director Joiner stated that in terms of the technical design, the work was beyond the
scope of the contact; however, the contractor did not follow the financial and administrative
procedures. Council Member Gartin asked about the length of relationship between the City and
the contract. Director Joiner noted it was a decades-long relationship.
Council Member Gartin shared his support for approving the amendment, noting the importance
of maintaining goodwill. Council Member Betcher wondered if denying the amendment would
subject the City to the possibility of litigation, resulting in even higher costs. Further discussion
ensured between City Council members, and Council Member Gartin asked if Director Joiner
believed this action to be fraudulent. Director Joiner replied in the negative, highlighting his belief
that the issue came down to a mistake by a first-time project manager.
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Corrieri, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 23-078 approving the
professional services agreement amendment for the 2021/22 Concrete Street Pavement
Improvements project with HR Green, of Johnston, Iowa, in the amount of $56,015.37.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared carried unanimously and hereby made a portion of these
Minutes.
The City Council members continued robust discussion with Director Joiner regarding alterations
of the project design to include Shared Use Path on both sides of Stange Road. He noted the
possibility, highlighting the difference in material costs as construction and labor costs would
remain the same.
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Beatty-Hansen, to extend the Shared Use Path on the east side of
Stange Road to the intersection at 24th Street and Stange Road.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
PURCHASING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES: Finance Director Corey Goodenow
announced the request to modify the City’s competitive bid and competitive quote threshold to
follow the statutory limits set by State subcommittees. The threshold established by the State
subcommittees for horizontal infrastructure bids has been increased by $24,000, to $93,000; the
threshold for vertical infrastructure bids has been increased by $57,000, to $196,000; and the
threshold for vertical infrastructure quotes has been increased by $32,000, to $109,000.
Additionally, Director Goodenow noted that a change in Code of Iowa Chapter 26.2 provides an
exclusion to the definition of a public improvement which states that “when such work relates to
existing utility infrastructure or establishing connections to existing utility infrastructure. For
purposes of this subparagraph, ‘utility infrastructure’ includes facilities used for the storage,
collection, disposal, treatment, generation, transmission, or distribution of water, sewage, waste,
11
electricity, gas, or telecommunications service.” The definition will be added to Section 6.2 of the
Purchasing Policies and Procedures. Purchasing Manager Karen Server provided clarification that
the competitive bid threshold is for public improvements only. Council Member Gartin asked if
these changes were being implemented statewide. Manager Server replied in the affirmative.
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Rollins to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 23-079 approving revisions
to Purchasing Policies and Procedures to become effective February 14, 2023.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared carried unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
HEARING ON POWER PLANT MAINTENANCE SERVICES CONTRACT: Mayor Haila
opened and closed the Public Hearing when no one came forward to speak.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Junck, to accept the Report of Bids and direct staff to delay award
of contract.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
HEARING ON POWER PLANT UNIT 8 ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR
INSULATION AND LAGGING: The Public Hearing was opened and closed by Mayor Haila
when no one came forward to speak.
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Betcher, to accept the Report of Bids.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Betcher, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 23-080 approving final plans
and specifications and awarding contract to Incorp Industries, LLC of Evansville, IN, for the Unit
8 Electrostatic Precipitator Insulation and Lagging Project in the amount of $1,603,640.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared carried unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
HEARING ON ELECTRIC SERVICES COMBUSTION TURBINE FUEL OIL PIPE
INSTALLATION: Mayor Haila opened and closed the Public Hearing when no one came
forward to speak.
Moved by Rollins, seconded by Gartin, to accept the Report of Bids.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Gartin, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 23-081 approving final plans
and specifications and awarding contract to Modern Companies, Inc, Cedar Rapids, IA, for the
Combustion Turbine Fuel Oil Pipe Installation, in the amount of $391,700.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared carried unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
12
HEARING ON WATER TOWER SAM PUMP STATION STANDBY GENERATOR: The
Public Hearing was opened and closed by Mayor Haila when no one came forward to speak.
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Beatty-Hansen, to accept the Report of Bids.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Moved by Rollins, seconded by Gartin, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 23-082 approving final plans
and specifications and awarding contract to Price Electric of Robins, Iowa in the amount of
$166,390.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared carried unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
HEARING ON FURNISHING 69 KV AND 161 KV SF6 CIRCUIT BREAKERS FOR
ELECTRIC SERVICES: Mayor Haila opened and closed the Public Hearing when no one came
forward to speak.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Gartin, to accept the Report of Bids and direct staff to delay award
of contract.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
ORDINANCE RELATING TO RAGBRAI EVENTS ON JULY 24-26, 2023: Assistant City
Manager Brian Phillips noted the uniqueness of the ordinance, which remained in Chapter 34 of
Municipal Code as an expired ordinance since the city of Ames served as an overnight stop for the
Register’s Annual Great Ride Across Iowa (RAGBRAI) in 2018. The ordinance was developed
based on a model ordinance provided by RAGBRAI organizers, making modifications to
Municipal Code to facilitate the event during the week of the ride. City staff consulted with
Discover Ames and Downtown Ames to make modifications to the ordinance. Assistant City
Manager Phillips addressed the key points of the ordinance as follows: 1) Suspension of Section
19.11 (Park Hours) to Provide Camping; 2) Suspension of Section 19.9 (Unlawful to Operate a
Motor Vehicle in City Parks); 3) Suspension of Division III, Chapter 22 (Vending); and 4)
Limitation on Temporary Outdoor Service Privileges.
The City Council Members engaged in thoughtful discussion surrounding the Limitation on
Temporary Outdoor Service Privileges, voicing concern regarding limiting commerce for certain
businesses during the affected time period. Assistant City Manager Phillips explained that the
limitation would affect only outdoor service areas on public property, such as sidewalk cafés, and
not outdoor service for businesses operating solely on private property. Council Member Junck
asked if communications had been extended to local businesses that may be affected by the
ordinance. Assistant City Manager Phillips replied that the Ames Main Street Board of Directors
is aware of the ordinance and has been supplying information to its stakeholders.
Mayor Haila opened the Public Input.
13
Kevin Bourke, 1601 Golden Aspen Drive #110, Ames, spoke on behalf of Discover Ames. He
provided clarification on the Limitation on Temporary Outdoor Service Privileges from the
perspective of the planning committee, noting that the main motivation for the limitation was to
ensure the safety of all attendees. He shared that with this being the 50th Anniversary of
RAGBRAI, the number of attendees is expected to be significantly increased from what was seen
in 2018. He shared that no outreach has been done to local businesses on behalf of Discover Ames
yet but assured the City Council that communication is a priority of the planning committee.
Crystal Davis, 304 Main Street, Ames, spoke on behalf of the Ames Chamber of Commerce. She
highlighted the notification process to Downtown Businesses thus far, supporting Mr. Bourke’s
statement that communication is a priority. She shared the complaints she received after the
overnight stay in 2018, noting that most complaints, such as not having enough local
entertainment, were outside of the scope of responsibilities of the planning committee. Other
complains, such as concerns about limited bike and car parking, were actively being addressed
with RAGBRAI staff. She shared her personal concerns with the anticipated increase in attendees
and monitoring alcohol, explaining the plan of action to ensure there are no liquor license
violations.
Assistant City Manager Phillips provided further clarification on the duration of the ordinance,
which is until 12:01 a.m. on July 27, 2023, highlighting that sidewalk cafés deemed to be in conflict
with the entertainment planned by the committee shall only be suspended on July 25, 2023.
Mayor Haila closed the Public Input when no one else came forward to speak.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Beatty-Hansen, to pass on first reading an ordinance relating to
RAGBRAI events on July 24-26, 2023.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
REZONING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) WITH MASTER PLAN FOR 3216
TRIPP STREET – BAKER SUBDIVISION: Moved by Betcher, seconded by Rollins, to pass
on second reading an ordinance rezoning Planned Unit Development (PUD) with Master Plan for
3216 Tripp Street – Baker Subdivision, Lot 27 from Residential Low Density (RL) to Residential
Medium Density (RM) with PUD Overlay and Master Plan.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO AMEND HOME OCCUPATION REGULATIONS:
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Rollins, to pass on third reading and adopt ORDINANCE NO.
4488 Zoning Text Amendment to amend Home Occupation regulations.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
PRAIRIE VIEW INDUSTRIAL CENTER CONNECTION DISTRICT: City Attorney Mark
Lambert noted the amendment to the ordinance for Parcel 42 and presented the new draft of the
14
ordinance. He clarified that in order to properly amend the ordinance, one language change needed
to be made to strike the word “existing” from Section 5(a).
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Beatty-Hansen, to approve the amendment to the Prairie View
Industrial Center Water and Sanitary Sewer Connection Fee Ordinance consistent with the
presented draft, with the exclusion of the word “existing” in Section 5(a).
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Corrieri, to pass on second reading an ordinance to amend the
Municipal Code of the City of Ames, Iowa, by enacting a new Chapter 28, Section 28.908 as
amended.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Moved by Corrieri, seconded by Rollins, to suspend the rules.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Moved by Corrieri, seconded by Betcher to pass on third reading and adopt ORDINANCE NO.
4489.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
DISPOSITION OF COMMUNICATIONS TO COUNCIL: Mayor Haila noted there were
three items to consider. The first item was a memo from Chief Huff regarding fines for Minors on
Premise.
Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Corrieri, to place the item on a future agenda.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
A memo from Chief Huff responding to a referral from the City Council addressing facility
concerns regarding the Ames Animal Shelter was the second item. City Manager Schainker noted
the memo was for information only.
The third item was an email from Kurt Friedrich requesting a Land Use Policy Plan Map Change
at the Bluffs at Dankbar Farms Subdivision to establish a permanent location for Lutheran Church
of Hope.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Corrieri, to refer to staff for a memo.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
COUNCIL COMMENTS: Council Member Gartin discussed the use of vehicles as a residence
within City limits, with respect to safe housing and parking concerns. Council Member Beatty-
Hansen shared her thoughts on finding a safe location designated for parking and agreed that a
robust discussion was needed.
Moved by Gartin to refer to staff for a memo on available options with respect to community
members living in their vehicles. Motion withdrawn.
15
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Betcher, to place the issue on a future agenda to discuss the
available options as outlined in a memo from City Manager Steve Schainker.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Mayor Haila announced the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
(NAACP) Freedom Fund Banquet that would be taking place on Thursday, February 16, 2023.
ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Gartin, seconded by Corrieri, to adjourn the meeting at 7:39 p.m.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
__________________________________ ____________________________________
Carly M. Watson, Deputy City Clerk John A. Haila, Mayor
__________________________________
Renee Hall, City Clerk
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL
AMES, IOWA FEBRUARY 3, 2023
The special meeting of the Ames City Council was called to order by Mayor John Haila at 2:00
p.m. on the 3rd day of February, 2023, in the City Council Chambers in City Hall, 515 Clark
Avenue, pursuant to law. Present were Council Members Bronwyn Beatty-Hansen, Gloria Betcher,
Amber Corrieri, Tim Gartin, Rachel Junck, and Anita Rollins.
BUDGET OVERVIEW FOR RECOMMENDED 2023/24 FISCAL YEAR: City Manager
Steve Schainker reported that this was the most discouraging budget process he had experienced
since becoming City Manager. Numerous bills under consideration by the state legislature would
negatively impact the City’s ability to generate revenue. The state legislature appears concerned
about substantial increases in assessed property values for next year, which would lead to
significantly higher tax burdens if property tax rates remained the same. City Manager Sch ainker
clarified the City sets the tax rate each year so as to collect only the amount of revenue to provide
the level of service which residents expect at the lowest cost. Often, when assessed values increase,
the City is able to reduce property tax rates. The increase in assessed valuation this year was
nominal at 2.6%, so this budget included a slight levy increase.
The most significant impacts to the budget were the known impacts of recent actions by the state
legislature, which affect the revenue side of the budget. The General Fund, which pays for Parks
and Recreation, Library, Fire, and Police, is supported by property taxes. The actual expenditure
askings for these departments were up only 3.6%, a remarkable achievement in a year when the
uncontrollable costs are rising significantly. Staff worked hard to keep expenditures at a reasonable
level.
City Manager Schainker provided an overview of four state actions which negatively impacted the
revenue side of the budget. First, in 2013, the state legislature ruled that commercial and industrial
properties would no longer pay taxes on 100% of their taxable value. The state promised to backfill
the revenue which local governments lost in this rollback to make up the difference. For Ames,
this was $970,000 a year. In 2021, the state decided to phase out the backfill program over a period
of five years. The impact to the FY 2023/24 budget will be a reduction of $195,000.
Second, the state legislature recategorized multifamily properties so that they would receive the
Residential Property rollback rate, taking these properties from paying on 90% of their taxable
value to only 56.5%. Next year, Ames is projected to lose $217,000 in revenue from this change.
Third, the state legislature has implemented a two-tiered system for taxing commercial and
industrial properties. The first $150,000 of assessed value will be taxed at the residential rollback
rate, meaning that commercial and industrial properties will pay on 56.5% of the first $150,000
instead of 90%. It is estimated that this could result in as much as $400,000 of lost revenue. The
state currently claims that the lost revenue will be backfilled, so the FY 23/24 budget includes that
amount, but City Manager Schainker warned that the City might not be able to count on the state
fulfilling that commitment in future years.
Fourth, the state legislature was actively considering Senate File 181, which would correct a
miscalculation in the rollback rate. State officials calculate the rate and give it to local
governments, and cities build budgets around that number. The number given to local governments
for the residential rollback rate was 56.5%. State officials discovered that the rate should have been
set at 54%, and the legislature is primed to make that correction effective immediately, even though
many cities around the state have already completed budgets based on 56.5%. The estimated loss
of revenue from this correction for Ames is about $775,000. City Manager Schainker noted that
this state action meant the budget presented would almost certainly have to change in the next
week to account for a loss of $775,000 in revenue.
To conclude the introduction, City Manager Schainker observed that the state legislature was
eroding home rule by affecting the City’s ability to raise revenue. City Manager Schainker noted
that this Mayor and City Council have always tried to provide quality services to customers, and
hoped unwanted cutbacks would not have to be made. He recognized the work of Mayor Haila
advocating for the City at the state legislature and providing leadership for other localities as well.
Council Member Gartin thanked Mayor Haila for his leadership in state-level advocacy. He invited
City Manager Schainker to explain how long staff has been working on the budget. City Manager
Schainker explained that creating the budget is a four-to-five-month process that staff takes
seriously. Council Member Gartin expressed frustration with the state legislature, especially
related to the rollback rate correction. He noted that state officials were aware of the error four to
five months ago, but neglected to inform cities so it could be proactively accounted for in the
budgeting process. Council Member Betcher thanked Council Member Gartin for articulating his
frustration, indicating that she and other City Council members shared the sentiment.
City Manager Schainker explained that the presentation would be a high-level overview of the
budget, with in-depth analysis of particular programs to come in the budget hearings the following
week.
Finance Director Corey Goodenow presented the Special Reports for FY 2023/24 Budget. To
begin, he noted that the City is not the only recipient of property taxes. In fact, Ames Public
Schools receives the largest percentage of property taxes at 46.53%, followed by the City at
32.02%, Story County at 19.19%, and Des Moines Area Community College at 2.26%. Two years
ago, the City’s tax rate per $1000 of taxable value was $9.87. The rate for FY 22/23 was $9.82.
Compared to peer cities in Iowa, Ames’s tax rate per capita is low. Most peer cities have their
General Levy maxed out at the $8.10 cap, while Ames retains flexibility in that category at $5.51.
Breaking down the proposed levy with the Utilities Excise Tax included, Director Goodenow
noted that the proposed General Levy would be $5.56, a five-cent or less than one percent increase.
The Employee Benefits Levy funds Police and Fire Department retirements, and the amount the
City is required to contribute saw a one percent decrease. There are also separate levies for Transit
and Debt Service. Staff works to keep the Debt Service rate consistent even while debt service
costs fluctuate year to year.
Mayor Haila noted that Ames residents should be proud that the City has not maxed out the General
Levy rate and pays for some expenses which other levy categories can cover out of the General
Fund. This means that the City will have some flexibility in responding if the state legislature
decides to also limit General Levy increases. Director Goodenow concurred that the City is in a
good position financially to continue to provide services as long as the state does not cap total tax
collection. Council Member Gartin expressed concern that moving things between different levies
may create a game of whack-a-mole with the state legislature, so creative budgeting could backfire.
City Manager Schainker commented that the state legislature is also considering changes to the
Local Option Sales Tax, which could hurt City revenue. Mayor Haila noted discussion at the state
level of rolling back commercial tax rates an additional 10%, which could result in another
$1,000,000 of lost revenue.
Summing up the tax levy breakdown, Director Goodenow stated that the proposed overall levy
rate of $9.96 represents a 13-cent increase, or 1.36%. This rate is the incremental amount needed
to continue the same level of service for residents. Director Goodenow pointed out that this
increase is largely driven by state legislative impacts, demonstrating that the non-impacted rate
would have been $9.84, a mere two-cent increase from the previous year.
To illustrate the impact of Senate File 181, Director Goodenow presented the tax levy breakdown
with adjusted rates. If this bill correcting the residential rollback calculation goes into effect, the
City would lose $775,000 in revenue from the presented budget. The adjusted tax rate to cover that
loss of revenue would go up to $10.19, an increase of 23 cents on top of the 13-cent increase
proposed in the Draft Budget. Director Goodenow emphasized that the requested dollar amount
remains the same. Council Member Betcher observed that 36 cents would be a historic leap in the
levy rate, when more often than not the City is able to lower the rate. She expressed frustration
that this course of action may be forced by the state legislature.
Director Goodenow explained that the levy rate has been managed for consistency over the past
five years; while valuation fluctuated, the City demonstrated sound fiscal management in keeping
the rate consistent, refusing to take advantage of increased valuation to collect more revenue. The
City saw a 2.61% increase in total taxable valuation, with 1.34% coming from new construction
and 1.13% from existing property. There was a shift from commercial to residential not due to
increases in residential growth, but rather the reclassification of multi-family properties from a
different property tax class.
In the Fire and Police Trust Fund, the balance has been drawn down over the past 32 years, ending
at around $15,000 after the allocation this year. For the Debt Service cost allocation, streets make
up the majority of existing debt, and some debt is abated. The total debt service cost for FY 2023/24
is $11,143,151, which sets the Debt Service levy for the year at $3.17. Director Goodenow
surveyed the schedule of current and proposed debt through 2029, demonstrating the plan to
minimize spikes in the Debt Service levy with the Debt Service Fund balance. This schedule did
not include potential abatement revenue from the Linc Development Project.
Next, Director Goodenow offered sample tax calculations for different property classes based on
the proposed budget and based on the changes Senate File 181 would require, noting that the latter
scenario would still result in a reduced total contribution to the budget from residential taxpayers,
even with the rate increased by 36 cents. Director Goodenow clarified for Mayor Haila that the
large increase in valuation from the 2021 assessments would show up in next year’s budget, but
the state is expected to increase the rollback so that residential properties would only pay on 48%
of their assessed value.
Budget Manager Nancy Masteller discussed the summary of change in tax asking for FY 2023/24.
The total increase is $1,217,287, with the majority of that amount needed in the General Levy. She
covered the components of the fund, pointing out how remarkable it is that departmental expenses
only increased 3.7% when inflation and uncontrollable expenses are on the rise. In sum, just over
one million dollars in the General Fund are available from savings in FY 2022/23 for one-time
expenditures. These proposed one-time expenditures include $154,000 for Alternative Response
for Community Health (ARCH), $150,000 for a soccer pitch, $100,000 for a Community DEI
Plan, $200,000 for City Hall carpet replacement, $100,000 for City Auditorium HVAC
replacement, and $325,000 for sustainability in the City Council Priorities Fund. Council Member
Gartin expressed concern about putting one-time expenditure funds toward a new program like
ARCH. Council Members Beatty-Hansen, Betcher, Corrieri, and Junck emphasized that the
funding would be supporting a pilot run of the program to generate the data that would be needed
to assess the merits of building it into the regular budget. City Manager Schainker again
discouraged the City Council from trying to address the potential $775,000 revenue gap from the
rollback correction in Senate File 181 with one-time savings from the General Fund. The change
in the rollback rate is permanent rather than a one-time problem.
Budget Manager Masteller discussed the property tax cost of services per residence, noting that
public safety comprises the bulk of the cost. Additionally, City Manager Schainker noted that three
authorized Full Time Equivalent (FTE) positions are being added, including a Sustainability
Coordinator, a maintenance worker, and a librarian.
Addressing Utility rates, City Manager Schainker explained that City utilities are run more like a
business, setting rates at a level to cover operating and capital improvement costs. This differs
from programs funded by the General Fund, which largely subsidizes operations for things people
cannot actually afford. Director Goodenow observed that the City typically alternates rate
increases for Water and Sewer to keep consumer costs from spiking. In FY 2023/24, there are no
proposed increases to Electric, Sewer, Storm Sewer, or Resource Recovery rates, with an 8.0%
increase for Water. The median residential utility bill is estimated to have a total increase of 1.58%
as a result, while the median commercial bill would increase 0.62%.
Director Goodenow drew attention to attachments addressing requests for funding and Parks and
Recreation and Cemetery fee increases.
Mayor Haila recessed the meeting at 3:47 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 3:55 p.m.
Budget Manager Masteller presented an overview of the Fund Summaries in the Draft Budget,
including the General Fund, Special Revenue Funds, Capital Projects, Permanent Funds,
Enterprise Funds, Debt Service, and Internal Service Funds. Regarding the General Fund, Budget
Manager Masteller noted that the City maintains a minimum fund balance of 25% of revenues per
the recommendation of the City’s bond advisors.
Special Revenue Funds include Local Option Sales Tax, Hotel/Motel Tax, Road Use Tax, Public
Safety Special Revenues, Citywide Housing Programs, Community Development Block Grant,
Home Investment Partnership Program, CDBG/COVID-19 CARES Act, IEDA/COVID-19
CARES Act, HOME/American Rescue Plan, Employee Benefit Property Tax, Fire/Police Pension,
Parks and Recreation Donations and Grants, FEMA/COVID-19, FEMA/Derecho 2020, American
Rescue Plan, Library Donations and Grants, Utility Assistance, Miscellaneous Donations,
Developer Projects, Economic Development, and Tax Increment Financing (TIF). In relation to
the Hotel/Motel Tax, Council Member Betcher commented that the Ames Convention and
Visitor’s Bureau (ACVB) is now doing business as Discover Ames, but since it is still officially
registered as ACVB, the names are sometimes used interchangeably. City Manager Schainker
drew the attention of the City Council to page 294 of the Draft Budget, noting for the record that
some initial costs for the Fitch Family Indoor Aquatic Center were paid for out of the portion of
the Hotel/Motel Tax set aside for Economic Development, since those costs were unbudgeted.
Further, Budget Manager Masteller discussed the Capital Projects funds, included Special
Assessments, Street Construction, Airport Construction, Park Development, Winakor Donation,
Indoor Aquatic Center, Council Priorities Capital Fund, and Bond Proceeds. The City is legally
limited to only spending fund earnings for the two Permanent Funds, the Cemetery and the Donald
and Ruth Furman Aquatic Center Trust.
Financed and operated like private business enterprises, the City’s Enterprise Funds include
Airport Operations, Airport Improvements, Airport Sigler Reserve, Water Utility, Water
Construction, Water Sinking, Sewer Utility, Sewer Improvements, Sewer Sinking, Electric Utility,
Electric Sinking, SunSmart Community Solar, Parking Operations, Parking Capital Reserve,
Transit Operations, Transit Student Government Trust, Transit Capital Reserve, Stormwater
Utility, Stormwater Improvements, Ames/ISU Ice Arena, Ice Arena Capital Reserve, Homewood
Golf Course, and Resource Recovery. City Manager Schainker noted that the Transit Capital
Reserve is building a healthy balance for future expansion of the existing CyRide facility. He also
commented that the Ames/ISU Ice Arena has struggled with generating revenue due to the Covid-
19 pandemic and the temporary suspension of the ISU hockey teams. On the other hand,
Homewood Golf Course is thriving, with operating funds being available to contribute toward a
CIP project. The balance could sustain the fund if revenue generated by the cell tower lease on the
course was lost. Budget Manager Masteller explained that the Resource Recovery Fund was stable,
but possible changes based on the results of the Waste-to-Energy Study could impact future
performance.
Budget Manager Masteller stated that the Debt Service Fund proceeds are used to pay principal
and interest for General Obligation Bond debt. Lastly, Internal Service Funds include Fleet
Services, Fleet Replacement Reserve, Fleet Services Reserve, Shared Communication System,
Printing Services, Messenger Services, Risk Management, and Health Insurance.
Council Member Gartin inquired whether actions by the state legislature could be targeting fund
balances. Director Goodenow observed that spending down fund balances would harm the City’s
bond rating, which would increase long-term debt costs.
City Manager Schainker thanked the City Council members for their time and encouraged them to
prepare for difficult decisions at Budget Wrap-Up. Director Goodenow explained that the decision
made on February 14th will set a cap on the amount of revenue that can be collected, so once the
hearing date is set adjustments can only be made to reduce the budget. Mayor Haila commented
that some communities were considering delaying setting the hearing date due to the uncertainty
the state legislature had created.
DISPOSITION OF COMMUNICATIONS TO COUNCIL: Mayor Haila stated that there were
no communications to the City Council.
COUNCIL COMMENTS: Council Member Betcher recognized Iowa State University’s
celebration of George Washington Carver Day. She also commented that she was glad Homewood
Golf Course was doing well.
ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Betcher, seconded by Rollins, to adjourn the meeting at 4:49 p.m.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL
AMES, IOWA FEBRUARY 7, 2023
The Special Meeting of the Ames City Council was called to order by Mayor John Haila at 5:14
p.m. on the 7th day of February 2023, in the City Council Chambers in City Hall, 515 Clark
Avenue, pursuant to law. Present were Council Members Gloria Betcher, Bronwyn Beatty-Hansen,
Amber Corrieri, Tim Gartin, Rachel Junck, and Anita Rollins.
City Manager Steve Schainker noted that on Friday, February 3rd, 2023, the City Council was able
to engage in a high-level overview of financing for the total budget prior to reviewing the
individual programs and activities at the meetings this week. Mr. Schainker asked the City Council
to pay particular attention to the financing aspect as each Department head would be focusing their
presentations on the service levels that are being provided from the funding sources.
FY 2023/24 BUDGET PROPOSALS:
Culture and Recreation Program: Library Director Sheila Schofer and Adult Services Manager
Megan Klein Hewett discussed the budget for the Library and the impact this funding has on the
Ames community. Ms. Schofer shared that libraries are a key component in providing critical
information, resources, and spaces for learning and connecting, not only to the world of ideas, but
to fellow community members. She noted that the Library uses a strategic plan created with input
from community stakeholders and residents to focus ongoing work in the areas of equity, inclusion,
civic engagement, access, wellness, and staff development, which has guided Library staff to do
thoughtful, challenging, and impactful work.
Director Schofer presented the functions of Library Administration and Library Customer Account
Services, while Manager Klein Hewitt showcased Library Resource Services, Library Youth
Services, and Library Adult Services. Each presentation highlighted the staffing and operations of
the respective services and emphasized the community partnerships that generate success. Ms.
Schofer also directed focus to the work of volunteers and their integral roles in keeping the Library
running.
Council Member Gartin inquired about the cost increase for Adult Services. Ms. Schofer replied
that the increase is due to an additional authorized full-time employee (FTE). Council Member
Betcher asked about the shared staff position with Iowa State University (ISU) and what Library
staff is doing to maximize the potential of that partnership. Manager Klein Hewett noted the shared
position helps connect the Library to student clubs and organizations, and facilitates use of Library
space for community events. Council Member Rollins wondered if the Library gathers any
demographic information regarding the patronage of the facility. Director Schofer replied in the
negative, citing privacy issues as the rationale. Council Member Gartin, along with Council
Member Betcher and Rollins, thanked the Library staff for their dedication to providing needed
services to the community and commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion.
2
Utilities Program: Water and Pollution Control Director John Dunn introduced the leadership
team for the department and reviewed the business and technical support functions of each
division. He highlighted that the expenses for personnel support services were down for the current
year, with the expectation that vacant positions would be filled after onboarding a new Assistant
Director. Director Dunn provided a snapshot of events and outreach done by the department before
diving into a high-level overview of the Water Treatment Plant Operations.
Director Dunn focused on the weather trends for the area, as weather drives the demand for
drinking water and an abnormally dry summer led to an all-time record demand for any 30-day
period for drinking water in August 2022. City staff has seen this demand continue over the last
six months and investigations revealed no issues with billing or metering. Costs for services being
driven by customer demand, coupled with commodity prices, served as the rationale for the
increase in operating costs. Director Dunn provided detailed examples of chemical inputs and
associated costs for the commodities line item of the draft budget. Mayor Haila inquired about
research being done by an ISU Student Operator to reduce the consumption of chemical inputs.
Director Dunn stated Nicole Martindale is a graduate student at ISU looking at the split treatment
operating scheme that could bring down the quantity of lime required. She is investigating two
avenues to ensure that the operating does not create any type of virus loading increase and
bypassing some of the water around the lime softening does not create corrosion issues
downstream in the plant.
City staff was anticipating revisions to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) interim health
limits Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in December 2022; however,
revisions have not yet been released. Director Dunn explained staff at FOX Strand conducted a
high-level investigation to examine the associated costs should it be required to treat down to the
interim health advisory levels. He emphasized the importance of the study in preparing staff for
when the EPA sets an actual drinking water limit.
Director Dunn continued the presentation by showcasing the projects out for bid and the awards
received by the department before transitioning into the Water Pollution Control Facility,
highlighting the ISU student operators that tie the two facilities together. He proudly announced
the success of the program, noting the future of the water profession is in good hands. One of the
positive outcomes of the cohort is, when considered with full-time operators, the operating team
is 50% female.
Council Member Beatty-Hansen asked if staff saw similar increases in treating water reflected
from the demand for drinking water. Director Dunn noted the flows at the two plants tend to move
inversely from one another, though staff did see the demand for drinking water create some
operational challenges in adhering with perfect compliance to the discharge permit from the Iowa
Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Mayor Haila asked if the permit would extend to a new
facility. Director Dunn replied in the negative, noting the permit has a five-year life; however, the
DNR would likely provide an amended permit for the new facility.
Director Dunn walked through the functions and projects of the Water and Pollution Control
Laboratory Services division and the Water and Pollution Control Metering Services division
3
before highlighting the Rate and Fee Adjustments that would be proposed at a future meeting for
effect on July 1st, 2023.
Council Member Betcher noticed the facility operations were at a cost per million gallons and
wondered about the cost of treatment at the front end as compared to the back end. Director Dunn
explained the cost values are the operating expense not including the capital expense, thus the
commodity inputs account for that difference. Council Member Rollins asked how staff is
preparing to protect the water supply in the case of a natural disaster. Director Dunn walked
through the steps staff is taking, highlighting the installation of standby power at the wells to ensure
the drinking water supply is sufficient to meet the minimum day demand.
Public Works Director John Joiner then shifted focus to the other side of the water system by
reviewing the Water Distribution System, Sanitary Sewer Collection System, S tormwater Permit
Program, and Stormwater System Maintenance. He recognized staff in each of these areas, noting
the awards received over the past year for outstanding service to the public sector, and public
education and outreach done by each division to ensure successful services.
Resource Recovery also received a notable statewide award for Outstanding Waste Diversion for
Rummage RAMPage, which has been a triumphant event that continues to grow. He highlighted
several diversion activities that Resource Recovery conducts as well as the City partnerships that
make it possible. Council Member Gartin asked if the designation change for the Boone County
Landfill altered how the City utilizes that property and the available options that exist for waste
disposal. Director Joiner noted the use did not change; rather the reporting and testing requirements
for the site did.
Transportation Program: Director Joiner presented the activities and services of the
Transportation Program including Public Works Administration, Public Works Engineering,
Public Works GIS, Traffic Engineering, Traffic Operations, Street Lights, Street System, Parking
Operations, and Airport Operations. He highlighted the Ames on the Go app, noting staff has
expanded use to other departments including Electric, Fire, Parks and Recreation, and Water and
Pollution and Control. The app has eased the process for citizens to report snow-covered
sidewalks, water main breaks, and other concerns in the community. He also showcased the CO-
OP Program, a partnership with ISU, which has been a successful opportunity and has helped
connect consultants with emerging engineers. Lastly, Director Joiner discussed the Smart Meter
Conversion. Each Smart Meter installed will serve two parking spots at a time and the conversion
will begin in the Downtown area with project completion in seven to eight years.
Council Member Rollins inquired about the street sweeper and the schedule it runs on. Director
Joiner noted the sweeper runs on a weekly schedule that focuses on commercial areas of town,
with residential areas being swept less frequently.
General Government/Internal Services: Fleet Services Director Corey Mellies discussed Fleet
Services and Facilities. He reviewed the Fleet Operations of administration and maintenance,
highlighting the fuel trends and estimated costs, which City Manager Schainker clarified did not
include fuel for CyRide busses. Council Member Betcher inquired about the difference in
biodiesels as shown on the graph. Director Mellies clarified the diesel identified on the graph was
4
stored in remote tanks mostly for construction and maintenance equipment. He furthered the
presentation by noting the impact of electric and hybrid vehicles on the fuel trends and
maintenance expenses. The future of Fleet will be decided in part by the Climate Action Plan
implementation and available vehicles at Fleet pricing, with the goal to ensure the Fleet is able to
continue supporting the needs of all City departments.
Mayor Haila noted the billable hours of the Maintenance Technicians, wondering if there is a need
for five technicians. Director Mellies assured the Mayor that the technicians do not see a lot of
downtime, highlighting that billable hours do not include assistance with facility related projects.
City Manager Schainker replied to the inquiry from Mayor Haila regarding comparing
maintenance needs with other cities, noting that Supervisory Level staff can conduct individual
performance of the technicians and do an internal comparison on efficiency. Director Mellies
concurred noting that Supervisory Level staff tracks not just the billable hours, but all hours
worked. The Mayor evaluated the funding sources for the Fleet Reserve Fund. Director Mellies
noted the funding is supported by other City departments to purchase future equipment and
vehicles. City Manager Schainker cautioned the City Council against drawing down on the Fleet
Reserve Fund as it is one time money and cannot sustain a permanent cut. He also discussed the
benefits of the fund for the City as it gives staff the ability to borrow against it by acting as access
to capital through a low interest fund.
Council Member Betcher inquired about the supply chain issues and if new vehicles will emerge
onto the market. Director Mellies shared his hope but noted it is unlikely in this model year as
consumer demand has built up.
Director Mellies walked through the facilities projects, highlighting the keycard access
implementation at City Hall and the Fire Stations, as well as construction management for the
Steven L. Schainker Plaza. He also made note of other ongoing and future projects showcasing the
innovative application of a Lactation Pod at City Hall for internal and external City customers.
Public Safety Program: Chief of Police Geoff Huff introduced the division leaders who were
present at the meeting, noting that the department has seen personnel changes over the last year
with the promotion of a sergeant, a new administrative sergeant, a new community resource
officer, two new communications staff, and three new officers. He discussed current hiring
challenges and recruitment plans.
In reviewing Relationship Building and Problem Solving, Chief Huff highlighted National Night
Out as well as events with the Boys and Girls Club of Story County including Carving with a Cop
and Shop with a Cop. He also touched on the Mental Health Expo, NAACP Freedom Fund
Banquet, Citizen Police Academy, and Cyclone Welcome Weekend, emphasizing that the
department makes it a priority to stay connected to the community.
Chief Huff discussed Transparency and Accountability, noting the Monthly Activity Reports and
Ames Resident Police Advisory Committee. He stated the department makes a point to hear from
the community, with the Compliments and Complaints form being one way to facil itate that
priority. Body Worn Cameras and Hybrid Fleet Vehicles were the following topics of
conversation, as equipment updates are needed. Council Member Gartin inquired about data
5
storage and staff time dedicated to video oversight. Chief Huff explained that the Lead Evidence
Technician works with the video, a position that shifted from part-time to full-time in the last year.
Additionally, the Records Division also has a hand in the video footage to fulfill records requests
for the department. Chief Huff assured the City Council that staff discussed storage in length with
the supplier to ensure the correct amount is available. Council Member Gartin asked if there had
been revisions to the Body Worn Camera policy. Chief Huff replied in the negative, noting officers
must turn the camera on for any law enforcement action.
Mental Health Calls were reviewed by Chief Huff. The department continues to see mental health
calls on the rise, and partnerships including Alternatives (Drug Diversion), Alternative Response
to Community Health (ARCH), Mental Health Criminal Justice Task Force, Mobile Crisis, and
other local providers ensure callers get the care necessary in instances when a police officer is not
the best resource. Chief Huff then provided a walk-through of the Oscar 360, a camera officers
can utilize to photograph crime scenes efficiently and thoroughly.
Chief Huff presented on Crime Prevention, showcasing the statistics for Accidents and Citations,
Personal Crimes, Neighborhood/Quality of Life, Property Crimes, and Scams and Frauds. Council
Member Gartin asked if the City Council should be putting more emphasis on sexual assaults as a
policy group through education and outreach. Council Member Beatty-Hansen noted increased
reporting as a main reason for the upward trend. Chief Huff agreed, sharing that education and
outreach has created more comfortability in making a report, though not many cases make it to a
trial. Council Member Gartin stated it is the first priority of the City Council to protect the citizens
and asked Chief Huff to provide a notification if there is ever a time where the members of the
City Council can make an impact.
Communications by the numbers were reviewed. Chief Huff proudly announced the time to answer
a call improved over the last year with 99.42% of calls answered within twenty seconds. He then
focused on awards and recognitions for the department as well as special projects including the
Hall of History.
Council Member Gartin inquired about the impact of drug related deaths on the community, and
the correlation with cartel and gang activity in the area. Chief Huff stated that no statistics are
available because the department is not always directly involved; however, partnerships with
several Federal agencies allows the department to keep up with activity through regular intel
bulletins and the Drug Task Force. Council Member Betcher asked about use of Narcan in the
department. Chief Huff noted Narcan has been deployed several times and saved many lives . All
officers are required to carry two doses on patrol, because it will frequently take more than one
dose to pull a patient out of an overdose.
Chief Huff presented the special projects and partnerships for the Animal Control Division before
reviewing the statistics for intakes, outcomes, and live release rates. Mayor Haila inquired as to
what the positive outcomes could be attributed. Animal Control Supervisor Ron Edwards
attributed the success for outcomes to the reputation of the shelter. He emphasized that people
want to be a part of successful programs, highlighting the amazing volunteers and generous
donations that keep the Animal Shelter running. Mayor Haila asked about the geographic area
shelter staff draws from for potential adopters. Mr. Edwards noted that most adopters are local;
6
however, adopters have come from as far as Washington, DC, because staff puts in the effort to
promote the available animals and pair them with an adopter that will best meet their needs.
Council Member Betcher wondered what the best way for citizens to know what the donation
needs are at the Animal Shelter. Mr. Edwards explained that an online portal is available for
monetary donations and in-kind donation lists for supplies. Council Member Betcher noted the
City Council received numerous communications lobbying for a new facility for the Animal
Shelter, highlighting that there are community members committed to seeing staff in a facility that
can accommodate the increasing intakes. Mr. Edwards shared his agreement, noting the current
facility was not built to take in the number of animals staff has been seeing recently. He
emphasized the importance of a facility that will provide expanded opportunities, especially
volunteer opportunities, when looking at the future upgrades.
Transportation Program: Chief of Police Geoff Huff discussed Parking Law Enforcement,
focusing on Parking Initiatives, Uncollected Fines, and the broad range of duties parking
enforcement conducts, including prisoner transportation, speed trailer installation, and assistance
for stranded passengers. He pointed out the outstanding balance for uncollected fines over the last
ten years, noting the top three violations and indicating ongoing collaboration to identify ways to
decrease the outstanding balance. Mayor Haila indicated his amazement at the outstanding balance
for uncollected fines and wondered if tickets collected covered the cost of staff time. City Manager
Schainker replied in the negative, emphasizing ongoing efforts to remediate the issue.
Council Member Beatty-Hansen asked if there were efforts that could be made to counteract the
issue of Scams and Frauds. Chief Huff noted occasionally staff is able to trace back the crime;
however, most scams the department sees are international. In the case of international crime, it is
close to impossible for department staff to follow-up on the matter, though incidents that involve
large dollar amounts can involve Federal intervention when time and resources allow. He stated
the best course of action to decrease the frequency of these types of crimes is preventative
education.
Council Member Betcher inquired about enhanced fines for game day parking, wondering if the
fine structure is discouraging illegal parking. Chief Huff replied in the affirmative, stating staff
saw a significant reduction in illegal parking originally, highlighting a current plateau. He shared
that the affected area is easier to navigate during ISU football games, with towing only happening
in cases where a vehicle is obstructing a driveway or fire hydrant. Council Member Betcher shared
her concern that the gameday parking fines are not as beneficial as originally intended.
Mayor Haila shared his shock at the number of mental health calls. Chief Huff noted it is fortunate
that the City has good partners and he expects a plateau in the number of calls received as citizens
get connected with the proper resources.
The City Council and Mayor expressed their appreciation for staff and all of the efforts that show
commitment to the community.
DISPOSITION OF COMMUNICATIONS TO COUNCIL: Mayor Haila noted there were
three items to consider. The first was an email from Allison Greenwald regarding shared use path
7
accessibility in north Ames. City Manager Schainker noted that staff would forward the email as
input for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
An email from Cameron Knuth, a Wyland Foundation Representative, inviting the City to
participate in the 2023 National Mayors Challenge for Water Conservation April 1-30, 2023, was
the second item.
Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Betcher, to allow the Mayor to address the invitation.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
The third item was an email from David Carter requesting sidewalks at Bandshell Park. Mayor
Haila noted the item would also be forwarded as input for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
COUNCIL COMMENTS: Council Member Gartin recognized the earthquake in Turkey and
Syria, noting his condolences and best wishes to the Turkish students in the community.
Council Member Betcher shared in Council Member Gartin’s remark, extending sympathies to
Syrian students in the community as well. She also noted budget season is a great opportunity for
the City Council to see how effectively staff handles their jobs.
Mayor Haila stated his agreement with Council Member Betcher, sharing his pride in staff. City
Manager Schainker noted the great team and gave credit to the City Council because the members
allow staff the lead in developing the workplace culture known to the organization.
Mayor Haila closed the meeting by recognizing President Wintersteen’s staff at Iowa State
University and the ongoing commitment to partnership before thanking City staff again for their
time and efforts involving the budget and legislative issues that affect the budget.
ADJORNMENT: Moved by Betcher, seconded by Rollins, to adjourn the meeting at 7:46 p.m.
__________________________________ ____________________________________
Carly M. Watson, Deputy City Clerk John A. Haila, Mayor
__________________________________
Renee Hall, City Clerk
1
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL
AMES, IOWA FEBRUARY 8, 2023
The special meeting of the Ames City Council was called to order by Mayor John Haila at 5:15
p.m. on the 8th day of February, 2023, in the City Council Chambers in City Hall, 515 Clark
Avenue, pursuant to law. Present were Council Members Bronwyn Beatty-Hansen, Gloria Betcher,
Amber Corrieri, Tim Gartin, Rachel Junck, and Anita Rollins.
FY 2023/24 BUDGET PROPOSALS:
Culture and Recreation Program: Parks and Recreation Director Keith Abraham introduced
Joshua Thompson, Parks and Facilities Superintendent, and Courtney Kort, Recreation
Superintendent who were in attendance at the meeting. Director Abraham began the overview of
the programs offered by Parks and Recreation, noting that the Covid-19 pandemic had continuing
impacts on participation, revenue, and part-time staffing. The increases in fees recommended by
staff for FY 2023/24 were discussed, with Director Abraham praising staff for working on grant
applications to generate additional funding for programming. He discussed the potential for
fundraising to expand the scholarship program, which offers activities scholarships and discounted
Furman Aquatic Center passes.
After presenting the timeline for the construction of the Fitch Family Indoor Aquatic Center,
Director Abraham shared updates on a number of programs, including Miracle League,
gymnastics, tennis, summer camps, adult sports, swimming lessons, taekwondo, virtual and in-
person fitness classes, the City Auditorium, and Movies in the Park. He also noted future
collaboration with Sixty Forward. An additional maintenance worker for the park system was
added in FY 2022/23, and another would be hired in FY 2023/24 to increase weekend service level
and reduce overtime.
Director Abraham addressed the Ames/ISU Ice Arena, discussing programs and noting that Iowa
State University Men’s Club Hockey would be returning after serving a temporary suspension. He
also explained that Homewood Golf Course saw increased numbers of rounds played. The pavilion
added to the Ames Municipal Cemetery in the fall is already popular. Director Abraham expressed
gratitude for the many Parks and Recreation volunteers making a difference.
Regarding limited availability of Ames Community School District (ACSD) gym space, Council
Member Gartin inquired whether the City Council could assist in working out a better arrangement.
City Manager Steve Schainker volunteered to address the problem at the quarterly meeting he and
the Mayor have with the Superintendent and the School Board. Council Member Gartin also raised
the possibility of introducing occasional fare-free days for drop-in use of the Community Center
Gymnasium. Director Abraham recommended adjusting the idea to offer vouchers or free passes
to members of disadvantaged populations. Council Member Betcher asked whether there was an
update on returning water aerobics to the Green Hills pool facility. Director Abraham explained
that Green Hills would have to do construction to get the facility up to code to host programs like
water aerobics, which did not fall under their current therapy exemption. Green Hills staff has not
indicated interest in such a project.
2
Council Member Rollins asked about the work to make recreation facilities accessible and
compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Director Abraham explained that
accessibility is a priority with all new construction and playground replacement, highlighting the
accessible kayak launch at Ada Hayden Heritage Park. He also looked ahead to the Special
Meeting of the Ames City Council on February 21st, 2023, where the results and draft transition
plan from the ADA audit will be presented. Mayor Haila raised the topic of connecting the
scholarships to the people who need them. Director Abraham discussed current strategies. Mayor
Haila suggested partnering with ACSD to distribute information, and Council Member Betcher
suggested working with managers of low-income apartment complexes.
Transportation Program: Director Abraham noted that Parks and Recreation is responsible for
Right-of-Way Maintenance, sharing the accomplishments in clearing paths, and addressing risk
trees in the right-of-way. He also showed that the City is ahead of schedule on its 10-year Emerald
Ash Borer Response Plan, clarifying for Council Member Beatty-Hansen that the City plants a
new tree for each tree that is removed, increasing the diversity of the local tree population.
Utilities Program: Electric Services Director Donald Kom introduced Power Plant Manager and
Acting Assistant Electric Director Curtis Spence, Acting Distribution Manager Curt Zierke, and
Technical Services Supervisor Ken Tiarks, who were in attendance at the meeting. Director Kom
highlighted the operations budgets for each Division: Administration, Production, Fuel and
Purchases, Distribution, Technical Services, and Engineering.
For the Electric Administration division, Director Kom observed that a new all-time winter peak
was set in December 2022. August 2022 had a period which came close to the all-time peak from
2012. Annual energy sales are climbing, and rates are an average of 11% lower than neighboring
providers. The Climate Action Plan (CAP) will determine much of the future of the Department,
as well as action taken based on the Waste-to-Energy study. Director Kom explained that Electric
Production has black start capability for derecho-type events.
The City’s contract for natural gas expires in December 2023, which could increase costs for the
Fuel and Purchased Power Division. Unit #8 is operational again, allowing for more generation
and less purchased power. Director Kom explained for Mayor Haila the comparative costs for solar
and wind energy, noting that wind and solar energy is still more expensive, but costs go down with
the volume of production or purchase. Council Member Gartin queried whether solar packs for the
solar farm were still selling. Director Kom replied that 80% of the packs had sold. There was
discussion about electric vehicle (EV) chargers, which are being added each year through Capital
Improvement Projects.
Director Kom explained that the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) failed
to recertify as union representatives for the employees in Electric Distribution, so the City
developed a division-specific policy to meet their needs without union representation. Priorities
for Electric Distribution include system maintenance, extensions, improvements, and substation
security. The Technical Services Division faced challenges with supply chain delays for meters
and parts. This budget increased to catch up on transformer maintenance that was delayed during
the Covid-19 pandemic. In Electrical Engineering, priorities included replacing failing
3
underground and overhead lines, servicing new subdivisions, designing for CyTown electric
service, and approving retail solar permits. Director Kom concluded that no rate increases were
requested for FY 2023/24, reporting the estimated fund balance.
Public Safety Program: Director Kom explained that the Storm Warning System was a
collaboration between the Police Department and Electric Services; installation and maintenance
for the devices comes from the Electric Services budget, with operation by the Police Department.
City Manager Schainker commented that as the City grows, more outdoor warning sirens may be
added.
Transitioning to the Fire Department portion of the Public Safety Program, Fire Chief Rich Higgins
introduced Deputy Fire Chief Tom Hackett and Building Official Sara VanMeeteren, who were
present at the meeting. Chief Higgins expressed appreciation for the ongoing partnership with Iowa
State University (ISU), which contributes 25% of the operating budget and 25% of debt service
for apparatus purchases.
In regards to Fire Administration and Support, Chief Higgins highlighted the family appreciation
event, where new firefighters are sworn in and challenge coins are awarded. The testing system
for new firefighters was overhauled to more accurately assess the skills in the job description.
Chief Higgins also shared a number of community outreach and education events before providing
an overview of the new Instant Command Center at the Water Treatment Plant for emergency
management.
Chief Higgins next covered Fire Suppression and Emergency Action, noting that at least one
Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) goes with the apparatus on every call. Additionally, every
member of the Department takes a mental health first aid course, and the Department works with
Alternative Response for Community Health (ARCH). There was an 18% increase in call volume
over the past year, with 2% of calls being for fires. There were 47 structure fires, and crews
excelled at putting them out before conditions became dangerous, preventing property value loss
at a rate of 98.26%. Chief Higgins expressed gratitude for having the City of Ames Training Site
(COATS), commending the work Training Officer AJ Plach has done to create training facilities
and programs. Firefighters are trained for swift water rescues, hazmat situations, extrications, and
entering different kinds of structures.
Addressing Building Safety, Chief Higgins stated that no increases for permit or rental fees were
recommended. The total number of permits issued was down, reflecting uncertainty in the
economy. However, the total number of rental units continued rising. Chief Higgins also
recognized the importance of fire inspectors enforcing building codes. Mayor Haila invited
Building Official Sara VanMeeteren to comment on state legislation under consideration that
would implement a statewide building code. She noted that the design guidelines being considered
would not significantly impact the City, but a statewide building code would prevent the City from
setting its own fee schedules and code modification request process. Mayor Haila noted that the
CAP could be undercut if the statewide building code prevented localities from setting more
stringent requirements than the state.
Finance (Various Programs): Finance Director Corey Goodenow introduced Budget Manager
4
Nancy Masteller and Information Technology (IT) Manager Brent Moore, who were present at the
meeting, before offering an overview of the budget request for the Divisions within the Finance
Department.
Director Goodenow noted that Utilities Customer Service and Parking Violation Collection
recently introduced additional payment options through a third-party vendor, including PayPal,
Venmo, and AmazonPay. Further investigation will be conducted into the feasibility of offering
an in-person credit card payment option. In the category of Economic Development, an addition
Tax-Increment Financing (TIF) district was finalized, and staff are working to draft a development
agreement for the Linc Development Project. Director Goodenow reported for Financial Services
that the City maintained its Aa1 General Obligation bond rating and was awarded the Government
Finance Officers Association Distinguished Budget Award. The IT Division implemented several
improvements, including ServiceNow to manage user requests, OneDrive to manage Windows
client computer data, Intune to manage Windows client computers, and a redundant internet
connection for the City network with automated failover. Lastly, Director Goodenow shared that
the Purchasing Division continues to expand electronic document management as well as bid
goods and services through an electronic bidding system, AmesBids. Print Shop Services were
down, but the demand for graphic design services increased.
Before wrapping up, City Manager Schainker noted that streetlights are paid for in part out of the
General Fund. Director Goodenow explained that the action taken on February 14th, 2023, would
be setting the public hearing for the maximum amount of collection.
DISPOSITION OF COMMUNICATIONS TO COUNCIL: Mayor Haila stated that there were
no new communications to the City Council.
COUNCIL COMMENTS: Council Member Betcher thanked staff and the Mayor for working
hard on the budget even though the outlook was depressing.
Council Member Gartin warned the City Council that they would have to make hard decisions.
Council Member Rollins concurred with Council Member Betcher’s thanks to staff. Lastly, Mayor
Haila wished Council Member Gartin a happy birthday.
ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Gartin, seconded by Beatty-Hansen, to adjourn the meeting at 8:05
p.m.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
1
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL
AMES, IOWA FEBRUARY 9, 2023
The special meeting of the Ames City Council was called to order by Mayor John Haila at 5:14
p.m. on the 9th day of February, 2023, in the City Council Chambers in City Hall, 515 Clark
Avenue, pursuant to law. Present were Council Members Bronwyn Beatty-Hansen, Gloria
Betcher, Amber Corrieri, Tim Gartin, Rachel Junck, and Anita Rollins.
Council Budget Hearings:
Transportation Program: Transit Director Barb Neal presented the proposed budget along with
Assistant Director of Operations Chris Crippen, Assistant Director of Fleet and Facilities James
Rendall, and Budget Analyst Rob Jennings. Director Neal stated the budget had been approved
by the Transit Board at the December 2022 meeting. Focuses for the coming year were reducing
the staffing shortage through recruitment and retention and reducing carbon emissions. These
focus areas were highlighted as supporting the overall goal of Transit to connect people to their
community with safe and efficient transportation that exceeds expectations. High ridership and
outperforming other transit agencies will remain a priority, with the amount of federal funding
received tied to those two goals. Over the last several years ridership has been impacted by the
COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in ridership levels currently being at 70% of pre-pandemic
levels, but is predicted to rise. However, for the purposes of federal funding CyRide and other
transportation agencies in peer cities were permitted to use 2019 ridership numbers.
Director Neal shared that due to a large increase in federal revenue, Transit was able to keep
budget request increases low from local partners, with only a 2% requested increase. Several
different grant programs where Transit has been successful in receiving funding were detailed.
She shared commitment from Transit to continuing to seek out grant opportunities to keep local
partners increases low in the future as well. Commitment to technology investment and
expanding to serve as many areas of the community as possible were two more areas of
importance. To support these goals, demand response software is being utilized to allow
passengers to self-schedule rides. Director Neal noted that for now this service was only for the
East Ames area and Moonlight Express service. She noted all routes originated from City Hall
in a soft launch from January 16, 2023. Assistant Director Crippen noted they had done
marketing to hotels in the area and Director Neal detailed the advertising that had been done to
let the community know about this new service.
An exciting area of improvement shared was the ability for Cy-Ride to become a third-party
Certified Driver’s License (CDL) testing site to help address staffing shortages, as having a CDL
is one of the requirements needed to operate a CyRide bus. This helped to cut down on wait times
for testing and made hiring and training more efficient. With the volatility of fuel markets and
supply chain issues Director Neal noted that there was an increase in these budget items, and
money had been moved from the Operations fund to address potential shortfalls in this area.
Director Neal then explained that DIAL-a-Ride is a service that helps address equity by providing
ride options to those who may otherwise not be able to leave their homes. This program operates
in partnership with HIRTA to help close transportation gaps. Expenses for this program are up
2
as ridership grows. Due to the way this service is contacted, federal funds may be used for these
operations, reducing costs for the customer and the City. Director Neal noted the importance of
CyRide to connecting many in the community, noting it was a lifeline for people to be able to
rely on safe, dependable, cost-effective transportation. She noted that continuing to develop
community partnerships was a priority, and thanked CyRide employees for their commitment to
CyRide’s mission throughout the pandemic and the challenges following.
General Government/Internal Services: On behalf of the City Council, Assistant City Manager
Brian Phillips presented. He noted the City Council was at the halfway point for the two-year
goals set by the City Council, and that an update on those adjusted goals would be coming soon.
He thanked the City Council for the work they had done in the community and highlighted
several recognition events and special events City Council has participated in that showed their
community involvement.
Assistant City Manager Phillips also presented for the City Manager’s Office (CMO). He
explained the CMO’s role as providing major project support for initiatives such as the Climate
Action Plan, Waste to Energy Study, the Fitch Family Indoor Aquatic Center, CyTown, the Linc
Development, and the Steven L. Schainker Plaza, as well as providing staff support for Boards
and Commissions. He noted the budget had some adjustments due to the Diversity, Equity and
Inclusion Coordinator position being moved to the City Manager’s budget from the Human
Resources budget. Mr. Phillips also explained the vacancy of the Management Analyst Position,
which he explained slowed down staff response time as these tasks had to be absorbed by existing
staff. He also cited his hope that when filled this position would eventually be responsible for
evaluating grant opportunities.
City Clerk Renee Hall introduced her new team and highlighted the cost savings of staff
absorbing a part-time data entry position. She also highlighted streamlined processes,
collaboration efforts, and commitment to utilizing existing City resources as a priority going
forward. City Clerk Hall noted the partnership between this office and the City Council by
highlighting resolutions, referrals, and meetings of the previous year.
Public Relations Officer Susan Gwiasda shared her focus on branding a positive City identity so
that the City of Ames is recognized as the premier provider of municipal services in a vibrant,
innovative, and progressive university community. She highlighted methods used to accomplish
this goal, including press releases, newsletters, social media, and the website. An update on the
website improvement project was given, noting the priorities of navigation, appearance on
mobile devices, and ADA accessibility. Council Member Gartin thanked the City staff for the
work, as well as the Iowa State Daily in keeping the community informed. Other focuses Ms.
Gwiasda noted were outreach and education, surveys, tabling, and the Resident Satisfaction
Survey. The City Print Shop was cited as a key collaborator that makes maintaining City branding
possible. She also gave an overview of upcoming events taking place in the City.
Sustainability was also presented by Ms. Gwiasda and included funding for sustainability events,
implementing low-carbon strategies, and budgeting for a full-time Sustainability Coordinator.
Media Production Coordinator Bill Gebhart presented the Media Production Services budget. He
noted an increase in demand for Media Production Services across departments for services such
3
as trainings, promos, events, recruitments, and on-going series. Mr. Gebhart stated that with
social media algorithms favoring video, the Division does its best to say yes to each request
received. He shared the Division won the Iowa Motion Picture Association Award of
Achievement in 2022, and that almost all videos are posted to Facebook and were always on
YouTube. Equipment and program changes, as well as staff time, were the biggest budget factors
cited in the budget increase, as well as increased fees with Granicus to address some Information
Technology vulnerabilities.
City Attorney Mark Lambert shared the Legal Services budget and priorities, as well as giving
staff backgrounds. The Department boasts over 151 years in the legal field with their combined
experience. He noted the Department does its best to be responsive, and has an open-door policy,
meaning anyone can come in and talk to the attorneys. Advising City Council, City staff, Boards
and Commissions, and reviewing contracts were key services provided by the Legal Department.
City Attorney Lambert explained the majority of the Legal budget was for personal services-staff
wages and benefits. This category is followed by contractual obligations for programs used in
the Department.
Human Resources (HR) Director Bethany Ballou cited the Excellence Through People program
as a key part of the functions of HR. Director Ballou noted impressive accomplishments of the
HR Department in the last year, citing 241 recruitments, 188 external hires, 2939 applications,
and 41 promotions facilitated by the Department. She also noted that the Department faced the
same hiring challenges as other departments and those across the nation. Recently launched
software developments were shared that would allow a more strategic approach to employee
training.
Risk Manager Bill Walton presented the Risk Management budget, with an increase of 14%,
which City Manager Steve Schainker noted was due to uncontrollable circumstances. Manager
Walton explained the liability insurance program is purchased through the Iowa Community
Assurance pool, which the City has been with for over 15 years. Risk Manager Walton noted that
as with all other insurance, he anticipated an increase in this category. Commercial property
insurance was also projected to rise. He noted that property appraisals were included in this
budget, as they had not been completed since 2011.
Health Insurance was covered by HR Officer Krista Hammer. She informed the City Council
that there was an increase of 8% for the next fiscal cycle, which met the goal of staying below
10% for increases. A majority of health expenditures came from medical claims, but Ms.
Hammer noted this area had a 4% decrease from the previous year. She also noted that pharmacy
had an increase of 19% over the previous year and would be going out for RFP as well to see if
there were any potential savings the City could be achieving. Excess insurance was also reported
as an increase which would be going out for RFP as well. Council Member Gartin commended
staff, stating he was amazed at how Ames self-insures and keeps prices low. Risk Manager
Walton noted that the City utilizes a brokerage service to handle insurance contracts as well.
Health Promotion Coordinator Kacie Schumann explained the Health Promotion fund comes
from the Health Insurance fund and has a focus on catering to all areas of wellness. Creating a
work environment that supports healthy choices was cited as a major component of this. Health
promotions such as health screenings were noted as being an important part of this process as
4
well. Coordinator Schumann shared the program was able to save over $16,000 through
partnerships with the Iowa State University Department of Kinesiology. On-site vaccines clinics
allowed 408 flu vaccines and 244 COVID-19 boosters to be administered, and cost savings were
realized in this area as well with costs for shots decreasing slightly. Coordinator Schumann
shared overall employee Health Promotion programming was up this year compared to the last
two years, noting 319 unique employees, or about 50% of benefit-eligible employees,
participated in programming this year. Mental Health First Aid certification was identified as an
area of need that the Department was focused on expanding to all employees. She also shared
that the Department is planning on going out for an RFP for wellness portal services. Coordinator
Schumann stated the biggest expenditures came from outside vendors, who provided vaccines,
health coaching, the wellness portal, and nutrition programming. Healthy4Life incentive
payments and health screenings constituted the next largest portion of the budget. Director Ballou
explained for City Council that with these programs there may be an increase in claims as issues
are being caught earlier, hopefully reducing large claims. She also noted healthcare costs rise
every year which may skew the ability to track cost-savings.
Council Member Rollins inquired if Director Ballou was able to share the number of women and
racially diverse individuals that had been hired by the City. Director Ballou replied in the
affirmative, stating those numbers could be shared in the future as it was not included in the
current presentation.
Community Development Program: Planning Services was covered by Planning and Housing
Director Kelly Diekmann. He explained the Planning Department divided projects by current
planning and long-range projects. The Planning and Zoning Commission, Zoning Board of
Adjustment (ZBA), and Historic Preservation Committee were all showcased as boards the
Planning Department supports. Director Diekmann explained Single Family home production
was down about 25% to 69 homes. For comparison, he shared the five-year average was 81.
Director Diekmann also noted that the market is more diverse than it has been previously which
may be contributing to this decline. No new apartment complexes were approved in 2022, with
the Linc Development being the only projected new apartment building to be approved for 2023.
Commercial/Industrial trends were projected to continue to follow recent trends and a focus has
been more on employment uses instead of new retail. Director Diekmann also noted the
Department increased application fees by 10% on July 1st, 2022. He noted the Ames Urban
Fringe Plan and completing the Front Yard and Driveway Permit changes were two projects
given to the Department by the City Council that accounted for staff time. The Planning
Department further reflected the City Council priorities by planning an upcoming Infill Housing
workshop and Affordable Housing Strategy workshop planned for later in the spring. Director
Diekmann then provided a further update on in-progress and upcoming planned projects for the
City Council.
Administrative Support Services was also covered by Director Diekmann, where he noted that
the Division provides permitting and administrative support for Fire, Public Works, and the
Planning and Housing Department. The five staff from this area also support multiple Boards
and Commissions for Planning and Housing, Public Works, and Inspections. He noted that there
was an increase in support services, as ZBA returned to the Planning and Housing Department
from the City Clerk’s Office. Training Costs were also noted as being higher, due to work with
5
EnerGov for an online submittal process that would match the Inspections process.
Housing Coordinator Vanessa Baker-Latimer presented on City Wide Housing, Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG), and Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security
(CARES) Programs. These programs work together to support the Housing Departments goals
to address housing needs by investing ways to increase availability of affordable housing and
exploring ways to encourage all types of housing. The City-Wide Housing Program was noted
as program to account for expenses incurred that are not eligible for federal funding under the
CDBG.
Coordinator Baker-Latimer explained CDBG is a federally funded program that provides a
variety of affordable housing, and the City had been awarded its 18th allocation of funds. She
noted in previous years this funding was spent on infrastructure at the Baker Subdivision. One
highlighted future project was the Slum and Blight Acquisition and Demolition Program, which
was being coordinated with the Inspections Department as well as the United States Department
of Housing and Urban Development to continue to maintain viable and safe neighborhoods.
Coordinator Baker-Latimer then provided an overview of future projects to be addressed by
CDBG funding, and noted this budget was based on allocation from the previous year, as they
had not received the funding allocation amount for this year.
The HOME Program was next addressed by Coordinator Baker-Latimer. She noted the City was
awarded its fifth allocation of HOME funds, a federally funded program to be used to construct
non-luxury affordable housing for low-income households, which had previously been targeted
for use in the Baker Subdivision. The program requires a 25% local match contribution, which
the City addressed through General Obligation bonds for the first several years. She noted the
allocation of HOME funds had not yet been announced, but that the allocation amount would
hopefully be brought to the City Council before the end of the month. A RFP for a partner
developer to apply for Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) is planned for April 2023.
CARES Act funding was awarded to the City to prevent, prepare for, and respond to the COVID-
19 pandemic and build affordable housing for various vulnerable population. Coordinator Bake-
Latimer noted funds were used to provide low and moderate-income households with rent,
mortgage, and utility relief. Over 169 households were helped, with the largest portion of these
funds being spent towards rent. Coordinator Baker-Latimer presented the future plan to use this
funding to purchase a van to help non-profits with food delivery and distribution.
HOME ARP funding was to be spent on a non-congregant shelter for those who met the criteria
set forth such as homelessness, victims of domestic violence, and those being stalked.
Coordinator Baker-Latimer explained this was decided after Public Input from stakeholders and
the public, as well as surveys made available to the public.
City Manager Schainker reminded the City Council that Budget Wrap -up would take place on
February 14, 2023. He asked that if there were any drastic changes the City Council desired that
they would notify staff so there was time to adjust the budget. Finance Director Corey Goodenow
requested the City Council delay the process of setting the maximum levy budget and delay
approving the budget. He shared staff were considering an amended timeframe that would last
until April to observe the actions of the State Legislature, as this would impact future budgets.
6
City Manager Schainker clarified staff still wanted City Council to finalize the budget but would
hold off on approving it until further information was available.
Director Goodenow clarified for the City Council that future budgets would be focused on
limiting expenses to address the shortfall, but there was still time in the budget certification
process to adjust for the current fiscal year as needed. Mayor Haila noted there were three main
bills staff was monitoring. He furthered explained there was enough room in the levy to increase
it if needed, but it would be a historic jump in the City’s levy rate. Director Goodnenow stated
the primary concern was the certification of taxes and the conveyance to the county of what the
levy rate would be and what levies the City would be utilizing to realize those tax rates. He
further stated that once those tax rates are certified they cannot be changed, and because of this
staff was requesting the delay in certification of the levy rates.
City Manager Schainker shared that devastating cuts in service levels can be avoided by
increasing the levy. He noted this would allow the City to still collect the same amount of revenue
that was originally planned for, and that adding to the levy would ease the burden on single-
family homes. Director Goodenow explained that right now decision-making was difficult, as
staff were working on a lot of hypotheticals. He gave a proposed timeline of the end of March to
begin the Public Hearings.
DISPOSITION OF COMMUNICATIONS TO COUNCIL: Mayor Haila stated that there
were no communications to the City Council.
COUNCIL COMMENTS: Council Member Beatty-encouraged everyone to bring Valentine’s
Day boxes the next week for Budget Wrap up.
Council Member Betcher shared her thanks to staff for all they do.
ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Gartin, seconded by Betcher, to adjourn the meeting at 7:31 p.m.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
__________________________________ ____________________________________
Grace Bandstra, Deputy City Clerk John A. Haila, Mayor
__________________________________
Renee Hall, City Clerk
REPORT OF
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS
Department
General Description
of Contract
Contract
Change
No.
Original Contract
Amount Contractor/ Vendor
Total of Prior
Change Orders
Amount this
Change Order
Change
Approved By
Purchasing
Contact
(Buyer)
Electric
Services
Cable, Alum 1/0, 220 Mil,
Jacketed, 15KV
1 $102,992.23 WESCO Distribution Inc $0.00 $740.69 D. Kom JB
$ $ $
$ $ $
$ $ $
$ $ $
$ $ $
Period: 1st – 15th
16th – End of Month
Month & Year: February 2023
For City Council Date: February 28, 2023
Item No. 3
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE AMES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AMES, IOWA FEBRUARY 23, 2023 The Regular Meeting of the Ames Civil Service Commission was called to order by Chairperson Mike Crum at 8:15 AM on February 23, 2023. As it was impractical for the Commission members to attend in person, Commission Chairperson Mike Crum and Commission Member Harold Pike and Kim Linduska were brought in telephonically and due to weather, Bethany Ballou (HR Director) was also brought in telephonically. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 26, 2023: Moved by Linduska, seconded by Pike, to approve the Minutes of the JANUARY 26, 2023, Regular Service Commission meeting. Vote on Motion: 3-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. CERTIFICATION OF ENTRY-LEVEL APPLICANTS: Moved by Crum, seconded by Linduska, to certify the following individuals to the Ames City Council as Entry-Level Applicants: Apprentice Electric Lineworker Aaron Stravers 83 Keith King 87* Jillian Johnson 82 Jackson Gibbs 77 Alec Stokes 76 Matthew Bruuns 73 Jesse Demi 72 * includes preference points DEI Coordinator Casandra Eames 77 Maintenance Worker – Parks & Rec James Albright 81 Maintenance Worker - Utilities Jacob Stremel 81 Thomas Bell 80 Gabriel Herrera 75 Rodger Cox 75 Vote on Motion: 3-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. REQUEST TO REMOVE NAME FROM DEI COORDINATOR LIST: Commission Chairperson Crum presented the request from Human Resources Director Bethany Ballou to remove a name from the DEI Coordinator List certified on December 15, 2022, asked if there was any discussion. Director Ballou explained that this candidate declined the offer of employment. So, a candidate from the original recruitment pool was invited to interview for the position and was certified today. Moved by Linduska, seconded by Pike to remove the name. Vote on Motion: 3-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
COMMENTS: The next Regular Meeting of the Ames Civil Service Commission is scheduled for March 23, 2023, at 8:15 AM. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:21 AM. __________________________________ _______________________________________ Mike Crum, Chairperson Vicki Hillock, Commission Clerk
non-emergency
Administration
fax
Smart Choice
To: Mayor John Haila and Ames City Council Members
From: Lieutenant Mike Arkovich, Ames Police Department
Date: February 18, 2023
Subject: Beer Permits & Liquor License Renewal Reference City Council Agenda
The Council agenda for February 28th, 2023, includes beer permits and liquor license
renewals for:
• Coldwater Golf Links (1400 S. Grand Ave) Class C Liquor License with
Outdoor Service
• Kum & Go #113 (2801 E 13th St.) Class E Liquor License with Class B Wine
Permit, Class C Beer Permit (Carryout Beer)
• Kum & Go #227 2108 Isaac Newton Drive (Class E Liquor License with Class
B Wine Permit, Class C Beer Permit (Carryout Beer)
• Elks Lodge (522 Douglas) Class F Liquor License with Outdoor Service
• Homewood Gold Course, (401 E 20th Street) Special Class C Liquor License
• The Spice Thai Cuisine (402 Main Street) Special Class C Liquor License
• Casey’s General Stores #2905 (3612 Stange Road) Class E Liquor License
with Class B Wine Permit, Class C Beer Permit (Carryout Beer)
• Sams Club #6568 (305 Airport Road) Class E Liquor License with Class B
Wine Permit, Class C Beer Permit (Carryout Beer)
A review of police records for the past 12 months found no liquor law violations for the
above locations. The Ames Police Department recommends the license renewal for the
above businesses.
Item No. 5
non-emergency
Administration
fax
Smart Choice
To: Mayor John Haila and Ames City Council Members
From: Lieutenant Mike Arkovich, Ames Police Department
Date: February 18, 2023
Subject: Beer Permits & Liquor License Renewal Reference City Council Agenda
The Council agenda for February 28th, 2023, includes beer permits and liquor license
renewals for:
•BN’C Fieldhouse (206 Welch Ave) Class C Liquor License with Outdoor Service
A review of police records for the past 12 months found 19 liquor law violations. Nineteen
individuals were cited for being underage on the premise. At least three of the 19 were
in possession of fake identifications. Of the 16 other violations, the police department
was unable to determine if the person was in possession of a fake ID. However, the
Police Department has performed regular checks of the establishment and found it to
have adequate staffing, including a door person checking IDs to gain entrance. The
establishment has passed compliance checks conducted by the Police Department.
The Police Department will continue to monitor the above location by conducting regular
foot patrols, bar checks and by educating the bar staff through training. The Ames Police
Department recommends license renewal for the above business.
Item No. 5a
1
ITEM #: 6
DATE: 02-28-23
DEPT: POLICE
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: DISPOSITION OF CONTINGENCY FUNDS FROM THE STORYCOMM
RADIO PROJECT
BACKGROUND:
Previously, the City paid a private company to provide portable radios and
tower service. As annual rental fees continued to increase, the City of Ames,
Story County, and Iowa State University decided to enter into an agreement
to form a Board of Directors for the creation of a new interoperable radio
system that will be jointly owned by the three governmental entities. The
Board was named StoryComm, and the new radio system was funded by the
three government agencies, with the City of Ames issuing General Obligation
Bonds for its portion. StoryComm charges fees to system users to cover the
system’s annual operating costs, to accomplish unexpected system repairs,
and to create an equipment replacement fund.
Originally, all three agencies placed $100,000 into a contingency fund for
unanticipated costs associated with creating this new initiative. Recently, the
StoryComm board accepted completion of the system installation. Of the
City’s $100,000, there is $15,000 left that was not utilized in this contingency
fund. A comparable amount is available for each of the other two partners.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The City Council could decide to leave the $15,000 in the StoryComm project fund
and move it to the Capital budget line item for future replacement needs.
2. The City Council could request the StoryComm Board to return the $15,000 to
the City. The funds would then be deposited in the Debt Service Fund.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The price of the new radio system was $10,000,000 and it is anticipated to stay functional
for 10-15 years, possibly longer. At end of the system’s useful life, there will be a need
for additional and substantial funding to repair or replace the equipment. Accepting the
$15,000 would have a minimal impact on reducing the City’s debt service payments, and
would be better spent on replacing equipment.
2
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1, thereby deciding to leave the $15,000 in the StoryComm project fund
and move it to the Capital budget line item for future replacement needs.
1
ITEM#: 7
DATE: 02-28-23
DEPT: Transit
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: CYRIDE 2023 HVAC IMPROVEMENT PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
BACKGROUND:
At the November 8, 2022, meeting, Council approved project plans and specifications for
the 2023 HVAC Improvements Project. In coordination with the Purchasing Division, the
project was released for bid on November 9, 2022, with bids due on December 14, 2022.
No bids were received in response to the invitation for bid. The City Council accepted
the report of no bids and directed staff to prepare to rebid the project. To move forward
with this project, Council will need to approve plans and specifications for the 2023 HVAC
Improvements Project.
In September 2021, CyRide received $331,548 in Iowa DOT Public Transit Infrastructure
Grant (PTIG) funding to replace obsolete heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HV AC)
equipment in the facility. The total budget for the project is $414,435 and is programmed
into the Capital Improvements Plan. The equipment being funded serves the maintenance
body repair bay, paint booth, and tire repair area, and has been identified in CyRide’s
Transit Asset Management (TAM) plan as needing replacement. The project will replace
existing units with more efficient equipment and update the existing vehicle exhaust
system. In addition, newer equipment will allow these areas to be incorporated into the
existing HVAC controls and provide a healthier work environment through improved air
exchanges.
The project cost is estimated to be $452,770, including a 15% contingency fund, which is
higher than the available PTIG funding. To meet the ant icipated budget shortfall, the
Transit Board approved using the remaining funds from the 2022 HVAC Improvement
Project.
The following budget is being proposed for this project:
Funds Available Dollars
State PTIG Funds $ 331,548
Local Grant Match $ 82,887
Total Grant Funds Available $ 414,435
Carryover from the 2022 HVAC Improvement Project $ 38,335
Total Project Budget $ 452,770
The Transit Board approved the plans and specifications at its January 26, 2023, meeting.
If Council approves the plans and specifications, CyRide and the Purchasing Division are
2
planning a bid letting date of February 15, 2023, with bids due on March 15, 2023. Bid
results will be reported at the March 28, 2023, Council meeting.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve plans and specifications for the 2023 HVAC Improvements Project as
presented as well as set March 15, 2023 as the bid due date and March 28, 2023
as the date of report of bids.
2. Direct staff to work with the A&E consultant to modify the project plans and
specifications to meet City Council priorities.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approving the plans and specifications would allow CyRide to replace obsolete equipment
with modern, provide energy-efficient alternatives, and improve our employees’ working
environment. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City
Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as described above.
1
ITEM #: 8
DATE: 02-28-23
DEPT: Finance
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: WAIVE COMPETITIVE BIDDING REQUIREMENTS AND AUTHORIZE
UPGRADE TO UNIFY PHONE SYSTEM FOR THE CITY
BACKGROUND:
The City purchased a new Unify telephone system for $417,407.67 in August 2016,
launching this system in November 2016. This system was installed with version 8 of
ATOS-SSP software. In April 2018, the City extended the support contract with Black
Box Network Services for 45 months through December 2022. Since that time, the City
has renewed the service agreement on an annual calendar year basis.
Recently the vendor notified staff that the ATOS-SSP version 8 has an end-of-life
date of March 2023, after which no support from the original equipment
manufacturer nor our managed-service provider will be available. Therefore, the
staff recommends upgrading the phone system to ATOS-SSP Version 10. This
process would include three elements: upgrading the hardware, purchasing the
ATOS-SSP Version 10 software, and installing and configuring the new product.
The Unify phone system is solely available in Iowa through Black Box Network
Services. Therefore, the staff recommends waiving the competitive bidding
requirement and authorizing a single-source procurement. The table below outlines
the cost of each item required to make the necessary upgrades:
Description Amount
Hardware $16,959.56
Software and Licensing Fees $10,699.35
Recurring Support Fees $5.75
Professional Services $36,240.94
Total $63,905.60
The expected lifetime of the new phone system is approximately 5-8 years. The phone
system technology replacement funds will be used to fund this purchase.
2
ALTERNATIVES:
1. A. Waive the Purchasing Policies and Procedures for competitive bidding
requirements and award a single source procurement.
B. Authorize City staff to enter into an agreement to upgrade the City’s phone
system to ATOS-SSP Version 10 with Black Box Network Services, Maple
Grove, MN in the amount not to exceed $63,905.60.
2. Do not authorize software upgrade and refer back to staff for further options.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Black Box Network Services is the sole provider of maintenance for Unify voice
applications in Iowa. This upgrade will extend the lifetime of the City’s mission-
critical phone system. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the
City Council adopt Alternative No. 1A & 1B.
1
ITEM #: 9
DATE: 02-28-23
DEPT: Finance
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: AWARD CONTRACT TO PURCHASE
VIRTUALIZATION ENVIRONMENT
BACKGROUND:
Multi-Agency Public Safety Group (MAPSG) is the public safety collaboration which
includes Story County Sheriff’s Office, Iowa State University Public Safety, and Ames
Police as the principal collaborators. The MAPSG network operates and maintains the
Public Safety information system (Computer-aided dispatch (CAD), records, jail and
mobile data) for the MAPSG partners.
The network includes storage servers that were purchased in March 2017 and compute
servers which were purchased in April 2018. These two elements are now at the end of
their initial warranty period and the MAPSG IT support partners recommend replacement.
IP Pathways LLC (IP Pathways) has been MAPSG’s technical partner since the inception
of MAPSG and the source of the original equipment. Our County IT partners have been
working with IP Pathways to identify the configuration of both types of servers.
Additionally, IP Pathways has worked with the MAPSG group to provide a plan for the
migration of our current virtualization environment to a new virtualization environment.
Given the critical nature of the system, the importance of compatibility/
cohesiveness of the software/hardware, and potential future pricing increases
expected, staff believes it is appropriate to waive the competitive bidding
requirements. Additionally, staff has compared the proposed equipment to other
publicly bid contracts for similar equipment and found the pricing to be competitive
in the current marketplace.
Description Amount
Computer servers $39,783.54
Storage servers $73,157.19
Professional services $23,280.00
Total $136,221.10
The expected lifetime of this replacement virtualization environment is 5-6 years. The
MAPSG computer replacement fund has $175,224.18 to replace information technology
equipment, including the MAPSG compute and storage servers.
2
ALTERNATIVES:
1. A. Waive the Purchasing Policies and Procedures for competitive bidding
requirements and award a single source procurement.
B. Award a contract to IP Pathways LLC, Urbandale, IA for the purchase of
MAPSG virtualization environment in the amount not to exceed $136,221.10.
2. Do not authorize software upgrade and refer back to staff for further options.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
As introduced above, IP Pathways has been the technical partner to MAPSG from the
beginning of MAPSG. Our County IT partners have worked with IP Pathways to configure
this solution and verify that it meets the needs of our current software environment.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1A & 1B.
1
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR SALE OF CITY-OWNED LOT 8 IN BAKER
SUBDIVISION TO HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF CENTRAL AND
SETTING MARCH 14, 2023 AS THE DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BACKGROUND:
In 2015, as part of the City’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, the
City acquired a 10+ acre site located at 321 State Avenue (formerly the site of the Old
Ames Middle School). The site was purchased to develop a subdivision that will support
the affordable housing goals of the City as a mixed-income development, with a minimum
of 51% of the homes affordable to low- and moderate-income households. The
subdivision would consist of 27 buildable lots, 26 single-family lots, and one (1) lot for
multi-family units (see attachment A).
In July 2022, the City, as the developer for the subdivision, completed the public
infrastructure improvements, consisting of streets, water, sewer, electrical, sidewalks,
including geothermal for the 26 single-family lots (see attachment A). The subdivision
covenants were adopted in December 2021. The City is now positioned to develop the
lots to construct single-family homes. As noted above, 51% (14) of the lots have to be
available to low and moderate-income households.
Habitat for Humanity of Central Iowa (HHCI) has approached staff with interest in
purchasing one (1) lot in the Baker Subdivision. Staff and HHCI have identified Lot
Eight (8), located along the east side of Wilmoth Avenue, as a preferred property to sell
to HHCI (see attachment A).
This collaboration with Habitat for Humanity of Central Iowa would represent the fifteenth
endeavor between Habitat and the City of Ames. This project will allow the City to continue
to address one of its priority goals outlined in both the 2022-2023 Annual Action Plan and
the 2019-2023 CDBG Consolidated Plan, which is to increase the supply of affordable
housing for LMI households.
Finance staff has reviewed a draft of HHCI’s 2022 Annual Audit Report and finds it in
good order, including the audit opinion. Therefore, staff has been working with the HHCI
Executive Board and Legal Department to finalize the terms and conditions for the sale
of the lots and the construction of the homes and to set March 14, 2023, as the date of
the public hearing.
ITEM #: 10
DATE: 02-28-23
DEPT: P&H
2
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Set March 14, 2023, as the date of the public hearing to authorize staff to finalize
the terms and conditions (including the price) for the sale of lot eight (8) in the
Baker Subdivision to Habitat for Humanity of Central Iowa.
2. Set March 14, 2023, as the date of the public hearing to authorize staff to finalize
the terms and conditions (including the price) for the sale of lot eight (1) in the
Baker Subdivision to Habitat for Humanity of Central Iowa with specific terms and
conditions as identified by the City Council .
3. Direct staff to seek other buyers to purchase the lots.
4. Decline to sell the single-family lots at this time.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The sale of lot eight (8) in the Baker Subdivision to Habitat for Humanity of Central Iowa
will assist the City in its efforts to continue to address the housing needs of low- and
moderate-income first-time home buyers and will help jump-start the construction of
homes in the subdivision and potential for future sales to Habitat. Therefore, it is the
recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative #1.
While this action only deals with the sale of one lot at this time, it is hoped in the
near future HHCI will secure additional outside funding to allow for additional lot
purchases.
3
Location Map- Attachment A
1
ITEM #: __11___
DATE: 02-28-23
DEPT: ELECTRIC
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND
NOTICE TO BIDDERS FOR POWER PLANT RENOVATIONS
BACKGROUND:
This project is to improve the women’s restroom, provide for gender-inclusive
bathroom/shower facilities, and eliminate security access concerns at the Power Plant.
The entrance to the Power Plant was built more than 70 years ago. At the time the
bathroom facilities supported a staff of 25 employees, mostly men. Today Electric
supports 43 Power Plant staff and the bathroom & shower facilities are not adequate to
support a more diverse workforce nor provide the necessary security needed in today’s
environment.
The project was originally bid in August 2022. One bid was received, and it was rejected
because it was substantially over the budgeted amount. After rejecting the construction
bid, staff and the architect worked to develop lower cost alternatives that do not affect the
functionality of the design but provide lower cost options for the project.
The City Council is being asked to approve the plans and specifications and notice to
bidders for power plant renovations that include demolition of the existing main restrooms
in the front of the Power Plant, construction of new gender-neutral restrooms/shower, and
construction of a new front entrance lobby space to maintain security. The proposed plans
and specifications provide for five individual restrooms that are inclusive for all to use.
One of the restrooms will have shower facilities and will meet ADA accessibility standards.
The proposed plans and specifications also include construction of a front entrance lobby
space that allows visitors to enter the building, talk to plant personnel, have a space to sit
and wait and/or use the restroom, but will prevent visitors from accessing other areas of
the Power Plant.
The architect’s estimated cost for construction of the revised design is $489,650.
The current bidding climate is unpredictable . Therefore, staff and the architect will reach
out to potential bidders to make them aware of the bidding opportunity. The additional
promotional effort should attract more bids for the project.
2
The project budget is outlined below:
Estimated Total Project Expenses:
Engineering/Design $ 48,500
Construction Cost Engineer Estimate $489,650
Total Estimated Expense $538,150
Funding Sources:
CIP - Power Plant Building Mod. $400,000
CIP – Building Mod. Relay Room HVAC $122,000
CIP – Building Mod. Access control $ 33,000
Total Available Funding $555,000
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve preliminary plans and specifications and issue a Notice to Bidders for a
project to renovate the lobby and restrooms at the Power Plant , and establish
March 29, 2023, as the bid due date and April 11, 2023, as the date of public
hearing and award.
2. Do not approve the plans and specifications and a Notice to Bidders, thereby
delaying the start of this project.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
These renovations at the Power Plant will create bathroom facilities to support a much
more diverse and inclusive workforce and will drastically improve the security of the plant.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adop t
Alternative No. 1, as described above.
1
ITEM #: 12
DATE: 02-28-23
DEPT: Electric
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: FURNISH 69kV AND 161kV SF6 CIRCUIT BREAKERS
BACKGROUND:
On January 10, 2023, City Council approved preliminary plans and specifications for
Furnishing 69kV and 161kV SF6 Circuit Breakers. The project is to procure (6) 69kV
SF6 circuit breakers to: 1) replace two existing obsolete oil-filled circuit breakers at the
Mortensen Road Substation, 2) obtain three new breakers as part of a planned project
at the Ontario Road Substation, and 3) purchase one spare 69kV and one 161kV
breakers for Electric Services’ inventory, which will be kept on hand for the emergency
replacement of a breaker in the event of a breaker failure.
Staff attempted to obtain a 161kV breaker as part of this bid but did not receive
responsive proposals. Staff plans to procure the 161 kV breaker at a later date. On
February 1, 2023, two bids were received as shown below for six 69 kV breakers:
BIDDER 69KV BREAKERS
GE Grid Solutions, Inc.
Charleroi, PA $407,070.00
WESCO Distribution, Inc.
Des Moines, IA $789,740.25
*inclusive of Iowa sales tax
These bids were reported to the City Council on February 14, 2023. At that meeting,
documents provided to the City Council incorrectly reported that the engineer’s estimate
for six 69kV breakers was $450,000. The $450,000 figure should have indicated that it
was the total estimated amount for the purchase of six 69kV breakers and one 161kV
breaker.
At the February 14 meeting, staff requested more time to evaluate the bids before a
recommendation could be made for an award. After reviewing the bids further, staff
determined that the bid from GE Grid Solutions, of Charleroi, PA, in the amount of
$407,070 is acceptable. Lead time for these breakers is approximately 66 weeks after a
purchase order is placed, so delivery is anticipated in or around June 2024.
Due to the significant quoted lead time for these breakers, staff has also
determined a need to purchase an additional 69kV circuit breaker for the future
Capital Improvement Project at Mortensen Road Substation for transformer
protection. Although funds for this CIP project are programmed for FY 2024/25,
staff will advance the funds to FY 2023/24 at final budget amendments. This
2
additional breaker will be an additional cost of $67,845 (the same unit pricing as
the other breakers) for a total award of $474,915.
Funding is available from the following sources:
SOURCE # BREAKERS AMOUNT
2022/23 Minor Transmission Substation Improvements
(operating budget; $380,000 available)
3 $ 203,535
Ontario Road Substation CIP ($1,300,000 available) 3 203,535
Mortensen Road Substation CIP ($1,500,000 available) 1 67,845
TOTAL 7 $ 474,915
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve final plans and specifications and award a contract to GE Grid
Solutions, Charleroi, PA, to furnish seven 69kV SF6 Circuit Breakers in the
amount of $474,915 (inclusive of Iowa sales tax).
2. Award a contract to the other vendor.
3. Reject the bids and direct staff to rebid.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This equipment is necessary to complete the projects at the specified substations and to
secure a system spare. The planned projects improve system reliability by replacing
obsolete oil circuit breakers, adding additional line and transformer protection at Ontario
Road Substation, adding transformer protection at Mortensen Road Substation, and
securing a system spare which will help system restoration in the event of a breaker
failure. These projects are necessary for Electric Services to continue providing safe,
reliable, service to the customers in the City. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the
City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as stated above.
ITEM #: 13
DATE: 02-28-23
DEPT: PW
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: 2022/23 CYRIDE ROUTE PAVEMENT IMPROVEMENTS (LINCOLN
WAY) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
BACKGROUND:
In December 2022, staff initiated a Request for Proposals for the 2022/23 CyRide Route
Pavement Improvements program. This contract is for professional services that include
the design and development of plans and specifications for the reconstruction of Lincoln
Way from Beedle Drive/Hickory Drive to Franklin Ave., including spot improvements of
storm and sanitary utilities, reconstruction of the shared use trail on the south side of
Lincoln Way, and ADA improvement at intersections.
The evaluation of scores are as follows:
Firm Qualifications
Based Score
Qualifications
Based Rank Fee Final
Rank
WHKS 83 1 $158,700 1
MSA 82 2 $158,400 2
Shive-Hattery 80 3 $185,000 3
Stanley 77.5 4 $135,000 4
CDA 76 5 $237,000 7
AECOM 76 6 $248,900 8
V&K 75.8 7 $127,682 5
Snyder 75.3 8 $181,300 8
Bolton & Menk 75 9 $199,749 9
The proposals were evaluated according to the following criteria: Project Understanding,
Design Team/Key Personnel, Previous Experience, Project Approach, Responsiveness,
Ability to perform work, proposed project design/letting schedule, and Estimated
Contract Cost for engineering services.
After weighing the qualifications and estimated fees for these firms, staff has
negotiated a contract with WHKS of Ames, Iowa. WHKS scored highest based on
qualifications and had the fourth lowest fee at $158,700. Staff is confident that a
contract with WHKS will provide the best value for professional services considering the
firms qualifications. WHKS has extensive knowledge of utilities in the project area and
previous experience on several City of Ames projects.
A summary of revenues and projected expenses is shown below.
Funding Source Revenue Expenses
2022/23 CyRide Route G.O. Bonds $1,225,000
2022/23 AAMPO STBG Funds $1,686,000
2022/23 Shared Use Path $ 172,500
Staff Engineering/Administration $ 421,300
WHKS Design $ 158,700
Construction Estimate $2,331,000
TOTAL $3,083,500 $2,911,000
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the professional services agreement for the 2022/23 CyRide Route
Pavement Improvements (Lincoln Way) project with WHKS & Co. of Ames, Iowa,
in the amount not to exceed $158,700.
2. Direct staff to negotiate an engineering agreement with another consulting firm.
MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on evaluation using the above criteria, staff believes that WHKS & Co. will
provide the best value to the City regarding the professional services for the 2022/23
CyRide Route Pavement Improvements (Lincoln Way) project. 2024 construction is
estimated for this project. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that
the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as noted above.
1
ITEM: 14
DATE 02-28-23
DEPT Electric
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: POWER PLANT BOILER MAINTENANCE SERVICES CONTRACT –
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
BACKGROUND:
This contract consists of a variety of boiler and pressure vessel maintenance, including
structural steel and pressure vessel repair, at the City’s Power Plant. This consists of
emergency service, as well as regularly planned repairs and services during scheduled
outages. The repair of the equipment in the Power Plant requires professional trade
crafts such as boilermakers, laborers, and millwrights.
The Power Plant has traditionally bid boiler maintenance services and held a contract
throughout each year in order to perform regularly planned repairs and services during
scheduled outages as well as have a skilled and certified contractor ready to respond to
any emergency situations.
On July 26, 2022, City Council awarded a contract to TEI Construction Services, Inc.,
Duncan, SC in the amount of $325,000.
THIS ACTION:
Although a significant project recently replaced many sections of boiler tubes in Unit 8
with Inconel clad tubes, there are areas in Unit 8 boiler that contain boiler tubes that are
original to the installation of the boiler in 1982. During more recent testing, Staff
discovered leaking tubes with thin walls because of erosion occurring from cleaning
equipment or some other deposit corrosion occurring on the inside of the tube from copper
depositing overtime. Staff believes these areas can be addressed by p erforming weld
overlay instead of replacement. Boilermakers build up the walls of the tube using an
Inconel weld rod that not only thickens the tube wall, but also is a metal resistant to
erosion and corrosion. This change order is for the additional funding required to perform
this weld overlay on a greater portion of the boiler than originally anticipated by staff.
Staff is requesting City Council to approve Change Order No. 1 to the Boiler Maintenance
Services contract. This action will add an additional $95,000 to the original $325,000
contract for FY 2022/23 (inclusive of sales tax), bringing the total contract amount
to $420,000. This change order will help ensure the reliability of Unit 8. Funding for
Change Order No. 1 will come from the Unit 8 Auxiliary Equipment account where there is
$169,000 to perform equipment repairs.
2
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve Change Order No. 1 to TEI Construction Services, Inc., of Duncan, SC,
in the amount of $95,000.
2. Do not approve the change order and delay needed additional maintenance until
the next fiscal year.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
It is important to have a highly skilled company to perform maintenance services on the
City’s power plant boilers. These boilers operate at high temperatures and under high
pressures. These additional funds are necessary to ensure the reliability of Unit 8 boiler.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative #1 as stated above.
1
ITEM #: __15___
DATE: 02-28-23
DEPT: _ELEC._
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: NON-ASBESTOS INSULATION AND RELATED SERVICES AND
SUPPLY CONTRACT FOR POWER PLANT - CHANGE ORDER #1
BACKGROUND:
On June 14, 2022, the City Council approved a contract with HTH Companies, Inc. for
the non-asbestos insulation and related services and supplies. This was the third optional
renewal of the contract. The contract involves the removal, repair, and reinstallation of
non-asbestos insulation at the Power Plant. It also includes installation of new insulation
systems on pipes, ducts, equipment, vessels, boilers, and accessories throughout the
Power Plant; repair and replacement of lagging systems; repair and replacement of
jacketing systems and installation of new jacketing systems; fire-stopping insulation; and
sound attenuation insulation.
It is important to note that the contract amount is not for a specific project, but
rather the staff’s best estimate of the amount of work that might be performed in a
given year. Work is charged to the City based on the actual time and materials
used for specific tasks as directed by Power Plant staff.
Many insulated pipes in the older portion of the power plant contain asbestos insulation,
and it has been a priority to continually remove the asbestos and replace it with non -
asbestos insulation. Normal practice is to remove asbestos from one pipe at a time. This
has provided for the continual normal operation of units without much disruption.
A point has been reached where most of the remaining asbestos material on Unit
7 is within a part of the plant where several pipes run through the same area, and
it would be best to remove all the asbestos in the area at one time instead of
independently removing asbestos from each pipe. This will be a much larger removal
and re-insulation project compared to normal practice. Completing this project at one
time not only the most economical approach, but it will also reduce Unit 7’s unavailability
window.
THIS ACTION
The action being requested is to approve Change Order No. 1 to the Non-asbestos
Insulation and Related Services and Supply Contract. This change order will add an
additional $95,000 to the current contract for FY 2022/23 for additional material and labor.
This will bring the total contract to an amount not to exceed $245,000.
2
Funding for this change order will come from the building maintenance account where
there is $150,000 budgeted.
Actual payments are calculated on unit prices and work performed, limited by the
available budget amount. The Council should understand the additional funds
authorized in this change order will only be spent on actual time and material used
to perform the work.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve Change Order No. 1 to HTH Companies, Inc. in the amount of $95,000
for additional non-asbestos insulation and related services, increasing the total
contract to an amount not to exceed $245,000. All labor and materials will be
performed and invoiced on a time and material basis according to rates, terms,
stipulations, and conditions specified in the original contract.
2. Do not approve the requested change order.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Because of the safety risk of hot piping and equipment and the inefficiencies that come
from energy loss due to poor or no insulation, it is important to keep non -asbestos
insulation maintenance on-going. This change order will allow for the most cost effective
removal and replacement of a larger area of asbestos insulation that would be difficult to
replace in a phased process. All labor and materials will be performed and invoiced on a
time and material basis according to rates, terms, stipulations, and conditions specified
in the original contract.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No.1 as stated above.
main
fax
MEMO
To: Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: City Clerk’s Office
Date: February 28, 2023
Subject: Contract and Bond Approval
There is no Council Action Form for Item No. 16. City Council approval of the contract
and bond for this project is simply fulfilling a State Code requirement.
/cmw
Smart Choice
Public Works Department 515.239.5160 main 515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
Engineering 515.239.5404 fax Ames, IA 50010
www.CityofAmes.org
Public Works Department
515 Clark Avenue, Ames, Iowa 50010
Phone 515-239-5160 Fax 515-239-5404
February 21, 2023
Honorable Mayor and Council Members
City of Ames
Ames, Iowa 50010
RE: Compass Subdivision Financial Security Reduction- Final
Mayor and Council Members:
I hereby certify that all public sidewalk required as a condition for approval of the final plat of
Compass Subdivision, have been completed in an acceptable manner by various contractors.
The above-mentioned improvements have been inspected by the Engineering Division of the
Public Works Department of the City of Ames, Iowa and found to meet City specifications and
standards.
As a result of this certification, it is recommended that the financial security LOC202130.1 for
public improvements on file with the City for this subdivision be reduced in full.
Sincerely,
John C. Joiner, P.E.
Director
JJ/cc
cc: Finance, Developer, Planning & Housing, Subdivision file
Item No. 17
ITEM #: 18
DATE: 02-28-23
DEPT: PW
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: 2021/22 ASPHALT STREET PAVEMENT IMPROVEMENTS – OPAL DR
(JEWEL DR TO CRYSTAL ST), OPAL CIR, HARCOURT DR (GARNET
DR TO JEWEL DR), TURQUOISE CIR, AND TOP-O-HOLLOW RD
(BLOOMINGTON RD TO DAWES DR)
BACKGROUND:
This is the annual program for reconstruction or rehabilitation of asphalt streets, typically
located with residential neighborhoods. Rehabilitation of existing asphalt streets is
possible where the base asphalt layer is solid, but the surface course has failed. Full-
depth replacement of these streets is necessary in cases of structural pavement failure.
On February 8, 2022, City Council awarded the contract to Manatt’s Inc., of Ames, Iowa
in the amount of $2,133,380.02. Change Order No. 1 (with this action) is the
balancing change order for the project and is a deduction in the amount of
($129,856.34). In addition to reflecting final field measured quantities, major items in this
change order include savings in subgrade preparation and spot repairs for the existing
sanitary sewer. Construction was completed in the amount of $2,003,523.68.
Revenues and expenses are as follows:
Source/Activity Available
Revenue
Estimated
Expenses
2021/22 Asphalt Pavement Imp. (G.O. Bonds)
2021/22 Accessibility Enhancement (L.O.S.T)
$ 2,500,000
15,000
Construction
Engineering/Admin
$2,003,523.68
300,525.00
TOTAL $ 2,515,000 $2,304,048.68
ALTERNATIVES:
1. a.) Approve Change Order No. 1 a deduction in the amount of $129,856.34.
b.) Accept the 2021/22 Asphalt Street Pavement Improvements – (Opal Dr, Opal
Cir, Harcourt Dr, Turquoise Cir, and Top-O-Hollow Rd) project as completed by
Manatts Inc. of Ames, Iowa, in the amount of $2,003,523.68.
2. Direct Staff to pursue changes to the project.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This project was completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council
adopt Alternative No. 1, as noted above.
ITEM #: 19
DATE: 02-28-23
DEPT: P&H
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING SELECTION OF A PARTNER DEVELOPER IN
CONNECTION WITH LOW-INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT (LIHTC)
PROPOSALS FOR MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN THE
BAKER SUBDIVISION (321 STATE AVENUE)
BACKGROUND:
At its November 22nd City Council meeting, Council reviewed only one proposal for a 4%
LIHTC 36-unit affordable housing project on the City’s 2.78-acre site within the Baker
Subdivision (Attachment A Location Map). The City Council declined to accept this
proposal. This decision was due to the fact that the Commonwealth Companies’ proposal
exceeded the City’s budget capacity for the project. As a result, the City Council
provided direction for staff to prepare a new Request for Proposals (RFP) for a 9%
LIHTC housing project to secure additional financial resources for the development
of affordable family housing on the site.
Additionally, City Council, at its December 13th meeting, approved revisions to the RFP
(see Attachment B), and staff proceeded with the solicitation process in which proposals
were due by January 17th.
The City received two proposals in response to the RFP, the Commonwealth
Companies and Hatch Development Group. Both proposals are available for review in
their entirety on the Housing Division’s website at: www.cityofames.org/housing under
“What’s New”. Included as Attachment C to this report is a matrix summarizing project
attributes and excerpts of their proposed design and scoring.
An evaluation committee assessed the responsiveness of both proposals to the RFP in
relationship to the RFP criteria as outlined below. The evaluation criteria were based on
the developer’s capability and track record, housing variety, percentage of affordable
housing, feasibility (proforma, etc.), cost and viability, property management experience,
project design, use of geothermal, project timeline, and potential IFA score.
Initially, the committee determined that both proposals met the stated goals for the
project. Next, the evaluation committee interviewed both groups to discuss and review
their proposals in greater detail. The committee’s final scores for both steps in the
review are as follows: The Commonwealth Companies = 625 points out of 850
points and Hatch Development Group = 740 points out of 850 points.
The details of the projects and their evaluations are described below. The evaluation also
included a review of project scoring against the IFA Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP)
criteria which is critical for a competitive application at the state level. (Attachment D)
THE COMMONWEALTH
COMPANIES
45 UNITS LIHTC PROJECTED
SCORING - 48 POINTS*
*59 Total possible points under LIHTC
The Commonwealth Companies have completed or have projects underway in 21 states
with numerous federal housing projects. One project has been completed in Iowa in
Johnston, which is a 62-unit senior housing project, and one project is underway in
Bondurant, which is a family complex.
The proposed project includes 45 total units. Included in this total are:
• 6 four-bedroom apartments,
• 20 three-bedroom apartments,
• 10 two-bedroom apartments, and
• 9 one-bedroom apartments.
Of the total 45 units, 11 will be limited to occupancy by households earning 40% of Area
Median Income (AMI) and the remaining 34 units will be a mix of income levels up to 80%
AMI as allowed by LIHTC.
However, a certain percent of the units will still need to meet the City’s HOME rent
limitations which is a maximum income level of 60% AMI. Additionally, the City’s set aside
of 10% of the units for Section 8 voucher households can be for any of the family units in
the project. One-bedroom units will not be accounted for as the City’s set aside Section
8 units.
The Commonwealth Companies proposal is different from the earlier proposal for 37 units
that the City saw during the fall of 2022 when reviewing the RFP for 4% LIHTC when it
was a mix of townhomes and apartment units. The current proposal attempts to maximize
the number of units on the site. This proposal includes 1 three story building and 2 one
story buildings. Most of units have individual entrances similar to townhomes.
The site’s design is oriented around a central parking area and common open space.
Access is at the east side of the site. Parking will be provided at a rate of 2 spaces per
unit. The one story building situated along Tripp Street will include covered entrances
facing the street.
The building architecture includes additional aesthetic features that were not part of the
4% proposal, but the buildings are generally larger due to the additional units. Buildings
include stone as an accent material, with the majority of the building façade utilizing
horizontal siding. The roof design is a gabled roof with some projecting side gable
elements over balconies and entrances. The overall aesthetic is that of a contemporary
residential appearance.
The applicant projected an IFA score of 48 out of 59 points. The developer requested the
$1.8 million of City in HOME funds with the land at no cost. Overall, the evaluation
committee’s pros/cons summary of The Commonwealth proposal was as follows:
+ Experienced Portfolio as a company overall (although only two projects in Iowa, one
completed, one not started)
+ Clubhouse addition
+ Specific recreational area identified
+ In-house construction and management divisions
+ Improved exterior material design & layout compared to earlier proposal
+ Increased number of units
+ On-site Management and Maintenance Team
+ Self IFA Score of 48/59 pts
- Addition of 1-Br Units (not family)
- Expansion of income limits to include up to 80% AMI
- Only 11 units would be set aside at the 40% (remaining units would be income averaged
between 50% to 80% of AMI)
- Utilities only include owner paid: water/sewer/trash
- Response to a question regarding affordability performance period if high vacancy- Did
not provide a detailed plan of how the rents would be addressed or to find additional
tenants; only when it became an issue would they address it at that time.
HATCH DEVELOPMENT
GROUP
38 UNITS LIHTC PROJECTED
SCORING – 48 POINTS*
*59 Total possible points under LIHTC
Hatch Development Group is an Iowa-based affordable housing developer with
experience receiving LITHC awards in multiple cities across Iowa. The proposed project
includes 38 units. Of this total, there are:
• 16 two-bedroom apartments,
• 18 three-bedroom apartments, and
• 4 four-bedroom apartments.
Of the 38-unit total, all units will be a mix of units affordable to households that do not
exceed between 50% and 60% of the Average Median Income (AMI) for Ames.
Additionally, as part of the LIHTC requirements the proposal rents will be limited to 40%
of AMI. Additionally, a certain percent of the units will still need to meet the City’s HOME
rent limitations which is to not exceed a maximum income level of 60% AMI.
The site design is 100% 2-story townhome style apartments, meaning each unit has an
individual walk-up entrance, and there are no dwellings above or below another unit. All
the units along Tripp Street include a front door oriented to the street with a porch. The
same design is used for units located internal to the site oriented to the parking areas.
The architectural design is of a traditional residential appearance using brick at the base
level, horizontal siding for the majority of the building facades, and vertically oriented
siding as an accent. The units all include a traditional gabled roof design.
The current design has the driveway situated on the west side of the site; however, this
will need to change during the site review to align with the Latimer Lane intersection on
the east side of the site. If this occurs, a row of units will then be placed along the west
property line rather than the east property line. The proposal will also require revisions to
parking to account for two parking spaces per unit.
The applicant projected an IFA score of 48 of 59 points. The developer requested the
$1.8 million of City in HOME funds with the land at no cost and will seek to apply for
$500,000 of State HOME funds. Overall, the evaluation committee’s pros/cons of the
Hatch Development Group proposal were as follows:
+ Townhome style unit design for all units
+ Iowa based company with an experienced portfolio of units in central Iowa.
+ On-site sister company management partner and maintenance team
+ Long-term relationship with General Contractor
+ Satisfactory exterior material design & layout
+ Geothermal design partner
+ Self IFA Score of 48/59 pts
+ Income limits set 50 & 60% of AMI
+ 100% of the rent will be at 40% of the AMI
+ All utilities would be owner paid
+ Response to a question regarding affordability performance if there is high vacancy-
provided a detailed explanation of how they would address it if it became an issue.
- Revisions to the site plan are needed for the final concept plan
- Parking lot does not contain enough stalls for the proposed number of units
- No detailed outdoor amenities and/or clubhouse identified.
- Requesting an additional $500,000 of state HOME funding (Request is out of City
control, but the developer committed to reducing developer’s fee to compensate if not
awarded)
The evaluation committee concluded that the proposal from the Hatch Development
Group met more of the criteria of the RFP than The Commonwealth Companies.
Neighborhood Outreach
Staff held a virtual meeting on the 20th to review the proposals with the neighborhood.
Approximately nine people participated. The neighborhood had questions about the rent
amounts, amenities, and mix of units. Staff anticipates individuals will provide specific
comments to City Council for the 28th.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Direct staff to work with Hatch Development Group to prepare an agreement to
partner on a LIHTC application and development of the site on Lot 27 in the Baker
Subdivision located at 321 State Avenue with affordable multi-family housing for
the March 14th City Council meeting. This will also require an updated concept plan
per staffs comments for access and parking.
2. Direct staff to work with The Commonwealth Companies to prepare an agreement
to partner on a LIHTC application and development of the site on Lot 27 in the
Baker Subdivision located at 321 State Avenue with affordable multi-family
housing for the March 14th City Council meeting.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff has concluded that both developers attempted to be responsive to the City’s RFP
criteria, but still needed to score well with IFA’s QAP criteria. The City’s RFP focused on
ensuring affordability and accessibility to low-income family households with 10% being
set aside for Section 8 voucher holders, providing up to $1.8 million dollars of HOME
funding, transferring the city land at no cost, and requiring the use of Geothermal for the
project.
The scoring component of IFA’s QAP differs from in past 9% LIHTC applications in that it
allows for more options to score points, such as:
1. Affordability of Residents (4 scoring categories)- 30 Points Max
2. Location (7 scoring categories)-13 Points Max
3. Site Appeal (16 categories)-5 Points Max
4. Market Appeal (15 categories)-5 Points Max
5. Qualifying Development Team (4 categories)-6 Points Max
Depending on which categories are selected by the developer, the maximum scoring
would be 59 points. However, there are some categories where the “City” nor the “site”
would qualify for all potential LIHTC points (i.e., Disaster Recovery area, Underserved
Cities, High-Quality Job Award, Social Vulnerability Index, Site Appeal, and Community
Housing Development Organization (CHDO) experience). Therefore, staff agrees with the
proposals that our project would be able to score 48 of 59 points, which is
approximately 81% of the points. Staff and the developers believe this is a
competitive score for a LIHTC award.
The evaluation committee felt that serving our low-income families was a top priority. Of
the two options presented under the QAP scoring criteria by the developers, the
committee determined the Hatch Development Group mix of units and rent
reduction approach as more responsive to our RFP. In their proposal, they chose the
Rent Reduction Category. Under this category, the following criteria:
“Projects that provide LIHTC rents for the 60% or 50% AMI units at 40% AMI rent
levels. Tenant income eligibility will remain at 60% and 50% AMI, respectively. This
category is unavailable to Projects with a Federal project-based rental assistance
contract.”
Under these criteria, the Hatch Development Group proposes to have all rents for
the 38 units at the 40% of the AMI, regardless of whether their household incomes
are at the 50% or a maximum of 60% AMI. Additionally, they are proposing 2,3, and
4 bedroom units, which are more accommodating for families with children.
The Commonwealth Companies would have a similar number of family units but it
would have 11 specific units set aside for lower incomes at the 40% AMI level than
the Hatch proposal. The remaining mix of incomes limits and units cannot be
clearly quantified at this time due to the income averaging approach. Additionally,
the one-bedroom units at up to 80% of AMI are essentially market rate units and
are not viewed as meeting our affordability goals.
The Hatch Development Group has a slightly stronger track record in successful LITHC
awards in Iowa. Both groups indicated a willingness to work on refining the concepts and
tailoring it to the City’s interests for the site.
Another consideration of the proposals will be the $1.8 million of the City’s HOME financial
contribution to the project. Although the overall project will have the largest contribution
of funds through the state LIHTC funding, HUD will require a certain percentage of the
units to be administered under the City’s HOME grant program guidelines. We are waiting
on information from HUD to determine the specific requirements for both either proposal
regarding specific units income limitations.
Although there are changes need to the Hatch proposal, staff can recommend and
support the Hatch Development Group proposal concept as best meeting the City’s
goals for developing affordable family housing on the site. Therefore, the City
Manager recommends Alternative 1.
Attachment A-Location Map
Attachment B
Highlighted Revisions of the RFP :
• Proposal must utilize the Iowa Finance Authority’s 9% LIHTC program
• Accept proposals only for a medium-density development with approximately 30-50 dwelling
units
• Ineligible Home Types include: senior housing, nursing homes, board, and care facilities,
rooming or boarding houses, transitional housing units, homeless shelters, or permanent
supportive housing units and supervised living facilities licensed by the State of Iowa or delegated
to a local Department of Health, including properties where residents require a 24-hour plan for
supervision and/or medical/health care.
• The City of Ames will complete the rezoning of the site to a Medium Density Planned Unit
Development Overlay zoning district prior to April 1, 2023.
• Require a minimum of 10% of units as 4-Bedroom units, not to exceed six (6) units, unless a
market study indicates additional units are needed
• Include a minimum of 10% of units to be set aside for Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher
participants
• Enter into a developer’s agreement with the City of Ames to prepare a 9% LIHTC application
that includes the terms for the developer’s construction and operation of the project, the City’s
participation in the project, transfer of land for the development of the project, and anticipated
start date of the construction
• The agreement shall be completed with the City of Ames within 45 days from the date of
acceptance of the proposal by the City Council. The application shall be submitted to the Iowa
Finance Authority (IFA) on or about 30-45 days after a developer’s agreement has been signed
with the City of Ames • The City will provide the project site to the developer at no cost.
• The City will provide HOME Funds of up to $1.8 million for units affordable to households
earning between 30% to 50% Ames Area Medium Income (AMI)
• Proposal submittal will be due by January 17, 2023. The LIHTC applications to IFA are due to
IFA by April 19, 2023
• Proposals will be evaluated based on developer experience, design, and property
management experience. An evaluation committee comprised of staff members from Planning
and Housing, the City Attorney’s Office, Public Works, Electric, and the Purchasing Division will
be assessing the responsiveness of the proposal in relation to the RFP submittal requirements.
Attachment C
Summary of Proposals Spreadsheet
48 out of 59 48 out of 59
Type & Style of Units:38 units 45 units
16 -2 BR 9-1 BR
18 - 3 BR 10-2 BR
4 - 4 BR 20-3 BR
6-4 BR
Utilities All utilities included Owner pays water/sewer/trash
Notable Features:
Ammenity Area Identified, specifics to be
determined during design. ENERGY STAR clothes
washers, dishwashers, and refrigerators, Install
Electric Vehicle charging stations, Dedicated onsite
recycling area
Pergola-covered picnic area, planting garden, playground
equipment, community center with fitness center, business
center/computer lab, In-Unit Laundry, Energy Star
Appliances, Video Security System, In-Unit High Speed
Internet Access, On-Site Maintenance
Rent Reduction-Option Serving 40% of AMI LIHTC Residents Option
Serving 50 & 60% of AMI Residents & 100% of the
rents will remain at the 40% AMI
Serving 24% ( 11 Residents) at the 40% AMI LIHTC,
remaining 76% (34 Residents) at the 60 & 80% AMI
March 2024-March 2025 Spring 2024-Spring 2025
Occupancy Dates
Projected Project Costs:$12,478,080 $16,241,815
Proposed Project Financing:
LIHTC $9,310,950 $10,200,000
City Requests:
HOME $1,800,000 $1,800,000
State HOME $500,000
Land provided at $0 cost provided at $0 cost
Other
Construction Financing $450,000 First Mortgage
& $65,000 2nd Mortgage $3,845,000
Construction Budget $9,880,500 $12,054,001
Project Locations:
Developed over 500 units in Des Moines, Cedar
Rapids, Newton, Winterset, Dubuque, Waverly,
Clinton; Historic Renovations in Newton, Sioux City
Developed in 21 States; 127 Multifamily Projects ;
Bondurant-40 mid rise - construction to start in Spring
2023; Johnston-62 Units Senior
Simonon + Associates Architects LLC M+A Design, Inc
Construction Contractor
Keoster Construction (Construction Agreement in
place)Commonwealth Construction Corp (In-house)
Property Management
Perennial Properties Management Services, LLC
(Sister Company)Commonweatlth Management Corp (In House)
Committee Evaluation Score 750/850 650/850
1
ITEM:_20__
Staff Report
REQUEST TO INITIATE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING LANDSCAPE
ACCENTS WITHIN A BUILDING SETBACK
February 28, 2023
BACKGROUND
City Council requested background information on fences and projections into yards in
December 2022. Staff had described recent decisions by the Zoning Board of Adjustment
concerning appeals of administrative decisions regarding fences and “landscape accent”
features. On January 10, 2023, City Council directed staff to prepare a staff report
on setback projections, specifically regarding “landscape accents.” City Council
indicated at that meeting that it did not want to review fence standards.
The Zoning Ordinance considers essentially all constructed improvements above ground
to be structures. The Zoning Ordinance requires all structures to meet setbacks
based upon the zoning district and type of structure unless specifically exempted.
Residential zoning districts typically have a 25-foot front yard setback, side
setbacks of six or eight feet for one- and two-stories respectively, and a rear yard
setback of 20 feet. However, certain features are allowed to fully project into
required setbacks as defined in the Zoning Ordinance, such as stairs, 24-inch-high
decks, driveways, fences, accessory buildings, porches, etc. Section 29.402(2)(c)
includes a list of these items allowed as full projections (Attachment A).
In 2020, refinements to the language in Section 29.402 were included as part of
Ordinance #4425. The general intent was to clarify requirements and expectations for the
extension of building features into required setbacks as well as offer additional flexibility
in the allowances for certain extensions. Small items including arbors and statuary of
up to four feet were previously allowed, but in 2020, the allowances were broadened
to allow for a greater range of features with the intent that it did not cause yard
areas to become fenced inconsistent with fence standards.
Previously, the relevant portion of the standards on landscape accents read: “Arbors with
a footprint no greater than 10 square feet; fountains and statuary up to four feet in height,
constructed ponds and waterfalls at or below finished grade, and similar incidental
landscape accent.”
The standard now reads: “Landscape accents that include but are not limited to arbors
with a footprint coverage area no greater than 15 square feet; fountains and statuary up
to four feet in height, and constructed ponds and waterfalls at or below finished gra de,
2
and similar incidental landscape accents. The design and location of accent features shall
not have the effect of creating a continuous wall that does not meet fence standards.”
The change in the text was intended to allow non-intrusive, incidental landscape
accents within a setback. Although some descriptive characteristics were included
in the text, the lack of clear expectations to size and quantity of these incidental
landscape features has become problematic in application of the text for both the
height of poles and other features as well as their overall size of features.
Additionally, no specific building permit is required in advance of construction or
placing these types of features and there is no staff review.
Recent appeals to the Zoning Board of Adjustment have made it apparent that
some quantifiable characteristics and limitations are needed to avoid confusion.
Staff still is supportive of being flexible for these landscape and garden types of
features. However, it seems that more specific language is needed to avoid issues
of interpretation. A permit process would also be beneficial regarding
encroachments into setbacks for all types of features, including fences.
OPTIONS:
The primary question to resolve is the intent of the exception, and when does it
cross over to fencing. The options below are focused on language changes to clarify
the maximum size and number of landscape accents that may be located within a setback
(or front yard) within Section 29.402(2)(c). There are a wide range of options to allow for
or to manage the accent features through height, size, percent of yard area covered,
exception process, or permits. Staff has focused on height or size options for this report.
Option 1: ADD A HEIGHT LIMIT EQUAL TO FENCES FOR LANDSCAPE ACCENTS
Landscape accents in front yards would be limited to a maximum height of four feet and
landscape accents in rear setbacks would be limited to a maximum height of six feet.
Height limit would be eight feet outside of setbacks, except in front yards. By removing
any ambiguity in relation to the height of features, the question of whether a structure is
a fence or not becomes moot. Arbors and trellis, which typically extend up to eight feet,
would not be allowed within the setback. They would only be allowed outside of the
setback.
Option 2: ADD A LANDSCAPE ACCENT HEIGHT LIMIT OF EIGHT FEET
This option would allow for arbors and other objects that are taller than fences but not as
long as fences. However, they would still be limited by other language to avoid enclosing
areas similar to fences. Staff would suggest a three-foot setback that matches accessory
buildings would also be appropriate to ensure it is not part of a fence on a property line.
This option alone would not resolve all of staff’s concerns about consistent administration
of the exception, but it clearly addresses height limitations and relationship to fence
attachments. There is no limit on the number of features within his option.
3
Option 3: MAXIMUM OF THREE LANDSCAPE ACCENTS THAT ARE NO GREATER
IN SIZE THAN 8X8 FEET
This option focuses on the number and length/width of accents rather than height. The
philosophy of this standard would be that up to three eight-foot wide or long accents would
not completely encroach upon a yard and enclose it like a fence. This would apply to
standalone objects some as poles, garden tables, arbors, trellises, etc. Someone could
use this language to place trellis or other type of panels as barriers separate from a fence
to shield a patio, window, etc. or to grow plants.
This option would be the most accommodating option for people desiring ornamental
features and garden features in a front yard while trying to ensure the yard does not
become fenced and closed off in the front.
Option 4: ADDRESS ARBORS OR GATES FOR FENCES SEPARATE FROM OTHER
ACCENT LIMITATIONS
Add the provision that one arbor may be located in combination with a fence and exceed
fence height as long as, the arbor is no greater than 15 square feet in size (footprint).
Currently, there is no limit on the height or number of arbors, as long as they are not part
of a fence and do not have the “effect of creating a continuous wall.” Arbors attached to
a fence are viewed as part of the fence and are limited to the fence height when in
setbacks. Staff believes that the addition of an arbor at the property line in association
with a fence or as a discrete standalone feature is an appropriate option that matches the
original allowances of the Code and can be considered in combination with Option 1.
Option 5: REQUIRE A PERMIT FOR A FENCE AND/OR ACCENT PROJECTION
WITHIN A SETBACK
This option could apply to regardless of making any changes to standards. The current
language could remain and be subject to review by staff. Alternatively, even with changes
to the language a permit could be required to review it for conformity before it is
constructed. If there is question of staff’s review it would then be appealable to the ZBA.
Even with changes to the standards this option would be beneficial for establishing a clear
process to communicate to the public. This is a similar issue f or fences as driveways
permits past year.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Staff believes some version of a text amendment would be appropriate to assist in
administration of the exception rather than maintaining the status quo as well as to
promote flexibility for small or incidental features as landscape accents.
Presuming City Council wants to allow substantial flexibility, staff believes Option
3 would provide that by focusing on the number of features. If height is the number
4
one concern, the other options would clarify the standards as well without materially
impacting the fence regulations. Regardless of which of the first four options are
pursued, staff believes Option 5, which requires a permit, would also be beneficial.
NEXT STEPS:
The staff is seeking direction, if desired, regarding a proposed text amendment. Once
direction is provided, the staff will draft language as needed to modify the related sections
for projections into setbacks and height standards. The proposed text amendment would
then go to Planning and Zoning Commission for review and a recommendation before
returning to the City Council for approval of an ordinance later this spring.
5
Attachment A -Code References
Sec. 29.402. SETBACKS.
(1) Building Setback Standard. Except as provided below, all buildings and structures, Principal
and Accessory, shall be located to comply with the minimum and maximum Building
Setbacks established for Principal and Accessory Buildings listed in each Zone Development
Standards Table, Supplemental Development Standards Table, condition, or other regulation
applicable to the lot or the use being employed at the site.
(2) Extensions into Required Building Setbacks. Certain building elements and site features
are allowed to be located within or project into required setbacks.
(c) Full projections allowed. In addition to the minor projections listed in the previous
section, the following features are allowed to fully project into required setbacks:
(i) Covered walkways leading to main entrances in commercial and industrial zones;
(ii) Uncovered stairways (including landings), wheelchair lifts, and accessible access
ramps and associated handrails that lead directly to a first floor, basement, or at-
grade building entrance;
(iii) At-grade steps, above-grade steps up to three feet in height, and associated
handrails, sidewalls, and landings;
(iv) Uncovered decks, with or without railings, no higher than 24 inches above
finished grade;
(v) Retaining walls that retain fill and which are up to four feet in height in front
setbacks and up to six feet in height in side and rear setbacks.
(vi) Retaining walls of any height that retain existing natural grade;
(vii) Driveways, patios, sidewalks, and similar at-grade surfaces;
(viii) Landscape accents that include but are not limited to arbors with a coverage
area no greater than 15 square feet; fountains and statuary up to four feet in height,
and constructed ponds and waterfalls at or below finished grade, and similar
incidental landscape accents. The design and location of accent features shall not
have the effect of creating a continuous wall that does not meet fence standards.
(ix) Mechanical Units (in rear and side yards only);
(x) Play structures (within rear and side yards only), no closer than three feet to
property lines;
(xi) Fences as allowed in Section 29.408(2); (STAFF NOTE-Fences limited to 4 feet
in height anywhere in a front yard, even if it is beyond the first 25-foot setback.
6
Fences may be up to 6 feet in height in side and rear yard setbacks, anything greater
in height would need to meet setbacks.)
(xii) Planter boxes/walls at allowable fence heights;
(xiii) Alternative Energy devices as allowed in Sections 29.1309 & 29.1310;
(xiv) Satellite dishes less than one meter in diameter;
(xv) Mailboxes, little libraries, cluster box units, flagpoles, and lamp poles;
(xvi) Signs are subject to the standards of Chapter 21 and Chapter 29. Free standing
signs described as ground, pole, or monument signs, including any support structure
of said signs, where the sign has less than 150 square feet of coverage. Signs
attached to a principal building, such as wall signs and projecting signs, that do not
have support extending to the ground;
(xvii) Public Art when located within a public art easement accepted by the City of
Ames.
(xviii) Bicycle Parking Systems. Bicycle Parking Systems may be located in the
front setback of nonresidential zoning districts when it is no higher than four feet in
height and it does not interfere with required landscaping. This exception does not
allow for parking areas where otherwise not permitted.
1
ITEM:_21__
Staff Report
SETBACKS FOR VEHICLE CHARGERS AND RELATED EQUIPMENT
February 28, 2023
BACKGROUND
Ames Electric is working with vehicle charging companies on locating equipment for Level
3 fast chargers on existing commercial sites within the City. Ames Electric has also
installed their own Level 2 chargers in various locations around the community, including
the City Hall Parking Lot M. Current zoning standards regulate placement of equipment
in relation to setbacks and landscaped areas.
While locating chargers seems to be a minor issue within a parking lot, in fact there
is a substantial amount of infrastructure and equipment needed to power Level 3
Fast Chargers. Commonly, the charging company will need to deploy new
infrastructure, including transformers, to be able to power the new chargers. Note
that Level 3 fast chargers require additional equipment compared to Level 2 chargers.
After speaking with representatives from Tesla, they typically deploy a package of
equipment for fast charging in groups of four chargers with ancillary equipment. Below is
an example of eight fast charging stations in Altoona that depicts the amount of equipment
necessary to support such an installation. In some cases, there can be a fewer number
of cabinets depending on the manufacturer. Tesla believes their current generation of
equipment has fewer cabinets than the Altoona example.
2
When this equipment and chargers are located internal to a site, there are no conflicts
with zoning standards. However, on existing sites we have had requests to place
equipment in front yards, which is prohibited by the zoning standards. There is no
stated exception for projecting into setbacks for font yard mechanical equipment
or vehicle chargers.
Many existing commercial sites have 5 to 10 feet of front yard landscaped area before
their parking lot paving begins. The amount of equipment could easily take up all front
yard area. Although all of the equipment can be placed within a site subject to the
minimum setback of 20 feet, companies may find that more difficult to accomplish with
other site planning factors of the property owner or more expensive for the charging
company. In some cases the property owners have their own parameters about where
equipment may be situated that are different than our zoning allowances.
Charging companies are also conscious of cost and how dispersal of cabinets away from
chargers would result in higher costs. Cabinets and transformers can be set away from
the chargers; however, it has higher costs for wiring. There are some limitations in
accessing transformers and connecting to transmission lines.
Staff believes that the City Council should address allowances for vehicle chargers
within the Zoning Ordinance in order to allow for potentially more convenient
installations of chargers on a site.
OPTION 1 - NO CHANGE TO SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
City Council could maintain the status quo and require all charging equipment, cabinets,
and transformers to meet minimum setbacks. This would still allow for charging stations,
but it would not be possible in the first row or edge of parking along a street for almost all
commercial sites in the City. Staff would add references to vehicle chargers to the Zoning
Ordinance, but change no standards.
OPTION 2 - ALLOW LIMITED ENCROACHMENT FOR ONLY VEHICLE CHARGERS
WITHIN FRONT YARD SETBACKS
City Council could establish an allowance within Section 29.402 (2) (c) of the Zoning
Ordinance for a setback encroachment of the actual vehicle charger. This option
recognizes that parking spaces are commonly allowed within the front yard setback and
that a charger must be situated at the front of the parking space to serve vehicles. Level
2 and 3 chargers would typically take up 4 to 9 square feet for the charger itself, this would
be an encroachment of approximately 3 to 5 feet into the setback. The other cabinets
and transformers would not be permitted to fully encroach and would have to be meet
setbacks.
This option would allow encroachment within the 20-foot setback, but require at
least 10 feet of landscape space between the chargers and the property line.
3
Note that Tesla indicated to staff that if one cabinet could be placed with each package
of four chargers that would desirable to them for cost savings over remotely placing the
cabinets. Such an installation would be within a similar footprint to what staff described
above for the chargers.
A variation of this option would be to allow for a stated encroachment depth w hether it is
a cabinet or charger. Although one cabinet as described by Tesla representatives and
smaller than those shown above may be acceptable as a minimal encroachment, it is
hard for staff to anticipate all charging company’s products and sizes to s ay for certain
how this type of allowance would precisely be laid out for a site.
OPTION 3 - FULL PROJECTIONS RELATED TO VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS
This option would allow for all equipment, including transformers to be within a setback.
This option would still require landscape screening of transformers, which could be
difficult within small landscaped front yards.
While this option is the most convenient for placing vehicle chargers, it has the most visual
impacts in regards to the prominence of equipment and reduction in landscaping. Even if
all equipment could be in the setback as an encroachment, staff would still desire that
at least a 10-foot landscape separation be required with this full encroachment
option. If a 10-foot landscaped separation is still required it would allow for equipment to
be in a paved parking lot setback, but only minimally encroach into a landscaped front
yard when a site has more than 10 feet of landscaped front yard setbacks maintained
after encroachment.
OPTION 4 - SPECIAL USE PERMIT OR MINOR EXCEPTION PROCESS
This option would make placement of equipment and charges within setbacks a
discretionary review for the Zoning Board of Adjustment. It would have compatibility
criteria, but would not require variance findings. This approach would be warranted if City
Council did not believe a standard allowance for chargers would fit sites uniformly across
the city and individual review and permitting is necessary. Staff believes this level of
permitting is only necessary if Council wants to consider a greater levels of exceptions
and encroachments into setbacks for sites that do not have larger landscaped front yards.
WHAT ARE OTHER CITIES DOING?:
City staff reached out to other Iowa cities (Ankeny, Marion, Iowa City, Des Moines, West
Des Moines, Waukee, Urbandale, Grimes) to discuss their approach to setbacks for
equipment related to vehicle charging. The equipment is commonly treated as accessory
buildings or equipment, with each city having variations in how setbacks, landscaping,
and permitting applies to such structures and equipment within their city. Generally, the
equipment is not permitted to fully occupy a front setback if it is permitted to
encroach within a landscaped setback. Ultimately, landscaping buffering appears
to be expected in all situations with some cities having a design review process to
4
make a case-by-case determination of how to situate accessory structures on a
site.
The responses also indicated that new development is accommodating the equipment
within sites and not needing exceptions. Retrofits of existing sites has not been a common
issue for most cities. Iowa City is in the process of updating their standards specifically
for chargers due to retrofitting situations.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Staff believes it would be beneficial to identify vehicle charging facilities within the Zoning
Ordinance to communicate standards to charging companies. Staff believes Option 2
is a reasonable allowance to support chargers in parking lots, but also to maintain
at least a 10-foot landscape buffer within front yards. With Option 2, staff would
proceed with drafting a text amendment for Planning and Zoning Commission review and
recommendation before returning to City Council for approval of an ordinance.
Caring People Quality Programs Exceptional Service
515.239.5101 main
fax
Clark Ave.
MEMO
To: Mayor and Council
From: Susan Gwiasda, Public Relations Officer
Date: February 28, 2023
Subject: Resident Satisfaction Survey 2023
The City of Ames is again working with Iowa State University’s Institute for Design
Research and Outreach to produce, distribute, and analyze the 2023 Resident Satisfaction
Survey. This will be the 41st year of the survey.
Each year, a small amount of space is reserved for current issue/policy questions to be added.
Most policy questions require some explanation before any question can be asked. Due to the
space necessary to set up the question, typically only a few additional questions fit in the
survey. The Council is welcome to suggest topics, but please note there is no obligation to
add to the survey.
For the 2022 survey, the Council made these changes:
•Removed the open-ended question "What would make Ames cool?" (P. 9)
•Added questions to determine the willingness of residents to sort garbage (P. 9)
•Removed “School Resource Officer Services” from a table asking about Police
services (P. 2)
•Added “marijuana-related crime enforcement” as a separate topic in the table asking
about Police services (P. 2)
•Combined a question under “Your Health” to include fruits and vegetables (P. 10)
•Added a question about rating physical and mental health (P. 9)
•Replaced a question under “Sense of Community” from “What would make you feel
welcomed and have a sense of belonging in Ames?” to “What could the City do to
demonstrate its commitment to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion?” (P. 10)
Within the last few years, the questions regarding “Your Health” and “Sense of Community”
(pages 9-11) that were not part of the original survey have continued to be included.
Our goal with the annual survey is to use feedback from our citizens regarding their
satisfaction with City of Ames programs and services, capital improvement projects, and
future allocations of funding to guide future decision making. Please consider what issues
or policies would be helpful to have public feedback and/or which questions can we
drop from the survey. Remember, you do not need to craft the actual questions because
our consultants at Iowa State University provide that expertise.
Item No. 22
1
40th Annual Resident Satisfaction SurveySpring 2022
Instructions: Please respond to each question with your own opinions and practices. This is usually done by
circling a number, checking a box, or filling in a blank.
An opportunity is also provided for you to add written comments.
A. Please rate the following Parks and Recreation features.
Very
Poor Poor Good
Very
Good
Don’t
Use
1. Hard surface trails/crushed rock trails ......o o o o o
2. Overall appearance of parks .....................o o o o o
3. Playground equipment .............................o o o o o
4. Restrooms .................................................o o o o o
5. Shelter houses ..........................................o o o o o
6. Tennis courts .............................................o o o o o
7. Wooded areas ...........................................o o o o o
8. Picnic areas (tables/grills) .........................o o o o o
Comments _________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
B. Please rate the following Ames Public Library features.
Very
poor Poor Good
Very
Good
Don’t
Use
1. Meeting/study rooms ....................................................o o o o o
2. Internet/computer services ...........................................o o o o o
3. Handicapped accessibility ..............................................o o o o o
4. Customer service ...........................................................o o o o o
5. Programs (story hour, book discussions, concerts) ........o o o o o
6. Range of materials available (books, videos, magazines,
software) ........................................................................o o o o o
7. Bookmobile service ........................................................o o o o o
8. Page One – the library newsletter .................................o o o o o
9. Asking questions of library staff by
phone ............................................................................o o o o o
10. Use of library resources from home via computer ........o o o o o
11. Wait time for requests/holds .........................................o o o o o
12. Availability of seating .....................................................o o o o o
13. Welcoming atmosphere .................................................o o o o o
2
D. How DISSATISFIED or SATISFIED are you with the following Fire Department activities?
Very
Dissatisfied
Somewhat
Dissatisfied
Somewhat
Satisfied
Very
Satisfied
Don’t
Know
1. Ambulance assistance ....................o o o o o
2. Putting out fires ..............................o o o o o
3. Fire prevention education & outreach o o o o o
4. Home & business safety inspections o o o o o
Comments _________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
E. Thinking about priorities for law enforcement, should the Ames Police Department emphasize the
following activities LESS, the SAME, or MORE?
Less Same More
1. Alcohol-related crime enforcement ........................................o o o
2. Animal control and sheltering .................................................o o o
3. Fraud & identity theft investigation ........................................o o o
4. Business district patrolling ......................................................o o o
5. Illegal drug use prevention and enforcement .........................o o o
6. Speed limit enforcement ........................................................o o o
7. Juvenile crimes investigation ..................................................o o o
8. Marijuana-related crime enforcement ...................................o o o
9. Noise law and nuisance party enforcement ...........................o o o
10. Parking laws enforcement.......................................................o o o
11. Sex-related offenses investigation...........................................o o o
12. Traffic control and enforcement .............................................o o o
13. Residential patrolling ..............................................................o o o
14. Domestic violence & family dispute resolution ......................o o o
15. Crime prevention and education activities .............................o o o
16. Violent crimes investigation ....................................................o o o
Comments _________________________________________________________________________________
C. Do you use the Ames Public Library as often as you would like to use it?
1. Yes
2. No
Comments _________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
C1. If NO, for what reasons do you not use the library as often as you
would like? (Circle ALL that apply.)
1. Parking is a problem
2. I get materials from other sources
3. I don’t have time
4. Library is not open during hours that are convenient to my
schedule
5. Other (please specify) ______________________________
3
F. Please rate how SATISFIED or DISSATISFIED you are with the City’s response after issues are reported
regarding the following nuisance ordinances?
Enforcement of ...
Very
Dissatisfied
Somewhat
Dissatisfied
Somewhat
Satisfied
Very
Satisfied
Don’t
Know
1. Over-occupancy in rental property ...........o o o o o
2. Noise limits ...............................................o o o o o
3. Front yard parking on residential
property ....................................................o o o o o
4. Yard upkeep (overgrown vegetation) ........o o o o o
5. Property upkeep (paint, gutters, broken
windows)...................................................o o o o o
6. Outdoor storage on property (old cars,
tires, furniture, garbage) ...........................o o o o o
Comments __________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
H. How OFTEN is the coordination between traffic signals effective? (Circle ONE response)
1. Rarely effective
2. Sometimes effective
3. Often effective
4. Almost always effective
5. Don’t know
Comments _________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
G. Please rate the quality of the following street maintenance features.
Very
poor Poor Good
Very
Good
Don’t
Know
1. Maintenance of bike path system (on street lanes &
paths) .................................................................................o o o o o
2. Appearance of medians and parkways ..............................o o o o o
3. Condition of streets in your neighborhood ........................o o o o o
4. Ice control at intersections ................................................o o o o o
5. Snow plowing in your neighborhood .................................o o o o o
6. Snow plowing on major streets .........................................o o o o o
7. Street sweeping in business areas .....................................o o o o o
8. Street sweeping in your neighborhood .............................o o o o o
9. Surface condition of major streets .....................................o o o o o
I. Does Ames Electric Services provide electricity to your home?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Don’t know
If NO, skip to Question M.
4
K. How SATISFIED are you with the following aspects of Ames Electric Services?
Very
Dissatisfied
Somewhat
Dissatisfied
Somewhat
Satisfied
Very
Satisfied
Does Not
Apply
1. Being informed of progress
restoring services ......................o o o o o
2. Ease of reporting an outage ......o o o o o
3. Response of employees ............o o o o o
4. Time to restore service .............o o o o o
5. Electric rates .............................o o o o o
6. The quality of power .................o o o o o
L. Ames Electric Services offers SunSmart Ames, a community solar farm project in Ames. Ames
Electric Services customers may purchase shares of the project at $285 per “Power Pack” and receive a
monthly credit on their bills for 19 years. (More information at www.CityOfAmes.org/Solar). Are you
participating?
1. Yes
2. No
Comments _________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
L1. If NO, why not? (Circle all that apply)
1. Too expensive
2. Not interested in renewable energy
3. Short-term stay in Ames
4. Other (please specify) _________________________
J. In the last 12 months, have you...?
No Yes
1. Experienced a power outage in your home? .......................................................................o o
2. Experienced a power surge that affected your computer operations? .............................o o
M. In the last 12 months, how many times have you had any of the following water service problems?
Never 1–2 times 3–6 times
7 or more
times
Does not
apply
1. Disagreeable taste or odor..............................o o o o o
2. Hard water ......................................................o o o o o
3. Rust .................................................................o o o o o
4. Sediment or cloudy appearance .....................o o o o o
5. Soft water........................................................o o o o o
6. Too little pressure ...........................................o o o o o
7. Too much pressure ..........................................o o o o o
Comments _________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
5
N. Please rate your SATISFACTION with the following aspects of Ames Water & Pollution Control Department
services?
Very
Dissatisfied
Somewhat
Dissatisfied
Somewhat
Satisfied
Very
Satisfied
Does Not
Apply
1. Water rates ...............................o o o o o
2. Water quality ............................o o o o o
3. Sewer rates ...............................o o o o o
O. In the last 12 months, have you experienced a sanitary sewer back-up into your basement/home?
1. Yes
2. No
P. In the last 12 months, has storm water flooded onto your property from a city street?
1. Yes
2. No
Comments _________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
O1. If YES, did you report the problem to the City?
1. No
2. Yes If YES, how satisfied were you with the response?
1. Very dissatisfied
2. Somewhat dissatisfied
3. Somewhat satisfied
4. Very satisfied
P1. If YES, did you report the problem?
1. No
2. Yes If YES, how satisfied were you with the response?
1. Very dissatisfied
2. Somewhat dissatisfied
3. Somewhat satisfied
4. Very satisfied
Q. On average, how many times per week do members of your household ride CyRide (municipal transit
system)?
1. _____ times per week
2. No one in my household rides CyRide
R. If you do not currently use CyRide, what would make you consider using these services?
(Circle all that apply)
1. Service was provided to more areas of Ames
2. Service was offered on my route longer during the day (earlier or later times)
3. Service was more frequent on routes near me
4. The fare when boarding the bus was lower
5. The fare when boarding the bus was at no cost
6. Nothing
7. Other (specify) _____________________________________________
Comments __________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
6
A. How DISSATISFIED or SATISFIED are you with the following aspects of City of Ames services?
VeryDissatisfied SomewhatDissatisfied SomewhatSatisfied VerySatisfied Don’t Know
1. Law Enforcement Services .......................o o o o o
2. Fire & Rescue Services .............................o o o o o
3. Electric Services .......................................o o o o o
4. Water Services .........................................o o o o o
5. Sanitary Sewer System .............................o o o o o
6. Public Nuisance Enforcement (e.g, noise,
over-occupancy, yard upkeep) .................o o o o o
7. Parks & Recreation Services .....................o o o o o
8. Library Services ........................................o o o o o
9. CyRide Bus service ...................................o o o o o
Comments __________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
A. Programs and services listed in the following table are paid with local option sales taxes or property taxes.
In 2022–2023, the City of Ames will spend the following amounts on providing services. In your opinion,
should LESS, the SAME or MORE funding be allocated to these areas? (Mark ONE response for each
program or service.)
2022–2023 Approximate
Tax Funding
Should the City spend...?
Less Same More
1. Arts programs (Public Art & COTA) ..................$ 262,470 o o o
2. Fire protection ..................................................$ 8,295,077 o o o
3. Human service agency funding (ASSET) ..........$ 1,729,180 o o o
4. Law enforcement .............................................$ 10,953,098 o o o
5. Ames Animal Shelter & animal control ...........$ 564,900 o o o
6. Ames Public Library ..........................................$ 5,030,797 o o o
7. Land use planning (both current and long-term)$ 963,914 o o o
8. Parks activities ..................................................$ 1,650,040 o o o
9. Recreational opportunities ..............................$ 2,279,477 o o o
10. CyRide (public transit) ......................................$ 2,078,474 o o o
11. Other (please specify__________________)---------------o o o
Comments _______________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Next, please provide your overall opinions about your use of City services
Program and services
7
B. The City Council has approved a five-year Capital Improvements Plan that defines more than $289
million in projects.
How UNIMPORTANT or IMPORTANT is it that the following projects are included in the Capital
Improvements Plan?
Residential preferences of city communications
A. When you need local government information, how USEFUL are the following sources?
Not
Useful
Somewhat
Useful
Very
Useful
Don’t
Use
1.City of Ames Web page ................................................o o o o
2.Cable TV 12/Government Access Television ................o o o o
3.Ames Tribune newspaper ............................................o o o o
4.ISU Daily newspaper ....................................................o o o o
5.Des Moines Register newspaper ..................................o o o o
6. The Sun ........................................................................o o o o
7. KASI/KCCQ radio ..........................................................o o o o
Very
Unimportant
Somewhat
Unimportant
Somewhat
Important
Very
Important
1.Improvements to existing parks .........o o o o
2.On-street bike facilities (commuter)
improvements ...................................o o o o
3.Off-street bike facilities (commuter)
improvements ...................................o o o o
4.Greenway trails (recreational)
improvements ...................................o o o o
5.Reconstructing existing streets ..........o o o o
6.Storm water drainage improvements o o o o
7.Traffic flow improvements .................o o o o
8.Other (please specify __________)o o o o
C. Using the item numbers from Question B, which category should be the...
Item No.
Highest priority?________
Second highest priority?________
Third highest priority?________
D. The City property tax levy for the next year is $9.83 per $1,000 of taxable valuation. This means that the
City portion of the property tax on a $100,000 home in Ames is about $532.10 after rollback.
Given your spending preferences, what should be the adjustment in property taxes next year? (Circle
ONE response.)
1. Substantial decrease
2. Modest decrease
3. No change
4. Modest increase
5. Substantial increase
8
Not
Useful
Somewhat
Useful
Very
Useful
Don’t
Use
8. KHOI .............................................................................o o o o
9. CitySide (utility bill insert) ............................................o o o o
10. Facebook / Twitter / Youtube ......................................o o o o
B. How would you prefer to learn about construction projects, programs, and meetings in your area?
(Circle ONE response)
1. Letter 6. Email
2. Door hanger 7. Facebook
3. City of Ames website 8. Twitter
4. Local radio 9. Other(specify):_______
5. Local newspaper _____________________
C. Are you a Mediacom Cable TV subscriber?
1. Yes
2. No
D. Do you use the City of Ames’ website (www.cityofames.org)?
1. Yes
2. No
C1. If YES, when are you most likely to watch Cable TV Channel 12/
Government Access? (Circle ONE response)
1. Never watch TV 12
2. Midnight to 6:00 a.m.
3. 6:01 a.m. to noon
4. 12:01 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
5. 6:01 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
6. 9:01 p.m. to midnight
C2. About how many hours per week do you watch TV 12?
________hours per week
D1. If YES, do you? (Circle ALL that apply)
1.Sign up for Parks and Recreation classes
2.Check Ames Public Library card account or status of materials
3.Watch City Council meetings or Channel 12 programming on video-
streaming
4.Gather information for City Council meetings or other City meetings
5.Check for notices, updates or news releases
6.Other: ____________________________________________________
D2. What other information should be included on the website?
___________________________________________________________
9
The next section asks for your overall comments and ratings.
A. Please rate the overall quality of services you receive from the City of Ames. (Check ONE)
Very Poor Poor Good Very Good
o o o o
B. On what other issue(s) do you think the City should focus its attention?
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
C. What is the best thing about living in Ames?
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
D. The City of Ames has used a waste-to-energy process to make refuse derived fuel (RDF) out of garbage since
1975. The RDF is co-burned with natural gas in the Ames Power Plant to create electricity. Some items thrown
in the trash are non-burnable or high moisture items, and they make poor fuel. To improve the efficiency of
the system, which of the following garbage products you are willing to sort? (Choose all that apply)
Yes No Yes, I currently sort.
Plastic o o o
Glass o o o
Metal o o o
Organics o o o
Paper o o o
E. If you are willing to sort your garbage, what is your most preferred method of disposal for items removed?
No-charge
centralized
drop-off
Curbside
collection
for a fee
Would
participate
in either one
Not
interested
Other:
o o o o o
F. I currently pay for curbside recycling through my garbage hauler: 1. Yes
2. No
A. Overall, how would you rate your physical health? (Check ONE)
Poor Fair Good Very Good Excellent
o o o o o
B. Overall, how would you rate your mental health? (Check ONE)
Poor Fair Good Very Good Excellent
o o o o o
C. In the past six months, have you felt you needed to access professional mental health services??
1. Yes
2. No
3. Prefer not to answer
Your health
L1. If YES, have you been able to receive the help you needed?
1. Yes
2. No
` 3. Prefer not to answer
10
A. How many of your neighbors do you know?
All of them Most of them Half of them A few of them None of them
o o o o o
B. How strong is the sense of community in your neighborhood?
Extremely strong Very strong Somewhat
strong Not so strong Not at all strong
o o o o o
C. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following community involvement statements.
Sense of community
G.During the last 7 days, how many times did you eat fruits or vegetables? (Do not count juices)
4–6 timesNone 1–3 times 1–2 times per day 3 or more times per day
o o o o o
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree Uncertain
Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree Don’t Know
1. Issues facing my community are important to me o o o o o o
2. I am knowledgeable about the issues facing my
community.............................................................o o o o o o
3. I am engaged in addressing the issues of my
community.............................................................o o o o o o
4. I currently support nonprofit organization(s)
with financial contributions ...................................o o o o o o
5. I currently serve on a Board of Directors for a
nonprofit organization serving the City of Ames...... o o o o o o
6. I currently volunteer for a nonprofit
organization serving the City of Ames....................o o o o o o
D. During the PAST 7 DAYS, how many days were you engaged in physical activity of 20 minutes or
more? (Circle ONE)
O days 1 day 2–3 days 4–5 times per day 6 or more days
o o o o o
E.What would support you in getting more daily physical activity?
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
F. How interested are you in getting involved in community gardens in your neighborhood?
Not interested at all Somewhat uninterested Uncertain Somewhat interested Very interested
o o o o o
11
A. How many years have you lived in Ames? ________ years
B. What is your age? __________ years
C. What is your gender?
1. Male 4. Prefer to self-describe __________________
2. Female 5. Prefer not to answer
3. Non-binary / third gender
D. What is your race?
1. White 5. Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
2. Black or African American 6. Other _____________
3. American Indian or Alaskan Native 7. Prefer not to answer
4. Asian
E. Are you of Hispanic or Latino origin?
1. No 2. Yes 3. Prefer not to answer
F. What is your highest level of formal education?
1. Less than high school diploma 4. Undergraduate degree
2. High school diploma or GED 5. Some graduate work
3. Some college 6. Graduate degree
G. Are you currently a full-time student at Iowa State University?
1. No 2. Yes
In this last section, please tell us about yourself so that we will know if we have reached a
representative sample of Ames residents.
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree Uncertain
Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree Don’t Know
I feel valued as an individual in the Ames
community.o o o o o o
I feel I belong in this town.o o o o o o
Ames has a strong commitment to
diversity, equity, and inclusion.o o o o o o
I am treated with respect in this town.o o o o o o
I feel Ames is a place where I could
perform up to my full potential.o o o o o o
I have found one or more organizations
in this community where I feel I belong.o o o o o o
E. What could the City of Ames do to demonstrate its commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion?
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
D. Considering your experiences over the past 12 months, please indicate your level of agreement with
each of the following statements
12
K. In which part of Ames do you live? (Circle ONE)
1.Northwest (North side of Lincoln Way
and streets to the north; west side of
Grand Avenue and streets to the west).
2.Northeast (North side of Lincoln Way
and streets to the north, east side of
Grand Avenue and streets to the east).
3.Southwest (South side of Lincoln Way
and streets to the south; west side of
University Boulevard and streets to the
west).
4.Southeast (South side of Lincoln Way
and streets to the south; east side of
University Boulevard and streets to the
east).
J. We would appreciate any additional comments you would like to provide:
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Thank you for contributing your time and making a difference in your community!
Return your questionnaire in the enclosed, postage-paid envelope OR
deliver it to City Hall, 515 Clark Ave.
J.Income level is requested in order to understand how household needs differ based upon income.
Circle the number for the category that best estimates your 2021 total household income (before
taxes).
1. Under $25,000 5. $100,000–124,999
2. $25,000–49,999 6. $125,000–$149,999
3. $50,000–74,999 7. $150,000–$199,999
4. $75,000–99,999 8. $200,000 or more
H. Your current employment status? (Circle ALL that apply.)
1. Employed full time 4. Full time homemaker
2. Employed part time 5. Not employed
3. Retired 6. Other ________________
I. Do you RENT or OWN your home?
1. Rent
2. Own
3. Other (specify ___________)
I1. For what reasons do you rent? (Circle ALL that
apply.)
1. Short-term stay in Ames
2. Little or no upkeep
3. More security
4. Lack of adequate income
5. Other (Specify)______________
1
ITEM #: 23
DATE: 02-28-23
DEPT: P&H
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: SECOND AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT REZONING AGREEMENT FOR
AN AMENDED MASTER PLAN AT 798 N 500TH AVENUE (NORTH
SUNSET RIDGE)
BACKGROUND:
Hunziker Development Group, the owner of 28.58 acres of property located at 798 North
500th Avenue, has applied to amend the previously approved Rezoning Master Plan for
the North Sunset Ridge development. The site is located to the north of the existing
Sunset Ridge Subdivision (Attachment A - Location Map). The property is located on
land annexed to the City in February 2022. The current zoning of Floating Suburban
Residential Low-Density (FS-RL) and Master Plan was approved by the City Council on
August 9, 2022 (Attachment C - Zoning Map excerpt; Attachment D – Existing Master
Plan).
On January 24, 2023, a First Amendment to the Contract Rezoning Agreement was
approved by the City Council, which allowed the applicant to provide a Letter of Credit in
lieu of cash for its contribution to the construction of an oversized sewer line.
Due to some changes in the proposed development, the Master Plan needs to be
amended to allow for the developer to proceed with a preliminary plat application.
The amended Master Plan includes revisions to the connection points to the north
and future development of land on the west (Attachment E – Amended Master Plan).
The current FS-RL zoning will remain the same, but the number of allowed units
has increased by 10 units to account for proposed developable land at the west
side of the site.
The initial Master Plan identified five road connection points. The amended Master Plan
includes four connection points. The proposed northerly street extension to the east of
Wilder Avenue has been removed at the request of City staff. Staff recommends this
change as the City is in the process of acquiring the land to the north for a
community park. The proposed extension was eliminated due to potential conflicts with
a future layout for the park. The lack of planned extension north does create a long dead
end cul-de-sac street to the east, which are typically avoided by the City. The unique
issues of compatibility with a future park and lack of other extension options to the south
or east create this condition.
Additionally, a street on the west side of the property that would extend north at the
neighboring Hall’s property is moved further to the west. Purchase of the Hall property
has not been finalized and some of the details of this connection are still to be determined.
Relocation of this access point is intended to represent a general location with the precise
2
alignment of the north extension included in an eventual subdivision proposal. Staff would
not support a final street alignment during subdivision review that would require removal
of a substantial building that is not under the control of the developer.
Land at the west edge of the site is now identified as “future development.” The future
development is intended to indicate it may be a second phase. No future amendment to
the Master Plan is needed to develop it with single-family homes as it is included as
developable area on the Plan and accounted for with the unit count. Previously, much of
this land was identified as open space; however, it is the intent of the developer that this
land be merged with the Hall property for future development. Reconfiguration of the
northern access point as proposed and acquisition of an additional property to the north
would allow for single family lots to be laid in a future subdivision of this area.
The developer proposes to construct between 60-75 new single-family detached homes
on 14-18 acres. The net density will be in the range of 3.75-4.81 which meets or exceeds
the minimum required density of 3.75 in FS zoned districts. A portion of this development
is indicated as “future development” on the amended Master Plan. With the new
proposed developable area, the maximum number of units would increase from 65
units to 75 units for the entire site.
Open space and storm water detention will account for 4.5-10.0 acres of the 28.58-acre
property. This exceeds the minimum 10% required open space in the FS zone standards.
A Preliminary Plat and Final Plat must be approved before construction of homes can
begin and to determine final lot layouts, utilities, and configurations of open space. The
Preliminary and Final Plats will ensure that the requirements of the Master Plan are met.
Floodplain is located on small area on the far eastern side of the property. The floodplain
area will be contained in proposed open space. Developed lots will be located outside of
flood prone areas.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
On February 1, 2023, the Planning & Zoning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend
approval of the amended Master Plan.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the amended Master Plan for 28.58 acres at 798 N. 500th Avenue as the
Second Amendment to the Contract Rezoning Agreement of August 9, 2022.
2. Deny the amended Master Plan for 28.58 acres at 798 N. 500th Avenue, along with
Second Amendment to the Contract Rezoning Agreement, with a finding that the
Master Plan is not consistent with the policies of Ames Plan 2040 and the RN3
land use designation.
3. Refer this matter back to staff or the applicant for more information.
3
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The request for the Master Plan Amendment is consistent with the adopted Ames Plan
2040 as described in the addendum. Utilization of infrastructure and City services for this
parcel is consistent with what has been anticipated for development in this area. The
current zoning of the property will remain the same, but the extent of development
and total number of units are adjusted with the proposed amendment. The
amended Master Plan will restrict the maximum number of units on this property
to no more than 75 with all dwellings as single-family detached homes.
Consideration of a future City park to the north has led to change for the east side
of the site that creates a long dead-end block. Although this condition is typically
avoided, the designated length is with the approvable limits of the Subdivision
Code of ¼ mile length. Final design details of the street and lot layouts will be part
of the preliminary plat review process. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City
Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative #1, as described above.
4
ADDENDUM
REZONING BACKGROUND:
Existing Uses of Land. Land uses that occupy the subject property and other
surrounding properties are described in the following table.
Direction from Subject
Property
Existing Primary Land Uses
Subject Property
East
Ames Plan 2040
The project area has a RN3 land use designation. The RN3 characteristics are supported
further by Ames Plan 2040 Comprehensive Plan Principles related to Growth principles
in (G1-6) as well as Neighborhoods and Housing (H3) which are contained below in
Attachments F and G. These sections include guiding principles for creating appropriate
urban fabric, housing considerations, and maintaining community character.
The sections relating to Land Use Designation, Neighborhood Characteristics, Growth
Goals and Development Guidelines are shown below from the RN3 section of the Ames
2040 Comprehensive Plan as a reference. Not all elements allowed in each section
pertain to the current proposal but also are not found to conflict with the proposal for this
property. A brief analysis of Complete Streets typology is also included.
Staff finds that the elements stated in the principles below are met in relation to the low-
density residential development in the RN3 Land Use Category as reflected within the
proposed Master Plan.
Land Use Designation
The Future Land Use Map designates the land as “Residential Neighborhood 3” (RN3).
Open Space/Greenway designation applies in part to the site as well. The RN-3
designation supports an average density of five units per acre as the city develops and
expands. This is a goal over a broad area that is designed to encourage of mix of housing
types and efficient use of land; however, it does not necessarily apply to each project that
is proposed. Various zoning districts are used to implement this designation. The Open
Space/Greenway was part of the original evaluation of the area and the need for public
park space. The public park will be to the north of this land and there no other open space
areas that need to be preserved.
5
RN3 areas will typically have zoning of FS-RL, FS-RM, F-PRD (Planned Residence
District), PUD (Planned Unit Development) or RLP (Manufactured home park). This site
is already zoned FS-RL, there is no change with this amendment.
Attachment F includes the excerpt of Plan 2040 for the RN3 designation that is discussed
below. Each land use designation in Plan 2040 describes its context and potential issues
to be addressed or guidance for projects as they occur during the next 20 years. The
existing FS-RL zoning along with the proposed Master Plan amendment aligns with the
RN3 land use designation.
Neighborhood Characteristics
The RN3 designation is oriented around contemporary but diverse development options
in planned expansion areas of the city, typically known as FS zoned areas. These areas
where originally envisioned in the 1997 Land Use Policy Plan as villages.
Ames Plan 2040 further describes RN3 neighborhoods as being designed with
conventional suburban type development patterns involving single-family homes at low
or medium density. Curvilinear streets, loop streets with minimal cul-de-sacs will be
common street characteristics. Such neighborhoods will commonly be automobile
oriented. Transit service is likely limited or non-existent. Neighborhoods will have access
to private green space involving internal paths and trails. Stormwater detention features
will be incorporated into design. In general, some small commercial nodes will be located
within or in nearby areas of RN3.
Growth Goals
The goals of RN3 involve creating a variety of housing types and price points that can be
attainably priced and owner occupied. This involves neighborhood design through zoning
tools such as the Planned Development of neighborhood cores containing higher density
with links to single-family areas and nearby neighborhood services. The use of Complete
Streets concepts is expected with elements to include active transportation linkages and
providing safe access for all neighborhood cores and activity areas.
Development Guidelines
The neighborhoods in RN3 designated areas will incorporate flexible lot sizes to
accommodate diverse housing types with regard for architectural character,
environmental and open space factors in design decisions. Generally, higher density
residential will be encouraged along avenues, boulevards and mixed-use avenues and
other streets with significant bicycle and potential transit routes and within master planned
projects. Street, sidewalks, and trails will have full connectivity. New developments will
require neighborhood and community parks nearby in relation to the City’s open space
and park planning. Typically, developments should be within ½ mile of a park.
Open Space and Parks
A City neighborhood park currently exists approximately 1/4 of a mile to the south of this
property in the Sunset Ridge neighborhood. This meets the Land Use goal of the
proposed neighborhood being within a ½ mile of a city park. Additionally, the Ames 2040
Comprehensive Plan does have a general conceptual plan for acquisition of park space
for a larger community park immediately north of this property. With the existing park and
6
planned park to the north, no additional public park land is planned with this development.
The Future Land Use Map Open Space/Greenway designation at the east edge of the
site continues to be shown on the amended Master Plan as open space. The Future Land
Use Map also shows a green swath of open space adjacent to Wilder Avenue. This was
intended to convey the conceptual location of a future public park. The actual location of
the park will be north of this development. The extension of Wilder Avenue will continue
extension of the shared use path. The shared use path will eventually provide connection
to the future park.
Complete Streets Typology
The proposed street extensions into this area are classified in the Ames 2040 Plan
Complete Streets typology as Neighborhood Streets which are designed to be low traffic
with separated walkways and some on-street parking. The technical functional
classification is ‘local street’.
These types of streets are intended in new expansion areas with low density zoning such
as this development. One of the connecting streets, Wilder Avenue, is designated as a
‘residential collector street’. This street type is intended as a connector to local streets in
low density residential areas. The street typology is not affected by the requested master
plan amendment.
Public Actions
Plan 2040 includes actions to guide City plans for infrastructure. It relies primarily on using
the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) to plan for extension of major roads, water and
sewer infrastructure while considering development agreements, connection districts and
assessments to help facilitate extensions. The need for sanitary sewer trunk line
extension is within the CIP and is supported by the contract rezoning agreement.
Existing Zoning
The existing zoning is “FS-RL” (Attachment C – Zoning Map, excerpt). No changes to the
existing zoning are proposed. The property was rezoned on August 9, 2022, from “A”
(Agricultural) to “FS-RL” (Floating Suburban Residential Low-Density) with a Master Plan.
The properties to the north are outside the city in Story County and currently row cropped
as well as existing farmsteads and row crop land along and across North 500th to the
west. The property to the east in floodplain along Clear Creek with some wooded
residential lots are zoned RL (Residential Low-Density). Properties immediately to the
south are zoned “FS-RL” (Floating Suburban Residential Low-Density) in the existing
Sunset Ridge Subdivision which contain single-family detached homes.
Proposed Master Plan
The amended Master Plan (Attachment E) will govern density with a range of 60-75 units
allowed on the site. The net density will be in the range of 3.75-4.81 units per net acre.
7
The net acreage of developable area will be 14-18 acres of the total 28.57 acres. Open
space and storm water detention will include 4.5-10.0 acres. The original plan allowed for
a maximum of 65 units.
The Preliminary Plat and subsequent Final Plat(s) will ensure that the number of units
align with the Master Plan.
The Master Plan is required based on Section 29.1507(3): when “an application is made
for amending the zoning map to designate any property as FS-RL, FS-RM, or PUD, the
applicant must either prepare a Master Plan or request that the City Council determine
whether it will be required.”
The Master Plan dictates the general street layout, general buildable area in location and
acres and number of units as well as net density. The plan also guides the layout of
utilities to serve the site. The final configurations of lots and open space is determined
during preliminary plat review.
Infrastructure
Impacts on infrastructure and City services for this parcel are consistent with what is
already anticipated for residential use of the property. Public utilities such as water and
sewer serving this parcel are located immediately south in the Sunset Ridge development
and can be easily extended to this site. Electricity is also available to serve the site.
A large Sanitary Sewer trunk main is required through the site from east to west to
accommodate planned future growth to the north and west of this site. A contract zoning
agreement was finalized with the developer on August 9, 2022, at time of rezoning to
ensure financing and construction of the main. The main is required for future growth
beyond this site and as such must be installed with this subdivision. An amended rezoning
agreement is required due to the amended Master Plan; however, the terms of the cost-
sharing are not changing.
Wilder Avenue and Ellston Avenue will extend into the development from the south
connecting into the Sunset Ridge Subdivision’s network of streets and to Lincoln Way. An
east to west street will bisect the site to serve the remainder of the area. Sidewalks will
be provided throughout the site and an existing shared use path to the south in Sunset
Ridge will be extended through the neighborhood along Wilder Avenue. All the
connections and proposed streets are adequate to serve the anticipated traffic generated
by this site.
Findings of Fact. Based upon an analysis of the proposed rezoning and laws pertinent
to the proposed map amendment, staff makes the following findings of fact:
1. The subject property is owned by Hunziker Development Group.
2. The existing zoning is consistent with the “Residential Neighborhood 3 (RN3)”
identified on the Ames Plan 2040 Future Land Use Map.
8
3. Development in the “FS-RL” zoning district requires a Master Plan and subsequent
Platting review process to assure that such development and intensity of use assures
a safe, functional, efficient, and environmentally sound operation.
4. Ames Municipal Code Section 29.1507(4) describes the process for submitting a
Master Plan.
5. Impacts on infrastructure and City services for this parcel is consistent with what is
already anticipated for the area.
Public Notice. The City provided mailed notice to all property owners within 200 feet of
the subject property and two signs were placed on the property prior to the City Council
meeting in accordance with the notification requirements of Chapter 29.
9
Attachment A - Location Map
10
Attachment B – Future Land Use Map, excerpt
11
Attachment C – Zoning Map, excerpt
12
Attachment D - Existing Master Plan
13
Attachment E – Amended Master Plan
14
Attachment F- RN3 Characteristics
15
Attachment G- Growth Principles
1
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: Paving, Front Yard Parking, and Driveway Specifications Zoning Text
Amendment
BACKGROUND:
City Council reviewed a staff report on July 26th related to front yard parking regulations
and potential enforcement issues for noncompliant parking. City Council examined
several examples of front yard parking and driveway configurations as they related to 454
properties that had potentially noncompliant front yard parking. Front Yard parking is
restricted within Zoning Ordinance Section 29.406(7) to only being allowed upon
driveways that lead to the garage or side/rear yard. The graphic below depicts prohibited
parking areas for single and two-family homes.
The City Council provided direction to amend the zoning standards rather than
seek enforcement on these existing driveways. Additionally, City Council
determined it would prefer to allow for additional driveway parking options to
encourage onsite parking over street parking. The overall intent is to facilitate
some additional onsite parking that is proportional to the lot, minimizes paving
onsite, manages driveway access for convenience, safety, and to preserve on
street parking opportunities on a street block.
City staff provided a follow up staff report on October 25th to discuss driveway and parking
changes in more detail in preparation of drafting amendments to Chapter 29 Zoning
Ordinance of the Ames Municipal Code. City Council directed staff to proceed with
the proposed changes with one modification to limit the 20-foot paving allowance
in front of the living area of a home. As of October 25th, City Council has provided
direction to staff related to the following:
ITEM #:
DATE: 02-28-23
DEPT: P&H
24
2
• Allow driveway paving configurations to be permitted as pre-existing if
built prior to January 1, 2023.
• Nonconforming unpaved driveways to be paved in conformance with
standards at the time of new or expanded parking areas and garages.
• Allow for additional flared parking (to the side of the driveway) when not
in front of a house, regardless of garage size.
• Allow for widening of driveways up to 20 feet in width for one car or no
car parking on site, when extra paving does not create a new parking
space in front of the house living area. Note proposed ordinance still
allows for four feet of widening inside of driveway if not wide enough to
the side as flared parking. Draft still allows for two spaces if no other
parking is on the site per the original Paulson issue on Wilmoth Avenue.
• Create a driveway permit process enforceable by the Planning Director
for all new or replaced paving.
• Require an inspection of driveways.
• Require driveway approaches to match width of driveway and garage
size.
• Create minimum and maximum driveway approach/curb cut widths
measured at the sidewalk/or right-of-way line if no sidewalk.
o 1-car garage: 12-foot maximum
o 2-car garage: 20-foot maximum
o 3-car garage: 24-feet maximum
• Limit second curb cuts to when a property has at least 150 feet of
frontage.
• Modify paving permit process related to driveways, parking lots, and
reconstruction of parking lots under 1 acre.
• Address terminology for parking between buildings vs front yard parking.
• Modify group living and clarify apartment dwelling relationship to front
yard parking.
• Allow exception for lots with three or more frontages and treat through
lots as rear yards for parking purposes.
• Miscellaneous changes to parking standards table.
• Create a Driveway Manual with guidelines and diagrams for administering
requirements.
A complete draft ordinance with all changes to parking and paving requirements is
attached to this report. Staff has also prepared an addendum with diagrams of
driveway configurations for implementation of the proposed standards that will be
used within the Driveway Manual and guidelines.
3
CONTRACTOR OUTREACH MEETING:
Inspections, Public Works, and Planning staff hosted a meeting on February 16th for
contractors to discuss the proposed permitting and inspection process as well as the new
driveway standards. Public Works staff discussed sidewalk cross slope for ADA
compliance and general SUDAS driveway approach requirements. The meeting was well
attended with over 20 contractors present. A Power Point presentation of the proposed
changes was followed by a very productive question/answer discussion.
Several of the questions focused on the new dimensional standards and how they applied
compared to existing standards, primarily focused on larger driveway configurations.
However, a majority of the questions and concerns were regarding the proposed
inspection process. The proposed process is a 24-hr notice for a two-hour
inspection window of the formed paving before the concrete is poured.
Great concern was expressed regarding the timing of inspections and potential
costs and delays associated with the inspection process. Driveways can be framed
and poured within hours and there is scheduling parameters with concrete
companies. Stalling that process to fit into the two-hour inspection window could
be quite costly if there are delays in scheduling and the delivery of concrete.
Additionally, this would prohibit driveways from being framed and poured on City
holidays and Saturdays, which contractors believed shortened an already short
paving season.
In response, staff asked by a show of hands how many would be willing to accept
the risk of not having a framing inspection and only having an inspection
conducted after the driveway was poured. All in attendance raised their hands in
favor of this responding that it is their responsibility to adhere to the approved plan
and that they would be willing to take the risk of framing it contrary to the plan with
the understanding that it would need to be corrected (potential for removal and
repour). Based upon this input, City staff would support revising the expectation
for an inspection to only occur upon request prior to a Final Inspection, but that
the driveway configuration is part of the Final Inspection, and it must conform to
an approved permit or be replaced.
Attached to this report is bulleted summary of questions and comments from the meeting.
The primary concerns about the proposed standards were related to new builds and
properties with larger 3-car garage layouts. In some instances, staff has been approving
up to 30-foot driveway widths for 3-car garages, where the new standard is expressly
stated as a maximum of 24 feet. From the 24 feet, the onsite driveway can widen out with
a taper to match the width of the garage.
4
The angle and design of the taper was a question regarding new driveway configurations
and add-on parking areas to existing driveways. The addendum includes examples of
these comments. Second driveways or looped driveways were also discussed and if they
were feasible with the 150-foot separation requirement combined with a requirement to
have a driveway lead directly to a parking space. Staff stated under the proposed rules a
second driveway would not typically be approvable.
If City Council desires to make modifications to the draft ordinance to respond to
any of the proposed design standards, it may be prudent to delay first reading on
February 28th to allow for staff to incorporate any specific changes directed by City
Council.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed a full range of changes related to City
Council’s direction regarding front yard parking and the related issues at its September
21st meeting. Most of the discussion amongst the members focused on the proposed
allowances for additional paving and widening of driveways. No one from the public
provided input. Their recommendation was presented to Council at the October 25th
meeting.
The focus was on the two specific issues of allowing for additional paving in the front yard.
Staff described the proposed allowance for flared parking towards the side property line
and an allowance for all properties to have a 20-foot-wide driveway, even if it was partially
in front of the existing house. Staff also noted that in the SF-COD area the 12-foot
maximum width driveway limitation would continue to apply. The Commission voted 3-
2 to support most of the proposed changes, including the flared parking option,
but it did not support allowing for a 20-foot driveway paving for all properties.
Council considered this recommendation as part of the October 25th meeting where it
directed staff to limit the 20-foot paving allowance when it would be in front of the house.
Note that staff has retained the allowance for up to 20 feet when no other parking
is feasible on the property, as was the case with the initial Paulson situation that
led to review of front yard parking. The proposed draft also allows for up to four
feet of paving on the inside of a driveway for a one car garage property to allow for
two side by side parking spaces when also widened with flared parking. If this
language is not consistent with City Council direction from October it would need
to be removed from the draft ordinance.
5
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve on first reading the proposed changes to Chapter 29 for front yard parking
and driveway paving with an inspection required at the time of Final Inspection.
2. Direct staff to edit specific text of the draft ordinance and approve on first
reading.
3. Direct staff to prepare changes to the draft and return for City Council review on
March 14th.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff has prepared a comprehensive update of parking requirements primarily focused on
driveways and parking for single and two-family homes. Some limited standards for
commercial and multi-family properties are also affected by the changes. The overall
permitting process for paving of driveways and reconstruction of parking lots has also
been modified.
All existing front yard paving will be considered pre-existing as of January 1, 2023. This
means the paving is allowed to remain and can be replaced in kind within 12 months of
its removal. Unpaved and gravel vehicle parking and maneuvering areas will continue to
be considered nonconforming and cannot be expanded and are required to be improved
over time with improvements to the site. Any home that has an approved building permit
with a driveway permit will be allowed to construct the approved driveway regardless of
the changed standards. If City Council adopts the proposed changes, the new standards
will likely be in affect at the beginning of April, at which time the standards will apply to all
permits that have not yet been approved.
The proposed driveway standards align with the City’s current policies to limit paving in
the front yard in order to maintain a residential character, reduce dominance of paving on
a site, limit the number of curb cuts to manage access, and maximize on-street parking
opportunities while also allowing for some additional paving flexibility to create more
onsite parking opportunities as well. The proposed standards are numerically based and
leave little administrative judgement to determine conformance or to allow a case-by-case
determination of conformance. The proposed standards along with the driveway permit
and inspection process will allow for easier communication to customers and for code
enforcement of noncompliant situations in the future. Therefore, it is the recommendation
of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as noted above.
6
Addendum
Max width 24 feet 3-car garage,
flare to side yard
Max width 20 feet 2-car garage,
flare to side yard
Basic driveway width and taper allowance:
Approach flare
3-5 feet
Sidewalk
Max width 20 feet 2-car garage,
no flare to street side or interior of lot
Corner Lot
Interior Lot Interior Lot
Proposed taper standard if driveway widens after sidewalk
7
Front Yard Paving Allowance In Front of House:
If one car
garage,
allows taper
to side PLUS
up to 4 feet
on inside
Taper Only
because two
car garage
no garage, side, or
rear parking
available
(Paulson Wilmoth
8
Other Examples:
9
Side Load Garage Configurations:
20 feet for 2-car garage, flare to side yard
24 feet max depth for manuevering
from the single stall garage
20-foot driveway, 2-car garage
24 feet for
backup
24-foot driveway, 3-car garage
24-foot driveway, 3-car garage , plus flare
10
Examples of Flared Driveway Compliance
*Outreach mtg comment about slightly extra width for concrete structural integrity when
coming to a point, depends on timing of pour and design of driveway. Bigger issue with
additions than new construction as there are examples of each style across town.
Suggestion at the meeting was to allow additions some latitude to match widths. Code
language could be altered to indicate “substantially conform” to the width and have
guidelines of 1-foot of variance in the guidelines.
Too wide-
has taper wider
than approach* Allowed-
matches width
and has taper
wider than
approach
11
Driveway Width-3 car garage examples
*Outreach mtg. comment prefer extra width for maneuvering into third garage stall based upon
concern of the taper configuration and approach to garage. The proposed 5-foot taper depth
allows for 20 feet of 90-degree driveway access to the third stall, which is typical length of
vehicles. It appears that typical practice is anywhere from 18 to 25 feet of driveway approach to
a garage stall when tapered.
This concern of width and taper can occur with very wide garages and if it is placed at the
minimum setback of 25 feet. Garages setback further than 25 feet, or the 3 stall is recessed,
would have readily accessible garages with the proposed dimensions. Council would need to
direct changes to the ordinance if the configuration dimensions are a concern based upon
recent design practice or if it desires to create a driveway exception process for ZBA review
similar to the setback exception and minor modification process.
Too wide-
Max 24’, needs a taper
Allowed-
24’ with taper
30’ no taper*
24’ with taper
12
Outreach Meeting Summary
-When will this go into effect? Staff replied likely April and that anything prior to 1/1/23 is pre-existing
and any permits obtained prior to the changes will be acknowledged.
-How do we define a 3-car garage? By number of doors? Staff said yes, by number of doors.
-Why are we going to a smaller maximum? Staff replied current policy is to design to the minimums and
not maximums, minimizing the width also allows for on-street parking area with smaller curb cuts.
-Will there still be an inspection window because we are already waiting on concrete? Yes, the AM/PM
window will still apply.
-How many inspections are needed? Comment that three if we frame in three separate stages. We pour
in three pours so this isn’t convenient, plus can’t do it on holidays or Saturdays. Staff replied, yes, we
would need an inspection after all framing, but prior to pouring however you decide to do that.
-Prefer the inspection after and not get occupancy until correct and complete.
-How long to get a permit back? Staff replied it will be reviewed by Planning and PW, so it is generally
up to 5 business days
-So, everything prior to 1/1/23 is pre-existing or just driveway. Planning and PW said onsite driveway is
pre-existing, but approach/sidewalk in the right of way are always subject to complaints.
-Will there be an extra fee? Staff said the fee was $50, is currently $80 and is proposed to go to $100 for
July 1, 2023.
-Who will do the inspection? Staff said we will have a team of people from different departments
available for inspections.
-Do we have the ability to not require the inspections but call if we want one. Staff said, yes a voluntary
inspection could be requested.
-In response to the inspection discussion, Director Diekmann asked by show of hands who preferred a
single final inspection at risk for determining compliance after the fact? Staff observed that all preferred
this option.
-Are other municipalities requiring inspections of private drives? Staff didn’t know and asked contractors
what they are seeing in other towns. They stated no other municipality is requesting this. It was noted
that inspections of driveway approaches do occur.
-Other towns allow for specific inspection times and have more flexibility with a 24hr notice.
-What if the owner changes their mind after we have it framed? Do we have to resubmit? Staff said yes,
a new plan would be required because the inspector may not have the authority to authorize those
changes.
13
-Could we allow a 1’ offset on the driveway side so that the concrete on the flare doesn’t break?
Discussion focused on additions to driveways versus new pours.
-What about pie-shaped lots? Some are very situational. PW agreed.
-Why does the City care about side load garage width and back up area? Staff stated the backup area of
24’ is the current code requirement for back up for regular parking spaces in a parking lot so this isn’t
changing. 24’ backup area will always be allowed, the intent was to show that would be allowed to allow
for maneuvering into a garage.
-Does the garage width include only the door or the length of the garage foundation for paving width?
Director Diekmann indicated that he though to the front foundation corners would be acceptable, but it
is not stated in the ordinance. Just the width of the doors is too restrictive, even though that is the case
in many older areas.
-What constitutes directly to a garage? Customers are wanting loops. Damion recommended submitting
examples of other city’s standards for these to Council since they were initially not interested in these.
-Is there a variance process? Staff stated not really because no situation would meet the variance
criteria, specially the financial hardship criteria.
-Appeals could be submitted for discretionary standards, but staff recommended making those changes
now so that appeals weren’t necessary.
-Can the code incorporate an exception process for unique situations? Staff responded it could, but does
not currently. The question is what is unique situation related to lot width or garage width.
-Additional examples were discussed with Planning about the driveway width of 24 feet versus 30 feet
and how much back up distance and approach distance their would be with the flares to the side.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY
OF AMES, IOWA, BY AMENDING SECTIONS 29.307(5), 29.402, 29.406,
29.1501, AND AMENDING RESPECTIVE TABLES 29.1202(5)-1,
29.1202(6), 29.406(2), 29.406(9) AND 29.406(14) THEREOF, FOR THE
PURPOSE OF AMENDING FRONT YARD PARKING REGULATIONS
AND DRIVEWAY SPECIFICATIONS REPEALING ANY AND ALL
ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT TO THE
EXTENT OF SUCH CONFLICT; PROVIDING A PENALTY; AND
ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ENACTED, by the City Council for the City of Ames, Iowa, that:
Section One. The Municipal Code of the City of Ames, Iowa shall be and the same is hereby
amended by amending Sections 29.307(5), 29.402, 29.406, 29.1501, and respective tables 29.1202(5)-1,
29.1202(6), 29.406(2), 29.406(9) and 29.406(14) as follows:
“Sec 29.307 Nonconformities.
…
(5) Other Nonconformities.
(a) Examples of Other Nonconformities. The types of other nonconformities to
which this Section applies include:
(i) Fence height or location;
(ii) Lack of buffers or screening;
(iii) Lack of or inadequate landscaping;
(iv) Lack of or inadequate off-street parking; and
(v) Other nonconformities not involving the basic design or structural aspects
of the building, location of the building on the lot, lot dimensions or land or building use.
…
(d) Development that is consistent with a Site Development Plan approved before the
date that this Ordinance became effective shall be deemed to be in conformance with this Ordinance to the
extent that it is consistent with the approved plan and to the extent that such plan or conditions imposed
thereon directly addresses the specific issue involved in the determination of conformity. However,
redevelopment of a site or reconstruction of improvements must meet current zoning standards and remove
nonconformities to extent practicable for issuance of a new certificate of compliance. A building/zoning
permit or site development plan is required, as applicable, for a new certificate of compliance.
(e) Single- and Two-Family Home Driveways and Paving
(i) Properties with existing front yard paving that do not meet requirements of this
ordinance and were established prior to January 1, 2023, are considered pre-existing and are not required to
be removed or replaced, unless a principal structure is constructed on a site or replaced with a new principal
structure and the location of required parking can be accommodated within the standards of this ordinance.
(f) Unpaved Driveway, Parking, Vehicle Maneuvering Areas
(i) Properties with an unpaved driveway, parking area, or any other vehicle
maneuvering area are considered nonconforming, but may continue to be used and maintained as an unpaved
vehicle maneuvering area for access and parking in accordance with this section.
(ii) An unpaved driveway, approach, vehicle maneuvering area, and/or associated
parking area must be paved when:
(a) It is lengthened or widened,
(b) It is required to serve a new use on the site as required parking,
(c) The parking area is moved or replaced, or
(d) Construction of a new garage or addition to a driveway, parking space, or reconstruction
of a garage or parking space.
The nonconforming unpaved area must be paved subject to approval of a Driveway Permit in conformance
with City standards of Article 4.
…
Sec. 29.402. SETBACKS
…
(c) Full projections allowed.
…
(vii) Driveways, patios, sidewalks, and similar at-grade surfaces; (see also Front
Yard Parking, Nonconformities, and Other Paving Standards)
…
Sec. 29.404. ON-SITE SIDEWALKS.
(1) General Standard. An on-site sidewalk shall connect the street to the main entrance of
the primary structure on the site. Sidewalks shall be composed of concrete, brick or other masonry pavers
and shall be at least 5 feet wide, except for those leading to Single Family and Two-Family Dwellings,
Community Residential Facilities, and Single Family Attached Dwellings, which shall be no less than 4
feet wide. Where sidewalks cross driveways, parking areas and loading areas, the crossing shall be clearly
identifiable, through the use of striping, elevation changes, speed bumps, a different paving material or
other similar method. The primary sidewalk leading to the main entrance of the primary structure on the
site shall be lighted.
(a) Sidewalks leading to the main entrance of a Single Family and Two-Family
Dwelling, Community Residential Facility, or Single Family Attached Dwelling, may be four feet in width, no
lighted, and utilize the paved driveway for connection from the main entrance to the street.
…
Sec. 29.406. OFF-STREET PARKING.
(1) Applicability. The off-street parking requirements set forth in this Section apply to all off-
street parking improvements and uses, whether required by this Ordinance or in excess of the requirements of
this Ordinance, whether accessory to the principal use of a site, or operated as a commercial enterprise.
(2) Required Parking Spaces. Off-street parking spaces must be provided in accordance with
the minimum requirements set forth in Table 29.406(2) below, for any new building constructed and for any
new use established.
…
(b) Whenever a building or use lawfully existing on the effective date of this Ordinance, May
1, 2000, is enlarged in floor area, number of employees, seating capacity, or otherwise to create a need for an
increase of 10% or more in the number of required parking spaces, such spaces shall be provided on the basis
of such enlargement or change. However, any change to a household living use or changes to an existing
household living use requires conformance to current parking requirements for such change without allowing
for an increase of 10% of intensity.
…
Table 29.406(2)
Minimum Number of Required Off-Street
Parking Spaces
DOWNTOWN AND CAMPUS
TOWN SERVICE CENTER
TOWN
SERVICE CENTER ZONES
RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS
Family Attached
Manufactured
outside RLP District)
1 space/bedroom for units of 2
or more
1.25 space/bedroom for units of 2
or more in University
(O-UIE and OUIW)
1 space/residential unit for an
Senior Living Facility
DSC
with up to 18 units:
0-2 bedrooms units: NONE
3+ bedroom units: 1 space/RU
with more than 18
1 space/RU
CSC – All Developments
space/RU
…
TRADE AND WHOLESALE
…
INSTITUATIONAL AND
MISCELLANOUS USES
(3) Computation of Parking Spaces.
…
(b) When parking is required on the basis of square footage, gross square footage
shall be used to calculate parking unless otherwise stated.
(c) Where calculations yield a fractional result, only fractions of 0.5 or greater
shall be rounded to the higher whole number.
…
(7) Locating Parking Spaces and Paving in the Front Yard.
(a) Prior to the construction, expansion, conversion, or reconstruction of a
garage, driveway, or vehicular parking area (including paving adjacent to a driveway or parking
area), a Driveway Paving Permit, Site Development Plan, or Parking Lot Landscaping and Striping
Plan, as applicable to the principal use, approval from the Planning and Housing Director must be
obtained by the property owner.
The Planning and Housing Director can only approve a permit consistent with the standards of this
section and the guidelines of the Driveway Manual, an administrative publication available from
the Planning and Housing Department. Any such activity described above without prior approval
of a permit by the Planning and Housing Director is a violation of this Chapter.
Front Yard Parking and Paving within the front yard is only permitted as allowed within this
Section. Front yard parking generally includes all area of a lot for the entire width of the lot between
the front lot line(s) and the closest principal building. Parking location standards found in other
parts of the Code, such as between the Building and the Street is more narrowly applied to only
areas between the footprint of buildings adjacent to the front lot line.
(b) Commercial and industrial sites may have front yard vehicular parking
areas unless prohibited by the base zone standards.
(c) Hospital Medical District (S-HM) properties may use the front yard for the
location of vehicular parking, but only if setbacks of 15 feet from the front lot lines and 10 feet
from the side lot lines are maintained with respect to the front yard parking area, and a landscaped
berm is installed and maintained in said setback areas. The landscaped berm shall be so designed,
constructed, and maintained as to help screen from view from the front and sides, any and all motor
vehicles parked on the parking lot in any season of the year.
...
(d) For Group Living uses in any “RL,” “RM,” “RH,” “UCRM,” “FS-RL,”
or “FS-RM” zone, no vehicular parking area shall be permitted between the primary façade and the
street. In addition, any parking area between a recessed façade and the street shall require a setback
of 50 feet. Parking is permitted in the side or rear yard. On a corner lot, no parking area is allowed
within the front yard related to the secondary façade.
(e) Household living and short-term lodging front yard vehicular parking
within any "RL", "RM", "RH", "UCRM", "FS-RL", or "FS-RM" zones is prohibited, except upon
an approved driveway that leads to a side or rear yard vehicular parking area or to a garage.
Specifications for driveways are stated below, no other installation at grade of any expanse of
asphalt, gravel, brick, concrete, or other form of paving is permitted without approval by the
Planning and Housing Department:
(i) No required parking for apartment buildings may be approved upon
a driveway within a front yard.
(ii) All newly constructed single and two-family dwellings shall provide
for at least one required parking space located outside of the Front Yard.
(f) Turnaround Areas. For single and two family dwellings with access only
from either Grand Avenue, Thirteenth Street, Ontario Street, Duff Avenue, Lincoln Way, or other
arterial streets, and located on a segment of one of those streets where the Public Works Department
can confirm an average weekday traffic count of not less than 10,000 vehicles per day, or for
properties with narrow driveways exceeding 75 feet in length that create potentially hazardous
back out conditions to pedestrians and bicyclists on collector or arterial streets, there may be a
paved area appended to the driveway as a space in which a motor vehicle can be turned around to
avoid backing onto the street. The dimensions of the said turning space shall be no greater than
reasonably convenient to that purpose as described in the Driveway Manual. A driveway permit
is required for a turnaround.
(g) As used in this section, front yard means the open space in that portion of
a yard between the street and the face of the structure and a line originating from the left side of the
lot and extending to the right side of the lot. The line, as viewed from the street, shall extend parallel
to the street to the nearest corner of the principal structure and then along the face of the principal
structure to the right corner, and from that point on a line parallel to the street to a point on the right
lot line. As used in this section, the face of a principal structure shall be any and all portions of the
structure fronting on a street. The front yard shall not include any portion of the city right-of-way.
A corner lot shall be deemed to have two front yards. When a lot has three or more street fronts, is
a through lot, or the lot is not a rectilinear shape to define a logical side and rear yards, the Planning
Director may approve a driveway and front yard parking that meets the intent of this section.
…
(8) Stacked Parking.
…
(a) Exception. Stacked parking is permitted by right for single family and
two-family dwellings; however, one of the required parking spaces per dwelling must be outside
of the front yard.
…
(10) Driveways. Driveways to all parking facilities shall be designed to promote safety
and access management while providing convenient access to adjoining properties. Drive Through
Facilities have additional standards within Article 13. The Planning and Housing Department shall
maintain a Driveway Manual to provide examples and diagrams of generally accepted practices for
conformance to front yard parking, paving, and driveway specifications for residential properties.
(a) Driveway width and design characteristics shall be as specified in the
Design Manual of the Statewide Urban Design and Specifications (SUDAS) as adopted by the
City of Ames unless specified differently in this Chapter. Driveway width shall be the specified
minimum to promote on street parking opportunities and pedestrian safety unless the City Traffic
Engineer approves a wider driveway width (not to exceed SUDAS maximum) based upon the
applicable following criteria:
(i) The extra driveway approach width is necessary to accommodate
design dimension characteristics of non-residential vehicles that regularly use the site (does not
apply to properties with dwelling units); or
(ii) The extra driveway approach width is necessary to resolve concerns
over safe approach and volume of traffic entering and exiting the site.
(b) Additional driveways.
(i) Additional nonresidential driveways shall be limited to the
minimum number necessary for use and design characteristics of the site and in conformance
with SUDAS standards.
(ii) A second single or two-family driveway may be permitted by
the Traffic Engineer if the lot has at least 150 linear feet of street frontage and can meet all other
specification and spacing requirements, including 75 feet of separation between drives.
(c) Dimensions Single and Two Family
(i) Single and Two-Family home driveway width onsite is intended
to be proportional to the curb cut and approach dimensions. The approach shall match the width
of the approved driveway that leads directly to parking within an attached garage or vehicular
parking outside of the front yard.
(ii) Single and Two-Family home driveway width of the approach
in the right-of-way shall be no less than 10 feet, the on-site driveway width shall be no less than
9 feet.
(iii) The maximum width of a driveway approach is 12 feet for a
one-car garage, carport, or uncovered parking spaces, 20 feet for a two-car garage, and 24 feet
for a three-car garage. Driveway approaches that do not lead directly to a garage are limited
to the equivalent width of a one car garage.
(iv) On site driveway paving is limited to areas related to the width
of the garage and exceptions described in this Section. In no event will additional paving
adjacent to a driveway be approved that would allow for an additional parking space to be created
in front of a home. Walkways adjacent to a driveway must be of a different decorative paving
material or separated by five feet of vegetative landscaped area from the driveway paving.
(v) Parking upon decorative paving, rock, gravel, or other material
that is not the approved driveway is illegal front yard parking.
(d) Exceptions. Single and Two-family homes may have additional
paving approved for a flared parking space within the front yard located towards these closest
interior property line, subject to the following:
(i) When a property has an approved driveway compliant with this
section that leads to at least one required parking space located outside of the front yard, additional
paving may be approved subject to the following limitations:
(a) The flared parking shall include a taper design either
angled or rounded that is a generally equal to a 45-degree angle between the sidewalk intersection
with the driveway and the outside edge of paving width for flared parking for a distance of not
less than 5 feet. See Driveway Manual for more detail.
(b) The flared parking space shall be contiguous to and
parallel to the existing driveway; and,
(c) The parking space shall be located between the existing
driveway and the closest interior side property line.
(d) Flared parking is not permitted to the interior of a lot or
within the street side or front yard of a corner lot.
(e) The design of the flared parking area is to allow for
parking of vehicles perpendicular to the street and not perpendicular to the driveway.
(f) No paving within the right of way that does not match the
SUDAS requirement of a driveway approach is permitted, i.e., paving between a sidewalk and
driveway approach radius or flare.
(g) Overall paving is limited by the lot coverage standards of
the zoning district.
(h) Not prohibited by easement.
(ii) Minimum Parking and Driveway Width. When a property with
an existing single-family dwelling does not have an attached garage or the ability to physically
situate a required parking space within the side or rear yard, a driveway width of up to 20 feet may
be approved to allow for two side-by- side parking spaces located adjacent to an interior side
property line.
(iii) The Planning Director may approve extra width of 4 feet to the
interior side of a driveway when the total width of the driveway with the exception does not exceed
20 feet. Flared parking area is included in the calculation of 20 feet of width.
(11) Improvements of Off-Street Parking Areas and Driveways.
(a) Surface Material Standards.
(i) Materials. All vehicular parking and maneuvering areas,
including driveways, and front yard parking areas described in Section 29.406(7), must be paved
with Portland Cement Concrete, Asphaltic Cement Concrete, or an equivalent as determined by
the City Engineer.
(ii) Material Thickness. All vehicle areas, including front yard
parking areas described in Section 29.406(7), must be paved with an approved material no less
than five inches thick. Use of bricks or pavers with a supporting base that provides for durability
equal to that of five inches of paved thickness may be approved by the City Engineer. Greater
thickness may be required by subsurface conditions or the type of vehicles using the parking area.
In all off-street parking areas where access will be provided for heavy trucks and transit vehicles,
the pavement thickness shall be adequate to accommodate such vehicles, as determined by the City
Engineer. When it is anticipated that transit service will be extended to sites not presently served,
pavement thickness shall be adequate to accommodate transit vehicles, as determined by the
City Engineer.
(b) Existing single and two-family front yard parking and driveway area
configurations are considered pre-existing as of January 1, 2023, for purposes of maintaining
current paved areas and dimensions. New or expanded driveways and parking areas must comply
with all current standards.
(c) Unpaved parking areas and driveways must be paved as described in
Article 3 for other nonconformities.
(d) Striping. All parking areas must be striped in accordance with the
dimension standards described in Figure 29.406(9) to clearly delineate parking spaces and drive
aisles for use by customer, employee, business, and other vehicles, except parking areas designed
for outdoor display of vehicles for sale or lease.
(e) Lighting. Illumination for parking and loading areas must be designed to
be fully cut off from adjacent properties.
(12) Parking Structures and Decks.
…
(b) Screening or other improvements must be made so that parked vehicle
headlights are shielded from view at each level of the parking structure.
…
(15) Standards for Accessible Parking Spaces.
…
(iii) Van-accessible spaces. One in every 6, but not less than one,
required Accessible Parking Spaces must be served by a passenger access aisle with a minimum
width of 8 feet and must be designated "Van-Accessible" by a sign mounted below the symbol of
accessibility. When exempt by ADA, no van-accessible spaces are required.
…
(18) Remote Parking. All parking spaces required by this ordinance shall be located
on the same lot as the use served, except as noted below:
(a) Parking spaces required for principal uses permitted in the CSC, HOC,
CCN, CCR, NC, S-HM and S-SMD zoning districts may be located on the same lot as the
principal building or on a lot within 300 feet of the lot on which the principal building is located.
Parking within the DSC zoning district may be located on any lot within the DSC or DGC zoning
district, subject to approval by the City Council.
(b) Parking spaces required for uses permitted in the F-PRD zoning district
or a PUD Overlay may be located on a lot within 300 feet of the lot on which the use is located,
if the parking spaces to be used are within the boundary of the same zoning district.
…
Table 29.1202(5)-1
Suburban Residential Floating Zone Residential Low Density (FS-RL) Supplemental Development
Standards
SUPPLEMENTAL
DEVELOPMENT
F-S ZONE LOW DENSITY
SINGLE FAMILY TWO
FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
ATTACHED
…
Table 29.1202(6)
Suburban Residential Floating Zone Suburban Regulations
SUBURBAN REGULATIONS F-S ZONE
Adjustment may allow for parking betw
…
Sec. 29.1501. BUILDING/ZONING PERMIT.
(1) Permit Required.
(a) No Building/Zoning Permit shall be issued by the Building Official
for any building, building addition, structure or structural alteration, and no building or
structure shall be erected, added to, or structurally altered, and no change of use shall be
permitted or established unless the Zoning Enforcement Officer certifies that such proposed
building, structure, or use is in conformity with this Ordinance or is a valid nonconforming use.
…
(c) A Building/Zoning Permit shall be revoked if there are any substantial
changes or alterations to the plot plan, building plans and/or other supporting application
documents after the issuance of the permit.
(d) Zoning Permits for Driveways, Landscape Plans, and Parking Lot
Striping, Outdoor Storage/Display Areas, and other miscellaneous improvements and uses
require approval by the Planning and Housing Department prior to their construction or
establishment of use. A Site Development Plan may be required per 29.1502. When a Site
Development Plan has been approved that addresses the above-described activities, no zoning
permit shall be required unless necessary for new activities or changes to approved activities. A
Building/ Zoning permit would still be required.
(2) Submittal Requirements.
…
(v) Landscaping and pavement striping as applicable.
…
Sec. 29.1502. SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW.
…
(2) General Requirements for Site Development Plan Review.
…
(i) The development or redevelopment does not require the
construction of any additional parking spaces.
…
(iii) The development or redevelopment does not exceed 150 square
feet of area, as calculated from the exterior dimension of a structure or an addition to a structure.
This includes impervious areas of paving and compacted rock or other similar impervious
surfaces.
(iv) Driveway, Sidewalk and Parking Lot Reconstruction is exempt
from the Site Development Plan submittal requirement when a site was previously approved with
a Site Development Plan, there is no change in configuration of the parking lot to enlarge or
expand paving boundaries, and the amount of impervious area with replacement paving is less
than 1.0 acre in area as defined for redevelopment in Chapter 5B of AMC. The exception from
the Site Development Plan submittal requirements does not exempt the project from complying
with parking lot and landscaping standards of this Code and approval of a Zoning Permit. If
reconstruction is combined with any other changes to a structure on site, it is not exempt. Changes
to Nonconforming improvements are subject to standards of Article 3.
…”
Section Two. Violation of the provisions of this ordinance shall constitute a municipal
infraction punishable as set out by law.
Section Three. All ordinances, or parts of ordinances, in conflict herewith are hereby
repealed to the extent of such conflict, if any.
Section Four. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage
and publication as required by law.
Passed this day of , .
______________________________________ _______________________________________
Renee Hall, City Clerk John A. Haila, Mayor
1
ITEM #: 25
DATE: 02-28-23
DEPT: P&H
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: TEXT AMENDMENT TO STANDARDS FOR GENERAL ZONING
REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO LOTS
BACKGROUND:
On December 20, 2022, City Council referred to staff a letter from Jerry Nelson regarding
zoning standards related to minimum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for a property with a
nonconforming building he owns at 412 Burnett Avenue. FAR is the ratio of floor area to
lot area. On January 24, City Council considered the issues related to Mr. Nelson’s
request regarding the merger of lots and the remodeling of nonconforming buildings. The
Council directed staff to initiate a zoning text amendment for minimum FAR
standards related to changes in lot configurations. Council did not direct staff to
alter the minimum FAR requirement related to buildings.
Mr. Nelson’s property was three parcels before it was merged into one parcel with a plat
of survey on September 6. The parcel combination was done to enable a building addition
and a remodeling of the buildings as a single structure rather than multiple buildings.
Before platting, the three separate properties each had a single building; one of the
buildings was demolished to make way for a larger addition. A site plan for the two existing
structures and the addition was also approved administratively on September 6, 2022.
The plat and the site plan approval were contingent upon one another: neither
could be approved alone and comply with zoning standards. The plat could not be
approved on its own as it would create a property without the required minimum
FAR of 1.0 for the Downtown Service Center Zoning District (DSC). No change in lot
lines is allowed that would not maintain conformance to zoning standards or worsen the
consistency of the property with zoning standards. The site plan could not be approved
for the addition and the remodeling on its own because the building would cross
property lines, which is also prohibited.
After the site plan and plat were approved, Mr. Nelson decided to renovate the
existing buildings, combining them into one, but without constructing the addition
that would bring the property into compliance with the minimum FAR and height
requirements in DSC. The building plans cannot be approved, and a certificate of
occupancy cannot be issued, for a property that is not in compliance with the site plan
and is not in compliance with the zoning.
2
DOWNTOWN SERVICE CENTER (DSC) – CURRENT ZONING:
DSC zoning has two key design standards to support a traditional two-story historic
commercial façade, typical of Main Street buildings constructed a century ago, and to
efficiently use centrally located land with higher intensity uses. The first standard is the
requirement that all buildings have a minimum floor area ratio of 1.0. The second standard
is a requirement for two-story buildings. Buildings that do not meet these requirements
are considered nonconforming. Lots cannot be created or modified that do not result
in a conforming configuration or maintain conformance to a standard related to lot
dimensions.
The DSC FAR and height standards have been discussed in the past, with City Council
choosing to retain these requirements for the core of the Downtown area. Due to the
importance of these two standards reinforcing the character of the historic
downtown, staff does not support removing the requirements in their entirety as a
text amendment.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE:
On January 24th, City Council directed staff to proceed with changing lot merger
requirements to allow for properties to be combined regardless of the resulting
floor area ratio. However, the allowance for lot mergers would not relieve an owner
of the obligation to comply with zoning requirements as a nonconforming building
with future changes.
Below is the proposed code change:
Sec. 29.303 (2) Lots.
(a) Change in Lot Size or Shape Regulated.
(i) No lot shall be reduced in size or changed in shape so that the total area,
minimum frontage, setbacks, lot area per dwelling unit, or other
development standards required by this Ordinance are not maintained.
Maintaining minimum Floor Area Ratio requirements is excluded for
Boundary Line Adjustments and Lot Mergers only. Any building on a lot that
results from such a lot merger will be considered nonconforming and subject
to the limitations of Sec. 29.307. All remaining development standards and
nonconformity requirements related to buildings and site improvements
shall still apply.
(ii) No lot shall be divided so as to create an additional lot that is not in
conformity with this Ordinance unless such lot is deeded, dedicated and
accepted for public use.
During the discussion on changes related to minimum FAR, staff identified concerns
about how FAR is described within the Zoning Ordinance and that the requirement to
construct conforming buildings was not clear for all property owners. Therefore, staff also
examined other parts of the Zoning Ordinance as they relate to minimum FAR generally.
3
Staff is recommending that the following section should also be amended to ensure that
the minimum FAR requirements of DSC and CSC are preserved. The intent of this
proposed change is to make clear that developing a lot requires a building in order
to conform with the Zoning Ordinance standards; a parking lot or other non-
building-related improvement is not acceptable on its own in regards to minimum
intensity requirements.
Sec. 29.401
(3) Maximum Floor Area Ratios (FARs). Development Intensity, Floor Area Ratio
(FAR), and Density. Intensity of development for all Use Categories except
residential uses in the Residential Base Zones is set by the establishment of
minimum and/or maximum Floor Area Ratios (FARs). The maximum FAR allowed
in each zone is listed in the applicable Zone Development Standards Table. Where
a minimum FAR is required by the applicable Zone Development Standards Table,
construction of a building is required for use of a lot in compliance with this
ordinance. In Residential Zones, intensity of development is based on the
Residential Ddensity requirements of the Base Zone, Floating Zone, Special
Purpose District, or Overlay. described in Section 29.700(3).
The proposed language also cleans up the title of the section to match its relationship to
density and FAR. Additionally, “density” is a defined term that applies to more zoning
districts and referenced in 29.700 (3).
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning and Zoning Commission met on February 1, 2023, to consider the proposed
text amendment. The Commission voted 6-0-0 to recommend that the City Council amend
the Zoning Ordinance to allow lot mergers with nonconforming buildings and to modify
the FAR and density section as well.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve on first reading a text amendment regarding the General Zoning
Regulations related to minimum FAR for lot mergers and minimum intensity, Sec.
29.303(2)(a) and Sec. 29.401(3), as presented above. (Note that the changes
apply to all zoning districts with a minimum FAR standard, i.e. DSC and CSC
zoning districts.)
2. Direct staff to prepare modifications to the proposed text amendment and return
for Council consideration at a later date.
3. Do not approve the proposed text amendment.
4
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The DSC and CSC zoning districts require a minimum FAR of 1.0, a minimum height of
two stories, and that new development comply fully with the standards (there is no
incremental compliance spread out over time for new development). These standards are
designed to reinforce the historic development character of the commercial district and
ensure an efficient use of land occurs at a higher intensity of development than is common
in other areas.
Staff supports maintaining the minimum FAR and the minimum height related to DSC.
Removing these zoning requirements may undermine goals for Downtown to be a dense
and walkable, vibrant commercial center.
At issue with this request is a focus on whether lot mergers that indirectly relate to the
FAR of existing buildings should be modified. Merging of lots does not change how an
existing building is built or configured, but it changes the calculation of floor area and
creates requirements for use of a site. The City already has standards regarding
nonconformities and limitations on remodeling and changing the lot standards does not
alter these limitations.
Allowing for the lot mergers without complying with FAR will indirectly support
extending the useful life of a nonconforming building as it may allow for
renovations of existing buildings due to additional space for utilities and
modifications to façades. Staff believes it is important that if lot mergers are
allowed, a situation is not created that promotes or allows for outdoor
improvements, such as parking lots and outdoor activity areas, that do not meet
the City’s building intensity goals.
The proposed alterations to the Zoning Ordinance will maintain the DSC
requirements for minimum FAR applied to buildings, while allowing for Mr.
Nelson’s remodeling project to proceed. Although the change may extend the
useful life of some nonconforming buildings, staff finds the change to be a better
alternative than to have a project abandoned and the existing buildings left vacant.
The proposed change maintains the requirements that any proposed structural
changes to a nonconforming building or the construction of a new building must
fully comply with the zoning standards. A nonconforming building will not be
permitted to build an addition if it does not reach full conformance with the FAR
and height requirements of the zoning standards. Therefore, it is the
recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council approve Alternative #1.
5
Attachment A
Request to Council
6
Attachment B
Proposed Ordinance
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF
THE CITY OF AMES, IOWA, BY AMENDING SECTIONS
29.303(2)(a) AND 29.401(3) THEREOF, FOR THE
PURPOSE OF AMENDING LOT SIZE REGULATIONS AND
FLOOR AREA RATIOS, REPEALING ANY AND ALL
ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN
CONFLICT TO THE EXTENT OF SUCH CONFLICT; AND
ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ENACTED, by the City Council for the City of Ames, Iowa, that:
Section One. The Municipal Code of the City of Ames, Iowa shall be and the same
is hereby amended by amending Sections 29.303(2)(a) and 29.401(3) as follows:
“Sec. 29.303. GENERAL ZONING REGULATIONS
(2) Lots.
(a) Change in Lot Size or Shape Regulated.
(i) No lot shall be reduced in size or changed in shape so that the total area,
minimum frontage, setbacks, lot area per dwelling unit, or other development
standards required by this Ordinance are not maintained. Maintaining minimum
Floor Area Ratio requirements is excluded for Boundary Line Adjustments and
Lot Mergers only. Any building on a lot that results from such a lot merger will
be considered nonconforming and subject to the limitations of Sec. 29.307. All
remaining development standards and nonconformity requirements related to
buildings and site improvements shall still apply.
(ii) No lot shall be divided so as to create an additional lot that is not in
conformity with this Ordinance unless such lot is deeded, dedicated and
accepted for public use.
…
Sec. 29.401. LOT CONFIGURATION, BUILDING COVERATE, FLOOR AREA RATIOS,
AND HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS
…
(3) Maximum Floor Area Ratios (FARs). Development Intensity, Floor Area
Ratio (FAR), and Density. Intensity of development for all Use Categories except
residential uses in the Residential Base Zones is set by the establishment of
minimum and/or maximum Floor Area Ratios (FARs). The maximum FAR allowed
in each zone is listed in the applicable Zone Development Standards Table. Where
7
a minimum FAR is required by the applicable Zone Development Standards Table,
construction of a building is required for use of a lot in compliance with this
ordinance. In Residential Zones, intensity of development is based on the
Residential Ddensity requirements of the Base Zone, Floating Zone, Special
Purpose District, or Overlay. described in Section 29.700(3)
…”
Section Two. Violation of the provisions of this ordinance shall constitute a municipal
infraction punishable as set out by law.
Section Three. All ordinances, or parts of ordinances, in conflict herewith are hereby
repealed to the extent of such conflict, if any.
Section Four. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage
and publication as required by law.
Passed this _________ day of ______________________, 2023
__________________________ _________________________________
Renee Hall, City Clerk John A. Haila, Mayor
1
ITEM#: 26
DATE: 02-28-23
DEPT: P&H
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: MINOR AMENDMENT TO AMES PLAN 2040 FUTURE LAND USE
MAP FOR A PORTION OF THE PARCEL LOCATED AT 325 BILLY
SUNDAY ROAD FROM “CIVIC” TO “COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL/RETAIL” (COM CR)
BACKGROUND:
The City owns a parcel of land located between Highway 30 to the north and Billy Sunday
Road to the south that contains approximately 24.5 acres (see Attachment A- Location
Map). At the time Ames Plan 2040 was approved in December 2021, the land use
designation for the parcel was established as “Civic,” reflecting its ownership by the City.
(see Attachment B- Existing Future Land Use Map, excerpt). The parcel is identified as
Parcel No. 09-14-250-0000.
The parcel is predominantly undeveloped, except for the Ames Animal Shelter located at
325 Billy Sunday Road, and the western portion of the parcel leased to the federal
government as the U.S. Army Reserve Center located at 2110 S Duff Ave (North Corner
of S Duff & Billy Sunday Road). A 25-foot paved Access Drive extends through the parcel
from Billy Sunday Road to the Hunziker Sports Complex located further to the east of the
site. The parcel is relatively flat but has a slightly higher elevation next to the Ames Dog
Park. Highway 30 abuts the site to the north. An apartment complex and car dealership
are located to the south of the site across Billy Sunday Road. The City Dog Park exists
at the east end of Billy Sunday Road, abutting the site.
The parcel’s visibility and easy access to Highway 30 along with available
infrastructure make this site desirable as real estate for future commercial
development. The recent installation of a traffic signal at Billy Sunday and Highway
69 also created direct access to the site that did not previously exist.
Furthermore, the City has determined that the entire parcel is not needed for
Government/Airport District “S-GA” purposes, although retention of the Army Reserve site
and approximately 1.5 acres is needed for future relocation of the animal shelter to the
east edge of the site abutting the Dog Park. The current animal shelter will be able to
continue to exist as long as it remains in its current location and continues to operate as
is, regardless of the land use or future zoning change.
FUTURE LAND USE:
The request is to change the future land use of a portion of the City-owned parcel equaling
approximately 16.5 acres, from “Civic” to “Community Commercial/Retail” (Com CR)
2
(Attachment C). Most of the 16.5-acre area is vacant, except for the Ames Animal Shelter
located at 825 Billy Sunday Road.
The remaining eight acres would retain the “Civic” designation. Much of the area around
the interchange is designated as “Community Commercial/Retail” (Com CR).
Changing a portion of the site to “Community Commercial/Retail” (Com CR) is
therefore compatible with the character of the area. The proposed future land use
map amendment will create a precise expectation of the site as an infill area intended for
commercial development. The requested amendment is the first step in a series of actions
enabling this surplus land to be sold and utilized for commercial development. Concurrent
with the land use change, the City intends to rezone the site to “Highway Oriented
Commercial” (HOC).
The portion of the parcel retaining the existing “Civic” land use zoning includes the US
Army Reserve at 2110 S Duff and a 1.5-acre area adjacent to the Ames Dog Park as a
potential site for relocation and expansion of the Ames Animal Shelter (see Attachment
C- Proposed Land Use Map).
Any proposed change to the Ames Plan 2040 Future Land Use Map includes examining
the suitability of infrastructure and the site for the proposed use. Infrastructure includes
facilities such as sewer and water capacity, storm drainage, and general circulation
needs. Utility service exists along Billy Sunday Road to serve future development of the
site. Staff generally finds that infrastructure for water, sewer, storm drainage, and traffic
access from Billy Sunday Road are acceptable to plan for development in this area. More
details would be reviewed with a specific development concept.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
On February 1, 2023, the Planning & Zoning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend
approval of the amended land use designation.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve an amendment to the Ames Plan 2040 Future Land Use Map, changing
the Future Land Use of approximately 16.5 acres located at 325 Billy Sunday Road
from “Civic” to “Community Commercial/Retail” (Com CR), as illustrated on
Attachment C.
2. Do not amend the Ames Plan 2040 Future Land Use Map and maintain the current
“Civic” land use designation on approximately 16.5 acres located at 325 Billy
Sunday Road, as illustrated on Attachment B.
3. Refer this item back to staff for more information.
3
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Given that the land has been determined to be non-essential for future City needs, it is
appropriate that the future land use be amended to a designation that aligns with the
character of the area. The Ames Plan 2040 Future Land Use Map illustrates “Community
Commercial/ Retail” (Com CR) as the predominant land use surrounding the interchange
of Highway 30 and S Duff Avenue (Highway 69) and adjacent to the parcel. The proposed
site is well-suited for commercial uses as an infill site.
The proposed change satisfies the review criteria of Ames Plan 2040 and is supported by
the Principles of Ames Plan 2040 as identified in the Addendum, especially LU5 related
to Places for Employment and Enterprise (see Attachment F). The narrative in the
Addendum demonstrates that there is a need for the use and that it would be compatible
wih the current commercial uses surrounding the parcel.
Changing the land use will allow for the City to rezone the parcel as well. There is a
companion item on the agenda for rezoning the site to Highway Oriented Commercial.
Once the site is zoned commercial, the City Council can determine if the site should be
avaliable for leasing to commecial users or if a subdivision to sell land is desireable.
The rezoning and sale of this land could yield two benefits; 1) provide revenue to
help fund construction of a new Animal Control Shelter and 2) provide a site to
relocate an existing billboard from The LINC site on Lincoln Way to a highway
oriented area. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City
Council approve Alternative #1.
4
ADDENDUM
Ames Plan 2040 Policies
Land use is the central element of the comprehensive plan because it establishes the
overall mix and configuration of uses for the city. According to Ames Plan 2040, civic uses
comprise 43% of all developed land in Ames. This is not unusual for a city with a major
university. Parks account for the greatest share of civic uses (18%), with ISU following at
11%. At the time of approval of Plan 2040, government-owned lands were principally
mapped as “Civic” to recognize that they had a specific purpose at that time and were not
privately-owned. The City did not project changes of use for “Civic” land as part of the
analysis of Plan 2040.
The City has determined that a 16.5 acre portion of the subject parcel is not needed for
“Civic” uses. Removing this acreage from this category will not be impactful to the
category as there is no specific goal or target related to the amount of “Civic” land or its
location in the City. The requested change of future land use is supported by policies of
Ames Plan 2040, particularly those related to growth and land use:
Ames Plan 2040 includes Guiding Principles for Growth of the City (see Attachment E).
Guiding Principle 3 is particularly relevant:
G3: Infill that Enhances Urban Fabric. Ames will take advantage of existing infill sites
within the existing urbanized area to increase both the efficiency and quality of its built
environment. … it requires an assessment of community needs and character of the
surrounding area to guide planning and policy decisions on specific changes.”
Staff also reviewed Guiding Principles for Land Use (see Attachment F). LU5 is
particularly relevant and describes “Places for Employment and Enterprise:”
“Ames will continue to provide appropriately located space for a wide range of enterprises
that provide employment for existing and prospective residents… small business,
commercial office, and trade uses are planned for diverse locations across the City.
Zoning standards will address design and use requirements recognizing the diverse
needs and locations of employment use.”
Ames will take advantage of infill sites within the existing urbanized area to increase both
the efficiency and quality of its urban environment (see Attachment G):
G3-1. Identify infill properties and areas within the existing built-up area, focusing I=on
sites that are 1) vacant and buildable; 2) underutilized or sporadically developed…
G3-2. Coordinate infill development with the capacity of existing infrastructure.
G3-3. …Use prevailing density as the guide for redevelopment….
The proposed change is supported by the Principles of Ames Plan 2040.
5
Review Considerations
» Relationship of the proposal to projected population and employment needs and
the corresponding land use types and areas identified to serve these needs by the
Future Land Use Map.
According to Ames Plan 2040, Ames’ Population (with students) is projected to increase
to 79,772 by 2040. This is with an annual growth rate of 1.5%. Projections for future
development were created as part of Ames Plan 2040 to estimate the necessary acreage
for residential, commercial, and industrial land by 2040. It is estimated that by 2040, 127-
150 acres of commercial land will be needed to support the projected population growth.
A land use designation of “Community Commercial/Retail” is appropriate to support
commercial growth. Having vacant non-residential land for development and available
shovel-ready sites is advantageous to growth. One advantage of this site is the nearby
apartments within walking distance. Very few commercial clusters are within walking
distance of residential property. Ames is considered as having a balanced jobs to housing
relationship with an average annual employment growth of .88.
The site’s proximity and visibility to Highway 30 and available infrastructure make it prime
real estate for future commercial development in this area and to serve future population
and employment needs of the city. The parcel was only recently designated as “Civic”
with the adoption of the Ames Plan 2040 in December 2021, which aligned with the
current zoning of “S-GA”. Prior to this time, the 1997 Land Use Policy Plan identified
it as “Highway Oriented Commercial.”
Approximately eight acres would remain with the existing “Civic” designation. This
includes the area west of the Access Drive (including the US Army Reserve Center) and
a 1.5-acre area immediately west of the Ames Dog Park (possible relocation site for the
Ames Animal Shelter.
The current Ames Animal Shelter is included in the acreage that is proposed as
“Community Commercial/Retail” (Com CR). This facility could potentially be relocated to
new and expanded facilities adjacent to the dog park, as a future Capital Improvements
Project. A 1.5-acre site is illustrated in this location with a “Civic” designation for this
purpose.
» Community character enhancements that bolster the image of the community
and promote a defined area with a sense of place and compatibility with its
surroundings.
This surplus land could be sold by the City for new commercial uses. Its visibility and easy
access to Highway 30 along with available infrastructure make this site prime real estate
for future commercial development. “Community Commercial/Retail” (Com CR) is the
predominant land use surrounding the Highway 30 & S Duff Avenue (Highway 69)
6
interchange. Changing the land use to “Community Commercial/Retail” (Com CR) will
allow expansion of the commercial development that is already in this area and
development of new commercial uses that are compatible with the area.
Although this is a large undeveloped site, in general the area to the south and west has
commercial character already. As you travel to the east on Billy Sunday Road the
character transitions to a less intense environment with parks and open space. The parks
and open space areas to the east would not be impacted in character with the change as
the commercial uses will be situated primarily to the west side of the site, or along Hwy
30 frontage.
Development details will be part of the development review process; however, design
guidelines are currently not required by the Highway Oriented Commercial zoning district
regulations. If desired, the City Council could require such enhancements, including
sense of place and compatibility to be part of the development in a future agreement with
the purchaser of the land.
» Cumulative impacts of a proposed change taken into consideration with other
proposed or reasonably anticipated changes.
The subject parcel begins at the corner of S Duff Avenue and Billy Sunday Road and
extends eastward along the Highway 30 frontage for about 1700 feet. It is located
between Highway 30 on the north and Billy Sunday Road on the south. The parcel
includes approximately 24.5 acres.
The parcel is predominantly undeveloped and vegetated, except for the U.S. Army
Reserve Center located at 2110 S Duff Ave (North Corner of S. Duff & Billy Sunday Road)
and the Ames Animal Shelter located at 325 Billy Sunday Road. A 25-foot paved Access
Drive connects through the parcel from Billy Sunday Road to the Hunziker Sports
Complex. The parcel is flat but has a slightly higher elevation next to the Ames Dog Park.
A small portion of the site is in the flood hazard zone. This area is in the panhandle portion
located in the northeastern part of the site, adjacent to Highway 30.
Capacity of Public Utilities. Water and sanitary sewer facilities are stubbed to the site for
easy extension into the site to serve development. Staff finds that infrastructure for water,
sewer, and storm drainage are acceptable to plan for future commercial development on
this site. More details would be reviewed with a specific development concept.
Traffic/Access. The area is well-served to the larger transportation network of the city with
its direct access from Billy Sunday Road and to S Duff Avenue (Highway 69) at a
signalized interchange. The development site has frontage on both Highway 30 and Billy
Sunday Road.
Currently, access to the Hunziker Sports Complex is by a 25’ paved Access Drive that
extends north from Billy Sunday Road and then curves to the east along the north side of
the property, continuing to the Hunziker Sports Complex. The drive will remain as a
7
private drive that serves Hunziker Sports Complex, at the time of sales of the property
appropriate easements will be retained for use of the drive. Access to the future
commercial uses will be primarily from Billy Sunday Road. CyRide does not currently
provide service along Billy Sunday Avenue but does provide service further to the south
from S Duff Avenue (Highway 69).
A Shared Use Path exists along the S Duff frontage. Sidewalks exists on the south side
of Billy Sunday Road. Future development would provide for sidewalks along Billy Sunday
and connect to other infrastructure in the area.
The proposed change satisfies the review criteria of Ames Plan 2040 and is supported by
the Principles of Ames Plan 2040.
Notification
Prior to this meeting in accordance with the notification requirements of Chapter 29, public
notice was mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. In
addition, a noticing sign was placed on the property.
8
Attachment A
Aerial & Location Map
9
Attachment B
Ames Plan 2040, current Future Land Use Map (excerpt)
10
Attachment C
Ames Plan 2040, proposed Future Land Use Map (excerpt)
11
Attachment D
Ames Plan 2040 (excerpt)
Community Commercial/Retail Characteristics
12
Attachment E
Ames Plan 2040 (excerpt)
Growth Guiding Principles
13
Attachment F
Ames Plan 2040 (excerpt)
Land Use Guiding Principles
14
Attachment G
Ames Plan 2040 (excerpt)
Infill Policies
15
Attachment H
Ames Plan 2040 Amendment Process
1
ITEM #: 27
DATE: 02-28-23
DEPT: P&H
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: REZONE A PORTION OF THE PARCEL LOCATED AT 325 BILLY
SUNDAY ROAD FROM GOVERNMENT/AIRPORT DISTRICT “S-GA”
HIGHWAY ORIENTED COMMERCIAL “HOC”
BACKGROUND:
An accompanying Ames Plan 2040 Future Land Use Map amendment is on the same
agenda that proposes to change the land use designation to “Community Commercial/
Retail” (Com CR) to allow for approval of this rezoning.
The City of Ames owns a parcel of land located between Highway 30 to the north and
Billy Sunday Road on the south that contains approximately 24.5 acres (see Attachment
A-Location Map). The parcel is currently zoned Government/Airport District (S-GA) (see
Attachment B- Existing Zoning Map). The proposed rezoning includes approximately
16.5-acres of the parcel (see Attachment C- Proposed Zoning Map). The remaining area
will retain the S-GA zoning.
The City of Ames believes a substantial portion of the site could be sold and used
for commercial purposes with the retention of part of the site for government
facilities. With approval of the rezoning, the City would determine in the future the
timing and subdivision of the parcel to allow for it to be sold as surplus property
or whether to lease part of the site for a commercial purpose.
The parcel is predominantly undeveloped, except for the U.S. Army Reserve Center
located at 2110 S Duff Ave (North Corner of S Duff & Billy Sunday Road) and the Ames
Animal Shelter located at 325 Billy Sunday Road. A 25-foot paved Access Drive extends
through the parcel from Billy Sunday Road to the Hunziker Sports Complex located further
to the east of the site. The parcel is relatively flat but has a slightly higher elevation next
to the Ames Dog Park. Highway 30 abuts the site to the north. An apartment complex and
car dealership are located to the south of the site across Billy Sunday Road. The City
Dog Park exists at the east end of Billy Sunday, abutting the site.
The parcel’s visibility and easy access to Highway 30 along with available
infrastructure make this site desirable as real estate for future commercial
development. The recent installation of a traffic signal at Billy Sunday and Highway
69 also created direct access to the site that did not exist previously.
2
REZONING:
The request is to rezone a portion of the parcel equaling approximately 16.5 acres,
from Government/Airport District (S-GA) to Highway Oriented Commercial (HOC).
The majority of the 16.5-acre site is vacant, except for the Ames Animal Shelter
located at 825 Billy Sunday Road.
The remaining eight acres would be retained with the existing Government/Airport
District (S-GA) zoning. Although the existing animal shelter would be rezoned, it
does not restrict the use of the site as an animal shelter. The shelter will continue
to operate as until such time a new location to the east could be developed by the
City.
The Ames Plan 2040 Future Land Use Map currently designates the property as “Civic.”
The proposed designation for the 16.5 acre site is “Community Commercial/Retail” (Com
CR) (see Attachment D- Proposed Future Land Use Map). Highway Oriented Commercial
is considered a compatible zoning district within the Community Commercial/Retail (Com
CR) land use classification. Rezoning this property to “HOC” (Highway-Oriented
Commercial) will enable the surplus government land to be sold and utilized for
commercial development.
The area retaining the existing zoning will include the US Army Reserve at 2110 S
Duff and approximately a 1.5 acre area adjacent to the Ames Dog Park as a potential
site for relocation and expansion of the Ames Animal Shelter (see Attachment C-
Proposed Zoning Map).
The proposed “Community Commercial/Retail” (Com CR) land use designation
considers HOC zoning as an appropriate zone for implementing its purposes. Much
of the area around the interchange is already zoned Highway Oriented Commercial
(HOC). Therefore, changing a portion of the site to Highway Oriented Commercial (HOC)
would result in development of similar character to that of the area and meet the City
goals of utilizing the site for infill commercial purposes.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
On February 1, 2023, the Planning & Zoning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend
approval of the rezoning.
3
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the request to rezone approximately 16.5 acres of the parcel located at
325 Billy Sunday Road from “S-GA” to “HOC” as illustrated on Attachment C.
2. Deny the request to rezone approximately 16.5 acres of the parcel located at 325
Billy Sunday Road from “S-GA” to “HOC.”
3. Defer action on this request and refer it back to City staff and/or the applicant for
additional information.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The request for rezoning is consistent with the Ames Plan 2040 proposed change to the
Future Land Use Map as described in the addendum. Rezoning will have no impacts on
current infrastructure and City services for this parcel. The change of zoning to “HOC”
would allow for a wide range of commercial uses, such as office, retail, and
entertainment/restaurants. Adding more commercial land at this location would meet a
need of the City for increasing commercial development opportunities within the City.
By rezoning the site to commercial it would allow for the City to consider leases
for use of the site, including potentially for relocation of billboards from The LINC
site along Lincoln Way. More importantly, the excess land proposed for rezoning
may have substantial value that, if sold or long term leased, could be used to help
fund relocation and reconstruction of the animal shelter. Any future leases or sale
of the property would be subject to City Council approval.
The rezoning and sale of this land could yield two additional benefits; 1) provide
revenue to help fund construction of a new Animal Control Shelter and 2) provide
a site to relocate an existing billboard from The LINC site on Lincoln Way to a
highway oriented area.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council approve
Alternative #1.
4
ADDENDUM
REZONING BACKGROUND:
Legal Description. The area of change is a portion of a larger parcel. It will include the
current private drive that traverses the site, but it does not include the Army Reserve or
future animal shelter location. The general area of rezoning is described as follows:
Beginning at the intersection of the centerline of Billy Sunday Road and centerline of a
25’ paved access drive to the Hunziker Sports Complex. Continue North along the
centerline of the 25’ paved access drive for approximately 625’ to the property line;
Continue along property line in northeast direction approximately 96’, NE 199.78’; NE
202.78’, NE 470.74’, and NE873.4’ to eastern property line; then S196.8’ to property
corner, then W872’ to property corner. Continue S365.25’, then W235’, then S
approximately 310’ to Centerline of Billy Sunday Road, then W approximately 720.8’
along centerline of Billy Sunday Road to the POB. Approximately 16.5 acres.
Ames Plan 2040. The Ames Plan 2040 proposed Future Land Use Map designation for
the 16.5-acre site is “Community Commercial/Retail” (Com CR) (see Attachment D-
Proposed Future Land Use Map). Highway Oriented Commercial is considered a
compatible zoning district within the “Community Commercial/Retail” (Com CR) land use
classification. The wide range of commercial uses allowed within HOC is consistent with
zoning of the area and mix of uses in the area. Staff believes the rezoning request is
consistent with the goals and policies of the Ames Plan 2040 (see Attachment E- Ames
2040 Plan Community Commercial/Retail Characteristics).
Proposed Zoning. The city proposes rezoning 16.5 acres of the parcel from “S-GA”
(Government/Airport) to “HOC” (Highway-Oriented Commercial). The remaining eight
acres will remain “S-GA”.
The “HOC” zone is intended to allow auto-accommodating commercial development in
areas already predominantly developed for this use. The zone allows a full range of retail
and service businesses with a large local or citywide market. Development is expected
to be generally auto-accommodating, with access from major traffic ways. HOC zoning
includes no specific architectural standards and includes basic front, rear, and side
setbacks. A developed site must include at least 15% of the area as landscaping.
The far north east corner of the parcel, adjacent to the first parking lot access of the
Hunziker Youth Sports drive is within the flood plain. This area would be subject to
Floodway Fringe development standard for placement of fill and elevating or protecting
buildings to three feet above base flood elevation.
Existing Uses of Land. Land uses that occupy the subject property and other
surrounding properties are described in the following table.
5
Direction from Subject
Property
Existing Primary Land Uses
Subject Property
North
East
South
West
Infrastructure. Impacts on infrastructure and City services for this parcel are consistent
with what is already anticipated for commercial use of the property.
Transportation- Vehicular. The parcel is immediately adjacent to the Highway 30 corridor
and the Highway 30 and S Duff (US 69) interchange providing excellent access to two
major transportation corridors.
Billy Sunday Road has a direct vehicular connection to S. Duff Avenue (US 69). The
intersection is signalized and includes a turn lane into Billy Sunday Road, as you head
southbound on S. Duff Avenue.
A 25’ paved Access Drive extends north from Billy Sunday Road and then curves to the
east along the north side of the property, continuing to the Hunziker Sports Complex.
Pedestrian. A sidewalk exists on the south side of Billy Sunday Road. There are currently
no sidewalks on the north side of Sunday Road, nor along the Access Drive. A shared
use path exists along S Duff Avenue (Highway 69) on the east side.
Sanitary Sewer- An 8” sanitary sewer stub extends across Billy Sunday Road to the
property. Additionally, a 10” sewer line extends along the north side of the property. A 54”
and 35” sewer trunkline cuts diagonally across the panhandle portion of the lot connecting
across Highway 30 to the northwest and southeasterly down to south Ames.
Water- An 8” water line extends along the north side of Billy Sunday Road. A Fire Hydrant
is located at the Ames Animal Shelter (325 Billy Sunday Rd).
Stormwater- A drainage ditch extends along the north side of Billy Sunday Road except
in developed areas such as the US Army Reserve and the Ames Animal Shelter. Future
development would be subject to the City’s storm water management for control of water
quantity and quality.
Electric- Ames Electric power lines extend along the north side of Billy Sunday Road.
6
Findings of Fact. Based upon an analysis of the proposed rezoning and laws pertinent
to the proposed map amendment, staff makes the following findings of fact:
1. The subject property is owned by the City of Ames.
2. Ames Municipal Code Section 29.1507(1) allows the City Council to initiate an
amendment to the Official Zoning Map.
3. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the designation of “Community
Commercial/Retail” (Com CR) identified on the Ames Plan 2040 proposed Future
Land Use Map.
4. The proposed rezoning to “HOC” Highway Oriented Commercial zoning is consistent
with the existing commercial character of S. Duff Avenue and Billy Sunday Road.
5. The parcel is owned by the City of Ames. Rezoning a portion of the parcel to Highway
Oriented Commercial “HOC” would allow the property to be sold and developed in a
variety of uses. The subject property includes approximately 16.5 acres of the larger
24.5-acre parcel.
6. Development in the “HOC” zoning district requires a site plan review process to assure
that such development and intensity of use assures a safe, functional, efficient, and
environmentally sound operation.
7. Impacts on infrastructure and City services for this parcel is consistent with what is
already anticipated for the area.
Public Notice. The City provided mailed notice to all property owners within 200 feet of
the subject property and placed a sign on the property, prior to the City Council meeting
in accordance with the notification requirements of Chapter 29.
7
Attachment A
Aerial & Location Map
8
Attachment B
Current Zoning Map (excerpt)
9
Attachment C
Proposed Zoning Map (excerpt)
10
Attachment D
Ames Plan 2040, proposed Future Land Use Map (excerpt)
11
Attachment E
Ames Plan 2040 (excerpt)
Community Commercial/Retail Characteristics
ITEM #: 28
DATE: 02/28/23
DEPT: PW
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: 2021/22 SHARED USE PATH SYSTEM EXPANSION – IOWAY CREEK
BACKGROUND:
This program provides for the construction of shared-use paths on street rights-of-way,
adjacent to streets, and through greenbelts. The Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP)
identifies those paths that separate bicycle traffic from higher-speed automobile traffic.
This project will construct a shared use path along Ioway Creek from S. 5th Street
to 0.5 miles east of S. Duff Ave, as shown in the attachment.
Because this project funding includes Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT)
Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) funds, the project must follow Iowa DOT
letting policies and was let by the Iowa DOT. One of the policies of the IDOT is that the
contractor meet, or exceed, a Disadvantage Business Enterprise (DBE) minimum
participation goal of 2% of the contract total. This goal means that 2% of the contract
amount must be performed by a state certified DBE(s).
On February 21, 2023, bids for the project were received as follows:
The table below shows the revenues and expenses for this project:
Revenue Expenses
Bidder
Bid Amount DBE %
Engineer’s Estimate $1,036,998.92 2% Goal
ALTERNATIVES:
1. a. Accept the report of bids for the 2021/22 Shared Use Path System Expansion –
Ioway Creek.
b. Approve the final plans and specifications for this project and award the 2021/22
Shared Use Path System Expansion – Ioway Creek to Caliber Concrete, LLC of
Adair, Iowa, in the amount of $967,665.92, contingent upon receipt of Iowa DOT
concurrence.
2. a. Accept the report of bids for the 2021/22 Shared Use Path System Expansion
– Ioway Creek.
b. Reject award and direct staff to modify the project for a future Iowa DOT bid
letting.
3. Do not proceed with the project at this time.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By awarding this project, it will be possible to provide a significant greenbelt trail
expansion to our current shared use path network. Therefore, it is the recommendation
of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as noted above.
ACCESS TO SPORTS COMPLEX
BAY DR
COVE D R
WAVE DR
FINCH ST
ROBIN ST
SHORE DR
ORIOLE ST
SANDCASTLE DR
CARDINAL RD
CREEKSIDE DR
S DUFF AVE
SE 16TH ST
S GRAND AVE
S 16TH ST
E LINCOLN WAY
S 4TH ST
S 5TH ST
S 3RD ST
FREEL DR
S 17TH ST
S 2ND ST
S MAPLE AVE
S WALNUT AVE
SE 5TH ST
SE 3RD ST
Access to city wells
S OAK AVE
BUCKEYE AVE
SE 2ND ST
LINCOLN WAY
S SHERMAN AVE
GOLDEN ASPEN DR
CHERRY AVE
S BORNE AVE
N 1 inch = 1,000 feet
2021/22 Shared Use Path (Ioway Creek)
Project Location
Future Shared Use Path Connections
Existing O ff-Street Bike Facility
Existing O n-Street Bike Facility
1
ITEM #: 29
DATE: 02-28-23
DEPT: PW
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: FY 2022/23 & 2023/24 AMES PLAN 2040 WATER UTILITY
INFRASTRUCTURE – (LINCOLN WAY & US HIGHWAY 69)
BACKGROUND:
This program involves extension of public water infrastructure into priority tiers identified
in Ames Plan 2040. By installing the water systems proactively, this opens the
development ability for lands in the adopted growth tiers. This project includes
extending a new 12” water main along Lincoln Way to County Line Road and 14”
water main along US Highway 69 south from Ken Maril Road to past the waterway.
On February 22, 2023, bids for the project were received as follows:
Bidder Bid Amount
Base + Add Alt
Engineer’s Estimate $ 853,220.00
Thorpe Contracting, LLC $ 705,672.00
Revenue and expenses associated with this program are estimated as follows:
Available
Revenue
Estimated
Expenses
Base Bid
Add Alternate
Total Construction Cost 705,672
TOTAL $ 1,079,680.50 $ 811,672
The add alternate is to bore a creek crossing further to the south on US69 to avoid a
future City expenditure to facilitate development shown in Ames Plan 2040. The low bid
2
came in well below the estimate and adequate funds are available to award the add
alternative.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. a. Accept the report of bids for the 2022/23 & 2023/24 Ames Plan 2040 Water
Utility Infrastructure – (Lincoln Way & US Highway 69) project.
b. Approve the final plans and specifications for this project and award the
2022/23 & 2023/24 Ames Plan 2040 Water Utility Infrastructure – (Lincoln Way
& US Highway 69) base bid and add alternate to Thorpe Contracting, LLC of
Adel, Iowa, in the amount of $705,672.
2. Award the contract to one of the other bidders.
3. Do not proceed with this project.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By approving final plans and specifications and awarding the contract, this project will
extend public water infrastructure into priority one of tiers shown in the Growth Plan 2040.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1, as described above.
A
&É
!(
A!(!(!(!(A!(
!(!(A
A
!(A
A
A
A A
A
!)
&É !(
&É
!(
!(!(&É&É A
A
!(
!(
&É
(
((
((
((
((
((
(
((((
((
(
(
(
(
(
((
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
G!.G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
WILDER LN
WILDER PL
WILDER AVE
NORRIS ST
DURANT ST
WILDER BLVD
LINCOLN WAY
SCHUBERT ST
S 500TH AVE
N 500TH AVE
LINCOLN HIGHWAYLINCOLN HIGHWAY
¯1 in ch = 244 feet
2022/23 Water SystemImprovements
Proposed Water Ma in Extension
Lincoln Way - Wilder to 500th Ave
A A A A A A A A A!(
(A((
(
(
A
((
!(!(!(!(!(
&É
!(!(
!(( (
(
(
G!.
G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.G!.G!.G!.KEN MARIL RD
£¤69
¯1 inch = 494 feet
2022/23 Water SystemImprovements
US HWY 69
ITEM #: 30
DATE: 02-28-23
DEPT: PW
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: 2022/2023 PAVEMENT RESTORATION – SLURRY SEAL PROGRAM
BACKGROUND:
The Slurry Seal Program is an annual program that levels joints and provides a new
thin wearing surface for traffic, predominately on residential streets, limiting the
typical disruption to residents to no more than one day. The techniques in this
program are typically more specialized and larger in scope than can be performed with
City maintenance staff. A list of proposed project locations is show below:
Hunziker Drive Roosevelt to Ferndale
Harding Avenue 10th to 13th
Harding Avenue 13th to 16th
Bel Air Drive 16th To Coolidge
Bel Air Circle
Arthur Drive Bel Air to Coolidge
Arthur Circle
Alabama Lane Ontario to Toronto
Alberta Avenue Ontario to Toronto
Arizona Avenue Ontario to Toronto
Tuscon Court
Edison Street Carnegie to Whitney
Johnson Street Northwestern to Kennedy
Kennedy Street Northwestern to Ferndale
Johnson Street Hoover to Northwestern
25th Street Tyler to Northwestern
26th Street Ferndale to Melrose
26th Street Melrose to Northwestern
26th Street Circle
Slurry Seal Proposed Locations
On February 22, 2023, one bid was received as follows:
Bidder Bid
Fort Dodge Asphalt Company $210,646.60
There is $250,000 of Road Use Tax funding allocated to this program annually in the
Capital Improvement Plan, of which $241,218 is available for this project. Remaining
revenue will be utilized for other pavement restoration priorities.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. a. Accept the report of bids for the 2022/2023 Pavement Restoration –
Slurry Seal Program
b. Approve the final plans and specifications for this project and award the
2022/2023 Pavement Restoration – Slurry Seal Program to Fort Dodge
Asphalt Company of Fort Dodge, IA, in the amount of $210,646.60
2. Reject the bids and do not proceed with this project.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This project will repair and extend the lifespan of the streets in the program and provide
a better travelling experience for users of the corridors and for those living in the
neighborhoods. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City
Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as noted above.
ITEM #: 31
DATE: 02-28-23
DEPT: PW
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: 2022/23 SHARED USE PATH MAINTENANCE
BACKGROUND:
This project focuses on crack and joint sealing that occur in asphalt paths due to
expansion and contraction of the pavement during seasonal temperature extremes. This
project will also include a seal coat on shared use paths following joint sealing. Locations
are determined using a condition inventory, visual inspection of paths, and input from
users. Improvements will enhance safety, usability, and also improve the aesthetics of
the path/trail system. A list of proposed project locations is below:
On February 22, 2023, one bid was received as follows:
Bidder Bid
Mid Iowa Enterprises, LLC $109,046.00
LOCATION DESCRIPTION MAINTENANCE ACTIVITY
Lincoln Swing (Abraham to Beedle) Joint Seal and Seal Coat
Franklin Park (west side) Joint Seal and Seal Coat
Mortensen Road (South Dakota to Dotson)
Seal Coat Only
(Joint Sealed in 2022)
Mortensen Road (Dotson to East of Middle Sch.) Joint Seal and Seal Coat
Middle School (Football Field to State Ave)
Seal Coat Only
(Joint Sealed in 2022)
Stange Road (Veenker to GW Carver
Seal Coat Only
(Joint Sealed in 2022)
High School (Furman Aquatic Center to Iowa
Creek to Ames High) Joint Seal and Seal Coat
South Duff (Howe's Welding to Ioway Creek) Joint Seal and Seal Coat
South Duff (Ioway Creek to Chestnut) Joint Seal and Seal Coat
South Duff (Chestnut to S 16th) Joint Seal and Seal Coat
South Duff (SE 16th to Hwy 30 Off Ramp) Joint Seal and Seal Coat
South Duff (Hwy 30 Off Ramp to Billy Sunday
Road) Joint Seal and Seal Coat
Billy Sunday (Fire Station 3 to Ames Dog Park) Joint Seal and Seal Coat
There is $125,000 of Local Option Sales Tax allocated for this program annually in the
Capital Improvement Plan. Carryovers of unspent funds in prior years has resulted
in an available balance of approximately $146,060 to fund this project. Remaining
revenue will be utilized for other shared use path maintenance priorities.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. a. Accept the report of bids for the 2022/2023 Shared Use Path
Maintenance Program
b. Approve the final plans and specifications for this project and award the
2022/2023 Shared Use Path Maintenance Program to Mid Iowa
Enterprises, of Story City, IA in the amount of $109,046.00
2. Reject the bids and do not proceed with this project.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The project will aid in extending the lifespan of these asphalt paths and enhance the user
experience by repairing joints that are not level with the rest of the path. Therefore, it is
the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as
noted above.
1
ITEM #: 32
DATE: 02-28-23
DEPT: W&PC
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT PROGAM – LOCAL LIMITS
BACKGROUND:
On March 1, 2022, the Water Pollution Control Facility (WPC) was issued a new National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the Iowa Department of
Natural Resources (DNR). A requirement of the NPDES permit is to evaluate the
adequacy of the Local Limits that are established as part of the Industrial Pretreatment
Program (IPP). The goals of the IPP include protection of the Publicly Owned
Treatment Works (POTW) are: preventing discharge of pollutants to the POTW that
will inhibit treatment plant operations or pass through untreated, protecting worker
safety, and improving the ability to recycle and reclaim wastewater and biosolids.
A full reevaluation of the Local Limits was last performed in 2011 as part of the previous
NPDES permit cycle.
Staff have completed the required Local Limit evaluation using data collected from
industrial users, the WPC Facility, Iowa DNR, and the Environmental Protection Agency.
The evaluation considers several parameters for each pollutant and the parameter that
results in the Local Limit that is most protective of the POTW, worker safety, and
wastewater/biosolids quality is identified.
The table below shows the currently adopted Local Limit for each pollutant along with the
proposed Local Limit identified during the evaluation. Also noted in the table is the relative
change to the Local Limit for those pollutants with proposed changes. The proposed
Local Limits that are less restrictive are expected to allow the IPP to continue to
achieve the goals stated above. Alternatively, the proposed Local Limits that are
more restrictive are not expected to cause any industrial user to suddenly become
non-compliant with the IPP. The proposed Local Limits have been compared to past
sampling data and no exceedances by Ames’ industries of the new Local Limits were
noted for the past several years.
On February 17, 2023, staff notified all industrial users of the proposed Local Limits
revisions. Included in the letter was the plan for formally revising the Local Limits in
Chapter 28 of the Municipal Code. No responses were received.
Following Council approval, staff will submit the proposed Local Limits to the Iowa DNR
for their review in order to comply with the requirements of the NPDES permit.
2
Pollutant Current Local
Limit (mg/L)
Proposed Local
Limit (mg/L) Relative Change
Ammonia 225 225 No Change
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 280 280 No Change
cBOD5 1,800 1,800 No Change
COD 2,700 2,700 No Change
TSS 1,600 1,600 No Change
Acetone 14.9 16.4 Less Restrictive
Arsenic 0.02 0.03 Less Restrictive
Cadmium 0.04 0.04 No Change
Chromium 0.93 0.95 Less Restrictive
Copper 0.57 0.57 No Change
Cyanide 0.88 0.84 More Restrictive
Lead 0.89 0.94 Less Restrictive
Mercury 0.01 0.01 No Change
Molybdenum 0.29 0.31 Less Restrictive
Nickel 11.0 9.6 More Restrictive
Phenol 2.6 1.8 More Restrictive
Selenium 0.09 0.09 No Change
Silver 0.05 0.07 Less Restrictive
Zinc 4.3 3.8 More Restrictive
Benzene 0.05 0.05 No Change
BTEX 0.75 0.75 No Change
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons 10.0 10.0 No Change
Sulfide 2.0 2.0 No Change
Oil & Grease 300 300 No Change
pH No Change
No Limit Set
Acronyms:
cBOD 5 – 5-Day Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand
COD – Chemical Oxygen Demand
TSS – Total Suspended Solids
BTEX – Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylene
3
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve on first reading the attached ordinance revising Chapter 28 of the
Municipal Code to amend the Industrial Pretreatment Program Local Limits.
2. Direct staff to modify the attached ordinance.
3. Do not approve the ordinance.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
A full evaluation of the Local Limits is required by the Iowa Department of Natural
Resources as part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit received
on March 1, 2022. Staff has completed the evaluation. The proposed Local Limits are
expected to allow the Industrial Pretreatment Program to meet its goals and are not
expected to cause negative consequences for industrial users. Therefore, it is the
recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as
described above.
ORDINANCE NO. _________
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF
THE CITY OF AMES, IOWA, BY AMEDNING SECTION
28.309 THEREOF, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING
PRETREATMENT LOCAL LIMITS ESTABLISHED
REPEALING ANY AND ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF
ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT TO THE EXTENT OF SUCH
CONFLICT; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ENACTED, by the City Council for the City of Ames, Iowa, that:
Section One. The Municipal Code of the City of Ames, Iowa shall be and the
same is hereby amended by amending Section 28.309, Pretreatment Local Limits
Established, as follows:
“Sec. 28.309 Pretreatment Local Limits Established.
Pollutant Local Limit
(mg/L, Unless Otherwise Noted)
Acetone 16.4 14.9
Ammonia 225
Arsenic 0.03 0.02
Benzene 0.05
BTEX 0.75
Cadmium 0.04
cBOD5 1,800
Copper 0.57
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) 2,700
Cyanide 0.84 0.88
Lead 0.94 0.89
Mercury 0.01
Molybdenum 0.31 0.29
Nickel 9.6 11.0
Oil & Grease 300
pH 6.0-10.0 Standard Units
Phenol 1.8 2.6
Selenium 0.09
Silver 0.07 0.05
Sulfide 2.0
Temperature <65.5°C”
Total Chromium 0.95 0.93
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 280
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons 10.0
Total Suspended Solids 1,600
Zinc 3.8 4.3
Section Two. All ordinances, or parts of ordinances, in conflict herewith are
hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict, if any.
Section Three. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its
passage and publication as required by law.
Passed this day of , .
__________________________________________________________________
Renee Hall, City Clerk John A. Haila, Mayor
DO NOT WRITE IN THE SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE, RESERVED FOR RECORDER
Prepared by: Renee Hall, City Clerk’s Office, 515 Clark Avenue, Ames, IA 50010 Phone: 515-239-5105
Return to: Ames City Clerk, P.O. Box 811, Ames, IA 50010
ORDINANCE NO. 4490
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE
CITY OF AMES, IOWA, AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 29.301 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF AMES, IOWA, BY CHANGING
THE BOUNDARIES OF THE DISTRICTS ESTABLISHED AND SHOWN
ON SAID MAP AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 29.1507 OF THE MUNICIPAL
CODE OF THE CITY OF AMES, IOWA; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES
AND PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH AND
ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Ames, Iowa;
Section 1: The Official Zoning Map of the City of Ames, Iowa, as provided for in
Section 29.301 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ames, Iowa, is amended by changing the
boundaries of the districts established and shown on said Map in the manner authorized by
Section 29.1507 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ames, Iowa, as follows: That the real estate,
generally located at 3216 Tripp Street, is rezoned from Residential Low Density (RL) to
Residential Medium Density (RM) with a PUD Overlay and Master Plan.
Real Estate Description: Baker Subdivision, Lot 27
Section 2: All other ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby
repealed to the extent of such conflict.
Section 3: This ordinance is in full force and effect from and after its adoption and
publication as provided by law.
ADOPTED THIS ________ day of _________________________, ______.
_________________________________ _______________________________________
Renee Hall, City Clerk John A. Haila, Mayor