HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - January 11, 2022, Regular Meeting of the Ames City CouncilAGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS - CITY HALL
JANUARY 11, 2022
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: The Mayor and City Council welcome comments from the public
during discussion. If you wish to speak, please see the instructions listed above. 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.
PROCLAMATION:
1. Proclamation for “Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention and Awareness Month,”
January 2022
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.
2. Motion approving payment of claims
3. Motion approving Minutes of Special City Council Meetings held December 21, December 29,
2021, and Regular City Council Meeting on December 14
4.Motion approving Report of Change Orders for period December 1 - 15, 2021
5. Motion approving Report of Change Orders for period December 16 - 31, 2021
6.Motion certifying Civil Service candidates
7. Motion approving new 12-Month Class C Liquor License with Sunday Service - Las Palmas
Mexican Restaurant & Grill, Inc., 2601 East 13th Street
8. Motion approving ownership change for Class C Liquor License with Catering Privilege and
Sunday Sales - Texas Roadhouse, 519 South Duff Avenue
9. Motion approving renewal of the following Beer Permits, Wine Permits and Liquor Licenses:
a. Class C Liquor License with Outdoor Service and Sunday Sales - Chipotle Mexican Grill,
435 S Duff Avenue, Pending Dram Shop Insurance
b. Class C Liquor License with Sunday Sales - Fuji Japanese Steakhouse, 1614 S Kellogg
Avenue, 101
c. Class A Liquor License with Sunday Sales - American Legion Post #37, 225 Main Street
d. Special Class C Liquor License with Sunday Sales - Springhill Suites, 1810 SE 16th St
e. Class C Liquor License with Catering Privilege, Outdoor Service and Sunday Sales -
West Towne Pub, 4518 Mortensen Road, Suite 101
f. Class C Liquor License with Catering Privilege, Outdoor Service and Sunday Sales -
Dublin Bay, 320 S 16th Street, Pending Dram Shop Insurance
g. Class C Liquor License with Sunday Sales - Cactus 2, 2420 Lincoln Way, Ste B, Pending
Dram Shop Insurance
h. Class E Liquor License with Class B Wine Permit, Class C Beer Permit (Carryout Beer)
and Sunday Sales - The Filling Station, 2400 University Boulevard
i. Special Class C Liquor License (B/W) - Clouds Coffee, 119 Stanton Avenue, Suite 701,
Pending Dram Shop Insurance
j. Class C Liquor License with Outdoor Service and Sunday Sales - The Angry Irishmen,
119 Main Street, Pending Dram Shop Insurance
k. Class C Liquor License with Catering Privilege and Sunday Sales - Hy-Vee Market Café,
3800 Lincoln Way
l. Class C Liquor License with Outdoor Service and Sunday Sales - Cy’s Roost, 121 Welch
Avenue, Pending Dram Shop Insurance
m. Class C Liquor License and Sunday Sales - North Grand Seafood, 823 Wheeler Street,
Ste 1
10. Requests from Ames Main Street (AMS) for Downtown Dollar Days event on Thursday,
January 27 through Sunday, January 30, 2022:
a. Motion approving blanket Temporary Obstruction Permit.
b. Resolution approving waiver of parking meter fees and enforcement in the Downtown
District on Saturday, January 29, 2022
c. Resolution approving request from Ames Main Street for Saturday, January 29, to
transfer $1,379.25 from the Local Option Sales Tax Fund to the Parking Fund
11.Resolution approving and adopting Supplement No. 2022-1 to Municipal Code
12. Resolution approving appointment of Council Member Anita Rollins to the Ames Economic
Development Committee (AEDC)
13. Resolution approving application for Procurement Card for Council Member Anita Rollins;
setting the spend limit at $2,000/transaction, $3,000/day, and $5,000/monthly billing cycle
14. Resolution approving Memorandum of Agreement between the City and Iowa Department of
Natural Resources for the South Skunk River Water Trail
15. Resolution approving preliminary plans and specifications for S. 16th Street Improvements;
setting February 16, 2022, as bid due date and February 22, 2022, as date of public hearing
16. Resolution waiving formal bidding requirements and authorizing purchase of Black Box
Network Services 12-Month Comprehensive Service Plan in the amount of $55,107.77
17. Resolution approving Change Order No. 1 to STI Continuous Emission Monitoring System
(CEM) Services, LLC, of Waldron, Arkansas, for monitoring Power Plant emissions to ensure
compliance with operating permits in the amount of $48,483.20 (inclusive of sales taxes)
18. Resolution approving Change Order No. 1 to VIM Technologies of Glen Burnie, Maryland,
for monitoring CEMS data and reporting in the amount of $24,200
19. Resolution approving Change Order No. 1 to Northeast Products and Services of Fleetwood,
Pennsylvania, for Accessible Kayak Launch project at Ada Hayden Heritage Park in the
amount of $11,681
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.
2
PLANNING & HOUSING:
20. Staff Report regarding Grove Avenue Re-Direction Area
HEARINGS:
21. Hearing on rezoning of 23959- 580th Avenue from Agricultural “A” to Intensive Industrial “II:”
a. First passage of ordinance
22. Hearing on proposal for the City of Ames to lease its right, title, and interest to property locally
known as 205 South Walnut, Ames, to Heartland Senior Services for a period of 50 years:
a. Motion to continue hearing to January 25, 2022
WATER & POLLUTION CONTROL:
23. Story County Saturated Buffer/Bio-Reactor Project:
a. Resolution approving 28E Agreement for fiscal agent assistance with Iowa Department
of Agriculture and Land Stewardship - Division of Soil Conservation and Water Quality,
City of Ames, and Story County Soil & Water Conservation District
b. Resolution approving Agreement among Story County, Iowa; Story County Conservation
Board; and the City of Ames for funding assistance for water nutrient removal practices
ELECTRIC:
24. Resolution waiving formal bidding requirements and authorizing Professional Consulting
Services Contract with MCR Performance Solutions, LLC, of Deerfield, Illinois, in the amount
of $94,500 for MISO Transmission Rate Review and Calculation
ADMINISTRATION:
25. Staff Report regarding COVID-19 Meeting Policies
ORDINANCES:
26. Second passage or ordinance revising the standards for detached garages and accessory
buildings and nonconforming structures
27. Second passage of ordinance changing the name of Squaw Creek Drive to Stonehaven Drive
28. Second passage of ordinance amending the parking regulations to incorporate the renaming of
Squaw Creek Drive to Stonehaven Drive
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.
3
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL
AMES, IOWA DECEMBER 21, 2021
The Special Meeting of the Ames City Council was called to order by Mayor John Haila at 6:01 p.m.
on the 21st day of December 2021, 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 David Martin. Ex officio Member Trevor Poundstone was also
present.
CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Haila noted that the one item on Consent: Resolution approving the
Restrictive Covenants and Regulations for Single-Family Homes in the Baker Subdivision (321 State)
was requested to be pulled by staff due to a few changes that still needed to be done.
ORDINANCE ADOPTING MAP ESTABLISHING NEW WARDS AND PRECINCTS: City
Attorney Mark Lambert explained that at the last City Council meeting it was decided to go with the
County’s map. He put the Ordinance together based on the approved map and what the Council
received is what the new wards and precincts will be for the next ten years.
Mayor Haila opened public input and closed it when no one came forward to speak.
Moved by Corrieri, seconded by Betcher, to pass on first reading an ordinance adopting the map and
establishing new wards and precincts.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Moved by Corrieri, seconded by Betcher, to suspend the rules necessary for the adoption of an
ordinance.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Corrieri, to pass on second reading an ordinance adopting the map
and establishing new wards and precincts.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Betcher, to pass on third reading and adopt ORDINANCE NO.
4452 adopting the map and establishing new wards and precincts.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Ordinance declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby made
a portion of these Minutes.
Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Gartin, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 21-629 approving the
Memorandum of Agreement between the City and Story Country regarding the federal census block
information.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
WORKSHOP ON CLIMATE ACTION PLAN: Assistant City Manager Deb Schildroth stated the
project team has changed with the departure of Kayley Barrios Lain. Ms. Schildroth, Public Relations
Officer Susan Gwiasda, and Sustainability Coordinator Merry Rankin will continue leading the project.
Sustainability Solutions Group (SSG) representative Naomi Devine, who joined the meeting
electronically, stated that the meeting objectives were to inform the Steering Committee members
about target setting by taking a deeper dive on what it means and how it connects to low-carbon action
planning, target options developed by SSG, and engagement outputs regarding target setting. Ms.
Devine explained the Workshop will be conversational-based, and then provided a brief overview on
where SSG was currently and the process going forward.
Target Setting Review: Yule Herbert, SSG representative, joining the meeting electronically, stated
that a target does not guarantee success or a pathway forward. He noted that a target is enabled by a
common understanding of the target, a pathway to get there, a way to align decision-making with the
pathway, allocation of resources, and adaptive mindset and response.
Council Member Gartin asked to what degree the target was binding. He explained that he is struggling
with finding an aspirational goal that doesn’t bind them to anything and it doesn’t matter if they hit it
or not or is it going to be a standard by how the City does a process. Mr. Herbert stated that a target
is a signal, and it sets where the City of Ames lands, which will have implications as to how people
look at the community. The target helps guide the level of ambition that the City should embed in the
actions SSG is modeling. The City will need to develop a viable pathway to decarbonize all cars that
drive around Ames, businesses, and households. Two key pieces are a signal and a pathway for how
to get there. Mr. Gartin is worried that there will be some people who will be very disappointed and
feared the community will be disappointed with a lack of commitment.
Council Member Beatty-Hansen stated that whatever target the City Council decides on will help SSG
set up the model as to what needs to be done. She noted that SSG will take the goal of the City Council
and set up a pathway.
Council Member Martin said the Council should not be concerned with the commitment by the City
at this point. He said that target-setting was discussed previously, and it has to come first in order for
the consultants to put together the pathway, but it does not commit the City to anything.
SSG Representative Brittany MacLean, who also joined the meeting electronically, explained that it
was more of a directive for SSG to move forward and to come back with a road map for more
engagement opportunities. She mentioned that when looking as far out as 2050 it is somewhat
aspirational, but SSG will provide interim updates. Ms. MacLean asked where Ames wanted to be in
2030, and that SSG would be able to provide some detailed analysis around what it would take to
decrease to a certain point by 2030.
Mayor Haila inquired if a target is set, and that target becomes unachievable for the City of Ames,
would SSG go back to do additional revisions until the City could reach a target that it can agree on.
Ms. MacLean stated there are some iterations that can be done, but they could not provide unlimited
iterations because of the timeline. SSG will take directives from this meeting, provide an analysis
based on those directives, and present them to the Supplemental Input Committee and Council for
feedback.
2
Ms. Devine went over an example of two low-carbon scenarios that had a target versus no target set
(evidence based). She explained that SSG creates low-carbon Climate Action Plans and will look to
the City for guidance as to how far and how fast the City wants to go to get there. Ms. Devine noted
that any target-setting won’t constrain SSG from being successful in putting together a Plan for the
City of Ames to get to a low-carbon future.
Council Member Martin inquired what would happen if SSG develops all these results and it turns out
there is “not an appetite” to take them all on as originally thought. He noted that it stood to reason that
some of the items represented in the wedge diagram would be independently controllable, i.e. passing
an ordinance or providing funding. Mr. Martin asked if Council elected to postpone one or two, could
SSG estimate the impact that would have on the timeline. Mr. Herbert confirmed SSG would be able
to adjust the model to show the impact on the items Council might want to remove or postpone.
Mayor Haila asked SSG in the example that was shown how the community responded to the proposed
retrofits and all the investments necessary. Ms. Devine stated the community, in the example shown,
wanted an aggressive target and wanted a science-based aligned target. Mayor Haila asked what the
overall cost was for that example, Ms. Devine commented that SSG did not have that information
available. She deferred to Mr. Herbert for examples of costs with targets similar to Ames. Mr.
Herbert mentioned that Holly Hills is similar in size to Ames with approximately 60,000 people, and
they are aggressive in their approach with a target of being net-zero by 2030. Council Member Gartin
asked if those financials were public record and could be shared. Mr. Herbert confirmed that they were
and would provide the information to the Council.
Council Member Betcher wanted to make sure she was looking at the “creating a pathway: low carbon
assumption (building)” correctly, as it looks like the older building will need more retrofitting. Ms.
Betcher was curious if the community shown had more pre-1980 buildings or post-1980 buildings.
She stated that the old communities are going to be hit harder at the beginning of the process because
that is more “bang for the buck.” Ms. Betcher commented that she can understand SSG point of view,
but the low-income communities are the ones that can’t afford the retrofit. Ms. Devine mentioned that
it would be beneficial to offer an incentivizing program to allow the retrofit to be done, and how those
incentives are rolled out is unique to each community.
Engagement Update: Ms. MacLean reviewed the engagement summary and went over the survey
results. SSG did analyze the results three times and did not find much variance between the three
analyses. It was noted that during the analysis some people were identified as non-residents of Ames,
and there were a few IP addresses that were from out of state, but they could be residents of Ames.
Ms. MacLean recapped the survey results that Council had received prior to the meeting. There were
902 responses, but it’s still not a statically relevant survey. The demographic data that was collected
was close to the representation of Ames.
Council Member Betcher noted that given the survey results, it seemed odd that SSG’s
recommendation was not the science-based target. Ms. MacLean advised that she will go into further
detail about why SSG is recommending building from the ground up.
Council Member Martin stated that a lot of people took offense to the questions asking for
3
demographic information. Ms. MacLean explained that demographic information was asked to make
sure that the community was represented by a diverse community. Ms. Devine noted that there was
an option to not provide any demographic information. Mr. Martin asked for a statement to be added
at the beginning of the survey to explain why demographic information was being asked for.
Supplemental Input Committee Outreach & Workshop: The Supplemental Input Committee was asked
to reach out to their sectors and ask specific questions related to the project. Ms. MacLean noted there
were some emergent themes that came up. One of the themes was the Plan was greater than the Target
and the City should start making progress. She mentioned that the community was really wanting
action and were ready to start implementation. The survey also showed citizens were concerned with
equity, lower income, and how SSG can create a process to make sure everyone is included. Ms.
MacLean then showed some examples of comments that were heard during the Workshop.
Recommended Approach: Ms. MacLean explained that at this point SSG was recommending
developing a bottom-up pathway for the City to arrive at a target that reflects local circumstances in
Ames and the effort required to address climate change. She noted that while there was support for the
science-based option, there were a lot more questions and hesitancy about that process. The bottom-
up approach gives the Council the option to move at its own pace.
Council Member Martin stated that SSG mentioned that there had been a lot of hesitancy, and he
wanted to know who that information was coming from. He asked if it was the Council, Supplemental
Input Committee, or the community. Ms. MacLean noted it was a combination of all of them. Mr.
Martin wanted to be clear that the hesitancy was equally distributed from all three groups mentioned
earlier.
Council Member Gartin asked Ms. Rankin what her recommendation would be. Ms. Rankin noted that
the consultants were brought in for their expertise with putting these types of plans together and would
defer to them. She explained that when looking at Climate Action Planning, the City should consider
how it can ensure the efficiency of what staff is demanding within the community and infrastructure,
so that when those transitions are being done, it will be in the leanest most-efficient manner possible.
Council Member Betcher inquired if the Council were to go with the evidence-based model would it
create the perception that the Council was dragging its feet on moving forward with the Plan. Ms.
MacLean stated it wouldn’t slow down the process at all from SSG’s end. She explained evidence-
based and science-based models have a very similar process; they could get to the same point in the
end. Council Member Martin stated he understood Ms. MacLean, but was hesitant on the message that
would be conveyed to the public on how seriously Council was taking this Climate Action Plan.
Mayor Haila asked SSG for help in understanding some of the data in their Report regarding energy
consumption and transportation for every building and vehicle within the City. He also wanted to know
how to balance areas over which the City has no control. Examples given were the Ames Community
School District, Department of Transportation, Animal Disease Lab, and others that have their own
vehicle usage. It was asked how SSG had dealt with other communities who had similar situations. Ms.
MacLean stated that is a complication of developing a Climate Action Plan because it is a community-
based plan. No one entity can implement on its own as it requires participation from every sector; the
4
City will not have complete control. Ms. Devine said communities that do this well form strong
partnerships with the other entities to help with the implementation, and the partners share in the
responsibility, but the municipality needs to be the leader.
Mayor Haila wanted to know if SSG had worked with other University communities. Mr. Herbert
indicated that there was a community where a CAP roundtable was formed to create dialogue and buy-
in from the other entities and employers within that city. He stated Universities can be a powerful
partner and the City has a very good relationship with ISU. The Mayor explained that the City had not
had any conversations with ISU or the School Districts about setting a Target. Ms. MacLean
mentioned that another similar community had developed a Memorandum of Understanding between
the City and the University to make sure there were goals for each one entity and outlined any funding.
The Mayor asked when the University was brought into that process. Ms. MacLean noted the
University was on the initial subcommittee.
Council Member Betcher noted some of the comments were regarding funding for the Climate Action
Plan. She noted if the Council went with the evidence-based approach, the City may miss out on the
opportunity to apply for funding. Ms. Betcher asked if the City would benefit from having a science-
based target. Ms. MacLean stated what SSG had seen was that having a plan was enough for funding.
Funders want to see a plan and some type of commitment from communities.
Council Member Beatty-Hansen stated the evidence-based model could possibly get the City to the
same place, but there would be a lot of value to taking a stance on a Target as it would be signaling
and motivating. She explained that cost would be an issue, but the cost of inaction is significant, and
people don’t see that. Even though the consultant is recommending an evidence-based approach Ms.
Beatty-Hansen felt now is the time for Ames to step-up and declare an ambitious goal. She said it was
the City’s responsibility not only to the citizens and the global community but for future generations
as well.
Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Junck, to adopt the science-based fair share approach, setting
the target at an 83% reduction of Greenhouse Gases by 2030, and net-zero emissions by 2050.
Council Member Corrieri agreed with Council Member Beatty-Hansen, but with any of the Targets
there are going to be complications and the Council cannot make everyone happy. Ms. Corrieri was
concerned with the message the Council will send to the community, she would like the message to
convey where the City wants to go along with realistic expectations. Changes will occur and the
timeline might have to be adjusted. She explained that giving people a strong sense of where you want
to head while still being realistic and honest with them about the process is the best option.
Ex Officio Poundstone noted that the students’ most popular choice was the Science-based approach.
Council Member Gartin noted all the Council wants to see a reduced carbon footprint. He is very
proud of the City’s track record thus far, but stated he liked SSG’s recommendation of evidence-based.
Mr. Gartin explained that the evidence-based approach gives the Council a chance to evaluate the
viability of the suggestions it is given. He stated the science-based approach will lead to cuts in funding
to other programs and an increase in taxes. He noted that he therefore, would be voting against the
5
motion.
Council Member Martin noted the Council was not ignoring the data, but there are no data. He
appreciated the concern for disappointment and hopes the citizens of Ames realize what has been
adopted and understand Ames is committed to doing its part globally. He hoped the community will
provide some leeway on measuring the progress. Mr. Martin emphasized that, if the motion passed,
it would not be a commitment by the Council to do anything, but direction for the team to pursue
further recommendations.
Council Member Gartin responded that if the Council knew there were significant financial obligations
around the corner, it could make financial decisions. He noted that next month budget discussions will
start. Mayor Haila clarified the budget has already been set. The timeline is September or October 2022
for the Climate Action Plan to be complete. There will be nothing wrapped into the budget this year.
Council Member Betcher stated by setting a goal that is aspirational is helping move forward, but it
is not obtainable. She explained she is conscious of people that say, “the Council is always giving lip
service and never puts the money where their mouth is, and a Plan will be done, and nothing will ever
be done with it.” She expects that if the Target is going to be set then Council will need to “Put the
money where their mouth is.” Ms. Betcher stated the Council will need to figure out a communication
plan and education plan that is going to help the community understand the nature of the Target better
then what is currently being done. She will support the motion, but only with the understanding that
the target can be modified.
Council Member Junck commented that she was in support of the motion. She would like to see the
menu of items that will get the City to the target as quickly as possible. Ms. Junck didn’t know if the
City could meet any of the goals, but they are only goals. The Council can’t say if any of the goals are
realistic or not because they haven’t had the set of actions outlined for them. She explained that the
Council shouldn’t insinuate that they may need to cut funding or programs when they have no idea
what the associated costs would be.
Vote on Motion: 5-1. Voting Aye: Betcher, Beatty-Hansen, Corrieri, Junck, Martin. Voting Nay:
Gartin. Motion declared carried.
DISPOSITION OF COMMUNICATIONS TO COUNCIL: None
COUNCIL COMMENTS: Ex Officio Poundstone stated there is strong support from the student
population to go green and support the Plan. He felt the students would be involved in any steps they
can make to help reduce emissions.
Council Member Gartin commented that this is Council Member Martin’s last meeting, and he felt Mr.
Martin has been a model City Council Member. He thanked Mr. Martin for his thoroughness, heart,
and brain power that he has brought to the Council. Mr. Gartin noted that Mr. Martin will be missed.
Council Member Betcher mentioned that she will miss Mr. Martin’s technological expertise.
6
Council Member Martin explained that an email was received from Drew and Tammy McConnell
about a rental situation. He mentioned that he had forgotten what Council’s role was in the process,
as to whether they have discretion to make different decisions or not.
Moved by Martin, seconded by Junck, to ask staff for a memo regarding Drew and Tammy
McConnell’s rental situation from.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Mayor Haila stated tonight had been a great example of civil discourse as the Council Members do not
always agree, but they were unified and able to move forward. He noted that the Council will be asked
to schedule a Special Meeting for the Consent Item that was pulled earlier tonight to review the
covenants for the Baker Subdivision.
ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Martin to adjourn the meeting at 8:03 p.m.
______________________________________________________________________
Amy L. Colwell, Deputy City Clerk John A. Haila, Mayor
__________________________________
Diane R. Voss, City Clerk
7
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL
AMES, IOWA DECEMBER 29, 2021
The Special Meeting of the Ames City Council was called to order by Mayor Pro-Tem Amber
Corrieri at 2:05 p.m. on the 29th day of December, 2021. As it was impractical for the Council
Members to participate in person, Council Members Tim Gartin, Rachel Junck, and David Martin.
Mayor Haila and Council Members Gloria Betcher and Bronwyn Beatty-Hansen were absent. Ex
officio Member Trevor Poundstone was also absent.
RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS AND REGULATIONS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES IN
BAKER SUBDIVISION (321 STATE): Moved by Gartin, seconded by Junck, to adopt
RESOLUTION NO. 21-629 approving the Restrictive Covenants and Regulations for Single-Family
Homes in the Baker Subdivision (321 State).
Roll Call Vote: 4-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
DISPOSITION OF COMMUNICATIONS TO COUNCIL: None
COUNCIL COMMENTS: Council Member Martin asked if the Council wanted to express any
other aspects of negotiations for the Lincoln Way Development would they have the chance at a
future meeting. City Manager Steve Schainker stated he would need some direction from the City
Council if any specific provisions or negotiations need to be added.
ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Martin to adjourn the meeting at 2:08 p.m.
______________________________________________________________________
Amy L. Colwell, Deputy City Clerk Amber Corrieri, Mayor Pro-Tem
__________________________________
Diane R. Voss, City Clerk
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE AMES AREA
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (AAMPO)
TRANSPORTATION POLICY COMMITTEE,
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE AMES CONFERENCE BOARD, AND
REGULAR MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL
AMES, IOWA DECEMBER 14, 2021
AMES AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (AAMPO)
TRANSPORTATION POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING
CALL TO ORDER: The Ames Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (AAMPO)
Transportation Policy Committee meeting was called to order by Ames Mayor and voting member
John Haila at 6:00 p.m. on the 14th day of December, 2021. Other voting members present were:
Bronwyn Beatty-Hansen, City of Ames; Gloria Betcher, City of Ames; Amber Corrieri, City of
Ames; Tim Gartin, City of Ames; Rachel Junck, City of Ames; David Martin, City of Ames; Linda
Murken, Story County Supervisor; and Bill Zinnel, Boone County Supervisor. Jacob Ludwig, Transit
Board, and Jon Popp, Mayor of Gilbert, were absent
HEARING REGARDING AMENDMENT TO THE FFY 2022-2025 TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM: Public Works Director John Joiner mentioned there were two
projects that had the project limits slightly modified. This public hearing is a required step by the
Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT). Director Joiner said there were no comments received
from the public.
Chairperson Haila opened the public hearing and closed it when no one came forward to speak.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Murken, to approve the Amendment to the FFY 2022-2025
Transportation Improvement Program.
Vote on Motion: 9-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
POLICY COMMITTEE COMMENTS: No comments were made.
ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Murken to adjourn the Ames Area Metropolitan Planning
Organization Transportation Policy Committee meeting at 6:01 p.m.
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE AMES CONFERENCE BOARD
The Regular Meeting of the Ames Conference Board was called to order by Chairman John Haila
at 6:05 p.m. on December 14, 2021. Present from the Ames City Council were Bronwyn
Beatty-Hansen, Gloria Betcher, Amber Corrieri, Tim Gartin, Rachel Junck, and David Martin. Linda
Murken, Lisa Heddens, and Latifah Faisal represented the Story County Board of Supervisors. Other
members in attendance were: Kelly Winfrey, Ames Community School Board of Directors. Joe
Anderson, Nevada School Board of Directors was brought in via Zoom. Gilbert School Board of
Directors and United Community School Board of Directors were not represented.
APPROVING MINUTES OF CONFERENCE BOARD MEETINGS HELD FEBRUARY 23,
MARCH 23, MAY 11, MAY 13, JULY 27, AND OCTOBER 14, 2021: Moved by Beatty-Hansen,
seconded by Heddens, to approve the Minutes of the Conference Board Meetings held on February
23, March 23, May 11, May 13, July 27, and October 14, 2021.
Vote on Motion: 3-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
AUTHORIZING THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT TO POST THE CITY
ASSESSOR JOB VACANCY TO CLOSE ON JANUARY 28, 2022: Assistant City Manager Deb
Schildroth noted that, in November, the Examining Board was put together to work on getting a
registered list of qualified Assessors. The list has been received and there are approximately 207
names on the list, but half of those are retired. There are 21 new names on the list compared to last
year’s list. Staff will proceed with sending out letters to all the qualified applicants letting them know
of the open position and to apply if interested. She stated they will also include in the letter the
activities that have taken place over the past year. Authorization from the Conference Board was
needed to post the position.
The Mayor asked Ms. Schildroth to speak about what type of communication is going to be done
regarding the Report that the Department of Revenue did. Ms. Schildroth noted that the Report is
a public document and staff will make sure it is available to anyone who wants to review it. If there
are any specific questions about the Report, they will be referred to Julie Roisen with the Department
of Review as she prepared the Report.
Moved by Junck, seconded by Heddens, to authorize the Human Resources Department to post the
City Assessor job vacancy and to close the posting on January 28, 2022.
Vote on Motion: 3-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
APPOINTING A SUBCOMMITTEE FOR CITY ASSESSOR INTERVIEW PROCESS:
Assistant City Manager Deb Schildroth explained that as part of the interviewing process staff is
recommending having a subcommittee be a part of the process. She asked that there be an individual
from each of the jurisdictions to help with crafting the questions and interviewing the candidates.
Ms. Schildroth commented that the Conference Board should be included in the process.
The Mayor noted that the role of the Examining Board is to obtain a list of candidates, and after
speaking with the City Attorney, the Conference Board can be included in the interview process with
potential candidates. The final decision will come back to the Conference Board. Story County
Supervisor Lisa Heddens asked to clarify if the entire Examining Board would be interviewing
candidates or just a subcommittee. The Mayor indicated that either the entire Examining Board
would do the interview process or a subcommittee could perform those tasks.
Council Member Betcher inquired how a subcommittee would differ from the Mini-Board. The
Mayor said he did not have an answer to that question. Ms. Schildroth stated that her understanding
is that one of the main duties of the Mini-Board is to review the budget that the Assessor’s office
2
puts together. She commented that at this time they are still trying to figure out who is on the Mini-Board.
Moved by Winfrey, seconded by Anderson, to nominate Dr. Allen Bierbaum from the Ames
Community School Board to serve as the representative for the School Boards on the subcommittee.
Moved by Martin, seconded by Betcher, to nominate John Haila to serve as the City Council
representative on the subcommittee.
Moved by Murken, seconded by Faisal, to nominate Supervisor Lisa Heddens to serve as the
representative for Story County on the subcommittee.
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Murken, to approve the appointment of Dr. Allen Bierbaum, Mayor
John Haila, and Supervisor Lisa Heddens to serve as the members of the subcommittee for the City
Assessor interview process.
Vote on Motion: 3-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
CONFERENCE BOARD COMMENTS: No comments were made.
ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Heddens to adjourn the Ames Conference Board meeting at 6:18
p.m.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL
The Regular Meeting of the Ames City Council was called to order by Mayor John Haila at 6:20 p.m.
on December 14, 2021, 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 David Martin. Ex officio Member Trevor Poundstone was also present
GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION DISTINGUISHED BUDGET
PRESENTATION AWARD FOR FY 2020/21 AND FY 2021/22: Mayor Haila presented the
award to Finance Director Duane Pitcher and Nancy Masteller. The 2020/21 and 2021/22 Budget
was submitted to the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) of the United States and
Canada. The Award was reviewed by the GFOA professional staff and by outside reviewers. These
are the 35th and 36th consecutive years that the City of Ames has been honored with the award. Mayor
Haila said that approximately 1,500 cities, counties, and school districts in the United States and
Canada annually receive this Award. For budgets submitted for 2020/21, ten cities and three counties
in Iowa received the Award.
Finance Director Duane Pitcher thanked the Mayor, Council Members, and staff for their support.
He explained the Award felt extra earned after going through the derecho, pandemic, and staff turn-
overs.
3
CONSENT AGENDA: Moved by Gartin, seconded by Beatty-Hansen, to approve the following
items on the Consent Agenda.
1.Motion approving payment of claims
2.Motion approving Report of Change Orders for period November 16 - 30, 2021
3.Motion approving Minutes of Special City Council Meetings held October 28, 2021,
November 16, 2021, and December 2, 2021, and Regular City Council Meeting held
November 23, 2021
4.Motion setting the following Special City Council meeting dates:
a.January 18, 2021, at 5:15 PM for CIP Work Session
b.January 28, 2021, at 2:00 PM for Budget Overview
c.February 1, 2, 3, and 8, 2021, at 5:15 PM for Budget Hearings and Wrap-Up
5.Motion setting January 25 and February 22, 2022, as Conference Board meeting dates
6.Motion approving renewal of the following Beer Permits, Wine Permits and Liquor Licenses:
a.Class C Liquor License with Sunday Sales - 1 Night Stand, 124 Welch
b.Class C Liquor License with Sunday Sales - Cyclone Liquors, 626 Lincoln Way
c.Class C Liquor License with Outdoor Service and Sunday Sales - Mickey’s Irish Pub,
109 Welch Avenue, Pending Dram Shop Insurance
d.Class C Liquor License with Outdoor Service and Sunday Sales - Café Beau, 2504
Lincoln Way
e.Class B Beer with Outdoor Service and Sunday sales - Torrent Brewing Co., LLC, 504
Burnett Avenue
f.Class C Liquor License with Sunday Sales - Time Out, 120 Kellogg Avenue
7.Motion accepting bi-annual Sustainability Coordinator Report regarding FY 2021-22 Activities
8.RESOLUTION NO. 21-600 approving appointment of Michael Zenor to the Zoning Board of
Adjustment
9.RESOLUTION NO. 21-601 approving appointment of Kyle Hauswirth to the Public Art
Commission
10.RESOLUTION NO. 21-602 setting January 11, 2022, as date of public hearing for approval
of a lease for the property at 205 S. Walnut Avenue to Heartland Senior Services
11.RESOLUTION NO. 21-603 approving Commission on The Arts (COTA) Spring 2022 Special
Project Grant contracts
12.Ladder Truck 3 Refurbishment:
a.RESOLUTION NO. 21-604 waiving Purchasing Policies and approving a sole source
contract to Reliant Fire Apparatus, Inc. (Pierce), of Slinger, Wisconsin
b.RESOLUTION NO. 21-605 awarding contract to Reliant Fire Apparatus, Inc. (Pierce),
of Slinger, Wisconsin, for Ladder Truck Refurbishment in the amount of $113,686
13.RESOLUTION NO. 21-606 approving preliminary plans and specifications for 2021/22
Pavement Restoration Program (Slurry Seal); setting January 19, 2022, as bid due date and
January 25, 2022, as date of public hearing
14.RESOLUTION NO. 21-607 approving preliminary plans and specifications for 2021/22
Asphalt Pavement Improvements - Opal Drive (Jewel Dr to Crystal St), Opal Circle, Harcourt
Drive (Garnet Drive to Jewel Drive), Turquoise Cir, and Top-O-Hollow Rd (Bloomington
4
Road to Dawes Drive); setting January 19, 2022, as bid due date and January 25, 2022, as date
of public hearing
15.RESOLUTION NO. 21-608 approving preliminary plans and specifications for 2021/22 Seal
Coat Pavement Improvements & 2021/22 Water System Improvements - Stafford Avenue (E
13th Street to South End); setting January 19, 2022, as bid due date and January 25, 2022, as
date of public hearing
16.RESOLUTION NO. 21-609 approving preliminary plans and specifications for 2020/21 City
Hall Parking Lot Expansion; setting January 19, 2022, as bid due date and January 25, 2022,
as date of public hearing
17.RESOLUTION NO. 21-610 approving preliminary plans and specifications for 2021/22 Traffic
Signal Program (University Blvd & South Fourth Street); setting January 19, 2022, as bid due
date and January 25, 2022, as date of public hearing
18.2020/21 South Dayton Improvements:
a.RESOLUTION NO. 21-611 approving Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT)
Funding Agreement for $400,000 in U-STEP Grant funds
b.RESOLUTION NO. 21-612 approving preliminary plans and specifications; setting
January 19, 2022, as bid due date and January 25, 2022, as date of public hearing
19.Resource Recovery Primary Rotor Replacement:
a.RESOLUTION NO. 21-613 waiving Purchasing Policies and approving a sole source
contract to Hennen Equipment, Inc. (Komptech USA), of Shakopee, Minnesota
b.RESOLUTION NO. 21-614 awarding contract to Hennen Equipment Inc. (Komptech
USA), of Shakopee, Minnesota, in the amount of $59,795.35
20.RESOLUTION NO. 21-615 awarding contract to Electric Pump of Des Moines, Iowa, for
Water Distribution System Monitoring Network in the amount of $232,375
21.RESOLUTION NO. 21-616 awarding contract to Safety Vision of Houston, Texas, for CyRide
Bus Camera System for an initial purchase price of $52,381.80, with the option to purchase
additional equipment during the contract period with relevant approvals
22.RESOLUTION NO. 21-617 awarding contract to MHC Kenworth of Des Moines, Iowa, for
purchase of four reconditioned engines for CyRide buses in the amount of $129,343.68
23.RESOLUTION NO. 21-618 approving reduction in retainage for 2018/19 Sanitary Sewer
Rehabilitation (Siphon)
24.RESOLUTION NO. 21-619 approving reimbursement of $64,006.10 to IDOT for US Highway
69 Improvements - Lincoln Way (Duff Avenue to Gilchrist Street)
25.RESOLUTION NO. 21-620 accepting completion of 2020/21 Pavement Restoration Program
(Slurry Seal)
26.RESOLUTION NO. 21-621 accepting completion of 2020/21 Seal Coat Street Improvements
(Franklin Avenue)
27.RESOLUTION NO. 21-622 accepting completion of 2020/21 Power Plant Maintenance
Services
28.RESOLUTION NO. 21-623 accepting partial completion of public improvements and reducing
security for Scenic Valley, 6th Addition
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motions/Resolutions declared carried/adopted unanimously, signed by the
Mayor, and hereby made a portion of these Minutes.
5
PUBLIC FORUM: Mayor Haila opened Public Forum.
Hector Arbuckle, 2503 Bruner Drive, Ames, stated he lives in University Village where many
students live. While living in this location, he had noticed that a lot of the students are dependent on
the bus lines and many of them do not have cars. He had noticed that on Stange Road, there are three
CyRide bus stops, and when anyone has to get on or off the bus, they have to cross Stange Road.
There is not a crosswalk or flashing beacon at any of these bus stops. Mr. Arbuckle commented that
anyone who has to cross the road is exposed to four lanes of traffic and there is no warning to the
cars that pedestrians are crossing the road. He indicated that the nearest crosswalk is about a quarter
mile from the bus stop. It was asked to either change the CyRide routes or add some type of crossing
so it would be safer for pedestrians to cross the road.
Richard Deyoe, 505-8th Street, #2, Ames, stated he wanted to improve the national motto. He noted
that the City of Ames had created a tag line a couple of years ago. He mentioned that he doesn’t
know who God is and the national motto starts off saying “In God we Trust.”
The Mayor closed public forum when no one else came forward to speak.
HEARING REGARDING ADOPTION OF A NEW LONG-RANGE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN FOR THE CITY OF AMES (KNOWN AS AMES PLAN 2040): Planning and Housing
Director Kelly Diekmann noted it has been almost three years to the day since this process started
with RDG at a Workshop meeting. On August 24, 2021, City Council had directed staff to finalize
the public draft of the Ames Plan 2040 and seek public feedback during the month of September.
In October, City Council reviewed the feedback and suggested changes. The Complete
Comprehensive Plan was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission in November to have
a public hearing, and the Commission voted unanimously to approve the Plan.
Director Diekmann let everyone know that for anyone who wants to view the Plan or any of the
history of the development of the Plan it is available on the City of Ames website under Planning
and Housing. He is looking for City Council approval at this meetingof a Resolution to replace the
City’s 1997 Plan with Ames Plan 2040. It was noted that there was a second part to the Resolution
acknowledging that, in the Fringe Plan, there is an Intergovernmental Agreement with Story County
and the City of Gilbert regarding joint administration of the two-mile fringe until August 1, 2022.
Staff believed that the City Council should establish that it will follow the 28E Agreement for
subdivision procedures within the two-mile fringe during the life of the Agreement.
Staff plans to present a cooperative approach with Story County to City Council in January 2022
about an update to the Fringe Plan. Director Diekmann pointed out that he received correspondence
from Story County asking for clarification on the second part of the Resolution. He explained that,
per the Agreement, the City can only annex certain areas that are identified cooperatively, and the
City will still follow that, but if the City wanted to initiate an annexation process to start studies etc.,
the City could do so without amending the Fringe Plan. The County requested to change the “will
consider” to say “may initiate, but will not approve” any annexation while the current Fringe Plan
6
is in place. Director Diekmann noted that staff is fine with what the County is recommending as it
doesn’t change the Plan.
Council Member Gartin asked if the proposed change from Story County would not delay the
process of approving the Ames 2040 Plan. Director Diekmann commented that it would not as it
would just change a “whereas” in the Resolution.
Council Member Martin stated that on Page 64 of the Plan, it mentions the development guidelines
on civic or public land designations. He mentioned the text is about what happens when civic or
public land is acquired by someone who wants to use the land for private purposes. The idea of the
bullet on Page 64 is to say that if someone purchases land from a civic or public land designation,
by default it is okay to use the land for RN-3 with single-family zoning, but if the land is going to
be used for any other purpose, an amendment to the Land Use Map will need to be requested. Mr.
Martin explained that he brought this up because he was concerned if the language was strong
enough to explain that the amendment had to be done or if it was just a suggestion to get the
amendment. He felt that if in the Civic and Public Use section of the Plan, and a cross-reference to
this point was provided in the other section, it would make it clearer. Director Diekmann explained
that on Page 48 of the Plan is where the cross-reference note would appear. Mr. Martin noted that
he would suggest adding the cross reference to make it easier to find.
Moved by Martin, seconded by Junck, to add a cross reference on Page 48 of the Plan indicating
there is more information on Page 64 regarding civic or public land designations.
Director Diekmann stated that on Page 64 of the Plan, there is a bullet that states “although not
mapped, University property may be considered a redirection area,” and then under the Development
Guidelines it says “civic or public land designations will require a Future Land Use Map Amendment
prior to rezoning for any use other than RN-3 with single-family zoning.” Mr. Diekmann noted that
what is not clear is under the Public and Civic Uses on Page 48 of the Plan is that it doesn’t indicate
any tie to the redirection page (Page 64), and that is why the cross-reference would be beneficial;
otherwise it would be easy to miss.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
The Mayor opened public input.
Hector Arbuckle, 2503 Bruner Drive, Ames, congratulated the Council on the completion of the
Plan. He noted that the Plan is better than the current Land Use Plan, but felt there were still some
fundamental drawbacks. Mr. Arbuckle felt the new Plan still embraced the urban planning ideas of
the 1920's and 1950's, which are autocentric hierarchical networks and separation of uses and
densities. He commented that the Plan forbids diversified walkable communities. Personally, he felt
that the City should no longer create exclusive low-density residential districts, exclusive high-
density districts, or exclusive commercial districts, but should instead allow all neighborhoods to
have diversified development of different uses and densities. Mr. Arbuckle would like to have
7
businesses and homes near each other so that there can be more integrated communities. He would
like to repeal the restrictive minimum parking requirements, minimum lot sizes, minimum setbacks,
maximum dwelling unit densities, and minimum frontage requirements. He would also like to see
the City relax the restrictions on commercial buildings in residential areas so that all neighborhoods
can have access to goods and services within a five-minute walk. Mr. Arbuckle commented that
these changes wouldn’t necessarily cost the City anything, but it may allow the City to get more tax
value out of the same amount of infrastructure. He thought it would be interesting for the City to
attempt to calculate the future cost liability of maintaining and replacing all the existing
infrastructure over the next 50 years. He noted that it will likely be impossible to know for certain
what the values would be, but a former resident of Ames did a rough calculation and it was found
that Ames might need to increase its property tax revenue by over 40% in order to pay for the
maintenance of the existing streets. Mr. Arbuckle would prefer to see the City do this type of
calculation to see the accuracy of the data.
Kim Christiansen, 2985 South Dakota Avenue, Ames, questioned the Tier 2 designation on the south
part of Ames. He explained that on Page 40 of the Plan, it defines Tier 2 as “infrastructure is
available with extensions of existing lines under ½ mile.” The southwest part south of Hwy 30 is
included as Tier 2, and it should be Tier 3 based on the definitions. Mr. Christiansen pointed out that
on Page 41, under the bullet for “East Development Region” under the second paragraph, it states
“for example, the Tier 2 area of the Southwest Growth Region, also contiguous to existing urban
development, could experience development during the planning period,” it implies that because it
is Tier 2, it will be considered part of the planning. He felt there may be an error in the definition
between Tier 2 and Tier 3. His concern was that by definition, the southwest south of Hwy 30 should
not be Tier 2, but Tier 3 because it is at least a mile and half from infrastructure.
When no else came forward, the Mayor closed the public hearing.
Mayor Haila asked Director Diekmann to answer Mr. Christiansen’s question regarding the Tier 2
definition. Director Diekmann commented that some of the scenario work was pulled into that
background and the map on Page 39 was a critical decision point to the Plan process. The City
Council had looked at scenarios that had the land use patterns for housing, commercial, etc., and they
liked the 15,000-person scenario. Staff had asked RDG along with HDR to put some sense of what
was readily available and that is when they broke down the different areas into Tiers. The quote Mr.
Christiansen had read is in the Plan, but in totality, Tier 2 was viewed as a second step of progression
of development; it was not a policy filter that excluded everything. The area that Mr. Christiansen
referred to has been shown as a Tier 2 since staff started the Ames 2040 Plan process. The Council
didn’t pick that area to be a focus of growth for the City so when looking at the Future Land Use
Map it doesn’t show anything specifically to the south as it does to the north of Highway 30. Director
Diekmann stated he didn’t view the one quote about the infrastructure segment at a ½ mile as being
a directive. There is not a great policy that says anything must happen in the area, but more
background information. Mayor Haila stated on Page 42 there is a chart that shows priority growth
areas, and it looks as if area “B” on the map is all north of Highway 30. Mr. Diekmann explained
8
that the chart reflects the Council’s choices of what to focus on for the main area of growth for the
Plan.
Council Member Betcher inquired if it would be advisable for the Council, given that the Tier 2
description on Page 40 sounds like it is prescriptive, to add the word “typically” so anyone looking
at the Plan in the future understands this is not definitive. Director Diekmann stated staff could add
that word, but that page in the Plan is a history lesson and not a directive of the Policy. Ms. Betcher
worried that future users of the Plan wouldn’t view the information as history and may take it as
something more policy-oriented for decision-making. She would feel more comfortable if the
Council was not as definitive as they currently are, but she is not sure if saying “typically” is
accurate. Mr. Diekmann stated he would need to go back over the matrix that identified
infrastructure needs for each area, but off the top of his head is not sure at this time.
The Mayor indicated that in the next year or so there may be some minor changes to the Plan, and
if the Council was comfortable moving forward with approval, staff could look into adding the word
“typically” or not. Director Diekmann explained they could still proceed tonight with the Plan and
make any word changes later as the intent doesn’t change. Council Member Betcher commented that
she is satisfied at this time, but would like it noted to look at her recommended change in the future.
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Junck, to approve Alternative 1a and 1b, but with the modification
of 1b to change “will consider” to “may initiate, but not approve.”
Council Member Martin said that the Council had received a lot of public input on the Plan, but
hadn’t discussed the scope of the comments received during City Council meetings. He wanted to
say a few comments about his impression of the Plan. He thought the Council had tried to identify
and channel the significant forces that the Council foresaw coming to them in the future. The
Council has heard a lot of interest from the community about removing housing options in favor of
a more future oriented approach with higher densities and few automobiles. Mr. Martin pointed out
that the Plan and the map has the Neighborhood Core Mixed-Used (NCMU) areas in new areas to
the north and the south. He mentioned that this would be good as this was a special subset of
neighborhood core that is associated with walkable urban neighborhoods. As a Council, they have
repeatedly expressed their desire for infill and redirection even though it is going to be expensive and
controversial. Mr. Martin stated that the Council knows that people are going to want to work and
live in Ames. Ultimately, Mr. Martin is unconvinced that, if the City prevented additional low-
density housing in Ames, it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions because there are numerous
commuters coming in and out of Ames everyday already. It was hard for Mr. Martin to imagine that,
if the Council removed housing options that attract people to Ames, it would force people to want
housing in high-density areas and they will still commute from nearby communities.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Betcher, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 21-624 adopting Ames Plan
2040 and recognizing that the Ames Urban Fringe Plan shall remain in effect for administration of
9
two-mile fringe until August 1, 2022, except that the City will consider annexation requests
consistent with the Future Land Use Map of Ames Plan 2040 for the south and west expansion of
the City without requiring amendments to the Fringe Plan.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared carried/adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
HEARING ON PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE STANDARDS FOR
DETACHED GARAGES AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND NONCONFORMING
STRUCTURES: City Planner Benjamin Campbell mentioned that Grant Thompson of 407 Pearson
Avenue had contacted the City Council regarding his inability under Municipal Code to demolish
and rebuild an existing, nonconforming, detached garage in the same location. The garage is at the
rear corner of the lot with a straight driveway leading from the street. The garage is considered
nonconforming with regard to its sides and rear-yard setbacks. Mr. Campbell explained that Mr.
Thompson had stated that the garage was deteriorating, and he would like to replace it in the same
location, but due to the configuration of the house on the lot, complying with the setback for a new
garage will mean that the rear yard is mostly occupied by the new structure.
City Council had directed staff to proceed with two text changes in response to the request. The first
was to modify the current rear yard accessory building setbacks along the rear lot line with the
exception of three feet to apply to any building in the rear yard whether it is wholly behind the
primary building or partially behind the primary building. The second was to amend the standards
for nonconforming structures to enable existing accessory buildings to be demolished and replaced
in the same location with the same dimensions.
The Planning and Zoning Commission met on November 3, 2021, to consider the proposed Text
Amendments and voted 3-2 to recommend reducing the rear setbacks for detached garages and
accessory buildings, allowing for the reconstruction of accessory structures in the same location as
initiated by the City Council. Mr. Campbell indicated that the two Commission Members who voted
nay did so in regard to grandfathering the nonconformities, but not in opposition to the reduced
setback.
Council Member Gartin asked for clarification that the Text Amendment would not apply to just the
Old Town area, but would be the entire City of Ames. Mr. Campbell confirmed that was correct. Mr.
Gartin asked for a hypothetical situation where this Text Amendment would come into play. Mr.
Campbell showed a couple pictures of houses where it would apply if the homeowner wanted to do
something. Planning and Housing Director Kelly Diekmann pointed out that this would be a city-
wide ordinance that will give a homeowner more options for side and accessory buildings. This was
already a bifurcated standard; in the FS-RL (new suburban zones) zone; some of the homes have
already benefitted from this rule while others didn’t. By going to the three-foot yard requirement
universally, it will ease administration consistency for staff as it will be one rule for everyone in the
City.
10
Council Member Betcher stated that in the south campus area, there have been a number of garages
taken down over the years because they couldn’t be rebuilt, but the pads are still there. She noted that
someone may want to rebuild would not be rebuilding, but building a new garage and wanted to
know how this Text Amendment would impact those people. Mr. Campbell explained that the
proposed changes for nonconformities would not apply retroactively. Director Diekmann mentioned
that the way the Code is written for the rebuild option, the property owner would have 18 months
from the time the structure was demolished.
Mayor Haila opened public input.
Grant Thompson, 407 Pearson Avenue, Ames, thanked the Council for taking up his request. He
noted that, personally Option 2 in the Staff Report would be beneficial for his case, but felt that the
three-foot side and three-foot rear addition from Planning and Zoning does give a bit of flexibility.
Mr. Thompson said that the Amendment would be in keeping with the City’s Goal to keep the City
a vibrant place where people want to live, work, and have the ability to responsibly redevelop their
properties.
The Mayor closed the public hearing when no one else came forward to speak.
Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Betcher, to pass on first reading an ordinance on a proposed
Zoning Text Amendment to the standards for detached garages and accessory buildings and
nonconforming structures to reduce the rear setback for detached accessory buildings and allow for
the reconstruction of accessory structures in the same location and allow for reduced side-yard
setbacks in the rear yard for single-story accessory buildings.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
FUTURE STATUS OF THE SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER PROGRAM IN THE AMES
COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT: City Manager Steve Schainker explained that the School
Resource Office (SRO) program began in 1995/96 by the request of the Ames Community School
District (ACSD). Originally, the Program included one full-time officer assigned to the Ames High
School; however, in May 2019, the ACSD administrators requested a second SRO be assigned to
the Ames Middle School. When the second SRO was added, a formalized agreement was approved
between the City and the ACSD. Mr. Schainker stated that if anyone looked at the old Council
Action Form from 2019, it emphasized that the SRO was not to be security officer for the schools,
as that was never the intent of the City. The primary intent for the Program was to develop positive
relationships with the youth in the schools. It has been well-documented that since the return of full-
time, in-house classes in August 2021, the ACSD has faced many challenges in maintaining a stable
and safe environment for all students. As a result, at the request of the ACSD administrators the
SROs have spent more time during the recent months helping to restore order and enforcing ACSD
rules than interacting with students in a more positive way to create the trusting relationships that
were originally sought at the start of the Program. Realizing that this change in focus may not be
meeting the needs of both parties, administrators from the City and ACSD have been discussing the
future vision for the SRO Program.
11
Mr. Schainker said that it had become apparent during the discussions that the primary goals for the
SRO Program for each party were diverging. The ACSD administrators believe that they have made
the necessary changes in staffing and procedures to re-establish a stable learning environment and
have reached a point where they would like to try other techniques and resources in lieu of utilizing
Police Officers in the schools to serve the emotional and safety needs of the students. Mr. Schainker
mentioned that, given the lack of a shared vision for the primary goal of the SRO Program at this
time, and an indication that the ACSD officials would like to pursue a different service model, both
the ACSD Superintendent and he are in agreement to recommend that the 28E Agreement related
to the SRO Program not be renewed after June 30, 2022. He pointed out that the ACSD met and he
believed the Board had adopted the Superintendent’s recommendation and are giving notice to the
City that they would like to discontinue the contract.
Mr. Schainker commented that he has been in contact with the City of Ames Police Chief and Chief
Huff is in agreement with the decision that was made. Chief Huff has made progress in hiring more
police officers, but once someone is hired, there is internal training and academy training. He noted
that even though the Agreement will last until June 30, 2022, the Police Department does not have
the workforce to provide two SROs, and the ACSD understood that there will only be one SRO for
the remainder of the Agreement. Mr. Schainker didn’t want anyone to believe that the City would
stop providing safety at the schools. He noted that the officers will be there anytime there is an
emergency, help the school with developing safety assessments for all the schools, and help develop
emergency plans. It is the hope that the City will be asked to come back to the schools to help
educate the students and staff on safety issues. The model is changing, and the City will move on;
however, will still be supportive of the schools, students, and parents, but the safety will be done a
different way.
Council Member Corrieri noted that she had watched the School Board meeting as she was interested
as a Council Member and as a parent with kids in the District. During the first couple hours of the
meeting, she saw teachers speaking through tears to describe the conditions that have been negatively
impacting both the staff and students. There was a somewhat alarming presentation about the
increase of staff absenteeism this year, and a request from the District to the Board to approve
shortening the school day effective next semester to help mitigate some of the staffing shortages and
to provide teachers with enough time to prepare for the day. Ms. Corrieri said that the Board then
moved on to a discussion of ending the SRO program. She noted that the Program was deemed so
successful that just two years ago the School District asked for a second officer to be added. Ms.
Corrieri said that it seemed that a point, if you paid attention to the school district and some of the
articles that have been published in the media, where we are cherry-picking statistics and allowing
issues in other communities, and misguided agendas to led to where we have come to last night and
tonight. She noted that if there is a motion, she will vote in favor of the City Manager’s
recommendation, but not because she thought the Program was not successful or necessary for the
schools, but because she trusts the City Manager when he says, “the City’s goals and the School
District goals are not in alignment.” As a Council Member, Ms. Corrieri, has a solid understanding
of its goals, but she couldn’t confidently say, as a parent, that she knows what the School District’s
goals are in fostering a safe, engaged, and relationship-oriented environment. Ms. Corrieri said, “that
12
probably the most unfortunate in all of this, in my eight years on City Council, I have routinely felt
that we are not playing on the same team.” While the School District is responsible for the children
during the school day, the kids are part of the community and the Council and the School Board
should be working together to address the needs and priorities of the kids. She said she could safely
speak for her colleagues when saying “we are here to help, even though past attempts have not been
successful.” She didn’t think any of the Council was interested in running a School District, but they
are interested in having meaningful discussion about how they can each use their resources and
expertise to benefit the children. Ms. Corrieri didn’t believe that any of the Council Members believe
that the SRO program coming to an end is a solution to any of the challenges facing Ames schools
and she was confident that the Ames Police Department will continue to work in community policing
and partnering with youth serving agencies to build relationships. The City’s goals remain unchanged
with regard to how the Police Department views their role with the children and Ms. Corrieri hoped
that in moving forward the School District recognizes that they are all on the same team and for the
sake of the kids they should do a better job of working together.
Council Member Gartin wanted to add that he has been concerned that the discussions with the
School Board have not adequately or fairly portrayed the work of the Ames Police officers and the
SROs. He felt that people fail to remember the training that the SROs had received, and they try to
engage the students in a positive way. He was proud of the work that the SROs have done and felt
the SROs had been mischaracterized in their conduct. Mr. Gartin noted he appreciated Council
Member Corrieri’s comments that were made.
Council Member Betcher commented that she agreed with Council Member Corrieri. She noted she
is not a parent in the School District and doesn’t have first-hand experience of what is happening,
and she appreciated the perspective that Ms. Corrieri brought to the discussion. Ms. Betcher wanted
to point out that two years ago, in February 2020, the Council had approved the City Council’s Goals
and Values and one of those was to meet with the Ames Community School District by the middle
of 2020. Unfortunately, that was not done due to the pandemic, but Ms. Betcher was hopeful that the
Council will continue to have the goal to work with the School District regardless of what happens
with the SRO Program.
Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Junck, to approve the recommendation of the City Manager,
which was to allow the Agreement for the City to provide School Resource Officers to not be
renewed after June 30, 2022.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously
XENIA WATER SERVICE TERRITORY: Assistant City Manager Brian Phillips explained that
on October 26, 2021, the City Council approved an Agreement with Xenia Rural Water District
regarding the transfer of territory and Xenia’s operations within the City of Ames. The approved
Agreement was subject to approval by Xenia’s Board of Directors and consent from the United
States Department of Agriculture Rural Development (USDA). Mr. Phillips stated that Xenia has
requested a couple modifications to the Agreement and the USDA has requested that the City of
Ames submit an Assurances Agreement that addresses non-discrimination and related topics. He
13
noted that if approved by the City then Xenia’s Board will approve the revised Agreement later in
the week, and the executed Agreement should be available in a couple of weeks.
The Mayor opened public comment. It was closed when no one came forward.
Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Junck, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 21-625 approving the
revised version of the Agreement for Water Service Operations and Territory Transfer with Xenia
Rural Water District.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared carried/adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Corrieri, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 21-626 approving Form RD-
400-4 USDA Assurance Agreement for the Xenia Water Service Territory.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared carried/adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE DRAFT ORDINANCE ON ESTABLISHING THE MAP
OF NEW WARDS AND PRECINCTS: City Attorney Mark Lambert explained that present was
GIS Coordinator Ben McConville who created the alternative maps. Attorney Lambert stated that
Census happens every ten years and the legislature did the redistricting. Governor Kim Reynolds
signed the new state legislative and Congressional districts into law on November 4, 2021. Iowa law
requires that cities draw new wards and precincts. The precincts have to fit into the state legislative
districts. The wards are the areas that the Council Members run from, and each ward has to contain
approximately 16,600 residents. Attorney Lambert said that tonight the Council needs to choose a
map and then direct him to draft an ordinance. It was noted that the Council started off with a map
from the County, and back in October, the Council had wanted to look at the County map first and
if they decided to reject the map, the City would create a different map. The City did not receive the
map from the County Auditor’s office until December 6, 2021, which was later than the City and the
County had anticipated. Staff had discussed the options and decided to create a couple alternative
maps for the Council to review. A motion would need to be made to consider all three maps and
eventually a motion needs to be done to approve one of the maps to move forward. Mr. Lambert
commented that the software that the Secretary of State’s office purchased and provided to all the
cities and counties was amazing. The software has the population in it, the census blocks, and state
legislative districts.
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Beatty-Hansen, to move forward with the County map.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Council Member Beatty-Hansen stated that if the City can’t consider demographics, the first map
the City gets from the County is what it is. Attorney Lambert explained that the following items
cannot be taken into consideration when drawing ward boundaries: 1) addresses of incumbents, 2)
political affiliations of registered voters, 3) past election results, and 4) other demographic
information beyond census head counts.
14
Council Member Gartin asked for clarification as to when the new maps would go into effect. Mr.
Lambert stated the new precincts and wards will go into effect, per state law, January 15, 2022. He
explained that even though the new maps go into effect on January 15, 2022, no Council Member
will lose their seat due to the change. If more than one Council Member is put into the same ward,
it will shorten the Council Member’s term to two years, instead of four. Mr. Gartin stated his Ward
2 had changed boundaries and to clarify he would be representing new areas of the County as of
January 15, 2022. Attorney Lambert commented that would be correct and would be tricky because
if there is more than one incumbent in a ward, there are two representatives for one ward, but there
is no way to avoid that until after the next election. He mentioned that he will do more research on
having more than one incumbent in a ward and when the Council comes back to consider the
ordinance, he will have a better answer to how that will be dealt with.
Council Member Gartin said that he is not sure how big of a deal it is going to be to have more than
one incumbent in a ward as the Council Members are not focused on just their wards, but think
broadly about the community. Each Council Member cares about the entire City.
Attorney Lambert mentioned that per state law the County Auditor’s Office has seven to ten days
to review the City’s ordinance and give any feedback on it. He had spoken with the County Auditor
and was told that they should be able to review the ordinance before the City’s next Council meeting
on December 21, 2021. The Mayor noted that the Council will need to make a motion to suspend
the rules to approve the adoption of the Ordinance.
CITY OF AMES PARTICIPATION IN THE NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT AND
APPROVING THE NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS AND THE
AGREEMENT AMONG THE STATE OF IOWA AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
ENTITIES: City Attorney Mark Lambert stated that a few years ago there was a litigation filed and
various lawsuits across the country suing opioid manufacturers and distributors seeking to recover
costs by state and local governments in dealing with the opioid abuse epidemic. The federal courts
combined all the cases into one case and now there is a big national settlement. The City was not one
of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, but have been invited and encouraged to sign on as a participant.
Signing on to participate in the settlement does not guarantee that the City will receive any money.
According to the terms of the settlement, the settlement funds will go to the State of Iowa, and then
the State will allocate 50% of the funds to Iowa counties. The cities will have the opportunity to
negotiate with their counties for a portion of the funds. It was pointed out that Story County had
voted to be a participant in the lawsuit at its Board meeting. Both the State of Iowa and the County
have asked that any cities over 10,000 people sign-on to participate in the settlement. The more
counties that sign-on, the more money the State of Iowa will get. If any funds are received, the use
of the funds would be limited to opioid abatement and prevention. His recommendation is to have
the Council agree to sign on as a participant as he didn’t see any downside to doing so.
Moved by Junck, seconded by Corrieri, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 21-627 approving the City of
Ames participation in the National Opioid Settlement, and approving the National Opioid Settlement
Agreements and the Agreement among the state of Iowa and local government entities.
15
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared carried/adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS AND REGULATIONS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES IN
BAKER SUBDIVISION (321 STATE): Housing Coordinator Vanessa Baker-Latimer explained
that the approval of the restrictive covenants and regulations for the Baker Subdivision is one of the
final steps before homes can start being built. Last year, staff had approved a Plat of Survey, and they
are 90% done with infrastructure (including the geothermal wells). The next step before they can
start building homes or selling the lots is to develop the Restrictive Covenants and Regulations for
the 26 single-family lots. She mentioned that she had been working with the Legal Department and
Planning staff to put the covenants together. Ms. Baker-Latimer explained that she had worked with
Legal staff on the Covenants and one of the attorneys had to leave to go out of the town and staff got
the versions mixed up. The draft Restrictive Covenants and Regulations attached to the Council
Action Form was the incorrect version.
Ms. Baker-Latimer clarified the following corrections were done:
1.On Page 2, Number 6, it states, “all lots may have fences in the rear yard only,” and should
include the side yard as well. It will state “all lots may have fences in the rear and side yard
only”
2.On Page 3, Section i: remove the wording “tonnage exceeds 3.25 tons”
3. On Page 3, Section l: remove the word “street”
4. On Page 4, Section o: remove the word “annoyance”
5. On Page 4, Section p: add the word “cats” to the last sentence
6.On Page 4, Section q: adding the “within six months” to the end of the first sentence
7.On Page 4, Section r: remove “12 months” and change it to “18 months”
8.On Page 5, Section u: remove the word “Christmas” and change it to “Holiday”
Council Member Gartin questioned the change to Page 4, Section “r,” as he thought the City Code
directed that sidewalks be completed within 18 months. Ms. Baker-Latimer explained that they are
trying to allow a little more time for the sidewalks to be put in due to weather. Mr. Gartin asked if
the 18 months was the same standard as other Subdivision Covenants. Ms. Baker-Latimer mentioned
the 18 months is a couple more months than the standard.
Council Member Junck inquired on Page 4, Section p where dogs and cats must be tied, controlled,
or contained within the Lot by an underground, invisible fence, or on a leash at all times. She noted
that it only lists an invisible fence, but asked if a regular fence would be okay as well. Ms. Baker-
Latimer confirmed it would be.
Council Member Beatty-Hansen stated she had a question regarding chickens. She explained that
chickens are allowed elsewhere in the City, and she wanted to know why they wouldn’t be allowed
in the Baker Subdivision. Council Member Corrieri commented that chickens are not allowed if there
are Restrictive Covenants in Subdivisions. Ms. Beatty-Hansen explained that raising chickens is a
way for someone to cut food costs and become more self-sufficient. She said this may be something
16
for the Council to consider adding to the Covenants, not for commercial purposes, but to supplement
one’s food source; that seems reasonable.
Council Member Corrieri asked if they allowed chickens, would there be a limit. Ms. Beatty-Hansen
stated that the Nuisance Law would still be in effect, but if the Council would feel more comfortable
with a cap, then she would be fine with that.
Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Martin, to add that chickens will be allowed on Page 4, under
Section p.
Council Member Gartin asked if chickens were considered when staff was drafting the Restrictive
Covenants. Ms. Baker-Latimer mentioned they are draft covenants and they had obtained verbiage
from other covenants; chickens were not discussed specifically. Council Member Corrieri noted that
the draft Restrictive Covenants are exactly like her Homeowner Association’s (HOA) Covenants.
Ms. Baker-Latimer pointed out that they do not have a HOA for this Subdivision. Ms. Corrieri
commented that there was no one to enforce anything. Ms. Baker-Latimer said it would be neighbor-
against-neighbor complaint based.
Council Member Gartin stated that there are two things that are true: 1) all new Subdivisions are
going to have restrictions that will not allow poultry, and 2) most of Ames allows poultry. There is
no state law that restricts poultry in a Subdivision. Mr. Gartin felt that having chickens in a
Subdivision may impact marketability of the units. He was worried that they didn’t have enough time
to get staff’s feedback on chickens as it could materially impact the marketing of the units. Ms.
Beatty-Hansen felt that it wouldn’t be a problem as she didn’t think it would be that big of a problem
as not everyone is going to want chickens. She stated she would guess that there are some houses
that have chickens right next door and currently it is not affecting home values in a significant
negative way. Ms. Betcher wanted to know if that is true, because there are some people who do not
like chickens. She can see both points of view that chickens can be an additional food source;
however, there are people who may not want to live next to someone with chickens.
Vote on Motion: 4-2. Voting Aye: Beatty-Hansen, Corrieri, Junck, Martin. Voting Nay: Betcher,
Gartin. Motion declared carried.
Ms. Baker-Latimer highlighted a few of the Covenants. She mentioned that Lots 1 through 8, 10
through 13, 15, 24, and 25 were designated as Affordable Housing; while Lots 9, 14, 16 through 24,
and 26 were designated as Market Rate Housing. Language has been added that included a
prohibition against the rental of the homes. Ms. Baker-Latimer notified the Council that in the draft
Restrictive Covenants and Regulations under Section 12 there is a provision that states the
Covenants can be amended as long as the City owns the lots.
Council Member Gartin asked Ms. Baker-Latimer for more information as to the decision about not
having a Homeowners Association. Ms. Baker-Latimer said that staff had discussed the cost for
affordable housing and the fee to the homebuyers, and staff didn’t want the cost to be passed onto
17
the affordable housing homeowners. Mr. Gartin pointed out that an HOA doesn’t have to have dues,
and without an HOA there is not an enforcement mechanism for the Covenants.
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Betcher, to ask the City Attorney and Housing Coordinator Vanessa
Baker-Latimer to consider the merits of having a Homeowner’s Association (HOA) and bring the
information back to the Council with a recommendation.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
The Mayor asked about the timeline and wanted to know if this item came back on January 11, 2022,
would that be adequate. Ms. Baker-Latimer explained that moving it to January 11, 2022, would
push her timeframe back as her next step would be working with the Homebuyer Counseling in
January to start qualifying buyers, get lenders lined up, and get a Request for Proposals (RFP) sent
out. It was asked if this item could be added to the Workshop Agenda on December 21, 2021. The
Mayor confirmed that would work.
INITIATION OF VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION FOR 2105 AND 2421 DAYTON AVENUE:
Moved by Corrieri, seconded by Beatty-Hansen, to direct staff to initiate the process of annexation
for the properties at 2105 and 2421 Dayton Avenue.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
BUDGET ISSUES/GUIDELINES: Finance Director Duane Pitcher explained that tonight was to
give the Council a “big picture” look on the upcoming year’s budget, including factors that may later
impact the Council’s budget decisions, share budget-related input and requests that have been
received by local citizens and organization, seek the Council’s direction on select components of the
budget, and to receive any general funding or service level direction that Council wished to
incorporate into the budget. Director Pitcher stated that overall economic conditions in the City of
Ames remain strong though there has been considerable turbulence over the past several months. He
noted that most of the revenues have recovered, but with the recovery comes some level of inflation
and scarcity of goods that could impact operations in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The
biggest item that needs to be discussed is on the expenditures of the American Rescue Plan (ARP)
funds. The ARP funding equates to over $14 million that the City has received. This grant program
is administered by the US Treasury. The City has received half the funds already and anticipate the
other half to be given to the City in March 2022. The City Managers had laid out a proposal for the
use of these funds. Mr. Pitcher indicated there are restrictions as to what the funds can and cannot
be used for and a time limit as to when those funds need to be spent.
American Rescue Plan Act: City Manager Steve Schainker explained there were two categories for
the use of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds. One of the categories is to use lost
revenues, which will need to be calculated. There was approximately $1.3 million that was lost and
could be used for any purpose the City would want. Mr. Schainker recommended not using all the
funds on operations as the funds are a one-time fund only. He estimated the additional “lost revenue”
for FY 2021/22 and FY 2022/23 would be around $630,822. Mr. Schainker noted that he is asking
the Council to set aside $450,496.82 for the Downtown Plaza, $868,681.18 for the Indoor Aquatics
18
Center, and $50,000 for the Ames/ISU Ice Arena. He noted that $900,000 should be committed to
fund the water and sewer extensions to 580th Street. This would leave $11,357,623 as a remaining
balance that would be available for other CIP Projects. Mr. Schainker mentioned that there were
eight projects that he would recommend spending the rest of the $11.3 million on. One of the
projects was for the City Hall Auditorium HVAC Improvements that was previously bid out twice,
and each time the bids came in over budget. The other seven projects were related to the
implementation of the 2040 Plan.
Council Member Beatty-Hansen asked at what point does the list get approved; she had one of the
projects of the eight that were being recommended. She had some concerns about the Sanitary Sewer
Extension Project along 13th Street across Interstate 35. Ms. Beatty-Hansen had some concerns about
this area because of the lack of accessibility for anything besides cars. She had previously been told
that adding bike/pedestrian facilities would be very costly. She thought that if using one-time money,
the Council should consider using some of the funds to facilitate improving the bike/pedestrian
facilities under Interstate 35. Mr. Schainker mentioned that he has not calculated any of the other lost
revenue for the future, and the City may not even use the funds planned for the Downtown Plaza or
the Indoor Aquatics Center.
Council Member Betcher indicated that in the Report, there were four categories listed for eligible
uses of the funds and category C and D were discussed, but she thought A would be a category for
funding ASSET at a higher level. Mr. Schainker explained that could be done, but he is only giving
the Council the City Manager’s recommendation of how to use the funds; the Council does not have
to approve it. Ms. Betcher explained that the Council received a request for $455,846 in ASSET
funding, which is 28.48% over the current fiscal year budgeted amount. Council Member Corrieri
pointed out that you don’t want to use one-time monies to support ongoing operations. Ms. Betcher
stated she is unsure if the increased amount is for ongoing operations or due to the pandemic.
Council Member Gartin noted he would like to see connectivity along 13th Street across Interstate
30, but felt that what Mr. Schainker is proposing is just the sewer aspect. Ms. Beatty-Hansen
commented that either way there is a cost; with the sewer extension there would be utility fees, but
for bike/pedestrian infrastructure it would come from property tax money. She would rather see the
cost incurred through utility fees opposed to increasing property tax.
Municipal Engineer Tracy Peterson explained that the Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT)
has discussed with the City about the long-term plans of the interchange at 13th Street and I35. If the
IDOT is planning on redoing the interchange, it may accommodate the bike/pedestrian facilities to
go under the bridge at a more reasonable cost. Ms. Peterson stated staff could prepare a cost estimate
of how much it would cost to add the bike/pedestrian facilities now opposed to when the IDOT may
do it. Ms. Peterson asked if that data could be presented in January during the CIP discussions. It was
confirmed that it would work.
Mayor Haila asked Council Member Betcher if she had any thoughts regarding Category “A” to
respond to the public health emergency. Ms. Betcher commented that she did not as she was not sure
19
if category “A” was eligible under the guidelines. She knew in some cases there has to be proof that
money was lost due to the pandemic and she was not sure if that applied to Category “A,” and
whether Category “A” would encompass some of the ASSET funding or not. Council Member
Gartin mentioned that the Council looks to the agencies to articulate what is needed during the
application process. It was noted that most of the time the ASSET requests are all operational
requests. Council Member Corrieri stated she can’t speak for all agencies, but she knows that there
has been a significant amount of money available to nonprofits through the state. Assistant City
Manager Deb Schildroth explained that most of the services that fall under Category “A” would be
the rent and utility assistance. Ms. Betcher clarified that the requests the Council gets from ASSET
are for operational costs that are not being covered by the state funding and the City is looking for
one-time expenses. Ms. Schildroth stated that in the ASSET budgets the agencies include all revenue
sources, and this would show any state-received funds.
Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Corrieri, to request that staff investigate the cost of a
bike/pedestrian passage under I35 at 13th Street and have this ready for CIP budget time.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Changes to the Iowa Property Tax System: Director Pitcher indicated he had put a little more
information in the Report for this section than previously as the system is changing this year. The
biggest area of impact is the rollback change. The rollback on residential properties dropping from
56.4% to 54.13%; this will reduce the taxable value of residential properties. Another big change is
the elimination of backfill for the rollback of commercial and industrial properties. For the City of
Ames, this will mean a five-year phase out beginning in FY 2022/23 of around $900,000 in promised
funding from the State of Iowa and a shift in cost to the local property taxpayers. The Council had
planned for this contingency by reserving an additional amount of General Fund balance. Council
can use this contingency amount to extend or soften the phase-out of backfill revenue from the state,
or free up the funds for other uses now that the amount and schedule is known. Director Pitcher
mentioned that another impact will be the elimination of the property tax funding for mental health.
He was unsure how this will impact the property tax bills in total.
General Fund: The General Fund ended FY 2020/21 with a balance of approximately $15.6 million.
This created a beginning balance for FY 2021/22 that was almost $5.4 million higher than what was
anticipated in the adopted budget. Excluding carryovers, a balance of approximately $540,000
remains and is available for programming into the FY 2021/22 adjusted budget. Additionally, due
to open position and better than expected Local Option Tax revenue staff expects there will be
substantial funds available at the close of FY 2021/22, and some amount can be programmed for
one-time needs.
CyRide: CyRide was hit hard due to reduction of ridership and the reduced enrollment at ISU. The
FY 2022/23 budget will include timely and substantial one-time federal support from the
Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Act (CRRSAA) and the American Rescue Plan Act
(ARPA). These two sources have provided $1,081,492 and $6,163,516, respectively, for CyRide,
20
which will be spent over two budget years. The City’s financial support for CyRide is expected to
increase by approximately 2% in FY 2022/23.
Council Member Gartin asked if there was any indication from the federal government about
decreasing the subsidies for public transit. Director Pitcher commented that he is not aware of
anything. Mr. Gartin was concerned that the subsidy that is helping on the operational side would
be removed and the City would not be prepared for the shortfall. Council Member Beatty-Hansen
said that she felt that mass transit would be safe as it is seen as better for the climate; the government
will have to put in more resources to combat climate change and CyRide would see the benefit from
it.
Council Member Beatty-Hansen inquired what the current transit levy was along with the max.
Director Pitcher indicated that the City was below the max at $0.61. Ms. Beatty-Hansen noted she
had asked CyRide staff to look at the concept of fair-free CyRide and what that might cost and how
it could be funded.
Utility Rates: Last year the City had forecasted a rate increase for FY 2022/23 for both water utility
at 2% and wastewater utility at 5%. The updated forecast eliminates the water increase, but the
wastewater rate increase is expected to remain at 5%. The electric rates are expected to remain flat;
however, the cost of commodities and increased power demands across the grid may impact the
energy cost adjustment.
Resource Recovery: After several years of flat fees, the Resource Recovery Plant increased tipping
fees from $52.75 per ton to $55.00 per ton on July 1, 2017, and to $58.75 per ton on July 1, 2019.
The per capita fee charged was increased from $9.10 to $10.50 in January 2018. The adjustment in
RDF payment does not provide adequate funding for Resource Recovery operational and capital
needs over the five-year planning period. To better provide for these needs and to maintain an
adequate on-going fund balance, the current tipping fee of $58.75 per ton is proposed to be increased
by $3.75 per ton to $62.50 per ton beginning in FY 2022/23.
Storm Water: The last rate increase for the storm water utility was seen in FY 2017/18 to the $4.95
Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) fee that is charged on monthly utility bills to finance the
maintenance of the storm sewer system. A fee increase to $5.20 per ERU is proposed for FY
2022/23.
Parking: There are no increases projected at this time. In FY 2021/22, the revenues are trending
upwards and are slowly returning to pre-pandemic levels.
Hotel/Motel Tax Fund: The hospitality industry was one of the most impacted by the COVID-19
pandemic. The first quarter was strong in FY 2021/22 and the City is expected to meet its revenue
budget. Director Pitcher noted that the City should remain cautious and not recommend any increase
to the budgeted revenue for FY 2022/23.
21
Fire and Police Retirement and IPERS: The City contribution rate to the Municipal Fire and Police
Retirement System of Iowa (MFPRSI) will be reduced. The current rate is 26.18% of covered wages
and will be 23.90% for FY 2022/23, reducing property taxes to fund this benefit by about $200,000.
Director Pitcher noted that IPERS will remain the same.
Health Insurance: The City of Ames experienced health insurance increases between 5% and 9% per
year. For FY 2022/23, staff is planning to increase the self-insured premium rates by 7%. The City
expects the fund balance will remain well above the required levels to maintain a self-insured plan
and provide an adequate balance to fund possible claim fluctuations.
Local Option Sales Tax: These have shown significant recovery in FY 2021/22, reflecting the
national trend of what may have been some delayed demand due to the pandemic. Staff is expecting
to end the current year with local option revenue exceeding the adopted budget by around 25%.
Much of this was due to the large adjustment distribution received in November of 2021 related to
FY 2020/21 retail sales being higher than expected. Director Pitcher is expecting a 10% increase in
Local Option Sales Tax.
Council Member Gartin stated that the 10% increase is a high estimate and wanted to know if there
was a reason why the City was projecting such a high increase. City Manager Steve Schainker
explained that a lot more people are buying items on the internet. He noted that the City is being a
little more aggressive, but he still feels comfortable doing that. Director Pitcher explained online
shopping is what a lot more people are doing, and the City can now benefit from the sales tax for
online sales. Mr. Schainker reminded the Council that of those funds, 60% will be transferred to the
General Fund for property tax relief and 40% goes to community betterment.
ASSET Human Services Funding: Assistant City Manager Schildroth stated that ASSET funding
requests for FY 2022/23 have been reviewed and the total request for all funders was $5,745,183.
This amount is up about $1.1 million from the current allocation from all four funders. The City’s
share is up over 28%, and the total requested was $2,056,939. Ms. Schildroth commented that she
outlined in the Report some of the agency requests that were significant. All Aboard for Kids wants
to expand their service to serve kids with a higher level of special needs. The Bridge Home request
was up about 190% or $548,567. The City portion of this request is $375,000 which is 228%
increase over the current fiscal year contracted amount. The Bridge Home is wanting to provide more
units of service within the shelter, providing more units of service for transitional living, and
assistance with basic needs.
Council Member Gartin inquired if The Bridge Home had provided any documentation
substantiating the need for the increased funding. Ms. Schildroth mentioned that there is the ASSET
budget and they are continuing to see an increased need for shelter space. She noted that The Bridge
Home has limited beds at the shelter, and when they are full, they utilize hotels to house individuals,
which adds to the cost.
22
Council Member Corrieri stated that when she looked at the mid-year reports she noticed the
agencies that have not turned away any clients during the first half of the fiscal year, and if that
would help justify the needed increases. She also was not sure for multi-county agencies and how
the data is separated out, so the City is funding City of Ames services versus outside City/County
services. Ms. Schildroth explained that about over half the agencies are considered multi-county
agencies and an agency has the option to include the figures from their budget that is just from the
County or a percentage of the total budget. The agency’s statistics page does list how many of the
clients are City of Ames residents, in Story County, and outside Story County. Ms. Corrieri noted
that when she served on ASSET, they tried to get concrete data as to why a drastic increase is
needed. She explained that one thing that is unique is that the non-profit industry is having a “crisis
in staffing,” and she is worried that those agencies that are asking for a large increase may not have
the capacity to serve those people as they will not be able to hire staff. Ms. Corrieri explained there
are a lot of questions, given everything that is going on in the world and the labor market; that makes
her ask more questions than she normally would. Ms. Schildroth commented that the questions Ms.
Corrieri had brought up will be addressed during the hearings that ASSET will do, and she noted that
a few of the agencies had indicated increases to help hire and retain staff.
The Mayor inquired what the Outcome summary in the Report was supposed to show. Ms.
Schildroth noted that the Council only has a portion of the story. The Outcome summary used to
historically have a column where it indicated whether or not an agency ran out of funds and had to
turn people away. With this data not being collected by every agency anymore, the Outcomes comes
from Clear Impact Scorecard. It is a snapshot, but would like to get a report from the funders where
the Council could see the trends. Ms. Schildroth explained that they have started tracking how much
of the ASSET funding makes up an agency’s budget. She pointed out that some agencies rely heavily
on local funding to provide their programs whereas other programs only use 2% of the funding. It
was noted that United Way will meet on Thursday to make its recommendations and Story County
is meeting on December 21, 2021.
Council Member Martin explained that the motion for funding is an allocation question and if the
Council over-allocates funding, the money would be returned as the City only pays for the services
that are delivered.
Moved by Martin, seconded by Corrieri, to approve an 8% increase for ASSET.
Council Member Gartin commented that he was leaning towards a more conservative number,
because he would like to see the ASSET funding to be sustainable and consistent.
Council Member Beatty-Hansen stated she liked Council Member Martin’s point that if they
overallocate the funds if the services aren’t provided the funds won’t be utilized. Council Member
Corrieri pointed out that the ASSET volunteers don’t have to allocate all the funding as well.
Council Member Gartin noted that he was concerned as the 8% recommended increase is the highest
they have ever done. Council Member Junck pointed out that there was a loss of a joint-funder a
23
couple years ago. Mr. Gartin explained that the City still has a responsibility to the taxpayers to be
prudent. He noted he was intrigued with the Local Option Sales Tax, because the last couple of years
it has not been an optimistic prediction. Mr. Gartin stated that they had discussed previously that
the Local Option Sales Tax won’t be a sustainable option for funding. He noted that he liked the
boldness, but would like to stay conservative at 5%.
Council Member Beatty-Hansen mentioned that prices are going up and services are costing more.
Council Member Corrieri noted she has been very vocal about not allocating money to just allocate
money, but she was comfortable with the 8% recommended increase. She had full faith that the
volunteers will ask the really hard questions, and if the full 8% is not warranted to be allocated, the
volunteers won’t do it.
Council Member Gartin stated that next year the 8% will be a precedent, and there will be pressure
to continue increasing the funding. He pointed out that it will look bad if the funding gets cut back
further. He wanted to avoid a “rollercoaster” in the way ASSET funding is handled.
Council Member Betcher inquired what the actual amount of money would be if approved at 8%.
Ms. Schildroth explained it would be $128,087.
Vote on Motion: 5-1. Voting Aye: Beatty-Hansen, Betcher, Corrieri, Junck, Martin. Voting Nay:
Gartin. Motion declared carried.
Commission on the Arts: Assistant City Manager Brian Phillips stated that the Commission on the
Arts (COTA) highlighted that the current funding is a little different than what is typically done. The
City Council originally authorized a 5% increase from the prior fiscal year, or a total of $193,093;
however, in February 2021, the City Council provided an additional one-time funding authority to
COTA in recognition of the hardships faced by arts agencies during COVID-19 pandemic. The
additional funding has been distributed to the agencies, but it has been categorized in the Contracts
that it is a one-time COVID related supplement funding. Mr. Phillips explained that for FY 2022/23,
COTA organizations have requested funding in the amount of $216,470 (excluding Special Spring
and Fall Grants). This is a 12.1% ($23,377) increase from the FY 2021/22 base appropriation of
$193,093. It was pointed out that there had been some shifting of the agencies that are participating
in the process. One agency that had previously applied had not applied, and two agencies that are not
in the current year that applied for next year. Mr. Phillips explained that the amount that the Council
will authorize to COTA will be fully recommended by COTA through its annual grants, and any
funding that is left over will be set aside for the spring/fall Special COTA grants.
Council Member Gartin stated that the requested increase of 12.1% ($23,377) is not a lot of money.
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Junck, to increase the funding for COTA at 12.1%.
24
Council Member Martin commented that with COTA the funding will be fully used. Council
Member Gartin stated that the representatives for COTA will make sure that the money is being
utilized correctly. Mr. Martin asked if COTA has any indication of the requests yet. Mr. Phillips
stated that all the applications have been received and COTA has held its hearings, and it appeared
that the amounts being requested by about half of the agencies are requesting exactly what their total
is plus the one-time supplement. He indicated at this point he didn’t have any insight into each
request. Mr. Gartin felt that, as a City, they put little funding towards the arts and the City is way
behind where they should be.
Council Member Betcher stated she thought the Staff Report showed that the City put a lot of money
into the arts, but it is distributed in ways that do not make it obvious that the City is putting money
into the arts.
Vote on Motion: 4-2. Voting Aye: Corrieri, Gartin, Junck, Martin. Voting Nay: Betcher, Beatty-
Hansen. Motion declared carried.
Outside Funding requests: Mr. Phillips indicated that for most of the requests the funding will come
out of the Local Option Sales Tax Fund, and there is one request from the Ames Economic
Development Commission that comes every year that comes out of the Hotel/Motel Tax Fund. This
year all the organizations applied for funding for next year. Mr. Phillips stated that it appears that
Campustown Action Association has had a transition in leadership and the Ames Chamber is taking
on the role of applying for funding on their behalf. The portion of the requests that would be
financed from the Local Option Sales Tax Fund totals $277,659 for FY 2022/23, which is a 20%
increase over the amount budgeted in the current year from Local Option funds. Mr. Phillips
explained there were two items he wanted to highlight regarding the increased requests. The first was
from Hunziker Youth Sports Complex; they requested a substantial increase in FY 2022/23, moving
from $45,000 to $80,000 in City funds. The other request was from the Farmers’ Market, which
asked for $10,000 for FY 2022/23. Last year an application was not made by the Farmers’ Market
to the Ames Convention and Visitors Bureau (ACVB) Grant program, so they had asked the City
for $7,000 in funding. The City Council had authorized $7,000 in the budget for the Farmers’ Market
in FY 2021/22, but as a one-time amount. Mr. Phillips explained that the Farmers’ Market did
submit a request to ACVB for funding. Therefore, the City Council would have to decide whether
to hold the Farmers’ Market to the FY 2021/22 pledge that the funding was “one-time,” or to
entertain requests from the Farmer Market to receive City funds on a regular basis. Mr. Phillips noted
there is no policy in this Program that states an explicit requirement that an agency can’t receive
funding through both programs. There is a requirement that the agency has to indicate if they have
applied for other sources of funding. He then indicated that the Ames Main Street request is broken
into two separate requests to allow for the parking waivers for Special Events.
Council Member Martin said he didn’t mind that an organization applies for funding from more than
one grantor as they are not sure who will say “yes” or “no,” but wanted to know if there was a way
to modify the City’s Policy form to clarify the duplication of requests. Mr. Phillips indicated there
was an application document that contains some criteria for how funding is done, and if the Council
25
adopts a prohibition about having duplicate requests, it can be added to the Contracts. Ultimately,
the process is highly discretionary on the Council’s part.
Council Member Betcher asked if Council Member Junck knew what amount of funding ACVB was
going to award to the Farmers’ Market. Ms. Junck stated that the Ames Farmers’ Market asked
ACVB for $5,000 and they were awarded the full amount.
Council Member Beatty-Hansen mentioned she didn’t see on the Farmers’ Market application where
it lists its revenue sources or a line item that indicated any previous ACVB funding. She was curious
as to where that revenue went and where they plan on putting the funding this year.
Moved by Martin, seconded by Betcher, to ask staff to implement a policy about duplicate funding.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Council Member Martin stated he liked both highlighted projects (Hunziker Youth Sports Complex
and Farmers’ Market) and recommended supporting both. He felt it was healthy to set the limit a
little below the total asking amount.
Moved by Martin, seconded by Beatty-Hansen, to approve $275,000 in total funding for the Outside
Funding Requests.
Council Member Betcher asked why the motion wasn’t for the full amount as the total ask, which
was $277,659. Council Member Beatty-Hansen commented that the organizations will “tighten their
belt” a little bit. Ms. Betcher stated that amount will not force anyone to “tighten their belt” a lot, and
as she recalled from previous years, there have been a lot of disagreements about what organizations
are important.
Council Member Martin withdrew his motion.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Beatty-Hansen, to fund all the funding requests for the Outside
Organizations in the amount of $277,659.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Public Art Commission: Assistant City manager Phillips noted that the Public Art Commission will
be asking for the same amount as they have the past two years.
Council Member Betcher noted that she was hoping the Council will fund another one-time Small
Art Grant Pilot Program, and she will be asking for this in the future.
Road Condition/Road Use Tax Fund: This funds the operations of the street maintenance and some
of the Capital Improvement Plan. Census numbers came in late and the allocation of the Road Use
Tax is based on Census numbers. Staff is currently forecasting the Road Use Tax revenue of
$8,336,588 for the adjusted FY 2021/22, or about 6.4% over the adopted budget. For the 2022/23
26
budget, staff is forecasting Road Use Tax revenue of $8,403,015, a 7.25% increase over the FY
2021/22 adopted budget.
Town Budget Meeting: Mr. Pitcher noted that there were several attachments in the Report. The
attachments were: 1) Local Option Sales Tax Fund Summary, 2) Clear Impact Scorecard: Summary
of Outcome, 3) Town Budget Meeting Minutes, 4) Town Budget Meeting Letter, and 5) Outside
Funding Requests.
Council Member Martin stated that there was a request from Tam Lawrence about asking for more
trees. Mr. Schainker noted that a good time to bring it up would be during budget time.
Moved by Martin, seconded by Beatty-Hansen, to ask staff for a recommendation on Tam
Lawrence’s request regarding trees.
Council Member Gartin asked if staff was still working on the Ash Borer expenditures. He noted that
one of the challenges is that the City only has the capacity to work on so many trees, and his
understanding is that City staff is already maxed out on what staff can take care of. Council Member
Beatty-Hansen questioned if the capacity is an issue of funding. Council Member Betcher stated that
the request was for more money and staff to plant trees.
Council Member Betcher indicated that Tam Lawrence’s letter also indicated allocating money for
the four-inch water mains.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Council Member Martin stated he recalled from the Town Budget Meeting that there was a request
from Home Allies that was not finalized, but the intention was to ask for City support for an
affordable housing project along Duff Avenue. He believed there hasn’t been any paperwork yet. Mr.
Martin noted that he would like to get more information on this project and hoped that the Council
will receive and consider it a new project.
City Manager Schainker indicated there was also a request from Steve Goodhue for additional
funding that will need to be considered during budget time as it is a one-time funding.
ORDINANCE CHANGING THE NAME OF SQUAW CREEK DRIVE TO STONEHAVEN
DRIVE: Mayor Haila opened public input and closed it when no one came forward.
Moved by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Corrieri, to pass on first reading an ordinance changing the
name of Squaw Creek Drive to Stonehaven Drive.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
27
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PARKING REGULATIONS TO INCORPORATE THE
RENAMING OF SQUAW CREEK DRIVE TO STONEHAVEN DRIVE: Mayor Haila opened
public input. It was closed when no one came forward to speak.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Junck, to pass on first reading an ordinance amending the parking
regulations to incorporate the renaming of Squaw Creek Drive to Stonehaven Drive.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
DISPOSITION OF COMMUNICATIONS TO COUNCIL: The Mayor stated there were three
items for discussion. The first item was a letter from Bob Haug that gave recommendations for an
effective Climate Action Plan and ideas on how to implement them. City Manager Steve Schainker
noted that Mr. Haug’s request fits in with the City’s Resource Recovery study. He indicated that the
City will take Mr. Haug’s letter under advisement. The Council Members felt it would be beneficial
to notify Mr. Haug on what the current status is on the study for the Resource Recovery Plant. The
Mayor indicated that he will reply to Mr. Haug.
The second item was a Staff Memo from Tracy Peterson, Municipal Engineer, providing the City
Council with staff’s proposed Outreach Plan for the Erosion Control Project planned for Ioway
Creek in Brookside Park. Mr. Schainker noted that sometimes these projects become controversial
and this item gave a robust plan to reach out to the public; the project will not be popular with some
people.
Council Member Beatty-Hansen inquired if additional people were being brought in to consult on
the project. Municipal Engineer Tracy Peterson noted that staff had spoken with ecologists and
landscape architects, and the project may come with additional change orders, but they are still
working through the process. The Mayor indicated that he has two individual couples come up to
him to address their concerns over this project and the additional outreach would be helpful.
Mr. Schainker asked if the proposed Outreach Plan was agreeable to the Council. They confirmed
that they agreed it was.
The Mayor asked how the outreach was going to be done. Ms. Peterson indicated that staff will be
hand-delivering some letters, Facebook, and Press Releases.
The last item was an update from Housing Coordinator Vanessa Baker-Latimer on the status of the
Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) application with Prairie Fire Development for the Baker
Subdivision. Mr. Schainker stated that no action is required at this time as it was an update.
COUNCIL COMMENTS: Council Member Betcher noted that Tam Lawrence had sent a letter
back in 2019, and she would like to get a memo from staff on the status of the replacement of four-
inch mains.
28
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Corrieri, to get a memo from staff on the status of the four-inch
main installations.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
CLOSED SESSION: Council Member Martin asked City Attorney Mark Lambert if there was a
legal reason to go into Closed Session. Mr. Lambert replied in the affirmative, citing Section
21.5(1)c, Code of Iowa, to discuss matters presently in or threatened to be in litigation.
Moved by Martin, seconded by Junck, to go into Closed Session.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
The City Council entered into a Closed Session at 9:44 p.m. and reconvened in Regular Session at
9:46 p.m.
Moved by Corrieri, seconded by Gartin, to approve the Settlement with Tyler Culjat in the amount
of $35,000 with payment contingent upon receiving a signed release of all claims.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motion declared carried unaniomusly.
ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Corrieri to adjourn the meeting at 9:48 p.m.
______________________________________________________________________
Amy L. Colwell, Deputy City Clerk John A. Haila, Mayor
__________________________________
Diane R. Voss, City Clerk
29
REPORT OF
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS
General Description Change Original Contract Total of Prior Amount this Change Contact
Public Works 2020/21 Pavement
Restoration (Slurry Seal)
Improvements (Franklin
Avenue)
Improvements (Franklin
Avenue)
Pollution
Control
Services Analysis
Period:
Item No. 4
REPORT OF
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS
General Description Change Original Contract Total of Prior Amount this Change Contact
Fire Ladder Truck Replacement 1 $1,152,825.00 Reliant Fire Apparatus,
Inc.
Period:
Item No. 5
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
AMES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
AMES, IOWA DECEMBER 16, 2021
The Regular Meeting of the Ames Civil Service Commission was called to order by Chairperson Mike Crum
at 8:15 AM on December 16, 2021. As it was impractical for the Commission members to attend in person,
Commission Chairperson Mike Crum and Commission Members Kim Linduska and Harold Pike were brought
in telephonically. Also participating telephonically was Human Resources Director Bethany Jorgenson.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 18, 2021: Moved by Crum, seconded by Pike, to approve the
Minutes of the November 18, 2021, Regular Civil Service Commission meeting.
Vote on Motion: 3-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
CERTIFICATION OF ENTRY-LEVEL APPLICANTS: Moved by Linduska, seconded by Pike, to certify the
following individuals to the Ames City Council as Entry-Level Applicants:
Accountant Brandon Sommers 78
Melissa Johannes 77
Jay Brander 72
Shannon Andersen 71
Assistant Building Official Kurt Melville 84
Scott McCambridge 82
Geoffrey Starr 82
Police Officer Daniel Ramirez Villa 89*
Kevin Blaha-Polson 81*
Chad Traver 80
Matt Sander 77
*Includes preference points
Procurement Specialist I John Carmicheal 82
Quinn Eggink 81
Jason Adair 71
Utility Accounts Technician Jay Vannice-Adams 82
Nancy Beach 81
Andrew Pries 77
Vote on Motion: 3-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
CERTIFICATION OF PROMOTIONAL-LEVEL APPLICANTS: Moved by Pike, seconded by Crum,
to certify the following individuals to the Ames City Council as Promotional-Level Applicants:
Police Lieutenant Amber Christian 87
Joel Congdon 87
Mike Arkovich 83
Cole Hippen 83
Derek Grooters 72
Mark Watson 71
Vote on Motion: 3-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
REQUEST TO EXHAUST CERTIFIED LIST FOR ACCOUNTANT: Moved by Crum, seconded by
Item No. 6
Linduska, to approve the request to exhaust the Certified List for Accountant.
Vote on Motion: 3-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
REQUEST TO EXHAUST CERTIFIED LIST FOR MECHANIC ASSISTANT - CYRIDE: Moved by
Pike, seconded by Linduska, to approve the request to exhaust the Certified List for Mechanic Assistant -
CyRide.
Vote on Motion: 3-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
REQUEST TO REMOVE NAMES FROM CERTIFIED LIST FOR POLICE OFFICER: Moved by
Linduska, seconded by Pike, to approve the request to remove names from the Certified List for Police Officer.
Vote on Motion: 3-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
COMMENTS: Director Jorgenson informed the Commission that the Human Resources Department continues
to handle a very large number of recruitments.
The next Regular Meeting of the Ames Civil Service Commission is scheduled for January 27, 2022, at 8:15 AM.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:23 AM.
__________________________________ _______________________________________
Michael R. Crum, Chairperson Diane R. Voss, City Clerk
2
■ ALCOHOLIC St t f I BEV HAG s ,a e O ,owa DIVISION ·· u1'· Alcoholic Beverages Division
Applicant
NAME OF LEGAL ENTITY NAME OF BUSINESS(DBA) BUSINESS
LAS PALMAS MEXICAN
RESTAURANT & GRILL, INC
ADDRESS OF PREMISES
2601 East 13th Street
MAILING ADDRESS
2601 East 13th Street
Contact Person
NAME
Carlos
License Information
LICENSE NUMBER
EFFECTIVE DA TE
SUB-PERMITS
Class C Liquor License
PRIVILEGES
Sunday Service
Las Palmas Mexican Restaurant & (641)417-0041
Grill
CITY
Ames
CITY
Ames
PHONE
(641)831-0381
LICENSE/PERMIT TYPE
Class C Liquor License
EXPIRATION DATE
COUNTY
Story
STATE
Iowa
TERM
ZIP
50010
ZIP
50010
EMAIL
cperezs896@gmail.com
12 Month
LAST DAY OF BUSINESS
Page I of2
STATUS
Submitted
to Local
Authority
Item No. 7
■ ALCOHOLIC St t f I BEV HAG s ,a e O ,owa DIVISION · · u1'· Alcoholic Beverages Division
Status of Business
BUSINESS TYPE
Privately Held Corporation
Ownership
No Ownership information found
Insurance Company Information
INSURANCE COMPANY
Integrity Insurance
DRAM CANCEL DATE
BOND EFFECTIVE DATE
POLICY EFFECTIVE DATE
Dec 15, 2021
OUTDOOR SERVICE EFFECTIVE
DATE
TEMP TRANSFER EFFECTIVE
DATE
POLICY EXPIRATION DATE
Dec 15, 2022 Page 2 of2 OUTDOOR SERVICE EXPIRATION
DATE
TEMP TRANSFER EXPIRATION
DATE
"% &"'#()* +,-.../0,1 !" #$"% ,-.../2321454678479!..<<= )% + > +- .;"?@ A92BB3B0!.. ) ) + "%( =('' .E );%DF@ A98B4B29&/2B41C5M628C:' %? N@"%)*O; ?" #$"% ND">
H,!+.T9! 9+' +(U%"?(D ) !34");$.-..%V>(;; #;""D '%;$"?(;@0Z9!0X%'@3Y4B44 .0 ,-...
Item No. 8
$$/
304 >?@A @;@= B?C C5 ?@?5:D5E5F:=G H?C IJ J>?@?B=:3L N 304 P 3L 22 Q R STUTV WXYZ [TTNTT /L .KL \]U]]
L TNTT /L _ M3 Q R STUU` MaWRYaa TNTT /L
3L4 Q R STTVb 343 TNTT /L
! "#$ % &' % (
'%' '
& &' '
& (
' &'
&'
(
'
Smart Choice
515.239.5133 non-emergency
Administration
fax
515 Clark Ave. P.O.
To: Mayor John Haila and Ames City Council Members
From: Lieutenant Heath Ropp, Ames Police Department
Date: December 26, 2021
Subject: Beer Permits & Liquor License Renewal Reference City Council Agenda
The Council agenda for January 11, 2022, includes beer permits and liquor license
renewals for:
•Chipotle Mexican Grill (435 S Duff) - Class C Liquor License with Outdoor Service and
Sunday Sales
•Fuji Japanese Steakhouse (1614 S Kellogg Ave 101) - Class C Liquor License with
Sunday Sales
•American Legion Post #37 (225 Main) - Class A Liquor License with Sunday Sales
•Springhill Suites (1810 SE 16th St) - Special Class C Liquor License with Sunday
Sales
•Dublin Bay (320 S 16th) - Class C Liquor License with Catering Privilege, Outdoor Service
& Sunday Sales
•Cactus 2 (2420 Lincoln Way Ste B) - Class C Liquor License with Sunday Sales
•The Filling Station (2400 University Blvd) - Class E Liquor License with Class B Wine
Permit, Class C Beer Permit (Carry Out) & Sunday Sales
•Clouds Coffee (119 Stanton Ave Suite 701) - Special Class C Liquor License (B/W)
•Hy-Vee Market Café (3800 Lincoln Way) - Class C Liquor License with Catering Privilege
•North Grand Seafood (823 Wheeler St) - Class C Liquor License and Sunday Sales
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. 9
Smart Choice
515.239.5133 non-emergency
Administration
fax
515
To: Mayor John Haila and Ames City Council Members
From: Lieutenant Heath Ropp, Ames Police Department
Date: December 26, 2021
Subject: Beer Permits & Liquor License Renewal Reference City Council Agenda
The Council agenda for January 11th, 2022, includes beer permits and liquor license
renewals for:
•West Towne Pub (4518 Mortensen Rd Suite 101) - Class C Liquor License with Catering
Privilege, Outdoor Service & Sunday Sales
A review of police records for the past 12 months found 1 liquor law violation. 1
individual was cited for being underage on premise. That individual was in possession of
a fake ID.
•The Angry Irishmen (119 Main St) - Class C Liquor License with Outdoor Service &
Sunday Sales
A review of police records for the past 12 months found 1 liquor law violation. During a
compliance check on March 26th, 2021, an employee sold alcohol to a minor and was
cited accordingly. A follow-up compliance check was completed, and no violations were
recorded.
The Police Department will continue to monitor the above locations by conducting
regular foot patrols, bar checks and by educating the bar staff through training and
quarterly meetings. The Ames Police Department recommends license renewal for the
above businesses.
Item No. 9e & 9j
Smart Choice
515.239.5133 non-emergency
Administration
fax
515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811
To: Mayor John Haila and Ames City Council Members
From: Lieutenant Heath Ropp, Ames Police Department
Date: December 26, 2021
Subject: Beer Permits & Liquor License Renewal Reference City Council Agenda
The Council agenda for January 11th, 2022, includes beer permits and liquor license
renewals for:
•Cy’s Roost (121 Welch Ave) - Class C Liquor License with Outdoor Service & Sunday
Sales
A review of police records for the past 12 months found 20 liquor law violations. 20
individuals were cited for being underage on premise. 15 of those individuals were in
possession of a fake ID.
So far, the Police Department has made recommendations to improve their performance
such as providing additional staffing and utilizing the Iowa ABD Age to Purchase mobile
application to scan identifications to ensure validity. Management acknowledged these
recommendations and will put these additional measures in place.
The Police Department would recommend renewal of the 12-month license.
During this 12-month period, The Police Department will continue to monitor the above
location by conducting regular foot patrols, bar checks and by educating the bar staff
through trainings and quarterly meetings.
Item No. 9l
1
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: REQUESTS FROM AMES MAIN STREET
FOR JANUARY DOLLAR DAYS
BACKGROUND:
Ames Main Street (AMS) is planning to host its annual dollar days from Thursday, January
27 through Sunday, January 30. To facilitate this event, AMS is requesting a waiver of
parking fees and enforcement in the Downtown on Saturday, January 29. Fulfilling this
request and providing free parking for 613 metered parking spaces yields a loss of
$1,379.25 to the Parking Fund. Funds from the Local Option Sales Tax Fund have been
appropriated in the FY 2021/22 City Budget to reimburse the Parking Fund for this event.
In addition, AMS requests a blanket Temporary Obstruction Permit for January 29. The
requests are detailed in the attached letter.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the requests from Ames Main Street for Saturday, January 29, as outlined
above, including a transfer of $1,379.25 from the Local Option Sales Tax Fund to
the Parking Fund.
2. Do not approve the request.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Ames Main Street sidewalk sales have been successful in bringing shoppers to the
Downtown area. The City Council previously appropriated sufficient funding to reimburse
the Parking Fund for the lost revenue for this free parking request.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1 as described above.
ITEM # 10
DATE: 01-11-22
RESOLUTION NO. _______
RESOLUTION APPROVING AND ADOPTING
SUPPLEMENT NO. 2022-1 TO THE AMES MUNICIPAL CODE
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council for the City of Ames, Iowa, that in accordance
with the provisions of Section 380.8 Code of Iowa, a compilation of ordinances and amendments
enacted subsequent to the adoption of the Ames Municipal Code shall be and the same is hereby
approved and adopted, under date of January 1, 2022, as Supplement No. 2022-1 to the Ames
Municipal Code.
Adopted this day of , 2022.
___________________________
John A. Haila, Mayor
Attest:
_______________________________
Diane R. Voss, City Clerk
Item No. 11
Caring People Quality Programs Exceptional Service
515.239.5105 main
5142 fax
Ave.
MEMO
TO: Members of the City Council
FROM: John A. Haila, Mayor
DATE: Date of City Council Meeting
SUBJECT: Council Appointment to Ames Economic Development
Commission (AEDC) Board of Directors
David Martin’s term of office on the AEDC Board of Directors is not due to
expire until December 31, 2022; however, Council Member Martin’s term on the
City Council ended December 31, 2021.
Therefore, I recommend that the Council approve the appointment of Anita
Rollins to complete the term of office on the Ames Economic Development
Commission Board of Directors.
JAH/alc
Item No. 12
ITEM # 13
DATE: 01-14-21
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: PROCUREMENT CARD FOR NEW COUNCIL MEMBER
BACKGROUND:
On February 26, 2002, City Council approved a procurement card (p-card) program to
facilitate payment for small purchases and travel expenses. Policies and procedures for
the program are part of the City purchasing policies approved by City Council. All
cardholders attend training on the related policies and procedures prior to being issued a
card.
Procurement card applications for employees are approved by the applicant’s department
head. Applications for elected City officials are to be approved by City Council. An
application for new City Council member Anita Rollins was submitted and she attended
the required training session on December 2, 2021. The proposed account will have a
single purchase limit of $2,000, a daily spend limit of $3,000, and a monthly billing cycle
limit of $5,000.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the application for procurement card for City Council member Rollins and set
the spend limit at $2,000 per transaction, $3,000 per day, and $5,000 per monthly
billing cycle.
2. Have City Council member Rollins use her personal account rather than procurement
card for travel and related expenses, and request reimbursement in accordance with
applicable City policies.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The procurement card program is intended to facilitate payment for small purchases and
travel expenses. The application for new City Council member Rollins was submitted and
she attended the required training session.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1, thereby approving the application for a procurement card for City
Council member Rollins and setting the spend limits as indicated above.
1
ITEM #__ 14 __
DATE: 01-11-22
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH THE IOWA DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES FOR THE SOUTH SKUNK RIVER WATER TRAIL
BACKGROUND:
In June 2020, the State of Iowa designated the South Skunk River within Story County as a
State Water Trail. Story County Conservation is the W ater Trail Sponsor and there are several
Water Trail Partners as shown below:
• City of Story City
• City of Ames
• Story County Engineer
• Iowa Department of Transportation
The attached Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) defines the responsibilities of the Iowa
Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), the Water Trail Sponsor, and each of the Water Trail
Partners. For the City of Ames, responsibilities are related to the two water trail accesses
within the City, 1) the River Valley Park access; and 2) the South 16th Street access.
Specifically, the following is what the City would be responsible for as well as the
frequency for each location:
Responsibility River Valley Park South 16th Street
Additionally, the City would install the initial and replacement signage for the bridges
located at East 13th Street, Lincoln Way, and South 16th Street. These signs are also
provided by the Iowa DNR.
This agreement will begin January 15, 2022 and be in effect through January 15, 2027.
ALTERNATIVES:
1) Approve the Memorandum of Agreement with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources
for the South Skunk River Water Trail.
2) Do not approve the Memorandum of Agreement with the Iowa Department of Natural
Resources for the South Skunk River Water Trail.
2
3) Refer this item back to staff.
MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The South Skunk River Water Trail Memorandum of Agreement formalizes the responsibilities
of the IDNR, Story County Conservation, and the Water Trail Partners. The responsibilities
identified for the City of Ames are items that are already being performed by the City.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative
#1, as stated above.
Page1
South Skunk River Water Trail
Memorandum of Agreement
This document serves as a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) among the Iowa
Department of Natural Resources, Water Trail Sponsor, and Water Trail Partners for the
South Skunk River Water Trail for a period of January 15, 2022 through January 15,
2027. This agreement identifies the responsibilities of each of the parties.
Water Trail Sponsor: Story County Conservation
Water Trail Partners: Story City, City of Ames, Story County Engineer, Iowa
Department of Transportation
I. GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES
A. Water Trail Sponsor
1. Act as the public’s direct point of contact for the water trail and respond
to concerns and questions that arise in a timely manner.
2. Ensure that law enforcement is briefed in dealing with problem users.
3. Major river-wide obstructions in the channel shall be communicated to
the DNR water trails staff within 24 hours of known occurrence on
beginner and intermediate level river segments.
4. Alert DNR water trails staff when serious problems arise, such as user
conflicts, injuries, drownings, etc. Communicate and collaborate with
all water trail land managers, key stakeholders, and user groups to
solve any problems that arise.
5. Participate, and encourage participation in, the following programs and
campaigns: litter control, river etiquette, safety education, and
enforcement.
Page2
6. Meet with water trail partners/land managers annually to discuss
progress on plan implementation, and identify any issues that need
addressed or changes that should be made. Identify what is or isn’t
working and identify potential solutions and how DNR can help.
Submit meeting summary/progress report to the DNR water trails
coordinator.
7. Market water trail and offer opportunities for the public to participate in
interpretive programming related to the natural resources, history,
prehistory, archaeology, and geology within the river corridor.
B. Iowa Department of Natural Resources
1. Use information provided by the Sponsor to provide statewide support
for the development of interpretive plans and materials (Interpretive
panels, brochures, and maps) through GIS services, updates, and
contracting with professional service providers.
2. Provide structure and resources for the following programs and
campaigns: litter control, river etiquette, safety education, and
interpretive programs.
3. Provide statewide communication of the locations of river-wide
obstructions or other hazards, such as log jams, temporary dams at
bridge construction projects, chemical spills, etc.
4. Offer annual water trail enhancement grants for projects as funding is
available.
5. Provide ongoing technical assistance and project support.
Page3
II. WATER TRAIL ACCESS/AREA
RESPONSIBILITIES
Area/Access Management
Level Segment Agency Sediment
Removal Trash Restroom
Maintained
Story City
Park Recreational Intermediate Story City
Within two
weeks of
high water
event
Weekly Weekly
Lekwa Recreational Intermediate Story County
Conservation
Within two
weeks of
high water
event
Twice per
month N/A
Andersen Recreational Intermediate Story County
Conservation
Within two
weeks of
high water
event
Twice per
month N/A
Sopers Mill Recreational Intermediate Story County
Conservation
Within two
weeks of
high water
event
Weekly N/A
North
Petersen
Park
Recreational Intermediate Story County
Conservation
two
weeks of
high water Weekly N/A
Sleepy
Hollow Recreational Intermediate Story County
Conservation
two
weeks of
high water Weekly N/A
River Valley
Park Recreational Intermediate City of Ames
two
weeks of
high water Weekly Weekly
South 16th
Street Recreational Intermediate City of Ames
two
weeks of
high water Weekly N/A
265th Street Recreational Intermediate Story County
Conservation
two
weeks of
high water
Twice per
month N/A
Askew
Bridge Recreational Intermediate Story County
Conservation
Within two
weeks of
high water
event
Twice per
month N/A
C.J. Shrek Recreational Intermediate Story County
Conservation
Within two
weeks of
high water
event
Twice per
month N/A
Page4
III. WATER TRAIL SIGNAGE RESPONSIBILITIES
(See Addendum A for maps)
For All Signs:
1. Iowa DNR
a) Purchases all initial and replacements.
b) Conducts baseline inventory after initial installation.
2. Story County Conservation Board
a) Inspects twice annually to check for missing or damaged.
b) Sends inspection reports to Iowa DNR twice annually.
c) Ensures brush, tree branches or other items don’t impede visibility.
Road and Access Signs:
Access 246 Signs, Story City Park Access (Addendum A - page 2):
1. Iowa DOT
a) Installs initial and replacement large paddler, access number, and large
arrow signs with text “2 MI” at two locations on US Highway 69, one set
north and one set south of 115th St. directing traffic to access.
2. City of Story City
a) Installs initial and replacement large paddler, brown access number, and
large arrow signs at two locations on Broad St, one east and one west of
access entrance, directing traffic to access.
b) Installs replacement access signs at access: water trail name, distance to
next access, water trail rules, and accessible parking.
Access 242 Signs, Lekwa Access (Addendum A - Page 3):
1. Iowa DOT
a) Installs initial and replacement county arrowhead reading “Story County, 2
MILES, Lekwa Access” and large paddler signs at two locations on US
Highway 69, one north and one south of 130th St. directing traffic to
access.
2. Story County Engineer
a) Installs initial and replacement large paddler, brown access number, and
large brown arrow signs at two locations on 130th St., one set east and
one set west of the river directing traffic to access.
3. Story County Conservation Board
Page5
a) Installs replacement access signs at access: water trail name, distance to
next access, water trail rules, blue access number, and accessible
parking.
Access 239 Signs, Anderson Access (Addendum A - Page 4):
1. Iowa DOT
a) Installs initial and replacement county arrowhead reading “Story County, 3
MILES, Anderson Access” and large paddler signs at two locations on US
Highway 69, one set north and one set south of 150th St. directing traffic to
access.
2. Story County Engineer
a) Installs initial and replacement large paddler, brown access number, and
large brown arrow signs at two locations on 150th St., one set east and
one set west of the river directing traffic to access.
3. Story County Conservation Board
a) Installs replacement access signs at access: water trail name, distance to
next access, water trail rules, blue access number, and accessible
parking.
Access 235 Signs, Soper’s Mill Access (Addendum A - Page 5)
1. Iowa DOT
a) Installs initial and replacement county arrowhead reading “Story County, 3
MILES, Soper’s Mill Access” and large paddler signs at two locations on
US Highway 69, one set north and one set south of 170th St. directing
traffic to access.
2. Story County Conservation Board
a) Installs replacement access signs at access: water trail name, distance to
next access, water trail rules, blue access number, and accessible
parking.
3. Story County Engineer
a) Installs initial and replacement large paddler, brown access number, and
large brown arrow signs at two locations on 170th St., one set east and
one set west of the access road directing traffic to access.
Access 234 Signs, North Peterson Park (Addendum A - Page 6)
1. Iowa DOT
a) Installs initial and replacement county arrowhead reading “Story County, 2
MILES, Peterson Access” and large paddler signs at two locations on US
Page6
Highway 69, one set north and one set south of 180th St, directing traffic
east to access.
2. Story County Engineer
a) Installs initial and replacement large paddler, brown access number, and
large brown arrow signs at one location on 180th St. east of the river
directing west bound traffic north to the access.
b) Installs initial and replacement large paddler and large arrow signs at one
location on 180th St., west of Templeton Rd, directing east bound traffic
north to the access.
c) Installs initial and replacement large paddler, access number and large
brown arrow signs at one location on Templeton Rd, just north of the
access directing southbound traffic to the access.
3. Story County Conservation Board
a) Installs replacement access signs at access: water trail name, distance to
next access, water trail rules, blue access number, and accessible
parking.
Access 230 Signs, Sleepy Hollow Access (Addendum A - Page 7)
1. Iowa DOT
a) Installs initial and replacement large paddler and large brown arrow signs
at two locations on US Highway 69, one set north and one set south of
Riverside Rd. directing traffic east to access.
2. Story County Engineer
a) Installs initial and replacement large paddler, brown access number, and
large brown arrow signs at two locations on Riverside Rd, one set north
and one set south of access road directing traffic to access.
3. Story County Conservation Board
a) Installs replacement access signs at access: water trail name, distance to
next access, water trail rules, blue access number, and accessible
parking.
Access 227 Signs, River Valley Park Access (Addendum A - Page 8)
1. City of Ames
a) Installs initial and replacement large paddler, brown access number, and
large brown arrow signs at two locations on 13th St, one set east and one
set west of the entrance to River Valley Park directing traffic to access.
b) Installs replacement access signs at access: water trail name, distance to
next access, water trail rules, blue access number, portage trail, and
accessible parking.
Page7
Access 224 Signs, SE 16th St. Access (Addendum A - Page 9)
1. City of Ames
a) Installs initial and replacement large paddler, brown access number, and
large brown arrow signs at two locations on 16th St, one set east and one
set west of entrance to the access directing traffic to access.
b) Installs replacement access signs at access: water trail name, distance to
next access, water trail rules, blue access number, and accessible
parking.
Access 220 Signs, 265th St. Access (Addendum A - Page 10)
1. Iowa DOT
a) Installs initial and replacement large paddler and county arrowhead signs
reading “Story County, 2 MILES, 265th Street Access” at two locations on
US Highway 69, one set north and one set south of 265th St directing
traffic east to access.
2. Story County Engineer
a) Installs initial and replacement large paddler, brown access number, and
large brown arrow signs at two locations on 265th St, one set east and one
set west of the entrance to the access directing traffic to access.
b) Installs initial and replacement large paddler and county arrowhead signs
reading “Story County, 2 MILES, 265th Street Access” at two locations on
580th Ave, one set north and one set south of 260th St directing traffic west
to access.
3. Story County Conservation Board
a) Installs replacement access signs at access: water trail name, distance to
next access, water trail rules, blue access number, and accessible
parking.
Access 217 Signs, Askew Bridge Access (Addendum A - Page 11)
1. Story County Conservation Board
a) Installs initial and replacement access signs at access: water trail name,
distance to next access, water trail rules, blue access number, and
accessible parking.
2. Story County Engineer
a) Installs initial and replacement large paddler, brown access number, and
brown arrow signs at two locations on 290th St., one set west and one set
east of access road directing traffic to access.
b) Installs initial and replacement county arrowhead reading, “Story County,
Askew Bridge Access,” and large paddler signs at two locations on 560th
Page8
Ave, one set north and one set south of 290th St. directing traffic to
access.
Access 212 Signs, C.J. Shreck Access (Addendum A - Page 12)
1. Story County Conservation Board
a) Installs replacement access signs at access: water trail name, distance to
next access, water trail rules, blue access number, and accessible
parking.
2. Iowa DOT
a) Installs initial and replacement large paddler, brown access number, and
large brown arrow signs at two locations on state highway 210, one set
east and one set west of the river directing traffic to access.
Bridge Signs (Addendum A - Pages 13-15):
1. Story County Engineer
a) Installs initial and replacement bridge signs at 130th St.
b) Installs initial and replacement bridge signs at 150th St.
c) Installs initial and replacement bridge signs at 170th St.
d) Installs initial and replacement bridge signs at 180th St.
e) Installs initial and replacement bridge signs at Riverside Rd.
f) Installs initial and replacement bridge signs at 265th St.
g) Installs initial and replacement bridge signs at 280th St.
h) Installs initial and replacement bridge signs at 580th Ave.
i) Installs initial and replacement bridge signs at 595th Ave
j) Installs initial and replacement bridge signs at 320th St
2. City of Ames
a) Installs initial and replacement bridge signs at E 13th St
b) Installs initial and replacement bridge signs at Lincoln Way
c) Installs initial and replacement bridge signs at South 16th St
3. Iowa DOT
d) Installs initial and replacement bridge signs at US Highway 30
e) Installs initial and replacement bridge signs at I-35
Dam and Rapids Warning Signs
1. City of Story City
A. Installs replacement rapids warning signs above Story City Rapids
2. Story County Conservation Board
A. Installs replacement rapids warning signs above Soper’s Mill Rapids
Page9
B. Installs replacement dam warning signs above Hannum’s Mill Dam
3. City of Ames
A. Installs replacement rapids warning signs above River Valley Park
IV. Signatures
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Name: John Wenck __________ Position: Water Trails Coordinator
Signature_____________________________________ Date: ___________
Page
10
Water Trail Sponsor: Story County Conservation Board
Name: ____ _________ Position:__ _________________
Signature____________________________________ Date: ___________
Page
11
Water Trail Partner: Story City, Iowa
Name: ________________________ Position:______________________
Signature_____________________________________ Date: ___________
Page
12
Water Trail Partner: Story County, Iowa
Name: ________________________ Position:______________________
Signature_____________________________________ Date: ___________
Page
13
Water Trail Partner: City of Ames
Name: ________________________ Position:______________________
Signature_____________________________________ Date: ___________
Addendum A
ITEM # __15___
DATE: 01-11-22
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: SOUTH DUFF AVENUE AND SOUTH 16TH STREET IMPROVEMENTS
BACKGROUND:
This project at S. Duff Ave. and S 16th St is one of the phases associated the extension
of S. Grand Avenue. The projects were broken into three phases to allow for flexibility in
timing of construction and funding. The phases are:
1) S. 5th St. extension and the portion of S Grand Ave from Squaw Creek Drive (the
existing dead end) to S 5th St. (Completed)
2) S. Grand Ave. South of S 5th Street (this portion includes two bridges to
accommodate Squaw Creek under the roadway). (Substantially Complete)
3) Reconstruction and widening additional turn lanes at S. Duff Ave. and S. 16th St.
(This project)
Work includes turn lane and traffic signal improvements at S 16th Street/S Duff
Avenue and infill of sidewalk along the south side of S 16th Street from S Grand
Ave to just west of Menards.
Shive-Hattery, Inc. and City staff have completed plans and specifications with estimated
construction costs of $3,835,811.40. Engineering and construction administration costs
for this project are estimated at $383,581, bringing total estimated costs for this project
to $4,219,392.40. A summary of funding sources and projected expenses is below.
Activity Expenses Funding Source
S 16th St/S Duff Improvements (Estimated) $3,835,811.40
TOTAL $18,989,181.82 $19,871,485
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve plans and specifications for the South Duff Avenue and South 16th Street
Improvements project by establishing February 16, 2022, as the date of letting and
February 22, 2022, as the date for report of bids.
2. Do not approve this project.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approval of the plans and specifications is a step forward with a project that will lower
street maintenance costs, improve area drainage, and provide a better traffic flow at the
intersection of S Duff Ave and S 16th St.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1, as described above.
1
ITEM # __16___
DATE 01/11/22
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: REQUEST TO WAIVE FORMAL BIDDING REQUIREMENTS
AND AUTHORIZE PURCHASE OF BLACK BOX NETWORK
SERVICES 12-MONTH COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE PLAN
BACKGROUND:
Black Box Network Services (Black Box) is the City's integrated voice applications vendor.
The City contracts with Black Box on an annual basis for Unify hardware and software
voice maintenance services. Black Box Network Services is the sole provider of
maintenance for Unify voice applications in Iowa.
In August 2016, the City purchased its current telephone system, OpenScape 4000, at a
cost of $417,407.67. This system was implemented in November 2016. To maintain the
support and maintenance of the system, a service agreement is required. It is important
to understand that all service agreements for the phone and voicemail systems are a sole
source purchase.
Included in this support and maintenance agreement is 24-hour on site hardware support,
software support, remote system monitoring, software upgrades, and phone system
changes for the voice, voice messaging, automatic call distribution and automated
attendant applications throughout the year.
Black Box proposed annual support and maintenance agreement for the period of
January 1, 2022 to December 31, 2022, in the amount of $55,107.77, as compared
to a cost of $54,797.20 for the previous year. The approved budget includes $55,892
for this service. Approval of this proposal will facilitate the manufacturer’s support for
both software and hardware for the phone and voicemail systems for the City.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Waive formal bidding requirements and authorize City staff to enter into 12-
month hardware and software voice and phone support and maintenance
agreement with Norstan Communications, Inc. d/b/a Black Box Network
Services, Maple Grove, MN in the amount of $55,107.77.
2. Deny approval of a 12-month hardware and software voice maintenance
agreement with Black Box Network Services and refer back to staff.
2
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Black Box Network Services is the sole provider of maintenance for Unify voice
applications in Iowa, which is the City’s current system. The agreement includes 24-hour
on site hardware support, software support, remote system monitoring, software
upgrades, and phone system changes for the voice, voice messaging, automatic call
distribution and automated attendant applications throughout the year.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1.
ITEM # ___17__
DATE: 1-11-22_
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: CHANGE ORDER #1 TO STI CEMS SERVICES, LLC
BACKGROUND:
The Power Plant operates two steam-generating boilers, Unit 7 and Unit 8, through a Title
V Operating permit issued by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. The Operating
permit requires the two units to be monitored by a Continuous Emission Monitoring
System (CEMS), analyzing certain emission gases before they exit either exhaust stack.
Once the data is collected by the CEMS, it is then assembled into reports that must be
submitted to the state and federal government at different intervals throughout the year.
These processes are typically maintained and performed by the Power Plant
Environmental Instrument and Control (I&C) Technician. However, the Environmental
I&C Technician position was vacant from June 2021 until December 2021. Therefore,
staff contracted with STI CEMS Services LLC to prepare the required reports.
A contract with STI CEMS Services LLC was awarded in June 2021 for $47,310.00 plus
$1,173.20 tax. STI provided monthly maintenance visits and a 24-hour monitoring service
called PASS. The service contract with STI ended in December 2021.
A Power Plant Environmental I&C Technician has been hired, who will ultimately begin
producing the monitoring reports. However, staff desires to extend the contract with
STI to allow time for the Environmental I&C Technician to be trained. Therefore, the
action being requested is to approve Change Order No. 1 to continue performing
monthly maintenance visits and continue the PASS service for an additional six
months. As STI performs these services, they will work directly with the
Environmental Technician, which will aid in training. This change order will add an
additional $47,310 plus $1,173.20 tax. This will bring the total contract amount to
$96,966.40.
The funds budgeted for the maintenance of environmental equipment during the FY
2021/22 budget period have been exhausted. The additional $48,483.20 will come from
the training account in the Power Plant budget, since these services will mostly be used
for training the recently hired technician.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve contract Change Order No. 1 with STI CEMS Services, LLC, Waldron,
Arkansas, for the amount of $48,483.20 (inclusive of sales tax)
2. Do not approve the change order.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Maintaining the CEMS equipment is a requirement of the Power Plant Title V operating
permit. Keeping up with the maintenance of equipment and having the expertise to
respond quickly and effectively to equipment malfunction is very important
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative #1 as stated above.
ITEM # ___18___
DATE: 01-11-22_
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: CHANGE ORDER #1 TO VIM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
BACKGROUND:
The Power Plant is allowed to operate both steam generating boilers, Unit 7 and Unit 8,
through a Title V Operating permit issued by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources.
The Operating permit requires, among other items, the two units to be monitored by a
Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS), analyzing certain emission gasses before
it exits either exhaust stack. Once the data is collected by the CEMS, it is then used to
assemble required reporting due to the state which must be submitted at different intervals
throughout the year. These processes are most often maintained and performed by the
Power Plant Environmental Instrument and Control (I&C) Technician. The Environmental
I&C Technician position was vacant from June 2021 until December 2021 providing the need
for support services from VIM Technologies Inc.
A contract with VIM Technologies Inc in the amount of $43,900 written in June of 2021 was
to provide monthly site visits, weekly data review, and the maintenance of the Data
Acquisition and Handling System (DAHS). VIM Technologies also provided their COMPAS
service package, assembling all environmentally regulated reports required on a quarterly,
semi-annual, and annual basis. This contract was complete in December of 2021.
The action being requested is to approve Change Order No. 1 to extend the VIM
Technologies COMPAS support service for an additional 6 months and also provide
training sessions for the recently hired Environmental I&C Technician. This change
order will add an additional $24,200. This will bring the total contract amount to
$68,100.
The FY 2021/22 Power Plant Environmental Equipment Maintenance account had $78,000
budgeted for these types of services. The additional $24,200 for this change order will come
from this account.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve contract Change Order No. 1 with VIM Technologies, Inc., of Glen Burnie,
Maryland, for the amount of $24,200.
2. Do not approve the change order and direct staff to operate the CEMS with limited
understanding of the data collection and report submission.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Correctly handling the CEMS data and submitting correct and timely reports to the state and
federal government is very important and a high priority. Therefore, it is the recommendation
of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative #1 as stated above.
ITEM # 19
DATE: 01-11-22
COMMISSION ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: ACCESSIBLE KAYAK LAUNCH CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
BACKGROUND:
At the August 24, 2021 Council Meeting, City Council approved the waiver of the City’s
Purchasing Policies and Procedures as a sole source for the purchase of a BoardSafe
Adaptive Kayak Launch to be installed at Ada Hayden Heritage Park. Also approved as
part of the project was to award a contract to Northeast Products and Services of
Fleetwood, Pennsylvania, to purchase a BoardSafe Accessible Kayak Launch in the
amount of $54,850. The quote included a kayak launch system with a 20-foot-long
gangway. The 20-foot length of the gangway is sufficient based on the 20-year average
lake level elevation at Ada Hayden Heritage Park and would be compliant with the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). However, due to the lack of rainfall over the
last two years, the lake level at Ada Hayden Heritage Park during summer months
has dropped to its lowest level since the park opened. For example, if the Adaptive
Kayak Launch with a 20-foot-long gangway had been installed prior to this past
summer, with the low lake elevations, it would have had to be closed because the
slope of the gangway would not be ADA compliant.
In response to the situation highlighted above, Staff reevaluated the gangway
length and is now proposing to purchase a 36-foot-long gangway to ensure
individuals will still be able to utilize the Adaptive Kayak Launch and be ADA
compliant during seasons of below average lake levels. Staff has also met with
representatives of the Access Ada Hayden and they approve of the longer
gangway.
The cost of the 36-foot-long gangway is an additional $16,431 increasing the total
cost of the Adaptive Kayak Launch to $71,281. Staff also made the determination
to not utilize the On-Site Installation Supervision ($4,750) that was part of the
original quote, thus reducing the final cost of the launch to $66,531. Since the final
cost of the launch exceeds the 20 percent threshold for staff to approve changes, City
Council approval is required for this change order. The project cost estimate is shown
below:
Estimate: Amount
Accessible Kayak Launch $54,850
Change Order #1 (To increase from 20’ to 36’ gangway) $11,681
Site Work $14,920
Contingency (10% of site work) $ 1,492
Engineering Services $11,500
Total Project Estimate $94,443
Total funding available for the project is $96,164.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $11,681 to Northeast Products
and Services, Fleetwood, Pennsylvania for the Accessible Kayak Launch to be
installed at Ada Hayden Heritage Park to allow for the acquisition of a 36’
gangway.
2. Do not approve Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $11,681 to Northeast
Products and Services, Fleetwood, Pennsylvania for the Accessible Kayak
Launch to be installed at Ada Hayden Heritage Park and move ahead with a 20’
gangway.
3. Refer back to staff for further information and review.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The goal of this project is to ensure that all individuals who desire to operate a kayak or
canoe on the lake at Ada Hayden Heritage Park can do so with this accessible launch.
With the low lake levels over the past two summers, it is important that this system is
compliant within ADA regulations. Purchasing a 36 foot-long-gangway accommodates a
wider range of lake level elevations that ensures compliance with ADA regulations.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1 as stated above.
1
ITEM # ____20___
Staff Report
NEIGHBORHOOD REQUEST TO INITIATE REZONING OF PROPERTIES ON THE
WEST SIDE OF GROVE AVE FROM ‘RH’ TO ‘RM’
January11, 2022
BACKGROUND
City Council received a request from Northwood/Overland Heights Neighborhood
Association (see letter date October 18, 2021, Attachment A) asking the City Council to
consider initiating rezoning of properties along the west side of Grove Avenue from ‘RH’
Residential High-Density Zone to ‘RM’ Residential Medium Density Zone (see current
Zoning Map excerpt, Attachment B). Previously a similar request was received from a
single homeowner, Robert Long, on April 13, 2021, and an accompanying background
memo from staff was prepared at City Councils’ request. However, City Council took no
action at that time as it was viewed as a singular interest of one property owner. City
Council referred the Neighborhood Association request to staff on October 26, 2021, to
be put on a future agenda for discussion by the City Council.
The Neighborhood Association believes rezoning to a less intensive zone (from RH to
RM) would continue to allow compatible residential uses, such as those currently existing.
The Neighborhood Association wishes to prevent commercial redevelopment within this
block, believing access internal to the neighborhood (from Northwood, Grove, or Duff)
would be harmful to the neighborhood. The existing RH zoning allows mixed use
commercial uses as has occurred at the corner of Northwood and Grand Avenue.
Redevelopment of land into an exclusively commercial use would require a change of
land use and rezoning. City Council declined to initiate a request to change to highway
oriented commercial in 2018.
An analysis of the block indicates that on the west side of the block that is zoned RH there
are 25 dwelling units on 8 individual properties. The uses consist of low to medium
residential intensities, including single-family homes, duplexes, and apartment buildings
of eight units or less. All of the buildings are no greater in height than 3 stories.
Residences on the east side of Grove are zoned R-L and are predominantly single-family
homes (see Attachment C, Aerial of Grove Avenue Area).
At the time of development (1955 – 1972), the zoning district was ‘R-3’ Medium-Density
Zoning, which appears to have been consistent with the land use designation of the time.
The 1997 LUPP changed the area to RH, with the area being rezoned to RH as part of
the city-wide rezoning action in 2000, thus aligning with the 1997 LUPP.
All of the current uses of property are permissible within RM zoning compared to RH
zoning. Notable differences between RH and RM zoning districts are:
• Use allowance for Commercial Mixed Use in ‘RH’ (up to 5,000 square feet staff
approval, exceed 5,000 square feet requires City Council approval);
• Height allowance for 100 feet or 9 stories in ‘RH’. ‘RM’ allows for 50 feet or 4
stories; and
• Density allowance for up 38.56 dwelling units per net acre in ‘RH’. ‘RM’ allows for
up to 22.31 dwelling units per net acre.
There are currently 25 units in this area. The theoretical density for the RH zoned area
when totaling up each existing lot’s development potential is 88 units compared to a
theoretical density of 56 units as RM zoning. These calculations to do not account for
actual site conditions affecting building setbacks and parking requirements based upon
apartment bedroom counts which would likely reduce actual yield.
AMES PLAN 2040 REDIRECTION AREA DESIGNATION:
In the last few years, the Northwood/Overland Heights Neighborhood Association has
seen redevelopment interest in this area. A mixed-use commercial use on the north side
of Northwood Drive and Grand Avenue, has recently developed at the former Mary Kay’s
Café and Flower Shop site. In 2018, a commercial use change and rezoning request for
a Sherwin Williams store at 3115 & 3125 Grove Avenue was declined to be initiated by
City Council.
The recently adopted Ames Plan 2040 Future Land Use Map indicates this block as
“Redirection” (see Ames Plan 2040 (excerpt), Attachment D). The Redirection
designation was assigned to the area based upon the existing conditions of the area as
well as the recent redevelopment interest in the area. Staff believes this issue is a good
first example for dealing with redirection areas and discussing the various policies that
would apply.
Ames Plan 2040 describes Redirection areas are those “areas anticipated to have a
change in use or development pattern over the next 20 years to increase both the
efficiency and quality of Ames’ urban environment. Infill development may change the
types and intensities of land use and introduce new building forms. In some cases,
specific plans or zoning may be applied to provide direction for specific types of changes
and to address issues of compatibility and transition.”…
Redirection areas require an “assessment of community needs and character of the
surrounding area to guide planning and policy decisions on specific changes.” [G-3. p.31]
“Make smooth transitions in scale and intensity of use from pre-existing context to higher
intensity development. Support high-density redevelopment only in planned or targeted
land use redirection areas. Use prevailing density as the guide for redevelopment, but
allow for building variations to meet infill objectives.” [G3-3. p.33]
It should be noted that the Redirection Area designation as written within Plan 2040
has no direct effect on the current zoning of the property as the designation is
designed for study purposes. Changes to land use or zoning is necessary to
“redirect” a site from its current zoning.
PREVAILING CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
Access to the properties from Grand Avenue is not available. Grand Avenue is a restricted
access arterial roadway and a state highway subject to IDOT jurisdiction. This means that
side street access is required for these properties. The CyRide Brown Route travels on
Grand Avenue as well, with a stop at Northwood/Grand Avenue intersection at the north
end of the subject area and a stop at Duff/Grand Avenue at the south end of the subject
area.
The block itself currently has a slightly higher intensity of use, than the neighborhood. The
block includes a mix of low to medium residential intensities, including single-family
homes, duplexes, and apartment buildings of eight units or less, with buildings at heights
no greater than 3-stories. Buildings line the street with similar setbacks. Parking for more
intensive uses are located behind or to the side of buildings. The street frontage along
Grove is a primary concern with any redevelopment.
If prevailing density is the guide for redevelopment of this block, then RM could be
considered appropriate. However, Action 3 of the Neighborhoods, Housing & Subareas
Element states, “Create infill and development standards for compatibility in residential
areas and transition areas focused on design over density.”
The primary question for the Redirection Area for this situation is whether the
existing higher infill density potential is the higher priority compared to a change
for more moderate redevelopment options with the neighborhood’s primary goal
to limit commercial uses?
OPTIONS:
Option 1- Initiate Rezone to RM Zoning with Owner Meeting
This option supports the Neighborhood Association’s request for the City to proceed with
the rezoning process for the Grove Avenue block from RH to RM. Rezoning to RM would
not cause any of the existing uses to become non-conforming. Should redevelopment
occur, uses would remain similar to current uses. Building height could not exceed 4
stories or 50 feet. However, under a typical rezoning, no other qualities of neighborhood
character and compatibility would be required to be addressed that are not part of the
City’s zoning ordinance standards.
Staff inventoried all of the properties to estimate each existing lots development potential.
All property owners, with the exception of the 5-unit apartments at Duff and Grand
Avenue, could add, at least, one additional unit if the site was redeveloped subject to
complying with development standards. The primary opportunities to gain dwelling units
would be the redevelopment of the single-family home properties to apartments. Overall
redevelopment potential for all lots in total is approximately 30 units less than
under RH zoning, and no mixed-use commercial is permitted.
Neither RH or RM zoning have any specific design requirements to architecture or
relationship to streets beyond setback standards. The rezoning of the site to RM reduces
potential degree of change, but does not directly ensure compatible design features for
the area.
At this time no property owners of the RH zoned property have been involved in
the discussion of the request. An outreach meeting to property owners about their
interests would be advisable before progressing to a public hearing on a rezoning
with the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council.
The projected timeframe for this option would likely be approximately three to four months
to meet with owners and to complete the rezoning public hearing process for a City
Council decision on rezoning.
Option 2- Retain the RH Zoning
This option retains the current zoning and makes no changes to current allowances.
Although the previous zoning was Medium Density Residential, the existing zoning has
been in place for more than 20 years. Under current zoning some redevelopment potential
exists for all the property owners, with consolidation of properties more intense
redevelopment could occur. Conceivably a limited amount of mixed-use development is
also an option.
From the perspective of commercial mixed-use development, the most likely marketable
scenario would be the redevelopment of the properties at Northwood and Grand Avenue,
across from the former Mary Kay location, due to easier access that the other properties.
No access would be permitted from Grand Avenue.
The subject properties may be desirable for acquisition and redevelopment since there is
limited to no vacant ‘RH’ zoned land available in the City. Unfortunately, RH has no
specific design standards to guide contextual redevelopment and design and future
intensification may not be well received in the area.
Option 3- Zoning Text Amendment to RH but limit Mixed Uses
RH allows for commercial uses within a mixed-use building design. This option has rarely
been used, but as seen on the former Mary Kays site, it can be a desirable option on the
right site. The allowance for commercial could be modified within the zoning ordinance
standards in terms of square footage or permitting process, but leave the other residential
uses and development standards as is. This type of change would apply citywide.
Staff believes allowing for mixed use in RH is a reasonable use allowance throughout the
City. If a text amendment is initiated then staff believes addressing the permitting and
design process for commercial would be better choice than eliminating the option for
mixed use within all RH zoning districts.
This option would likely take a minimal amount of effort to amend the text of the Zoning
Ordinance and would not involve public outreach due to the narrow scope of the change.
Option 4- Create a Redirection Overlay with Design Standards for the Block
Due to the newness of Ames Plan 2040, its full implementation in terms of Zoning
Ordinance changes has not yet occurred. A point of emphasis within the Plan is for infill
and intensification to work well within the community, more attention to design
requirements and neighborhood context is desirable compared to current standards.
Development of Infill and Development Standards for compatibility with the
Northwood/Overland Heights neighborhood could be codified as design standards
for a new Overlay Zone for the block. Currently, there are two other examples of small
overlay areas in the Zoning Ordinance: ‘O-LMU’ Lincoln Way Mixed Use Overlay and ‘O-
SLF’ South Lincoln Fringe Overlay. A broader area example is the Single-Family
Conservation overlay for RM properties near Downtown.
This option would likely work best with a relatively generic design overlay so it could be
used in multiple locations of the city where redevelopment or infill is desirable. If this
proves to be unworkable due to different objectives and characteristics across the city,
smaller overlay zones could be adopted for areas such as Grove Avenue.
Although the area has seen some interest in redevelopment, it is not clear whether the
creation of an Overlay would incentivize redevelopment or hinder it. The overlay could be
applied to either RH or RM as a base zone. The overlay could satisfy compliance with the
redirection policies of the Ames Plan 2040 and create clarity for both residents and future
developers.
Depending on scope as a city-wide tool or a Grove Avenue specific zoning, this option
would involve the most time. This option fits within the general outline of Implementation
priorities of Ames Plan 2040, but City Council has not yet prioritized which Zoning
Ordinance Updates to address first. City Council will consider its work plan priorities for
Planning and Housing and Plan 2040 implementation in the next 4-6 weeks.
STAFF COMMENTS:
For City Council to select an option related to this area it must first answer the
question of its priority in promoting intensification with the current RH zoning or
to allow for more moderate intensification options with RM zoning. The change of
zoning to RM also eliminates the potential for commercial on the properties as mixed use
development. For staff, the issue of residential density and design are the primary
policy issues for this area rather than supporting commercial use. Commercial uses
are not a specific use targeted for this area and staff has no concerns about limiting
commercial use for the area. The issue of RH or RM zoning for intensity of use is really
driven by priorities of competing interests of the City as described in relation to Redirection
Areas.
The issue of design compatibility would seem to apply regardless of RH or RM zoning.
However, RM zoning has less extreme height and density allowances that ameliorate
potentially bulk issues of site and building design. Neither zoning district addresses
architectural design features. Overall staff supports the creation of design standards
in support of the prevailing neighborhood characteristics of the Grove Avenue
block in some manner as outlined as part of Option 4. Option 4 could be directed by
Council to apply only to this area, or for it to be part of a wider city infill design policy as
an implementation measures of Plan 2040. The staff effort to accomplish this option
would need to be prioritized in the Department’s work plan.
Attachment A
Neighborhood Association’s Letter
Attachment B
Current Zoning Map (excerpt)
Attachment C
Aerial of Grove Avenue Area
Attachment D
Ames Plan 2040 (excerpt)
ITEM #: _21 _
DATE: 01-11-22
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: REZONE OF 23959 580TH AVENUE FROM “A” (AGRICULTURAL) TO
“II” (INTENSIVE INDUSTRIAL) ZONING DISTRICT
BACKGROUND:
The proposed rezoning includes one parcel, totaling 23.21 acres, addressed as 23959
580th Avenue. This property was annexed into the City in the summer of 2021. At the time
of annexation, the subject property was assigned an “A” Agricultural zoning classification.
The property has retained the “A” Agricultural zoning since that time. The site was
previously developed in the county and is commonly referred to as the Caremoli (former)
site. A map of the subject property with its zoning and the zoning of adjacent properties
is included as Attachment A.
When the property was acquired by the current owner, it was located in the county.
Through the approval of a Fringe Plan Amendment from Agricultural to Planned Industrial
in July of 2020, the property was able to be annexed. (Attachment B-Land Use
Designation) Subsequently, Ames Plan 2040 was approved and the designation for this
area is “Employment”, which supports industrial zoning districts including the proposed
Intensive Industrial “II” zoning district. Rezoning this property to “II” Intensive
Industrial will provide reuse of the property and its existing buildings.
In should be noted that staff discovered the recently approved Future Land Use Map of
Plan 2040 did not include the updated City boundary resulting form the annexation of this
property in 2021. The final map should have included the site as being within the City and
represented it as Employment as was done with all other Planned Industrial designation
in the City. Staff will update the city boundary file for the Plan 2040 future land use map
within GIS and include the area as Employment. No action is necessary by the City
Council to apply the updated city boundary to the Future Land Use Map as it is a
correction to a GIS data layer needed to comply with prior City Council approvals.
This property is currently developed and was formerly used as a food manufacturing
facility. No City utilities will immediately serve this site at this time. The existing structures
may be used and can continue to be used with rural water service. The site includes an
onsite water tank to assist in meeting fire protection requirements. The site is served by
an onsite sceptic system as well.
It should be emphasized that the use of the site will be subject to full compliance
with City building, fire, and zoning code requirements. The property owner will
need to rehabilitate the buildings and utility services in order to fully reuse the site.
The property currently maintains the Story County address. The address will be updated
to a City of Ames address on Teller Avenue when new tenant spaces are created and
permits are issues in order to set up an appropriate list of unit numbers.
Currently the site is accessed from 580th Avenue near the intersection with Highway 30.
Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT) plans to improve this intersection with a new
interchange. The north side of the property will have frontage along a new frontage road
constructed by IDOT. The proposed rezoning does not alter any plans for road
improvements in this area.
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this request on December 16, 2021 and
voted 4-0 to recommend the City Council approve the rezoning located at 23959 580th
Avenue from “A” Agricultural to “II” Intensive Industrial.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve on first reading the rezoning of the property located at 23959 580th Avenue
from “A” Agricultural to “II” Intensive Industrial.
2. Deny the rezoning of the property located at 23959 580th Avenue from “A” Agricultural
to “II” Intensive Industrial.
3. Defer action on this rezoning proposal and refer it back to City staff for additional
information.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The request for rezoning is consistent with Plan 2040 as described in the addendum.
Typically, use of a property within the City has full city utility services available to it for
development. With the unique situation of it already being a developed site and the
property owner’s understanding of the onsite rehabilitation needed for its reuse, staff
believes the site is able to meet City codes and allow for industrial uses at this time.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative #1, which is to rezone the property located at 23959 580th Avenue from
“A” Agricultural to “II” Intensive Industrial.
ADDENDUM
REZONING BACKGROUND:
This property is the former Caremoli site, a food manufacturing facility, developed in the
County. Properties to the north and west are undeveloped and part of 2021 annexation.
At the time of annexation, all of the annexed properties were assigned an “A” Agricultural
zoning. The subject property has remained as “A” Agricultural zoning since that time.
When the current owner acquired the property, it was a developed property within the
county. When working through the Fringe Plan Amendment and Annexation process with
the property, Staff directed them to apply to be rezoned to Intensive Industrial. II, is a
newly created Industrial zoning district within the city. Intensive Industrial was created to
be used for properties located within the adjacent Prairie View Industrial Center
development area.
AMES PLAN 2040. The site was designated as Planned Industrial at the time of its
annexation in 2021. With Ames Plan 2040, Planned Industrial was modified to
Employment as the land use designation, (see page 48 of Plan 2040), which supports
industrial zoning districts and this rezoning request to II, Intensive Industrial. Land Use
Principle LU5 (page 43) has a goal to provide employment for residents. The re-use of
this site and existing buildings provides that possibility to the residents of Ames.
Proposed Zoning. The subject properties are currently undeveloped. A request to “II”
(Intensive Industrial) is consistent with the proposed re-use of the property and existing
buildings. The II zoning district was specifically created in 2021 for the purpose of applying
it to land east of I-35 related to the Prairie View Industrial area.
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
North
East
South
West
Infrastructure
Impacts on infrastructure and City services for this parcel are consistent with what is
already anticipated for reuse of the property. No public utilities will serve this parcel and
will continue to use rural water and septic services. Based on the City’s Capital
Improvements Plan, there are plans for extension of water main along East Lincoln Way.
However, there are no plans to extend utilities down Teller Avenue or for the City to extend
utilities to this area in the near future. Any future extension of City utilities that the owner
chooses to connect to will be at the property owner’s expense.
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 Larson Leasing LC. The rezoning request and
statement of justification is included as Attachment C.
2. Ames Municipal Code Section 29.1507(1) allows the property owner to initiate an
amendment to the Official Zoning Map.
3. The subject properties are consistent with the designation of “Employment” identified
in the Ames Plan 2040.
4. Development in the II 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. Reuse of existing buildings is subject to building and
fire codes of the City of Ames.
5. Impacts on infrastructure and City services for this parcel is consistent with what is
already anticipated for the area and the near adjacent Prairie View Industrial Center.
Public Notice. The City provided mailed notice to all property owners within 200 feet of
the subject property prior to the meeting in accordance with the notification requirements
of Chapter 29.
ATTACHMENT A
Location & Zoning Map
ATTACHMENT B
LUPP Land Use Map
*Note that Planned Industrial was mapped as Employment within Plan 2040, but
the City boundary of the Plan 2040 map did not reflect this annexation. The GIS
city boundary layer will be corrected by staff for the Plan 2040 Future Land Use
Map.
LUPP Land Use
ATTACHMENT C
DO NOT WRITE IN THE SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE, RESERVED FOR RECORDER
Prepared by: 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.
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 23959 580th Avenue, is rezoned from Agricultural “A” to Intensive Industrial
“II”.
Real Estate Description:
LDY, LLC LEGAL – PARCELS 10-08-400-100 AND 10-08-400-220
ALL OF PARCELS 'A' AND 'F' IN THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF
SECTION 8-83-23, WEST OF THE 5TH P.M., STORY COUNTY, IOWA, BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE EAST QUARTER
CORNER OF SAID SECTION 8; THENCE S 00< 07' 32" E, A DISTANCE OF 544.59 FEET
ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST
QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 'F'; THENCE S 00< 07' 32" E, A DISTANCE OF 313.82 FEET
ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER
OF SAID SECTION 8, AND ALSO ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID PARCEL 'F';(THE
NEXT 4 CALLS ARE ALONG SOUTHERLY AND EASTERLY LINES OF SAID PARCEL 'F')
THENCE S 89<53’41” W, A DISTANCE OF 354.38 FEET; THENCE S 00< 07’11” E, A DISTANCE
OF 394.44 FEET; THENCE S 89< 32’ 59” W, A DISTANCE OF 95.65 FEET; THENCE S 00< 18’30”
E, A DISTANCE OF 74.31 FEET; THENCE S 89° 46' 27" W, A DISTANCE OF 2,226.37 FEET
ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF
SAID SECTION 8, AND ALSO ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID PARCELS 'F' AND 'A';
THENCE N 00° 11' 18" E, A DISTANCE OF 1,322.86 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8, AND
ALSO ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SA ID PARCEL 'A'; THENCE N 89° 41' 21" E, A
DISTANCE OF 1,334.48 FEET ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8, AND ALSO ALONG THE
NORTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL 'A'; THENCE S 00°01'17" W, A DISTANCE OF 544 .59 FEET
ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST
QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8, AND ALSO ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID PARCEL
'A'; THENCE N 89°41'21" E, A DISTANCE OF 1,335.88 FEET ALONG THE NORTH LINE
OF SAID PARCEL 'F' TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
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 _________________________, ______.
_____________________________________________________________________
Diane R. Voss, City Clerk John A. Haila, Mayor
2
Caring People Quality Programs Exceptional Service
515.239.5146 main
fax
50010
Legal Department
To: Mayor Haila, Ames City Council
From: Mark O. Lambert, City Attorney
Date: January 7, 2022
Subject: Lease of 205 S. Walnut to Heartland Senior Services
Legal staff is still working to finalize the lease agreement with Heartland Senior
Services for Heartland’s lease of the City’s property at 205 S. Walnut, and also needs
additional time for Heartland to review the lease agreement before the Council considers
it.
Therefore, staff is requesting that the public hearing be continued until the January 25,
2022 City Council Meeting.
#
Item No. 22
1
ITEM # ___23__
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: FUNDING AGREEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH STORY COUNTY
SATURATED BUFFER/BIOREACTOR PROJECT
BACKGROUND:
The Water Pollution Control (WPC) Facility is being converted to a nutrient removal
treatment technology over a period of 20 years. Separate from the work that will occur
inside the treatment plant, watershed-based improvements performed by the City can be
“banked” as credit toward any future, more stringent nutrient reduction regulations
imposed on the WPC Facility. On February 24, 2021, staff executed a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources to allow these off-
site nutrient reductions to be banked with the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Exchange.
Throughout this past year, staff has been in development of a partnership with multiple
entities to bundle together Edge-of-Field (EOF) practices that can be bid as a single bid
package. This project will construct 25-30 EOF practices in Story County, consisting of
both saturated buffers and bioreactors. These practices allow natural removal of nitrogen
from subsurface drainage before it enters a stream or other surface waters. Additional
information about these practices is shown below.
outlets drain. Tile lines connect to a control structure,
water drains into the buffer, the living roots of perennial
According to the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy, a
saturated buffe
woodchips where bacteria convert nitrogen in
tile water into nitrogen gas. According to the
nitrogen from water diverted through it.
2
The City of Ames will act as the fiscal agent for the proposed project. This will
include receiving funds from the different partners, procuring necessary temporary
easements, and then contracting for the work to be performed. The funding for this
project will consist of 75% from the Iowa Department of Agricultural and Land
Stewardship (IDALS) and 25% split between the City and Story County. The
estimated cost for the City’s share is $41,000 which will come from the Watershed
Based Nutrient Reduction capital improvements project. The project will involve 20
to 30 installations that will each treat tile drainage from fields that range in size
from 20 to 100 acres.
Two separate agreements have been developed to achieve the sharing of funds and
resources: one with IDALS and the Story County Soil & Water Conservation District
(SWCD) and a separate agreement with Story County/Story County Conservation. Both
IDALS and Story County will provide funding, while Story County SWCD will provide
resources to execute the individual maintenance agreements with each landowner. City
staff has coordinated with the Legal Department and each entity to review the
agreements. Both agreements (attached) have been finalized and are now ready for
approval by City Council.
With assistance from various entities, initial property owner meetings have been
completed, and final landowner meetings are anticipated to take place in the coming
months. Each landowner will be required to sign a 10-year maintenance agreement and
allow temporary access to their property during construction, which they will be
compensated for. Following landowner meetings, staff intends to bring preliminary plans
and specifications to City Council for approval and to issue a Notice to Bidders for
construction summer/fall 2022.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. A. Approve a 28E agreement for fiscal agent assistance with the Iowa
Department of Agricultural and Land Stewardship – Division of Soil
Conservation and Water Quality, City of Ames, and Story County Soil & Water
Conservation District.
B. Approve an agreement between Story County, Iowa, Story County
Conservation Board, and the City of Ames, for funding assistance for water
nutrient removal practices.
2. Do not approve either agreement. The City would not be eligible to receive nutrient
reduction credits for these specific projects.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The Ames Water Pollution Control Facility will be converted to a nutrient removal
treatment technology over a period of 20 years. To mitigate future investment beyond
what is already planned for, watershed-based projects can be performed, and the
3
resulting nutrient reduction credits can be banked. Following project completion, the City
will register each of these practices and receive annual nutrient reduction credit for the
lifespan of each practice.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1, as described above.
1
Preparer: Matt McDonald, Water Quality Initiative Projects Coordinator, PH: (515)-725-1037
Iowa Department of Agriculture & Land Stewardship
Henry A. Wallace Bldg., 502 E. 9th Street, Des Moines, IA 50319-0050
Return to: Matt McDonald, Iowa Department of Agriculture & Land Stewardship
Henry A. Wallace Bldg., 502 E. 9th Street, Des Moines, IA 50319-0050
28E AGREEMENT FOR FISCAL AGENT ASSISTANCE BETWEEN IOWA
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND LAND STEWARDSHIP – DIVISION OF
SOIL CONSERVATION AND WATER QUALITY; CITY OF AMES; AND STORY
COUNTY SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
FOR THE CENTRAL IOWA EDGE OF FIELD PROJECT
This 28E Agreement by and between the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship
– Division of Soil Conservation and Water Quality (hereinafter “DIVISION”) located at 502 East 9th
Street, Des Moines, Iowa 50319; the City of Ames, Iowa, (hereinafter “CITY”); and Story County
Soil and Water Conservation District (hereinafter “STORY SWCD”) located at 510 South 11th St.,
Nevada, IA, with the parties to this Agreement collectively referred to as “Parties” or “the
Parties”, becomes fully executed on the date signed by the DIVISION. This Agreement is entered
into pursuant to Chapter 28E of the Code of Iowa.
I. PURPOSE
This Agreement is entered into between the DIVISION, CITY, and the STORY SWCD for the
purpose of providing the terms under which the Parties agree to fund and manage the Story
County Edge-of-Field Project (hereinafter “PROJECT”). The PROJECT involves the
installation of nutrient reducing Edge of Field Practices (Saturated Buffers and/or
Bioreactors) to be constructed on private lands within priority watersheds. The CITY will
serve as the fiscal agent of the PROJECT and support a portion of the costs required to
facilitate the installation of these practices. The STORY SWCD will secure maintenance
agreements with participating landowners and provide technical assistance as specified
below. The DIVISION will support funding for eligible costs, as determined by the DIVISION,
and described in Article IX. The Parties do not intend to create a separate legal entity under
this Agreement.
2
II. TERM
This Agreement shall begin December 1, 2021, and be in effect until June 30, 2023, unless
terminated earlier pursuant to the provisions herein. The Agreement may be extended
by the written agreement of the Parties on terms stated therein.
III. ADMINISTRATION
This Agreement shall be administered by the DIVISION. All administrative decisions
concerning this Agreement shall be undertaken pursuant to the terms outlined below.
IV. HOLDING OF PROPERTY UNDER THIS AGREEMENT
This Agreement does not allow for any one of these entities to acquire or hold any
property relating to the PROJECT.
V. POWERS AND DUTIES
The Parties to this Agreement shall retain all powers and duties conferred by their
respective enabling acts but shall assist each other in the exercise of these powers and
the performance of these duties.
VI. DIVISION RESPONSIBILITIES
The DIVISION will:
A. Follow the procedures outlined in Article IX which will be used to determine the actual
eligible cost-share amount provided for this PROJECT.
B. Reimburse the CITY for agreed to project costs associated with a) practice engineering
costs and b) applicable construction costs upon receipt of claims for reimbursement. All
claims for reimbursement shall have supporting documentation, including designs and
construction progress reports, where applicable, in compliance with this Agreement. The
reimbursement will be determined by the procedures outlined in Article IX, and will not
exceed the as agreed state cost-share fund allocation based on the final estimated costs
for each project.
C. Provide support as necessary to the STORY SWCD to ensure the STORY SWCD secures
proper maintenance agreements with participating landowners for the installed
practices.
D. Send CITY reimbursement payments to the City of Ames Water and Pollution Control
Department, 1800 E. 13th Street, Ames, Iowa 50010.
3
VII. CITY RESPONSIBILITIES
The CITY will:
A. Follow the procedures outlined in Article IX which will be used to determine the actual
eligible cost-share amount provided for this PROJECT.
B. Act as the fiscal agent for the PROJECT. The duties of the fiscal agent will be to hire
consultant engineer, manage contract with consultant, and provide payments to
consultant.
C. Submit claims for reimbursement of engineering costs to the DIVISION. These claims will
be submitted utilizing a form provided by the DIVISION and will be accompanied by
engineering costs and supporting documentation as well as engineering progress
reports.
D. Provide the additional funding necessary to cover the total engineering costs and/or any
other additional costs associated with construction when used in conjunction with the
funding reimbursement provided by the DIVISION.
E. Coordinate with STORY SWCD of the practice sites prior to the start of construction to
execute individual maintenance agreements with the participating landowner(s).
Maintenance agreements will use the same format and follow the same procedures of
maintenance agreements developed for similar projects.
VIII. STORY SWCD RESPONSIBILITIES
The STORY SWCD with jurisdiction over the particular practice site will:
A. Execute an individual maintenance agreement with the appropriate landowner(s) prior to
the start of construction of the edge of field practice. Execution of individual maintenance
agreements between the STORY SWCD and landowner(s) shall be done for each practice
site within the STORY SWCD. All maintenance agreements are to be recorded within the
appropriate County where the practice is being installed.
B. Provide technical assistance during the practice design and installation process and
technical certification of practice upon completion of the practice in the respective
County.
IX. COST-SHARE AMOUNT PROCEDURES
The CITY and DIVISON will follow the following procedures to determine the actual state
cost share amount for the completion of the project.
4
A. The CITY and DIVISION will proceed with the understanding that the costs of
engineering for the PROJECT will be reimbursed by the DIVISION based on the mutually
determined eligible costs.
B. The CITY and DIVISION will proceed with the understanding that the costs of
construction for the PROJECT will be reimbursed by the DIVISION up to 75% of the total
eligible costs.
C. The CITY will forward to the DIVISION a copy of the designs completed for each project
that shall include the most current cost estimates. The DIVISION will review all estimates
and determine at that time if an adjustment of costs and/or scope and can be made based
on available funds.
D. The CITY will forward to the DIVISION a copy of the construction bid tabulation(s) as soon
as they are completed. The DIVISION will review the construction bid tabulation and may
use other cost information to determine the DIVISION’S approved eligible costs for
construction. The approved construction costs will be used by the DIVISION to establish
the amount of funding the DIVISION will provide as reimbursement to the CITY for the
construction of the edge of field practices. The DIVISION will provide funding to the CITY
in an amount as agreed to of the approved eligible construction costs. Should a dispute
arise between the CITY and the DIVISION relative to the DIVISION approved eligible
construction cost amounts this dispute must be resolved between the CITY and the
DIVISION prior to construction being started on any practice.
E. Revisions to the DIVISION approved eligible cost amounts may be submitted by the CITY
if unanticipated conditions are encountered that would influence the cost of the
construction or engineering. The COUNTY shall provide the proper documentation
supporting this revision in costs to the DIVISION. The DIVISION will provide a written
response to the CITY regarding whether they approve the proposed revision of the eligible
costs or not. If the DIVISION approves the revision, the DIVISION will then be responsible
for providing funding reimbursement to the CITY based on the agreed to revised eligible
construction or engineering costs. Should the DIVISION not agree to the revised eligible
costs submitted by the CITY, this dispute must be resolved between the CITY and the
DIVISION before the construction continues.
X. FINANCING
The DIVISION shall pay all costs associated with the administration of this Agreement,
except as provided in paragraph VII of this Agreement.
5
XI. AMENDMENT
This Agreement may be amended from time to time by written agreement of the Parties.
All amendments shall be in writing, signed by all Parties, and filed in an electronic format
with the Secretary of State as required by Iowa Code Section 28E.8(1)(b) (2020).
XII. TERMINATION
Any or all parties may terminate this Agreement at any time upon 120 days prior written
notice to the other parties. Upon termination of this Agreement, the Parties agree to
use their best efforts to wrap up all operations undertaken pursuant to this Agreement.
In the event of a conflict as to the distribution of funding associated with the
administration of this Agreement, such conflict shall be resolved between the parties by
arbitration paid for equally between the disputing parties.
XIII. NOTICES
Whenever notices and correspondence are to be given under this Agreement, the
notices shall be given by personal delivery to the other parties, or sent by mail, postage
prepaid, to the other parties as follows:
To the CITY To the DIVISION
City of Ames Division of Soil Conservation & Water
Water & Pollution Control Dept. Quality - IDALS
1800 E. 13th Street 502 E. 9th Street
Ames, IA 50010 Wallace State Office Building
Des Moines, IA 50319-0050
To the STORY SWCD
Story County Soil and Water Conservation District
510 South 11th Street
Nevada, IA 50201
XIV. APPLICABLE LAW
The laws of the State of Iowa shall govern and determine all matters arising out of or in
connection with this Contract without regard to the choice of law provisions of Iowa law.
6
In the event any proceeding of a quasi-judicial or judicial nature is commenced in
connection with this Contract, the exclusive jurisdiction for the proceeding shall be
brought in Story County District Court for the State of Iowa, Nevada, Iowa or in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, Central Division, Des
Moines, Iowa, wherever jurisdiction is appropriate.
XV. FILING AND RECORDING
It is agreed that the DIVISION will file this Agreement in an electronic format with the
Secretary of State as required by Iowa Code section 28E.8(1)(a) (2020).
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, and in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth herein and for
other good and valuable consideration, the receipt, adequacy, and legal sufficiency of which are
hereby acknowledged, the parties have entered into this 28E Agreement and have caused their
duly authorized representatives to execute this 28E Agreement.
[Remainder of page intentionally left blank. Signature pages follow]
7
DIVISION OF SOIL CONSERVATION AND WATER QUALITY
BY: DATE: __________________________
Julie Kenney, Deputy Secretary of Agriculture
Iowa Department of Agriculture & Land Stewardship
This instrument was acknowledged before
me on the day of ,
2022, by Julie Kenney, Deputy Secretary of
the Iowa Department of Agriculture & Land
Stewardship.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
8
CITY OF AMES, IOWA
IN WITNESS THEREOF, THE CITY OF AMES, IOWA has caused this 28E Agreement to be executed
on the _____ day of __________________, 2022.
By: ____________________________ Attest: ____________________________
John A. Haila, Mayor Diane Voss, City Clerk
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
COUNTY OF STORY )
On this _____ day of _____________________, 2022, before me, a Notary Public in and
for said County, personally appeared John A. Haila and Diane Voss to me personally known, and
who being duly sworn, did say that they are the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively of the City of
Ames, Iowa, created and existing under the laws of the State of Iowa, and that the seal affixed to
the foregoing instrument is the seal of said City, and that said instrument was signed and sealed
on behalf of said City by authority and resolution of its City Council as contained in Resolution
No.__________ adopted on ________________, 2022, and said Mayor and City Clerk
acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said City by it voluntarily executed.
_________________________________ Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
9
STORY COUNTY IOWA SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BY: DATE:
Chair
Story County Soil and Water Conservation District
This instrument was acknowledged before
me on the day of ,
2022, by ____________________, Chair of
the Story County Iowa Soil and Water
Conservation District
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
AGREEMENT BETWEEN STORY COUNTY, IOWA, STORY COUNTY CONSERVATION
BOARD, AND THE CITY OF AMES, IOWA FOR FUNDING ASSISTANCE FOR WATER
NUTRIENT REMOVAL PRACTICES
This Agreement is made and entered into by and between Story County, Iowa (County), Story
County Conservation Board (Board) and the City of Ames, Iowa (City), collectively (Parties). The
Agreement shall become effective upon acceptance by all parties.
PURPOSE AND NEED
The treatment of agricultural tile outlets to reduce nutrient runoff is a key priority of the County,
Watershed Management Authorities, City, and the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy. In an
effort to demonstrate new methods to work with private landowners using economies of scale
and scope, the Project has devised new methods to increase landowner adoption rates and
improve design, construction and other efficiencies by bundling service delivery for two specific
kinds of practices known as a saturated buffer and a bioreactor. Through the Project, funding
from the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship (IDALS), STORY SWCD, City,
Board, and the County will be pooled to install these tile treatment practices in groupings on
private property across Story County. To efficiently achieve the goals of the Project, a single
fiscal agent will coordinate funding, publicly bid projects, and manage payment of contractors.
The City is fiscal agent for the Project. This Agreement outlines the City’s obligations as Fiscal
Agent. Furthermore, this Agreement designates the County as a funding agent for the Project.
This Agreement covers practices that will be funded and bid in 2022 as part of the Project.
DUTIES OF THE PARTIES
DUTIES OF COUNTY:
1. County has funding for the implementation of priority projects within the Sugar Creek-
South Skunk River, Indian Creek, East Indian Creek, West Indian Creek, Keigley
Branch-South Skunk River, and Ioway Creek Watersheds. In exchange for the City
acting as the fiscal agent for the Project, County shall provide a portion of that funding to
the City for use in this Project. The funding to be dedicated to this Project in 2022 shall
be up to $41,000.00. This amount is payable by County to the City at the time the City
completes design and bidding for the Project.
DUTIES OF THE CITY:
In exchange for County providing up to $41,000.00 of funding to the City to be used for the
Project in 2022:
1. The City shall act as the fiscal agent for the Project. The duties of the fiscal agent shall
be to enter into agreements with eligible property owners to install Edge-of-Field
practices (saturated buffers/bioreactors) upon their land, bid and enter into agreements
with contactors to design and install the tile system improvements on the subject
properties, and manage the various funding sources for the Project.
2. The City shall dedicate the funding provided by the County for the Project to assist with
installation costs, temporary construction easements, easement payments and final
inspections upon completion of the work.
GENERAL
ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This Agreement contains the sole and entire Agreement between the
parties relating to the subject hereof, and any representation, promise, or condition not
contained herein, or any amendment hereto, shall not be binding on any party unless set forth in
a subsequent written agreement signed by all parties.
GOVERNING LAW: This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Iowa without
regard to conflicts of law principles or rules. Venue shall be in the appropriate Story County
District Court or the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. Whenever
possible, each provision of this Agreement shall be interpreted in such manner as to be effective
and valid under applicable law, but if any provision hereof shall be prohibited by or invalid under
applicable law, such provision shall be ineffective to the extent of such prohibition or invalidity,
without invalidating the remainder of such provision or the remaining provisions of this
Agreement. All obligations of the Parties expressed in this Agreement shall be in addition to,
and not in limitation of, those provided by applicable law.
MODIFICATIONS: This Agreement may be modified or waived only by a separate writing by the
Parties expressly so modifying or waiving such.
TERM OF AGREEMENT: This Agreement shall be effective upon acceptance by all parties and
be in effect until the City accepts the final completion of the practices, unless terminated earlier
pursuant to the provisions herein.
TERMINATION: Any party may terminate this Agreement upon 60 days written notice to the
other party. Upon termination by Board or County, the City shall retain all funds previously
received from Board or County for continued use in the Project.
EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT
IN WITNESS THEREOF, City of Ames, Iowa has caused this Agreement to be executed
in three (3) separate counterparts, each of which shall be considered an original.
Executed by City of Ames, Iowa
_____ day of __________________, 2022
City of Ames, Iowa
Attest
Diane Voss, City Clerk John A. Haila, Mayor
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
COUNTY OF STORY )
On this _____ day of _____________________, 2022, before me, a Notary Public in and
for said County, personally appeared ______________________________and
____________________________to me personally known, and who being duly sworn, did say
that they are the Mayor and Auditor, respectively of the City of Ames, created and existing under
the laws of the State of Iowa, and that the seal affixed to the foregoing instrument is the seal of
said City, and that said instrument was signed and sealed on behalf of said City by authority and
resolution of its City Council as contained in Resolution No.__________ adopted on
________________, 2022, and said Mayor and City Clerk acknowledged said instrument to be
the free act and deed of said City by it voluntarily executed.
_________________________________
Notary Public for Iowa
EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT
IN WITNESS THEREOF, Story County, Iowa has caused this Agreement to be executed
in three (3) separate counterparts, each of which shall be considered an original.
Executed by Story County, Iowa
_____ day of __________________, 2022
STORY County, Iowa
Attest
Auditor Chairperson, Board of Supervisors
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
COUNTY OF STORY )
On this _____ day of _____________________, 2022, before me, a Notary Public in and
for said County, personally appeared ______________________________and
____________________________to me personally known, and who being duly sworn, did say
that they are the Chairperson and Auditor, respectively of the Board of Supervisors of Story
County, created and existing under the laws of the State of Iowa, and that the seal affixed to the
foregoing instrument is the seal of said County, and that said instrument was signed and sealed
on behalf of said County by authority and resolution of its Board of Supervisors as contained in
Resolution No.__________ adopted on ________________, 2022, and said Chairperson and
Auditor acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said County by it voluntarily
executed.
_________________________________
Notary Public for Iowa
EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT
IN WITNESS THEREOF, Story County Conservation Board, Iowa has caused this
Agreement to be executed in three (3) separate counterparts, each of which shall be considered
an original.
Executed by Story County Conservation Board, Iowa
_____ day of __________________, 2022
Story County Conservation Board
Chairperson
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
COUNTY OF STORY )
On this _____ day of _____________________, 2022, before me, a Notary Public in and
for said Board, personally appeared ______________________________and
____________________________to me personally known, and who being duly sworn, did say
that they are the Chairperson of the Story County Conservation Board, created and existing under
the laws of the State of Iowa, and that the seal affixed to the foregoing instrument is the seal of
said County, and that said instrument was signed and sealed on behalf of said Board by authority
and resolution of its Conservation Board as contained in Resolution No.__________ adopted on
________________, 2022, and said Chairperson acknowledged said instrument to be the free
act and deed of said Board by it voluntarily executed.
_________________________________
Notary Public for Iowa
ITEM # ___24__
DATE: 01-11-22
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: CONSULTING SERVICES FOR MISO TRANSMISSION
RATE REVIEW/CALCULATION
BACKGROUND
Ames Electric Services has significant investments in high voltage transmission
equipment to serve electric customers. This equipment connects the City’s electric
system to the regional electric grid. Prior to 2015, the utility had to pay other utilities to
use their transmission systems to deliver or “wheel” power from generation sources to the
City. In 2015, after the utility built its latest high voltage transmission line to Ankeny
substation, Ames Electric Services was able to join the Midcontinent Independent System
Operator (MISO) as a Transmission Owner (TO).
This status as a TO is significant because the utility is now able to offset wheeling costs
using the value of transmission investments the utility has made over time. However,
annual reports determining the book value of the utility’s transmission assets must be
prepared and adjusted as equipment ages, new equipment is brought into service, and
obsolete equipment is removed from service.
At the time the utility became a MISO Transmission Owner, staff made straightforward
assumptions regarding which assets should be classified as “transmission”. With staffing
changes, much of the institutional knowledge regarding asset classification is gone.
Therefore, the utility would benefit greatly by hiring an experienced consultant to review
the current asset allocations, review the most recent transmission rate filing, train staff in
developing future rate templates, and assist in the creation of the FY 2022/23
transmission rate.
Staff believes that the detailed review of the utility’s transmission assets provided by a
consultant could identify additional assets to count towards the transmission the utility
brings to MISO. As the utility’s share of transmission assets increases, the utility collects
a greater share of transmission revenue from MISO. This revenue benefits Ames Electric
customers by reducing the Energy Cost Adjustment on their electric bills.
Staff contacted several consulting firms and talked to other municipal electric
utilities in MISO to identify firms with the unique skill set to perform the work
desired. It was determined that this expertise is quite specialized with very few
firms having the expertise. MCR Performance Solutions was determined to have
the necessary knowledge and could perform the work in the time needed to meet
Ames’ MISO deadline. Therefore, staff is requesting a waiver of the Purchasing
Policy for competitive bids to allow a contract to be awarded to this consultant.
This Council Action Form is requesting approval of a contract with MCR Performance
Solutions, LLC of Deerfield IL, in an amount of $94,500, to provide the following services:
Phase 1
• MCR will review the City of Ames FY 21/22 MISO Transmission Rate filing (Also
known as Attachment O)
o Cost Integrity – proper recording of costs affecting the Attachment O
o Revenue Optimization
o Create a training and education workshop for city staff on Attachment O
development
Phase 2
• MCR will develop the FY22/23 Attachment O and working papers
o Data request
o Review of costing data
o Interview staff and follow-up questions
o Submit Attachment O to MISO by due date
Funding for this work will be charged to the transmission expense account within
the Fuel and Purchased Power division. It is believed that the findings by the
consultant, if adopted, will increase transmission revenues to more than offset the
study expenses. Estimated payback is less than two years.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. A. Waive the City’s purchasing policy requirement for competitive proposals
B. Award a contract to MCR Performance Solutions, LLC of Deerfield IL, in an
amount of $94,500, to provide consulting services for MISO transmission rate
review and calculation.
2. Reject and direct staff to issue a request for proposal.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The use of a consultant with a transmission rate skillset will benefit the City in several
ways. First, review of our transmission asset classification should result in increased
revenue. Second, education of staff regarding rate development will ensure good rate
design moving forward. Third, oversight and development of the City’s FY 2022/23 rate
template will bridge to education of staff with practical experience.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1 as stated above.
1
ITEM:__25___
Staff Report
COVID-19 MEETING POLICIES
January 11, 2022
BACKGROUND:
In light of increasing COVID-19 case counts both locally and nationally, City staff has
begun meeting regularly again with our local institutional and public health partners,
including ISU, Mary Greeley Medical Center, McFarland Clinic, and Story County Public
Health. These discussions are an opportunity to share information regarding staffing
shortages, hospital system capacity, and policy changes.
At the most recent discussion on January 6, significant concerns were raised among these
partners about the impacts of the Omicron variant of COVID-19. The Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) website on January 7 reported 404 COVID-19 cases in
Story County and a positivity rate of 16.87%. However, these figures are likely to be
undercounted due to the use of self-administered testing kits and the lower efficacy of
rapid tests in detecting active Omicron variant infections. Based on this data, the CDC is
recommending the wearing of masks in all public, indoor settings in Story County.
Given the concerns of our partner organizations and our desire to minimize or
eliminate the potential for workplace exposure of COVID-19, City staff has taken the
step of requiring all employees to wear a mask in settings where six-foot distance
cannot be maintained. Staff is additionally encouraging moving staff related
meetings to larger spaces to accommodate distancing. This masking/distancing
requirement will be in effect the week of January 10, and is expected to be a
temporary measure until the local cases become more manageable (this could take
place perhaps as early as two months from now).
Within City facilities, visitors are also expected to comply with this masking requirement,
and signage will be placed at the entrances to City facilities to indicate this. Additionally,
supplies of masks are available at the front entrances of many City facilities.
OPTIONS:
Although staff is implementing these measures for City staff and visitors to the facilities
(masking where six-foot distancing cannot be maintained), the City Council has the
responsibility for setting any policies pertaining to City Council or Board and Commission
meetings. Therefore, staff is requesting direction as to which of the following
options the Council wishes to pursue with regards to City Council and
Board/Commission Meetings:
2
Option 1: Require masks to be worn at City Council, Boards, and Commission
meetings. It should be noted that it is not possible to maintain six-foot
separation at the meetings, and therefore requiring masks is the only way
to maintain consistency with the staff’s policy.
Option 2: Move City Council, Board, and Commission meetings to 100% virtual
via Zoom, effective Monday, January 17. This option involves the least
additional staff and technology resources to implement, and staff is familiar
with operating meetings in this format.
Option 3: Implement a hybrid structure, with in-person attendees wearing masks
and others participating virtually. This may require board/commission
meetings to be moved into the Council Chambers to utilize the most effective
technology for hybrid discussions. Additionally, this option requires more
staff to be on hand for the meetings to manage the technology.
Option 4: The City Council could exempt City Council, board, and commission
meetings from any masking or distancing policies.
STAFF COMMENTS:
If the City Council chooses option 1, 2, or 3, staff anticipates that, as with the City
employee masking/distancing policy, these measures would only be necessary until the
current surge in cases subsides (perhaps as soon as two months from now).
Assuming the Council wishes to maintain consistency with the staff and building policy for
masking/distancing, and given the challenges with implementing hybrid meetings; it would
be City staff’s recommendation that the City Council adopt either Option 1 or Option 2.